Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles.

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles

It's describing how to unify all particles into two elementary particles. So basically 20+ particles of Standard Model are two base particles, but different configurations.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Ultimate Theory of the Universe - How To Build Universe With Just Two Particles.

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/21/how-to-build-universe-with-just-two-particles

It's describing how to unify all particles into two elementary particles. So basically 20+ particles of Standard Model are two base particles, but different configurations.

 

 

Sounds very interesting ! I will have to read ,and inwardly digest. How long have you been working on this Theory ?.

 

 

You may find the Moderators will want to move the post to "speculation section " until the theory is analysed. Do not be discouraged as it is an internal procedure , they sometimes use with radically new ideas. ( which your Idea sounds interesting but new I think.) .

 

I must admit that years ago , when we were all mucking about with the computer language "Basic".

 

I put four lines of code into the personal computer I then had: They were something like :- line of code "1 let x= 1" " 2 PRINT X " then " 3 let x =x+1 " followed by " 4 goto 1 " RUN .

 

The whole screen erupted in an explosion of X's everywhere and went on until I switched off the computer. I thought then I wondered If the universe had an incremental ,plus GOTO the first line, Loop in it.

 

 

I will be pleased to see if your ideas work out OK. Make sure you keep your hand on the OFF switch if you try to create another universe.

 

OOPS !

 

.

.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

I am computer programmer indeed for 20+ years. Including assembler.

 

Programmers very little have to find f(x) like physicist, instead we're preferring "simulation".

 

Imagine that we're watching world through satellite, and observing moving car (so small we can call it just particle).

100 000 meters+ below satellite. It's moving from point X (home of somebody) at 7:00 to point Y (work), then process is reversed at 17:00..

Quantum scientist would try to write f(n) describing how this particle is moving in time.

Does this mean that car is wave and needs wave function to describing what it does?

 

Computer programmer would work different way: make structure/C++ class with all attributes describing this particle position, rotation, velocity, acceleration etc., and how it behaves with environment and other "particles"- it can't drive through buildings, grass etc. have to pass through other cars not collide with them etc.

 

Then run such simulation, and record the all calculated parameters in database. And if everything was implemented in code such simulated particle will be literally moving on route and avoid other cars without having to create wave function.

 

 

Current Standard Model has:

 

 

 

up quark, anti up quark,

down quark, anti down quark,

charm quark, anti charm quark,

strange quark, anti strange quark,

top quark, anti top quark,

bottom quark, anti bottom quark,

 

neutrino, anti neutrino,

neutrino muon, anti neutrino muon,

neutrino taon, anti neutrino taon,

 

electron, positron,

 

photon,

 

boson w-, boson w+, boson z,

boson higgs,

 

pion-, pion+, pion 0,

muon, anti muon

taon, anti taon

 

(do you really feel they're all elementary particles??)

 

Ultimate Theory can describe any of them using just two elementary particles: negative and positive.

 

The real questions are:

- what is final stability rule,

- what is Total number of elementary particles of our world proton. What I was using in Ultimate Theory P 31/14 (or neutral Hydrogen P 36/18) is just example of equation.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Klaynos]

In physics the maths is used to run the simulations. The parameters you describe are described mathematically. We use maths to describe the universe.

 

Could you provide a brief summary of your idea here?

 

I've also moved this to speculations.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Snow particle simulated by mine Ultimate Theory....

 

3d object:

 

[kristalris]

Well, I think we can see eye to eye on this for a great extent. I've been at a two particle model in a double dynamic crystal for some time now. And like I stated in my newly started thread on this site a computer simulation is just what I'm looking for. So I hope I can interest you with the following short summery of my speculation:

 

The simulation for a proof of concept would entail starting off with only one type of sphere in a highly conductive cube and seeing if it goes to the order of a dynamic crystal. I.e. each ball in it's own virtual box in the center away from the walls.

 

Contrary to your - BTW very interesting - idea my idea has a relatively very large and one very small particle as spheres. If proof of concept via the simulation can be had, then the speculative idea goes that given these spheres have mass and travel in a straight line whereby the smaller one is faster than the large one and both are above c. There is no scenario possible in which either one can be split. So we already then have permanent motion. The large one can be dented however and thus can act like a toothed wheel. Hence also the need to assume different sizes. It quickly restores into a sphere. This in order to get in and out of spin quickly without causing to much chaos. Spin BTW like a toy gyro and rotation when the center of spin gets outside the center of the gyro. Only then 3D.

 

The energy in both crystals resonates and is equal in a short time-frame.

 

The reason I assume different speeds is that the larger one will loose the movement game. Having one large particle in the other crystal will make it go into a standard deviation both in the vertical as in the horizontal for every bit of forward motion. I guess that this mathematically then will end up spiraling into the skin of a huge sphere (light years across). Having an infinite number will end up in an infinite number of spheres interlocked like a 3D medieval chain-mail. Introducing even more large particles will cause chaos in the small particle crystal that will push the surplus large particles away forming a beginning of a double crystal. The crystal will grow introducing more and more large particles into a large sphere. Ultimately the governing force in the cosmos: the small particle crystal will force the large particle crystal to collapse because further growth causes to much disorder.

 

So we end up with a large particle crystal formed like the crust of earth forming our universe.

 

Within that crystal like a waterfall the crystal will collapse getting crushed in the center.

 

Here ultimately something will have to give. The large particles are brought into spin keeping their energy. Ultimately they are shot out to form a galaxy up the waterfall like a CME of the sun. This above c nearly coming to a stop in the large particle crystal.

 

Then Mother Natures string factory starts to build a limited amount of strings dependent upon the amount of spin rotation to form the SM. The strings are formed via a surface tension scenario whereby the double crystal keeps the order of the strings. (There is more to be said about this) I.e. pressure.

 

All larger particles act like little black holes getting mass by the Higgs field of which the crystal also makes them wave.

 

Spiraling out through the crystal by speeding up. Thus creating the illusion of an expanding universe. Like five trains accelerating one after the other out of the station. Sitting in the center one the illusion will be that the furthest trains are speeding away most in alternate directions. At the sides the curved sphere of the crystal creates the same illusion towards the sides.

 

Like a volcano the center keeps on spitting out galaxies that thus create a string of galaxies in a pillar of debris through the crystal glacier slowly moving inward.

 

Galaxies form like hurricanes around a large black hole in their center. Held together by the pressure of the Higgs crystal akin air pressure does.

 

What we perceive as gravity is thus built up of two components of gravity. The strong gravity caused by the absorption as a little black hole of every larger particle such as an atom. Which will ware off towards the outside of the spinning galaxy. Then taken over by the extra weak gravity caused by the Higgs field bringing further particles into spin due to acceleration. Hence the Law of Hubble the added mass causes extra momentum. This weak gravity is testable as a show in my thread.

 

Slowly we will thus disintegrate and fall into the black hole in the center of our universe to end up popping out of the crystal disintegrating and arcing back. Restarting the cycle. What we perceive as mounting chaos is thus quite the opposite seen from the small particle crystal. We are the chaos.

 

All possible scenarios are being played out in the multiverse all the time for ever. Thus also elegantly solving Schrodinger cat. However we are in an absolutely unique scenario because otherwise there would be the chance that it would of all come to an absolute order. It hasn't as we can observe.

 

Hope your interested enough in helping to build the simulation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gruchala

 

 

Studying your theory I've spotted how our idea's can be married: The smallest possible rotating strings repel and counter-rotating attract (pushed together => less chaos in the crystals).

 

Kristalris

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Ultimate Theory - Deduction Route

As we all know Standard Model has very long list of particles. Including anti

particles there is more than 20 "elementary" particles.

I wanted to simplify this list.

The first simplification stage is to get rid of fractions in some "elementary"

particles. There can be no fraction at truly elementary level of the Universe

in mine opinion. To do it we need to multiply electric charge of Standard Model

by 3.

So, instead of:

Up Quark with +2/3 we will have +2

Down Quark with -1/3 we will have -1

Electron with -1 we will have -3

Positron with +1 we will have +3

Proton with +1 we will have +3

Anti Proton with -1 we will have -3

Photon, Neutrino, Anti Neutrino etc. with 0 are all 0 too.

(and so on with the all other particles)

The next stage:

What must be combination of +1 and -1 to receive 0 electric charge?

Of course there must be equal number of positive and negative particles.

f.e. 1 positive and 1 negative.

What must be combination of +1 and -1 to receive +3?

There must be 3 positive particles more than negative particles.

f.e. 17 positives and 14 negatives.

What must be combination of +1 and -1 to receive -3?

There must be 3 negative particles more than positive particles.

f.e. 1 positive and 4 negatives.

(and so on with the all other particles)

If we have base particle with P positive particles and N negative particles. We

can make it bigger (more massive) by adding any number of pairs: +1 to positive and +1

to negative particles. Electric charge remain the same, but mass grows.

f.e. particle with 9181 elementary particles will have 4592 positive particles

and 4589 negative particles. And electric charge +3 (4592-4589=3)

Mass ratio between it and electron made of 1 positive and 4 negatives is 1836.2 more massive.

When you will start making list of particles made of two elementary particles

Positive and Negative, you should immediately see that the real Universe stable

particles are appearing only where are Prime Numbers in Positive and Negative

count, or Positive and Total, or Negative and Total. 1 is included to Prime

Numbers, because f.e. 1 positive can be surrounded by 4 negative particles,

angles between them must be equal and it will look like tree with branches in

the all directions. Negatives try to be as farthest from other negatives, but

as close to positive.

Animations and example snow particle made of mine theory is on mine website.

Ultimate Theory

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Tell me what your CORE belief is as regards the start of the Universe.

 

Eg Are you saying some super,super Engineers from some Previous Universe got together and started a universe from 2 particles. ?

 

or

 

Are you attempting a software simulation which will effect to produce the same results that experiments with particles will produce ? EG as per the standard model ? or the Large Hadron Collider say ?

 

 

If you are, and you can prove it , you will have cracked a " Biggy ! " Which is what everybody is looking for !

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am computer programmer indeed for 20+ years. Including assembler.

 

Programmers very little have to find f(x) like physicist, instead we're preferring "simulation".

 

 

Where are you with all of this at the moment NOW

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

No "started Universe from 2 particles", rather "there are just 2 particle types, not 20+ like in Standard Model"..

 

The all higher level Standard Model particles can be made of two elementary particles positive and negative, if there is rule how they join together.

And this immediately answer decay beta-, decay beta+, nuclear transmutation, - particle is not stable, and it's emitting unneeded part of itself to start being stable.

 

Physicists would immediately find this a long time ago, if they would get rid of idea of fractional electric charge in up and down quarks, instead of complicating everything by making QCD and "colors" and "anti-colors".

 

Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit idea.

 

 

Example pion + decay:

 

 

 

Pion+ has to have +1 electric charge in Standard Model, in Ultimate Theory it's +3.

It's made of up quark and anti down quark so:

Up quark can be P 8/3 (Positive = 5, Negative = 3, 5-3 = +2, which is +2/3 in Standard Model)

Down quark compatible with P 8/3 is:

P 8/3 + e- P 5/4 + v0 P 4/2 = P 17/9 (Positive = 8, Negative = 9, 8-9=-1, -1/3 in Standard Model)

 

Anti Down Quark has swapped positive and negative so: P 17/8 and electric charge +1

 

Now create Pion+:

 

P 8/3 + P 17/8 = P 25/11

So it has 14 positive and 11 negative. 14-11 = +3 (+1 in SM). Neither 25 and 14 is Prime Number, so it's unstable.

 

Now let's imagine to what it'll decay:

 

P 25/11 -> P 5/1 + P 20/10

 

P 5/1 has 4 positive and 1 negative, simply Positron e+

 

P 20/10 is large neutral neutrino..

 

To what else Pion+ can decay:

 

P 25/11 -> P 7/2 + P 18/9

P 25/11 -> P 9/3 + P 16/8

P 25/11 -> P 11/4 + P 14/7

P 25/11 -> P 13/5 + P 12/6

P 25/11 -> P 15/6 + P 10/5

P 25/11 -> P 17/7 + P 8/4

P 25/11 -> P 19/8 + P 6/3

P 25/11 -> P 21/9 + P 4/2

 

The last element with equal Positive and Negative P N+N/N is neutral/neutrino-compatible particle.

 

P 4/2 is typical neutrino Ve.

 

Electric charge and mass is equal on left and right side of all equations.

+3 -> +3 + 0 (or SM equivalents: +1 -> +1 + 0)

Edited December 27, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Physicists would immediately find this a long time ago, if they would get rid of idea of fractional electric charge in up and down quarks, instead of complicating everything by making QCD and "colors" and "anti-colors".

 

Unlike real world, I am ultra conservative in Physics - if there is no need to create additional dimension, I won't make it, just to fit .

 

 

 

I must admit , that when Quarks were identified as having fractional charge 1/3 or 2/3 , I found it harder to get my head around things ( as opposed to getting familiar with + 1 for proton and -1 with electron.)

 

So are you saying by starting charges off at the quark level as ( Charge + 1 and Charge - 1 )

are these your positive and negative Particles you spoke about. ?

 

.

 

( Then What charge do you give to the up quark and down quark. ) in your new system ?

 

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

( Then What charge do you give to the up quark and down quark. ) in your new system ?.

 

It's in theory website- Standard Model Electric Charge is multiplied by 3. So instead of +1/3, there is just +1 etc.

 

Standard Model +1 is Ultimate Theory +3

 

and so on.

 

 

There is no single fraction in mine theory.

There can be no two or more positives together alone, because they're pushing away, so there must be such combination of positive and negative that opposite is attracting and the rest is surrounding it.

To create Electric Charge +1 (SM +1/3), there are needed 2 positive and 1 negative. It's strong force keeping particles together.

+1+(+1-1)=+1

 

Edited December 27, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Can this post somehow be merged with the other one ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

It's in theory website- Standard Model Electric Charge is multiplied by 3. So instead of +1/3, there is just +1 etc.

 

Standard Model +1 is Ultimate Theory +3

 

and so on.

 

 

Yes, I have had a quick look at your website.

 

You have been working with this for some time, and I have not yet worked it through.

 

To save me all that time ( only possibly to no avail ) if it is not correct ( I am not saying it is correct or not correct ).

 

FIRST What is your MAIN ( Jump up and Down EUREKA ) point . !

 

I can see it could have a Eureka point . But I would like to hear what you say it is ?.

 

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Can this post somehow be merged with the other one ?

 

What for?

 

In mine theory energy and matter is the same thing.

 

In Standard Model energy goes in different additional dimension/property/attribute.

 

f.e. Electron has mass 0.511 MeV, it's colliding with Positron with also mass 0.511 MeV,

in Standard Model there are made two gamma photons, mass less, each with 0.511 MeV energy in additional dimension.

 

In mine theory, I don't have additional dimension for energy. So, collision between electron and positron is causing emitting photons in such amount that when they're added together one by one they will sum up to 1.022 MeV. If Electron really is P 5/4 and Positron is P 5/1 it means that there is made 5 photons with const 2 energy/mass in them.

 

Mine the main rules:

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) particle count.

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) dimensions.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

A What for?

 

B Mine the main rules:

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) particle count.

- have as less as possible (as much as is needed) dimensions.

 

A It is confusing working in two Threads However if its not possible . OK

 

B Rules are Good . IF allowable by the rest of the Universe and its contents.

 

C I still would like to know if you feel you have, or are aiming for some form of Eureka moment/thought..

 

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[kristalris]

 

A It is confusing working in two Threads However if its not possible . OK

 

B Rules are Good . IF allowable by the rest of the Universe and its contents.

 

C I still would like to know if you feel you have, or are aiming for some form of Eureka moment/thought..

 

.

 

Well Mike,

 

A. PM

 

B. He's rules are indeed good yet, as is your remark if it is allowable. Yet those aren't all the rules. Gruchalla is forgetting Occam's Razor. Having two particles is fine, the problem is he doesn't account for the fact what magic makes them attract each other? And, he doesn't fundamentally answer all the fundamental questions as Occam's Razor dictates: i.e. where do the waves at that level come from? Further more he doesn't address the problem in a testable / falsifiable way.

 

C. Seeing B he's Eureka moment / thought will be pre muture if he's even had that.

 

And Mike,

 

To further add to this on the other end Gruchalla doesn't address how he sees dark energy and dark matter.

 

IMO you can already spot a problem in science / physics by the fact that these fundamental problems have been defined wrong: it should of been defined as dark attraction and dark repulsion problems. IMO dark matter causes dark energy which is harder to spot if you already go wrong in the definition of the problem.

[proximity1]

Though, to my intense dismay, I'm not up to following the math you present, I can at least recognize and appreciate something in your presentation; most of all, this resonates with me,

 

" Universe doesn't classify particles like humans to some Protons, Neutrons etc. The only important factor is whether Stability Rule is obeyed or not."

 

Whether others see it or not, there is very profound insight in that seemingly simple idea. Biologists would do well to grasp this for all its profound implications.

 

I wish I had the foundations to really follow your ideas in their mathematical aspects. Alas, I don't.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Well Mike,

 

 

I think we need to give PREZM some opportunity and facility to explain his ideas, as there is a certain measure of his ideas which are quite interesting even if they are speculative , to some extent. He was a little put off ,I think , by being banished to the SPECULATION section I think. He has gone a bit quiet. ( perhaps for Christmas ). I do hope he comes back , as there may well be something there. We should be free to debate in this section , even If some of the things are a bit radical.

 

I do think this SPECULATION SECTION could be given a bit more dignity if we are going to encourage interesting and progressive debate. Perhaps by removing the TRASH bin from the header would be more encouraging. Also I think we should not always , jump in like a 'Ton of Bricks ' on new and radical ideas. Possible then we might make way for the next Einstein. ( What say you ?)

 

.

[michel123456]

 

 

I do think this SPECULATION SECTION could be given a bit more dignity if we are going to encourage interesting and progressive debate. Perhaps by removing the TRASH bin from the header would be more encouraging. Also I think we should not always , jump in like a 'Ton of Bricks ' on new and radical ideas. Possible then we might make way for the next Einstein. ( What say you ?)

 

.

I agree.

Although I am not expecting the next Einstein.

But some nice idea, why not?

 

On the topic:

 

Yes of course 2 particles is a spectacular improvement compared to a bunch of elementary particles. I wish all the best to this speculation.

 

But anyway the question will remain: what are those 2 particles made of ? the question has no end. Which makes me think that we have it completely wrong in our quest of the elementary particle. I don't know the answer, but we must be wrong.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

But anyway the question will remain: what are those 2 particles made of ? the question has no end. Which makes me think that we have it completely wrong in our quest of the elementary particle. I don't know the answer, but we must be wrong.

 

We should first confirm theory that the all particles are made of smaller equal pieces, before starting such question.

 

 

To those that didn't see - second thread "Ultimate Theory of the Universe - Deduction Route" has example pion+ decay simulations..

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71758-ultimate-theory-of-the-universe-deduction-route/

Edited December 29, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

 

I think we need to give PREZM some opportunity and facility to explain his ideas, as there is a certain measure of his ideas which are quite interesting even if they are speculative , to some extent. He was a little put off ,I think , by being banished to the SPECULATION section I think. He has gone a bit quiet. ( perhaps for Christmas ). I do hope he comes back , as there may well be something there. We should be free to debate in this section , even If some of the things are a bit radical.

 

I do think this SPECULATION SECTION could be given a bit more dignity if we are going to encourage interesting and progressive debate. Perhaps by removing the TRASH bin from the header would be more encouraging. Also I think we should not always , jump in like a 'Ton of Bricks ' on new and radical ideas. Possible then we might make way for the next Einstein. ( What say you ?)

 

.

Agree

 

 

We should first confirm theory that the all particles are made of smaller equal pieces, before starting such question.

 

 

To those that didn't see - second thread "Ultimate Theory of the Universe - Deduction Route" has example pion+ decay simulations..

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71758-ultimate-theory-of-the-universe-deduction-route/

Michel and Gruchala (I guess that's your first name?), I don't quite agree with either of you.

 

You should ask those questions and see whether or not they are testable. And if they are then test them. I.e. in science such problems should be worked at from both ends so to speak as matter of course. I.e. small steps from what we think we know, but also attempt large jumps by trying to address the total question. I.e speculate, as long as you make it testable and test it.

 

It can ultimately have an end in so far that it provides an answer that everybody / most can agree on that doesn't conflict with anything we observe because it explains it all. That we will ultimately end up in Plato's cave left with an insurmountable measurement problem, i.e with assumptions is IMO a prior that we've known about since Plato. So that will ultimately leave us with a more or less communis opinio on evidence and Occam's razor because of the un-attainability of absolute truth.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

I think we need to give PREZM some opportunity and facility to explain his ideas,

.

 

I think mine idea was explained already in the first sentence - there are just two needed elementary particles to create any existing particles.

 

Now there is time to develop such experiments that we will be able to confirm theory. Apparently to you Young's Experiment is not enough proof. In Ultimate Theory it can be childish easy to simulate and explain without uncertainty you were used to for the last century in Physics. Just take piece of paper and draw how photon made of two particles will be bouncing from two walls with 1 and 2 gaps.

 

 

Przemyslaw is first name, Gruchala is surname.

 

 

 

 

 

To further add to this on the other end Gruchalla doesn't address how he sees dark energy and dark matter.

 

 

 

I think I did it - if we will give photon little but little mass, and neutrinos too, then multiple by the all flying around in whole Universe there will be no need to Dark Energy and Dark Matter which were introduced to explain "missing mass" which kept galaxies spinning in one piece.

 

Bottom of website "Conclusions" sections:

"The all matter since the beginning of Universe (if it had beginning) still exist. It's everywhere. Including void and space between galaxies."

Edited December 29, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[kristalris]

 

I think mine idea was explained already in the first sentence - there are just two needed elementary particles to create any existing particles.

 

Now there is time to develop such experiments that we will be able to confirm theory. Apparently to you Young's Experiment is not enough proof. In Ultimate Theory it can be childish easy to simulate and explain without uncertainty you were used to for the last century in Physics. Just take piece of paper and draw how photon made of two particles will be bouncing from two walls with 1 and 2 gaps.

 

 

Przemyslaw is first name, Gruchala is surname.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I did it - if we will give photon little but little mass, and neutrinos too, then multiple by the all flying around in whole Universe there will be no need to Dark Energy and Dark Matter which were introduced to explain "missing mass" which kept galaxies spinning in one piece.

 

Bottom of website "Conclusions" sections:

"The all matter since the beginning of Universe (if it had beginning) still exist. It's everywhere. Including void and space between galaxies."

Well Przemyslaw (sorry for getting your first name wrong BTW)

 

Giving photons mass and stating - if I understand you correctly - that they also thus exert gravity can't be right. We observe (if I'm correct) that so called "mass less" particles don't attract each other, yet are attracted by a gravitational force exerted by particles containing mass.

 

Apart from that they would be distributed strangely i.e. suns exert then more gravity?

 

What would solve this problem on a concept level would be if the Higgs field indeed exists and contains the mass as well. I.e. not mass causes gravity directly but indirectly. Mass indeed like in your idea being stuff i.e. un- split-table mass in two different particles. Then your two particles would have to be two strings built up of just one of these particles in another field containing the other. Only then can you solve that problem IMO. (And solving a lot of other problems in the same go in a testable way BTW.

 

I.e. your idea then remains completely intact. I just add to it.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you BTW that photons have very little mass.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If photon would not have mass, how it would move things in vacuum (experiment confirming photons are particles).. ?

 

Mass less thing, fired at billion times more massive moving windmill in vacuum?

 

Anybody have link to YouTube of this experiment, btw?

 

 

Imagine star with radius r. It's current mass of star.

 

 

 

Sphere with radius r + 300,000 km - how massive it was one second ago.

Sphere with radius r + 3,000,000 km - how massive it was 10 seconds ago.

and so on.

 

(that's of course simplified because doesn't count photons, neutrinos and particles from surrounding stars that were attracted, nor meteorids and asteroids)

Edited December 29, 2012 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala