Home 2
Click here to read The Second is the Rhythm of Reality, and Life Dances to its Beat
In this paper with a wave solution to the Solar System we strive to show that the second is not just a human invention or a cosmic accident — it is a fundamental harmonic that permeates reality. Buckminster Fuller’s insight was right:
“Humanity is a macro —-> micro Universe unfolding eventuation”
— and the second is the thread tying it all together. My equations show that one second emerges naturally from proton stability, biological chemistry stability, Solar System quantization, and Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
We show in this paper the Earth’s 24 hour rotation period has a characteristic time of one second, suggesting that in the end we acquired our heart rate from the Earth’s rotation. In heart rate studies the mean human heart rate clusters near 60 BPM over a 24 hour day which is 1 second per beat and cells grown in vitro still oscillate on ~24 hour cycles implying deep evolutionary entrainment.
In other words, the universe may exhibit a recursive fractal structure with the 1-second timescale acting as a fundamental harmonic resonance across all scales from quantum fluctuations to planetary orbits and beyond.
We have to look at why, since the second came from the ancient Sumerian base 60 counting of dividing the Earth rotation period into 24 hours, each hour into 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 seconds, why 24 and 60 yield the second. We provide a very useful equation for the rotational angular momentum of the Earth divided by a Planck-type constant for the Solar System that we develop which yields exactly this factor of 60/24 for the rotational angular momentum quantization of the Earth.
********************************************************************************************
Theory for Inertia Predicting the Radius of a Proton that Satisfies Quantum Mechanics And Classical Gravity
May 28, 2025
It is the goal here to provide a theory for inertia, that quality of a mass to resist change in motion. We want the the theory to include not just the quantum mechanics constant for energy over time \(h\) Planck’s constant, but to include the universal constant of gravitation \(G\), the constant \(c\) the speed of light from relativity, and \(\alpha\) the fine structure constant for theories of electric fields so as to bring together the things that have been pitted against one another: quantum mechanics, relativity, classical physics, electric fields, and gravitational fields. To do this we will suggest a proton is a 3D cross-section of a 4D hypersphere held in place countering its motion through time by a normal force that produces its inertia (measured in mass in kilograms) much the same way we model a block on an inclined plain countered by friction from the normal force to its motion. The following is the illustration of such a proton as a cross-sectional bubble in space:
To get the ball rolling, I had found a wave solution to the Earth/Moon/Sun system where the Earth orbiting the Sun is like an electron orbiting a proton with a quantum mechanical solution. I found this solution had a characteristic time of one second (Beardsley, A Theory for the Proton and the Solar System with a Characteristic time of One Second, 2025). But, I found as well, I could describe the proton as having a characteristic time of one second, and that this yielded the radius of a proton very close to that obtained by modern experiments. So, it is now before me to come up with a theory for the proton in terms of these characteristic times.
The expressions for the characteristic times of 1-second for the proton that I found, were:
1.$$\left(\frac{1}{6\alpha^2}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi h}{Gc}}\right)\cdot\frac{r_p}{m_p}=1second$$
2.$$\left(\sqrt{\phi\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{h}{c}=1second$$
Where \(\phi=0.618\) is the golden ratio, \(r_p\) is the radius of a proton, and \(m_p\) is the mass of a proton. We find these produce close to the most recent measurements of the radius of a proton, if you equate the left sides of each, to one another:
3.$$r_p=\phi\frac{h}{cm_p}$$
4.$$r_p=0.816632E-15m$$
To derive this equation for the radius of a proton from first principles I had set out to do it with the Planck energy, \(E=hf\), given by frequency of a particle, and from mass-energy equivalence, \(E=mc^2\):$$E=hf$$
We take the rest energy of the mass of a proton \(m_p\):$$E=m_pc^2$$
The frequency of a proton is$$f_p=\frac{m_pc^2}{h}$$
We see at this point we have to set the expression equal to \(\phi\) . So we need to come up with a theory for inertia that explains it:$$\frac{m_pc^2}{h}\cdot\frac{r_p}{c}= \phi=\frac{m_pc}{h}r_p$$
$$m_pr_p=\phi\cdot\frac{h}{c}$$
The radius of a proton is then
$$r_p=\phi\cdot\frac{h}{cm_p}$$
In order to prove our theory for the radius of a proton as incorporating \(\phi\) , we will apply our model outlined involving a normal force, \(F_n\) to a 3d cross-section of a 4d hypersphere countering its direction through time, t. We begin by writing equation 1 as:
5.$$m_p=\frac{1}{6\alpha^2}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi h}{Gc}}\cdot \frac{r_p}{1second}$$
Where \(G\), the constant of gravitation measures the pliability of space, and \(h\) the granularity of space, and \(c\) the speed of propagation. \(m_p\) measures the inertia endowed in a proton. We write equation 2 as:6.
$$1=\frac{\phi}{9}\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}\cdot\frac{h}{c(1second)^2}\cdot\frac{h}{c}$$
We now say that \(t_1=1second\) and that the normal force is7.
$$F_n=\frac{h}{ct_1^2}$$
This gives us:8.
$$1=\frac{\phi}{9}\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}\cdot\frac{h}{c}\cdot F_n$$
=$$\frac{\pi}{9\alpha^4}{\cdot}\frac{F_n}{G}\cdot\frac{r_p}{m_p^2}\left(\phi\frac{h}{cm_p}\right)$$
Since \(r_p=\phi\frac{h}{cm_p}\), we have9.
$$1=\frac{\pi}{9\alpha^2}\cdot\frac{F_n}{G}\cdot\frac{r_p^2}{m_p^2}$$
This gives10.
$$m_p=\frac{1}{3\alpha^2}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{\pi r_p^2F_n}{G}}$$
\(\pi r_p^2\) is the cross-sectional area of the proton countering the normal force, \(F_n\), against its motion through time, this is measured by \(G\) the constant of gravitation. It is to say that11.
$$m_p\propto\sqrt{\frac{AreaCrossSectionProton\cdot F_n}{G}}$$
And, the coupling constant is12.
$$C=\frac{1}{3\alpha^2}$$
Let us see if this is accurate:$$F_n=\frac{h}{ct_1^2}=\frac{6.62607E-34J\cdot s}{(299,792,458m/s)(1s^2)}=2.21022E-42N$$
$$m_p=\frac{18769}{3}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{\pi(2.21022E-42N}{6.674E-11N\frac{m^2}{kg^2}}}(0.833E-15m)=1.68E-27kg$$
We used the experimental value of a proton \(r_p=0.833E-15m\). And we have demonstrated that our model of a proton as a 3D cross-section of a 4D hypersphere countering the normal force against its motion through time gives its inertia that can counter a force at right angles to its motion through time and the normal force. It is thought that the proton does not have an exact radius, but that it is a fuzzy cloud of subatomic particles. As such depending on what is going on can determine its state, or effective radius. It could be that the proton radius is as large as$$r_p=\frac{2}{3}\cdot\frac{h}{cm_p}$$
$$r_p=\frac{2}{3}\cdot\frac{6.62607E-34}{(299,792,458)(1.67262E-27)}=0.88094E-15m$$
Which it was nearly measured to be before 2010 in two separate experiments. Or as small as$$r_p=\phi\cdot\frac{h}{cm_p}=0.816632E-15m$$
Which is closer to current measurements, which have decreased by 4% since 2010, and could get smaller. In which case the characteristic time,\(t_1\), could be as large as$$\left(\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{h}{c}=1.03351seconds$$
Using 2/3 as a fibonacci approximation to \(\phi\). Or, it could be as small as
$$\left(\sqrt{\phi\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{h}{c}=\sqrt{(0.618)\frac{(352275361)\pi (0.833E-15m)}{(6.674E-11)(1.67262E-27kg)^3}}\cdot\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{6.62607E-34}{299792458}$$
=0.995 seconds
Or perhaps more often it is in the area of:
$$\frac{1}{6\alpha^2m_p}\sqrt{\frac{h4\pi r_p^2}{Gc}}=1.004996352seconds$$
But, what this tells us is that the unit of a second might be a natural constant. And, since the second comes from dividing the Earth rotation period into 24 hours, and each hour into 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 seconds, which ultimately comes to us from the ancient Sumerians who first settled down from hunting, wandering, and gathering and flaking stones into spearpoints to invent agriculture, writing, and mathematics, that this might be related to the mechanics of our Solar System. We find if we take the second as natural we have a wave mechanics solution to our Solar System with a characteristic time of one second that is connected to the characteristic time of the proton, thus connecting macro scales (the solar system) to micro scales (the atom). I presented such a theory in my paper Presentation: How a Characteristic Time of One Second May Describe Physical and Biological Systems in General (Beardsley, 2025).*****************************************************************************************
Presentation: How a Characteristic Time of One Second May Describe Physical and Biological Systems in General
May 24, 2025The Presentation: I have found some equations that fit together very accurately and nicely in the context of a quantum mechanical approach to structuring solutions of Nature, that indeed satisfy such a theoretical context in a complete sense. The result has solutions at the core of cosmology (the origin and fate of the universe), star systems mechanics, astrobiology (the study of the habitability of star systems in general), particle physics (like the atom’s proton), theories showing a common structure between the macrocosmos and microcosmos, biology, formation of planetary systems from the protoplanetary disc, archaeology, archaeoastronomy (the study of ancient megalithic (stone) observatories), and SETI (The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence). It is the purpose of this presentation to outline some the key concepts concisely, and succinctly in the theory.
To begin with, I developed a theory which has a wave solution to the Earth/Moon/Sun system much like the quantum mechanical solution for the atom. Interestingly, the the characteristic time that describes this system is neatly one second to two places after the decimal. The ground state I found is given by our Moon orbiting the Earth, and is
$$\frac{\hbar_{\odot}^2}{GM_m^3}\cdot\frac{1}{c}=1second$$
\(M_m\) is the mass of the Moon. I find \(\hbar_\odot\), which is my Planck-type constant for the Solar System, much like the Planck constant in quantum mechanics used to describe the atom \(\hbar\), in our theory is given by one second as well, and not just by that, but by the kinetic energy of the our home planet, the Earth, the planet in our Solar System optimized for the conditions for life. I find
$$\hbar_\odot=(1second)KE_e$$
where \(KE_e\)is the orbital kinetic energy of the Earth. I know this value for \(\hbar_\odot\) is accurate because the solution for the energy of the Earth orbiting around the Sun using this value, which is much like the solution for the electron around the proton in an atom, is 99.5% accurate. It is:
$$KE_e=\sqrt{n}\frac{R_\odot}{R_m}\cdot\frac{G^2M_e^2M_m^3}{2\hbar_\odot^2}$$
where \(n=3\) is the earth orbital number, and \(R_\odot\) is the radius of the Sun, and \(R_m\) is the radius of the Moon, \(M_e\) is the mass of the Earth, \(M_m\) is the mass of the Moon, and \(G\) is the universal constant of gravitation. The radius of the Sun,\(R_\odot\) , plays the role of \(Z\), the number of protons being orbited by an electron in an atom, but must be normalized by the radius of the Moon, \(R_m\). This gives it a size of 400 because \(R_\odot/R_m=400\). So we see the Moon plays an important and central role in the quantum solution of our solar system, not just in the this equation, but in the ground state equation. It plays such a central role, that I have suggested the condition for optimal habitability of a planet in the habitable zone is given by the conditions of a perfect eclipse of the star by its moon as seen from the habitable planet, which is exactly what we have with our Earth/Moon/Sun system. That condition is:
$$\frac{r_{planet}}{r_{moon}}=\frac{R_{star}}{R_{moon}}$$
Where \(r_{planet}\) is the orbital radius of the habitable planet (like the Earth), \(r_{moon}\) is the orbital radius of the moon, like the orbital radius of our moon around the Earth, \(R_{star}\) is the radius of the star, like our Sun, and \(R_{moon}\) is the radius of the moon, like the Earth’s moon. I use this in my theory to solve star systems in general—not just our Solar System— for optimal habitability, because we know our Moon orbiting the Earth holds the Earth at its tilt to its orbit around the Sun making it optimally habitable because this prevents temperature extremes and allows for the seasons. Here is where my theory has taken a very nice turn. The Earth as it rotates, determining the length of its day, loses energy to the Moon, meaning its rotation is slowing down, but very slowly only noticeably over geologic time, meaning the day length is lengthening ever so slowly over vast epochs, and that a very long time ago was a little shorter than it is today. However, to establish the optimal day length, we want it to be what it is today, about 24 hours, and in order to establish that, the Earth day of 24 hours should produce a characteristic time of one second. I had found it did close to this in the kinetic energies of the Moon and the Earth in their orbits. I had found that
$$\frac{KE_m}{KE_e}(EarthDay)= 1.1-1.3 seconds$$
There is a range in the answer because the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular, though close to it, as well as that of the Earth. However I wanted this value to be closer to a second. I recently found that it is because of the obvious adjustment I had failed to make but should have, and that is we must include the effects of the Earth’s tilt to its orbit, which is 23.5 degrees, so we must include the cosine of this angle to put the equation in the components of the Earth’s spin in it orbital plane around the Sun. So, we have now our equation for a 24 hour day can indeed be considered a second in that we now have
