**Temporal
Curvature and Elementary Particles**

Sam
Micheal, Faraday Group, 21/NOV/2008

This
theory is based on the assumption space is an elastic medium which can be
distorted under extreme force. We define a new quantity Y_{0} ≡ ħ/2l_{P}t_{P}
≈ 10^{44} N which we call the
elasticity of space. Another new quantity is the linear strain of space which
we call the extension: X ≡ m/l_{P}Y_{0}μ_{0}ε_{0}
= 2t_{P}ω. A related
quantity is temporal curvature: C ≡ X/4π = t_{P}ν. With these new definitions, it can be shown
all significant attributes of elementary particles are interrelated: energy in
mass is energy in extension which is the same energy in temporal curvature
which is spinning charge. **The two qualities of space, elasticity and
impedance, relate the significant attributes of elementary particles.**

Time
dilation aboard a speedy craft is an accepted fact. Time dilation near strong
gravity sources is also an accepted fact. For the moment, let’s ignore spatial
curvature near those. Let’s focus only on temporal curvature. Time slows down
the most at the maximum of curvature. This could be the center of a planet,
star, or neutron star. In a circular orbit, temporal curvature is constant. In
a plunging orbit, temporal curvature goes from some fixed level to maximum then
back to the fixed level (depending on starting position). Analysis in
gravitation is about trajectories or geometry. The two trajectories listed
above are orthogonal in that any trajectory can be made from a linear
combination of both. This is essentially a proof that gravitation can be
analyzed exclusively in the context of temporal curvature.

In
much the same way, the mass component of elementary particles can be treated as
a manifestation of temporal curvature. Energy in mass can be viewed as energy
in temporal curvature. This is especially convenient when we consider
relativistic effects: relativistic energy is simply an enhancement of rest
energy (in temporal curvature).

Elementary
particles have three components of energy: two that are non-relativistic and
one, mentioned above, which is a relativistic quantity. The non-relativistic
components are spin and electric flux. (The facts that two of three are
non-relativistic quantities, their measured levels, and the ten stable
elementary particles – are not debated here. I believe a full understanding of
temporal curvature and appreciation of impedance will illuminate all these
facts.)

Some
years ago, I discovered a relationship between charge and spin that has been
ignored and dismissed:

ħ ≈ Z_{0}e^{2} where Z_{0} is the impedance of space.

Spin
is impeded charge (moment). There is a kind of equivalence between spin and
charge (moment). If we ignore the numerical approximation, total energy can be
expressed as:

E_{T} = E_{0}/γ + E_{0}/2π + E_{0}/4π where γ =
√(1-(v/c)^{2})

and
where the first term is energy in temporal curvature, second – energy in
electric flux, and third – energy in spin.

__Energy Distribution at
Various Speeds__

v = 0

v = .25c

v = .5c

v = .75c

v = .99c

The
next serious question is about the confinement mechanism – what keeps these
“bubbles in space-time” from simply dissipating? What holds them together? I
propose a balancing of forces: the extreme inelasticity of space with an
incredible internal temporal pressure wave. The elasticity of space can be
calculated with a couple assumptions: Y_{0} = ħ/2l_{P}t_{P} ≈ 6.0526 *10^{43} N. If elementary particles are Planck-sized objects,
they must have internal pressure that balances that extreme force. I propose a
spherical standing wave of temporal curvature – much like an onion in terms of
structure. The rest energy of elementary particles is small but pack that
energy into a very small space and you have a good candidate for the
confinement mechanism. Again, the issue here is not the why of ten elementary
particles. I believe that why can be answered when we fully understand temporal
curvature and appreciate the impedance of space.

The
only extended component of elementary particle energy is electric flux. The
other components are confined to the Planck-sphere.* This could explain the
double-slit phenomenon of self-interference. The electric flux of elementary
particles is not unlike a soliton – a solitary standing wave of electric
energy. It is not unreasonable to propose this is the mechanism of
self-interference. This idea could be tested in simulation and verified with
real particle beams of various configurations. *Of course, there must be
“residual” extensions of spin and gravitational energy – otherwise, spin and
gravitational interactions (between elementary particles) would not be present.
(As I understand it, spin is manifested via magnetic moment which is a result
of spinning charge. Gravitation must be an extension of temporal curvature
beyond the Planck-sphere. The proportion of extended energy must be dependent
on number and amplitude of waves inside.) ..An idea I discarded around twelve
years ago was the following. Temporal curvature acts as an energy reservoir for
oscillating flux and spin. This idea was developed to account for tunneling
behavior. Preliminary calculations were not encouraging (energy in electric
flux must be increased to compensate for “sinusoidal deficit” – in order to
maintain Bohr dimensions.) Perhaps tunneling can be explained in another
semi-classical way or perhaps there is indeed some oscillation of electric flux
and spin. Further work is required.

This
theory has been developing for about twenty-five years – very slowly at first
for three reasons: difficulty in visualization, ironing out seeming
inconsistencies, and my reluctance to employ Planck-size. Visualizing standing
waves of temporal curvature is not easy. There were apparent inconsistencies in
the relativistic domain at first, but these disappear with proper definitions (ν
≡ 1/Tγ^{2}). Around
twenty-five years ago, it was suggested to me to employ Planck-size but the fact
theory becomes unverifiable when you do that – impelled me to pursue other
avenues at first (

Once
we arrive at a suitable model of elementary particles – one with appropriate
arrangement of spin and flux, creating nuclei, atoms, and molecules (as in
simulations) – will become child’s play.

The
purpose of this perspective is to present a plausible and elegant picture of
elementary particles – that they are **stable vibrations in space-time**.
From this perspective, it can be shown the origin of uncertainty is not a
probability density function – but the **vibratory nature of elementary
particles themselves**. Energy-uncertainty can be shown to be bounded by a
linear function of position-uncertainty – **alone**. This contrasts the
conventional perspective which asserts energy and time uncertainty are
complementary and interdependent random variables – decreasing one increases
the other and vice versa.

No
theory is any good – unless it is testable – and a decisive test is proposed –
to compare against convention and this more elegant perspective. It is proposed
elementary particles are “mini dynamical systems” that are disturbable – and
that those disturbances are measurable.

For
a more thorough discussion and development of these ideas – please download a
copy of my latest book: Gravitation and Elementary
Particles.

**Addendum
1:**

**“The
Universe in Fourteen Lines” ;)**

E ≡
Y_{0}l_{P}X ≡ Y_{0}ct_{P}4πC ≡ mc^{2} ≡ hν ≡ h/Tγ^{2} ≡ hC/t_{P} ≡ ħω ≈ Z_{0}e^{2}ω

ΔEΔt
≥ ħ/2; ΔpΔx ≥ ħ/2; ΔXΔt ≥ t_{P}; ΔE > -c_{1}Δx + c_{2}; ΔX > -c_{3}Δx
+ c_{4}

I
was told years ago that “It’s useless to stare at equations for hours at a
time.”, but insights can be garnered by constructing lists of identities such
as above – “proving” things that perhaps were only suspected before. Reading
above in English: energy is (the force in) the elasticity of space through
Planck-length causing an extension – which is – that same force through Planck-time
causing temporal curvature – which is – mass times the speed of light squared –
which is – Planck-energy times frequency – which is – Planck-energy divided by
period – which is – Planck-energy times temporal curvature divided by
Planck-time – which is – the fundamental unit of angular momentum times angular
frequency – which is approximately equal to the impedance of space times
charge-moment times angular frequency. c in line three is a scaling factor to
keep units correct (c is the speed of light). Gamma in line six is a
relativistic scaling factor. E, X, C, m, ν, T, and ω are all
relativistic quantities. Three fundamental identities were garnered in the
process of constructing above – insights that I suspected but could not easily
prove:

mass is energy stored in temporal curvature –
Y_{0}(4πt_{P}/c)C ≡ m,

energy through time is energy in curvature –
Et_{P} ≡ hC,

energy through time is spin causing extension
– Et_{P} ≡ (ħ/2)X,

and there is a kind of equivalence between the
elasticity of space and the impedance of space (a relation I’ve been looking
for – a long time) – Y_{0}l_{P}X ≈ Z_{0}e^{2}ω.

Strictly
speaking, force through time causes temporal curvature – which is mass. Energy
through time is energy in curvature. Energy through time is also spin-moment
causing spatial extension. The final relation deserves special explanation. It
shows there’s a correspondence between three sets of analogous quantities.
Elasticity is to length as impedance is to charge-moment; length is to
extension as charge-moment is to angular frequency; elasticity is to extension
as impedance is to angular frequency. Extended space is spinning charge. The
relation shows how equally important elasticity and impedance are. ..Some years
ago, I abandoned an oscillatory model of elementary particles – where energy in
charge-spin oscillated with energy in spatial-temporal curvature – I could not
prove it (editors objected: mere speculation). So I attempted to cut my
assumptions to minimum – cutting away parts of the model that were not
absolutely essential. The current model is plausible and feasible. The more I
investigate it, the more it seems to make sense. We just need to work on
modeling flux and spin (such as proposed by Bergman).

Let’s
rewrite above – just keeping the absolute essentials:

m/(μ_{0}ε_{0})
≡ E ≡ (h/t_{P})C
≈ Z_{0}e^{2}ω

≡ ≡

Y_{0}l_{P}X
≡ ((ħ/2)/t_{P})X

where
μ_{0} is the permeability of
space, ε_{0} is the
permittivity of space, and Z_{0}
≡ √(μ_{0}/ε_{0}) ≈ 377 Ω.

m ≡ (h/t_{P}c^{2})C

Y_{0}l_{P}X ≈ Z_{0}e^{2}ω

Energy
in mass;

is:
elastic force through distance causing extension;

is:
energy over time causing temporal curvature;

is:
spin energy over time causing extension;

is:
spinning charge.

**Curved
space-time is mass is spinning charge**;
it’s all the same energy – just different manifestations of it. Line two: mass
is energy over time causing temporal curvature; **mass is temporal curvature**.
Line three: there is a kind of **equivalence between the elasticity and
impedance** of space.

**Addendum
2:**

**A
Note About Approximation**

Many
will dismiss this theory for the simple reason I use an approximation above between
spin and charge energy. ..After some contemplation, we could think of the
difference (ratio) between charge and mass energy (.091701) as lag in phase
(phase difference) between them. If we represent energy in mass as cos^{2}θ, the phase lag for charge energy is -1.26314.
Since mass is a standing wave of temporal curvature, we cannot detect this
phase lag directly – we can only calculate it. This seems better than summoning
a cloud of virtual particles to explain charge deficit. Of course, the why of
charge energy phase lag still needs to be explained. ..Yet another way of
looking at charge deficit is with vectors (we assume a specific geometry with
this perspective): two electric vectors with equal magnitude of √Z_{0}e lay in x-y plane. Their cross product is a vector in
the z-direction with magnitude Z_{0}e^{2}sinθ where θ is the angle between electric
vectors. Since sinθ = .091701, θ = .09183 = 5.26149° (the angle is
not unique: π-.09183 also works). Again, if we adopt this approach, we
need to explain why. Finally, a third approach to explaining the factor 10.905
is to propose a different spin rate for electric flux: if we let ω_{e} = 10.905ω_{m}, ħω_{m} = Z_{0}e^{2}ω_{e}.
As with the others, if we adopt this approach, we must explain why it’s
preferable. I prefer the simplest approach which requires the least number of
assumptions – one that jives with reality. For example, if the final approach
does not agree with measured magnetic moment, we must throw it out.

**Addendum
3:**

**A
Tentative Complete Model**

Based
on the third assumption above and its qualifications, let’s tentatively assume
it’s correct and complete the model:

__ m __ = ħω_{m} = __(ħ/2)__X ≡ Y_{0}l_{P}X =
Z_{0}e^{2}ω_{e}

μ_{0}ε_{0} t_{P}

≡ ω_{e} ≡ 10.905ω_{m}

__h__C X ≡ __Δl__ = __ m __ = 2t_{P}ω_{m}

t_{P} l
l_{P}Y_{0}μ_{0}ε_{0}

Elementary
particles are dual-sized structures with corresponding dual-spin. Space-time
curvature is largely confined to a Planck-sphere whereas electric flux resides
largely within _{m}; outer spin is Z_{0}e^{2}
with rate ω_{e}. The link
between them is the elasticity/impedance of space (Y_{0}/Z_{0} =
1.60661*10^{41} AC/m).

**Addendum
4:**

**Inspired
by RL Oldershaw at** http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/thenewphysics.html

**List
of assumptions for EDST** (elastic
deformations in space-time) model of elementary particles (not necessarily
ranked in order of importance):

1. the cores of e.p.s are Planck dimensions constrained
objects

2. the cores are comprised of spherical standing waves of
temporal curvature

3. internal energy density is balanced with external
pressure; external pressure is caused by the extreme inelasticity of space, Y_{0}
≈ 10^{44} N / 10^{22} N

4. e.p.s are dual structures: twisted cores of temporal
curvature coupled with Compton-sized spinning electric flux rings

5. the distributed nature of the flux rings causes
self-interference phenomena

6. the geometry above and the two qualities of
space-time, Y_{0} and Z_{0}, are minimally sufficient to
describe e.p.s and their interactions

7. the strong force and gravitation are essentially the
same thing – caused by residual extension of curvature beyond the core

8. geometry explains instability such as with ^{8}Be

The
purpose of developing EDST is two-fold: to extricate/excavate physics from its
self-made prison/tomb consisting of an agglomeration of arcane math, untestable
concepts, illucid ideas, and a general avoidance of the scientific principle:
propose, test, revise / start over – and – provide a view of nature that is
consistent, elegant, and verifiable.

The
elegant nature of the model is exemplified by these two revelations: an
explanation of inertia and view of matter. Inertia is simply the lack of
relativistic energy to add or take away from a core at rest. View of matter:
there are only two things in our universe: space-time and energy. Life is a
functional arrangement of these two things.

**Immediate
problems with the model:** the
dual-structure has dual-spin: ω_{e} = 10.905ω_{m}.
How? Why? Is it a result of how we measure spin? The core equations of the
theory were derived using the concepts of linear elasticity and the ‘ideal
stretched string’. The value for Y_{0} above has two values because of
that and assumption 3 above. Derive Y_{0} based on the former, you get
the first value. Derive Y_{0} based on point 3, the second.
Consequences of this are: extension/strain increases drastically from mere
fractions to 1/6 – and – electrons and protons have different radii (as opposed
to the former model which asserts both have Planck diameter).

**Decisive
tests:** a decisive test was designed
about the corollary premise that e.p.s are mini-dynamical systems which are
disturbable. It is possible convention could dismiss this test with the
path-integral approach to QM. But since there are eight assumptions above,
there should be many decisive tests which can be designed. Dear reader, please
help.

**Addendum
5:**

**Three
Tests of the Theory**

I’ve
been attacked recently about making temporal curvature theory “too convenient”.
In fact, I did not design the core equation stating the relationship between
impedance and elasticity. I did not design the explanation of inertia. I did
not design the simple relationship between spin and linear strain / extension.
I discovered these after making an assumption about elasticity. If we let c=1
which is a typical convention in texts on elementary particles, we see l_{P}=t_{P}
and E=m (of course units are conserved). What’s more startling and insightful
is this: X/l_{P} = E/(ħ/2). Extension is to Planck-length as
energy is to spin. The “information” of each is “encoded” in the other. It’s
like saying you’ll know how far the golf-ball will go based on the club you use
– *exactly* how far. That’s amazing. Somehow, the exact relationship
between extension and Planck-length – and – energy and spin is encoded in the
“fabric of space”. But we arrived at these discoveries based on the linear
definition of elasticity. So it is our choice of elasticity which defines the
rest. Let’s look at it again: l_{P}/X = (ħ/2)/E. A Planck-length
of space is stretched by X – by exactly the same amount – as the proportion of
spin-energy to total-energy. It boggles my mind – the simplicity – and I
struggle to grasp the “consequences” or meaning of it. As I try to visualize
it, spin-moment pushes against space – stretching it. But how it pushes or what
it pushes against is “beyond me”. My only rational explanation is
elastic-impeding space-time. The “bubble” of temporal curvature pushes against
the extreme inelasticity of space. Admittedly, it’s difficult to visualize –
but that does not make it wrong.

I
used to be clever. I say “used to be” because over five years ago, I designed
two tests of the theory before it was fully developed. I’ll include those here
plus the one I published in N and Ω.

**The Inertia Test**

For
about the last eight years I have been working on a conceptual unification of
gravity, special relativity, electromagnetism, and elementary particles. Among
the many discarded ideas - a few have endured - competing within my mind - to
explain the universe around us: the centrality of the impedance of space, the
elusive elasticity of spacetime, the true nature of energy propagation, and the
twist-and-fold of elementary particles. For those, the longer I examine them -
the more I see them as waves - and less like actual particles .. Just as a
measured value is only as good as its error - a theory is only as good as the
number of relevant testable hypotheses it produces; how hard I have tried to
lure the muse of scientific inspiration to my side .. Only recently, have I
succeeded. Those that have studied special relativistic effects - and of those
who’ve studied gravity, should have found it hard *not* to notice some
parallels: time dilation and Lorentz contraction. My explanation of those and
how they relate to the effects of strong gravity tie back to the true nature of
energy propagation, but this section is not about that; it is about producing a
relevant testable prediction of the theory.

Among
relativistic effects, the parameter I failed to mention was mass. And this - is
*precisely* the parameter I propose to test. Imagine twirling a bowling
ball on a hard smooth surface: initially, it requires a torque to accelerate it
to a particular angular speed; T=ma (neglecting friction). The mass is called -
inertial mass. Whether you’re in space or on the moon - angular acceleration
requires torque. Now, before you twirl it this time - paint a stripe down the
side. Twirl it and time when you see the stripe. Keep track of every time you
see the stripe. Move the experiment into space. Nothing changes (strictly
speaking, time has speeded up for you and the ball - and for a distant observer
in “flat” spacetime - they see exactly that - a quickening of your experiment).
But for you - nothing has changed .. or has it?

I
propose something has - and that something - is inertial mass. I propose that
inertial mass increases near a strong gravity source in the same proportion as
time and height reduce. (Strictly speaking, spacetime is curved - objects are
invariant, but here is not to argue that.) The bowling ball should spin
measurably faster away from Earth’s gravity well - in order to have consistency
between relativistic effects and those of strong gravity. The way to test this
numerically would be to apply a specific torque to an object - on Earth’s
surface - measure the resultant speed of rotation, apply the same torque to the
same object as far away from strong gravity as possible - measure rotational speed
again, and compare results.

After
some calculation, three critical factors emerge and one number: the uncertainty
in applied torque, the uncertainty in ship speed, the uncertainty in frictional
effects, and 1.000 000 000 5. The number represents my estimate of the ratio of
accelerations (deep space / earthly) resulting from [my predicted] change in
inertial mass:

a_{2}/a_{1} ~ = (1.000 000
000 5)b

where a_{2} is the angular acceleration of a mass in deep
space due to an applied torque, a_{1} is for the same mass and torque
on earth, and b is the relativistic factor associated with the mass in deep
space on a ship at a certain speed with respect to the first test point and
time (this effectively makes the first test point on earth the experimental
rest frame). I assume the energy density of deep space is zero and arrive at
that particular number based on an analogy between relativistic effects and
energy density effects. The uncertainties must add up to less than a factor of
10^{-10} in order to be able to detect the above predicted change in
inertial mass. [Careful examination of the effect of gravity on the reference
clock and bowling ball rotation (a kind of clock itself), compels me to
proclaim there is no confounding temporal effect on the test system, but an
astute reader may provide sound evidence to the contrary. I welcome intelligent
assistance.]

**The Flywheel Test**

Setup: 100 kg flywheel, operating speed 100000 rpm, circumference
1 m

[I have been assured by engineers, this is a feasible experiment
if proper materials are employed.]

Implications: 100000 m/min, 1667 m/s, ~10^{-6} g or 1
μg mass enhancement

Requirements: scale accuracy weighing flywheel assembly
unimportant, precision must be better than 1 μg, and magnetic interactions
must be accounted for. The above calculation was based on the low speed
approximation for KE = .5mv^{2}; that was further halved to account for
only half the equatorial enhancement pointing toward the earth. Then I realized
a confounding factor: the accepted relativistic mass of a rotating object:
using KE/c^{2} = m_{0}(γ^{-1} - 1) implies an
enhancement in mass of about 1.5 μg, but according to accepted theory,
this should not be oriented with the equator - convention predicts an
enhancement regardless of orientation. So another run must be made. Three times
the mass system should be weighed: at rest, rotating at 100000 rpm on its side,
and rotating at 100000 rpm vertical. The results should prove conclusively
which theory is correct: convention says ~100000.0000015 g regardless of
orientation (in other words, a vertical run should prove/disprove that), my
theory says ~100000.000001 g on its side (but no enhancement vertically), and
if there is no enhancement at all - something wrong with our setup or
calculations.

Just
to be clear about my predictions, so there is no ambiguity:

__Side__ __Vertical__ __Rest__

Convention: X X none

DQM: X none none Key:
X = mass enhancement

If there is a vertical enhancement and extra side enhancement,
then the evidence would lean toward DQM - only some rethinking would have to be
done. If the results produced equal enhancement on side and vertical, that
would pretty much lay this test to rest.

Chapter
Three – A Decisive Test

In
the process of writing, I have changed the chapter ordering because of the
importance of this concept. Science without tests is fantasy. The following
test is not a test of a core equation, but it tests a corollary premise that
e.p.s are mini-dynamical systems which are disturbable – and that these
disturbances are measurable.

If two particles are identical in: identity (two
electrons for example), velocity, and position – they are **identical**.
(This is the conventional perspective – ignoring polarization.) They are
indistinguishable. It doesn’t matter how they got there; they behave the same
from there on. Regardless of how they arrived, if you later measure some
attribute, that value should be the same with the same level of
error/uncertainty. Unless..

Unless particles are dynamical systems with a kind of
‘memory’ for past disturbances. Imagine two electrons arriving at the same
place with the exact same momentum (at different times of course) but just
after a huge difference in disturbance. If one arrived just after a small
disturbance and the other arrived just after a much larger disturbance, there
should be a larger uncertainty associated with the latter – if elementary
particles have ‘memory’. If elementary particles are dynamical systems, they
should exhibit larger uncertainties after larger past disturbances. This is the
essence of the test.

The setting is somewhat like the inside of a TV tube:
it’s evacuated with electron gun at one end and target at the other. The EG is
adjustable in intensity (number of electrons emitted per unit time). The
target, T, is a thin gold foil leaf which bends easily under electron impact.
The following is a baseline setup:

EG----------------------T

The EG is run at various intensities to measure
deflection of T. Perhaps a laser bounced off T could give better resolution. In
any case, we’re attempting to measure uncertainty in electron momentum – which
is the variation in deflection of T. Theoretically,

∆p =
∆(mv) = 2(m∆v + v∆m) ≈ 2m∆v (1)

since ∆m should be negligible. Once calculated,
this can be compared to the measured uncertainty.

The next setup is called “small disturbance” and
introduces three magnetic deflectors which disturb the beam by pure reflection:
a small magnetic force from MD1 (magnetic deflector 1) deflects the beam
off-target, MD2 over-corrects, and MD3 re-places the beam axially:

MD2

EG-----MD1
MD3-T

The final setup is called “large disturbance” and
introduces a larger deflection by using stronger magnets (or more powerful
electro-magnets):

MD2

/\

/ \

EG-----MD1
MD3-T

Entire path length – from EG to T is the same – in
setups two and three. This is to minimize the ‘number of changed variables’
between the two. That means the relative sizes of the diagrams above is
deceptive: the physical separation between MD1 and MD3 is actually larger in
setup two.

Applying

∆p
≈ 2∆Ft (2)

where F is the force imparted from MD3, t is the
‘interaction time’ of an electron with MD3, and uncertainty in time is
negligible. Note that the force here induces an angular acceleration (a turn) –
not a linear acceleration – axial with the beam. The only confounding factor is
t, interaction time with MD3: in the “small disturbance” setup – that time
should be smaller than in the “large disturbance” setup because there is less
magnetic flux over the same volume (the path of the electron crosses less
magnetic flux). So that factor will have to be accounted for in (2).

We are trying to calculate an expected uncertainty in
deflection of T as compared to the baseline. Those following convention are
free to employ the path-integral formulation devised by Feynman and compare
with above. What ever you do, examine your assumptions: if path-integral
requires you to account for uncertainty in forces and interaction times for all
three magnets, then Feynman is assuming elementary particles are dynamical
systems with random state variables. If that’s true, then convention and
determinism differ by only one fundamental assumption: random state variables
vs internal oscillation.

There are benefits that ‘go with’ determinism which
convention conveniently ignores: the qualities of space-time constrain
elementary particles – these are natural and ‘flow’ from the properties of
space-time – as compared to convention’s attempt with 11 dimensions and string
theory (their dogged adherence to reduction and probability becomes ludicrous
and laughable). The other benefit of determinism is that it **makes sense**.
Why appeal to probability when we have the systems approach? Why automatically
assign the label “random wave” to elementary particles – based on appearance, ego,
and historical revulsion of determinism? It boggles my mind – the intransigence
of convention. I’ve realized “a marriage” is not the proper analogy of
convention and probability-reduction. The proper analogy is a baby clinging to
their mother’s breast – desperate for milk. The conventional adherence to
probability-reduction is infantile.

Sam
Micheal, 21/NOV/2008

micheal
at msu dot edu