This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 280)
John Baez
Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week280.html
September 27, 2009
This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 280)
John Baez
I have a lot to talk about, since I just got back from a quantum
gravity summer school in Corfu. I felt like Rip Van Winkle, the
character who fell asleep for 20 years and woke to find everything
changed. I gave up working on quantum gravity about 4 years ago
because so many problems seemed intractable. Now a lot of these have
been solved, or at least seen some progress. It was great!
There school featured courses by Ashtekar, Barrett, Rivasseau, Rovelli
and myself - we each gave 5 hours of lectures. All these guys were
friends who I was very happy to see again - except for Rivasseau, whom
I'd never met. But it was great to meet him, since he works on
mathematically rigorous quantum field theory, the topic I tried to do
my PhD on. He had some amazing things to say about the combinatorics
of trees and the problem of summing divergent series. Sadly, right
now I only have time to summarize the courses by Ashtekar and Rovelli.
Abhay Ashtekar gave a review of recent work on loop quantum cosmology.
Starting with the work of Martin Bojowald around 2001, there's been a
lot of interest in the possibility that loop quantum gravity could
eliminate the singularity at the Big Bang. The big problem is that
dynamics in loop quantum gravity is not understood. There are lots of
choices for how it might work, and nobody knows which is right, or if
there even *is* a right one. Luckily, by imposing the symmetry
conditions appropriate to a homogeneous isotropic cosmology one can
narrow down the problem of seeking a reasonable dynamics to something
much more manageable. Instead of infinitely many degrees of freedom,
there are just a few.
Unfortunately, there are still lots of choices involved in guessing a
reasonable theory of quantum cosmology inspired by loop quantum
gravity. Checking their implications involves both computer
calculations and conceptual head-scratching. So, it took about 7
years to find a satisfactory candidate. It might not be right, but at
least it's self-consistent and elegant. For a nice survey, see this:
1) Abhay Ashtekar, Loop quantum cosmology: an overview,
Gen. Rel. Grav. 41 (2009), 707-741. Also available as
arXiv:0812.0177.
Section IVa sketches the history of the subject, but it's best to
read the previous stuff first.
Anyway, what are the results? What does the currently popular theory
of loop quantum cosmology imply?
In a nutshell: if you follow the history of the Universe back in time,
it looks almost exactly like what ordinary cosmology predicts until
the density reaches about 1/100 of the Planck density.
What's the Planck density, you ask?
Well, you can cook up units of mass, length and time by saying that
Planck's constant and the speed of light and Newton's gravitational
constant are all 1 in these units. Unsurprisingly, these units are
called:
the Planck mass: 2.2 x 10^{-8} kilograms
the Planck length: 1.6 x 10^{-35} meters
the Planck time: 5.4 x 10^{-44} seconds
The "Planck density" is one Planck mass per cubic Planck length - or
in ordinary units, about 5 x 10^{96} kilograms per cubic meter.
That's incredibly dense! It's what you'd get by compressing 10^{23}
solar masses into the volume of an atomic nucleus.
According to loop quantum cosmology, at around 1/100 the Planck
density quantum gravity effects in, creating a force that prevents the
universe from shrinking further as we march backwards in time. And at
about .4 times the Planck density, there's a "bounce". Going further
back in time, we see the Universe expand again! Indeed, the Universe
is symmetrical in time around the moment of maximum compression.
So, the Big Bang is replaced by a Big Bounce.
Interestingly, in this model quantum effects don't create much
dispersion as the Universe passes through a big bounce. In other
words: if the Universe's wavefunction is sharply peaked around a
certain classical geometry, it remains so through the big bounce. It
doesn't "smear out" too much.
By the way, I would be very happy if anyone working on loop quantum
cosmology could give me a intuitive physical explanation for the force
that prevents the singularity. Mathematically I know that it arises
from a kind of discretization. Instead of talking about the curvature
of spacetime at infinitesimally small scales, we can only measure
curvature by carrying a particle around a finite-sized loop. This has
little effect when spacetime is only slightly curved, but when the
curvature is big it makes a big difference. This causes an effect
very much like a force that prevents the Universe from crushing down
to nothing as we follow it backwards in time.
So far, so good. But a good physical intuition would explain the
*sign* of this effective force. Why does it prevent the singularity
instead of, say, making it worse?
For some more details, try this treatment which resembles the course
Ashtekar taught:
2) Abhay Ashtekar, An introduction to loop quantum gravity through
cosmology, Nuovo Cimento 122B (2007), 135-155. Also available as
arXiv:gr-qc/0702030.
Anyway, the real fun will start when people systematically compute the
behavior of inhomogeneous perturbations in loop quantum cosmology
model. After all, the little ripples in the microwave background
radiation are the first interesting thing we see in the Universe.
A lot of work on cosmology studies these inhomogeneities by
calculating backwards to a hypothesized "inflationary epoch" about
10^{-35} seconds after the Big Bang - or Big Bounce, if that's your
theory. Quantum gravity effects are likely to become important only
at much earlier times, since the Planck time is about 10^{-43}
seconds. Here I'm using "much earlier" in a funny logarithmic sense.
But that's actually appropriate here. The inflationary epoch comes
about 100 million Planck times after the Big Bounce. According to
Ashtekar's calculations, by then quantum gravity corrections only
affect the rate of expansion of the universe by about one part in 100
thousand. So, it's not clear that loop quantum gravity calculations
are going to have anything interesting to say about anything we can
see today. But who knows?
Next, Carlo Rovelli. His class was an introduction to spin foam
models, which are an attempt to pin down a specific dynamics for loop
quantum gravity. Here I'm going to get more technical, because this
material is closer to my heart. If you need a warmup, try
"week109"-"week113" for the basics.
I worked on spin foams for about 5 years. I loved them because they
offer the hope of building spacetime from abstract algebra - higher
category theory, in fact. But I gave up because a lot of puzzle
pieces just didn't seem to be fitting together. Back then, the best
candidate for a spin foam model of gravity was the Barrett-Crane
model. But there were three big problems:
A) The Barrett-Crane model used spin networks of a different kind from
the usual ones in loop quantum gravity. Instead of spin networks with
edges labelled by unitary representations of SU(2) (the double cover
of the rotation group), it used unitary representations of SL(2,C)
(the double cover of the Lorentz group). This is because it's all
about *spacetime*, while loop quantum gravity focuses on *space*. And
instead of using spin networks with vertices labelled by arbitrary
intertwiners, it only used a special intertwiner called the
"Barrett-Crane intertwiner".
B) While loop quantum gravity in its modern formulation includes the
Immirzi parameter - a dimensionless constant that sets the scale of
area quantization - the Barrett-Crane model did not. If the currently
accepted calculations are right, we need to choose a special and
rather peculiar value of the Immirzi parameter if we want loop quantum
gravity to get the right answer for the entropy of black holes. So,
along with problem A), this makes it even harder to connect the
Barrett-Crane model to loop quantum gravity.
C) At first people hoped for various clues linking the Barrett-Crane
model to general relativity. For example, we hoped that the
asymptotic value of the amplitude for a large 4-simplex in the
Barrett-Crane model was nicely related to the action for general
relativity. But this turned out to be false: in the Barrett-Crane
model, the amplitude for a large 4-simplex is dominated by certain
degenerate geometries where the 4-simplex is squashed down to 3
dimensions. See "week128", "week168", "week170" and "week198" for the
story here. Carlo Rovelli raised our hopes again in a more
sophisticated way: he tried to compute the propagator for gravitons
starting from the Barrett-Crane model. For a beautiful and physically
very sensible reason, the degenerate geometries don't dominate this
calculation. Rovelli got some promising results for certain
components of the graviton propagator, and left a student to work out
the rest of the components... but it didn't work!
It seems all these problems have been solved now. There's a new model
sometimes called the EPRL model, after Engle, Pereira, Rovelli,
and Livine, although other people were involved as well - I'll list
some papers later.
The basic idea of the EPRL model is to start with the Holst
Lagrangian for general relativity. In 1995, Soren Holst came
up with a nice Lagrangian for gravity:
3) Soren Holst, Barbero's Hamiltonian derived from a generalized
Hilbert-Palatini action, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996), 5966-5969. Also
available as arXiv:gr-qc/9511026.
It looks like this:
tr(e ^ e ^ *F) + (1/gamma) tr(e ^ e ^ F)
I'll explain this in detail later, because there was a student
who twice asked about the math behind this Lagrangian, and Rovelli
and I brushed the question off by saying "it's just like Palatini
Lagrangian". I feel guilty, so someone find that student and tell
him to read my explanation for below.
But that gets a bit technical, so for now let me say: "it's just like
the Palatini Lagrangian". Namely, the first term is the usual
Palatini Lagrangian for gravity. The second term involves the Immirzi
parameter, gamma. The second term doesn't affect the classical
equations of motion, because its variation is a total derivative. But
it does affect the quantum theory!
If we triangulate spacetime and carry out a spin foam quantization of
this theory - which is a bit like doing lattice gauge theory - we can
show (in a rough-and-ready physicist's way) that the partition
function of the quantum theory is computed as a sum over spin foams
where the spin foams are labelled by certain special representations
of SL(2,C).
Physicists don't learn the unitary representations of the Lorentz
group in school the way they do for the Poincare group. But the
unitary representations of the Lorentz group - or its double cover
SL(2,C) - is also very nice. Except for the trivial representation
they're all infinite-dimensional, which is a bit scary at first...
but there's a bunch called the "principal series" indexed by a j =
0,1/2,1,3/2,... and a nonnegative real number I'll call k. Very
roughly speaking the spin j has to do with rotations, while k is an
analogous quantity related to boosts. If you want more details, the
only online explanation I can find is this:
4) Wikipedia, Representation theory of the Lorentz group,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory_of_the_Lorentz_group
but it's probably better to read some of the many books cited here.
Anyway, the special representations of SL(2,C) that show up in the
EPRL model are those with
k = gamma j
This is beautiful because there's one for each spin. So, the category
of these representations and their direct sums is equivalent to the
category of finite-dimensional unitary representations of SU(2)!
This is how the EPRL model gets around problem A) listed above. Spin
networks in this new model are nicely compatible with spin networks in
loop quantum gravity, because you can think of their edges *either* as
labelled by special representations of SL(2,C), *or* as labelled by
arbitrary representations of SU(2).
This is also the key to how the EPRL model gets around problem B). The
Immirzi parameter is built into the model in a very natural way. As a
result, the quantization of area and volume in this model is
compatible with that in loop quantum gravity.
I don't think I'll describe the rest of the model, which consists of a
formula for computing the amplitude for a 4-simplex with edges
labelled by spins. But it's this formula that solves problem C). The
EPRL model gets the graviton propagator right!
I should quit soon, though there's much more to say. So, let me list
some references and then explain the differential geometry behind the
Holst Lagrangian, just to make up for not explaining it to that
student.
What people call the "EPR model" was introduced here. It's sort
of like the model I described, but for Riemannian rather than
Lorentzian metrics, and in the special case where the second term
in the Holst action was left out - so, no Immirzi parameter:
5) Jonathan Engle, Roberto Pereira and Carlo Rovelli, Flipped spinfoam
vertex and loop gravity, Nucl. Phys. B798 (2008), 251-290. Also
available as arXiv:0708.1236.
This is a very nice paper which describes a lot of geometry that
I haven't had time to mention. The full-fledged EPRL model
appeared later:
6) Jonathan Engle, Etera Livine, Roberto Pereira, and Carlo
Rovelli, LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter, Nucl. Phys.
B799 (2008), 136-149. Also available as arXiv:0711.0146.
But there are also other people whose work deserves credit! For
example, my friends Laurent Freidel and Kirill Krasnov:
7) Laurent Freidel and Kirill Krasnov, A new spin foam model for 4d
gravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 125018. Also available as
arXiv:0708.1595.
This paper gives a bit of the history, which I don't know very well,
since I wasn't paying attention. Kirill visited me once and tried to
get me interested in his new spin foam model, but I wasn't in the
mood. Now that everything is nicely polished, of course I like it
more.
There are probably lots of other important papers that I'm leaving
out, but let me turn to a few papers that discuss graviton
propagators.
Here's the paper where Rovelli's student found problems with
getting the graviton propagator from the Barrett-Crane model:
8) Emanuele Alesci and Carlo Rovelli, The complete LQG propagator:
I. Difficulties with the Barrett-Crane vertex. Phys. Rev. D76 (2007),
104012. Also available as arXiv:0708.0883.
Then came two papers where the authors found numerical evidence
that the EPRL model seemed to be working better:
9) J. Daniel Christensen, Etera R. Livine and Simone Speziale,
Numerical evidence of regularized correlations in spin foam gravity,
Phys. Lett. B670 (2009), 403-406. Also available as arXiv:0710.0617.
10) Elena Magliaro, Claudio Perini and Carlo Rovelli, Numerical
indications on the semiclassical limit of the flipped vertex,
Class. Quant. Grav. 25 (2008), 095009. Also available as
arXiv:0710.5034.
Then Alesci and Rovelli came back with another paper using
the new model:
11) Emanuele Alesci and Carlo Rovelli, The complete LQG propagator:
II. Asymptotic behavior of the vertex, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008), 044024.
Also available as arXiv:0711.1284.
and then Alesci and Rovelli wrote another paper in their
series, with Eugenio Bianchi:
13) Emanuele Alesci, Eugenio Bianchi, Carlo Rovelli, LQG
propagator: III. The new vertex, available as arXiv:0812.5018.
This paper used the work of John Barrett and collaborators, who
analyzed the asymptotics of the amplitude for a 4-simplex in the new
model:
14) John W. Barrett, R. J. Dowdall, Winston J. Fairbairn, Henrique
Gomes and Frank Hellmann, Asymptotic analysis of the EPRL four-simplex
amplitude, available as arXiv:0902.1170.
For a nice treatment of spin foams that generalizes the new model
to spin foams that don't come from triangulations of spacetime, try:
15) Wojciech Kaminski, Marcin Kisielowski, Jerzy Lewandowski,
Spin-foams for all loop quantum gravity, available as arXiv:0909.0939.
Everything Lewandowski does is very precise, so if you're a
mathematician you might actually want to start here!
There are also lots of other papers in this general line of work. I
apologize to everyone whose work I didn't cite - like Igor Khavkine,
for example!
Anyway, I'm excited about this new work and I hope to write another
paper or two about spin foam models. I came up with two fun ideas
during the Corfu summer school, which I'd like to work on.
But let me conclude by explaining the Holst Lagrangian for gravity.
I explained the Palatini Lagrangian and a whole bunch of other
Lagrangians for gravity back in "week176". But maybe you were just a
kid back then... or maybe you weren't paying adequate attention! So,
let me repeat my explanation in slightly different words.
Assume spacetime is an orientable smooth 4-manifold M. Pick a vector
bundle T that's isomorphic to the tangent bundle TM. Physicists don't
have a name for this bundle, but they call any of its fibers the
"internal space". I call it the "fake tangent bundle".
We then equip T with a Lorentzian metric and orientation. This lets
us describe a Lorentzian metric on M using a vector bundle map
e: TM -> T
This map has lots of names: the "cotetrad", the "soldering form", or
the "coframe field". Whatever we call it, we can use it to pull the
metric on T back to the tangent bundle. If e is an isomorphism, this
gives a Lorentzian metric on M. If it's not, we get something like a
metric, but with degenerate directions. For now let's only consider
the case where e is an isomorphism.
The cotetrad is one of the two basic fields used to define the Holst
action. The other is a metric-compatible connection on T. This
connection is usually denoted A and called a "Lorentz connection".
Its curvature is denoted F.
Now, what does the Holst Lagrangian
tr(e ^ e ^ *F) + (1/gamma) tr(e ^ e ^ F)
actually mean?
First of all, the curvature F is an End(T)-valued 2-form, but using
the metric on T we get an isomorphism between T and its dual, so we
can also think of the curvature as a 2-form taking values in T tensor
T. However, if we do this, the fact that A is metric-compatible means
that F is skew-symmetric: it takes values in the second exterior power
of T, Lambda^2(T).
Since T has a metric and orientation, we can define a Hodge star
operator on the exterior algebra Lambda(T) just as we normally do for
differential forms on a manifold with metric and orientation. We call
this the "internal" Hodge star operator. Using this we can define *F,
which is again a 2-form taking values in Lambda^2(T).
Next, note that the cotetrad e can be thought of as a T-valued 1-form.
This allows us to define the wedge product e ^ e as a
Lambda^2(T)-valued 2-form. This is the same sort of gadget as the
curvature F and its internal Hodge dual *F! So, we can take the wedge
product of the differential form parts of e ^ e and *F while using the
metric on T to pair together their Lambda^2(T) parts to get a number.
The overall result is a plain old 4-form, which we call
tr(e ^ e ^ *F). This is the Palatini Lagrangian!
If you work out the equations of motion coming from this Lagrangian,
they say A that pulls back via e to a *torsion-free* metric-compatible
connection on the tangent bundle. This is just the Levi-Civita
connection! It follows that F pulls back to the curvature
of the Levi-Civita connection. This is just the Riemann tensor!
Finally, it turns out that tr(e ^ e ^ *F) is just the Ricci scalar
curvature times the volume form on M, so we were doing general
relativity all along!
We define tr(e ^ e ^ F) the same sort of way, and throwing this term
into the action doesn't affect the classical equations of motion.
It's very much like Yang-Mills theory, where you can take the usual
action
tr(F ^ *F)
and throw in a "theta term", also known as the "second Chern
class", proportional to
tr(F ^ F)
without changing the classical equations of motion. But it does
affect the quantum theory!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the Week:
I was sitting in a chair in the patent office in Bern when all of a
sudden a thought occurred to me. If a person falls freely, he will
not feel his own weight. - Albert Einstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on
mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be
obtained at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/
For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfcontents.html
A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html
If you just want the latest issue, go to
MichaelW
happens to the universe's entropy level?
Thanks, Michael W.
Bob_for_short
wrote:
...
>By the way, I would be very happy if anyone working on loop quantum
>cosmology could give me a intuitive physical explanation for the force
>that prevents the singularity. Mathematically I know that it arises
Preventing singularity can be achieved without artificial
discretization.
Look, for example, as a point-like positive charge (of atomic nucleus)
is quantum-mechanically smeared in atoms: it makes the same orbitals
around the atomic center of inertia as the negative charge but of
smaller
scale, (m_e/M_a)*a_n. For an atom in an quasi-stable excited state
with
a_n >> a_0, the positive charge cloud is mach larger than the nucleus
proper size. See "Atom as a "Dressed" Nucleus" in CEJP or on arXiv:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3414375681x8635/?p=10fe8738b62f4959966fcc9c43468e8f&pi=0,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2635.
Similar mechanism works for all interacting particles/fields.
Vladimir Kalitvianski.
Uncle Al
>
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week280.html
>
> September 27, 2009
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 280)
> John Baez
> Abhay Ashtekar gave a review of recent work on loop quantum cosmology.
> Starting with the work of Martin Bojowald around 2001, there's been a
> lot of interest in the possibility that loop quantum gravity could
> eliminate the singularity at the Big Bang. The big problem is that
> dynamics in loop quantum gravity is not understood. There are lots of
> choices for how it might work, and nobody knows which is right, or if
> there even *is* a right one. Luckily, by imposing the symmetry
> conditions appropriate to a homogeneous isotropic cosmology one can
> narrow down the problem of seeking a reasonable dynamics to something
> much more manageable. Instead of infinitely many degrees of freedom,
> there are just a few.
Ah, John... the vacuum is observed isotropic only to photons. The
massed sector - gravitation - remains untested. Tell us if left and
right shoes validate or falsify the Equivalence Principle. If you
claim validation, tell us why even-parity Einstein-Hilbert action in
classical gravitation must be supplimented with odd-parity
Chern-Simons term in quantized gravitation.
Opposite shoes are reduced to practice as chemically and
macroscopically identical, opposite geometric parity atomic mass
distributions. A parity Eotvos experiment opposes enantiomorphic
space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 single crystal quartz or
enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) and P3(2) single crystal glycine
gamma-polymorph,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
A parity calorimetry experiment opposes enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 single crystal quartz benzil. Formally read all
about it,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/paper02.pdf
Somebody should look. The gold standard for EP testing, beryllium vs.
titanium marbles to a pulsar-solar binary system, is perfect net null
output. Parity experiments guarantee a net output signal at least as
large as that.
Contemporary physical theory is unconvincing. IN VITRO VERITAS!
