The proton is an oddity in many aspects.
The short lived neutron outside the nucleus (most likely) has its instabilities rooted in the proton.
The proton(s) direct much of decay and capture.
I find it interesting that even in a "quark" context, a proton has an odd number of quarks.
The size is large when scaled against the electron.
I have seen few simple models that explain a proton clearly.
Could it be that a proton is just complicated?
Joe Sal
Proton Discussion
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proton Discussion
I tend to accept the proton as a primary entity. As it has specific, measurable, real world parameters and an effective infinite life time.
It is the only primary positive charge bearer in matter.
It has a measurable mass outside of its momentum figure.
it has, for practical purposes, what appears to be a physical extent in space.
Quarks, for me, are pretty much variations on the tickle me Elmo doll. ..... Someone's fresh idea turned into a form of ad hoc reality to which there is a rush to the shelves by the faithful followers to claim the latest incarnation of a variation on their imaginary reality.
Richard Hull
It is the only primary positive charge bearer in matter.
It has a measurable mass outside of its momentum figure.
it has, for practical purposes, what appears to be a physical extent in space.
Quarks, for me, are pretty much variations on the tickle me Elmo doll. ..... Someone's fresh idea turned into a form of ad hoc reality to which there is a rush to the shelves by the faithful followers to claim the latest incarnation of a variation on their imaginary reality.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Proton Discussion
I agree it is a primary entity. A complicated primary entity.
The neutron should hold together outside the nucleus. The electron shouldn't hold enough mass to destabilize the union.
The destabilization attribute should be in the proton.
As we go to the high Z elements, there appears to be an upper limit to the scale of the atom.
And what do I see in these upper limits, again instability. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The larger the edifice of mass the more stability achieved?
The neutrons role basically masks the instability in average atoms. Yet even in specific "average" atoms, decay and capture happen.
Joe Sal
-
Alex Aitken
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:33 am
- Real name:
Re: Proton Discussion
IF the proton is complicated, then it is made up of smaller parts and therefore cannot be primary.
Re: Proton Discussion
In it's normal condition, it is what it is.
Even if it is composite, we are still having to deal with the combined outcome of the components
in a primary way.
Joe Sal
Even if it is composite, we are still having to deal with the combined outcome of the components
in a primary way.
Joe Sal
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proton Discussion
I feel that the neutron is a universally disallowed state for a hydrogen like atom. A special state forged in a special environment (star) and bound immediately to another proton that that holds the neutron stable.
I don't pretend to understand the mechanics but once the neutron leaves a union with a proton it is unstable on its own. It is no longer an atom....It is a freak of nature. Inside the stable nucleus, forces hold it together, though it can beta decay in a nucleus that is neutron heavy or in some other state of agitation.
The electron component of the neutron is very unique for it is violation of standard quantum laws as we understand them currently.
The neutron is the first fusion and is manufactured totally endothermically. As it has more mass than its constituents. The neutron is a little storehouse of potential energy.
Richard Hull
I don't pretend to understand the mechanics but once the neutron leaves a union with a proton it is unstable on its own. It is no longer an atom....It is a freak of nature. Inside the stable nucleus, forces hold it together, though it can beta decay in a nucleus that is neutron heavy or in some other state of agitation.
The electron component of the neutron is very unique for it is violation of standard quantum laws as we understand them currently.
The neutron is the first fusion and is manufactured totally endothermically. As it has more mass than its constituents. The neutron is a little storehouse of potential energy.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Proton Discussion
If positron decay can occur, yielding a neutron outside a star, then the star environment is not as critical.
A proton disappears and a neutron appears.
Showing again, the complicated nature of the proton.
Neutrons appear to smooth over the imbalances of ordinary protons.
Joe Sal
A proton disappears and a neutron appears.
Showing again, the complicated nature of the proton.
Neutrons appear to smooth over the imbalances of ordinary protons.
Joe Sal
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proton Discussion
No naked proton can ever become a positron and a neutron. This is never seen to happen.
All of this is inter nuclear in nature and we use the terminology that an internuclear proton turns into a neutron. This is a nuclear event occuring solely within a nucleus of a complecx atom, usually of low Z only and is a decay event during the atom's transition to a lower energy state.
Do not confuse this with something the naked proton has actually been seen to do in an experiment where it is critically identified. It is a resultant action within a complex nucleus. A positron is seen to exit. To do this a proton must have associated with it...... neutrons! It needs to be part of a compound nucleus.
A proton on its own is an extremely stable entity. Certainly, as stable as an electron. The two main charge units in the universe must be proof against casual energetic occurances. As such, on their own, they are extremely stable macroscopic entities. Certainly their lifetimes appear to be nearly infinite when in the clear. They make up a neutron and beyond that there is not other observed major matter particles.
While the neutron is absolutely necessary to form any compound atom. Outside that atom it is extremely unstable as it is no longer in and amongst the cozy, co-jointly formed nuclear structure into which it was originally fused.
Richard Hull
All of this is inter nuclear in nature and we use the terminology that an internuclear proton turns into a neutron. This is a nuclear event occuring solely within a nucleus of a complecx atom, usually of low Z only and is a decay event during the atom's transition to a lower energy state.
Do not confuse this with something the naked proton has actually been seen to do in an experiment where it is critically identified. It is a resultant action within a complex nucleus. A positron is seen to exit. To do this a proton must have associated with it...... neutrons! It needs to be part of a compound nucleus.
A proton on its own is an extremely stable entity. Certainly, as stable as an electron. The two main charge units in the universe must be proof against casual energetic occurances. As such, on their own, they are extremely stable macroscopic entities. Certainly their lifetimes appear to be nearly infinite when in the clear. They make up a neutron and beyond that there is not other observed major matter particles.
While the neutron is absolutely necessary to form any compound atom. Outside that atom it is extremely unstable as it is no longer in and amongst the cozy, co-jointly formed nuclear structure into which it was originally fused.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Proton Discussion
Yeah, I shorthanded the reaction, considering the internuclear part as a given. I hadn't considered the neutron as a role play in the decay, but am willing to see it in that context.
Joe Sal
I'll be away from a computer for the weekend (visit In-laws). Best Regards to all.
Joe Sal
I'll be away from a computer for the weekend (visit In-laws). Best Regards to all.
Re: Proton Discussion
>"To do this a proton must have associated with it...... neutrons!"
This point has considerable importance, I didn't see it before.
Joe Sal
This point has considerable importance, I didn't see it before.
Joe Sal
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proton Discussion
It is very easy to ascribe actions to particles enmass when they are not seen to do things on their own in the naked state, but only in concert with other entities. The neutron is the particle of mystery. It is stable over vast geologic epochs in nuclei yet unstable in minutes outside the nucleus. A truly symbiotic relationship with the protons that holds matter together.
Richard Hull
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Proton Discussion
And this begs the question - Can Neutrons be created and by what process - Star Born? or are all already in existance since the big bang?
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Proton Discussion
What Big Bang?
I view atomic and subatomic particles just like mass and energy. They are just different forms of the same "stuff". Depending on your reference frame, you will see different things. They are not different but they have different attributes depending on how they are looked at.
Even something as fundemental as charge is not as it appears. A fixed charge exerts a force on another charge. But if one of the charges is moving in a magnetic field at the correct speed, then no test can be done to determine what the charge is becasue the net force between the 1st charge and the 2nd could be zero implying that at least one of the charges does not exist.
Frank S.
I view atomic and subatomic particles just like mass and energy. They are just different forms of the same "stuff". Depending on your reference frame, you will see different things. They are not different but they have different attributes depending on how they are looked at.
Even something as fundemental as charge is not as it appears. A fixed charge exerts a force on another charge. But if one of the charges is moving in a magnetic field at the correct speed, then no test can be done to determine what the charge is becasue the net force between the 1st charge and the 2nd could be zero implying that at least one of the charges does not exist.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Proton Discussion
OK - in the absence of a big bang, will you accept a unilateral epoch of simultaneous occurrence?
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Proton Discussion
I think it is interesting how mankind needs to think that they have figured something out. Is the universe expanding slower or more quickly? Was it created or it just appeared. If it was created then why could it not be created as we now see it? If it was not created then why did it have to be something else before it was as it now is? Is this the simpist solution? NO.
We can debate epistemology till we turn to dust again but the answers can never be known for sure. And does it really matter? You might say that high energy experiments simulate what it was like in the universe long ago. But who cares. Just run the experiment and examine the result without trying to fit it into some Big Bang theory. Good science should not be biased trying to fit it into an existing questionable model. We would be much farther ahead by looking at results with an objective eye and see what the facts tell.
