Willem, Particles decay because they are energetically unstable (among other reasons). By decaying they can reach a state of lower potential energy. They tend to have intrinsic average lifetimes before they decay, but the actual time of decay of a single particle is unpredictable due to quantum uncertainty.
I'm not sure if I understand your question. When a particle decays, the rest energy of the products of the decay is typically lower than the rest energy of the original particle.
Er He means the space in between his ears usually occupied by a brain Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I meant what else allows the reaction? "When a particle decays, the rest energy of the products of the decay is typically lower than the rest energy of the original particle." Then space must know this is the case and allow the reaction.
No. It is a random process. I believe it can be modelled in QFT as being triggered by vacuum fluctuations, but these are random by definition.
The laws of physics must be embodied by something. And something must rule the processes. The rendering machine must actually write in particles "on" spacetime.
You are, for reasons of your own, putting arbitrary conditions on nature for which there is no evidence. There is no "must" about any of this.
What started off as a pretty cleanly scientific question has rapidly digressed into woo. Can we go back to the part where we talk about physics, and leave the metaphysics behind?
What do mean they must be embodied in something? You mean beyond the physical laws? What is a rendering machine? What in the world do you mean by 'write in particles on spacetime'? It sounds like you just make up stuff and then once it pops into your mind it becomes fact for you. That is a awful way to try and do any sort of science.
exchemist must believes in "Laws of Physics somehow existing outside of spacetime". Who's the adjudicator? "You mean beyond the physical laws?" origin as well. Some undefined entity knows the laws of physics and enforces it. This requires an action, therefore an actor or mindless machine. "What is a rendering machine? What in the world do you mean by 'write in particles on spacetime'?" The rendering machine is spacetime. By analog to writing in ink on paper. I don't believe everything, it is quite consistent in my mind. I don't believe in neutrino oscillations for example.
Science doesn't care what you believe. In science, we test hypotheses by experiment and observation. The evidence decides whether a theory is viable, not your gut feeling or your imagination. Okay, so you don't believe in neutrino oscillations? What's your alternative idea to explain the solar neutrino problem, and what evidence shows that your idea is superior to the idea of neutrino oscillations? Explain.
The formulae of neutrino emission is wrong - hence the solar neutrino problem - they expect too much neutrinos. Neutron decay happens by the strong force as follows: udd + anti-uu-> uud + e- + electron antineutrino. and this happens less often than the other formula. My formula conserves quarks.
I was about to report this to have it moved to Religion, but I see it is already in Pseudoscience. To be clear: what enforces behavior is the properties of the particles themselves. Like the simpler case of gravity: particles have mass, mass bends space time locally, particles follow null geodesics, resulting in them to attract each other. There is no other machinery or entity involved. Willem, if you want to discuss the science - I'm in - but if you want to discuss your enforcer entity, I'm going to leave you to it.
Quarks are the consequence of the transformation of particles , sub-quarks etc. Quarks in and of themselves will not transform , but will re-arange themselves according to themselves , and in relation to others . Because of all the inherent energy states , seen and not seen .