Within the Quiet Expansion, what is mass and what is charge?

Next edits: November 2017

Notes: Under construction. This post is needed to support our comparison of the big bang theory to our Quiet Expansion model. One of those comparisons is for the general public. The other is for the academic-scientific community. To incorporate this question within those two working posts would make both altogether too long. This posting is also a sequel to these two open, working documents:
·   Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Cosmology and the Large-scale universe (2015)
·   Wrong: There is a possibility (December 2015)

The question
BangerQuestions about the nature of mass and charge have been addressed by the most highly-respected scientists over the centuries. Both mass and charge are manifestations of fundamental faces of reality.  Both have necessarily-related concepts.  Mass has density, weight, force and the mass-energy equivalence . And charge has electric charge (Coulombs, ampere, time and force) and color charge  (generating set of a group, symmetry groups, and Hamiltonian). All these concepts have been reviewed thousands-upon-thousands of times. However, to our knowledge, never have these concepts been reviewed within the framework of the first 65 or so notations of the Quiet Expansion model. Here, within each notation, we are using a most-simple mathematical formulation to ask the question, “What are these numbers saying about the nature of reality?”

A possible answer
It seems that the mathematics, particularly those ratios rendered within each doubling of the Planck base units, defines mass (weight, density, force, mass-energy equivalence) and charge (both electric and color) as a derivative of the other base units and all of the constants such as light, gravity, and the reduced Planck constant that define them.

To research what that means and to prepare to write this document, the very creative work of several  PhD research physicists came to our attention. It is all truly amazing work. These are scholars who are attempting to push through some of the well-known problems with the Standard Model. Some have posited exciting new theories and ideas. We could easily get lost in that sea of ideation. We can’t.  It is all very encouraging to feel their creativity, however, our model is based on simplicity — simple concepts and simple mathematics. So, we won’t stray too-too far from where we are as we attempt to impute meaning to our simple doublings of the five basic Planck units.

To establish a basic platform, we did return to the work of Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek of MIT and his August 2012 work titled, The Origins of Mass (PDF), MIT Physics Annual, 2003, and the more recent  Origins of Mass,  ArXiv, Cornell University, August 2012.  We also recommend his 2004 lecture video,  The Origin of ^Most Mass and the Feebleness of Gravity. He addresses “regular mass” and readily acknowledges that mysteries remain within dark matter and dark energy. Over the past 20 years Wilczek has written many articles and books about the nature of mass and matter.

Notwithstanding, within the first 60 or so notations, mass, time, space, charge, and temperature take on a very different meaning. These five are so inextricably related, they can not be pulled apart and each truly exists in reality, but prior to the 65th notation can only be known by their ratios .These ratios are real, and a real definition of a very real reality. Each notation builds upon the prior notations. All notations continue their prior notation’s more fine doubling as well as what I’ll call their archetypal doubling; that is the doubling into the next notation. With each doubling our universe is increasingly networked and related. Within the gross doublings, these networks begin systematizing sets and groups, given the definitions within and between each notation, and begin to emerge as cells within the cells notation, as people within the “people” notations, as solar systems within the solar system notations, as galaxies within the galaxy notations, and so on.

Let’s work on some conclusions.
Is that clear?  Yes, I hear, “Clear as mud.”  Well, if it is a little clear, help us to make it more clear! This is just Day 2 for this document! We are in need of mentors! Help. So, we are asking for help from people around the world and throughout the scientific-academic communities. You could become the author or co-author of this page and/or any other page on these related sites.

Perhaps we are not doing any worse than the big bang theory according to Stephen Hawking and his cohort. They completely ignored Planck charge and then give rather bubbly notions as to how the universe went into its supercooling state.  At least our mathematics has a simple logic and rationale.  -Bruce

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s