Proton Neutron Quotes

Most importantly we have learned that from here on it is success for all or none, for it is experimentally proven by physics that "unity is plural and at minimum two" - the complementary but not mirror-imaged proton and neutron. You and I are inherently different and complimentary. Together we average as zero - that is, as eternity.

Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics". To see the problem, imagine playing God with the cosmos. Before you is a designer machine that lets you tinker with the basics of physics. Twiddle this knob and you make all electrons a bit lighter, twiddle that one and you make gravity a bit stronger, and so on. It happens that you need to set thirtysomething knobs to fully describe the world about us. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn't exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleuses and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, the universe seems to be just right for life.

When he put the old-fashioned mechanical toy on her palm, she stopped breathing. It was a tiny representation of an atom, complete with colored ball bearings standing in for neutrons, protons, and on the outside, arranged on arcs of fine wire, electrons. Turning the key on the side made the electrons move, what she’d thought were ball bearings actually finely crafted spheres of glass that sparked with color. A brilliant, thoughtful, wonderful gift for a physics major. “Why magnesium?” she asked, identifying the atomic number of the light metal. His hand on her jaw, his mouth on her own. “Because it’s beautifully explosive, just like my X.

The energy in the universe is not in the planets, or in the protons or neutrons, but in the relationship between them.

One proton of faith, three electrons of humility, a neutron of compassion and a bond of honesty,” Robert said, winking at his daughter. “What’s that?” Cora frowned, confused. Maggie laughed. “That, according to your father, is the molecular structure of love.

We all are bundles of electric waves or streams of particles – proton, neutron, and electrons. If a piece of metal can be transformed into electric or magnetic waves, so can a string of sound, a thought, and a desire.

A proton or neutron is made up of three quarks, one of each color. A proton contains two up quarks and one down quark; a neutron contains two down and one up.

Up to about thirty years ago, it was thought that protons and neutrons were “elementary” particles, but experiments in which protons were collided with other protons or electrons at high speeds indicated that they were in fact made up of smaller particles.

There are 4 things in the world, ions ,protons, neutrons and morons!

Afterwards, the princeps asked the science consul, “Did we destroy a civilization in the microcosmos in this experiment?” “It was at least an intelligent body. Also, Princeps, we destroyed the entire microcosmos. That miniature universe is immense in higher dimensions, and it probably contained more than one intelligence or civilization that never had a chance to express themselves in macro space. Of course, in higher dimensional space at such micro scales, the form that intelligence or civilization may take is beyond our imagination. They’re something else entirely. And such destruction has probably occurred many times before.” “Oh?” “In the long history of scientific progress, how many protons have been smashed apart in accelerators by physicists? How many neutrons and electrons? Probably no fewer than a hundred million. Every collision was probably the end of the civilizations and intelligences in a microcosmos.

Even today, more than eighty years after Oort's bold guess, we still don't have a clue what this dark matter is made of. We know it exists. We know where it is. We have maps of its presence within and around galaxies throughout the universe. We even have stringent constraints on what it is not, but we have no clue what it is. And yes, its presence is overwhelming: for every one kilogram of ordinary matter made out of neutrons and protons and electrons, there are five kilograms of dark matter, made out of who-knows-what.

Some say we are not like humans but we are more like them than we are different. Man and animals are in the same species as mammals as they have mammary glands that produce the milk to nurse their young. Their lungs breathe air and their blood is warm. They are vertebrates in that their skeletal system and well-designed spines hold their bodies together. Each cell is made of molecules, each molecule is made of atoms, and each atom is made of protons, neutrons and mostly electrons, which are made of waves of fibered light.

That’s when I felt it. One thin finger. Gently touching my thigh. I kept talking about how alpha loses two protons and two neutrons, like his finger wasn’t on my thigh. And I think he liked that, because he kept asking questions, as if his finger weren’t on my thigh.

The essence of the evening was captured by a question from the audience. Someone asked: “What would it take to change your worldview?” My answer was simple: Any single piece of evidence. If we found a fossilized animal trying to swim between the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, if we found a process by which a new huge fraction of a radioactive material’s neutrons could become protons in some heretofore fantastically short period of time, if we found a way to create eleven species a day, if there were some way for starlight to get here without going the speed of light, that would force me and every other scientist to look at the world in a new way. However, no such contradictory evidence has ever been found—not any, not ever.

At the end of the day, no matter how confident we are in our observations, our experiments, our data, or our theories, we must go home knowing that 85 percent of all the gravity in the cosmos comes from an unknown, mysterious source that remains completely undetected by all means we have ever devised to observe the universe. As far as we can tell, it’s not made of ordinary stuff such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, or any form of matter or energy that interacts with them. We call this ghostly, offending substance “dark matter,” and it remains among the greatest of all quandaries.

How do I know that a table still exists if I go out of the room and can’t see it? What does it mean to say that things we can’t see, such as electrons or quarks—the particles that are said to make up the proton and neutron—exist? One could have a model in which the table disappears when I leave the room and reappears in the same position when I come back, but that would be awkward, and what if something happened when I was out, like the ceiling falling in? How, under the table-disappears-when-I-leave-the-room model, could I account for the fact that the next time I enter, the table reappears broken, under the debris of the ceiling? The model in which the table stays put is much simpler and agrees with observation. That is all one can ask.

As the cosmos continues to cool—dropping below a hundred million degrees—protons fuse with protons as well as with neutrons, forming atomic nuclei and hatching a universe in which ninety percent of these nuclei are hydrogen and ten percent are helium, along with trace amounts of deuterium (“heavy” hydrogen), tritium (even heavier hydrogen), and lithium.

hadrons”—a collective term used by physicists for protons, neutrons and other particles governed by the strong nuclear force.

Far from being empty, space is more like a snooker table. Stars explode or collide and that’s the white ball being smacked with the cue stick. Individual atoms go flying off at close to the speed of light. Regardless of how small they are, anything traveling that fast is dangerous. Even though space is a vacuum, given enough time, atoms will eventually collide with each other and—bang—the cosmic game of snooker just got interesting. Protons, neutrons and electrons scatter again, speeding along until they hit something else. If that something else happens to be alive, that’s bad—destroying cell walls and damaging DNA.

Just as the electrical interaction can be connected to a particle, a photon, Yukawa suggested that the forces between neutrons and protons also have a field of some kind, and that when this field jiggles it behaves like a particle.

Atoms have substantial, chewy centers made of protons and neutrons stuck together by the most powerful force in the universe, which, in the great poetic tradition of physics, is officially called the strong force. from The Sun's Heartbeat

see also positrons; virtual particles Aristotle, 172–73 Atkins, Peter, 191 baryons, 76 Big Bang, xvii, 95, 107, 150, 173, 189 CMBR left from, see cosmic microwave background radiation dating of, 3, 15–16, 77, 87 density of protons and neutrons in,

Different entities are composed of different densities of molecules but ultimately every pixel is made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons performing a delicate dance. Every pixel, including every iota of you and me, and every pixel of space seemingly

The numerals 666 are most often identified with the Beast of Revelation, but they are also symbolic of the fact that we live in a carbon-based universe.  An atom of carbon features six protons, six neutrons and six electrons.  In other words, this universe we live in is coded in 666 by the very nature of what it is.

