Mordred

little point getting into quantum Hall effect if you can't get the basic relations correct. classical motion in a magnetic field being \[m\frac{dv}{dt}=-ev\times B\] set the magnetic field to the z plane the particle moves in the transverse plane so you get using time differentials \[m\ddot{x}=-eB\dot{y}\] \[m\ddot{y}=e\dot{x}\] gives \[x(t)=X-Rsin(\omega_Bt+\theta\)] and \[y(t)=Y+Rcos(\omega_B+\theta)\] cyclotron frequency given by \[\omega_B\frac{eB}{m}\] oh look there's that cross product term once again, first equation enough said If you like I can take this through the Drude model to get the explicit expression for conductivity. however lets just skip to the conductivity tensor. \[\sigma=\begin{pmatrix}\sigma_{xx}&\sigma_{xy}\\-\sigma_{x,y}&\sigma_{xx}\end{pmatrix}\] \[\sigma=\frac{\sigma_{DC}}{1+\omega^2_B\tau^2}\begin {pmatrix}1&-\omega_B\tau\\\omega_B\tau&1\end{pmatrix}\] with \[\sigma_{DC}=\frac{ne^2\tau}{m}\] the off diagonal terms gives rise to the hall effect resistivity being the inverse of conductivity here is a peer review coverage. https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/21-Thomas.pdf This should show that if you never looked at vectors and spinor relations you could never describe the Hall effect with any degree of accuracy..... that is the classical treatment I gave the link provides the quantum treatment

Why do you think I mentioned this on page one had you looked at the cross product term you would have recognized what I stated is precisely what is described by the Lorentz force law. Other applicable laws being the magnetic law and Amperes law. The cross product term has consequences in regard to the magnetic field that makes it unique from the E field which involves the dot product. It is also why the magnetic moment becomes critical as it has different vector relations from the magnetic field. It's critical to understanding how magnets work.

Yes let's as this is incorrect. The B field is non divergent and does not have a point of origin. The E field is divergent and has a point of origin the B field does not. I thought you claimed to understand the vectors and spinors of the cross product ? Of course your likely going to state " Not in my model" Well that's well described by modern physics via Maxwell equations.

Lets look at charge directly regardless if it's magnetic or otherwise. Charge requires divergence ie source and sink of a field the magnetic field itself isn't divergent. The magnetic moment is.

Lol now that reminds me of a research plan to move the entire solar system by moving the sun.

I have looked at your literature. The lack of any relationships beyond magnitude only values is a HUGE lack in regards to your goals. You cannot accurately describe anything involving kinetic energy and momentum terms including force of anything particle related without it. You cannot describe the relationship between the E and B fields without using vectors and spinors either. They are essential. That is precisely why the majority of particles physics including the Feymann path integrals include the dot and cross product terms. It does so through the Euler-Langrangian equations combined with the probably functions of the Schrodinger equation for QM and the Klein-Gordon equations of QFT. I can't even confirm any accuracy of any of your equations if you didn't apply those vectors and spinors.

We are pointing out errors why do you feel pointing out using vectors and spinors and not using them isn't in error ? We also pointed out numerous other errors in this thread. That isn't cynicism but an examination. I examined what you have here and even looked at your other papers. Not using vectors and spinors is a fundamental error you have in every article. I chose to restrict myself to what you posted here

I don't believe you understand the scientific process. It is expected that any new theory gets examined and effort is made to disprove any new theory. That is a major part of the process. Our pointing out errors and asking questions is precisely part of the scientific method. You don't get a robust theory otherwise. Every theory gets examined in this manner. You also have a couple of physicist currently asking those questions in this thread. No I could not begin to use your theory. I don't see how it can possibly work with any mainstream observational evidence that supports the mainstream physics.

You do realize the fine structure constant applies directly to the couplings strength of charged particles. how can you believe that wouldn't be carefully examined ? In point of detail we would need to know how well the neutron and proton couples to the EM field. So it's quite accurately examined. One of the precision tests of the fine structure constant is atomic recoil. The highest precision test involving rubidium atoms.

All these methods are already employed to test the fine structure constant. Quite frankly the precision of the collective results of all the different tests gives an extremely high precision. Any process that involves the fine structure constant can be used to test it. As a fundamental constant its continuously tested as its far to important not to. Every fundamental constant included in that regard.

Really then how is it one of the common examples with regards to Maxwell equations include impedance. Via the wave equations ? inclusive of the transverse components ? It will also provide that value in ohms \[Z=\frac{\mu\omega}{k}=\frac{\mu\omega}{\sqrt\epsilon\omega}=\sqrt\frac{\mu}{\epsilon_0}\] then its not curl by any definition curl doesn't include any particular value Its literally a spinor that commonly describes angular momentum. However it can also describe any relation that has symmetry of change to angular momentum . Good example amplitude of a sinusoidal wavefunction, a probability function such as the Delta function for Fourier transforms, curved spacetime. Polarity and even the circle U(1) group of particle physics In particular describing electrons and photons. That is literally why the SM model tensors include the inner product. You can arbitrarily describe that curl in numerous methods such as the tangent or via parallel transport. You can arbitrarily use integrals or derivatives. simply put its a complex vector. So what possible use could assigning a standalone unit to curl be ? that makes no sense whatsoever. To put it bluntly every mainstream physics theory involves the dot product (vectors) and cross product (curl) Maxwell is simply one example. Every particle of the standard model uses those relations to define every particle type, its scatterings, its probability functions. Its even included in String theory. Also applies to everyday classical physics.... Also QM as well as QFT includes Maxwell equations they are integral equations in both fields and inclusive in String theory. Physics has a key principle. All Physics models must be reducible to classical physics. For example f=ma still applies in GR. Maxwell equations still applies in all major physics theories. After all, physics Theories need to account for all levels of Observational evidence. QM isn't restricted to the quantum realm there simply put isn't a need to use QM to describe the macro regime.

All neutrinos are weakly interactive [WIMP] the M for massive simply denotes it has an invariant mass aka rest mass. We hope they can but we only have theorized cross sections to know where to look in terms of mass.

Just to add more detail as it involves my points as well in regards to vectors/spinors the angular momentum has both magnitude and direction. The principle quantum numbers are n for principle quantum , (0,1,2,3) allowed values. "l " for angular quantum number it can be any number between 0 and n-1. m_s for spin projector m_l for angular momentum projection. "m" for the magnetic quantum number allowed values can be any integer between "l" and "-l". So for an electron the spin quantum number 1/2 is the magnitude the +- sign is the direction component. The spin quantum number \[ ||S||=\hbar\sqrt{s(s+1)}\] With z as the axis of rotation analogous to. Also keep in mind the above is a classical treatment. The big thing is the above works great on the z axis or any other axis of choice however the Pauli matrices along with the Schrodinger equation for the electron probablity cloud works well regardless of axis. Edit just noticed Swansont already has the last equation

Ok this can get complex however the main difference between left hand neutrinos and right hand neutrinos goes beyond simply being opposite in charge..Left hand neutrinos are doublet's while right hand neutrinos are singlets. Those terms directly relates to their respective cross section. In so far as their respective mass terms.. Now originally it was felt that hand neutrinos would remain massless. (Hence a singlet) ,(also the sterile term) However later finding due to neutrino oscillations strongly indicate that as being incorrect. The Higgs seesaw mechanism along with Majoranni mass terms indicate that the less mass the LHS neutrino the more massive the right neutrino would be. Now neutrinos being extremely weakly interactive are very difficult to detect. What adds to the problem is the higher mass term it's out of the range of our particle accelerators. We simply cannot produce the amount of energy that would be needed this factor and being weakly interactive are two of the primary factors of why we can't detect them. Now I realize very few ppl will understand the mathematics but I include them anyways along with the reference articles. (I have it already in my BBN thread on page 2 \[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\] \[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\] 4 effective degrees of freedom doublet complex scalar field. with \[D_\mu\Phi=(\partial_\mu+igW_\mu-\frac{i}{2}\acute{g}B_\mu)\Phi\]\ \[V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)=-\mu^2\Phi^\dagger\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\lambda(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2,\mu^2>0\] in Unitary gauge \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{\lambda}{4}v^4\] \[+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu H \partial^\mu H-\lambda v^2H^2+\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}vH^3+\frac{\lambda}{8}H^4\] \[+\frac{1}{4}(v+(\frac{1}{2}H)^2(W_mu^1W_\mu^2W_\mu^3B_\mu)\begin{pmatrix}g^2&0&0&0\\0&g^2&0&0\\0&0&g^2&g\acute{g}\\0&0&\acute{g}g&\acute{g}^2 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}W^{1\mu}\\W^{2\mu}\\W^{3\mu}\\B^\mu\end{pmatrix}\] Right hand neutrino singlet needs charge conjugate for Majorana mass term (singlet requirement) \[\Psi^c=C\overline{\Psi}^T\] charge conjugate spinor \[C=i\gamma^2\gamma^0\] Chirality \[P_L\Psi_R^C=\Psi_R\] mass term requires \[\overline\Psi^C\Psi\] grants gauge invariance for singlets only. \[\mathcal{L}_{v.mass}=hv_{ij}\overline{I}_{Li}V_{Rj}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\overline{V_{ri}}V_{rj}+h.c\] Higgs expectation value turns the Higgs coupling matrix into the Dirac mass matrix. Majorana mass matrix eugenvalues can be much higher than the Dirac mass. diagonal of \[\Psi^L,\Psi_R\] leads to three light modes v_i with mass matrix \[m_v=-MD^{-1}M_D^T\] MajorN mass in typical GUT \[M\propto10^{15},,GeV\] further details on Majorana mass matrix https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0988.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9702253.pdf

Just to add a particle spin is intrinsic for example the intrinsic spin of an electron 1/2 integer spin is 720 degrees and not 360 degrees. Don't confuse it with say some round object whose spin radius is 360 degrees. If I recall though it's been awhile spin 1 is 360 degrees I can't recall spin 1/3