May 31 2012

Grad School (part 13)

Published by

(Keep in mind, I may totally revise this, and I had to stop the flow of information before it became overwhelming. I think I got enough of a glimpse though that I can play with this more in-depth later)

I’m going to have to define some terms first.

I think we all have a pretty decent idea of what protons, neutrons, and electrons are. Also, I think that we all know that these particles are not nearly as fundamental as we once thought. But to avoid confusion, I’m going to give some general descriptions of some of the other things out there that make some of these up.

quarks: In 1968, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center peeps discovered that protons and neutrons each consist of three smaller particles called quarks. (Fun side note, the term “quark” was ganked from James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake). These quarks come in two flavours: “up” and “down”. Protons have two “up quarks” and one “down quark”. Neutrons have two “down quarks” and one “up quark”. So, it would be nice to think that everything is made up of electrons, up quarks, and down quarks. So far, there is no experimental evidence of these three being made of anything smaller, but who knows?

neutrinos: Frederick Reines and Clyde Cowan confirmed these in the 1950’s, though Wolfgang Pauli had predicted them in the 1930’s. These are fucking tiny, and so you know, billions of them pass through you constantly. These rarely interact with other matter.

muons: are identical to electrons, except they weigh about 200 times more. Discovered in the 1930’s by physicists studying cosmic rays.

Since these have been discovered, there’s been a few more fun things discovered.

4 more types of quarks: “charm”, “strange”, “bottom”, and “top” – sound kinda like the members of a bad drag show, but I have no idea how they came up with these names. I’m sure I’ll find out later on, though.

tau: taus are another cousin of electrons, weighing even more than muons.

two more neutrino-like items: these are now being called muon-neutrinos and tau-neutrinos to differentiate them from the original neutrino, which has now been renamed Fred theelectron-neutrino.

Now, where it gets fun, is that physicists have recognized a pattern among these particles. They fall pretty neatly into groups or families. Corresponding particle types have identical properties, except for mass, which grows larger in each successive family.

Family 1 Family 2 Family 3
Particle Mass Particle Mass Particle Mass
Electron .00054 Muon .11 Tau 1.9
Electron-neutrino < 10^-8 Muon-neutrino < .0003 Tau-neutrino < .033
Up-quark .0047 Charm Quark 1.6 Top Quark 189
Down-quark .0074 Strange Quark .16 Bottom Quark 5.2

Now honestly, the size of the mass isn’t important at the moment. One of the reasons I haven’t even bothered with a unit of measurement. The idea is, these things seem to be related, and come in small, medium, and large.

I want to ignore the idea for a moment, that these things are separated by mass. Let’s play along for the time being that an Electron, a Muon, and a Tau are all pretty much the same thing, except some are heavier than others. Same with the other “building blocks” here.

I have an idea towards incorporating the “three families” (“I should have known, it wasn’t Tataglia, but Barzini all the time!”) aspect of this all with what I glimpsed, but that will have to wait, as I have some further stuff I want to do before I confirm it. If it doesn’t check out, it still doesn’t hurt my idea.

So, assuming these are all the same across the table (and again, I’m going to check into this further), we have:

Electron/Muon/Tau
Electron-Neutrino/Muon-Neutrino/Tau-Neutrino
Up-Quark/Charm Quark/Top Quark
Down-Quark/Strange Quark/Bottom Quark

as our four basic fundamental types of thingies out there.

Or, if you want to get Kabalistic with me…. Yod Heh Vau Heh.

And no, I’m not going to assign particular letters to groups yet. Maybe if I keep playing with this.

“But I thought string theory broke down these elementary particles further!”

It does.

Brian Greene, in The Elegant Universe (source for a lot of the “physics” end of what I’m going on about) says:

“According to string theory, if we could examine these particles with even greater precision – a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity – we would find that each is not pointlike, but instead consists of a tiny one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament…”

John 1:1 says

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.

coupled with this concept of “Word”, is the idea in Genesis that “God said, let there be ________.”

A Word is being spoken, speaking is sound, sound is vibration, so something is being vibrated. Vibrations manifest as one of our Four Primal Thingies.

The Word, or formula that the Kabalah unfolds from is the YHVH formula. (YHVH doesn’t equal God, God is Elohim, by the way).

Now, this doesn’t mean I’ve suddenly found God, and all that. But as far as structural models go, these preliminary concepts offer some really interesting parallels. Some of this was stuff I’d played around with in my head a few years ago, but this has put a little more structure to something I was intuiting.

Of course, I fully admit I could be wanking into space here, as well. :)

But I wanted to get these ideas down. They may turn out to be completely wrong, and there’s stuff I still need to resolve. I want to confirm that particles are reducible to what I suggested above (and lets not forget, that matter is just slowed down energy, and particles are only position, not momentum, which I can at least mentally resolve with String Theory at the moment, please don’t ask me to elaborate. I just “see” it in my head).

In addition, I want to look further into Fermions and Bosons. Fermions require 10 dimensions to manifest (Sefirot?!) and Bosons require 26 dimensions to manifest (I am firmly committed to not seeing any correlations between 26 dimensions and the 26 letters of the English alphabet. Some things really are coincidence. I promise.)

Anyway, like I said. I could be wanking into space about all of this. These are only some initial reactions, and an attempt to explain to myself what I was seeing in my head.

I now return you to your broadcast day.

this is not incompatible with using YHVH to explain DNA, either. But that’s a whole other kettle of fish. I’ll let DuQuette’s explanation suffice for now:

  • Everything in Heaven and Earth is connected to everything in Heaven and Earth.
  • Everything in Heaven and Earth is the reflection of everything in Heaven and Earth.
  • Everything in Heaven and Earth contains the pattern of everything in Heaven and Earth.

Which goes right back to the Holographic Paradigm, and the old saying “As above, so below.”

No responses yet

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Prove You Possess Consciousness * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Search