The creation process of the fundamental particles of the atomic nucleus.

Ever wonder how the first atomic nucleus came into being? The nuclei of every element of the Periodic Table must have arisen from the same process being repeated over and over again, giving the atom’s nucleus both its structure and symmetry.

So, do you have a better understanding of the process than this:

• The combination of the neutrino & anti-neutrino forms the electron.
• The combination of the electron & anti-neutrino forms the Up quark.
• The combination of the Up quark & anti-Up quark forms the Down quark.
• The combination of the Up quark-Down quark-Up quark forms the Proton.
• The combination of the Down quark-Up quark-Down quark forms the Neutron.
• The Neutron combines with the Proton to create a stable nuclear pairing.
• An individual Neutron decays into a Proton and an anti-Up-quark with the anti-Up-quark further separating into an electron and an anti-neutrino.

Like to hear from you.

Did you find this description somewhere, or just make it up out of whole cloth?

No

No

No

Based on your demonstrated lack of ability to grasp basic physics in your previous thread, you really shouldn’t try to reinvent any other parts of particle physics. You’re violating the conservation of charge all over the place in this thing.

I really love this message board sometimes.

I think it goes like this.

A combination of a sense particle and an anti-sense particle forms nonsense.

Given the OP’s choice of username I’d say Shatner was right in Airplane 2, “I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…” :smiley:

It’s sub-atomic particles all the way down!

And the color force/quark combination rules.

Ignorance is conserved. (That’s why it’s taking so long.)

So many errors one hardly knows where to begin. Let’s start with elementary particles. Do you know what an elementary particle is? It’s something whose structure is currently unknown, and is assumed to be fundamental. You can’t say an electron or a quark is made up of something else.

Since I don’t see an actual factual question in the OP, and most of the statements in it are demonstrably incorrect, I’m going to close this.