I Is a neutron a separate particle or compound?

[Ksheva]

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.

 

[Dale]

Although the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.

No, decay is in no way evidence of something being a composite particle.

That said, a neutron is not a fundamental particle, it is a composite particle. It is not composed of a proton and an electron, but rather three quarks and their associated binding energy.

 

[phinds]

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.

It is a composite particle. Google quarks in a neutron.

"separate particle" is not a basic description of a particle. Particles are either elementary particles (nothing inside, aka "fundamental particles") or composite.

EDIT: I see Dale beat me to it

 

[Ksheva]

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.

 

[weirdoguy]

Is there evidence of a theory about three quarks?

Yes, first quark was discovered 50 years ago...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

 

[Dale]

I believe that it is even more likely that a neutron is a composite particle and consists of an electron and a proton.

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.

 

[Ibix]

Is there evidence of a theory about three quarks?

Essentially, we can see three pointlike objects making up a proton.

 

[Orodruin]

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.

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.

 

[Dale]

the fact of decay suggests that the neutron is a composite particle.

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.

Composition has to do with size. If a particle is composed of other smaller particles then when bombarded by radiation with wavelengths much larger than the distance separating the smaller particles the composite particle will appear to be a point particle in scattering experiments, while at wavelengths near the separation distance the scattering will deviate from that of a point particle. So compositeness is directly related to scattering wavelength, where the wavelength at which departures from point particle scattering behavior indicate the distance between the pieces.

Decay is unrelated to wavelength, instead it is related to mass. A free neutron does not decay because it is bombarded by a certain wavelength of radiation, but because the sum of the mass of a proton and an electron is less than the mass of a neutron (while conserving all of the conserved properties). Neutrons in stable nuclei do not decay, not because their composition has changed, but because of the nuclear mass deficit making the nucleus a stable configuration due to the lower mass.

Note, fundamental particles can still decay if there is a lower-mass particle combination which respects all of the conserved quantities.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

There are tons of problem with your "theory", the least of which is that you'll be violating the PF Rules that you had agreed to by espousing your own ideas here without any solid physics.

First, while free neutrons are unstable, neutrons in light atoms (such as He) are VERY stable. So already, your idea has to account for this (elementary particle physics can!).

Secondly, any undergraduate physics student doing quantum mechanics will have seen the problem with confining an electron within the size of a neutron. Try it yourself! There's a result there that simply contradicts everything that we know and have observed. So, if you think a neutron is simply a proton and an electron confined within it, then not only are you contradicting the Standard Model of elementary particle, but you are also implicitly saying that quantum mechanics is wrong! Do you really want to get into that battle?

This is one very clear example where physics is all interconnected. You think you are just fiddling around with what a neutron is. Unfortunately, the PHYSICS that describes the process involves many other consequences, and unraveling one means that you have to also address many other consequences of that, not just the one you are dealing with. And if you don't know or are not aware of all the "interconnectedness", then it makes your "theory" suspect, because it leaves way too many contradictions.

Zz.

 

[phinds]

@Ksheva since you are new to the forum, you may see the responses in this thread as rather brutal but be assured, none of it is personal. We do not attack people personally here, but this is a science forum and IDEAS are commented on in very blunt and direct language.

 

[Ksheva]

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.

1. Where can I read how the forum works?
2. I do not know English thoroughly. My phrases may not always carry the meaning that you read. :) Sometimes I meant something else.
3. This is such a form of invitation to the discussion. If I am in the wrong section or in the wrong forum please let me know. I will create this question in another group.
4. I thought this educational place, and if a student is mistaken, then competent competent scientists will help and guide. Thank you. This is what happens.

 

[Dale]

Where can I read how the forum works?

Click the menu button, select “info”, select “terms and rules”

I thought this educational place, and if a student is mistaken, then competent competent scientists will help and guide

All educational places have rules. If a student violates those rules then he or she will lose access to the competent scientists.

 

[Sanborn Chase]

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?

 

[Dale]

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?

It decays into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay

 

[mathman]

Both neutrons and protons are composite particles consisting of quarks and gluons. Free protons are not radioactive, while free neutrons are.

 

[mselectromagnetic]

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.

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.

 

[mathman]

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.

Your statement seems to ignore the quark model for neutrons and protons.

 

[Junk411]

Just a clarification of #15 in case someone doesn't understand.
A neutron's quark composition is udd.
As it decays into a proton, one of the down quarks "turns into" an up quark. uud.
Due to the fact that the neutron (neutral charge) turned into a proton (positive charge). An electron must also be produced in order to conserve the overall neutral charge during the decay, since -1+1=0. The anti electron neutrino is released to balance the electron-lepton number in the decay.

 

[symbolipoint]

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.

 

[phinds]

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.

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".

 

[jtbell]

The OP's username hints that his/her native language might not be English, in which case we should forgive any confusion between "compound" and "composite."