Difference between revisions of "TFNR - Fundamental Constants of Nature"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*a phase for the QCD vacuum | *a phase for the QCD vacuum | ||
| − | Many of these "constants" refer to a level which in conventional physics is considered elementary, that of particles, but which in this System of Knowledge we do not consider elementary at all. The level of particles, which we here call Structures of Information, is a level of medium complexity, which rests on more and more elementary levels, that of Information / | + | Many of these "constants" refer to a level which in conventional physics is considered elementary, that of particles, but which '''in this System of Knowledge we do not consider elementary at all'''. The level of particles, which we here call Structures of Information, is a level of medium complexity, which rests on more and more elementary levels, that of Information / Energy, the even more elementary level of Action and its Modes / Components, up to the most basic level, that of the Primary Source, in its two complementary aspects: the Fundamental Force and the Elementary Field. |
| − | This large number of constants referring to the world of elementary particles is | + | '''This large number of constants referring to the world of elementary particles''', their properties and the strengths of their interactions (nearly all of the 26 constants considered by conventional physics), is most likely due to our ignorance of the true nature of particles, and above all of the dynamics of the most elementary levels of Physical Reality. This articulated and obscure world that underlies the complex quantum dynamics of particles is commonly dismissed with superficiality, as is the case with the hypothesis of hidden variables, even if supported by important and relevant experimental evidence (probably misunderstood). In general (unnecessary) natural constants support our ignorance about natural phenomena. |
| − | Let's detach ourselves for a moment from the history of physics, from the more or less accredited theories, more or less in crisis. Let's detach from the complex experiments that have led tenacious and brilliant researchers to measure apparently fundamental parameters. Let's make a clean slate of everything that has been, of what we think we know. Let's try to do a rational logical exercise, starting from scratch. | + | '''Let's detach ourselves for a moment from the history of physics''', from the more or less accredited theories, more or less in crisis. Let's detach from the complex experiments that have led tenacious and brilliant researchers to measure apparently fundamental parameters. Let's make a clean slate of everything that has been, of what we think we know. Let's try to do a rational logical exercise, starting from scratch. |
| − | We hypothesize, as we effectively do in the construction of this System of Knowledge, that a Source, a Force / Field | + | We hypothesize, as we effectively do in the construction of this System of Knowledge, that a Source, a Force / Field couple, absolutely elementary, fundamental, '''expresses itself by producing Events''', micro variations, '''micro-gradients''', in a scalar Field. That these micro-gradients interact in the field generating '''micro-flows''' (the field becomes vectorial), and these in turn generating '''micro-torsions''' (the field becomes spinorial). |
| − | What parameters, or | + | '''What parameters, or "constants", would we expect to observe, or could we imagine, in such a context?''' |
| − | Perhaps an average intensity of the Force acting on the Field producing Elementary Events, micro variations in the scalar field. | + | Perhaps '''an average intensity of the Force acting on the Field producing Elementary Events''', micro variations in the scalar field. |
| − | And on the | + | And on the Field side? '''Some kind of resistance to the variational action of this Force?''': |
| − | + | *a resistance to the formation / variation and propagation of micro-gradients (resistance to deformation by pressure?) (?)? | |
| − | + | *a resistance to the formation / variation (and propagation?) of micro-flows or micro-stresses (resistance to stress by strain?) (?)? | |
| − | + | *a resistance to the formation / variation and propagation of micro-torsions (resistance to torsion by torque?) (ε0 for torsion chirality, mu0 for torsion axis orientation?)? | |
| − | Perhaps a parameter, a constant of proportionality, which relates micro-gradient and micro-flow produced, and at more complex levels, mass | + | Perhaps a parameter, '''a constant of proportionality, which relates micro-gradient and micro-flow produced''', and at more complex levels, relates mass to gravitational attraction or acceleration ("G" Universal gravitational constant?)? |
| − | And perhaps some amount of Action associated with the propagation in the torsion Field (constant "h" or "h bar", how much of action?)? | + | And perhaps '''some amount of Action associated with the propagation in the torsion Field''' (constant "h" or "h bar", how much of action?)? |
| + | |||
| + | '''Something else?''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | This at the most basic level of Physical Reality. At more complex levels, such as that of the Structures of Information, waves and particles of Quantum Mechanics / Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model of Particles, '''we would expect to be able to derive all the quantities that we now consider fundamental constants''' (particle masses and charges, the fine structure, the coupling constants, etc.) '''from the above-mentioned quantities which should yes, those, be really fundamental'''. | ||
Latest revision as of 20:20, 1 April 2023
In conventional science, the Fundamental Constants of Nature are considered invariant physical quantities, fundamental (cause-indipendence), universal in nature (space-indipendence) and constant in time (time-independence). They are used in the basic equations that describe the fundamental physical phenomena. They can be dimensionless, or can have dimensions.
