FAQ- the neutron what is it?

[Richard Hull]

I labored over making this a FAQ. However, based on simple deduction based on beta decay of the unbound neutron, I have always looked at the neutron as being a special form of an altered protium atom. With a closely held electron orbiting a proton which is intrinsically unstable except within a balanced or stable nucleus. An atom that is unstable can and does often see a neutron decay as it is not needed to stabilize the nucleus which for one reason or another is far too neutron rich.

Neutron rich unstable atoms can often stabilize themselves via beta decay where the neutron releases its electron leaving the proton behind. Gamma rays may accompany beta decay as the orbital energy of the electron is shared between the gamma ray the the released electron energy.

There is, I have always felt, a specific energy shared in stable and even unstable nuclei between the protons and neutrons that is the strong force. In short all atoms above protium demand the strong force and this is because of the neutrons in the nuclei!

Neutrons are the glue in all atoms. Neutrons are closely electron orbited protium atoms in the nucleus.

Some great recent work with math to back this claim has been done by Unzicker. Read and struggle to comprehend his rather easy to follow video on you tube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgU_ZXUEXls

This one rare FAQ where discussion is welcomed by deep thinkers. We are told there are no electrons in the nucleus. I say they are there as part of a special protium atom where they possess extreme orbital energy as the neutron. This energy is shared in some manner with other protons in the atom to create what is termed the strong force

Richard Hull

[Frank Sanns]

The problem with that theory comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Time energy or position momentum.

Confining an electron within the dimensions of an atom has a consequence. The more the location is defined then the energy has to go up. Confining an electron to 10^-15m gives and energy that far exceeds the energy contained in a neutron. Solving instead for velocity, this gives something in excess of the velocity of light.

An electron cannot exist inside a neutron using current definitions of mass and energy. Minor technicalities of course.

Yet leptons DO in some form merge to be part of a neutron and in opposite color charge exist as part of a proton.

There must be an error in the scientific understanding of mass and energy themselves.

[Alexey Khrushchev]

I really like the book “The Discovery of the Neutron” by D. Hughes, 1964. The book is written in an inexpressible style of popular science literature of those years. It also says that for some time after the discovery of the neutron it was considered a form of proton in which the electron is at a very close distance to the “nucleus”. However, it was soon discovered that the decay of the neutron does not obey the law of conservation of momentum. It turned out that as a result of this process, it is emitted another particle - electron antineutrino (in addition to the proton and electron). Then there was an assumption that the neutron is a proton around which the meson revolves in a “very low orbit”, as the electron around the nucleus. This model was consistent with the experimental data, since the meson decays apart from the neutrino and electron. This was a very attractive theory, but it also turned out to be wrong, new experiments on the magnetic properties of the neutron showed that it is uniformly neutral throughout its volume and there is no meson orbit at a distance of 1E-13cm from the center.

I also really liked the explanation of why slow neutrons interact better with nuclei compared to fast neutrons. From the equation lambda = h/mv the author concludes that the lower the speed of the neutron the longer its wavelength. The wavelength of a slow neutron is commensurate with the size of an atom or even a molecule, so it can interact with the nucleus. The wavelength of the fast neutron is much smaller than the nucleus and the probability of their interaction is much lower. Of course, many ideas about the neutron have changed since 1964, but as an amateur I like this partly mechanistic explanation very much.

[Daniel Harrer]

The explanation that a larger wavelength means a higher chance to interact is misleading. For example photons of large wavelengths tend to not interact with atoms, even less their nucleus; but very energetic ones do, either with the electron hull or at even higher energies (i.e. shorter wavelengths) with the nucleus (including pair formation and spallation).

One might attribute those solely to the higher energy, and this is not entirely wrong. But we also have those effects with larger objects where energy is not the reason: a fruit fly won't get fried in a microwave, and a tiny antenna is useless to receive long radio waves.

[Richard Hull]

Good discussion. I always find that pair production from a gamma ray over 1.2mev only occurs when is interacts with matter or strong internal matter fields. Free flying, loose 1.2 mev+ gamma rays, do not pair produce. Interesting.

Richard Hull

[Alexey Khrushchev]

You are right, but comparing a neutron to a photon is not quite correct. Both exhibit carpuscular-wave dualism, but the neutron has mass in contrast to the photon. Quantum effects are very difficult for logical perception. As a chemist it was difficult for me to imagine why a neutron with higher energy is worse captured by the nucleus than a neutron with lower energy (thermal neutron). The concept of photons makes you think the opposite. In this way, the idea of the neutron as a wave, which is given in the mentioned book, allows us to reconcile the quantum nature of the atom structure with our everyday experience. The low energy neutron according to the equation has a longer wavelength, while its affinity to the nucleus remains the same as that of the fast neutron. Here it is convenient to imagine that the longer the wavelength, the larger the physical size of the neutron. Hence it is more difficult for a small ball to get into the nucleus than a large one. It is better to hit a lone bowling pin with a bowling ball than with a golf ball))))) It is clear that this is a gross simplification, but the atom is not just a ball-electron revolving around a ball-nucleus, and electron orbitals are a gross simplification of reality. It is just so convenient for us to think, to perceive quantum world by usual categories.

[Rich Gorski]

If a neutron were truly an extremely excited state of a hydrogen atom then there should be a characteristic photon emission when a neutron transitions to a lower energy state. What would the wavelength (lambda) of such a photon be? Using the difference in mass between a neutron and a hydrogen atom which I think would give you the difference in binding energy between the neutron and hydrogen atom….

From E = hc/lambda where energy is the difference in mass between the neutron and the hydrogen atom.

Lambda =hc/E = hc/(Mn-Mh)c^2 = 6.626E-34/((1.6749E-27 – 1.6735E-27)*2.99E8)

Lambda = 1.58E-12 meters or 1.58 picometers.

This is well into the gamma ray wavelength.

Since no such wavelength exists in the hydrogen spectra I assume the neutron is NOT a extremely excited state of a hydrogen atom. Actually hydrogen doesn’t even emit in the X-ray wavelength. Only wavelengths in the visible and longer exist.

Rich G.

[Richard Hull]

A neutron is not a hydrogen atom, thus no long wavelength in decay. Neutrons are either trapped in the nucleus or free flying entities due to nuclear decay on the order of 10 minutes into a proton an electron and a never observed but assumed antineutrino ( always another mime of a gamma particle). Neutrinos are invented vaporous particles that, like the gamma ray, carry off missing energy to balance out the mass-energy equivalence principle.

All free neutrons are radioactive matter and are treated as such in the table of the isotopes. They decay as if they are a special form of a hydrogen atom.
Without neutrons no atom beyond protium could exit. Studies of ultra cold neutrons have found they appear as a bi-polar, lobed entity at the quantum level yet electrically neutral particle outside of the nucleus.

Richard Hull