Neutron

[J4ANification]

What is a quark again?

[AnLa061095]

So if a Nutron decays into a Proton an electron and an antinutrino. Then does a down quark have mass = 1 up quark, 1 electron and 1 antinutrino?

N = P + e + n

u + 2d = 2u + d + e + n

2d - d = 2u - u + e + n

d = u + e + n

[MetalSpiral]

Neutron: Mammoth of the quantum world. B-)

[Pooua]

"They are actually traveling close to the speed of light." What does that even mean? How would someone measure something like that, and what difference does it make? Particles have a probability of being anywhere! We can't tell exactly where they are and how fast they are going at the same time, anyway. The speed of light has nothing to do with it.

[cassiopeiaproject]

@Pooua Theoretical calculations show that quarks inside protons will give the proton different shapes depending on the speed of the quarks. Quarks traveling at near light speed will give the proton a peanut shape instead of a spherical shape. Recent scattering experiments confirm that the proton is indeed often in the peanut shape.

[Ender1337otron]

@Pooua

If by particle you mean electron then yeah. Particle is a relative term that can mean many things, a bit of dust can be called a particle for instance.

[Pooua]

@Ender1337otron My understanding is that even macroscopic objects have a probability of appearing anywhere in the universe at any given moment, though the probability for major displacement of a macroscopic object is virtually zero. The odds of even an electron suddenly appearing on the other side of the universe aren't very high, but it would be permitted under quantum mechanics. I'm not sure, but this might be analogous to the wave nature of objects (even baseballs have a wavelength).

[Ender1337otron]

@Pooua

Nope, that's why they refer to the atom as a "stable" arrangement. The electron disappears and reappears at random close to the nucleus. Atoms themselves don't do that.

[Pooua]

@Ender1337otron Atoms *do* disappear and reappear at random, even across a barrier for which they do not have the energy to cross. This is known as atomic quantum tunneling, which has been observed for hydrogen in niobium.

[Ender1337otron]

Also, I was mostly talking about the fact that it's an electron that you can't precisely know both the speed and direction at the same time. I took issue with you using the rather broad term particle. You can most certainly know the speed and direction of an atom or a baseball or almost anything besides an electron. Other than that I didn't have any problem with your thought. That's why I said "If by particle you mean electron then yeah."

[Pooua]

@Ender1337otron Yeah, well, we were talking about a sub-atomic particle (the neutron) to begin with (that is what this video clip is discussing), so, when I began talking about particles, that is the context you should have considered; sub-atomic particles. It just happens that quantum effects are not limited to sub-atomic particles.

[silverpizza100]

for example. a person 3 foot 8 is running in a race aginst a person who is 6 foot 6 , who do you put your money on to win. You dont say well the guy is smaller so he can cut thorugh the air faster or the big guy will not be able to run fast due to wind resistance.

[AurumenK]

if the standard atomic model moves like it does then there must be a left and right quark because it moves upright and down left. Or its just a combination of the two.

[vincentpistelli]

@AurumenK up and down quarks are not called that because of their motion. There are also charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks which obviously aren't named after movements.

[yourboycal]

"The minimum size of anything physical is a Planck Length. And since there can be nothing smaller than this -- it is truly fundamental."

How many times have i heard this statement only to open up the box to a whole new cocktail of discoverys . Why dont u just say as far as we know there is nothing smaller then this ? lol. Truly fundamental ? im sorry cupcake but nothing is truly in the quantum level.

[MarshmallowRadiation]

0:33 NUCLEAR!!

I'm sorry, but I thought a video about the interactions of quarks in a neutron would get that right.

Not that I'm nitpicking or anything...

[uut0]

i got a question: i kno that a neutron decays in about 10-20 mins. but what does it decay to?

[cassiopeiaproject]

@uut0 A proton, an electron, and an antineutrino.

[maxd1g1talcreat0r]

I saw space ship using the collision of a Neutron as propulsion,the most beautiful Blue light I have ever seen since I rich Enlightenment and I saw that it can be reproduced by the mind when you open the 3 eye ,the stargate.have fun and study.bye

[sn1pe352]

This is all theoretical and there are many variations of model theories which all mathematically "Plug in" and predict, the same goes for kelpars laws of planetary motion (The mathematics can be elliptical-or vortical motion) and will work regardless of the conceptual theory, I say this because the sun could orbit the earth or the earth could orbit the sun and either way the mathematical models will predict night and day..yet still be conceptually WRONG

[selimshelly]

Dear my channel's friends,touch please...

[sidewaysfcs0718]

in fact u can search "murray gell-mann" on youtube , this is the person who first proposed the idea of quarks ..wich where later discovered by the stanford linear accelerator ...

[sidewaysfcs0718]

all fundamental particles can decay or annihilate into other particles ...

a W- can decay into an electron and an electron anti-neutrino

an electron and an anti electron (positron) can annihilate into 2 or more photons ...

so 2 particles with mass ...transform into 2 particle with no mass ..this is explained by the higgs mechanism ...

in the same way a W- wich is very heavy can decay into an electron and neutrino ..wich together are much lighter than a W- .

[SuperMagnetizer]

OK, after doing a little research, here's how the Standard Model explains neutron decay. One of the neutron's down quarks turns into an up quark, which turns the neutron into a proton. This quark shift emits a W- boson which itself turns into an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. That's the theory, but I'm still leery. No one's ever seen a quark, and they never will.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

what the hell do u mean no one has seen one?? u cant see a particle that small

quarks have been detected countless times in particle accelerators ...so has every single particle in the standard model including the neutrino

the only things we havent found yet where the graviton, higgs, supersymetric particles and dark matter particles.

[SuperMagnetizer]

Hi Sideways,

Quark confinement means that quarks cannot be directly detected. The undetectable gluons keep them hidden inside their parent nucleons.

When a neutron decays, neither the virtual W- boson nor the extremely elusive neutrino can be detected either. All that can be detected directly is the proton and the electron, and there is some residual energy theoretically taken up by the neutrino. That's what the hell I mean. Hope this helps.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

quarks confinement has nothing to do with what u just said

it means quarks cant exist freely but the decay products from quakrs can be observed

and in heavy ion collision "quarks soups" have been observed ...

the virtual W- boson isnt virtual anymore when its in a collision ...it gains energy that keeps it real .....thats what particle accelerators do , they increase the energy and therefore mass of a proton and get hundreds of new particles from it.

[RyuDarragh]

Agreed. No direct quark observation *can* be made. It's all based on Feynman Diagrams and mathematics based on particle tracks in detectors and so forth. Still think the "quark" theory has holes in it. The LHC will help settle some of this. Then we can getback to the real job of turning physics into engineering.

[SuperMagnetizer]

A neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and I believe an unobserved neutrino about 15 minutes after leaving an atomic nucleus. How, then, can they possibly be composed of quarks?

[kmncztms]

Hmmm, are there/may be there a particle which is not bigger than another one?

[kellystone84]

A neutron walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender sets the beer down and says, "For you, no charge!"

[sidewaysfcs0718]

HAHHAHAHHAAA OMG that was really good

[millerjonas]

¡Hola!

A mi me gustan estos tipos de temas pero lo único malo es que yo quiero buscar más información sobre este tema pero pues no le entiendo al video porque está en inglés y yo no hablo inglés porfavor suban videos con el audio en Español Latino.

[uni4dfx]

I don't get one thing. Imagine you have 3 metal balls with different charges. How on earth can you arrange them so that their total charge will be 0 on the outside. You can't! It isn't even symmetric! Why is this allowed to happen anyway in a neutron then?

[cassiopeiaproject]

The quarks have fractional charge. The neutron has two down quarks each of which has a -1/3 electric charge and one up quark which has a +2/3 electric charge. Adding them up gives zero electric charge.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

would this imply that the quarks are made of smaller particles? i mean if one quark has 1/3 and another quark has 2/3 ...could this mean that the first is made of 1 particle that gives charge ..and the second has 2 particles that give charge? or does that charge come from photons? cus i know electromagnetism is mediated by photons.

just an idea ..i know quarks are fundamental ..but maybe their made of smaller stuff ...either strings or an infinite cycle of smaller particles.

[cassiopeiaproject]

Current theory is that the quarks are fundamental and are not made up of anything smaller. And so far there are no loose ends are unexplained data to indicate that quarks are not fundamental.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

but dont they have a size ? the particle itself ..if it has a size ..then it has to be made of something smaller ..or is it 0 dimensional?

[cassiopeiaproject]

Quantum Mechanics guarantees that they have a size. The minimum size of anything physical is a Planck Length. And since there can be nothing smaller than this -- it is truly fundamental.

[sidewaysfcs0718]

i dont suppost i could ask why there cant be anything small than the plank lenght :(

[cassiopeiaproject]

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that nothing classical can be smaller than the Planck Length. It is the distance at which classical ideas about space-time cease to be valid. At smaller distances, space-time itself is a "quantum foam", so a PLanck Length is the smallest measurement of length with a physical meaning.

[silverpizza100]

@cassiopeiaproject it is not a foam, it is a theory what you say and it have been proven wrong. Spacetime is smooth. High energy gama ray do not travel slower than their constituents through space time. They failed to study the electrowave where as distance is euqal compaired to proton which is larger lower energy. Both travel at the speed of light. the gama ray has more ground to cover since it is smaller. Not spacetime is foamy. lol