Authors: Espen Gaarder Haug
In this paper we discuss and calculate the mass gap. Based on the mass gap we are redefining what a kilogram likely truly represents. This enables us to redefine the Planck constant into what we consider to be more fundamental units. Part of the analysis is based on recent developments in mathematical atomism. Haug [1, 2] has shown that all of Einstein’s special relativity mathematical end results  can be derived from two postulates in atomism. However, atomism gives some additional boundary conditions and removes a series of infinite challenges in physics in a very simple and logical way. While the mass gap in quantum field theory is an unsolved mystery, under atomism we have an easily defined, discrete and “exact” mass gap. The minimum rest mass that exists above zero is 1.1734 × 10−51 kg, assuming the observational time window of one second. Under our theory it seems meaningless to talk about a mass gap without also talking about the observational time-window. The mass gap in one Planck second is the Planck mass. Further, the mass gap of just 1.1734 × 10−51 kg has a relativistic mass equal to the Planck mass. The very fundamental particle that makes up all mass and energy has a rest-mass of 1.1734 × 10−51 kg. This is also equivalent to a Planck mass that last for one Planck second. We are not trying to solve the Millennium mass gap problem in terms of the Yang-Mills theory. We think the world is better understood by atomism and its recent mathematical framework. If there also could be a possible link between these tow theories we leave up to others to find out.
Comments: 8 Pages.
Unique-IP document downloads: 370 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.