with the Realms of Biological Cells, Clusters of Atoms , and GRW Dynamical Collapse.
0.07 eV mu-neutrinos would have kilometer scale
Many-Brane-Universes, Gravity, and Size-Scales
This is my view of the relationships among
Musaka/Ganesha Fundamental Elementary Particles,
Gaja/Ganesha Physical Compton Vortex Elementary Particles,
GravitoEM Static Region Gaja/Ganesha Compton Vortex Phenomena, and
GravitoEM Induction Region Gaja/Ganesha Compton Vortex Phenomena:
Spin-Spin Contact Interactions
Neutrinos, with neither Electric nor Color Charge and with no tree-level mass, have such a large Compton Radius that our Universe is in the interior of a Neutrino Compton Radius Vortex, as described by Sidharth.
LEP electron-positron scattering experiments have determined that Electrons, Muons, Tauons, C-Quarks, and B-Quarks are pointlike at least down to the scale of the Z mass, about 90 GeV, or about 10^(-16) cm.
U-Quarks, D-Quarks, and S-Quarks are so light that it is hard to separate them from QCD confinement effects, and there are not many known T-Quark events (all at Fermilab, none at LEP), but jet cross-sections at Fermilab and LEP are consistent with all Quarks being pointlike.
Also, cross-sections indicate that photons, gluons, and weak W and Z bosons are all pointlike.
These high-energy Deep Inelastic Scattering experiments do not see the physical Proton and Electron of a Hydrogen Atom; rather, they see
the Valence Quarks and Sea Quarks and Gluons that are within the GravitoEM Static Region Proton Vortex whose Compton Radius is about a fermi, 10^(-13) cm,
and
the Valence Electron and Sea Electrons, Positrons, and Photons within the GravitoEM Induction Electron Vortex whose Compton Radius is about 10^(-11) cm.
(Since the physical Electron has only one Valence Electron, unlike the physical Proton with three Valence Quarks, Deep Inelastic Scattering results can be interpreted (incorrectly in my opinion) as showing that the physical Electron is pointlike down to at least 10^(-16) cm.)
In light of all this, there is a need for terminology to distinguish between the Valence and Sea pointlike particles seen by Deep Inelastic Scattering, and the Physical Compton Radius Vortex Electron and Quarks of the Proton of the Hydrogen Atom, so I call
the Valence and Sea pointlike particles Musaka/Ganesha particles, and
the Physical Compton Radius Vortex particles Gaja/Ganesha particles,
following the suggestion of Sidharth that the terminology for distinction should come from the Hindu God Ganesha who connects the Macrosphere (elephant-Gaja) with the Microsphere (mouse-Musaka) by using Mathematics.
Within the GravitoEM Static Region Gaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex, there are Valence Musaka/Ganesha particles (Electron or Quarks) that determine the nature of the Vortex (Electron or Proton), and Sea particles and antiparticles that make up the cloud of Musaka/Ganeshas that occupy the Vortex.
Within the GravitoEM Static Region Gaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex, the Zero-Point-Fluctuations of the cloud of Musaka/Ganesha particles produce a Salam-type strong gravity force.
Outside the Gaja/Ganesha Vortex, but still within a limited range, the Zero-Point-Fluctuations do not produce the Salam-type strong gravity force, but do produce GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Waves.
The GravitoEM Induction Region is larger than the Gaja/Ganesha Compton Radius Vortex by a factor of about the cube root of the Planck Length divided by the Schwarzchild radius. Since the Planck Length is about 10^(-33) cm, the Proton Schwarzchild radius is about 10^(-52) cm, and the Electron Schwarzchild radius is about 10^(-55) cm:
The Proton GravitoEM Induction Region radius is about 10(-7) cm = 1 Nanonometer,
and
the Electron GravitoEM Induction Region radius is about 10(-4) cm = 1 Micron.
