Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Stable Particles?

  1. Jun 3, 2004 #1
    Do stable particles exist in any of the accepted theories such as string, Qm, GR or any others?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 3, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I don't know what you mean by stable. Elementary particles like electrons and quarks are stable, and even the proton, a composite particle, has a longer lifetime than the one expected for the universe. These particles are all described by the Standard Model, a quantum field theory.
     
  4. Jun 3, 2004 #3
    Stable - as in no detectable decay

    I read somewhere recently that one of the primary objectives in physics research is to find a means for detecting decay in the proton and I was wondering if there are any particles that this type of research might apply to.

    thanks Self for responding.
     
  5. Jun 3, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    A few years ago there was a nice looking extension of the Standard Model calle Technicolor - so named because in it the strong force charge that physicists decided to call color (there are three distinct charges with their anticharges, like the primary and complementary colors) picked up some extra "hues". But this theory had a prediction, that the proton would decay in [tex]10^{30}[/tex] years.

    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.
     
  6. Jun 20, 2004 #5
    Proton decay?

    Hi Self,

    Am I wrong to assume that most of the work in progress related to accepted theories of the day are based on the eventual decay of the proton? Do you know what the impact on research would be if the proton is found to be stable?

    Thanks, I value your input on this matter.
     
  7. Jun 21, 2004 #6
    Stable is a relative concept.

    Space is finite. Everyting decays.
     
  8. Jun 21, 2004 #7
    i love this one , makes me laugh every time iv read it

    has to be thee dumbest experiment ever, or one of them.
     
  9. Jun 22, 2004 #8
    Hi Prometheus, thanks for your reply.

    Could you please explain how or where you accquired this information?

    1. space is finite?
    2. everything decays?

    Thanks for any information you can provide.
     
  10. Jun 22, 2004 #9
    The jury is still out on whether space is inifinite or finite. My interpretation of the evidence is that space is clearly finite, and that space will end in the Big Crunch. There is insufficient space in this forum to go into details in a single post. Sorry.

    If it is true that space is finite, and that space will end in the Big Crunch, then all that exists today, including protons, will eventually decompose.
     
  11. Jun 22, 2004 #10
    Top Priorities

    Hi Prometheus, thanks for the quick response.

    I also tend to favor the closed or flat cosmos concept. And I also view this as an unsolved Question.

    We differ on one point, and that is my line of reasoning suggest that a closed/flat system would require a non-decaying particle in order to eventually produce the conditions that would promote reversal of the current expansion.

    The information that Selfadjoint provided is right on the money. In my opinion, this is a key question that should be answered, if possible. A Federal Research Program on the Physics of the Universe has identified eleven(11) top priority items for this century.

    1. What is Dark Matter?
    2. Nature of Dark Energy?
    3. How did the Universe begin?
    4. Did Einstein have the last word on Gravity?
    5. What are the masses of Neutrinos?
    6. How do cosmic Accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
    7. Are Protons Unstable?
    8. States of matter at high density and temperature?
    9. Are there additional space/time dimensions?
    10. How are elements heavier than iron made?
    11. Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?
     
  12. Jun 22, 2004 #11
    force5,

    I like your name. Does this imply that you hypothesize 5 forces? I consider that 5 is the magic number. I consider that there is only one force in nature, but that it has 5 "stages", only 4 of which are typically recognized by physics.

    Of the points that you mentioned, my primary interest lies with the following:

    1. What is Dark Matter?
    2. Nature of Dark Energy?
    3. How did the Universe begin?
    4. Did Einstein have the last word on Gravity?
    9. Are there additional space/time dimensions?

    I believe that I have made progress in these areas, and that 5 is indeed the key.

    I do not understand what you mean by a non-decaying particle, or why you believe that it is necessary. Might you briefly elucidate?
     
  13. Jun 22, 2004 #12
    Fundamental force

    Prometheus,

    In answer to your first question, yes, my model indicates five forces at this level. My model also implies only one fundamental force that is responsible for the previously mentioned five secondary forces.

    The reason I am so interested in stable particles is that my model predicts this. And, if it is proven that "all" particles do have a halflife and eventually decay, then, I'll have to revise or scrape this stuff I've been working on for the last 20+ years.
     
  14. Jun 22, 2004 #13
    I think that my concept of finite space does not necessarily include halflife and decay in the sense that you mean it, as I suspect from your description now. Therefore, we are not necessarily on different wavelengths.

    Do you have a concept yet for the nature of your one fundamental force?
     
  15. Jun 22, 2004 #14
    Prometheus,

    In a word, Yes. How about you?
     
  16. Jun 25, 2004 #15
    Force 5 and Prometheus,
    Im Rybo and interested in this line of thought. The way I udnerstand it there is 5 bosonic forces
    1) EMR(mass-less spin 1 photons)
    2) Weak(massive W's and Z)
    3) strong nuclear(shortlived spin-0 mesons i.e. a momentary quark pairing)
    4) strong sub-nuclear force( gluons 8 out of 9 active ???)
    5) gravity ( graviton )

    I hope one or more of you will have to gicve me your viepoints and any web site links you have for your personal theories.

    Here is mine or least one page that will lead to the others.
    http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id4.html
    Rybo
     
  17. Jun 25, 2004 #16
    In response to my last post I also wnated to add the proposed Higgs boson to account of proposed Higgs Ocean "a nonzero Higgs filed vacumn expectation value" as stated by braina Greene in his Fabcric of the Cosmos" which if exists our bosonic list would become six.

    Rybo

    Rybo
     
  18. Jun 25, 2004 #17
    This sounds like an interesting theory.

    Personally, I dislike such great amounts of complexity. I prefer to search for simplicity.

    I consider that there is one force in the entire universe, the force of light. In this, the other forces are variations on the force of light.
     
  19. Jun 25, 2004 #18
    Whast is the nature of your one force, force5?
     
  20. Jun 25, 2004 #19
    Hi Prometheus, In my model, light is not the fundamental force.

    Light, (AKA; ems, energy, heat) is the fundamental substance that the fundamental force acts on. I'm in no way implying that the fundamental force has any type of religious connection. I keep that aspect of thinking in a different area much in the same way as separation of church and state.
     
  21. Jul 7, 2004 #20
    Late reply

    Hi Rybo,

    I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. I just forgot all about this thread.

    I don't have a home page to refer you to. The many years I've spent doing research on this and other subjects is just a passion of mine. My only objective is to run across someone much younger than myself that is thinking along the same lines as I and offer any support that might help out. None of my kids or grandchildren have expressed any interest, so I ended up at this forum.

    Stay Active
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Stable Particles?
  1. Most stable structure ? (Replies: 11)

  2. Stable nuclide (Replies: 2)

Loading...