The discussion revolves around the concept of vacuum energy and its relation to fundamental particles, exploring whether vacuum pockets could be considered the most fundamental building blocks of energy. Participants also inquire about equations related to time as a differential and methods for calculating the mass of protons, neutrons, and vacuum energy associated with quarks.
Participants express differing views on the validity and clarity of the concept of vacuum pockets. There is no consensus on the initial hypothesis, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of vacuum energy and its implications.
Limitations include the lack of definitions for terms like "vacuum pocket," and the discussion does not resolve the mathematical or theoretical aspects of the proposed ideas.
There is not, and it would not make sense without a description what a "vacuum pocket" is supposed to be (and keep in mind the rules against personal theories here). Names are arbitrary, you can replace "particle" with "zigg" or every other name without changing physics.mreuterskiold3 said:I am wondering if there is an existing hypothesis that suggests the most fundamental building block of energy being vacuum pockets rather than waves, or solid particles?
What does that mean?mreuterskiold3 said:Are there any equations that describe time as a differential?
Lattice quantum chromodynamics.mreuterskiold3 said:What are the current methods for calculating the mass of a proton, or neutron
There is no "vacuum energy of quarks". Quark masses are experimental results, there is no theory prediction for them.mreuterskiold3 said:or the total vacuum energy of an individual quark?
mreuterskiold3 said:Any more details on that and I would break the rules.