- #1
force5
- 146
- 0
Do stable particles exist in any of the accepted theories such as string, Qm, GR or any others?
Last edited:
selfAdjoint said:So physicists put [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons (the hydrogen nuclei in water molecules) in a tank deep underground (to escape disturbing cosmic rays) and watched them with skillions of electric eyes for a year. If the lifetime of the particle was [tex]10^{30}[/tex] years, then one in every [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons should decay in a year. The experiment actually went on for several years and they never saw a proton decay. So the theory of Technicolor, however nice, had to be abandoned. Some of the supersymmetry theories also predict proton decay, but over a longer span of time.
Rybo said:Force 5 and Prometheus,
The way I udnerstand it there is 5 bosonic forces. Please correct me if this line o fthought is off base.
force5 said:If you have determined that EMR is the fundamental force, do you require any other substance to exist other than EMR?
What is the main focus of your research?
I've spent a lot of years determining possible angles, momentum, direction, volume and densities relative to propagation function.
connect said:I think that space and time are the infinites (making space-time or reality (a relationship)). In physics light is always defined by 2 parameters:
- the amount of distance from its start point to its end point
- the amount of time from the start time to the end time.
Another way of looking at that is that there actually 4 parameters:
- the distance start point
- the distance end point
- the time start point
- the time end point
You will notice that both the start points will usually start a zero, this is the point (another point?) we start measuring from.
You could then say there are 6 parameters, the above combined.
There are many relationships between numbers, but numbers simply represent a circular binary framework over time, i.e. 'one after another' (odd/even), it could be thought of as 'one flows into the other'.
force5 said:I know this doesn't answer all of your questions and is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's the best I can do at the moment.
Stable particles are subatomic particles that do not decay or break down into smaller particles. They have a long lifespan and are considered to be fundamental building blocks of matter.
In string theory, stable particles are described as tiny strings that vibrate at different frequencies. These vibrations determine the properties and behavior of the particle, and their stability is dependent on the energy level of the string.
Yes, stable particles are predicted by quantum mechanics. In this theory, particles are described as wave functions that collapse into definite states when measured. Stable particles are those that remain in the same state and do not decay.
In general relativity, stable particles are described as the result of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of matter. This curvature affects the motion of particles, causing them to follow specific paths and remain stable.
No, stable particles and fundamental particles are different. While stable particles are those that do not decay, fundamental particles are those that cannot be broken down into smaller components. Some stable particles, like protons and neutrons, are made up of smaller fundamental particles called quarks.