End result when you break a proton down?

[UrbanXrisis]

what is the end result when you break a proton down? I know that the charge is called a positron but what is the other half of the proton called?

 

[dextercioby]

1.By "break a proton down" u mean desintegrate/decay,right??
2.Proton desintegration has nothing to do with chemistry,so this is a wrong forum.
3.One of the decay products is a positron.More details here

So far it hasn't been observed experimentally.

 

[UrbanXrisis]

Sorry, I was doing my chem homework and reading about nuclear chemisty. How a positron is identical to an electron execpt that it has a positive chage. Just wondering where it came from. Since electrons have negative charges, then the positron must come from a proton which has lost its mass and only kept it's charge.

 

[dextercioby]

1.There is no such thing as 'nuclear chemistry'.That's bull****.It's pure physics.Called NUCLEAR PHYSICS.However,the resemblance between the decay process of a nuclei and the decomposition chemical reactions (suffered by molecules) lead some idiots to call nuclear decay as "chemistry".Chemistry deals with only th outer layer electrons of an atom (bond electrons),and not with nulclei,their structure and behavior.
2.A positron came from theory:Dirac's theory of relativistic electrons.While proton decay also came from theory:the GUT (apud Grand Unified Theories) models,nonsusy extensions of the Standard Model of Particles and Interactions.

Daniel.

 

[UrbanXrisis]

haha, yeah, I like how my books has "Nuclear Chemistry" written as ALL of Topic 12. HA! I would agree that his is physics in many different ways. I'm sorry if I offended you by posting this under chemisty.

 

[t!m]

Chemistry deals with only th outer layer electrons of an atom (bond electrons),and not with nulclei,their structure and behavior.

I'm going to have to disagree with this over-generalized statement. Chemistry involves more than valence electrons and does deal with nuclei, citing a simple example: stoichiometry in chem requires molar mass, or the mass number, which obviously derives from the nucleus and not from the electrons. There are innumerable other examples of why chemistry deals with nuclei, and not just valence electrons.

 

[dextercioby]

I'm going to have to disagree with this over-generalized statement. Chemistry involves more than valence electrons and does deal with nuclei, citing a simple example: stoichiometry in chem requires molar mass, or the mass number, which obviously derives from the nucleus and not from the electrons. There are innumerable other examples of why chemistry deals with nuclei, and not just valence electrons.

I'm afraid mass number is a characteristic of the atom as a whole and only by chance (i.e.the electron's mass is so small,that it can be neglected) it coincides with a nuclear characteristic,namely the 'A' number.Had the electrons weighed more as not to neglect their masses in chemical reactions,the whole chemistry would have changed,as stoichimetry is an essential part in chemical reactions.
I'm expecting a more convincing explanation/example as why nuclei and their characteristics are determinant to general/inorganic chemistry.

Daniel.

 

[t!m]

How about the shielding/screening effect, where both the number of protons is required as well as the average number of electrons between the nucleus and the electron in question. These 'inbetween' electrons surely aren't valence or bonding electrons [as stated in your post] but still seem important.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that valence electrons are more often than not, the determining charactersitic of chemical properties and reactions, but to say they are the 'only' determining factor seems like an over-generalization.

 

[ZapperZ]

Buried in all of this is still the fact that no one corrected the original poster's wrong idea that a positron came from a proton that has "lost its mass". This needs to be corrected first and foremost.

A positron is generally created via a pair production from gamma rays. It is NOT derived from a "decaying proton", if there is such a thing. We have created tons and tons of positrons, but a decaying proton has NOT been observed. Those two observations contradict each other if positrons are "decayed protons".

And there IS such a thing as "nuclear chemistry", which finds a large part of its application in the medical field.

Zz.

 

[Briggs]

The positron is the anti-particle of an electron which basically means it is an electron but with a positive charge. I don't think it has any thing to do with a proton that has lost its mass.

 

[DB]

The positron is the anti-particle of an electron which basically means it is an electron but with a positive charge. I don't think it has any thing to do with a proton that has lost its mass.

Yea, a positron has nothing to do with a proton, it is just an electron with a positive charge. [tex]\bar{p}[/tex] would be the anti-particle of a proton, having the same characteristics but opposite charge, negative.

what is the end result when you break a proton down? I know that the charge is called a positron but what is the other half of the proton called?

If you "breakdown" a proton you will be left with principally quarks. 2 up quarks q(+2/3) and 1 down q(-1/3). If you put them together:
(2/3 + 2/3 - 1/3) you will be left with 1+, the charge or a proton.
Hope this helped.

 

[Gokul43201]

Briggs and DB,

The positron, in fact, does have something to do with the "breakdown" of a proton. Dexter addressed this in his first post, but I'll repeat.

It is currently believed that proton decay, if it happens, will result in a positron and a neutral pion.

On the other hand, it would not be right to say that a proton is composed of a positron and a pion.

 

[DB]

Ya your right, and I see why there is argument over wether we're talking about nuclear physics or chemistry. But in my opinion, under chemistry, I would say that quarks are more relevant, wheras nuclear decay, anti-matter, positrons,pions, etc. would be more as dextercioby said nuclear physics and even quantum chromodynamics.