studiot

Lessons not learnt. I asked you 3 simple questions, identified by the question mark at the end of each sentence. You have not replied to any of them. That contravenes the rules.

I wanted to give you +1 in your last post, now in the Trash can. But I find even more to agree with in this post and would like to note that these last two posts have been so much more cogent and coherent. So +1 here. I also lost several posts but I have managed to get your developing presentation from dropbox and I am currently studying it. I note that at least one of of the links in it have been since discredited ; I refer to couder's experiment. But I think perhaps matters are begining to come clear at last. I remain concerned with you interpretation of fluxons, and also the introduction of the sine-Gordon equation, or any of the non linear Gordon type equations. Utt - Uxx = sinU It is important to understand what is meant by the variable U, just as understanding what is meant by Ψ in the wave equation. Since we are discussing magnetic fields, I think is beneficial to avoid phi as the dependent variable.

I gather you don't want to discuss with me but have you compared the actual values of methane release due to the US fracking with the tundra release values ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions The 5 posts only applies to your first 24 hours. This is done to prevent the inbox here filling up with multiple spam posts like you see on some sites and is a small inconvenience compared to deplorable state some forums are in. 🙂

What is the topic of the OP please ? I have already mentioned that it is rather wooly and wide ranging so difficult to have a focused discussion about. Further I don't see the available definitions (Wikipedia) of fluxons bear much relation to standard textbooks eg Kittel. This also impedes discussion.

A request to whoever split this thread I have just spent quite some time setting up and plotting plotting a time independent (ie standing) solution to the sineGordon equation to post here for discussion. I also had comments to make on the understanding on the Physics of fluxons. I now don't know what to do since some of the stuff is left in this thread and some is in the split thread, in the Trash can for some reason. Please explain what is going on. Thank you. Meanwhile here is the beginning of my discussion on the sineGordon equation, if anybody actually wants to discuss it here. As can be seen this is the required step function but the question really is, What does this solution represent ?

If you do decide to post here please make it more coherent and cogent than the stuff in your link or your opening post here in this thread. Remember Trump has gone and we don't know what Biden will do, but neither is a scientist so decide whether you wish to discuss the olitics or science of the subject.

I have tried to be encouraging, rather than directly helpful with the mathematics at the moment. I don't want to confuse you with a different approach from the one offered in your chosen course. That is I want to offer consistent help if needed. So remember you can always ask here about anything you are unsure of.

Welcome and thank you for an interesting discussion topic. +1 I note that the paper is now more than 10 years old and contains much 'proposed' work. Do you know of any follow up information, particularly if any of the rpoposals were actually carried out ?

I do not quite understand this rhetoric, This is not rhetoric it is a simple straightforward question. You stated Since both dinosaurs and dodos are names for creatures that once lived on Earth, and you have denied death I asked for evidence that they are still living. Either you can provide this or you can't. They were once creatures, not 'constructs.' Are you have difficulty with the English language ?

First and foremost fluxions are something Newton invented to do with calculus. We are talking about fluxons..

So what is it then and why does it have the dimensions of energy ?

Seems a meaningless statement to me since, as a primary unit of energy, a fluxon can surely neither gain nor loose kinetic energy.

Good luck and don't try to do too much at once.

Thank you for your answer. So what is kinetic energy in a fluxon ? Thank you for an answers to one of my questions and this response to a comment. You did not comment on my question as to whether you agree that one neutron contains' 3 quarks ? You have yet to answer my simple question as to what you think a fluxon is ? Further I have no idea what the pretty blue arrows at the bottom of your last post in repeated several times now are meant to represent. Some pictures may indeed be worth 1000 words, but most pictures, including yours need at least some words for explanation.

Thank you for confirming we are talking about an overall electrically neutral neutron and proposing a structure that accomplishes this. Seems to me, however, that the jusry is still out on the structure, although we are presumably all agreed on the 3 quarks ? I still fail to understand the use of the term 'topological', and you have not address my previous question about this. Seems to me that all your information is of a geometrical nature, not a Topological one. ? For instance you talk of "increased size" which is definitly a geometrical attribute, not a topological one. Finally you still have not stated what you understand a fluxon to be. Do you regard it as a particle ? If so why does it not have the appropriate dimensions ? (using my coreected definition, sorry about that error). Please note I misquoted the units and corrected them in my subsequent post. "That should of course read is measured as approximately 2 x 10-7 gauss - cm2 (originally in CGS) or 2 x10-15 tesla - m2 (SI)" Further, I don't see what is 'dying away' in a fluxon ?

Whoops, sorry. An important error crept into my last post. That should of course read is measured as approximately 2 x 10-7 gauss - cm2 (originally in CGS) or 2 x10-15 tesla - m2 (SI) ie not per m2. I was focused on getting the superscript 2, and the slash slipped in from habit. 🙂 +1 What do you mean by this ?

If you didn't understand what an abstract space is why didn't you ask before ? Particularly as they were introduced by Lagrange, whom you mention. Do you know what Lagrange's 'generalised coordinates' are ? Lagrange's generalised coordinates were probably the first recognition of abstract spaces, I have already given an example of a plot of entropy v temperature. What exactly do you think a fluxon is ? Hint a fluxon is measured as approximately 2 gauss/cm2 (originally in CGS) or 2 tesla/m2 (SI)

Well that's your loss (or inconvenience) then since that is the reason those pages are preserved for posterity on this site. If you can't be bothered to put in some effort, then why do you expect others to do so for you ?

I give up. I have tried to discuss your points, but all you do is repeat them and ignore any comments. There has just been a longish thread about what small particles might look like and the conclusion was that particles don't 'look like' their plots in abstact space any more than those pictures you keep reproducing.

Can you demonstrate a living dodo or dinosaur ?

Indeed. Another might be for the farmer to operate a biodigester and run his machinery on the gas generated in a gas engine. The gas engine in turn might run a generator in the same way the railways found diesel-electric locomotive beneficial. (A number of farmers did exactly this in WWII, when they couldn't get oil). My point is, and always was, there are many competing factors and courses of action. Good engineering is about selecting the best or most appropriate given the constraints, which can include CO2 emissions.

Topology is primarily concerned with shape and connectivity. So yes, if the space you are working in has the requisite properties then you can 'fill' a shape in it with matter. But if the shape you are working with is say a surface in an Entropy / Temperature plot, or an Energy Temperature plot how would you accomplish this feat ? So to take my example of a hydraulic jump, The shape of the energy density v distance along flowbed is indeed a physical step function in the water surface that stands still. However for the equivalent phenomenon in a gas whilst it does indeed demonstrate the abstract step function neither stands still nor exhibits such a physical step function. I am, of course, referring to a shock wave. But the serious point I am making is that these abstractions are just mathematical models of the physical and only useful if they demonstrate the ability to predict something useful. @Duda Jarek appears to me to want to model material particles with these mathematical abstractions so my question to Duda is What properties can successfully be predicted by these models ?

Don't you lime and fertilise in Gloucester ?

I didn't say they were so limited. I said or meant I think that the term topological solitons refers to the same amthematical structure in abstract spaces (eg phase space)

The first physical solitons were reported by the first man to investigate such phenomena Russell J S Report on Waves Rep. 14the Meet.Brit.Adv.Sci.,York,311-90. 1884 He also uncovered another interesting interaction property of non linear waves.