Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles

[swansont]

Mine theory has nothing to do how particles are moving in spacetime (QM). It's describing how to construct particles using smaller elementary particles without introducing fractional electric charges in quarks. What you're using can't explain why one Proton colliding with another Anti-Proton is producing cloud of gamma photons. It can't explain why Electron colliding with Positron also is producing cloud of gamma photons. Are they both made of gamma photons?

 

No, they aren't. But the theory does in fact tell you that you will get 2 or 3 photons, depending on the spin orientation of the electrons. Does your theory do this? Your theory indicates an electron is a composite particle? How do we split it up? Why have we never seen this happen?

 

Do you really really not understand? In mine theory Hydrogen, Hellium, Uranium etc. etc. they're all composite particles... "infinite" particles are chemistry atoms. You don't see what you're observing every day..

 

Those are composite particles in regular science, too.

 

You had a large number of ways a pion could decay. Have all those particles been observed? Are there rules for combining your two fundamental particles?

 

Don't take "infinite" in quotes too literally - the more pairs positive and negative particles you will add to base composite particle, the less chance it'll be stable (see Stability Rule). And the more chance it'll be decaying such as Uranium and other radioactive atoms. Because the larger they are the less chance that Prime Number Rule will be obeyed. If it's not obeyed, there is decay sooner or later.

 

Is this the trend we see in nature? Why don't you map out some/all of the nuclei in your nomenclature and show this stability and instability?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

No, they aren't. But the theory does in fact tell you that you will get 2 or 3 photons, depending on the spin orientation of the electrons. Does your theory do this?

 

OMG.. you completely didn't read mine theory website...

 

Electron is made of AT LEAST 4 negative and 1 positive elementary particles.

Positron reverse - is made of at least 4 positive and 1 negative elementary particles.

 

P 5/4 + P 5/1 = P 10/5

 

P 10/5 is:

5 Photons P 2/1

or

2 Neutrinos P 4/2 and 1 Photon P 2/1

or

1 Neutrino P 6/3 and 1 Neutrino P 4/2

or

1 Neutrino P 4/2 and 3 Photons P 2/1

 

You see on left of equation we have electric charge -3 + 3

and on right side of equation 0 + 0 +.... +0

 

 

Mass on left and right side of equation are also maintained (5 positive and 5 negative)

 

In mine theory Photon doesn't have energy E, it's E divided by quantity of photons. E= Ee*quantity

Single Photon has just single elementary energy/mass Ee (it can be million times smaller than Proton).

Therefor we don't need additional dimension to explain "missing mass" in annihilation.

 

Observed wave is group of Photons traveling in packet, the most probably spiral path.

 

Your theory indicates an electron is a composite particle?

 

Yes.. See table of particles..

 

Anti-proton is Electron P 5/4 + Photon P 2/1 * x (I am calling it Electron-compatible particle, that's it, such that has -3 Electric charge (-1 in Standard Model))

Proton is Positron P 5/1 + Photon P 2/1 * x (I am calling it Proton-compatible particle)

 

Pion+, Boson W+, Proton/Hydrogen+, Positron, they're all Proton-compatible particles.

The only difference between them is that one is stable (obeying Stability Rule - Proton, Positron), the other don't (Pion+, Boson W+).

One have big x, other have it even 0 (smallest Positron).

 

 

How do we split it up? Why have we never seen this happen?

 

Everybody see it during annihilation with Positron.. Just incorrectly interpreted.

 

Splitting particle such as electron P 5/4 other way than annihilation would break Electric Charge math equation. Anyway to what it would decay? To 3 negative particles, and 1 Photon? These 3 negatives would immediately find opposite particle and join together to photon P 2/1. Thus looking like annihilation.

 

Elementary electron P 5/4 has single positive particle in the center and 1 negative on top, and 3 in bottom in equal distances. Like I said couple times - negatives tries to be as farthest from other negatives and as close to positive. This means just one possible look of such particle in 3D.

 

 

 

 

Are there rules for combining your two fundamental particles?

 

Yes. Attraction and pushing away.

Currently in source code I am using F = Electric Charge / Radius^2 for every single particle regardless of position. In C++ code it's even simpler than in regular math - doesn't require calculating sqrt() nor pow() it back.

 

 

float Particles::GetAverageForce( const Vector<Float> &position ) const

{

float final_force = 0.0;

int count = GetParticleCount();

for( int i = 0; i < count; i++ )

{

Particle *particle = GetParticleByIndex( i );

Vector<Float> delta = position - particle->Position;

float radius = delta.Dot();

if( radius == 0.0 )

{

radius = 0.00000001; // disallow dividing by 0

}

float force = particle->GetElectricCharge() / radius;

final_force += force;

}

return( final_force );

}

 

If we replace it by:

float force = particle->GetTotal() / radius;

then simulation is showing how Proton or Electron is influencing/attracting space.

(Dot product of vector is x*x + y*y + z*z for those who don't know)

Is this the trend we see in nature? Why don't you map out some/all of the nuclei in your nomenclature and show this stability and instability?

 

I will make such final list when we will know exact rest mass of neutrino. When we will be able to tell exact negative Proton particles (positive particles will be of course N+3 more).

It already exist

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/composite-particles

But has no mapped names like "here is Hydrogen", "here is Oxygen" etc.

Scroll it to bottom - the higher rest mass (total number of particles) the less possible is that particle is stable.

 

I am writing application in C/C++ and OpenGL which will be showing all mine theory in real simulation.

You will just enter number of positive and negative particles, and see what happens in animation in 2d and 3d.

Currently it's working in 2d. It's more clear, but requires more CPU power to visualize field and forces.

 

 

 

Ratio between above Proton and Electron is 1836.2 (9181/5)

Edited January 7, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

OMG.. you completely didn't read mine theory website...

 

Got it in one.

 

 

 

Electron is made of AT LEAST 4 negative and 1 positive elementary particles.

Positron reverse - is made of at least 4 positive and 1 negative elementary particles.

 

P 5/4 + P 5/1 = P 10/5

 

P 10/5 is:

5 Photons P 2/1

or

2 Neutrinos P 4/2 and 1 Photon P 2/1

or

1 Neutrino P 6/3 and 1 Neutrino P 4/2

or

1 Neutrino P 4/2 and 3 Photons P 2/1

 

You see on left of equation we have electric charge -3 + 3

and on right side of equation 0 + 0 +.... +0

 

 

I don't see the option for 2 or 3 photons, which is what we observe. Further, there is no way to get 3 photons and a neutrino.

 

 

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Because I gave you exact equation for electron P 5/4

 

Electron-compatible particle is also f.e.:

P 5/4+ P 2/1 = P 7/5 (stable)

P 7/5+ P 2/1 = P 9/6 (not stable, emitting photon and decaying to P 7/5, or emitting neutrino P 4/2 and decaying to P 5/4)

P 9/6+ P 2/1 = P 11/7 (stable)

etc. etc.

add more photons and you have muon-...

add more photons and you have tau-...

 

What you call "photon" is not "single photon", it's group of photons.

 

Did you measure exact frequency of all these 2 or 3 photons as best as possible?

 

Mine 5 photons might mean 1 your photon with frequency A, and 1 your photon with frequency B. A+B= frequency of 5 elementary photons.

 

The more massive Electron-compatible particle like P 7/5, P 11/7 etc. the more possibilities you will have..

 

 

If you're seriously thinking about mine idea - do experiment in lab from post #48.. Construct Anti-Proton from Electron and Neutron collision. Then collide with Proton+. Result should be annihilation and production of photons.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I don't see the option for 2 or 3 photons, which is what we observe.

 

If we take lightest Electron P 5/4 and collide it with slightly heavier Positron P 7/2 (excited/heated by one additional Photon: P 5/1+P 2/1 = P 7/2) we will have:

 

P 5/4 + P 7/2 = P 12/6

 

It can decay to:

6 Photons P 2/1

which might means 3 "your" photon waves, each made of two elementary photons.

or 2 photon waves, each made of three elementary photons traveling in group.

In such scenario each wave has the same wave length and same frequency.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

How can you have an electron and a slightly heavier positron?

 

Saying that you get an arbitrary number of photons, but they could be bundled means that you don't make specific predictions. Not a property of a good theory. Standard physics tells you when you get two or three photons (or, rarely, more, and how often you would get those). Further, in the case of 2 photons, the theory predicts the energy of those photons, which is confirmed by experiment.

What you call "photon" is not "single photon", it's group of photons.

Did you measure exact frequency of all these 2 or 3 photons as best as possible?

Mine 5 photons might mean 1 your photon with frequency A, and 1 your photon with frequency B. A+B= frequency of 5 elementary photons.

Dispersion would show if a photon were comprised of multiple elementary photons with different frequencies. It is not observed.

If you're seriously thinking about mine idea - do experiment in lab from post #48.. Construct Anti-Proton from Electron and Neutron collision. Then collide with Proton+. Result should be annihilation and production of photons.

 

Why do a new experiment when your ideas fail to be consistent with experiments that have already been done?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Dispersion would show if a photon were comprised of multiple elementary photons with different frequencies. It is not observed.

 

Who said they have different frequencies in single packet.. ?

 

I said they have the same frequencies and and same wave length. But travel in packet/group, thus to explain more or less energetic particles is not needed additional dimension.

 

I attached example prediction of three elementary photons with same frequencies, same wave lengths, same origin, same direction.

On the left spiral angle between them is 45 degrees (so you can imagine how it would look if there would be 8 of them, 8 *45=360), on right angle between them is 120 degrees (so 3*120=360).

Red, green, blue are paths. Not our world color/wave..

 

 

 

 

Why do a new experiment when your ideas fail to be consistent with experiments that have already been done?

 

 

 

Because you could finally find something in your life?

Edited January 8, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

Who said they have different frequencies in single packet.. ?

 

You did. You mentioned a photon of frequency A and another of frequency B.

 

I said they have the same frequencies and and same wave length. But travel in packet/group, thus to explain more or less energetic particles is not needed additional dimension.

 

But we can measure photon frequencies, and we also have effects from photon angular momentum that is not consistent with this model.

 

Because you could finally find something in your life?

 

A falsified theory cannot add anything. You are asking for a new experiment while skipping the huge steps of it being consistent with what we've already observed.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

You did. You mentioned a photon of frequency A and another of frequency B.

 

I also said that what you're calling photon is not elementary photon.

 

Your photon is E=h * frequency = h * c / wave length

 

I said that what you think is single photon with energy E is group of elementary photons, maintaining the same frequency, the same wave length, each with elementary energy Ee, multiply it by quantity will give your E=h * v

 

But you prefer introducing not needed additional dimension for storing energy..

 

Mine explanation is simply simpler than what you have learned in school.

It has the smallest number of dimensions, with the smallest number of elementary particles needed to explain everything.

 

 

After XX century people started to be so used to multi universes, parallel universes, multi dimensions idea, that you can't even think about something simpler..

Have problem with math? Have problem with explanation? Let's introduce new dimension.. Done.. Math matches...

 

 

In this prediction less drastic path, and elementary photons much closer, traveling in packet, appearing as "Standard Model single photon" E = h*v = Ee * 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

 

I also said that what you're calling photon is not elementary photon.

 

Your photon is E=h * frequency = h * c / wave length

 

I said that what you think is single photon with energy E is group of elementary photons, maintaining the same frequency, the same wave length, each with elementary energy Ee, multiply it by quantity will give your E=h * v

 

How do you test this? If this is true, an atom should be able to absorb just one photon from the bundle. Why is it this is never observed?

 

Oh, and you can go back and answer the other issues and questions you've skipped over.

 

But you prefer introducing not needed additional dimension for storing energy..

 

What other dimensions do we have for photons?

 

 

Mine explanation is simply simpler than what you have learned in school.

 

Simple matters not when it's wrong.

 

[Salonis]

 

 

 

But when we have alone Neutron and collide it with Electron there should be created Anti Proton:

 

P 40/20 (example neutron-compatible composite particle, 0 electric charge) + P 5/4 (the lightest possible electron, -3 electric charge) = P 45/24

P 45/24 is unstable anti-proton-compatible particle, electric charge -3,

so it's decaying:

P 45/24 -> P 41/22 (anti-proton-compatible stable particle) + P 4/2 (neutrino)

 

Proton and Anti-Proton will annihilate together and produce cloud of Photons that you can detect.

 

That's basically description of Annihilation Power Station.

Two bateries one with electrons, second with positrons, and dynamic way to create Neutrons when needed (alone are living just ~15 minutes)

Electrons and Neutrons are creating Anti-Protons, Positrons and Neutrons are creating Protons. Then they collide and annihilate creating Photons, which are then used to heat water, which is converted to steam and moves turbines generating electricity (not very efficient, I have better ideas, but good for a start)

 

 

This huge nonsense perhaps hadn't none of the experts present overlook! In interac the neutron with the electron can never be the result of creation an antiproton and its subsequent annihilation of a proton. (Proton never entered into this collision, nor arose). When contact neutron with electron never occurs confusion!!! Enough I'm surprised that it passed without a response. For God sake!

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

This huge nonsense perhaps hadn't none of the experts present overlook! In interac the neutron with the electron can never be the result of creation an antiproton and its subsequent annihilation of a proton. (Proton never entered into this collision, nor arose). When contact neutron with electron never occurs confusion!!! Enough I'm surprised that it passed without a response. For God sake!

 

Truth is you do know nothing.

Do you know how anti proton has been found?

Ordinary proton was collided with ordinary proton..

Does this mean that protons have anti-quarks in its body so it's forming anti-matter?

 

There are models that neutrino is also anti-neutrino, and neutron is also anti-neutron.

 

You must collide alone neutron with positron, or electron within 15 minutes after creating alone neutron, otherwise you're not colliding neutron anymore but proton+electron+neutrino, when they already separated..

 

 

Hypothetical decay of Proton is

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

 

to Positron and Pion0

or to Pion+ and Pion0

or to Muon+ and Muon neutrino.

and so on.

 

Which means that Anti Proton should have them exactly reversed:

 

to Electron and Pion0

or to Pion- and Pion0

or to Muon- and Muon neutrino

and so on.

 

In mine theory all Pion 0, Muon neutrino, Tau neutrino, Electron Neutrino and Neutron are Neutron-compatible particle, that's it, they have exactly the same number of positive and negative elementary particle count.

The only difference is quantity of elementary particles they have.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Salonis]

 

Truth is you do know nothing.

Do you know how anti proton has been found?

Ordinary proton was collided with ordinary proton..

Does this mean that protons have anti-quarks in its body so it's forming anti-matter?

 

There are models that neutrino is also anti-neutrino, and neutron is also anti-neutron.

 

You must collide alone neutron with positron, or electron within 15 minutes after creating alone neutron, otherwise you're not colliding neutron anymore but proton+electron+neutrino, when they already separated..

 

 

Hypothetical decay of Proton is

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

 

to Positron and Pion0

or to Pion+ and Pion0

or to Muon+ and Muon neutrino.

and so on.

 

Which means that Anti Proton should have them exactly reversed:

 

to Electron and Pion0

or to Pion- and Pion0

or to Muon- and Muon neutrino

and so on.

 

 

 

My Slavic friend, a misunderstanding is on your part. Neutron never can, even if it no matter how much you wish, to changes in antineutron, let alone the antiproton. According to SM he would dishonors their baryon number and according the Socrates model he would have to change the whole his vakant. for anti-vakant. And that, unfortunately, he can not!

I pointed my appeal to moderators , than to you . The error is sometimes Creeps... According to Socrates and SM model are possible only these interchangeable interaction nucleons with leptons :

n + ný → p⁺+ e^-

n + e⁺ → p⁺ + anti-ný

n + anti-ný → n + anti-ný no change;

 

anti-n + e^- → p^- + anti-ný this should be done change of yours!

anti-n + ný → p^- + e⁺

anti-n + anti-ný → anti-n + anti-ný, repeat no change;

 

anti-ný = antineutrino, ný = neutrino

 

Your's Annihilation Power Station. is really from empire of fairy.

 

To proton decay from Wiki : Protons decay was, for a time,(mor than 30 years) an extremely exciting area of experimental physics research. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed.

 

I'll bet you anything about the spontaneous proton decay will never be recorded. It contradicts Socrates' model! Mentioned forms of proton decay are with respect KMV impossible!

 

 

[swansont]

I'll bet you anything about the spontaneous proton decay will never be recorded. It contradicts Socrates' model!

 

!

Moderator Note

Your model is not under discussion here. Your model is only under discussion in your thread.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I asked you a question: where are anti-quarks in two ordinary protons, so they are creating anti-proton..

Simple task: show me where they are in Standard Model proton.

You have two protons, collide them, they're "producing" anti-neutron, which then decays to anti-proton and positron and neutrino.

 

The truth is that scientists know they had neutron by observation of to what it decayed (proton, electron and neutrino).

If "neutron" decayed to anti-proton, positron and neutrino, then they can say "we had anti-neutron!"

 

ps. baryon number is quantum number.

 

ps2. It doesn't matter whether proton really decays spontaneously. What I wanted to show you is what Standard Model predicts as result of such decay.

 

In mine theory stable particles don't decay spontaneously.

 

 

When we have something neutral (and not stable), it must decay to something positive and something negative, eventually something neutral:

 

 

 

0 -> +1 -1

 

or

 

0 -> +1 -1+0

 

If neutral would always decay to something neutral:

 

0 -> 0 + 0

 

Then positive and negative particles would never be created.

 

When we have something positive, it must decay to something positive, and something neutral:

 

+1 -> +1 + 0

or

+1 -> +1 -1+1

(+1-1 might annihilate producing photons)

 

And analogous negative, it must decay to something negative, and something neutral:

 

-1 -> -1 + 0

or

-1 -> -1 +1-1

(+1-1 might annihilate producing photons)

 

Instead of +1 and -1 can be used any integer equal value. In Ultimate Theory it's +3 and -3. But it really doesn't matter.

 

Now let's see what happens in particles:

 

n0 -> p+ + e- + v0

0 -> +1 -1 + 0

 

m+ -> e+ + v0 + vm0

+1 -> +1 + 0 + 0

 

m- -> e- + v0 + vm0

-1 -> -1 + 0 + 0

 

pi+ -> e+ + v0

+1 -> +1 + 0

 

or

pi+ -> m+ + vm0

+1 -> +1 + 0

 

And so on, so on, with all rest.

 

There is even no need to introduce quarks and anti-quarks.

 

 

I am wondering how this happened that nobody noticed that f.e. pion+ is supposed to be made of up quark, and anti down quark, but result of decay: muon+ and muon neutrino, nor positron and neutrino have completely no quarks..

Edited January 9, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

I asked you a question: where are anti-quarks in two ordinary protons, so they are creating anti-proton..

Simple task: show me where they are in Standard Model proton.

You have two protons, collide them, they're "producing" anti-neutron, which then decays to anti-proton and positron and neutrino.

 

 

There are no antiquarks in protons. Collisions of protons can produce neutron/antineutron pairs, or other sets of particles that obey the conservations laws. The standard model does not predict forming an antineutron all by itself.

 

In mine theory stable particles don't decay spontaneously.

 

In standard physics, too.

 

 

 

 

When we have something neutral (and not stable), it must decay to something positive and something negative, eventually something neutral:

 

 

 

0 -> +1 -1

 

or

 

0 -> +1 -1+0

 

If neutral would always decay to something neutral:

 

0 -> 0 + 0

 

Then positive and negative particles would never be created.

 

 

But neutral pions decay into photons. Eta mesons decay into neutral pions. The lambda decays into a neutron and a neutral pion. The sigma decays to a lambda and a photon.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons

 

I am wondering how this happened that nobody noticed that f.e. pion+ is supposed to be made of up quark, and anti down quark, but result of decay: muon+ and muon neutrino, nor positron and neutrino have completely no quarks..

 

Because you are wrong; the assumption that they didn't "notice" is rather presumptive. An up quark and a down antiquark has a net zero of quarks in it. That's how antimatter works.

 

 

Now, how about addressing the objections I have raised?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

There are no antiquarks in protons. Collisions of protons can produce neutron/antineutron pairs, or other sets of particles that obey the conservations laws. The standard model does not predict forming an antineutron all by itself.

 

 

 

I didn't say "by itself from nothing"..

 

The all materials on internet are saying so that anti-proton and anti-neutron have been found the first time during proton-proton collision.

 

"The antineutron was discovered in proton–proton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered."

 

"The search for antiprotons heated up in the 1940s and 1950s, as laboratory experiments reached ever higher energies...

In 1930, Ernest Lawrence (Nobel Prizewinner in 1939) had invented the cyclotron, a machine that eventually could accelerate a particle like a proton up to an energy of a few tens of MeV. Initially driven by the effort to discover the antiproton, the accelerator era had begun, and with it the new science of "High Energy Physics" was born.

It was Lawrence that, in 1954, built theBevatron at Berkeley, California (BeV, at the time, was what we now call GeV). The Bevatron could collide two protons together at an energy of 6.2 GeV, expected to be the optimum for producing antiprotons. Meanwhile a team of physicists, headed by Emilio Segre', designed and built a special detector to see the antiprotons."

 

 

 

 

But neutral pions decay into photons.

 

If you would look closer you would notice second less common way of decaying of pion0

 

pi0 -> e- + e+ + gamma

 

Conclusion is simple: these 2 gamma the most common decay of pion0 is simply result of annihilation of e- and e+

So in reality pi0 is decaying to e- e+ e- e+, and then none, one or both electron and positron pairs are annihilating. Thus 1 or 2 gamma photons are appearing in detectors.

 

 

 

 

Because you are wrong; the assumption that they didn't "notice" is rather presumptive. An up quark and a down antiquark has a net zero of quarks in it. That's how antimatter works.

 

There is much simpler explanation why nobody saw single quark. You know what I mean.

 

I thought you started catching mine idea..

 

Too much used to QCD over the years?

 

 

Now, how about addressing the objections I have raised?

 

Which one exactly?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[SamBridge]

Why do people keep thinking the universe is unifiable? It's already proven not only that not all logic can be converted into algebra but that not all logic can even be put into terms of math of any kind, which is why scientists need to develop ever more varying mathematical systems to describe our growing knowledge of the universe only to this day not be able to make a square with the exact area as a circle. Maybe not everything is suppose to be put into one equation.

[swansont]

Which one exactly?

 

All of them. Your idea has to be consistent with all of the previously observed phenomena. So why haven't we observed the "heavy" positron you mentioned? Where is the mapping of your particle states to observed particles? How do you account for angular momentum?

 

If you would look closer you would notice second less common way of decaying of pion0

 

pi0 -> e- + e+ + gamma

 

Conclusion is simple: these 2 gamma the most common decay of pion0 is simply result of annihilation of e- and e+

So in reality pi0 is decaying to e- e+ e- e+, and then none, one or both electron and positron pairs are annihilating. Thus 1 or 2 gamma photons are appearing in detectors.

 

The conclusion has to be consistent with the evidence. e+e- annihilation has a particular signature. If that signature isn't there, you can't conclude there is annihilation.

[kristalris]

Why do people keep thinking the universe is unifiable? It's already proven not only that not all logic can be converted into algebra but that not all logic can even be put into terms of math of any kind, which is why scientists need to develop ever more varying mathematical systems to describe our growing knowledge of the universe only to this day not be able to make a square with the exact area as a circle. Maybe not everything is suppose to be put into one equation.

 

Indeed: maybe. Then again: maybe not.

 

On mathematics: my mathematics teacher ages ago stated that for proper mathematics all you need is a string a straight stick on a sandy beach. I.e. what a lot of scientists / physicists forget is that it is first the garbage / non garbage question of the assumptions you have before you do the math's. Not the other way round.

 

And like you just postulated: indeed do we assume that or not?

 

Otherwise you end up in the Escher Institute where you accurately measure the length of the towers yet conclude incorrectly that the water streams upwards.

 

GR and QM are contradiction with each other. One or both must thus be - at least partly outside a regime - wrong. Inside there respective assumed regimes they are incontestably correct.

 

You can't get round that by stating it's a paradox because it's a blatant contradiction. (I know of physicists thus even thinking they are synonyms)

 

And yes the Escher Institute will allow you to marry GR and QM probably if you assume you can travel back in time, have something come from nothing and vice versa and what not. Probably however it is then only a whopping confirmation bias.

 

In science you look at all evidence and address all the problems and then try and formulate a falsifiable position, and subsequently don't argue but test it. Trial and error.

 

And mind you on the concept level you aren't even allowed to be too succinct and thus should watch out with your mathematics. Before you know it you very accurately have taken something to be true that isn't.

 

So Premyslaw's idea should have the science be but to it, and if possible be tested. And it should be looked at if it can be adapted i.e. I guess he's put it forward as work in progress. Yet indeed he should answer stated questions.

 

And why one theory you ask? Well because Occam deems that the most probable correct solution then. And current science correctly likes Occam.

[SamBridge]

There's all sorts of explanations for matter and energy in the universe, ranging from god to string theory, the only problem is none of them are provable.

[kristalris]

There's all sorts of explanations for matter and energy in the universe, ranging from god to string theory, the only problem is none of them are provable.

Now that is not true, mine is provable / falsifiable.

 

And what I've learn't about physicists they have trouble in identifying the need for having different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. A proof of concept can be done on different levels depending on the amount of further effort and cost the proof warrants. I.e. don't ask for a new billions of dollars worth of collider on a basic proven concept. That could however warrant further effort and cost to be put towards it.

 

Many people in all walks of life and even in science talk about "proven" as if it always the same thing. It isn't. It's a means to an end given an accepted risk.

Edited January 10, 2013 by kristalris

[Salonis]

 

!

Moderator Note

Your model is not under discussion here. Your model is only under discussion in your thread.

 

Sorry for the mention of Socrates model, but the sentence in which it appeared was personal messages only for Przemyslav Gruchala

. The substantive part of the paper I used only official symbols and terminology. In fact, I substituted the contribution of working moderator who apparently overlooked the fatal error . I would be in "my" thread certainly chastised. .

.

[SamBridge]

Now that is not true, mine is provable / falsifiable.

 

And what I've learn't about physicists they have trouble in identifying the need for having different standards of proof depending on the question at hand. A proof of concept can be done on different levels depending on the amount of further effort and cost the proof warrants. I.e. don't ask for a new billions of dollars worth of collider on a basic proven concept. That could however warrant further effort and cost to be put towards it.

 

Many people in all walks of life and even in science talk about "proven" as if it always the same thing. It isn't. It's a means to an end given an accepted risk.

 

 

There's no "standards of proof". You either get the same number on both sides of the equation or you don't, meaning it's illogical. If you have some equation that says "mass=", before you even get a number your units better be in the same units as mass. Can two particles always make "mass=y+z-v+r...=Xkg" true?

Edited January 12, 2013 by SamBridge

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

. In fact, I substituted the contribution of working moderator who apparently overlooked the fatal error . I would be in "my" thread certainly chastised. ..

 

Or maybe they're smarter than you think.

 

Scientist can speculate, taking into consideration, idea that quarks might simply not exist. Actually there is no evidence of their existence. Even worse, they're creating logic problems and inconsistency.

 

In mine opinion proton-proton collision producing anti-proton is proof that up and down quarks, and anti-up and anti-down quarks don't exist.

 

Up quark and down quark idea has been introduced after shock made by splitting particle that had to be not able to split - proton. And produced smaller, less massive, maintaining the same or opposite electric charge particles.

How to split +1 and -1, that were supposed to be fixed-point integers, if we know that their result (electric charge) is also +1 and -1?!

Quarks were temporary patch to fix obvious logic problem..

 

If quarks don't exist we don't have logic problem in f.e. pion+ which is supposed to be made of up and anti-down. But result of its decay has no quarks at all..

 

In post #65 I showed how something that has +1, -1, and 0, electric charge can split, maintaining the same overall electric charge. So math equation matches on both sides.

 

In proton-proton collision we have cloud of particles with +2 electric charge in Standard Model.

 

To what +2 can decay (they're naturally pushing away)?

 

+2 -> +1 + 1

or

+2 -> +1 + 1 + 0

or

+2 -> +2 + 0

 

Then see post #65 how +1 can decay:

 

+1 -> +1 + 0

or

+1 -> +1 - 1 + 1

or

+1 -> +1 - 1 + 1 + 0

 

Energy that is needed to collide proton-proton is not producing anti-matter from nothing - it's just needed to accelerate particle to such speed that it can overcome natural electric charge pushing away force between them. Anti-particles are created from regular particles, just different configuration of elementary particles.

 

 

Electron P 5/4 is the smallest anti-matter particle. Add to it enough P 2/1 (one positive and one negative) and it'll become anti-proton. Where enough might mean millions.

Positron P 5/1 is the smallest matter particle. Add to it enough P 2/1 and it'll become proton.

 

Electron and Positron that we see and detect in our world might not be (and the most likely are not) P 5/4 or P 5/1! It might be P 5/4+P 2/1 * x giving our world electron. P 5/4 has mass of 2.5x elementary photon.

 

Imagine positron is P 5/1, electron 5/4, neutrino is P 4/2, and proton is P 31/14

 

P 31/14 + P 31/14 -> P 62/28 (+6 electric charge, Standard Model +2 equivalent)

P 62/28 -> P 5/1 + P 5/1 + P 52/26

(equivalent of +2 -> +1 + 1 + 0)

 

or larger than normal unstable proton, positron and neutrino:

P 62/28 -> P 53/25 + P 5/1 + P 4/2

(equivalent of +2 -> +1 + 1 + 0)

 

P 53/25 -> P 39/18+ P 5/4 + P 5/1 + P 4/2

(equivalent of +1 -> +1 - 1 + 1 + 0)

 

But combination possible to create is also:

 

P 53/25 -> P 31/17+ P 5/1 + P 5/1 + P 4/2 + P 4/2 + P 4/2

(equivalent of +1 -> -1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0)

P 31/17 is anti-particle of initial proton P 31/14 (simply putting their positive and negative elementary count are reversed, one has 14 P, 17 N, second one has 17 P, and 14 N)

Edited January 12, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala