Neutron stars cast light on quark matter

June 8, 2018 by Ana Lopes, CERN
Artist’s impression of the merger of two neutron stars. Credit: University of Warwick/Mark Garlick

Quark matter – an extremely dense phase of matter made up of subatomic particles called quarks – may exist at the heart of neutron stars. It can also be created for brief moments in particle colliders on Earth, such as CERN's Large Hadron Collider. But the collective behaviour of quark matter isn't easy to pin down. In a colloquium this week at CERN, Aleksi Kurkela from CERN's Theory department and the University of Stavanger, Norway, explained how neutron-star data have allowed him and his colleagues to place tight bounds on the collective behaviour of this extreme form of matter.

Kurkela and colleagues used a neutron-star property deduced from the first observation by the LIGO and Virgo scientific collaborations of gravitational waves – ripples in the fabric of spacetime – emitted by the merger of two . This property describes the stiffness of a star in response to stresses caused by the gravitational pull of a companion star, and is known technically as tidal deformability.

To describe the of quark , physicists generally employ equations of state, which relate the pressure of a state of matter to other state properties. But they have yet to come up with a unique equation of state for quark matter; they have derived only families of such equations. By plugging tidal-deformability values of the neutron stars observed by LIGO and Virgo into a derivation of a family of equations of state for neutron-star quark matter, Kurkela and colleagues were able to dramatically reduce the size of that equation family. Such a reduced family provides more stringent limits on the collective properties of quark matter, and more generally on at high densities, than were previously available.

Armed with these results, the researchers then flipped the problem around and used the quark-matter limits to deduce neutron-star properties. Using this approach, the team obtained the relationship between the radius and mass of a neutron star, and found that the maximum radius of a neutron star that is 1.4 times more massive than the Sun should be between about 10 and 14 km.

Explore further: Physicists prepare to detect gravitational waves from neutron star collisions

More information: Eemeli Annala et al. Gravitational-Wave Constraints on the Neutron-Star-Matter Equation of State, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703

Related Stories

A better way to model stellar explosions

March 5, 2018

Neutron stars consist of the densest form of matter known: a neutron star the size of Los Angeles can weigh twice as much as our sun. Astrophysicists don't fully understand how matter behaves under these crushing densities, ...

Neutron stars on the brink of collapse

December 5, 2017

When a massive star dies, its core contracts. In a supernova explosion, the star's outer layers are expelled, leaving behind an ultra-compact neutron star. For the first time, the LIGO and Virgo Observatories have recently ...

Researchers discover one of the most massive neutron stars

May 29, 2018

Using a pioneering method, researchers from the Astronomy and Astrophysics Group of the UPC and the Canary Islands Institute of Astrophysics (IAC) have found a neutron star of about 2.3 solar masses—one of the most massive ...

Recommended for you

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

Astronomers find a cosmic Titan in the early universe

October 17, 2018

An international team of astronomers has discovered a titanic structure in the early Universe, just two billion years after the Big Bang. This galaxy proto-supercluster, nicknamed Hyperion, is the largest and most massive ...

246 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2 / 5 (16) Jun 09, 2018
But they forgot one thing........the time for the process of GRAVITATIONAL COLAPSE to the creation of a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON needed to create a neutron star exceeds the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron by many hours.

Pop-Cosmology at it's best when displaying it's ignorance of nuclear physics.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2018
^^^^^^^^^^Still as thick as two short planks. They forgot nothing, lamebrain, they just happen to understand science better than some uneducated cretin like you.
granville583762
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
Benni> But they forgot one thing........the time for the process of GRAVITATIONAL COLAPSE to the creation of a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON needed to create a neutron star exceeds the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron by many hours.

Pop-Cosmology at it's best when displaying it's ignorance of nuclear physics.

Keep up the good work Benni, the bin men will be round later with their bin lorry to collect the fall out!
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2018
Keep up the good work Benni, the bin men will be round later with their bin lorry to collect the fall out!


Yep, and then Benni can clean the floor, as that is all he appears to be qualified to do.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2018
@Benni
But they forgot one thing........the time for the process of GRAVITATIONAL COLAPSE to the creation of a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON needed to create a neutron star exceeds the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron by many hours.


Where did you get the idea that the process of the formation of a neutron star is that all the matter suddenly turns into neutrons and then collapses? This is clearly silly!

The process of becoming a neutron star begins in the centre of the collapsing star where densities reach those approximating that in the atomic nucleus in which we all know neutrons are stable.

Your argument bears no relation to models of neutron star formation.
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2018
For sheer imagination Benni, persistent, stamina and when all lose their rag in frustration as what little brains we had we lost them hitting our heads on the wall, nobody told us we would become punch drunk, for all this and more this deserves 5stars.
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
It was all in fun RNP, you know, jesting.
RNP> Your argument bears no relation to models of neutron star formation

It was a joke RNP, I hope you could see it - sometimes their more appropriate, hence the bin men, they arrived immediately did they not RNP.
RNP
3.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2018
@granville583762
I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but I must point out that your English is rather confusing.

granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
We are the bin men!
RNP> @granville583762
I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but I must point out that your English is rather confusing.

It is Yorkshire English, as english as most english comes now a days, coming from the British Isle.
jonesdave> Yep, and then Benni can clean the floor, as that is all he appears to be qualified to do

We are the ones mopping up, not Benni
The jokes on us!
RNP
3.7 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2018
@granville583762
For sheer imagination Benni, persistent, stamina and when all lose their rag in frustration as what little brains we had we lost them hitting our heads on the wall, nobody told us we would become punch drunk,....


English? Even Yorkshire English?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2018
Even Yorkshire English, this had all the hallmarks of a joke, and we all fell for it, jonesdave got his comment in second before I refreshed, you can see I read his mind - I was to busy crafting my reply to Benni's which I thought was second but turned out to be third. This is what adds to my confusing charm - thanks for the complement by the way.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2018
Quark matter is at the heart of protons, as a neutron is a proton as it is a quark
phys.org> Inside every proton in every atom in the universe is a pressure cooker environment that surpasses the atom-crushing heart of a neutron star https://phys.org/...als.html

Technically a neutron is a proton of neutral electric charge courtesy of the protons constituents quarks.
To say as phys.org is claiming "may exist at the heart of neutron stars" it does exist at the heart of protons as quark matter, as it is the quarks constituent matter.
This is not to say it is at present technically observable, the nub of a neutron is it does not exist as it is a proton - a neutral proton consisting of three quarks.
etherair
1.8 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2018
But they forgot one thing........the time for the process of GRAVITATIONAL COLAPSE to the creation of a so-called DEGENERATE NEUTRON needed to create a neutron star exceeds the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron by many hours.

Pop-Cosmology at it's best when displaying it's ignorance of nuclear physics.

Perhaps they are not 'real' neutrons. The electrons could be forced into the protons by intense gravitational forces only, no strong force to hold them there if/when gravity fails.
The standard theory shows half the universe's elements heavier than iron come from neutron star collisions. This indicates the atoms retain information on their original state, mostly iron from star cores.
No decay until gravity fails in this scenario.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2018

The process of becoming a neutron star begins in the centre of the collapsing star where densities reach those approximating that in the atomic nucleus in which we all know neutrons are stable.

Your argument bears no relation to models of neutron star formation.


I don't have an an "argument", just the raw data of nuclear physics experiments which has yet to exhibit an "argument" for the existence of a DEGENERATE NEUTRON.

in which we all know neutrons are stable.
You freelance journalists who have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve really enjoy your science fiction narratives.......there is no such thing as an unbound neutron that is "stable". You've been reading too much Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2018
Where did you get the idea that the process of the formation of a neutron star is that all the matter suddenly turns into neutrons and then collapses? This is clearly silly!


Perhaps you would do better to check your favorite source with regard to the makeup of a neutron star, here I'll even quote it for you so you can't say you missed it:

"Most of the basic models for these objects imply that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons"

https://en.wikipe...ron_star

So what qualifies you to change the criterion from those of the experts in Pop-Cosmology? Just being a freelance journalist as you identified yourself in the past as being? How about freelance science fiction writer as a more appropriate title, one who has more of his own facts than his own Pop-Cosmology experts at WkiPedia.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2018
@Benni
.......there is no such thing as an unbound neutron that is "stable".

FANFARE!!!!! (Wild cheering in the background).We agree on something!!!!

The problem you have is that there are no unbound neutrons involved in the formation of a neutron star.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2018
@Benni
You freelance journalists who have never seen a Differential Equation you could solve ...


You, and everybody else, know full well that I am not a "freelance journalist", and your need to constantly repeat this lie only serves to underline your own desperate insecurity.

I would also like to point out that you have still not been able to explain one of the simplest differential equations possible - that of radioactive decay ( latest attempt; https://phys.org/...ric.html )

This seems remarkable to me given that you claim to be a nuclear engineer.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2018
I would also like to point out that you have still not been able to explain one of the simplest differential equations possible - that of radioactive decay ( latest attempt; https://phys.org/...ric.html )


Never mind DEs, he can't even do basic maths to work out a Schwarzschild radius when he's been given the mass!

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2018
@Benni

there is no such thing as an unbound neutron that is "stable"


The problem you have is that there are no unbound neutrons involved in the formation of a neutron star.


Then according to Pop-Cosmology's claim for the definition of NEUTRON STAR:

"Most of the basic models for these objects imply that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons".

https://en.wikipe...ron_star

...they don't exist because the definition of a NS is that neutron stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons.

Hey, neophyte of Pop-Cosmology living on the funny farm plantation of pseudo-science, at least get your literacy updated to how your own Pop-Cosmology experts define the makeup of NEUTRON STARS. You sound as if you don't like their definitions? I got it, your smarter than your own experts, right? Capiche, got it, no wonder you've never seen a differential equation you could solve mister freelance journalist that your NOW trying to deny.

.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 10, 2018
@Benni
Wow!

You haven't even TRIED to find out what the actual science says! You have again constructed some weird, and clearly nonsensical, distortion of the truth and are trying to blame the resulting silliness on the science.

I don't know why I am bothering, but an abbreviated description of the formation of a neutron stars from Wikipedia;

" When all nuclear fuel in the core has been exhausted, the core must be supported by degeneracy pressure alone. .......... Electron-degeneracy pressure is overcome and the core collapses further, sending temperatures soaring to over 5,000,000,000 K. ...... As the temperature climbs even higher, electrons and protons combine to form neutrons via electron capture, releasing a flood of neutrinos."

Do you see? The neutrons are produced "in situ" from the protons and electrons (and already present neutrons). There is no need for unbound neutrons.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2018
Do you see? The neutrons are produced "in situ" from the protons and electrons (and already present neutrons). There is no need for unbound neutrons.


Just love this Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble from you.

If there are no unbound free neutrons with a lifetime decay rate lasting millions of years longer than the OBSERVABLE fifteen minute known decay rate OBSERVED in the Large Hadron Collider, then there are no NEUTRON STARS, and if you want electron emission from a neutron it won't occur until a neutron DECAYS because all the electrons that escape via ELECTRON DEGENERACY will have long escaped the system before GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE could prevent their gravitational capture, same with anti-neutrino gravitational capture.

You can have all the abundance of protons you want, but the near light speed distances of tens of millions of miles those electrons & neutrinos travel upon neutron decay makes them irrecoverable to the system upon gravitational collapse.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2018
The neutrons are produced "in situ" from the protons and electrons (and already present neutrons). There is no need for unbound neutrons.

Don't bother. He doesn't understand what the "free" in "free neutron" even means.
He just sees "neutron" and thinks "a neutron is a neutron is a neutron"

(Also note that he thinks it decays in 15 minutes...i.e. he doesn't understand the term "half life" either. He thinks that's just the title of a game)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 10, 2018
The neutrons are produced "in situ" from the protons and electrons (and already present neutrons). There is no need for unbound neutrons.


Don't bother. He doesn't understand what the "free" in "free neutron" even means.
He just sees "neutron" and thinks "a neutron is a neutron is a neutron"
.......obviously you don't, because you think this:

Also note that he thinks it decays in 15 minutes...i.e. he doesn't understand the term "half life" either. He thinks that's just the title of a game)


........free unbound neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate & you don't know why, and the reason you don't know why perfectly demonstrates everything I have ever stated about your competency regarding your comments about nuclear physics.

Ok, you want to be the next Pop-Cosmology genius around here, just explain the radio-active decay process by which a FREE NEUTRON has a half-life decay rate? Can't do it can you? Maybe RNP or Jonesy? Schneibo?

granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2018
Neutrons and protons do not exist! The Quarks do

A neutron is a neutral proton; the quarks redistribution of their polarity creating a neutral proton "neutron" the neutrons instability decay rate is due to the quarks and their interaction with the electron and neutrino we now know the neutrino alternates between a neutrino into an anti-neutrino in flight due to their chirality.
This implies neither a neutron or a proton exists, they are creations of quarks, electrons and neutrino's, their combination of properties creating a nucleus that has the properties that we have prescribed to what we call the neutron and the proton.

Consequently this constant bickering on the how a nucleus exists in the neutron star has to have the added bickering on what constituents the nucleus, as it is the nucleus which constituents the neutron star, and the neutron stars properties are dictated by the Quark, Electron and Neutrino and how they are arranged in the Nucleus!
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2018
Ok, you want to be the next Pop-Cosmology genius around here, just explain the radio-active decay process by which a FREE NEUTRON has a half-life decay rate? Can't do it can you? Maybe RNP or Jonesy? Schneibo?


Here: https://en.wikipe...on_decay you idiot.
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2018
If there are no unbound free neutrons with a lifetime decay rate lasting millions of years longer than the OBSERVABLE fifteen minute known decay rate OBSERVED in the Large Hadron Collider, then there are no NEUTRON STARS


They are not free, get it?

I dare you to take your objection to the forum here Benni.

Still so terrified of forums?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2018

I dare you to take your objection to the forum here Benni.

Still so terrified of forums?


Good suggestion, that could apply to many of the wooists around here. In Benni's case, he has had the Pauli Exclusion Principle explained to him in baby steps, with links. So I very much doubt he is ever going to get it.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2018
http://hyperphysi...sar.html

Another link, but the loon still won't understand it!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2018
Here:https://en.wikipe...on_decay[/url]

Dead on wrong........this is BETA DECAY not RADIOACTIVE DECAY, if you had even the slightest concept of nuclear physics you'd know the difference. You Pop-Cosmologists need to first learn how to solve Differential Equations before wandering off into the weeds of funny farm pseudo-sciences & convoluting one manner of particle decay process with another.

jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 11, 2018
how to solve Differential Equations


Why? You can't even do basic maths! And WTF do you think beta decay is? Jesus!

https://en.wikipe...ve_decay
Kron
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2018
@Benni,

Give physics.stackexchange.com, or physicsforums.com, or another forum a try.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2018
@Benni,

Give physics.stackexchange.com, or physicsforums.com, or another forum a try.


Been doing the forum for years, mostly electronic circuit solutions, under a different name of course.
IwinUlose
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2018
@Benni

Why not nuclear physics?
Kron
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2018
In this thread alone you proved you have no understanding of radioactivity Benni (which for a long time has been known to occur in the form of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation), or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime). A nuclear engineer should really have a firm understanding of these things, and you obviously aren't one (I really hope to god no one has allowed you close to a nuclear facility).

Your lack of knowledge of mainstream theories on the formation of neutron stars is on display here also. If you are going to chop down a theory you must have an understanding of the theory you're trying to chop down in the first place.

You fail at disproving any of the science here at any level. You also fail at providing any alternative theories. You're just plain failing, which I suspect also happened in your engineering courses, am I right;)?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2018
Kron>In this thread alone you proved you have no understanding of radioactivity Benni (which for a long time has been known to occur in the form of Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation), or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime). A nuclear engineer should really have a firm understanding of these things, and you obviously aren't one (I really hope to god no one has allowed you close to a nuclear facility).

In this battle with Benni I see you have called on the services of 8 sock puppets, but then to do battle with the calibre of Benni you need an army to back you up!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2018
Benni stands his ground, Kron - on his own shanks's pony with no help from sock puppets Kron, maybe he is leading you up the garden fence!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2018
Equations of Scale
jonesdave> how to solve Differential Equations


Why? You can't even do basic maths! And WTF do you think beta decay is? Jesus!

https://en.wikipe...ve_decay

Has anyone stopped to think the vast majority who frequent phys.org have not seen any need for differential, calculas, even a calaculator as any calculation is instictive as making sure you still have all your digits still intact after that battle with the yorshire grocer with your last farthing and certainly on such a discussion as this is not worthy of merit and certainly does not require the back up of 6 sock puppets jonesdave!
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2018
or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime).


OK, mister Pop-Cosmology genius.........you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process....... so lead us to the dataset from the Large Hadron Collider that anyone operating that facility has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON.

Tell us, what does half a neutron look like?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
Benni stands his ground, Kron - on his own shanks's pony with no help from sock puppets Kron, maybe he is leading you up the garden fence!


Yeah, like the existence of one half of a neutron. I wonder what the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here thinks that that is made of.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
@Benni

Why not nuclear physics?


I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer. Spent 6 years in engineering school learning this stuff, plus almost two years worth of continuing education credits beyond that.
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
That seems highly unlikely.
I doubt that a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer would be unable to grasp even the basic principles of physics as you continue to demonstrate.
I mean you don't even get the basics of the BB theory, or black holes, or neutron stars or relativity. Just the logical consequences of an invariant speed of light seem to be beyond you.

Nuclear/Electrical Engineer... LOL
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
It sure is a sad way to bolster your flagging credentials
Ojorf> That seems highly unlikely.
I doubt that a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer would be unable to grasp even the basic principles of physics as you continue to demonstrate.
I mean you don't even get the basics of the BB theory, or black holes, or neutron stars or relativity. Just the logical consequences of an invariant speed of light seem to be beyond you.

Light radius stars are a more correct description Ojorf, time moves on - we are even detecting background radiation from proto-planet disks in are galaxy to this present, day and stars are born in the matter ejected from the light radius star forming spin axis Fermi bubbles.

You criticise Benni with the back up of 8 sock puppets - it sure is a sad way to bolster your flagging credentials you have had to sink so low!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
Equations of Scale
jonesdave> how to solve Differential Equations


Why? You can't even do basic maths! And WTF do you think beta decay is? Jesus!

https://en.wikipe...ve_decay

Has anyone stopped to think the vast majority who frequent phys.org have not seen any need for differential, calculas, even a calaculator as any calculation is instictive as making sure you still have all your digits still intact after that battle with the yorshire grocer with your last farthing and certainly on such a discussion as this is not worthy of merit and certainly does not require the back up of 6 sock puppets jonesdave!


What are you talking about, loony tunes? I don't have any sock puppets. I don't need them. I've never been banned. Why don't you go away, learn some science, and stop polluting this place with inane drivel?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime).


OK, mister Pop-Cosmology genius.........you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process....... so lead us to the dataset from the Large Hadron Collider that anyone operating that facility has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON.

Tell us, what does half a neutron look like?


Only a 6 year old could have asked that question! Half-life, dummy. Look it up. It is used in all types of radioactive decay. We use it to date things.
http://www.bbc.co...v1.shtml

That link is for 15-16 year old students in the UK. Maybe you never got that far, education-wise. Or haven't yet.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Equations of Scale
jonesdave> how to solve Differential Equations

Has anyone stopped to think the vast majority who frequent phys.org have not seen any need for differential, calculas, even a calaculator as any calculation is instictive as making sure you still have all your digits still intact after that battle with the yorshire grocer with your last farthing and certainly on such a discussion as this is not worthy of merit and certainly does not require the back up of 6 sock puppets jonesdave!

jonesdave> What are you talking about, loony tunes? I don't have any sock puppets. I don't need them. I've never been banned. Why don't you go away, learn some science, and stop polluting this place with inane drivel?

When your inquisitive reply gets its quota of 5stars it will come to to you the defintion of all your rating sock puppets, why do you think your rating is so high!
For instance this is not classed as a rating comment - but you know this.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
why do you think your rating is so high!


Because I'm dealing with actual science, whilst you are talking indecipherable crap?
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
It is used in all types of radioactive decay. We use it to date things.


Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.

Free unbound neutrons NEVER decay by losing half it's mass within ten minutes of becoming free unbound sub-atomic particles. If you still think this isn't the case, then show us the dataset where half the mass of a GIVEN neutron has been discovered. Maybe you think such a half neutron mass would look like a half-moon? Just goes to show the luny depths Pop-Cosmology goes to hang onto it's fantasies.

Hell's bells man, until I started bringing up the topic of neutron decay several months ago, Pop-Cosmology neophytes like you didn't even know free neutrons had a lifetime 15 minutes decay rate, at least you guys have learned something other than practice honing your name calling skills.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
^^^^^^^See what I mean? Complete wazzock. No way has anybody ever let this loon anywhere near a nuclear power plant!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2018
Free-Neutron Beta-Decay Half-Life
Christensen, C. J. et al.
https://journals....D.5.1628
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?



Wow, a nuclear engineer that does not understand half-life, must be a world first.

Add half-life to Benni's list of incomprehensibilities.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?


....that you even ask this question with your initial response of "Wrong" is the evidence why you are only capable of living within the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science.

I'll say it again for everybody's entertainment purpose at your expense, there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON. So, bring it on Pop-Cosmology neophyte, prove such a sub-atomic particle of mass exists.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
As you point out jonesdave, ratings are for scientific insights not whacking moles!
granville583762> why do you think your rating is so high!

jonesdave> Because I'm dealing with actual science, whilst you are talking indecipherable crap?

So we can take it that after a hard day dealing with actual science jonesdave where your ratings are well deserved, when your rating benefactor sock puppets come to your aid when it's whacking mole time, we will see no actual ratings pilling up on your comments!
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?


....that you even ask this question with your initial response of "Wrong" is the evidence why you are only capable of living within the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science.

I'll say it again for everybody's entertainment purpose at your expense, there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON. So, bring it on Pop-Cosmology neophyte, prove such a sub-atomic particle of mass exists.


Oh dear, what an idiot. This is proof positive that you have never been educated beyond grade school level! There is no such thing as half a neutron, bozo! That isn't what 'half-life' means! If you have 1000 neutrons, and the half-life is 10 minutes, then after 10 minutes, how many of them would you expect to have beta-decayed into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
Protons and Neutrons don't exist; they are manifestations of the same quarks.
In point of fact there are no neutrons or protons at all as they are a combination of quarks with the help of electrons and neutrino's, we just call them protons and neutrons to distinguish them from each other.
They are constructed from the same particles as each other!
In reality they are actually Quarks.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
Let's make the above into multiple choice, to give Benni a chance!

a) none of them
b) 500
c) all of them
RNP
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2018
@jonesdave
Incredible!!! Benni does not even know what half-life means!!! I knew he knew very little, but I had not expected him to be THIS ignorant.

Have fun trying to educate him, but do not hold your breath. You know what he is like.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
Protons and Neutrons don't exist; they are manifestation of the same quarks.
In point of fact there is no neutron or proton at all as they are a combination of quarks with the help of electrons and neutrino's, we just call them protons and neutrons to distinguish them from each other.
They are constructed from the same particles as each other!
In reality they are actually Quarks.


And a surfboard is made of the same quarks as a coffee table. Your point is?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
Educating Benni
A Helium nucleus is 12 Quarks with its accompanying electrons and neutrinos, if you are going to educate Benni in the basics, let's get back to basics as they say and lay out clearly and precisely the order in how our atomic nuclei are actually constructed.
jonesdave> And a surfboard is made of the same quarks as a coffee table. Your point is?

The point is get all Bennie's little ducks in an ordered row!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
If we isolate a single neutron, and stare at it for 10 minutes plus change, what can we say will happen?

a) there is a 50% chance that it will decay.
b) there is a 50% chance that it won't.
c) both of the above statements are true.
d) there will be half a neutron.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
The point is get all Bennie's little ducks in an ordered row!
jonesdave> And a surfboard is made of the same quarks as a coffee table. Your point is?

To see how atoms are constructed the only way is to strip them back to the bare bones and build each one up as it is the only way to see clearly how the quarks maintain a physical difference between what we differentiate between what we call neutrons and protons, the quarks play a major role in the quark decay and in comparison oppositely the protons stability where the electrons electric charge is universal between the quark and electron and as a proton is 3 quarks consequently shares the same electric charge as the electron.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
jonesdave> If we isolate a single neutron, and stare at it for 10 minutes plus change, what can we say will happen?

a) there is a 50% chance that it will decay.
b) there is a 50% chance that it won't.
c) both of the above statements are true.
d) there will be half a neutron.

What is half a neutron – when the quarks are in the procces of decaying and departing over the horizon
There is a sliding scale between a whole neutron and a neutron in little bits
Somewhere in between there is half a neutron!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
The point is get all Bennie's little ducks in an ordered row!


If he attended high school physics or chemistry lessons, then he would already know this. If he knew anything about nuclear physics he would know this.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
jonesdave> If we isolate a single neutron, and stare at it for 10 minutes plus change, what can we say will happen?

a) there is a 50% chance that it will decay.
b) there is a 50% chance that it won't.
c) both of the above statements are true.
d) there will be half a neutron.

What is half a neutron – when the quarks are in the procces of decaying and departing over the horizon
There is a sliding scale between a whole neutron and a neutron in little bits
Somewhere in between there is half a neutron!


Errrr, no. Just no.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
The role of the Quark in the nuclei
It has become patently clear the proton being constructed of 3 electric charges of opposite polarity its counterpart the anti-proton is constructed exactly the same but with the polarity rearranged, there is not one single anti property as the electric charge is still identical and the quarks having just rearranged their order to attain a negative polarity instead of a positive polarity as they have in the neutron by rearranging to a neutral polarity.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
jonesdave> If we isolate a single neutron, and stare at it for 10 minutes plus change, what can we say will happen?

a) there is a 50% chance that it will decay.
b) there is a 50% chance that it won't.
c) both of the above statements are true.
d) there will be half a neutron.

What is half a neutron – when the quarks are in the procces of decaying and departing over the horizon
There is a sliding scale between a whole neutron and a neutron in little bits
Somewhere in between there is half a neutron!


