lbiarge Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 (hypothesis against the mainstream) The strong nuclear force and weak nuclear forces are considered two of the four fundamental interactions of nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction ) Strong interaction is in 2 areas : “is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom” and also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Weak nuclear force: “It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx weak or unstable: “Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron strong or stable: “However, inside a nucleus, protons can also transform into a neutron via inverse beta decay.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron - also “The transformation of a proton to a neutron inside of a nucleus is also possible through electron capture:” and “The same reasoning explains why protons, which are stable in empty space, may transform into neutrons when bound inside of a nucleus.” Non stable ““free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron We can make a translation, so “strong” for stable and “weak” for unstable. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So really only is the difference of stable or unstable in the same force. Look that in this definition all are same both: strong is “also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles”, and also weak is “Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable” the same neutrons is stable according to quarks and unstable according to decay” Nucleus stable and unstable : “When certain combinations of protons and neutrons form an atomic nucleus, there is the possibility that the nucleus may be unstable. There may be too few or too many protons for the number of neutrons present, or there may be too few or too many neutrons for the number of protons present. In any case, if the nucleus is unstable, that nucleus is said to be radioactive. There is another case in which a nucleus can be unstable, and that is that it is simply too large to be able to stay together” and “Recall that atoms of the same element that have differing numbers of neutrons in them are isotopes of that element.” - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Under_which_conditions_is_a_nucleus_unstable Xxxxxxxxxxxxx From here I can say that an stable nucleus is strong nuclear and a unstable nucleus is weak nuclear or radioactive and this is normally by difference in number between protons and neutrons. Another form is that nucleus too large is always unstable and against it the short are stable. So weak and strong force only can to be the same. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx What is stable (strong) and unstable (weak)?: I go to make example with magnet and magnetism but the example is not complete because all magnet we know have both poles. The magnet has both poles (+ and -) and by that can to join to other poles of other magnets or only to charges + and also charges -. A stable nucleus has protons and neutrons and this means that have magnets with both poles (+ and -) and charges only +. Imagine then that you have magnets bipolar and charges +, according to this the magnets can to be null charge total and join with charges +, in a stable relation. When the nucleus has many neutrons bipolar or many protons + or many in total become unstable but not excessively and by that say that the force is weak (slowly) by decay or radioactivity. Against the weak (slowly) by a few difference in charges, the so called strong is strong because a stable relation the magnetic is quick. So stable is quick or strong like the union of 2 magnets by the contrary poles and unstable lose the stability and by that has a few fail in the form (we cannot make with magnets where were a excess of one of the 2 charges in form that many + charges reject theirs without compensation of – charges). Look that we not have in our common life charges of only one sign, all are bipolar. There are many examples of stable and unstable: for example more with magnets, if you take a magnet any time with the correct polarity, later in any connections you put other perpendicular go losing stability. Another example making a wall, if you put the correct brick all go well, but if sometimes you introduce an irregular brick the wall go taking unstable, and many other examples. Remember that a + nucleus is stable because the atom is neutral with the electrons around the nucleus. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx All this you can also by study at lower level, protons and neutrons are combination of quarks and this also say “strong force” but really this are the combination final in the nucleus to make strong union or weak decay. Also, really neutron has charge in bipolar form “Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More: free neutrons are not stable, against the example of magnet, in the magnet the combination is bipolar but in charges are from one only pole and by that neutrons out of the nucleus is unstable and the 2 charges end separates. Non stable ““free neutrons decay by emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino to become a proton, a process known as beta decay” – this is a decay to separate the charges. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx weak interaction a property is "It is the only interaction capable of changing the flavor" so according to this no flavor is not weak, in same form that if a property of light is dispersion, like laser light has not dispersion is not light or in the building, like a strong building not lose pieces and by that if decay or lose pieces is not a building. An example of strong (stable) and weak (unstable) : you can consider a good made building, the structure is good, the cement is firmly, this is stable, but after years, .. the building begin to be unstable by crack, lose of elements and cement, ... the bricks not take out full, but lose part of its structure.So, this example may to be a solution to the strong (stable) and weak (unstable). In same form an unstable (weak) has flavor, ... that only exist in weak interaction. While the building is strong not lose parts or decay nothing, only when is unstable or weak.I make a new ask: How is possible the same elements in strong (stable) form use stron nuclear forces and in weak (unstable) form manifest weak forces.According to wikipedia : strong “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” but weak make decay neutrons in quarks, ...Also look that when strong forces appear not exist weak forces in same particles and viceversa. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now it’s moment to understand that the neutron is the particle that permit the universe like we know, without neutrons the protons could not join and by that only would exist the hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron). And also for the antineutron. This is well asked in the history of the page of strong interaction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction): “It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart.” – the proton with their double charge is what admit this combination. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks.© Luis Biarge Baldellou. - webpage :
swansont Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Your stable=strong, unstable = weak conjecture is wrong, anything past that is based on a false premise.
