It seems to me that "cause" is the wrong word.The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.
No it doesn't.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).
The -1/3 charged particle is a fundamental particle and cannot emit anything (no space to carry around another potential particle).
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).What about the logic: no cause, no effect. An enabling mechanism needs to be set in motion by something.
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-3572198The -1/3 charged particle is a fundamental particle and cannot emit anything (no space to carry around another potential particle).
Reported for posting your own made up crap in the science section (again).The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.
Except you don't believe that yourself;
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?I don't consider an electron as a fundamental particle.
Just like you don't consider quarks to be fundamental particles
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.)I consider quarks as fundamental. The anti-ud has lepton content was wrong.
Radioactive decay is perhaps the classic example of the basic idea in modern physics that not every process in nature has a cause.
Why would quarks be fundamental, but leptons not? Please explain your reasoning for this difference
Particles which, as you yourself admitted previously, we currently have zero evidence for. This explanation is just as good as "it's magic".We don't need to live with this: just specify the cause as tachyons.
Have you every heard of electromagnetism?Quarks bind in two's and three's by the strong force. Leptons binds by what force?
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.Letpons binds to form a quark pair
Actually, saying either is wrong.but you can't say the inverse
What is a "binded 2-quark complex", and why does that exclude the inverse from being possible?because there is a binded 2-quark complex on the right side of the equation.
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.
Actually, saying either is wrong.
What is a "binded 2-quark complex", and why does that exclude the inverse from being possible?
So you've changed your mind with respect to post #10? OK.Quark pairs break up in another way other than two isolated quarks, so maybe they aren't fundamental.
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).
Ah, I see; in post #12 you did (by the way, your quote is broken there; there's no mention of the source).I did respond to #4.
Please explicitly point out the contradiction you are seeing.You contradicted yourself in this paragraph.
Also, I note that you ignored the second half of that post.
Please explicitly point out the contradiction you are seeing.