Planckons and elsymons
Part 2
Contents
1. The potential energy of a system of two
planckons. Mathematical
model. Potential energy niches - conclusions concerning planckons’ capacity to
create structures.
2. How to build elementary particles? The basic repetitive elements of
the structure of particles.
3. What is the dark matter? Panelsymon – Universe at the start.
Urela and phase transition. Dark matter and the density parameter. Why masses of
galaxies are basically similar to each other? How the islands of future
galaxies were formed.
Reflections.
1.
The potential energy of a system of two planckons
One can ask: What constitutes an
"encouraging" factor for planckons to form aggregates - particles?
Answer: There should be a niche of potential energy. So let us consider how the
potential energy of a system of two planckons changes with distance. Of course,
we have to take into account the system’s mass defect which occurs when the
distance between planckons diminishes. Here it should be noted that such a niche cannot exist
if gravity means only attraction. According to the currently prevailing (even
obligatory) view, gravity means attraction - repulsion is out of the question.
In such a situation it is difficult to find motivation for undertaking research
on the structure of elementary particles, as if these studies were simply not
possible. Nowadays this is a generally held opinion. The argument behind this opinion
is based on uncertainty principle, which implies fluctuations that
undermine the possibility of assessing the linear sizes of particles. For this
reason, it is difficult to talk about their structure (in particular concerning
leptons). So it is best to assume that they are point objects. So how did all
this structuring of matter come about - the chemical elements, atoms, subatomic
particles...? Despite the expected reaction of many readers, the problem
exists. It is in fact the basic problem. We have here a paradigm of observability
conditioning the possibility of acquiring knowledge.
Is such a
niche really possible? Judging by the qualitative considerations in the
previous article* – yes. Will the quantitative considerations confirm our suppositions?
We'll see.
On the basis of previous findings (formulas: (8), (9), (10) in the
preceding article) we can write the formula for the potential energy of the
system, taking into account the mass defect:
As you can see, the resultant
gravitational mass of the system was divided by two, so as to get mass per one
planckon.
The matter, however, is not finished. It should be expected that the potential
energy with respect to distances of less than half of the Planck length, should
be positive (being negative for larger distances) - judging by the discussion
regarding a system of two material points (the more general case), since it is
about repulsion. At the minimum distance**, the (positive) potential energy
should have the maximum value. In the case of an isolated system of two planckons
we would basically have to deal with the cyclical movement, with vibrations. It
associates with the oscillating Universe. The potential energy is equal to zero
when, of course, the mutual distance is equal to half the Planck length, and in
that case the gravitational mass of the system is equal to zero. This can be
symbolically expressed as follows:
From formula (11) it transpires, however, that the
potential energy should always be negative. It would be correct if gravity
meant only attraction. But it turns out that this is not the case. In the
formula for energy we should, therefore, take this into account by adding a factor,
which should be defined as follows (just like we did in the first article***):
And here we come to the final form
of the expression for potential energy:
For convenience sake
let’s assume that:
Let’s also note that, on the basis
of formula (10):
Thus we get the following formula
for potential energy:
Judging by the graph, we
see (surprisingly?) the point of minimum potential energy, corresponding to a
distance equal to 3/2 of Planck length (-8/27Mc²). This corresponds to
energy of 3.67·10^18GeV. By the way, it would be the energy
of two orders higher than the energies considered by GUT (Grand
Unification Theory). This
minimum energy helps in the process of connecting planckons into systems which
include, one can assume, all particles (except photons and neutrinos). Yes,
neutrinos, due to their unique characteristics, differing them from other
particles. I will explore them in the third part of the book. Also "at
the crossroads”, at the 1/2 point, the niche is formed (further on there is
attraction, and before it there is repulsion) and it is there the place for
planckon systems, with the proviso that the potential energy is there equal to
zero. So this corresponds also to zero mass of the system. This is the place
where photons are formed. By the way, let’s note the perfect convergence of
this graph with the graph illustrating changes of the potential energy of two
material points (article five). This was to be expect (by taking into account
that
R = 2L).
As it transpires, we did not find here
room for neutrinos. It is a sign that, despite all, our insight is only
partial. But I think we've gone a little forward. That’s because there are more
options which exclusion will bring us closer to the solution. By the way, it
could mean that the neutrinos are just complex systems (let’s remember that our
"theoretical" deliberations apply only to systems made of two planckons).
One cannot explore neutrinos without paying attention to their very special
properties. This could (already) imply that they didn’t have to come into being
in some potential energy hole, but in some other way. As I have already noticed,
the thing is described elsewhere. Besides, according to one of the hypotheses
they diverged still before the occurrence of the phase transformation.
So let’s continue our interpretation. The value of the potential energy
which we obtained in the minimum: -8/27, makes one wonder, as it happen to be
the third power of -2/3. Let’s also note that this value happens at the point
of abscissa 3/2. This also makes one wonder, if only because of the fact that
the product of these two numbers gives unity (minus expresses attraction),
which, among other things, means certainty. This actually corresponds to the
principle of "completeness" according to which reality in its
objective form is an ideal towards which strive all its approximate descriptions,
which under the name of theories aspire to accurately describe Nature. Among
other things, this is exactly why scientists are looking for aesthetics in
their equations – it’s a kind of unwritten criterion in the search for truth.
They seek solutions in the form of whole numbers or simple fractions, or else
special numbers such as the number π. Particular attention should be paid also to
number φ = 1.61803 ..., called the golden ratio, which is the ratio of the
lengths of two parts of the golden section, as well as the limit to which tends
the ratio of consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence. We will return to it
in a moment. This is by no means about some kabbalah fun. Although who
knows, maybe cabalism is based, among other things, on the (yet) unfathomable to
us qualities of Nature, described symbolically in the Torah (?).
Let’s note that the number 2 represents a
fundamental alternative, it expresses the existence of two exclusions (up-down,
right-left, true-false, attraction-repulsion, etc.). In this context number 3
defines the number of elements of a basic optional set: plus, minus, zero; in
addition indicates the symmetry of the world –zero symbol separates
"equally" two opposites, the combination of which also makes zero.
It is a common thing in nature. Let’s
take, for example, the absolute quantitative equality of positive and negative
charges. It could means that the (electrically) charged being arose from the
dissociation of some primary creation. This in itself indirectly indicates the
existence of structuring (and therefore atomisticity) somewhere deep, below the
threshold of observability. A place providing an opportunity for planckons (and
future doctoral students) to show off their capacity.
In
this context, the third power of the number -2/3 is perhaps (Perhaps? Rather
quite naturally) an expression of three-dimensionality of space. I already
noticed it in the fifth article.
If we were some two-dimensional creatures, instead of -8/27 we would get
4/9... And if we were four-dimensional? Perhaps in the formula which we would
get, the index would be 4 and the resulting fraction would amount to 16/81. That’s
the product of imagination which can surely be erroneous, especially that
sometimes my head brims with jokes. By the way, the energy would be positive,
which would mean a maximum, not a niche. The particles would not exist, at
least in this point. Even if it's a joke.
After all,
the volume is determined by the third power of length. Three-dimensionality. It
is worthy of consideration, although it’s non-convergent with the findings of
the theory of superstrings. Apparently, to reach the micro-reality from above (being
obligated, moreover, by the paradigm of observability), we should equip
ourselves with some additional dimensions. However, from the bottom, at the
source, everything looks simpler. Perhaps at the source, the space created by
the multitude of planckons is three-dimensional, while the assumed multi-dimensionality
is associated with the complexity of systems forming reality, and it constitutes
a condition enabling description of this reality by the means available to our
perception.
In our perception there are three
types of interactions (weak concerning neutrinos, outside the limits of our
perception - to understand why, it may be worth reading the essay devoted to neutrinos).
If we refer to each of these three interactions, the three dimensions necessary
for the full understanding of dynamic systems, we’ll get together nine dimensions.
Remember superstrings? Well. such loose associations.
Moreover, if all the interactions
ultimately boil down to gravity (as the result of complexity of structures), no
wonder that getting to the elementary structure on the basis of unawareness of
this (fact?), requires additional procedures that extend the data space by additional
"dimensions" (and greatly complicate mathematical modelling). So you
might think, but the internal features of the planckon itself still remain a
puzzle, and they suggest that to describe them we would still have to broaden
our spatial "imagination".****
To complete
this issue, in the formula (13), by replacing the mass with the expression
defining it (Formula (2) in the preceding article), we obtain another formula
for potential energy:
There are (at least in my mind) various
elsymons, the number of possibilities is enormous, almost infinite. However,
not every system has features of durability, not each one of them can be a particle
of a bearable life time. It is not my purpose (and there is no time for it) to seek
formal rules of selection and exclusion enabling the construction (on paper) of
creations with characteristics of specified particles, although it is not an impossible
task. And if someone embarks on it, it will turn out that the currently in
force standard model is a special case, or actually a "local"
regularity - after taking into account the dual gravity and, of course, all
what’s brought by the concept of the absolutely elementary being. It is even
knows which direction to follow. We’ll talk about it further on. I hope that I
will be able to leave the continuation of exploration (a fascinating research
topic) to the young and willing. [Does it sound like a dream by someone affected
by Asperger syndrome?]
In this context, the existence of
"instability" (particle decays) is in itself an interesting subject,
and the question: "What is its cause?", is not at all trivial. After
all, "gravity is only and exclusively a bonding factor." Durability
of a system is associated with the concept of balance. The specified system is
in stable equilibrium when its state is characterized by the minimum potential
energy. For example, a body located at the bottom of a pit is in a state of stable
equilibrium. If gravity was only attraction, there would be no problem... and
we wouldn’t exist. The pit would be actually one-sided endlessly deep chasm. Everything
would fall into it and nothing would be left behind (another matter whence it would
have come, to fall afterwards). It’s hard to speak here of the balance and
stability. Somehow nobody talks about it. The problem ceases to exist if we do
not talk about it. And if someone speaks out, well, that's his problem ...
Fascinating, how Everything could
have arisen in such a situation, and, moreover, expand? Scientists have found a
way. There is a way for everything. Thus, in spite of all, we exist, with all
due respect for the graciously ruling singular black-hole-bureaucracy armed
with vacuum power.
So let's ask: What is it that makes, however, the existence of stable systems possible? This mysterious factor that on the one hand does not allow for an unlimited collapse, and on the other hand causes systems decay. This is certainly a kind of repulsion. What could be its source? Certainly not electrostatics. As we know, the particle decays always involve the participation of neutrinos, which do not interact electromagnetically. We have one more reason to pounder.
Thus the existence of repulsion changes the
situation. Not only that. On the one hand we realized that there were certain
problems and even internal contradictions arising from the traditional view about
gravity, and on the other hand these problems have been (ideologically)
resolved. But that's not all.
Let's go back to our planckons, which permeate one another. As previously
noted, there are two niches of potential energy enabling creation of
systems-particles. In particular, where the distance between the centres of planckons
is equal to half the Planck length, there is the niche of zero mass, the photon
niche. If the distance is even smaller, the mass of the system becomes
negative, which manifests itself in the force of repulsion. As the mutual
distance between planckons becomes smaller, the numerical value of the (positive)
potential energy rapidly increases. Thus the system of planckons resembles a
spring that is certainly not at rest, a vibrating spring in fact, as we will
find out further on. This also reminds of the Big Bang, and along with that,
whatever preceded it. Gravitational repulsion, concurrently over the entire
volume.
2.
How to build elementary particles?
We have already quite a solid
"ideological" base for thought, maybe even for preliminary determinations
concerning criteria for the construction of particles-elsymons. Let me get these
thoughts, scattered all over the text (this one and the preceding ones), into
one whole.
While considering the potential energy of a system of two planckons, we
came to the conclusion pointing to the existence of two minima, two places best
suited for planckons to connect each other. It's quite an important criterion,
but a graph of the potential energy which we obtained, relates to a system of
two planckons, while actual particles are probably quite complex combinations
of such systems. And what kind of arrangements are they? They should be
durable, that is, when left alone they should not disintegrate. They should be,
therefore, of cyclical character. I explained the matter in the reference with three
stars in the previous article. That is, particle is a cyclic arrangement. It is
a complex system where continuous (and ceaseless) changes take place, but these
changes are cyclical. It's about vibrations. Planckons forming a particle, and
also, irrespectively, their systems (sub-systems of a whole), vibrate. These sub-systems
are coupled together. It can be assumed that the distribution of vibrations of
the whole entity is of a Fourier character. The vibrations are
"tailored" to each other. The system should be stable. Instability
causes rapid rupture of the system. Of course, in case of a system of planckons,
there is no electromagnetic radiation during the undergoing changes. Not only
because these changes are cyclical. Also because the photon itself is just such
a system.
But
that's not all. Additional criterion concerning the structure of particles is based
on the (admittedly quite surprising) hypothesis of the existence of saturation
of the gravitational field (I wrote about it in the preceding article). The
concept assuming the existence of saturation of the gravitational field has not
been so far taken into consideration, because it is not consistent with the mainstream
research and, obviously, with the current set of beliefs. The impetus for thought in
this new direction (apart for very old, student-era speculations) is the fact
that not everything which constitutes current knowledge fits like a glove, makes
a monolith. After all, we know that the present state of knowledge no longer
anticipates anything new, while the astronomical observations generally
surprise and the scientists have to adapt to them by (not necessarily
justified) creations of new entities. The distinct example of this
approach is the so-called dark energy (awarded even with the Nobel Prize).
Elsewhere I presented the (quantitative) model explaining the effect of
supernovae, which gave rise to the invention of the dark energy, the model - consistent
with observations - anticipating the magnitude of darkening depending on the
distance. This creation, by today science, of new beings left and right, is
quite symptomatic (along with strong opposition that these words arouse amongst
many members of the community of physicists, and I, though also a physicist,
will be soon removed from this fraternity. To my joy, because it will be a sign
that they have read what I’ve written). But this (creation of new entities)
is a fact, even if today's geniuses make fun of phlogiston.
The
new concept should be, of course, checked, if only because it shatters the
current order of things. Check so as to reject. Check because... it constitutes
a considerable contribution for possible heuristics. It opens directly the cornucopia
of research topics, among them the traditional research problems, including those
still regarded as insoluble, as well as research topics which are far beyond
the horizon of expectations of today's science and cognitive awareness. The
implications may be numerous, significant to the extent that the exclusion, without
serious study and research, of considerations based on the model presented in
my works would not be too wise. Therefore, all this should be rejected in
advance, and of course, wrapped in silence ... And that's what is actually
happening..
