On 8 Nov 2003 at 20:35, Brent Meeker wrote:

> A balloon model neglects inhomogeneties that allow gravity to 
> locally.

> at short range the weak, electromagnetic, and
> strong force dominate.

> Of course almost anything is possible at the Planck scale.  What 
> are proposing are effects of Einsteinian gravity, including a
> cosmological 'constant', at the level of strings or whatever the 
> fundamental particles are.  But current theories would say that the
> cosmological constant can't pull apart things that are more 
> bound than some threshold.  Since it never starts to pull them 
> its negative pressure on them never increases and they remain bound 
> the other forces.
> Brent Meeker

Well stated, Brent!

I would be forced to agree, but there might be an omission in that 
very strong counter argument. There was a peer reviewed article 
published many years ago (I think in Scientific American magazine) 
that basically said that given enough time EVERY particle will 
spontaneously emit energy until, eventually, there is no energy left 
to emit. If I remember correctly that argument was making claim that 
not only radioactive particles are unstable, and that all particles 
with no exception follow the same emission rules but that some are 
just almost unimaginably unlikely to do so but that they will do so. 
The point being that in some near infinite but still within a finite 
time every particle in the universe will have evaporated, so to 
speak. Since having read that article I've never seen a disapproval 
of the hypothesis presented in that article. Perhaps I've missed a 
peer reviewed disapproval of the premise.

But the question in my mind at the time I read that article was: why 
would a particle considered to be stable eventually decay to a point 
of complete self destruction? I now believe that the answer to that 
question is localized inflation of space/time being expressed at the 
subatomic level. Although the nuclear binding forces are so very 
strong that the consequences are that inflation is very drastically 
slowed relative to a particle, inflation itself is a factor of 
space/time and not of matter but matter does exert a resistive effect 
against inflation. But only a resistive effect, however large that 
might be, and not a total inhibiting effect. Over time, inflation 
marches on regardless.

It seems to me that it is true that one reason behind a decay of any 
particle (radioactive or not) is because of inflation rather than 
because of fuzzy quantum chance. The argument I put forth is that any 
atomic arrangement is actually 100% stable until it is acted upon by 
an external force, which does include inflation but could also 
include interaction with other energy sources. Barring any 
possibility of interaction, eventually inflation will lead to decay 
and be expressed by way of spontanious emmision of energy. Inflation 
is a component of space and time, it is not granular (it is smooth) 
and is not itself subject to Planck's constant. The constant is a 
measure of the smallest size of an energy packet at the quantum 
level, something like 6.26 x 10^-34 J-sec, and it is the only reason 
why the affect upon matter by inflation occurs in discrete levels of 
energy instead of linearly. 

It is the very drastic localized slowing (but not the entire 
elimination) of inflation that makes it appear that inflation is not 
occuring at a subatomic level because of some binding force such as 
gravity or [insert choice here]. But inflation is still occuring 
regardless, and at some finite point in time it gets expressed in 
Planck terms.

Ron McFarland

Reply via email to