PDA

View Full Version : Are neutrons 'real'?



gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 03:47 PM
I was just reading up on the neutron and have come to realize that much depends on the interpretation of the data.
Having no charge, but exhibiting gravitational attraction made me wonder: What if the neutron has no mass, but is a gravitational induction (gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass) sustained by the machinations of protons and electrons?
Brutishly simple as the concept might be, would any of you be so kind as to offer an obvious objection that would disabuse me of this notion?

18743

Strange
2013-Nov-26, 03:52 PM
How do you explain free neutrons? (http://www.ansto.gov.au/ResearchHub/Bragg/Facilities/Instruments/NeutronBeam/index.htm)

And the different atomic weights of isotopes?

Solfe
2013-Nov-26, 03:52 PM
@gfellow: Momentum, I would think.

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 04:08 PM
Free neutrons don't seem very sustainable. Don't they decay over a period of about 15 minutes?

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 04:09 PM
@gfellow: Momentum, I would think.

Could you expand on that, Solfe?

Strange
2013-Nov-26, 04:19 PM
Free neutrons don't seem very sustainable. Don't they decay over a period of about 15 minutes?

Yes, but they exist outside of the nucleus; i.e. away from protons and electrons; which you claim they are some sort of "artefact" of. And they cause physical damage when the hit something, which seems unlikely for something that doesn't exist.

And 15 minutes is a pretty long lifetime for an unstable particle. Enough for a low energy neutron to travel several thousand kilometres (and high energy ones even further).

And the different atomic weights of isotopes?

And what does "gravitational induction" mean? How do electrons and protons create the illusion of extra mass? And why doesn't this depend on how far the electrons are from the nucleus; in which case, why is there a consistent mass for the neutron? Shouldn't it depend on the relationship of the electrons and protons which are fooling us?

stutefish
2013-Nov-26, 04:20 PM
What if the neutron has no mass, but is a gravitational induction (gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass) sustained by the machinations of protons and electrons?

[...]

Brutishly simple as the concept might be, would any of you be so kind as to offer an obvious objection that would disabuse me of this notion?

Probably the most obvious objection is that no such machinations have ever been observed, nor have they been predicted by any useful model. Unless you're prepared to elaborate on the details of these machinations, how they might arise from current models and observations, and how they might create a neutron effect without also being observed in other ways, the notion probably disabuses itself and can be safely discarded.

Solfe
2013-Nov-26, 04:23 PM
Simply, momentum is p=mv. No mass, no momentum.

How does "induced gravity" impart momentum?

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 04:34 PM
Yes, but they exist outside of the nucleus; i.e. away from protons and electrons; which you claim they are some sort of "artefact" of. And they cause physical damage when the hit something, which seems unlikely for something that doesn't exist.
Good point.
(Although please note -I am not claiming anything. Just wanted to know the objections.)


15 minutes is a pretty long lifetime for an unstable particle. Enough for a low energy neutron to travel several thousand kilometres (and high energy ones even further).
And the different atomic weights of isotopes?

I'll have to think about that, thanks.


And what does "gravitational induction" mean?

I would think "Gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass" would suffice?


How do electrons and protons create the illusion of extra mass? And why doesn't this depend on how far the electrons are from the nucleus; in which case, why is there a consistent mass for the neutron? Shouldn't it depend on the relationship of the electrons and protons which are fooling us?

Excellent questions and gives me plenty of food for thought - thanks!

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 04:41 PM
Simply, momentum is p=mv. No mass, no momentum.

How does "induced gravity" impart momentum?
Don't know. To my knowledge, no one has ever discovered induced gravity. Purely a thought model - and your response is a good question, thanks.

Strange
2013-Nov-26, 05:31 PM
I would think "Gravity without a corresponding quantity of mass" would suffice?

Not really. What is causing the space-time curvature if not mass?

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 06:03 PM
Not really. What is causing the space-time curvature if not mass?

If not mass indeed. I'll be looking forward to reading about further speculations of dark matter.

Strange
2013-Nov-26, 06:07 PM
I'll be looking forward to reading about further speculations of dark matter.

That seems a bit of a non sequitur...

PetersCreek
2013-Nov-26, 06:53 PM
gfellow,

The Against The Mainstream forum (where this thread originally appeared) is only for advocacy and defense of ATM claims and not for general discussion or speculation. I have moved your thread to the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum where one may get mainstream answers to questions. Although you clearly stated that you're not making a claim, I'll include a reminder that the answers received here may not be argued on an ATM basis.

gfellow
2013-Nov-26, 07:01 PM
gfellow,

The Against The Mainstream forum (where this thread originally appeared) is only for advocacy and defense of ATM claims and not for general discussion or speculation. I have moved your thread to the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum where one may get mainstream answers to questions. Although you clearly stated that you're not making a claim, I'll include a reminder that the answers received here may not be argued on an ATM basis.

Thanks. Wasn't quite sure where to place the question. Much appreciated.

ben m
2013-Nov-27, 06:29 AM
Keep in mind, we have lots and lots of detailed data on free neutrons. They don't have a net electric charge, but they have visible internal electric charges and a magnetic moment (i.e. a magnetic field) corresponding roughly to the internal motion of those charges. It has angular momentum. It has excited states (like the neutral Delta(1232) baryon) which also have this list of properties, but at a higher mass. In every way you can think of, and many you can't, it behaves just like a proton, but with a different---and, coincidentally, charge-neutral---combination of constituent quarks.

In my experience, "The neutron has no electric charge" is no more mysterious a fact than "the hydrogen atom has no electric charge". (If you want a particle whose zero-charge makes it weird and different, try the neutrino!)

trinitree88
2013-Nov-29, 01:43 PM
Keep in mind, we have lots and lots of detailed data on free neutrons. They don't have a net electric charge, but they have visible internal electric charges and a magnetic moment (i.e. a magnetic field) corresponding roughly to the internal motion of those charges. It has angular momentum. It has excited states (like the neutral Delta(1232) baryon) which also have this list of properties, but at a higher mass. In every way you can think of, and many you can't, it behaves just like a proton, but with a different---and, coincidentally, charge-neutral---combination of constituent quarks.

In my experience, "The neutron has no electric charge" is no more mysterious a fact than "the hydrogen atom has no electric charge". (If you want a particle whose zero-charge makes it weird and different, try the neutrino!)

Or the Z -zero.......Pete

trinitree88
2013-Nov-29, 02:07 PM
I'd think that the great preponderance of muons would Compton scatter off the Coulomb field, and that large numbers would form muonium with ambient electrons leading to us decays...some to invisible two neutrino decays...one electron type, one muon type. Small branching ratio for capture amongst lots of noise. Somebody wiser should know? pete

cosmocrazy
2013-Dec-01, 01:53 PM
gfellow,

The Against The Mainstream forum (where this thread originally appeared) is only for advocacy and defense of ATM claims and not for general discussion or speculation. I have moved your thread to the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum where one may get mainstream answers to questions. Although you clearly stated that you're not making a claim, I'll include a reminder that the answers received here may not be argued on an ATM basis.

Is there a section where one could speculate? without people jumping down one's throat?

Many of us have ideas that we would like to speculate on which are not necessarily theories that are suitable to put forward on the ATM section.

Swift
2013-Dec-01, 11:14 PM
Is there a section where one could speculate? without people jumping down one's throat?

Many of us have ideas that we would like to speculate on which are not necessarily theories that are suitable to put forward on the ATM section.
Short answer - No.

The reality is that if we allowed such non-mainstream speculation it would become a back door for people to advocate non-mainstream ideas without the requirements to defend their ideas. It is an idea that has repeatedly been discussed and rejected for many years.

If you wish to discuss it further however (we are always open to discussion), please start a thread in Feedback; no more discussion in this thread about how to run the Forum.