I can Prove Neutrons don't Decay by Quarks Transforming.

[Brian_G]

The intermediate state of d-anti-s decay is:

d-anti-s-s-anti-u

and then various states where the d and s quarks strive to swap places and then the s-anti-s unbinds and annihilates.

 

[Brian_G]

 

[Brian_G]

BTW, aliens are real. Even AI says it could be so

What does AI think of aliens (when it's manipulated)?

 

[killerbyte]

 

[Bliksis]

I have got contact with Aliens. They say all physical processes should have definite in-between states. They take it as an Axiom.

Oh dear.

 

[saor]

Oh dear.

The state of your chakras makes me sick.

 

[Bliksis]

The state of your chakras makes me sick.

All of them? :-(

 

[talanum1]

The reason I ask is because this is how I think a top quark decays: it binds to a virtual quark and then swap places with another virtual quark bound to a anti-top, then the top quark annihilates with the virtual anti-top. It must happen like this because the top quark does not have enough time to bind to a real quark.

 

[Brian_G]

Quark, quarrk, quark, quaaark..kkk..

 

[Census]

OP will soon have the same access as @purple face

 

[Brian_G]

He’s mixing up how virtual particles and real particles work. A virtual particle isn’t a real, physical object that can “bind” with something — it’s a temporary mathematical construct that appears inside quantum calculations to describe how forces act. The top quark doesn’t actually meet or swap with virtual partners in that literal way. What really happens is that the top quark decays almost instantly through the weak interaction (usually into a W boson and a bottom quark), long before it could form any kind of bound state. So the “binding to a virtual quark” picture isn’t how particle physics describes the process — it’s more a misreading of how Feynman diagrams represent interactions.


Now, more importantly, does anyone believe that's my own answer?

 

[Brian_G]

The reason I ask

What Mr. Census meant - sometimes if too many threads are made about subjects far from the general interests on this forum, that person is prevented from making their own threads. They can only reply in others' threads until further notice.

Here's an idea - make one thread, called something like "Some challenges to conventional science", and then just keep adding to that one single thread only.
Maybe?

 

[purple face]

OP will soon have the same access as @purple face

Haha yeah its been years since I have been able to start a new thread

 

[talanum1]

top quark decays almost instantly through the weak interaction

This suggests we live in a Transformer Universe (we don't).

 

[Brian_G]

This suggests we live in a Transformer Universe (we don't).

Response

Not really — “decays almost instantly” just means the top quark is extremely short-lived, not that it transforms in some sci-fi sense. It’s simply a quantum particle that changes into others via the weak force, exactly as predicted and observed in experiments.

I'm done :- )

 

[talanum1]

"Not really — “decays almost instantly” just means the top quark is extremely short-lived, not that it transforms in some sci-fi sense."

They think it transforms, it's just another name for "decay". It doesn't: it happens as I said.

 

[tcofran]

Genade Willem

 

[ShaunSA]

tl/dr/dc

 

[talanum1]

@tcofran: is jy iemand wat my ken?

 

[Brian_G]

No — that’s not how it works. “Decay” isn’t a fancy word for “transform”; it’s a precisely defined process governed by the weak interaction, verified countless times in particle accelerators. What you’re describing doesn’t match the Standard Model, quantum field theory, or experimental data. You can’t replace all that with personal speculation and expect it to hold up.