living elementary particles

Z

zotkin

Registered Senior Member
I saw the theme of Earth is a living organism like a tree
Jsispat and remembered that I had a similar theory. Elementary particles are like living organisms. To my regret of physics do not want to react. This is understandable. With their methods can not be seen alive. And physicists prefer to dominate the theory of elementary particles of course. I hope that my theory will change this situation. I decided to give his topic on the forum pseudoscience. I hope that pseudoscience - it's only temporary. The basis of my theory is based on fact - the general properties of transformations of elementary particles similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms.
 
zotkin said:
I saw the theme of Earth is a living organism like a tree
Jsispat and remembered that I had a similar theory. Elementary particles are like living organisms. To my regret of physics do not want to react. This is understandable. With their methods can not be seen alive. And physicists prefer to dominate the theory of elementary particles of course. I hope that my theory will change this situation. I decided to give his topic on the forum pseudoscience. I hope that pseudoscience - it's only temporary. The basis of my theory is based on fact - the general properties of transformations of elementary particles similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms.
Click to expand...

No, this is clearly a classic pseudo-science thread, it may, however end up in the cesspool.;)
 
A Binary computer program is made from 0's, and 1's. You are basically saying that 0 is a computer program. It sort of is, and sort of isn't.
 
zotkin said:
I saw the theme of Earth is a living organism like a tree
Jsispat and remembered that I had a similar theory. Elementary particles are like living organisms. To my regret of physics do not want to react. This is understandable. With their methods can not be seen alive. And physicists prefer to dominate the theory of elementary particles of course. I hope that my theory will change this situation. I decided to give his topic on the forum pseudoscience. I hope that pseudoscience - it's only temporary. The basis of my theory is based on fact - the general properties of transformations of elementary particles similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms.
Click to expand...

One thing that organisms do is mitosis or procreation. elements do not spontaneously have children or split into duplicates of themselves. There is a simplified logic based upon Newtonian lore that implies that the universe can only ever contain a specific quanta of energy (per volume) and this quanta can not be exceeded. Having elements "grow organically" would undermine the very nature of our universe, which is the main reason why it will remain pseudoscience.
 
You jump to conclusions. I still said nothing. First I will explain about yourself, so you do not think that I am a farmer and I do not know what I'm talking about. In 1970, I attended the Moscow Institute of Engineering Physics at the Department of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. In 1971 I studied at the Geological Faculty of Moscow University. In 1972 I entered the physics department of Voronezh University, where since 1974, specialized in theoretical physics department. So I am a little versed in the subject. I was interested in elementary particles. In 1976 I drew attention to the fact that the transformation of elementary particles is very similar to the reproduction of organisms. In the transformation of elementary particles do not appear to side, as in the reproduction of organisms. Of resonances is very similar to the conjugation of microorganisms. In addition there is no spontaneous appearance of elementary particles. Compare with the law, biology - cell by cell, organism from organism. The conclusion is simple. Elementary particles have a structure something in common with the biological cell. And it can be used for general offices of more complex particle from simpler ones. In addition to the microworld apply all the basic categories of macroscopic and virtual particles do not exist.
 
zotkin said:
You jump to conclusions. I still said nothing. First I will explain about yourself, so you do not think that I am a farmer and I do not know what I'm talking about. In 1970, I attended the Moscow Institute of Engineering Physics at the Department of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. In 1971 I studied at the Geological Faculty of Moscow University. In 1972 I entered the physics department of Voronezh University, where since 1974, specialized in theoretical physics department. So I am a little versed in the subject.
Click to expand...

Very impressive, also very frightening that you could come up with such an absurd idea with that type of background!

I was interested in elementary particles. In 1976 I drew attention to the fact that the transformation of elementary particles is very similar to the reproduction of organisms. In the transformation of elementary particles do not appear to side, as in the reproduction of organisms. Of resonances is very similar to the conjugation of microorganisms.
Click to expand...

The language barrier is a bit of a problem but I think I get the jist of what you are saying. As someone who studied in science I think you know that 'looks like' or some aspects 'are similar to' is an increadibly weak argument. There are aspects of weather that are 'similar' to a biological system, that does not make the weather alive.

In addition there is no spontaneous appearance of elementary particles.
Click to expand...

Huh? Of course there is!

Compare with the law, biology - cell by cell, organism from organism. The conclusion is simple. Elementary particles have a structure something in common with the biological cell. And it can be used for general offices of more complex particle from simpler ones. In addition to the microworld apply all the basic categories of macroscopic and virtual particles do not exist.
Click to expand...

Your argument is completely weak and without merit. With your background and education I would recommend that you apply your knowledge to the real world and not fantasy. If you really believe that elementary particles have structure like a cell, then I would recommend that you share your ideas with a health professional and get his opinion. Good luck.
 
I spent several years in search of a suitable physical theory and have not found such. As I now understand the physical theory that would explain the properties for which I paid attention, there can be. The logic was pushing me in biology - there is no explanation in physics, so look for it in biology. In 1980 I tried to use an analogue of biological gene - media - but did not realize that they need to reproduce itself. In this case, the signs were lost. If the particles do not have a gene he could not appear in processes involving these particles. And it is not in agreement with experiment. Symptoms do not get lost!
 
You should not underestimate the power of my arguments, as well as methods and concepts of biology. They allow you to make basic conclusions are incapable of physics. As for the doctor. From the doctor knows how to construct an elementary particle?
 
zotkin said:
From the doctor knows how to construct an elementary particle?
Click to expand...

A physician may not how to construct an elementary particle (whatever that is suppose to mean), but he could direct you to a mental health professional that could assist you in sorting things out. good luck.
 
At the same time in 1977 - 1978's I decided to see if there is no connection between the mass and charge in isotopic multiplets of elementary particles. That's what I discovered. In the octet baryon mass of a positively charged particle is less than the mass of neutral and negatively charged particles of mass greater than that of neutral. Proton mass is less than the neutron mass, the mass of the mass of the sigma sigma plus zero, minus the mass of the mass of the sigma sigma zero mass minus the mass of the xi xi zero. Little data, but usually seen clearly. In relation okteteantibarionov opposite. Baryon and antibaryon octets have baryon number of the opposite sign. Pseudoscalar mesons have baryon number zero, but they are grouped into isotopic multiplety.I skills then the idea does not contain elementary particles is something that divides all particles into two type. And features such as particle-antiparticle pairing, the difference between signs and Singleton baryon numbers, the mass difference in charge multiplets is a manifestation of the more common pairing. In September 1982 I decided to check whether there is connection between the type of particle which decays and the types of waste products. Take for example the decay of the neutron. The products are an electron and an electron antineutrino. Ie in any case the type of play. And then I went back to the idea of carriers carrying information about the properties of particles, but already capable of self-reproducing. I will call on their genes. If you enter a pair of genes and Bb assume that if dominant gene B, we have one type of particle, such as proton, electron, neutron, a positive muon and so on. If the dominant gene b is the particle belongs to the second type. And the non-appearance parts can also be obyanit existence of elementary particles gene. In the case of biological organisms, it is true. So I opened the elementary particles are able to samovosproizdeniyu media or as I call them genes.
 
Wait for the evolution and the evolution will be to you. But what else!
Of course when I was introduced to the theory of particle physics as I gene is highly embarrassing. I decided that enough with my biology will continue to think like a physicist. Of course no one says that elementary particles do not contain genes, but by the reaction of the physicists and the fans you can understand that such a conclusion they can not comprehend.
Intuitively I felt that with the usual ideas about elementary particles genes can not be reconciliation. It was only in May 1984, I get the following: the quarks, with their characteristic not observed outside hadrons talk about the biological organization of elementary particles. Compare - nucleus and cytoplasm do not exist separately. For them to exist requires processes occurring in the cell as a whole. So it is with quarks - that they existed necessary processes occurring in the hadron as a whole. This is the second fundamental position to which I have come as a result of their investigations on the properties of elementary particles.
 
zotkin said:
Of course no one says that elementary particles do not contain genes
Click to expand...
I would imagine that if anyone were foolish enough actually ask that question there'd be large numbers of people saying that elementary particles do not contain genes.

Intuitively I felt that with the usual ideas about elementary particles genes can not be reconciliation. It was only in May 1984, I get the following: the quarks, with their characteristic not observed outside hadrons talk about the biological organization of elementary particles. Compare - nucleus and cytoplasm do not exist separately. For them to exist requires processes occurring in the cell as a whole. So it is with quarks - that they existed necessary processes occurring in the hadron as a whole. This is the second fundamental position to which I have come as a result of their investigations on the properties of elementary particles.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Blah blah wibble.
 
zotkin said:
It was only in May 1984, I get the following: the quarks, with their characteristic not observed outside hadrons talk about the biological organization of elementary particles.
Click to expand...

Are you using a translator program?
This does not make sense at all.

Are you saying that quarks are somehow like the parts of a cell, which cannot live independently outside a cell?
 
Yes. Quarks can not exist separately as part of the cell. Does that surprise you? You've never heard of this? So I said it first.
 
zotkin said:
I saw the theme of Earth is a living organism like a tree
Click to expand...

Where did you see this theme?

zotkin said:
Jsispat and remembered that I had a similar theory.
Click to expand...

What the heck is "Jsispat"?

zotkin said:
Elementary particles are like living organisms.
Click to expand...

Living organisms collect energy to persist. Elementary particles do not. They are not like each other.

zotkin said:
To my regret of physics do not want to react. This is understandable. With their methods can not be seen alive.
Click to expand...

I am not really sure what you are trying to say.

zotkin said:
And physicists prefer to dominate the theory of elementary particles of course. I hope that my theory will change this situation. I decided to give his topic on the forum pseudoscience. I hope that pseudoscience - it's only temporary.
Click to expand...

The premise of "Elementary particles are like living organisms" is not correct, so this will stay in pseudoscience at best.

zotkin said:
The basis of my theory is based on fact - the general properties of transformations of elementary particles similar to the general properties of multiplication of organisms.
Click to expand...

Organisms collect energy and convert it into mass for reproduction. Elementary particles do not do this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top