Stable Particles: Exist in String, QM, GR Theories?

[force5]

Do stable particles exist in any of the accepted theories such as string, Qm, GR or any others?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know what you mean by stable. Elementary particles like electrons and quarks are stable, and even the proton, a composite particle, has a longer lifetime than the one expected for the universe. These particles are all described by the Standard Model, a quantum field theory.

 

[force5]

Stable - as in no detectable decay

I read somewhere recently that one of the primary objectives in physics research is to find a means for detecting decay in the proton and I was wondering if there are any particles that this type of research might apply to.

thanks Self for responding.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A few years ago there was a nice looking extension of the Standard Model calle Technicolor - so named because in it the strong force charge that physicists decided to call color (there are three distinct charges with their anticharges, like the primary and complementary colors) picked up some extra "hues". But this theory had a prediction, that the proton would decay in [tex]10^{30}[/tex] years.

So physicists put [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons (the hydrogen nuclei in water molecules) in a tank deep underground (to escape disturbing cosmic rays) and watched them with skillions of electric eyes for a year. If the lifetime of the particle was [tex]10^{30}[/tex] years, then one in every [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons should decay in a year. The experiment actually went on for several years and they never saw a proton decay. So the theory of Technicolor, however nice, had to be abandoned. Some of the supersymmetry theories also predict proton decay, but over a longer span of time.

 

[force5]

Proton decay?

Hi Self,

Am I wrong to assume that most of the work in progress related to accepted theories of the day are based on the eventual decay of the proton? Do you know what the impact on research would be if the proton is found to be stable?

Thanks, I value your input on this matter.

 

[Prometheus]

Stable is a relative concept.

Space is finite. Everyting decays.

 

[dawhitedwa]

So physicists put [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons (the hydrogen nuclei in water molecules) in a tank deep underground (to escape disturbing cosmic rays) and watched them with skillions of electric eyes for a year. If the lifetime of the particle was [tex]10^{30}[/tex] years, then one in every [tex]10^{30}[/tex] protons should decay in a year. The experiment actually went on for several years and they never saw a proton decay. So the theory of Technicolor, however nice, had to be abandoned. Some of the supersymmetry theories also predict proton decay, but over a longer span of time.

i love this one , makes me laugh every time iv read it

has to be thee dumbest experiment ever, or one of them.

 

[force5]

Hi Prometheus, thanks for your reply.

Could you please explain how or where you accquired this information?

1. space is finite?
2. everything decays?

Thanks for any information you can provide.

 

[Prometheus]

The jury is still out on whether space is inifinite or finite. My interpretation of the evidence is that space is clearly finite, and that space will end in the Big Crunch. There is insufficient space in this forum to go into details in a single post. Sorry.

If it is true that space is finite, and that space will end in the Big Crunch, then all that exists today, including protons, will eventually decompose.

 

[force5]

Top Priorities

Hi Prometheus, thanks for the quick response.

I also tend to favor the closed or flat cosmos concept. And I also view this as an unsolved Question.

We differ on one point, and that is my line of reasoning suggest that a closed/flat system would require a non-decaying particle in order to eventually produce the conditions that would promote reversal of the current expansion.

The information that Selfadjoint provided is right on the money. In my opinion, this is a key question that should be answered, if possible. A Federal Research Program on the Physics of the Universe has identified eleven(11) top priority items for this century.

1. What is Dark Matter?
2. Nature of Dark Energy?
3. How did the Universe begin?
4. Did Einstein have the last word on Gravity?
5. What are the masses of Neutrinos?
6. How do cosmic Accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
7. Are Protons Unstable?
8. States of matter at high density and temperature?
9. Are there additional space/time dimensions?
10. How are elements heavier than iron made?
11. Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?

 

[Prometheus]

force5,

I like your name. Does this imply that you hypothesize 5 forces? I consider that 5 is the magic number. I consider that there is only one force in nature, but that it has 5 "stages", only 4 of which are typically recognized by physics.

