Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, I'm clearly spewing out my ass on this one, but I've been re-reading superstring theory and had a thought. Not a great one, but a thought.

What if there were an element of dark matter, for example, that never decayed? An infinite quark in the literal sense?

I know I'm an armchair theorist on this, but what if there were a quark that represented the actual "trigger" of the string's vibration and by that I mean the stasis or "natural resting state" of the pre-vibratory string?

We all perceive the result of the vibration and can understand a possible cause of the vibration (no, I'm not referring to first cause ), but what about the element in between the Heisenberg Uncertainty; the moment or element or guideline that kills Schroedinger's cat prior to observation?

As a part of the system, we know we can't observe the system without altering the system. Doesn't it make extrapolative sense, therefore, that there exists a system not just dependent upon, but intangibly pre-contingent upon that observed system?

If it were in-finite, then it would allow for vibration (and finally put to rest the logical, theological quest of mankind).

Superstring and QM and the majority of current thinking is based upon the assumption of entropy and decay, assuming, as I would argue, that entropy is somehow a finite construct, which I think it is not. I think it is conditional and relative and therefore open ended.

Think of a baseball game. You have finite parameters, yet infinite combinations, all of which are susceptible and contingent upon entropy, which would mean that entropy would degrade infinitely in the same way that you can always halve something without primary degradation as in a shattered hologram; the whole is still present in the halves.

So if there were a fundamental element (for lack of a better term and once again skating the Orwellian dream and unintentionally including the fringe) that did not decay and therefore did not succumb to entropy, wouldn't that answer the question of "whence entropy" and "whence first cause" (asked by me, to myself while typing in middle English)?

We've discovered particles and elements and tiny little things that spin and based largely upon those findings (and a slew of mathematics, yes, I know) we've extrapolated and confirmed entropy. We've even postulated entropy in a closed system, open system, and infinitely regressive systems and it still works just fine. But what we haven't done, IMO, is postulate an eternally open system as a function of an eternally open system.

Don't dismiss it out of semantics just yet. An eternally open system as a function of an eternally open system based fundamentally upon an in-finite (or, more properly, infinitely finite) element. It remains constant no matter where it is, like the figurative brickwall smiley we love so dearly.

I know, I know , I know. But, if there were a particle, element, whatever that held the same illusive status as dark matter that represented the quantum opposite of dark matter, what would that entail and what parallels can be expected, if true?

I hope that makes some sense and others more knowledgeable will be able to take it from here or bury it, if need be.

It's late and that's where my mind went. The childish exclamation of "Goddidit" must come from somewhere. What if it were as simple as a fundamental particle/element that was "immortal" in the sense that it remained infinitely intact?

It would still be subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that it would remain the one variable that allowed for the uncertainty; the exception that proves the rule.

(Pardon my dyslexia. I'm not on a computer where I can spell check -Koy)

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Not a single person intrigued by my incoherent screed?

Let me simplify: What would it mean to discover an elementary particle that does not decay? Wouldn't that balance things out a bit in a superstring-GUT kind of way?

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Viti

Koy, I am fascinated by the way your mind works, and that you were up in the middle of the night thinking about superstring theory (I saw this immediately after you posted it)...but sorry, have no idea what you are talking about

Want a gummy worm?

Friar Bellows

Koyaanisqatsi, I have a slight amount of physics knowledge, a minute amount of familiarity with cosmology, and a smidgen of mathematical skill, but I read your post and I had absolutely no idea what the fcuk you were saying or asking. I think that may be true of most of us here. So that's probably why no one responded to your post. Whatever the case, I'll plead ignorance.

Having said that, let me respond to the one question I did understand: "What would it mean to discover an elementary particle that does not decay?" I'm not sure what it would mean, but I'm sure you're aware that we have already discovered elementary particles which do not decay: photons, electrons, and the lepton neutrinos.

I am rather in awe of your apparent ability to understand string theory. I'm having enough trouble trying to understand the general theory of relativity. I have barely got past tangent vectors. String theory is to relativity what relativity is to peeling a banana, in terms of difficulty. So here's to you: <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> while I continue to <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> in the lower realms of knowledge.

Bill

Koy,

I think that you are reaching too far in order to validate the concept of entropy. As I understand cosmology, the "hot nugget" of the "Big Bang" represents the MOST ORDERED state possible for the universe (with all forces unified, etc. etc.). Entropy therefore always increases (or maybe we see the arrow of time always moving towards increasing entropy - there is a great deal of debate over the cause(s) and effect(s) of time and entropy vis-a-vis each other). But, eventually, our "Big Bang" universe will reach "the end" (the "heat death"). What happens then is just as unknown as is just what happens at the beginning of the "Big Bang." But the current speculation seems to favor some sort of a "cosmic recycle bin" for our "Big Bang" universe.

Nothing that I've read seems to in any way require any speck of this eternally-existing non-entropic "stuff" that you seem to be describing.

== Bill