We use the effect of centrifugal forces on matter to offer insight into the rotation rate of extreme cosmic objects. Consider pulsars. With some rotating at upward of a thousand revolutions per second, we know that they cannot be made of household ingredients, or they would spin themselves apart. In fact, if a pulsar rotated any faster, say 4,500 revolutions per second, its equator would be moving at the speed of light, which tells you that this material is unlike any other. To picture a pulsar, imagine the mass of the Sun packed into a ball the size of Manhattan. If that’s hard to do, then maybe it’s easier if you imagine stuffing about a hundred million elephants into a Chapstick casing. To reach this density, you must compress all the empty space that atoms enjoy around their nucleus and among their orbiting electrons. Doing so will crush nearly all (negatively charged) electrons into (positively charged) protons, creating a ball of (neutrally charged) neutrons with a crazy-high surface gravity. Under such conditions, a neutron star’s mountain range needn’t be any taller than the thickness of a sheet of paper for you to exert more energy climbing it than a rock climber on Earth would exert ascending a three-thousand-mile-high cliff. In short, where gravity is high, the high places tend to fall, filling in the low places—a phenomenon that sounds almost biblical, in preparing the way for the Lord: “Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain” (Isaiah 40:4). That’s a recipe for a sphere if there ever was one. For all these reasons, we expect pulsars to be the most perfectly shaped spheres in the universe.

We have seen recursion in the grammars of languages, we have seen recursive geometrical trees, which grow upwards forever, and we have seen one way in which recursion enters the theory of solid state physics. Now we are going to see yet another way in which the whole world is built out of recursion. This has to do with the structure of elementary particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, and the tiny quanta of electromagnetic radiation called "photons". We are going to see that particles are - in a certain sense which can only be defined rigorously in relativistic quantum mechanics- nested inside each other in a way which can be described recursively, perhaps even by some sort of "grammar".

Everyday life depends on the structure of the atom. Turn off the electrical charges and everything crumbles to an invisible fine dust, without electrical forces, there would no longer be things in the universe - merely diffuse clouds of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and gravitating spheres of elementary particles, the featureless remnants of worlds.

The fact that atoms are composed of three kinds of elementary particles—protons, neutrons and electrons—is a comparatively recent finding. The neutron was not discovered until 1932. Modern physics and chemistry have reduced the complexity of the sensible world to an astonishing simplicity: three units put together in various patterns make, essentially, everything.

How can you spend your days just damning people? Man, where do you think we are right now? Not just right here, but here, alive on this planet? This is hell, Brother, look around. It doesn’t have to be, but we make it so. I can even prove it. All life on this planet is carbon-based, right? Do you know what the atomic number of carbon is? Six. That means six electrons, six neutrons, and six protons, 666, the mark of the beast is the illusion of matter! Who was cast out of paradise? Lucifer, right? Well, guess who else was kicked out? We were, Adam and Eve, eating the forbidden fruit, the Tree of Knowledge, driven from the garden like varmints. We’re the beast. DNA is the coil of the serpent. Duh. Hell is separation from the Source, man. Dig?” “Right on,” Manny spoke up. “I can dig that.

By habit we perceive ourselves and the world around us as solid, real, and enduring. Yet without much effort, we can easily determine that not one aspect within the whole world’s system exists independent of change. I had just been in one physical location, and now I was in another; I had experienced different states of mind. We have all grown from babies to adults, lost loved ones, watched children grow, known changes in weather, in political regimes, in styles of music and fashion, in everything. Despite appearances, no aspect of life ever stays the same. The deconstruction of any one object—no matter how dense it appears, such as an ocean liner, our bodies, a skyscraper, or an oak tree—will reveal the appearance of solidity to be as illusory as permanence. Everything that looks substantial will break down into molecules, and into atoms, and into electrons, protons, and neutrons. And every phenomenon exists in interdependence with myriad other forms. Every identification of any one form has meaning only in relationship to another. Big only has meaning in relation to small. To mistake our habitual misperceptions for the whole of reality is what we mean by ignorance, and these delusions define the world of confusion, or samsara.

For example, life itself is supposedly understandable in principle from the movements of atoms, and those atoms are made out of neutrons, protons and electrons. I must immediately say that when we state that we understand it in principle, we only mean that we think that, if we could figure everything out, we would find that there is nothing new in physics which needs to be discovered in order to understand the phenomena of life. Another

Neutrons don’t influence an atom’s identity, but they do add to its mass. The number of neutrons is generally about the same as the number of protons, but they can vary up and down slightly. Add a neutron or two and you get an isotope. The terms you hear in reference to dating techniques in archeology refer to isotopes—carbon-14, for instance, which is an atom of carbon with six protons and eight neutrons (the fourteen being the sum of the

The RBMK, like almost all commercial nuclear reactors, uses uranium - which has 92 protons, making it the heaviest naturally occurring element - as a fuel source. Uranium contains a mere 0.7% of the fissionable isotope uranium235 (92 protons and 143 neutrons), and the 190 tons of fuel in a second-generation RBMK reactor like Chernobyl’s Unit 4 consists of cheap, and only slightly enriched, 98% uranium238 and 2% uranium235, contained within 1,661 vertical pressure tubes.

La belleza de la disección morfológica reside en que nos permite describir el colectivo infinito de palabras que conforman el español […] como combinaciones hechas sobre un conjunto finito de raíces, prefijos y sufijos. De la misma manera que, en último término, toda la materia que nos rodea no es más que una combinación de protones, neutrones y electrones, las infinitas palabras del castellano pueden ser descritas como combinaciones sobre un conjunto finito de raíces, prefijos y sufijos.

We have already seen that gauge symmetry that characterizes the electroweak force-the freedom to interchange electrons and neturinos-dictates the existence of the messenger electroweak fields (photon, W, and Z). Similarly, the gauge color symmetry requires the presence of eight gluon fields. The gluons are the messengers of the strong force that binds quarks together to form composite particles such as the proton. Incidentally, the color "charges" of the three quarks that make up a proton or a neutron are all different (red, blue, green), and they add up to give zero color charge or "white" (equivalent to being electrically neutral in electromagnetism). Since color symmetry is at the base of the gluon-mediated force between quarks, the theory of these forces has become known as quantum chromodynamics. The marriage of the electroweak theory (which describes the electromagnetic and weak forces) with quantum chromodynamics (which describes the strong force) produced the standard model-the basic theory of elementary particles and the physical laws that govern them.

I am Ding Yi.” He opened up two folding chairs and motioned for us to sit down, then returned to his chair. He said, “Before you tell me why you’ve come, let me discuss with you a dream I’ve just had.… No, you’ve got to listen. It was a wonderful dream, which you interrupted. In the dream I was sitting here, a knife in my hand, around so long, like for cutting watermelon. Next to me was this tea table. But there wasn’t an ashtray or anything on it. Just two round objects, yea big. Circular, spherical. What do you think they were?” “Watermelon?” “No, no. One was a proton, the other a neutron. A watermelon-sized proton and neutron. I cut the proton open first. Its charge flowed out onto the table, all sticky, with a fresh fragrance. After I cut the proton in half, the quarks inside tumbled out, tinkling. They were about the size of walnuts, in all sorts of colors. They rolled about on the table, and some of them fell onto the floor. I picked up a white one. It was very hard, but with effort, I was able to bite into it. It tasted like a manaizi grape.… And right then, you woke me up.

Have you ever pondered of the following: Space is a home for the Universe. The Universe is a home for its Galaxies. The Milky Way Galaxy is a home for the Solar System. The Solar System is a home for our planet. The Earth is a home for organic life forms. Your house or apartment is your home. Your body is a home for your soul; and yet for trillions of cells your organism consists of. A cell is a home for its molecules. A molecule is a home for its atoms. An atom is a home for its components, such as protons, electrons, and neutrons. Etc. The world is all about homes!

Landau pointed out that there was another possible final state for a star, also with a limiting mass of about one or two times the mass of the sun but much smaller even than a white dwarf. These stars would be supported by the exclusion principle repulsion between neutrons and protons, rather than between electrons. They were therefore called neutron stars. They would have a radius of only ten miles or so and a density of hundreds of millions of tons per cubic inch. At the time they were first predicted, there was no way that neutron stars could be observed. They were not actually detected until much later.

Over the last century, our physical description of the world has simplified quite a bit. As far as particles are concerned, there appear to be only two kinds, quarks and leptons. Quarks are the constituents of protons and neutrons and many particles we have discovered similar to them. The class of leptons encompasses all particles not made of quarks, including electrons and neutrinos. Altogether, the known world is explained by six kinds of quarks and six kinds of leptons, which interact with each other through the four forces (or interactions, as they are also known): gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Quarks come in six "flavors" that were given the rather arbitrary names: up, down, strange, charm, top, and bottom. Protons, for instance, are made of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Other than ordinary electric charge, quarks possess another type of charge, which has been fancifully called color, even though it has nothing to do with anything we can see. In the same way that the electric charge lies at the root of electromagnetic forces, color originates the strong nuclear force. Each quark flavor comes in three different colors, conventionally called red, green, and blue. There are, therefore, eighteen different quarks.

The relevant facts can be summarized in a few sentences. (I won't try to do it in one.) All things are made from atoms and photons. Atoms in turn are made from electrons and atomic nuclei. The nuclei are very much smaller than the atoms as a whole (they have roughly one-hundred-thousandth, or 10^-5, the radius), but they contain all the positive electric charge and nearly all the mass of the atom-more than 99.9%. Atoms are held together by electrical attraction between the electrons and the nuclei. Finally, nuclei in turn are made from protons and neutrons. The nuclei are held together by another force, a force that is much more powerful than the electric force but acts only over short distances.

we have measured the value of the world with categories that refer to a purely fabricated world.” A fabricated world? Yes, the world as a superstructure, the world as a spirit, weightless and abstract, of the same material with which thoughts are woven, and through which therefore they can move unhindered. A world that after three hundred years of natural science is left without mysteries. Everything is explained, everything is understood, everything lies within humanity’s horizons of comprehension, from the biggest, the universe, whose oldest observable light, the farthest boundary of the cosmos, dates from its birth fifteen billion years ago, to the smallest, the protons and neutrons and mesons of the atom.

The neutrons, as we have said and as their name suggests, carry no electrical charge. The protons have a positive charge and the electrons an equal negative charge. The attraction between the unlike charges of electrons and protons is what holds the atom together. Since each atom is electrically neutral, the number of protons in the nucleus must exactly equal the number of electrons in the electron cloud. The chemistry of an atom depends only on the number of electrons, which equals the number of protons, and which is called the atomic number. Chemistry is simply numbers, an idea Pythagoras would have liked. If you are an atom with one proton, you are hydrogen; two, helium; three, lithium; four, beryllium; five, boron; six, carbon; seven, nitrogen; eight, oxygen; and so on, up to 92 protons, in which case your name is uranium.

Like charges, charges of the same sign, strongly repel one another. We can think of it as a dedicated mutual aversion to their own kind, a little as if the world were densely populated by anchorites and misanthropes. Electrons repel electrons. Protons repel protons. So how can a nucleus stick together? Why does it not instantly fly apart? Because there is another force of nature: not gravity, not electricity, but the short-range nuclear force, which, like a set of hooks that engage only when protons and neutrons come very close together, thereby overcomes the electrical repulsion among the protons. The neutrons, which contribute nuclear forces of attraction and no electrical forces of repulsion, provide a kind of glue that helps to hold the nucleus together. Longing for solitude, the hermits have been chained to their grumpy fellows and set among others given to indiscriminate and voluble amiability.

The formula presents a symbol of the self, for the self is not just a static quantity or constant form, but is also a dynamic process. In the same way, the ancients saw the imago Dei in man not as a mere imprint, as a sort of lifeless, stereotyped impression, but as an active force. The four transformations represent a process of restoration or rejuvenation taking place, as it were, inside the self, and comparable to the carbon-nitrogen cycle in the sun, when a carbon nucleus captures four protons (two of which immediately become neutrons) and releases them at the end of the cycle in the form of an alpha particle. The carbon nucleus itself comes out of the reaction unchanged, “like the Phoenix from the ashes.”108 The secret of existence, i.e., the existence of the atom and its components, may well consist in a continually repeated process of rejuvenation, and one comes to similar conclusions in trying to account for the numinosity of the archetypes.

Moment, momentum, momentous If you reduce sports to its smallest discrete units, its subatomic particles, you're left with protons and electrons and neutrons called moments. They're the building blocks of every season, every game, every series of downs. Two or more moments may accrete into something more, a propulsive energy called momentum, which in turn can snowball into something greater still, that which is momentous. Consider those consecutive moments last Aug. 4 (2012 summer Olympics) in London, when Michael Phelps-in his final Olympic race-caught and then overtook Japan's Takeshi Matsuda on the butterfly leg of the men's 4 x 100 medley relay. Momentum passed to Phelps's U.S. teammate Nathan Adrian, who pulled away on the freestyle leg, sealing a victory that yielded Phelps's 18th gold medal, and 22nd medal overall, more than any other Olympian in history. It was like the conjugation of some Latin verb: moment, momentum, momentous. Or if you prefer: Veni, vidi, vici (we came, we saw, we conquered). From "moments of the year

Let us pause for a moment and consider the structure of the atom as we know it now. Every atom is made from three kinds of elementary particles: protons, which have a positive electrical charge; electrons, which have a negative electrical charge; and neutrons, which have no charge. Protons and neutrons are packed into the nucleus, while electrons spin around outside. The number of protons is what gives an atom its chemical identity. An atom with one proton is an atom of hydrogen, one with two protons is helium, with three protons is lithium, and so on up the scale. Each time you add a proton you get a new element. (Because the number of protons in an atom is always balanced by an equal number of electrons, you will sometimes see it written that it is the number of electrons that defines an element; it comes to the same thing. The way it was explained to me is that protons give an atom its identity, electrons its personality.) Neutrons don't influence an atom's identity, but they do add to its mass. The number of neutrons is generally about the same as the number of protons, but they can vary up and down slightly. Add a neutron or two and you get an isotope. The terms you hear in reference to dating techniques in archeology refer to isotopes—carbon-14, for instance, which is an atom of carbon with six protons and eight neutrons (the fourteen being the sum of the two). Neutrons and protons occupy the atom's nucleus. The nucleus of an atom is tiny—only one millionth of a billionth of the full volume of the atom—but fantastically dense, since it contains virtually all the atom's mass. As Cropper has put it, if an atom were expanded to the size of a cathedral, the nucleus would be only about the size of a fly—but a fly many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral. It was this spaciousness—this resounding, unexpected roominess—that had Rutherford scratching his head in 1910. It is still a fairly astounding notion to consider that atoms are mostly empty space, and that the solidity we experience all around us is an illusion. When two objects come together in the real world—billiard balls are most often used for illustration—they don't actually strike each other. “Rather,” as Timothy Ferris explains, “the negatively charged fields of the two balls repel each other . . . were it not for their electrical charges they could, like galaxies, pass right through each other unscathed.” When you sit in a chair, you are not actually sitting there, but levitating above it at a height of one angstrom (a hundred millionth of a centimeter), your electrons and its electrons implacably opposed to any closer intimacy.

