- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
In particle physics, there is no category of “eternity”. The universe is 14 billion years old, but there is no eternity. And it can never be, since physics deals only with measurable categories. If something cannot be measured, registered, detected, or observed directly or indirectly, then this something (phenomenon, phenomenon, miracle, angels, Serpent Gorynych) does not belong to the field of physics.
Eternity is immeasurable by definition. The greatest time that physicists were ever interested in was the lifetime of the proton, whose instability was predicted by some Grand Unification models. To date, the best experimental estimate of the proton lifetime was obtained in the�Super-Kamiokande experiment (Japan) and is equal to t 10 103⁴ years. This is more than 23 orders of magnitude more than the age of the universe. Maybe this is eternity?
Eternity has no change, constant. All phenomena considered by physics are changeable, i.e. they have time. How to separate time from eternity? Strive for the source of eternity – the wave Principle.
finally, the correct conclusion: the universe is one and infinite (in space and time)!!! …
if someone is afraid – get under the bed and wait for the explosion of the universe ..
You could say that. They contain the eternal life of energy, light. The main mystery of the Universe is not in black holes, not in singularities, but in how it can be that light is eternal.
They grow old, disintegrate, move to a different plane of being, just like everything that is denser and more material. Simply, science has not yet been able to fix the law of cyclical Nature of the existence of elementary particles. Eternal life is laid down in the understanding of the law of cyclicity-helicity.
There are elementary particles with very different “lifetimes”.
But to draw any philosophical conclusions from this in any case does not make sense.
Here, as it seems to me, is the case. Here we take, for example, a hammer and a mechanical watch. And for scientific reasons, let's hit the clock with a hammer. After some time, the watch case will fall apart, and we will get a watch movement for further study. Continuing to process the movement with our percussion instrument, we will quickly find out that the life time of the clockwork under hammer blows is very limited, and it will fall apart into a spring, gears, cogs, washers and other components. We can also split some of the parts of this mechanism into parts, but here, for example, with some small washer there will be a problem-no matter how much we beat on it, we will not be able to divide it into certain components. Thus, we will come to a scientific experimentally proven conclusion that the washer is not a part of the clock mechanism divisible by a hammer and, accordingly, the lifetime of the washer is immeasurably longer than the lifetime of the watch (we will not complicate the experiment by grabbing a chisel, file or a bottle of acid). It's the same story with particles – if it has something to “fall apart” on, it will certainly fall apart, but if it has nowhere else to fall apart, then it has to live with it somehow. But is this life? So, existence…