MarkE

@Phi for All Thank for pointing that out. I wouldn't have mentioned my hypothesis if nobody had asked me about it, but someone was curious, so that's why I shared it. Still, the W-, W+ and Z boson derive from within an atom. Because the weak interaction is a short range force it occurs at the quark level. Because there are only two types of quark (well, six if you take the 2nd and 3rd generation into account), it seems rather unlikely that its source can be either the up AND the down quark at the same time, so therefore I was wondering if anybody could tell me whether it's more plausible that it's the heavier down quark, instead of the up quark.

So in this case it's not true then? Coming from where?

"Beta-plus decay can only happen inside nuclei when the absolute value of the binding energy of the daughter nucleus is greater than that of the parent nucleus, i.e., the daughter nucleus is a lower-energy state" (Wikipedia). I don't really understand what this means, do you? I'm curious because I hypothesize that the down quark is not 'responsible' for the same forces as the up quark is.

Thanks for pointing that out. Do neutrons differ in any way from protons regarding radioactivity? Could you for instance state that mutating from a proton to a neutron (inside the core of the sun) does not create harmful radioactivity for us people, whereas mutating from a neutron to a proton (inside unstable atoms on earth) does?

@swansont You said 'The quark is not responsible for the decay' and 'There are a bunch of particles that do this that are not a neutron' but you were referring to baryons and mesons... which are neutron particles. So how could they not be responsible for decay then?

That's true! Did you see the documentary 'The coming war on China'? It's about the effects of harmful radioactivity on people back in the 50s, due to nuclear weapons that were being tested on the Bikini Atoll and other Marshall Islands. A very interesting documentary if you ask me. But actually my question was not only whether radioactivity is harmful or not, it was: 'Could you state that going from proton to a neutron (in the sun) does not create harmful radioactivity for us, whereas going from a neutron to a proton (on earth) does?'. In your answer I didn't find a yes or no ;). Thanks for answering!

@Sensei Thanks! I will read into that! (I've never heard of R and P process before). Could you tell me whether my last statement, about the harmfulness of radioactivity, was right or not?

Right, but there is very little radioactivity in the products of nuclear fusion. Could you state that going from proton to a neutron (in the sun) does not create harmful radioactivity, whereas from a neutron going to a proton (on earth) does?

Ok, so radioactive decay DOES happen the other way around via positron emission, but it doesn't happen naturaly in nature. To me it sounds the same like stating that 2nd and 3rd generation particles also 'exist' because they have existed for a millionth of a second. That's not the same type of existing. Since there is no outside cause needed for radioactive decay, it should have an inside cause, right? It might be just too small too detect, but nothing happens spontaneous without a cause. "We call decay spontaneous because it is not triggered by anything we know of", as A. Neumaier once said. Which particles are you referring to?

I see, but which quark is responsible, the up quark or the down quark?

Can the weak interaction / beta decay / radioactivity occur without the presence of neutrons? Half-life is based on the degeneration of neutrons, which is measurable because it's time-bound, so I presume that radioactivity is not something between protons and neutrons, but actually caused by neutrons?

I'd like to hear your thought about this. I guess it is the fact that the insect is flying that causes the charge. But then how does a plant, or even a spider's web ( http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/2812/20130705/spider-webs-react-electrically-charged-insects-increasing-capture-chances-video.htm ) become charged negatively, and emits (from where?) its electrical field?

Paper: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6128/66

“Plants are usually charged negatively and emit weak electric fields. On their side, bees acquire a positive charge as they fly through the air. No spark is produced as a charged bee approaches a charged flower, but a small electric force builds up that can potentially convey information. The flower's potential changes and remains so for several minutes". Link My question is: does this account for all plants/trees? And what about other insects than bees? Are there more examples of this electrical attraction between (sea) plants and pollinators?

Ok so a wolf's pee of the same tribe is always the same, and different from other tribes (just as it is with ants). So wolf pee in general is not alway the same. So if this pee is from this tribe, and that pee is from that tribe, does it mean that tribes only pee within their own territory? Because peeing outside its territory would be very confusing

So, to overall conclude, it is certain that if you'd examine only gays, French, muslims, Russians etc. you won't find a gene/allel that almost everybody of the particular group has(n't) in common, because of their corresponding morals/beliefs?

I just found another proof of protein competition (full article here): "There is competition for binding to FGFR2 and one of the two competitors, phospholipase Cγ1 (Plcγ1), will increase cancer cell metastasis. The other protein inhibits the opportunity for this to occur," said John Ladbury, Ph.D., professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Thanks for you answer, Aminoxyl, this is really helpful! Can I conclude then that proteins are not actively in competition which each other (the way gut bacteria f.i. are), but that there is passive competition going on. You can call it ‘competition’ because some receptors in our body can take up different kind of proteins, so the body will choose this one, and not that one. If we drink coffee so we choose other proteins to bind to our receptors. Is it however true that sometimes receptors can only take up one particular protein, and also receptors sometimes are able to take up over 10 different kinds of proteins? I don't know any examples of this. Is it also true to state that proteins and receptors are all about form and polarity, and form and polarity only. If the form/polarity fits, it fits. No matter what the proteins task/funtion is (which are not always the same, like nicotin that imitates (by his form) acetylcholine). Am I saying this right? Next you’re talking about competing cells. If cells are competing with each other, how then can you see that a cells lost the battle from his colleague, and another one has won? Are some cells at some point stronger than other ones, and you already know that this one is going to survive (longer), and that one will die (earlier)? When is a cell ‘better’ than his colleague cell? You wrote “Cells actively pump these molecules/compounds in through special proteins”. Do some cells perhaps have a better pump mechanism? By the way, I read here that body cells (only?) compete with brain cells. Next you’re talking about our blood. “You could say that Haemoglobin proteins passively compete with each other in order to obtain molecule di-oxygen”. Very interesting, this is new to me Can you tell me more about this, in a competition-like way of course? Finally the subject 'viruses' “Yet also you can have viruses passively competing for cells with each other in order to hijack the cells metabolism and genome expression”. I didn’t know the that you can really see that they are fighting each other to get to the cell. I guess this has to be passive competition as well, because viruses are not considered 'alive', is this true? By the way, I just read here that our DNA exists of retroviruses, did you know that? So some of them won the competition for sure!

You mean, CharonY, that bacterial competition is different to protein competition because proteins won't 'actively' try to get to the site, whereas bacteria do? That is an understandable way of looking at it, but I think it's still considered competetion, because you're able to be in competition in a passive way, f.i. in the supermarket soft drinks like Coca Cola, Sprite, Fanta etc. are in competition with each other, because one of them is going to be bought. In this case the person in the supermarket is active here, she's going to choose one drink. How about the sites where proteins are being taken up, are they active? Ir is it proven they are entirely passive? Also, the drinks aren't that passive, because words like 'less sugar' of 'buy 3, pay 2' are influenzing the buyer' to choose the product. In terms of human fertilization I read here the following: "Female factors can influence the result of sperm competition through a process known as "sperm choice". Proteins present in the female reproductive tract or on the surface of the ovum may influence which sperm succeeds in fertilizing the egg. During sperm choice females are able to discriminate and differentially use the sperm from different males. One instance where this is known to occur is inbreeding; females will preferentially use the sperm from a more distantly related male than a close relative". In fish (in this case salmon and trout) it seems to me (I read here) that the females are even more active: "We found that activating sperm in ovarian fluid makes them live about twice as long as in river water. Importantly, both species' sperm also switch from swimming in tight elliptical circles in river water, to swimming in straightened trajectories in ovarian fluid. This behaviour allows sperm to navigate towards the egg by following a chemical cue". I'd like to know if proteins are, in the same way as these examples, in competition which each other.

Are proteins in our body competition with each other? It is known that bacteria in our intestines compete, but regarding proteins I only found here: "RNA transcripts, both protein-coding and non-coding, thus have the ability to compete for microRNA binding and co-regulate each other in complex ceRNA networks (ceRNETs)" Does anyone know more competition in our body?

For instance, Prevotella, Sphingomonas, Streptococcus are bacteria that belong to our lungs. Bacteroides pneumosintes belong to our pharynx, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus and Acidaminococcus fermentans to our large intestines, Bacterionema matruchotii to our gingiva, Citrobacter freundii to our sputum, the list goes on and on. They are not dangerous in their own area, but my question is if some of them are, just like E. Coli, dangerous outside their own area, and instead, inside an other one.

Oke, so that's the difference, thanks for the explanation! The only thing I still don't understand is how wolves from other tribes, when smelling the pee, know if it's territorial pee or not.

E. Coli's natural habitat inside the body is the lower intestine. That's his place, because outside it, he can be harmful. So it's not a harmful bacterium in defenition, only when it resides at the wrong place. I meant if there are any examples of other bacteria, who's natural habitat is f.i. the liver, and outside it, it can be harmful. Does anyone know such an example?

Thanks everybody! That really helped me!

It is known that some bacteria are dangerous ONLY when they're in the wrong place, f.i. E. Coli. Does anyone know some more examples?