All Activity

Are they rivals, though? VHS and beta were rivals because you would only use one, but if two approaches can be used in different situations they are complementary, at least to some extent. If approaches have strengths and weaknesses you can tailor your system to what works best in your location or situation.

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" 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.

Icelanders already do use geothermal power, a lot, for electricity and space heating. My attitude to this is that the human race seems to be currently in a "brainstorming" phase, in which many rival approaches are being tried simultaneously, without much judgement as to which are best. I think that is the right approach, as so many of these technologies are new that we can't yet be sure which will be the ones we take forward and which will prove to be dead ends. I have in mind it is not just a matter of apparent technical superiority. There are human factors, such as social acceptance and geopolitics, to take into account as well. Betamax was technically superior to VHS. Regarding "greenwashing", this is an easy accusation to make but the fact is we will need fossil fuel for quite a few years yet as we make the transition. It seems to me carbon offset trading has a role to play while we do this. I don't buy the notion that they are all about continuing business as usual.

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

Awesome video! Thanks for sharing, but there was one detail about it that bugged me. Go to 1.50 in the video and watch what happens to external time when camera time hits 3.15.20.0000 external time jumps to 99.99.99.9999. What's happening with the clock? @Mordred I've been thinking a little. If we have found sterile left spin neutrinos, what is so different about right spin that makes them much harder to detect? Dark matter is more abundant than baryonic matter from what I understand so unless dark matter is a non local phenomenon, why havent we detected it yet and come up with any hard answers about the stuff that makes up so much of the universe? Also what is meant by sterile in this context? Another question; kind of OT toward QFT, but could dark matter be the sum of all currently existing virtual particles, making dark energy the vacuum energy that arises from the mass of virtual particles that comes out of it? As I understand it virtual particles aren't massless, have energy and momentum and they tend to share characteristics of their real particle counterparts and don't all have the same lifespans. We can't detect them either so I don't know. Contender or does latice field theory effectively eliminate the need for virtual particles?

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.

The Earth is a closed system. All the carbon was already here before atmospheric CO2 levels started to rise. I didn't come from anywhere else, and it won't be going anywhere else. Any reduction will come from 'locking it' in other forms, such as in solution or rocky compounds, or even plant and animal life that in a few million years become fossil fuels. The problem we currently have is that the rate of release of carbon into the atmosphere is much greater than the natural processes that re-capture it; adding to, or speeding up, those processes, can help just as much as reducing the rate of release.

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

You can do more than one thing. Preventing carbon emissions doesn’t remove carbon that’s already in the system. Given the state of things, a multi-pronged approach seems prudent.

Genuinely not offended, in fact I was saying you'd have to study more about what you are saying in order for me to be offended by your judgement since you honestly don't know the difference between virtue signalling and people honestly discussing ethics in a relevant discussion. I didn't go out of my way to talk about this issue, it's the thread. You are pissing me off a bit however over basically telling us not to have the discussion because the issue is outside our locus of control. When discussion itself, isn't. Why do you care what we talk about when we are all outside your locus of control? Follow your own advice or continue being a hypocrite. I'm past caring about your input at this point. Covert trolls get under my radar but when I realize that's what's going on I'll stop feeding them.

Planck’s constant. It is the quantum of angular momentum, but is not necessarily the angular momentum of any particular particle. The electron, for example, is spin-1/2. Its angular momentum is hbar * sqrt(s(s+1))

So you haven't applied a single trigometric function and every value you have regardless of unit choice is a scalar value am I to understand that as accurate ? In other words does every formula you have return a scalar only value ? How would you calculate the maximum magnetic force which is 90 degrees to the E field and would be a different value at any other angle ? If you didn't apply the angle as per Lirentz force relations then the majority of formulas you have would be inaccurate. Especially if you ignored the phase difference between the E and B field and the subsequent torque relations involved for the curl term. Which requires the cross product not a scalar only value. If you didn't apply the cross product term for \[F_{magnetic}=q(E+v \times B\] then your relations will be wrong.

Right, and Planck's constant is the electron's angular momentum. All values in this relationship are constants. The fact that Planck's constant can be used as a quantum measurement unit for the angular momentum of macro atomic and molecular structures does not negate that Planck's constant is still the angular momentum of an electron.

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

What do you call h?

.... Im not even mad. That point is so good that Vlad the impaler wants to stick a rebllious peasant on it. I wonder if the Egyptians ever had the saying "Thats just the tip of the obelisk! I can almost picture the conversation now. Egyptian 1: Man obelisks are so hard to build. I wish it could be simpler. Doing the top is so dangerous. Egyptian 2: Oh my Ra! What if we built an obelisk, that is all top?! Egyptian 1: Let me get by chisel!

It’s given by h/mc. It does not depend on the angular momentum of the particle

You said: Can you clarify? The Compton wavelength depends on a particle's mass, angular momentum, and energy. In quantum field theory, the Compton wavelength is the length scale at which relativistic quantum field theory is necessary for an accurate description of a particle. It is the wavelength of a photon with the same energy as a particle's rest energy. These same observations apply to my work, which is also based on field quanta. The distance between the Earth and the Moon is finite. Considering that space is quantized as quantum rotating magnetic fields and that the Compton wavelength represents the linear length of each space quantum between the Earth and the Moon, then a photon moving through space moves one quantum at a time at a specific rate. Since we know the speed of the photon from Earth to the Moon and back is constant, we can determine the rate at which a photon advances through each space quantum. It is unavoidable that if photons travel at a constant speed and move in quantum steps, then the rate of moving from step to step must also be constant.

Not in the same way. T = 1/f - that’s reciprocal. As one increases, the other decreases e2 = 8πα · eemax2 is proportional, not reciprocal. Productive for whom? I’m trying to prevent the problem of using symbols that can be easily confused So they can’t be equal using only a unitless constant of proportionality. i.e. your equation is incorrect The singularity? Is this derived somewhere? Presumably you understand it thoroughly, and would be in a position to point out such tests. Unwillingness doesn’t enter into it. I can’t study something you have not presented. I’ve pointed out some fundamental shortcomings of what little you’ve shared. In math, curl is a vector differential operator. If you are not using the standard definition, you need to use a different name. Also, you should peruse our guidelines for posting here. It points out, e.g. “You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists.”

Maxwell's equations are based on the MKS and SI units. They first began with cgs units, which were inherently distributed charge-based. When MKS units were developed, the charge dimension was added, but it was assumed to be a single dimension. This led to cgs units being altered to include "stat" units. The MKS units of conductance, permeability, permittivity, inductance, and capacitance remained structured as distributed charge units. Still, all other units, such as potential, current, resistance, magnetic flux, etc, were provided only single dimension charge. This causes problems with important equations, such as the impedance equation. The impedance equation is thought to involve the addition of LC resistance to wire resistance. However, the LC "resistance" should be magnetic flux in a correct system of units. Thus, adding magnetic flux to resistance necessitates including the imaginary number to account for the mismatched units. There was a reason why Heaviside reduced Maxwell's twenty equations to four. Maxwell's equations did not always pan out. In my work, curl is a dimensional unit equal in MKS to curl = 6.333 x 104 coul2 / (kg · m), but in Maxwell's work, curl is just a vector differential operator. You can see from this that Maxwell's equations cannot be useful in QMU. However, the QMU curl unit can be applied to General Relativity theory to calculate the straight path trajectory bending angle near massive objects: G (2msun / rsun) = 8.493 x 10-6 (curl / 2) Au Here, Au is the space quantum and the value of curl / 2 is given in radians. And so we see twice the length density of matter causes a deflection angle of half the space curl. The curl unit is reciprocal to the QMU permeability unit, perm, where: perm = 4π μ0 The inductance of a coil in QMU equals: indc = N · L (2 · perm) Where N is the number of turns of (2 · perm) and L is the length of the coil. I physically verified this equation by measuring the inductance of a known coil. This shows that the curl and perm units have physical meaning. It also demonstrates that twice QMU permeability directly measures the turns of an inductor.

Still doesn't answer the question I had regarding vectors it's a rather important detail with regards to how the magnetic field behaves as opposed to how the magnetic dipole moment behaves.

Reading in the paper about the opening of the world's biggest carbon capture plant, I had to wonder if this expensive tech-heavy approach was the most efficent way to reduce atmospheric CO2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/05/09/climeworks-mammoth-carbon-capture/ Wouldn't using Iceland's "plentiful goethermal" to power homes and vehicles etc be a more efficient way to keep carbon out of the air? The most efficient carbon capture, it seems to me, is not putting carbon in the air in the first place, i.e. promote green energy and agriculture and industry. Rather than letting big carbon polluters "greenwash" their industries, i.e. validate their continuing business as usual by purchasing carbon offsets. And there's also forest restorations, which if done properly provide a longterm, eventually self-maintaining system of carbon capture and fixation. I think people are blinded by technophilia so they forget the Earth has many natural carbon filters that can be restored and augmented. (from an engineering perspective, forests also do double-duty, in both grabbing/fixing carbon and also rendering heat-stressed areas especially in the tropics more habitable, less prone to lethal wet-bulb temperature heat waves.)

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to? You said: Can you clarify?

