I did. But some DOE (I think) people he talked to said that it wouldn't work because it violated the second law of thermodynamics.

Years later, while trying to figure out what was supposed to be wrong with my design, which I still think is probably perfectly good, I happened upon an article by Nicola Tesla from 1900 Century Magazine called "Increasing Human Energy" which was all about methods of harnessing energy, but in particular, heat engines and how the statements of Carnot and Kelvin (Lord Thompson) Early formulations of the second law, were not valid or applicable under all circumstances, and went on to innumerate several, but in particular, a novel heat engine that ran on an artificially produced sink or "cold hole".

According to Tesla, due to the fact that heat is not a fluid, as had previously been believed, but a form of energy, a "perfect" heat engine would not allow any heat to pass through to the sink.

A Stirling heat engine, running on ice, for example, would convert the heat flowing into the engine into mechanical motion before it could reach the ice.

I had also thought a Stirling engine would run better without a sink, or with it's cold side insulated, because a Stirling engine is really a kind of refrigerator and doesn't need an external sink, it actually creates it's own cold by converting the energy of an expanding gas into "work", which conversion disappears the heat, leaving "cold".

I had designed my own engine on the same principle Tesla was describing. It was a combined hot air engine and air cycle refrigerator.

Tesla's article can be read here:

https://www.unz.com/print/Century-1900jun-00175

and probably elsewhere. The relevant section begins on page number 200 under the heading "A Departure From Known Methods".

I could not find any historical or modern reference to any actual experiments conducted to test Tesla's assertions. The proposition seems fairly straightforward. It could be fairly easily tested, just run a Stirling engine and take away the sink, or run an engine on ice. If Tesla was right, the ice should take a very long time to melt, or might not melt at all.

So not finding any history of any actual experiments, I recently sent away for several Stirling heat engine kits to run various experiments I've been thinking about doing for a long long time.

The results are rather interesting I think. And seem to indicate that Tesla may have been absolutely correct in his assumptions. And, maybe my engine would work after all.

]]>A = 1,2,3,4,5.....

B = 1,4,9,16,25

They say that A and B are both equally infinite which can not be true.

For A includes at least 9 infinities while B includes only one.

A include as part of that serie infinite set of each 9 numbers.

A includes

3333333333..... untill infinity while B does not.

66666666666..... infinite

777777777777...... infinite

And so on.

A is 9 x infinite at least

B is only 1 x infinite

Am I correct or is Galilei correct?

B can not include infinite amount number 3333333.... but A can.

]]>

This is mainly to check all the variables in the differential Equation to make sure that they all solve correctly and to make sure the Quaternion is anomaly free and solve the equation for (x,y,z,t,ωs,ωp,M,I,k,φ,S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,β)

∇'(x,y,z,t,ω_{s},ω_{p,}M,I,k,φ,**S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,**β**) = (d ^{2}/**

(d^2/∇') - (Ctp)^2 = ds^2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(d^2+%2F+∇')+-+(C+t)^2

(Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(4/3)π((RUniverse/(tpC))^3 Luniverse

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(4%2F3)+π+L+((R%2F(t+C))+)^3

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+d+(4%2F3)+π+((R%2F(t+C))^3

Luniverse = (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(∇'Q%2C+∇'u%2C+∇'F+%2C∇'g++-+∇'D)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+d

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(∇+g)+-+(∇+d)

Charge possible states per point (1,2/3, 1/3, 0,-1/3,-2/3,-1)

Color Possible states per point(R,B,G,0,antiG,antiB,antiR)

Flavour possible states per point (I,II,III,0,darkIII,darkII,darkI)

Gravity/Dark Energy possible states per point of space (Energy,Mass,Spin,0,-spin,-mass,-Energy)

Atleast the graphing equation and Equivalence principal are in working order having A.I. do the work.

I have decided to use this equation for a proton instead of the entire universe as it would be too much data to ever complete.

(Universe Volumetric Planck State @ size of universe in radius) =(4/3)π((RUniverse/(tpC))^3 (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy)

RUniverse = RProton = 10^-15 meters

The Equation Yields a Planck State of 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy)

So a Field with 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 cubes that are a Planck length with states of (+1/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+1/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+1/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) if the proton is at rest.

The Strong Nuclear Force or color Map will look something like this which is the only thing over the 3-D field that varies in a proton.

