derek w

yeh,sorry Michel I was not having a go at you,I was having a go at the way acceleration is expressed as m/s^2.It gives no indication of how much time is spent accelerating. Where as m/s x t.where t = the amount of time spent accelerating makes more sense to me. e.g. an acceleration of 10 metres per second for 10 seconds.Just seems more meaningful. Therefore I agree with your question "when we are measuring square seconds we are measuring what?"

Mathematic you say " your not sure what point I am trying to make?". to explain I'll give an analogy with Velcro,where the force that binds Velcro together is a collective force,each separate hook and eye is not bound by an individual strong force,but by a collective strong force. Within the first second of the big bang all the quarks where bound together,I am trying to understand if it is a collective strong force that confines them,or is it an individual strong force? And thanks mrs.Warren I will do as you suggest.

Sorry Michel but,you asked the question "when we measure square seconds we measure what"? I was simply giving a suggestion of what square seconds would be.

But you still end up with quarks that are bound(confined),no individual quarks existing separate.And that is a mechanism,which I don't understand,but I feel it should be telling us something about the structure of the universe.

Without intelligent beings that have the ability to study and use there imagination,to understand the universe the universe would be a pointless entity,of no value to anyone.Time would not exist because it is a figment of our imagination,a concept that we use to help us understand what we perceive.And my question would be,are physicists the best people to explain our existence.They maybe taking us in the wrong direction who knows?

10 seconds in 10 different universes =10^2=100 seconds.

It should be written as per second(m/s) not s^2. s^2 implies multi universes.

The good thing about having an E-axis,is that all sub atomic particles can de described as being dimensionless on the(x.y.z)=0 and (e)=+h or -h x (frequency),with all particles in the universe converging at point e=0.Therefore all particles have access to an nearly infinite source of energy,which is equal to zero. e.g. a meson consisting of an up quark and a anti-up quark.If we try to pull the 2 quarks apart,because they converge going from points (+h and -h) on the E-axis to a point at e=0,when pulled apart on the(x.y.z.) axis,they split at a point when e=(+2h and -2h) creating 2 new quarks,while the original quarks can snap back together (x.y.z)=0:e=+h and -h.where as the 2 new quarks would be e=+h and -h,but separated on (x,y,z) >< 0.

Yes,you create 2 new quarks,because it requires less energy to do that,than to separate the original quarks.But the original quarks never get separated,so you can't say that it doesn't take an infinite amount of energy to separate the original 2 quarks,that is not proven. In the big bang theory one of the first things that happens is that the quarks are bound together,seemingly forever.To have a theory and an understanding of how the universe works,the fact that the quarks are confined must be of great significance.

quote:- Confinement,which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated.Because of this,it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks;they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Yet an up quark and an anti-up quark,annihilate producing a gluon which then produces a top quark and an anti-top quark. MY question is if it takes an infinite amount of energy to separate 2 quarks,where do you get 2 free quarks to annihilate and produce top quarks that are separated,does it take an infinite amount of energy to separate top quarks? An infinite amount of energy would imply that separating 2 quarks would require the annihilation of the rest of the universe,leaving you with just 2 quarks.

I am very interested in what your saying sounds logical to me.But where are you reading this from,please can you give a source and more details.

I believe most events in particle physics could be explained as effects of an E-axis. e.g particle entanglement, where a photon produces an electron/positron pair.Because they were both created from the same E-axis(thread) they are the 2 ends of the same E-axis the positive and negative ends,with the energy still oscillating between them on a looped E-axis.Even if separated in 3 dimensional space,the separation on the E-axis would remain as (+h to -h) their amplitude. Another way to explain this idea would be to say that 3 dimensional space is made up of pixels(singularity points) each pixel being a point at which the E-axis crosses 3D space and each pixel can oscillate on the E-axis.But 3D space offers resistance to energy transfer from pixel to pixel. A photon given kinetic energy in 3D space,would travel as a mexican wave from pixel to pixel. there is an experiment here,if you could take a photon with enough energy,and produce an electron/positron pair,they should be entangled.If we separate them in 3D space by distance,then fire a photon at the electron so as to collide,energy from the impact should travel down the E-axis and effect the entangled positron,the energy of photon could be teleported along the E-axis and reappear at other end.

Three dimensional space has 3 axis (X,Y,Z),so to describe 4 dimensional space we can just add another axis (X,Y,Z and E). The E-axis appears to contain all the energy,e.g. if we have an oscillation on the E-axis with a frequency of (f) and amplitude of (h),it would only appear as a singular point in 3 dimensional space.The oscillations would cause the local 3d space to oscillate on the E-axis,the permittivity of 3d space(or resistance)would govern how far the oscillations spread out. A photon or any particle would have kinetic energy(in 3D space) + energy trapped on the E-axis.But even the kinetic energy would be a wave on the E-axis travelling through 3D space. If a photon has enough energy and assuming that energy will take the path with least resistance,creating a positron/electron pair must be the easy option.Having 2 separate oscillations on the E-axis E+ and E-,creating 2 smaller fields in 3D space rather than 1 larger field.

first you need to prove that there is such a thing as a solid object.I have seen nothing in particle physics that suggests the existence of solid objects.

If I have bricks that are black on 1 end and white on the other end,black on top and white on bottom,black on 1 face and white on other face.I can build 2 walls that are 2 layers thick,1 wall with all the black faces showing outward,and 1 wall with all the white faces showing outward.The black wall (I call a wall) the white wall (I call an anti-wall).The 2 walls are made of interchangeable parts. If a photon with enough energy can produce an electron/positron pair,can I say that a photon is an interchangeable part(that it is both a photon and anti-photon at the same time ?)

Just a thought that I have had. If the big bang started as a singularity and expands outward at the speed of light,it would expand out as a sphere(bubble).The sphere has a surface the event horizon(e/h). If the rate at which the big bang expands slows to less than the speed of light e.g. from 300,000,000m/s to say 299,999,999m/s the e/h can gain thickness at the rate of 1m/s,creating an expanding universe.2 spheres 1 inside the other,outer sphere expanding at speed of light,inner sphere decelerating,space between 2 spheres expands and the rate of expansion accelerates. As the big bang decelerates the rate of expansion of the universe(e/h) accelerates. Question do we need dark energy or dark matter to explain the accelerating expanding universe? energy of big bang = ( 7.166x10^39 x (12.57x10^24 metres^3)) x c^2

If you go along with big bang theory,where you start from a singularity,which expands outwards,then there would be an event horizon at outer edge of universe.Inside the event horizon time would be in the past,outside the event horizon would be future time,only the event horizon would be present time.Therefore there could be considered a flow of time across the event horizon. This implies that we are all living on the event horizon(the surface of the bubble). If the big bang expanded at the speed of light e.g 300,000,000m/sec the event horizon(e/h) would have no thickness,but if the rate of expansion slowed to 299,999,999 then the (e/h) could expand at rate of 1 metre/sec thickness,producing a 3 dimensional event horizon.

Time travels forward into the future,if we say that time zero(T0) is the present moment in time,but (T0) oscillates about zero.Then the oscillations would go back and forward in time,(in 2 directions).If we divide the oscillations into quantum units 2^q where q=any whole number.For the purpose of explaining my idea,I will use q=4,therefore 2^4 = 16,that is 8 steps forward in time and 8 steps backward in time plus 2 x (T0).Say that time oscillates about zero a rate of 10^-9 seconds.Then each quantum step would be one nano second/18.This could produce 9 layers of space at a single point(singularity).9 steps forward and 9 steps backward per cycle,each cycle being 1 nano second.One oscillation would go from T+4 to T+3,T+2,T+1,T=0,T-1,T-2,T-3,T-4,switch directions then T-4,T-3,T-2,T-1,T=0,T+1,T+2,T+3,T+4 then switch direction back to starting point. The 9 layers of space would be either going back in time(shrink) or going forward in time(expand). .....................shrink...............expand T+4...................0.......................+8 T+3..................-1.......................+7 T+2..................-2.......................+6 T+1..................-3.......................+5 T=0..................-4.......................+4 T-1...................-5.......................+3 T-2...................-6.......................+2 T-3...................-7.......................+1 T-4...................-8.........................0 The different layers would produce the spacial ratios:- T+4 produces photon that appears once every nano second as +8(spin1) T+3 produces positron that appears as -1 after 0.166 nano seconds then disappears 0.0555 nano seconds later,reappearing as +7 after 0.8325 nano seconds then disappearing again after 0.0555 nano seconds(spin1/2)taking 2 cycles to reproduce a repeat pattern. T+2 produces up quark that appears as -2 after 0.2775 nano seconds then disappears 0.0555 seconds later,reappearing as +6 after 0.721 nano seconds then disappearing again after 0.0555 nano seconds(spin1/2) T+1 producing anti-down quark -3:+5 (spin1/2) T=0 producing non polarized photon -4:+4(spin1) T-1 producing down quark -5:+3(spin(1/2) T-2 producing anti-up quark -6:+2(spin1/2) T-3 producing electron -7:+1(spin1/2) T-4 producing photon -8:0(spin1) These would be standing wave particles,free to move within their own layer of space. A photon travelling at the speed of light would appear as +8 disappear and reappear 0.3 metres away in a linear direction 1 nano second later.Making 10^9 steps of 0.3 metres to travel 300,000,000 metres in 1 second. Proton = (uud) = (-2:+6)(-2:+6)(-5:+3) = (-9:+15) = +6 displacement electron = (-7:+1) = -6 displacement neutron = (udd) = (-2:+6)(-5:+3)(-5:+3) = (-12:+12) = 0 displacement

If we have hydrogen atom and anti-hydrogen atom,we say one is matter and the other anti-matter.Is it assumed that if we break hydrogen down into it's constitute parts,that all these parts will be matter,and if we break anti-hydrogen down into it's constitute parts that all these parts will be anti-matter.My question is it only assumed? To say that the big bang produced equal amount of matter and anti-matter,but for some unknown reason when they annihilated there was an imbalance,leaving a small amount of matter left,this is an assumption.

Is the gist of this thread,that you do not need the existence of a physical world,you only need an information stream to create an illusion of a physical world.Or am I not understanding?

question?If a distant galaxy was made of anti-matter,would it be possible to tell the difference and how?

plank's constant h = 6.626(etc) let y=h/8 and plot on y axis vertical take the idea of a 6.6 volt a/c 2 phase motor,with a 90 degree phase shift,the current flow in the windings of the armatures is in opposite directions but reverses at 60hz.When the amplitude is rising in one direction it is falling in the opposite direction.Another way of looking at it is from one end,if the amplitude peak is 6.6volts that peak would be screwing towards you as a right hand screw,while the opposing peak would be screwing away from you as a left hand screw. I am trying to use this idea to create a model of matter and anti-matter,with matter having right hand energy and anti-matter left handed energy. plotting 1 cycle of the two waves with a 90 degree separation:- ...e.......d..........u ..............................+8...........................................................+8 ..........................+7....+7..................................................+7.....+7 ......................+6............+6..........................................+6.............+6 ..................+5....................+5..................................+5.....................+5 ..............+4............................+4..........................+4.............................+4 ..........+3....................................+3..................+3.....................................+3 ......+2............................................+2..........+2.............................................+2 ..+1....................................................+1..+1.....................................................+1 0.............................................................0.............................................................0 ................................0.............................................................0............................... ............................-1....-1...................................................-1....-1.......................... ........................-2............-2...........................................-2............-2....................... ....................-3....................-3...................................-3.....................-3..................... ................-4............................-4............................-4............................-4............... ............-5....................................-5...................-5.....................................-5........... .......-6.............................................-6...........-6............................................-6....... ...-7.....................................................-7...-7....................................................-7... -8...........................................................-8...........................................................-8 ....................................p.....-d.........-u..... e(electron)=(-7 x 10^9 x h/8 : +1 x 10^9 x h/8) but of course the frequency can change so i should say:- e = screw to left(-7 x f x h/8)(+1 x f x h/8)screw to right up = screw to right(+6 x f x h/8)(-2 x f x h/8)screw to left down = screw to left(-5 x f x h/8)(+3 x f x h/8)screw to right in the case of a swarm (energy)screw to left would cause swarm to spin to the left(anti-clockwise) and (energy)screw to right would cause swarm to spin to the right(clockwise)

sound very much like the threads I started "a twist on the standard model" and "maths equation". I would be interested in how you develop your idea. I see you started your thread 26 apr 2011.Before mine.

having had a near death experience, i can only say that when all else fails you can only OBSERVE.

you maybe right,but i am not ready to give up yet. Swarm theory traces it's roots back to the 1940's in a conjecture by john von neumann, that there might be a self-replicating automaton. so I am now studying swarm theory,but sticking with my ratio's e.g:- swarm of 600(+) and 200(-) = up quark swarm of 500(-) and 300(+) = down quark swarm of 600(-) and 200(+) = anti-up quark swarm of 500(+) and 300(-) = anti-down quark total swarm (up+up+down) = 1500(+) and 900(-) an electron would have to have an excess of 600(+) e.g. swarm of 600(+) or a swarm of 800(+) and 200(-) the swarm consisting of dense quantum foam or gluon's so far my internet search has led to the following topics:- charged system search(CSS) gravitational search algorithm particle swarm optimization(PSO) self propelled particles(SPP) the European space agency is thinking about an orbital swarm for self assembly and interferometry