Started by Unbeliever, July 08, 2019, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 08, 2019, 08:15:58 PMThere's a greater chance that God exists than the parallel universe. There's nothing wrong with an episode or two in Star Trek using the parallel universe to weave a story but when a physicist does it to get a sensational headline in a magazine, it's a sad comment on physics, science and tax payers' money. This thread has ruined my day.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 08, 2019, 10:52:22 PMMeh, it gets people's attention and interested in science. I've seen a lot of worse things in the news cycle.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 09, 2019, 08:04:28 AMOn a tangential issue, I've read somewhere that there's supposed to be proton decay, but since it takes more than 14 billion years for it to happen that it's never been observed. Doesn't that mean we have to wait another 200-300 million years for the first to decay since the universe is 13.7 billion years old?Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Quote from: josephpalazzo on July 09, 2019, 09:59:14 AMYou compensate by observing a very large bath of protons (water contains hydrogen, which contains protons). You look for proton decay via the main channel of neutral pions and positrons. The Japanese facility (Super-Kamiokande) contains 1033 protons, was observed for 12 years, and no trace of that decay was detected. So 1034 years was established as lower bound for proton decay.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 09, 2019, 10:56:43 AM[size=0pt][/size][size=0pt][/color] Of course, nothing of this is analogous to the quantum realm, what am I missing? Is the proton decay analogous to radioactive decay of a radioactive isotope? I don't know enough about particle physics to know the difference between the two.[/size]