Errrr, no. Just no.

This is another insight of humour in response "a) there is a 50% chance that it will decay" I think you will find this is how this question on how half a neutron has arisen, I have not seen this suggestion of half a neutron because it was said to you but I think that's ware its roots lie.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?


that you even ask this question with your initial response of "Wrong" is the evidence why you are only capable of living within the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science.

I'll say it again for everybody's entertainment purpose at your expense, there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON. So, bring it on Pop-Cosmology neophyte, prove such a sub-atomic particle of mass exists.


That isn't what 'half-life' means! If you have 1000 neutrons, and the half-life is 10 minutes, then after 10 minutes, how many of them would you expect to have beta-decayed into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos?
......but that's what you thought it meant until I corrected you, now you're simply trying to spin your way out of the entanglement of your own words, yeah, Pop-Cosmology on parade.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2018
but that's what you thought it meant until I corrected you, now you're simply trying to spin your way out of the entanglement of your own words, yeah, Pop-Cosmology on parade.


No I didn't, idiot! I know bloody well what a half-life is you loon. Even if I hadn't taken physics and chemistry at high school. I have a long standing interest in palaeoanthropology. Guess how they date Neanderthal remains? Carbon-14 has a half-life of ~ 5700 years. How much left after 40 000 years? And why? Sorry, you cannot hide your intellectual deficiencies, Benni boy. They are plain for all to read above.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
Now, who said this?

....half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Lol. So, I'll ask again - what mass, and where has it gone? Idiot.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
Mister Pop-Cosmologist, half-life radioactive decay is the time it takes for a given mass to lose 1/2 it's mass.


Wrong! Where has all the mass gone?


Benni> ....that you even ask this question with your initial response of "Wrong" is the evidence why you are only capable of living within the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science.

I'll say it again for everybody's entertainment purpose at your expense, there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON. So, bring it on Pop-Cosmology neophyte, prove such a sub-atomic particle of mass exists.

WHATS THIS CONCERNING HALF A NEUTRON
Benni appears to be clearly saying "there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON."
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
Benni appears to be clearly saying "there is no such thing as HALF OF A NEUTRON."


Yes, we know! It is because the idiot didn't understand what 'half-life' means. As above, he thinks it means that something is going to somehow lose half of its mass. Understand?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
This has all the hallmarks of Obfuscation
or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime).


Benni> OK, mister Pop-Cosmology genius.........you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process....... so lead us to the dataset from the Large Hadron Collider that anyone operating that facility has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON.

Tell us, what does half a neutron look like?

YET AGAIN BENNI APEARS TO BE CLEARLY SAYING there's no such thing as half a neutron
He even ask those who propose the existence of half a neutron where in the dataset it shows the existence of half a neutron
I would say this has all the classic sign of Obfuscation but who am I to say, this is an avenue I've yet to investigate - I'M HOLDING JUDGEMENT
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
Bennies inference in half's
jonesdave> Yes, we know! It is because the idiot didn't understand what 'half-life' means. As above, he thinks it means that something is going to somehow lose half of its mass. Understand?

Ah! The Obfuscation fog begins to clear, it is an inferred half neutron, by Bennies misunderstanding of half life it has been inferred by others that this can be inferred to mean it is possible to have half a neutron, so this is why Benni pleads so innocently and passionately because he did not actually say half a neutron actually exist.
This is Obfuscation at its finest jonesdave, even I did not spot it – but still. I'm holding judgement as I've only looked briefly into this literally over the last few minutes as this has been going on for years.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
^^^^^^WE ALL KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HALF A NEUTRON! Read what has been written:

AP: "Also note that he thinks it decays in 15 minutes...i.e. he doesn't understand the term "half life" either. He thinks that's just the title of a game."

Benni: "free unbound neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate & you don't know why...just explain the radio-active decay process by which a FREE NEUTRON has a half-life decay rate? Can't do it can you? Maybe RNP or Jonesy? Schneibo?"

He then fails to understand that beta decay is radioactive decay, and then tells us that half-life is to do with losing mass! So he thinks a neutron's half-life is the time it takes for it to lose half its mass!

EDIT: Looks like you figured it out!
691Boat
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2018
Hell's bells man, until I started bringing up the topic of neutron decay several months ago, Pop-Cosmology neophytes like you didn't even know free neutrons had a lifetime 15 minutes decay rate, at least you guys have learned something other than practice honing your name calling skills.

@Benni:
You claiming the above is like me saying that hot air balloons rise because hot air is less dense than cold air, then claiming that since you have never written this on PhysOrg, I just taught you that. I can't believe you didn't know hot air was less dense than cold air!

Also, it is extremely frightening that in 8 years of education, you have no idea what half-life means. Truly impressive.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
Neutrons and their half lives are infinitely longer than 15minutes
This is new to me, new to science that half life means the decay of a single particle versus a collection of particles.
Only a group of particles can have a half life as a single particle does the actual decay where the half life is the number of particles left after a given time.
Because unless I am mistaken a neutron decaying in 15minutes is not a half life, the half life of a neutron is the number of neutrons left in a block of atoms after a given time because neutrons decay extremely slowly when combined in atomic structures if at all
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2018
^^^^^^Yes, you are mistaken. We are talking about free neutrons. A neutron in a nucleus is not free. It has been suggested that the half-life of a bound neutron is of the order 10^32 years. Not something we need to worry about. A free neutron has a half-life of ~ 10 mins. That means that within ~ 10 mins there is a 50/50 chance that the neutron will decay. If we have 1000 neutrons, 500 of them should decay in 10 mins. Of the remaining 500, 250 will decay in the next 10 mins. And of the 250 that are then left....... you get the idea.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
Decay and Half Life are two different animals
That means I'm still mistaken because you have said essentially the same, bound or free, neutrons only have a half life, free their half life is 10 to 15 minutes, bound 10^32 years. But as a single free neutron can only last 15 minutes it follows 1000 free single neutrons can also only last 15 minutes so the number of free neutrons is irrelevant!
This is why half life applies to bound groups of neutrons where as decay applies to single neutrons
The half life is not the length of time it takes for a particle to decay; the half life is how many particles are left after a given time where as the decay is the length of time it takes a single particle to decay
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
This is the first time I have come across a particle that only has as a half-life and not a decay-life

Until this very moment I was under the impression a single neutron decayed in 15minutes which means slowly filling your box with a1000neutrons over 15minutes 500 will be left, but after the next 15minutes, in other words in 30minutes time there will be no neutrons left, because a single neutron decays in 15 minutes
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
This implies a free neutron only has a half-life which is 15minutes

This can of course all change, if a neutron does not decay in 15minutes, but has a half life of 15minutes! Which puts a completely different complexion on things, because like the tortoise and the hare no matter how many subdivisions there are always going to be neutrons left after each half life so essentially jonesdave you have implied a free neutron has an infinite life-span just as a bound neutron!
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
We have assumed a free neutron decays in 15minutes, it does not

Which comes to a single neutron jonesdave, it does not decay in 15minutes as it is part of the half life subdivisions, it has an almost incalculably long life span as you can only catch neutrons decaying in 15minute by observing trillion on trillion of free neutrons to catch the odd one that decays in 15minutes! And therein lies our perception of neutrons decaying in 15minutes, they do not, only the odd one does and because we observe it we have assumed a free neutron decays in 15minutes.
691Boat
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
...because like the tortoise and the hare no matter how many subdivisions there are always going to be neutrons left after each half life so essentially jonesdave you have implied a free neutron has an infinite life-span just as a bound neutron!


so according to you that means that there is no such thing as half-life, since there is always going to be left-overs, whether it is Co-60, neutrons, U-239, C-14 etc. Clearly you fail to understand what a half-life is as well.
granville583762
2.4 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
To sum up, a free neutron does not decay in any give time.
A free neutron has a half life of 15 minutes!

Which brings us back to where all this started, namely -
WE ALL KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HALF A NEUTRON!
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2018
granville583762> ...because like the tortoise and the hare no matter how many subdivisions there are always going to be neutrons left after each half life so essentially jonesdave you have implied a free neutron has an infinite life-span just as a bound neutron!


691Boat> so according to you that means that there is no such thing as half-life, since there is always going to be left-overs, whether it is Co-60, neutrons, U-239, C-14 etc. Clearly you fail to understand what a half-life is as well.

Your choosing to side step the point being made 691Boat, we have free neutrons slipping through our fingers that are billions of years old and some 15minutes old
Kron
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
or half lives as it pertains to decay (which in the case of free neutrons happens to be 10 minutes, or 15 minutes mean lifetime).


OK, mister Pop-Cosmology genius.........you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process....... so lead us to the dataset from the Large Hadron Collider that anyone operating that facility has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON.


Genius? Here I was thinking how stupid I was to have ever engaged in a conversation with you.

Tell us, what does half a neutron look like?


We could all peer into your skull and see what a brain composed of half a neuron looks like. Wouldn't that be more fun?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2018
There's confusion in words and interpretation and now as a free neutron does not decay in any given time.
A free neutron has a half life of 15 minutes!
Where Benni says -
Benni> OK, mister Pop-Cosmology genius.........you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process....... so lead us to the dataset from the Large Hadron Collider that anyone operating that facility has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON.
Tell us, what does half a neutron look like?

Benni is not saying he has a different interpretation on what constitutes a half life as he elaborates "you erroneously believe that a free neutron has a literal half-life decay process" what exactly does he mean by this statement and "has ever come across HALF A NEUTRON" and yet again what does he mean?
Is he being facetious, he certainly has cause to as theres plenty of garden fences to be led up.
Benni still has not actually said there is half a neutron!
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
This is why half life applies to bound groups of neutrons where as decay applies to single neutrons
The half life is not the length of time it takes for a particle to decay; the half life is how many particles are left after a given time where as the decay is the length of time it takes a single particle to decay
Ignore userQuoteRe


At least someone here, other than myself, has it figured out.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2018
This implies a free neutron only has a half-life which is 15minutes

This can of course all change, if a neutron does not decay in 15minutes, but has a half life of 15minutes! Which puts a completely different complexion on things, because like the tortoise and the hare no matter how many subdivisions there are always going to be neutrons left after each half life so essentially jonesdave you have implied a free neutron has an infinite life-span just as a bound neutron!


Jeez, mate, give yourself a ****ing gold star! Not bad, for Yorkshire, is that! Guess what the half-life of Carbon-14 is? Guess how it can be used to date stuff up to ~ 50 000 years old?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
....in other words in 30minutes time there will be no neutrons left, because a single neutron decays in 15 minutes


Oh strewth. Just when we thought we were getting somewhere!

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2018
This is why half life applies to bound groups of neutrons where as decay applies to single neutrons
The half life is not the length of time it takes for a particle to decay; the half life is how many particles are left after a given time where as the decay is the length of time it takes a single particle to decay
Ignore userQuoteRe


At least someone here, other than myself, has it figured out.


Sorry, eejit? What did you say? Which I now have bookmarked and saved on Screenhunter? Half of its mass? Lol. Where has this mass gone, woo boy? You really need to tell people which nuclear plant you work in, so that they can get as far away as ****ing possible from it. Yes? Idiot.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Single neutrons cannot have a half life!
This is why half life applies to bound groups of neutrons where as decay applies to single neutrons
The half life is not the length of time it takes for a particle to decay; the half life is how many particles are left after a given time where as the decay is the length of time it takes a single particle to decay
We keep coming back to my statement - you cannot have a half life unless you have a decay where half life although dependant on the decay requires more than one particle where as free neutrons are single particles and cannot be considered a group because they are not linked and as single particles decay in 15 minutes because you cannot have half a particle, which in essence is the half life when a group of particle reach a single digit. We have reached an impasse, neutrons, single no matter how close to each other behave singly and decay in 15minutes because you cannot have half a neutron, a single neutron cannot have a half life!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
Single neutrons cannot have a half life!


Tell us Granville - in which year will you finish primary school? Did you not read the bit that I wrote about single neutrons? They have a half-life of ~ 10 mins. Yes, dear? So, what is the chance of one decaying within ~ 10 mins? Is 50/50 a good guess?

Somebody save me from this morass of ignorance and stupidity..... I had some razor blades, but I think I chucked them. Starting to regret it now. Perhaps there is some whisky somewhere..............nope. Bugger.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2018
One thing I have learned from Granville - education system: Lancashire >>> Yorkshire! Are they still teaching Old Norse over there, luv?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
Whiskey in the jar
I am taking note of exactly what you saying jonesdave, a single neutron decaying in time 50/50 is a half life but a single neutron is already at the end of the line of the half life process and can go no further and consequently has no half life and its only option is to decay in a precise amount of time. There is no 50/50 left for single neutrons; otherwise we could be watching single neutrons for eternity to decay.
Then we certainly would need the whisky bottle with a considerable longer decay than a single neutron or is that half life, well any way, the way whisky extends its life span we will certainly have got this genie back in its bottle when reach the last drop or is that half a drop, we will leave that to the expert on these matters as Bennies staying sober!
granville583762
4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
The Proverbial Half a Neutron
Half-life t1⁄2 is the time required for a QUANTITY to reduce to half its initial value
A more intuitive characteristic of exponential decay is the time required for the decaying QUANTITY to fall to one half of its initial value. This time is called the half-life
Mean-lifetime is Exponential-decay is Half-life
This is where the Neutron has a Mean-lifetime of 881.5 seconds …. But this is derived from the time required for a QUANTITY to reduce to half its initial value.
The KEY is QUANTITY i.e. two neutrons in 881.5 seconds will decay leaving one neutron where in another 881.5 seconds time will decay leaving either one or zero neutrons
As can be seen half-life is not decay-time i.e. 881.5 seconds is half-life time not the decay-time.
A neutron does not decay in 881.5 seconds
Mean-lifetime is Exponential-decay is Half-life is 881.5 seconds
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
A quantity of neutrons experiencing a billion cycles of 881.5 second half-life's equates to 27,933 years
this implies there are neutrons in the decaying QUANTITY to fall to one half of its initial value that survive billion of cycles of 881.5 second half-life's culminating in weeding out neutrons that have the longer life spans in a given sample of neutrons
The larger the sample the greater number of longer decay-life neutrons possible
Which come to our final single neutrons life-time is dependent on the greatest number of half-life's physically possible in the vacuum of space because in a billion cycles its 28thousand years
We could potentially be sitting staring into our whisky bottle jonesdave for the age of the universe before our final neutron decays unless you relent to Bennies implication of 881.5 seconds or the alternative - half a neutron it all depends which you find the most palliative.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
To decay or not to decay
As those whisky fumes decay jonesdave, and that single neutron comes back into focus - the pressing issue remains, despite a potential infinite decay-life, real life down to earth realities are that a neutron decays and 881.5 seconds is generally accepted as the time for a single neutron to decay.
As the age of the universe is an infinite life-time so effectively a neutron does not decay.
There are two possibilities - either the single neutron decays in 881.5 seconds or it simply does not decay!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
There are two possibilities - either the single neutron decays in 881.5 seconds or it simply does not decay!


Wrong.

granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
In a cloud of decaying neutrons
And given a large enough cloud of decaying neutrons going through beta-decay is returning back to protons acquiring that ejected electron to hydrogen - acquiring neutrons from the cloud, there by stabilising the decaying neutrons to the three isotopes of hydrogen.
As this is possible because 881.5 seconds is only the half-life
.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
The Infamous Half a Neutron
granville583762> There are two possibilities - either the single neutron decays in 881.5 seconds or it simply does not decay!

jonesdave> Wrong.

As neutron decay is measured in zero to billions of year's jonesdave, "Wrong" needs a we bit more elaboration, unless you are intimating a neutron continues its half-life decay on reaching a singular neutron.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
The Infamous Half a Neutron
granville583762> There are two possibilities - either the single neutron decays in 881.5 seconds or it simply does not decay!

jonesdave> Wrong.

As neutron decay is measured in zero to billions of year's jonesdave, "Wrong" needs a we bit more elaboration, unless you are intimating a neutron continues its half-life decay on reaching a singular neutron.


I've already explained it as simply as I can. The same applies for a single, isolated neutron as it does for a single neutron surrounded by other neutrons. There is a 50/50 chance that it will decay within its half-life. As you extend the time beyond the half-life, there is an ever greater chance that it will decay. However, there is a small, but finite chance that it could stick around for a long time.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
The 50/50 chance only applies to billions of neutrons, because in the billions there are neutrons with billion year decay-life.
When you get down to the last neutron you are dealing with the neutron that has the longest life span, it has been weeded out from the lesser neutrons.
This implies we are staring at the longest decay life neutron with an almost 100% certainty.
Meaning it does not decay in 881.5 seconds and no one alive is going to live long enough to see it decay.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
The 50/50 chance only applies to billions of neutrons, because in the billions there are neutrons with billion year decay-life.
When you get down to the last neutron you are dealing with the neutron that has the longest life span, it has been weeded out from the lesser neutrons.
This implies we are staring at the longest decay life neutron with an almost 100% certainty.
Meaning it does not decay in 881.5 seconds and no one alive is going to live long enough to see it decay.


Pretty much. Another way of thinking about it is tossing a coin. There is a 50/50 chance that heads will turn up on the first throw. Ditto for every subsequent throw. However, if you compute the odds of throwing heads 10 times in a row, it is very unlikely. But not impossible.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
Effectively the error of chance has been taking out of the equation because we have isolated the longest decay life neutron from the cloud – this has to be so otherwise the half-life decay process would not even remotely follow any mathematical formula because the neutron decay would occur randomly and haphazardly – then you could get two identical clouds of decaying neutrons and no mathematical formula would be able to predict the mass of either cloud after the same amount of time - as one cloud will have completely decayed where as the other is unpredictably hanging around.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
The reality is neutrons decay after their individual allotted life span
This is the consequence on computing on chance - chance by its very nature is unpredictable and numbers do not come into it.
If numbers come into it there by increasing certainty it is not chance, because the unpredictable nature of chance applies to each individual neutron where each neutron decays in an entirely unprintable fashion as every other neutron does, so collectively the outcome is same result as a single neutron - its unpredictable and the half-life formula will not work
The fact the half-life formula gives anything of a predictable result indicates chance does not come into it.
The reality is neutrons have an infinite range of decay-life's where each one is decaying after its allotted life span and we observe a neutron decaying as it comes to the end of its 8 second or 8 billion year life then the next micro second another decays, so in no time at all there are no micro- second neutrons left.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
Has anyone collected a cloud of a billion neutrons and observed the constant decay over the coming months and years as the 881.5 second half-life whittles down the numbers, while observing single neutrons in isolation and recording how long they take to decay while constantly observing and weighing the diminishing billion neutrons?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
Given a million isolated neutrons and 881.5 seconds
granville583762> The reality is neutrons decay after their individual allotted life span

Benni.> ****

I thought you would take issue with neutrons having allotted life spans Benni, but this subject needs to be gone into in a lot more depth than just what I can inject Benni, because I personally, do not yet know, given a million isolated neutrons do not yet know how many of the isolated million neutrons will be left after 881.5 seconds?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2018
given a million isolated neutrons do not yet know how many of the isolated million neutrons will be left after 881.5 seconds?


Zero will be left, if by "isolated" you mean unbound from any atomic mass.

It doesn't matter if one million or one trillion become free unbound neutrons all at the same time. The 15 minute clock starts ticking at the moment they are separated from an atomic nucleus. If a "cloud" of any quantity are unbound at the same exact moment in time, that neutron cloud will DECAY inside of 15 minutes all at the same EXACT moment in time.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
The Infamous Half a Neutron
granville583762> given a million isolated neutrons do not yet know how many of the isolated million neutrons will be left after 881.5 seconds?


Benni> Zero will be left, if by "isolated" you mean unbound from any atomic mass.

It doesn't matter if one million or one trillion become free unbound neutrons all at the same time. The 15 minute clock starts ticking at the moment they are separated from an atomic nucleus. If a "cloud" of any quantity are unbound at the same exact moment in time, that neutron cloud will DECAY inside of 15 minutes all at the same EXACT moment in time.

That is what I thought and what I originally inkly typed - half-life applies to a group of bound particles where decay applies to isolated particles otherwise we get into neutrons of variable decay-life in a an unbound cloud of neutrons and all that entails
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
So after all I have inkly typed I am back to where I started at the begging where I said
granville583762> Neutrons and their half lives are infinitely longer than 15minutes
This is new to me, new to science that half life means the decay of a single particle versus a collection of particles.
Only a group of particles can have a half life as a single particle does the actual decay where the half life is the number of particles left after a given time.
Because unless I am mistaken a neutron decaying in 15minutes is not a half life, the half life of a neutron is the number of neutrons left in a block of atoms after a given time because neutrons decay extremely slowly when combined in atomic structures if at all

This no skin of my nose, the neutron decay-life has been around for 15billion years so to back track over a few minute's comments is no spilt milk
The neutron decay is going to around for untold trillions of years if not for ever!
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2018
given a million isolated neutrons do not yet know how many of the isolated million neutrons will be left after 881.5 seconds?


Zero will be left, if by "isolated" you mean unbound from any atomic mass.

It doesn't matter if one million or one trillion become free unbound neutrons all at the same time. The 15 minute clock starts ticking at the moment they are separated from an atomic nucleus. If a "cloud" of any quantity are unbound at the same exact moment in time, that neutron cloud will DECAY inside of 15 minutes all at the same EXACT moment in time.


Oh dear!
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
The neutron decay is going to around for untold trillions of years if not for ever!


......yep, but the DEGENERATE NEUTRON Pop-Cosmology quacks would have everyone believing otherwise, or they couldn't have their fabled black holes which by all accounts start with neutron stars, this being the reason a DEGENERATE NEUTRON is so critical to the funny farm Pop-Cosmology crowd.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
^^^^The irony of real scientists being called 'quacks' by this uneducated bozo!
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
given a million isolated neutrons do not yet know how many of the isolated million neutrons will be left after 881.5 seconds?


Zero will be left, if by "isolated" you mean unbound from any atomic mass.

It doesn't matter if one million or one trillion become free unbound neutrons all at the same time. The 15 minute clock starts ticking at the moment they are separated from an atomic nucleus. If a "cloud" of any quantity are unbound at the same exact moment in time, that neutron cloud will DECAY inside of 15 minutes all at the same EXACT moment in time.


Oh dear!

Oh yes, Oh dear because unless I very am much mistaken we have two graduates with conflicting views, with myself just being inquisitive jonesdave, as I have no views on this matter.
It is your construct of half a neutron that intrigues me which when we get the basics, right that's the next issue to tackle -
I can foresee many unforeseen Oh dears ahead!
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
It is your construct of half a neutron that intrigues me which when we get the basics..


FFS don't you listen? THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HALF A SODDING NEUTRON! UNDERSTAND?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
Science and their Ideas and half a neutron
jonesdave I would never have made an issue of another commenter typing anything concerning the suggestion of half a neutron, and I would have never have picked on it because I have a sixth sense for these things and when to leave them well alone because there is no explanation forth coming possible, it's not going anywhere - it's just a head ache for nothing but it still interesting, a sort of physiological challenge because that's all it is. Even so I could not detect Benni actually saying it even with my sixth sense!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2018
Even so I could not detect Benni actually saying it even with my sixth sense!


Have a look upthread at Benni's definition of half-life - it is along the lines of "the time it takes something to lose half its MASS." How can a neutron lose half its mass? Obviously it can't. Otherwise we'd have half a neutron!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
How can a neutron lose half its mass? Obviously it can't. Otherwise we'd have half a neutron!


..........finally, you've learned something from me, and if a neutron is unable to lose half it's mass over a given period of time it doesn't have a decay rate that is measured in 1/2 life, it simply has a 15 minute decay rate with no adjuncts.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
How can a neutron lose half its mass? Obviously it can't. Otherwise we'd have half a neutron!


..........finally, you've learned something from me, and if a neutron is unable to lose half it's mass over a given period of time it doesn't have a decay rate that is measured in 1/2 life, it simply has a 15 minute decay rate with no adjuncts.


Half-life is nothing to do with mass! Jesus H. Christ. It is the time required for 50% of an isotope (usually) to decay to another isotope. Such as 40 K to 40 Ar. In the case of neutrons, it is the time taken for 50% of free neutrons to decay to protons, electrons and electron anti-neutrinos.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2018
@jonesdave, @Benni.

From memory, the term 'half-life' was coined to quantify the stochastic likelyhood 'average time interval' that an 'ensemble' of numerous COMPLEX atoms would 'fission' to produce lighter atoms OR to 'transmute' into other isotopes (with either less/more NEUTRONS).

The use of 'half-life' term in other contexts (ie, beta, gamma decays) is, in my opinion, less than helpful in discussing different contexts; especially that of Neutron 'stability/lifetime' (witness the cross-purpose exchanges/confusions in your discussion).

The crux or the matter is: a 'free' Neutron not in direct interaction with other neutrons, protons, electrons (or even other energy-inputting 'entities' like magnetic/electric fields and/or their various high-energy radiations like Gamma, X ray etc) has an experimentally measurable 'average MAXIMUM' lifetime (ie, NOT a stochastically derived 'average HALF-LIFE' lifetime).

A subtle but all-important 'apples and oranges' difference! . :)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
Half-life is nothing to do with mass!


In the case of neutrons, it is the time taken for 50% of free neutrons to decay


.....just how much more fun can the plantation of funny farm Pop-Cosmology get to be. This is what you get when anthropologists like you aspire to things forever beyond your reach.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
@RC,; 'll stick to the experts' descriptions in the scientific literature, if it's all the same to you.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2018
@RC,; 'll stick to the experts' descriptions in the scientific literature, if it's all the same to you.


Is that a promise you'll cease from quoting yourself?
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2018
Half-life is nothing to do with mass!


In the case of neutrons, it is the time taken for 50% of free neutrons to decay


.....just how much more fun can the plantation of funny farm Pop-Cosmology get to be. This is what you get when anthropologists like you aspire to things forever beyond your reach.


Christ you're thick! The sad thing is, that you are too thick to realise how thick you are!
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
LOLOLOLOL ROFFLMFAO "half a neutron" What an idiot!

