zero mass matrix

[AntonioLao]

Mass is defined in physics as the product of density and volume. Although mass and volume are both considered as extensive variables, density, on the other hand is a good example of intensive variables. For any macroscopic system such as the whole universe an intensive variable is a quantity that has a well defined value at every point of space-time and that remains (nearly) constant when the size of the system is increased. Examples of intensive variables are the pressure, temperature, density, viscosity, and specific heat capacity at constant volume. An intensive variable results when any extensive variable is divided by an arbitrary extensive variable such as the volume. Therefore, the universe itself as a macroscopic system can be described by an extensive variable and a set of intensive variables. Besides mass and volume, one other example of an extensive variable is the total energy of an arbitrary system. The commonly accepted definition of an extensive variable is a quantity in a macroscopic system that is proportional to the size of the system.

Unfortunately, since energy is equivalent to mass (��=����²), the total energy of the universe cannot be derived from the pre-existence or preorigin state of the universe composed completely of zero masses: gluons, photons, and gravitons. This list would certainly include the three generations of neutrinos if ever they are proved to be massless as well. Although the physical asymmetry of the electroweak coupling does provide nonzero masses to the SU(2) gauge invariance bosons by the application of the Higgs mechanism, it does not provide or serve as an all inclusive mechanism for deriving all zero masses of high-energy elementary particles. Fortunately, if density is defined as a square symmetric singular Hadamard matrix and the volume is defined as a positive unit or negative unit (all elements are positive unity or negative unity) square matrix then the product of the same order density and volume matrices gives the zero mass matrix.

[SteveA]

energy is equivalent to mass (E=MC^2)

I saw this comment and it appears to be the same as a statement I made on your other thread. We really shouldn't be seeing both mass and energy but only one or the other unless we "consume" some information to determine which form of interpretation we're making. Though there should be little problem in having two parallel representations of the same thing and using either form.

Fundamentally we just have information and this should always come in the form of 1 of n possibilities. If n is not prime, we can then factor this information into a representation that describes separate, independent entities, but if n is a prime, then there's really no manner to simply things except in approximate terms.

Notice also, that implicitly if there existed some probability of detection that was 1/3rd in state A and 2/3rds in state B, this means that there is a third state that is superimposed into the appearance of being B. In this case, we're still missing something as a uniform distribution should be 1/nth probably for each and every element in the n size set.

Alternately, if we're detecting 1/3rd A and 2/3rds B, it could be that A and B are actually equally distributed but we're interpreting their densities incorrectly.

I happened to also have some ideas of how various material properties that might initially appear to be orthogonal and independent of each other could actually be merged into a single common space by using a common perceptual "origin" for each distinct space of properties. (For example, if an observation of a positional origin as well as a 0 velocity or 0 acceleration etc. were all perceived to be similar to an identical "void" then transitions between perceiving different orders of acceleration could be made to appear as seem less transitions. In this way we could map spaces of many diverse and otherwise incompatible properties into a single perceptual space - though we'd be masking out some information to do this)

Here's a link to the post: http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post117839

If we say mass and energy are equivalent and interchangeable, then we should be able to pick a single space of only matter or energy and describe physical properties in terms of that alone. Also consider that to get the full picture we need to describe each of these in terms of as many dimensions of information as possible, otherwise we're throwing something out.

[AntonioLao]

At the advanced level of high-energy relativistic quantum field mechanics E=m since c=1.