Mass Gap

[Dubbelosix]

There was an interesting post at sciforums concerning the mass gap and how it unanswered as of yet. To cover courtesy of wiki:

 

''In quantum field theory, the mass gap is the difference in energy between the lowest energy state, the vacuum, and the next lowest energy state. The energy of the vacuum is zero by definition, and assuming that all energy states can be thought of as particles in plane-waves, the mass gap is the mass of the lightest particle.

 

Since the energies of exact (i.e. nonperturbative) energy eigenstates are spread out and therefore they are not technically eigenstates, a more precise definition is that the mass gap is the greatest lower bound of the energy of any state which is orthogonal to the vacuum.''

 

Anyone with a grasp of quantum mechanics will know the energy of a vacuum is not zero by definition due to the existence of zero point fields. There seems to be some ''universal assumption'' in which I keep reading with regards to the mass gap that the vacuum (is a perfect Newtonian system) when in reality it is subject to the zero point ground state energies.

 

This means the ground state is the vacuum or

 

[math]<0|\mathbf{H}|0>\ \ne 0[/math]

 

The zero point field is not an assumption but in fact a matter of experimental fact. You cannot freeze a vacuum to absolute zero (which would include) removing all the matter and energy from a location of space. Everytime you try and make a perfect vacuum, you will always continue measuring a residual energy of [math]\frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math]. The zero point field features in a few fundamental equations, first theorised by Planck to later be used by Einstein in hydrogen calculations. So the mass gap relies on a faulty assumption that there is a next energy level from a hypothetical perfect vacuum.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Dubbelosix

[exchemist]

For other readers, there is a misunderstanding here about temperature. Zero point energy does not contribute to temperature, because it cannot be extracted.

 

A system possessing only zero point energy is at absolute zero. 

[Super Polymath]

Doesn't globally contribute to temperature, we need to make clear.

Not if temperature is thought of as a whole, & fempto or picometer (or infinitely smaller) thermodynamics are thought of as the parts that makeup that whole.

 

Gravity is the same way, if moving pilot waves that engangles particles & dictates how the virtual particles will be formed into thermal energy, even matter itself can be considered as a solidified thermodynamical state of fluctuations in a D brane. Matter at a fundamental level goes from virtual to palpable.

 

This is what I've been trying to explain.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

It is possible to predict how a particle entangling wave of virtual potential will bind energy across the entire universe. It requires nigh-infinite simulations of universes, & with zero room for error in your model.

 

Such a wave is superluminal because it is surfing the expansion of the vacuum the vacuum which itself has very little thermodynamic binding energy to resist or counteract it's internal expansion.

 

It may be possible to measure the velocity of this wave, predict it's effects totally, & communicate with it because it's generated by these local changes. Your astronaut could be a remote controlled consciousness,and a Boltzmann brain composed entirely of the product of the superluminal role thar these types of virtual gravity waves will play in the formation of particles light years away

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

You really buy into the BBT?

 

The LCDM model is a half truth. The Big Bang was political, "Let there be light".

 

It was only accepted by a highly Christain world because a Christain incepted it.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Non-locality was designed, inadvertantly, to make things unpredictable by forcing us to rely on statistical chaos rather than patterns. Local realism was incepted by a genius, stastical analysis has subverted that genius postmortem.

[Super Polymath]

Yes i do believe at some point in the universes history, it began to heat up. This is no different to saying something like a big bang happened. I say this because all the evidence points to this happening, what I don't buy is that that was all there was. I cannot believe something comes from nothing. I do not believe singularities exist in nature so I do not think a universe comes from one either. Neither does Penrose or Hawking now for that matter, the primary creators of the singularity theorems which owed as the origin theory for a very long time.

 

What we can draw on, is that we can scale the universe and it's evolution back to an origin when it was very hot - the next logical question from here, is why it was hot. That kind of question allows you to think about times past the universe as we understand it. Some take big bang to mean the creation of not only matter and radiation but space and time itself. But this is only an assumption.

I agree that there was a heavy hot CMB. There was also mass around that sphere of gas & dust from matter exceeding the range of that spherical object of 13.8 billion cubic light years.

