beta decay?

I did a quick Google on "neutron proton mass" and this was one of the top three hits:

neutron-proton mass ratio: Mn/Mp = 1.00137841887

Regards,
LB

Don't feel you are missing something in the beta decay model. It only adds up if you invent stuff to make the result fit the model.

The electron is nearly massless, so much so that it is almost neglible in mass calculations. Beta decay is observed and well documented due to the increase in the atomic number of the atom and the rearrangement of the nucleus to accomadate a postive charge. This rearrangement is governed by the same orbital principle that explains the structure of the electron cloud around the atom. When a negative charge escapes the neutron leaving behind a proton the masses do balance in the realm beyond the significant figures that we can apply to the calculations. Discrepancies appear due to the fact that we must measure not just a single decaying neutron but moles of substance at a time to derive conclusions and numbers. The entities are almost never totally pure from a mass standpoint as well. So we result in a situation where accuracy and precision are somewhat askew. However, the more obvious evidence of beta decay and increasing atomic number are well-documented and accepted. MV

Mark Vitrone

The bata decay result is always missing some mass and not observed as energy-right? The mass at the beginning is more than the mass the energy combined at the end of the process. So, therefore the neutrino was invented to make the result fit the model-right?

Thanks for the info everyone, since beta decay is central to my own "invention" I must understand the controversies behind it. I now must tackle the sub-atomic particles - is all the up and down, red and anti-red, etc. particles made up to fit the model. Or is there empirical evidence that makes all of these conclusion undeniable.

You have taken on a very interesting topic for sure. The history of all this stuff is not clear or complete but I found it began with electricity research in the 1780s or so and lyden jars which are condensers. The first particle was electrical and is still not well known even though its effects are well known. The electron we know today is bogus in my opinion-that is not a real particle found in nature but a model of some sort that fills a need. But, don't let me influence your research I have many issues with current theory.