The electro-weak force arises when the higgs field is such that there is no difference in mass between the photon, W, and Z bosons.

yeah, so that's pretty much all the weak force does is transmute quarks into other quarks. The prime example is beta decay, which is a kind of radiation. This in turn causes isotopes to break down (for example, the well known carbon-14 half-life of 5730 years). The weak force is mediated by 3 bosons (boson = force carrier): W+, W-, and Z0. The W's handle beta decay, while the Z0 causes the neutral current phenomena (predicted by the electro-weak theory). This is a small interaction between electrons and neutrinos.

• Beta decay occurs when a neutron decays into a proton and a W-. The W- then shortly breaks down (All weak bosons are very heavy) into an electron and antineutrino.
• Positron emission, works differently. You have to give the proton energy, and then it transmutes to a neutron and a W+; which decays into a positron and neutrino.
• Electron capture works when then nucleus has alot of protons. From one of the inner-most electron shells, an electron falls into the nucleus, releasing a neutron and a neutrino.
• Inverse beta decay works when a neutrino and a proton combine to form a neutron and positron (I'm not sure which bosons are used here).
• The tie to the nucleus is that in all of these processes, the 'goal' of the weak force is to make the nucleus bind together better. So, if there is alot of electrons, the atom gains more protons. If there are alot of protons, the atom loses some protons. Obviously with huge atoms, all the transmutations are liable to tear apart the atom, and thats how fission occurs.
• Any particle that can emit a photon can emit a W or Z boson, but it takes alot of energy due to the weak carrier's having such large masses and the photon having no mass

As far as all matter decaying into energy... I think you're mis-interpreting 'energy'. Energy is actually non-physical. What is meant is that if you look at something, there is a number that you can count. if you then look at it later, after some kind of change has occurred, you will find the same number. So, in a way, E=mc^2 is just a definition of this number in terms of mass. The other way to think about it is a conversion rate between different amounts of mass. Since everything is particles when you get right down to it, the energy of all known forces are wrapped up in particles. Now, there are a few caveats to looking at energy this way. For example, kinetic energy increases as the velocity increases. Also, the mass increases due to relativistic effects (eventually, every attempt to increase the speed results in an increase in mass).

So, matter will always stay together as matter. As for why it doesnt always decay into other matter... theres not really an answer for that either. I can tell you that the time dilation predicted by relativity can extend the life of particles far beyond their otherwise brief lifes. Another way to look at it is that nothing is really stable, its all just ripples in the quantum foam.

Mass annihilation.... you mean matter-antimatter annihilation? theres actually 2 gamma rays (yes, photons) emitted.

I have no clue what you mean here. I'll take a stab in the dark with some facts about the strong force:

• There are 3 types of charge involved in the strong force, albeit named horribly: red, green, blue (And you're color blind? great...)
• The carrier of the force is the gluon. The gluon has no mass, but it does carry charge, unlike the photon.
• The result is that the force is 'screened' (has little to no value due to all the charges cancelling each other out) close to the center of the nucleon, but the force the quark experiences increases as the quark gets closer to the 'edge' of the nucleon (due to less gluons being around to screen the charge).
• There are a few 'leftover' gluons converted into pions and rhos that are exchanged outside of the nucleons that keep the nucleus together. This secondary effect can be called the Nuclear force, but it is fundamentally the Strong force.
• The fundamental action of the gluon changes the 'color' (think: charge) of the particle it is interacting with, so colors constantly shift
• The energy to pull apart quarks is big enough to start pair production, and this is why you 'can't' seperate quarks
• quarks are always bound in threes or quark-antiquark pairs, never solo.

Not necessarily the direct answer to my questions, but its enough to figure it out..  Thanks by the way.  The only question I have from that is what exactly is pair production?