Stars are bright, hot, rotating masses of gas which emit large quantities of light and heat as a result of nuclear reactions. Most newly-forming large stars begin to collapse under the weight of their own gravitational pull. That means that their centres are hotter and denser. When the matter in the centre of the star is sufficiently heated-when it reaches at least 10 million degrees Celsius (18 million degrees Fahrenheit)-nuclear reactions begin.56 What happens inside a star is that with enormous energy (fusion), hydrogen turns into helium. Nuclear fusion takes the particles that make up hydrogen and sticks them together to make helium (1 helium atom is made from 4 hydrogen atoms). In order to make the protons and neutrons in the helium stick together, the atom gives off tremendous energy. The energy released in the process is radiated from the surface of the star as light and heat. When the hydrogen is consumed, the star then begins to burn with helium, in exactly the same way, and heavier elements are formed. These reactions continue until the mass of the star has been consumed. However, since oxygen is not used in these reactions inside stars, the result is not ordinary combustion, such as that takes place when burning a piece of wood. The combustion seen as giant flames in stars does not actually derive from fire. Indeed, burning of just this kind is described in the verse. If one also thinks that the verse refers to a star, its fuel and combustion without fire, then one can also think that it is referring to the emission of light and mode of combustion in stars. (Allah knows best.)

Neutrons and protons occupy the atom's nucleus. The nucleus of an atom is tiny- only one millionth of a billionth of the full volume of an atom- but fantastically dense, since it contains virtually all the atom's mass. As Cropper has put it, if an atom were expanded to the size of a cathedral, the nucleus would only be about the size of a fly- but a fly many thousands of times heavier than the cathedral... The picture that nearly everybody has in mind of an atom is of an electron or two flying around a nucleus, like planets orbiting a sun. This image... is completely wrong... In fact, as physicists were soon to realize, electrons are not like orbiting planets at all, but more like the blades of a spinning fan, managing to fill every bit of space in their orbits simultaneously (but with the crucial difference that the blades of a fan only seem to be everywhere at once; electrons are)... So the atom turned out to be quite unlike the image that most people had created. The electron doesn't fly around its sun, but instead takes on the more amorphous aspect of a cloud. The "shell" of an atom isn't some hard shiny casing, as illustrations sometimes encourage us to suppose, but simply the outermost of these fuzzy electron clouds. The cloud itself is essentially just a zone of statistical probability marking the area beyond which the electron only very seldom strays. Thus an atom, if you could see it, would look more like a very fuzzy tennis ball than a hard-edged metallic sphere (but not much like either, or, indeed, like anything you've ever seen; we are, after all, dealing here with a world very different from the one we see around us. p145

If we ascribe the ejection of the proton to a Compton recoil from a quantum of 52 x 106 electron volts, then the nitrogen recoil atom arising by a similar process should have an energy not greater than about 400,000 volts, should produce not more than about 10,000 ions, and have a range in the air at N.T.P. of about 1-3mm. Actually, some of the recoil atoms in nitrogen produce at least 30,000 ions. In collaboration with Dr. Feather, I have observed the recoil atoms in an expansion chamber, and their range, estimated visually, was sometimes as much as 3mm. at N.T.P. These results, and others I have obtained in the course of the work, are very difficult to explain on the assumption that the radiation from beryllium is a quantum radiation, if energy and momentum are to be conserved in the collisions. The difficulties disappear, however, if it be assumed that the radiation consists of particles of mass 1 and charge 0, or neutrons. The capture of the a-particle by the Be9 nucleus may be supposed to result in the formation of a C12 nucleus and the emission of the neutron. From the energy relations of this process the velocity of the neutron emitted in the forward direction may well be about 3 x 109 cm. per sec. The collisions of this neutron with the atoms through which it passes give rise to the recoil atoms, and the observed energies of the recoil atoms are in fair agreement with this view. Moreover, I have observed that the protons ejected from hydrogen by the radiation emitted in the opposite direction to that of the exciting a-particle appear to have a much smaller range than those ejected by the forward radiation. This again receives a simple explanation on the neutron hypothesis.

Las locas repiten que ni siquiera tenían pagado el plan, y así como así, se les prendía todo los accesos a las redes. Las locas estaban cagadas de la risa. Se acercaban a le chique y se alejaban de le chique, se apagaba y se prendía el sistema, así que así se empezó a correr la voz del caso de le chique. Dicen que todas empezaron a preguntarse cómo, por qué con qué, a le chique le pasaba esto, pero cada vez mejor. Al principio a centímetros de elle, después a metros y después a más distancia. Como que se fue alimentando el poder que tenía porque cada vez la conexión era más fuerte, estable. De a poco entre la comunidad se fue corriendo la voz, de los poderes de le chique. De que había nacido une chique con esta energía, con este poder en su cuerpo. Mis amigas travestis totalmente dislocadas, me cuentan que las locas empezaron a creer que la cosa era como científica, imaginaban que no sé por qué razón, a le niñe se le formaron dentro de la guata de su madre, hilos de electricidad entre los músculos que ahora son capaces de transmitir acceso a las redes sociales, o que tiene en su sangre protones y neutrones, minerales eléctricos, concentraciones de cobre y litio entre el calcio de las células, dicen, algo super posible a esta altura de la vida. Que sus células tienen la capacidad de adaptarse mágicamente al medio ambiente. El cuento es que empezaron a decir que había nacido ese chique con esa capacidad de distribuir cada vez a más gente, wifi y todas las redes sociales. Dicen que de a poco la empezaron a querer, a pesar de ser tan piola. [...] Sí, así, dicen que empezó a ser seguida por un montón de gente. Dicen también, que cuando le preguntan a la gente cómo se llama, cómo es o dónde vive, nadie sabe decir nada, porque la cuidan. No quieren que la pillen las autoridades y la vayan a tomar presa, así que la que sabe, sabe. Pero hay que ser piola, porque dicen que como cada vez más gente está teniendo Facebook, Instagram, y Tinder gratis, lo mas seguro es que las compañías de las telecomunicaciones, empiecen a perseguirla y la acusen de terrorista, de criminal, por hacer que los millonarios de las comunicaciones transnacionales pierdan millones de dólares. —Para no morir tan sola. Escritura en pandemia. Claudia Rodríguez

The molecular structure of love: one proton of faith, three electrons of humility, a neutron of compassion, and a bond of honesty.

the most elementary material constituent, atoms consist of a nucleus, containing protons and neutrons, that is surrounded by a swarm of orbiting electrons. For a while many physicists thought that protons, neutrons, and electrons were the Greeks' "atoms." But in 1968 experimenters at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, making use of the increased capacity of technology to probe the microscopic depths of matter, found that protons and neutrons are not fundamental, either. Instead they showed that each consists of three smaller particles, called quarks—a whimsical name taken from a passage in James Joyce's Finnegans Wake by the theoretical physicist Murray Gell-Mann, who previously had surmised their existence. The experimenters confirmed that quarks themselves come in two varieties, which were named, a bit less creatively, up and down. A proton consists of two up-quarks and a down-quark; a neutron consists of two down-quarks and an up-quark.

People are scared to talk about death, they fear what is inevitable because it ends the current chapter without knowing if there will be a sequel, but it would be so beautiful to wake up as your flower. Or an atom, part of some distant planet with you. We could collide until we merged like all the physics teachers said was inevitable. Neutrons, protons and some unforeseen gravitational force. We could be drops of UV rays on the skin of some moon. I am always stuck at writing a sentence without you, no writers block would be worth not thinking of you.

Here's something to consider: anything manmade had to have began first in the world of particles, protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, and other forms of elements and matter. It's all there: airplanes, trains, vehicles, computers, and all things manmade. Even future inventions already exist. Think about it like a puzzle. Before it's pieced together, it's just pieces. But the puzzle is still there. It's basically the same principle.

Following the experiments of Davisson and Germer and Thomson, scientists showed that all subatomic particles behave like waves: beams of protons and neutrons will diffract off samples of atoms in exactly the same way that electrons do. In fact, neutron diffraction is now a standard tool for determining the structure of materials at the atomic level: scientists can deduce how atoms are arranged by looking at the interference patterns that result when a beam of neutrons bounces off their sample. Knowing the structure of materials at the atomic level allows materials scientists to design stronger and lighter materials for use in cars, planes, and space probes. Neutron diffraction can also be used to determine the structure of biological materials like proteins and enzymes, providing critical information for scientists searching for new drugs and medical treatments.

We’re talking about fundamentals here; the fundamental physical laws pertaining to the day-to-day running of the universe. Physicists call them the fundamental constants—things like the masses of atomic particles, the speed of light, the electric charges of electrons, the strength of gravitational force.… They’re beginning to realize just how finely balanced they are. One flip of a decimal point either way and things would start to go seriously wrong. Matter wouldn’t form, stars wouldn’t twinkle, the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist and, if we insist on taking the selfish point of view in the face of such spectacular, epic, almighty destruction, nor would we. The cosmic harmony that made life possible exists at the mercy of what appear, on the face of it, to be unlikely odds. Who or what decided at the time of the Big Bang that the number of particles created would be 1 in 1 billion more than the number of antiparticles, thus rescuing us by the width of a whisker from annihilation long before we even existed (because when matter and antimatter meet, they cancel each other out)? Who or what decided that the number of matter particles left behind after this oversize game of cosmic swapping would be exactly the right number to create a gravitational force that balanced the force of expansion and didn’t collapse the universe like a popped balloon? Who decided that the mass of the neutron should be just enough to make the formation of atoms possible? That the nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, in the face of their natural electromagnetic desire to repulse each other, should be just strong enough to achieve this, thus enabling the universe to move beyond a state of almost pure hydrogen? Who made the charge on the proton exactly right for the stars to turn into supernovas? Who fine-tuned the nuclear resonance level for carbon to just delicate enough a degree that it could form, making life, all of which is built on a framework of carbon, possible? The list goes on. And on. And as it goes on—as each particularly arrayed and significantly defined property, against all the odds, and in spite of billions of alternative possibilities, combines exquisitely, in the right time sequence, at the right speed, weight, mass, and ratio, and with every mathematical quality precisely equivalent to a stable universe in which life can exist at all—it adds incrementally in the human mind to a growing sense, depending on which of two antithetical philosophies it chooses to follow, of either supreme and buoyant confidence, or humble terror. The first philosophy says this perfect pattern shows that the universe is not random; that it is designed and tuned, from the atom up, by some supreme intelligence, especially for the purpose of supporting life. The other says it’s a one in a trillion coincidence.

A famous thorny issue in philosophy is the so-called infinite regress problem. For example, if we say that the properties of a diamond can be explained by the properties and arrangements of its carbon atoms, that the properties of a carbon atom can be explained by the properties and arrangements of its protons, neutrons and electrons, that the properties of a proton can be explained by the properties and arrangements of its quarks, and so on, then it seems that we're doomed to go on forever trying to explain the properties of the constituent parts. The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis offers a radical solution to this problem: at the bottom level, reality is a mathematical structure, so its parts have no intrinsic properties at all! In other words, the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis implies that we live in a relational reality, in the sense that the properties of the world around us stem not form properties of its ultimate building blocks, but from the relations between these building blocks. The external physical reality is therefore more than the sum of its parts, in the sense that it can have many interesting properties while its parts have no intrinsic properties at all.

The principles of relativity and quantum mechanics are almost incompatible with each other and can coexist only in a limited class of theories. In the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics of the 1920s we could imagine almost any kind of force among electrons and nuclei, but as we shall see, this is not so in a relativistic theory: forces between particles can arise only from the exchange of other particles. Furthermore, all these particles are bundles of the energy, or quanta, of various sorts of fields. A field like an electric or magnetic field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body, but a field is a stress in space itself. There is one type of field for each species of elementary particle; there is an electron field in the standard model, whose quanta are electrons; there is an electromagnetic field (consisting of electric and magnetic fields) , whose quanta are the photons; there is no field for atomic nuclei, or for particles (known as protons and neutrons) of which the nuclei are composed, but there are fields for various types of particles called quarks, out of which the proton and neutron are composed; and there are a few other fields I need not go into right now. The equations of a field theory like the standard model deal not with particles but with fields; the particles appear as manifestations of these fields. The reason that ordinary matter is composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons is simply that all the other massive particles are violently unstable. The standard model qualifies as an explanation because it is not merely what computer hackers call a kludge, an assortment of odds and ends thrown together in whatever way works. Rather, the structure of the standard model is largely fixed once one specifies the menu of fields that it should contain and the general principles (like the principles of relativity and quantum mechanics) that govern their interactions.

radioactive Rubidium-87, containing 37 protons (and 50 neutrons), can change or decay to strontium, which has 38 protons. These two elements can be thought of as a radiochemical system. When

In the long history of scientific progress, how many protons have been smashed apart in accelerators by physicists? How many neutrons and electrons? Probably no fewer than a hundred million. Every collision was probably the end of the civilizations and intelligences in a microcosmos. In fact, even in nature, the destruction of universes must be happening at every second—for example, through the decay of neutrons. Also, a high-energy cosmic ray entering the atmosphere may destroy thousands of such miniature universes.… You’re not feeling sentimental because of this, are you?

Once every few weeks, beginning in the summer of 2018, a trio of large Boeing freighter aircraft, most often converted and windowless 747s of the Dutch airline KLM, takes off from Schiphol airport outside Amsterdam, with a precious cargo bound eventually for the city of Chandler, a western desert exurb of Phoe­nix, Arizona. The cargo is always the same, consisting of nine white boxes in each aircraft, each box taller than a man. To get these pro­foundly heavy containers from the airport in Phoenix to their des­tination, twenty miles away, requires a convoy of rather more than a dozen eighteen-wheeler trucks. On arrival and family uncrated, the contents of all the boxes are bolted together to form one enormous 160-ton machine -- a machine tool, in fact, a direct descendant of the machine tools invented and used by men such as Joseph Bramah and Henry Maudslay and Henry Royce and Henry Ford a century and more before. "Just like its cast-iron predecessors, this Dutch-made behemoth of a tool (fifteen of which compose the total order due to be sent to Chandler, each delivered as it is made) is a machine that makes machines. Yet, rather than making mechanical devices by the pre­cise cutting of metal from metal, this gigantic device is designed for the manufacture of the tiniest of machines imaginable, all of which perform their work electronically, without any visible mov­ing parts. "For here we come to the culmination of precision's quarter­millennium evolutionary journey. Up until this moment, almost all the devices and creations that required a degree of precision in their making had been made of metal, and performed their vari­ous functions through physical movements of one kind or another. Pistons rose and fell; locks opened and closed; rifles fired; sewing machines secured pieces of fabric and created hems and selvedges; bicycles wobbled along lanes; cars ran along highways; ball bearings spun and whirled; trains snorted out of tunnels; aircraft flew through the skies; telescopes deployed; clocks ticked or hummed, and their hands moved ever forward, never back, one precise sec­ond at a time."Then came the computer, then the personal computer, then the smartphone, then the previously unimaginable tools of today -- and with this helter-skelter technological evolution came a time of translation, a time when the leading edge of precision passed itself out into the beyond, moving as if through an invisible gateway, from the purely mechanical and physical world and into an immobile and silent universe, one where electrons and protons and neutrons have replaced iron and oil and bearings and lubricants and trunnions and the paradigm-altering idea of interchangeable parts, and where, though the components might well glow with fierce lights send out intense waves of heat, nothing moved one piece against another in mechanical fashion, no machine required that mea­sured exactness be an essential attribute of every component piece.

Interestingly, scientific experiments today show that if you create an energy pattern outside a chamber in a vacuum state, virtual protons and virtual neutrons will begin to appear. That means, to put it simply, that something is taking form from nothing.

We are a species that delights in story. We look out on reality, we grasp patterns, and we join them into narratives that can captivate, inform, startle, amuse, and thrill. The plural—narratives—is utterly essential. In the library of human reflection, there is no single, unified volume that conveys ultimate understanding. Instead, we have written many nested stories that probe different domains of human inquiry and experience: stories, that is, that parse the patterns of reality using different grammars and vocabularies. Protons, neutrons, electrons, and nature’s other particles are essential for telling the reductionist story, analyzing the stuff of reality, from planets to Picasso, in terms of their microphysical constituents. Metabolism, replication, mutation, and adaptation are essential for telling the story of life’s emergence and development, analyzing the biochemical workings of remarkable molecules and the cells they govern. Neurons, information, thought, and awareness are essential for the story of mind—and with that the narratives proliferate: myth to religion, literature to philosophy, art to music, telling of humankind’s struggle for survival, will to understand, urge for expression, and search for meaning. These are all ongoing stories, developed by thinkers hailing from a great range of distinct disciplines. Understandably so. A saga that ranges from quarks to consciousness is a hefty chronicle. Still, the different stories are interlaced. Don Quixote speaks to humankind’s yearning for the heroic, told through the fragile Alonso Quijano, a character created in the imagination of Miguel de Cervantes, a living, breathing, thinking, sensing, feeling collection of bone, tissue, and cells that, during his lifetime, supported organic processes of energy transformation and waste excretion, which themselves relied on atomic and molecular movements honed by billions of years of evolution on a planet forged from the detritus of supernova explosions scattered throughout a realm of space emerging from the big bang. Yet to read Don Quixote’s travails is to gain an understanding of human nature that would remain opaque if embedded in a description of the movements of the knight-errant’s molecules and atoms or conveyed through an elaboration of the neuronal processes crackling in Cervantes’s mind while writing the novel. Connected though they surely are, different stories, told with different languages and focused on different levels of reality, provide vastly different insights.

Tanto los protones como los neutrones están hechos de partículas aún más pequeñas, que el físico estadounidense Murray Gell-Mann bautizó con el nombre de «quarks», inspirándose en una palabra sin sentido en una frase sin sentido —«Three quarks for Muster Mark!»— que aparece en el Finnegans Wake de James Joyce. Todas las cosas que tocamos están hechas, pues, de electrones y de estos quarks.

Tanto los protones como los neutrones están hechos de partículas aún más pequeñas, que el físico estadounidense Murray Gell-Mann bautizó con el nombre de «quarks», inspirándose en una palabra sin sentido en una frase sin sentido —«Three quarks for Muster Mark!»— que aparece en el Finnegans Wake de James Joyce. Todas las cosas que tocamos están hechas, pues, de electrones y de estos quarks.

Tanto los protones como los neutrones están hechos de partículas aún más pequeñas, que el físico estadounidense Murray Gell-Mann bautizó con el nombre de «quarks», inspirándose en una palabra sin sentido en una frase sin sentido —«Three quarks for Muster Mark!»— que aparece en el Finnegans Wake de James Joyce. Todas las cosas que tocamos están hechas, pues, de electrones y de estos quarks.

stress fundamental particles, like electrons and quarks, because for composite particles, like protons and neutrons (each made from 3 quarks), much of the mass arises from interactions between the constituents (the energy carried by gluons of the strong nuclear force, which bind the quarks inside protons and neutrons, contributes most of the mass of these composite particles).

so weakly with protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons,

Basically, this is a rigorous analysis that shows that numerous universal constants—like the force of gravity, the weight of a proton, the force that binds protons and neutrons within atomic nuclei, and so on—have to be almost exactly what they are for life to exist in the universe. The odds of these constants all having the precise values needed for life are worse than the odds of winning the lottery a thousand times in a row. “So how is this possible? Theologians believe God is the answer. Scientists were initially stumped but soon declared that this riddle was easily answered if one posited an infinite number of universes. Given an infinite number of universes, one of them was bound to get it right. And, lucky for us, we happen to find ourselves in this perfect universe.” Faith raised her eyebrows. “But science admits it has no way to prove the existence of other universes. So both explanations rely on faith. Given this, why is a creator any more absurd than infinite universes? A creator may not be the answer, but science’s answer isn’t really any better.

All atomic nuclei are composed of two types of particles: protons and their electrically neutral partners, neutrons. If a nucleus has too many of one type or the other, then the rules of quantum mechanics dictate that the balance has to be redressed and those excess particles will change into the other form: protons will become neutrons, or neutrons protons, via a process called beta-decay. This is precisely what happens when two protons come together: a composite of two protons cannot exist and one of them will beta-decay into a neutron. The remaining proton and the newly transformed neutron can then bind together to form an object called a deuteron (the nucleus of an atom of the heavy hydrogen isotopefn3 called deuterium), after which further nuclear reactions enable the building of the more complex nuclei of other elements heavier than hydrogen, from helium (with two protons and either one or two neutrons) through to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so on. The key point is that the deuteron owes its existence to its ability to exist in two states simultaneously, by virtue of quantum superposition. This is because the proton and neutron can stick together in two different ways that are distinguished by how they spin. We will see later how this concept of ‘quantum spin’ is actually very different from the familiar spin of a big object, such as a tennis ball; but for now we will go with our classical intuition of a spinning particle and imagine both the proton and the neutron spinning together within the deuteron in a carefully choreographed combination of a slow, intimate waltz and a faster jive. It was discovered back in the late 1930s that within the deuteron these two particles are not dancing together in either one or the other of these two states, but in both states at the same time – they are in a blur of waltz and jive simultaneously – and it is this that enables them to bind together.fn4 An obvious response to this statement is: ‘How do we know?’ Surely, atomic nuclei are far too small to be seen, so might it not be more reasonable to assume that there is something missing in our understanding of nuclear forces? The answer is no, for it has been confirmed in many laboratories over and over again that if the proton and neutron were performing the equivalent of either a quantum waltz or a quantum jive, then the nuclear ‘glue’ between them would not be quite strong enough to bind them together; it is only when these two states are superimposed on top of each other – the two realities existing at the same time – that the binding force is strong enough. Think of the two superposed realities as a little like mixing two coloured paints, blue and yellow, to make a combined resultant colour, green. Although you know the green is made up of the two primary constituent colours, it is neither one nor the other. And different ratios of blue and yellow will make different shades of green. Likewise, the deuteron binds when the proton and neutron are mostly locked in a waltz, with just a tiny amount of jive thrown in. So

