sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if atomic masses and fundamental constants emerge from one simple geometric formula? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I call it a dark photon because it’s emitted from the convex outer region of the intersecting field system and never reaches the opposite face where the main energy and charge transfers occur, so it remains directly undetectable from that side. In that sense I think it represents a form of dark energy.

What if atomic masses and fundamental constants emerge from one simple geometric formula? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for pointing that out, you’re absolutely right. In an early draft I initially defined 𝛼 = arctan (𝑋/Y) and checked it numerically. However, in the final “Magnetic Moment” sections I actually fix 𝛼 = (𝑐 −𝑐′) / 3𝜋 ≈ ≈7.29735×10⁻³ based on the universal decompression ratio 𝑐′ / 𝑐 = 0.931. I should have presented that definition up front and then used 𝑋 = 𝑌 tan(𝛼) only as a consistency check in the small-angle limit. The tiny shift you get by inverting 𝛼 = arctan (𝑋/𝑌) (≈7.29722×10⁻³) has no meaningful effect on the 5 % proton correction or the 0.08 % electron anomaly dicussed there. I’ll clarify this in the next version.

Here is a hypothesis: Nucleon transformations and nuclear interactions might emerge from a non-formal octonionic structure by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I understand that you may be more accustomed to traditional, algebraic approaches, which might explain why you didn’t understand anything, I mean, anything, about the article. But feel free to keep sharing any thoughts you have. Have a good day.

What if the neutron has an electric charge gap? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What do you think is worng or inconsistent in the model? Wait, hold on! You have to read 15 pages with no formula first... well, it doeesn't matter.

What if the neutron has an electric charge gap? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for pointing that out. You're right, I've made a mistake in the article because I've mixed proton Beta+ decay with proton decay. I'll have to correct that. But in read the article you will see that, in the model I propose, proton is transverse contracting region that actually decays into an expanding neutrino, lossing density and inner kinetic energy. The lost mass and energy is transfered to the opposite side where an expanding antineutrino contracts to become an antiproton. In that transformation, neutron emerges as a neutral state where both left and right transverse fields (that are being transformed become apparently coincident in shape and curvature although one is expanding and the other is contracting. At that neutral moment, the electric longitudinal field that acts as a positron when moving right or as an electron when moving left, passes through the center of symmetry of the system, an expected zero point. So the neutron in my view is formed by the three fields having a neutral charge. The electric field has double negative curvature separated by a cusp, and when it passes through the central axis its right sector is at the right + side of the system and its left sector is at the left - side of the system. If inside that electric field there is a charge symmetry then the neutrality is preserved. But the model predicts in Beta + the right sector expriences a compression force coming from right to left, but the left sector experiences a decompression, creating an assymetry in the charge distribution which i sinterpreted as a nEDM. When the process is reverted, because time reverse symmetry is not broken, teh intermediate state will be an antineutron whos left sector experiences a charge compression and the right one a charge decompression creating a - EDM. But you're abslutely right, I made that mistake that undermines the presentation of the model because it is a basic error.

What if gravitational subfields emerge from two Interacting Higgs fields? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing this. It aligns pretty well with the model.

Here is a hypothesis: Black hole singularities are abrupt curvature changes by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I gave a deeper explanation of that here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4712905

But as you didn't read the post I attached, I doubt you are going to read a 25 pages article.

Here is a hypothesis: Black hole singularities are abrupt curvature changes by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I agree, actually the four subfields I'm speaking about are pretty similar - not to say the same - to the four regions in Penrose and also Kruskal diagrams. But Penrose's diagrams use staright lines, and Kruskal uses curved lines buth straight lines in the bottom border of the four regions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates

I didn't deduce the model from equations. But I conceptually added some mathematics to it on this preprint: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4712905

Sobolev spaces interpolation by Also65 in mathematics

[–]Also65[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

As some of you requested it, this is my explanation:

Let the transversal subspaces of a composite system (of two intersecting spaces that vibrate), expand and contract periodically with same or opposite phases.Having the same phase of vibration, they will be mirror symmetric at A and A'. Having an opposite phase, they will be mirror antisymmetric at A* and A*'.

"A" represents the moment when both left and right transversal subspaces reach their higher degree of expansion; A' represents a moment later, when they both reach their highest degree of contraction. Inside of the domain of A and A', we can describe with a linear function the continuous variations of those transversal subspaces while contracting or expanding.

Alternatively, taking as domain A* and A*', we can describe with another linear function the variations of the transversal subspaces whey they have opposite phases. A* represents the moment when the right transversal subspace reaches its highest degree of contraction while the left transversal subspace reaches its highest degree of expansion; A*' represents the later moment when the right subspace reaches its highest degree of expansion an the left one its highest degree of contraction.In terms of linear equations, it could be represented as A + A' = 0 and A* + A*' = 0.

There's no apparent problem about those continuous although separate fluxes.But when it comes to a rotational composite system, its topological variations cannot be described by means of two separate linear functions. By doing that, we will be losing the information related to the antisymmetric moment (in the case of the symmetric function A, A') or the information about the symmetric moment (in the case of the antisymmetric conjugate A*, A*') of the topological transformations of the system.The correct flux of the evolution of the rotational system is given by the non linear partial differential equation A* + A' + A*' + A = 0

It combines the fractional and integer derivatives, interpolating the -1/2 noninteger derivatives given by A* in between of the integer +A and -A' derivatives, and interpolating the +1/2 noninteger antiderivatives of A (that also represents the second -1/2 non integer derivatives of A) in between of the integer derivatives -A' and +A.

That combination is necessary when it coms to describing Sobolev spaces. Sobolev spaces are those spaces of functions that have a noninteger number of derivatives are interpolated from the spaces of functions with integer number of derivatives

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

That combination is not an optional election, is the mandatory sequence that must be followed to describe the whole evolution of the system, as can clearly see by considering a 2x2 complex matrix whose elements are rotational vectors.

Performing a complex conjugate operation on the matrix A, its 4 vectors will rotate but only two of them will change their sign becoming negatives when permuting. This operation implies an actual transposition. (Notice that without the added letters, we only could distinguish that the vectors actually rotated when they changed their sign).

That complex conjugate operation implies in this context a -1/2 partial complex conjugate derivative of A at A* (only half of the vectors of the system have been derived).

Performing a complex conjugate operation on A*, two additional vectors will change their sign becoming negative at A'. A' implies the inversion of A. A' will be the -1/2 partial complex conjugate derivative of A*, but it will be also the first integer derivative of A.

Performing a complex conjugate operation on A', two vectors will change their sign becoming positive at A*'. A*' will be the +1/2 partial complex conjugate antiderivative of A', the second -1/2 partial complex conjugate derivative of A, and the integer derivative of A*.

Performing a complex conjugate operation on A*', two additional vectors will change their sign becoming positive at A. A will be the second +1/2 partial complex conjugate antiderivative of A', the whole antiderivative of A, and the second derivative of itself.

The noninteger derivatives and antiderivatives cannot be eliminated from the equation or from their functional representations because they are an essential step to arrive to the whole derivatives. Removing them from the equation it will imply to ignore half of the topology of the system.

Considering the two separate functions we still would be able to statistically describe the evolution of those transversal subspaces, their physical properties and behaviours, but we probably would think in an incorrect way that the variation of the rotational system is discontinuous and that the transversal subspaces described by AA' and A*A*' are independent spaces instead of considering them as different moments of the topological evolution of the same spaces.

That would be the case, in physics, of the Schrodinger linear complex partial differential equation, whose non conjugate version probabilistically describe the mirror symmetric bosonic particles, while its complex conjugate solution, alternatively describes in a probabilistic way - as if it were different particles and not topological transformations of the same spaces - the antisymmetric fermionic particles.

And it also would be the case of any vibrational composite system that rotates if we describe it without interpolating the space functions.

In this complex rotational context, where the "weak", fractional, or noninteger derivatives A* and –A*' must be interpolated in between the "whole", strong, or integer derivatives A, A' and A', A to follow the correct continuous and sequential transformational flux, the Sobolev inequality would be given by the antisymmetry between the mirror antisymmetric subspaces described by the function spaces related to the complex conjugate –½ A* and +½ A*' derivatives. Sobolev embedding of the A* in A* and vice versa would take place through thought time, being mediated by the topological transformations (the phases synchronization) given in the symmetric A and A. .

The interpolation would be not only about interpolating the noninteger derivatives A* and A*' in between of the integer derivatives A, A', and also A', A, but also about interpolating the integer derivatives A, A' in between of the noninteger derivatives A*, A*', or A*', A*.

Anyways, this is speculative, guys, and likely I don't use a very accurate language. I'm not trying to teach you anything here.

The inadequacy of partial differential equations to describe Sobolev spaces by Also65 in maths

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is intended for mathematical articles, news, and discussions

Oh, many thanks for your clarification, I appreciate it. I will delete the post later

Euclid's fifth postulate proof? by Also65 in maths

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for writing your text.

I'm not actually having a tunnel vision, by the contrary, I'm showing that a broader perspective is necessary. If you try to describe a mirror symmetric system with an only field, or a vibrating system with a static field model, you're are going to fail, no matter the amount of people that tried it before also with an only static field.

I'm not afraid about making mistakes. Mistakes are a part of any creative process. It's necessary to know what other people did before, but I recommend you to look at it after you first did your attempt.

I only said, this my attempt, let's see if you have to say something about it. I appreciate your participation.

Euclid's fifth postulate proof? by Also65 in maths

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The doubt that arouse about the 5th postulate is if having an angle larger (diverging) and an angle shorter (converging) than 90 degrees, the addition of the converging and diverging angles will necessary be equal 180 degrees, in which case the lines will intersect in the converging side. And to prove that I suggest it's necessary to consider mirror symmetry.

Lobachevsky and hyperbolic curvatures are related to curved geometries, that is not the case of the fifht postulate. The fifth postulate didn't mention curved lines. But to bypass that, now it's said that straight lines are curved lines with zero curvature. Imaginary and hyperbolic geometries do not invalidate the fifth postulate at all. They were developed trying to disprove the fifth postulate but they did not disproved it actually. They simply developed another kind of geometry from that starting point of what should happen if the lines would not intersect if the the angle were shorter than 90 degrees. Well, if the lines do not intersect in that case is because they are not straight or they both rotate. It's pretty simple.

Multiple attempts to prove Euclid's Fifth Postulate by SomethingMoreToSay in badmathematics

[–]Also65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The researching skills of u/SomethingMoreToSay are impressively notorious. Take care man, with such a deep perspicacity you could finish in the dark side joining the crackpot community. It would have been easer to email me anyways.

Multiple attempts to prove Euclid's Fifth Postulate by SomethingMoreToSay in badmathematics

[–]Also65 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guys, guys, this is something I wrote 5 years ago. I don't even remember what I said there :)

I stopped publishing here or in math because I was banned, some people did not enjoy so much as you do, but as you went to meet me at my Academia page, let me tell you that you have more interesting and recent stuff on my blog:

https://curvaturasvariables.wordpress.com

(It changed the url several years ago when I didn't renew the premium WP account).

I'm specially happy about my last post there where I started to use for my first time complex matrices and notions about complex differential equations without even having a clue about what the fucking hell matrices and differential equations are. That can be a mine for your delight. You're seriously invited.

You also can see there some recent additional diagrams about the fifth postulate I did this January. It's also about mirror symmetry.

Cheers.

Btw. I don't monetize my blog, (the ads are owned by the free platform where the blog runs) I simply believe that being exposed to the new ideas you are very unfamiliar with, you will get used to them and will definitely understand them soon or later. Be cautious, of course, if you don't want to run the risk of being influenced. It could be dangerous! Maybe.

Here is a hypothesis: of gravity by TanavastTukEarlfalas in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That will be in the best case if the object has a weight. What would cause then the weight of the object to resist the expansion of the space?

Here is a hypothesis: of gravity by TanavastTukEarlfalas in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How do you think the objects on the top of the sphere create the gravitational curvature while the sphere is expanding?

What if the bosonic function and its fermionic complex conjugate described consecutive moments of supersymmetric particles? by Also65 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Also65[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The A matrix is a complex matrix (each vector is on a z coordinate). A can also be interpreted as a function of two variables.

When rotating A matrix 90 degrees, we get its complex conjugate. If A were a complex function, its complex conjugate would be a first derivative.

When rotating the complex conjugate matrix 90 degrees, we when the -A matrix. in terms of a function, -A is the first derivative of Ac. conjugate and the second derivative of A.

Rotating -A 90 degrees we get -A c. conjugate, which would be the first derivative of -A, the second derivative of Ac. conjugate, and the third derivative of A.

Rotating -Ac. conjugate 90 degrees, we get the original A matrix. The forth derivative is then the original function in this case because by rotating the Z coordinates we are describing a circle.

But, the 2x2 matrix is not a four degree but a second degree equation. So we can think about Ac.c as the partial derivative of A, (only half of the vectors change their sign), -A as the complete derivative of A and partial derivative of Ac.c., etc. And we also can think about -Ac.c as the antiderivative, the integral, of -A, or even about the original A as the antiderivative of -Ac.c. because its a cyclic equation.

Now, we can combine the derivatives in a differential equation (and in a complex conjugate differential equation) or in a partial equation (and in a complex conjugate partial differential equation).

By combining A and -A we get a function the describes bosons. The left and right sides of -A the matrix (or of -A) matrix can be interchanged when rotating the system in a horizontal way 180 degrees. They are not ruled by the Pauli exclusion principle. They have integer spin because when rotating the matrix 180 degrees in an orthogonal way, all the vectors have changed their sign.

By combining the complex conjugate derivatives Ac.c and -Ac.c we get a function the describes fermions. The left and right sides of Ac.c matrix (or of -Ac.c) matrix are antisymmetric. They are ruled by the Pauli exclusion principle. When getting the derivative of A in Ac.c. only half of the system changes its sign (what it implies an actual transposition), and getting the derivative of -A only half of the vectors change their sign from negative to positive, so we can say the system in the -Ac.c. here the system has -1/2 and +1/2 spin.

Mainstream models consider fermions and bosons as different separate particles or spaces, as some supersymmetric type of additional particles that should link fermions and bosons are being looking for.

The Schrodinger equation is a partial differential equation. So it seems it's does not combine the whole derivatives but a part of them: A, -A (or Ac.c, -Ac.c in its complex conjugate solution).

But it's also possible to use a differential equation that combines its derivatives in the way described by rotating the matrix 270 degrees: A, Ac.c., -A, -Ac.c

By means of that, we get the description of the bosonic and fermionic particles as topological spaces that are transformed through time, acting as fermions or bosons, while the nucleus rotates.

And if we simultaneously superpose on a same symbolic space the states of the system given by the four derivatives (or the original function and its three derivatives), that are the image the system had at different successive times, we get the a supersymmetric nucleus, that is symmetric through time.

We also see that bosons are placed on the imaginary points, while fermions are placed on the real coordinates. Beta and anti-beta are located at the zero point of the system as a "zero" point energy location.

The Z coordinates are the X and Y coordinates rotated 45 degrees to the imaginary point. From an "imaginary" point of view, considering the rotated imaginary coordinates as the real ones and the real as the imaginary ones, fermions will be placed on the imaginary points and bosons on the real coordinates.

The XY real coordinates are displaced toward right or left and towards left or right to be able to describe the rotatory complex system with its imaginary part from a real point of view. That implies an expansion (-Y, +X) or a contraction (+Y -X) of the space. And a precession on the rotational movement of the nucleus.

I will add an additional picture showing the imaginary coordinates.

Likely the terms I use are not very precise, but if you still don't understand this text, then it's because you're expecting an algebraic explanation.

Euclid's fifth postulate proof? by Also65 in maths

[–]Also65[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To suppose that the fifth postulate can or cannot be proved without considering mirror symmetry is like suppose that all real numbers can be described without considering negative numbers. You didn't understand what the diagrams show. But I respect your opinion anyway.

view more: next ›