[AntonioLao]

It was deeply established that turbulent flow is associated with the onset of chaotic nonlinear motion. This is 100% true on the global scale. However, it is 100% false at the local infinitesimal scale of space-time motion.

Who invented the 1st set for three laws of motion? It is neither Kepler nor Newton. It is none other than Lucretius. See more about this prime mover at these sites

http://www.londonconsortium.com/courses/MapstoneStoicsessay.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius and http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lucretiu.htm

Lucretian physics described the existence of an infinitesimal disturbance or clinamen (modern term should be analogous to quantum fluctuation) that gave rise to the physical complexity of the cosmos. Nonetheless, modern cosmology suggests that the Universe is predominantly composed of ordinary matter and energy: photons, electrons and their neutrinos, proton (uud), and neutron (udd). Their interactions create atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies. The other exotic elementary particles: antimatter, gravitons, Higgs bosons, magnetic monopoles, heavier quarks and leptons at the least can only be artificially created at the expense of extremely high energy inputs. Equivalently these high energy inputs match the high energy outputs necessary of the vacuum since the vacuum does not easily give up its infinite supply of ‘dead’ energy unless it gets back the same amount of ‘live’ energy as quickly as possible. Quantum mechanics describes how this is done in a nutshell as the uncertainty principle between the energy loan period Dt and the energy loan amount DE such that their product is great or equal to Planck’s constant h, that is Dt DE ≥ h. Nevertheless, in term of H+ and H- and their quantized degrees of freedom of space-time, the emergence of turbulently self-organized nonlinear chaotic yet orderly dissipative structures is realized.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao It was deeply established that turbulent flow is associated with the onset of chaotic nonlinear motion. This is 100% true on the global scale. However, it is 100% false at the local infinitesimal scale of space-time motion. Who invented the 1st set for three laws of motion? It is neither Kepler nor Newton. It is none other than Lucretius. See more about this prime mover at these sites http://www.londonconsortium.com/courses/MapstoneStoicsessay.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius and http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lucretiu.htm Lucretian physics described the existence of an infinitesimal disturbance or clinamen (modern term should be analogous to quantum fluctuation) that gave rise to the physical complexity of the cosmos. Nonetheless, modern cosmology suggests that the Universe is predominantly composed of ordinary matter and energy: photons, electrons and their neutrinos, proton (uud), and neutron (udd). Their interactions create atoms, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies. The other exotic elementary particles: antimatter, gravitons, Higgs bosons, magnetic monopoles, heavier quarks and leptons at the least can only be artificially created at the expense of extremely high energy inputs. Equivalently these high energy inputs match the high energy outputs necessary of the vacuum since the vacuum does not easily give up its infinite supply of ‘dead’ energy unless it gets back the same amount of ‘live’ energy as quickly as possible. Quantum mechanics describes how this is done in a nutshell as the uncertainty principle between the energy loan period Dt and the energy loan amount DE such that their product is great or equal to Planck’s constant h, that is Dt DE ≥ h. Nevertheless, in term of H+ and H- and their quantized degrees of freedom of space-time, the emergence of turbulently self-organized nonlinear chaotic yet orderly dissipative structures is realized.

Is it though?Maybe the residual image of the dissipative
structures,within the magnetic monopoles,becomes disasociated due to
fluctuations in a sub atomic plasma storm??
kindestregards michael.

[baudrunner]

You're just tickling Antonio, Michael. We all know monopoles don't exist. But hold on, why could a proton then not be considered a monopole? If they spin they would have a magnetic moment but if not is it the balance in favor of the extra up quark that gives them their positive charge? If so, why does a neutron not have a net negative charge? They must spin then, right? And neutrons are neutral because the electrons have the MONOPOLEy on the negative charge? Am I making sense? Suppose if we took away all the electrons and protons and kept the neutrons would we then be left with a net negatively charged Universe? Is all that dark-matter then anti-matter? Is that where it is, Antonio?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Is all that dark-matter then anti-matter?

Your guess is just as good as mine. But there is a virtual world of antiparticles.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by baudrunner You're just tickling Antonio, Michael. We all know monopoles don't exist. But hold on, why could a proton then not be considered a monopole? If they spin they would have a magnetic moment but if not is it the balance in favor of the extra up quark that gives them their positive charge? If so, why does a neutron not have a net negative charge? They must spin then, right? And neutrons are neutral because the electrons have the MONOPOLEy on the negative charge? Am I making sense? Suppose if we took away all the electrons and protons and kept the neutrons would we then be left with a net negatively charged Universe? Is all that dark-matter then anti-matter? Is that where it is, Antonio?

You are quite right
I was!It was a momentary loss of sound judgement.

kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

But there is a virtual world of antiparticles.

That's what I was thinking, Antonio. The way I see it, in quantum mechanics a•b does not always equal b•a and I figure that the reason that this is so is because while the proton is positively charged, the neutron must still have a net negative charge with respect to the proton, that is elementary electronic theory. Now, I think that we should perhaps shift the existing popular paradigm wherein electrons are negative, protons are positive, and neutrons are neutral, to a new one wherein electrons are neutral, protons are positive and neutrons are negative. Electrons can still have magnetic moment in the new paradigm because that is only a function of their spin. What is happening in the new paradigm then is that the negative charge of the neutron is balanced by the presence of a dark matter anti-particle giving us the illusion that it has a neutral charge because we don't look for the anti-matter particle since it has no presence in our existing popular atomic model paradigm but still has a charge relationship with the neutron in our new one. What strikes me is that we could easily have been fooled by the results of high energy particle collision experiments all along because there is nothing that has happened in our existing paradigm that necessarily disproves the new one. If the anti-matter particle in question is an anti-proton with anti-uud quark composition it will cancel the negative charge of the udd quarks of the neutron and become undetectable in the current paradigm. Then the uud quarks confer upon the ordinary proton the property of a positively charged particle giving the nucleus a net positive charge and the electron therefore carries a net negative charge, even though it is technically neutral. The reason that the anti-particle does not get annihilated is that it has a permanent place in the Chinese puzzle that is the nucleus so that it is trapped with the integral properties of a functional sub-atomic particle and never actually makes contact with its counterpart but is still able to cancel the negative charge of the neutron. So the neutron exists as an ordinary matter particle with what we have been assuming is no charge.

Furthermore, this new way of thinking explains the existence of dark matter all around us because anti-matter particles still have the same mass as their corresponding ordinary matter particles.

I wouldn't throw this theory out of the window until it gets tested and proved or disproved.

[baudrunner]

To defer the obvious questions of negatively charged girds repelling electron current I will offer a similar paradox, that which allows electrons to bunch up, something neutral particles can do with ease.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by baudrunner a new one wherein electrons are neutral, protons are positive and neutrons are negative.

These are already partially described by the theory of supersymmetry. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry