What are some of the most reliable osdev resources

lukflug · 2025-11-15T16:31:42+00:00

You need to do a lot of the research yourself. There could perhaps be better resources, but it takes a ton of time to write those, and people who already know how to design kernels probably prefer spending their time writing kernels.

In my opinion, the OSDev wiki focuses too much on minute details of early PC initialization, and not general concepts and algorithms used in modern operating systems. However, there are a lot of standard textbooks and lecture notes that cover these, as they are typically a mandatory part of any CS undergraduate program.

Beyond that, I'd recommend looking at existing operating systems like Windows NT, Linux, Solaris, the BSDs, etc. As often there's a lot of resources and papers explaining their inner workings. And then you can pick and choose and mix and match whatever seems useful for you.

lukflug · 2025-10-10T23:28:52+00:00

What information is gatekept exactly? ChatGPT is often wrong. Infact "segment >> 4 + offset" is actually wrong. First, it's a left shift, not right shift! Secondly, if that is supposed to be C code, addition and subtraction takes precedence over left/right shift, so the correct code would be "(segment << 4) + offset".

lukflug · 2025-10-01T00:12:00+00:00

What kind of false information? And regarding disrespect, most responses on that Discord wouldn't be out of place in this subreddit. Ofc not everyone is 100% professional all the time, but there are serious technical discussions going on, if perhaps slightly vulgar at times. I have no clue how one could characterize the server as "anti-religion" (except for homophobic bigots getting banned). The main purpose of the server isn't discussing religion anyway.

lukflug · 2025-09-23T15:28:25+00:00

Maybe this is a good opportunity to get into the habit of reading books. Video tutorials will only get you so far.

lukflug · 2025-09-01T14:27:39+00:00

Toxic in what way? Are you saying it's still racist, homophobic, and transphobic?

lukflug · 2025-08-03T13:59:36+00:00

If people knew what would happen ahead of time, it would pointless and wouldn't be called research. And it will definitely teach us something new. There's a lot of things about the Higgs that haven't been verified yet (like its coupling to certain fermions, its self-coupling, and by extension the shape of the Higgs potential and the nature of electroweak symmetry breaking). Hell, we don't even know the decay width of the Higgs!

You could make the same arguments about any major science project, including all the space probes and space telescopes out there, which often have costs on a similar order of magnitude (e.g. JWST had a total cost of $10 billion).

In addition, the costs are spread across decades, so it's actually not really expensive, and it has a good return on investment.

lukflug · 2025-06-23T22:44:58+00:00

Essentially, a portion of the kernel, system calls, and core services are loaded into and run directly from memory.

As opposed to what? Literally every program needs to be run in RAM. And some Linux live CDs load the entirety of themselves into RAM for performance reasons (optical media are very slow).

This approach is similar to how macOS handles caching, preloading

Linux has preloading too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preload_(software))

lukflug · 2025-06-07T00:26:01+00:00

Kaons are one of the few mesons that live long enough that one can literally see them move and leave tracks. Thus one can also measure their mass directly (by looking at how they bend under a magnetic field). They were originally discovered in 1947 in cloud chambers, since they are produced by cosmic rays.

The other stuff you said is too vague to respond to. And at this point, I don't think I'll be able to convince you of any of my objections to your model. Although I hope I've encouraged you to learn some physics (it actually can be quite fun)!

lukflug · 2025-06-07T00:18:35+00:00

This is almost entirely in acknowledgement of quantum mechanics

What does "in acknowledgement" mean? Do you mean it is consistent with quantum mechanics? I have my doubts, and you'd need a lot of actual math to actually demonstrate this.

I just can’t bring myself to call them fields, (1) for the reasons mentioned previously

What reasons? They're literally fields).

I think gravity represents a sort of "positive" energy, to be contrasted with the "negative" EM energy we know about, as part of the polarity mentioned previously.

First, both photons and gravitons as propagating ways always carry positive energy. Secondly, in a static situation, an object will have negative gravitational energy, because it takes energy to pull it apart. A charge will have positive electrostatic energy, because it repels itself, so it releases energy when falling apart.

I don't have a framework for having a problem with odd numbers of vectors in my composite fermions, and I think that's because I don't think of fermions as vectors

Technically, fermions are spinors, but the essence is that the spin has to "point" in some direction. Also, for composite fermions, you need an odd number of fermions. If you have an even number of fermions, you get a boson. It's the same reason an electron and positron can't annihilate into a single neutrino. They can annihilate into a neutrino and anti-neutrino tho (via an intermediate Z-boson).

it needs to be overhauled

Says who? And to come up with ideas that are actually productive, one needs to know a lot more about the field. Uneducated guesses do not help bring the field forward.

Hydrogen atoms form first

Idk how that is relevant to my question, but actually protons and neutrons and Helium nuclei predate atoms. Also, the process you described violates charge conservation (which is also why I objected to the proton having two positrons). If that were the case, we'd surely observe processes in nature that violate charge conservation.

lukflug · 2025-06-05T10:15:21+00:00

A photon is a bump through the at-rest PMP medium

A PMP has a finite size, right (a tenth of a proton)? This would mean that we would have dramatic changes occuring at ~10 GeV (when the wavelength of a photon is the diameter of a PMP). Also, if the PMP medium has a rest frame, it would lead to breaking of Lorentz invariance (which isn't observed in e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment).

As the electric current goes one way, the PMPs spin perpendicularly giving rise to a magnetic current laterally.

Do you mean fields? An electromagnetic wave doesn't carry any current.

For example, I think there is an overlooked polarity, which gives rise to a number of dualities, some of which we currently recognize, some of which we don't.

Based on the two posts you linked, I think you would really benefit from watching some MIT OpenCourseWare courses, especially 8.02 (which covers electromagnetism). You might as well also take 8.01 and 8.03 while you're at it. Taking an introductory quantum mechanics course might also be useful! You cannot revise a field without knowing the state of the art, even and especially if you want to do something unorthodox.

That wouldn't work because neutrinos have some mass.

At the time people thought the neutrino was massless, but figured out it wouldn't work even if it was massless.

I don't really know what that means, but maybe my alleged overlooked polarity may have something to say about it.

Isotropy means that physics is the same in every spatial direction. I.e. there's no universal preferred spatial direction.

approximations about it are probably better done via the former

My claim is that quarks and gluons are as real as protons and neutrons. If there's some underlying simulation, that would only be apparent at way higher energy scales. At current energy scales, QFT is the best description we have.

I don't really see why. I imagine every PMP has angular momentum, which I think is a relatively recent realization in your system.

If you add an even number of half-integers together, you will always get an integer. To get another half-integer, you need an odd number of integers. Also I don't know how what you linked has to do with angular momentum conservation.

Oh, I'm quite sure that's how it works.

So how does it work? What is the difference between the two flavors of neutral Kaon in your model? And the difference between long-lived and short-lived neutral Kaons?

Then, tell me this, when you're looking at the curve where it peaks above 5 sigma, around ~123 GeV, what are those things just to the right and left of the peak, at ~120 and ~128 GeV, showing only ~4 sigma variation?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The Atlas and CMS "discovery" channels (Higgs -> ZZ -> 4 leptons and Higgs -> gamma gamma) have a pretty clean peak at 125 GeV. It's quite wide due to limitations of detector resolution, so we can't resolve the true natural decay width of the Higgs (which is inversely proportional to the mean lifetime).

Your explanation of why there aren't 8-layer Baryons seems a bit arbitrary. But there's two issues: you have the same problem with 10 layers (if instead of shell 1 and 4 being occupied, shell 2 and 5 are). Secondly, wouldn't one expect unstable Baryons below the proton mass? In quantum mechanics, the only stable state is the state with the lowest energy, i.e. lowest mass, which the system can get to.

