Quantum extension of the Meta Model

<i>Originally posted by dholeman</i>
<br />Good summary of QMM. That's a good suggestion for a nickname too.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Protons must be cooler than electrons, and therefore some mechanism must exist to cool protons that does not exist for electrons or at least must operate more effeciently for protons than for electrons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If there were no shielding, all elysons and matter ingredients would be heated equally to the same temperature as the surrounding elysium, and thermal equilibrium would prevail. But the existence of shielding means that the relatively "solid" protons have some relatively "cold" matter ingredients unreachable by gravitons in their interiors. So there is a net energy loss for the gravitons, resulting in a net force of attraction by the proton.

By contrast, the relative vacuum of elysium around electrons is like an insulating layer that allows electrons to get hotter than surrounding elysium, which also makes them gaseous (star-like) rather than solid bodies like protons. And the thermal excess means that emerging gravitons have a net higher energy and a net repulsive force compared with the normal background gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Presumably, in the absence of additional particles, these cooling mechanisms must involve elyson mass transfer.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I explained, I did not see it that way. So your subsequent question is probably moot. But I did not understand it when you indicated that the volume for an electron was larger than for a proton. The model showed it as smaller.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How is it that a proton can be cooled more efficiently than an electron when the surface area of the electron per unit mass is so much greater than a proton, and the mass of the electron is so much smaller?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Shielding provides the cooling mechanism. The premises in the rest of your question are therefore apparently irrelevant to answering your question.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is it possible that the proton's component leptons - if they exist - may themselves be gravitationally shielding but at the same time be spaced apart from each other enough to allow elysium flow around them?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Component leptons? Did you perhaps mean quarks? The electron, muon, and tau are the three flavors of electrons, the latter two being unstable. QMM has not yet attempted to address unstable particles or the weak interactions that make then so.

OTOH, the pathway to neutrinos is easy enough to visualize just by removing (for protons) or filling in (for electrons) the elysium atmosphere or vacuum, respectively. And the pathway to antiparticles is just to produce an elysium vacuum around a proton or a dense elysium atmosphere around an electron; for example, by making the proton hot or the electron cold. Both of those latter conditions would be unstable for obvious reasons in this model.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The second question regards the elysium gradient as the driving force for subatomic (and by implication atomic) bonding. Shouldn't the elysium gradient be treated as a measure of the electrical potential and not as causation proper of atomic bonding?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought that was already in the model. The bonding force comes from gravitons, not from elysium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The size difference between electrons and protons means that graviton 'emission' from electrons need only offset a small proportion of graviton reflection from a proton to have an effect on the equilibrium orbital distance that an electron settles into, and so wouldn't it be these net fluxing gravitons themselves that cause neutron formation and electron orbitals?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm a bit fuzzy on your exact proposal, but think I agree with the direction you are headed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Because of the ubiquity of electrons and protons, and assuming that either one or the other serves to accelerate gravitons, one would expect that such a velocity boost would have a discernable effect at a cosmological level, perhaps by smearing out the distribution of stars at two kiloparsec galactic disk boundaries and at the boundaries of spiral arms?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Protons reflect gravitons with reduced energy, and electrons reflect gravitons with increased energy. Energy is conserved in the balance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wouldn't 'hot' astromomical structures like quasars therefore be sources of relatively high-velocity gravitons which could be correlated with 'lower' gravity on sky surveys?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">These net energy changes are probably much too small a fraction of overall energy to be detectable. As Slabinski's article in PG showed, a very small change in graviton energy can produce a big difference in net force because of the vast numbers of scattered gravitons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Finally, I'd like to ask about a concept that I've never fully grasped: spin. Electrons have spin, leptons have spin, I can express spin as a measure of diamagnetic anisotropy but I've never really been certain what it is in a physical sense. Does the QMM have anything to say about what spin is and what causes it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">One thing I'm pretty sure about is that the concept has nothing to do with classical spin. "Spin 1" describes a phenomenon that repeats once every cycle. "Spin 2" repeats twice every cycle. "Spin 1/2" repeats once every two cycles. Etc. I don't have a specific proposal yet. But it would be more productive to think in terms of an asymmetry in the elysium atmosphere than in terms of a spinning particle. -|Tom|-

Can you explain why the electron has a mass ~10E-31kg? Can you add any detail to the particle that has a mass ~7x10E-38kg?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Can you explain why the electron has a mass ~10E-31kg?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, we can express the electron mass in terms of elysium density, graviton flux, and other parameters of this model. But that still makes it an arbitrary value. Explaining why those parameters have their values would be like explaining why Earth's atmosphere has its sea-level density. It is an arbitrary density arising from innumerable accidents of nature related to formation processes.

As my article explains, "mass" does not mean matter content for protons or electrons. It is simply a statistical quantity arising from certain types of momentum-transfer experiments. The charge-to-mass ratio is a more fundamental quantity. But even that is ultimately arbitrary in a universe infinite in five dimensions (scale being the fifth). -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you add any detail to the particle that has a mass ~7x10E-38kg?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, the MM has not yet been pressed beyond the QM level of explaining the major particles and the nature of duality, uncertainty, and non-locality. There is still lots to be discovered. [] -|Tom|-

Great thread and I like QMM. I need to subscribe to the Bullitin. Great work Tom!!!

There are two particles here that have a mass ratio(or whatever term that might be used) of 1/1,000,000 or so. What is the reason for this? The two particles seem to be similar to particles in main stream thinking called electron and photon-is this just me or is there a linkage of some kind?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />There are two particles here that have a mass ratio (or whatever term that might be used) of 1/1,000,000 or so. What is the reason for this? The two particles seem to be similar to particles in main stream thinking called electron and photon-is this just me or is there a linkage of some kind?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Photons have no known mass. So I'm unsure what similarity you refer to. -|Tom|-