Quarks? Dragonology and quarkology.

[socratus]

The wish of the scientists to understand the picture of Existence is great.
That is why, aspiring to understand the structure of micro particles,
they created a new theory "quantum chromodynamics ", "quark model", 1963.
But the "quantum chromodynamics " theory approves
that it is impossible to see quarks.
* * *
“Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this major
area of knowledge – dragonology as well.”
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark theory was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.

[socratus]

Interesting article by Vertner Vergon.

Years ago, I attended a lecture at Caltech by Gell-Mann in which he
explained why he developed the THEORY of the quark. He was looking for
a common denomenator to the atomic zoo -- a common denominator of
characteristics. He found some (3) and didn't know what they really
were so he called them Quarks. Later he found more, so he had 6. From
there the theory grew like topsey and develped colors -- BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE. Some theory.
(Then there's "up" "down" --- and I'm waiting for "sideways" :-) )
The quark has never been isolated. So instead of admitting there was no
such thing, it was pronounced that it could not escape the nucleus. How
convenient..
Bill uses as an argument that the rest of humanity believes in the
quark. Humanity believed in Ptolemy's universe for FOURTEEN CENTURIES.
And more recently, practically all of humanity celebrated New Year 2000
as the beginning of a new milleniuim while the FACT is the new
millenium started with the year 2001.
"Humanity" can be very stupid at times.
A more apropos story for the non-existent quarks is the fable about the
King who wore no clothes. Everybody commented on how COLORFUL his
clothes were (the same colors as have quarks) but, alas, the king was
naked.
If anyone wants to read a theory of the sub-particle structure of the
universe, they can go to http://www.wbabin.net (The General Science
Journal) --find the list of authors pull down -- click on Vertner
Vergon and read the monograph, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

VERGON

[Albers]

In my thread "three is a migic number", I exposited on possible electromagnetic ring structures. This is what quarks are! That's why you cannot isolate them; they are two different half-wave structures arranged in a three-vertex ring (speaking of up and down quarks).

[Epsilon=One]

In my thread "three is a migic number", I exposited on possible electromagnetic ring structures. This is what quarks are! That's why you cannot isolate them; they are two different half-wave structures arranged in a three-vertex ring (speaking of up and down quarks).You have an excellent understanding of quarks.

I rationalize them as resonances of harmonic motion of complex oscillating (three forms of oscillation: slide, swing, and vibration) solitons (half-waves).

I would expect three salient groups of four spherical resonances arranged tetralaterally (like 3 tangent spheres on a plane with a fourth on top) for a total of 12 . . . a magic subatomic number.

Of course when resonances are disturbed there would be myriad, momentary forms.

The spin of these resonances would depend upon the groups location. If about the diameter of the "envelope" they would be fermions; if about an outer radius of the ellipsoidal "envelope" they would be bosons.

And, of course, quarks can NOT carry fractional charges.

(Note: This poem was written for Murray Gell-Mann's longtime secretary, "Hope and Inspiration." (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=80))

[Albers]

I would expect three salient groups of four spherical resonances arranged tetralaterally (like 3 tangent spheres on a plane with a fourth on top) for a total of 12 . . . a magic subatomic number.


The spin of these resonances would depend upon the groups location. If about the diameter of the "envelope" they would be fermions; if about an outer radius of the ellipsoidal "envelope" they would be bosons.

And, of course, quarks can NOT carry fractional charges. I can feel your geometry, but have not yet worked on my rings. Charge has to come out as usual as an isotropic effect, or as nothing monopolar in neutrons.

[Epsilon=One]

Charge has to come out as usual as an isotropic effect, or as nothing monopolar in neutrons.Agreed. Charge indicates the pulse/wave status of the soliton as either "in or out" or "crest or trough," which I construe as your "isotropic effect."

The neutron represents a complete wave function.

It is difficult to imagine any situation where a soliton/charge might be fractional. I have no idea what Gell-Mann or peer review was thinking of when they accepted such.

[Albers]

They are only parts of the circle. If I am fortunate I will show how they are half wave-phase structures of spin 1/2 which cannot exist except as a ring.

[Epsilon=One]

They are only parts of the circle. If I am fortunate I will show how they are half wave-phase structures of spin 1/2 which cannot exist except as a ring.I don't believe there is anything in your statement that conflicts with my thoughts; however, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I am very interested in anything that has to do with 1/2 spin. As with so much in QM that is counterintuitive, I believe the adjective 1/2 used for spin is such.

[Albers]

I have expressed the angular momentum density of an electromagnetic field including whatever charge/current time-dependent fields there are. I cannot yet pull out the essence of spin-1/2, but between my work on the electron and on the photon I trust it will fall from the sky. The first is the bound circle; the second 'pokes along at the speed of light".

[Epsilon=One]

I cannot yet pull out the essence of spin-1/2, but between my work on the electron and on the photon I trust it will fall from the sky. The first is the bound circle; the second 'pokes along at the speed of light".I think that both your ideas are close to being correct. The bound circle, a spin within a spin, is something that I like.

By their nature I understand that photons and electrons are resonances of harmonic "strings" of motion; therefore, they would not be at hyper-relativistic speeds such as that of the harmonic "strings"; and, thus, they would "poke along at the speed of light"

[Albers]

I listened to Gell-Mann say "Don't take these things too seriously. They are somehow aspects of field". Yup.

[Epsilon=One]

I listened to Gell-Mann say "Don't take these things too seriously. They are somehow aspects of field". Yup.Thanks. I've always wanted to ask him. I tried chasing him down at Caltech, but he had already moved on to Santa Fe. From his writings, I know he knows better. I admire him and for years have tried to agitate him into debate . . . he's too wily to take the bait.

His early work on randomness for the government is something else that I have wanted to ask him about.

[the cook]

well I thought about the quarks as such
in a professional kitchen you find a kind of soup, that are called consommes!
the process is to make a clear soup out of a merky soup or stock!
if I am right in that assumption, quarks did cook the Primordial soup to create the clear one the present on, creating the Ozone at the same time and fueling the sun with cook impurities!




The wish of the scientists to understand the picture of Existence is great.
That is why, aspiring to understand the structure of micro particles,
they created a new theory "quantum chromodynamics ", "quark model", 1963.
But the "quantum chromodynamics " theory approves
that it is impossible to see quarks.
* * *
“Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this major
area of knowledge – dragonology as well.”
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark theory was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.

[Albers]

I'm not sure about your cosmology but I like your instincts and soup bases. I could actually live with heavy bosons and such at the alphabits at GEV temperatures, but not with low-temperature space (hereabouts) determining why electrons have mass. What can I say of a quantum mechancis that does not otherwise understand mass? Epsilon speaks of tetrads and such. I'm curious as to his take here. Bon appetite . P.S. I am having much fun talking with Hal Puthoff about relativity and electrons and such. When I satisfy myself here, I will at some point work on <m=3> electrodynamics.

[Epsilon=One]

well I thought about the quarks as such
in a professional kitchen you find a kind of soup, that are called consommes!
the process is to make a clear soup out of a merky soup or stock!
if I am right in that assumption, quarks did cook the Primordial soup to create the clear one the present on, creating the Ozone at the same time and fueling the sun with cook impurities!Few analogies are very apropos to the situation to which they are applied. This quark analogy is one that is just not applicable at all.

[Cerveny]

How can be considered as a particle such “thing” that cannot exist separately? If it raised any force field, such potential would have to fall in any case. It should be considered rather as some special quantum number or even as part of space - etheron or spaceron or dimensioron or some like that :-)

[Epsilon=One]

How can be considered as a particle such “thing” that cannot exist separately?

If it raised any force field, such potential would have to fall in any case. It should be considered rather as some special quantum number or even as part of space - etheron or spaceron or dimensioron or some like that…I have no idea how you define a "particle." My definition of a particle (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/Particle) has nothing to do with whether something can or “cannot exist separately”; is there anything that can exist separately within a Universe of quantum and Cosmic entanglement?

Nor, is a particle anything such as: anthropoidally contrived “quantum numbers” or metaphysical “space.”

A particle is the resultant resonance that manifests from the internal harmonic motion of a Pulsoid, which is analogous to a quantum “field.” Simply: A particle is the resonance of harmonic, hyper-relativistic motion.

[Cerveny]

...is there anything that can exist separately within a Universe of quantum and Cosmic entanglement.

My problem is that I do not believe in " Cosmic entanglement " - it follows only from wrong interpretation of term "measuring" in QM :-(

[Epsilon=One]

My problem is that I do not believe in " Cosmic entanglement " - it follows only from wrong interpretation of term "measuring" in QM :-(Unfortunately, QM is not very good at Cosmic scales. Which, is an excellent argument as to why QM is seriously flawed. As currently understood in the standard models, QM is little more than a contrivance to explain observed data; there is no fundamental explanation for the observed QM manifestations, which for the most part rely upon unproved mathematics.

If you "do not believe in " Cosmic entanglement ," exactly how would you explain the observed effects of gravity?

[Cerveny]

If you "do not believe in " Cosmic entanglement ," exactly how would you explain the observed effects of gravity?

There is not any special phenomena about gravity. Is spreads by a similar way as electrostatic field. The speed of gravity propagation is near or qual to speed of light (-:“dimension moving/growing”:-)

[Epsilon=One]

There is not any special phenomena about gravity. Is spreads by a similar way as electrostatic field.You could not be much more mistaken when you state, "There is not any special phenomena about gravity."

Your "electrostatic field" (something that the standard models cannot fundamentally explain) certainly cannot account for accelerating, galactic recession; or, explain the mechanism of the six or more forces required for "attraction-at-a-distance."

Apparently, you know a lot more about gravity than Einstein (who failed to relate gravity to anything "electrostatic"; or, Richard P. Feynman:The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable
from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...
other theories.

Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of
other phenomena.

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]
QEDThe speed of gravity propagation is near or qual to speed of light (-:“dimension moving/growing”:-)If the speed of gravity were "near or qual (sic) to speed of light" gravity waves would have been found long before now. If gravity moved as slow as the SOL the motion of the Cosmic bodies would be chaotic rather than elliptical; though, there would then be none of the Cosmic entanglement that you don't accept.

If you truly are concerned about knowing something about the concepts of gravitation, you might peruse: Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis).

[Cerveny]

..If gravity moved as slow as the SOL the motion of the Cosmic bodies would be chaotic rather than elliptical..

The elliptical motion is a product of a long evolution, maybe it is the least energy state..

There is one misunderstanding thing in gravity - role of so called “antimass”. The relation between gravity and inertity is, I believe, as a relation between an electrostatic force and a magnetic force.

When you leak the bath there is not a chaotic motion either - whirl-pool appears. The galaxy are the same case - everywhere the mass goes to the future - every plane is orthogonal to the time-dimension direction. (consider our dimension motion/growing :-)

[Epsilon=One]

The elliptical motion is a product of a long evolution...No!!! Elliptical motion is present with the very first manifestation of that which evolves . . . a Pulsoid (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/P).

Elliptical motion is a consequence of seminal motion's (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) dynamics, referred to as Triquametric motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/TM), which emerges, simultaneously from three points during the dynamic separation (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DS) of a dimensionless point within a dimensionless sphere.

...maybe it is the least energy state.I doubt that you understand that "the least energy state" must be congruent with the greatest energy state . . . and as such, is a special Emergent Ellipsoid (http://www.EmergentEllipse.com) in the non-existent form of a sphere and a straight line.

There is one misunderstanding thing in gravity - role of so called “antimass”. The relation between gravity and inertity is, I believe, as a relation between an electrostatic force and a magnetic force.There is much that is misunderstood about gravity; and, I have seen no concept from your posts that does anything to mitigate the current academic ma laise [word formatted to defeat SPAM filter] concerning gravitational theory.

There is a direct relationship between the secondary forces of Cosmic gravitational effect and Cosmic Inertia (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CI); however, nowhere does it involve concepts of fundamental QM forces.

When you leak the bath there is not a chaotic motion either - whirl-pool appears. The galaxy are the same case - everywhere the ma ss [word formatted to defeat SPAM filter] goes to the future - every plane is orthogonal to the time-dimension direction. (consider our dimension motion/growing :-)There is some truth to what you say. However, nothing you have posted indicates the, "Why?" of your conclusions. Do you understand the origin of the orthogonal dimensions and the "time-dimension direction" that you so glibly speak of?

[Cerveny]

However, nothing you have posted indicates the, "Why?" of your conclusions.
Please specify, what do you want to clarify ;-)

[Epsilon=One]

Please specify, what do you want to clarify ;-)I thought I was very clear with the words "nothing" and "your conclusions" that referred to your statement that I quoted above my statement.

However, to repeat the remainder of my comment, you could start by responding to the following: "Do you understand the origin of the orthogonal dimensions and the "time-dimension direction" that you so glibly speak of?"In general, I find your work completely lacking in the fundamental definitions of the terms you use. For instance, I can find nothing that indicates you understand the fundamental definitions for concepts such as: gravity, time, numbers, quantum "fields," emergent and dissipating energy, "dark" matter, Infinity, etc.

You seem to rely upon unproven mathematical manipulations of metaphysical, standard model, quantum postulates to arrive at occasionally logical conclusions.

[Cerveny]

..Do you understand the origin of the orthogonal dimensions and the "time-dimension direction" that you so glibly speak of..
I do not have any serious problem with “time-dimension” origin. It is the same case as when a crystal starts its crystallization, but in four dimension. When our space/ether appeared, a new phase of space/ether started to grow. We are placed on one of the “crystal” face (you must add one dimension - so you have our space ;-) Of course thereupon you would object a matter/particle. I think those are some defect in regular structure of space/ether...

[Albers]

Of course thereupon you would object a matter/particle. I think those are some defect in regular structure of space/ether...
I think of them as resonances of the deeper field.

[Epsilon=One]

I think of them as resonances of the deeper field.I agree. A musician can better understand the subtleties of physics.

I do not have any serious problem with “time-dimension” origin.This may be so; however, I have a "serious problem" with your lack of fundamental definitions for the conclusions that you arrive at.

It is the same case as when a crystal starts its crystallization, but in four dimension.This is an example of what I refer to as your lack of fundamental definitions. What is "crystallization"?; What are the bonds of crystallization? How do you define dimensions? Do you differentiate any of your "four dimensions"? Why four? Does your explanation of "time-dimension" that you relate to "crystallization" differ for the quanta of space?; or, for "photons"?; etc.

When our space/ether appeared, a new phase of space/ether started to grow. We are placed on one of the “crystal” face (you must add one dimension - so you have our space ;-)This is nonsense. You seem to be implying that: we/our space/ether ("crystal" face) differs for anthropoids from the rest of the Universe???

Of course thereupon you would object a matter/particle. I think those are some defect in regular structure of space/ether...I cannot accept that something so fundamental as "matter/particle" can be considered as a "defect." I understand particles as elegant. I find Albers' concept much more satisfying than a structural defect.

[Cerveny]

I think of them as resonances of the deeper field.
Every field is some case of matter deformation, there is not "field" without matter...

[Cerveny]

What is "crystallization
The crystallization is proses during which some elements of system lost their free and conform to order and settle their location to fixed (elastic) distances thus create some structure - in our case it is space=vacuum=ether

[Epsilon=One]

Every field is some case of matter deformation, there is not "field" without matter...It is more correct to say that there is not matter without a "field"; because, it is the harmonic motion that creates the "field"/Pulsoid that resonates as fermions/matter.

Again, to speak of fundamental phenomena as "deformation" rather than elegance, I consider as quite irreverent.

[Albers]

Every field is some case of matter deformation, there is not "field" without matter...I say there are stable resonances we speak of as matter.

[Cerveny]

Again, to speak of fundamental phenomena as "deformation" rather than elegance, I consider as quite irreverent.

It is a matter of opinion - someone can say that mankind is mould infection of Earth - someone can say an opposite :-)

//It is more correct to say that there is not matter without a "field"; because, it is the harmonic motion (of what?)

A field without some matter is a mathematic it is not a physics :-(

[Epsilon=One]

It is a matter of opinion - someone can say that mankind is mould infection of Earth - someone can say an opposite :-)With this logic, all standard model physics can be considered as "a matter of opinion."

//It is more correct to say that there is not matter without a "field"; because, it is the harmonic motion (of what?)Hyper-relativistic, dimensionless motion, which as seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) can be considered the first dimension.

Seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/SM) is analogous to the emergent energy that is found within every fundamental quantum that is often referred to as "dark" energy (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DE). Seminal motion comprises the "fields" of quantum field theory.

A field without some matter is a mathematic it is not a physics :-(Physics describes Natural phenomena; true mathematics is a part of Natural phenomena, which is why it is so adept at describing Natural phenomena..

You might peruse Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) for a heuristic understanding of how Reality (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/R) works beyond the standard model mythology . . .

[Cerveny]

.. true mathematics is a part of Natural phenomena, which is why it is so adept at describing Natural phenomena..
No hard feeling, but are not you going to explore for example Ludolph's number somewhere in the space?.. ;-) Mathematic world with empty space is abstract one, Platonic empire. It is not real, physical world.. It does not interact with anything.. It does not have any physical properties...

[Epsilon=One]

No hard feeling, but are not you going to explore for example Ludolph's number somewhere in the space?.. ;-)This number is a fine example of an "infinite" number. It is derived from the infinitesimal separation of the foci of an ellipse; or, from the infinite as symbolized by a sphere with a radius of the Conceptual Unit (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CU).

Mathematic world with empty space is abstract one, Platonic empire. It is not real, physical world.. It does not interact with anything.. It does not have any physical properties...I agree.

[merlinwood]

My problem is that I do not believe in " Cosmic entanglement " - it follows only from wrong interpretation of term "measuring" in QM :-(

Not necessarily. The theory of cosmic inflation was intially developed to resolve the Horizon problem, whereby the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) indicates faster than light causal connecticns and apparently in contradiction to relativity theory.

However, inflation theory postulates the faster than light expansion of the very early cosmos, which is itself apparently in contradiction with relativity theory.

Whereas it could be postulated that CMBR is evidence of faster than light cosmic entanglement. And, moreover, one can point out that relativity only applies to 4D
spac- time, while a causal connection between entangled objects would not vary in its effects at any distance between objects and so could not be described as surrounding objects in 4D space-time.

[merlinwood]

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

[Talvi Watia]

You have an excellent understanding of quarks. (in response to Albers)

I rationalize them as resonances of harmonic motion of complex oscillating (three forms of oscillation: slide, swing, and vibration) solitons (half-waves).

I would expect three salient groups of four spherical resonances arranged tetralaterally (like 3 tangent spheres on a plane with a fourth on top) for a total of 12 . . . a magic subatomic number.

Of course when resonances are disturbed there would be myriad, momentary forms.

The spin of these resonances would depend upon the groups location. If about the diameter of the "envelope" they would be fermions; if about an outer radius of the ellipsoidal "envelope" they would be bosons.

And, of course, quarks can NOT carry fractional charges.

(Note: This poem was written for Murray Gell-Mann's longtime secretary, "Hope and Inspiration.")

Kudos. You are right on target.

But what is spin exactly? In 4D, might this really be only something observable from a strictly 3D viewpoint? (4D=R4; not 3D space + time = 4D *spacetime*)

In reality spins of electrons and quarks are used to symbolize the charge. So what spin may actually be is the total Tensor force of all the dynamics of light oscillating. (i.e. polarity, wavelength, intensity, ect...) and this in turns creates 2/3, 2/3, -1/3 charges.

Coincidentally a tetrahedron has 4 sides at a ratio of 1/3 r if inscribed in a sphere.

Its possible that because all of this is in balance, quarks and electrons are massless and neither is real. Unfortunately we have too much observable data, this is not the case. However it does not leave out the possibility quarks *are* electrons, and electrons are also quarks.

:D Waiting for the "electrons have mass" argument.

[socratus]

Talvi Watia wrote:

But what is spin exactly?
In 4D, might this really be only something observable from a strictly
3D viewpoint?
(4D=R4; not 3D space + time = 4D *spacetime*)
============
Two views on the space and time.
1.
There are an independent space and independent time:
We notice it on our planet - Earth.
It is a fhree - dimensional space.
The space (Newtonian) around us is 3D,
and our eyes allow us to see 3D.
Descartes coordinates plus time.
It is possible to say:
4D = 3D space + 1D time.
We live in this 4D and are aware of it.
2.
There is simultaneous union of space and time:
It is negative four-dimensional (Minkowski) space.
Herman Minkowski :
" Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
The point is that you cannot separate it.
Space and time are inseparable.
4D space/time gives us a picture of a static Universe.
Question.
What is the "a kind of union of the two "?
The answer.
It is Vacuum. T=0K.
=======================

[Cerveny]

Imagine a four dimensional sphere. Its surface is three dimensional (our) space (universe). This sphere grows (condensates/solidifies). Hence our space expands. The matter (space/ether disturbances) rises (floats up) into/with condensating surface. The history is frozen sphere (sediment of planck layers), we are living (the present) in solidifying three dimensional space whose fourth thin (planck) dimension (uncertain yet) is thus moving/uplifted to the future. The future is disarranged uncausal hence inexpressible gas/plasma? phase that condensates to the history via our universe :)

[Epsilon=One]

Imagine a four dimensional sphere. Its surface is three dimensional (our) space (universe). This sphere grows (condensates/solidifies). Hence our space expands. The matter (space/ether disturbances) rises (floats up) into/with condensating surface. The history is frozen sphere (sediment of planck layers), we are living (the present) in solidifying three dimensional space whose fourth thin (planck) dimension (uncertain yet) is thus moving/uplifted to the future. The future is disarranged uncausal hence inexpressible gas/plasma? phase that condensates to the history via our universe :)This quoted post is ludicrous from its "four dimensional sphere" to the "condensates to...history"; such illogical undefined illusions are what gives alternative theory a bad name; and, gives crackpots everywhere encouragement.

[ste]

You've lost me at four dimensions.

I can't pick out what you are trying to say, and your explanation doesn't seem to flow very logically.

[Cerveny]

You've lost me at four dimensions.

I can't pick out what you are trying to say, and your explanation doesn't seem to flow very logically.
Sorry poor English. Surface of n dimensional sphere is n-1 dimensional curved closed “plane.” For example surface of “common” three dimensional sphere is two dimensional closed plane (bubble). So surface of four dimensional sphere is 3 dimensional closed space. This sphere grows......

You know fourth dimension of course, you permanently moving on/with. You leave a frozen, unchangeable time-sediment behind you. Somebody call it moving dimension..

[Cerveny]

Have they been seen ever?