If the Proton is in motion let's say moving in a particle accelerator at 8 Tev then the State is 7.6171932283964837631558879969576 * 10^57 (+1/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (8000000/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+1/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (8000000/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+1/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (8000000/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

All of the Information being within the equation with a smaller color field of the same picture being less Planck Lengths within the particle due to length contraction.

The Graphing Equation displays all possible properties of the particle or substance to an quantized amount of a Planck Length being exact without error, I could write the entire Tensor for each substance but it would take the big number amount of states. These were done assuming Dark Energy was not existent and a non expanding universe which are the zero terms. There is only one unknown in these equations which is the Spin number of Dark Energy particles being the final zero in the spin term, the graph is over d/dx + d/dy + d/dz the big number shows the number of planck lengths that the fields manifest for a proton at rest versus in motion for these examples.

This shows this equation to be in working order and accurate to reality.

This equation is actually more complex than the long equation as it gives a single state for everything rather than a large number of multiple Planck States like this one.

If you wanted more detail of the Quarks within the Proton you could graph the equation with the same set of coordinates including the quarks with the same result.

For the Rest proton with quarks in finer detail.

9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

Now the charges varies given the details of the quarks within the proton which as now the charges vary you will have two varing graphs one for the Strong Nuclear Force or Color and one for the Electromagnetic Force or Charge being the (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz)) + (+2/3 /(dx + dy +dz), B/(dx + dy +dz)) + (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz), G/(dx + dy +dz)) = (+1/(dx + dy +dz),RGB/(dx + dy +dz))

The equation can be used to whatever detail you would like it to be this being a more exact map of the proton next would be to add gluons if you wanted or even more protons and neutrons to construct an atom, but it is always exact to the planck length, no matter what detail is used.

Overlapped Charge and Color Map, (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz)) + (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz), B/(dx + dy +dz)) + (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz), G/(dx + dy +dz)) = (+1/(dx + dy +dz),RGB/(dx + dy +dz))

Which solves perfectly making the graphing equation even physically correct next we will try something more challenging like a Feynman diagram using this equation, it should be able to graph anything in the universe to the planck length is the test.

The Feynman Diagram we are going to test this on is Beta Decay of Carbon 14 into Nitrogen 14 to start off with the calculations need to be done for the planck state of an Electron and Neutron as beta decay is P+ > N + e- + Ve , so we willl start with mapping the quarks within the proton which a proton's state is 9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

Then the neutron can be described as a Planck State too which is

9.9023511949154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

The electron has a smaller state 1.1998578848809383445875560276978 * 10^51 (-1/(dx + dy +dz),0/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz), .511/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

The Neutrino has State of 28722.600151171579743008314436886(0/(dx + dy +dz),0/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz), .2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) being much smaller than all of them

This Completes the Feynmann Diagram for Beta minus decay and satisfies P+ > N + e- + Ve

9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

=

9.9023511949154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

+

1.1998578848809383445875560276978 * 10^51 (-1/(dx + dy +dz),0/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz), .511/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

+

28722.600151171579743008314436886(0/(dx + dy +dz),0/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 0/(dx + dy +dz), .2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))\

All properties have been conserved.

This shows the volume of the neutron to be slightly smaller in size to the proton by .0000002%.

This calculator can also be used to find the effects of Dark Energy on the particle in question for a proton you could solve the amount of Dark Energy on the particle on Nucleon, we can find that Dark Energy has a velocity currently of 54 meters per second using a simple equation E = (1/2)MV^2 , V = 54 m/s . The Mass of the Dark Energy Particles are unknown so I will use a mass of electron or mass of proton. Giving each section of space a energy of 1.458 Kev outward with the push of Dark Energy if mass of electron or mass of proton it would be 1.313 Mev , now we can write the proton effected by Dark Energy.

9.9023511969154288921026543960449 * 10^59 (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),R/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 1.45/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 938.28/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (+2/3/(dx + dy +dz),B/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 1.45/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 938.28/(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz))) , (-1/3/(dx + dy +dz),G/(dx + dy +dz),I/(dx + dy +dz), (0/(dx + dy +dz) - 1.45/(dx + dy +dz),938.28/(dx + dy +dz)- 938.28 /(dx + dy +dz),1/2/(dx + dy +dz)- 0/(dx + dy +dz)))

Now the Proton is displaying the expansion of Dark Energy upon the Proton.

