The Mellon College of Science at Carnegie Mellon University is a dynamic, collaborative college that is home to the departments of biological sciences, chemistry, mathematical sciences and physics and many programs and research centers that cross disciplines.
Gluons are a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. The actual source of the Strong Force is found below. Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
The atomic model is wrong. No other field of study requires abstract math to understand nature. Life has been on this planet for billions of years before we came along, all of it made up of atoms, all atoms made up of energy. Energy is the source of nature, not separate from it. Turns out energy is masculine and feminine, not positive and negative, as there is nothing negative in nature, but only masculine and feminine. Dark energy is the opposite of outward moving light, it moves inward on itself. The two are attracted to each other because of the natural attraction between male and female. All males have an outward property, (light), and all females have an inward property (dark energy). They come together to form an atom. Before you complain, please use your favorite search engine to see an actual photo of an atom. It is dark energy surrounding a nucleus of light. The light inside the nucleus is excited by being inside its opposite, and keeps pushing outward, causing a vibration. So far, quantum physics does not have an explanation for atomic vibration. The atomic model provided by the logic of the ancient laws of nature, answers everything, and does not require math to understand. Check out 'The Kybalion and Physics' 7 part series on RU-vid. i'm open to a serious debate, but won't respond to insults.
@@krishnajoshi2872 Math has always been used to measure, no doubt. But it has never succeeded in solving or answering how Nature works. In fact, modern physics took a wrong turn at considering the irrational concept of 'negative' to solve problems, which again, they never have. There is nothing 'negative' in Nature.
@@michaeldavidmoreno5275 one of the concepts can be wrong but maths is not limited to measuring or irrational numbers maths has more to express, for example patterns and series. Numbers are there to analyse and find relation between things and phenomena thus gives understanding.
@@krishnajoshi2872 Yes, math can certainly measure patterns, but it will never reveal the cause of those patterns. And again, Quantum Physics lost their way by using irrational concepts, like negative numbers, to try to figure things out. It has become a laughing stock, i.e,, m-string. That's how lost quantum physics is.
Yup. The reason is because parity (whether something is even or odd) is a binary question - meaning it only has 2 outcomes - either yes or no. The best you can do with 2 outcomes is split the search space into 2 equal halves. If you have 64 possible states in the search space (1 of the 64 squares is changed), and each operation can only half that search space, you will reach 1 after 6 halving operations. This is log base 2 of 64. Now suppose you try to solve a puzzle where the query is not binary like the one posed here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tE2dZLDJSjA.html. The scale has 3 possible outcomes, tilted right, tilted left or balanced. Since we have 3 outcomes, we can split the search space into 3 equal thirds at each operation. As the search space is 24 (Of the 12 coins, only 1 of them is either heavier or lighter), we need to do this 3 times to reach 1. This is the ceiling of log base 3 of 24. Given that the best solution is log base (number of outcomes of query) of (number of possibilities), the TED-Ed video could have actually posed the question with 13 coins and also allowed for the possibility that none of the coins were counterfeit. This would result in 27 possibilities, which can also be solved in 3 operations (log base 3 of 27 is 3). P.S. I remember there was also a video from either 2016 or 2017 about using prisoners to find if 1 of 1000 wine barrels had been poisoned which also uses a similar idea. The setup being that you had 10 prisoners to test 1000 barrels. Ceiling of log base 2 of 1000 is exactly 10 so you would be able to do it by making the prisoners test the wine according to its binary representation. I can't seem to find the video though. If anyone finds it can reply this comment ty.
Is it fair to say that the repulsive residual nuclear force is not present inside the nucleons and only strong force attraction dominates there- apart from the repulsion of like quark electromagnetic charges?
The flat space of the physical vacuum is the amplitude of the oscillation, the curved space, where at the transition of the node of curvature (+) → (-) lateral defects of the visible Universe appear from antimatter, and during the transition the curvature of the node (+) ← (-), then defects appear, the visible universe appear from matter. g55ton.narod.ru
Whilst swimming the other day, I noticed how the turbulence in the water appeared on the bottom of the pool as the lights shown on the water. Although under the water it was calm but the reflections of light on the bottom of the pool was fascinating and there were moving max and min points which constantly moved and never appeared on one spot. These were only observable when the light waves interacting with the water hit the bottom of the pool. The water was the medium which the light travelled through. space is a medium through which em waves can travel...Space is not empty surely. And air is another medium that em waves travel through..... Imagine a space in constant turbulance at the quantum lever and light travels through it..... Not calm but in constant movement that we cannot yet detect...Perhaps that Higgs field...
Certainly in the "Quadrature of the circle" the great Leonardo captured the principle of the gyroscope, according to the law of which the human body works. In principle, every cell of the human body - a gyroscope in miniature, as in other things according to the records of Leonardo: "Ancient man was the world in miniature. Because man is composed of earth, water, air and fire, his body resembles the microcosm of the Universe." www.proza.ru/2018/05/18/142
THE DARK FORCE: they have only observed with xrays the posited Gravitational attraction of "dark matter" as it affects the gas in clusters, which could also be explained as a repellent force of space. yes they have observed the effect of a force, and assumed a known attractive force (gravity), in order to affirm the existence of "dark matter". they wouldnt still be calling it dark if they had observed it directly. the discovery of a new repellent force exerted by "empty" space is harder to swallow than dark matter and dark energy, but a single new "dark" force and concurrent emergence of new 3D space is a simpler explanation in my mind, occam's razor. if particles can spontaneously emerge or vanish from "empty" space, then why not a new "dark" force or new 3d space?
What a convoluted bunch of nonsense. Talk about needing faith. You need a lot to believe this shit. They don't know a fucking thing...and they're the first to admit it!
why at this level of lecture, at this level of university, is the Audio Visual so terrible? my kids 5th grade school knows how to configure PIPs....sheesh
