It's why we seemingly cannot defeat the speed of light, while we are told that time does not exist, yet we have spooky action at a distance and tons of literature shows how we can defeat time and space via non scientific methodologies
Because everybody knows where they have come from! But if you really don't know https://phys.org/...eep.html will help.
Thanks for pointing out my omission.
I'm more concerned about your failure to make sense.
I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....
Is this a set up for proton fission?
I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....
Is this a set up for proton fission?
I'd hate to be on the planet that decides to test a proton fission weapon.
I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....Surface area of a sphere increases as the square of the radius:
Is this a set up for proton fission?
I think we all know that it has previously been described that the gluon binds the quarks together (well, basically in my layman terminology).There are eight colored gluons to bind the quarks with three different color charges. The color charges are attractive to one another and to their anticharges, only a color repels its same color as with electricity. So, for example, red attracts green, blue, antigreen, antiblue, and antired. It only repels red. The gluons mediate these interactions; only eight are needed since a color repels itself, just as only one EM gluon (the photon) is required for the EM force to repel like charges and attract unlikes.
Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up there keeping it all in balance.Actually just the opposite must be true. The less energy advantage there is in an interaction the less likely it is to occur spontaneously.
Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up
[contd]Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up there keeping it all in balance.Actually just the opposite must be true. The less energy advantage there is in an interaction the less likely it is to occur spontaneously.
Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up
Sure, but you have to look at it this way:... others do not.)
The products (a positron and a pion which immediately pops into two gammas) do not lend themselves to initiating a chain reaction.
ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?
ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?
No, because gammas have no charge while electrons/positrons do. Also gammas can't orbit that way. For that these masses would have to be black holes and *that* would definitely produce effects completely different from how matter behaves.
Feeding the trolls may be entertaining but ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation with a lot of people on my ignore list.
There isn't any force that causes photons (γ) to attract or repel one another, thus there is no way for them to associate into particles like electrons (e+/-). Photons do not have color, weak, or EM charges. As such they only respond to gravity, or direct interactions with matter particles (most notably electrons confined in an orbital around an atom).ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?
No, because gammas have no charge while electrons/positrons do. Also gammas can't orbit that way. For that these masses would have to be black holes and *that* would definitely produce effects completely different from how matter behaves.
...if e+ & e- are truly elementary then what elementary energy are e- & e+ composed of if only γ is observed?I don't quite understand what you're asking here. e- and e+ are observed as well as γ; why do you say only γ [are] observed? e- and e+ don't seem to go away, they just get absorbed or incorporated by ions. And if γ make e- and e+ then where does the electric charge (which γ prominently obviously do not have) come from?
(Who is down voting you? isn't me.)Suggest you ignore this; it's butthurt trolls who got downvoted for saying stupid stuff and are taking "revenge" for their conspiracy theory that the sciensetis hate and fear them and are downvoting them.
@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?
@Mimath, The proton's +1 charge is from... The quarks are elementary particles, and the electron is an elementary particle also.
Elementary particles are called that because they have no constituents...
The stuff about refracting photons and so forth doesn't seem to connect well with your other thoughts. Why do you think it's relevant?
Electrons can be refracted...
[contd]
An exception to that would be string physics...
But a lot of people think string physics is BS.
Parsec> Ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation
I agree Parsec, It is irritating when a commentator persistently poses trolling comments trying to lead you into pointless discussions that leads round in circles achieving nothing at all when they have their trolling questions answered. The onus is on the recipient of the answer to understand the answer!
It is by engaging in observation and analysis of what actually exist in nature that these scientists have derived their (seemingly) excellent result.
It's why we seemingly cannot defeat the speed of light, while we are told that time does not exist, yet we have spooky action at a distance and tons of literature shows how we can defeat time and space via non scientific methodologies (but they're logical and as rigorous as any 'science'.)
At the same time Quantum and Newtonian experimentation proves ---- that all points are true.
Like Elon Musk surmised through much thinking... and thousands of other deep thinkers who came before--that this is not a base reality.
Human perception does not bring all realities to you, the mind in development, is required for the rest of the puzzle.
You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.
As a layman, I agree, that [string physics] has some intriguing ideas (such as vibrations determine this & that) but from what I understand it has its own problems.@Mimath, you imply that there is some disproof of string physics. This is incorrect. It's completely consistent with all experimental and observational results. And it has vast explanatory power, as indicated by the fact it can account for charges, which the Standard Model cannot do. The SM takes the charges as axiomatic. In addition, and along a completely separate track, it explains gravity which the SM also cannot do. The SM deals only with SRT, not GRT. String physics also shows why renormalization works, and why color forces and charges are confined, which also are not explained by the SM. So tread lightly when you attempt to discredit string physics. No one has actually managed to do so.
You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.
Benni,
I don't think anyone is really arguing the free neutron point.
Gravity (and intense heat) is slowly using up the initial supply of atoms and protons to create new neutrons, as well as from the newly generated protons from the decay.
You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.Benni,
I don't think anyone is really arguing the free neutron point.
Gravity (and intense heat) is slowly using up the initial supply of atoms and protons to create new neutrons, as well as from the newly generated protons from the decay.
Hey, WhyGuy, why? The answer is obvious, none of you know anything about nuclear physics, just pop-cosmology which is EASY requiring no education.
Also, @Mimath, a "balanced view" is incorrect. There isn't any "balanced view." There are ideas that explain more and ideas that explain less. The former are better than the latter, if neither violates observation and experiment.
One of the things I've never seen is an LQG explanation of charges other than gravity.
The ToE will not be a.
1) No one says time doesn't exist.
1) No one says time doesn't exist.
actually, I once knew of one idiot that said just that i.e. that time doesn't exist, dismissing time as "just a series of events" (groan)
I went to great length to explain why that is erroneous but he remained unconvinced.
If time is illusionary because it is nothing more than 'a series of events', how much time passes between one event and the very next one i.e. between 'adjacent' events?.
"There's a photon coming in and a photon coming out. And the pair of photons both are spin-1. That gives us the same information as exchanging one graviton particle with spin-2," says Francois-Xavier Girod, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper."
Yes and No Mimath ..."There's a photon coming in and a photon coming out. And the pair of photons both are spin-1. That gives us the same information as exchanging one graviton particle with spin-2," says Francois-Xavier Girod, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper."
It's just a way of describing the tangential results, that infer a mechanical basis of measurement.
(i.e. the math fits so they continue using it)
@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?
NOW we're talkin'... this provides the necessary symmetry...
BTW - how do you make that little "y" symbol?
@Whydening Gyre (from the 17th)@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?
NOW we're talkin'... this provides the necessary symmetry...
BTW - how do you make that little "y" symbol?
Apologize for not answering your symbol question. I use two pages;
http://www.htmlhe...ols.html
ursiny33
May 16, 2018