/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5347787

This formula models harmonic octet of wavenumbers from one Plank Length to far infrared (I haven't found the upper boundary yet). I will list octet 0 for reference:

10x38-8m n=16
10x41-8m n=14
10x44-8m n=12
10x51-8m n=10
10x54-8m n=8
10x58-8m n=6
10x62-8m n=4
10x67-8m n=2
10x72-8m n=0

This is relevant because it predicts that point at which higher energy photons begin requiring exponentially more energy. The sequence accurately predicted the highest energy photon we have observed to date as the third inverse square of n=6 in octet 0 at 3.4TeV and predicts the upper potential boundary of what we could observe from the source as 4.3TeV.

>>5347791
I have intentionally chosen to keep the series progression in value ranges between 0 and 100 to illustrate the scalar nature of the system. Furthermore this geometry is intended to demonstrate that photons are discrete systems that exist independently of time external to their volume, that their presence in space is periodic (illustrated by the 3/4 oscillation fractal which does not interact with matter) and finally that the photon exhibits asymmetrical cycles of expansion and contraction (ratio of 24/17 which happens to map to corresponding identity of the csc^2(1) convergent sequence)

>W|A FORMULAS

Particle superposition derived from spherical harmonic oscillator
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%28pi^k%2Ci%29]%29^%2
8pi^k%29^gamma%28i%2Bphi^k%29%29cot^%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[pi^j%2Cj]%29^%28pi^j%29^gamma%28j%2Bphi
^k%29%29cot^%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[pi^k%2Cj]%29^%28pi^k%29^gamma%28i%2Bphi^k%29%29cot^%28k%29]%29&
amp;a=i_Variable


Wavenumber upper boundary derived from periodic spherical harmonic oscillator, positive polarization
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D0+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%28%CE%A0^k
%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^j%2Cj]%29
^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^
k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

>>5347795
>W|A Formulas

Particle EM 2/3, a strange transitional moment, at n=5/8
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%285%2F8%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

Particle magnetic moment positive at n=5/8->3/4
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%286%2F8%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

Particle magnetic positive to electric negative at n=3/4->7/8
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%287%2F8%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

>>5347793
>W|A FORMULAS

Wavenumber upper boundary derived from spherical harmonic oscillator, negative polarization
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D1+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%28%CE%A0^k
%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^j%2Cj]%29
^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^
k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

Particle state transition from electric to magnetic n=0->1/8
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%281%2F8%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

Particle 1/2 state at n=0->1/8->1/4
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%281%2F4%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]&a=i_Variable

Particle weakly interacting magnetic dominance at n=0->1/8->1/4->1/2
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=i%3D1+j%3D1%2F2+k%3D2+n%3D%283%2F4%29+[%28%28[%28sin%28[%CE%B6%
28%CE%A0^k%2Ci%29]%29^%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0
^j%2Cj]%29^%28%CE%A0^j%29^%CE%93%28j%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[%CE%A0^k%2Cj]%29^
%28%CE%A0^k%29^%CE%93%28i%2B%CF%95^k%29%29cot^n%28k%29]%29*10^n%28k%29%29]

>>5347796

Easier-to-read version of the formula (pictured). Please note that Wolframalpha won't place nice with it, hence the disparity in formatting. Please feel free to criticize and suggest alternatives in formatting or simplified solutions. I'm well aware it's not optimal.

At present I am considering a formal academic paper on the topic. I understand it has a long way to go and will not likely proceed without a co-author. That said, should it come to pass, I'd be happy to list contributions. Just let me know and I'll give you contact information to discuss it.

>>5347809
Here is what you should type for the first formula in your W|A list.

(sin^{(\pi^k)^{\Gamma(i+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^k, i))cot^k(x))(tan^{(\pi^j)^{\Gamma(j+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^j, j))cot^k(x))(cos^{(\pi^k)^{\Gamma(i+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^k, j))cot^k(x))

<span class="math">(sin^{(\pi^k)^{\Gamma(i+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^k, i))cot^k(x))(tan^{(\pi^j)^{\Gamma(j+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^j, j))cot^k(x))(cos^{(\pi^k)^{\Gamma(i+\phi^k)}}(\zeta(\pi^k, j))cot^k(x))[/spoiler]
<span class="math">i=1,j=\frac{1}{2},k=2[/spoiler]

It's a bit less readable than the W|A stuff, but it's better than posting those long ass links imo.

Don't forget to type [ math ] [ /math ] before and after respectively without the spaces.

>>5347851
Also, there are better ways to format this, but I don't know how to do that off the top of my head and I didn't want to research it.

>>5347851
I did not know about the math tags! Thank you!

>>5347854
I know. I've been pondering on it for a while but it's proven to be surprisingly difficult to reduce while remaining easily testable. It's a symptom of having taught myself mathematics, I'm sure. I just don't perceive the organizational structure as I should.

You would be better off discussing this on physicsforums.com.

This place is full of high school geniuses who probably couldn't understand the basics of this.

>>5347787
DUDE ARE U OUTTA UR FUCKING MIND! HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW THAT!

>>5347887

Heh, I'll give it a shot, thanks!

I know in general 4Chan doesn't host PhD particle physicists but I've learned that I can be pleasantly surprised.

That aside, this is a fairly significant paradigm shift. The csc^2(1) convergent sequence fractal of the magnetic peak during oscillation may come off to some as a violation of SU(3) symmetry when the parallel of the octet harmonic order to gluon particles is raised. I know how that can sometimes trigger...zealous reactions.

Even if not all /sci/ can follow along completely, I trust they'll help me identify issues which might be used to raise a false dichotomy. If nothing else it will reduce the probability of being dismissed without consideration for lack of a PhD (which has actually happened before).

Cooool, this thread again.

I'd definitely agree with this poster:
>>5347887
Unfortunately it's almost certain that you won't get any input of use to you here. Thanks for sharing this with us however, OP. I guess I'll... /try/ to comprehend what's going on, haha.

If/when you do post this to a physics forum, would you mind posting the link here? It'd be great to follow up.

>>5348004
Preparing a post now. May be a while before I actually submit it.

if this thread is still up in 1h ill look at it when i get home.

I enjoyed the last thread, and I like this thread. I like you OP.

>>5348023
Lol, when you said "a while", I was thinking more like an hour or so :P

Just bumping to sustain the only actually interesting thread on /sci/ right now...

>>5347787

this is the first genuinely extremely interesting (seeming) thread i've come across in a while. however, as previously stated, i am part of the masses on this board who don't have the intelligence to completely follow the information given above. if you have the time and it isnt too much trouble, do you think you could provide us with some background information and maybe a rough explanation of whats happening here? i'd appreciate it

ITT: Children impressed by a schizophrenic making plots with Wolfram Alpha.

>>5347887
He will be politely but swiftly given the boot. They are afraid of becoming sci.physics, so they treat crackpots as the worst form of cancer.

>>5349486
I remember you from the previous thread. Haha, fuck I'm spending way too much time here.

I'll admit, I am impressed by something that I do not understand at all in this instance, and it could easily be a troll, but I am inclined to want to know more.

I mean, be honest, compared to all the trolls and serious science/maths posts on /sci/, this one does at least *sound* interesting, and fairly promising, no?

>>5349486
im going to agree with this.

when i got home i looked at the plots and it doesn't make any sense, OP didnt explain what any symbol means aor how any of these formulas relate to the physics of photons, nor did he show that he recovers the experimental values.

it could be something legit, but in that case OP did a extremely poor job of presenting it.

>>5349597
We don't get very many crackpots here, so to people here it may seem novel and different when one comes along. Other places (e.g. sci.physics) are full of them.

>>5349618
OP has done a terrible job of the presentation, it seems, yeah. But there is some explanation of what the functions are actually doing; it may be that we just don't have anywhere near enough context.

Needs moar clarification, but meh. I'll still keep an eye on it. Hopefully OP will post it *somewhere* other than here, with perhaps a little more detail, in the hope of recieving real criticism.

>>5349645
'
Sorry. I'd written it up, clicked submit and it gave me a 'session expired error'. It caused me to lose everything I'd wrote. Since it was 5 AM and I had to be up for work at 8:30, I just couldn't bring myself to do it again.

I realize I did a poor job explaining this last night. Lack of sleep and a mindset where I forget that my frame of reference is not shared by others.

I will write you an introductory explanation after I finish this task I'm currently doing.

>>5350298

Okay, first I'll list off reference material to help out those who aren't familiar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5832v3.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121025/srep00771/full/srep00771.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_algebra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffeomorphism

Sorry, I know this is a lot. Hopefully you're familiar with at least some of it.

Next I'll tell you my thought process approaching this point.

>>5349621
>We don't get very many crackpots here

OP, your shit is totally nonsensical and disjoint from physics. Throwing a bunch of random stuff together isn't how physics works.

All of the properties of the photon can come from elementary second quantization of Maxwell's equations.

In particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromagnetic_field#Photon_states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromagnetic_field#Photon_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantization_of_the_electromagnetic_field#Photon_momentum

>>5350568

Beginning with the experimental observation of CPT Symmetry violation in B meson and B-bar Meson decay, I seriously began to contemplate asymmetrical time as a product of asymmetrical oscillations in EM carrier particles. I considered the possibility in light of another theory I'd read regarding asymptotic safety: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.6389v1.pdf

>Note that while acquiring the link for this paper I discovered another published very recently discussing a possible experimental test. Haven't had time to digest it yet, but it is exciting: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1528.pdf

This led me to consider the possibility of a charge-free EM interaction creating a loop. But how could it? Wave interactions only interfere destructively, constructively or as amplitude modulation. In order for that to change there would need to be an asymmetry in the waveform which would not be possible. Yet quite evidently it was possible. Then it hit me...

What if photons are discrete systems which of energy which can only interact periodically? Particles that are expanding and contracting during an oscillation cycle at an asymmetrical rate. Electrical potential influenced by the expansion of the universe while magnetic peaks experienced only chiral influence from the E force oscillation peak which was periodic. The notion seemed implausible but tantalizing, so I decided to investigate.

>>5350611
I appreciate your reaction. I am accustom to it as the dogmatic chant of undergraduate physicists too preoccupied with graded education to perform research. It's not something I begrudge, but I'd appreciate if you considered that I'd not bother with the trouble of it were it something that did not have apparent merit.

>>5350633
This description of a photon suggests that it existed in space-time in a very different way than we perceived. The particle would experience time locally. It would occupy space with respect to local relativistic curvature, disregarding apparent causal spatial progression at times. I almost dismissed the thought then before recalling something I'd learned long ago. 0-16% of photons fired at a photo-multiplier behind a piece of glass would not arrive, depending on the thickness of the glass. Sometimes light just ignored matter in its path without respect for causality.

Or did it? Causality is determined by observer perception of 4 dimensional relationships between two points and an event. Yet if relative curvature of the event in the space between two points differed, it might appear periodic. No causal violation, just a sort of Lorenz shortening of spatial distance between points due to the relativistic properties of the event.

>Electrical potential influenced by the expansion of the universe while magnetic peaks experienced only chiral influence from the E force oscillation peak which was periodic.
This does sound like crackpot.

OP how's that physicforums.com post going? If you do it, do it right. State your hypotheses, state where the preliminary results you are using come from (especially if they aren't widely accepted and you just picked them up in an arxiv pdf), explain logically how you arrived to your conclusion, which experiments your theory allow to explain, and which results your theory predict.

>>5350685

So how then could the particle without charge or mass perform such a feat? A Lorenz shortening cannot work if the object isn't massive. And yet the object was massive, just not at rest. Or was it? If the properties were truly capable of asymmetry then the photon would necessarily have a local definition of time within the boundaries of its oscillation. Therefore the internal properties of the photon could become massive for some fractal of time during a frame of oscillation. Yet the local rest frame would infer curvature and shortening. External observers would then observe an a moment of simultaneity as the photon appeared to occupy two places at once.

If that were the case then light wasn't constant. It was periodically simultaneous and absent. That could explain the wave particle duality, if true. It was a ludicrous but exciting moment that posed a daunting problem:

In order to explain this, I need to define the properties of a photon as a discrete system which is capable of predicting behavior without knowledge of wavelength, energy, angular momentum, mass...or anything but compound properties of the system. How the fuck was I going to do that?

>>5350718
I must've missed the sudden discovery of prevalent magnon dragon equivalent to phonon drag that we've somehow overlooked for the past 60 years. Would you mind sharing? Because the disparity has been something of an anomolly.

>>5350721
I decided the first step to solving the problem was understanding a scale independent analogy. The first step was understanding that a discrete system cannot be a singular body. Then I recalled the spinon, holon and orbiton of an electron. Though quasiparticles their experimental distinction was evident for electrons in transit. So if this was the case for an electron in transit then why would it not be similar for a photon? In the absence of charge it would be a spinon orbiton pair where the holon had excited the orbiton state during photo-emission. If that were the case then the holon charge wouldn't be gone but localized to the power the particle dimensions of the photon in transit.

Suddenly I had a conceptual two quasiparticle system and could describe a particle. Things seemed a little more plausible.

>>5350763
>Magnon drag, accidentally typed dragon.

>>5350763
Two quasiparticles mediated by a third which in turn seemed to vanish. The simplest way to begin the hypothetical description was to qualify each was a wave. The obvious choices for my quasiparticle pair were:

sin(x) cos(x)

But then what about my boundary? This was either a wave or tan(x). Then I realized I needed to describe the holon charge mediated sin(x) and cos(x). Well obviously I could make it discrete with tan(x)/tan(x), but that object was absent all the properties. In order to make this work I would need to define each wave and the mediator properties individually. So I began working with the rather unusual base:

(sin)/(tan)/(cos)

Distribution problem solved! Now I just had to figure out what the fuck the properties were.

>>5350718
>he thinks this is a crackpot
It's a troll, you cretinous piece of shit. He's trying to find people stupid enough to bite. And most of /sci/ would bite. Recall that 90% of the people here are edgy reddit kids who ignorantly regurgitate what their fellow redditors told them. They baselessly believe in nonsense they read from pop sci articles and then pseudo-intellectually think they are entitled to talk about shit they don't even understand. The only reason they are here on /sci/ is because they need homework help and in the meantime they shit up legitimate threads with uneducated drivel.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Anyone want to go through it and score this guy?

Also, http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

This guy is pretty good for a crackpot, almost looks okay at first glance, but let's be honest, you don't come to /sci/ when you've made a scientific discovery. If there was anything to all of this, he would be published.

>>5350799
>Hooft
>not a crank himself
I hope you know that cellular automata (trivial combinatorial games with stones) is the 21st century pseudo-math version of magic pixie dust

>>5350790

With no idea where to begin, I went with the obvious: I needed to describe this in vector space. Each of my parameters would need some definition of:

[.,.]

And this needed to be described over a field...yet each of the parameters had to operate independent of the other. This was a weird problem to solve for a discrete system. I'd have to define the field of distribution and the propagation of the event. Well, you can't have an event without space and you can't have space without time, so:

Γ^1+ϕ

Ah-hah! A space-time definition for each component of the system! Now my binary operator could actually define something. Except their definitions would just be arbitrary assignments unless there was a fundamental set of rules to the motion of this system.

This one took me a while to solve.

>>5350799

I spent about two or three weeks pondering on this problem. There was literally no research I could turn to on the subject and anyone I tried to ask either didn't understand or balked headily at the notion and recited what they knew about light from high school physics. It was a frustrating time.

Finally I just sat down and started tinkering in W|A based on what it seemed I could observe from photon-photon physics. First I needed to account for the wavenumber peaks and that couldn't happen unless the system had a surface which had wavelike properties:

sin([Π^2,1])^(Π^2)^Γ(1+ϕ^2)cot

This was a major step in the right direction that I played with for a while that came to me when I realized I'd have distribute the radius on each plane and define it in expansion using cot(x). Now I could add a waveform parameter to the dimensions of my quasiparticles! Ah, if only it were that simple though...

>>5350876

Even though I could get a stable particle description assembled, I quickly realized that managing these parameters was vastly more intricate than I'd given credit. They had to assemble in a complimentary fashion which incrementally regulated the geometry. On top of that I'd have to determine how to achieve this while ensuring the system had multiple states in Hilbert space.

At first I just started feeding W|A vector values for the parameters to see if I could find a pattern of relationship. Unfortunately W|A couldn't calculate these very quickly and would sometimes become very upset when the balance led to unsolvable geometry. So, after angrily swearing at the computer, I decided I needed a new approach. So i stopped defining them as vectors and began treating them as spin parameters:

sin([Π^k,i])^(Π^k)^Γ(i+ϕ^k)cot
tan([Π^j,j])^(Π^j)^Γ(i+ϕ^k)cot
cos([Π^k,j])^(Π^k)^Γ(i+ϕ^k)cot
where i=1, j=1/2, k=2

It took me a long time to realize that the mediator parameter tan(x) needed to use 1/2. It took me even longer to realize that unless I also defined that as part of cos(x) vector, it wouldn't work. Care to guess why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

it seems so obvious now but at the time it wasn't. Fortunately, with that I'd solved the stability problem! Except now my values were still arbitrary and I had no way to test the formula against data. I knew something had to be missing but I had no idea what.

>>5350904

After a couple of weeks of research I determined two things:
1) Lots of people will tell you how something doesn't work
2) When you finally convince one particle physicist to explain how he thinks it works, his colleagues will tell him that he's wrong, marking the beginning of a battle royal

Eventually I gave up looking for answers in research and began contemplating the problem from a different angle. Experimental data tells me this thing will vanish up to 16% of the time. So why the hell 16%? Why not 20% or 5%? Then it dawned on me:

ζ(1/n)

Harmonics. Specifically, spherical harmonic oscillators. Fundamental properties observable in atomic physics that mediate bonds. Could it apply to a subatomic body? It may be just a coincidence that there are 8 distinct gluons but for me that was enough. If the geometry was right then I could use the harmonic progression of wavenumbers in an octet to test whether this hypothesis would match data. Thus:

([(sin([ζ(Π^k,i)])^(Π^k)^Γ(i+ϕ^k))cot^n(k)][(tan(ζ[Π^j,j])^(Π^j)^Γ(j+ϕ^k))cot^n(k)][(cos(ζ
[Π^k,j])^(Π^k)^Γ(i+ϕ^k))cot^n(k)])*10^n(k)
where i=1 j=1/2 k=2 n=0

Using ζ to control my vector parameters for each quasiparticle and n=. define position in the octet I would be able to snapshot the periodic particle in motion. I could now test if my geometry was capable of predicting data.

I was absolutely shocked when it plotted a positive wavernumber at n=0 and the negative negative mirror at n=1. It reported a chiral octet; it was accounting for the polarity of the particle. The first it reported?

>>5350996

k=72

At first I was disappointed. My target was 7.2*10^-7. Then it dawned on me; this is a discrete system. It has no frame of reference to assign a magnitude shift! 72*10^-8 = 7.2*10^-7. It felt like I was fishing and I realized the only way to test it would be to see if it could plot the series. So I tried the next number. And the next...

10x38-8m n=16
10x41-8m n=14
10x44-8m n=12
10x51-8m n=10
10x54-8m n=8
10x58-8m n=6
10x62-8m n=4
10x67-8m n=2
10x72-8m n=0

It never missed a beat. The formula was accurately predicting data. For first time after months of effort and heckling, I knew that I may very well have stumbled onto something. That I needed more minds than mine to investigate this. That I needed a co-author to publish with or at very least to share it.

That's why I came here, /sci/. To share it with someone.

>>5350799

Hm, looks like I might've scored between -5 and 5. Depending on whether or not you dock points when I admitted I got stuck at certain points in the process for a few weeks.

how did the post on that forum go (unless you're still composing it)

>>5350793
>It's a troll, you cretinous piece of shit.
No you

>>5351006
Holy jesus god that shit's complicated.

Welp, it's enough to convince me that you're not a troll, at least. I'd already sort of assumed that anyway.

I can't really help at all, sorry. Thanks again for sharing your work though. I'll definitely screencap this in the hopes that at least some day I'll be able to look into it properly (I'm only an undergrad, lol).

It seems like you've had one helluva lot of trouble finding anyone IRL to even properly offer constructive criticism on this, despite apparently talking to actual physicists... In that case I'd say just try to spread this around the internet as much as you can; try reddit maybe (though it'll be reeeeeally hit and miss), in addition to some physics and math forums.

Also it's spelled "anomaly".
;-)

Ah the Music of the Spheres.

>>5352146
>lol
>;-)
no

>>5347787
Did you make the post to physicsforums? Post the link when you do, okay?

>>5347787
I know just enough to have learned some quite interesting tidbits from your efforts. And I'm lucky to have mathematica 8 on this computer.

Your work is of supreme importance and I thank you for your diligence and persistence in your efforts.

>>5351235

I spent last night writing the explanation for /sci/, so I haven't finished composing the post for physics yet.

>>5352146
Thanks. And I will. This is the first place I've ever given a full context explanation. I'll formulate it more concisely and share it elsewhere, as well as write the more mathematically organized version for Physics Forums.

I have to admit, being a hobbyist I feel a degree of intimidate writing for places like PhysicsForums. I find that there are often arbitrary expectations of format and organization of formulas. In this case I'm using unit terms which they will likely mistake for particle terms almost instantly. I can't tell you how many times I've been insulted because someone assumed I was using Γ referring to the particle rather than the unit.

I was tinkering around with interactivity on W|A and realized I could render the motion of the superposition with a slight adjustment to the formula. I can't figure out how to capture it for display but the picture is a few frames of the render.

>>5352244
Will do.

>>5352270
I greatly appreciate your support. It means a lot to me.

>>5352355
Thank you for doing this!! Absolutely more tantalizing the more I reread.

The crackpottery in here is devastating.

>>5352419
let the nay-sayers say nay. No one is making you read this, if you can't contribute or thank the guy fall silent and wait for those interested to post or the thread to die.

>>5352350
One more set of renders (now that I know how to use W|A to do that) from the original superposition formula. This explores the various states of the system at fractions of an oscillation.

I don't really know what to make of this. The -1 to 1 range mapping the n=(1/2) I'd assessed was likely a non-interactive state of the oscillation is showing some very peculiar behavior. I found it intriguing so I thought I'd share.

>>5352462
Fuck your shit. I'm going to voice my opinion whether you like it or not. I have as much right to this place as you have, and I don't appreciate this crackpottery taking up all this space, no matter how elaborate.

>>5350793
this

>>5352671
I agree, I'm sorry for calling it crackpottery. Regardless though, this shit has to stop soon.

>>5352641
This makes me smile. I believe in what you're doing, I believe wholeheartedly in your effort to seek the truth, it's truly tremendous work you've taken on!

I believe in you. The science will speak for itself in the right time. Until then you are doing a pretty good job translating.

How does your theory account for the fact that the +++- metric is meromorphic to the n-manifold, therefore dark matter has to interact electroweak?

>>5352709
If you want to troll someone who you presumably think is either an idiot (or troll themselves), then you should at least sage.

To everyone throwing around the word "crackpot": what the fuck is the point of that when the OP has said nothing except present their ideas, which none of us so far have really offered any real criticism of, and has not even really come across as the typical teenage "wannabe physicist/mathematician"? To me it just seems like OP doesn't quite have the experience to know the *full* ins and outs of what he or she is getting into, but they sure as shit know more about it than anyone else ITT. So save your personal attacks and focus on trying to come up with an actual scientifically constructive critique of the OP's post yourself, please.

Also:
>>5352224
I really don't get the 4chan obsession with erudite language. As long as every person each understands what the other is saying, I don't see the problem with using things like "lol", smileys, and such. You got what I meant; what's the big deal? And yes I know, don't feed the trolls etc. etc. Still, I thought it was worth mentioning.

TL;DR: OP is almost certainly not a "crackpot" or troll, but worth at least the attention of someone in the know on this topic. That someone (if there is such a person on /sci/) has not yet appeared ITT...

>>5352709
If you want to troll someone who you presumably think is either an idiot (or troll themselves), then you should at least sage.

To everyone throwing around the word "crackpot": what the fuck is the point of that when the OP has said nothing except present their ideas, which none of us so far have really offered any real criticism of, and has not even really come across as the typical teenage "wannabe physicist/mathematician"? To me it just seems like OP doesn't quite have the experience to know the *full* ins and outs of what he or she is getting into, but they sure as shit know more about it than anyone else ITT. So save your personal attacks and focus on trying to come up with an actual scientifically constructive critique of the OP's post yourself, please.

Also:
>>5352224
I really don't get the 4chan obsession with erudite language. As long as every person each understands what the other is saying, I don't see the problem with using things like "lol", smileys, and such. You got what I meant; what's the big deal? And yes I know, don't feed the trolls etc. etc. Still, I thought it was worth mentioning.

TL;DR: OP is almost certainly not a "crackpot" or troll, but worth at least the attention of someone in the know on this topic. That someone (if there is such a person on /sci/) has not yet appeared ITT...

>>5352786
Crackpots aren't bad, particularly creative crackpots like the OP. They're basically the same as scientists except they have no fucking idea what they're doing.

So let's not insult the crackpot. Let's insult the people who don't understand a thing the OP said (which nobody does as it is an incomprehensible word salad) and yet somehow manage to conclude that it is "worth at least the attention of someone in the know on this topic."

>>5352804
I admit I understand nothing, essentially, of what OP said, and that, yes, I am actually just guessing when I say that it is worth actual attention.

I don't mean to say "OP must be right because no-one is clever enough to prove them wrong!", but...

I honestly just want to follow this thread, and maybe later forum posts, purely because it doesn't seem likely to me that OP would put this much effort into something that they do not really understand *at all*.

In some sense I'm blindly trusting that OP at least understands the concepts mentioned in those previously linked wiki articles, and such, for example. At worst, an expert will come along and point out an obvious fundamental flaw in OP's thought process. Even then, I'll still have learned something, if I understand where OP went wrong. Because right now I don't understand even the first thing they said.

>>5352709

I'm not sure I understand your question. Nor do I understand the reference '+++- metric'. Do you mean (↑↑↑↓→↓↑↑↑)?

>>5352786
Thanks.

>>5352804
I suppose if that's your definition, it's a fair assessment. No one appears to have done any research regarding a geometric solution for γ. Probably because of the wave particle duality made the notion seem unfavorable.

So yes, I am in fact in the midst of a discovery process. It would be nice if someone recognized a parallel. Perhaps n=1/2 appears to behave as though the wave surface occupies Banach space due to some obscure property of ζ operating on the vector fields and I'm not aware of it.

That's why I'm sharing and asking. To seek input from others who will see things that I did not.

>>5352865
For me, that makes this way more interesting than almost every other thread on like this on /sci/ ("Hey guys check it out I worked out what minus one to the power of infinity is!", etc...). Perhaps I'm sorely misguided, but it seems like that to me. Just a hunch, yeah, but who cares really - it's only one thread on a very slow board - might as well watch it, right? The potential for something awesome is there, I'd say, and more so than any other thread I've seen recently.

>>5352866
>I'm not sure I understand your question. Nor do I understand the reference '+++- metric'. Do you mean (↑↑↑↓→↓↑↑↑)?


That question was obviously a troll, and now that makes me think you are a troll, TBH...

But either way, I ain't even mad.

>>5352893

I know. Still, I wondered if he was referring to to the wavenumber asymmetry in oscillation states n=0 and n=(3/4) since the peak ratio differs 24/17 or not. Because that would mean at least he read it before heckling.

>>5352709
Doing it right.

>>5352866
Welp, thread over.

>>5350685
>depending on the thickness of the glass
the thickness of the glass will increase the likelihood of the photon colliding into a piece of matter, and never making it to the other side.

>Causality is determined by observer perception
This is more philosophical than a scientific, no?

These core arguments are ridiculous and I vote crackpot.

>>5352951

>the thickness of the glass will increase the likelihood of the photon colliding into a piece of matter, and never making it to the other side.

You're misinformed.

Immediately after impact, a full half wave of the photon fits completely into the glass (2c), no matter how thick. The photon’s wavelength in glass is only 1/3 of its air wavelength. If the thickness of the glass is a multiple of a half-wave of the (shortened) photon, the photon will go right on through without reflection. Otherwise, depending on the thickness, some percentage (0 to 16%) of them will reflect. In effect, the glass collapses to zero thickness if it is an exact multiple of the half wavelength, and if not, there is an overhang on one of the collapsed thicknesses that determines the probability of reflection. Thus the photon does not have to “wiggle” its way to the far side and back to make its decision. If it is going to reflect, the decision is immediate due to the glass being foreshortened to fit the photon. It is, in fact, relativistic foreshortening of the glass.

>This is more philosophical than a scientific, no?

No. It's not. It's quite specifically a physical behavior of light. The use of the word 'observer' in that case refers to relativistic observer. As in those traveling at the speed of light vs those not. Did you ignore the whole segment about Lorenz shortening?

>>5352986
So, are you the guy who writes the blog from which that image was taken? Just wondering.

>>5353083

No. It was must faster than writing it out myself and easier to find. Forgive for not feeling obligated to invest effort in educating rude AP physics flunkies. Their unfortunate lack of motivation to learn is exhausting.

So you want an expert's assessment? I can hardly claim to be an expert in particle physics, or any field of modern physics for that matter, but I am writing my PhD thesis on Seiberg-Witten invariants currently and so I might be of some importance. Considering also that I used to focus on algebraic geometry and have thus come into contact with physicists on multiple occasions I'd also put forth the claim that I have a solid understanding of basic modern mathematical physics and its ideas. All that said, it's this particular sentence in >>5352866 that strikes me as most crackpotty or trolly (whatever your hypothesis on the situation at hand):

>Perhaps n=1/2 appears to behave as though the wave surface occupies Banach space due to some obscure property of ζ operating on the vector fields and I'm not aware of it.

This is just pure nonsense. There is not one Banach space and properties aren't well-defined mathematical concept that could operate on anything. Considering he has bluntly shown here to have no understanding whatsoever of fairly basic college level mathematics, I'd say it's safe to dismiss this thread as crackpottery or trolling, at least for now.

>>5353102

I was referring to Banach space as a form of topological vector space with discontinuous linear mapping. Forgive me if I did not correctly use the term.

As my reference to ζ I was making a somewhat sarcastic remark about meromorphic space where F(z) = e^1/z is an essential singularity. It was a bit obscure, I guess.

Of course, referencing a single comment in annoyed response to a troll as validation to dismiss is a bit rude. Especially when qualifying with unproven credentials to support your statement rather than something of substance.

If you're going to dismiss my work then at least take the time to illustrate why it's flawed so that we can all learn from it. I would love to know why my crackpottery is accurately predicting data out of coincidence.

>>5353136
>I was referring to Banach space as a form of topological vector space with discontinuous linear mapping. Forgive me if I did not correctly use the term.
Well, you didn't, and you still aren't. Also, it's not about forgiveness, but rather the fact that you don't know basic college level mathematics. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from here, but it's safe to say that whatever you're doing isn't of any value to any real scientist right now.

>As my reference to ζ I was making a somewhat sarcastic remark about meromorphic space where F(z) = e^1/z is an essential singularity. It was a bit obscure, I guess.
Again, a meromorphic space is not a mathematical object, unless you just invented it and thought it prudent to not mention its definition. Also, a map is not a singularity, although I obviously agree that your F has an essential singularity at 0. This has nothing to do with you being obscure, but rather with you not saying anything meaningful, and I mean this in the strictest sense of the word "meaningful".

(cont.)

(cont.)

>Of course, referencing a single comment in annoyed response to a troll as validation to dismiss is a bit rude. Especially when qualifying with unproven credentials to support your statement rather than something of substance.
That single comment was enough to convince me that you have no idea of basic college level mathematics, the kind that is crucial to any modern physics. You are entitled to your opinion on me being rude, of course. To speak of "substance" in this manner doesn't become you, especially considering the amount of posts and the lack of substance on your part. I consider my exposure of your lack of mathematical knowledge as substance, you can disagree though, for all I care.

>If you're going to dismiss my work then at least take the time to illustrate why it's flawed so that we can all learn from it. I would love to know why my crackpottery is accurately predicting data out of coincidence.
I can't comment on whether it's really flawed as a physical theory, though I think I have proven beyond a doubt that your presentation is flawed as can be. I also think that at this point it's not possible to prove that your theory is flawed as most of your technical statement are meaningless, as I've explained before. This is also a common pattern for crackpot theories, which is why I feel entitled to this conclusion.

In summary: you haven't said anything meaningful so far. Also, you know too little mathematics.

>>5353177

>In summary: you haven't said anything meaningful so far. Also, you know too little mathematics.

I'm tickled. You're qualifying the validity of dismissing a formula which predicts data, which you apparently claim to have no read, by defending your first character assassination with...more character assassination?

Your assertion of my knowledge of mathematics stands stems from asserting my usage of a term for complex space that you disagree with. You assert that meromorphic space used as a context joke is proof of my unfamiliarity with mathematics even after the reference. Did you not get it when I said F(z)^1/z because the formula I created uses ζ[.,,] and shows the particle collapsing to a point at 0x in oscillation state n=1/2? I figured you'd have picked up on it being an expert on algebraic geometry, but I guess you didn't read the formula.

You're not actually making any kind of case. You're literally just launching personal attacks to validate your opinion. I wouldn't generally care if you personally chose that but you're assertions in this case are toxic and counterproductive.

>TL;DR The whole point of this is knowledge and exploration and you choose to shit on it for the sake of a snap judgment and defending your choice in making it.

>>5353235
>>TL;DR The whole point of this is knowledge and exploration and you choose to shit on it for the sake of a snap judgment and defending your choice in making it.

sheep cant go backwards

>>5352786
>then you should at least sage.
Sage is not a downvote, you reddit shit.

>>5353393
>Sage is not a downvote, you reddit shit.
everyone who cares already knows

Look, guys, let's try to think about this for a second.
How do you make an actual contribution to science?
And I'm not talking about how do you get an idea or anything, I'm talking about how do you promote your ideas, your work, how can it become established science?

Do you
A: Do research and submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal, or, if you for some reason need some help getting things moving, seek help from other scientists

B: Post on a image board on the internet known for spam, trolls, kids and crackpots

And don't give me that "No one is smart enough to understand the work of my genius" shit, or "It's a conspiracy blah blah". If there is actually anything to this, then anyone qualified to understand it would be very interested.

Oh, and btw, no, I don't know enough to understand all of it, just another undergraduate, but I know just enough to know it doesn't quite look right, ignoring where it is posted, of course.

>>5352893
>>5352924
Pretty obvious that the metric was a non sequitur. This theory is just physics/math mad libs.

>>5353606
this is some mad science

>>5353576
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to locate all the logical fallacies in this post.

>>5353576
>but I know just enough to know it doesn't quite look right

its different LETS SHUN IT!

This entire thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

What exactly does this do? What's it supposed to predict?

>>5353692
Which means you couldn't actually find any argument or objection to this post.
Poor evasive maneuver. Typical crackpot though.
Troll is still not off the table though

>>5353697
This is true, it's different from science.

>>5347809
>(10^n)k
>where k = 2, n = 0
So just (xyz)^2 ?

>>5347791
>10x38-8m n=16
>10x41-8m n=14
>10x44-8m n=12
>10x51-8m n=10
>10x54-8m n=8
>10x58-8m n=6
>10x62-8m n=4
>10x67-8m n=2
>10x72-8m n=0
What are these supposed to mean? What units are they in? What observable quantities do they describe?

>harmonic octet of wavenumbers
What is this? No such term exists in any physics or mathematics journal.

>higher energy photons begin requiring exponentially more energy
I don't understand you here. The energy of a photon is continuous, you may boost to any reference frame to obtain a different value.

>>5353753
>>5353752
Is... is it a joke?
Is it autism?

>>5353753
>>5353752

I have finished first pass of a more concise and coherent write-up to explain things. It not as dressed down as the first. I will let /sci/ have a look at it to call bullshit on me any mistakes before I turn it over to physicsforums.

>1/?
Consider if you would that the γ (photon) is a looping EM field composed of the same quasiparticles as e− . The properties of γ vary from particle to particle because the composition is formed by these quasiparticles is a sort of antisymmetric trichotomous relationship of cycling exchange in forces. Consider the genesis of γ from e− as orbital shift inducing an emission of another particle composed of the spinon, holon and orbiton quasiparticles. Except unlike e− where the holon retains charge in γ it distributes that charge to the orbiton and frees the spinon to convert all rest energy to angular momentum. In turn this creates an oscillating relationship of force exchange where the spinon and orbiton eb and flow through the holon between them. The holon mediates the distribution of energy of the system which, due to its antisymmetric behavior, is never equal.

>>5353916
>2/?
This behavior is consistent with a discrete system. We can describe it through a composition placing sin(x) and cos(x) in a antisymmetric relationship mediated by tan(x) with [.,] vector properties for each to account for parity. Assignment must also include local transitive relativistic properties as the distribution of energy in the system is a cyclic function of time. [For this we define the field ((pi^n)^Γ(1+ϕ^2))cot where n=2 for sin(x) and cos(x) and n=½ tan(x).](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot) This in turn gives us the parameter dependent foundation of geometry which can then be assigned properties of distribution through vector parameters.

Because all energy of forces distributed within the system cannot radiate, the system can be thought of as discrete. In order to describe such a system with geometry alone we must create looping interrelated parameters for each of the three components. In this case using sin(x) and cos(x) in a antisymmetric relationship mediated by tan(x) with each suffixed by [.,.] properties to account for parameter distribution and distribution parity.. Assignment must also include local relativistic properties of the space used by each parameter. While this may seem counter intuitive for |φ⟩ γ it is necessary to account for complex behavior of the system at fractions of an oscillation cycle. Thus we define the field ((pi^n)^Γ(1+ϕ^2))cot where n=2 for sin(x) and cos(x) and n=½ tan(x).
Refer to http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot

>>5353917
>2/?
To balance distribution each parameter must assign looping distribution of surface and parity in the vector fields. For this we use sin(x)[Π^2,1], tan(x)[Π^½,½] and cos(x)[Π^2,½]. This is a necessary topological order as sin(x) is the angular momentum carrier, while cos(x) is the conservation of energy. The mediating parameter tan(x) is therefore necessarily the reduction of the orbiting pair. With this knowledge we can join vectors to the fields and define |φ⟩.
Refer to: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%5B%28sin%28%5Bpi%5E2%2C1%5D%29%5E%28pi%5E2%29%5E%CE%93%281%
2B%CF%95%5E2%29%29cot%5E2%5D%5B%28tan%28%5Bpi%5E%281%2F2%29%2C%281%2F2%29%5D%29%5E%28pi%5E%281%2F2%2
9%29%5E%CE%93%28%281%2F2%29%2B%CF%95%5E2%29%29cot%5E2%5D%5B%28cos%28%5Bpi%5E2%2C%281%2F2%29%5D%29%5E
%28pi%5E2%29%5E%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95%5E2%29%29cot%5E2%5D%29

Although the geometry is defined the inherent properties of the system are still arbitrary. To correct this without external information we must discern a fundamental property to the system. ζ[.,.] as the spherical harmonic operator seems an ideal choice for this as it provides an immediately guideline for testing the hypothesis against data. It also allows us to derive the wavenumber from the geometry by referencing known harmonic wavelengths. Thus join ζ[,.,] to our vector definitions to derive gives us the |φ⟩ of γ.
Refer to: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28[%28sin%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C1]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95
^2%29%29cot^2][%28tan%28%CE%B6[pi^%281%2F2%29%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^%281%2F2%29%29^%CE%93%28%281%2
F2%29%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^2][%28cos%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2
%29%29cot^2]%29).

>>5353920
Now with the formula we can test sets of n=n≥0 ∈ R to determine where if the geometry can accurately predict k of γ. Initial tests were performed using j=2 n=0,2,4...,16 to evaluate the harmonic octet range 7.2e10^-7m to 3.8e10^-7m. The results which were:

38x10-8m n=16
41x10-8m n=14
44x10-8m n=12
51x10-8m n=10
54x10-8m n=8
58x10-8m n=6
62x10-8m n=4
67x10-8m n=2
72x10-8m n=0

In order to study the partial states of |φ⟩γ we must designate a variable which defines magnitude of ζ for the system. This will allow us to directly plot wavenumbers from the geometry aligned with coherent harmonic values. To do this we change our expansion cot(x)^2 to cot(x)^n(2) where n=n≥0 ∈ R integer values. This gives us the chiral octet n=0,2...16 (y0,+) of R k and n=1,3...17 of (y0, -) R k.

Note that these integers artificially inflate the system in the absence reference for magnitude of k. Thus we must must normalize the growth by as ([...][...][...])*10^n(j) where j=j≥0≤2 (can be fractal values such as ½) defines harmonic identity of the octet set for ζ that the integer n belongs to.
Refer to: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=j%3D1+n%3D0+%28[%28sin%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C1]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%
281%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^n%282%29][%28tan%28%CE%B6[pi^%281%2F2%29%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^%281%2F2%29
%29^%CE%93%28%281%2F2%29%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^n%282%29][%28cos%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^
2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^n%282%29]%29*10^n%28j%29

>>5353922
It should be noted that since the system is discrete, it has no reference for magnitude. The series accurately predicted the integer series of the optic harmonic octet without adding extra 0s. To confirm it was not a fluke, ranges from k=10^-34m to k=10^5m were tested. All of them successful, with the lowest predict noted during the test being a frequency of exactly one Planck length. This confirms the model accuralte predicts the harmonic behavior of γ.

Beyond predicted tests of the formula architecture, further behavior correlating to data was observed in the isolated states of oscillation for γ. At present the model suggests there are 8 total possible states of the system. Although there are only 6 states for a transition for a given polarity. These states are n=0, 1, 1/8, 2/3, 1/2, 3/4, 5/8, or 7/8 with 0, 1/8 mutually excluding 1, 7/8.

The oscillation state n=1/2 used by both describes a null interface incapable of external interaction. To examine it further I have rendered fractals of |φ⟩γ at x-2 ~ x+2 to examine the surface of the wave at the various stages of oscillation.
Refer to http://imgur.com/VCDIj for image.

>>5353923
Especially interesting is the range of n=1/2, x-1 ~ x+1 and it's chiral which exhibit unusual surface distribution behavior not found in the other states. Higher resolution examination revealed that the nature of surface propagation changed at n=1/2 from fluid transition to fragmented instantaneous displacement of unconnected segments. This unusual behavior corresponds with a well known single photon refraction anomoly of non-interaction with translucent surfaces whos thickness was some multiple of k*½. This suggests a second prediction of data for the behavior of γ.

>>5347787

No one cares about your boring, overly complex subject matter. It makes no difference in the world.

>>5353927

>No one cares about your boring, overly complex subject matter. It makes no difference in the world.
>>From person lurking /sci/ before dawn without excuse of successfully tested hypothesis
>MFW

What the fuck does your model predict OP? What phenomena does it explain? If you can't answer any of these, stop

>>5354010

>What the fuck does your model predict OP? What phenomena does it explain? If you can't answer any of these, stop

1) The behavior of γ is a product of the geometric configuration of quasiparticles.

2) The properties of wavelength, energy, polarization and spin can be described without knowing anything about the system.

3) The fundamental properties of the wave particle duality expressed as geometry illustrate that a photon is rapidly transitioning between states as it rotates. These states interact with the universe around it in different ways, or in one case, not at all 16.67% of the time.

4) The ability to model γ from geometry permits analysis of the particle in various states. One of which appears to exhibit exotic properties of brief but extreme concentration with a brief loss of angular momentum. The standard model would suggest that means the photon spontaneously gains mass. This could have significant implications to our understanding of the current ATLAS Higgs data which indicates an abundance of diphoton decay by the Higgs of ± 1.8 Sigma.

5) If n=1/2 provides a guiding principle for producing spontaneous massive fields via constructive harmonic bisection it could have significant implications for technology like modern hot fusion reactors.

>TL;DR There may be significant advantages we can leverage if this knowledge is correct. The hypothesis matching two independent sets of datapoints suggests that chance isn't unreasonable. It would be shitty to throw that away purely due to lack of resources and willpower.

>>5354043
At last something that sounds at least a bit comprehensible.

>1) The behavior of γ is a product of the geometric configuration of quasiparticles.
Product as in "multiplication" or as in "a result of"? Are you saying a photon is a fictitious particle?

>2) The properties of wavelength, energy, polarization and spin can be described without knowing anything about the system.
The properties of what? Any particle in any system?

>3) The fundamental properties of the wave particle duality expressed as geometry illustrate that a photon is rapidly transitioning between states as it rotates. These states interact with the universe around it in different ways, or in one case, not at all 16.67% of the time.
What is the wave particle duality "expressed as geometry"? What do you mean that a photon rotates? What are you referring to with the "in one case, not at all 16.67% of the time"?

>4) The ability to model γ from geometry
What property of photons are you modeling exactly? What property do all your equations in Wolframalpha describe?

>5) If n=1/2 provides a guiding principle for producing spontaneous massive fields via constructive harmonic bisection it could have significant implications for technology like modern hot fusion reactors.
What the hell is "constructive harmonic bisection"? Why would this have implications for hot fusion reactors?

Just post it on physicsforums already, I want to see them shoot you into outer space for being a crackpot.

>>5353393
>>then you should at least sage.
>Sage is not a downvote, you reddit shit.
When did I say that, exactly...? I know it's not a downvote, but it should still be used to prevent bumping from replies that do not contribute to discussion, such as yours, you "4chan shit".

In addition to this:
>>5354086
OP, what are the independent variables in these functions? What do x and phi represent? Also, what is the significance of the values n and j?

>>5354043
>exotic properties of brief but extreme concentration with a brief loss of angular momentum

So how do we tell whether or not this is pair formation?
This was your example of it periodically collapsing to a point? I wish we could extrapolate more information about that state.

The upper frequency limit on photons I'm guessing relates to planck length.. or maybe I'm thinking backwards. I have a lot of interest regarding that upper boundary.. but it seems it's lessening in frequency by your octet. In that instance, there should be no lower (upper) limit, or that limit should be defined by the minimum quantizable energy... which is what? even exists? I don't know.

So what does your model say about the differences in propogation or behavior of these photon systems at different ends of the energy spectra?

Forgive me if my questions reflect my lack of insight as to what exactly much of this material implies.

>>5354105
phi is the golden ratio. I'll let op re-explain the rest for the third time since he has a more comprehensive knowledge.. Yes but please if you can explain the equations in an argument or less mathematical sense it would help a lot to the less mathematically indulged

>>5347787
>>5347791
>>5347793
>>5347795
>>5347796
>>5347809
>>5347877
>>5347918
>>5348004
>>5348104
>>5349338
>>5349399
>>5349597
>>5349645
>>5350298
>>5350568
>>5350633
>>5350685
>>5350721
>>5350763
>>5350790
>>5350838
>>5350876
>>5350904
>>5350996
>>5351006
>>5352146
>>5352201
>>5352270
>>5352350
>>5352355
>>5352381
>>5352462
>>5352641
>>5352684
>>5352709
>>5352786
>>5352865
>>5352866
>>5352880
>>5352924
>>5352986
>>5353099
>>5353136
>>5353235
>>5353916
>>5353917
>>5353918
>>5353920
>>5353922
>>5353923
>>5353924
>>5354043
>>5354106
>>5354114
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

>>5354114
I originally thought OP meant that, but then realised that it would make no sense in context.

It's actually a variable in this function (not the axes on the 3D plot):

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28[%28sin%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C1]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95
^2%29%29cot^2][%28tan%28%CE%B6[pi^%281%2F2%29%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^%281%2F2%29%29^%CE%93%28%281%2
F2%29%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^2][%28cos%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2
%29%29cot^2]%29

>>5354132
*note the axes

>>5354099

I'm doing so right now.

>>5354106

>So how do we tell whether or not this is pair formation?

Distribution of the system is dynamically exchanging. Spin 3/4 illustrates transition of peak dominance.

>This was your example of it periodically collapsing to a point? I wish we could extrapolate more information about that state.

Refer to this image: >>5352641
The behavior at x-1 to x+1 and the chiral which explores a much higher resolution of the peculiar behavior at the 1/2 oscillation state.

>The upper frequency limit on photons I'm guessing relates to planck length

The formula can and does model it. You need to adjust the parameters to do it though. Here's the equation:

j=2 n=72 ([(sin(ζ[pi^2,1])^(pi^2)^Γ(1+ϕ^2))cot^n(2)][(tan(ζ[pi^(1/2),(1/2)])^(pi^(1/2))^Γ((1/2)+ϕ^2))co
t^n(2)][(cos(ζ[pi^2,(1/2)])^(pi^2)^Γ(1+ϕ^2))cot^n(2)])*10^n(j)^-2

>but it seems it's lessening in frequency by your octet


At very low energy spectra the time spent in given states is significantly longer than it is in high energy states. Their periodic nature is vastly extended. I do not well understand how this impacts simultaneity at 1/2 yet.

>>5354114
I originally thought OP meant that, but then realised that it would make no sense in context.

It's actually a variable in this function:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28[%28sin%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C1]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95
^2%29%29cot^2][%28tan%28%CE%B6[pi^%281%2F2%29%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^%281%2F2%29%29^%CE%93%28%281%2
F2%29%2B%CF%95^2%29%29cot^2][%28cos%28%CE%B6[pi^2%2C%281%2F2%29]%29^%28pi^2%29^%CE%93%281%2B%CF%95^2
%29%29cot^2]%29

>>5354141
Increasing the power of n carries to higher energies of the cycle. The formula isn't truly bound by the chiral octet 16 but going beyond seems to get weird unless you're at higher energy levels. You need to use j to modify which octet you're referring to and remember that the octet itself doesn't have a sense of magnitude. It's showing you the integers of the series; you have to assign the magnitude of for the group you chose. And no, I don't have a full cheat sheet handy yet.


>So what does your model say about the differences in propogation or behavior of these photon systems at different ends of the energy spectra?

The energy levels begin to scale exponentially beneath 91nm UV. By orders of magnitude. As such their mass at n=1/2 has an apparent moment of condensation as they experience simultaneity. Their constructive interference may induce a point local time dilation during interference. Because of their simultaneity the in this state they may bridge points.

I'm just happy to actually answer a question!

>>5354086
>>5354086
>>5354086
>What property of photons are you modeling exactly? What property do all your equations in Wolframalpha describe?

>>5354105
>>5354105
>>5354105
>OP, what are the independent variables in these functions? What do x and phi represent? Also, what is the significance of the values n and j?

All you have to do is answer these two questions and it will immediately clear up the vast majority of confusion here.

>>5354086
>>5354086
>>5354086
>What property of photons are you modeling exactly? What property do all your equations in Wolframalpha describe?

>>5354105
>>5354105
>>5354105
>OP, what are the independent variables in these functions? What do x and phi represent? Also, what is the significance of the values n and j?

All you have to do is answer these two replies and it will immediately clear up the vast majority of confusion here.

>>5354144
>I'm just happy to actually answer a question!

You were just given 6 far more simple questions that would shed much more light on what you're trying to say than the one you decided to answer. But you ignored them.

OP confirmed for crackpot/troll.

>>5354144
Note that I'm referring to j in the equation I provided in >>5354141 as I revised the formula for easier tinkering (because W|A won't quit fucking asking me if I meant iota).

The value j must be higher than 0 but it can be a fractal. Fractal values are appropriate for predicting lower energy states entering redshift. j=2 at n=0 predicts 10^-7m (nanometer) wavelength. If you're going below that at j=2 then progress using post chiral octet values of n.

I can't remember the exact conditions that led me to discover the need for using a negative exponent at the end of J but I think it was approaching the ~3,1GeV energy level. That's when the spinon wants to be all like "fuck this, I'm going to space!". I probably need to rework how I handle scaling of octet sets to account for that.

>>5354144
>I'm just happy to actually answer a question!

Then I guess you will be happy answering these >>5354086

For the love of /sci/, please let this thread die. It has been confirmed multiple times now that OP doesn't know any of the mathematics he talks about and he doesn't answer simple questions that would clear the mess he has put forth. Literally all evidence in here suggests that he is either a troll or a crackpot looking for attention.

>>5354156

Properties of wavenumber, polarity, and prediction of harmonic series. It also describes behavior regarding simultaneity, non-interactive modes and permits analysis of the particle surface in the various modes. It describes a photon as being a composition of a spinon, orbiton and holon.

>OP, what are the independent variables in these functions? What do x and phi represent? Also, what is the significance of the values n and j?

Phi is not a variable in this case. It's a function of distribution for the quasiparticle parameters.

The variable n represents the harmonic magnitude. Think of it like picking a note from an octave. Except you get 16 notes in your octave because note 0 is the top of the note and 1 is the bottom of it.

There is no variable x used in the actual formula for W|A. sin(x) is for readability, note that it's not in the formula with the explanation. In that case it refers to the implied Cartesian x.

In the top formulas the value i=1 and j=1/2 are used for defining parity in the parameters, k=2 is used for defining orbital dimensions. I had left them are variables to experiment with higher complexity systems but have not had to change them since I settled on i=1 j=1/2 and k=2.

In the most recent formula I posted for the Planck scale energy density, pretend j is how far to the left or right you are on the piano. the higher j is, the higher the frequency scale octet you're in. It doesn't step by integers; it can use fractions. n is still used to define the note.

>>5354086

Sorry, I missed your question between answering the others and writing physicsforums.

>Product as in "multiplication" or as in "a result of"? Are you saying a photon is a fictitious particle?

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying that the fundamental geometry of a photon defines why it behaves the way it does.

>The properties of what? Any particle in any system?

I haven't tried to extend it to any other systems yet. I was referring to the properties of a photon. I imagine a configuration of this could carry to electrons and muons fairly easily but it's not on my mind atm.

>What is the wave particle duality "expressed as geometry"? What do you mean that a photon rotates? What are you referring to with the "in one case, not at all 16.67% of the time"?

Please refer to the render composition I took from W|A earlier: >>5352641

Regarding 16.67% of the time, the geometry predicts rotation has quantized states. As in they behave a certain way until they cross a threshold of time then they do something else (refer to the image again). During a rotation cycle they go from starting integer (say 1 or 0) and progress through the cycle. The cycle of 1 cannot reach 0 or 1/8. The cycle of 0 cannot reach 1 or 7/8ths. I don't know why yet. But both of them can and do reach 1/2. They're in this for 16.67% of their rotation. This state has an infinitely negatively bounding peak.

If you look at x-1 to x+1 in the image, you'll notice that the 1/2 state doesn't behave like the other states. It stops flowing and starts teleporting little blocks of itself at random. This would imply that it may not interact with anything because it's not actually properly interfering with space at that point. Instead it's simultaneously in two spaces. Which might explain why it is that up to 16% of the time photons colliding with objects that are multiples of 1/2 their wavelength will just ignore them.

>>5354192
>Properties of wavenumber, polarity, and prediction of harmonic series.
You're still not saying which equation/graph corresponds to the wavenumber, which corresponds to the polarity of the photon. Also, realize we are not in your head : "prediction of harmonic series", what fucking harmonic series are you talking about?

>describes behavior regarding simultaneity, non-interactive modes
simultaneity of what, non-interactive modes of what

>particle surface
what the fuck is that

>It describes a photon as being a composition of a spinon, orbiton and holon.
So you're saying a photon is not an electromagnetic field but a virtual particle

>>5354208
>I'm saying that the fundamental geometry of a photon defines why it behaves the way it does.
What the hell is the "fundamental geometry of a photon"

>Please refer to the render composition I took from W|A earlier
This doesn't explain anything because you aren't telling what the fuck we are looking at

>the geometry predicts rotation has quantized states
The rotation of what? a photon? What the hell is the rotation of a photon?

>>5354208
>What property of photons are you modeling exactly? What property do all your equations in Wolframalpha describe?

The current model describes the particle in superposition, the particle at fractals of rotation which describe the wavelength, polarity and which harmonic octet of wavenumbers it belongs to (which will tell you the magnitude and therefore the energy).

>What the hell is "constructive harmonic bisection"? Why would this have implications for hot fusion reactors?

If the photon is getting super dense at rotation 1/2 then a set of beams with their phases properly aligned could fire a cross section so that the blink of an eye where they got fat would stack on top of one location as they interfered with each other. Hypothetically speaking you could significantly improve your compression power by literally curving space in on a point. A density enhancing augment for your plasma that gives no fucks about the extreme conditions of a hot fusion reaction.

>>5354222
>the particle in superposition
what particle in superposition

>the particle at fractals of rotation
what the fuck is that

>If the photon is getting super dense at rotation 1/2
what does that mean

>then a set of beams with their phases properly aligned could fire a cross section so that the blink of an eye where they got fat would stack on top of one location as they interfered with each other
Ok I finally got it, long after others but now I am sure of it. You are a fucking troll.

>>5354209

>You're still not saying which equation/graph corresponds to the wavenumber, which corresponds to the polarity of the photon. Also, realize we are not in your head : "prediction of harmonic series", what fucking harmonic series are you talking about?

These will explain how the formula is put together:
>>5353916
>>5353917
>>5353918

This formula will tell you the wavernumber and polarity if you read how to set the variables:
>>5353920

This is a harmonic series of luminous wavelengths in an octet:
>>5353922

>describes behavior regarding simultaneity, non-interactive modes

Lorenz contraction occurs due to an object with mass moving near the speed of light. That object perceives distance and time in space differently than an object which is stationary.

When I refer to simultaneity I am talking about the n=1/2 value in the formula which causes sudden and peculiar compression. The wave no longer travels like a wave. It travels like it's being teleported by Scotty from Star Trek. It's effectively in two places at once. I believe this is happening because during the peak of that compression it is briefly slowing down enough to gain mass which just does all kinds of weird shit to how it experiences relativistic space-time.

>what the fuck is that

The surface of the particle is where we observe the rippling waves moving around. We can watch how the particle changes as it rotates and moves through space. We can tell that it will interact differently if it suddenly starts acting weird.

>So you're saying a photon is not an electromagnetic field but a virtual particle

It's an EM loop with a dynamic shape. That's what was so hard about this formula. If you enable interactivity in W|A you can go down and push 'play' to watch the thing animate. You will see it act like a particle and sometimes act like a wave.

>>5354220

>What the hell is the "fundamental geometry of a photon"

A topological composition of a spinon, orbiton and holon. If you were to arrange them in their fundamental structure it would be:

Spinon at x0y24
Holon at x0y0
Orbiton at x0y-17

>This doesn't explain anything because you aren't telling what the fuck we are looking at

You're looking at the particle equation for the superposition. In those images I applied boundaries to the superposition minimum x and maximum x. Because the superposition is simultaneously in all states, zooming in on a section of the neutral superposition lets you observe the properties of the particle at different fractions of itself. This is important for the photon because it has 8 different states like that. Understanding how these states work is important to figuring out why they behave the way they do.

so is this the most elaborate troll ever or what

>>5354264
No, I don't think trolls have enough patience to create something this elaborate for so little reward. It's a product of genuine mental illness. I'm sure OP honestly believes what he's posting.

>>5354271
Indeed. At the beginning troll was a fair explanation, but after 100+ posts only madness can explain this

>If the photon is getting super dense at rotation 1/2 then a set of beams with their phases properly aligned could fire a cross section so that the blink of an eye where they got fat would stack on top of one location as they interfered with each other. Hypothetically speaking you could significantly improve your compression power by literally curving space in on a point. A density enhancing augment for your plasma that gives no fucks about the extreme conditions of a hot fusion reaction.

>>5354279
Well not madness, more like autism

>>5354264
>>5354271

Yep. The only person I'm trolling here is myself. Explaining this shit twenty different ways for you is exhausting. I'd like to believe the fact I provide pictures and formulas that have animating graphs would make it easy to understand. Obviously that's not the case.

>>5354279
Oh my fucking... HERE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_beam

Jesus fucking christ. Next you'll tell me you've never heard of laser confinement for a fusion reaction and at that point I won't care.

It was wrong of me to assume you read Nature, Physics or even skimmed Eurekalert to keep up with technology and methods of various fields. Now it's just frustrating as fuck to listen to you bark on about the world being flat every time you haven't heard of what a method from this last decade.

>>5354299
Go make your post on physicsforums, let's see how it goes with professional physicists.

>>5350904
your application of the pauli exclusion principle is within the discrete photon system right?

its just interesting since photons relative to outsie observers are bosons.. care to shed more light on my confusion?

>>5354299
The main problem is not our lack of understanding, it is that you cannot explain your model properly. We don't understand it, and the way you explain it I'd venture a guess and say no one can except you, not because you are of exceptional intelligence, but because you are autistic in the way you explain it. I bet if you were trying to explain it to kids, you would do it the same way. You state things as self-evident while they are only evident to you on this board and maybe even in the whole world. There are countless examples of this on this page. Here is just a random one :

>A topological composition of a spinon, orbiton and holon. If you were to arrange them in their fundamental structure it would be:
>Spinon at x0y24
>Holon at x0y0
>Orbiton at x0y-17

How can you honestly expect us to understand what you mean by that? The problem is not the words spinon, holon and orbiton themselves (although I guess most people here probably haven't heard of them), but your explanation.

>>5354299
Thanks for your patience with those supportive and actually curious/interested

like me!
>>5354325
>>5353687
>>5352462
>>5352270
>>5353382
>>5352684

If only I was having an easier time with wolfram... your explanations are invaluable though.

>>5354346
me>>5354106

>>5354343
I think op doesn't expect everyone to understand. The math is different and kind of obscure but the explanation is sensible- 3 quasiparticles comprising a photon

>>5354353
The explanation is not sensible...he says that a photon is a topological composition (whatever that means) of 3 quasiparticles, but a photon is an electromagnetic field, so he is basically saying that electromagnetism is not real but is an emergent phenomenon of something else which he doesn't explain.

>>5354382
he never said it wasn't real, but its obvious there are electric and magnetic components to the propogation of light, yet light is an uncharged particle/wave. It makes sense to me, but I guess that's just because I want to understand it.

Don't nag for an explanation when you have no desire to understand.

His model is explaining things about light in the context of a discrete system. Emergent phenomena are outside the scope of that and he doesn't try to go far beyond the data he presented.

But this is an interesting thought, what can your work tell us about the electric and magnetic properties/topology of the photon at different modes?

>>5354424
You understand it even less than me, you don't know what a quasiparticle is, which is why you say "he never said it wasn't real".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle
>For example, as an electron travels through a semiconductor, its motion is disturbed in a complex way by its interactions with all of the other electrons and nuclei; however it approximately behaves like an electron with a different mass traveling unperturbed through free space. This "electron" with a different mass is called an "electron quasiparticle"

His photon his made up of particles that do not exist

And BTW congrats OP, you've created the most epic and controversial thread on /sci/

>>5354437
>his
*is

>>5354437
I think you are confusing "does not exist" with "cannot be directly observed"

that would be why we are modeling this, to see the topology of light as we would be unable to even if we were traveling alongside it (relativity)

>>5354437
also, if you can't grasp that, how is the cognitive dissonance you must experience contemplating of wave-particle duality treating you.

Op does a good job hinting at a solution to this with models and explanations.

FOR THE LOVE OF /SCI/ WOULD EVERYONE SANE PLEASE STOP BUMPING THIS INANE THREAD!! MORE THAN HALF THE WORDS THAT OP USES ARE UNKNOWN TO HIM!!

>>5354452
I think you don't understand what a quasiparticle is. It does not exist. There can be a bunch of particles interacting in some way that gives the illusion we are only observing one particle with different properties, but this particle (quasiparticle) does not exist the way the initial bunch of particles does.

Spinons, holons and orbitons were names given to these 3 illusory particles that seem to appear when we observe a free electron in very specific conditions in a solid. The electron behaves in a way that makes it look like there are 3 particles with different properties instead of it, but these 3 particles do not exist, just like when you look at the pic I uploaded, the wheels are not really moving.

Spinons, holons and orbitons were the names given to these 3 illusory particles for this very specific example. Photons have nothing to do with this, and OP tells you a photon is made of a spinon, a holon and an orbiton, and you believe him. He's a troll (or an autistic crackpot), and you are too gullible and/or too stupid to realize it.

Just going to drop this here.
http://www.reddit.com/user/LaymanSpeculation

>>5354511
speak only for yourself

stop trying to control other people like its a game

>>5354519
I think you don't understand what a model is.
A model is a way we can look at or think about the world. A possible explanation.

And it's really the only way to treat a photon as a discrete system, because a discrete system cannot be one entity. So what are different components we can divide the photon into? if only for the sake of a model.

>>5354511
and again at you and your like. Your assertions that op is not only incorrect but a crackpot or autistic are reminiscent of crying "witch!"

Being burned at the stake would be a kinder fate for op than having to explain things to people who have no desire to understand but only to undermine what he's attempting to do and assassinate his character.

>and you are too gullible and/or too stupid to realize it

>>5354561
Looks like you are just too stupid

>>5354570
you're certainly entitled to feel that way, but what did you hope to accomplish by saying that? That I would feel "stupid" or that I would change my position?

You say things because you feel like it, not because you have a point or end in mind. How can you judge me? How can I judge you?

Look OP, all the gobbledygook aside, the 0-16% not making through the glass is a classic sort of crackpot trigger. What makes you think it doesn't have a conventional explanation?

hey wait I got it, light is like a rock skipping over water. Theres the wave, the particle and the interaction. That really explains the types of electromagnetic discharges, electrostatic as more particulate and electromagnetic more the slower propagating transverse portion.

forgive me for speaking in analogy instead of more technical terms, but what if the topology of the photon was in some sense like seeing the rock through a rippled water surface. That could explain why the graphs are fractalating, water behaves much like a fractal in the sense of its usefulness in life. Life is a fractal, without water a crystal.

And before you take up arms to reply consider this- you are one iteration of DNA among billions of other human who continually bifurcate by breeding and growing new generations of iterations.

couldn't unthom
events carturk

Please stop bumping this thread. I don't understand why the mods haven't deleted it yet.

>>5355578
>Life is a fractal, without water a crystal.
ohhboy, here we go

just link us to a thread you make about this on a physics forum and then the responses you get on there will clear up everyone's accusations one way or another.

btdubs op, iv believed you since the start, but i do agree with many others in that you're not always very good at explaining things because you make assumptions on how the reader will understand something you write based on whats going on in your head

>>5355704
>btdubs op, iv believed you since the start, but i do agree with many others in that you're not always very good at explaining things because you make assumptions on how the reader will understand something you write based on whats going on in your head

Same here. OP, despite everything, I really do now think you are worth listening to. This just isn't the place to say it, althought you have to admit, you have been really quite presumptuous in your explanation of it. Thanks anyway, though.

I'd advise you to just stop posting ITT, to be honest - I don't think it'll get you anywhere. If you could post links to your various threads elsewhere, that would be really appreciated though. I've really enjoyed reading this so far.

>>5355704
>btdubs op, iv believed you since the start, but i do agree with many others in that you're not always very good at explaining things because you make assumptions on how the reader will understand something you write based on whats going on in your head

Same here. OP, despite everything, I also think your ideas are at least worth listening to. This just isn't the place to share them, although you have to admit, you have really been quite presumptuous in your explanation. Thanks anyway, though.

I'd advise you to just stop posting ITT, to be honest - I don't think it'll get you anywhere. If you could post links to your various threads elsewhere, that would be really appreciated though. I've really enjoyed reading this so far.

>>5353938
>From person lurking /sci/ before dawn without excuse of successfully tested hypothesis
>From person doing the exact same thing.
>Implying we need an "excuse of successfully tested hypothesis" to be on /sci/.

What a dumb fuck.

>"MFW" internet slang = 15 year old.

Go kill yourself before you spread your stupidity. Also, why did you post a photo of a chink eating feces? Are you some sort of faggot? Ha, ha, ha.

>>5355776
Troll(Troll(Troll(Troll(OP))))

OP, we are still waiting for you to post link to the thread you said you were starting at physicsforums.com
I had a look in the particle physics section, couldn't find your thread.
This is the real test. If OP posts there, he is a real(autistic) crackpot, if he doesn't, he is just a very good troll.

>>5354589
I say things because I reason logically (at least I try my best), not because I "feel like it". And I said you are stupid because you did not get the point of my post at all. Besides the whole "it's a model thing", I was telling you that spinons, holons and orbitons are names that are attributed to quasiparticles that appear in a very specific experiment involving electrons in a solid under certain conditions. No photons are involved. In this experiment, electrons can be considered as made of these quasiparticles. OP claims that these very same quasiparticles make up photons anywhere, in any condition, in any experiment you could think of. There is no logical link at all. OP uses these fancy names to make his posts sound cryptic in a smart way because he is a troll.

What happened to your physicsforums thread, OP?

bump

not sure if autosage.

>>5356555
perception models reality. specific experiment or not it's just a way to use parameters to model the behavior of photons.

I cannot logically fathom stupidity, it's subjective. logic is supposed to be objective right?

I sort of want to understand what the OP is talking about. Let's say I've only taken introductory physics in college. What's some idea I should look into next?

>>5360132
Not going to community collage is a good ideas.

>>5358810
no, perception is a part of reality. the parameters anon's talking about only exist in those conditions. you have shown that you can't do basic math in this thread, and you don't know what you're talking about

>>5356555
i think we read that differently..it says that two behave one way because a third becomes the nothing between them. that's a reference of what happens to something without a definition. like telling a blind person what colors look like by describing flavors.

>>5361101
Why do you keep bumping a thread made by a man with a mental disorder?

physicsforums when?

>>5362521
He's not going to post it. It's a troll, sadly the mods are too uneducated to recognize it.

How old are you and why do you keep bumping this thread?

how the fuck is this still here?

>>5364261

A thread only dies when it isn't bumped and other thread that are take its place on the first pages. If it happens for long enough, the thread will even go out of page 10 and then 404.

Are you new here or something?

Interesting thread...
But lacks some explanations to understand it

>>5367080

Indeed

>>5369673
Are you trying to make this a new DT thread by bumping it every day?