The current cosmology model describes our universe as started from a singular point (the Big Bang) to the current living universe (encompassing the biological lives). In the book "Linguistics Manifesto" (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1), the living universe is described as a “life-system” which evolves from a simple axiom system as a seed. As this axiomatic expression and evolution process for the life-system is described in detail in that book, I will not repeat it here. An abridged description of that process is available at http://www.prebabel.info/bab016.htm .
Thus, this cosmological evolution can be described with this “axiom system to life-system” expression (evolution) process, and it will start with a Naturalness Thesis.
Naturalness Thesis (NT) --- the current universe is evolved via an “axiom system to life-system” evolution process which follows the rules of axiomatic and Godel systems.
Corollary of Naturalness Thesis --- there is no “fine tuning” in the rules of axiomatic and Godel systems.
“Fine tuning” is defined as making an adjustment with trial-and-error. That is, after a seed-axiom-system is selected, it evolves and expresses according only to the internal rules of the “axiom/life system” without any adjustment. That is, the entire Nature physics is “completed” at the moment of the Big Bang when the seed-axiom was selected.
With this Naturalness Thesis, the entire Nature physics can be “derived” if the seed-axiom is known. With the following articles, readers will get a sense of this new physics and this new physics epistemology.
1. LHC and the knowledge-based physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html ).
2. LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/lhc-end-of-old-physics-epistemology.html )
In my previous posts, I have selected Alpha (Fine Structure Constant) as the seed-axiom. With this seed-axiom, two tasks were done.
A. The universe was anchored and the Nature physics was locked --- this was done by a double-lock.
i. first lock --- e (electric charge) was locked with two Nature constants, c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant).
ii. second lock --- all three Nature constants (e, c, and h-bar) was locked by Alpha.
B. The evolution pathway of the universe is “open-ended” --- this was done by giving rise to three dimensions (space, time and mass), being all open-ended. Although these dimensions are open-ended, they are still interlocked.
i. time is defined and locked by c (light speed)
ii. space is defined and locked by both c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). There are three spatial dimensions for space, and they can arise from time and an angle (an innate attribute of h-bar). I will discuss this dimension issue in future posts.
iii. mass is also defined and locked by both c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). While e (electric charge) is defined as the product of c and h-bar, mass is defined as the division of h-bar over c.
a. e (electric charge) = the square root of (1/2)c * h-bar, and e is a universal constant.
b. m (mass) = (h-bar/c)(2pi/L), L is the wavelength (lambda) of a particle. As the L (lambda) is an attribute of a particle, m (mass) is also an attribute (not a universal constant) of a particle.
Now, both e (electric charge) and m (mass) are axiomatically defined. Thus, we can discuss their axiomatic meanings.
The h-bar has two physics meanings.
One, it is a “viewing” window (analogy to a microscope or a telescope) for viewing the universe (the expression of the seed-axiom). Please read the article “Constants of Nature” (at http://www.prequark.org/Constant.htm ). As e (electric charge) is the product of c and h-bar (analogy to a telescope, expanding the h-bar outward), e defines an event horizon (the largest space that is linked causally). As m (mass) is the division of h-bar over c (analogy to a microscope, seeing the internal detail of h-bar), m defines an internal (enveloped) spacetime.
Two, it is a spin. We already know the effects of this spin on electromagnetism and particle physics. Now, we know that it must have a significant contribution to the rise of mass too, and I will discuss this in detail in the future posts. However, one aspect of this spin on mass was already discussed in many previous posts. As this spin carries an innate angle, thus the rising of mass must be ruled by some angles. And, I have shown that the “only knowing” mass rising physics parameters are two angles, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles. I have shown that these two angles were arisen from h-bar with the article “Definition of mass, the gateway to the final unification in physics”, (at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/definition-of-mass-gateway-to-final.html ).
With the above understanding, now, I can introduce an Interlocking Thesis.
Interlocking Thesis (IT) --- all Nature constant [Alpha, e (electric charge), c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant)] and Nature dimensions (space, time and mass) are interlocked (cross-checked).
Corollary of (IT) --- all parameters of IT can be recursively defined.
With this IT, we should write down the definitions of mass in “all” different axiomatic forms and do the crosscheck. After this is done, the mass-rising mechanism will show up by itself. On the page 27 to 28 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325), I defined mass with the following axiomatic sentences.
a. Ms (space-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/delta s), c (light speed), s (space)
b. Mt (time-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/[c * delta t]), t (time)
So, M (mass) = (Ms * Mt)^ (1/2)
That is, as soon as we know the axiomatic definitions for both space and time, the mass is also defined axiomatically. The axiomatic definitions for both space and time will be discussed in the next posts.
In addition to this mass definition, the mass-rising mechanism is described in detail in the article "The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”.
Note: Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler had the following comments. If you define m to be E/c^2, then you're using the archaic notion of ``relativistic mass'', which particle physicists avoid for several reasons. His comment is, of course, correct. But, in this “Axiomatic physics”, we can define m (mass) as an axiomatic term without the concern of another physics fact at this stage. Only if the developed axiom system does not match with the known Nature physics, we should then revise our axiomatic definition.