Fleeting thoughts: A physical interpretation of Heidegger’s distinction of “existence” and ‘being’ by neutrinos

Neutrino exists only within the framework of energy conservation. (Wolfgang Pauli arguing with Niels Bohr forecast their necessary existence due to energy conservation.) If so, what would be representation of "neutrino" out of that framework? If one answers the latter, what would be the physical meaning of existence out of (energy) conservation? Does it correspond to Heidegger's distinction of "existence" ("conservation", "metaphysics") and "being" (generalizing "conservation", "ontology", eventually "fundamental")?

Well, neutrino is the difference between any "path of Feynman" and the privileged one of energy conservation. However, if the neutrino is observed experimentally, this implies that Feynman's paths

are not (only) virtual or a merely thought construction, but actual ones therefore generating all "immortal" neutrinos penetrating the universe.

So, one should search for neutrinos in the actual (rather than Born's probabilistic) viewpoint of Hugh Everett III to quantum mechanics postulating all "paths" as real "worlds": then neutrino would be a certain difference between a given "world" ("path") and the privileged "zero" one of energy conservation.

Furthermore, that privileged "zero" world of energy conservation can be identified as a privileged reference frame consistent to general rather than to special relativity and determined unambiguously by the "cosmological constant" even if its value is zero. That viewpoint of general relativity interprets

the neutrinos as direct physical equivalents of the certain curvatures of space-time in each point of it.

Thus, the mysterious neutrinos however interpreted both within and out of the framework of energy conservation are able to bridge over the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity. Thus, the neutrinos offer a physical and very fruitful interpretation of Heidegger's distinction between "existence" and 'being’:

Existence corresponds to the “zero” reference frame of energy conservation, and ‘being’, to all possible variations about it (illustrable by Feynman’s paths) or, to all possible curvatures of pseudo-Riemannian space to the “zero” curvature of the cosmological constant.

Well, that being as a single one as the totality implies the equivalence of the set of all paths of Feynman (quantum mechanics) to all curvatures of space-time (general relativity) under the condition of that totality or “fundamentality” (in Heidegger’s word).

The physical meaning of the condition is the totality of the universe: its externality (as far as the universe is the physical totality) is described by quantum mechanics within it. Thus, it corresponds necessarily to its internality as it is described by general relativity.

An illustration: all worlds (in the interpretation of Hugh Everett III) or all possible discretely separated “universes” out of ours should be represented equivalently within it and thus describable by general relativity as all possible reference frames arbitrarily accelerated. The discrete transition between any two separated “universes” turns out to equivalent to smooth transition between any two reference frames!

Key words: Heidegger, fundamental ontology, being, existence, neutrino