| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Philbin" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 02:14:03 AM |
| Object: |
radius of a free neutron |
Dear physicists,
in physics books we see figures for the radius of a proton, neutron
and electron as being in the miniscule orders n^-11m - n^-16m and so
on. How are these measurements obtained. I'm especially interested how
the radius of a neutron is obtained as they always live inside atomic
nuclii (and I'm not talking about the highly volatile free neutrons
hanging around outside of nuclear reactors). Is it all due to
calculations based on scattering or is there a more reliable method
nowadays?
thanks for your answers
Mike
.
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
10 Jan 2005 06:14:11 AM |
|
|
"Mike Philbin" <mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:637b8028.0501100014.63d7a095@posting.google.com...
Dear physicists,
in physics books we see figures for the radius of a proton, neutron
and electron as being in the miniscule orders n^-11m - n^-16m and so
on. How are these measurements obtained. I'm especially interested how
the radius of a neutron is obtained as they always live inside atomic
nuclii (and I'm not talking about the highly volatile free neutrons
hanging around outside of nuclear reactors). Is it all due to
calculations based on scattering or is there a more reliable method
nowadays?
There's nothing intrinsically inaccurate about scattering,
but yes, a free neutron target is unlikely, but a beam
of mono-energetic neutrons, incident upon a hydrogen
or deuterium target isn't all that difficult. It's been done.
Mono-energetic neutron beams can be generated at a
given lab scattering angle via a two-body (p, n) reaction
on a large variety of primary target nuclei.
Two examples: 3H(p, n)3He and 13C(p, n)13N
Detection of the recoil nucleus (3He or 13N in the
examples -- at appropriate lab angles) provides a
gating signal and an accurate count of total neutron
flux on the secondary (hydrogen or deuterium) target.
thanks for your answers
Mike
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
10 Jan 2005 10:46:36 AM |
|
|
Mike Philbin wrote:
Dear physicists,
in physics books we see figures for the radius of a proton, neutron
and electron as being in the miniscule orders n^-11m - n^-16m and so
on. How are these measurements obtained.
Scattering experiments. You get a probability radius. Pick your
probability for an observing energy.
I'm especially interested how
the radius of a neutron is obtained as they always live inside atomic
nuclii (and I'm not talking about the highly volatile free neutrons
hanging around outside of nuclear reactors). Is it all due to
calculations based on scattering or is there a more reliable method
nowadays?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
11 Jan 2005 02:06:53 AM |
|
|
...could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
11 Jan 2005 02:17:08 PM |
|
|
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
The short answer is no.
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction
effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
Because you seem not to know what refraction might be.
Why not find out what "diffraction" is?
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
11 Jan 2005 07:31:24 PM |
|
|
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
No. "Refraction" involves multiple interactions.
In nuclear scattering, the "deflection" of a beam particle
involves only one interaction with a single target nucleus.
However the object of an elastic scattering experiment is
to measure the (single interaction) scattering cross section
as a function of "deflection" angle. The cross section
can then be decomposed into a series of phase shifts, one
for each orbital angular momentum state (L = 0, 1, 2 ...).
[Old Man]
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 02:34:16 AM |
|
|
The neotron is not a sphere
so it has no 'radius'
---------------------
all th ebest
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 12:46:22 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105518856.241071.105530@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The neotron is not a sphere
so it has no 'radius'
Every body has a center-of-mass and a mean radius,
as measured from that COM.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
14 Jan 2005 12:33:57 AM |
|
|
if that is the rule
it means that *you * are sphrical ???!!!
the spherical ' notion is only because of lack of enough knowledge
and it should be known ad *admitted* that there is not enough
knowlwedge
just posing and 'showing of' a pose of knowlwedge
is very harmfull.
--------------
Y.Porat
----------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
11 Jan 2005 08:55:16 AM |
|
|
In article <1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
Diffract, not refract. Refraction is a macroscopic optical effect that's
sensible to talk about when it's sensible to say you have an index of
refraction. And sometimes it is, as neutrons scattering through a
crystal. The big effect is Bragg peaks, but a small correction can be
made due to the index of refraction inside the crystal since
lambda_in=lambda_out/n. Neutron lenses are made of MgF that can focus a
beam, and other refractive effects have been demonstrated.
And it is, in fact, diffraction, and not deflection, that's studied. It
might be easier to think in terms of laser light scattering to determine
the size of micrometer-sized particles in suspension. The size is
determined by the change in light intensity versus angle, and that change
becomes invisible when the particle size gets very small. The size of a
nucleus or other particle can be studied in a similar way, by e.g.
measuring the intensity of a scattered electron beam versus angle.
