Diamonds

[unixronin]

Diamonds aren’t forever.  Diamonds are for about 10¹⁶⁰ years ... just like any other baryonic matter.

Comments

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Where do you get that number from?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's the only number I've ever seen quoted for proton decay. You know of a different one...?

(I'm not trying to be rigorous here, btw ... it was just a whimsical thought that occurred to me today.)

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Well, the only number I know of is the lower bound from deep-underground water Cherenkov detectors, 10^33 years.

I would be more concerned about beta decay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay). :)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, true, but [hypothetical] proton decay is over a hundred orders of magnitude closer to "forever in all practical terms anyway". ;)

[smandal.livejournal.com]

There is a certain class of GUT models which predict proton lifetimes shorter than 10^33 years, so they are problematic.

Whether or not that is a practical concern I guess depends on your aims. :)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. But I believe you said we have a 10^33 lower bound from the deep Cerenkov detectors, right? Which would tend to argue against those particular GUTs...

[smandal.livejournal.com]

Right, so these models are now problematic.

By "problematic" I mean disfavored in their stock form, and less appealing when they are made more complicated to avoid this problem.