UP h01

 

 

Looking around in the world, from the microscopic to the macroscopic we observe that:

-         it exists an alternation of central (atomic) and amorphous(molecular) structures

-         at some orders of magnitude we find well-defined structures, systems with approximately the same dimension, weight, etc.

 

Some approximately average date in the following table.

 

Structure

 

Diameter (cm)

Mass (g)

Density (g/cm3)

The hard core of the nucleon

 

0,2.10-13

 

 

Pion cloud

 

 

 

 

Nucleon

 

1,5.10-13

1,7.10-24

5,0.1014

Nucleus

 

5,0.10-13

2,7.10-23

5,0.1014

Electron

 

2,8.10-13

9,0.10-28

8,0.1010

Atom

 

1,0.10- 8

2,7.10-23

2,7.101

Molecule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big molecule

 

~ 10-4

 

 

Live organism

 

~ 104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planet

 

2,5.109

1,1.1027

2,5

Star

 

6,2.1011

1,0.1034

1,8

Solar system

 

~ 1014

 

 

Star clusters

 

7,0.1018

2,0.1037

6,0.10-20

Galaxy

10 kpc

6,6.1021

1,3.1044

5,0.10-22

Galactic clusters

500 kpc

 

 

 

super clusters

10 Mpc

2,3.1024

1,8.1048

2,8.10-25

Einstein’s universe

10,000 Mpc

~ 1029

~ 1057

~ 10-30

 

This preferred values looks like some bound states in a negative “metapotential”. How looks the corresponding differential equation?

 

 

Interaction type

Strength

strong

1

Electromagnetic

10-2

Weak

10-5

gravitational

10-40

 

The above table suggest that going up on the scale of the order of magnitudes we probably find an “ultra”-weak interaction and so on.

 

 

But let thinking simpler. Suppose that the Universe is something self-optimizing. The first thing what it must do is an inventory of itself and the first step is to measure the dimension of the whole. Now a simple model. Suppose we have to measure the length  of a very long cord, with very high precision. At our  disposal is a small cord, the unit and a third piece of  cord, as long as we won’t. The first method is to compare the etalon with the very long cord, how many times is in it. A better method is to cut a part from the third piece, and measure it with the etalon. This freshly measured piece can be an intermediate etalon, with which we can measure the gross part of the long cord and after measure the rest with the original small etalon. The number of comparisons is the sum of the number of comparisons creating the intermediate etalon, the number of comparisons with the intermediate etalon and the number of comparisons of remaining part with the original, small etalon. This number is substantially less than in the first measurement. We can continue recursively the process, creating a hierarchy of intermediate etalons and using all them. Much more even the measurement of the intermediate etalons can be optimized. There must be an optimum number of etalons with optimal lengths.

            Tuning from the length of the “very long” cord and from the parameters of the measuring procedure we can identify the dimension of our sensed universe and some details of its structure along the micro-macro axe.