The Fine Tuning Argument (Axil Axil)

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

“Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference” http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

A breakthrough in the simulation of subatomic particle processes has just been achieved that accurately predicts the mass of both the proton, the neutron and their mass difference. All the various forces and interactions involved in this balance have been identified and sized.

Before we get into this issue, let us first define some terms. There is a unit of energy called an electron volt (eV), that scientists use when talking about small things like protons, neutrons and electrons. An electron volt is actually a measurement of energy, but scientists can get away with using it to measure mass since mass and energy are related by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2. So, in terms of MeV (Megaelectron volts, 1 MeV = 1,000,000 eV), the masses are:

Neutron = 939.56563 MeV
Proton = 938.27231 MeV
Electron = 0.51099906 MeV

“A team based at the University of Wuppertal has now provided the most accurate calculation of the difference in mass between protons and neutrons by combining lattice quantum-chromodynamics and electrodynamics (QCD-QED) modeling to look at the atom’s fundamental building blocks – quarks and gluons. In doing so, the total mass difference was found to be 1.51 ± 0.3MeV. Past QCD-QED studies have been unable to achieve this resolution, yet experimental measurements place the difference at 1.2933322MeV. The researchers argue that the fundamental difference in neutron–proton mass may be down to a competing effect between electromagnetic forces and the mass of quarks.” (“Neutron–proton mass imbalance put on the quantum scales”, Chemistry World, Mar 26 2015 http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/03/neutron%E2%80%93proton-mass-imbalance-put-quantum-scales)

The referenced simulation shows that the relationship between the strong force and the electromagnetic force in the makeup of the proton and the neutron is very finely tuned. Even the slightest change would disrupt the way photons and neutrons interact.

The existence and stability of atoms rely on the fact that neutrons are more massive than protons. The measured mass difference is only 0.14% of the average of the two masses. A slightly smaller or larger value would have led to a dramatically different universe. This simulation shows that this difference results from the competition between electromagnetic and mass isospin breaking effects.

This simulation shows that electromagnetism can add mass to the electron and the protons.

For instance, a relative neutron-proton mass difference smaller than about one third of the observed 0.14% or about 400 KeV would cause hydrogen atoms to undergo inverse beta decay, leaving predominantly neutrons.

It has become clear that a relative neutron-proton mass difference close to 0.14% is needed to explain the universe as we observe it today. As we show here, this tiny mass splitting is the result of a subtle cancellation between electromagnetic and quark mass difference effects.

This simulation shows how electromagnetism affects the tiny isospin splittings which are the subject of the present paper hereto referenced.

Also show here is how neutron-proton mass splitting is a function of quark-mass difference and electromagnetic coupling.

Now the level of electromagnetic energy needed to tip the very delicate balance between the masses of the proton and neutron is of the order of about 1 MeV or less. If a process in LENR can add electromagnetic energy to the proton and neutron pair, the interactions between the proton and the neutron would be disrupted.

For example, in the Lugano E-Cat Test report, light isotopes of nickel (NI58) were transmuted to heaver isotopes (NI62) but quizzically no free neutrons were detected. The irradiation of an absorbed proton by a reasonably modest level of EMF(400 KeV) would transform a proton into a neutron as shown by this simulation.

Axil Axil

  • William D. Fleming

    I think I follow what you are saying, that consciousness can not be quantified by the complexity of forms. Consciousness is everywhere and at all times–it just is.

    Consciousness is not “caused” by the firing of neurons or the opening and closing of switches, so there is no reason to think there’d be more of it in A supercomputer or human body than in a doorknob.

    “Probing questions”: An understatement.

  • Axil Axil

    As a causative factor in LENR, I am interested in the interaction of electromagnetism with the strong force. I don’t think that the general view of this interaction is well understood throughout the length and breath of science. This simulation shows that spin of subatomic particles are critical in their structure. The standard model in dependent on supersymmetry to explain how all the forces of nature relate to each other, but I believe that supersymmetry will not be found to make the standard model work. Supersymmetry is also offered as a way to explain the were the Fine Tuning of universal fundamental physical constants as a reflection of the quantum theory for multiple universes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

    supersymmetry and its ideological handmaiden, infinite universes do not exist. In the due course of time, LENR will show this to be true and that will make many scientists very sad. But inside the LENR reactor, there exists many other universe as defined by the accedence of an amplified electromagnetic environment that adjusts the fundamental constants of nature over a wide range.

    The magnetic force does many strange things to matter based on its strength. The cycle of magnetic amplification starts out weak, then grows progressively more powerful until the source of the EMF explodes in a Bosenova whereupon it starts all over again.

    Because of its extreme complexity, how the matter in this new LENR universe reacts in some many ways as the strength of the EMF environment changes is beyond our ability to understand in its totality. It is beyond our ability to analyze what goes on inside the many universes of LENR. We can only understand that universe in the broadest terms.

  • Mats002

    The solution to that ‘impossible’ conclusion is the multiverse concept. If we had not one but many big bangs giving even more big bangs we would have almost infinite numbers of universes but with different constants and our universe where we humans can look out and see … is only one of them. Kind of survival of the fittest concept.