In the
preceding article, so as to illustrate things, I used (kind of infantile) model
of hands, which limited number means the existence of saturation. I stated
there, that the matter is worth describing primarily in relation to the truly
elementary planckon systems. It can be said that nature is minimalist. Planckon
therefore has the least number of hands by which it can, first of all, connect
with other planckons, and thus create the simplest elementary spatial
arrangement, and secondly, this simplest system is still the source of the
gravitational field enabling it to create more complex systems. Thus, plankton has four hands. Thanks
to them, an elementary four-walled system come into being (regular
tetrahedron), having also four hands. Why exactly four? Four points (four planckons
forming a regular tetrahedron) form a uniform three-dimensional space
(three-dimensional space is formed by four points - the vertices of a
tetrahedron, just as three points make up a plane, and two a straight line.) Naturally,
the system is not static. Planckons vibrate. One can initially ask: How? Are
all four getting closer to each other and then move apart in the concurrent
phases causing cyclical changes in the size of the tetrahedron? Or maybe they
oscillate pair by pair in opposite phases? Here the description would be more
complicated. I encourage you to think, and search for possibilities by which
the system remains stable. This is of course an elementary system, which is
linked with other identical systems, also vibrating. It is therefore about the
stability of the system made which can be made of many of these interconnected
tetrahedra. In the case of a single tetrahedron, in connection with its
elementary character, there is no question of higher harmonics.
Planckons can also create a dodecahedron*****. Its walls are regular
pentagons. It has 20 vertices, which means that is composed of twenty
planckons. So does it, therefore, have twenty outreaching hands? That might
result, but not immediately. "The sides of regular pentagons may be of the
same length as the sides of a tetrahedron, but here there are longer diagonals
(smaller mass deficit - greater mass). Only tetrahedron is devoid of diagonals."
However, the quoted sentence does not take into account the existence of
saturation of the gravitational field - planckons on both sides of the diagonal
do not feel each other’s existence. In our model, we would need longer hands,
but they do not exist, since they all have the same length. All free hands are
reaching outwards. It is worth a thought, even if it is a very childish model,
since it serves as a model of quantum gravity. And if we remember Gauss’s law, we
will immediately conclude that there, inside, there is no gravitational field.
Inside this "ball" gravity does not exist.
Apart from this, dodecahedral system should be
prioritized, if only because of the relationship of regular pentagon with
golden ratio, which manifests itself as a natural feature of a huge number of
physical systems. Particularly noteworthy here are living organisms, in which
the proportions of body construction are based on the golden ratio, and the
question: "Why do we (not just us) have five fingers?" in this
context is not at all trivial (unless we are the heroes of a cartoon film).
Judging by all this, it can be expected that the gravitational mass of a dodecahedral
form is five times greater than the mass of a tetrahedral form (20 vs. 4). Is
it a far-reaching simplification? You can check it out if you won’t be as lazy
as I am.
And maybe these two forms separately make two different types of
particles: leptons and hadrons? Proton would be, for example, a system made of
only dodecahedral cells (So the quarks as well?) while electron would be a system
made solely of tetrahedra. Such clean connections would be very stable and
impossible to break by the means at our disposal. Let’s recall the magnitude
of the minimum potential energy in the system of two planckons, it amounts to
3.67 · 10^18 GeV. And in a tetrahedron the binding energy is not much smaller.
Indeed, we have only two absolutely stable particles. And what about neutrino?
If neutrino does not decay either, then its construction is probably different.
By the way, I think that the cause of any particle decays are the background neutrinos.
If so, are they also dangerous to themselves? Somehow until now no one observed
neutrino decays, although the phenomenon of their oscillation has been discovered.
But that’s not decay into something else. Moreover, neutrino itself should be
also built from such tetrahedra. Tetrahedron will not break tetrahedron. In the
third part of the book I will devote to neutrinos a special series of articles.
On
the other hand the mixed systems are easier to break, especially by separating
systems containing connected to each other dodecahedral and tetrahedral forms. Neutrino
would do the job, judging by the previous suggestions. The binding energy
between these two forms is weaker than between planckons making given form, or
between identical forms. It is rather a reasonable assumption. "Homogeneous"
systems would be, in principle, impervious
to neutrino ["in principle", because also particles μ and τ
(leptons) disintegrate.] None of the neutrinos. There are only two inviolable
systems: electron and proton. This is also an important tip.
And what about neutrino? What
does it do at the moment of breaking a particle? It is probably enough that by
its intrusion, by its own field forcing resonance (what a fantasy), it disturbs
the order of particle’s autonomous vibrations, and that causes its
disintegration. In addition, some evidence suggests that neutrino is gravitationally
(not in appearance) repellent. But this is not an explanation, it is at most a
qualitative premise.
If at the same neutrino does not
fall apart (spontaneously on its own or by force), it would provide an argument
for the fact that it is indeed responsible for the decay of other particles.
The experiment seems to confirm this (the presence of neutrinos during the
process of particles’ decay). It is also a sign that it has a unique feature.
Is it repulsion? But how otherwise? How else would it perform its breaking role?
Otherwise neutrinos would attract each other, unable to cause decay in their
own environment. Perhaps the phenomenon of oscillation testifies to this. I
have already drawn attention to this possibility in the article on dual gravity
(the first article of this series, and the fifth overall). There I pointed out that
two systems of negative gravitational mass attract each other. In the light of
those comments and conclusions, the hypothesis that the mass of neutrino is
negative, is not as crazy as one might think at first glance. In addition, it
could shed some light on the conditions in which this particle came into being.
Rather earlier than the other particles.
Separate attention should be
given to systems forming the elementary charge, occurring both in leptons and
in hadrons. These are also absolutely stable systems and permanently attached
to one or the other system. It’s interesting how this being is built. Is there
a third form, or the only one of its kind (in exactly two ways) combination of
the known forms, an absolutely permanent combination? Or maybe, (yet another)
crazy idea, some structural polarity, something that can be associated with a
pair of sex chromosomes: XX and XY, this
time forming two poles. By continuing this exciting association, we note
that there is an asymmetry – feminine element on top. We will still return to this modelling.
Quarks are also noteworthy - which differentiates between them? And what
about their fractional charge? What structural conditions determine the membership
to a particular, one of the three, generations (two quarks + two leptons)? And what
about crumbling leptons (μ and τ)? What in structural terms is the excitation
of electron or other particles? No, I do not have answers to these
questions and to many others. Will the mechanistic insight be able to deal with
them? And how is it in fact? Well, untamed imagination. But in spite of all we
have moved a little forward, which does not mean that in the right direction.
And if so, does it mean that I have to take care of everything?
Returning
to the vibrations occurring in planckon systems, especially in the context of
the above considerations, we note that because of the existence of symmetry in both
considered forms, vibrations in both of them should be coordinated. It may be
noted that these elementary geometrical beings are not barred from their
neighbors. They can even to some extend penetrate each other and create more
complex systems. The condition of their stability, and in fact of their
existence, is that vibrations, despite the complexity, must be also mutually coordinated.
So there cannot exist non-cyclical systems - as absolutely unstable. This, with
the increasing complexity of systems, reduces the number of possibilities. We
are aware that the number of particles is not unlimited. The possibility of constructing
standard models of particles can be taken here as evidence. Lack of
restrictions would have made it impossible.
It
is also significant that the resultant mass of these systems is much smaller
than the mass of a single planckon. The masses of all particles known to us are
not very different from each other. I pointed this out in the previous article –
they are comparable due to the existence of stable, unbreakable forms (two of
them). These masses are relatively small due to the significant gravitational saturation.
These are the known to us particles.
Among
them photons stand out as completely saturated. It is also known that the
number of positive and negative charges is exactly equal in the entire Universe.
Why? Apparently they resulted from dissociation of... what? Does the connection
(unknown to us today) of elementary structural forms of positive and negative charges
create a photon? Not quite sure, due to the diversity of photons in terms of
energy. This would be a kind of addition to the repetitive form of varying complexity
- as identical chains (maybe chain rings?) with different numbers of links
having defined characteristic, repeatable tips, for example XX - see above.
There will be more on this topic in the third part of the book, in an article entitled
"Wave-corpuscular duality in the deterministic version". Today, what
we know about photons is that they are bosons transferring electromagnetic
interactions.
It is worth some pondering,
some wheeling dealing. Dual gravity gives its blessing.
Ahead of us,
of course, still a lot of questions, a lot of research problems, maybe even
more than before I went nuts. That's for sure. For example: What form, what
planckon system, has the characteristics of what we perceive as an electric charge
(something unique, something repeatable, something that occurs in the majority
of particles)? What is the (structural, planckonic) nature of the magnetic
field? After all, the magnetic field is the result of charge movement. How does
the process of particle-antiparticle annihilation evolve? How do these entities
actually differ in terms of structure? What system creates a strongly
interacting form? What is the structure of quarks? Etc. A heap of questions. Is
it wrong? It's great. Too bad I'm too old to take care of all this. But there
are still many young people, moreover more talented than I am in terms of workshop
efficiency.
The
description presented above is of a qualitative character. Only suggestions.
You will most likely, dear reader, name them as fantasies. I do not recommend,
however, to dismissively reject them in advance, for those who will endure
reading further may be rewarded. In any case you have to admit that, so far, no
one tried to deal with the problem of structure of particles. This is simply
not considered. Does this mean that it should not be considered? That it is too
early? So far, there was no foothold. And now? Rejecting the orthodox
understanding of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics...
To sum it up, we have affirmed:
a) the possible existence of the
duality of gravity, based on a different than the currently accepted definition
of the gravitational mass;
b) as fact, the existence of an
absolutely elementary being;
c)
the existence of structure, graininess, discreteness in the fabric of matter – we
accepted it as the truth of nature. In this light, even if there are no
planckons which are modeling here this absolutely elementary being, the attempt
to describe the structure of particles is totally legitimate despite the fact
that so far no one has tackled this problem. It is simply a natural consequence of explorations and there is no
need for a genius to say so. Appropriate level of knowing how much remains to
be learn, plus a bit of fantasy. It was only a qualitative description. I think
it may indicate the direction for further, this time quantitative, inquiry. So
we have a source of rather uncommon heuristics. That’s what I think. I would
add that quite a lot of things can be explained on the basis of planckon model,
in addition without negating the confirmed by observations and experiments characteristics
of the matter within our knowledge. At the same time, you can quite easily
"materialize" the matter waves and, without beating about the bush, in
a simply mechanistic way provide a model of corpuscular-wave duality. The
matter remains the same matter. And what about the dark matter?