Somebody should look.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Archimedes Plutonium
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week280.html
> September 27, 2009
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 280)
> John Baez
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 132 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. AP's 175th book; soon to be published as a Kindle book.
Last revision was 3Oct2021.
Latest correction and revision was the error found in Electromagnetic theory of their units. For Old Physics had the units as these, even though there is no mass of kg in B,E, and V of EM theory.
Angular momentum L = kg*m^2/s
Current = A where the A represents Ampere
Quantity of Current = C = A*s where the C represents Coulomb
Magnetic Field B = kg/ A*s^2
Electric Field is E = kg*m^2/ A*s^2
Voltage V= C*B*E = kg*m^2 /A*s^3
What AP believes is the correct units is replacement of kg in magnetic field by meters*meters= meters^2 and just simply drop the kg in electric field and in voltage.
It is known that the B field and E field of the light wave are equal wavelets, this demands that the units of B and E be the same units of m^2/A*s^2 and since it is pure energy, it has no rest mass.
Details of most of these entries found in several of these already published books such as 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author). Or such as 2nd published book
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author).
Preface: I suppose, going forward, physics should always have a physicsopedia, where major parts of physics are held under question, under suspicion as to correctness. In past history we have called them as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet physics, can have no permanent mainstream. And theories passing as "standard model" is a travesty of science, of logical thinking and just a wide open door of physics corruption and tedious nonsense. The Standard Model of Old Physics is a example of "numerology and algebras turned from circus act into the physics mainstream".
1) The picture of electricity and how it works was only truly begun in 2020 with the cover of this book showing electricity as closed loops, hoola hoops and how these loops flow in circuits taking on the shape of those circuits at the speed of light, where the flowing entity are magnetic monopoles-dipoles and photons. Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium.
2) The thoughts and images of electrons in Old Physics and Old Chemistry were horrendously error filled. The first place I see this huge error is in Feynman Lectures on Physics, not that I want to pick on Feynman for he is one of my heroes, but rather I chose Feynman because his Lectures have been translated into almost all languages and his books widely available and known. On page 14-10 of Volume 1, Feynman... And news out of Princeton Univ as of May 2021, where they are finding that the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole comes in pairs, even though the Princeton researchers are too stupid yet to know that the 0.5MeV particle is not the atom's electron.
3) Old Physics never had a Primal axiom of Physics-- All is atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Old Physics wasted too much time on General Relativity (a fake theory) in the 20th century and too little time on electricity and magnetism.
4) New Physics starts with electricity and magnetism. Old Physics always started with idealizations such as linear momentum, and a force of gravity that had no relation to electricity and magnetism. Idealization physics is more imagination than about the truth of the world.
5) New Physics has the correct particles of physics where the proton is 840MeV, the real electron is the muon of 105MeV and is stuck inside the proton torus thrusting through the proton and producing electricity in the Faraday law. The 0.5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
6) The true cosmology theory of science is the Atom Totality theory which began to replace the Big Bang theory starting 1990.
7) Big Bang theory is a joke, never a reality. And a outright contradiction of the Atomic theory, that all matter is composed of atoms. For all matter can be interchanged with "all things". If all things are atoms, then the universe itself , we must admit if we are logical thinkers, is "a thing" and thus the universe must be a atom also. Big Bang contradicts Logic. And if science is anything, it is logical.
8) When you find in the world, a Generalization of All Matter is made up of Atoms. You have to go with the Logic as the truth. If all Matter is atoms, then the Whole of the Universe is Matter, you must continue to the conclusion that the Whole is also an Atom. If you do not make that conclusion, you have to thence say-- All Matter except the Universe, and that is a silly end conclusion.
9) A second major physics fallacy is their screwing up of the 1897 Thomson particle they called the electron of 0.5MeV when it is the Dirac magnetic monopole that Thomson had found. It would not be until 1936 that the true electron of atoms is discovered and called the muon. What the 1897 screw-up mis-identity shows most of all, is that physicists throughout the 20th century never had a handle on what angular momentum means. If you understand angular momentum, you would realize that a proton at 938MeV and electron at 0.5MeV cannot support the existence of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
10) Direct consequence of muon being the true electron, determines that the proton is 840MeV and the muon is stuck inside the proton doing a Faraday Law of producing new electricity by turning Space into electromagnetism. This is Dirac's new radioactivity and is the creation of new mass, matter in Space. This means all stars shine not from fusion, but from Faraday Law. Not only do stars grow more massive and bigger, but that all astro-bodies grow bigger. Meaning the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a gigantic hoax for the growing of the Solar System.
11) Stars shine not from fusion, but from the muon thrusting through its proton coil. Every atom inside a star and every proton in that star is making new electricity from its muon thrusting through its proton 8 ring coil tokamak.
12) A direct consequence that the muon is stuck inside the proton in all experiments, is this Logical Principle, that in physics, every particle or subatomic particle has a function, a job, a task. Principles of Science are some of the most important teachings and understandings in science. One has a logical hole in the head if they think you can have particles of physics, and those particles have no job, no function, no task to perform. Existence in physics means-- a job to do.
13) A New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements must emerge from a mistaken electron as 0.5MeV when it truly is 105MeV, the muon. Such a table is based not on a Lewis structure of 8 but rather on 6. There are 6 successive elements in a row, and only 6 in a row. See AP's book for details: Research Notebook of AP on True Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements based on 6, not the error-filled table of Old Chemistry, Chemistry Series, book 5. The nucleus of atoms are toruses inside larger toruses, not the Rutherford model of a massive nucleus that was sort of stationary. No, the nucleus is a smaller torus going around in circles inside a large torus, and making more electricity.
14) Nebular Dust Cloud theory is purely a hoax, for the Universe has some 10^11 planet systems, and to think that Nebular Dust is spread so evenly throughout the Universe, when supernova are rare, is a colossal logic brain dump. According to Dirac, each and every atom is growing bigger in the universe every second and minute of the day, just as Dirac implied with his "new radioactivities" in his book "Directions in Physics". AP suggests only a half brain would need something as stupid silly as a Nebular Dust Cloud scattered uniformly from rare supernova, here, there, and everywhere.
15) Direct consequence of Faraday law going on inside each and every atom means the Sun will go Red Giant phase starting now and completed in 140 million years where Earth is like Venus-- not habitable by life. Before the end of 1 to 10 million years hence forward of August 2020, if humanity has not colonized Mars, Europa, Pluto, there is a good chance humanity goes extinct.
16) The most important number in all of science for humanity, is the number for the yearly increase in Solar radiation by our Sun. As of year 2020, NASA has the figure pegged at 0.005% yearly increase in total solar radiation. This easily explains a loss of total Insects on Earth at 25% total insect biomass for the past decade. This is a huge alarm bell, for it means, unless humanity makes its future home on Europa, Mars and Pluto, the entire human species goes extinct, and as the Sun further goes Red Giant, humanity must constantly go further out away from the Sun.