One unrelated question but one that has bugged me incessantly is interference with photons...  If you have two point sources emitting a specific frequency of light, you can end up with one or more black bands on a wall a set distance from the points due to the photons acting as waves which cancel due to the crests and troughs overlapping.  In that regard, it makes sense.  From the point of energy conservation, if it went black, does that mean that all that energy just got transferred to thermal energy or did it go somewhere else?  You can't delete energy, so destructive interference with light doesn't really make sense...  I asked my physics teacher in high school the same question when he told us about them in the first place.  He had no answer.

Here'ssomething for you...and found after my comment about the possible nature of particles (I'm so ahead of my time). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110810215342.htm

Okay, so i went through most of that theory I linked. It is based on the holographic principle which says that our universe could have less dimensions than we think. The paper derives newton's gravity and einstein's equations through the assumption this principle is true.

There are several things I am dubious about, but I would first like to point out my own flaws: I am not a physicist, teacher, or anything like that. I also do not have much experience with the holographic principle. Everything else, I have some experience in, but the paper is obviously fairly technical and there are parts I'm sure I understood incorrectly.

The paper seems to use alot of classical theory, and that bugs me. We know classical theory is wrong. In particular, F=ma is derived and the author seems to think this is important. To me, it signifies a mistake. Another example in this regard is the use of entropy/statistical mechanics. While these laws are true on certain scales, they do not hold on the quantum scale (one can argue that they hold some of the time, but that is not enough to make it true). The use of black hole entropy equations to derive newton's gravity is particularly hairy for me, as I would guess that newton's gravity might have been used to help construct the black hole entropy equations; Although, to be fair, I am not sure.

There is a part about coarse graining, which seems to indicate that the 'emergent' properties advertised wont always emerge, depending on the scale you examine it at. This would obviously invalidate my above objections. However, the 'microscopic-world' (as he puts it. Please do not confuse this with our world's small scale) is what is generating the 'macroscopic-world' in a holographic universe. The author does not go into how the macroscopic world is created, which is clearly stipulated at the begining (it is just assumed); how then can you seperate it from other scales via coarse graining if you have no idea of the mechanism?

Don't get me wrong, there are some interesting points, and if it holds up to better minds than I, will be a major reference for holographic principle papers that deal with classical mechanics.

Thanks. I thought that too (the math=difficult part). I am driven enough to find out for sure. I went through the first rabbit hole to find its all rather easy, but there are more rabbit holes than I ever knew about.

It's pretty simple, actually. The idea comes from an interesting fact about the black hole information theory: the information contained in a black hole is proportional to it's surface area, not it's volume. So, you could argue that the information is really 2-dimensional at that point. The holographic universe idea is the reverse: if you can take information from a 3-dimensional world and completely represent it in 2-dimensions, it might be possible that the 2-dimensional world is more fundamental and the 3rd dimension is an illusion (like a hologram). This can be extrapolated back to 1-dimension and the appeal of this theory is that string theory calls for extra dimensions, so there might be a way to make those 'extra' dimensions illusions as well.

However, I fall back to an opinion I've had for awhile: What, exactly, is a dimension? I don't think we have that figured out. For example, could spin be a dimension? Currently, it's a matter of definition that the answer is no. I think there could be many forms for dimensions as currently time and space seem so very different, but are both considered dimensions.

Yeah...  Our universe and it's dimensions really is I suppose one of the ultimate questions of existence...  Things like this make me crave so very much the "operating system" of the universe...  Beyond our universe, beyond all existence, what is?  If you could look on all existence as a bubble, though impossible for a human or anyone from the "inside," what would be there?  Outside of time and space, outside of existence, what is?

I've felt for a few years now that time itself just seems the most convoluted and illusory thing about the universe itself.  If in "reality" beyond existence, time does not exist and that it is only local to us and out universe/multiverse/existence, things we don't understand about the universe do tend to fall into place.

I know there's no real way to test it.  I know its theoretical and whatnot, but if our universe is simply a "virtual" representation in some other realm or what have you where time as we know it does not exist, things would seem to make sense...

On a potentially more testable note, if you were going with the holographic thing, I'd say that if you were to compress all information down to one dimension, that dimension would have to be time.  Of course, if there is a different "master" dimension, it's probably only at the quantum level, something that governs the quantum foam itself.

