Dominant Particle Theory

[thefirstboss]

William Kelly

1 November 2015

 

(Particle Scale: Infinite)

Dominant Particle is relative to dimension

LAW: multiple particles can and will co exist on the same point in space at any given time(dimension).

The dominant particle is the one that is being reflected by light waves, takes up physical space and is furthermore dominant to human biological senses. Dominant particle is relative to dimension. Recessive Particles or non dominant particles in the human dimension is portrayed as black matter or “nothingness” or what lies beyond the universe “darkness”.

 

It is possible for particles to co exist and no dominant to exist in the 3rd-1st dimensions. Outside of the known universe consists of dark matter the particles that exist on any given point are not dominant in the 3rd-1st dimensions.

 

Dominant particles in the dimension that humans live in are subject to time.

 

All dominant particles relative to 4th+ dimensions is unknown at this time

 

Dimension:

1

2

3

4

 

Particle:

A

B

C

D

 

Dominant particle is C, B, or A (Relative to 3rd)

 

Our Universe has 3 dimensions (LWH, XYZ)

In the 3rd dimension the dominant particle can be of the first second or third dimension.

 

[in fourth dimension for example to calculate the volume of a four dimensional object the formula would be LWHt or length x width x height x t (time, unknown variable), in the fourth dimension instead of XYZ coordinate base there would be XYZT]

Properties(defining in 3rd dimension):

Reflects light, visible to humans

 

Visual aid:

 

Here is a point in space “.”

In this point there are an infinite number of other points. The reason you see this point rather than another is because of human perception + your current dimension.

 

Therefore the particles or points”.” that are visible to you at any given time is the dominant particle at that time.

 

Dim1:

-

-

-

-

∞

 

Dim2:

-

-

-

-

∞

ALL OF THESE PARTICLES EXIST ON THE SAME POINT IN TIME AND SPACE

Dim3:

-

-

-

-

∞

 

Dim4:

-

-

-

-

∞

 

Dim∞ :

-

-

-

-

∞

 

DOMINANCE is relative to human perception and dimension, time and space.

 

Example:

What you see right now everywhere you look is the dominant particle at that moment in time and space. Since you are in the 3rd dimension what you see one moment in time may differ from the next.(Third dimension is DIRECTLY controlled by the 4th) This is because energy has affected the dominant particle only. The dominant particle however, never changed as it will always be the same in that moment of time weather it be past present or future. time is also relative which agrees with this theory

 

Example of Dimension Variable/Factor/Particle chart

 

Dimension of Humans (3):
Variables:

(Time, 4th dimension)

Past

Presant

Future

 

Dominant Particle: Matter

 

Dominant particle change can be performed using: Energy

 

In our universe the non dominant particles that exist on the same point as the dominant ones are black matter

NOTE: This is not a fully developed theroy, things are missing, out of order or incorrect i just want your initial thought on it

[pavelcherepan]

 

LAW: multiple particles can and will co exist on the same point in space at any given time(dimension).

 

Maybe Hypothesis is a better word.

 

 

 

Outside of the known universe

 

Please define the term "known Universe".

 

 

 

Dominant particle is relative to dimension. Recessive Particles or non dominant particles in the human dimension is portrayed as black matter or “nothingness” or what lies beyond the universe “darkness”.

 

So you're taking genetics'ish approach to particle physics?

 

 

 

Our Universe has 3 dimensions (LWH, XYZ)

 

What about time?

 

 

Most of all, how is your idea better than the existing ones? Where's the mathematical framework? Any experimental data to support your hypothesis?

[thefirstboss]

 

Maybe Hypothesis is a better word.

 

 

Please define the term "known Universe".

 

 

So you're taking genetics'ish approach to particle physics?

 

 

What about time?

 

 

Most of all, how is your idea better than the existing ones? Where's the mathematical framework? Any experimental data to support your hypothesis?

known universe: the universe we live in, our quantum level of reality or existence

 

Sort of, i'm using terms familiar to genetics because they best describe what i am getting at

 

Our universe does not include the dimension of time however as i stated, it is directly affected by it. Proof: we can not go forwards an backwards in time and we do not measure objects in LWHT or our plane is not XYZT

 

My mathematics? Not entirely this is partially based on others work however as for the math. Dark matter is everywhere and exists everywhere as science says. The particle you see is a particle that is also occupied by dark matter. Since dark matter isn't nothingness as seen by quantum physics my theory is correct. Also as provided by my visual aid the sequence in which my theory is given is logical. It makes sense

Edited November 2, 2015 by thefirstboss

[Sensei]

NOTE: This is not a fully developed theroy,

Really?

 

things are missing,

I see no mathematical equations...

 

out of order or incorrect i just want your initial thought on it

Bunch of words?

Not entirely this is partially based on others work however as for the math.

Your "work" is based on nothing.

 

Since dark matter isn't nothingness as seen by quantum physics my theory is correct.

Quantum physics is not saying anywhere that dark matter is nothingness..

[pavelcherepan]

 

 

Proof: we can not go forwards an backwards in time and we do not measure objects in LWHT or our plane is not XYZT

 

Well, we DO go forwards in time... like all the time. And we do use XYZT, for example (I think it's Feynman's example), if you want to meet someone, you need to arrange the meeting both in space and time, like "Meet me at the pub at 5 pm". Here's your xyzt.

[thefirstboss]

Really?

 

 

I see no mathematical equations...

 

 

Bunch of words?

 

Your "work" is based on nothing.

 

 

Quantum physics is not saying anywhere that dark matter is nothingness..

Wow that was strong. However if you have heard there are proven particles called neutrinos. These particles pass through matter without changing itself or the substance. Or even without slowing down. They can also coexist in the same space with another particle of the same size. There are other particles like this out there, hence supporting this theory.

 

I put "nothingness" in quotes for a reason. It is not literally nothingness but it is commonly called that. I put that there for people that did not understand what black matter is

 

Well, we DO go forwards in time... like all the time. And we do use XYZT, for example (I think it's Feynman's example), if you want to meet someone, you need to arrange the meeting both in space and time, like "Meet me at the pub at 5 pm". Here's your xyzt.

No, we cannot go forwards in time. Time goes forward and we, with it. In order to "time travel" which is technically possible as einstein has said. You would need energy, which as said is how you change dominant particle. And going into the future is using the 4th dimension. XYTZ is a mathematical plain in the fourth dimension, nothing to do with what you said.

[Sensei]

However if you have heard there are proven particles called neutrinos.

I doubt you know anything about neutrinos.

 

If you do, please tell us, what is maximum kinetic energy of neutrino produced by proton-proton fusion.. ?

 

These particles pass through matter without changing itself or the substance.

You're repeating very lousy interpretation that spread to general public knowledge.

 

Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos act weakly. Not "at all", like in your lousy interpretation.

 

Tell us, what material is used to detect neutrinos.. Show us, that you know subject, you're trying to discuss.

Edited November 2, 2015 by Sensei

[thefirstboss]

I doubt you know anything about neutrinos.

 

If you do, please tell us, what is maximum kinetic energy of neutrino produced by proton-proton fusion.. ?

 

 

You're repeating very lousy interpretation that spread to general public knowledge.

 

Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos act weakly. Not at all. Like in your lousy interpretation.

 

Tell us, what material is used to detect neutrinos..

They react very weakly and it has not been determined if the reaction has any correspondence with the object it has passed through. At this time it has actually not been confirmed if they react with the substance they pass through or if it is a coincidence. This however doesn't affect my theory. Also i'm not going to dignify your trivia with an answer because we both know even if i don't know what your talking about i could just look it up. the extent of my knowlage of neutrinos does not discredit this theory in any way.

[Klaynos]

Can you please show, mathematically, how you're idea is consistent with the experimental evidence for both femi statistics and bose-einstein statistics?

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Moved to speculations, please view the extra rules and guidelines (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842) for posting in this area.

[Strange]

the extent of my knowlage of neutrinos does not discredit this theory in any way.

 

Except you claimed that the existence of neutrinos supported your theory. If you don't know anything about neutrinos (as suggested by your vague and largely incorrect comments) then it is hard to see how you can know whether they support your (equally vague) theory.

Our universe does not include the dimension of time

 

As we have a very successful theory which says it does, it is not clear why this claim should be taken seriously.

[Ophiolite]

William, I suspect you are quite young. Young or old it is unpleasant to have one's idea dismissed and one's credentials questioned, especially when you believe you have an idea of some merit to share. However, you have chosen to share this idea on a science forum, populated by scientists, those with a scientific education and those interested in science. As such, you must expect to be questioned intensely and to receive demands for clarification and justification.

 

At times like this I often compliment the poster for their interest in science, their readiness to think bold thoughts and their imagination. I do so now. Well done.

 

However, all you appear to have done is take some pop-science ideas, misunderstand most of them, throw them together with a mish-mash of terminology - some of which you get wrong - and jump straight to a concussion. It is not an edifying sight.

 

I recommend you take on board the criticisms of the other members and invest some time in serious study. That way you can put your excellent imagination to positive use rather than producing nonsense. Perhaps instead of telling us how you think the universe works you could ask some of the very knowledgeable members specific questions that would enhance your knowledge.

 

The choice is yours.

[Strange]

LAW: multiple particles can and will co exist on the same point in space at any given time(dimension).

 

This is only true for particles which follow Bose–Einstein statistics (bosons). Two identical fermions cannot occupy the same quantum space.

 

i just want your initial thought on it

 

Vague and unsupported (i.e. not a theory) and mostly wrong.

[swansont]

LAW: multiple particles can and will co exist on the same point in space at any given time(dimension).

 

Does this apply to Fermions?

[Phi for All]

Also i'm not going to dignify your trivia with an answer because we both know even if i don't know what your talking about i could just look it up. the extent of my knowlage of neutrinos does not discredit this theory in any way.

 

Be very careful with statements like this. The problem with research used like this is that you don't know what you don't know. You're going to make mistakes because the extent of your knowledge doesn't cover enough to understand relevance at the necessary levels. You'll be cherry-picking things you think you understand, and ignoring what you don't. You're going to make mistakes like this:

 

And going into the future is using the 4th dimension. XYTZ is a mathematical plain in the fourth dimension, nothing to do with what you said.

 

Your definition of "dimension" seems off. Picture the first dimension as a line, length. Now move orthogonally (90 degrees, right angle) from every point on that line until you have a square. That's two dimensions, length and width. Now move 90 degrees away from every point in the square, until you have a cube. That adds the third dimension, height.

 

To add a fourth spatial dimension, you would need to move at 90 degrees away from every point on the cube! Hard to imagine. Everything to do with perspective, nothing to do with time travel. And pavelcherapan's XYZT example is correct. Give someone your position in three dimensions, plus the time you'll be there, and you can plot any event in spacetime.

 

Outside of the known universe consists of dark matter the particles that exist on any given point are not dominant in the 3rd-1st dimensions.

 

Outside the known universe?! Are you redefining "universe" so it has an outside of it? How much "outside of the known universe" is there? Is it bigger than the known universe or smaller? Is there something outside the outside the known universe?