quantum theory of mass revisited

[AntonioLao]

One physical question remains without a convincing answer. This is the question why mass remains a continuous physical variable taking inclusive values between zero and infinity. A quantum theory of energy started with Planck’s solution to the blackbody radiation in 1900. Subsequently, five years later in 1905, Einstein formulated the equivalence of mass and energy. This equivalence seems to suggest that mass also should be quantized. On the contrary, mass remains elusively difficult to quantize. Looking back, in 1687, Newton has already defined mass as the product of volume and density. Although classical definition of volume is an enclosed region of 3D space and it can take value of zero, relativistic volume defined as an enclosed region of 4D space-time could never take the value of zero except for the space-time singularity asserted by the big-bang theory. On the other hand, there are several definitions of density. However, none of them can give any good idea about a quantum of mass simply because of the circular definition that density is the ratio of mass over the volume. That is, the concept of density implies the prior clear concept of mass of a given object. A proper question to ask is which of these (mass, volume, or density) is more fundamental, such that it can be used to define the others?


Personally, a good choice is that relativistic volume is the most fundamental among the three physical concepts. Defining this non-classical volume in contrast to classical static volume requires a new concept of local infinitesimal motion (LIM) that exists forever everywhere and everywhen. This is a conserved motion, which means it cannot be created or destroyed. However, it can be added, subtracted, multiplied giving integer solutions, but not necessarily divided due to their quantized property. The mathematical constructs satisfying these requirements are symmetric singular Hadamard matrices. Furthermore, adding, subtracting, and multiplying matrices only applicable to those of the same matrix order. Whenever these matrices are added or subtracted the answers give the physical meaning of electric charge. Whenever they are multiplied the products give integer values of mass. Skipping all the mathematical reasoning for the moment, it can be construed that there exist two distinct Möbius topologies represented by two distinct Hadamard matrices. Although these matrices are singular (meaning zero determinants) their multiplicative products produce integer solutions representing the mass. Surprisingly, there are special kinds of Hadamard matrices that multiplied to give the zero matrix of any order. These justify the physical meaning of zero masses. These new ideas simply suggest that a quantum theory of mass is tantamount to a quantum theory of space-time, which is a quantum theory of direction supported by a principle of directional invariance.

[PoPpAScience]

Personally, a good choice is that relativistic volume is the most fundamental among the three physical concepts. Defining this non-classical volume in contrast to classical static volume requires a new concept of local infinitesimal motion (LIM) that exists forever everywhere and everywhen. This is a conserved motion, which means it cannot be created or destroyed.

Would this not be like Daves "absolute motion"? I've been thinking lately, what if density is only made up of speed, and not substance?

[AntonioLao]

PoPpAScience,

In science, just as it is in mathematics, we live by effective definition and die by ineffective definition. Einstein formulated his theories of relativity (special and general) and he truly believed that "absolute motion" as these words implied cannot be detected by any scientific instruments. The simplest definition of density was given by Newton long time ago. His definition remains effective today. Einstein used the same definition in his general theory of relativity as the 4D energy-momentum tensor. If this tensor density is multiplied by the constant of light speed it does become square of energy.

[PoPpAScience]

PoPpAScience,

In science, just as it is in mathematics, we live by effective definition and die by ineffective definition.

Antonio, you forgot to mention, 'kill by restrictive definition'.

[PoPpAScience]

PoPpAScience,

Einstein formulated his theories of relativity (special and general) and he truly believed that "absolute motion" as these words implied cannot be detected by any scientific instruments.

I personally no not believe in Absolute Motion, I was asking if that's what you were getting at. I don't think you were.

[PoPpAScience]

PoPpAScience,

Einstein used the same definition in his general theory of relativity as the 4D energy-momentum tensor. If this tensor density is multiplied by the constant of light speed it does become square of energy.

In the idea of c squared, speed is the key word, so speed is the key ingredient in mass and energy.

[AntonioLao]

'kill by restrictive definition'

Could this be the reason why some mathematicians became mad and kill themselves? But lack of definition also makes math losing its appeal. Mathmatics is now at a turning point since it lose the foundational appeal of axiomatic logic insisting on proof. I've used math to describe certain physical reality representing the squares of zero-point energies of the quantum vacuum fluctuations. But I could not justify what I'm doing with so called mathematical proofs. Moreover, I'll use math (especially the use of matrix) to "prove" the eternal existence of infinitely many twin primes.

speed is the key ingredient in mass and energy

This is a partially true statement. The energy that depended on speed is called the kinetic energy. But the potential energy is depended on the space-time position or location.

[PoPpAScience]

Apeirophobic is a problem that is hard to over come. It is good that people like us Antonio can over come it.

[PoPpAScience]

Antonio I have faith that your endevers with infinity will be achieved. It is eternity though that might give you problems

[AntonioLao]

It is not a problem for someone who lives forever. Can this someone knows by seeing or sees by knowing?