[humanbydefault]

We all have bumped into the origin of numbers at some point in our early years of school. How early hindu mahematicians conceived the roll of "0" as a place holder by the use of marks and some centuries later as small little zeros. Its history is fascinating but the objective of this little posting of mine is to analyze what we use today as a "regular number" and the fatal implications of such basic knowledge, especially when it comes to its roll of what actually means zero in our REALITY.
Zero is, among many other fuctions, a "place holder" for position of tens. We can differenciate 2006 from 206 thanks to the addition of another little circle.
Zero is also the middle point in scales (mostly relative scales created by us for convenience) like in temperature, where zero is the freezing point of water... peace of cake isn't it?
My opposition to zero in its old interpretation comes up when we try to understand its true meanning in the year 2006. We all know [I hope everyone is with me on this] that there are certain limits (like zero absolute temperature) where absolute VACUUM is not reachable. I want you to give it some thoughts to this even after you turn off your computer... its a fundamental question not even math professors have asked themselves. Let's assumed that zero coincides with the true vacuum. A place where no mass no energy and no heat could be present. I have reached the conclusion that zero is exactly that, a concept that represent in a abstract form something that does not exist in our own universe. That's why if we try to divide 9 by 0 we find ourselves with an undefined answer. We are trying to make an operation where 9 units of "our world" is brought into a mathematical operation with something "out of this world."
Now, I don't want to go further into the "vacuum interpretation" of zero but in a new form of representation that would fit into the universe we observe and is part of our reality.
How many of you have already learned about the ample space inside atomic lattices? This question is a hot theme among experimentalists working in condensed matter. Somehow they can not explain why there are "fermi levels" completely ampty where a bunch of "electrons" could be confortably be spinning... [yes, they referred to sub-atomic PARTICLES not to the model I've represented in my articles].
Could that "empty space" be referred to a vacuum somehow?
Absolutely not! The reason for that "empty space" is a perfect match of energy (both opposite spins and equal energy density) leaving no place for mass or heat. Remember that I justified the presence of mass as a "way out" the universe prevents the possible presence of a perfect vacuum? Its all in my articles. Anyway! Assuming the ground state as "1". I could figure out a situation where an atom of hydrogen "looses" its electron as actually two electrons (energy spinning in opposite directions) leaving no NEED for the presence of external mass.
Considering ZERO as two equal density but opposite directional spins we could represent it as something like [+1-1]. As you could observe the new term coincides with things of "our world" in the sense that no VACUUM is intendent. I'm not saying that we could simply use the new concept directly into our present mathematic, what I'm saying is that we should create from this point on a new analysis that could include zero and its dimensional orientation as a complex factor and not as a simple number with no abstract meaning in our universe.
My concept of a new zero would also contemplate the obvious "harmonic structure" of itself in the context of quantum mechanics. It means that zero would not just spin in 3 dimenssions but it will have its own harmonic spectrum, just like regular numbers have...
What do you think? Have you ever give it a thought to such simple part of our life?
I've been busy lately, but I want to say hello to the members of the TOE forum. Both old and new members consider myself as a friend. I know I'm (according to the orthodox nomination) an outsider, someone who does not share the basic concepts of quantum mechanics, I simply write what I believe and I deeply hold as true... Am I wrong? I wouldn't be surprise if I were!

HUMANBYDEFAULT

(author of the book "warning scientific discretion advised") The site of my book [for those interested] is www.humanbydefault.com

[AntonioLao]

In the science of complexity zero does not seem to have anything to say. But in determinism, it does. Zero is either a starting point or an ending point but never in between inbalanced points although it is often used as the exact middle point of a real number line between positive infinity and negative infinity.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/lectu....ppt#256,1,The Science of Complexity

[michellemfry]

Maybe Antonio can elaborate fully on what I'm about to say. The Little Electron. I call it Little because it's radius, I think, is nearly zero. So, I give you nature's interpretation of zero. Some have said that the muon is just a fat electron, being some 200x the size of our little electron.

[mkirkpatrick]

Zero is the point of entry whereby via the Protyle Atom,the un-realised be-
come realised,the zero is the inter-dimensional portal that permits the exchange of pontential to the realised-potential which then (Appears) as
energy,which is really ideation of focussed intent.Thoughtfulness Chitta.



kind regards michael.

[humanbydefault]

One thing earlier quantum physics theorists had to deal with was the presense of "infinites" in their equations. QED eventhough is still today considered to be one of the closest-to-experimental-results kind of theory had to deal with those undefined terms all the time. The matter was resolved by sort of "cancelling" those NOT DEFINED parts of the equations and make some corrections that received the name of "renormalizations." YEAH! We had to make normal what our math showed to be all but precisely THAT.
I still believe that much of the blame is due to "our own interpretation" of the zero. Mathematics is the best thing we could find to represent the world in an abstract and universal format. As you may or may not agree, numbers could represent anything... rabitts, objects, degrees and so on. In a macro-world where we spend much of our life (since I can't speak for the after-life here with any credibility) "things" are made by matter. Einstein [a genius but also a human being] proposed the interchangeability of mass and energy as a base for his special theory of relativity. So, since we live in a world where anything could be a wave or a particle, mass or energy... we feel confortable with a sort of "compromizing way-out" that had to be right. If is not red it had to be black! the roullettte has only two colors and you'll be right if you bet to both at the same time... the question is: What will we win?
Don't answer that stupid question... Anyway! I do not trust any theory that has to "renormalize" itself at our own convenience! Sorry professors, but I don't! I do believe that something very important was missed here and that has to do with the true essence of matter.
If mass were [as I have proposed in my book and articles before] a sort of "shadow" more like a "companion" whose presence was justified by the constant interaction of high-density energy (like the one we find every time we brake the nucleus of the atom: fusion) a sort of innert and unbreakable "substance" so tiny we will never be able to observe by itself, then how could zero will ever acquire its true "human meaning"? How could 0 would ever become the real absence of existence?
Isn't the universe trying to tell us something when stubbornly oppose any chance of letting us reach the absolute zero kelvin?
I could only imagine a region of space [vacuum] with no energy simply a place where mass has no pulling force to participate in it, no heat and no E-M energy [light] at all... I find hard to believe such a place would exist in the vast extension of our known universe...

Thank you for your replies.

my sincere regards to the forum.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[mkirkpatrick]

man invented the zero to amuse himself on the lonely nights aroundthe camp fire.
The simple truth of the matter,is that the whole ofthis universe and all the others too,are totally full to the brim,they are all chocker block full,there is not
even enough zero space to wedge a dollar into.so lets just drop this zero aye.




regards michael.

[Guille]

Mike,

I agree that zero was invented. But that doesn't mean it is uselless. Nor do is it mean it is not necessary (for it is). In fact, I cannot think of any unnecesary invention that doesn't come from the 20th century, QM, politics, technology...

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by michellemfry The Little Electron. I call it Little because it's radius, I think, is nearly zero.

More elementary particles have zero size: quarks, gluons, graviton, W, Z, muon, tau, and all the neutrinos. These are all consequences of an underlying experimental limit on measureability restricted by the uncertainty principle.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao More elementary particles have zero size: quarks, gluons, graviton, W, Z, muon, tau, and all the neutrinos. These are all consequences of an underlying experimental limit on measureability restricted by the uncertainty principle.

This is true if and only if the elementary particles are concieved as 0 dimensional (standard) or 1 dimensional (strings). But is there empirical proof for these? I don't think so. Do you think the particles would be much harder to explain if they were looked as 2, or 3, or any n<1 dimensions? It might be harder, but at least iot would make more sense.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE But is there empirical proof for these?

The problem of infinities at the beginning of QED provided the theoretical problem that size=zero requires the mathematical technique of mass and charge renormalization.
This problem is described in the following Nobel lecture
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laurea...ft-lecture.pdf