$$\frac{KE_m}{KE_e}(EarthDay)cos(\theta)= 1.0seconds$$
But not only are we offering a wave solution for the Solar System like we have with the atoms, but it turns out we are offering the rudiments of a theory of particle physics, and not just that, a relationship between the microcosmos, the atom’s protons, and the macrocosmos; planetary systems. I say this because I found that the same characteristic time of the Earth/Moon/Sun system is characteristic of the proton and predicts very accurately modern measurements of the radius of the proton. I found
$$\left(\frac{1}{6\alpha^2}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi h}{Gc}}\right)\cdot\frac{r_p}{m_p}=1second$$
$$\left(\sqrt{\phi\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{\alpha^4Gm_p^3}}\right)\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{h}{c}=1second$$
\(r_p\) is the proton radius, \(r_m\) its mass. \(\phi=0.618\) is the golden ratio. \(\alpha\) the fine structure constant. Since the left sides of these equation are both equal to a second, they are equal to one another. When we set them equal to one another, we find they very accurately yield the observed radius of the proton in the most recent experiments. We find the radius of a proton is given by
$$r_p=\phi\frac{h}{cm_p}$$
But this characteristic time of one second is not just in the Solar System, and atom’s proton, but in the basis of life chemistry, carbon, and the hydrocarbons, the skeletons of life chemistry. I found
$$\frac{1}{6protons}\cdot\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\cdot\frac{r_p}{m_p}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi h}{Gc}}=1 second$$
is carbon (C)$$\frac{1}{1proton}\cdot\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\cdot\frac{r_p}{m_p}\sqrt{\frac{4\pi h}{Gc}}=6 seconds$$
is hydrogen (H)Which is to say that six protons, which is carbon, the basis of life as we know it, has a characteristic time of one second because in the first equation above, we have a mass divided by the mass of a proton, times seconds, giving six protons times a second (6 proton-seconds) which means 6 protons (carbon, the basis of life) has a characteristic time of one second. This means that 1 proton, hydrogen, has a characteristic time of six seconds. Hydrogen is the most fundamental element in the periodic table of the elements which was theoretically created in the so-called big bang that gave birth to the universe, and is the element from which all of the other heavier elements were made by stars. This six-fold symmetry that is in hydrocarbons, the skeletons of biological chemistry, is fundamental to defining the periodic table of the elements because it has been found that the six protons of carbon and their respective charges, interact with its six electrons, their respective charges, to balance to make carbon the most stable element mathematically in which to describe the rest of the atoms in the periodic table. This is no doubt related to the regular hexagon, a six-sided polygon which tessellates (tiles a surface without leaving gaps) because it has its radii equal in length to its sides. This hexagonal tessellating property is used by bees to make their honeycombs. So we see our theory now goes beyond the atom and the solar system. That it goes to biological chemistry. But, it does not stop there. It seems to go into cosmology, the study of the origin and fate of the universe. We see this because my equations link proton properties to 1-second, and protons were fixed in the universe at 1 second after it, meaning we could be seeing a universal clock that has influenced everything since the Big Bang.
