![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Since the dineutron is unstable even in the absence of electromagnetic repulsion, wouldn't the diproton also be unstable no matter how strong the strong force was? Lchiarav 05:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I have edited this article to try and make it more NPOV. As a quick Google search reveals, the "diproton catastrophe" is mentioned only as a creationist argument and on Wikipedia mirrors- in fact, the external link is to a creationist website. This isn't a problem- what bothers me is that the "diproton catastrophe" is stated as a fact and not a claim, with no source and no alternative arguments. On that note, if the strong force were stronger and the diproton were stable, stars wouldn't simply "burn by the strong force". The entire Periodic Table would be revised, the structure of matter would be different, and nuclear fusion might use Helium-7, or Hydrogen-4, or neutrons, or triprotons, or might just not happen at all. It would take a good deal of research and nuclear physics expertise to figure out just what would happen, and from the sound of the external link, no one has actually bothered to figure it out. EGGS 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article explains,
The phrase in italics evokes various 'funny' responses, but is in fact meaningless. I removed it.
—
Herbee
21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "diproton catastrophe" needs some work, for two reasons -
• Is this a catastrophe in the sense that it is something that has happened (or could happen)?
• Is this a catastrophe in the sense that the result would be "bad" (either bad for us and/or bad for whomever ends up populating that universe)?
The term seems to me to be misleading - surely "diproton-capable alternative universe" is more accurate? Chrisobyrne 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm also having difficulty understanding the creationist argument here. The suggestion seems to be that humanity cannot live in a diproton universe, and hence God created the universe in such a way that diprotons cannot exist. So what is the catastrophe? Did God leave the door open for humanity to change the physical constants so that diprotons could exist? If so, then he is a very silly God, for not only did He leave the door open, He also left only a 2% gap that humanity has to cross!
I think we should do creationists a favour and get rid of the "diproton catastrophe" bit - unless someone is able to explain what is actually going on here. Chrisobyrne 10:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Now my curiosity is piqued. So if this physical constant were slightly different, all protons would bind together, and the fundamental nuclear charge would be a diproton. Would they then be like quarks are to us? Is it safe to say that, no matter how strong the strong force is, repulsion of like charges will result in some set of stable building blocks?
Are we fortunate that protons are so well held together? If stable nuclei were made with diprotons, but protons could be freed readily, then it would seem there would be a richer set of nuclear reactions. But it's hard to say if that would benefit or hinder life.
I guess this is where group theory gives hints about how many possibilities there "really" are. Still no hint as to whether there's a "smallest wave" though. 74.134.236.69 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think both these pages should exist and should link here. They are important concetps in cosmology. The fact that they did not, and could not occur under current physical laws is not sufficient reason to delete them. It is a well-known fact that the current laws of physics did not apply during the very early part of the big bang.
64.142.13.174 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Steve P.
Article in progress
Source: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/865-2.html
Figure: http://www.aip.org/png/2008/302.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.155.191 ( talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The AIP link marked Source above describes the Italian research mentioned in the article, so I have now added it as a reference. The AIP link marked Figure is mentioned in the one marked Source so I have not included it separately.
I also used the information in the AIP link to find the original Physical Review Letter which I have added as a second reference. It is much harder to read than the first popularized reference, so the first reference is still necessary.
Finally the Japanese and Russian research is still unsourced so I have added a citation needed tag. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Since the dineutron is unstable even in the absence of electromagnetic repulsion, wouldn't the diproton also be unstable no matter how strong the strong force was? Lchiarav 05:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I have edited this article to try and make it more NPOV. As a quick Google search reveals, the "diproton catastrophe" is mentioned only as a creationist argument and on Wikipedia mirrors- in fact, the external link is to a creationist website. This isn't a problem- what bothers me is that the "diproton catastrophe" is stated as a fact and not a claim, with no source and no alternative arguments. On that note, if the strong force were stronger and the diproton were stable, stars wouldn't simply "burn by the strong force". The entire Periodic Table would be revised, the structure of matter would be different, and nuclear fusion might use Helium-7, or Hydrogen-4, or neutrons, or triprotons, or might just not happen at all. It would take a good deal of research and nuclear physics expertise to figure out just what would happen, and from the sound of the external link, no one has actually bothered to figure it out. EGGS 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The article explains,
The phrase in italics evokes various 'funny' responses, but is in fact meaningless. I removed it.
—
Herbee
21:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the term "diproton catastrophe" needs some work, for two reasons -
• Is this a catastrophe in the sense that it is something that has happened (or could happen)?
• Is this a catastrophe in the sense that the result would be "bad" (either bad for us and/or bad for whomever ends up populating that universe)?
The term seems to me to be misleading - surely "diproton-capable alternative universe" is more accurate? Chrisobyrne 17:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm also having difficulty understanding the creationist argument here. The suggestion seems to be that humanity cannot live in a diproton universe, and hence God created the universe in such a way that diprotons cannot exist. So what is the catastrophe? Did God leave the door open for humanity to change the physical constants so that diprotons could exist? If so, then he is a very silly God, for not only did He leave the door open, He also left only a 2% gap that humanity has to cross!
I think we should do creationists a favour and get rid of the "diproton catastrophe" bit - unless someone is able to explain what is actually going on here. Chrisobyrne 10:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Now my curiosity is piqued. So if this physical constant were slightly different, all protons would bind together, and the fundamental nuclear charge would be a diproton. Would they then be like quarks are to us? Is it safe to say that, no matter how strong the strong force is, repulsion of like charges will result in some set of stable building blocks?
Are we fortunate that protons are so well held together? If stable nuclei were made with diprotons, but protons could be freed readily, then it would seem there would be a richer set of nuclear reactions. But it's hard to say if that would benefit or hinder life.
I guess this is where group theory gives hints about how many possibilities there "really" are. Still no hint as to whether there's a "smallest wave" though. 74.134.236.69 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I think both these pages should exist and should link here. They are important concetps in cosmology. The fact that they did not, and could not occur under current physical laws is not sufficient reason to delete them. It is a well-known fact that the current laws of physics did not apply during the very early part of the big bang.
64.142.13.174 20:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Steve P.
Article in progress
Source: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/865-2.html
Figure: http://www.aip.org/png/2008/302.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.155.191 ( talk) 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The AIP link marked Source above describes the Italian research mentioned in the article, so I have now added it as a reference. The AIP link marked Figure is mentioned in the one marked Source so I have not included it separately.
I also used the information in the AIP link to find the original Physical Review Letter which I have added as a second reference. It is much harder to read than the first popularized reference, so the first reference is still necessary.
Finally the Japanese and Russian research is still unsourced so I have added a citation needed tag. Dirac66 ( talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)