17) Following mistakes of Old Physics is their Unification of Forces, and that they followed a science nitwit of Einstein with his General Relativity, rather than follow the giant of physics of James Clerk Maxwell and continue on with electricity and magnetism as being gravity. No, most of the physicists of the 20th century were airheads following a fakester of Einstein. This is as much a lesson in sociology as is physics. If you follow someone, you better be sure he/she is correct thoroughly correct. Otherwise it is just idiotic hero worship.
18) Black Holes-- invented by the most ignorant and stupid physicists whose imagination wants to violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle and gain fame and fortune with a brain that has no logical marbles at all. Black hole people were followers of the deluded Einstein with his General Relativity. If you believe in black-holes, you really do not belong in science, and so stupid, that you probably would even fail science fiction. A simple test of any scientist,-- do you believe in black holes-- and shown the exit door of science as a career.
19) Dark Matter, Dark Energy-- this was invented by a group of logical brain dead physicists looking at galaxy rotations and seeing that there was not enough mass in Newton's law of gravity to account for this fast rotation of galaxies, these physicists opted for fame and fortune, rather than admit Electricity and Magnetism, not Newton gravity, causes galaxy rotation. Here again is the power of sociology of follow a leader-- Einstein and his deluded General Relativity. Much of the 20th century physics was a waste of time in following the delusions of Einstein, when it should have followed Maxwell of 1860s then Bohr's quantum mechanics.
20) Doppler Red Shift one of the horrendous follies of modern physics and astronomy. Please see AP's book to get the truth behind Doppler redshift. Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance//(Physics series for High School Book 6)
21) Cosmic Background Radiation, gravity waves, neutron stars, more and more physics mindrot. More and more "gone astray" with the mind-rot of General Relativity and Big Bang b.s.
22) Much of Old Physics was idealization, and imagination but not underlying true reality of a phenomenon, and linear momentum a prime example of mere imagination. Halliday & Resnick are full of idealizations, then topped off by some mathematics for their idealization. Feynman is not as bad as Halliday & Resnick on idealization. True Physics is about actual experiments and the results of experiments, not some idealization of what is going on.
23) Generalization or Idealization in science is usually fakery it starts with the premiss that one knows what is going on and just trimming away all the rest of the universe to explain the situation. The opposite of Generalization or Idealization is that of Experimentation. Experiment starts with the premiss we know little about something and use experiments to try to fathom what is going on. You see the major difference? Generalization and Idealization assumes we know it all, and doing the generalization and idealization to make the explanation simple.
24) Modeling: when we are in the dark about some physics, it is often useful that we model that phenomenon to gain more knowledge of what truly is going on. This does not mean that models are correct, for many times the model leads to fakery. A good example is the planets going around the sun was used to model the atom interior as electrons going around a nucleus. It was a wrong model for the better model was a proton torus of rings and the electron muon thrusting through the rings in a Faraday law. Modeling is a recognition we do not know the physical reality and are using a tool to model the phenomenon. A great example of modeling is the photon or light wave modeled by the DNA and RNA of biology.
25) Mathematics is a minor feature of physics; and mathematics is a subset of physics. Everything that goes on in mathematics is because of atoms of physics. The proof in mathematics is merely the physics "deciding experiment". There are two houses in physics, where houses are complamentary duals -- particle and wave, just so, there are two houses in mathematics, numbers and geometry. Complamentary duality such as particle and wave cause existence. Complamentary duality comes in many forms and here is a short list of them.
26) The mathematics used in New Physics recognizes that Calculus is the pinnacle peak of math, and so, the calculus in New Physics uses only polynomial functions, no trigonometry, no logarithmic, no exponential, nothing but polynomials are used in New Physics. That means if a function were not a polynomial in physics, we have to convert it to a polynomial function before we can use it. We use the Lagrange transform or what I call the Polynomial Transform which in its most simple form is shown.
27) Since all functions in physics are polynomials, means all calculus used in physics is simply the Power Rule for derivative and Power Rule for integral.
28) Since math is so simple with the all functions being only polynomials, that means all the trigonometry is removed out of calculus. And the sinusoid curve was con-art fakery for the sine and cosine are semicircle waves.
29) I added the correction of the Natural Logarithm Ln(x) to base 2.71... for its definition using Y= 1/x of an integral over an interval from 1 to x in 1/t dt is very much flawed and incorrect. The true definition of Ln(x) has to be from a geometry that allows for the equiangular logarithmic spiral. A Ln(x) based upon 1/x does not give a equiangular log spiral. What does give a equiangular log spiral are the Decimal Grid Number System where you have equal spacing of discrete numbers. So for example in Old Math their Ln(1.02) was 0.0198... while in New Math where we have a corrected and true Ln(x) that Ln(1.02) = 0.02 exactly.
30) No-one in physics really understood what Angular Momentum means. If anyone thought he/she understood, would have recognized that the hydrogen atom cannot exist under a 938MeV proton and a 0.5MeV electron...
31) Let me stop there about the mis-identification of the true electron, and talk about Principles of Logic, principles of reasoning, for most physicists lack a good enough brain of logic to do physics.
32) Another Principle of Logic, and why all physicists, even my heroes of Dirac and Feynman never understood Angular Momentum. They all knew Linear Momentum. They all knew that gravity makes things go in circles or closed loops. So, the question of logic is. Is there such a thing as Linear Momentum, or is it a generalized fiction?
33) It is a credit to Dirac to keep looking for the magnetic monopole for one of the greatest principles in all of physics, and thus all of science is Symmetry..
34) Standard Model of Old Physics-- logical tripe, mind-rot physics, another group of physicists grasping for fame and fortune. So dumb were they, their subatomic particles have no job no task no function for subatomic particles, and they needed a Dirac magnetic monopole, but too stupid to realize they had a muon that did nothing in the Standard Model.
35) The photon or light wave is very complex and we have a great model of the photon as DNA or RNA of biology. Whenever we want to think about what a photon is, we project our thoughts upon DNA and RNA and model what the interior and exterior of light wave is. This idea that light wave and DNA are replicas of one another was invented by AP in the 1990s and AP wrote many books on this idea.
36) Light wave can be both longitudinal as in radio waves or transverse as in waves higher in frequency than 17777 meters wavelength 17777 Hz frequency (the square root of speed of light).
37) Light is always a closed loop stretching all the way around back to its source. This gives what is called Quantum Entanglement. In Old Physics they viewed a light wave as having a head and a tail.
38) Light Waves modeled as DNA and RNA, especially the closed loop mitochondrial DNA makes us realize the rich internal structure of photons, light waves, and this is how first life began, as a materialized light wave spilling its internal structure inside a capacitor. In Old Physics their light wave was just a bobbing up and down of a point in space, no structure, no nothing.
39) Higgs Mechanism-- in Standard Model of Old Physics, is sheer mind-rot. For they failed to even notice the true theory of Star power-- how stars shine is the Faraday law, which creates new energy and thus new mass. Faraday law is the mass creation law, and not some bozo higgs mechanism.
40) Let me switch to something entirely different-- Superconductivity. Sure, superconductivity exists, but the complaint is the ignorant interpretation as given by BCS theory, a interpretation of their 0.5MeV particles pairing together. When, all that Superconductivity is, is a Capacitor phenomenon. At a cold temperature, all the electricity stays put, no loss. And as soon as you connect the capacitor, it all flows, no resistance, no loss. Superconductivity is Capacitor perfection. That is why there is no AC superconductivity.
41) The viewpoint of electricity as particles or waves is fakery in Old Physics, with their electron as electricity when it is really magnetic monopoles as waves that is electricity.
42) Maxwell Equations needed refurbishing early in the 20th century when the age of electricity with Tesla and Edison was thriving. Trouble is, Old Physics was deep in distraction with Quantum Mechanics. The highest priority was to fix Maxwell Equations, not with the details of Quantum Mechanics, but then the age of atomic weapons plunged more interest in Quantum Mechanics and not electricity and magnetism.
43) Maxwell Equations should have been based on Ohm's law. Take one of the laws of electricity and magnetism, the most simple in mathematical form and use it as basis foundation of all the other laws of EM. New Ohm's law V=iBL.
44) EM has an electric field, and electric field is angular momentum, the L in V= iBL.
45) There is a magnetic monopole and it is often found to be the 0.5MeV particle. So Gauss's law was wrong.
46) Once you make New Ohm's law the basis of EM math and theory, then all the permutations of derivative of V= iBL serves as the newly revised Maxwell Equations.
47) Magnetism has only a Attraction force, never a repel or repulsion force. The repel is deceptive for we see it as repel but it is really "denial of same space occupancy". The two concepts are close together and those people with weak logical minds think it is all repel. But the "denial of same space occupancy" is the Pauli Exclusion Principle and is _Not_ a repel, nor a repulsion. EM theory has only Attraction force and Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
48) And here we see again the Logical Weakness in making the Maxwell Equations, same logical weakness in forming the Unification of Forces in Physics. When you have a collection of items to unify into one or to unify into a synthesis, the basis of the unification or the basis of the synthesis is to chose the "most perfect item" ...
49) Once you have the Maxwell Equations based on V= iBL and all its calculus permutations, then we see that 1860's Maxwell Equations had many terms missing in Faraday law, in Ampere law even in the Capacitor Law of V' = (iBL)'.
50) Then we see that due to All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism and the fact the highest equation in physics is of form V = iBL, we learn the stunning fact that mathematics volume is the highest equation in mathematics also. We see that in chemistry the Ideal Gas Law is really just a form of V= iBL.
51) The huge error of "charge" in Old Physics. This was one of AP's most horrible error to get rid of. It comes from horses charging in the 18th century, the time of Ben Franklin and others. And we still have "horsepower" as power unit in physics, where we convert to watts in electricity. Charge is replaced in New Physics with the magnetic monopole as electricity. And come to think of it, logically, charge could not have been thrown out of Old Physics, until the Dirac magnetic monopole was widely known and recognized. Whenever you feel the urge to say "charge" do not say it, instead, say monopole or say Coulomb.
52) Neutral currents in Old Physics in their unification of weak nuclear with electromagnetism was a joke. Once you have the 0.5MeV particle as the Dirac magnetic monopole, the "neutral current was a laughable joke. Once you have electricity is monopole or dipole or photons, the joke of neutral currents goes away with photons as electricity.
53) From the revised equations of EM, based upon V = iBL we realize that calculus needs a 3rd dimension calculus, for the calculus of Old Math and Old Physics had no 3rd dimensional calculus at all. And what 3D Calculus turns out to be is the angular momentum and the force of gravity. AP's sophomore college textbook is devoted to the 3rd dimension calculus.
54) Having fixed calculus by extending it to the 3rd dimension, we realize that in astronomy where they never heard of 3D calculus, that the numbers on planet Mercury required there to be a mass of some kind of moon. Turns out, it is a Cloud of Magnetic Monopoles that is the moon of Mercury. AP names this cloud-moon as Willis.
55) In researching why dragonflies grew so gigantic in size, as a result of a different gravity on Earth, in that Earth was 1/8 the mass in the Devonian geological period, that gigantism can flourish in that sort of low gravity. AP proposes the Growing Earth theory of Dirac's "new radioactivity" all because muon thrusting through proton coil.
56) In Old Physics, physics is seen as mostly algebra and calculus math. In New Physics, we see physics as math, divided into two dual houses. One is algebra calculus and the other is a geometry format. The algebra of Faraday law is i' = (V/(BL) )' the geometry description of Faraday law is "a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop wire produces a electric current". Actually the geometry side of physics is far more instructive and far more of knowing what is truly going on. So Old Physics only stressed the algebra side of physics. New Physics stresses the geometry side as more important.
57) In Old Physics the Bohr model of the atom is all wrong. Bohr never assigned jobs, tasks, functions of subatomic particles. And Bohr was going from the shoddy interpretation of the Rutherford gold leaf experiment where it was claimed a nuclear center with tiny electrons orbiting the massive tiny nucleus. A sort of Sun solar system model, only this time the interior of atoms. Truth is, the muon and proton are doing a Faraday law and that requires a torus ring for the proton with muon inside thrusting through. No nucleus in New Physics. And we need to do over entirely the Rutherford experiment.
58) The interior of atoms are toruses of protons with muon inside making electricity from Space and then storage of the electricity in neutron capacitors. This is how every atom grows, and how the universe itself grows and becomes more massive with time.
59) Calculus of AP Equations of
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
7) L = E , angular momentum equals Electric field
60) Logic Principle: focus in on anything perfect in physics, such as the photon light wave is the only perfect particle of physics which leads to the EM unification of all the 4 forces of physics. But mathematics has a "perfect formula or equation" which is volume of Space. Volume of Space takes the form of V = A*B*C. Perfect math form for volume translates into physics as Voltage = iBL. But this perfect math form also translates into chemistry ideal gas law of P = nRT(1/Volume) which when reduced is of the form P = A*B*C, just like Voltage = iBL.
61) Physics and mathematics have at most 3 dimensions. There exists no 4th dimension, or higher. Dimension of space stops with the 3rd dimension.
62) The highest and most perfect math formulas of Physics are of form V = A*B*C, and where this volume type of formula V = ABC is energy and volume of Space.
63) Old Physics made a big mistake with Sound Waves. They made the mistake that Sound does not involve electricity and magnetism, the EM wave spectrum. To correct their mistake, all they needed to do is recognize what is called the DeBroglie pilot wave. A radio wave is the source of all Sound waves.
64) Old Physics screwed up badly on the concept of "mole" in physics and chemistry. All they really needed to say was divide the mass of the proton+muon into 1 gram. And the true number of mole is not 6.02*10^23 but is rather 5.98*10^23.
65) Old Physics and Old Chemistry screwed up badly on the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements because their table is based not upon the structure of the proton and muon but on the elusive particle of the magnetic monopole which is produced as a byproduct of the muon and proton. Old Chemistry had a Lewis structure based upon 8, when even those in chemistry could see that the P orbital has only 6 number, not 8. AP's New Periodic Table of Elements is based on 6, not 8.
66) All of radioactivity teaching in Old Physics must be revised since the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Why is AP the first scientist to see that Faraday Law is the same as Radioactivity Disintegration Law.
67) Radioactive decay is a subject that needs massive overhaul in Old Physics for they got all the different subatomic particles mixed-up. The 0.5MeV particle is along with the positron, are magnetic monopoles and not decay but rather emission of electricity produced by Faraday law of muon and proton. And real radioactive decay of a hydrogen atom or helium atom etc etc must be viewed and taught in the perspective of breaking apart a many ringed toruses of protons. The collision of a neutron capacitor with a many ringed proton toruses is New Physics radioactivity.
68) Old Physics along with Old Biology got photosynthesis wrong. PHOTOSYNTHESIS: summary of how it works-- air of CO2 molecules, Animal-CO2 (not Fire-CO2) enters the stoma opening to the magnesium atom capacitor. And sunlight shines on the capacitor. The sunlight is turned into electricity and stored inside the magnesium capacitor. So much electricity is stored that as a Animal-CO2 molecule touches the capacitor, it strips off the carbon C atom and leaves behind a O2 molecule. This stripped off C atom immediately comes in contact with water molecule H2O and with the capacitor energy is transformed into CH2O. This newly minted sugar hydrocarbon CH2O is stacked up forming a "tail" in the magnesium capacitor. This CH2O can be further combined with other CH2O molecules forming various other sugars such as C_6 H_12 O_6.
69) Logic Principle of Symmetry. The Dirac magnetic monopole was extremely extremely important for all of Physics, in a sense, all of physics falls apart if we have asymmetry in the major structure of atoms. Atoms are symmetrical. So to have quantization of electricity, you must have quantization of magnetism. Pure and simple.
70) Principle of Symmetry brings me again to the magnetic monopole. Of course, well, symmetry is what drove Dirac to know it exists, even though he faced a mountain of physics idiots. Principles of Logic are far better than observations and formulas and equations. For, notice, that the electricity had a pole and a opposite pole of what they called the positron versus their 0.5MeV particle. So they had two particles of opposite pole, but, they somehow wanted to be stupid about having two poles for magnetism. And this brings up a whole new Logic Principle.
71) Principle of Close Loop Symmetry, the Circuit of Physics. Electricity never never exists unless it is closed loop circuit. The electricity inside a capacitor is a closed loop. The electricity in a wire is a closed loop circuit. In order to have a closed loop circuit you must have a north pole and a south pole, a positron and its opposite direction particle what Old Physics called the 0.5MeV particle. So, by logic, if we have electricity having two poles, we must have magnetism with two poles. Since we have the existence of a positron pole, and the existence of its opposite pole in electricity, we likewise must have the existence of a north magnetic monopole and a south magnetic monopole. In fact, the positron itself is the north magnetic monopole and the Thomson particle of 0.5MeV is the south magnetic monopole.
72) Let me change direction here for a moment and talk about mistakes and errors of mathematics used in Old Physics. Of course, well all the mathematics ever used in physics comes from a math form of A = B*C*D and that form is the math of volume of geometry space....
73) Sigma Error is part of probability and statistics theory, but was seen as a outlier in Old Physics. Seen as a practice, not as a internal feature of physics. And that is a shame because if someone had paid more attention to the practice of Sigma Error in experiments and observations, then the discovery the real proton is 840MeV not 938 and the real electron is the muon at 105MeV, would have been discovered earlier than AP's 2016-2017 discovery. AP's second most famous science discovery after the Atom Totality. For it was the notice of AP that 938 is close to 945, and that 105 subtract 940 is the proton mass in MeV, all well under Sigma Error.
74) Sigma Error Logic Principle in Physics: If we come so close in numbers to related phenomenon such as 945/938 = sigma error of 0.7%, then we take that as the true proton 840MeV, true electron is muon at 105MeV. The related phenomenon is 9 x 105 = 945, implying that there are 9 rings, 9 muon rings involved in proton and muon.
75) Divisional Numeric and Coefficient Relationship of Physics Constants. This is an extremely important math to physics relationship all invented by AP in the course of writing his books of science. An example here goes a long way in understanding. The Planck constant, the speed of light constant, the Boltzmann constant, the Fine Structure Constant all come easily from EM constant numbers. See my several books published on how they are derived.
76) The Light Wave as a closed loop circuit has not been understood in Old Physics. Their light wave was like an arrow with a front head and a rear tail. In New Physics the light wave is like a closed loop extension cord of electricity. Long and thin, but still a closed loop. This geometry is extremely important for it misguided Old Physics into thinking the Double Slit Experiment was mysterious when it was not. Misguided Old Physics into thinking "slow light" was mysterious when it was not for if you turn off the switch in a BEC slow light experiment, all the light disappears in the experiment, even the light inside the BEC. And quantum entanglement is now crystal clear as the connection all along the closed loop and the source.
77) We know half as much about the Tesla coil for wireless electricity transmission that we should know, by now. We spend far far too much time and money on superconductivity and fusion energy which is rumdummy science, because superconductivity is not the BCS b.s., no, but is merely capacitor theory. Superconductivity is just capacitor science, nothing more and we spend too much time and money on it, when we should be spending it on Tesla coil wireless electricity. The fusion energy is another huge squander of time and money, since the universe is a Faraday Law, not a fusion world. We should spend and devote our time on Tesla coil, especially when our Sun is now in a Red Giant phase which is quite noticeable in 2020 with the loss of 25% of insect biomass in the past 10 years.
78) Red Giant phase of stars starts once a star reaches a mass of 2*10^33 grams. Our Sun has initiated that phase and all life on Earth will go extinct or vanish unless it moves to the outskirts of the Solar System. We have evidence of this in the loss of 25% of all Insect biomass in just the past decade. Vast losses of song birds whose eyes cannot bear that amount of UV. And we see it in accelerated polar ice melt due to a 0.005% yearly rise in solar radiation.
79) The Old Physics mistake of thinking starpower is due to fusion is all wrong and such a big mistake that it may cost humanity the price of extinction and oblivion, should humanity not colonize Europa, Mars, Pluto in time.
80) A Titius-Bode Rule of Star Systems also has a 4 then 4 rule for mass, the first four are rocky planets, the next 4 are gas giants not because of the stupid silly General Relativity, but because all of physics is electricity and magnetism driven physics. Where the spacing of planets is a Titius-Bode Rule because that is a Balmer-Rydberg sequence of spectral lines also electricity and magnetism driven.
81) The Rydberg sequence predicts the most massive planet comes within the second 4 then 4 astrobodies.
82) The Rydberg constant is more precisely that of the pure scale number 10000000 m^-1 and not the number value 10973731 m^-1. This must be so because the speed of light is precisely the value of 3.16*10^8m/s as the coefficient is exactly the square root of 10 = 3.1622776...