We noted above the existence of two niches of potential energy where numerous
and varied elsymons can be "hatched": separately photons, separately "normal"
particles. This particular feature of the two planckons system gives (with
total certainty) an inducement to considerations concerning both particles
(perceptible) in the micro scale and in the scale of the Universe, especially
at the very beginning of expansion. Until now it was impossible. This "impossibility"
is justified, moreover, by the tradition of quantum uncertainty. The beginning
of everything is (in accordance with the tradition) necessarily hazy and
impossible to clarify. Another thing is that in our thought experiment we
approached (two) planckons to each other, and, in relation to Universe, at the
very beginning, at time zero, all planckons already formed one integrated, kind
of general system of elsymons -
panelsymon.
This Universe "at the start", was in structural terms similar
to a mono-crystal. I called it Panelsymon. Its very rapid expansion as a result
of gravitational repulsion of constituent planckons, led to gradual loosening
of the bonds between the components and consequently, at some point, to their breaking,
and as a result, the dispersion of various elsymons. At that moment the phase
transition took place. Chaos ensued. As the final result of the changes taking
place there was created the material environment, which included photons
(quantitatively dominant), and others known to us (and not known) massive
particles.
There was also "debris", remnants of "retarded"
elsymons and especially free planckons, which till then served as connectors
between the structures, which after the separation became autonomous particles.
As we already know, planckon dimensions are smaller than their own
gravitational horizon. Searching for them (visually) is therefore useless,
although their total gravitational mass should be actually very large, given
the huge mass of a single planckon in comparison to the mass of particles we
know.
Their separation would be related to very rapid, exceeding the speed of
light, expansion (URELA)******, and not fully coordinated scattering of matter
after its termination, resulting from aforementioned phase transformation. The
conditions of chaos (including fractality) completed the rest. In addition to
the matter that has evolved to make Us the observable fact (I should be put
under special observation), there was also a lot of debris, a kind of waste tip
at a building site.
In the chaos caused by the phase transformation there appeared clusters
of planckon matter. There, thanks to the extremely strong gravity, matter began
to accumulate. In this matter stars started to form. And later in these places
galaxies began to form. Now we know what dark matter is. It is simply the
clusters of planckons. No wonder that dark matter does not radiate, that it
is only a source of gravity. This is confirmed, willy-nilly, by studies conducted
in recent years - gravitational lensing of light coming from very distant
galaxies. As you can see, this model of dark matter is the most consistent and
logical. And it doesn’t require bringing to life new, occasional beings. Ockham
grows a beard.
Galaxies were formed in fractals, condensations of planckons forming
dark matter, while planckons scattered in intergalactic space form fairly
homogeneous network filling the Universe. In these vast spaces the forces
acting on a single body (say, the trial body), compensate each other almost
completely. So we have vacuum and of course vacuum’s energy. Is it all impossible?
Is it impossible because it is too simple and does not require equations? Or
impossible because no one of importance came to this idea, and it occurred to
me? Why it hasn’t occurred to them? Because, a trifle, one needed to define a
little differently gravitational mass and accept as possible the existence of
an absolutely elementary being (no matter whether planckon, or something else).
All these planckons, all taken together, constitute a major contribution
to the total mass of the Universe. They form, I repeat, the dark
matter sought by scholars, which visual detection, for by now obvious
reasons is not possible. Now, if we take into account the existence of planckon
network embracing the whole Universe, we have reason to believe that we can
live happily without dark energy to ensure that density parameter******* of the Universe is equal to
unity. We’ll come back to it. As for the dark energy, in an essay under
the telling title „Horizontal Catastrophe” I will lay it to rest and send
into eternal oblivion. Indeed,
as I noted above, despite the enormous mass of the planckon network, the forces
acting on each object in the intergalactic space compensate each other almost entirely.
Thus it is difficult to directly detect potential contributions to the unit
value of density parameter.
We’ll come back to this topic¹ when we’ll get to the cosmological issues.
The process of scattering elsymons in all the diversity of their types,
gained, as mentioned above, the characteristics of chaos and fractality. This
(taking into account the existence of extremely massive "dark"
matter) would explain the observed heterogeneity in the distribution of visually
detectable matter. In summary, we can say that the above-mentioned "common
elsymon (panelsymon)" with the structural characteristics of mono-crystal,
burst at some point during the rapid expansion and "shattered" (like
a wine glass hitting the floor). Chaos ensued and by the same token Temperature came into
being. Only then (!). And there also appeared non-gravitational
interactions:
strong and electromagnetic, plus, of course, radiation (photons), and the
massive particles, and gravity turned into the force of attraction. And
there also came density
fluctuations responsible for the observable nowadays large-scale structure. And
how the galaxies were formed?
I
often wondered about it: Why the masses of galaxies are of the same order of
magnitude? Of course, not counting the small, satellite galaxies. How did this
happen? Around 200 million years after the Big Bang, the stars began to appear.
Matter was everywhere still sufficiently dense. So stars should have taken the
whole space of the Universe. If this set had been absolutely homogeneous, matter
would have never congested in numerous centres. According to cosmological
principle, the Universe does not have a clearly specified centre.
Fortunately, there were
(thanks to chaos (phase transformation)) density fluctuations. However, the ordinary
fluctuations could cause only concentration of matter of stars of any sizes, without
any guarantee that they would form galaxies. Fluctuations caused rather the
formation the large-scale structures - galaxy clusters, "walls". And
galaxies, as I pointed out above, have comparable masses. This cannot be
explained by fluctuations. So here we have a legitimate question: What would
limit the size (and mass) of the "islands" out of which galaxies were
formed?
And here the meritorious dark matter plays
its part (together with the concept of mass defect based on the new definition
of the gravitational mass). Fluctuations in the concentration of matter apply also
to planckons (dark matter). The places of their greater density began to
attract, pulling in nearby stars. Yes, but why masses of galaxies are similar
to each other? Well,
planckonic matter in those clusters was gathering and densifying. So it created
clear centre. However, as the matter densified, the mass deficit of such a
system was increasing. Finally, regardless of the number of planckons, the mass
of the nucleus of such a grouping, at its deepest level, remained close to
zero. As a result, the resultant gravitational masses, regardless of the number
of planckons in a given "island", were almost equal.
If there is no
other explanation, we have here, by the way, an indirect confirmation of the
whole concept of dual gravity. Why such a mass, and not another? It's one of
the secrets of the Big Bang and, of course, of the features of the planckon
itself. Knowing these features it will be possible in the future to answer this
question as well.
Only planckons
could densify in this manner. The nucleons couldn’t possibly undergo such a
process. Atomic nuclei are incompressible. After all, the concrete objects that
we identify as particles, are systems of unbreakable forms (tetrahedral and
dodecahedral) with infinitesimal masses (and with high relative speeds -
temperature). It’s hard to imagine them concentrating in the chaos, in the
first moments of the Universe. In the beginning they were relatively
homogeneous element. At that moment the densification of massive stars and
galactic nuclei into gravitationally closed creations, is something that would
happen in a very distant future, in at least several hundred million years.
We can already now
try to describe the process of the formation of galaxies. After about 200
million years, the temperature was low enough so that the process of formation
of the first stars could have begun. This process intensified with time. The
matter was then still dense enough. Also the formation of clusters of dark
matter, constituting gravitational centres drawing in
the matter of gas and stars, had to take some time. This had to last no less
that than a billion years, which is understandable after taking into account
the dimensional scale of systems (in comparison with the dimensions of the
stars themselves). So at this stage we have swarm of stars of the first
generation, attracted by the islands of dark matter. It’s not surprising that
the masses of the created groups of star were of the same order of magnitude, even if they contained
completely different numbers of planckons. And what about the stars themselves?
The stars pulled toward the centre pressed at each other from all sides. This
had to result in thermonuclear hyper-explosion involving billions of stars. So
we have quasars, we have the primary (and the most abundant) source of metals.
Not some supernovae - capricious and extremely rare. Let’s note that the matter
from which the solar system is formed has already existed for at least six
billion years. I described the creation of galaxies elsewhere, in an essay
entitled: "How galaxies were formed?" Everything’s there. If someone
wants to discuss on topics raised here, lets him/her first get acquainted with
the content of this article.
Meanwhile, the number of hypotheses about the nature of the alleged dark
matter keeps on growing. An example of those are hypothetical WIMPs (Weakly
Interacting Massive Particles), which for obvious reasons do not participate in
electromagnetic interactions. One more unnecessary being. Astronomers are
searching for their tracks. What would they say about planckons and elsymons? They’d
say nothing...
Reflections
¹ Perhaps these planckons form also an invisible
homogeneous network, which to some extend can be compared to the famous aether.
Would that be its physical meaning? Speaking of this, one could give some
thought to the essence of the speed of light. Is it only the
"internal" matter of electromagnetic interactions? Most likely not. In
the model of the Universe, which I have introduced, in particular in the articles of Part 2 and, obviously, in my books
published in 2010********, the speed of light is primarily the speed of
expansion of the Universe, which is the upper limit of the set of relative
speeds of objects, and its invariance results directly from the cosmological
principle – there will be still a lot about this in later articles. According
to the view that I express on other occasions, the existence of space is a
direct result of this movement (and that’s the reason why the space of the Universe
is flat). This I will explain briefly in the next article.
Therefore, because the Universe is in the
global scale isotropic (according to cosmological principle), and since the
speed of light is the speed of its linear expansion, c speed should be the same
everywhere and in all directions, that is not dependent on the choice of the
reference system, or put it otherwise - absolute. The c magnitude is a
parameter of the Universe, and not only the speed of expansion of electric and
magnetic fields. No wonder that aether could not be detected in the
Michelson-Morley experiment. Since c primarily
determines the rate of expansion of the Universe, it cannot depend on the
reference system, which is local by definition. Today everything, especially in
the context of opinions expressed above, appears simple. However, over a
century ago, when the Universe was considered infinite and static, Einstein's
postulate of the invariance of the c parameter made a revolution, paved the way
for physics of the twentieth century. Invariance of the speed of light is the
basis of the special theory of relativity. In those former (?) times the invariance
of the speed of light was not at all associated with the cosmological
principle. And today? I guess it is not connected. In those old days, in this
regard, there were only Maxwell’s equations and there were some mismatches in
relation to classical mechanics based on Galilean relativity. And that was actually
the spur, putting it simply, for research (conducted by many scientists), which
ultimately led to the special theory of relativity.