Our imaginations are forlornly under-equipped to cope with distances outside the narrow middle range of the ancestrally familiar. We try to visualize an electron as a tiny ball, in orbit around a larger cluster of balls representing protons and neutrons. That isn’t what it is like at all. Electrons are not like little balls. They are not like anything we recognize. It isn’t clear that ‘like’ even means anything when we try to fly too close to reality’s further horizons. Our imaginations are not yet tooled-up to penetrate the neighbourhood of the quantum. Nothing at that scale behaves in the way matter – as we are evolved to think – ought to behave. Nor can we cope with the behaviour of objects that move at some appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Common sense lets us down, because common sense evolved in a world where nothing moves very fast, and nothing is very small or very large. At the end of a famous essay on ‘Possible Worlds’, the great biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote, ‘Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose…I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy.’ By the way, I am intrigued by the suggestion that the famous Hamlet speech invoked by Haldane is conventionally mis-spoken. The normal stress is on ‘your’:

Consciousness resides in the gap between electrons, protons, and neutrons.

The essence of the evening was captured by a question from the audience. Someone asked: “What would it take to change your worldview?” My answer was simple: Any single piece of evidence. If we found a fossilized animal trying to swim between the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, if we found a process by which a new huge fraction of a radioactive material’s neutrons could become protons in some heretofore fantastically short period of time, if we found a way to create eleven species a day, if there were some way for starlight to get here without going the speed of light, that would force me and every other scientist to look at the world in a new way. However, no such contradictory evidence has ever been found—not any, not ever. Mr. Ham responded that nothing would change his mind. He has a book that he believes provides all the answers to any natural science question that could ever be posed. No piece of evidence would change his mind—not any, not ever.

The helium nucleus, for example, contains two protons and two neutrons. If the neutrons were not there, the electrical repulsion between the protons would overcome the strong binding force. However if two neutrons are also present, the binding force is increased (because there are now four nucleons), while the electrical repulsion between the protons is weakened because they are not as close together. The result is a stable helium nucleus-also known as an alpha particle (the same radiation used by Rutherford in his gold foil experiment). If more protons are present, as in the heavier elements, more neutrons are needed to dilute the increasingly large repulsive force. This is why in most atoms the neutrons outnumber the protons. However if there are too many neutrons the nucleus will break down for a reason known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle (See Chap. 6).

A delicate balance. In summary, nuclei are held together by a delicate balance among (a) the attractive strong force between nucleons, (b) the electrical repulsion between protons, (c) the dilution of this repulsive force by neutrons, and (d) the instability created by the Exclusion Principle if there are too many neutrons. Thus, for a given number of protons there is a narrow range of allowable neutron numbers: not enough and the protons will fly apart because of electrical repulsion: too many and the nucleus will be unstable because of the Exclusion Principle.

The weak interaction is unique in that it can change the nature of a particle, for example transforming a neutron into a proton or vice versa. Such transformations are crucial for the sun and it is the weakness of the interaction which leads to the very slow burning of the nuclear fuel of the sun and thus creates the conditions on earth which can support life.

in 1963 because he liked the sound of the sentence “Three quarks for Muster Mark” in James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. As for “Muster Mark, ”three quarks are needed to form a proton or a neutron. The electric charges of quarks are fractional (+/-1/3 or +−2/3) because their sum must equal the charge of a proton (+1) or a neutron (0).

Today, although our theory of what goes on outside the nucleus of the atom seems precise and complete enough, in the sense that given enough time we can calculate anything as accurately as it can be measured, it turns out that the forces between neutrons and protons, which constitute the nucleus, are not so completely known, and are not understood at all well.

There are exceptions, when here and there some very high energy particle does something, and in the laboratory we have been able to do some peculiar things. But if we leave out these special cases, all ordinary phenomena can be explained by the actions and the motions of particles. For example, life itself is supposedly understandable in principle from the movements of atoms, and those atoms are made out of neutrons, protons and electrons. I must immediately say that when we state that we understand it in principle, we only mean that we think that, if we could figure everything out, we would find that there is nothing new in physics which needs to be discovered in order to understand the phenomena of life.

In order to find out more about this, experimenters have gone on to study phenomena at very high energy. They hit neutrons and protons together at very high energy to produce peculiar things, and by studying these peculiar things we hope to understand better the forces between neutrons and protons. Pandora’s box has been opened by these experiments! Although all we really wanted was to get a better idea of the forces between neutrons and protons, when we hit these things together hard we discovered that there are more particles in the world. In fact more than four dozen other particles have been dredged up in an attempt to understand these forces; we will put these four dozen others into the neutron/proton column

chance the plant will survive.       Dr. Alton Mackey, Commissioner of the NRC gave the President a five-minute slide show with the pictures from 2011. Given the massive overtopping of the Garrison and Oahe dams, there was no way the two nuclear plants would survive the onslaught.     “How long does it take to shut down the reactors?”     Dr. Mackey hemmed and hawed. “When you turn your BBQ grill off, your steaks are still cooking even though the fuel is turned off.” The analogy was appropriate. “The control rods have already been disconnected which means the fission process has been stopped, but the fuel rods are still producing heat in the form of protons, helium nuclei, electrons, gamma rays, neutrons and positrons and a bunch of other radioactive crap. It takes years for the spent fuel rods to break down into less radioactive substances.

How was Jerusalem conquered? God “compacted Himself” so as to leave room for the world, and left a very small opening, the size of a small needle, through which the light could shine in. For this purpose, He sowed a series of quanta within the emptiness, created matter out of nothing, and expanded it many times over. He merged protons and anti-protons, neutrons and anti-neutrons, and breathed life into the photons that were produced from this merger.

The discovery of the neutron was a crucial step in understanding nuclei, including radioactive ones. For example, beta decays are the transformation within a nucleus of a nucleon of one type, either a proton or a neutron, to the other. You may wonder how a proton can decay to a neutron if the neutron is heavier than the proton; conservation of energy would seem to make this impossible. However, while a proton not bound in a nucleus cannot transform to a neutron, it is possible in some circumstances for a proton within a nucleus to do so. This is because the proton can use the additional energy from the force that binds nucleons in the nucleus. Beta decay occurs if it results in the total energy of the final atom, taking into account the energy due to binding, being lower that that of the initial atom. The same applies to a neutron bound in a nucleus, whereas a free neutron can always decay to a proton.

By the summer of 1958, the nucleus of the future Beatles—Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison, two protons and a neutron—was formed.

At Brookhaven National Laboratory, on Long Island, and at several other centers around the world, there are special rooms where people rarely tread. Nothing much seems to be happening in these rooms, there's no visible motion, and the only sound is the gently whir of fans that keep the temperature steady and the humidity low. In these rooms, roughly 10^30 protons and neutrons are at work. They have been organized into hundreds of computers, harnessed to work in parallel. The team races at teraflop rates, which means 10^12- a million million-FLoating point OPerations per second. We let them labor for months-10^7 seconds. At the end , they've done what a single proton does every 10^-24 second, which is figure out how to orchestrate quark and gluon fields in the best possible way so that they keep the Grid satisfied and make a stable equilibrium.

