Amr Morsi

This may help: Q(A)=Int Q(dx) and Q depends upon q(r,u).

Is there a distinct difference between un-early stage of cancers and between unrecoverable disorder stage of the concerned (diseased) organ?

Theoretically:

Is every infection-Disease curable and/or resistable? Or, at least, stoppable (left passive)?

Is every Malfunction-Disease unrecoverable? Or, at least, is it recoverable in primitive stages or sustainable?

According to my knowledge, all microbes are unicellular!

The question is, are they responsive or have very primitive thinking / selective?

Some trends says that they represents wave functions (or probability currents in other trends) in the relative dimension.

Don't worry, I am talking about alcohol group.

Hormones was just bothering me with many delimas about them, like stimulii for secretion, high-effects, maintainability and secreters' malfunction.

But, alcohol as a single group for hormones, is it there?

Alcohols?!

Do hormones belong to the same organic family, or they are just under the same biochemical family 'Hormones', i.e. are the like ketones, aldehydes ...... etc.?

When one gets analyzing a conceptual problem, he passes by a series of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of judges (with a value/boolean output for each judge), depending on each others. So, bad spirits, for sure deviate in this a great deviation and good ones remain on the right one as much as they are experienced,at least they don't pretend what they don't know except for nothing.

So, please take care of innocent minds. But, why doesn't this happen with wild minds in mathematics and so-like fields!

For sure, I mean neutrinos.

O.K. Neutrons: 886s and Protons: 10³⁴s. I will bear this in mind, I promise.

Any way, they are proven to be consisting of Quarks and that they decay by weak force when interacting with other particles.

Thanks Chris. This is enough for me. I really APPRECIATED your contribution.

Regards / Amr morsi.

When the field gets changed, QED is a must. We don't know originally where are the nuclei with respect to each others. And, the bonds are very effective. I've searched this before.

You mean the Lagrangian. I don't know. But, I use this one. This is the applicable one. The other is the symbolic one. You are right.

Two or four components?!

"Aromatics are more stable than their equivalent non-aromatic analogues". A rule to me, man. I am just gonna last check to be a postulate to me.

With respect to the analysis, I mean any way, especially by Quantum Field Theory Equations.

By the way ajb, many field theories are solved by the Lagrangian and an Equivalent Formula. I think the Lagrangian is very difficult.

Great!!

And, the degeneracy comes out in the solution of the Lagrangian. What do you think ajb?

Thanks Chris. I really appreciate this.

According to my knowledge that there are more than 350 elementry/primitive (nuclear/subatomic) particles, and they are being called as Particle-Zoo.

All of them have less than micro-sec decaying time (life-time) except protons/anti-protons [!], which are under debate [but mostly they do decay after 150s, or near].

Neutrinos are stable, I haven't heard rather than this. Quarks, not get isolated theoretically, or at least experimentally/physically, constitute hadrons (mesons/baryons) which decay mostly as mentioned before.

With respect to nucleons, as totally believed now, they exchange electrons (/neutrinos); protons and neutrons are, and that is why there is no problem of stability.

Electrons, positrons, neutrons and anti-neutrinos are the only known stable fundamental particles (may be protons/anti-protons). Thanks to not that even tau and muon (leptons) are unstable.

Great!!!! Then some aromatic compounds are non planar so that they gain enough enforced structure. Is this correct?

And, if yes, has a tri-atomic molecule been able to get analyzed totally before? i.e. angles, bond-lengths ..... etc.?

Why are some aromatic compounds' molecules aren't loose enough, although their structure make them very liable to breaking?

As per your regard, Sir, the discussion is not logical, from my point of viewing, if you would excuse me.

The thread is open, if you want to add. I am not to contribute in what I am not convinced of nor what is not ordered 'in my point of view'.

Sorry Man, if I was rude. Indeed, I didn't intend to hurt anyone.

Best Regards.

c_oa(h/i grad epsi_spinor - q.A_v) + m_oc_ob.epsi_spinor + phi.epsi_spinor = -h/i partia_d(epsi)/partial_dt

What are the exact meaning of the elements of the spinor?

Thanks. That's enough.

Thanks ajb.

What a pion is considered to be?!