if there were an Atom made of one proton, one electron and one neutron, would it not be completely neutral in charge due to the proton and electron canceling out each others charge and the neutron being neutral... and thus not interact with what we understand as reality?
It occurs to me that the probability of there being atoms with every conceivable combination of particles becomes more likely the least amount of atomic weight and this particle, if it does exist, would be 2nd on the periodic table.
iv very curious about this. please debate !
It would be neutral from far away. In the near field however, there will be fluctuations with time. Example: water molecules are neutral from far away, but close by they still attract due to their charge difference on the oxygen and hydrogen sites.
its called deuterium, its an isotope of hydrogen
yes, the atom as a whole would be neutral, but that doesn't make the electron neutral, and the electrons are what cause chemical interactions.
how do you not know this stuff? underage b&
emergent properties of a system do not cancel out properties of its components, say you're spinning 2 metal balls above your head in opposite directions at the same speed, if you want net angular momentum, the two balls cancel each other out, but it'll still fucking hurt if you get hit by one
>not using vim
what are you, some kind of idiot?
This is a graph of all the known nuclides (types of nucleus), with Z being the number of protons and N being the number of neutrons.
The atom you describe would be deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Elements are named based on the number of protons, with isotopes of that element having the same name even with different numbers of neutrons. Deuterium, a hydrogen with one neutron, and tritium, a hydrogen with two neutrons, are an exception because they're quite a lot different from hydrogen.
If it were an isolated system with just that, then yes, however there are other charges in the universe.
Pic related, 40 hours in paint
What a weird graph. Is it really true that nuclei with up to 40 protons have a maximum stability (meaning that they will on average spontaneously fission) of 10^4 seconds? Common sense tells me that if that were the case, we wouldn't be here now.
>Is it really true that nuclei with up to 40 protons have a maximum stability (meaning that they will on average spontaneously fission) of 10^4 seconds?
How did you get that from the graph?
i figured out the mistake in my question. all of the hydrogen and helium isotopes isotopes have multiple protons but all still have 1 electron and neutron.
If there were an atomic element comprised of 1n, 1p and 2e the half spin of the 2 electrons in their negative neutrino state would be in direct opposition the whole spin of the positive state Proton.
Waves of = magnitude will cancel each other out when their peaks and troughs intersect each other. so theoretically the atom would cancel itself out due to the interactions of its parts.
lol i got it from google, diddnt really look at it its there simple so people stop bringing it up.
thanks for pointing it out
I'm afraid you've somewhat misunderstood a number of key concepts here.
An atom composed of 1n and 1p with two electrons would just be a negative deuterium ion.
I'm afraid that a negative neutrino state is not, bluntly speaking, anything, but I can tell you that neutrinos are near-massless, uncharged particles that are indeed related to electrons but are not relevant to the matter at hand.
Spin is a whole matter unto itself, and I can explain it for you if you like, but suffice to say it doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
And yes, waves of equal magnitude and opposite phase will cancel each other out but the particles in question are not waves in that sense. Furthermore, conservation of energy means that nothing can just 'cancel itself out' and disappear like that.