[ExI] First Picture of a Black Hole!

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:09 PM Stuart LaForge <avant at sollegro.com> wrote:


>
> *> I will leave it up to you whether you allow Heisenberg to divide by
> zero the way you allowed Einstein to.*


General Relativity only divides by zero at the center of a Black Hole and
I'm sure even Einstein would agree that his theory breaks down at that
point, but at every other point it either makes correct predictions or it
remains silent and makes no prediction at all, at no other point does it
make absurd predictions as Quantum Mechanics does when it attempts to
calculate the mass/energy density of the vacuum.


> >
> *The whole problem rests on the fact that we let quantum field  theorists
> use infinity*


We let them because it works, at least for electromagnetism. In a vacuum
the average value of a electric field is zero if you add up all the plus
and minus values, but the energy density is proportional to the field
squared and that is infinite. But Feynman with his re-normalization found
that the absolute value of the energy density doesn't matter and only the
changes in it are important. Feynman admitted that a  mathematician might
not approve of how he did it but nature did approve because it allow him to
make predictions that agreed with experiment to better than one part in a
trillion. But his method won't work with gravity because it does depend on
the absolute value of the energy density.


>
> *> You can't let the wave functions of quantum harmonic  oscillators or
> particles or anything else take on infinite values  *
>

You can if the thing has both positive and  negative infinities and you can
get them to cancel out as Feynman did.  People thought that with
supersymmetry  the positive and negative infinities would cancel out and
the mass/energy density would turn out to be exactly zero, and then we'd be
well on our way to having a quantum theory of gravity. But then just as we
thought we were making real progress 2 ENORMOUS problems showed up:

1) Supersymmetric particles don't seem to exist, the LHC hasn't seen even a
hint of them and it should have.

2) We know know from the observation of a accelerating universe that the
mass/energy density is not infinite or 10^120 or  zero, it is instead a
very very small finite number. So now we have to find a way to cancel out
everything EXCEPT  for one part in 10^120, a vastly more difficult task
than just canceling everything out.

>* So we set the fundamental frequency as Fmin = 1/Tu or 2.30*10^-18 Hertz.
> The intuition here is that the lowest possible frequency oscillator that
> can possibly be  measured is one that has only vibrated half-way since the
> beginning of  time, i.e. the Big Bang.*


A electromagnetic wave with a  frequency that low would contain such a
absurdly small amount of mass/energy it's not worth considering.

>
>
there is a maximum frequency that a quantum oscillator  can vibrate at


That would be true only if spacetime was not continuous, and there is no
experimental evidence for that.


> >
>
>
> *Now to figure out what the vacuum energy of our causal cell is  requires
> one final assumption which is that no two quantum harmonic  oscillators in
> our causal cell can vibrate with the exact same  frequency or have the same
> value of "n".*
>

That's true for Fermions like electrons protons and neutrons but not for
Bosons like photons of light; any number of photons can be in the same
quantum state.

John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190415/db7c7900/attachment.htm>