[aasimz (OP)]

I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.

While it would be interesting if we had measurements of the mass of a free neutron or the down quark involved after electron capture process here to compare.

Still, even if we confirmed they had the same mass, we should have found an explanation for that expected mass difference, maybe it actually absorbs some radiation in the process to accommodate for this mass defect, let's not forget the extensive energy release happens during the electron capture as all above electrons will sequently fall into the below orbits to fill the voids releasing a lot of radiations, again sub-structure helps with solutions.

Note: the absorbed radiation should be equal to or 1.6 electronvolts or so and that is to also accommodate for the resulting neutrino.

[Kryptid]

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). Lower energy equals lower mass. Electron capture can happen only when the resulting neutron has a lower energy state than an electron in the 1s orbital and a bound proton added together.

[aasimz (OP)]

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).

We are clearly not talking about that mass defect, the defect I am expecting here is due to the different number of particles involved, we are talking about the neutrino and the antineutrino in both experiments. (which is already accommodated for by radiations -in my example- and that's why we wouldn't measure that difference).

However, the mass defect you mentioned is actually measured, and although we know the nuclear binding energy is behind it, we can still explain more as of how it would be responsible for this defect using sub-structure. and that would be by considering the huge number of gluons exchanged between quarks inside the proton or between protons/neutrons, so the difference would be that those particles where inside the quarks before binding and after binding they all started emitting gluons and the exchange started and that would cause this defect you mentioned, as the mass of the fuzzy gluons cloud is no longer a part of the mass of the individual quarks/protons/neutrons.

[Kryptid]

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.

[aasimz (OP)]

Then why did you say mass difference instead of particle number difference?

Okay, sorry, maybe more about the total mass of some of particles involved other than merely the number of particles .

I mean these particles have mass; their total mass needs to add up correctly to make the same mass of the neutron/quark.
We were talking about the decay of a neutron which resulted in a proton, an electron, and an electron antineutrino.

neutron ( n⁰ )       proton ( p⁺ )   
      ︷                       ︷
     (udd)         →       (udu)        +        W−
                                                              ⤷     e⁻+   ν⁻_e
                                                            ︸
                                                               subsequent
                                                                             W⁻ decay

Then we talked about the merging of a proton, and an electron (Electron capture), resulting in a neutron, and an electron neutrino.

p + e−    →    n   +  ν_e

So basically, the neutron we made out using electron capture should have less mass to accommodate for the mass of the antineutrino which we did not add to the proton, and for the emitted neutrino during the electron capture.
And based on that I have said we should expect a mass difference here, and you said there isn't any. and then I gave an alternative explanation to accommodate for this defect with regards to radiation absorption which you did not comment on.

However, my response with regards to explaining different number of particles was when we compared atoms nuclear reactions with the neutron decay, and I demonstrated how a sub-structure model can handle change in numbers resulted in decays while preserving the same particle properties or when other times changing into other particles, the mass issue came as a separate issue deviated from our discussion.

I feel my bad English might be confusing everybody here.

Although sub-structure has not been ruled out,

It's good to know, but I don't think it's been taken seriously.

there also does not appear to be any specific need to invoke it.

Can you elaborate more, because I strongly believe otherwise.

Particles do not behave like macroscopic objects.

I am certainly aware of that, and I most certainly do not claim otherwise.

As long as you have the needed energy and keep conservation laws preserved, you can get more particles out than were already there.

Understood, but wouldn't it be better if we knew why? I mean by knowing more details about the mechanisms involved we can understand more about why we get different numbers and types and why these particles out of these interactions and other types of particles in another interaction or different circumstances!

[Kryptid]

So basically, the neutron we made out using electron capture should have less mass

It does, for the reason I pointed out in a prior post.

I gave an alternative explanation to accommodate for this defect with regards to radiation absorption which you did not comment on.

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.

Can you elaborate more, because I strongly believe otherwise.

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).

Understood, but wouldn't it be better if we knew why?

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.

[aasimz (OP)]

It does, for the reason I pointed out in a prior post.

Okay, now I see where all the confusion was,

When I said:

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!

And you said:

I'm not aware of any evidence that rest mass differs between different neutrons.

I did a thought experiment here and that's where it went wrong, I thought if we did electron capture for a free proton and compared the mass with the free neutron decay, they wouldn't be the same, but what I never thought about and didn't account for is that the particle input would also change, You were right all along my friend, it's all about the nuclear binding energy and there is no other reason to invent any other mass defect.

So basically, the real difference behind the change of particle number here (or mass) would be whether they are free or not!
 

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.

Thank you for explaining why this can't be happening in a smooth and lovely manner; however, we don't need it anyway since I only came up with it because of the mass confusion above (ruled out).

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).

I never said they are just hiding there, or sitting there, that would be absurd and a very classical term to describe it, i said just like we can split atoms to make different elements (number of electrons + number of protons)
We split particles into different particles (number of elementary particles A + number of elementary particles B) assuming they share the same sub-structure, I also mentioned that there should be a force to govern their interactions, in what world would that mean "just hiding there"?!
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.
Would that be describing a microscopic object, are atoms, electrons, and protons microscopic objects?

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.

Good to know.

[Kryptid]

I thought if we did electron capture for a free proton

That actually won't work. The mass of a free proton and free electron added together is less than that of a free neutron. Well, if the electron was moving quickly enough, like in a particle accelerator, maybe then it would.

in what world would that mean "just hiding there"?!

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).

[aasimz (OP)]

Well, if the electron was moving quickly enough, like in a particle accelerator, maybe then it would.

interesting.. can the electron alone change the proton into neutron in that case or do we need an anti-neutrino or so?

Seems like you are getting frustrated. That wasn't my intention.

Not at all, I am pretty much enjoying the discussion to the bones, really am in a good mood.

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).

Well, I understand what you are trying to show me (here and before), that it is mysterious by any means,
and we must find out where do they come from.

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?
Maybe, a new elementary particle and a new force would help explain more!

I also think you might have missed this part because I was editing while you were posting:

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.

[Kryptid]

interesting.. can the electron alone change the proton into neutron in that case or do we need an anti-neutrino or so?

The electron can do it by itself. No need to get the anti-neutrino involved.

Although I am curious to know how would conservation of energy allow that in the current model?

Mass-energy equivalence. By accelerating the protons up to high speed, they gain a large amount of kinetic energy. That energy can then be used to create the needed mass of the new particles.

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.

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.

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.

[aasimz (OP)]

It wouldn't.

Excellent!

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.

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.

However, the existence of a model that can describe a sub-structure, may or may not at all help explain things currently unexplained, in fact it may very well raise more questions than the answers it will give, yet it doesn't mean we don't have to look into it and investigate further. right?

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.

I see no reason why that couldn't work in principle.

I am extremely happy to hear that!

It's just that we currently lack evidence for sub-structure in leptons and quarks.

Now that we agree that there can be a substructure without conflicting with the current model. [deep breath]

If you are talking about experimental evidence:
* 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.
* There are more similarities with regards to how different isotopes of atoms and their stability with the proton to neutron ratio playing a key role there, results from decays are comparable to these nuclear reactions on particles stability in different results.

Don't you think at least some of them should be taken more seriously?

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

Looking at these particles as only particles and not quanta's of energy

And there's the problem. You're trying to think of them like macroscopic objects again.

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.

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.

*The similarities I mentioned earlier about how particles behave in decays and atoms in nuclear reactions is a huge indicator.

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.

[aasimz (OP)]

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.

It is a relief to know that, why didn't you say so from the beginning!

And there's the problem. You're trying to think of them like macroscopic objects again.

No, no, not at all, what I meant here is that when they are in the form of particle with properties and interacts with things as per its identity not in a form of radiation or any other form of energy. That is what I meant, there is nothing microscopic here.
And the again word would mean that my answer in the previous time was not convincing for you.

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.

You are talking about the transformation between energy and matter with regards to the famous E=MC².
Well, apparently everything can dissolve into light and vice versa, we know that the first Planck time moment for the universe everything where a single shortest light-wave can ever exist, and there was nothing else! and definitely those sub particles must obey all that.

