Consideration and confirmation of neutron

[URAIN]

I am not expert in physics. When I was reading a physics book, author explained that why the discovery of neutron delayed and how it was confirmed.

 

Author’s writing is followed.

 

Assume a invisible ball is on the billiards table. One visible ball moving on green surface of the table and suddenly, without any reason the ball goes in another direction. Scientists do not accept the, moving of anything or changing direction of anything without any reason. Therefore they decided that visible ball dashed with invisible ball. That invisible ball is the neutron.

 

Is giving this example for discovery of neutron correct ? Is there any other examples, for perfect understanding the neutron ?

[swansont]

That would describe one possible effect. There were actually a few lines of evidence that confirmed the neutron as opposed to other models that had been proposed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron#Discovery

[URAIN]

That would describe one possible effect. There were actually a few lines of evidence that confirmed the neutron as opposed to other models that had been proposed.

 

http://en.wikipedia....utron#Discovery

 

 

Swansont I have come to know another link, where chadwick himself commented on his discovery at 'nature' http://web.mit.edu/2...es/Chadwick.pdf

Chadwick own comment from 'nature'

 

 

"It is to be expected that many of the effects of a neutron in passing through matter should resemble those of a quantum of high energy, and it is not easy to reach the final decision between the two hypotheses. Up to the present, all the

 

evidence is in favour of the neutron, while the quantum hypothesis can only be upheld if the conservation of energy

 

and momentum be relinquished at some point."

 

 

Swansont I think conservation of energy and momentum has main role to recognize the neutron. Hence neutron is like invisible ball onthe billiards table.

Edited October 8, 2011 by URAIN

[swansont]

Chadwick is saying the invisible ball could be a photon, but photons do not carry enough momentum to account for the behavior.

[URAIN]

Chadwick is saying the invisible ball could be a photon, but photons do not carry enough momentum to account for the behavior.

 

I had seen (some times), you consider something and do not consider something (ignore ). Then I will not able to know your views or science views.

 

 

 

I had said that may be conservation of energy and momentum has main role to recognize the neutron. But you had not commented on it.

 

You said that photon is invisible ball. ( I think then alpha particle will be visible ball as per your opinion. Because neutron found when beryllium bombarded with alpha particles )

 

I am reading the book of famous scientist Alexander. I. Kitaigorodsky. Before giving above example he says, discovery of neutron delayed because electrically charged particles were found by ionization path. But electrically neutral particle has not any actions with the electron therefore that will not leave any path. Hence neutron may found from base of secondary effects. (This is translation)

 

 

Then after he gave above example of invisible ball on the billiards table. Hence he says that neutron is the invisible ball (as compared to photon, electron) for the reason not giving any path during ionization. (I think you will accept it.)

Edited October 9, 2011 by URAIN

[swansont]

I had seen (some times), you consider something and do not consider something (ignore ). Then I will not able to know your views or science views.

 

 

 

I had said that may be conservation of energy and momentum has main role to recognize the neutron. But you had not commented on it.

 

On the contrary, my first sentence said that that was one possible effect.

[URAIN]

On the contrary, my first sentence said that that was one possible effect.

 

 

What you will say, to the comment, nuetron is the invisible ball ?

[swansont]

What you will say, to the comment, nuetron is the invisible ball ?

 

In the world of detection that depends on charge, yes. That's why it took so long to discover.

[URAIN]

In the world of detection that depends on charge, yes. That's why it took so long to discover.

 

*What about neutron stars?

* Does these invisible neutrons have existed there?

*How that is named as neutron star?

 

 

 

[swansont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star

[URAIN]

In this discussion we were came to the conclusion that neutron is like invisible ball.

 

In my paper http://spaceandconsensus.wordpress.com ,

 

it is proved that,

 

smallest existence of this universe is neutral existence.

 

That is empty space or it's smallest constituent. (smallest existence of this universe)

 

 

But my (papers) hypothesis is neutron may be the empty space.

 

To my hypothesis and present science, only obstacle is the mass.

 

( Because empty space also has movement. Who read my paper, they know that empty space can be displaced by movement of denser existence.)

 

Now in science it is accepted that neutron has mass.

 

As I know, neutron is not detected directly. Only on secondary effects and by conservation, momentum laws, existence of neutron was get accepted.

 

(chadwick article on 'nature' http://web.mit.edu/2...es/Chadwick.pdf)

Scientifically it is known that neutron is charge less. (Therefore its discovery is delayed.)

 

I think fundamental existence which has no charge, that also not have mass.

 

(formation of neutral existence by combining two particle is different, self existed, fundamental neutral existence is different)

 

My question is, really, does neutron has the mass? or neutron got mass by the conservation and

 

momentum laws (by mathematics) ?

Edited February 21, 2012 by URAIN

[JohnStu]

Neutrons probably do exist in their description, but not exactly.

 

They also draw atoms not right in those chemistry books. Atoms are not like balls and also electrons do not orbit on rings. Electrons often move on changing eclipses as observed. Electrons can also be completely not orbitting around a proton in case of hydrogen+ atom, which they did not mention in there.

 

 

[DrRocket]

Is there any other examples, for perfect understanding the neutron ?

 

If you ever do attain a perfect understanding of the neutron, please let others know immediately.

 

It will be the first example of a perfect understanding of ANYTHING in the history of science.

 

Until then we will just have to muddle along with models of increasing accuracy, but never perfect.

[URAIN]

If you ever do attain a perfect understanding of the neutron, please let others know immediately.

 

It will be the first example of a perfect understanding of ANYTHING in the history of science.

 

Until then we will just have to muddle along with models of increasing accuracy, but never perfect.

 

I think you are not watching the thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64596-dear-physics-experts/page__gopid__661477#entry661477.

 

 

 

Once a time I was asked to you about this, by PM but you were said this "no makes any sense".

 

Keep on watching the thread.

 

Thank you.