The discussion revolves around the classification of neutrons and protons as particles, exploring the nature of charged and uncharged particles, and the implications of subatomic structures. It touches on theoretical concepts and definitions within particle physics.
Participants express differing views on whether neutrons and protons should be classified as particles, with some asserting they are not elementary due to their quark composition, while others maintain that they are indeed particles despite this structure. The discussion remains unresolved.
There are limitations in the definitions of particles being discussed, particularly regarding the distinction between elementary and composite particles, as well as the implications of charge in particle classification.
Jarfi said:If neutrons are made of other charged particles, neutrons are not particles. And I can't figure out any other particles without charge.. Is Electromagnetism a property of all particles?
PatrickPowers said:Neutrinos are elementary particles that have no charge. Dark matter has no charge, so most matter has no charge.
Jarfi said:If neutrons are made of other charged particles, neutrons are not particles.
DaveC426913 said:This is not true.
While neutrons can be formed by the merging of an electron and a proton, they does not mean they are made of other particles. Subatomic particles are made of quarks. The type of quarks they have determines their charge. And they can change from one type to another.
Jarfi said:Wait what? neutrons are particles? but I have always seen them described as three quarks orbiting each others? and protons to, so I tought they were just groups of quarks? and I assumed it to be like the atom, where the atom is not a particle because it is a group of particles. Aren't all particles that aren't point particles made of other particles?
this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quark_structure_neutron.svg