Mordred

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

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.

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.

However I should add one can always use multiple gravity tractors. As per this NASA article suggestion. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20120013195/downloads/20120013195.pdf This article gives good details on craft, fuel consumption, mass difference to distance ratios etc. In a pretty easy to relate to, format.

Well if you care to research the merits and disadvantages the technique is called gravity tractor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_tractor#:~:text=The gravitational force of a,the vehicle nor its expelled Like every potential solution there is advantages and disadvantages. So really the choice of method depends on several factors. Asteroid mass, composition. Amount of correction needed and time to provie the correction is some of those factors. Here is a research article on the technique. https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608157 This method doesn't require the asteroid composition, rotation and surface properties. It really only requires trajectory, and mass terms along with sufficient time and obviously communication with said craft for course corrections etc. Those are the main advantages the disadvantage is the communication requirement , sufficient fuel and a slow process that requires a large amount of time so early warning is a priority for the method to have sufficient time. However the method works with asteroids with rotation which negates numerous other methods. (Or complicates).

I was also trying to determine if the OP was applying the dipole moment. I still hadn't gotten a response in regards to whether or not vector relations are applied at any point.

Granted there is likely a lot you haven't posted yet with regards to your hypothesis. I will leave the time dilation aspects to others, for the time being. The question I have is how does your theory work with Lorentz force laws? In particular regard to the cross product relations between the two as described by Maxwell equations. I'm hoping you have at some point looked at the E and and B fields under vector/spinor field treatments. Understandably you likely haven't been able to post all the pertinent details to your hypothesis yet. The equations you have posted thus far only provide scalar quantities. So understanding the vector relations between the two fields of your hypothesis would be useful. Well truthfully they will become rather essential. If your hypothesis has different relations this has huge ramifications in terms of the SM model in particular the Electromagnetic stress energy momentum tensor. So I'd like to be clear how your model handles the following formula with regards to each field \[\vec{F}=q(\vec{E}+\vec{v}\times \vec{B})\] the \(\times\) is the cross product. Not to be confused with the multiplication symbol " *" for any posts I make on this thread I will be using vector notation with \(A\cdot b\) for example being the inner product, the cross product \(A\times B\) for the cross product. I will likely not need the outer product for this discussion. for multiplication I will use \(A* B\) this is also for the benefit of other readers. Also for other readers benefit. As magnetic force as per magnetic force law \[\vec{F}_B=q\vec{v}\times\vec{B}\] there is 3 key consequences. \(\vec{v}\) is particle vector 1) As the magnetic force is perpendicular to \(\vec{v}\) it cannot change the the magnitude of the velocity. 2) as it does not have force parallel to the particle velocity it does no work. 3) Motion of a charged particle under the action of a magnetic field alone is always motion with constant speed. However it can alter the velocity direction. same relations apply between E and B.

I mention it as it complies with our forum rules. See the pinned threads above which contains the rules for the Speculation forum. You only need your specifics of your model not the entirety of physics lol.

Just keep in mind simply linking the paper isn't sufficient where possible copy paste the relevant details here so no one is required to go offsite to look over your paper. Other than that having mathematical detail is excellent we don't mind alternative theories provided they are testable (ie mathematics). We do get some pretty wacky Speculations here if you have mathematics then it's a huge help. For latex here use \[\frac{1}{2}\.] I placed a period on last command to keep from activating. Good luck

You would be surprised how many ppl we see that don't know how that term is applied. It's simply become habit to define it. Understanding clear logic doesn't allow one to ignore physics however. As I mentioned numerous times you still haven't addressed your faster than c signals. Anyways you seem to refuse to acknowledge that a physics model requires far more than verbal logic. It's pointless for me to continue trying to provide direction for improvement from you. Good luck with your idea as you seem to feel your idea is complete and requires no improvement I see no point in continuing. Good luck Just an FYI toroid based models at the quantum level already exist and have been tested for and are still being examined. So it will take far more than verbal logic to be convincing. Although they wouldn't be useful to you from your descriptives of your model idea. They don't make the same claims you do.

Try thinking of sound due to vibration for starters then consider which materials tend to vibrate more or less than other materials. Some materials such as a tuning fork has a resonant vibration to match a specific frequency.

For example very little here really makes sense. I can only assume the first part discusses intrinsic curvature rather than extrinsic. The term dimension in physics refers to effective degrees of freedom it's not strictly a geometric axis. Though x, y,z are effective degrees of freedom so is spin color charge etc etc etc. Some dimensions can even describe a strictly mathematical effective degree of freedom. You still haven't explained how you get signals from a wave faster than c as a result of your toroids

Unfortunately spacetime doesn't curve on its own. One could argue how to describe R=0 till they are blue in the face. Occams nothing is as good as any other way to describe it lol.

It's really has little to do with how to verbally describe something. Anyone can claim this or that. The wording really doesn't matter. In order to confirm viability of those claims you need something beyond verbal or pictures etc. That tool is mathematics using known physics. A theory has no use whatsoever if it cannot be tested for viability. It's a simple truth I realize it's disappointing to hear that from me but I would lying to state otherwise. It's easy to describe a toriod under geometry. The mathematics exist for Bohmian guiding wave action so at least a large part of the legwork is available. That would be a good start.

Funstrating isn't it. You know somethings there but you can't define it. Any infinite quantity has a finite portion but the finite portion is outside R=0

An important detail as Markus just mentioned R=0, cannot be defined The mathematics breaks down is the short hand descriptive. Its also not part of any finite group. We can't define anything particle related there as well. For the same reasons...if you can't define the spacetime the particles would reside in. Its impossible to define any particle presence

That's ok anyone can easily confirm the first equation is the photon propogator its in dozens of textbooks. It a standard form for the Feymann rules. Including the one I provided lmao however thanks for the support. Takes time but it can be accomplished. If you really want to learn I would start with vectors and spinors learn their components and addition rules. Then do so under field treatments. Once you do that GR becomes rather easy. To get a handle on QM and QFT statistical mechanics is the next route as it also uses the vectors/ spinors. Path integrals uses momentum space hence you need the above as its momentum space/phase space includes probability wavefunctions for all possible paths (path taken is the least action). The amplitude of that wavefunction giving the highest probability ( the weighted sum). Those probabilities are determined using Fourier transformations. QFT uses the Klein Gordon equation which is Lorentz invariant. However QM uses the Schrodinger equation which is not Lorentz invariant. This also means the photon propagator can come in different forms depending on the gauge its being applied in. There is also a couple of different forms for Feymann. So you can easily see a solid understanding of vectors/ spinors as standalone and as fields is essential and applies at all levels of physics and in every physics theory. Start there the rest will come far easier by default. should also mention calculus of variations is also applicable for integrals

That is why I don't waste my time trying if they can't take the time to show the error. I don't mind being corrected but I won't change what I've been professionally taught on someone's word without collaborative proof. Certainly not from some bland statement of being wrong without any further detail

whatever you wish to believe I seriously doubt you know how to use any of the equations I mentioned nor have any real understanding of particle physics to begin with. I won't waste any of my time with you either considering I actually hold a degree in particle physics I don't need to . Go ahead mathematically show me being incorrect with the formulas I provided. Impress me beyond your bland statements of me making errors Prove your case instead of simply declaring errors. If you wish to accuse me of errors you had best back it up.

There is 195 Countries in the World. Plenty of those countries also have UFO sightings. They all have their own policies on classified information. So how can secrecy through classification have any real meaning on UFO's ? They also have their own research programs