Re: Cosmological Constant Problem real or imagined?


FrediFizzx wrote:
by renormalization in QFT.

No. Virtual pairs are still connected back to the other spacetime
but
energy in our spacetime has excited them to become more separated
and
probably the best way to describe it is that they are partially in
both
spacetimes. What you are citing is not really a valid application
of
the uncertainty principle. And an electron does not have infinite
mass
ever. It only has infinite energy over all time. Most likely, a
"bare"
electron is massless and chargeless if you can even call it an
electron
at that point. ;-)

Well. I'm referriing to the minimum interaction vertex in the Feynman
Diagram. Let say you have two electrons exchanging virtual
photons which repel them. Even though the virtual photon
has no mass. It's virtual-electron-positron can have any mass
within the uncertainty allowed by time (courtesy of HUP).

This is not strictly a correct application of HUP. Sorry.

Virtual particles are application of the time-energy conjugate
just like position-momentum counterpart. Anyway. What's
the correct application of HUP? What is your interpretation
of it?


Now
for those Feynman Diagrams where virtual-electron-positrons
can turn into virtual photons and so on and back and forth.
There is an infinite ways for them to interact. Now you get the
amplitude of this and the energy would come out infinite.
Since mass is energy. The mass would be infinite. Well.
What I can't imagine is how do you apply superpositions to
your "hole" thing. In QM, cat can be both dead and
alive in the subatomic realm (for illustration). That's why you have
the sum of all possible ways for the interactions to occur
be added in kinda of superposition.

You have this so mixed up I am not even going to try to straighten it
out. ;-) If you can get your mind completely around a relativistic
medium viewpoint, much of this become much more clear.

Well. But the experiments tally with the theoretical framework.
If you don't use superpositions in your positron-hole thing.
How can and where do you get the infinite energy? What
QFT is showing us can be put by the following analogy.
Polasek would call it voodoo but physics math support such
scenerio in the subatomic. Say you have a man and a woman.
How can you make infinite energy out of them. This is how
QFT says it can happen. Assume planck is much bigger
that the man and woman become sensitive to it. Using
the HUP time-energy conjugate. If the time is a fraction,
there is uncertainty in energy. Say the fraction is 5 mins
(for sake of analogy). What QFT is showing us is that in that
amount of time, the man and woman can try 1 trillion and
infinite number of sex positions (akin to the feynman
diagrams of the different interactions possible) based on
superposition principle and. And that's not all. The
energy exerted in each sex position can sum
up and since there are infinite positions, there is infinite
energy. So in the language of QFT, the self-energy of the
electron is infinite... akin to the man and woman becoming
infinite in energy from all the sex muscle effort added
together in superposition. Well. Isn't this what QFT is saying.. the
source of the infinite self energy of the electron. I read this in QED
by Feynman. If you say I'm wrong. Then what's the right
interpretation of the infinite energy based on QED??? But
Feynman described it clearly. So how can your finite number
of positron-hole do all this summing of energy to become
infinite?? Pls. elaborate.

To make yourself more understandable. Which part of
QM don't you agree with. You don't agree with HUP?
with Superposition? What is your interpretation of
the wave function? You seem to be bypassing some
battle tested laws of QFT in general and QED in
particular.

<grin> We agree with most all of quantum theory. We just interpret it
a bit differently. The wave function remains the same. In a
relativistic medium viewpoint however, gauge bosons are real "wavicles"
of the medium. Not to be confused with probability waves although there
is a connection between the two. Uncertainty is a natural phenomema of
wave motion. You just keep wanting to apply HUP incorrectly.

Hmm... Pls. write a paper or web page or even message (or reply
to this in detail) where you comment on quantum theory and
share your interpretations and critique so people would get
yours perspective before tackling your quantum vacuum charge
thing.


Note the identities of the particles follow certain symmetries.
For example, Gell Mann organized the hadrons and mesons
into octet that behave according to certain symmetry (SU(3))
based on the Lie Group which he refered to as Eightway Fold.
Now. Can you explain how structures alone can follow or
even make up that SU(3) symmetry.

It is being worked on... slowly. A mathematical wizard is needed.
;-)
But you can look at our Spin Matrix geometry and see a symmetrical
connection. It actually has two centers of symmetry. One centered
on
the LTV e+e- pairs (U1?) and one on the uubar quark pairs (SU(3)?).
Notice the 3-way connection for the uubar pair. Now, this is a
representation of a boundary between the spacetimes and the trick is
to
figure out how this works coming into our spacetime.

Maybe you should work with Tom Lockyer. Isn't it he derive
some constants of nature at first principle.

;-) Actually it was two ideas that Tom had that eventually led me to
the Quantum Vacuum Charge scenario. Check the refs in the QVC paper.
Unfortunately what Tom thinks are neutrinos in his model are really more
like Goldstone bosons and I can't shake him from his erroneous
conception. And he has some other problems in his model. But his work
on nucleon binding energies is uncanny how he gets very close to the
correct answers using only EM principles. I also just received an
interesting paper from Tom on "Quantum Step Resistance Dissipation..."
dealing with quantum hall effects and electron to electron binding
energy.

Gee, you mean Tom is still active. I thought he has retired into
the woods. Where is he now. He seems to be a little stubborn
in his vector particle physics dismissing a lot of data.


So what? Spacetime is being defined above this level so what would
it
mean to "move backward in time" when time may not even exist yet?
That
is also like saying there could be negative absolute length. Ya
have to
think much differently about this. Newton's infinitesimal calculus
doesn't work properly in the realm where spacetime is being defined
in
the first place. Mainstream has this happening below the Planck
length
and time but there is absolutely no physical evidence that Planck
units
are true and I suspect it is already starting to happen at the
atomic
level.

This is what I want to understand. How you can make SR work
yet allow faster than light by making some higher space or
unspace where beyond the frames of SR. But I still can't
understand the details of your process. I wonder if some
application of Lisa Randall branes can do the trick.

Yes, we are thinking of the Randall-Sundrum RS1 model. However, we
allow other particles in the "bulk" besides just gravitons. Something
more like this,

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0509160

In a relativistic medium viewpoint, SR is a "somewhat local" emergent
property of the medium (Super-GR is global). Once you drop below the
defining "matrix" of elements comprising that medium, then the
"constraint" is removed for massless quantum objects to move at c or
less. IOW, mainstream has it that SR fails at higher than the Planck
scale. We think the "cut-off" is more dynamical in nature and starts at
a much lower scale and gets worse and worse until it totally fails at a
"reduced" Planck scale that is possibly closer to the high TeV scale.
If the RS1 warped geometry scenario is somewhat correct, then this is
what has to be happening.

Also in addition to write a QM paper or message commenting on
your interpretation. Write a relativisitc one too. Explain how c
can move faster than light yet not moving backward in time as seen
from other frames and yet satisify the postulate of SR that the laws
of physics is the same in every frame of reference.

Jay


FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where does the mass of the particle come from?
    ... Its energy is in fact ... In fact this is just another example of the infinities of QFT ... function from the energy (it is infinite at 0 ie you are subtracting ... theories and their inherent symmetry. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where does the mass of the particle come from?
    ... The Vacuum is the homogeneous Space of the lowest ... Its energy is in fact ... In fact this is just another example of the infinities of QFT ... function from the energy (it is infinite at 0 ie you are subtracting ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Voids in the ground state are negative Mass/Energy/Pressue.
    ... The net energy of the cosmos is negative, ... and its entropy always goes up because its temperature always goes down. ... it'd take infinite acceleration ... the radiation pressure is infinitely dissipated; ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... W is energy transformation ... means finite mass still. ... I am still wishing for this supposed infinite ... Actually I learned classical physics better than the relativistic ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: No infinite energy needed for lightspeed
    ... It seems like more mass, because velocities don't sum up linear. ... It is more energy. ... to make infinite mass and of course the same for the reverse. ... even though it is actually not unitless. ...
    (sci.physics)