Proton decay Vs. Hitchens's razor

[questfortruth]

There is no evidence that the proton is an unstable particle (it means it would have a limited lifetime and, after that, decays). Hitchens's razor says: ``That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'' However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science? No indirect evidence that proton is unstable. On the contrary, there must be stable particles. Hence, proton must be stable.

Please, list some scientific papers in Math or Physics journals that use the phrase "because of H. razor, the A is not equal to 23."

 

[Heyo]

There is no evidence that the proton is unstable particle (it means it would have a limited lifetime, and after that decays), and Hitchens's razor says: ``That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.''
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

It is. Proton decay is not part of quantum chromodynamics. It is a hypothesis and a weak one at that.

 

[questfortruth]

It is. Proton decay is not part of quantum chromodynamics. It is a hypothesis and a weak one at that.

However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

 

[The Hammer]

However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

Repeating yourself doesn't clarify or add anything of substance.

 

[questfortruth]

Repeating yourself doesn't clarify or add anything of substance.

No answer again?

 

[The Hammer]

No answer again?

There is nothing to answer.

 

[questfortruth]

There is nothing to answer.

 

[Balthazzar]

There is no evidence that the proton is an unstable particle (it means it would have a limited lifetime and, after that, decays). Hitchens's razor says: ``That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'' However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

A nucleus consists of protons neutrons and electrons - A question I might pose is similar to your point. All these atomic particles exist, so how could a proton exist without a grounding element being present? Proton decay might be considered if no grounding particles were ever present, but that's not our reality to my understanding. I like Hitchen's razor, but it's often utilized haphazardly and in a way that makes its employers appear to be thick headed and stubborn. logical lines of reasoning are often discarded in attempt to prove the razor itself. Seems counterproductive to me.

Question: How would someone prove proton decay aside from attempts to remove and separate its counter parts?

 

[icehorse]

There is no evidence that the proton is an unstable particle (it means it would have a limited lifetime and, after that, decays). Hitchens's razor says: ``That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.'' However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

One counter argument would be that - if scientists are exploring the idea of protons as unstable - there is some indirect evidence to support the claim. For example, it could well be that the math used in cosmology leads us to believe instability.

 

[Altfish]

I'd never heard of Hitchen's Razor (Yes, I know the phrase)

But the similarities between Occam's Razor and Hitchen's Razor are few. There are more similarities with Gillette's Razor

 

[questfortruth]

is some indirect evidence to support the claim.

No. No indirect evidence that proton is unstable. On the contrary, there must be stable particles. Hence, proton must be stable.

 

[questfortruth]

No. No indirect evidence that proton is unstable. On the contrary, there must be stable particles. Hence, proton must be stable.

 

[Polymath257]

No. No indirect evidence that proton is unstable. On the contrary, there must be stable particles. Hence, proton must be stable.

The proton is a compound particle (made of three quarks) and so is likely to decay at some point. There are even proposed methods of such decay (which is why we know what to look for). Some proposed theories of particle physics have even been disproved because they predicted faster decay than what is observed.

But, for example, electrons are very likely to be stable since there are no known charged particles that are less massive to decay into. But a proton is almost 2000 times as massive as an electron.

 

[Polymath257]

One counter argument would be that - if scientists are exploring the idea of protons as unstable - there is some indirect evidence to support the claim. For example, it could well be that the math used in cosmology leads us to believe instability.

Most theories that explain what we have observed in particle physics predict that protons will decay (but with a very long half life). Some theories have even been disproved because of this. Others are still very much in the running.

I don't know of any theory consistent with what we otherwise know that predicts a stable proton. That is why we look for the decay.

 

[icehorse]

Most theories that explain what we have observed in particle physics predict that protons will decay (but with a very long half life). Some theories have even been disproved because of this. Others are still very much in the running.

I don't know of any theory consistent with what we otherwise know that predicts a stable proton. That is why we look for the decay.

So why is this question being studied?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

However, fruitless so far, the search for proton decay is continuing.
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

The search continues because they are testing the Standard Model of physics, which supports the non-decaying proton hypothesis. Should they detect decay, it will falsify one aspect of the Standard Model, which would mean that further research would be needed.

 

[questfortruth]

The search continues because they are testing the Standard Model of physics, which supports the non-decaying proton hypothesis. Should they detect decay, it will falsify one aspect of the Standard Model, which would mean that further research would be needed.

Most theories that explain what we have observed in particle physics predict that protons will decay (but with a very long half life). Some theories have even been disproved because of this. Others are still very much in the running.

I don't know of any theory consistent with what we otherwise know that predicts a stable proton. That is why we look for the decay.

Let me repeat: why the H. razor is not used in Physics or Math?

Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Let me repeat: why the H. razor is not used in Physics or Math?

Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

Why are you so latched on to a saying that has no formal definition and no formal application?

 

[Polymath257]

So why is this question being studied?

Most subatomic particles decay. We have yet to see the decay of a proton even though pretty much all of our general theories predict it will eventually do so (estimates of the half-life are upwards from 10^31 years= 10 nonillion years).

A good part of modern particle physics is investigating different decay styles and rates.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?

There are no ideas of atheism. Hitchen's razor is unrelated to atheism. It is skepticism reworded - the idea that no idea should be believed simply because it is claimed.

the similarities between Occam's Razor and Hitchen's Razor are few.

What they have in common and why they are both called razors is because both can be used to "shave" unlikely hypotheses for consideration from a list, or at least, put at the bottom of one's list of candidate hypotheses and considered last. What hypotheses should I consider? Just the simplest one that accounts for the available data (Occam), and just those with supporting evidence (Hitchen). Don't waste energy on the others, at least not first.

Sagan would add that that evidence needs to be as extraordinary (robust) as the claim. Popper's razor (rarely called that) says don't waste time on the unfalsifiable claims, either.

Some whimsical ones include Hanlon's razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity" - and the duck test - "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

And there's a razor in medical diagnostics that admonishes clinicians to look for and rule in or out common diagnoses before rare ones: “When you hear hoofs, think horses, not zebras.”

Here's a fun anecdote. There used to be a site called Pete's Pond in a game reserve in Botswana that was a real-time camera of wildlife drinking at a pond (video of old footage below). One night, I was watching and heard clop clop clop, and thought to myself, there are no horses in Botswana. Then I saw them when they came into the light. Zebras. Of course. I was embarrassed at myself and had a good laugh recalling the medical razor.

I wonder if African medical students are taught that when they hear hoofbeats to think zebras, not horses. Context is everything.