[Farsight]

I say a little more about quarks later on when I talk about the Standard Model:

Originally Posted by Farsight

It's incomplete, and as with many mathematical models, there are problems with the interpretation. People tend to think of quarks as billiard-ball particles, unaware that Richard Feynman described them as "partons". The latter delivers a totally different mental picture, wherein quarks are merely component parts. Even Murray Gell-Mann, who chose the name quark, thought of a quark as a sub-unit rather than something that could be singularly observed. People tend to forget this, and talk about quark confinement and gluon exchange, taking mathematical abstraction too literally and thinking in terms of discrete entities like they think about electrons and photons.

I mention the bag model later, when I mention stretching the trefoil proton again. Get this: quarks aren't fundamental. They're just lowest common denominators. They can't be fundamental. Annihilate a proton with an antiproton, and those quarks have gone. And at no point did you ever actually see one.

Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this.

[austintorn@aol.com]

So, Farsight, then the strong force grows weaker near the 'quarks' because they can't really crowd each other, the asymptotic freedom spoken of?

This is a good thread for examining the structure of a proton, for that is what good old(?) prof is doing, but he's feeling younger now since he got married to a young beauty (maybe she's feeling older).

Prof has a magic crayon that still has a lot in it (the theory of the proton, I mean).

[Profpat]

The problem I see with the trefoil knot is that it's only one entity. I believe you need 3 quarks to make the Venn Diagram and have the color foce operational. Without the 3 you have no distinction.

So as for myself I'll stick with the 3 quarks, as in the standard model.

[Farsight]

Not quite, austin. The strong force is the resistance to stretching the trefoil as you try to pull the three lobes apart. It's like elastic, it takes more force to stretch it the further you try to pull. Actually, the strong force is present in a photon, but we don't notice it. If you think about proton/antiproton annihilation, you can reduce the resultant hadronic debris to photons and neutrinos, whereupon the strong force appears to have disappeared. It hasn't. It's what keeps the photon together. Or should I say it's what keeps space together as a photon ripples through it. IMHO.

Pat: nobody disagrees with three quarks. But just put your finger over the middle of each of the two pictures below:

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Hi Fredrick

Can't see how you come to such a definitive conclusion?

IMHO there is a definitive 'now' produced by the (clockwork) mechanism of time and the CBR is the sound of the clock ticking..... and it's not abstract.

regards
Felix

Words are words, Felix, and I would (and probably could) not use the word definitive for my conclusion. But I can use that word for my spiritual choice. I think I used my wording carefully (but you may disagree or read my words differently). However, there is plenty of logic to come to this specific conclusion I follow.

First, to promote understanding of the pentaist ToE, one needs to start with an open mind towards the idea that there is no absolute necessity to have everything be based on a singular platform on any level to come to our current state. That is a gigantic task already, since singularity on some level is considered beyond questioning by most people (in ordinary words: they don't even realize this is a question that should be answered first).

So, while I have a definitive choice, that choice exists within a field of options. In religion that is: a single god, multiple gods, no god. I think we agree, and do not see either one as the definitive single answer.

In some respect, we can even find evidence for each of these options. The single moment we call Now, for instance, can indeed be applied to everything that is, and that would then be a singular state. However, Now is not a very scientific word, and to make it scientific we will have to apply that Now to each separate entity in a quantifiable way. With Einstein's Relativity theory in hand, it is not possible to quantify all entities into a single Now and understand it in a singular fashion; a clock sent into space and a clock remaining here on earth have shown that already. So, even if we could quantify Now for an entity such as a clockwork, it would not be the same as the Now of the other clockwork. Each has a timing of its own.

The trick is that Now is a word we created and deal with every moment of our lives, but it is an abstraction created by us about our experience. In the abstract, everything exists in this Now. But the now of a photon is different from the now of the mineral in a rock, the now of a baby or the now of an old man. Only when moving ourselves to the abstract level can we find a Now that applies satisfactorily to all that is.

In science, there is no time, but for the time of the various parts. Though the very nature of time allows us to place an overall Now here, it is a word that cannot be timed as singular nor used for any enduring length of time for all that is. I hope you understand the CBR is not the essence of the question, only an instrument that informs us.

The variety of building blocks create a diversity of outcome. The single state of the universe we are able to conjure is an abstraction just like family is a single state we can conjure. Just because we can hold it in our minds does not mean it exists in a scientific framework. When tribes North of the equator and South of the equator had to come to a single explanation about the trek of the sun in the sky, building a contruct to the sun, their tower did not reach the sun. Only after separating the earth from the sun, and the separation therefore of the specific positions of the tribes themselves, only then was a single explanation possible.

To come to the conclusion in the specific religious framework that there is only one god is indeed possible. Yet the information of the scientific framework we find indicates better that - if there is already a diviness next to our state - that multiple gods govern our universe. (Please note with great care that this is an extrapolation from one framework to another and fits in with my choice). Not necessarily ten thousand gods would then exist, but if there is already a diviness outside our materialized realm, there is likely more than one divinity. I am applying the logic found in our universe to this other state, which may or may not exist. To name this diverse state with a single word god is possible.

[Profpat]

I really like your image Farsight. Is that both for the proton and neutron? Does your theory address why the positive charge for the proton and 0 charge for the neutron? I'm sorry I still haven't been able to peruse your theory other than giving it a cursory review.

Best to you,

Pat

[Farsight]

Pat: no, that image represents only the proton. I do explain why the neutron has no charge. I say it's because charge is an isotropic geometrical distortion. It's twisted space. An electron is a "trivial knot" photon configuration, akin to a moebius strip, with a 180 degree twist per turn. The next simplest knot is the trefoil. This also has a 180 degree twist but now there are three turns in one. It equates to the proton. The neutron has two extra turns and one extra (opposite) twist, and these change the geometry so that neutrons bind with protons, this being known as the residual strong force that keeps atomic nuclei together. However the neutron is not a knot, and it isn't three-way symmetrical. Hence it's unstable when unsupported outside the nucleus, and effectively "wobbles itself apart" in about fifteen minutes to undergo Beta-minus decay.

[dipayankar]

Mind if it is energy will have its own equations, also it has to have equations that blend into the equations of gravity if they have to work together..

Originally Posted by Fredrick

A quick reply to this, Dipayan, is found when considering that everything in our universe is made out of mass and energy and that the two are linked.

If you replace the word energy with the word mind it becomes possible to see that the mind is already part of the matter. The object of mind would then cease to be an object by itself but a natural component, a natural state, of matter/energy. I used this example before, the word family is something we all consider real, but it isn't real as a separate independent thing; it is based on the parts.

Gravity can according to me indeed be affected by mind on the conditions that you have a lot of it. And that all of those minds also need to be truly focused on a commonly accepted state, not only be in harmony about that, but retain that harmony all the way up to the momentum at which change of gravity is possible. Will that happen? Most likely not, because if gravity is a condition of mind (or energy/mass) it has already achieved the condition of today, so it is not just creating a condition, but changing a condition; and as we all know changing conditions is pretty tough.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Farsight

....charge is an isotropic geometrical distortion. It's twisted space.....

Hi Farsight

What does this mean in simple terms? Can you illustrate it?

regards
Felix

[Farsight]

Yes. Imagine a cube of space, something like this:



If this space included what we call an electric field, it would look like this:



It now exhibits a twist in all three dimensions. As the source of an electric field, an electron looks something like this:



Note that this is a depiction. There's no actual surface, because the electron is only a spatial distortion configured as a "trivial knot". The "onion rings" don't stop, and nor does the barberpole twist around the torus. Instead it extends outwards rather like a Fibonacci spiral, but it's isotropic in three dimensions. The degree of twist represents the strength of the electromagnetic field. This is what's known as "pure marble geometry", and is what Einstein was trying to work out. What we think of as a field in space is a region of geometrical distortion of that space. PM me and I'll send you the draft book which explains it properly. You have to understand other things to appreciate why all this really does work. I started a thread a few days ago, it's currently the next one down. See http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...verything.html