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 fellows the rules
of axiomatic and Godel systems.

Corollary
of Naturalness Thesis --- there is no
“fine turning” in the rules of axiomatic and Godel systems.

“Fine turning” is defined as making 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 about 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 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 showed that
the “only knowing” mass rising physics parameters are two angles, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles. I have
showed 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 to 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 other 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.

## No comments:

## Post a Comment