The Weak Force's Problem

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Willem, Apr 30, 2019.

  1. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,526
    It seems to me that "cause" is the wrong word.

    The Feynmann diagram clearly shows the W- as an intermediate, and the relevant passage from the Wiki article on β- decay states:
    "At the fundamental level (as depicted in the Feynman diagram on the right), this is caused by the conversion of the negatively charged (−1/3e) down quark to the positively charged (+2/3 e) up quark by emission of a W− boson; the W− boson subsequently decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino"

    So the the formation of the W- intermediate is the enabling mechanism for the reaction but not the cause, which remains entirely random.

    That's my take on it at least, but I bow to any particle physics specialist of course.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    What about the logic: no cause, no effect. An enabling mechanism needs to be set in motion by something.

    The -1/3 charged particle is a fundamental particle and cannot emit anything (no space to carry around another potential particle).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,526
    No it doesn't.

    It seems you don't know much quantum theory yet. Radioactive decay is perhaps the classic example of the basic idea in modern physics that not every process in nature has a cause.

    There are other random processes of course. In the famous double slit experiment, the dots on the screen appear at locations that cannot be individually predicted, even though over time they build up into a patterns that is predicted by interference. Nothing causes an individual dot to appear at point A, rather than point B.
     
  8. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    You didn't comment about this quote.
     
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    This is true in science. However, why do you find it more likely that hundreds of thousands of experts trained in the field missed this important detail, over the case that you (being a 1st year student) haven't investigated it deeply enough yet? That you don't know of a cause doesn't mean there isn't one (known).

    Except you don't believe that yourself; here you are talking about two fundamental particles carrying around other particles: http://sciforums.com/threads/erroneous-formula.161756/page-3#post-3572198
     
  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,916
    Reported for posting your own made up crap in the science section (again).
     
  11. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    I don't consider an electron as a fundamental particle.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Just like you don't consider quarks to be fundamental particles (see that same thread). So what "-1/3 charged fundamental particle" were you talking about in post #3?
     
  13. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    I consider quarks as fundamental. The anti-ud has lepton content was wrong.
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Why would quarks be fundamental, but leptons not? Please explain your reasoning for this difference. (And remember, this is the science-section of the forum, so "it felt right to me" isn't a proper answer.)
     
  15. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    We don't need to live with this: just specify the cause as tachyons.

    Quarks bind in two's and three's by the strong force. Leptons binds by what force?
     
  16. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Particles which, as you yourself admitted previously, we currently have zero evidence for. This explanation is just as good as "it's magic".

    Have you every heard of electromagnetism?
     
  17. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    Letpons binds to form a quark pair but you can't say the inverse because there is a binded 2-quark complex on the right side of the equation.
     
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So leptons are fundamental particles, but quarks not (because they are made of leptons). This is in direct contradiction (in fact, it's the exact opposite) to what you said right before.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Actually, saying either is wrong.

    What is a "binded 2-quark complex", and why does that exclude the inverse from being possible?
     
  19. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    Quark pairs break up in another way other than two isolated quarks (theoreticly), so maybe they aren't fundamental.
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So you've changed your mind with respect to post #10? OK.

    Back to the topic then. I believe you were going to answer to post #4, and the first part of #6?
     
  21. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    I did respond to #4.

    You contradicted yourself in this paragraph.
     
  22. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Ah, I see; in post #12 you did (by the way, your quote is broken there; there's no mention of the source).

    Also, I note that you ignored the second half of that post. But OK, that something exchemist wil have to respond to.

    Please explicitly point out the contradiction you are seeing.
     
  23. Willem Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    255
    Post #4 second half: the particle can be predicted to land anywhere on the allowed bands.

    No, now that I read it again I see there is no contradiction, you used the word "however".

    Back to topic. The LHC mass of W program is one I am up against. My explanation is: the protons they use are special since they use the parton distribution function to build the collider. Now the protons read the intent from the equipment and behave accordingly. They lie: protons in other situations behave differently.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2019

Share This Page