Thread: Beta Decay

When beta decay occurs a neutron decays into a proton and an electron is emitted. So is the electron also a product of the decayed neutron, like the proton, or is the electron that is released from the atom itself? If the electron isn't a product of the decayed neutron then where does the positive charge come from in the decay?

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

Originally Posted by Tenacity

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

All radiation is electrons. Protons cannot emit anything except, upon destruction and then they emit electrons because that is what they are made of.

And no one ever showed me any proof of their being such a thing as a neutron. Not even a convincing argument. It went from these new, new accelerators will show it.
There was a science blackout as they could not prove them. And then years later, they jumped right to "everyone knows they are there, they are in books, and scientists use them everyday. Surly you don't think we are part of a conspiracy against science".

They just forgot the real explanation and truth.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by EV33

When beta decay occurs a neutron decays into a proton and an electron is emitted. So is the electron also a product of the decayed neutron, like the proton, or is the electron that is released from the atom itself? If the electron isn't a product of the decayed neutron then where does the positive charge come from in the decay?

Don’t forget the antineutrino. (And click this link.)

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Originally Posted by Tenacity

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

All radiation is electrons. Protons cannot emit anything except, upon destruction and then they emit electrons because that is what they are made of.

And no one ever showed me any proof of their being such a thing as a neutron. Not even a convincing argument. It went from these new, new accelerators will show it.
There was a science blackout as they could not prove them. And then years later, they jumped right to "everyone knows they are there, they are in books, and scientists use them everyday. Surly you don't think we are part of a conspiracy against science".

They just forgot the real explanation and truth.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Theres also no proof that all protons (+) are made of electrons (-) when it is assumed in Beta Decay that a neutron decays into a proton emitting an electron (-) and an anti neutrino (which have been prooven) some fella spent 50 years of his life on them.....

You are entitled to your opinion that EVERYTHING is electrons, but wheres your proof? you cant possibly presume that everything is electrons based on a few theories such as radiation (wave particle duality theory) Just because something acts as something else, doesnt make it so..... Mel Gibson acting as william wallace doesnt make him william wallace, as a really bad example....

Alls i ask is for you to give us some solid evidence that EVERYTHING is electrons..... back up your arguments, dont just fact drop.....

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

Don’t forget the antineutrino. (And click this link.)

Its neutrino for beta positive decay! :wink:

Originally Posted by EV33

When beta decay occurs a neutron decays into a proton and an electron is emitted. So is the electron also a product of the decayed neutron, like the proton, or is the electron that is released from the atom itself? If the electron isn't a product of the decayed neutron then where does the positive charge come from in the decay?

Whenever you think of decays and you look at an atom, just ignore the fuzz of electrons and concentrate on the nucleus!

Originally Posted by PritishKamat

Originally Posted by JaneBennet

Don’t forget the antineutrino. (And click this link.)

Its neutrino for beta positive decay! :wink:

We’re talking about negative beta decay in this thread, aren’t we? :?

I’ll try to explain beta decay by the things I learnt in radiology class. You have two types of beta decay, negative and positive. The (high energy) electron – beta radiation – is a product of negative beta decay, so I guess that’s the kind of decay you are asking about. In negative beta decay there is the so called “weak decay”, which is the changing of a Down quark into an Up quark, in the extra neutron of the atom’s nucleus. As a result you no longer have a neutron (quarks: UDD), but a proton (quarks: UDU) and a W- boson instead. The atom’s positive charge is now explained. The boson I mentioned will eventually divide itself into a high energy electron and an antineutrino. That’s the origin of the electron. If I said anything wrong, please correct me. I hope my explanation was helpful.

You should also take a look at the Feynman Diagram.

Thanks, that was of much help!

But what separates an 'Up" quark from a 'Down' quark?

Thank you for the help

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Originally Posted by Tenacity

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

All radiation is electrons. Protons cannot emit anything except, upon destruction and then they emit electrons because that is what they are made of.

And no one ever showed me any proof of their being such a thing as a neutron. Not even a convincing argument. It went from these new, new accelerators will show it.
There was a science blackout as they could not prove them. And then years later, they jumped right to "everyone knows they are there, they are in books, and scientists use them everyday. Surly you don't think we are part of a conspiracy against science".

They just forgot the real explanation and truth.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Look at this

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eutrondis.html

That I sincerely don’t know, but now I got really curious about it...

Does anyone know the difference between an Up quark and a Down quark?

Originally Posted by Stuart Thomson

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Originally Posted by Tenacity

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

All radiation is electrons. Protons cannot emit anything except, upon destruction and then they emit electrons because that is what they are made of.

And no one ever showed me any proof of their being such a thing as a neutron. Not even a convincing argument. It went from these new, new accelerators will show it.
There was a science blackout as they could not prove them. And then years later, they jumped right to "everyone knows they are there, they are in books, and scientists use them everyday. Surly you don't think we are part of a conspiracy against science".

They just forgot the real explanation and truth.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Look at this

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eutrondis.html

When you purify elements they are in the Siamese formation, meaning that they are H2, He2, Li2, ..........

It was just another total outrageous misunderstanding of Chadwicks. Chadwick endangered peoples lives, with his misunderstandings.
And the governments went bonkers over him. He was considered the poorest scientist around, that was publicly known, by Universal Scientists. Universal Scientists who actually banned Chadwick from science.
And yet Chadwick was promoted through the ranks to a leading scientist. With no actual scientific merit to cause his promotion. Actually on the contrary, he was very dangerous and very poor scientist.

There are no neutrons, there was never a need for them, because everything was totally explained, and working perfectly. The only hurdle to science was what to do with law makers, that seemed to be striking down science at every turn. The law makers would promote pseudo science, but never real science.

With all that money and all the phony promises, the government put an end to real science for the masses. Which is what they openly stated they planed to do.

By the government openly stating that secrets would be kept, most assumed that there was some way to hide weapons of mass destruction and still safely bake pies in a bakery. Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Most just assumed that law makers were not suicidal power mongers and were actually looking out for themselves and their employers. Of course that was just more misguided hope.


Sincerely,


William McCormick

Originally Posted by VMStudent

That I sincerely don’t know, but now I got really curious about it...

Does anyone know the difference between an Up quark and a Down quark?

The main difference, I think, is in the electric charge that each possesses. An up quark has charge +2⁄3 and a down quark has charge −1⁄3.

A neutron is made up of two down quarks and an up quark (so the overall charge is 0) while a proton consists of two up quarks and a down quark (so the overall charge is +1). During negative beta decay, one of the down quarks of a neutron is changed to an up quark, thus turning it into a proton.

The down quark is also heavier than the up quark. Anyway, someone will probably come and give more details about quarks, but hopefully these are the elementary details.

Thank you. And is there any way of explaining what this “fractional” charge is? Empirically, if such thing is possible on such a small scale, what does it mean to have a 1/3 negative charge? Is it a higher/lower frequency of energy..or something else?

Originally Posted by Alc

Originally Posted by William McCormick

Originally Posted by Tenacity

Yes the electron is part of the decay not released by the atom and the positive charge comes from the proton.

All radiation is electrons. Protons cannot emit anything except, upon destruction and then they emit electrons because that is what they are made of.

And no one ever showed me any proof of their being such a thing as a neutron. Not even a convincing argument. It went from these new, new accelerators will show it.
There was a science blackout as they could not prove them. And then years later, they jumped right to "everyone knows they are there, they are in books, and scientists use them everyday. Surly you don't think we are part of a conspiracy against science".

They just forgot the real explanation and truth.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Theres also no proof that all protons (+) are made of electrons (-) when it is assumed in Beta Decay that a neutron decays into a proton emitting an electron (-) and an anti neutrino (which have been prooven) some fella spent 50 years of his life on them.....

You are entitled to your opinion that EVERYTHING is electrons, but wheres your proof? you cant possibly presume that everything is electrons based on a few theories such as radiation (wave particle duality theory) Just because something acts as something else, doesnt make it so..... Mel Gibson acting as william wallace doesnt make him william wallace, as a really bad example....

Alls i ask is for you to give us some solid evidence that EVERYTHING is electrons..... back up your arguments, dont just fact drop.....

There was actually much proof still in my day. However science was coming to an end in my day. I mean it was an all out war against truth. Paid for with loans secured by Americans good name, of honesty and courage.

There were many tests that showed that hydrogen was a ball of electrons. This has always been Benjamin Franklin's theory.

Sincerely,


William McCormick

Up and Down maybe the spin directions of the two types of quarks.

Quarks come in three 'colors' and each has a charge of a multiple of 1/3 of the electronic charge.

This can be explained by the preon model.