/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11105556
more gauge bosons, pic related

Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

Standard model describes the particles' interactions but doesn't say why we have the particles we have. MCM says exactly why, and leaves it to the standard model to say what they do.

V A L I D I T Y
A
L
I
D
I
T
Y

Yeah, what would a genius like Witten be able to do to the standard model if all the scientists hadn't agreed to stop digging.

>>10939491
>Hakan Egne?
That's the guy who gets more by-name praise than Jonathan W Tooker.

Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

>>10779265
Regardless of who the author is, Bell treated two spin eigenvectors as if they were orthogonal but they are not orthogonal. When you do it how I did it in the paper, the theorem says that local hidden variables are always allowed.

>>10774893
>Quantum/Particle physics general

>>10748790
>Quarks, bound together by muons
no

>>10743714
I really need to take this pill at some point. I think it is necessary to move forward now that I have fairly well completed a survey of non-relativistic QM. I've perused this book, and I've read the first chapter three separate times. It looks like I'd need to read about 200 pages to get my value for the fine structure constant to "gel" with the rest of QFT. Or I could probably just read Schwinger's 4 page paper. Seems like other people would be jumping on the chance to write their names on these results, however.

>>10738900
To create anti-gravity, you would use an electrical device to produce the potential that deforms spacetime so that the geodesics give the appearance of anti-gravity. I made the connection between geodesics and electric potential here:
>Geometric Cosmology
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032
Not sure how practical this is or what the power scale of the electrical devices would have to be

classical electrogravity:
Geometric Cosmology
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032

pic related:
Quantum Structure
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

I'm thinking about
[math]\mathbb{W}=\mathbb{C}\cup\{0\}[/math]
but there is some nice attraction to
[math]\mathbb{N}_0=\mathbb{C}\cup\{0\}[/math]
as well

>>10525965
I explain the whole thing in 5 pages
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

>>10513121
>your standard model knowledge is so weak bro.
Wow, you mean that one undergrad class I took in particle physics didn't make me know as much as people who do PhDs and post-docs in particle physics? WOW!!!

It was the correlations with delay that I predicted, not T violation. Learn to read, tard.

Why does the Standard Model have the fundamental particles it has instead of some other smorgasbord of particles?
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

>>10505127
>the future of particle physics?
The high energy crowd of professional physicists surely criticizes me saying, "He doesn't know the first thing about the Standard Model." Actually, though, I do know the the first thing about it, pic related. It's the HE crowd that doesn't know the first thing about it: why is it configured like that? They might know the second through the millionth thing about Standard Model but they literally don't know the ~first~ thing about it: why are there these fundamental particles instead of some other set of fundamental particles. I know why we have the particles we have, I wrote about it here:
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

2013 was a productive year me. I literally wrote down the analytic form of electrogravity, the holy grail of classical physics applications, just a month or two before I discovered the "first thing" about the standard model of particle physics:
>Geometric Cosmology
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1301.0032

Both of these papers are quite short, 5 and 4 pages respectively.

>>10492462
>https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/lhcb-discovers-matter-antimatter-asymmetry-in-charm-quarks
>characteristics are identical to hydrogen atoms to beyond the billionth decimal place.

That sounds suspiciously like the ninth decimal place to me.

yeah but

>>10465742
>What if everything constantly scales up?
That would explain why the Higgs mass is a metastable region of the parameter space and not in stable region as was expected
>Why do scientists think Higgs fields is metastable?
>https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290635/why-do-scientists-think-higgs-fields-is-metastable

>>10274379
I like the one where classical phenomena satisfy the action principle with the least action and quantum phenomena are weird because they satisfy the action principle with the maximum of the action, and wherein those maximal trajectories "bounce" off of infinity but the universe is somehow asymmetrical about infinity, possibly antisymmetric, and that anti-symmetry inherent to the universe cause weird things like half integer spin for quantum particles but never for classical ones.
>Quantum Structure
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0037

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1712.0598

>>10126085
>If you can't do everything then what you did is nothing
I predicted from first principles the structure of the standard model of particle physics. To your question, I have not invested much time in QFT yet as I am still filling the gaps in the foundations on which the unsound of house of QFT with its infinite vacuum energy density is built. My research is in the foundations of physics and your question, "What about this thing from the 1970s when you're working on the 1920s?," is stupid and you know it.