It has been shown that this graphing tool can be used to graph anything that is contained with the universe using the information about its dimensions, so this test has been concluded about the graphing equation as successful, but I wanted to note that (dx^2 + dy^2 +dz^2) = (Planck State)^2 being R^2 in Planck lengths which is why the dimensions are divided by (dx + dy +dz) and that the Planck state( C ) data is used being the dimensions that the field is over being the Complex Manifold. The manifold of space (Euclidean Space) is being used as (dx + dy +dz) which can also be (dx' + dy' +dz') if you wanted to directly start to use special relativity (Makowski space) on it where as the Field dimensions are from Quantum field theory to be put over the manifold which is a type of quantum gravity.

Next will be a proof of the big equation which will take longer to test which will give a ds^2 value based on a complex system which can be used with the graphing equation to graph the actual state of the entire universe exactly without error based on a complex set of 18 variables or kept in its natural state for a ds^2 value which is a Grand Unified Field equation that takes in account the Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Gravity and Electromagnetism all in one equation yielding E8 Killing Vectors. This Metric takes in account General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and Quantum Field Theory to arrive at the solution in Killing Vectors which are then placed in Minkowski space.

∇'(x,y,z,t,ω_{s},ω_{p,}M,I,k,φ,**S,X,Z,μ,Y,q,a,**β**) = (d ^{2}/**

(d^2/∇') - (Ctp)^2 = ds^2

One solved solution for this equation already is for ∇' being d2/dx'2 + d2/dy'2 + d2/dz'2 , The original solution for the equation was LGhost QE Which states that Quantum Entanglement is the same as creating a wormhole between two spaces or universes, and that theoretically if you did quantum entanglement on matter between universes you can transmit matter just like is often done across space during standard Quantum Entanglement experiments.

I am changing the (dx,dy,dz) parameters to display a special relativistic 4 current, now including the evolution of the state over time and not just in a static point.

Luniverse = (∇Charge,∇Color,∇flavour,∇gravity - ∇Dark Energy) , ∇' (x,y,z)= d'(x,y,z)∇ , d(x,y,z)' = d(x,y,z) (1-(V(x,y,z)^2 /C^2))^1/2 , E(x,y,z) = (1/2)MV(x,y,z)^2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(∇'Q%2C+∇'u%2C+∇'F+%2C∇'g++-+∇'D)

This shows the parameters as a function of kinetic energy in a direction or velocity in a direction now, now space properly dilates in the presence of energy at a given time giving a value for L that is special relativistic. The original equation was relativistic however this equation was not.

L'universe = (∇'Charge,∇'Color,∇'flavour,∇'gravity - ∇'Dark Energy)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+x(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+y(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+z(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

The time coordinate can be ignored but I am still doing the A.I. analysis of it anyways, which shows that our analysis of Dark Energy and Gravity are Valid with (C+V, C-V)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+t+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

This is the proof that the space contraction equation does not interfere with the "Higher Dimensions" such as gravity or dark energy or charge.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+Q+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+g-d+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+q+u+f+(g-d)+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

However this does prove that it takes the dilation effect upon dimension x upon Q or space upon charge that the space is changing however not charge.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+Q+x+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+Q+y+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=∇+Q+z+(1-(V^2+%2FC^2))^(1%2F2)

]]>

As can be seen in all the videos, the different Lichtenberg figures develop simultaneously from both the positive and negative electrodes as the electric current follows leader lines within the wood that represent the pathways of least resistance. However, due to the high resistance of the wood, it heats up and burns to form carbon, which is a good conductor, and which allows the burning to move outwards from the electrodes. Multiple burn paths quickly develop and simultaneously expand from each electrode to produce quite stunning and unique Lichtenberg figures.

When I first come across these impressive wood burning examples, I thought that it was due to the application of AC electricity. But no, in fact a high voltage (about 2000 volts), high amperage DC current is used.

Surely, with DC electric current consisting of the one-way movement of electrons, a single Lichtenberg figure should be expected to grow from negative electrode and expand towards the positive electrode. So, exactly *why do Lichtenberg figures develop simultaneously from each electrode if the burning is caused by electrons moving from the negative electrode to the positive electrode?* Can anyone provide a reasonable and convincing explanation of why this is the case?

And, yes, the Lichtenberg figures are not true fractals, so let’s not waste time on that subject.

]]>

1+2+3+4+5...=-1/12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_⋯

I have a question: can this summation be obtained with p-adic numbers?

I have seen a video about them:

]]>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_canonical_transformation#Relation_to_particle_physics

Please find below a picture describing this relation as taken from the link. My main questions are :

1- Are the statements in this link correct and compatible with mainstream particle physics ? (any contradiction?)

2-Could someone explain with more details how to deduce this classification? (if it is correct ?)

Thank you in advance

]]>https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00652

QuoteSolitons in space-time capable of transporting time-like observers at superluminal speeds have long been tied to violations of the weak, strong, and dominant energy conditions of general relativity. This trend was recently broken by a new approach that identified soliton solutions capable of superluminal travel while being sourced by purely positive energy densities. This is the first example of hyper-fast solitons satisfying the weak energy condition, reopening the discussion of superluminal mechanisms rooted in conventional physics. This article summarizes the recent finding and its context in the literature. Remaining challenges to autonomous superluminal travel, such as the dominant energy condition, horizons, and the identification of a creation mechanism are also discussed.

]]>

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/3/306

These are a couple examples. Is there any plausible mechanism through which solar flares can affect our health on the ground or is this pseudoscience? A lot of the studies in this field, known as "Heliobiology", mention things such as "Schumann resonance" and the "pineal gland" which I am aware are terms that are often used in woo papers. For instance, the MDPI paper published by the journal "Atmosphere" mentions "Schumann Resonance" five times. Whatever the case, it seems to be gaining traction in mainstream newspapers as of late.

During geomagnetic storms (which are caused by solar flares), Earth's magnetic field fluctuates at a rate of over 50 nanotesla (nT) per minute. During "extreme" geomagnetic storms, the rate can be up to 500 nT per minute.** Is there any plausible mechanism that magnetic fluctuations at this rate and amplitude can affect people's health?**

Professor José Abdala Helayel is a researcher of the **Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas - CBPF** (Brazilian Center of Physics Research).

I sent him an email yesterday, saying the following (translation to English by Google):

==============00==============

Dear Prof Helayel

Nobel Laureate in Physics Steven Weinberg expressed his opinion (at a time when physicists were still hopeful that Supersymmetry would be detected in LHC experiments) about the state of quantum theory at that time, in these words:

“*Perhaps a replacement for today’s quantum theory will come together any time now. Or perhaps not. Maybe it’s just the way we express the theory is bad and the theory itself is right. Or possibly a surprise is in store. There’s always a third possibility, that’s there’s something else entirely, that we’re going to have a revolution in science which is as much of a break with the past as quantum mechanics is a break from classical physics. *

*That’s a possibility. It may be that a paper from a graduate student tomorrow morning will lay it out. By definition I don’t know what that would be*.”

In the opinion of the Nobel Prize, theoretical physics at that time was already threatened by the need to be reassessed.

Many years after these words by Weinberg, in 2014 the Nobel Prize in Physics David Gross expressed his opinion on what represented the failure to confirm Supersymmetry at the LHC, in 2012:* *

* *

*“In the absence of any positive experimental evidence for supersymmetry, it’s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: ‘Don’t follow your elders—Go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially.’ That’s definitely a good lesson. But I’m too old for that*.”

Humm... *“Something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially”...* words that reflected how much the crisis has worsened, after what Steven Weinberg said about the state of quantum physics.

Today many must be following the advice of David Gross, looking for a solution through a revolutionary theory that is something new, crazy, powerful, and different.

But certainly everyone who is undertaking this quest is making this attempt through the current foundations on which Modern Physics was developed. And among these foundations is the fundamental principle on which Modern Physics was developed: the principle of symmetry.

However what if this path is not successful, and the new crazy theories that are proposed require that other crazier theories still be developed? What will be the future of Modern Physics, through this scenario?

In 2013, the European Physical Journal C published the article **The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light**, in which the authors proposed the hypothesis of the existence of pairs of fermions in the quantum vacuum, and ** proposed an experiment** that could prove this hypothesis.

In 2021 the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays published my article **Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum**, in which the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum is calculated, and from this charge the charge was calculated of the proton, obtaining the value e = 1.6026×10^{−19} C, which is very close to the experimental e = 1.60218×10^{−19} C.

What I would like to know is whether there is currently technology through which an experiment can be carried out capable of detecting the value of the electric charge of these quantum vacuum fermions, whose value calculated in my article is *e*_{0} = 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C.

If this technology is available, and if the experience is confirmed, imagine the repercussions this will have for the future of Modern Physics. For that suggestion of David Gross (that the crisis in physics must be solved through a crazy theory) could be replaced by the suggestion of Steven Weinberg, that "**there is always a third possibility**". And this third possibility is perhaps contained exactly in what I have been proposing in my work, if the experiments confirm the charge *e*_{0} = 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C of the quantum vacuum fermions (those that have a charge, as there are others that have other properties).

It is the future of Modern Physics that is at stake.

So, dear Prof. Helayel, I would like to know his opinion. Or, if you are not the most qualified person to answer my question (about whether there is a technology today to measure this charge of quantum vacuum fermions), surely you will know some experimental physicist who has an answer to this question.

I am sending as an attachment, in PDF, the article Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum.

Best Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

==============00==============

Dr. Helayel sent me the following reply today morning (translation by Google):

==============00==============

Hi Wladimir!

Thank you for your text with a clear exposition of ideas.

About the virtual fermions of the quantum vacuum, perhaps what the most recent and close to what you want is the super-LASER of Shanghai (SULF = Shanghai Ultra LASER Facilities), which operates in the Peta-Watt region and brings very strong electric and magnetic fields. intense. What is expected is that you can "break the vacuum" and generate currents of pairs coming out of the vacuum. Once these measurements currents, it would reach what you are trying to measure.

Go to the SO SULF website. Attached here are slides from a seminar that I gave at UFU. See only slide 4, where I leave two references that speak of the SULF. Are not yet what I told you about breaking the vacuum, but they already give details of this super-LASER.

See also super-LASER ELI: Extreme Light Infrastructure.

Perhaps, with these super-LASERs, what you propose will be achieved measure.

Hug,

Helayel.

==============00==============

Then today I sent an email to SULF, as seen below:

==============00==============

Wladimir Guglinski <wladski@yahoo.com>

To:iangxy@siom.ac.cn,lengyuxin@siom.ac.cn,zzxu@mail.shcnc.ac.cn

Sun, Mar 5 at 5:44 PM

Dear professors

Dr. Xiaoyan Liang

Dr. Yuxin Leng

Dr. Ruxin Li

Dr. Zhizhan Xu

In March 2013 the European Physical Journal C published the article **The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light** , in which is proposed an experiment to confirm what is theoretically proposed in the article.

The Abstract is this:

**Abstract **

We show that the vacuum permeability *μ* _{0} and permittivity *ε* _{0} may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. ** We propose an experimental test of this prediction**.

In 2021, the peer-reviewed journal Physics Essays published my paper **Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum**, in which is calculated the value of the electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum (those with an electric charge).

The value achieved for the charge *e*_{0} is 5.06532 × 10^{−45} C.

From this value of *e*_{0}, together with the fundamental constants *K _{O} *,

The article, in PDF, is attached to this email.

So, I would like to know yours opinion:

would it be feasible to carry out an experiment in the** ****Shanghai Superintense Ultrafast Laser Facility (SULF), **to measure the electrical charge *e*_{0}** = 5.06532 × 10 ^{−45} C** calculated in my article?

Regards

Wladimir Guglinski

==============00==============

]]>

Maybe not far from the truth?

]]>Under "We extended the mass-energy equivalence principle to the universal space"

]]>

I have a theoretical dart throwing machine that launches darts weighing 24 grams at a height of 1730mm to a target situated at the same height 2000mm from the release point.

The force used to propel the dart is constant and generates a launch speed of approximately 5.5 m/s and every dart hits the target exactly 1730mm high.

My question is where will darts hit the target if they weigh 23.5 grams and 24.5 grams respectively if launched from my theoretical dart throwing machine without altering the force and angle settings used for a 24 gram dart.

I believe that the launch speed will be higher for the lighter dart and slower for the heavier dart.

I expect the lighter dart to hit the target higher and the heavier dart to hit lower than the 24 gram dart, I need to know the difference in mm but have no idea how to calculate this problem.

Please note that the surface area of the different weighted darts are identical.

]]>Thanks!

]]>Suppose that I have a Polygon—say a Hexagon. If I expand the Hexagon into the 3rd Dimension I would get something that I have heard called a “Hexagonal Prism."

Cool.

BUT What if my Hexagon ROTATES as it rises in the 3rd Dimension after the manner of a Helix?

Does this have an official name? Can I write an Analytical Geometry Formula to Describe it?

Thanks.

Saxon Violence

PS: What if my Hexagon not only Rotates; but it also bends until it forms a “Hexagonal Spiraling Torus”?

]]>Lord Kelvin stated that there was no further need for research, that science had all the answers. This was before man split the atom.

Many will admit that there are more questions than answers.

Big bangers theorize about a universe beginning and a death but have no understanding of the universe now. They have no idea how galaxies form and evolve. They don't understand nebulae or quasars. There are three known substances, matter, antimatter, dark matter, but mainstream science mistakenly predicted that antimatter didn't, couldn't exist. They predicted that space contained only matter and was otherwise empty. In other words they also mistakenly predicted that dark matter didn't exist.

We should not believe that the prevailing science community has all the correct answers to the point that we aren't open to new possible explanations. The existing theories have failed in almost every prediction.

Yet we do not throw out everything we know about science.

Alternative theorists (millions of them) throw away many things we know about the universe and try to rewrite how everything works. A unification theorist hopefully takes all we know, throws away unproved theory, and puts the puzzle pieces in the correct order.

Asking prudent questions and unifying proven ideas (without trying to see it through some unproved metatheory) to get a more complete picture of how our universe works is not "against the mainstream."

Pseudoscience is against the mainstream!

When you go to forums and you don't just believe big bang, repeat all the mythos about it, claim intellectual authority then you are supposedly wrong by admission. The forum they send you to "against the mainstream" is described as "ideas that have been long disproved and don't fit any science..."

It is debatable if someone calls me against the mainstream. It is ridiculous and telling that it is "against the mainstream" when I post no comments but merely submit an image from Hubble or Integral, quote NASA and possibly Faraday, quote some established science fact cut and pasted from WIKI.

The mainstream is not proven science, new experiments, better observations, the foundation of knowledge that took hundreds of years. The mainstream is BIG BANG CONCLUSIONS, which are of course proven because in our generation they know everything there is to know about the universe.

"Against the mainstream" is just a label, like a dunce cap, that declares you are wrong no matter what you say. I refuse to be considered wrong without consideration or evidence, so I don't post science explanations in "against the mainstream" forums. They won't let my true statement exist outside of purgatory.

]]>

I have always wondered why they cut the larger stones with so flat surfaces already in the stone quarry.

This is why......

Just give me 100 liter of mercury and I will build a narrow fit channel for any large megalithic stone

and build the channel so that front of the channel have room for the stone to be able to float

and be moved the larger amount of mercury under the stone as the mercury is transfered under and beside the stone to the back.

Then I gather the mercury, fill in behind the stone and dig up in front of it to be able to make the stone to float and pushed another bit in my channel.

I am sick of all this nonsens of magic or aliens.

I say it again.

I can move any megalithic stone my self if I just get 100 liters or more, to make the stone to float in the mercury.

Master of Science in Engineering Physics.

Magnus Ivarsson

]]>I also found some years after this that the same system can be used to model the rest masses of the Standard Model fermions under the Koide Formula (see Wiki page), but with a different mathematical function. And I have some evidence you can do the same with the gluon colors.

A couple of days ago, on a whim, I started using arctan(sqrt27) to see if any other relations could be derived from it. I tried the ratio of the Fine Structure Constant's reciprocal, 137.035999 and change to arctan(sqrt27), and found that the result was almost exactly sqrt3 (1.732...), varying from it by well under 1%. And when I tried a smaller value for the FSC that would have been relevant in the early moments of our universe (so closer to 127), I found that using 128 divided by arctan(sqrt27) gave almost exactly the Golden Ratio, 1.618... and change, again with a variation from the actual value of well under 1%.

Anyone want to discuss??

Jess Tauber

]]>I doubt that our current technology can complete the experiment of quantum entanglement: divide one quantum into two and observe them separately.

How high will the completion rate of this experiment be?

If it can be done, what about splitting one of these two quanta into two more? Do you get three quanta or four?

If it cannot be further divided, does it mean that this experiment cannot be completed within a certain range?

1+2+3+4…=-1/12

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_+_2_+_3_+_4_+_⋯

This sum is used in physics for predicting the Casimir effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

I have also heard that this sum was used in the string theory (more precisely, in the original bosonic string theory).

Then, in mathematics the p-adic numbers are used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number

My question is: can the Ramanujan summation be relatively easily obtained using the p-acid numbers?

]]>

It can be many lays balls around the magnet center, is that posible to calculate each ball location?

]]>