derek w

you point out that a force of +1 balanced by a force of -1.The difference is 2.What is the significance of 8. If the +1 and -1 are phase shifted the +1 would be opposite -7,and the -1 would be opposite +7,giving the difference of 8. If you have a dense area of quantum foam +1 that is creating matter at the rate of 10^6/sec,and a dense area -1 that is in same place at same time then they create and annihilate. By phase shifting I can have a dense area of quantum foam +6/6 creating matter at rate of 10^6 and an area of quantum foam -2/6 that is not in same place at same time,which will annihilate at rate of 10^6/sec,leaving +4/6 charge. (uud) = +6/6 excess charge radiates outward unless balanced by (-7/6 : +1/6) phase shifted area of quantum foam(or plasma not sure of the difference).

you are still not considering the idea of a phase shift on a polarized triangular transverse wave. if we say that matter and anti-matter in the same place at same time will annihilate. but if phase shifted they would never be in same place at same time. ok.I have been on internet and found the correct term for my phase shift it is "quadrature amplitude modulation" QAM for short.QAM uses a square of 2 e.g(2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256) lower modulations are less susceptible to interference from back ground noise. in my model I have used an 8 bit QAM,not that I realised what I was doing at the time.Although maybe it is 16 bit because I have 8 positive and 8 negative values.

I could put in following values as a force:- (u) = (+1.26 x 10^6) : (-.41 x 10^) = gap of 8(.21 x 10^6) = (1.68 x 10^6) or (u) = (+2.52 x 10^6) : (-.82 x 10^6) = gap of 8(.42 x 10^6) = (3.28 x 10^6) (d) = (+1.56 x 10^6) : (-2.6 x 10^6) = gap of 8(.52 x 10^6) = (4.08 x 10^6) or (d) = (+2.16) x 10^6) : (-3.6 x 10^6) = gap of 8(.72 x 10^6) = (5.76 x 10^6) interesting that using the same ratio of u=(+1 : -1/3) and d =(+1/2 : -5/6) I can produce the various masses of up and down quarks in MeV/c2 the ratio is produced by phase shifting 2 polarized triangular waves (with 8 discrete positive steps and 8 discrete negative steps) by 1/4 of a cycle.

newtons third law of motion,a force in one direction must be met by an equal and opposite force(page 1 of my thread). a force 0f +4 in one direction is met by an equal and opposite force in opposite direction -4.Producing a potential energy gap of 8. two forces of +3-5 must be met by equal and opposite -3+5. which can be achieved by phase shifting a transverse wave. be it (+3/6 : -5/6) or (+3 : -5) or (3x10^7 : -5x10^7)

the potential energy gap between any 2 points on the phase shifted waves would have a ratio of 8:- (+8-0) = gap of 8 (+7-1) = gap of 8 (+6-2) = gap of 8 (+5-3) = gap of 8 (+4-4) = gap of 8 (+3-5) = gap of 8 (+2-6) = gap of 8 (+1-7) = gap of 8 (+0-8) = gap of 8 (+3-5) +(+5-5) = potential gap 18 which can produce:- (+6 -2) + (+1-7) +(+1-1) down quark + photon produces:- up quark + electron + neutrino the photon had an energy gap of 10 produced by a different phase shift

polarized photons?which article?

I am going to study phase shifts in waves,I am wondering if it is possible for the expanding big bang to cause phase shifts of energy waves in the quantum foam on the expanding event horizon,splitting positive side of wave from negative side. +8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1+0 .-0-1-2.-3-4-5.-6-7-0

But I have stopped thinking in terms of particles and started thinking in terms of energy.

that's the title of my thread "maths equation / does it have meaning" So far I have tried stringing ideas together namely:- Newtons third law of motion and particle entanglement and quantum foam and so far no one has objected but on the other had no one has commented you asked me what is their significance.If you want to rationalize that quarks and electrons are fundamental particles then they probable do not have significance. If I want to rationalize that quarks and electrons are not fundamental,then I would start with the above ratio as being significant.

but your up quark would then be +1 -7/27 = +20/27 your not creating an equal and opposite mirror image using discrete units. I was using 8 discrete units of 1/6 you were using 23 units of 1/27 for down quark and you would have to use 36 discrete units of 1/27 (+1 -9/27) for up quark to equal +2/3

17/27th -16/27th does not equal -1/3rd. the ratio of numbers I have put in is the only ratio that i can make fit to produce the result that 2 up quarks and 1 down quark would have a positive charge of +1. any number can be put in as long as its in the ratio 0f:- +1 : -1/3 -1 : +1/3 +5/6 : -1/3 -5/6 : +1/3

A positive proton and negative electron,are attracted towards each other it takes energy to keep them apart,photon provides non charged energy,to push them apart.

I think the hawkins effect was with high energy photons,producing electron-positron pairs near the E/H of a black hole.A neutrino would not have enough energy to produce up quark plus electron,where as a down quark does.

If quantum foam consists of very small energy fluctuations between positive and negative,which occur once then disappear but reappear somewhere else,thereby conserving the same energy level.Then an area of dense quantum foam,with a much higher amplitude of oscillation between positive and negative,that oscillates continuously at a high frequency.However i am not saying this is possible or not,but i can state my maths equation as:- A ratio of amplitude of charge positive to negative:- u = (+1 -1/3) = sum of amplitude of charge +2/3 d = (-5/6 +1/2) = sum of amplitude of charge -1/3 producing equal and opposite:- -u = (-1 +1/3) = -2/3 -d = (+5/6 -1/2) = +1/3 (u+u+u) = sum amplitude of charge = +2 (u+u+d) = sum amplitude of charge = +1 (u+d+d) = sum amplitude of charge = 0 (d+d+d) = sum amplitude of charge = -1 e = -1 p = +1 (u+u+d) + e = 0 (-u + -u + -d) + p = 0

no.My understanding is that waves have frequency and amplitude,but in light the amplitude has a constant of "h",therefore the higher the frequency the more energy.The amplitude is always "h"? In musical instruments the amplitude of a wave depends on size of instrument,therefore the constant "h" is related to the the size of the big bang.In another universe with a bigger big bang,amplitude would be "h+"?Or am i misunderstanding something.

Yes their the ones that produce electron positron pairs.There are some really weird video animations of fly through 4-D torus on the internet.And "Dirac operator zero-modes on a torus" is there a simple explanation?

I have a question.Can a 4 dimensional clifford torus produce a 3 dimensional quark?

I am sticking with the need for a 4th dimension.A 4th dimension would have the geometry of a n-torus(mobius strip). Energy would have positive flow from 4th dimension to central point of positive particle in 3rd dimensions,the energy would have to come in pulses so as to produce a frequency.The energy would then radiate outwards,while permeating back to 4th dimension as negative flow.Torus geometry creates a negative flow to central point of negative anti-particle,in pulses,radiates outwards and permeates back as positive flow to 4th dimension,back round to central point of positive particle.particles that interact would be entangled. n- torus,double n- torus and triple n- torus,producing quarks,mesons and baryons.Doughnut torus has an aspect ratio of 2/3. ratio of charges:- ........up quark(+1-1/3) = +2/3 down quark(+3/6-5/6) = -1/3 n-torus geometry produces:- ........anti-up(-1+1/3) = -2/3 anti-down(-3/6+5/6) = +1/3 Not that I understand the maths of n-torus geometry.So the question is would it work? When I say permeating back to 4th dimension I am thinking of Dr Rocket's quote(a mathematical condition related to having holes) at a very small scale.And I think 4 dimensional space might have geometry of a clifford sphere(which gives me a headache just looking at it).

photons can have varying energy levels.A photon with insufficient energy cannot produce an electron positron pair.A photon with exactly enough energy can produce electron positron pair but would not be able to impart any kinetic energy,therefore they cannot separate.But a higher energy photon can produce electron positron pair,and impart kinetic energy into them.Does the energy levels of the photon go up or down in discrete values dependant on their source?Ah,think I already know the answer,atoms emit photons of different frequency.

You need a fourth dimension,so you can have waves of energy pulsing in at centre,flowing outward and back into fourth dimension.Frequency of wave pulses determines how much energy photon has.That's just an idea,wonder if there is an existing theory?I will have to see if i can find one.

In an atom positive energy seems to congregate at the centre,while negative energy congregates in outer shells.If a photon of sufficient energy can produce an electron and positron,does a photon consist of energy oscillating from positive at centre to negative in an outer shell.When a photon produces an electron and positron pair,are they still entangled with the energy oscillating from positive(positron) to negative(electron). I had a fish pond once with a fountain in the centre of it, water use to get pumped out of it,then flow back to the drain and get recirculated,the pump had a revolving propeller that revolved at a certain frequency.

A photon is a packet of energy surrounded by nothingness,Its energy cannot radiate outwards into nothing so its energy is trapped in its own bubble.But you can have a wave of bubbles radiating outwards,each bubble interacts with other bubbles it collides with.As you say a photon is not the smallest unit of energy,there can be smaller amounts of energy trapped in their own bubbles surrounded by nothingness. "Coaxing" photons out of a vacuum,would be a case of energy being input to smaller bubbles to increase their energy levels.An imploding wave of small bubbles colliding at a focal point interact to form a larger bubble of energy.

So we should stop thinking of space as a vacuum,its not,its a quantum foam it has structure?Gluons would be highly dense quantum foam? The idea of the hypothetical mirror spinning at speed of light,is that it would focus quantum fluctuations into a single point? Is this the thread of thought you are going down?I like it.

the ultimate free lunch (0 = +1 -1),is the best theory i have heard.

Sounds like someone has taken the idea of particle entanglement to extreme.