Could the GUT be explained by Quarks?

[Terry Giblin]

If we can learn to accept that Quarks and Leptons are the remnants of the six missing dimensions as described in the M-Theory, our understanding and knowledge of the GUT would increase exponentially.

Accepting the concept that Quarks are the missing six dimensions automatically solves several major questions.

Where are the six missing dimensions described in the M-Theory?

How matter (Quarks) was formed during the Big Bang as a by product, when the other six dimensions collapsed?

Why the half-life of Proton, is what it is.

The Duality of an electron and photon.

Why Quasars (Super Massive Black Holes) formed before Galaxies appeared!

The beauty of this theory, accepting all the evidence which indicates Quarks are the missing six dimensions is that it does not change any currently accepted theorem's it simply explains them in more detail and with clear understanding.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[Mentat]

Might you expound on exactly how such a theory answers those questions? Also, how can a particle be a dimension?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Galilei was a very clever man, perhaps we should listen to him.

When you can tell me what an electron is, perhaps you might not ask the question.

But thank you for expressing you own option, take satisfaction of being the first.

 

[Terry Giblin]

I have been trying to solve the Young's Double Split experiment, involving electrons, for the past several years.

I was looking at the experiment with my eye's closed, the only unknown in this whole experiment, was the electron itself.

What is an Electron?

Once you can answer this question, you can find the solution.

Which appears to be the only question in physics, you are not supposed to ask.

Only mathematicians are allowed to answer this question now.

“How can a particle be a dimension?” – This is the corner stone of the Superstring theory, which in turn complies with the Standard Model – argue with them.

But can either theorem answer, “what is an electron?” and “what is a quark?” – It’s adviced not to ask.

You can answer these questions, only if you have your eyes open.

The beauty is its simplicity. Even my children can now understand, it’s so simple and higgsless.

Terry Giblin

 

[selfAdjoint]

Physics doesn't answer "What is an electron?" or quark, because physics doesn't tell us what it is. Physics tells us how it behaves, and it tells us that very accurately.

One of the strongest things experiment tells us about the electron is that if you look at it with one experiment, it behaves like a wave, but if you do a different experiment, it behaves like a particle. Paradox.

Another thing experiment tells us is that the electron has spin - one half unit of a rotary quantum's worth. And this spin isn't just classical angular momentum because it acts differently, but it can add to angular momentum in spite of that. More paradox.

And there are many other things we know about electrons without ever going into theory. But the theory has to agree with all these facts.

As we learned more about the electron, which was discovered o 105 years qgo, our theories had to become more intricate in order to predict the various behaviors. In 1947, microwave physicsits detected a small effect in the spectrum of Hydrogen that violated the previous best theory of the electron, Dirac's. So physicists had to dig down and solve the problems of relativistic quantum field theory and see if that would account for the effect (the Lamb shift). Eventually the thinkers produced a workable field theory, and sure enough, it did predict the value of the Lamb shift.

So if you have a theory of "what the electron really is" feel free, but be sure your theory pedicts the things we know about the electron.

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

when we have fullunderstanding of something

we will see that Paradoxes are really not paradoxes at all. but explainable phenomina.

that is why I think that Black Holes are not really the undefined space that Reletivity sees them as.

I think that most things that are either undefined or paradoxes are clues that tell us we do not have a good enough understanding of the phenomina.

personaly, I find that the Quantum Fluxuations of empty space that Cosmology has been looking at recently as the driving force of the universe's expansion has the final solution behind it.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Paradoxes or explainable phenomina - I could have said it better myself.

If some thing doesn't fit with our theorems, we simply describe them as paradoxes and move on.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the current theorems can explain the results of the Young's Double split experiment, where one electron is given the choice of going through two slits, turns itself into a inference pattern when it passes through the slits, its not caused by tunnelling or by the "probability" wave function in Quantum Mechanics.

How does a single electron, turn into wave fronts (photon’s) to form an interference pattern, with itself?

What's more important is the implications of the result have on the Big Bang, when the process is reversed.

Image Big Bang as a Super Cloud made from 10 or 11 Dimensions, with a huge amount of energy and photons.

If the reverse process is possible then electrons will begin to form within the cloud.

Remember this cloud is made from 10 or 11 dimensions, some of which are stable inside the cloud, while the majority are unstable.

It only takes the electron to tilt the balance, the electron would act as a catalyst, forming a chain reaction, all it would require is for two of the dimensions to curl into a ball and have the same properties as the up and down quarks.

Where did all the matter in the Universe come from, was it made or there at the instance of the Big Bang or produced later as photons induced electrons, the electrons in turn acted as a catalyst or as a mediator to the up and down quarks.

Give me a photon, an electron and two extra dimensions and we can recreate the entire stable universe, we find ourselves in. The rest is there to simply confuse us.

Its so simply its beautiful.

 

[Terry Giblin]

To clarify one point, the additional 1 dimension, required by the M-Theory is obviously the cloud, from which we are observing this experiment within the mathematical matrix branes framework, as we obverse the remaining other 10 Dimensions, quarks, electrons and photons, in the universe.

The beauty is its simplicity, physics or mathematics, should we wait until the other catches up?

This raises another interesting question, "How large was the cloud, when the first electron was generated or the reaction began?"

What came first – the tachyon, the big bang, or electrons to form quarks?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Can the photo-electric effect be generated without a target being present?

We should be able to reproduce the Young's Double Split Experiment (YDSE) in reverse.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Terry Giblin
Can the photo-electric effect be generated without a target being present?

We should be able to reproduce the Young's Double Split Experiment (YDSE) in reverse.

Excuse me? What are you going to get the photoelectric effect off of, without a target? Explain please?

 

[Terry Giblin]

In the photo-electric effect, electrons are simply excited and eject from the target by the photon's.

In the YDSE photon intereference patterns are formed from a single electron - can the reverse process be produced in the lab. The photo-electric effect using photon intereference patterns without a target to form electrons.

What happens if we introduce a double split in front of the target in the photo-electric and ignore the electons coming from the target?

 

[selfAdjoint]

In the photoelectric effect the photon doesn't just produce electrons out of nowhere. They are already present in the material of the target. And it has to be a particular kind of material, where the outer electrons of the atoms are easily ionized.

As I interpret your idea, you want to have a complete double slit experiment, with photons self-interfering as waves, and then have the interference fringes falling on a target set up for the photoelectric effect. Is that right?

I've never heard of this being done, but I'll bet it has been. And if I had to predict, I'd say the setup wouldn't produce the interference. The reason being that if you try to outwit mother nature you always find she's way ahead of you, in the quantum realm. See all the variations on the double slit experiment, counters in the slits, delayed choice tricks, etc. The setup I described isn't really an attempt to see the photon as a wave, but rather an attempt to see both modes in the same experiment. I would expect the photon to behave like a particle.

 

[Terry Giblin]

You are absolutely correct, but your description of the experiment was slightly misguided.

You would expect a photon to act as a particle which is the exact reverse of the YDSE, electrons acting like waves - can't explain it, we don't have the physics or the math's to solve it duality of the electron and photon. Just like the caterpillar and the butterfly, but with different half-life’s.

But rather than dismiss it and ignore it, I learned to accept it and went looking for further proof.

A picture paints a thousand words, here is a copy of a joke I found whilst looking for proof.

Can you tell me, who's the joke on, now! - I know I'm not laughing any more are you?

Regards

Terry Giblin

Someone has asked on PF, if the "Proton is stable or unstable" - it’s worth a read

 

[selfAdjoint]

You are only focussing on the simplest case of the QUANTUM double slit experiment. Look up the modifications where they put a photon counter in one of the slots. That destroys the pure wave nature of the experiment and you get particle behavior. I'm betting that your desired modification will have the same effect.

 

[Terry Giblin]

Thank you for your comments, I followed your suggestion and looked up information regarding Quantum Double Split Experiments and came across a wonderful site, where the experiment I thought of, has already been preformed.

Unfortunately it would appear that this experiment cannot be preformed successfully.

When dealing with photons, electrons and quarks, we choose to use Schrodinger Wave equation, which fits in well with observers, as does Newton's law's of motion for tennis balls hitting a wall, both point particles traveling along a wave or path.

Every equation has its limits, where the Schrodinger Equation meets the 3-D particle, so to prevent anyone asking that question they introduced a disclaimer, we know this equation doesn't work all the time, because its actual a wave equation applied to particles - what do you expect, so don't mention particles, the uncertainty relationship (Schrodinger and Heisenberg), or the infinitesimal volume element.

 

[Terry Giblin]

"The path of the electron comes into existence only when we observe it." - Heisenberg

 

[Antonio Lao]

Terry Giblin,

I already replied to some of your comments in other sites of this forum.

Here, all I wanted is to give you my interpretation of YDSE.

Without any further experimental basis, I want to say that when an electron moves, say from a point A to a point B, it loses (infinitesimally undetectable losses) some of its intrinsic properties (e.g., its energy). These properties were transferred to the neighborhood of the surrounding space. Some of these went into one slit and the other went into the other slit. The statistical distribution of these lost properties of the electron creates the interference pattern.

These infinitesimally undetectable losses of the electron do not affect the pattern of the interference but only the intensity.

Energy can go into both slits but a particle cannot. Energy in the forms of photon can be polarized, while particle cannot (except for spin alignment).

But when energy is stopped or absorbed by an object such as the screen, it recorded all the properties coming from the original source whether from particles or from other energy sources. This record is the interference pattern.

 

[John]

Don’t want to be bothersome, but that is exactly what I thought. I theorize a field of points. The points are literal bits of matter each separated by a distance. When a photon moves, the way it moves is, one bit of matter colliding with another bit of matter, and that bit colliding with the next bit, exactly the way dominos move. But in that field of points, some of the energy would be lost, vibrating the whole field of points and setting up the interference pattern.

I wondered how energy could be lost, since a photon never changes speed. I realized a photon moves with almost twice the energy it needs. A moving point collides with the next point. It has enough energy to send the next point at the same speed to the next, but it is also pulled to the next point by the strong force across the distance. Energy is lost, but it has almost twice as much energy as it needs to sustain light speed.

This description, my model satisfies every requirement to define what photons and electrons really are, and how they move as waves or particles. They are moving through a space made of literal bits of matter: in which there are only six directions. The fact that points have distance between them, and must have distance between them (there is no other way) gives you a primary form of space that only has six directions back and forth when going from point to point.

 

[Terry Giblin]

A box containing 10 separate dimension's is accidently dropped, afterwards only six quarks and four dimensions can be found.

 

[Janitor]

Terry, are you claiming six as the number of extra dimensions because there are six flavors of quark that (so far) are known? Since each quark comes in three colors, why aren't you claiming 18 extra dimensions? And if another pair of quark flavors are discovered, are you going to increase your number of dimensions accordingly?

 

[Terry Giblin]

I've answered an identical argument before on PF.

When I related the number of quarks with the number of missing dimensions, I was already aware of at least 36 different flavours of quarks and have heard recently of squarks, the list gets bigger.

Six does appear to be a primary number - just like a six dimensional dice.

How can we be sure there are even six quarks?

If you plot the standard model, energy verses mass - why did we not find all of the bosons before the top quark?

 

[Antonio Lao]

John,

Quote
___________________________
I wondered how energy could be lost, since a photon never changes speed.
___________________________

Photon loses energy by decreasing its frequency and increasing its wavelength keeping its speed in vacuum constant at 300,000 km/s.

 

[Terry Giblin]

John,

I was very interested in your suggestions, but I can tell you have never gone scuba diving, it’s the closest you will ever get at becoming an astronaut, but the views are limited.

Or flown through a cloud – the idea or concept of only 6 degree’s of freedom disappears in a flash.

What is the best way to design a super highway

Design complex and fixed, rigid six dimensional grid
Using complex difficult mathematics and a super computer
Or using bubbles

I know which one I would choose.

 

[John]

You have to get a lot simpler than the complex experience of scuba diving to explain the primordial concept of existence. We know if two points are in the same place they are the same point. So points must have distance between them. Two points in a plane that have distance between them are like two pennies on a table. Put the pennies side by side. They can't occupy the same place. Now line up three pennies in a row. Line up four pennies under them. Now put three pennies under that row, four more in a row under that, and another row of three under that. The pennies represent points that have distance between them in a plane. The unusual thing is, you know points must have distance between them, but we have a structure that only has straight lines in three directions. If you want to go to a random penny in a random direction you have to do something like, up four and across one, so the limited directions act like dimensions. This is a plane that has three dimensions, which is more than normal, but you can only travel in three directions, which is less than normal. It is a weird set of ironies that explains why string theory has six missing dimensions.

 

[John]

Antonio,

I only knew that if a point goes through a field of points it would have to send some extraneous vibrations throughout the entire field, causing the interference pattern. My question was how can it vibrate the whole field and still retain its speed and energy? The answer was that almost twice as much energy as needed was pulling it though the field. In the world of quantum mecahnics 1.999 equals 1.0.

Ask yourself how photons can travel for billions of miles over billions of years and never lose one iota of speed. They must have more force pulling them than their momentum. What is that force?

 

[Terry Giblin]

Newton's first law of motion state

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

Provided there is nothing to apply an external force to a photon then the above law will not be broken, therefore no additional force is required. IT simply follow's the shortist path, where every its journey takes it.

But he has his revenge, with his third law,

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. " - Hence the electron...

Using Newton's own laws of motion, proves the existence of electrons by the properties of photon's...

Now that's an original thought - if I've ever had one....

 

[Antonio Lao]

John,

The force that is responsible for the long lives of the photons is the electromagnetic force.
The divergence of the electric and magnetic field in vacuum is zero. This means that an electromagnetic field can exist in vacuum without any source.

The interaction of electric and magnetic field in vacuum gives the speed of light as the inverse square root of the product of the permittivity and permeability of vacuum. This value was calculated to agree with other methods of the determination of light speed. This is how scientists came to believe that ordinary visible light is just another form of electromagnetic waves.

In matter and other medium of propagation, the permittivity and permeability of the electric and magnetic field is more complicated. This complication decreases the value for the speed of light. This effect slows the speed of light so much that even a charged particle can travel faster than the speed of light in the medium as seen in the experimentally verified phenomena of Cerenkov radiation. This is the optical equivalent of the sonic boom. this radiation was discovered in 1934 by the Russian physicist Pavel Cerenkov.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The forces that are responsible for the long life of the porton are the strong and weak forces. The strong force holds it together, and it is made of the lightest particles affected by the strong force, up and down quarks. So the only force that could make it decay would be the weak force, but apparently the weak force doesn't have any very probable decay modes for the up and down quarks, so the proton just doesn't decay (in the short run).

 

[Terry Giblin]

You have said that "the weak force doesn't have any very probable decay modes for the up and down quarks, so the proton just doesn't decay"

Does that imply it does have probable decay modes for the other remaining quarks.

Do other mediators have different preference depending on the quarks involved.

Image if Newtons first law of motion did not apply to photon's of light in our 3-D universe - who turned out the lights...

 

[modmans2ndcoming]

I just watched Elegant Universe

and I must say that M-Theory seems to be a very nice theory.

I hope when CERN comes on-line we will see if we can see Gravitons leaving our Brane or Sparticles.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Gentlemen,

Now we all have to agree that the photons and protons live long and prosper. Together with the electrons, they are basically stable.

How do we use this fact of their stability to explain the age of the universe?

Will the universe exist forever? Is the "Heat Death" possible?

 

[John]

My idea that space itself is expanding, and the points of space are getting farther and farther apart is like starting out with a 19-inch TV screen and ending up with a 60-inch screen. The picture is the same on both screens, but everything is bigger on the 60-inch. If photons are sucked from point to point by the vacuum, this process involves the strong and weak force, so my ideas are still corresponding that what we know. And if photons always go from point to point in the same amount of time due to their mass, and the strength of the strong force which sucks them from point to point, then it would be impossible to tell the difference in size between the younger universe and the older universe. It' s like looking at a picture on a TV screen from 100 to 200 yards away. You can't tell what size the TV is.

After a certain amount of time two things happen. The points of space get so far apart that a moving point cannot be pulled by the strong force to the next point. Light will end up in suspended animation between two points, and stop. And all the points of that shell of space will run out of momentum and stop; then, since there is a distance between the points, those points that have stopped will fall back to the center of the universe between the expanding points, gathering up speed all the way to the center of the universe where they will bounce all the way back out again when they collide at the center creating new space. Space is continually exploding outward in shells. The lifespan of a shell could be 13,200 years of our time. The points of space in a new shell would be very close together and moving outward very fast. Since they are moving fast, then a billion years of their time will be like 100 years of our time. Time slows down within a system that is moving fast. Using my idea, it's easy to explain why. If a point/particle is drawn from one point to the next by the strong force, the the distance the target point moves after it leaves the initial point determines the real distance it travels from one point to the other. The longer the distance the longer the time it takes when the points are moving, but it's still the same amount of time within the system. So, the faster the system is moving, the longer it takes to be pulled from point to point when measured by an outside observer. This allows the extraordinary conclusion the shell of the universe we are living in really could be 13,000 years old, our time; when you figure as I do, that space itself is expanding against a combination of the strong and weak force, which selfAdjoint said are the two forces that power photons.

This allows for galaxies that appear to be moving away from us at close to the speed of light, which seems impossible, but which we observe. These galaxies would be young galaxies on the other side of the center of the universe, and would appear very far away.

Space is decellerating against the strong/weak force at a very fast rate. Galaxies, which are much denser than space, could since they are heavier, be slowing down at a slower rate, and appear to be accelerating.

So when our shell stops expanding in only a few more years, everything will disappear and our souls will be taken to the next shell beneath us, which we can easily see, and it looks just like this shell, but it is smaller, and has another several thousand years to live. Decay happens when the points within molecules are so far apart the electrons have trouble going from one point to the next. In time, the whole system collapses, but before that, our souls are transported to a younger shell. We travel through the "hyperspace" that exists between points, without going from point to point. Cool ending.

 

[Antonio Lao]

John,

Are you saying that the universe expands in order to make the strong force weak?

 

[John]

Ha, funny! That kind of thinking is what's got all of physics confused today: it is the idea that we can put thoughts together differently to find the answers. To find the answers, you have to start before logic started. Start with the concept of nothing. In other words, start with nothing. Nothing contains two ideas, no and thing. If we start with something, or just “thing” then we can’t go anywhere. There is. Period. End of story. Start with no thing, and we know there is the idea of thing if there can be no thing.

We can also have two. We have no and thing, which is two. Break up thing into two pieces. You have the first string. The string is two-dimensional, since it is made of two things. Oddly, math says strings have to be two-dimensional.

Now enter the world of fuzzy logic. The two things are separating into nothing, which does not contain the concept of space. Imagine building a house in neighborhood where all the lots have been taken. You can’t. Well actually you can, but you will be resisted. Two things can separate into nothing even though there is no space to separate them into. This is fuzzy logic. The result of encroaching on this logic is not that it is impossible, but there is a force that resists you. Now we have the first string, which is two things separating into nothing, and we have string tension; if we try to separate them further, we have the strong force. The strong force increases with distance.

Can a “thing” not have size? If the strong force increases with distance, then it decreases to 0 as distance deceases to 0. But you can’t get all the way to the center of two different things. They can only be so close together. So the string tension between two pieces of matter when they are touching each other is the weak force, which is a function of the strong force. The weak force is almost 0, but not quite because the two things can’t occupy the exact same space.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The product is the Higgs force which is zero.