Iwonderaboutthings

 

No

 

Yes. The difference in magnitude of the energy of the photon and the resonance value. The probability of an interaction depends on that difference.

 

Hymm I see, then this is a distance derivative way of thinking much like special relativity..

So the only way for excitation of an electron is through discrete amounts of quantized energy.

Then the electrons become responsive to chemical bonding and other useful methods for creating " new " elements?

If I understood correctly, where does this " photon quantized energy come from"?

I am familiar with photon energy and the maths, but unsure if the quantized energy is made of the same elements of charge??? This may be a strange way of thinking about it

The charge will not change. Charge is quantized and a conserved value.

 

Electrons and protons respond to a magnetic field because they have spin angular momentum, so they behave like little magnets. A magnetic field will cause the energy states to shift. In atoms, this is called Zeeman splitting. This doesn't cause the excitation itself. (The same effect happens in nuclei, which is exploited in NMR)

 

That electron states have discrete values is the reason there are atomic resonances: energy differences are also discrete. You only get excitations when the incoming photon has an energy equal to the energy difference of the two states. The probability of absorption drops sharply as the energy differs from that value.

You say:

The probability of absorption drops sharply as the energy differs from that value.

You say "differs"

Is that in any relation to " distance"?

Exponential decay?

Magnitude?

I am talking intrigal calculus here, or maybe even the algebraic generalization " i think" , or better yet the inverse square law?

What I am pondering on is " infinity" within the electro magnetic forces applied.

If I am correctly describing this, " i hope" how do they control this:

the "magnetic force's" value that causes the excited states of the electron?

I think I may not be asking this correctly...

I am confusing " resonance x " with " resonance y" if this makes any sense at all..

The reason why is because of the light quanta photon energy you mention, and from what I gather...

I would assume somewhere that resonance would create a problem with these excited states, or is this an issue more leaning on electrical engineering?

Resonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance

Issue with Resonance and Electron Excited States.

From what I gather systems resonate at their natural frequency but when an " external force" out of balance and or in phase with the natural oscillation is applied " in this case a magnetic field" , the effects can either have negative implications and or positive implications , depending on the " purpose" for the applied force in general, of the experiment, the design and etc..

Having in mind an applied magnetic field, I would like to know if Resonance creates issues with electron excited states?

I assume it but rather ask..

And if so, then does the electron charge remain the same?

Meaning that, is this the reason for QM, in where the electron receives discrete amounts of energy..

On another note here:

Why apply a magnetic field, when positive electrons and negative electron attract???

Or is this "static electricity"????

Wait! Does this applied magnetic force turn the negative electron to a positive electron?

Sorry its hard to visualize the generalization of the term : Resonance

Iwonderaboutthings, you mention strong nuclear forces again and attached is how I see the Quark-Gluon Bonds (strong nuclear forces). These are not all the Bond forces as the 126 & 150 Bonds have more than one configuration. Again I hope this helps you visualise what I do as regards the model.

I think you are seeing something totally different than " the atomic" structure. My guess is that your formulating " boundaries" within the domains of Infinity with a mixture of dimensional analysis. BUT I AM NOT SURE HERE...ALL I HAVE ARE BITS OF PEACES...

Check out:

Tetrahedral number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedral_number

Here is another link, the math is simpler!

http://milan.milanovic.org/math/english/tetrahedral/tetrahedral.html

Your model from what I see can be an incredible advantage if you " continue" the venture in mathematics and follow the "path" of your skills. In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing!

Please take time to understand the mathematical concept of limits and boundaries..

The reason why you need to understand these is because your models appear to describe boundaries of empty space, thus you will need to include some form of mathematical " concepts..

Have in mind here that since these models are your personal theoretical concepts, you will be required to "show" some pretty sophisticate math..

I promise you, it will take you several years before you even begin linking the math concepts that show the mathematical relationship of your models.

Also, you will find it very hard to find people on the internet whom understand these profound concepts!

This is not your regular typical science queries, rather they describe " Parallels Dimensions."

Of what?? I still don't know this is your model, but what I do know is that space is linked to frequencies, which solves for any distance in that system of domain, I speak of our concept of " TIME "

Tracing back to the origin of the source in this case time " the speed of light", takes us to your model!

What you have is VERY EXTREME...

But again, I am having trouble trying to understand the math involved because all you show are numbers, like I said:

In my opinion, you definitely have intuition dealing with " dimensionless "units" what I mean by units is that again " from what I am seeing, those numbers " appear" linked to squared boundaries of " Space and time, this is a good thing!

Also, I can already notice that your numbers share relation to exponentiation..

Think in terms of the inverse square law, that is a big hint here!

An exponent is something like this:

10^12

means: 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10=1000000000

Think that 10 = 1 and all the zeros are the distance.

Your are going to need to learn the following, these will point you in the right directions, BUT! You will need to " Slowly know the math involved...

Here is a GREAT LEARNING VIDEO! I EVEN WATCH IT!

It is a guide to understand simple math, to sophisticated concepts..

In the link above try finding the video for the following terms:

frequency domain

time domain

inhomogeneous magnetic field AND

homogeneous

wave impedance

Parameterizing

Units are very important. T

 

They keep you on track. As for imaginary numbers if you want another example for them being used in physics without the heavy concepts of quantum mechanics bogging you down look at the link below. This link shows you how euler's identity is used in differential equations to make sense of imaginary numbers in systems. They can even pop up when calculating an oscillating particle between 2 springs. If you're not sure on what differential equations are they are equations that map change in a system. They can describe the position or speed of a particle in a system. They can also be used in population dynamics or anything that has rates of change but don't worry too much about differential equations yet if you haven't looked into them. This link is to show the practical application of imaginary numbers to wet the appetite.

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/ComplexRoots.aspx

 

As a side note I think it's great that you are taking the time to learn the maths behind the system.I appreciate that a negative rep can be discouraging. It takes real will power to dust yourself off and work towards understanding the maths. For this I've given your last post a positive point.

thanks for the link , " I tried clicking it but it does not work"

Yes, I had noooooo idea how much I underestimated "detail" studying things over and over again has helped me notice those "small areas" that had me confused for years! No joking, there is this incredible structure of the " Magnetron" bottom photo of a microwave oven, in it I had the chance to see in-detail the mechanisms that create the waves inside of the casing device. I find that " VISUALIZATION" may be one of the most difficult things to master in science. So why didn't I ever see this years ago???

I think like so many, I just wanted to get the " technical" stuff out of the way and not have a visual guide that describes the generalization... Patience is still hard to learn though.

It can be awkward studying math without a visualization and a intuitive feel. However at my level of " extreme" detail and technicals, the visualizations are making things "now" so clear that it can be overwhelming, I am glad I am taking the time to " refresh" my knowledge, and really encourage others to do so...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

there this one works

thanks

I'd be hard pressed to detect a change in length of say 1% by just looking. Any change smaller than that and I'd almost certainly miss it.

According to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

I would need to get an object to about 42 million metres per second to get the length to change by 1%.

 

The fastest that any macroscopic (i.e. visible) object has ever been accelerated to is rather less than that.

16,000 metres per second (and the projectile was tiny)

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2020/phys2020_fa07/LectureNotes/nagle_phys2020_fa07_lecture26.pdf

 

So, the simple answer is no, length contraction can't be seen with the naked eye.

 

On the other hand, nor can a virus, but that doesn't stop me getting colds.

This question may sound dumb to ask, but does exponentiation have anything to do with length contraction in regards to speed at 1 second?

When I see 42 000000 and all the zeros I see " distance" in units dependent on time of which I assume is 0

Do you see the correlation??

I assume its the distance the naked eye cannot see as length contraction similar to what is visible within the visible color spectrum.

because if this " IE Visible Color Spectrum Has A Limit" could there be an unknown barrier that causes the illusion of length contraction?...Hence, electro magnetism " must " have a medium in which to travel through..and like all mediums I assume they all have barriers of some form...either man made or from nature IE like water, I think I am talking about total internal reflection for water here it gives a good example on barriers..

About electro magnetism

In this case I speak of how information travels through empty space via electromagnetism.

But I don't this this regards time dilation, or would it?

some do, some don't The older, some involve lasers such as the Michelson Morley tests, there is a huge range of tests I added one site on an edit. http://math.ucr.edu/...xperiments.html this site has a huge list of various tests done

The link you provided says error...

Thanks for the other I will check them out..

you might want to check out Shakarov Gravity.

 

Sakharov's 1967 notion of ``induced gravity'' is currently enjoying a significant resurgence. The basic idea, originally presented in a very brief 3-page paper with a total of 4 formulas, is that gravity is not ``fundamental'' in the sense of particle physics. Instead it was argued that gravity (general relativity) emerges from quantum field theory in roughly the same sense that hydrodynamics or continuum elasticity theory emerges from molecular physics. In this article I will translate the key ideas into modern language, and explain the various versions of Sakharov's idea currently on the market.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/0204062

 

here is another related

 

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

 

While general relativity explains gravitational interactions well, it only answers the question of the nature of gravity by telling us that the geometry of space-time is gravity. Some physicists theorize that gravity is not fundamental, but emergent

 

Coincidentally the quantum study of gravity is quantum geometrodynamics. currently reading this article, it will take me some time lol 231 pages

GEOMETRODYNAMICS:SPACETIME OR SPACE

http://arxiv.org/pdf/grqc/0409123.pdf

Gravity as an Emergent Phenomenon

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/courses/569/Essays_Fall2012/Files/damasco.pdf

Great link, thanks!

Here is a list

 

http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf

Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf

 

Tests of General Relativity

Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf

Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf

Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf

Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf

Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results

Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory

Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains

Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html

 

I will check them out, but one quick question..

Do these test use mechanical devices?

If so, would you say Special Relativity And Lorentz Transforms, could be thought of as:

Looking from the Outside In??

Have you done the maths to see the relative speed that would be required?

Not as of yet, but I do have the generalization of Minkoswki Space, Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations very understood. And I would rather keep it like this until I understand the meaning of 1..

It would be pointless to move forward with calculations..

From what I gather, Minkoswki Space is a light cone to light cone hyper plane reference in two separate dimensions?

Special Relativity deals mostly with geometrical positions from persons relative to each other traveling near or close to the speed of light.

"Still don't know how this is possible by the way, I never met anyone whom traveled at this speed and came back and told me about their journey..

Lorentz transformations I assume deal with the " factors" of the speed of light in relation to Space and Time..

The reason I have never done the math on this is because:

What bothers me about this whole " theory" is that it appears incomplete, and looks like a big mess of things...

Minkoswki Space

Special Relativity

Lorentz Transformations

Its a bit much, one theory denotes the other, the other theory supports the other, and yet from what I know, Hendric Lorentz, left science in a mess after his discovery of his Lorentz Transformations..

I spend much time reading and hours on mathematics, so perhaps maybe too much in-put from what I read online has clouded my perception on the whole of science, I still don't get the point of science integrating math at least in the traditional sense for these Relative Calculations..

In regards to:

Minkoswki Space

Special Relativity

Lorentz Transformations

What I don't understand is " how" do they all depend on " time" which is " time" dependent on each other..

In other words, how can time, be relative to time, and space be relative to space in the whole of the animating universe..

1 = time, 1 is used as dx---->0, 1 is a factor of everything, and yet doesn't the speed of light deal in one half's for special relativity as well?

Derivatives as y = x^2, " a very simple calculation" appears yet attached to this very theory, in where all your derived answers are either missing 1 or have 1 extra and yet 1 again is a factor of everything...

In this 1 and -1 appear to be entangled, and everything linked to it in the forms of causality.

Yes I know I am sounding philosophical in my expressions, but given the current conditions of this topic can anyone blame me>>?

Has anyone here, ever traveled at the speed of light and like to share their " Revelation"?

From what I also understand, exponentiation appears to mean several things:

It can either make a number bigger, or smaller, it can also represent multiplication of that same number, and yet they are all copies of 1, this does not register correctly...

However, I have heard that some particles have been accelerated to speeds close to c, and have proved Special Relativity,,

HOWEVER, Given the current situation on " forces" at the atomic scale" IE not the same as in the real physical world...

Can this be a valid case of Special Relativity " as a physical fact" between organic humans at larger scales?

Meaning humans are bigger than particles right???

Or is that just a relative point of view??

Without instruments the answer is no. hje object would be moving too fast to be observed by the naked eye.

What kind of instruments??

Can you be specific?

I don't think length contraction as ever been directly observed, unless you can point to claims otherwise? It is indirectly inferred and taken into account in heavy ion collisions for example.

If length contraction has not been directly observed then this " really complicates things"

Reason:

What is the natural human eye's capability of "standard" motion?

For example, in computer animation for motions films, they use 30 frames per second,

which gives the illusion of natural movement, of coarse in these frames you can use variable speeds..

So long as those variable speeds remain in the " time frame of 30 frames per second,..."

Variable speeds give the animation, charector, it allows for variations of movement and please the senses..

It creates a motion film's highs and lows and keeps people interested from start to end...

Having good timing either makes a film or breaks a film..

What does this have to do with my OP..

It has to do with much, when you think in terms of vision and how objects that reach the speed of light physically contract but have never been seeing with the naked eye,

--------->would then appear inconclusive with our day to day notion of " animation."

Unless of coarse, what we perceive as reality is far different than traveling at the speed of light..

Is that why contraction cant be seen with the naked eye??

Refraction and other light ' basics" appear to fit quite well with this analogy...

Sorry I need to mention just this little thing

To add in the Twin Paradox, if one of them was DRUNK all the way, would special relativity still hold true????

Can a person be able to see "with their naked eye" length contraction in units of 3mm contract to about .5 mm?"

If the answer is yes, then their is no need to further add comments, however, if the answer is no, can you " please tell me" how this could be possible' perhaps even in detail...

Please no joking around about booze nor hallucinates, this is a serious question, thanks

now that is a good question lol, one of the major hurdles for the MSSM (minimum supersymmetric models) GUT models. Those are covered in the GUTreview. Minimum supersymmetric SU(5) guage symmetry group. If I remember correctly..

 

in that I have one question is the SU(10) guage symetry group just the Higg's sector?

 

edit never mind that question the Higgs sector is needed to break SU(5) to Su(3)*SU(3)*U(1) which means the Higg's sector needs 12 Goldstone bosons. As SU(5) has 24 guage bosons and standard model has 12. including antiparticles If I understand that's for the SU(5) to work

 

the SU(10) GUT, from what I understand is a strong candidate from this paper, as it does not involve the supersymmetric particles

 

http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ziherl/Greljo12.pdf

 

man I really need a more modern particle physics textbook The two I have from David Griffith just aren't cutting it, any recommendations?

Not sure if this link is of any help, BUT! reading it now places the things that confused me on a better path of perspective.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

At-least as a start for me, I read this on Wikipedia:

Goldstone bosons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_boson

• In fluids, the phonon is longitudinal and it is the Goldstone boson of the spontaneously broken Galilean symmetry. Insolids, the situation is more complicated; the Goldstone bosons are the longitudinal and transverse phonons and they happen to be the Goldstone bosons of spontaneously broken Galilean, translational, and rotational symmetry with no simple one-to-one correspondence between the Goldstone modes and the broken symmetries.

I find this " Galilean symmetry" very interesting, would anyone know " why " this is mentioned?

Does this have anything to do with Cartesian Space???

Basically Is time the issue??

You're right AJB, this would be the same mechanism which gives us the excuse to use the ( terrible ) mathematical tool known as re-normalization ( although it does seem to work just fine ). It seems that a particle's field strength is then temperature ( energy ) dependant, as a more energetic test particle will penetrate further into the surrounding virtual particle cloud.

 

What I find interesting is that without supersymmetric virtual particles the field strength converges to two distinct points, not at the GUT field strength.

The calculation for the mass of the Higg's boson also uses this mechanism and without supersymmetric virtual particles, the calculated mass is huge.

With supersymmetric virtual particles the mass turns out to be approx. the experimentally found ( LHC ) mass.

 

So where are these supersymmetric particles ???

energy dependant??

Is this the same as dependant on " time" as in cycles much like wave phenomena?

As in frequencies and cycles, periods and etc?

The forces of nature are for sure not the same at the energy scale of atomic physics. The forces of the standard model, so not including gravity may be the same at a higher energy level called the GUT scale which is about 10^16 GeV.

 

 

 

Truthfully, gravity has not been studied well below the sub-millimeter scale. It is possible that something different happens with gravity at the atomic scale, but of course as gravity is weak we just don't see any effect on atomic physics. Personally, I doubt anything changes until we are closer to the Planck scale, but gravity needs to be properly tested at the sub-millimeter and atomic scales.

 

 

Well as I have said, gravity is weak at the atomic scale and so does not play any real role in atomic or molecular physics. In fact we ignore its effects in particle collisions at CERN as they are just swamped by the forces of the standard model. Gravity only plays an important role on macroscopic objects or at very high energies that we just can't probe.

 

 

 

 

The physical Universe dances to the tune of quantum mechanics for sure. It is just that this may not be evident in our human world.

aYyyyySssee. WOW! this now makes me understand the things that don't make much sense in mathematics and maybe life in general...WOW! thanks!

Question:

IF THE sub-millimeter and atomic scales WERE TO BE CALCULATED WITH PURE DIMENSIONAL NUMERICAL VALUES TO THEIR EXACT "PRECESSION" HOW WOULD THESE SOUND VALUES BE TESTED??

AND OF COARSE WHAT COPY RIGHTS, INSURES THE " FINDER" CREDIT IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE??

IS THEIR A NUMERICAL EXAMPLE YOU CAN GIVE ME OF THE ISSUES OF sub-millimeter and atomic scales??

BOUNDARY A

AND

BOUNDARY B

???

I ASSUME THEM TO BE SIMILAR TO INTRIGALS, !

Sorry I am too lazy to remove the caps and retype, its been a long night for me no jocking

Thanks for the reply...

It is better to think of exchange particle as exchanging energy, momentum and sometimes charge between particles rather than "transferring force".

 

 

 

Is this really the case?

 

You are describing a Bose-Einstein condensate, right? If I have a box containing two different species of boson then under the right conditions I will not be able to tell there are two different species? This sounds strange to me as the assumption for Bose-Einstein condensates requires that I have a system of identical particles. If i had a mix of two species that are non-interacting then won't I effectively see two condensates?

 

Can you give me a reference on this?

 

 

 

What would have the same temperature?

 

I understand g here to the the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface. It is about 10ms^-2 and varies slightly depending on your location. It is not a fundamental parameter of the Universe. G however is, it is Newton's constant and tells us about the strength of gravity.

 

 

It means removal of troublesome infinities in our theory.

ajb,

g is not a fundamental perimeter of the universe???

All known science functions uses the evolution of time from this planet..

NOTE:

It may then appear that Physics and QM are then two totally complete different subjects???

So, then you are saying "no" not all forces are the same including those found at the atomic scale then???

I hope you understand what I am asking...

I Want to know if:

Gravity G, is the same at the atomic scale.....

This includes all the constituents of the atom, it would not hurt to know where G plays a role in this if it does at all..

The reasoning behind this is because it appears " maths " does not really allow solutions to infinities nor equilibrium, however given the phenomenon of "Forces" what would science be able to do with boundaries of controlled limits of infinity??

Isn't pi ratio an infinity??? I see it all the time in equations...

Would it be wrong to think that "if forces are not the same at the atomic scale" then:

Physics and QM are two " ENTIRELY" separate subjects??

We live in a Quantum world and a Physical world??

In quantum theory we formally encounter infinities. We need to deal with these and one way is to consider these infinities are really measuring our lack our lack of knowledge of the high energy regime. To remove these infinities one can by hand add a cut-off meaning we just throw away contributions to whatever we are calculating that from the sector higher than our cut-off.

 

Loosely, the remormalisation group is a set-up of methods that allow us to investigate how the physics changes with this energy scale. In particular coupling constant vary in energy according to a group equation. Meaning that the physics at any scale can be reached by the physics at a given scale by means of a group action on the set of all couplings.

Something interesting!

If g is the force due to acceleration and G is the outer limit force "IE" In Empty Space, then shouldn't these 2 be the subjects of unification??

But then wouldn't this mean that earth would be the supposed Gravitron?

Earth does have an = + and - amount of electrical charges making earth an incredible reference frame in the universe right? Or am I incorrect?

Re-normalization ---> equilibrium?

On a different note here.

There is an issue I am having on my "beliefs" of the electron orbitals though , I keep reading that electrons don't actually orbit

the nucleus and the whole of the interior atom appears to be obscured with a cloud of some form restricting its actual appearance under an electron microscope..

How can science move to the plank scale and hyper gravity if this is was true?

I'd like to add some details to understand GUT. First off we need to define how a force is mediated. This is done through the related bosons.

 

-Photons are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.

-W and Z bosons are the force carriers which mediate the weak force.

-Gluons are the fundamental force carriers underlying the strong force.

 

essentially what this means is the transfer the force from one particle to another. This is important.

 

Now we need to consider the ideal gas laws in thermodynamics or specifically thermal equilibrium. Particle reactions in thermal equilibrium are essentially unstable, its a factor of temperature, density and volume, which are all related by the equation

[latex]PV=nRT[/latex] The relation forms used with bosons however is Bose-Einstein statistics or distribution

 

now to explain this is further detail. Bosons become indistinquishable from one another where N is the number of particles and V is the volume and n_q is the quantum concentration, for which the interparticle distance is equal to the thermal de Broglie wavelength

 

[latex]q=\frac{N}{V}+\ge+n_q[/latex]

 

the number of particles of the Bose_Eintein statistics is

 

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

the De-Broglie wavelength is

 

[latex]\frac{V}{N\Lambda^3} \le 1 \[/latex]

 

You can google each for better information I posted those relations to show how the ideal gas laws are done in regards to fermions and bosons. as opposed to the first formula.

 

Now when the particle species except gravity are in thermal equilbrium the types of bosons become indistinquishable from one another, hence the forces are indistinqishable as well. They would all have the same temperature and wavelength. Also any reactions that do occur such as as I said are unstable any reaction will quickly have the reverse reaction. In regards to the forces this also apply to the fundamental interactions. You can see the chart and wiki coverage here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

I think this gives me 95% clarity, so its heat interaction? the charges have thermal energy..

I don't know why I never figured this out, but you explaining it makes sense!

I have always heard that thermodynamics had issues with equilibrium and balances, I can see why things can get " extremely difficult" considering all the constituents at hand... YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I Don't even see how calculus nor maths can even be of use with something so complex here..

But I am excited about this new information and will read it over and over again. thanks!

 

The +/- is just part of the standard quadratic formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation#Quadratic_formula_and_its_derivation

 

The 100 comes from 4 * a * c = 4 * 1 * 25 = 100 and the 36 comes from b^2 = -6 * -6 = 36 so SQRT(b^2 - 4 * a * c) = SQRT(-64) = SQRT(64 * -1) = SQRT(64) * SQRT(-1) = 8 * SQRT(-1) = 8i. As -b = 6 and 2 * a = 2 * 1 = 2 so the final equation is (6 +/- 8i)/2 = 3 +/- 4i.

 

It might look like 10^2/2 = 100/2 = 50 if you ignored the bracketing but you could only get .5 if you ignored the bracketing and redefined 10^2 or 2.

Hymm I see now, great link, thanks!

 

 

This is one of the amazing and important things about complex numbers. You don't need to leave complex numbers to get the solutions of polynomials with complex coefficients.

Yes infact I did some examples online and their p r e t t y good!!!!!!!!! I was " quite impressed I must say."

G also runs and people are studying this using renormalisation group flow methods. This means that the Planck scale may not be the right scale for quantum gravity and unification with the other forces could occur at a lower energy scale. However, I am far from an expert on this.

In small words, can you say the "normalization" not the---> group is:

A vector?

A Magnitude?

or equilibrium of an entire system relative to another symmetrical system?

Like a polynomial?

Hymmm, how can math explain or unify such a thing?

actually variables and constants use up more memory, in compilers, your better off using a pointer to a stack table. for memory savings. Also common calculations can be done faster with a stack table. you can use your exponentation value as the pointer for the stack or look up table. There are numerous tricks. I own an N-body textbook just for gravity interactions, its over 1200 pages long. I'm still lost on the first chapter lol but its a recent purchase. Quantum computers aren't around yet though were getting closer.

http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational-N-Body-Simulations-Algorithms-Mathematical/dp/0521121531

 

by the way this simulation which is the most realistic virtual universe to date is this one. Look at the requirements, should give you some idea of the complexity

http://www.cfa.harva...du/news/2014-10

http://www.illustris-project.org/

 

paper on it

http://arxiv.org/ftp...5/1405.1418.pdf

 

the simulation took

16 million CPU hours were needed to evolve the simulation from the starting redshift z = 127 to z = 0, using 8,192 cores and an equal number of MPI-ranks. An additional 3 million CPU hours were spent on carrying out the on-the-fly galaxy identification with the SUBFIND algorithm.

16,028,568,000 hydrodynamic cells

 

Illustris employs a sophisticated computer program to recreate the evolution of the universe in high fidelity. It includes both normal matter and dark matter using 12 billion 3-D "pixels," or resolution elements.

 

The actual calculations took 3 months of "run time," using a total of 8,000 CPUs running in parallel. If they had used an average desktop computer, the calculations would have taken more than 2,000 years to complete.

 

now here's is the kicker it only tested a region of a few Mpc, and tested the WMAP and planck data parameters set in terms of the LCDM model.....

Wow that is a lot of memory chips! 2,000 years on a regular desktop that is outrageous lol...

Well I guess we will need to wait for when a Quantum Computer comes along, I hope to get incredible in my years to come with science and hope that all my efforts pays off...

The commutative rules are unchanged for complex numbers.

 

 

The complex numbers provide us with all the solutions of polynomial equations with real (and indeed complex) coefficients. This is one of the amazing and important things about complex numbers, they are algebraically closed.

 

Without getting into quantum mechanics yet, it is true that complex numbers seem fundamental to the theory.

 

 

Wikipedia has a reasonable introduction.

Thanks for this information especially about the closed algebraic forms, I am definitely investing time on this...

The forces of the standard model have a dependence on the energy scale, the coupling constants are running. The amazing thing is that if you extend the standard model to include supersymmetry then the three gauge couplings of the standard model converge at about 10^16 GeV. The forces appear to unify at this energy scale.

 

Gravity is not included in this picture. Presumably we could have unification near the Planck scale.

Is Gravity " g and G" not included because unification takes place in another dimension IE ' The Speed of Light, Or the Quantum World"?

Why is this? I thought that G was constant throughout the universe, similar to the speed of light?

From what I am seeing then,,,

"IN ATOMS THE FORCES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN G AND g?

Residual, Force Carriers and Strong Nuclear Forces??? too??

YIkes!

WAIT A MINUTE! I LOGGED BACK ON...

You mean to tell me that even in the human body our atoms are not related to g and G??

G, g, and Strong Nuclear forces....

Are these forces all the same, or are they different???

Yes I know about acceleration, but it is still a force.

G from what I know is the same in all the universe yes??

Science talks about forces, but if these forces have never been seen, how then can these forces be either related, the same things, or have different values, on different planets, altitudes and etc..

As per the periodic table being involved with invisible forces, only obscures matters even more...

Please pardon this, but I don't get the point, this makes no sense whats so ever...

Hopefully this will help Iwonderaboutthings as regards the model. I'm very busy at work so sorry for the delay in replying.

Also Iwonderaboutthings F4 is the 208.33ghz (4th frequency in the Frequency Table).

Also Iwonderaboutthings;

Minkowski Space time and Special Relativity in one sense, but then you talk about CMB Spectrum from what I see relates to Cosmology???

 

 

 

The 'CMB' as mentioned by Planck I believe is the 208.33ghz background generated by Quark-Gluon inter-action and that is everywhere.

Your model is " incredible" but I think you are going a bit over board in " detail" and complexity..

One thing I am now doing, is never relating any of my models, concepts, nor ideas in general to anything in science I have never seen.

For instance, have you ever seen a quark? I have not, this does not mean they don't exist, but if I did see one, I would then be able to describe this in my own way shape and form maybe even completely different than what science would consider legit..

As you can see, I do have a bad reputation here, just " by thinking"

Now about CBS Cosmic Backgrounds, again I have never seen this, so I would not have an answer, " at least the correct one."

Looking at your model, I can already tell you, that you are looking at physics in an incredible way!

But allow yourself time to understand the basic properties..

For instance, this photo resembles much like a " computer screen" in hexadecimal format...

But in a different light of things, it also resembles Sacred Geometry.

In one area, it reminds me of the Z buffer in computer 3d graphics that uses Cartesian Coordinates, the camera in this 3d world faces you " the viewer" at 180 degrees, its called the frustum..

THEN! it looks like the electron configuration and table of elements..

DO YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN 2 PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT A MODEL IS DOING?????

It opens ideas! and that is good!

Now, you speak of quarks in this model, then that is where things get a little confusing for me, because again, I have not seen a quark so why would I put time and energy into something I have not seen?

Dont get me wrong, it may be something good to do and may help the imagination visualize science much much better it just does not work for me...

I hope your familiar with the strong nuclear forces " at least as it is described" in where its mentioned that the source of this " Strong Nuclear Force, is still not fully understood I imagine this force to be not seen by the naked eye...

Perhaps, this is where your model can come in handy

As far as conventional wisdom goes the tunneling microscope is of very recent vintage...

Hymmm that " is " interesting... thanks...