[mkirkpatrick]

HBD.you have an unique way of looking at things that is truly refreshing and very interesting as well, we could do with more like you on this forum, light has always been an attraction to me.
kind regards michael

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hbd;
Think of the standing waves of the quarks as if they were gears spinning. Two u-quarks are spinning in the same directions and thus would oppose each others spin producing destructive wave interference and thus expansion. Place a d-quark in-between them with its spin in the opposite direction, then the waves or gears are now such that they produce constructive wave interference to allow bonding and thus condensing to greater spatial density. Ordinarily this would manifest as greater mass, but as the wavelength function decreases, it reaches a short wavelength that no longer interacts with the environmental matter around it. The structure becomes neutral and in the case of the neutrino, it becomes massless. This is the closest we have come to a pure solid object of fundamental matter and perfect wave symmetry. This object will not interact with other wave function of matter other than another of its kind. You must collide neutrinos to invoke mass.

HBD, the way Dave describes it above is what I was relaying also. The gear analogy makes my analogy easier...

regards

[humanbydefault]

I honestly believe that we have discussing here the hidden mechanisms behind the "objective reality" the way Einstein always dreamed. Yes... Those waves responsible for the ultimate observation of quanta behave the way Dave has just explained with great wisdom.

However I feel that we are still missing a very important key aspect in all this, let me explain:
If instead of just one quark we assumed protons to be the reasult of three quarks whose waves interact just the way Dave just described...

Why are we unable to observe isolated quarks in the vacuum?

[once again] If in fact a proton is the result of the process observed in neutrinos just in a "close configuration of mutal interaction of component waves" [standing waves]... What is that prevents us from obtainning a single quark out of the "package" of three?

I don't believe that the universe "sales" its entities in a "combo" -Just kidding!- I have an alternative view that I'd like to propose to all of you for consideration.

What if... The "three quarks combo" we swear to observe after thousand attempts using particles to collide against those protons were nothing more that... JUST ONE!
I know it sounds too ALIEN but let's give it a chance and let's confront what we have so far. I assume that we all agree that information depends in the actual speed of light to convey reality... I give that as a fact by now. If the radius of the orbit where protons spin is in fact shorter that all the others toward us [meanning toward the vacuum] Would we getting the right "PICTURE" of the "deeper reality" down there as it actually is?
As an axample we could rely on those observations of particles crossing our atmosphere with an obvious observational delay due entirely to relativity [I was thinking on muons for example].
Most of those particles we are STILL able to observe were in fact GONE a long time ago but due to the delay in the transmission of information [limited by the speed of that transmission= light] we could believe that they were still with us...
My point is:
What if... [just as the case of neutrino oscillation or put in other way: "transition between particles of different identity"]... the whole "thing" with the "quark combo" were just a human delayed measurement due to our own space-time limitations?
Those quarks were [from our perspective] actually moving two, three who knows how much faster than "OUR SPEED OF LIGHT"...(!)
Yes! We were right when we referred to "our own speed of light" in this particular case when analyzing events occuring in lower orbits namely systems where the radius of spin gets too short.
Assuming this possibility as correct we could be making a huge error by adopting a theoretical conclusion based on measurements done in our [space-time] REALITY.
I'm not saying that the measurement conclusions were wrong... Just the conclusions drawn from those observations alone. That's the difference between theory and experiment (!) An experiment could give us one face of reality but that same face could be different as seen from a different frame of reality as I think it's happening this time too (!)

Once again... If that's the case here too, then one quark is at the same time seen in its four possible sides or "ways of manifestation." That is: at 12 o'clok when it shows its greatest strength, at 3 and 9 o'clock when it is half strength between two dimensions [spatial dimension x,y,z] and 6 o'clock when it seems to disappear from space [the three dimensions] which is the point where both wave components of the quark are in perfect equilibrium [internal balance]>>> the "quantum-zero" state.
Physics have been trying to justify this "compact configuration" by an assumed "negative Beta function" = "asymptotic Freedom" (they call it). I guess we know now why the soda the fries and the hamburguer can't be served out of a combo... Do we? -It's just an inocent joke-

Back a year ago I posted an article titled "Rediscovering the atomic model" [part two] Probably some of you have already read it... Anyway the point is that by the time I wrote those thoughts of mine I wasn't aware of the phenomenon called "neutrino oscillation." It would have been of great help knowing then what I know now... I proposed then that a proton was the result of just one quark as it was projected in space. I was missing the insides of it, I guess it was pretty much a guess [an image without basis].

The final word is yours!

THANK YOU

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

Hbd;
I view the expansion rate as defined by QM as the ultimate velocity and also the fixed quantity of motion of all physical systems. The speed of light is only a fraction of this motion and only represent the rate of interaction between waves of matter. The rest of the motion is uniform motion. Uniform motion accounts for the value of mass within the limits of 2c. The mass value of an object will decrease after its uniform motion exceeds 2c and its wavelength is too short to interact with other longer wavelengths.

Now to answer your question:

Why are we unable to observe isolated quarks in the vacuum?

We do observe isolated quarks; we just call them by other particle names; Electrons, neutrinos, positrons, muons, and so on's.

Greater or lesser mass does not mean a different quantity of matter and thus a different particle; it only means a different quantity of potential energy and thus different quantity of uniform motion. The total quantity of wave motion and uniform motion is the same for all particles. Keep the gear analogy in mind when you think of particles with harmonic relationship of their standing waves.

[baudrunner]

From this page, on the subject of why we can't isolate the quark.

The energy required to produce a separation far exceeds the pair production energy of a quark-antiquark pair, so instead of pulling out an isolated quark, you produce mesons as the produced quark-antiquark pairs combine.

Continue examining the links on the page and then peruse the web for some scattering diagrams to stimulate further thought on the subject of sub-nuclear particles. I know that it is tempting to simplify particle theory but the effort is an exercise in futility. We have barely scratched the surface in our attempts to understand the fundamental structure of matter.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Hbd;
I view the expansion rate as defined by QM as the ultimate velocity and also the fixed quantity of motion of all physical systems. The speed of light is only a fraction of this motion and only represent the rate of interaction between waves of matter. The rest of the motion is uniform motion. Uniform motion accounts for the value of mass within the limits of 2c. The mass value of an object will decrease after its uniform motion exceeds 2c and its wavelength is too short to interact with other longer wavelengths.
[/font]

Dave, I understand that mass is figured on c^2 values, but please explain where greater than 1c as motion is observed anywhere in the universe except in unprovable math and hypothetical theoretical thinking. Please give an example of the observed phenomenon, if you can...for real. If the evidence of the gamma background radiation is true, as I accept it to be, and it being beyond all known space matter, then all motion is required to be the same as 1c or less, within these perameters, because only this condition allows us to still receive such a light speed signal. If you know of another perameter, please explain... This seems to be the worst problem in everyone's understandings on this entire forum... 2c, 3c, 10c or infinite speed of light makes no sense to me...I see no such evidence anywhere in the universe, classical, quantum or relative... I do believe you mean 2c as twice speed of light, no...?

"Absolute light speed, as per our instruments and math agreements - 300,000km per sec - sets the speed limit of all true space motion, as is the only visible measurable maximum velocity." me

regards

[dleviwing]

Lloyd;
The incident of reflection of light has been measured as 1.7 to 1.76c. Our motion through the universe has been estimated at 27% the speed of light. This sums to approximately 2c. A change of motion from 2c linear to 2c angular is equal to c^2; the function of Energy. All the math of Relativity and many others are based on Absolute Motion as being 2c. QM places the expansion of the universe at 6.5x10^11c. QM is probably the better value for "Absolute Motion". The speed of light is only a limit to our communication and to our ability to accelerate matter. Any phenomena that exceeds the velocity of light, normally cannot be detected but is often called spooky action at a distance. If QM velocity is true for expansion it is true for all physical entities. No exception to the laws of physics.

There are several research papers on this subject; I've referenced them in other posts but will get them for you again.

Baud;
You are quite right.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Lloyd;
The incident of reflection of light has been measured as 1.7 to 1.76c. Our motion through the universe has been estimated at 27% the speed of light. This sums to approximately 2c. A change of motion from 2c linear to 2c angular is equal to c^2; the function of Energy. All the math of Relativity and many others are based on Absolute Motion as being 2c. QM places the expansion of the universe at 6.5x10^11c. QM is probably the better value for "Absolute Motion". The speed of light is only a limit to our communication and to our ability to accelerate matter. Any phenomena that exceeds the velocity of light, normally cannot be detected but is often called spooky action at a distance. If QM velocity is true for expansion it is true for all physical entities. No exception to the laws of physics.

There are several research papers on this subject; I've referenced them in other posts but will get them for you again.

Dave, I've seen these numbers before and I don't accept any of it as valid, however send me the references and I will check them out, because we all really have a difference about absolute motion. To me the only absolute measureable motion is light, then only dependent on our instruments and frames of reference...there is no cosmological constant to measure from, otherwise...

Dave, here's a quote put up by coldcreation; sorta sums it up for me;
On page 16 Prigogine quotes Roger Penrose, from The Emperor’s New Mind, “It is our present lack of understanding of the fundamental laws of physics that prevents us from coming to grips with the concept of ‘mind’ in physical or logical terms.” Prigogine follows with “We need a new formulation of the fundamental laws of physics.”

I agree!

regards

[humanbydefault]

Could we agree on the fact that light [as electromagnetic energy] propagating THROUGH THE VACUUM moves-travels-runs at ~300,000 km/s ?
>>> YES!
Could we also agree that energy [a quantized amount of energy propagating through the MEDIUM the only possible way = as WAVES] needs to encounter a needed "FEEDBACK" otherwise it wound't be any ways it could propagate across a given MEDIUM?
>>> I hope we will agree on this too!
NOW! The question I see brings a lot of misunderstading among physicists is the following:
What is the MEDIUM inside "inter-atomic space"?
The answer could only be drawn by pure LOGIC and COMMON SENSE>>> The same vacuum where we measure light moving at 300,000 km/s...!
It's not a VOID where EMPTINESS was "present" [if you could assume the presence of "nothing" as a meaningful argument...] The atom is > and I hope some of you'd agree with me on this > the result of a standing wave process whose very center lies right at the point where two waves coming from "speks of primary energy" collide with each other... we have gone through all this before.
Could we also agree on that those orbits are structured in space [geometrically speaking] in superimpossed layers of energy of decreasing density? It's verified that the orbits of atoms [like hydrogen for example] show a level of energy decreasing in strength with the square of the distance (!)
Don't get impatient we are almost there! Wouldn't we all agree that if we are talking about spinning patterns following a geometrically increasing RADIUS from an equally distant point what we are looking at is the "definition" the "creation" of different FRAMES bearing no linear relation between each other?
We can not state that energy was moving [across the vacuum] at a speed higher than light... That's true! But where are we observing the result of those orbits-making-atoms? Is it inside the atom or pretty DISTANT from its core? The answer is obvious!
Every measurement done in the quest for the final answer: Is anything [in open space = eather or vacuum] moving faster than light? The answer will always be NOTHING could move faster than light... period!
BUT! What if energy [light or any other type of radiation densities] propagates across OTHER TYPE OF MEDIUMS?
That's the tricky question! It's being "observed" that some waves could move even faster than light while "traveling" across a different MEDIUM other than the vacuum. In some other instances there have been evidences of experiments where even a beam of LIGHT had been ALMOST stopped in its propagations moving at the speed your car does...(!)
That is not an act of magic... All it takes to do it is to transform the actual MEDIUM where light waves [or other type of energy waves] move through and therefore change the RATE OF FEEDBACK so the wave will have a "hard time" getting the needed "push" to continue.
I wrote [both in my book and also in a comment about the existence of Black Holes here on the main page] about the way I see no reason for light to exist inside the singularity. I believe that Black Holes are nothing of "another world" but a very common phenomenon we even see it right here on Earth only inside a different context... Allow me to explain:
Are Tornadoes, water swirls and other types of whirls in nature a rare occurance? Tell that to those people who lost their home as the consequence of one of those! They are every where... in our rivers and oceans, in the deserts and other places as well. Why would the universe be an exception to that phenomenon?
Black Holes are in fact Tornadoes only they are not the result of the collision of air masses of different temperature but the actual collision of gravitational waves originated in different star systems. If we imagined the vacuum [space] as something very similar to a huge ocean we would understand that the point where galaxies and clusters of galaxies intercept with each other's space-time fabric a "Tornadoe" might be borne. A "Black Hole" is formed due precisely to the "head on collision" between opposing spinning systems, The place where a "quantum-zero state" prevails and leaves no room for waves to find the feedback.
Light needs a feedback to move on the cosmos and it finds it in the nature of the vacuum. Of course you could turn upside down this concept and see it looking as if the vacuum was the one producing the effect we see as light when it is made to do it... It's all philosophy and I'm not going to fall into this now.
The bottom line is that AS LONG AS THE OPEN-SPACE OR VACUUM WAS THE MEDIUM FOR LIGHT TO MOVE >>> THE SPEED WILL ALWAYS BE THE SAME!

I have a sort of hypothetical thought experiment to clarify this:
"Imagine that you could travel at twice the speed of light [like superman (?)] and you will light up and send a light beam into space... What will you see? You'll see a beam of light deflecting backward and moving toward you in opposite direction at "c" ! You were allowed to fly at twice the speed of light because you were "superman" but not even light could sustain such velocity when moving across the eather... So! The beam was automatically forced to instantaneously decrease it propagation-speed to the humilliatting speed of "c" leaving behind you somethig looking just like the "Tail of a commet" (!)

Will this post help to get some compromise on the subject?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

I didn't have the opportunity to thank you for your comment, it is appreciated greatly.
Physics is a complex science. Ernest Rutherford once said somethig like "physics is everything, the rest is just stamp collection." The thing is Mike, that modern physics have become in a way nothing but "stamp collection." What I meant by that is that we have a thick "catalogue of sub-atomic elemental particles" feeling pages and pages as the result of those particle-collisions performed in those "atom smashers."
We have failed to understand that one thing is a pattern that "forms" matter in the process and another entirely different the result of making a wide range of quanta to collide aginst it. If we could just "see" that every time we produce those collisions we are only repeating the same basic process that gave Einstein his Noble Prize >>> "A copy-cat of the same old photo-electric effect including quantized high-energy waves ["sub-atomic particles"].
We say: "The mass of a protons is 1836 times..." It's not like that at all! What they are referring is the CHARGE of a quantized amount of energy [PREVIOUSLY SCATTERED] that was prompt to collapse in order to be MEASURED!
I have said and will repeat thousand times if needed that a PROTON [as the hydrogen atom] can't be collapsed just like that! MATTER can't be collapsed by our own intervention... or anyone else's, period!
You can't not "collapse" an standing wave! The reason is simple! Standing waves are not PRIMARY WAVES but the spatial result of wave interference between TWO PRIMARY ONES.

MAGNETISM! It is the spin-amplification of equally oriented atoms inside a ferromagnetic structure... A MAGNET!
WE CAN'T COLLAPSE the magnetic lines into charges to see them disappear for good! Think about this for a second!
However if the PRIMARY WAVES [the ones responsible for spin] were to be change as a DECAY process inside the Iron lattice or the "amplification" process compromised as a mechanical distorsion of the metal structure...THEN! The resulting lines of force will vanished from existence! It will take the transfromation of MATTER itself to destroy a pattern responsible for everything we observe in the universe: from magnetism to light.
That is what I reffered when I spoke about MOMENTUM and POSITION and their exclusive existence.
Scientists have proclaimed that they have "manufactured" anti-matter inside an atom-smasher...(?) They seems to have no idea of the energies involved in the making of matter. They assume that little "billiard ball-looking" protons join with their partners "electrons" in a sort of play where they spin to have fun (?) They believe themselves that they have actually isolated a piece of matter in the process! God protect us!
MATTER is pure MOMENTUM. At no time whatsoever those standing waves spinning around the atomic core have ever been collapsed. They simply can not be collapsed just like the lines of force observed outside magnets. You could call it "force fields" or invent a different concept it doesn't matter... We have no access to that "department" and the only way to get through it is by forcing our entrance like in particle collisions. BUT! Do not fool yourself! We are not collapsing or splitting anything down there gentlemen! We are feeding those pattern with energy only to be scattered in a fraction of a second back to space in a different "quantum configuration" >>> A new STAMP ready to be classified and stick to our precious ALBUM of illusions...

HUMANBYDEFAULT