Welcome to the ToeQuest.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,786
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    true meaning of proton decay

    the true meaning why proton decay cannot happen until the experimentalists waited for the time of 10 to the power 33 years is that the left hand of creation can only allow energy loans in increments of multiples of 3s of the zero-point energy of the true right handed vacuum.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  2. #2
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    What I wonder is why there isn't such thing as "electron decay"? shouldn't there be one, in compensation?

  3. #3
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,786
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    electron is not composite.

    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    What I wonder is why there isn't such thing as "electron decay"? shouldn't there be one, in compensation?
    Electron is not composite as far as quantum field theory is concerned or in other words substructure could not be found by high energy experiments. However, it is widely accepted that a proton is composite of 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark. So, many believe that it should somehow decay.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

  4. #4
    The Thinker
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    3,278
    Blog Entries
    7
    Thanks Given
    0
    Thanked 12x in 9 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by AntonioLao
    Electron is not composite as far as quantum field theory is concerned or in other words substructure could not be found by high energy experiments. However, it is widely accepted that a proton is composite of 2 up-quarks and 1 down-quark. So, many believe that it should somehow decay.
    I see. Does this principle of "particle has suvstructure therefore it decays" apply only to femrions, or also to bosons?

    (I ask because in my theory photon is not fundamental, so it shoudl decay?)

  5. #5
    Raider of the lost time
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,786
    Blog Entries
    10
    Thanks Given
    1,106
    Thanked 1,474x in 1,194 Posts
    Rep Power
    158

    good question but very difficult to answer

    Quote Originally Posted by GUILLE
    Does this principle of "particle has suvstructure therefore it decays" apply only to femrions, or also to bosons?
    This is a very difficult question. I don't have a satisfactory answer even if I have to use my idea about the quantization of spacetime. In my research all fermions and bosons are composite of H+'s and H-'s but the left and right hand of creation only allow the total even numbers of the sum of H+ and H- for mass and energy.
    Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: a(tr(t)=c²

 

 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is truth,can we know it?
    By mkirkpatrick in forum Philosophical Thought
    Replies: 237
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 07:53 AM
  2. "Zero and its true nature in the quatum era"
    By humanbydefault in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-03-2006, 12:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top