The Neutron Problem

Written by Herb Rose on June 18, 2018. Posted in Current News

In the final stages of a stars life it, when all fusionable material is exhausted, a star produces energy by combining the electrons and protons of atoms radiating that energy and forming a neutron star.

When a neutron is not within the nucleus of an atom it will spontaneously split into a proton, an electron, and produce a gamma ray. This is also an energy producing reaction. It is a violation of the conservation of energy to have both the formation and destruction of something be an exothermic or energy producing process.

If you produce energy both when the neutron is formed and when it decomposes there would be a constant creation of energy. This is the same as the problem with nuclear theory. Theoretically, it should be possible to split a helium atom, or several helium atoms, into two deuterium atoms then using the produced energy to fuse two deuterium atoms into a helium atom producing more energy. It violates the conservation of energy, which is one of the few foundations of physics that is still considered valid.

There must be something providing energy to accomplish one of these reactions of the neutron. The solution lies in our concept of the neutron. The experiment that gave rise to the neutron was the directing radioactive particles, emitted be various radioactive atoms, between two plates with opposite electric charges. The particles that were attracted to the positive plate became the beta particle, with a negative charge, which was later identified as an electron.

The particle attracted to the negatively charged plate was called the alpha particle with a positive charge. It was later established to be a subatomic molecule consisting of two protons and two neutrons. The particles that were unaffected by the electrically charged plates was named the neutron. It had the mass of an electron and proton combined and had no electrical charge.

What if the neutron is not a subatomic particle but a subatomic molecule made up of an electron and a proton with both a positive and negative charge? This would conform to the experimental results and explain why it splits into an electron and a proton. It would also offer an explanation for the energy produced when the neutron splits.

A molecule with both a positive charge and a negative charge would produce two equal current moving in opposite directions when it was in motion. If this motion was through a magnetic field, the magnetic field, according to the right hand rule, would push the currents in the opposite directions creating a shearing force on the molecule, eventually splitting the neutron into an electron and proton releasing energy.

This model of the neutron would conform to experimental results, explain how the spontaneous decomposition of the neutron releases energy and is simpler than the current model of the neutron being a molecule composed of two down and one up quark.

There is no reason to invent the quark with its different flavors to make a neutron, any more than there is a reason to create a photon because of an invalid objection to the wave theory of light. You don’t invent more complex explanations with involved reactions to create a simple thing when there is a less complicated explanation.

When Copernicus considered the few stars that didn’t behave according to theory he did not invent excuses to explain their behavior in order to preserve the theory. He developed a new theory that would explain the motion of all the stars. Today’s physics is about altering reality to conform to theory. If special relativity gives an incorrect answer for the energy produced in radioactive decay, don’t create a neutrino to make results conform to the theory. If an experiment is done showing something moving faster than the speed of light do not create a tunneling photon to provide a ridiculous excuse on why it is not really traveling faster than the speed of light.

Physics needs to get back to being a science based on reason, evidence and experiments. Experiments should be a test of theory and if the results do not agree with theory then theory needs to be modified not reality. Today’s experimentation is done to confirm theory. It easy to prove what you already believe and accept any explanation that supports your belief. You cannot use the negative results of an experiment based on a discredited theory as proof that he speed of light is constant.

The experiment that establishes the existence of the neutrino is extremely questionable, in my opinion. The experiment was conducted underground to shield it from radiation but how could you eliminated radioactive isotopes from the materials you used to construct the experiment? Could impurities in the equipment contain radioactive isotopes that could emit particle that change chlorine into radioactive argon? How can you ignore the unexplained occurrence of nonradioactive argon that is equal to the amount of radioactive argon produced? Why, when the results are one third the expected, do you accept them as proof? For me, the variance in the results and the results being too precise for the design and construction of the experiment means that it does not provide conclusive evidence of the existence of the neutrino, which was created because theory did not give the right results. It is too easy to accept results that confirm belief and too easy to discard results that cast doubt on the validity of a belief.

The proof of the existence of quarks is from results of work done with accelerators and the smashing of atoms then looking at the debris. It is no surprise that I do not consider this method as valid. If you look for something long enough and hard enough, you will find it whether it exists or not. Unless someone can come up with an explanation of how the quark theory of a neutron can resolve the violation of the conservation of energy, their discovery of quarks only invalidates the method used to discover them.

Trackback from your site.