The 'Charge Balance' of grouped particles; the Speed of Light

Two questions remain in my mind: how can we explain the charge level, polarity and spin of already-grouped and/or stable fundamental particles (Hadrons and Leptons)? I'd also like to reconsider the 'speed of light'.

For the first question, there seems to be a constant between the spin of Quarks and Leptons - all forms of both have a 1/2 (positive?) spin. Quarks group in threes, and all forms ('volumes') of quark have either a -1/3 or +2/3 charge. Charged Leptons (namely electrons) have a -1 charge. Why this constant? I wouldn't be surprised if, in the beginnings of the universe, there was a large disparity in the charge level of each particle, and that this constant occurred only after quarks grouped into Hadrons; if Hydrogen was indeed the first atom to form in our universe, two positively-charged 'up' quarks bonded with one negatively-charged ('down') quark; once a Hadron was created (if quarks containing opposing but equal charges didn't annihilate each other first), any energy beyond a combined 'level of stability' would be expelled. Consequentially, once the quark bond was complete, the 'binding force' of the stable Hadron would reject a collision with any gamma or beta particles with a charge below a certain energy level. It would be interesting to calculate the total energy contained in all Quarks and Leptons - would they 'balance out' between the negative and positive? In a stable hydrogen atom, containing two +2/3 charged 'up' quarks, one -1/3 charged 'down' quark and one -1 charged electron, the result is zero. In a Helium atom, whose Hadrons (two Protons, two Neutrons) are composed of six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, and two electrons, the result is... zero. Interesting. Or was the math based on the fact?

As a side note, I'm not so sure that this 'charge constant' is so constant: this could explain why atoms towards the bottom of the periodic table are the least stable: a single slight imbalance in a hydrogen atom may not disturb the solidity of its nucleus, but an accumulation of slight imbalances in an atom with a (much) higher atomic number may push its 'energy envelope' (the energy needed for either nuclear fusion or fission) in one direction or another.

My second question concerns the speed of light. This speed has become a constant that is used in many quantum mechanics calculations, but in trying to avoid sounding pompous about it, I'd like to express some doubt about how this number is often used. I know that it is the 'fastest' known speed in the known universe, but what if, instead of treating the travel rate of gamma particles as a 'speed', we treat it as a behaviour: what if the upper extremity of energy known to us was a barrier, an energy level that, if surpassed, would result in a) the absorption of that energy (by some unknown ('perfect state'?) matter) or b) the creation of a new, mass-and-charge-bearing particle? In short, I think that, by using the speed of light to try to discover the 'base states' of quantum physics, we are limiting ourselves - or in other words, hurdling ourselves against a barrier of our own making.

Positive and Negative charge in Particles

I'm still a bit flummoxed over the concept of positive and negative charges in the elementary particles known to us - they seem to maintain a mass-containing 'state'. It's not the elementary particle's qualities themselves that has me thinking, but rather their reaction to each other.

If one takes one of our most basic elementary particles, the quark, one can see that it never remains in an independent state for any length of time, but rather is absorbed by another element, or combines with other 'free' quarks to create a Hadron (Neutron or Proton).

When one examines the grouping of Hadrons, one can see that they either contain two 'up' quarks (+2/3 charge) and one 'down' quark (-1/3 charge) as a Proton, or the opposite (two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark) as a Neutron. First off, one notices that the higher the charge, the less the mass - Protons have half the mass of Neutrons. Examined individually, we see that the combined charge of each element 'balances' into two different states (a Proton = (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 1; a Neutron = (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = or a charge of 0). The 'binding force' between oppositely-charged quarks is probably generated by each element's effort to annihilate each other, or 'draw' from its neighbouring quark's opposing charge, but lacking the power to do so (the elements must have the same opposing charge to annihilate each other), they simply bind. If the charges of two elementary particles are not equal, I am persuaded that the 'binding force' is generated by the 'overlap' between the charges - the 'up' quark would 'suck' an excess 1/3 charge beyond the charge of a neighbouring 'down' quark, and the -1/3 'down' quark can only 'suck' 1/3 of the charge of a neighbouring 'up' quark (if the two could annihilate each other, a +1/3 charge quark (inexistent in our universe) and a -1/3 quark ('down' quark) would remain). So two 'similar' quarks are in an eternal inter-annihilation battle, but it takes three to attain the balanced 'states' we know as Neutrons and Protons.

Moving one step further, a positively-charged Proton (+1 charge) attracts a negatively-charged electron (-1 charge), which would result in an atom (hydrogen) that has a 0 charge through the sum of its parts. The most common Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons) would have a sum charge of 0 also (six 'up' quarks, six 'down' quarks, two electrons). The most stable form of Lithium atom (7L) has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons resulting in an overall charge of 0... but it is in itself an unstable element (because of the ten 'up' quarks (+6 2/3 charge) fighting 11 'down' quarks (-3 2/3 charge))? It would be interesting to follow this up the periodic table.

Questions remaining: above I have reflected upon the behaviour of the most common quark 'flavours', but there exist quarks with higher mass than 'up' and 'down' quarks: 'charm' and 'top' quarks are identical to 'up' quarks in their charge and spin, but they have much greater mass - could this be a difference in the volume of 'neutral state matter' affected by a charge? Also, what of the 'spin' of elementary particles? All save Bosons (energies - eg. Photons) have spin. Could it be possible that a spin put on 'neutral state matter' is enough to transform it into a different (but 'neutral charge') discernible element (a neutrino) having some mass?

The constant I see through all the above is a 'state of balance' - elementary particles of all sorts seem be trying to attain a 'level of zero' state (with or without charge). Only elements with opposing factors can annihilate each other (the opposing 'spins' of neutrinos/antineutrinos cancel each other, the opposing charge of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen atoms cancel each other (leaving neutrinos, if their spin is in the same direction?)).

Nothing is Something.

Further study into atomic behaviour motivates me to add to my earlier mullings a bit. Yet I am still persuaded that our universe is based on some sort of 'neutral state' material that, thus far, is invisible to us, a matter that may be in itself define 'invisibility'.

What got me thinking the most was my reading on 'antiparticles' - 'stable' particles (any particle in the atomic scale) that operate on a negative charge. In a 'normal' (positively-charged) atom, the positively-charged nucleus (consisting of neutrally-charged neutrons and positively-charged protons) attracts the negatively-charged electron, yet the energy of the electron is not enough to overcome the nucleus' 'binding force' and is repelled by it. The same laws hold true if an atom's nucleus and electron(s) are both negatively-charged. Yet when a particle and its polar-twin antiparticle (say, a hydrogen atom and a 'anti-hydrogen' atom) enter into contact, they annihilate each other, and the same would happen if a positron (positively-charged electron) and electron converge; I am persuaded that whatever is 'left over' from these collisions would be 'neutral state' matter.

Whatever this 'neutral state matter' is, it is capable of accepting a charge, but the conditions in which this could happen would have to be extreme. I imagine an effect almost like water skipping off a duck's back; a ducks's feathers have waterproofing enough to resist absorbing the water propelled on them under 'natural' conditions, but were the water propelled with enough energy (and/or volume), the feathers would be obliged to absorb moisture. This action could explain the behaviour of rays (energy) through a seeming void: if the energy is not travelling with a force/speed enough to affect the 'base state' matter, it will simply skip across it. This may even define the speed of light; any energy above this level is absorbed by the 'base matter', thus becoming invisible to us - or would it create a new perfectly-visible particle?

This model still makes sense when applied to particles as small as quarks. Once a 'base matter' particle becomes charged, it gains mass; it is still 'attracted' back to its 'neutral' state, but is impeded from doing so by its charge. How the newly-formed particle behaves with its neighbouring particles depends on how it is charged: according to today's model, an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge and a 2.4 MeV mass, and a 'down' quark has a -1/3 charge and twice the mass, and these, once created, would 'clump' into 'stable state' Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if quarks and electrons, if they are not one and the same, are at least in the same family: it would make sense if, at the beginning of the universe, the quark-energy soup combined to form all the Hadrons (Protons and Neutrons) it could, and electrons are simply 'free' negatively-charged quarks 'left over' from this grouping/inter-annihilation: these particles would be attracted to the already-formed Protons by their negative charge, but would lack the energy needed to affect the Proton's already-stable state ('binding energy'), thus gravitate around them.

Atomic construction from then on was consequential, through methods already well-known to us.

Further thought on atom construction.

In examining a chart of known elementary particles (one is available here), I noticed that the lower the electrical charge of an element, the higher the mass. In referring to my earlier thoughts, could this mean that mass can be synonymous to... gravitational pull, and that electrical charge can cancel that pull? Or does it mean that, in order for a certain particle to remain stable, it must contain a 'balanced' charge/base energy ratio?

It seems to fit. An 'up' quark is half as heavy as a 'down' quark, and there is a 'one part' charge difference between the two (an 'up' quark has a 2/3 charge, a 'down' quark has -1/3 - thoughts on this scale later). There are other 'heavier' types of quarks (following the same 2/3 -1/3 pattern), but we'll stick to the base elementary particles for now for simplicity's sake. Anyhow, in the next stage of atomic construction, that is to say the formation of hadrons, we see that quarks whose masses are similar are more prone to group into a stable hadron (proton or neutron). If we then consider electrons, elementary particles having a -1 charge and having approximately 1/5 the mass of an 'up' quark (thus 1/10 of a 'down' quark)... there's something going on here.

I'm imagining something like this:

Of course, the quarks are not to scale (it is possible that the 'G' base energy is consistent, and only the 'E' (charge) element varies), but you get the picture. If we were to bump the electron's -1 charge indicated in the chart above to '0', and apply the same change throughout, it would fit this schema exactly: electrons would have no charge, 'down' quarks would have some charge, but 'up' quarks would have more. In fact, I would in fact like to do away with the notion of 'negative charge' altogether - either something has charge, or it doesn't. Gravitational energy ('base energy') attracts charge energy (they almost seem to be trying to cancel each other out). If it were really that simple...

If we move up to the next stage of atom formation (the grouping of 'like' quarks into hadrons, or neutrons and protons), it makes even more sense: quarks will group according to their charge (two ups and one down, or vice versa - I suppose any additional quark will cause 'imbalance' and be rejected), then neutrons and protons will group in turn (in a stable atom, at least to the lower end of the periodic table, there is an equal amount of neutrons and protons) - in any atom nucleus, it would seem that the energetic charge of protons cancels out those of neutrons, leaving only the gravitational force to hold sway over neighbouring elements (apart from their own attraction, depending on their charge, to the stabalised core).

But let us not forget that the first atoms of our universe were hydrogen atoms - and these have no neutron - yet we can see why a non-charged element (electron) would be attracted to a charged element (proton) only. Let us also remember that an electron penetrating a proton will transform it into a neutron - or, in another way of looking at it, it will transform one of the proton's 'up' quarks into a 'down' one. Yet both of these tendencies still fit into the model - atoms heavier than hydrogen are created through fusion, thus neutrons as well. I doubt that, in its very very atomic beginning, our universe contained anything but hydrogen atoms, energy, and free electrons.

I'd almost like to imagine that the very beginnings of our universe was lumps of 'G matter' and the pure energy ('E') that resulted in/resulted from its release (from its 'perfect state') - I think that every atom that could ever form (through 'quark binding') in our universe already has, and everything else (photons, free electrons), is the 'leftovers' from this initial mix.

On Atom Construction

I wouldn't be surprised if quarks and leptons (electrons) contained the same base element. If, at the beginning of our universe, a soup of base elements separated from their stabilising energy charge tried to return to their original 'perfect' state, it would make sense that these elements would 'bind' according to their energy level. Already-charged (positive) elements would bind with lesser-charged (negative) others, creating hadrons, and these in turn would group according to their own respective 'polarisation' (charge). Already stable hadrons would reject any further binding (each contain three quarks, two 'up' and one 'down', or vice versa) - I wouldn't at all be surprised that electrons (leptons) were unbound but charged quarks ('base elements') 'left over' from the initial 'soup construction' stage, once it was completed. Electrons still attempt to bind with an atom's nucleus (and its protons and neutrons), but the 'rejecting force' ('binding energy') of an atom's nucleus (and its individual hadrons) and its opposing charge, prevent them from doing so.

This fits in with the thought that gravity is the 'base element' minus its initial energy, or the effect caused by the 'base element' trying to capture energy enough to return to its initial 'perfect' state. A base element trying to recuperate its initial energy either succeeds or fails depending on its energy level in relation with its neighbours - once no further hadron binding was possible, everything else that followed (atom construction) was but consequential.

Addendum: I can't help but observe that the 'binding force' between stable elements decreases as we advance further along the atomic construction scale. Binding between quarks (creating hadrons) seems to be the strongest, but it is lower between charged hadrons (neutrons and protons).

I also can't help but notice that protons (containing two charged, or 'up' quarks) alone, unbound, are the only element that can retain stability; neutrons are overcome, or are 'evaporated', by their own forces. Does this mean that a stabilised hadron has to 'feed on' (or be 'fed upon') by its neighbour in order to maintain stability? Neutrons contain one 'charged' quark (or 'up' quark) and two 'down' quarks; although a neutron has greater mass (?), the single 'up' quark (that seems to be the instigator of the binding energy) alone doesn't seem to contain energy enough to keep the quark formation together. It would seem logical that a neutron needs to 'feed' on a proton's two 'up' quarks; together, a proton and a neutron together contain three 'up' quarks and three 'down', thus balance each other perfectly. Furthermore, consider that when a 'negatively charged' electron, when introduced into a proton, creates a neutron: it would seem that a 'negative' (no energy?) electron 'saps' a proton's positive energy (transforming one of its quarks into a higher mass 'down' quark. This seems to fit into the theory that even a quark has a 'stable state' of its own: either it is a 'base energy' (gravitational force) containing no 'electrical' charge, or it is an (equal?) balance of base energy and charged energy. 'Base energy' seems to be the most stable of the two, if a hadron's charged energy is released with the introduction of additional uncharged 'base energy'. This is all beginning to make sense.

A difference in state: Mass and Dark Matter.

In my earlier posts and illustrations, I tried to portray the interaction of objects with a state of mass against those without: I don't think I was very clear, and I am thinking now that I may have been off the mark. I tried to attribute gravity to the effect between 'perfect state' and 'altered state' matter, but I'm beginning to change my mind and think that, although there may be some inter-reaction between those states, their respective behaviours are not interdependent.

I like more and more the idea that our universe is a soup of a) Perfect energy (dark matter); b) 'altered state' matter, or 'perfect energy' that has somehow been stripped of a stabilising element thus giving it a gravitational quality, and c) energy - or the energy needed for that 'altered state' matter to return to its 'perfect state' form.

Gravity may just be an instability, the result of a 'perfect state' being divorced from the energy it needs to maintain that 'perfect' form. I almost got it right in my earlier illustration showing a 'perfect state' as three (why three, I don't know) objects, one of which is energy; I could in fact simplify it like so:

This would explain many things. I can easily imagine that the beginning of our universe was nothing but a soup of 'base elements' (G) and energy (E) left over from a cataclysmic disturbance great enough to separate them: If our laws of physics remain true (see 'Nuclear Fusion'), the energy needed for that soup to return to its original state would be enormous; it is even possible that our universe does not contain enough energy for that event to ever occur. Thus, in the presence of an enormous amount of energy, but not enough energy to return to their original form, the base elements of our universe recuperated what energy they could, and in regrouping according to their energy content and number of 'base elements', formed what became the hydrogen atoms that were the origin of everything 'solid' in the universe we know today.

I can try to extend this theory to the formation of atoms themselves: it would seem reasonable that 'base energy' elements that have recuperated some of their former energy potential would bond with others that haven't: this would follow the behaviour of quarks that form, always in three, neutrons and protons. Electrons could have formed at the very beginning of the big bang, as 'base energy' elements that had achieved stability through their negative charge (no charge?), but it is also possible that they are the result of a secondary cataclysm caused by the first fusion of (electron-less) hydrogen nuclei. Everything else is a spectrum of 'free energy'.

Vacuum == 'Dark matter'?

The behaviour/existence of photons is still a mystery to many in the scientific world today. Is a photon a particle, and does it have mass? It is proven that a photon can contribute/subtract mass to/from an atom or atomic structure, but this phenomena is attributed to the photon's energy content; energy added to an existing mass increases that mass without adding any additional material content. The speed of light is calculated on the rate at which a photon travels through a vacuum - or its rate of travel through space containing no discernible obstacle.

This never ceases to puzzle me. Why, when we observe the behaviour of energy in more 'material' objects, should the rules change when the 'energy carrier' decreases in density? Objects made up of 'loosely' tied atoms absorb energy because of the volume of 'free electrons' they contain, and objects of densely packed atoms (namely crystalline structures) let light pass because they have few energy-absorbing free electrons; crystalline structures are in fact photon carriers.

When we observe the behaviour of light through crystalline structures, namely lenses, we can see that they can 'bend' light depending on their form. Light passing through lenses in fact not 'bent', but deflected: light exiting a crystalline structure will do so in a direction away from the thickest part of the lens, or the part of the lens containing the most speed-reducing atoms.

Doesn't the vacuum we call space behave in the same way? It is known that gravity can 'bend' light, a phenomena often attributed to the hypothetical gravitational qualities of photons themselves, but what if it was not the photon itself that was being deviated by gravity, but its carrier?

This makes perfect sense to me. Take, for example, light travelling past a black hole: if the gravitational pull is greater towards the centre of the black hole, so is the mass density; light has more density/gravity to go through on its side towards the black hole, so its path until the point where the gravitational pull is strongest, it will be deflected away; once past the gravitational apogee, if the black hole is perfectly spherical, the light will be deflected back towards its original path.