    • Mats002

      Supposed to be an answer to Brokeeper below.

    • BroKeeper

      What are the probability odds added that you reside in the right universe?

      • Mats002

        The only one having humans is where we are, all others died young or no life or lower life or – possibly higher life forms. Why are you you?

        • BroKeeper

          Good question, according to Ali Binazir from Harvard Law School, calculated your ancestral probability of you-being-you is 10^2,685,000. However if you ask me personally, in MHO would say 100% and that your spiritual sperm sized existence within you lasted eternally.

          • Mats002

            That is the opposite of Max Tegmark reasoning. We have a watershed here?

            • BroKeeper

              It is the philosopher who attempts to join science and theology together.

              • Mats002

                I see, to me the common answer for both science and theology/spirit is infinity. I do not know why, consciousness is an interesting answer as well.

                We must cherish our consciousness, it last just a minute of the infinity
                or
                We must cherish our physical body, it last just a minute of the infinity
                that is the question.
                Regards.

                • BroKeeper

                  Mats002, if one believes in the ‘Human User’s Guide’ certain subtleties are given throughout: “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” (Ec 12:7)

          • BroKeeper

            I know this is way off topic but thought it is interesting in this discussion.
            “Discovery of quantum vibrations in ‘microtubules’ inside brain neurons corroborates controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness”:

            http://www.kurzweilai.net/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness

            Could these microtubules be the conscience connection with the body often referred to as a soul or spirit? (let’s stretch those synapses).

          • William D. Fleming

            Personal identity seems so illogical and enigmatic. I wonder if the concept of “I” is an invention of consciousness needed as a sort of bookkeeping ploy to facilitate survival of the body. Maybe the true self is consciousness itself. If so then all of us are one entity at the higher, true level of reality.

            It makes sense that if consciousness creates the world of our experience, that it might also create a sense of self as an artificial division between subject and object, just for convenience in organizing data.

            • BroKeeper

              So you are saying we are part of a kind of Borg collective subject to strict predeterminance?

              • William D. Fleming

                Not really, it’s more like the Hindu Braham, and it’s just an intuition

                • BroKeeper

                  In many ways we are discribing the same realm only using different naming conventions. I feel the body is a means to strengthen its resident moral consciousness by resisting its primal counterparts for the realm’s overall eternal good.

                • William D. Fleming

                  I tried to reply but my message went above your post ??

                • William D. Fleming

                  So spirit is watching and interacting with bodies for a purpose, learning to control the ego-ridden reptilian brain for the furtherance of higher consciousness. Sort of like keeping a dog? 🙂

                • BroKeeper

                  Ha! More like the Grimm beasts within us. Some are dogs. 🙂

      • Mats002

        I recommend Max Tegmark for more understanding of this subject:
        http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

        • BroKeeper

          Interesting, could you summarize a taste of what is written?

  • BroKeeper

    The fine tuned ‘Cosmological Coincidence’ calculated by Lee Smolin just increased from its probability of 10×229. Somehow winning the Lotto seems more appealing.

  • gdaigle

    As I recall, in 1989 Burkard Heim calculated that the difference between the masses of the proton and neutron were 1.29377 MeV, which compares favorably with the experimentally determined difference of 1.29332 MeV and better than the 1.51 MeV in the referenced article. Although early critiques of Heim’s outlier theory claimed that the particle mass values were inadvertently pre-inserted into the theory, his approach was later validated and found most remarkable in that it employed just 5 constants in calculating masses for these and 20 other particles. Read more at: http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf

    • Mats002

      One bracket is misplaced, that is why the results differs 😉

  • Mats002

    Axil, as you say the result origins from a computer simulation. It is made very much the same way as weather computer simulations:

    “Lattice QCD is an approach to solving the QCD theory of quarks and gluons. Researchers use it to break up space and time into a grid (lattice) of points and then develop and solve equations connecting the degrees of freedom of those points, explained William Detmold, assistant professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author on the Physical Review Letters paper.”

    We all now the unpredictability of weather systems, how uncertanty grows by time. In the subatomic world, quantum field level signals change at a vast pace. How many picoseconds is possible to simulate before the uncertanties get too large?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Or about the energy contained in a skinny electron, hmmm

    • Stephen Taylor

      Yea, a hyperactive little guy. Lots of EM energy to get rid of.

    • Billy Jackson

      that’s all we need next is our Neutrons complaining that the Protons are making them look fat…

      • Bob Greenyer

        LOL

  • georgehants

    Behind all of physics especially particle physics lies the Quantum reality that is determining every effect.
    This Quantum reality that is like the Sun in our reality has been and is almost completely ignored by a science that does not like to advertise that it does not know.
    If one imagined a science on this Planet that ignored the Sun because it did not want to admit, that it had no answers to it’s existence, then trying to work out how things grow, where the light comes from etc. etc.. would be very difficult, all one would have are some basic measurements etc.
    Our reality is formed by the Quantum and until that is understood by all of science, it will continue to dabble in the highly restricted, classical realm.
    It is simply like Cold Fusion where the reductionist majority of scientists fear to tread as it destroyers their classical unfounded certainty of existence.
    The Quantum World is our reality and it imply’s such things as, the possibility that we construct our own reality from our Minds alone.
    Until that is excepted and Researched with scientific, open, searching Minds then very little progress will be made.