What bothers me is people who listen to half of what science is telling us. Random chance and gravity are sufficient to explain everything. Sure, there are some details not worked out, but we have enough in our current theories to generally explain it all.

People take the robustness of science and the wierdness of the world and say, "anything is possible". This can be taken 2 ways. Sure, its optimistic, dreamy, and a motivating viewpoint. I would never want to take that away from someone, unless holding that view took away from the world.

The other way to take that is: since anything is possible, we dont know anything. There is some truth in this, such that we base our ideas about how 'A' works off our ideas of 'B', which we might only vaguely understand. The problem I see here, though, is that the scientific method brought us to this point, here, today, with such a vast understanding of the world. That knowledge can't just be written off because there is some detail that might make our views change 100 years from now. That's insulting to those that contributed to our current understanding, to say the least.

And finally, 'anything is possible' is not what science says about the world. That is just the common man's interpretation of it after being exposed to some of the implications science demonstrates. The way science works is: you start with 'anything is possible' and then eliminate the things that are not possible. Later on, you might find out there was an assumption that shouldn't have been made, which add new possibilities and resurrects old ones. And the real world clearly is not one in which everything is possible. If it were, there couldnt be anything, as it would all mix together.

...*sigh* I've heard this from alot of people. They often change their minds about it every week, which is almost a counter-argument in and of itself. On our scale, time is an illusion. At least the way we percieve it to work is not how it actually works. Its all about statistics and the way atoms and molecules tend to behave after a period of time. Fundamentally, time does exist, though. It is the measure of change. Things could not change if there was no time. For example, Muons (a particle that is like a heavy electron) decay into other particles after a period of time. If there was no time, or if it were an illusion, how could it decay? Furthermore, it is consistent (there really are statistics involved, which I will ignore, due to quantum mechanics): the muon decays after X seconds. This can be changed depending on how fast it is moving due to relativistic effects, which reduce the muon's motion through time as it moves faster through space. This is also very consistent and I invite you to explain it without time. Quantum mechanics is built off of periodic relationships, which adds alot of evidence for time.

I might be bending your analogy a bit, but analogies always break apart fairly quickly: 2 dice cast do, affect the final sum of the 2, this is true. But we aren't looking at the final sum. It's like asking one of the dies what the total of all dice, everywhere is. We really only care about how our dice rolls and settles on certain values.

I appreciate that you think there is some interconnectedness. You think (not to put words in your mouth) that it might work like rolling a 20-sided die to determine what size die to roll next. And thats plausible. The only thing that matters, though, is our ability to work out the mechanics of rolling each size dice whether its 1, 15, 20, or anywhere inbetween.  You might also think it works like a giant loop where one roll determines what size/how many dice you roll next time, which determines what you should roll the first time. And that type of thinking will get you nowhere fast. Our brains are wired to think in a causality based world, and understanding the mechanics of 'laws'/logic require you to abandon causality. Why? Because it's the main thing that you would be trying to explain. I could go on, but I get to leave work now and I'm veering away from my point.

Edit: Kinda felt I should conclude or something

So in the end, there may be more, but it might not matter. Take Sins for example. We all 'know' how shield mitigation works. There is some question as to when certain parts of the mechanic take effect (unless someone figured that out, idk),  but we all understand that it reduces damage and the reduction increases the more the ship takes damage, up to a maximum level. However, I'd like to ask you this: what is the exact lines of code? No one but the developers know that.

My point is we might not be able to comprehend the 'code', but we can understand the mechanic. Do we really need to see the code? I'm all for trying, but just because you can insert a nail with a screw driver doesnt mean thats the best way to do it for us.

Well, instead of teleportation, can we use entanglement for simple wireless energy transfer? As for example, lets take a electrical wire and cut it into two pieces. Charge both positively and then neutralize them with entangled electrons especially at the open ends. Now, if we put on AC electric current on one wire, does that will flow in the other?

So far, quantum entanglement means destruction of one phase of one entangled particle means rise of that phase in the paired entangled particle. We all know that when electricity flows through conductors, phase of free electrons occur. Now, I am curious to know whether "entangled free electrons" can carry electric current between two not connected conducting wires.

This is just a thought and I put it here for discussion only.

That is not entanglement. Doing something to one, does not change the other. However, it can 'collapse the wave function' of both. An analogy: you and I each recieve a key and go seperate ways in a large building of locked doors. At first, both keys are in a limbo state that you might call a 'skeleton key', as it matches all doors in the building. Now, you go to open a door by inserting the key, and this causes the 'limbo' state to disappear and decide which door, of all the possible doors it can open. This will mean my key does the same thing, even if I'm not attempting to open any doors at this time, and no matter where I am in the building. But from this point forward, each key is no longer linked to each other in anyway. If you open another door, it does nothing to my key. If I file down my key so that it works in some other door, yours is unaffected. This is roughly what is going on with entanglement. The doors are measurements, the keys are particles, and the keys losing their limbo state is decoherance.

What you are really getting at is actually quantum teleportation. And the answer to you question then is: yes, you can carry charge without the charge traversing the intermediate distance. 'teleportation' is kind of a misnomer: it's more like 'copying'. So you have an electron at point A, with a certain spin, charge, velocity, etc. What you do is destroy the electron at point A with one part of an entangled pair and record the results. You have then 'collapsed' the wave function for the entangled pair, and know information about the second part of the formerly entangled pair. You can then take that second part of the formerly entangled pair, and using the results you obtained, reconstruct the electron at point B (aka make the copy. However, the original is always destroyed and the duplicate is an exact copy).

Now..... as you can imagine, that all takes alot of work, and something is still crossing the distance. Even if you had a stock of particles at point A that are entangled with corresponding particles at point B, you still have to send the information about your results from point A to point B. To be blunt, if what you are after is fast wireless power, microwaves is your best bet. If you want the fastet communication, optical is the way to go. The only way around this is if the results of the recent OPERA neutrino experiments are confirmed and neutrinos are, in fact, tachyonic.

Well, if they are, it throws off alot of stuff. For tachyons, the speed of light is a lower bound and there would be some possibility of negative mass there.... but I highly doubt that. There are so many neutrinos bouncing around the universe do to the frequency of nuclear reactions and neutrino's low interaction rate that we would see a much different expansion rate of the universe if they had a negative mass. It would not be uniform, but would have a faster expansion rate around galaxies (which is contrary to observation). And right now neutrinos are a candidate for some of the missing Dark Matter; which, if they have negative mass, would not only mean that they are not Dark Matter, but we then have more Dark matter to look for (to 'cancel out' the effect of the then exotic neutrinos).

If other dimensions are involved, it could be strong evidence for string theory. I say this because neutrinos are known to oscillate between different flavors and if other dimensions are involved, the oscillation frequency would be clearly related to the size of the other dimensions. I am extrapolating quite a bit, but the general idea is that your 'speed' through all dimensions is constant. If neutrinos are going faster-than-light in our dimensions, they would be moving slower in the other dimensions to compensate. The oscillation rate, the number of additional dimensions, the size of the additional dimensions could all, I think, be measured from the studying the neutrinos if this is the case. And these are exactly the things needed to untangle string theory and get some solid math going.

As for multiple universes... I dont see much hope for any possible connection there. If there are multiple universes, theres so many that it may as well be infinite. So, if the neutrino is going to one of these other universes, what are the chances that it would come back to ours? Near zero. So, then we would likely not see neutrinos at all.

More than likely, if the results are confirmed, the reasoning will be something akin to what I suggested (quantum tunneling), but this will still teach us quite a bit. And if the experiment is not confirmed, the reason why the experiment had the result it did will also still teach us something. It is an interesting result and something important will be learned. This is our generation's Michelson-Morley experiment or the 1999 expansion rate results, I think.