Frank S.
We can debate epistemology till we turn to dust again but the answers can never be known for sure. And does it really matter? You might say that high energy experiments simulate what it was like in the universe long ago. But who cares. Just run the experiment and examine the result without trying to fit it into some Big Bang theory. Good science should not be biased trying to fit it into an existing questionable model. We would be much farther ahead by looking at results with an objective eye and see what the facts tell.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Proton Discussion
In the absence of proof we have ' theory ', but even proof is only an agreed concept.
Charge is little more than a desire to be in the same place at the same time as something else - or not.
Charge is little more than a desire to be in the same place at the same time as something else - or not.
Re: Proton Discussion
>"We would be much farther ahead by looking at results with an >objective eye and see what the facts tell."
I'm interested in what the facts tell you Frank. What is your reasoning the neutron is unstable outside the nucleus? How do you describe the proton and its attributes? Of those who have been toiling you may have tilled the deepest.
Joe Sal
I'm interested in what the facts tell you Frank. What is your reasoning the neutron is unstable outside the nucleus? How do you describe the proton and its attributes? Of those who have been toiling you may have tilled the deepest.
Joe Sal
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Proton Discussion
Hi Joe,
Ah yes the neutron and a nucleus. Why is a neutron more stable in a nucleus than out.
Here is the thing that is interesting about nature and it is seen in many places in both chemistry and in physics. The more you try to pile up energy in a small volume or for a short period of time, the more nature will find a way to redistribute that energy. Redistribute does not necessarily mean lose the energy but rather to spread it out.
In chemistry it is the delocalization of the electron. That means that in a chemical compound, there can be double and triple bonds that are not "firm" as we would like to think of them. Instead, if a double bond is in close proximity to another double bond, then the electrons of the two sets of bonds intermix and become indistinquishable. It turns out that this spreading out and mixing of the electron locations is a slightly lower energy state and is slightly more stable. There is pretty good proof of this phenonmenon becasue it can be tested easily with light absorbtion. The more spreading of electrons because delocalization, the longer the wavelenghth of light that can be absorbed by a molecule (i.e. the spreading makes the electron look bigger and can intercept longer wavelenghts of light). Making dyes of a particular color use this exact technique.
Now on to the neutron. If delocalization (spreading out) of the energy of a system will give it lower energy in chemical and atomic systems then it would be a good guess that when a neutron is all alone, it has higher energy than when it is bound in a necleus. When the neutron is bound, the evidence would suggest that the energy of the neutron is spread across the nucleus.
Current theory uses quarks so for the sake of this discussion, I will use quarks in the explaination. Both neutrons and protons are composed of 3 quarks and the quarks can have attibute U or D ( I am resisting using the arbitrary up and down nomenclature because it so totally arbitrary. So are quarks but I need to use some commonly known constructs to get the point across). This means 2 quarks in one state and one in the other is a proton and the other combination is the neutron.
The data then would suggest that in the nucleus, the neutron can delocalize itself into one of two possible states. One state would be that when neutrons get close to each other like within a nucleus (or a neutron star), then they could spread their energy between each other (neutrons and neutrons) to reduce their overall energy and be more stable together than apart. The other possibility is that the delocalization of energy actually comes because of delocalization between quarks themselves and not just with quarks of a particular arrangement. This means neutrons can spread thier energy with BOTH protons and other neutrons. It must work with both protons and neutrons (and maybe even with 2 quark systems (i.e. mesons) too) and makes no difference. The evidence for this is that in deuterium. There is one and only one neutron in the nucleus and one proton and deuterium is a stable isotope. Therefore, an energy exchange MUST be occuring withing a nucleus and the neutron's unique identity gets partially lost in the collections of protons and neutrons within the nucleous.
Like all atomic particles, their stability is governed by the quantum statistics. It just turns out that neutrons that are hanging out in space all by themselves decay on an average of a few minutes. There is nothing magical about this decay time any more than uranium being hundreds of thousands of years. The imortant factor is that inside the nucleus delocalization will give a lower energy state and thus less chance of a localized high energy spike that will cause a decay.
Frank S.
Ah yes the neutron and a nucleus. Why is a neutron more stable in a nucleus than out.
Here is the thing that is interesting about nature and it is seen in many places in both chemistry and in physics. The more you try to pile up energy in a small volume or for a short period of time, the more nature will find a way to redistribute that energy. Redistribute does not necessarily mean lose the energy but rather to spread it out.
