An Idea

[austintorn@aol.com]

(The Loan Shark)

An unusual track was found in a cloud chamber
That Carl Anderson was using
To watch the trajectories of cosmic rays
Streaming in from space.

The track was like that of an electron—
Except that it curved backwards
Under the influence of a magnetic field.
It was the positron, now used in the PET.

A particle and its antiparticle annihilate,
Giving back, in the process, the energy it took
To create them in the first place.

Do they live on borrowed time and energy,
A creation ‘ex nihilo’ all over the universe?
Can they sneak out of the vacuum
So long as they snuck back in again
Before you noticed?

“What is the point?”
Thought Richard Fenyman,
“Created and annihilated,
Annihilated and created—
What a waste of time.”

They come and go like dreams,
The lighter ones, like electrons,
Popping out more often.

They are the ghosts of the yet unborn.
The road from ‘nothing’ to something
Goes in both directions.

With enough energy they can become real.

The so-called ‘vacuum’ is creative.
The field fluctuates this way and that,
But, on average, the net energy is ‘zero’.

The once melted vacuum fell and froze,
Gaining structure,
Such as when water becomes ice.

[Profpat]

[quote=dipayankar;100474]So if it is a single sting, then one end is positive and the oter is negative... I hope I got that right[/quote

I hope I got it right! This is just my theory on a theoretical string.

[Profpat]

[Fredrick]

Can you show me an image, Fredrick, and sure you can use a Venn diagram (set theory), octants, matrix algebra whatever. Your words confuse me. Maybe LLoyd can follow them. I have the brain of a 6 year old.

You're right about the protons usually having 1 electron but sometimes less and sometimes more. I've been rethinking my position on electrons in that they may be an actual particle in their own right namely a string. So I thought maybe the beam got interrupted or it split, but nothing yet to describe ionization, but I haven't given up, or else you have to explain why the E/M force doesn't crash the electron into the proton.

Best,

Pat

The image is Yin and Yang. Why ask?

I thought I wrote for a three-year old. Don't underestimate yourself, Pat. So, to make it more pallatable for you, I am bringing the example up to language a fifty-year old can understand.

If we have an original force of opposition taking place within a larger stressed situation, then we have two sides opposing each other, not about the overall level (they belong to the same field), but about what action to follow at the specific level.


That is all.


I explain through words what is occurring within that opposition.



A similar delivery would be a nation that wants to move forward. Within the nation we have the issue of addressing poverty. One part says take from the rich and redistribute the money, the other part says make those poor people work harder through education and the government providing opportunity to work and educate themselves.

Both sides initially start out thinking that only one method can be correct. So they are engaged in a struggle to get the outcome each wants.

We know the result: neither gets what they want, and instead a compromise is formulated by outsiders and those abandoning the original positions.

They compromise not on taxing the rich more, but on taxing money that lies dormant in banks more. They compromise not on providing education and jobs, but on giving tax breaks to companies that hire people under 25 and on giving out loans that needs to be paid back after the study.

The matter is therefore organized around different principles to combat poverty than the original two sides each desired. Their oppositional status was broken by circumstances (others, defectors).

Reality is now focused on making money work (those with lots of money will try to prevent being taxed highly on their non-permforming assets), and those without work will make an investment in themselves (studying) that need to be paid back — in money. I make the assumption that I do not have to explain that money and poverty are directly linked.

In stead of organizing money around people, the people were organized around money.

The proton is the money, the neutron is the poverty. Both are abstracts, and are distributed throughout the population (but not in equal proportions). We are getting a lot of action out of the institute called money. Hence, understanding the inner workings of money allows us to see what the societal outcome is, because people organize themselves around the principles.

Those with money (proton) want money for themselves (say yes to yes), and want money to stay with them (not go to others — say yes to no). They act so others comply at least to some extent with that position (they must involve others in the institution of money and do so in such manner they can keep as much for themselves as possible — dynamic profit mechanism). As you see, the no-to-yes part does move some money into other people's hands.

As you can tell, that is not a very grounded position, it requires others 'buying' into this reality, so let's add that sense of reality: the neutron.

Here we find people not having enough money. They gather around saying yes to no (they want money they now not have), and they acknowledge that — by determining they do not have it and they need it (they acknowledge they say no to no). One part says 'get lost' by saying no to yes, and instead of getting involved with money they use the system of bartering to get their needs met.

If more people barter and therefore give up on considering money vital, then the superrich may end up with a lot of paper that no longer has much value. So the rich buy assets to such level that ensures the others are always lacking funds. They make sure money is vital to all (most) in society. And they have good reason on their side, because there are so many benefits to money. Bartering is a very involved process and things can get screwy.

The electron is the speaker of the heart. Every now and then, the need that money created is so tremendously large (because everyone holds on to money for dear life) that the plee is made to give up some of your money so others can have some of it. Money provides access, so sometimes we need charity, give up on money's brutal nature, and just give it away. We treat children this way (they do not need to work for money), and we treat those that way who are unable to get inside the work force (making decent wages).

But in general, when all have some, the electron is just buzzing around doing its thing. When having a lot of money, the electron may even fall asleep (non-performing assets).

There, I brought it up to the level of a fifty-year old (but in essence a three-year old, when explained properly, can understand the dynamics). The dynamics form the matter. The dynamics are not equal to the matter. The matter itself is a non-scientific subject matter. Science cannot give an answer to the question where the matter came from. Religious leaders also try, but they can also not give an answer to that question. In philosophy no one can give that answer either. But what can be answered is the dynamics, and that allows us even a peek into the uknown, because the dynamics must have started for a reason, good or bad.

So, the proton is explained as an entity that expressed positions of a certain kind, itself containing that what matters (possessions). Meanwhile, the neutron is not actually of the same kind, yet it is an expression of dynamics and contains some of the matter, too (through wages and bartering). The electron is expressed only when required (when there is a proton, an electron can exist or not, but as soon as there is more than a proton, the electron is active and can be riled up).

The hard part may be that you are looking at the information from the perspective that you want to find out where it is coming from, Pat, but the actual question is: how is it organized. What organization do we view at the smallest (the quark) level? And I answered that using ordinary language.

Naturally, we may consider strings, but that is the even more specific level. The hunger that can exist in reality, and that lies deeply burried therefore underneath the human brain's thinking will exists in various forms and shapes, and shape our actions. Yet these actions can all be organized in the proton-neutron reality I described above. We should not feel that there is more at the deeper level, even when we understand it better if we do go indeed deeper into the matter. But to understand hunger by experimenting may leave us with some corpses. So my suggestion is to (first) understand the overall level, don't go too deep into it, and figure out how the dynamics work. The quarks contain all we need to know to understand the larger realities (homes, banks, businesses, governments, grass-roots organizations, families, dinkies, yuppies, and chi-chis, drunks, and criminals and anger and pleasure, resentment and cheers, charity, greed, envy and desire, success and failure, and a few other things that now slip my mind). These outcomes are not quarks, but based on the quark realities, they are larger forms of matter, but I bet you recognized some strings in there, too.

[Fredrick]

THE IRRATIONAL

Indefiniteness didn’t sit well with Pythagorus,
Ever concerned with the perfection of numbers.

You can divide the circumference of a circle
With its radius but you cannot write the result
As a fraction or a ratio,
For pi just keeps on going.

So, he pledged his disciples to secrecy,
For the ancient Pythagoreans
Had developed an entire religion
Based on the rationality of numbers.

Yet, one rebel vowed to let the word out;
However, he mysteriously drowned at sea.

Now, how does one draw a clear line
Between organization and not?

When, even, does the night turn to day?

The most interesting and potent things,
From the evolution of the universe to life,
Exist at the blurred boundary
Between order and chaos,
Life perhaps emerging in tide pools—
The shifting edge between land and sea.
.
It is the fuzzy realm
Where things have to be orderly enough
To take form,
But not so much frozen
That they cannot change.

The ancient Greek already knew that Pi delivers that location between the two equal legs, themselves at a 90 degree angle. The location of the circle can be found as follows:

Start with a straight line between both ends (that is: a triangle with one ninety degree corner and equal length to both legs). From the drawn line, at the middle position of that line, move outwardly with half the length of a leg, then return with a third-length of a leg, then move outwards again with a fifth of a leg, then return with a seventh of the leg, etc (-1/3, +1/5, -1/7, +1/9, -1/11, etc). I may be mistaken about the initial 1/2, so I left it out between the parenthesis, and you may have to reverse the + and the - to get the correct answer. But if you use the correct delivery of steps, you always end up at the circle. It is the game of give and take.

[labelwench]

The irrational one declines comment except to note that the current course of the dialogue is of interest and written in a comprehensive manner to same observer.

Nice illustrations provided, likewise, by the purveyor of this fine thread.

Regards.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

I agree the quark probably has the dynamics of the Tao Symbol. I haven't been able to quite figure out their eyes however. So we have 1) The Black area, 2) The white eye within that black area, 3) The white area, 4) The black area within the white area, 5) The self created border, both within and without, and 6) What is it resting upon? 7) That central point that it's revolving around.

We also have position and flow represented here. (Particle/Wave)

And does it flow clockwise:


Or counter-clockwise:



Does it create an opposite charge depending which way it's flowing?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof, can you post just a picture of a hole, just the hole part, so we can but see the whole of the hole and nothing more?

[Profpat]

Prof, can you post just a picture of a hole, just the hole part, so we can but see the whole of the hole and nothing more?

Sure here it is:

.

[labelwench]

Sure here it is:

.

Four right angles positioned to form a 'whole'.

Love it!