5-20-16 All sources by conventional methods will be cited when I rewrite this Blog before releasing in Book Form.

12-19-15 To see Continued from Page 2012 and Beyond Below GE prices see reference just below

8-12-15 GE $25.8 up .09 3.21% DOW J 17407

11-28-16 GE 19089 down

12-13-16 GE 19011 Copied from Page About

1-6-17 Dow Reached 20000 Today.:

1-26--17 Dow is at 2068

1-31-17 Dow 19,800.64170.49 (0.85%)

10-1-15 I shall now work with the simple math to under stand Myconcept of basic physical properties of the Bohr Radius' Circumference divided by (137 times a J_Wave-Length ( X )). All the measured Numbers Below are in meters.

10-3-15 The Length X is a J_Wave-Length in Hydrogen inner Shell at rest energy J_Electron. I disclose here that X value of J_Wave-Length is X/2 with a increase of twice the frequency for both of the J_Electrons energy levels are accepted by the inner Shell of the Hydrogen J_Electron.

Bob West called and he has the 3 insturments-see panel top right

that he took out of Randy Palma's Savage that has never flown or had its wings put on. and he will mail them to me either this afternoon or tomorrow morning the 24th. they should be here before the annual is started the 28th. I will not decide whether to go ahead with the conversion from SLSA to ELSA until I get the plane back to P52. If I do then Mark Boarman could help me on the rigging of the Stick and control surfaces. I may not get the plane back to P52 until after November 22. I should find out soon after October 28 how much the annual and fixes are going to cost. After I have it back at P52 and rigged right I may see if I can get the wings to fold so I can trailer it to a dry lake for cross wind landing practice with fuel that I will get in my portable tank in my truck, from a nearby gas's station in the area. This would be sometime next year as I will be gone on a trip to Mexico for the last 2 weeks in November. So this plane that was suppose to be ready to fly after 3 years may still have to be converted to Experimental Light Sport Aircraft before it is really ready to fly the way it should have been. I gave Mark $200 for ferrying N808JD to Flagstaff and I also gave Ed Moats a check for $250 for a Biannual (BFR). I tries to send this to a friend to approve and all pages except this page 6 was there so will save this then publish and see when they answer their email with site if it will be there. On 10-2 I confirm it can be accessed by another but not changed.? See Home Page where intuit says I should be able to. It is Friday afternoon and I haven't heard from Wiseman yet on my annual. If I haven't heard from them in one and a half hours I will call them at 3:00. If I can't get my plane back to P52 tomorrow . , I will not be able until the 17th. I will call Joe St. Clair then and tell him I have got my annual and BI annual (BFR). Then if I can't get him to check me out in the following week it will be after my cruise to Mexico before I can do it. N808JD may be done with annual (10-21-09) and I could get Fred Gibbs to be my taildragger Flight Instructor.

9-24-09 I talked with Fred when for th annual inspection run up but Wiseman mechanic couldn't get it started outside their hanger. Fred say's that to successfully on staying on the center line of the runway after landing a slight amount of steering brake is needed. On 9-24-09 Mark Boarman flew N808JD back to P52 after started right after we took it out of the hanger. Again he had to use my VERTEX (VXA-710 hand held radio because again my SL-40 in my plane volume is too low. The tailwheel doesn't breakout of its detent because Mark think's the pivot bolt needs to be more perpendicular to the ground when taxiing.

1-06-11 I haven't been able to up date here because I couldn't log in to this Intuit Homestead Sitebuilder Web Page with out calling their customer service or support. and if i do update I can't Publish. After calling support yesterday they said they would call me last evening or this morning with my account problems but thy have not. and I can't Publish this? I also can't click on any Titter Icon and bring up my Twitter as I use to be able to

07-19-11 Even calling my new Site Builder Plus which was supposed to fix the above problem doesn't work I just have to wait and let intuit politics to work itself out. The problem hardware, software or underwear is the later. Now its worked out I will publish several pages.

« Unified Feild Theory of Everything Postulates of J_Time, J_Heat (see my Word Press page).

Also my page on Political (Decision Making Process)Failure Of GOP

By jackbecommspeednet

Our leader of the House of our government Nancy Pelosi puts the blame for our economic and energy problem is The Bush administration lack of stewardship.

10-19-15 Update For the larger parts of the following collection of Prior Art pertaining to my disclosure was coped unchanged from its source

9-19-08 Today after Financial and Government leaders overnight came up with the Trillion dollar bailout of our nations and and global economic problem with our taxpayer money on the line. Wall street financial rebound at the fact that leaders of our congress and financial leaders will work this weekend to solve this the greatest problem since the 1929 stock market crash.

9-20-08 From CNN Your Money It was stated that the reason that the public needs money is to make their life better. Today the leaders working this weekend say 3/4 of a trillion dollars will be needed to keep us out of depression we are facing that would be the greatest since the great depression that resulted from the 1939 stock market crash. The problem is these leaders are trying to solve our economic problem with only money where as resources of energy and innovation is also needed. My JLD_Analogue of economics is the prolonged recession due to this money only fix and credit limitations will be depressing on our resources market.

9-21-08 Gorge Bush Administration selected US Government Financial Treasury Secretary was on the George Stephanopoulos TV Program interview on corporate bank bailouts as being for the American people’s benefit. What people is he talking about, the top 10% of our nations population, not the American public. He is appointed by the present Bush administration, not by the vote of the majority of our nations citizens. This talk should have been made by our present president Bush who should represent these citizens not by this present Bush administration financial treasury secretary that was not voted in to that office by the US citizens.

9-22-08 The big weekend bailout is not clear what kind of capitalistic socialism is it. The price of crude oil is having the largest increase ever.

Our House of Representatives Yvette Clarke (D) New York for the district of Brooklyn states that treasury secretary can not be trusted to be accountable for citizen tax payers.

The house has got the 700 Billion dollar bail out proposal. We have to be deciding on how to purchase the bad corporate business. Yvette Clark said that partial privatizing of Social security Medicare health care under the leadership of Nancy Pelosie the house speaker this scary practice should come to an end. The Black caucus support is supporting this effort in our house of representatives this weeks legislation on the bailout. The bailout of 700 Billion Dollars Representative said for the first time since our American Revolution, foreign nations are telling us what to do.

Henry Paulson The Bush appointed secretary of treasury Representative Stearns Disagrees with with this administration of his party. Senator Cris Dodd says there will be no blank check and they have only a week before the senate adjourns. 700 Billion dollars is twice the cost so far of the Iraq war. Senator John Kyle says this legislation to allow Secretary of treasure Henry Paulson to use of taxpayer’s money.

9-23-08 Senate Banking Committee bailout authority to Secretary Treasury Appointed by present Administration. The Morgan Stanly & Goldman Sachs investment banks being allowed to change to commercial banks and the bailout registration going on in congress has lead us into the most confusion for the administration in this committees meeting.

Sectary Paulson and Bernanke are going to be speaking to the public through CNBC in this committee question and answer session. There is a bureaucratic holdup but Secretary Paulson gave his opening Speech.Chairman Dodd introduced Federal Reserve spokesman Bernanhi to give his speech. Then Senator Dodd introduces FEC secretary Christopher Cox. Bear Stearns Mortgage institutions failure started the panic in is mortgage sub prime dealings in its lack of GOP Regulation Standards. The 2004 volunteer registration regulation failed the CBS’s 58 Trillion dollar market has no regulation. Senator Dodd introduces GSE secretary Lockart and all persons questioned deviated from their prepared statement.

In our House of Representatives Peter Welch D_Vermont is trying to credit cards from changing their interests in a cred card protection legislation.

Back in the Senate Chris Dodd Chairman of banking committee questions Bernanke His Position on housing market taking presidency and now states the economy takes presidency. Senator Reid not the majority leader says this is a voluntary system for troubled institutions to participate in their companies not failing some institutions would get help for free. Secretary of the Treasury says regulated institutions would be the institutions that would be dealt with.

Senator Bye asked Secretary Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs corporation how long before being appointed by the present administration. The best I can decipher from his answer was seven. Bye asked why he couldn’t understand why banks are failing.

Morgan Stanly and Goldman Sachs the latest today that needs bailing out in the Senate Banking Committee today 9-23-08 . The most confusion for for the Federal regulators for the administrations are Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanaki are going to speak to the public through CNN coverage. There is a bureaucratic hold up of some kind on. Finally after the Paulson opening speech Senator the Chairman of the Banking Committee introduced Chairman Bernanaki to give his opening speech. Then Chairman Dodd Introduced secretary of FEC Secretary Cox. Bear Sterns started the panic in the mortgage sub prime dealings in the lending standards. The 2004 Voluntary Regulation failed. CBS $58 trillion market has no regulation,

Senator Dodd introduced of GSE and all of the above deviated from their prepared remarks.

During this time In the House of Representatives Peter Welch D-Florida is trying to stop credit card companies from changing their interest rates in legislation in credit card protection.

Continuing in the Senate Chairman of the Banking Committee questioned Chair Bernanaki of the Fed. on his position on the housing market. That now the Economy takes presidency over the housing market.

Secretary Paulson Says That Taking over Freddy Mach and Fannie May is part of solving the economic problem wit their authority. Senator Reid D-Nevada Senate Majority Leader said what the administrations voluntary system for bailing out troubled institutions by participating so as not to fail. Some Institutions would get help for free Senator Reid states. Secretary Paulson says that regulation of institutions would be dealt with.

Reverse Auction by the government with the government buying failed assets would be the most probable method for the government to buy these toxic assets. CEO’s privatizing the gains they have made and selling the public their bad assets Nancy Speaker of the House of Representatives is not going to be allowed and that a program to bail out these CEO,s is bad. We need to deal fairly with the taxpayers, otherwise it isn’t going to be done.

In this CNN report Allen Metzler is against private industry being saved by a public organization. In a democratic country we discuss things thoroughly. No one has said this bailout will work.

9-28-08 In the notebooks and blogs that I am keeping on Analogues and decision making processes. Sometimes were kept in separate notebooks and blogs and sometimes in the same. Now I have both in this notebook and blog. This blog Jack L. Doan’s Analogue Time and Heat Continued in this Blog 8 notebook.

9-29-08 Compartmentalization Is not my good capability. At this time the control of the economy in our nation is being addressed in our government. This decision making process needs continuing attention. The administration bail out plan for our troubled economy with the House of Representatives input didn’t pass and the DowJones lost 777.68 to give a 10365.45 points of value with the other stock market is the biggest loss ever. Secretary Henry Paulson Of Finance Committee after his meeting with the administration says the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Banks along with the four bailouts in Britten and Europe’s banks are very disappointing. He is taking strong action to shore up the economy but he doesn’t have enough authority congress has to act. Wachovia bank was taken over by CITI Group.

The understanding the science of the cosmic physics of Black Holes large and small I will continue analyzing in my JLD_5th dimension. Black Holes and Dark Energy are developed by the mass of mater and Dark Mater being decomposed into high velocity increments of a spiraling in at up to the speed of light some of which is unable to pass into the high density high velocity spiral inside the Black Hole’s event horizon is ejected back out of the Black Hole as energy mass emitting light and other electromagnetic waves.

JLD_5th dimension starts out toward the outside of the JLD_4th dimension universe. During the decomposition from mater and dark mater to energy and dark energy on the inward spiral to trillions of small black holes and billions of large black holes the most important aspect of this JLD_Analogue is disclosed. A thought experiment is being developed with with a thought experiment observer traveling through the 5 dimensions of this JLD_Universe. From the final dark energy of the black hole in JLD_ 5thdimension where J_Heat is at its highest temperature and where tiny strings of the “String Theory” are decomposed into energy. This highest density of energy-mass recomposes into the tiny strings of the “String Theory” with its highest gravitational force. This high force pressure is overcome as energy mass spirales out in J_Waves from this origin of the J_4th dimension universe that physics has quantified.

JLD_5th dimension is the 2nd JLD_Dimension of Time. The spiraling out from JLD_Black holes large and small in the JLD_Time 4th dimension toward the outside of the first 4 dimensions of the J_Universe only the JLD_Time of JLD_4th dimension is in effect. When this outward kinetic energy mass is expended then on the inward travel when the J_Waves and later the tiny strings decompose in JLD_5th dimension time the 5th dimension of the 5 dimensions of J_Universe is in effect.

10-8-08 Secretary Paulson now after our government has gave him the authority to set up a new organization to bail out investments he says it will be a few weeks before they get started to actually do this. JLD economy concept may help understanding of this. the private market use of mediums of exchange for goods and services developed in J_Economy analogue starting after humans acquired language as follows:

One individual or group of individuals with their developed goods and services desired to exchange them for the different goods and or services that another individual or group of individual found that they needed a medium of exchange that they could trust as being fair. The problem is as this new item of value is developed an individual or group of individuals treat this medium of exchange as if it is a product they have produced as well as their service of controlling the exchange of the original products and or service. All of these individuals and groups of individuals develop the need for another individual or group of individuals to govern their trust that the medium of exchange remains trustworthy and fair. Now in the case of GOP’s not voting in secretary of treasury Secretary of Treasury Paulson And Group Of Appointed individuals with the authority of this government to control these activities in what was initially tribe now nations. The problem is that the government claims democracy and try to empress other nations to be democratic when it can’t enforce its own democracy.

10-9-08 War is caused by economic problems. The World war 2 through Iraq conflicts were started by varying degrees of economic problems. The great depression started with the 1929 crash lead to the great war at the start of my life in 1932. With the 2008 crash fast approaching will lead to another great war World War 3 ??? The world wide economic problems to the degree we are approaching cause the great wars.

10-10-08 Continuing 10-8-08 part of this blog. Where dose the medium of exchange go in this world wide recession? The credit of the Value in the basic product and service noted at the start of this part of this blog only has depreciated and the medium of exchange has depreciated but has not gone anywhere except into the hands of the individuals or group of individuals that have enough of the medium of exchange to survive the recession and even acquire more of the depressed wealth. A modern day example of this is GE value that I was able to produce at GE and other companies this value was traded into. At the start of this slide in credit in the first quarter of this year an individual Waren Buffet and his group start to acquire the value of these products. Part of GE is an financial organization of banking. Warren knows that the value of this value is still there only is a rescission in GE’s credit prosper from this investment.

10-20-08 Our government’s Fed and Chairman Bernanaki now trying to do in their undemocratic way are trying to do what warren did as well as UK and other foreign governments are doing. This is a slow process because the medium of exchange today is a certificate of credit and its value is also devalued so that the taxpayer’s medium of exchange is week and has less effect than expected.

10-22-08 The President’s diminished democratic administration is now part of stock & bank ownership of corporations using taxpayer finance is setting up a meeting of our world leaders. The democratic tendency of the nations of these leaders is also being diminished and global corporations now have this advantage of promoting improvement in their bottom line.

1o-23-08 The greed of global corporations has caused a world recession with their monopoly becoming so large in the world economies that now are to large for our governments to allow to fail. These monopolies that are the largest are acquiring the smaller ones and becoming even larger. My concept of a true democracy is that individuals are equal under the law and all corporations are equal to individuals and each other under the law. This would be the only way that a democratic world peace could come to be.

10-26-08 Scientific American October 2008 Page 44 article Follow the BOUNCING Universe is similar to my concepts but my Theory of Everything has these regeneration processes accruing continuously not a very long cycle of time. Therefor my theory appears to be completely different than the article and the other articles it references.

10-28-08 the obsession of cosmology and physics to reduce the universe to 1 instant of time like the big Bang or big bounce is not in JLD_Theory 0f everything. Black holes are continuously adsorbing mass and energy and creating mass and energy and mass of our universe. The JLD 4th dimension arrow of time is the arrow of time out from the black holes and the JLD_5th dimension arrow of time in to the black holes.

11-04-08 Change has accrued in our government and our democracy will evolve.

12-03-08 UAW’S Gettelfinger: If Wall Street gets help so should Main Street. Yesterday the government determined the US has been in a resssion for a year today. The bottom of this recession with great volatility is being tested and established, but it is expected to take months for the end of this bear market to be accomplished ending this great volatility. The big three Auto Companies are in conference with our government on getting their Billion Dollar Bailout. GM says their 17 Billion Money from Taxpayers should be paid back by 2012.My Question will that be in 2008 Dollars value or 2012 Dollar’s value which will surly be less valuable.m

12-04-08 Mark ZANDI in the following Government House of Representatives meeting said that the Big Three Auto,s bailout would need to be $75B to $125B in total instead of the $34B they are talking about. The Taxpayer financed bridge to rescue AIG $300B, Fanny May & Freddy $200B, Bear Sterns $50B and now up to $125B for the Big Three Auto’s give up to $675B Total of just these companies in financial trouble:

Kris Alingod – AHN Contributor

Washington, D.C. (AHN) – The top executives of the nation’s three largest automakers are set to testify before the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday, two days after they submitted to Congress restructuring plans that asked for a total $34 billion in aid.

Chrysler chairman and chief executive officer Robert Nardelli, Ford president and CEO Alan Mulally, and General Motors chairman and CEO Richard Wagoner will testify during a hearing scheduled to begin at 10:00 am ET. They will be joined by United Automobile Workers (UAW) president Ron Gettelfinger and Moody’s Economy.com chief economist and cofounder Mark Zandi. The panel’s chair is Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

The industry officials will also testify on Friday during a 9:30 am ET hearing before House Financial Services Committee chair Barney Frank (D-MA). The Big Three CEOs all testified before Frank and Dodd’s committees two weeks ago to ask for aid. But they were later criticized for having reportedly taken private jets to Washington.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said in a press briefing on Wednesday the administration wants to hear the automakers’ testimonies before taking a stance on their restructuring proposals.

“We just got the summaries of those plans yesterday, and officials here are poring over them, as they are at the Treasury Department and the Commerce Department… Secretaries Gutierrez and Bodman sent a letter last week to Congress that outlined our position on viability. That is the linchpin of where our support would lie… So we’re going to be paying very close attention to the testimony that will take place Thursday and Friday up on Capitol Hill from the automakers, and then hopefully we’ll have more to say after that,” she said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosie(D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had sent a letter to top executives of the Big Three on Nov. 21 asking them to submit a proposal on why the government should give them a loan. The automakers have to submit the plan to both Frank and Senate Banking Committee chair Christopher Dodd (D-CT).

The plan must “provide a forthright, documented assessment of the auto companies’ current operating cash position, short-term liquidity needs to continue operations as a going-concern, and how they will meet the financing needs associated with the plan to ensure the companies’ long-term viability as they retool for the future,” Pelosi and Reid said in their letter.

Last week, Energy Secretary Samuel BodmanandCommerceSecretary Carlos Gutierrez sent a letter to both Frank and Dodd saying that the plan “should address the factors that drive overall competitiveness.”

12-10-08 Our government House of Representatives passed bills to give the big three auto companies a $14-15Billion bridge to the next bailout they will need. Wall Street companies didn’t have to have all the hearings and regulations that the Main Street auto companies have now been through.

12-12-08 last night the GOP Senators wouldn’t vote in a large enough quantity to get the 60 votes required to pass. They wanted the auto workers with tenure to take an instant wage cut like the new employees would, there for they wouldn’t vote to pass the bill. The Main Street Auto Workers with tenure the GOP thinks don’t deserve a Bailout and or bridge to recovery even though the would eventually take a wage cut, like the Wall Street to large to fail because of their tenure do.

12-13-08 On 60 Minuets two trillion dollars sunk in banking failures. 60 MinuetsProgram tonight says we are half way through the bursting of this economic bubble into recession. The housing repossession nowseemslikewe have seen before but now with commercial housing . Option ARM adjustable rate mortgages and loan sarethe next big problem. This problem like sub-prime in this secondwaveofthe bursting bubble.It will take three to five years to readjust. This question, discussed in regards to the book WHERE IS THE BOTTOM?

12-26-08 The seeds of world war China’s battle ships with the guise of stopping pirates of Somalia and Pakistan moving their troops from Afghanistan’s border to their Indiana’s border. President on CSPAN 12/18/08 still encouraging ownership society and that the reduction of oil prices as a big stimulus package. He is still against the regulation of nuclear regulations. Also praising Secretary of Rumsfelt for his application of our military. He is encouraging spending on military equipment and defense systems. He encourages increase in spending on Voluntary Military Forces.

01-13-09 In a weak the USA will have a new president. Our current president on foreign affairs, economics and domestic policies has left a mess for the next president. Energy is being manipulated now as never before. Today on the nomination of our next Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton.

01-15-09 The first half of the $700b bailout has been spent without accountability and today the 2nd half is being considered. The recession in our economy becomes worse. The value I had in GE stock is now less than half that value. The Blue chips on the Dow have lost value for seven strait days. CITI may have to be nationalized. Bank of America and others will have to double dip on TARP bailout.

01-21-09 Our new president Staff Signing ceremony announced that he is going to limit access to lobbying more than any other administration has. He has put a cap on his staffs salary. I have a much better of the policies of Obama I have a great more extent than I had of Bush at his similar point in time in his administration. My GE Stock Value Value went from 629831 for 8-2000 to 203283 for 1-2009 a loss of 2/3 rds of my investment, I will check after the 1st qtr this year in which Obama thinks it will get worse and see if it has bottomed out. I will now go back to where I stopped recording my science analog’s in before the politics in this blog.

2-27-2009 GE announced that next Quarter their dividends will be cut by 2/3rds.

3-03-2009 GE is now tracked by Dow Jones & Standard & Poor when its value is less than $7000 in this deepening recession. After $2.2 trillion in FED loans.

3-04-2009 GE value $6.34 per share down with the Dow at $6877 up $151 10:00 AZ time. The new stimulus package in China tomorrow may help the world economy on an up side . Ge traded at $5.87 earlier this morning. The countries East of the Eurel group in the mid east will be the countries without stimulus so the possibility of war because of this lack of control.

3-05-2009 GE value $6.871 up $0.08 @ 10 38 Dow down 203.5 6678.08 no china stimulus package. Golden Sach thinks the economy will go down farther the little rally is over. Dow is lowest since april 1997. S&P 500 big outflows.

3-08-2009 Mubrarak expected to be next president of Egypt on CNN GPS today. This dictatorship in Egyptian Muslim financial occupation is a force for peace between Palestine and Israel. The collapse of eastern Europe will be in the near future will be at the bottom and recovery from this recession probablylike when World War Two is what helped in our recovery from The Great Deprecession which is great income cycle of the world. This cycle is because of the world wide greed cycle in our civilizations. This graph is displayed in Wordpress but not here on SiteBuilder. It will be inserted as an imiage if possible.

-3.24 0 1930

-2.64 -0.48

-2.14 -0.84 1939

-1.64 -1

-1.14 -0.91 1948

-0.64 -0.6

-0.14 -0.14 1957

0.36 0.35

0.86 0.76 1966

1.36 0.98

1.86 0.96 1975

2.36 0.7

2.86 0.28 1984

3.14 0

3.42 -0.48 1993

-2.14 -0.84

-1.64 -1 2002

-1.14 -0.91

-0.64 -0.6 2011

-0.14 -0.14

-0.14 -0.14 2020

3-5-2013

GE+0.032 $23.59 DOW 14253

For GE in present day $ Value where + – 1.5 is porportional to +-$27 from 1910 to 2020

For GE Stock + – Absolute Value for the above porportional (see above graph)

3-8-2013 the DOW $14351 +24.77 back up at precession level with GE $23.74 +.06 getting back?

4-17-09 8:45 GE share 12.4 up .12 Dow 88130 up 5 Recovery from the bottom of the cruent Ression is started after the President Obama stimilie.

4-17-09 4:15 GE share 12.41 up .14 Dow 88131.33 up 55.9

4-20-09 2:48 GE share 11.3 Down 1.09 Dow 7841.73 Down 289.6 CNBC said GE Down 6% to 8% hopefully deep pockets like Waren Buffet will buy GE overnight and increase GE by 2% tomorrow?

4-27-09 11:45 GE share 12.08 down .03 Oil crude $50 per barrel.

4-28-09 11:00 Senator Arlen Specter changed his party from GOP to Democrat !

4-30-09 9:00 President Obama announces Chrysler surgical bankruptsy. GE cost per share $12.62 up $0.40 Dow 8255 up 62.30 was up 112 earlier today. This after noon the Chapter 11 bankrupt will start.

Chysler is in bankruptcy court and at this time a new page of my blog will be started titled personal economy of cars and planes.

01-08-10 GE $16.65 up $0.40 & DOW $10618129 up $11.33 good new year.

My GE Stock Value Value went from 629831 for 8-2000 to 203283 for 1-2009 a loss of 2/3 rds of my investment see above. Now from 629831 to 262712 a loss of 1/3 rds of my investment?

07-26-11 President Obama states we have 1 week for our government to raise our debt limit which the interest is 40 cents per dollar or USA will default on our debt. Political ( decision making process ) of Republican Gov Rep's is not to let corp & rich individuals who President Bush, our latest republican president, gave a large tax cut to not to have their tax raised any. Democrat Gov Rep's (Political making process) is the opposite. Our Senate majority party doesn't have 60 votes to keep the default to shut our Government down

8-04-11 GE$16.53 -5.38% on my MacPro report @ close. . What my MacPro report @ close $113833.83 only $10504295.67greater than 01-08-10 DOW $10618129. ???

15 min. later CNN said GE is down 5.7%. What is going on, Two days ago President Obama signed legislation supposedly to fix our debt problem.

08-08-11 GE $16.43 -6.43% DOW $10809.85 -5.55% on November 20, 2008 Now today DOW is $10809.85 -632.26 -5.52% almost as bad as in then in the latest recession is this going to be a double dip? The fix of Our National Debt has't satisfied Stock Market.

8-15-11 At the Mayo Hospital Cafeteria CNN Robbert Reich Head of the Fed. during Clinton and 2 other Administrations .Said without the Stimulus packages the US would have been economic chaos as bad as the great depression . Our Barack Obama Administration should have gone on much further like the WPA and CCC camps of of those Administrations after the great depression. Thhe Republican Candidates for President that claim the stimulus did no good are dead wrong

8-11-11 Robert Robbert Reich on CNN after DOW closed down 400+ under &11000 said government programs like WPA, CC camp and Infrastructure fund set up as well as an education fund

10-26-11 GE $16.44 .01 up from 08-08-11 no gain??

11-06-11 GE $16.39 .05 dn. from 10-26-11 no great loss.

11-07-11 Print entire site.

1-10-12 GE $18.72 Dn.14

1-22-12 GE $19.15 no chg.

1-31-12 GE $18.71 Dn .19

3-21-12 GE $20.24 Up .17

6-16-12 GE $20.00 Up .28

6-26-12 GE $19.59 Up .07

6-28-12 GE $20.20 Up .07

8-27-12 GE $20.85 Up .05

9-16-12 GE $22.11 UP .09

9-19-12 GE $22.40 Up .16

9-23-12 GE $22.53 Up .10

10-01-12 GE$22.88 Up.17

10-17-12 GE$22.88 UP.24 @ 10:10 am AZ Time The above are

@closing time.

1-25-13 GE$22.29 up .24

2-1-13 GE$22.62 up .34

3-2-13GE$23.19 dn .03

3-6-13GE$23.59 dn.06 DOW J 14253

5-7-13 GE $22.68 up .10

6-20-13GE $23.52 dn .27 DOW J 14923

7-21-13 GE$24.72 up 1.09DOW J 15543.74

10-29-13GE$26.08 up .20 DOW J 15589

10-29-13 Starting with updating On this New website with same domain name.

11-13-13 GE$27.15 up .10

11-22-13 GE$27.08 up .17

12-17-13 GE$27.04 dn .06

12-19-13 GE$27.24 dn .17

1-8-14 GE $27.21 dn .08

1-27-15 GE $24.38 dn .21 DOW J 17387.21dn 291.49

1-28-15 GE $23.84 dn .54 DOW J 17191.37 dn 23.64

1-31-15 GE $23.89 dn .19 DOW J 17164.95 dn 251.9

8-11-15 GE $26.03 dn .53 -2.02% DOW J17200 dn 212 China Devaluated their Yuan GE stock currency

3.6k Views • Upvoted by Vladimir Novakovski, silver medals, IOI 2001 and IPhO 2001 • Lucas Tambasco, Applied Mathematics Grad Student at MIT • Yair Livne, B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Mathematics

When you integrate a derivative, you get the total change in quantity.

If x is something that changes with time, we denote this as x(t).

(x can be distance traveled, air pressure near your ear, the volume of water in a cell, whatever).

The difference x(b)−x(a) is how much that thing changed between time a and time b. If a is 7am and b is 11am and x denotes how many miles you've biked, x(b)−x(a) is how many miles you've biked between 7am and 11am.

The distance you've covered - or generally, the total change in that quantity - can also be calculated by adding up the little changes that occurred over short periods of time. How much have you traveled between 9:06:03 and 9:06:04? Well, this is one second of travel, so the distance covered in that second is (whatever your speed was at that moment) times (one second). If your speed was 3 meters/sec, you'd have covered 3 meters in that second. If it had been 12 meters/sec, you'd have covered 12 meters.

The kicker is that speed is none other than the rate of change of distance. When you're going slow, the distance grows slowly with every passing second. When you're going fast, the distance grows quickly. This is what a derivative is - it's instantaneous rate of change:

speed = the derivative of distance

rate of change = the derivative of the quantity that is changing.

So,

total distance = sum over little intervals of (speed) x (length of interval).

or

total change in quantity = sum over little intervals of (derivative) x (length of interval)

but mathematicians call "sum over little intervals" an integral, and they write this fairly simple observation like this:

x(b)−x(a)=∫bax′(t)dt

but you can see that other than the scary notation, this is just what we wrote above: the total change in the quantity x from time a to time b is the sum total of the little changes it underwent over short periods of time, which is its rate of change times the length of the interval.

(The reason we need to take those limiting processes is that "speed" or "rate of change" are instantaneous notions. When you ride a bike, your speed varies within a second, but less so within half a second, and even less so within one tenth of a second.)

This is obviously a very crude overview of what (one form of) the FTC is all about. The thing is, other than subtleties around continuity and differentiability, the theorem really says nothing more than this: when you integrate a derivative, you get the total change in quantity. This makes perfect sense and can therefore serve as an intuitive explanation.

12-16-15 With the processes of singularity by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at U. Berkley and Alon Amit PHD in calculus and calculus simplified which may help me my Math language.

The J_Paradigm of J_Singularity is in bottom of J_Black-Hole where J_ Fifth-Dimension-Begins.

and ends at J_Big-Bang of the start of another J_Fourth-Dimension.

12-16-15 I had trouble trying to save 3 times using Windows 10:

12-16-15 Trying 3 times save different Original concepts were lost and I will try to remember in reference to the above.

PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any persons and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated website.23s, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile.

You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.

The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

12-17-15 Continue from above PRIVACY NOTICE On FTC ( Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. This theorem bridges the antiderivative concept with the area problem. Indeed, let f (x) be a function defined and continuous on [a, b]. Consider the function

F(x) = f (t)dt

defined on [a, b]. Then we have

= f (t)dt .

Since dt = h, we get

- f (x) = f (t) - f (x)dt .

Since F(t) is continuous, we can easily prove that

- f (x) = 0 .

This means that the function F(x) is differentiable and F '(x) = f (x). In other words, the function F(x) is an antiderivative of f (x). From this and what we learned about antiderivatives, we obtain the following fundamental result:

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Let f (x) be continuous on [a, b]. If F(x) is any antiderivative of f (x), then

f (x)dx = F(b) - F(a) .

Remark. The number F(b) - F(a) is also denoted by [F(x)]^{b}_{a} (or F(x) ). So

Combining the Chain Rule with the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we can generate some nice results. Indeed, let f (x) be continuous on [a, b] and u(x) be differentiable on [a, b]. Define the function

F(x) = f (t)dt .

Then the Chain Rule implies that F(x) is differentiable and

F '(x) = fu(x)u '(x) .

We can generalize this a little bit more to find the derivative of a function of the form

H(x) = f (t)dt

where u(x) and v(x) are both differentiable on [a, b]. We have

H '(x) = fv(x)v '(x) - fu(x)u '(x) .

Example. Find the derivative of

cos(t^{2})dt .

Set

F(x) = cos(t^{2})dt .

From the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we know that F(x) is an antiderivative of cos(x^{2}). We have

Note that F(x) does not have an explicit form. So it is quite amazing that even if F(x) is defined via some theoretical result, we are still able to find the derivative of the given function.

Example. Find the derivative of

e^{-t2}dt .

Set

F(x) = e^{-t2}dt .

From the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we know that F(x) is an antiderivative of e^{-x2}. We have

e^{-t2}dt = F(x^{2}) - F(x) .

The Chain Rule implies

e^{-t2}dt = F '(x^{2})2x - F '(x) = 2xe^{-x4} - e^{-x2} .

Exercise 1. Let f (x) be a function defined and continuous on [a, b]. Compare

The above was copied from (SOS) which I got from internet firefox entry FTC calculus.

Answer to Exercise 1

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus implies

f (t)dt = f (x) .

An antideritative of f (t) is simply the function f (x), so

f (t)dt = f (t) = f (x) - f (a) .

So, unless f (a) = 0, the two expressions are different.

12-21-15 Although I have studied calculus in 3 different classes in school I never used it at work. Using numerical computer programing to solve rate of change problems. Math symbolic rate of change calculus conflicts with my oral description of symbolic manipulation math language of rate of change. This handicaps me either way so going through the above calculus above will maybe determine what the best approach will be. I will google antiderivative.

For lists of antiderivatives of primitive functions, see lists of integrals.

The slope field of F(x) = (x^{3}/3)-(x^{2}/2)-x+c, showing three of the infinitely many solutions that can be produced by varying the arbitrary constantC.

In calculus, an antiderivative, primitive function, primitive integral or indefinite integral^{[1]} of a functionf is a differentiable function F whose derivative is equal to the original function f. This can be stated symbolically as F′ =f.^{[2]}^{[3]} The process of solving for antiderivatives is called antidifferentiation (or indefinite integration) and its opposite operation is called differentiation, which is the process of finding a derivative.

Antiderivatives are related to definite integrals through the fundamental theorem of calculus: the definite integral of a function over an interval is equal to the difference between the values of an antiderivative evaluated at the endpoints of the interval.

The discrete equivalent of the notion of antiderivative is antidifference.

The function F(x) = x^{3}/3 is an antiderivative of f(x) = x^{2}. As the derivative of a constant is zero, x^{2} will have an infinite number of antiderivatives, such as x^{3}/3, x^{3}/3 + 1, x^{3}/3 - 2, etc. Thus, all the antiderivatives of x^{2} can be obtained by changing the value of C in F(x) = x^{3}/3 + C; where C is an arbitrary constant known as the constant of integration. Essentially, the graphs of antiderivatives of a given function are vertical translations of each other; each graph's vertical location depending upon the value of C.

In physics, the integration of acceleration yields velocity plus a constant. The constant is the initial velocity term that would be lost upon taking the derivative of velocity because the derivative of a constant term is zero. This same pattern applies to further integrations and derivatives of motion (position, velocity, acceleration, and so on).

Because of this, each of the infinitely many antiderivatives of a given function f is sometimes called the "general integral" or "indefinite integral" of f and is written using the integral symbol with no bounds:

If F is an antiderivative of f, and the function f is defined on some interval, then every other antiderivative G of f differs from F by a constant: there exists a number C such that G(x) = F(x) + C for all x. C is called the arbitrary constant of integration. If the domain of F is a disjoint union of two or more intervals, then a different constant of integration may be chosen for each of the intervals. For instance

is the most general antiderivative of on its natural domain

Every continuous functionf has an antiderivative, and one antiderivative F is given by the definite integral of f with variable upper boundary:

Varying the lower boundary produces other antiderivatives (but not necessarily all possible antiderivatives). This is another formulation of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Finding antiderivatives of elementary functions is often considerably harder than finding their derivatives. For some elementary functions, it is impossible to find an antiderivative in terms of other elementary functions. See the article on elementary functions for further information.

Inverse function integration, a formula that expresses the antiderivative of the inverse of an invertible and continuous function in terms of the antiderivative of and of .

if a function has no elementary antiderivative (for instance, exp(-x^{2})), its definite integral can be approximated using numerical integration

it is often convenient to algebraically manipulate the integrand such that other integration techniques, such as integration by substitution, may be used.

Computer algebra systems can be used to automate some or all of the work involved in the symbolic techniques above, which is particularly useful when the algebraic manipulations involved are very complex or lengthy. Integrals which have already been derived can be looked up in a table of integrals.

Non-continuous functions can have antiderivatives. While there are still open questions in this area, it is known that:

Some highly pathological functions with large sets of discontinuities may nevertheless have antiderivatives.

In some cases, the antiderivatives of such pathological functions may be found by Riemann integration, while in other cases these functions are not Riemann integrable.

Assuming that the domains of the functions are open intervals:

A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a function f to have an antiderivative is that f have the intermediate value property. That is, if [a, b] is a subinterval of the domain of f and C is any real number between f(a) and f(b), then f(c) = C for some c between a and b. To see this, let F be an antiderivative of f and consider the continuous function

on the closed interval [a, b]. Then g must have either a maximum or minimum c in the open interval (a, b) and so

The set of discontinuities of f must be a meagre set. This set must also be an F-sigma set (since the set of discontinuities of any function must be of this type). Moreover for any meagre F-sigma set, one can construct some function f having an antiderivative, which has the given set as its set of discontinuities.

If f has an antiderivative, is bounded on closed finite subintervals of the domain and has a set of discontinuities of Lebesgue measure 0, then an antiderivative may be found by integration in the sense of Lebesgue. In fact, using more powerful integrals like the Henstock–Kurzweil integral, every function for which an antiderivative exists is integrable, and its general integral coincides with its antiderivative.

If f has an antiderivative F on a closed interval [a,b], then for any choice of partition , if one chooses sample points as specified by the mean value theorem, then the corresponding Riemann sum telescopes to the value F(b) − F(a).

However if f is unbounded, or if f is bounded but the set of discontinuities of f has positive Lebesgue measure, a different choice of sample points may give a significantly different value for the Riemann sum, no matter how fine the partition. See Example 4 below.

with is not continuous at but has the antiderivative

with . Since f is bounded on closed finite intervals and is only discontinuous at 0, the antiderivative F may be obtained by integration: .

The function

with is not continuous at but has the antiderivative

with . Unlike Example 1, f(x) is unbounded in any interval containing 0, so the Riemann integral is undefined.

If f(x) is the function in Example 1 and F is its antiderivative, and is a densecountable subset of the open interval , then the function

has an antiderivative

The set of discontinuities of g is precisely the set . Since g is bounded on closed finite intervals and the set of discontinuities has measure 0, the antiderivative G may be found by integration.

Let be a densecountable subset of the open interval . Consider the everywhere continuous strictly increasing function

It can be shown that

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

for all values x where the series converges, and that the graph of F(x) has vertical tangent lines at all other values of x. In particular the graph has vertical tangent lines at all points in the set .

Moreover for all x where the derivative is defined. It follows that the inverse function is differentiable everywhere and that

for all x in the set which is dense in the interval . Thus g has an antiderivative G. On the other hand, it can not be true that

since for any partition of , one can choose sample points for the Riemann sum from the set , giving a value of 0 for the sum. It follows that g has a set of discontinuities of positive Lebesgue measure. Figure 1 on the right shows an approximation to the graph of g(x) where and the series is truncated to 8 terms. Figure 2 shows the graph of an approximation to the antiderivative G(x), also truncated to 8 terms. On the other hand if the Riemann integral is replaced by the Lebesgue integral, then Fatou's lemma or the dominated convergence theorem shows that g does satisfy the fundamental theorem of calculus in that context.

In Examples 3 and 4, the sets of discontinuities of the functions g are dense only in a finite open interval . However these examples can be easily modified so as to have sets of discontinuities which are dense on the entire real line . Let

Then has a dense set of discontinuities on and has antiderivative

Using a similar method as in Example 5, one can modify g in Example 4 so as to vanish at all rational numbers. If one uses a naive version of the Riemann integral defined as the limit of left-hand or right-hand Riemann sums over regular partitions, one will obtain that the integral of such a function g over an interval is 0 whenever a and b are both rational, instead of . Thus the fundamental theorem of calculus will fail spectacularly.

Jump up ^Antiderivatives are also called general integrals, and sometimes integrals. The latter term is generic, and refers not only to indefinite integrals (antiderivatives), but also to definite integrals. When the word integral is used without additional specification, the reader is supposed to deduce from the context whether it is referred to a definite or indefinite integral. Some authors define the indefinite integral of a function as the set of its infinitely many possible antiderivatives. Others define it as an arbitrarily selected element of that set. Wikipedia adopts the latter approach.

Mathematical Assistant on Web — symbolic computations online. Allows to integrate in small steps (with hints for next step (integration by parts, substitution, partial fractions, application of formulas and others), powered by Maxima

12-27-15 Just above "The red block framing Quora" I copied except at bullet dot "Simple English"where I try saving some space in these last two parts of the prior art of Barak Shoshany . The last part is a link at "Read More" in that prior art.

My J_Paradigm now goes into the subject of fields. The large field I will discuss first is that of J_Aether. Made of J_Cosmic-J_Strings-J_Medium without J_Waves included. J_Gravity-J_Waves exert J_Force bye resistance of the J_Mass that cannot occupy the same J_Space at same space at the same time.

12-28-15 J_Field like J_Aether or J_Magnetism are created by J_Strings. The J_Electromagnetic-Field is also created by J_Strings that vary with J_Frequency and J_Wave-Lengths. J_Frequency I disclose here and also the varying of the J_Wave-Lengths. The J_Wave length that 137 fit in inner J_Hydrogen-J_Electron-Shell and radiates Hydrogen color the J_Wave-Length I have disclosed up to now. The spectrum of J_Electromagnetic vibrations and their J_Wave-Lengths.

12-29-15 Copied from Quora Digest I get in My Email:

Theoretical physics is the branch of physics that studies the physical laws of nature through creating mathematical models and using these models to predict results from experim...

Can one become a competent physicist on par with, say, a physics professor just by studying on his own? If so, what could a recommended approach be like?

On a related note, are there notable self-taught theoretical physicists (preferably in recent times)?

Can one become a competent physicist on par with, say, a physics professor just by studying on his own? If so, what could a recommended approach be like?

On a related note, are there notable self-taught theoretical physicists (preferably in recent times)?

I would like to remind you of the strange case of Ramanujan a largely self taught Indian who broke new ground in the field of mathematics. He claimed that his research method consisted of going to sleep during which times he would confer with beings in other dimensions who he said gave him these formulas. It's possible that there are other dimensions and it's possible that there are intelligent beings there and its possible that they are the legendary muses who inspire people in all walks of life including physics. I take Ramanujan's story seriously because I too had such an experience. Though I am credited with discovering a new form of motion called Omnidirectional Oscillation it was in fact shown to me in a vision after which all I did was reverse engineer it.

I'm not a theoretical physicist myself, just an interested bystander, so you need to take that into account in reading this.

When you ask if it's "possible", the answer is, "Yeah, sure." There's no magic that's been left out of the textbooks. Aside from the experimental results, you can at least theoretically figure it out even without a textbook, from first principles.

But unless you're an eight-sigma hyper-genius, the answer is "practically, no". Not if you want to get all the way to the edge of some field so that you can actually make contributions. There's just too much to learn, and you can't just learn it in the wifty, polymathy way that I do if you want to actually produce anything of value. Even for the six-sigma geniuses who come on this site to share the results of their studies, it takes them a decade of serious, concerted work, with assistance from their six-sigma professors. It would take you some multiple of that time just to get where they are.

And even then, there's only so much in the textbooks. The textbooks don't take you to the edge of the field. They take you to the stuff that has been sufficiently digested and understood enough to write it all down. The edge of the field exists partly in the vast array of journals, which haven't yet been carefully sifted and sorted and organized. And some of it exists only in the heads of the people who haven't yet written it up for a journal, but whom you meet at conferences, by email, and by just running into them in the hallway.

I'm insufficiently acquainted with the field to know all the players, so I don't have any anecdotes about so-and-so who managed to put it all together just from reading books. I'm sure that they exist, in various forms. There are near-fables of the self-taught hyper-geniuses like Satyendra Nath Bose, who contributed tremendous work to physics based primarily on reading translations of Einstein's papers. But it should be noted that he also had a Master's degree in applied mathematics. And although Einstein was famously working in a patent office when he did his work in Special Relativity, he also had a degree in physics, but was unable to find a teaching gig.

It also helped that they were exploring a brand new field. The longer a field is in progress, the more work other people have already done. That's not to diminish their truly epic accomplishments; I sure couldn't have done what they did. But they were the right kind of hyper-geniuses in the right place at the right time, and we'll never know how many other equivalent geniuses contributed less notable work because they weren't.

12-29-15 The above References Matthew Handy, Marvin Glover, Joshua Engel as to My Self-Taught except for Hi school and College Physics. Flying Private and Commercial Pilot Licenses with Instrument Rating & Maintenance Experimental License covering approximately one quarter of Blog space, Physics the rest. During Rewrite of My Blogs in the future will identify Prior Art in a easier to read method. The preface (J_) use to identify my new and unique disclosure may be needed.

12-30-15 J_ Paradigm-J_Unification in J_Theory-of-everything using this J_Model of J_Cosmic-String fabric of the universe J_Aether. The strikethrough at end of previous sentence is new and unique concept of Fabric of the universe woven with J_Aether J_Spun out of all different J_Atoms only Hydrogen has been disclosed thus far. Their are different J_Wavelenghts coming from J_Electron-Shells of Hydrogen and from other J_Waves-J_Atoms J_Electron Shells. The different vibrations of strings in "The String Theory" is similar in results but in J_String there are more complex structure with the vibration in the J_Fabric of the universe being caused by J_Wavelength in the surface of J_String as it weaves through at near the speed of light.

Does the Higgs Boson interact with Dark Matter or Dark Energy? - Quora

Inbox

x

Quora Digest<digest-noreply@quora.com>Unsubscribe

2:59 PM (2 hours ago)

to me

Answer: There are two very different questions here: * Does the Higgs interac...

12-31-15 To get the latest Quora Digest had on Dark Energy and Mass at the end of Read More I got Jay Whacker's link on Airline food which I got unintentionally.

Continuing with the vibration in the J_Fabric 12-30-15 the field of J_Aether-J_Strings outer J_Waves crest moves to this vibration so that the J_Mass don't occupy the same space.

1-1-16 The J_Wave on the outside surface of J_String which creates various frequencies in the J_Aether J_Fabric of J_Universe J_Medium that is self-contained. This is because The same J_Strings that create the J_Aether also propagates the vibrations in all directions through out the J_Faberic of J_Universe. These Vibrations frequency's waves vary as the J_Wave on the J_String varies.

1-2-16 Copied from 2012 and beyond:

9-15-15 Change in J_Paradigm as posted before this date J_Wave-Length * 137 = the circumference of inner shell of Hydrogen J_Atom. 137 is the rounded of inverse off Cosmic Constant of Fine Line Structure of the J_Universe.fine line for which the non rounded off follows:

A

B

C

D

E

This has a relative standard uncertainty of 0.32 parts per billion.^{[3]} For reasons of convenience, historically the value of the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant is often specified. The 2010 CODATA recommended value is given by^{[3]}

2

3

4

"CODATA Value: fine-structure constant". The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty. USNational Institute of Standards and Technology. June 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-23.

P.J. Mohr, B.N. Taylor, and D.B. Newell (2011), "The 2010 CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants" (Web Version 6.0). This database was developed by J. Baker, M. Douma, and S. Kotochigova.

9-16-15 The above is copied from Microsoft Excel spread sheet on how I figured the base Number 2.214774E-33 m length to be scaled to the length around the circumference of Electron Inner Shell of Hydrogen at rest energy.

The Bohr radius, symbolized a , is the meanradius of the orbit of an electron around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom at its ground state (lowest-energy level). The value of this radius is a physical constant; a is approximately equal to 5.29177 x 10 ^{-11} meter (m). This is 5.29177 x 10 ^{-9} centimeter (cm) or 0.0529177 nanometer (nm). This is a span equivalent to about 1/10,000 of the wavelength of a ray of blue visible light.

The Bohr radius is based on the so-called Bohr model of the atom, named after the Danish physicist and philosopher Niels Bohr (1884-1962). Bohr envisioned atoms as consisting of small, dense nuclei with positive electric charge, around which negatively charged electrons orbit in circular paths. Nowadays, physicists consider this an oversimplification; the electrons are thought to surround the nucleus in spherical probability zones called shells. However, the Bohr radius is still a useful constant because, in a sense, it represents the smallest mean radius normally attainable by a neutral atom.

I will use for the calculation for the Hydrogen Electron inner Shell Circumference the CODAC BOHR RADIUS Value 0.52917721067E-10 x 2 x PI 3.141592654 = 3.324918475

E-10 m for the Hydrogen Electron inner Shell Circumference. Now using the base Number 2.214774E-33 m length to be scaled to the length around the circum.e.nce of Electron Inner Shell of Hydrogen at rest energy.The Scale Ratio 3.324918475E-10/2.214774E-33 =

By mass–energy equivalence, the electronvolt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where units of mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c^{2}, where c is the speed of light in vacuum (from E = mc^{2}). It is common to simply express mass in terms of "eV" as a unit of mass, effectively using a system of natural units with c set to 1.^{[9]} The mass equivalent of 1 eV/c^{2} is

For example, an electron and a positron, each with a mass of 0.511 MeV/c^{2},

can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy. The proton has a mass of0.938 GeV/c^{2}. In general, the masses of all hadrons are of the order of 1 GeV/c^{2}, which makes the GeV (gigaelectronvolt) a convenient unit of mass for particle physics:

1 GeV/c^{2} = 1.783×10^{−27} kg.

The atomic mass unit, 1 gram divided by Avogadro's number, is almost the mass of a hydrogen atom, which is mostly the mass of the proton. To convert to megaelectronvolts, use the formula:

In high-energy physics, the electron volt is often used as a unit of momentum. A potential difference of 1 volt causes an electron to gain an amount of energy (i.e., 1 eV). This gives rise to usage of eV (and keV, MeV, GeV or TeV) as units of momentum, for the energy supplied results in acceleration of the particle.

The dimensions of momentum units are LMT^{−1}. The dimensions of energy units are L^{2}MT^{−2}. Then, dividing the units of energy (such as eV) by a fundamental constant that has units of velocity (LT^{−1}), facilitates the required conversion of using energy units to describe momentum. In the field of high-energy particle physics, the fundamental velocity unit is the speed of light in vacuum c. Thus, dividing energy in eV by the speed of light, one can describe the momentum of an electron in units of eV/c.^{[10]}^{[11]}

The fundamental velocity constant c is often dropped from the units of momentum by way of defining units of length such that the value of c is unity. For example, if the momentum p of an electron is said to be 1 GeV, then the conversion to MKS can be achieved by:

11-23-15 Copied from Wikipedia to Excel spread sheet:

11-28-15 Got Samsung Tablet Windows 7 PC with on screen Keyboard and the header doesn't file download like above? The Photon generic

Mass

eV/c^{2}

1.782662×10^{−36} kg * 137 may = 2.44E-44

11-30-15 copied from the END of Page EQUATIONS J-Wave J-Mass was 6.6491846058394 E-33 kg?

12-1-15 Copied all Mass values for J_Photon, Electron, J_Wave into Wikipedia's Propositional logic: I didn't copy the logic! But copied Higgs and last Mexican Hat:
The Higgs chose a particular point to roll down into, on the right of the hill, and if we now rotate the potential function in the direction of the blue arrow, it will no longer be at the same point. So the symmetry was broken.

When the Higgs rolled down into a point of lower energy ("height"), we say that it acquired a vacuum expectation value (VEV). Note that the VEV is the value of the field, not of the energy. Previously, when it was at the top of the hill, the field's VEV was zero; this can be easily seen from the fact that it was at the origin (center) of the horizontal plane, where the field equals zero. Now the field has a non-zero value, the VEV, but it has lower energy than it had before.

Ok, those are nice pictures and all, but how does this process actually give mass to particles? I'm afraid for that you'll have to endure a little bit of math, but I promise it'll be really simple.

As I explained in point (3) above, some other fields couple to the Higgs field. This means that, in the equations that describe all the fields, there are some interaction terms that look (very roughly) like this:

gψ¯¯¯ψϕ

Here's what each symbol means:

ϕ is the Higgs field.

ψ and ψ¯¯¯ are the fields of some particle and its antiparticle. For example, an electron and a positron.

g is just a number, called the coupling constant, which determines how strong the interaction is between the three fields (electron, positron and Higgs).

Now, as described above, the Higgs field obtains a VEV. This is just some number. Let's call that number v. So we can separate ϕ into v, which is just a number, and H, which is a new field:

ϕ=v+H

Let's put this into the expression above and see what we get:

gψ¯¯¯ψϕ=gψ¯¯¯ψv+gψ¯¯¯ψH

The expression on the right is still an interaction term, since it still has three fields. We just replaced ϕ with another field, H. This new field, and not ϕ, is the Higgs boson. So we got a term that describes how the electron and positron interact with the Higgs boson. But that's not relevant right now.

The expression on the left is where the mass comes from. First, let's combine v and g together, since they are both just numbers. And let's call that combination m. So we have m=gv, and the expression becomes: mψ¯¯¯ψ This is an "interaction term" between a particle and its antiparticle, and there is no third field. Such an interaction is called (drumroll...) a mass term! So, according to quantum field theory, this term says that the electron and positron both have massm. They didn't have it before; there was no mass term before. But with the help of the Higgs field's VEV, we've managed to create a mass term "out of nothing". This is how the Higgs field gives mass to particles.

What about particles, like protons, that do not acquire mass through the Higgs mechanism?

The Higgs mechanism can only give mass to elementary particles. The number of elementary particles is actually quite small. Here is a table of all the elementary particles and their properties:

There are 17 particles in this table, including the Higgs boson itself. Out of them, only 12 particles get masses from the Higgs mechanism. These are the 6 quarks u, d, c, s, t, b, the 3 leptons e, μ, τ, the 2 gauge bosons Z, W, and the Higgs boson itself, H. (It's possible that the neutrinos also get their masses from the Higgs mechanism, but we're not sure yet.)

However, there are many other particles that are not elementary; they are called composite particles. These particles are made from elementary particles and/or from other composite particles. For example, the proton is made from two u quarks and one d quark:

However, the proton's mass is around 940 MeV, which, as you can see from the table above, is a lot more than the sum of the masses of two u quarks and one d quark, which is around 9.4 MeV - only 1% of the proton's total mass! How is this possible? Well, we all know that E=mc2; energy is equivalent to mass, and vice versa. So the rest of the proton's mass must come from the energy stored within it.

Indeed, there are two sources of energy inside the proton. The quarks always move around inside, so they have kinetic energy. And the quarks also interact with each other (as illustrated by the squiggly lines connecting them); this interaction is what binds the quarks together, and it also has energy. So both the kinetic energy and the binding energy of the quarks contribute to the overall mass of the proton. The same goes for all other composite particles.

Sadly, electrons do not orbit around an atomic nucleus like planets around a star. This outdated model of the atom (called the Bohr-Rutherford model) is still taught in schools, but only as an introduction to modern ideas about the atom.

Max Born showed us that electrons do not have a definite position, but instead exist as probability wave functions that describe how likely it is that the electron would be at a particular point in its atomic orbit. That is to say, the electron exists in a superposition of all possible locations around the atom. Werner Heisenberg discovered that it isn't until an electron is observed (detected by an instrument) that its wave function collapses and it takes on a discrete location.

So, really, electrons do not orbit around a nucleus; they exist in all possible locations around that nucleus simultaneously. Quantum mechanics is weird, yo.

Inside General Relativity there is no answer other than the black hole loses all information except for a few quantities such as mass, angular momentum and charge. These quantities can be measured from far outside the black hole. However, information like the number of electrons and protons and neutrons are lost. Therefore, a gold atom which has 79 protons, 79 electrons and 119 neutrons and has a mass of 196amu be replaced with a bunch of photons are neutrinos whose energy adds up to 196amu.

As far as General Relativity is concerned, this information is lost and all the energy sits in the curvature of space-time around the singularity.

String theory has made progress in "resolving" the singularity of a black hole in certain limited circumstances. When we've been able to do this, we see that the black hole is made up of stringy excitations. We also see that the information of the particle that created the black hole isn't lost and is somehow encoded in the exact stringy excitations, though quantities such as the number of electrons is not conserved (meaning that it can change).

We don't understand these processes in detail because they involve dynamics. Dynamical quantities are much more difficult to probe because it is harder to get cleanly calculable observables.

1-5-16 Continue, the different fields above I haven't described yet in terms of J_Strings. Comparing the different mass units I will compare next:

1-7-16 J_Wave-J_Mass 6.64918E-33 Kg See Disclosure 1-4-16 for non rounded off value J_Wave-J_Mass carried at near the speed of light with in the J_Strings outside surface one-half volume with the other one-half volume core of string moving slightly slower than outside of the J_String.

1-8-16 Copy from Page Equations:

10-1-15 I shall now work with the simple math to under stand Myconcept of basic physical properties of the Bohr Radius' Circumference divided by (137 times a J_Wave-Length ( X )). All the measured Numbers Below are in meters.

10-3-15 The Length X is a J_Wave-Length in Hydrogen inner Shell at rest energy J_Electron. I disclose here that X value of J_Wave-Length is X/2 with a increase of twice the frequency for both of the J_Electrons energy levels are accepted by the inner Shell of the Hydrogen J_Electron.

10-4-15 Copied from My Turbocad 7 The following graph of J_Wave:

1-10-16 Though Experiment J_Hyhydrogen could be changed into J_Helium by J_Fusion when the pressure inside a star during J_Hydrogen in its formation J_Energy-Levei doubled so that in the J_Wave-Shell J_Frequency doubled. This would create two J_Electrons in same J_Shell with one-halve J_Wave-Length changing the J_Hydrogen to J_Helium.

Copied from Page Equations of My spacetimeandspeed Blogs:

In 1925 a new kind of mechanics was proposed, quantum mechanics, in which Bohr's model of electrons traveling in quantized orbits was extended into a more accurate model of electron motion. The new theory was proposed by Werner Heisenberg. Another form of the same theory, wave mechanics, was discovered by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger independently, and by different reasoning. Schrödinger employed de Broglie's matter waves, but sought wave solutions of a three-dimensional wave equation describing electrons that were constrained to move about the nucleus of a hydrogen-like atom, by being trapped by the potential of the positive nuclear charge.

Models depicting electron energy levels in hydrogen, helium, lithium, and neon

The Bohr model gives almost exact results only for a system where two charged points orbit each other at speeds much less than that of light. This not only includes one-electron systems such as the hydrogen atom, singly ionized helium, doubly ionized lithium, but it includes positronium and Rydberg states of any atom where one electron is far away from everything else.

The above prior art compares with my Disclosure of 137 J_Waves I J_ Quantizes as J_Electron in J_Hydrogen and J_Helium.

1-11-16 Continuing the above Disclosure the J_Electron J_Quantum allows two J_Electrons J_Quantizes and fit in J_Electron-Shell of two times J_Energy level. Two J_Neutrons are Created in this J_Helium to J_Neutralise the second J_Proton added with its positive J_Charge. In this Fusion the J_Mass number increses fron 1 to 4. The J_Atomic number changes from 1 t0 2.

1-12-15 All the differences in the J_Atoms are created by Different J_Wave-Lengths and frequency's. This compares with additional Disclosures J_String Theory with "The String Theory" of the prior art. Instead of its analogy to vibrations from a tiny violins J_Sring-theory has J_Waves on outside of J_Strings.

1-13-16 J_Aether in the expantion of the J_Universe. The J_Spiral of J_Cosmic-Strings Creating J_Fabric of J_Universe and J_Stars. Like J_Helium above the more massive J_Atoms are formed in J_Stares. J_Lithium A soft metal that I have used melted with other elements to make low temperature metallic glass. In J_Lithium the first shell that can only can fit 2 J_Electrons equals 274 J_Wave-Lengths so the third J_Electron goes in the J_Atoms second J_Shell.

1-14-16 Continue J_Neon has 8 J_Electrons max in the second shell of this J_Atom 1096 J_Wave-Lengths. Next I will see on the internet if the other than the radius of the liner electron shell.

If the radius of the electron orbit in the n = 1 level of the hydrogen atoms is 0.052 9 nm, what is its radius for the n = 5 level? (Assume the Bohr model is valid). 0.106 nm 0.265 nm 0.846 nm 1.32 nm

Answer

Convert nanometer to meter = nm*1E-9

nm

m

m rounded up

n = 1Bohr R

0.052

5.2E-011

5.3E-011

n = 2

0.106

1.06E-010

n = 3

0.265

2.65E-010

n = 4

0.265

2.65E-010

n = 5

0.846

8.46E-010

n = 6

1.32

1.32E-009

1-18-15 Copied the above spread sheet from my Dell W10 Word next I will check Bohr R hear with that already in my Blog. Bohr Radius copied from above:

Value

0.529 177 210 67 x 10^{-10} m

1-18-16 Copied from Page 2012 and Beyond near END:

The prior art above this date, Photon Mass <1×10−18 eV/c2 other than 0 is all I get so far.

10-9-15 At VVCC 2nd Friday connected To Ruckus server:

10-10-15 Back Home Windows 10 as yesterday but on cactusair My router. The Link J_Wave is continuing the displaying the full J_Wave in blue that delineates 2 half waves as strait lines in former Half J_Wave PDF. The X axis's are delineated as the same length but the -Pi and +Pi on J_Wave-Length bitmapit.xlsx on the X axis. The ratio of the difference is PI/Half J_Wave-Length is 2.588933104 E12 in the X Axis Lengths of the 2 plots.

10-12-15 In My J_Paradigm the J_Wave-Length is the J_Quantum 2.42694779*10^-12 meter.

10-14-15 Check units of measure 0000242694779 Angstrom,

10-15-15 Copied my old Planck.bitmap saved as J_Wave.bitmap>

1-19-16 J_Electron-J_Mass 6.64918E-33 Kg that moves at near the speed of light contained inside of the sub-micro tube corrugated with the sinewave wavelength J_Wave-inside-boundary of equal cylinder volume J_Mass moving at a slower speed in the same direction. The J_Wave crest of outside of J_String radiates J_Photons smaller closed loop J_Strings with J_Wave length of their color J_Frequency on the outside of their J_String. J_Photon-J_Mass 1.782662×10^{−36} kg from

Measurement

Unit

SI value of unit

Copied from Wikipedia on 11-23-15 I chose for J_Wavelength of Hydrogen color frequency:

I Pick (1/4863Angstrom) for predominant H frequency.

From the above Hydrogen predominant color Freq.xlsx file: 2.06E+06 cycle per sec Freq.

1-20-16 Copied from Quora Digest in my Email:

Why didn't Albert Einstein win a Nobel Prize for his work on Special/General Relativity? Richard Muller Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, U. Calif. Berkeley, coFounder of Berkeley Earth 182.7k Views • Upvoted by James Mitchell, 1st class M.Sci in Experimental and Theoretical Physics from Cambridge and a D.Phil in Physics from… Richard is a Most Viewed Writer in Physics. The Nobel Prize generally limits itself to one prize per person in any given field. Arguably, the photoelectric effect (for which Einstein was awarded the prize) was even more important than relativity, since it was a founding discovery for quantum physics. Bohr had postulated that atoms emitted light only in quantized amounts; Einstein showed that light itself was quantized. Then de Broglie postulated that electrons were also quantized ... and quantum physics was off and running. The double laureates were Marie Curie (physics 1903 and then chemistry in 1911), Linus Pauling (chemistry 1954, peace 1962). John Bardeen won two in physics, the first for the transistor; but the feeling was that they wanted to give it to his coworkers in superconductivity, and couldn't really leave him out. Similarly for Sanger in 1980. So here is some useful advice: if you've won a Nobel Prize, and want to win a second one, work with a collaborator. Updated Jan 11 • View Upvotes • Asked to answer by Suraj Vantigodi Downvote Comments29+ Share4 From Your Quora Digest

1-21-16 The above program Hydrogen predominant color on J_Photon freq.xlsx Red N3-2:

Find Frequency 3-2 Red H color:

6.57E-07

1.52E+06

Frequency

Red frequency 1/6.57E-07 wavelength = 1.52E+06 cycles per Second.

This color Red is what your brain detects when this J_Photon is stopped by the rods and cones in the retina of your eye. The colors of J_Photons is started when J_Electron J_Wave frequency are J_Inducted on J_Closed-lupus-J_Strings outer surface J_Photons.

1-22-16 Copied from above: J_Photon-J_Mass=:

Mass

eV/c^{2}

1.782662×10^{−36} kg

J_Photon-J_Mass = 1.782662x10-36 kg

J_Photon-J_Momentum=:

Momentum

eV/c

5.344286×10^{−28} kg⋅m/s

The Photon generic

Mass

eV/c^{2}

1.782662×10^{−36} kg * 137 may = 2.44E-44

1-23-16 Copied the above from just below 1-3-16 above. I will research these numbers for Photon.

1-25-15 The momentum of generic J_Photon 1 eV/c 5.344286E-28 kg x m/s gives 1.782662E-36 kg mass.

Updated 2008 by Don Koks. Updated 1998 by Phil Gibbs. Updated 1992 by Scott Chase. Original by Matt Austern.

What is the mass of a photon?

This question falls into two parts:

Does the photon have mass? After all, it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass.

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.

The logic can be constructed in many ways, and the following is one such. Take an isolated system (called a "particle") and accelerate it to some velocity v (a vector). Newton defined the "momentum" p of this particle (also a vector), such that p behaves in a simple way when the particle is accelerated, or when it's involved in a collision. For this simple behaviour to hold, it turns out that p must be proportional to v. The proportionality constant is called the particle's "mass" m, so that p = mv.

In special relativity, it turns out that we are still able to define a particle's momentum p such that it behaves in well-defined ways that are an extension of the newtonian case. Although p and v still point in the same direction, it turns out that they are no longer proportional; the best we can do is relate them via the particle's "relativistic mass" m_{rel}. Thus

p = m_{rel}v .

When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" m_{rest}. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons have identical rest masses, and so do all electrons, and so do all neutrons; these masses can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit.

It also turns out that in special relativity, we are able to define the concept of "energy" E, such that E has simple and well-defined properties just like those it has in newtonian mechanics. When a particle has been accelerated so that it has some momentum p (the length of the vector p) and relativistic mass m_{rel}, then its energy E turns out to be given by

E = m_{rel}c^{2} , and also E^{2} = p^{2}c^{2} + m^{2}_{rest}c^{4} . (1)

There are two interesting cases of this last equation:

If the particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = m_{rest}c^{2}.

If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then E = pc.

In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles": photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and "particles" of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful.

Is there any experimental evidence that the photon has zero rest mass?

Alternative theories of the photon include a term that behaves like a mass, and this gives rise to the very advanced idea of a "massive photon". If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electrodynamics would be "in trouble" primarily through loss of gauge invariance, which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass. But regardless of what any theory might predict, it is still necessary to check this prediction by doing an experiment.

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. A non-zero rest mass would introduce a small damping factor in the inverse square Coulomb law of electrostatic forces. That means the electrostatic force would be weaker over very large distances.

Likewise, the behavior of static magnetic fields would be modified. An upper limit to the photon mass can be inferred through satellite measurements of planetary magnetic fields. The Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft was used to derive an upper limit of 6 × 10^{−16} eV with high certainty. This was slightly improved in 1998 by Roderic Lakes in a laboratory experiment that looked for anomalous forces on a Cavendish balance. The new limit is 7 × 10^{−17} eV. Studies of galactic magnetic fields suggest a much better limit of less than 3 × 10^{−27} eV, but there is some doubt about the validity of this method.

References:

E. Fischbach et al., Physical Review Letters 73, 514–517 25 July 1994.

1-27-16 Copied J_Photon Mass I will adjust per color J_Wave-Length-Frequency:

Mass eV/c2 1.782662×10−36 kg got from last line green link above 1-25-16 post.

1-28-16 Copied from 2-22-16 above in My calc spread sheet:

1-22-16 Copied from above: J_Photon-J_Mass=:

Mass

eV/c^{2}

1.782662×10^{−36} kg

J_Photon-J_Mass = 1.782662x10-36 kg

J_Photon-J_Momentum=:

Momentum

eV/c

5.344286×10^{−28} kg⋅m/s

The Photon generic

Mass

eV/c^{2}

1.782662×10^{−36} kg * 137 may = 2.44E-44

The 1eV/c^2= 1.78918075955262E-036 kg in My calc spread sheet numbers for J_Photon-Mass below:

numerator

1.60217646

1.60217646E-019

100000000

=

1.78918075955262E-036

1E-019

denominator>

2.992458

89548048817640000

1.78918075955262E-036

1-29-16 Red frequency 1/6.57E-07A wavelength = 1.52E+06 cycles per Second.

Red frequency 1/6.57E-07A wavelength = 1.52E+06 cycles per Second.

1-30-16 Red frequency 1520000 hz a very high frequency i will check this out.

1-31-16 1.52E+06 is the lower end of our color spectrum and energy at 3.03E-28 J Red wave length 6565 A . The dark Blue wave length 4342 A with 4.58 J higher energy level higher frequency lower J_Mass per J_Wave-Length the ( higher E=lower M*c^2 ). This gives a grate balance in My J_Paradigm J_Wave-J_Mass.

Home

About Us

Contact Us

First Flight

Bad Quality

New Instruments

First Checkout

Spacetime

2012 and Beyond

hereControl Panel and APM

3-30-16 Continued from Blog Page About END: See 1-10-16 above for the Bohr diagram of hydrogen,helium, Lithium and Neon atoms that in J_Paradigm are J_Atoms.

3-31-16 Copied. from Wikipedia:

The above addition of another electron causes A Greater Energy in this rest 1s than just 2 J_Electrons by doubling their frequency and their energy. This is why to make J_Helium out of J_Hydrogen it has to be created in the high pressure of the interior of a J_Star.

4-1-16 Deleted the list of languages above (This page was last modified on 29 March 2016, at 21:58.).

Depends on what you mean by "fundamental". If you define "fundamental" to mean "not composed of other particles," then you have your answer in the definition.

If you consider the proton to be "fundamental" then we already believe it to be composed of three quarks, so the answer is a clean "No". Not only do we lack such "proof", we don't even believe it to be the case.

I believe the actual state of affairs is that we currently believe that leptons, quarks, photons & gluons, and maybe a few others, are really not composite particles, but we are prepared not to be too surprised if we turn out to be wrong.

428 Views • Upvoted by Erik Anson, Physics Ph.D. student

We have two bits of evidence, which seem very similar, but are subtly different:

Our current theories treat them as fundamental, and we see no deviation from the results predicted. This means that we haven't found an experiment yet where the difference between fundamental electrons and non-fundamental electrons matters.

No theories which treat them as composites produce predictions which have been experimentally verified. This is subtly different - not only have we not proved ourselves wrong yet, we haven't been able to show any new theories to be right.

Basically, so far we have seen no evidence that electrons, quarks etc are not fundamental - and every good scientist would always say something along the lines of "electrons behave as fundamental particles" or something similar - scientists are not in the habit of making 100% definite statements - that's not what science is.

You asked: "Do we have proof that fundamental particles are not made of anything or are we just assuming?"

A fundamental misunderstanding is the idea that at the subatomic level the "things" we think we are observing are "particles".

There are no such thing as "particles". There is no "there" there. the E equals mass times the square of the speed of light, it not a formula for conversion of one to the other, it is the fundamental statement that mass and energy are the same thing. All the mathematics in the world will neither prove or disprove this concept (though they do often demonstrate an adeptness at balancing equations).

I was just going to leave you there (after the above paragraph) but that would be disrespectful and unfair. What does exist at the level that we observe (indirectly, because we do not have, and may never have instruments to "view" at such a scale) is energy which is configured in such a way that we observe it as "mass". That is to say, what we term "mass" (and we call it something to the effect of "how much stuff is really in something) is the one obviously observable characteristic of matter. We can tell, roughly how much of (whatever it is) it is being obsevered, or considered. The what of matter is - energy. Energy is not "nothing" but in the form in which we can measure its mass, it observes some basic rules that we tend to think we understand. We do understand it a little after thousands of years of, ourselves, rising out of the primordial ooze, to become modern human beings, but most of what we speculated about the nature of reality was (and still is) wrong, or not sufficiently justified to claim that it must be the only way we can observe and describe it.

All that is not necessarily easy to follow, but the "bottom line" as they say, is pretty close to what is at the heart of "string" theory where everything, mass or energy (as we perceive it) is little vibrations of various sizes, proportions and subject to certain rules that we also still don't understand very well, either.

If you scroll down to "criticisms," you'll find the (to my mind) most convincing arguments against: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Basically, the product of a position and it's (canonically conjugate) momentum is constrained by h_bar/2.

So, if you constrain the volume in which the preons interact to our current limits of quark size (1e-18 meters), you'll get a huge uncertainty in the momentum of the "preons." This means that the quarks would need to have a much greater rest mass than is observed.

There are theoretical ways around this, of course, but none have been experimentally verified. There haven't even been any testable predictions, as far as I know.

In science, we never know with 100% certainty, but in this case, we have very good reasons for believing that quarks and electrons are structureless and point-like.

Alfred Dominic Vella, Taught particle physics at the university of Hertfordshire.

188 Views

It is not clear that one could have proofs. Until early last century, there was little evidence for atoms and by the time that there was there was also evidence that they are not fundamental. If, as seems possible, string theory comes up with good descriptions of reality then the fundamental objects are strings. We are at present in no position to confirm or to disprove this.

Ian Miller, Independent physical scientist, author

24 Views

Who says they are not made of anything? The way I look at it, they are made of constrained energy, such as their mass = E/c^2. Energy is still something.

David Higgins, Molecular Biochemist, Science Teacher

126 Views

Whilst I like most of the other answers, I think you might actually be asking about the limit to materialism, and where does "material" stop, and if there is proof it stops. Material is a property that emerges from the fundamental layers, starting at about the atomic level, where chemistry is the main discipline that describes and predicts the interactions. The "thing like" properties become rather blurry even at that level, given that you can diffract a bucky ball! (Fullerene Diffraction)

At the fundamental level there are models that can very accurately predict how experiments will work out and can be used to create technology that works, so the models are like very accurate maps, but they are maps, not the territory itself.

As there are still some pretty deep things that are missing from the map, - List of unsolved problems in physics - the map will get better over time, but at the moment fundamental particles (which are excited states of fields by the way, not little things) are made of whatever they are.

There are no proofs, let's say rather experimental proofs. In theory one can speculate about compositness of the (actually) elementary particles but with current tools and accelerators we are fine with the assumption that we deal really with elementary particles. It means all the phenomena we study in the the domain of particle and astroparticle physics are perfectly described keeping the paradigm that quarks, gluons, leptons etc are fundamental particles without any internal structure. Deep inelastic scattering

Pick new people and topics to follow and see the best answers on Quora.

J_Paradigm continues on from the above " It means all the phenomena we study in the the domain of particle and astroparticle physics are perfectly described keeping the paradigm that quarks, gluons, leptons etc are fundamental particles without any internal structure. Deep inelastic scattering" by Adam Jacholkowski, CERN retired physicist answered."

J_Wave is the internal structure of J_Domain J_Cosmological J_String J_Theory of Everything.

4-4-16 J_cosmic-String with J_Torus J_Waves along it creates J_Aether the fundamental consistence of Everything. These paradigm (J_) notations need to keep my work apart from the Physic's State of Art.

4-6-16 J_Proton J_Quarks 2 up & 1 down are created from J_Elementary-J_Aether with 2 J_Spin J_Up & 1 J_Down J_Spin of J_Closed-Loop similar to "The String Theory". Also similar to "The String Theory" Open loop String of "The String Theory", J_Open-Loop J_String Disclosed now as having a J_ Negative-J_Charge. At this Point Dark Energy developed differently than J_Energy.

Viktor Toth, author of many papers on gravity, played key role resolving the Pioneer anomaly

2.5k Views • Viktor is a Most Viewed Writer in Physics.

The obstacles in the search for a grand unified theory are essentially the shortcomings of the current best theory that we have, the Standard Model of particle physics.

The biggest problem of course is that the model does not incorporate gravity. The direct reason for this is that unlike the other three interactions, Einstein's classical theory of gravitation cannot be turned into a renormalizable quantum field theory. (Renormalizable, in this context, means a theory from which unwanted infinities can be removed by suitable mathematics.) In the absence of a quantum theory of gravity, Einstein's field equation is only approximately valid: its left-hand side (spacetime curvature) is an ordinary number, its right-hand side (the stress-energy-momentum of matter) is a quantum mechanical operator, so the two cannot possibly be equal. We can replace the right-hand side with its "expectation value", which would be a number, but this is only an approximation.

Beyond the problem of gravity, the standard model has its own shortcomings.

First, it is "ugly". It is cobbled together, on the basis of observation, from a multitude of fields: three generations of fermions combined into left-handed doublet and right-handed singlet states, "held together", so to speak, by the rather arbitrary gauge symmetry group SUc(3)×SUL(2)×UY(1)

, the symmetry of which is broken by a scalar doublet (the Higgs field) that also interacts with the charged fermions, endowing them with mass. As such, this model already has 18 parameters that are not predicted by the theory but must be established through observation.

Next, add the problem of neutrino masses. The standard model predicts massless neutrinos. We now know from neutrino oscillations that neutrinos are not only massive, but they behave unlike other fermions: we've never observed right-handed neutrinos, and even for the left-handed neutrinos, flavor and mass eigenstates don't coincide. A phenomenological description (the neutrino mass matrix) introduces another 6 parameters to the theory, along with a seventh parameter that describes the CP (charge-parity) symmetry violation of the neutrino mass matrix, but it does not tell us how to introduce neutrino masses in a manner such that the symmetries and renormalizability of the standard model are preserved.

Then there is the issue of no CP violation in the strong interaction. Why is this the case? One possible explanation involves a new (as yet unobserved) particle called the axion. If there is a small strong CP violation after all (or an axion), that is yet another parameter to the standard model, bringing the total to a whopping 26.

Next, the hierarchy problem. Why are the particle masses what they are? Why are even the heaviest elementary particles so "light" compared, e.g., to the Planck mass?

Last but not least, the cosmological constant problem. We now know from supernova data that about 70% of the universe is "dark energy", also known as the cosmological constant. The likeliest origin of this component from quantum field theory would be vacuum fluctuations. But (depending on how you calculated it, with what assumptions) the computed value for dark energy is anywhere between 50-120 orders of magnitude larger than what we observe. Some people dubbed this the worst prediction in the history of particle physics!

So there is plenty of work to do, and in all likelihood, plenty of groundbreaking discoveries to be made. Perhaps there is a true "theory of everything" out there, which explains everything in physics with no tunable parameters, making our universe the only universe possible. Perhaps not. But we're a very long way away from knowing, either way.

Continue 4-6-16 The J_Paradigm also contains charm Qark, strange Quark, top Quark, gluons, leptons being created from J_Aether also J_Neutron 2 up 1 down Quarks and J_Nutrinos.

4-8-16 Copied from My Email Quora Digest:

This page may be out of date. Save your draft before refreshing this page.Submit any pending changes before refreshing this page.

Marco Annunziata, Chief Economist, General Electric Co., formerly at IMF and private financial ..., is hosting a Session and is now taking questions. Follow questions and ask your own. Mar 31

Gary Reiner, Operating Partner at General Atlantic, Former CIO and Senior VP of GE, is now answering in their session. Mar 3

Gary Reiner, Operating Partner at General Atlantic, Former CIO and Senior VP of GE, is hosting a Session and is now taking questions. Follow questions and ask your own. Feb 29

According to current physics theory, the answer is yes.

However, I don't disagree with Viktor Toth's answer, which appears to be different. He is pointing out that in the modern interpretation of quantum physics, we don't have separate particles and fields, only combined quantum objects that have some properties that we call field-like and some properties we call particle-like. Technically he is correct.

But I think you were not asking to be educated in quantum field theory, but to get a simple answer to your question.

Note that I said "according to theory." It is the current orthodoxy that every field that exists is subject to the laws of quantum physics. But we don't know that for a fact. I think we need to keep an open mind, and recognize that there is no evidence that the "gravitational field" (the space-time metric of general relativity) is quantized. Virtually every theorist assumes it is, but there is no evidence for that. There was a time when every theorist assumed "parity symmetry" and that turned out to be false, so we need to be humble.

So what about the interaction between hadrons, e.g. protons and neutrons in the nucleus? Originally the boson associated to it (as predicted by Yukawa) was thought to be the pion. But then QCD explained it as a sort of van der Waals force for the "true" strong interaction, which is mediated by gluons. So where does this leave the pion? And, if we can still use the pion as a pre-QCD approximation, can we think of an equivalent boson for the actual van der Waals forces, which would be to the photon what the pion is to the gluons? More importantly, does that hypothetical boson exist?

What has been your most amazing experience here on Quora?

39.4k Views

How many ounces of liquid can you bring on a plane? Why is that the limit?

18.4k Views

4-10-16 Richard Muller above agrees with Viktor Toth, author of many papers on gravity, played key role resolving the Pioneer anomaly on Viktor Toth's answer, which appears to be different. He is pointing out that in the modern interpretation of quantum physics, we don't have separate particles and fields, only combined quantum objects that have some properties that we call field-like and some properties we call particle-like. "(This pryer art is inspiration in developing in my concept.)"

My concept in J_Paradigm J_Mass with all combinations of objects with submicroscopic mass in the crest of J_Waves that have spiraling out fields of J_Waves that in-circles the other J_Waves of J_Mass. These fields J_Fields started when during the big bang when the hot dense pools of J_Mass that at the centers of black holes separated in taking the path of least resistance reaction creating J_Wave-J_Fields.

4-11-16 MY CONCEPT is simplified by magnitudes from the Standard Model of Physics and J_Aether facilitates in (J_Aether) of J_APM (J_Aether Physics Model). This New and Unique framework J_Paradigm not using Math Language simplifies using my concept APM also. I Disclose Here That J_Field Simplifies and Unifies, J_Unified-J_Field-Theory.

J_Gravity as part of its J_Field pushes J_Mass and its J_Field toward its source inversely proportionally to the distance caused by J_Acceleration J_Force. Many J_Strings that in-circles J_Masses involved and the average of them applies in the vector J_F=J_M*J_A.

4-13-16 J_Paradigm J_Universe has 2 time dimensions Disclosed here where J_Universe would be placed in the square above "we are here" in the state of the art in the chart above. J_Ualtrahyperbolic area I will now research.

4-14-16 The Twister above is similar to J_Twister right side of illustration a J_Torus J_Mass in J_Ultrahyperbolic J_Space.

4-15-16 Copied from wikipedia:

Ultrahyperbolic equation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In the mathematical field of partial differential equations, the ultrahyperbolic equation is a partial differential equation for an unknown scalar function u of 2n variables x_{1}, ..., xn, y_{1}, ..., yn of the form.

More generally, if a is any quadratic form in 2n variables with signature (n,n), then any PDE whose principal part is is said to be ultrahyperbolic. Any such equation can be put in the form 1. above by means of a change of variables.[1]

The ultrahyperbolic equation has been studied from a number of viewpoints. On the one hand, it resembles the classical wave equation. This has led to a number of developments concerning its characteristics, one of which is due to Fritz John: the John equation.

Walter Craig and Steven Weinstein recently (2008) proved that under a nonlocal constraint, the initial value problem is well-posed for initial data given on a codimension-one hypersurface.[2]

The only way for this alignment to exist is if the supermassive black holes in this part of space are all spinning in the same direction.

Astronomers have circled galaxies in this deep-sky radio image, whose central supermassive black holes have jets that are aligned. Image via Andrew Russ Taylor.

Our universe is a curious place, and here’s a curious piece of research, albeit one for which astronomers believe they have the beginnings of an explanation. Astronomers in South Africa who are engaged in deep sky radio imaging – that is, acquiring images of the distant universe at the radio end of the spectrum – have learned that supermassive black holes in a particular region of space all have radio jets aligned in the same direction. The only way for this alignment to exist, they say, is if the supermassive black holes are all spinning in the same direction. Andrew Russ Taylor, lead author on a paper being published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, said in a statement:

Since these black holes don’t know about each other, or have any way of exchanging information or influencing each other directly over such vast scales, this spin alignment must have occurred during the formation of the galaxies in the early universe.

That makes sense. After all, according to observations of our expanding universe and to Big Bang theory, there was a time when everything in the universe was closer together than it is now. These astronomers point to primordial mass fluctuations – density variations in the otherwise-homogenized stuff of the early universe. These tiny variations are thought to have become the seeds for all the later structure (the galaxies, and clusters of galaxies) we see around us today.

Somehow, in that early universe, something happened to make these galaxies and their central black holes spin the same way. The astronomers’ statement explained:

[The finding] implies that there is a coherent spin in the structure of this volume of space that was formed from the primordial mass fluctuations that seeded the creation of the large-scale structure of the universe …

So what could these large-scale environmental influences during galaxy formation or evolution have been? There are several options: cosmic magnetic fields; fields associated with exotic particles (axions); and cosmic strings are only some of the possible candidates that could create an alignment in galaxies even on scales larger than galaxy clusters.

Supermassive black holes are believed to lie at the heart of nearly every galaxy, including our own Milky Way. Unlike the supermassive black hole in the Milky Way, which is relatively quiet, many supermassive black holes are quite active, likely still consuming material from the surrounding galaxy, and many supermassive black holes do produce jets.

But, say these astronomers – who are at the University of Cape Town and University of the Western Cape in South Africa – this is the first time they’ve seen supermassive black hole jets aligned over such a large volume of space. They’re talking about scales of up to 100 megaparsecs (a little over 300 million light-years). They call this particular region of space ELAIS-N1, and they’re studying it as part of a three-year deep radio imaging survey, using the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) in India.

Did they expect this result? No. Their statement said:

A large-scale spin distribution has never been predicted by theories – and an unknown phenomenon like this presents a challenge that theories about the origins of the universe need to account for, and an opportunity to find out more about the way the cosmos works.

