Uncovering the Mystery of Neutron Decay and the Origins of the Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter chosenone
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutron
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on neutron decay and its implications for the origins of the universe. It asserts that neutrons, being more complex than protons and electrons, were created after these particles, challenging the conventional understanding of particle formation. The neutron's decay process, which involves the emission of an electron and an anti-neutrino, has a half-life of 684 seconds. The conversation highlights the sequence of events post-Big Bang, where pure energy transitioned into quarks and leptons, eventually forming light element nuclei before neutrons decayed into protons and electrons.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of beta decay and particle physics
  • Familiarity with neutron half-life and decay processes
  • Knowledge of the Big Bang theory and nucleosynthesis
  • Basic concepts of quarks and leptons
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mechanics of neutron decay and its implications in particle physics
  • Study the Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the formation of light elements
  • Explore the properties of quarks and leptons in the context of the Standard Model
  • Investigate the role of energy and photons in the early universe
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of particle physics seeking to deepen their understanding of neutron decay and the early universe's formation processes.

chosenone
Messages
182
Reaction score
1
If in a beta decay when a neutron decays into a proton,electron,and a anti nutrino,that the answer to where all the particles came from is not answer by this alone?the universe started with just neutrons,then half of them decayed into protons and electrons,and started the universes matter,because i just read it on the internet an hour ago,and this is what it said!can anyone answer why this was overlooked?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a neutron is more complex than either the proton or electron, it is reasonable to assume the protons and electrons came first.
 
nature created the neutron

Originally posted by emu
If a neutron is more complex than either the proton or electron, it is reasonable to assume the protons and electrons came first.

Nature created the neutron and planted a singlet positronium at its center and set it free. Because the neutron is decay-wise unstable with half-life of 684 seconds when it expels through its birdcage spherical shell an electron still with its charge and spin and 0.782 MeV - .511 MeV released when the positron quantum-leaps from positronium orbit to dead center of the nucleon shell - plus .256 MeV orbital kinetic energy (1//2 mv^2)that catapults the electron out. Because the centered positron no longer needs its spin (its spin partner has been ejected)and in the only phenomenonal spin stripping, in all of nature, the positron's neutrino spin energy of 15.8 KeV, completes the total .782 MeV yielded, by the total process, to the ejected electron.

Every physicist familiar with spontaineous exothermic process knows that the neutron came first - there is no half-life for the reverse process of shoveing an electron and a positron-spin back into the proton shell.

If anyone doubts this story you tell them that an old arm-waving quack flew away in a very weird manner - you just have to know how to wave.
Cheers
 
Just after the big bamg, the universe consisted of pure energy (lots of photons). These photons led to the production of quarks and leptons (and their antiparticles) Because the physics is slightly different, there developed a net excess of particles (as compared to antiparticles). As the universe expanded (and cooled), quarks combined to form protons and neutrons, leading to deuterons, He3, He4, Li6, and Li7 nuclei (all this happening is a matter of seconds). By the time the neutrons decayed into protons ,electrons, and anti-neutrinos, the light element nuclei had been formed.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K