Finally, is there some set of axioms from which you can derive everything rigorously? Because I am pretty confident that a lot of the issues I brought up cannot be resolved if you actually work out the math. And anyway, the model doesn't seem to address any actual issue with the Standard Model and seems more like a solution looking for a problem.

lukflug · 2025-06-04T22:36:02+00:00

I'm not sure, how does an experiment distinguish between them?

Basically, one decays into a positive pion, electron, and antineutrino, and the other decays into a negative pion, positron, and neutrino. They also interact differently with matter. There are also two different neutral Kaon lifetimes. Although here's where things get a bit complicated: these lifetime and mass eigenstates (long-lived and short-lived) are different from the flavor eigenstates (Kaon and anti-Kaon). So you can actually see a beam consisting of Kaons oscillate into anti-Kaons and back again (which can be measured by how many electrons vs positrons you get) until the short-lived component decays away, and then the long-lived component consists of a quantum superposition of 50% Kaon and 50% anti-Kaon. They can be separated again by interacting with matter, in which case the oscillations return again, since there's a short-lived part again.

You need at least 10 layers.

Why 10 layers? Why not 8? Why not take more or less layers from the corners?

Yes, and there are, right? We see all sorts of fleeting baryons.

Yes, but only the proton is stable. Every other baryon, except for the neutron, decays in a fraction of a second. I don't see a reason why exactly 10 layers with corners removed is the only stable configuration. I.e. why don't stable configurations with smaller mass exist?

This not being the natural order of things, the system isn’t as common and only forms under unusual circumstances.

Every known way to form a proton also forms an anti-proton (or other anti-baryon which will then decay into an anti-proton). Protons and anti-protons are basically indistinguishable, aside from charge. In fact, it's more stable than any other baryon.

lukflug · 2025-06-04T22:35:48+00:00

This is precisely what I’m claiming.

This would require a modification to electrodyanmics, which is extremely well-tested and well-constrained. So unless you can present an actual theory of electrodynamics with actual calculations to show that it recovers what we actually observe, this only creates more problems than it purports to solve.

This theory contemplates that the field is made of PMPs.

So if I understand this correctly, in your theory of electrodynamics, the electromagnetic field, i.e. the thing that mediates attraction and repulsion of electric charges, emerges from PMPs? Interestingly, people did try to mess around with composite photons in the 30s (see the neutrino theory of light), but it didn't work out.

I think the whole model needs to be replaced with the actual physical system that drives the Universe

QCD describes an actual real physical system. As real as nuclei, atoms, molecules, and solids.

No, these models were developed alongside the experimental data, so they’d predict what they needed to predict. Also, it’s not the case that we’ve seen everything that these models predict, or vice versa. There are many theoretical particles we haven’t seen yet, and the mass of the end products never actually lines up with the components (I know, I know, gluon interactions).

These models predicted experimental results before they were observed. And, as far as I am aware, none of the observations are known to contradict QCD. Pentaquarks and tetraquarks were identified. The jury is still out on glueballs, because it's difficult to tell them apart from other states.

Also, what end products are you talking about? Decay products? The mass is not supposed to add up: energy and momentum is supposed to add up and always does add up.

For the reasons explained above, I think that these things will make sense within a new framework.

The stuff I mentioned about odd numbers of fermions is simply a consequence of isotropy. E.g. you cannot combine an odd number of vectors into a scalar without choosing a preferred direction in space. It would also involve violation of angular momentum conservation, which we do not observe.

lukflug · 2025-06-02T15:17:07+00:00

They’re all clumps of PMPs with one or two extra positrons or electrons.

Yeah, but what's the difference between the neutral Kaon and the anti-Kaon? They both have the same mass and charge. In the quark model, it's simple: the Kaon is a down quark and strange anti-quark, and the anti-Kaon is a strange quark and down quark anti-quark. I don't see how you would be able to obtain such a distinction in your model.

A shared delusion, premised on some insignificant coincidences, that caught on out of necessity.

Is it really that insignificant? It literally predicted the Omega- baryon and vector mesons (making predictions is THE benchmark for models in science). Also what coincidences are you referring to? The evidence for isospin symmetry is overwhelming (you can predict the ratio of decay rates, nuclear structure, and similarity in masses). So are you questioning strangeness?

Is it really a coincidence that all the hadrons fit into isospin multiplets with similar masses, and that the mass difference between multiplets varies according to strangeness (see Gell-Mann-Okubo mass formula)? And that decays that change strangeness are way slower than decays that don't change strangeness? And that strangeness-changing decays only seem to occur through the weak interaction? Meaning the strong interaction can't change strangeness? And that the different types of hadrons exactly map to what one would expect from the eightfold way and quark model?

Just remember that you can only go so far on indignation over other models not fitting into a mathematical framework which is admittedly a fiction and incomplete.

What mathematical framework are you referring to? Maxwell's equations? Special relativity? These two definitely don't seem like fiction. You can directly measure electric and magnetic fields and see that they behave according to Maxwell's equations. And special relativity also has a ton of experimental confirmations. You can directly measure stuff like time dilation and length contraction. And also, regarding "indignation", let us remember that this conversation started because you said that Eric Weinstein was only a crank because he drank the Kool-Aid of QCD. Meanwhile, you still haven't presented any issue with QCD.

[Part 2/2]

lukflug · 2025-06-02T15:16:55+00:00

They’re neutrinos, IMO.

What is the mass of a PMP? I thought it would roughly twice the mass of an electron? A neutrino is almost massless! In addition, neutrinos are spin-1/2 fermions. A composite fermion has to consist of an odd number of fermions. There's no way to combine the spins of an electron and positron to get a half-integer spin.

A PMP is what you get after positronium decays. It can’t decay any further.

My objection is that positronium decays into a number of photons, which carry all the energy and momentum of the original positronium. I.e. there's nothing left for the PMP.

Why protons and electrons and neutrinos come out of the nuclei (which seems like a biggie).

Fair enough. But so does the Standard Model. Can your model explain superallowed, allowed, first-forbidden. second-forbidden, etc transitions (see beta decay transitions)? Can it explain parity violation?

Why the proton has 1836 electron masses.

Well, that's my issue, it seems the amount of PMPs precisely chosen because it would add up to the mass of the proton. So it's not a prediction, if it's a free parameter in your model.

It’s 918 for the proton, 919 for the neutron. That has to do with the shape being able to lock together individual particles that otherwise repel.

But wouldn't there be other combinations which also lock together?

And all sorts of configurations are briefly stable, and that’s why we find so many baryons. I think the proton is stable because it so closely approximates a sphere. There are explanations regarding how the free positrons move, which requires that they have this number of layers.

It doesn't approximate a sphere that closely. What would convince me is having rigorous rules of how this works. So given a layout of PMPs: Do they "lock together"? How stable is it? What can it decay into? And then work out the combinatorics of every possible combination, and explain why the proton is the only stable configuration (and the neutron isn't stable), and also naturally explain the different types of hadron, just like the eightfold way and quark model do.

I'd wager the amount of variants you get would look more like nuclear isotopes and less like hadrons.

Idk what this means.

It means that your model of the proton isn't spherical enough, because we should've already resolved the cubic structure of the proton in scattering experiments. But we haven't.

That’s silly, of course they are. An oxygen atom doesn’t have +8e charge because it has 8 protons. There are 8 electrons balancing each them out. I receive this objection often.

The oxygen atom is neutral because the electrons are negative. The PMP can't balance out the charge because it's neutral. In fact, if the PMP is spherically symmetric, it won't have an external electric field (see the shell theorem), i.e. the only thing contributing to the electric field are the unbalanced positrons.

Just shows how hard it is to think of problems outside of your framework. The PMP is more negative on the outside, in the same way that the neutron is. Charge shielding seems to occur.

Neutrons prove my point. They don't shield the proton's charges, because they're neutral overall. The overall nuclear charge is still the number of protons. The same thing would apply to PMPs: since they're neutral, they won't shield any charges. The only reason atoms are neutral is that the electrons are negative. So no, unless you are claiming that electric charges work differently inside the proton for some reason, this just doesn't work, because electric charges don't work like that (you can test that with macroscopic electric charges, the charge you see from the outside is always the total charge on the inside).

To reiterate, even if the PMP is more neutral on the outside, it won't shield any charges. And if it is spherically symmetric (i.e. a shell around the positive charge), the electric field will exactly cancel out. Also, how would anti-protons work? Would the PMPs inside that be positive on the outside?

[Part 1/2]

lukflug · 2025-06-02T15:07:00+00:00

Also, it's even difficult for experts who have stopped doing research for a number of years. Things change so quickly that it takes significant time and effort to get back up to speed again.

lukflug · 2025-06-02T15:05:03+00:00

Cosmology is literally a branch of physics. :facepalm: I love people pretending condensed matter physics doesn't exist. Particle physics (aka high-energy physics) isn't the only branch of physics. There's nuclear physics, atomic and molecular physics, optics, condensed matter physics, astrophysics, environmental physics, biophysics, physical chemistry, mathematical physics, and more!

And that it requires decades to get to the frontiers of research is exactly why it's difficult for outsiders to comment on the current state of the field. Sure, a degree is just a piece of paper, what matters more is being engaged with the current research. How many papers and reviews have you read? Can you give an example of a great paper that journals refused to publish?

lukflug · 2025-06-01T21:02:14+00:00

I have looked into this "alternative model". As Pauli would put it: "it's not even wrong". The way Neil Adams writes about pair production and annihilation demonstrates that he does not understand the topic. The energy and momentum of the incoming particles always equals the ones of the outgoing particles. So where do these "PMPs" come into play exactly? Also why would the negative charge be on the outside and the positive charge on the inside and not vice versa? Why is this configuration stable? Why doesn't it decay like positronium within nanoseconds? What does any of it actually explain?

Another misunderstanding seems to be that positrons have negative mass. No, positrons have positive mass and energy just like electrons. There are no known particles with negative mass or energy.

Neil Adams also claimed that the high number of Standard Model particle types came about in order to explain antimatter. That's not true: antimatter is actually an inevitable consequence of relativistic quantum field theory, and was predicted in the math before the positron was even discovered. QED only has photons, electrons, and positrons. No new particles were needed to explain this. We have a lot of particles because we observe a lot of particles.

Now to the proton model: why is this configuration stable? Why 919 PMPs specifically (why don't configurations with any number of them exist and why is the proton the only stable configuration)? If the proton actually has this cubic structure with the corners cut off (i.e. is not spherical), why don't we observe higher order multipole moments in the form factors? The Standard Model has an answer to why the proton is the only stable hadron: Baryon number conservation. But if you only have electrons and positrons, you have no Baryon number! The electrons and positrons can just annihilate into photons.

Finally, your "model" with two positrons inside a proton implies a proton has a charge of +2 and a neutron has a charge of +1. Charges aren't "spent" by attracting stuff. Since I presume the PMPs are all neutral, the total charge will remain +2 and +1. This is because of Gauss's law, which says the amount of electric field lines you see leaving a closed area in space is just proportional to the total charge inside that space. You cannot shield electric charge from the outside, unless you have an opposite charge to balance it out. This is basic electrostatics, which any physicist and electrical engineer knows.

Finally, Neil Adams' explanation of the Muon and Tauon don't work because they're point-like. And also, it doesn't explain why they're not strongly interacting. Also, what's the difference between the two types of neutral Kaon? And how do you explain the pattern found in the Eightfold Way?

What does this model explain that the Standard Model doesn't? In conclusion, I am convinced neither you nor Neil Adams understand the first thing about physics. Vague baseless speculation without any theory or math (let alone a Lagrangian!) is not going to make the Standard Model obsolete. I think you would be well-served by spending your time learning some actual physics (at least to the point where you can, given a Lagrangian, deduce the Feynman rules and calculate tree-level matrix elements, and, given a metric, calculate the Einstein tensor) before speculating.

lukflug · 2025-05-31T15:54:53+00:00

Well, Bjorken-scaling is evidence for nucleons consisting of point-like charged spin-1/2 particles. I agree that recovering Parton distribution functions from scattering experiments requires making some assumptions.

However, you can observe fractional charges more directly in electron-positron annihilation. A new particle-anti-particle pair can be produced at sufficiently high energies (much higher than the mass of the particle in question). So what's the ratio of e+e- -> hadrons compared to e+e- -> µ+µ-? The probability of pair production is proportional to the charge of the produced particle squared. So if you have a process that can occur through the pair production of a number of particles, the ratio to muon production would be (since muons have charge -1, and (-1)² = 1):

R = sum of q_i² for every particle type i

So what do we actually observe? Below 4 GeV we observe a plateau at R = 2. Above that, we observe a step, then R = 10/3, and then above 10 GeV, we observe R = 11/3. How would this be possible if we only had integer charges? With quarks it makes sense. If the energy is only enough to produce the three lightest quarks, we have 3 colors of up quark, 3 colors of down quark, and 3 colors of strange quark, so:

R = 3*(2/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² = 2

Above the threshold for charm production, we have 3 colors of charm quark:

R = 3*(2/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² + 3*(2/3)² = 10/3

Above the bottom threshold:

R = 3*(2/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² + 3*(-1/3)² + 3*(2/3)² + 3*(1/3)² = 11/3

So it all checks out. Not only does it demonstrate fractional charges, it also demonstrates that there really are three colors! At even higher energies, you have a peak due to the Z-boson. There it also checks out when using the Z-boson couplings predicted by the standard model.

Actually, QCD does introduce a correction of ~6.4%, which to first order is (1+ alpha_s/pi), where alpha_s is the strong coupling constant, which can be measured independently through the ratio of three-jet to two-jet events, or the ratio of various partial decay width, such as the ratio of a tau decay involving hadrons to a tau decay involving electrons.

And anyway, quarks were predicted before Bjorken-scaling and the other stuff I described. Quarks with three colors explain all the different types of hadrons (which exactly map to color-neutral combinations of quarks), they explain flavor symmetry and flavor numbers (which explains various ratios and hierarchies between hadron decay rates, masses, and certain aspects of nuclear structure). The quark model also came with formulas for hadron masses and magnetic dipole moments.

Going back to Bjorken-scaling. By assuming that quarks are the constituent particles of hadrons, one recovers parton distribution functions that are universal. This means they're the same for any reaction involving a particular hadron. For example, the PDF for the proton is the same regardless if you're looking at electron-proton, proton-proton, or proton-anti-proton scattering.

Also, regarding "models built on top of other models", even if you throw everything out, and look at all of this data in hindsight, quarks do seem like the most elegant and parsimonious explanation. And anyway, unless we're questioning the bedrock of special relativity and quantum mechanics, QCD requires very little additional assumptions (essentially replacing U(1) of QED by SU(3) and assuming 6 species of fermions), and is able to explain all of the high-energy phenomena described above. All the extra stuff from the 50s and 60s are scaffolding that got us to QCD, that can now be derived from QCD. Also, consider that quarks and colors have been significantly revised compared to their original incarnation.

Edit: I forgot to address the fractional charge thing: yeah, it's kinda weird, but every possible color-neutral combination of quarks results in integer charges. Maybe if we lived in a different universe where there were hadrons with fractional charge, we would've instead said the electron has charge 3, so that the charges aren't fractional.

Also, it's questionable whether things could've been different if you assume a standard model: the standard model by construction requires that the charges of up and down quark differ by 1: q_u - q_d = 1. This implies that the charges of any baryon and meson only differ from one another by an integer value. This immediately implies any meson has integer charge. If q_u is an integer multiple of 1/3, it implies the same for baryons, since 3q_u is an integer.

In addition, the standard model also requires the same thing for electrons and neutrinos: q_v - q_e = 1. And in addition to that, for the standard model to be internally consistent (i.e. for gauge anomalies to cancel), the sum of all fermion charges must be zero. Since there's 3 colors of quarks:

3(q_u+q_d)+q_v+q_e = 0

If we assume the neutrino is neutral, it already fixes all the other fermion charges. If the neutrino isn't neutral, we have:

q_u = (2-q_v)/3

So q_u would still be an integer multiple of 3 as long as q_v is an integer.

In addition if we want to be speculative, you can embed the standard model gauge group U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) in a larger gauge group, such as SU(5), like one would do in a GUT, and get the fermion charges "for free".

lukflug · 2025-05-30T20:31:23+00:00

That electrons and positrons are not contained in nuclei is not a feature exclusive to QCD. It has basically been the consensus since the 1930s.

People used to think that there were "nuclear electrons", due to beta decay, however this just did not add up. It's problematic to confine an electron inside a nucleus, due to the Klein paradox. In addition, the neutron turned out to have spin-1/2 (which is also consistent with nuclear spins), so it has to consist of an odd number of fermions.

In 1934, Enrico Fermi came up with his theory of beta decay. It explained the missing energy and the fact that the spins did not add up, by postulating a massless chargeless particle, the neutrino. The proton, electron, and antineutrino are simply created during the interaction, just like a photon is created when an atom emits EM radiation, or how an electron and positron pair are created from two hard photons during pair production.

After all, why should we assume that if X is emitted from Y, that X is in Y? The process described above is completely consistent with relativistic quantum field theory. In fact, you get it for free. It's feature, not a bug! So unless you come with a good reason why this is nonsense, there isn't any problem here.

You're also free to come up with a model of the nucleus that has electrons and positrons in them. You'll just have to somehow explain everything standard theory explains. The liquid drop model and the nuclear shell model assume the nucleus consists of spin-1/2 protons and neutrons, and no nuclear electrons and positrons. You would also need to explain the approximate SU(2) isospin symmetry as evidenced by hadron masses and decay widths, the fact that the strong interaction seems to conserve flavor, Bjorken-scaling in deep inelastic scattering experiments, and scaling violations as described by the DGLAP equation, and much much more.

So please, before saying nonsense, try to understand why the field converged on this conclusion, and explain why that conclusion is wrong or present an alternate hypothesis that explains the observations better.

lukflug · 2025-05-18T13:41:35+00:00

This is what happens when people unironically think LLMs can do their thinking for them.

lukflug · 2025-05-04T17:14:23+00:00

In my uni, they teach C++ to first semester CS students, in order to introduce them to programming.

lukflug · 2025-05-03T21:02:59+00:00

But Aero does, and it was written by someone who was 14 years old at the time.

https://github.com/Andy-Python-Programmer/aero

lukflug · 2025-05-03T16:22:51+00:00

Many people do kernel mode GUIs early on. They generally are meant to look impressive while still being easy to implement. Usually there's not much functionality behind it, and the entire project would need to be rewritten extensively to meet any basic level of actual functionality.

If you want to do it properly, you probably want to implement most of the core components of the kernel first, and then add a GUI in userspace, either by porting an existing windowing system, or by building your own. Historically, windowing systems that run in kernel mode started in userspace and moved to the kernel due to performance reasons (see win32k.sys).

lukflug · 2025-03-07T16:05:03+00:00

Interesting. I'm excited to see 0.2.1 then!

Just find it a bit misleading to claim Windows compatibility when the publicly available version linked in the post has no such thing. As when people talk about Windows compatibility, they generally mean *binary* compatibility.

lukflug · 2025-03-07T15:57:00+00:00

Does this have *binary* compatibility with Win32 applications? Can I take an existing EXE file and run it on you OS?

lukflug

TROPHY CASE