Speculations

UPDATE: After receiving information from Mordered, I've concluded that this is incorrect. My original thought was to go with bosons +w -w and z, but I am not familiar enough with bosons and their calculations to draw such a conclusion. GUT predicts that at the physically unattainable GeV limit; quarks, electrons, and all matter are the same. This solution is like working backwards, using speed of C instead of energy acceleration to attain the same effect. 1 Red, blue, or green quark = √E/M = C, where C replaces the energy needed for the GeV limit of a particle accelerator @ the plotted point of Zz, (49th reflection when traversing through parallel glass), tho…

Hello everyone, TJ here after a long vacation of study and speculation. I came here to ask a simple yet deceivingly complex question, Does general relativity Really agree with reality? Well before everybody picks sides or starts stating that Einstein was a brilliant man far above my level in learning which he was, I will present a few of my findings here. 1. In reality mass does affect the universe, but why then should mass effect the "fabric" of space when the universe is actually a dimensionless multiverse? Is that just our way of thinking of it or is the theory flawed at some specific point or is the entire universe actually limited? 2. In equation he account…

Spacetime is a folly. All light has curvature trajectory.

Dark matter and energy make up 95% of the universe’s total mass, therefore would it not be far fetched to say that dark matter and energy are higher dimensional matter and energy that has such effect on lower dimensions as attracting and repelling regular matter? Well let’s look at what we know, we know that dark energy repels matter, and we attribute to that the chief factor for matter and energy expanding with the universe along with the remaining inertial force of the big bang (expansion of space with large equally distributed kinetic force along with other forces). We also know that dark energy attracts matter and we can attribute to that an effect on the condensing o…

I have a theory that Everything is Unique in our Universe ! By this I don't mean the Simple Proof that Every Point in our Universe is Uniquely Different from another in factors such as Latitude, Longitude or X,Y,Z Coordinates but in a more tangible way !! We have many Life Forms and Everything is Evolving too. There is a definite Genetic Signature of Each Species and within the same Species the DNA can be used to differentiate within the same Species. Every Person, Personality, Plant or Animal Life is different. Following this Logic it is impossible to produce anything identical to anything else. Exact Replica. Even in the Manufacturing line the Serial Nu…

Hello Forums, I've come to discuss the creation of the universe, I will take all criticization, advice and or suggestions into mind. Rules of the theory: 1. Matter is created by Phantom Matter and by matter mixing together over and over with different permanent elements.(I will explain further if you don't understand by the name) 2. Phantom matter can and will interact with all permanent elements around. 3. Phantom matter leave debri around once it interacts with permanent and or Phantom Matter. 4. Involves an area in time that can expand and make more room for matter to form.(I've named it the Constructional Plain) 5. Permanent matter can only for…

I noticed this article on propelling sub-atomic particles and the Aharanov-Bohm effect. My limited understanding is that by manipulating the wave function of electrons using interference, they produce momentum in the electrons. I remembered that the same kind of interference patterns obtained from a double slit arrangement can be seen whenever there are two distinct paths, for example around a very thin wire or possibly even around an atom or molecule. Just wondered if anybody was familiar enough with superconductors to comment whether or not the interference between loose electrons and the atoms in a superconducting medium could interact like this to produce current?

The traditional definition of a desert is an area that has below a certain level of rainfall, but I say that definition isnt clear enough. While most of Antarctica is cold and frozen (considered a desert continent), beneath the snow, it looks barren like a desert (McMurdo valley photos are the perfect example of this.). Many sources classify tundra as desert because of low rainfall, but that doesnt make that much sense either. Low rainfall of tundra doesnt make the vegetation look barren like in Arizona. Tundras are full of green grass and moss-they are far more moist than the ground and vegetation of most low rainfall areas.. Because of that, some scientific sou…

Assuming a trivial sphere model of the universe where there is a unique center (so long as there is equally a unique center in all parts of the interior of the sphere) then there is using Newtons law a gravitational equilibrium with all other gravitating systems [latex]G \equiv \frac{Rc^2}{m^{N}}[/latex] of all [latex]N-states[/latex] of the various systems of mass [latex]m^{N}[/latex] We can take from any center of origion, [latex]x=1[/latex] for simplicity and is effected by how everything else is moving (These would be physical subsystems in set algebra where the universe is a set [latex]\mathcal{S} \in \mathcal{U}[/latex] where [latex]\mathcal{S}[/late…

Hello TJ here again, and I would like to ask the question of would it be possible to attract two significantly large objects such as stars together using quantum or "dark" masses as a way of redirecting objects in space that pose a threat to the populace of earth without sending anything into space?

