fundamental life-bearing properties of the electron and proton
Please forgive this sort of article; i love physics and raising awareness about it but.. At this time in human history, physics seems secondary to all the issues we're facing.. The previous article comparing convention and un-convention was actually fun to write because it forced me to make explicit all assumptions and glaring omissions. It also clarified convention's stance.
As stated in that article, quantum spin is something we have difficulty comprehending. The quantum analogy of macroscopic spin befuddles us. But we can talk about magnitudes. When we describe the magnitude of proton/electron spin, we usually say "1/2" to represent h-bar/2 which is the actual value. More precisely, h-bar is Planck's constant over 2-pi. Please forgive this 'almost anal' precision in terminology; the precision in expression is required to make sense of the 'fundamental unconventional expressions':
h-bar/2t-P "h-bar over 2 Planck-time"
e^2Z0(5.4525)/t-P "charge moment times Z-naught times a scaling factor over Planck-time"
E/4-piC "mass-equivalent energy over 4 pi curvature"
Y0t-P "Y-naught times Planck-time"
Again, please forgive this 'meaningless gobbledly gook'; unless i present the expressions 'as is', we have no place to begin.. So please allow me to give a little background before we continue.. Conventionally, we assume we cannot measure anything shorter than Planck-time. So it's considered a kind of 'resolution limit' for time. But because temporal curvature has become central to unconventional theory, any time limit necessarily plays a central role as well. Let's examine the meaning of each factor:
h-bar Planck's constant over 2 pi; shows up pretty much everywhere in quantum mechanics;
has units in Joule-seconds
t-P Planck-time; the smallest increment of time we can count; has units in seconds
e the charge magnitude on an electron or proton; has units in Coulombs
moment usually refers to a higher power of something but this is a very loose usage
Z0 typically referred to as 'the impedance of free-space' or simply impedance of space;
core to unconventional theory; initially assigned as a quality of space; as the theory
progressed, was assigned to time; now called "temporal impedance"; units are Ohms
scaling factor initially thought to correspond to the shape of the charge surface for electron
and proton but now considered a factor relating impedance and elasticity;
numbers are unit-less in expressions/equations
mass-equivalent energy our original conception came from E=mc^2 but if we define c=1,
the speed of light in a vacuum is defined to equal 1, makes things
a bit more convenient in expressions; here, E=m; units are Joules
4-pi a solid angle; the meaning is a little confusing; in spherical coordinates, two orthogonal
arcs subtending a solid angle; or, think of pointing at the moon (for instance), move your
arm down, right, up, then left back to the moon in equal amounts - that's a solid angle;
'pure numbers' are dimensionless as stated above
C curvature; initially, curvature was associated with spacetime but now it's realized the simpler
theory describes 'temporal curvature' only; 4-pi and C go together because we experience
mass as 3D; unidimensional temporal curvature 'through a solid angle' is exactly what we
experience as mass; C is dimensionless (has no units)
Y0 the elasticity of space, as it was introduced, was invented/discovered to explain why
spacetime seems to stretch; you cannot stretch something inelastic; force is required to
stretch something; now assigned to time; called "temporal elasticity"; has units in Newtons
Note: with c=1, t-P=l-P numerically, and so the last expression might confuse some readers paying attention to units. Nm=J, Newton-meters = Joules, so unit-wise, the last expression should be Y0l-P, but above was written to clarify the centrality of time.
Please allow me to rewrite the fundamental unconventional expressions:
h-bar/2t-P "spin energy of proton/electron per Planck-time"
e^2Z0(5.4525)/t-P "charge moment of proton/electron"
"times temporal impedance"
"times a scaling factor"
E/4-piC "mass-equivalent energy"
"per temporal curvature through a solid-angle"
Y0t-P "temporal elasticity through Planck-time"
And one more time:
h-bar/2t-P "spin energy"
e^2Z0(5.4525)/t-P "charge energy"
Y0t-P "temporal elastic energy"
This is where we come to the "ahah!" point of the essay. All expressions above are equivalent. Please allow me to repeat the insight which should have scientific historical impact as E=mc^2 did: for the proton and electron, spin energy equals charge energy equals mass energy equals temporal elastic energy. Energy is energy is energy is energy. Spin, charge, mass, and temporal elasticity are simply different manifestations of it.
The core expression which allowed me to see the rest is the last.
Each is absolutely required for life.
Remove quantum spin from our universe, quantum systems would not work properly. Remove charge from our universe, there's no chemistry. Remove mass from our universe, there'd be no atoms. Remove elasticity from spacetime, there'd be no curvature and no mass.
Temporal elasticity allows energy stored in curvature which is mass.
Temporal impedance allows charge energy to manifest.
Time and three spatial dimensions allow spin.
Time and three spatial dimensions allow temporal curvature to manifest 3D.
The absolute minimal requirements for life are:
time and three orthogonal spatial dimensions,
two qualities of time with equivalent characteristics as described by: impedance and elasticity,
a fifth dimension which allows time to curve,
and some energy.
After brief contemplation, one galaxy's worth of mass/energy should be plenty for life to develop but there are probably good reasons for using more. If the black-hole at the center of our galaxy gobbles up too many stars, that could be dangerous for life on Earth. The fact there are billions of galaxies in our universe indicates to me: God was being very very cautious about life or .. Perhaps there are cosmological requirements for more matter/energy.
One final note about black-holes.. Convention pays way too much attention to them. Right now, physicists are contemplating the information content of them as it relates to information storable in 'regular spacetime'. If they relate, if there's any validity to the notion of a 'holographic universe', then such contemplation makes sense. But suppose the only relevant concept relating to black-holes is 'escape velocity'. Suppose the physics and structure of matter inside a black-hole are no different than, say, a neutron star .. Then all this hand-wringing relating to black-holes is exactly that. Pretend for a moment that black-holes are merely over-sized neutron stars with event-horizons: places where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. We can never see into one because light never escapes. We can never know 'what's on the other side' of an event horizon. It could be Alice in Wonderland for all we know .. All joking aside, there's no compelling reason we should assume the physics behind an event horizon are any different from those internal and nearby a neutron star. All this talk about holographic spacetime, entropy relating to black-holes, and the like are truly gobbledy gook.
The picture painted above does not require any such nonsense. Strictly speaking, we don't even need elastic/curvable space for life. Elastic and impeding time is minimally sufficient. Now life seems to require a very specific relationship between elasticity and impedance, but this is a far cry from: holographic spacetime, 11 dimensional spacetime, or any other (although imaginative) truly insane idea convention proposes..
What's more believable?
An infinity of randomly self-generated universes where we're just one of many (albeit small fraction) life-bearing ones..
Or a deliberately created/engineered one where life-bearing characteristics were explicitly chosen?
Perhaps i should rephrase the question.. Which universe would you rather live in?
As written before, i suppose it relates to your notion of free will .. If you can stomach a deterministic past-present-future causal universe, then the model described above should suit you nicely .. But if you cannot, if you have an insatiable need for autonomy and randomness, then you should choose the random/probabilistic universe..
Why don't we make it democratic? ;) Vote on it.. Those who cannot live in a deterministic/causal universe, raise your hand and move off to the infinity that supposedly populate the 'multi-verse'.. Since in your version of reality, there's an infinity of universes to choose from .. Why don't you guys just move there permanently? ^^
Then we deterministic/causal people can get on with Reality.
.. Oh wait! You guys are already in a universe of randomness and chaos .. called Delusion.
Let's get back to a deterministic perspective of cosmology .. There's a problem convention has encountered called 'the solar neutrino deficit' problem. They've been able to calculate the average number of nuclear reactions going on inside the Sun. These produce neutrinos as part of those nuclear reactions. They're almost undetectable .. almost. The chances for an interaction are calculable. Distant supernova are actually observable in neutrino detectors. So the technology works - just we have not observed the expected solar flux from solar nuclear reactions .. So convention has proposed, in order to account for solar neutrino flux deficit, that neutrinos can change character. This fits their random/probabilistic model but.. Does it fit reality?
Let's suppose a much simpler explanation relates to a heat-sink in thermodynamic systems. Most stable thermodynamic (and other types) systems require a heat-sink (or analogy) to stabilize the system. It's a kind of energy reservoir that allows the system to take from / give back energy which buffers extreme system behavior. Our polar caps on Earth are good examples. A solar analogy would be fulfilled by an iron/neutronium core. If the Sun had an iron/neutronium core, i'm sure actual solar neutrino flux would not be what's expected conventionally. The iron/neutronium core would have a tendency to absorb neutrinos/heat and act as a heat-sink thermodynamically. It should act as a stabilizing factor for our Sun and life on Earth.
My point just above is more than just another solar model .. If we consider rational / reasonable / deterministic causes before we jump to random / probabilistic / virtual explanations, we might have a tendency to create models a 'little bit' more realistic in nature. ;)
One of my favorite expressions from my eldest brother, domineering overlord although he is, was "Get real!" Let's get real. Can we please for once try to consider reality?
.. Our Sun is likely a 2nd or 3rd generation star: some of the material in our Sun likely came from the death of previous generation stars. For instance, the material in Earth is nova/supernova material. Iron is a product of the death of stars, only. So our Sun must at least be 2nd generation. Considering the accepted age of our universe, 2nd or 3rd. So just considering accepted nucleo-synthesis and cosmological age, our solar system is not primordial. That means our Sun is not primordial (made from elements found at the beginning of our universe). That means the core of our Sun may contain large amounts of iron or even neutronium.
But because convention has swallowed, hook line and sinker, probability and virtual exchange, they instantly try to invent a probability-friendly explanation of solar neutrino flux deficit. They cannot even seem to imagine/consider more reasonable/realistic/deterministic causes.
This is where i'm forced to 'get off the boat' of delusion / randomness / probability / virtual exchange .. There was an 'exceedingly old' ;) song back when i was a wee tike that was nauseatingly repetitive but initially charming: "Don't rock the boat baby.." .. "Don't tip the boat over.." .. But i'm forced to rock the boat, tip the boat over, smash the boat to smithereens..
They played that song over 40 times in one day when it was popular .. Sales. ^^ God, how did we endure it? We turned the radio off. We went outside and played.
How can we fight the insanity/delusion of convention?
Turn it off. Stop the funding. Close the books. Stop paying attention. Stop caring about their 'discoveries'.. What they 'discover' seems more like delusion anyways..
Please forgive that this initially neutral sounding article has turned into somewhat of a tirade .. But the more rationality/reasonableness is ignored, dismissed, and twisted/perverted into something like a mockery/caricature of science, the more of these essays will.. no, must be written.