Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:32 am

Dear scientists,

I have finished a new paper available for download at my website:

"Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino":
ABSTRACT:
"The 1927 Ellis-Wooster calorimetry experiment was an attempt to resolve the controversy over the continuous energy distribution spectrum of beta decay. A Radium E source was placed within a calorimeter in order to capture and measure the heat generated by beta decay. If the beta decay energy is assumed to be quantized, the captured heat energy should match the maximum spectrum energy of 1.05 MeV if the calorimeter captured all the disintegration energy. The result of the experiment gave the captured average heat of beta decay to be 350,000 eV instead of the expected 1.05 MeV. The 350,000 eV was accepted to be a match to the average spectrum energy of 390,000 eV. The experiment indicated some energy escaped the Ellis-Wooster calorimeter - thus the notion of missing energy. The thesis of this paper is that the conclusion of the Ellis-Wooster experiment depends on whether the heat of calorimetry is consistent with relativistic kinetic energy or with classical kinetic energy. The spectrum energy used by the experiment was based on relativistic energy. If the values are converted to classical energy, the the maximum spectrum energy would only be 230,000 eV and the average 120,000 eV. The captured heat was much greater than the average of 120,000 eV. This reinterpretation would dismiss the notion of any missing energy in the experiment. The question of whether there was any missing energy is related to whether physical reality is consistent with special relativity or with Newtonian mechanics. The basis upon which Wolfgang Pauli proposed his 1930 neutrino hypothesis was the conclusion of the 1927 Ellis-Wooster experiment which supposedly supported the idea of missing energy. The neutrino and the current neutrino physics would remain if special relativity is found to be the correct mechanics representing the physical world. On the other hand, if Newtonian mechanics is found to be correct, then all of neutrino physics would have to be dismissed. The one experiment that could decide on the issue is to determine the maximum speed with which beta particles are ejected in beta decay using the direct time-of-flight method. If Newtonian mechanics is correct, then there would be beta particles found to go beyond the speed of light; otherwise, it would be experimental evidence supporting special relativity. The result of this experiment would settle unequivocally the question concerning the nature of physical reality. But to date, this experiment has not been carried out."

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:10 pm

Nice paper. Easy to read for me a non-scientist who duznt know the stink of a university.
I am surprized that u dont mention the very clever 1946 paper & calorimeter-X by Buechner & Van de Graaff "proving" that neutrinos dont exist. Its difficult to find so i will post the wordage here.
(Also a paper by Ivanov et al 1941, which i havnt seen).

RELATED PUBLICATION: Calorimetric Experiment
Physical Review Volume 70, Numbers 3 and 4 August 1 and 15, 1946
Calorimetric Experiment on the Radiation Losses of 2-MeV Electrons [1]
W. W. Buechner and R. J. Van de Graaff
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received May 21, 1946)

Abstract
Various investigators report from cloud-chamber experiments that the energy lost in the scattering of 2-Mev beta rays is several times the loss calculated from the Bethe-Heitler theory. However, other experimenters have found that the production of x-rays in this range agrees with theory. To account for the extra energy loss, Klarmann and Bothe and Champion have suggested the emission of neutrinos as well as x-rays. To test this hypothesis, a 2-Mev beam of electrons was directed on a target immersed in mercury, the assembly acting as a calorimeter. Experiments using beryllium, gold, and mercury targets show that within the experimental error, which is somewhat less than one percent, no energy is carried out of the calorimeter by neutrinos or other penetrating radiation. It thus appears that the production of such radiations cannot account for the large extra energy losses reported from cloud-chamber experiments.
Last edited by crawler on Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:18 pm

INTRODUCTION
A considerable number of researches with cloud chambers have reported that the energy lost in the scattering of beta-rays by heavy nuclei is several times the radiation loss calculated from the well-established Bethe-Heitler theory. For example, Klarmann and Bothe[2] report that in the energy range from 0.5 to 2.4 Mev the inelastic scattering in krypton and xenon is 2 to 5 times that predicted by the theory. Leprince-Ringuet[3] found indications of 10 times the expected mount for argon in the range 1 to 3 Mev and Laslett and Hurst[4] observed that, for lead, the scattering is high by a factor of 30 for energies from 1.5 to 4.5 Mew. Barber and Champion[5] found 6 times too much inelastic scattering for 1-Mev electrons scattered by mercury. It does not appear that theses excess energy losses can be due to the production of x-rays as Arcimovic and Chramov[6] and Petrauskas, Van Atta, and Myers[7] have found experimentally that the production of x-rays in this energy range is in agreement with the theory.

To account for the large extra energy losses, which have been reported, Klarmann and Bothe, and Champion[8] have suggested the emission of neutrinos as well as x-rays resulting from the interaction of fast electrons with heavy nuclei. In the case of the continuous beta-ray spectrum, calorimeter experiments performed by Ellis and Wooster[9] and by Meitner and Orthmann[10] have been employed to investigate the energy losses due to neutrino emission. The purpose of the calorimeter experiment described here was to determine whether or not the large energy losses referred to above could be accounted for by the emission of neutrinos or other extremely penetrating radiation.[11]

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of a calorimetric apparatus constructed to investigate the possibility of such loss by high speed electrons. A 2-Mev electron beam from an electrostatic generator[12] passes downward into a copper tube provided with two targets at the bottom, one of beryllium and the other of gold. This tube was thermally insulated from the rest of the apparatus by the Micarta studs and Pyrex cylinder shown, and was arranged with a flexible metal bellows so that it could be tipped about a horizontal axis through the center of the diaphragm at the top of the copper tube. Thus the target holder could be shifted slightly by pulling a cord from a well-shielded remote control station, so that either target could be bombarded at will. This insulated target assembly was immersed in 42 kilograms of mercury, held in a container which was thermally insulated from the surroundings. The temperature of the mercury could be measured either with the thermocouple or with a Beckman differential thermometer viewed through a telescope. The thermometer proved to be the most convenient since it was direct reading and temperature differences could be readily estimated to 0.001 degrees C. A stirring rod was used to assure temperature equilibrium throughout the mass of mercury. The temperature rise due to the rotation of stirring rod was small and reproducible.

Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of calorimeter

There are two alternative methods by which such an apparatus can be used to investigate the possible production of extremely penetrating radiation by the impact of high speed electrons on nuclei. In the first place, the rate of heating in the calorimeter should decrease when the target is shifted from beryllium to gold in the middle of a single run, assuming, as has been suggested, an appreciable amount of energy is carried away by penetrating neutrinos when heavy nuclei are bombarded. It is to be expected, both from the experimental evidence and from general considerations, that energy loss due to neutrinos should be small or non-existent for a light element such a beryllium.

On the other hand, a calorimeter can be used in a more absolute way by calibrating it so that the temperature rise per second is known for any given power input at the target Then, if the voltage and the current of the beam striking the target are known, it is possible, by comparing the observed temperature rise with that to be expected from the power input, to determine whether any appreciable fraction of this incident energy is carried away by particles or radiations which are able to escape through the mercury of the calorimeter.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:18 pm

RESULTS
Figure 2 is representative of a number of measurements taken in the way discussed first in the previous section. For his curve the electron energy was 2 Mev, which is in the general energy range for which the cloud-chamber measurements indicate the greatest discrepancy with theory. Since the electron energy was reduced from 2 Mev to zero in the solid targets used, it is evident that the experiment also affords a check on radiation losses at voltages less than the maximum. The temperature rise in the mercury is plotted as a function of time with a steady electron beam of about 10 micro-amperes. At the time indicated by the arrow, the target holder was shifted so that the element under bombardment was changed from beryllium to gold. There is no perceptible change of slope as there would be if more energy escaped from the calorimeter from one target than the other. This shows that, if there is a difference in the amount of very penetrating radiation produced for heavy elements such as gold as compared to a very light element such as beryllium, it amounts to less than 1 percent of the incident energy. At 2 Mev, this is less than one-fifth of the energy loss to be expected from bremsstrahlung.



Fig. 2 Calorimeter run at 2 Mev. At the time indicated by the arrow, the target was shifted from beryllium to gold.(NOTE: For clarity of display, the above graph was reproduced to reflect the original diagram as faithful as possible).

Figure 3 shows two curves, representative of a number taken by use of the second method described above, the voltage again being 2 Mev. The power inputs indicated on the two curves are those computed from the voltage and the target currents. When correction is made for the small heat losses from the calorimeter, the temperature rise per watt of bombarding energy is the same for two targets within the experimental error. This temperature rise per watt also agrees, within the experiment error, with that obtained by a calibration run where the power input was obtained from the I2R heating of a resistor suitable located in the mercury in place of the target.



Fig. 3 Two calorimeter runs, both at 2 Mev. For beryllium the current was 26 ua; for gold 21 ua.(NOTE: For clarity of display, the above graph was reproduced to reflect the original diagram as faithful as possible).

DISCUSSION
Experiments on the production of x-rays previously referred to[6,7] show that, in the case of a heavy element like gold, of the order of 5 percent of the bombarding energy is transformed into x-radiation at 2 Mev, in agreement with the predictions of the Bethe-Heitler theory. Cloud-chamber experiments have indicated that the energy losses for the heavy elements are several times those predicted by this theory. If, for completeness, we assume that the observed cloud-chamber losses are 5 times the bremsstrahlung losses, then about 20 percent of the incident bombarding energy should escape from the calorimeter if the excess losses are to be accounted for by the production of neutrinos. Measurements on the absorption coefficient of 2-Mev x-rays show that only a negligible fraction of the x-rays produced can escape from the calorimeter through the mercury. Because of the small solid angle at the top of the target tube and the predominantly forward direction of the radiation, and even smaller fraction of the x-rays produced will escape upward. Thus, within the experimental accuracy, which is somewhat better than 1 percent, the present calorimeter experiments show that none of the energy of the bombarding electrons is transformed into extremely penetrating radiation which escapes from the calorimeter.

In the work described above, gold was used as a representative heavy element because of its convenient properties. In order to make observation with an element used in a cloud-chamber work, experiments were done with mercury as a target material. Barber and Champion have found about 6 times too much inelastic scattering for mercury. For this purpose, the target holder shown in Fig. 1 was altered and the gold replaced by a thin steel window 0.003 inch thick which allowed the electron beam to bombard the mercury in the calorimeter, the voltage in this case being raised to 2.3 Mev to compensate for the energy lost in the window. As in the case of gold, it was observed that within the experimental error there was no energy carried away by penetrating radiation.

It thus appears that the large energy losses which have been previously reported cannot be accounted for by the suggested emission of the neutrinos or other extremely penetrating radiation. A has been referred to in a previous footnote, this result is in accord with the experiment of Ivanov, Walter, Sinelnikov, Taranov, and Abramovich[11] who, employing lead and aluminum targets and a different calorimeter arrangement, find no evidence of neutrino emission and that the radiation losses of electrons in the general energy range are adequately accounted for by the Bethe-Heitler theory.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:19 pm

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are glad to acknowledge the able assistance of Mr. Anthony Sperduto and Mr. E. A. Burrill in making the measurements, and of Mr. E. W. Nickerson in the construction of the apparatus. This work was supported in part by grants from the Research Corporation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, to whom grateful acknowledgment is made.

FOOTNOTES
A preliminary account of this work was presented at the February 1941 meeting of the American Physical Society, Phys. Rev. 59, 687 (1941)

H. Klarmann and W. Bothe, Zeits. F. Physik 101, 489 (1936)

L. Leprince-Ringuet, Ann. de physique 7, 5 (1937)

L. G. Laslett and D. G. Hurst, Phys. Rev. 52, 1035 (1937)

A. Barber and F. C. Champion, Proc. Row. Soc. A168, 159 (1938)

L. A. Arcimovic and V. A. Chramov, Comptes Rendus. Acad. Sci, U.S.S.R. 7, 415 (1938)

Petrauskas, Van Atta, and Myers, Phys. Rev. 63, 389 (1943)

F. C. Champion, Rep. Progress Phys. 5, 348 (1938)

C. D. Ellis and B. A. Wooster, Proc. Roy. Soc. A117. 109 (1927)

L. Meitner and W. Orthmann, Zeits. f. Physik 60, 143 (1930)

Since the experimental work here reported was completed, we have seen the paper of Ivanov, Walter, Sinelnikov, Taranov, and Abramovich, J. Phys. U.S.S.R. 4, 319 (1941). These authors describe a somewhat different calorimetric experiment on the radiation losses of fast electrons incident on lead and aluminum. The results of the two experiments are consistent.

Van Atta, Northrup, Van de Graaff, and Van Atta, Rev. Sci. INST. 12, 534 (1941)

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:30 pm

Buechner & Van de Graaff- fig 1 2 3.
chew- fig 1.gif
chew- fig 1.gif (3.69 KiB) Viewed 2843 times
chew- fig 2.gif
chew- fig 2.gif (1.99 KiB) Viewed 2843 times
chew- fig 3.gif
chew- fig 3.gif (2.11 KiB) Viewed 2843 times

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:36 pm

Hello,

I did come across a mention of this 1946 calorimeter paper by Buechner & Van de Graaff from the website of David de Hilster on "No Neutrino". I think the reason I did not mention this experiment was because I could not get a copy of the full paper; from the abstract, I am not to sure what the experiment was about.

I think I now understand it better. It is different from the Ellis-Wooster experiment. It was about the energy losses due to interaction between fast electrons with matter. For heavy elements, x-ray would be produced. The conclusion was whether the energy loss could be accounted by a so-called "Bethe-Heitler theory" (which I don't understand). The conclusion was there was no extra loss of energy from x-ray or from neutrino when fast electrons interact with matter. It has nothing to do with beta decay; the "no neutrino produced" was about fast electrons interacting with matter produces no neutrino.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

crawler
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by crawler » Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:52 pm

Chan Rasjid wrote:Hello,

I did come across a mention of this 1946 calorimeter paper by Buechner & Van de Graaff from the website of David de Hilster on "No Neutrino". I think the reason I did not mention this experiment was because I could not get a copy of the full paper; from the abstract, I am not to sure what the experiment was about.

I think I now understand it better. It is different from the Ellis-Wooster experiment. It was about the energy losses due to interaction between fast electrons with matter. For heavy elements, x-ray would be produced. The conclusion was whether the energy loss could be accounted by a so-called "Bethe-Heitler theory" (which I don't understand). The conclusion was there was no extra loss of energy from x-ray or from neutrino when fast electrons interact with matter. It has nothing to do with beta decay; the "no neutrino produced" was about fast electrons interacting with matter produces no neutrino. Best regards,Chan Rasjid.
Ah, i think i see. Buechner & Van de Graaff in effect disproved the Klarmann and Bothe and Champion idea that neutrinos were emitted when beta rays hit matter. I mistakenly thort that Buechner disproved neutrinos being created during beta decay. Thanx for correcting me.

I hav recently been hoping that neutrinos are true. I hav a theory that free neutrinos create dark particles if they become confined neutrinos, & dark particles are dark matter. And dark matter makes an 8th kind of black hole (i think i am now up to 8 kinds). Einsteinian singularity blackholes being fiction.

Neutrinos are simply dark photons, ie photons that hav paired by sharing the same axis, the two sets of photon fields being 180 deg out of phase & hencely cancelling (Ranzan).

But i hav allways been afraid of Buechner & Van de Graaff. But now i can sleep better. Thanx again.
And i did refind that link. Its in Carezani's Autodynamics website.
http://www.autodynamics.org/calorimetric-experiment/

Sci-Phy
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:47 am
Location: Canada

Re: Beta Decay Emits No Neutrino.

Unread post by Sci-Phy » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:13 am

Neutrino is conjecture on conjecture on conjecture.
I was always wondering how they are getting Nobel prizes. You introduce a theory and then you applying your theory as a filter to the experimental data.
Since neutral particle could not be detected you apply the theory and prove your theory with your theory. Nice approach indeed.
The only reason of neutrino introduction was attempt to save a face of physics on the energy conservation law.
But the energy conservation law does not holds in a lot of other cases. Why didn't we invent some other particles?
1.Annihilation reaction is a good example. Electron attracted to positron by Coulomb force. Calculate kinetic energy of the particles just before annihilation - it will be huge. Where did it went? On the output we have just two gammas with particles former rest energy.
2.Chemical endothermic reaction. Textbooks telling us that endothermic reaction are reactions which require energy input. One could easily carry out a reaction of vinegar with baking soda. The products of reaction will have the temperature lower compare to initial temperature. The reaction could be done inside thermos flask. What energy input they are talking about? The textbooks explanation is the following - since internal energy of the products is higher then initial then energy must be consumed from surrounds (in fact from itself). I have Nobel price idea. We have unheated house (low energy product before reaction). On the output we have heated house (high energy output of reaction). The energy required for this must be consumed from environment. So we have free heating and we solved the problem of global warming at the same time since the temperature of surrounds should drop.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests