Energy density.I’ve been talking, since the beginning, of “energy density”; which seems very “smart”, but isn’t that much so, in reality.
Because, even if we are starting to understand what “energy” is, meaning a “flowing motion” whatever its orientation, we don’t yet understand what and how it does, to reach equilibrium inside the universe’s continuously changing environment. Especially at the very first beginning, when our universe became electromagnetic at 10^-36 second after Time = Zero.
It is obvious that “energy density” starts at “Zero density”, which is a “Neutral state density”. And it’s just as obvious that, every time the universe has to equilibrate
its density, it has to attain that “Neutral state” density,
without the obligation to reach a “Zero energy state” of its components.
So the only way, is to put in presence
two “contrary” energy states.
This “reality” has been observed rapidly, in the history of Science, as the polarized -1 and +1 “energy states” from the atomic level to higher levels.
But quantum mechanics discovered, just as fast, that this “one for one” polarization didn’t exist and wasn’t possible
at the sub-atomic level, where a “3 to 1” relationship is absolutely needed.
This “need” was supplied by the
Quantum chromodynamics theory (QCD) using “colour” and “flavor” charges; which really is an imaginative “exploit” as an explanation.
The only problem is, that quarks don’t really have “colours” or “flavours”.
So, can our “geometrical” description of “events” help find a simpler and more “realistic” explanation?
Let’s see:
We will, start at the atomic level where a Proton “energy state” defines a “gravitational field effect”, which needs
two surrounding electronic-energy-basic-fields (electrons)
to be neutralized and produce a neutral atom. This is considered as the positive “energy density” of a Proton needing two negative energy densities of electrons “equalizing the field”,
without bringing each of the involved energies to a “zero energy state”.
Now, if we consider our own concept related to the “nature” of each energy, we get energies that simply possess
contrary orientations.
The Proton is a field of confined “kinetic energy”
oriented “toward its center”, while the electronic-energy-unit is a field of confined “
swirling” kinetic energy.
And we’ve already seen that this contrary orientation “structure” of the universe, where “gravitational Space” is perpendicular to the existing “toward everywhere” oriented Time energy, was the case since the appearance of the Gluon at 10^ -36 sec. when all “Space” existing had the diameter of 10^-15 meter.
Its drawing looked like so:
But the “Time reality” of the universe, at that “Gluon” moment, was a lot more specific than this previous drawing. It had already defined a “12 orientations pattern”, successively contrary to one another; as the following:
And we can easily see that the difference between these energy orientations are regarding their “flow”. So, since the “time flow” is an “invariant” and the “gravitational flow” is “cumulative”, the previous drawing represents specifically the
“Time” aspect free flow of the total universe.
What we really need is its
“Space” aspect, in order to analyze definite “
volumes” of energy.
And the “Space” aspect would be the following…
…where “Space” is
perpendicular to the invariant free “Time flow”.
Here we, now, clearly see that each “gravitational energy orientations”
sums to “neutrality”; but the reality is that, when is added the free “invariant Time flow’s energy”, this “neutrality” is overwhelmed and disappears.
So, to equalize the “gravitational field’s” energy with the “Time flow’s” energy, we have to
eliminate whatever “gravitational energy”
that neutralizes it (could this mean: eliminating "anti-gravity"? I'll have to think about this)..
And we end up with this drawing:
Where “Space’s gravitational energy” is equal to the “Time flow’s energy” (creating “space”). We thus get a volume of “energy-Time-flow” = “Space”, and obtain a volume of
“non-expanding” Space-Time.
It is very clear to see that this volume of “neutralized Space” needs three “gravitational”
energy states to “equalize” the Time flow’s energy. We also see that
they are all different from one another just as the three quarks of QCD.
And this is what determines the number of quarks needed in a “stable” Proton. Meaning, 2 different “oblique” quarks, each equal to 1/4 of “Space’s gravitational energy”, plus 1 perpendicular quark equal to 2/4 of “Space’s gravitational energy”.
Which shows as:
But then, again, this explanation doesn’t totally conforms to the “concept” of QCD, since a “Down quark” is said to have 1/3 negative charge with twice as more “mass-energy” than a 2/3 positive charged Up quark. Did we make an error?
The “fact” is that, mass-energy-wise, our drawing has to represents only the “reality” of Down quarks being
twice as more “massive” than Up quarks; because, size-wise, science cannot pronounce itself. So they simply consider those “energy states” as “point particles” (sizeless). The “fact” known is that their smallest size possible is 10^-35 meter, and they are “confined”, three at the time, in a volume of 10^-15 meter.
So, when you measure the “orientation” (charge) of a Down quark you measure its “
energy oblique orientation” that applies to all its related “Space”, which covers all space
between the vertical axis and the horizontal axis. This 1/3 “charge” amounts to 2/4 of the “Space” involved, which energy is, afterward, “
compressed” in ¼ of space of the previous drawing.
And when you measure the “orientation’s perpendicular energy” of an Up quark, the “Space” implied is containing
the general energy density found in 1/4 of the total “Space”, which is then “
repeated” in another 1/4 of the “Space” involved, which doesn’t change its energy
density.
Density-wise, on the drawing it would show as:
So, in an Up quark, the density (mass-energy) it represents, is ¼ of the total energy present in 2/4 of “Space”; while in a Down quark, the density (mass-energy) represents 2/4 of energy “compressed” in 1/4 of “Space”. Which makes the Down quark twice more “massive” than an Up quark.
As for the “negative” and the “positive” aspect, the “fact” resides in the difference from the perpendicular orientations of each quarks. Up quarks are perpendicular while Down quarks are “oblique”. They are not “contrary” to each other because, then, their energy would be neutralized; which they, obviously, are not. The universe doesn’t do maths, it simply operates with its “Space” (volumes) and “energy” (Time) factors.
On the other hand, the obliquity of Down quarks could indicate their counter-clock-wise rotation which would then confirm the clock-wise rotation of the Up quark (see the next drawing).
But what maths doesn’t tell, and our concept does, is that an Up quark is twice “bigger in size” than a Down quark, even if it is half “massive”; which could explain its “stability”. Quarks cannot be “point particles” (sizeless); they have to be volumes of “energy states”.
So a Proton would look as the following:
…where the 4/4 (total) density of quarks equals to 1% of the Proton’s “mass-energy” (rotating quarks), leaving 99% of it, to the
kinetic energy of orbiting quarks, “pushing” towards the Proton’s center of gravity inside its “inner gravitational field”. Which "pressure" extends its "outer" surrounding gravitational field about 10,000 times.
Personally, I feel that we, now, can see “clearer” the QCD event’s reality.
