Post by: talanum1 on 04/08/2020 10:42:36
Then the alternative to neutron decay by the Weak Force is:
ddu + anti-uu -> uud + anti-ud -> uud + electron + electron antineutrino
Similarly for other decays via the Weak Force.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2020 13:05:13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe
Post by: Kryptid on 04/08/2020 14:05:50
If one looks at what a W-minus is made of versus what a d-quark is made of, it is inconceivable that a d-quark can emit a W-minus.
To the best of our knowledge, the W bosons and quarks aren't made of anything: they are fundamental particles.
Particles do not have to contain other particles in order to produce them. One set of particles is capable of transforming into another set of particles so long as conservation laws are satisfied. A good example of this is the fact that a positron and an electron can annihilate to produce a pair of photons. That, however, doesn't mean that an electron contains a photon and a positron contains a photon because sometimes the annihilation results in three photons instead of only two.
Post by: talanum1 on 04/08/2020 16:32:15
Particles do not have to contain other particles in order to produce them.
That's easy to state, but how can that be true?
A record of the participating particles and their properties must exist in order to calculate the conserved quantities.
There are three photons when space makes an error in computing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2020 17:22:05
There are three photons when space makes an error in computing.Unless you can show that three photons has ever happened, you are just making up dross.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/08/2020 23:26:48
That's easy to state, but how can that be true?
Because fundamental particles do not have the properties of bulk matter.
A record of the participating particles and their properties must exist in order to calculate the conserved quantities.
None of which requires fundamental particles to contain other particles in order to produce them.
There are three photons when space makes an error in computing.
Three-photon annihilation of a positron-electron pair doesn't violate conservation laws (it's possible for the total momentum of the photons to equal that of the initial positron-electron pair), so it's ridiculous to claim that space "makes an error in computing". The claim that reality makes mistakes in the first place is baffling. Reality, by definition, cannot make mistakes. Mistakes are when our expectations or calculations don't conform to reality.
By the way, the weak force has been measured: https://www.sciencealert.com/proton-weak-force-measurement-experiment-uses-parity-violation
Post by: talanum1 on 05/08/2020 15:23:34
Because fundamental particles do not have the properties of bulk matter.
That does not explain it. I must go along and compute the implications of fundamental particles not having a temperature. They do have mass like bulk matter.
The proof doesn't come to mind.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/08/2020 15:37:39
That does not explain it.
Look, the Higgs boson was the produced by the collision of protons at high velocity. The mass of the Higgs boson is far larger than that of the proton, so the protons could not have already had a Higgs hidden inside of them somewhere. It was the relativistic mass-energy due to the high velocity of the protons that allowed the much more massive particle to be produced. You may not like it, but it's exactly what the evidence says.
I must go along and compute the implications of fundamental particles not having a temperature.
Temperature is an emergent property of a system containing many particles.
They do have mass like bulk matter.
Bulk matter has mass because it is composed of particles, which also have mass (not the other way around).
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2020 17:31:48
That does not explain it to me. I must go along and see if I am clever enough to compute the implications of fundamental particles not having a temperature. Theydohave mass like bulk matter.
The proof doesn't come to my mind.
Fixed it for you.
Post by: talanum1 on 06/08/2020 18:59:31
Fixed it for you.
Nasty.
The mass of the Higgs boson is far larger than that of the proton, so the protons could not have already had a Higgs hidden inside of them somewhere.
The Higgs just carry mass and Weak Isospin: the protons could have carried a large relativistic mass and Weak Isospin..
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2020 19:42:50
Nasty.Was I actually wrong?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/08/2020 20:31:15
The Higgs just carry mass and Weak Isospin: the protons could have carried a large relativistic mass and Weak Isospin..
The rest mass of the proton is 938 MeV. The rest mass of the Higgs is 125,180 MeV. A resting proton therefore could not possibly contain a Higgs inside of it. You can't say that a Higgs suddenly pops into existence inside of a proton when you give it sufficient relativistic mass by speeding it up. This is, in part, because velocity is relative. To another particle traveling at the same velocity as the proton, the proton will appear at rest and therefore have a mass of only 938 MeV. Two different reference frames can disagree on velocity and kinetic energy, but they cannot disagree on the physical consequences of that difference (in other words, a Higgs cannot be inside of a proton in one reference frame but not another). So the Higgs was actually created by the collision of the protons and was not present inside any of the protons beforehand.
The same is true of the W and Z bosons. They are produced in particle accelerators via collisions similar to the way that the Higgs is produced. Likewise, the W and Z bosons are far more massive (80,379 and 91,188 MeV, respectively) than the particles being accelerated. Protons, neutrons and electrons cannot contain W or Z bosons because those particles are far more massive than they themselves are.
