"in the spirit of new ideas and thoughts which might look weird at the moment"
Speculations on the fundamental importance of and the universal application of Max Planck's "h".
The only issue of the Big Bang were the entities of Max Planck's h, the quantum, lots and lots of quanta. The first quanta were not limited by the impedance of the vacuum that limits c today. Whatever had to "stretch" as the neo universe expanded kept the quanta from reaching infinite speed, but it's velocity was greater than c. This was the period of INFLATION. Following quanta quickly caught up to initial quanta and would have packed together but for the increasing volume of the universe. As some voids appeared the quanta began to condense in an unknowable manner to form associations.
Some associations had more quanta and became the emitter particles. Some assciations had less quanta and became the absorbers.The emitters are the more aggressive and the absorbers are the more passive.
These associations are the ELECTRIC MONOPOLES. The quantum is the basic unit of energy and the basic building block of matter. A single quantum can accelerate without "feeling" the property of inertia. This is ENERGY. Quanta in associations as particles experience a reluctance to move in lock step when force is exerted to move them. This is the property of INERTIA and MASS.
Following the convention of Ben Franklin:
These electric monopoles are in values of -1/3, -2/3, and -1 for the emitters. The absorbers are +1/3, +2/3, and +1.The fractional particles are called QUARKS.
When two emitters approach each other the exchange of quanta cause the particles to repel. When two absorbers approach each other their avoidence of each other looks the same as being repelled.
When an emitter approaches an absorber the quanta in each particle can be considered to look like little arrows turning. At union quanta flow from the emitter into the absober, leaving a vacancy in the emitter. As the absorber gains quanta a surplus developes that the absorber emits in closed loops back to the emitter.
The internal quantum current is the Strong Force along with it's external quantum field of closed loops. This union of two electric monopoles is a FUNDAMENTAL MAGNETIC DIPOLE. Magnetic monopoles don't exist because it takes two electric monopoles to make a magnetic dipole.
Next, protons and neutrons
Lasand
The proton is a -1/3 emitter sandwiched between two +2/3 absorbers. The proton does not have a strong internal quantum current, it is stable because it only has one emitter. The union has four small loops of current and field in quads of the emitter. The neutron is a -2/3 absorber sandwiched between two -1/3 emitters.
Because of the two emitters being so close together without a strong internal current on the average of eleven minutes the two emitters exchange quanta and repel, splitting the union.This is BETA DECAY and eliminates the need for the electro-weak force from this model.
When these two triads unite it becomes a six particle magnetic dipole with strong internal quantum current and quantum field. This is why protons and neutrons like to be together.
This model indicates that hydrogen would prefer to be deuterium, but free neutrons are rare. There are free neutrons from reactors so deuterium is more abundant in cooling water than natural bodies of water.
In the standard model one would think the more massive the nucleus the more stable it would be, but this is not the case. In my model the nucleus is not the stack of cannon balls or clusters of grape pictures. My model builds up by extension like pearls on a string. With increasing distance in the more massive nuclei the quantum fields are extended and engage in interactions that mean loss of quanta to other particles weakening the internal quantum current and then can't maintain over distance the strenght to keep the long string together.This is the inverse square law in action.
The nucleus would rather be two stronger smaller ones so breaks apart. This is RADIOACTIVE DECAY.
At this distance the strong force naturally becomes evident as the ELECTROMAGNETIC force.
Because of the two emitters being so close together without a strong internal current on the average of eleven minutes the two emitters exchange quanta and repel, splitting the union.This is BETA DECAY and eliminates the need for the electro-weak force from this model.
When these two triads unite it becomes a six particle magnetic dipole with strong internal quantum current and quantum field. This is why protons and neutrons like to be together.
This model indicates that hydrogen would prefer to be deuterium, but free neutrons are rare. There are free neutrons from reactors so deuterium is more abundant in cooling water than natural bodies of water.
In the standard model one would think the more massive the nucleus the more stable it would be, but this is not the case. In my model the nucleus is not the stack of cannon balls or clusters of grape pictures. My model builds up by extension like pearls on a string. With increasing distance in the more massive nuclei the quantum fields are extended and engage in interactions that mean loss of quanta to other particles weakening the internal quantum current and then can't maintain over distance the strenght to keep the long string together.This is the inverse square law in action.
The nucleus would rather be two stronger smaller ones so breaks apart. This is RADIOACTIVE DECAY.
At this distance the strong force naturally becomes evident as the ELECTROMAGNETIC force.
Picture such an extended nucleus near a young hot star,it's electrons have been stripped away. The nucleus is perturbed and wiggles in such a manner that it "eats" it's own tail. This loop nucleus would have a strong internal quantum current but no external quantum field. With no external quantum field it wouldn't attract electrons and couldn't absorb or emit light . Such a loop nucleus would be DARK MATTER. Should such a loop nucleus slam into the earth's atmosphere it would break apart and be a bare nucleus causing a cascade of events and be called a COSMIC RAY.
It could also happen that a bare extended nucleus would accept various magnetic dipoles so that it's atomic number would not increase but it's weight would, these are ISOTOPES.
It could also happen that a bare extended nucleus would accept various magnetic dipoles so that it's atomic number would not increase but it's weight would, these are ISOTOPES.
So, at very short distances the quantum currents and field is the strong force. at the distance of radioactive decay the quantum external field is the electromagnetic force.
The influence of the external quantum fields of the fundamental magnetic dipoles extend over distance and reduce to the strenght of gravity, so the quantum is the GRAVITON.
The quantum is the basic unit of energy, whatever it's dimension is, that should be the basic unit of length. If nothing exists smaller than the quantum, then there is no sense considering a smaller length, if the quantum can't fit into it, then it shouldn't be considered.
Since this extended nucleus has two ends, a way may be found to derive Pauli's exclusion principle from such a consideration.
Along with some of my other posts this amounts to the simplest and most logical"TOE".
The influence of the external quantum fields of the fundamental magnetic dipoles extend over distance and reduce to the strenght of gravity, so the quantum is the GRAVITON.
The quantum is the basic unit of energy, whatever it's dimension is, that should be the basic unit of length. If nothing exists smaller than the quantum, then there is no sense considering a smaller length, if the quantum can't fit into it, then it shouldn't be considered.
Since this extended nucleus has two ends, a way may be found to derive Pauli's exclusion principle from such a consideration.
Along with some of my other posts this amounts to the simplest and most logical"TOE".
Just a thought. It fits into any thread. If we are going to measure differences in billionths of seconds then we might declare randomness. It doesnt make sense calculating something that always comes as past.
What about strings? or branes?
Hi Empress,
My minimal model is a working hypothesis. I'm trying to simplify physics.
String " theory" isn't even a theory yet after 35 years of work. Don't know about branes, seems to be a maximal approach, or some other unprovable "theory".
I consider myself to be a pioneer, a trail blazer. Picture a hundred or a thousand physicists standing at the edge of a vast forest not knowing what path to take. I'm just trying to point a trail out for settlers "physicists" to go down and settle that landscape. Develope the territory with a formal treatment and maths.
I'm leaving out the fantastic and miraculous as much as possible, sort of a "new testament" of physics offering a choice or companion to the " old testament" of physics.
The standard model has a big bag of magic energy. They reach in there and pull out a new force all the time to perform a myriad of miracles.
I'm only using one, the quantum.
Lasand
My minimal model is a working hypothesis. I'm trying to simplify physics.
String " theory" isn't even a theory yet after 35 years of work. Don't know about branes, seems to be a maximal approach, or some other unprovable "theory".
I consider myself to be a pioneer, a trail blazer. Picture a hundred or a thousand physicists standing at the edge of a vast forest not knowing what path to take. I'm just trying to point a trail out for settlers "physicists" to go down and settle that landscape. Develope the territory with a formal treatment and maths.
I'm leaving out the fantastic and miraculous as much as possible, sort of a "new testament" of physics offering a choice or companion to the " old testament" of physics.
The standard model has a big bag of magic energy. They reach in there and pull out a new force all the time to perform a myriad of miracles.
I'm only using one, the quantum.
Lasand
Occam's razor has become dull after years of not being used. I have sharpened the razor and am not afraid to use it.
I consider "string theory" branes, and loop quantum gravity , etc. to be extraneous assumptions and hypotheses.
Gravity is not a separate force. It is just the fundamental magnetic dipole external quantum field being weakened by the inverse square law.
Electric monopole influence is of a more static nature, Fundamental magnetic dipole external field influence is of a more dynamic nature reaching out and weakening until it is called gravity.
Part II will be about the electron and light.
Part III will be magnetism and magnetic lines of force.
I may take the summer off though.
Recent probes of the nucleus indicate the presence of strong magnetic fields the standard model doesn't mention. My model already has this covered, in that bashing the nucleus will break up the unions of electric monopoles and fundamental magnetic dipoles.
Lasand
I consider "string theory" branes, and loop quantum gravity , etc. to be extraneous assumptions and hypotheses.
Gravity is not a separate force. It is just the fundamental magnetic dipole external quantum field being weakened by the inverse square law.
Electric monopole influence is of a more static nature, Fundamental magnetic dipole external field influence is of a more dynamic nature reaching out and weakening until it is called gravity.
Part II will be about the electron and light.
Part III will be magnetism and magnetic lines of force.
I may take the summer off though.
Recent probes of the nucleus indicate the presence of strong magnetic fields the standard model doesn't mention. My model already has this covered, in that bashing the nucleus will break up the unions of electric monopoles and fundamental magnetic dipoles.
Lasand
Right! ..... and part IV will obviously deal with electro-shock therapy and straight-jackets - "pioneer, trail blazer"?? .... perhaps in the field of inane BS, however even in this league you'd only rate as a minnow compared to hulking giants like farsight, mott.carl, StevenA, ubavontuba etc. 
Branes? This will show them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
I mention string theory because these are the folks that seek to find the common root of all the forces.
Nothing wrong with a fresh look at times, but there is some interesting new stuff out there. They mean well, but they do get lost in the details. There are so many kinds of particles now...too many to keep track of.
If you watch the Brian Greene Nova series Elegant Universe, there is one thing that I know you will find appealing. There is a certain simplicity within the complexity. The idea that all things and even energies are made of strings that vibrate a certain way. The vibration determines the sort of particle it will be.
I would guess also that you are someone who would like Nikola Tesla. At his time it was more or less all about electro-magnetism. They had not named a whole slew of different particles yet, so there was a certain simplicity. I think certain things became forgotten as nuclear physicists got excited about the nucleus of atoms. There is currently a Nikola Tesla subculture.
I do not think one has to reinvent the physics landscape...maybe just find an old forgotten trail.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
I mention string theory because these are the folks that seek to find the common root of all the forces.
Nothing wrong with a fresh look at times, but there is some interesting new stuff out there. They mean well, but they do get lost in the details. There are so many kinds of particles now...too many to keep track of.
If you watch the Brian Greene Nova series Elegant Universe, there is one thing that I know you will find appealing. There is a certain simplicity within the complexity. The idea that all things and even energies are made of strings that vibrate a certain way. The vibration determines the sort of particle it will be.
I would guess also that you are someone who would like Nikola Tesla. At his time it was more or less all about electro-magnetism. They had not named a whole slew of different particles yet, so there was a certain simplicity. I think certain things became forgotten as nuclear physicists got excited about the nucleus of atoms. There is currently a Nikola Tesla subculture.
I do not think one has to reinvent the physics landscape...maybe just find an old forgotten trail.
To the guests,
In case any visitor wishes to follow my logic I feel it best to end part I here and start Part II. I don't want any visitors to have to suffer the indignity of having to slog thru the muck of username.
I will check this once in a while in case a member has an interesting point, then I may do a PM.
Bringing down the curtain on act one,
Lasand
In case any visitor wishes to follow my logic I feel it best to end part I here and start Part II. I don't want any visitors to have to suffer the indignity of having to slog thru the muck of username.
I will check this once in a while in case a member has an interesting point, then I may do a PM.
Bringing down the curtain on act one,
Lasand