Evil Stepmonster's Almost Real Physics
Quark Theory
Presupposing that you know that you are made up of atoms, and that you also know that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons, we can tell you simply that quarks are little tiny things that make up the protons and neutrons. So, quarks are littlest, tiniest particle that we know about. (We being me.) And for once, the scientific community seems to agree with me.
So, tell me more about Quarks.
Well, firstly, it is important to know that quarks are unrelated to Quark Express, the layout program.
There are six different kinds of quarks: up, down, strange, charmed, top, and (of course) bottom. Up and Down
quarks make up protons and neutrons. Each new quark discovered is heavier than the quark discovered before it. They travel very quickly. How
quickly? Who knows? Faster than you and me, for sure. Perhaps there are quarks that travel at the speed of light! I hope there
is, because that would make this theory of mine make much more sense! When quarks break down into increasingly smaller elements, they become more stable...although only the smallest quarks (up and down) are truly stable. We're going to talk about the biggest (and still undiscovered) quarks that theoretically (my theory) exist. While quarks are affected by four forces of matter, (elements of space, if you will), what if they were also affected by elements of time?
Quarks travel in packs. This is because they are 'confined' by gluons. The quarks in the proton (3 quarks!)
and the quarks in the neutron (3 more quarks!) are more or less stuck to each other by gluons. An appropriate name, huh?
Quarks supposedly travel around the atom at extremely high rates of speed but never collide. I cannot walk around my house at great rates of speed without colliding with things; i.e. walls, furniture, and most often, doorways: as such, I have great respect for quarks.
This is all great, but I still don't get it.
Me neither, so don't worry! You now know enough to hear my theory, if it makes you feel any better. If you feel you need to know more about quarks, I can offer you some links to places whose authors were probably physics majors. I am merely the greatest scientist that the world has ever known, and therefore am not a suitable tutor.
The Great Alkan
Alkan is one of the great underestimated minds of ur centuryo. He currently works and resides in Baltimore, hiding his brilliance under a thin veneer of normality. He just got himself a good job, I suspect that ennui is slowly eroding his soul...
The Great Alkan is also available for parties. Besides being a brilliant non-physicist, he writes all sorts of interesting stories which occasionally get him into trouble.
That didn't answer my question at all.
I'm getting there. Settle down.
Alkan is the genius who bastardized quark theory. (granted, I've mangled it into its existing form, but Alkan is to be blamed--er, thanked, for introducing it to me.) His version of quark theory, which he taught to me with great care and
patience in the Autumn of 1995, probably has nothing at all to do with what I'm about to
explain in the following pages. However, that's neither here nor there. It's
enough to say that Alkan is a great genius, a great inspiration, and the reason this
project exists at all. In the future, he'll probably explain his version of quark
theory for real. Until then, I will speak for him, and fill the great void in all
your lives with hope and dubious knowledge. Then everyone will worship me and I can begin
my takeover of the world. But that's a story for another day!
Time Paradox
Ah, now this I actually understand. The time paradox is that really annoying thing that sci-fi movies do that ignores the flow of linear time. Now, whether or not Einstein proved that time is not linear makes no difference to my life whatsoever. I didn't know Einstein and I probably will not be traveling through time to test his theories. But, let's use Terminator 2 as our example, because it's got one of the best time paradox examples I can think of off the top of my head. (Yes, yes, I know that Back to the Future also has plenty of paradoxes, but Doc at least tries to explain how things could be changed, so we'll ignore that for now.)
I loved that movie!
John Connor and his mother have just defeated the evil Terminator with the help of the Somewhat Less Evil Terminator. Now, the two Terminators being there in the first place is, in itself, a time paradox. But that's not the point. In sci-fi, we have to have a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. So, for the sake of argument, we'll assume that the two Terminators could've come back in time. Now, at the end of the movie, John, his mother, and the scientist decide that the only way to save humanity is to destroy the hand of the Terminator that started it all. All the technology in the movie is based on one of the Terminators coming back in time and leaving his hand behind--which was then picked up and developed into the world system of communicating supercomputers. Now, let me ask you this: when was the hand built? In the distant future. But, if the hand was built in the distant future, then that technology would have come from the distant future. We know that the technology came from the past--when the hand was discovered. So, without the hand, the distant future's technology, which was based on the hand, couldn't have existed (which is what they're trying to avoid by destroying the hand).