Yes, but more than that. A neutron is considered to have a net zero electrostatic charge, hence the name. Yet the neutron beta decay results in a positively charged proton, negatively charged electron, and anti-neutrino. This refers to the electrostatic charge of the particles. I am proposing that, in addition, there is a magnetic charge for each subatomic particle. The magnetic charge is directly proportional to the mass of the particle. Therefore, the mass-to-magnetic charge ratio for the electron, proton, and neutron are the same. Furthermore, space quanta allow for a specific maximum mass (ma) and a specific maximum magnetic charge (ea2). Thus, the space quanta also possesses this mass-to-magnetic charge ratio. These values are explained in the theory if you are interested. It would take a lot of text to show the explanations and quantification, but you can figure most out by following the explanation for the electron. me / eemax2 = mp / epmax2 = mn / enmax2 = ma / ea2 My theory anticipates the magnetic charge predicted by the fractional quantum Hall effect. The magnetic flux quantum of the quantum Hall effect is notated as phi naught: φ0 = 2.068 x 10-15 weber My theory provides a new system of units based on Quantum Measurement Units. The unit of magnetic flux is then equal to: mflx = (me · λC2 · Fq) / eemax2 Converting MKS/SI units to QMU requires a charge conversion factor (ccf): ccf = e / eemax2 Therefore, we show that: φ0 / ccf = mflx / 2 In QMU, the mflx unit applies to the action of the quantum electron, as all of the QMU do. Another example is the gamma ray single escape peak which is equal to the QMU potential unit: potn · ccf = 511 kV The magnetic charge of the electron is also a consequence of the electron's angular momentum (Planck's constant) times the space conductance. Where the space conductance (Cd): kC = c · Cd · (μ0 / ε0) eemax2 = h · Cd As for tolerance, this is the Speculations section of the forum where people should post alternative theories. Yet, one is not allowed to provide a link to a properly referenced paper that has already been written to present a careful understanding of the theory. Let's say that I was correct in testing the waters. No, chronovibration is not the same value as the photon speed. The equation reads that the chronovibration frequency is equal to the photon speed divided by the Compton wavelength (quantum length). The photon speed is a constant in mainstream physics. The Compton wavelength is a constant in mainstream physics. This means the chronovibration rate must also be a constant. If the measurements of the photon speed and Compton wavelength are highly accurate, then it follows that the chronovibration is automatically known to a high degree of accuracy. Of course, no physicist that I am aware of has as yet attempted to directly measure chronovibration, but only because they were not looking for it. Physicists have been assuming that physical temporal reality is a physical, linear timeline, yet there is no physical evidence for physical matter in any other time frame than the present moment. My theory claims the present moment is the result of an oscillation between forward and backward time, which results in a present moment that makes no progress toward the past or future. My theory further proposes that the half-spin nature of subatomic particles causes physical matter to see only the forward time direction within the present moment, which is what we observe. I am a poor theoretician, not an engineer at a major lab. Albert Einstein did not design a nuclear bomb to demonstrate E=mc^2, that job was left to engineers. Similarly, the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST. However, if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. You and I agree concerning magnetic monopoles. I acknowledge your statement that dipolar subatomic particles possess a dipole moment. However, I want to clarify that my current discussion is focused on magnetic charge and not other characteristics of electrons. Please take a moment to reflect on my point and refrain from diverting the conversation towards an unrelated topic. The reciprocal nature of the charge is easily seen by simple algebra: 1 = e2 / (8πα · eemax2) The electrostatic charge is in the numerator, and the magnetic charge is in the denominator. In the same way, time is reciprocal to frequency. It would be more productive if you took the time to listen to what I was presenting rather than telling me what to say. The e is the elementary charge. The charge is expressed as a single dimension in MKS and SI unit systems. In QMU, all charges are expressed as a distributed dimension. Hence, e becomes e2. The value of e is the same in both systems. You are correct that magnetic and electrostatic charges are not the same units. The physics of electrostatic charge is different from the physics of magnetic charge. The electrostatic charge has a spherical angle (1) and one spin (1). The magnetic charge has a steradian angle (1/4π) and half spin (1/2). The splitting of electrostatic and magnetic charges from the Singularity results in a distortion factor known as the fine structure constant. 1 = 1 · 1 · e2 / (4π · 2 · α · eemax2) The geometries of the two types of charges are very different indeed. To test my hypothesis, one could begin by studying and understanding it thoroughly. After that, it could be applied to known unexplained phenomena, such as the anomalous fractional quantum Hall effect. My theory proposes that magnetic charge is a quantum property of subatomic particles. Based on this magnetic charge, the Quantum Measurement Units of magnetic flux can predict the precise value of the "fractional" quantum Hall effect. Your unwillingness to first study the theory does not give justification for dismissing it.