Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005

This article will attempt to describe a "Theory of Everything" that
draws a single unbroken thread through many unexplained physical
phenomenon. It will start with the very structure of space and expand
to provide possible explanations for the matter/energy relationship,

So
how do you define 'a single photon' ??
TIA
Y.Porat

The following statements can explain what's waving and
why Aether is not necessary. Do you agree with it or
not, and why?
A quantum vacuumist who has been studying it for over

acording to the 'Big Bang' theory that seems to be widely accepted
Galaxies move outwards from some  Big Bang  'point'
(actually there is no 'point entity' in physics
point i sonly a mathematical concept)

When protons and neutrons bond into a nucleus, do the protons and
neutrons still exist individually.
For example, if we consider the protons and neutrons to be little
balls, is the nucleus made from these little balls being stuck to each

Here's something to think about.
Let us consider that there is a fundamental particle called the
chromotron, which comes in 3 varieties.
A positive chromotron has a strong charge of +1, +2, or +3, and an

It is quite predictale that all are waves, so check this link:
<http://www.zapfuture.com/pid-23.html>
Let me know your thoughts.

1. Why do you need electric fields or the vicinity of nucleus
for pair production to occur assuming your photons have enough
energy to create the rest mass of electron-positron pairs?
2. When the photons zoom near the vicinity of nucleus. Where

There has been debate on these news groups about electron size being a
point particle.
HEP can not determine electron size from the far field detectors, and
the electron is indestructable unless anihilated by a positron.  Hence

I just noticed the following relationships.
p / f = m.lC = kmC
where
p is the momentum

The Paradox of Zeno
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
    The Paradox of Zeno is 2000 years old and its apparent ability to prove

In 1905, Einstein wrote a paper called "Does the Inertia
of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?". The idea is
summarized as:
1. the old definition of work (W=Fd), combined with

Is there some way to calculate globally the partial decay with for the
Z0 particle to four particles of one generation (say e,n,u,d or
tau,n,s,c)? The coefficient one gets when trying to sum the decays to
each specific particle is rather strange.

Wondering if any of you can point me in the right direction in answering
this:-
"Initially at t = 0 an electron is in an eigenstate of Sx with eigenvalue
hbar/2 (that reads plancks constant with a 'bar' through it) .  The magnetic

On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:06 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I have essentially solved the problem. Kretschmann's point is purely
formal and is physically incomplete. There are always additional
criteria in the physical interpretation that pin it down. All