Testing for Tolerance

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

You and I agree concerning magnetic monopoles.

I acknowledge your statement that dipolar subatomic particles possess a dipole moment. However, I want to clarify that my current discussion is focused on magnetic charge and not other characteristics of electrons. Please take a moment to reflect on my point and refrain from diverting the conversation towards an unrelated topic.

The reciprocal nature of the charge is easily seen by simple algebra:

1 = e² / (8πα · e_emax²)

The electrostatic charge is in the numerator, and the magnetic charge is in the denominator. In the same way, time is reciprocal to frequency.

Not in the same way. T = 1/f  -  that’s reciprocal. As one increases, the other decreases

e² = 8πα · e_emax²  is proportional, not reciprocal. 

 

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

It would be more productive if you took the time to listen to what I was presenting rather than telling me what to say. The e is the elementary charge. The charge is expressed as a single dimension in MKS and SI unit systems. In QMU, all charges are expressed as a distributed dimension. Hence, e becomes e². The value of e is the same in both systems.

Productive for whom? I’m trying to prevent the problem of using symbols that can be easily confused

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

You are correct that magnetic and electrostatic charges are not the same units.

So they can’t be equal using only a unitless constant of proportionality. i.e. your equation is incorrect

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

The physics of electrostatic charge is different from the physics of magnetic charge. The electrostatic charge has a spherical angle (1) and one spin (1). The magnetic charge has a steradian angle (1/4π) and half spin (1/2). The splitting of electrostatic and magnetic charges from the Singularity results in a distortion factor known as the fine structure constant.

1 = 1 · 1 · e² / (4π · 2 · α · e_emax²)

The singularity?

Is this derived somewhere?

 

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

The geometries of the two types of charges are very different indeed.

To test my hypothesis, one could begin by studying and understanding it thoroughly.

Presumably you understand it thoroughly, and would be in a position to point out such tests.

 

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

After that, it could be applied to known unexplained phenomena, such as the anomalous fractional quantum Hall effect. My theory proposes that magnetic charge is a quantum property of subatomic particles. Based on this magnetic charge, the Quantum Measurement Units of magnetic flux can predict the precise value of the "fractional" quantum Hall effect.

Your unwillingness to first study the theory does not give justification for dismissing it.

Unwillingness doesn’t enter into it. I can’t study something you have not presented. I’ve pointed out some fundamental shortcomings of what little you’ve shared. 

11 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

In my work, curl is a dimensional unit equal in MKS to curl = 6.333 x 10⁴ coul² / (kg · m), but in Maxwell's work, curl is just a vector differential operator

In math, curl is a vector differential operator. If you are not using the standard definition, you need to use a different name.

Also, you should peruse our guidelines for posting here. It points out, e.g. “You can't effectively communicate if you are using different definitions than everyone else, or making up nomenclature for things where it already exists.”

[Aetherwizard]

45 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

As far as I know the Compton wavelength depends on the mass of a particle. What mass & particle does your statement "The Compton wavelength" refer to?

Aetherwizard said:

the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST. if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. 

You said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured. A beam of photons is sent across a known distance and back.

Can you clarify?

 

The Compton wavelength depends on a particle's mass, angular momentum, and energy. In quantum field theory, the Compton wavelength is the length scale at which relativistic quantum field theory is necessary for an accurate description of a particle. It is the wavelength of a photon with the same energy as a particle's rest energy. These same observations apply to my work, which is also based on field quanta.

The distance between the Earth and the Moon is finite. Considering that space is quantized as quantum rotating magnetic fields and that the Compton wavelength represents the linear length of each space quantum between the Earth and the Moon, then a photon moving through space moves one quantum at a time at a specific rate. Since we know the speed of the photon from Earth to the Moon and back is constant, we can determine the rate at which a photon advances through each space quantum. 

It is unavoidable that if photons travel at a constant speed and move in quantum steps, then the rate of moving from step to step must also be constant.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

The Compton wavelength depends on a particle's mass, angular momentum, and energy.

It’s given by h/mc. It does not depend on the angular momentum of the particle

[Aetherwizard]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s given by h/mc. It does not depend on the angular momentum of the particle

What do you call h?

[Ghideon]

39 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

The Compton wavelength depends on a particle's mass, angular momentum, and energy.

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc

h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

 

[Aetherwizard]

22 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The Compton wavelength of a particle depends its mass and is given by the equation: h/mc

h: Planck's constant, m: Mass of the particle, c : Speed of light in vacuum.

 

Right, and Planck's constant is the electron's angular momentum. All values in this relationship are constants. 

The fact that Planck's constant can be used as a quantum measurement unit for the angular momentum of macro atomic and molecular structures does not negate that Planck's constant is still the angular momentum of an electron. 

[Mordred]

So you haven't applied a single trigometric function and every value you have regardless of unit choice is a scalar value am I to understand that as accurate ?

In other words does every formula you have return a scalar only value ?

How would you calculate the maximum magnetic force which is 90 degrees to the E field and would be a different value at any other angle ?

If you didn't apply the angle as per Lirentz force  relations then the majority of formulas you have would be inaccurate. Especially if you ignored the phase difference between the E and B field and the subsequent torque relations involved for the curl term. Which requires the cross product not a scalar only value.

If you didn't apply the cross product term for \[F_{magnetic}=q(E+v \times B\] then your relations will be wrong. 

 

Edited May 9 by Mordred

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

What do you call h?

Planck’s constant. It is the quantum of angular momentum, but is not necessarily the angular momentum of any particular particle. The electron, for example, is spin-1/2. Its angular momentum is hbar * sqrt(s(s+1))

 

[Mordred]

Just to add a particle spin is intrinsic for example the intrinsic spin of an electron 1/2 integer spin is 720 degrees and not 360 degrees. Don't confuse it with say some round object whose spin radius is 360 degrees. If I recall though it's been awhile spin 1 is 360 degrees I can't recall spin 1/3

Edited May 9 by Mordred

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

Planck's constant is the electron's angular momentum. All values in this relationship are constants. 

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.  

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

The units of Planck's constant and electron's angular momentum are the same and their values differ. Angular momentum of an electron is quantized and depends on quantum numbers.  

Just to add more detail as it involves my points as well in regards to vectors/spinors the angular momentum has both magnitude and direction. The  principle quantum numbers are n for principle quantum , (0,1,2,3) allowed values.

"l " for angular quantum number it can be any number between 0 and n-1. m_s for spin projector m_l for angular momentum projection.

"m" for the magnetic quantum number allowed values can be any integer between "l" and "-l".

So for an electron the spin quantum number 1/2 is the magnitude the +- sign is the direction component.

The spin quantum number 

\[ ||S||=\hbar\sqrt{s(s+1)}\]

With z as the axis of rotation analogous to. Also keep in mind the above is a classical treatment. The big thing is the above works great on the z axis or any other axis of choice however the Pauli matrices along with the Schrodinger equation for the electron probablity cloud  works well regardless of axis.

Edit just noticed Swansont already has the last equation

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[MSC]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Presumably you understand it thoroughly, and would be in a position to point out such tests.

I second this; even outlining some suggestions for an experiment that would test the hypotheses would be a start. 

@Aetherwizard What research could be done to prove the validity of your claims in laymans terms?

[Mordred]

11 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

 

This causes problems with important equations, such as the impedance equation. The impedance equation is thought to involve the addition of LC resistance to wire resistance. However, the LC "resistance" should be magnetic flux in a correct system of units. Thus, adding magnetic flux to resistance necessitates including the imaginary number to account for the mismatched units. There was a reason why Heaviside reduced Maxwell's twenty equations to four. Maxwell's equations did not always pan out.

 

Really then how is it one of the common examples with regards to Maxwell equations include impedance.  Via the wave equations ? inclusive of the transverse components ? It will also provide that value in ohms

\[Z=\frac{\mu\omega}{k}=\frac{\mu\omega}{\sqrt\epsilon\omega}=\sqrt\frac{\mu}{\epsilon_0}\]

 

11 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

 

In my work, curl is a dimensional unit equal in MKS to curl = 6.333 x 10⁴ coul² / (kg · m), but in Maxwell's work, curl is just a vector differential operator. You can see from this that Maxwell's equations cannot be useful in QMU. However, the QMU curl unit can be applied to General Relativity theory to calculate the straight path trajectory bending angle near massive objects:

 

then its not curl by any definition curl doesn't include any particular value Its literally a spinor that commonly describes angular momentum. However it can also describe any relation that has symmetry of change to angular momentum . Good example amplitude of a sinusoidal wavefunction, a probability function such as the Delta function for Fourier transforms, curved spacetime.  Polarity and even the circle U(1) group of particle physics In particular describing electrons and photons. That is literally why the SM model tensors include the inner product. You can arbitrarily describe that curl in numerous methods such as the tangent or via parallel transport. You can arbitrarily use integrals or derivatives.

simply put its a complex vector. So what possible use could assigning a standalone unit to curl  be ? that makes no sense whatsoever.

To put it bluntly every mainstream physics theory involves the dot product (vectors) and cross product (curl) Maxwell is simply one example. Every particle of the standard model uses those relations to define every particle type, its scatterings, its probability functions. Its even included in String theory. Also applies to everyday classical physics....

Also QM as well as QFT includes Maxwell equations they are integral equations in both fields and inclusive in String theory. Physics has a key principle. All Physics models must be reducible to classical physics. For example f=ma still applies in GR. Maxwell equations still applies in all major physics theories. After all, physics Theories need to account for all levels of Observational evidence. QM isn't restricted to the quantum realm there simply put isn't a need to use QM to describe the macro regime.

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[Aetherwizard]

32 minutes ago, MSC said:

I second this; even outlining some suggestions for an experiment that would test the hypotheses would be a start. 

@Aetherwizard What research could be done to prove the validity of your claims in laymans terms?

In the APM, the electron fine structure constant (α) is given by the ratio of the electrostatic charge squared (e²) to the magnetic charge squared (e_emax²), multiplied by a factor of 8π:

α = (e²) / 8π * (e_emax²)

Applying the same principle to protons and neutrons, we can express their fine structure constants as:

p = (e²) / 8π * (e_pmax²)
n = (e²) / 8π * (e_nmax²)

where e_pmax and e_nmax are the magnetic charges of protons and neutrons, respectively.

Using the known values of the electrostatic charge (e) and the proton and neutron magnetic charges derived from the APM, we can calculate the theoretical values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants:

p ≈ 3.974 × 10^-6
n ≈ 3.969 × 10^-6

These values are significantly smaller than the electron fine structure constant (α ≈ 7.297 × 10^-3), indicating a weaker coupling between the electrostatic and magnetic forces for protons and neutrons.

Experimental Tests: To verify the predicted values of the proton and neutron fine structure constants, I propose the following experimental tests:

1. High-energy proton-proton scattering: By measuring the angular distribution of scattered protons in high-energy collisions and comparing the results with QED predictions using different values of p, we can determine the best-fit value for the proton fine structure constant.
2. Neutron interferometry: Applying carefully controlled electromagnetic fields to a neutron interferometer and measuring the resulting phase shifts can provide a sensitive test of the neutron fine structure constant (n).
3. Spectroscopy of exotic atoms: Measuring the transition frequencies between energy levels in exotic atoms containing heavy baryons can yield information about the fine structure constants of the constituent particles.
4. Precision measurements of nucleon magnetic moments: Comparing high-precision measurements of proton and neutron magnetic moments with APM predictions can indirectly test the validity of the derived fine structure constants.

In my work, I also present a slight correction for the NIST neutron magnetic moment based on theoretical analysis by quantum measurement units. 

[Mordred]

11 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

 

1. High-energy proton-proton scattering: By measuring the angular distribution of scattered protons in high-energy collisions and comparing the results with QED predictions using different values of p, we can determine the best-fit value for the proton fine structure constant.
2. Neutron interferometry: Applying carefully controlled electromagnetic fields to a neutron interferometer and measuring the resulting phase shifts can provide a sensitive test of the neutron fine structure constant (n).
3. Spectroscopy of exotic atoms: Measuring the transition frequencies between energy levels in exotic atoms containing heavy baryons can yield information about the fine structure constants of the constituent particles.
4. Precision measurements of nucleon magnetic moments: Comparing high-precision measurements of proton and neutron magnetic moments with APM predictions can indirectly test the validity of the derived fine structure constants.

 

All these methods are already employed to test the fine structure constant. Quite frankly the precision of the collective results of all the different tests gives an extremely high precision. Any process that involves the fine structure constant can be used to test it. As a fundamental constant its continuously tested as its far to important not to. Every fundamental constant included in that regard.

 

 

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[Aetherwizard]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

All these methods are already employed to test the fine structure constant. Quite frankly the precision of the collective results of all the different tests gives an extremely high precision. Any process that involves the fine structure constant can be used to test it. As a fundamental constant its continuously tested as its far to important not to. Every fundamental constant included in that regard.

What is the fine structure of the proton and neutron in the Standard Model?

I just gave values for different fine structures for the proton and neutron, which differ from the electron. Precise measurements of the fine structures of the proton and neutron have not been pursued. Please read my words carefully and don't assume things.

[Mordred]

 

You do realize the fine structure constant applies directly to the couplings strength of charged particles. 

3 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

What is the fine structure of the proton and neutron in the Standard Model?

I just gave values for different fine structures for the proton and neutron, which differ from the electron. Precise measurements of the fine structures of the proton and neutron have not been pursued. 

how can you believe that wouldn't be carefully examined ? In point of detail we would need to know how well the neutron and proton couples to the EM field. So it's quite accurately examined. One of the precision tests of the fine structure constant is atomic recoil. The highest precision test involving rubidium atoms.

 

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

In the APM, the electron fine structure constant (α) is given by the ratio of the electrostatic charge squared (e²) to the magnetic charge squared (e_emax²), multiplied by a factor of 8π:

α = (e²) / 8π * (e_emax²)

Since the fine structure constant is unitless, and these charges do not have the same units, this cannot be the case.

Is it your contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons?

[Aetherwizard]

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

 

You do realize the fine structure constant applies directly to the couplings strength of charged particles. 

how can you believe that wouldn't be carefully examined ? In point of detail we would need to know how well the neutron and proton couples to the EM field. So it's quite accurately examined. One of the precision tests of the fine structure constant is atomic recoil. The highest precision test involving rubidium atoms.

 

Your response sounds like good science to me. Just deny it because you didn't think of it first. The guys asked for an experiment to prove my theory, and I provided one. Your response is to say, "No way." I'm looking for scientists to discuss my theory with, not senseless cynics.

I read in Science magazine this morning, hot off the press, that the QAHE has been detected without a magnetic field. At B = 0 T, R_xy is quantized at ± h / 5e². 

As I have been saying, magnetic charge is different from electrostatic charge, and here they are quantizing the QAHE in terms of electrostatic charge. When you use the magnetic charge value that I have provided:

5e² = 0.917 e_emax²

What mainstream physicists consider magneto-"resistance" or "Hall resistance" appears in QMU to be magnetic flux (mflx). According to the physicists, the value of h / 5e² is about 5 kilohm, 5.163 x 10³ ohm to work out the math—just a number that seems "anomalous."

When you calculate the value of h / e_emax² in QMU, the result is h / e_emax² = mflx. This may not strike you as significant if you have not followed my posts carefully or read my works. However, I hit the QAHE on the head! This just came out this morning in a highly reputable science publication. 

The mflx unit is a quantum of magnetic flux experienced by a single electron. 

I'm not saying my work deserves widespread fanfare, but it warrants further scientific investigation. Science is about investigating promising theories, and my theory is very promising.

Edited May 10 by Aetherwizard

[Mordred]

10 minutes ago, Aetherwizard said:

Your response sounds like good science to me. Just deny it because you didn't think of it first. The guys asked for an experiment to prove my theory, and I provided one. Your response is to say, "No way." I'm looking for scientists to discuss my theory with, not senseless cynics.

 

I don't believe you understand the scientific process. It is expected that any new theory gets examined and effort is made to disprove any new theory.

 That is a major part of the process. Our pointing out errors and asking questions is precisely part of the scientific method. You don't  get a robust theory otherwise.

Every theory gets examined in this manner. You also have a couple of physicist currently asking those questions in this thread.

No I could not begin to use your theory. I don't see how it can possibly work with any mainstream observational evidence that supports the mainstream physics.

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[Aetherwizard]

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Since the fine structure constant is unitless, and these charges do not have the same units, this cannot be the case.

Is it your contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons?

The weak interaction is "unitless," yet you have no problem calling it a "force." I show the weak interaction as the ratio of the electrostatic force to the magnetic force. 

I show the fine structure as a ratio between solid angle, one-spin electrostatic charge, and steradian angle, half-spin magnetic charge. It is hardly unitless.

Yes, it is my contention that the fine structure constant is different for protons and neutrons. And don't tell me that neutrons have no electrostatic charge. A neutron is a magnetically bound electron and proton as evidenced by beta decay. The fact that their electrostatic charges neutralize each other does not mean the electron and proton have given up their electrostatic charges. I hypothesize these electrostatic charges still interact with the electron and proton magnet charges.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I don't believe you understand the scientific process. It is expected that any new theory gets examined and effort is made to disprove any new theory.

 That is a major part of the process. Our pointing out errors and asking questions is precisely part of the scientific method. You don't  get a robust theory otherwise.

Every theory gets examined in this manner. You also have a couple of physicist currently asking those questions in this thread.

You are not pointing out errors. You have not even commented on what I have presented. You are cynically denying whatever I write and trying to divert the discussion to your understanding of physics. If I believed everything you believed, I wouldn't have an "alternative" physics theory, would I? Even now, you have ignored the scientific portion of my post to give more cynicism. 

[Mordred]

We are pointing out errors why do you feel pointing out using vectors and spinors and not using them isn't in error ?

We also pointed out numerous other errors in this thread. That isn't cynicism but an examination.

I examined what you have here and even looked at your other papers. Not using vectors and spinors is a fundamental error you have in every article.

I chose to restrict myself to what you posted here 

Edited May 10 by Mordred

[Aetherwizard]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We ate pointing out errors why do you feel pointing out using vectors and spinors and not using them isn't in error ?

I only have so much time in my life. Applying my theory to all physics branches and reexamining the basis of all physics is on my to-do list. You have to start somewhere. It would go a lot quicker for me if I didn't meet with so much senseless cynicism and unwillingness to explore simple concepts first. You won't take the time to learn what I am presenting, and instead, your reaction is to deny anything you do not already know. Have you heard the lament about people who are smart but not intelligent?

Set aside your to-do list of questions you want to be answered for the moment. Instead, look at my presentation and see if it warrants further development. Perhaps you will discover insights or fix genuine problems in my theory. 

I have presented several potentially ground-breaking insights in this thread. You have not looked into any of them. Just because I haven't figured out why Holstein cows have black and white spots instead of green and yellow is something we can discuss later. Diversions are irrelevant to the concepts being presented at this moment.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Aetherwizard said:

It would go a lot quicker for me if I didn't meet with so much senseless cynicism and unwillingness to explore simple concepts first. You won't take the time to learn what I am presenting, and instead, your reaction is to deny anything you do not already know.

!

Moderator Note

You say this as if nobody mentioned specific faults with your concept. It's not unwillingness when flaws in your equation are pointed out. It seems like you're unwilling to answer questions about the flaws, and instead claim the responses are simply hidebound denials. 

Help us all progress in understanding. You're trying to persuade us that your idea has merit, and others are asking about the points where your ideas and what we observe don't match. It's part of the process, and it's not helped by claiming these questions are merely denial. Nobody is claiming you're wrong just because. They've been very specific, so please drop this line of argument, and please answer the questions. 

 

[Ghideon]

 

23 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

if you would like to direct a sizable amount of funding my way, I could research the current technology and put together a plan for directly detecting chronovibration. 

If I have the funds; what experiment should I run to falsify chronovibration and hence your ideas? Assume I have the means to run experiments that are focusing on concepts in established theories and the equipment is built by engineers whose methods relies on current understanding of physics. 

 

The following two statements do seem to contradict each other, can you clarify? (In case you missed the question earlier)

On 5/8/2024 at 3:18 AM, Aetherwizard said:

Chronovibration is measured the same way photon speed is measured.

 

23 hours ago, Aetherwizard said:

the job for directly detecting chronovibration would be for the experts at NIST