Neutron; is made of 2 down quarks and one up quarks Proton ; 2 Up one down quarks Gluon ; holds the quarks together The Neutron radioactive decay releases one electron. It is said that the charge of the becomes positive and the atom increases in atomic number My question is since quarks are fundamental , the go in the magnetic field up or down , FROm WERE DOES ELECTRON COMES FROM Does the quark have electrons or equivalent to electron with a different name Assuming the down quark is the on who releases the electron , then is not a quark anymore , so what is that particle called ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron#Stability_and_beta_decay Note the down quark changes into a W- and an up quark. The W- then decays into an anti-neutrino and an electron.
Experimentally discovered 1983. Physics Nobel Prize 1984. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1984/presentation-speech.html
" The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge −1â„3 e and one up quark with charge +2â„3 e, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino. Quark down ------> W--- + neutrino + electron-----> up quark, then the atomic number should increase According " Quark W " is a product of energy obtained from the input of the accelerator to convert it into mass " ". Looking closer one finds that two conditions had to be fulfilled in order to produce the W and Z in particle collisions: The first is that the particles must collide at sufficiently high energy so that the conversion of energy into mass could create the heavy W and Z particles. The second is that the number of collisions must be large enough to give a chance of seeing the rare creation process taking place" But in a neutron decay N ---> P+ + e + v So the question in natural decay becomes the step from quark down ---> W, how does it get the W sense there is no high energy input.
Uncertainty principle. Over short spaces of time it is not possible to determine the energy of a quantum system very well. The shorter the time, the larger the energy deviation which could occur. A down quark might experience enough of an energy fluctuation to allow it to decay into an up quark and a W- boson. This W- boson then decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. After all is said and done the electron, up quark and neutrino carry precisely the right amount of energy and moment to make it all conserved. Such processes are fundamentally quantum mechanical. If you turn off the uncertainty principle (ie \(\hbar = 0\)) then no such transitions can occur, just as there would be no loop corrections to things like the electron's anomalous magnetic moment. Doing such a thing effectively recovers classical mechanics, things just bounce around exchanging energy and momentum as you'd expect. The electroweak bosons, W+, W- and Z, were predicted in the 60s and 70s and were observed at LEP in the 70s and 80s via 'flavour changing neutral currents' and the like. Electron-positron collisions can form W+,W- pairs, which very rapidly decay via quark jets. It's possible to work out how many strong charges (ie colours) there are in the strong force by measuring the relative abundances of certain jet events. At my old university we used to have a schools open day where kids (about aged 15) would come and we'd do a little class showing them various events, getting them to count the relevant things and then work out, using a formula we gave them, how many colours the strong force has. The hard part is doing all the quantum field theory calculations to get the relatively simple formula.
I said nothing of the sort. Are you even reading my posts? I've explained it to you before in another thread too, the energy in the system creates particles. There is no W boson, electron or neutrino inside a neutron but it's possible for the energy inside the neutron to be converted, in part, into them. No, they are observed experimental facts. Smash together two particles with enough energy and you generally get anywhere from 1 to 4 'beams' of hadronic debris coming out of the resultant mess. These spread out like jets from a hose pipe, hence the name. The theoretical explanation behind is it well developed and experimentally tested to a high accuracy. You say 'another of those unexplainable factors' but where are the unexplainable factors? QCD explains the jets, it makes very accurate predictions about them. Together the electroweak and QCD models give the Standard Model, which explains neutron decay, quark jets, W boson behaviour, flavour changing neutral currents (Z boson behaviour), all of the things you've mentioned. Didn't you learn your lesson last time we were on this particular roundabout? You don't understand something so you declare it unexplained and assert the current physics understanding doesn't work. Except, yet again, you're shown to be mistaken. You obviously didn't even bother to check what jets are or what the SM has to say about them, yet you asserted they are 'unexplainable'. Is this how you function in day to day life, if you don't grasp something you assert no one else can and it's unexplainable? It's a very poor way of going about intellectual enquiry because you just assume there's no information to be found and thus don't bother to look. How many times are you going to need to be shown this behaviour is just flat out wrong before you stop doing it?
1 Please keep your insults to yourself. 2 I don't know if we are talking about the same thing . I am basing my question on Neutron decay , and apparently you are talking about collision. 3 according to tables of isotope Neutron decay by releasing a, b- , which for me it means one electron . Sense a Neutron is made up 2 down and one up quarks . the explanation " the decay is via boson W- and the boson decay into one electron and a Neutrino. " this means that a quark down is made of one up quark and a boson W, and boson w is made of a Neutrino and an electron or in other situation a positron. ( correct me if we agree with out many English fillers ) 4 The boson W is it determined from collision ? or by other means ? 5 In your previous writing you did not use the word smashing , you used " interact" So which way is right ?.
You asked if this stuff had been experimentally found, it is from the collisions of particles within accelerators that this model was experimentally tested and supported. Which is not the case. The W bosons has a mass of 80GeV, a proton has a mass of 1GeV. There proton cannot contain a W boson in such a manner, it's rest mass is too low. The behaviour of neutron decays is also accurately modelled by the electroweak model. 'Smashing' is an energetic form of interaction.
arauca & AlphaNumeric. Accelerators add energy to protons before they smash. That added energy is shed at collision. That is where additional 80GeV must come from to radiate away as W boson. That is, 40GeV from each of the two highly accelerated protons that collided. Is that not correct?
It would seem the process of neutron decay is more complex than the reverse process that takes place in a neutron star where electrons are combined with protons to form neutrons. I guess what I'm saying is why do you get more than an electron when a neutron decays, but only need an electron and proton to make a neutron?
You really are a troll (and a stalker), then. The essential thing was that the extra 80GeV energy came from the accelerator imparting energy to the accelerated protons until collision. That the added energy was shed by 'radiating away' from the event center which resolved itself in the form of a W boson. You desperately want to sound smart, kid, but you sound dumber with every troll post like that. Stop your witless trolling and crazy stalking, dunderhead.
Tach. High ultra-high energy collisions create all sorts of intermediate particles in LHC. The higher energy input to a collision event center will produce more variety of products both intermediate and fully-decayed products. The collisions between any two particles involves the quarks-gluons within, so it does not matter much what nucleons are collided, the quark-gluon energies involved will determine what comes out. That "Reiku" is on your brain. A dangerous obsession? See to it.
Tach. Funny! First you demonstrated your ignorance of the difference between the inertial (action-reaction forces) acceleration process versus the gravitational (null geodesic and no action-reaction forces involved) acceleration process. Now you demonstrated that you didn't know about the collisions between nucleons involving nucleon's quark-gluon constituent particles and the energy imparted to these by accelerators so they could collide and create other particles from the added energy from accelerator system. You don't have a clue about any of this physics and you now try to hide your ignorance behind that "Reiku" mantra. Are you the resident loony Troll and Stalker here? Is that it? Go away, kid, you bother me.
