Asymmetry and monodynamic

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Ok so first gluons aren't quarks, gluons are the medium for the strong force between force and nuclear force between nucleons, and second what are you trying to argue then if the symmetry is impossible? If your "theory" only uses one particle they should be interchangeable.

 

Ok. In my theory there's only one particle to explain one proton or neutron. I mean one particle per proton to explaine the severval

quark(s). When we see it (inside the proton) we can in fact to see these three quarks. But it's not. The gluon(s) are only the journey of this

quark that we can see to move.

The gluon is the quark. Of course all of that use one principe of energy intensity (the maximum density is created by the off of string).

The symmetry is so impossible.

[SamBridge]

Ok. In my theory there's only one particle to explain one proton or neutron. I mean one particle per proton to explaine the severval

quark(s). When we see it (inside the proton) we can in fact to see these three quarks. But it's not. The gluon(s) are only the journey of this

quark that we can see to move.

The gluon is the quark. Of course all of that use one principe of energy intensity (the maximum density is created by the off of string).

The symmetry is so impossible.

 

 

Ok. In my theory there's only one particle to explain one proton or neutron. I mean one particle per proton to explaine the severval

quark(s). When we see it (inside the proton) we can in fact to see these three quarks. But it's not. The gluon(s) are only the journey of this

quark that we can see to move.

The gluon is the quark. Of course all of that use one principe of energy intensity (the maximum density is created by the off of string).

The symmetry is so impossible.

Your not getting anywhere though, there's already "one" particle to complain the massful components of a nucleon, and it's called a quark, they can change their color charge all the time as well as certain interactions changing spin state. However, there is still not evidence that gluons themselves are quarks, I don't even know why you would think that is true. I also don't know how true it is that we "see" those three quarks, we can't isolate quarks so I don't know how you expect to see them individually. The gluon isn't a quark, again, it's what holds quarks together, and if they were described by the same particle there then there should be a critical amount of energy needed to attain an oscillation mode to interchange a quark to a gluon.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Your not getting anywhere though, there's already "one" particle to complain the massful components of a nucleon, and it's called a quark, they can change their color charge all the time as well as certain interactions changing spin state. However, there is still not evidence that gluons themselves are quarks, I don't even know why you would think that is true. I also don't know how true it is that we "see" those three quarks, we can't isolate quarks so I don't know how you expect to see them individually. The gluon isn't a quark, again, it's what holds quarks together, and if they were described by the same particle there then there should be a critical amount of energy needed to attain an oscillation mode to interchange a quark to a gluon.

 

 

I give you an official model :

The pic come from on this link --> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/thanks-mom/

I don't see where is the problem ?

 

[SamBridge]

I give you an official model :

The pic come from on this link --> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/07/thanks-mom/

I don't see where is the problem ?

 

The problem is that you previously stated a gluon is a quark and this Feynman diagram does not accurately show that and there's little evidence for that anyway. Particles can be transformed, but usually only fermions can be converted to other fermions or leptons or photons. The energy that is contained in holding together nucleons is part of the energy left over from fusing protons and other nuclei, simply slamming them together doesn't create an atom, as particle colliders have shown.

Not only that but Higg's particles are used in physics that both support super symmetry and don't support super symmetry, it's really a victory for super symmetry that they were discovered. In fact it's a setback because now they have to put all that work AGAIN into finding a corresponding fermion for a higg's boson that can directly prove the symmetry.

Edited February 12, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

The problem is that you previously stated a gluon is a quark and this Feynman diagram does not accurately show that and there's little evidence for that anyway. Particles can be transformed, but usually only fermions can be converted to other fermions or leptons or photons. The energy that is contained in holding together nucleons is part of the energy left over from fusing protons and other nuclei, simply slamming them together doesn't create an atom, as particle colliders have shown.

Not only that but Higg's particles are used in physics that both support super symmetry and don't support super symmetry, it's really a victory for super symmetry that they were discovered. In fact it's a setback because now they have to put all that work AGAIN into finding a corresponding fermion for a higg's boson that can directly prove the symmetry.

 

Of course there was transition. This is a transition from static charge. I am interested in following your new thread here ---> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72807-higgs-discovered ---> I saw that you liked my link ..

[SamBridge]

Of course there was transition. This is a transition from static charge. I am interested in following your new thread here ---> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72807-higgs-discovered ---> I saw that you liked my link ..

Why wouldn't it enter into an exited state at the first chance of the same energy potential? In a way the concept of string theory is right, all particles in a way can be thought of as oscillating fields, but there's no proof that shows they are all interchangeable with each other.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Why wouldn't it enter into an exited state at the first chance of the same energy potential? In a way the concept of string theory is right, all particles in a way can be thought of as oscillating fields, but there's no proof that shows they are all interchangeable with each other.

 

It was juste for a better view for further processing. I imagined to anticipate routes. It's important to understand that the "charge" carried by the energy is unique through the vector (Q). However to make a difference in potential, then we must load the first charge called "master" that triggers the opposite slave. It is a condition after the other ; and not both at the same time. There's only one information to set, and not two informations for two states. I also think that the motion of a small particle can create a large particle in the case of quark.

 

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Le figaro : news from France : 14 february 2013 ---> "CERN pauses for two years. Renovation and improvement of the LHC" (new perspective from dark matter and supersymmetry, ect ...)

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

News : 15 february 2013 ---> "Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level " ---> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72942-researchers-demonstrate-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-at-macro-level/

[SamBridge]

News : 15 february 2013 ---> "Researchers demonstrate Heisenberg uncertainty principle at macro level " ---> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72942-researchers-demonstrate-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-at-macro-level/

 

 

 

Yeah so? It was already known that you can measure uncertainty on a macroscopic level.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Yeah so? It was already known that you can measure uncertainty on a macroscopic level.

 

You don't know the new ? ---> With a micromechanical membrane resonator ---> " Researchers demonstrate a back-action force that is comparable in magnitude to the thermal forces in our system. Additionally, they observe a temporal correlation between fluctuations in the radiation force and in the position of the resonator. "

 

This allows to better understand the mono dynamics of energy. This hologram that synchronizes, quantum gravity, mass, and decoherence. The most disturbing is the story of temperature plays a role atypically important.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

SamBridge, you said that you were not familiar with Dirac. When you hear "Dirac", you have to think about antimatter. But how can you understand my principle if you do not know about the existence of Dirac's paper of magnetic monopoles ? And dyons proposed by Schwinger ? Dyons is a good way to bond these forces, no ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_quantization_condition

[SamBridge]

SamBridge, you said that you were not familiar with Dirac. When you hear "Dirac", you have to think about antimatter. But how can you understand my principle if you do not know about the existence of Dirac's paper of magnetic monopoles ? And dyons proposed by Schwinger ? Dyons is a good way to bond these forces, no ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_quantization_condition

 

Weren't magnetic monopoles proven to not be able to exist or something like that?

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Weren't magnetic monopoles proven to not be able to exist or something like that?

 

I see that I'm going too fast for you. Please learn it before.

[SamBridge]

 

I see that I'm going too fast for you. Please learn it before.

No it's not that you are going to fast it's that you are moving without much grace. Magnetic monopoles are not possible in conventional physics and at best have no conclusive evidence, they are really only possible in string theory, which as you can't accept is rather lacking in much evidence.

Edited February 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

No it's not that you are going to fast it's that you are moving without much grace. Magnetic monopoles are not possible in conventional physics and at best have no conclusive evidence, they are really only possible in string theory, which as you can't accept is rather lacking in much evidence.

 

So. You don't know the Condensed matter or what ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensed_matter_physics

[SamBridge]

So. You don't know the Condensed matter or what ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensed_matter_physics

With quantum physics, its "possible" in condensed matter physics, but we have created condensed matter on Earth and have not seen any monopoles. Condensed matter physics is also somewhat of a mystery as certain physical laws break down or don't accurately describe particle systems at that level, which is why as it says in the article, its one of the most active fields studied in physics, it helps tell us not only about neutron stars, but possibly about black holes and about the early dense universe.

Edited February 19, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

With quantum physics, its "possible" in condensed matter physics, but we have created condensed matter on Earth and have not seen any monopoles. Condensed matter physics is also somewhat of a mystery as certain physical laws break down or don't accurately describe particle systems at that level, which is why as it says in the article, its one of the most active fields studied in physics, it helps tell us not only about neutron stars, but possibly about black holes and about the early dense universe.

 

 

? but my idea basically uses the principle of condensed matter, and especially with one and same particle (the needle Q of the vector)

[SamBridge]

? but my idea basically uses the principle of condensed matter, and especially with one and same particle (the needle Q of the vector)

I'm going to say this again: hypothetically it was possible. Then, we created condensed matter and found no monopoles.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

I'm going to say this again: hypothetically it was possible. Then, we created condensed matter and found no monopoles.

 

Hi. Yes I know. We will see ..

February 19, 2013 ---> Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "If an object traveling through spacetime can loop back in time in a certain way, then its trajectory can allow a pair of its components to be measured with perfect accuracy, violating Heisenberg's ... ---> http://phys.org/news/2013-02-spacetime-violate-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

[SamBridge]

Hi. Yes I know. We will see ..

February 19, 2013 ---> Curves in spacetime violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "If an object traveling through spacetime can loop back in time in a certain way, then its trajectory can allow a pair of its components to be measured with perfect accuracy, violating Heisenberg's ... ---> http://phys.org/news/2013-02-spacetime-violate-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle.html

Time symmetry isn't an observed phenomena, and neither is time travel. Time dilation alone would not violate the principal. The principal can be modified as needed to fit new scientific results, however it is most certainly not wrong.

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Time symmetry isn't an observed phenomena, and neither is time travel. Time dilation alone would not violate the principal. The principal can be modified as needed to fit new scientific results, however it is most certainly not wrong.

I wrote what was officially released. If you do not agree you have to tell the researcher's it is said. In the following February 21, 2013 ---> Time reversal findings may open doors to the future. ---> "Secure Communication with Nonlinear Time-Reversal ---> http://phys.org/news/2013-02-reversal-doors-future.html

[SamBridge]

I wrote what was officially released. If you do not agree you have to tell the researcher's it is said. In the following February 21, 2013 ---> Time reversal findings may open doors to the future. ---> "Secure Communication with Nonlinear Time-Reversal ---> http://phys.org/news/2013-02-reversal-doors-future.html

Time reversal can't physically happen. Some processes may appear mathematically to go backwards in time, like the oscillation of anti-matter, bu obviously it follows a general forward direction like the rest of matter and energy. Besides, the technology itself still needs to be worked on, hence a lack of the words "outstanding breakthrough".

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Time reversal can't physically happen. Some processes may appear mathematically to go backwards in time, like the oscillation of anti-matter, bu obviously it follows a general forward direction like the rest of matter and energy. Besides, the technology itself still needs to be worked on, hence a lack of the words "outstanding breakthrough".

That's why we need to talk about of Spin temporal. As I have already said on page 3, the clock of "physical matter" or "biological clock", does not allow us to see the other "half side" of "Spin temporal". We must wait a little longer before it is physically proven.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72200-backward-time-and-antimatter/?p=725722

[SamBridge]

That's why we need to talk about of Spin temporal. As I have already said on page 3, the clock of "physical matter" or "biological clock", does not allow us to see the other "half side" of "Spin temporal". We must wait a little longer before it is physically proven.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72200-backward-time-and-antimatter/?p=725722

Except it can't be physically proven first because it's not physically possible, and anything that could constitute proof would merely be a loophole in our mathematical definitions like with the article that said we had "negative kelvin".

Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge