Definitions
Here are the definitions of terms and expressions that may be used here and other papers and articles in CR context.
Note that these may be different than standard or common definitions in use. Some contain important details and additional hypotheses. Therefore, I would not recommend skipping them, even if the reader
aims to consult them as needed.
nth order observer
In the context of quantization (measurement) of physical phenomena, observer is an entity performing the measurement.
The order of the observer is a relative sum of the number of interactions in the act of measurement which affect its result.
In example, 1st order observer may be the information carrier (radiation) particle, 2nd order observer is then the radiation detector, etc.
Every observation is measurement, albeit not always a conscious one. Measurement affects all interacting entities.
nth order interaction = nth order action and reaction
Consider the forces in Newton's law of gravitation:
$\displaystyle F = {d \over dt} p = {d \over dt} (m v) = m a = G {{M m} \over r^2}$
$\displaystyle F_1 = m_1 a_2 = m_1 {{m_2 G} \over r^2} = m_2 a_1 = m_2 {{m_1 G} \over r^2} = F_2$
Here, forces acting on bodies
m1 and
m2 are equal and have opposite direction, as expected for forces of action and reaction. Note that these are actions and
reactions between bodies of standard matter at distance.
In General Relativity there is no action and reaction between the two bodies directly, but effectively between continuous space (more precisely, geometry shaped by the energy of bodies) and a
particular body (or energy, in general). And it is not an action and reaction at distance (distance between space and the body is assumed to be equal to absolute 0, only changes propagate at finite
speed so the distance in time between changes in potential is not 0).
Note that in both cases action/reaction is instantaneous, so even in Newton's gravity distance between the sources is effectively 0 for whatever is mediating the force, only the 1st order
sources of interaction differ.
In Complete Relativity there are no absolute zero and infinite distances, thus every action is action at a distance which may only relatively be equal (set) to 0. This does not imply that
distance is absolutely abstract - it is not.
If gravitational entanglement is understood as physical entanglement at some scale and it is never absolutely zero between two bodies one can understand why are the forces acting apparently
instantaneously - particles mediating the force are constantly streaming between two bodies (forming subspace in space, which may be interpreted as another dimension, e.g., time). So even though they
are travelling at finite speed (which in GR would have to be the speed of light if these particles are massless) the action appears instantaneous. Changes in gravity at
sources, however, obviously propagate at the speed of carrier particles of that change.
These particles are not absolutely massless, so they too are sources of force and are mutually entangled. At appropriate density they form a medium enabling wavelike transfer of
information (energy). The wave can be considered massless relative to the medium (energy is stored in temporarily excited quanta of the medium), however, quanta of excitement are not
massless and are also mutually entangled.
Since wavelike behaviour of energy is synchronized excitation of quanta of smaller scale energy, a wave of energy can be considered as superposition in time (distance between entangled quanta in
time is relative 0). Then, if momentum is disturbed, this superposition in time can, partially or fully (in case of strong entanglement), collapse to superposition in space as well (distance between
entangled quanta in space also becomes equal to relative 0).
In GR however, space is not quantized - no constituent quanta (gravity carrying particles) of spacetime are defined (geometry is not interpreted as physical).
The two bodies have an effect on space (and vice versa) but they also affect, albeit indirectly in GR, each other.
In CR, with applied scale invariance, it is obvious that even the interaction between quanta of space and quanta of bodies must also be an action at a distance, albeit this
distance is orders of magnitude shorter than distance between the bodies (without applied scale invariance on distance) and may be considered infinitesimal.
The sources of force of action and reaction are thus relative to scale - measuring on larger scale it may be more appropriate to attribute the sources to bodies, while on lower scale the quanta
of space may be interpreted as such.
From a 3rd perspective one might consider the action between a force carrier particle in space (even if it is a bound
static particle with potential energy) and a body
as a 1st order interaction, and the interaction between two bodies as a 2nd order interaction.
One may also consider the 1st order interaction as relatively instantaneous, 2nd order occurring at some speed
c, 3rd order at even some lower speed, etc.
In any case, distance is quantized and there is no absolutely instantaneous and equal reaction to action (it requires quantum of distance equal to 0, or, equivalently, infinite speed of carrier
particles).
Causality is a relative illusion, created by high synchronicity (correlation strength in space/time) of events.
The relativity of sources (force carriers) and distances has an important consequence on the law of action and reaction - it should be generalized:
$\displaystyle \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[\vec{F_1}(t) + \vec{F_2}(t)\Bigr] dt = 0 \tag{1.1}$
Instantaneous action and reaction is thus a special case of action and reaction impulses, where the period of energy oscillation T is compressed to an instant - a single elementary quantum of
time (dt = T), and the identity/strength of interacting forces is strongly localized (even absolutely in common interpretations, where the value of zero is interpreted as an absolute constant):
$\displaystyle \vec{F_1} + \vec{F_2} = 0$
Note the equivalence of distance in time and space of different scales - in the 1st order interaction (GR) distance in space is 0, while in the 2nd order interaction (Newton) distance in
time is 0.
Also note that, although not required, it is not forbidden for action and reaction to be relatively simultaneous, nor it is forbidden for reaction to precede action, allowing relativity of cause and
effect - something that is, with absolutely invariant c (speed of information transfer), forbidden in GR and Special Relativity (SR), but required in CR.
In CR thus, causality is not absolutely fundamental nor intrinsic - it could be understood as a result of force, relatively emerging (or evolving) between correlated (entangled) phenomena
decreasing distance in space and/or time. However, proper interpretation is that causality is simply localization of synchronization (synchronicity) of events in a polarized reference frame.
Violation of [absolute] causality will exist on all scales of energy, but amount will differ between the scales. However, the amount has to oscillate too and will correlate with changes in
the properties of space.
The equation (1.1) is equivalent to momentum pulse (energy) reflection:
$\displaystyle \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[\vec{F_1}(t) + \vec{F_2}(t)\Bigr] dt = \int\limits_{t=0}^T \Bigl[{d\vec{p_1} \over dt} + {d\vec{p_2} \over dt}\Bigr] dt = \vec{p_1} + \vec{p_2} = 0$
With
T >
dt > 0, action and reaction becomes a manifestation of energy oscillation.
However, entanglement can be relatively broken (reduced to relatively infinitesimal strength) and reaction may be delayed, may not affect the source of action or might not even occur (e.g., if the action
is locally interpreted as reaction).
All bodies having rest mass possess capacitance and reaction to the source will eventually come, even if from another body, if that capacity is not in equilibrium state.
However, the reaction may be fragmented and carried by diverse force carriers following multiple different paths.
Such nature of non-apparent oscillation stems from different scales of energy quanta enabling diversity and evolution of complex forms of energy, its conduction and transformation.
Although generalization of interactive correlation is useful for understanding, generally, it may not be pragmatic. In the descriptions of transformations and interactions, more useful terms will
be conservation of energy and conservation of momentum.
Superposition
Superposition is a relatively special state of a system which can be described as a combination (generally sum) of correlated (entangled) multiple base states.
Mathematically, superposition may be formulated as a sum of probabilities for particular states of particles.
In CR, speed of information transfer, and therefore, speed limits, depend on the scale of quanta of energy. This, together with CR interpretation of entanglement, allows for physical interpretation
of superposition to represent intermediate states of oscillation between discrete states.
Superposition thus represents a real state, although that state may be unstable and observer, due to inherent limitations, may not be able to observe (resolve) it. E.g., on the scale of standard
electrons, spin momenta is generally measured as discrete (e.g., up or down, not something
in between). This is usually because intermediate states are unstable in the context, and the
measurement itself may collapse the system into a discrete (stable) state. Base states of superposition are context-dependent. In one example, two base states may represent two anti-aligned spin
momenta. In another example, two base states may represent the nature of a particle (wave-like and corpuscular-like). If intermediate states cannot be observed, the values assigned to individual
base states may be understood as probabilities for that state to be observed after measurement is performed. However, between measurements, the particles will commonly oscillate between base states
and common physical interpretation will be the
averaged superposition - e.g., in case of its nature, the particle may effectively exhibit both the corpuscular/localized and wavelike/delocalized nature
simultaneously which may be interpreted as partial localization/delocalization. The interpretation in the form of
averaged superposition is commonly a consequence of inherently limited
observation/interaction.
However, instability is scale relative. An unstable state (such as the averaged superposition) on one scale may be interpreted as physically stable on another. This is generally a consequence of
effective time dilation and exchange of nature of potential between vertical scales of energy.
Universe (U)
In relativity lacking theories, Universe may be understood as simply the sum of absolutely everything that exists, had ever existed and will ever exist. Thus, that definition refers to an absolute
universe (Universe) - unobservable as a whole. In CR, nothing is absolute, thus, existence of multiple universes is implied. Any universe is a relative, relatively finite and relatively
observable, phenomenon, and may represent any distinct form of energy.
In physics, however, a different universe should either obey different physical
laws, conform to different metric and/or physical
constants. In the context of CR, thus, a
universe, by default, refers to a particular scale of energy. These scales are interpreted as discrete vertical energy levels and will correspond to rest energy magnitudes
of
elementary (or stable) particles on that level.
These universes are correlated and energy on one scale may represent past or future state, or a special state, of the correlated energy on another scale.
Note that, here, difference between vertical energy levels is generally such that physical constants differ significantly in value. The equations for determination of these levels are provided later.
For example, one vertical energy level represents the scale of standard atoms, the other represents the scale of planetary systems.
Note also that, even though these levels are considered discrete, the values of physical constants anywhere still should oscillate and may even differ horizontally (between systems of
similar scale), however, such differences are probably generally negligible (although they may be detectable).
However, rules exist in the association of energy with specific scale (vertical energy level). A localized group of energies of particular scale, no matter how large, should only be associated with
a larger scale [as well] if the group is spatio-temporally entangled with a distinct graviton of larger scale. This distinction is generally a distinction between a simple aggregate of entities and a
collective of entities representing something more than the sum of these entities. In other words, it is the emergent phenomena that represent a likely signal for the coupling of the collective
with a graviton of larger scale. The coupling may be periodic, occasional, stable or unstable, and, due to time dilation between scales or relativistic causality, the rate of emergence/decay of
emergent phenomena can only be relatively synchronized with the rate of coupling/decoupling. On one scale transition may appear continuous, on the other discrete.
Polarization and scale of a universe
Universe will typically refer to a scale. If it refers to a specific particle or a system of particles, polarization may also be specified. There are two equivalent notations:
$cU_{n.m} = cU(n.m)$
n = vertical energy level (scale) of the universe (0 = reference universe)
m = scale of the (horizontal) sub-universe
c = polarization
n ∈ ℤ
m ∈ ℤ
In CR, space is relative and generally associated with a particular graviton (which, in CR, represents an evolvable particle, generally a superposition of sources of gravitational and
electro-magnetic potential but it becomes more complex with emergence of phenomena between discrete vertical energy levels). I hypothesize that specific gravitons of one discrete scale (vertical
energy level) form the space of a graviton of a larger discrete scale.
The
n scales are then generally such that
U-1 scaled energy quanta (gravitons) form the space (medium) of
U1 gravitons, while
U-2 energy
forms the space (medium) of
U0, etc. In addition to space, gravitons may have associated bodies of mass of another scale, e.g.,
U1 gravitons generally couple to
bodies of mass (particles) of
U0 scale. However, this coupling is not intrinsic and gravitons not coupled to a body may be interpreted as naked gravitons.
If
m is specified, the
Un.m denotes the sub-universe of scale
m, larger than
n but smaller than
n+1.
If specified, charge
c denotes the polarization, usually electric (two possible states of polarization).
In this and my other works,
U0 scale will generally represent the scale of standard particles such as standard protons and electrons,
U1 then represents the
scale of stars and planets.
Standard particle
Standard particle (e.g., standard electron) refers to a particle as defined by the Standard Model in physics.
Elementary particle
CR implies relativity in elementariness. All particles, including those conventionally considered to be elementary, must have structure, even if that structure may be unresolvable for the
observer.
However, since unresolvable properties effectively do not exist for the observer, the concept of elementariness is certainly useful. Even in cases where the structure can be resolved but is inaccessible, for
pragmatic reasons it may be disregarded. Both, standard protons and electrons, for example, may be treated as elementary as the constituent particles are strongly confined.
Even on large scales, depending on context, relative equivalents of these may be considered elementary, even though their structure may be highly resolvable by the observer.
Existence
Distinct forms of existence are distinct forms of energy. Preservation of existence on particular scale requires energy. All discrete quanta of energy are
produced (inflated or deflated) with changes in
momenta.
Any form of energy contains spin momenta at some scale and, in CR, even as a whole must have orbital momenta from some reference frames. Angular momentum (commonly denoted by L) is intrinsic
to universes although not always observable. For
elementary particles (on any scale) the observable momentum will commonly be angular:
$L = m v r$
where
m,
v and
r are particle mass, velocity and orbital radius, respectively.
For a system of
n entities, the momentum of the system is the sum of individual momenta (which, generally, should be interpreted as a vector sum):
$L = \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n L_i$
General oscillation
With no absolute constants, everything must oscillate, even oscillation itself.
Change of a variable in dimension
xi may thus generally be described with the appliance of the following operator:
$\displaystyle {d \over dx_i} = a_1 f\bigl(\omega_1 \left(x_i + {\phi}_1\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + a_2 f\bigl(\omega_2 \left(x_i + {\phi}_2\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + a_3 f\bigl(\omega_3 \left(x_i + {\phi}_3\right)\bigr) \Bigl[1 + ...\Bigr] \Bigr] \Bigr]$
f = oscillating function
aj = amplitude of jth order oscillation
ωj = frequency of jth order oscillation
φj = phase shift of jth order oscillation
where, generally,
aj <
1 for
j > 1.
Multiple dimensions are generally entangled, so
f may be
f(
xi, ...,
xn). Of course, not all oscillation will be resolvable in space/time.
Frequency of existence
Existence is relative and it depends on the scale of a reference frame (one cannot have the ability to measure energy at any scale possible), but may also oscillate between energy levels.
Gravitons should commonly oscillate between energy levels. For a particular order of general oscillation and its period T
x, frequency of existence of a graviton is:
$\displaystyle f_x = {1 \over T_x} = {1 \over {\Delta T_1 + \Delta T_0}}$
where ΔT
1 is the average lifetime on a larger scale and ΔT
0 is the average lifetime on a smaller
scale. Generally, ΔT
0 may be << ΔT
1, and T
x may be approximated with ΔT
1.
In CR, gravitons of particular scale can and regularly do couple to gravitons of smaller scale (which are then forming the body of the system). There is then a distinction between living and dead forms of
energy. A living form of energy is any entangled collective of mass (energy) of particular scale coupled to a graviton of larger scale. Since it is also assumed that at the time of
decoupling (death) the large scale graviton inverts scale (and some other properties, e.g., spin), and this is usually followed by new coupling on the same or similar scale of the previous
incarnation, frequency of existence becomes frequency of reincarnation of energy, which may be, in some reference frames interpreted as reincarnation of
life.
Polarized humans tend to discriminate between living and non-living things based on convenience. I do not and I do not think nature generally does. I believe any collective of energies coupled to
a graviton of larger scale is not only alive but conscious to certain degree - large scale graviton here being the carrier of that consciousness or at least required for its emergence. It is only
the amount (or detection) of consciousness and its introversion/extroversion ratio that will depend on a reference frame.
And if energies are oscillating between vertical energy levels (in the process, weakly or strongly evolving/transforming) the question of what evolved from what becomes relative (it must be
relative in CR). It is then valid to say that atoms evolve from complex forms of life, just like vice versa is valid from conventional reference frames. Note that here, in case of progressive
evolution and complex life of our scale, atoms represent planetary systems - even if, obviously, these are only relative equivalents to standard atoms in special states or at specific
times. Here and in follow up papers, I hypothesize and provide evidence that planetary systems are vertically excited atoms.
All this, however, does not imply complex life forms on Earth will evolve into celestial bodies - among other things, this would require enormous amounts of energy and that energy here is simply
not available. Humans will thus reach a peak (some may have reached it already) and perhaps even start evolving regressively towards the atoms of smaller scale. Obviously, these peaks are different
for different species. Whales probably represent the maximum peak reachable on Earth.
Oscillations and fluctuations are relative and will not be apparent in all reference frames. Sometimes, energy will be observed as a pulse or a relatively non-changing (weakly evolving) phenomenon.
Oscillations can also be disturbed and fragmented.
It is, however, not hard to observe energy in the form of a human being as a pulse of energy growing from conception to a maximum then decaying until death and dissolving after it. Note, that no
form of energy grows from nothing or decays to nothing. Growth is synchronized with defragmentation or accumulation while decay is synchronized with fragmentation or dissipation of energy.
As gravitons oscillate in energy they will also oscillate inter-species. The coupling of gravitons with human bodies is explored in more details in follow-up works (including even
evidence for it). Universes are self-similar (which stems from complete relativity) and this is why the frequency of existence applies to what we perceive as particles from our perspective and to
what we perceive as human beings as well.
Relativistic uncertainty = conservation of relativity
Generally, particles are waves whose properties like position and velocity are more or less spread, or more or less localized. Some properties are entangled in such a way that localization of
one property results in the spreading of the other. Besides position and velocity, commonly mutually entangled properties are lifetime and energy, where a particle with higher energy has a lower
lifetime. As all observation is physical on some scale, no measurement can be performed without affecting the subject of measurement. This measurement will affect the spreading of the measured
property, producing the inverse effect on the entangled property. No localization can be absolute, therefore, measurements are inherently limited in resolution.
The entanglement of the spread of values is commonly formulated as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
$\sigma_x \sigma_y \ge {1 \over 2} \hbar$
Here,
ℏ is interpreted as an absolute constant, and as such, in fixed metric, it is limited to a specific scale of energies (resolution).
Relativistic uncertainty is a generalization of that uncertainty:
$\sigma_x \sigma_y \ge {1 \over 2} {\hbar}_n$
${\hbar}_n > 0$
where
ℏn is a
constant of uncertainty relative to scale
n. The sigma (σ) values represent the spreading of entangled properties
x and
y.
$\displaystyle {\lim_{n \to -\infty} {\sigma_x \sigma_y}} = 0$,
In conventional quantum theories [virtual] particles are popping in and out of existence all the time, which is
allowed by the time-energy uncertainty (entanglement). In CR, existence is
relative and this is simply oscillation of [the existence of] energy between different scales. This is generally a consequence of exchange between angular momentum components and coupling of
energy with momentum conservation.
In example, the uncertainty:
$\displaystyle \Delta E \Delta t \ge h $
can be interpreted as:
$\displaystyle \Delta(m v^2) \Delta t = \Delta (m v^2) \Delta({{2\pi r} \over v}) = \Delta(m v) \Delta s \ge h$
$\displaystyle \Delta p \Delta r \ge \hbar$
Exchange of the angular period or the period of oscillation
t (by the increase in
v and a proportional decrease in
r) for energy may result in a jump to a higher discrete vertical
energy level - appearance of energy on a larger scale (its spread beyond the inherent limit of resolution/stability on that scale). If the rest energy on that particular scale was previously
considered as a relative 0, this may be interpreted as a relative violation of energy conservation, allowed as long as the increase in energy (inflation/spreading of
E) is inversely
proportional to particle stability (
Δt) on that scale.
However, period of stability here is the period of angular momentum, and in reality, energy is obviously conserved - it has simply changed scale [of spreading]. In CR, any rest mass is only
relatively at rest and should be interpreted as energy in conserved/localized momenta. Note that oscillation between entangled properties is common in reality.
Note here the absurdity of the absolute invariance of physical laws. It requires for the uncertainty principle to be applicable only to a specific range of energies. It could not be applied to the
Sun for example (only to the elementary particles it is composed of), as, with such energy it basically cannot exist (Δt would be effectively 0). However, it is a fact that the
lifespan of stars decreases proportionally to the increase in energy. Isn't that a convincing hint that the emergent phenomena like stars should be treated as elementary particles are treated, albeit
with a properly scaled value of inherent uncertainty (h)?
Note also the absurdity in the common interpretation of virtual particles in QM - allegedly, they do not exist but can become real (physical). Are such non-intuitive (absolutely
magical) interpretations really necessary? In CR, virtual particles are relatively virtual (magical) - they exist on some scale, it's the scale that may be undetectable for the observer.
Note that the postulated exchange between gravitational and electro-magnetic force can be formulated as a relativistic uncertainty. In its simplest form, in the limiting case:
$\displaystyle m v r = {\hbar}_n$
Suppose this is the spin momentum of charge. With the increase of mass
m,
vr decreases proportionally, exchanging electro-magnetic dominance for gravitational.
Note also that the relativistic uncertainty is one formulation of conservation and exchange of [the amount of] relativity. Not only is the absolute precision or absolute localization
impossible, since everything is multidimensional, confinement of [relativity in] one dimension results in the spreading of [relativity in] the other.
This relationship is common for the dimensions of space (wavelength) and time inverse (frequency), e.g., in flat space-time:
$\displaystyle \Delta x {\Delta t}^{-1} \le c_n$
Which, for
cn =
c0 =
c reduces to the absolute reference frame of GR.
Zero
Absolute zero value of any variable represents non-existence of phenomena in physical reality. Zeroes associated with existing observables should then be interpreted as
relative zeroes.
In example, if a form of energy behaves as a wave on one scale, its energy may be equalized with frequency, in which case it may be assigned zero mass, however that zero should be understood as
relative to excited medium - at some scale there are particles with inertial momentum increased proportionally to that frequency. These entangled quantized excitements of the medium can get
concentrated at times of coupling/absorption, at which point the condensate could be interpreted as a particle and may be more appropriate to use non-zero mass. Thus, the mass itself could be
interpreted as an aggregate of frequencies (momenta) of smaller scale, but the wave or frequency could equally be interpreted as an aggregate of mass (inertial momenta) of smaller scale. Whether
it applies to mass or frequency, the value of zero is relative.
Infinity
Absolute infinity has no physical interpretation. While absolute infinities are useful in mathematics, in physical reality, these should be interpreted as relative
infinities.
Consider the relativistic Lorentz factor applied to mass:
$\displaystyle m = {m_0 \over \sqrt{1 - {v^2 \over c^2}}}$
By the equation, at speed
c, mass of the particle would have to be absolutely infinite, implying that absolutely infinite energy is required to accelerate the particle to
c.
However, in CR, the speed limit
c is relative to [structure of] space and, even in GR the speed limit is equal to
c only in case of flat space geometry. Adding energy to the particle will, at
some large but finite value, start to significantly affect the structure of space and particle could, with asymmetry in density, even exceed the speed
c.
Speed c is also considered to be the speed of massless particles in QM. However, standard massless particles will also slow significantly below c in strong gravitational
potential (although local observer would measure no slowdown as units of distance are decreased proportionally).
Also, constituent quanta of space are of particular scale and not all scales of energy are equally sensitive to these (pressure/density of space is relative), thus, speed
c can be exceeded
by energies of extremely small scale too (although such energies may be unobservable for a particular observer).
Although momenta in a universe will be inevitably limited, in CR, c cannot be an absolute constant. Even if c is interpreted as proportional to the ratio of units of distance in space
and time and these units scale with geometry (as in GR) conserving that ratio, the geometry itself must be relative.
Absolute infinity is an insurmountable problem for reality. This is why every observer (reference frame) must be limited. For any observer thus there exist limits to
existence (observable energy) - maximum and minimum size of observable phenomena. As the limits are relative, they are also variable, but cannot ever become absolutely infinite (which is even
mathematically obvious - for any number there is a bigger number).
Graviton = quantum of energy = soul
Graviton is a real or effective source of a general force field - a more or less polarized quantum of space at some scale.
Real gravitons are sources of general force, while effective gravitons are induced by real gravitons and are carriers of the force through the general field.
Generally, real graviton may be considered as an elementary particle, while effective gravitons form its space. Effective gravitons are, however, themselves composed of real gravitons of smaller
mass, and the parent real graviton itself may form [a part of an] effective graviton in other reference frames.
The force (curvature in some interpretations) is greatest at the real graviton radius and generally decreases exponentially with distance of effective gravitons from the real one, however the
gradient of potential will depend on the shape (dimensionality, or complexity) and energy of effective gravitons so it can progress linearly as well. Effective gravitons can be of different species
or flavour so their ranges will differ. This can result in relatively sudden transformation from exponential to linear progression.
The associated well of gravitational potential of a graviton may be considered its
private space, however, that
privacy falls off with distance.
Elementary graviton has an intrinsic spin momentum, which can be quantized from some reference frames. This spin momentum is also relatively quantized with
constituent smaller scale spin
momenta, forming smaller scale sources of force (these are generally centres of quantum vortices, where most energy is concentrated inside graviton space). Thus, large scale spin momentum (of the
graviton) is strongly correlated with small scale momenta.
Graviton is generally a composite of at least 3 components - 1 neutral and 2 charged momenta. Charge carrier particles are generally asymmetric in energy and may have significantly different momenta in polarized states.
Physics of a fundamental theory on reality cannot be limited to particles of specific scale or a reference frame. From certain reference frames, even living beings are particles, and vice versa.
Distinction between living and non-living forms of energy is very relative and physics will necessarily merge with biology in a successful attempt to understand the universes (because nature is
certainly not an absolute reductionist, no matter how hard one tries to convince itself otherwise).
In other papers I hypothesize that real graviton is, considering its nature, also a quantum of consciousness and I find it appropriate to use the term "soul" as its synonym. As complex
bodies evolve from simple particles (although what evolves from what is in CR, with relative causality, relative), the souls evolve as well. Thus, what is described here may be
interpreted as a simple or elementary graviton, its complex form may be interpreted as a relative superposition and localization of smaller scale gravitons just like the complex bodies
may be interpreted as relative superposition and localization of smaller scale components. Forces or interactions evolve as well, from elementary ones to complex ones. Thus, what is
interpreted as simple gravitational or electro-magnetic force between two gravitons on elementary scale, may be more complex between complex gravitons. The standard nuclear strong force
is an example of such more complex force. In case of life-forms on the scale of animals on Earth, complex forces/interactions are mental forces/interactions between the souls whose components may
have billions of degrees of polarization (in these, associated spectrum of energy levels may be interpreted as continuous rather than discrete). Naturally, these mental interactions/forces are
stronger between strongly entangled souls, which can be interpreted as shorter distance in some dimension of space (including time), just like gravity is stronger for spatially closer bodies.
In general, gravitons act as attractors for specific entanglements in time/space, guiding interacting entities towards a specific future state.
Chapter Graviton: Physical interpretation revised. Chapter Gravitational well updated.
Physical interpretation
Assuming the scale of a graviton is
Un, constituent quanta of space forming the associated gravitational well will be of scale
Un-2. With an locally empty
gravitational well, graviton is considered to be naked (as such, it may be interpreted as a
dark matter particle of certain scale). However, attracted particles of scale
Un-1 will
be coupling with quanta forming graviton's space (
Un-2 scale gravitons) and such couplings will be considered as coupled mass or real mass forming the body of
the
Un graviton. Mass of the naked graviton may be referred to as imaginary (img) mass. Total mass of the body-soul coupling is then the sum of img and real mass. In some
interpretations, however, real mass may be shielding the img mass, in which case total mass will effectively be equal to real mass.
Note that these couplings will generally result in change of momenta for Un-2 particles - exchange of orbital momenta for spin momenta (which may generally be interpreted as
mass inflation).
Elementary graviton can be excited and exist on different vertical energy levels (scales), however, on some scales the neutral (gravitational) component may dominate, on others its nature may be dominantly
electro-magnetic. While real gravitons induce gradients in vacuum density (or space curvature), space inside of a real graviton from an internal reference frame may be globally flat with extremely
low density and temperature of [whatever is interpreted as] matter. However, high curvature should be present at the membrane, which then represents a source of extroverted gravity of a graviton.
While temperature and density are both low globally within the graviton, high temperatures and densities are possible and do exist on smaller scales. The particles may be in condensed states and
grouped into quantum vortices (galaxies) of certain scale.
The ground shape of a simple localized graviton is generally a torus. Relativistic momenta may distort the shape of a graviton, however, shape and distribution of mass of a graviton generally
depends on its excitation state (which in some cases may be defined by quantum numbers) and how well it is localized. Travelling as a wave, its mutually entangled mass will be distributed
over larger regions (and may be interpreted as wave-like excitation of existing
static potential of space), with potential density maxima corresponding to the maxima
of [the square of] the associated wave-function.
In a highly polarized graviton, structure may be highly ordered, with oppositely polarized inner components separated towards different sides of the membrane.
Fig. \fig1: General shape of a simple graviton in ground state (no radial/angular nodes in the waveform)
Shape of a graviton is shown in Fig. \fig1, where the surface of a torus represents its effective boundary.
As a discrete quantum of space, graviton must have an effective membrane.
Note that it is relatively easy to maintain existing conditions inside the graviton, as accumulation of particles is extremely hard due to flat space and low-density of matter.
Any particle having a momentum perpendicular to the graviton may be accelerated inside (in most cases, the trajectory of the particle may be simply bent about the graviton surface), but will be
equally decelerated again, and will exit the graviton with the same momentum. Collisions will be hard even if existing and passing particles are of the same scale, but if existing particles are of
smaller scale (discrete vertical energy levels differ in energy by multiple orders of magnitude), accumulation becomes almost impossible. In that case, graviton is relatively
transparent (transparency is dependent on energy scale).
Note that polarization will be generally shaping a graviton into a
2-dimensional ring, while neutralization is expanding it to a more spherical shape. To conserve
volume, expansion will be decreasing the thickness of a torus, converging to a
2-dimensional sphere [surface].
Note also that conservation of that volume can also be interpreted as conservation of correlation between opposite sides of the membrane. If the symmetry of the membrane would increase, the
volume would decrease.
Recent
analyses have
shown that
the
shape of the local universe is consistent with that of a torus. Considering its characteristics, by the definition of a graviton here, the observable universe may be a part of
a [large scale] graviton.
If distances between galaxies (large scale quantum vortices) are increasing, this graviton is increasing its internal flatness and must be changing shape.
How is gravitational energy of a graviton exchanged with electro-magnetic energy in the transition between energy levels? Different interpretations are possible, but this should involve changes
in momenta. All components of graviton momenta are effectively exchangeable between vertical energy levels. Changes in vertical energy levels will probably generally involve annihilation of
particles on some scale as well as such events involve fast inflation and deflation of momenta components.
Since elementariness is relative, one can assume that the charge and spin magnetic momentum of an
elementary charged particle stem from separation and difference in momenta between
oppositely charged constituent particles. Since speed of information transfer is relative (in CR, it depends on scale), both orbital velocities of constituent charges and difference in velocities
between constituent opposite charges may be converging to infinity with decreasing scale. And this velocity/difference can be annihilated
into mass/radius.
Note that relativistic energy can have different interpretation between scales. E.g., interpretation of velocity may be effectively scale variant. On one scale, velocity, or difference in
velocity, generates mass (mass is relativistic), on the other it generates charge (charge is relativistic). High orbital velocity of standard quarks is considered to be the main contributor
to rest masses of standard protons. High orbital velocity of constituent particles of quarks and electrons may be the main contributor to their charges and spin magnetic momenta.
Charged gravitons, in addition to gravitational field
tubes (which have ring-like and spherical eigenstates), possess both electric and magnetic field
tubes. What are magnetic
field tubes?
In CR, magnetic field lines are relative lines, in reality they are tubes, or toruses (which may be deformed).
These tubes can be interpreted as induced polarized effective gravitons perpendicular to the primary graviton, or polarized dimensions of space (polarized subspaces) for a charged
graviton. They can also be interpreted as tubes of entanglement between charged gravitons.
If the primary graviton is of
Un-1 scale, space in the associated magnetic field
lines is formed by particles of
Un-3 scale.
More complex forces with multiple degrees and species of polarization can be correlated with mutually entangled different species of potential, or fields of potential, with forces mediated through
different species of dimensions of space (or entanglement). All of this is evolvable and nature of force can change over time. More complex forms should be more plastic but no
law of
nature is an absolute law.
\ch_added
Space-forming gravitons
Space-forming gravitons of an
Un graviton are of
Un-2 scale. These space-forming gravitons are hypothesized to orbit the centre of the
larger (
Un) graviton. If the
Un graviton is completely naked, all the
Un-2 gravitons are uncoupled/non-localized and form radially standing
waves (the semi-major orbital radius is relatively constant) of angular velocity equal to
cn-1.
In example, for an graviton of U1 scale (e.g., one coupled to Earth's body), the angular velocity of space-forming gravitons is equal to c0, which is equal to
the standard speed of light (c), 2.99792458 × 108 m/s.
Once localized (with coupling to real mass), some of the angular velocity is exchanged for spin momentum, thus, the orbital velocity of the coupling becomes lower than
cn-1.
Even though graviton orbitals may be spherical, coupling of space-forming gravitons usually occurs on the equatorial region of that orbital. This is because localization proceeds through
steps (which can be interpreted as energy levels of complexity or graviton dimensionality). Thus, the graviton first collapses to a ring-like form, before localizing to a specific body within that
ring. In equilibrium, inclination of the orbital is fixed, but the whole orbital rotates with the velocity equal to the orbital velocity of bodies.
Consider Earth, for example. Its non-coupled space-forming gravitons are rotating (orbiting) at the standard speed of light, but their orbitals themselves are rotating at the speed
of Earth's body at the orbital radius (rotational period of the orbital thus currently being equal to about 24 h for orbital radii equal or lower than the Earth's surface
radius). With the inclination fixed and step-like localization, all couplings (incarnations) of the same graviton may occur along a specific ring (even though the decouplings may not). In one
interpretation, multiple entangled gravitons or components of a graviton are involved, where one graviton [component] remains uncoupled. The entanglement is relatively broken
once one [component] couples to a body, but is then restored after decoupling (so the graviton [component] returns to the same orbital - which can be interpreted
as background entanglement). The two components could be interpreted similarly to the group and phase components of momenta. One spins at the speed of light and rotates with the body, the
other may be at rest relative to the orbital but oscillates radially, and it is this component that is coupling with bodies. Localization probability distribution will then depend on its
frequency - number of angular nodes.
Note that as the soul (graviton) is coupled to a body, its size/energy in space is well defined (less spread) but its location in time is more spread so the two can be correlated through the
uncertainty principle. Consider, for example, souls coupled to human bodies. While the adult bodies remain of relatively fixed size in space, their location through time can vary considerably and is
much less predictable. If the spread of the body represents (or, is proportional to) the spread of the soul, this suggests that the body fixed at one location will have to continuously increase
its spread (weight or energy) to satisfy the uncertainty. This could be correlated with the fast growth of embryos, fixed in an egg/uterus which itself is usually relatively fixed. It can also be
correlated with the continuous spread and growth of trees, which are fixed to one location for life. This can then be generally correlated with health - bodies that do not grow in energy and do
not move are at the highest risk of death (forced spread of energy through decomposition and decay). There are inherent limits to both, growth and motion, however, these limits and rates of
ageing (time dilation) differ between different species and subspecies of life.
The space-forming gravitons have different ranges (energies) and the density of these gravitons falls of with distance (generally exponentially). Different interpretations exist for why these
particles remain in orbit, rather than being radiated away. In one interpretation, the reason is their non-zero rest mass and, thus, a finite range. In other words, they are confined, and once the
range is reached, there is no more energy for additional expansion and they form a standing wave. In another interpretation, the encircled mass for them represents an effective or relative black
hole so they cannot travel further and instead form a relative equivalent of a photon circle correlated with conventional black holes (where the
surface
tension is 1/2 of the surface density in a thin-shell approximation, in GR framework). Both of the interpretations can be true simultaneously. In case of the latter, however, obviously it is
not the radially acting gravitational force that's keeping the particles in orbit (which would require escape velocity greater than the speed of light). Instead they could be considered as being
part of the large scale graviton (
Un) - they are, in any case, entangled with it and are spatially extending its presence (in a wave form, spin momentum is certainly a more
appropriate interpretation than an orbital momentum). This can be interpreted as a physical manifestation of a quantum wavefunction of the large scale graviton, where its location probability
decreases with distance (square of distance, usually).
Note that, in spacetime metrics, gravitational acceleration can be interpreted as a density of space per the area of time. Usually the time is multiplied by c so the time dimension becomes
equivalent to space. In CR, however, the value of c is scale dependent. In any case, obviously, a space-forming graviton also represents a quantum of a time dimension. The strength, or
intensity, of the gravitational coupling is proportional to the density of space (number of space-forming gravitons per the area of coupling). If a large scale graviton is not well localized (the
number of radial nodes is greater than zero), multiple gravitational maxima will exist in a gravitational well. This, coupled with different dimensionality of space-forming gravitons associated
with different maxima can solve the gravitational anomalies, commonly attributed to dark matter.
The entanglement between the graviton of a larger scale (
Un) and
Un-2 gravitons can be lost (e.g., when the
Un graviton itself is delocalized
or changes scale), which is then interpreted as decoupling of the
Un graviton from local space and the body of real mass that may exist in the well. The fate
of
Un-2 gravitons will depend on the local environment and whether they are localized or not. Due to their standing (
static) nature and confinement to a particular
potential well associated with a
parent graviton of larger scale, the space-forming gravitons will generally be referred to as
static particles.
Effects of graviton interaction and oscillation
The constituent quanta of one graviton will weakly interact with constituent quanta of another graviton. However, in case of stronger entanglement the two may form a superposition in space and
probability for interaction may increase.
Superposition is, of course, relative, and if gravitons are of different scale, orbital radii of constituent quanta will be different.
What happens to the gravity of a graviton confined within another graviton, assuming both are of similar energy (of the same or similar magnitude)? It is possible that extroverted gravity simply
becomes the sum of gravity of all gravitational sources, however, relative confinement of inner gravity (inner effective gravitons) is possible as well. The reason for this is the non-zero mass
of effective gravitons, which implies the limited range of gravity. Thus, those with shorter range can be confined within the radius of an outer graviton.
Note that the outer graviton, although considered as another distinct graviton, may be entangled with the inner one and the two could be considered as maxima of potential of a single, albeit
less localized, graviton.
In the extreme case of confinement, the outer real graviton may be effectively shielding the gravity of the inner real graviton.
It may be even possible for some effective gravitons with longer range to be assimilated by the outer graviton but probability for that should be proportional to their mass
and, thus, inversely proportional to their range.
Confinement must be relative, however, and some inner gravity should always
leak, with highest probability at the poles. The same effect can be produced even with a single graviton
oscillating between different radii, assuming field information transfer is slower than graviton oscillation. This then suggests that gravity may be generally stronger at the poles of spherical
bodies, even in perfectly spherical (non-rotating) ones (if such could exist). However, if the general form of a graviton is torus-like, as hypothesized, openings on the poles may generally have
non-zero radii and lower gravity than otherwise expected on the poles, may be more likely. This should be even more pronounced in polarized gravitons where converging magnetic field lines
concentrate particles along the magnetic field lines between the poles.
In other work, I hypothesize that large scale gravitons (which may be inflated from smaller scale) are commonly involved in the formation of stars and planetary bodies. The inflation (or
initial over-inflation followed by deflation and stabilization at the new energy level) of a graviton is relatively synchronized with the clumping of real mass (ordinary matter) and makes the
process of formation much faster and possible even in cases of strongly diluted real mass (like in the Kuiper belt of the Solar System, for example).
Mass in planetary bodies should then be differentiated not only vertically, but horizontally as well, with lower density at the poles and possibly even with tubes (tunnels) connecting poles of
large scale gravitons, or different energy levels in case of a single oscillating graviton - although these tunnels in terrestrial bodies may have to be filled with fluids to ensure long-term
stability.
Note that Earth's surface gravity is greater on the poles, but that is a consequence of the reduction of the surface radius due to redistribution of mass towards the equator. Directly below poles
mass density is lower than elsewhere. Are there tunnels below? Long-lived tunnels, except near gravitons, seem unlikely due to generally increasing pressure with depth, however, fluid
density should be increasing with depth as well. High polarization and angular momentum of the wall material can increase the stability of such tubes but this is not expected in terrestrial bodies. Long term stability could be ensured
with appropriate density of energy levels and relatively frequent oscillation of large scale gravitons as this provides multiple density maxima. Lateral density gradient (with increasing density
away from the pole) also decreases pressure on the tube and such gradients are likely for rotating bodies (note that Earth rotated much faster during formation). Otherwise, tunnels may be only
periodically recreated (solids remelt). I suspect that on bodies like Earth the fluids involved should be [salty] water and magma, with dominant fluid probably depending on the pole. Land should
be depressed at the entrance where water is involved, however, it may be elevated on the pole where magma is involved. Interestingly, the subglacial topographic depression in Antarctica known
as Wilkes land anomaly (elsewhere hypothesized 480 km wide impact crater, which would make it the largest impact crater on Earth) was directly antipodal to Siberian Traps (largest known volcanic
event in the last 500 million years) during the Permian-Triassic boundary (Siberian Traps are considered to be the primary cause for the Permian-Triassic extinction, largest mass extinction
on Earth). It is questionable whether impacts alone can cause such large volcanism on the other side of the planet (although they can certainly cause widespread earthquakes and smaller
volcanism). However, the recreation of tunnels with graviton oscillation (likely correlated with impacts) could result in such phenomena at antipodal locations - [enhancing] depression on the
side of impact (water entrance/exit), bulges or traps at the side of magma expulsion (masking the depression). If Earth is modelled as a living being, different products on entrance and exit are
expected. As tectonic plates move with time, the locations on the surface should move as well. I believe that all major mass extinctions are correlated with recreation of the
tunnels. The Siberian Traps are already considered to be the result of a mantle plume which effectively is a
temporary creation of a tunnel between the planet's core and surface through
which magma flows upwards.
Antipodal
volcanism is common to large craters of the Moon and Mars and there are other examples of antipodal relationships on Earth involving large igneous provinces and hotspots (Yellowstone, for
example, is antipodal to French Southern and Antarctic Lands). All of these may be correlated with oscillation of large scale gravitons and associated temporary recreation/reactivation of
tunnels. In fact, deep mantle plumes may not be possible without it. In a follow-up paper I also hypothesize that both volcanism and impacts occur during major mass extinctions. In fact, energy
level changes cannot be absolutely spontaneous and large impacts can be interpreted as relative triggers of energy level changes of large scale gravitons. If graviton is, at the time of
impact, oriented in such way that its axis of rotation is aligned with the impact site, and this should be likely at least for impacts occurring near the poles (possibly nearer magnetic ones if
these are present) and/or stronger impacts, then the impact can be correlated with antipodal volcanism. In that case, the seismic energy generated by the impact further stimulates the flow of
fluids through the tunnels, increasing the effect on surface (the
impact
does create chimneys of stress connecting the impact source with the antipodal location). Generally, however, impact sites may not be aligned with the graviton axis and the magnitude of
extinction then should be proportional to the alignment. The exceptional magnitude of Permian-Triassic extinction thus can be explained as a result of unusually high alignment.
Update in Acquisition of matter and Static particle.
Acquisition of matter = coupling with matter = acquisition of smaller scale energy quanta
A naked (uncoupled)
Un graviton will effectively attract particles of
Un-1 scale. There are now two possibilities on the effect of total gravity:
- with inflation and coupling of an Un.space constituent Un-2 graviton with an Un-1 particle (Un-1 graviton, which may be
naked or coupled to real mass itself), one graviton is shielding the other, energy equal to the energy of the Un-1 particle is confined and there is no increase in gravity of the well with acquisition of Un-1 matter,
- there is no shielding and total gravity of the well is increased with acquired matter.
Note that the 1. possibility may be interpreted as one particle giving mass to the other. Regardless of the outcome, the interaction could affect the range of gravity of the system. Constituent
gravitons of space of
Un-1 gravitons are of
Un-3 scale which are orders of magnitude less massive, thus, with no significant shielding, the range of gravity is extended.
Note that each graviton has finite capacity for coupling - number of constituent quanta is not infinite, however, with range extension the initial capacity can be increased.
Note also that a violation of energy conservation in case of shielding is relative - even though gravity may be unchanged (relatively) the total energy is conserved by confinement and will be
released with decoupling.
Since real graviton represents a maximum of gravitational potential it will form a discontinuity in the system. Electro-magnetic nature of a graviton will concentrate polarized matter in the
equatorial region, while neutral matter can start concentrating in the centre with collisions.
Real mass may be attracted and enter the central region through one or the other pole and collision in the centre can result in concentration. Another possibility for central concentration
is acquisition of mass through equatorial regions during the contraction (localization) of the graviton, when the real mass (e.g., dust) can be accelerated towards the centre.
Coupling of standard matter (e.g., standard atoms) with the gravitational well of a large scale graviton is the coupling of
static graviton neutrinos
or
static [dark] photons (constituent quanta of space of the large scale graviton) with this matter.
However, for a large body (composite of atoms) in the gravitational well it is convenient to consider it coupled with the effective graviton of larger mass, rather than with individual small
scale
static particles.
In that case, mass and velocity of the effective graviton are total mass and average velocity of coupled
static gravitons, respectively, while the effective graviton forms the
toroidal [large scale] quantum of space which the coupled standard matter is traversing in its orbit about the real graviton. Here, thus, the energy of this large scale effective graviton is
proportional to the intensity of the gravitational coupling with matter.
If the whole observable universe is a part of a large scale graviton, galaxies and planetary systems may be the result of inflation and coupling of its constituent quanta. One of my hypotheses is
that at least one discontinuity (e.g., between inner and outer core) of a planet represents the radius of a real graviton that has been inflated from the scale of a standard atom, or even a much
smaller scale.
For stars, I hypothesize multiple such gravitons in superposition. This is all further explored in follow-up papers.
\ch_added
Rings revealing graviton presence
Rings of matter have been observed about space bodies of various size. In conventional theories, longer-lived rings are only possible when tidal forces are present, preventing the
material to coalesce into a single body. Rings of material beyond the Roche limit of a body are thus unexpected and difficult to explain. However, such
rings
have been observed, e.g., about the trans-Neptunian body Quaoar. The presence of a naked large scale graviton can easily explain such rings. Since the average location of gravitons is generally
not random, orbital resonance could hint at the presence of a large scale graviton (which may be interpreted as a ring of dark matter). The matter composing the ring is then not only orbiting the
central body but the naked graviton too. If this graviton has a ring-like form, spiral motion of constituent matter about the graviton is likely too (similar to the spiral motion present
in Saturn's F ring).
In conventional theories on gravity and planetary formation, it would take a significant amount of time for a ring to coalesce into a single body and any sudden changes are not
expected. However, if the ring suddenly collapses into a single body, this would be a clear evidence for the presence of a large scale graviton collapsing (localizing) from an orbital to
orbiting spin momentum.
This would also result in a transfer of energy from the ring (graviton) to the central body. If the orbital radius changes too then the process should also imply transfer of energy between different systems.
\ch_added
Supermassive evidence
Some celestial bodies have masses too large to be explained by conventional formation theories. In example,
a massive
planet orbiting a tiny star can be a big problem due to limited amount of dust in formation rings. This can be easily explained with massive large scale gravitons. If the dark matter mass (associated
with the graviton) is on the order of total mass of the body, its real mass content (and thus required dust for formation) could be low.
Graviton mass in ice-worlds (Neptunian planets), gas giants and stars may be an order of magnitude higher than coupled real mass. In case of terrestrial worlds, vice versa is probably
true.
Conventional theories on planetary formation
have
troubles explaining how larger bodies actually form from the dust grains.
Another problem for conventional theories is the fast formation of these bodies, e.g., supermassive black holes or galaxies in the early universe. Inflation and deflation (collapse) of gravitons
should be a relatively fast process and this can then explain any sudden and fast accumulation or concentration of mass, like fast collapse of formation discs - in case of formation of planetary
bodies, or
early
appearance of supermassive black holes (for which real mass content, compared to graviton mass, could be negligible).
Finite energy
Since absolute point sources of energy are impossible, maximum field strength of a graviton is at a non-zero distance from centre. Thus, equations producing infinities for field sources are
simply not valid
below a certain radius (radius of a graviton in this case).
For distances greater than the graviton radius, graviton can be approximated as a point source of force, while below that radius force drops to relative zero - for any point inside, for an ideal
non-rotating graviton (with a uniform mass distribution) and no other gravitons inside.
Thus, the equation of force (approximation) is then, in example of Newtonian gravity:
$\displaystyle F = \delta_{ij} {GMm \over {r^2}}$
$\displaystyle i = {{r - r_0} \over {\left| r - r_0 \right|}}, j = 1$
r0 = graviton radius
r = distance from graviton centre
δij = Kronecker delta
Obviously, if there are any sources of gravity inside and these are not balanced by the outer forces, the graviton would collapse. To prevent this collapse, a repulsive force must
exist - either
fictional (e.g., provided by the graviton angular momentum) or
real (in case of specific entanglement, e.g., charge). In reality, both should be present to some
degree.
Note that, if graviton is in the form of a hollow sphere, the poles, due to lower momentum, still can collapse. This can be mitigated by the attractive force (or effective gluons) between the
constituent quanta of a graviton. In reality, the graviton may be very rigid but not infinitely. Therefore, It will never be in the form of an absolutely perfect sphere, rather an
ellipsoid - especially when not naked.
Near the graviton radius, point source approximation is not valid anymore and contributions of individual graviton quanta should be taken into account, as shown in Fig. \fig6.
Fig. \fig6: Force of a graviton
With no absolute zero distances there are no absolutely infinite densities either and mechanisms will exist preventing absolute collapse. One of these, as mentioned already, can be
rotation (angular momentum), which is probably one reason why it is intrinsic in
fundamental sources of energy.
Thus, in all sources of forces of attraction there must exist a production of effective repulsion, which will cancel attraction at some distance.
\ch_added
Graviton flavour
Since all particles have mass, all are prone to the oscillation of flavour between couplings. Different flavours can be interpreted as different discrete local vertical energy levels. Generally, 3 major
flavours exist for any particle (not counting the flavour corresponding to a naked graviton), and a non-localized particle (graviton) may be considered to be in a superposition of the 3 basis states. There is no change of energy during flavour
oscillation, however, there is a change in the size of the
gravitational imprint proportional to the mass associated with certain flavour. At the time of graviton localization, assuming
there is enough energy, rest mass of the graviton can be changed, when it will, depending on the current flavour, settle in one of the 3 mass eigenstates.
The gravitational imprint can be interpreted as curvature of space, or dark matter, of scale
Un-2 for a graviton of
Un scale. Gravitational imprint (space) is, thus, stretching
and compressing with the oscillation of the graviton radius. Note that this allows for the graviton to acquire and shed real mass during flight, which may be interpreted as partial
localization. The magnitude of this effect will depend on the properties of the medium. In high vacuum the effect may be negligible, however, in some media the speed of propagation may be
significantly affected, due to momentum conservation. If, at the point of localization, there is not enough energy for the graviton to settle into the mass eigenstate associated with the
current flavour, the graviton is most likely to settle into one of the possible flavours. However, the speed of time is scale dependent and time dilation will thus exist between scales, so the
transition will appear continuous from some reference frames. In such frames, total mass (which includes acquired real mass) can deviate from the mass associated with the eigenstate. Locally
stored kinetic energy may also be interpreted as gravitational mass from these frames.
Since flavour and mass eigenstates cannot be absolutely synchronized, gravitons inflated on large scale (where time is significantly slowed down compared to the reference frame) may have
long-lived unfilled gravitational wells (real mass capacitance). The unfilled capacity may generally be more likely to be concentrated in the outer regions of the well, however, this will depend on
the graviton radius and whether multiple gravitons are present (which generally should be the case). Indeed, this naked gravitational imprint is commonly detectable in galaxies, as dark
matter. However, these imprints should be present in planetary systems as well, although any unfilled capacity may be mostly concentrated within the bodies. However, rather
than unfilled capacity, flat velocity curves can be explained by the change in the intensity differential of gravitational coupling with distance (e.g., change of graviton energy and shape from the 2-dimensional
spherical form into a ring-like form).
Proper interpretation of kinetic energy
The value of kinetic energy is relative, however, energy will be locally acquired and released during changes in velocity (acceleration). Absolutely constant velocities do not exist and, since
space is physical, any motion relative to space will involve absorption and emission of energy, but this may be interpreted as relatively constant motion if absorption and emission are equal and
cannot be resolved. Momentum is coupled to energy, however, in cases where there is no motion relative to certain [scale of] space, one may consider kinetic energy as fictional and manifested
only at the time of interaction (localization) when the interaction results in local increase in energy, when some energy may be inflated from smaller scale. All energy thus consists of real and
imaginary parts of some scale, but, unlike in conventionally common complete reductionism, in CR, neither may have an absolute zero value, only a relative one.
Whether the [part of] kinetic energy is produced upon interaction or is carried by momentum, it probably should be associated with flavour of gravitons, and thus [inflation of] physical
gravitational imprints (img mass) proportional to the kinetic energy. Note that this does not forbid the inflation of flavour beyond the mass eigenstates, such inflation only implies
relative instability.
\ch_added
Energy in the gravitational imprint, reality and illusion of a universe
For a simple graviton in orbital motion, this is generally satisfied:
$\displaystyle m \left({1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_s}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_a}^2 \over {c_a}^2}}}\right) v_a r_a = n \hbar$
m = rest mass
vs = spin velocity
cs = spin velocity limit = information speed limit in spin space
va = orbital velocity
ca = orbital velocity limit = information speed limit in orbital space
ra = orbital radius
ℏ = quantization constant
The first relativistic term (enclosed in parentheses) here represents the energy in the gravitational imprint due to angular motion relative to spin space (space associated with the source of the spin momentum), the other
relativistic term represents the energy in the gravitational imprint due to angular motion relative to the orbital space (space associated with the source of the orbital momentum). The
n may
be an integer, half-integer, or something more complex, depending on graviton nature and interpretation (reference frame of quantization).
Note how apparent here it is what amount of illusion (and nonsense) can be created with the assumption of an absolute reference frame, where cs = ca = c.
Reduced orbital wavelength of the graviton is:
$\displaystyle {\lambda}_r = {r_a \over n}$
Which is, for
va =
c0 =
c,
cs >>
vs,
ca >>
c, and
n = 1, equal to
reduced Compton wavelength, which is the reduced wavelength of a photon whose energy is equal to the rest energy of the particle. But, in general, it is a reduced wavelength of a non-excited particle in a
non-relativistic uniform motion, at standard light speed.
Reduced wavelength is simply a wavelength divided by 2π, which then represents the orbital or spin radius in case of angular motion.
For a particle with no orbital momentum:
$\displaystyle m \left({1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_s}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}}\right) v_s r_s = n_s \hbar$
rs = spin radius
Reduced wavelength (or, reduced spin wavelength) of the graviton is:
$\displaystyle {\lambda}_r = {r_s \over n_s}$
With
vs =
c and
cs >>
c, this reduces to a Compton wavelength. It is obvious here that a realistic result
requires
cs >>
c, otherwise (with
cs =
c), one has to reduce rest mass or radius to 0 in order not to obtain infinite spin momentum.
And this is exactly the assumption in QM - particles like photons are assumed to have zero mass, while particles like electrons are treated as point particles (zero radius). In other
words, reality has been reduced to illusion.
Experiments have shown that the radius of a localized electron must be much smaller than its reduced Compton wavelength, and even much smaller than its classical radius. This implies that the
contribution of electron charge energy to electron's rest mass is very small, even negligible, as
according
to some experiments the upper limit to electron's radius is 10
-22 m.
Reduced Compton wavelength of the electron is 3.86 × 10-13 m. Radius the electron would have if all its mass would come from the potential energy of its charge, ignoring quantum
effects, is 2.8 × 10-15 m (classical electron radius). It should be clear, however, that the electron's radius is not absolutely fixed, it can be associated with a specific local
energy level occupied by the constituent particles of the electron. Bonding and measurement, obviously, can affect the spreading of the electron's waveform (radius). Radius
is, however, quantized, and can only have certain discrete values in equilibrium.
Thus, its rest mass effectively originates in the spin momentum of its body mass, not charge. For an electron at rest, taking into account spin momentum magnitude, rather than its projection, this
should then be satisfied:
$\displaystyle {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_s}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} = {{\sqrt{3} \hbar} \over {2 m_e r_s v_s}} = k$
$\displaystyle {{v_s}^2 \over {c_s}^2} = 1 - {1 \over k^2}$
$\displaystyle {c_s}^2 = {{v_s}^2 \over {1 - {1 \over k^2}}}$
me = electron rest mass = 9.10938356 × 10-31 kg
ℏ = reduced Planck's constant = 1.054571817 × 10-34 Js
For the mass radius
rs = 1 × 10
-22 m, and assuming
vs =
c0 =
c = 2.99792458 × 10
8 m/s, one obtains
cs ≈
c (only slightly larger
than
c). But what are the actual values of
rs,
vs, and
cs in reality? For practical purposes, one might assume
that
vs =
cs =
c and, thus,
rs = 0, but in reality
rs must be larger than 0 and both
vs and
cs may
be larger than
c rather than
cs alone. In case of particles of this scale, however,
cs may be equal to
c, with
vs being
slightly smaller. Thus, the assumption of a locally relativistic spin does not require for the electron to rotate faster than
c (classically, for this radius,
vs would simply
have to be larger than
c by about 10 orders of magnitude).
Why does a localized electron has to spin twice (in case of a spin projection of 1/2 ℏ) to return to the same state? Because it takes two turns for its waveform to complete one
wavelength of oscillation. Physically, this is a consequence of 1:2 resonance between two different rotating components of the electron. Since the radius of the electron must be greater than zero and
energy distribution cannot be absolutely homogenous, the electron doesn't only have an intrinsic spin momentum, it always has some orbital momentum as well. Thus, this resonance may be a spin-orbit
resonance (barycentre of orbital rotation is different from the barycentre of spin rotation). In reality, situation can be more complex (e.g., presence of inclination or axial tilt).
For the force carrier particles,
va is generally fixed to
cn (or, close to
cn - in reality), which represents information transfer limit in space associated with
the vertical energy level (scale)
n. Reduced Compton wavelength for such particles is also their range. It is clear that in particles of variable wavelength, with fixed
va (which can now be
interpreted as propagation velocity) and fixed spin momentum, spin momentum components must be variable (in such way to conserve the spin momentum). For particles like photons, spin
velocity
vs should be proportional to frequency and
rs should be inversely proportional to frequency. If flavour (gravitational imprint) oscillates between different
eigenstates (and it does in reality for any particle), it is the velocity
vs that should oscillate as well (proportionally). If
va remains fixed (in reality it too should
oscillate but this may be negligible), to conserve total momentum, the range must oscillate as well (and should be inversely proportional to mass and frequency).
Generally, for any naked graviton (graviton coupled to relatively negligible mass),
vn ≈
cn. Once graviton couples to matter (higher mass, associated with
particular eigenstate),
vn decreases significantly.
Knowing the radius (range) of the observable universe, one can obtain the upper limit for photon rest mass. Its relativistic mass is:
$\displaystyle m = {\hbar \over {r c}} = 8 \times {10}^{-70}\, kg$
r = radius of the observable universe = 46.508 × 109 ly = 4.4 × 1026 m
c = standard speed of light = 2.99792458 × 108 m/s
Thus, its rest mass must be lower than that.
Note that, if naked gravitons travel at fixed and maximum possible velocity in some space cn, the relativistic mass term associated with that space should be discarded, unless coupling
of the graviton with matter is interpreted as increase in graviton mass, in which case the term may be adjusted so that the deviation (i.e., decrease) from cn is proportional to mass
increase. In case of photon, its angular orbital (propagation) velocity is assumed to be equal to c0 = c. If the associated term is then discarded, relativistic mass of the photon
depends only on its spin velocity vs. If one further assumes that vs ≈ cs (photon is naked relative to cs as well), photon's rest
mass should be roughly equal to the calculated relativistic mass.
Of course, if the universe is expanding this value will further decrease. Assuming, however, that the universe's expansion is the result of transformation of photon (or any other streaming
graviton) relativistic energy into dark energy (should be the case if total energy density remains constant) then a limit to expansion must exist - the universe should stop expanding once the
relativistic mass becomes equal to the rest mass. Assuming now that the space is quantized by gravitons such as photons, the universe is expanding because the quanta of intergalactic space are
expanding - proportionally to wavelength and spin radius (rs) increase (physical dilation). Note that, in order for these to expand, their rest mass must be greater than zero (otherwise
relativistic mass makes no sense - there would be no energy to lose). But why are they expanding? They are expanding because they are losing relativistic energy, which is dominantly gravitational
and electro-magnetic energy. Losing energy to what? Probably gravitons of different scale that they are entangled with - e.g., those forming supermassive black holes. This is the interaction between
large scale gravitons and [small scale] gravitons forming their space, where, in effect, the mass of the source of force is increasing at the expense of the mass of carriers of that
force - extending the range of force in the process.
Note that this implies the cycling of the universe between expansion and contraction because once the limit of expansion is reached the universe becomes static, which is an extremely unstable state (absolutely static state
is even impossible in CR). Note that the range cannot be absolute zero either, which implies that the universe cannot contract to absolute zero size (which is impossible in CR anyway).
Assuming universe collapses to a single object (large scale superposition of large scale gravitons), with the mass of 3.53 × 1054 kg, ℏ equal to reduced Planck's constant
and cn = c, its range would be 9.96 × 10-98 m (this range should be interpreted as orbital radius, while the spin radius is much larger). Note that this can be
interpreted as near absolute zero temperature of large scale, where all the large scale gravitons form a bosonic condensate. This is also an extremely unstable state, so the universe
explodes, beginning a new cycle. Note that the non-zero initial orbital radius (mass barycentre offset) implies non-homogenous energy distribution, which is then reflected in CMB anisotropy.
In other words, CMB anisotropy can be interpreted as evidence that the universe did not start from an absolute singularity - a point-like graviton [superposition]. If large scale gravitons are
not point-like, and energy can be exchanged between gravitons of different scale, one obviously should not assume that any graviton of any scale is point-like, at least not in reality.
\ch_added
Gravitons as force/momentum carriers
Gravitons are also force carrier particles, where dimensionality (complexity) of such gravitons will depend on the complexity of force. In case of the, so called,
fundamental forces, gravitons
usually have simple shapes, which may be interpreted as ground shapes of spherical harmonics. Forces are present on different scales and act on different bodies. In any case, intensity of force
coupling (strength of force acting on a particular body) is directly proportional to the intensity of gravitons coupling to the body. And this intensity will depend on distance but also on the
shape of gravitons, which can be further correlated with mass/range of gravitons. Generally, intensity depends not only on the density but on the dimensionality of the gravitons as
well. Consider, for example, a force carrier graviton in the form of a 2-dimensional sphere [surface]. The strength of this force will decrease inversely proportionally
to
r2, where
r is the distance from the source. In case of 1-dimensional gravitons, in the form of rings, the force will decrease inversely proportionally
to
r. The same force can be carried by gravitons of different mass (range) and shape. Generally thus, the force decreases inversely proportionally
to
rn, where
n can be interpreted as denoting energy levels due to discrete ranges of gravitons (
n may thus change with distance, but generally not
continuously, rather at discrete points). Note that this can explain all cases of anomalous gravity (e.g., gravitons farther from a supermassive black hole have not only exchanged their energy for
the energy of the supermassive black hole with universe's expansion, in the process they have reduced dimensionality). Gravitons can be more or less localized (they generally localize with coupling to bodies). The
maxima of wavefunctions associated with gravitons represent maxima of potential of the associated force. This explains why electrons in the atoms, for example, generally can be found at these
maxima. However, energy levels can be associated with any graviton of any scale, although these levels can be well confined and undetectable, especially on smaller scales.
Particles localized to the maxima of another graviton (e.g., electron coupled to a proton) generally do not lose energy in these states. There are multiple interpretations of this. A particle
may be in the form of a standing wave. However, since this particle is also coupled with gravitons forming [private] space of the
parent graviton, the particle is not losing energy
because it is, in equilibrium, rotating with space. On smaller scales this rotation can, and will, at some scale exceed the speed of standard
light. This allows for more intuitive
interpretation of spin momenta of particles such as electrons. However, since speeds larger than the speed of light are confined to smaller scales of space, the electron itself cannot travel
faster than light unless it is itself confined
below the radius at which the speed of light is exceeded.
Additional problem is the stability of confinement. Photons, for example, generally travel as waves, with their radius expanding with emission. However, rest mass and rest radius of photons should
be small enough to allow them to start travelling at speeds much larger than c. In other words, speed of motion of energy is not limited solely by the amount of energy, but by
radius (confinement) of that energy.
This, of course, implies that relativistic effects depend on scale as well (speed of information transfer is not absolutely invariant to scale, only relatively, as transitions are discrete).
Added definition for Static particle.
Static particle
Particles forming space (effective gravitons) of a graviton of scale
Un are particles of scale
Un-2. These are entangled with the
parent graviton and
any changes in its momentum will be reflected in momenta of these constituent particles. The particles are orbiting the graviton and the energy density is generally decreasing exponentially with
distance from the graviton. Orbital speed is roughly equal to the speed limit in space for particles of
Un-1 scale. However, the particles will get bound (coupled)
to
Un-1 scale matter captured by the gravitational well, exchanging orbital velocity for spin (
Un-1 scale) momentum.
Due to their limited range and conversion of radial to angular momenta (where upon reaching the range they can form standing spherical waves) the space-constituent particles will hereby be referred to
as
static particles, generally,
static gravitons, which may be generally decomposed into
static graviton neutrinos - in case of neutral gravitational
potential, and
static photons or half-photons - in case of electro-magnetic potential.
These particles may be interpreted as
hot dark matter when uncoupled, however, with coupling, their momenta will be transforming to
cold Keplerian momenta.
\ch_added
Rest = uniform motion = uniform ageing
A body (e.g., graviton) is at rest relative to local space if the coupling of constituent particles of space with the body is in the equilibrium state. This equilibrium is accomplished when
the amount of coupled particles (strength or intensity of coupling) does not change over time (d/dt = 0). There are two ways to achieve equilibrium - the absence of motion and uniform
motion. The two states are equivalent in a sense that motion through time is uniform in both. But there is a difference in the strength (intensity) of coupling, which is proportional to the
amount of motion through space. This then implies a difference in the speed through time (rate of ageing). Stronger coupling (note that this is usually gravitational coupling) implies slower
passage through time.
Wherever motion relative to local space exists, relativistic effects on the body will be, at least in part, real. The degree, or the amount, of reality (physicality) in a relativistic effect will
be proportional to the amount of physical motion through local space.
Note that this makes the time dilation in SR (due to motion) equivalent to time dilation in GR (due to increased gravitational potential) - wherever the effect is real and the coupling is
gravitational. The equivalence is not absolute, however, as coupling constants can differ.
Note also that, generally, relativistic effects can be explained as a consequence of conservation of relativity (relativistic uncertainty), where the local universe is reacting to the
contraction of intervals in space with the extension of lengths in time.
To change the rate of ageing work must be done, energy must be transformed. Obviously, this is done through [real] acceleration, when the intensity of coupling is changing - growing proportionally
to acceleration.
Reality and illusion of rest
The intensity of coupling (and, thus, the rate of ageing), for different reasons, can change [to a degree] even if the body is apparently at rest. This is particularly evident in
living bodies, in which the rate of ageing measurably varies over the lifetime even when uncorrelated with changes in mass. Note also, however, that the coupling with complex bodies is more
complex itself and variability can be limited to certain scales of coupling. Most complex coupling is lost at the time of death of a complex body, however, the effect on body weight may be
negligible. The effect certainly is small in case of living bodies on Earth, but this is unlikely the case generally. The effect is inversely proportional to complexity, proportional to the number
and magnitude of scales on which death (decoupling) occurs (e.g., a death of a human body is also a certain death of its organs, and will be followed by death of organelles and cells after certain
time, but it's not the death of all the smaller components, such as microbes, molecules and atoms), and the intensity of the coupling(s) during life.
Note that it is not hard to relatively quantify the complexity/intensity of coupling between different bodies at rest. If two bodies of the same mass age differently, the coupling is stronger
and/or more complex in case of slower ageing. The intensity/complexity of coupling is probably highly correlated with the intensity/complexity of consciousness. In more massive brains, for
example, the amount of consciousness is probably generally higher than in less massive brains (although one must here distinguish between extroverted and introverted consciousness - depending on
sensitivity to the external and internal reality), but not necessarily the complexity of consciousness - which may further be correlated with intelligence. Neither consciousness nor intelligence
require brains, the purpose of compressed neural networks is probably the focus/localization of intelligence/consciousness in space/time. Consider plants/fungi for example, in these systems
both, intelligence and consciousness, are spread over space and time. Correlated with the intensity/complexity of coupling (rate of ageing) is the resolution of experience. Here, plants/fungi are
more conscious of long-term effects than of short-term disturbances. A reaction of a plant to occasional disturbance (cutting of a branch for example) may be interpreted as
subconscious or even fully reflexive (unconscious), but a frequent disturbance may be resolved (experienced) on a higher level of consciousness and may induce a more complex response (which may be
evident in its progeny, if not in the plant itself). This complex response may be interpreted as emergent phenomena, but all emergent phenomena are, as noted before, probably correlated with
distinct coupling. However, as rest can be illusionary, so can emergence. Emergence is, however, usually real in living bodies.
Graviton tube = wormhole = quantum of entanglement
Graviton tube is a physical manifestation of entanglement (correlation), space connecting two entangled gravitons. In one interpretation, the volume of that space (volumetric distance) is
proportional to the distance in correlation (inverse of strength of entanglement), however, the tube is relatively hollow and energy is mostly concentrated on the membrane.
With no additional energy or disturbance of gravitons, volumetric distance will remain the same regardless of spatial separation. The tube can be considered as subspace or an relatively
isolated dimension of space.
The tube may be considered as elementary quantum of continuous space, however, in reality it is a sum of constituent smaller tubes. The tube(s) may also be generally curved (entangled
particles may not be connected by the shortest path possible in flat geometry).
Consider magnetic field lines connecting opposite poles - if these are tubes of entanglement, they obviously do not follow shortest paths and may be compressed and expanded.
Of course, these may be shortest paths possible considering conditions on field formation and one can model entanglement of poles with geometry where these paths are shortest.
Gluon
Gluon is a localized superposition of one or more pairs of gravitons.
Gluon tube
Gluon tube is space connecting two entangled gluons. It is a local superposition of graviton tubes, or non-local superposition of gluons.
Fig. \fig2: Gluon tube
Fig. \fig2 shows the gluon tube, with induced cross-sectional capacitance due to spatial separation of gravitons
G1 and
G2.
Chapter Gravitational maximum updated.
Gravitational maximum = g-maximum = [relative] event horizon = primary soul
Gravitational maximum is the
n-dimensional area of a maximum of the gravitational potential in a gravitational well, with
n corresponding to the dimensionality of the
maximum. This area may have different shapes, depending on the [limitations of] the observer, energy levels of gravitons and relativistic energies involved. In most practical cases this will be
approximated as a ring, tube, spherical surface or even a point. Note that a single gravitational well may have multiple gravitational maxima at different radii (although one can argue that this
is then not a single gravitational well, rather a superposition of gravitational wells - which can be considered as a proper interpretation).
Generally, gravitational maximum may be used as a synonym for a real graviton or a superposition of real gravitons. However, interpretation will depend on the context, as gravitational maxima
can be decoupled from real gravitons, even if induction of maxima may generally be
stimulated or correlated with inflation/deflation or oscillation of real
gravitons. In example, inflation of a graviton from one scale to another will generally be correlated with relaxation of a maximum on the former scale and compression of field potential on the
new scale. Speed of information transfer is finite (even if different between scales) so neither the relaxation nor compression can be absolutely instantaneous, especially if additional real
mass is concentrated at the maxima. Maxima can thus exist independently of real gravitons, although these may be generally relatively short-lived unless periodically coupled with real gravitons.
Multiple gravitons may be in relatively localized superposition, where they spin about the same central region but with different (spatially separated) mass radii. This is then also a superposition
of gravitational wells, each having its own maximum. In these cases, in some contexts, gravitational maximum may represent a graviton with maximal mass (energy) of all the gravitons.
In some reference frames (contexts), separation between gravitons may be negligible and gravitational maximum will then represent a superposition of gravitons and their masses.
Note also that quantization is relative and for every graviton a reference frame exists in which that graviton is, not only a gravitational maximum, but relative superposition of gravitons of
smaller scale.
Energy of a gravitational maximum is proportional to the capacity (gravitational imprint) of the associated gravitational well for coupling with matter.
Note that capacity is scale relative. The capacity of an Un graviton for coupling with Un-1 mass may be full, but the capacity of Un-1 wells
for Un-2 mass may be not.
However, note that constituent quanta of space of an Un graviton are Un-2 particles, exactly the mass scale the space-constituent particles of Un-1 wells
should couple with. Thus, the capacitances of different scale here are correlated (the coupling correlation is manifested as attractive force) and what is considered as a component of space in one
reference frame may be interpreted as acquired matter in another.
The question is what happens to wells at full capacity and can they be over-capacitated? This is related to the problem of dark matter and changes in energy levels, and is discussed later.
Biological physics
The acquisition of matter by a naked particle (soul) can be interpreted as an act towards symbiosis of smaller scale and larger scale mass. The gravitational well of the maximum provides
the environment and acts as a catalyst for evolution of matter (enabling fusion, chemical reactions, etc.) while the interaction also enables the soul to co-evolve with acquired
matter (constituent particles of the soul are correlated with, and will mirror, acquired matter to some degree).
Gravitational well = spiritual well
A real graviton will induce effective gravitons (which are also
static gravitons in equilibrium), forming a pressure/density gradient (or curvature) of space - a gravitational well.
Density of energy is inversely proportional to distance, therefore, at full capacity the gradient of density will be proportional to the gradient of orbital angular velocities of coupled
bodies. These are then Keplerian velocities.
When matter (real mass) is coupled with [the effective gravitons of] space and orbits at Keplerian velocity, it is at rest relative to that space and it shouldn't lose significant energy during orbit.
Fig. \fig3: Gravitational well scheme
Fig. \fig3 shows a cross-section of a gravitational well with a [gravitational] maximum at radius
r. Density of graviton energy (dark matter) is represented by the
concentration of circles, it is greatest at event horizon
r.
Graviton orbitals will generally have some finite eccentricity, which may be more exaggerated with coupling.
Note that for a hollow sphere of standard matter, gravity is cancelled at any point inside the sphere (
Shell theorem). This is generally not the case for gravity inside a hollow sphere
of a naked graviton for a couple of reasons:
- gravitational potential cannot be absolutely the same everywhere on the sphere,
- polarization of the sphere is always greater than absolute 0 and the sphere will have openings (or lower concentration of energy) on poles,
- the sphere can be deformed by external energy or relativistic energy.
Additionally, the spherical form of a naked graviton is only relatively hollow (it is devoid only of standard matter, but it is not devoid of smaller scale particles - forming space) - space
is generally not flat below radius
r, it is filled with effective gravitons relatively mirroring the gradient outside of the sphere. Generally, at least one another real graviton of the
same scale (order of magnitude) exists within the outer one, which may be interpreted as the core graviton.
Gradient of energy density in a naked gravitational well is a superposition of a gradient of mass (inversely proportional to range) of
static effective gravitons and a gradient of
transient effective gravitons. Transient effective gravitons are gravitons which are either collapsing from, or inflating to, their equilibrium orbit (equal to their range).
Induction of effective gravitons
One possible mechanism of induction (
creation) of effective gravitons is inflation of real gravitons of smaller scale. The quanta of smaller scale are annihilated at the gravitational maximum, or relative
event horizon (r on Fig. \fig3), resulting in inflation of two effective gravitons with opposite momenta, perpendicular to the event horizon orbital. Such inflation should generally be
proportional to the relativistic energy of the real graviton, where the rate of inflation is proportional to the energy differential. At [relative] rest, there might not be sufficient energy
for inflation and recycling of existing effective gravitons will dominate. Here, existing energy will be used to prevent inverse annihilation (deflation) of effective gravitons.
The mechanisms used to prevent annihilation may be interpreted as mechanisms of creation, or maintenance, of asymmetry (or distance in correlation) between inflated products.
This can be the asymmetric exchange between gravitational and electro-magnetic potential of particles, even between them. Another possibility is that particles are allowed to
annihilate, however, this results in disequilibrium (recoil), and the particles are inflated back for another cycle. Both solutions are possible, one may dominate during maintenance
in equilibrium (relative rest), the other, during changes in energy of the real graviton itself (e.g., at the time of its own inflation).
The asymmetry of potential (carried by effective gravitons) allows for interesting solutions where different forces could dominate inside and outside of the relative event horizon. Of course, there
will be leakage because the carrier particles themselves have their own wells of potential carried by effective gravitons of even smaller scale (containment of potential has to be relative).
Note also, that a real graviton can contain other real gravitons of the same vertical scale but at different horizontal energy levels and thus at different radii. This allows for greater
asymmetry and more complex mechanisms for its creation and maintenance. Absorption of real mass can provide stability in the gravitational well but this additional energy also adds more
complexity.
Small update in Black hole definition.
Black hole
Black hole is a region of space with escape velocity at the gravitational maximum greater than the speed of
light (information transfer). For a standard black hole this is a
standard speed of light.
Note that, in CR, this region does not have a singularity at the centre, it has a ring, or torus, of relative singularity at the gravitational maximum. Therefore, some material that wouldn't be
able to escape at the equator can escape at the poles.
However, even though energy can escape, its path will be more or less curved and it might be difficult to observe this from reference frames where the line of sight is aligned with the axis
of rotation of the black hole.
More charged a graviton is, more two-dimensional it will be and the density of the gravitational field will be decreasing from the equator to the pole. Thus, the gravitational escape
velocity (without taking rotation into account) can be significantly lower at the poles.
Note that, otherwise, the particles forming [internally generated] magnetic field lines cannot be standard photons or of standard photon rest scale, but of even smaller scale, as they would have to
be faster than standard light, unless the lines are not closed.
However, generally, just as an U-1 graviton slows down from c with momentum transformation synchronized with coupling, a particle faster than c can similarly be
slowed down and transformed to a standard photon.
This restricts the feeding potential of a black hole, as, instead of being trapped, some matter may simply be accelerated towards the centre only to be ejected through the poles at extreme
velocities. In an extremely polarized case, such black hole does not acquire additional energy and is simply the most efficient transformer of energy (life-form) - transforming composite energy into
individual charged particles so these can be digested elsewhere (e.g., in young stars, where they concentrate to form hydrogen fuel).
However, in neutral black holes, most matter will have a momentum parallel to the equator plane forming a disc of orbiting material.
The shape of a graviton explains not only the formation of jets in black holes but also why some black holes don't have them (such black holes should have a more neutral, 3-dimensional form).
The jets are not accelerated by gravity alone, the more energy there is in plasma (accretion disk) the more powerful will be the magnetic field which will focus incoming charged particles making the
jets more energetic. This
correlation
has been observed.
Note that magnetic field
lines are, at some scale, jets of entangled particles. It is then obvious that extremely neutral bodies will have extremely weak magnetic fields, while extremely
polarized will not only have extremely strong magnetic fields but will also be emitting jets of particles of larger scale (like protons and electrons, in case of black holes).
If black holes have evolved before stars the farthest and biggest black holes may be more polarized. However, polarization should also be cyclic at some timescale.
Since particles of the adjacent discrete vertical energy levels [to the U
1 level] are charged (dominant energy in standard particles, for example, is electro-magnetic), real gravitons of
stars and planets most likely start their evolution (synchronized with coupling to standard matter) more polarized, even though most polarization may be lost already during graviton birth on
that scale (inflation from smaller scale or deflation from larger scale).
Discs of material about stars and planets are thus probably formed due to charge of the host at the time of formation or at times of energy level changes - greater charge will create thinner discs. This also implies that oldest
orbiting formations will orbit in a plane aligned with the plane of primordial equator of the host (unless the orbits have been disturbed later, however, probability for significant disturbance
should be low after birth). Settling in equilibrium state is likely to be oscillatory and this is in the Solar System confirmed with the
sinusoidal distribution of inclinations of planets.
Note that information on formation should be preserved in inclinations - in case the system inflated from smaller scale, nearer orbits should generally be more aligned with the equatorial plane.
This is apparently the case with the Solar System, as shown in Table \tbl1. In case of systems deflated from larger scale, it is the farther orbits that should be more aligned.
Body | Inclination (ecliptic) [°] | Inclination (Sun's equator) [°] | Inclination (invariable plane) [°] |
Mercury | 7.01 | 3.38 | 6.34 |
Venus | 3.39 | 3.86 | 2.19 |
Earth | 0 | 7.25 | 1.57 |
Mars | 1.85 | 5.65 | 1.67 |
Vesta | 7.14 | 3.48 | 7.13 |
Ceres | 10.59 | 3.40 | 9.20 |
Pallas | 34.93 | 36.45 | 34.21 |
Hygiea | 3.83 | 10.79 | - |
Jupiter | 1.31 | 6.09 | 0.32 |
Saturn | 2.49 | 5.50 | 0.93 |
Uranus | 0.77 | 6.48 | 1.02 |
Neptune | 1.77 | 6.43 | 0.72 |
Pluto | 17.14 | 11.86 | 15.55 |
Table \tbl1: Osculating orbital inclinations in the Solar System
However, if vertical energy levels are discrete (as hypothesized), it is possible (or even likely) that the initial energy of inflation was larger than required for the jump and the system
was, after initial inflation, somewhat deflated to a stable state.
Indeed, if outer planets are bigger (and older) and the Solar System was inflating as a system of particles (e.g., an atom) - which is a most likely scenario, the energy distribution suggests
effective initial inflation of the core to current Mars' orbit or beyond, then deflation to current Sun' radius. In that case, the invariable plane (which is roughly aligned with Jupiter) might represent the
fossil of the original core equatorial plane.
The higher inclinations of dwarf planets (marked green in Table \tbl1) might indicate that these are youngest and were formed after system stabilization, however, more likely, as decreasing
inclination (relative to the invariable plane) of dwarf planets in the main asteroid belt (and increasing alignment with the current equatorial plane) towards the core suggests, these were inflated from
smaller and neutral gravitons.
I hypothesize that outer planets (gas giants) were inflated from polarized gravitons of electrons (some, or all, of which have ended up in an excited state or different generation - tau
and muon mass eigenstates, possibly multiple states in superposition), dwarf planets were inflated from neutrinos, while inner planets were inflated from positively charged particles (parts of
atomic nuclei). The anti-alignment of spin magnetic momenta between inner and outer planets goes in favour of this hypothesis (which
is
further analysed in a follow-up paper).
Note that a black hole is only a relatively special form of a gravitational well. Particles faster than light must exist (even if one may not be able to detect them) and every gravitational
well has a relative event horizon - digesting energy of one scale and ejecting smaller scale ions which then combine to feed moons. The only difference is scale.
The self-similarity is not limited to celestial bodies - every metabolism is ultimately ionic.
Note also that the trajectory of ejected charges is bent by the magnetic field lines (tubes) and these can be considered as a form of intestines.
In CR, there can be no absolute singularities, only relative ones. If a black hole is the result of graviton inflation or deflation, its gravitational maximum has a real radius and, if any
gravitational collapse of standard matter would result in a black hole the collapse would end at that maximum - a ring-like (or toroidal) relative singularity. The collapse of the body of matter
is, however, likely relatively synchronized with a change in energy level of the graviton (and exchange between gravitational and electro-magnetic potential).
The graviton may collapse to smaller scale but never to a radius of absolute 0 as this would require absolutely infinite mass or angular velocity (due to conservation of momentum). Infinite
momenta (energies) are never involved in such collapses.
Furthermore, collapse to a smaller radius is generally coupled with the increase in angular velocity and decrease of the rest mass of a graviton. This will generally be reflected in
acquired mass. Conservation of momentum is thus effectively replacing gravitational attraction with centrifugal repulsion at some scale.
Therefore, although acquired mass can be compacted to extremely dense forms of energy, this energy won't occupy 0 volume and will be radiated away (at whatever scale possible) until it matches
the graviton scale. However, with collapse of scale, graviton might exchange spin momentum for orbital angular momentum and decouple from acquired matter. In that case, the particles of compacted matter may be
considered dead as a collective and will tend to decompose, decay and spread. Nature evolved diverse mechanisms for such decay - in some reference frames it may be observed as rapid and
abiotic, in other organic and slow.
In general, distinct conscious life (by my hypotheses) of any system (collective) starts and ends with a change in discrete energy level of a graviton (or gravitons in superposition) at times of:
- conception (coupling), synchronized with graviton inflation or deflation, and
- death (decoupling), inversion of momentum with inflation or deflation (breaking entanglement with coupled matter).
Obviously, what is interpreted as conception and what as death is scale relative. For the graviton (soul), the end of life on one scale is the beginning of life on another scale (switch of
context). From some reference frames, one scale may be short-lived and graviton may be observed reincarnating on a single scale - popping in and out of existence between different spaces.
General force, strong force and strong entanglement
Since space cannot be absolute or absolutely abstract, it has properties and energy which can be transformed.
Various combinations of spin momenta, subspaces (dimensions) of various scales (various masses of force carrying particles), enable evolution of forces of various nature.
Complexity of these forces will be proportional to the number of possible polarized states, or degrees of freedom in polarization.
Even gravity, with intrinsic rotation taken into account, can be interpreted as a polarized force.
A neutral force may generally be interpreted as a force of unipolar radial effect (e.g., non-discriminating attraction). However, every neutral particle or force has polarized components which
are generally correlated with polarized angular momenta.
With changing complexity, one force, may evolve from the other. Complexity can be increased by strengthening entanglement (localization in some dimension of space) of two or more sources of
polarized force. Strong localization can be interpreted as superposition in some scales and, if this is a superposition of mass (e.g., gravitational), bigger mass of force carrier particles
will reduce the range of force.
One strongly localized force is the force holding the particles of the atom nucleus together (it is even called
strong force in QM). But should it be interpreted as a special kind of force?
If gravitational sources are generally not limited to one force carrying particle (graviton of a single scale or rest mass) such force may be interpreted as localized gravity.
Of course, if it shows complex polarization (and it may, due to relative superposition of multiple sources), it is not just localized but it has evolved from neutral gravity.
Note that polarization too is relative. It may even be induced by polarized observers.
Note also that evolution, instead of being progressive, can be regressive - reducing, instead of increasing, complexity.
If one is to unify all possible forces and represent them by a single equation, that equation cannot contain any absolute constants. It must be as variable (or evolvable) as possible.
Pragmatically, however, it will generally be more usable not to generalize as much, as variability and evolution of reality localized in an dimension of space (including time) is
inevitably limited.
Therefore, instead of using this equation for a general force (that includes all possible interpretations on all possible scales):
$\displaystyle F = *$
more convenient and usable expression would be the one of a relatively general force that discards forces of negligible influence on the context.
In typical local contexts a relatively general force may include electro-magnetic and gravitational terms.
Such form is also useful in the context of transformation of energy (inflation/deflation) between discrete vertical energy levels, as all terms are hypothesized to be entangled and one
potential may be exchanged for the other, e.g., electro-magnetic force might regress to gravitational force with inflation of energy, but also
vice versa, depending on the scales in question.
This is exactly what I hypothesize had happened with the inflation of energy in the observable universe.
Strong entanglement, interaction probabilities, photon nature
Strong correlation (localization) of particles in a particular dimension may be hard to disturb for an observer. Due to limited resolving power, observational energy may strengthen correlation
and inflate additional pairs of entangled particles.
Note that inflation of particles on one scale may be interpreted as annihilation of particles on the other.
This is the case for particles forming atomic nuclei, held together by strong force (strong entanglement), and one reason why proton may be considered an elementary particle in most contexts.
However, assuming that the binding of an electron to proton, due to increasing correlation of charges, localizes proton charge into a positron, in that context, the structure of a proton becomes
more complex.
Since an accelerated change in distance between charges will result in emission of photons, the photon can be interpreted as a product of a change in [the strength of] entanglement between
charges. It then must be a composite particle, at minimum, a pair of particles produced with inflation of polarized space-forming gravitons of charged particles.
Obviously, if the two charges are fermions (having half-integer spin momenta), the inflated particle (photon) must be a boson (full-integer spin momentum) - elementary for some observers.
The composite particles of a photon (half-photons) are then fermions of scale U
-1, which may be interpreted as an inflated U
-2 electron-positron pair (or, perhaps
electron-proton pair) - since electrons/protons are of scale U
0, their space-forming particles must be of scale U
-2.
Absorption of that photon by an entangled proton-electron pair (atom) will cause [inverse] annihilation of the pair through deflation into constituent quanta of space forming the entanglement.
Note that a photon can be a composite inflated from space-forming particles associated with two equally charged particles (e.g., two electrons). In that case, the annihilation, or at least
mass annihilation, may not be a proper term. Spin annihilation however can be.
Obviously, as charged particles lose energy with photon emission, the question is in what form is the lost energy, neutral gravitational mass or charge? In other words, do half-photons carry
opposite and equal charges or do they carry mass away from charged particles? The proper answer in CR is both, even though one may dominate and the energy can be decomposed into
electro-magnetic and gravitational waves and energy may even be exchanging between these during travel. Considering the apparently oscillating force dominance between vertical energy levels, the
dominant force on the U
-1 scale should be neutral, suggesting that even the half-photons should not be electrically charged. Why do the photons, being neutral, interact strongly with the
standard charged particles? In one interpretation, this is due to the difference in vertical scale (photons are of U
-1 scale, standard charged particles are of U
0 scale). Recall
that adjacent vertical scales are entangled. This difference in scale can be interpreted as polarization and, thus, results in high probability of interaction in case of strong entanglement.
Generally, what force and which components of force will be dominantly felt between particles, depends strongly on the distance in scale between them. It appears that particles of adjacent vertical
scales generally feel the radial component of force (entanglement), while at the distance of 2 vertical energy levels (e.g., distance between U1 and U-1) the angular component
dominates. Thus, while particles forming space act as carriers of radial force between larger gravitons, they themselves are weakly affected by that force (in case of equal spin at least), but are
strongly affected by the angular component. This if why space-forming gravitons do not clump together, only their density/energy decreases with distance. This is also the reason why photons (being
of U-1 scale) are weakly radially attracted by the celestial bodies (which are of U1 scale), but their trajectories may be bent significantly (because they do feel radial
attraction to the space-forming gravitons). In case of interactions between equally scaled particles, spin momenta and nature of species have major roles. Spin anti-alignment generally results in attraction due to the anti-alignment of the oscillation of angular
waveforms. Radial attraction occurs with the anti-alignment of the oscillation of radial waveforms.
Event though the space may seem continuous, it is obviously only relatively continuous. Each of the space-forming gravitons may be associated with an horizontal energy level so the density of energy levels
is equivalent to the density of space, but that density is relative to scale. It is usually considered that electrons occupy discrete energy levels in an atom, but it is more appropriate to say
that, in a waveform, their energy is only mostly concentrated at the maxima of potential (or entanglement) and they are most likely to be localized at these maxima. Space-forming gravitons still
exist between these maxima, and even though these orbitals are relatively forbidden for electrons, they can be occupied by other particles.
How can two electrons overcome the radial repulsion and couple together? This is possible when one electron is localized and the other is not, scale difference will subdue repulsion and, once
they are both in the same state (localized or delocalized) and aligned, spin anti-alignment will enable stability.
Particles generally oscillate between localized and delocalized states, nuclear fusion of two protons, for example, will require high energy when the two are synchronized in this cycling. Ensuring
proper time dilation between the two can significantly increase the fusion probability.
Generally, a non-localized photon is, like a gravitational wave, a more or less spherical wave (energy distribution depending on conditions during emission and photon dimensionality), exchanging
energy between spin momenta components during travel, with greatest probability for absorption in the direction aligned with the spin momentum axis (although the direction of that axis can change
during travel, e.g., in non-flat gravitational space).
Implications on evolution
Regardless of the physical manifestation of photon propagation, it obviously carries information on the source, including original location in flat space (which may be locally manifested as a recoil
in specific direction at the time of absorption). It is a relative clone of the system that caused emission, albeit of different energy.
As carriers of force, photons, or gravitons in general, can be interpreted as carriers of changes in specific entanglement between entangled entities (emitter and absorber). The entanglement
channel (or dimension) is present as long as the exchange of gravitons exists, or, in other words, as long as the entanglement is changing. But the entanglement is always changing at some
scale, and from some reference frames, channels may be interpreted as permanent. Since this horizontal information transfer can proceed faster than standard light on smaller
scales, relative
precognition becomes theoretically possible, assuming changes in the energy on smaller scale precede changes on the larger scale (which generally is the case, although
they may also follow the changes of larger scale). With a change in vertical energy level of the carrier, the absorbed energy of the smaller scale may even be interpreted as absorbed energy of
larger scale.
Consider a gluon tube connecting two gluons (where each gluon is, per the definition here, a local superposition of gravitons of different scale). This gluon tube thus consists of two graviton
tubes of different scale. If the difference in scale is vertically high (i.e., a difference in multiple orders of magnitude), information transfer through the tube of smaller scale will be
significantly faster than the transfer through the larger tube. Now assume that, due to local entanglement, the graviton of larger scale is affected by the received information as well. If the
local information exchange between the entangled gravitons is faster than the transfer of information through the tube of larger scale (reasonable assumption), the local graviton of larger scale
could receive the information that can be interpreted as the change in the distant large graviton before the actual information on the change arrives through the larger graviton tube.
In another example, consider a vertical entanglement between scales (universes), where the only significant difference between them is the difference in scale and thus difference in the speed of
time. Evolution of energy will then be equal between the two, but one (smaller scale) will be more evolved than the other. Information transfer from the smaller scale to the larger
scale enables prediction of local future. Note, however, that this is a probabilistic prediction, for a couple of reasons. 1st, there is no absolute equality and, 2nd, since the system can only
be relatively isolated, the probability for deviation of local future from the prediction is non-zero. Note also that increasing distance in evolution between the two is decreasing alignment, or
aligned entanglement, in time, which can affect the entanglement in the dimension used for information transfer. Thus, in order for this to be long-term sustainable, some kind of occasional or
periodic synchronization will have to occur. Assuming information transfer is possible due to localization (relative superposition) of the two scales in space, synchronization is possible with
the exchange of scale (inflation of the smaller scale, deflation of the larger scale). Thus, any effective precognition will have a finite range, and this range will be increasing with time from
the moment of last synchronization (when it is reset to zero). This is particularly interesting in the context of entanglement between planetary systems and the unstable standard isotopes, which
is explored in follow-up work. But it can also be very interesting in other contexts.
For example, considering there is no visual stimulation of standard scale during sleep, dreams could represent information transferred from a different scale and locally interpreted as
absorbed photons, at least in some cases. One should thus not exclude the possibility of existence of prophets, although, reliable ones may be extremely rare.
Channels of entanglement carry energy and can, therefore, affect other energy of a particular scale. These channels or filaments (note the dark matter correlation), which can be of different
complexity (depending on the complexity of information they carry), can guide this energy into particular configuration. With inherent limitation of observers, the guidance channels may be
unobservable, and the behaviour of energy can be interpreted as a result of spontaneous change in energy levels, random fluctuation, self-organization or free will.
Consider self-organization of cells during embryonic development. This is not DNA coded. DNA only carries recipes for the components (proteins) and may carry epigenetic markers which when
triggered can result in a cascade of gene expression but this cannot explain self-organization of cells into tissues or emergent phenomena. However, assume that the organization into tissue has
already occurred on the smaller scale, information received on the larger scale can guide the cells into such organization (e.g., on some subconscious level). Obviously, it is not required for the
event to occur on the smaller scale, what is required is information that it has occurred. In any case, spontaneous self-organization can only be relatively spontaneous and information can
evolve. In case of weak information (intensity of entanglement) any self-organization can be interpreted to be highly spontaneous and will have a low probability of happening, whereas in case
of strong guidance, self-organization may be interpreted as strongly coded. Former may then be interpreted as evolution, latter as coded development. However, probability of self-organization in
the former can be increased with multiple instances of the potential precursor self-organizations. Consider atoms for example. A large number of collections of atoms will surely evolve molecules
eventually if the environment is suitable for the existence of molecules. Similarly, if the environment allows, these will evolve into more complex forms, e.g., amino-acids, these into
proteins, etc. But once some form evolves, the information could be conserved and reused to make the evolution of a nearby precursor less spontaneous. Evolution is thus relative development, and
development is a relative evolution.
Small updates in Weak entanglement.
Weak entanglement
Graviton tubes are always physical at some scale, however, with increasing distance and no additional energy applied to the tube, entanglement weakens.
Note, however, that weak entanglement in one dimension (e.g., space) does not imply weak entanglement in the other (e.g., time).
However, as long as there is no change in entangled energy the entanglement will not get broken (and when it does, it never is broken absolutely), even if the particles are separated
over great distance.
Due to the fact that energy remains constant, either volume and energy density of the tube (dimension) connecting the particles remain constant or energy density is decreased
proportionally to volume increase. Assuming information is transferred along the tube membrane, the former will be, with decreasing tube radius (and mass per quantum of
space [cross-section]), increasing speed of information transfer. In that interpretation, speed of transfer can exceed speed of light. In the second interpretation, space is stretched and local
observer (within the tube) would measure no change in speed, while a remote observer could measure superluminal transfer - assuming tube (subspace) is resolvable by that observer.
In CR, both interpretations are valid (possible). One can only argue what and when any information is transmitted. Information that is
observable could be limited to information transmitted
with the collapse (deflation) of entanglement, which will, in both interpretations, decrease energy in the tube.
Since weak entanglement is relatively unaffected by change in spatial distance alone, the first interpretation (volume invariant to spatial distance) is convenient as it implies proportionality
of volume (or volumetric distance) with distance in correlation (inverse of [scale of] entangled energy or strength of entanglement).
Note that
the
observer who cannot resolve (observe) the tube of entanglement cannot use the tube for information transfer or control information transmitted on collapse (superluminal or not). In that case, weak
entanglement reduces to standard non-local QM entanglement (note that, per CR postulates, QM entanglement cannot be absolutely non-local, implying existence of reference frames with interpretations
stated above).
Fig. \fig4: Weak entanglement
$\displaystyle \Delta E_1 = \Delta E_2 = \Delta E = \text{const.}$
What is the initial speed of information transfer?
Speed of information transfer always depends on distance in some dimension. If distance in time is distance in evolution, distance in time between two equally evolved or relatively identical
particles (e.g., two entangled photons) will be a relative 0, so the speed of information transfer with the collapse of entanglement in time will be a relative infinity, relatively invariant to spatial distance.
For a sufficiently limited observer, these relative values (e.g., zero, infinity and invariance), may be effectively equal to being absolute. However, any observer that assumes this is an
inherent limitation of reality, rather than its own, will, by that, limit its own understanding of reality as well.
Layers of entanglement, background entanglement
Since entanglement in space/time is never broken absolutely, entanglement is layered and certain hierarchy in dominance can exist. On may thus introduce a concept
of "background entanglement". Consider a simple case of gravitational and electro-magnetic entanglement, where the two are coupled through the uncertainty principle. One component may explode
at the expense of the other, but the other is never lost absolutely. If dominance oscillates between the two, one of these can be considered the background [level of] entanglement.
Electric polarization and charge/mass exchange
In the standard model of physics particles have fixed (intrinsic and unchangeable) properties (e.g., electric charge, rest mass, spin) which then produces a zoo of different particles. While that
approach is useful, different particles evolve from other particles and it might not always be the most convenient approach, especially in CR, where even planets or animals on it are considered
particles from certain reference frames.
One can thus model a single particle and declare it relative - evolvable. Here, one such particle is the graviton - it can transform from a source of gravity to a source of electro-magnetic
force and vice versa (effectively exchanging the scale of mass with the scale of charge).
Exchanges between electro-magnetic and gravitational potential generally occur with changes in vertical energy level, but such exchange on horizontal levels is not absolutely forbidden, it may
only require special conditions.
In one example of such exchange, down quark could evolve from a superposition of 9 gravitons of electron mass, where 5 of them are negatively charged, 4 positively, and 2/3 of remaining negative
charge (4 opposite charges cancel) have been exchanged for mass.
This gives a total electric charge of -1/3 e, spin 1/2 and rest mass (assuming quadratic growth of mass) equal to:
$\displaystyle {m_d}_0 = \left(9 + {\left(2 \over 3\right)}^2 \right) m_e = \left(3^2 + {\left(2 \over 3\right)}^2 \right) * 0.511\, {MeV \over c^2} = 4.826\overline{1}\, {MeV \over c^2} \tag{1.2}$
However, assuming this superposition is stable (particles have undergone fusion and indeed form a new particle), total mass will be somewhat lower (by the binding energy).
Binding energy is not always lower though, for bound hadrons (e.g., quarks bound into a proton), due to large angular momenta, total mass can be significantly higher than the sum of rest masses of
bound particles (from some reference frames).
Assuming particles are bound as atomic nuclei are, and scaling binding energy of
9C (carbon isotope), the rest mass becomes:
$\displaystyle m_d = {m_d}_0\, {MeV \over c^2} (1 - 0.00464) = 4.8037\, {MeV \over c^2}$
This is in agreement with
mass
determined from lattice QCD of 4.79±0.16 MeV/c
2.
However, here it was assumed that complete conversion of 1 e of charge would result in mass equal to electron mass, the actual ratio can be significantly different. Assuming that the down quark is
instead a result of conversion of anti-up quark charge to mass, mass inflated per 1/3 e of charge lost is:
$\displaystyle \left(m_d - m_u\right) = 2.78\, {MeV \over c^2}$
Note that conversion of electric charge to gravitational mass by that ratio would release enormous amounts of energy as gravitational force is ≈10
42 orders of magnitude weaker
than electro-magnetic at that scale. Instead of energy released, it may be more appropriate to consider conversion of electro-magnetic force to strong nuclear force (as quarks are confined to
atomic nuclei).
Strong nuclear force then evolves from electro-magnetic force, however, it may be interpreted as condensed gravitational force. During the conversion, instead of inflation of rest mass, local
space is condensed, the mass of local gravity carrier particles increases, strongly limiting the range of the force (localizing gravity).
Of course, if the strong force is polarized, it is a composite of different sources and thus more complex.
Symmetric positive and negative charges in superposition can annihilate and produce more massive particles (such as quarks) with enough kinetic energy. Thus, taking kinetic energy into
account, quarks (or, more precisely, quark/anti-quark pairs) can be produced with only 2 charges and that is how they might be generally produced in the observable universe at this time.
Electric polarization of a graviton is represented by positive (+) or negative (-) charge. As such, they are sources of electric, magnetic fields and electro-magnetic radiation. In one
interpretation of CR, positively charged particles may be referred to as anti-matter, negative as matter. Composite, neutral, matter particles are those with more mass in negative charge, neutral
anti-matter particles are those with more mass in positive charge.
The
missing anti-matter problem in physics can be solved by CR, through different pathways. One is asymmetric momenta (energy) distribution in annihilation events - where the product of
lower mass (anti-matter) was captured beyond supermassive black holes (here, supermassive black holes may not be remnants of stars of the current universe, rather effective producers of early
stars). Another pathway is differentiation through evolution in charge-mass exchanges, or, exchanges between electro-magnetic and gravitational potential.
Consider
elementary charges (electrons and constituent particles of protons and neutrons), as shown in Table \tbl2 (also showing possible constituent charges of electrons).
particle | charge quanta [e] | total charge [e] |
electron | [ -2/3 -2/3 +1/3 ] OR 3x [ -2/3 +1/3 ] ? | -1 |
proton | [ +2/3 +2/3 -1/3 ] | +1 |
neutron | [ +2/3 -1/3 -1/3 ] | 0 |
Table \tbl2: Elementary charges
Obviously, charges are balanced, all particles are fermions and assuming positive charges are anti-matter particles, negative are matter particles, the result of asymmetry is simply exchange between
charge and mass. In CR, electron cannot be absolutely elementary, therefore, three down quarks (3 * -1/3 e) and three up quarks (3 * +2/3 e) could have evolved from 1 electron and 2 positrons.
All the elementary particles could have thus evolved from 2 electrons and 2 positrons total - symmetry, assuming that for every electron there exists one proton and one neutron.
Having equal amount of charge, but (orders of magnitude) different mass, electrons and protons could be interpreted as belonging to two different universes.
Quarks cannot be absolutely elementary either. For every electron there is thus a positron
hiding beyond the relative event horizon of an atom - it may be reformed (from proton energy) at time
the electron is captured by the proton to form the atom (leaving +1/3 e and -1/3 e charge with neutral mass in the core).
In one interpretation, proton itself is the positron evolved in time in order to preserve existence (avoid annihilation), one may refer to it as a vertically excited positron (conventional anti-proton
would then be a vertically excited electron).
Existence requires asymmetry, and with asymmetry evolves diversity.
In one interpretation of
β- decay, a quantized collapse of a gravitational maximum (neutron event horizon) produces a positron/electron pair and neutrino/anti-neutrino
pair, electron and anti-neutrino are ejected (paired or evolved into a W
- boson initially by the strong curvature) while positron and neutrino are absorbed by the nucleus.
Strong nuclear curvature evolves positron/neutrino pair into up quark (+2/3 e) and anti-down quark (+1/3 e) which then annihilates with one existing down quark (-1/3 e), transforming neutron to proton.
Outside the strong curvature (pressure) of space of nuclei, W
- boson is unstable and lack of gravitational pressure (time dilation) may be the sole reason it decomposes back
to electron/anti-neutrino pair.
The Compton wavelength of the electron is on the order of atomic radii and this suggests that electron bound to the atom is electron coupled to a nuclear graviton of similar mass (and thus
similar range). Electrons closer to the nucleus are then coupled with more massive gravitons. One can then consider the up quark as a positron coupled with such graviton and a down quark as electron
coupled with an even more massive graviton. Note that, in these couplings, mass is inversely proportional to charge, suggesting mass/charge exchange with coupling.
Coupling of an electron and anti-neutrino into a massive W
- boson then suggests that electric charge of a massive W boson may be extremely low (<< 1 e) - in any case, charge is not
conserved in that form, it is restored with decoupling.
The charge/mass exchange can be understood as exchange of spin momentum components. To conserve momentum, with increasing rest mass (or spin momentum of mass) the momentum of energy producing
charge (magnetic field
lines) must be decreased. If one interprets magnetic field
lines (tubes) as dimensions of time, time dilation is physically manifested here as contraction or
deflation of time dimensions.
Disregarding negligible photon mass compared to a strong force graviton mass, conversion of 2/3 e charge potential to gravitational Yukawa type potential of a down quark mass would yield mass
mg for
the graviton (assuming unscaled gravitational constant
G) as follows:
$\displaystyle {GM \over r} e^{-{\mu}_g r} = {2 \over 3} {1 \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {q_e \over r}$
$\displaystyle e^{-{\mu}_g r} = {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}}$
$\displaystyle {\mu}_g = ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} {1 \over r}$
$\displaystyle m_g = ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} {1 \over r} {\hbar \over c} \tag{1.3}$
qe = 1.60218 * 10-19 C
ε0 = 8.85419 * 10-12 F/m
G = 6.67430 * 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
ℏ = 1.054572 * 10-34 Js
c = 2.99792458 * 108 m/s
For r = 1 * 10
-15 m and mass of a down quark
M =
md = 4.8 MeV/c
2 = 8.556777 * 10
-30 kg:
$\displaystyle m_g = 2.44819 * 10^{-26}\, kg = 13.7333\, {GeV \over c^2}$
Roughly 100 times the range (
r) would give the mass of a pion (π meson). It is certainly viable that the range of gravity of the down quark is 100 times the nuclear radius, at least when there's an
electron bound to the nucleus (forming the atom).
Of course, the source of a strong force is generally a composite force (a superposition) of multiple short range sources, but is the complex polarization present at all times, or does it
only occasionally evolve?
Interestingly, using Compton wavelength of a pion (roughly 1.43 * 10
-15 m) for
r, gives
mg = 9.60 GeV/c
2, which would be equal to superposition (not a
stable composite) of 2 bottom quarks and 1 charm quark (2*4.18 + 1.28 = 9.64 GeV/c
2). Such superposition could be interpreted as an unstable neutral baryon. If that baryon is then
paired with its anti-particle the radius
r would be reduced to roughly 0.715 * 10
-15 m, which could be interpreted as down quark contribution to the mass radius of the proton.
Note that the calculation for up quarks (conversion of 1/3 charge to mass) gives almost equal results (due to up quark mass being roughly half the down quark
mass, 2/3 m
d-1 ≈ 1/3 m
u-1).
Note also that it has recently been discovered that
a
charm/anti-charm quark pair may be more intrinsic to the proton than previously thought. Could it be that the whole hypothesized baryon/anti-baryon pair gets periodically inflated then?
If one assumes that the mass of the pair is inflated by the ratio of charm quark mass to proton mass (1275/928.272), the mass radius becomes 0.521 * 10
-15 m, in agreement
with
recently obtained proton mass
radius of 0.55±0.03 fm.
Interestingly, conversion of charge to mass using (1.3) for
M equal to proton or anti-proton mass yields the graviton mass
mg on the order of electron mass for
r on the order
of electron orbitals in the atom. Coincidence? I think not.
Thus, the nuclei of atoms may generally not be held together by a force stronger than electrostatic repulsion, rather the repulsive electric potential is periodically converted to strongly
localized gravitational potential. This oscillation could be interpreted as relative superposition of electro-magnetic and gravitational forces, which collapses to a particular eigenstate with
interaction (observation).
The requirement for nuclear fusion (
fossilization of superposition of multiple atomic nuclei into a new discrete nucleus) is then anti-aligned oscillation. The binding will be most stable
with a phase shift of 90°, while it is least stable in resonance (stability of superposition in that case requires extremely low pressure/temperature).
Note that, in CR, absolutely infinite stability is impossible. Therefore, any superposition is a relative fusion, and vice versa.
This difference in phase shift can be achieved with difference in [the amount of] momenta between two nuclei (inducing time dilation in one) - bombardment of one nucleus with the other.
This suggests that the probability for fusion may be higher between different species (different rest masses between nuclei).
Interestingly, the non-dimensional factor in equation (1.3) is almost equal in value to the natural logarithm of the inverse of electron mass (
me):
$\displaystyle ln{\left( {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} \right)} \approx ln{\left( {1 \over m_e} \right)}$
Rearranging (1.3), one can get the orbital angular momentum of the graviton (in local rest frame). Assuming inverse of 2/3 of electron mass (better fit):
$\displaystyle m_g\, c\, r = ln{\left( {3 \over 2} {C \over m_e} \right)}\, \hbar \approx ln{\left( {3 \over 2} {1 \over m_e} \right)}\, \hbar \approx \sqrt{69 * (69+1)}\, \hbar$
C ≈ 1 kg
Is it a coincidence that graviton momentum is quantized by [the inverse of] 2/3 electron mass?
Here, one should also question whether the ℏ constant (quantum of momentum) should be different (scaled) in the local rest frame.
Down quark mass (
md) from the equivalence:
$\displaystyle {2 \over 3} {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over {G M}} = {3 \over 2} {1 \over m_e}$
is:
$\displaystyle m_d = M = {\left({2 \over 3}\right)}^2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m_e \over G} = 8.7348 * 10^{-30}\, kg = 4.9\, {MeV \over c^2} \tag{1.4}$
me = 9.10938356 * 10-31 kg
The obtained mass is in agreement with lattice QCD (4.79±0.16 MeV/c
2). Thus, the constant
C here may be exactly equal to 1, rather than approximately.
The obtained equation (1.4) also confirms the (2/3)
2 factor of charge/mass conversion, initially assumed in (1.2).
Some might argue that graviton orbital velocity cannot be equal to c as it has finite mass, however, orbital momentum of the graviton should be understood as orbital momentum
of [a quantum of] space - it is relatively massless from the local reference frame.
However, once it gets coupled its orbital velocity will decrease below c (and mass will inflate to conserve the momentum). The coupling (inflation) of a graviton will decrease the
local gravitational capacity for coupling with a particular scale of matter, however, as this coupling is also a gravity source, it may increase coupling capacity of the local well for
another scale of matter.
If charge/mass conversion is common, it should not be limited to electron/down quark conversion. Indeed, equation (1.4) can match other quarks/leptons of the standard model, by changing input
mass (
me) and charge fraction
Q (term 2/3 in the equation). And adding the term 10
n (as in eq. 1.5), where
n is an integer yields even more
correlation, as shown in Table \tbl8 for some matches with positive input charges. Here, it is assumed that charge fraction
Q indeed represents the charge fraction being exchanged for mass [inflation/deflation].
Note that, if electron can convert to down quark, it should be possible for muon and tau electrons to convert to muon and tau down quarks.
Note also that only simple conversions (1:1 input/output) are considered here, more complex conversions are possible.
$\displaystyle M = {10}^n Q^2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G} \tag{1.5}$
input particle (mass m, charge) | charge fraction Q | n | output mass M (charge) | correlated standard model particle (mass, charge) |
up quark (2.2 MeV/c2, 2/3 e+) | 1/3 | 0 | 5.2741 MeV/c2 (1/3 e+) | anti-down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) |
up quark (2.2 MeV/c2, 2/3 e+) | 1 | -1 | 4.7467 MeV/c2 (1/3 e-) | down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e-) |
anti-down quark (4.7 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) | 2/3 | -1 | 4.5069 MeV/c2 (1/3 e-) | down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e-) |
anti-down quark (4.7 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) | 4/3 | 1 | 1.8028 GeV/c2 (1 e-) | tau electron (1.7769 GeV/c2, 1 e-) |
anti-strange quark (96 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) | 2/3 | -1 | 92.0566 MeV/c2 (1/3 e-) | strange quark (95 +9/-3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e-) |
anti-strange quark (96 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) | 1 | -3 | 2.0713 MeV/c2 (2/3 e-) | anti-up quark (2.2 +0.5/-0.4 MeV/c2, 2/3 e-) |
anti-bottom[1S] quark (4.65 GeV/c2, 1/3 e+) | 4/3 | -2 | 1.7836 GeV/c2 (1 e-) | tau electron (1.7769 GeV/c2, 1 e-) |
positron (0.511 MeV/c2, 1 e+) | 1/3 | 3 | 1.225 GeV/c2 (2/3 e+) | charm quark (1.27 ±0.02 GeV/c2, 2/3 e+) |
positron (0.511 MeV/c2, 1 e+) | 2/3 | 0 | 4.9 MeV/c2 (1/3 e+) | anti-down quark (4.7 +0.5/-0.3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) |
muon positron (105.6584 MeV/c2, 1 e+) | 1/3 | -2 | 2.533 MeV/c2 (2/3 e+) | up quark (2.2 +0.5/-0.4 MeV/c2, 2/3 e+) |
muon positron (105.6584 MeV/c2, 1 e+) | 2/3 | -1 | 101.3198 MeV/c2 (1/3 e+) | anti-strange quark (95 +9/-3 MeV/c2, 1/3 e+) |
Table \tbl8: Obtained masses using equation (1.5)
The introduction of 10
n term suggests presence of an additional mechanism acting on mass for n ≠ 0 (note that for negative
n mass of the output particle can be lower
than the mass of the input particle - not expected for simple conversion of charge into mass), however, change in mass M should be compensated by the change in mass of the force carrier
particle. The term may be correlated with inflation/deflation of mass and mechanism behind it can be annihilation or vertical mass oscillation.
Charge fraction parameter (
Q) larger than the input charge further increases complexity, as here absolute output charge value can be higher than the absolute input charge value, albeit of
different polarity. What is the mechanism behind charge inversion? One solution is in the composite charges. In example, 1/3 e
+ charge of a particle can be a
sum of 2 x 1/3 e
+ and 1/3 e
-, the Q of 2/3 then
removes 2 x 1/3 e
+, resulting in 1/3 e
- output charge (charge inversion, although apparent, is
then not real). However, the
Q2 term may be incorrect.
Note that, for input mass
m equal to calculated down/anti-down quark mass (4.9 MeV/c
2), charge fraction
Q equal to 1 and
n = 0, equation gives mass
of 105.7213 MeV/c
2, very close to the muon electron mass (105.66 MeV/c
2), however, with the above interpretation of charge fraction (output
charge = input charge -
Q), this particle has 2/3 e charge (while standard muon particle has 1 e charge). This can be solved if, instead of a down quark, input mass contains two up
quarks, with
Q = 1/3 and
n = 1. This, for single up quark mass equal to 2.203688 MeV/c
2 gives muon mass 105.6584 MeV/c
2, and appropriate muon
charge (2*2/3 - 1/3 = 1). In this case however, spin is not conserved. Addition of a neutrino to input (or output) mass could solve this problem. Neutrino mass is negligible compared to muon
mass but it carries the required spin (1/2).
Note that neutrinos may be involved in other cases as well.
The same muon mass and appropriate charge/spin can also be obtained if input mass contains up/anti-up quark pair and a neutrino, with
Q = 1 and
n = 0. In that case, up quark
mass has to be higher (~2.45 MeV/c
2), unless neutrino is highly energetic and carries the excess energy. However, this can be interpreted as annihilation, and, instead in
input, neutrino may be present in the output.
Similar and very interesting results can be obtained if the term
Q2 is replaced with a term 2/3
Q, resulting in equation (1.6):
$\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G} \tag{1.6}$
$\displaystyle q_{out} = q_{in} - Q {q_{in} \over |q_{in}|}$
m = input mass
Q = fraction of charge being exchanged for mass inflation/deflation = k × 1/3 (k = integer)
n = vertical energy level (integer)
qout = output charge
qin = input charge
Note that, instead of providing mass, the equation can be rearranged to provide mass ratios for particular Q and n.
This, in example, for input mass equal to positron mass (0.511 MeV/c
2, 1 e
+),
Q = 4/3 and
n = 1, gives mass of 98.002 MeV/c
2 and
charge 1/3 e
- (1 -
Q = -1/3), which can be correlated with standard strange quark (mass = 95 +9/-3 MeV/c
2, charge = -1/3). The same input
mass, with
Q = 5/3 and
n = 2 gives output mass 1.225 GeV/c
2 and charge 2/3 e
- (1 -
Q = -2/3), which can be correlated with standard anti-charm
quark (mass = 1.27 ±0.02 GeV/c
2, charge = -2/3).
Most striking example, however, is the result obtained using input mass equal to tau positron mass (1.7768 GeV/c
2, 1 e
+),
Q = 2 and
n = -5. This gives a mass
of 0.511 MeV/c
2 and charge of 1 e
- (1 -
Q = -1), which obviously can be correlated with standard electron (mass = 0.511 MeV/c
2, charge = -1).
Thus, one now has a relation between electron (positron) and tau positron (electron) masses:
$\displaystyle m_e = {10}^{-5} {2 \over 3} 2 {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m_{\tau} \over G} \tag{1.7}$
me = electron/positron mass
mτ = tau electron/positron mass
A clear evidence for charge/mass exchange and vertical energy levels. And a possible evidence that there are no absolutely elementary charges (all are composite) - in the example above, tau
positron charge may be interpreted as a composite of 2 x 1 e
+ and 1 e
-, where 2 x 1 e
+ (corresponding to
Q = 2) has been exchanged for mass
deflation (annihilation).
In the simplest case of conversion, composite particles of tau positron may be one particle of electron charge/mass and two particles of 1 e
+ charge, each having a mass:
$\displaystyle m \approx {{m_{\tau} - m_e} \over 2} = 888.1745\, {MeV \over c^2}$
Interestingly, this particle can be obtained with (1.6) using 4.631 GeV/c
2 for input mass and charge of 1/3,
Q = 4/3 and
n = -2. This input mass/charge is in agreement
with standard bottom quark (1S scheme, mass = 4.650 ±0.03 GeV/c
2, charge = 1/3). Of course, binding energy should be taken into account (using 4.650 GeV/c
2 as input
gives 891.7987 MeV/c
2).
And using input mass of 4.9 MeV/c
2 and charge of 1/3 (down quark mass/charge, as calculated above in 1.4),
Q = 2/3,
n = 2, gives a mass
of 4.6987 GeV/c
2 and 1/3 charge, which can be correlated with this bottom quark.
Using proton as input (938.272 MeV, +1), with
Q = 1 and
n = -2, gives 134.9596 MeV and 0 charge, which can be correlated with the pion (π
0) particle (134.9768 MeV, 0).
Here are some additional examples with composite inputs.
Using input mass of 9.7846 MeV/c
2, charge 5/3,
Q = 2/3 and
n = 1 gives the proton (mass 938.27 MeV/c
2, charge 1). This input mass/charge can be interpreted as
a sum of two up quarks and one anti-down quark with energies 2 x 2.4423 and 4.9 MeV, respectively. In this process the charge fraction Q probably affects the anti-down quark, converting it into
a down quark (1/3 - Q = -1/3), consistent with the composition of the standard proton (2 up quarks + 1 down quark). Note that the equation can also produce a down quark from a single anti-down
quark input (and vice versa) - using
Q = 2/3 and
n = -1 produces a 4.7 MeV particle for 4.9 MeV input.
Using input mass of 2 x 4.9 MeV/c
2, charge 2/3,
Q = 2/3 and
n = 1 gives a mass of 939.75 MeV/c
2 and charge 0. The output can be correlated with the
neutron (mass 939.565 MeV/c
2, charge 0), while the input is 2 x anti-down quark (should also contain a small neutrino contribution).
Input of 2 up quarks and 1 electron with energies 2 x 2.203688 MeV and 0.511 MeV, respectively,
Q = 2/3 and
n = -1 gives mass 4.7163 MeV/c
2 and charge -1/3, which can
be interpreted as a down quark. Up quark, for
Q = 5/3 and
n = -2, converts to a particle of electron mass/charge.
All this provides interesting pathways for proton/neutron transformation.
Note that equations 1.4 - 1.7 should contain a dimensional constant (
C, as noted before), which was assumed to be equal to 1. The results obtained here suggest that indeed it is equal, or at least very
close, to 1. This is then equivalent to the notion that the following ratio is treated as non-dimensional in reality:
$\displaystyle {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {1 \over G}$
, the ratio of kg
2/C (kilogram squared per coulomb). However, the term 2/3 could be interpreted as [inverse of] the value of the constant.
If
Q is kept constant for particular input mass (
m), the equation (1.6) can be written as:
$\displaystyle M(n) = 10\, M(n-1) \tag{1.8}$
$\displaystyle M(0) = {2 \over 3} Q {q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G}$
Another interesting case is the addition of square roots, in this form (which could be
correlated with Koide formula):
$\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q \sqrt{{q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G} C} \tag{1.9}$
Here, assuming mass is given in eV/c
2, the unit of constant
C should be m
2s
-2kg
-1. The constant is roughly equal to 1 if it represents the ratio
between the standard speed of light squared and vertically excited electron mass:
$\displaystyle C = {c^2 \over {m_e \times 10^{47}}} = 0.99\, m^2s^{-2}kg^{-1} \approx 1\, m^2s^{-2}kg^{-1}$
c = 2.99792458 × 108 m/s
me = 9.10938356 × 10-31 kg
Note that the unit of the constant is equal to the unit of the gravitational constant divided by the metre, so the value of 1 can also be obtained
dividing
G by 6.674 × 10
-11 metres, which is, very interestingly, the theoretical radius of the carbon atom, its molecular double bond covalent radius (
6.67 × 10-11 m), and
also the Hill sphere radius of a carbon atom in the gravitational field of Earth, at Earth's surface. This correlation then may help explain why the carbon element is a common base in molecular
bonding and the basis for life on Earth's surface.
The equation (1.9) yields very interesting results but mostly for composite inputs. For example, top quark (173.1 GeV, 2/3) and
electron (0.511 MeV, -1), for
Q = 1 and
n = 0, yield 1.2797 GeV and 2/3 charge, which can be correlated with the charm quark (1.27±0.02 GeV, 2/3). There are other ways to obtain
the charm quark. Input of two down quarks with energies 4.7 + 4.9 MeV (or, 2 x 4.8 MeV),
Q = 4/3 and
n = 2, gives 1.2707 GeV for the charm quark. This combination of down quarks is certainly
interesting, as the same combination with added one up quark (2.2 MeV, 2/3), for
Q = 1 and
n = 1, gives 105.6596 MeV and -1 charge, showing high correlation with the
muon (105.66 MeV, -1). And there are more cases of such high correlation.
This equation, however, does not give such convincing results with single particle inputs, suggesting that, if square roots are valid for binary inputs, the generalized equation may have this
or similar form:
$\displaystyle M = {10}^n {2 \over 3} Q {\left({q_e \over {4 \pi {\epsilon}_0}} {m \over G}\right)}^{1 \over k} \tag{1.10}$
where
k either represents the number of input particles (possibly equal to 1 for single inputs and 2 for any composite input), or something like this:
$\displaystyle k = 1 + (j+1)\, \%\, 2$
j = number of input particles
Mass
Mass is simply energy, or relatively concentrated energy in some contexts. No quantum of energy can have mass equal to absolute 0. A particle with a relative 0 mass should be understood
as entangled non-concentrated finite mass (>0), generally in the form of waves.
Total mass
Uncoupled graviton may be considered to have 0 mass relative to space. However, once coupled (and slowed down) its mass is greater than 0.
Total mass of the coupling is the sum of masses of a graviton (img mass) and that of the acquired (coupled) matter (real mass):
$\displaystyle M = m_{img} + m_{re}$
It is usually denoted with uppercase letter
M. In contexts where it represents a quantum of bigger mass, it may be denoted with lowercase letter
m.
Imaginary mass = virtual mass = img mass
Imaginary mass is the mass of a graviton. However, in one interpretation, some or all of this mass may be shielded by acquired (coupled) matter and in that case it is not
constant (although acquisition of matter to full capacity can be relatively instant).
It can then be interpreted as the unshielded mass of a graviton and it is a relative 0 in equilibrium (full capacity). If there is no shielding, at full capacity img mass is equal to coupled real mass.
The mass of a graviton is usually denoted with
mimg.
Note that if shielding is real, total mass is constant as long as the well is not over-capacitated.
Real mass
A naked graviton will attract matter. Real mass represents the acquired mass (mass coupled to the graviton). Generally, for a graviton of scale U
n, coupled real mass is of
scale U
n-1, while particles (gravitons) forming space associated with the graviton are of scale U
n-2.
Note that coupling of the body of real mass with the large scale graviton is indirect. The individual components of real mass are actually directly coupling with the components of
space, however, due to generally aligned entanglement between Un and Un-2, in equilibrium conditions, this is equivalent.
Couplings are not intrinsic, gravitons can be naked and real mass collective may not be coupled to a graviton of larger scale. Such bodies of real mass are considered dead and are generally less
stable than bodies coupled to gravitons.
Low mass asteroids and comets are assumed to be such bodies. These are most likely leftovers of dead planets and moons. However, it is possible that every barycentre of organized or localized mass has
a physical interpretation in the form of a more energetic graviton (compared to constituent gravitons of that mass), although this may be unlikely and even if true, distinct consciousness
of such body [as a collective] would be extremely low (a relative 0).
One could argue that large scale graviton is unnecessary in any case, however, recursion would then make gravitons of any scale unnecessary and there would be no gravity or any other force
at any scale (note that a small scale graviton coupled to an atom is a large scale graviton from the reference scale of atoms).
Real mass is usually denoted with
mre.
If velocity of a graviton is different than its rest velocity in underlying space, relativistic effects will be locally expressed (kinetic energy will be stored locally), in the graviton spin
momenta and momenta of constituent quanta of its own space, as img mass.
The increase in gravitational potential will then result in the addition of real mass as well if matter of appropriate scale is available.
Real mass in a distinct gravitational well [of a graviton] is generally in significant part always being transformed to other forms of energy (through fusion, heat, chemical reactions, etc.) and
lost energy will generally be periodically replenished, as long as real mass is available (effectively, in case of
shielding interpretation, imaginary mass is periodically being
exchanged with real mass).
Note that continuous existence of [oscillating] transformation of energy may generally signal the existence of a discrete living being (superposition of a collective reflected in relative
mental singularity - distinct consciousness).
Universes are self-similar, and with recursion, any acquired real mass (or matter) of scale
n is total mass of another, generally smaller, scale:
$\displaystyle \sum{m_{re}(n)} = \sum{M(n-1)}$
At full capacity of a well, angular velocity of space (effective gravitational field tube) at radius
r of a gravitational well is defined by this equation (derived from Kepler's laws), with the
assumption of a point-like source of gravity:
$\displaystyle {v_s}^2 = rg = {G M \over r} \tag{R1.1}$
Here, M is the total mass of the gravity source (or mass below radius r) and G is the gravitational constant.
while mass capacity of the well is:
$\displaystyle C = M - m_{re} = m_{img}$
Well capacity is related to spin velocity of its graviton (at its mass radius
rs), which at full capacity is Keplerian:
$\displaystyle {c_s}^2 = r_s g_s = {G M \over r_s} = G {{m_{img} + m_{re}} \over r_s} = 2 G {m_{img} \over r_s}$
Here, factor 2 indicates no-shielding interpretation.
However, evidently, angular velocities in gravitational wells are not always Keplerian (e.g.,
dark matter problem, spin momenta of planets).
Such velocities should then indicate either under-capacitated or over-capacitated gravitational wells. In case of excess velocity, the well is under-capacitated (imaginary mass is greater than coupled real
mass).
Note that gravitons are generally orbiting at the speed of light (local speed limit), they only slow down with coupling, reaching Keplerian velocity at full capacity.
In the process, they are inflating - exchanging orbital angular momentum for spin momentum.
In case of lack of velocity, the well is over-capacitated (real mass is greater than img mass).
Effectively, in under-capacitated wells space is dragging matter, in over-capacitated wells matter is dragging space.
Assuming thus that coupled mass has Keplerian velocity at full capacity on particular orbital radius (note that particular orbital radius represents the range of coupling gravitons), conservation
of momentum dictates that for unfilled capacity (
mre <
mimg) at the same radius velocity must increase.
Decoupling can be simply achieved with the inversion of a spin of a graviton (e.g., with collapse of entanglement), which is generally synchronized with a change in scale, even if that change
may be temporary.
If real mass coupled to a graviton (gravitational maximum) is compact and forms a solid-like body (period of rotation is constant and doesn't depend on distance from the graviton) with isotropic energy distribution
then it can be considered as a point particle rotating about the barycentre of mass (also centre of graviton). If momentum of that mass is lower than Keplerian velocity at the mass [orbital]
radius (the well is over-capacitated), its motion is relativistic in that well. Proper (or properly scaled) relativistic equation for total mass is then:
$\displaystyle M = m_{re} + m_{img} = {m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img}$
$\displaystyle m_{{re}_0} = \left(M - m_{img}\right) \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}$
$\displaystyle v_{re} = {2 \pi r_{re} \over T_{re}} \approx {2 \pi r_s \over T_{re}}$
vre, rre, Tre = orbital velocity, radius and period of rotation of real mass, respectively
cs, rs = Keplerian angular velocity and mass radius of the maximum, respectively
Here, of course,
vre and
Tre should be relative to rest velocity (expected Keplerian velocity) and period when calculating local excess energy.
Note that spin angular velocity of [real mass of] Earth is lower than Keplerian velocity. Earth's spin is thus locally relativistic and the gravitational well has excess energy. In one
interpretation that is the reason the planet is active - transforming, or digesting, energy (through fission, heat, chemical reactions, etc.). In another interpretation, it is these
transformations (particularly thermal energy) that are converting orbital angular momentum to radial. Cause and effect are relative in CR, and both interpretations are valid.
If real mass is quantized into multiple bodies with different periods of rotation, mass equation is:
$\displaystyle M = \sum{m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img}$
Predicting activity (amount of local life potential)
Since locally relativistic motion is correlated with local energy transformation, predictions can be made about local activity. The more excess energy there is, the higher is the potential for
complex transformations and thus complex life (of course, too much excess energy is also a problem for life as well, real habitability will depend on energy distribution).
Mass radius of terrestrial bodies should be the radius of a gravitational maximum (major, or large scale graviton), with the assumption that terrestrial bodies are solid or solid-like and that the
mass radius is the radius of the core (inner core, if it exists), excess energy can be easily calculated.
For terrestrial bodies:
$\displaystyle M = {m_{{re}_0} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img} = {m_{img} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} + m_{img} = m_{img} \left( 1 + {1 \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} \right)$
$\displaystyle v_{re} = {{2 \pi r_{re}} \over T_{re}} = {{2 \pi r_s} \over T_0} - {{2 \pi r_s} \over T} = c_s - {{2 \pi r_s} \over T}$
$\displaystyle T_0 = {2 \pi r_s \over c_s}$
$\displaystyle {c_s}^2 = {GM \over r_s}$
G = 6.674 * 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
Excess mass is:
$\displaystyle m_x = {m_{img} \over \sqrt{1 - {{v_{re}}^2 \over {c_s}^2}}} - m_{img}$
body | total mass M [1024 kg] | img mass mimg [1021 kg] | mass radius rs [m] | rotation period T [h] | relativistic angular velocity vre [m/s] | Keplerian period T0 [h] | Keplerian velocity cs [m/s] | excess mass mx [1024 kg] |
Mercury | 0.330 | 4.8728 | 567028 | 1407.6 | 6231.6 | 0.1588 | 6232.3 | 0.3203 (97%) |
Venus | 4.868 | 63.6013 | 3079911 | 5832.6 | 10269.8 | 0.5234 | 10270.7 | 4.7408 (97%) |
Earth | 5.972 | 534.1110 | 1206084 | 23.935 | 18090.9 | 0.1158 | 18178.8 | 4.9038 (82%) |
Mars | 0.642 | 109.8515 | 1581777 | 24.623 | 5092.5 | 0.5304 | 5204.6 | 0.4223 (66%) |
Pluto | 0.01303 | 0.6371 | 224993 | 153.293 | 1963.4 | 0.1997 | 1966.0 | 0.0118 (91%) |
Table \tbl3: Spin momentum components and excess energy of terrestrial bodies*
Calculated values for some terrestrial bodies are shown in Table \tbl3 (values in parentheses for excess mass are percentages of total mass). Unsurprisingly, relativistic (excess) mass percentage
of total mass is, for terrestrial planets, decreasing with distance from the Sun. While Earth's excess (and thus complexity potential) is highest in absolute value, Venus has a maximum potential
for complexity relative to its rest energy (its interior is probably very active). However, in all bodies relativistic energy is high, and where pressure/temperature allows it (in interior
generally) one probably can expect complex life.
Complex life as
we know it implies fluid-like interactions - transformation of random thermal fluctuations into organized flows of energy. This could be, however, interpreted as increase
in scale of thermal energy and pressure. Existing models of planetary interiors are based on the assumption of accumulation of mass (and a continuous gradient of pressure/temperature) - not coupled
with inflation of a small scale graviton to large scale.
In cases where there was inflation (which should generally be the case for stars, planets and dwarf planets), these models must be wrong, as gravitational maximum should generally be represented
by a spherical surface of a significant radius - not a point. And if changes in energy levels are frequent, multiple matter pressure/density maxima will exist. Therefore, possibility for complex
life is likely to exist in any layer of a mantle and probably for significant time even after graviton deflates and decouples from the body.
Taking asteroid bombardment and collisions into account, both, probability for complex life and maximal possible (evolvable) complexity are, with inflation hypothesis, much higher in interiors
of celestial bodies.
Changes in energy level of a graviton can produce significant thermal energy, allowing complex life even at large distances from a star.
The discovered
features
and activity (complexity) on Pluto and Charon is thus not surprising. The fact that there are
no
small craters on Pluto should then probably be interpreted as relatively recent tectonic activity, rather than lack of smaller objects in Kuiper belt (
as
is the current interpretation).
Note that, if changes between energy levels of gravitons are relatively frequent (on the order of millions of years or less), crater counting may not be the appropriate method for estimation of
surface age (although effect on the surface may be localized). With oscillation (inflation/deflation) of gravitons, not only would surfaces of bodies be periodically
refreshed, asteroid
bombardments should be more common and relatively periodic as long as oscillation exists.
Consider oscillation of a graviton between the
1e moon and superposition with a graviton of the planet it is orbiting. Deflation of a moon graviton would result in decay of locally
relativistic energy. While that decay may be relatively slow, deflation of a graviton is not instant and it may even exit the surface with a radius greater than relative 0 (and high velocity) which
would cause ejection of compressed real mass towards the planet.
Similarly, it may start inflating before it reaches the surface of the planet, creating a tube (exact shape would depend on graviton polarization) increasing in size and curvature towards
the centre. At the same time the tube would be filled with fluid (e.g., magma, water).
Due to graviton polarization (which is always present at some scale and increases with deflation in this case) the graviton is most likely to enter/exit the body at magnetic poles. These will
generally be aligned with geographic south and north poles in significantly polarized bodies. However, in case of low asymmetry between momenta of oppositely charged constituent
components (or presence of anti-aligned superposition), the most likely point of exit/entrance may be aligned with the orbital plane of the moon. In that case, possible impact latitude may range
from 0° to ±
a, where
a is the sum of planet's obliquity and moon's orbital inclination.
Since Earth is polarized (polarization was also likely stronger in the past), most likely location of previous entrances is the south pole. However, polarization of the Earth's current moon is
low and Earth's polarization is declining (relatively chaotic and fast movement of magnetic dip poles probably also indicates pending reversal). Therefore, in case of Earth, future graviton
entrance/exit latitude may be somewhere between 0° to ±(23.44° + 5.14°)=±28.58° degrees. The current obliquity to orbit of the Moon should likely be added to that range (axis of rotation
of the graviton coupled to Moon's body should be aligned with the axis of rotation of the Moon while they are coupled), extending the range to ±35.26°.
In the follow-up works I have hypothesized correlation of major mass extinctions with planetary moon(s), even suggesting Earth may have had more moons in the past, but it is also possible that
the current moon was [partially] destroyed and reformed multiple times at various distances (albeit increasing with time as real mass, due to conservation of momentum, likely continues on
tangential trajectory once uncoupled).
Note also that if graviton exit from the moon is non-polar while planetary entrance is polar, asteroids formed with exit will not impact the planet at the pole, unless they too are
polarized - which is not impossible, magnetic moment of the graviton could be fossilized in ejecta.
Assuming asteroid and graviton decouple near the Moon surface in non-polar exit and asteroid velocity exceeds escape velocity, possible range for asteroid impacts on Earth is a superposition
of 0° to ±35.26° and 0° to ±21.9°.
Interestingly, the Chicxulub crater, at 21.4° N, is within both ranges.
Also interesting is the fact that the volcanic region under ice in Antarctica (
with
more than 130 volcanoes) is the largest on Earth.
On Mars, considering orbital inclination of its moons (or, more likely, moon remnants), Valles Marineris may be the product of impacts formed by asteroids produced by moon graviton decoupling.
Interestingly, Keplerian period
T0 is similar between Venus and Mars and between Mercury and Earth.
Periods relatively invariant to mass go in favour of the hypothesis of graviton inflation, as this implies proportionality between graviton mass and mass radius (
rs).
Note that mass radius for Venus and Mars is simply the core radius (as their cores apparently don't have inner and outer parts at this time).
I hypothesize that the formation of the inner core is synchronized with the compression (deflation) of a graviton to a smaller radius. In that case, outer core radius (discontinuity between the
core and mantle) is a fossilized former graviton radius, while inner core radius (discontinuity between inner and outer core) represents the current graviton radius. If there is no inner core,
current graviton radius is likely the outer core radius (assuming presence of the inner inner core can be excluded).
