Widdekind

When an electron's Wave Function collapses, its average charge density is dramatically & suddenly shifted. Does this create any kind of Electromagnetic Pulse, or other such disturbance ? (Would that require the emission of photons ??) And, if you could get gazillions & gazillions of electrons, all to WF-collapse, all at once, could you create impressive EMP ??

Thanks for the clarification. (That sounds allot like neutrinos !)

If Dark Matter fills the disk, of the Milky Way Galaxy, then our Solar System has had 4.5 billion years to "sweep up" at least some DM particles... could there be "Dark Matter craters" on some of the moons in our Solar System, or could Jupiter have collected a sizeable "Dark Matter core", from 4.5 billion years of "gobbling up" DM ?

Our Sun's Oort Cloud seems to extend at least a light-year away from the Sun. QUESTION: Arguing from the Cosmological Principal ("what's here is there"), could other stars have colossal cometary "Oort Clouds" too ? If so, comets could, conceivably, populate an appreciable fraction of the inter-stellar space between stars -- the disk of the Milky Way Galaxy might be a "blizzard" of such icy bodies*. * The Outer Oort Cloud was once believed to boast about a Jupiter's mass worth of comets (~0.001 Msol). The Inner Oort Cloud is believed to boast "tens or hundreds of times as many cometary nuclei as the outer halo" (~0.1 Msol). Thus, there is an outside chance, that (inter)stellar "Cometary Clouds" could be a galaxy-wide "blizzard" of icy bodies of not-inconsequential total mass.

Why doesn't the following formula work, for fully relativistic Quantum phenomena ? It seems to have the correct Classical, low-energy, expansion: [math]\left( E - V \right)^2 = (m c^2)^2 + (p c)^2[/math] For, when V << E, pc << mc2, the aforesaid formula forms the familiar Classical equation. Seeking the square-root: [math]E - V = (m c^2) \sqrt{1 + \frac{p}{mc}^2 } \approx (m c^2) + \frac{p^2}{2 m} [/math] [math]E \approx (m c^2) + \frac{p^2}{2 m} + V[/math] This, in turn, reduces to the regular Schrodinger Wave Equation with the standard substitutions (Hughes. Elementary Particles, pg. 48): [math] \hat{E} \to i \hbar \partial_t \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \hat{\vec{p}} \to - i \hbar \vec{\nabla} [/math] save, of course, for an overall phase factor proportional to [math]\hbar \omega_0 = m c^2[/math]. Indeed, is it not true, that, in the presence of electro-magnetic fields, those classical quantities, and their corresponding Quantum Mechanical operators, transform as (?): [math] \hat{E} \to \hat{E} - q V \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \hat{\vec{p}} \to \hat{\vec{p}} - q \vec{A} [/math] Then, one could extend the analogy further, allowing the q's & V's to represent other kinds of charges (e.g. Weak Charge, Color Charge) and their corresponding potentials.

The Quantum Chromodynamics Scale is ~220 GeV. The Electroweak Scale is ~250 GeV. These vital values are completely consistent with the expected Hyperspace "ionization" energy (the "depth" of the Hyperspatial Potential Well miring matter inside standard spacetime), which must be more than the mass of the Top quark (~180 GeV), w/o being so much more, that there "ought" to be more bound Hyperstates (to wit, more than three (3) "generations" of matter). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Hyperspatial invariance" of Schrodinger Wave Equation (SWE) suggests "higher dimensionality plus constraint" (?) From "absolute", Hyperspatial perspective -- for example, 3D Hyperspatial perspective of 2D "Sphereland" of closed Cosmos -- dimensional directions (and there spatial derivatives) do not impact the physics of Quantum phenomena (described by SWE). That is, although the "Hyperspatially flat" Wave Functions (WFs) of particles, billions of light-years apart, are actually orthogonal to each other from Hyperspatial perspective (see following figure), being "Hyperspatially rotated" with respect to each other, the physics is seen to be the same. Such seemingly suggests, if only as an Ansatz, that particles' WFs "don't care" about their "Hyperspatial orientation". That might mean, that the "true" SWE is actually one (Hyper-)dimension higher, but that the one (Hyperspatial) dimension is always suppressed, by the extremely powerful (purported) Hyperspatial Potential Well, which mires matter inside standard spacetime: Uploaded with ImageShack.us Adding back the 3rd spatial dimension, the "true" SWE (classical), for 3D "Hyper-Sphereland", would be the 4D formula: [math]- i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi = \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m} \vec{\nabla}_{4D}^2 - V_0 \; \delta^{4}( \left\| \vec{r} \right\| - R_C) \right] \Psi[/math] where we have approximated the very narrow Hyperspatial (Square Well?) Potential with a (4D) Dirac Delta Function (for ease of notation); where RC is the Cosmic Curvature Radius (100-300 G LtYr); where [math]\vec{r}[/math] is the "true" Hyperspatial position vector (x,y,z,w); and where [math]\vec{\nabla}_{4D}[/math] is the 4D "gradient vector" w.r.t. those four (Hyper-)spatial dimensions. IMPLICATIONS: This Ansatz seemingly suggests, that "off" or "outside" of standard spacetime, "out" in Hyperspace, in the The Bulk "beyond" The Brane of standard spacetime, particles' WFs would behave basically like they are already known to do... save that, no longer "Hyperspatially squished" by the (purported) Hyperspatial Potential Well which mires matter inside standard spacetime, particles would "poof out" in an orthogonal, Hyperspatial dimension. In-so-far as typical electron WFs span, in standard space, some ~10-10 m; and, in-so-far as the (purported) Hyperspatial Potential Well is 100-1000 times "thinner" than that (see OP), then the Hyperspatially "squished" or "flattened" WFs, of electrons & atoms, might "poof out", by hundreds of times, from a picometer, to an Angstrom, "thick". Note that a human in Hyperspace, who was 2m tall, and who "poofed out" Hyperspatially to an Angstrom "thick", would still be "mostly" 3D, being much "thinner" in the 4D Hyperspatial sense, than their spatial extent in the other directions. (This would be b/c, having evolved in the "squished" environment of standard spacetime, our bodies would never have exploited the Hyperspatial "extra dimension" to effect extra, Hyperspatial, kinds of connections.) To make an analogy, from Edwin A. Abbott's famous Flatland, if A Square was "lifted off" of Flatland, out into 3D Hyperspace, his "squished" 2D body would "puff up" in the 3rd dimension, but -- although he would become more like a piece of bread, as opposed to a thin piece of paper -- A Square would still be, quite clearly, a 2D kind of creature, to any body with a "higher", Hyperspatial, 3D perspective (b/c his body would have no "3D kind" of connections). Note: Spacetime itself has an "independent existence" in Hyperspace. This strongly suggests, that it is potentially possible, for matter, currently shackled inside said spacetime, to also have an "independent existence" out in Hyperspace -- to wit, Hyperspace travel, by matter, from one part of spacetime, through Hyperspace, to another part of spacetime, seems suspiciously plausible (albeit of enormous technical challenges).

Thanks for the info. What would a "photon / (anti-)photon" annihilation reaction look like ? Is such essentially, and simply, some sort of "scattering", wherein the wavelengths of the (incident) photons are affected ? From something I saw on TV, could there possibly be some sort of "chiral analogy", between Anti-Matter & Matter, and Anti-Cyclones & Cyclones (in the weather of worlds, such as the storms of Gas Giants) ?

Thanks again again for the further considerable clarifications. I understand, then, that a precisely parallel definition defines the Muon neutrino ? Furthermore, therefore, the decay process I pulled from Wikipedia, to wit [math]\mu^- \to \nu_e e^- \bar \nu_\mu[/math], necessarily involves a "double oscillation(s)", affecting both the Neutrino and the Anti-Neutrino ?? From what you said, I seem to sense, that it's trivial to "time reverse" these particular processes, or "pieces parts" of the same, such as [math]\mu^- \nu_\mu \to e^- \nu_e[/math]. What I would want to know, is if it's necessarily impossible, or perhaps possible, to "collisionally excite" 1st Generation leptons into 2nd Generation leptons, along the lines of [math]e^- \nu_e \to \mu^- \nu_\mu[/math] ??

Thanks for all the considerable clarifications. According to Wikipedia, Neutrino mass means Muons can, occasionally decay via [math]\mu^- \to \nu_e e^- \bar \nu_\mu[/math]. Now, in some sense, this is a "cyclic permutation", of the Lepton Family Number, where we've "moved" the "2nd generation-ness", from the Muon Neutrino, to the Electron Anti-Neutrino. Since there are three (3) decay products on the RHS, one could conceive of effecting the final such "cyclic permutation", and invent the hypothetical happenstance of [math]\mu^- \to \nu_e \mu^- \bar \nu_e[/math]. QUESTION ONE: Can such a "pseudo-decay" actually occur ?? (Some sort of "Neutrino-ish Bremsstrahlung Breaking", were one willing to tolerate the title.) Uploaded with ImageShack.us QUESTION TWO: If, as from aforecited information, you can violate [math]L_e[/math] & [math]L_\mu[/math] both by two: then why not violate both by only one (?): [math]\mu^- \to \nu_e e^- \bar \nu_e[/math] [math]L_e: 0 \to 1[/math] [math]L_\mu: 1 \to 0[/math] QUESTION THREE: Is it correct to claim, that this decay is disallowed, according to "Kinematics" (?): [math]\mu^- \to \nu_\mu \mu^- \bar \nu_\mu[/math] [math]L_e: 0 \to 0[/math] [math]L_\mu: 1 \to 1[/math]

Rationalizing the Standard Model Uploaded with ImageShack.us Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMiscellaneous Note: Amongst standard particles (not including Force Carrying bosons), only those with energy have mass (cf. photons), only those with mass have Electric Charge (cf. neutrinos), and only those with Electric Charge have Color Charge (cf. electrons). If "mass" is some special sort of "energy", then perhaps "electric charge" is some special sort of "mass", and "color charge" is some special sort of "electric charge". This sounds somewhat like some sort of "evolutionary hierarchy".

EDIT: This site shows what Wave Functions look like, in 1D Square Well potentials (amongst many others). You can see, that they progressively "poof out", "laterally", as their energies increase. (This can only be qualitative, as the simulation assumes that the particle's rest-mass energy (me = 511 KeV) is (effectively) infinite compared to its excitation energy (few eV). But hyperspatially excited, "higher generation" particles, have measured masses many thousands of times larger than their original rest-masses. To explain these dramatic energy increases, whilst accommodating only a finite number of bound states (three "generations"), apparently requires a much "deeper" potential well, which would also be noticeably narrower.) EDIT to EDIT: As seen in said simulations, from the afore-cited site, the second bound states (= 1st excited state, above ground state) have two peaks in their Wave Functions, whilst the third bound states have three peaks in their Wave Functions. EDIT to EDIT to EDIT: Roughly speaking, the (main) difference, between successive "generations" of quarks, is an electron or positron, as seen in the following figure, from Frank Close's Particle Physics (pg. 100): Perhaps, then, roughly speaking, higher "generations" of quarks actually absorb electrons & positrons, in a "hyperspatial super-position", a little like a stack of dinner plates. During (alleged) hyper-spatial de-excitation, those electrons & positrons are re-emitted, in an order determined by Electro-static repulsion (e.g. an Up quark (+2/3) "stacked" with an Electron (-1) & Positron (+1), for a net positive charge of +2/3, would naturally first re-emit the positively charged Positron, b/c of the mutual repulsion).

Thanks for the information. Do I understand correctly, then, that only highly relativistic Muons could, conceivably, decay into quarks ([math]\mu \rightarrow \nu_{\mu} + d\bar{u}[/math]) ? The Muon Neutrino preserves Lepton Number, whilst the quark/anti-quark pair produce no new net Baryon (Quark) Number ?

Can Muons ever decay into Quarks, along the lines of: Muon ---> Muon_Neutrino + ( W- ---> down + anti-up ) ??

If photons (zero rest mass) have no anti-particle, do Particle / Anti-Particle pairs necessarily have rest mass ? For example, that Anti-Neutrinos exist demands that Neutrinos have rest mass ??

Would a (hyperspatially) "thick" spacetime fabric be harder to "fold", a little like a thick sheet of rubber being harder to fold than a thin tablecloth ?? If so, could the (hyperspatial) "thickness" of spacetime, help support itself, against gravitational collapse ?? (This theory would predict a lower bound on possible Black Holes masses, which would indicate the "thickness" of spacetime.) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Hyperspatially excited" particles are "thicker" in hyperspatial dimension ? Extreme "lateral" compression, through space, causes particles to "poof out" through hyperspatial dimension -- thereby being equivalent to "hyperspatial excitation" ?? Could this explain Quark Stars ???

Matter vs. Anti-Matter asymmetry stems from "global" Curvature (Topology) of Spacetime ? Does matter / anti-matter symmetry assume, implicitly, that spacetime is "globally" flat ?? If so, could it be, that the highly curved state, of a hyper-spherical "closed" cosmos, or hyperbolic "open" cosmos, soon after the Big Bang, would favor one form of matter over the other -- perhaps b/c matter & anti-matter "protrude" from spacetime in "opposite directions" (as per PP) ?? If so, by appealing to non-flat spacetime fabrics, as the "backdrop" for early Cosmological phenomena, perhaps the preference for matter over anti-matter amounts to convincing evidence, that the Cosmos is, in fact, closed ?? (Furthermore, perhaps matter / anti-matter symmetry would imply "flat" spacetime, and anti-matter / matter asymmetry would imply "open" spacetime ??)

All of the "decay" processes, from 2nd-3rd generation particles, "down" to 1st generation particles, seem to involve the Weak Force and its W-bosons. Any "hyperspace" interpretation, of the same, would seemingly require, therefore, that the Weak Force, and its W-bosons, are what moderate the "hyperspatial (de-)excitation" process (as photons moderate the "spatial (de-)excitation" process of electrons in atoms).

