Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Could the GUT be explained by Quarks?

  1. Feb 24, 2004 #1
    If we can learn to accept that Quarks and Leptons are the remnants of the six missing dimensions as described in the M-Theory, our understanding and knowledge of the GUT would increase exponentially.

    Accepting the concept that Quarks are the missing six dimensions automatically solves several major questions.

    Where are the six missing dimensions described in the M-Theory?

    How matter (Quarks) was formed during the Big Bang as a by product, when the other six dimensions collapsed?

    Why the half-life of Proton, is what it is.

    The Duality of an electron and photon.

    Why Quasars (Super Massive Black Holes) formed before Galaxies appeared!

    The beauty of this theory, accepting all the evidence which indicates Quarks are the missing six dimensions is that it does not change any currently accepted theorem's it simply explains them in more detail and with clear understanding.


    Terry Giblin
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 25, 2004 #2
    Might you expound on exactly how such a theory answers those questions? Also, how can a particle be a dimension?
  4. Feb 27, 2004 #3
    Galilei was a very clever man, perhaps we should listen to him.

    When you can tell me what an electron is, perhaps you might not ask the question.

    But thank you for expressing you own option, take satisfaction of being the first.
  5. Mar 10, 2004 #4
    I have been trying to solve the Young's Double Split experiment, involving electrons, for the past several years.

    I was looking at the experiment with my eye's closed, the only unknown in this whole experiment, was the electron itself.

    What is an Electron?

    Once you can answer this question, you can find the solution.

    Which appears to be the only question in physics, you are not supposed to ask.

    Only mathematicians are allowed to answer this question now.

    “How can a particle be a dimension?” – This is the corner stone of the Superstring theory, which in turn complies with the Standard Model – argue with them.

    But can either theorem answer, “what is an electron?” and “what is a quark?” – It’s adviced not to ask.

    You can answer these questions, only if you have your eyes open.

    The beauty is its simplicity. Even my children can now understand, it’s so simple and higgsless.

    Terry Giblin
  6. Mar 10, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Physics doesn't answer "What is an electron?" or quark, because physics doesn't tell us what it is. Physics tells us how it behaves, and it tells us that very accurately.

    One of the strongest things experiment tells us about the electron is that if you look at it with one experiment, it behaves like a wave, but if you do a different experiment, it behaves like a particle. Paradox.

    Another thing experiment tells us is that the electron has spin - one half unit of a rotary quantum's worth. And this spin isn't just classical angular momentum because it acts differently, but it can add to angular momentum in spite of that. More paradox.

    And there are many other things we know about electrons without ever going into theory. But the theory has to agree with all these facts.

    As we learned more about the electron, which was discovered o 105 years qgo, our theories had to become more intricate in order to predict the various behaviors. In 1947, microwave physicsits detected a small effect in the spectrum of Hydrogen that violated the previous best theory of the electron, Dirac's. So physicists had to dig down and solve the problems of relativistic quantum field theory and see if that would account for the effect (the Lamb shift). Eventually the thinkers produced a workable field theory, and sure enough, it did predict the value of the Lamb shift.

    So if you have a theory of "what the electron really is" feel free, but be sure your theory pedicts the things we know about the electron.
  7. Mar 11, 2004 #6
    when we have fullunderstanding of something

    we will see that Paradoxes are really not paradoxes at all. but explainable phenomina.

    that is why I think that Black Holes are not really the undefined space that Reletivity sees them as.

    I think that most things that are either undefined or paradoxes are clues that tell us we do not have a good enough understanding of the phenomina.

    personaly, I find that the Quantum Fluxuations of empty space that Cosmology has been looking at recently as the driving force of the universe's expantion has the final solution behind it.
  8. Mar 11, 2004 #7
    Paradoxes or explainable phenomina - I could have said it better myself.

    If some thing doesn't fit with our theorems, we simply describe them as paradoxes and move on.

    To the best of my knowledge, none of the current theorems can explain the results of the Young's Double split experiment, where one electron is given the choice of going through two slits, turns itself into a inference pattern when it passes through the slits, its not caused by tunnelling or by the "probability" wave function in Quantum Mechanics.

    How does a single electron, turn into wave fronts (photon’s) to form an interference pattern, with itself?

    What's more important is the implications of the result have on the Big Bang, when the process is reversed.

    Image Big Bang as a Super Cloud made from 10 or 11 Dimensions, with a huge amount of energy and photons.

    If the reverse process is possible then electrons will begin to form within the cloud.

    Remember this cloud is made from 10 or 11 dimensions, some of which are stable inside the cloud, while the majority are unstable.

    It only takes the electron to tilt the balance, the electron would act as a catalyst, forming a chain reaction, all it would require is for two of the dimensions to curl into a ball and have the same properties as the up and down quarks.

    Where did all the matter in the Universe come from, was it made or there at the instance of the Big Bang or produced later as photons induced electrons, the electrons in turn acted as a catalyst or as a mediator to the up and down quarks.

    Give me a photon, an electron and two extra dimensions and we can recreate the entire stable universe, we find ourselves in. The rest is there to simply confuse us.

    Its so simply its beautiful.
  9. Mar 14, 2004 #8
    To clarify one point, the additional 1 dimension, required by the M-Theory is obviously the cloud, from which we are observing this experiment within the mathematical matrix branes framework, as we obverse the remaining other 10 Dimensions, quarks, electrons and photons, in the universe.

    The beauty is its simplicity, physics or mathematics, should we wait until the other catches up?

    This raises another interesting question, "How large was the cloud, when the first electron was generated or the reaction began?"

    What came first – the tachyon, the big bang, or electrons to form quarks?
  10. Mar 14, 2004 #9
    Can the photo-electric effect be generated without a target being present?

    We should be able to reproduce the Young's Double Split Experiment (YDSE) in reverse.
  11. Mar 14, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Excuse me? What are you going to get the photoelectric effect off of, without a target? Explain please?
  12. Mar 15, 2004 #11
    In the photo-electric effect, electrons are simply excited and eject from the target by the photon's.

    In the YDSE photon intereference patterns are formed from a single electron - can the reverse process be produced in the lab. The photo-electric effect using photon intereference patterns without a target to form electrons.

    What happens if we introduce a double split in front of the target in the photo-electric and ignore the electons coming from the target?
  13. Mar 15, 2004 #12


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    In the photoelectric effect the photon doesn't just produce electrons out of nowhere. They are already present in the material of the target. And it has to be a particular kind of material, where the outer electrons of the atoms are easily ionized.

    As I interpret your idea, you want to have a complete double slit experiment, with photons self-interfering as waves, and then have the interference fringes falling on a target set up for the photoelectric effect. Is that right?

    I've never heard of this being done, but I'll bet it has been. And if I had to predict, I'd say the setup wouldn't produce the interference. The reason being that if you try to outwit mother nature you always find she's way ahead of you, in the quantum realm. See all the variations on the double slit experiment, counters in the slits, delayed choice tricks, etc. The setup I described isn't really an attempt to see the photon as a wave, but rather an attempt to see both modes in the same experiment. I would expect the photon to behave like a particle.
  14. Mar 16, 2004 #13
    You are absolutely correct, but your description of the experiment was slightly misguided.

    You would expect a photon to act as a particle which is the exact reverse of the YDSE, electrons acting like waves - can't explain it, we don't have the physics or the math's to solve it duality of the electron and photon. Just like the caterpillar and the butterfly, but with different half-life’s.

    But rather than dismiss it and ignore it, I learnt to accept it and went looking for further proof.

    A picture paints a thousand words, here is a copy of a joke I found whilst looking for proof.

    Can you tell me, who's the joke on, now! - I know I'm not laughing any more are you?


    Terry Giblin

    Someone has asked on PF, if the "Proton is stable or unstable" - it’s worth a read

    Attached Files:

  15. Mar 16, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You are only focussing on the simplest case of the QUANTUM double slit experiment. Look up the modifications where they put a photon counter in one of the slots. That destroys the pure wave nature of the experiment and you get particle behavior. I'm betting that your desired modification will have the same effect.
  16. Mar 16, 2004 #15
    Thank you for your comments, I followed your suggestion and looked up information regarding Quantum Double Split Experiments and came across a wonderful site, where the experiment I thought of, has already been preformed.

    Unfortunately it would appear that this experiment cannot be preformed successfully.

    When dealing with photons, electrons and quarks, we choose to use Schrodinger Wave equation, which fits in well with observers, as does Newton's law's of motion for tennis balls hitting a wall, both point particles traveling along a wave or path.

    Every equation has its limits, where the Schrodinger Equation meets the 3-D particle, so to prevent anyone asking that question they introduced a disclaimer, we know this equation doesn't work all the time, because its actual a wave equation applied to particles - what do you expect, so don't mention particles, the uncertainty relationship (Schrodinger and Heisenberg), or the infinitesimal volume element.
  17. Mar 16, 2004 #16
    "The path of the electron comes into existence only when we observe it." - Heisenberg
  18. Mar 17, 2004 #17
    Terry Giblin,

    I already replied to some of your comments in other sites of this forum.

    Here, all I wanted is to give you my interpretation of YDSE.

    Without any further experimental basis, I want to say that when an electron moves, say from a point A to a point B, it loses (infinitesimally undetectable losses) some of its intrinsic properties (e.g., its energy). These properties were transferred to the neighborhood of the surrounding space. Some of these went into one slit and the other went into the other slit. The statistical distribution of these lost properties of the electron creates the interference pattern.

    These infinitesimally undetectable losses of the electron do not affect the pattern of the interference but only the intensity.

    Energy can go into both slits but a particle cannot. Energy in the forms of photon can be polarized, while particle cannot (except for spin alignment).

    But when energy is stopped or absorbed by an object such as the screen, it recorded all the properties coming from the original source whether from particles or from other energy sources. This record is the interference pattern.
  19. Mar 17, 2004 #18
    Don’t want to be bothersome, but that is exactly what I thought. I theorize a field of points. The points are literal bits of matter each separated by a distance. When a photon moves, the way it moves is, one bit of matter colliding with another bit of matter, and that bit colliding with the next bit, exactly the way dominos move. But in that field of points, some of the energy would be lost, vibrating the whole field of points and setting up the interference pattern.

    I wondered how energy could be lost, since a photon never changes speed. I realized a photon moves with almost twice the energy it needs. A moving point collides with the next point. It has enough energy to send the next point at the same speed to the next, but it is also pulled to the next point by the strong force across the distance. Energy is lost, but it has almost twice as much energy as it needs to sustain light speed.

    This description, my model satisfies every requirement to define what photons and electrons really are, and how they move as waves or particles. They are moving through a space made of literal bits of matter: in which there are only six directions. The fact that points have distance between them, and must have distance between them (there is no other way) gives you a primary form of space that only has six directions back and forth when going from point to point.
  20. Mar 17, 2004 #19
    A box containing 10 seperate dimension's is accidently dropped, afterwards only six quarks and four dimensions can be found.
  21. Mar 17, 2004 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Terry, are you claiming six as the number of extra dimensions because there are six flavors of quark that (so far) are known? Since each quark comes in three colors, why aren't you claiming 18 extra dimensions? And if another pair of quark flavors are discovered, are you going to increase your number of dimensions accordingly?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook