0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.
Quote from: puppypower on 13/06/2020 14:15:51Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.That doesn't make any sense. What evidence do you have to support that claim?
COVID bored are we?
If space is a dynamic then it is always changing. Time is also change.
since a down quark is a combination of an up quark and electron
I learned this years ago studying quantum physics. I just don't have the time to go find a source.
When an electron, charge -1, combines with an up quark, charge +2/3, we get the charge of a down quark, -1/3.
And what force is it that binds the electron to the up quark?
Speaking at the quantum level, where "particles" only exist as probabilities and possibilities, none of this really matters at all.
To answer your question, however, they are conjoined in their spins.
Forces are required to put a pair of particles into a bound state.
Spin is not an attractive force.
Standard Model is preferred to yours.
As I noted, I am not a particle physicist. I am not saying spin is an attractive force. In this case it is actually gravity I am talking about. The gravitational direction of evolution. The spins are in the spatial aspect. Gravity overpowers all the other forces as it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.
The Standard Model is a flop.
As I noted earlier, “particles” don’t actually exist.
Gravity is far too weak on the subatomic scale to bind an electron to a quark.
Then your model must be a flop too, since at least the Standard Model doesn't require such a violation of lepton number (or at least B-L, baryon number minus lepton number) in order to account for observations.
The big mystery, since Einstein, has been why gravity overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak. I explain that.
I am claiming nothing past causation.
ou claimed that down quarks are up quarks plus electrons, which is wrong because it leads to violation of conservation of lepton number.
As I noted, I learned this while studying quantum physics.
You also clearly don't understand gravity.
Then you learned wrong. I guarantee you that whatever source you learned that from was either non-reputable or was based on misunderstandings.
I really don't want to go back and forth on this.
"Niels Bohr was notably opposed to this (Pauli's) interpretation of beta decay and was ready to accept that energy, momentum, and angular momentum were not conserved quantities."
I would also note that the combination of two particles does not predict what will happen when they decay or are shattered in a collider.
As per gravity, you are not seeing what it is, and that it acts at every level when there is a density, even a point (particle) event.