The constants that are considered fundamental are the following (the set of constants varies according to the theoretical reference framework considered):
- the gravitational constant G
- the velocity of light in vacuum or speed of light (c)
- the Planck constant (h) or (h bar)
- the electric constant ε0
- the charge of the electron
- the absolute value of which is the fundamental unit of electric charge (e)
- the mass of the electron (me)
- the dimensionless fine-structure constant, symbolized by the Greek letter alpha, which characterizes the strength of the electromagnetic interaction
- the Avogadro constant (NA)
- the Boltzmann constant (kB)
- 9 Yukawa couplings for the quarks and leptons (equivalent to specifying the rest mass of these elementary particles),
- 2 parameters of the Higgs field potential
- 4 parameters for the quark mixing matrix
- 3 coupling constants for the gauge groups SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) (or equivalently, two coupling constants and the Weinberg angle)
- a phase for the QCD vacuum
Many of these "constants" refer to a level which in conventional physics is considered elementary, that of particles, but which in this System of Knowledge we do not consider elementary at all. The level of particles, which we here call Structures of Information, is a level of medium complexity, which rests on more and more elementary levels, that of Information / Energy, the even more elementary level of Action and its Modes / Components, up to the most basic level, that of the Primary Source, in its two complementary aspects: the Fundamental Force and the Elementary Field.
This large number of constants referring to the world of elementary particles, their properties and the strengths of their interactions (nearly all of the 26 constants considered by conventional physics), is most likely due to our ignorance of the true nature of particles, and above all of the dynamics of the most elementary levels of Physical Reality. This articulated and obscure world that underlies the complex quantum dynamics of particles is commonly dismissed with superficiality, as is the case with the hypothesis of hidden variables, even if supported by important and relevant experimental evidence (probably misunderstood). In general (unnecessary) natural constants support our ignorance about natural phenomena.
Let's detach ourselves for a moment from the history of physics, from the more or less accredited theories, more or less in crisis. Let's detach from the complex experiments that have led tenacious and brilliant researchers to measure apparently fundamental parameters. Let's make a clean slate of everything that has been, of what we think we know. Let's try to do a rational logical exercise, starting from scratch.
We hypothesize, as we effectively do in the construction of this System of Knowledge, that a Source, a Force / Field couple, absolutely elementary, fundamental, expresses itself by producing Events, micro variations, micro-gradients, in a scalar Field. That these micro-gradients interact in the field generating micro-flows (the field becomes vectorial), and these in turn generating micro-torsions (the field becomes spinorial).
What parameters, or "constants", would we expect to observe, or could we imagine, in such a context?
Perhaps an average intensity of the Force acting on the Field producing Elementary Events, micro variations in the scalar field.
And on the Field side? Some kind of resistance to the variational action of this Force?:
- a resistance to the formation / variation and propagation of micro-gradients (resistance to deformation by pressure?) (?)?
- a resistance to the formation / variation (and propagation?) of micro-flows or micro-stresses (resistance to stress by strain?) (?)?
- a resistance to the formation / variation and propagation of micro-torsions (resistance to torsion by torque?) (ε0 for torsion chirality, mu0 for torsion axis orientation?)?
Perhaps a parameter, a constant of proportionality, which relates micro-gradient and micro-flow produced, and at more complex levels, relates mass to gravitational attraction or acceleration ("G" Universal gravitational constant?)?
And perhaps some amount of Action associated with the propagation in the torsion Field (constant "h" or "h bar", how much of action?)?
Something else?
This at the most basic level of Physical Reality. At more complex levels, such as that of the Structures of Information, waves and particles of Quantum Mechanics / Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model of Particles, we would expect to be able to derive all the quantities that we now consider fundamental constants (particle masses and charges, the fine structure, the coupling constants, etc.) from the above-mentioned quantities which should yes, those, be really fundamental.