Hello, I'm back after around three weeks vacation. And I had a thought, would it not be possible to cause rapid nuclear decay via controlled neutron bombardment, or basically controlled small scale nuclear detonations? because I know that all forms of radiation come from one specific element (Or many in the case of of molecules) having too much energy at the atomic level to be stable, so it emits excess energy in the form of Alpha (two protons two electrons) Beta (Similar to electrons) Gamma (extremely potent short wavelength) and x-ray (rather short wavelength), as well as in the form of neutrons. So given this information would neutron bombardment in short bursts cause …

A double-slit quantum eraser http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078v1.pdf One possible solution:backward causality #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <math.h> #include <X11/Xlib.h> Display *dpy; Window win; GC gc; double radian=(180.0/M_PI); void pixel(int x,int y,int color) { XSetForeground(dpy,gc,color); XDrawPoint(dpy, win, gc, x,y); } void line(int x1,int y1,int x2,int y2,int color) { XSetForeground(dpy,gc,color); XDrawLine(dpy, win, gc, x1,y1,x2,y2); } double sqr(double n) // x^2 { return n*n; } double doublerand() //random szam 0.0-tol 1.0-ig { return (double…

Abstract To look at the problem of entanglement is often one thought of a mystery because it was illogical how two systems could simultaneously know which state to be in when a collapse (or measurement) is made on the system. Using four new mathematical tools [math](\gamma_3,\gamma^3,A_i, A^i)[/math] you can find an internal symmetry between two superpositioned states directly related to their Chirality [math]\gamma^5[/math]. The relationship to the Chirality of a particle was simply [math]\gamma_3 \mathbf{A}^i [/math] or [math]\gamma^3 \mathbf{A}_i[/math] but they became the definition of the four common gamma matrices with the use of a unit psuedoscalar [math]i[/m…

Yes. Exactly. This is the nature of evolution. The bacterium(s) could survive for millions of years and evolve but without exposure to the antibiotic the off spring in a million years would probably be exactly the same in reaction to it as the current one. Mother nature is the chemist and invents millions of different ways to force things to evolve, and most of them are caused by extinctions of individuals and this especially applies to periods when the absolute number of individuals approaches zero. Evolution has little or nothing to do with survival of the smartest or survival of the fittest because every species, every individual, strives for smart and fast…

Hi folks- I'm new here. For the past couple of years now I've been teasing out new mathematical patterning within the known sequences of orbital and orbital partials in harmonic oscillator and spin-orbit models of nuclear shell structure. My project actually started back in the late 1970's when I first noticed that one could cut out and stack the 4 orbital based blocks from the periodic table in 3D, leading to a distorted tetrahedron if one extended the atomic numbers to 120. Many years later I found online work by an independent rediscoverer who had found the same relationship and had improved upon what I'd seen. www.perfectperiodictable.com One of the improvemen…

An empty universe possesses a potential value of 1. Because there would be nothing but itself to compare to, its mass value could also be defined as 1. Mass is another way in which we define potential energy. The potential energy of that mass could also be considered 1, because once again, it would only be comparable to itself in that singular state, and mass is the equivalence of energy as Einstein proved in e=mc^2. What we lack in an empty universe though, is a constant, so 1=1C^2 can't be verified as a legitimate resolve. Although it is easy to know the answer is either a 1 or a -1. We don't know what that means though, so it all just sounds like nonsense. If the …

quantamagazine.org/20140827-quark-quartet-fuels-quantum-feud/ “The thing you call the ‘quark’ might have quark-antiquark pairs and glue and all the rest built into it,” We have right handed neutrino vacuum. The vertical direction is the time dimension. The particles are contact area of the space-time bubbles. If we reverse the direction of spin of one blister, we get a virtual pair of quarks.One up and anti-up pair of particles. We can do spin up one of bubble, we will get D antiD quarks. or virtual electron- positron pair. And we can do lot of things with it...

There is a profound principal in the universe that says there is no central entity or notion anywhere, and that everything has no special significance than any other things in physics terms. This principal dispelled ‘earth-centric’ idea and later the Newtonian absolute time-space concept. It is a universally accepted principal in modern science. If math and physics are intertwined inextricably then it seems natural numbers ought to have an equal standing as any other numbers, irrational, complex, or even numbers yet to be invented. Is there any physical underlying reason for natural numbers’ special status? Or are the natural numbers just a convenient way for people to c…

So I ever since i was interested in science the expansion of the universe didn't sit right with me, atleast the theories behind that of which i knew at the time. And I haven't heard this one so i'll just see if this theory has either already been discussed, or could at all be plausable The theory i'm basing this off is the gravitational waves one. If gravity indeed does move at the speed of light, then I'd go and say that the expansion of the 'universe' (well, the universe itself wouldn't be expanding if i'm correct) is simply how we perceive spacetime returning to it's natural state after being tugged on by the mass of the Big Bang's singularity. The increasing a…

When considering the total energy or the total mass, or the total entropy, or the total momentum of a system, what happens when the far reaches of the system are separated by a significant distance, where light or gravity cannot get from one end of the system to the other in less than a moment? Let's say a moment is between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 seconds, and is somehow related to how we sense and remember and think in terms of existence and cause and effect and such. A system, larger than half a million miles in diameter, would not be understandable as happening "at the same time". Any equation, like the application of the gas law, would be suspect, unless "when" the …

I tend to think that the high-energy physics, and cosmology (including big bang theories, black holes and etc) today are closer to scams than science. The science community is in collusion to cover this up to milk public funds. “Emperors’ New Clothes” is a precise description of this phenomenon. Please correct my 'crazy' idea.

Global warming, meteor impacts, super volcanos, can cause or end ice ages, how has this affected the relative orientation (like the lead weight that keeps you car/truck tires balanced) of the planet, seeing as how the ice caps are melting, I have heard at one time true north(not magnetic north) was over northern Germany, at some point in geological history it shifted to somewhere over hudsands bay, at around tenthousand yrs bc, it shifted again to where it is today, with the warming trend, the poles are not the only thing melting, the glaciers too are going, how has the displacement, from solid and above sea level, to a rising sea level, affected this balance, I ask cause…

I decided to join club of authors of ToE I posted my ToE, or, more correct, hypothesis what can be framework for ToE. It can be read at my blog Please feel free to read it and critisize. Is my hypothesis contains any obvious problems or contradictions to existing well established theories?

This discussion cropped up 12 pages into a Speculative forum post, but I wanted to start a new thread here. What was there before the big bang, if anything? When you imagine the setting before the big bang, what do you typically imagine? An ultra small, ultra energetic point of nothingness? That's kinda what ive always imagined...Apparently, in this view, there is no space yet. If you see your tiny energetic point in a big open space, its ok, you cant really see something with no spatial values, but to think the "space around" that point is spacetime, would be a misconception...and also there is no mass yet, mass is really a factor of moving and there isn't any movi…

I made a post about this a few years ago (I think it's been deleted now), but never really resolved the argument. Well the first question is in the title... and for debating purposes, my standpoint on the answer is yes. If it takes until the end of this universe, or the creation of 10^10^10^10 universes later, anything which is at least physically possible in our current universe is possible. The "therefore" is about conciousness and reincarnation... If conciousness is nothing more than a sort of emergent phenomenon based on the configuration of particles and therefore workings that make up your brain then there is no reason that this configuration couldn't happ…