With respect to your knowledge, the outside-the-box thinking includes consideration of the SLAC interpretation of subatomic masses linking to shadow gravity, the elimination of the need for quarks, squarks and eventually even leptons and differential bosons. Though we can keep positrons, electrons and photons for the time being, maybe call it "PEP Theory."
You're right, the proton is considered stable, but if it were to continually annihilate with an antiproton, it would be considered very short-lived. Whereby the stability would be the result of gravitational time-dilation at the planck scale, redshifted, as it scales to the detectable macrocosmic scale which also gives not only temporal perception but spatial perception as well.
This could also be applied to explain the cause of Pat's idea of dimensional extension from no branes to membranes to spheres. Of which, unlike normal annihilation, they allegedly divide infinitely upon annihilation with antibranes. Regardless of what is implemented, the means would rely solely upon pushing, never pulling or attraction, only repulsion based on variable amplitudes and velocities.
Also, call it a g.u.t. feeling, but I think many individuals underestimate RascalPuff. He has put alot of time in developing a great theory that is complimentary to many ideas we may have. No one is asking anyone to swallow things whole, but to fairly give things and ideas a bit of time to sink in before we share our inferences.
Llyod, thats what frightenes me... as a mere mortal. I do not believe in God simply because God is supposed to be eternal. Somehow matter and energy would have come into existance... I just dont know how...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Dipayankar, as you have been told many times, matter and energy can neither be created, nor destroyed___therefore; by scientific logic, it is absolutely required to be eternally present, in some fundamental substance state...
If you start respecting the fundamental laws of physics, the quest becomes much clearer and simpler... The law I stated above is the first law of thermodynamics. Einstein respected this law, greatly, as do all serious physicists/scientists... All science is founded on the proven, and provable repeatability, of these fundamental laws... The interpretation is the problem, not the fundamental laws...
I'll leave you alone on this one since you're cosmologist and not a nuclear physicist but here is one instance where a proton decays into a neutron.
Whilst this is an instance that shows a proton being converted into a neutron, it is not an instance of proton decay. For the reaction you showed to occur, one would need more than one proton to collide. However, unlike the proton, there are instances where the neutron would, on its own, decay into a proton and other products.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
With respect to your knowledge, the outside-the-box thinking includes consideration of the SLAC interpretation of subatomic masses linking to shadow gravity, the elimination of the need for quarks, squarks and eventually even leptons and differential bosons. Though we can keep positrons, electrons and photons for the time being, maybe call it "PEP Theory."
Do you have any references on this "SLAC Theory"? What happens to the neutrinos we have observed? What are they if you discard all the leptons?
Quote:
You're right, the proton is considered stable, but if it were to continually annihilate with an antiproton, it would be considered very short-lived.
But then, so would any particle if there was lots of antimatter around! The fact is that there is not.
Quote:
Also, call it a g.u.t. feeling, but I think many individuals underestimate RascalPuff. He has put alot of time in developing a great theory that is complimentary to many ideas we may have. No one is asking anyone to swallow things whole, but to fairly give things and ideas a bit of time to sink in before we share our inferences.
Please, let's not bring it into this thread too. There's already far too many threads discussing his "theory" on this website.
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
How long does it take for a neutron to decay into a proton naturally???
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralino
Whilst this is an instance that shows a proton being converted into a neutron, it is not an instance of proton decay. For the reaction you showed to occur, one would need more than one proton to collide. However, unlike the proton, there are instances where the neutron would, on its own, decay into a proton and other products.
Throwing around facts is not scientific in the strictest sense, neutralino. All "facts" are circumstantial and empirical, and therefore are limited by observations.
SLAC doesn't have a "theory" and their interpretations - http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/quarks.html - are even semi-consistent with the standard model. Yet it allows a linking to kinetic energy theories and shadow gravity theories. Their "theory" would simply be one of high energies producing all energy quanta.
It doesn't matter what names we give particles as long as energy, momenta, charge, etc. is conserved. If we invoke neutrinos, residual particles of annihilation/creation, we can invoke protinos, electrinos, positrinos that are all variable forms of photon quanta or energy.
The gist of the thread can be applied to an atomic model that is based on the cyclic creation and destruction of masses and charges as though each atom is a miniature big bang. The center of the atom is like t0, a point of annihilation/creation, which produces kinetic energy with a high enough energy to create the atomic charges and anticharges that are continually annihilating. This way we don't have to add extra dimensions to our three-brane model, but only allow, as to your question, right-handed neutrinos to exist in backward time - not very likely to be detected.
Further, the time, dilation, that it takes the events to scale via radiation is the cause for inferring stability. Just like star light transferring observable energy from events that have long-since passed, the same can apply to the microcosmic events. We observe both the annihilation in the form of the cmb, and the creation in the form of stable particles.
This site is about questing for the TOE, not necessarily only the study of orthodox theories, and I cannot take these things further in any clearly expressible terms. Perhaps, I thought, you might be able to.
Linear Mode
