Saturday, December 26, 2015


Unifying Particle Physics and TDVP (Part 9)

Quantum physics, especially the resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox 59; 63, tells us that reality at the quantum level is like an all-encompassing interwoven multi-dimensional tapestry. However, because of the extreme smallness of the quantized structure—far smaller than we are able to see directly, even with the best technological extensions of our physical senses—we are directly aware only of the broad-brush features that seem to exist as separate objects.
We have tried repeatedly, over the history of modern science, to identify the most basic building blocks of physical reality, starting with large structures like cells, molecules and atoms, proceeding to smaller and smaller objects, only to have them slip through the finer and finer-scale net of our search. Relativity and quantum physics tell us, however, that there is an end to this, a limit to this infinite descent of spinning particles, a bottom to our search: the smallest possible particle, the minimum quantum equivalence unit.

Applying TDVP

TDVP suggests that the forms of physical reality are reflections of the intrinsic logical patterns existing behind the reality perceived through our physical senses in 3S-1t. The form of this logical structure, much like the conceptualized blueprint of a building in the mind of an architect, is conveyed to the 3S-1T domain of the physical universe through the dimensionometric structure of a spinning nine-dimensional finite universe, in the form of the “conveyance equations”. The force causing spinning motions in the finite distinctions of physical reality is the continuous force of universal expansion. The fact that expansion is uniform and continuing, perhaps even accelerating, indicates that there is nothing outside the universe to impede or alter uniform expansion 84-86. It has been demonstrated in numerous experiments since Einstein proposed the speed of light as the limit to acceleration, that, in the observable 3S-1t physical universe, the maximum expansion velocity between two farthermost separated points in a quantized 3S-1T reality is light speed, a speed determined by the mass/energy ratio in the observable universe: c = √(E/m).
The mathematical expression of the conveyance of logical structure can be derived by application of the CoDD 10 and Dimensional Extrapolation (DE) 13. These mathematical logical techniques (CoDD, DE) would be applied to the elementary distinctions of extent and content revealed by the empirical data obtained in particle colliders, under the integer requirement of quantization. Particle collider data provides us with an indirect glimpse of the origin of the elementary structures that makes up the limited portion of reality observable in 3S-1t. Using particle collider data and the mathematical principles of quantum physics and relativity, we now derive the equations describing the combination of elementary particles to form stable sub-atomic structures. Because we exist in a quantized reality, these equations will be Diophantine equations, i.e. equations with integer solutions. We call the general mathematical expression summarizing these equations the Conveyance Expression because it contains within it the mathematical relationships that convey and limit the logical structure of the substrate of reality through the sequentially embedded nine-dimensional domains of finite distinction to the 3S-1t domain of physical observation and measurement.
Within the framework of the current Standard Model of particle physics, the basic concepts of quantum physics and relativity are applied to the particle collider data to yield numerical values of the physical characteristics of the sub-atomic particles perceived to be the building blocks of the observable universe, including photons, electrons, neutrons and protons, in units of MeV/c2. Analysis of these data in the framework of the mathematics and geometry of TDVP in 3S-1t provides us with a way to find the true quantum unit of measurement. The empirically measured and statistically determined inertial masses of the three most basic elementary entities believed to make up what we perceive in 3S-1t as matter, i.e. electrons, up-quarks and down-quarks, are approximately 0.51, 2.4 and 4.8 MeV/c2, respectively. The values for up and down quarks are derived statistically from millions of terabytes of data obtained from high-energy particle collisions engineered in specially built colliders.
