Started 5th Apr, 2019

How do you understand the neutron lifetime difference between tropped p and bottle n?

Eighty years after Chadwick discovered the neutron, physicists today still cannot agree on how long the neutron lives. Measurements of the neutron lifetime have achieved the 0.1% level of precision (~ 1 s). However, results from several recent experiments are up to 7 s lower than the (pre2010) particle data group (PDG) value. Experiments using the trap technique yield lifetime results lower than those using the beam technique. The PDG urges the community to resolve this discrepancy, now 6.5 sigma.
I think the reason is “tropped p ”method had not count the number of protons in the decay reaction(n→p+e+ve+γ).As a result ,the number of decay neutrons obtained were low .This affected the measurement of neutron lifetime.Do you agree with me?

All replies (3)

Shuraik Kader
Griffith University
General lifetime of of a floating neutron outside of an atom is 15 minutes. For more information regarding neutron oscillations please check with following paper:
Hong Du
Basically neutron has relativistic past that dilated time. This is generalized as excited states. The excited atates takes extra time to decay. Bottle methods waits hundreds and thousands of seconds to measure, so it measured ground state lifetime. Beam method takes measurements right after neutron creation, it contains extra time, so lifetime is longer
Hong Du
If you don't believe me, you can search the literature to find out the Mampe paper and they have lifetime measurement with different waiting times. The shorter the waiting time, the longer the lifetime.
For storage time between 112-225 seconds, lifetime is 891 seconds, storage interval of 225-450 seconds, lifetime is 888.5, storage time above 900 seconds, lieftime is 887.0 seconds. See the attached screenshot.

Similar questions and discussions

Who can explain H. Minkowski’s theory to me?
47 answers
  • Sergey SheludkoSergey Sheludko
In my current work on the theory of hyperbolic functions, I, as a completely extraneous observer of the turbulent debates relating to the subtlest intricacies of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), have drawn attention to the fact that hyperbolic functions are most used not in constructing bridges, aqueduct arches or describing complex cases of X-ray diffraction, but in those sections of the SRT that are related to the name of Professor Minkowski. Since my personal interest in SRT is essentially limited to the correct application of hyperbolic functions when describing moving physical realities, I would be grateful to the experts in the field of SRT for the most concise explanation of the deep essence of the theory of space-time patterns of surrounding me reality.
Naturally, my question in no way implies the translation into human language of the lecture of the Creator of the Theory, the honour of acquaintance with which in 1907 belongs to the academic/medical community of the city of Cologne and its surroundings. My level of development and my agreeableness have ensured that I not only managed to read independently the text underlying the concept of « Minkowski four-dimensional continuum », but also to formulate my question as follows:
Which of the options I propose is the most concise (i.e. non-emotional-linguistic) explanation of the essence of Minkowski’s theory:
1. The consequence of any relative movement of massive physical objects is that we are all bound to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs and mammoths, i.e. extinction.
2. Understanding/describing the spatial movements of physical objects described by a^2-b^2=const type mathematical expression implies acquiring practical skills of constructing second-order curves called «hyperbolas».
3. All of us, including those who are in a state of careless ignorance, are compelled to exist in curved space.
4. Everything in our lives is relative, and only the interval between physical events is constant.
5. The products of the form ct (or zct), where c is the speed of light and z is some dimensionless mathematical quantity/number symbolizes not a segment of three-dimensional space, but a time interval (or time?) t between uniquely defined events.
6. The electromagnetic radiation generated by a moving massive object always propagates in a direction orthogonal to the velocity vector of the moving object.
Of course, I will be grateful for any adjustments to my options, or expert’s own formulations that have either eluded my attention or whose substance is far beyond my level of mathematical or general development.
Most respectfully
Sergey Sheludko
On deprecating the wave-particle duality?
138 replies
  • Ed GerckEd Gerck
Our answer is YES. The wave-particle duality is a model proposed to explain the interference of photons, electrons, neutrons, or any matter. One deprecates a model when it is no longer needed. Therefore, we show here that the wave-particle duality is deprecated.
This offers an immediate solution for the thermal radiation of bodies, as Einstein demonstrated experimentally in 1917, in terms of ternary trees in progression, to tri-state+, using the model of GF(3^n), where the same atom can show so-called spontaneous emission, absorption, or stimulated emission, and further collective effects, in a ternary way.
Continuity or classical waves are not needed, do not fit into this philosophy, and are not representable by any edges or updating events, or sink, in an oriented graph [1] model with stimulated emission.
However, taking into account the principle of universality in physics, the same phenomena — even a particle such as a photon or electron — can be seen, although approximately and partially, in terms of continuous waves, macroscopically. Then, the wave theory of electrons can be used in the universality limit, when collective effects can play a role, and explain superconductivity.
This solves the apparent confusion given by the common wave-particle duality model, where the ontological view can become now, however — more indicative of a particle in all cases — and does not depend on amplitude.
This explains both the photoelectric effect, that does not depend on the amplitude, and wave-interference, that depends on the amplitude. The ground rule is quantum, the particle -- but one apparently "sees" interference at a distance that is far enough not to distinguish individual contributions.
On deprecating the wave-particle duality, we are looking into abandoning probability in quantum mechanics. This speaks against a duality that is not based on finite integers!
Support comes from the preprint
the article published in Mathematica in 2023 at
the free PDF book
the paper-based books at
and other references, including on the new field of "quantum circuits" using the new set Q*.
[1] Stephen Wolfram, “A Class of Models with the Potential To Represent Fundamental Physics.” Arxiv; https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2004/2004.08210.pdf, 2004.

Related Publications

Angular distributions for the N14(d, p)N15 reaction were investigated at nine deuteron energies ranging from 1.5 to 3.2 MeV. Measurements were carried out in the angular range from 0 to 165 degrees at intervals of 15 degrees. The results for the N14(d, p)N15 ground state reaction showed generally a forward peak, as was expected from deuteron stripp...
Relations between particle alignments and shapes are discussed for a few typical cases chosen in the A = 120-130 transitional region : shapes associated with (jthn/2) 2 and (vhn/2) 2 configurations, H3/2 neutrons and superdeformations, predictions concerning band terminations.
28Si beam with energy of 104.0, 115.5 and 127.2 MeV was used to produce neutron deficient nuclei with proton radioactivity. A helium-jet system and particle identification technique were employed in the experiment. The direct proton emitter 53mCo and the beta-delayed proton precursor 53Ni were observed in the experiment. The result is in good agree...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.