Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks?

Posted by rickww on September 14, 2003 at 22:24:28:

In Reply to: Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks? posted by rtharbaugh on September 13, 2003 at 17:47:51:

Personally, I have no idea how we could alter the frequency of individual quarks. In theory, you would have to bombard them with something smaller than quarks, which is impossible if quarks are elementary particles. It would almost require some sort of 'scalar' field of infinitely variable frequency on the incredibly minute scale, which, again, we don't have. My proposed experiment was more of a 'thought experiment' if you will, but might be shown by some future particle accelerator reaction in which quarks that should combine to form a proton do not because they are resonating at disharmonic frequencies. If you could design a device that would cause this effect on a macro scale, it would basically be a 'matter disruptor', and a terrible weapon anyway, and we have enough of those.

But all this discussion aside, does anyone have an opinion about the origin of quarks as related to previously-existing spatial dimensions?

Imagine an inflated spherical balloon. Might even be a water balloon, if you insist. Definitely three-dimensional - no argument there, right? Now deflate it without popping it, and it forms a ring with a sheet of rubber across it. If the material could be assumed to have zero thickness, you would have reduced a 3D object to a 2D entity. Now pierce the sheet of rubber across the surface of it, and you have left only a ring, a one-dimensional entity, a closed string. My conjecture was that a similar thing happened to a 4D universe - it died a heat death and, at some point, one of its dimensions 'broke', and the entire universe dropped one 'universal quanta' down to its next lower energy level, and thus an extremely hot 3D universe was born. Harmony being the meaning, structure and purpose of everything aside, are there any comments on this?
One final question - could it be that the previous 'stable' universe was actually 5D, and when it collapsed, it briefly created a 4D universe, but a 4D universe is not stable because 4 is not a prime number, and nonprime-dimensional universes would not last very long, having equal parts of matter and antimatter? Of course, this might only apply to universal constructs of even-numbered dimensions, but intuitively, it seems that nonprime-dimensioned universes might divide or 'split' and thus not be stable long enough to produce matter and ultimately, creatures to ask these questions.

Anyway, any comments would be appreciated. Ignore the prime number stuff if you like - I threw that in because it is something I had thought about in response to a question about why the universe wasn't composed of equal parts matter and antimatter and immediately destroy itself, and I thought "because 3 is a prime number". Just a thought.

Thanks,
rickww

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

• Re: Could the 'missing dimensions' be quarks? -- DickT 9/15/03 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :