Off the Chart Universal and Multiversal Models.

That's fine by me.

AboveAlpha

 

Wga....if you read what I posted it shows you that there are several different kinds of HADRONS and the Hadrons which are NUCLEONS such as Protons....well a Proton is comprised of two UP Quarks and one DOWN Quark.

Another Hadron which is a Nucleon is a Neutron and a Neutron is comprised of two DOWN Quarks and one UP Quark.

Then there are many other types of Hadrons but understand this....

THERE EXISTS A "SEA" of VIRTUAL QUARK-ANTIQUARK pairs is also present in each HADRON!!!!!!

And if you read this...."The HARDONS that are MESONS.....Ordinary Mesons are made up of a Valence Quark and a Valence Antiquark but because Mesons have spin of 0 or 1 and are not themselves elementary particles, they are "Composite" Bosons."

MESONS..... In Quantum Hydrodynamic Models....Mesons mediate the Residual Strong Force between Nucleons....ie.....Protons and Neutrons and an example of such Mesons are the.....

Pion
Kaon
J/ψ
.
EXOTIC MESONS

Tetraquark consists of two Valence Quarks and two Valence Antiquarks.

Gluball is a bound state of Gluons with no Valence Quarks

Hybrid Mesons consist of one or more valence quark-antiquark pairs and one or more real gluons.


BUT....because Quarks and Gluons are Quantum Particle/Wave Forms and exist as BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE.....they exist within each Hadron both PHYSICALLY as well as VIRTUALLY!!!

THUS.....there are many different types of Hadron's that have Quarks and Hadron's that have "SEA'S of Quark-Antiquark Pairings within each Hadron!!!

Thus because of this depending upon the type of Hadron their exists a specific Numerical Minimum and Maximum that Quarks and Quark-Antiquark Pairings can exist at and they are BLINKING IN AND OUT OF OUR UNIVERSAL REALITY!!!

The exact numbers of Minimum's and Maximum's is variable depending upon what type of Hardon and in what Configuration it is in.

AboveAlpha

 

Okay, I'm having a little bit of trouble following this right now. But when you say...

I take that to mean that from moment to moment the number of states that is possible changes? So that it's not infinite possibilities?

Or in other words in divergent states of reality there can just be so many possible states that the system can be in? And it changes?

 

It's like this.....Matter which is comprised of Atom's and Atom's being comprised of Protons and Neutrons which as a type of Hadron and so is the Particle/Wave Forms that bind Proton's and Neutron's together which are called MESONS...which are also Hadrons...and there are different types of Mesons such a Pions, Kaons...etc.

And there are QUARKS that make up all Hadrons....and there are different types of Quarks such as UP, DOWN, CHARM, STRANGE, TOP and BOTTOM Quarks.

A Proton is made up of 2 UP Quarks and 1 DOWN Quark...(uud)

A Neutron is made up of 2 DOWN Quarks and 1 UP Quark...(ddu)

And the Quarks are held together by a number of GLUONS.

Buth there are many different types of Hadron's besides Proton's and Neutron's

LINK...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

The thing is within every Hadron there is also a large number of VIRTUAL QUARK-ANTIQUARK PAIRINGS.

Now depending upon what type of Hadron we are talking about as different Hadrons have different types of Quarks existing at different numbers and depending upon their specific use they will have specific Universal Numerical Minimum's and Maximum's of QUARKS.

There are too many combinations to list out here but they exist at and between those numerical minimums and maximums....and I believe that PROBABILITY OF CAUSE AND EFFECT....is what causes Hadrons to have Quarks at or near Maximum for a High Probability Result....and a near or at minimum for a Low Probability result.

AboveAlpha

 

Thank you...… I was kind of worried that perhaps the risks of explaining the possible meaning of this for all of us might outweigh the possible benefits but here goes...........

http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...osophical-implications-multiverse-theory.html

The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?



I have suspected for about fifteen years that that time is not limited to being one straight line but instead branches.

Over in another thread I just received a very specific and pretty amazing explanation for this that is in the language spoken by high level theoretical physicists.

If........ you and I have been thinking seriously about changing our diet, becoming more physically active, well now we have another possible motivator?!

The new and improved version of you and I may well get to live out life over and over and over again many times over nearly infinite time in the future, for each time that a moment within our lifetime is recreated and time is spun off in a new possible direction based on different choices that we are all free to make?!

 

Is there a divergent state of reality where I'm undergoing spontaneous human combustion?

 

Just found this through DennisTate's thread.

What's the reason for focusing so much on quarks? I can't be bothered to read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned, but as far as I know, no part of the argument singles out quarks any more than the electrons of atoms.

Also, when you say that quarks and antiquarks blink in and out of existence, do you mean that in any way that isn't compatible with the idea of the integral of all possible histories? It seems to me the phrasing you use indicate a layperson's understanding of how for instance Feynman diagrams correspond to the current theories, but it might just be that you simplified to be understandable to the general public.

 

YUP!

Let me get the MARSHMALLOWS!!! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Not to sound incredibly egotistical and self centered.....actually no matter how I say this that is the way I am going to be perceived so....anyone who feel's DISSED.....PLEASE forgive me!!!

It is difficult enough to explain to other people unfamiliar with just the basics of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics things like QED and QCD as well as how such Mesons such as Pion's are also HADRON'S and are one of the Mesons that keeps the Nucleons such as Protons and Neutrons held together in the Atomic Nucleus and that even though the Nucleons have 3 Quarks as a Proton has 2 UP Quarks and 1 DOWN Quark thus (uud).....and a Neutron has 2 DOWN Quarks and 1 UP Quark....(ddu)......and that other Hadrons have such Quarks as UP, DOWN, CHARM, STRANGE, TOP, BOTTOM.....that as well THERE EXISTS a SEA of VIRTUAL Quark-Antiquark PAIRINGS WITHIN EACH AND EVERY SINGLE HADRON.........well by the time I get through that most members are not even BOTHERING to read anymore as it is all too much....too soon....all together!!

Thus as there are so many combinations and designations I am just using an OVERALL GENERALISATION as far as the specific NUMBERS for specific Hadrons as far as having Quarks blinking in and out of Universal Existence AT AND BETWEEN NUMERICAL MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS as it is easy to explain it that way than go into trying to explain that as a Quantum Particle/Wave Form that Quarks and their Gluons are existing as BOTH Particle and Wave and that as a WAVE FORM the Quark/Gluon adherence exists in an NT STATE of SUPERPOSITION and etc...etc...etc.

Such a Quark/Gluon Transfer State can be detailed out using Multiversal Polymorphic Algebraic Equations that are first used to set up the Calculus.

But unless a person understands the Syntax, Definitions, Form and Relations of such Heavy Mathematics I might as well be writing out Gibberish for those without such understandings.

You know....I HATED typing out what I just did.

AboveAlpha

 

AboveAlpha, Does your theory go into Quantum Evolution ?

I don't know if this was on-topic but I was speaking to DennisTate in another topic about the existence of Life. How it's probably numerous and everywhere.

That reminded me that you mentioned that Life isn't an accident it's an eventuality. And I was wondering whether that Quantum Evolution was your idea too?

 

Well Quantum Evolution was my idea but there are a few people who have also put out a few things on Quantum Evolution that is slightly different from mine.

AboveAlpha...p.s...Yes...LIFE is an eventuality.

 

You don't need to repeat all the stuff, and certainly not in caps. I am pursuing a PhD in particle physics, I'm well acquainted with the structure of hadrons. However, I don't see how any of this resolves my question about why you're focusing on quarks rather than leptons, or maybe bosons.

 

Because I am thinking that Cause and Effect Probability are driving or perhaps even being driven by Quark and Quark-Antiquark Numerical Transfers toward Numerical Maximum's existing in Hadrons.

AboveAlpha

 

Before this turns into a shouting match, now's the perfect time to ask the question of whether quarks are the only subatomic particles to blink in and out of existence?

 

There will be no..."Shouting Match".

Swensson....unlike some members here...not you Wga....is being a respectful poster and seems to know what he is talking about which is GREAT for me because it really SUCKS to get into an argument with another member....and Wga....YOU...have seen this happen to me many times....who bases their entire argument along the lines of RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY when all I was trying to do was have an interesting debate about Particle Physics.

Swensson has a POINT to his question...that being WHY am I discussing Quarks, Quark/Antiquark Pairings and Quark/Gluon Transfers....instead of talking about other Quanta such as Leptons or Bosons.

And I answered his question.

Now if I could only get a handle on NEUTRINOS which are Quanta that are traveling FASTER THAN LIGHT....and have a minuscule mass...no electric charge....and pass through almost any material.

Basically if this is so it really is screwing around with CAUSALITY!!!

Neutrinos are acting in a way where it would seem that CAUSE is happening AFTER EFFECT!!!

Now some think it's because Neutrinos are interacting with some Unknown Field in Universal Space-Time that is making it SEEM that Neutrinos are traveling faster than light.

But one thing is for certain....if we can figure this puzzle out it could help eventually lead to a Unified Field Theory.

And if there is anyone on Earth that knows the answer to this puzzle it's a few guy's working for Lockheed Martin'S Skunk Werks Division....as remember BEN RICH?? The guy who has been THE MAN as far as Lockheed Martin and Skunk Werks who came out and said...."We figured out their was a mistake in the equations."

And Ben Rich is the same guy who said..."We now are capable of sending E.T. home."

Remember him?

Well he probably knows.

AboveAlpha

 

Oh....and just to answer your question....although I am kind of talking about a slightly different way that Quarks are blinking in and out of Universal existence in reality....all Quantum Particle/Wave Forms are doing the same as they exist as BOTH PARTICLE AND WAVE....thus as a WAVE....an Electron exists at all points of possible position with it's Electron Orbital Field.

Same thing with a Photon as Light in a Wave Packet....or wave length....a Photon exists at every single possible position simultaneously along it's wave length.

So in essence....either Quantum Superposition is the ability of a Particle to be a Wave and thus the Particle exists at within an NT...NO TIME State thus no matter what the time passage is a Photon will exist at EVERY POSSIBLE POINT OF POSITION IN OUR UNIVERSAL SPACE-TIME ALONG IT'S WAVE LENGTH OR WITHIN IT'S WAVE PACKET......or...

.....or......there are an INFINITE NUMBER OF PHOTONS....that exist within all Divergent Universal States of Reality that are a part of our Baseline Reality Universal Grouping....that comprise the WAVE FORM....WAVE LENGTH AND WAVE PACKET.

And that it is CAUSALITY that determines the development and existence of Infinite Alternate Universal States of Reality but since TIME is actually SPACE-TIME and is NON-LINEAR even though we as Human Beings perceive it as LINEAR....that all Cause and Effect and all Past, Present and Future exist CONCURRENTLY.

I KNOW that's a lot to take in...even for myself....but I believe it to be reality.

AboveAlpha

 

All I can think about regarding Neutrinos, as you've described them, would be like a slide oriented so it progresses in time, and then have the slide go with a loop that turns back around and then intersects with itself earlier in time.

I don't know why I'm thinking of it this way.

Well, there are closed timelike curves.

The only other thing I can think of is that the reaction was predestined from the moment of the formation of the Universe. Those interactions that didn't result in a grandfather paradox persisted, while those that ended up 'biting the bullet' were erased from existence before it was ever known. Only those that survived exist to the present day.

 

That's not a lot to take in, it's fine.

The only thing I have against the idea of infinite photons is that I think it says there are more photons existing at the high-probability sections of the wave packet then at the fringes. So, does that mean that some realities have a stronger affect than others in reference to our own?

Can we create, let's say, furniture that is created from mater that exists in a superposition as long as nobody looks at it? What would that be like?

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, BEN RICH is dead! Such a shame, because I would have loved to offer him a chance to join this conversation.

 

Yeah...I know Ben is dead. I was trying to be sarcastic.

I am only talking about the Quarks as far as High Probability and Cause and Effect not the Photons or Electrons.

AboveAlpha

 

I'm a bit unsure of some of the words you use. Quark antiquark production happens to a large extent in hadrons, and not quite so much outside of hadrons, so obviously, the fluctuations (or at least their magnitude) are caused by other strongly interacting particles in the hadrons.

That quark antiquark fluctuations would drive cause and effect I find very improbable. Leptonic interactions and various boson interactions follow cause and effect even if no strong processes are involved.

Quarks and many other particles have several numbers associated with them, what would you call this "numerical maximum"?

 

Pairs of most particles blink in and out all the time. Most of the time, this is completely unnoticed, because it's so quick. It can be noticed on the edge of a black hole, where one of the particles go into the black hole and the other escapes.

However, in a hadron, the strong force makes things more likely the more complicated they are (at close range), so this happens all the time, continuously. It's a bit more complicated than this, since particles like these should be considered waves more than little balls of matter. We don't know everything about how this works, but not for lack of good ideas.

 

I'm not sure I understood the answer, though. You gave an argument, but as far as I know, you could make the same argument with leptons or bosons.

Well, neutrinos haven't been indicated as travelling faster than the speed of light. There were some news of it some time ago, but that turned out to be a faulty connection in the time measurement. They didn't publish the findings they had, they were asking others for help, and "scientific" journalists jumped on the story and bent it out of proportion. We have neutrino readings from distant supernovae that didn't travel faster than light, so at nobody I've talked to put very much faith in the story about the superluminal neutrinos.

 

So I am a little dumber now, having read all of that crap while actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that it actually makes any coherent or relevant point about physics, but my knowledge of science, contrary to an assertion you once made blindly, is far superior to your own. It's not because I have viewed more science channel pop documentaries than you. You are clearly well versed in the dumbed down basics of standard model presented by those documentaries, something that is obvious when you seem to think that your soon to be published (suuuuure) theory requires constant reminders to the reader that hadrons are made of quarks, since this is a fact you seem to think only a few unique science geniuses like yourself would know. It's not because I read more popular science articles than you. That is clearly an activity that you spend a lot of time on judging from your tendency to clumsily combine discussion about emerging technologies, basic standard model particle definitions, and your own philosophical assumptions about the nature of the universe into what you claim to be a proven, though yet unpublished multi versal theory.

No, my scientific superiority is simply because I recognize the basic scientific principle that knowledge is provisional and ideas such as yours, ideas that are fundamentally unfalsifiable, can never be verified to any degree of certainty. It is only speculation. And speculation as grandiose and assertive as yours crosses the line to being downright silly. This is why alien abductees and people who claim to daily talk to Jesus are the only ones helping you keep this thread bumped. Your theory is pure garbage and will never be published in any reputable journal, not that any rational person can not already see that your claims of inventing new calculus symbols while working on it are pure fantasy.

 

You give this Bishadi disciple far too much credit.

If quarks are being shared among an infinite number of universes, then how would we detect them at all? Wouldn't infinity be stretching them rather thin? It's pure nonsense, even internally.

 

That's because your theory is a fantasy that exists only in your mind. No one else wants it.