I wouldn't be surprised if gravity has no effect on light at all. If light depended on a 'carrier' that exists even in an environment we consider to be a 'vacuum', we could do away with the 'electromagnetic quality' theories about photons; photons would become a form of energy whose transmission depends on the quality of its carrier, and would behave just like any other energy known to us.

This leads me to believe that there is no such thing as 'nothing'. If the 'vacuum' of space was in fact a sea of inert 'perfect state' matter, or a material that some scientists are beginning to call 'dark matter', this would simplify the spectral map, and behaviour, of our universe's elements enormously.

The Theory of Everything - In a nutshell.

Okay, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I've created a few diagrams outlining my idea.

 

Here we have our two states, Base Energy, or the 'foundation' upon all is built, and Reduced Energy, the mass-creating state that is the base of everything we know.

The first diagram seems to indicate direction, but we're talking about states here, so let's simplify things by taking movement out of the equation.

The above diagram describes the present state of my theory - of what is Base Energy composed? I am persuaded that it is at a 'higher' state than the elements visible in our universe. Elements we know closest to the Base Energy state are the 'fastest' (electrons, photons) and have the least gravitational pull - which would move me to think almost of a 'state spectrum' which would look something like this:

I am also persuaded that the 'energy state' difference between quarks and photons is minuscule - but since each state has its own degree of 'glue power', it takes an enormous amount of energy (from our universe) to override the binding force and 'raise' the targeted element's energy level.

It would seem logical that the first element known to our universe was Hydrogen. If the Big Bang was the spewing of an initial 'goo spectrum' of base matter into our universe (dimension), the matter would 'bind' according to its state (energy level) - and the logical result would be our simplest atom, Hydrogen. Everything that happened beyond in our universe is consequential, but these reactions seem to tend towards an 'energy down' direction (elements stripped of all energy save gravity). In order for a base element to 'energy up' to the Base Energy level, something needs to be added to it; without that energy boost, a base element will be prey mainly to the gravitational pull generated by the degree of 'difference of state' between itself and the Base Energy.

Black Holes - addendum

I'd just like to 'touch up' some thoughts I had about 'mega black holes' - black holes with a mass so great that their cores have (possibly) been reduced to quarks and gluons. If the energy created by the massive compression was so great that quarks (and gluons) would be 'energized' enough to return to their 'perfect state', the black hole would lose mass until it became one with a core of highly compact neutrons. On the other hand, since fusion in elements beyond iron actually needs energy, an energy already consumed by the star during its collapse, I would find it highly plausible that the black hole would stabilize, no matter it's core's consistence.

One conclusion I have been able to confirm through all this is that gravity is the energy pulling an element towards its natural 'perfect' state, and all other forms of quantum-level energy push elements away from that state. In fact, I am even persuaded that there are only two forms of energy working at a quantic level - 'dead' energy (gravity) and 'positive' energy.

For my better understanding (and perhaps yours) - Black Holes, Revisited

I ended my last post with a question - what happens on the 'other end' of a black hole? Well, I don't really know how a black hole is created or how a black hole 'works'. Consider the below a research essay.

Almost every element in our universe above hydrogen was created by nuclear fusion, or the fusion of lighter atoms into a heavier ones.

For nuclear fusion to occur, two (or more) atoms must be compressed together with a force stronger than their respective polarity charges - think trying to force two positively-charged magnets together - so that their nuclei will touch and thus merge. If the binding energy needed for the new heavier atom is less than that needed for the two lighter atoms combined, excess energy, neutrons and electrons are released (explosion), but if the binding energy needed for the resulting larger atom is more, the new atom actually absorbs energy.

Creating nuclear fusion in our environment is extremely difficult: we lack a natural gravitational force strong enough to complete the task, and it takes extreme amounts of energy to force two atoms close enough to fuse (through extreme magnetic forces, particle acceleration, or through heating a plasma enough that its atoms grow agitated enough to collide). On the other hand, stars do all the work themselves.

Stars, the origin of most black holes, produce their energy through fusing hydrogen atoms (our lightest element) into helium. Fusion is attained through both the enormous gravitational compression and heat at the sun's core. Since the binding force and electrons needed for a helium atom (most commonly two neutrons, two protons, two electrons) is less than four hydrogen atoms (one proton, one electron each), energy is released. The helium produced progresses into and becomes the star's core.

Fusion between all atoms in the periodical table lighter than iron create the outward-pushing energy the star needs to counter the enormous inward-pushing core-crushing forces of its own gravity. Fusion between elements heavier than iron needs energy, an energy that can come only from the still-fusable layers above the star's core. So if the star's fusion cycle progresses enough that its core becomes iron, it will collapse.

