[talanum1 (OP)]

The formula:

ν +p -> e⁺ + n

is in error. It must read:

ν + e^- + e⁺ + p -> e⁺ + n + Energy

LS = ud + e⁺ + uud = udd + e⁺ + uu

[Origin]

Why do you post such absurd stuff?
What do you think the chances are of an electron, positron, electron antineutrino and a proton being in the same place at the same time?

[Kryptid]

What's the error you claim exists in the original equation?

[talanum1 (OP)]

What's the error you claim exists in the original equation?

It should contain a e^- and e⁺ in left side and Energy in the right side. It is misleading as it is.

What do you think the chances are of an electron, positron, electron antineutrino and a proton being in the same place at the same time?

The chances are small but not zero.

[Bored chemist]

It is misleading as it is.

In what way?
We see it take place in environments that don't have positrons present, so your idea is plainly wrong.

[Origin]

It should contain a e- and e+ in left side and Energy in the right side. It is misleading as it is.

I think Kryptid was looking for a bit more than you just naming the differences.
Of course we all know that you have no legitimate reason for the change, it was just a WAG

[Kryptid]

It should contain a e- and e+ in left side and Energy in the right side. It is misleading as it is.

No, I want you to explain why you think such is the case.

[talanum1 (OP)]

In what way?
We see it take place in environments that don't have positrons present, so your idea is plainly wrong.

The wrong formula suggests the antineutrino reacts with a proton to form a neutron and positron. This is wrong if you think about it in terms of pictures. Can you picture a mechanism whereby an electron antineutrino interacts with a proton to form a neutron and positron?

The positron-electron pair get created from energy.

No, I want you to explain why you think such is the case.

My way is more elegant and only quarks exchanging places is required: no annihilation and creation of single particles are required.

[Origin]

My way is more elegant

No it isn't and it's wrong.  Wild ass guesses are not what science is about.

[Bored chemist]

This is wrong if you think about it in terms of pictures.

It's right if you think about it properly in any way.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It's right if you think about it properly in any way.

You must be able to specify the mechanism of the reaction, then. Vague annihilation and creation of single quarks is invalid.

[Bored chemist]

It's right if you think about it properly in any way.

You must be able to specify the mechanism of the reaction, then. Vague annihilation and creation of single quarks is invalid.

Actually, all I have to do is show that it's better than your impossible idea.
There isn't a way to look at your impossible idea which can make it right- because it's impossible.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You haven't shown it is better and you certainly didn't show its impossible. All that is required is 2*511 kEV and an antineutrino close to a nucleus - not impossible.

[Bored chemist]

you certainly didn't show its impossible.

Oh yes I did.

We see it take place in environments that don't have positrons present, so your idea is plainly wrong.

[Kryptid]

The wrong formula

It isn't wrong.

This is wrong if you think about it in terms of pictures.

Why should we think about it in terms of "pictures"?

Can you picture a mechanism whereby an electron antineutrino interacts with a proton to form a neutron and positron?

Yes, by virtual particle exchange (via W and Z bosons). As long as conservation laws are preserved and the particles can interact via the needed vector bosons, any collection of particles can turn into any other collection of particles (although some changes are more likely than others).

My way is more elegant

It requires more particles to be involved in the interaction, which means it isn't favored by Occam's razor.

Vague annihilation and creation of single quarks is invalid.

We know that "annihilation and creation of single quarks" happens whenever a neutron decays. It turns into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino. Heavy baryons (like the lambda particle and omega minus) routinely decay into lighter baryons and mesons (which requires either the creation of new quarks and antiquarks and/or the changing of one quark type into another). So your idea that this is "invalid" is observably wrong.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Why should we think about it in terms of "pictures"?

It is my contention that: if you cannot picture it, it can't exist. This is consistent with our intuition. For example space points occurring in helixes in all directions is impossible.

Yes, by virtual particle exchange (via W and Z bosons).

You cannot visualize the process of an up quark changing into a down quark while emitting a W⁺. At some point the up quark must cease to exist. Even conceptually there is the problem of what information is causing the down quark to exist? There must be a vacuum state between the two. In my way charged conservation is not violated even for a moment, locally. Your way: charge is not conserved at the point where the up quark ceased to exist for a short while, even if the time taken is less than the Planck time. The "emission" of a W⁺ cannot happen in less than a Planck time. If you stated that the W⁺ emission happens while the up quark still exists then charge is not conserved at this time.

It requires more particles to be involved in the interaction, which means it isn't favored by Occam's razor.

My contention is that this is a necessary complication.

We know that "annihilation and creation of single quarks" happens whenever a neutron decays.

According to me, this also happens via an exchange of places of quarks.

[Origin]

It is my contention that: if you cannot picture it, it can't exist. This is consistent with our intuition. For example space points occurring in helixes in all directions is impossible.

Looks like this need to be moved that "That isn't true".

[talanum1 (OP)]

Kryptid can't say anything against the charge conservation. So I think I made my point.

[Kryptid]

It is my contention that: if you cannot picture it, it can't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

This is consistent with our intuition.

Human intuition is a poor guide to physics (case in point, go look at the things that DebatePhysics has said in his threads).

You cannot visualize the process of an up quark changing into a down quark while emitting a W+.

Says who? I can visualize it just fine.

At some point the up quark must cease to exist. Even conceptually there is the problem of what information is causing the down quark to exist?

You could just as easily ask "what information is causing a positron-electron pair to exist from a photon", yet you seem to accept that such a thing can happen just fine.

In my way charged conservation is not violated even for a moment, locally. Your way: charge is not conserved at the point where the up quark ceased to exist for a short while, even if the time taken is less than the Planck time. The "emission" of a W+ cannot happen in less than a Planck time. If you stated that the W+ emission happens while the up quark still exists then charge is not conserved at this time.

As long as it happens within the time prescribed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it's fine.

My contention is that this is a necessary complication.

It isn't.

According to me, this also happens via an exchange of places of quarks.

Protons contain two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons contain two down quarks and one up quark. You can't turn one into the other merely by exchanging the places of quarks.

[Bored chemist]

. So I think I made my point.

Nobody else thinks so.