Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt

    Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research Cluster

    Latest comments


    Antimatter Thread Compilation - Discussion at Facebook - Part One

    This is a copy of a post on my wall (Oliver Thewalt) at  Facebook

     

    with comments.


    Oliver Thewalt mit John W. Rickey und 33 weiteren Personen

    26. April 2013 · Saarbrücken · 

    Michael Balmer, Quote: ”I am still amazed by the LHC (CERN) and that there is still the mystery of more matter than anti-matter...it is just not true,and that there are those that continue to say our universe is positively charged when that cannot be true,all of the existence is based on the electron bonding atoms to molecules and electrons are negatively charge and is the outer configuration of the atom,with there being a positive charged space there would only be annihilation at every point in space,the universe is negative because of the electron and anti-matter is of the opposing charge which is a part of all atoms ie protons...which are shielded,and shielded because of the same reason given above.the anti-matter is with us only shielded from the universal negative charge.there is no need for any unbelievably complex mathematics when reality is given everywhere in all branches of science....the electron is creation,and without it there is only space and the anti-matter not being equal is only because it is said not to be,sometimes we must step back from the numbers and see the light as it shines and believe what we see.” 

    Unquote

    Thanks a lot, Michael Balmer

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    Ulla Mattfolk, Sujan Kumar, Francois Lemonnier und 44 anderen gefällt das.

    5 mal geteilt

     

    Ulla Mattfolk antimatter is positrons that vanish into ?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:39

     

    Marc Poulin Energy.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:39 · 3

     

    Ulla Mattfolk ye? then also electrons do the same. Byproduct: time as the arrow of entropy? Whatever that means. The CP-violation was the mystery?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:43 · 3

     

    Moinak Banerjee Ok, but may i have some citations w.r.t the above quote?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:44

     

    Oliver Thewalt Moinak, that is physics BEYOND known citations, believe me!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:48 · 1

     

    Moinak Banerjee But i would beg to differ with the above post on various degrees, if we can't be sure of the hypothesis (like the one presented above) itself, how would we know if its real or not? 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:51 · 2

     

    Oliver Thewalt If CERN would admit that, and if they knew what the higgs really is, they would lose their job, their pension and the warm place in the CERN café, because that is what they really are heading for.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:51 · 3

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Moniak, you can tell your opinion.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:53 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson The CP violation is hidden in the dimensional properties of space !!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:53 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Nice to hear from you Ulla !!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:53 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk If you accept hidden dimensions?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:54 · 1

     

    Moinak Banerjee Umm, not until i go through the entire theory @Ulla Ma'am. 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:54

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson The dimensions are not hidden at all. I am not even sure what hidden dimensions are, to tell you the truth.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:55 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Hidden in the dimensional properties is hidden dimensions?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:56 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Positrons goes to another dimension, is what you say? The effect of that dimension is creation of energy and time? And matter?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:58 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson You are right LOL. I used the word hidden inapropriately already LOL. Jokes on me !

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 13:59

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Better to say it was not previously modeled with precision, allowing us to discover that CP Violation can likely occur in the emergence of free space topology.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:00 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson This is also to say that 0 charge fields have a built in degree of cp violating rotation when they partition (differentiate) into their charged pair free space components as field identities. In the same way, matter and anti-matter also emerge , but not in the 0 charge phase, but in a later phase of condensation of matter waves in meta stable isotopic confirmations (at extreme temps).

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:02 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk How would that happen?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:03 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Beat you to the question.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:03 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson That is the only part of the Big Bang Theory I utilize, and not for the Big Bang Theory as a whole

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:04 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Then you must use the quantum Hall effects, the fifths?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:04 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Yes, quantum hall requires some structural cascade is already in place, as matter-wave (particle-field) behavior must pre-exist in the locality

    26. April 2013 um 14:05 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk But then One Higgs is not enough? Not even a pair?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:06 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Hmmm, the kicker is that there is more than one possible "anti-hydrogen". That is the bold claim of the day I suppose. In my design synthesis I actually found 2 possibilities.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:06 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Inducing a Higgs Boson with two Hydrogen atoms at high energy is NOT the same as a normally found Higgs Boson in a larger layered atomic lattice.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:13 · 2

     

    Oliver Thewalt I think that I can say that the hydrogen plays a key role here. I will wait for further comments of Michael.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:13 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Gravitational_interaction_of.

    26. April 2013 um 14:15

     

    Ulla Mattfolk To talk of Higgs boson in the same meaning as hydrogen atoms seems quite odd to me.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:16 · 1

     

    Marc Poulin That is what I have always said it is all interrelated and dependent even out to the Multiverse.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:16

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Well, I use the term Emergent Higgs Field, because that is a requirement prior to obtaining a boson. It requires a SUSY pair of fields to have a stable boson. It is the variation in SUSY field types that leads to the various Higgs boson types, plus there is a rotational aspect to the lattice layers of the two fields, yielding different possible meta-stable conformations.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:19 · 3

     

    Oliver Thewalt Ulla, it is NOT odd.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:20 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Oliver, I Really Like You sometimes LOL

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:21 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt We are talking about a Higgs field though.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:21 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Yes, it is, Higgs boson with 0 spin is so minute...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:22

     

    Oliver Thewalt Mark, please mark the most important word of your last statement  ok, was just for fun 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:22

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson I think Michael Balmer knew the subject would jump to CP violation as the root anyway. And that of course splits into both the charge question and also other CP violation co dependents.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:23 · 4

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Is the Susy really symmetric then?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:23 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson A misconception is that SUSY is perfect MIRROR symmetry in our dimensional reference frame. SUSY is a set of spatial functions that also include potential rotational relationships.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:25 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk and gravity distortions?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:25 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson a dynamic consequence of path of least time as a rotational aspect ( a distance)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:26 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk well, night.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:27 · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Have nice dreams Ulla !

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:27

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Look: http://www.universetoday.com/.../antigravity-could.../ and the cosmological constant was introduced once as 'antigravity'. LOL. Not much progress lately?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:35

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson This is, in my opinion, misplaced as a theoretical conjecture. The anti-gravity is around each singularity in each field within a proton. Universal expansion is driven by matter formation.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 14:37 · 1

     

    Arpit Dave A word or two (discretion is on the very definition of "word" which can mean paragraphs) just before I hop into the Dreamland and need to jot down before my 3 am, because, at that exact tic of the clock I get into the zone of wildest ideas independent of the clock's tic and then it will be very hard to pull-off the Antikythera gear of the ticktock!!

     

    There is a very simplistic understanding about destruction and creation.. Destruction creates Space; Creation needs Space!! Just to cite my understanding in understanding electron has been that of being an electron.. Throughout my engineering, I have asked only three questions to myself, "I am an electron, bin of electrons, swarm of electrons; What will I do? Why will I do? and How will I do?" I have always been very much curious about electron and its feelings along with packets of photons, personified now and there is an entwinement..

     

    At times, and not intending to fill in an oxymoron, a necessary evil is what makes everything soothing all around compared to a flag march of goodness!! I have always been clear that the Higgs Boson won't be the answer for the much desired general solution out of specific traces.. I won't be that surprised if most of things in concurrent physics and mathematics based on causal data-sets are found to be all wrong or most of its part to be wrong, if it is to the point clear what I mean to say with semantics intact.. So, I think, LHC CERN is doing a wonderful job in posing point-values even if, say, *diverging* from the heuristics! We must keep in our minds that divergent values are not to be flushed out, in fact, they refine our focus on what is to be focused upon! Hence, necessary evil is not merely a dogmatic wandering, but, a legend's legacy of its own, owned by none...

     

    Coming back to destruction and creation, LHC CERN, once again aces in pin-pointing the figurative symbolism by literally erecting a statue of Shiva as one of his avatars of being the Nataraja!! Nataraja is the form/posture which signifies the value of what is indefinite into the definite, explosion of creation without collision and the very iconic cosmic dance on a universal scale where the movements are from what we now define as the sub-atomic level!!

     

    Well, I am already into that zone as it is well beyond 3 am! Brackets are to be kept open effortlessly... Dreamland calling... Good Morning all!! Have a creatimaginnovative day and night... 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 15:07 · 4

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson All that is as good as any Mantra Arpit Dave ! Even better from your brain-O-mind !

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 17:27 · 1

     

    Pandiya Rajan Thats a great idea! Mr. Michael Balmer. Then we have to study what happens in a proton and electron interaction. Is there any experimental observation regarding Proton electron interaction????? Oliver Thewalt

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 18:38 · 1

     

    Michael Balmer Sorry not to participate...busy today...QUESTIONS?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 19:15 · 1

     

    Rima Meta Thanks for your astute observation Michael: On account of the persisting incompatibility existing between GR and QM, there is a grave danger that modern Physics could, in the near future, veer to the other pitfall of speculation on Dark Matter, as well...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 23:01 · 4

     

    Ley Westcott No wonder the rest of us are confused!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 23:43 · 2

     

    Ley Westcott I tend to consider, without any credentials whatsoever, that antimatter does/not/will not annihilate matter. I think there is a regeneration system built into the universe constituting continuous recreation. If we look at chemical transformation in...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    26. April 2013 um 23:54 · 1

     

    Bob Turner Nah, it's not confusing! This is confusing http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/30001.1-3-8.shtml

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 00:08 · 2

     

    Ley Westcott Qualifying my remark above, I might better have said "Antimatter does not 'ultimately' destroy matter, though in certain transformational phases of creation it likely may. But considering what is evident to me - death our most crucial example - it ap...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 00:24

     

    Bob Turner That Bannock Tarski "tennis ball paradox" is one for Arpit Dave, I think. We're talking about something which doesn't exist but is real. Think of "being" as a superheated state of existence; it's nowhere and nowhen. An outrageously hot cup of tea. We n...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 01:08 · 2

     

    Bob Turner So why the hell look at the prime number 59! I've no idea but it is related to the icosahedron, which itself is constructed from a bunch of tetrahedrons. That in turn is very much in the territory of Buckminster Fuller's sixty degree coordinate system....Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 01:40 · 2

     

    Ley Westcott You know why Bucky dropped out of Harvard, dont you, Bob? Too many squares. 

    And of course no 3d representations of 5d space. 

    Nice exposition on the above.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 02:07 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk How do you think the 5D spacetime is true? Proofs?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 05:47 · 2

     

    Ulla Mattfolk The chirality means they are non-commutative, and no annihilation happen? But usually it is told to be very reactive and happen almost instantly. ???

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 06:18

     

    Oliver Thewalt For the record: antimatter is not always annihilating with its antipartner due to EM-shielding and space topology that works like a partition.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 07:40 · 5

     

    Arpit Dave If Higgs Boson matters, how will it antimatter!!??  

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 08:08 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson I was waiting for that question. If you recall, the quark pairs are not different in matter and anti-matter. The Higgs is primarily (minimally) a logical bridge between two sets of quark pairs in a bridge formation. In this way, the field features would be the same, though the logical data traffic might be of different harmonics or waveform, based on charge information and temporal mitigation.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 08:35 · 4

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Looking at the other questions , I would say this supports Oliver Thewalt comment about space field topology acting as a partition against proximal anhilations. This proves there is a field external that does not allow for easy thermodynamic interlacing and lower free energy in proximal cases, unless the major axis happen to be lined up favorably. Yes, access to field telemtry along one of the axis (the Unilocal cords) is likely a requirement for the tendency for the fields to merge.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 08:41 · 3

     

    Oliver Thewalt If the neutrino is its own antipartner, as a rare double beta decay may indicate (http://www.caltech.edu/article/13520, what effect is to be expected on Dark Matter and the Higgs field? Remember that the electron neutrino has a key role in the nucleus.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

     

    Caltech | Physicists Close in on a Rare Particle-Decay Process

    PASADENA, Calif.—In the biggest result of its kind in...

    CALTECH.EDU

    18. September 2014 um 10:44 · Bearbeitet · 4

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Ley Westcott I have made quite a few 3D reps of 5D space.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 09:07 · 1

     

    Mukesh Vyas -universe is not positively charged, if it were, then the modern astronomical techniques like WMAP & PLANCK are capable of finding the difference between a neutral space and charged space

    -there is no unique way to use word 'anti' for a specific entity, positron could be treated as particle and electron as anti-particle, then question will be changed into, 'why anti matter is present and matter is missing!'

    -If the other side of particles are missing and standard model proves itself to be the 'real standard' after the discovery of Higgs, then it will have to explain the 'missing matter anomaly' otherwise we are in 'dark era' of particle physics.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 09:40 · 2

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson I think they will discover that there is a certain , larger than expected, amount of anti-matter , "hiding" amongst matter. This will , of course, force us to redefine what anti-matter is and get some progress on this concept.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 09:59 · 4

     

    Ulla Mattfolk What is the ontological difference, if any, between anti-. dark-. and virtual matter?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 11:09

     

    Ulla Mattfolk All matter is charachterized by a Planck's constant. Is it possible it can be quantized too?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 11:21 · 1

     

    Arpit Dave A never ending supply of chocolate for you, Bob sir!! I think, we all can have a feast!  

    Says a lot about residual dynamism, the art of decomposition for a better recomposition and of course inventory control for a holonym within a meronym... Delicious already!

     

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 11:28 · 2

     

    Elizabeth Maas That chocolate is getting me crazy.... how does it do that?!!!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 11:42 · 1

     

    Arpit Dave The hint is geometry for sure and linear algebraic synthesis.. Personally, I do not caste Matrices as Linear Algebra, but, here, there is an iterative code that is running on what the residual values are after each and every cycle.. Highlighting Residues, we can solve this for Extended sets of Imaginary Numbers with Residual Contours.. There are multiple answers, one more is multitudinal multiple dimensions... 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 11:50 · 1

     

    Laborious Cretin Chirality and energy http://www.quantumdiaries.org/.../symmetry-in-physics-pt.../

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 12:00 · 4

     

    Michael Balmer anti-matter is an interesting feature of nature,anti,we look at it in various ways,as the opposing charge...whether it is positive or negative,either way it is ant-matter..or matter,in the case of electrons...it's anti is the positron and for the proton...not yet a suitable name so it's just ant-proton etc. We know this of course,we look at it as the other property of annihilation,we look at it as a possible means of energy...we do not look at it as a necessary when it comes to a step of separating matter and anti-matter,so what is anti-matter?why is it anti?to most of a certain generation,the first knowledge of anti and matter came from a popular sic-fi show of the 60's,it was good to power the ship but bad for existence...and the second is where it all began,the misunderstanding of anti-matter,true annihilation upon contact of the opposing charges is one result,but the annihilation is of the particle not in the matter but in it's charge of matter....energy conversion...light and or pure electricity,hmmm,clarify,the contact of an electron and positron does not annihilate either atom but ionizes both,creating plasma and plasma remains plasma until each relevant charge has be reestablished,does this tell of what anti-matter is?not completely,what is known... some maybe not all is that existence is possible because of three aspects of nature:negative,positive and neutral charges and matter at it's base is a neutral(particle or string)string?another time on that,for this reality negative is in the form of an electron and positive in the form of a proton,both are particles of matter...both are part of a field,one of a matter field the other a anti-matter field,and sorry I must stop here for a couple hours but while this is being dissected remember there is more.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 15:27 · 4

     

    Mukesh Vyas @ Mark sir,

    why do you think that there is a charge imbalance in the universe, can you provid here a theoretical or logical justification for this (before CERN provides observational justification)?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 18:18 · 1

     

    Michael Balmer Ulla asked what is the difference between anti,dark and virtual matter..anti is the opposite charge of...dark is absence of charge and virtual is imagined though a better term may be ?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 19:07 · 4

     

    Marc Poulin Cretin what about Hyper-Chiralty?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 19:09

     

    Bob Turner Hi Ulla, here's a picture of what Buckminster Fuller, was on about. i suppose that if we had stayed in the trees or had gone back into the sea, we'd use a 60 degree coordinate system. Chemists prefer it but like everyone they have to thik aout it at all times; it's so easy to keep thinking in terms of right angles. it's a question of close order packing and degrees of freedom in higher dimensions. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1791235900189&set=o.183288925052025&type=3&theater

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 23:41 · 1

     

    Bob Turner Now look at that shape top right. Replace it with a Sierpinski fractal ln(6) / ln(2) 

     

    Here's the pic that shows an octahedron inside of a tetrahedron, not that obvious if you just try to imagine it. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1787208599509&set=o.183288925052025&type=3&theater

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. April 2013 um 23:50 · 3

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Platonic solides?

    28. April 2013 um 00:44 · 1

     

    Ulla Mattfolk But imagined and real matter are also opposite, and antimatter the same time? And dark is not only absence of charge, it is the non-interaction. If you look at the problem in astrophysics dark matter is real matter, only unknown such, why some have proposed the neutrinos would make it?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 00:48

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Even completely dark galxies have been suggested? A mirror world?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 00:50

     

    Bob Turner Mass of the "visible" universe, what I get but feel free to plug in your own value. 

    2.9193e 25 = 2GM /c^2 That gives a value of about 1.96e 52 kg

     

    Where we are G / r_schw (r / c)^2 = 0.5 That gives our radius at about 1.402e 26 metres. For the radius of the universe I get r = c sqrt(2.71828 / hbar a)

    A being the fine structure constant. 

     

    Now when we look out into the night sky, we see the Schwarzchild radius, everywhere we look. That means we cannot see shed loads of galaxies. In fact it means that at about 11 billion light years, we would see red shifted galaxies going away form us but also red shifted galaxies coming towards us. 

     

    What we would have is two apparently coinciding event horizons.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 01:07 · 3

     

    Michael Balmer Imagined and real matter are opposite in thought only,real or unreal...but not in this context,the opposite of matter is anti-matter and based on the charge energy not whether the existence,Dark Matter..as with all,interactions is with the charges,it is the charges that bonding and such occur,neutrinos do not make it but mediates it,with interactions of Dark Matter the neutrinos are the means,absence of charge doesn't imply it to be non existence just non observable.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 03:39 · 1

     

    Elizabeth Maas Bob Turner, string theory also can be modeled using the theory of knots and their topological constraints. The geometric equivalents of sides and edges can be topologically reconfigured as knots and their nodes - Knots can readily prescribe to the behavior of waves. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3852222710232&set=a.1559105663739.2076719.1418201790&type=1&theater

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 03:59 · 3

     

    Arpit Dave In a way, blackhole is a FIFO (First In First Out) system under analysis wherein the synthesis has brought up an idea as a solution for the paradox breaking as if it has an innate affinity for the negative energy.. Blackholes somehow have this tendency of being the Grubby boy and not a Smarty one.. It wants to be mischievous without getting caught!! It will be interesting to be inside the neck of it in between the regions having ranged vicinity of (1/e)th to (1/3)rd part of the total warp drive formed by a wormhole.. This (1/e) to (1/3) will be in pairs, one at the near-end and another at the far-end, inherently citing the need to think of Fresnel and Fraunhofer patterns pertaining to elliptic diffusion of a fusor.. FIFO itself can have combination of FIFA (First In First Adjusted) and/or FIAO (First In Any Out) depending upon whether the output system is matter converging in a divergence (a blackhole) in tandem or a matter diverging in either convergence or divergence (a whitehole)!!

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 09:17 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Ah, here's a few interesting primes as possibly interesting gates. I've said a couple of times, that we should think of the universe as implicitly 3d at all dimensions but only explicitly 3d at the Schwarzchild radius. But I'd used the reciprocal form, simply because we are so used to thinking we live in a 3d world. If i say ln(1.402e 26) / ln(c) = close to pi dimensionlity, that's good for my ego but really we are in a lower dimensionality, yeah and the Schwarzchild radius is at 0.3333333 for ever)

     

    At that radius 0.3333 recurring, light is slightly faster but it it's going nowhere fast, it's in orbit. So as this is a white hole, let's round down the; oh I don't know, pick one at random; the 68th three. Make that the number one. Light, and stuff is now leaving that radius, being thrown out. 

     

    Well, that means that inside the Schw radius we can have a prime gate at 

    31

    331

    3331

    33331

    333331 and so on.

     

    I haven't a clue what to do with this as yet, I just think it's interesting. One for Arpit Dave, and George Shiber to make sense of.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 10:03 · 4

     

    Bob Turner Best to tidy this up, the next prime after 33333331 will have 17 3's followed by a one.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 11:19 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Back to the main subject, what the hell do they call that zpe effect, where virtual particles become real particles, if you put your foot down in a flying saucer? That should be fifty fifty electrons to positrons.

     

    Does it really happen?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 11:46 · 3

     

    Ulla Mattfolk http://www.slideshare.net/.../zero-point-energy-and. scroll down for content

    28. April 2013 um 11:51 · 2

     

    Bob Turner I found the name of the effect, it's the Unruh effect. I couldn't remember it because of the baleful influence of Ahuru from star trek 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 12:11 · 5

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson if you go to the knot chart, 3.1 is closest to the spatial algorithm, except that the string itself is 2-dimensional rather than 3 dimensional.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 12:45 · 3

     

    James Stephens yes,i agree...base 3 is the only solution in mapping pure geometry...all other differentiation give infinite numbers

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 12:48 · 3

     

    Bob Turner The trefoil knot, we find that when mitochondrial dna separates. It's a mobius loop after all, you get a knot and a few cross over loops.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 13:12 · 3

     

    Elizabeth Maas Thank you for reminding me of circular mitochondrial DNA!...Loops! Knots can only be found in closed LOOPS! Most higher dimensions do not support knots, although 3D does allow for knots (23 or 21 dimensions also supports knots). Perhaps particles can ...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 13:26 · 4

     

    James Stephens its that 2^2...theres a bit left over according to 'his nibs'..but we must say it is time...sigh*..if we ignore the time ,then mapping 7d is quite easy..really..i mean,who wants eigenstates? but that is surmountable,even dimensionally..as one extra dimension  but we only seem to get tied up with that.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 14:36 · 1

     

    Elizabeth Maas Sounds good!  About time... I like to think of time as the hoop or portal of "now" that everything dodges through; time is not an arrow, since time is always now! Perhaps that is nonsense, perhaps it is not. 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. April 2013 um 15:11 · 3

     

    Ulla Mattfolk Is consciousness a result of time and this 'jump'? Like the result of matrix computation?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 00:16 · 2

     

    Bob Turner If we say that the universe is only explicitly 3d at the Schwarzchild radius, and we say that the universe has a radius of 5.633e 26 metres but where we are is at 1.402e 26 metres, then we don't have 3d brains. ln(5.633e 26 / ln(c) = 3.155

     

    Not so long ago, we would have said that our conscious mind is the boss, and our subconscious is the arty farty idiot. Now it's thought that the subconscious mind does all the grunt work, and the boss sits playing with paper clips in the office.

     

    Let's say that we have a big cloud of gas in 3d space. How I think it works, is that the gas is prepped by n dimensional information. This occurs almost instantly; in reverse order; the information instructs one electron to "consider" itself as having a huge inertial mass. A case of, "for the purposes of book keeping consider yourself at the centre of the cloud and not moving." That electron accepts a photon. Then another electron is instructed that it is now to consider itself the new centre. (being for self, being for other) The operating system rules here are simple.

     

    With the subconscious though, the instructions can be horribly complicated. "Take units a,b,c and d; construct a LHC machine. When you're done, tell the boss that he/she has successfully build a wonderful machine. Wait; do not sneer; if the boss says paint it blue, do so"

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 01:23 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Hi Arpit Dave, thinking a little more about that odd set of primes. At times I've just thought of a white hole universe as simply a case of running the movie backwards but that's not right. A black hole grabs snacks when it can, a white hole is throwing up its lunch continuously  

     

    Let's say that there's something in that prime number sequence.

    31

    331

    3331

    33331

    333331

    33333331 With the next one jumping to seventeen threes and a one

     

    The next one to look at is 59

    59

    599

    59999

    599999

    59999999

    59999999999

    59999999999999

     

    As prime gates, we have two different instructions. One says "spew out but not too fast", the other says, "eat very fast." 

     

    As I think it might be an idea to look at stellations of the icosahedron, here's one for Gregory Dotson, to have a butchers at. http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php I watched the video for new users, and it looks like one hell of a program for $14 (Aust)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 01:43 · 4

     

    Bob Turner An ugly looking brute, this is the two 31 and 59 stellations. Edgewise they are the same but there's faces missing on one of them. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/.../923062.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 10:27 · 2

     

    Erik Vonckx why would vacuum only fluctuate in my observable universe? why would I need opposites, except maybe, to find where the overall fails? what would my subconsciousness be without consciousness? How would i(my body) look like in a 5d or 7d, Disassembled? If so why not reapply what appears crazy? The space in between myself is my way out of a certain amount of dimensions as molecules and atoms or smaller not really touch each other, not even in strings of DNA, not even in strongest knot.(why not?) The only real problem I see is that part of my present data is knowingly stored in 3d, how to translate it in more (n)d so that I (as human) can survive in the other (n)d sets and keep looking at it all as what I seem to be now"human".Al I need is a form(any)  where i can be in, a vessel of any kind and type behaving as an outside to what I observe, the rest is relative observation.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 11:06

     

    Gregory Dotson Erik, I think your "present" data is observed mostly in 3d. Love; sound, and taste are not things I think of as 3d. I would argue vision isn't really either--you have two, 2d images of "3d" things that are overlapped and your brain interpolates depth based on reliable cue-patterns like a parallax or relative size.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 14:21 · 3

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson Bob Turner such wisdom !! quote "At times I've just thought of a white hole universe as simply a case of running the movie backwards but that's not right. "

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 15:08 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt Pandiya Rajan

     

    Yes, I think there is, but Michael Balmer has most answers. All I can say at this point of time is:

     

    The Mass of a neutron is: 1.67495 x10^-27kg, the mass of a proton is 1.672614 x10^-27kg and the electron is 0.002336.

     

    The negative imaginary mass (iM) for the electron is 9.10988x10^-31 kg 

     

    The mass of the proton minus the mass of the neutron is 0.002336.

     

    The electron is listed at 9.11009803921.

     

    The proton is 1836 larger than the electron. 

     

    The difference between the actual mass and the listed mass of the electron, this is the mass of the neutrino.

     

    The neutrino mass for the electron is .000718 x10 ^-33 kg (electron neutrino)

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 16:39 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt That is the missing mass of the electron.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 16:46

     

    Elizabeth Maas A while ago I conjectured that the arrow of time runs backwards for anti-matter, which would explain is paucity in our predominantly time-running-forward universe, but I have since changed my mind... 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 18:17 · 1

     

    Mina Samir Fathy Yes, forward just retreiving Boltzmann principle.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 18:22

     

    Mina Samir Fathy But we can modify change spacetime topology, ask yourself where the past went?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 18:23

     

    Elizabeth Maas The fields pass through present space-time from their own dimensions. Space-time provides the "eye-of-the-needle" for fields to pass through "Reality in-3D-Now"...like a sphere visiting Butler's Flatland - the Flatland being instead the dimensionless scaffold of space-time itself for fields to act upon or through. The universe needs motion or passage (waves?) to exist. I hope this doesn't sound too "far out".... I'm trying to get many years of studying into simple language via analogy.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 18:37 · 2

     

    Mina Samir Fathy Via isomorphism

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    29. April 2013 um 18:44

     

    Arpit Dave Very interesting is the mood of this thread, thinking of making a string out of this while I share and eat noodles, as a system, 

    (Blackhole ⊗ Whitewhole)/(Blackhole ⊕ Whitewhole)

    can't really see this in a usual context...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    30. April 2013 um 04:11 · 1

     

    Arpit Dave Wanting to add something into the blending amalgamation of the very query/thought of the post and on-going talks.. Bob sir and all, this is what I had put across while into the 1 and (0.9999999....) equality and non-equality.. Wanting to write this her...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    30. April 2013 um 04:27 · 3

     

    Arpit Dave And, just yesterday itself, Physorg's Facebook page shared this article/research work... 

     

    I was quite shocked with their inference as, "Mathematics is, in essence, an artificial language for precisely articulating theories about the physical world. Unlike natural language, however, translating different classes of mathematics can be difficult at best." With which they seem to very much underestimate the very natural nature of mathematics.... Research work is interesting, nevertheless...

     

    "PhysOrg.com - Science, Research, Technology, Physics, Nanotech, Space News

    Monday, April 29 at 10:20pm (18 hours ago)

    Gravity's lingua franca: Unifying general relativity and quantum theory through spectra; geometry: http://phys.org/.../2013-04-gravity-lingua-franca.

     

    Mathematics is, in essence, an artificial language for precisely articulating theories about the physical world. Unlike natural language, however, translating different classes of mathematics can be difficult at best. Such is the case encountered in the attempt to unify general relativity and quantum theory, since they are expressed in differential geometry and functional analysis, respectively. That being said, spectral geometry – a field in mathematics which concerns relationships between geometric structures of manifolds and spectra of canonically defined differential operators – may resolve this long-standing quandary by allowing spacetime to be treated as simultaneously continuous and discrete, essentially relating the frequency-based ringing of the fabric of spacetime to its manifold-based shape. Recently, scientists at California Institute of Technology, Princeton University, University of Waterloo, and University of Queensland normalized and segmented spectral geometry into small, finite-dimensional steps. They then demonstrated their approach of calculating the shapes of two-dimensional objects from their vibrational spectra as being viable in two, and possibly more, dimensions."

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    30. April 2013 um 04:39 · 4

     

    Oliver Thewalt http://phys.org/.../2013-04-alpha-evidence-atoms.

     

    ALPHA experiment presents first direct evidence of how atoms of antimatter...

    PHYS.ORG

    30. April 2013 um 17:31 · 5

     

    Erik Vonckx Arpit Dave, What language is (without a doubt) all the way down unpremeditated?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    1. Mai 2013 um 12:47 · 2

     

    Elizabeth Maas Math seems to me to be a pure language.... not artificial.... perhaps he should have left the word "artifical" out of the sentence?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    1. Mai 2013 um 13:00 · 2

     

    Arpit Dave A very correct and an interesting question, Erik Vonckx sir! I would like to phrase it in two ways of understanding.. 

     

    ~ Language, as in the way of communication by modes has interjectory dichotomization, the way I see, broadly as Intellectual and Physical; neither of these as we express are pure but the way we might sense can be intrinsic.. The transformation of an Idea into a Thought is an entwining process of communication, a language, which is initially as in senses pertaining to Intellectual one having a tendency to be expressed as a Physical one, a composed cumulative language to rightly say so, or say, either Semi-Language and/or Co-Language!! We all know that in an electrical circuit, if the circuit of a network is open then electricity won't pass, ideally, subjecting the very situation as seen and felt by electrons, they have a premeditated natural tendency of being the ones with choice of say not passing through as a current that is to be detected!! Here, the Physical Language of electrons having a premeditated natural tendency, chooses not to pass and to have an unpremeditated action as if Intellectual in nature... One another example is that of the Slit Experiment and relating quantum physics...

     

    ~ Language, as in the stark reality of nature, the nature itself is extremely simple and so reducible, but, as soon as or even before this, as soon as, it folds its innate reality with a blurry composure.. A geometers terminology would be a manifold and it merely is the derivation.. And as we are trying to define something which needs no definition, the very intrinsic reducibility becomes an Irreducible Complexity!! So, the Language that should be all the way down unpremeditated is the one that has not been curbed into illusions of definitions.. Definition, as per me, is the culprit; it brings its inherent nature of limiting the very scope.. Present day Mathematics and in that various forms of prime numbers which when seen directly as in one-on-one, the prima facie would be what the bound of blur that nature poses will be seen, only.. And so, just for the namesake naming something that is the nature itself, the quality of language that you have asked for is the Anewmatics (as I infer it!). But, again, naming that just limited its scope of being the unpremeditated...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    1. Mai 2013 um 13:25

     

    Bob Turner Hi Oliver Thewalt, we're going to have a neutral pion in the nucleus. That, if ejected, would decay to an electron a positron and a gamma ray.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    2. Mai 2013 um 00:14 · 6

     

    Bob Turner Been a while since I've put this up, so for new people; particles are constructed inside of the first second of hyper inflation. But it has to be stressed, that this is not something happening in 3d space, it's a non temporal dimensional collapse of the "speed" of light, from infinity to its "speed" at the Schwarzchild radius. We can't call it a speed, it's a deceleration, So we just write off the first second of exponential fall, and have the "speed" of light fall from about 3.079e 8 to 2.9979e 8 metres over 13.8 billion years. The speed of light is then a superficial constant.

     

    The universe constructs micro black holes first, then higgs particles, quarks and then neutrons, protons, electrons and perhaps last neutrinos. Basic particles are constructed at the hbar^2 mark, where the speed of light is c^3 r.m.s. and (k c)^3 peak.

     

    E = m 1.026923^6 c^6 = m (2.9193e 26)^2

     

    Now we want to hold c constant, so up the mass of our particle. E = (m / hbar) c^2

    We then want put this in its wavelength form. So, hbar^2 / m c lambda, I still need a two in the denominator, so I'll just stick it in and say that that's the kinetic energy.

     

    That's the uncertainty relationship.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    2. Mai 2013 um 00:47 · 6

     

    Erik Vonckx to name is equal to decide where you put the brackets (what's in-between them is the name). A name can equal a particle,(which represents but a set of properties). Eventually all I do is calculate with properties or speak in sets of properties. No wonder that some call the universe the ultimate quantum computer.(an apparently empty box...full of potential properties and within them emerging (direct and indirectly observable interactions of those same properties.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    2. Mai 2013 um 14:16

     

    Erik Vonckx Bob Turner, Can I say: my observation of this same universe will drastically change if I 'm able to observe it at a different wavelength/sec (as our satellites (as Hubble or Kepler) and even cern are proving as what they see is translated to what we c...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    2. Mai 2013 um 14:38

     

    Michael Balmer Hi Bob,I am a little late on the thread,why a neutral pion in the nucleus?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    2. Mai 2013 um 15:18 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Hi Michael Balmer, the reason I started talking about the uncertainty principle is to do with the confinement of what, looks like, two and a bit electron masses difference between the proton and neutron. Scroll to the bottom of this page to . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/uncer.html

     

    Well my take on it is, that we do have an electron/positron pair but they are not in 3d space, they're in a space where the speed of light is higher.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 12:15 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Ball park figures, E = m_e (c^2 * 2 * 137) 

    m_e = the electron's mass

     

    So we then write T = T_0 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

     

    Where v^2 = 8.9875e 16 metres per seond

    and c^2 = 2.46258e 19 metres per second (It's not in our space and time)

    T_0 = Time subscript zero, the oscillation period.

     

    So T = T_0 / 0.99817

    But T is 1 / f so hf = hf_0 *0.99817 or E = E_0 * 0.9987

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 12:54 · 3

     

    Mina Samir Fathy Mmm Algebra

    3. Mai 2013 um 12:57

     

    Mina Samir Fathy If physics was algebra then we study the roots only.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 12:57 · 2

     

    Marc Poulin And the Archimedes Palimpsest?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 13:09

     

    Mina Samir Fathy Archimedes would be life guard on a swimming pool.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 13:21 · 1

     

    Arpit Dave One for sirs Bob Turner, Oliver Thewalt and Michael Balmer!! Perhaps, the paper and findings are known, but, one must not directly conclude a conclusion or conclusive conclusions.. As in our dealings, the sub-atomic protagonists rummage as they have tendency to subterfuge the mere vision with their prime number platoons holding up the quantum wall of trap (as in a trope, a lotus formation)!! Extracting a neutral pion is a messy stuff which is accompanied by chaotic injection of its radical twin! Extraction and Injection are seemingly reverse processes, but, at a quasi-quantum meta state along with a fundamental quantum number similitude, they are event-reversals and can be time-invariant..

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3249

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 14:02 · 2

     

    Arpit Dave And this is in addition to something about which I was talking in a different post, quasi-quantum meta state for 4d orbitals in a crystalline structure when subjected to a laser for qubit manipulations.. http://cms.web.cern.ch/.../x3872-exotic-charmonium.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 14:05 · 3

     

    Arpit Dave Previous one was the 137th comment!! Now that is some collective reach.. Meaning to point out that at certain level of penetration, the form factor changes in scale as per the scaling.. After a breach, the factor which was earlier taken into account along with Feynman diagrams, 137 and (1/137), still holds but the modifier(s) is/are 128 or/and (1/128).. When in entangled states, the oscillation is quite similar to (1/3)rd-(1/e)th part of the ensemble, having twice as much as the presence building up for elliptic curves within a construct; being tangential to both Fresnal and Fraunhofer distribution...

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    3. Mai 2013 um 14:45 · 1

     

    Bob Turner It's a damn intriguing little problem isn't it. We know where it is in 3d space, it's in the nucleus but the when of it, in terms of its angular frequency we don't, for 3d. Ball park figures again, let's suppose that the neutral pion mass is, m = sqrt(...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    4. Mai 2013 um 00:36 · 2

     

    Bob Turner Geometry Mina, when all's said and done, the Lorentzian is nothing more than the equation of an ellipse. Try the pub test, explain the equation of an ellipse to people, then when they've got the idea, suddenly switch to Einstein, what happens then is that they go all of quiver. A red mist forms over their eyes and they back off from what has suddenly become way too hard for them.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    4. Mai 2013 um 00:52 · 2

     

    Marc Poulin Have to add several people into this. Tadg Woods Oliver Thewalt

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    4. Mai 2013 um 00:55 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt Andy Paterson have a look here 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 18:38

     

    Mark Mighell It all starts with a vortex.

    When BEC become untangled with the introduction of thermodynamics and void space, initiating the spin generated to fill the void.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 19:04

     

    Ted Brandes I'm going to facepalm. The matter-antimatter mystery is not a matter of positive or negative, but relative opposites. AN ELECTRON IS NOT AN ANTIPARTICLE, ACTUALLY, IT'S ANTIPARTICLE PAIR IS THE POSITRON. Antiparticles differ from matter in CPT (charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal), and it is all these factors, not just charge, that define them, as well as the mystery. Just because something is negatively charged, does not make it an antiparticle, just as something positively charged does not necessarily make it a particle. The CP violation does not concern their being more positive to negative, nor does any textbook state that such charge distribution is observed. The great mystery it brings just concerns antiparticles alike (of ALL CHARGES, PARITIES, AND DIRECTION), and actually, we have numerous hypotheses to explain the odd victory of particles over antiparticles. The problem so far is just figuring out which hypotheses is correct, because right now their predictions are either very similar or just beyond experimentation for the time being. Another thing people seem to forget is that the various disciplines within physics don't communicate very well amongst one another, hence discrepancies occur between research, whether due to different approaches (mathematically or physically), or simple failure to communicate. There are many papers that claim to have resolved the CP violations, but it takes time to review, revise, and validate/disprove all of these papers. It also takes time for them to even get the attention they need, so your futile assault here is unwarranted and unfounded. This is why I have virtually abandoned most of these discussions, because nobody seems to care about actually researching the things they so viciously and ignorantly attack. So, Oliver, don't spew nonsense and attack credible, hard working scientists when your claims in the OP were both unfounded and mislead. Not everyone who works at CERN gets a hefty pay day, or cafe time. A lot of participants are actually students with nothing to lose (because all their worries have been payed for because of their merits), some of which I've personally interacted with. The ad hominems were not impressive nor displayed an ounce of intelligence, so back off.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:05

     

    Mark Mighell Which way do you spin Clockwise or Anticlockwise or is it possible to spin both ways(angular reverse flow fields).

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:10 · Bearbeitet · 2

     

    James Stephens define clockwise 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:09 · 3

     

    Mark Mighell from the view of observation.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/.../File:Spin_half_angular.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:14 · 4

     

    Mark Mighell spin or anti-spin 

    http://web.utk.edu/.../Phys25.../modules/module%203/spin.htm

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:57 · 3

     

    James Stephens to fathom as a ternary 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 20:58 · 3

     

    James Stephens Oo...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:03 · 5

     

    James Stephens iksaminin 

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:09

     

    Mark Mighell Pythagorean triple

    almost Real example in deep space

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4006125628402&set=a.3932322983382.2170824.1139002243&type=3&theater

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:11 · 1

     

    Brandon Cagape Steve Coldwell, who taught you of tagalog... lol

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:13

     

    James Stephens makita ito i-clear 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:16

     

    James Stephens self taught

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:16 · 2

     

    Brandon Cagape mas mainam kung matulog muna bago mag-aral nito... 

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:17 · 1

     

    James Stephens matutong mag-tagalog 

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:18 · 1

     

    Brandon Cagape nice topic friends 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:18 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt Exactly Steve and Brandon, that is what I wanted to say!!! We can look upon the wave function of the electron as a confined helical wave with a forward component (zig) and a reverse component (zag), that explains the zig-zag of the electron.

     

    Neutrinos without any mass would be a left-handed spinor, comparable to the forward zig -wave of an electron. In case they have a tiny mass and are able to oscillate, it is possible that they interact with the vacuum field as part of a reverse zag wave.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:19 · 3

     

    Brandon Cagape para makaintindi 

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:19 · 1

     

    Brandon Cagape Thanks Sir Oliver Thewalt for that fact... or theory perhaps 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:21 · 2

     

    Oliver Thewalt I just translated from tagalog, didn't I?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:23

     

    James Stephens Oo..Oliver very knowledgable 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:24 · 3

     

    James Stephens cge ..need native speaker tlaga

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:25 · 1

     

    Mark Mighell Epilogue

    Day out with babe

    For Field Magnetica I have an inbuilt obsession...Mehr anzeigen

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:26 · 5

     

    Brandon Cagape Perhaps Sir Oliver Thewalt, it might be related to one of your post ..."feynmann's derivation of schrodinger equation": http://www.drchristiansalas.org.uk/.../FeynmansDerivation.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:29 · 1

     

    James Stephens anong inisip mo @ mark ? 

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:31 · 1

     

    Brandon Cagape amigo, I think it is a poem

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:34 · 2

     

    James Stephens sige..agree

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:35 · 1

     

    Mark Mighell Science and poetry is very common attribute with intelligent people. 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:36 · 4

     

    Brandon Cagape true, but it takes time

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:37 · 2

     

    James Stephens gusto ko 'to

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:38 · 1

     

    Brandon Cagape amigo Steve Coldwell, if my friends will met you, they will wonder why a british person speaks tagalog... 

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:40 · 1

     

    James Stephens ay..can learn brandon..ang talino mo.respect tlga..ingatz amigo

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:43 · 1

     

    Oliver Thewalt http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/26

     

    Observing Matter-Antimatter Oscillations

    D-mesons are the fourth in a quartet of neutral mesons to be observed oscillating into their antiparticle partners.

    PHYSICS.APS.ORG

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:47 · 4

     

    Oliver Thewalt and one more, just to collect the data: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/31

    Übersetzung anzeigen

     

    Charm and Anticharm—Not Quite the Same

    Differences between the decay properties of...

    PHYSICS.APS.ORG

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:50 · 4

     

    Oliver Thewalt ang antimatter kasosyo ay nakakuha charme?

    27. Juli 2013 um 21:51 · 2

     

    James Stephens can relate as phi?

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 22:00

     

    James Stephens from 1+sqt.5/2 

    27. Juli 2013 um 22:04 · Bearbeitet · 1

     

    Mark Aaron Simpson seems like this discussion is on a great track, not much to add here really. I like the fact that you friends are beginning to understand what spin actually is, as a boundary property

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    27. Juli 2013 um 22:39 · 7

     

    Ted Brandes My apologies Oliver, I didn't recognize that you were quoting another individual until now. Michael obviously portrayed the concepts and the individuals surrounding it in an inaccurate light, which is why my comment was made. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding, but I do recommend not even bothering with such deluted quotes, because such individuals simply are not showing the desire to create, but simply destroy.

    Übersetzung anzeigen

    28. Juli 2013 um 14:56

     

    Oliver Thewalt No need to apologize, Ted, this will need some time to arrive in the physics community ....

     29. Juli 2013 um 13:26 · 1

     

    End of Part One -