C X 10-37Sec = Our Time Plane's Min Particle

[36grit]

C x 10-37sec = Our relativef, time plane's min particle

 

This is the point where something "broke the laws of conservation and started the fluctuation that caused the big bang. A particle this size would be the smallest relavant possible point in space/time. 0 entropy. Beyond this pane is spectrums of our next moments in time. Beyond our universe lyes the spebtrum of our past. Because the universe itself is the biggest possible partice in our relative spectrum.

[CraigD]

C x 10-37sec = Our relativef, time plane's min particle

 

This is the point where something "broke the laws of conservation and started the fluctuation that caused the big bang. A particle this size would be the smallest relavant possible point in space/time. 0 entropy. Beyond this pane is spectrums of our next moments in time. Beyond our universe lyes the spebtrum of our past. Because the universe itself is the biggest possible partice in our relative spectrum.

Do you have a link or reference to back up your claim, 36grit? Or to explain what you’re talking about? (which isn’t clear to me from your post)

 

As it stands, your claim strikes me as naive, because it contradicts a well-known prediction of conventional theory. In conventional particle physics, fundamental particles – photons, electrons, quarks, gluons, etc - don’t have internal structure, so don’t have a non-zero “size” at all. A particle’s pseudo-classical size – what size we would say it was if we could use only classical mechanics – has to do with the distance at which they have a probability of interacting with other particles, and is usually called it's cross section.

 

Quantum physics does have a “smallest size” like what you seem to be talking about, related to the uncertainty principle: the Planck length, about [imath]1.6162 \times 10^{-35} \,\mbox{m}[/imath]. However, this length is much (about 500,000 times) smaller than [imath]c \times 10^{-37} \,\mbox{s}[/imath], which equals about [imath]3 \times 10^{-29} \,\mbox{m}[/imath]. Distances greater than the Plank length can, at least in principle, be measured by such means as electron scattering.

[36grit]

physicist say the the universe formed out of nothing at 10 to minus 37 seconds. Some even state that the energy was "borrowed from the future".

The speed of light is the constant that makes everything relative in space time. So the first particle must have been this size.

 

What do you mean that partiles don't have a non zero size? Do they have a size of not? Are you saying that particles don't have a size?

 

The universe, the atom, and the quark, seem to define our universes expansion rate in a "size to distance" ratio. All of these enjoy the full range of known forces. Some kind of "spike", "Octive" or "intersection" if you want to call it, within our relative range of the spectrum of the infinit energy fields. It seems to me that there should be a one octive smaller than the quark that possesses all four infinit exapnses.

It should be one instant of heat times c. This theoretical particle should be the pysical particle of the sea of space/time. This is the particle that vacuum energy expands out of. I can see it, and I can feel it, but I just can't seem to put my finger on the math of it.

 

 

As the strong force "water marks" the 4foce nodes that vibrate as the infinite field accelerations that fly by.

The universe output is relativity, It is four dimensional

The atom out put is time the dynamic of the third dimension

The quark out put is gravity, and two dimensional

Their should be anther particle for heat that governs the relative space of the first dimension. The original quantum fluctuation. The particels of the the MRB. I wonder if what I'm looking for would be considerd the "higgs boson" by todays scientists. One would probly havfe to slam vacuum energy particles get one, or at least the smallest possible particle.

[CraigD]

Yes

physicist say the the universe formed out of nothing at 10 to minus 37 seconds. Some even state that the energy was "borrowed from the future". The speed of light is the constant that makes everything relative in space time. So the first particle must have been this size.

What physicist? Where? You need to give links!

 

Most Big Bang timelines, like this one, give approximate time for the beginning of its various “epochs”. 10^-37 s ABB (after the Big Bang) isn’t a special time - according to the article linked above, the Planck epoch ends at about 10^-43 s ABB, the inflationary starts at 10^-36 s.

 

In short, I can’t see anything special about the length [imath]c \cdot 10^{-37} \,\mbox{s}[/imath]. As I mentioned already, it’s many time – about half a million times - larger than the theoretically smallest measurable Planck length, so certainly isn’t the “smallest relevant point” or anything of that kind. I think, but don’t know the literature well enough to be sure, that some electron scattering measurements – deep inelastic scattering – have measured the location of quarks within protons to finer resolutions than this.

 

What do you mean that partiles don't have a non zero size? Do they have a size of not? Are you saying that particles don't have a size?

Yes. In particle physics, fundamental particles (more commonly called “elemental particles”, though I prefer “fundamental” to avoid confusion with the chemical elements) aren’t objects with defined sizes and shapes. They are, roughly stated, functions giving the probability that the particle will be detected in a given place at a given time. Even more roughly stated, they’re “fuzzy”. Sometimes, fundamental particles are described as “pointlike”, that is, as being spheres of radius zero.

 

In contrast, composite particles such as protons and neutrons, which are made of quarks, which are fundamental particles, bond together by gluons, which are also fundamental, can be “poked” with interactions with other particles to determine their structure. They’re still fuzzy, but they can be thought of as having minimum radii defining a volume in which no more than one can exist.

 

The universe, the atom, and the quark, seem to define our universes expansion rate in a "size to distance" ratio.

What do you mean? Better still, explain what you mean, and back it up with a link or reference.

 

Bottom line, back up your claims with links or references! Research before posting. Don’t just make stuff up based on your recollections of something you heard a physicists say, or an intuitive sense of how the universe must behave at very small scales like the Planck, based on experience with the scale of our ordinary human perception.

 

As the saying goes, the universe is weird – if not weirder than any human can imagine, at least weirder than any human can imagine without a lot of study and question preconceptions.