• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proton decay Vs. Hitchens's razor

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
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.
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."
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Why is the razor always being used to promote ideas of atheism, but the razor is not applicable in Science?
Where has science asserted proton decay rather than hypothesized it? In fact, where has science proclaimed Hitchens's Razor to be a founding principle?

Feel free to promote your "truth" as an hypothesis all you wish, and stop whining.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

Hitchen's razor is a philosophical position and so is relevant to philosophical arguments. It is irrelevant to most scientific discussions.

I would be very surprised to find either Hitchen's razor or atheism to be mentioned in a physics or math journal.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Let's take a look at the statement....
""what can be asserted without evidence
can also be dismissed without evidence"
The word "asserted" is an affirmative claim.
But much work in science is with claims hypothecized.
Hypotheses lack evidence, but aren't assertions of fact,
so Hitchen's Razor doesn't apply.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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?
Proton decay is not an 'idea of atheism' it is a proposed hypothesis. I do believe that some of the math may point that way, but I am almost as far from being an expert as you are. it is an idea that is worth testing. That is how we learn new science. Even if it is shown to be false we will learn quite a bit in the process which is why research is ongoing. No one is even beginning to claim that it is a fact.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Proton decay is not an 'idea of atheism' it is a proposed hypothesis. I do believe that some of the math may point that way, but I am almost as far from being an expert as you are. it is an idea that is worth testing. That is how we learn new science. Even if it is shown to be false we will learn quite a bit in the process which is why research is ongoing. No one is even beginning to claim that it is a fact.

Clear.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
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."



What is this doing in religious debates?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
Also, neutrons are compound particles made of three quarks. A free neutron (not within a nucleus) decays with a half-life of about 15 minutes.
Thus, we have evidence that particles made of three quarks can decay.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Also, neutrons are compound particles made of three quarks. A free neutron (not within a nucleus) decays with a half-life of about 15 minutes.
Thus, we have evidence that particles made of three quarks can decay.

it goes deeper than that. There is actually a symmetry between protons and neutrons related to the weak force (isospin). Given that, and the decay of the neutron, the decay of a proton is very natural.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
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.
Oh okay. So it should be dead easy to observe this decay:rolleyes: Avogadro's number is on the order of 10^24. So we would only need 10^7 moles of hydrogen, or about 20 tons of it, put it in a chamber that is shielded from cosmic radiation and countless other sources of radiation. Surround the chamber with very accurate sensors that will only pick up that one sort of decay and wait a year or so.

I will get right on it.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Oh okay. So it should be dead easy to observe this decay:rolleyes: Avogadro's number is on the order of 10^24. So we would only need 10^7 moles of hydrogen, or about 20 tons of it, put it in a chamber that is shielded from cosmic radiation and countless other sources of radiation. Surround the chamber with very accurate sensors that will only pick up that one sort of decay and wait a year or so.

I will get right on it.

The basic setup is also used for studies of neutrinos, like at Super Kamiokande or Sudbury. Usually, water is used for the hydrogen.

The main difficulty is specificity of the decay (as in your last sentence). Filtering out the false signals is a huge deal. Even neutrinos can give false signals.

Oops, sorry. I am a bit out of date on my numbers. The current half life is at least 10^34 years. So just multiply your estimates by 1000.

Another aspect of this is that we know that our universe is dominated by matter and not anti-matter. The question of why is linked to the violation of baryon number associated with proton decay.
 

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Another aspect of this is that we know that our universe is dominated by matter and not anti-matter. The question of why is linked to the violation of baryon number
To answer this, one shall come to realization, that there is T-asymmetry because we cannot move back in time without curving spacetime. Author of idea: Dmitri Martila, 6. Detsember. 2022
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The basic setup is also used for studies of neutrinos, like at Super Kamiokande or Sudbury. Usually, water is used for the hydrogen.

The main difficulty is specificity of the decay (as in your last sentence). Filtering out the false signals is a huge deal. Even neutrinos can give false signals.

Oops, sorry. I am a bit out of date on my numbers. The current half life is at least 10^34 years. So just multiply your estimates by 1000.

Another aspect of this is that we know that our universe is dominated by matter and not anti-matter. The question of why is linked to the violation of baryon number associated with proton decay.

"we know that our universe is dominated by matter and not anti-matter"

Shouldn't have the BB created equal amounts of matter and anti-matter?
What happend?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
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."


This is the same as the claim of life on other planets. This is hypothesized based on current theory, but has yet to be proven with the hard evidence that science requires of everyone else. It is a by-product of theory that is not exactly correct, but assumes if we act like this is a done deal, nobody will notice and nothing has to upgrade.
 
Top