ICR article image.
Posted on 04/23/2014 8:25:43 AM PDT by fishtank
Proton Problems: Faith in Theories or Reality?
by Vernon R. Cupps, Ph.D. *
The proton—a positively charged particle found in the nuclei of atoms—continues to present problems for the Standard Model of particle physics. Generally considered a composite particle, it is made up of three subatomic particles known as quarks. Among the zoo of known particles, only the proton, antiproton, electron, positron, neutrinos, and photons appear to be stable. All other particles decay. Even the free neutron (one that is not bound in a nucleus) decays with a 15-minute half-life. The Grand Unified Theory (GUT) of particle physics that seeks to unify all physics under a single model predicts that the proton should decay with a half-life of ~1032 years, but more recent measurements suggest that the half-life must be greater than 5 times 1033 years. Why the proton and its antiparticle should appear to be the only stable hadrons remains a mystery.1
...more at link
ICR article image.
I thought that was a bar ran by this guy
IMPORTANT EDIT:
As pasted, the number 10^32 (or 10**32) looks like 1032. The resulting error makes it look like all protons that were around at the time of Leif Erickson should have decayed by now, when in fact they will be around for a hundred million trillion trillion years.
OK, as long you don’t cross the streams.
“...protons that were around at the time of Leif Erickson ...will be around for a hundred million trillion trillion years.
********************************************************************
Well, I’d like to wait around to verify that.
Bookmark
Lotta particles. Lotta mysteries. The more particles, the more mysteries. Couldn’t they just admit that the Standard Model is not the final answer?
I read the whole article. I need a nap.
It’s an interesting article.
But I’m a little puzzled: The standard model is called a model precisely because physicists know it’s inadequate. It’s the best they can do. And they are positively excited that experimental data doesn’t fit it, because that may provide hints at how to fill the inadequacies, which are much more substantial than anything this article lets on.
Is ICR somehow suggesting that the inadequacy of the model prove that all the physicists involved in related research are full of nonsense?
They absolutely KNOW it’s not the final answer. That’s why the research continues.
Well, I just got my daily RDA of protons and still confused as ever........I need a nap too.
Roger Ramjet has the answer!......................The PROTON ENERGY PILL!...................
The Standard Model is the best we have. It is constantly tested by experiment and has held up well. Nobody who is competent in science claims that it is a perfect model.
This article from ICR is nothing but its usual sideline attack on science and knowledge.
As I understand it, the simple version of Grand Super Unification...not GUT, is there are four forces in nature. If you can find a way to describe all there implications at the same time, WOW. GUT leaves out gravity, as one of my mathematician friends explains when few are around “everyone knows that one of the forces by the current equations is wrong. It doesn’t matter which one you chose to leave out, but one of the four has to be left out.”
To me, renaming Grand Unification to GUT, just leaving out gravity is a Newtonian cop out. The stuff is not Grand, just okay. Where’s Feynman when you need him?
DK
The answer to that will depend on whether it's going to be applied to the physicists or to ICR.
Was that electron in the quark diverted by global warming?
Or, according to this article, five hundred million trillion trillion years.
But who am I to split hairs?
What happens when we reach the expiration point? Does the yogurt in the back of my fridge really go bad?
It’s a half life. A tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny bit of your yogurt already went bad.
Of course, this *is* interesting from an ID framework. Stars only need Hydrogen to “work.” Hydrogen, in plasma form, is only a bunch of protons. So the only stable hadron is the only hadron that needs to be stable for stars to work. And yet, it’s not PERFECTLY stable, just stable enough that it’s not a factor in stellar mechanics in any timeframe that will matter to stellar mechanics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.