Why Can't We Construct a Particle Consisting Only of Neutrons?

In summary, neutrons cannot exist in isolation to form a stable particle due to their inherent instability outside atomic nuclei. Free neutrons undergo beta decay, transforming into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos with a half-life of about 14 minutes. This decay process prevents the formation of a stable neutron-only structure, as the interactions that bind neutrons together in larger nuclei require the presence of protons to provide stability and balance the forces involved.
  • #1
Hak
709
56
Why can't we construct a particle consisting of only neutrons? Why are there nuclei of ##_2^3He## (2 protons and 1 neutron) and ##_2^4He## (2 protons and 2 neutrons) but there is no ##_2^{50}He##?

Maybe a first approach might be that neutrons and protons interact with each other not through the electromagnetic force, since neutrons are neutral, but through the strong nuclear force.

What ideas do you have on this? Can you provide some detailed and in-depth information?

Feel free to move the thread to the more appropriate forum if this one is not. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hak said:
Why can't we construct a particle consisting of only neutrons?
Because such a state isn't bound.
We can't make what doesn't exist.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta Prime
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
Because such a state isn't bound.
We can't make what doesn't exist.
Thanks. Why isn't it bound? I thought there was a more specific answer to my question related to Quantum Mechanics, the strong nuclear force, etc...
 
  • #4
I liked your question and upon googling I found a brief synopsis:

Momentarily in their case being ≈10 -22 seconds.

As best I can tell, the following is the answer to your question:

Nuclear forces are essentially identical between all nucleons, whether they are protons or neutrons. So it might seem strange that the tetraneutron is not bound but that the α-particle of two protons and two neutrons is strongly bound, despite the additional electrical repulsion between protons. The explanation is based on the Pauli exclusion principle, which forbids two identical nucleons from occupying the same quantum state.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and Hak
  • #5
I am not sure whether there is a simple first principles proof but there might be.
Starting from the smallest nuclei: two nucleons. The only bound state of dinucleon is paradeuteron - no bound excited states for that. Orthodeuteron is a virtual state, which is easily observed by neutron scattering. Orthodineutron and orthodiproton are unbound for the same reasons that orthodeuteron is, orthodiproton also for Coulomb repulsion. And paradineutron and paradiproton are banned by Pauli rule.
The thing is that when you have too many neutrons, they have to occupy higher energy states - and unless there are enough protons, these high energy states are higher than the unbound state.
It also helps if the neutrons occupy states of opposite spins - but only to a limit.
So, dineutron is accounted for (unbound), tetraneutron also unbound. What are the observed and predicted lifetimes for tri-, penta- and hexaneutrons?
For H, there are 4 isotopes known beyond T. All are unbound... and yet after H-5 their lifetimes increase:
H-4 139 ys
H-5 86 ys
H-6 294 ys
H-7 652 ys
He has a pattern of paired isotopes:
He-5 602 ys (758 keV)
He-6 bound (807 ms)
He-7 2510 ys (182 keV)
He-8 bound (120 ms)
He-9 2500 ys
He-10 260 ys (1760 keV)
So an alpha particle will not bind one neutron (it scatters off) but it will bind one pair, or two pairs. But not three pairs.
Li-9 binds 1 pair - Li-11 8,7 ms, Li-13 confirmed unbound
Be-12 binds 1 pair - Be-14 4,5 ms, Be-16 confirmed unbound
Already for B, the lifetimes of the less stable isotopes - B-16, B-18, B-20 and B-21 are given as bounds only... wrong magnitude (for B-18), wrong sign (B-16, B-20, B-21).
The neutron dripline is generally expected to go on. But how good are first principles calculations at predicting the exact position of dripline in terms of widths and cross-sections of nuclei on both sides?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Hornbein, Hak and PeroK
  • #7
Thread closed for Moderation...
 

FAQ: Why Can't We Construct a Particle Consisting Only of Neutrons?

Why can't we construct a stable particle consisting only of neutrons?

Neutrons are electrically neutral particles, and without the stabilizing presence of protons, they tend to decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos via beta decay. In free space, a neutron has a half-life of about 10 minutes, making it inherently unstable when not bound within a nucleus.

What is the role of protons in stabilizing neutrons within atomic nuclei?

Protons provide the necessary positive charge to balance the nuclear forces and help bind neutrons within the nucleus through the strong nuclear force. This interaction helps to stabilize neutrons and prevent them from decaying, which is why neutrons are stable within most atomic nuclei.

Can we create a neutron star-like object on Earth?

Neutron stars are incredibly dense celestial objects formed from the remnants of supernova explosions. The conditions required to create and sustain such a dense collection of neutrons, including immense gravitational pressure, cannot be replicated on Earth with current technology. Therefore, we cannot create a neutron star-like object on Earth.

Are there any known particles or systems that consist only of neutrons?

While free neutrons and neutron-rich isotopes exist, there are no stable particles or systems known that consist solely of neutrons. Neutron stars are the closest known entities, but they are astronomical objects and not particles. In laboratory conditions, neutron-only systems are highly unstable and ephemeral.

What happens when neutrons are isolated from protons?

When neutrons are isolated from protons, they undergo beta decay, transforming into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. This process occurs because the neutron is not stable on its own and seeks a more stable form through this decay mechanism.

Back
Top