Well , i started to read your great work so more quickly i expecte i have to ask my first question from the abstract:
Particles are the sources of fields and carry some invariant, constant properties (like charge, mass, magnetic moment) that are used to define physics.
So why from what you postulated that ? in your mind particles are the source of fields when in mine a field is a source of particles.
because a field possesses intrinsically less dimensions than a particle.
Then a field is anysotropic ( as light) not a particle..
Display MoreThe list of errors and misconceptions of the standard model (V2) has been published yesterday::
The basics of physics (or why the standard model fails)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379078038
The new model is here since about 4 years now:: The proton and its resonances R II https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374536554
So why from what you postulated that ? in your mind particles are the source of fields when in mine a field is a source of particles.
There is generally a lot of uncertainty about this. As the accelerator engineer said when confronted with a dead cyclotron 'It's either your waves or your particles, I can't be sure which of them is causing the problem.'
There is generally a lot of uncertainty about this. As the accelerator engineer said when confronted with a dead cyclotron 'It's either your waves or your particles, I can't be sure which of them is causing the problem.'
Gentlemen, everything is very simple: we turn the problem into a postulate:
In the unified Nature, an eternal cyclic oscillatory process occurs with the frequency of Planck’s time: particles turn into a field, the field turns into particles. This non-mechanical process is primary and absolute.
Particles and field are simply different corresponding energy states of the same thing - our ever-moving World.
because a field possesses intrinsically less dimensions than a particle.
Basic rule of logic:: You cannot define something complicated by something simple. The sum, the parts are more than the parts.
Further in experiments only so called force fields can be proven. All other fields only exist in your head and are not real!
Basic rule of logic:: You cannot define something complicated by something simple. The sum, the parts are more than the parts.
Further in experiments only so called force fields can be proven. All other fields only exist in your head and are not real!
The evolution of physics is now at the stage: particles + fields and interactions between them. It is necessary to take the next decisive step: to unite particles and fields into one single real whole, and this is only possible by postulating the primacy and absoluteness of the non-mechanical movement of this whole. The materiality of our World lies in its movement!
And we should be interested exclusively in movement.
All the equipments around us are a compound of so many simple parts.
Even the computer you currently are using.
Basic rule of logic:: You cannot define something complicated by something simple. The sum, the parts are more than the parts.
Further in experiments only so called force fields can be proven. All other fields only exist in your head and are not real!
In my mind there is no debate between fields and particles.. I only see geometric things .. Let's consider that one D is generated by 2 directions etc .. As light should be 2 x 2 D and particles something as 3D.. However the main parameter should the light speed limit which generate an anisotropy .. For example id a 3D particle beocme relativistic , they have to lose some dimensions for trying be closer to the limit..
Display Moremay be once read Einsteins last words::
the famous Einstein citation of 1954 :: Einstein Remarks in a letter of 10 August 1954 to M. Besso : “Yet, by all means, I consider it as possible that physics cannot be founded on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In this case, from my whole castle in the air, gravitational theory included, but also from the rest of contemporary physics nothing remains.”
Fields are a mathematical crutch to map reality into a more general structure. Reversing the logic only tells that people do neither understand math nor physics!
The end of this madness was the prediction of a fiction called Higgs particle. Fact: No Higgs has been found in the new energy range of the LHC at CERN. The 125.95GeV energy has been found already a long time ago (SPS) and not declared a Higgs...
So field based physics is fake and the best way to cheat politicians ...
Let's consider that one D is generated by 2 directions etc
This is a 2500 years old idea presented by Aristoteles... In topology it means that you can only walk in one direction once you did start. The "line" can have any shape depending on the structure of the space.
E.g. a sphere is 2D and lives in 3D Euklididan space...
Fact: No Higgs has been found in the new energy range of the LHC at CERN.
Despite that the Higgs scam has made. used up quite a few Euros
"BREAKING," tweeted Bremner. "Scientists find the famed 'Bob Particle'- phenomenon
that makes money faster than speed of light."
The Higgs became known as the "God particle" because it is deemed to exist everywhere, determines the nature of matter but is agonisingly hard to nail down.
The hunt has also spawned a lucrative line in coffee mugs, greeting cards and clothing.
Well, i don't understimate your work, your thoughts but we can also share some other thoughts good or bad .
Anyway, an old idea is it especially bad ? Anyway, what i try to highlight is that something ( 3D ?) what go "too fast" ( relativistic) in one privilegied direction will "deform" its 2 other axis because it's not all spatially homogenous.. it could be the main principle what "shape" the universe, in my mind..Now as you said, yes, a 3D space isn't especially a limit and a donuts shape to explain how a nucleus is "moving" internally , satisfy me well.
This is a 2500 years old idea presented by Aristoteles... In topology it means that you can only walk in one direction once you did start. The "line" can have any shape depending on the structure of the space.
E.g. a sphere is 2D and lives in 3D Euklididan space...
Anyway, what i try to highlight is that something ( 3D ?) what go "too fast" ( relativistic) in one privilegied direction will "deform" its 2 other axis because it's not all spatially homogenous..
In basic physics (mechanics) that describes local mass action of coupled rotating systems all solution spaces are tori! The universe only contains rotating coupled masses...Further it blows up due to photon emission=pressure. Also "c" is no speed limit. Hence we first need a model that can describe real physics...
The key question is: Are some forces transmitted instantaneously? EM forces not, as experiments show, but gravity still is an open question! And "c" is derived from EM actions not from gravity where it gets misused due to a basic Einstein error...
Anyway, an old idea is it especially bad ? Anyway, what i try to highlight is that something ( 3D ?) what go "too fast" ( relativistic) in one privilegied direction will "deform" its 2 other axis because it's not all spatially homogenous.. it could be the main principle what "shape" the universe, in my mind..Now as you said, yes, a 3D space isn't especially a limit and a donuts shape to explain how a nucleus is "moving" internally , satisfy me well.
Aren't you interested in how Euclidean space is formed at the local level? The equivalence of the Lie algebra so(3,1) and sl(2,C) is well known, but it is little known that sl(2,C) can be represented by the algebra of vector fields tangent to tori lying on the 3-sphere, and therefore the current lines of the generators of the algebra sl(2,C) can be compared to the coordinates of the Minkowski space. In this case, the dynamics of vector fields on the 3-sphere forms not only our Euclidean space, but also the Minkowski space.
In this case, the dynamics of vector fields on the 3-sphere forms not only our Euclidean space, but also the Minkowski space.
That hence is flat (as all tangents by definition are flat) and cannot explain non linear effects in mass fusion!
That hence is flat (as all tangents by definition are flat) and cannot explain non linear effects in mass fusion!
Naturally, these spaces are flat. This is a separate conversation with bumps - there flows should be locally minimal, and not globally as for a vacuum.
the curvature notion should have a great impact too. Whether positive or negative should influence these very abstract notions of polarity generally, indeed.
That hence is flat (as all tangents by definition are flat) and cannot explain non linear effects in mass fusion!
there flows should be locally minimal, and not globally as for a vacuum.
No: This locally is standard model nonsense. The whole flux must be globally minimal, else its instable. That's why SM people have no clue of physics at all and do not understand that you need minimal Lagrangian surfaces/manifolds for physics. Gauging is engineering physics only!
The local minimality of flows is provided by differential equations, and the global minimality is established by integral variational equations. Maxwell's equations provide a local minimality of the electromagnetic vector potential flow in the Minkowski space. In turn, the global minimality is found using the integral equation for the action.
