Standard Model already reveals Hyperspace ?

[Widdekind]

Imagine some simple particle, like an electron (say), which was excited along the "hyperspatial" dimension. It would "look like" a regular electron, in terms of charge & spin (say), but the extra energy pumped into the particle, to "pump it up" into its excited hyper-state, would mimic more mass. Thus, a "hyper-excited" electron, would look like a particle having charge -1, and spin 1/2.... but much more mass...

 

to wit, it would look allot like a Muon (!!). Indeed, could not the whole Standard Model of Elementary Particles could be interpreted in terms of these "excited hyper-states", with the 2^nd & 3^rd "generations" of particles really representing the 2^nd & 3^rd bound-but-excited hyper-states ?? ???

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps put a bit boldly, assume as an Ansatz, that the "fabric", "film", or "membrane" of Spacetime exists at the bottom of a "Hyper-spatial Potential Well", along the "hyper-spatial dimension" (which we'll call "w"), perpendicular to Spacetime.

 

 

Then, one could perhaps apply the equations, of the standard QM 1D Square Well, in the analysis of these (purported) "bound Hyper-states" seen in the Standard Model.

 

Now, the (purported) "bound Hyper-states" of standard particles embody much more mass-energy than their corresponding ground states. For example, the Top quark, interpreted as the "second excited Hyper-state" of the Up quark, is over 71 thousand times more massive than its (purported) "ground state". So, seemingly, the "binding Hyper-energies" of standard particles dramatically dominate their mass-energies.

 

Therefore, when applying the equations, from the 1D Square Well, we would reasonably "recursively require", that the "ground Hyper-state" energy (E₀) is equal to the particle's apparent (rest-)mass-energy (m c²):

 

[math]k_{i} = \sqrt{\frac{2 m E_{i}}{\hbar^{2}}} = \sqrt{\frac{2 \; m c^{2} \; E_{i}}{\hbar^{2} c^{2}}}[/math]

 

[math]k_{0} = \sqrt{2} \frac{E_{0}}{\hbar c}[/math]

 

[math]k_{i} = k_{0} \sqrt{\frac{E_{i}}{E_{0}}}[/math]

 

Armed with this minor modification, we can write the 1D Square Well bound-energy-states equation as:

 

[math]tan\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) = \sqrt{\frac{V_{0}}{E_{i}} - 1} [/math]

 

[math]V_{0} = E_{i} \left( 1 + tan^{2}\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) \right) = E_{i} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{i} L}{2} \right) [/math]

 

We can compare the "ground Hyper-state" and "first excited Hyper-state" (e.g., Up & Charm quarks), to eliminate one unknown (V₀) and solve for the other (L):

 

[math]E_{0} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right) = V_{0} = E_{1} \; sec^{2}\left( \frac{k_{1} L}{2} \right)[/math]

 

[math]\sqrt{ \frac{E_{1}}{E_{0}}} \; cos\left( \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right) = cos\left( \sqrt{ \frac{E_{1}}{E_{0}}} \frac{k_{0} L}{2} \right)[/math]

 

Now, the energies of standard particles' "first excited Hyper-states" are much larger than their "ground Hyper-states" (E₁ >> E₀). Thus, in the equation above, the LHS is allot larger than the RHS, except near its zero(es). So, for all the precision possibly & plausibly extractable from these equations:

 

[math]\frac{k_{0} L}{2} \approx \frac{\pi}{2}[/math]

 

[math]L \approx \frac{\pi}{k_{0}} = \frac{\pi \hbar c}{\sqrt{2} E_{0}}[/math]

 

[math]L \approx \frac{h c}{2^{\frac{3}{2}} E_{0}}[/math]

 

Since standard First Generation particles', interpreted as their "ground Hyper-states", have (rest-)mass-energies ranging from roughly 0.5 to 5 MeV, this formula suggests that the "hyper-thickness" of Spacetime is roughly 0.1 - 1.0 pm (10^-13 - 10^-12 m).

 

However, the formula for the "hyper-potential energy" V₀ seems super-sensitive to the particulars of the parameters, and estimates seem to range from a few GeV to hundreds of TeV.

[Widdekind]

The positively charged Up quark, has fewer, and more widely spaced, "bound Hyper-state" energy levels, than any of the negatively charged particles. Arguing from the 1D Square Well potential, this would result from a "narrower" potential well (along the "w" hyper-dimension). Thus, there seems to be some sort of "fundamental difference" between positively charged particles (Up quarks), and negatively charged particles (Down quarks, Electrons). Could positively charged particles be "thicker" in the "w" hyper-dimension, so that they "see" Spacetime as being (relatively) "narrower" ??

[Widdekind]

Imagine, momentarily, that 2^nd & 3^rd "generation" particles, are really the "excited hyper-states" of standard 1^st generation particles. And, that at sufficiently high energies, particles can not only be "excited", but actually "ionized" out into hyperspace.

 

QUESTION: Imagine rolling back time, towards the Big Bang. At some early era, temperatures would be so high... that all the matter across the Cosmos would become "excited", and then "ionized" out into hyperspace, yes ? Back in forward time, mass-energy would have been "pouring into spacetime", from hyperspace, like some sort of "flash flood" pouring off the desert plateaus surrounding the Nile River (1D "Lineland"), down into the river valley (w/ appropriate thunderous roar, etc.).

[hangmei08]

Hello,everybody

My name is hangmei.I am new here.

Hope I come to the right place.Share happily.

[Widdekind]

According to a quick & cursory skimming, of Frank Close's [Very Short Introductions] Particle Physics (pp. 99-101), the decay of the Z⁰ boson "proves" that there are only three (3) "generations" of matter. For, were there more matter "generations", the Z⁰ particles would have additional decay pathways, which would make the decay of those bosons "easier", and, hence, more rapid -- in dramatic disagreement with both theory & observation.

QUESTION: The Z⁰ bosons mass 91 GeV/c²... could there be additional "generations" (of "excited hyper-states"??), if their energy levels were greater than 91 GeV/c² (so that the decay of Z⁰ would be energetically impossible) ?? Could these decay states be seen, from the decay of "high-energy relativistic" Z⁰ bosons ??

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Neutrinos are "empty" quanta of Curvature of spacetime; Photons are Curvature quanta "housing" electro-magnetic fields (inside spacetime); Particles are Curvature quanta "housing" matter (inside spacetime)

 

Fig 1 --

Neutrinos

rarely interact with matter (inside spacetime), b/c "all they are" are "empty"

Curvature

distortions of spacetime (?).

 

 

 

When free Electron "binds" around Proton, Photon "carries away" excess energy & Curvature (?)

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Neutrinos "Curvature Quanta" detectable, from phase variations, induced in (suitably sensitive) detector lasers ?

 

Fig 1 --

If

Neutrinos

are "quanta of

Curvature

", in fabric of spacetime, could they be detected by "

Gravitometric

"-like means, wherein suitably sensitive laser detectors could record the phase differences, induced in the laser beams, by the distortions of spacetime fabric, as the

Neutrino

traveled through the detector

(lengthening of laser beam paths, through "distended" spacetime of "blister" of

Neutrino

)

? To wit, could you detect the presence of

Neutrinos

, w/o actually having to "catch" them ??

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Hyper-excited" particles occupy "swollen" spacetime, "puffed up" along hyper-dimension

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Sci-Am "Through Neutrino Eyes" discusses Neutrino Flavor Oscillation. According to the article, the Neutrino "Mass" eigenstates ([math]\nu_{1,2,3}[/math]) are not the same as the Neutrino "Flavor" eigenstates ([math]\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}[/math]). These differences can be easily explained, by appealing to increasing amounts of spacetime Curvature (for "mass") and Hyper-thickness (for "flavor").

 

Neutrino "Mass" eigenstates are quanta of "increasing spacetime Curvature"

 

 

 

 

Neutrino "Flavor" eigenstates are quanta of "increasing spacetime Hyper-thickness"

 

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

According to said cited Sci-Am article, when Neutrinos ([math]\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}[/math]) hit neutrons in nuclei, they can knock out Electron-like particles ([math]e^{-},\mu,\tau[/math]).

 

QUESTION ONE: Might this mean, that the Down quarks in neutrons, are really Up quarks bound up with Electrons ([math]d^{-1/3} = u^{+2/3} + e^{-1}[/math]) ? (Like Quarks, Electrons have spin 1/2; and, grouping several spin 1/2 Quarks together can create another spin 1/2 nucleon; so, grouping an Electron & (Up) Quark could create (yet) another spin 1/2 particle (?).)

 

QUESTION TWO: If Down quarks are "composite particles", could you separately "Hyper-excite" each sub-particle part ? For example, could a Strange quark, be an "un-Hyper-excited Up quark" and a "singly Hyper-excited 'muon' electron" ??

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

CLARIFICATION: Based upon the 1D Square Well analogy, "excited Hyper-states" of particles, do not represent "puffed up spacetime", but "puffed up particle Wave Functions" (along hyper-dimension). (Otherwise, in a Strange quark, the (allegedly) un-hyper-excited Up quark, would be embedded inside the "puffed up spacetime", and could "flop around", which would surely have dramatic & observable effects.)

Edited April 26, 2010 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[Widdekind]

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.

[swansont]

 

Now, the (purported) "bound Hyper-states" of standard particles embody much more mass-energy than their corresponding ground states. For example, the Top quark, interpreted as the "second excited Hyper-state" of the Up quark, is over 71 thousand times more massive than its (purported) "ground state". So, seemingly, the "binding Hyper-energies" of standard particles dramatically dominate their mass-energies.

 

The top quark does not typically decay into an up quark, though. It decays via a weak interaction and yields a down, strange, or bottom quark. It's not simply an excited state of an up quark.

[Widdekind]

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

[swansont]

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

 

Which means that a top quark is not merely an excited state of an up quark. But I think I said that already.

[Widdekind]

Which means that a top quark is not merely an excited state of an up quark. But I think I said that already.

 

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 merged

Anti-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

[swansont]

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.

 

The first part is not true. There are many, many examples of excited states having e.g. differences of angular momentum with the ground state. These are composite systems, and quarks are not.

 

 

Color Charge, for example, is unaffected by the Beta Decays.

 

This should surprise nobody. Color charge is related to strong interactions and beta decay is a weak interaction.

[Widdekind]

The first part is not true. There are many, many examples of excited states having e.g. differences of angular momentum with the ground state. These are composite systems, and quarks are not.

 

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).

 

 

 

 

This should surprise nobody. Color charge is related to strong interactions and beta decay is a weak interaction.

 

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 merged

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) ??

 

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 ??)

[swansont]

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).

 

You miss the point. Name a fundamental particle that has an excited state, period.

[Mr Skeptic]

You miss the point. Name a fundamental particle that has an excited state, period.

 

I doubt that would even be possible with any point particle, even theoretical ones, even with forces other than EM. Storing potential energy would require interaction with something else.

[Widdekind]

You miss the point. Name a fundamental particle that has an excited state, period.

 

An electron, in a 1D Square Well potential ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Neutrino "Mass" eigenstates are quanta of "increasing spacetime Curvature"

 

 

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).

[swansont]

An electron, in a 1D Square Well potential ?

 

That's a bound system. Those are states of the square well + electron, not of the electron itself.

[Widdekind]

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

That's a bound system. Those are states of the square well + electron, not of the electron itself.

 

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

Which means that a top quark is not merely an excited state of an up quark. But I think I said that already.

 

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 merged

This 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):

 

A strange quark is electrically charged, carrying an amount -1/3, as does the down quark. It is more massive than a down quark, having an mc² of ~150 MeV. In all other respects, the strange and down quarks appear to be the same...

 

Not only does the down quark have its heavier cousin, the strange quark, but so does the up quark have a heavier version: the charm quark. A charm quark is electrically charged, carrying an amount +2/3, as does the up quark. It is more massive than the up quark, having an mc² of ~100 MeV. In all other respects, the charm and up quarks appear to be the same...

 

Particles with either charm or strangeness are not stable. Their masses are greater than those of baryons or mesons without charm or strangeness, and hence their intrinsic energy, represented by mc², is greater. Thus, although strange & charmed particles can be made in high-energy collisions at accelerators, or even in the intense energies that were prevalent immediately following the Big Bang, they rapidly decay, leaving ultimately up & down quarks within the 'conventional' baryons, which survive in our day to day world...

 

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 merged

Assuming 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:

 

Scientists know that the three neutrino flavors can oscillate among themselves. So, for example, a muon neutrino can turn into a tau neutrino. The transformations take place when neutrinos travel long distances, such as the 735 kilometers from Fermilab to Soudan. When scientists use neutral current detection techniques to analyze the beam, they find that the total number of neutrinos detected in Soudan agrees with expectations, given the measured number of neutrinos leaving the Fermilab site. But the composition of the beam changes dramatically. While the beam traversing the near detector at Fermilab consists almost entirely of muon neutrinos, the fraction of the beam that arrives at Soudan as muon neutrinos, as determined by their charged current interactions, is way down. The accepted interpretation is that the total number of neutrinos remains the same and that the missing muon neutrinos oscillated into tau (and possibly electron) neutrinos.

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 merged

For 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

Imagine, momentarily, that 2^nd & 3^rd "generation" particles, are really the "excited hyper-states" of standard 1^st generation particles. And, that at sufficiently high energies, particles can not only be "excited", but actually "ionized" out into hyperspace.

 

QUESTION: Imagine rolling back time, towards the Big Bang. At some early era, temperatures would be so high... that all the matter across the Cosmos would become "excited", and then "ionized" out into hyperspace, yes ? Back in forward time, mass-energy would have been "pouring into spacetime", from hyperspace, like some sort of "flash flood" pouring off the desert plateaus surrounding the Nile River (1D "Lineland"), down into the river valley (w/ appropriate thunderous roar, etc.).

 

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

Anti-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

 

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

Edited May 9, 2010 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[Widdekind]

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).

[Widdekind]

...

 

Since standard First Generation particles', interpreted as their "ground Hyper-states", have (rest-)mass-energies ranging from roughly 0.5 to 5 MeV, this formula suggests that the "hyper-thickness" of Spacetime is roughly 0.1 - 1.0 pm (10^-13 - 10^-12 m)...

 

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 ???

 

[Widdekind]

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 (m_e = 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).

 

Edited May 22, 2010 by swansont
delete redundant link

[Widdekind]

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 3^rd 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 R_C 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 3^rd 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).

Edited May 27, 2010 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[Widdekind]

Anti-matter is merely Matter that's (hyperspatially) "flipped over" & "upside down" (in spacetime)

 

According to Wikipedia, Antimatter is the "mirror image" reflection Matter (almost always):

Simply speaking, charge conjugation is a simple symmetry between particles and antiparticles, and so CP symmetry was proposed in 1957 by Lev Landau as the true symmetry between matter and antimatter. In other words a process in which all particles are exchanged with their antiparticles was assumed to be equivalent to the mirror image of the original process.

 

And, "mirror reflection" is Hyperspatial rotation. (In 3D, a 4D Hyper-rotation, about a 2D plane, can be visualized as a "stack of slices", each of which is a 3D (hyper)rotation, about a 1D line, which clearly flips each "slice", "up and over", into its mirror image, as seen in the following figure.)

 

Uploaded with

ImageShack.us

 

 

CONCLUSION: When matter is mired inside of spacetime (e.g. 2D Flatland), it is forced to be either "right-side up" (matter), or "up-side down" (anti-matter). But, out in Hyperspace, matter may rotate, into any "Hyperspatial configuration". These Hyperspatial rotations "transmute" matter into antimatter (et vice versa). Out in Hyperspace, matter exists as an exotic "superposition" of both matter & anti-matter.

 

Uploaded with

ImageShack.us

(

Dirac Spinor

in

Matter

state "rotates" into

Antimatter

state:

[u d 0 0]

→ [0 0 u* d*]

)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

RUSHED ROUGH DRAFT:

 

Consider a quantum particle, bound in a potential well, which spans two orthogonal directions (e.g. 2D Square Well, 2D Harmonic Oscillator). Those orthogonal dimensions are completely uncoupled, so that the bound energy levels are of the form E_n,m, where n,m denote each dimension's separate "sublevel". In particular, energy imparted along one dimension never "mixes" into the other dimension, so that (say) E_10,1 never eventually evolves into E_5,5.

 

By analogy, in flat spacetime, the (purported) Hyperpotential Well, in the "w" hyperspatial dimension, will be completely uncoupled, mathematically, from all the dynamics in the other, standard space/time dimensions. But, what happens in curved spacetime, where the dimensions are no longer orthogonal ? Might that not "mix" energies, imparted into particles in "standard" ways, from within standard spacetime, into orthogonal Hyperspatial excitations ?

 

If so, that would be seen, as Flavor Oscillations, in high energy particles, in curved spacetime (near gravitating bodies). What would observers see, if (say) high energy electrons, orbiting a compact object, "Flavor Oscillated" into Muons / Tauons, b/c of the curvature of spacetime ? Is there any evidence, which could be construed, for Flavor Oscillations, of non-Neutrino matter, deep down in the curved spacetime near compact objects, as they converted standard-spatial Kinetic Energy, into hyper-spatial "puffed-up-ness" ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Anti-matter is merely Matter that's (hyperspatially) "flipped over" & "upside down" (in spacetime)

 

According to Wikipedia, Antimatter is the "mirror image" reflection Matter (almost always):

 

Simply speaking, charge conjugation is a simple symmetry between particles and antiparticles, and so CP symmetry was proposed in 1957 by Lev Landau as the true symmetry between matter and antimatter. In other words a process in which all particles are exchanged with their antiparticles was assumed to be equivalent to the mirror image of the original process.

And, "mirror reflection" is Hyperspatial rotation. (In 3D, a 4D Hyper-rotation, about a 2D plane, can be visualized as a "stack of slices", each of which is a 3D (hyper)rotation, about a 1D line, which clearly flips each "slice", "up and over", into its mirror image, as seen in the following figure.)

Uploaded with

ImageShack.us

CP violation observed in Neutral Kaon (K⁰) & Neutral B-meson (B⁰) because both are Hyperspatial excitations of Neutral Pion ([math]\pi^0[/math])

 

Strange & Bottom quarks are "merely" hyperspatial excitations of Down quarks:

 

S = D

^*

B = D

^**

Thus:

 

Neutral Pion

([math]\pi^0 = d \bar{d}[/math])

 

Neutral Kaon

([math]K^0 = d \bar{d}^{*}[/math])

 

Neutral B-meson

([math]B^0 = d \bar{d}^{**}[/math])

 

Therefore, it is "unsurprising" that CP violations, seen in Neutral Kaons, should also appear in Neutral B-Mesons, since they are essentially the same particles. Flavor Oscillations, in K⁰ & B⁰, "merely" amount, to the Hyperspatial excitation being exchanged, between the particle ([math]d[/math]) & anti-particle ([math]\bar{d}[/math]).

 

Apparently, it is more difficult, to hyperspatially excite Anti-matter, compared to Matter, so that the former decays more quickly into the latter. Hyperspatially excited Anti-matter is "more unstable" than hyperspatially excited Matter. This would explain why:

 

B-mesons [produced] from collisions of protons and antiprotons... oscillate back and forth trillions of times a second between their regular state and their antimatter state. As it happens, the mesons, created in the proton-antiproton collisions, seem to go from their antimatter state to their matter state more rapidly than they go the other way around, leading to an eventual preponderance of matter over antimatter of about 1 percent, when they decay to muons...

 

[Thus] the fireballs produced pairs of the particles known as muons, which are sort of fat electrons, slightly more often than they produced pairs of anti-muons (NYT).

 

Furthermore, from the physics as articulated in that article, it seems as if, during decay, into (anti-)muons, hyperspatial excitation is passed from the (anti-)d^*,** quark, to the (anti-)muon -- to wit, from (anti-)matter to (anti-)matter.

 

 

PREDICTION:

 

Positronium ([math]Ps = e^- e^+ \equiv e \bar{e}[/math]) is the "lepton-equivalent" of the Neutral Pion ([math]\pi^0 = d \bar{d}[/math]). Therefore:

 

if

there are "excited

hyperstates

" of the

Neutral Pion

, namely

Neutral Kaons

(singly hyper-excited, [math]K^0 = d \bar{d}^{*}[/math]) &

Neutral B-Mesons

(doubly hyper-excited, [math]B^0 = d \bar{d}^{**}[/math])...

 

then

, there may also be "excited

hyperstates

" of

Positronium

, [math]e \bar{e}^{*}[/math] & [math]e \bar{e}^{**}[/math],

etc

.

 

Likewise, "lepton equivalents" of the Neutral Strange-B-Meson (triply hyper-excited, [math]B_s^0 = d^{*} \bar{d}^{**}[/math]) & Bottomonium (quadruply hyper-excited, [math]\Upsilon^0 = d^{**} \bar{d}^{**}[/math], as well as the Phi Meson (doubly hyper-excited, [math]\phi^0 = d^{*} \bar{d}^{*}[/math]), ought also to exist ([math]\mu^{-} \bar{\tau}^{-} = e^{*} \bar{e}^{**}, \tau^{-} \bar{\tau}^{-} = e^{**} \bar{e}^{**}[/math] ("Tauonium"), as well as [math]\mu^{-} \bar{\mu}^{-} = e^{*} \bar{e}^{*}[/math] ("Muonium")). These might also show "Flavor Oscillations", as the hyper-excitation energy was exchanged & re-exchanged, between both particles in the pair.

 

Furthermore, the Neutral D-Meson ([math]D^0 = c \bar{u} = u^{*} \bar{u}[/math]), being the "up-quark series equivalent" of the Neutral Kaons & Neutral B-Mesons, may also show Flavor Oscillations as well.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[Widdekind]

More Gedanken-Experiments on Hyperspatial Rotations & Anti-Matter

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Matter / Anti-matter asymmetries arise from asymmetric Hyper-Potential (??)

 

Antimatter is matter, that has been "Hyperspatially flipped over" (PPs). Thus, whereas the Wave Functions of matter particles, when considered "across" the "(hyper-)thickness" of spacetime, might have some sort of "hyperspatial orientation", from hyperspatially "in" to "out" (along the "w" hyper-dimension), antimatter particles would be oppositely oriented, from hyperspatially "out" to "in". Somehow, this "flip" apparently reverses Electroweak "charge" ([math]+ \to -[/math]), as well as Strong Force "color charge" ([math]red \to \bar{red}[/math]).

 

Hyperspatially reversed antimatter does not behave completely like its normal matter counterparts:

 

James Cronin & Val Fitch won the Nobel Prize for their part in the 1964 AD discovery that matter / antimatter asymmetry does occur, at least in K-meson decays. Starting with an equal mixture of [math]K^{0}[/math] and [math]\bar{K}^{0}[/math], their decays, into [math]e^{+} \pi^{-} \bar{\nu}[/math] and [math]e^{-} \pi^{+} \nu[/math] are mattter / antimatter correspondents, since [math]e^{+} \equiv \bar{e^{-}}[/math] and [math]\pi^{-} \equiv \bar{\pi^{+}}[/math].

 

Yet, the two sets of products are not equally produced: the decay [math]K^{0} \to e^{+} \pi^{-} \bar{\nu}[/math] is about 7 parts in 1000 more frequent than [math]\bar{K}^{0} \to e^{-} \pi^{+} \nu[/math]. In 2004 AD, even more dramatic asymmetries were seen in the decays of B mesons, and in the transmutations back & forth (known as "oscillations") of [math]B^{0}[/math] and [math]\bar{B}^{0}[/math] mesons.

 

These discoveries, of asymmetric behavior, between matter & antimatter, so far are only for the ephemeral flavours in the second & third generations.

 

Frank Close. The New Cosmic Onion, pp. 200-201.

Perhaps this asymmetry indicates, that the Hyper-Potential acting "across" spacetime, from "in" (the 'floor', or 'inside edge', of spacetime), to "out" (the 'ceiling', or 'outside edge', of spacetime), is not perfectly symmetric (Square Well), but somewhat skewed "to one side" (Saw-tooth Potential), especially at higher energies (> GeV).

Edited June 8, 2010 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[Clipper]

I wish I understood what you were on about - any way of simplifying what you're saying?

[Widdekind]

Charge & Color Charge seem to be "vector" (Quantized) quantities -- they have (Quantized) magnitude (e.g. |e|) & direction ([math]\pm e; \pm R/G/B \; \; (R/\bar{R}, \; G/\bar{G}, \; B/\bar{B})[/math]).

 

This "vector" nature of charge can be explained as "Hyperspatial rotations", specifically "flips"*.

 

*

It seems striking, that there is

one

kind of

Electrical Charge

(|e|), and

three

kinds of

Color Charge

(R/G/B), even as there is

1 time + 3 space

dimensions.