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

Neutrino, lepton and quark

  1. Jun 5, 2004 #1
    On the bottom of http://elasticity2.tripod.com/ I have added two supplements that explain the relationship between e neutrino, electron, positron and u quark. This is up for discussion in
    Theory development :Vacuum theory; mass and charge
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 24, 2004 #2
    As I have failed to create any interest in my vacuum theory I feel the time has come to ask the moderators to close this forum, it is time to give up or go, I know not where. elas
  4. Jul 24, 2004 #3
    Hello Elas.
    You say on your webpage that the equal densities of vavuum energy and baryonic matter need to be explained.I think the explanation lies in the fact that the universe never gets smaller than 10^25 metres or bigger than 10^27 metres and so the densities are always nearly the same.The universe oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big crunch and has an average size of 10^26 metres.

    If the universe oscillates between a Big Bang and a Big crunch,
    can two particles at opposite ends of it, be considered to be
    undergoing simple harmonic oscillation?
    If the potential energy of the oscillator is given by G m1 m2 /r and
    m1 is the mass of the universe,10^52 kg,r = 10^26 metres - the current
    size of the universe -then since the PE of a simple harmonic
    oscillator is given by
    PE = 1/2 k x^2, the force constant k becomes 10 ^ -37 m2.
    using frequency of oscillator = ( k / m2 ) ^1/2,
    frequency = ( 10^ -37m2 / m2 )^ 1/2 = 10^ - 18.5 per second.
    In other words the universe oscillates every 10 ^ 18.5 seconds - about
    its current age!!
    Since the two particles of a simple harmonic oscillator accelerate
    when potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy, the current
    acceleration of the expansion of the universe is removing potential
    energy from the universe.So dark energy removes potential energy from
    the universe.
    It is probably doing this by taking energy from gravitons and other force mediators in the vacuum..

    I would guess that the sum of dark energy + vacuum particles = constant.
    I also think that there is a possibility that black holes absorb particles that fall into them and turn their energy into dark energy, and the expansion pressure caused by the dark energy would stop a singularity from forming in them.I'm not an expert but then who is? One thing you learn on these forums is that nobody knows anything for sure.
  5. Jul 25, 2004 #4
    One thing you learn on these forums is that nobody knows anything for sure.

    Surely the one thing we 'know that exists for sure' is vacuum force and we should start from that certainty in order to correctly explain the observed universe. It is this simple proposition that I have tried to develope, but, the closer I got to some sort of mathematical theory the less interest was shown in my work. My latest proposal for the structure of fundamental particles is the first to unite all stable fundamental particles in one simple table but it attracted less interest than any of my previous articles.
    I have tried to justify my theory using atomic radii but, have discovered that not enough is known about atomic and covalent radii to confirm my theory. The only path left open is to prove that the mathematics of magnetic theory and vacuum theory are one and the same thing. This is going to take up all my computer time. So I have to leave PF for the forseeable future,
    regards, elas
  6. Jul 25, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Good object lesson in the social dimension of science elas?

    Why should the moderators close PF? By the metrics they judge its success - things like number of members, number of new threads per day, number of views per thread, their perception of the average quality of the threads (I'm guessing, I don't actually know) - PF is doing very well.

    Perhaps you have unmet expectations of the Theory Development sub-forum? IMHO, it's one of only a handful of places on the internet where at least some good scientific discussion of new or alternative ideas can take place. However, as you have no doubt seen, there's a large number of threads in TD, and the preparation that the posters have made prior to posting varies enormously (wrt it being science). Further, if one accepts DoctorDick's views, there are actually only rather few regular PF posters who have the training, background understanding, time, and inclination to look into the new ideas.

    So, you're a seller in a buyer's market - perhaps you can increase your chances of attaining your objectives by considering the social dimensions?
  7. Jul 25, 2004 #6
    I was requesting closure of a thread I started (to which at that time there were no replies) not the closure of PF as a whole. You may not be aware that the originator of a thread cannot use 'edit' to close a thread even when the only entry is the originator's own entry.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook