My Math Forum types of radioactivity

 Physics Physics Forum

 May 30th, 2014, 07:10 AM #21 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,166 Thanks: 738 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions It all depends on what level you look at. Matter really is just things, all of which have lots of names. This table should help make things clear. Length scale: Names for matter: -------------------------------------------- 1m------------------Mugs, tables, people, TVs, etc. $\displaystyle 10^{-3}$m---------------Smaller pieces of mugs, tables, people, TVs, etc $\displaystyle 10^{-6}$m---------------Even smaller pieces of (things above). $\displaystyle 10^{-8} - 10^{-9}$m-------Molecules, proteins, DNA $\displaystyle 10^{-10}$m--------------Atoms of hydrogen, helium, carbon, etc $\displaystyle 10^{-15}$m--------------nuclei, protons, neutrons Fundamental particles don't have a size, so they cannot be placed on this diagram. However, they do interact which each over certain distance scales. This gives rise to the concept of the 'size' of objects. If I look at my arm and ask the question "what is it made of?" the following are all valid answers: i) it is made up of a hand, a forearm and an upper arm, possibly with a bit of shoulder ii) it is made up of skin, bones, muscles, nerves, ligaments and other tissues. iii) it is made up of white blood cells, red blood cells, neurons, bone marrow and tissue cells of various types iv) it is made up of water, carbon dioxide, proteins, fats, sugars, DNA, amino acids, haemoglobin, keratin and many many other chemicals/molecules v) it is made up atoms of hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, phosphorus, iron, potassium, etc vi) it is made of nuclei containing of protons, neutrons, each surrounded by an electron 'cloud' (with free electrons roaming about too) vii) it is made up of up quarks, down quarks, electrons (a lepton) and a staggering array of exchange bosons that are constantly being emitted and absorbed. In amongst these particles is a chaotic mess of short-lived particles that can be loosely described as a 'quantum foam'. At the fundamental particle level, everything is made of 6 quarks, 6 leptons and a few exchange bosons (photon, W+ boson, W- boson, Z boson, gluon, porbably a Higgs boson... ) and their antiparticles, all of which behave as 'quantum particles' (weird diffuse-(ish) wave-particle thingies that can be characterised wave functions). Absolutely everything is made up of these. Charge, energy and mass are properties of fundamental particles, such as quarks and leptons. Therefore, it doesn't really make sense to say we are all made of energy. We are not. That's like saying that grass is made of 'green'. If you are happy to say something like that, you will probably be happy to say that we are all made of energy Specifically, however, it is incorrect to say that things are made of energy. I've heard some people say "everything is made up of wave functions". To me, this is like saying that an A4 piece of paper is made out of 'rectangle'. A wave-function characterises a quantum particle and encapsulates its behaviour, but that's not actually what it is. For a fundamental particle to be created (for example, through photodissociation), the original photon must have enough energy to convert to rest-mass of the particle-antiparticle pair, but this is really just a relationship between two properties of fundamental particles during a particular interaction. At the fundamental level you cannot view things in the same way as large objects. Whenever energy or momentum are exchanged, it is just a particle interaction going on that affects the properties of the particle undergoing the interaction. Some properties cannot be changed (e.g. spin, charge, colour-charge); some can (energy, momentum, position). This is the 'abyss of evil' that I alluded to before in another thread. There is a lot going on at the fundamental level that really matters and it requires a lot of study to get some shred of understanding at what things are going on at that level. Simple comparisons just cannot be made anymore. Common sense doesn't work at all. If you want to understand anything at this level, you need to know quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics contains enough abstract maths to keep you busy for a lifetime! A good place to start though is to look up some 'particle physics' stuff. I recommend looking at Feynmann diagrams too, because they are really nice, simple ways of characterising interactions between fundamental particles. I hope this helps! Again, there is plenty of evidence for all of this, so I can dig up some references if you fancy it. Last edited by Benit13; May 30th, 2014 at 07:23 AM.
May 30th, 2014, 10:42 PM   #22
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2013

Posts: 160
Thanks: 7

Quote:
It seems to me that we are facing a new paradox, I don't know what to call
this, perhaps an infinite regress. We are studying what is matter made of.
We will find out that matter has a structure. Next we want to know
what is this structure made of. We will find out that the structure of matter is made of mystic matter. And of course this mystic matter has a structure, a mystic structure which consists of mystic matter 2,
whose structure is mystic structure 2 etc etc.......

 May 31st, 2014, 11:34 AM #23 Global Moderator     Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC -5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms We have good reason to believe it's a finite regress, not an infinite regress.
June 1st, 2014, 05:27 AM   #24
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2013

Posts: 160
Thanks: 7

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse We have good reason to believe it's a finite regress, not an infinite regress.
Yes, it all boils down to whether matter is infinitely divisible. I am saying that at the fundamental level are elements, or atoms, they cannot be divided and arrive at still smaller pieces of matter. In this sense the elements are similar to prime numbers. I ended up at a conflict with hydrogen,
because its constituent, the nucleus, the proton, seems to be hydrogen, which is matter.

I had to find out what distinguishes the proton and hydrogen. I think
the answer is the concept called spin. A particle with half integer spin
is called a fermion, and the proton is a fermion. An atomic nucleus can
be either a fermion or a boson depending on its constituents, for example
helium-4 has a total spin 0, because it contains four fermions spinning
in opposite directions so that their spins subtract and thus the particle
does not spin.

If hydrogen is born out of the proton, and it is anti-matter which is
giving the properties to matter as I have argued many times, it is possible
that anti-proton is involved in "converting" the proton into hydrogen.
Combining the spins of anti-proton and proton, hydrogen is born with a spin 1. The following picture may represent
this situation:
anti-hydrogen

The hydrogen nucleus is a fermion with a spin 1/2, and I have argued that hydrogen has spin 1. I am not sure if this is a conflict.

June 2nd, 2014, 02:57 AM   #25
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,166
Thanks: 738

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 If hydrogen is born out of the proton ...
A $\displaystyle ^1$H nucleus is a proton. There is no difference.

Quote:
 ... and it is anti-matter which is giving the properties to matter as I have argued many times,...
Antimatter is the same as matter except that they have opposite charge (and other quantum numbers) and different masses. What evidence do you have that the matter in the universe is 'born' from antimatter? What created the antimatter?

Quote:
 The following picture may represent this situation: anti-hydrogen
Antihydrogen has actually been created in a lab already! It's awesome. It basically involves carefully adding a positron to an antiproton. They inhabit energy levels just like regular atoms, obeying quantum mechanical principles

Quote:
 The hydrogen nucleus is a fermion with a spin 1/2, and I have argued that hydrogen has spin 1. I am not sure if this is a conflict.
When talking about spin for fermions (whether it be for protons, neutrons or electrons) you need to know about the Pauli exclusion principle, quantum numbers and energy levels. I was going to explain everything, but it would take too long. The following link should help

Electron Spin - Chemwiki

This is why I call it an abyss of evil; it is interesting enough that people want to learn about it and propose new ideas about it but it requires a lot study to even get a basic understanding of what is happening at that level. Get a textbook

June 2nd, 2014, 04:58 AM   #26
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2013

Posts: 160
Thanks: 7

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 Antimatter is the same as matter except that they have opposite charge (and other quantum numbers) and different masses. What evidence do you have that the matter in the universe is 'born' from antimatter? What created the antimatter?
The existing theories about the Big Bang assume that there was antimatter
present, so it is not my idea. I have only developed some extra formulas
describing antimatter. I think that for matter to be born, there has to be
birth of polarity, and antimatter-matter resembles negative-positive polarity of electricity. Without the presence of antimatter, matter would be neutral
because there would not be opposite charges. As soon as matter becomes
polarized, matter is born. What created the antimatter is a good question.
To me it sounds like what created God. I think that somehow the pair
matter-antimatter was born, the duality was born. Was it born out of
nothing, is in my opinion a theological question, I think that
nothing comes from nothing, there has to be something from which the
universe is born. The universe cannot come from 0. And the usual
formula for matter-antimatter balance means that everything came from 0:
$\displaystyle 0 = E - E = mc^2 - mc^2$
I have developed a formula +E=-E describing the energy balance
during the Big Bang.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 When talking about spin for fermions (whether it be for protons, neutrons or electrons) you need to know about the Pauli exclusion principle, quantum numbers and energy levels. I was going to explain everything, but it would take too long.
I need to explain more about my concept about the spin of the particles.
I think that a fermion with spin 1/2 represents a particle which is not rotating. The "official" explanation is that to return the spin 1/2 particle to its exact original state, one needs a 720 degree rotation.
I don't know if my concept is wrong or in conflict with the accepted explanation.

I think that as soon as the spin 1/2 particle starts rotating, for example
the proton at the nucleus of hydrogen, hydrogen is born. Hydrogen
is also born because its nucleus starts rotating. And there has to be a direction of this rotation, the nucleus starts rotating either clockwise or anti-clockwise.
The particle rotation is defined because its anti-particle is rotating
into opposite direction. The anti-particle appears the same as the particle
in mirror. Perhaps the charge of the particle is just its rotation direction,
either plus or minus. And we need this polarity for hydrogen to be born.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 This is why I call it an abyss of evil; it is interesting enough that people want to learn about it and propose new ideas about it but it requires a lot study to even get a basic understanding of what is happening at that level. Get a textbook

I have already read many books. Sometimes they are useful, but too much
information without understanding is not good. The spin-statistics theorem,
for example, is so complicated at least for me that it is not useful to trying to read too much about it. It would be better to gain understanding first and later to check if it matches the accepted theories.

June 2nd, 2014, 07:12 AM   #27
Global Moderator

Joined: Nov 2006
From: UTC -5

Posts: 16,046
Thanks: 938

Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 Antihydrogen has actually been created in a lab already! It's awesome. It basically involves carefully adding a positron to an antiproton. They inhabit energy levels just like regular atoms, obeying quantum mechanical principles
Yes. And many years after it was first created in a lab more complex experiments have verified that it reacts as you'd expect in gravity (pulled down, not up). Gravity is so weak this was hard to detect!

June 2nd, 2014, 10:19 AM   #28
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,166
Thanks: 738

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by TwoTwo The existing theories about the Big Bang assume that there was antimatter present.
This is not true. The Big Bang does not assume any initial composition. If you can demonstrate unequivocally what the initial composition is, with evidence, and how it leads to current observables in astrophysics, you will win the Nobel prize for sure.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by TwoTwo I think that as soon as the spin 1/2 particle starts rotating, for example the proton at the nucleus of hydrogen, hydrogen is born. Hydrogen is also born because its nucleus starts rotating. And there has to be a direction of this rotation, the nucleus starts rotating either clockwise or anti-clockwise. The particle rotation is defined because its anti-particle is rotating into opposite direction. The anti-particle appears the same as the particle in mirror. Perhaps the charge of the particle is just its rotation direction, either plus or minus. And we need this polarity for hydrogen to be born.
Spin is not easily compared with classically rotating bodies. It is best interpreted as just a property of fundamental particles. A proton is a fermion with spin of +1/2 or -1/2. It can never have zero spin, so it is meaningless to say whether something starts or stops rotating. A fermion can change its spin from +1/2 to -1/2 and vice versa, which is known as a hyperfine transition and it leads to 21cm radiation.

Charge and spin are just different quantum numbers. The neutron is a fermion with spin $\displaystyle \pm 1/2$, but it has no charge. The $\displaystyle W^+$ boson has zero spin, but it has a positive charge.

[/QUOTE]I have already read many books. Sometimes they are useful, but too much information without understanding is not good. The spin-statistics theorem, for example, is so complicated at least for me that it is not useful to trying to read too much about it. It would be better to gain understanding first and later to check if it matches the accepted theories.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but I would learn the existing theories first before trying to propose new things. It makes you look ignorant.

June 4th, 2014, 10:59 PM   #29
Senior Member

Joined: Nov 2013

Posts: 160
Thanks: 7

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Benit13 Spin is not easily compared with classically rotating bodies. It is best interpreted as just a property of fundamental particles.
Yes, I began to wonder if the atoms themselves are rotating, or are only their
parts rotating.
I tried to search on the net but I cannot find any answer with the words
"is an atom rotating".
Perhaps spin should be interpreted as just a property of fundamental particles like you said.
There seems to be a concept called atomic spin. I could find this definition
on Yahoo Answers: "The net nuclear spin plus the net spin due to all the electrons give us the Atomic Spin".
atomic spin definition on Yahoo

I don't know how accurate information Yahoo Answers is, or how well the
concept of atomic spin is understood. Is it even possible to randomly
combine the spins of the particles?

I said that the spin of hydrogen is 1. I did not arrive at this result by
combining the spins of the proton and electron. I said that when the
proton with spin 1/2 starts rotating, hydrogen is born with spin 1.
I did not even need the spin of electron. I am ignoring the spins of electrons
when calculating the spin of atoms.
I think this all boils down to whether atoms are rotating, or are only
the parts of atoms rotating. If the atoms themselves are rotating, then
an atom must act as a holistic unit, as a sort of a billiard ball where
the nucleus is joined to orbiting electron with a firm shaft, or handle.
You can think of a handle attached to a blade of a sickle, and the sickle
starts rotating as a whole. The blade represents the spin 1/2 particle,
because it has made only 180 degrees rotation.
image of a sickle

 June 5th, 2014, 03:19 AM #30 Senior Member   Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,166 Thanks: 738 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions That Yahoo answers page gives an excellent explanation, much better than an explanation I can give. It's all there The key bit I think you need to understand atomic spin is the statement: "The net nuclear spin plus the net spin due to all the electrons give us the Atomic Spin, which may even be Zero. How? Because particles having the same magnitude of spin but in opposite directions (like spin 1/2 and - 1/2) cancel out each other. " So the spin of a proton can be $\displaystyle \pm 1/2$ and the spin of an electron is $\displaystyle \pm 1/2$. Therefore, if you take a random hydrogen atom from a sample, you will measure the atomic spin to be either 1, 0 or -1.

,

,