New Theory: I believe all particles are cubes, AR

Hi All
More on this and why later. Any provisional thoughts on your part are welcome
AR

Who noticed the reference to this i the olympic opening ceromony? Man staning on cube in the air?

Comment: cubes are not naturaly created.

Come on all lets have constructive comments (no childish flaming) we have to rebuild this forum.

AR

Hi AR,

I don't think cubic particles will fit in with the known structures and symmetries of the fields associated with the particles. There may be a level of cubic symmetry imbedded in the particle field symmetry however, whose effects are currently unknown.

There is also an occult esoteric philosophy associated with cubic stlructures. It is called the Cube of Space.

z

Hi All,

Adds an interesting meaning to the "building blocks" of the Universe eh!

Cheers and medals....

Hi all you disbelievers (that spelling looks wrong)

what I would like you to do is to find a cube. large or small doesnt matter.

Then depending on the size take the cube and stand it on one of its corners say on a table or desk then support the other upper corner under your finger. You are now looking at a very very large particle the way it is oriented in relation to this planet.

If you now rotate the cube the facets you see are what is known as quarks.

Guess what there are 6 of them, but how many can you see, - never ever more than 3 from a single viewpoint just as quarks. Get the cube in exactly the correct position and you will only see 2.

If you also consider the mass of three of these facets they are way below the total mass of the whole cube - missing neuclionic particle mass.

Lets keep calling them quarks for a moment, they can never be seen alone or seperated, just as quarks.

Ok what about the penta quark state? when I first heard of this I thought thats blown my theory, then I read about how they had detected the state.

Both the Japanese and American experiments used additional detectors. In the the Hall B detector was described at the time as "seeing almost all around the target" What they were seeing were other facets around the back.

Lets look more closely:

when a cube is looked at, the brain says this is a square cubic object but in this presentation it isnt. look carefully say down from say above at the edge shape ignoring the angles. The shape presented its really like a very simple boat shape <=> (imagine the equals sign as a square) This shape has 2 bosonic (parrallel) sides and two fermionic sides (pointed). To create superflow the parrallel sides have to be alligned with the background matrix (holes) to pass through. But thats not their normal configuration. Image their normal position in a matrix that is the size of the central square.

Ok is there any more possible evidence
Remember a rotating particle creating a magnetic field- Look again at the cube in the orientation previously described, look at it from the side. You will see a right angle created by the upper and lower sides <> (not correct but all symbols will allow) this is where a eletromagnet field is produced - remember these fields are at right angles to each other and there waveform alternates at the high peak in the two fields. AS you rotate the cube you will see why this happens, the upper and lower facets alternate in size just as the waveform does.

More Later

AR

Continued

So lets imagine a supercooled state a BEC(Bose Einstein Condensate) what is the special state - because they are cubes they can be forced by supercooling to in effect sit down allowing super closeness alongside and on top of each other. The explosive effect caused by laser agitation thats the particles suddenly flying back to there normal state.

How many rotational positions (phases) are there: potentially six but its probable that only four of these can be realised. This 4 phase positionality is documented by others.

So where does entanglement fit in - well with all these facets flying around, particle are very likely to produce pairs on odd occasions when the rotational orientation is just correct.

Pauli exclusion simply the pointed ends sticking out into an adjacent frames

More later

Ar

AR, while I applaud the original idea, I do not think a cube is the most likely fundamental shape of matter. My problem with your theory is the same problem I have with string theory. Let me use an analogy. What does every shape look like from a distance? A point, right? Either that or a sphere. My point being that if a particle's field strength is high enough as compared to its size, there is virtually no (Read: within experimantal accuracy) distinction between diifferent shapes. That is, all shapes will produce the same force at a large enough (relative) distance. For this reason, I think it is rather silly to ponder the fundamental shape of anything if it is not significant.

Hi the one

Yes I understand what you are saying but as an example one could look into the night sky and see a spot of light but we know it isnt a spot of light its a damn big hot thing.

Also this idea makes everything fit, it brings QM down to Newtonian physics. I dissagree the shape is unimportant I think its everything.

The only problem I see is how were the cubes produced? I am in no doubt that this is correct, I just havnt yet worked out all the minutei. This does make the standard model make sense. I have a whole list that this concept proves to be correct, I just cant find where I put it.

AR

While I realize the fundamental shape of matter does matter, all I'm saying is that because particles' forces extend so much farther than their physical size, for all purposes it presents a uniform field regardless of its shape. However, maybe in like 20-30+ years, we'll be able to experimentally measure the difference, but for now I don't see the point. ::eyeshift::

Continued

Question:
why are there various sizes of cubes? suppose there arent, suppose there is only the smallest but these have conglomerated together to form larger cubes. Which as cubes they could with perfect symetry, the combing force would be astonomic. Which may explain decay the seperation of the individual cubes into various sizes of other cubes.

Another question: if this was the case what would stop the growth at a proton size.

Talking about protons and neutrons, go back to your cube and rotate it through one sixth of a rotation and you will see the difference between a proton and a neutron as it goes from two small facets and one large to two large and one small.

The cube in this orientation is not totally symetric giving it a slight axial wobble which induces precession, another documented effect.

Ill get around to all the other properties in the next few days.

AR

Gravity is the same everywhere so whats stopping the corners of the cube being pushed in by gravity....
Everything in this universe usually has a spherical shape...because of gravity...
same force at a 3D 360 degree push makes a sphere...
Although i must say that the cube idea is brilliant and i will keep an open mind about this as it does make a lot of sense.

Thanks longlivelinky

It brings simplicity and answers and allows mental solutions to be formulated and thought through by anyone not just those with vast budgets.

AR

Hey guys im back. Im actually glad that crash allowed me to get my original name back wihout that stupid dash. AR, i like the idea a lot. It does seem to be a good way to think through things. at this point im not sure how accurate it actually is, but it is a good mental construct and a good place to start thinking. Im going to try and think this through myself.
NeoSlovakia

Hi AR,

Here's an idea. The cube shape may not be the most basic. It may really be two interconnected tetrahedrons that appear two be a cube, since their vetices form a cubic stlructure.

If the tetraherdons are spinning in one mode they will look like two interlocked cones. Other modes of spin can bring them to a more spherical appearance as can truncation of their corners along with spin.

This all relates to the physical world as a compilation structure of platonic solids.

z

Hi Neo glad you are back

Even if not correct as you say it does allow you to mentally apply problems to the structure for consideration.

I've used it for years and have not yet found any evidence to disprove it. but have fun I promise you it is.

Z I like the idea I always wondered if two pieces were possible to form an exact cube. It has to result in a cube to only allow 3 sides to be viewed from a single point. Nothing else works in that way. This may also give suggestions for the ant particles.

AR