[ExI] First Picture of a Black Hole!
Stuart LaForge
avant at sollegro.com
Tue Apr 16 23:55:30 UTC 2019
John Clark 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.
I think too much "shut up and calculate" Copenhagen indoctrination has
caused generations of physicists to learn the math of QM without
trying to understand its significance. Itis ultimately about waves
and waves have certain behaviors. Harmonics being among them.
>> 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.
Ok. So maybe an infinite number of quantum oscillators destructively
interfere with each other except for the first 10^60 harmonics of the
fundamental frequency. My result stands. You want me to bring in
unnecessary infinities just to show you that they cancel out?
>> 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.
Dark Energy doesn't cancel out because it is in resonance with the big
bang. That would be my guess. After all vacuum energy is caused by
quantum fluctuations which is also what purportedly caused the big bang.
>> 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.
I never claimed dark energy was electromagnetic in nature. All I
claimed was that dark energy was the sum of the fundamental frequency
of the universe and its harmonic overtones. Think of Fmin as the
frequency of occurrence of big bangs (which will change the older the
universe gets without another big bang) and Fmax the frequency of the
energy released from the big bang. Every other frequency we measure
must logically fall within those bounds.
>> 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.
Not necessarily. I can't rule out discrete space-time but a maximum
frequency cutoff can exist even if space-time is continuous. Consider
this: The shorter the wavelength of a wave, the higher the frequency.
The higher the frequency of a wave, the higher the energy of the wave.
The higher the energy of a wave, the more it bends its surrounding
space-time. If the frequency exceeds 5.23*10^42 Hertz, then the
wavelength is shorter than the Schwarzschild radius of the wave which
means that you get a tiny black hole and the wave can't propagate
anywhere because it is stuck. This is called either a kugelblitz or a
geon.
Of course such a micro-sized black hole should be very unstable and
instantly evaporate into Hawking radiation but chances are it would
decay into lower energy particles with a lower frequency. Nonetheless
kugelblitzes and geons do suggest that that there is a maximum
frequency at which a wave can propagate. Curiously, if I use the
kugelblitz frequency instead of the Planck frequency as the Fmax in my
harmonic oscillator calculations, I get a mass of 8.79*10^52 kilograms
for the vacuum energy. Which puts the mass of ordinary matter in the
observable universe listed by wikipedia as 4.5*10^51 kilograms at
4.87% of the mass of the universe.
4.5*10^51/(8.79*10^52 + 4.5*10^51) = .0487
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
I don't understand how my calculations could be a mere coincidence
when there are 122 orders of magnitude at play and I am off by a mere
3/100th of 1 percent from observed experimental results.
>> 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.
Well if dark energy were made of photons of light, then it probably
wouldn't be so mysterious. Perhaps this is evidence that gravitons are
fermions.
Stuart LaForge
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list