Studying the internal structure of a particle is a lot like studying the
crystal structure of a material by scattering neutrons or x-rays through a
powdered sample-- the diffraction pattern has more features (Bragg peaks)
and the analysis is a bit harder, but it's the same basic idea.
One thing about determining structure from scattering, though, is the need
for a model. Some simple models that have been used in early studies of
nuclear physics include
V(r) = V0 when r<a
= 0 when r>a
and
V(r) = V0*exp(-kr)/r
where V0 and a, and V0 and k, are adjustable parameters that are fit to
the data. In the first case we'd find the best fit to the data and say
the particle's radius is a. In the second case we'd find the best fit to
the data and say the particle's radius is 1/k, where it's understood that
"radius" means the 1/e distance and isn't a hard demarcation between
inside and outside. Either number gives a good idea of what kind of
length scale is relevant to the physics of the particle.
I'm not sure exactly what the numbers in the PDG represent. Probably a
root mean square of something.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 02:50:05 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction
effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
Diffract, not refract. Refraction is a macroscopic optical effect
that's
sensible to talk about when it's sensible to say you have an index of
refraction. And sometimes it is, as neutrons scattering through a
crystal. The big effect is Bragg peaks, but a small correction can
be
made due to the index of refraction inside the crystal since
lambda_in=lambda_out/n. Neutron lenses are made of MgF that can
focus a
beam, and other refractive effects have been demonstrated.
---------------------
your last sentence that Neutrons can be focused throgh MgF
is inho and Guess
that it is a good indication for the Neutron being
not a shpere but something longish with poles
how about that ??
TIA
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 11:52:06 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105519805.446058.37570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts
a
beam aimed at it?
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction
effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
Diffract, not refract. Refraction is a macroscopic optical effect
that's
sensible to talk about when it's sensible to say you have an index
of
refraction. And sometimes it is, as neutrons scattering through a
crystal. The big effect is Bragg peaks, but a small correction
can
be
made due to the index of refraction inside the crystal since
lambda_in=lambda_out/n. Neutron lenses are made of MgF that can
focus a
beam, and other refractive effects have been demonstrated.
---------------------
your last sentence that Neutrons can be focused throgh MgF
is inho and Guess
that it is a good indication for the Neutron being
not a shpere but something longish with poles
how about that ??
Rubbish. The neutron has neither electric nor magnetic quadrupole
moment.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 09:26:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1105519805.446058.37570@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Y.Porat <maporat@012.net.il> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1105430813.913270.60170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<mikephilbin1966@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
..could it be said that, rather than deflecting, an atom refracts a
beam aimed at it?
I'm just wondering if there's more vailidity in the refraction
effect
of 'atoms' than the deflecting effect.... if not, why not?
thanks
Mike
Diffract, not refract. Refraction is a macroscopic optical effect
that's
sensible to talk about when it's sensible to say you have an index of
refraction. And sometimes it is, as neutrons scattering through a
crystal. The big effect is Bragg peaks, but a small correction can
be
made due to the index of refraction inside the crystal since
lambda_in=lambda_out/n. Neutron lenses are made of MgF that can
focus a
beam, and other refractive effects have been demonstrated.
---------------------
your last sentence that Neutrons can be focused throgh MgF
is inho and Guess
that it is a good indication for the Neutron being
not a shpere but something longish with poles
how about that ??
I can't imagine why that would matter, especially if the neutrons are not
polarized as they enter the lens.
It's just wave mechanics, analyzed the same way you'd analyze the
refraction of light waves in glass. The focusing lenses are actually
concave because the neutron index of refraction is lower in the material
than in air.
--
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-- Benjamin Franklin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 11:44:48 AM |
|
|
i suggested it because
once you what as you say 'to immagine'
a spherical say ball should be more 'scvatterable'
ie more degrees of freedom to scatter in more directions
rather in some particle that has some 'prejudiced' geomerty
ie less free degrees of freedom of different angles scattering.
if you what just a methaphor
immagine you bouce a [asketball of the four.
it will jump ie bounce back dependant on the angle
that it met the four
now immagine that you have not a ball
but say a futball ball ie something ovalic (3d ovalic)
now what will happen if you bounve it to the flour:
its 'sacttering results will be in less possible angles
iow
it will be more biased scattering.
how about that
(indeed a new claim that occured to me just today. while reding
the above quote.)
now not to mention that this ball
has to travel trugh a 'long tunnel' of the crystal'
that long travel will lead it more directing its 'pointed side-
ahead!!
