Neutron Lifetime

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
blaine
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:44 am

Neutron Lifetime

Post by blaine »

KVK Nehru calculates the neutron lifetime in his paper "The Lifetime of the Neutron" http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/The%20 ... Nehru).pdf

His calculated value is $\tau_{n}$ = 1011.54 seconds.

The neutron lifetime is an interesting topic right now within the nuclear physics community because they cannot seem to agree on a value: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... w-physics/

The discrepancy comes from the two methods utilized: one creates neutrons via a beam reaction and measures a portion of these created neutrons. This method finds an average of 887.7 +/- 2.9 s. The other method is the bottle technique, where cold neutrons are essentially "bottled up" in some container and counted, then counted again after some time elapsed. One such experiment (http://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10 ... .78.035505) measured it to be 878.5 +/- 1 s.

Perhaps this discrepancy is due to the environmental effects (presumably the local magnetic field has the largest effect?) on half life known to occur in RS?

Also the discrepancy between the measured data and Nehru's calculation: is this also due to environmental conditions changing the half life? Is it just a coincidence that if one replaces the value of R = 128*(1 + 1/18) with R = 128(1 + 2/9) when performing the calculation that the lifetime becomes much closer to the measured value? ($\tau_{n}$ = 873.60 s). Nehru's justification for using this reduced constant R is because the proton is only a single rotating system, rather than a double rotating system, like atoms.

I also notice that in Nehru's paper there is no mention of the decay in question being to a charged proton. I notice that Larson in Nothing But Motion makes sure to distinguish protons from charged protons. I haven't gotten through his explanation of charge yet so perhaps this will be made clear once I do but I wonder if the compound neutron's observed decay into the charged proton, charged electron, and cosmic neutrino (as opposed to just the proton and cosmic neutrino) would have any effect on the degrees of freedom in consideration to determine the constant R relevant for this calculation.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Re: Neutron Lifetime

Post by bperet »

blaine wrote:Perhaps this discrepancy is due to the environmental effects (presumably the local magnetic field has the largest effect?) on half life known to occur in RS?
Very astute observation. Our technological environment has made a massive change to the time region structures, particularly the use of wireless technology. Digital signals are square waves, with harmonics all over the spectrum--tune a radio in to a wireless router frequency and you'll be shocked at what you hear.

And in case you have not heard, this year they are "updating" all the atomic mass values--no longer a single value, but a "range," because it seems that the mass is dependent on WHERE you measure it... you get a different value in Houston than London than Moscow, for the SAME atoms.
I also notice that in Nehru's paper there is no mention of the decay in question being to a charged proton.
Our current technology does not distinguish between a charged and uncharged proton. See my paper: Subatomic Mass Recalculated.

As I just mentioned in another post, the c-neutrino must have a charge to it in order to form a compound rotating system. In the uncharged state, it has zero net motion and will therefore just fly through either a spatial or temporal displacement. The charge (a birotation) would be in space, applied to the c-magnetic rotation. When that charge is emitted as a decay product, you will normally get an electron-positron pair. Because the charge is in space, the electron is the stable part (being a rotating unit of space) and quickly grabs a charge from the environment, whereas the uncharged positron shows up as the short-lived W- particle (since conventional physics does not recognized uncharged states, only charged ones, so it "looks" negative, as their +/- is the sign of the charge, not of the displacement).
would have any effect on the degrees of freedom in consideration to determine the constant R relevant for this calculation.
All EM energy is basically a "charge field" (as Miles Mathis puts it in his papers). The presence of EM radiation in the environment would alter the energy of the charge on the c-neutrino in the neutron, reducing its lifetime. And you may have hit on it... the "charge" is the 1/9 part of the inter-regional ratio, so the presence of all our electronic technology may actually be altering the natural lifetime of the neutron.
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply