Response by Sam Cox to "Do Quantum Particles have Structure?" By T.S. Natarajan; (Indian Institute of Technology; India)
Hello:
Some readers may be nonplused by the inclusion of a paper on the possible structure of atomic particles in "Cosmology Review". The fact that the editor saw fit to publish this paper by Natarajan T.S. indicates he has a very good "feel" for the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe!
Although the flow of time, space and energy in General Relativity are circular, they are not observed this way from any frame of reference in the universe. Since observation, in Special Relativity, GR and Quantum Mechanics is the key to the existence of any given reality, we would do well to note how the flow of these things is OBSERVED from our and any frame of reference in the universe. They seem to flow in a linear, open fashion! When we look outward in space 360 degrees, everywhere we are looking back at the inside of a single POINT...a singularity topologically turned inside out- the "Big Bang". Our universe is coming from WITHIN US, the world of the sub-microscopic, and in a linear fashion seems to stretch straight out to infinity. Every point in the universe is the "center", with its own frame of reference, local time coordinates, the "works".
In the popular movie: "Contact", Jodie Foster, as a time travel astronaut going to the star Vega was placed in a spherical contraption conceived by the late famous scientist, Carl Sagan. Three rotating wheels simulated the flow of Energy, space and time in General Relativity, which were set in motion...but here is the clincher! The astronaut experienced time travel by being dropped in free fall, WITHIN the sphere in a LINEAR fashion, along the axis! We live on the curved surfaces of a dual 7-D universe, but we FEEL and EXPERIENCE existence as if we were in the CENTER, moving in a LINEAR fashion, in free fall. Jodie made it to Vega and back. We make it from birth to death- and back again...forever.
Proofs of relativity and the veracity of the 7-D Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe lie all around us, and not only in the positive results of billions of dollars of carefully conducted experiments either. Solving relativistic formulae, we get a figure for the mass of the universe which agrees well with our observations- and knowledge of our limitations. Everywhere we look, we find ourselves in the "middle". We are surrounded by hundreds of thousands, even millions of "coincidences" ...impossibility come true. What were the chances of Ned Wright, Sam Cox, or any reader being born? Ned has some interesting information on his web site about just "how tight" the constraints on the mass of the universe were at the big bang. One GRAM per CC difference at early stages would have probably made the universe well nigh uninhabitable. How about conditions in the stars which made the existence of carbon- and us possible?
Mathematicians reading this are probably giddy with laughter! This is not coincidence and near-impossibility! This is the other side of impossibility- CERTAINTY in an eternal, dual, Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe! As Paul Davies said: "We are truly meant to be here". We, and the universe have always existed. We are eternal stones in the cathedral of the sky.
Probability theory is one of my favorite subjects. Unlike Albert Einstein, who had misgivings about Quantum Mechanics, I have enjoyed seeing certainty emerge from impossibility too many times on my blackboard, to consider Quantum Mechanics a threat to Einsteinian determinism!
Our own very real frame of reference is one of chance, coincidence, and uncertainty. If these things exist, we must cope with them, not feel threatened by them. These things give meaning to existence, and the choices we make DO MATTER. Each frame of reference is king in this universe, and if our frame of reference includes choice and chance, we had better take these things seriously- even if we know that in other frames of reference such things do not exist, or exist in the same way. Moving over the coordinates of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe from big bang to big crunch and back again, between its two poles, is a journey from impossibility to certainty, from unlimited possibilities to determinism. Mr. Natarajan, is I believe, trying to do the unnecessary, if he is interested in reconstructing Einsteinian theories in a more deterministic, mechanical, context.
I already advised Mr. Natarajan that I felt his rationale for the paper was flawed. He made it clear he was trying to stimulate thought on this very important subject of the dynamics of the universe at the microscopic scale, and stimulate thought, he definitely has! I feel papers like his have a place, because they force us to rethink important theoretical issues. Much of atomic physics has been, to this point descriptive, describing how subatomic matter behaves within the atom, and how particles interact outside the confines of the atomic vicinity. Now it is time to begin to understand the real forces at work at the sub-microscopic scales, and Natarajan has brought us to the proper starting place in our exploration of cosmology...the sub-microscopic.
I think it would be appropriate to use an Indian illustration in my review of Mr. Natarajans paper! Most of us have heard the story of the blind men describing an Elephant. The one who felt the tail said the elephant was a snake.. The one who put his arms around a leg, thought an elephant was a tree trunk, and so on. Of course, for those of us who have the benefit of sight, an Elephant is an Elephant! An electron is an electron too. It has its own frame of reference in the universe, just as we do, and in an Einsteinian universe, each frame of reference is king...in the center of everything.
As an electron accelerates relative to us, it "thinks" OUR time is slowing down. It perceives our mass to be increasing, and at the speed of light, relative to us it feels just fine. We, on the other hand, have seen a particle take on the characteristics of a wave, and then, at c, seem to lose its very identity as an electron.
What is correct? A wave or a particle?...a tail or a leg? A tail and a leg are both very real parts of an Elephant and, depending on its frame of reference with regard to us, an Electron is very much a particle or a wave. This is not make believe, it is reality...reality in an Einsteinian Hypersphericial Universe! This has to do with technology, TV, computers and such things!
I don't see any problem- mathematically or from the standpoint of Physics, in regarding the Electron as a particle...it certainly is. In question is the nature of the very real changes which take place, as that particle changes its frame of reference with our world. The particle "feels" fine. However, to us it becomes a very different thing IN REALITY,as its frame of reference with respect to us, changes. Is Natarajans concept of a circular movement in a helix conceptually adequate? If such a movement occurs, what are the dynamics involved?
As I mentioned previously, ours is a flying family. Unfortunately, we do not have the means to own a jet with high-bypass turbofans, so we have had to settle for propeller powered aircraft. Even with the propeller spinning at thousands of RPMs, an object can safely enter the sweep of the propeller blade and be quickly withdrawn without damage. Older readers will remember those World War II fighters with cannons which synchronized the firing of the bullets with the turning of the prop? This is another important dynamic consideration in Mr. Natarajan's model VS Quantum Mechanics. If I tried to shoot bullets through the sweep of an electron cloud, synchronization would be quite impossible, for predicting the position of the electron at any instant is impossible ....yet in Mr. Natarjan's model it would theoretically be possible.
Even if the geometric locations of a particle at different points in time can roughly account for the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics, what, about the nature of space time in the atomic vicinity, could make such a circular motion possible and or stable for the life of the universe?
As a theorist, I'm convinced that electron clouds around atoms and "energy levels" are relativistic effects all the way. I'm fascinated by the fact that these relativistic effects occur at such comparatively vast distances from the nucleus of the atom, and I'm convinced for reasons rooted in Experiment, that the nuclear particles alone, in NO WAY can even BEGIN to account for the relativistic behavior of Electrons surrounding the atom. I worry about some of these "forces" that scientists are so struggling with in the heart of the atom, in their attempts at a unified field theory. Like Natarajan, I think the solution is geometric, but not in the way Electrons move.
In the 7-D Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe, there IS singularity "down" there at 10-33 Centimeter...a mini, but from that frame of reference in scale.. monstrous black hole. On the other side of that Black Hole are matching nuclear particles of opposite charge surrounded by Positron clouds...time moving in an opposite direction relative to us...an entire "new" universal "hemisphere"- the Antiverse. From our frame of reference, the two universal "hemispheres", including two of each of us, are absolutely superimposed for solid Topological reasons. They do not destroy each other because, while the space and energy coordinates of the two "hemispheres" are the same, singularity "reverses" the time coordinate. (see comments on Chrono-theory) It is 180 Degrees away on the Hypersphere...billions of light years.
This is far from the whole story. Scientists studying microscopic singularity are investigating the concept of "hairy" singularity, the "Cobweb Matrix" of my Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe paper. A "tentacle" of singularity reaches into the heart of every atom from the gathering/unraveling massive "Big Crunch/Big Bang singularity at the poles of the Hyperspherical Universe. The gravitational attraction in space time of this singularity causes not only the relativistic effects observed at the heart of the atom, but also, on a macroscopic scale, results in the "cosmological constant" which guides/draws each "hemisphere" toward its appropriate destination.
As matter approaches the poles of the universe, microscopic singularity at the heart of its atoms becomes more massive, overcoming nuclear forces, and at singularity, the "hemispheres" of the EHU turn "inside out", reversing polarity and particle charge and beginning a new cycle. Every frame of reference in the EHU stays where it is, yet, because of periodic hemispheric singularity (the "Big Bang/Crunch), becomes briefly "one" with everything else.
I mentioned elsewhere (Infinite Time) in my remarks for "Cosmology Review" that Space and Time are mass less in the Einsteinian model. Many scientists are questioning this, some of them well respected. I do not believe space, or time have mass. First, they are conspicuously missing from the equation E=mc2, which when solved for c is absolutely cosmological in nature. Einsteins formulae have been shown to be correct experimentally, and clearly indicate that the mass of the universe is tied up in Matter and energy...not space or time.
Yet space, with its time and scale coordinates makes reality as we know it possible. In the most remote parts of intergalactic space, virtually empty by earthly standards, or even the standards of interplanetary space, there are a few atoms. Cosmic rays, atoms stripped of their electrons by cosmic violence and photons of light are present. Photons of light are Topologically volatile. While they seem insignificant to us from our frame of reference, they are instantly present from one end of the universe to the other, give space structure and permit the cosmos to exist.
GR teaches us that not only do space, time and energy flow in a circular motion, they are intimately linked with each other. I believe that the "cobweb matrix" of microscopic singularity which intrudes into the heart of each atom, permeates space at very small scales as well, and as "hairy singularity" also gives space foundational structure. This structure acts as a framework for the flow of gravitons in gravitational attraction. Since singularity is ultra-compressed photons flowing like a fluid, microscopic singularity may be made of particles related to gravitons. In fact, "gravitation" may be a "gathering" of microscopic singularity in the neighborhood of massive objects, which would cause space to take on different characteristics.
Because "hairy" singularity permeating sub microscopic space is a part of the mass total accounted for in the formula E=mc2, this picture eliminates the contradiction of "Massed Space" which, while possible, is certainly heterodox to the Einsteinian cosmological concept. Time is coordinates within the matrix of space and energy flow and is hence, not massed either.
Believe it or not, scientists are still searching for a "model" of the Electron. Searching for a model of the electron is like searching for a "model" human being. We view every electron from a slightly different frame of reference, so they all seem to be slightly different, but we can roughly classify Electrons as those which are close to our frame of reference with regard to the speed of light and those whose frame of reference is somewhat more remote. We can likewise speak of British, Americans and Indians whose frame of reference is similar, or look across the vast chasm of culture to the very different frame of reference of those whose "point of view" (frame of reference) is very different from our own.
Note that I chose a 4-D projection from the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe to illustrate the nature of a subatomic particle, just as I have used 4-D (dimensional) projections to illustrate many other aspects of reality in a (basic) 7-D Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.
The material I have contributed to "Cosmology Review" on the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe has been almost completely restricted to the seven dimensional; two sets of space in three dimensions and one time dimension proceeding in a single direction- but circular motion as described in General Relativity, with the space in each of the two sets ("hemispheres") of the dual universe, curved in such a way was to return to the place- and time- of origin. For many powerful reasons, two of which I will discuss shortly, I regard the "7 Sphere" as foundational to our reality. There is, however no reason why the dimensional structure of the universe could not be considerably more complex. Another possibility is the 11-Sphere. The fact that order is conserved in an Eternal EHU may indicate that the complexity of life itself may be dimensional in nature, in which case, the universe may have a very complex dimensional structure indeed..
Our readers might enjoy reading a description of the origin and development of the universe according to General Relativity in 4-Dimensions. Sten Odenwald had one published in the Washington Post in 1997, and it is posted on the web: "The Big Bang Was Not a Fireworks Display"...http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/bang.html. The similarities between Sten's description and the ones on this web site are quite striking, however 4-D is a "one-sided" universe, and leaves open the question of where the "Big Bang" came from. Thus, in 4-D, the First Law of Thermodynamics is seriously called into question, however the fact that 4-D is less counterintuitive than 7-D makes many scientists feel more "at ease" with it. Finally, the 4-D universe also ignores the negative solutions of GR...and leaves the universe sitting on no supporting framework...poised to go down Diracs "sewer pipe".
Having addressed many of the issues Mr. Natarajan raises in the first pages of his paper, I would like to look a a few other ideas discussed in this paper.
On page three, Mr. Nataragan introduces a converse statement: (with regard to the speed of light) "However, if we accept that this constant cannot be affected by the motion of the source or observer, then the converse that this constant also cannot affect the motion of source or observer becomes equally true". Most converse statements (all Dogs are animals: all animals are dogs etc.) are not true, and this one is no exception. A focused beam of intense light coming from the rear of a rocket ship would affect its source!..though slightly. Other relativistic effects of light affecting both source and observer are as real...in fact we build technology on them. How about light imposing order on matter in organic evolution? Where do we get the energy to put ourselves into motion? Light makes our motion possible...it affects the motion of the observer. I had a very nice exchange with Mr. Natarajan about this and he recognized the problems involved.
At the bottom of page three, the author discusses the fact that the STR (special Theory of Relativity) transformation equations apply not only to light, but particles of matter as well. I could not agree more. Next the writer says this: "Thus the constant "c" must come (enter) into the structure of the Electrons and other fundamental particles in some way. This is what is being attempted in this paper". This conclusion is forced by Mathematics, and I strongly agree it is true. At the most basic level, the most fundamental reality of the universe is Energy. We and all "objects" in the universe are made of light. It is logical and part of the Topological reality of the cosmos, that "c" MUST enter into the structure of matter in a fundamental way. Einstein's equivalence proportion for matter and energy includes the speed of light...it's THAT obvious: E=mc2!
However, "c" does NOT enter into the structure of particles to create "relativistic" effects which are non-Einsteinian! "C" enters the structure of matter as a part of the REAL relativistic, topological parameters and relationships of time, space and energy in SRT and GR, to form the reality we observe from each fixed frame of reference on the Geometric Hypersphere! Particles feel fine, and DO NOT CHANGE at ANY speed- we OBSERVE them to change- and that observation makes reality.
In Special and General Relativity, no particle undergoes actual structural change as it accelerates relative to us. The "change" is in OUR reality, at our reference frame. This observed "change" actually becomes so much a part of reality at our frame of reference, we can build technology on it. Our life can be prolonged- or our death caused by this change. If it were possible for people to live on a rapidly moving atomic particle, they could use the relativistic change they observe in our world to create a very workable technology of their own.
How simple it is, yet how easy to stumble! My frame of reference is real to me and yours is real to you- REALLY REAL...so real one can stake his or her life on it! Are conditions at the south pole, at the top of a mountain or the bottom of the sea real? Scientifically, considering the successes of SR, GR and QM, I think we would be well advised to avoid all but the most carefully reasoned heterodoxy, and we must not forget the realities of topology either.
Topological realities give substance to what we observe. If we walk around the surface of a Mobius Strip, not only will we never come to the end- we will wind up on the OTHER SIDE! From any frame, our path on the strip will be wide, but if we look elsewhere, the path will seem to disappear. The "disappearance" as observed by us is REAL too- could we stand on the edge of a piece of paper?
The universe is defined by light and light, observation, consciousness and definition actually make the existence of the cosmos possible. As I have indicated many times, QM is a "fleshed out" extension of GR. I believe most scientists would quickly agree with me that QM and GR. do not have to be forced together. QM describes, very accurately, relativistic effects as we perceive them in our frame of reference. Since these effects are REAL, QM is real too. GR. takes a more universal frame of reference, quite different from ours, so it seems different, but SR, GR. and QM are congruent. First and foremost, all depend on observation to create reality. Quantum realities also fit snugly into the conceptual basis of the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.. .eddies of time between the "hemispheres" where past present and future are clouded, and we can even change our mind after making a decision and reverse reality; accurate descriptions of relativistic effects....the list goes on and on.
On page four, the author does say that each particle carries its own personal clock, but NOT in its structure, rather in its unique reference frame.
Postulate I: There is no doubt about it. It is the particles motion, internal and external, not relativistic change in the observer's eye, which is going to cause observed "relativistic" effects in this concept. The particle not only has structure, it has a structure which makes it seem like relativistic changes are occurring, when they are not. To put it mildly, this is fundamentally different from Einstein's ideas.
Postulate IV: The magnitude of the instantaneous velocity of the particle, the resultant of its internal and external velocities, is always equal to c...the velocity of light. Again, we have a conceptual difficulty. For readers who don't understand the meaning of instantaneous velocity, it is the number on the speedometer of your car! It is the ACTUAL speed your car is traveling at any given instant. The resultant instantaneous magnitude of the velocity of a particle cannot equal c with respect to an observer and have the particle continue to exist as a particle. I get the authors gist ...we don't actually observe the resultant instantaneous velocity, we observe only its external velocity.
However how can the resultant velocity not be the observed velocity? The author is touching on the topological, and it is fascinating, but I remain skeptical. In relativity, the particle does not change at all. It just IS different to an observer when observed from different frames of reference.
The Lorentz transformations apply to anything whose frame of reference with regard to an observer is close to the speed of light. Do receding galaxies have, or need a helical structure? Of course not. Why is a special built in structure for quantum particles necessary? The author says it clearly: "To restore determinism to Physics"...but is that necessary? A dual eternal Einsteinian Hyperspherical universe is as frozen as a videotape. Its determinism is almost frightening. Is greater determinism possible? Even in Physics, philosophy is a powerful influence! We will abandon the First Law of Thermodynamics if necessary, we will ignore a completely satisfactory explanation for Dirac's Sewer pipe problem, we will put up with a universe of a billion almost impossible coincidences, rather than accept a perfect answer which is philosophically unpalatable!
Page 4: Why do particles need periodicity within their structure to help them reckon time? Every frame of reference in the universe has its own "time". Muon's decay the same anywhere in the universe, but if the Earth is moving, relative to them at a speed near C, to people on the Earth, they really do decay more slowly- but not to the Muon. Its internal structure, not its sense of time determines the time coordinates which mark its decay.
I like Natarajan's helix. I support the dualism implicit in his math. Natarajan's helix is right and left handed, and I like the symmetry of his equations. I believe that quite possibly some atomic particles move in the "string like manner" he describes. Perhaps this movement is about "hairy singularity". Natarajan's math is interesting and in many ways, his results- and problems are similar to those of PAM Dirac. I'm not especially happy with his attempt to explain relativistic effects by the mechanical structure of a particle, when such effects are a frame of reference "fact of life" in the Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe.
Yet Space, Time, Matter and energy are all linked to each other. I said elsewhere in my comments, that from every frame of reference, there is a perfect mechanical explanation for everything. Each frame of reference in an EHU is so real, so rational that explanations such as the model Natarajan proposes are actually possible. I just want us to take the larger view, and see things from a more universal frame of reference. Above all, lets not forget how far we have come in our experimental verification of Relativity.
Mr. Natarajan is a very good scientist. He told me this paper was an "exercise" for him, much in the same way that 12 divided by 4 equals 3. To check, we multiply the quotient 3 by the divisor, 4 and get the dividend..12. You know...good scientists are always "..just checking". Sometimes we get "the surprise of our life!"
Samuel A. Cox College of Micronesia; February 29, 2000 fd
