Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt

    Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research | Energy Consulting | Creation of Hydrogen ATOM in the Higgs Field >> Vote for Nobel Prize

    Latest comments


    The Neutron Particle

    MICHAEL BALMER·SUNDAY, APRIL 9, 2017

    Without going too far back into the history of the neutron,it’s discovery,why it was even speculated to exist and why the notion of it wasn’t lost since the prevailing research was on something known not to have one,so instead we can just turn our attention to what it is and what function it has,what is it,a small particle of matter formed from a even smaller particle of matter held together by a phase of matter,what is extremely important to this particle and it’s sub-structure is how the structure is held together,in physics we refer to this as a force or more precisely a fundamental force of nature called the Strong or Nuclear Force and that is the reference to the phase of matter or the term Gluon, which brings us to the question of what is a gluon, to answer that we restart to the neutron particle which is the combination of quarks and gluons,in essence the bonding of the gluon and quark is the neutron,now gluon and quark interaction have two base features,one is known as the color charge developed by the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics of Strong interactions or Nuclear Interactions and as we know the colors are not the visual representation of colors, though for illustration they are used but a degree of electric charge ,which in turn is a degree of electric charge and so on,this decrease in the charges begin at the neutron,though it is speculated and accepted as a neutral particle,but first the gluon fractional charges and to see this clearly one must see within the quantum realm,that what persist in the macro is as in the micro as well,gluon is not a stationary entity,meaning it has motion,direction of motion and velocity,it produces Kinetic Energy,actually this is the Kinetic energy of the atom,it is a swirling system of negative and positive charged plasma,first gas to liquid with motion and velocity (honestly i haven’t determined it’s exact velocity) though through it’s function must far exceed the speed of light to instantaneous.

    Quarks,on the other hand has limited mobility and range with a higher degree of charge than that of the gluon and with it’s limitation of mobility,range and velocity coupled with the lessen of temperature and pressure we get a slightly tighter bonded form of plasma,it is this phase shift gas to liquid to solid, the first occurrence in nature,to put it simply,as the velocity decrease,the phase transition and charge increases,however,this increase and decrease is but one phase of the event,the mass and charge is not enough at this state to form nuclei,this is just the Strong Force at work in it’s production of an atom so at this point there is no way of knowing which nuclei is which,Proton or Neutron although it is the start of the Neutron,so then what is missing at this stage preventing the creation of the particle,that would be contributions from the Electromagnetic and Weak Forces,namely a Photon and a Neutrino,it does appear as though this postulate is about particle creation and it is,because to understand it fully we have to understand it’s construct,how and why it is what it does and why is does what it does.

    The neutron is stated to be a net zero or a neutral charged particle,and there are some that are aware of my stance on that,through the math the statement is true,through reality it is a meaningless statement,why is meaningless with the math being correct,because net zero tells you nothing of the actual charges the particle posses,so i can ask what is the electrical charge of the Proton and the answer i would get is 1,602 ....x 10-19c but is this correct,let’s just say it is based on the research,so it is a +1 charged particle, it has a total charge of (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = +1. the (+2/3) =+1 the other ( +2/3 ) = +1 and the (-1/3 ) = -1 adding them together we get +1 +1-1 =+1,We don’t have a charge of the Neutron as with the Proton which is odd because the (-1/3) has no charge affiliation as do the (+2/3) but does have a baryon number of 1 just as the proton does and it’s(-1/3) = -1, so it has a total charge of (-1/3) + (-1/3) + (+ 2/3) = 0 ,the (-1/3)= -1 and the other (-1/3 ) = -1 and the (+2/3) = +1 adding them together we get -1 -1 +1 = 0,wait that can’t be right,this is simple math and the simple math says this is -1 not 0 and the only way it is 0 is by not using the same math as with the proton and why would someone do that just to prove the particle is neutral,so the neutral neutron when bombarding uranium to cause fission is because it is harder than the uranium,i don’t think that’s it,it is the energy of the neutron increasing the energy of the uranium causing it to become unstable or more unstable to fracture into parts that equal the energy of the incident atom,now that makes sense,as long as we understand the energy is the charge imbalance of the incident element by the charge of the particle interacting with it.

    Then addressing the bounded neutron,it’s part in the nucleus of atoms,we see it is to stabilize the charge emission of the protons and the quantity of protons determines the quantity of neutrons to stabilize that particular element,not to confuse the stability of the complete atom or to say what makes it a neutral atom,that is to the electrons,however even with the cancellation technique of having equal numbers of electrons and protons the field density of the positive charge nucleus would overcome the electrons ,which is why the field reduction (depending) on the 1S level of the orbitals is done by the neutrons,then there is the charge conjugation of the the nuclei,though there’s the possibility of proton change, it is unlikely,this is more apt in neutrons because of the positions within the configuration of the nucleons, or to say the shell model or energy levels,which is also the reason neutrons never decay within the nucleus,to do so would completely destabilize and cause annihilation and rapid radioactive decay that would tear the nucleus apart,not even the outer most levels would decay while the neutron is within the magnetic field of the level it resides in.

    Why is the magnetic field so important to the stability of the bounded neutron,is it the electrostatic field of the outer most neutrons in the shell,yes,that field is weakest the further from the inner levels in density,where as the electrostatic field is what would be the magnetic field of the nucleus at the distance ,and where the loss of nuclei is most likely to occur,to put another way,it is the weakest moment of the quark gluon interactions showing the distance nuclei to nuclei of repulsion and the weakest at attraction.

    Why would a free neutron passing through a magnetic field not decay as it would normally, in only a few minutes while not in a magnetic field,we know they are unstable outside of nucleus’ but why are they unstable,isobaric spin,when this nuclear spin is loss due to separation of the nuclei from the nucleus ,the breakdown of the quark gluon exchange and the electrostatic field is not strong enough against the electric attraction of the quark charges as they approach equilibrium,what this means is as the quark gluon interactions weakens and the two down quarks are mutually attracted to the up quark,however their repulsion is greater than the attractive force and the particle begins to split or decay into a proton,electron and neutrino,which is a marvel since the neutron is suppose to neutral or of no charge yet produce two charged particles from itself.

    Why would the neutron not decay while in the magnetic field,i should be more precise and say a magnetic field equal to the particle,that is the easy answer,it doesn’t know it’s free.