# NTuft

Senior Members

268

1

1. ## Square Root Prove

The square root may be considered a multivalued function. Example 1: a=-2 a2=+4 Example 2: a=+2 a2=4 The square operation should be applied first once a number is input to evaluate the expression. In distinction from the algebra convention when solving for variables where the power is simply removed. Squaring of course gives a positive value. Once the square root is applied, plus/minus is appended in front of the operator, for the equivalent reason absolute value is used here. ; because there is ambiguity (multi-value) output from the square root... relation. Nothing in the question remarked about limiting the domain of input or codomain of output to ensure a single-valued function.
2. ## Please, help with question

Around the SPONCH CaFe.
3. ## Need description of Prime# distribution in Riemann hypothesis

Hi Trurl, I found this slideshow presentation informative Prime numbers and the Riemann zeta function, Carl Wang-Erickson, Nov. 12, 2019: There is some difficult math, but if you go through the presentation I think it can clear up how the Riemann hypothesis points at a pattern in prime number's average, logarithmic distribution. I would like you to describe that to me. I think of the argument (angle) for a complex number as rotating around. Can you refer me to that document or paper, please? I haven't gone through links or the paper you've provided, and I don't much understand the odometer question, but I read you're working at cryptography applications, so I'll think about it.
4. ## Does there exist an ''electrical circuit'' between the Earth and Moon ?

I see splodge was banned as sockpuppet of JustJoe, but this mention opens up a line for investigation. The Moon and the Magnetotail, NASA.gov: emphasis added.

6. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

Fair enough. Objection warranted.
7. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

@swansont, Using Weber's electrodynamics we can substitute masses for charges to get a description of gravitational force. By my read, it wouldn't need monopoles or point charges then -- the masses act like point charges. It does reduce to Newtonian gravity, and with Mach's principle the system is extended as Relational Dynamics by A.K.T. Assis. Any thoughts on that? I'm pro-particle. You want to discuss the science I brought up on that? It was an overture to your particle leanings, I thought you'd like to discuss the cosmology development and why we can't find magnetic monopoles. @studiot, I think you had the technical issue explained to you by someone else, too? You have it figured now? Thanks to you and @joigus for more input here, and keywords.. I'll try to follow up. You guys all sure know a lot.
8. ## Physics and “reality”

There may be something brought to bear on this here, A novel equivalence relation in relativity (+1 @studiot), So the f0 is the 0-th and fk is the conventional. I don't have a handle on co-variant, contra-variant, vector indices or tensors here, I'd barely made a start on what I think is Einstein's vector convention. is the power gain/loss a boost? I ought to go through the sections I pointed at to get the details, but if you could explicate what this is saying I'd appreciate it; I don't even know what questions to ask. Referring to the equivalence relation in relativity cite, does it make sense that the E and B fields are conceptually lightlike objects? I think it's such that they're thought of as the medium in which it propagates. What about the dimensionality? When swansont said that it could be reverted to a v=0 frame and electrostatics could describe it I was thinking that was like going from 3-D to 2-D spacelike dimensions, and then lo-and-behold the next section I read goes into classical electrodynamics... Which is not correct, as electrostatics can be 3-D, but as soon as it is, I think there is the additional degree of freedom for rotation, which again is a relative motion that can induce the B field. And? I think that there was some back-and-forth about whether an interaction hinges on a relative motion, and I think magnetism does. I highly recommend the reading on equivalence relation in relativity, I don't have a good handle on relativity, and several readings of the initial pages are necessary. "...everything in physics is made up to make the math work out. ...in the end, everything we do is to make the math work out."
9. ## Physics and “reality”

They're not entirely unrelated, though. Searching the respective wiki articles for the other's terms, "transformation" or "Lorentz force", has details [Transformation of other quantities; Relativistic form of the Lorentz force]. The E and B fields defined by Lorentz force do not have a timelike quantity so I think you're correct to say they're different from Lorentz transformation including time. Yes, the corrected distribution got in there with the edit. However, also from the wiki's, the Lorentz transformation can illustrate that what appears as a static electric charge and E field in a rest frame appears to be a moving charge with consequent current flow and induced B field from another frame in relative movement--it only becomes an electro-magnetic interaction with some relative velocity, either of the charge or the observer thereof.
10. ## Physics and “reality”

I can see the utilitarian argument, but if there were some non-contingent, non-interacting "field" isn't it possible that our observations or reality is contingent in a way that couldn't necessarily be measured? I know that's a mushy, philosophical-religio-mystical question, but I don't see physics as "made up", rather that it's trying to develop a description.. To me, the explanatory power for theory is deficient if it's not encompassing reality, even if utility wouldn't require a complete understanding. Lorentz force,
11. ## Mysterious Havana Syndrome

Injuries to diplomats is a limited hangout, a cover for two-way signals surveillance or injection technology.
12. ## Does eating eggs increase cholesterol? What are the latest scientific studies/data suggesting?

Yes, thank you. Yes, should say increases expression. Certainly yes there is the assumption that LDL receptors are involved in LDL-C clearance. The interpretation to end the abstract from the authors is like what you suggest. It could be decreased production VLDL->IDL->LDL is sensed and signals upregulation of expression of receptors, seeing that the diets step down both fat% and SFA%: 34%(15%)[0,0], 29%(9%)[-5%,-6%], 25%(6%)[-9%,-9%]. I presume both numbers are % of total energy, and the latter not a %SFA of total fat, as that seems implausible.

14. ## Jumping to Conclusions

I wonder if it matters if it's intentional or malicious. A stoic line would be that one can only control their responses, or that one can stifle any unreasonable emotional reaction, if there is self-mastery. Nonetheless, if something "gets your goat" I think it helps you see yourself--why or how am I identified with this point of contention that leads to negative emotion or reaction? I agree with a line of argument that says the truth hurts. That dis-confirming information is interpreted by the brain as physical injury. I don't know how scientifically founded that is, but I do think there are studies on cognitive biases in political opinion where people presented with information dis-confirmatory to their belief have pain centers light up. I also think the issue of whether you're thinking with your adipose or your blood is at play. I'm not so sure we can really control what impressions we make on others. Being able to be externally considerate always and internally considerate never is an equation for happiness. Being able to control the impressions we make on others would be quite a skill... But is there a need for it? Perhaps stepping on people's corns can create a friction, create some difficulty to make a change that wouldn't be possible another way. It only make sense and is reasonable I think to be respectful here, I think we'd hope we understand each other and are working on things together. Yet if you think it's necessary to correct with dis-confirming information, it's going to bring the pain, and oftentimes I think it's done with a flair or presentation that might be taken personally, or as an insult, when in reality it's done in good humor (at least for the rest of the readers).
15. ## Geometric Model for Nuclear Structure.

Can you explain more about the extra dimensions? It seems as though some results did not fit, so you postulate these ED orbitals. Does your geometric model remain planar? You mention that P level is stacked on the z-axis(coming out of the page), PL over PR, one over another -- so is it more like PL - QL PL \ QL \ \ PR \ QR PR QL once you get to P+Q level? Not sure I understand your diagrams... Then you on to hexagrams and decagons (plus two orbitals in the center). Is the geometry planar?? I think this is interesting. I think the shell model can accomodate geometric nucleus structure. You start with a 4 (2 proton-2 neutron), add 6s or 8s, then 10s or 12s.. I think you could really gain something (and maybe lose the extra dimensions) from reading this write-up on another geometrical model for nuclear structure: I'll try to get through the rest. MOON-HECT-Keplerian-ATOM-Periodicity.pdf
16. ## Does eating eggs increase cholesterol? What are the latest scientific studies/data suggesting?

Very well, and that can be a metric. It'd be an issue of myopathy, broadly speaking, over time, but overall I think it is a low-incidence reported side effect.

18. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

chromebook Shenanigans displays url on webpage lower left-hand side on my end. Perhaps right-click, copy link address, paste it and it'll be at end of url.
19. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

couldn't add edit to #1229842, so for what it's worth here, if you hover over the time stamp on a post the last # in the url (e.g. in your post above #1229844) looks like the post number over the whole forum.
20. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

I suppose I quibbled, "Accept this definition from wikipedia." And your stance is, "That is unacceptable." It was on the issue that I'd missed a point you were emphasizing about Fields, but I didn't see the point, and wanted to wave it away and make do with a "group", though I didn't define the group operation well, either. I grant your recent echoed point. I am out walking the dog in the... p-1ark!... and uncertain on which end is the wiener, in natural casing, and which end is gauging the walking. So I think it is a confusion of the mathematical theory and matematical modeling, which is nuanced, but I think it is good. I had premised that I wanted to take as granted the sets and their field axioms. In going in to describe the problem in situ, I think there needs to be a failure of the commutator. My work-up is not formally acceptable or explicit. I think that commutative multiplication can describe energy being added to a particle. I think the failure of the commutator to allow addition can describe the phenomena discussed. I do not think it is too far afield to have your wiener and walk it, too, if on a lattice gauge the spacing in the physics field is bringing together the interactions that are described by the operations that characterize the mathematical field. The book recommended Thursday is in the mail. +1 over there. Ought to walk before you run, and a group is more basic than a field, so maybe start there? Perhaps you have some thoughts on the set to generate a group? I need to study the Lagrangian formalism, among other things. And be more precise in my terms and work-up to be taken seriously... Tread carefully.
21. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

In TQFT, for Wilson loops the expectation value does not change under smooth deformations..They are gauge invariant. By Wick rotations obects from thermal physics, exp(βH), are related to quantum physics, exp(−iH T).. Polyakov loop is "thermal analogue" to Wilson loop.. An imaginary temporal compactification, length of β=1/T(emp.), leads to topologically nontrivial loops around the compact direction known as Polyakov loops. Those loops (assuming the group center change of basis is not trivial) are gauge dependent, Ok. I read your questions on TQFT, and those and the leads to "functorials", etc., look interesting. Interesting formulation. Thanks for this, article, too, but they make statements with caveats, so I wouldn't conclude it's unsolvable.
22. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

I'll repeat the distinction between the two. So addition and multiplication, multiplicative inverse, and effectively two nullary operations would be an equivalent way to define the field. I think I posited those, though I called addition non-commutative for the reasons I explained. You seemed to argue earlier that wasn't a field--was it a problem with the operations I was proposing? Feel free to give up. -1
23. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

What I had in mind was a discrepancy in the trace -- a Wilson loop is functional if the perimeter measure is correct, whereas a Polyakov loop implies the area between confined states is what's needed (fuzzy re-hash). I think it's related to confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. I'll follow up on what you've mentioned. I shouldn't have asked the last leading question, Glueballs. Would you explain what about it makes you think it "is considered to be the toughest problem around concerning physics?" I thought it was the conceptual or theoretical mathematical description of what has been pretty well established physically. So the back and forth between Physico-Mathematics, Mathematical-Physics; it does exist!
24. ## Number theory derivation from infinity; speculations on equations that are derived in terms of the Field

@joigus, So does area-law confinement imply Polyakov loops to you? As opposed to Wilson loops being based on perimeter? Is the issue that glueballs need to have a prediction made about their lower mass bound?
25. ## "The Balloon !"

-1 to 1st Lt post. +1 @TheVat's response. Antenna/transceiver in the near-field vs. far-field for a satellite? Two-way street--this is a function of supercomputing power, and the U.S. and PRC lead the world, and are close competitors as far as I know. At least the mass of data is analyzed and distilled before intel assessment I reckon. FBI can hack back TOR layers and are dismissing cases without prejudice to not disclose the method. @Alex_Krycek, "I want to believe." Tic-tac shape noted. Cf. orb over Mosul.
×