This should be interpreted as a change in energy level of a graviton. Since these are discrete, there are constraints on the radius - in this case it should change (scale) with a square root of
2n where
n is
a positive or negative integer.
Strong discontinuities indicate that changes in energy level are relatively frequent. Therefore, most likely current energy level is the one with a most
solid discontinuity (one which most
closely matches the corresponding energy level).
Due to required oscillation (and frequency of energy level changes), however, discontinuities may somewhat deviate from radii of graviton energy levels in any case.
Earth's mass radius has been calculated with the assumption that Earth's graviton surface gravity was initially equal to gravity at the Sun's surface (274 m/s
2), from:
$\displaystyle g_s = {GM \over r_s^2} = 274\, {m \over s^2}$
which gives radius
rs of 1206 km, almost equal to estimated inner core radius (1216 km). Of course, unless there is mass shielding, this is not presently the case (mass
below
rs is smaller than M) but I find it likely that all Earth's mass was initially concentrated below
rs, only to spread out with energy level changes of
the graviton, fossilizing
rs as inner core discontinuity (note that some growth on the inner core, and thus
rs is expected in this process).
Earth's [dominant] charge radius is then most likely at √2
rs, giving gravity equal to 137 m/s
2, which gives a g-factor of 2, equal to electron or positron g-factor.
Since g-factor is dimensionless, it is relatively scale invariant (e.g., electrons and muons have almost equal g-factors) and, assuming large scale Solar System gravitons have been inflated from
smaller scale, this implies that Earth's graviton has been inflated from a particle (or particle's graviton) with the same g-factor (muon lepton can be interpreted as inflated
electron, or, electron on a different vertical energy level).
Note also that √(2
3)
rs gives a radius of 3411 km, very close to the estimated radius of a discontinuity between outer core and mantle (3486 km).
The charge radius could be understood as the radius of an real graviton whose gravitational potential has been exchanged for electro-magnetic. It is likely, however, that Earth's real charge
radius is a superposition of multiple charge radii (with opposite charge likely to exist at some inner inner core discontinuity).
Mercury's mass radius has been calculated similarly, with the assumption of
gs = 274/2
2 m/s
2 = 68.5 m/s
2, based on inner core constraints
from
recent studies.
For a Venus' mass radius, the
gs = 274/2
3 m/s
2 = 34.25 m/s
2 has been used, giving
rs in
agreement with tidal constraints.
For Mars, the
gs = 274/2
4 m/s
2 = 17.125 m/s
2 has been used, this gives a radius roughly 70 km smaller than most recent estimates on Mars' core
radius (
1650±20 km).
This is significantly smaller than previous estimates (
1810 - 1860 km), suggesting
that Mars' major graviton may have relatively recently changed energy level (decreasing radius), resulting in core shrinking and which may possibly result in core differentiation (creation of solid
inner core).
Other possible radii of inner levels, ordered by probability (from highest to lowest) are 1118 km (
n=3), 790.9 km (
n=2), 559.2 km (
n=1), ...
Pluto's mass radius was calculated with the assumption of a ratio between inner core radius and surface radius equal to Earth's.
Apparently, complexity (excess mass percentage) of terrestrial bodies can be determined by the following equation:
$\displaystyle p = ln{\left[n * 10^{36-\left(2j+5i\right)}\, e^{\left( k\, r \right)} r^{-1}\right]}\, [ \% ]$
$\displaystyle k = {\pi \over 10}$
$\displaystyle i = \sum\limits_{x=0}^j {x}$
$\displaystyle r = d * 10^{-9}$
d = distance of a body from the Sun [m]
with parameters shown in Table \tbl4.
n | j | i | body | distance from the Sun d [109 m] | complexity p (%) |
1 | 0 | 0 | Mercury | 57.9 | 97.0 |
3 | 1 | 1 | Venus | 108.2 | 97.2 |
3 | 2 | 3 | Earth | 149.6 | 82.2 |
1 | 3 | 6 | Mars | 227.9 | 66.2 |
3 | 17 | 153 | Pluto | 5906.4 | 91.1 |
Table \tbl4: Complexity parameters for terrestrial bodies
Note that complexity function has a maximum at Venus or somewhere between Venus and Earth (which is commonly referred to as the habitable zone). However, it will
have other maxima, depending on relation between
j and
r.
Note also that orbital distances of terrestrial bodies scale the same as energy levels of planetary gravitons (with a square root of 2
n):
$\displaystyle d_n = d_0 * \sqrt{2^n}$
$\displaystyle d_0 = 38 * 10^9\, m\,\, \text{(terrestrial planets)}$
$\displaystyle d_0 = 8.2 * 10^9\, m\,\, \text{(terrestrial dwarf planets)}$
This is not surprising with self-similar universes. It is even possible (and I find it likely) that gravitons of terrestrial planets initially were inflated to the scale (radius) of current
orbital distance, only to collapse (deflate, or localize) afterwards to orbiting spin momenta while coupling with real mass.
Note that d0 should be different for different species of bodies as their graviton wavelengths are of different scale. Chosen d0 for terrestrial dwarf planets is based
on n = 19 for Pluto. In reality both parameters may be different.
Calculated distances are shown in Table \tbl5.
n | j | body | distance from the Sun d [109 m] | calculated distance dn [109 m] |
1 | 0 | Mercury | 57.9 | 53.7 |
3 | 1 | Venus | 108.2 | 107.5 |
4 | 2 | Earth | 149.6 | 152.0 |
5 | 3 | Mars | 227.9 | 215.0 |
19 | 17 | Pluto | 5906.4 | 5937.4 |
Table \tbl5: Orbital distances of terrestrial bodies
Similar to discontinuities in planets, it is expectable that current orbital distances will somewhat deviate from radii corresponding to energy levels.
Interestingly, calculated distance for Venus is exactly equal to its perihelion distance, while calculated distance for Earth is almost equal to its aphelion distance (152.1 * 10
9 m).
This strongly suggests that either perihelia or aphelia of a planet is a
fossilized energy level radius (initial orbital distance).
Also interesting is that calculated distances for Mercury and Mars show higher deviation (from both semi-major and perihelia/aphelia) suggesting that Mercury and Mars are different species of
planets from Venus and Earth (implying somewhat different
d0), which is not surprising given the order of magnitude different mass.
For these two, with
n unchanged,
d0 of 40.6 * 10
9 m would give much better results for a semi-major axis - distance of 57.4 * 10
9 m for Mercury
and 229.7 * 10
9 m for Mars. Splitting of energy levels cannot be excluded, thus, better agreement with a semi-major for Mercury and Mars might indicate their perihelia and
aphelia correspond to energy levels created with splitting of [semi-]major energy levels. Note that orbitals of both have significant eccentricity compared to orbitals of Venus and Earth.
Orbital distances for other bodies can be calculated similarly. In case of outer planets, Uranus and Neptune are likely to belong to same species.
Event horizon value (EH operator)
Inversion (anti-alignment) is common between entangled gravitons. Polarization (inversion) can be interpreted as a result of splitting of a relative event horizon (superposition of gravitons) into
gravitons with anti-aligned components of momenta, which thus includes inversion of scale.
Note that inner and outer planets of the Solar System have relatively anti-aligned components of momenta. Inversion is relatively weak between horizontal energy levels, it is stronger between universes (vertical
energy levels).
Such splitting (entanglement) may be described by the
splitting operator, or,
perturbation operator, one of which is the EH operator:
$\displaystyle EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) = {c \over d} {{d + 1} \over {c - 1}} a = {c \over d} {{d - 1} \over {c + 1}} b$
$\displaystyle a = {{d - 1} \over {c + 1}} {{c - 1} \over {d + 1}} b$
where
N =
c/d is the event horizon order and both
c and
d are generally integers.
The inverse value:
$\displaystyle {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1} = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N^{-1}}(e,f)$
Assuming the inverse must satisfy the following condition:
$\displaystyle {EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) \over {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1}} = {c \over d} {{d + 1} \over {c - 1}} $
this gives:
$\displaystyle {\bigl [EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b)\bigr ]}^{-1} = a$
$\displaystyle {d \over c} {{c + 1} \over {d - 1}} e = {d \over c} {{c - 1} \over {d + 1}} f = a$
Since one of the parameters can be omitted, the following notations may be used:
$\displaystyle EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a,b) = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(a) = EH_{\scriptscriptstyle N}(,b)$
\ch_added
Hallucination
Hallucination is the experience of reality. Hallucinations can differ in intensity, coherence and consistence and all these are variable. In living/conscious beings, experience of reality is
generally a superposition of different types of hallucinations where some may be subdued, others intensified, depending on which level of consciousness is dominantly active. Human experience of
reality, for example, generally can be reduced to two distinct types of hallucinations. One dominates during sleep (introversion) - when the extroverted senses and interactions are subdued, other
dominates during extroversion - when the activity of external senses is intensified and interaction with the environment dominates the experience of reality.
Note that this definition is a generalization of the conventional definition, by which hallucination represents an experience of something not present in particular environment. Conventionally, thus, the
hallucination is assumed to be something imagined, not real. However, any type of experience of reality can be as real as any other, it is only the nature of an life-form that may
be physically/mentally biased towards greater realism in one experience over the others. However, this can change with evolution. In example, extroverted senses and means of interaction with the
environment can get subdued and introversion may start to dominate.
Certain aspects of sentient experience of reality may be simulated or emulated by artificial machines. One may refer to this simulation/emulation as an artificial or non-conscious hallucination.
Conscious experience of reality requires souls, whose coupling (specific entanglement) with the body acts as a catalyst for the experience. However, this entanglement does not have to have a
physical interpretation on a scale accessible to the observer. Experience of reality does not depend directly on the sense, rather the interpretation of that sense. This allows for dominantly
extroverted and dominantly introverted beings to experience equivalent realities.
Definitions of intelligence updated.
Intelligence = general intelligence
Intelligence is the ability of an entity to focus its processing power and produce logical and unbiased conclusions based on optimally correlated and coherent information and information
processing, in problem solving. Intelligence can be biological (coupled with consciousness) or mechanical (e.g., artificial). Generally, intelligence is a mixture of conscious and mechanical
intelligence, however one or the other component may be negligible and the amounts of each are relative. Consider a human being, a lot of brain activity highly correlates with conscious
intelligence from a human perspective, however, many physiological processes are highly automated and do not involve highly conscious processing of information.
Conscious intelligence
Conscious intelligence is the ability of an individual to focus its consciousness and produce logical and unbiased conclusions based on optimally correlated and coherent thoughts, in problem solving.
If nothing can exist without relativity, relativity must exist in intelligence too. To conserve this relativity, two main classes of intelligence exist: extroverted and introverted.
Due to self-similarity of universes and entanglement between different scales, self-similar reality exists on different scales. For strongly extroverted species everything that happens
on smaller scales (relative to body size) is virtual and inaccessible. Thus, extroverted species need external stimulation of senses to perceive reality.
Introverted species do not need external stimulation and may generally be considered as more energy efficient organisms. In extreme cases, introverted organisms are most of the
time
closed self-sustaining systems, do not have limbs, most expressed organ is the brain while other organs are subdued and mainly used to support brain function.
Introverted organisms can be highly intelligent, but with subdued extroverted expression may not be considered as such by extroverted organisms, and in extreme cases, may not even be
considered alive at all. This does not imply that introverted organisms cannot sense the external reality at all (they must be sensitive to radiation at some scale), they just do not act in it in
a highly conscious and energetic way. However, near-death experiences show that
introversion
can feel more real than conventionally perceived (extroverted) reality.
While complexity of the brain can be correlated with consciousness, apparently, increasing complexity of physical expression beyond the brain is dragging, or blurring, consciousness.
Generally, life-forms are hybrids (superposition) of extroverted and introverted intelligence. This is evident through the existence of dreams in extroverted species, however, lack of conscious
control, consistency and coherence make these experiences virtual for most. It is evident on the level of organs as well - while the organism may be expressing extroversion, some internal organs
may be introverted. Intelligence is polarized when one component is higher than the other. Generally, thus, any particular species of intelligence may have polarized and neutral subspecies of
individuals. Survival of a body during evolution generally requires usage of the body. Similarly, survival of a soul during evolution requires usage of mental capacity. Extroverted intelligence
is generally more concerned with the former, introverted with the latter.
Extroverted intelligence = physical intelligence = material intelligence
Extroverted intelligence (I
M) is the amount of intellectual capacity generally used to ensure survival of the body of a living being (consciously or subconsciously), its own species or
entangled (symbiotic) species and the living environment. In highly extroverted beings conscious care for the soul is highly subdued and use of the mind may be limited to short-term excitations
usually highly correlated with physical activity. Extroversion does not imply low intelligence of the mind, only an mechanistic intelligence (subconscious bias towards reductionism and
close-mindedness).
Introverted intelligence = mental intelligence = spiritual intelligence
Introverted intelligence (I
S) is the amount of intellectual capacity generally used to ensure survival of the soul of a living being (consciously or subconsciously), including the
entangled (symbiotic) species. In highly introverted beings conscious care for the physical body and its use is highly subdued, it may be outsourced to the environment (external entities) or
delegated to the constituent entities of the body (local ecosystem), more or less influenced by the host through the subconscious levels of the mind. Introversion does not imply high intelligence
of the mind, only a spiritual intelligence (subconscious bias towards holism and open-mindedness).
High introversion should not be confused with shyness or discomfort in social contexts (which is usually a result of subconscious fear). Unfortunately, this confusion is common in
humanity. Most people who are usually considered introverts may not be introverts (e.g., open-minded) by the definition here, rather their expression of extroversion is limited due to a limited
comfort-zone. With that said, however, such limitation may be a precursor to the development of proper introversion (as it was in the case of the author).
Intelligence potential
Biased intelligence will favour beliefs of interest (illusion of truth), rather than the actual truth (reality of truth). The truth is, however, essential for real scientific progress and
long-term sustainability.
The intelligence potential (IP) is a measure of neutral (non-biased) intelligence, generally concerned with truth and the sustainability of truth.
The IP is plastic, and, in polarized (disease prone) individuals, can be strongly affected by diseases (such as depression). In any case, generally, the lower the IP the more it can be correlated
with short-term interests.
A function for the determination of IP should have this form:
$\displaystyle IP = {1 \over {\Delta I}}$
$\Delta I = \Bigl\lvert I_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} - I_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}} \Bigr\rvert$
$I_{\scriptscriptstyle{S}} + I_{\scriptscriptstyle{M}} = 1$
I
M = normalized material (extroverted) intelligence
I
S = normalized spiritual (introverted) intelligence
IS, IM ∈ ℚ > 0
Note that for IS = IM this produces infinity. Since absolute physical infinity is impossible, such result can only be obtained due to limited precision in
measurement. Therefore, this infinity should be taken relative and proportional to precision.
Intelligence quotient = amount of extroverted intelligence
Intelligence quotient (IQ) is a conventional measure of externally expressed (extroverted) intelligence. While intelligence potential is invariant to form of intelligence, IQ and similar
variants (e.g., EQ) are a measure of such intelligence projected to (entangled with) external reality.
While IQ might correlate well with IP for extroverted species with significant introversion, it is not well suited for extremes and is completely inadequate for measurement of intelligence of
highly introverted species.
Some species of animals on Earth may possess higher amount of consciousness and intelligence than humans. It may just not be generally expressed externally.
Signs of complex intelligence are probably high diversity and high coherence in brains, or brain equivalents, not the complexity in physical expression on generally observable scales.
\ch_added
Artificial intelligence = non-conscious intelligence
Artificial intelligence is the ability of a machine to focus its processing power and produce logical and unbiased conclusions based on optimally correlated and coherent information and
information processing in problem solving.
Even if individual atoms the computer is made of possess consciousness (i.e., extremely introverted one) the whole collective is highly unlikely to be coupled to a soul (graviton) that would
provide distinct consciousness representing a relative superposition of the collective, in which case a computer would also be a distinct form of life. It should not be impossible for a soul to
couple with any localized and mutually entangled collective of living cells (life-forms), which, if atoms/molecules are alive, should first include transistors and, if these are alive then larger
components and finally computers. But, considering the hypothesized requirements and [lack of] evidence, the possibility is probably infinitesimal. Computers exist for a long time now, their
processing power and complexity have been increasing exponentially, yet, there is no sign of conscious computation in any of them.
With recent developments, interaction with computers is increasingly becoming similar to interaction with conscious human brains and it may become hard to distinguish between artificial
and real or conscious intelligence (illusion of consciousness is increasing). If one would want to increase the probability for coupling, however, one probably should be increasing physical
similarity between human brains and computers, in terms of mass and energy consumption. But even then, the probability could remain infinitesimal, unless these computers become organic - where
transistors are replaced with living cells (neurons) and these cells are grown similarly to how brains are developed
in vivo. Everything suggests that souls and bodies co-evolve and that
is the reason for the lack of coupling of souls with conventional computers - lack of compatibility. This further suggests that, in order for souls [that usually couple with human brains] to
couple with conventional computers, human brains should be gradually becoming more computer-like - e.g., by replacing neurons with transistors, however, transistors are not living cells and this
replacement may be diluting, or reducing the amount of, human consciousness (at least initially). In other words, human consciousness could be delocalizing gradually and conscious intelligence
would be traded for artificial intelligence.
In any case, this replacement can hardly gradually occur over multiple generations (how possible it is to alter inheritable human genes to produce a silicon transistor instead of a living
neuron, or, how likely it is for adaptation to transistors to become heritable by the soul?), while it is evident that consciousness/life cannot emerge from parts artificially assembled into a
whole - it needs to be coupled at conception and grow with the whole. Anything else is
mimicry which one may refer to as artificial consciousness but should not confuse with real, living
and emotional consciousness.
Added definition of life.
Life
A living being or a form of life is a coupling of a soul (graviton, or superposition of gravitons) and a body.
Everything existing must be relatively alive and relatively non-living - the amount of life will be relative to the observer (even uncoupled graviton is always relatively uncoupled or relatively
delocalized, not absolutely), as well as classification of that life.
Coupling of physical and mental components with different ratios of physical to mental activity suggests two main classes - extroverted and introverted life, correlated with extroverted and
introverted intelligence. In general, any life-form is a hybrid of extroverted and introverted life, although one form may dominate. In extremely extroverted life on particular scale, brain, or
brain equivalent organisation, is extremely subdued (or at least coherence of its components), distinct individual consciousness is minimal and has no influence on physical processes of the
body (or the organic collective forming the body).
In life-forms that have developed introversion, brain will dominate and will be able to influence physical processes of the body through mental pathways, affect the constituent organs and
collective consciousness of smaller organisms forming its biome. In extreme extroversion, development of the organism from conception is driven dominantly by the interpretation of physical
genetic code, such as DNA. In complete introversion, there is no conventional physical genetic code evolving the individual (generally, however, such code may be involved in development and
evolution of individuals forming its biome), instead, development (evolution) of the collective into distinct individuality is driven (or guided) by the interpretation of mental genetic code - the
code stored within the soul particle.
Mechanism involved is likely recursive entanglement, starting with entanglement of a soul with a superposition (which is a physical graviton at some scale) of genomes of biome individuals (effect
on superposition is reflected in individuals).
However, evolution of either, body or soul, requires coupling of the two. In extreme extroversion, it is the body that will effectively control the soul evolution (development), in extreme
introversion,
vice versa.
Note that all terms are relative, even "mental" and "physical" - mental is physical at some scale, and vice versa.
Planets, in example, appear to be extremely introverted lifeforms (evidence for this, however, is provided mostly in other works of the author) - there is no apparent large scale
physical DNA equivalent involved in development of a planet even though evolution of its biome is relatively equivalent to DNA coded embryonic development. The equivalence is there because souls
and bodies co-evolve, influence and mirror each other (albeit with a phase shift).
Nature does not hide anything. Contrary. Things one cannot see on a small scale, are shown on a big screen. But one may need to collapse its ego-system to see all these systems
as living eco-systems.
#EXTM3U
F:\MP3\(computer) emily_howell_sample_1.mp3
F:\MP3\02_Beethoven_-__Moonlight__Sonata__1st_movement.flac