The Higgs wave I believe in. Its interpretation is subject to debate since one could write the standard model from the ground up or the top down. From the ground up, the Higgs wave prevents any higher order mass quantization, it is a blockage, not a delivery vehicle. Both positions require the Higgs, for the same reason, and both positions have problem. Matter can be packed from Nulls, counting up from the bottom. But how does null packing obtain and constrain the force needed to make the quark? It needs the Higgs.
From the ground up, having wave action push Nulls around is not a problem.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
The vacuum fluid
Liquid Spacetime - The Fluid Flow Of General Relativity?
If we follow up the analogy with fluids it doesn't make sense to expect these types of changes only" explains Liberati. "If spacetime is a kind of fluid, then we must also take into account its viscosity and other dissipative effects, which had never been considered in detail."
Liberati and Maccione cataloged these effects and showed that viscosity tends to rapidly dissipate photons and other particles along their path, "And yet we can see photons travelling from astrophysical objects located millions of light years away!" says Liberati. "If spacetime is a fluid, then according to our calculations it must necessarily be a superfluid. This means that its viscosity value is extremely low, close to zero.
"We also predicted other weaker dissipative effects, which we might be able to see with future astrophysical observations. Should this happen, we would have a strong clue to support the emergent models of spacetime. With modern astrophysics technology the time has come to bring quantum gravity from a merely speculative view point to a more phenomenological one. One cannot imagine a more exciting time to be working on gravity".
They are not alone, Einstein said the vacuum had inherent energy. So, how much of a fluid is the vacuum? Well, how about (3/2)^-108 of the fluidity of the proton, as near as I can tell. That tiny number seems to agree with both Max Plank and Albert when they postulated the the energy of the vacuum. What effect would that cause when viewing light from 60 million light years? Energy spread of light, and red shift, as a matter of fact.
The bigger problem is whether the energy of the vacuum is dissipating. And if not, what replenishes it? And if so, where would it go?
I have decided to make quantum pie
I have rules for making Quantum pie. It is to be filled by machines that must fill the pie dish evenly. The pie dish will rotate on a spindle, thus the pie dish has a hole in its center. And the pie has an outside edge. I call these my Shannon pie boundaries. The rotation of the pie is constant, I call this the speed of pie. The pie will be filled by four machines, each of them will use one of four spoons. But no machine may use the same spoon size as its neighbor within one unit of speed of pie.
My machines must be able to calculate pie filling to within their integer limits, so my pie quants must obey some group pie theory rules. The goal is to minimize the variation of pie density during one rotation of the quantum pie.
Wish me luck, it will take a day or so. I can get this on my R code system pretty quick.
Nope, this is not it. This just shows I have 3d graphics up and running!
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The Null was discovered in 1995, I am not alone
Nature: In 1995, Ted Jacobson, a physicist at the University of Maryland in College Park, combined these two findings, and postulated that every point in space lies on a tiny 'black-hole horizon' that also obeys the entropy–area relationship. From that, he found, the mathematics yielded Einstein's equations of general relativity — but using only thermodynamic concepts, not the idea of bending space-time1.
The Null is a black hole?
Sure, why not. It does nothing, it is the best sphere that nature can make. There are about .3e17 of them in a Plank length, as near as I can tell. We are made of them.
Fractions and stochastic algebra
The atomic orbitals are not quantized to Shannon, meaning they do not make a two bit digit system, but make a digit system in the natural log. They do not have SNR greater than 1/5. So a wave function of the orbitals will have forms looking like:
e^(k) + e^(k-1)+ e^(k-1)....
A perfectly fine digit system, the k are integer, the quantum numbers of the orbitals. And we can treat them like a digit system, add, subtract, multipy and so on. But when we draw them, we convert to the twos system of our computers. If we do that anyway, then just use Shannon with a high enough sample rate and find all the orbital quantum numbers. Essentially what we would be doing is breaking the electron mass into fine granularity, applying a bit of special relativity.
Look what happens:
1) Convert e to log2(e) = 1.4427 = b then we get:
2^(l*k) + 2^(l*(k-1) + 2^(l * k-2)......
Nice, the the l*(k),l*(k-1)... are not integer, and we really do not have a nice digit system until we scale b up to an integer like 144. Still works but we are dealing with a 144*k*j digit number. So, if we have some 20 quantum numbers total, we would apply Shannon across the spherical phase density using 20 * 144 integers; computing all the integers to quantize that phase density.
Why not? Good question, why not. You end up with three variables, one for radius squared, one for theta angle and one for beta angle, and the pretty picture would be a series of binary numbers added up, each binary number ranging from about 1 to 1000 digits. So what? I dunno, why not.
All we are doing in atomic physics is minimizing the variance of {-1,0,1} within the proton. The know wave/mass numbers that define the orbital boundaries, so we know the total phase. We should know the relative amount of phase in a unit of charge, so we initialize the proton to that. We know the number of Nulls in a proton. We have chopped up the electron enough to accommodate relativity. In finding the Shannon boundaries of the orbitals we have accommodated magnetism. Maximum entropy is minimum phase to the precision of 1000 digits over the sphere of the Proton. We ignore the quarks, they just give us an axis of symmetry. The orbitals are simply the paths of uniform phase, so we map the proton phase function onto the orbitals
I simply cannot find fault.
e^(k) + e^(k-1)+ e^(k-1)....
A perfectly fine digit system, the k are integer, the quantum numbers of the orbitals. And we can treat them like a digit system, add, subtract, multipy and so on. But when we draw them, we convert to the twos system of our computers. If we do that anyway, then just use Shannon with a high enough sample rate and find all the orbital quantum numbers. Essentially what we would be doing is breaking the electron mass into fine granularity, applying a bit of special relativity.
Look what happens:
1) Convert e to log2(e) = 1.4427 = b then we get:
2^(l*k) + 2^(l*(k-1) + 2^(l * k-2)......
Nice, the the l*(k),l*(k-1)... are not integer, and we really do not have a nice digit system until we scale b up to an integer like 144. Still works but we are dealing with a 144*k*j digit number. So, if we have some 20 quantum numbers total, we would apply Shannon across the spherical phase density using 20 * 144 integers; computing all the integers to quantize that phase density.
Why not? Good question, why not. You end up with three variables, one for radius squared, one for theta angle and one for beta angle, and the pretty picture would be a series of binary numbers added up, each binary number ranging from about 1 to 1000 digits. So what? I dunno, why not.
All we are doing in atomic physics is minimizing the variance of {-1,0,1} within the proton. The know wave/mass numbers that define the orbital boundaries, so we know the total phase. We should know the relative amount of phase in a unit of charge, so we initialize the proton to that. We know the number of Nulls in a proton. We have chopped up the electron enough to accommodate relativity. In finding the Shannon boundaries of the orbitals we have accommodated magnetism. Maximum entropy is minimum phase to the precision of 1000 digits over the sphere of the Proton. We ignore the quarks, they just give us an axis of symmetry. The orbitals are simply the paths of uniform phase, so we map the proton phase function onto the orbitals
I simply cannot find fault.
Five years ago, I was not alone
Physics of the Shannon Limits
We provide a simple physical interpretation, in the context of the second law of thermodynamics, to the information inequality (a.k.a. the Gibbs' inequality, which is also equivalent to the log-sum inequality), asserting that the relative entropy between two probability distributions cannot be negative. Since this inequality stands at the basis of the data processing theorem (DPT), and the DPT in turn is at the heart of most, if not all, proofs of converse theorems in Shannon theory, it is observed that conceptually, the roots of fundamental limits of Information Theory can actually be attributed to the laws of physics, in particular, to the second law of thermodynamics, and at least indirectly, also to the law of energy conservation. By the same token, in the other direction: one can view the second law as stemming from information-theoretic principles.Entropy means optimally matching with a countable set.
Decoding Einstein
A popular exercise.
It seems clear what was going on in his development. He discovers the quantization of light in the atom, discovers the quantization of vacuum energy. Naturally setting the speed of light constant, he still wants to avoid quantization issues. So he sets space impedance to a constant, though he knows that space impedance and gravitation are related, both of then a function of the vacuum Null. Hence, gravitation* impedance becomes a constant, everything is still continuous and thus space time becomes the independent variable.
Einstein simply did not accept the quantization premise. Now we look at the vacuum and discover that it is the quantization ratios of matter that are constant. Light, though a constant, is simply set to a sample rate that maximizes the Compton rule in a quantized environment. Then things are not so continuous, and we have to have both space impedance and gravitation written with respect to the mass quantization ratios.
The impedance of space, the general term including both gravity and light impedance, is simply the signal to noise ratio and the structure of the vacuum; which Einstein did not like.
So, the simple theory of counting things up:
It seems clear what was going on in his development. He discovers the quantization of light in the atom, discovers the quantization of vacuum energy. Naturally setting the speed of light constant, he still wants to avoid quantization issues. So he sets space impedance to a constant, though he knows that space impedance and gravitation are related, both of then a function of the vacuum Null. Hence, gravitation* impedance becomes a constant, everything is still continuous and thus space time becomes the independent variable.
Einstein simply did not accept the quantization premise. Now we look at the vacuum and discover that it is the quantization ratios of matter that are constant. Light, though a constant, is simply set to a sample rate that maximizes the Compton rule in a quantized environment. Then things are not so continuous, and we have to have both space impedance and gravitation written with respect to the mass quantization ratios.
The impedance of space, the general term including both gravity and light impedance, is simply the signal to noise ratio and the structure of the vacuum; which Einstein did not like.
So, the simple theory of counting things up:
- The structure of the vacuum
- The derived SNR of the vacuum
- The theory of entropy written in terms of phase equalization
- Including both stochastic and integer entropy make the decimal point.
Good idea here
These authors work with the complete sequence:
Physicists know a sequence of things happened in a particular order. They do not know, yet, what the clock rate for those events were, and for that they need to know how the vacuum quantizes events, how does the vacuum count. The vacuum would count differently if the environment at any one place were a bit different. So until we known the complete sequence, we do not know what the units of maximum entropy were along the path.
It's bigger on the inside: Tardis regions in spacetime and the expanding universeProfessors Rasanen, and Szybkab, of the University of Helsinki and the Jagellonian University at Krakow, together with Rasanen's graduate student Mikko Lavinto, decided to investigate another possibility.
The "standard cosmological model," which is the framework within which accelerated expansion requires dark energy, was developed in the 1920s and 1930s. The FLRW metric (named for Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker, the major contributors) is an exact solution to Einstein's equations. It describes a strictly homogeneous, isotropic universe that can be expanding or contracting.
Strict homogeneity and strict isotropy means that the universe described by an FLRW metric looks the same at a given time from every point in space, at whatever distance or orientation you look. This is a universe in which galaxies, clusters of galaxies, sheets, walls, filaments, and voids do not exist. Not, then, very much like our own Universe, which appears to be rather homogeneous and isotropic when you look at distances greater than about a gigaparsec, but closer in it is nothing of the sort.
Physicists know a sequence of things happened in a particular order. They do not know, yet, what the clock rate for those events were, and for that they need to know how the vacuum quantizes events, how does the vacuum count. The vacuum would count differently if the environment at any one place were a bit different. So until we known the complete sequence, we do not know what the units of maximum entropy were along the path.
So, SpaceTime does travel faster than the speed of light!
Science Line:
So, while the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself. The universe keeps right on expanding, but the speed of light limits how much of it we can see, and how fast we can move. It may not be fair, but that’s physics.
Physicists are thinking the relative rate of gravity speed and light speed is constant. That's an improvement. That means:
space impedance*gravity = constant.
Not a bad assumption, it means that mass is now the universal constant, and the structure of the vacuum does imply that fact. But it also means the red shift is subject to differing interpretations, I think. This assumption also implies the connectivity of the universe.
Joel R. Primack says the vacuum bubbles expanded
UC Santa Cruz professor:
Likely a better explanation, and one that I still consider. But his interpretation casts much doubt, and if the vacuum inflated, so did the impedance of space or the gravitational constant. We cannot have it both ways, the vacuum expanded buts its properties were unaffected? Impossible. He once again assumes a structure for the vacuum with no method to define that structure.
The idea that the vacuum bubble expanded is a bit far fetched, they most likely just changed their relative shapes, thus changing the dimensionality of symmetry. But topological considerations make even that circumspect.
"According to modern cosmological theory, based on Einstein's General Relativity (our modern theory of gravity), the big bang did not occur somewhere in space; it occupied the whole of space. Indeed, it created space. Distant galaxies are not traveling at a high speed through space; instead, just like our own galaxy, they are moving relatively slowly with respect to any of their neighboring galaxies. It is the expansion of space, between the time when the stars in these distant galaxies emitted light and our telescopes receive it, that causes the wavelength of the light to lengthen (redshift). Space is itself infinitely elastic; it is not expanding into anything."
Likely a better explanation, and one that I still consider. But his interpretation casts much doubt, and if the vacuum inflated, so did the impedance of space or the gravitational constant. We cannot have it both ways, the vacuum expanded buts its properties were unaffected? Impossible. He once again assumes a structure for the vacuum with no method to define that structure.
The idea that the vacuum bubble expanded is a bit far fetched, they most likely just changed their relative shapes, thus changing the dimensionality of symmetry. But topological considerations make even that circumspect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)