The universe =
Dark energy - 68%
Dark matter - 27%
Normal matter - 5%
Dark brains, dark matter --> dark money for research. There are cosmological models that work without dark matter but this needs bright brains...
The universe =
Dark energy - 68%
Dark matter - 27%
Normal matter - 5%
Dark brains, dark matter --> dark money for research. There are cosmological models that work without dark matter but this needs bright brains...
like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm
Ptolemaic epicycles originated under the aegis of the Pax Romana circa 120AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy
The epicycles theory explained observations with good accuracy
until Kepler used more accurate obs by Brahe circa 1620 AD.
However Magellan circumnavigated the world long before this,
It is unlikely that the current SM QCD model of the proton
as a sea of thousands of virtual gluons and quarks will last 1500 yrs,
It's actually quite amazing how relatively simple model can be quickly messed up with a pseudo-complex meta-discussions.
Another step forward;
Another step forward;
So: I've read this. It seems just completely wrong - like much self-published science.
Max Planck quantized the electromagnetic radiation and solved the distribution at the high
energy end of radiation (visible light). This continues to develop the idea that gravity is also
electromagnetic radiation and there exists a maximum wavelength of photon related to the
speed of light. This means that there should by physically logical and mathematically sound
connection between Planck’s law and Gravity constants and this should even go through the
maximum wavelength of 1 Hz.
It should be noted that the Planck’s law is highly sensitive for the Temperature, and any
such a connection can be found only with some certain temperature. This means that this
temperature (which is the only variable and thus solved) must be observable in some
physically logical occasion in Nature.
In this paper this Temperature is solved by iteration and a value of 1210 K was found, this
temperature provides a peak energy density in radiation wavelength of 2397 nm, which
means IR-B (infrared) radiation. It’s easy to notice that this is very typical temperature in
the Thermosphere of planets.
The text in the paper relies on previous work claimed to be from Fatio / Le Sage without a reference or anything more specific. In fact the paper has no references!
Reading just the 1 page content (since there are no references) the key substance is here:
I really can't work out what this mean: but from the text it would appear the author thinks it is dimensionally incorrect.
more insight into this comes from:
which is certainly dimensionally incorrect.
This is complete and utter rubbish at every level. It is very seldom that I use such a dismissive word.
There is a lot of self-published stuff that makes no sense. Some of it much much better written than this, so that you would need a deep knowledge of the field to realise why it made no sense! Perhaps this thread should serve as a warning that such things exist.
This is really weird - so you can publish anything you like on ResearchGate then, no matter how ridiculous?
This is really weird - so you can publish anything you like on ResearchGate then, no matter how ridiculous?
Well, since it has no peer review before publication - yes!
It is unlikely that the current SM QCD model of the proton
as a sea of thousands of virtual gluons and quarks will last 1500 yrs,
https://profmattstrassler.com/…ntiquark-mini-collisions/
To be fair - while I too think we will get a better understanding of particle physics soon, there is nothing inherently wrong with a "sea of virtual particles". This approach beautifully and economically explains inter-particle forces, and has a lot of predictive power. E.g. when you see a force you expect a particle, and try to find it. You can distinguish between the complexity of a theory (e.g. Kepler's Laws) and the complexity of the system described by it (e.g. a 100 object many body problem. Even a 3 object many body problem is chaotic and cannot simply be extrapolated over long times to determine position).
And the Higgs boson as a mechanism to provide other particles with mass is very very cool.
I gave him a thumbs up knowing if you two are all over him it must be true lol
This is really weird - so you can publish anything you like on ResearchGate then, no matter how ridiculous?
ResearchGate is an open platform, peer reviewed research can be published (with permission of copyright owner) but also new research or ideas and anyone can review it. If you think this is nonsense, feel free to go there and tell the author why he is wrong. That’s the whole point of publishing, after all.
I think THH has dealt with it effectvely - you could discuss gravity wrt the Higg's field imparting mass to particles endlessly and achieve absolutely nothing.
You can only know of you do the work..Could be a baby sun with solar panels powering a facility and you would never know it. trusting who? for true info.. Bla~
You can only know of you do the work..Could be a baby sun with solar panels powering a facility and you would never know it. trusting who? for true info.. Bla~
Or a snooker ball with giganticism.
maybe if we are playing pool.. but this is a chess match. winner takes all.
The text in the paper relies on previous work claimed to be from Fatio / Le Sage without a reference or anything more specific. In fact the paper has no references!
which is certainly dimensionally incorrect.
Thanks for your comment. I am fine with your opinion, and these kind of stuff must be expected in such an occasions.
Btw. Can you tell where Isaac Newton draw the dimensions to the G-factor? And is there any particular reasons which implies that these dimension are "correct", and can't be expressed any simpler way. I think newton him self said that "it's just a mathematical model"..
My conclution is that the total mass of universe is zero. This simply means that the mass is a pseudo thing, which doesn't exist and it doesn't have the interpretaions we are giving to it. ie. E = mc^2 is just correcting the E and m relation to c^2, but this relation is not universal.
How can photon even have any energy or impuls when it doesn't have any mass? So this means that it is possible to left the "kg" out of all the definitions of photon, and still the photon is completely definded including it's "energy". And if this is possible to photon, then it's possible to the rest.
Now, try to write some other existing physics than photon without the "mass" and you will notice certain problems.
And the Higgs boson as a mechanism to provide other particles with mass is very very cool.
From your "cool" link;
Quote
The solution formulated by Higgs, Englert, and Robert Brout (who worked with Englert at ULB but is now deceased) proposes that all of space is filled with a field that interacts with the weak force particles to give them mass. It does so because the field is assumed not to be zero in empty space. This nonzero ground state violates a symmetry that is considered fundamental to quantum field theory. Earlier work had shown that this kind of symmetry breaking led to a massless, spinless particle that was ruled out by experiments [1]. Englert, Brout, and Higgs showed how one could make this unwanted particle disappear by coupling the space-filling field to the weak-force field. When they worked out all of the interactions, they found that the force particles effectively had a mass, and the unwanted, massless, spinless particle was essentially absorbed by the weak particles. These particles gained a third spin state as a result, and the only remaining spinless particle was the massive Higgs boson. A similar theory was developed by a third team of theorists in the same year [2].
If it's "cool" to have a complicated model, then this surely is really "cool".
And if this whole story is much more simpler, then it's not "cool" any more?
Then my idea really isn't so "cool".
I am just sorry.
... and what then produces this "all space filling field?" in this "cool" story?
You know, I sort of went through ALL you freaking "cool" problems already few years ago, and found that they all weren't so "cool";
https://www.researchgate.net/p…f_Physics_3032016_version
Now as this paper from Preston has provided the last missing piece, I started to work this out more properly with this project;
https://www.researchgate.net/p…hysics-no-mass-no-gravity
... but it's not a "cool" project. Sorry.
his approach beautifully and economically explains inter-particle forces, and has a lot of predictive power
I hope the predictive power of thousands of virtual particles in the proton sea improves soon.
QED/QCD has been failing miserably for over fifty years to
model accurate proton and neutron parameters.
I hope the predictive power of thousands of virtual particles in the proton sea improves soon.
QED/QCD has been failing miserably for over fifty years to
model accurate proton and neutron parameters.
Rather than concentrate on what it does not predict well - for reasons of complexity - how about considering all the amazing (and cool) stuff it does predict? How those 3 symmetry groups encompass all those particles, eventually found. How the particle interactions: electric, weak and strong are explained all by the same model. How diverse high energy accelerator results are all consistent with each other, and with other observations?
You might also consider the long historic struggle to put the theory together, piece by piece.
If you want to go beyond it - as we all do - then how about considering what SM cannot predict? Like how GR and QM fit together? For such a unified theory you need to find some theory that includes (as one aspect) all of that prediction and economy (so many elementary particles from just a simple algebraic structure, hadrons from combinations of quarks, etc, all giving the right characteristics) that we already have. And, if you don't understand the economy and beauty in that theory - can I suggest that you have not studied it?
Clearly, the current state of QM and GR is wrong - in the sense that we have two different powerful theories that do not obviously fit together, yet we know they must do so. That is the great challenge of our times - and from its resolution most people think other mysteries will be resolved, and both QM and GR will have some underlying deeper structure. Perhaps that will enable much easier calculation of what now is difficult - as with the amplitudehedron. You cannot sidestep all of the complexity we have now that delivers, by pointing to some things it does not accurately predict. Nor is their merit in a post hoc semi-classical calculation that matches some constants (as many would-be physicists have generated - mainly it seems because of a dislike of the truly different nature of QM from our everyday situated world), unless that calculation also has a fair path towards duplicating all of the SM and/or GR.
THH
how about considering all the amazing (and cool) stuff it does predict
QED/QCD are a poor predictor for neutron and proton parameters
Neutrons and protons make up >99.5% of the mass of which we are made
and supply > 99.5% of the Earth's energy.
Display MoreRather than concentrate on what it does not predict well - for reasons of complexity - how about considering all the amazing (and cool) stuff it does predict? How those 3 symmetry groups encompass all those particles, eventually found. How the particle interactions: electric, weak and strong are explained all by the same model. How diverse high energy accelerator results are all consistent with each other, and with other observations?
You might also consider the long historic struggle to put the theory together, piece by piece.
If you want to go beyond it - as we all do - then how about considering what SM cannot predict? Like how GR and QM fit together? For such a unified theory you need to find some theory that includes (as one aspect) all of that prediction and economy (so many elementary particles from just a simple algebraic structure, hadrons from combinations of quarks, etc, all giving the right characteristics) that we already have. And, if you don't understand the economy and beauty in that theory - can I suggest that you have not studied it?
Clearly, the current state of QM and GR is wrong - in the sense that we have two different powerful theories that do not obviously fit together, yet we know they must do so. That is the great challenge of our times - and from its resolution most people think other mysteries will be resolved, and both QM and GR will have some underlying deeper structure. Perhaps that will enable much easier calculation of what now is difficult - as with the amplitudehedron. You cannot sidestep all of the complexity we have now that delivers, by pointing to some things it does not accurately predict. Nor is their merit in a post hoc semi-classical calculation that matches some constants (as many would-be physicists have generated - mainly it seems because of a dislike of the truly different nature of QM from our everyday situated world), unless that calculation also has a fair path towards duplicating all of the SM and/or GR.
THH
This is just the kind of talk of people in love with their conceptual tool that solves some scenarios well enough, but not all, and has become a constraint instead of a stimulus. We need a better model. QM was great at its moment, but now is stagnant, no matter how mathematically beautiful or appealing it may be.