To: TigerPaw who wrote (1724 ) 10/16/2000 4:30:05 PM From: Solon Respond to of 28931 I agree the universe is what it is. Or should that be might be . When universes interact does their existence depend on the observer? If you break down the myriad forms of the universe, what do we get? If we put the Universe into the cosmic cyclotron and separate everything and remove the forces and stir what is left into a bowl, what kind of soup do we have? The quarks are only congealed energy, so if we uncongeal the energy--what kind of an elephant is that? Really enjoyable paper, but quite long......If a pair of protons were resonant with one electron, three up (+2/3 charge) and three down (-1/3) quarks may be derived, capable of forming one proton and one neutron. The fractional charges lead me to believe that, for the up quark phenomenon, only two of the three available spatial components of space-time are involved, while the down quark entails one space and the one time coordinate. So that quarks only "exist" in two of the four dimensions. The whole of the subatomic panorama, then, might be viewed as a diffraction pattern for the space-time continuum. Their reduction to constituent quarks, whose overlap begets tangible mass/energy particles, helps illuminate the continuum's "texture" at our local world-point. The quantum vs. relativity debate will undoubtedly continue for many more years, but it is the opinion of this essay that Einstein's general theory has been abandoned prematurely by particle physics, that he may yet have the last word. And the possibility is presented that localized accumulations of charge - perhaps condensed to a greater degree than currently known - may effectively counteract gravity... biochem.purdue.edu