Here's where the fun begins: since the star's mass, if it is great enough, can only incite a energy-eating fusion at its iron core, here begins a chain-reaction process (that I won't get into here) that will 'compact' the atoms at the star's core into an intensely dense mass of neutrons (that some think resembles the consistence of atom's nucleus - no further compression possible), generating a minor exposion of outward-going nuclear debris that, when mingling with the star's still-fusionable outer layers, will generate a secondary much larger explosion, or supernova (creating an energy that is great enough to generate atoms heavier than iron, in a process called 'r-process'), an explosion that will blow the heavier elements it generates away into the rest of the galaxy. All that remains of the supernova is an immensely compact sphere of unstructured neutron(-proton) core encased by other 'lighter' unstructured atomic elements (progressively: neutrons, electrons, and some ions).

So here we have an object with a huge gravitational pull, no energy and no atomic structure. What this object is called depends on its (former) size: if it was created from an average-sized star, it would be called a neutron star (a non-glowing body that has gravitational pull enough to bend light travelling through its gravitational pull), yet if it had even more mass, it would have a gravitational pull so great that even light could not escape it: this would be a black hole. There is even a hypothesis that, if the star was even larger, it would collapse into a mass so compact that even its core neutrons disintegrate into core of quark-gluon plasma. In any case, the result is a body with gravitational and kinetic constants, a body that can only affect/be affected by the gravity/mass of its neighbours. Black holes do not have a 'sucking power' that stretches to infinite distances; black holes can only affect objects within the limits of their gravitational pull, just like any other celestial body.

If it were up to me, I would tend to group all the above celestial phenomenæ into the same category.

What did I retain from all this? I find it very interesting that our universe's first atoms were hydrogen atoms - all heavier elements are a result of mass accumulation then nuclear fusion. I did learn that a gravity generated by a mass large enough can overcome even the atomic structures of the mass itself. I also think that a bit much is being made about a black hole's 'event horizon': gravity sucks, even light, alright - who cares what 'we see' as 'observers'?
Concerning my quest for a 'constant theory', I can retain that the universe at its most energetic was hydrogen atoms, and that the universe at its energy-eating deadest is black holes, and that gravity, a constant throughout, exists in/affects every known element in our universe. Yes, gravity can bend, or even trap, light... or does gravity bend/trap the beam along which light is travelling? But I digress into my theorising.

The Theory of Everything - An attempt at summation.

I recently came across a video series made by Nottingham University - 'Sixty Symbols' - that was answers by prominent physicists and astronomers to 'outside-the-box' viewer-submitted questions. One of the most interesting can be found here.

I loved the videos, but one thing that bothered me about the answers, although they were interesting and often quite imaginative, is that they were not quite 'out of the box' in their conception; most scientists seem to be stuck on existing models and our perceptions of those models - I think that, in order to come to a conclusive answer to how our universe functions, we have to do away with how we feel matter and the passage of time. The universe functions quite well on its own without our understanding of it.

These videos cover a wide range of exploration - the big bang, string theory, dark matter, to name a few - but each line of research seems to be stuck in an almost political path defined over sometimes hundreds of years of research and discoveries, and not one defined by the discoveries themselves. There is a connecting something between each line of research, but in order to discover and define it, one must take a step back and rethink all objectively as a whole.

Forgetting the Human 'point of view'
The thing that bothered me the most was their attempt to explain dimensions: it is practical to our perception of matter that it has a measurable breadth, width and depth, but if we re-ask the question from a purely functional point of view, the answer should be much simpler: all matter without exception has 'three dimensions', otherwise it wouldn't exist. So let's reduce our perceivable dimensions to 'is or isn't' - or one. As I mentioned in an earlier post, our sense of time is but our perception of matter's interaction; the scientific measure of time, on the other hand, is a documentation of matter's inter-relational evolution (relative speeds, etc), and of course should be retained.

The 'Joining' theory - a tale of two states
The only energy scientists have difficulty explaining is gravity: all other forms of energy - photons, electricity, magnetism - are but a consequential result of the interaction and behaviour of existing matter/elements. I think that both gravity and the existence of matter can be explained in a unique answer: the interaction/attraction between two energetic states.

I am increasingly persuaded that our universe is 'full' - it is constructed on a base of uniform energy. What we see around us is but a disturbance in that energy, or an energy in conflict with/departed from its initial state; the matter created, from photons to quarks (again, anything above is consequential), is simply a result of the difference in speed between the two energies. One could add direction into the mix (a possible explanation for dimensions), but let's just stay in our dimension for now.

String theory is a kind of nice way of painting this interaction into a form understandable to humans, but I think it kind of misses the point - and I don't see the logic behind the 'nine dimensions' theory (already faultily based on our all-too-human 'three dimensions' point of view). What does make sense in string theory research is that gravity somehow 'bleeds' into other dimensions - but I think 'other dimensions' can be translated to 'one energy's attraction to (or attempt to return to) its initial state' - that would make sense, because in all levels of physics, it is the behaviour of a dominant mass that affects the behaviour of another (anomaly) moving within it. An eddy flowing into the Mississippi, after a few disturbances, will eventually be forced to go with the flow.

I think that our universe's 'base energy' is in a state that is... faster than light (or slower: position is relative, only the difference between the two energetic states matter). In any case, we can consider light to be the highest energetic state existing in our universe - anything charged beyond becomes the base energetic state, and simply 'disappears'.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy
I haven't come up with any concrete idea about Dark Matter or Dark Energy, but it would make sense if they were energies just beyond the speed of light - or perhaps the gravitational attraction of the 'base energy' itself.

Black Holes
When a star's inner core (nuclear fission) is not enough to resist its heavier outer layers, it collapses; if the star is big enough, it implodes into a tiny mass whose gravity is so great not even light can escape its pull. The going theory is that the centre of a black hole attains 'zero (infinate) density'... but what if, at the centre of the black hole, the atomical elements are compacted/energized enough to return to their former 'base energy' state? This would mean that a black hole would eventually dissipate, and they do, but this often (so the theory goes) would take hundreds of billions of years beyond even the life of our galaxy. If an atomical structure would break down into a form matching the 'base energy', wouldn't gravity dissipate as well? How is a black hole's massive gravitational pull maintained for so long? There must be something happening at 'the other side'...

Dimensions, again.
I really don't think dimensions matter in this model. It may be possible that the direction of an 'energy anomaly' through an 'energy base state' may determine a dimension, but if this were the case, an infinite number of dimensions would be possible. Also, in order for matter to pass from one dimension to another, it would first have to attain the 'base energy' state in order to 'change direction'... but let's save dimensions for another day.

The Value of Ignorance

I'm a U.S. politics watcher. I'm not even American, but I find that the political and social climate there to be an often fascinating window into the future of what the rest of the world may one day look like. What is brewing there now is extremely important: the battle for political control is not only over fiscal policies and the usual like; it is a battle over the future of the American psyche.

Class division is a phenomenon that has existed all through human history, and only the methods of enforcing and maintaining that division have changed. Technology has always been a major factor in the marking of class division: those few who invent or use new tools are always enriched by the greater population that depend upon the services they provide. Yet this changed with the technologies of travel: local economies grew and merged with others, some eliminating others outright; as the economical reach of those detaining the 'secrets' and privileges of technology spread, their fiscal power and reach grew as well. The invention of the steam engine and rail, in my mind, was the 'genesis factor' that created the political and social divide we see today.

In older times class division was maintained by brute force. This ended with the rise of Democracy, so the creators and distributors of technologies and riches had to find other means of maintaining their position of dominance. Monopolies were a major tool of dominance in the early years of the mass-production industrial era, but when even these were outlawed, the barons of the time had to find yet other means of creating and maintaining the dependance of the populaces.

It was the post-WWII economic mass-production-and-distribution boom that shaped the economy as we see it today.  That period also marked a change in the management of riches attained through production and distribution: the profits of industry were removed from their production source and put to other uses. From an initial trend of investment in new technologies, those 'uses' since then have become increasingly dispersed, vague and even obfuscated. Corporations best represent best the misuse and stagnation of financial gain: from their origins as accumulations of wealth designated to fixed projects (bridges, urban development) managed by the economic leaders of their times, today they are mindless accumulations of wealth that that have only profit - no matter the means or the manager - as a motive. When the line between production and profit is broken, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain - and justify - financial gains and their use to the economy.

Enter the age of misinformation. The industrial barons could no longer depend on monopolies to maintain their financial dominance, but there existed no laws against their using their financial might to choose what products could be produced and what products could be invented. Such decisions were most often made far from the public eye. So here we have a climate where a select few are doing everything they can to maintain the money flow from a dependant public, even against the current of discoveries about the hazards of certain existing popular products and the emergence of new technologies such as renewable energy. So if the nation's financial giants wanted to maintain control over the populace on who they were dependant for their income, they needed to control both the message people received through media and the people's ability to observe and limit the activities of the corporations themselves.

