Dhillon1724X

Got it — thanks for clarifying. Since FeLi₂B₂H₃ is a theoretically derived material, the best way forward would be to ground it in known Fe-based superconducting frameworks and use symmetry principles to justify its potential. @exchemist Its more related to you field. THE CHEMISTRY

I have read your older posts, You used bad tone and sometime it was very rude. I agree with @Phi for All.It was to correct your tone. Some are Men at age of 12 and some are still Boys at age of 22. Well,we learn from our mistakes. You have learnt your lesson.

I will recommend to write a post summing up whatever your current theory has.

How can you determine if its stable? To test the feasibility in DFT or simulate its phonon/electronic properties, could you share the crystal structure? Ideally a CIF or POSCAR file, or even rough lattice parameters and atomic positions. Without the structure, we can't simulate stability, band structure, or phonons — which are needed to evaluate superconductivity claims. it's definitely intriguing. I understand that synthesizing and testing new superconducting materials can be expensive and out of reach without funding, but there are scientific ways we can still explore and validate your concept. If you can provide the crystal structure (even a rough sketch, ideally with space group, atomic positions, and elemental composition), we can use first-principles simulations (like DFT + phonon and electron-phonon coupling analysis) to: Check the stability of the structure (thermodynamic + vibrational) Calculate the electronic structure and band properties Predict the electron–phonon coupling strength Estimate the superconducting critical temperature (Tc) using models like McMillan or full Eliashberg theory These simulations are widely accepted in theoretical physics and material science communities. Some even use machine-learning predictors trained on thousands of known superconductors to estimate Tc directly from structure. So — if you’re open to it — feel free to send me: The structure file (CIF, POSCAR, or any readable format) The exact chemical formula Any assumptions or expectations you have for the superconducting behavior I’ll be happy to help simulate or evaluate it using open-source tools. That way, you might be able to publish preliminary theoretical results or gain support for funding from institutions or journals. Looking forward to hearing more!

I know that, But my point is that they have characteristics needed. Yes,you are right. But we dont know what happens in future.

Thanks.

So you are old too. It’s good to see you are living happy life. BTW do you have family?

So you live in temple or something like that?

here’s no contradiction. Chortons exist before spacetime and create it. The \omegaω value just describes their internal energy scale — not a real-time vibration. After spacetime forms, that same \omegaω becomes a true frequency. So both statements are correct, just referring to different phases. Maybe its just a misunderstanding.

Yes,i am aware of that. The atmosphere of Mars is primarily composed of carbon dioxide, with significant amounts of nitrogen and argon, and trace amounts of other gases like oxygen and water vapor. Modifying an organism's characteristics through gene manipulation and altering its DNA to introduce new traits or enhance existing ones can make them suitable for that rough atmosphere? Tardigrades can be the creature suitable to live on mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

What contradicts it? Maybe i just wrote something wrong as i was hurry,Can i PM the file as its not allowed to share here.

Its written by me,i just corrected grammer and i used bullet points in notepad to write. Then pasted it from there. I liked these so i kept them >

"Mathematics proves what the eyes cannot see. Observation can deceive — but a consistent equation never lies. The unseen does not mean the unreal. In fact, every fundamental theory began with math predicting what wasn’t yet visible. Why do people believe in strings or loops? Not because they’ve seen them — but because the mathematics predicts effects that match what we observe. No one saw a black hole when it was first proposed. It came purely from Einstein’s equations, long before any telescope could detect its presence. Has anyone seen spacetime literally curve? No — but we observe its consequences: light bending, time dilation, gravitational waves. In physics, it’s not visibility that matters — it’s consistency, predictivity, and mathematical truth.

No,I dont watch movies that much. If humans are still evolving and can adapt, then maybe humans born on mars will have some changes. Maybe their next generations will be real Martians. Is there any chance that any species on Earth can be sent to mars and its oxygen is maintained normal-then decreases a little-then little more and at last to level of mars. Will it adapt or its next generations will adapt to that reduction if its done very slowly.

Do you have a jealous friend? or someone who always try to make you fail or look bad. about this downvote i have a suspect.

Next you must make a thread about celebration of 0 votes. @MigL We will notify you,so you dont come late.

I am just seeing a Debate and Q&A. First post what are you saying and evidences,mathematics etc.

To settle on mars first we need Spaceships capable to reach there in short time. We will need budget friendly ways to do this.

Imagine you're designing a lightbulb in a dark room, and there’s no electricity flowing yet. You describe the lightbulb as: * Having a resistance of 100 ohms * Designed to turn on at 60 watts * Meant to operate at 50 Hz alternating current Someone objects: “That doesn’t make sense! There’s no electricity yet. How can it have 50 Hz?” The logical response is: “I’m not saying it’s already running. I’m describing how it behaves once power is supplied. These are activation thresholds, not live conditions.” Now apply that to the Quantum Chorton Framework: The *lightbulb** is the Chorton field The *electricity** is spacetime/curvature activation The *50 Hz** is like your $\omega$, the internal curvature scale The *darkness** is the pre-spacetime quantum phase Just like we define how a lightbulb behaves once it's powered, we define Chorton behavior once energy density exceeds the critical threshold. This is not speculation — it's how quantum gravity works in models like Causal Set Theory, Group Field Theory, and the no-boundary proposal. They all define field properties before spacetime geometry becomes classical. So yes — it is fully logical to assign structural parameters (like $\omega$) before time emerges, as long as those parameters describe activation behavior, not classical observables. I will make a chart which shows the sequence* > There’s no contradiction here — this is a standard distinction in quantum gravity. > > The first statement defines the **internal structure** of the Chorton field. The $\omega$ here is not a classical time-based oscillation, but a **field curvature parameter** — a structural constant that defines the *potential energy scale* of the Chorton field. It exists in the **pre-spacetime phase**, just like mass terms or potentials exist in the Higgs field before electroweak symmetry breaks. > > The second statement — that Chortons are not excitations *in* spacetime — is also correct. They are pre-geometric field structures that **generate spacetime** when energy density exceeds the Planck threshold. > > Once spacetime emerges, that same $\omega$ naturally becomes the **frequency** of Chorton field oscillations **in curved spacetime**, and polarization modes can propagate. But before geometry exists, $\omega$ simply defines the **activation scale** of the field. > > This structure–activation–emergence logic mirrors approaches like: > > * Group Field Theory (GFT) > * Causal Set Theory > * Tensor networks in AdS/CFT > > So there’s no contradiction — only a misunderstanding of how pre-geometric field models work. @MigL it's amusing when someone dismisses an emergent spacetime model— as if physics must pause because their imagination does. The irony is rich: accusing others of delusion while insisting that geometry must exist a priori, in a field where it’s well known that spacetime breaks down at the Planck scale. That’s not rigor — that’s dogma dressed as skepticism. If you think it's “nonsensical” to explore structure before geometry, you might want to let Causal Set Theory, GFT, Spin Foam, and most of the quantum gravity community know they’ve all gone mad.

Thanks for explaining. Ok sir.

Sir I understand,my motive was to clarify that it doesn’t break my theory. I will fix everything pointed out by respected seniors. Currently I am not at home,I don’t have access to my computer. As I always say,I am still learning and I don’t claim to be a master in this.

We are talking about after spacetime is formed from chortons

We keep moving forward and some people & things are left behind,but they stay in our memories. I wonder where that guy is now and what he must be doing.

I am not claiming anything.Its a discussion thread. Here i can learn. A rational number is any number that can be expressed as the ratio of two integers Their properties- Decimal expansions either terminate or repeat Closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division (except division by zero) Irrational numbers cant be expressed as ratios their properties- Decimal expansions: non-terminating, non-repeating Transcendental Numbers is a subset of irrational numbers