How long do neutrons live? Different measurement results contradict each other.
Researchers at TU Wien propose that free neutrons might exist in previously unknown excited states, potentially resolving discrepancies in measured lifetimes between neutron beams and magnetic ‘bottles’. The hypothesis suggests these states could significantly alter decay rates, prompting a need for new experiments to validate this theory, with international interest already peaking.
The Neutron Decay Dilemma
Neutrons are fundamental particles that make up matter. When they are part of a stable atomic nucleus, they can remain there indefinitely. However, free neutrons—those not bound within a nucleus—decay on average after about fifteen minutes.
Strangely enough, however, scientists have observed conflicting results when measuring the lifetime of free neutrons. The results vary depending on whether the neutrons are studied in a neutron beam or confined in a “bottle” using magnetic fields. A research team at TU Wien has suggested a possible explanation: neutrons may have previously unknown excited states. In these states, neutrons could have slightly more energy and a different lifetime, which would account for the discrepancies. The team is already exploring methods to detect these excited neutron states.
Two Measurement Methods, Two Results
By pure chance, without any reason at all, neutrons can spontaneously decay according to the laws of quantum theory – turning into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. This is particularly likely if it is a free neutron. If the neutron combines with other particles to form an atomic nucleus, it can be stable.
The average lifetime of free neutrons is surprisingly difficult to measure. “For almost thirty years, physicists have been puzzled by contradictory results on this topic,” says Benjamin Koch from the Institute of Theoretical Physics at TU Wien. He analyzed this puzzle together with his colleague Felix Hummel. The two are also working closely with the neutron research team led by Hartmut Abele from the Atomic Institute at TU Wien.
“For such measurements, a nuclear reactor is often used as the neutron source,” explains Benjamin Koch. “Free neutrons are produced during radioactive decay in the reactor. These free neutrons can then be channeled into a neutron beam where they can be precisely measured.” One can measure how many neutrons are present at the beginning of the neutron beam and how many protons are produced by the decay process. If these values are determined very precisely, the average lifetime of the neutrons in the beam can be calculated.
However, it is also possible to take a different approach and try to store neutrons in a kind of ‘bottle’, for example with the help of magnetic fields. “This shows that neutrons from the neutron beam live around eight seconds longer than neutrons in a bottle,” says Benjamin Koch. “With an average lifespan of just under 900 seconds, this is a significant difference – far too big to be explained by mere measurement inaccuracy.”
Exploring Excited Neutron States
Benjamin Koch and Felix Hummel have now been able to show: This discrepancy can be explained if one assumes that neutrons can have excited states – previously undiscovered states with a slightly higher energy. Such states are well known for atoms and are the basis for lasers, for example. “With neutrons, it is much more difficult to calculate such states precisely,” says Benjamin Koch. “However, we can estimate what properties they should have in order to explain the different results of the neutron lifetime measurements.”
The researchers’ hypothesis is that when the free neutrons emerge from radioactive decay, they are initially in a mixture of different states: Some of them are ordinary neutrons in the so-called ground state, but some of them are in an excited state, with a little more energy. Over time, however, these excited neutrons gradually change to the ground state. “You can think of it like a bubble bath,” says Felix Hummel. “If I add energy and bubble it up, a lot of foam is created – you could say I’ve put the bubble bath into an excited state. But if I wait, the bubbles burst and the bath returns to its original state all by itself.”
If the theory about excited neutron states is correct, that would mean that in a neutron beam, several different neutron states are present in significant numbers. The neutrons in the bottle, on the other hand, would be almost exclusively ground-state neutrons. After all, it takes time for neutrons to cool and be captured in a bottle — by which point, the vast majority will have already returned to their ground state.
“According to our model, the decay probability of a neutron strongly depends on its state,” says Felix Hummel. Logically, this also results in different average lifetimes for neutrons in the neutron beam and neutrons in the neutron bottle.
Further Experiments Needed
“Our calculation model shows the parameter range in which we need to search,” says Benjamin Koch. “The lifetime of the excited state must be shorter than 300 seconds, otherwise you can’t explain the difference. But it also has to be longer than 5 milliseconds, otherwise the neutrons would already be back in the ground state before they reach the beam experiment.”
The hypothesis of previously undiscovered neutron states can be tested using data from past experiments. However, this data has to be re-evaluated. However, further experiments will be necessary for a convincing proof. Such experiments are now being planned. To this end, the researchers are liaising closely with teams at TU Wien’s Institute for Atomic and Subatomic physics, whose PERC and PERKEO experiments are well-suited for this task. Research groups from Switzerland and Los Alamos in the USA have also already shown interest in using their measurement methods to test the new hypothesis. Technically and conceptually, nothing stands in the way of the necessary measurements. So we can hope to learn soon, whether the new thesis really has solved a decades-old problem in physics.
Reference: “Exciting hint toward the solution of the neutron lifetime puzzle” by Benjamin Koch and Felix Hummel, 10 October 2024, Physical Review D.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.073004
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
3 Comments
Memo 2410200325
In an atomic nucleus, a neutron can be stable. But a free neutron decays (?) into an oscillator, an antineutrino, and a proton after a while. How long does a neutron live? The results of different measurements contradict each other.
The nucleus is an msbase. Therefore, the domain of os synchronized with ems.void.str to double the msbase to make dark matter was established. os can be called neutrons because it is a structure in which the sum of the charges is oser.zero sum.
_Evidence 1(). For dark substances, msbase.outside
Source 1.
Researchers at TU Wien suggest that free neutrons may exist in previously unknown excited states, potentially resolving the mismatch in measured lifetime between neutron beams and magnetic bottles. This hypothesis suggests that these states can drastically alter the decay rate, requiring new experiments to verify this theory, and international interest has already peaked.
-Both theoretically and conceptually anticipated data has already appeared in my msbae.qpeoms physical theory as well. Huh.
Neutrons are the basic particles that make up matter. When they are part of a stable atomic nucleus, they can stay there indefinitely. However, free neutrons (neutrons that are not bound in the nucleus) decay after about 15 minutes on average. Strangely, however, the scientists observed conflicting results when measuring the lifetime of free neutrons. The results depend on whether the neutrons are studied in a neutron beam or are trapped in a bottle.msbase using a magnetic field.
_Evidence 2( ). The magnetic field is msbase
The research team at TU Wien suggested a possible explanation. Neutrons can have previously unknown excited states. In these states, neutrons can have slightly more energy and a different lifetime, which would explain the discrepancy. The team is already exploring ways to detect these excited neutron states.
1.
Two measurements, two results
By sheer coincidence, a neutron can spontaneously decay into a proton, an electron, or an antineutrino in accordance with the laws of quantum theory without any reason. This is especially likely in the case of free neutrons. Neutrons can be stabilized when they combine with other particles to form atomic nuclei.
–Since oss is a neutron state, it can turn into a proton, an electron, or an anti-neutrino? Good idea? Like storytelling is going to increase…haha.
The average lifespan of a free neutron (quasi.oss?) that is not bound to the mbase is surprisingly difficult to measure. For nearly three decades physicists have been baffled by the contradictory consequences on the subject. So we analyzed the puzzle.
Reactors are frequently used as neutral resources for these measurements. Free neutrons are created during radioactive decay in nuclear reactors. These free neutrons can then be sent to the neutron beam for accurate measurements. The number of neutrons at the beginning of the neutron beam and the number of protons generated during the decay can be measured. Determining these values very accurately allows us to calculate the average lifespan of neutrons in the beam.
However, it is also possible to take a different approach and, for example, store neutrons in a kind of bot.msbase with the help of magnetic fields. This shows that neutrons in the neutron beam live about 8 seconds longer than neutrons in the msbase. The average lifespan is slightly less than 900 seconds, which is a significant difference. It is too large to be explained by simple measurement inaccuracies.
Our computational model shows a range of parameters that we need to search for. The lifetime of the excited state should be less than 300 seconds, otherwise the difference cannot be explained. But it should be longer than 5 milliseconds. Otherwise, the neutron will already return to its default state before reaching the beam experiment.
2.
The conclusion is that if the theory of excited neutron states is correct, there are many other neutron states in the neutron beam. On the other hand, the neutron in the bottle.msbase will be almost entirely an elementary-state neutron (oss). In the end, it takes time for a neutron to cool down and be captured by the msoss and become a dark matter () and by that point, most of it will have already returned to its basic state. Huh.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ
Source 1.
https://scitechdaily.com/solving-the-mystery-neutron-lifetimes-and-the-new-quantum-puzzle/
Mystery Solving: Neutron Lifetime and a New Quantum Puzzle
The articles in SciTechDaily are not only available for browsing, but also require comments. If these articles are not publicly and properly commented on, their role in driving scientific and technological progress will be greatly reduced.
There are countless particles in nature, each with its own role and spatiotemporal location. Studying them is not a bad thing, just don’t deify them.
When physics is passionate about studying imaginary particles and things, it is no longer much different from theology. Certain people are passionate about God particles and Devil particles, and have always been immersed in supreme glory.
However, unfortunately particles are just appearances, the material basis of spacetime motion is the ideal fluid properties of space.
Whether the new article really has solved a decades-old problem in physics？
VERY GOOD.
All things follow certain laws, which can be revealed through observation and research ( such as topological structures ). When physics is passionate about studying imaginary particles and things, it is no longer much different from theology.
Scientific research guided by correct theories can help people avoid detours, failures, and exaggeration. The physical phenomena observed by researchers in experiments are always appearances, never the natural essence of things. The natural essence of things needs to be extracted and sublimated based on mathematical theories via appearances , rather than being imagined arbitrarily.
Everytime scientific revolution, the scientific research space brought by the new paradigm expands exponentially. Physics should not ignore the analyzable physical properties of topological vortices.
(1) Traditional physics: based on mathematical formalism, experimental verification and arbitrary imagination.
(2) Topological Vortex Theory (TVT): Although also based on mathematics (such as topology), it focuses more on non intuitive geometry and topological structures, challenging traditional physical intuition.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) points out the limitations of the Standard Model in describing the large-scale structure of the universe, proposes the need to consider non-standard model components such as dark matter and dark energy, and suggests that topological vortex fields may be key to understanding these phenomena. Topological vortex theory (TVT) heralds innovative technologies such as topological electronics, topological smart batteries, topological quantum computing, etc., which may bring low-energy electronic components, almost inexhaustible currents, and revolutionary computing platforms, etc.
Topology tells us that topological vortices and antivortices can form new spacetime structures via the synchronous effect of superposition, deflection, or twisting of them. Mathematics does not tell us that there must be God particles, ghost particles, fermions, or bosons present. When physics and mathematics diverge, arbitrary imagination will make physics no different from theology. Topological vortex research reflections on the philosophy and methodology of science help us understand the nature essence of science and the limitations of scientific methods. This not only has guiding significance for scientific research itself, but also has important implications for science education and popularization.
Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, is a typical case that pseudoscience is rampant and domineering.
Please witness the exemplary collaboration between theoretical physicists and experimentalists (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286). Let us continue to witness with facts the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of human social sciences and humanities. The laws of nature will not change due to misleading of certain so-called academic publications or endorsements from certain so-called scientific awards.
As some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/super-photons-unveiled-sculpting-light-into-unbreakable-communication-networks/#comment-861546 ): Fortunately, we have enough pieces to put the puzzle together properly, and there are folks who have chosen to forego today’s societal structures in order to do exactly that.
Additionally, some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/science-made-simple-what-is-nuclear-fission/#comment-862083 ): You have been spewing this type of nonsensical word salad for several years now. Outrage doesn’t equal competence. If anything, your inability to convince anyone is a sign of your incompetence. Ask the commenter：Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, and it even won awards. These so-called academic publications blatantly talk nonsense, which is a public humiliation of the normal intellectual level of the public. Do you think this is human misfortune or personal misfortune?
Isn’t this the evil consequence of the Physics Review family misleading science? Academic circle is not Entertainment industry. Have some people really never know what shame is?