The Cosmos Cannot be Other than it is

[austintorn@aol.com]

I will be showing that the Cosmos has to exist and also that it cannot be other than it is. There will be many areas covered.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Atoms can only be the size that they are:

The Orbiting Electron

There is no Rutherford catastrophe of the lowest (ground-state) orbiting the nucleus in an atom losing energy by emitting a photon and then crashing everything because this process is not instant but takes an interval, and this interval of time is not long enough for what it takes to emit the photon.

Is an electron associated with an atomic core a kind of nebulous probability cloud that exists everywhere yet nowhere or does it really just zip around the core really fast? We can look at the history of this idea.

We aren’t worried about the part of quantum physics having to do with energy quantization, but more about the curious wave nature of atoms and particles, and whether cosmic dice really roll to rule what the universe does.

Since the electrostatic attraction between charged particles has a distance/strength relationship, electrons were originally thought to orbit atomic nuclei—an idea that became known as the Rutherford atom. However, if accelerating electrons emit photons, as seen, for example, as like energy released by radio antennas when subjected to varying electric fields, then how can electrons accelerate around the positive nuclei of atoms with no attendant energy loss? This became known as the Rutherford catastrophe, bringing about the birth of quantum mechanics.

The simple answer about the electron’s orbital stability is that a certain amount of time is required for photon emission. Thus, charged particles like electrons emit photons when accelerated if and only if the period of time over their net acceleration occurs is longer than the time necessary to emit the photon relative to their net change in momentum.

So, then, an atom greatly differs from a radio antenna (and from a solar system, which employs gravity). Photons are not emitted at some instant of time and so are not related to acceleration at some instant of time, for the electron’s acceleration and photon emission are the result of an interval of time.

The only state where kinetic energy is less than the minimum photon release energy is the ground state by a factor of two (orbital n=1). At n=2, the two energy levels are equal. All levels but the ground state can decay into a lower energy level. This is why atoms have the size they do; their electromagnetic stability is purely a matter of scale. Physicists in Germany and Austria were recently able to use extreme ultraviolet light to calculate hydrogen’s ground-state orbital period at 1.5(10)[-16] seconds.

So, electrons are real and can orbit nuclei. No abrupt departure from reality is necessary. The Rutherford catastrophe is avoided. More so, if electrons don’t orbit atomic nuclei, then why is the magnetic moment of hydrogen’s ground-state electron so astonishingly close to the value an orbiting particle would have?

To get around this it had to be postulated in another level of abstraction that electrons spin about their own tiny axis; however, these moments have never been observed. Simply, the ground-state of an electron orbit occurs at a size too small to allow sufficient time for the emission of electronic radiation.

The size of an atom is fixed to what it is for it to be stable.

Formulas:

By Heisenberg,

Delta_energy(e) delta_time(t) >= h/2,

Which even shows energy occurring over a time interval.

By Bohr:

Bohr radii(r) = (state(n)^2 * h^2 *epsilon(e)) / (pi * m * q^2)

Velocity(v) of electron = q^2 / 2* n* h*e

Orbit time = 2 pi r

Combining…

T = 4n^3h^3e^2 / mq^4 = 1.5(10)[-16] seconds

Also

Release energy(e) = h/t = mq^4 / 4n^3h^2e^2

Electron kinetic energy e = mq^4 / 8n^2h^2e^2

So, ratio of kinetic energy to minimum release energy =

= a math reduction = 1/2 * n

(n=1 is the ground-state orbital)


No quantum reality mysticism of suppressed hysteria of delirium is required. Hazy, magical science areas are disappearing, one by one, although that is an aside to showing that the Cosmos cannot be other than it is.

[Graybeard]

Good .... I like

greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

OK, previously we saw that ground-state electrons orbit nuclei in less time than it takes to release a photon corresponding to their available kinetic energy and so this makes for the size of a workable atom.

There is much more to come that has to be and can be no other way, but what does it all imply, in toto? There is one and only one reason for the Cosmos, which we will get down to in its very essence later on.


Space and energy must exist together, and only these two in only one way:

Space and energy have a codependent existence, as energy occupies space, both space and energy necessarily having three dimensions, although one of energy’s dimensions is of the only other type: time, as energy’s dimensions are time*distance^2, while space’s dimensions are distance^3. No other cubic is possible.

For energy’s dimensions of time*distance^2, think of energy radiating as the square of the distance over time—in that similar kind of picture often shown that shows a square 2D cross-section slice of radiating energy getting larger and larger through time.

It is also, again, that 4D spacetime can only have two unique 3D infinitely large cubics, as there is only one ‘time’ dimension and three equivalent ‘distance’ dimensions. Space and time are thus a necessity as distance^3 and time*distance^2 and this could be no other way. To complete this, we will later show that only four dimensions are possible. And of course there can be only two phenomenologically distinct substances, space and energy.

Energy is distributed into space at a certain, finite, average energy density, and this is also what requires energy and space to possess a comparable number of dimensions. It is also that for energy density to make sense that energy has to be a three-dimensional substance.

Light’s motion through space is an utterly explicit demonstration of the dimension energy has and space lacks!

Symmetry requires space and energy to exist in equal universal quantities, and they must exist everywhere. Call it infinite. It is not unexpected that the All would not be the All at all if it had a boundary. There is no choice in this.

The product of energy (time*distance^2) and motion(distance/time) is space, a volume (distance^3). The only way energy can exist as additional volume in space is by a certain density of time per distance—the units of energy density. Energy density is circumstantial (variable), while the amount of space in energy is existential.

Energy/space = average energy density = 1 (unity), in existentially correct universal units. The universal ratio is finite because both are 3D quantities. Only time sets space and energy apart.

There can be only two fundamental units of measurement: distance and time. We will see later on why our dimensional realm is of the only dimensionality that is possible.

Empty space, if it could be, which it can’t, would have no energy, but this is more like the nonexistence of energy if you want to picture it; however, one cannot exist without the other and so there is no empty space possible anywhere. While nothingness is the absence of all things, space is the lack of something, and that something is energy, as we also see by observation. There’s a bit more to it, of why, which I will get to soon, but for now it is that this conjoining could be no other way at all.

Space cannot exist in the absence of energy. Space is charged with fields, converting one of its dimensions to time, that which is used in energy. Energy moves and has polar fields because time is an essential component of its geometry. Time is a spacial difference, which we will get to later, but spacial difference is kind of a distance, too, a 4th dimensional one, but is unlike 3D distance, for time is a closure dimension that bounds rather than extends space; it is a difference dimension. There are only two directions along this “time” axis, positive and negative, called that for connivence, but they are indeed opposite.

We cannot find ‘nothing’—a lack of anything—anywhere that we look, for there is field everywhere, even in the mostly empty vacuum and the space within atoms. A huge metal cylinder was drained of “everything” in it, and yet something still arose, documented somewhere in this interesting video series called Everything and Nothing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaEBM...eature=related

In short, which we will expand on later, the cosmos could not exist in the absence of charged space, and charged space cannot exist in the absence of energy, for space needs the electric fields in order to nullify the baseline reference of its reference frame. So, while matter requires the existence of antimatter to balance within nothingness, space needs both to cancel the magnitude of its own closure.

We will see that motion is the one-dimensional relationship between energy and space, which is also what the speed of light represents in a pristine form. Space is associated with neutral extent while energy is associated with fourth-dimensional displacement and polarity. This existential balance between space and energy must correspond to an infinite quantity of energy (spread in infinite space).

Absolute space exists, and it must, it being the universal state of zero momentum and minimum energy, and Earth is moving through it at an approximate speed of 370 km/s toward the constellation Crater. This we know from COBE and WMAP, utilizing the CMB as being extremely close to being a rest frame. Space’s quantity is volume. Absolute space also must exist physically (if not materially) by virtue of its volume as well as dynamically as a zero point of net universal momentum. Space is real, as well as are matter particles and the energy particle. Reality is not abandoned at all, although some contemporary physicists may wish to.

Absolute space means absolute motion, which in turn means an absolute value for the speed of light. We will get into this another time, about how there can be one and only one speed of light.

[Graybeard]

Not so sure about this one. Why do you think energy is an entity and not just a measure of the power to perform work ? Also, how do you accept infinite and the conservation of energy in the same breath ?

cool bananas ...greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

Not so sure about this one. Why do you think energy is an entity and not just a measure of the power to perform work ? Also, how do you accept infinite and the conservation of energy in the same breath ?

cool bananas ...greg

I using energy, which is still mcc, because mass seems to have some redundant uses of time in it and so while kilograms is still useful for convenience I'm trying to stick with time and distance only. Mass, from F=ma or from E=mcc, comes out as having dimensional units of time^3 which seems to have no existential significance. We'll also be using energy for momentum by substituting from E=mcc.

Conservation will be seen to come from a necessary balance of the polarity of energy as positive and negative charge, with the infinite energy summing to zero with infinite precision (a cause of conservation).

[Graybeard]

I using energy, which is still mcc, because mass seems to have some redundant uses of time in it and so while kilograms is still useful for convenience I'm trying to stick with time and distance only. Mass, from F=ma or from E=mcc, comes out as having dimensional units of time^3 which seems to have no existential significance. We'll also be using energy for momentum by substituting from E=mcc.

I don't understand ? F=MA and E=mc2 are not two equivalent equations ?

Conservation will be seen to come from a necessary balance of the polarity of energy as positive and negative charge, with the infinite energy summing to zero with infinite precision (a cause of conservation).

An infinite amount of something and its infinite opposite are paradoxes ..... how can they be calculated to a limit ?

greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

I don't understand ? F=MA and E=mc2 are not two equivalent equations ?

True, they're not equivalent, but mass is still mass and we can do a dimensional analysis.

[austintorn@aol.com]

The speed of light can only be what it is

‘c’ is fixed because it is the linear dimensional ratio equivalent of distance to time, of which there can only be one, making it not a physical constant, per say. ‘c’ is the speed limit in free space, and space can never be free of field so the actual speed will ever be somewhat less than ‘c’.

A pristine example is the ratio of space to energy:

distance^3 / time*distance^2 = distance/time

Motion is the one-dimensional relationship between energy and space.
Another derivation is the conversion factor ratio of the external 4D hypercube to the internal representation of spacetime, which we will get into later:

distance^4 / (time*distance^3) = distance/time

[austintorn@aol.com]

Quanta size is fixed

The product of a photon’s energy and wavelength (E*Lambda) is proportional to Planck’s constant times the speed of light (hc), and either one divided by average energy density serves to define the cosmos’ four-dimensional size, which is unit hypervolume, and so quantal size is caused by it, there again being no other option for quantization size. The cosmos is granular at a certain scale midway between infinite largeness and infinite smallness.