Thinking Outside The Box About Existence.

[ANT_SB]

I have been thinking out of the box and I have come to the conclusion that something cannot exist without consuming something else. I know this sounds really wacky (for want of a better phrase which is why I posted this in the Quantum forum, lol.

We know plants consume nutrients and use photosynthesis to exist. We know bacteria consume at the microscopic level in order to exist. We can also assume for something to appear into existence the appropriate surroundings must be in place prior to existence. So the fundamental question arises in my mind, what do the lepton family consume and what are the pre-existing conditions that need to exist for a lepton (for example the electron) to appear?

I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that electrons appear into nothingness, this to me seems worthy of ridicule, not wanting to upset anyone . If the lepton appears into nothingness one might reach the assumption, like I have, that the elementary particle must exist by consuming and/or ejecting space itself creating tiny ripples in space. In theory it could be these very ripples that give us the fractals we see in everyday nature. We might even assume that the proton exists using a similar but opposite method?

I would appreciate any thoughts\ideas on this matter, I have more on this I would like to post but wanted some opionions first.

Kindest regards

:)

 

[SpectraCat]

I have been thinking out of the box and I have come to the conclusion that something cannot exist without consuming something else. I know this sounds really wacky (for want of a better phrase which is why I posted this in the Quantum forum, lol.

We know plants consume nutrients and use photosynthesis to exist. We know bacteria consume at the microscopic level in order to exist. We can also assume for something to appear into existence the appropriate surroundings must be in place prior to existence. So the fundamental question arises in my mind, what do the lepton family consume and what are the pre-existing conditions that need to exist for a lepton (for example the electron) to appear?

I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that electrons appear into nothingness, this to me seems worthy of ridicule, not wanting to upset anyone . If the lepton appears into nothingness one might reach the assumption, like I have, that the elementary particle must exist by consuming and/or ejecting space itself creating tiny ripples in space. In theory it could be these very ripples that give us the fractals we see in everyday nature. We might even assume that the proton exists using a similar but opposite method?

I would appreciate any thoughts\ideas on this matter, I have more on this I would like to post but wanted some opionions first.

Kindest regards

:)

The parallel you are drawing between living organisms/proteins with fundamental particles sounds, frankly, non-sensical. I do not believe that it is appropriate to draw such a vague parallel between complex living systems and fundamental particles. However the broader idea you pose basically sounds like conservation of energy to me ... it is certainly true that electrons can only be created in events that conserve energy (including possible mass-energy conversion), as well as momentum, angular momentum, and obey CPT symmetry (not sure about the last one). For example, electron-positron pairs can be created spontaneously when a 1.022 MeV photon (gamma ray) decays. Or an electron and an electron anti-neutrino are created from decay of a (virtual?) W- boson during beta decay.

The thing about particles being created out of space itself is interesting ... try looking up Feynman's thoughts about quark chains ... if I remember correctly, Feynman hypothesized that if you wanted to separate a quark pair bound by the strong force, you would have to put in so much energy that you would "stress space" (that may be an imprecise pop-science idea) to the point where a second quark pair would spontaneously pop into existence between the original quark pair. Notice however, that energy is still conserved in that process .. the only reason that the second quark pair can (hypothetically) be created is that you input an amount of energy that is at least as big as the energy equivalent to the mass of the quark pair by E=mc².

 

[ANT_SB]

The parallel you are drawing between living organisms/proteins with fundamental particles sounds, frankly, non-sensical. I do not believe that it is appropriate to draw such a vague parallel between complex living systems and fundamental particles. However the broader idea you pose basically sounds like conservation of energy to me ... it is certainly true that electrons can only be created in events that conserve energy (including possible mass-energy conversion), as well as momentum, angular momentum, and obey CPT symmetry (not sure about the last one). For example, electron-positron pairs can be created spontaneously when a 1.022 MeV photon (gamma ray) decays. Or an electron and an electron anti-neutrino are created from decay of a (virtual?) W- boson during beta decay.

The thing about particles being created out of space itself is interesting ... try looking up Feynman's thoughts about quark chains ... if I remember correctly, Feynman hypothesized that if you wanted to separate a quark pair bound by the strong force, you would have to put in so much energy that you would "stress space" (that may be an imprecise pop-science idea) to the point where a second quark pair would spontaneously pop into existence between the original quark pair. Notice however, that energy is still conserved in that process .. the only reason that the second quark pair can (hypothetically) be created is that you input an amount of energy that is at least as big as the energy equivalent to the mass of the quark pair by E=mc².

Thanks kindly for the swift reply.
I shall take a look into "Feynman's thoughts about quark chains". Thanks for that.

The idea that particles are created from space was not exactly what I was getting at. Rather, I look at the electron as "housing an amount of space for a period of time" thus creating a stretch of space in its immediate vicinity. The electron comming into existence, stretching space in its vicinity, and then disappears releasing that space, only to go through the cylcle again. A kind of pulsing existence, that creates a ripple effect in space. I am saying, maybe we are only seeing one part of the electrons existence, when an electron "disappears", we cannot state it actually has ceased to exist, only that we can no longer see it.

If the electron still exists after it has disappeared then there would have to be a duality/symmetry, an interaction between space and something else which creates the electron in the first instance.

I apologise for drawing parallels between organisms and fundamental particles, I am not about to go on a save the lepton protest, lol I was attempting to illustrate that everything we see in nature stems from fundamental particles. Every living creature has the instinct to eat, this natural instinct I believe stems from specific structures in our DNA (DNA memory if you like). The DNA is comprised of nucleotides that are strung together which in turn are comprised from acids eventually navigating down to atoms and quarks themselves. One could argue the point that the very instinct we have to consume, stems from our most basic constituent particles.

I am not a mathematician, although I really enjoy it :(, however, I certainly enjoy taking a problem and visualizing its solution at its most basic level.

Changing the subject, maybe I have had too many beers tonight, time for bed, hangover tommorow :)

 

[Amalan]

ever think about the suns role in our world? I heard of planets having auras in free space with no sun that could potentially harbor life, but I am still under the impression that the sun is the sole reason why any of us exist. then we start getting into quantum entanglement theories such as this one

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/2035990/breakthrough_in_fasterthanlight_travelcommunication_and_seti/index.html

ugh, gives me a headache trying to live in such an existential state of mind. Why can't I just grow crops on a farm and be content with my surroundings and my existence. Curiosity killed the cat! eh screw it, the human race is bored with earth, time to move on.