Testing physics - elementary particles can became other particles?

Obviously.

Since elementary particles can appear - in matched pairs with their anti-pa rticle by "vacuum fluctuation" - it's not hard to see how an elementary par ticle might transform into three elementary particles when the two extra pa rticels are a particle/anti-particle pair.

If your physics teachers didn't tell you about this, they weren't doing muc h of a job. I think the idea goes back to Dirac, around 1930

where he invented anti-particles to solve a theoretical problem. Once he'd invented the positron, it took two years for somebody to find one.

My high-school physics teacher (who'd just finished a PhD in quantum physics) use to say:

"In nuclear physics, anything will do anything if you pay it enough"

:)

That's the nuclear version of Schawlow's Law: "Anything will lase if you hit it hard enough."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

...

Hi!

ben6993 could you or others show other models - or the preon model decay for the muon. Or better yet - a web page with many decay examples?

Answers got so far - thanks.

On 19/08/13 01.13, ben6993 wrote: > In a preon model, > W- = e- + ?' > W+ = e+ + ? > Higgs = H = W- + W+ > W- = du' > W+ = d'u > > So if d interacts with H, > d + H -> d + W+ + W- > -> d + d'u + e- + ?' > -> u + e- + ?' (+ annihilated d& d') > The Higgs is the omitted sleeping partner on the LHS which balances the > decay equation. >

On 19/08/13 14.42, Odd Bodkin wrote: ... > This happens when it radiates a W boson, right? > I'm pretty sure that just because a particle decays into daughter > particles, this doesn't mean that the daughter particles are contained > inside the parent particle.

On 18/08/13 22.00, Bill Sloman wrote: ... > > Since elementary particles can appear - in matched pairs with their anti-particle by "vacuum fluctuation" - it's not hard to see how an elementary particle might transform into three elementary particles when the two extra particels are a particle/anti-particle pair. > > If your physics teachers didn't tell you about this, they weren't doing much of a job. I think the idea goes back to Dirac, around 1930 > >

On 18/08/13 22.43, Sam Wormley wrote: ... > In both of your examples, the more massive fundamental particle is > known to be unstable and "decays" into a less massive set of > fundamental particles. I don't have the insight that some others, > say Tom Roberts or PD might bring to the conversation. > >

/Glenn

(answer is sent to sci.physics )

...

Hi ben6993 and others

How is

W- = du'

transformed to or from:

W- = e- + ?'

and

W+ = d'u

transformed to or from:

W+ = e+ + ?

/Glenn