Reconciling Quantum Physics and General Relativity, Part II

Reconciling Quantum Physics and General Relativity Theory, Part II

How does the functionally-limited human brain get a functional handle in describing or explaining an important and relevant object or event when the brain’s cognition is conditioned on the probability of the perceptually-verified occurrence of the act (which itself is predicated upon the perspective of the observer in relation to the observed), not to mention the unavoidable, ever present biases? Quantum theory has successfully hybridized the perceptually verified and the conceptually logical aspects derived from the observation thanks to the Standard Model of particle physics theory modeling the interactions between the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear forces that mediate the measured and/or logically inferred dynamics of the known subatomic particles. However, it is incomplete in having ignored the required incorporation of the perspective/relativistic aspect and thus falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It needs to be reconciled with the physics of general relativity, so that gravitation, dark energy and dark matter become part and parcel of the new unified approach encompassing the micro, meso and macro dimensions of existential reality. Perhaps new logical premises need be considered to reduce the incredibility of, e.g., ‘zero-dimensional singularity point energy’ sources, zero mass photons, etc. as discussed in Part I, not to mention the inconsistencies of puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem. This way we can make a case for quantum gravity, magnetic fluxes, axions, etc. as the credible constituents of the bridging pathways for the reciprocal information transfer between the human neocortex and transfinity as mediated by light, bosonic, dark baryonic DNA/RNA receptor as argued elsewhere. Fast, hyper linked access to Wikipedia has been provided in substitution of the classical article references.
Before we proceed with this brief analysis we need to distinguish between the weak interaction and the strong nuclear force in operation which, alongside electromagnetism, and gravity, constitute the four fundamental forces of nature comprising the discipline of particle physics. Weak interactions are responsible for the radioactive decay of subatomic particles affecting all known fermions; that is, particles whose spin (a property of all particles) is a half-integer. Strong nuclear forces binds nucleons (protons and neutrons) together to form the nucleus of an atom and it is also the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles. The weak interaction is unique in that it can also break parity-symmetry and CP-symmetry (quark flavor changing), i.e., allowing quarks to swap their ‘flavor’ from one to another out of six available options. On the other hand the strong interaction force is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation.
However, gluons interact with quarks, antiquarks and other gluons because they all carry a type of charge called “color charge.” This generates a ‘residual force’ of three types, each with a different profile and different rules of behavior, as detailed in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the theory of quark-gluon interactions. The residual strong force thus becomes a minor residuum of the strong force which binds quarks together into protons and neutrons. The resulting force acting between neutrons and protons is now much weaker, because it becomes mostly neutralized within themselves. This is equivalent to the much weaker electromagnetic forces existing between neutral atoms (van der Waals forces) than the EM forces holding the individual atoms internally together. It would help to remember that atoms and subatomic particles have tiny magnetic fields, as in the Bohr model of an atom where even electrons display as they orbit the nucleus. Their constant motion gives rise to an associated magnetic field and, arguably, behave then as functional ‘monopoles’. On the other hand permanent magnets have measurable magnetic fields because the atoms and molecules in them are arranged in such a way that their individual magnetic fields align, combining to form large aggregate fields. In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron. There is currently no experimental evidence that either Higgs bosons exist or proton decay occurs. Because of the weak interaction, a break in parity-symmetry and CP-symmetry (quark flavor changing) can spontaneously occur or be induced by transfinity cosmic/photon radiation at the level of the hydrogen atom in the polynucleotide.
The success of the premise invoking the presence of ‘dark baryonic DNA/RNA’ receptor site in the human species depends, among other things, on establishing the presence of ‘quantum gravity’, however transiently, responsible for the reciprocal information transfer between transfinity and the human premotor cortical attractor phase space. The information exchange across the gravitational field is likely mediated by an elementary particle of charge=0 and spin=0 to resolve the strong CP problem in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). We had previously suggested the axion (mass=10−6 to 1 eV/c2 ) as such hypothetical particle, as a possible component of cold dark matter in ‘dark baryonic DNA/RNA’ fitting into a credible spatiotemporal structure at the sub-Planckian scale level, as argued in Part I of this discussion.
Now we expand further on these possibilities, especially at what appears to be an inconsistency between the conservation of charge conjugation (C) and parity (P) at the micro and cosmological levels of organization, always keeping our focus at the mesoscopic level of the existential real time dimension we can measure. And we ask: Why should QCD theory allow the non-trivial violation of charge conjugation and parity symmetry (CP)? Who or what causes it, how does it happen, what consequences may it eventually carry in the evolutionary path of our human species biological, psychic and social profiles that guarantee life and self-conscious free will?
Within the context of a hybrid epistemontological approach, our BPS model realizes that the empirical testing of quantum gravity as such, along standard lines, is experimentally a near-impossibility. However, the self-evident presence of a phenomenally invisible object/event does not negate its existence in the physical, but extrasensory perceptual, realm of reality. Especially when mathematical logic may provide the epistemological tool that makes it possible to unify the classical general relativity and quantum physics into a coherent micro/cosmological spatiotemporal structural whole. It would be a tall order for mathematicians to bring together the classical Einstenian relativistic velocity of light (c), the Newtonian constant (G) and the quantum physics Planck’s constant (h) to express the unifying concepts of mass (m), dimensions (l) and change (t). It may also harmonize gravitational and electromagnetic (em) phenomena.
As discussed in Part I, our first premise is the mass/particulate basis of mesoscopic reality regardless of our experimental capacity to measure invisible dimensions such as the axion mass. There are particles and their color, shape, etc., attributions never capable of an independent existence from each other. A spherical or vortex shape, etc., without a particle is an abstract representation of, e.g., a particle motion! We need not identify their material origin and destiny, leaving that to theosophy speculation. We had also chosen, for simplicity, the hydrogen atom nucleus in dark baryonic DNA/RNA as the relevant particle on which to develop the sub-model of reciprocal information transfer.
It is precisely the imputed CP violation arising from QCD, however tiny and transient, what brings bosonic axions in the hydrogen neutron into the picture. Why assume that quarks in the standard model are massless just because they cannot be observed, especially when the existing experimental evidence strongly suggests that all of the quarks are particulate matter and thereby the strong CP problem persists. What is there to prevent the neutron -an electrically neutral particle- from experiencing an intrinsic charge separation and thus violating CP? Yet, it may be easier to visualize the infinitesimally small CP violating interactions as originating from QCD induced functional monopoles in protons instead of in the large electric dipole moment for the neutron. Remember that functionally both poles are independently engaged in different reciprocal processing activities and as such transiently behaving as functional gravitational monopoles across the magnetic flux path even though structurally they are geometric dipoles, i.e., serving as an intracranial connecting bridge between the dark baryonic **DNA/RNA receptor site and the pre-motor neocortical attractor phase space. Somehow the global supersymmetry (Peccei-Quinn symmetry?) becomes spontaneously (or induced?) broken and transiently producing the light bosonic axion particles that will now allow the transfer of information carried by particulate gravitons(?) This way photons traveling to and from transfinity could interact with the gravitational field to become virtual or real axions and amplified by the cycling back and forth through the magnetic/gravitational field many times, as needed. The conversions of axions to photons and vice versa in strong electromagnetic fields at the cosmological level (Primakoff effect) is actively being investigated and can be produced, e.g., when X-rays scatter off electrons and protons in the presence of strong electric fields. Other fermionic dark matter candidates like WIMPs and MACHOs should also be investigated at both cosmologic and micro levels of organization..
Summary and Conclusions.
How may the H atom of polynucleotides may be the target of transfinite radiation and/or the object of spontaneously induced nuclear baryonic transformations leading to changes in charge and parity (CP) as predicted by the nuclear weak and strong forces in operation?
According to the Standard Model, gauge bosons are defined as force carriers (F) that mediate the strong, weak, and electromagnetic fundamental interactions and F= mass x acceleration.
The bosons of the Standard Model all have spin -like all matter particles- and their value is 1. Consequently these will not follow the spin-statistics theorem and the Pauli exclusion principle that constrain the spin fermions, e.g., photons, and for that reason do not have a theoretical limit on their spatial density (number per volume). The type of boson we are interested is part of the composite particles (hadrons) containing not a quark and an antiquark (mesons), but three quarks (baryons). Of these, the proton and the neutron are the two baryons having the smallest mass from the smallest atom, hydrogen. Because quarks carry electric charge and weak isospin they will interact with other fermions both electromagnetically and via the weak interaction. We have also chosen first generation baryonic particles of unit mass (immediately following Big Bang) because these charged particles do not decay, as found in all atoms consisting of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei ultimately constituted of up and down quarks. But quarks can also carry color charge, and hence, interact via the strong interaction to produce a phenomenon called color confinement that results in quarks being perpetually bound to one another as composite particles (hadrons).
If we somehow could transiently gain control by cancelling the electromagnetic interactions resulting from the electric and magnetic fields then the persisting gravitation will allow particles with mass to attract one another across the gravitational flux path in accordance with Einstein’s theory of general relativity and thus allowing the coexistence of both quantum theory and general relativity at least at the mesoscopic portion of the macroscopic level. This way it may arguably become unnecessary to resort to perturbation theory or the path integral formulation as approximations. It could well be that the vacuum state, and the not-so-virtual transfinity ‘particle’/radiation is controlled by induced reversible absorption -back and forth- into their vacuum state? As we know Photons mediate the electromagnetic force between electrically charged particles. But in our submodel the photon is not massless as described by classical quantum electrodynamics and furthermore, the electric dipole responsible for the structuring of the EM field may not exist functionally if either pole is independently engaged in information processing, as explained. It is also relevant to remember the dynamic role of the electron who can be either a fermion or a boson according to electroweak theory. If mathematically reconciled, quantum field theory can coexist with gravitational fields and need not breakdown at the meso and/or sub-Planckian level. The controversial premise of existing bosonic, light dark baryonic polynucleotides, super symmetry, axions and a graviton may well be a worthwhile investment effort. If reconciled, it may bring us closer to an understanding of human life and conscious free will beyond the intellectual constraints inside the strait jackets of materialistic orthodoxy.
The Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the motions of electric charges. The standard equations provide for electric charges, and assume the non-existence of magnetic charges. If non- existing, the new terms in Maxwell’s equations are all zero, and the extended equations reduce to the conventional equations of electromagnetism such as ∇⋅B = 0. (∇ is divergence and B is the magnetic B field). Symmetric Maxwell’s equations can be written when all charges and electric currents) are zero, the way the electromagnetic wave equation is derived. Full symmetry can be achieved if one allows for the possibility of a “magnetic charge” and a “magnetic current density” variable in the equations. Yet, we need to explain why the magnetic charge always seems to be zero?” Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) defines the interactions between quarks and gluons, with SU(3) symmetry.
This admittedly amateurish and somewhat pedantic effort at reconciling two different approaches to the same real time, 4-d existential reality is not to be construed as a new quantum gravity theory, “shoemaker…to your shoes”, but only a red flag to any other obsessive compulsive retiree afflicted with the ‘sane psychosis’ of curiosity. We may have to wait for the results of the CERN hadron collider verdict on the Higgs mechanism and the hierarchy problem as it applies to quantum gravity at the mesoscopic weak energy scales before we update the Planck scale issues of the Standard Model.
In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.[1] There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.
Our preference for the baryonic proton in the hydrogen atom is that in the Standard Model, they are theoretically stable because baryon number (quark number) is conserved under normal conditions. They will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest, least energetic baryon. During the ‘event horizon’ immediately following the Big Bang there was symmetry breaking that favored the creation of normal baryonic matter (as opposed to antimatter) due to the rapid expansion leading to the crystallization that made possible nucleosynthetic activity. Under certain conditions (radiation induced or spontaneously) protons may undergo decay into a positron and a neutral pion that itself immediately decays into 2 gamma ray photons:
p+ → e+
+ π0

π0 → 2γ

While this effect would also be seen in neutrons bound inside atomic nuclei, in the case of the hydrogen atom we would only consider free neutrons known to decay into protons (plus an electron and an antineutrino) in a process called beta decay. These free neutrons have a half-life of about 10 minutes due to the weak interaction. Besides, neutrons bound inside a nucleus have, like protons, a much longer half-life ca. 1034 years depending on the type of decay they experience.
In quantum gravity, we posit a virtual micro black hole that transiently exists as a result of a quantum fluctuation of spacetime. It represents the gravitational analog of the virtual electron-positron pairs found in quantum electrodynamics. Theoretical arguments suggest that virtual black holes should have mass on the order of the Planck mass, lifetime around the Planck time, and occur with a number density of approximately one per Planck volume, all of which helps to achieve the intended harmony between quantum physics and general relativity. Furthermore if these virtual micro black holes exist, they would provide a mechanism for proton decay because when its mass increases (mass falling into the hole) it can then decrease again when Hawking radiation is emitted from the hole. This way a transformation takes effect when the particles emitted are different from those that fell in, e.g., if two of a hydrogen proton’s constituent quarks fall into a virtual black hole, it is possible for an antiquark and a lepton to emerge, thus violating conservation of baryon number. Notice that by this process the black hole information loss paradox is no longer so, instead it may well constitute the basis of an evolutionary information change without any disruption of ongoing physical processes. Under these circumstances the Schwarzschild solution applies for a spherically symmetric non-rotating uncharged massive object, like an axion. For radial distances exceeding the Schwarzschild radius, the accelerations between the poles of a gravitational field are those predicted by Newton’s theory of gravity and Einstein’s general relativity.
We have not discussed the possible decay of protons into other subatomic particles or their radioactive decay that accompanies their ejection from the nucleus by Proton emission. Neither have we discuss how ‘quantization’ may be the result of the electron returning to the same point after the full trip around the nuclear equator, the so called phase exp(iφ) of its wave function assumed to be unchanged, justifying the phase φ added to the wave function being the multiples of 2π.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Deltona, Florida Spring 2012.

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at:
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s