I have some questions about the material I've reviewed so far, the answers to which may aid my understanding. I sincerely apologize if they seem stupid - and readily admit they may well be stupid. You have probably answered these specifically in the links you've provided and material you've posted. But it's hot, my printer is out of ink, the rain keeps coming, the dogs are grumpy, the basement is still knee-deep, and now the fridge has conked out. Worse, we're expecting at least 20 people for the holiday. Please help…

You assign "weight" [inertial mass? virtual mass? gravitational potential?] to negative vacuum energy, and suggest this "weight" is quantizable - particularity to Dirac 'holes' [positrons?], a correlation to QED[?]. Do I understand correctly? If so or somewhere close….

1. You seem to be separating mass from matter here and assigning it to the zero-point field ['lattice'?]. Is this Higgs or equivalent to Higgs?

2. If Higgs, what is the specific relationship to gravitation - through matter itself or through a matter-accumulation/creating field? Is there an exchange boson [at what energy level]?

3. Is the field scalable? If so, what spacetime metric are you working with?

4. How many dimensions are you factoring?

5. Are you limited to electron/positron extremals in your zero-point field?

6. Does directional time [thermodynamic, Prigogene's edge of chaos, "irreversibility") play a role, and if so, what/when/where/how - and how big? (Or are you working in time symmetry?)

As you can see, I might be lost. But I am honestly going to try to grok your model, and fit it to what else I've managed to pick up here and there. Please don't be offended by the sheer density of my skull. I earned it the hard way!

I've been following 8 dimensions in multi-tiered euclidian spacetime w/scalar hierarchies and a hedgehog extremal using a math based on P-adic primes for about 5 years now, and may have fried my poor brain - what there was of it...

P.S. It might be best for me to have a good understanding before we take this further, you can email me with details so I can ask these dumb questions directly. Click on my "profile" link [right side of main page] and the addy is there.

Thanx!

- Giff

It fell apart when Dirac failed to uniy QM and GR after sucessfully unifying SR and QM.

That should have clued them, but instead, they rationalized their way around it, and carried the Dirac's flaw right through QFT to Loop Quantum Gravity and String theory, rather than to fix the problem where it originated.

Modern Quantum Field Theory is not by any means a replacement of Dirac's hole theory, as the difference lies in the treatment of the Boson fields, where the positive spectrum condition doesn't have Dirac Sea analogue, but the net charge density still exists as the zero-point charge, only, it's cancelled out! The cancellation represents an anomaly removal condition which defines the restriction on the charge spectrum, where…

4(nu)+4(e)+12(up)+12(down)=0

The condition is said to be a consequence of quantum gravity but in reality it's a direct consequence of the requirement that the zero-point charges must all be finite. Dirac's subtraction argument has not been removed by quantum field theory, it has only been shifted into a different place…

…the operator, as normal ordering of QED.

General Relativity tells us that gravitation is essentially curvature due to the energy contained in a region, so the condensation of enough vacuum energy over a region of space effectively convertes this energy to the positve mass density of real particles, and so this 'departure' is maintained in this manner. These departures will no longer produce negative curvature, so they cannot have negative pressure, because the energy density of these condensed particles is significantly greater than the background negative pressure vacuum energy density is.

In terms of the Entropy of a Black Hole, the emmited anti-electron has the same gravitational properties as an electron and the electron has a greater chance for survival, (thus maintaining the departure, indefinitely), since it might be a long time before it meets an antiparticle if its counterpart antiparticle gets sucked into the black hole.

There will be a contribution -e for each occupied state of positive energy and a contribution -e for each unoccupied state of negative energy, because negative pressure increases in proportion to the holes that the departures represent.

That fixes Dirac's hole theory to work by the same mechanism in both, the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, so it also fixes his flawed cosmological model as well as his "Large Numbers Hypothesis", thereby shedding a clarifying light on the previously incomplete and tautologous, Anthropic Principle.

Not he, me… ;)… I accidentally fell onto the "holes in the vacuum" discovery quite a while before I realized that this wasn't the commonly accepted model for General Relativity with a cosmological constant:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr...

Regardless, the implications to gravity theory were clear.

And then, in a separate and apparently unrelated discussion, it was noted that an entropic interpretation of the anthropic principle is most natural in an expanding universe, since this predominant tendency is a grand scale expression for "purpose" in our universe, because every action is ultimately made in an effort to satisfy the grand scale imbalance.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr...

Course, that was before I had a ton of evidence that proves that both are intricately related via evolutionary theory:

http://www.anthropic-principle...

Talk about teleology… you don't know how much this bumbling scientist hates the anthropic principle now that I know what people think they "know" about it. You can't imagine how satisfied this honest student of nature is tho…

Seems at first glance that he's trying to salvage Einstein's original idea. Which may prove more parsiminous than the endless add-ons and gymnastics mathematicians have been playing with for so long. On that level (if you believe Hawking), all this fun with symbols doesn't describe 'reality' - it just has to agree with what comes out at the back end of the accelerator's target zone.

What comes out the back end of the target zone, btw, no longer agrees with the predictions. Even when they 'cheat'.

You're never going to meet a strange quark or a colored gluon in 'real' life, though they might be good names for rock bands. It is possible to meet a singularity (very unpleasant), and if they can manage a strangelet, we may never even know what hit us before everything that 'is' is suddenly 'not'. I find that rather cavalier and presumptuous, but then, I value my life in time a lot more than the atom-smashers do.

The Unitary Crisis is a serious blow to the symmetry/supersymmetry models. Wiggly Higgly is still MIA at ~2TeV when it should have shown up (or at least a redheaded stepchild should have) a long time ago. CERN, Fermilab and even Brookhaven think they're all the way to mini-holes from heavy ion collisions, for Pete's sake! How the heck can you get to singularity without ever encountering Higgs?

The sheer volume of Nobels awarded for virtual beasties in the 'hood should not be allowed to fool us into thinking the model is correct - for all its predictive power at lower energies. If mass isn't a property of matter, the good ol' Standard Model and its symmetric dreams are in serious trouble. It could be that the geometry - all the way to Planck - is dynamic all by its lonesome. Meaning that we may have been going about things backwards.

I could definitely be way off-base, of course. But the idea has been intriguing to me for about 25 years. There is still some incompleteness in GR, but it's not nearly as incomplete as RQFT. A step back for the broader view might just be an excellent step to take at this point in spacetime.

[NOTE: I see you've added something about Dirac's equation, which I'll address later - I think he was wrong about unification, right about monopoles. Been having some storms here and my ISP keeps getting whacked.]

Speaking of QFT, my last post to the moderated research group touched on just that:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr...

Dirac's was able to unify Quantum Theory and Special Relativity via the Dirac equation, but his hole theory failed to unify QM and General Relativity.

"Dirac's sea of electrons" has an infinite charge density, and that's why it failed, but he didn't have any reason to use Einstein's abandoned model, because everybody alread "knew" that it was flawed…

Einstein's vacuum doesn't have Dirac's problem because you have to condense his negative pressure vacuum energy down over a finite region of space in order to achieve positive matter density, pressure, and gravitational curvature, so both particles leave real "holes" in the vacuum, which creates a void that increases negative pressure.

That's why we don't observe antimatter until we isolate the release of enough energy to achieve and "island" of positive gravitational curvature in space-time, more commonly known as "virtual particles".

Hit this "island" of condensed vacuum energy with a 1.2 MeV photon and you'll make it a real particle pair, with positive mass, matter density, and gravitational curvature, but with opposite sign… which is exactly what we observe.

Joy Says:
see if Wright's got something in there about G[ravity] in a GR manifold that does not rely upon mass/matter.

From Ned Wright's site, and hold your breath that it comes out right:

The magnitude of the negative pressure needed for energy conservation is easily found to be P = -u = -rho*c^2 where P is the pressure, u is the vacuum energy density, and rho is the equivalent mass density using E = m*c^2.

In addition to this flaw of instability, the static model's premise of a static Universe was shown by Hubble to be incorrect. This led Einstein to refer to the cosmological constant as his greatest blunder, and to drop it from his equations. But it still exists as a possibility — a coefficient that should be determined from observations or fundamental theory.

P.S. There must be an html override or something that's interfering with non-tag uses of the brackets. I did get the "less than" designation okay, though.

So that it reads P (less-than) zero.