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
12 Jan 2005 03:53:13 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105551888.641043.243460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
i suggested it because
once you what as you say 'to immagine'
What is it which you suggested and to whom did you suggest it?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
13 Jan 2005 02:23:04 AM |
|
|
i suggested that the nucleid is not a sphere
but a longish shape
caused by a linear connection between its subparticles
linear i mean : the subparticles are connected along a line
and not any side by side.
----------------
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
13 Jan 2005 05:38:05 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105604584.834734.86870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
i suggested that the nucleid is not a sphere
but a longish shape
caused by a linear connection between its subparticles
linear i mean : the subparticles are connected along a line
and not any side by side.
I have replied to that suggestion of yours.
I said that you spoke rubbish because the neutron has neither electric
nor magnetic quadrupole
moment.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
13 Jan 2005 10:37:43 AM |
|
|
Nutrons and protons dont touch each other.
They orbit the intence gravity pit they all contribute to.
The electrons are the waves made by each nurton proton .
The faster the nutron orbits the pit ,,the more space it takes up , the
more mass it is and the bigger the pit.
The electron can't speed up . If not all its mass can orbit at that
speed then some energy will change directions and emit a photon.
The radius of a nutron is the path it takes in its orbit.
The larger the orbit the more space it takes up per time unit.
The radius is the path it takes in its orbit.
The more the mass the bigger the radius.
Adding a nutron might be too much mass in a allready large radius and
nutrons would be ejected.
Nutrons are never knocked out of an atom..
too much mass falling into orbit and combining with the mass orbiting
the pit is what removes nutrons.
The nutron would be too small to hit with anything.
Another nutron will just change directions and orbi the intence pit
anyway .
Its no billard ball reaction like your paper atom image.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
13 Jan 2005 11:01:27 AM |
|
|
In billard ball idiots physics..
you nead a stupid glue-on .
The paper atom has more parts and strange magic energies ...the real
atom cant be drawn on a 100 mile wide page with a sharp pencil.
In te drawing the nutron knocks out 2 neutrons . Like a stupid pool
game.
But a real atom is 60 miles wide and the nutron is a locomotive engine
orbiting a pit.
The chance you ever even hit a nutron orbiting a pit would be slim.
You lack the mass to make a direct hit in a pit.
If it was as small as a photon it would orbit with the electron and
combine with the mass.
A nutron is a billion times bigger than a photon.
It will role down and orbit its way down the pit .
That much mass might be obsorbed and orbit the pit ,,if the mass
combined wount orbit the pit then th mass that wount orbit will change
directions because it cant go faster.
Its allready going as fast as it can.
Then mass bacomes radius.
The direct converting of energy from mass to radius is where all the
massive energy ( glue ) came from.
Its a ballance of mass and pit.
A notron never hits a nutron.
The ballance of mass energy changes as the energy of the mass.
2 nutrons could not speed up when the pit
and orbit ballance and ejected.
Thats massive energy .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
13 Jan 2005 11:12:51 AM |
|
|
In billard ball idiots physics..
you nead a stupid glue-on .
The paper atom has more parts and strange magic energies ...the real
atom cant be drawn on a 100 mile wide page with a sharp pencil.
In te drawing the nutron knocks out 2 neutrons . Like a stupid pool
game.
But a real atom is 60 miles wide and the nutron is a locomotive engine
orbiting a pit.
The chance you ever even hit a nutron orbiting a pit would be slim.
You lack the mass to make a direct hit in a pit.
If it was as small as a photon it would orbit with the electron and
combine with the mass.
A nutron is a billion times bigger than a photon.
It will role down and orbit its way down the pit .
That much mass might be obsorbed and orbit the pit ,,if the mass
combined wount orbit the pit then th mass that wount orbit will change
directions because it cant go faster.
Its allready going as fast as it can.
Then mass bacomes radius.
The direct converting of energy from mass to radius is where all the
massive energy ( glue ) came from.
Its a ballance of mass and pit.
A notron never hits a nutron.
The ballance of mass energy changes as the energy of the mass.
2 nutrons could not speed up when the pit
and orbit ballance and ejected.
Thats massive energy .
Imagine snapping the string and the rock flying from its radius.
Imagine the instant gain in speed as you drop another rock down the
string befor it snapped.
The string was tighter than ALs ***** in orbit
and you double its mass in the same fixed orbit held by the string. (
string is gravity )
The mass wants to then orbit faster or change the orbit radius .
But this mass cant go faster ..so it will change orbit identical to
its mass.
