Oldest objects in the Universe!!!!!

Well quarks are the building sub-particles that create the structure
of protons. I see protons like I see a finished object(all of its parts)
Neutrons with their quark structure came before protons,because protons
come from neutron decay. I would like to know why neutrons stop decaying
inside a nucleus? I would like to know when the last free neutron is
going to decay.? I know it all comes under probability,but this is my
spacetime(give me a break) I want answers now. Well I'll give my New
Year thought. Neutron stars are unstable,and decay. They do it in a
rather tricky way. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Well quarks are the building sub-particles that create the structure
of protons. I see protons like I see a finished object(all of its parts)
Neutrons with their quark structure came before protons,because protons
come from neutron decay. I would like to know why neutrons stop decaying
inside a nucleus?


It is called the strong nuclear force. It works at the level of the nucleus of
the atom. It is provided by nucleons, protons and neutrons.


I would like to know when the last free neutron is
going to decay.? I know it all comes under probability,but this is my
spacetime(give me a break) I want answers now. Well I'll give my New
Year thought. Neutron stars are unstable,and decay. They do it in a
rather tricky way. Bert

Neutron stars are subject to the strong nuclear force as well. Their
instability may come only if protons themselves decay, as predicted by some
grand unified theories. To date, all experimental efforts to observe such decay
have come up empty.

Scott You left our "gluons" that is the particle responsible for the
strong force. Just thought of this Question. Does the Hydrogen
nucleas have a gluon? I don't think so. How about heavy hydrogen? I
think so. Bert

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Scott You left our "gluons" that is the particle responsible for the
strong force. Just thought of this Question. Does the Hydrogen
nucleas have a gluon? I don't think so. How about heavy hydrogen? I
think so. Bert


If I wanted to give a detailed treatise on particle physics, I would have. But,
as this is a news group and long responses are not encouraged - it is assumed
given sufficient starting information the person asking the questions is bright
enough to do further research from that starting point - I chose not to.

Scott Hmmmmmmmmmmm Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Scott You left our "gluons" that is the particle responsible for the
strong force. Just thought of this Question. Does the Hydrogen
nucleas have a gluon? I don't think so. How about heavy hydrogen? I
think so. Bert


Hi Bert,

Hope you had a good Christmas & New Year.

The hydrogen nucleus would "contain" gluons, since these are the mediators
of the strong nuclear force that binds the constituent quarks into a proton.
In deuterium, the binding of the nucleons is a secondary effect, similar in
some ways to the van der Waals force that causes attraction between
elctrically neutral molecules.


DaveL

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

Greg, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Now, this leads me to a few more questions. First, what exactly is
space
then that allows it to expand faster than than the speed of light?

Well, that's the $64,000 question. A definitive answer to that
would require a grand unifying Theory of Everything. The best
we can do right now is turn to the General Theory of Relativity
and Maxwell's equations for its properties. It boils down to
a handful of properties, such as permitivity and permeability
and curvature. It has no mass, stiffness, or other mechanical
properties.

Second,
since light is travelling through expanding space and all space is
expanding, would light only travel at a relative speed of c in an
infinitesimally small area of space? For example, light leaving my
monitor
screen at this moment is in a portion of space that is expanding away
from
me, although small, so this light will really not reach me at a true
speed
of c. Thoughts?

You would measure a difference in speed if the space between you
and your monitor were expanding. Alas, it is not. The space
occupied by gravitationally bound systems does not participate
in the overall expansion. That means that the space encompassing
us, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, and the local
galactic cluster is not participating in the expansion.



Greg, Happy New Year. One more thought on this subject. First, I assume we
can observe stars beyond the local galactic cluster. Assuming this, if
light travels at c only in gravitationally bound systems such as the local
galactic cluster, is it possible that things we take for certain locally do
not apply beyond? For example, could the measured red shift of a star
beyond the local galactic cluster be "distorted" due to constants such as c
not applying across such vast distances? In other words, is it possible
that the red shift may have been distorted in travelling from one
gravitationally bound system, outside of it, to another, etc?

Dark Helmet

"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

Greg, Happy New Year. One more thought on this subject. First, I assume we
can observe stars beyond the local galactic cluster. Assuming this, if
light travels at c only in gravitationally bound systems such as the local
galactic cluster, is it possible that things we take for certain locally do
not apply beyond? For example, could the measured red shift of a star
beyond the local galactic cluster be "distorted" due to constants such as c
not applying across such vast distances? In other words, is it possible
that the red shift may have been distorted in travelling from one
gravitationally bound system, outside of it, to another, etc?


Happy New Year to you too!

Resolving individual stars beyond the local cluster is
difficult, but individual supernovas can be seen. We can
certainly make out collections of stars, i.e. galaxies.

Light always travels at c in its local parcel of space,
whether or not the space is expanding. That is to say,
an observer will always measure the local speed to be
c.

If c did not apply in different places, then the local
physics there would be different and this would show
up in the atomic spectrum, and measures of what is
called the fine structure constant, which is very
sensitive indeed to the value of c.

Also, if for some reason the speed of light were to
change from region to region in a haphazard fashion,
it would show up as a lot of confusion in the
red-shift distance scale when we look in different
directions.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

Greg, Happy New Year. One more thought on this subject. First, I
assume we
can observe stars beyond the local galactic cluster. Assuming this, if
light travels at c only in gravitationally bound systems such as the
local
galactic cluster, is it possible that things we take for certain locally
do
not apply beyond? For example, could the measured red shift of a star
beyond the local galactic cluster be "distorted" due to constants such
as c
not applying across such vast distances? In other words, is it possible
that the red shift may have been distorted in travelling from one
gravitationally bound system, outside of it, to another, etc?


Happy New Year to you too!

Resolving individual stars beyond the local cluster is
difficult, but individual supernovas can be seen. We can
certainly make out collections of stars, i.e. galaxies.

How do you know they are collections of stars if we can't make them out
individually? Maybe they are just some weird light flashes?

"Whisper" wrote in message ...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
"Dark Helmet" wrote in message
t...

Greg, Happy New Year. One more thought on this subject. First, I
assume we
can observe stars beyond the local galactic cluster. Assuming this, if
light travels at c only in gravitationally bound systems such as the
local
galactic cluster, is it possible that things we take for certain locally
do
not apply beyond? For example, could the measured red shift of a star
beyond the local galactic cluster be "distorted" due to constants such
as c
not applying across such vast distances? In other words, is it possible
that the red shift may have been distorted in travelling from one
gravitationally bound system, outside of it, to another, etc?


Happy New Year to you too!

Resolving individual stars beyond the local cluster is
difficult, but individual supernovas can be seen. We can
certainly make out collections of stars, i.e. galaxies.

How do you know they are collections of stars if we can't make them out
individually? Maybe they are just some weird light flashes?

Take a look at some Hubble pics, especially some of the
deep field views.