Hyperspace "(Hydraulic) Jack" If Muons & Taus are really "Hyper-spatially puffed up" particles, then they might "puff apart" Spacetime, in the Hyper-spatial dimension. And then, by "pushing apart" the "opposite surfaces / skins" of Spacetime, the presence of Hyper-spatially "puffed-up" particles might make it energetically easier, for normal particles, placed between them, to "puff up" themselves. If so, then in regions of space which were (densely) occupied by Muons & Taus (say), regular Electrons could be "excited" into Muon & Tau states, at lower energies. Indeed, regular electrons might naturally "expand to fill the available Hyper-volume", and "puff up". Such electrons, as they expanded along the hyper-spatial dimension, might (say) shrink slightly along the standard-spatial dimensions. Or, such electrons, being "puffed up", might be more "rarified" and transparent, to traversing photons propagating through them. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I must have mis-spoken somewhere -- I am herein hypothesizing the existence of a "Hyper-potential", along the "Hyper-space" dimension ("w"), which Hyper-potential binds matter into Spacetime. Were such the case, the "ground states" of said Hyper-potential would be "normal" matter particles (e.g., electrons), whereas the "excited states" of said Hyper-potential would be "strange" matter particles (e.g., Muons & Taus). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I didn't see what you were saying. What about the following interpretation ("folding in" the W- boson, as it were): [math]u = u[/math] [math]d = u + e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}}[/math] Now, the suggestion is, that a "strange" quark, is really a "Hyper-excited down" quark: [math]s = d^{*}[/math] so that: [math]s = d^{*} = \left( u + e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}} \right)^{*}[/math] [math] = u^{*} + (e^{-})^{*} + (\bar{\nu_{e}})^{*}[/math] [math] = c + \mu^{-} + \bar{\nu_{\mu}}[/math] Now, it is known, that: [math]s \rightarrow d = u + e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}} = u + \left( e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}} \right)[/math] So, what if the decay "really is" straight from [math]s \rightarrow d[/math], but, that decay is so energetic, that the [math]\left( e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}} \right)[/math] are "blasted free & clear", completely, "automatically sundering" the [math]d[/math] into its constituent component parts, in a "fragmentary decay" (as it were), "leaving behind" the [math]u[/math], far from the fast fleeing [math]\left( e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}} \right)[/math] ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis analysis does not seemingly supply a satisfactory "natural" explanation, for why a supposedly (hyper-)excited quark, does not simply decay, into a similar sort of quark, plus a pair of photons (say), as is the case with electron de-excitation in atoms. The only "natural" caveat, is that electron de-excitation in atoms, represents the contraction of an electron's Wave Function through (standard) space... whereas the supposed "hyper-de-excitation", of high generation particles, represents the contraction, of the Wave Function, through the hyper-spatial dimension. Indeed, I can quote from Frank Close's Particle Physics (pp. 93-98): Thus, that higher generation quarks, are "the same" as first generation quarks, save for differences of mass-energy... and that they "decay" back down into 'conventional' first generation particles... sounds suspiciously similar to standard excitation / de-excitation, of electrons in atoms (say). According to Wikipedia, Muons do decay directly into electrons. So, perhaps a "bare" higher-generation quark, would also decay directly into its first-generation kin... but the perpetual presence of quarks, bound tightly with other quarks, dramatically affects the Physics ?? Perhaps the presence of Strong Force interactions, dominates the decay process, "deflecting" the decay of higher-generation quarks, in such a way, that they can no longer decay directly into their lower-generation kin ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAssuming some sort of "symmetry", if higher-generation particles really represent "hyper-spatially excited" states of first-generation particles... then the Muon & Tauon Neutrinos should also, seemingly, similarly be "excited hyper-states" of Electron Neutrinos. And, if "hyper-excited" quarks & electrons decay back down into their first-generation ground states... then their should also, seemingly, be some sort of process producing the 'decay' [math]\nu_{\mu, \tau} \rightarrow \nu_{e}[/math]. Now, this sounds strikingly similar to Neutrino Oscillation... except that their seemingly "should" be some sort of ultimate preference, for electron neutrinos (unless, for some strange reason, hyper-excited (electron) neutrinos cannot "radiate away" their excess energy, and so are, for said strange reason, actually stable particles). According to this site: If there really was some sort of process, along the lines of [math]\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e} + \gamma[/math], then one ought to be able to observe the "spontaneous generation" of light (photons), by (invisible) neutrinos (unless, for some strange reason, photons are precluded from participation in "hyper-spatial de-excitations"). Perhaps a muon neutrino beam could be directed out towards an orbiting space satellite, or a detector mounted on the moon, which would look for, not neutrinos, but (appropriate) photons -- to wit, (essentially) shining a muon neutrino beam at an optical telescope. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor higher-generation quark decay, could you make an analogy, to Black Hole Radiation, via Pair Production(s), plus "partial capture" of half of the produced pairs, plus the rejection of the rest: [math]s = d^{*}[/math] [math]s \rightarrow s + (e^{+} + e^{-}) + (\nu_{e} + \bar{\nu_{e}})[/math] [math] = (s + e^{+} + \nu_{e}) + (e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}})[/math] [math]= (d^{*} + e^{+} + \nu_{e}) + (e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}})[/math] [math]= (d + e^{+} + \nu_{e}) + energy + (e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}})_{bound}[/math] [math]= u + (e^{-} + \bar{\nu_{e}})_{free}[/math] ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If all proto-baryonic matter, in the early universe, was composed of Bottom & Top quarks... which show a (comparatively) strong CP-violating preference for matter over anti-matter... and then they "hyper-de-excited" down into Strange & Charmed quarks, which still show some CP-violating preference for matter over anti-matter... could that explain the observed cosmic preference for matter over anti-matter ?? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If a hyper-spatially "puffed up" particle were to de-excite, and "deflate", the "upper skin" of spacetime would have to "fall downwards", whilst the "lower skin" of spacetime would have to "rise upwards". These changes in curvature, would correspond (respectively) to an "upwards protruding particle" of matter, and a "downwards dimpling particle" of anti-matter (assuming some sort of "spacetime curvature conservation" requirement): Uploaded with ImageShack.us

What if they started slow -- what if many were made, "at rest", by the Big Bang ??

An electron, in a 1D Square Well potential ? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged On second thought, it seems much more reasonable, rather, that Gravitons might be "Curvature Quanta", and not Neutrinos (since they seem to be such, by definition).

Please provide an example, of a "fundamental" particle, whose properties change, in a fundamental way, when the particle is put in an excited state. Naively, the only difference between a ground-state electron, and an excited electron, is energy... and that is also, seemingly, the only difference between a "ground-state Up-quark" (Up), and its (hypothesized) "excited hyper-states" (Up, Charm, Top). True. I'm merely mentioning, that, apart from being much more massive, 2nd & 3rd generation quarks are fundamentally the same as 1st generation quarks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMatter vs. Anti-Matter asymmetry stems from "global" Curvature (Topology) of Spacetime ? Does matter / anti-matter symmetry assume, implicitly, that spacetime is "globally" flat ?? If so, could it be, that the highly curved state, of a hyper-spherical "closed" cosmos, or hyperbolic "open" cosmos, soon after the Big Bang, would favor one form of matter over the other -- perhaps b/c matter & anti-matter "protrude" from spacetime in "opposite directions" (as per PP) ?? For example, imagine a small, compact, and highly curved sphere, representing a (2D projection of) a closed cosmos. Perhaps, in such a super-curved condition, matter-like "anomalies" (for lack of a better generic term) would tend strongly to "buckle outwards", into "exterior Hyperspace", much as the fraying strands of a highly bent & bowed piece of wood, tend strongly to splay "outwards", away from the Center of Curvature. Conversely, it could (conceivably) have been practically impossible, for matter-like "anomalies" to actually "dimple inwards", towards the Center of Curvature, in "interior Hyperspace". If so, by appealing to non-flat spacetime fabrics, as the "backdrop" for early Cosmological phenomena, perhaps the preference for matter over anti-matter amounts to convincing evidence, that the Cosmos is, in fact, closed ?? (Furthermore, perhaps matter / anti-matter symmetry would imply "flat" spacetime, and anti-matter / matter asymmetry would imply "open" spacetime ??)

The only difference between a particle, in its ground state, and the same particle, in an excited state, is energy. That is all that separates "Up-series" & "Down-series" quarks from each other. Color Charge, for example, is unaffected by the Beta Decays. Other than (rest-mass) energy, there are no fundamental differences between quarks of the same "series" -- completely consistent with their interpretation as ground, singly excited, & doubly excited states of the same basic particles. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnti-Matter protrudes from fabric of spacetime "in other direction" ?? According to Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension by Rudolf v.B. Rucker, two "bumps" or "hills", protruding from the fabric of spacetime, but in opposite directions, would cancel out, when they met. Such could, conceivably, explain "matter" vs. "anti-matter": Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In rather rough terms, the difference between an Up quark, and Down quark, is an electron. So, "Up-series" quarks (Up, Charm, Top) can decay, via Beta Decay ([math]\beta^{+}, \beta^{-}[/math]), into "Down-series" quarks, et vice versa. After two such Beta Decays, the only difference is energy ([math]\beta^{+} + \beta^{-} \rightarrow energy[/math]). Frank Close. Particle Physics: A Very Short Introduction, pg. 100. Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Spacetime isn't "rubber", but "barely bendable armor plate" Consider the Curvature, imposed into spacetime, by the Earth. The Schwarzschild Radius of the Earth is roughly 1 cm. And, as a (rather) rough estimate, of the depth of the "dimple", in the fabric of spacetime, caused by the Earth, we can calculate a figure from Flamm's Paraboloid: [math]w \approx 2 R_{S} \sqrt{\frac{r}{R_{S}}}[/math] [math]w(R_{\oplus}) \approx 20 m[/math] Uploaded with ImageShack.us Imagine building a bridge, whose span was nearly 13,000 km (the diameter of the Earth), and which "sagged" solely 20 meters (!!). That's not like "rubber"... but "high tensile neutronium armor plate" (as it were). CONCLUSION: Curvature causes Gravity. Gravity is the weakest, of the Four Fundamental Forces, b/c of the strength of spacetime. If spacetime really was rubber-like, then matter could cause much greater curvatures -- even a bowling ball would create considerable curvature -- and Gravity would be much much stronger than seen.

Perhaps the extreme compression of matter, inside gravitationally bound compact objects, could "pressure excite" matter, into "excited Hyper-states". If so, all the electrons & down quarks, inside a neutron star (say), might become muons / taus & strange / bottom quarks.