HOWEVER. If you destroy something in the past that isn't going to exist until the future, and you come back from the future to either a) destroy the technology or b) give the information necessary to destroying the technology to someone in the past, then--(deep breath)--theoretically, that information is destroyed, right? OK, so now you're born and you grow up in the absence of world dominating machines because the hand was destroyed in the past. And you get to the time when, in the other time line, you would've gone into the past to destroy the hand. Now--there's no reason for you to go back, because there's nothing for you to destroy. If you don't go back to destroy this thing, it never gets destroyed. Because it still exists, you have to destroy it, remember? Now you never destroyed it and POOF, nothing has changed.
What?
Confused? You probably should be. Let's take
another example.
You decide you hate Christopher Columbus because he
discovered America and you think that he should've discovered plutonium instead. So,
you hop in your time machine and cruise back to 1492 and, just two days before Columbus
discovers America, you steer him into a whirling maelstrom, where he's eaten by sea
serpents. Your mission is complete and you retire to your vacation home in Wales. Time goes by and no one
discovers America because, clearly, the world
is flat. Your mother's family in America, made up entirely of Irish immigrants, stays in
Ireland. And your Dad's family, made up entirely of Native Americans, helps build
the great North American Unified Tribal Nation. Your Mom and Pops never meet. You're
never born. And, because you're never born, you never go back in time to stop
Columbus from sailing the ocean blue in 1492. Hence, America is discovered and the whole
scenario resets. Got it now? Bottom line, on a linear timeline, you can't go back and change stuff.
On an interesting side note--this entire thing could happen in a parallel
universe without personally affecting you. If you were to take the information from your universe, and you were to
travel to a parallel universe, where, for example, the only difference is that your Mom (in this particular
universe) didn't trip over a rock on a beach when she was three, and everything else was
essentially the same (although that little flight of hers could greatly upset things, right?)...the difference is that,
in this universe, there's another version of you, because you were born here,
paralleling your "real" life. So, theoretically, affecting the birth of this version of you will
actually have no effect on the "real" version of you.
Now, although time is linear, it doesn't need to flow in a
straight line. It just has to be a line. It could be a wavy line. Think
about it--there are all kinds of waves. Brain waves, sound waves, ocean waves, amber
waves of grain...most things seem to flow in waves. Why not time? Remember
this, it'll be important later.
ESP
Well, that's easy! Now we have a bunch of quarks that communicate with each other without ever talking, we have brainwaves that don't stop at the inside of our skulls, we have linear time that might flow in waves...what's all this mean? Well. If linear time flows in waves, I put this to you--might it come close enough, with out intersecting, for the quarks to communicate with each other? Say you're in a relaxed brain state. You're deep in sleep.
You're having a wild dream in which you win the lottery. Then, three years from the time you wake up, you win the lottery! Wow, you must have ESP! What if it was the quarks, communicating all they know in a short amount of time? You, in your relaxed brain state heard them, were able to interpret what was going to happen, and dreamed the result? If this were true, precognition and ESP would actually be a result of the interpretation of subatomic communication, perhaps during the breakdown of larger, heavier quarks than have already been discovered? Why should quarks travel only in ways that we understand currently? Perhaps these quarks also make up the fabric of time. Wacky, eh?
The Point
There are these tiny, subatomic particles called quarks that make up other, larger subatomic particles. We can assume for the purposes of making this theory work that there are quarks that are not yet discovered that travel at the speed of light. They are unstable and are constantly breaking down into smaller particles. They perhaps make up even the very fabric of time, which we cannot understand because we are a fairly dumb animal. But, what if our quarks are absorbing the info of other quarks? Maybe this is how we see the future!
About CERN (When Physics Attack)
CERN, or the European Organization for Nuclear Research (let's just assume the acronym is derived from the French) is this band of geniuses who are looking to inadvertently prove that multiple universes exist by ripping this one apart with their Large Hadron Collider. Sure, they claim that the Collider is perfectly safe, and unlikely to cause the formation of small black holes that will then drop into the Earth's core, causing the planet to collapse on itself, and then spread to the rest of the solar system. And sure, they have all sorts of advanced degrees and Nobel Prizes, blah blah blah. From the scientific community that brought us nuclear and biological warfare, fossil fuel power, and global warming comes this new, TOTALLY mostly safe in-depth examination of "miniscule" black holes. (The problem with black holes, as I recall, is that they keep getting bigger. And bigger. And bigger. Like my pant sizes.)
Perhaps I am a little too attached to my continued existence, but this quote was not 100% comforting to me.
But the chance of planetary annihilation by this means "is totally miniscule," experimental physicist Greg Landsberg at Brown University in Providence, R.I., told LiveScience.
