Quote from Wyttenbach

Standard model people are clueless and most are totally untalented

Reply below from Freya to my query about the latest Charm " results" from the CERN smashers..

"TEV collision ..is a big stretch from the uncollided proton at 0 MEV..

perhap charms are an artefact of collision"

#CMSPaper 1233: This paper measures how many charm quarks exist in the proton (from quantum fluctuations). It does that by measuring the production of charm quark jets and W bosons. To precisely measure charm quark jets, you need a LOT of #machinelearning
http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.02285

Freya Blekman @[email protected]

"Speculation is fine. But do your research, “perhaps” that is understood already"

en.wikipedia.org DGLAP evolution equations - Wikipedia"

Quote from RobertBryant

This paper measures how many charm quarks exist in the proton (from quantum fluctuations).

This is typical children science:: How many crumbs are in a bread? If you go from TEV to Mev then there is a factor of 1000'000 what results in a reduction of precision of 6 digits. Same with the bred. There are crumbs from breaking or from cutting and worst from aging...

Conclusion:: To many idiots do CERN like particle physics.

Quote from gio06

.

In your example you are averaging two uncorrelated parameters.

And he's averaging parameters with different units. Kind of like averaging velocity and acceleration.

another introduction to Zitterbewegung theories:

The Zitterbewegung or “Trembling-Along-The-Way” Electron

Quote from gio06

another introduction to Zitterbewegung

which leads on to the holographic universe... with some handwaving about the order of magnitude..

". This order of magnitude is the same as the total baryonic mass of the universe, which is why we consider the proton as the holographic unit of the universe."

David Hestenes question

Is the electron really a vacuum singularity with lightlike zitter?

Deconstructing the electron clock

Once more some old errors get repeated again:: Planck: energy is quantized in frequency!

Wrong: Photon energy is just proportional to f & h' nothing else no quanta structure.

Einstein: mass is energy!...

Wrong: Mass is equivalent to energy not equal. You never can completely convert mass to free energy!

Yes:: We all would like to see a definition of the vacuum blubber that just deforms to delivers particles.....

Quote from Wyttenbach

Once more some old errors get repeated again:: Planck: energy is quantized in frequency!

Planck equation E=hf definitely does not say that energy is quantized!

What is quantized is information. At microscopic scale energy is related to information density in space-time.

"It is possible to define a link between fundamental concepts of information, space, time, frequency and energy. A “quantum of information” carried by a single photon will have a “necessary reading time” and a “spatial dimension” inversely proportional to its energy. A simple example is given by radio antennas (dipoles), whose length is proportional to the received (or transmitted) “radio photons” wavelength and inversely proportional to their frequency and to the number of bits that can be received in a unit of time. In this perspective, the concept of energy is closely linked to the “density” of information in space and in time."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336319923_Electron_Structure_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_and_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

Bekenstein bound

k = ћ = c =1

S <= λE

Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, i think that uniserve is more and more anisotropic than the mathematician you are expects.

Let's consider these big cosmic super clusters ...

Quote from gio06

Planck equation E=hf definitely does not say that energy is quantized!

What is quantized is information. At microscopic scale energy is related to information density in space-time.

"It is possible to define a link between fundamental concepts of information, space, time, frequency and energy. A “quantum of information” carried by a single photon will have a “necessary reading time” and a “spatial dimension” inversely proportional to its energy. A simple example is given by radio antennas (dipoles), whose length is proportional to the received (or transmitted) “radio photons” wavelength and inversely proportional to their frequency and to the number of bits that can be received in a unit of time. In this perspective, the concept of energy is closely linked to the “density” of information in space and in time."

https://www.researchgate.net/p…_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

Bekenstein bound

k = ћ = c =1

S <= λE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Display More

Quote from gio06

"It is possible to define a link between fundamental concepts of information, space, time, frequency and energy.

This is the classic assumption by Shannon. Unluckily he did not know about quantum computers and the disprove of the Heisenberg uncertainty assumption by using so called weak measurements.

Today we can say that information is not related to energy! Why should it be? Because if we use real EM signals its all a matter of resonance and we are still way above the possible limits. Optical transmission is going now to peta bits still a long way below h'/2...

So we have two class of information. Transmitted signals an local entangled quantum states that all have the same energy!

Quote from Wyttenbach

Optical transmission is going now to peta bits still a long way below h'/2...

interesting if confirmed. Any sources?

Quote from gio06

interesting if confirmed. Any sources?

The latest info I had from Siemens some years ago was > 100Gb. But with chirped laser technology you potentially can squeeze the signal by many magnitudes. Decoding is an other story as classic GaAs chip technology has limits. So fully optical processing would be needed.

The problem is that some physicists started to talk nonsense about information (black hole horizon etc..). This, information, is strictly an engineering term and has no use for basic physics.

Bohr Postulates Derived from the Toroidal Electron Model

"The quantization of the electron orbits in the Bohr atom is revisited. The toroidal electron model, in which electron charge is described by Schwinger electromagnetic wave orbiting the electron mass, offers a natural explanation for the orbit quantization. As a consequence, the four Bohr postulates can be directly derived from the toroidal electron structure. A physical meaning for the Rydberg constant is also proposed."

Keywords: Toroidal Electron Model; Schwinger Electromagnetic Wave; Bohr Postulates

Quote from gio06

The toroidal electron model, in which electron charge is described by Schwinger electromagnetic wave orbiting the electron mass, offers a natural explanation for the orbit quantization

This is infantile word salad. But from text :: This provided to understand a free electron at rest as the electron charge moving at the speed of light orbiting the electron mass at rest

tells everything as also these folks never did attend a logic class. Charge can never be a wave nor can it be described by a wave function what was the historic error of QM version 1. Today's QM talks of Lagrangian density - a new word salad - with no physical meaning.

Just a waste of time.

"Charge can never be a wave"

Just another cognitive bias...

Please explain your point if you have one. Nobody is interested in statements that have no solid basis.

Proca equation has a very clear and simple interpretation: The electron is a current ring generated by a charge moving at speed of light and is associated to a magnetic flux h/e. Is this motion that is at the very origin of its mass:

m = ħω/c² = eA/c

Laboratory results are less ungrateful as for Egely currently.

Either it works either it doesn't work.

On theory side your ping pong exchanges ( even if relevant) with Wyttenbach can continue for the eternity unfortunately ....

I ask myself if they stay finally at Tarasenko's level too ?

Quote from gio06

"Charge can never be a wave"

Just another cognitive bias...

Please explain your point if you have one. Nobody is interested in statements that have no solid basis.

Proca equation has a very clear and simple interpretation: The electron is a current ring generated by a charge moving at speed of light and is associated to a magnetic flux h/e. Is this motion that is at the very origin of its mass:

m = ħω/c² = eA/c

Прогнозист несчастный....

Quote from gio06

"Charge can never be a wave"

1) In QM charge is modeled as (2 orthogonal) spherical harmonics. This is perfect math but 100% un-physical as charge/current never can cross.

2) Of course you always can find an equivalence relation between a ring current and a magnetic moment. This does not mean that this is the physical reality as e.g. the electron charge cannot sit on a ring and at the same time be of spherical symmetry...

You really should dig into logic before postulating something as fact.

Quote from gio06

Proca equation has a very clear and simple interpretation:

the Proca equation involves a few arbitrary assumptions

about the nature of electromagnetic fields

as does the four potential..

Alexandru Proca - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quote from gio06

David Hestenes question

“What holds the ring together?”

Remarkably, the obvious answer “Gravity!”

has strong independent support from General Relativity.

The main fact is that the celebrated Kerr-Newman solution of Einstein’s equation involves a charged ring singularity with spin and g-factor just like our zitter model of the electron [44].

That fact has often been dismissed as a coincidence, but has been given

new currency by arguments for its relevance in elementary particle theory [45].

Without going into details, we note here that our treatment of electron charge density

(173) has been generalized to Kerr-Newman by Blinder himself [46].

That promises to be a significant step in integrating gravitation with electrodynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11085.pdf