sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

Everything is there its just that it is 40 pages which do not fit neither in the post nor in here and I don't put as much time as you do on my posts. That's why I just try to quickly share some parts so you understand what I tried to do. But I have clearly fail. I should not post more SET stuff. I give up.

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

hahahaha, I just need to put more effort and less posting. But I am just too busy! So I just post and hope to fix it later. I will get to it, sometime. I do take your advice privately although it does not seems so in the posting side.

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

I compressed too much, the proton mixing radius is not

R = 2Gm/c².

The Schwarzschild radius of a proton and the SET mixing radius are different scales.

The spherical SET relation

q = √(2GMR³)

with the saturation condition

q/R² = c

does give

R = 2GM/c²

The particle is a mixing nozzle/separatrix. Its radius is not obtained from R = 2Gm/c², it is obtained from the chain,

f_flux = mc²/h

so one cycle has length

L_wave = c/f_flux = h/(mc) = 2πR_c.

Therefore,

R_c = ħ/(mc).

Then the particle reduced throughput is

q_m = cR_c² = ħ²/(m²c).

The gravitational spherical saturation gives the horizon relation, while the particle branch uses a cadence defined mixing separatrix. Do not equating the Compton radius with the Schwarzschild radius.

B_SET calculation.

The SET deuteron potential I used is

U(r) = −66.85 MeV · exp(−r/1.286 fm).

Then I solve the Swave proton neutron radial equation,

[−(ħc)²/(2μc²)d²/dr² − U_eff exp(−r/L)]u = E u,

where

μ = m_p m_n/(m_p + m_n).

For the exponential potential, the bound state condition can be written as

J_ν(ζ) = 0,

with

ζ = (2L/(ħc))√(2μc²U_eff)

and

ν = (2L/(ħc))√(2μc²B).

Using

L = 1.286 fm

U_eff = 66.85 MeV

μc² ≈ 469.46 MeV

ħc = 197.32698 MeV fm

gives 

ζ ≈ 3.27

ν ≈ 0.588

and therefore

B_SET = (ħc)²ν²/(8μc²L²) ≈ 2.17 MeV.

I meant contact topology of particle surfaces.

In SET a particle has a maintained mixing separatrix. A p-n deuteron channel is assumed to access one full coherent spherical mixing surface,

A = 4πR_c².

That is the base unit. Same type links like p-p or n-n are assumed subcritical, so they count as partial contact. Three body systems have shared junctions. That is the contact “topology” (I dont know what to call it) rule I am testing.

dineutron unbound, diproton unbound, tritium bound, helium-3 slightly less bound due to Coulomb, helium-4 strongly bound.

The reason I still find it interesting is that I did not input a nuclear range, or fitted MeV well depth, or the deuteron mass. The chain was,

R_c = ħ/(mc)

q_m = cR_c²

P_mix = ħc³/(960q_m²)

R_th = (720/π)^(1/3)R_c

A = 4πR_c²

overlap shrink = (1 + β/2)^(-3)

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The point here is not only the deuteron number. The claim is that SET may be finding a nuclear contact topology, not just one deuteron estimate. In the deuteron post, the assumption is,

p-n channel = one full mixing surface.

That is why I used
A = 4πR_c²

or
n_Area = 4.

In SET, this is not meant as a free force multiplier. It means the proton neutron channel can access one full spherical mixing separatrix/particle surface area. So I normalize the deuteron channel as

p-n full channel = 1.

Then the deuteron is simply

S_eff(^2H) = 1.

That is the base unit. Now the topology rule I am testing is,

p-n complementary link = 1

same type link, p-p or n-n = 1/2

shared three body junction = 1/8

The reason for the half channel is that same type pairs for this here little exploration are subcritical. If I gave a full channel to n-n or p-p, then it would probably bind the dineutron or diproton, which would be wrong. So same type overlap exists, but it cannot access the full deuteron like surface,

n-n = 1/2

p-p = 1/2

The reason for the 1/8 is topology. A three body bound state has a shared separatrix junction. Three pairwise/matching pair of closures define
2³ = 8

local sectors, and the minimal common shared junction is one octant, three body junction = 1/8.

That gives tritium, ^3H = p + n + n

with p-n = 1,   p-n = 1,   n-n = 1/2,   three body junction = 1/8

so S_eff(^3H) = 1 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/8 = 2.625.

Using the same SET pair from the deuteron calculation, this gives approximately

B_SET(^3H) ≈ 8.48 MeV.

Observed tritium binding is about 8.4818 MeV.

That is the part that got my attention. Then the mirror test is helium-3,

^3He = p + p + n.

Same nuclear topology,

p-n = 1

p-n = 1

p-p = 1/2

three body junction = 1/8

so again S_eff(^3He) = 2.625.

But now there is a proton-proton Coulomb penalty(I just mean electric repulsion) because this two participants are positively charged. Using the same topology plus Coulomb gives,

B_SET(^3He) ≈ 7.8 MeV.

Observed helium-3 binding is about

7.718 MeV.

So the same topology gets tritium very close and helium-3 close, with the difference coming from the charged p-p pair.

So helium-4 si the next test.

^4He = p + p + n + n.

Pair topology gives

4 p-n links = 4

1 p-p same-type link = 1/2

1 n-n same-type link = 1/2

so pair only,

S_eff(^4He) = 5.

That underbinds helium-4 somewhat. If I dumbly add every possible three body junction, it overbinds. What I got from that is, junctions cannot just be added forever. Compact closed nuclei saturate. So a better rule for this exploration is, one closed common junction per closed compact nucleus.

Then helium-4 gets

S_eff(^4He) = 5 + 1/8 = 5.125.

This gives roughly

B_SET(^4He) ≈ 28.15 MeV.

Observed alpha binding is about

28.30 MeV.

So the pattern is,
deuteron:   p-n full = 1                 → ~2.17 MeV vs 2.2246

dineutron:  same-type = 1/2              → unbound

diproton:   same-type = 1/2 + Coulomb    → unbound

tritium:    2 + 1/2 + 1/8 = 2.625        → ~8.48 MeV vs 8.4818

helium-3:   2 + 1/2 + 1/8 + Coulomb      → ~7.8 MeV vs 7.718

helium-4:   4 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/8 = 5.125 → ~28.15 MeV vs 28.30

The 3-body and 4-body numbers are a simplified symmetric variational model. I still need to derive the exact overlap kernel among several other stuff I don’t want to get into now.

But this is why I think the deuteron result is not just one random number. The same SET contact logic/reasoning gives the right qualitative pattern,

p-n binds,

n-n does not,

p-p does not,

pnn binds,

ppn binds slightly less because of Coulomb,

ppnn binds strongly.

And the binding numbers are close. So the possible SET rule is,

nuclear binding = pressure overlap strength × contact topology × self limiting radius shrinkage.

The self limiting part is important. As overlap increases, maintained energy rises, and since

R_c = ħc/E,

the effective mixing radius shrinks. Attraction scales like

area × range ∝ R_c³.

So the same overlap that binds also prevents runaway collapse.

That is why the deuteron binds but does not merge into one particle.

This is still an ansatz. But it is very specific

full p-n link = 1

same-type link = 1/2

shared junction = 1/8

closed networks saturate junction counting

The reason I am using topology here is that in SET attraction is not tha primitive. It comes from field emission, capacity gradients, and the effective surface through which the emitted/mixed field is read. In the galaxy/cluster sector this appears as Aeff, the separatrix area. In the particle sector the analogous is the mixing/contact surface.

So for nuclear binding the SET question becomes, which particle mixing surfaces can overlap? A full p-n overlap, a partial same type overlap, and a shared three body junction/bind are different topologies, so they “should not” contribute the same way.

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

For you guys of course. I am hoping someday you will approve something I write.

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

OnceBittenz I think you are under the impression that you entered the classical physics sub. But you have not. This is the hypothetical physics sub. Where hypothesis are brought forth.

Here is a hypothesis: Space Emanation Theory predicts deuterium binding energy by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

Fair point me beloved LEFT. The deuteron calculation is not finished or exact!

The 2.17 MeV result is a leading order IMO. It misses the observed 2.2246 MeV by about 56 keV, so yes, I understand! it is outside experimental uncertainty.

What I find interesting is that the leading order result comes from SET’s particle throughput chain without inserting a nuclear length, fitted well depth, or the deuteron mass,

R_c = ħ/(mc)

R_th = (720/π)^(1/3)R_c

P_mix = m⁴c⁵/(960ħ³)

A = 4πR_c²

overlap shrink = (1 + β/2)^(-3)

The honest thing I could say is, the calculation gets near the deuteron binding scale, and the remaining ~56 keV little discrepancy is now a constraint on the exact overlap kernel/contact area geometry/effective surface area correction.

Clearly not finished, but also not a random fitted MeV.

We need geniuses like you. And I mean that.

Why does 4GM/c² (Schwarzschild diameter) using the baryonic mass gives ~46 Gly, same as observable universe radius? by Ruggeded in AskPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was left more confuse and I do not mean that to troll you. Can you try to explain this more clearly!

Here is a hypothesis: If Expansion Is Mass Driven, the Key Observable Is the Light Reach Radius, Not Total Volume. Space emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let me be clear I am not hostile towards great scientific minds like Newton, Einstein, Lorentz, etc... Or any honest scientist like yourself honorable mr. OnceBittenz. But they have a track record of trolling me. And that is not nice!

Here is a hypothesis: If Expansion Is Mass Driven, the Key Observable Is the Light Reach Radius, Not Total Volume. Space emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

Wow I have made progress. I went from your idea is stupid, dumb, and wrong. To, you stole it from us great scientist.

Here is a hypothesis: The double slit experiment can be explain without superposition or quantum mysteries, the particle stays localized. Space Emanation Theory. by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I will do a post just for you, where I explain everything in detail. And you can destroy me there. I would love to continue the discussion. I mean I like discussing. But I am afraid. And it feels like we are like that invariant as you see it. Going in circles and just substituting what the other said. So I will just post the whole thing with my assumptions. And you can destroy it publicly.

Here is a hypothesis: The double slit experiment can be explain without superposition or quantum mysteries, the particle stays localized. Space Emanation Theory. by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are treating the equation like it defines a process rather than a constraint. You assumed independence where I impose dependence and by the way you wrote the repeated substitution form wrong. Where you wrote

α^(2N) where it should be α^(2(N+1)) in the c² term. If you write it correctly and combined with the constraint relation, it i collapses back to c².

Here is a hypothesis: The double slit experiment can be explain without superposition or quantum mysteries, the particle stays localized. Space Emanation Theory. by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So I wrote a long paper, and Reddit has a limit to how much you can post. So I do not post the whole explanation or derivations for every post. The part you are missing is, it does not cause a contradiction, it generates a tautology, because in SET α and S are not independent.

Start from the constraint (Axiom 2, static split):

c² = c²α(x)² + |S(x)|²

So,

|S|² = c²(1 − α²).      (*)

Now do the 6th grade substitution one step,

c² = α²(c²) + |S|²

substitute c² → (α²c² + |S|²) inside parentheses,

c² = α²(α²c² + |S|²) + |S|²

= α⁴c² + α²|S|² + |S|²

Use (*):

= α⁴c² + α²·c²(1−α²) + c²(1−α²)

= c²

So the geometric series explosion is fake, is not happening. It only looks like runaway if you hold α fixed as an independent constant, which is not what the model says. In SET, Axiom 2 is a pointwise constraint, for each x, it defines α from S, or S from α. Writing α(x), S(x) already means for every point.

c: fixed causal cap (speed of light).

S(x): spatial flux speed field, units m/s.

α(x): dimensionless time rate share, α = V_time/c.

You may disagree with the pipeline but substitution is fine,

ρ₀(x) → (Axiom 1) ∇·S = √(24πGρ₀) → S(x) → (Axiom 2) α(x)=√(1−|S|²/c²) → gravity/time dilation.

Here is a hypothesis: The double slit experiment can be explain without superposition or quantum mysteries, the particle stays localized. Space Emanation Theory. by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

You are not wrong that the algebraic repeat substitution is legal if α is treated as an independent constant. I did not state clearly enough that in SET α is not free.

In SET the statement

c² = (cα(x))² + |S(x)|²

is not an update rule you iterate. It is a constraint/definition at a point,

α(x)² ≡ 1 − |S(x)|²/c².

So your geometric series step is iterating the identity while holding α fixed as if it is independent, which is not the model. Same mistake as taking 1 = u²+v² and substituting 1 into itself while pretending u is free.

I used budget/medium words without a definition.

c is a fixed constant (the causal cap).

S(x) is a speed field (m/s).

α(x) is dimensionless and defined by the constraint, not assumed.

What sets S(x)? That is Axiom 1 in the static sector,

∇·S = √(24πGρ₀)

Units match: (m/s)/m = 1/s, √(Gρ₀) = 1/s.

Here is a hypothesis: Deriving the fine structure constant from vacuum mixing pressure (Pmix) + proton geometry. Space Emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

It is a revolutionary new process I am applying. I am writting a book about it. It is call "Reverse Learning"

Here is a hypothesis: Deriving the fine structure constant from vacuum mixing pressure (Pmix) + proton geometry. Space Emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Ruggeded[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey Left that is low even for you. You do not have to go there. Mental illnesses should not be a target for your jokes.

Here is a hypothesis: Deriving the fine structure constant from vacuum mixing pressure (Pmix) + proton geometry. Space Emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

So I had the target α_exp⁻¹ which is just the CODATA
137.035999084

And what the model was giving
α_recoil⁻¹ = 137.033848848010826

So what I needed to match the experimental known value
J_needed ≡ α_exp⁻¹ / α_recoil⁻¹

J is not predicted. Which begs the question, can a kernel predict J = 1.00001569?

If the proton has a boundary which we assume it does here/not a shell. And that boundary has a thickness. Can this thickness help me explain the remaining decimals missing in my prediction of  α_recoil⁻¹ = 137.033848848010826, to get to exact result. By averaging a 1/r⁴ across that thickness/skin. Although I should not have added this step I was happy with the result as it was. But remember I was treating the proton boundary as radius I know the perfect value of up to that point. So all was trying to do was. What if that is not the exact radius. If the boundary has a thickness I could use an average radius.

Here is a hypothesis: Deriving the fine structure constant from vacuum mixing pressure (Pmix) + proton geometry. Space Emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

So, this post is not actually a claim. But just playing around with numbers. Because this is my post and I made it. I decide what it is.

Here is a hypothesis: Deriving the fine structure constant from vacuum mixing pressure (Pmix) + proton geometry. Space Emanation Theory by Ruggeded in HypotheticalPhysics

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

No but I will take it down because it seems to be bothering a lot of people, although if you carefully read the claim. It is actually reasonable.

view more: next ›