But I don't see at all how that would make it possible for a particle to split?

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.

Again, energy-matter transformation!
I also don't see how that would explain the similarities I mentioned which indicates a sub-structure.

[Kryptid]

why didn't you say so from the beginning!

I didn't think to.

not in a form of radiation

Radiation is made up of particles already (photons).

But I don't see at all how that would make it possible for a particle to split?

Well, we know that they do. And the sub-particle explanation doesn't work because the sub-particles themselves must be able to split.

I also don't see how that would explain the similarities I mentioned which indicates a sub-structure.

It doesn't explain the similarities, it's just a matter of fact. Energy can become new particles.

[aasimz (OP)]

Radiation is made up of particles already (photons).

Absolutely, no one said otherwise.

P.S.:
I might have found a better way to explain what I meant.
I wanted you not to look at the particle as a collection of individual Quantas of energy (photons), because the radiation process is a different process than the decay's one. but instead, as collections of particles which they themselves ultimately are collections of individual energy Quantas, in that context it would be impossible for them to split (as in decays not radiation) if that weren't the case (the case being if they weren't constructed of smaller collections of Quantas of energy).
I hope I was able to explain better.

Well, we know that they do. And the sub-particle explanation doesn't work because the sub-particles themselves must be able to split.

Yes, but we will know that it's elementary, when it can't decay into another particle and can only dissolve into light, so basically the electron under the microscope in your example might be an elementary particle, we don't really know if it will decay in 66000 yottayears or not and if it did, what would be the outcome of that decay, right? So, we can focus on the ones which we can examine, they shouldn't focus on a particle that might turn out to be elementary, we should start with the ones we have seen decayed in observed experiments.

It doesn't explain the similarities, it's just a matter of fact. Energy can become new particles.

And how is that Fact is affecting that am presenting those as indicator for sub-structure?

[Kryptid]

Yes, but we will know that it's elementary, when it can't decay into another particle and can only dissolve into light

That isn't necessarily so. Muons decay, but there is currently no indication of it having any more internal structure than an electron has. In contrast, the proton has internal structure but is not known to decay. In theory, it can, but no such detection has been made.

And how is that Fact is affecting that am presenting those as indicator for sub-structure?

It shows that sub-structure isn't needed to explain one particle turning into two or more particles.

[aasimz (OP)]

the proton has internal structure but is not known to decay. In theory, it can, but no such detection has been made.

Ya, but the down quark it contains known to do so.
However, my point was that they should have started with the ones we know for a fact that they can decay into particles other than light, some theories even assigned a mass to the photon and gave it a lifetime being 3 years in the photon reference and a billion billion years in our reference. most unlikely but it's there.

Physics World | What is the lifetime of a photon?

It shows that sub-structure isn't needed to explain one particle turning into two or more particles.

I thought we were done talking about particle numbers,

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.
And just like some times the result of decays can produce another stable version of the same particle atoms does have a ratio relationship between it's compositing particles which will affect the atom stability.

These are the indicators am talking about, nothing about particle numbers here.

[Kryptid]

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.

[aasimz (OP)]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that particles must contain smaller particles in order to do that.

I didn't say they must have smaller particles because of that, I said it's a particularly good indicator to look for it, especially in this specific area.

It does not only indicate that the sub-structure exists, but it hints to the dual nature of the sub-structure, as there may be a sub particle responsible for the particle properties (their numbers) and another just to balance and stabilize.

And come on, am not like just inventing things out of the blue.
The atoms change when the proton numbers change AND when the ratio of protons to neutrons change.
All particles constructed from quarks (up-to five quarks) change by both the number of quarks AND the ratio between types of quarks.
It is how the universe works!!! We should only by instinct expect it to continue to work the same.

It is nothing far-fetched or bizarrely different, it's within the nature of the universe and a very plausible thing, and I believe the comparison I am making here is at least worth the investigation.

[Kryptid]

I believe the comparison I am making here is at least worth the investigation.

I'm sure it will continue to be investigated. If structure is detected inside of quarks and leptons some day, it'll definitely be in the news.