    • Gerard McEk

      So we create the world as we see it, George? Than it is about time we learn to control that! 🙂

      • georgehants

        Gerard, Ha, maybe, maybe not, but it is strongly implied by the possible theories and Researched Evidence.
        We will never know if it where not for those Wonderful scientists who work away on the subject.
        Only the Truth matters and hiding that Truth, or not excepting, or not pursuing that Truth is a crime against Humanity, I believe.
        Best

      • mike

        Well it is more like “it looks like it to us”. Doesn’t mean that is what it really is. Just our perception of it. I hate it when I hear scientists saying things about the quantum paradox like, “the particle knows what we are thinking”. I’d rather think of it as the decision we make tomorrow is already made at the higher dimension where time is but a line segment. See the delayed decision portion of the double slit experiment. Anything is better than giving particles brains. lol

        • Gerard McEk

          Quantum mechanics is also about probabilities. Once we know where the particle is, its there. We can influence this with our will as Jung and many others have proven, but not in an absolute way. We can influence the probability a bit of something happening at a moment we desire. Although it has been proven over and over again, ‘science’ does not accept that because it is ‘impossible’ (there is not even a beginning of a theory). It is just like LENR!

    • Mats002

      Planck – the originator of the quantum concept – from what I read – defines a quantum as representing the minimum amount of energy required to form an electromagnetic field (a “quantum”).

      To me that is analog to the concept of A/D-conversion which is quantizising an analog signal into digital (quantified) values. Those values can be processed in calculations. You would have some sort of distortion but with high enough resolution, a very good representation of ‘truth’.

      The signal in the case of QM-theory is the energy of each photon in terms of the photon’s frequency. This energy is extremely small in terms of ordinary experience and that is why processes at this level is hard to measure and therefore creative discussions dominates the subject. Some breaking discoveries is actually made in measuring at this level, see: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html#inlRlv

      To my understanding Axil describes processes at the level above quantum processes. I would like to see Axils description how the level of ‘particles’ (eV) is defined by the underlying photon’s frequencies (quantum field).

      First of all I think the concept of ‘particle’ must be substituted by ‘energy frequencys’ but then I am lost on the attributes ‘spin’ etc. It seams to be a mashup of different ideas and concepts intertwined.

      And below that level one might ask: What is the energy quanta? Wide open for philosophy.

      • georgehants

        Mats, yes Philosophy, why not, that is only another word for possible theories.
        I would say mainly Wide open for honest Science.

  • Gerard McEk

    Thank you for the clear explanation of this complex reseach report, Axil Axil. I wonder how long it will take before mankind will be able to understand how the protons, neutrons and electrons really looks like and will understand the details of all their internal forces, fields, spins and sub-particles. Will we ever be able to describe the atom in mathematical equations covering all their aspects?
    Maybe LENR will give a boost to this understanding.

  • Mats002

    I actually think I understand, thanks for your efforts to describe processes at this level.

    Makes me curious on a more detailed description of the electromagnetic part of eV, is it the spin? Is spin just a rotation of a subatomic particle or is it a virtual (fictive) property added to the concept ‘particle’ by mathematitians (theoretical physcisists)?

    • Zack Iszard

      “Spin” is an intrinsic angular momentum of quantum particles that was first theoretically envisioned by Wolfgang Pauli in context of experimental results. Apparently, the first direct measurement of spin was performed 5 full years before these results were interpreted this way.

      Spin often manifests as a magnetic property, and it can be measured in strong magnetic fields (NMR, MRI). The origin of spin is usually assumed to be the rapid rotation of a charged particle (quarks are charged, so neutrons have a net spin despite no net charge). Spin is incredibly important and fundamental in describing the differences between fermions (half-integer spin) and bosons (integer spin), one of which (fermions, like the proton and electron) appear to obey the Pauli exclusion principle: no two particles are allowed in the same state. When combined with Hund’s rule and the aufbau principle this offers a very good explanation for the periodic arrangement of elements by electron shells. This is extended to nuclear shells in the current paradigm and is also quite descriptive.

      Many interesting quantum phenomenon happen only with bosons, like Cooper pairs of electrons in superconductors, entangled neutral atoms, particles or quasiparticles that can exist in a Bose-Einstein condensate, and photons. Bosons do not have competing spin, and therefore can occupy the same quantum state without interfering with one another, like the photons in a laser.

      The consequences of spin seem very firm, and the concept of spin is useful for explaining many quantum phenomena. The magnetic properties of Fe, Co, and Ni (as well as Sm and Nd) can be described effectively by the location and spins of electrons in electron shells: these elements have several unpaired electrons with a net spin, which manifests as a bulk magnetic polarity.

      In short, spin was devised as a convenient and simplifying assumption that provides a predictive framework that can explain all the phenomena I described above, and so it has stuck.

      Did I answer your question?

      • Mats002

        You stunned me with all that fact, thanks. Is there any contradictions to LENR in all your knowledge?