[mkirkpatrick]

According to the ancient wisdom,at the moment the first element came into
existance .Before this time,matter was not.It is equally impossible to concieve
of matter without energy,as energy without matter;from one point of view both
are convertible terms.Before the birth of atoms,all those forms of energy,which
became evident when matter acts upon matter,could not have existed-they
were locked up in the protyle(the before)as latent potentialities only.Coincident
with the creation of atoms,all those attributes and properties,which form the means of discriminating one chemical element from another,start into existance
fully endowed with energy.All atoms are eternal and come from the One-atom.
The Protyle atom from which came-All which has not been comminuted or
subtilzed has passed into a plane or unmanifestedness,and is unknowable.
So it would seem an impossible task to find it!!

kind regards michael.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick So it would seem an impossible task to find it!!

In physics, unless something interacts with something none of their properties can be determined. Examples of non-interaction are the noble gases of chemistry: Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, and Radon.

[mkirkpatrick]

existance has always been,manifested mind-infused matter had a beginning,
some call this the big-bang,it is really much the same thing,just that the under-
standings of How,differ,and the various sciences each have there pet theories
which is fine,they are really all saying the same thing!I would suggest that all
came from the One-Atom-the protyle atom,the nomenum,that inpregnated the
Atom with manifested Ideation-and brought about the psysical universe,the
protyle atom remained in unmanifested state,andthereby undetectable by
our senses.but it is not unreasonable to deduce that it could be so!



kind regards michael.

[Guille]

If the protyle atom is that from which all derived, shouldn't it be hydrogen?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE If the protyle atom is that from which all derived, shouldn't it be hydrogen?

Good point. But that only explains all the fermions. How about the bosons? Which include photon, graviton, Higgs, gluons, etc...

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Good point. But that only explains all the fermions. How about the bosons? Which include photon, graviton, Higgs, gluons, etc...

But they are not atoms: they don't have electrons going around, or a nucleus with protons and neutrons...

Maybe there is one of these bosons which is the msot fundamental. Which? The answer could be given to you by a primary kid, and yet, all scientists wonder: the simplest one. The one that has smaller spin, electric charge (if at all), or the one that lacks the most properties. From this desription, which is the simplest boson?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE which is the simplest boson?

Supersymmetric gravity predicts the existence of bosino, photino, wino, gluino, zino, selectron, squark, slepton, etc. I am lost in the jungle of multiplicity and duplicity.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Supersymmetric gravity predicts the existence of bosino, photino, wino, gluino, zino, selectron, squark, slepton, etc. I am lost in the jungle of multiplicity and duplicity.

Oh yes, I remember reading about those in the elegant universe. Not a very atractive thing, supersymetry. Even the name seems magic-like, not proper science.

If we find which of the four forces is more fundamental, then we can say that the others evolved from it. i believe it was gravity, why? because at the begining, the universe was completelly full (even too much full) of matter. Thus, there was no space on which the em spectrum could exist or propagate, so with this we take em out. The strong and weak nuclear forces also didn't exist, because, I believe, at the begining, the matter wasn't atoms yet, it was just condensed particles. So this leaves, by absurd reduction, gravity. And in fact, gravity did exist, because allthough amtter wasn't atomically structured, it had mass, because the particles had mass, so gravity was always there. Thus, the fundamental force is gravity. And so, the fundamental boson is graviton. The gravitons existed since the very begining, with neutrons and electrons. In my opinion, protons derived from neutrons, becahsue protons have more properties than neutrons, thsi one is more fundamental. Neutrons got charged somehow, by quantum processes which I cannot yet describe, until my GUTOE is complete, a long time, but I will. I'm even starting now to doubt that electrons existed sinc ethe begining, it might have been that gravitons and neutrons had these strang einteractions that had electrons and products. then more and more particles were products of quantum processes. I believe the main use and target of qm is not to describe the universe, as scientists have tried, but to describe quamtum processes. Important, but only 1/6 of all of the real GUTOE.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE And so, the fundamental boson is graviton.

But gravitons are all moving backward in time. They are pulling everything back to the beginning. Relatively speaking, the graviton exchanges within the earth environment is more and more toward the center of the earth.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao But gravitons are all moving backward in time. They are pulling everything back to the beginning. Relatively speaking, the graviton exchanges within the earth environment is more and more toward the center of the earth.

They don't move back in time, because, if they did, then the gravity affecting the objects now would be the gravity of a future, just the inverse age of the universe to the present one. But this dosen't make sense, because the gravity wouldn't be exactly where the objects are now, they would be were the objects ar ein that time, and I doubt all objects will be in the same position in each case. Anyway if it's true, it would mean that when the universe arives at it's exact middle age, all objects will do exactly the inverse of what it has done until then. There is no background to believe in this.