Download Nuclear Physics May be Fairly Simple

Nuclear Physics May be Fairly Simple
Atomic Nuclei May Not Contain Neutrons or Neutrinos
Only LOOSE Protons and Electrons may exist inside Atomic Nuclei
It might be easier to understand the details of this presentation if a related presentation is
read first. Please see Neutrinos Do Not Exist
The beta decay of Tritium provides a simple and obvious example of where an enormous
blunder and many inappropriate complications exist in Nuclear Physics. According to
the very reliable government NIST database, a decaying Hydrogen/Tritium atom, 3H1, has
a precise atomic mass of 3.0160492779 AMU (Atomic Mass Units). That atom
naturally decays into a resulting Helium-3 atom, 3He2, which has a precise atomic
mass of 3.0160293201 AMU. The NIST data also confirms that the Tritium
atom does the following beta-decay, 3H1 (Tritium) → 3He2 (Helium-3) +
radiation with a half-life of 12.33 years (where the resulting new electron simply begins
to revolve around the new Helium nucleus to maintain it as un-ionized.) It only takes a
moment to examine the math of the precise NIST scientific data regarding that Nuclear
decay, 3.0160492779 AMU → 3.0160293201 AMU to confirm that the
difference between the source and result atoms is +0.0000199578 AMU. That
0.0000199578 AMU is exactly the NIST radiation which also is described as the
observed experimental radiation given off of 0.0185906 MeV.
This simple math addition is exact! It scientifically
accounts for all the energy and mass involved in that
entire atomic structure and decay.
No one before had ever found even approximate values to fit the math of the processes.
People have never even tried to do accurate math because they assumed that quite a few
bundles of energy must also be in every atomic nucleus, such as the Neutron SelfBinding Energy of 0.78235 MeV for every Neutron inside every nucleus. According to
traditional nuclear Physics, every Uranium atom (allegedly) contains 146 Neutrons inside
every nucleus which then also would need to have spectacular amounts of Neutron
Binding Energies inside every nucleus, and they never could figure out where all that
energy could come from! This recent approach provides exact mathematical
solutions and eliminates many of their math complications!
This same precise math addition has been found to be true regarding all the mass
involved in any of many hundreds of other nuclear processes, where the entirety of
the mass and energy in existence is accounted for by the mass and energy of Protons
and Electrons. Varieties of several types of other nuclear process examples are
presented below.
The possible presence inside any atomic nucleus of Neutrons
(which each always requires an extra Self Binding Energy of
0.78235 MeV) really messes up that math, for every Neutron
involved. A new approach where Protons and Electrons
always remain separate inside each nucleus, instead of forming
Neutrons, makes exquisite mathematical sense. In addition, any
Neutrinos, any Strong Nuclear Force, any Pions (which require 139.0 MeV each) or
a Weak Nuclear Force and other objects would also each involve additional energy,
and each of those would also disrupt this amazingly precise mathematical energy
accounting.
Such traditional complications of other objects inside any atomic nucleus seem simply
not mathematically or logically possible! The fact is that the highly respected NIST data,
accurate to better than ten decimal place precision, does not seem to permit the
mathematical provision, or energy, for any of them! This is a rather peculiar perspective
for a Theoretical Physicist, educated at the University of Chicago, to have!
I encourage all interested readers to also carefully examine the characteristics given
to the Strong Nuclear Force and the Pions within atomic nuclei, both dreamed up
around 1930, as they include several outrageous assumptions that have never had
any experimental confirmation! For example, the Strong Force is supposed to not
behave like any of the other basic forces of the Universe, of only acting within an
unbelievably tiny distance range (usually described as about 2 femtometers or 2 * 10-15
meters, which is not even the dimensions of any atomic nucleus). That was claimed
without any evidence or proof! Then they imagined that it was a truly weird force
in acting to attract other objects except if the objects get too close, it then instantly
repels them! Again, without any evidence or proof or experimental hints! The
Strong Force is also imagined to have a strange distance dependency, where one
Professor of mine at the University of Chicago told us students that it acted as an
inverse-fifth-power dependency. However, other of those Professors had told us
that it was an inverse-third-power dependency. It cannot be both! But again, in 80
years of thousands of Physicists doing experiments, no one has ever done any experiment
that might suggest either of those is true. But when you then add that the Strong Force
sometimes attracts and sometimes repels then any logical argument that a Strong
Nuclear Force even exists, with any claim to any distance dependency seems pretty
questionable.
Nuclear Pions were also dreamed up with just as much vacuum of evidence or actual
logic. Allegedly, the Strong Nuclear Force is able to act by having nuclear Pions appear
and disappear, in phenomenal numbers, and for hilariously brief existences (around 10-23
second) (which is also so brief as to eliminate any possible experiment ever detecting
them!) For the record, light being the fastest thing that can exist, and even light cannot
cross the size of any atomic nucleus in that interval of time.)
For reasons that mystify me, all Physicists simply accept these wild speculations and
assumptions, without ever questioning the credibility of any of them. However, if such
things actually exist inside any atomic nucleus, someone would need to explain where
amazing amounts of energy need to come from and then disappear to, to explain how
such things could exist while still complying with the Conservation of Energy and the
Conservation of Angular Momentum. In general, modern Physicists seem to simply
ignore such concerns! Actually, they do! If even one Pi-Meson could somehow come
into existence inside an atomic nucleus, that is a lot of energy of existence (139.0
MeV, equal to more than 200 Electrons!) which would need to get explained! Worse,
they then dreamed up even far smaller objects, such as Super-Strings, which they claim
exist and which allegedly explain those other concerns which they cannot explain. But
not in any way where logic is involved! The point of this presentation, which was
created in massive analytical, statistical research of the highly respected NIST data
between 1996 and 2003, provides a far simpler explanation of nuclear structure, without
even needing the speculated Strong Nuclear Force, nuclear Pions, nuclear Neutrons,
Neutrinos or other complications. The separate analyses included below, along with
thousands of other similar analyses of other nuclear reactions, all show that NIST data
suggests that only Protons and Electrons may exist inside atomic nuclei! As a result,
everything is now totally compatible with all the Conservation Laws of science.
The concept presented here might seem to have a serious flaw in that no "extra tools like
a Strong Nuclear Force or Pions or Neutrons" seem to exist to explain why all the
positively charged Protons in every nucleus are not repelling each other out of the
nucleus, which would make everything unstable. There is a wonderful solution to this,
presented more fully in the more comprehensive article linked below. Consider a
conventional Helium-4 nucleus. The premise here is that its four Nuclear Protons
exist in a Regular Tetrahedron pattern, rapidly spinning around the center of the
nucleus. Remember that there are two loose Electrons which are also inside that
nucleus. The problem is that the four positively charged Protons are rather close to each
other, so they produce an electrostatic repulsion that is really intense (due to the inversesquare-law of electromagnetism). Consider for a moment that one of those two
negatively charged Electrons happens to be exactly halfway between two of those
Protons. Given this, each Proton certainly experiences a repulsion of an easily
calculable force due to the other Proton. However, each of those two Protons would also
experience an attraction of four times that much force (due to the Electron being there.)
Again, that's just the Inverse-Square-Law of Electrodynamics. Therefore, in this
situation, instead of the Protons being repelled out of the Nucleus, they would have an
attractive force which is three times more powerful which causes each of those two
Protons to collapse in on each other! There are only two of these available intra-nuclear
Electrons, and it turns out that there are six possible halfway locations in that Tetrahedron.
If the two electrons just migrate around to those six locations, each for one-third of the
time, then a meta-stability is created, where each Proton, on the average, has just as much
net repulsion as attraction, and therefore the nucleus is stable! This is without needing
any bizarre Strong Nuclear Force or trillions of imaginary Pions whizzing around inside
every nucleus. Most nuclei are meta-stable due to only the Protons and Electrons in there!
This reasoning does have a consequence, where the radial location of each Proton inside
the Nucleus 'radially vibrates' very rapidly, and I believe that at least some nuclei seem to
show evidence of these super-fast vibrations.
A much more comprehensive presentation is linked below, which also provides
explanations for 'Nuclear Fine Structure' and many other details, but it is probably harder
to read for non-Physicists!
Relying on current NIST data, simple beta- or beta+ atomic decay are extremely
simple processes when Conservation of Energy is involved, if the internal Neutrons
are just considered to be separate Protons and Electrons. Consider an especially
simple process mentioned above, Tritium natural nuclear beta-decay into Helium-3 by
giving off an Electron which becomes an orbiting Electron in the new (un-ionized)
Helium-3 atom, while it gives off a precisely known amount of radiation during the decay.
That is:
3H
1
(Tritium) →
3He
2
(Helium-3) + radiation with a half-life of 12.33 years.
NIST data gives the Energy quantities (or atomic mass) as:
3.0160492779 AMU → 3.0160293201 AMU +
0.0000199578 AMU
The 0.0000199578 AMU energy is identical to the observed experimental radiation
of 0.0185906 MeV.
In other words, where an (alleged) Neutron used to exist in the nucleus of the Tritium
atom, there is now an extra Proton in the new Helium-3 nucleus and a new Electron
orbiting in the new Helium-3 atom, as well as observed radiation emitted. The NIST
data on atomic masses seems to conclusively show that everything that used to be
associated with the Tritium is accounted for! Exactly!
This precise math would not be true if the Proton and Electron inside the Tritium
atom were assumed to be bound up as a Neutron, because then, an additional
0.78235 MeV of 'Neutron Self-Binding Energy' must have also existed inside the
Tritium nucleus and it clearly did not! That large amount of energy also does not
suddenly "appear" during the beta-decay process.
We might also describe the Tritium atom as being composed of three Protons and three
Electrons (although we traditionally say that two of the Protons and two of the Electrons
are bonded together as Neutrons). We might also describe the Helium-3 atom as being
composed of three Protons and three Electrons (although we normally say that one of the
Protons and one of the Electrons are bonded together as a Neutron). In other words, we
start and end with the exact same number of component parts, the Electrons and
Protons.
This same precise Energy Auditing for any of hundreds of other nuclear processes
shows this same impressive mathematical accounting for all energy and mass.
The traditional understanding of this Tritium decay is a lot more complicated than that!
A Neutron inside the Hydrogen's Tritium-3 nucleus comes apart into Four major
component parts: a Proton (which stays inside the nucleus and converts it into a Helium
nucleus) and a beta-particle (which is an Electron which leaves the Tritium nucleus and
becomes a second orbiting Electron in the new Helium-3 atom), along with a Neutron
Self-Binding Energy of 0.78235 MeV (which used to be needed to hold the Neutron
together inside the Tritium nucleus) and an Anti-Neutrino (which is assumed to also have
formed in order to (allegedly) Conserve Nuclear Spin in the decay). Where did the
previous 0.78235 MeV of Neutron Self-Binding Energy go when the Neutron
decayed? Note that the reliably experimentally measured radiation given off by the
Tritium beta-decay (0.0186 MeV) is only about 1/40 of that much energy (or mass).
That is a lot of binding energy which (allegedly) must still exist (0.78235 MeV),
(somewhere) which is assumed to hold every nuclear Proton and Electron together into
the assumed Neutrons inside atomic nuclei. All that Binding Energy cannot just
disappear, because of the Conservation of Energy.
It is certainly true that Free-Ranging Neutrons do exist (and some of them are crossing
the room you are sitting in right now, and they do contain that exact amount of Binding
Energy which holds the Proton and Electron together, at least for a half-life of about 15
minutes before naturally decaying into separate Protons and Electrons.
Interestingly, that experimentally proven half-life of 15 minutes is totally neglected
regarding neutrons inside all atomic nuclei! If that is allegedly so, then someone should
explain why neutrons reliably beta decay when alone (15 minutes half-life) but don't
when they are inside nuclei (half-life of 12.33 years in this case)!
That traditional argument has lots more of logical problems! First, some explanation
must be provided regarding why a bunch of protons and neutrons would want to stay
together as stable nuclei, when the neutrons are electrically neutral and not obviously
prone to wanting to stay in any stable tight herd. In addition, the positively-charged
protons clearly should repel each other ferociously to want to escape from every atomic
nucleus. Around 80 years ago, Physicists, particularly Hideki and Wolfgang Pauli,
dreamed up something we call the Strong Nuclear Force to supposedly explain this
stability. However, where is the immense amount of energy needed to supply this Strong
Force (and then where does it go when a Neutron decays into a Proton and an Electron?)
The usual argument also claims that a whole bunch of different things (packets of energy)
are involved!
Pursue the arguments that were the basis of these "totally accepted" arguments. For
example, in 1930 Hideki speculated that Pi-mesons must exist inside atomic nuclei, to
provide a method where the Strong Force could keep Protons and Neutrons inside a
nucleus stable. However, as of yet, 2016, no one has yet found any actual evidence that
any Pion has ever been found inside any nucleus! In fact, it was 17 years later, in 1947
that the first Pi-meson had ever been detected, and that was at the very top of the Earth's
atmosphere by Powell. Further, the actual Pi-Mesons (which have ever been found) have
always had a lifetime of 2.6 * 10-8 second (charged) or 8.4 * 10-17 second (neutral).
These actual experimentally measured lifetimes were all millions of time too long for
the purposes needed inside the atomic nucleus, so the lifetime was simply defined as
10-23 second. Since that is far more brief than any experiment could ever detect, it was a
safe "speculation" since no one could ever prove it wrong! No nuclear Pi-meson has or
will ever be detected, or can be! Pretty safe to make a speculation like that, which can
never be proven wrong! No evidence of any Strong Nuclear Force has ever or will ever
be detected. Each previously accepted speculation quickly became totally accepted, such
that new speculations got presented and quickly adopted! (Modern Nuclear Physics is
chock full of such ridiculous speculations which could never be experimentally detected,
or therefore proven wrong, like Super Strings, Branes, and dozens of other speculative
ideas.)
The (1) Proton and the (2) Electron are the obvious primary constituents; (3) the very
large amount of necessary Neutron Self-Binding Energy (0.78235 MeV); (4) energy that
could convert into becoming an Anti-Neutrino; (5) kinetic energy or radiation that the
Anti-Neutrino carries away when leaving the nucleus; (6) a huge amount of more energy
(139.0 MeV) which supposedly converts into Pion particles (by the Strong Nuclear Force)
(the Pions supposedly created inside a nucleus are claimed to exist a phenomenally short
period of time before decaying, a half-life of 10-23 second) and (7) some Nuclear Spin
(involving magnetic and kinetic energy) of the Anti-Neutrinos and other nuclear particles.
Specifically, while it was still a Neutron (allegedly) inside the nucleus, there was a
Nuclear Spin of 1/2 unit, while after the decay, both the Proton and the Electron each
have a Nuclear Spin of 1/2 unit. In order to try to explain this apparent NonConservation of Spin Energy, an entirely new object was dreamed up, the Neutrino (and
Anti-Neutrino), which has no mass, no charge and essentially no existence, except for
having exactly 1/2 unit of Nuclear Spin. In about 80 years of trying to experimentally
detect any neutrinos, essentially no direct evidence has ever been found, except for some
implied suggestions that they might exist!
There is another curious simple flaw in Nuclear Physics regarding this reasoning!
Nuclear Spin is Angular Momentum, a Vector quantity (of 1/2 unit). For bizarre
reasons that are beyond me, all Physicists seem to assume they are Scalar quantities,
which would require the speculation of a neutrino's existence, with a spin of 1/2, to
Conserve Spin by a Scalar 1/2 = 1/2 + 1/2 - 1/2. That is not remotely true! As an
actual Vector quantity, it is clear that there is no need to dream up a Neutrino in order
to Conserve Nuclear Spin. Specifically, by simple Vector Addition, two Spin Vectors
which happen to be at an angle of 120 degrees from each other can add, as Vectors, to
become a new Nuclear Spin Vector which has exactly the same amplitude (1/2) but is
now at an orientation of a third side of an equilateral triangle. How could any Physicist
have been so ignorant to believe that it was even needed to dream up a neutrino, for
the single purpose of Conserving Nuclear Spin? A really smart Physicist, Wolfgang
Pauli dreamed up the existence of neutrinos to achieve this Scalar addition of the Vector
quantities, so apparently everyone just accepted that he must be right! But he wasn't!
The speculations on all this complex activity to try to explain how Protons and Neutrons
interact within atomic nuclei therefore involve a number of alleged objects which whiz
around inside every atomic nucleus, Neutrinos, Pions, Neutron Binding Energies, each of
which allegedly can only exist for such a short period of time to never be detectable by
any experimental equipment mankind has ever made. All the supposed "evidence" of
the existence of these exotic objects has been implied by an assortment of
assumptions that have been made, all with the intent to try to explain just two things,
how atomic nuclei could stably exist in the face of immense repelling electrostatic
forces of Protons, and the alleged behaviors of Neutrons inside atomic nuclei. The
point being presented here is that none of that complex trickery is even necessary, and
that two of the four alleged Basic Forces of the Universe probably do not even exist
at all, and where simple and traditional Electrostatic Attraction and Repulsion
clearly can explain all that is seen in atomic nuclei.
The Tritium decay caught my attention for a different reason. Both that original Tritium
atom and the beta-decay product Helium-3 are rather stable atoms. However, given the
traditional understanding, how could that be? By traditional thinking, I could concede
that Tritium should reasonably be stable, because it only has one positively charged
proton inside the nucleus (assuming we accept the traditional argument that the two
neutrons in that nucleus are electrically neutral). However, notice what is different from
the Helium-3 nucleus! There are two positively charged Protons in there now. No
one ever explained why this atom would comfortably allow the two protons to be
repelling each other with spectacular force, but somehow still be even more stable than
the Tritium atom which had been with only one Proton in there. Not much different,
due to a simple beta-decay loss of an Electron, except now, the Helium-3 must be
trying to burst at the seams! I have spent most of my long career as a Theoretical
Physicist troubled by "tiny details" like that!
When I was in Physics Courses at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, I had already
been aware that both the Gravitational and Electrostatic Forces act with inverse-square
distance dependencies. One of the Professors explained to us students that the Strong
Nuclear Force acts at an inverse-fifth-power distance dependency. That drove me crazy
for most of my Career in Nuclear Physics, as it seemed so wrong by having to have
dreamed up a weird law of science which does not exist anywhere else in the Universe.
Worse, a different Professor there described the Strong Nuclear Force as an inverse-thirdpower distance dependency. So even the Physicists who were teaching us could not
agree on a very basic fact! I later learned that there has never been any basis for claiming
either a third-power or a fifth-power dependency, as those were both assumptions which
were not based on any actual physical evidence!
A related presentation which is far more comprehensive, developed between 1996 and
2003, provides what I believe to be a wonderfully simple and purely electrostatic
explanation for all the activities within atomic nuclei, at Statistical Analysis of SameAtomic-Weight Isotopes which is a careful examination of the highly respected NIST
data.
Back to the example Tritium beta-decay:
Look at this rather simple actual Energy Auditing of this Tritium decay.
3H
1
(Tritium)
one proton, two neutrons, and one orbiting
electron
3He
2
(Helium-3)
two protons, one neutron and two orbiting
electrons
describing the neutrons as separate protons and electrons:
three protons and two nuclear electrons and three protons and one nuclear electron and
one orbiting electron
two orbiting electrons
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms
3.0160492779 AMU
3.0160293201 AMU
radiation energy emitted by the decay
0.0000199578 AMU
total start 3.0160492779 AMU
total end 3.0160492779 AMU
This beta-decay creates external radiation of 0.0185906 MeV or 0.0000199578 AMU.
