The entire "article" is 14 pages, but the solution is only two pages.
I'd say the "meat" of it is around 6 or 7 pages, then there's the abstract which hasn't been typed yet, and some supporting information. The solution itself is a page or two, that is how much I'd probably share here
I could share that if you asked for it. It is the subject of my next APS article.
There are still some questions I have which apply less to the solution which I consider to be complete, and more to the actual foundation of the probability function and the orbital specifics which I have to be able to convert to fractal form, an important step in the atomic design function. You can see it essentially in the book, but I find myself capable of polishing the orbital descriptions in terms of discreet functions independent of a circular orbital.
Once this is complete, I need to determine the effect of what I suspect is a T-6 photon and the probable solution is the conversion of the electron from an electron to what is the equivalent of a destabilized proton from a neutron. This would be a more or less "perfect" fractal solution that did not require a higher orbit.
So in broad terms it would look something like this:
T12 E=5.4x10^12
Add a T-6 photon and it becomes a T12E=5.4x10^12+1 10^6 P. Now you are thinking, but Mr. Science, that is not enough of a difference to make a difference. That is because you have not read the book. If you had you would realize that 10^4 is the separation of the electron from the proton but they mach each other in charge because the proton is folded to be the same size as the electron.
Here, the 10^6 difference means the photon is likely as large as the electron, perhaps larger and can act just as the electron does to the neutron to destabilize or stabilize sufficiently to create the change.
There are a couple of ways of looking at this. One is a type of taylor approximation (which can be an exact solution in AuT) where the addition of the photon adds another approximating solution taking a state that much closer or further away from the more stable state without changing it.
It took many days, at least 7, to send out my list which was a pain, but now I have a pretty good list, only lost 4% including those who were autospammed.
A close 1% unsubscribed, but that is a pretty acceptable compared to the 20% click rate.
This is interesting only if it is the right model of supersymmetry. I have filed patents for a true quantum related laser, btw. Its not a terrible idea, but you need to know what super symmetry is and the chances of "those editors" figuring out what that is without it being existentially forced on the pathologically intollerant editorial board. Now for those of you saying, no more intollerant than me, I say, fair enough, but I also say that eventually I abandon my dead ends and make progress on my own.
Phys.org: A laser system built on principles of supersymmetry. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-laser-built-principles-supersymmetry.html
This is symptomatic. It talks about tying in fictitious particles together. This is what the APS is unwilling to abandon even if the right version of the universe runs them over which eventually it will.
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe_1.html
The idiocy of science is partially myopathy. Its partially inflexibility. But mostly it is something the universe programmed into science, which in this case is editorial boards that cannot tell the difference between a diamond and a shard of glass, but then who can otehr than geologists?
Is it more important to be right or to think you are right?
That is the difference between me and everyone else.
I am certain I am right and I am uncertain whether that matters or not; but I know the only thing that matters to me is being right.
And the closer I get, the more certain I am that if I am not right, then I am insane.
As I have said before, it is a coin flip.
Supersymmetry is (up to here it is right) a math-based theory that describes the relationship between bosons (sorry, no such answer) and fermions (ditto) it suggests that for every known elementary particle, there has to be a much heavier "super partner." (total bullshit? Maybe not, because there are these larger, less dense, less informational things and perhaps those are partners of a type, to the extent they are not parents). To build a new kind of laser system, the researchers used this idea to create a stable array of semiconductor lasers that together offer the power needed for prospective applications. More specifically, they designed a system that emphasizes the fundamental mode by suppressing higher-order modes (what are they saying?). They did this by pairing them with low-quality modes—their lossy super-partners. ( have no idea what this means or why it means it and I don't know what the success means or how it is measured).
Subscription Link:
AuT is a new model for physics promising a better understanding of dimension, time, the resulting periodic table, new energy sources even faster than light travel.
https://my.sendinblue.com/users/subscribe/js_id/3ur2i/id/1 <--subscribe here
You are invited to subscribe to the Scientific Panel Page for Algorithm Universe Theory where you will receive updates.
Subscribers will be given a link to the most recent drawings. Within those drawings is a link to the USA University Presentation 2/7/19 including Audio for the first 8 slides.
By subscribing to our new portal you will get a link to the Newest Drawings (for AUM 2nd Edition, Updated 1/30/19) which Include a link to the new Powerpoint. https://my.sendinblue.com/users/subscribe/js_id/3ur2i/id/1
No comments:
Post a Comment