Wait a minute – the end result of muon decay is an electron (or positron in the case of the antimuon). This is technically not “beta decay” at least not as taught by pedantics. Beta decay is defined as a type of radioactive decay in which a proton is transformed into a neutron, or vice versa, which doesn’t happen in muon decay.
Anyway, muon decay produces three particles, which includes an electron or positron (same charge as the muon) and two neutrinos. The neutrinos essentially are lost to the reaction. Since Holmlid says copious muons are created from proton or neutron disintegration, which muons decay in microseconds, then copious positrons and electrons are formed … but not “from nothing”… the electrons come from muon decay. According to Bob Higgins, the positrons do no annihilate, but if you are looking for the source of electrons, it is from muon decay following nucleon disintegration. From: Eric Walker Axil Axil wrote: In point of fact, Holmlid is producing electrons from nothing in his experiment. Don't get excited, we are just talking here. If one applies straightforward logic, there are only three possibilities: * Baryogenesis and tachyons are creating the electrons. * Gorrillas are creating the electrons. * Beta decay is creating the electrons. Eric
