[Origin]

So I think I made my point.

In all your post the only point you make is that you don't know any physics and that you would rather make up stuff than learn anything.

[Kryptid]

ν + e- + e+ + p -> e+ + n + Energy

LS = ud + e+ + uud = udd + e+ + uu

Now that I actually look more closely at this, where did the ud come from? That is the formula for the negative pion. So where did the negative pion come from? And what about uu? That would be the neutral pion.

[talanum1 (OP)]

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

Point is: my way does not require charge non-conservation, even for a Heisenberg time. It is mistaken to allow it for a Heisenberg time, so its safer to assume my way. If charge non-conservation was allowed for a Heisenberg time, virtual particles other than virtual particle-antiparticle pairs can start to exist an this is not according to theory, in any case how would they annihilate again?

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.

Space makes electron-positron pairs whenever enough energy is located at a point, while we cannot say space makes a down quark whenever a up quark cease to exist and there is a W⁺ close by.

Says who? I can visualize it just fine.

The Feynman diagram assumes the W⁺ is a point particle: it is not and has more than one worldline. What worldline do you couple to the up quark worldline? So the Feynman diagram does not work. Can you draw another picture?

Human intuition is a poor guide to physics

It is wrong to deny that Physics behave according to our intuition. It is better to fit it to intuition. Not fitting it to intuition is meant to glorify Physics and make it difficult.

You can't turn one into the other merely by exchanging the places of quarks.

It can be explained by quarks exchanging places with the help of a du:

ddu + du -> uud + dd.

where did the ud come from?

It came from electron-electron anti-neutrino binding. The uu comes from quark place exchange of the ud and uud.

[Kryptid]

It is mistaken to allow it for a Heisenberg time

Why?

If charge non-conservation was allowed for a Heisenberg time, virtual particles other than virtual particle-antiparticle pairs can start to exist an this is not according to theory, in any case how would they annihilate again?

The same way they came into existence: by simply disappearing back into the vacuum.

Space makes electron-positron pairs whenever enough energy is located at a point, while we cannot say space makes a down quark whenever a up quark cease to exist and there is a W+ close by.

Why?

The Feynman diagram assumes the W+ is a point particle

No, it doesn't.

it is not and has more than one worldline

How can a single object have more than one world line?

It is wrong to deny that Physics behave according to our intuition. It is better to fit it to intuition.

No, it is better to fit it to evidence. Intuition tells you that going twice as fast requires twice as much energy, whereas it actually requires four times as much energy (at non-relativistic speeds, at least). Intuition tells you that the Sun goes around the Earth, but it's actually the other way around. Intuition tells you that the Earth is flat. Intuition tells you that  making a cube twice as tall makes it twice as massive, whereas it actually makes it eight times as massive. Intuition tells you that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, but they don't. Relativity is just about as non-intuitive as a theory can get, and yet it is very strongly supported by the evidence. Again, intuition is an imperfect guide to how the world actually works.

It came from electron-electron anti-neutrino binding.

(1) Those particles don't "bind".
(2) Those particles aren't quarks and don't contain quarks.

[Bored chemist]

It is wrong to deny that Physics behave according to our intuition.

Nonsense.
That's why it took centuries for physics to be established.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It is mistaken to allow it for a Heisenberg time

Why?

Because otherwise any virtual particles may come into existence. I typed in: "virtual particles vacuum" on yahoo search and got the following (I quote):

"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."

Space makes electron-positron pairs whenever enough energy is located at a point, while we cannot say space makes a down quark whenever a up quark cease to exist and there is a W+ close by.

Why?

Because they would not solely be triggered by energy.

How can a single object have more than one world line?

A worldline of an object is defined by the path of the center of mass of the object, so I guess it cannot have more than one worldline.

Again, intuition is an imperfect guide to how the world actually works.

Just because it does not work in that cases does not mean it would fail in all cases.

(1) Those particles don't "bind".

Why can a ud transform into an electron-electron anti-neutrino then. The inverse process must be allowed (from basic principles of Logic).

(2) Those particles aren't quarks and don't contain quarks.

They contain sub-quarks.

[Origin]

They contain sub-quarks.

You should really quit this train wreck.

[Kryptid]

Because otherwise any virtual particles may come into existence.

They pretty much already do. Besides, the total number of W+ and W- bosons that make up the weak nuclear field of a particle like an electron or neutrino would be about the same any way. So there's no need to violate charge conservation in the first place.

Because they would not solely be triggered by energy.

And how is that a problem?

Just because it does not work in that cases does not mean it would fail in all cases.

So then you acknowledge that you need something more than mere intuition to know whether or not a proposal about physics is correct.

Why can a ud transform into an electron-electron anti-neutrino then. The inverse process must be allowed (from basic principles of Logic).

That's not binding in the normal sense of the word in quantum physics (such as when we consider a proton bound to a neutron in deuterium).

They contain sub-quarks.

Sounds like the preon model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

[talanum1 (OP)]

Because otherwise any virtual particles may come into existence.

They pretty much already do.

They come in particle-anti-particle pairs: look at any writing on this subject by your peers.

Besides, the total number of W+ and W- bosons that make up the weak nuclear field of a particle like an electron or neutrino would be about the same any way.

I don't know what you mean by this.

And how is that a problem?

Particles and energy tell space what to do. Where there in no particles only energy can tell space what to do.

Sounds like the preon model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

So substructure is required for quarks and leptons.

[Kryptid]

I don't know what you mean by this.

An equal number of W+ and W- bosons means that charge is conserved.

Particles and energy tell space what to do. Where there in no particles only energy can tell space what to do.

That's really only true in the sense that mass tells space how to curve and space curvature tells mass how to move (Einstein's relativity). I know of no such thing in quantum mechanics.

So substructure is required for quarks and leptons.

The preon model is a hypothesis. It isn't required.