# The Weak Force's Problem

#### Willem

##### Banned
Banned
The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.

The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.
It seems to me that "cause" is the wrong word.

The Feynmann diagram clearly shows the W- as an intermediate, and the relevant passage from the Wiki article on β- decay states:
"At the fundamental level (as depicted in the Feynman diagram on the right), this is caused by the conversion of the negatively charged (−1/3e) down quark to the positively charged (+2/3 e) up quark by emission of a W− boson; the W− boson subsequently decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino"

So the the formation of the W- intermediate is the enabling mechanism for the reaction but not the cause, which remains entirely random.

That's my take on it at least, but I bow to any particle physics specialist of course.

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).

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).
No it doesn't.

It seems you don't know much quantum theory yet. Radioactive decay is perhaps the classic example of the basic idea in modern physics that not every process in nature has a cause.

There are other random processes of course. In the famous double slit experiment, the dots on the screen appear at locations that cannot be individually predicted, even though over time they build up into a patterns that is predicted by interference. Nothing causes an individual dot to appear at point A, rather than point B.

The -1/3 charged particle is a fundamental particle and cannot emit anything (no space to carry around another potential particle).

What about the logic: no cause, no effect. An enabling mechanism needs to be set in motion by something.
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).

The -1/3 charged particle is a fundamental particle and cannot emit anything (no space to carry around another potential particle).
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-3572198

The weak force has a W- being the cause of beta decay, but the "cause" happens at the same time as the effect materialises.
Reported for posting your own made up crap in the science section (again).

Except you don't believe that yourself;

I don't consider an electron as a fundamental particle.

I don't consider an electron as a fundamental particle.
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?

Just like you don't consider quarks to be fundamental particles

I consider quarks as fundamental. The anti-ud has lepton content was wrong.

I consider quarks as fundamental. The anti-ud has lepton content was wrong.
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.)

Radioactive decay is perhaps the classic example of the basic idea in modern physics that not every process in nature has a cause.

We don't need to live with this: just specify the cause as tachyons.

Why would quarks be fundamental, but leptons not? Please explain your reasoning for this difference

Quarks bind in two's and three's by the strong force. Leptons binds by what force?

We don't need to live with this: just specify the cause as tachyons.
Particles which, as you yourself admitted previously, we currently have zero evidence for. This explanation is just as good as "it's magic".

Quarks bind in two's and three's by the strong force. Leptons binds by what force?
Have you every heard of electromagnetism?

Letpons binds to form a quark pair but you can't say the inverse because there is a binded 2-quark complex on the right side of the equation.

Letpons binds to form a quark pair
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.

but you can't say the inverse
Actually, saying either is wrong.

because there is a binded 2-quark complex on the right side of the equation.
What is a "binded 2-quark complex", and why does that exclude the inverse from being possible?

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?

Quark pairs break up in another way other than two isolated quarks (theoreticly), so maybe they aren't fundamental.

Quark pairs break up in another way other than two isolated quarks, so maybe they aren't fundamental.
So you've changed your mind with respect to post #10? OK.

Back to the topic then. I believe you were going to answer to post #4, and the first part of #6?

I did respond to #4.

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).

You contradicted yourself in this paragraph.

I did respond to #4.
Ah, I see; in post #12 you did (by the way, your quote is broken there; there's no mention of the source).

Also, I note that you ignored the second half of that post. But OK, that something exchemist wil have to respond to.

You contradicted yourself in this paragraph.