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 s pin is somet hing 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/ which is 2 the actual value. More precis ely, h-bar is P lanck's constant over 2-pi. P e forgive this 'almost leas 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 P lanck-t ime" e^2Z0(5.4525)/t-P "charge moment times Z -naught times a scaling factor over P lanck-t ime" E/4-piC "mass -equivalent energy over 4 pi curvat ure" Y0t -P "Y-naught times Planck-time" Again, please forgive this 'meaningless gobbledly gook'; unless i pres ent the expressions 'as is', we have no place to begin.. So please allow me to give a little background before we continue.. Conventionally, w e assume w e cannot measure anything short er than P lanck-time. So it's considered a kind of 'resolution limit' for time. But becaus e t emporal curvat ure 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; show s 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 t o as 't he impedance of free-space' or simply impedance of space; core to unconventional t heory; initially ass igned as a qualit y of space; as t he 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 elas ticity; numbers are unit-less in express ions/equations mass-equivalent energy our original conception came from E=mc^2 b ut if we define c=1, the speed of light in a vacuum is defined t o equal 1 , makes things a bit more convenient in express ions; here, E=m; units are Joules 4-pi a solid angle; the meaning is a little confusing; in spherical coordinates, t w o orthogonal

arcs subt ending a solid angle; or, think of pointing at the moon (for inst ance), move your arm dow n, 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 ass ociated wit h spacet ime but now it's realized t he simpler theory describes 'temporal curvat ure' only; 4-pi and C go together because we experience mass as 3D; unidimensional temporal curvature 't hrough a s olid angle' is exactly what we experience as mass; C is dimens ionless (has no units ) Y0 the elasticity of space, as it was introduced, was invent ed/discovered to explain why spacetime s eems t o st retch; you cannot st retch something inelastic; force is required to stretch s omething; now as signed to t ime; called "t emporal elasticit y"; 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 unitwise, the last expression should be Y0l-P, but above was written t o 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 prot on/electron" "t imes temporal impedance" "t imes a scaling factor" "per Planck-time" E/4-piC "mass -equivalent energy" "per temporal curvature through a solid-angle " Y0t -P "temporal elasticity t hrough Planck-time" And one more time: h-bar/2t-P "spin energy" e^2Z0(5.4525)/t-P "charge energy " E/4-piC "mass -energy" Y0t -P "temporal elas tic 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 elect ron, spin energy equals charge energy equals mass energy equals temporal elastic energy. Energy is energy is energy is energy. Spin, charge, mass, and t emporal 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 s pacetime, there'd be no curvature and no mass. Temporal elasticity allows energy st ored in curvature w hich is mass . Temporal impedance allows charge energy t o manifest . Time and three spatial dimensions allow s pin. Time and three spatial dimensions allow temporal curvature t o manifest 3D.

The abs olute 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 w orth of mass/energy should be plent y for life t o 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: G od 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. R now, ight 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 suppos e the only relevant concept relat ing 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 .. T hen 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. S trictly speaking, we don't even need elastic/curvable s pace for life. Elas tic and impeding time is minimally sufficient. N ow life seems to require a very specific relationship between elas ticity and impedance, but t his is a far cry from: holographic s pacetime, 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 s uppose it relates t o your notion of free w ill .. 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 randomnes s, 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 t o the infinity t hat supposedly populate t he '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. D is tant supernova are actually observable in neutrino detectors . So t he 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. T his fits t heir random/probabilistic model but.. Does it fit reality? Let's suppose a much simpler explanation relates to a heat-sink in thermodynamic systems. M t os stable thermodynamic (and other types)s yst ems require a heat-sink (or analogy) t o stabilize t he 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. M y point just above is more than just another solar model . If we consider rational / reasonable / deterministic causes before we jump to random / probabilis tic / 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, d omineering overlord alt hough he is, w as "Get real!" Let's get real. Can we please for once try to consider reality? .. Our Sun is likely a 2nd or 3rd generation s tar: some of the material in our Sun likely came from the death of previous generation stars. For instance, the material in Earth is nova/s upernova material. Iron is a product of the death of stars, o nly. So our Sun must at least be 2nd generation. Considering the accepted age of our universe, 2nd or 3rd. So jus t cons idering accepted nucleosynthesis and cosmological age, our solar s ystem is not primordial. That means our Sun is not primordial (made from element s found at the beginning of our universe). T hat means the core of our Sun may contain large amounts of iron or even neutronium. But because convention has swallowed, hook line and s inker, probabilit y and virtual exchange, they instantly t ry to invent a probability-friendly explanat ion of solar neutrino flux deficit. T hey 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, smas h the boat to smit hereens..

They played that song over 4 times in one day when it w as popular . Sales. ^ ^ God, how did we 0 endure it? We turned the radio off. We went outs ide and played. How can we fight the insanity/delusion of convention? Turn it off. Stop the funding. Close the books. Stop paying attention. St op caring about their 'discoveries'.. What t hey 'dis cover' seems more like delusio n anyways.. Please forgive that this initially neutral sounding article has turned into somewhat of a tirade .. But the more rationality/reasonableness is ignored, dismiss ed, and twist ed/perverted into something like a mockery/caricature of science, the more of these essays will.. no, m ust be written.