In my last post I showed my interpretation of deuterium: the first fused orbital. I also noted that I have to figure out from the dimension of the orbitals, whether the change in geometry could explain the specific binding energy of deuterium.
Well, as one can imagine, this led me to through one more rabbit hole. The problem isn't that I couldn't figure out what the length of the circular arcs making up the orbital are in arbitrary units. The problem arises from trying to explain why the arcs have a specific curvature and more fundamentally why do they curve in the first place?
You see, the simplest curvature would be no curvature at all. Or where all of the Planck spheres would move in a straight line. The more one displaces the Planck spheres from a linear trajectory, the more force one requires. So, there must be a source for the force that allows for this non-linear trajectory. To aid with the thought experiment, I first aligned simple hydrogen orbitals with arrows indicating the direction of movement. First, the orbitals can be ‘stacked’ linearly, so that the trajectory of the Planck spheres continues from one orbital to the other. Next, these stacked orbitals can be aligned one next to the other. However, if one looks closely, the direction of movement of the Planck spheres is opposite for these parallel stacked orbitals. This means that the neighboring stacked orbitals prevent their expansion. In this simple model, nothing above or below the plane appears to be preventing the orbital from expanding.
A section of the surface of the supramolecular shell of hydrogen
The main reason why the orbital doesn’t expand on the surface of the supramolecular shell, even though there appears to be nothing constraining the expansion of the orbitals are the number of ‘knots’ in the shell. Each atomic core and atomic intersection are permanent ‘knots’ in the fishing net structure of the supramolecular shell. This means that the length of string for each bond is set. This means that if the orbital expands in the unrestrained region of the network, it must contract in the restrained region.
However, this means that the whole concept of what the curvature of the string of light-speed Planck spheres must be rethought via the initial formation of protons. This poses a challenge, as at least under the current understanding, this occurred already at one microsecond after the big bang. This understood to have occurred by the fusion of quarks and gluons.
As far as I understand it, a quark is a miniature hadron, without the ‘extra’ string that either makes it a proton or a neutron. I.e. if the quarks making up the proton have a mass of roughly 1% of the proton, it means that their diameter must be roughly 1 % of the proton. Assuming for simplicity that the diameter of a proton is 74 pm, or the distance of H-H bond, then the diameter of a quark is roughly 0.74 pm, or the size of a gamma ray.
Based on this idea, the formation of protons was an event where unknotted loops of string were so tightly packed that they twisted into chain of smaller loops the size of gamma rays. The pressure causes the gamma-loops to fold over and knot, so that they can no longer open. Once knotted, the chain of gamma-loops has converted to a chain of quarks. Once the pressure that caused the gamma-loops to fold and knot into chains of quarks subsides, the chains of quarks can fuse to form larger chains, but without increasing the number of knots in the chain.
The quark-knots grow until they reach the size of a proton or a neutron (depending on chirality of the initial state). After this point, the proton won’t incorporate a full (down) quark (with a mass of 4.7 MeV/c²). However, it can incorporate and electron, with a mass of 0.51 MeV/c² to make up a proton. It appears that once the size of the hydrogen is achieved, there is an equilibrium, where the size of the orbital is at a maximum.
I might be wrong, but as far as I see it, at this point there is an equilibrium, where the rotation of a cluster of supramolecular shells emits any excess string as black body radiation, cooling the cluster down. Exactly how this rotational emission works is unclear to me. It appears that the rotation of the supramolecular shells against each other is mostly ‘frictionless’, or the neighboring supramolecular shells rotating in opposite directions, just as takes place in neighboring gears. However, just like in the counterevidence manuscript, not all of the supramolecular shells can undergo frictionless rotation. Rather, at least a fraction of the supramolecular shells ‘grind’ against the each other, causing the strings that collide against each other to vibrate. If this vibration causes some of the string to be released, the rotational energy of the supramolecular shell is reduced and the released string will be emitted as electromagnetic radiation (i.e. light). However, it is of note that the individual piece of string that is released in this collision cannot be as large as the peak of the black body radiation. This means that the released pieces of string must fuse into a much larger ring: a ring whose size reflects the size of a supramolecular aggregate. What the exact mechanism for this fusion is, is not at all clear to me. Neither is it clear whether the pieces of string released are released as short wavelength radiation that combine into a larger ring in the supramolecular aggregate. I spent a significant amount of time trying to imagine the mechanism in my head, but there are just too many uncertainties in the thought experiment for me to say anything too concrete.
Here we get to the elephant in the room: why are there supramolecular aggregates and what keeps the supramolecular shells bound into the aggregate? One idea is that it’s just the kinetic energy of the supramolecular shells, that allows them to spin. In an ideal world, the spinning of the supramolecular shell would be just around its own axis. However, as the spinning of one supramolecular shell influences the surrounding supramolecular shells, there is an interplay of both the rotation of individual shells and the rotation of a cluster of shells. The phenomenon at play is angular momentum. While I can’t explain the mathematics in any more detail, it appears that at lower speed a large number of supramolecular shells can cluster together without being thrown apart by the spinning motion. When the speed of rotation increases, the number of supramolecular shells within a spinning cluster is reduced. As the size of the cluster reflects the wavelength of the black body radiation, we can estimate that the at the surface of the sun, with the temperature being 5 778 K, this cluster has a size of 502 nm, or roughly 7 supramolecular shells of ~70 nm. I decided not to make a new Waterman cluster/polyhedron for this size of an aggregate. However, the basic idea is the same as for an aggregate with four supramolecular shells, as in the image below.
Waterman cluster of liquid water
The rings in the above scheme reflect the properties of liquid water, where the supramolecular shells are filled with solid water. However, in the case of hydrogen plasma on the surface of the sun, the supramolecular shells are hollow. This is because the surface of the sun is more gaseous than liquid, with the pressure being just ~0.09 atmospheres, or less than one tenth of the surface of the Earth, despite the density of the core of the sun being ~ 265 billion atmospheres. It is actually rather hard to understand how much the properties of the sun change the deeper you go, when all we observe with our eyes is the light emanating from the outer surface.
I might be wrong, but it seems that the only thing required to keep the supramolecular shells aggregated is the interplay of inertia, the pressure exerted by the surrounding supramolecular aggregates and gravity. Gravity might be the trickiest to explain. When all supramolecular shells move within a common frame of reference in space, the inertia of common movement acts as a force that prevent the supramolecular shells in this cluster from separating.
One can compare the above explanation to the Wikipedia explanation of quantum gravity:
“String theory can be seen as a generalization of quantum field theory where instead of point particles, string-like objects propagate in a fixed spacetime background, although the interactions among closed strings give rise to space-time in a dynamical way. Although string theory had its origins in the study of quark confinement and not of quantum gravity, it was soon discovered that the string spectrum contains the graviton, and that "condensation" of certain vibration modes of strings is equivalent to a modification of the original background. In this sense, string perturbation theory exhibits exactly the features one would expect of a perturbation theory that may exhibit a strong dependence on asymptotics (as seen, for example, in the AdS/CFT correspondence) which is a weak form of background dependence.”
Wikipedia illustrations of string theory
While I do not wish to disparage the current string theoretical expression of quantum gravity, it is clear that the approach puts the cart before the horse.
Cart before the horse
The sentence might be true in a mathematical sense, but it does not describe the features of the strings in any meaningful way. To be frank, I am not at all surprised by this, as the M-theory requires eleven dimensions. Then the string theorists say that us humans cannot understand eleven dimensions, but these extra dimensions can still exist.
Wikipedia illustrations of M-theory
The problem is that the conventional string theory is right enough for the mathematics to make sense, that is assuming you believe in extra dimensions. However, at the moment people are left with a take it or leave it situation, where you either believe in theses extra dimensions or believe string theory not to be true. It is extremely difficult to understand that there is a new string theory that rejects extra dimensions, but still embraces the basic concept of the string.
In my opinion all of this confusion arises from the idea that there is something beyond supramolecular phenomena. Or more specifically that there are forces that are not emergent on the interplay of supramolecular entities. As far as I understand it, there are no interactions that exist beyond supramolecular phenomena. That is, even subatomic interactions take place within a supramolecular framework. If one wishes to nitpick, supramolecular interactions emerged at one microsecond after the big bang, when protons formed. Before this, the interactions were suprabosonic and suprafermionic. That is, all of the elementary particles that existed before protons, formed larger clusters based on the same laws that govern supramolecular interactions. The only exception is that it took a very brief amount of time for anything resembling a molecules to form.
Next we can extend the thought experiment of supramolecular aggregates to consider what happens to hydrogen, when its concentration is so small that the size of the supramolecular shell expands above 70 nm. At some size, its size will be too large that the energy of a single ring of light (or supraphoton) is too small to split the supramolecular shell. This size is somehow linked to the largest wavelength detected, that is the hydrogen line of 21 cm, which appears still to be at the tail end of the black body radiation of at the extremely cold temperatures of the universe, where this emission is generated.
If we follow this logic to its natural conclusion, this will imply that the small concentration of hydrogen between astronomical bodies (planets, stars, galaxies etc.) form supramolecular shells that cannot emit or absorb light: i.e. it do not interact with the electromagnetic field. This is the definition of dark matter. If such an entity rotates, the energy of rotation should be expressed as an unknown force that induces the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. This observation has a name: dark energy.
It might seem rather daring to say that I've discovered the secret of dark matter and dark energy, but in a sense I'm saying that the matter and energy part are rather mundane and boring. The only profound intuition is in the 'dark' part of the two. That is, the unknown part of the universe is the same hydrogen that we already know makes up most of the universe, but the darkness comes from its non-conventional interaction.
It's a bit like the phrase dark ages for the early middle ages. They weren't dark in the sense that there was no science, technology, or human development. Rather the term darkness related to the expense of writing. Before paper was invented, only very expensive parchment was available for writing. This reflected in there being a rather small amount of surviving literature from the era. Hence 'dark ages', as there was so little written history of the time. However, this time period wasn't dark otherwise.
Similarly, dark matter and dark energy are defined by their non-interaction with light. Otherwise, any other attribute assigned to them are just in the eyes of the beholder.
And quantum gravity? I dare you to read the Wikipedia article and try to find any sense in it. But regardless of this, I think it's not wrong in a broader sense. This is reflected in what Richard Feynman called the difference between Babylonian and Greek thinking. Feynman held the belief that as the current understanding of quantum mechanics is what it is, there are no underlying axioms, from which all other axioms can be deduced, one is bound to rely on knowing all of the relevant rules tha somehow interlink. This is what he called the Babylonian thinking. Conversely, he said that if at some point we have reached a point in physics where 'physics is ready', we can deduce everything from the basic axioms (or postulates). The specific sentence begins at 9:40 in the linked video.
"Some day when physics is complete, then maybe with this kind of argument we know all the laws and we can start with some axioms and no doubt somebody will find out a particular way of doing it. And then all of these deductions will be made"
Richard Feynman at the blackboard
What I claim is that now we have the necessary axioms and we can finally do all of these deductions. In the supplementary information of the Counterevidence Paper I state these postulates
Based on the above observations, the revised postulates are.
1. All matter consists of solid particles with a diameter of Planck length.
2. All these particles are in constant motion at the speed of light.
3. Some of these particles are in direct contact and some collide with each other.
4. When collisions occur, these particles lose no kinetic energy; that is, the collisions are said to be perfectly elastic.
5. The particles exert no attractive or repulsive forces on one another. If not colliding, or being pushed, they move in straight lines.
The almost comical thing is that these are almost the same postulates as in the kinetic theory of gases. The problem had been that the starting point for the basic postulates had been set to define entities that a much larger than the true elementary entities to which the postulate actually apply to.
Σχόλια