I too think that the proton/neutron is a dome/sphere shape with only a field in the middle. This is also true how I view the universe, something like a soap bubble ( not flat ) with all substance on the surface.
I think our main difference is that I think the proton/neutron and ALL substance in the universe is made up of strings.
Hi Mikal:
I'll let Fredrick address your question. I believe in a cyclic universe that when compressed to its ultimate density ( where even protons and quarks are broken down to it's ultimate fundamental substance, namely strings ) and it's impossible to compress further, then, it springs out again ( the strings ) to recombine and form protons and neutrons again. Strings I view as 1 dimensional Planck Length Entities, which are the smallest possible thing of substance.
I too think that the proton/neutron is a dome/sphere shape with only a field in the middle. This is also true how I view the universe, something like a soap bubble ( not flat ) with all substance on the surface.
I think our main difference is that I think the proton/neutron and ALL substance in the universe is made up of strings.
Hi Mikal:
I'll let Fredrick address your question. I believe in a cyclic universe that when compressed to its ultimate density ( where even protons and quarks are broken down to it's ultimate fundamental substance, namely strings ) and it's impossible to compress further, then, it springs out again ( the strings ) to recombine and form protons and neutrons again. Strings I view as 1 dimensional Planck Length Entities, which are the smallest possible thing of substance.
Very best to both of you,
Pat
Hi profat
have been having a ponder these days. Not sure I want to go down that road but what if this recombine did not effect to a big bang.
First how could it not.
The Standard model, the Toronic Collision Model and the Toronic Particle universe model, fall as much to complicated when it may have been as simple as a turning inside out of the clumping. ... not so much the Toronic shape but what other would have the effect? It is mimicked in varied Hubble shots, The Cats eye for example right down to the core of hermit crab to unexplainable atom loss in smashing event in the Bois-Einstein condensate experiments.
Maybe it has been right in front of our eyes all the time .. hmmm ?
IMHO ... just to give you a new headache lol ... kind regards g
Strange beasties these quarks. My An Idea deals only with the 1st generation quarks the up and down. These little guys are the only stable quarks. The other 2nd and 3rd generation quarks ( strange, charmed, top, bottom ) are very short lived.
From Wiki: There are six different types of quarks, known as flavors: up (symbol: u), down (d), charm (c), strange (s), top (t), and bottom (b).[4] The lightest flavors, the up quark and the down quark, are generally stable and are very common in the universe as they are the constituents of protons and neutrons. The more massive charm, strange, top and bottom quarks are unstable and rapidly decay; these can only be produced as quark-pairs under high energy conditions, such as in particle accelerators and in cosmic rays. For every quark flavor there is a corresponding antiparticle, called antiquark, that differs from the quark only in that some of its properties have the opposite sign.
"The incorporation of the phenomenon of nothing into the current status is what happened in and around the Big Bang; it changed the previous whole into separate parts that on some level are in full disagreement with one another".....Fredrick
Hi Fredrick...your statement above interested me so I am going to ask a question which probably may seem stupid in the face of what you guys all know...but I will ask it anyway..
If the Universe's big bang changed the previous whole into separate parts could that also be implied to our state as first in the fetal state in some kind of state of wholeness with the Universe and then the big bang for us was "birth" which the ancients seemed to think shattered or fragmented the wholeness into parts?????
Be gentle now guys....smiles...
Mikal
Hi Mikal,
Well, no need to be shy with a great question like that. Of course the start of life is one of those very few instances where we can have a look at how life is organizing itself. Yet I would move towards the cell level rather than the overall concept level.
If you take the ovum and the sperm both as the potential entities required to create new life, then we can see the set-up stage of the potential. Neither part will automatically lead to a new life, this only happens when all conditions are right.
What I find fascinating from an organizational point of view is that, once the sperm is inside the ovum, this entity (the zygote) starts dividing itself. Separation of the entity occurs, and only then will specialization of the cells follow. If you followed some of my remarks on the in-out aspect being the absolute most important dimensional aspect for matter, then you can understand that it takes a good number of divisions before an inside and an outside layer of cells are created from this zygote. Only then does specialization take place. I believe this is due to information restrictions of a physical kind, where the outside may receive a straight signal (of hormones or nutrients), but needs to transmit this signal towards the center; the center therefore does not get the straight signal and can only develop according to the via-via signal it does get. I consider this very similar to how the conflict could have occurred within the potential of our pre-universe state that led to a fundamental letting-go (separation of potential behaviors) which in turn led to energy becoming materialized. With this perspective, it would then also not make sense to view life as the perfect delivery of what was on the other side, but more as the warped outcome(s) of what was/is on the other side.
The remark that in the fetale state we were one with the wholeness and the universe that is one for yourself to consider. I do not know what is on the other side, and this could be a wholeness or a different kind of separateness; I do not think we should dwell too much on the other side. I also do not think we should confuse the being-one of the feutus with the mother as wholeness, rather see that as adults we have grown towards the potential of our own wholeness, but where we must accept that that can only be done in such a way that we had to incoporate our specific and to a large extent separated physical entity. Of course, you may have other thoughts on that?
Comparing stages, while we ourselves are within the universe where separation has already occurred, is difficult, especially to get anything precisely matched. One can say that the Big Bang already took place before fertilization (!), but one could also view it comparable to giving birth. Comparisons are possible, but scientific statements of comparisons are probably not too solid. Still, I think it is great to look for similarities, Mikal, even if it is just to satisfy some curiosity.
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
I too think that the proton/neutron is a dome/sphere shape with only a field in the middle. This is also true how I view the universe, something like a soap bubble ( not flat ) with all substance on the surface.
I think our main difference is that I think the proton/neutron and ALL substance in the universe is made up of strings.
That is indeed a big one, Pat, and I will not follow you there to stringland (though I understand what you are saying).
The exact shape of the universe is hard to tell, for we are still discovering information about it. Also, a light source moving away from us at more than the speed of light may make it difficult for us to assess the entire universe correctly. But I think one conclusion can be made: we are so small ourselves. I am not totally clear on what you mean with not flat because I thought that was a term used to indicate that space is straight, not bend. I find it totally unsurprising and not interesting (because belonging to a brain fabrication capacity enabling some to see an issue where there isn't an issue - sorry, but what I consider the same source as where some are capable of envisioning strings). Possibly you know more specific details about this?
__________________ The difference between a structure based on unification and a structure without unification hinges on the question if nothing is just plain nothing or if nothing is mighty fundamental. Read In Search of a Cyclops with titillating mathematical evidence (see homepage) to find out if separation belongs to the fundamental basics of our universe - or not.
That is indeed a big one, Pat, and I will not follow you there to stringland (though I understand what you are saying).
The exact shape of the universe is hard to tell, for we are still discovering information about it. Also, a light source moving away from us at more than the speed of light may make it difficult for us to assess the entire universe correctly. But I think one conclusion can be made: we are so small ourselves. I am not totally clear on what you mean with not flat because I thought that was a term used to indicate that space is straight, not bend. I find it totally unsurprising and not interesting (because belonging to a brain fabrication capacity enabling some to see an issue where there isn't an issue - sorry, but what I consider the same source as where some are capable of envisioning strings). Possibly you know more specific details about this?
Hi Fredrick;
A little info regarding the ( Flat Universe ) from Wiki:
An important parameter in fate of the universe theory is the Density parameter, Omega (Ω), defined as the average matter density of the universe divided by a critical value of that density. This selects one of three possible geometries depending on whether Ω is equal to, less than, or greater than 1. These are called, respectively, the flat, open and closed universes. These three adjectives refer to the overall geometry of the universe, and not to the local curving of spacetime caused by smaller clumps of mass
Without knowing for sure my vote is for a closed universe. Just a gut feel, nothing scientific to necessarily to back up that claim. You're right we need more evidence.
Regarding the size of a person ( " we are so small ourselves " ). Again a gut feel that we are somewhere twixt a Planck Length and the universe, and are indeed the measure of all things.
I discovered (kind of made up), in my Potential theory, that the conscious observer (one of our proto-man ancestors) is what brought the universe into being from the quantum-like potential of all possible universes; thus the universe is here because of us! We brought it forth!
Hi Fredrick...thanks for taking the time to explain that with such exceptional clarity. How the beginning cell life organizes life has always fascinated me and I always marvel at how these cells can seem to hold such intelligence...
kind regards g
Linear Mode
