0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.
Still, even if we confirmed they had the same mass, we should have found an explanation for that expected mass deference
The explanation is already known. Free neutrons represent neutrons with the highest rest mass. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they have a slightly lower mass. The reason for this is mass-energy equivalence. When neutrons are bound in nuclei, they are in a lower energy state than when they are free (this is called the nuclear binding energy).
the defect I am expecting here is due to the different number of particles involved
Then why did you say mass difference instead of particle number difference?
Although sub-structure has not been ruled out,
there also does not appear to be any specific need to invoke it.
Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects.
As long as you have the needed energy and keep conservation laws preserved, you can get more particles out than were already there.
So basically, the neutron we made out using electron capture should have less mass
I gave an alternative explanation to accommodate for this defect with regards to radiation absorption which you did not comment on.
Can you elaborate more, because I strongly believe otherwise.
Understood, but wouldn't it be better if we knew why?
It does, for the reason I pointed out in a prior post.
nevertheless, the neutron in the reverse results will have difference at least in mass from the one which decayed into a proton as the anti-neutrino in question has a measurable mass around 1.6 * 10^-33 grams/0.8 electronvolts or less!
There's no evidence for that and it's pretty unlikely that a photon with such a long wavelength would interact with an atomic nucleus anyway. A photon with 1.6 electron-volts would have a wavelength of about 775 nanometers (the very near-infrared). Gamma rays are usually needed for interaction with a nucleus.
Because, like I said, they don't behave like macroscopic objects. As long as the needed energy is present, you can get more particles out than you put in. Smash a couple of protons together at very high speed and you can generate a slew of other particle-antiparticle pairs. Those extra particles weren't just hiding inside of the protons waiting to be let out upon impact (a fact that can be derived from special relativity).
Others may correct me on this, but one explanation I think I've heard is one that involves virtual particles. The idea is that virtual particles, which pop in and out of the vacuum randomly, can become real particles when enough energy is donated to them. So, one way of looking at it could be that a neutron donates its energy to a nearby virtual proton, virtual electron and virtual anti-neutrino. The neutron then becomes virtual instead, with those other particles becoming real. Or it could be more complicated than that, with the neutron donating its energy to an intermediate particle like a Z boson which in turn donates energy to those other particles I listed. The reason I'm iffy on this is because I have seen conflicting views on whether virtual particles literally exist or whether they are just mathematical tools.
I thought if we did electron capture for a free proton
in what world would that mean "just hiding there"?!
Well, if the electron was moving quickly enough, like in a particle accelerator, maybe then it would.
Seems like you are getting frustrated. That wasn't my intention.
What I'm trying to show is that particle collisions clearly demonstrate the weirdness of particles in that you can get a greater number out than you put in. In the proton-proton collision I mentioned, you can get extra protons as a result. So the total number of protons after can be greater than before (with the extra positive charges cancelled out by the creation of antiprotons as well).
Let me break it down as an example so it will be clear and to help grasp the idea in my head:imagine the electron merging into the up quark as follows:A small group of elementary particles A + particles B (electron)merging with a large group of particles A + particles B (up quark)and then to stabilize the new big group (unstable down quark) splits into another two groups (stable down quark + neutrino)one of which is really small group of particles A + particles B with a ratio other than 1:1, or more likely a group of only particles A or only particles B which will be our neutrino.
interesting.. can the electron alone change the proton into neutron in that case or do we need an anti-neutrino or so?
Although I am curious to know how would conservation of energy allow that in the current model?
I will have to ask: how would that conflict with the existence of a sub-structure exactly?
It wouldn't.
It just illustrates that an attempt to explain an increase in the number of particles after a reaction by positing that sub-particles get separated into new particles is an incomplete explanation. If sub-particles exist, then this proton-proton collision shows that new sub-particles would be created in the collision as well.
I see no reason why that couldn't work in principle.
It's just that we currently lack evidence for sub-structure in leptons and quarks.
Okay good point, but I am not here to build the model, we are just discussing why it is neglected by mainstream science for centuries.
Looking at these particles as only particles and not quanta's of energy
it would be just illogical and impossible giving the universe we are in (classical or quantum) that they could split (decay) without them being of a composite nature, which is unambiguous evidence for a sub-structure.
*The similarities I mentioned earlier about how particles behave in decays and atoms in nuclear reactions is a huge indicator.
It isn't neglected. Particle accelerators can probe to some fairly small distances looking for structure inside of electrons. It's just that we haven't found any. So if it's there, current technology can't detect it.
And there's the problem. You're trying to think of them like macroscopic objects again.
It's neither illogical nor impossible. As I pointed out before, you can get more protons out of a collision than you put in. So if the quarks inside of protons contain sub-particles, then those sub-particles themselves must be splitting into new sub-particles which will make new quarks and thus new protons.
Not really, as the proton-proton collision demonstrates. Energy can literally be used to create more particles where there were fewer before. Two protons can become three protons plus an anti-proton if the energy is there in the collision. So if there are sub-particles involved, then brand new sub-particles must have been created from energy.
why didn't you say so from the beginning!
not in a form of radiation
But I don't see at all how that would make it possible for a particle to split?
I also don't see how that would explain the similarities I mentioned which indicates a sub-structure.
Radiation is made up of particles already (photons).
Well, we know that they do. And the sub-particle explanation doesn't work because the sub-particles themselves must be able to split.
It doesn't explain the similarities, it's just a matter of fact. Energy can become new particles.
Yes, but we will know that it's elementary, when it can't decay into another particle and can only dissolve into light
And how is that Fact is affecting that am presenting those as indicator for sub-structure?
the proton has internal structure but is not known to decay. In theory, it can, but no such detection has been made.
It shows that sub-structure isn't needed to explain one particle turning into two or more particles.
What I am saying is how just like particles in decays sometimes change into different particles or remain the same particle but emitting a different particle, atoms sometimes change into different atoms and sometimes to an isotope of the same atom.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that particles must contain smaller particles in order to do that.
I believe the comparison I am making here is at least worth the investigation.