 

But you know very well what I believe. But I have math to back it up now, along with enough evidence to make my belief a legitimate scientific theory that does make predictions that even you could test.  that's in my DID thread 

 

 

OFF TOPIC the DID theory also removes singularities, even from black holes adopting William James Sidis' view on what they actually are. They are of a perpendicular D brane, points where spacetime goes in reverse, points of zero energy, yet they create gravity via D brane torsion, binding the virtual vacuum radiation into thermodynamic energy, even into an atom which is just a collection of chiroidal energies revolving round & round. The microcosms, these picoscopic black holes in the protons, are in my theory no different than large scale black holes, they even may become black holes by combining under gravitational stress as we see in stars as they are the heart of the protons being forced together there. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Yes, matter at the fundamental level did once get a boost from their virtual state into longer lived fluctuations of a vacuum. This is the origin of all observable matter in the universe.

The fluctuations still occur in shorter intervals within every atom of matter. It's the atomic oscillation frequency, the collection of particles phasing in & out of virtual states to create a hologram that acts like solid matter. In the virtual states, expansion occurs, & everything exists in a virtual state for the longest duration (longer than when it's "there"). In virtual states, you're left with a collection of micro vacuums in which this pilot wave of the components of gravity (gravitons) can surf the expansion of those microvacuums superluminally linking everything together in one big wave function (pilot wave liken to the as-of-yet unproven higgs field)

 

But I'm sorry you don't share my ambitions for superluminal communication. 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

No your math is not adequate

You'd have to demonstrate that in my thread in order to say that

[Super Polymath]

Normally, but to be honest, it would take me months to explain why your buzzwords don't work in the places you have put them carelessly, and then I'd have to go through all your equations and then demonstrate equations that would provide proofs...

 

 

...and that inexorably leads to the things you have been askiing me to do in private messages which I have no intention persuing with you as it is wasting my time. You should appreciate this. What would be best is for you to stop contradicting me, ask genuine questions and you might actually start to learn this stuff because when you come to do this, you will appreciate why modern physics is largely right and why your opinions of your own ''pet theories'' are fundamentally wrong from first principles.

I don't want your help. But you can't go around calling it a pet theory when you don't even look at my derivation f entropy availability lambda max

[Super Polymath]

You're assuming that I didnt figure something new out

[Super Polymath]

Claiming it's just a pet theory isn't close to providing a counter argument, so go on & keep believing whatever you want.

 

But don't continue this argument here

Edited March 27, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

A pet theory with buzzwords that don't make sense, then.

Deleterious means deleting

 

Inversive means reverse opposite

 

Di means two

 

Brane means a 3 dimensional plane of existence

[Super Polymath]

Oh my God.

 

Two things;

 

One, I'm not nor was I purposely spamming or trying to contradict you. I simply proposed a way to view zero point energy as a global thermodynamic phenomenon against what Exchemist said earlier.

 

Second, to my knowledge the DID theory you're discrediting is not pretentiously "smart sounding", nor was it invented to impress you. It is not what I just posted on sci forums .net, it says something completely different, this time actually being tested & proceed with real math.

 

It finds a dark energy, it finds a dark matter, it unifies gravity with weak strong nuclear forces as well as electromagnetism. You're welcome to test it yourself.

[Super Polymath]

But even Einstein, if he were still with us, couldn't show that DID doesn't theoretically do those three things (dark energy, dark matter, unification). So don't feel bad if you can't actually point out any problems with it.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

What part of spamming other peoples threads with your idea, that you personally don't find invasive?

At first I was just stating that zero point thermodynamics can be perceived to aggregate to universal fluctuations which had nothing to do with the impersonal DID theory. Then I called the centuries old wise tale of something from nothing into question. I used the DID once to offer perspective. Then you immediately started making wild claims about the DID theory without any evidence to support your ideas on why LCDM is the end all be all before contradicting yourself by contradicting it much in the same I did

 

Now I'm cobfused as to why you're bringing up private messages.

 

I actually regret apologizing over private messages now for **** I did months ago

[Super Polymath]

Anything else to your idea's surrounding infinity, and the like, have no place here for discussion.

I wish I knew what the **** you're talking about. I never even used that word