Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
Author: Subject: Hydrogen
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 27-12-2017 at 11:47
Hydrogen


Does anyone have an references or explanation why Hydrogen usually has no Neutron ?

It's almost as if the Hydrogen we know is a kind of anti-isotope, with deuterium being the 'proper' version.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 4005
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 27-12-2017 at 11:59


Neutrons are not stable, and there were not many around when the hydrogen was formed.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 27-12-2017 at 12:15


Thanks for the answer.

Mmmm.

A bit of time has passed since then, plus they seem to appear in 'normal' numbers in other atoms, despite their instability.
If unstable, there would be very few by now.

I was about to ask about proof etc then googled it.

'neutron' seems to be a convenient way to explain mass.

I'll go research further - basically i don't believe what i've read from what those dudes 100 years back came up with, and even got a Nobel for.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
SWIM
National Hazard
****




Posts: 424
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline

Mood: feeling a little stiff after that 2,4,5 trioxin exposure.

[*] posted on 27-12-2017 at 21:10


Neutrons are unstable when free(1/2 life less than a day), but may or may not be stable in a nucleus depending on the Z-shell situation.
Beta emitters have unstable neutrons in the nucleus.




Do you want red P?
Eat lots of beets.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
chornedsnorkack
National Hazard
****




Posts: 305
Registered: 16-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 28-12-2017 at 12:49


A simple answer: in nuclei, protons and neutrons stabilize each other. Go too far from the balance and the nucleus is beta radioactive or flies apart altogether.

The exception here is the nucleus of one nucleon because here flying apart is not an option. Only one of the two isobars can be stable, as per Mattauch rule, and it is proton.

[Edited on 28-12-2017 by chornedsnorkack]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 28-12-2017 at 13:48


So nobody has any references for their claims, including me.

Business as usual then: mucho research required.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
WangleSpong5000
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 129
Registered: 3-11-2017
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Curious

[*] posted on 28-12-2017 at 14:13


Imagine an Oxygen nucleus. 6 protons 6 neutrons yeah? Imagine it only consisted of protons which are all positively charged. Would the strong nuclear force be strong enough to overpower the electrostatic force of the protons? It wouldn't be... the strong force operates over much smaller distances than the other forces. Neutrons act as a kind of filler. The nucleus can exist because the strong force holds the whole thing together... electrostatic force is not attracting neutrons to protons as they have no charge but the strong force holds them together (which has to do with with the way the quarks interact... the strong force is redisdual 'color' force leakage of quark interaction) but electostatic repulsion would blow the nucleus apart if there were no neutrons.

Notice how very heavy elements have a different proton to neutron ratio? It's 1 to 1 for most elements. its about 1 to 1.5 for really heavy elements. This is because the nucleus in these cases contains lots of protons and needs even more than 1 proton per neutron to be stable. And they often arent stable...

Hydrogen is just a combination of quarks. It could exist on its own as it was stable on its own. it coulsnt blow itslef apart electrostatically as it is only a single particle and I suppose the configuration of the quarks that made it was favourable...




Hyperbole be thy name
View user's profile View All Posts By User
wg48
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 05:22


Quote: Originally posted by aga  
So nobody has any references for their claims, including me.

Business as usual then: mucho research required.


Not really mucho research if you Google "why so little deuterium in the early universe"

But just in case your google is broken the short answer is:
As the early universe cooled part of the particle soup decayed to protons and less neutrons. The neutrons combined with the protons to form mostly deuterium nuclei, and helium nuclei. Most of the deuterium was very quickly (minutes) converted to mostly helium nuclei in various reactions by which time the universe had cooled such that most of the nuclear reactions stopped. Leaving mostly hydrogen and helium. (the prevailing view)




View user's profile View All Posts By User
chornedsnorkack
National Hazard
****




Posts: 305
Registered: 16-2-2012
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 10:50


There is a simpler explanation, which does not go deep into early universe.

Deuterium is stable - barely. It has no excited states. And it has second lowest binding energy of all stable nuclei.

Sun produces a lot of deuterium. Most of sunlight comes from deuterium...
except the deuterium does not last. The lifetime of proton in the centre of Sun is around 10 milliards of years. The lifetime of deuteron there is 2 seconds.

Either the conditions favour fission (low density), and then it goes past deuteron to protons, or else they favour fusion (high density) and then fusion goes rapidly past deuterium to helium or beyond. It is always easier to destroy deuterium than create it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
sclarenonz
Hazard to Self
**




Posts: 60
Registered: 13-12-2015
Location: BRASIL, BAHIA , CONCEICAO DO COITE
Member Is Offline

Mood: keep walking

[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 11:17


can we do the deuterium within FUSOR?

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-make-a-nuclear-fusor
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 13:49


Quindim says No.



View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
Administrator
********




Posts: 4629
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Metastable, and that's good enough.

[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 16:00


Really, this question has never confused me. I am quite happy with the idea that the relative frequencies of isotopes is a function of their stability. Protons last nearly forever. Deuterium not so much: especially in conditions that enable fusion.



If you are interested, take a look at the latest offering from sum_lab:
A primer on metals and non-metals with at least one novel experiment.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
WangleSpong5000
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 129
Registered: 3-11-2017
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Curious

[*] posted on 29-12-2017 at 17:44


Quote: Originally posted by aga  
So nobody has any references for their claims, including me.

Business as usual then: mucho research required.


Internet... lol :D

No I actually knew all that stuff I said already... yeah nah ... more like 25% ... possibly. I found a particularly good explanation on the the google machine. I'll go into my history and post it up after I've recovered from the new year...




Hyperbole be thy name
View user's profile View All Posts By User

  Go To Top