Within the GravitoEM Induction Region radius, the Virtual Gravity Waves interact with strengths characteristic of the Zero-Point-Fluctuations that create them, so that:
The Proton GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravitons, being derived from Zero-Point-Fluctuations of Color Force Musaka/Ganesha Quarks and Gluons, would interact within their Nanometer range with strength characteristic of the Color Force that holds nuclei together, on the order of MeV. This is in fact the energy range of Nanometer-sized Xenon cluster phenomena.
The Electron GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravitons, being derived from Zero-Point-Fluctuations of Electromagnetic Musaka/Ganesha Electrons and Photons, would interact within their Micron range with strength characteristic of Electromagnetism that holds atoms together, on the order of eV. This is in fact the energy range of the cosmological era of recombination forming atoms from electrons and protons, and of molecular bonds. The Micron is the size range of biological cells, large Atomic Clusters, and of a proposed range for GRW Dynamical Collapse.
The GravitoEM Static Region is the region in which gravity acts like ElectroMagnetism in the ElectroMagnetic Static Region, where the Electric Field varies as 1 / r^3.
The magnitude of ZPF fluctuations in the curvature of space in an Electron Compton Radius Vortex should be determined by considering the static alteration dg of the SpaceTime metric g as given by the GravitoEM Static Region equation 95 on page 72 of Wheeler's book Geometrodynamics (Academic Press 1962):
where Lp is the Planck Length (about 1.6 x 10^(-33) cm), and L is the characteristic length of the system under consideration.
For the Sidhartha model, L = Rc , the Compton Radius, is about 3.86 x 10^(-11) cm for Electrons and about 10^(-13) cm for Quarks.
(Note that the GravitoEM Induction Region [for Virtual Gravity Waves] fluctuation formula of equation 96,dg = Lp / L which is given by equation 96 on page 72 of Wheeler's book Geometrodynamics (Academic Press 1962) and also given as equation 43.29 on page 1192 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (Gravitation, Freeman 1973), is not correct for the Compton Radius Vortex.
As Jack Sarfatti says, you should "... use dg = Lp / L for the GravitoEM Induction Region [for Virtual Gravity Waves] and use Nick's formula [ dg = ( Lp / L )^2 ] for GravitoEM Static Region - which is what makes sense for Sidharth's model! ...".)
As Nick Herbert points out, the formula dg = ( Lp / L )^2 = Lp^2 / L^2 implies that the magnitude dR of ZPF fluctuations in the curvature of space in a region of characteristic dimension L is given for the GravitoEM Static Region case by
(Compare equation 43.31, dR = Lp / L^3 , on page 1193 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, which would come from the GravitoEM Induction Region [for Virtual Gravity Waves] fluctuation equation 43.29, dg = Lp / L.)
As Jack Sarfatti calculates in August 1998 e-mail messages using order of magnitude estimates (so that factors like 2 and pi can be omitted for clarity of argument):
For the Electron Compton Radius Rc = hbar / m c
and a Quantum Black Hole of Schwarzschild Radius Rsw = G m / c^2
the classical curvature R is given by
Therefore, the dimensionless measure of curvature fluctuation dR / R is given by
so that
= ( G hbar / c^3 ) / (( hbar / m c ) ( G m / c^2 )) = ( G hbar m c c^2 ) / ( c^3 hbar G m ) = 1
Jack Sarfatti then concludes:
"... Nick Herbert's ... formula for the quantum fluctuations in the curvature tensor using Newtonian constant for gravity ... shows that quantum gravity curvature fluctuations are enormous at the Compton wavelength of an elementary particle.
This is an alternate way of picturing creation of real particle-antiparticle pairs which are strong when distances below the Compton scale are probed. ...
... This supports the idea that elementary particles are quantum blackholes as Jack Sarfatti suggested more than 25 years ago ... this also shows that quantum gravity fluctuations are large on a scale much larger than the Planck scale. They are large at the Compton wave length. ... "
The Herbert-Sarfatti GravitoEM Static Region picture supports the conclusion of Sidharth:
"... In other words the entire curvature of the [Electron Compton Radius Vortex] ... can be thought to have been created by these fluctuations alone ...".
Jack Sarfatti remarked (e-mail August 1998) that Abdus Salam invited him to Trieste in 1973 because Sarfatti and Salam both "... had the idea that elementary particles were little black holes. It was Salam who realized that ... gravity must get very strong on a small scale - that Newton's gravity is for macro - distances only. ... you DON'T use Gnewton = 6.67 x10^(-11) MKS in Sidharth's [Compton Radius Vortices] ... You use instead
Gsalam exp(-r/L) + Gnewton where in Salam's original L is of the order of a fermi [, or 10^(-13) cm] ... Gsalam = 10^40 Gnewton ..." In other words:
G_Near Field Salam = 1
Note that the mass factor for gravitation has a visualization (arising from e-mail discussion with Dick Andersen). Gauge bosons are visualized as going from a source through a medium to a target. The graviton by itself is long-range and massless, but virtual Planck-mass black holes in spacetime absorb some of the gravitons as they go through the spacetime medium, thus weakening the gravitational force and producing the weaker effective gravitational force that is observed by experiments.In the Near Field Induction/Static Region, the gravitons effectively bypass the virtual Planck-mass black holes in spacetime that absorb some Far Field gravitons as they go through the Far Field Region of the spacetime medium.
The GravitoEM Induction Region is the region in which gravity acts like ElectroMagnetism in the ElectroMagnetic Induction Region, where the Electric Field and Magnetic Field both vary as 1 / r^2.
As Jack Sarfatti calculates in August 1998 e-mail messages using order of magnitude estimates (so that factors like 2 and pi can be omitted for clarity of argument):
Wheeler's formula for the order of magnitude of classical R is
Take the density of an elementary particle of observed renormalized mass m to be density = m / Rc^3, where Rc = hbar / mc is its Compton Radius, so that
Then, the dimensionless measure of curvature fluctuation dR / R is given by
= ( Lp / L^3 ) / ( Rsw / Rc^3 )
For the case of GravitoEM Induction Region unit dR / R = 1 curvature fluctuations for an Electron with Compton Radius 3.86 x 10^(-11) cm, of the order of 10^(-11) cm,
= 10^(-11) ( 10^22 )^(1/3) = 10^(-11) 10^7 = 10^(-4) cm = 1 Micron.
As Jack Sarfatti says, these GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Wave fluctuations correspond to Virtual Gravitons, not real gravitons. Therefore
For the case of GravitoEM Induction Region unit dR / R = 1 curvature fluctuations for a Quark with Compton Radius 6.31 x 10^(-14) cm, of the order of a fermi, 10^(-13) cm (using the constituent mass of Up and Down Quarks from the D4-D5-E6 physics model of 312.8 MeV, or 612.1 times the Electron Mass) ,
= 10^(-13) ( 10^19 )^(1/3) = 10^(-13) 10^6 = 10^(-7) cm = 1 Nanometer.
As Jack Sarfatti says, these GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Wave fluctuations correspond to Virtual Gravitons, not real gravitons. Therefore
GravitoEM Induction Region phenomena occur outside the outer boundary of a Compton Radius Vortex,
where physical SpaceTime is 4-Real-dimensional
(unlike the 4-Complex-dimensional SpaceTime at and within the boundary of a Compton Radius Vortex.)
Jack Sarfatti has noted that "... Wheeler's [GravitoEM Induction Region] formula [for 0.07 eV mass mu-neutrino] gives a really big range. The classical wormhole radius ... is 10^(-62) cm. So that [Planck/Classical] = 10^(-33) / 10^(-62) = 10^29 So 10^(29/3) = 10^(2/3) 10^9 ... So effective GravitoEM Induction Region range is of order 10^(-4) 10^9 = 10^5 cm or a thousand meters [or a kilometer]. ..."
They could possibly be tested experimentally by looking for micron-scale effects of Virtual Gravitons. However, I don't think that detecting them with conventional experimental equipment will be easy. For example, Hans Christian Von Baeyer in his article Big G in the March 1996 issue of Discover Magazine said: "... three independent laboratories announced new high-precision measurements of the strength of the force of gravity. To the astonishment of the audience, the three measurements disagreed with one another by considerable amounts, and worse, none of them matched the value that physicists have accepted as correct for more than a decade. No one could offer so much as a hint to explain the discrepancies. ... the uncertainty in the value of G remains astronomical by today's exacting standards. Historically, G was the first universal constant of physics, and ironically it is by a wide margin the least well known. ..." Further, the 1998 Particle Data Group Review of Particle Properties says: "... GN gravitational constant ...Value: = 6.70711(86) x 10 ^(-39) hbar c (GeV/c^2 ) ^(-2) - Uncert. (ppm): 128 - Absolute lab measurements of GN [have been] performed only on scales of 10^(-1 +/- 1) m [from a centimeter to a meter] ...". Since, according to the 1998 Particle Data Group Review of Particle Properties, "... Absolute lab measurements of [Gravity have not been] performed ... on scales [smaller than a centimeter] ...", as of now no experiments would have directly detected the effects of GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Waves, which are Micron-Scale for Electrons and Nanometer-Scale for Quarks. However, according to an article in the New Scientist of 24 October 1998, "... Table-top experiments are under way at Stanford and the University of Colorado to test ... [the strength of gravity at scales of less than 100 micrometers] ... 'We expect preliminary results within a year,' says John Price of the University of Colorado in Boulder. ...'. See also Elsevier Science Article 8090301 and Elsevier Science Article 9090101, which also deal with submillimeter gravity.
In Physical Review Letters 86 (2001) 1418, Hoyle, Schmidt, Heckel, Adelberger, Gundlach, Kapner, and Swanson say: "... Motivated by higher-dimensional theories that predict new effects, we tested the gravitational 1 / r^2 law at separations ranging down to 218 microns using a 10-fold symmetric torsion pendulum and a rotating 10-fold symmetric attractor. We improved previous short-range constraints by up to a factor of 1000 and find no deviations from Newtonian physics. ...".
In Nature 421 (27 February 2003) 922-925, Long, Chan, Churnside, Gulbis, Varney, and Price, of the University of Colorado, say: "... we report a search for gravitational-strength forces using planar oscillators separated by a gap of 108 um [micrometers] .. which has a 6-um uncertainty ...
... No new forces were observed ... our result is a 95% confidence limit on the Yukawa strength alpha ... relative to gravity ... as a function of range lambda [in meters] ... An unpublished limit from the Stanford experiment is also shown; it is derived in the presence of a background force. ...The cosmological energy density needed to close the universe, if converted to a length by taking its inverse fourth root (in natural units where hbar = c = 1), corresponds to about 100 um. This fact has led to repeated attempts to address difficulties connected with the very small observed size of Einstein's cosmological constant by introducing new forces near 100 um. Our result is the best upper bound on alpha in this region, but we have not quite reached gravitational sensitivity. ... it is an important goal for the future to reach gravitational strength at even shorter distances, perhaps down to 10 um. Experiments atttempting to reach such distances will confront rapidly increasing background forces, especially electrostatic forces arising from the spatially non-uniform surface potentials of metals. ... because of the finite stiffness of any shield they ... cause background forces to be transmitted between test masses. Stretched membranes (as used by the Washington group) are more effective than stiff plates at the shortest distances, but it remains to be seen down to what distance the background forces can be effectively suppressed. ...".
In addition to GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravity Waves, the Kaluza-Klein SuperString people have also described a model of gravity in which some of their extra dimensions are compactified at millimeter scales rather than Planck scales, resulting in gravity at sub-millimeter levels that could be "... millions of times stronger than the inverse-square ..." according to the New Scientist 24 October 1998, as well as Elsevier Science Article 8090301, Elsevier Science Article 9090101, and hep-th/9809124 and related papers. However, Mirabelli, Perelstein, and Peskin in hep-ph/9811337 have shown from present-day collider physics experimental observations that:
In a different theoretical context (that of large dimensions in SuperString theory), Lawrence Hall and Christopher Kolda in hep-ph/9904236 show that "... If spacetime contains large compact extra dimensions [or, perhaps, if Strong Gravity in the Induction or Static Regions couples Gravity to Electromagnetism], the fundamental mass scale of nature, LAMBDA, may be close to the weak scale, allowing gravitational physics to significantly modify electroweak symmetry breaking. ... At Run II of the Tevatron collider, a signal for extra dimensions {or Strong Gravity] will be discovered if LAMBDA is below 2.5 (1) TeV for a Higgs boson of mass 100 (300) GeV. Furthermore, such a signal would point to gravitational physics, rather than to new conventional gauge theories at LAMBDA. The discovery potential of the LHC depends sensitively on whether the gravitational amplitudes interfere constructively or destructively with the standard model amplitudes, and ranges from LAMBDA = 3 - 10 (2 - 4) TeV for a light (heavy) Higgs boson. ...". They indicate that the general effect of coupling Gravity to Higgs and Photons is to enhance Higgs decay to two Photons, while the general effect of coupling Gravity to Higgs and Gluons is to enhance Higgs production by Gluon-Gluon fusion, but also to diminish the branching ratio of Higgs decay to two Photons.
A typical Cell has a nucleus (central red blob), a Cell wall membrane (red boundary), a Structural Framework of Microtubules (long gray lines), and a Centrosome from which (in most animal cells) Microtubules grow.
Alfred Schoeller (by an e-mail message) told me about a paper by his friend Min Wang - Microtubule polarity and the direction of pigment transport reverse simultaneously in surgically severed melanophore arms (Cell. 1984 Jul;37(3):753-65) - reporting that "... They severed arms of erythrophores (special cells from certain fish) by microdisection and found that microtubules can form a new cell center in the severed arms (without a nucleus) ... This means that cells are some sort of holographic with an incredible cytoplasmic organization ...".
That is exactly what is implicit in the microtubule model of quantum consciousness. Not only can microtubule information patterns form thoughts, but they can also contain holographic information about how to organize new cell centers etc. In my view, the whole body (all of which has microtubules) can be involved in consciousness, not just the brain, although the brain has a neural organization structure that enables the thoughts to be expressed by muscles (vocal, gestures, writing, etc) whose activity is directed by the brain neural center, so that a naive first approximation is to consider the brain as the center of thought in the body. However, more nearly accurately in my view, consciousness is a whole-body holographic microtubule process. I am amazed that such an important result as the Min Wang paper has not attracted massive attention over the past 20 years.
The Centrosome, in most animal cells, acts as a Microtubule Organizing Center.
Most Centrosomes contain a pair of Centrioles arrranged at right angles to each other in an L-shaped configuration.
is about 200 nm wide and 400 nm long. Its wall is made up of 9 groups of 3 microtubles. You can regard the A microtubule of a triplet as being a complete microtubule, with the B and C microtubules being incomplete microtubules fused to A and B respectively.
Each triplet is tilted in toward the central axis at an angle of about 45 degrees.
(The illustrations and information about cells, microtubules, and centrioles are from Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2nd ed, by Alberts, Bray, Lewis, Raff, Roberts, and Watson (Garland 1989).
The 9 groups of 3 Microtubules in a Centriole might correspond to the
27 Complex Dimensions of E7 / E6xU(1) and to the each of the two 27-dimensional representations of the Lie Algebra E6 of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.
If the 2 orthogonal Centrioles of a Centrosome are taken together to make 27x2 = 54 microtubules,
the 54 might correspond to the
54 Real Dimensions of E7 / E6xU(1).
and to
both of the two 27-dimensional representations of the Lie Algebra E6 of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.
If the Centriole's central tube is added to make 28 tubes,
the 28 might correspond to the
28-Quaternionic-Dimensional E8 / E7xSU(2)
and to the
28-dimensional representation of the Lie Algebra D4 = Spin(8) of the D4-D5-E6 physics model.
If the 2 orthogonal Centrioles of a Centrosome are taken together to make 28x2 = 56 microtubules,
the 56 might correspond to the
56-dimensional representation of the Lie Algebra E7.
GravitoEM Static Region, inside the Electron Compton Radius Vortex, as an organizer of elementary particles of the physical Standard Model plus Gravity as in the D4-D5-E6 physics model;
GravitoEM Induction Region, outside the Electron Black Hole but within the Micron scale of the Electron GravitoEM Induction Region Virtual Gravitons, as an organizer of microtubules that could carry the Quantum Information of consciousness.
As a physical mechanism of consciousness, Hameroff describes a quantum gravity process: "... When the quantum gravity threshold is reached according to
[where E is energy, hbar is Planck's constant, and T is time] self-collapse = (objective reduction) abruptly occurs. ..."
Penrose and Hameroff have named that process Orch OR (for Orchestrated Objective Reduction).
Jack Sarfatti has noted that the Micron-Scale Electron GravitoEM Induction Region length "... may be the proper scale for Orch OR ... That is [in the equation] E = hbar / T [you should use]
..."
Then, if you round off things like G to 10^(-7) from 6 x 10^(-8), you get for the characteristic time:
= (10^(-27) g cm^2 / sec) / ((10^(-7) cm^3 / g sec^2)(10^(-20) g^2 / cm)) =
= 10^(-27 +7 +20) (g cm^2 g sec^2 cm) / (sec cm^3 g^2) = 10^0 sec = 1 sec.
which is indeed the order of the time scale proposed by Hameroff and Penrose.
Therefore:
Jack Sarfatti says "... It is interesting that the Wheeler [GravitoEM Induction Region] formula for an electron gives large curvature fluctuation ... out to a micron. Is there some kind of electron-neutrino-quantum gravity resonance here on the mesoscopic scale of a micron? ...".
Further, OSCILLATIONS between mu-neutrinos (Compton radius of about a micron) and e-neutrinos (Compton radius as big as our universe ) might form some sort of link between
Many phenomena involving Clusters of Atoms are poorly understood by conventional theories.
The aqueous solution phenomenon of Cold Fusion.
Extraordinary Quantum Properties of Massive Gold Clusters: According to and April 17, 1977, announcement by Dr. Robert L.Whetten, Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Georgia Tech, a new series of highly stable and massive gold-cluster molecules that possess a set of extraordinary quantum properties. ... Each molecule in the new series has a compact, crystalline gold core. This pure metallic core, just one-to-two billionths of a meter (1-2 nanometers) across, is encapsulated within a shell of tightly packed hydrocarbon chains linked to the core via sulfur atoms. The principal members of the series have core-masses of about 14,000; 22,000 and 28,000 protons, corresponding to about 75, 110 and 145 gold atoms, respectively, and are thus in the same mass range as larger protein molecules. ... The precise structures of the cores are ... unknown. ... The conduction electrons of the clusters are quantized both in their number -- charge quantization -- and in the states they can occupy -- energy quantization. ... In crystals larger than a few nanometers, these effects can only be observed and used at very low temperatures, such as that of liquid helium, near absolute zero. ... The new gold cluster materials are the first to exhibit the charge-quantization effect in a macroscopically obtained material, for which every cluster behaves identically. The Micron-Scale of the massive gold-cluster molecules suggests involvement of the Electron Micron-Scale GravitoEM Induction Region, while it is possible that the compact gold core structure could involve the Quark Nanometer-Scale GravitoEM Induction Region.
The high energy yield of explosions of clusters of Xenon atoms when hit by ultrashort (150 fsec), high-intensity (2 x 10^16 W/cm^2) laser pulses. It is not yet understood why clusters explode so much more violently than molecules (producing 1 MeV ions as opposed to 100 eV ions), according to scientists at Imperial College (London) as reported in Physics News Update Number 311 (Story #1), March 13, 1997 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein, who say "The researchers look on their explosions as a novel and modest way of achieving high-temperature plasmas in a gas of clusters. They point to the possibility of tabletop fusion experiments.", citing T. Ditmire et al., Nature, 6 March 1997. The 1 MeV energy level suggests involvement of the SU(3) Color Force as opposed to U(1) Electromagnetism, and therefore involvement of the Quark Nanometer-Scale GravitoEM Induction Region.
......
