Protons and B-mesons challenge the Standard model.

"Quark and gluons inside a proton. Two up quarts, one down quark, gluons holding them together. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory." (ScitechDaily, Science Made Simple: What Are Protons?)

Proton: the particle that cannot decay. 

The thing that makes protons so interesting is that they cannot decay. Or nobody saw that protons can decay. The complex inner structure of a proton is the reason why it exists longer than a neutron. The energy can travel to those pockets when it travels down quark to two up quarks. And that shares energy flow into the larger area than in neutrons. In neutrons, two down quarks transmit energy into one up quark. 

That thing means that the up quark turns into the antenna that transmits energy into one point. And that energy breaks the shell of the neutron. The energy jumps from the quantum field between those three quarks and pushes them away. 

The proton involves a more complex structure that can pull more energy into it than a neutron that has only three quarks. There are also antimatter-matter particle pairs in neutrons. There is some other particle between those particle pairs. And that denies the annihilation. But if something pulls the quantum field fast enough out that makes space between those particles. 

Then those particle-antiparticle pairs could annihilate and that shockwave can destroy the proton. But as we know, nobody saw that happen. The fact is that the proton's internal structures expand when the proton expands. And that means the lifetime of the proton is very long. The proton is a particle that challenges the standard model. 

Another thing that can challenge the standard model is B-meson. 

Could there be some small, yet unknown hadron? Protons and neutrons are both hadrons. Their lifetime is different. The neutron decays in 15 seconds and the proton can last as long as the universe is. There is one interesting question: can hadrons form internal structures? Or can hadrons be inside other hadrons? The mesons are hadrons like protons and neutrons. 

"In particle physics, a meson is a type of hadronic subatomic particle composed of an equal number of quarks and antiquarks, usually one of each, bound together by the strong interaction. Because mesons are composed of quark sub-particles, they have a meaningful physical size, a diameter of roughly one femtometre (10−15 m), which is about 0.6 times the size of a proton or neutron. All mesons are unstable, with the longest-lived lasting for only a few tenths of a nanosecond. Heavier mesons decay into lighter mesons and ultimately into stable electrons, neutrinos, and photons. (Wikipedia, mesons)

"In particle physics, a hadron is a composite subatomic particle made of two or more quarks held together by a strong interaction. They are analogous to molecules, which are held together by the electric force. Most of the mass of ordinary matter comes from two hadrons: the proton and the neutron, while most of the mass of the protons and neutrons is in turn due to the binding energy of their constituent quarks, due to the strong force." (Wikipedia, Hadron)

Normal particles decay into the same particles. Or there is a certain cycle. Or some other dominating actor like spin or energy level determines how those particles decay. And their decay productions. 

W-bosons can decay to a lepton and antilepton (one of them charged and another neutral)[d] or to a quark and antiquark of complementary types (with opposite electric charges ⁠±+1/3 and ⁠∓+2/3⁠). Those bosons are the transmitters of the weak nuclear force. (Wikipedia, W, and Z bosons)

As the authors of a brand new paper, published in late November of 2024 in Physical Review Letters, note, all of the decays that involve B-mesons decaying to either:

two pions,

two kaons,

or one pion and one kaon,

(Big Think, How B-mesons are threatening to break the Standard Model)

Kaons and pions are hadrons as well as protons and neutrons. The main question is: do those hadrons (muon and pion) form after the decay of the B-meson? Or do the bonds inside the B-meson cut in different places during the decay process because of some asymmetry? But is that asymmetry in energy or materials? 

"B mesons are an important probe for exploring quantum chromodynamics. They consist of an antibottom quark paired with an up, down, or strange quark. B mesons decay via multiple pathways, several of which result in the production of π 𝜋 and K mesons. Measuring these rare branching fractions. Set limits on new particles." (https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/s142)

The problem is that B-meson is not an elementary particle. The non-elementary particle should decay through particles that form it So the problem is that there should be something wrong if the decay productions are always different. In the case of B-mesons, the decay is similar to W-boson decay. And that thing means. That the B-meson acts like an elementary particle. There are theories that it's possible. That the hadrons can form internal structures. 

The protons and neutrons are both hadrons. Hadrons are subatomic non-elementary particles. They act like elementary particles. There is a possibility, that some of those particles that we see as elementary are the hadron inside other hadron. And that means the standard model is the thing, that requires some actions like updating. 

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/will-protons-last-forever-why-scientists-are-searching-for-signs-of-decay/

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v17/s142

https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-imaginable-20221019/

https://scitechdaily.com/cracking-the-proton-code-unveiling-the-secrets-of-the-universes-building-blocks/

https://scitechdaily.com/ghostly-neutrinos-provide-groundbreaking-new-way-to-investigate-the-structure-of-protons/

https://scitechdaily.com/science-made-simple-what-are-protons/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_meson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons#W_bosons_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Researchers think that Einstein's theories don't stand on the edge of the Universe.

"Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies by the galaxy cluster Abell 2390, observed by the Euclid satellite. © ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, image processing by J.-C. Cuillandre (CEA Paris-Saclay), G. Anselmi" (Unige, Einstein’s equations collide with the mysteries of the Universe)

There is not very much research where the Theory of General Relativity is tested in extremely low gravity and energy levels. Those theories are well-tested around black holes. But there is not very much data about things like how gravity waves or some other waves or particles interact in conditions. Where energy travels out from them very fast. 

The edge of the Universe is a mysterious place. There the energy and material face lower than exists our Universe. Or otherwise saying the energy in our Universe faces a cosmic void. Energy travels from space filled with quantum fields and wave movement to the cosmic void or into cosmic nothing. That space is not possible in the Universe. There are no absolute vacuums in the Universe. That we know. That means energy can travel only out from the Universe. 

When we think about energy fields there is a thin string. Those strings are so-called time arrows (or arrows of time). The time arrow means the particle or energy beam that travels in the Universe. When that time arrow releases its kinetic energy. It transfers it to other particles. So when a time arrow travels forward, it pushes energy to particles around it. And then that thing pushes those particles back in time. 

Then we can think of the time arrows as energy fields that travel out from the point where the Big Bang happened. When the distance between the time arrow and the Big Bang turns longer. There is space between those energy strings. That space means that more energy will travel between those time arrows. And that space makes it possible for particles like photons to start to make curves between those time arrows, like energy beams and particles.  The energy level between those beams or time arrows turns lower. 

That means at the edge of the universe could be very extraordinary gravity waves. Those gravity waves can have a structure where they have two wavelengths. The normal gravity waves and other waves or strings connect them into one bigger entity. Or maybe there are so-called spiral gravity waves that travel forward like serpentines. But that is only theory. 

And that means the particles start to deliver energy or wave movement faster than previously. That means time travels faster in particles at the edge of the Universe. The edge of the universe is a mysterious place, as I wrote before. There the particle travels out from the universe to the place, where there is no energy at all. 

When we think about the shape of the Universe, we must realize that the Universe is a so-called false vacuum. The thing that limits the speed of light is for example quantum fields. Or scattering effect. When a particle travels from a false vacuum to a real vacuum there is nothing that can limit its speed. But the other thing is that energy travels out from the particle faster than in the Universe. Those things are not researched very much. 

https://www.unige.ch/medias/en/2024/les-equations-deinstein-se-heurtent-aux-mysteres-de-lunivers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Gravity, centripetal force, and antigravity.

 

Image by AI

One of the things that makes some people believe in antigravity is centripetal force. Centripetal force is the thing that keeps the objects at orbiting trajectory and that force or virtual force is the thing that we feel when the car turns into some direction and we will fall into another direction. The centripetal force means that when an object changes its direction. It tends to continue straight. When we think about the centripetal force we can say that this virtual force is one of the most interesting things in the world. 

In gravity, the gravity center pulls the field around it inside it. That thing forms the shadow at the front of the particle. That shadow pulls particles to the gravity center. The antigravity means that something forms a deeper shadow at the opposite side of the particle. The question is about the balance. If something forms the energy shadow or lower energy area at the opposite side of the particle that thing pulls the particle back. 

It's possible that the field around that shadow turns into the channel and some kind of skyrmion can travel to the particle. 

When we think about gravity as the field the gravity center rolls like some roll. That effect forms electromagnetic shadow at the front of the particles. The electromagnetic shadow at the front of the particles makes them travel to the gravity center. There is the possibility that if the energy level around that shadow is high enough that shadow forms the situation that from the gravity center travels some kind of skyrmion to the particle that travels to the gravity center. 

That thing can form an energy shadow on the opposite side of the particle. If that shadow is deeper than the shadow at the front of the particle, that thing means that the shadow behind the particle pulls it back. 

Another thing that might cause an effect that we can call antigravity is the nose that forms when the particle moves very fast. The electromagnetic shadow can pull the nose to the energy shadow.  It's possible. The nose aims energy from the back of the particle to the middle of the electromagnetic shadow. That thing can fill that shadow or channel and then it pushes the object backward. The idea is that the energy shadow that pulls particles to the channel turns into the energy pillar that pushes particles backward. 

Nature and its relationship with art and science.

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/nature-and-its-relationship-with-art.html

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/nature-and-its-relationship-with-art.html