In chemistry it is the delocalization of the electron. That means that in a chemical compound, there can be double and triple bonds that are not "firm" as we would like to think of them. Instead, if a double bond is in close proximity to another double bond, then the electrons of the two sets of bonds intermix and become indistinquishable. It turns out that this spreading out and mixing of the electron locations is a slightly lower energy state and is slightly more stable. There is pretty good proof of this phenonmenon becasue it can be tested easily with light absorbtion. The more spreading of electrons because delocalization, the longer the wavelenghth of light that can be absorbed by a molecule (i.e. the spreading makes the electron look bigger and can intercept longer wavelenghts of light). Making dyes of a particular color use this exact technique.
Now on to the neutron. If delocalization (spreading out) of the energy of a system will give it lower energy in chemical and atomic systems then it would be a good guess that when a neutron is all alone, it has higher energy than when it is bound in a necleus. When the neutron is bound, the evidence would suggest that the energy of the neutron is spread across the nucleus.
Current theory uses quarks so for the sake of this discussion, I will use quarks in the explaination. Both neutrons and protons are composed of 3 quarks and the quarks can have attibute U or D ( I am resisting using the arbitrary up and down nomenclature because it so totally arbitrary. So are quarks but I need to use some commonly known constructs to get the point across). This means 2 quarks in one state and one in the other is a proton and the other combination is the neutron.
The data then would suggest that in the nucleus, the neutron can delocalize itself into one of two possible states. One state would be that when neutrons get close to each other like within a nucleus (or a neutron star), then they could spread their energy between each other (neutrons and neutrons) to reduce their overall energy and be more stable together than apart. The other possibility is that the delocalization of energy actually comes because of delocalization between quarks themselves and not just with quarks of a particular arrangement. This means neutrons can spread thier energy with BOTH protons and other neutrons. It must work with both protons and neutrons (and maybe even with 2 quark systems (i.e. mesons) too) and makes no difference. The evidence for this is that in deuterium. There is one and only one neutron in the nucleus and one proton and deuterium is a stable isotope. Therefore, an energy exchange MUST be occuring withing a nucleus and the neutron's unique identity gets partially lost in the collections of protons and neutrons within the nucleous.
Like all atomic particles, their stability is governed by the quantum statistics. It just turns out that neutrons that are hanging out in space all by themselves decay on an average of a few minutes. There is nothing magical about this decay time any more than uranium being hundreds of thousands of years. The imortant factor is that inside the nucleus delocalization will give a lower energy state and thus less chance of a localized high energy spike that will cause a decay.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Proton Discussion
Thanks for your response Frank, it will take a few days to sift through this one. Many gems here, I just have to dig a little.
Joe Sal
Joe Sal
-
Alex Aitken
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:33 am
- Real name:
Re: Proton Discussion
I think there is another chemistry point of view that also applies here. Reactions don't happen because the reactants are unstable, they happen because of the existance of a more stable state at the end.
I do not think there is much milage in trying to explain neutron decay on the basis of how unstable or badly put together a neutron is, but rather look for how much more stable a proton and electron is.
I do not think there is much milage in trying to explain neutron decay on the basis of how unstable or badly put together a neutron is, but rather look for how much more stable a proton and electron is.
Re: Proton Discussion
Frank,
I agree in macro cases we see energy distribute effectively.
I didn't want (and still do not wish to delve to far into current QM theory, as it rarely seems to paint a clear picture for me).
With that said, I will try to explain the lines of reason I use.
At atomic scales, energy distribution doesn't match the macro scale. If any exchange or interaction is to take place certain frequency parameters must exist.
I see Maxwell as extrodinary, but this was one of the subtle details that escaped him when he observed the photo electric effect. Intensity and frequency are completely different animals.
I didn't like this idea when first encountered. So I started looking around. What else is frequency related, when dealing with atoms? The list gets long.
How can this be? So I drudgingly start to look at wave patterns to make sense of frequency.
Soon a maddening question arose. Is an atom some type of wave pattern? Each atom would contain its own peaks and troughs that are not "spread out". I started to view this in the context of each atom has a "heartbeat". Then later that each atom IS a "heartbeat". I think this effect can occur on its own. The electron enables the "meshing/harmonics" of these heartbeats.
I was comfortable in this for some time, then I noticed Richard Hull's flags about the neutron decay. This really shouldn't happen. Especially in short time frames. The electron should remain spread out. But It doesn't. The electron condenses enough that the wave patterns no longer mesh.
Now in my understanding the electron is reasonably fluid, which leaves most of the issue of rapid decay within the proton. So I look a little deeper into what QM tells us about the proton. They say it has three quarks.
This doesn't match a 2 component (peak and trough) wave pattern. so I am left with (peak and trough + peak), or (peak and trough + trough). This leads me to think that 1/3 of wave pattern is out of balance until it meshes with a counterpart.
I know it sounds like a wingnut idea, but I think when decay rates are eventually explained that atomic frequency/harmonics will play a role.
Joe Sal
I agree in macro cases we see energy distribute effectively.
I didn't want (and still do not wish to delve to far into current QM theory, as it rarely seems to paint a clear picture for me).
With that said, I will try to explain the lines of reason I use.
At atomic scales, energy distribution doesn't match the macro scale. If any exchange or interaction is to take place certain frequency parameters must exist.
I see Maxwell as extrodinary, but this was one of the subtle details that escaped him when he observed the photo electric effect. Intensity and frequency are completely different animals.
I didn't like this idea when first encountered. So I started looking around. What else is frequency related, when dealing with atoms? The list gets long.
How can this be? So I drudgingly start to look at wave patterns to make sense of frequency.
Soon a maddening question arose. Is an atom some type of wave pattern? Each atom would contain its own peaks and troughs that are not "spread out". I started to view this in the context of each atom has a "heartbeat". Then later that each atom IS a "heartbeat". I think this effect can occur on its own. The electron enables the "meshing/harmonics" of these heartbeats.
I was comfortable in this for some time, then I noticed Richard Hull's flags about the neutron decay. This really shouldn't happen. Especially in short time frames. The electron should remain spread out. But It doesn't. The electron condenses enough that the wave patterns no longer mesh.
Now in my understanding the electron is reasonably fluid, which leaves most of the issue of rapid decay within the proton. So I look a little deeper into what QM tells us about the proton. They say it has three quarks.
This doesn't match a 2 component (peak and trough) wave pattern. so I am left with (peak and trough + peak), or (peak and trough + trough). This leads me to think that 1/3 of wave pattern is out of balance until it meshes with a counterpart.
I know it sounds like a wingnut idea, but I think when decay rates are eventually explained that atomic frequency/harmonics will play a role.
Joe Sal
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15028
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Proton Discussion
Joe, you are off on your own, but you are thinking critically and that is what a brain is supposed to do.
I sure that some egghead has a quantized explanation of neutron decay that makes him and his colleages happy.
All that really matters is what we observe in the real world. All the rest is conjecture and window dressing needed to make other conjectures fall into a neatly envisioned scheme. At some point, at some level, the schemes dreamed up are just not effectively testable at present or perhaps even in future.
It is very important to study WHY the nuclear boys think the neutron is NOT the union of a proton and electron. It boils down to the arbitrarily agreed upon individual particle SPIN VALUES assigned in their studies and not due to any measured physical spin.
For all the foregoing posturing, the neutron does, indeed, break up into a proton and electron, not only when it decays freely outside the nucleus, but also when an excited nucleus beta decays. Beta decay is symptomatic of excess neutrons in a nucleus. Somehow, a freshly implanted neutron has upset the neutron, proton balance such that one of the nuclear neutrons is "exposed" in much the same way as being free, but still held in such a manner that its "free decay time" is altered, (either shortened or lengthened).
This latter thought tends to give some credence towards a nuclear shell model which is still held in high regard in some circles.
Stabily bound with an appropriate number of protons, the nuclear neutron has, effectively, an infinite half life.
Once again and for the record, I have no personal problem with there being no neutrons in a nucleus, but, instead having the nucleus composed of electrons and protons. We have never been in a nucleus to count isolated protons and neutrons. WE posit them based on seeing neutrons EXIT the nucleus! This is really important. There is no problem from an observational stand point with the concept that the particulate neutron is nothing but just an extra nuclear condensate of a nuclear proton and nuclear electron on its way to evaporating back into them, taking the excess nuclear binding energy along in the form of kinetic energy and the supposed neutrino!
Based, however, on my current belief system, if I see something coming out of something else, it is safe to assume it was in that form within it until proven otherwise.
Thus, in my "nuclear play book", the nucleus is a union of protons and neutrons and a neutron is a union between a proton and electron. Nuclei and neutrons are formed solely within stars. The proton is not, nor can it be considered, a nuclei. For me, a nuclei contains at least one proton and one neutron.
Richard Hull
I sure that some egghead has a quantized explanation of neutron decay that makes him and his colleages happy.
All that really matters is what we observe in the real world. All the rest is conjecture and window dressing needed to make other conjectures fall into a neatly envisioned scheme. At some point, at some level, the schemes dreamed up are just not effectively testable at present or perhaps even in future.
It is very important to study WHY the nuclear boys think the neutron is NOT the union of a proton and electron. It boils down to the arbitrarily agreed upon individual particle SPIN VALUES assigned in their studies and not due to any measured physical spin.
For all the foregoing posturing, the neutron does, indeed, break up into a proton and electron, not only when it decays freely outside the nucleus, but also when an excited nucleus beta decays. Beta decay is symptomatic of excess neutrons in a nucleus. Somehow, a freshly implanted neutron has upset the neutron, proton balance such that one of the nuclear neutrons is "exposed" in much the same way as being free, but still held in such a manner that its "free decay time" is altered, (either shortened or lengthened).
This latter thought tends to give some credence towards a nuclear shell model which is still held in high regard in some circles.
Stabily bound with an appropriate number of protons, the nuclear neutron has, effectively, an infinite half life.
Once again and for the record, I have no personal problem with there being no neutrons in a nucleus, but, instead having the nucleus composed of electrons and protons. We have never been in a nucleus to count isolated protons and neutrons. WE posit them based on seeing neutrons EXIT the nucleus! This is really important. There is no problem from an observational stand point with the concept that the particulate neutron is nothing but just an extra nuclear condensate of a nuclear proton and nuclear electron on its way to evaporating back into them, taking the excess nuclear binding energy along in the form of kinetic energy and the supposed neutrino!
Based, however, on my current belief system, if I see something coming out of something else, it is safe to assume it was in that form within it until proven otherwise.
Thus, in my "nuclear play book", the nucleus is a union of protons and neutrons and a neutron is a union between a proton and electron. Nuclei and neutrons are formed solely within stars. The proton is not, nor can it be considered, a nuclei. For me, a nuclei contains at least one proton and one neutron.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Re: Proton Discussion
I do like the nuclear shell models. They resemble the ring structures proposed by those trying to add manmade elements above 93.
Most of those decay in less than a blink.
Those poor souls are searching for an "island of stability" up in that region.
I would like to correct myself yet again, in that when I refered to neutron decay, I meant decay outside of the nucleus.
I know I'm off on my own, that's just the way it is. I can only say that I appreciate this theory forum, and will not be bothersome for much longer.
Joe Sal
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: Proton Discussion
Hi Joe,
You are quite welcome here. I know for a fact that Richard was in no way trying to send you off of the forum. Being off on your own just means that you are a creative thinker. You are trying to solve what has not been solved. Nobody yet has successfully come up with a theory that can explain what we observe. Maybe it is realated to frequency and harmonics as you propose, maybe it is strings. Until somebody can predict exactly when a neutron or any other atom is going to decay then I ain't believin it.
Keep thinking and posting. Even if you do not have the final answer it might stimulate you to think to the next step and solve it. If you do, remember us on this forum and buy us a steak when you get back from Stockholm!!!!
Frank S.
You are quite welcome here. I know for a fact that Richard was in no way trying to send you off of the forum. Being off on your own just means that you are a creative thinker. You are trying to solve what has not been solved. Nobody yet has successfully come up with a theory that can explain what we observe. Maybe it is realated to frequency and harmonics as you propose, maybe it is strings. Until somebody can predict exactly when a neutron or any other atom is going to decay then I ain't believin it.
Keep thinking and posting. Even if you do not have the final answer it might stimulate you to think to the next step and solve it. If you do, remember us on this forum and buy us a steak when you get back from Stockholm!!!!
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
Re: Proton Discussion
I just meant that I am going to get busy. Theory is only half the battle, the other is in the doing. Dust off the equipment and go off the map for a little while. I'll need a BTI neutron bubble detector sometime soon, this will solve the noise problems that have plagued me in the past.
Joe Sal