G ,,gravity increased the pit ,,now evrything in orbit is pulled
harder by the string.
None of the orbits are in ballance and they are pulled in and nead to
speed up..
If it cant speed up,,the sudden pull in will cause them to change
directions and eject the orbit.
the more mass in orbit the heavier the atom.
.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
14 Jan 2005 12:38:17 AM |
|
|
and the proton ??
which is a brother of the neutron??
does it have ?
and why shold a longish structure *have * a magnetic quadropole??
------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
14 Jan 2005 04:24:42 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105684697.060066.282160@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
and the proton ??
which is a brother of the neutron??
does it have ?
and why shold a longish structure *have * a magnetic quadropole??
Only if it has distributed magnetic dipole moment. If it has a charge
distribution, it might have electric quadrupole moment. The elongated
shape of the deuteron and its electric quadrupole moment are
intimately connected.
Familiarise yourself with the nature of quadrupole moments of any
kind.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
17 Jan 2005 06:25:20 AM |
|
|
Franz
please show us
how do you build a spheric nucleid
forn 3 quarks.
TIA
Y.Porat
ps
the longish shape of the deuteron is adirect result from the
longish shape of the nucleids
moreover
it is not only the deuteron it is all laong the periodic table
btw just reminds me i dont know why:
i supose you know thr shape of the famous uman Genom right
is it a sphere or is it alongish shape??
have you ever seen the structure of a proteine
or the fibers in a wood ??
do you thing it is accidental and not connected to the
atomic structure ??
anyway that was just not a prove but material for abstract thinking
i have later more concrete 'scintific ' evidence
and anyway again lets start from this :
please show us as a start how you combine the quarks to get a nuclid.
----------------------
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
17 Jan 2005 04:03:55 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105964720.077846.63830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz
please show us
how do you build a spheric nucleid
forn 3 quarks.
The quarks are not necessarily stationary.
ps
the longish shape of the deuteron is adirect result from the
longish shape of the nucleids
Prove that.
moreover
it is not only the deuteron it is all laong the periodic table
I know that.
The rest of your note was irrelevant, so I snipped it.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
18 Jan 2005 07:30:19 AM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105964720.077846.63830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz
please show us
how do you build a spheric nucleid
forn 3 quarks.
The quarks are not necessarily stationary.
-
please elaborate
if you take 3 points and move them as you like
you will never get a sphere:
inm any moment 3 points are ...... a plan!!
the only reasonable way to connect them is -
linearily!!
2 if it is intrinsic movable you can never get out of it
a atable structure which ia againt facts.
in an intrinsic permanent motion you nevr can get
a 'ground state ' which will be able to
combine to othere particles and make a very definit
shape structure
3 with a 'scrambled egg model'
you cannot have any polarised structure
not even wile combining to another nucleid
morover the very posibility to combine
two particles that are in a constant boggled situation
is not understandable
4 intrinsic relative motion of quarks
was never found experimantally
it is your private suggestion and immagination
iow speculations
yet even as a speculation it does not make sense
as i noted above geomertrcally to get a 'sphere'
-------------
ps
the longish shape of the deuteron is adirect result from the
longish shape of the nucleids
Prove that.
-----------
i cant prove just extrapolation from other phenomena
like magnets that are made of more basic * polarised
particles
moreover
it is not only the deuteron it is all laong the periodic table
I know that.
The rest of your note was irrelevant, so I snipped it.
-------------
indeed a lot of it is still unknown
so
the trial and error sytem has to be applyed
Y.Porat
---------------
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
18 Jan 2005 03:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1106055019.934472.137050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1105964720.077846.63830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Franz
please show us
how do you build a spheric nucleid
forn 3 quarks.
The quarks are not necessarily stationary.
-
please elaborate
if you take 3 points and move them as you like
you will never get a sphere:
inm any moment 3 points are ...... a plan!!
Biut the plane can drift about, since the momenta of the quarks can be
in arbitrary directions.
You ought to have known that.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
19 Jan 2005 01:26:30 AM |
|
|
you can guess that i considered it
but please remeber Ocam's razor
nature in not cleaver enough to folow our complicated
manipolations!!....
of course if it will move here and there just to 'rape itself' to form
the spheric shape that people just insertd out of their immagination
you could hardly get it
but that is a 'raped explanation'
2 just keep in mind that such a movement is sort of
a very excited situation it is not a sort of a ground state.