And now, going back to aether
(needless to say, rejected by Einstein), hereby (tentatively) reactivated (the
name), it can be expected that the spread of light occurs as a wave of (longitudinal)
densifications and rarefactions in the global planckon network. Fine, but how
do you reconcile it with the fact that the electromagnetic wave is a transverse
wave? Has this anything to do with the speed of propagation? And what about
wave-corpuscular duality (photons are strictly material creations)? One hypothesis
chasing another, and along the way the old questions remain valid, even if we
have a little less of them. A lot of things still need some thought. So let’s add
something else. Now, in view of the fact that the Universe expands, the
distances between individual planckons of our network get larger. It follows
that the speed at which light propagates should gradually decrease. It’s interesting
that the same conclusion, or actually supposition, can be reached in another
way, on the basis of cosmological considerations (about this in subsequent
articles). Astronomical observation (study of quasars’ spectra) seems to
indicate that the fine structure constant: α = e²/ħc is increasing. As
we can see, the observationally attested variability of this parameter may mean
variation of universal constants. One of the options, in view of the increase
in the fine structure constant, is that the speed of light diminishes. If the
speed of light gradually decreases, the expansion of the universe will end at a
minimum (if not zero) value of the c parameter. Then there will be inversion,
and the Universe will begin to collapse. Judging by some calculations that I
will quote later, it is to happen when the age of the Universe will be of the
order of 10^20 years. That is the basis (and not on the density parameter Ω) of
the model of oscillating Universe described in this book and in the first of the
books mentioned hereunder.
Is it FN (Fantasy), or maybe rather FN (Fiction)? What about the
aforementioned Higgs particles? Let them better keep quiet. Maybe...
*) Part 1. Bereshit... (In
the beginning…)
**) As it will turn out (in the
next article), there is a minimum distance at which two planckons can approach
each other. No closer (Pauli exclusion principle?). So there is a maximum positive
potential energy of their interaction. The graph does not reach higher (so it
is not an asymptote). At this point, the function reaches absolute maximum. It
is a notable thing, also in the philosophical context. Facts of nature, ontological
truths, are not mathematical constructs, in spite of the judgements of those
whose reflectiveness can’t go beyond mathematical upper limit. I have already pointed
it out in different contexts.
***) „The dual character of gravity”
****) Here is some
other example of such an enlargement. In 1919 Albert Einstein received a letter
whose sender was a mathematician from Königsberg, Theodor Kaluza. In his work, described in the letter, Kaluza presents
the possibility of joining "in one equation" two fundamental interactions:
gravity (general theory of relativity) and electromagnetism (Maxwell’s theory).
The condition for this, as it turned out, was to introduce an additional,
fourth spatial dimension. The letter surprised Einstein. Kaluza's article had to
wait two years before it appeared under the title: "The problem of unity
in physics." This delay did not matter, because the idea of Kaluza found
fertile soil only after fifty years of continuous development of science.
Today, we are talking about hyperspace having eleven dimensions (including
time), where the complete unification of all known interactions is taking place.
Superstring theory is the expression of this new approach. Its development is
M-theory. It is an encouraging option for the future. And I dare to turn back
the course of history? Personally, I have no such intention, although I do not
deny that history repeats itself.
*****) Other
platonic solids (cube, octahedron as well as icosahedron) are not suitable for
our purposes. It is easy to find out why.
******) Urela –
ultra-relativistic acceleration, is a process of my invention, of
accelerated expansion at the very beginning of the Big Bang, the (much more
consistent) alternative to
"inflation", which in principle is accepted by the scientific
community on the basis of "better than nothing", while awaiting for
something better. It is based on mutual repulsion of planckons forming at the
beginning the squeezed to the limits network of "mono-crystal" -
panelsymon. Urela ended with the phase transformation at the moment when the
gravitational mass of the system came to zero (and breaking of connections between
the nodes of the "crystal"). It’s all in the text (this one and the
next).
*******) Density parameter:
the ratio of the average density of the Universe to its critical density; It is
used primarily in cosmology based on the general theory of relativity
(Friedmann equation) as a criterion for defining development trend of the
Universe. It is equal to unity if the geometry of the Universe is flat, that is
Euclidean - what is ascertained observationally. In truth, this is "flatness
on a knife edge," or, if you will, balancing on the tightrope, however
inviolable during the whole history of the Universe (starting from phase
transformation). This is, in short, the so-called flatness problem, which characterized
Friedman’s cosmology. There will be quite a lot on this subject. It will also
turn out that, resulting from my inquiry, this problem will disappear.
Cosmology of the twentieth century took this problem away with the hypothesis
of inflation, which I will also dispose of.
********) 1. Józef Gelbard
– “Let’s fantasize about the Universe
I. Oscillating? That’s not that
simple.” ISBN: 978-83-62740-06-2
2. “Let’s
fantasize about the Universe II. Into the depths of matter: gravity
in sub-dimensions.” ISBN: 978-83-62740-13-0
Next
article: Planckons and elsymons. Part 3
Some implications of the foregoing
findings. The problem of force, speed; what is the absolutely minimal distance
between planckons? Pauli exclusion principle differently.
Multidimensionality. Planckons contra
strings.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz