# Neutron Decay by Balanced Formula

• December 31st, 2008, 01:29 PM
talanum1
Neutron Decay by Balanced Formula
What if the neutron decay is a much simpler swapping of quarks, as follows:

n -> p + anti-up down and

anti-up down -> electron + electron antineutrino,

which comes from:

ddu + anti-up up -> uud + anti-up down ?

Possible since the anti-up up may be virtual (or not virtual but stable for such a short time that it is undetectable or undetectable because we would need to "measure" the dissapearance of the anti-up up from a system the neutron is in). This way only a swapping of u and d quarks is required and we have an analog to chemical formulae (balanced in the amount of fundamental objects).

The W-minus has anti-up down quark content since it decays to pi-minus and gamma ray.

One result is that an electron is really an anti-up down with an aspect (not charge) of it seperated from it and this aspect is in the electron antineutrino.

This may burst very elaborate bubble - but rather sooner than later.
• December 31st, 2008, 04:28 PM
Tharghana
Im pretty sure Neutron Decay goes like this

Which is Beta Decay, For Quarks to swap, would require a lot more energy.
• January 1st, 2009, 02:43 PM
talanum1
Why? we have the charges:

-1/3 -1/3 2/3 and 2/3 -2/3

No Coulomb force need to be overcome and the quarks in anti-uu are in a highly unstable state. The quarks don't need to be pulled apart far either: a temporary coupling of anti-uu and n may occur, with angular momentum causing a rearangement while all of them remian bound:

2/3 -1/3 -1/3 2/3 -2/3
___________^

(where the arrow indicates the force due to angular momentum).

The rearangement happening inside the force bag, with result:

2/3 -1/3 2/3 -1/3 -2/3

then anti-u d decay provides the momentum for the e and v to escape.

The anti-uu strong force (if different from nuclear strong force) would have to enter into the discussion. This logic would strengthen if the quarks cannot destinguish between quark flavour force bags but can destinguish between quark and antiquark bags i.e. if the force bag around the antiquark does not want to envelope quark force bags.
• January 3rd, 2009, 10:13 PM
Tharghana
But if Antiquarks are made, Would they not Annihilate, Creating vast amounts of Gamma rays

But in Beta Negative Decay, a Down Quark is Changing into a Up Quark, possibly by changing its charge by releasing a W boson which then decays into a Electron and a Antineutrino

The Opposite goes for Beta Positive Decay, Proton Transition into a Neutron, which results in a Positron and a Neutrino.

There is also Epsilon Decay, Anther form of Beta Positive Decay called Electron Capture.

Since a Down Quark is Negatively charged, it releases its Negative Charge as a Boson, which then decays into a Electron and a Antineutrino

Since an Extra Postive Charge has been added to the Neutron, it turns into a Proton, and through repulsion the Electron/Positron and Neutrino/Antineutrino are ejected from the inner Nucleus of the Neutron/Proton.
• January 4th, 2009, 10:08 AM
talanum1
Yes the anti-uu would decay, but not fast enough in the succesfull cases - it has a non-zero lifetime, and lifetime is an statistical property - some of them may live long enough.

Proton tansition is:

uud + anti-dd -> udd + anti-du

where anti-du dacays in the opposite way as anti-ud.

Electron capture is just the inverse of the formula:

udd + anti-uu -> uud + anti-ud,

the trick is just that the "captured electron" aclually binds with an electron antineutrino to form an anti-ud before it reacts with the proton. Where the antineutrino comes fromneutrino-antineutrino pair creation and there is a leftover neutrino on the RS of the formula. It may be that free anti-neutrinos have too much momentum to bind with electrons.You must find another logical reason for the neutrino on RS for that formula to be valid. Lepton number conservation is a weaker reason since it is based on one property of a particle while my explanation is based on actual particles.

Neutron = proton with electron in close orbit does not fit with a neutron's quark content.

"it releases its Negative Charge as a W-minus Boson" - you need to consider it as emitting charge, but a W-minus also has other properties (anti-ud quark content). An atom can emit a photon because the atom is a composite structure with variable energy states, but a quark is considered a fundamental particle. That formulae actually undermines a sense of the meaning of "fundamental".

Analogies run right trough Physics, why not at least consider and test a model that preserves this in the case of nuclear Physics.

The W-minus thing looks to me very ugly, as does changing of fractional charge - do we know if fractional charge actually exist: since isolated quarks are never observed it may be that the +-1 charge is a result of the unity of quark pairs/triples (unity being more than sum of parts). I mean that we cannot test if fractional charge behaves like unit charge.
• January 4th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Tharghana
But for Matter to change to antimatter takes huge amounts of energy.

The Boson is a moderator of the Weak Force which allows quarks to change.

But Lets say if you where to Induce a Neutron to do Beta Positive Decay, it would turn into a Antiproton

This is because weak force then converts all quarks into antiquarks for stability.

Having an uneven amount of Matter and Antimatter in a nucleus is highly unstable, though Antimatter itself is just as stable as normal matter.

Or the other possibility is that the Neutron would break into Electrons and Positrons.

• January 6th, 2009, 12:44 PM
talanum1
You didn't answer on how the W- acquires quark content. What follows is humoring you since this is the critical issue.

The first formula does not preserve charge therefore are not in my "Quark Intercange Model". The second formula also does not conserve charge after the second arrow.

u -> d + W+ goes to:

udd + dd -> ddd + du -> ddd + positron + ve

In what context were those formulae used? In nuclei? Is there a more complete description?

uu lifetime (of order 10^-17) is a lot longer than Planck time (of order 10^ -44 s).
• January 6th, 2009, 03:34 PM
Tharghana
I was displaying how Weak Force Changes Quarks.