Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Key Words
Apex hypothesis -- Cer and nocer-- Definitions -- Nozerinf hypothesis -- Vacuum -- Zero and
infinity
Abbreviations
Cer Cerebration
Nocer Noncerebration
Massen Mass + Energy
Nozerinf Non existence of zero and infinity in nocer
Indivison Last indivisible unit of spacetime and/or massen
Ak Accumulation
Dk De-accumulation
K Accumulation apex
D Accumulation apex for massenic density
Vitae
Gonzalo A. Ordóñez is an Ecuadorian-American engineer.
Aristotle probably would have been astonished should he had known that his contention: void
does not exist, in contrast to Democritus': void does exist, was to be an unsolved conundrum
along the next 24 centuries at least. By the way, it seems that Aristotle never wrote the
celebrated dictum, 'Nature abhors a vacuum'. 1 This universally quoted and used aphorism (it
can easily get more than 120 000 hits in the internet) is generally attributed to 'ancient Greek
philosophers' or, directly but erroneously, to the Stagirite. In reality, maybe one of the earliest
appearances in writing of the phrase was in France (Rabelais, 1532): "Natura abhorret vacuum",
within a not at all philosophical context, and with the concept Spinoza (c.1660), for instance,
concurred: "Since, therefore, there is no vacuum in nature [...]".
1 The style of the quoted phrase is hardly consistent with Aristotle's generally concise and scientific writing style, and the author's
impression was confirmed by a PDF search performed by him on the CD edition of the 'Complete Works of Aristotle' (29 books).
BNPublishing (www.bnpublishing.com), acquired 2007.
The last centuries and decades of our time have seen instances of pros and cons.
Mainly, however, little interest has been displayed in discussing the philosophical subject
of vacuum (certainly we are not referring to Torricelli's, Magdeburg's or similar, 'vacuum'
On the other hand, the void or vacuum has been deemed identical to the number zero.
Merriam-Webster's (2006):
"Zero: [...] The arithmetical symbol 0‚ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity [...] A state of
total absence or neutrality."
Singer, J. (1999):
"[...] In the real-number system, 0 is the only number that is neither negative nor positive [...] The Hindu
word for zero was sûnya, meaning empty, or void [...]"
In the same line, the infinity in the universe has been identified with the mathematical
concept of infinite:
Merriam-Webster's (2006):
"[...] Unlimited extent of time, space or quantity [...] An indefinitely great number or amount [...]"
The present paper intends to revisit the vacuum problem by making it precisely correspond
to the following question: Does zero (0) exist or not in nocer? Question which poses the
complementary one: Does infinity (∞) exist or not in nocer? The rest of this paper explores
some of the results obtained when looking at these questions through two hypotheses.
2 The 'existence' concept, as used here, is based on its intuitive meaning only. I agree with the view that it belongs to a set of
2- Apex hypothesis. In a sense this is a nozerinf prediction, and it will be stated later on.
semantically indefinable notions (as is also 'time', for instance), which cannot yet be clarified in terms of something deeper. Those
notions, if attempted at being defined, travel along a chain of dependent definitions or descriptions and finally end in themselves,
circularly.
3 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle indicates that any related pair of observables cannot both of them be measured with zero standard
deviation; according to nozerinf, it is also not possible in nocer to have null error in one magnitude and infinite error in the other.
Also, if zero is not in spacetime, and spacetime is in nocer, then zero is not in nocer.
However, the big problem is that 'if'. Nozerinf argues that perfect vacuum does not exist in
nocer, but this is a hypothesis to be proved. What we now know as spacetime is indeed part
of nocer, but we don't know whether massen is in spacetime or whether both of them,
together, constitute a different kind of thing. Spacetime is not necessarily more fundamental
than massen.
'Perfect' or 'absolute' vacuum could not exist in a state of huge density in the context of pre-
big bang because that would be a contradiction: without massen and spacetime, there is
nothing to be compressed. Effectively, compression means to force elemental particles to
approach to one another, but 'perfect vacuum' has no particles. Therefore the 'original atom'
couldn't contain such a vacuum, along with massen and spacetime. Furthermore, the
universe appears to have the property of gradients' equalization, so if a perfect vacuum existed
somewhere at some time, massen and spacetime would have 'rushed' to fill in such a vacuum.
Is it possible a 'partial vacuum', that is, zero spacetime or zero massen? Nonzero spacetime
with zero massen was, in essence, Newton's idea of absolute space. We now know that the
entire universe is filled with some type of massen (hadrons, leptons, forces, radiation, dark
matter, dark energy...), so nonzero spacetime with zero massen is not possible in nocer.
Nonzero massen with zero spacetime would imply massen's null expanse, therefore a
dimensionless massen point totally unable to evolve. This is not possible in nocer, either.
Therefore, spacetime and massen must coexist, and their permanent interaction is one of the
essentials of general relativity. When some set of spacetime/massen interrelation parameters is
established, not even one of them can be zero (by nozerinf), hence spacetime and massen
would really be just a single physical reality, as yet not understood and without a name.
The cer ratio between space (one-dimensional) and time is speed. The relativistic addition of
speeds is an accumulation, according to my definition, and their limit is the speed of light.
Thus, such accumulation would be a special case of the apex hypothesis. The ratio
massen/space (three-dimensional) can be interpreted as a 'massenic' density. Its ak or dk would
have a limit, not yet known either in physical characteristics or in amount. The ratio
massen/time can be interpreted as a 'massenic' flow. Its ak or dk would have a limit, not yet
known either.
Take the stated top size limit for the electron, quark and neutrino (Chart of Fundamental
Particles and Interactions, CPEP):
Electron size: < 10-18 m
Quark size: < 10-19 m
Lightest neutrino (0 - 0.13) × 10-9 GeV/c2
Heaviest neutrino (0.04 - 0.14) × 10-9 GeV/c2
Then electron's volume would be < 5.23599 × 10-55 m3 . Likewise, quark's volume would be <
5.23599 × 10-58 m3 . (We are interpreting 'size' as diameter).
Enter the electron's mass (2006 CODATA recommended values):
Electron mass: 9.109 382 15 e-31 kg ; 0.510 998 910 MeV
Proton mass: 1.672 621 637 e-27 kg ; 938.272 013 MeV
Proton rms charge radius: 0.8768 e-15 m
Then, electron's mass density is >= 1.739763 × 1024 kg m-3 . As to quark mass the situation is
fluid as yet (The Mystery of Quark Mass):
"The combination of up and down quarks to form protons [938 MeV] and neutrons [940 MeV] suggests that
the u and d are of about equal mass: about 1/3 the mass of a nucleon. But in the extraordinary case of the pion
[π+], an up and antidown quark combination has a mass energy of only 140 MeV! Yet the same quark
combination in a rho meson [ρ+] has a mass energy of 770 MeV! [...] Georgi comments 'There is good reason
to believe that most of the mass of the quark we 'see' in the mass of the proton or the rho is a dynamical effect
of quark confinement, that the u and d quarks in the underlying QCD theory actually have masses much
smaller than 1/3 the mass of the proton.' "
The 'constituent quark model' usually gives values larger than the 'current ' values
(Szczepaniak, A.):
"The size of the momentum space pion wave function in the harmonic oscillator approximation turns out to
be of the order of ß ~ 360 [...] and for g3/g2cr it ~ 1.3 the dynamical quark mass is mq ~ 330 MeV."
However, it looks as if the 'current' values are more generally accepted. The u and d quarks, as
the mass base of nucleons, are the ones we will consider. Their masses are given with ranges
(Yao, W.-M. and others, 2006):
u mass: 1.5 to 3.0 MeV
d mass: 3 to 7 MeV
Neutrino mass: < 2 eV ,
but let us work with an average (Yao, W.-M. and others/Manohar, 2006):
Average u, d mass: 4.4 ± 1.5 MeV
Then:
Quark mass (average u, d mass): 4.4 MeV = 4.4 × 106 × 1.782 661 731 × 10-36 kg =
7.8437116 × 10-30 kg .
Mass density of quark (using volume given above): >= 1.4980379 × 1028 kg m-3 ~ 1.5 × 1028
kg m-3 .
By comparison with the electron's mass density, quark's is the largest, so my conjecture turns
out to be that 1.5 × 1028 kg m-3 , or bigger, is the density apex D in nocer. Should we apply
Zero, infinity and nocer 10
this apex to the electron mass we could get another possible electron diameter: <= 4.876778 ×
10-20 m, that is to say ~ 20 times smaller than suggested in the literature.
Other calculations:
Proton volume, given a charge radius (2006 CODATA recommended values):
2.8235157 × 10-45 m3 = 2.8235157 fm3 .
Mass density of proton given its mass (2006 CODATA recommended values):
5.9238971 × 1017 kg m-3 , which is close to 11 orders of magnitude lower than the putative
apex.
Heaviest neutrino mass, upper limit (Chart of Fundamental Particles and Interactions, CPEP):
0.14 × 10-9 GeV c-2 = 2.495726 × 10-37 kg .
Applying the density apex, neutrino volume is <= 1.663817 × 10-65 m3 .
Therefore, neutrino diameter could be <= 3.16739 × 10-22 m .
Thus, comparing diameters: electron would be about 0.5 times the quark size.
Quark would be ~ 315 times bigger than neutrino.
Electron would be ~154 times bigger than neutrino.
Proton would be > 17 536 times larger than quark but 35 958 times larger than electron.
And comparing volumes: proton would be 5.39 × 1012 times bigger than quark!
Atom diameter, in average: 10-10 m ; so, volume would be 5.23599 × 10-31 m3 .
Comparing diameters, atom could be 57 025 times larger than proton.
Comparing atom's volume to proton's, atom could be about 1.85 × 1014 times bigger.
Along the same line, let us conjecture that apex D is the maximum black hole's density
Consider a huge one accumulating 2.5 × 106 solar masses (as the postulated black hole in the
center of the Milky Way and with an event horizon of some 49 seconds-light diameter).
Therefore such black hole's mass could be about 5 × 1036 kg and its volume (with D) would be
3.3 × 108 m3 . Imagining it as a sphere, its diameter could be some 860 m .
Numerical example:
K=300 000
n=6 (i.e., there are in all 7 values to accumulate, each of them equal to s)
s=40 000
Then,
x6= 1.801907369 × 1060
y6= 8.174946643 × 1054
ak6=220 418.2422
An experimental test for density accumulation would require measuring masses and volumes
with very high precision and accuracy. For instance, a heavy gas could be compressed in a
vessel. Let us have a number of these vessels with carefully measured gas mass for each one.
Proceed then to (meticulously) accumulate all the masses by compression in just one vessel.
Finally, the total mass would be measured, and this should be less than the plain arithmetic
addition. Temperature and other thermodynamic conditions should be kept adequately
controlled.
but his formation and cultural environment prevented him from assigning to mind purely
worldly characteristics:
"Reply to Second Objections, 127. [...] But this is sufficient to let us conclude that the mind [...] is
immortal.",
Furthermore, he was unclear at separating the material world from mind's subjects, as
mathematics:
"Meditation VI, 96. [...] to inquire whether material things exist. And certainly I at least know that these
may exist in so far as they are considered as the objects of pure mathematics [...]"
My basic intent with cer/nocer is to have my conceptual and communication channels free
from such ambiguities.
An ideal or perfect definition is unequivocal and contains zero of any other alien idea or
definition. However, perfect definitions could only be the ones given in mathematics and
logic. Mutually excluding nocer states, like detection / no detection, live / dead, presence /
absence, etc., appear as implying zero because we suppose one of the two states contains zero
of the other. However, for this to be true the implied objects would have to be managed as
whole numbers with infinite precision, so that when one is 'subtracted' from the other, zero
results. The problem with asserting that there is a cer zero of something nocer lies in how to
define in an absolute and unequivocal manner what that something is. If using the common
terms (A.4.6) of everyday life, of course one can affirm, for instance, that a bus has zero
passengers; but in the context of nozerinf one would have first to define what is a nocer
Zero, infinity and nocer 14
passenger, with infinite precision, which is not possible. In that case one will not be able to
categorically affirm that a bus has cer zero passengers.
In other words, every nocer definition is carried out on sets of elements like molecules, atoms,
energy quanta and so on, such sets being usually huge and subject to random fluctuations.
Therefore, the extent of the realm governed by the definition is essentially inaccurate, as one
or more of such elements could be put in, taken out or left behind, purposely or at random. In
short, nocer definitions do not admit of zero and infinity, thus rendering inconclusive the
rigorous comparison of mutually excluding nocer states.
By exclusion, cer is not heat, bioelectric impulses, electromagnetic fields, secretions or other
physical-chemical entities scientifically measurable. By inclusion (possibly repetitive but not
necessarily exhaustive), cer is: thoughts, reasoning, ideas, concepts, abstraction, imagination;
knowledge and information; sensations, emotions, dreams, beliefs, morality, doctrines. In
particular, mathematics is cer, can be expressed in nocer through symbols and allows some
kind of total accuracy as well as notions like zero and infinity. These notions are lost,
however, as soon as we move into nocer. In cer, for instance, 1+1 = 2, with an infinity of
decimal zeros in addends and in the total, but 1 nocer apple+1 nocer apple is not equal to 2
nocer apples. Indeed, in the first place a nocer apple would have to be exactly defined. If an
apple has randomly lost 10 atoms or one million atoms, let us say by friction, does it continue
to be 1 apple, or is it now only 0.999999... apple? Thus, we cannot be completely sure about
what is really being added, and the result will not be 2 with an infinity of decimal zeros.
Whole numbers do not exist in nocer, because otherwise it could be possible to make
subtractions resulting in zero.
Quantities in nocer could better be expressed by real numbers, although maybe nocer
'numbers' do not have any cer exact equivalent. Nocer world appears as analogue to cer, and
the digitizing (which is cer) used in electronics and other fields is based in a sort of statistical
rounding of nocer phenomena.
All affirmations or qualifications about nocer are cer, and every science also is cer. Of course,
some sciences deal with cer, others with nocer, and others with cer-nocer interrelationships.
We have proposed that cer does not have massen; therefore, it cannot directly act on nocer.
Nevertheless, cer can originate actions over the brain because, in fact, those work as physical-
biochemical reactions of brain cells over brain cells. Being massenless, cer cannot sustain
supposed phenomena like telepathy, telekinesis and similar.
Symbolic / mathematical models (cer, of course) are one way to translate nocer to cer. Model
truthfulness or accuracy depends on the extent of its agreement with the corresponding nocer
properties. Note that the law of massen conservation, and any other zero-sum law, are
statistical in nature, therefore not being verifiable beyond certain error limits and not being
possible to demonstrate they imply a cer zero.
A.4.1 Identical objects. Let us say that for each nocer knowable object Nobi a cer set
Cnobi can be constructed with all of its physical characteristics p (which would imply a
number of measured magnitudes and its conditions of measurement, as distance, area,
volume, mass, time intervals, temperature, type and number of molecules or atoms, field
intensity, frequency, charge, etc.), thus: Cnobi = (pi1, pi2, ..., pin, ..., piz), where pi1 could
be, for instance, temperature, ..., and piz represents the last of the characteristics. Now let
us have another Nobk whose set Cnobk = (pk1, pk2, ..., pkn, ..., pkz) contains precisely the
same type of measured magnitudes, ordered in the same sequence. Construct the set of
differences Dnobik = Cnobi - Cnobk = [(pi1- pk1), (pi2- pk2), ..., (pin - pkn), ..., (piz - pkz)] .
If then we find Dnobik = [(0), (0), ..., (0), ..., (0)] , with all the zeros being cer zeros, i.e.
with an infinity of decimal zeros to the right, then we will say that Nobi and Nobk are
identical to each other. However, by nozerinf, such a set of zeros cannot exist in nocer and,
besides, we cannot be totally sure Cnobi contains all of p. Thus, no one thing in nocer can be
exactly identical to another one.
Corollary: symmetries in nocer are not perfect or absolute, because when symmetry
operations are applied to some nocer entity, say Nobi , the resulting 'symmetrical' entity, say
Nobk , cannot be (exactly) identical to the Nobi .
A.4.2 Identity Law (everything is equal to itself). We return to the object Nobi and its cer set
Cnobi . The physical characteristics p are probably measured at different times, but in a
A.4.3 Perfection. Now we take again the object Nobi and its cer set Cnobi , but this time the
object could also be a cer, i.e. it is a desired or designed or potential object. Anyway, its
physical characteristics p are cer, viz, requirements or standards or specifications we want
Nobi to fulfill now or once it becomes nocer. One of these two events occurred, we proceed
to measure each of p and construct the set mCnobi . Then we get the set of differences
Dnobi = Cnobi - mCnobi . If we get Dnobi = [(0), (0), ..., (0), ..., (0)] , with all the zeros
being cer zeros, then we will say that Nobi is perfect, because it is totally and absolutely
fitted to its set of requirements. However, by nozerinf, this is not possible, so nothing in
nocer can be deemed perfect; the notion of perfection is cer. The perfect would then be that
entity embracing or containing everything of a preset something, this however not being
rigorously verifiable in nocer. Magnitude comparison is not perfect, because it would need
perfect definitions, and only statistical approximations can be achieved.
Corollary: perfect order or disorder does not exist in nocer.
A.4.4 Determinism. Absolute determinism for nocer means that, for a given process or
evolving nocer system i , the cer set t0Csysi describing all its states and parameters at time
t0 is known with complete precision, up to the last indivison; then, provided we are able to
apply to that system a symbolic model absolutely exact, we could determine at time t0 + t
the cer set t0+tCsysi to describe or predict the future situation of system i . But, by nozerinf,
it is not possible (a) to have a perfect inclusion (A.4.3) of all states and parameters (hence
the hidden variables concept does not work); (b) to measure with complete precision, i.e.,
with null error, the values of t0Csysi , and (c) to devise a symbolic model able to predict
with null error. Thus, absolute determinism is only a cer concept and cannot exist in nocer.
Corollary: a symbolic model of a nocer process cannot be fulfilled in a totally exact way.
A.4.5 Chance. Let us deal now with the cer set Cevei which contains all the states and
parameters characterizing event i as we expect it to be at time t , once we perform or
repeat certain measurements or observations. After measurements, we will have the cer set
tCevei . In a deterministic world Cevei ≡ tCevei . However, totally identical nocer objects
or events, and determinism, are not possible (A.4.1 and A.4.4). When cer is not able to
predict exactly some nocer (as in here), humans say that in such nocer there is chance,
randomness or chaos, and nocer world for them appears as only probabilistically knowable.
APPENDIX B: LIMITS
The problem of limits or boundaries of things is not simple, and is the realm of Mereology
(Varzi, A., 2004):
"Euclid defined a boundary as 'that which is an extremity of anything' (Elements Bk I, Df 13), and
Aristotle made this more precise by defining the extremity of a thing x as 'the first thing outside of which
no part [of x] is to be found, and the first thing inside of which every part [of x] is to be found.'
(Metaphysics 1022) [...] Aristotle mereological definition [...] only seems to apply to a realm of
continuous entities [...] On closer inspection, the spatial boundaries of physical objects are imaginary
entities surrounding swarms of subatomic particles [...] Most realist theories about boundaries, construed
as lower-dimensional entities, share the view that such entities are ontological parasites [...] 'I define the
limit of a body as the aggregate of all the extreme (äusserst) ether-atoms which still belong to it [...]'
[Bernard Bolzano Paradoxes of the Infinite § 66 (1851: 167-68)] [...] 'There is no line which sharply
divides the matter composing [Mount] Everest from the matter outside it. Everest's boundaries are fuzzy.
Some molecules are inside Everest and some molecules outside [...]' [Michael Tye, Vague Objects (1990:
535)]."
My intent now is only to offer some thoughts pertinent to the issues expounded in this paper.
Of course, nozerinf forbids a continuum in nocer because it would imply divisibility ad
infinitum and no individual limits, and also forbids discontinuity, i.e., totally separated
spacetime / massen discrete, limited particles because it would imply absolute vacuum among
them. Clarification of this ancient dilemma still pertains to the future, but it could be
Zero, infinity and nocer 18
approached by postulating that nocer is totally filled with spacetime and massen indivisons, as
a 'grainy' continuum, whose limits would touch, overlap or interlace permanently without
leaving any zero emptiness amongst them. So, nocer indivison's sets have possibly
identifiable and measurable limits, these however being something like dynamical or
permanently changing fractals. By nozerinf the whole numbers (or 'natural' or enumerator
numbers) exist only in cer, and consequently its application in nocer is statistical because
the nocer 'whole' number is a (usually huge) set of elemental entities, and this set is what in
average appears as a whole to us. And no one nocer element, even at indivison level, can
be represented by a whole number because its limits are not specifiable with infinite
precision. In addition, everything in nocer is subject to limits or restrictions.
Assume that nocer has the equivalent of three spatial dimensions, plus the dimension called
time. Thus, objects with one or two dimensions, and a one- or two-dimension boundary, are
only cer and do not exist in nocer because, by nozerinf, such objects would imply one or
more zero dimensions.