[Kryptid]

Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.

That doesn't make any sense. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

[talanum1]

Space is: RxRxR.

[puppypower]

Through a microscope we will get the impression that this space is expanding, while through the telescope this same space will appear to contract.

That doesn't make any sense. What evidence do you have to support that claim?

In the world of relative reference, a microscope creates the impression that there is more separation or space between things, while allowing us to see smaller and smaller details. If I have a salt tablet, it looks solid with no space inside itself. If we use a powerful microscope, I can now see that the salt ions have lots of space between them. Solid was only relative to my POV without the microscope. The microscope creates a relative reference with more visible space. I have added space relative to the first relative reference.

If I had a microscope focused on the primordial atom, and I increased the magnification, it would appear to expand. This is the microscope version of the BB. We currently assume the entire universe was originally contained in the primordial atom. I use my microscope to see the spaces between, that lets us know this is the entire universe and not a single thing thing with no space.

As we magnify it more, more detail and inner separation in space will appear. We start to notice the uniform looking primordial atom, of earth reference, is not perfectly symmetrical or uniform. Inflation can be simulated by zooming in very quickly.  The speed of light is not violated. In the world of relative reference, there is no preferred reference, correct? The earth reference and what  the human eyes can see, is just another relative reference that cannot see everything.

What is interesting is when we discuss the early universe, we also discuss the formation of matter and particles as the universe expands. This is the visualized microscopic part of the expanding primordial atom. These tinny details can only be seen if we zoom in. We need the correct reference to see enough space, to make the tiny stand out. Once we do that, we then need to equate the earth telescopic reference with the microscope particle reference, in a world where reference is considered relative and not absolute.

When we use telescopes and microscope, we will get relative reference and motion in space, but not in time. Thing can appear to be get larger or smaller, move toward or away, relative to our reference, but the flow of time does not change. We are adding distance potential to space-time, without the time being added. The result is our relative reference cannot maintain energy conservation, since energy needs time to act. This is an artifact of all relative references. This why dark energy was added.

[captcass]

Space cannot be considered without time. This is because it is not space and time but spacetime. This micro/tele discussion is ridiculous. The Hubble telescope does not bring us closer to distant objects in either space or time. Neither does a microscope distance us from what we observe. COVID bored are we? 

[Colin2B]

COVID bored are we? 

No, this is normal for this poster. He’s not suffering COVID induced delusions 

[Travis Tremlee]

Space seems to be a dynamic. That is to say, one cannot think about space as being separate from time. Einstein gave us the theory of Relativity, whereby the three dimensional extension of space and the durational dimension of time become unified into four dimensional space-time.

The faster one moves through space, then the slower they move through time. The total movement through space-time is a constant.

Distance between objects is described by a metric which is the good old Pythagorean theorem in its various forms.

x²+y² = z²  in two dimensions...

We perceive separation between objects and attribute the void between the things as a space.

If space is a dynamic then it is always changing. Time is also change.



 

[captcass]

If space is a dynamic then it is always changing. Time is also change.

As I previously noted in this thread, spacetime is a single thing with two aspects, space and time. Time evolves space forward, making time the fundamental force of the universe.

We begin with the dark void of the space aspect of spacetime being evolved forward by the time aspect of spacetime. But what direction is forward? It is the forward direction of time and, since time has no depth, even though we see 3 dimensions, the spatial aspect actually has no depth. We are just seeing, and are part of, an evolving energy field; the spacetime continuum.   

When a time dilation gradient is introduced, several things happen. At the faster end of the gradient the space must contract so the speed of light, a constant, is maintained.

Also, because time is going faster there, the frequency of any photons of light is higher, which increases energy and pressure. Together, these effects create a density, or “event”, in spacetime.

Because the next instant appears to begin first in the faster time area, we now also see an evolution of such events down the time dilation gradient. This is gravity and it is why gravity only has one direction and why gravity overpowers all the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak: it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.

We have no definition for energy. We merely define it as the ability to perform work and one form of energy can be transformed into other forms; chemical energy can be converted to heat energy which can be converted to mechanical energy, etc.

The fundamental energy of the universe is the energy of time evolving space forward. The evolution of an event down the dilation gradient is the manifestation of kinetic energy from this fundamental energy.

Throughout the universe we see spherical time dilation gradients, or pits.  When a standing wave forms in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a wave that doesn’t fluctuate up and down, we get a tiny density, as I just described, that forms the center of a spherical dilation pit. Once one of these forms, others are induced to form nearby.

As the gravitational direction of evolution has nowhere to go at the focus of the pit, it shatters and spins off in two opposite directions. These spins, or events, form the two primary “particles” that re-combine to make up all the matter of the universe, the electron and the up quark. When they combine, they form the first combination of the two, called a down quark. A proton, the center of a hydrogen atom, is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down quark, and since a down quark is a combination of an up quark and electron, we can say the proton is really a combination of an electron and 3 up quarks. When another electron is attracted to, and captured by, the proton, we have a hydrogen atom, the primary element.

As other pits develop into hydrogen atoms we get a cloud of hydrogen gas, a nebula, and the evolution of these events evolve towards the centers of the larger of them and we see densities accumulate and grow in size, energy, and pressure as the gravitational direction of evolution impedes on itself from all directions at the focus of the spherical pit.

As the density grows at the center of the pit, we see pressure build and the kinetic energy we saw manifested in the dilation gradient is now transformed into heat energy and we end up with the hydrogen fusion that forms a star and forces the protons and electrons to combine to form all the other elements that make up all the matter of the universe.

Now, this is a very simplified explanation because each direction we see has its opposite; up/down, left/right and forward/backward. For this reason, we have what scientists call different colors and flavors of quarks and electrons have their opposite in positrons.

[Kryptid]

since a down quark is a combination of an up quark and electron

Citation needed.

[captcass]

Citation needed.

I learned this years ago studying quantum physics. I just don't have the time to go find a source. I'll let the curious do that.

When an electron, charge -1, combines with an up quark, charge +2/3, we get the charge of a down quark, -1/3.

3 up quarks, 3*(+2/3) = +2, plus 1 electron at -1 = the +1 charge of the proton.

What follows are some simple 2 dimensional images of how the opposite spins of electrons and up quarks allow them to combine to form larger "particle" events. Like spins repulse strongly, hence, electrons repulse electrons, protons repulse protons, etc. I stress that these are just 2 dimensional representations.

If the diagrams don't show, please click on them and choose "reload".

Down Quark:


Proton:


Neutron:


Oxygen Nucleus - Electrons/Up Quarks


Oxygen Nucleus - Protons/Neutrons:

[Kryptid]

I learned this years ago studying quantum physics. I just don't have the time to go find a source.

I'm skeptical that such a source was reputable.

When an electron, charge -1, combines with an up quark, charge +2/3, we get the charge of a down quark, -1/3.

And what force is it that binds the electron to the up quark? It can't be the electromagnetic force, or the proton would be even larger than a hydrogen atom. It can't be the strong nuclear force, because the electron doesn't interact via the strong nuclear force. The weak nuclear force doesn't form bound states and the gravitational force is far too weak.

[captcass]

And what force is it that binds the electron to the up quark?

First, I must say I am not a particle physicist. All my work is limited to effects in time. These are just concepts I was toying with about 10 years ago, but they have recently come up in a discussion I was having with an astrophysicist on the nature of the CBMR....

Speaking at the quantum level, where "particles" only exist as probabilities and possibilities, none of this really matters at all. "Reality" collapses around us as we live in, and observe it.

To answer your question, however, they are conjoined in their spins.

Remember, I am saying the forward gravitational direction of evolution is splintered in the focus of a spherical pit. This creates the spins of the 2 "particle" events. (Particles do not exist, just evolving events). As they are opposite spins (the opposite charges reflect the opposite spins) in the spatial aspect, they are drawn to each other as the gravitational direction tries to recombine. Once the spins conjoin they are naturally held together as they share a common side.

As the up quark's charge is only a 2/3rds fraction of an electron's, it appears there is a preferred direction of spin when the gravitational direction splits. This is most likely due to the effect of the fundamental direction of evolution.

     

[Kryptid]

Speaking at the quantum level, where "particles" only exist as probabilities and possibilities, none of this really matters at all.

Yes it does. Forces are required to put a pair of particles into a bound state.

To answer your question, however, they are conjoined in their spins.

Spin is not an attractive force.

Another problem with your idea is that it violates conservation of lepton number. Take the decay of the neutron as an example. If the neutron was merely a proton plus an electron (because it contains one more down quark than a proton), then you would expect it to decay into just a proton and an electron. But, in reality, it also decays into an antineutrino. This is needed to conserve lepton number (because protons and neutrons have a lepton number of zero, and something has to be present to balance the net lepton number of the produced electron). The production of the antineutrino breaks conservation of lepton number in your model, but it doesn't in the Standard Model. So the Standard Model is preferred to yours.

[captcass]

Forces are required to put a pair of particles into a bound state.

Spin is not an attractive force.

As I noted, I am not a particle physicist. I am not saying spin is an attractive force. In this case it is actually gravity I am talking about. The gravitational direction of evolution. The spins are in the spatial aspect. Gravity overpowers all the other forces as it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.

Standard Model is preferred to yours.

The Standard Model is a flop. The quantum world is where it is at, and absolute quantum determination is impossible because we affect the next instant through our actions, wishes, prayers and expectations. It is a world of light, not particles. We can only study how it presents to us, and that is never definite. That is why I don't like to get too deeply into discussions about "particles". Sure, we can use physics to manipulate our world and understand how it "appears" to work based on how it "usually" manifests for us, but we thought Classical physics was absolute, and now know it isn't.

To illustrate, I like to share some "quantum tales":

I live in Fort Bragg, Ca., which has three beautiful Glass Beaches, and in 2009 I established the now world-famous Sea Glass Museum.

As I noted earlier, “particles” don’t actually exist. They are merely evolving events in spacetime. And until we actually look at them, they really only exist as probabilities and possibilities in the quantum, or spacetime, continuum. They don’t “collapse” into our reality until we look at them.

Fort Bragg has 3 glass beaches, Site 1, Site 2, and Site 3, commonly referred to as “Glass Beach”, that were town dump sites during different time periods, 1906 to ‘43, 1943 to ‘49 and 1949 to ‘67. Most of the sea glass in my museum comes from Site 1.

I couldn’t walk into this beach because there was a mill on the headlands and trespassing was forbidden, so I had to use an ocean kayak to get to this beach.

I landed at the beach one day and found two marbles right next to each other right next to my kayak. They were just plain, colorless, well frosted (so very old), marbles but marbles are rarer than reds (which are 1 in 5,000 pieces) and to find two right next to each other is remarkable.

So I said, "Lord, (the Creator is neither male nor female, but this is how I address It) thank you. I sure would like to find a red marble, though. I've got a blue one, and I thank you, but I sure would like to find a red one. Please, Lord?"

I put that thought aside and went back picking. Normally, I would walk very slowly, up and down the beach, looking for the gems amongst all the other glass, and it took me about 2 hours to walk from where I landed my kayak to nearly the end of the beach. I was tired, and it was time to go tide-wise, but there was just a little more beach to cover so I decided to make a quick pass to see if I could spot anything big just lying on top.
 
Just before I got to the end there was this huge red marble. It's 15/16ths of an inch in diameter. It is a beautiful blood red with a white swirl that forms a wave.
 


I rolled my eyes up and went, "Lord! Dear Lord!, etc." Then, when I bent down to pick up the marble, there were also two pieces of jewelry quality RED glass, one on either side of the marble. I went, "Oh, Lord! Dear Lord!, etc.” a bunch more and danced around with tears in my eyes. This is how the Creator talks to me. The two red pieces, to me, were the Creator saying the marble was not a coincidence, that I asked for red and got red. The odds against finding all three together are just too vast for it to be otherwise.

I would also note that I had only pictured a small, regular sized red marble when I asked for one. I find the Creator always gives us a much better version of what we ask for than what we imagined. I believe this is because the Creator has a by far greater imagination than we do.

The point here is that neither the marble, nor even that section of beach it lay upon, existed for me until I observed them and all the superposition possibilities collapsed into my reality, which was partly determined by my wishes, faith and expectations. Scientifically speaking, this eliminates the possibility of the formulation of an absolute quantum determination in Quantum Physics, and eliminates the Standard Model as being viable.

My second tale is of a little girl and red pieces of Sea Glass.

One day I got to the beach and there was a man and woman with their daughter at the beach. She was about age 8 or 9 and she was only looking for reds, which, as I noted earlier, are about 1 in 5,000 pieces. In 2 hours, she found 9 reds, whereas I, who was looking for whatever, would find a red every 3 or 4 months.

At one point she came running up to me and starting talking to me and as we were finishing up she looked down and picked up a beautiful red right from between my feet.

I wanted to strangle that poor little girl, but of course I just ooohed and aaaahed, and later that day I found one of my own.

Children tend to find what they are looking for because they believe they can. They have faith.

This is the third tale and it is about a stranger’s faith.

I began my business by selling on the headlands. One day a man came down and asked me where to look. I told him there was a slag pile in the cove next to me and that because it replenished the beach he might find something rare there, like a red.

He came back in about 15 minutes with a beautiful red, a piece I would sell for about $150 if made into jewelry, and asked me where else he could look. Knowing what was happening and laughing to myself, I told him he could go to the beach behind me, Site 2, and that there was much more glass there and maybe he could find something even rarer, like a grape purple, which are one of the rarest of colors, about 1 in 10,000 pieces.

He came back in about 20 minutes with a beautiful grape purple. I found about only 4 in 10 years of collecting.
He simply believed what I told him, had faith, like the little girl with the reds: the faith of a child. Does this sound familiar to you?

My quantum tales are meant to show how the Creator, our Greater Selves, is evolving each of our individual universes forward for each of us. When I move my arm from here to there, my universe evolved forward for me so my arm ended up where I wanted it to be.

This is happening for each of us every instant, even though we are unaware of it. It doesn’t matter whether we know it or not, as the Creator simply loves each of us and does it for us. This is because it is the Creator's (there is only One, call it the Universal Cosmic Consciousness if you like) awareness of being Here, Now, is the origin of spacetime. It exists in a dark void, eternally alone, "I Am That I Am"...that I am, that I am, that I am....

This is a horrible state of being. The worst thing we do to people is put them in solitary confinement. Fortunately It can imagine light and can create worlds out of that light, to incarnate Itself into to escape Its eternal loneliness and pass Its eternity. All living things are that. This is why we all hate boredom and fear loneliness. We are all Its children and we are all one in It. (This explains non-locality as It has to harmonize all points of view, no matter how distant and, hence, Alice and Bob are as entangled as the "particles" they are observing).

However, if you know it is this materialization is happening for each of us, you have an advantage, in that you can ask for, and get, your red marble.
 
Seek and you shall find, ask, and you will receive, as in my quantum tales.  This is because in Faith, we have Divine power.

I would add one more note. The most important other to one alone is a loving other and, hence, It makes us male and female and has us participate in the creation by having children. ALL of US, all living things, are simply more of us coming forth from within us, and it all begins with One. Division resulting in multiplication.

Keep taking the square root of ANY number, decimal or whole, and what do you approach? 1.....It all begins with....One.

[Kryptid]

As I noted, I am not a particle physicist. I am not saying spin is an attractive force. In this case it is actually gravity I am talking about. The gravitational direction of evolution. The spins are in the spatial aspect. Gravity overpowers all the other forces as it is an irresistible evolutionary force in time.

