Physics Tuesday, November 25, 2008 . This is a SciScoop post by deanlsinclair
An Intertwined Universe?
A mathematical treatment of two constants of the Universe leads to an interesting conclusion.
Maybe string theorists are not so far off base as one might think in suggestions of an intertwined Universe. The following bit of dealing mathematically with two constants of nature suggests something of the same thing.
Combination of Planck’s Constant and the Speed of Light can be carried out by setting Planck’s Constant equal to its definition as an Angular Momentum evaluated at the Speed of Light to give the equation, m x r = h/c. In words, the mass of a rotating object (m), multiplied by its distance/radius (r) from a center, is taken to be equal to Planck’s Constant (h) divided by the Speed of Light (c). This can be shown to be a defining equation of a set of oscillators. We can go on to write, m=h/c^2 . This will define a mass moving at a radius of “one light second” from the center at a velocity of the Speed of light. This mass figures out to be about 7.4 x 10^-48 grams.
If we guess that this mass may be the smallest mass detectable in our Universe–perhaps the mass of a neutrino or of a “zeroino,” a postulated neutral “parent” to the neutrino and anti-neutrino–then this mass would be the detectable “rest mass” in our Universe of a particle having a radius of 3 X 10^10 cm. If this be an oscillator of the above family, m x r = h/c, then the other, unseen limit (undetectable in our Universe) will have the opposite absolute values, a mass of 3 x 10^10 grams at a radius of 7.4 x 10-48 cm.
What would be the lightest, biggest unit would also be, in its “alternate reality,” the heaviest, smallest….
If we truly do exist in a substance whose basic units are such as this describes, it may be expected that the Universe in which we exist could definitely be very intertwined.
SciScoop Science News is a forum for news, views and controversial conjectures. please contact us to submit a guest blog post idea to become an author.
6 Responses to An Intertwined Universe?
mgatten
December 26th, 2008 at 1:34 am
You mention the zeroino and call it “postulated” in a tone intentionally selected to imply that it is an accepted possibility by a respected community of theorists. What you fail to mention is that it has only ever been postulated by one person: You.
I find that to be very disingenuous.
A Google search of zeroino will pull up nothing not written by you.
You know enough particle physics to post seemingly plausible garbage. If you want to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest you start including references so that people know that you aren’t referencing yourself.
deanlsinclair
January 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
I have to say “mia culpa” in reference to the “Zeroino,” I was not complete enough, I should have said something like, “Perhaps ‘the Zeroino’ a particle which I postulate to possibly be a “parent” to the neutrino and anitneutrino, similar in comcept to the zerotron which I have postulsted as a sensible parent to the electron and antielectron.” This, however, did not seem to be important.
To me a postulate is a postulate is a postulate whomever does the postulation.
Incidentally, what does “disingeneous” mean? I have a little bit of vocabulary in six or seven different languages, but that word is not in any of them. However, it is a bit pretentious sounding to me.
Apparently, the writer thinks that I’m some sort of pretentious faker. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. Usually, one sees things through the mirror of themselves…DLS
January 8th, 2009 at 8:18 am
I’d not say the word disingenuous was pretentious, any more than the word pretentious…
Anyway, it means – “not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness”
deanlsinclair
January 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
David:
Thanks for the definition. I was, of course, being rather ironic or sarcastic. I, of course, caught the negaive connotation of the word, which is one I wouldn’t use, and was aware that it would fall in the same category as “pretenious.” Cheers, Dean
January 9th, 2009 at 5:46 am
deanlsinclair
January 9th, 2009 at 6:01 pm