Thursday, May 22, 2014

Still a bit perplexed by MIT's record low temperature

Even using the units of normal physics, knowing the numbers thrown around for Higgs and Einstein's 1/2 vacuum noise, the scale that IBM reported matches. It matches Avogadro.  So, given that MIT picked off a number from a continuous Planck curve, they still are good enough to at least get one axis measured right. So they are talking about the wavelength of a few hundred, or less, of Einstein's 1/2 integer vacuum noise. In other words, the Compton mass cannot be much above a batch of vacuum.  But that stretches the credibility of a flat, infinitesimal vacuum.  I am thinking that the idea of frequency and wavelength might be a little off in the quantum world. Hmmm...

I got into this because, in my model, nothing really moves, everything is just exchanged along an axis of symmetry.  Even when you throw a baseball, you are pushing this mass of protons up against the density of free space, and the protons relent to being exchanged along the axis, I am not sure the baseball the catcher catches is the same baseball that left the pitchers hand. Light is the same process, a phase gradient, a difference between small and large bubble density, and the wave simply exchanges away along the minimum phase axis. Frequency is really just the number of quant levels per wavelength.  Gamma rays, for example, have no mixed modes, they are a few, solitary quant levels, with a huge difference in levels. There wavelength is short, but the gradient, the ratio of small to large bubbles, along that wavelength is huge. Frequency is really the number of quants.  Gamma rays are isolated from normal light by group separation, but normal light is a multiple power series, a mixed mode of two or more quant rates, and light can count out a range of values.  Gamma rays do not have that, I think they are mostly isolated and count from a single mode, they are almost binary.

Anyway, something again is amiss, maybe its me, but the flat, stretchable space theory is getting weaker and weaker..

No comments: