derek w

I would state it as a minimum energy/density require to produce particles.Energy being concentrated on the E-axis,e.g if 2 photons collide they will only produce an electron/positron pair if the original photons had enough energy,and the collision will force that energy onto the E-axis.Plus enough kinetic energy to separate electron & positron in 3D space. Acceleration creates an increase in relativistic mass/virtual mass,because acceleration requires an input of energy,I would express it as energy is dilute mass,and particles are concentrated energy,and that energy concentrated on the E-axis warps 3D space.And Einsteins theory is that gravity is a warping of space. Its not that I am trying to convince you that there is an E-axis,but that it seems easier for me to understand the physics if I imagine an E-axis.I am not so much trying to prove an E-axis,but trying to find a reason to object to it. To make an analogy,I would say that it is like a puppet on strings,the puppet moving in 3 dimensions but the energy is in the strings(the stings being the E-axis).Oscillations in the strings(E-axis) producing 3 dimensional oscillations,but unlike the puppet,3D space can be warped/pulled into the E-axis.

If I introduce spin on the E-axis centrifugal force creating 2 holes in 3D space,one hole on the plus E-axis and one hole on the negative E-axis.Local 3D space becoming charge the opposite. ............(+) ......(+)......(+) ...........(e-) ......(+)......(+) ............(+) ............(-) .......(-).......(-) ...........(e+) .......(-).......(-) ............(-) angular momentum on E-axis=zero angular momentum on x,y,z axis becomes greater than zero positive and negative holes would collapse into each other. positive and positive would repel negative and negative would repel positive-negative-positive creating a balance(2 positives spinning around a negative) negative-positive-negative creating a balance(2 negatives spinning around a positive)

I notice your arrows are flipping over to form a mobius strip is there a reason for this?

question?Is total amount of energy in universe at present equal to total amount of energy released in big bang. Virtual particles must be sharing the energy from their source.Or is the universe gaining energy.

I was thinking more along the lines of an aether that was stationary in respect to itself,not to anything else.An elastic aether that can be forced to warp,but return to its original status upon release(e.g.elastic).

Is my understanding correct that the Michelson-Morley experiment was an attempt to prove the existence or non-existence of a moving aether.And the result is it proves the non-existence of a moving aether.But what about the existence of a stationary aether?Relativity works ok in a stationary aether,or am I missing some point?

the acceleration that you are talking about is too small,the acceleration in the large hadron Collider at C.E.R.N is produced by the input of vast amounts of energy,the nearer you get to the speed of light the more energy you need to input,because the mass increases,as the mass increases the energy required to accelerate increases exponentially,which in turn increases the mass.By the time the particles are ready to be collided their mass has been increased by a factor of 700 times their original mass.After the collision a vast number of particles are created,most of which are very short lived.

Yes your right about my assumption,but trying to pull 2 quarks apart,e.g quark and anti-quark,the energy gets converted into producing 2 new quarks.The principle being that the force between matter and anti-matter separation does not diminish with distance,and that converting energy into mass becomes easier than pulling them apart. Attempting to accelerate a mass to the speed of light produces the same effect,it becomes easier to create mass than to accelerate,most of the energy gets converted to mass rather than velocity,massive particles decay into smaller mass particles. If photons gain to much energy,by colliding or some other input,they create electron/positron + kinetic energy. If you have energy on E axis e.g 10^18 x h+/2 (with 0 dimension in 3D space x,y,z axis). Then at radius 0(on x,y,z axis) energy = (10^18 x h+/2)/0^3 positive at radius 1 = (10^8 x h-/2)/1^3 negative at radius 2 = (10^8 x h+/2)/2^3 positive at radius 3 = (10^8 x h-/2)/3^3 negative at radius 4 = (10^8 x h+/2)/4^3 positive at radius 5 = (10^8 x h-/2)/5^3 negative etc. forming weaker and weaker shells outward down to virtual particles.

If an oscillating point like particle,creates a field of virtual particles,which come into existence then disappear again.Then two particles in close proximity,will create fields,the strongest field fluctuations being in a straight line between them,like strings.Trying to pull an up quark and down quark apart adds energy to the field/string stretching it until the field gains enough energy to create another pair of quarks up/down + field energy + kinetic energy. I am working on the premise that virtual particles are similar to particles but have insufficient energy to exist as particles.If they gain enough energy then virtual particles can become particles.

What is Cherenkov radiation?

..............(+).......................................(-) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-) ..............(e-)....................................(e+) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-)......(-) ..............(+).......................................(-) ............+4/6......................................-4/6 ..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+) ..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+) ..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+) .............+4/6.....................................-2/6......................................+4/6 ..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-) ..............(e-).....................................(e+).....................................(e-)...............(e+) .........(+)......(+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-).......(-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+-)(-+)(+).......(+)(+-)(-).......(-) ..............(+).......................................(-).......................................(+).................(-) ............+4/6.......................................-2/6.................................................+2/6

You could say that the energy is borrowed from the electron & proton,the field of virtual particles would be part and parcel of the electron & proton(travelling with them),the virtual particles being created and annihilated constantly. The force of attraction being created by the virtual particle field not the electron & proton?

when you say "mimic the motion",does this mean that the negative side of the virtual particles orbit around the positive side? Plus would there be a resistance to the creation of virtual particles,at a certain distance the energy level becomes to low to overcome the resistance,creating a cut of point beyond which no virtual particles are created. So as the negative side of the virtual particle gains angular momentum(having a radius of 1),while the positive side does not(having a radius of 0).

Question.you say"flitting back-and-forth between them" increase in ("borrowed") energy. Where is the energy being borrowed from?You must have conservation of energy?

I think Max Planck understood your theory better than you do.

Planck time assumes that,the vacuum of space is a matrix,like a 3 dimensional chess board,planck time being the time it takes to move from one square to the next.Except that in 3 dimensional space the squares would be individual oscillators. So you would have a minimum planck time and a minimum planck distance,motion would occur in ultra fast steps. Planck time being 10^-43 seconds. However the smallest time step measured is 12 x 10^-18 (10^24 x Planck time).

Plus the fact that you input a lot of energy that gets converted into mass.BY the time the particles collide their mass has increased greatly.

There is a concept of vacuum energy and virtual particles.Which seems to be a basic principle of quantum theory. The mass of oscillating particles that make up the magnet,cause the vacuum energy to oscillate creating virtual particles,the virtual particles would be matter/anti matter and annihilate.How this model goes from this to magnetic attraction I don't understand.But its away of explaining the creation of a local magnetic field.

Quote from:- Brookhaven National Laboratory news. Article title:-RHIC scientists serve up "perfect" liquid. This is just a part of the article:- That evidence comes from measurement of unexpected patterns in the trajectories taken by the thousands of particles produced in individual collisions.The measurements indicate that the primordial particles produced in the collisions tend to move collectively in response to variations of pressure across the volume formed by the colliding nuclei.Scientists refer to this phenomenon as "flow",since it is analogous to the properties of fluid motion. However unlike ordinary liquids in which individual molecules move about randomly,the hot matter formed at RHIC seems to move in a pattern that exhibits a high decree of coordination among the particles--somewhat like a school of fish that responds as one entity while moving through a changing environment. Question:-These articles were dated 2005,has there been any further developments,I can't find any newer information on the subject of this "perfect" liquid?

Unless you can find a way of separating quarks without inputting energy,otherwise the energy you input is absorbed and creates new quarks rather than separating quarks. I have another question?What happens if you input another energy to strain the gluon quark bond,but insufficient to create new quarks.What happens to the excess energy,it has nowhere to go,or does it dissipate,or do you then have a higher energy meson?

PaulWDent.Your analogy with the stream of cars accelerating is wrong.The cars would not move,the road would be like a giant elastic band that is being stretched,and the cars would move away from each other because the road is expanding,and the rate at which the road expands would be accelerating.

Brookhaven physicist Samuel Aronson said that having established the quark-gluon-liquid nature of the pre-protonic universe,RHIC expected to plumb the liquids properties,such as its heat capacity and its reaction to shock waves.The liquid is dense but seems to flow with little viscosity.It flows so freely that it approximates an ideal,or perfect,fluid,the kind governed by the standard laws of hydrodynamics.At least in its flow properties the quark liquid is therefore a classical liquid and should not be confused with a superfluid,whose flow properties(including zero viscosity),are dictated by quantum mechanics.

immijimmi.When you say "I really don't understand what you mean now".The point is it's just a model of what is known.The reason that billions of pounds is being spent on particle accelerator experiments is because nobody really knows for sure.That's my understanding of the situation,please correct me if I am wrong. And your thread has gone from virtual photons to photons.You started the thread with virtual photons.

yeh.sorry.From that article in (contents:- 3.experimental situation) I went to the link for a summary see(2005 RHIC Assessment).and another external link the article from your suggested article was(Physics news update article on the quark-gluon liquid).

ok.I been reading the above mentioned article.The quark gluon plasma is produced at temperatures of approx 4 triillion degrees,which I assume apart from the big bang would not occur naturally any where else in the universe.Plus it also says that theoretically at some much higher temperature there would be a state of matter where there would be no difference between the plasma and the quarks. question.Am I right in that the plasma is being thought of as some kind of super dense liquid(or perfect dense fluid),which condenses as it cools producing quarks and gluons.