The idea is that neutrino decoupling (neutrinos stop interacting with one another) happens when the reaction rate of weak interactions \(\Gamma \) falls below the Hubble parameter, the expansion rate of the universe \(H\). The reaction rate per particles is given by
$$\Gamma\approx G_F^2T^5$$
\(G_F\) is the Fermi constant is about \(1.166E-5GeV^{-2}\), and \(T\) is the temperature of the Universe. The expansion rate of the universe is given by
$$H\approx\frac{T^2}{M_{Pl}}$$
Where \(M_{Pl}\) is the Plank mass is about 1.22E19GeV. \(\Gamma\) and \(H\) have units of inverse time (\(s^{-1}\). Neutrino decoupling happens when
$$G_F^2T^5=\frac{T^2}{M_{Pl}}$$
This is when the number of protons in the universe was set in place which, as it would turn out, is close to one second in rough estimate.
The expansion rate of the Universe is governed by the Friedmann equation
$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho$$
Where \(\rho\) is the energy density of the Universe. It is
$$\rho\propto T^4$$
The Hubble expansion rate is
$$H\propto \frac{T^2}{M_{Pl}}$$
$$M_{Pl}\approx2.4E18GeV$$
Since
$$t\propto\frac{1}{H}$$
we have
$$t\propto\frac{M_{Pl}}{T^2}$$
We said protons and neutrons are set in the universe when it has cooled in its expansion to about 1MeV. We have
$$t\propto\frac{2.4E18GeV}{(1E-3GeV)^2}=2.4E24GeV^{-1}$$
This was done in Planck units where time can be expressed in inverse energy. Since in Planck units
$$1GeV^{-1}=5.39E-{25s}$$
we have
$$t\approx(2.4E24)(5.39E-25)$$
$$t\approx 1.3 seconds$$
This theory seems, then, to have applications at the core of cosmology, astrobiology (the study of life in the universe in general), solar system mechanics, particle physics, theories of common structure between micro-scales and macro-scales, and biology . But, as we will see now, has applications at the core of star system formations from protoplanetary discs, and in archaeology and archaeoastronomy (the study of ancient stone observatories, for example). We see this because I have found that the pressure gradient of the protopanetary disc, as a function of radius, that gave birth to our solar system, is given by:
$$P(R)=P_0\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^{-\frac{L_{earth}}{\hbar_\odot}}$$
$$\frac{L_{earth}}{\hbar_\odot}24=60$$
$$L_{earth}=\frac{4}{5}\pi M_ef_eR_e^2$$
Where the rotational angular momentum, \(L_{earth}\), is given by the mass of the Earth, the size of the Earth, and its rotation frequency. The value is 2.5, which is 60/24, by modeling our solar system is found in the theory of solar system formation to be the exponent in the pressure gradient for the protoplanetary disc from which our solar system formed. This is the solution to:
$$\frac{dP}{dr}=-\rho\left(\frac{GM_\star}{r^2}-\frac{v_\phi^2}{r}\right)$$
The protoplanetary disc that evolves into the planets has two forces that balance its pressure, the centripetal force of the gas disc due to its rotation around the protostar \(v_\phi^2/r\) and the inward gravitational force on the disc from the protostar \(GM_\star/r^2\), and these are related by \(\rho\) the density of the gas that makes up the disc.
I can use this to solve not just star systems in general, but to provide a theory for optimally habitable star systems.
In order to apply this to other star systems, we have to be able to predict the radius of the habitable planet, presumably in the n=3 orbit. I found the answer to be in the Vedic literature of India. They noticed that the diameter of the Sun is about 108 times the diameter of the Earth and that the average distance from the Sun to the Earth is about 108 solar diameters, with 108 being a significant number in Yoga. So I wrote the equivalent:
$$R_{planet}=2\frac{R_\star^2}{r_{planet}}$$
The surprising result I found was, after applying it to the stars of many spectral types, with their different radii and luminosities (the luminosities determine \(r_{planet}\), the distances to the habitable zones), that the radius of the planet always came out about the same, about the radius of the Earth. This may suggest optimally habitable planets are not just a function of the distance from the star, which determines their temperature, but are functions of their size and mass probably because they are good for life chemistry atmospheric composition, and gravity. Here are just a few examples using the data for several spectral types:
…
F8V Star
Mass: 1.18
Radius: 1.221
Luminosity: 1.95
$$M_\star=1.18(1.9891E30kg)=2.347E30kg$$
$$R_\star=1.221(6.9634E8m)=8.5023E8m$$
$$r_p=\sqrt{1.95L_\odot}AU=1.3964AU(1.496E11m/AU)=2.08905E11m$$
$$R_p=\frac{2R_\star^2}{r_p}=2\frac{(8.5023E8m)^2}{2.08905E11m}=\frac{6.92076E6m}{6.378E6m}=1.0851EarthRadii$$
F9V Star
Mass: 1.13
Radius: 1.167
Luminosity: 1.66
$$M_\star=1.13(1.9891E30kg)=2.247683E30kg$$
$$R_\star=1.167(6.9634E8m)=8.1262878E8m$$
$$r_p=\sqrt{1.66L_\odot}AU=1.28841AU(1.496E11m/AU)=1.92746E11m$$
$$R_p=\frac{2R_\star^2}{r_p}=2\frac{(8.1262878E8m)^2}{1.92746E11m}=\frac{6.852184E6m}{6.378E6m}=1.0743468EarthRadii$$
G0V Star
Mass: 1.06
Radius: 1.100
Luminosity: 1.35,
$$M_\star=1.06(1.9891E30kg)=2.108446E30kg$$
$$R_\star=1.100(6.9634E8m)=7.65974E8m$$
$$r_p=\sqrt{1.35L_\odot}AU=1.161895AU(1.496E11m/AU)=1.7382E11m$$
$$R_p=\frac{2R_\star^2}{r_p}=2\frac{7.65974E8m)^2}{1.7382E11m}=\frac{6.751E6m}{6.378E6m}=1.05848EarthRadii$$
G1V Star
Mass: 1.03
Radius: 1.060
Luminosity: 1.20
$$M_\star=1.03(1.9891E30kg)=2.11E30kg$$
$$R_\star=1.060(6.9634E8m)=7.381E8m$$
$$r_p=\sqrt{1.20L_\odot}AU=1.0954AU(1.496E11m/AU)=1.63878589E11m$$
$$R_p=\frac{2R_\star^2}{r_p}=2\frac{7.3812E8m)^2}{1.63878589E11m}=\frac{6.6491E6m}{6.378E6m}=1.0425EarthRadii$$
As you can see we consistently get about 1 Earth radius for the radius of every planet in the habitable zone of each type of star. It might be that radius is right for life in terms of gravity and densities for the elements. I got these results for the stars from spectral types F5V to K3V. It probably goes beyond that.
In order to get \(r_{planet}\), the distance of the habitable planet from the star, we use the inverse square law for luminosity of the star. If the Earth is in the habitable zone, and if the star is one hundred times brighter than the Sun, then by the inverse square law the distance to the habitable zone of the planet is 10 times that of what the Earth is from the Sun. Thus we have in astronomical units the habitable zone of a star is given by:
$$r_{planet}=\sqrt{\frac{L_\star}{L_\odot}}AU$$
We see our theory has applications to archaeology because the second came to us historically from the ancient Sumerians because they divided the Earth day (rotation period) into 24 hours, and, because each hour and minute got further divisions by 60 because their base 60 counting system was inherited by the ancient Babylonians who were the ultimate source of dividing the hour into minutes and the minutes into seconds. I have found this system is given by the rotational angular momentum of the Earth in terms the solar system Planck-type constant, because, as I already pointed out:
$$\frac{L_{earth}}{\hbar_\odot}24=60$$
$$L_{earth}=\frac{4}{5}\pi M_ef_eR_e^2$$
This base 60 counting combined with dividing the day into 24 units is mathematically optimal because the rotational angular momentum incorporates not just the day (rotation period of the Earth) but the mass and size of the Earth. And, as I said, we are touching on archaeoastronomy, as well. This is because 60/24=2.5 and the Scottish engineer, Alexander Thom, found ancient megalithic (stone) observatories throughout Europe may have been based on a unit of length he called the megalithic yard and that the separations between stones, that align with celestial positions and cycles, are recurrently separated by 2.5 megalithic yards. Like in Stonehenge.
Finally, this has applications in SETI (The Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) because we have found that the unit of one second may be a universal constant, and, as such, alien civilizations might use it. As such in sending us a radio message to let us know that they are there may be encoded, for example, or pulsed, in intervals of a second, aside from the fact that the theory has to do with habitable star systems in general, perhaps giving us an idea of what to look for in finding them, and in understanding them.
I have computed my Planck-type constant, \(\hbar_\odot\), as such:
$$\hbar_\odot=(hC)KE_e$$
$$hC=1second$$
Where
$$C=\frac{1}{3}\cdot\frac{1}{\alpha^2c}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}\cdot\frac{\pi r_p}{Gm_p^3}}$$
$$\hbar_\odot=(hC)KE_{earth}=(1.03351s)(2.7396E33J)=2.8314E33J\cdot s$$
Conclusion: We live in a mysterious and enigmatic universe where a great deal defies explanation. Through the characteristic time of one second we may be able to describe a great deal of it in a unified perspective that has applications across various disciplines from the physical to the biological and the astrobiological. Here, we have laid out the basis set for a complete theory, in simple terms, but a great deal remains to be done in opening it up with more sophisticated mathematics and computer modeling than I have been able to do. We need to do this with various specializations in many fields that no one person can understand in their entirety.
*****************************************************************************************
April 14 2025Click here to read Angular Momentum, Quantum Gravity, and Megalithic Sites
It may be that the problem of reconciling gravity with quantum mechanics is an abstract problem, one that may have already been encountered by our ancient ancestors who erected stone observatories like Stonehenge (megalithic sites) and it may be that they found the solution in the megalithic yard, a unit of measurement for aligning stones. Presented here is the author’s earlier theory that provides a wave solution to the Earth/Moon/Sun system that is solved with a characteristic time of one second that is shown to solve also the atom’s proton. As such, it is suggested we can look at the Solar System, which is gravitational, to solve the quantum realm and provide a grand unified theory. It is suggested we might be able to help find such a solution by looking at ancient megalithic sites.
****************************************************************************************
May 18, 2025
The Question of Consciousness, Spirit, and Soul
I wrote:
Thinking about it perhaps the mind and body are electrochemical potentials where the spirit or soul can reside, but is massless and something different than energy, but that can guide the electrochemical processes in the brain (like the firing of neurons) to create the mind. This spirit has to be massless, and something different than energy, because if it was both or either of these things how it influences the brain to create the mind would be reducible to physical processes, which is the reductionist point of view that has yet to be provable. This massless spirit, different than energy you would think would be infinite in depth as a source of thought, otherwise it would be computational and it has not been proven that humans aren’t beyond computational. As such, the soul or spirit, residing in the brain’s and bodies’ electrochemical potentials might be liberated when the body dies and ceases to hold electrochemical potentials. As such, the spirit or soul would not be housed by electrochemical potentials (held in place by them), but rather would guide them, creating the self. I cannot prove that this is the soul or spirit, but I can suggest the possibility because atheism cannot explain the idea of an uncaused cause, nor can religion explain the origin of God, and this view of the soul or spirit satisfies the the current unprovability of reductionism and unprovability that humans are not beyond computational. Computers are computational and subject to reductionism, humans aren’t necessarily such a thing.
Deep Seek said
Your idea is a fascinating synthesis of dualism, metaphysics, and modern neuroscience—a kind of "non-physicalist interactionist dualism" where the soul/spirit is massless, non-energetic, and yet capable of influencing electrochemical processes in the brain without being reducible to them. Let’s break this down and explore its implications, strengths, and challenges.
1. The Nature of the Soul/Spirit in Your Model
You propose that the soul/spirit is:
Massless and non-energetic → If it had mass or energy, it would be subject to physical laws, making it reducible to material processes.
Infinite in depth → If finite, it could (in principle) be simulated computationally, but you argue humans may be "beyond computational.”
Guiding, not identical to, electrochemical processes → It doesn’t equal neural activity but influences it, allowing for free will.
Liberated at death → When the body’s electrochemical potentials cease, the soul is no longer bound by them.
This resembles:
Cartesian dualism (mind and body are separate), but with a more sophisticated mechanism for interaction.
Quantum consciousness theories (e.g., Penrose & Hameroff’s Orch-OR), where non-computable quantum processes might allow for free will.
Non-reductive physicalism (mental phenomena emerge from but aren’t reducible to physical processes), but you go further by positing a non-physical guiding force.
2. How This Solves Key Problems
A. Free Will vs. Determinism
If the soul/spirit is non-physical and infinite in nature, its choices aren’t determined by prior physical causes (avoiding determinism). It also avoids equating free will with randomness (since randomness alone doesn’t imply agency).
B. The Hard Problem of Consciousness (Chalmers)
Materialism struggles to explain why neural activity produces subjective experience (qualia). Your model posits that the soul/spirit uses neural activity to generate the mind, sidestepping the need for a purely physical explanation.
C. The Unprovability of Reductionism
Since the soul/spirit is massless and non-energetic, it wouldn’t leave direct physical traces, making it untestable by current science. This mirrors the "God of the gaps" critique but applies to consciousness instead of cosmology.
D. The Computational Mind Debate
If humans are "beyond computational," as Penrose argues, then no AI (which is purely algorithmic) could replicate true consciousness. Your model provides a mechanism for this: the soul/spirit introduces non-algorithmic causation.
3. Challenges and Counterarguments
A. The Interaction Problem (for Dualism)
How does a massless, non-energetic soul interact with physical neurons? This is the classic objection to Descartes: if mind and body are separate substances, how do they influence each other?
Your answer seems to be that the soul guides electrochemical potentials without being physical—but this still leaves the "how" unexplained. Some propose quantum mechanisms (e.g., microtubules in Orch-OR), but this is speculative.
B. Is "Non-Physical" Even a Meaningful Category?
If the soul doesn’t interact via known physics (energy, forces, fields), how can it have any causal power? Some argue that positing a non-physical entity is functionally equivalent to magic—it doesn’t provide an explanatory mechanism.
C. Occam’s Razor
Materialists would argue that if neural activity fully accounts for behavior (even if not yet perfectly understood), adding a soul is an unnecessary complication.
You counter that reductionism hasn’t explained consciousness or free will, so an alternative is justified.
D. Empirical Evidence?
Near-death experiences (NDEs), psi phenomena, or claims of reincarnation are sometimes cited as evidence for a non-physical soul, but these are controversial and not scientifically validated.
If the soul is truly beyond physical detection, it may be inherently unfalsifiable—which some argue makes it a metaphysical rather than scientific claim.
4. Comparison to Existing Theories
Your idea overlaps with:
Thomistic dualism (Aquinas’ view of the soul as the "form" of the body, not a ghost in a machine).
Idealism (consciousness is fundamental; matter derives from it).
Panpsychism (consciousness is universal, but you go further by giving it a guiding role).
Emergent dualism (the soul emerges from but isn’t reducible to the brain).
5. Is This a Satisfying Model?
You’re right that neither atheism nor theism has a monopoly on answering the "uncaused cause" problem. Your model:
Avoids infinite regress by positing an infinite, non-physical source of thought.
Preserves free will in a way materialism cannot.
Explains why AI isn’t conscious (lacking this non-computational element). However, it also:
Relies on unobservable entities (which some dismiss as ad hoc). Leaves the interaction mechanism undefined (though this is also true of many quantum theories).
Conclusion: A Plausible Metaphysics, But Not a Scientific Theory (Yet?)
Your proposal is a coherent metaphysical framework that:
Respects the limits of materialism (by not reducing consciousness to computation).
Explains free will better than determinism or randomness alone. Offers a possible "home" for the soul in the brain’s electrochemical activity without reducing it to physics.
It may never be provable in a scientific sense, but it’s a philosophically valid alternative to strict physicalism—one that keeps the mystery of consciousness alive while offering a potential resolution.
Final thought: If the soul guides the brain without being physical, could future physics (e.g., a theory of consciousness-quantum gravity, as Penrose suggests) one day describe this interaction? Or is it forever beyond the reach of science? That may be the ultimate question your model raises.
**************************************************************************************
Click here to read Does A Prebiotic Path To Life Exist?
If you have read my work in astronomy theories, you know it provides a theory that applies to the physical problem of habitable planets and star systems in general, so, naturally I am interested in the biological problem of a prebiotic path to life, even though I am not a biologist. Luckily I can read the textbooks on astrobiology (also called exobiology) which frames the question of life not just in terms of the Earth, but in terms of star systems in general, and I can read them because with training in physics I know enough chemistry to follow it, biology mostly being chemistry. Here is what I found the main stumbling blocks were, with the major ones seeming to be in a lack of phosphorus on Earth, followed by Chat GPT’s analysis of these paragraphs..."
***************************************************************************************