MarkBrezina

I agree with dubbelosix. It's one thing to propose something, it's an entirely different game to do science about it, a proposal will never be accepted until it has been proven continously. Though if it has been disproven or simply no action has been taken upon the proposal it's merit is of little value at all. Trying to debunk relativity. Good luck my man. It won't be lifted off the ground ever.

Alright, please do explain to me how these should function. The energy levels correspond to how light interacts with matter right? I'm sorry if this sounds contradicting but if you have something to teach me, please I want to learn ASAP

Dear everyone. I do apologize for coming along and sounding like a real genuine crackpot, this is in no case my intention or situation. If by first glance you will move this post elsewhere, I will edit it a bit to fit it to the forum placement. Thanks in advance Mark Brezina I will keep the initial post short. But I will expand upon it if anyone finds an interest in what I'm bring up. I have come to understand the following 1. It isn't entirely understood how matter behaves. Recently a large number of particles has been discovered, but this produces an ever increasing confusion. The ever increasing number of particles doesn't seem to stop and the current attempts to read meaning into every particle is becoming feable. (here I could start adding links upon links upon links, but I'd much rather get to the point) 2. A nice discovery has been made on the other end of this subject. Furthermore recently the discovery of lights interaction with itself has come forth. Light not only interacts with itself in a repulsive manner(https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.080405) , it also does in an attractive manner (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319501446_Observation_of_three-photon_bound_States_in_a_quantum_nonlinear_medium) I have yet to fully read all these articles, but I'm assuming that the forward development within this field will lead to a conclusion somewhere along this line. Light can both repel and attract itself and other particles. Furthermore the force by which light does this might be even larger proportional to larger particles. My first proposal now comes as follows. By adding photons onto each other we arrive at the subparticles of quarks, by summing quarks we get protons, by summing protons we get atoms and such it continues. We already know as follows, atoms with an uneven balance of protons and neutrons are unstable. My assumption would therefore also be that having an uneven balance of subparticles inside a quark or an uneven balance of quarks would make an unstable particle of any other given name say the newly discovered Σ+b or any of the other immense range of newly discovered decaying particles. 3. Following all of this is my third observation and second proposal. Upon my consideration that particles must stem from a summing of photons towards quarks towards atoms and beyond I further noted that the force netting from this behavior would decrease in the following way. At photon level the force compared to the level is incredibly strong. While interacting with another beam and producing matter the pair will decrease in net force due to their common interaction. At the scale of quarks to a proton the summarized force within the proton is immense, but the corresponding force going out of the proton will be near tiny. In this way summarizing on the net forces going upwards towards classical level the force will decrease incredibly fast. I had thought of making this post immensly long, but I think I want to keep it at this. I've considered a lot more and would of course like to add to the above. Best regards Mark Brezina