Do neutrons exist in the atomic nucleus

[Pymander]

All kinds of particles can be created by high energy impacts with atomic nuclei. Many also exit the nucleus spontaneously. All of them are protons, electrons, photons, or their anti-particles (viewing neutrinos as anti-photons), when the unstable emissions have broken down (meson, bosons and such). The neutron with half life 10.3 minutes is the most stable. The antiparticles seem to result from impacts, except in the case of beta radiation, but these may be a result of neutrino impacts, originating in the galactic core, from which anti-photons would be repelled. Presumably then, photons and anti-photons would rematerialize in void intergalactic space, replenishing universal matter and anti-matter. Again, mass-energy conservation is thus reinstated! And if gravity has a general relativistic cause analogous to the special relativistic cause of magnetism, universal expansion and material separation are likewise explained. Material gravity is also a dipole if so, while presently gravity is regarded as to only monopole. High energy photons, however, are otherwise known to produce particles and their anti-particles symmetrically and invariantly (no asymmetry) under condition which allow momentum and energy conservation. Many an argument may be found to suggest reasons why electrons can not exist within the nucleus. Is it possible that electrons with relativistic energies, and thus both relativistic high mass as well as high frequency, would allow such a condition? Protons, electrons, and their binding energy as such, may be the only components of nuclei. Electron flux, shared between protons (analogous to covalent chemical bonds) may well be responsible for binding the nucleus. This is all the more plausible because a fine balance would determine stable nuclei, or the ejection of particles of the appropriate charge (electrons, protons or helium nuclei). Also, the gamma ray or neutrino emissions would then represent the relativistic energy lost by binding electrons, and explain atomic energy. Even the energy of the hydrogen bomb, which utilises deuterium and tritium for fusion, would generate energy likewise, emitting neutrons which disintegrate with the production of energy, exponentially falling off with half life 10.3 minutes! Considering that the n-body problem is insoluble (predicting future states of globular clusters, which are likely galaxy remnants), calculating stability conditions for nuclei can only be more difficult. For instance, does the inability of Technetium to form a stable isotope have any other known explanation?

Edited April 14, 2017 by Pymander

[swansont]

All kinds of particles can be created by high energy impacts with atomic nuclei. Many also exit the nucleus spontaneously. All of them are protons, electrons, photons, or their anti-particles (viewing neutrinos as anti-photons),

 

And neutrons. In beta decays of high N/Z nuclei, the daughter can emit neutrons as they de-excite. (These neutrons play an important role in nuclear reactor dynamics)

 

Also, neutrinos are not anti-photons.

 

Many an argument may be found to suggest reasons why electrons can not exist within the nucleus. Is it possible that electrons with relativistic energies, and thus both relativistic high mass as well as high frequency, would allow such a condition?

No. High energy electrons would not be bound, so they would not remain in the nucleus.

 

Protons, electrons, and their binding energy as such, may be the only components of nuclei. Electron flux, shared between protons (analogous to covalent chemical bonds) may well be responsible for binding the nucleus.

No, it's not.

 

This is all the more plausible because a fine balance would determine stable nuclei, or the ejection of particles of the appropriate charge (electrons, protons or helium nuclei).

It's not plausible at all, given what we know. An idea that goes against mainstream physics that's consistent with a tremendous amount of experimental evidence dictates that you present a testable model that predicts such behavior.

[Pymander]

There are also a tremendous amount of anti-intuitive hypotheses, ad hoc hypotheses which conveniently explain anomalies just as the Lorentz Contraction Hypothesis did before Relativity, statistical support which would support any number of alternative hypotheses, hypotheses which contradict both Special and General Relativity (Big Bang hypothetical v > c, and density Gm/rc^2 > 1, both of which exceed the condition for time and space to become non-existent, respectively), vested economic interest through technological advancement, and national security interest such as gave the US Trinity, the last two of which (technology & defence) and now intimately integrated. This only covers physics/particle physics and astronomy/astrophysics. Two other areas of concern are Mining interests and their relation to Palaeontology/Geology (UNESCO Geological Map of the World/James Maxlow) and the exploitation of Human Resources Worldwide Psychology/Theology/Cosmology/Hermetic Philosophy (Occult). All of these areas of knowledge and research may be subverted and controlled using the modern centralisation and scope of intelligence and power. "Blind faith in authority is the worst enemy of Truth" - Albert Einstein. It is good to know that I am as certifiable as he was, on a great many issues. I just find God a much more Fatherly power than Spinosa, and seem to see many good reasons why "Coincidence is God's way of staying anonymous" - Guess Who. But you may want to meditate on the reason for so much negative publicity, and contrary theory, levelled at "The Man of The Century" (Time Magazine) and his work. His "Ideas and Opinions" may well be one more, and a very significant, source of "Inconvenient Truths".

[Strange]

Sigh.

 

Why would someone so ignorant and distrustful of science even join a science forum?

[swansont]

WTAF does that have to do with whether or not neutrons exist in the nucleus?

[Sensei]

Protons, electrons, and their binding energy as such, may be the only components of nuclei.

 

There is few isotopes which decay exclusively by neutron emission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

 

Hydrogen-4

Hydrogen-5

Hydrogen-6

Hydrogen-7

Helium-5

Helium-7

Helium-9

Helium-10

[Pymander]

Neutrons ejected from a nucleus does not imply that they exist as such within the nucleus exclusively with protons with any more certainty. You may just as easily claim that electrons, alpha particles, mesons and Higgs bosons do as well. Neutrons do not have a 10.3 minute half life in the nucleus. I think I'll claim that this proves they don't exist in the nucleus or they'd go off. I think that electrons and protons live happily in the nucleus alone, and that the binding energy within the nucleus is the electrostatic charge between protons in the form of the electrons which are shared between all the protons. In fact, I believe that electric force between charged particles is the only force in existence, that the nuclear electrons are able to exist in the nucleus because they have acquires the energy equivalent of mass that would allow it, and that this produces the necessary frequency for their necessary motion to be consistent with proton radii. On the matter of all other forces required by nature, special relativistic effects are responsible for converting electrostatic forces to magnetic forces because space contraction imbalances positive and negative fluxes in a conductor carrying a steady current. If the current is not steady, electromagnetic radiation is also produced. In an analogous fashion, gravitational forces result due to general relativistic effects from relatively accelerating charges. Such a situation does not just describe alternating current producing electromagnetic radiation. It also describes circular motion, such as these nuclear electrons. Hence electromagnetic radiation is influenced by gravity, and charged particles, of which all matter is composed, responds to the universe with inertia. Without a universe, how can centrifugal force exist? It would be impossible to determine spinning. Spinning is acceleration of charged particles with respect to all the particles in the universe. This would explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein used the equivalence to devise General Relativity. He did not explain the equivalence. But since the charges in antimatter are reversed, it is conceivable that universal expansion, which is accelerating, is because matter and antimatter repel. The antiproton, though, was not discovered until the year of Einstein's death. Have I got this all wrong, or is much science submerged since then, with spin doctors keeping up appearances?

[swansont]

Neutrons ejected from a nucleus does not imply that they exist as such within the nucleus exclusively with protons with any more certainty. You may just as easily claim that electrons, alpha particles, mesons and Higgs bosons do as well. Neutrons do not have a 10.3 minute half life in the nucleus.

 

Neutrons in a stable nucleus have no lower state to which they might decay. Neutrons in an unstable nucleus undergoing beta decay will be constrained by the available lower-energy state, as opposed to becoming a free proton (and electron and antineutrino, with that specific energy being liberated). In general, with all else being equal, more energy released means shorter half-lives.

 

Electrons don't exist in the nucleus. There's good evidence for this. Neutrons do; there's good evidence for this as well.

 

I think I'll claim that this proves they don't exist in the nucleus or they'd go off. I think that electrons and protons live happily in the nucleus alone, and that the binding energy within the nucleus is the electrostatic charge between protons in the form of the electrons which are shared between all the protons.

If you can't back this up with testable predictions based on a model, what you think doesn't matter.

 

In fact, I believe that electric force between charged particles is the only force in existence, that the nuclear electrons are able to exist in the nucleus because they have acquires the energy equivalent of mass that would allow it, and that this produces the necessary frequency for their necessary motion to be consistent with proton radii. On the matter of all other forces required by nature, special relativistic effects are responsible for converting electrostatic forces to magnetic forces because space contraction imbalances positive and negative fluxes in a conductor carrying a steady current. If the current is not steady, electromagnetic radiation is also produced. In an analogous fashion, gravitational forces result due to general relativistic effects from relatively accelerating charges. Such a situation does not just describe alternating current producing electromagnetic radiation. It also describes circular motion, such as these nuclear electrons. Hence electromagnetic radiation is influenced by gravity, and charged particles, of which all matter is composed, responds to the universe with inertia. Without a universe, how can centrifugal force exist? It would be impossible to determine spinning. Spinning is acceleration of charged particles with respect to all the particles in the universe. This would explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein used the equivalence to devise General Relativity. He did not explain the equivalence. But since the charges in antimatter are reversed, it is conceivable that universal expansion, which is accelerating, is because matter and antimatter repel. The antiproton, though, was not discovered until the year of Einstein's death. Have I got this all wrong, or is much science submerged since then, with spin doctors keeping up appearances?

 

You have this all wrong. Fortunately, it's a situation which can be corrected, if that's what you want.

[John Cuthber]

There are also a tremendous amount of anti-intuitive hypotheses, ad hoc hypotheses

Stop adding to them.

[Pymander]

Let me put it more simply. An hypothesis is the bottom line of a model of reality. A variety of opinions exist as to whether those stamped mainstream are correct, and those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. Certain hypotheses are deemed mainstream, and atheism is one, the Big Bang another, and an entourage has attempted at all costs to prop these up without the alternative of revision. They have become sacred cows, and this is unhealthy for science. To progress, science must deem any hypothesis good, leastwise because anomalies rather than predictions have pointed the way to more correct hypotheses. To do as has been done since Einstein passed on, creating exponentially radiating sub-hypotheses to remove anomalies, indicates ulterior motives not dissimilar to those of the Church in Galileo's time. Namely, attempting at all costs to maintain an aura of infallibility for political purposes. Examples are Big Bang, neutrinos and quantum physics. False hypotheses created and maintained will prevent advancement through incorrect constraints. Particle physics has a huge testing ground - Astronomy. Amazing accomplishments are forthcoming from this application of the former, but one thing is clear to me - many phenomena, such as cosmic radiation, gamma ray bursts, high gamma sources in galactic cores, barred galaxies, hydrogen emissions perpendicular to the plane of galaxies, Hoag's Object, moons with and moons without synchronous rotation in our Solar System, etc. point to more than errors, rather complete stalling. Now I have, for my own satisfaction, evolved my own hypotheses that explain all of those mentioned and more besides in other areas of science. Rightly or wrongly, its better than marking time to the strains of a band, because an authority has chosen jurisdiction over the Truth, to the laughter of the Gods.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Pymander

[Mordred]

Truth requires study and correct understanding rather than baseless ramblings based upon personal belief. Show your evidence and calculations and you may get somewhere. As it is you have yet to supply any data or hypothesis to even make a worthwhile discussion and debate.

 

Do neutrons exist in a nucleus the answer is yes and its easily detectable via elastic scattering reactions.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

Certain hypotheses are deemed mainstream, and atheism is one, the Big Bang another, and an entourage has attempted at all costs to prop these up without the alternative of revision.

 

 

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It has nothing to do with science. There are atheist scientists and religious scientists. (One of the key figures in the big bang model was a Roman Catholic priest and mathematician.)

 

The reason that the big bang model, or any scientific theory, is accepted as mainstream is because of the evidence. (Not because some mysterious elite is enforcing them - how would they even do that?)

 

You have provided no evidence for your ideas, just incoherent rants.

[John Cuthber]

Let me put it more simply. An hypothesis is the bottom line of a model of reality. A variety of opinions exist as to whether those stamped mainstream are correct, and those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. Certain hypotheses are deemed mainstream, and atheism is one, the Big Bang another, and an entourage has attempted at all costs to prop these up without the alternative of revision. They have become sacred cows, and this is unhealthy for science. To progress, science must deem any hypothesis good, leastwise because anomalies rather than predictions have pointed the way to more correct hypotheses. To do as has been done since Einstein passed on, creating exponentially radiating sub-hypotheses to remove anomalies, indicates ulterior motives not dissimilar to those of the Church in Galileo's time. Namely, attempting at all costs to maintain an aura of infallibility for political purposes. Examples are Big Bang, neutrinos and quantum physics. False hypotheses created and maintained will prevent advancement through incorrect constraints. Particle physics has a huge testing ground - Astronomy. Amazing accomplishments are forthcoming from this application of the former, but one thing is clear to me - many phenomena, such as cosmic radiation, gamma ray bursts, high gamma sources in galactic cores, barred galaxies, hydrogen emissions perpendicular to the plane of galaxies, Hoag's Object, moons with and moons without synchronous rotation in our Solar System, etc. point to more than errors, rather complete stalling. Now I have, for my own satisfaction, evolved my own hypotheses that explain all of those mentioned and more besides in other areas of science. Rightly or wrongly, its better than marking time to the strains of a band, because an authority has chosen jurisdiction over the Truth, to the laughter of the Gods.

" A variety of opinions exist as to whether those stamped mainstream are correct, and those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. Certain hypotheses are deemed mainstream, and atheism is one, "

That depends who you ask.

"those with any validity would harbour their alternatives. "

That doesn't seem to mean anything.

"and an entourage has attempted at all costs to prop these up without the alternative of revision. "

Who is the entourage?

It certainly isn't the scientists who keep testing the hypotheses.

"They have become sacred cows, "

Again: says who?

"to progress, science must deem any hypothesis good, "

OK I hypothesise that you are a talking cat-like creature from another planet.

Does that really help science progress?

 

Or should we stick to hypotheses for which there is some sort of evidence?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

The argument and evidence provided by the OP both fall short of the standard required in this forum.

 

Thread locked - you do NOT have permission to reopen a thread on the same topic