Thread: Whats the use of aneutron

The following is intended only to generate speculations.
One can see that the proton and electron perform a defined function in the atom but what exactly does a neutron do? Adds mass to the nucleus? Creates isotopes?Lets speculate, reflect:
[1] There are usually an equal number of neutrons to protons.
[2] There are no all proton nucleuses the nearest is 3He2.
[3] Although neutrons are not attracted to themselves (except by massive gravitational forces in a neutron star) yet neutrons, depending on nucleus, exibit strong attraction to protons via the Barndoor/Resonance effect.
All this suggests that the function of a neutron in a nucleus may be to act as a binding agent eg -P-N-P-N- occurs where assuming the binding forces are directional, the proton proton repulsive force (held at a distance) is overcome by the attraction of proton to neutron contact. One can postulate that in the same way that directional bonds in atoms yield molecular shape, P-N-P-N- lattices with varying bond angles can lead to complex 3D shapes.
Sometimes in the heavier nucleuses these structures become unstable. A neutron, which is basically a collapsed hydrogen atom will become a proton again via Beta radiation bringing stability. Similarly a 4He2 building bock will be ejected as Alpha radiation. More rarely neutron to neutron contact will occur, with no bonding force a 'crack' will appear leading to a nucleus split.
A very simple way of viewing this bonding forceis to immagine that baryons are formed from positron/electron couplets (stability supplied by spin). Thus an approaching proton can induce a 'negative image' by couplet rearrangement, the closeness of the contact and the dimensions involved leading to a very strong force.
JWC

I'm not quite sure why you are speculating, when the function of a neutron is quite well established?

I think what the post is getting at is: what is the fundamental purpose of the neutron? I don’t think the post is intending to change people’s perceptions of what it actually does observationally.

But like Ophiolite says, it’s quite well established what it does. Nothing simply exists to add mass to something, that’s really not fundamental. That is one of the by-products of its purpose.

Neutrons are there, in my opinion, to stabilize the nucleus. Like you say, a collection of protons do not exist without neutrons to "bind" them, but perhaps maybe it is another querk of nature which has allowed nuclei to become stable by nuetrons i.e. when nuclei first formed without nucleons they simply disintegrate or just don't form at all, hence why we don't see any nucleons with just protons in them. In other words they fundamentally work against nature.

I'm somewhat uncumfortable with the term purpose. It implies a designer.

Personally I dont believe in GOD but I would like for him to exist else everything is pretty pointless. Except for when we are alive. And then we are just feeding our minds for it later to be fed to the worms!!

If it didnt have a purpose nothing would exist tho surely, whatever you personally believes in a higher order/being. Nothing wrong with wishful thinking!

:-D

To get back to the original question (no religion please), neutrons are needed in the grand scheme of things in order to have elements other than hydrogen. The universe would be rather dull hydrogen was the only element around.

Originally Posted by mathman

To get back to the original question (no religion please), neutrons are needed in the grand scheme of things in order to have elements other than hydrogen. The universe would be rather dull hydrogen was the only element around.

Sorry mathman, but the moment you introduce the word 'needed' you are straying into teleology and from there it is a short step to religion.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by mathman

To get back to the original question (no religion please), neutrons are needed in the grand scheme of things in order to have elements other than hydrogen. The universe would be rather dull hydrogen was the only element around.

Sorry mathman, but the moment you introduce the word 'needed' you are straying into teleology and from there it is a short step to religion.

You are right. There is no need for there to be elements other than Hydrogen. However, in that case we wouldn't be around to talk about it.

Since this is wild speculation anyway, let us say that the neutron can bind to another neutron. If this occurs the lifetime of the result would be blindingly short and unstable in radioactive terms, almost to the point of non-existence, but to continue speculation....

Let's presume the neutron can bind also to the proton in the same way. That proton binding makes it more stable in radioactive terms - the presence of the proton appears to stabilize the neutron's natural radioactivity. Presume that although the proton can bind to another proton, that binding is not strong enough to overcome the proton-proton electrostatic repulsion. But a neutron does not bring an electrostatic field to the nucleus, so it increases the binding without increasing the repulsion.

So - the neutron brings binding and radioactive instability to the nucleus. The proton brings binding, radioactive stability and electrostatic repulsion. Too many neutrons and the nucleus becomes radioactively unstable. Too many protons and the nucleus becomes electrostatically unstable so that excess protons are simply ejected from the nucleus.

Was that what you had in mind?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I'm somewhat uncumfortable with the term purpose. It implies a designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...ts_in_foxholes

Originally Posted by mjr150

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I'm somewhat uncumfortable with the term purpose. It implies a designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...ts_in_foxholes

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}...
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . ../. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._\;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, ..”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..` ~-,
. .. `~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

Originally Posted by mjr150

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I'm somewhat uncumfortable with the term purpose. It implies a designer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...ts_in_foxholes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_a...ounterexamples

neutron mass = 1 proton mass + 1 electron mass + 1.536 electron mass

deuteron mass = 2 proton mass + 1 electron mass - 2.822 electron mass

alpha particle mass = 4 proton mass + 2 electron mass - 52.31 electron mass

If I remember correctly from Nuclear Physics, there is am empirical curve that nuclear mass and charge ( and so number of protons/neutrons) fit for stability. This accounts for naturally occurring elements and isotopes as well as some others in the upper range which are man-made or expected but not made yet. Of course this class was 30 yrs ago so things and explanations may have changed ??