As Michio Kaku points out, we are a level 0 civilization—it’s time for us to advance. I deeply appreciate the monumental efforts and contributions of our scientific pioneers and current researchers. Yet, considering it has been over three centuries since Newton and a century since Einstein, we must ask ourselves: What’s next?

Let’s unite our strengths, incorporating AI and interdisciplinary collaboration to transcend traditional boundaries. It’s time to set aside personal biases and collectively push the frontiers of science. Together, we can explore the cosmos and develop new energy sources—not just for us, but for future generations.

Sora Tōgo

]]>
I am interested in the mathematical foundations of theoretical physics and gave been posting pdf's to the **url deleted**

I just discovered this forum, but I can try to keep it updated as to progress if allowed (It is too much to duplicate posts; i'm 83+ and don't have much time left.

A documenet that has most of my current links is available at: **url deleted**

Chuck

]]>
I believe I have come up with a particle accelerator breakthrough, and I need your help so I can know if it is practical or not. Before I start to talk about this idea, I must inform you *not to steal it*, and if you do, I have proof of it being stolen* right here* and *will *get you in legal trouble. Now that that is over, I will tell you, my idea.

Einstein got his* well-deserved *Nobel Prize in 1921 for his work on the photoelectric effect. Now, quantum mechanics has gone off the rails with quark-gluon-plasma, quantum fluctuations, particle accelerators and much more. What if I told you I came up with a way to combine the photoelectric effect and particle accelerators together.

According to Electrodynamics, electrons have a certain force acting on them. Einstein thought that since photons had energy, they could help overcome this force, which ended up being the most accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.

I thought this idea a while ago, and I have not seen *any* other people thinking of this idea. What if the photoelectric effect could be used in particle accelerators. See, energy causes particles to accelerate, and my thought was if an electron *absorbed* a photon, it could accelerate and have the function of a normal particle accelerator. I thought this idea was good because it would take less energy transformations.

Magnetic fields take a changing electric field, which takes energy (Unless it is permanent). And even if you have a magnetic field, you still need to change the direction of the poles, which takes more energy. After *all of that, *the magnetic force is still less energy efficient compared to other ways. In my Photon idea, all you have to do is make the electron absorb a photon, which happens naturally, and then it will accelerate.

All I need to know is if this idea is practical, and if it would actually work. I also want to know if it already exists. Thank you for reading this, and do not patent it because I have proof right here that I created the idea (Unless somebody beat me).

]]>

I am a long time lurker and I first want to thank this community for how much i have learned. One thing that has truly fascinated me in modern physics is the work with cpt symmetry. mind you i am an engineer that does this as a hobby so please forgive me if i make any mistakes. I would like to be able to design a macroscale experiment to test these applications, more specifically i would like to test macroscale quantum effects. I would first just like your opinions on how best you think I should go down this road to test this experiment. another test I would like to incorporate is soliton waves in water. from what I have read it appears that this soliton waveform in water follows the same waveform of a photon, but I am unsure how to test whether or not all soliton waveforms are the same regardless of field. thank you for your time

]]>The universe will have evaporated away altogether by AD10¹⁰⁰

If species are still around in the year 10¹⁴, I assume life will no longer be possible with no more light.

If so, will it in theory be possible for spectacularly advanced species to repair, prolong or create new stars and thus prolong the stelliferous era? Not indefinitely of course, but for alot longer?

Cheerz

DECLAN🙂XXX

]]>
Determinism shown to end contradiction

Determinism shown to end in Meaninglessness nonsense

Causal determinism

“Causal determinism, sometimes synonymous with historical determinism (a sort of path dependence), is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." “Causal determinism has also been considered more generally as the idea that everything that happens or exists is caused by antecedent conditions”

take the 3 body problem –as a simplification of all things in the universe

But note all the universe is made up of things in interrelationships with everything else

if we take Newton’s law of gravitation

But note all the universe is made up of things in interrelationships with everything else

if we take Newton’s law of gravitation

F = G(m1m2)/R2.

Thus when we move object A it effects the other two objects B and C

But when objects B and C move that effects object A

So

But when objects B and C move that effects object A

So

we can say that A in effect caused its own motion

thus we can say the antecedent cause of A is infact just the antecedent A itself

in other words the cause of the cause is the cause

just nonsense meaninglessness

note

because all things in the universe are interrelationships with everything else

because all things in the universe are interrelationships with everything else

then

from the above all things are their own antecedent cause

from the above all things are their own antecedent cause

just nonsense meaninglessness

thus causation is both logically nonsense and science itself must then be meaningless nonsense

thus causation is both logically nonsense and science itself must then be meaningless nonsense

What does it mean that it transforms covariantly under translation? ]]>

A non-contradictory thing could be true or false depending on context but at least has the *possibility* of being true." - me, I said that

❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good; Functions; limit built into every operation)❌️:

1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are the exact same character.

2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus).

3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics).

✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (Knowing Good from Evil; Relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️:

1. The Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character are polar opposite characters.

2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).

3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).

[🐴Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:

Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍

[🐶Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:

The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers.

Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago! 🦧

[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:

locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")

not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")

[Closing arguments]:

The Materialism/Empiricism package brings with it all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level?

If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).

[infinity and zero, God, soul]:

in·fin·i·ty

MATHEMATICS

a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).

(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).

What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?

a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.

b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.

Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.

Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.

Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?

Well, 0D is outside of space and time:

0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless

1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions

4D (natural) = temporal dimension

Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.

Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.

Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.

In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).

"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".

A) The postulated soul, 👻, has

1. no spatial extension

2. zero size

3. exact location only

B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.

Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.

[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]:

0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.

0D monad (Creator event horizon)

1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions

1D line

2D width

3D height

4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions

4D length

5D breadth

6D depth

7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions

7D continuous

8D emission

9D absorption

10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)

It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.

The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.

The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.

It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real or "more real")

The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity in Genesis 2-3 who constantly messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️).

[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:

Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.

The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.

The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*

It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.

[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:

1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.

2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.

3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.

4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.

5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.

6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.

7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.

[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:

Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism

Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory

Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation

Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex

Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point

]]>1st: a double slit setup was sent to a bunch of different colleges. They each shot one photon through the apparatus onto a separate recording plate, then passed the setup on. When the plates were compiled there was an interference pattern with each photon knowing it's place in the overall pattern, independent of time.

2nd: The double slit wave collapse. I've read that if the measurement that collapses the wave into a a particle pattern is placed after the photon has passed thru the slits you still apparently collapse the function back in time before the split and get a particle/point-like pattern.

Somebody asked about these on a public discourse chat. I told him I would ask around to check the veracity of the second claim. Thanks in advance. I'm rather curious about these, myself.

]]>
"How much energy would you put into ITER to fuse 1 kilogram of lead into gold?"

"Gold is not evenly divisible by helium, so you could not fuse helium into 100% pure gold, there would be other atoms formed, but if that is acceptable, how much helium to fuse to form 1 pound of gold, and how much joules would you lose (of course, past iron fusion loses joules, so this would not produce joules, just produce gold) to compress (through supermagnets, lasers, or other compressors) helium to gold?"

...

to fuse 1 kilogram of lead (Pb) into gold (Au), we need to consider the mass difference between the two elements and the energy release per nucleon during fusion.

The atomic mass of lead is approximately 207.2 atomic mass units (AMU), and the atomic mass of gold is around 197.0 AMU. Therefore, to convert 1 kilogram (1000 grams) of lead into gold, we need to account for the mass difference, which is 10.2 AMU.

The energy release per nucleon during a fusion reaction is typically on the order of millions of electron volts (MeV). However, the exact value depends on the specific reaction and isotopes involved. For the sake of estimation, let's assume an energy release of 7 MeV per nucleon.

To calculate the total energy required, we multiply the mass difference by the energy release per nucleon and the number of nucleons in 1 kilogram of lead. The number of nucleons can be estimated using Avogadro's number and the molar mass of lead.

...

Number of nucleons in 1 kilogram of lead (Pb):

(1000 g) / (207.2 g/mol) * (6.022 x 10^23 nucleons/mol) ≈ 2.91 x 10^26 nucleons

Energy required:

(10.2 AMU) * (7 MeV/AMU) * (2.91 x 10^26 nucleons) ≈ 2.03 x 10^28 MeV

Converting MeV to joules:

1 MeV = 1.602 x 10^-13 joules

Energy required (in joules):

(2.03 x 10^28 MeV) * (1.602 x 10^-13 joules/MeV) ≈ 3.25 x 10^15 joules

So, it would take approximately 3.25 x 10^15 joules of energy to fuse 1 kilogram of lead into gold.

"Gold is not evenly divisible by helium, so you could not fuse helium into 100% pure gold, there would be other atoms formed, but if that is acceptable, how much helium to fuse to form 1 pound of gold, and how much joules would you lose (of course, past iron fusion loses joules, so this would not produce joules, just produce gold) to compress (through supermagnets, lasers, or other compressors) helium to gold?"

To form 1 pound of gold through helium fusion, we need to determine the amount of helium required. Let's start by calculating the number of gold atoms present in 1 pound of gold.

The molar mass of gold (Au) is approximately 197 grams/mol. Since 1 pound is equal to 453.592 grams, we can calculate the number of moles of gold:

Number of moles of gold = (1 pound / 453.592 grams) * (1 mol / 197 grams) ≈ 0.002301 moles of gold

In the fusion reaction, four helium nuclei (alpha particles) combine to form a nucleus of beryllium, and then another helium nuclei fuses with the beryllium nucleus to create a carbon nucleus. This carbon nucleus then captures three helium nuclei to produce an oxygen nucleus, and so on.

It takes a series of fusion reactions to convert helium into gold. The exact number of helium nuclei required depends on the specific pathway and conditions of the fusion process. However, it is estimated that around 10^19 helium nuclei (or alpha particles) would be required to produce 1 gram of gold.

Since there are approximately 453.592 grams in a pound, the total number of helium nuclei required would be:

Number of helium nuclei = (10^19 helium nuclei / 1 gram) * (453.592 grams / 1 pound) ≈ 4.53592 × 10^21 helium

Is it possible to prove whether:

**– Atoms are inanimate objects which respond to a priori forces**

OR

**– Atoms are material systems which respond spontaneously to their energetic environment**

This might seem an esoteric question, but it has fundamental implications for the way we see the universe around us.

The former statement is consistent with materialistic philosophy, that which we’ve inherited from the Victorians. But the latter would seem to be the direction of travel that quantum mechanics is taking us in. If the latter holds, then all forces of nature are the consequence of the behaviour of matter and not the consequence!

Is it possible to prove one or the other?

**url deleted**

**i am well aware of the theory that all masses dropped at the same height from earth will accelerate at the same speed but i say this is wrong i have come up with a possible contradiction for this:**

**In the first case, both masses are the same and accelerate toward each other at the same rate. Now in cases 2 and 3, I have reduced the mass (m1), as this happens point of collision moves towards the greater mass. Now let's consider that all 3 collisions take the exact same time for collision. the distance between the objects in all three cases is the same. Now looking specifically at cases 2 and 3 we can see that the m1 object has a larger distance to cover compared to the m2 object. Because of this, I conclude that acceleration has to be different in both cases. Yes, I have kind of magnified this idea in the thought experiment, but even though (if this effect is true) this effect is very very insignificant. it's still present. Yes, this may not affect physical experiments at large, but I still persist that the effect is present.
PS: If this thought experiment is false feel free to challenge me.**

**use the trailing image for reference.**

*hope i get a opposition soon!!*

]]>

In the realm of theoretical physics, the concept of a multiverse is a subject of theoretical discussion rather than direct observation. Various scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, string theory, and cosmological models, have proposed the existence of parallel universes. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. In string theory, the idea of a "landscape" of multiple universes emerges from the intricate configurations of extra dimensions.

The alignment between 'The Flash' series and scientific theories of parallel universes lies in the exploration of diverse realities coexisting alongside our own, often driven by unique physical laws. However, discrepancies arise in the creative liberties taken by the show, such as the ease of travel between worlds and the nature of these alternate realities. Scientific models present a more complex, theoretical, and often mathematically derived understanding of multiverses, involving principles of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and string theory, where access or observation of these parallel universes remains hypothetical or in the domain of advanced theoretical physics.

The question remains:** to what extent can the speculative and imaginative narrative of the 'Flash' series be seen as reflecting or deviating from the more elaborate, intricate, and nuanced theoretical frameworks of multiverse models proposed in scientific discourse, considering the similarities, divergences, and complexities of the two perspectives?**

"**This year's Nobel Prize in Physics rewards experiments with light that capture "the shortest of moments" and opened a window on the world of electrons."**

**Seems like a very big deal.They seem to be saying that practical or theoretical consequences may be in the pipeline.**

*Does anyone here have an understanding on the ongoing research into this field*?

Isn't temperature the emittance of photons, and photons according to the current model, didn't exist for around 380,000 years after the big bang. So how could the singularity be hot if there were no particles to vibrate.

Am I confusing energy with temperature? can you have energy without temperature? and how can you explain density without matter.

Apologies for the stupid questions, I just want to start a conversation.

Thanks

]]>

this article seems to imply that leptogenesis and subsequently Baryogenesis can be explained via the Higgs seesaw via the Right hand neutrino mixing angles. I question the accuracy of this claim so will be examining it further but felt posting here may interest other members as well.

]]>