The neutron is definitively classified as a composite particle, consisting of three quarks (two down quarks and one up quark) and their associated binding energy. It is not a fundamental particle, as evidenced by its decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. The decay process does not imply that the neutron is a compound of a proton and an electron; rather, it highlights the complexities of particle physics and the interactions governed by the Standard Model. Understanding the neutron's composition and decay is essential for grasping fundamental concepts in particle physics.
PREREQUISITESStudents of physics, particle physicists, and anyone interested in understanding the fundamental nature of matter and the interactions that govern particle behavior.
No, decay is in no way evidence of something being a composite particle.Ksheva said:Although the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.
It is a composite particle. Google quarks in a neutron.Ksheva said:In many physics fields, the neutron is considered as a separate particle? But the neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Why is it considered an independent particle? Although the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.
Ksheva said:Is there evidence of a theory about three quarks?
That isn’t how this forum works. We explain and teach the mainstream scientific theories as understood by professional scientists. We do not waste time debunking personal speculation.Ksheva said:I believe that it is even more likely that a neutron is a composite particle and consists of an electron and a proton.
Essentially, we can see three pointlike objects making up a proton.Ksheva said:Is there evidence of a theory about three quarks?
Nature does not care about what you believe. You need to understand that our current view of particle physics has developed over a very long time by a large number of very dedicated people and confirmed by experiments. Unless you educate yourself about this development - not just bits and pieces - your personal speculation is utterly vain and useless.Ksheva said:I believe that it is even more likely that a neutron is a composite particle and consists of an electron and a proton. Because nature itself tells us about this by the very fact of neutron decay.
The fact of decay suggests that the free neutron is not stable. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is composite. There are unstable fundamental particles such as muons and there are stable composite particles such as the 4He nucleus.Ksheva said:the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.
Ksheva said:I propose to discuss this in more detail, if you do not mind.
I think these are just two equivalent theories.
You state it with such confidence as if you know exactly how everything is arranged.
We (the people) put forward theories and look for their evidence. Is there evidence of a theory about three quarks?
I believe that it is even more likely that a neutron is a composite particle and consists of an electron and a proton. Because nature itself tells us about this by the very fact of neutron decay.
Dale said:That isn’t how this forum works. We explain and teach the mainstream scientific theories as understood by professional scientists. We do not waste time debunking personal speculation.
If you would like to learn about the evidence and experiments that support the current understanding, then we can help. If you wish to argue your personal speculation then this is not the place.
Click the menu button, select “info”, select “terms and rules”Ksheva said:Where can I read how the forum works?
All educational places have rules. If a student violates those rules then he or she will lose access to the competent scientists.Ksheva said:I thought this educational place, and if a student is mistaken, then competent competent scientists will help and guide
It decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.Sanborn Chase said:In relation to a free neutron Dale has written in Post#9 it isn't stable and decays. Into what form(s) does it do so?
I think Dale made a good point by saying the neutron doesn't "contain" those other elemental particles...that it has an identity and function not adequately described by "recombining" a proton and electrons. Don't forget what else is emitted during the decay process...either beta electron pairs or neutrinos etc. The binding energy is also transmuted during decay, and must go somewhere.Ksheva said:In many physics fields, the neutron is considered as a separate particle? But the neutron decays into a proton and an electron.
Why is it considered an independent particle? Although the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.
Your statement seems to ignore the quark model for neutrons and protons.mselectromagnetic said:I think Dale made a good point by saying the neutron doesn't "contain" those other elemental particles...that it has an identity and function not adequately described by "recombining" a proton and electrons. Don't forget what else is emitted during the decay process...either beta electron pairs or neutrinos etc. The binding energy is also transmuted during decay, and must go somewhere.
Probably no one cared about that since in the body of the post he made it clear that he didn't MEAN "compound" he meant, and said, "composite".symbolipoint said:Eighteen or more posts on this, and everyone missed the word in the title subject about "compounds". No! A neutron is not a compound. Look for and read the definition of "Compound", and understand by context or intuition that "compound" is a word about chemical identity.