Nothing but spacebubbles.

[Newts]

My TOE, squish theory, is based on the assumption that the universe can only be composed of one type of thing, compressible spherical spacebubbles. Indeed I think that only a theory which assumes the universe to be composed of one type of thing, can really be a TOE.
The first problem involves explaining away all the different types of particles in the standard model, the dozens of quarks and anti-quarks, the gluons and the rest. In squish theory, this is done by assuming that all particles are collections of electric charges, like electrons and positrons.
For example a proton is calculated to contain around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. The strength of the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, can then be calculated on the basis that it is caused by the interaction between the charges on the surfaces of the nucleons. So gluons are not needed either.
An introduction to my TOE can be downloaded as a free sample on the Amazon Kindle product page for ‘Squish Theory 1’. The main response I have had so far from physicists, is that my theory must be wrong because it contradicts the standard model; but I thought on a site dedicated to finding a TOE, perhaps people might be a bit more open-minded?

[PoPpAScience]

Welcome Newts to Toequest.

Any ideas are welcome here, the more the better.

Indeed the the Universe is but ONE thing, and it is very formationable.

[mkirkpatrick]

My TOE, squish theory, is based on the assumption that the universe can only be composed of one type of thing, compressible spherical spacebubbles. Indeed I think that only a theory which assumes the universe to be composed of one type of thing, can really be a TOE.
The first problem involves explaining away all the different types of particles in the standard model, the dozens of quarks and anti-quarks, the gluons and the rest. In squish theory, this is done by assuming that all particles are collections of electric charges, like electrons and positrons.
For example a proton is calculated to contain around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. The strength of the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, can then be calculated on the basis that it is caused by the interaction between the charges on the surfaces of the nucleons. So gluons are not needed



either.


An introduction to my TOE can be downloaded as a free sample on the Amazon Kindle product page for ‘Squish Theory 1’. The main response I have had so far from physicists, is that my theory must be wrong because it contradicts the standard model; but I thought on a site dedicated to finding a TOE, perhaps people might be a bit more open-minded?

Welcome to the forum Newts,a very interesting idea for the toe.

regards michael.

[Newts]

Indeed the the Universe is but ONE thing, and it is very formationable.

Thanks for the welcome.
I sort of extended Lovelock’s Gaia theory, to the idea that the universe is a single everlasting organism made only of spacebubbles. It collapses in on itself to create matter in the squish, then expands back out in the big bang. This cycle repeats itself indefinitely, so that the universe has no beginning and no end.

[Graybeard]

My TOE, squish theory, is based on the assumption that the universe can only be composed of one type of thing, compressible spherical spacebubbles.

The first problem involves explaining away all the different types of particles in the standard model, the dozens of quarks and anti-quarks, the gluons and the rest. In squish theory, this is done by assuming that all particles are collections of electric charges, like electrons and positrons.

For example a proton is calculated to contain around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. The strength of the strong nuclear force, which holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus, can then be calculated on the basis that it is caused by the interaction between the charges on the surfaces of the nucleons. So gluons are not needed either.

Hi Newts .... Welcome to the forum.

You describe the strong force as holding the protons and neutrons together ... but this is the 'old' strong force and no longer a true description.

Also, if the proton contains 2501 different charges then it becomes a Nucleon and must be made of 'smaller' particles. What are these 2501 particles ... and how does it become simpler than 'all the different types of particles in the standard model, the dozens of quarks and anti-quarks, the gluons and the rest.'

cool bananas ... greg

[Newts]

What are these 2501 particles

The idea is that protons are made of a mixture of positive and negative charges, as in positrons and electrons, so essentially all particles are just collections of two basic ingredients.

[Graybeard]

The idea is that protons are made of a mixture of positive and negative charges, as in positrons and electrons, so essentially all particles are just collections of two basic ingredients.

Why do all the collider results and the predicted equations show 3 point like particles within a proton ?

How do you predict 2000+ particles within a proton ?

cool bananas ... greg

[mkirkpatrick]

The universe is composed of basically just one thing,you call it space bubbles,I call it consciousness/energy,as the great bard once said,A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

regards michael.

[Newts]

Why do all the collider results and the predicted equations show 3 point like particles within a proton ?

My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed.
My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons.
I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed.

How do you predict 2000+ particles within a proton ?

Originally I just guessed that there might be about 2001 charges in a proton, on the basis that a proton weighs 1836 times as much as an electron, and that charges packed together ought to weigh less than free charges, in the same way a hydrogen atom weighs less than the combined weight of a free proton and electron.
I then studied the difference in masses of particles created in accelerators, and found that these could be adequately explained by assuming that each surface charge on a particle would have a mass of around .8 of a free electron, whilst each fully enclosed charge would be around .7 of an electron-mass. I assumed a proton to be roughly spherical, and came up with a figure around 2500. I can easily post my calculations if you want, but they are quite lengthy.

[Newts]

The universe is composed of basically just one thing,you call it space bubbles,I call it consciousness/energy,as the great bard once said,A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

Usually people want to argue over the meaning of words, but it is nice that here everybody is very agreeable. Spacebubbles are my version of what other people call the universe, God, or the aether.