Best analogy of the big bang yet!! makes sense though all that energy building up! "better out than in"

OK, this conversation is sounding too mainstream for the ATM forum .

Yeah, butt would you believe they won't publish my theory?

butt they would if you considered that a big space monster ate too many curries to start with

would that be ATM?

Yeah, you got it in the right thread.






I'm kidding Bogie! Don't hit me

Only Lager can tame a Curry Monster

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Are you just making that up? Because I would be willing to participate in a controlled experiment to resolve the issue.

OK, back to the business of speculative quantum physics.

The “growth” of a proton occurs as a result of the merger of energy quanta that form at a certain energy density in the energy background.

Are you with me ?

The energy background where matter formation takes place is the energy environment that has emerged from the burst of a big crunch. Since the burst the energy density has been declining as equalization between two energy environments proceeds (the high energy density burst and the low energy density environment of the greater universe immediately surrounding the burst).

The lowering of the energy density in the expanding energy from the burst approaches the matter formation energy density.

Still with me ?

Lister already did it.

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Before the matter formation density is achieved by expansion the energy background that has emerged consists of sub-quanta. Re-read this post.

When the proper density is achieved, energy quanta form rapidly across the entire expanding arena almost simultaneously.

Can you picture that?

Protons do not "grow". They have three quarks, two of them up quarks and one of them down, and the spins and isospins add up to give them a spin of 1/2 and an isospin of +1/2. All of this has been measured in numerous experiments. In these experiments no proton ever grows from anything, it is either one of the incoming particles, or if it is the result of a collision it is created outright, fully intact with all of the properties that we measure for it.

Can you point to any experiments that show this supposed "growth" of protons?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

No. And I guess you can show experiments where a proton has formed from three quarks? I asked that question a few days ago here.

According to my speculations, protons do grow as I described here and here too.

Those two posts include speculations that show how quanta form from the energy background and merge to form particles. You can see that the process of proton formation is like “growing” a proton from the energy quanta.

You never see a quark during the formation of a proton. Why not? Because the proton doesn’t show its quarks until it is smashed. When you smash a proton it is like splitting open billiard balls by shooting them at each other from cannons. Inside of the proton the density is equalized across the entire contents. The contents of course are the 700 billion or so quanta that are collapsing to high density spots (HDSs) and bursting, exchanging sub-quanta and collapsing and bursting continually.

The synchronization of the proton’s quanta is interrupted by the collision of high speed protons and the result is a cloud of disrupted quanta from within the smashed protons. The cloud has all the pieces of the protons and the pieces are trying to rejoin as sub-quanta from the HDS bursts reform into quanta and collapse into HDSs. The reformed particles and the space involved results in a variety of exotic particles that don’t naturally exits and are short lived. Quarks are a common exotic particle that has been repeatedly identified in the debris.

These speculations can explain why quarks are not found in nature but are still thought to be fundamental particles that make up protons. The formation of a proton from quarks has never been observed leading to speculation that protons actually “grow” from quanta and that quarks don't form until protons are smashed.

{Emphasis mine}
All you have are speculations. Where are there any observations of a free proton having any rest mass other than the one we measure, having a charge other than +e, a spin other than 1/2 h-bar, an isospin other than +1/2? No proton has ever been seen in the process of growth. You are misleading Carole if you imply otherwise.
I'm sorry, but experiments have been performed that have shown electrons scattering off charged components with exactly the charges predicted by quark theory. Momentum has been shown to be divided between charged and neutral components of the proton as well, showing that gluons are present within protons. There are dozens of experiments that have shown this. All you have is your "speculations" and your "stories".
So why don't we ever find anything with charges of +(1/5)e or -(3/7)e? With over 700 billion components why do protons burst apart in only a few limited modes?
Again, the experiments I have alluded did not result in the "smashing" of any protons, just the scattering of electrons from charged components of the proton.

As for "The formation of a proton from quarks has never been observed", your use of that argument is reminiscent of the creationists who say that "macroevolution (speciation) has never been observed." I wish that we could create a few free quarks, hold them for awhile and recombine them at our leisure. But the laws of physics don't allow us to do this. We have to throw particles together in an accelerator and see what happens. And in all our years of throwing particles around, we have never seen a partially-formed proton, electron, or partially-formed anything else for that matter. We have always observed complete particles.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

It took valuable time for you to post here. Your motive is to emphasize the speculative nature of my posts, point out to Carole and any others who might read here that they are unfounded, and point to areas where existing science contradicts my speculations.

You position is well presented and accomplishes all of that.

Let me be defensive for a bit. These are speculations that result from forming reasonable step by step ideas that allow for our observable universe and all of the known physics. What I mean is that our known physics does not allow for a mainstream explanation of how our observable universe got here in the first place.

My speculations start with the step by step back history that leads to expansion of what we observe. It requires speculations about unknown physics that could cause a big crunch to form and burst resulting in that expansion.

With the help of others over a few years I have written the history of the universe that predates the expansion of our universe. Fiction is a fair way to refer to it but fiction based on what I and others think are the simplest answers for what predated our expanding universe.

Celestial Mechanic and others who are kind enough to post on my threads often do so for their own reasons and not to help my process. But often that turns into helpful points. CM’s posts have been helpful in the past and his recent post supports the Particle Model and Particle Theory that is the leading edge of mainstream quantum physics. I accept all of the proved science and most of the peer reviewed theory. There are very few exceptions and one of them is the BBT nucleosynthesis. I don’t know what the steps are between my growing of a proton and the particle physics that CM discusses, but I am confident that the point where I leave off and where science will eventually go will meet.

Rest mass, charge, spin, fundamental particles and fundamental forces are part of what science knows and has good reason to believe. If they complete their knowledge then we will understand all of the forces of nature and that will explain much of what we don’t now know, including nucleosynthesis. My confidence that the answers will identify a unifying particle and unify all of the forces of nature into one cause is what motivates me.


In my speculations, that unifying particle is the quantum energy increment, aka the quantum, the Elementary Energy Particle, the unifying particle, etc., all names for the particle and force that will fulfill Grand Unification Theory.

I have linked quanta synchronization to spin, particle charge to energy density equalization that causes quanta to swarm low energy density environments like what I describe occurs as part of quantum action, and that I speculate surrounds synchronized particles. But I don’t focus on quantum physics to explain the tie out between my speculations and the Particle Model for two reasons. I already antagonize the mainstream by my speculations, and the body of speculations necessary to develop a consistent road map from where science is now to where I believe science will end up is beyond my capabilities.

My word salad as the mainstream calls it is simply a step by step set of speculations that I think are reasonable and responsible. CM’s post addresses a small set of steps that speculate about how a proton forms from the energy density of space in our expanding arena. But to get to that step I have had to speculate about new physics to cause the expansion of our universe. It is hard to see that if you haven't followed my posts and even if you have it is hard to accept any new physics that mainstream doesn't recognize.

There is new physics required to cause a big crunch to burst into high energy density energy quanta (more specifically sub-quanta but why split hairs). That requires the speculations about the unifying particle and the quantum action that I speculate such a particle must exhibit. That quantum action of the energy quanta that form in the energy background of space is what I speculate causes the burst of a big crunch and the expansion of our universe. Mainstream science has no physics that can do that. Yet somehow it happened and my speculations are the simplest version of physics and events that I have been able to come up with that enable it. All other physics must work with the speculated new physics and in my step by step process it does. But the new physics and Particle Theory are not yet compatible as CM points out.

Quark theory is getting established as mainstream science as new accelerators allow for better science. Bogie Physics will necessarily follow and not lead in the process. But someday I speculate that the two will meet and science will have a Grand Unification Theory.

The steps between growing the proton from energy quanta that form in the energy background and quark theory are problematic to CM and mainstream but to me they are future discoveries that must occur if there is to be unification. I have conceded before that maybe quarks form and then protons and neutrons and any other quark bearing particles. But I haven’t yet evolved my speculations to get into detail on that subject and those connecting speculations will be provided by the mainstream as time goes on.

But to me that doesn’t reflect on the entire step by step process of speculations that have gotten me to the process of matter formation within the expanding energy density that emerged from the negated core of a big crunch (the current point which CM's post address). There have been a few who have followed my posts who are supportive of my technique and tolerant of my speculations. No one has been able to start at the beginning and show me where the first fatal error creeps in. It is easy to see that particle physics doesn’t support my scenario of proton formation but they don’t have a sequence of events that is causally connected to the formation and burst of a big crunch. They are only constrained by working from science that is causally connected to the early moments of expansion that is referred to as Big Bang Theory.

It also took valuable time for you to post here as well. Time that could have been spent on mastery of the math and physics needed to support your speculations.
Unfortunately your speculations aren't even backed up with known physics, so there is no way of telling whether the "unknown physics" is even necessary.
What you and others think are the "simplest answers" is irrelevant; does your fiction even remotely represent the Universe we live in? At the level of particle physics your "speculations" and "unknown physics" do not.
There really is no place for a "growing proton". No such thing has ever been observed. Nowhere are there observations of protons with 600 billion, 650 billion, 700 billion of your imagined "EEPs". Apart from such properties as energy, momentum, orientation of the spin, all protons are identical to one another from the moment they are created until the moment they decay or transform into something else via the appropriate interaction. There is no "growth".
The problem is, we already have these "unifying particles", unless there is a lower level of structure, however, there is no evidence for this yet. Everything that we have seen in the particle accelerators and everything in the material world that we can detect is made out of these unifying particles. You have every right to be dissatisfied that there are so many of them (6 quarks, 6 leptons, 3 possibly 4 types of gauge particles, the Higgs, maybe even supersymmetric partners for all of these that I have mentioned, maybe more (?)). I doubt that even a lower level of structure could lower this number by much. This is the current state of our knowledge.
You realize that energy is just one component of a four-vector, and that the value that is measured depends on the frame of the observer doing the measuring, don't you? Even if energy really comes in increments measured in the rest frame of the EEP, the values of the energy will be different in another frame, and not all particles are likely to be in the same frame.
Your speculations "antagonize" the main stream precisely because they are not backed up with real math and physics. By your own admission below all you have is "word salad". It is not the speculations that are beyond your capabilities; you've demonstrated that; it's the math and physics that are momentarily beyond your abilities. I urge you to start studying the math and physics necessary towards making real, reasonable, and responsible speculations.