# energy and life on earth

This is a discussion on energy and life on earth within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; When the neutron was first proposed it was theorized to be composed of a proton and an electron in close ...

1. When the neutron was first proposed it was theorized to be composed of a proton and an electron in close orbit. However, this has been rejected because

(1) The neutron, proton, and electron all have spin 1/2. If the neutron were composed of a proton and electron it would have to have a spin of 1 or 0.

(2) The neutron's magnetic moment is two thousand times less than the magnetic moment of the electron. If the neutron contained an electron it would have a magnetic moment of the same order of magnitude as the electron.

(3) The kinetic energy of electrons released in beta decay is far less than they would be if they were actually bound in stable configurations inside the nucleus.

2. EDIT: Don't you guys think it's cool that all of the energy of the UNIVERSE is innately stored in the charges of subatomic partcles? This is like the coolest thing!!! What's the hottest burning fuel you can legally buy btw?
I believe you can make napalm by mixing gasoline and soap and putting the gas container in steaming hot bathwater.
Don't try it.

3. Originally posted by Procyon
When the neutron was first proposed it was theorized to be composed of a proton and an electron in close orbit. However, this has been rejected because

(1) The neutron, proton, and electron all have spin 1/2. If the neutron were composed of a proton and electron it would have to have a spin of 1 or 0.

(2) The neutron's magnetic moment is two thousand times less than the magnetic moment of the electron. If the neutron contained an electron it would have a magnetic moment of the same order of magnitude as the electron.

(3) The kinetic energy of electrons released in beta decay is far less than they would be if they were actually bound in stable configurations inside the nucleus.

Actually, even the article Adrian posted points to the fact that it does decay as I proposed. They referred to it as the "decay of a down quark in a neutron".

The only thing that has changed is the granularity of our viewing window. The fact remains.

4. >>> The fact remains

Which one?

5. ...that the neutron is functionally composed of the proton/electron/neutrino. It is not a theory. It has been experimentally proven.

6. ...oh, but that is kind of like saying a white beam is "functionally" composed of a red, green, and blue. it's late, but...

>>> proton/electron/neutrino

... so we are saying a neutron's primary decay route is a proton, an electron, and a neutrino to carry off the "leptoness".

Problem?

7. >> ...oh, but that is kind of like saying a white beam is "functionally" composed of a red, green, and blue. it's late, but...

Sure.

>> ... so we are saying a neutron's primary decay route is a proton, an electron, and a neutrino to carry off the "leptoness".

I would say that a neutron is both leptonic and haptonic in nature. I don't see the flaw in my logic.

- The proton/electron are equal opposite charges. That make the neutron a perfect candidate as their merged state.

- The additions of the mass of an electron with a proton pretty much yeilds the mass of a neutron.

- The disintegration thereof yeilds both proton and electron.

I think it matters little how you phrase it, though. In my mind, the two views are not contradictory...

8. Originally posted by Sebastiani
Actually, even the article Adrian posted points to the fact that it does decay as I proposed. They referred to it as the "decay of a down quark in a neutron".
I don't see why that's relevant. The evidence I described clearly demonstrates he neutron does not contain anything that remotely resembles a proton and an electron. The fact that it can decay to a proton and an electron isn't really relevant: carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 and an electron, but this certainly doesn't mean that carbon is "composed" of nitrogen.

9. >>> I don't see why that's relevant. The evidence I described clearly demonstrates he neutron does not contain anything that remotely resembles a proton and an electron.

Really?

When a neutrino interacts with a neutron, a W- can be exchanged, transforming the neutron into a proton and the neutrino into an electron.
How much more clear can that be?

Perhaps there are unforseen factors which dictate the strange spin identities of the three particles, and factors which also account for the magnetic moment problem, I don't know to be honest what they may be. The point is, add something to a proton, and you will get a neutron, and vice versa. Simple enough.

I guess it really just boils down to " what does it truly mean 'to contain' 'to be composed of' vs. 'to decay into' ''. Those dualities are really because of the ambiguities of the human mind. Half-empty or half-full sorts of arguments...we will just disagree ad infinitum.

10. >>> we will just disagree ad infinitum.

Fair enough, although I am with Procyon on this one.

11. In common usage "contains" means that an object's components retain the characteristic properties they exhibit outside the system. Whatever composes a neutron does not have the characteristic properties of protons and electrons (spin, magetic moment, etc.) so to describe the neutron as "containing" a proton and electron is misleading.

If you want to define "contains" as synonymous with "decays into" or "can be made from", no one's going to stop you, but that's very nonstandard.

Page 3 of 3 First 123