See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338138513

Waves or Particles

Thesis · December 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 245

1 author:

Ramón Garza Wilmot

Autonomous University of Nuevo León
102 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramón Garza Wilmot on 01 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WAVES OR PARTICLES?

By. Ramon Garza Wilmot.

garzawilmot@gmail.com

Monterrey, N.L. México

December 23/ 2109

INTRODUCTION

This brief essay tries to distinguish between waves and particles following the concept
of the wave-particle duality of quantum physics. The article is more descriptive than
mathematical because what I'm trying to do is conceptualize the wave-particle duality as
I've understood it and expose the issue without much detail. I believe that I have been
able to simplify this exposition and in doing so I find the importance of Planck's mass for
this dual property as the limit between what acts as a particle and what acts as a wave.

I also try to relate the equations of what are called Planck Units to larger and smaller
objects than the "Planck units". From this idea arises what I have called "action
parameter" which is similar to the Planck constant in its units and which is reduced to
the Planck constant when the mass is precisely the Planck mass. Which would show that
the properties of bodies, ALL bodies, whether these are elementary such as the proton,
the electron, particles without rest mass, and the universe itself at any time and that
depend on the action parameter adjusted to the one I identify with the letter w (action
parameter in the sense that it is not constant) and that having the same units of the
Planck constant h, gives me the same or similar meanings as those obtained with it.

Maybe the article is not well organized, but I wrote it as the results appeared, with paper
a pen on one side and in front of the PC with Word and Excel. Anyway, it's done without
a lot of technical details. It probably lacks development. It is speculative, I confess, but at
the same time, I find the subject fascinating and although I am not an expert in quantum
physics I allow myself these speculations.

I also clarify that the results are based on the cgs system, where the units are: the
centimeter, the gram and the second. The unit of electric charge is that of the electron or
electrostatic charge unit. The temperature is displayed in Kelvins or absolute degrees.
And to finish this prologue, I also clarify that here I have assumed that the universe is tri
dimensionally spherical, as I have used for its volume 4π/3 R^3
1.- Limits:
To start I have to expose 3 fundamental lengths corresponding to the mass of anybody:
The de Broglie wavelength = h/mv
The Compton wavelength = h/mc
Gravitational radius = rg = G.m/C^2

In none of these cases do these lengths mean the physical size of the particles, not even
in the gravitational radius which is nothing other than the size of the particle so that all
its energy would be exclusively gravitational and that it is not possible for light to escape
from it, so it is the radius of a black hole.
But, there is no particle smaller than rg because it would imply that the particle loses
mass.
Well, in this case, m = rg.C^2/G

The idea is to find out what the sizes of the 3 types of length are and how they relate to
each other.
The Compton wavelength is a particular case of the de Broglie wavelength with just
using C instead of "v".
As in the Compton case, the velocity of mass m is that of the velocity of light and this
velocity is only for photons, then the Compton wavelength is only for photons. At speeds
below C, this is the Broglie wavelength which is only for particles, but this does not
prevent wave properties from manifesting because the fact that light is waves does not
imply that particles cannot have them.

There are cases where the particles also have wave properties but not in all cases.
Electrons have those two properties and baseballs don't. Why? This is what the following
analysis is about.

From what we saw, the wavelength Compton λc is smaller than λb for a mass of the same
size, because light speed is the maximum speed and, what happens with the
gravitational radius rg? Is this smaller than λc or that λb or is it larger than these two?

First, the gravitational parameter must be defined for any particle of any mass including
the universe itself as:

β = h.C/G.m^2 as h, C, and G are constant, the smaller the mass is the larger that β is.

This is done to compare the λc with rg.

k.(h/mc) = G.m/C^2 k = (G.m/C^2)/ (h/mc) = G.m^2/hc = 1/β

If β > 1 k<1 then λc > rg

If β < 1 k >1 then λc < rg

There is only one case in which λc = rg since if k = 1 then β = 1 which corresponds to

the mass of Planck. As β is ascending for masses smaller than Planck's mass and
descending for masses larger, it follows that for masses smaller than Planck's λc > rg
and for masses larger than Planck's rg > λc . This can be seen in the following graph
which also shows other wave-particle properties. This graph is illustrative, it is not on
scale, because I believe that the range of lengths is so large that not even with
logarithms could be graphed.

Here you can clearly see what happens for different masses by comparing them with
respect to wavelengths.

- Curved lines in blue represent the way wavelengths relate to masses, they have that
shape because the axes are reciprocal of each other.

- The dark line that starts from the origin represents the gravitational radius of particles
with mass m and is directly proportional to it.

- The red lines represent the real radius of bodies that is always larger than the
gravitational radius. These lines always start from the Broglie wavelength because this
length is independent of the particle size.

- The purple lines are to indicate the relationship mass - wavelength. The continuous is
special for the Planck mass and the dotted mass for any mass greater than the Planck
mass.

- Line C corresponds to λc exclusively.

- Lines v1 and v2 are lower speeds than C where v2 > v1. In which the Broglie wavelength
is applied.

- We see that for the mass of Planck rg and λc coincide.

- For mass less than the Planck mass, rg < λc < λb

- In the case of λb for any mass greater than Planck's, λc < λb < rg

- It can be seen that there are many points where rg = λb where the speed lines intersect
with the radius rg. These points are those where the particle velocity is of:

v = h.C^2/Gm^2

- The same mass at higher speed reduces its λb and its wave properties tend to
disappear, even if its mass is smaller than that of Planck.

- In the purple dotted line m1 - L1 where L1 crosses the point m = 0 there are red lines
representing bodies with the same wavelength but larger in volume than Planck's volume
and whose measurements are obviously such that the wavelength L1 is completely
enclosed by that larger radius. The green vertical line is going to give what would be the
point where the Planck radius for that speed and its λb coincide. The red lines cannot
cross the green dot representing the Planck radius because that would mean that its
radius is smaller than the Planck radius and that is impossible as long as the particle
does not lose mass.

- All the green zone corresponds to particles whose mass is lower than that of Planck,
then all of them will manifest wave properties.

- There are masses lower than Planck's but with a velocity v2, they will have a
wavelength greater than their radius rg and will present waves.

Particles whose λb > λc > rg are all those below the rg line manifest external wave
properties, except if their real r >λb and those above that line will not show them.

Generalizing, if particles have a wavelength either λc or λb greater than their real radius
will look like waves, and those whose real r or rg is greater than their wavelengths will
be observed as a particle. In fact, ALL particles are waves but they manifest as such if -
they manifest as a wave if their maximum wavelengths exceed their actual size or rg ,

-and they manifest as particles if their actual radius rg or r is greater than their
wavelengths.

In the first case, the particle is the wave and in the second case, the wave is the particle.

In a simple analysis in which the wavelength of a particle is compared against its

gravitational radius we see these data:

- Masses less than Planck's mass have a wavelength greater than their gravitational
radius. Then they act like waves.
- Masses greater than Planck's mass have a shorter wavelength than their gravitational
radius, then they act as particles.
- This behavior is dependent on the state of motion of the particle and on the properties
of the system on the two-slit experiment.
It is an interesting fact that each mass has associated another mass so that that mass is
equal to the square of the Planck mass divided by the mass itself, in the case of the
universe this associated mass is the mass of the graviton, and in the case of the electron
this mass is:

mé = h.C/(G.me) = 3.26845E+18 grams

Except that if we calculate the gravitational radius of this mass Rg = G.mé/C^2 = λe

λe = 2.42631E-10 cm results in the Compton wavelength of the electron using the
gravitation constant.

table 1

This previous table was constructed with the following equations:

Compton wavelength: λc = h/m.C
Gravitational radius: Rg = G.m/C^2
Action parameter: w = G.m^2/C
In 1999 the diffraction of fulerene from C60 was reported by researchers at the University
of Vienna.1 Fulerene is a massive object, with an atomic mass of 720. De Broglie's
wavelength is 2.5 picometers. This wavelength corresponds to a mass of 8.84e-28 grams
which is definitely much smaller than the Planck mass which is 5.4565133874E-05. There
are particles with a mass a little smaller than Planck's mass (microbes for example). They
must have wave properties according to what is said. Viruses are even smaller and must
also have that property if they can be thrown into both slits, but when they are observed
under a microscope, their wave collapses and Bah! there are no wave properties. Will
this observation of microbes be an alteration of their true behavior? speculating too
much) it would be easier to grasp them if they were somehow accelerated so that their
wave properties are eliminated and then more easily killed.

The graph shows the 3 cases:

- objects that have their Compton wavelength (in red in the table) act as waves. Because
this one is bigger than its gravitational radius or its current radius.

- the particle that has its Compton wavelength the same as its gravitational radius is the
mass of Planck.

- Objects that have their Compton wavelength (in blue) smaller than their gravitational
radius or their current radius, act as particles because their wavelength is smaller.
Objects that have their wavelength defined as λ = h/mv greater than the Compton
wavelength act more like waves.

Note that particles that have a Compton wavelength longer than their gravitational radius
behaves more like waves than particles. On the other hand, those whose wavelength is
smaller than their gravitational radius behave as particles. Planck's mass is that case in
which the wavelength is equal to its gravitational radius, it would be the transition
between acting as a wave and acting like a particle.

The general distinction between particles and waves depends on what:

- the object having its gravitational radius or current radius greater than its de Broglie
length acts as a particle. Because the wave is inside the particle.

rg > λb act as particle

r > λb act as particle

λb > r act as a wave

λb > r act as a wave

- the object having its current gravitational radius or real radius smaller than its Broglie
length acts as a wave.

1.- PROPERTIES OF THE UNIVERSE.

These Planck units are derived from what I call "parameters" of the gravitational and
electrical forces from which Planck units are easily derived.
Basic algebraic and some diverse knowledge of classical and ordinary quantum physics
will be sufficient to achieve the objective of this paper. Whose original purpose revolves
around a What if………?
I believe that the fundamental element that has led me to these results has been the
determination of the Hubble constant from units that relate gravity to quantum physics in
a remarkably simple way. In fact, the result is that the Hubble constant that I identify as H
is simply a frequency whose inverse is the age of the universe. And that to calculate it, I
had to use the masses of the proton and the electron, the unit of electric charge, the
Planck constant and the constant of gravitation G.
I must add that this analysis takes me much further, farther back in time than what has
been called Planck time which, as we shall see, this "time" of Planck does NOT represent
an epoch, but only the inverse of the Planck frequency. That's why I use the term
"epoch" to refer to real time and to differentiate it from Planck´s.

I go much further back as I said, that Planck time, even when the real time had a value of
1.686739474108E-99 seconds. That I define as the moment in which the photon No 1
arose that will carry with it all the energy that constitutes the thermal radiation of the
cosmic background of today and of always whose value arises from the equation:
Et = h/to = 3.77496823888E+72 ergs
Et being the constant total energy of the cosmic microwaves.

I have obtained this time and this primordial energy from the fact that I was able to
determine with precision the current volume of the universe and the temperature of the
cosmic microwave background from physical constants and some mathematics. Except
for these constants that are:
• that of gravitation
• Planck's
• Boltzmann's.
• the speed of light

And with the help of knowing the masses and charges of the proton and electron which I
do not include as constants, it has been possible for me to construct all this analysis.
I define the Planck epoch, not as the traditional "Planck time", but as the moment when
the gravitational force parameter β had a unitary value.
We will see that the Planck epoch, apart from the fact that the gravitational force
parameter is unitary, does not represent any special characteristic (except the presence
of the Planck constant and the transition from waves to particles ), because I present a
set of equations in which the Planck time data are only one of the possible variations of
mass, energy, temperature, etc.
All these data can be deduced from the section equations that define the parameters as a
function of time and that especially for the Planck epoch that is obtained by just doing to
β = 1.

Home exposing what we know today about the so-called Planck era and how we can
obtain these same values without making the assumptions that Planck took.
For all this, I have to begin by exposing what I think are physical constants in the sense
of invariability in time to differentiate them from those that are variables.
I start from the fact that the real constants are not properties of matter but only
conversion factors between which they are properties.
Seen in this way, I list the invariable physical constants:
-the speed of light "c" which relates the ratio of mass to energy.
-the gravitational constant "G" that relates mass to the force of gravity.
-the Planck constant "h" which relates energy to frequency and time.
-the Boltzmann constant "K" which relates thermal energy to temperature.
Note that I have NOT included as constants values such as the mass of the proton mp,
the mass of the electron me and the fundamental electric charge "q". However, I do take
these values as characteristic of the present time (1.3583021229E+10 million years after
the Big Bang according to my calculations).
I also clarify that the results are based on the cgs system, where the units are: the
centimeter, the gram and the second. The unit of electric charge is that of the electron or
electrostatic charge unit. The temperature is displayed in Kelvin or absolute degrees.
And to finish this prologue, I also clarify that here I have assumed that the universe is tri
dimensionally spherical, as I have used for its volume 4π/3 R^3

Without going into details of how I obtained these values, I describe here some of the
properties of the current universe (see Quantum and Big Bang) using simple equations
to obtain:

m^2 = mp.me = mass of the current masino squared = 3.9034029282E-26 grams

β = h.C/G.m^2 = 1.9540860438E+42 gravitational parameter.

K = Boltzman constant = 1.3806485200E-16 ergs/kelvin

z = Wien law constant = 4.9651142317 no units

q = Electrostatic chargue unit = 4.8032045057E-10 Uec

r = q^2/m.C^2 classic masino radius

H = G.m^2/h.r "Hubble constant" in seconds^(-1)

H = universe frequency or Hubble constant = 2.3329189640E-18 cps

R = radius C / H of the universe = 1.2850530285E+28 cm

Vol = (4π/3).R^3 = 8.8889764932E+84 cm^3

1/H = period of the universe = 4.2864755074E+17 sec/cycle or actual epoch

ρ = H^2 / G.k density of the universe = 1.9474415090E-29 grm/cm^3 k = 4π / 3

M = C^3 / GH mass of the universe = 1.7310761796E+56 grams

E = M.C^2 = C^5/GH = energy of the universe = 1.5558136812E+77 ergs

A = H.C acceleration of the universe = 6.9939151054E-08 cm/sec^2

au = 4π.R^2 area of the universe = 2.0751617939E+57 cm^2

F = M. A = C^4/G. A force in the universe = 1.2106999841E+49 dyne

Pr = F/a = M.A / 4πR^2 = C^2.H^2/(4π.G) pressure of the universe = 5.8342438051E-09

dinas/cm^2

Pot = EH = C^5/G = F.C power of the universe = 3.6295872413E+59 ergs/sec (watts)

 0K
T = 2.m.C^2 /(β^(1/4) z.K) = microwave background temperature = 2.7375779106E+00

Note that only force and power are independent of epoch 1/H. Note that as with Planck
units, force and power depend only on C and G.

The first thing to keep in mind here is that if H is a variable, so are R, ρ, M, E, A. This, I
think, is relevant, because it takes away the idea of a universe with constant mass, and
not only that, it also tells us that this mass did not exist in the BB, but that it has been
growing as time goes by.

Now, I have expressed these previous equations only with the following constants: C, G.
H This last (H) is the only variable parameter whose inverse I call "the epoch".

I must add as a comment, the ignorance of some sages who see the details of the trees
and are lost in the forest in relation to the origin of the universe.

Paul Davies and John Gribbin in their book The Matter Myth which they say in chapter 5:

Where did all the antimatter go?

"In the beginning, there was energy and the energy created particles and anti-particles.
Due to the asymmetry discovered by Fitch and Cronin, however, for every billion
antiparticles that were created, there were 1 billion particles plus 1 particle. When the
Universe cooled down, all the anti-particles were annihilated with their corresponding
particles and left just an excess of "one part" in a billion unharmed particles. These
survivors were immersed in a sea of gamma radiation when the universe was young with
a billion or so gamma-ray photons for every particle of matter. As the universe later
expanded and cooled, this gamma radiation also cooled down to degenerate into normal
hot radiation. In fact, the famous cosmic radiation from the microwave background that
still fills the Universe today is a relic of that primitive gamma radiation."

The assumption of 1 single particle per billion photons states that 1 particle of every
billion photons is what constitutes the material universe.

Let's analyze what these gentlemen have said:

At first, there was energy. Where did this initial energy come from? They don't say:

- A billion anti-particles were annihilated with a billion particles plus 1 single particle it
was leftover.
- For each anti-particle particle, a gamma photon was created with an energy equal to the
sum of its energies.
- Therefore, there were one billion units of gamma photon energy and a single no
annihilated particle.
- If this energy of gamma rays is cosmic background radiation, then there must be in this
radiation a billion times the energy of each of the particles.
- If the above is true, then the energy density of the CMB must be one billion times higher
than the density of matter.
- The best estimates of the density of matter in the universe are 1e-29 grams/cm^3 and
my calculation is 1.9474415090E-29 grams/cm^3 or density of matter-energy
1.7502731415E-08 ergs/cm^3
- The radiation temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB has been
measured at about 2.73 degrees Kelvin and my calculation is 2.7375779106E+00 oK With
this temperature and the equation for energy density ρ = 8π^5. (KT)^4/15 h^3.C^3 is from
ρ = 4.2492902258E-13 ergs/cm^3

The ratio of mass energies/CMB is currently 4.1189776375E+04 or a little more than

41,000 times higher the energy of matter than that of the CMB which absolutely
contradicts what Davies and Gribbin expressed. In fact, according to what they say, this
relationship should be 1e-9 or what is the same 1e13 higher than the real.

- The idea put forward by them presupposes that the mass of the universe is constant,
but this is false for the following reason:

If the universe is expanding and its radius is proportional to its according to mass: R
=K.G.M/C^2 it is then evident that if the universe is expanding, its mass is growing.

Conclusion: Davies and Gribbin ARE WRONG the CMB did NOT have its origin in the
annihilation of the anti-particle particle, nor is the mass of the universal constant.

2.- THE PLANCK UNITS EXPRESSED WITH h IN THE PLACE OF ħ REDUCED.

In particular, I see no compelling reason why Planck used its "reduced" constant (ħ)
instead of the original (h).
So here I will calculate the Planck units using an h and with a change in the temperature
calculation, as you will see. This change in the calculation of the temperature is due to
the fact that in doing so the Wien´s law is used which establishes that the temperature of
the maximum emission is defined as T = b/λ being b the Wien constant equal to hC/zK
and not hC/K because the factor z defined as the solution to the equation (5 - z)e^z = 5
is missing and has a value of Z = 4.96511423174 in addition, for reasons that in this
occasion I am not going to explain I will transform the equation of temperature to T =
2.mp.C^2/(z.K.β^(1/4) being β at that time equal to the unit.

Then, the results of these changes will be like this:

Lp = h/µc = Gµ/c^2 = 4.0512107519E-33 cm
µ = (h c/ G)^(1/2) = 5.4556996321e-5 grams
λp = h/ µ C = (h G/ c^3 )^(1/2) = 4.0512107519 e-33 cm
fp = c/ λ p = (c^5 / h G)^(1/2) = 7.4000706545 e+42 cps
tp = 1/ fp = (h G/ c^5 )^(1/2) = 1.3513384489E-43sec
ep = h fp = (h c^5/ G)^(/2) = 4.9033382980E+16 erg
Tp = (2.h.C^5/G.z^2.K^2)^(1/2) = 1.430784070779E+32 OK

Planck units can be deducted from 2 different methods:

(a) by means of dimensional analysis.
b) By means of the gravitational parameter β = h.C/G.m^2 = 1
In this second case, the unit calculations are simplified by taking the following
consideration:
"to make the wavelength of Planck's mass equal to the gravitational radius of that mass,
that is:
h/μ.C = G.μ/C^2
Which effectively results in μ^2 = h.C/G which is the mass of Planck.

or h = μ^2.G/C

Once this is done, ALL unit calculations are as they are known (except for using "h"
instead of "ħ" reduced, but with the use of frequency in cps, instead of rad/sec.

I use the same equations (except the Planck time) with h. and for density effects and to
compare I will use λp on particles and Rp for the universe at that time. With constant r
r = q^2/m.C^2 = 6.5762356402E-15 cm

q = 4.8032045057E-10 uec current electrical chargue

m = (mp . me)^(1/2) = 3.9034029282E-26 grams masino

For the case when β = 1

µ = (h . C / G)^(1/2) = 5.4565133867979E-05 gm Planck mass

λp = (h. G /C^3 )^(1/2) = h/µ. C = 4.0506068636427E-33 cm Planck wavelength

volp = k.(h.G/C^3)^(3/2) = 6.6459991695E-98 cm^3 volume of Planck

frecp = C / Lp = (C^5 / h. G)^(1/2) = 7.4011739004066E+42 cps Planck frequency

1 / fp = (h G / C^5 )^ (1/2) = G.μ/C^3 = 1.3511370134744E-43 period (inverse of fp)

ρp = μ/kλ^3 = (C^5/(k.h.G^2) = 7.4362124442E+55 gr/cm^3 Planck density

ep = h. fp = (h.C^5 / G)^(1/2) = 4.904069664231E+16 ergs Planck energy

ap = C^2/λp = (C^7/h.G)^(1/2) = 2.2188161159E+53 cm/sec^2 Planck acceleration

areap = 4π.λ^2 = 4π.(hG/C^3) = 2.0618166978E-64 cm^2 Planck area

Fp = C^4/G = 1.2106999841E+49 Planck force in dinas

pp = Fp/ap = C^7/(4π.G^2.h) = 5.8720059130E+112 dinas/cm^2 Planck pressure

potp = C^5/G = 3.6295872413E+59 ergs/sec Planck power

Tp = 2. μ.C^2/(z.Kβ^(1/4) = 2.(h.C^5 / G)^(1/2)/zK = 1.4307845774E+32 oK cosmic

microwave background temperature at the time of Planck.

This temperature is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background at that time
when β = 1
These are the properties of the particle μ, not those of the universe at the time of Planck
and that particularly only in this case for being β = 1 is also the temperature of Planck,
that is to say, that it is the temperature that would be generated releasing the energy of 2
masses of Planck. The temperature of the cosmic microwave background and the
temperature of the disintegration of two Planck masses coincide at the time of Planck.

On the other hand, the mass of Planck is NOT a mass as such, but like the masino is the
result of the product mass of the proton by electron mass at that time, as seen in the
equation of the gravitational parameter where m^2 = mp.me and in the case of Planck
units as they are derived from the same parameter μ^2 = mp.me of Planck.

Then, perhaps without knowing it, the Planck units refer to an operational mass (masino)
in the conditions of a black hole when β = 1 because the radius of the Planck black hole
is

rp = G.Mμ/C^2 = q^2/m.C^2 = 6.5762356402E-15 cm.

Being q the current unit of electric charge and m the mass of the masino.

3.- THE ACTION PARAMETER:

The action parameter is a variable that replacing the Planck constant h is used to
calculate in any mass "mw the same values that are calculated with the equations of
Plank units.

The properties of the universe at the time of Planck are defined by defining wp or the
action parameter for the universe at the time of Planck. This is it:

The radius of the universe at the time of Planck is Rp = 6.5762356402E-15 cm so the

mass of the universe at the time of Planck is:

Mp = Rp.C^2/G = 8.8587510518E+13 grams

then wp = G.Mp/C^2 = 1.7465079495E+10

Mp = (wp . C / G)^(1/2) = 8.8587510518E+13

Hp = (C^5 / wp. G)^(1/2) = 4.5587243889E+24

ρp = (C^5/(k.w.G^2) = 7.4362124442E+55

Ep = (wp.C^5 / G)^(1/2) = 7.96185E+34 ergs

We must then distinguish two w, one for the masinos in each epoch and another for the
universe in each epoch.

In Planck's time :

wp = 1.7465079495E+10 is used for the universe

h = 6.6260700400E-27 for particles

The ratio w/h for the universe is always equal to the number of gravitons at any time

The reason w/h for masinos is always the same as the inverse of β (1/β) at any time.

Let's see:

The length of Planck expressed as:

λp^2 = h.G/C^3 (3-1)

It can be transformed like this: μ^2 = h.C/G, h = μ^2.G/C that when replacing it in the
wavelength λp. we get λp = G. μ/C^2 is to say that that wavelength of Planck is, in reality,
the gravitational radius of the mass of Planck μ. (as if the mass of Planck μ were a black
hole)

So, in this case, the wavelength is equal to the gravitational radius, which does not
happen in other ordinary cases of particle size.

For example, in the case of masino, whose mass is 3.9034029282E-26 grams, the
wavelength is 5.6622877481E-12 cm and the gravitational radius r = 2.8976655179E-54
cm. This radius is the wavelength of the current masino if the corresponding action
parameter is used, that is:

h = μ^2.G/C w = m^2.G/C = 3.39087936E-69

λp^2 = (h. G /C^3)^(1/2) r = (w.G/C^3)^(1/2) = 2.8976655179E-54

λp = h/ µ C r = w/m.C = 2.8976655179E-54

As can be seen, this wavelength is the same as the gravitational radius r

From this previous equations, can be used in a similar way to describe the properties of
the present universe whenever:

R^2 = C^2 / H^2 = w.G /C^3 being now "w" a parameter that can be calculated as:

w = (C^5 / H^2.G) = 6.6689572384E+94 ergs-seg.

H = (C^5 /G.w)^(1/2) = 2.3329189640E-18 sec^(-1)

Note that this last equation has the same shape as Planck's mass, except that "w"
replaces "h".

Using a "w" in the Planck unit equations, we find that for the universe:

βw = w.C/G.m^2

w = (C^5 / Hu^2.G) = 6.6689572384E+94 ergs-seg.

R = length C/Hu = (w.G / C^3)^(1/2) = 1.2850530285E+28 cm

Hu = C/R = (C^5/w.G)^(1/2) = 2.3329189640E-18 cps

1/Hu = (w.G/C^5)^(1/2) = 4.2864755074E+17 sec/cycle

ρ = (C^5/(k.w.G^2) = 1.9474415090E-29 gm/cm^3

M = (w. C / G)^(1/2) = 1.7310761796E+56 gm

E = (w.C^5 / G)^(1/2) = w.H = 1.55581368E+77 ergs

A = (C^7/ w.G)^(1/2) = 6.9939151054E-08 cm/sec^2

a = (4π.w.G/C^3) = 2.0751617939E+57 cm^2

F = C^4/G = 1.2106999841E+49 dyne

P = F/a = C^7/(4π.G^2.w) = 5.8342438051E- 09 dinas/cm^2

Pot = C^5/G = 3.6295872413E+59 ergs/sec (watts)

T = 2.(w.C^5 / G)^(1/2)/zK = 4.5391570115E+92 oK

This last temperature is NOT the CMB temperature, it is the temperature corresponding
to ALL the energy of the universe. T = 2.M.C^2/zK

As shown, all properties of the current universe are derived from the same equations of
Planck units but using "w" instead of "h". This is what I meant when I spoke of symmetry
of the Planck constant. But as it is a multiple of Planck's constant, the position
uncertainty of the universe would be very small.

The uncertainty principle applied to the universe would be:

Despising the 1/4π

ΔE.Δψ = h
C = Δx/ Δψ
ΔE.Δx = h.C
Δx = h/M.C = 1.2767890193E-93 cm
that is, the Universe is almost totally localizable.
Now, if we replace h with w for the universe we'll have to:
Δx = w/M.C = 1.2850530285E+28 cm
that comes to be the radius of the universe. and the uncertainty of time Δψ would be :
Δψ = Δx/C = 1/H where H is the Hubble parameter.

And the age of the Universe would be defined by the uncertainty of Δψ, In other words,
this action parameter is the resource of the universe for its energy and size.
If the action parameter or the Planck constant caused a zero energy uncertainty for the
universe, the universe would exist eternally. In other words, NO existence is eternal and
what exists is NOT eternal.

ΔE.Δψ = w

ΔE = 0

With infinite duration Δψ = w /0 =

This would mean that if the existence of the universe is absolutely constant or an
uncertainty absolutely zero Δψ = , Δe = 0 its duration would be eternal, but IT WOULD
NOT EXIST, but since it exists, then it has energy and it has dimensions and it must have
an end.

It would also mean (and I say this for my own explanation) that the energy of the universe
varies between almost zero and a maximum that would be the uncertainty of the energy
of the universe. This way of looking at it would not really mean an uncertainty, but a
process of variation between zero and a maximum applied to anything that behaves
similar to the uncertainty principle. This happens as we know, in alternate variations (like
a sine wave) and that is why small particles behave like waves or like particles, but in
reality, they are always waves that when their gravitational radius (and of course their
normal size) exceeds in size their wavelengths look like particles and when it does not
behave like a wave.
And all this without resorting to the speed (impulse) of the particle, except at C the speed
of light.

The action parameter in general.

a) It should be noted that as "w" depends on the frequency, "w" is not constant for all
masses as "h". For those cases where h >w and knowing this, we can determine the
time when w = h so:

Knowing by (2.0) with:

w = h = (C^5 / F^2.G) and calculate F from here and the time accordingly, then:

F^2 = C^5 / h.G, which is precisely the Planck frequency (in cps)

T^2 = h.G / C^5, = 1.3511370133E-43 sec. which is the misnamed "time" of Planck
(which is not time, but a period the inverse of the frequency of Planck)

By the way, the "Planck time" in real time was 2.1935962439E-25 seconds obtained by
using the Planck mass as the mass, and leaving h, r and G unchanged. Remember that t
=1/H

a) To know the factor equivalent to "h" (i.e. w) in any time (for example in the true Planck
time) we proceed with any of the following equations

w = (C^5/G)ψ^2 = C^3. r^2/G = G.m^2/C (3.2)

r^2 = (w.G/C^3)

wp = rp^2*C^3/G = 1.7465079495E+10

For any particle with mass the frequency reciprocal of that particle must be used
(understood as the time necessary for light to pass through the gravitational radius). At
the time of Plank this was 1/fp = 1.3511370133E-43 then:

wp = (C^5/G). (1.3511370133E-43)^2 = 6.6260700400E-27 = h the Planck constant

Which was to be expected.

b) For the present time, when the time ψ is 1/H we will have:

w = 6.6689572384E+94

Mu = (wu.C/G)^(1/2) = 1.73107618E+56 grams

All w have the same units as the Planck erg-sec constant.

c) What about the current masino? What is the w that defines it?

m = 3.9034029282E-26 grams actual mass

rg = G.m/C^2 = 1.2767890193E-93
its "wavelength" would be :

λ =1.2850530285E+28

ψ = G.m/C^3 = 9.6655717666E-65 sec.

w = G.m^2/C = 3.3908793633E-69

w = (C^5/G).ψ^2 = 3.3908793633E-69

d) And Graviton? whose mass is mg = 1.7199438533E-65 grams current mass

ψ = G.mg/C^3 = 4.2589097397E-104 sec.

w = G.mg^2/C = 6.5834586436E-148
w = (C^5/G).ψg^2 = 6.5834586436E-148
w/h = 9.9356912979E-122 which curiously equals the reciprocal of the number of
gravitons today.
e) For photons:
mf = h.fo/C^2 ff = C^3/G.mf ff = C^5/G.h.fo h.fo = C^5/G/ff
fo = C^5/G.h.ff = fp^2/ff
ff = fp^2/fo
rf = G.mf/C^2 = C/ff
ff = C^3/G.mf
ff .C^2 = C^5/G.mf
C^5/G = ff.C^2.mf
C^5/(G.ff^2) = C^2.mf/ff
wf = C^2.mf/ff = h.fo/ff = h.fp^2/ff^2
fp^2/ff = (C^5/h.G)/(C^3/G.mf) = G.mf.C^5/h.G.C^3 = mf.C^2/h = fo/ff
wf = h.fo/ff
wf.ff = h.fo = mf.C^2 = Ef

4.- LET'S CALCULATE THE PROPERTIES OF THE UNIVERSE AT THE TIME ΨP OF

PLANCK:

Let's calculate the properties of the universe at the time of Planck ψp:
Rp = (wp. G /C^3 )^(1/2) = 6.57623564E-15 cm which is the radius of the (gravitational)
universe at the time of Planck. If we continue like this and use the Planck equations with
"wp" instead of "h", we get among others:

Rp^2 = wup.G/C^3

wup = Rp^2.C^3/ G = 1.7465079495E+10

Mp = (wup.C/G)^(1/2) = 8.85875105E+13 grams

ρp = 7.4362124442E+55 grams/cm^3

Pp = 2.22777815E+76

etc, etc.

We see that it is possible to describe the properties of the universe and of particles with
mass at any time with the same equations as those called "Planck units" but with a
parameter "w" with the same characteristics as the Planck constant but which depends
on the "time" of the universe or of the particle as long as this "time" is defined as a
function of the gravitational radius either of the particle or of the universe. This "time"
should NOT be identified with the epoch of the universe alone, but as the time it takes
light to travel a distance equal to its gravitational radius.

For the case of the universe, as this has a radius equal to its gravitational radius, the
frequency is equal to the time.

I have identified this parameter as w and it takes exactly the value of "h" in the "time" (or
the inverse of the Planck frequency).

What still needs to be explained is because in the case of "h" it continues to be constant.

From this, we can conclude that the mass of Planck is a particle or a photon whose mass
and energy is the energy of Planck or a transition between being a photon and having
mass at rest.

note: β = h.C/G.m^2

In fact, I can generalize the equation for the gravitational parameter β as:

βx = h.C/(G.mx^2) = (μ/mx)^2 (4.1)

Where mx is any mass of any size. For example, for the Mu mass of the universe βx =
h.C/G/mx^2 = h/wx for the universe would be βu = h.C/G.Mu^2 = 9.93569130E-122 and
consequently wx = 1/β x for ALL cases. For example for the mass of Planck:

βx = h/wx

h = βx.wx

h = (h.C/Gμ^2).wx

h.C/G.μ^2 = 1

wx = h
5.- The gravity force parameter.
Now let us enter into the gravitational energy between a proton and an electron at the
same distance "r" from the previous point in order to compare the magnitudes of the
electric force against the gravitational force. This will be defined by:
Eg = G (m+) x (m-) / r = G m^2/ r

Where m^2 = (m+) x (m-) or m^2 = mp x me (5.1)

And if Eg = F x h where F is the gravitational frequency then:

F = G m^2 / h r (5.2)

It should be noted that in this system of units G the gravitational constant is not unitary.
As in the case of the electric charge, the Compton wavelength is the same because it
depends on the mass in both cases, but what I call here the gravitational force parameter
has another value that is:
β+ = h.C/ Gmp^2 and β- = h.C/ Gme^2 that takes us when multiplying them between
if a:

β = hc/ Gm^2 (5.3)

Let us suppose that we have to accept a priori the basic ideas of Big Bang and take for
granted that in the remote past the fundamental forces were unified. Given that the
difference between the magnitudes of these is very large today, (as we have seen
between β and @), we must conclude that, in the past and because of this unification, the
magnitudes of the parameters were smaller than today. That is to say for example that β
would tend to be equal to @.
For me, it is evident that if there was in the past some unification of the forces, it is
forced that β must have been smaller in the past and as this depends on h, C, G and m. I
have to conclude that some of them are not constant. Since I have taken h, C and G as
really constant since they are only relationship factors and not intrinsic properties, I take
"m" as a variable with time.
Let's take then precisely that there was a time when β1 = 1 and by the definition of β we
came to that :
G m1^2 = hc
Where m1 is the mass of the masino when β = 1
Well, then:
m1 = (hc/ G)^(1/2) = µ (the Planck mass) (5.4)
That is to say that the mass of Planck results from β = 1 and that it comes from the value
of the masino, moreover, it was the masino at that time.
I have to note, that although μ or m1 is the square root of (hc/G), this does NOT
necessarily mean that there is a negative μ as there is no negative m mass derived from
the product mp x me and that in reality μ^2 = μ+ X μ- although I could infer that μ^2 is the
product of the masses of the proton and electron at that time.

Note that except for the use of h instead of ħ, µ = m1 is equal to the value of the Planck
mass but in other systems of units. The same applies to the other Planck units in Tables
1 and 2 as long as the cgs unit system is used.
We see with this how we can obtain the values of the Planck units without resorting to
making the 5 units used by him. And since µ^2 = hc/G = βm^2 then:
µ = β^(1/2)x m (5.5)

With this in mind, Planck unit data is easily deduced by simply replacing ħ with h.

I repeat: µ is the mass of the masino with the current value of m = (mp * me)^(1/2)
because of β1 = 1
lp is the Compton wavelength of µ
fp is the Compton frequency of µ
ep is the energy of µ
etc, etc.

Here it is important to note that the Planck time (as defined by others) is NOT a time, it is
NOT an epoch, it is just the reciprocal of the Compton frequency of the Planck mass.

I say then, that the mass of the masino is NOT constant. It has decreased from µ in the
Planck era (even before) to "m" today. Consequently, the masses of the electron and
proton are not constant either.

One of the consequences of the values obtained for the length of Planck is that it
acquires the same value with different forms of calculation. Evident by themselves and
all these values were derived from β = 1 and with Compton definitions.

It is also relevant, that as well as the values of mass, frequency, length, etc. were
obtained from Planck, in the same way, the values for the charges are obtained making in
this case a
@=1

6.- The principle of uncertainty or relation of indetermination.

It is not my intention to make a historical exposition on this well-known principle.

However, if I am going to try to understand it by means of questions and possible
answers. This principle is expressed by some equivalent equations:

Δx.Δp ≥ ħ/2 (6.1) ΔE.Δt ≥ ħ/2 (6.2)

Δx ≥ ħ/2mΔv (6.3) ΔE ≥ ħ/2Δt (6.4)

Δx is the uncertainty of position

Δp is the uncertainty of the impulse or amount of motion p = m.v

Δ E is the uncertainty of energy

Δt is the uncertainty of time

ħ is the reduced Planck constant

How should we understand these uncertainties?

If you know exactly where the object is, Δx = 0, Δp = ∞
If you are exactly your speed Δp = 0 , Δx = ∞
If you know exactly your energy ΔE = 0 , Δt = ∞
If you know exactly the duration of the event, Δt = 0 ΔE = ∞
In a very general way, the principle tells us that it is not possible to know simultaneously
the position and the impulse of a particle because if we know exactly the impulse of a
particle, there is an uncertainty of its position Δx ≥ ħ/2Δp that is to say that the particle
can be in any position within the range of the uncertainty Δx.

The second equation, is stranger because put in the form Δt ≥ ħ/2ΔE that implies the
possible existence of any exact level of energy as long as this disappears in a time not
greater than Δt.

In neither case is a measurement problem, this relationship marks the impossibility of

knowing both parameters simultaneously not because of the lack of precision of the
measurement but because it is a property of matter. If the velocity of the particle is
known exactly, its position is absolutely indeterminate as if it were randomly anywhere
within the range Δx. As I said, the second form is even stranger, because it involves the
spontaneous creation of energy of any size, as long as this energy disappears before the
end of Δt. Of course, this is a simplified form of the principle in which I have not taken
into account a coordinate system or the consequences of special relativity. At first, when
I started to think about this, the first form of the equation seemed obvious to me because
if you apply an impulse to a microparticle, for example, by the blow of a photon, this
particle can be calculated exactly the impulse applied but we have some degree of
uncertainty as to where it went. Why? I don't know, but it occurs to me that the photon
itself by its wave nature can drive it from many, many different places and consequently
the particle jump is unpredictable. In fact, if the microparticles in turn have wave
properties, the result would be the same, i.e. indeterminate if the impulse receives it from
another particle. This should mean that any particle where its wave properties
predominate over its particle properties will behave randomly.

The main doubt that has arisen for me results from the assumption of a particle at rest.
For example, if an electron is retained at rest, its uncertainty of position is infinite and
this cannot be, because if I manage to keep it at rest, I know exactly where it is
contradicting the principle. The answer I found is that an electron can NOT be at rest,
even if I can contain it in a box with dimensions Δx^3 the electron must have speed in
there greater than or equal to Δv ≥ ħ/2m.Δx. But if I do the same with a baseball inside a
box with sides Δx equal to the diameter of the ball then it will be perfectly at rest inside
the box and at the same time, we will have a zero uncertainty of its speed. it is with a
perfectly defined position.

Why isn't the uncertainty of position for a resting baseball infinite?

To begin with, no uncertainty can be infinite because there is NO infinity. The farthest
position cannot be greater than the radius of the universe, therefore nothing can be
absolutely at rest. In this and in any case, there is a minimum speed for all the things it
would be:

Vmin = ħ/(2π.M.R) = 2.3703E-112 cm/sec

In truth and leaving aside the factor ħ/2 the equation (6.2) seems to me quite evident for
the following macroscopic reason:

If we shoot a low-velocity bullet at a target, it has little chance of hitting the center, as
there are external factors that can divert it from its trajectory: gravity, wind, and so on.
But as the velocity of the bullet increases, these factors that can alter its trajectory
become less important, since the negative impulse that could provide it, does not affect
the great impulse with which the bullet moves. I would have here an equation similar to
the uncertainty principle for bullets:

Δx 1/Δp Δx = K/Δp

It should be noted, I think, that the equations do not refer to the intrinsic properties of
particles, they do not refer to their velocity or their position, but to the change of these
when there is an external agent that modifies their velocity or position. I think that's why
the notation Δ is used regularly to denote changes. This NO quantum equation tells us
that if we increase the bullet's momentum "p" the position with respect to the target will
be closer than when Δp is small. So the uncertainty of hitting the target is smaller with a
big "p" than with a small "p".

Another interesting consideration is the similarity of equation (6.3) to the de Broglie

equation:

λ = h/mv except for factor 1/4π .

In fact, I think De Broglie came directly from Einstein's equation of the photoelectric
effect in the following way:

e = h.f

m.C^2 = h.C/λ

m.C = h/λ which is the equation of the Compton wavelength

From there, De Broglie easily jumped to the fact that if a body does not move at the
speed of light but at a speed "v" the Compton equation is easily transformed to:

λ = h/m.v

of course, if the speed of m increases at Δv, the De Broglie wavelength changes to:

Δλ = h/m.Δv

Being, in this case, the meaning of Δλ the decrease of the wavelength of "m" and if the
wavelength of De Broglie means the range of place where the particle can be, then it is
uncertain in which place of that Δλ is the particle that is almost the beginning of
uncertainty.

mΔv = h/Δλ
mΔv = 2πħ/Δλ

mΔv = ħ/(λ/2π)mΔv = 2πħ/Δλ

mΔv = ħ/(λ/2π)

as mΔv = ħ/2Δx

I deduce that:

λ = 4π.Δx = 2π.r

Δx = r/2

What would this mean? Let's see the next figure:

What I've identified as uncertainty ΔX is half the radius of the De Broglie wave.

7.- CONCLUSION.

It is clear that this parameter I have called w is the product or by-product of the Planck
constant by a factor without units. For example, in the case of the universe, the factor is
deduced from the following expression:

wu = M^2.G/C = 6.66895724E+94 ergs-second

The factor in this case is fac = 6.66895724E+94/6.6260700400E-27 = 1.00647249E+121 =

mg/Mu
Which is the number of gravitons in the universe.

As the uncertainty of energy for the universe is ΔE.Δψ ≥ wu we would have to :

wu = G. M^2/C

and ΔE = wu/Δψ = wu.Hu = G.M^2.Hu /C = G.M^2/Ru = M.C^2 so Ru = G.M/C^2

The idea is the same as for mass particles. But with massive particles, wu should be
used as if it were another constant whose similarity with h is only of magnitude, as a
multiple of the quantum of action.
If we see the attached table of the development of the universe with time, it turns out that
this Fc is equal to the reciprocal of the number of gravitons in the universe for any other
time.

If we now do the same for smaller particles, for example, the proton we have that its wp
is:

wp = mp^2.G/C = 6.2261722093E-66

The factor is: 6.2261722093E-66/ 6.6260700400E-27/= 9.39647811E-40

in this case, the result is similar, that is to say:

ΔE.Δψ ≥ wp

and ΔE = wp/Δψ = wp.Hp = G.mp^2.Hp /C = G.mp^2/Rp = mp.C^2

because Rp = G.mp/C^2

Of course, the radius that is quoted from the proton is NOT the wavelength of the proton
as the radius

rp = G.mp/C^2 = 1.2416598766E-52 cm and the wavelength is:

λp = h/mp.C = 1.3214098537E-13 cm and if we divide rp/λp = 9.3964781110E-40 that is

the factor for the proton.

This means that the equations work with this action parameter, as long as the radius of
the particle is the gravitational radius.
But, there's a clarification here. If we calculate the wavelength of the proton, not with h
but with wp, it turns out that the relationship λp/rp = 1.83615267E+03 which is the
electrical parameter α = 2π/α' where α' is the fine structure constant. Which brings us
back to the similarity between the use of wp and that of h.
If we repeat the process for all cases, we realize that the factor (fac) is always equal to
1/β which in fact by definition of the gravitational force is β = h.C/G.m^2 as I proposed
earlier but in this case, the mass used is that of the body from which we want to calculate
its w or factor.
A procedure to calculate the factor fac. in function of the number of gravitons would be
only for the universe and from the moment in which the mass of the universe was greater
than the mass of Planck thing that happened in an epoch that in effect was equal to the
"epoch of Planck" that is to say 1.3511370133E-43 seconds since from that moment the
parameter of action w is equal or greater than the constant of Planck.
But for fundamental particles it is not enough to calculate it as M/mg, because in charged
particles another element must appear so that the factor is m.α /mg intervening the
electrical parameter α = h.C/q^2 from the moment in which the mass of the particles was
smaller than the mass of Planck μ because before that moment, the factor was still 1/β
but NOT m/mg as in the case of massive objects and was greater or equal than 1, that is
to say, that the parameter was equal to the Planck constant and this happened from β = 1
or at the time of Planck.
 ψp = 2.1935960911E-25 sec.

So both for the Planck mass and for the Universe, when m = μ is the inflection point
between particles and waves, because I consider feasible some parameters greater or
equal to the Planck constant for both cases, but never that these parameters are smaller
than the unit.
I am proposing that in order to use the equations of the Planck units in bodies whose
mass is m ≥ μ the Planck constant must be replaced by the Planck parameters according
to the previous equations. I DO NOT want to say that the Planck constant is variable,
what I am saying is that there are parameters (many) that ALL are multiples of "h". Before
that EVERYTHING was radiation from the cosmic microwave background. From that
moment on, massive particles began to exist, although with decreasing mass. It is not far
from reality that Planck's mass is the largest mass an individual particle can have.

Regarding the particle-wave relationship, we see that particles whose Broglie

wavelength is shorter than their gravitational radius will never have interference
properties and the separation limit between manifesting as a wave or as particles
is the Planck mass.
- The smallest possible λ = h/MC = 1.2767890193E-93
- Largest possible f = C/λ = 2.3480187680E+103
- Smallest possible time ψ = 1/f = 4.2589097397E-104
- Largest possible energy e = h.f = 1.5558136812E+77
- Largest possible mass M = e/C^2 = 1.7310761796E+56
- Largest possible gravitational radius R = G.M/C^2 = 1.2850530285E+28
- Largest possible λ = R = 1.2850530285E+28
- The smallest possible f = C/R = 2.3329189640E-18
- Longest possible time ψ = 1/f = 4.2864755074E+17
- The smallest possible energy e = h.f = 1.5458084453E-44
- The smallest possible mass m = e/C^2 = 1.7199438533E-65
- The smallest possible gravitational radius r = G.m/C^2 = 1.2767890193E-93

End

View publication stats