[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

You might be right, but not in this Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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).

[Bored chemist]

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. They do have mass like bulk matter.

The proof doesn't come to my mind.

Fixed it for you.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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..

[Bored chemist]

Nasty.

Was I actually wrong?

[Kryptid]

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

[puppypower]

Both can be correct since the properties of matter will be both temperature and pressure dependent. The result is that different parts of the phase diagram, over various combinations of temperature and pressure, will show different properties and different fundamental constituents.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.