A prime and early example of misinformation was given by the tobacco industry: although doctors and scientists alike agreed, in an overwhelming consensus, on the cancer-causing effects of cigarettes, the tobacco industry did all they could to propagate to the public their 'findings' of cherry-picked 'facts' that supported their claim that cigarettes did ~not~ cause cancer. Another more recent example is the 'controversy' over climate change.

Corporations and their lobbyists were quick to learn that the media giants could be a major tool in spreading misinformation, especially when those same giants began to merge and become profit-generating corporations themselves. The goal for both was the same: the shortest path to the money.

Things became worse tenfold when politicians entered the fray: they too needed money for their increasingly expensive and extensive campaigns. Where better to seek campaign finance than the tip of the economic pyramid of accumulated wealth? Of course, in agreements unwritten that defied no existing laws, campaign contributors expect return in legislation favourable to their short-sighted all-be-damned-but profit cause. Things have gotten to a point where it is common for corporate heads and lobbyists become politicians, and vice-versa.

So what is the public reaction to this? The larger part of the population still relies on television, radio and print media as a source of 'news' and information. The only points they have to share with their fellow citizens are those that appear there, but like products in years before, corporations can pick and choose which media content the public sees. Even if a simple and objective solution to the latest 'controversy' exists, if it isn't in the interest of the media corporation (or the groups or corporations funding them), it most certainly won't get the air time it deserves. At best, media giants make the 'compromise' of giving the minority corporate-serving 'point of view' equal airtime as those seeking to simply forward a consensus of (even overwhelming) scientific or objective fact. This only serves to give the minority point of view legitimacy, and makes it appear that their arguments - no matter how fallacious - should be considered equal in value to the real fact of the matter at hand.

Now take into account the 'comfort factor' that leads public opinion in most matters: only those most ignorant (usually 'locals' who have led unchanged lives they are loath to change), or those who 'interests' who have the most at stake, will be sympathetic to extremist positions, but unfortunately, the same are the most vocal and have easier access to media. And any large rally, no matter how fabricated it is, is newsworthy to most media, no matter who its owner is.

Things have gotten so bad that one aware of the facts has to gasp at the blatant disingenuity of certain politicians and pundits, but for some reason their opinions are largely propagated as 'news' and 'fact', and accepted as such. One must also tire at the insistence of certain representing special interests that they represent 'the will of the American people' when in fact they only represent the interests and points of view of a select few.

The divide between the Democratic and Republican party has never been so extreme, and the interests each represent so blatant, since the election of Barack Obama. The weak public-serving Democrats do have a plan to preserve and improve America (and to impede the abuses that brought it to the brink of ruin), but they are no match against the very vocal tactics of the corporate-controlled Republicans who hesitate at nothing to spread the lies and false controversies necessary to distract the public from their aims of allowing corporate America to continue pillaging their country and economy unhindered.

The irony in all this is the fact that it is the most vocal 'non-special-interest' sympathisers to extremist ('ultra-conservative) points of view who are next in line to the chopping block: the middle class upon who corporate America relies for both its production and profit is shrinking. What will happen when this resource disappears? Corporations will probably take the money they have reaped and produce and sell elsewhere. Or try to.

So here we have a cowed and ignorant public vying for the organisations that will eventually do them in. Their fervent clamour against all change (change that very few of them probably understand) is almost religious in nature - they question neither the doctrine nor the motives of those preaching it. I think it is no coincidence that a great majority of these people are fervent members of the lesser christian faiths.

Many Americans have become so comfortably set in their ways that they have lost all will to make any intellectual effort at all; they no longer feel the need to question the truth of a message, even if it has been proven to be blatantly untrue - it is enough that the message 'sounds good' and doesn't conflict with the listener's (often ignorant) experiences and beliefs.

Even people like the above are pardonable if they truly are ignorant, but the fact-aware purveyors of the false messages they believe are not (the worst of the lot is Glenn Beck). All you have to do is ask yourself: 'Qui bono'? What is the point of the message they are spreading, and why are they doing it? My answer: they are corporation/organisation-financed 'antennas' that spread a (false) message to 'the common people' corporations would like to unite into a politics-controlling voting base. By the way, modern religion has been using the same tactic since decades already.

What financial motive would make the Sarah Palin quit her governance at mid-term, and why is she always teaming with the likes of Glenn Beck? They both work for Fox 'News', and I would not at all be surprised if the sources of their respective 'motivations' for spreading ignorance to the ignorant were one and the same. Keep 'em scared, keep 'em ignorant, and, while you're at it, keep 'em on oil and gold rip-offs. Golly gee, you betcha, hallelujah. Thanks for the check, this way to the ballot box.