Particle physics has originally been based on the rigid mass operator.
Unkluckily only a few physicists understand master level rotating mass
mechanics as this is a field used/covered by mechanical engineering.
Why physics did use the fringe Virial approach (square integrable
functions..) is an enigma. May be most were mathematicians bare of any
physics understanding.
The solutions of the rigid mass operator problems are torus surfaces! It
is thus no surprise that all particles can be modeled by higher order
tori! Of course we do not need any fantasy numbers or point masses...
J.W.
On 27.06.2020 23:59, H LV wrote:
I am not sure if this is related but I always had a problem with the
concept of a point mass or a point charge, since mathematically that
would imply infinite mass density or charge density or alternatively
zero mass and zero charge. However these conundrums are resolved
mathematically by moving from the real number system to the hyperreal
number system first formulated by Abraham Robinson in the early 1960s.
The hyperreal number system extends the real number system by
including infinitely small numbers and infinitely large numbers and
gives a logical foundation for the calculus of infinitesimals known as
"non-standard analysis". Today most physicists and students still
learn calculus using "standard analysis" which is based on the notion
of limits and was developed by mathematicians in the 19th century.
An interesting property of infinitesimals is that they come in
different sizes. For example if ε is an infinitesimal then ε < 2 ε <
3ε ...etc.
The reciprocal of an infinitesimal number is an infinite number, so
there are also different size infinities. For example 1/ε > 1/2ε >
1/3ε ...etc.
Harry
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:35 PM Jürg Wyttenbach <ju...@datamart.ch
<mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>> wrote:
The fantasy of the old SM guard always seemed to be limitless...
SO(4) physics exactly explains how the claimed force "gravity" is
generated and mediated between hadronic masses.
Since about 1 year there is game over for SM. No more cheating
with point particles that do not behave as points because these
points have a magnetic moment. No more cheating with massless
charge as such an assumption simply is a form of infantile
dementia if no proof is given why a massless charge does move
without inertia and no force is need for a circular orbit. Most
idiotic is the assumption charge is wave as the magnetic moment
then would oscillate. We can go on with this as you only need
college level understanding to find out that the foundation of SM
is children logic.
J.W.
On 26.06.2020 20:20, bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-cartoon-picture-of-magnets-that-has-transformed-science-20200624/
some INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS….
Loss of the directional control of angular momentum in nuclei is
probably is associated with the creation of unstable nuclear
conditions and isotopic transitions. It may also change gravity
Of a group of nuclear magnetic dipoles, if the TOTAO magnetic
dipole attraction is modified—either increases or reduced? *This
question stems from the CONJECTURE that gravity results from an
*_random_* collection of nuclear magnetic dipoles and the
respective 0 (zero) net angular momentum.
The calculation of an attractive magnetic field at large
distances between randomly oriented groups of magnetic dipoles
supports the CONJECTURE noted above IMHO.
_http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf_
__
A better reference would be nice.
.
Bob Cook
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
