Vladerag's Blog











Let me begin by saying that this is merely theory on my end and, moreover, I am not in a posistion to attempt to prove or disprove my hypothesis.  However, our current understanding of physics leads to certain conclusions about the nature of space and its structure.  It is easy to say that current understanding is flawed, as we still come out blank with answers for gravity and magnetism.  Two easily observable phemonena that we are at a loss to explain.

Perhaps one of the most difficult things to explain is how these forces operate through vacuum, how gravity and magnetism can work without any noticable interaction between the two pieces of matter.  It is most difficult to explain because it defies our very conception of logic, since it should be impossible for two objects which cannot interact directly or indirectly to affect the other.

The key to overcoming this problem is to examine our basic perceptions.  Schools, from elementary to high school, teach that we, and indeed all objects, are mostly empty space.  That, if not for the inherrent repellent force of atoms, we could move through other objects without any of our molecules touching theirs.

But what if there was not empty space in between our molecules?  Like bacteria before the invention of the microscope, what we perceive as nothing might simply be incredibly small. 

I will get back to that point in a momment, but before I continue, let us examine the atom.  An atom, unlike what the ancient greeks believed, is not the smallest unit of matter.  It is the smallest unit of matter with the unique properties of the element it represents, but we can still break down the atom into protons, neutrons, and electrons.  With the advent of atom smashers, we can now peer even smaller, and oberve quarks.  We have even classifed them, up quarks, down quarks, etc.

But are they the only quarks in existence?  It would seem logical to assume that anti-matter consits of a different variety, although it might simply be a different configuration leading to a completely different formation.  How would we know if they werent in an atom?  Since our only method of observation is to smash atoms together, other varieties of quarks may exist as free standing entities.

Combining these two thoughts, 1) that it makes no logical sense for there to vacuum between to obviously interacting objects, and 2) that there may be more quarks than what have currently identified, we come to my current hypothesis:  That gravity and magnetism are products of quarks that do not make atoms.

It is my hypothesis that some quarks are “damaged,” almost like a half-melted lego brick, and so are unable to truly form molecules as we know them.  However, they still retain some of their properties and attempt to connect with other quarks around them.  This connection is the basis for interaction between molecules. 

The higher the mass of an atom or molecule, the more area it has for these conections, and thus, more gravity or magnetism.

It is observing these quarks, (if they are quarks, instead of even smaller particles that are yet undiscoverd) that is the problem.  Since they are theoretically everywhere, it would be hard to zero an instrument to detect them.  And it would be even more difficult to tell if you truly had discovered them or had just received some form of interference because to some extent these particles would have properties we have already asigned to larger molecules.

On the other hand, should these molecules exist, they would possess fantastic potential.  Specifically, the manipulation of gravity.  Asumming that the particls are not uniform, and are actually “junk quarks,” it would seem likely that some would be better at “sticking” to other quarks than their fellows, and that some might be almost completely unresponsive.  In theory, by manipulation the quark content around atoms, one could effectively increase or decrease gravity, or move its point of origin.

Whether or not we could ever be capable of manipulating quarks on that level is a different matter altogther though.



{August 17, 2009}   String Theory

I would be completly surprised if someone reads this, but here goes nothing.

If the universe is made up of strings wouldnt it make more sense for them, the strings, to be bigger rather than smaller?  Incredibly, infinitly long, yet invisibly thin, these strings could be made up not of unkown “Gravitons” but rather of known particles.  Strings wouldnt be uniform, and they wouldnt be static, otherwise formations like the sun and other stars wouldnt form, because they are always changing.  Gravity, instead of being formed by gravitons, would be a product of these strings and the natural forces of atoms between the diffrent strings, like putting a marble on a cloth.

 

idk



et cetera