Link:     Back     Contents     Next

11. SKETCH OF MICROPHYSICS PICTURE DERIVED FROM THE NEW SPACE-TIME THEORY

The muons were discovered by C. D. Anderson and S. H. Neddermeyer in 1936 - 1938 in cosmic rays (see S. H. Neddermeyer, C. D. Anderson,  Cosmic-ray particles of intermediate mass. // Physical Review. - 1938. - v.54. - p.88 - 89). The experiments carried out by them with an expansion chamber placed in magnetic field   have shown, that the majority of space particles on a sea level penetrate through considerable stratums of heavy substance (lead, platinum)  losing energy only on ionisation of atoms of substance.

It was impossible to identify these particles, possessing high penetrating ability, with protons, the rest mass each of which is 1836 times greater than the rest mass of an electron.  Because, if the particle had the mass of a proton, its speed calculated using radius of curvature of particle trajectory in cross magnetic field should result in such ionisation of gas along this particle trajectory in an expansion chamber, which should be many times greater than the ionisation really observed in the experiment.

On the other hand, before creation of the new space-time theory it was also not possible to identify these high penetrating particles with electrons. It was stipulated by the fact, that from theoretical calculations based on the special relativity theory (SRT), it followed, that the electrons of high energy should lose the main part of their energy on braking radiation. But the particles, possessing high penetrating ability, should not have noticeable losses of energy on braking radiation (otherwise they would not have high penetrating ability).

In the new space-time theory it is possible to offer an approach to solving the problem of existence of muon-electron universality. This approach is based upon dependence of a particle charge value upon the speed of this particle motion.This dependence is represented by the formula

(11.1)

Indeed, in the new space-time theory the formula for energy losses of a particle on braking radiation ( taking into account minimal value of aiming distance arising from quantum mechanics) is as follows

;(11.2)

where are energy losses on braking radiation  within 1 cm of particle trajectory  at particle motion through some substance; N  is the quantity of atom nulei in 1 сm³ of the substance;   zЧ e_o is a charge of one atom of substance; is the rest energy of a particle emitting braking radiation; m_o is the rest mass of this particle; is Plank's constant; u is the speed of particle motion; е_u is the charge of a moving particle determined under the formula (11.1).

If a particle moves at a speed, which is much greater than the speed of light ( if u >> c_o), from the formula (11.1) we have

. (11.3)

Then, having substituted the expression (11.3) into the formula (11.2), we shall obtain the formula

&(11.4)

according to which if superlight speed of a particle increases on one order (10 times) the particle energy losses on braking radiation decrease on five orders (10⁵ times). Therefore the braking radiation for high-energy electrons (moving at a speed, which is considerably greater the speed of light in vacuum c_o) beccomes considerably smaller, than braking radiation of low-energy electrons. This enables to identify cosmic ray particles of high penetration capability  in experiments of C. D. Anderson and  S. H. Neddermeyer with high-energy electrons moving at superlight speeds.

For example, according to the new space-time theory a speed of electron or positron motion can be determined using radius R of electrons trajectory in transverse magnetic field with induction B using the formula

(11.5)

that is why according to this formula the speed of a positron in the upper part of a photography from the article [66]. Neddermeyer S. H., Anderson C. D. Cosmic-ray particles of intermediate mass. // Physical Review. - 1938. - v.54. - p.88 - 89 is 100 times greater than the speed of light in vacuum c_o, and the speed of the same  positron in the lower part of the same photography is 14 times greater than the speed of light in vacuum  c_o.

The conviction that the "neutrino" is merely the coinage of our brain  is confirmed by the possibility to give a quite natural explaination to the experiment  made by C. D. Ellis, W. A. Wooster  in 1927 (see  [69]. Ellis C. D., Wooster W. A. The average energy of disintegration of Radium E // Proc. Roy. Soc. - 1927.- v. 117.- p. 109 - 123), in which the average energy of beta-decay electrons was measured, without hypothesis about existence of neutrino.

Indeed, in their experiment of 1927  C. D. Ellis, W. A. Wooster have at first  measured the total energy absorbed in a calorimeter for a particular time interval at beta decay of nuclei of radium-E (bismuth-210) atoms. Then they have calculated the quantity of the radium-E (bismuth-210) atoms nuclei, which have disintegrated during the same time interval, considering that the quantity of the nuclei disintegrating during a particular time interval is equal to the quantity of the electrons, which have flown out of radioactive substance during the same time interval. At that they have referred to an article written in 1924 by K. G. Emeleus (see [70]. Emeleus K. G. The number of b -particles from Radium E // Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.- 1924. - v. 22.- p. 400 - 403).  And, at last, they divided this total energy absorbed in the calorimeter during a certain time interval by the quantity of electrons, which have flown out from beta-radioactive substance during the same time interval, considering that the quantity of electrons flown out from beta-radioactive substance is equal to the quantity of disintegrated nuclei.

But in the 1924 article [70] K. G. Emeleus obtained, that 1.43 electrons (on average) fly out from beta-radioactive substance per one atom nucleus decay. At that K. G. Emeleus has noted that the result obtained by him (on average 1.43 electrons fly out from radioactive substance per each decay of nucleus) can not have great accuracy. K. G. Emeleus stated also that according to an article published in 1914 by A. F. Kovaric and L. W. McKeehan (see [71]. Kovaric A. F., McKeehan L. W. Messung der Absorptich und Reflexion von b -Teilchen durch directer Zahlung // Physikalisch Zeitschrift.- 1914.-B.XV.- S. 434 - 440), the quantity of electrons equal to the quantity of disintegrated atoms nuclei should fly out from beta-radioactive substance. The fact, that in his experiment a greater quantity of electrons flying out from radioactive substance was detected, than the quantity of disintegrated atoms nuclei, K. G. Emeleus explained by reflections of electrons emitted in a direction opposite to the direction of the particles counter.

But the 1914 experiment [71] can be given an interpretation completely different from interpretation of 1914 given in   [71] and 1924 given in [70], when the processes at irradiation of metal surfaces by streams of electrons were explored a little. Because today we know, that at irradiation of metal surface by electrons of sufficiently high energy a considerable quantity of secondary electrons is beaten out from this metal surface, on what the operation, for example, of photoelectric multipliers is based.

    The electrons of a beta decay of bismuth-210 nuclei have maximal energy of 1.17 MeV. Why the electron having such energy can not beat out from electronic shells of atoms of the radioactive substance some electrons, if for beating out one electron from an atom it is necessary to expend energy (ionisation energy of atom) only about 30 eV? You see, even in one atom of bismuth there are 83 electrons around a nucleus, from which the electron of beta decay flies out. And on trajectories of an electrons of beta decay (before they will leave the volume of radioactive substance) there will be not tens and even not thousands, but much greater quantity of atoms. Therefore a statement, that only primary electrons of beta decay born immediately in the acts of beta decay of nuclei fly out from beta-radioactive substance, looks untenable.

But if each primary electron of beta decay beats out on its trajectory through radioactive substance some secondary electrons, a natural explanation without engaging a "neutrino" can be given to:

- Continuous energy distribution of beta decay electrons;

- Known experimental fact, mentioned by A. N. Murin (see Murin A. N. Physical basics of radiochemistry/ under edition of P. P. Seregin, Moscow, Higher school, 1971, p. 62), about dependence of a number of electrons, which are flying out from beta-radioactive substance, on the shape of radioactive substance;

- Numerical value of the  measured (?) rest mass of "neutrino" (result of measuring is 30 eV) equal to ionisation energy of an atom.

It is generally assumed that it is impossible to explain without neutrino the decay of neutron into a proton and an electron  according to the scheme

(11.6)

But it is known long ago (see [42]. Mukhin K. N. Introduction into nuclear physics. - Moscow: Gosatomizdat,  1963,  p.  236 - 237) that in the process of nuclear reaction the total moment of momentum for interacting paricles  is conserved, and for the reaction (11.6) this moment of momentum is written in the form 

(11.7)

where is the spin moment of momentum for a neutron; is the spin moment of momentum for a proton; is the spin moment of momentum for an electron; is the orbital moment of momentum for an electron with respect to a proton inside the neutron.

Experiment of  F. Raines and C. L. Cowan in 1953, which is considered as direct experimental proof  of conversion reaction of a proton into a neutron under action of electronic antineutrino radiated by nuclear reactor

(11.8)

At first, in the field of a proton a gamma-quantum radiated by a nuclear reactor is converted into electron-positron pair

 (11.9)

and the electron from the electron-positron pair together with the proton form a neutron (without participation of any neutrino)  [73]. Mukhin K. N. Experimental nuclear physics. In two volumes, v. 2. Particle physics. Moscow, Atomizdat,  1974, p. 212]

(11.10)

Interrogation mark near the sign of neutrino in the expression (11.10) is put on the ground that if the reaction (11.6) does not require any neutrino, then the reaction (11.10), which is a reverse reaction with respect to reaction (11.6), should not require any neutrino also.  Then, haaving substituted into reaction (11.9) insstead of the left-hand part of reaction (11.10) the right-haand part of the reaction (11.10), we shall haave insstead of reaction (11.9) the ffollowing reaction

(11.11)

But in the experiment of  F. Raines and C. L. Cowan in 1953 they detected only two scintillation flashes separated by a time interval of  5 - 10 microsecond. The first scintillation flash was caused by annihilation of a proton, the second scintillation flash was caused by absorption of a neutron by a cadmium atom (see [74]. Zatsepin G. T., Kopysov Ju. S., Smirnov A. Ju. Neutrino. - In book: Microphysics. Small Enccyclopedia / Chief editor D. V. Shirkov. - Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia,  1980, p.p. 271 - 281).

- experimentally proven fact that magnetic moment of a muon happens to be  less than the electron magnetic moment, which is equal to Bohr magneton

 (11.12)

in the same quantity of times, in which  the rest mass of a muon is considered to be greater than the rest mass of an electron. Indeed, if in the formula for magnetic moment of a superlight elecctron

 (11.13)

which is formed by analogy with the formula (11.12), but with substitution  the electric charge value е_u of an electron moving at a superlight speed (depending upon the speed u under the formula (11.1)) instead of  е_о (electric charge value for an  immovable electron). In the result we have the formula

(11.14)

which can be rewritten in the form

 (11.15)

having introduced into consideration the "muon rest mass" according to the formula

 (11.16)

Consequently, the experimentally measured value of muon magnetic moment, which is very close to the value calculated according to the formula (11.15), will be to the same extent close to the value calculated according to the formula (11.14) for magnetic moment of an electron mooving at a superlight speed  calculated according to the formula

(11.17)

It is quite natural that from the point of wiev of the new space-time theory all the microcosm picture requires essential correction, but above we did not aim to list all the problems, which can be solved using the new space-time theory. The main attention was drawn only to clarifying the approach to solving the problem of muon-electron universality using the new space-time theory and possibilities of noncontradictory explanation of phenomena directly related to this problem..

Link:     Back     Contents     Next