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

New particle hypothesis

  1. Apr 13, 2003 #1
    superstrings use gravity to fold spacetime around it to create a particle.energy could force its way into space and displace it.they could be like a singularity.but i was thinking what if particles or a singularity were positive energy entrapped by a field of anti energy.matter and anti matter,could be the opposite of each other.so matter would be normal energy with a field of anti energy around it,this would keep the energy from going anywhere by repelling it inward.anti matter would be anti energy surrounded by normal energy.with a singularity it's possible to contain that much energy with a anti energy field because.without outside forces acting on the singularity nothing would pull on the energy to force to anti energy field to collapse.so it would take that much anti energy to keep a particle stable without outside energy attracting to energy on the inside.because a mass curves spacetime,spacetimes charge since it pulls energy in faster than light would'nt be strong enough a force acting on the singularity or particle it do it!
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 14, 2003 #2
    So if particles are really energy trapped by a anti energy field around it.matter would have the ability to move because,motion is caused by a anti gravity field hitting spacetime and repelling against it.so a matter takes on energy from a rocket or a engine to propel it,matter takes on to much energy for the containment field of anti energy to handle,so the anti energy field increases with the normal energy.thus as the anti field inceases it accelerates do to repulsion to spacetime.also,electromagnetic fields are explained in QED as photons which relay the force between them.this could be explain since if photons are pure anti energy,c=at.the mass is hit by anti energy photons,or electromagnetic field,and increases the masses outside anti energy field,thus forcing it into motion.all thats left is how when two likes are close,the two anti fields increase in front to move away from each other,and opposites build up a charge on opposite sides to force them toward each other,and electromagneism could be explained by anti enrgy fields repulsion to spacetime.
  4. Apr 14, 2003 #3
    You know it even accounts for the photoelectric effect.high amounts of photons hitting atoms give electrons a higher anti energy field,when it gains enough energy form the photons,it sponteniously jumps it's orbit.the higher the bombardment of photons will give it a better chance of gaining enough energy at any given time to jump out of it's energy state
  5. Apr 18, 2003 #4
    motion is caused by a forces ability to act on objects.in the case of electromagnetism.they repel and attract.with a anti energy field containing the energy inside,this give the particles the ability to move in charged spacetime by transferring energy between the two fields of both masses.the photons or electromagneic force particle transfers anti energy between them,building up a charge on the opposite mass.there increased fields force them into motion.int he instance of the hydrogen atom where the electron when it comes within range of a proton,the protons north pole takes in the negative field of the elctron,sending it though to the south pole,allowing both fields to transfer between boths poles,using the electrons field against itself.thats why the electron is repelled even when it gets closer.the proton takes the increases negative field and sends it back at the electron every time it gets closer,repelling it more the closer it gets.but in the case of superstrings.what if in the begining all the were was,two types of superstring.positive and negaitve magnetic superstrings.and for a particle of a certain type to come into existence it takes a certain amount of the same type of magnetic superstring to get close enough,to build up a gravtiy charge sufficient enough to fold spacetime around them,then becoming a particle.protons would need more than a electron,but a neutron would be a certain number of both to form.so random chance dictates when and where any number of the same type are proximity to eachother that a particle will form.
  6. Apr 23, 2003 #5
    Chosenone is english your first lanuage?
  7. Apr 23, 2003 #6
    well I guess is another thing you meant by I bring confusion to all forums huh.
  8. Apr 25, 2003 #7
    That answers that question ....
  9. Apr 25, 2003 #8
    well anyway.what I'm saying is,instead of superstrings using gravity to curve spacetime around,to make a particle.energy is entrapped by anti energy on the outside.since there is not pressure on the outside of the particle to pull the energy passed the anti energy field to destroy the particle.so when particles interact.when new particles are made in nuclear processes.the energy inside is pinched off by the anti energy field around it and a new particle is made.why some don't stay stable long enough before the vanish is the anti field could surround the energy in time before the energy escaped.so the particle could'nt fully come into existence.
  10. Apr 28, 2003 #9
    so if particles are positive energy surrounded by a ani energy field or containment field.particles would have both properties.so when a particle is hit with light.the anti energy is aborbed by the anti energy field,increasing its charge.thus repelling against spacetime more.sending it into motion.also anti matter could survive in a positive spacetime because because it needs electromagnetic fields.matter absorbs energy through its attraction to spacetime energy and makes electromagnetic fiel;d with it.anti matter in motion creates a gravtiy field.so if anti matters repulsion to spacetime forces it into a spin,it would travel at light spped like light.so its light speed spin would produce a high eneouygh gravity field to attract energy from spacetime time to make magnetic fields.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: New particle hypothesis
  1. A stupid hypothesis (Replies: 21)

  2. Finding new particles (Replies: 1)