Romeel Dave of University of the Western Cape agrees. Dave leads a team developing plans for universe simulations that could explore the growth of large-scale structure from a theoretical perspective. He said:

This is not obviously expected based on our current understanding of cosmology. It’s a bizarre finding.

Bottom line: South African astronomers conducting a three-year survey of the distant universe at radio wavelengths have images of supermassive black hole jets in a particular region of space that are all aligned in the same direction. The only way for this alignment to exist is if the supermassive black holes in this part of space are all spinning in the same direction.

J_Paradigm J_Black-Matter and J_Black-Energy disassociation in the J_Fifth-Demension is the final results of substance that of J_Black Holes and at the source of J_Bigbangs.

Copied from my blog page First Checkout copy of EarthStar 7-7-15

Scientists have detected 5 supermassive black holes previously clouded from view. The research suggests there are millions more hidden black holes out there.

An artist’s illustration of a supermassive black hole, actively feasting on its surroundings. The central black hole is hidden from direct view by a thick layer of encircling gas and dust. Image credit: NASA/ESA.

Astronomers have found evidence for a large population of hidden supermassive black holes in the universe.

Using NASA’s Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) satellite observatory, the team of international scientists detected the high-energy x-rays from five supermassive black holes previously clouded from direct view by dust and gas.

The research supports the theory that potentially millions more supermassive black holes exist in the universe, but are hidden from view.

J_Black-Holes J_Jets are at least half are in J_Forth-Dimension.

4-18-16 The J_Black-Hole is similar to the artist illustration above 4-17-16. The opposing Jets are equal and opposite reaction of mass and energy falling into J_Black-Hole. This is My Unique Concept of J_ Paradigm is cycle of J_Mass of both J_Black-Mass, J_Black-Energy, J_Mass and J_Energy thru J_Fifth-Dimension into J_Forth-Dimension.

4-19-16 J_Forth-Demension of J_Time 1 in"the state of art table above at 4-12-16" ends.

This means at J_Big-bang starting at zero J_Forth J_Time count to the end at J_Fifth-Dimension the event horizon J_Black-Hole. J_Fifth-Dimension J_Time zero count starts and ends at the J_Big-bang. This is confusing but necessary to account for time the heat last from the event horizon of J_Black-Hole. This Disclosure the two images just above compliments J_Paradigm-Concept. The First Image at 4-17-16 Shows The Alinement of J_Black-Holes J_Jets. The Second Image above is J_Black-Hole is Similar and has Two J_Event-J_Horizons, One on each side of J_Fifth-Dimension. The Two J_Jets are the same though very much Smaller Like J_Big-Bang.

1-20-16 J_Jets Reacting to the J_Forth-Dimension J_Matter and J_Black-Matter is Pushed toward J_Fifth-Dimension J_Mass.

I think Einstein would have continued to occupy himself with the same problem set that concerned him during the last several decades of his life: unification.

One of Einstein's motivations was the apparent ease with which some schemes could account for both gravity and electromagnetism. For instance, a nonsymmetric metric that would naturally split into a symmetric part (gravity) and an antisymmetric part (electromagnetism). Or Kaluza-Klein theory, in which the extra degrees of freedom can be easily reinterpreted as the electromagnetic field and charged matter. Despite problems with these theories, they both seemed to indicate that a classical unification of gravity and electromagnetism might be possible.

Today, this classical unification is no longer viewed as a meaningful goal, since electromagnetism was instead unified quite successfully with the weak interaction at the quantum level.

Speaking of which, another important motivation was that Einstein didn't accept quantum theory as the final answer. Contrary to cheap popularizations, Einstein was not an opponent of quantum theory. Rather, he was one of its founding fathers: His 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, which predicted that the electromagnetic field itself is quantized, was so revolutionary that even a decade later, some of his friends apologetically referred to it as one of Einstein's rare "mistakes". (Eventually this was the paper that earned Einstein the 1921 Nobel prize, issued a year late, in 1922.)

What I am really curious about is how Einstein would have viewed quantum field theory, especially in its present-day, mature form, along with its tremendous successes in the form of the Standard Model of particle physics, its inelegant but nonetheless serviceable unification of three of the fundamental forces and all the matter content of the universe, and its numerous confirmed predictions. Einstein's main issue with quantum theory was the theory's probabilistic nature. At the very least, quantum field theory puts these issues in a completely different light. Unfortunately, at the time of Einstein's death, quantum field theory was still in its infancy, the Standard Model still decades away. So we would never know. I suspect though that he would have embraced the theory, even though he would have remained critical of its shortcomings. And that might very well have lead to some important contributions on his part.ti

The delineation of tiny J_Bar-Magnet with subatomic green outline of J_Strings volume.

4-29-16 Every J_Atom in the J_Bar-Magnt has J_Strings of J_Aether J_Spiraling out into J_Universe. The same as J_Gravity where J_Waves on these J_Strings pushes the J_Mass toward the mutual sources the J_Masses J_Atoms with a much stronger J_Force than that of J_Gravity if these J_Masses are J_Magnetizible. This Disclosure of J_Gravity Unification with J_Magnetizem. J_Electromagnetism Unification with J_Poles and J_Charges I will be working on next. The J_Bar-magnet is a good conduit for J_Magnetizem with North and South J_Poles. J_Wire is a good conduit for Free J_Electrons flow with J_Charges with plus and minus at the conduit ends.

4-30-16 Disclosure the J_Electron at higher energy level can move through conducting material J_Atoms from higher energy levels to lower energy levels taking the path of least resistance.

5-1-16 J_Charge is the number of free J_Electrons or free J_Holes (the number of J_Electrons missing in J_Atoms missing J_Electrons to be stable measured by J_Voltage ( + or - ).

Copied from My Email of EarthSky

Yuri Milner is a major funder of Breakthrough Initiatives. He was an early investor in Facebook and Twitter and has funded other large endeavors, for example, the largest award in the world in the field of Biomedicine and Life Sciences, called the Breakthrough Prize. Image via Rusnanotekh.com

Scientists believe there are 3 stars in the Alpha Centauri system, although Proxima Centauri – at .2 lightyears away from the other two, and the actual closest star to our sun – may not be physically bound. Illustration by Ian Morrison, via manyworlds.space

Although there’s only one planet known so far in the Alpha Centauri system, orbiting Alpha Centauri B, you can bet that – if we were aiming to send nanocraft there – astronomers would turn their attention to seeking more planets in this nearby star system.

Why haven’t we visited the Alpha Centauri system already? It’s because 25 trillion miles is a long, long way from here. Using existing technology, our fastest current spacecraft would require some 30,000 years to get there, said Breakthrough Starshot.

But all existing spacecraft are huge and clunky in contrast to the gram-scale nanostarships – dubbed StarChips – being proposed here. Breakthrough Starshot hopes to establish whether tiny, light ships, on sails pushed by a light beam, could fly a thousand times faster than the fastest spacecraft built up to now.

What I love about the Starshot concept is that it’s truly visionary, leaps and bounds beyond what’s been proposed so far for star travel, and yet still grounded in current, cutting-edge science and technology. Starshot envisions launching a mothership carrying the 1,000 tiny spacecraft to a high-altitude orbit. Each craft is a gram-scale wafer, carrying cameras, photon thrusters, power supply, navigation and communication equipment, and “constituting a fully functional space probe,” says the Starshot team.

Mission controllers would deploy the nanocraft – send them on their way – one by one. A ground-based laser array called a light beamer would be used to focus light on the sails of the ships, to accelerate individual craft to the target speed “within minutes.”

First photo of Earth from space, October 24, 1946, via White Sands Missile Range/Applied Physics Laboratory. Read more. The first images via nanocraft of the Alpha Centauri system would be rudimentary, perhaps like this first image of Earth?

The plan is to stick four cameras (two-megapixels each) on a chip that will allow for some elementary imaging. The data would be transmitted back to Earth using a retractable meter-long antenna, or perhaps even using the lightsail to facilitate laser-based communications that could focus a signal back towards Earth.

Breakthrough Starshot said in its recent statement that its plan:

… brings the Silicon Valley approach to space travel, capitalizing on exponential advances in certain areas of technology since the beginning of the 21st century.

For example, the lightsails would be made possible by advances in nanotechnology that are producing increasingly thin and light-weight metamaterials, which, Breakthrough Star said:

… promise to enable the fabrication of meter-scale sails no more than a few hundred atoms thick and at gram-scale mass.

The video below shows an animation of the proposed light beamer, a phased array of lasers for powering the lightsails and also for receiving information back from the nanocraft.

The research and engineering phase for Breakthrough Starshot is expected to last “a number of years.” Philip Lubin, a scientific advisor to the project, told Popular Science on April 27 that, in the initial phase:

… we will build a prototype laser array in the 10- to 100-kilowatt class, gram-scale ‘star-chips’ with imaging and other sensors and a laser communication system, and prototype sails, as well as explore the many technical challenges to building a full system.

Following that, development of the ultimate mission to Alpha Centauri would require a budget comparable to the largest current scientific experiments. Project leader Pete Worden mentioned a figure of “about $10 billion.” The full-scale effort would involve:

Building a ground-based kilometer-scale light beamer at high altitude in dry conditions.

Generating and storing a few gigawatt hours of energy per launch.

Launching a ‘mothership’ carrying thousands of nanocrafts to a high-altitude orbit.

Taking advantage of adaptive optics technology in real time to compensate for atmospheric effects.

Focusing the light beam on the lightsail to accelerate individual nanocrafts to the target speed within minutes.

Accounting for interstellar dust collisions en route to the target.

Capturing images of a planet, and other scientific data, and transmitting them back to Earth using a compact on-board laser communications system.

Using the same light beamer that launched the nanocrafts to receive data from them over 4 years later.

Breakthrough Starshot also plans to establish a research grant program, to make available other funding to support relevant scientific and engineering research and development. Yuri Milner, founder of the Breakthrough Initiatives, said:

The human story is one of great leaps. Just 55 years ago … Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. Today, we are preparing for the next great leap, to the stars.

Stephen Hawking said:

Earth is a wonderful place, but it might not last forever. Sooner or later, we must look to the stars. Breakthrough Starshot is a very exciting first step on that journey.

Pete Worden said:

We take inspiration from Vostok, Voyager, Apollo and the other great missions. It’s time to open the era of interstellar flight, but we need to keep our feet on the ground to achieve this.

Bottom line: Breakthrough Starshot – part of the Breakthrough Initiatives – announced a plan in April, 2016, to send gram-scale nanostarship on a mission to Alpha Centauri, the next-nearest star system. The plan includes a travel time to this star system of only 20 Earth-years. An investment of $100 million has been committed for proof-of-concept studies in the coming years.

5-1-16 Continued My interest have went from J_Waves to small to see with present technology to Alpha Centauri Star to far to see a planet in its system and back to J_Waves. J_Electron at rest J_Shell 1 with with 137 J_Wave-Length J_Hyrogen J_Atom. The only other J_Atom with only 2 J_Electrons in this first J_Shell is J_Helium.

5-2-16 All the other J_Elements have 2 J_Electrons in first J_Shell 1 J_Electrons but go on to have higher J_Shell levels and more J_Electrons-with more than 137 J_Waves in J_Shell-Number 1 and greater for J_Higher-Energy levels. The rest shell 1 is labeled K the next higher level J_Shell 2 is labeled L and the rest are M, N, O, P, Q for the main J_Shell J_Energy-Levels.

5-8-16 Copied from My Quora Digest:

For a sufficiently massive and compact object, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, so the object will be black.

The credit is usually given to Robert Oppenheimer, but what he did was come up with a mechanism by which a black hole could actually form. The principle of a black hole dates back to 1763. Here is a quote from my book Now — The Physics of Time:

"The idea of a black hole dates back to 1763, when English scientist John Mitchell realized that the escape velocity of a star could exceed the speed of light. If light couldn’t escape, the star would appear black, he reasoned. He even calculated what turned out to be the right equation. His idea didn’t attract attention, because at that time, light was already known to be a wave, and most people mistakenly thought that a wave would not be pulled by gravity. Now we know from relativity that since waves carry energy, they also carry mass, and gravity does indeed pull on them."

The above article on Black Holes is put here to imply the importance of J_Mass in J_Waves.

5-10-16 Continue from 5-2-16 next developed and Disclose program on excel spreadsheet to determine higher J_Energy and J_Mass of larger length than J_Bohr-Circumference.

5-12-16 Copied from Wikipedia:

About 84,500,000 results(0.57 seconds)

Search Results Proton Wihipedia "the free encyclopedia"

Neutron = 1.6749286*10^{-}^{27} kg. Proton = 1.6726231*10^{-}^{27} kg. Electron = 9.1093897*10^{-}^{31} kg. There is another unit, called an electron volt (eV), that scientists use when talking about small things like protons, neutrons and electrons.

Magnitude of charge: Charge of proton is 1.6022 x 10^{-}^{19} coulomb. Mass of proton: Mass of proton is 1.0072766 a.m.u. or 1.6726 x 10^{-}^{27} kg. Comparative mass: Proton is 1837 times heavier than an electron. Position in atom: Protons are present in the nucleus of atom.

proton mass energy equivalent in MeV $m_{\rm p}c^2$. Value, 938.272 0813 MeV. Standard uncertainty, 0.000 0058 MeV. Relative standard uncertainty, 6.2 x ...

Relative masses and charges. Protons and neutrons have the same mass, which is about 2,000 times larger than the mass of an electron. Protons and electrons ...

Particle, Mass (kg), Energy equivalent (MeV). Proton, 1.6726 x 10^{-27}, 938.28. Neutron, 1.6750 x 10^{-27}, 939.57. Electron, 9.109 x 10^{-31}, 0.511 ...

the forces binding protons and neutrons in the nucleus are much stronger (binding ... phys4.23 Page 1. Masses in Atomic Units. - proton. 1.007 u. 938.28 MeV.

The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and .... energy yield from neutron decay can be calculated from the particle masses.

Particle. Charge. Mass (g). Mass (amu). Proton. +1. 1.6727 x 10^{-24} g. 1.007316. Neutron. 0. 1.6750 x 10^{-24} g. 1.008701. Electron. -1. 9.110 x 10^{-28} g. 0.000549 ...

5-13-16 Copied from above 5-12_16 theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of protonsand ...

Neutron = 1.6749286*10^{-27} kg. Proton = 1.6726231*10^{-27} kg. Electron = 9.1093897*10^{-31} kg.

4

2.12E-10

4.28E-35

Electron = 0.00054386734

Said another way, protons are only about 99.86% as massive as neutrons while electrons are only about 0.054% as massive as neutrons. While relative masses are nice if you want to compare protons, neutrons and electrons to one another, it doesn't tell you what the actual masses of these particles are. In kilograms, the masses are:

5-14-16 Next in a spreadsheet like above or on Mathematical 7 Program will be used to determine circumferences of the outer primary-shells:

5-16-16 left part of spread sheet above has m*kg added to determine energy level of (E=M^c2) Energy level, of J_Mass of J_Shell of J_Photon * (M=E/c^2) to be added to J_Proton-J_Mass:

Hydrogen H

A1*B3?

m

1n=Bohr R

5.29E-11

m*k

2

1.06E-10

m*k

3

1.59E-10

m*k

4

2.12E-10

m*k

5

2.65E-10

m*k

6

3.18E-10

m*k

To be continued after state of art string theory copied from my today's Quora's Digest Email.

5-17-16 Copied from Quora Digest today's Email to me:

The question asks: "If time doesn't exist, at the quantum level, then how do strings, in string theory, vibrate?"

Who told you "time doesn't exist at the quantum level"? Of course it does. Quantum mechanics is described by equations which tell you how quantum states change with time. And in any case, strings in string theory don't actually "vibrate" like violin strings, that's just an analogy.

The question asks: "If time doesn't exist, at the quantum level, then how do strings, in string theory, vibrate?"

Who told you "time doesn't exist at the quantum level"? Of course it does. Quantum mechanics is described by equations which tell you how quantum states change with time. And in any case, strings in string theory don't actually "vibrate" like violin strings, that's just an analogy.

An electron volt is the amount of work done on an electron when it moves through a potential difference of one volt. 1 eV = 1.602*10-19 J = 1.602*10-12 erg = 1.182*10-19 ft-lb = 3.827*10-20 cal

Protons and neutrons have nearly the same mass while electrons are \ much less massive.If we assume that a neutron has a mass of 1, then the relative masses are : Neutron = 1 Proton = 0.99862349 Electron = 0.00054386734 Said another way, protons are only about 99.86 % as massive as \ neutrons while electrons are only about 0.054 % as massive as \ neutrons.While relative masses are nice if you want to compare \ protons, neutrons and electrons to one another, it doesn' t tell you \ what the actual masses of these particles are.In kilograms, the masses are : Neutron = 1.6749286*10 - 27 kg Proton = 1.6726231*10 - 27 kg Electron = 9.1093897*10 - 31 kg There is another unit, called an electron volt (eV), that scientists \ use when talking about small things like protons, neutrons and \ electrons.An electron volt is actually a measurement of energy, but \ scientists can get away with using it to measure mass since mass and \ energy are related by Einstein' s famous equation, E = mc2.So, in terms of MeV (Megaelectron volts, 1 MeV = 1, 000, 000 eV), the masses are : Neutron = 939.56563 MeV Proton = 938.27231 MeV Electron = 0.51099906

Hydrogen H J_Constant Photon n0 P1n0El1 Helium He Proton Ma m Kg n = 1 El2P2n2 Kg theory of the nuclear force, most of the mass of protons and ... n = 1 Bohr R 5.29 E - 11 1.78 E - 36 1.67 E - 27 Neutron - Up quark - Proton (disambiguation) - Category : Proton What are the exact relative masses of protons, neutrons and electrons?2 1.06 E - 10 3.57 E - 36 Neutron 1.67 E - 27 education.jlab.org /. ../parti ... Thomas Jefferson National

5-19-16 Copied from Quora Digest in my today's Email:

Fields are a central component in the mathematical formulation of the most successful theories in physics, from electromagnetism to general relativity and quantum field theory. However, scientists have not proven and will never be able to prove that fields, or any other components of our mathematical model, actually "exist" in the same way that tables and chairs "exist".

Since you chose quantum mechanics as one of the question topics, I assume you are referring to quantum fields. Even if not, it is better to talk about quantum fields since classical fields (such as electric and magnetic fields) may be derived from quantum ones, but not the other way around.

Quantum field theory is a mathematical framework based on the mathematical concept of a field (a function that has some value at each point in spacetime), together with the mathematical tools of quantum mechanics.

Using this framework we may construct a model of Nature by choosing the types of fields we would like to have and their various properties and interactions. Then we use this model to derive predictions for experimental results.

When we perform these experiments in order to test out theory, we find that the results agree with our predictions to a very high accuracy. Therefore, one can say that scientists have shown that quantum field theory provides a very accurate description of Nature.

In fact, quantum field theory is regarded as one of the most accurate theories of Nature we currently have. So, is it "true"? Do quantum fields actually "exist"? No one knows. Some will tell you that the question itself is meaningless.

Why is that? Well, we wrote some equations and did some calculations, and they turned out to be correct to a certain degree of accuracy. We based our equations and calculations on the premise that fields "exist". However, tomorrow someone else might invent a totally different model, with no fields at all, whose predictions agree with experiment to an even higher accuracy. If we believe that fields exist now, will they suddenly stop existing after that more successful theory is published?

Indeed, many physicists believe that quantum field theory is merely a special case of another, more fundamental theory, that should presumably also include gravity. That theory, which is currently unknown, might or might not include fields as fundamental entities; however, it would have to reduce to quantum field theory at low energies.

PS: You also asked "How do they prove a field can turn into another field?". Well, a field cannot turn into another field, so that's that.

What are some benefits or perks of spending summer (and working) at CERN?

8.9k Views

What is the relationship between a particle and a field?

9.4k Views

Can pi be calculated by dropping a needle onto ruled paper?

22.2k Views

Do the four fundamental forces really "pop out" of string theory?

12.5k Views

Is it possible that time is discrete and that relativistic effects are felt because there are more "frames" at lower speeds relative to higher speeds?

11k Views

5-19-16 On all Pages of my Blog spacetimeandspeed.com the majority of informations presented here are for state or art to be cited on rewrite of my Blog. This Blog identifies the majority of my information with J_ (which I disclose as my work). I especially need to site Barak Shoshany as the major source of the State of Art from Quora Digest that will be cited when I rewrite this Blog before releasing in Book Form. The maintenance of this page in regards to just before 5-17-16 above My SpreadSheet collapsed. The Mass of Hydrogen could be computed from:

Proton = 1.6726231*10 - 27 kg (Plus) Electron = 9.1093897*10 - 31 kg = 0.00000000000000000000000000167353283897 kg

to correlate with also copied from above Momentum from high speed "Energy" coliders E = mc^2. So, in terms of MeV (Megaelectron volts, 1 MeV = 1, 000, 000 eV), the masses are : Neutron = 939.56563 MeV Proton = 938.27231 MeV (Plus) Electron = 0.51099906 MeV = 938.78330906 MeV.

5-21-16 Work with Proton + Electron Mass at Bohr Radius Hydrogen as lowest energy Atom.

Neutrons and protons are both nucleons, which are attracted and bound together by the nuclear force to form atomic nuclei. ronronThe nucleus of the most common isotope of the hydrogen atom (with the chemical symbol "H") is a lone proton. The nuclei of the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium contain one proton bound to one and two neutrons, respectively. All other types of atomic nuclei are composed of two or more protons and various numbers of neutrons. The most common nuclide of the common chemical element lead, ^{208}Pb has 82 protons and 126 neutrons, for example.

The free neutron has a mass of about 6973167500000000000♠1.675×10^{−27}kg (equivalent to 7002939600000000000♠939.6 MeV/c^{2}, or 7000100870000000000♠1.0087 u).^{[3]} The neutron has a mean square radius of about 6984800000000000000♠0.8×10^{−15}m, or 0.8 fm,^{[11]} and it is a spin-½fermion.^{[12]} The neutron has a magnetic moment with a negative value, because its orientation is opposite to the neutron's spin.^{[13]} The neutron's magnetic moment causes its motion to be influenced by magnetic fields. Although the neutron has no net electric charge, it does have a slight distribution of charge within it. With its positive electric charge, the proton is directly influenced by electric fields, whereas the response of the neutron to this force is much weaker.

5-25-16 The big numbers above like the one from a little farther above

89548048817640000

In kilograms, the masses are:

Neutron = 1.6749286*10^{-27} kg Proton = 1.6726231*10^{-27} kg Electron = 9.1093897*10^{-31} kg

There is another unit, called an electron volt (eV), that scientists use when talking about small things like protons, neutrons and electrons. An electron volt is actually a measurement of energy, but scientists can get away with using it to measure mass since mass and energy are related by Einstein's famous equation, E = mc^{2}. So, in terms of MeV (Megaelectron volts, 1 MeV = 1,000,000 eV), the masses are:

From Wikipedia 1 amu = 931.4941 MeV/c^{2} = 0.9314941 GeV/c^{2}.

From mikeblaber.org

Electronic Structure of Atoms

Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom

In 1913 Niels Bohr developed a theoretical explanation for a phenomenon known as line spectra.

Bohr's Model of the Hydrogen Atom

Line Spectra

Lasers emit radiation which is composed of a single wavelength. However, most common sources of emitted radiation (i.e. the sun, a lightbulb) produce radiation containing many different wavelengths.

When the different wavelengths of radiation are separated from such a source a spectrum is produced.

A rainbow represents the spectrum of wavelengths of light contained in the light emitted by the sun

Sun light passing through a prism (or raindrops) is separated into its component wavelengths

Sunlight is made up of a continuous spectrum of wavelengths (from red to violet) - there are no gaps

Not all radiation sources emit a continuous spectrum of wavelengths of light

When high voltage is applied to a glass tube containing various gasses under low pressure different colored light is emitted

Neon gas produces a red-orange glow

Sodium gas produces a yellow glow

When such light is passed through a prism only a few wavelengths are present in the resulting spectra

These appear as lines separated by dark areas, and thus are called line spectra

When the spectrum emitted by hydrogen gas was passed through a prism and separated into its constituent wavelengths four lines appeared at characteristic wavelengths

In 1885 a Swiss school teacher figured out that the frequencies of the light corresponding to these wavelengths fit a relatively simple mathematical formula:

where C = 3.29 x 10^{15} s^{-1} (not the 'c' used for the speed of light)

However, the physical basis for this relationship was unknown.

Bohr's Model

Bohr began with the assumption that electrons were orbiting the nucleus, much like the earth orbits the sun.

From classical physics, a charge traveling in a circular path should lose energy by emitting electromagnetic radiation

If the "orbiting" electron loses energy, it should end up spiraling into the nucleus (which it does not). Therefore, classical physical laws either don't apply or are inadequate to explain the inner workings of the atom

Bohr borrowed the idea of quantized energy from Planck

He proposed that only orbits of certain radii, corresponding to defined energies, are "permitted"

An electron orbiting in one of these "allowed" orbits:

Has a defined energy state

Will not radiate energy

Will not spiral into the nucleus

If the orbits of the electron are restricted, the energies that the electron can possess are likewise restricted and are defined by the equation:

Where R_{H} is a constant called the Rydberg constant and has the value

2.18 x 10^{-18} J

'n' is an integer, called the principle quantum number and corresponds to the different allowed orbits for the electron. Thus, an electron in the first allowed orbit (closest to the nucleus) has n=1, an electron in the next allowed orbit further from the nuclei has n=2, and so on.

Thus, the relative energies of these allowed orbits for the electrons can be diagrammed as follows:

All the relative energies are negative

The lower the energy, the more stable the atom

The lowest energy state (n=1) is called the ground state of the atom

When an electron is in a higher (less negative) energy orbit (i.e. n=2 or higher) the atom is said to be in an excited state

As n becomes larger, we reach a point at which the electron is completely separated from the nucleus

E = (-2.18 x 10^{-18} J)(1/infinity) = 0

Thus, the state in which the electron is separated from the nucleus is the reference or zero energy state (actually higher in energy than other states)

Bohr also assumed that the electron can change from one allowed orbit to another

Energy must be absorbed for an electron to move to a higher state (one with a higher n value)

Energy is emitted when the electron moves to an orbit of lower energy (one with a lower n value)

The overall change in energy associated with "orbit jumping" is the difference in energy levels between the ending (final) and initial orbits:

DE = E_{f} - E_{i}

Substituting in for the previously defined energy equation:

When an electron "falls" from a higher orbit to a lower one the energy difference is a defined amount and results in emitted electromagnetic radiation of a defined energy (DE)

Planck had deduced that the energy of the photons comprising EM radiation is a function of its frequency (E = h)

Therefore, if the emitted radiation from a falling electron had a defined energy, then it must have a correspondingly defined frequency

Note:

DE is positive when n_{f} is greater than n_{i}, this occurs when energy is absorbed and an electron moves up to a higher energy level (i.e. orbit).

When DE is negative, radiant energy is emitted and an electron has fallen down to a lower energy state

Revisiting Balmer's equation:

In 1885 a Swiss school teacher figured out that the frequencies of the light corresponding to these wavelengths fit a relatively simple mathematical formula:

where C = 3.29 x 10^{15} s^{-1} (not the 'c' used for the speed of light)

Since energy lost by the electrons is energy "gained" by the emitted EM energy, the EM energy from Bohr's equation would be:

Thus, Balmer's constant 'C' = (R_{H}/h) (Rydberg constant divided by Planck's constant), and n_{f} = 2. Thus, the only emitted energies which fall in the visible spectrum are from those electrons which fell down to the second quantum orbital. Those which fell down to the first orbital have a higher energy (frequency) than can be seen in the visible spectrum.

Calculate the wavelength of light that corresponds to the transition of the electron from the n=4 to the n=2 state of the hydrogen atom. Is the light absorbed or emitted by the atom?

Since the electron is "falling" from level 4 down to level 2, energy will be given up and manifested as emitted electromagnetic radiation:

DE = (2.18 x 10^{-18} J)((1/16)-(1/4)) = -4.09 x 10^{-19} J (light is emitted)

4.09 x 10-19 J = (6.63 x 10^{-34} Js) * (n)

6.17 x 10^{14} s^{-1} = n

l = (3.00 x 10^{8} m s^{-1})/ (6.17 x 10^{14} s^{-1}) = 4.87 x 10^{-7}m = 487 nm

Bohr's model of the atom was important because it introduced quantized energy states for the electrons. However, as a model it was only useful for predicting the behavior of atoms with a single electron (H, He^{+}, and Li^{2+} ions). Thus, a different model of the atom eventually replaced Bohr's model. However, we will retain the concept of quantized energy gth states.

5-28-16 J_Wave-Length fits the Bohr R (circumference) 137 times.

Copied from Blog Page Bad Quality6-12-15 Copied from internet Frequency Versus Energy :

Wavelength (l), Frequency (n) and Energy Calculations (E)

There are a few calculations you may perform that involve waves. Before I go any further, you need to know the constants that are involved.

c=3.0 x 10^{8}m/s (the speed of light in a vacuum)

This constant "c" is how fast electromagnetic radiation (light for all extensive purposes) travels. The other is "h", which called Planck's constant.

h=6.626 x 10^{-34} J s

This comes from the work of Max Planck preformed in 1900 using blackbody radiation. There were discrete values of energy that differed by this constant. In other words, all energy is a multiple of this constant multiplied by the frequency of the wave of light. Energy is therefore quantized, it is always a multiple of a single packet of energy.

Now on to the equations.

Wavelength (l) and Frequency (n) Relationships

c=ln ,

where l is wavelength in meters

n is frequency in hertz, 1/s or s^{-1}

c=3.0 x 10^{8}m/s (the speed of light in a vacuum)

Typical question #1- What is the frequency of red light with a wavelength of 690.nm? (1m=10^{9}nm)

First- l is wavelength in meters, so convert nm to meters

690.nm (

1m

)=6.90 x 10^{-7}m

10^{9}nm

Now we can rearrange the equation above and solve for frequency, since we already know the constant, c.

n=c/l

n=

3.0 x 10^{8}m/s

=4.35 x 10^{14} s^{-1}

6.90 x 10^{-7}m

Typical question #2- What is the wavelength of light in nm, that has a frequency of 6.6 x 10^{14} Hz?

l=c/n

l=

3.0 x 10^{8}m/s

=4.55 x 10^{-7}m

6.6 x 10^{14} s^{-1}

convert m to nm

4.55 x 10^{-7}m(

10^{9}nm

)=455nm

1m

Energy (E) and Frequency (n) Relationships- Energy is directly proportional to frequency. To calculate energy from frequency (or vice Versa), use the following equation

E=hn

where E is Energy in Joules (J)

n is frequency in hertz, 1/s or s^{-1}

h=6.626 x 10^{-34} J s

Typical Question #1- How much energy does a photon of light with a frequency of 4.60 x 10^{14} s^{-1} have?

E=hn

E=(6.626 x 10^{-34}Js)(4.60 x 10^{14} s^{-1})

E= 3.05 x 10^{-19}J

Energy (E) and Wavelength (l) Relationships- Since energy is calculated from frequency, we can substitute for frequency (n) in the equation E=hn, usingn=c/l, (fromc=ln). Now we can do our calculations in one step instead of 2. The new combined equation is:

E=hc/l

where E is Energy in Joules (J)

l is wavelength in meters

h=6.626 x 10^{-34} J s

c=3.0 x 10^{8}m/s (the speed of light in a vacuum)

Typical Question #1- How much energy does a photon of Red light with a wavelength of 690.nm? (1m=10^{9}nm)

First- l is wavelength in meters, so convert nm to meters

10-10-15 Back Home Windows 10 as yesterday but on cactusair My router. The Link J_Wave is continuing the displaying the full J_Wave in blue that delineates 2 half waves as strait lines in former Half J_Wave PDF. The X axis's are delineated as the same length but the -Pi and +Pi on J_Wave-Length bitmapit.xlsx on the X axis. The ratio of the difference is PI/Half J_Wave-Length is 2.588933104 E12 in the X Axis Lengths of the 2 plots.

6-1-16 Copy from My Blog Page Equation:

10-12-15 In My J_Paradigm the J_Wave-Length is the J_Quantum 2.42694779*10^-12 meter.

10-14-15 Check units of measure 0000242694779 Angstrom,

1-21-17 Copied From Page New Instruments As I said, this is only approximate. This arithmetic is only useful if you are comfortable with 358 ≈ 251 ≈ 177. For some purposes the crude equality above is actually useful and guides our understanding. We could even start to form a simple picture of what's going on from all this. We can also estimate the quark masses from the lightest mesons that are made up of pairs of quarks. There is a meson called the Phi that is composed of two Strange quarks. It has a mass of 1019 MeV. So a Strange quark is about ~510 MeV. The next one up is called the J/Psi particle and its 3,100 MeV and is made from a pair of Charmed quarks. These guys have to be ~1500 MeV each. Higher still is the Upsilon at about 9,600 MeV and its a Bottom quark pair so the Bottom quark is maybe 4,800 MeV! Recently, evidence for the Top quark was found and its approximate mass is 91,000 MeV! We would know that the Up quark has approximately the same mass as the Down quark because the neutron-proton mass difference is small and because the pion mass differences are all small. We could further suppose that the Strange quark could be 358 MeV heavier than the Up or the Down quarks based on the Kaon-Pion mass difference. We could also set limits on the Up (Down) mass. The Up (Down) quark could be as heavy as the proton mass divided by three. That would make the Up (Down) around 310 MeV on the high end. So where are we with the quark masses by this crude method:

Up ≈ Down ≈ 300 MeV Strange ≈ 510 MeV Charmed ≈ 1,500 MeV Bottom ≈ 4,800 MeV Top ≈ 91,000 MeV

A good reference on the web for more info on quarks and particles is to be found at: Quarks and Particles.

Continued also from 5-12-16 above J_Quark-Spins,

1-22-17 Move above here:

4-25-16 J_Quark-Spins copy from Ms paint :

The J_Qube Six surfaces with the six J_Quarks one on each surface delineates with Circles the different J_Spins of the J_Closed-Loop J_Strings with J_Waves on their outer surfaces.

In J_Fifth-Dimension at the bottom of J_Black-Holes and J_Big-Bang J_Heat is extremely high and also J_Density due to J_Gravity from J_Mass in each of the J_Quarks in this molten J_Mass.

1-23-17 J_Proton 2 up & 1 down Quark gives:

6-1-16 Uploaded W7 Word saved Excel Spread Sheet of Derived J_Wave-Length 2.43E-12 m (see link below:

1-25-17 Copied From Page New Instruments As I said, this is only approximate. This arithmetic is only useful if you are comfortable with 358 ≈ 251 ≈ 177. For some purposes the crude equality above is actually useful and guides our understanding. We could even start to form a simple picture of what's going on from all this. We can also estimate the quark masses from the lightest mesons that are made up of pairs of quarks. There is a meson called the Phi that is composed of two Strange quarks. It has a mass of 1019 MeV. So a Strange quark is about ~510 MeV. The next one up is called the J/Psi particle and its 3,100 MeV and is made from a pair of Charmed quarks. These guys have to be ~1500 MeV each. Higher still is the Upsilon at about 9,600 MeV and its a Bottom quark pair so the Bottom quark is maybe 4,800 MeV! Recently, evidence for the Top quark was found and its approximate mass is 91,000 MeV! We would know that the Up quark has approximately the same mass as the Down quark because the neutron-proton mass difference is small and because the pion mass differences are all small. We could further suppose that the Strange quark could be 358 MeV heavier than the Up or the Down quarks based on the Kaon-Pion mass difference. We could also set limits on the Up (Down) mass. The Up (Down) quark could be as heavy as the proton mass divided by three. That would make the Up (Down) around 310 MeV on the high end. So where are we with the quark masses by this crude method:

Up ≈ Down ≈ 300 MeV Strange ≈ 510 MeV Charmed ≈ 1,500 MeV Bottom ≈ 4,800 MeV Top ≈ 91,000 MeV

A good reference on the web for more info on quarks and particles is to be found at: Quarks and Particles.

That is the prediction of general relativity, yes. The Schwarzschild metric, which describes the simplest possible kind of static black hole, assumes that all of the mass is indeed concentrated in a single central point.

And yes, it does indeed take proper time to reach the singularity after a particle crosses the event horizon. In fact, once you have crossed the event horizon, the singularity no longer appears as a point in space that you can fall towards- rather, it is a point in your future, which you will inevitably encounter at some finite time in your future.

Why shouldn’t massless particles interact with matter? They still have energy, after all, and that’s fundamentally the same thing. Furthermore, only one of the four fundamental interactions actually depends on mass/energy at all- gravity. There’s a whole three other ways that particles can interact with each other completely independent of their mass content, and different massless particles interact through different mechanisms.

Photons in particular, being quanta of the electromagnetic field, interact with matter via the electromagnetic interaction. When an electromagnetic wave passes an electric charge, it makes that charge wiggle, and that alters the propagation of the wave. The simplest (for one definition of “simple”, anyway) analyses is that photons are repeatedly absorbed and re-emitted by charged particles in a medium, and that process takes time, which retards the progress of the wave compared to how fast it would move if it didn’t have to “take a break” at every charge along the way.

That is the prediction of general relativity, yes. The Schwarzschild metric, which describes the simplest possible kind of static black hole, assumes that all of the mass is indeed concentrated in ...

Why shouldn’t massless particles interact with matter? They still have energy, after all, and that’s fundamentally the same thing. Furthermore, only one of the four fundamental interactions actuall...

For objects in uniform motion (i.e., moving at a constant velocity, not accelerating), the gravitational force changes instantaneously. This is because the information about how that force should act is ...

If we assume the Earth is staying at the same distance from the sun, none of those are probably completely accurate, but option 1 is probably the most likely.

Instantly after leaving J_Fifth-Dimention of exstremly high temperture hot J_Mass of J_Quarks and J_Glueons a new J_Time starts in the J_Fourth-Dimension in J_Strings-J_Waves.

A quark–gluon plasma (QGP) or quark soup^{[1]} is a state of matter in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) which is hypothesized to exist at extremely high temperature, density, or both temperature and density. This state is thought to consist of asymptotically freequarks and gluons, which are several of the basic building blocks of matter. It is believed that up to a few milliseconds after the Big Bang, known as the Quark epoch, the Universe was in a quark–gluon plasma state. In June 2015, an international team of physicists produced quark-gluon plasma at the Large Hadron Collider by colliding protons with lead nuclei at high energy inside the supercollider’s Compact Muon Solenoid detector. They also discovered that this new state of matter behaves like a fluid.^{[2]}

The strength of the color force means that unlike the gas-like plasma, quark–gluon plasma behaves as a near-ideal Fermi liquid, although research on flow characteristics is ongoing.^{[3]} In the quark matter phase diagram, QGP is placed in the high-temperature, high-density regime; whereas, ordinary matter is a cold and rarefied mixture of nuclei and vacuum, and the hypothetical quark stars would consist of relatively cold, but dense quark matter.

Experiments at CERN's Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) first tried to create the QGP in the 1980s and 1990s: the results led CERN to announce indirect evidence for a "new state of matter"^{[4]} in 2000. Current experiments (2011) at the Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) on Long Island (NY, USA) and at CERN's recent Large Hadron Collider near Geneva (Switzerland) are continuing this effort,^{[5]}^{[6]} by colliding relativistically accelerated gold (at RHIC) or lead (at LHC) with each other or with protons. Although the results have yet to be independently verified as of February 2010, scientists at Brookhaven RHIC have tentatively claimed to have created a quark–gluon plasma with an approximate temperature of 4 trillion (4×10^{12}) kelvin.^{[6]}

As already mentioned, three new experiments running on CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC), on the spectrometers ALICE,^{[7]}ATLAS and CMS, will continue studying properties of QGP. Starting in November 2010, CERN temporarily ceased colliding protons, and began colliding lead Ions for the ALICE experiment. They were looking to create a QGP and were expected to stop December 6, colliding protons again in January.^{[8]} A new record breaking temperature was set by ALICE: A Large Ion Collider Experiment at CERN on August, 2012 in the ranges of 5.5 trillion (5.5×10^{12}) kelvin as claimed in their Nature PR.^{[9]}

Quark–gluon plasma is a state of matter in which the elementary particles that make up the hadrons of baryonic matter are freed of their strong attraction for one another under extremely high energy densities. These particles are the quarks and gluons that compose baryonic matter.^{[10]} In normal matter quarks are confined; in the QGP quarks are deconfined. In classical QCD quarks are the Fermionic components of mesons and baryons while the gluons are considered the Bosonic components of such particles. The gluons are the force carriers, or bosons, of the QCD color force, while the quarks by themselves are their Fermionic matter counterparts.

Although the experimental high temperatures and densities predicted as producing a quark–gluon plasma have been realized in the laboratory, the resulting matter does not behave as a quasi-ideal state of free quarks and gluons, but, rather, as an almost perfect dense fluid.^{[11]} Actually, the fact that the quark–gluon plasma will not yet be "free" at temperatures realized at present accelerators was predicted in 1984 as a consequence of the remnant effects of confinement.^{[12]}^{[13]}

A plasma is matter in which charges are screened due to the presence of other mobile charges; for example: Coulomb's Law is suppressed by the screening to yield a distance-dependent charge (Q -> Q × exp(-r/α), i.e., the charge Q is reduced exponentially with the distance divided by a screening length α). In a QGP, the color charge of the quarks and gluons is screened. The QGP has other analogies with a normal plasma. There are also dissimilarities because the color charge is non-abelian, whereas the electric charge is abelian. Outside a finite volume of QGP the color-electric field is not screened, so that a volume of QGP must still be color-neutral. It will therefore, like a nucleus, have integer electric charge.

One consequence of this difference is that the color charge is too large for perturbative computations which are the mainstay of QED. As a result, the main theoretical tools to explore the theory of the QGP is lattice gauge theory.^{[14]}^{[15]} The transition temperature (approximately 175 MeV) was first predicted by lattice gauge theory. Since then lattice gauge theory has been used to predict many other properties of this kind of matter. The AdS/CFT correspondence conjecture may provide insights in QGP, moreover the ultimate goal of the fluid/gravity correspondence is to understand QGP. The QGP is believed to be a phase of QCD which is completely locally thermalized and thus suitable for an effective fluid dynamic description.

The QGP can be created by heating matter up to a temperature of 2×10^{12}K, which amounts to 175 MeV per particle. This can be accomplished by colliding two large nuclei at high energy (note that 175 MeV is not the energy of the colliding beam). Lead and goldnuclei have been used for such collisions at CERNSPS and BNLRHIC, respectively. The nuclei are accelerated to ultrarelativistic speeds (contracting their length) and directed towards each other, creating a "fireball", in the rare event of a collision. Hydrodynamic simulation predicts this fireball will expand under its own pressure, and cool while expanding. By carefully studying the spherical and elliptic flow, experimentalists put the theory to test.

How the QGP fits into the general scheme of physics[edit]

QCD is one part of the modern theory of particle physics called the Standard Model. Other parts of this theory deal with electroweak interactions and neutrinos. The theory of electrodynamics has been tested and found correct to a few parts in a billion. The theory of weak interactions has been tested and found correct to a few parts in a thousand. Perturbative forms of QCD have been tested to a few percent. In contrast, non-perturbative forms of QCD have barely been tested. The study of the QGP is part of this effort to consolidate the grand theory of particle physics.

The study of the QGP is also a testing ground for finite temperature field theory, a branch of theoretical physics which seeks to understand particle physics under conditions of high temperature. Such studies are important to understand the early evolution of our universe: the first hundred microseconds or so. It is crucial to the physics goals of a new generation of observations of the universe (WMAP and its successors). It is also of relevance to Grand Unification Theories which seek to unify the three fundamental forces of nature (excluding gravity).

The cross-over temperature from the normal hadronic to the QGP phase is about 175 MeV. This "crossover" may actually not be only a qualitative feature, but instead one may have to do with a true (second order) phase transition, e.g. of the universality class of the three-dimensional Ising model, as some theorists say, e.g. Frithjof Karsch and coworkers from the university of Bielefeld. The phenomena involved correspond to an energy density of a little less than 1 GeV/fm^{3}. For relativistic matter, pressure and temperature are not independent variables, so the equation of state is a relation between the energy density and the pressure. This has been found through lattice computations, and compared to both perturbation theory and string theory. This is still a matter of active research. Response functions such as the specific heat and various quark number susceptibilities are currently being computed.

The equation of state is an important input into the flow equations. The speed of sound is currently under investigation in lattice computations. The mean free path of quarks and gluons has been computed using perturbation theory as well as string theory. Lattice computations have been slower here, although the first computations of transport coefficients have recently been concluded. These indicate that the mean free time of quarks and gluons in the QGP may be comparable to the average interparticle spacing: hence the QGP is a liquid as far as its flow properties go. This is very much an active field of research, and these conclusions may evolve rapidly. The incorporation of dissipative phenomena into hydrodynamics is another recent development that is still in an active stage.

The study of thermodynamic and flow properties indicate that the assumption of QGP including almost only free quarks and gluons is an over-simplification. Many ideas are currently being evolved and will be put to test in the near future. It has been hypothesized recently that some mesons built from heavy quarks do not dissolve until the temperature reaches about 350 MeV. This has led to speculation that many other kinds of bound states may exist in the plasma. Some static properties of the plasma (similar to the Debye screening length) constrain the excitation spectrum.

Since 2008, there is a discussion about a hypothetical precursor state of the Quark–gluon plasma, the so-called "Glasma", where the dressed particles are condensed into some kind of glassy (or amorphous) state, below the genuine transition between the confined state and the plasma liquid.^{[16]} This would be analogous to the formation of metallic glasses, or amorphous alloys of them, below the genuine onset of the liquid metallic state.

Those forms of the QGP that are easiest to compute are not those that are easiest to verify experimentally. While the balance of evidence points towards the QGP being the origin of the detailed properties of the fireball produced at SPS (CERN), in the RHIC and at LHC, this is the main barrier which prevents experimentalists from declaring a sighting of the QGP.^{[17]}

The important classes of experimental observations are

In short, a quark–gluon plasma flows like a splat of liquid, and because it's not "transparent" with respect to quarks, it can attenuate jets emitted by collisions. Furthermore, once formed, a ball of quark–gluon plasma, like any hot object, transfers heat internally by radiation. However, unlike in everyday objects, there is enough energy available that gluons (particles mediating the strong force) collide and produce an excess of the heavy (i.e. high-energy) strange quarks. Whereas, if the QGP didn't exist and there was a pure collision, the same energy would be converted into even heavier quarks such as charm quarks or bottom quarks.

In April 2005, formation of quark matter was tentatively confirmed by results obtained at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The consensus of the four RHIC research groups was that they had created a quark–gluon liquid of very low viscosity. However, contrary to what was at that time still the widespread assumption, it is yet unknown from theoretical predictions whether the QCD "plasma", especially close to the transition temperature, should behave like a gas or liquid. Authors favoring the weakly interacting interpretation derive their assumptions from the lattice QCD calculation, where the entropy density of quark–gluon plasma approaches the weakly interacting limit. However, since both energy density and correlation shows significant deviation from the weakly interacting limit, it has been pointed out by many authors that there is in fact no reason to assume a QCD "plasma" close to the transition point should be weakly interacting, like electromagnetic plasma (see, e.g.,^{[18]}). That being said, systematically improvable perturbative QCD quasiparticle models do a very good job of reproducing the lattice data for thermodynamical observables (pressure, entropy, quark susceptibility), including the aforementioned "significant deviation from the weakly interacting limit", down to temperatures on the order of 2 to 3 times the critical temperature for the transition.^{[19]}^{[20]}^{[21]}

RHIC has created a new state of hot, dense matter out of the quarks and gluons that are the basic particles of atomic nuclei, but it is a state quite different and even more remarkable than had been predicted. Instead of behaving like a gas of free quarks and gluons, as was expected, the matter created in RHIC's heavy ion collisions is more like a liquid.

Gluons and quarks

Ions about to collide

Just after collision

The "perfect" liquid

Hot Nuclear Matter A review article in the journal Science describes groundbreaking discoveries that have emerged from RHIC, synergies with the heavy-ion program at the Large Hadron Collider, and the compelling questions that will drive this research forward on both sides of the Atlantic. Abstract | Reprint | Full Text | BNL release

A "Perfect" Liquid

RHIC scientists had expected collisions between two beams of gold nuclei to mimic conditions of the early universe and produce a gaseous plasma of the smallest components of matter — the quarks and gluons that make up ordinary protons and neutrons. But instead of behaving like a gas, the early-universe matter created in RHIC’s energetic gold-gold collisions appears to be more like a liquid. And it’s not just any liquid, but one with coordinated collective motion, or “flow,” among the constituent particles.

Scientists describe this fluid motion as nearly “perfect” because it can be explained by the equations of hydrodynamics for a fluid with virtually no viscosity, or frictional resistance to flow. In fact, the high degree of collective interaction and rapid distribution of thermal energy among the particles, as well as the extremely low viscosity in the matter being formed at RHIC, make it the most nearly perfect liquid ever observed.

RHIC’s perfect liquid also turns out to be the hottest matter ever created in a laboratory, measuring some 4 trillion degrees Celsius, or 250,000 times hotter than the center of the Sun. That’s far above the temperature at which protons and neutrons melt to free their constituent quarks and gluons, showing definitively that RHIC’s perfect liquid is hot enough to be the long-sought quark-gluon plasma.

Scientists measure the temperature of hot matter by looking at the color, or energy distribution, of light emitted from it — similar to the way one can tell that an iron rod is hot by looking at its glow. Because light interacts very little with the hot liquid produced at RHIC, it bears accurate witness to the early cauldron-like conditions created within. More...

String Theory

There is an emerging connection between the collider's results and calculations using the methods of string theory, an approach that attempts to explain fundamental properties of the universe using 10 dimensions instead of the usual three spatial dimensions plus time. For example, string theory predicts a fundamental quantum lower limit on the viscosity of any relativistic fluid -- a limit approached very closely by the nearly perfect quark-gluon liquid created in RHIC collisions. More...

Exotic Findings

RHIC’s quark-gluon plasma exhibits other unusual properties that have intrigued scientists. Tiny “bubbles” formed within this hot soup may internally disobey fundamental symmetries that normally characterize the interactions of quarks and gluons. These first hints of symmetry violations at RHIC suggest that scientists may now have a unique opportunity to test in the laboratory some crucial features of symmetry-altering bubbles speculated to have played important roles in the evolution of the infant universe. More...

RHIC collisions have also produced the heaviest antimatter nucleus yet discovered, and the first containing an anti-strange quark. This discovery of exotic antimatter at RHIC extends physicists’ “map” of nuclei into a new frontier. It may help elucidate models of neutron stars, and also opens another way to explore fundamental asymmetries in the early universe. More...

J_Fifth-Dimension J_Cosmic-String J_Waves are emitted by J_Radiation into J_Forth -Dimension at the start of J_Time as J_Aether J_String-J_Waves with J_Mass+J_Glueon-J_Quarks.

1-30-17 Disclosure J_Paradigm J_Fifth-Dimension where the state of art so-called Black-hole singularity is where J_Space-Time ENDS. This means the J_Space-Time of the J_Forth-Dimension volume that passes from J_Forth-Dimension J_Black-hole event horizon melts completely into J_Plasma-J_Liqueid of extremely Hot J_Quarks J_ Gluons J_Mass at extremely high J_Density.

1-31-17 Copied State of art "A New Area of Physics" see above "created in RHIC's heavy ion collisions is more like a liquid":

J_Quark-J_Glueon J_Plasma also Ejected from the bottom of J_Black-Hole back into J_Forth-Dimension forming a J_Jet of J_Plasma of J_Strings like those of J_Big-Bang.

Comment downvoted • Jan 5, 2013

Facebook

Robert J. Kolker: He created his own laboratory and equ...Comment downvoted • Oct 29, 2013