Monday, April 28, 2014

Does sparse vacuum really work?

I keep thinking, as long as the vacuum gradient is within the precision of the proton, it will not notice if the vacuum bubbles are bigger. In a sample data system, the relativity thing is handled because every thing is in units of relative samples. The proton could bloom in size, but relative to the vacuum of which it is made, everything is stable.

What does cause the proton instability is the lack of the proper gradient, not the sparsity of space.  My assumption here is that stability proton is due to its ability to adapt to the equalibriated gradient of space, which the neutron cannot do.  The adaption process is the result of free protons creating that gradient by stabilizing gravity to the level proton precision out to the edge of space.

 There should be a region of high noise, much greater than nominal vacuum noise where protons lose stability and dissipate. Can the proton, at the edge of space, cause more vacuum energy that that which created it? The assumption is that the proton was created in a phase gradient to which it was suited, and the energy being released in in a phase gradient that is suddenly unbalanced and has the wrong gradient. It would require a sudden, explosive dissipation.

The process would be the reverse of the big bang. But it would only cause more noise in the vacuum at the fringes, where the vacuum density gradient changed abruptly, and that should dissipate at light speed, except to the point that phase has to disentagle itslef from the cloud of Nulls. If you had other protons nearby, on the edge of instability, you can get a chain reaction. But I do not see how this pulls excess energy from the vacuum, even though its noise level rises.

Can we assume an infinite supply of vacuum beyond the known universe? 

Note on relativity: This theory has only one relative moment, the density of the bubbles from the source to user relative to destination, which is the number of samples need to make the trip. That would total samples for anything that the observer thinks effect the measurement.

No comments: