Notes

          You had a busy day, mostly working in the yard and running errands. Tonight you received a note from Doug, you sent a question concerning the note, and he responded to the question. This is nitty-gritty stuff – that is, stuff you both like. As such, let’s include it in tonight’s blog. And, then I will respond to it. A reminder to the reader, Doug G. is an old friend, a sixty-seven year old trained nuclear physicist who is helping Richard with concepts that will become evident with book four, The Rebellion, of the six book Merlyn’s Mind series gathered and distributed to the fingertips of Richard by myself, Amorella.

**

Sent: Mon, Oct 25, 2010 4:16 pm

Subject: consequences of a zero radius particle-point particle

Because point particles are assumed to occupy no space, they have to be accompanied by infinite charge density, infinite mass density, infinite energy density. What does this mean?

Doug

**

Sent: Mon, Oct 25, 2010 5:39 pm

Subject: Re: consequences of a zero radius particle-point particle

Good question, Doug. First, what does 'infinite density' even mean?    Dick        (Is this some sort of law of physics, like thermodynamics?)

**

Sent: Mon, Oct 25, 2010 7:15c pm

Subject: Re: consequences of a zero radius particle-point particle

Dick, Your question is a good one. What it seems to mean is that our best understanding now of what we are made of is that we are made from singularities. I was always taught that singularities do not actually exist in nature. Now I learn that is what we are made of! What changed in our understanding? If everything is made from point particles that would explain how the universe was born from a point. Or, we can ask how many angels will fit on the head of a pin?

Answer: As many as you would like.

It would appear that without quantum mechanics the universe would collapse immediately, since quantum mechanics says for real matter two particles like electrons in an atom can not have the same quantum numbers.

Doug

**

         Presently then, following Doug’s lead, for matter to be real from the scientific perspective of living human beings two atomic particles, for example, electrons, cannot have the same quantum numbers. This is a rule of nature that keeps the universe from collapsing. This is not the only rule, and from my perspective ‘a rule of nature, of physics’ is misleading. The physics comes second, you see, after the fact, so to speak. Human beings, living and dead, are after the fact also. Human reflection is what it is ‘human’. The universe, as it were, one of many, as it is in these books, is held together by a compounded unit which may be illustrated in the following analogy, at least as far as this series of books is concerned.

         Each universe is as a solid link of chain. This is a precursor to a point particle in here.

         In the books the material universe, or more simply, the galaxy, is a part of a solid state.

         Yes.

         But how is this reasonable, Amorella? What about the liquid and gaseous states of matter.

         Humans appear as solid, liquid and gas; biochemical reality. That which appears real is similar stuff to yourselves. Factual knowledge observed by the five to seven human senses is an invention of a similar framework, orndorff.

         I cannot agree with this, Amorella. We have five senses and quantum reality may bind the biochemical process, but this is what our reality is.

         And this is what you can know. Even the Dead are limited, but without the ‘interference’ of the biochemical process ‘the state of being, of self consciousness’ is an eye-opener, so to speak, as one no longer has eyes or anything else physical. This is how it is in the books already.

         The solidification of the universe is not solid as we think of solid as far as the books are concerned.

         Heavens, no. The solidification of the universe, as you are calling it, is a necessity to make a point, boy. Post. – Amorella. 

          This sounds like a bit of gallows humor to me.