3 an additional rermark
it is along time that i am terying to convice people that
there is a considerable differene between the behaviour of a
isolated nucleid
and the behaviuor of the same nucleid while in a conglomeration of
nucleids!!
in that last case it has much less degrees of freedom !!!
while it is rather the conglomeration situation with is
*more relevant* and more aboundant and more meaninful to amny aspects
of our life.
now just a little slogan i invented in order of memorising my claim
methaphorically:
you can get a chicken from an egg
the most that you can get from a scrambled egg -- is an omlet!!
our nuclid is more like the egg
and not like the 'scrambled egg'
there is too many evidence cases for it one needs only to pick them up
and combine them together to a conclusion.
just an ofhand recollection:
the structure of proteins
the structure of wood fibers
the polarization of mant atoms
its more trhan seems that the polarization of all the above is a result
of the polarization of the subparticles that make the bigger structires
it plaarization of a magnet is becauase of its atoms polarization
polarization of atome is because of polarization of nuclids
polarization of nuclids is becauae of polarization of quarks etc etc.
that is sort of a general exta[polation thinking
you would say - not scintific
yet you cant ignore it completely
now
i didnt mentionhere the more 'scintific claimes ; that are more
sunstantiated.
but cannot be broght in a short of hand article on net
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
18 Jan 2005 10:56:36 AM |
|
|
Y.Porat wrote:
if you take 3 points and move them as you like
you will never get a sphere:
Porat's thinking is constrained to a Newtonian world view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
25 Jan 2005 04:54:25 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:8dbHd.12906$eT5.7098@attbi_s51...
Y.Porat wrote:
if you take 3 points and move them as you like
you will never get a sphere:
Porat's thinking is constrained to a Newtonian world view.
Even in a Newtonian picture, three bodies moving on appropriately
orbits can sweep out a space with a spherical boundary.
What Porat is unable to comprehend is that although three bodies
define a plane, their motions are not necessarily confined to a fixed
plane.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
26 Jan 2005 12:43:44 AM |
|
|
Franz
you should immagine that astructural engineer with 40 years practice
in 3d structured can understand 3d gepmerty
but a s smart as you but *nearly* smart as you
that engineer was decoding the 3D structure not of one nuc but....
all the periodic table.
now that enough should be for some more credit from you to me
in those issues at least geomerty arguments are much more 'my field
than yours
could you immagine such a state????
now of course if you fiddle a planar triangle you can *force it*
clumsily to thouch here and there the conture of a sphere!!
but that is what you expect from nature to do ???!!!
i mentioned you the Ocams razor principle
yet it seems that you didnt internalise that important principle
the natural procecess that are done with tremendous speed
are 'looking' always for the simplest way!!!!!!
old Confuzius (of if you whant old catto) sayed:
nature is not smart enough to understand too smart and complicated
explanations invented by people!!!
iow
the explanation you gave is obviously to any physics sensed person
are very unconvincing (to put it mildly)
it is obvious that it is a raped explanation just to fix it to the
'experimental findings' that is alleged to show 'shperical shape'
the spherical shape is just a result of posible many ingredients:
1 in acuracy of measurments
2 'invited' results ie the experimentalist is fitting the vage result
to 'what is expected from him to find
3 accidental choice of a *isolated nucleid* that moves unsteadily
rotates etc.(it will not be found in bigger conglomerations of
nucleids..)
4 i explained many times that a 'snake' or Eel longish structure
could give something that 'looks like' a sphere because its winding,
vibrations
rotations etc etc
5 i explained many times that a longish conglomeration of orbitals
can give by exactly the same equations as the orbiting object--
the same frequency results
6 i reminded methaphorically the vibrating string that is able to
produce
many frequencies of tunes , harmonics etc that is known from
basic physics.
yet since i became lately a prophet
than i can save youi your response:
you will mumble : horsedung that has to be snipped.
but that is not physics discussion
you have to realate one by one to my arguments
now about your 'quadropole' arguments
i must say it looks to me just that another 'herring spreding'
ie an intianted obfuscation trick
i dont see why you expect from a dipole to be quadropole
or if i am missing something please explain! and at least *convince8
by physics arguments not by just vage hand wavings.
we are here trying to make some out of the mudd trials
dont you realise that too much of the existing physics is stuck in the
mudd??
--------------------
TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: radius of a free neutron |
26 Jan 2005 07:52:01 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <maporat@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1106721824.786825.198210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
now of course if you fiddle a planar triangle you can *force it*
clumsily to thouch here and there the conture of a sphere!!
If the conture of a sphere is what I think it is, then I hasten to
remind you that I never said that any of the three quarks necessarily
have to be at the centre of the sphere. I merely tried to indicate
that their motion would trace out a spherically symmetrical shape in
the course of time.
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
