Unifying Particle Physics and TDVP (Part 9)
Quantum physics, especially the resolution of the EinsteinPodolskyRosen (EPR) paradox ^{59}^{; }^{63}, tells us that reality at the
quantum level is like an allencompassing interwoven multidimensional
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 broadbrush 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 finerscale 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 3S1t. The form of this logical structure, much like the
conceptualized blueprint of a building in the mind of an architect, is conveyed
to the 3S1T domain of the physical universe through the dimensionometric
structure of a spinning ninedimensional 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 ^{8486}. It has been
demonstrated in numerous experiments since Einstein proposed the speed of light
as the limit to acceleration, that, in the observable 3S1t physical universe,
the maximum expansion velocity between two farthermost separated points in a
quantized 3S1T 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 3S1t. 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 subatomic 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 ninedimensional domains of finite
distinction to the 3S1t 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 subatomic particles perceived to be the building blocks
of the observable universe, including photons, electrons, neutrons and protons,
in units of MeV/c^{2}. Analysis of these data in the framework of the
mathematics and geometry of TDVP in 3S1t 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 3S1t as matter, i.e. electrons, upquarks and
downquarks, are approximately 0.51, 2.4 and 4.8 MeV/c^{2},
respectively. The values for up and down quarks are derived statistically from
millions of terabytes of data obtained from highenergy particle collisions
engineered in specially built colliders.
It is obvious from these data that the conventional unit: MeV/c^{2}
is not the basic quantum unit, because the data expressed in these units
contain fractions of MeV/c^{2} 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, upquark
and downquark should be integer multiples of the basic quantum unit of
mass/energy equivalence. Since the masses are fractional in MeV/c^{2}
units, one MeV/c^{2} 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 highenergy
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 downquarks, 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 CockcroftWalton 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 3S1t.
This is important because 9dimensional 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. ^{8891}
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 spacetime dimensions. Similarly, the existence of 9D spin might imply
that fundamental equations such as E=Mc^{2} would be relative to 3S1t,
but if there were, for example, multidimensional Time, a speculation with
strong supporting evidence^{8}, 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 3S1t 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 3S1t, 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,
spacetime 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
subatomic particle. The photon, which behaves like a boson, is not listed here
because it only exists within subatomic 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 downquarks as multiples of that unit, we have the
normalized masses of the electron, up and downquarks.
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 upquarks and one downquark 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 highenergy
collisions.
TABLE 10 A: Fermions
The Most Common Subatomic Particles comprising the physical
universe
Particle

Symbol

Spin

Charge

Mass
(Raw
Data
In
MeV/c^{2})

Mass/Volume
(Normalized
Average) [5]

Electron

e

1/2

1

0. 511

1

Up quark

u

3/2

+^{2}⁄_{3
}

1. 87 – 2. 15

4

Down Quark

d

3/2

−^{1}⁄_{3}

4. 63 – 4. 95

9

Proton

P^{+}

1/2

+1

740 1140^{**}

1035^{**}

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 socalled “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
lightspeed 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 massenergy equivalence in the
currently used MeV/c^{2} 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 Ñ› (called hbar) 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 “subquantum” but the location
in space and time might be different relative to different dimensional domains.
Therefore, we’re just using “subatomic” 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 3S1T 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 spacelike, timelike and (we suggest) consciousnesslike, 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
consciousnesslike, 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
halfinteger spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.
[3] Fermi–Dirac
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 noninteracting 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