13 done

src/13_micro_interval.md

@@ -1,22 +1,21 @@
-# Micro-interval
+# MICRO-interval
 
-4. MICROINTERVAL
+Experimental information on the structure of elementary particles has been obtained by science only in the size range of the Microinterval from \\(10^{-17}\\) to \\(10^{-13}\\) cm.
 
-Experimental information on the structure of elementary particles has been obtained by science only in the size range of the Microinterval from 10-17 to 10-13 cm.
+The proton on the scale of \\(10^{-14}\\) cm is represented by theorists as polycentric, and on the scale of \\(10^{-15}\\) cm even more polycentric[^ref-130] (see Fig. 1.25). This shows that the *deeper one goes into the microcosm, the more complex and polycentric picture is revealed to physics*.
 
-The proton on the scale of 10-14 cm is represented by theorists as polycentric, and on the scale of 10-15 cm even more polycentric130 (see Fig. 1.25). This shows that the *deeper one goes into the microcosm, the more complex and polycentric picture is revealed to physics*.
+![](./media/pic1.44.jpg)
+*Figure 1.44. The quantum vacuum, as presented in 1957 by J. Wheeler, becomes more and more chaotic on closer inspection. At the scale of atomic nuclei (above), space looks very smooth. At distances on the order of \\(10^{-30}\\) cm, some irregularities begin to appear. At distances about 1000 times smaller, the curvature and topology of space fluctuate dramatically*
 
-Figure 1.44. The quantum vacuum, as presented in 1957 by J. Wheeler, becomes more and more chaotic on closer inspection. At the scale of atomic nuclei (above), space looks very smooth. At distances on the order of 10-30 cm, some irregularities begin to appear. At distances about 1000 times smaller, the curvature and topology of space fluctuate dramatically
+Experimental physics has failed to penetrate deeper than \\(10^{-17}\\) cm into the microworld, so theoretical models still dominate in this scale region. One of them \- of the famous physicist J. Wheeler assumes[^ref-131] that on scales of the order of \\(10^{-30}\\) cm some irregularities begin to appear in the vacuum structure (see Fig. 1.44)
 
-Experimental physics has failed to penetrate deeper than 10-17 cm into the microworld, so theoretical models still dominate in this scale region. One of them \- of the famous physicist J. Wheeler assumes131 that on scales of the order of 10-30 cm some irregularities begin to appear in the vacuum structure (see Fig. 1.44)
+Let us put forward the hypothesis that the STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE WHOLE MICROINTERVALE FROM \\(10^{-33}\\) TO \\(10^{-13}\\) cm ARE SUBJECT TO THE SCALE STRUCTURE INVARIANT. In this case we will be able to use the accumulated knowledge in the field of macro- and megaworld to predict the structure of the microcosm.
 
-Let us put forward the hypothesis that the STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE WHOLE MICROINTERVALE FROM 10-33 TO 10-13 cm ARE SUBJECT TO THE SCALE STRUCTURE INVARIANT. In this case we will be able to use the accumulated knowledge in the field of macro- and megaworld to predict the structure of the microcosm.
-
-Applying this method, we can draw the following analogies. Penetrating into the depths of elementary particles (on scales smaller than 10-13 cm \- the top floor of the Microinterval), physicists hope to discover even simpler first bricks of matter (e.g., quarks). However, it may well be that uncovering the increasingly fundamental structure of the microcosm is like uncovering the structure of the Metagalaxy from the outside.
+Applying this method, we can draw the following analogies. Penetrating into the depths of elementary particles (on scales smaller than \\(10^{-13}\\) cm \- the top floor of the Microinterval), physicists hope to discover even simpler first bricks of matter (e.g., quarks). However, it may well be that uncovering the increasingly fundamental structure of the microcosm is like uncovering the structure of the Metagalaxy from the outside.
 
 To understand what problems physicists face when penetrating inside, for example, a proton, it is necessary to do the following mental experiment. Let us enlarge ourselves to a size many times larger than the size of the Metagalaxy, and begin to examine it from the outside. Examining it under a "microscope," we will first see the "ball" of the Metagalaxy. We start shining it through and find the cellular structure of the superscopes (see Fig. 1.42). Further detail shows that they also consist of many clusters. Even deeper are galaxies, which are made up of a huge number of stars. We are surprised to find out that a very simple Metagalaxy from the outside (remember M. A. Markov's maximon model) turns out to be more and more complicated as it is mentally "disassembled." This way in depth will not lead us to the identification of two, three or several more fundamental "particles" than the Metagalaxy itself. At the same time, microparticle physics, penetrating at a similar point in SW inside the proton, is waiting for just that. From our point of view \- in vain. The proton can be crushed for any length of time into any small parts with the same success as, for example, an asteroid: the output will not be "fundamental parts of the asteroid," but its random and chaotic fragments. And all experiments at the LHC will sooner or later show the complete futility of attempts to penetrate deep into hadrons. These are powerful resonant structures that can't be broken into pieces, because their "pieces" are \- maximon, which have gathered into a three-dimensional knot of four-dimensional oscillations of the second harmonic. 
 
-So, it is possible that the ***fundamental level of microparticles lies too deep***. It is necessary to go at least 15 orders of magnitude deeper, and not 3-4, as it is passed now. The application of the scale-structural invariant shows that the next level of the fundamental simplicity of nature lies at a depth of 10-28 cm and 10-33 cm.
+So, it is possible that the ***fundamental level of microparticles lies too deep***. It is necessary to go at least 15 orders of magnitude deeper, and not 3-4, as it is passed now. The application of the scale-structural invariant shows that the next level of the fundamental simplicity of nature lies at a depth of \\(10^{-28}\\) cm and \\(10^{-33}\\) cm.
 
 Figuratively speaking, science still has "too short arms" to get to this level. At the same time, all structures in the depth of the proton are most likely a plurality of random forms of polycentrism, so we can PROVE that there is no simple structure and super dense energy in them, which could be obtained by destroying the proton, just as nuclear energy is obtained by destroying the atomic nucleus.
 
@@ -24,27 +23,27 @@ Why particle’s physics so persistently aimed at these apparently false objecti
 
 At one time, penetrating into the depths of matter — from the world of molecules to the world of atoms, and then from the world of atoms to the world of their nuclei — physics discovered a world that was arranged more and more simply and fundamentally.
 
-  When used correctly, it becomes a powerful tool for cognition. In addition, we can deduce from it an extremely important epistemological consequence: ***all phenomena in the microcosm and in the mega-world of the world can be explained with the help of examples***
+When used correctly, it becomes a powerful tool for cognition. In addition, we can deduce from it an extremely important epistemological consequence: ***all phenomena in the microcosm and in the mega-world of the world can be explained with the help of examples***
 
 At one time, penetrating into the depths of matter \- from the world of molecules to the world of atoms, and then from the world of atoms to the world of their nuclei \- physics discovered a world that was organized in an increasingly simple and fundamental way. However, nobody could suppose that this ***increasing simplicity of the atomic world was only a consequence of penetration to the first levels of the** Macro-interval* (*where the electromagnetic forces lay the basis of the average scale invariant of the Universe*) and that beyond the threshold of 10-13 cm the "asphalt" of the simplicity of structures ends and the "off-road" of the polycentric interweaving of complex systems begins. In fact, penetration deeper than this threshold leads us not to the *lower* floors of the world structure, but to the *upper* floors of the MICROINTERVAL. According to the scale-structural invariant, the *upper floors of the Microinterval are dominated by finely dispersed polycentric structures with almost completely degenerated symmetry*.
 
-Did physicists have experimental facts indicating a transition beyond the 10-13 cm threshold to a world more complex than the world of nucleons? Yes, the ensemble resonance structure of microparticles could not but manifest itself at least indirectly. In particular, through the probabilistic behavior inherent in ensemble (not rigidly deterministic) systems. But, unfortunately, these signals were misinterpreted.
+Did physicists have experimental facts indicating a transition beyond the \\(10^{-13}\\) cm threshold to a world more complex than the world of nucleons? Yes, the ensemble resonance structure of microparticles could not but manifest itself at least indirectly. In particular, through the probabilistic behavior inherent in ensemble (not rigidly deterministic) systems. But, unfortunately, these signals were misinterpreted.
 
-"Statistical laws in physics have been known for a long time. But earlier these laws always applied to systems with a huge number of particles, such as a gas in a vessel or a piece of solid. Now it turned out that the motion and in general the behavior of individual, isolated particles obey probabilistic laws. This was hardly expected "132.
+"Statistical laws in physics have been known for a long time. But earlier these laws always applied to systems with a huge number of particles, such as a gas in a vessel or a piece of solid. Now it turned out that the motion and in general the behavior of individual, isolated particles obey probabilistic laws. This was hardly expected"[^ref-132].
 
-Yes, it is difficult, if we do not have before our eyes the MASS-STRUCTURAL INVARIANT (MS). If it is absent, physics is forced to justify its observations by the paradoxical nature of the microcosm: "The statistical character of laws, it turns out, may not be connected at all with the complexity of systems, with the fact that they consist of a very large number of objects "133. No, there is nothing wrong with statistics, but once again there is trouble with models. At the same time, the complexity of the structure of elementary particles is recognized, but it is said that it is incredible.
+Yes, it is difficult, if we do not have before our eyes the MASS-STRUCTURAL INVARIANT (MS). If it is absent, physics is forced to justify its observations by the paradoxical nature of the microcosm: "The statistical character of laws, it turns out, may not be connected at all with the complexity of systems, with the fact that they consist of a very large number of objects"[^ref-133]. No, there is nothing wrong with statistics, but once again there is trouble with models. At the same time, the complexity of the structure of elementary particles is recognized, but it is said that it is incredible.
 
 In general, isolated and simple microparticles are an inertia of thought that *fails physicists for the third time* as they move along the S-axis into the depths of matter.
 
 At first, Thompson, relying on the dominant polycentrism of structures in the macrocosm, proposed his famously erroneous uniformly distributed model of the atom. It failed.
 
-Then Rutherford, looking at the sky, guessed to change the type of structure to monocentric. TSWs the monocentric model of the atom triumphed. The success was so impressive that when physics got to the proton, it was inertia to assume that in the microcosm all structures are monocentric. So the model of the proton with a central core was born. However, it had to be buried under the pressure of facts.
+Then Rutherford, looking at the sky, guessed to change the type of structure to monocentric. The monocentric model of the atom triumphed. The success was so impressive that when physics got to the proton, it was inertia to assume that in the microcosm all structures are monocentric. So the model of the proton with a central core was born. However, it had to be buried under the pressure of facts.
 
-Instead, a polycentric (partonic) model of the proton was proposed. However, the inertia of thinking was so great that, by analogy with the polycentric model of the atomic nucleus, a block-cluster model of quarks was imposed on the proton. Alas, no one has ever seen them, because they do not exist in nature. Of course, it is difficult to assume that the proton can consist of 1060 particles whose sizes are equal to 10-33 cm. Why?
+Instead, a polycentric (partonic) model of the proton was proposed. However, the inertia of thinking was so great that, by analogy with the polycentric model of the atomic nucleus, a block-cluster model of quarks was imposed on the proton. Alas, no one has ever seen them, because they do not exist in nature. Of course, it is difficult to assume that the proton can consist of \\(10^{60}\\) particles whose sizes are equal to \\(10^{-33}\\) cm. Why?
 
 The reason is purely methodological. Advancing to the depth of the matter, physicists for a description of newly discovered systems by the inertia of thinking always used those models which work at the scale level of the boundary region (on the right side of the S-axis). They are like generals who in peacetime always prepare for the past war. This methodological technique still somehow justified itself in the central region of the MACRO-INTERVAL, as there are no such sharp qualitative structural jumps when penetrating into the depth of minerals and metals. However, it completely failed at the junction of two intervals: Macro- and Micro. And now we know why. However, even using the MS-invariant, the author does not risk giving a prediction about the structure of the MICRO-interval, why \- will become clear from the further material.
 
-#### ***ESOTERIC DIGRESSION***
+***ESOTERIC DIGRESSION***
 
 One of the first laws of nature was formulated by Hermes Trismegistus \- the ***law of scale similarity: "What is above is also below"***.
 
@@ -54,4 +53,9 @@ In this case, any phenomenon in the Universe becomes available to our ***underst
 
 What is to understand? It means to compare a new phenomenon with already known phenomena, which we comprehend not only with the mind, but also with the help of ***sensory experience***. It is the reliance on sensual experience that gives knowledge high stability, accessibility and practicality. ***This experience is acquired by us only in the macrocosm***. In contrast, sometimes, having lost its way, science puts forward the condition of the necessity of abandoning common sense and moving to some absolutely formal, completely detached from sense experience, for example, the world of elementary particles. Another example is Newton's theory of gravitation, in which the impact of bodies on each other is transmitted not through the material medium, but through... NOTHING. Not a single person can ***understand*** how the impact can be transmitted through absolute emptiness. That is why this abstract and incorrect scheme is artificially put into our heads from school and it is forbidden to question it. In the following we will show that ***this is not just a misconception, but a walled entrance to the wonderful world of the Universe, where everything is extremely simple and harmonious.***
 
-##### ***And most importantly, it's very clear***.
+***And most importantly, it's very clear***.
+
+[^ref-130]: *Perkins D.* Inside the Proton // Fundamental Structure of Matter. M.: Mir, 1984\. С. 167-168.
+[^ref-131]: *Bryce S. De Witt.* Quantum gravity // In the World of Science. 1984\. № 2\. С. 58\.
+[^ref-132]: *Myakishev G. Я.* Elementary particles. Moscow: Nauka, 1979\. С. 45\.
+[^ref-133]: *Myakishev G. Я.* Elementary particles. Moscow: Nauka, 1979\. С. 45\.