Let's summarize. Like, totally miniscule! Not impossible, not even improbable. It could happen, but the chances are very, very small. LIKE WINNING THE LOTTERY???? Well, the chances of winning the lottery are also "totally miniscule," and yet someone wins the stinkin' thing every week!! So, is it the "totally miniscule" that anyone will win the lottery, or the impossible improbability of ME personally winning the lottery? Because, Greg Landsberg of Brown University, there's a BIG difference.
Read more about the "safety" of the Large Hadron Collider, which is used by some interchangeably with the term "Doomsday Scenario." I'll be over here, breathing into a paper bag while you peruse.
Speeches
You're so brilliant! Will you come speak to my physics class?
Good Lord, no. Absolutely not. In fact, if you use this paper as a reference of any kind, your professor will not only fail you, but will probably laugh at you as well. Face it kids, sometimes the Internet is full of highly useful information, but this is not one of those instances. However, if someone proves me right, please let me know by kindly filling out the form under the questions section at the end of this journey. However, I will not rush you information about the term paper you're writing, and I won't tutor you or try to help you with your homework. Check out the links section for people who will.
Pose A Question
My head hurts and I don't have any psychic powers.
Am I wrong? Probably. Can you prove to me why my theories are
not only warped, but are also fundamentally incorrect? Or do you have questions about
specific sections? If you have a real question or something constructive to say, please, write!
If you're feeling up to the challenge of being positively contributive, this is the place to do it!
If you're planning on writing to be generally abusive without actually contributing anything useful (especially without
leaving an e-mail address for all you last-worders out there), then I would appreciate it more if you went and pestered
someone else. Go watch Full House, I hear it's your speed. Please don't write asking for help on your science project,
or with understanding high school physics principles--only because I will most likely get you failed, and you can do better
than me as a source. Go to Google and look, or check out our links
page for physics resources. Also, please address any dating issues you might have
to Dating Dilemma. Dating questions will
not be posted unless they make me laugh out loud (and let's face it, you aren't that funny).
Wisdom of Others
Questions, comments, and general abuse.
Llama Steve says: I'm looking for some guidance as to raising a pet ferret. With your clearly deep
knowledge of physics, I naturally assume you'd be able to help...
Llama, you are both insightful and correct. My deep knowledge of physics does give me a deep knowledge of pet ferrets. Here's what
I know from the personal experience of raising two ferrets. I also own a giant hissing cockroach, if you need further advice on the
wilds of the animal kingdom.
- To choose your ferret, stick your hand in the cage. The one that comes running AND doesn't bite you is the one you want.
- Do not allow your ferret to be raised by a bull dog.
- Get your ferret a very large, multi-level condo cage.
- Feed your ferret cat food and tasty treats.
- Handle your ferret very, very, very frequently while it's still a baby so that it becomes used to a) you and b) humans.
- Be aware that your ferret will very likely crap in the shoes of your mate in a parrot-like show of territoriality. If you don't particularly care for your mate, don't worry about it.
- Ferrets love small, tight places, like the inside of your couch.
- Ferrets are able to accelerate quark activity causing you to travel backwards in time to the era of Napolean should you irritate them, so try not to do that unless you like French cuisine and short, bitter men.
Tara aka "Lola" says: Hey there, I found this page extremely amusing and also very stimulating. My friend and I don't understand our high school physics class, because the teacher uses a college text book, so instead of actually paying attention, we've decided to write a screenplay/novel type thing wherein she and I are super secret agents and we drive to France to steal the International Standard of Mass and accidently stumble into some Krypton rays and are transported onto a quark. The plot thickens from there and involves a lot of little inside jokes, but I was wondering if you'd mind if I used your theory to sort of give our script some "scientific" back up...? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a bundle : ), ***Tara***
Craid Bishop says: I totally agree with your ponderings on the whole intermingling of waves and quarks and stuff being the medium for ESP. I visited your wonderful page for the first time (thanks 2 yahoo) and I had also been thinking that ESP et al was perhaps related to waves and the suchlike, reading your page was interesting. Who's to say you're wrong? NOBODY.
Mark Smith says: On reading your work about quarks and their explanation for several
wierd subjects unexplaned by the regular rules of science. On
contemplating this matter I thought that maybe your theory on quarks comunicating
through time its self could also by applied to the ability of
telekinesis. If quarks are able to comunicate with other quarks in the future
then maybe they can comunicate with quarks in the present. If the quarks
in your brain comunicate and control the quarks in another onject then
maybe they could induse movement in them? On second thought, probably
not.
But still, who knows.
Mark Smith Ma.d E.U.P (har)
John Pedrotti hits the nail on the head when he asks: Under the assumption that your "theory" is correct would it be possible that when we get the technology to create or modify the quarks that travel at random, could actually send back messages to ourselves to skip over mistakes we made or alter our thinking at that time or would it fall under that time paradox?
A different Mark tells me:> Nice try, bucko, but your theory presupposes that quarks have something to communicate. But I enjoyed your piece. You didn't date it (dating questions aside) so I'm presuming that this is an older site. I happen to be writing this in July of 2000, so you could have grown up and retired for all I can tell.
Maybe time has a perpendicular component that we--being limited to our four dimensions--cannot sense. I lose track because the number keeps changing, but quantum theory does call for more than three plus one dimensions. Physicists insist that these are represented by things like the spin on an electron, but my feeling is that we are actually on the edge of reality. We cannot sense these other dimensions one would like to come up with a two-dimensional analogy, but we don't know of any living two dimensional creatures.
Jennifer disturbs me on many levels when she writes to tell me: Your page is the first that's actually made any SENSE with this stupid Chemistry research paper (Yeah, I picked Quarks as my topic). Now should I use your site as a source or should I run across the hall and ask the Physics jerk, I mean teacher for help?
J'Net makes my day when she says: Hello, I missed your name. very interesting read. I have a Master's
in Psychology, working on a PhD in Metaphysics and doing some of my own
research in quantum physics for about three years now. I am working on
an article I like to call "Sex is God", an eye-catcher, huh? In it I
explain how all the little quarks are actually having intercourse and
the whole universe is just one big orgy. Actually I'm very much into
Creation - that is the power of our Higher Mind to create our life,
probably because we're sending messages to those little quirky guys who pick
it up, travel in waves and hook up with other like-minded quirks, then
they have sex and BAM, Creation!
Keep up the good work. Would love to chat with you sometimes. BTW -
I'm in San Diego, blissfully married with 2 boys and right now earn my
keep as a neuropsych tester/researcher, later I hope to have my own
practice and teach people the principles of the Universe and how to use
them to improve thier life. Hey, think I could get a web page too?
Peace, Happiness and Prosperity,
J'Net
Yes Phil, it's true: Is it true that there's some guy down a one mile tunnel in the out-back of Wales catching (quarks) in a bucket of water..???
Cheril asks this mind boggler: Can you help settle an arguement? My uncle thinks if you put warm water in ice cube trays they freeze faster. I think he's nuts! Who's right and what is the scientific explaination? HELP!!!!
Well Cheril, you're right. All things being equal, the ice cube tray with the cold water will freeze before the ice cube tray with the warm water. That said, the warm water will cool faster. Why? Because it takes less energy for water to cool to freezing than it takes for water at freezing to solidify. In other words, the warm water will cool faster than the cold water (but the cold water was already closer to freezing, so it will get there first).
MGHinTN says: I've got an interesting theory for you. What if time is a dimension of three variable expressions --past, present, and future-- and space is a dimen. of three variab. express.--linear, planar, volumetric-- and life is a dimension of three vari express.--will, emotion, mind(for want of better terms? And all that exists in the universe of our perception is phenomenologically the intersection of continuums made up of descrete variables combined from the dimens to form a continuum reality for energy to exist in? We might say that light is a linear/present or linear/past<->future phenomenon, that magnetism is a planar/present, that gravity is a volumetric/future, etc. See a pattern here? We could figure the cosmological constant as 4- pi x i, so that we have a solution for matter and anti-matter (+1 and -1 aspects of i). wouldn't this be a neat way to conceptualize the universe of our existence ... as overlapping, concurrently ewxisting continuums of reality in which energy exhibit! s its disruptive potentials based on the space,time,life aspects of the continuums interacting? An interesting aside with this is: life, as a distinct dimansion would then be independent of space and time but able to create realities through continuum mixes with spacetime, etc. Maybe more later, MHGinTN
Oh my God, MHGinTN, you're CLEARLY thinking too hard. You should go lay down.
Jim Sellers wants me to clarify: Hi
Somewhere in one of these Physics Links I found a reference to the
idea that some of the theories in Physics are "Rational" and some are
"Real". e.g. Newtons vs Einsteins. I would appreciate any comments
and/or Links that would lead me to a better understanding of this idea.
Thanks,
Jim Sellers
Well Jim anything that I've made up is clearly real. However, anything you learned in physics class is rational.
Erik Bennet wishes to use my page for evil:
How did you come up with this stuff? I could totally confuse my science teacher with this.
Erik
P.S I think quarks go alot faster than the speed of light.
Well Erik, if you want to know the truth, I pull it out of my...hat.
Do you have a theory you'd like to share or a question you'd like to pose? Feel free! Visit our handy form!