/sci/ - Science & Math

not enough mass

>>15894563
Bit of background
>when particles move very fast their electric fields compress through Lorentz contraction, so the positrons and electron would not feel each other almost at all, and would not attract + annihilate
>if they are moving in fast, tight orbits then the mass energy difference between electron + 2 positrons and that of a proton could be explained from [math]E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2[/math]

>>15894579
most of the mass of a proton/neutron is the energy from gluon interactions, isn't it? So the individual mass of a positron/electron isn't a dead breaker in OPs hypothetical case

>>15894579
See >>15894583

The quarks don't have enough mass to make a proton either; it's explained away in that case in the manner I described. Why not here?

Also, Fermi originally conceived this idea of 2 positrons and an electron. It's unclear to me why it was ever abandoned.

>>15894585
>>15894591
well, if not mass then what about annihilation?

>>15894616
See >>15894583

>>15894579
I only read: hocus pocus open sesame. How I see it: once upon a time people wondered how substances get properties so they invented molecules and binding forces. Those explanations weren't satisfying enough so they said ackshually molecules are groups of even smaller marbles with + and -. Then they invented microscopes and shit to confirm their ideas with their eyes. What am I missing? Maybe after that they needed one idea to explain another idea for observations that were macroscopic and hard to see microscopic because you can't see directly how marbles collide in that hardon tube? Please talk like a retard so that even I can understand.

>>15894616
>>15894626
According to >chatgpt
Electron scattering experiments were used to develop the quark model. Presumably the experimental results from electron scattering matched the quark model. Something to do with scaling the amount of energy used to fire the electron, and how they were scattered

>>15894656
Interesting. I'd appreciate more detail if you're willing to spoonfeed

>>15894626
>very fast, like nearly c fast
>very tight orbits
lots of energy in small spot does not sound very stable
should also give off some Bremsstrahlung, I'd guess

>>15894661
not willing to spoonfeed.
google electron-nucleon scattering
maybe read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_scattering
I don't know anything about it really, soz buddyboyo

>>15894563
wouldn't that mean a neutron would be 2 electrons and 1 positron ? Making it charged ?

>>15894563
>What is baryon number?

>>15895292
A neutron is a proton and an electron.

>>15895348
Oh i see. You're trying to avoid using quarks

>>15895384
What? No I'm just describing what a neutron has been experimentally shown to be.

>>15894591
>>15894583
>>15894635
>>15894661
>>15895348
>>15895387

>>15895387
A proton is two up and one down quark. I thought you were asking in the OP what if the two up quarks were positrons and the down quark was an electron. Because a neutron is two down quarks and one up quark, i thought that would make a neutron 1 positron and two electrons, making it charged. When a neutron decays it decays into a proton and and electron, but also an antineutrino. Are you missing the antineutrino somewhere ?

>>15895398
Not an argument.
>>15895405
OP here. I am saying "what if quarks aren't necessary and the proton is just positron + 2 electrons?"
Neutron can still be a proton + electron as >>15895387
>>15895348
said

>>15896381
>positron + 2 electrons
2 positrons + 1 electron rather

>>15894583
3 body orbits are very unstable.

>>15896381
>Neutron can still be a proton + electron
What about when it's not? Wouldn't it need to not be every time?

>>15894563
In particle colliders, protons behave very different from both electrons and protons. We've tried:
electron-positron
electron-proton
proton-proton
When the energies are high enough, you don't really have interactions with the proton as a whole but with so-called partons - whatever the proton is made up of. And also that looks completely different from electrons and positrons. The interactions are like day and night, no way to accidentally confuse the two.

>>15895348
>>15895387
>>15896381
> Neutron can still be a proton + electron

>>15896415
Seems to work out okay for unionized Helium.

>>15896477
Not talking about atomic nuclei in general here, just the proton. And the fact that a neutron is a proton + electron isn't really up for debate given beta decay...

>>15896673

>>15896691
Not an argument

>>15896673
so you suggest they abide by the same rules as electrons orbiting a nucleus?
if they don't feel the attraction to annihilate themselves, then what's keeping them together?

>>15896681
People were talking about neutrons. Also, protons are stable, neutrons aren't. If one of them is The fundamental, it would be the proton. If one of them was the composite one, it would be the neutron.

>>15896972
Ever heard of metastable positronium? Mentioned here, e.g.:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.01808.pdf
>>15897631
I think we agree

>>15897883
another question for you. What about paramagnetism? I'm sure there's a link between the number of electrons and the induced magnetic field. if you were right, then calculations would be way off right?

>>15897887
I think this is resolved by asserting that the spin of two of the particles is opposite that of the third. Two spin-up positrons and one spin-down electron, for example, gives a combined spin of 1/2 as we expect for the proton (again we see behavior resembling the quark explanation without the need for quarks).
In paramagnetism ultimately we care about the magnetic moment, right?

>>15894563
from high energy particle collision experiments, people have determined the mass of the particles that make up the proton and neutron (the up and down quarks). The mass of up and down quarks are not equal to each other, unlike positron/electron, which have equal masses. Also the mass of the up/down quark aren't equal to the mass of the electron/positron. therefore, the electron and positron aren't the particles that make up the neutron/proton. Also in the case of the neutron, if the neutron were made up of positron + electron, then it would have integer spin. However, it does not have integer spin, so it can't be made up of positron + electron.

>>15897946
Quarks have never been isolated so I call BS

>>15897946
We know that neutrons = protons + electrons. Again, that part isn't up for debate. All we need to do is describe the proton successfully as positrons+electron, and the theory is valid

bump