Well, the muon decays quickly into an electron, an antineutrino, and a neutrino. A neutrino is a spin wave, so the muon is a tumbling electron. I agree that the positron is antimatter. But I think of the proton as antimatter. Yes I really do. But the most common decay is the Look at the decay products, then look at how they decay.
Increase the energy and you can make more and more complicated particles. Or perhaps I should say pretty ephemeral patterns which soon fall apart. The idea of a neutron being a proton and a pion dates back to the days of Heisenberg and isospin. That was the nuclear disaster. Yes, physical experiments on neutrons developed well. A decay forced by energy is not a decay.
In one phrase, John — you cannot expect decay where it is not energetically profitable. Example — neutron decays beta. Deuteron not. If you wants to see deuteron beta decay, you should pay energy. Deuteron will give you a couple of protons, electron and antineutrino. If you will give energy for that.
Forced beta-decay vs spontaneous beta-decay. Are not you surprised that deuteron does not decay, are you?
That is the same. Particles with charge cannot be considered ephemera. As they do not disappear.
- Dark matter may be an illusion caused by the quantum vacuum?
- DARPA Is Researching Quantized Inertia, a Theory Many Think Is Pseudoscience;
- Construction of Buildings (Volume 4);
- Problems and Prospects.
- Talk:Heim theory/Archive 3?
- Laplace Transformation: Theory and Applications.
- Advanced anecdotes in American English.
Just transform. That a property of charge.
DARPA Is Researching Quantized Inertia, a Theory Many Think Is Pseudoscience - Slashdot
Antiparticle needed to disappear. Tau is really something not well known. But we have a raw — electron, muon and tau. At least, if we say about inner structures of electron and proton, muon would be great to have explained, to be sure that proton is explained correctly. Also, we live at approximatly absolute zero, comparing to stars. Low energy.
Download Gravitation Electromagnetism And Quantised Charge Bogus Pseudoscience
About expectations on decay of negative pion bounded with protons you are not right, John. It decays to electron and antineutrino — that what we see. Which is only energetically profitable. As it more profitable for negative pion to stay bonded with proton, than brake the bond and decay to muon.
- Blood Bath.
- Shark Trouble: True Stories About Sharks and the Sea?
- Dead Ex?
- Practicing Peace: A Devotional Walk Through the Quaker Tradition.
- Real Principals Have No Class!
- History and Philosophy of Physics.
If you want to see something like that, you should give energy for it. And you expect to see it for free? Not correct expectation. If neutron reseaving energy from collision, decays to free proton and free negative pion, it is exactly the same process you mean, but with your error corrected. If at collisions neutron accepting energy can give proton, muon and muonic neutrino it may be considered as muonic pathway of negative pion beta decay, which you mentioned.
So, neutron does not decay spontaneously to muon. Energy needed for that from outside. But as well, for negative pion it is more energetically profitable to decay to electron and electronic antineutrino, than to be bonded with proton.
Table of contents
So, neutron decay to proton, electron and electronic antineutrino. Energy releasing at that. Sorry, John, but some reactions needs energy and that is normal. The proton grips the neutron with a binding energy of 2. But when you have one proton and two neutrons, you have a triton, with a binding energy of 8. Forget about neutrinos for a minute. That light is moving at the speed of light.
The neutral pion is little more than a transient eddy that soon falls apart into two gamma photons.
History and Philosophy of Physics
A charged pion lasts longer at 2. But we are talking about 2. As is the muon. The charge persists, because the electron is a knot, and the pion is not a knot. Yes, it would be good to describe all the particles. I think particle physics made a big mistake focussing on the emphemeral particle zoo instead of focussing on the stable particles.
Temperature is just motion. A hot gas is one where the particles are moving fast. It leaves me cold. The nuclear force plot matches the neutron charge distribution. We see an electron and an antineutrino coming out of beta decay. Please stop posting multiple comments promoting the idea. These are real, but can be ignored yet. Some intermediate form between energy and matter. Examples — neutral pion, neutral kaon etc. But we do not understand them yet.
Some reactions convert those to other particles. We do not understand that reactions yet. But, still, that particles does not disappear complitely, so cannot be considered ephemera. Most easy are stable particles, of course. Those do not have reactions which whould convert further.
contbrumofalepbi.cf Most easy case. To feel what is ephemera and what is not ephemera, consider a piece of radioactive isotope. Is it real or ephemera?
- Replacements of recent Submissions;
- Just What IS a "Quantum"?.
- Choreographics: A Comparison of Dance Notation Systems from the Fifteenth Century to the Present.
It is real. And radioactive isotopes are very important for physics. If physicists would ignore them and would work with only stable isotopes, what would be physics today? Has radioactive isotope short lifetime?
Not stable. But still, it should not be ignored for that reason. It leaves another isotopes after decay. It cannot be ephemera just because of short lifetime. But note that ephemeral means lasting for a very short time. However a neutral pion is. So are most of the baryons in the list of baryons. Ditto for the mesons.