An Exploration of Mass, Immaterialons, and a Hypothetical “God System” of Measurement

Note: This is a chapter in an up and coming book The Bible A New Testament: Volume 2. Here is the first volume:

The Bible A Modern Testament: Responsibly Transitioning to a Secular World|Paperback

Introduction

This text documents a thought experiment exploring an unconventional model of mass and its potential connection to a hypothetical “immaterial realm.” The investigation begins with premises inspired by Young Earth Creationism (YEC), but ultimately diverges from strict adherence to YEC constraints as internal inconsistencies are uncovered. The goal is to construct a logically consistent mathematical framework, even if it departs from established physics, and to explore its consequences. The process is akin to a “proof by contradiction,” where we follow the logical implications of our initial assumptions to see if they lead to inconsistencies or contradictions with known physical principles.

The Premise: Immaterialons and the God System (GS)

We begin by postulating the existence of an immaterial realm, distinct from the material realm we experience. This realm is populated by massless units called “immaterialons” (denoted by ‘i’). We further propose a “God System” (GS) of measurement for this realm, analogous to the MKS or CGS systems used in physics. The GS system is, at this stage, largely undefined, except for the immaterialon itself as a unit.

A fundamental assumption is made: the mass of a material object is directly related to the number of immaterialons associated with it. This is expressed initially as:

m = ik

where:

• m is mass (in kilograms).
• i is the number of immaterialons (a dimensionless count).
• k is a conversion factor with units of kg/immaterialon.

This equation forms the core of our initial model. It implies that all mass originates in the immaterial realm.

Initial Challenges and Modifications

The initial m = ik formulation faces immediate problems:

• The Zero Property: If either i or k is zero, then m is zero, implying that any object without immaterialons, or any scenario where the conversion factor vanishes, would have zero mass. This contradicts everyday experience.
• Constancy of k: A constant k is too restrictive. It doesn't allow for any variation in the relationship between immaterialons and mass, which is a potential requirement for reconciling the model with certain YEC viewpoints (specifically, the need for "changing constants" to compress geological timescales).

To address these issues, several modifications are proposed:

• Variable Conversion Factor (v): The constant k is replaced by a variable v, representing a conversion factor that can change. The equation becomes m = iv.
• Minimum v: To avoid the "zero property" problem with v, the constraint that v > v_min > 0 is made.

Exploring the Nature of v

The core of the investigation then shifts to understanding what v might depend on. Initially, a time-dependent v(t) is considered, motivated by the YEC desire to allow for changing physical constants. However, this is recognized as potentially leading to unfalsifiability and a lack of a physical mechanism.

Other possibilities for the dependence of v are explored:

• v(I): Immaterialon Density Dependence: v could depend on the local density of immaterialons (I), defined as the number of immaterialons per unit of "immaterial volume" (λ³).
• v(s): Spiritual Charge Dependence: A hypothetical "spiritual charge" (s) is introduced as a property of immaterialons, and v could depend on this charge.
• v(E): Energy Dependence: v could depend on the local energy density in the material realm.
• v(λ, τ): Immaterial Space and Time Dependence: v could depend on coordinates within the immaterial realm itself, if it has its own spatial and temporal dimensions.
• Introducing Fields v(Φ): The concept of an “immaterial field” (Φ) is introduced.

Developing the GS System and a Field Theory

To move beyond ad-hoc assumptions, the concept of an immaterial field, Φ, is introduced, analogous to fields in physics (e.g., the electromagnetic field). The following postulates are made:

• Scalar Field: Φ is a scalar field (having a single value at each point in space).
• Source: Immaterialons are the source of the Φ field.
• Linear Interaction: v depends linearly on Φ (as a first approximation).

This leads to a set of equations:

• m = i * v(I, Φ) (Mass equation)
• v(I, Φ) = v₀ + αI + βΦ (Linear dependence of v on I and Φ)
• ∇²Φ = - γI (Source equation for Φ, analogous to Poisson's equation in electromagnetism)

where:

• v₀ is a baseline conversion factor.
• α and β are constants determining the strength of the dependence of v on I and Φ, respectively.
• γ is a constant determining the strength of the Φ field generated by immaterialons.
• ∇² is the Laplacian operator.

The Problem of i(r) and a Hybrid Solution

The definition of i (the number of immaterialons) as a function of spatial position in the material realm (i(r)) is identified as conceptually flawed. Two alternative definitions are considered:

• Intrinsic Immaterialon Number (i₀ₖ): Each fundamental particle of type k has an intrinsic, constant immaterialon number.
• Φ-Dependent i: The "effective" i is proportional to the local value of the Φ field: i = bΦ.

A hybrid approach is adopted, combining both:

i = i₀ₖ + bΦ

This allows for both an intrinsic mass component and a dynamically varying component due to the Φ field.

Spherically Symmetric Solution

To make the equations tractable, a spherically symmetric, steady-state solution is sought. This assumes that the immaterialon density and the Φ field depend only on the radial distance (r) from a central point (representing a particle).

Under these assumptions, and with a specific (though arbitrary) choice for the spatial distribution of immaterialon density (I(r) = I₀ * exp(-r/a)), the following solution is derived:

• Φ(r) = -γI₀a² * exp(-r/a)
• v(r) = v₀ + A * exp(-r/a) (where A = I₀(α - βγa²))
• m = (i₀ₖ - bγI₀a² * exp(-r/a)) * (v₀ + A * exp(-r/a))

Analysis and Contradictions

The derived solution, while internally consistent within the simplifying assumptions, fails to reproduce key observational features of dark matter, specifically the flat rotation curves of galaxies. The exponential decay of v(r) and m(r) does not match the required mass distribution.

Several other problems are identified:

• Ad Hoc Assumptions: Many assumptions were made for mathematical convenience, lacking strong justification from within the model itself.
• Potential Instability: The feedback loop between i and Φ raises concerns about potential runaway solutions.
• YEC Incompatibility: The requirement of changing constants of nature of the YEC model is inconsistent with their fine tuning argument.

Conclusion

The exploration, while rigorous within its self-imposed framework, leads to a set of inconsistencies and difficulties that strongly suggest the initial premise — that mass originates solely from a count of immaterialons — is not viable as a realistic physical model, at least in the forms explored. The model fails to reproduce key observations related to dark matter, and it struggles with internal consistency and the need for numerous ad-hoc assumptions. The effort serves as a form of “proof by contradiction,” demonstrating the challenges of constructing alternative physical theories that deviate significantly from established principles. While the model does not succeed in its initial aim, the process highlights the interconnectedness of physical laws and the importance of both internal consistency and experimental verification in scientific model building. The YEC requirement of rapidly changing constants of nature to collapse large time frames is shown to be internally inconsistent with the YEC fine-tuning argument.