vegevore - Physics Page 2: Discussion: Recently, SNO has reported it's preliminary results that the neutrino has a mass and that the sum of the masses of the 3 flavours is between 0.05 and 8.4 eV (June 2001). The main reason that this is considered to be important is because it explains the deficiency of solar neutrinos confirming our theories about how nuclear fusion works in the sun but at the same time requires a change in the Standard Model that explains virtually all of the rest of physics. Even more importantly (to me), it confirms my theory. Consider the pH of water. We know that it is 7, but at room temperature 298.6 degK. Some physicists do not understand that pH is temperature dependant but it is. At room temperature there is not enough thermal energy available to fully ionize the water, its ionization energy is 0.425 eV, so only a small fraction is ionized: 1 molecule in 10 000 000 whose negative logarithm is 7. (The pH is defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration but it can be calculated as the ratio between the energy available and the energy required.) Heisenberg allows that particle-antiparticle pairs may appear spontaneously for a short period of time if the product of the energy and the time does not exceed Planck's constant. These are called virtual pairs. We can ask what is the density of these in space-time. Consider that we are looking at the real vacuum of space-time that has a temperature and whether we can apply an analogy from the pH of water. (Thermal field theory may be applicable.) Consider the temperature as being that from the Cosmic Microwave Background: 2.7 degK. Consider the pairs to be electrons and positrons. Then we can calculate a pH (pe) of about 2 billion: an exceedingly tiny concentration. Astronomers have been trying to measure the universe. They need a reference to the size and found a particular type of supernova (SN Ia) to be the result of a physical process that fixes their intensity in a specific way, that is seeing one of these means that the intensity is directly related to their distance (and their velocity to their redshift). They are thus referred to as standard candles. Recently, one has been found that is over 10 billion years old in a universe thought to be about 13 billion years old. This one clearly supports other nearly as old ones that say that the universe is not only expanding but that its expansion is accelerating. The only reasonable way to explain this is by an incorporation of Einstein's Cosmological Constant. When Einstein discovered his equations of the general theory of relativity, he used them to try to model the evolution of the universe. To his consternation, the theory predicted an expanding universe. He then introduced a new term in his equations to cancel the expansion. Subsequently, Hubble and others discovered that the universe was indeed expanding. Einstein referred to his introduction of the Cosmological Constant to be his greatest blunder; yet quantum theory realizes that there must in fact be such a term. (Aside: the Cosmological Constant has the properties of being a photon mass.) The supernovae results ressurect this Cosmological Constant albeit with a value that is opposite in sign to Einstein's original value. The term is referred to as an antigravity term (for reasons which I do not fully understand). But it is not that simple. What is clear to physicists is that the importance of this term has been minimal in the evolution of the universe up until recent times. This implies that it is not constant, that this so-called dark-energy in fact varies with time. The term quintessence is used in this context (although quintessence may be a term with a specific definition; dark-energy is more general). The problem is that whereas this dark-energy is now seen to be present, no physicist has any idea what it actually might be. The only thing that they are familiar with is that the vacuum energy is either infinite or that there may be a cut-off so that it is the Planck energy density. But the latter has a magnitude 123 orders higher than the observed value. A year or so ago (about 1999), an experiment in Japan called Super-Kamiokande gave the first hint that the neutrino may have a mass and that maybe the heaviest was about 0.7 eV. If the neutrino has a mass, then let us use its mass in our pH calculation: it makes sense that if particle-antiparticle pairs are going to form from the vacuum then the ones that would form would be those with the lightest mass possible (but not zero). If we make this calculation, we get a pH (pv) of 123 but with a mass of this lightest particle of 0.033 eV. But is it reasonable to connect these two concepts? It certainly makes sense to me that the observed dark-energy is a fraction of the Planck energy and that that fraction is just that which is due to the partial ionization of the real vacuum of space-time that is the result of the formation of particle-antiparticle pairs from a lightest mass particle. Supporting evidence is that there is in fact a particle with this mass and that is what we see from Sudbury (sort of). (Aside: Note that one theory gives mass ratios of x6 x2 x0 to the 3 neutrino flavours.) (Background)