Through difficult calculations of merciless precision that call upon the full power of modern computer technology, they've shown that unbendable equations of high symmetry account convincingly and in quantitative detail for the existence of protons and neutrons, and for their properties. They've demonstrated the origin of the proton's mass, and thereby the lioness's share of our mass. I believe this is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time.

Someone asked: “What would it take to change your worldview?” My answer was simple: Any single piece of evidence. If we found a fossilized animal trying to swim between the layers of rock in the Grand Canyon, if we found a process by which a new huge fraction of a radioactive material’s neutrons could become protons in some heretofore fantastically short period of time, if we found a way to create eleven species a day, if there were some way for starlight to get here without going the speed of light, that would force me and every other scientist to look at the world in a new way. However, no such contradictory evidence has ever been found—not any, not ever. Mr. Ham responded that nothing would change his mind. He has a book that he believes provides all the answers to any natural science question that could ever be posed. No piece of evidence would change his mind—not any, not ever. Imagine this man or some of his followers on a jury. If their minds were made up, there would be nothing for the defense or prosecuting attorneys to do. No evidence would sway these jurors. They would refuse to use their intellect to assess the quality of evidence.

We refer to them as neutrons (neutral) and protons (positive). If the first is the customer, and the second is the bartender, the neutron asks, “Why didn’t I get a check?” The proton bartender replies, “For you, there’s no charge.” The neutron asks again, “Are you sure?” And the proton replies, “I’m positive!” See? Comedy is that simple …

To date, we don't know of any object that cannot, for certain, be subdivided. The chemist's atom consists of nucleus and electrons; the nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons; the protons and neutrons are made up of what the particle physicist calls quarks. That is where we are today, but we don't know whether this is the end of the line; this is not what concerns us in our present discussion. Rather, Democritus's concept of the individual unit of matter was shattered by the discovery that every particle can be made to meet its antiparticle and vanish into pure energy in the process. Particle and antiparticle together blend into structureless energy, and may reemerge as different particles.

Protons and neutrons interact strongly with each other because their building blocks do so. The exchange particles of the strong color interaction are called gluons. Instead of the one photon that is the carrier of the electromagnetic interaction, there are eight gluons for the strong interaction-for reasons beyond our present discussion. But let's remember that there is more than one carrier particle for this interaction. We already know that the photon is electrically neutral-it does not carry the charge to which it is coupled. It has to be neutral, since the electromagnetic interaction has only this one carrier particle. If it were not neutral, there would have to be another carrier particle with opposite charge, the antiphoton. Every elementary particle, after all, has its antiparticle. As noted, however, the antiparticle of the photon is identical with the photon itself; the photon is its own antiparticle. For the gluons, this is not the case. The gluons themselves carry the color charges to which they couple. Thus gluons, in contrast to photons, can interact directly with one another.

We associate two different terms with this phenomenon: asymptotic freedom and infrared slavery. At one end of the scale, the short distances, the quarks barely affect one another; rather, they act like free particles. At the other end of the scale, the strength of the color interaction sees to it that the quarks remain enclosed inside their particles-the neutrons or protons for which they act as building blocks. This is what we call infrared slavery. When we try to separate one quark from another, the force with which they hold together increases. The energy expended for their separation will then be transformed into the creation of added particles according to Einstein's formula E=mc^2. What this means, in short, is that it is impossible to set a quark free.

The idea of an anthropic principle began with the remark that the laws of nature seem surprisingly well suited to the existence of life. A famous example is provided by the synthesis of the elements. According to modern ideas, this synthesis began when the universe was about three minutes old (before then it was too hot for protons and neutrons to stick together in atomic nuclei) and was later continued in stars. It had originally been though that the elements were formed by adding one nuclear particle at a time to atomic nuclei, starting with the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of just one particle (a proton). But, although there was no trouble in building up helium nuclei, which contain four nuclear particles (two protons and two neutrons), there is no stable nucleus with five nuclear particles and hence no way to take the next step. The solution found eventually by Edwin Salpeter in 1952 is that two helium nuclei can come together in stars to form the unstable nucleus of the isotope beryllium 8, which occasionally before it has a chance to fission into two helium nuclei absorbs yet another helium nucleus and forms a nucleus of carbon. However, as emphasized in 1954 by Fred Hoyke, in order for this process to account for the observed cosmic abundance of carbon, there must be a state of the carbon nucleus that has an energy that gives it an anomalously large probability of being formed in the collison of a helium nucleus and a nucleus of beryllium 8. (Precisely such a state was subsequently found by experimenters working with Hoyle.) Once carbon is formed in stars, there is no obstacle to building up all the heavier elements, including those like oxygen and nitrogen that are necessary for known forms of life. But in order for this to work, the energy of this state of the carbon nucleus must be very close to the energy of a nucleus of beryllium 8 plus the energy of a helium nucleus. If the energy of this state of the carbon nucleus were too large or too small, then little carbon or heavier elements would be formed in stars, and with only hydrogen and helium there would be no way that life could arise. The energies of nuclear states depend in a complicated way on all the constants of physics, such as the masses and electric charges of the different types of elementary particles. It seems at first sight remarkable that these constants should take just the values that are needed to make it possible for carbon to be formed in this way.

In 1933, the Indian Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar realized that the Pauli exclusion principle had only a limited ability to fight against the squeeze of gravity. As pressure in the star increases, the Pauli exclusion principle states that ekectrons inside must move faster and faster to avoid one another. But there's a speed limit: electrons cannot move faster than the speed of light, so if you put enough pressure on a lump of matter, electrons cannot move fast enough to stop the matter from collapsing. Chandrasekhar showed that a collapsing star that has about 1.4 times the mass of our sun will have enough gravity to overwhelm the Pauli exclusion principle. Above this Chandrasekhar limit a star's gravity will pull on itself so strongly that electrons can't stop its collapse. The force of gravity is so great that the star's electrons give up their struggle once and for all; the electrons smash into the star's protons, creating neutrons. The massive star winds up being a gigantic ball of neutrons: a neutron star.

And as Fred Hoyle pointed out, if the combined masses of the proton and the electron were just a little larger instead of a little smaller than the mass of the neutron, the effect would be devastating. The hydrogen atom would be unstable. Throughout the universe all the hydrogen atoms would break down to form neutrons and neutrinos. The sun, already without nuclear combustible material, would have gone out and collapsed.

In the long history of scientific progress, how many protons have been smashed apart in accelerators by physicists? How many neutrons and electrons? Probably no fewer than a hundred million. Every collision was probably the end of the civilizations and intelligences in a microcosmos. In fact, even in nature, the destruction of universes must be happening at every second—for example, through the decay of neutrons. Also, a high-energy cosmic ray entering the atmosphere may destroy thousands of such miniature universes.…

none of which, from their point of view, had the least thing to do with DNA, RNA, and proteins, or with carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, or with photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons, let alone with quarks, gluons, W and Z bosons, gravitons, and Higgs particles.

Se ha descubierto que dentro de protones y neutrones hay unas cositas chiquititas y muy raras que llamamos quarks.

Just because you cannot see aliveness in a rock does not mean the rock doesn’t have it. The rock is made of atoms. Inside each atom is a furious realm of activity with its neutrons and protons forming a nucleus around which electrons orbit at speeds that can travel around the earth in a little over 18 seconds.

For instance, atoms. Seriously. When was the last time you heard a guy on TV joking about protons, neutrons, and electrons?