chron44

Hi, everybody Almost everyone can test or stress test these (or similar adjacent) formulas against any physics well updated AI service. And find them "astonishing" or adequate functioning. I understand that AI services are almost banned in this physics section in scienceforums.net. This I find rather "awkward" and old-fashioned. I can't see the disadvantage in using such potent mind tools since self being a non-physicist, though a fair system oriented data/hardware engineer. I do notice that some ppl here being professional physicists and mathematicians, which I have a sincere respect for. Still, potent AI mind tools are the future in many scientific branches, as well as in developing and testing of many types of works of any sorts. And, as mentioned I also do respect the unique human mind without AI help. I really can, for this type of unfamiliar and novel physics- speculating efforts, recommend any well defined physics AI service. I have many times here in this forum section emphasized that I am a fair data/hardware engineer, not a physicist or a mathematician. I had looked forward to be accepted for the one who I am, a very physics interested engineer, with fair ideas to reconcile the stall from, modern, post 1927 Solvay conference dogma. Maybe harsh words for ppl who spent entire careers on physics without a firm and reasonable total physics ground to work from. I understand this. I, myself, have spent about 25 years with this vacuum idea, crafting a relevant and coherent astrophysical ontology and a BB challenger. I'm worth the credit for merely the time spent even if the formulas found may be faulty. /chron44

Hi, Here are the three vacuum formulas: The Quantum Energy Balance, the QEB. (A pre- universal vacuum/energy assembling physics "rule".) QEB And the two physics measurement (wave & particle) variants of our universal vacuum developed from the QEB "evolution". The Universal Background Driver, the two UBD I&II UBD I And UBD II Hopefully these physics "rule" and vacuum "results" are accepted, becoming the third vacuum physics "mountain" bridging the former not connected QM and GR "mountains". /chron44

I can only repeat what ppl here obviously miss or not will accept in my writing: Further: A such vacuum physics "add" with formulas have been presented here at about March/April this year. -These were both mocked or just ignored and at the same time confirmed to be Okay in dimensional analyses and in an all over physics non-violating manner. Ppl or even experienced physicists and good mathematicians here have physics trade reasons for not to accept that such formula really do what they are supposed to do. And, the vacuum formulas doesn't change QM or GR physics at all. -These mountains remains. Still a third "mountain" is to be attached for to reveal the QM's and GR's seemingly, but not really existing, discrepancy. -The third "vacuum" mountain reveals how QM and GR are connected. I think that this following line, earlier written in this thread, IS the identifier of what ppls', physicists' and mathematicians' objections are about. -And this line hints the present scientific position in physics. Which, also besides the very big CCP discrepancy and maybe also the "mystic" inflation add i the BB idea, are most embarrassing for physics as a genuine discipline in science These "vacuum" formulas, as said, are presented here in Science Forums for about a half year ago, just search by my nick name here. These formulas hint a true QM and GR connection. /chron44

What do you mean by this, exactly? I have a very strong point in - not only a philosophical belief - still though a stress tested idea or even some physics formulas which indicate something more than an empty space in which fields and their corresponding particles manifests both as virtual as real particles. If one think, speculate and run about such an idea into some different physics formulas, one may hint a third type of physics beside the QM and GR base disciplines. -A "vacuum" physics may merge and unite the QM and GR trades, which still for the moment not are "bridged". Such formulas gives a rational answer on the CCP discrepancy, and even, if one use a "pre vacuum" formula, and trace its space/vacuum development it can give preliminary and reasonable explanation on the Horizon problem, for instances. -Although, only the CC problem - is a most embarrassing physics present condition. The vacuum isn't what the physics mainstream believe it is. It's the "uniter" of QM and GR. There seems to be a bridge with fair math involved in vacuum physics, with UNCHANGED QM and GR mathematics. The vacuum formulas found makes the QM and GR even better understood and, as mentioned, unchanged in their manifestations and formulas. It's not a "game" changer, it's a "game" explainer. /chron44

Of course, I shall try so. Since the Solvay conference in 1927 had a title like "Electrons and photons" with are basic particles in QM: I can try to say this: The QM math regarding these particles, among others, are astonishing accurate with formulas crafted by very talented physicians. -In their own particle microcosm existence. This is OK and obviously not "wrong" in this way. However the faulty/wrong physics, that I can notice, are such particles "existence" without any connection to their surrounding. -Not necessary to wide universal condition, but such particles' "existence" very near outside their "existence". (I'm aware of that my use of the word "existence" - may also sound cryptic. -I say so because it surely will come continuing arguments about local/ non local aspects of the particles mentioned. Which I'm not that familiar with. I'm "merely" a system oriented engineer much interested in physics.) A "hard argument" of this thread's legacy (physics led wrong or lost existence), which I in www.scienceforums.net often have used, is the CC problem (the CCP), when now asking or inquiring about QM being wrong. Observe my understanding of that QM is not wrong in it self - it lacks - "existential" conditions. This is not wrong in a closed QM discipline, it's "wrong" in a physics total discipline aspect. /chron44

Hi, all This post is mainly issued in this speculation forum, from the idea of mine, and maybe from some others, because ... .. To my understanding "Any statistic or other manner of measurements are the limit where QM physics must reach, and not any further." Hence in an all day phrase one often in physics say: "Shut up and calculate." Heard that before, yes, of course. /chron44

Gibberish. This discussion is drifting away from technical analysis and into emotional reactions. I am trying to focus on the actual issue: CERN’s own safety position and how they communicate it. Or said on Swedish/ English "accent". Pasting my earlier text: "Again, we are as far as I can notice discussing the CERN staff and its insecure status (their non-100% security stand) of the LHC and the FCC colliders' functionality. That I the "layman" "inspector" may be or say being 100% secure isn't the issue here." (If stressed my Swedish text handling becomes more apparent.) I belive the moderator has to notice such "irrelevant" comments. To really "notice" what ppl here writes and tries to write. /chron44

I believe you meant that I am wasting your time. Because I see the main issue on my "statement" based on system analyze. -Applied on this human activity for our planet, on everybody's planet. I urge the moderator to look at the post I’m replying to here. It may overstep the rules for normal forum discussions. Again, we are as far as I can notice discussing the CERN staff and its insecure status (their non-100% security stand) of the LHC and the FCC colliders' functionality. That I the "layman" "inspector" may be or say being 100% secure isn't the issue here. /chron44

I remember arguments both from theory (evaporation of black holes) and experiment (existence of high-energy particles from cosmic rays) putting the matter to rest. Hi, again Also, when preparing for the Trinity test for the fist nuclear bomb to be "released", according to the historical movie Oppenheimer, there was concern about the atmosphere to ignite, when this "energy" was freed in the desert. I think, in the move, Oppenheimer saying to the military chief asking of this "doom" something that "the risk is not zero, but enough near zero". It seems like the CERN staff answer in a similar manner, now in real life conditions. Such an answer - to me - looks recklessly. I can imagine that average ppl feels the same with the present CERN reasoning of the continuation with the LHC and the FCC colliders. Can the human specie afford one more global "stress" parameter added to the "things" that already oppress people? Such concern is a "grown-up" concern, at least for me. /chron44

In about 2003 national media in some "half-serious" short articles was reporting about average ppl's concern over ongoing or planing of the LHC "project". I myself wasn't that worried, but I noticed that the reassurances from the CERN staff wasn't 100% OK, just 99.999999... or something like that. -For the negative chance of any sort of unexpected incidence of any sort possible. The standard manner of mentioning extreme high energy particles from outer space reaching velocities and energies far over any LHC capacity, when entering earths atmosphere did settle my worry on any "unfortunate" incident. Although when handling the most powerful machine ever built for experiments - and - "only" referring to outer space particle entering earths atmosphere for common reassurances of its impossible hazardous character. -This type of reassurance although, for me at that time, did hint on both a very extreme small risk of any hazard, and it hinted on a not fully (100%) comprehended physics involved. OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk. Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous. /chron44

Hi, Are the LHC and the FCC projects - really - secure. I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003. Does it exist any sort of physics that to a 100% risk level makes such projects secure? /chron44

Well, I'm neither a mathematician nor a schooled physicist, I'm a system oriented engineer. I legally, "the nice sort", "hack" systems including universe. In this case by the three physics main conditions for its vacuum. By the vacuum's geometry (from the GR (G) view) , its identity (by wich central aspect it's seen at) and its dynamics (by which physics entities the vacuum remain stable enough for in our case "sustain" with galaxies, SMBH's, EM "void", and so on). These two ideas, postulates, expressions or even being sort of formulas, of the QEB and the UBD, are breakthroughs in universal all over idea crafting. To close any such discussion and effort in a major meta discipline discussions forum - is in my view a most puzzling stand relative everyone who are concerned in reasonable science. Of course, I will give examples of how it does these "things" mentioned here. But if being what I claim these two "tools" to be (mainly the fully functioning and seriously physics stress tested UBD formula). -Anyone - capable to - reason - about universe in astrophysics and - calculate - with success relative universal observations, empirical facts, must be able to do the same. Still, as said I'm a fair and concerned average schooled computer engineer. My professional strength is not to calculate - it's to understand and depict systems. I therefore ask any mathematician who understand astrophysics to validate my system "hack" of such a system. Why shall a pro computer engineer become and behave like a pro mathematician. I have done my job, in a most concerned manner. And I think ppl understand my objection expressed - especially when talking about to "close" a good job. Well, just give me time to find a fair math subject in this case. And, during the mean time, I seriously invite any mathematician in physics, or vice versa, to calculate on any of these here expressed entities this tool handles. Observe that the UBD formula basically "only" is used in calculations of vacuum properties, mainly these mentioned here. I'll return. /chron44 t is time.

Hi, again Since not being a pro physicist, we maybe shall wait for the one's here schooled in astrophysics. The reasonable breakthrough with understanding how and for what these "tools" are best suited to, is rather near in time for me to fully understand. My concern mainly is to comprehend and verify universal conditions. Specially on the latest BB negative confirmations. The recent found minor "errors" at the BB "idea" spurs me. So generally these two "tools" are most suitable for correlating early universal observations with ideas of universe's dynamics and geometry. -Primary through vacuum related evolution. According to every time stances possible. -Then, now and in future times. The UBD formula initially concerned universal "matter", time" and "gravity" behavior. The UBD tool is not possible for to use with strict QM, particle or field physics, and so on. Although it is "weighted" or "calibrated" from a universal action scale, in the standardized (zeroized) h-bar form. -It's an overall "instrument" for universe's vacuum condition, in its regulation method, its identity character, and its geometry, at any time chosen for to "investigate". An astonishing hack of universe for short. /chron44

The UBD formula used for "bridging" the QM and GR aspects is best understood from the strict version. This version is the UBD formula in its full power. The angular momentum part in the non-strict UBD version hints the "legacy" of how I found the UBD at all. It was through analyzing exotic massive photons in extreme early QEB (t<0) stances, initially configuring to later "plasma" "evoking" "void". Just note over how the gravity "ratio" versus the tensional "ratio" behave dynamically. Therefore thoroughly observe, that the QEB "tool" is much more complex than thought at first glance. (One also understands its "powerful" breakthrough functions when applying statistical normal distribution to it. -When you never have to renormalize it.) -So is the UBD formula. Being a most concerned "layman" physicist I have really "struggled" with these both "tools" for over 20 years. (Professionally, I'm a fair low power electronics and computer hardware/software engineer. ) The QEB: The strict UBD version: In the strict UBD version the angular momentum is absent and "only" the vacuum's pixelizing tendency (QM), the zeroized h-bar, "hint" a link to G (AKA GR). This should answer on your question. This tool is a general vacuum regulation rule in junction with the Planck power constant, and this constant is only seen from the vacuum's global regulation characteristics where c and G both are its anchors. -When this tool has been proven in many stress tests during the last half year. And UBD fully, with the initial QEB "behavior" hinted in this post also, answers on your criteria asked in some posts earlier for any form of a BB or an alternative scenario. The primitive atom formation is moreover answered on when QEB in its later stages has, electrons and protons available with, much free photons. The QEB is more "explanatory" than it may reveal for a schooled physicist, but very "intriguing" for a system minded engineer. All these later posts are complex, even for advanced physicists. When, my "trick" here is the more than 20 years focusing on astrophysical issues. /chron44

Hi, again I can merely answer issues like this and other similar questions in this manner: And for to "prove" that I'm not joking or try to con anyone here. I can initially, and as a first "rational" common and basic physics - result - among several other physics main answers here present the "Swiss army knife" tool, "overbridge" the QM and GR physics gap. A most anticipated and hopefully a very welcomed issue. This "tool" should "cover" the "t=0" vacuum's uniform and seemingly long lasting universal regulated condition. Seen over our present 13.8 billion years span from the "t=0" "recombination" and alpha constant start. I still use my "vocabulary. Even, when I do notice and comprehend the physics community's objections. Be lenient with - new - and, yet, non-standard physics. It though is a correct physics formula, that needs its right place in fair astrophysics. The UBD, the Universal Background Driver, formula which is - "evoked" - from the QEB energy assembling "expression": The same function of the UBD with a more physics strict notation: The historical "anomaly" between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) stems from the lack of a shared scaling mechanism. The Universal Background Driver (UBD) introduces a time-dependent geometric operator, h⁰ (t), which functions as the fundamental "bridge" between the gravitational constant (G) and the quantum action (h). The UBD does not replace the Standard Model or General Relativity; it provides the operational ledger that allows them to interact without mathematical divergence. It defines the vacuum not as "empty space," but as a Background Driver that continuously calculates the geometric requirements for the existence of discrete matter. The former QM and GR "anomaly" is hereby declared for minimized. /chron44