h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am not supporting this in any way but I am a GCSE student at Colyton Grammar School and I understant that Inflation theory suggests that one universe is created from inside another does this mean that the new universe has to lose one or more dimensions to exist inside another i.e. a univers with 2D+time could exist inside ours and we do not know about it or am I trying to apply normal rules Physics that o not apply in this situation

Thanks Alex (magnasandy)

A better question would be, how many dimensions can actually be demonstrated to exist? Before you can have a dimension you will need real particles separated within time, each moving at a relative velocity to each other, but time only exists if the particles bump? If spherical particles of a similar scale are squeezed together, there will be spaces between them. If you try to squeeze in particles of a smaller scale, again there are gaps...on as small a scale as you like there will be a yet smaller particles and gaps! If the Planck length is the shortest separation, how can a point particle be real? Or are there many scales of existence shorter than the Planck scale?

Is there a mathematical equation that gives the ratio of the sphere size(radius of particle) that just fits within the gap, to our bunch of larger radius same size particle spheres? Multiple impacts from these next smaller particles would exert pressures onto the larger particles, in the form of waves. The speed of the smaller particles would set the limits for the speed of the larger particles (relativity). Smaller scale particles would move faster because, it takes more impacts to move a larger scale object. Each scale of particle could have its own speed limit?

See "www.mathsworld.wolfram.com", for the Apollonian packing equation, r = p*q*r/[p*q+p*r+q*r+2(p*q*r(p+q+r)]^0.5 , where p,q and r, are the radii of the three different circles surrounding and just touching the smaller circle. Apparently this is a Fractal dimension of 1.3058, what ever that is?

Descartes theorem sums curvatures of tangentially touching circles, to find the inside curvature that just fits the gap between them. Curvature K = 1/radius. K4 = K1 +K2 +k3 +-2*[k1*k2 +k2*k3 +k3*k1]^0.5 If the radii of the three kissing circles =1, then K4 = 6.4641 and 0.4641, giving an inner gap circle radius of 0.1547, the other outer surrounding circle radius is 2.1547, how did Descartes derive this equation ? And If a singularity is compressed particles, is gravity due to much smaller particles ( the ones that fit the gaps )?

Surely the existence of spherical packing structures points to major problems with the idea of inflation & the assumption of point particles? Just because theorized particles are smaller than our ability, at the moment, to quantify, does not mean that they do not exist. Objects in orbit around a singularity only move closer if other smaller objects are impeding their orbit. Smaller, faster, objects, tend to pack together larger objects. Emptying the space, increases the smaller objects ability to move at higher speeds. Does the number of smaller objects in the Apollonian packing increase exponentially?

If Neutrons & protons have three quarks each, and Descartes theorem lets you calculate the outer & inner touching curvatures of the next particles, with enough iterations is it possible to calculate the dimensions of the electron?

Using Descartes theorem to calculate particle sizes, seems like a good idea, but it would require the radii of the quarks to be known exactly? Do down quarks have the same radius, since they not only have the property of 1/3 negative charge but also have 1 of 3 color charges? The same question applies to up quarks, +2/3 charge,1 of 3 color charges? If quarks are free to orbit and spin with some angular frequencies, will this also affect their radii due to tidal stresses?

For each type of force there seem to be varieties of charges, positive neutral and negative, Up Down and Strange, W+ W- and Z, Red Yellow and Blue colors, Gravity being the odd force, since its charge being mass only has one variety?

Subatomic particle charge types come in threes, which suggests a wavelike property, but what is being waved? While charge like mass, would seem to be due to an inwardly impacting rain of particles, with a speed in excess of that of light, which rules out photons as a source of mass? This would suggest that subatomic particles are assemblies of much smaller particles, which have properties of charge, due to vibration of these smaller particles? The rain of particles causing mass, would be too small to have any effect on the subatomic particle directly(passing through the larger subatomic particle), but still large enough to impact with the smaller particles, making up the subatomic particle?

For the force of gravity to mediate between three types of gravity charges, would loose its dependence on mass. Likewise if mass were to have three flavors (mass dependent on its charge polarity?). Which suggests that mass & gravity are not wavelike properties.

h/4p. Lay two same radius circular coins, on a flat surface, holding one stationary, then rotating the other against it, it will take four pie radians of the outer rotated coin to get back to where you started! Why is this an exact multiple of two pie?

Imagine instead of coins, spinning spheres alongside each other, and a force is applied to cause one of the spheres to precess, would the precessing sphere return to its starting location and spin direction after 4pie radians( or will uncertainty prevent this happening)?

While reading John D. Barrow`s book "100 essential things.. ", I found out that the best way to pack, is to start with the largest object first. Otherwise smaller objects take the available space. If Inflation Theory starts with the smallest possible thing, why is there any room left for the next largest thing, and the next largest type of thing, and so on up the size of next type of objects scale?

Has Inflation Theory got things the wrong way round? Could our universe have started off with the largest particle ball first, which somehow became punctured forming a torus? What ever punctured the large particle ball, left behind it, plenty of room (space), for the smaller scale particles to fill in? As the torus loop elongated, it would have broken up, or snapped into strings and once the strings contract, yet smaller particle spheres?

A sphere has a surface area to volume ratio 3/r, a torus has a ratio given by 4*R*r*p^2 /2*R *p^2 *r^2 = 2 /r, while a cylinder has a s.a/v of 2[p*r*h+p*r^2] /p*h*r^2, or 2[r*h+r^2]/h*r^2, if r=1 & h=2 then the cylinder has an s.a/v = 3, the same as a sphere, also as h goes to infinity the cylinder has a s.a/v of 2, the same as a torus! Stretching a particle ball into a torus, and then continuing until it snaps apart would give the new parts vibrational energy.

Smaller particles not only accumulate into larger particles, but also break them apart, there are no limits to size, since size is an emergent property! Size being an emergent property of time, which emerges from how our minds interpret the now, or was it that now, try short term memory, sorry its gone, maybe its gone to long term memory? Anyway History is always interpreted in the now, its a granular effect upon the now, from interactions at all sizes, no matter how large or small, emergent possibly for this one now only, maybe never to be repeated, unless standing waves in sizes are a possibility?

The 29/8/9 New scientist article "To the n`th dimension",defines a dimension as, "the number of independent coordinates or variables needed to determine the state of any object". Does this mean that the Spiro Graph Equation; X(t)=(R+r)cos(t)+p(cos(t(R+r)/r)) & Y(t)=(R+r)sin(t)+p(sin(t(R+r)/r)) has more than two dimensions, even though its drawn on a 2D surface? The value "t", being angular, "R" being the size of circle one, and "r" being the size of circle two, while "p" is the offset size of circle two! Adding up to give the total number of size dimensions n=4D, or if you also include X(t)+Y(t),n=6D? A Spiro Graph emulates 4D, where the angle "t" would represent( while not actually being )an amount of elapsed time?

In the same new scientist article, "why is time different", it says "only an object inside the cone of light diverging from a point in space-time can be influenced by what happens at that point", this implies that changes to the magnitude of gravitational force is restricted to the speed of light, which Newtons law assumes has infinite speed? Which is correct, Mr.Newton or the new scientist article?

Actually both of them may be only part right, see "Dark matter missing planets & new comets by Tom Van Flandern", and "the agents of gravity", from page 32 onwards. So long as the distance between the collisions of the Gravity agents is greater than the separation distance between the two objects, one object will be shaded from gravity agents by the other object? Time delay between the arrival of light and arrival of change to gravitational force, from the same distant event( aberration sets speed of gravity agent > = 10^18,m/s)?