@jonesey, if they let this fool into a nuclear plant it was only into the restrooms. Go mop some toilets, @Lenni and mutter imprecations against the sciensetis again.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2018
See, the OP asking the same question here got it after a handful of posts:

https://www.physi....893982/
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2018
How can a neutron lose half its mass? Obviously it can't. Otherwise we'd have half a neutron!


..........finally, you've learned something from me, and if a neutron is unable to lose half it's mass over a given period of time it doesn't have a decay rate that is measured in 1/2 life, it simply has a 15 minute decay rate with no adjuncts.

Neutrons decay to protons.
Which don't weigh in at half the mass...
1/2 life of an element (ie; C14) do not represent the actual decay rate of a neutron on it's own.
Only when bonded with a specified number of protons.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2018
@jonesdave
@RC,; 'll stick to the experts' descriptions in the scientific literature, if it's all the same to you.
No problem, jd; as long as your 'reading' and comprehension of those experts' treatises/opinions is done in the light of the subtle but crucially important difference I highlighted for you in my previous post...regarding 'maximum-life' versus 'half-life' aspect in the two different contexts mentioned.

ps: I just saw @Whydening Gyre's post to @Benni:
...1/2 life of an element (ie; C14) do not represent the actual decay rate of a neutron on it's own. Only when bonded with a specified number of protons.
See? @Whydening Gyre 'gets' that subtle crucial important difference: between the experimentally measurable 'average maximum life' of a 'free' Neutron; and the stochastically derived 'half life' of a complex atom containing neutrons and protons.

pps: Kudos, Whyde! :)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2018
average maximum life


Write it up. Every paper I've looked at says you are wrong. Nobody uses the term 'average maximum lifetime'. Nobody mentions a maximum lifetime. However, all of them mention the 'half-life' and/ or 'mean lifetime'.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2018
Interestingly, "half-life" and "mean lifetime" are different. The half-life of a collection of neutrons neutron is about 1/e times the mean lifetime of a neutron; thus, the half-life of a collection of neutrons is about 10 minutes, and the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes. But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons, as in an atomic nucleus. Neutrons in a nucleus are generally stable (unless the nucleus is unstable) and thus have a half-life of infinity as far as we know.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
It's an intriguingly difficult process
Interestingly, "half-life" and "mean lifetime" are different. The half-life of a collection of neutrons neutron is about 1/e times the mean lifetime of a neutron; thus, the half-life of a collection of neutrons is about 10 minutes, and the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes. But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons, as in an atomic nucleus. Neutrons in a nucleus are generally stable (unless the nucleus is unstable) and thus have a half-life of infinity as far as we know.

This Perpetual problem of Neutron Decay
Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force, characterized by lengthy decay times. Nucleons use the weak force allowing a quark to change type exchanging a W boson and creation of an electron/antineutrino or positron/neutrino pair. Neutrons decay to Protons. Decay times for nuclides of beta decay are thousands of years
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Neutrons do not decay slowly or do they?
Even if our neutron decay is slightly shorter than many thousands of years it is nothing remotely like 881.5 seconds which comes to when a neutron decays it is ejected from the nucleus as it forms a proton
All protons are repulsive, however you look at it, the decaying neutron is ultimately going to place itself outside the nucleus as a proton. The instant it is ejected it is a free unbound neutron and if still a neutron subject to the 881.5 second decay. So what is taking place over 1000s of years that ultimately in a nano-second ejects the neutron as a proton, neutrons do not decay slowly or do they?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Is this ultimately what is taking place - the Neutron is decaying slowly in the Nucleus
granville583762> Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force, characterized by lengthy decay times. Nucleons use the weak force allowing a quark to change type exchanging a W boson and creation of an electron/antineutrino or positron/neutrino pair. Neutrons decay to Protons. Decay times for nuclides of beta decay are thousands of years

The reality is, a neutron can only exist when it is in the nucleus while in the nucleus it is decaying slowly, as this painfully slow process proceeds it reaches a stage in process which results in the Neutron being ejected from the Nucleus
Once ejected as Neutron as it cannot survive outside the nucleus and it is subject to 881.5 second decay turning into a proton which is what we observe!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
A most plausible and satisfying result almost as painfully slow to its conclusion as the decay its self.
Neutron decay is a multi-stage process taking place slowly in the nucleus resulting in ejection where the second stage occurs externally from the nucleus taking place inside the 881.5 second decay process
The ejection velocity of the neutron from the nucleus depends on many factors as in the infamous fusion relativistic neutrons capable of covering distance rapidly outside the nucleus while subject to the 881.5 second decay process
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
Benni was right all the time, but not as he realized it in the way I have arrived at the same conclusion!

Now it can be seen Neutron decay is a two stage process where the first part occurs internally in the nucleus with the second stage occurring externally to the nucleus and as such externally, the Neutron is a free unbound Neutron and subject to the 881.5 second decay which is the basis of my original question - In a cloud of unbound neutrons and individual isolated neutrons how long to decay to protons - and we have the answer namely – All decay in 881.5 seconds!
TrollBane
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
This comment thread illustrates the downside of letting the people who are qualified to dry clean lab coats actually comment on science. Most people know they are dry cleaners and don't get confused because they tried on a lab coat either literally or figuratively.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Are you not putting your twopence worth in TrollBane?
TrollBane> This comment thread illustrates the downside of letting the people who are qualified to dry clean lab coats actually comment on science. Most people know they are dry cleaners and don't get confused because they tried on a lab coat either literally or figuratively.

As you appear to be indicating there are a lot of dry cleaning vacancies, are you putting in your job application TrollBane?
In the mean time we need more input!
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
This comment thread illustrates the downside of letting the people who are qualified to dry clean lab coats actually comment on science.


This entire article "Neutron Stars cast light on quark matter" June 8, 2018 by Ana Lopes, is all about the latest guesswork of Pop-Cosmology lacking ANY basis founded in nuclear physics.

Creating convoluted explanations about neutron half-life is just part of the convolution because OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for neutron degeneracy does not exist, the consequence being that unless it can be proven that a free neutron can exist beyond it's 15 minutes decay time then neutron stars can not form during a process called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE. It is during this collapse during which time Pop-Cosmology claims fictional degenerate neutrons are created forming the primary constituent mass of neutron stars & black holes............ha, big yawn, just the smallest chink in the armor of that argument bilges the whole theory.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^^^Annnnnndddd..the idiot is back to misunderstanding the whole process! Talk about thick! If the idiot cannot understand what a half-life is, what chance of him getting his few brain cells around the Pauli exclusion principle? Pointless. Worst case of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
All decay in 881.5 seconds!


Wrong. Which paper did you get that from? None of the ones I've read.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
All decay in 881.5 seconds!


Wrong. Which paper did you get that from? None of the ones I've read.
.....of course it's nothing from anything you've read because all you read are science fiction narratives better known as Pop-Cosmology.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
All decay in 881.5 seconds!


Wrong. Which paper did you get that from? None of the ones I've read.
.....of course it's nothing from anything you've read because all you read are science fiction narratives better known as Pop-Cosmology.


Sorry? What would you know? You are scientifically illiterate, as this thread, among many others, has amply shown.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Da Schneib> Interestingly, "half-life" and "mean lifetime" are different. The half-life of a collection of neutrons neutron is about 1/e times the mean lifetime of a neutron; thus, the half-life of a collection of neutrons is about 10 minutes, and the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes. But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons, as in an atomic nucleus. Neutrons in a nucleus are generally stable (unless the nucleus is unstable) and thus have a half-life of infinity as far as we know.

Of all the comments, Da Schneibs are the most comprehensive and informative and do not contain any ya boo physics
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Even Da Schneib agrees with Bennies assertion of neutron decay in 881.5 seconds
Da Schneib> the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes, But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons,

As even Da Schneib quotes that neutrons in isolation decay in 881.5 seconds
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2018
Even Da Schneib agrees with Bennies assertion of neutron decay in 881.5 seconds
Da Schneib> the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes, But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons,

As even Da Schneib quotes that neutrons in isolation decay in 881.5 seconds


No, he doesn't.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Contrasting comments and Yorkshire bluntness
Da Schneib> interestingly, "half-life" and "mean lifetime" are different. The half-life of a collection of neutrons neutron is about 1/e times the mean lifetime of a neutron; thus, the half-life of a collection of neutrons is about 10 minutes, and the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes. But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons, as in an atomic nucleus. Neutrons in a nucleus are generally stable (unless the nucleus is unstable) and thus have a half-life of infinity as far as we know

Versus
jonesdave> No, he doesn't

It is irrelevant as to what is known, fact or fiction or interpretation of someone else's comments as in the interpretation of the now infamous quote of the century "Maybe you think such a half neutron mass would look like a half-moon" if every reply bar one or two can be expressed as one, two or "gasp" even three syllables!
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2018
Contrasting comments and Yorkshire thickness.


FTFY. What does 'mean' mean where you live?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Concerning interpretation jonesdave, I said I could not discern Benni saying half a neutron existed but if you read through
Benni> Maybe you think such a half neutron mass would look like a half-moon

It is possible to interoperate Benni saying half a neutron - the key word is "interpretation" as everyone's interpretation is different as is Bennies, as ultimately it all depends on whether Benni intentionally or subliminally intended to convey the meaning of half a neutron which is what you took Benni to mean.
But it is an interpretation as i did not interoperate him so
The point I am making I have interoperatated Da Schneib to say and mean "the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes" because the mean lifetime of a neutron is 881.5 seconds my interpretation is he has said neutrons in isolation decay in 881.5 seconds

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2018
Even Da Schneib agrees with Bennies assertion of neutron decay in 881.5 seconds
Da Schneib> the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes, But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons,

As even Da Schneib quotes that neutrons in isolation decay in 881.5 seconds


No, he doesn't.
Thanks, @jonsey. You're correct, I didn't. As usual @LenniTheLiar always lies about what people said.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2018
The Idea behind the science
jonesdave listening to Benni at face value you might as well clean lab coats as there's a glut of vacancies due to the influx of inexperienced scientists, if you hold your nerve for moment, Benni is saying something behind his fog of scientific expression, which is my approach to all these ideas, I do not immediately denigrate what some is saying as in Benni because he might appear to be uttering gibberish because it is his outlandish idea that is making it sound nonsense.
Unfortunately you get lost in your idea's where it is correct to denigrate which I always reach a point and backtrack because as you know I have no fixed ideas and do not believe in theories because they always come back and bite you when your theories fall flat
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2018
Da Schneib> Interestingly, "half-life" and "mean lifetime" are different. The half-life of a collection of neutrons neutron is about 1/e times the mean lifetime of a neutron; thus, the half-life of a collection of neutrons is about 10 minutes, and the mean lifetime of a neutron in the collection is about 15 minutes. But this of course assumes that the neutrons are not in contact with protons, as in an atomic nucleus. Neutrons in a nucleus are generally stable (unless the nucleus is unstable) and thus have a half-life of infinity as far as we know.

granville583762> Of all the comments, Da Schneibs are the most comprehensive and informative and do not contain any ya boo physics

Indagator> *1 / 5 (1)

What it is you disagree with Da Schneib's comment Indagator
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!


......your dry humor just went wayyyyy, wayyyyy over jonesy's & schneibo's head.......later on for my next idea, right now I don't have time, I was just checking in to see what was the latest of the greatest, which I guess must be me.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!


......your dry humor just went wayyyyy, wayyyyy over jonesy's & schneibo's head.......later on for my next idea, right now I don't have time, I was just checking in to see what was the latest of the greatest, which I guess must be me.

I know Benni its delightfully delicious, like discussing half a hole!
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!


......your dry humor just went wayyyyy, wayyyyy over jonesy's & schneibo's head.......later on for my next idea, right now I don't have time, I was just checking in to see what was the latest of the greatest, which I guess must be me.

I know Benni its delightfully delicious, like discussing half a hole!


Bottom half? Or top?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2018
@jonesdave.

Relax, mate! Where did you pick up this 'phobia' against new descriptive terms coined in order to clarify certain confusions being caused by the failure to properly distinguish between subtle differences in 'contextual applicability' of existing terms? I used that term advisedly in order to 'encapsulate' the point of difference.

Please now consider calmly and 'without fear' the following further info for yourself before kneejerking again, ok? :)

All experiments find 'free' Neutron 'decays' after only a short period. No matter how many 'free' Neutrons involved. Sure, tiny 'quantum variables' in experimental 'environment' produce *small* time differences to 'decay', but *any one* free Neutron *always* 'decays' round about an 'average maximum' *short* time very little different from the others.

See? There is a world of difference between the 'unstable complex Nucleus' decay 'half-life' and the 'average maximum lifetime' of the 'unstable free Neutron' itself. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^^^^References, please. I'm not taking your word for anything.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Everything down here is fine and dandy.

I used that term advisedly in order to 'encapsulate' the point of difference.
And he worked real good for that. It pointed the difference out between real scientist words and words coming from the couyon Crankpot-Skippys who come to the physorg to play scientist by making up really weird sounding ways to say something they think will make them sound like a real scientist instead of the couyon they are.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2018
References, please. I'm not taking your word for anything.
.........your goto source:

"A free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes (881.5±1.5 s). This radioactive decay, known as beta decay, is possible because the mass of the neutron is slightly greater than the proton."

Neutron - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipe.../Neutron

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2018
@jonesdave.
References, please. I'm not taking your word for anything.
Jd, what has happened to you, that you refuse to check things out for yourself given the new information and clarification I just provided for YOUR self-study/comprehension. I don't ask you to take my word for anything. I merely provide clues, hints and relevant info/insights to help YOU to read your references in the light of the new perspective which should help dispel whatever reading bias keeps 'blinding' you to subtle (and sometimes even all too obvious) wider contextual implications/possibilities in what you are reading.

Jd, did you see where even @DS has done that; and then tried to explain to you the crucially different contextual meaning of "mean lifetime" (which I tried to alert you to, by using the term "average maximum lifetime"), and the meaning of 'half-life'.

Now, please, @jd, try not to let your antagonism for cantdrive and Benni to drive you 'blind' and 'phobic'. Ok? Chill. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2018
^^^^^^^^I've already read the literature. I know the answer. I don't need you to advise on anything. The day I become that desperate........................!
The half-life of a free neutron is 10.3 minutes. Therefore its mean lifetime is 10.3/ ln2 (0.693) = ~ 15 mins. In just the same way, the half-life of C-14 is ~ 5700 yrs. So, its mean lifetime is 5700/ 0.693 = 8200 yrs. Is there any C-14 left in a piece of material you need to date after 30 000 yrs? 40 000 yrs? So, will there be neutrons still hanging around after 60 mins? Do you know what an exponential decay curve looks like?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2018
@jonesdave.
The half-life of a free neutron is 10.3 minutes. Therefore its mean lifetime is 10.3/ ln2 (0.693) = ~ 15 mins. In just the same way, the half-life of C-14 is ~ 5700 yrs. So, its mean lifetime is 5700/ 0.693 = 8200 yrs. Is there any C-14 left in a piece of material you need to date after 30 000 yrs? 40 000 yrs? So, will there be neutrons still hanging around after 60 mins? Do you know what an exponential decay curve looks like?
I already explained the difference in contextual interpretation/calculation etc. ie:
See? There is a world of difference between the 'unstable complex Nucleus' decay 'half-life' and the 'average maximum lifetime' of the 'unstable free Neutron' itself. :)
The difference is that a 'free' Neutron is by DEFINITION 'free' from interaction with other 'nucleons'; whereas Neutrons in COMPLEX ATOMIC nuclei (ie, Neutrons in your C-14 example) DO experience constant Neutron-Proton interactions until 'decay'. See the different contexts, jd?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 15, 2018
See the different contexts, jd?


Show me your references. WTF is the difference ...........................no, sod it. Why don't you join the Physics Forum attached to this site, and ask your question there? Or are you as scared of doing that as Benni?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
See the different contexts, jd?
Show me your references. WTF is the difference ...........................no, sod it. Why don't you join the Physics Forum attached to this site, and ask your question there? Or are you as scared of doing that as Benni?
But mate, the common/mutual scientific understanding re 'average lifetime' is all over the wiki, and for more particles that just the 'free' Neutron; you only have to 'read' and comprehend it all with the insight into the contextual differences involved and the confusions which would arise if 'half-life' conventions/statistics were to be applied where they're NOT applicable. :)

Tell you what, mate, let's use examples other than the 'free' Neutron; where 'half-life' is NOT even a consideration, not even 'in theory', but rather ONLY 'average/mean lifetime' (or as I have tried to further stress it, "average maximum lifetime").

See Kaon or Pion in wiki. See? NO 'half-lives'; only 'mean lifetimes'. :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
^^^^^^^So, these guys are talking crap then?
https://www.physi....320673/
ZoeBell
Jun 16, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
Half-life and mean-life is all Mathematical
Half-life, mean-life, decay-time, exponential-decay, actual-decay- time, experimental-decay-time, measurable-decay-time which are applied to a decaying particle in the nucleus whereas the same atomic particle outside the atomic nucleus free from all interaction by virtue of being free from the nucleus where the particle in this case is the neutron, one fact above all, is it can not exist outside the nucleus so it has no option but to decay!
By measuring the particle decay of a block of atoms after a given time by weight it is possible to calculate half-life and consequently mean-life, this is all mathematical because it does not tell you how long your radioactive sample actually existed in the desert except by mathematically calculating over a small time period its reduction in mass, half-life and its mean-life. It is all Mathematical and no actual substance!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Are we Splitting Hares
Which comes to the neutron outside the atomic nucleus concerning the length of time it exist as an identifiable neutron.
One fact is indisputably accepted! It has an extremely limited time on this earth as a neutron!
The fact that is hotly disputed is the extremely limited length of time this neutron has left on this earth before it decays into its constituent particles!
Are we Splitting Hares because it appears arguable, given the tortoise has 611 seconds, it is possible for the tortoise to reach the neutron before it decays before the hare can in 881.5 seconds!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Half-life or half a neutron
The point being made is mean-life is mathematically derived from half-life, where as decay-time is actual time a free neutron takes in its extremely limited length of time it has left on this earth before it decays into its constituent particles.
This is hotly disputed, mean-life is a mathematical derivation of exponential decay and consequently has a 50/50 chance of decay, it is half-life!
But we know as a fact were dealing with a free neutron, a few seconds either way, the free neutron decays in 881.5 seconds - it has no choice in the matter!
Applying half-life to a block of radioactive particles in the atomic lattice to single particle, it no longer applies, the single particle decays, it has no half-life but simply decay-life!
The alternative is jonedave interpretation of Bennis idea
Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Benni and the Decay of the single Neutron
Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron

Who would have thought jonesdave and his eternal battle with his nemesis Benni could have raised Benni to those lofty spires that are only found when you drive down Kings Parade and park opposite Kings College in Cambridge where only Fellows discuss these extremely finer points of neutron decay outside the atomic nucleus!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Neutrons come in thirds
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!

......your dry humor just went wayyyyy, wayyyyy over jonesy's & schneibo's head.......later on for my next idea, right now I don't have time, I was just checking in to see what was the latest of the greatest, which I guess must be me.

I know Benni its delightfully delicious, like discussing half a hole!

Bottom half? Or top?

As the neutron comes in thirds, three quarks! there can only be a top and bottom quark
As the creams always on the top, I'll plump for the top half!
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2018
@Realitycheck
.. let's use examples other than the 'free' Neutron; where 'half-life' is NOT even a consideration, not even 'in theory', but rather ONLY 'average/mean lifetime' (or as I have tried to further stress it, "average maximum lifetime"). See Kaon or Pion in wiki. See? NO 'half-lives'; only 'mean lifetimes'. :)

You are displaying your ignorance in neon.

For ANY kind of decay the probability of decay in any fixed time interval is fixed. So, for a collection of decaying particles, 50% decay within the half-life. After another half-life, 25% of them still have not decayed. So, for 100 neutrons 1 hour is needed before only one is expected to be left. Considering single particles, the fixed probability in fixed time interval still applies. So after one half-life there is a 50% chance of the particle having decayed, etc.

What should have been obvious to you is that anything that has a half-life has a mean lifetime and vica versa. I again urge you to learn physic
RNP
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 16, 2018
@Realitycheck
You might also like to check out the clearly defined relationship between half-life and mean lifetime;

http://hyperphysi...li2.html

@Benni
You might like to look at this too, as it relates to the differential equation I keep giving you and you can not recognise or solve (e.g. https://phys.org/...c.html).
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
As the neutron comes in thirds, three quarks! there can only be a top and bottom quark
As the creams always on the top, I'll plump for the top half!
...but you see granDville, the entire issue about free neutron decay rate is a co-opting effort by the Pop-Cosmology crowd designed to create STABLE NON-DECAYING FREE NEUTRONS that have become unbound from an atomic nucleus during a process called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE during which they want gullible people to believe a thing called a DEGENERATE NEUTRON is created, their biggest problem is the below Gravitational Collapse Calculator:

http://hyperphysi...rff.html

........plug in the values needed for gravitational collapse to occur & it becomes obvious the time required to create a so-called degenerate neutron far exceeds the 15 minute decay rate of a free neutron, therefore Pop-Cosmology's eternal DEGENERATE NEUTRONS are never possible because gravitational collapse takes too long.
RNP
3 / 5 (10) Jun 16, 2018
@Benni
the entire issue about free neutron decay rate is a co-opting effort by the Pop-Cosmology crowd designed to create STABLE NON-DECAYING FREE NEUTRONS that have become unbound from an atomic nucleus during a process called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE


You are heroically shadow-boxing again.

You have constructed some monstrous distortion of the actual scientific ideas and are valiantly battling the resulting chaos. I can at least admire that.

So to relieve you of your terrible burden, let me assure you that the nonsense above has nothing to do with how astrophysicists think neutron stars form.
Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
to relieve you of your terrible burden let me assure you that the nonsense above has nothing to do with how astrophysicists think neutron stars for
.........then mister freelance journalist who never saw a differential equation you could solve, YOU explain it in the simplest terms YOU think it would be possible for ME to understand, or maybe just give US your best excuse why you can't do it in which case you could at least do it for everyone else here even though you are sure I wouldn't understand it, Ira would certainly like to know, so at least write it up for him.

You are heroically shadow-boxing again.
......Yeah, Pop-Cosmology's theory of GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE to create DEGENERATE NEUTRONS for which there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE,

I take it you don't like when I take Pop-Cosmology funny farm pseudo-science & turn it upside down on it's own head showing how one conclusion of it contradicts another.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
@Benni
If we are to continue this conversation you need to calm down and try to concentrate on the science.

For instance, let me point out that your idea above that "STABLE NON-DECAYING FREE NEUTRONS that have become unbound from an atomic nucleus during a process called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE" is silly.

The protons and electrons are also subject to the collapse, but when they are ALL sufficiently compressed in the core of the star the protons and electrons combine (by the process called "electron capture"; see the neutron degeneracy section of https://en.wikipe...e_matter for a description) to leave just neutrons.

I.e. There is no need in the models for free neutrons to survive the collapse.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
STABLE NON-DECAYING FREE NEUTRONS unbound from an atomic nucleus
This reference to 3quarks was to neatly fit in my dry humour Thanks for bringing me down to earth again I had forgotten the thread of your idea for a moment
The time for gravitation collapse, first it goes supernova requires time the whole star is expanding which means loosely bound neutrons and protons requiring TIME, the next stage of collapse of loosely bound particles also requires time an 800,000 mile star expanding then collapsing 800,000miles to 12miles it is larger stars that go supernova ejecting considerable mass in the process less gravity than the original star to crush protons and neutrons through a Million miles to 12miles diameter
My intuition tells me this takes considerably longer than 881.5 seconds where the neutrons are under free fall during this process Benni so are weightless these neutrons being weightless will decay!
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Decaying neutrons under free fall acceleration
What effect Benni has a free isolated neutron being weightless under free fall over a million miles has on the total number of decaying neutrons
Do neutrons decay at the same rate under gravity as they decay under gravitational acceleration of free fall where they are weightless?
What experiments have been carried out of isolated neutrons under gravity versus isolated neutrons under gravitational free fall because during collapse to the mythical neutron star the neutrons are weightless during collapse?
Whether or not all or some neutrons decay it is an undeniable fact neutrons, now you have raised this point do decay, as I do not prescribe to the Obfuscation of the jonesdavies that isolated neutrons do not decay – it is the eternal problem of the free neutrons streaming out of our fusion reactors, they have a bad habit of decaying!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
Neutron do not exist in the weightless environment of space
The fact the most abundant element in the vacuum of space is a proton and electron - hydrogen - indicates that away from the nuclear and electrical forces of attraction to the proton proves the point Benni, neutrons decay more rapidly in the weightless vacuum of space because there are no free isolated single neutrons in the vacuum of space – they have all decayed!
Do I have always answer my own questions that I concoct, especially on others ideas as though they are my own ideas!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
that your idea above that "STABLE NON-DECAYING FREE NEUTRONS that have become unbound from an atomic nucleus during a process called GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE" is silly.
......for sure it's "silly" but it's the silliness of Pop-Cosmology that promotes it, so it's not my "idea", that's on YOU because you're one of the Pop-Cos guys here promoting such "silliness", here take a peek:

Neutron Degeneracy, http://hyperphysi...sar.html

"Above 1.44 solar masses, enough energy is available from the gravitational collapse to force the combination of electrons and protons to form neutrons. As the star contracts further, all the lowest neutron energy levels are filled and the neutrons are forced into higher and higher energy levels, filling the lowest unoccupied energy levels. This creates an effective pressure which prevents further gravitational collapse, forming a neutron star."

.....and gravitational collapse requires more than 15 minutes.

Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
.....and gravitational collapse requires more than 15 minutes, and if you don't want to believe your own experts RNP, then you are nothing less than a rudderless Pop-Cosmology neophyte unable to steer a ghost ship in the middle of a raging storm.

There is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that such a thing as a DEGENERATE NEUTRON can be created under conditions of gravitational collapse by which Pop-Cos claims neutron stars are created as I quoted above, you have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE to the contrary?

RNP
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
@Benni
How many times have I explained why it does not matter that the collapse takes more than 15 minutes.

Let me try one more time:

During the collapse the matter is normal Hydrogen/Helium etc. It is only when all this matter reaches huge densities in the centre of the star that it is converted to pure neutrons by electron capture (as referenced above).

AGAIN. There ARE no free neutrons, so the 10 minute half-life of free neutrons is irrelevant.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
How many times have I explained why it does not matter that the collapse takes more than 15 minutes.

Let me try one more time:

During the collapse the matter is normal Hydrogen/Helium etc. It is only when all this matter reaches huge densities in the centre of the star that it is converted to pure neutrons by electron capture (as referenced above).

AGAIN. There ARE no free neutrons, so the 10 minute half-life of free neutrons is irrelevant.


.....and you keep reiterating that same Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble just like in the REFERENCE ABOVE that I linked.

There is no evidence that there exists a DENSITY of matter that prevents an unbound free neutron from decaying within 15 minutes after it is created by ANY means by which YOU imagine a neutron can be created.

Ok, you in all your Pop-Cos psycho-babble imagine that by some wave of Pop-Cos magic wand that placing a proton within some proximity of an electron with no regard for a neutrino must also be present.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
@Benni
You are deranged.

Good night.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
Ok, you in all your Pop-Cos psycho-babble imagine that by some wave of Pop-Cos magic wand that placing a proton within some proximity of an electron with no regard for a neutrino must also be present.
Seems to work fine in a nucleus. Except for the neutrino part.

Just sayin'.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
@Benni
You are deranged.


Correct.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
Distribution of pressure inside a proton
The answer Benni can be found in https://phys.org/...als.html
phys.org> The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal near the centre of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star

The quarks provide sufficient pressure to support the proton against collapse and then the neutron star ceases to exist as it becomes a proton star and side's steps this nightmarish world of decaying neutrons, which in reality like protons consist of three quarks.
In reality it is the quarks that hold up the neutrons against degeneracy pressure and it is the protons that have an electric field and magnetic field, not neutrons it is more logical that it is a proton star than a neutron star! Above all a proton in the proton star does not decay
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
That is it is a neutron star! The answer is in the name - it is neutral
The proton will resist more strongly gravitational collapse and require a greater pressure to maintain it as proton star requiring a more massive star
This requires all the protons to convert to neutrons because there are limits how close quarks can approach each other, the quarks have to convert to a neutral charge to enable closer approach!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
That is it is a neutron star! The answer is in the name - it is neutral
The proton will resist more strongly gravitational collapse and require a greater pressure to maintain it as proton star requiring a more massive star!


Nope.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2018
That is it is a neutron star! The answer is in the name - it is neutral
The proton will resist more strongly gravitational collapse and require a greater pressure to maintain it as proton star requiring a more massive star!

jonesdave> Nope.

Benni idea is well rooted and watered now and is settled in and growing nicely, no amount of pruning is going to stunt its growth, there is only one thing that is going to halt is relentless progression and it is your good self jonesdave, you hold the key, the informative key and I hold the other, you have bring that Irish streak in yourself that every one posses' because I have seen brief glimpses of it jonesdave.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
it is the protons that have an electric field and magnetic field, not neutrons it is more logical that it is a proton star than a neutron star! Above all a proton in the proton star does not decay


I have pondered the same thing, the problem as I see it is the repulsive positive charge, how can that be neutralized except by an electron, in which case creates hydrogen.

Pop-Cosmology neophytes comprehend so little about nuclear physics that all they're doing is chasing their tails into ever-tightening circles of psycho-babble.

Creating a neutron by claiming pressure of density at gravitational collapse forces an electron & a proton into proximity which by some stroke of magic signals a neutrino to show up from nowhere to create their degenerate neutron, but what they forgot is the >99.9999% most likely event to occur is that hydrogen is created long before an available relativistic neutrino happens by completing neutron mass requirement, capiche?

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
......such close proximity which by some stroke of magic signals a neutrino to show up from nowhere to create their degenerate neutron


Ouch! The stupid around here hurts sometimes!

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
It's pitiful to watch this.

Neutrinos are *produced* not *consumed* during fusion. @LenniTheLiar is lying again.

Idiot.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
Ouch! The stupid around here hurts sometimes!


@LenniTheLiar is lying again. Idiot.


.........more Pop-Cosmology continuing it's never ending parade of malcontented over-the-hill Trekkies with their name calling rants. When are you guys gonna learn that name calling is not nuclear physics?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2018
After you learn enough physics that you know neutrinos are produced by the proton-proton chain which converts protons to neutrons.

And after you figure out that pretending people said things they didn't say is lying.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2018
When are you guys gonna learn that name calling is not nuclear physics?


We've already explained the science to you, but you are too stupid to understand it. Name calling is all we've got left! Just for the dim of mind:

p + e > n + Ve. Understand, Benni? Have we conserved charge there? Yep, we had + & - = 0. We end up with 0 + 0. Good. What about lepton number? Well, we disappeared an electron, but got back a neutrino, so that's fine. And baryon conservation? We had 1, a proton, and we still have 1, a neutron. All looks good from that angle. No neutrino needing to be inserted on the left hand side of the equation.
So................WTF are you talking about?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2018
There's consistency in nuclear reactions converting protons to neutrons and back again in electron capture
Radiactive nucleon decay Electron capture
wikipedia> - a type of beta decay, because the basic nuclear process, mediated by the weak force, is the same. In electron capture, an inner atomic electron is captured by a proton in the nucleus, transforming it into a neutron, and an electron neutrino released


Proton to neutron in Neutron star Electron capture
wikipedia> - The collapse is when the core of a white dwarf is above the vicinity of 1.4 solar masses, which is the Chandrasekhar limit, and the core is not halted by the pressure of degenerate electrons. As the star collapses, the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favourable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons via inverse beta decay or electron capture

Neutron stars cool radiating energy through escaping neutrinos
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2018
Riveting
Da Schneib> It's pitiful to watch this.

Pitiful but fascinating! When the rivets start flying I just duck behind the steady stream of neutrinos emanating from all that pitiful hot air!

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2018
@RNP.

Thanks, mate, but as with most scientific matters, I already knew those things from private wide-ranging researches long ago, even before I matriculated to Uni. My aim above was to point out the contextual differences, and most useful (to understanding) term, when speaking/understanding specifically in the 'free' Neutron 'stability/decay' time context. I already stressed to @jd the 'specificity' of difference of this context from the usual 'ensemble of complex atomic nuclei decay rates' terminology/statistics; and further also stressed the Kaon and Pion decay context where even Wiki tacitly acknowledges my point by not even mentioning any 'half-life' for such things, as it would be confusing/unnecessary to understanding of the actual behavior of THE 'particle' concerned, rather than just another abstract stochastic prediction applied to large numbers/ensembles of complex nuclei. Your own reference also takes pains to point out the difference to prevent confusion. :)

Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favourable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons via inverse beta decay or electron capture


What it will create is HYDROGEN, one proton, one electron. There is not enough mass to create a neutron because it is missing the mass of a neutrino.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
@RC: RNP told you exactly the same thing I had been saying. Glad that you now agree.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favourable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons via inverse beta decay or electron capture


What it will create is HYDROGEN, one proton, one electron. There is not enough mass to create a neutron because it is missing the mass of a neutrino.


Lol. He still doesn't get it!
alexander2468
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2018
Consistency of proton to neutron nuclear process
If it is missing the mass of the neutrino in the neutron star, this applies in electron capture, an inner atomic electron is captured by a proton in the nucleus, transforming it into a neutron, and an electron neutrino released.
It is such a consistent process it also applies in the proton - proton process with high speed contact, similar to a neutron star, two protons converts one proton to a neutron releasing a positron, electron neutrino and a gamma ray
High speed protons in collision is the same as energetic protons under extreme pressure are to all extent and circumstances one and the same
Then, in these extremely cramped neutron star conditions do not leave any room for anything remotely like a hydrogen atom configuration Benni.
The secret of a good idea Benni, is to keep it in check and follow conventional dogma
There's to many dogmatic rules being broken

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
RNP told you exactly the same thing I had been saying. Glad that you now agree.
Please read (or re-read) carefully what I said in my above response to RNP's comments. There is no substantive disagreement between him and me re that conventions as such. I merely pointed out the better way to treat 'free' Neutron particle per se for better contextual understanding, reduced possible confusions (which RNP's own reference also takes pains to point out may arise, due to the different terminology/number involved in 'free' Neutrino decay case). That was all I was trying to get you to be aware of, so as to forestall any confusions which may arise if 'half life' treatment/stats are applied to THE 'free' Neutrino decay time 'average maxima' (as that is effectively different from the generalized 'half life' number/period).

I tried to further stress that difference, directing your attention to KAON, PION entries in Wiki. Did you check? They don't even mention 'half life'.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
RNP said:

For ***ANY*** kind of decay the probability of decay in any fixed time interval is fixed. So, for a collection of decaying particles, 50% decay within the half-life. After another half-life, 25% of them still have not decayed. ***So, for 100 neutrons 1 hour is needed before only one is expected to be left.*** Considering single particles, the fixed probability in fixed time interval still applies. ***So after one half-life there is a 50% chance of the particle having decayed, etc.***

What should have been obvious to you is that anything that has a half-life has a mean lifetime and vica versa. ***I again urge you to learn physic(s)***.


I agree with everything he said. A free neutron has a half-life. The chances of the neutron decaying in that half life are 50:50. If you don't believe us, go ask the question on a physics forum, and stop pretending knowledge that you don't have.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
RNP said:
Yes, mate, I read what RNP said. That is why I further clarified the point of clarification for better treatment/term applicability in 'free' Neutron context/discussions. Again, I never disputed the 'half- life' convention as a GENERALITY per se; I merely SPECIFICALLY point out how that may confuse rather than help discussion re 'free' Neutron decay/stability etc PER SE.

I further tried to clarify my aim, by directing you (and him too if he is reading this) to other instances (eg, KAON, PION cases) where 'half life' is also NOT really helpful/needed when considering the actual physics of THE 'free particle' per se (this needlessness is highlighted by the *total absence* in WIKI of the 'half life' term when talking about such particles (ie, 'free' Kaon, 'free' Pion...and in my opinion, by logical and effective similarity...the 'free' Neutron).

That's all, mate. Nothing 'revolutionary' involved; merely better discernment between contexts. :)
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
Then, in these extremely cramped neutron star conditions do not leave any room for anything remotely like a hydrogen atom configuration Benni.


How do you know there is a "cramped" constraint criteria for: 1 proton+one electron => 1 hydrogen atom? It's never been demonstrated in the Hadron Collider, so you can't come up with OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for such an illogical conclusion.

The secret of a good idea Benni, is to keep it in check and follow conventional dogma
There's to many dogmatic rules being broken


That it can't be proven that so-called "cramped" conditions can prevent the formation of hydrogen by: 1 proton + 1 electron=> 1 hydrogen atom, is only a matter of "conventional dogma" emanating from the Pop-Cosmology plantation of funny farm pseudo-science that you live on.

Yeah, "dogmatic rules", it is a dogmatic rule that a neutron consists of the masses of three particles, but you Pop-Cos guys just keep forgetting that neutrino.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
By the way, for anyone interested, the half-life of a pion is ~ 1.8 x 10^-8s.
http://courses.wc...ons.html
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
.......but you Pop-Cos guys just keep forgetting that neutrino.


Errr, no, idiot. That would be every scientist who has ever studied these things. And they all agree with us. And nobody (with the possible exception of Granville) agrees with you. Ergo, your scientifically illiterate ranting is of no consequence to anyone or anything.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
It has to be said - in his naivety, Benni has raised an interesting line of research. Now, I'm sure this has been figured out, but it is an interesting problem from said naive point of view;

A neutron is more massive than a proton by 1.293 MeV. The rest mass of an electron is 0.511 MeV. So, proton + electron doesn't equal enough to account for the difference by 0.782 MeV. However, we are told that an up quark converts to a down quark in a neutron. Evidently, the difference in the mass of the down quark and the up quark is 2.5 MeV. So, straight away, we see that using this logic, the neutron should be 2.5 MeV more massive than the proton to start with, rather than 1.293 MeV.
However, it seems that the proton has a higher EM self energy, and therefore mass, than the neutron. Quite how much this is, I don't know.
So, no, we are not forgetting a neutrino, but things are a lot more complicated than it seems at face value.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2018
^^^^Ran out of room for the links for the above:
http://pdg.lbl.go...arks.pdf

https://juser.fz-...anyi.pdf
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2018
Hmmmm, a little more reading, and I found a recent value for the contribution of the proton EM self-energy above that of the neutron of ~ 1.30 MeV. If we deduct that from the difference in mass between a down quark in the neutron, and an up quark in the proton, of ~ 2.5 MeV, we are left with the neutron being more massive by ~ 1.2 MeV. The measured value, as mentioned above, is 1.293 MeV.
Fascinating stuff ;)

The Electromagnetic Self-Energy Contribution to Mp − Mn and the Isovector Nucleon Magnetic Polarizability
Walker-Loud, A. et al.
https://arxiv.org...0254.pdf
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Nice, @jonsey. QCD will have matured when we can postdict the observed mass more precisely. Then we can start accounting for molecular masses.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
Nice, @jonsey. QCD will have matured when we can postdict the observed mass more precisely. Then we can start accounting for molecular masses.


Yeah, it's interesting stuff. I hadn't really thought too much about it before. At least Benni has contributed to something useful, in a roundabout way!

My problem now is figuring out the following;
If the proton loses the self EM mass of 1.3 MeV as it decays into a neutron, it will then need to pick up ~ 2.6 MeV to equal the mass of a neutron. It'll get 0.511 MeV from the captured electron, plus another ~ 2.5 MeV from the conversion of the u into a d quark. That puts it 'overweight' by ~ 0.4 MeV. I am hoping like hell that this is carried away as energy somehow, by the neutrino!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Decay always tends to lower energies - Proton Neutron decay
It's clearly evident the proton plays the major roles in proton-neutron decay
Protons capturing electrons allowing them to decay into neutrons, have to have a higher energy state than the resultant neutron, where the protons up-quark converting to a down-quark, the proton has to have a higher initial energy to enable it to exchange a lower energy quark to higher energy quark and still be ending in lower energy state with the resultant neutron
This implies when the energetic proton captures the electron it is placing its self in a lower energy state by capturing, the energetic proton is decaying and the process continues its downward energy spiral by exchanging low energy quarks for high energy quarks, where each process results in placing the high energy proton in a lower energy state!
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
And so it continues – the high energy proton decaying into a neutron, the neutron is still in a higher energy state than a stable proton.
When the opportunity presents its self the decay continues
The proton-neutron decay continues where the neutron decays back to a stable proton
High energy Proton to Neutron to stable Proton
And to think Benni hijacked a natural high energy proton to stable proton by taking one of the intermediary processes for a purpose I have yet to fathom.
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
Possibility of possible belief and half-life
jonesdave> And nobody (with the possible exception of Granville agrees with you)

Thanks jonesdave for putting my curiosity in Bennies idea in the contact of the mean life of a neutron "possible exception" as the term possible has even less possibility in the mean-life decay of the now infamous Neutron which has a considerably higher possibility of decay at 50/50 as eventually it will decay, where as my interest in Bennies idea is only tenuous and only possible and with each passing half-life is becoming more tenuous as when it reach's that last tenuous shred of belief there will be no more belief left as the idea will have decayed and thankfully will be no more!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
where as my interest in Bennies idea is only tenuous


You're confused, none of it is MY IDEA, it's OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE grounded in nuclear physics, the same observational evidence is found in the Periodic Table that: 1 electron + 1 proton=> 1 hydrogen atom..........and in all your Pop-Cosmology fantasies you can't prove this will ever result in a neutron, there is NO EVIDENCE this can ever occur, the fantasies of Pop-Cosmology are not evidence.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
@Benni
The discovery paper is here; http://web.ihep.s.../eng.pdf
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
@Benni

From the Jefferson Lab (a US nuclear research facility):
https://education...ure.html

See also https://en.wikipe..._capture and references therein.

It is not any kind of cosmology. It is well know NUCLEAR physics.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
where as my interest in Bennies idea is only tenuous

Benni> You're confused, none of it is MY IDEA, it's OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE grounded in nuclear physics, the same observational evidence is found in the Periodic Table that: 1 electron + 1 proton=> 1 hydrogen atom

Experience shows the real knowledge behind the inkly typed comments. I rely on my instincts when the wool starts thickening, I like idea's, insights but you cannot run before you can walk even if you cannot understand all the intervening fluff, you have to get an instinctive understanding of exactly the intervening processes so all though you do not fully understand, you know you're on the right track.
The periodic table cannot derive nuclear reactions because a neutron it not a single unit it is constructed of many particles which is why it has a mean-life decay – each internal particle is involved in the neutron decay which is why half-life still applies to a single neutron Benni
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
@Benni
The discovery paper is here; http://web.ihep.s.../eng.pdf


Aha, Luis Alvarez! I saw the references in a few papers I was looking at. Presumably, the very same Luis Alvarez who, along with his son, Walter, were the people who founded the hypothesis that the K-T extinction was impact related. I have a book, 'T. rex and the Crater of Doom', by Walter Alvarez, that outlines the whole saga from go to whoa. Great read.
https://en.wikipe..._of_Doom
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2018
@granville583762
It is not necessary for a particle to be composite for it to have half a half-life (or equivalently a mean lifetime). Look up for instance the muon and tau particles, the W an Z bosons, the Higgs boson.,,,, the list goes on.....
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
@jonesdave
Yep. That's the guy. Obviously a great mind.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
Consistancy in decay
RNP> @granville583762
It is not necessary for a particle to be composite for it to have half a half-life (or equivalently a mean lifetime). Look up for instance the muon and tau particles, the W an Z bosons, the Higgs boson.,,,, the list goes on.....

I was also coming to that view after inkly typing, each individual particle involved in decay is consequently part of the half-life, the time for any single particle involved in the decay process, the time for that process to take place is exponential in each single particles reaction having 50/50 of occurring.
Thanks for mentioning it!
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 17, 2018
@
That's right, but I would complete your sentence by;

the time for that process to take place is exponential in each single particles reaction having 50/50 of occurring
WITHIN THE HALF-LIFE.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2018
@granville583762
To take it further..

After one half-life, in the next period equal to the half-life, 50% of **remaining** particles will decay (leaving only 25% of the original amount). and so it goes on, with 50% of the remaining particles decaying in each half-life period until there are none left.

Is that clear?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
RNP> @granville583762
To take it further..
After one half-life, in the next period equal to the half-life, 50% of **remaining** particles will decay (leaving only 25% of the original amount). and so it goes on, with 50% of the remaining particles decaying in each half-life period until there are none left.
Is that clear?

Quite clear RNP - I come to a lot of conclusions inkly typing, we have to give Benni some credit as he was the impetus and has firmly driven home decay like no other, but not in the direction he thought it was going!
RNP
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
@granville583762
Please do not be offended, but what does "inkly typing" mean? It is nothing like any English that I know.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
RNP> @granville583762
Please do not be offended, but what does "inkly typing" mean? It is nothing like any English that I know.

It is an expression I used to use on a previous site because everyone was refusing to comment and discouraging any one commenting when they did comment, so I used to encourage them to inkly type, the site died and the commenting was withdrawn.
RNP
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
@granny (I am going to use this contraction without any intention of demeaning you)
I still do not understand what it means. Can you paraphrase it?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
RNP:- I used to say put pen and ink to parchment and I transferred it to the computer age and changed it to inkly type as on the computer keyboard – it is derived from inkly as the inkwell the school desks used to have at school, as being left handed my exercise book was one big ink blotch. My unique style goes back many years. - I am not offended its part of my charm!
RNP
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
OK. As another aged lefty, I clearly remember the pressure to use my right hand and the horrors of smudged ink. So, I know exactly where you are coming from!

So let me ask my question another way,. Ink is a noun. Whereas words that end in -ly (e.g. quickly, slowly, really, gently) are generally adverbs. I do not understand how you construct an adverb from the noun ink.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
It works a treat on extracting ideas, and now as you have experienced it unintentionally on your good self RNP, which is why I only take it to its limits tackling the likes of the infamous half a neutron to get at the idea, not that it came to anything RNP
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
It works a treat on extracting ideas, and now as you have experienced it unintentionally on your good self RNP, which is why I only take it to its limits tackling the likes of the infamous half a neutron to get at the idea, not that it came to anything RNP


Sorry, but I can make little sense of what you are saying. You really do need to improve the English you post. If you are, as you claim, an native English speaker, then you need to read and correct your posts before you submit them, If, on the other hand, and as I expect, English is not your native language, then you need to admit it.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
RNP> @granny
OK. As another aged lefty, I clearly remember the pressure to use my right hand and the horrors of smudged ink. So, I know exactly where you are coming from!

So let me ask my question another way,. Ink is a noun. Whereas words that end in -ly (e.g. quickly, slowly, really, gently) are generally adverbs. I do not understand how you construct an adverb from the noun ink.

The truth is coming out, the schools up north although in another world from today, their English classes as I am just finding out were atrocious, and there was only a smattering of grammar so consequently over the years and I have developed these little descriptive's which I seem to find pleasing although not technically correct, like Americanisms where they make whole words, we make small changes that are pleasing to the ear. You're the first to ask, to but since being on this site it has not been used very much.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
I applaud your creativity. But you must understand that WE need to understand your constructions if we are to discuss them,
granville583762
4 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2018
RNP> @granny
I applaud your creativity. But you must understand that WE need to understand your constructions if we are to discuss them,

As you have probably realised science is also a language and I, just like your self, you have to translate my comments, I have to translate scientific comments, another truth is they have partly been developed as a commenting defence because of previous commenting experience, if you think a round with cantdrive is stretching credulity you haven't seen anything yet!
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
Forget your previous experience.

If you want to make honest comments and/or ask honest questions, there are people here that will happily talk to you. However, before you start, it is important that you have identified the cranks. (e.g. Benni, Realitycheck, cantdrive85 etc)
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
Forget your previous experience.

If you want to make honest comments and/or ask honest questions, there are people here that will happily talk to you. However, before you start, it is important that you have identified the cranks. (e.g. Benni, Realitycheck, cantdrive85 etc)

Oh, I've discovered the list is quite long, and since these sites are extremely rare there are some of the highly qualified professors from all over the world that left the previous site years ago and have settled here, but they only appear every year or so, as the previous site had highly technical discussions going back to 2004, it is a shame it's all gone now – that was its attraction, its wealth of knowledge.
It's all in the past now, but you asked and I am telling you RNP.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2018
@granny
I am sorry my friend, but you are not speaking comprehensible English, and I am tired.

Let's try again another time,
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
TRANSLATION IN TEXTS RNP
RNP [RNP> However, before you start, it is important that you have identified the cranks. (e.g. Benni, Realitycheck, cantdrive85 etc)] – TRANSLATION - [granville583762 > Oh, I've discovered the list is quite long] read my next comment directly below yours RNP because the previous site was structured, dated, numbered, where each commenter was labelled SO I AM USED TO STRUCTERED ORDERED TEXTS RNP.
YOU ARE USED TO WHAT APPEARS TO ME AS DISORDER TEXTS RNP so why do you appear to have a translation problem,
SO WHAT ON EARTH IS YOUR TRANSLATION PROBLEM RNP or have you put your self in your identified list RNP!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2018
RNP this is what Benni said
If you have followed me so far you will be able restrain your immediate reaction in Bennies next idea, the mass and remaining mass during and after neutron decay which as you know goes hand in hand with half a neutron!

Benni> ......your dry humor just went wayyyyy, wayyyyy over jonesy's & schneibo's head.......later on for my next idea, right now I don't have time, I was just checking in to see what was the latest of the greatest, which I guess must be me

Benni has no difficulty with translating my texts RNP and dry humour RNP
I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt RNP; you are the first one to openly admit a language barrier and its not a language barrier and you got a head ache over half a dozen texts
Bennies laughing so hard he's crying into his beard RNP!
Oh well, I suppose we will have to include you in your little list RNP
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2018
My problem now is figuring out the following;
If the proton loses the self EM mass of 1.3 MeV as it decays into a neutron, it will then need to pick up ~ 2.6 MeV to equal the mass of a neutron. It'll get 0.511 MeV from the captured electron, plus another ~ 2.5 MeV from the conversion of the u into a d quark. That puts it 'overweight' by ~ 0.4 MeV. I am hoping like hell that this is carried away as energy somehow, by the neutrino!
If you read the paper carefully you'll find that there are negative terms that offset the positive terms to some extent, mostly in the color force residuals. Because the color force is so strong you always have to start there.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
@RNP
@granville583762...it is important that you have identified the cranks. (e.g. ..... Realitycheck, ....... etc)
RNP, mate, if you are still incapable of telling the difference between me (a scrupulously independent objective researcher/observer strictly applying the principles of Scientific Method at all times) and anyone else you label 'crank', then perhaps it's time you re-evaluated your own possible personal prejudices and pre-conceived/inculcated 'beliefs' and biases. Only when you can disabuse yourself of longstanding personal biases and beliefs can you truly call yourself 'non-crank' while accusing others (especially me) of being 'crank'. It is difficult and takes much intellectual honesty and personal self-control/integrity; and I still think you have it in you, and that you will eventually (preferably sooner than later, I hope and trust) succeed in doing that, if you try very hard. Good luck, RNP. :)
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
The Reality in having a RealityCheck
RealityCheck> @RNP
@granville583762...it is important that you have identified the cranks. (e.g. ..... Realitycheck, ....... etc)
RNP, mate, if you are still incapable of telling the difference between me (a scrupulously independent objective researcher/observer strictly applying the principles of Scientific Method at all times) and anyone else you label 'crank', then perhaps it's time you re-evaluated your own possible personal prejudices and pre-conceived/inculcated 'beliefs' and biases. .... Good luck, RNP. :)

Good look in your quest RealityCheck, this is the first time RNP has approached me RealityCheck, and it lasted 6texts and look how it ended, as I said good look in your quest!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.