It is obvious from these data that the conventional unit: MeV/c2 is not the basic quantum unit, because the data expressed in these units contain fractions of MeV/c2 units. Max Planck discovered that energy and matter occur only in integer multiples of a specific finite unit of quantum action, not fractions of units. Therefore, the masses of the electron, up-quark and down-quark should be integer multiples of the basic quantum unit of mass/energy equivalence. Since the masses are fractional in MeV/c2 units, one MeV/c2 must be a multiple of a yet smaller truly quantum unit.
Except for the electron, the data for the mass/energy of the elementary particles, up and down quarks, in Table 1 below, are presented as ranges of values because the mass/energy values of elementary particles are statistically determined as statistical moments from particle collider detector and collector data. The quantum mass/energy values are derived from raw data using statistical methods, so the ranges thus represent the quantum values with approximate confidence limits. Quantum particles detected in high-energy colliders are classified either as bosons, with Bose–Einstein statistical distribution [1], or fermions, obeying the Pauli Exclusion Principle [2], with Fermi–Dirac statistical distribution [3] in collider data. Both of these quantum distributions approach the Maxwell–Boltzmann statistical distribution [4] in the limit of high temperature and low particle density.
In this discussion, we are primarily concerned with the basic building blocks of the physical universe, the up- and down-quarks, which are fermions, and photons, which are bosons.
There is always some measurement error in experimental data, and even with the advances in technological precision from the first “atom smasher”, the Cockcroft-Walton particle accelerator in 1932, to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) today, some measurement error is still unavoidable due to the extreme smallness of the phenomena and the indirect and delicate methods of measurement required in the interpretation of the data. The electron mass is considered to be one of the most fundamental constants of physics, and because of its importance in physical chemistry and electronics, great effort has been spent to determine its inertial mass very accurately at 0. 511 MeV/c2.
Our model here is based on physics data relative to 3S-1t. This is important because 9-dimensional spin data should generate different theoretical models. For example, Einstein’s search for a cosmological constant 87, led to his later expressing dismay about what he regarded as the biggest error of his career. 88-91 Yet, despite the expanding universe 85; 86, this might, indeed, not have been an error, but correct if conceptualized dynamically, relative to the appropriate dimensional frameworks. His cosmological constant needed to be expressed in the appropriate context relative to those four space-time dimensions. Similarly, the existence of 9-D spin might imply that fundamental equations such as E=Mc2 would be relative to 3S-1t, but if there were, for example, multidimensional Time, a speculation with strong supporting evidence8, could be that the speed of light c would have to be expressed relatively, and this might lead to questions about relative superluminal velocity 92. Applying a further concept, the presence of gimmel, may allow an extension of this correct relative 3S-1t equation to include the third substance within the fundamental theory of everything. 93 94 We speculate that Einstein’s speed of light, c, though invariant in 3S-1t, might involve a different constant in each dimensional domain beyond the three of space in the present moment in time. This is because c involves a reciprocal relative to time squared. We are dealing with 9 proved finite spinning dimensions: We do not know the exact allocation of these dimensions, but have postulated there may be multidimensional time and consciousness.
1.    If there were more than one dimension of time, the speed of light would be relative to those time dimensions. This would mean that the speed of light might be much more complex and relative to the different dimensions of time.
2.    Moreover, ultimately given there is a third substance, gimmel, and a new theory of everything needs to include gimmel as well. This is where consciousness is put into the equations of physics. This might complicate any fundamental formula of putting equations into physics.
3.    Importantly, space-time related constants, like the speed of light, as well as the extent and content of consciousness, might involve different relative concepts depending on the frameworks of the specific dimensions (“dimensional domains”) involved.

Empirical exploration of the third substance, gimmel in Particle Physics (Part 10)

The integer values in Table One are obtained by assuming that the electron has the least mass of any elementary particle, and is the smallest sub-atomic particle. The photon, which behaves like a boson, is not listed here because it only exists within sub-atomic structure in a transitory manner, and we are primarily interested here in the stable building blocks of atomic structure. Normalizing the electron’s mass to unity and determining the average masses of the up- and down-quarks as multiples of that unit, we have the normalized masses of the electron, up- and down-quarks.
Using the latest available collider data, the mass/energy averages for the up- and down- quarks are 2. 01 MeV/c2 and 4. 79 MeV/c2 respectively. Dividing by 0. 511 and rounding the nearest integer value, we have the normalized mass/energy equivalence for the electron, up- and down- quarks, as 1, 4 and 9 respectively. Using these normalized values, we can investigate how the finite distinctions they represent can combine to form protons, neutrons and the progressively more complex physical structures that make up the Elements of the Periodic Table.
The fact that the detected mass of the proton is nearly 100 times more than the combined mass of two up-quarks and one down-quark is explained, in part, in the Standard Model by the assumed presence of other subatomic particles such as gluons and/or bosons in the space around the quarks, although they are not detectable until “teased” into existence by high-energy collisions.
TABLE 10 A: Fermions
The Most Common Subatomic Particles comprising the physical universe
(Raw Data
In MeV/c2)
(Normalized Average) [5]
0. 511
Up quark
1. 87 – 2. 15
Down Quark
4. 63 – 4. 95
740 -1140**
Note that 2 x 2/3= 4/3 for two up quarks -1/3 for down quarks = +1 = proton charge. Similarly, 2/3 for one up quark – 2/3 for two down quarks = 0 = neutron charge.
This quantal level data might also be reflecting the underlying logical structure of reality and speculate that it might be paralleled by the so-called “dark matter” and “dark energy” detected on the macro scale of galaxies that make up about 95% of the observable universe, because preliminary calculations indicate a connection between this unknown dark matter and energy and the stability of the atomic structure of the universe. 12 The TDVP model recognizes that reality is a unit and there is no difference in laws between the microcosm and even cosmological findings.
The smallest finite unit of volume is the smallest possible distinction of extent that can be occupied by an accelerated spinning vortical object. This distinction of extent has a finite value because of the limit placed on the rotational velocity of any object possessing inertial mass by the light-speed limit of relativity.
As our basic unit volume, we will assign it the numerical value of 1. We can also define the minimal quantal unit of measurement for mass and energy by setting its value at the limiting volume equal to 1 (unity), thus avoiding fractional results in measurements of quark mass, energy and volume. We need to do this because the value of mass-energy equivalence in the currently used MeV/c2 units is based on SI units chosen for convenience: SI units are arbitrarily based on easily measurable distances and quantities. What we are establishing is a truly quantum unit. Our quantum unit is somewhat similar to the ‘natural’ units sometimes used in quantum physics and cosmology, that are based on setting the speed of light, c, equal to 1, and ћ (called h-bar) the reduced Planck’s constant equal to 1. These ‘natural’ units were developed for ease in working with extremely large and extremely small numbers in the same equations, not to define the smallest possible quantum unit as we are doing.
Does this mean that there are actually particles below the spatial size or subatomic level of quarks? Not necessarily. It only means that the mass/energy and volumes of quarks are multiples of the unitary mass/energy and volume of the smallest finite distinction. Additionally, these results do not necessarily reflect spatial finite location; they could speculatively even reflect a continuity that is found in the infinite, not a discreteness in location. We could refer to this as part of the “sub-quantum” but the location in space and time might be different relative to different dimensional domains. Therefore, we’re just using “sub-atomic” descriptively not for the definite level of the location. In order to understand how this works, we take a closer look at what happens when two or more subatomic particles combine.
In the 3S-1T domain of the physical universe, while we may conceptualize space, time, matter, and energy as separate aspects of reality, we never find one of them existing alone without the others. As Einstein stated, space has no meaning without matter, matter and energy are just two forms of the same thing, and time is meaningful only in relation to the dynamic interaction of spatially extended matter and energy. 54; 57; 58 Clearly, if the goal is to gain an understanding of the true nature of reality, the usefulness of any observation or measurement is maximized and will be most meaningful if it includes all of the known parameters of reality. The minimal quantized distinction described above, from which we define new quantum units of observation and measurement, should therefore include not just space and mass, but space, time, mass, and energy. In the extended mathematical framework of TDVP, we have determined mathematically that it should include nine finite dimensions of extent and three forms of content 9. The dimensionometric mathematics of TDVP indicates that reality consists of three kinds of dimensions (extent) and three kinds of substance (content). The three kinds of dimensions are space-like, time-like and (we suggest) consciousness-like, while the three kinds of substance are matter, energy and another form of the stuff of reality, heretofore unrecognized by science, an essential conscious organizing aspect of reality, a primary form of consciousness.
For the present discussion and derivation of true quantum units, it is not necessary to identify the third kind of dimensional extent as consciousness-like, or the third form of content as consciousness itself. However, the likelihood that this is true is proposed here as a feasible hypothesis. TDVP was developed based on the hypothesis that consciousness is an integral part of reality and should be included in the equations of physics. Also, we consider TDVP to be a paradigm shift, primarily because of the inclusion of consciousness, and if the third form is neither mass nor energy, a quantized form of the conscious substrate is the logical candidate. But many scientists regard this as very controversial, so it is for this reason that we emphasize the fact that what follows does not depend upon the hypothesis that consciousness is the third form of the stuff of reality, but primarily upon the logic of mathematical, geometrical and physical considerations.

[1] Bose–Einstein quantum statistics describes the distribution of a large number of identical particles with integer spin that do not obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle (bosons), over a set of discrete energy states, at thermodynamic equilibrium.
[2] The Pauli Exclusion Principle states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.
[3] FermiDirac quantum statistics describes the distribution of a large number of identical particles that obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle (fermions), over a range of energy states in a finite, closed system.
[4] Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics is the application of classical probability theory and statistical methods to describe the average distribution of non-interacting particles in thermal equilibrium, in a range of energy states, and is applicable when the temperature is high enough or the particle density is low enough to render quantum effects negligible.

[5] “Normalized” in this case means changing the average mass to the nearest integer value. This is justified on the grounds that the actual values must be integer multiples of the basic unit of quantized mass. 

No comments:

Post a Comment