BR-549

Doing a quick and dirty graphical integration of the dashed curve in your graph for the neutron I make that neutron to have a net positive charge.

My quick reckoning yields

above the axis - positive + 0.34125
Below the axis - negative - 0.26125

Furthermore I make the total charge on the proton to be about 1.675 units.

So what are the units on your graph vertical axis and where did the graph come from?

 

studiot,

You are quite right, thank you for your interest. I do not know those vertical units.

The diagram is from long ago and would be time consuming to source.

Within the first six google results, I found three SIMILAR curves.

The vertical units are different, depending on measurement technique.

Please remember that the electron plane is see-sawing on the proton plane.

And in all but the strongest of nuclei, this see-saw is also rotating. This will cause a real time fluctuating density on the negative part of the graph at the very least.

For charge ring(helix) theory to be true, this measurement HAD to be taken from the top or bottom of the neutron.

Also.....any non perpendicular movement or off center measurement, will effect the shape of the graph.

Until we know the exact structure, we will not know how to properly measure it and there will be distortion. Imagine what the density plot would look like from the outside edge of the ring.

This is why I believe we must determine structure to understand measurements.

So the absolute values can not be known for now, but we can still see that the values are related.

I believe that if you keep measuring the density over and over.....depending on the holding environment, you will see the negative area grow and the positive area decrease.
This is the very nature of a neutron outside of a nucleus. This is decay.

What holds the two together is the shared magnetic field. If you turn one ring perpendicular to the other, it will break the field and the field will collapse. Even though the charges are attractive.....because of the laws of induction....the collapsing field will cause the particles to be accelerated in opposite directions.

When you only see the negative on the graph..........that means the electron has see-sawed clear to perpendicular of the proton.......and the energy valley or holding area has no effect and the electron will shoot out and separate from the proton, very quickly. I believe it is the induction of the mutual magnetic field collapse that propels it.

A neutron decay in the nucleus can cause many different reactions. A free proton in a nucleus is a dangerous thing. A proton has a lot of momentum and it is charged. And it is already inside...it didn't have to fight it's way in. A nucleus is pretty well protected from an external proton, because of charge. But let one loose inside.......DANGER DANGER Will Robinson!

An external neutron can come right in, because of lack of charge. A proton or a neutron has enough mass to bust up a nucleus, if it hits it(even in heavy nuclei, there is space), changing the atomic number. Even to the point of making two elements out of one. This is true alchemy.

One thing that is funny to me.......the neutron is the only structure I know, that comes close to the standard model. It's the only structure I know where negative charge orbits positive charge.

With ring theory, atomic particles are stationary to each other in a nucleus. Atoms are nuclear shells, not electron shells. Valence is caused by incomplete nuclear shells, not electronic shells. This is why valence can be positive and negative.

And of course, as with any theory, first you have to convince people to study it. This will cause checks on results and more questions. The theory will refine and clarify.

If you will gamble a few hours read, you might find a surprise.

It unites everything so precise, there has to be something to it.

The simple elegance of the mechanism alone, convinced me.

And it's been confirmation after confirmation since, applying it to everything.

Google common sense science. Read tabs. Go to news and article/resource tab.

Start with oldest article.

It's different from any modern study. Probability and randomness are not permitted.

Or needed.

 

That is not the point.

The point is that the atom as a whole is electrically neutral because it has exacttly the same number of unit positive charges as negative ones so they balance out.

If there is a slight residual charge on a neutron then there will be atoms with a charge since the simplest atom has zero neutrons.

Nature might permit one slight charge imbalance, but there are at least 146 neutrons in a Uranium atom so the imbalance there would be 146 times as big.

Nothing like this has ever been observed as far as I know.

 

A molecule or atom can be neutral and still have residual charge.
A neutron is a unique structure. Lets try another.

A water molecule is neutral. Yet on the oxygen side you will see a slight neg. charge.
And on the hydrogen side there is a slight positive charge. But the molecule is neutral.
This happens with valance atoms also.
Ask any chemist.

When a negative and positive bond, all of the field lines are not used. This is because of physical size difference. There will be some not common lines coming from the neg. and some not common lines coning from the positive side.
The residual charge( probability the wrong term)....lets use flux, is just a few field lines.......nothing close to an electron field. But enough to polarize. If it wasn't for these extra field lines, compounds and molecules could not be made.

It all depends on what side of the structure that you are.

A noble atom has complete nuclear shells. There will be hardly any excess lines, this is why it doesn't react. UN-completed shells have many, and that’s why they react.

I shouldn't have said residual charge......it's unconnected flux as it were. The charge value would be super small. But it is there.

Is that any better?

 

I shouldn't have said residual charge

No, you shouldn't have.

But that is not what I was talking about.

 

Ok, what are you talking about?