[N0B0DY]

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/th...kinteract.html

The above might prove helpful, and the question remains concerning the basis of the hadron mass, neutralino.

If you took a look at the link I posted, it suggested that the confined kinetic and potential energies contribute to its mass. Then, would you suppose that kinetic and potential energies contribute to the quark masses as well, or, further still, to any and all possible masses?

I think in terms of following the implications of the empirical and theoretical sciences, but then further them to extract relevant information in order to draw logical conclusions. As an aside consideration, that the atom was once thought to be the smallest-possible particle, until it was then "known" that the assessment was incorrect.

How far do we have to go in order to reach the root cause of observable, or detectable, reality? I would think that it would be related to the absolute point that both unifies and separates differential motions required for there to be foundations of theoretical and empirical science and philosophy.

[dipayankar]

Have we really been able to measure the complete decay of a neutron? I guess it would be millions of years..

Originally Posted by neutralino

A free neutron has a half life of around 10 minutes

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Have we really been able to measure the complete decay of a neutron? I guess it would be millions of years..

Hi Dipayankar;

It's my understanding that the neutron decays into a proton and an electron. Once in that state it would be billions and billions of years, in that the proton is a stable particle and as of yet no evidence of a decay.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

"Once in that state it would be billions and billions of years, in that the proton is a stable particle and as of yet no evidence of a decay."

By what possible means is it discerned that the proton doesn't change into a neutron when not observed?

Isn't quantum mechanics based on the hypothesis that all particles are in a virtual state when unobserved?

[dipayankar]

That's what I thought. Neutron and Proton are interchangable. But then if this is the case, then how does a neutron permanently decay into a proton??

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

"Once in that state it would be billions and billions of years, in that the proton is a stable particle and as of yet no evidence of a decay."

By what possible means is it discerned that the proton doesn't change into a neutron when not observed?

Isn't quantum mechanics based on the hypothesis that all particles are in a virtual state when unobserved?

[N0B0DY]

I don't think there would be such a concept as permanence in that case, Dip. Quantum mechanics essentially destroyed any future grasp of what classical physics has to offer. Like m theory, we can either form our model based on classical models or on quantum functioning. M theory leans toward the former to keep the laws the same, I lean toward the latter to keep the laws the same according to my own interpretations. There can be no "truth" that people can tell us other than what we are willing to believe.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

There can be no "truth" that people can tell us other than what we are willing to believe.

Swap "believe", for "know", and your statement may make sense, i.e., "willing to know..." When you become willing to know, Nobody, you may start to know a truer science...

Lloyd

[N0B0DY]

Believe me, Lloyd, half of what your true science is based on is based on how you have been influenced by our conversing.

People fail to realize the subtle influence each of us has on each other, but limiting influences based on the be-all-end-all of science, limits the imagination that allows for future learning.

If scientific understanding is going change in the next hundred years as it has in the past hundred years, to what extent do you believe is your solid science going to stand the test of time?

[dipayankar]

But where is the truth? Is it that classical science and quantum science compliment each other? They certainly are right at their own places. Probably bridging the gap is what we call the TOE....

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

I don't think there would be such a concept as permanence in that case, Dip. Quantum mechanics essentially destroyed any future grasp of what classical physics has to offer. Like m theory, we can either form our model based on classical models or on quantum functioning. M theory leans toward the former to keep the laws the same, I lean toward the latter to keep the laws the same according to my own interpretations. There can be no "truth" that people can tell us other than what we are willing to believe.

[everymansmedium]

Hello:

The cyclic nature of the universe may be at a galactic level.

The growth of a galaxy is determined by its size and the size of its nearest neighbors. The Milky Way galaxy that we reside in it seems is of the larger variety, and is presently in the process of gobbling up at least 2 other smaller galaxies as we communicate right now. This process of galaxy gobbling is likely to be the only way that mankind will ever visit another galactic star system. As this process continues it would seem that the number of galaxies must decrease in number and increase in size. I am sure that this will leave large spaces between the final extremely large galaxies. Should the black holes at the center of these extremely large galaxies collide or fall into an orbit about one another what might the result of this be. Considering that 2 orbiting black holes will continue to increase in mass as they continue to gobble all mass in the space around them. What might be the result of this phenomena.

The following link is about the 2 smaller galaxies that our milky way galaxy is in the process of gobbling now.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/04canismajor/

John.