Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Islamic Scriptural Particle Physics

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Richard Ruquist on November 23, 2001 16:09:40 UTC

I found a description of the composition of elementary particles according to the Sufi tradition of Islam. It was in a small book called 'The ninety-nine names of God', as found in the Koran. I wanted to see if any of the names resembled the 96 names of God that I derived from the Hindu Sri Bagavatam using symmetry and permutation of sounds. There seemed to be no correspondence. But that is beside the point.

In that book elementary particles, every last one of them, was described as each being composed of 99 sub-particles that do not overlap but are clustered together to make up the elementary particle(ie. all fermions). If you investigate any one of the clustered particles, you will find, according to the book, that it is in turn composed of another cluster of 99 particles. And so it is, turtles all the way down. There is no end of sub-clusters.

It seems to me that the Hindu rendition of the same problem is closer to what physics has discovered. Briefly, with some interpretation, it is said in the Bagavatam and elsewhere, like in the Rig Veda, that the (interpretation)proton and neutron are composed of three particles each. But that each of the three particles is not fundamental, for each is a dyad. Each (which correspond to quarks in the interpretation) are composed of two sub-particles that are actually fundamental, the two sub particles having opposite properties, like spin, so that they combined to neutralize the property.

There is some fleeting evidence in high energy accelerator data that the quark may be a composite particle. But the actual composition has not yet been pinned down. The new wave of accelerators need to become operational first, so I read.

My personal hypothesis is that the fundamental particles making up the dyad are actually compactified dimensions. In superstring theory six expanded dimensions, of the ten, (or 11, (the 11th is already compactified according to Witten into a line that connects our world with the world of dark matter)) compactify to yield our 4-d world. The way they compactify is to roll up in cylinders in the three space directions. By rolling up with both right and left turning, or spin, the six dimensions fit into the three space dimensions. That much is known but not verified superstring physics.

My view is that the compactifications actually become particles like protons and neutrons. (Not sure how to get electrons out of dimensions, but since strings carry charge, they seem to already exist in 10-d.) So the six dimensions compactify, and also break up or precipitate, to form the three quarks, where each quarks is made up of two opposite spin (or whatever) dimensions, and therefore the quark is a dyad, and the Hindu fundamental particle is one of the original dimensions that get compactified. The three quarks are stuck together because all 6 dimensions must compactify together, they cannot compactify separately. So in this hypothesis, gluons are a dimensional or geometrical effect, and the whole of physics is based on the geometry of compactified dimensions.

A word about electrons. In string theory charge, or electrons, occur at the ends of open strings, opposite charges on each end. So when the six dimensions compactify, we end up with 12 possible ends. That seems compatible with the fractional charges of quarks being 2/3 or 1/3. Lets suppose that each end of a string has 1/6 of the charge of an electron. Then if the dimensions are like strings, which is Vafa's theory, (that the 3 space dimensions are end to end strings that open up as the other 6 dimensions shrink), then each quark being composed of two dimensions, (which act like strings when the dimensions break off into bits and pieces), has the possibility of 4 open strings. If all ends have the same charge, that quark has a net charge of 2/3. If three of the ends have one charge and the other end has the opposite charge, the net is 1/3. So compactified dimensions that break up into strings can account for the charges of quarks.

Not sure what happens if two of the ends have one charge and the other two have opposite charges. That would produce a neutral quark, which as far as I know has not been discovered yet. Perhaps it is part of mesons, which are the combination of a quark and an anti-quark. For the dimensional model to work, we need three quarks in every composite particle, including mesons, which are composed of only two quarks. So the third quark would have to be this neutral one.

Remember you first heard about all of this on the Astronomy forum, in case any of it turns out to be true!!!

Back to electrons. In my scheme of things, the ends of the strings must radiate fields, electron wave fields. So matter is where the electron waves get radiated, and the opposite charged ends, the positive charged ends are confined in the quarks or protons. Anti-matter is where the positive charges radiate waves (positron wave fields). When the universe got cool enough the quarks and the anti-quarks recombined (standard usage- seems to me that they were never previously combined) leaving a minute amont of quarks left over that then combined into neutrons and protons, with further cooling, and finally atoms.

So in these atoms, the electron ends of the string in the quarks radiated electron fields or waves. But the positively charged fields of the protons prevent the electron waves from escaping. But that is how the quarks can get there charges. They give up the negative charges into electrons that are relatively free.

The library is asking me to get off. So that all for now. But you all get the idea. Anybody can do this kind of metaphysics.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins