INFINITE PARTICLE PHYSICS

Richard L. Ropiequet

Why you should read my Website Why Physics needs new Theories Why Particles are Infinite Do-It-Yourself Brainwashing Philosophical Ruminations

Assessing, Testing, & Utilizing IPP How IPP explains Quantum Mysteries Basic Concepts of IPP Visualizing Nuclides in 3-D Introduction to IPP "Infinite Energy" LENR Article Finding The Roots of Magnetism How IPP Explains Superfluidity of Helium 4 How I Developed IPP IPP’s Explanation of Electron Capture The Structures of Fields & Forces How God Made the Universe

Introductory Hadron Nuclear Fields & Forces Comparing QCD/IPP

Mesons Baryons Nuclei

Concept Index Online Book (Acrobat®) Online Book(HTML)

E-mail Us

Niggling mystery #3: Where does the electron come from when a neutron decays into proton/electron/antineutrino?

Particle experiments tell us that a neutron decays with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes into a proton, an electron, and. “x” (an invisible something that escapes with a portion of the precursor neutron’s mass-energy, the evidence for this being that the mass-energies of the escaping proton and electron don’t quite add up to the mass-energy of the precursor neutron, and the angle between the trajectories of the emerging proton and electron varies, attesting to a three-particle decay. The current explanation for “x” is that it is an electron anti-neutrino, an invisible neutral particle of low self-energy, whose escaping mass-energy takes a range of values.  This is assumed to be due to its leaving the decay site with a variety of relativistic velocities.  Physicists consider the neutron decay to be “spontaneous”, i.e., without a scenario of causes, other than “that the neutron is more massive than the three decay products ― hence this mass difference provides impetus for decay”.

Now, let’s explore the how and why mysteries of neutron decay from IPP’s perspective.  Here are some insights that IPP makes apparent to us:

• We know how to visualize all the particles involved.  We see them as ECE packing-density oscillations containing defect clusters.
• We believe that polycrystalline space contains millions, perhaps billions-of-times more neutrinos (void-pairs & single voids) than nucleons (3-defect-pair clusters) or electrons (replacement defects).
• We believe that neutrons and antineutrons have identical defect structures ― we also believe that their distinguishable decay modes are the result of ambient differences in the ratio of +voids to –voids surrounding them. Matter universes have an excess of +voids; antimatter universes have an excess of –voids, and both contain many times as many single voids as void-pairs.
• We reason that +voids and –voids can not annihilate each other ― they merely join together to form a void-pair― and this can happen only if their relative velocities are within a capture value.  Void-pairs are not permanently stable ― they can be ionized into individual voids by exact coincidence of their center-of-mass with the center-of-mass of a photon, i.e., with the stepping center of a defect-less ellipsoidal ECE packing-density oscillation. (This interaction is IPP’s explanation for red-shift of light in IPP’s non-expanding ethereal space).
• We have considerable insight into the mechanics of fields and forces, and can imagine processes, like charge-exchanges, that can change the composition of defects in adjacent defect clusters of opposite polarity.
• We feel free to think “outside the box”.

Where IPP differs from current explanation is that its electron neutrino (a neutral void-pair) is arriving with variable relativistic velocities, rather than departing with them.  This difference lets the void-pair interact with the neutron via a charge exchange to change neutron to proton, and to change void-pair to electron.  Here’s the decay scenario that IPP visualizes:

Here’s how a void-pair impacts a neutron so that a charge-exchange occurs:  It arrives within a few lattice-face-diagonals of a neutron’s –c-void, at the exact moment when the neutron’s charge-exchange cycle is in its low-n-1 state.  (This state has defect-pair spacings of 8ü/9ü/9ü, with mass-energy = 866.93 MeV).

However, nothing will happen during the void-pair’s proximity, unless the following conditions prevail at this instant:

1. That there happen to be two, or more, +voids in the immediate vicinity of the void-pair (establishing a local plus-charge sum).
2. That the orientation of the neutron’s charge-exchange cycle is such that this particular –c-void is a member of the neutron’s 8ü defect-pair.
3. That the closer component of the void-pair is the +void (we imagine that the void-pair is in continuous charge-interchanging oscillation, and its +void & –void components are attracted & repelled by the neutron’s –c-void).

If all the above conditions are met, there will be a charge-exchange between neutron and void-pair that produces a proton and electron.  Explaining the mechanics of this charge-exchange will require dissecting it into a number of steps:    

1. For this neutron/void-pair charge-exchange to be possible, the trajectory of the arriving void-pair must not only pass through the locus of exchange, but also must linger there long enough for the charge-exchange to finish.  Both of these requirements are achieved by the collapse of the void-pair’s voids into c-voids. This collapse increases the rest mass of the void-pair by a factor of over a million (>3eV vs. >70 MeV), and slows its velocity relative to the neutron by a like amount. The mass-energy needed for this collapse is supplied by the neutron’s packing density oscillator when the neutron’s charge-exchange cycle is in its low-n-1 state.  This state requires 72.64 MeV less than the average mass-energy maintained by the neutron’s packing-density oscillation (939.57– 866.93 = 72.64).
2. One component of this charge-exchange (the incoming face-diagonal chains of +ECEs) will convert the neutron (8ü/9ü/9ü) to proton (9ü/9ü/9ü = 933.11 MeV).
3. The other component of the charge-exchange (the outwardly moving face-diagonal chains of –ECEs) causes a –ECE to plunge into the center of the –c-void of the void-pair, thereby forming a minus replacement defect (an electron).  For this ECE to hit its target, we see that the surrounding + voids must be symmetrically placed relative to the –c-void.
4. The minus replacement defect (the newly-formed electron) requires only 0.511 MeV of self energy of the remaining excess mass-energy of 6.46 MeV (939.57 – 933,11 = 6.46), so its formation releases mass-energy back to the packing-density oscillation,  This release provides more than enough mass-energy to support the proton’s steady-state (continuous charge-exchanging) requirement of 938.58 MeV.
5. The excess mass-energy after proton formation (939.57– 938.28 = 1.29 MeV) provokes the separation of proton from electron. We should perceive that this 1.29 MeV of residual mass-energy is diminished by the variable amount of mass-canceling momentum brought in by the impacting void-pair.  This accounts both for the variable parameters of the decay proton and electron, and for their separating mass-energies summing to less than 1.29 MeV.

For the neutron decay to occur, it will be obvious that the destabilizing agents for this decay (the void-pair, with its aura of +voids) will need to approach close enough so that the charge gradient for the void-pair’s external charge-exchange exceeds that of the neutron’s internal charge-exchanges. Then, as I have mentioned above, we must add to this proximity requirement, the need for precise timing & alignment vis-à-vis the neutron’s charge-exchange cycle, and the need for a suitable range of momenta of the impacting void-pair.  It is clear that satisfying all these requirements simultaneously in a space lattice that is very nearly completely “empty” will be a very rare event, indeed.  Here is the explanation for the mean lifetime of 10.3 minutes for neutron decay, compared to the mean time of approximately 10−23 seconds for strong-force interactions.

When neutrons are in nuclei, they are further protected against charge-exchange decay by the presence of adjacent protons bound to them. The proton’s plus-charge tends to repel the plus void of the void-pair, making the external charge-exchange necessary for neutron decay much less likely. We can assume that provoking the neutron/void-pair charge-exchange may require the synergistic presence of both –voids & +voids to offset the proton’s influence. The requirement for perhaps five or more destabilizing agents in a precise geometrical orientation may account for lengthening the neutron decay in Hydrogen 3 to a half-life of 12.3 years. Neutron decays with billion-year half-lives, as in Potassium 40, may be so protected by surrounding protons and by steric hindrance, as to require partial disruption of inter-nucleon bonds by a grain-boundary transit, simultaneous with a suitable crowd of properly placed destabilizing agents, for decay to be effected.

Note: you may view animated drawings of charge-exchanges at the end of the “Hadron Tutorial”.

Dick Ropiequet, last edit 4/23/07