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

For to describe, in physics more commonly understood events; from using "concealed" explanations and text behind expressions like "alpha physics", to a rather condensed but better phrasing, by depicting physically familiar stances. One may say something like this: "The introduction of alpha physics vocabulary in physics, realizes the start of the atomic universe." -Where the standard astrophysical view evolves, from a complex phase of plasma physics to the start of discrete reality. It's not a common physics phrase, still a conceptual shift from "impossible" mathematics to matter focused astrophysics. And I sincerely hope and believe that Einstein would have appreciated such a shift of focus in physics. This may be done with the QEB "expression" (reasons of my "t<0" "quasi-physics") and its newly discovered "t=0" resulting, fully functioning, physics formula. Though not yet presented. The "illusive" start of universe may be swapped to a "discrete" variant. How about it? /chron44

Yes, I'm using my "own" physics vocabulary, so I try to explain what I mean with t<0 physics. -In my own parallel BB, depicted with a better proved and hence better reasoned, "ontology". The time scales between the "ordinary" BB and my parallel BB "challenger" are "shifted in their synonymous time phases". The ordinary BB idea reason with "inflation" the phase where the dense "singularity" energy "point" during a very short time frame in an extreme eruption goes through several phases. Via its energy "field" called inflaton, that among some other aspects explains the Horizon problem. Where thereafter, at large, the main particles of photons ,electrons and protons are created, maybe in different order. At the cooling temperature of 3000K hydrogen is made via "recombination", which manifests in the present first possible observable universal- birth "sign", of the CMB radiation. -In "ordinary" physics this is the time where the dimensionless charge coupling - constant - "alpha" in a still "unknown" physics manner settles as a probabilistic ratio for the photon-electron interaction. -And in my BB "challenger" ontology this moment also occur at the same cooling temperature of 3000K with the same particles at the same interaction "ratio". I call this moment in my BB "challenger for t=0. Where the ordinary BB idea sets the t=0 when the singularity energy "point" is activated with the inflation in a following start of universal geometric evolution and production of the main entities mentioned among other elementary particles and fields. Hence, the ordinary BB idea cannot go before t=0, cannot "see" behind the t<0 wall. Where the BB challenger, the parallel BB "ontology", with much written "explanation","by definition start at the 3000K/"recombination" phase, start at t=0. -And hence can "see" before t=0, see behind the t<0 wall. Because, with the BB "challenger", the inflation phase with its inflaton field, never occur. But is "explained" in a much otherwise manner. -By an "ontology" that is more "rational" and has recent, early universal empirical, "observations" that matches astonishing - better - than the ordinary BB "idea" does. Or for short, I use my own concealed "ontological" vocabulary. Unfortunately in a bit or a rather "unfair" manner towards ppl who not are "familiar" with this "explanation". Still, it's my work we are dealing with. However, physics is for the concerned group. These are the "parameters" which may be involved with the "emotions" expressed from the science discussed in this type of forums. /chron44

I' not a professional physicist, I'm a interested layman. Still, I obviously am at least not "picking" on ppl who tries to search and make thesis out of impossible physics. If you are a physicist with any knowledge of universal science on t<0 to t=0, up to about 1 second of alpha physics you should be supporting any similar postulates or thought efforts. I am an ordinary human with human spontaneous and interested projects and search for the world and its conditions. Being supporting should be a standard approach in t<0 physics. /chron44 Furthermore, I can just only copy an earlier post from me, to this above comment: /chron44

Do anyone who "name" any physics formula, expression or postulate to "gibberish" that include "infinity" being able to differ on physical versus mathematical variants of "infinity"? For to note that this difference is real and comprehended? Observe that I don't claim the QEB "expression" to be physics in the scholar sense. The QEB is a mind and an otological starting help of the impossible measurement reality of early BB and other initial BB challengers. We can never measure t<0 stances. -Only observe large scale events and make more or less "advanced" predictions via extrapolations and interpolations with different methods. Still present physics does search in similar and adjacent types of postulates. Mainly because recent "BB" high tech data over universal most early evolution tries to reconcile the small but puzzling observations. Can anyone else confirm or disprove my posting here in this sense? How can we differ on t<0 stances with postulated not-time and non-space stances including non-measurable physics quantities if not making "reasonable" postulates for such environments? It is in need of "out-of-the-box thinking. Novel physics or mind leading postulates, whether gibberish or not in essence, often meet skepticism by default first encounter. /chron44

The QEB postulate: These are frank issues, and I try to answer in a "frank" "QEB" manner: f_infinity, function of infinity, is the physical view on infinity. Which not is to be swapped or mixed with mathematical infinity. E is the classical and the relativistic energy frame also seen in SR. In the QEB "expression" E stands for the energy frame seen into (conceptually transformed to) the forthcoming the t=0 start and further on to present time. Since the QEB "expression" is active in t<0, t=0, and continually to t0 time frame. QEB is active in all existed and existing time stances as a source for energy. /chron44

Hi, again I myself find these BB alternative issues most interesting. Probably some of you are initially sound skeptic, this is how physics is "made". I therefore have to adjust the BB t<0 and t=0 related time stances to correlate with the BB parallel universal evolutionary "frames. Since these are "synchronized" and has the "same" "QM" general physics starting from the 3000K cooling procedure. The BB parallel ontology's time frame of t=0, does "naturally" start when photons are freed from the electrons and start producing hydrogen atoms with the protons.. This cannot be changed at in the BB challenger. One interesting coincidence is that in this manner the ever first universal observable event, of the CMB blackbody radiation, in fact becomes to our universal birth. Early BB "ideas", like the inflation and the inflaton, interpolating/extrapolating birth of elementary particles, plasma and even singularity points of exceptional density. -Which, all similar events in standard BB physics are not fully confirmed "ideas", stays as advanced "guesses" to the BB widely accepted theory. Unfortunately lately some disproven and, in a puzzled novel astrophysics stance, not fully acknowledged in recent more and more refined observations of long range and high tech data of universe's very early stages. When, the parallel BB ontology in a physics manner does answer on these latest observed universal anomalies, with rational precision. This is the true strength of the BB challenger. -In this manner we can look behind t<0 time, the formerly BB inflation epoch, still with advanced guesses, now at least better correlated with recent observations. I really will try to continue my QEB postulate and my vacuum regulating physics, when time is on its side. /chron44

Generally we are, or at least I am, talking about pre universal most early conditions. Where neither fields nor particles exist. In the strict BB alternative ontological scenario also time and space are nor yet established. Still, my intention is to "decrypt" (let's say quasi physically) the source of electromagnetism and gravity. Where "preliminary", u stands for tension, this exactly phrase. And g stands for gravity, as it is physically expressed at this very early pre "void" stance. This IS philosophy in a broader sense, I admit this. But, in the vicinity of the "famous" 3000K recombination cooling level (this also occur in the parallel BB ontology at the exactly same temperature and with exactly the same particles). -My QEB initial energy assembling "expression" in this first QEB universal phase, is not in action any more. The universal vacuum regulation condition, with the big charge neutrality from exactly same amounts of electrons and protons, is fine tuned by the photon/electron complementary interaction. -We cannot in a physics basic tradition make any form of measurements behind the t<0 wall. We therefore cannot specify u nor g in a the realms of what we consider to be true physics. This is the sad t<0 situation. We can only theoretically interpolate and extrapolate behind the t<0 wall. Your issue is by default impossible to answer on without quasi physics, or extrapolating on what we can measure. T<0 looks like a form of a Schrödinger cat in such specific issues. So, my answer is u stands for "tension" in the pre universal t>0 epoch, which BB never can depict. Neither can g be physically looked on behind the t<0 BB wall. Such quasi physics is the only manner to solve the latest anomalies and negative BB observations. -As the too smooth CMB, too big first galaxies. Small but significant different universal ages depending on internal parallel BB math. And as mentioned in some posts earlier from me about the BB "inflation" add, it is not even necessary for explaining the Horizon problem. In the, BB parallel ontology's, regulated universe it never is a problem. It seems to be the "natural" geometry, identity and the dynamics (the regulation characteristics) of the start of the t=0 vacuum. So, much speaks for a need of some "quasi physics" for to handle the latest BB negative observations. /chron44

If first answering on swansont's issue about physics versus philosophy .... (Having trouble of pasting his comment.) My own comment of some earlier post by me: It though gives an astonishing "ontological" reasonable answer on the BB's a bit "constructed" but widely accepted inflation add. -Mainly through an alternative on the BB idea's complex solution of the Horizon problem, as a first major congruence. The alternative, with a thoroughly presented ontology, is not suitable for hasty and brief encounters like in forums. However, if being most "pro" physicist like, which I not am, I can briefly there present a BB parallel ontological answer concerning the steps before universal recombination, and how it affects the Horizon problem, more rationally handled there than the inflation add in the BB theory. After the recombination "incident" the alternative ontology cannot in - essence - be separated from QM, QFT, SM, and so on. To me this cite reasoning of the second "phase" of the BB parallel ontology, on a hasty glance resembles of average physics for Okay physicists. /chron44

--------------------------------------------------------------- The post refining and correction time isn't on my side ... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hopefully I here can make my arguments valid, so .... --------------------------------------------------------- Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years. And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me. Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases. This "expression" is trying to - depict - the assembling function of "infinity" of the most "natural" and possible electric/gravitational components by default. In the most early tendencies of the "void" with one single complex "dual character" component behaving accordingly to statistical normal distribution. Which is lacking in this expression, but is ontologically written in text. The u/g entity correspond to a very early, pre t=0, before-plasma and before-particle epoch of a t<0 condition. This and arguably more ontological reasonable depicting exist in the homepage writing. I understand that this is very unorthodox physics, still a general ontological possible scenario for microcosm exotic "energy" or entity realizing to reality conditions. Some proof of this can be the finding of a second physics - correct - vacuum regulation formula, which not yet is presented here. Although it passes several physics "stress" tests, and still haven't collapsed to "rubbish". Let this take time to either throw it on the scrap heap, or to reconcile such ideas for a second chance. /chron44

Of course, it's from my own homepage in physics, with some other stuff by me in the last 25 years. And I did refine the the edges of the *.jpg which I copied and pasted here, that's why the first past of it is absent in their comments, if ppl were hasty in answering this last post from me. Ppl usually have some problems if inserting an "infinity" symbol in formulas. Still in the manner "infinity" is used here it should be Okay. -It doesn't involve renormalization as physics normally do in similar cases. /chron44