joigus 420 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 This is the part I do not understand: 4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: [..] then the engaged angular frequency may not in any way pulse thru a non-local submanifold whose fiber vibration does not come in full synchronization with the pulse transmitted thru a flip-angle or tip-angle manifold. And this is the part I do understand: 4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: New radiative modes ARE involved. 1 Link to post Share on other sites

Prof Reza Sanaye 22 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 19 hours ago, joigus said: This is the part I do not understand: And this is the part I do understand: Very Dear Joigus ; Any complete biharmonic submanifold with non-positive sectional curvature must needs be the mean curvature vector field in between the submanifold and the manifold where the submanifold belongs in. Moreover , any complete biharmonic submanifold inside a manifold of at most polynomial volume growth whose sectional curvature is non-positive must be/remain minimal. Since there is no clearly distinguished “centre” of radiation modality here , therefore the angular frequency cannot in any way be in accord with any of the imaginable angular coordinates in the ambient manifold. There MUST necessarily be new radiative modes engaged. One very important hint to me AND to all of us here ; is that : We have had previous abruptly arriving reports in science generally , and in physics more particularly , of phenomena never arrived at or observed before. Like when charlatans announced they had been doing fusion in a lab tube in room temperature. With all due respect to the author(s) of this breaking piece of news we are discussing here , and without ANY intention to possibly disrespect them , all of us ought to wait a little bit more to further see what is confirmed in the (near) future , and what is not. What is re-doable and what is not. Link to post Share on other sites

MigL 1538 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 25 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: We have had previous abruptly arriving reports in science generally , and in physics more particularly , of phenomena never arrived at or observed before. Like when charlatans announced they had been doing fusion in a lab tube in room temperature. With all due respect to the author(s) of this breaking piece of news we are discussing here , and without ANY intention to possibly disrespect them , all of us ought to wait a little bit more to further see what is confirmed in the (near) future , and what is not. What is re-doable and what is not. This part I understand ( and agree with ) The rest, not so much. 1 Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: the mean curvature vector field in between the submanifold and the manifold where the submanifold belongs in. (My emphasis.) Curvature can be a 4-rank tensor (Riemann curvature tensor), a 2-rank tensor (Ricci curvature tensor), or a 0-rank tensor (curvature scalar). Watch out for 1-rank curvature tensors (vector fields); they're mean!! 2 minutes ago, MigL said: This part I understand ( and agree with ) The rest, not so much. You took the words right out of my keyboard! Edited April 9 by joigus Link to post Share on other sites

Prof Reza Sanaye 22 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 22 minutes ago, joigus said: (My emphasis.) Curvature can be a 4-rank tensor (Riemann curvature tensor), a 2-rank tensor (Ricci curvature tensor), or a 0-rank tensor (curvature scalar). Watch out for 1-rank curvature tensors (vector fields); they're mean!! You took the words right out of my keyboard! What else can I say ? You two are well-experienced guys here in these scienceforums. . . . . . I would have been just too glad to sit down with both of you , especially with joigus , and re-read some good informative textbook(s) on all that vector and tensor and curvature stuff. 1 Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: What else can I say ? You two are well-experienced guys here in these scienceforums. . . . . . I would have been just too glad to sit down with both of you , especially with joigus , and re-read some good informative textbook(s) on all that vector and tensor and curvature stuff. Dear professor, I would very much enjoy that sitting with you and @MigL. Sometimes I have a feeling that you're intellectually honest, sincerely interested in knowledge, and perhaps just a little bit "spread too thin", if you take my meaning. I'm a bit "spread too thin" myself so... And you have a sense of humour, which is always a big plus. Take care, and keep an eye on radiative modes. Link to post Share on other sites

studiot 2210 Posted April 9 Author Share Posted April 9 4 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: Very Dear Joigus ; Any complete biharmonic submanifold with non-positive sectional curvature must needs be the mean curvature vector field in between the submanifold and the manifold where the submanifold belongs in. Moreover , any complete biharmonic submanifold inside a manifold of at most polynomial volume growth whose sectional curvature is non-positive must be/remain minimal. Since there is no clearly distinguished “centre” of radiation modality here , therefore the angular frequency cannot in any way be in accord with any of the imaginable angular coordinates in the ambient manifold. There MUST necessarily be new radiative modes engaged. One very important hint to me AND to all of us here ; is that : We have had previous abruptly arriving reports in science generally , and in physics more particularly , of phenomena never arrived at or observed before. Like when charlatans announced they had been doing fusion in a lab tube in room temperature. With all due respect to the author(s) of this breaking piece of news we are discussing here , and without ANY intention to possibly disrespect them , all of us ought to wait a little bit more to further see what is confirmed in the (near) future , and what is not. What is re-doable and what is not. 3 hours ago, joigus said: (My emphasis.) Curvature can be a 4-rank tensor (Riemann curvature tensor), a 2-rank tensor (Ricci curvature tensor), or a 0-rank tensor (curvature scalar). Watch out for 1-rank curvature tensors (vector fields); they're mean!! 10 minutes ago, joigus said: Take care, and keep an eye on radiative modes. I am not at all clear what this discussion has to do with a 'fifth fundamental force' ? Firstly I was not aware that three of these forces are considered to be due to curvature of some manifold of any dimension. Secondly what radiative mode ? Again I was not aware that any of the known four forces were able to induce radiative effects in one or more of the other three. For instance in NMR the magentic effect is induced in an external magentic field, not say gravitationa one. Finally I think that the argument of the proposers is that there is some observed observed physical motion of the muons that is not accounted for when all known acting forces are taken into account. This is neither a relativistic nor a quantum effect. They seem to be saying this event is similar to the one which caused Rutherford to say "It is as if you fired a 20 inch shell at a piece of paper and it bounced back and hit you in the eye" or something very similar. Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7548 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 5 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said: We have had previous abruptly arriving reports in science generally , and in physics more particularly , of phenomena never arrived at or observed before. Like when charlatans announced they had been doing fusion in a lab tube in room temperature. With all due respect to the author(s) of this breaking piece of news we are discussing here , and without ANY intention to possibly disrespect them , all of us ought to wait a little bit more to further see what is confirmed in the (near) future , and what is not. What is re-doable and what is not. They have a 4.2 sigma confidence interval, with more data to analyze, and this is a re-do of a previous experiment. Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 9 hours ago, studiot said: I am not at all clear what this discussion has to do with a 'fifth fundamental force' ? 9 hours ago, studiot said: Secondly what radiative mode ? I meant "radiative" as in "radiative corrections" = "quantum corrections". In QFT, when you calculate any parameter like mass, charge, etc., you don't know what happens at very small length scales. So you have to assume that all possibilities quantum-mechanically possible, somehow, are there. Classically the gyromagnetic ratio is just 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio#For_a_classical_rotating_body Any deviations from this factor of 2 are purely quantum. Quantum electrodynamics owes much of its well-deserved prestige to the success of this calculation. The discrepancy with the classical factor of 2 is due to "radiative corrections", which means that you have to account for virtual particles contributing to these renormalised quantities. The mass, the g factor, even the charge, are affected by quantum corrections. If the salient suggestion of Fermilab and Brookhaven is that a fifth force is necessary to explain this anomaly, it must be because new gauge bosons have to be conjectured. That is, bosons other than photon, Z and W's, or gluons. IOW, bosons that are not contemplated by the standard model. That's what I meant by "new radiative modes." And I didn't mention curvature. That was @Prof Reza Sanaye. Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) More on this topic... An interesting possibility, I think, is that the baryon and lepton-number conservation laws that we know to be satisfied exactly --and put into question only on the grounds of GUTs and cosmology--, really are exact conservation laws. In fact, the principle could then be raised to a local gauge principle. This would require a baryodynamic/leptodynamic field that could[?] account for these discrepancies from the SM. Because this topic of a possible baryodynamic field is a long-forgotten road, I've tried to dig out something relatively recent about it on Google. I've found this: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MPLA...2950031H/abstract One consequence of this idea is that, for galaxies with a large baryon number, there would be a repulsion that would reflect in the virial theorem so much as to be observable on the large intergalactic scales. I wonder if dark matter issues could be addressed on these grounds too. But not many people are considering anything like this today. Edited April 10 by joigus Link to post Share on other sites

Eise 481 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Ethan Siegel in 'Start with a Bang': Why You Should Doubt ‘New Physics’ From The Latest Muon g-2 Results It throws doubt about the correctness of the theoretical calculation of the value of g-2. So there might not be a discrepancy between experiment and theory, because the calculation is not rock solid. But hey, how many articles appeared with new physics explaining neutrinos traveling faster than light? Hundreds? But it was an experimental error. This time I set my bets on a wrong calculation. Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 6 minutes ago, Eise said: But it was an experimental error. This time I set my bets on a wrong calculation. I set my bets in that the calculation is right. Eleven significant digits cannot be out of sheer luck! It'd be a pleasure paying you the prize, @Eise. Fix it, and we'll talk. I'd be a pleasure meeting you, even if it's to pay you for losing that bet. Link to post Share on other sites

studiot 2210 Posted April 10 Author Share Posted April 10 5 hours ago, joigus said: I meant "radiative" as in "radiative corrections" = "quantum corrections". In QFT, when you calculate any parameter like mass, charge, etc., you don't know what happens at very small length scales. So you have to assume that all possibilities quantum-mechanically possible, somehow, are there. Classically the gyromagnetic ratio is just 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyromagnetic_ratio#For_a_classical_rotating_body Any deviations from this factor of 2 are purely quantum. Quantum electrodynamics owes much of its well-deserved prestige to the success of this calculation. The discrepancy with the classical factor of 2 is due to "radiative corrections", which means that you have to account for virtual particles contributing to these renormalised quantities. The mass, the g factor, even the charge, are affected by quantum corrections. If the salient suggestion of Fermilab and Brookhaven is that a fifth force is necessary to explain this anomaly, it must be because new gauge bosons have to be conjectured. That is, bosons other than photon, Z and W's, or gluons. IOW, bosons that are not contemplated by the standard model. That's what I meant by "new radiative modes." And I didn't mention curvature. That was @Prof Reza Sanaye. You seem not to have picked up my points. The article claims an observed anomaly in the Euler Axes. These are purely mechanical. Gyromagentic ratios and random quantum fluctuations are outside this framework. I noted that both you and the 'prof' mentioned curvature in your discussion. However my point is that curvature has nothing to do with the fundamental sub atomic viewpoint of forces and particles. The relativistic view of gravity is additional Physics and does not have the same effect on the other three conventional members of 'the four fundamental forces'. Link to post Share on other sites

joigus 420 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 44 minutes ago, studiot said: The article claims an observed anomaly in the Euler Axes. These are purely mechanical. Gyromagentic ratios and random quantum fluctuations are outside this framework. I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. From the Nature article: Quote The magnetic moment of elementary particles is influenced by ‘virtual’ versions of known elementary particles that continually pop out of the vacuum only to disappear a fraction of a second later. (My emphasis.) Exactly as I said. AKA virtual particles. No mention of Euler axes on the Nature article. No mention to Euler axes on the BBC report either. It's not a classical phenomenon. Here's an abstract of the PRL paper: Quote ABSTRACT We present the first results of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) Muon g−2 Experiment for the positive muon magnetic anomaly aμ≡(gμ−2)/2. The anomaly is determined from the precision measurements of two angular frequencies. Intensity variation of high-energy positrons from muon decays directly encodes the difference frequency ωa between the spin-precession and cyclotron frequencies for polarized muons in a magnetic storage ring. The storage ring magnetic field is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance probes calibrated in terms of the equivalent proton spin precession frequency ˜ω′p in a spherical water sample at 34.7 °C. The ratio ωa/˜ω′p, together with known fundamental constants, determines aμ(FNAL)=116592040(54)×10−11 (0.46 ppm). The result is 3.3 standard deviations greater than the standard model prediction and is in excellent agreement with the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) E821 measurement. After combination with previous measurements of both μ+ and μ−, the new experimental average of aμ(Exp)=116592061(41)×10−11 (0.35 ppm) increases the tension between experiment and theory to 4.2 standard deviations. No mention of Euler axes either. Here's another one from PRL-D: Quote ABSTRACT We present the final report from a series of precision measurements of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, aμ=(g−2)/2. The details of the experimental method, apparatus, data taking, and analysis are summarized. Data obtained at Brookhaven National Laboratory, using nearly equal samples of positive and negative muons, were used to deduce aμ(Expt)=11659208.0(5.4)(3.3)×10−10, where the statistical and systematic uncertainties are given, respectively. The combined uncertainty of 0.54 ppm represents a 14-fold improvement compared to previous measurements at CERN. The standard model value for aμ includes contributions from virtual QED, weak, and hadronic processes. While the QED processes account for most of the anomaly, the largest theoretical uncertainty, ≈0.55 ppm, is associated with first-order hadronic vacuum polarization. Present standard model evaluations, based on e+e− hadronic cross sections, lie 2.2–2.7 standard deviations below the experimental result. 44 minutes ago, studiot said: I noted that both you and the 'prof' mentioned curvature in your discussion. No. Prof did. I didn't. I did only mention it in response to his bringing it up, for reasons completely mysterious to me, as it as no bearing on the problem. I only intervened to say that curvature can never be a 1-rank tensor, as he suggested. And I stand by what I said. I remain as clueless as I did before as to what curvature has to do with all this. The quantum calculation for g-2 gives \( \frac{\alpha}{2\pi} \) as first-order quantum correction to the classical gyromagnetic ratio of the electron. Because \( \alpha \) is dimensionless only because it's an \( \hbar \)-rationalised constant: \[ \alpha = \frac{e^2}{\hbar c} \] it is obvious that we're dealing with a quantum correction. The Physics Reports paper is full of mentions to \( \alpha \) as well. It's a quantum correction. Edited April 10 by joigus Link to post Share on other sites

Prof Reza Sanaye 22 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, studiot said: You seem not to have picked up my points. The article claims an observed anomaly in the Euler Axes. These are purely mechanical. Gyromagentic ratios and random quantum fluctuations are outside this framework. I noted that both you and the 'prof' mentioned curvature in your discussion. However my point is that curvature has nothing to do with the fundamental sub atomic viewpoint of forces and particles. The relativistic view of gravity is additional Physics and does not have the same effect on the other three conventional members of 'the four fundamental forces'. As Joigus says , the article has nothing to do with Euler Axes. Dear Studiot ! Euler Axes are for applicatory cases regarding what some people call "Macro" and others might prefer to call "Mega" or something like that. The second point Joigus is correct on , is that both of us are a bit too spread "thin" . .. . I do agree with that. . .. It is not precisely a disease ; however , gives quite much probability for getting/being distracted. I hope we two do not have this latter characteristic. Or rather , I hope we two help one another out as and when it does occur to us. Third point Joigus is asserting rightly , is that it was me who brought over the issue of curvature. Joigus talked sort of against it. Forth point is that under the circumstances this new phenomenon/force is being discussed , I did right to make mention of curvature. Joigus is wrong , I'm afraid to make clear , when he says that I am suggesting that curvature is a 1-rank tensor. I am not suggesting that curvature is a 1-rank tensor. Nor have I done so in others of my seminars , classes , letters , lectures , etc. The intended force is , of course , on particle-scale. We cannot , nonetheless , rule out as yet , that somewhere in the "Mega" or "Macro" , the said force evolves/devolves on the boundary with Mega. By saying this , I am in no way contradicting myself. Reason is that (very fortunately !) we have not gotten-- parallel to GR VS Q physics -- the dichotomy of Toposes comprising them. We understand that the net impact is that of a macroscopic object because each specific particle curves spacetime according to general relativity and has its own "gravitational field." When considering how you might perform such a calculation, you must exercise caution , however. Because the field equations for GR aren't linear (unlike, say, the field equations for electromagnetism). I mean you can't just "add" the spacetime curvatures of all of the distinct subatomic particles to get the curvature of an object like the a ball , for example. Simply note that gravity is not an emergent phenomenon, but that it does exist on extremely minute Toposes. Also bear in mind , please , everybody , that : Quote : "The force of gravity and one of the dimensions of space might be generated out of the peculiar interactions of particles and fields existing in a lower-dimensional realm." link : https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/ There are still other points that I would have wished to explicate here ; however , Joigus has written so lucidly and informatively about them that I feel absolutely no reason why I should start typing and writing things here that will most likely turn out to be mere paraphrases from Joigus' statements. Last issue : we are (when talking of a fifth force) on the brink of discovering something totally outlandish/queer/strange to normal standards of (and inhabitated calculations of) both rut-of-the-way Relativity and rut-of-the-way Q Physics. Let us go the golden middle way : that is to say : Let us not get involved in radically ideatic phantasmagoria rumination AND at the same time not be completely shut/clammed to the not-foreseen frontiers of science that are in the process of opening themselves to us all . . . .. . . Edited April 10 by Prof Reza Sanaye Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now