GeneralDadmission Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 Length contraction is caused by relative velocity so I don't see how it is relevant here. Yes and the period between BB and reionization provides the foundations of relativity. At this point I suspect that electrons were not the first stable particle. To produce electrons I suspect electron neutrinos are first produced which fuse into either strange/charm or top/bottom neutrons which then produces electrons and subsequent heavy element baryogenesis. This is what the exercise ultimately suggests. Figuring out how to interpret the exercise has been awkward without familiarity with defining experiments. As energy also has a gravitational effect (as do pressure, momentum, etc) looking only at mass will will not tell you much about gravity. You are basically going back to a Newtonian view. I wasn't intending this type of definition but a description of the mechanical expression that results in mass. Oft times looking at the history of development, leads to a greater understanding of the modern formulas. Particularly in learning how the modern formulas are eventually derived. Yes. I have been absorbing that much but actually committing formulae to memory has been elusive. It is because I am more familiar with my exercise which required defining in order to properly contrast against standard theory. I think before I can readily absorb Higgs description I will need to identify what rules out the mechanism described thus far to my model. I agree completely. I think studying history of science (and mathematics and technology) is very valuable. I suspect that we might get fewer people claiming various modern theories are wrong, if they had a clearer understanding of how they came to be. If that is what GeneralDadmission is trying to do, then I encourage it. And kudos to you for helping him (I'm afraid my contributions have been limited to pointing out [what appear to be] some of the bigger misconceptions). I've had to do this just to figure out how to interpret this exercise. A piece of history I have been trying to find is what was the reason 6 quarks were predicted? Was this simply to align with other particles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Electrons are fundamental particles, they are not formed from other constituents particles, though they can decay from neutrinos, they must be available to form the neutrinos in the first place. the earlier particles out of thermal equilibrium is quarks and fundamental leptons ie electrons. They are are present prior to neutrinos. Thermal equilibrium does not mean they are not present, just that they become indistinguishable. The aspect you are missing is "what does fundamental particles mean? and how do they gain mass? This is where the Higgs field becomes involved fundamental particles are not composed of anything but themselves. Edited March 11, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 Electrons are fundamental particles, they are not formed from other constituents particles, the earlier particles out of thermal equilibrium is quarks and fundamental leptons ie electrons. They are are present prior to neutrinos. Thermal equilibrium does not mean they are present, just that they become indistinguishable. The aspect you are missing is "what does fundamental particles mean? and how do they gain mass? This is where the Higgs field becomes involved fundamental particles are not composed of anything but themselves. I'm not suggesting electrons were produced from heavier neutrons. The implication is that expansion symmetry was broken by the neutrino produced neutrons which provided the conditions for electrons to be produced. I've only just understood how to interpret the exercise functionally so with a bit of reference research I can make something of it either way. Importantly I can compare it to the Higgs field data in a coherent manner which I have not previously been able to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not suggesting electrons were produced from heavier neutrons. The implication is that expansion symmetry was broken by the neutrino produced neutrons which provided the conditions for electrons to be produced. I've only just understood how to interpret the exercise functionally so with a bit of reference research I can make something of it either way. Importantly I can compare it to the Higgs field data in a coherent manner which I have not previously been able to do. Do you have any maths and evidence to back this up or are you just trying stories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 You need a lot of detail here to understand which particles are formed when. There is still a lot of ground to cover. Here is some guidelines. The order generally but not always follow how massive the particle is in terms of total mass not rest mass. In total energy the photon is massive, due to its kinetic energy. Bosons are typically massive particles, they will drop out of thermal equilibrium earlier than less massive particles. Photons for example drop out of thermal equilibrium before neutrinos. So does the other quage bosons. Quarks, and W,Z bosons. I have no idea what you mean by expansion symmetry. Did you read the link I gave you earlier? Chapters three and 4? http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf :" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Second link, Keep in mind both these cover the SO(5) model. So they don't cover the Higgs field itself. For GUT specifically you want this http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES Unfortunately if you really want to understand all the mixing rules in particle physics the best teacher is textbooks well professional institutions preferred. Introductory to particle physics by Griffith is excellent. you need to study the following conservation laws. Color,spin,flavor,baryon number,Lepton number,charge,isospin. these form the rules on what decays and interactions are allowed. key components. baryon octect meson nonet. these form the eightfold wayen. you can Google each of those. I don't have a good free resource coverage outside of textbooks. The above will allow you to understand those complex images and tables on this link http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) You need a lot of detail here to understand which particles are formed when. There is still a lot of ground to cover. Here is some guidelines. The order generally but not always follow how massive the particle is in terms of total mass not rest mass. In total energy the photon is massive, due to its kinetic energy. Bosons are typically massive particles, they will drop out of thermal equilibrium earlier than less massive particles. Photons for example drop out of thermal equilibrium before neutrinos. So does the other quage bosons. Quarks, and W,Z bosons. I have no idea what you mean by expansion symmetry. Did you read the link I gave you earlier? Chapters three and 4? http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf :" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis Second link, Keep in mind both these cover the SO(5) model. So they don't cover the Higgs field itself. Heh. You are now providing a coherent description of the exercise. I'll go out on a limb and illustrate the field management first. There is an initial decay process. Expansion produces top/bottom neutrons that are the only particle massive enough to annihilate within exponentially expanding space. This produces electron neutrinos and strange/charm neutrons which fuse and 'break expansion symmetry'. This simply implies that relative mass has begun to shape space. This process slows expansion enough for electrons to be capable of outpacing expansion to fuse with protons. Electrons do not have sufficient intrinsic momentum to overcome exponential expansion and require a mediary process that stabilises spatial expression. Don't worry. I am going through what you post for me. This exercise has bewildered me since it began making me look for measurables that matched the processes it began describing about ten years ago. I appreciate just being able to find 'right way up miss jane' for it so my describing it is mostly cathartic. Edited March 11, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Yes and the period between BB and reionization provides the foundations of relativity. I don't see any connection between that and relativity. Especially not special relativity, which is mainly just derived from Maxwell's equations.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Need a model, or evidence, or something falsifiable. A coherent paragraph would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Need a model, or evidence, or something falsifiable. A coherent paragraph would be nice. I hope I can satisfy you with further consideration. It has taken me till now to simply understand how to functionally interpret the exercise. This is mostly what I have been attempting to achieve since having the exercise running round in my head has been a pain in the butt. I think I will need to absorb some of the material posted to this thread before I can provide anything substantial. I don't see any connection between that and relativity. Especially not special relativity, which is mainly just derived from Maxwell's equations.... Just derived from Maxwell's equations? I thought they were derived from the nature of mass ultimately. The definition I supplied intended to indicate that equilibration between cause and effect is set between BB and baryogenesis and put into motion at reionisation. Edited March 11, 2015 by GeneralDadmission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Just derived from Maxwell's equations? I thought they were derived from the nature of mass ultimately. Special relativity is based on one principle: the "laws of physics" (including the speed of light) are independent of the state of inertial motion. General relativity adds the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. The only place the nature of mass comes in is that inertial mass equals gravitational mass (because of the equivalence principle). So nothing to do with the big bang or baryogenesis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Just derived from Maxwell's equations? I thought they were derived from the nature of mass ultimately. The definition I supplied intended to indicate that equilibration between cause and effect is set between BB and baryogenesis and put into motion at reionisation. the correct definition provides the correlation between aminosynthesis and the incertitude principle as applied to the chairs gravitating around the mad hatter tea table in alice in wonderland. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I hope I can satisfy you with further consideration. It has taken me till now to simply understand how to functionally interpret the exercise. This is mostly what I have been attempting to achieve since having the exercise running round in my head has been a pain in the butt. I think I will need to absorb some of the material posted to this thread before I can provide anything substantial. Alas, then. You shouldn't be speculating without knowledge of the basics. No model, no thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts