Talk:Diproton

Diproton stability vs Dineutron stability

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)

The question is whether the dineutron or diproton would have more binding energy than anti-binding energy. For example, if you stick a proton onto another proton, it would be unstable, because the electromagnetic repulsion would be stronger than the strong attraction. But if you stick a neutron onto a proton, there is no electromagnetic repulsion, and so the strong force can hold them together. EGGS 17:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-propaganda edit

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)

I am hardly one to be using Wikipedia as a creationist soapbox. :) The external link is not a primary source but fortunately it does list its own sources; the disputed claim apparently comes from Davies, "The Anthropic Principle," p. 8, and I.L. Rozental, Elementary Particles and the Structure of the Universe (Moscow: 1984, in Russian), p. 85. Do you have evidence suggesting that Davies and Rozental in particular are creationists? It's common for creationists to use real science out of context to support their arguments. I remember creating this article because I'd come across discussion of the diproton catastrophe in a science fiction newsgroup which was quite thoroughly non-creationist-oriented. Bryan 04:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it some sort of tradition in creationist or scientific writings to list sources that are almost impossible to track down? The second source is listed at link, but there is no actual text, and it's written in Russian anyway. The first source is even worse: "The Anthropic Principle" is a general term in use everywhere, and there are over two dozen people on Wikipedia alone named "Davies" (Davies). As to the authors, Rozental isn't listed anywhere except as an author of papers, and I suspect "Davies" may be Paul Davies, who, although not a strict creationist, purports the "diproton catastrophe" argument himself. So, to be honest, I have no idea whether these claims are reliable. EGGS 17:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)