He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News3 mins ago
Design Of The Universe
33 Answers
If you had designed the Universe, would you have designed this one?
Answers
There's nothing to stop you writing down a theory for such a universe. I can't off the top of my head think how to include gravitons, but you can add that easy enough to the theory if you *did* know what to do. But I don't think I could agree with your idea that you'd get a "sufficient set of chemical elements". Not that you couldn't get structure, I'm sure you could,...
18:34 Thu 01st Sep 2022
Could the design have been simpler? Perhaps just electrons and protons, or something similar. Who needs the neutron, except people doing carbon dating? We'd need photons to hold atoms together, W or Z to hold nuclei together, and gravitons to hold stars together. Are these five enough? I think we'd lose nuclear fission, but perhaps the H-bomb would still work to keep Putin happy.
Surely this is the way to go ...
https:/
https:/
neutrinos, quarks, and electrons formed at 'the big bang' before Photons. It hasn't been explained why as nobody knows why so erratic.
Hence the search for the so called 'God Particle' in the LHD (Large Hadron Collider)
As Einstein one said 'The only Universal constant is change'
Good grief imagine if it were symmetrical and balanced, non of us would be here.
Hence the search for the so called 'God Particle' in the LHD (Large Hadron Collider)
As Einstein one said 'The only Universal constant is change'
Good grief imagine if it were symmetrical and balanced, non of us would be here.
If the "God Particle" was ever a thing, it would be the Higgs boson, and we already discovered that. It doesn't (and indeed can't) explain the conditions at the Big Bang, which are altogether more complicated sadly!
To answer some of Rev green's suggestions, although bear in mind that there's a good deal of "this is how it is so maybe that's how it always has to be" implicit in what follows:
// Who needs the neutron, except people doing carbon dating? //
The neutron has a vital role in keeping nuclei together by virtue of balancing the protons. The strong force holds all nucleons together, but has to act against the natural tendency of like charges to repel each other. By adding neutrons you get some "free" strong attraction without adding any electric repulsion. So it's probably at least harder to imagine a universe being interesting without neutrons. Besides, good look having a composite particle made of two up quarks and a down quark whilst excluding a particle with two downs and an up.
// We'd need photons to hold atoms together... //
photons can't really do that.
// ... W or Z to hold nuclei together...//
If anything, they do the exact opposite, since W's are responsible for changes of quark flavour in radioactive beta decay.
//... gravitons to hold stars together//
Gravitons are only really relevant in extreme gravitational situations, like collisions of black holes or whatever the hell happens near the centres of those things. You could get by perhaps without a quantum of gravity and just build a universe with basic Newtonian gravity, which perhaps is what you had in mind?
To answer some of Rev green's suggestions, although bear in mind that there's a good deal of "this is how it is so maybe that's how it always has to be" implicit in what follows:
// Who needs the neutron, except people doing carbon dating? //
The neutron has a vital role in keeping nuclei together by virtue of balancing the protons. The strong force holds all nucleons together, but has to act against the natural tendency of like charges to repel each other. By adding neutrons you get some "free" strong attraction without adding any electric repulsion. So it's probably at least harder to imagine a universe being interesting without neutrons. Besides, good look having a composite particle made of two up quarks and a down quark whilst excluding a particle with two downs and an up.
// We'd need photons to hold atoms together... //
photons can't really do that.
// ... W or Z to hold nuclei together...//
If anything, they do the exact opposite, since W's are responsible for changes of quark flavour in radioactive beta decay.
//... gravitons to hold stars together//
Gravitons are only really relevant in extreme gravitational situations, like collisions of black holes or whatever the hell happens near the centres of those things. You could get by perhaps without a quantum of gravity and just build a universe with basic Newtonian gravity, which perhaps is what you had in mind?
