ALAYMAN said:
just like Rt 70 you refuse to even demonstrate such knowledge or ability. A science teacher would tell you "show your work", and that's all I am asking.
ALAYzMAN, you have demonstrated that you cannot read. Or don't read. I have plainly said that I am not a scientist. All I know I have read about. I have watched video lectures on the Stanford website; MIT website; Cal Berkley website. They all have Youtube channels where they upload their lectures. MIT has made available for free many of their professors written notes and class lectures.
I have spent, as I said, the past 25 years or so reading about, watching video lectures about, these things. I can't "show my work." It is not my work.
I find the science of the nucleus of an atom to be fascinating. I don't have to Google this: A proton can degrade into a neutron and a positron and a neutrino. The combined mass of the pieces weigh more than the original! Likewise, a neutron can degrade into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, all of which weigh more than the original particle.
Particles are not solid things: they are waves in a field. The Higgs boson is not a particle it is a wave, a disturbance in a field.
A proton, when split, reveals three quarks: two "up" quarks and one "down" quark. An up quark has a spin of +2/3; a down quark has a spin of -(1/3). Summed together, the total spin of a proton is +1. A nuetron is composed of three quarks: one "up" and two "down." Their sum is zero, which is the spin of a neutron.
Quarks are held together by gluons. Protons and neutrons are held together my muons.
The most popular current theory as to what is the composition of a quark is string theory. Strings are tiny wisps of energy. According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, mas and energy are essentially the same thing. The essence of string theory is that there really is nothing "solid" in the universe. Everything we see is only "apparent," or an image, created by the interactions of tiny strings of energy.
Sound interesting yet?