Gravity is far too weak on the subatomic scale to bind an electron to a quark.

The Standard Model is a flop.

Then your model must be a flop too, since at least the Standard Model doesn't require such a violation of lepton number (or at least B-L, baryon number minus lepton number) in order to account for observations.

As I noted earlier, “particles” don’t actually exist.

Yet we have no problem detecting things that are consistent with what are called "particles" by the Standard Model.

[captcass]

Gravity is far too weak on the subatomic scale to bind an electron to a quark.

The big mystery, since Einstein, has been why gravity overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak. I explain that.

Then your model must be a flop too, since at least the Standard Model doesn't require such a violation of lepton number (or at least B-L, baryon number minus lepton number) in order to account for observations.

I am claiming nothing past causation. After that it is "physics", even "quantum physics", that "seem" to describe what we see, "usually", based on "probabilities".....

The Creator, the UCC, allows Itself to manipulate the creation, so It can play with what It has created. This greatly enhances Its experience as incarnate. 

[Kryptid]

The big mystery, since Einstein, has been why gravity overpowers the other forces so easily, even though it appears to be so weak. I explain that.

That isn't a mystery. There are two reasons why gravity dominates the large-scale Universe: (1) it has an infinite range, and (2) it only has one kind of charge, so it can't be canceled out. Although electromagnetism also has an infinite range, it has two charges which cancel out to make bulk matter effectively neutral. The strong and weak nuclear forces are short-ranged. But gravity only dominates the large-scale Universe. It is extraordinarily weak between individual subatomic particles.

I am claiming nothing past causation.

You claimed that down quarks are up quarks plus electrons, which is wrong because it leads to violation of conservation of lepton number.

[captcass]

ou claimed that down quarks are up quarks plus electrons, which is wrong because it leads to violation of conservation of lepton number.

As I noted, I learned this while studying quantum physics.

I also don't get into particle physics for the reasons I noted above.

You also clearly don't understand gravity.

I suggest you read my paper:
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC26/General%20Relativity%20and%20Effects%20in%20Time%20as%20Causation%20JofC.pdf

I have said all I intend to say about "particles". This thread is about space....

[Kryptid]

As I noted, I learned this while studying quantum physics.

Then you learned wrong. I guarantee you that whatever source you learned that from was either non-reputable or was based on misunderstandings.

You also clearly don't understand gravity.

I understand it well enough to know that it doesn't bind electrons and up quarks into down quarks.

[captcass]

Then you learned wrong. I guarantee you that whatever source you learned that from was either non-reputable or was based on misunderstandings.

I really don't want to go back and forth on this. I will just note that, from Wikipedia, "Niels Bohr was notably opposed to this (Pauli's) interpretation of beta decay and was ready to accept that energy, momentum, and angular momentum were not conserved quantities."

I would also note that the combination of two particles does not predict what will happen when they decay or are shattered in a collider.

As per gravity, you are not seeing what it is, and that it acts at every level when there is a density, even a point (particle) event.

[Kryptid]

I really don't want to go back and forth on this.

Then do us both a favor and don't make statements that violate the laws of physics.

"Niels Bohr was notably opposed to this (Pauli's) interpretation of beta decay and was ready to accept that energy, momentum, and angular momentum were not conserved quantities."

Bohr turned out to be wrong about that. We know that they are conserved quantities thanks to Noether's theorem.

I would also note that the combination of two particles does not predict what will happen when they decay or are shattered in a collider.

It may not specify the exact particles, but it does predict what kind of decays are allowed: they have to satisfy conservation laws. Decay paths that violate conservation laws are forbidden.

As per gravity, you are not seeing what it is, and that it acts at every level when there is a density, even a point (particle) event.

I never said that it isn't present at the subatomic level, only that it is too weak to explain the existence of the proton or neutron by binding electrons to quarks.