point-particle theory is Boscovich's theory and educators don't teach it any
more to physics students; only a few physicists know about it because now an
obscure subject
On Saturday, 27 June 2020, 23:18:35 BST, Jürg Wyttenbach
<ju...@datamart.ch> wrote:
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> 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 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
