So what have you got to tell me?

[Atomic12C]

This topic seems fairly quiet these days......must be more science going on out there day to day...

Something I've been reading recently....
Pilot Wave version of quantum mechanics maybe on a rise in popularity as it has been used to explain the EM drive in how it can produce thrust with no apparent equal/opposite reaction as per Newton's laws.
New experimental testing is being done to either confirm or amend the reasoning behind how it is working.


In other developments, CERN is discovering new particles and the periodic table of elements has new entries (from last year albeit).

Is CERN to soon deliver the next step of the standard model ?

Are there yet more elements to be found?
There was always said to be a limit of nucleus mass, due to electrons needing to reach the speed of light in order to 'orbit' them. This quest to reach that limit is on going.

[James_B]

I was out with a friend from CERN at the weekend. They were quite downbeat about what is going on there now, there aren’t any big testable hypothses that everyone is waiting to get results on, they are just running it and planning minor upgrades to see if anything pops up above the background.

It’s a real change from the days of LEP and the earlier data from the LHC.

[James_B]

Why would electrons have any effect on thestability of the nucleus, by the way? I’ll admit that I gave up nuclear physics after my first degree to move onto particles, but I’ve not heard of that form of interaction.

[Atomic12C]

James_B said:

I was out with a friend from CERN at the weekend. They were quite downbeat about what is going on there now, there aren’t any big testable hypothses that everyone is waiting to get results on, they are just running it and planning minor upgrades to see if anything pops up above the background.

It’s a real change from the days of LEP and the earlier data from the LHC.

One of my old classmates works in collaboration with CERN and although they are now running with the upgrades in power etc. they are still discovering new particle decays, the recent one being a particle with 2 charm quarks and an "up" quark.
They are also indeed 'waiting' for this next new big leap to happen, but some think that it requires much larger energy levels to find them.

It was thought that "supersymmetry" would be discovered within the current energy levels on the collider, but the lack of anything solid may give a clue that supersymmetry may not be the next development of the standard model.

Hopefully the future minor tweeks can make the equipment more sensitive and maybe lead to more discoveries.

[Atomic12C]

James_B said:

Why would electrons have any effect on thestability of the nucleus, by the way? I’ll admit that I gave up nuclear physics after my first degree to move onto particles, but I’ve not heard of that form of interaction.

Well we know that small particles exhibit quantum mechanics that mean they have a momentum and a position, but neither of those properties can be know 100% accurately at the same time - under the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

So if it is accepted that particles have a momentum then they have a velocity and as such a 'speed'.

So even though quantum mechanics does not use the typical "planetary orbit" analogy with electron spinning round in 'circles/elipses' etc. they do have a 'speed' property that they will have within their probability region around the nucleus.

As the number of protons increases within the nucleus the +ve charge increases and the 'pull' in the electrons increases. In order to form a stable atom, the electrons at the specified energy levels must increase their 'speed' in order to not 'fall' into the nucleus.
If the number of protons reaches a certain level, then it means the 'speed' of the electron(s) must reach the speed of light in order the atom can be stable.
Obviously this contradicts some fundamental laws and therefore sets a theoretical limit on the size of a nucleus in terms of protons.

BUT, one thing we need to consider is that the larger elements tend to not be stable and they decay very quickly in some cases.
This means that larger proton nuclei can exist for short periods of time. (Nuclei that would initially be thought to require electron 'speeds' to be faster than light).
The quest is on to find more and more elements in the periodic table, even though these are not likely to live a long life.

[James_B]

As per the reply that you quoted. My first degree included nuclear physics, the masséters and doctorate were in particle physics with the latter at CERN, so I’m pretty familiar with the uncertainty principle.

I still don’t get what you are trying to say about electrons, how are you claiming that they cause instability? Stability is a feature of the range of the strong force, and that of the electromagnetic one, and the difference in energy level before and after a decay or fission.

Do you have a physics background, or is this something you’ve read on the internet?

Edited by James_B on Thursday 19th October 19:30

[EliseNick]

James_B said:

As per the reply that you quoted. My first degree included nuclear physics, the masséters and doctorate were in particle physics with the latter at CERN, so I’m pretty familiar with the uncertainty principle.

I still don’t get what you are trying to say about electrons, how are you claiming that they cause instability? Stability is a feature of the range of the strong force, and that of the electromagnetic one, and the difference in energy level before and after a decay or fission.

Do you have a physics background, or is this something you’ve read on the internet?

Edited by James_B on Thursday 19th October 19:30

Here's something from the internet;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_periodic_ta...

In reply to the OP: It does seem a bit quiet. Superconducting qubits still showing steady progress I suppose,

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604242/googles-...

Gravitational waves as well of course.

[James_B]

Again, that says nothing about electrons causing nuclear instability, it just points out that larger neutrons show clearly why the Böhr model is wrong.

I think it’s probably safe to say that the OP is mistaken.

Edited by James_B on Friday 20th October 19:16

[Atomic12C]

Been meaning to get a reply done on this....
Safe to say I'm not a particle physicist nor do I work at CERN or anything like that. My degree was Aeronautical Engineering but I am also a keen follower of science generally.

You're right, I may have been mistaken , I just need to try and track down the video I watched regarding the periodic table, the recent additions to it, and re-visit the explanation that was given as to why there was (a) an initial theoretical limit on the size of a nucleus, and (b) the theoretical limit on the size of an unstable nucleus. Both seemed to point towards the electron reaching relativistic speeds - but like I say, if a physics major says that is wrong, then I may well be incorrect.

Always happy to be stood corrected in science!
Its how we all gain knowledge.

Edited by Atomic12C on Tuesday 24th October 13:33