Theories With No Hair

W   
hether a parameter has "hair" or not traces back to the fifties during the parity non-conservation controversy. In order for nature to choose between north and south magnetic poles it was thought that a reason for doing so must exist, i.e. one pole or the other had "hair" on it while the other did not thus providing a reason to choose between them (anything logically equivalent to hair).

Intuitively, any and all scientists expect to find a "reason" for the actions of nature because it will do the same thing over and over when identical repeat experiments are tried. Without a reason, it is thought, nature must behave randomly making no choice between equivalent possibilities.

When confronted with the pure numbers associated with the universe such as the electron-proton mass ratio, we expect to find a reason for the choice of this number over any other. Further we expect to derive it directly from (or develop-build it from) the only three "hairless" numbers available to us. These are:

0 , 1 and infinity

Then there are a few numbers which beg further explanation but which are less "bothersome". Namely 'pi' and 'e'.

Take pi (3.14159...). Why would this number be "chosen" over all others? Though I am unaware of a"hairless" explanation for 'e' , 'pi' is fairly straightforward.

Measured in quanta, pi is exactly '3' (width of measuring device included).

As we make the quanta (with which we measure) smaller this ratio approaches 3.14159... in obvious, satisfying and consistent fashion.

The theory presented here is a "hairless" theory in its totality (and perhaps the only one presently available). Nothing has been accepted as fundamental which has (or appears to have) parts which beg further explanation.


Next Page


Ebtx Home Page