The NIST data for this beta-decay is that it emits radiation of 0.0185906 MeV.
Note that the starting and ending atoms contain exactly the same contents, a total of three
protons and three electrons, and we have accounted for all the existing energy within a
tiny experimental margin.
The fact that essentially zero energy existed inside the Tritium nucleus that could
represent the source of the rather enormous intra-Neutron binding energy, a Neutrino, and
the Strong Force, and Pions, seems to establish that none of those things could actually
exist inside the Tritium nucleus!
Just the binding energy required to hold a free-ranging neutron together is known to be
far more than that, 0.78235 MeV. There is no available energy source for that binding
energy to exist inside the Tritium nucleus.
Notice also that the difference in atomic mass between Tritium and Helium-3 is
essentially entirely accounted for by the emitted radiation associated with the beta-decay.
Less than 1 electron-Volt appears available to account for the existence of anything else,
and that even nicely accounts for the kinetic energy of the (new) second orbiting Electron.
There are actually three Protons and three Electrons in both of these atoms, the only
difference being that one of the Electrons is inside the nucleus in the Tritium nucleus and
the other is orbiting the nucleus in the Helium-3.
In other words, no energy either appears or disappears, and some simple kinetic energy
that the nuclear Electron carried is still carried as the new Electron orbits in the atom.
No energy exists which might have been the source for new Neutrinos or Pions or for the
Neutron Binding Energy necessary to bind a Proton and an Electron together into a
Neutron.
We can look at the similar simple actual Energy Auditing of any of hundreds of other
nuclear processes.
Here is an example of (one variety of) a process called Hydrogen Fusion:
2H
1
4He (Helium-4 ) + 1n (Neutron)
(Deuterium) + 3H1 (Tritium)
2
0
2 protons, 3 neutrons and 2
2 protons, 2 neutron and 2 orbiting electrons and a free
orbiting electrons
neutron
describing the neutrons as separate protons and electrons
4 protons and 2 nuclear electron and 2 orbiting
5 protons and 3 nuclear electrons
electrons and a free neutron, which is a proton +
and 2 orbiting electrons
electron
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire objects
2.014102 AMU + 3.01605 AMU 4.00260 AMU + 1.008 664 915 88 AMU
radiation given off by the Hydrogen Fusion process
0.018887 AMU
total 5.030152 AMU
total 5.030152 AMU
This Hydrogen fusion causes external radiation of 17.6 MeV or 0.018887 AMU. The
NIST data shows that this Hydrogen Fusion gives off of the expected fusion radiation of
17.6 MeV.
Here is a Free-Ranging Neutron beta-decay:
1n
0
(Proton) + 0e-1 (Electron)
1 neutron
1 proton and 1 free-ranging electron
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire objects
1.008 664 915 88 AMU
1.007 276 466 879 AMU + 0.000 548 579 909 070 AMU
radiation given off by the neutron beta-decay process
0.000 839 869 AMU
kinetic energy of the new electron
0.000 000 001 AMU
total 1.008 664 915 88 AMU total 1.008 664 916 AMU
(Neutron)
1p
1
The NIST data shows that this Neutron beta-decay gives off 0.000839 869 AMU or
0.78235 MeV of radiation.
Here is an example of a process called Electron Capture:
7Be
4
(Beryllium)
7Li
3
(Lithium)
4 protons, 3 neutrons, and 4 orbiting
3 protons, 4 neutrons and 3 orbiting
electrons
electrons
describing the neutrons as separate protons and electrons
7 protons and 3 nuclear electrons and 4
7 protons and 4 nuclear electrons and 3
orbiting electrons
orbiting electrons
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms
7.0169292 AMU
7.0160040 AMU
radiation given off by the Electron-capture
process
0.0009252 AMU
total 7.0169292 AMU
total 7.0169292 AMU
This Electron Capture causes external radiation of 0.8618 MeV or 0.0009252 AMU. The
NIST data shows that this Electron Capture gives off 0.8618 MeV of radiation.
This mathematical analysis also works for beta+ decays which are described as creating
positrons instead of electrons, such as in this example:
181Pt
78
181Ir (Iridium)
(Platinum)
77
78 protons, 103 neutrons, and 78 orbiting
77 protons, 104 neutrons and 77 orbiting
electrons
electrons
describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons
181 protons and 103 nuclear electrons and 181 protons and 104 nuclear electrons and
78 orbiting electrons
77 orbiting electrons
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms
180.96275 AMU
180.95731 AMU
radiation energy given off by the beta+
decay process
0.00544 AMU
total 180.96275 AMU
total 180.96275 AMU
This beta+ decay process causes external radiation of 0.00544 AMU or 5.0672 MeV.
The NIST data shows that the experimental radiation given off by this beta+ decay is 5.0
MeV.
Here is an example of a process of Neutron emission:
3He (Helium-3) and a Neutron
(Helium-4)
2
2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2
2 protons, 1 neutron and one free neutron and 2 orbiting
orbiting electrons
electrons
describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons
4 protons and 2 nuclear electrons 3 protons and 1 nuclear electron and 2 orbiting
and 2 orbiting electrons
electrons + a free neutron which is a proton and electron
4He
2
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms
3.01603 AMU
4.0280 AMU
1.008 664 915 88 AMU
radiation given off by the neutron-emission process
0.003305 AMU
total 4.0280 AMU
total 4.0280 AMU
The NIST data shows that this neutron emission gives off 0.003305 AMU or 3 MeV of
radiation.
Here is another well-known beta-decay process, which is called Carbon-14 or RadioCarbon dating. This process has a half-life of around 5715 years:
14C
6
14N
7
(Carbon-14)
(Nitrogen-14)
six protons, eight neutrons, and six orbiting seven protons, seven neutrons and seven
electrons
orbiting electrons
describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons:
fourteen protons and eight nuclear
electrons and six orbiting electron
fourteen protons and seven nuclear electron
and seven orbiting electrons
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire atoms
14.003 241 988 4 AMU
14.003 074 004 43 AMU
radiation energy emitted by the decay
0.000 167 99 AMU
total start 14.003 241 988 4 AMU
total end 14.003 241 994 43 AMU
This beta-decay creates external radiation of 0.15648 MeV or 0.00016799 AMU. The
NIST data for this beta-decay is that it emits radiation of 0.15648 MeV.
Note that the starting and ending atoms contain exactly the same contents, a total of
fourteen protons and fourteen electrons, and we have accounted for all the existing
energy within a tiny experimental margin.
Here is an example of (one variety of) a process called Uranium Fission:
235U
92
(Uranium) + 1n0 (Neutron)
92 protons, 143 neutrons and 92
orbiting electrons and a free neutron
140Cs
55
(Cesium) + 93Rb37 (Rubidium) + 3 Neutrons
92 protons, 141 neutrons and 92 orbiting electrons and
three free neutrons
describing the neutrons as being separate protons and electrons
235 protons and 143 nuclear electrons 233 protons and 141 nuclear electrons and 92 orbiting
and 92 orbiting electrons and a free
electrons and three free neutrons, which are each a
proton and electron
proton + electron
The total NIST atomic mass of the entire objects
235.043 930 1 AMU +
1.008 664 915 88 AMU
139.917 283 1 AMU +
92.922 039 3 AMU +
1.008 664 915 88 AMU +
1.008 664 915 88 AMU +
1.008 664 915 88 AMU
radiation given off by the Uranium Fission process
0.1973 AMU
total start 236.052 595 1 AMU
total end 236.052 617 4 AMU
This Uranium fission causes external radiation and kinetic energy of around 200 MeV or
0.1973 AMU. The NIST data shows that this Uranium Fission gives off of the expected
fission radiation and kinetic energy of about 200 MeV.
NOTE: There are many other ways that this Fission reaction can and does occur, such as
where different isotopes of Cesium and Rubidium can be created and where different
numbers of Neutrons are then created. The numbers are different for each of those
permutations. In all cases, the new isotopes are unstable and they decay into other
isotopes, in all cases still complying with the Conservation of Energy arguments
presented here.
There are sometimes a really tiny difference in the atomic mass of the start and end,
which generally is due to some subtle changes in the orbital energy of the electrons in the
atoms. An even more strict energy auditing accounts for this. It seems to be precise,
within experimental accuracy, for thousands of different nuclear transitions.
The full analysis of the NIST data for all the activities within atomic nuclei, is at
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes which is a careful examination of
the highly respected NIST data.
An examination of Wolfgang Pauli's logical blunder is at Neutrinos Do Not Exist.
The main isotope-analysis presentation was first placed on the Internet in 2003.
This brief presentation of the subject matter was first placed on the Internet in January
2014.
A solid understanding of all of this seems very difficult. There must be some explanation
for the following situation. Say that you had a generic atom of carbon. The claim being
made here is that the nucleus of this atom has twelve Protons and six Electrons freely
moving about inside that nucleus. There clearly is some immensely powerful reason that
it all wants to stay together to be a stable atom of carbon. How come one of those
Protons does not get repelled from the eleven other Protons inside that nucleus? If it did,
the 12C6 would then logically become a 11B5 nucleus but the atom would simultaneously
become a negatively ionized atom since it still had six orbiting Electrons around the fivecharged new nucleus. Or, what if one of the nucleus' Electrons somehow got expelled?
In that case, the atom would logically become a 12N7 nucleus. In this case the atom
would simultaneously become a positively ionized atom since it still had six orbiting
Electrons around the seven-charged new nucleus.
A number of years of research suggest that the intra-nuclear electrons somehow know
when and where to migrate around inside the nucleus to maximize stability. But how
could this process be so effective to be able to enable trillions of carbon nuclei to avoid
such 'spontaneous beta-like decay'.
Some isotopes of some elements are not stable, but many elements such as oxygen,
hydrogen, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, are extremely stable. This seems to hint that this
concept has some merit due to the amazing mathematical precision of nuclear and atomic
masses, but that there are many aspects of this which are currently beyond our human
understanding.
My Research has noted that many of the common elements tend to be elements and
isotopes which have even numbers of Protons and migrating nuclear Electrons, which
may help explain the stability of some of them.
FOOTNOTE: All Physicists are trained to only submit Research Papers to the Physical
Review. I started this research in 1996 and I soon realized how extremely important my
results were. So I went to all the time and trouble to re-write my Paper in the exact
specific font and type face and size and formatting that they demanded for acceptance.
Separate from my years of Research on these matters, I spent several more months just
ensuring that all my i's were dotted and my t's crossed, and all the rest of formatting that
they demanded. In 2001, I mailed in the (five copies, as I recall) Paper to their address,
and waited for a response. There was none! I eventually learned that a young man in
mail-handling at Physical Review had received my mail, and he was troubled that my
work seemed to bring question into the concept of Quantum Dynamics. On the phone, he
made clear to me that he was a lifelong follower of Quantum, and he decided that my
Paper would go no further! What he was supposed to do was to mail copies of my Paper
to five Peers for them to Review my Paper and Research, such that Peer Review would
then determine whether my Paper would deserve to get Published. That aberrant young
man denied my Paper the opportunity to ever be seen by any Peer Review! He even told
me on the telephone that he had thrown all the copies of my paperwork into the garbage!
He even went further! He told me to never contact the Physical Review ever again!
I suspect that the Physical Review Editors could not have been pleased that a Theoretical
Physicist educated at the University of Chicago was denied even the Peer Review
opportunity because of an aberrant young man in their employ, but I decided to not crowd
them on that. Shortly later, I re-edited my Research into a web-page, which I published
in 2003, at: Nuclear Physics - Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses Nuclear Structure.
(research 1996-2003, published in 2003)
(This) brief article was added in January 2014, which leaves out much of the complex
stuff and simply presents the basics of the Research and Findings, at: Nuclear Physics
May be Fairly Simple (published Jan 2014)
E-mail to: [email protected]
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from University of Chicago