|
|
Why Hydrogen?
Why do we see hydrogen and not something else? In order to see, in
time and space, that which is not in time and space (and cannot,
therefore, be changing, finite or divided), there is a problem. The problem arises because the nature of that underlying existence, its changelessness, its infinitude and its undividedness, must show through in the apparition much as, when a rope is mistaken for a snake, the length of the rope, through what is called the revealing power of the apparition, must show through in the snake for which it is mistaken. Therefore, if the underlying existence were to be seen as only a duality, there would be nothing to prevent the undividedness from showing through the revealing power of the apparition and bringing the two together. Similarly, if the underlying existence were to be seen as only a plurality, there would be nothing to prevent the undividedness from showing through and bringing the many together. But if the underlying existence were to be seen as a duality within a plurality, then the duality could prevent the collapse of the plurality, and the plurality could prevent the collapse of the duality, because the one cannot be seen without the other. What we see in this Universe is an electrical duality within a gravitational plurality, and the undividedness of the underlying existence shows through in the duality as the electrical attraction between the electrons and the protons, and it shows through in the plurality as gravity. But the demise of the duality is prevented by the gravitational dissimilarity between the electrons and the protons. That's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And the demise of the plurality is prevented by the spin duality of the protons and the neutrons. That's Pauli's Verbot. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not prevent the demise of the duality of the electron and the positron (a positive electron) because gravity is
not involved in the rest energy of the positron. But it does prevent
the collapse of the duality of the electron and the proton, in spite
of the enormous electrical attraction between them, because the proton's
mass is gravitationally determined whereas the electron's mass is
not As Richard Feynman has pointed out, "The electron is purely
electrical, the proton is not." Energy is that underlying existence showing in space and time through the revealing power of the apparition. It shows through in space as the gravitational and electrical energies — energies of position in space. And it shows through in time as inertia. But, as Swami Vivekananda pointed out to Nikola Testa in1896, these are all the same thing. That's why E = m, and why the gravitational field is so much weaker than the electrical field. The total electrical energy must equal the total gravitational energy, and the total mass. Ernst Mach didn't see it quite this way. He didn't notice that the mass is the energy. But there is still a question: Why should
the proton spin? Although the underlying existence which we mistake
for what we see in time and space is changeless, infinite and undivided,
we see it as changing, finite and divided, or it wouldn't be a mistake.
We see a Universe of hydrogen divided into atoms, but the atoms are
spaced out, and the undivided shows through as gravitational energy.
We see the hydrogen as made of minuscule particles, but the infinitude shows
through as their electrical energy. And we see the protons and electrons as
changing (spinning) and the changelessness shows through as their inertia. In order to be seen in time, they have to be changing. Nothing we see in time and space is changeless, infinite or undivided. In this Universe we see pairs of opposites, spin-up against spin-down, momentum to the right against momentum to the left, and plus against minus, but the total spin goes to zero, the total momentum goes to zero, the total force goes to zero, and the total electrical charge goes to zero. The Universe is not made of these things; it's made out of energy, and the total energy does not go to zero. If the total energy went to zero, the Universe would be made out of nothing; there wouldn't be an underlying existence, and we wouldn't have the physics which we have. Is all this just a guess? If seeing, in time and space, that which is not in time and space is a mistake, it's consoling to know that it will take the form of hydrogen falling together by gravity to galaxies and stars. John L. Dobson, February, 2002 4135 Judah St. San Francisco, CA, 94122 (415) 665-4054
|