Of the points that you mentioned, my primary interest lies with the following:

1. What is Dark Matter?
2. Nature of Dark Energy?
3. How did the Universe begin?
4. Did Einstein have the last word on Gravity?
9. Are there additional space/time dimensions?

I believe that I have made progress in these areas, and that 5 is indeed the key.

I do not understand what you mean by a non-decaying particle, or why you believe that it is necessary. Might you briefly elucidate?

 

[force5]

Fundamental force

Prometheus,

In answer to your first question, yes, my model indicates five forces at this level. My model also implies only one fundamental force that is responsible for the previously mentioned five secondary forces.

The reason I am so interested in stable particles is that my model predicts this. And, if it is proven that "all" particles do have a halflife and eventually decay, then, I'll have to revise or scrape this stuff I've been working on for the last 20+ years.

 

[Prometheus]

I think that my concept of finite space does not necessarily include halflife and decay in the sense that you mean it, as I suspect from your description now. Therefore, we are not necessarily on different wavelengths.

Do you have a concept yet for the nature of your one fundamental force?

 

[force5]

Prometheus,

In a word, Yes. How about you?

 

[Rybo]

Force 5 and Prometheus,
Im Rybo and interested in this line of thought. The way I udnerstand it there is 5 bosonic forces
1) EMR(mass-less spin 1 photons)
2) Weak(massive W's and Z)
3) strong nuclear(shortlived spin-0 mesons i.e. a momentary quark pairing)
4) strong sub-nuclear force( gluons 8 out of 9 active ?)
5) gravity ( graviton )

I hope one or more of you will have to gicve me your viepoints and any website links you have for your personal theories.

Here is mine or least one page that will lead to the others.
http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id4.html
Rybo

 

[Rybo]

In response to my last post I also wnated to add the proposed Higgs boson to account of proposed Higgs Ocean "a nonzero Higgs filed vacumn expectation value" as stated by braina Greene in his Fabcric of the Cosmos" which if exists our bosonic list would become six.

Rybo

Rybo

 

[Prometheus]

This sounds like an interesting theory.

Personally, I dislike such great amounts of complexity. I prefer to search for simplicity.

I consider that there is one force in the entire universe, the force of light. In this, the other forces are variations on the force of light.

 

[Prometheus]

Whast is the nature of your one force, force5?

 

[force5]

Hi Prometheus, In my model, light is not the fundamental force.

Light, (AKA; ems, energy, heat) is the fundamental substance that the fundamental force acts on. I'm in no way implying that the fundamental force has any type of religious connection. I keep that aspect of thinking in a different area much in the same way as separation of church and state.

 

[force5]

Late reply

Hi Rybo,

I'm sorry I didn't respond earlier. I just forgot all about this thread.

I don't have a home page to refer you to. The many years I've spent doing research on this and other subjects is just a passion of mine. My only objective is to run across someone much younger than myself that is thinking along the same lines as I and offer any support that might help out. None of my kids or grandchildren have expressed any interest, so I ended up at this forum.

Stay Active

 

[Rybo]

Force 5 and Prometheus,
The way I udnerstand it there is 5 bosonic forces. Please correct me if this line o fthought is off base.

1) EMR(mass-less spin 1 photons)
2) Weak(massive W's and Z)
3) strong nuclear(shortlived spin-0 mesons i.e. a momentary quark pairing)
4) strong sub-nuclear force( gluons 8 out of 9 active ?)
5) gravity ( graviton )
6) Higgs boson ?

I hope one or more of you will have to give me your viewpoints you have for your personal theories.

Here is mine or least one page that will lead to the others.
http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/id4.html
Rybo

 

[Prometheus]

Force 5 and Prometheus,
The way I udnerstand it there is 5 bosonic forces. Please correct me if this line o fthought is off base.

I read your page. It seems interesting, but like other theories that are prevalent has far too much complexity to be satisfying to me. I cannot evaluate your theory in a manner that I think would be useful to you.

I think that your point about the siginificance of the number 10 in the universe is meaningful. This is exactly what Pythagoras said 2,500 years ago, and it is equally meaningful now, within its context of course.

I believe that there is only one force in the universe, the first of your forces, EMR. The other forces are just variations on that force.

It is good that you too are giving thought to this topic. Keep up the good work.

 

[force5]

Hi Prometheus;

If you have determined that EMR is the fundamental force, do you require any other substance to exist other than EMR? Have you determined what fundamental effects and states that the EMR can produce?

I've spent a lot of years determining possible angles, momentum, direction, volume and densities relative to propagation function. What is the main focus of your research?

Hi Rybo;

I also reviewed your site. I also think relative number theory is interesting, but not something I've thought about for a long time.

 

[Prometheus]

Hi force5,

If you have determined that EMR is the fundamental force, do you require any other substance to exist other than EMR?

There is time, there is space and there is light (EMR). Light is the force that binds time and space as space-time. I believe that light is the only force in the universe. The various forces that are considered today are variations on the force of light.

What is the main focus of your research?

Time is infinite. Space is finite. The beginning of light at the Big Bang enabled space and time to unify into space-time. Ultimately, the universe will end in a Big Crunch. This will be the end of space and of light, as space and light are finite. Time is infinite, and the cycle will repeat.

I've spent a lot of years determining possible angles, momentum, direction, volume and densities relative to propagation function.

Sounds interesting. It sounds a little complex for me. Can you provide some details?

 

[connect]

I think that space and time are the infinites (making space-time or reality (a relationship)). In physics light is always defined by 2 parameters:

- the amount of distance from its start point to its end point
- the amount of time from the start time to the end time.

Another way of looking at that is that there actually 4 parameters:
- the distance start point
- the distance end point
- the time start point
- the time end point

You will notice that both the start points will usually start a zero, this is the point (another point?) we start measuring from.

You could then say there are 6 parameters, the above combined.

There are many relationships between numbers, but numbers simply represent a circular binary framework over time, i.e. 'one after another' (odd/even), it could be thought of as 'one flows into the other'.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that space and time are the infinites (making space-time or reality (a relationship)). In physics light is always defined by 2 parameters:

- the amount of distance from its start point to its end point
- the amount of time from the start time to the end time.

Another way of looking at that is that there actually 4 parameters:
- the distance start point
- the distance end point
- the time start point
- the time end point

You will notice that both the start points will usually start a zero, this is the point (another point?) we start measuring from.

You could then say there are 6 parameters, the above combined.

There are many relationships between numbers, but numbers simply represent a circular binary framework over time, i.e. 'one after another' (odd/even), it could be thought of as 'one flows into the other'.

If you used the 3 dimensional coordinates if the start point and the endpoint you would have six parameters and get direction as well as time.

 

[force5]

Hi Prometheus;

I've been trying to figure out a simple way to explain this without writing a book. So I decided to go back to the point in time when I became frustrated with the traditional approach of trying the expand on QM or GR. I decided to draw on my strong suite and try to build a model from the ground up. So here goes;

First thing I decided was that the model would consist of only one substance. In my opinion, there was only one choice. The one substance could only be energy. So, at the fundamental level, all we have is energy in one form or another.

Next step was to determine exactly what energy could do at the fundamental level. After a period of time researching the problem, I decided on the following;

... angle and momentum. Or angular momentum

Both angle and momentum had to be constant in my model at level 1. This also implied circles and stright lines were out.

Next, what would be the potential result of "constant" angle and momentum? This led me in another direction. I realized I needed a source for all this energy. Once I included a source system in the model, The next consideration dealt with volume, density and direction. I realized that any change in angle would have a direct affect on volume and density.

After spending some time working out what could or couldn't happen with this very simple model, I eventually added more source systems and addressed the various intergration problems along the way. A few years ago, I reached a point where I could no longer continue until I was able to confirm that the model stayed within the guidelines of reality based on accepted theories of the day. I'm now at a point that I must learn more about some of the major accomplishments over the last ten years. I know this doesn't answer all of your questions and is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

Stay Active!

 

[Prometheus]

I know this doesn't answer all of your questions and is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

It sounds interesting. Keep up the good work.