Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / February 2006

happy balance.

balance/unbalance.

balance again.
Take a fat guy and a skinny guy who are holding a rope
across the middle on a merry go round and spin and
see who leaves the merry go round first. (unbalance)
Now try with 2 skinny guys of the same basic mass.
(balance)

I tried.
I hope I get an A+ !

Lowest energy levels of the configurations are the most stable?  IOW, a
free neutron decays to a proton because it has enough excess energy to
allow the decay products.  A neutron-proton pair is more stable than a
proton-proton pair or neutron-neutron pair for the same reasons.
Roughly.

FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

ahahaha... Hanson, haven't you learned yet? You are not allowed to ask
why in physics. So says a recently departed a.s kisser by the name of
Michael Varney. ahahaha... People like you are the reason he left. You
drove him crazy with your why questions. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

Your isotopes overflow.

n -886 s-> 'nu'+H

0n+p+e = 0+H = P -···>
1n+p+e = n+P = D -···>
2n+p+e = n+D = T = epnn -12.5 yr> 'nu'+eeppn = 'nu'+He-3
3n+p+e = n+T = R = epnnn -*whoosh*>

0n+pp+ee = 0+HH -*whoosh*> 2P
1n+pp+ee = n+PP = He-3 -···>
2n+pp+ee = n+He-3 = He-4 -···>
3n+pp+ee = n+He-4 = He-5 -*whoosh*> n+He-4
4n+pp+ee = n+He-5 = He-6 -807 ms> 'nu'+eeepppnnn = 'nu'+Li-6
5n+pp+ee = n+He-6 = He-7 -*whoosh*> n+He-6
6n+pp+ee = n+He-7 = He-8 -119 ms> 'nu'+eeepppnnnn = 'nu'+Li-7

and
1'nu'+Li-6 -···>
0'nu'+Li-7 -···>
1'nu'+Li-7 -?> 'nu'+n+Li-6

Did you expect the retards to show up after you asked these?

It looks like the nucleic blob wants tetrahedra, in line with hexagonal
close packing or face-centric cubic in atomic or orangeic lattices.
Unalike quarks topull, and down is heavier than up:

(quarks not to 2D and 3D spec)
p = uud -> u[ud] -···>
n = udd -> [ud]d -886 s> [ud]u + 'nu' + e
pn = uududd -> [u[ud][ud]d] -···>
pnn = uududdudd -> [u[ud][ud][du]d]d -···>
pp = uuduud -> uu[du][ud] -*whoosh*> p + p
ppn = uuduududd -> u[u[du][ud][ud]d] -···>
ppnn = uuduududdudd -> [u[du][ud][ud][du]d]d -···>

I wish we could use the Roman letters bdpq to more mechanic
advantage...  Movie critics could.

The quarks are complementary of course.  Nuclei like pn in 1D and pnpn
in 3D.  nn and nnnn make 1D and 3D halos.  I had a theory on this:
<http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-1326.html>.

As English is the chosen tongueship from below, if they only knew how
to treat it.

-Aut

I have a physical model of atoms which are part of my theory of
everything which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/theory.html

In particular is the cubic atomic model which can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/atmpics2.html

This physical model may explain the behavior of neutrons. I believe
that neutrons are not stable because space is effectively made up of a
crystal lattice of neutrons locked together like a box of sugar cubes.
If you try to shove another cube into the box, it just doesn't fit and
large pressures are placed upon any extra cube which eventually grind
it up and cause it to decompose into it's component proton/electron.
Another possiblity is that the neutron is simply absorbed into the
crystal matrix if it finds room. The generation of the anti-neutrino
may be the result of the decomposed neutron taking up less space than
the free neutron. A free neutron may take up 3 units of space, while a
proton/electron pair take up only 2 units. This leaves 1 unit empty
which is effectively an empty cube in a box of sugar cubes.

I have been working with this model to show that neutrons need to act
as the glue to keep free protons and electrons together. The neutrons
act very much like a proton/electron pair and attract a free
proton/electron to the neutron's dipole. This explains the stability of
H since it effectively forms a square arrangement which is stronger
than just a free neutron and can resist the pressures of fitting into
the crystal neutron matrix. D is also stable because this corresponds
to a balanced situation where neutrons can be fitted against the same
proton/electron pair  (N-P-N). T is not stable because the 3rd neutron
cannot be in a linear arrangement with the proton/electron pair and
must attach somewhere in the middle. This is unbalanced and is not
stable.
N-P-N
   |
  N

The 1:1 ratio is required to form stable square and cube structures. My
newer models show that the maximum number of neutrons which can be
attached to any given atom is restricted by the number of spaces in the
atom's matrix that can be filled in by neutrons. In the pictures, you
can see the atoms form stair step like shapes. Neutrons can only fit
into these stairs steps. Once they are filled, that is the maximum the
atom can carry. Stability depends on how symettric the arrangement of
extra neutrons are. I hope to update my web site showing how this works
very closely for elements up to neon.
fhuneutron

It's a good question and basically amounts to the same question as, why
does a neutron decay by itself and not in an atomic nucleus? And a
teasing answer would be, well, it *does* decay in some nuclei -- in
beta decay. And so this points to the follow-up question, well, (1)
what does the nucleus have to do with it, and (2) what's different
about one nucleus as opposed to the other? The answers to *both* those
questions are crucial.

The answer to (1) is that the neutron does not behave independently of
the other nucleons, which is what would give rise to the linear
behavior you expected. Ask yourself what the final state would be if
the neutron did decay in tritium -- you'd end up with a helium isotope
He-3 that is relatively rare. Why is it rare? Because the *combination*
of nucleons is energetically disfavored. And now ask yourself if the
energy liberated by neutron decay is enough to gain access to that
higher-energy combination.

The comparison between the energies of the initial and final nuclear
states, and whether the neutron decay provides access to that
difference, is the answer to (2).

PD

See my thread about neutrino caused beta decay in sci.physics.particle.
Physically both
n -> p+e+anti nu
and
n+nu ->p+e
are possible. Experiments can tell the difference. Try to find articles
on measurements of beta decay. I have only found
       Experimental Investigations of Changes in ß-Decay Rate of 60Co
and 137Cs
       by Baurov et al
       http://www.worldscinet.com/mpla/16/1632/S0217732301005187.html
which I think support the latter reaction since there are variations in
the decay rate which could be explained by variations in neutrino flow.
There is also a correlation to the speed of earth which would imply a
doppler shift on the neutrino energies or neutrino waves depending on
how you see it. The latter reaction also has a more natural and
probable distribution of the neutrino energies. (The authors explain
the effect with the vector potential.)

We have been taught for 70 years or so about the nature of beta decay
being a process with a fixed decay rate. I just assume that there are
measurements confirming this but I have yet not found any. Can you find
anything?

David

Your table is messed up.

Neutrons have a half life about 15 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Ordinary Hydrogen is a single proton, no neutron.

The Deuteron, usually the symbol D, is one neutron and one proton.
A Tritium nucleus, usual symbol T, is two neutrons and one proton.
D's are stable. T's have a half life to Beta decay of about 12.3 years.

I don't know what three neutrons and a proton is called, but I'd expect
it to be pretty unstable. It's not labled "T."

See this link at the title "Notable Isotopes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Why should there be? Lots of things are not linear.

If a deuteron were to decay through beta decay, it would
become a p + p. So, check out the energies of the start
and finish states, then explain why it does not happen.

It's to do with what energy levels are available and how
they are filled. For Beta decay to work, the end result
has to be lower energy so the decay products can have
some energy to leave with. If you pile rocks at the bottom
of a hole, they won't spontaneously roll away. If you pile
them at the top of a hill, they might.

Well, actually, the number of neutrons rises as you
go up through the periodic table. By the time you get
to lead, you've got 82 protons and, depending on the
isotope, 123, 124, or 125 neutrons. Plus, the higher
you go in the periodic table, the less likely you are to
be able to find any ratio that is stable, though the
half lives can be pretty long.
Socks

Beta decay:
n(+ -) --> p(+) + e(-) + ~(0) where ~ is a neutrino
The charge neutral of the neutron is because it consists of both a
proton
and electron, so the charges neutralize each other.

The neutrino *of the neutron* is the binding energy.
We have spin parity: 1/2 before the reaction and 3/2 afterward (as the
neutrino has a half spin).

We also have charge parity as the neutrino has no charge.

Note, the mass of the binding energy is the difference in mass between
the neutron and the combined mass of the electron and proton.
This mass is 1.3891 x 10^-27 gr -- and this times c^2 is 1.24866 x
10^-6 erg
or .78 MeV -- the energy known to accompany this reaction.

Note, the mass remaining after the release of the proton is enough
mass to form *two* electrons. The reason that does
not happen is because it would violate charge parity.

So after the electron is formed, the remaining mass, 1.38909 x 10^-27
gr
has nowhere to go charge parity-wise and so goes flying off into space.

Question: If the neutrino is the left over after the proton and
electron are
released, it must have a negative spin also. Why, then, is the neutrino
charge
neutral and not negative?

Answer: We can assume the neutrino is not a bound particle but composed

of scattered sub-particles, traveling in the same direction but
disassociated
enough so as not to register a charge -- though the spin is there.

To enhance this view, we note there is no binding energy within the
neutrino.
As an addendum to this scenario, there have been experiments that
show -- approaching a neutron's exterior there is first detected a
negative
charge, and then as the probe goes further, the negative charge changes

to positive.

Question: If that is so, then we have a proton surrounded by an
electron.
Why, then, do we not have an hydrogen atom?

Answer: because of the binding force that is the neutrino when
released.
This binding force keeps the electron in close proximity to the proton.

Note. We see here why a *free* neutrino decays when in the free state.
When associated with a proton there is an interaction that supplies
stability
When that is missing, the binding force is insufficient to hold the
neutron
together so it breaks up (decays).

Also, we see why the heavier elements are unstable. They have an excess

of neutrons and there are not enough protons to maintain the stable
neutron/proton interaction, so radioactive decay sets in.
............................
As an aside, can anyone tell me why the charge on the electron and the
proton are equal (though opposite) despite their huge disparity in
mass?
**********************************************************************************