twistor59 wrote:For his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model, Roger Penrose wanted to get rid of all the matter if you wait long enough - he saw electrons as a significant stumbling block because they wouldn't go away no matter how long you waited.

Dudely wrote:The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 4.6×10^26 years, at a 90% confidence level.

Pulsar wrote:...Not that I understand Penrose's idea, though.

Dudely wrote:For this reason no particle can exist in the same spot in time and space because that would represent the same 'ripple' in the field. This is why supernovae happen; gravity crushes the particles so close together they start to try to inhabit the same space. . . and, well, you know what happens next.

lpetrich wrote:

Dudely wrote:The experimental lower bound for the electron's mean lifetime is 4.6×10^26 years, at a 90% confidence level.

Are you sure that you are not confusing electron decay and proton decay?

I ask that because I've seen numbers like that for proton decay.

Wiki wrote:To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed. Recent experiments at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan gave lower limits for proton half-life, at 90% confidence level, of 6.6×1033 years via antimuon decay and 8.2×1033 years via positron decay. Newer, preliminary results estimate a half-life of no less than 1.01×1034 years via positron decay.

JoeB wrote:

Dudely wrote:For this reason no particle can exist in the same spot in time and space because that would represent the same 'ripple' in the field. This is why supernovae happen; gravity crushes the particles so close together they start to try to inhabit the same space. . . and, well, you know what happens next.

Are you sure about this? It's the first time I've heard that as an explanation for supernovae (rather than a star's surface bouncing off its solid metallic core during its final collapse), is it string theory? How do black holes fit into this?

klazmon wrote:

JoeB wrote:

Dudely wrote:For this reason no particle can exist in the same spot in time and space because that would represent the same 'ripple' in the field. This is why supernovae happen; gravity crushes the particles so close together they start to try to inhabit the same space. . . and, well, you know what happens next.

Are you sure about this? It's the first time I've heard that as an explanation for supernovae (rather than a star's surface bouncing off its solid metallic core during its final collapse), is it string theory? How do black holes fit into this?

Sounds like a confused description of a type II supernova

JoeB wrote:Great (and very funny) explanation, thanks Dudely! I thought the outward pressure was mainly from photons, and that once fusions stopped no more photons would be emitted, thus triggering the collapse by gravity. (holy crap 23% lightspeed!).

twistor59 wrote:Talking of the LHC, if you want a taste of what it's like to work on the cutting edge of human endeavour, read this:

http://ompp.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/the-live-blog-everyones-been-waiting-for/

CERN PR wrote:“It will be fascinating to see how Gilles Jobin explores particle physics through dance and movement following creative dialogues with CERN scientists and science,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer.

newolder wrote:xpektid and observed beauty @[color=#CC0000][b] teh[/b][/color] faktree: https://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBull ... es/1449100