You also seem to have missed this:
By the way, the weak force has been measured: https://www.sciencealert.com/proton-weak-force-measurement-experiment-uses-parity-violation
Post by: puppypower on 07/08/2020 12:05:54
Let me give an example. If we heated water; H2O, to 5000C on the surface the earth, water will break down into various radicals or sub pieces. If run the experiment at 5000C, but apply a lot of pressure, such as the core of the earth, H2O will behave as a metal ,and have different sub piece characteristics. Fundamental particles may well be specific to where we look on the phase diagram.
We generate quarks and sub particles of matter on the surface of the earth. We use high temperature analogies but low ambient pressure. I would expect different results inside the core of a star, where all our particle accelerators tools would change phase and break down. These extreme pressure results would be in a different area of the phase diagram. Both areas of the phase diagram can be valid but one size may not fit all.
Under extreme pressure you may not be able to get the same relativistic mass. There is not enough room and time to slowly build the speed we use in the lab. Instead you will have more, but weaker interactive pulses of energy.
An analogy is water at high velocity, coming out of a pressure washer can cut right through rock and stone. They cut granite and marble this way. If we apply the same pressure but with low velocity, such as using the pressure washer at the bottom of the ocean, the rock holds fast. Pressure with or without velocity behave differently. The experimental results will differ yet each set of results will be correct for those conditions. In the above example, under the ocean of pressure, the rock is braced for the lower water output velocity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2020 13:03:32
Both can be correct since the properties of matter will be both temperature and pressure dependent.Neither the pressure not the temperature is actually defined in the conditions in which the Higgs bosons etc are studied.
The particles are too small to "know" if they are in a star or a vacuum chamber.
So your idea is, as so often seems to be the case, hogwash.
Please try to think your ideas through a bit to check that they are not obviously wrong, before posting them
Post by: talanum1 on 07/08/2020 15:56:36
You can't say that a Higgs suddenly pops into existence inside of a proton when you give it sufficient relativistic mass by speeding it up.
The Higgs mass could start to exist in a relativistic proton. It is just left out events on a circle in a Riemann sphere-compound. See figure attached (down quark not shown, only mass of two up quarks shown).
Proton.png (4.21 kB . 312x254 - viewed 2844 times)Although a proton hasn't got sufficient rest mass, it has enough relativistic mass.
You also seem to have missed this:
Quote from: Kryptid on 04/08/2020 23:26:48
By the way, the weak force has been measured: https://www.sciencealert.com/proton-weak-force-measurement-experiment-uses-parity-violation
I have seen it. The measurement is between a proton and electron, not neutron decay. They can be mistaken that it is due to the Weak Force.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/08/2020 17:34:29
The Higgs mass could start to exist in a relativistic proton.
You missed this part:
You can't say that a Higgs suddenly pops into existence inside of a proton when you give it sufficient relativistic mass by speeding it up. This is, in part, because velocity is relative. To another particle traveling at the same velocity as the proton, the proton will appear at rest and therefore have a mass of only 938 MeV. Two different reference frames can disagree on velocity and kinetic energy, but they cannot disagree on the physical consequences of that difference (in other words, a Higgs cannot be inside of a proton in one reference frame but not another).
They can be mistaken that it is due to the Weak Force.
Then show where they made their mistake.
Post by: talanum1 on 08/08/2020 14:46:38
You missed this part:
Quote from: Kryptid on 06/08/2020 20:31:15
You can't say that a Higgs suddenly pops into existence inside of a proton
I haven't missed it. The Higgs's parts can certainly come into existence inside a relativistic proton.
Then show where they made their mistake.
I may be wrong, but I showed that neutron decay can happen by the Strong Nuclear Force.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 14:48:41
I haven't missed it. The Higgs's parts can certainly come into existence inside a relativistic proton.Then it wouldn't be a proton any more.
Post by: talanum1 on 08/08/2020 16:29:47
Then it wouldn't be a proton any more.
It would still be a proton because the proton has got other properties that do not go into the Higgs. The Higgs is made of some of the proton parts.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/08/2020 17:13:51
The Higgs's parts can certainly come into existence inside a relativistic proton.
Except, as I pointed out, in the reference frame of someone who is keeping pace with the proton, the proton isn't moving (and therefore isn't relativistic). A proton cannot contain parts of a Higgs in one frame and not in another. Not to mention that the Higgs is a fundamental particle. It isn't, to the best of our knowledge, made of anything simpler than itself.
I may be wrong, but I showed that neutron decay can happen by the Strong Nuclear Force.
And what about decay of the muon, which doesn't interact with the strong nuclear force?
The Z boson was predicted to exist as a means of explaining the properties of the weak nuclear force. Then the Z boson was actually detected in 1983. That's strong evidence that the weak nuclear force exists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/08/2020 17:34:57
So the Higgs Boson- mass 125.18 ± 0.16 GeV/c2Then it wouldn't be a proton any more.
It would still be a proton because the proton has got other properties that do not go into the Higgs. The Higgs is made of some of the proton parts.
Is made from parts of the Proton- mass 0.93828 GeV/c2
Yes, that makes perfect sense because 0.9 is much bigger than 125.
Post by: talanum1 on 09/08/2020 12:34:08
A proton cannot contain parts of a Higgs in one frame and not in another.
Space is at rest relative to the proton. Relativistic mass makes more real little circles (see figure above) as far as space is concerned. The rest frame of the proton is irrelevant for space.
Not to mention that the Higgs is a fundamental particle. It isn't, to the best of our knowledge, made of anything simpler than itself.
In my model the Higgs is made of a Riemann sphere with left out events of spacetime - I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.
And what about decay of the muon
The muon also decays by the strong force as follows: a muon neutrino-anti-neutrino pair starts to exist close to the muon, the muon antineutrino binds with the muon forming a anti-up-down, which decays to a electron and electron antineutrino and the muon neutrino goes free too.
Yes, that makes perfect sense because 0.9 is much bigger than 125.
Don't be sarcastic. The proton's relativistic mass is > 125 GeV/c2.
Post by: talanum1 on 09/08/2020 12:48:26
Then the Z boson was actually detected in 1983. That's strong evidence that the weak nuclear force exists.
They detected a photon with mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2020 13:04:06
Don't be sarcastic. The proton's relativistic mass is > 125 GeV/c2.Not, as has been pointed out, from the point of view of another proton travelling alongside in the accelerator.
From that perspective, the proton just looks like a proton.
I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.I can conceive of unicorns.
The difference between us is that I have more sense than to think they are real.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/08/2020 15:07:32
Space is at rest relative to the proton. Relativistic mass makes more real little circles (see figure above) as far as space is concerned. The rest frame of the proton is irrelevant for space.
Sounds like you are contradicting relativity.
In my model the Higgs is made of a Riemann sphere with left out events of spacetime - I can conceive of what ordinary physics cannot.
Now all you need to do is demonstrate that with experimental evidence.
The muon also decays by the strong force
It doesn't even interact with the strong nuclear force, so that doesn't work.
They detected a photon with mass.
No, they didn't. The photon is stable, whereas the Z boson is not. The photon is associated with the electromagnetic interaction, whereas the Z boson is not (it is associated with neutrino interactions, which have no charge).
Post by: talanum1 on 10/08/2020 12:19:46
Sounds like you are contradicting relativity.
Seems like you have a point there.
It doesn't even interact with the strong nuclear force, so that doesn't work.
The mu-minus binds with a muon antineutrino to form a pi-minus that does feel the strong force.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2020 15:09:42
mu-minus binds with a muon antineutrinoHow?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/08/2020 20:40:40
The mu-minus binds with a muon antineutrino to form a pi-minus that does feel the strong force.
1) The negative pion is composed of a quark and antiquark, not a muon and antineutrino.
2) There is no known force that can bind a muon to an antineutrino. Electromagnetism won't work because the antineutrino is neutral. The strong force won't work because neither particle feels the strong force. Gravity won't work because it's far too weak on that scale. The weak force won't work because it doesn't form bound states (and you can't invoke it anyway because you are denying its existence).
3) You are still ignoring the fact that the muon, by itself, decays. I'm not talking about a pion. The muon does not interact with the strong force and thus you cannot invoke it as a mechanism for its decay.
Post by: talanum1 on 15/08/2020 17:37:02
Gravity won't work because it's far too weak on that scale.
They can bind by Gravity if the antineutrino is very precisely headed for the muon. Gravity becomes large for small distances. Since the antineutrino is light only a very tiny force is required to accelerate it to the muon.
A force of 10^(-19) N is all that is required. This is much more than 10^(-33) N by which the gravitic force is smaller than the strong force.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 17:45:27
They can bind by Gravity if the antineutrino is very precisely headed for the muon. Gravity becomes large for small distances. Since the antineutrino is light only a very tiny force is required to accelerate it to the muon.
That's not how that works on the quantum level. Niels Bohr worked out the average radius (Bohr radius) of the hydrogen atom in part by taking into account the strength of the attractive force between the proton and electron. What was discovered was that, the stronger the attractive force, the smaller the average distance between the electron and proton. This is confirmed when looking at periodic trends of the chemical elements where the 1s orbital (the orbital where the two innermost electrons are) become smaller and smaller as the atomic number (and therefore nuclear electric charge) increases.
So the inverse is also true: the weaker the attractive force between two particles, the larger the bound state is. Gravity is on the order of 1039 times weaker than the electromagnetic force, so a muon-antineutrino bound state would be expected to be many orders of magnitude larger than a hydrogen atom. Such is not the case for a pion. So we know that it is not held together by gravity.
Post by: talanum1 on 15/08/2020 17:59:38
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2020 20:36:41
The muon and antineutrino acquire color charge just before they bind by the strong force into a pion.
Neither the muon nor the antineutrino interact via the color force.