lbiarge Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 Your stable=strong, unstable = weak conjecture is wrong, anything past that is based on a false premise. Please say errors, I can say the same of your phrase.
swansont Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 The weak and strong interaction are not the same thing, as you claim. Electrons and neutrinos interact weakly, but not via the strong interaction.
ydoaPs Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 The weak and strong interaction are not the same thing, as you claim.I was under the impression that we now know that the weak force is just a manifestation of the strong force which is why it is sometimes called the "residual strong force".
swansont Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 I was under the impression that we now know that the weak force is just a manifestation of the strong force which is why it is sometimes called the "residual strong force". The nucleon-nucleon attraction is the residual strong force. The strong interaction is at the quark-gluon level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction#Residual_strong_force
Salonis Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 (hypothesis against the mainstream) Now it’s moment to understand that the neutron is the particle that permit the universe like we know, without neutrons the protons could not join and by that only would exist the hydrogen (1 proton and 1 electron). And also for the antineutron. I would point out only the fact that without the existence of neutron (antineutron) would not exist nor electron, hence nor hydrogen atom. In the universe, there would be only protonium, ie tight combination of proton and antiproton.
lbiarge Posted February 26, 2013 Author Posted February 26, 2013 The weak and strong interaction are not the same thing, as you claim. Electrons and neutrinos interact weakly, but not via the strong interaction. Ok. I say when act weak not act strong, in both act gravity, ... Look: Strong interaction is in 2 areas : “is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom” and also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” - from wikipedia Weak nuclear force: “It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction both act with neutrons, in stable nucleus act only strong, if the nucleus is unstable (many difference proton - neutron or many atomic number) any neutrons lose the strong force and decay by weak force, also a neutron only decay. In the same neutron only act or strong or weak force, but at same time can act the other forces. I was under the impression that we now know that the weak force is just a manifestation of the strong force which is why it is sometimes called the "residual strong force". Normally any advance in science is agaisnt the assumption known before.
swansont Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Ok. I say when act weak not act strong, in both act gravity, ... Not sure how gravity comes into play here. Look: Strong interaction is in 2 areas : “is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom” and also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” - from wikipedia Weak nuclear force: “It is responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and initiates the process known as hydrogen fusion in stars.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction both act with neutrons, in stable nucleus act only strong, if the nucleus is unstable (many difference proton - neutron or many atomic number) any neutrons lose the strong force and decay by weak force, also a neutron only decay. In the same neutron only act or strong or weak force, but at same time can act the other forces. The weak force acts within a neutron to change a down quark to an up quark, if that is energetically favorable. It is wrong to state that stable nuclei only experience the strong force, or that neutrons lose the strong force. If you bombard stable nuclei with antineutrinos you can see the weak interaction taking place, changing protons into neutrons. The weak interaction is also NOT a neutron-only decay. If it's energetically favorable an up quark in a proton can change to a down quark, either spontaneously or induced, as I just described.
lbiarge Posted February 26, 2013 Author Posted February 26, 2013 (edited) It's clear: if you bombard a stable nucleus remain stable? and make weak? induced is near the same that bombard "Not sure how gravity comes into play here." If in nuetrinos affect gravity, do you believe not affect to neutrons? - "Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and gravity, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino In your note you not say that after bombard the nucleus remain stable and weak, before bombard is stable and strong, after bombard is unstable and weak xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason, these are different forces: Why only 1 force is on each neutron? Why the strong forces act in stable neutrons and weak in unstable? Why strong foce “holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons” and also weak force decay neutrons? Why in few atomic number nucleus act strong forces and in very large atomic number and also in very different quantity between neutrons and protons act weak forces? Why in a decay neutron act gravity, electromagnetic and weak force only? Why in a stable nucleus act gravity, electromagnetic and strong force only? Why atoms with very large atomic number and also in atoms with very different quantity between neutrons and protons are unstable or radioactive? Why are elements with isotopes stable and isotopes unstable? And why the isotopes stable have strong forces? And why unstable have weak forces? Only weak force has flavor, then Do you understand that a strong and stable force could have decay (i.e., of changing one type of quark into another)? Edited February 26, 2013 by lbiarge
swansont Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 It's clear: if you bombard a stable nucleus remain stable? and make weak? induced is near the same that bombard "Not sure how gravity comes into play here." If in nuetrinos affect gravity, do you believe not affect to neutrons? - "Neutrinos are affected only by the weak sub-atomic force, of much shorter range than electromagnetism, and gravity, which is relatively weak on the subatomic scale" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Gravity is not important for nuclear interactions. It can be ignored. In your note you not say that after bombard the nucleus remain stable and weak, before bombard is stable and strong, after bombard is unstable and weak No, that's not what I said. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Supposing I’m wrong and you have reason, these are different forces: Why only 1 force is on each neutron? There isn't just one possible interaction. Why the strong forces act in stable neutrons and weak in unstable? The strong interaction is present in both stable and unstable nuclei. The weak interaction can be present in stable nuclei, in induced reactions. Why strong foce “holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons” and also weak force decay neutrons? They are different interactions Why in a decay neutron act gravity, electromagnetic and weak force only? Why in a stable nucleus act gravity, electromagnetic and strong force only? This is not true. Why atoms with very large atomic number and also in atoms with very different quantity between neutrons and protons are unstable or radioactive? Because there is a lower energy state available to them Why are elements with isotopes stable and isotopes unstable? Unstable isotopes have an energy state available to them if they decay. Stable ones do not. And why the isotopes stable have strong forces? And why unstable have weak forces? This is untrue. Only weak force has flavor, then Do you understand that a strong and stable force could have decay (i.e., of changing one type of quark into another)? The strong interaction doesn't do this. 2
lbiarge Posted February 27, 2013 Author Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Gravity is not important for nuclear interactions. It can be ignored. Then if have not importance 1 of the 4 forces then the other 3 also. Gravity is 1 of the 4 forces, if weak and strong are differents also need to consider the rest, I affirm another time that in a neutron act only strong or weak (only 1 of theirs) but in both act the gravity and electromagnetism. Look: I not say in the nucleus, I say in the neutron, so in a nucleus any neutrons can to be with strong and other with weak, but 1 neutron only is affected by 1 of the 2 forces. I consider the rest is repeated 1 and more times. In your note I only read : "no" "no" "no" "no" "no" always no to all without proofs, ... By other side mainstream today is according with you. Show me where a neutron is using both forces at same time. Edited February 27, 2013 by lbiarge
swansont Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 In your note I only read : "no" "no" "no" "no" "no" always no to all without proofs, ... I'm drawing from ~80 years of physics theory and experiment. I learned it in school and used to teach it. You can, if you choose, become familiar with it, but it will take more than 10 minutes of reading wikipedia articles. Show me where a neutron is using both forces at same time. In any beta decay of a bound neutron, i.e. it's in a nucleus. The neutron is attracted to other nucleons in its vicinity. That's the (residual) strong force. While that is happening, it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino. That's the weak interaction. Both happening at the same time.
lbiarge Posted February 27, 2013 Author Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) "I'm drawing from ~80 years of physics theory and experiment. I learned it in school and used to teach it. You can, if you choose, become familiar with it, but it will take more than 10 minutes of reading wikipedia articles." Sorry, but this not means that you have the TRUE. "In any beta decay of a bound neutron, i.e. it's in a nucleus. The neutron is attracted to other nucleons in its vicinity. That's the (residual) strong force. While that is happening, it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino. That's the weak interaction. Both happening at the same time." No. I look so: "In any beta decay of a bound neutron," - weak "The neutron is attracted to other nucleons in its vicinity. That's the (residual) strong force." - impact not strong, neutron - neutron is not strong force "While that is happening, it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino. That's the weak interaction" - transformation probably by weak. Strong would be for example that with the impact with other neutrons not change the neutrons, according to strong in smaller scale "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons" , but transformation is by fault of strong power. But like you say change to proton ,.... (here I not see strong in any moment) "Both happening at the same time" - no - the neutron in none moment has strong interaction. In none moment occurs the strong interaction, "The strong interaction is observable in two areas: on a larger scale (about 1 to 3 femtometers (fm)), it is the force that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction other neutrons and protons in same atom can have strong. neutron - neutron is not strong and impact also are not strong interaction, if an impact were strong the accelerators created strongs interactions. Edited February 27, 2013 by lbiarge
swansont Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 You seem to be wanting to make up new meanings for the terminology, and that's not going to work. the strong and weak interactions have descriptions in physics, and I'm trying to convey what they are. If you want to make something new up, you need to use different terms. In any event, you quote wikipedia, which which doesn't support your position — it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force, and yet you somehow conclude that this is attraction is not present in unstable nuclei. IOW, you can't quote accepted physics to support you if you are claiming it's wrong. If the neutron is not experiencing the strong force in an unstable nucleus, why does it remain in the nucleus?
lbiarge Posted February 28, 2013 Author Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Sorry. "You seem to be wanting to make up new meanings for the terminology" - No, I treat to explain what I like to say, always without change meanings. I use the wikipedia like reference, probably is not the best and you know better, but I use that, can you propose any better. I see this: strong the force that join protons and neutrons in stable nucleus and also "also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" Weak: radiactive decay, and when not hold "“quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” If you say that "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force" in this case all nucleus different from hidrogen would use the strong force. But: In radiactive elements neutrons make the radiactive fision. I consider that in a stable nucleus the neutrons and protons are in equal quantity, there work the strong nuclear force and not exist weak force. If the nucleus is unstable by different quantity of neutrons and protons or very high quantity number (radioactive elements) the nucleus is unstable (any part of the nucleus remain stable but another not, where the neutrons decay). When a neutron decay is unstable and also into the nucleus, and the cannot actue the strong force over that neutron, according to strong definition not "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons" and by that decay that neutron. Sorry my errors xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now returning to my affirmation, after explain and sorry for my inconveniences weak and strong in physic nuclear forces I see like contraries. Strong is stable and "binds protons and neutrons" and also "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" this represent not decay or changing. Weak is the contrary, unstable in form of radioactivy, decay or changing taste. If a neutron is in strong force it not decay and theirs quarks are strong without separe. If a neutron is weak, decay or their quarks separe or for example " it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino". So it's impossible at same time that a neutron is strong binds to proton and at same time their quarks not strong. In same form is impossible that a neutron decay and their quarks remain strong. So the same neutron cannot to use at same time the strong and weak forces, because in weak force the neutron is only in the nucleus (sometimes ejected in for example radiactivity) and their quarks are not strong units. Ending: - a neutron can to be with strong force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not weak force. - a neutron can to be with weak force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not strong force. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force, and yet you somehow conclude that this is attraction is not present in unstable nuclei." - in weak force the neutron can to be ejected or decay, then where is the strong force in this neutron? Sorry, I not treat to attack the definitions but also the interpretation you make is not correct. You say "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force", yes but only in strong or stable part of the nucleus. "and yet you somehow conclude that this is attraction is not present in unstable", no, if the neutron is not stable really they not use strong force, can to be ejected from the nucleus or decay (decay also is a fail in "“holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons") I not treat "to make up new meanings for the terminology", but I also see like you make it. In a weak connection in magnet for example, also a bad connection has connection but unstable and not strong, also with the example of building and the same with neutrons. If like you say strong force is always in the nucleus : How do you explain the neutrons ejected from the nucleus in radioactive elements? and the decay of neutrons? According to your note there are strong and by that cannot decay. Sorry and thans. If the neutron is not experiencing the strong force in an unstable nucleus, why does it remain in the nucleus? Not always remain, other times decay. really only can to be ejected or not, that it's not ejected (need forces) not means that it's stable An example: In uranium U-235 there are 92 protons, then 92 protons and 92 neutrons or more are stable and use strong force. But a few neutrons are weak, this are in the nucleus or are ejected, also into the nucleus are unstables and producen radioactivity. Edited February 28, 2013 by lbiarge
swansont Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Sorry. "You seem to be wanting to make up new meanings for the terminology" - No, I treat to explain what I like to say, always without change meanings. I use the wikipedia like reference, probably is not the best and you know better, but I use that, can you propose any better. I see this: strong the force that join protons and neutrons in stable nucleus and also "also “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" Weak: radiactive decay, and when not hold "“quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” The weak interaction is not responsible for holding quarks together If you say that "it tells you neutrons and protons attract each other via the strong force" in this case all nucleus different from hidrogen would use the strong force. But: In radiactive elements neutrons make the radiactive fision. And this is fairly well understood in terms of the strong force and electrostatic force. I consider that in a stable nucleus the neutrons and protons are in equal quantity, there work the strong nuclear force and not exist weak force. For Z > 20 stable nuclei there are more neutrons than protons for the table isotopes. This is also fairly well understood in terms of the strong force and electrostatic force. Now returning to my affirmation, after explain and sorry for my inconveniences weak and strong in physic nuclear forces I see like contraries. Strong is stable and "binds protons and neutrons" and also "holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.”" this represent not decay or changing. No, that's not what it means. After a beta decay, you have the same number of nucleons in a bound system. Weak is the contrary, unstable in form of radioactivy, decay or changing taste. If a neutron is in strong force it not decay and theirs quarks are strong without separe. No. You're wrong. Go read a textbook or two if you don't believe me. You say you're using standard definitions. The strong force doesn't stop acting on neutrons in unstable nuclei, according to standard physics. If a neutron is weak, decay or their quarks separe or for example " it changes to a proton, while ejecting an electron and antineutrino". So it's impossible at same time that a neutron is strong binds to proton and at same time their quarks not strong. They're still stuck together, so this is pretty obviously false. In same form is impossible that a neutron decay and their quarks remain strong. I think the issue is you're hung up on the use of strong and weak. They are simply names. So the same neutron cannot to use at same time the strong and weak forces, because in weak force the neutron is only in the nucleus (sometimes ejected in for example radiactivity) and their quarks are not strong units. Neutrons are not ejected by ground state nuclei in beta decays. In circumstances that they are ejected, it is not the weak force that is responsible. If like you say strong force is always in the nucleus : How do you explain the neutrons ejected from the nucleus in radioactive elements? and the decay of neutrons? According to your note there are strong and by that cannot decay. You are using the wrong definition of strong. An example: In uranium U-235 there are 92 protons, then 92 protons and 92 neutrons or more are stable and use strong force. But a few neutrons are weak, this are in the nucleus or are ejected, also into the nucleus are unstables and producen radioactivity. U-235 does not beta decay, it alpha decays. The weak interaction is not involved.
lbiarge Posted February 28, 2013 Author Posted February 28, 2013 "The weak interaction is not responsible for holding quarks together" I don't say this, I say that weak not make this. "And this is fairly well understood in terms of the strong force and electrostatic force" - I understood bad but "Once the nuclear lobes have been pushed to a critical distance, beyond which the short range strong force can no longer hold them together, the process of their separation proceeds from the energy of the (longer range) electromagnetic repulsion between the fragments" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission But I accept xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Well, after all my errors I go to make more easy, simplifing: In a stable and strong nucleus like for example iron, ¿there are weak forces? In a "free neutrons are unstable with a relatively short half life of about 10 minutes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron) there are strong forces between their decay? "While bound neutrons in stable nuclei are stable, free neutrons are unstable; they undergo beta decay with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s)."
swansont Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force. I can bombard a stable iron nucleus with a neutron and form an unstable isotope when the nucleus captures the neutron. That would not be possible if the strong force wasn't happening, because there would be nothing to attract the neutron to the nucleus. Strong and weak are two separate interactions, just like electrostatics and gravity are separate. Gravity doesn't stop acting for charged particles.
lbiarge Posted March 6, 2013 Author Posted March 6, 2013 A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force. According to this is false: “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx more: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Really these forces are not like that affect one or the other, in same form that a person that makes force in one direction, they are like temperature where cold really is the absence of heat. You need think more in a force of attraction that in their errors admit the decay. An example maybe a person with several dogs taken by cords, where an error in any cord makes that the dog at the end of that cord escapes. Also you can think the same with magnets and atoms.
swansont Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 According to this is false: “that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles.” from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction I said the residual strong force. You need to read the section that pertains to that.
imatfaal Posted March 6, 2013 Posted March 6, 2013 ! Moderator Note ibiarge You really need to start reading and comprehending the responses you are receiving and replying to their substance - ie not replying to a misinterpreted version of what they say. Please take a little more time to read posts from other members to ensure you do not misunderstand them before replying. Using commonly agreed terminology in a standard manner is essential for any debate - whether science or not - so please ensure you use terms in the same manner that the rest of the community do. many thanks
lbiarge Posted March 11, 2013 Author Posted March 11, 2013 ! Moderator Note ibiarge You really need to start reading and comprehending the responses you are receiving and replying to their substance - ie not replying to a misinterpreted version of what they say. Please take a little more time to read posts from other members to ensure you do not misunderstand them before replying. Using commonly agreed terminology in a standard manner is essential for any debate - whether science or not - so please ensure you use terms in the same manner that the rest of the community do. many thanks I think I don't misinterpreted that they say:" A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force." Then according to this, what strong forces or not strong force is the residual strong force? Later he say: "I said the residual strong force. You need to read the section that pertains to that." They say: " A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force. I can bombard a stable iron nucleus with a neutron and form an unstable isotope when the nucleus captures the neutron. That would not be possible if the strong force wasn't happening, because there would be nothing to attract the neutron to the nucleus. Strong and weak are two separate interactions, just like electrostatics and gravity are separate. Gravity doesn't stop acting for charged particles. Really you treat to explain against that I say using the same that I say: I say before: "- a neutron can to be with weak force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not strong force." - in weak force. You say : "A free neutron is not experience a residual strong force, because there is no other nucleon around with which it can interact. But if there are other nucleons around, it will experience the strong force." Really is near the same, (against you consider other strong force", a free neutron experience weak force, gravity and electromagnetism but not strong. xxxxxxxxxxxxx I say "- a neutron can to be with strong force and the also act gravity and can act also electomagnetism but not weak force." You say : "I can bombard a stable iron nucleus" , then you say that a stable iron can to be unstable, according to nuclear bombard, nuclear plants, ... xxxxxxxxxxxxx When a nucleus stable become unstable then is like a hot surface that become less hot (or cold), like I say the strong and weak is like hot and cold. You say another time "I can bombard a stable iron nucleus", then after bombard the stable iron become unstable iron or radioactive iron, by that the stable and without weak become in part weak. Really is near the same.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now