83) Angular Momentum is really Electric Field, and Force per meter as strength of force is really Magnetic Field.
84) Double Slit Experiment error: Old Physics thought of a light ray as ^v^v^v^v^v^ that is open ended, not closed. And that viewpoint of light causes all those impossible and unexplainable mysteries in the Double Slit Experiment. On the other hand, if you go to explain the Double Slit with light as a closed loop straight line segment, all the mysteries disappear. So the idea that all of the Double Slit Experiment strangeness is solved and resolved by simply recognizing light wave as a thin closed loop ray, whose source is part of the closed loop.
85) The Bohr-Rutherford Model in Old Physics was all wrong with its 0.5MeV as electrons jumping orbitals to cause spectral lines, when the true model is the AP Model of proton toruses with muons inside creating electricity in Faraday Law and it is this electricity that sometimes is seen as a spectral line. And the nucleus of atoms in the Rutherford Model was wrong for the atoms are large toruses with smaller toruses inside the larger ones.
86) The Schrodinger Equation is of limited use, for it is a description of the magnetic monopoles of the 0.5MeV particles. It is entirely embedded as a subset of the AP-EM Equations.
87) The Dirac Equation is of limited use, for it is about the relativistic effects of magnetic monopoles. And ironically Dirac who was hunting down the existence of monopoles, ironically, his equation was all about those monopoles. Again, like the Schrodinger Equation, the Dirac Equation is entirely embedded in the AP-EM Equations.
88) All the physical constants of Nature in electricity and magnetism form are related to one another, so that one derives another.
89) Four Quantum Numbers, N, L, m_L and m_s are descriptions of magnetic monopoles, dipoles, photons and nothing to do with electron= muon or proton.
90) Much of polar ice melt is not Global Warming of fossil fuel burning but more about the 0.005% yearly increase in Sun's radiation, as Red Giant phase initiation.
91) Truth about gravity as mechanism is the Sun creates a magnetic field track, and the planets follow in that path of the field track at their distance from the Sun, and what pushes and pulls the planets in those magnetic field tracks is the electric field which is angular momentum, as electricity shoot from the Sun pushing and pulling the planet along in its magnetic field track.
92) Pulsars in Old Physics were miserably interpreted as millisecond spin neutron stars. In New Physics, pulsars are advanced alien life forms that evacuated their home planet due to red giant phase and are living in colonies distant from the red giant and the pulsed beat is their Tesla power grid system.
93) Since the sun and stars are powered by Faraday law and not by fusion, the Red Giant phase of stars sets in much earlier than as thought under the fusion delusion. This is alarming and terribly important if humanity wants to stay alive or go extinct. Latest estimates are that humanity must colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto within the next 1 million years with sustained colonies that do not need Earth any longer.
94) The pulsars we see in astronomy are actually advance intelligent aliens who colonized the outskirts and fringes of their own star system and are pulsing wireless electricity between their own colonies in a Tesla Power Grid System. We see this as pulsars.
95) In news of 2020 that Earth lost 25% of the total insect biomass in the prior decade, and linking up that fact with the NASA data of a increase in Solar radiation of 0.005% per year for the past decade, implies that the Sun has initiated Red Giant phase. It is unclear whether the planet Earth is made uninhabitable in 1-10 million years or for sure in 140 million years. Old Physics pegged the Red Giant phase in 4 billion years. AP peggs the phase starting 2020. We will go extinct unless we can colonize Mars, Europa, Pluto.
96) We have evidence the Sun initiated Red Giant Phase by the 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation. And is the cause behind a 25% total die off of insects in the decade of 2010 to 2020.
97) We need to save all wild plant and wild animal species in order to make the colonization of Mars, Europa, Pluto go as smooth as possible. Not meaning that we will take all that diverse life to those astro bodies, but that every species may have some genetic coding that is needed in our new homes on Mars, Europa, Pluto.
98) Pulsars are rare, and that means most life on planets becomes incinerated by their star. If humanity meets that fate, it is oblivion and all that was life on Earth, total Oblivion, except for those spacecrafts still roaming Space that came from humanity.
99) Earth needs a new political power structure to handle the colonization, for we cannot send 7.5 billion humans up there. So we need population controls for the next million years and to save bio-diversity in order to make the transition smooth as possible. The new government form should be a Science Council form, the seen in Superman movies. And the EU at present is a primitive Science Council form of government.
100) Global Warming from fossil fuel is real, but alongside it and more dangerous is the yearly 0.005% increase in Solar Radiation. And it only gets worse, for some year it will go to 0.006% increase, by the time it reaches 0.01% or 0.02% yearly increase, most of life on Earth will have perished.
101) Drones can fly in outer space on lithium batteries as propulsion.
102) There is Magnetic Acceleration Law, when you thrust a bar magnet into another bar magnet of like-poles, the distance scattered on the floor is 460mm versus attraction joining at 80mm (magnets of 10mm by 10mm diameter and 20mm by 10mm diameter.
103) A whole-scale revision of Units of Old Physics, for they missed a current term A in Newton's F=ma, and a Coulomb term in Electric Field as kg*m^2/C*s, where C =A*s.
104) F= ma is missing a current term and should be F = m*a*i or F = m*a*(1/A). This allows F=ma to cover both particle and wave nature. For we have a term of (1/(A*s)) which is a frequency of current and allows us to write Force as being F = m*v*(1/(A*s))
105) A unification of Units in New Physics is required, for the term A, current is likely to be involved in most units of importance, such as F= ma.
106) Light is a closed loop circuit, although very much looking like a straight arrow open ended ray, it is not, but a closed loop circuit as proven by turning the light source off in a BEC slow light experiment.
107) Testing and research is ongoing to see if a lithium battery powered drone can fly from the surface of Earth all the way up to the International Space Station, and, and of course beyond, riding the magnetic and electric fields of outer space, plus the Solar Wind.
108) The mistake by physicists in thinking starpower is caused by fusion of atoms inside of stars is a costly error, for starpower is caused by the Faraday Law, and time is ticking with the Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase, for the clock is winding down on whether Humanity wants to live or turn into dust.
109) The Nebular Dust Cloud theory of Solar System origins was a fakery of Old Physics, for all we have to do is see the systematic Titius-Bode Rule and the systematic mass and distance ordering of the satellites of the various planets to realize gravity is a spectral line pattern with a Faraday law origin of Sun, planets and satellites.
110) The spacing of planets relative to their star is a Spectral line spacing, as well as satellites from their parent planet. The most often occurring spacing sequence is 4 lines for the first 4 astro bodies then the next 4 lines spacing containing the most massive bodies, such as Sun then 4 terrestrial planets, then 4 gas giants.
111) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, C= amount of current A*s, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds
a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
PHYSICS LAWS
a) Facts of chemistry and physics
b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(C*s)
f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
112) The units of Old Physics, most of them are missing either a current term, A=i, or a amount of current term C.
113) The true units of Energy = kg*m^2/(A*s^2) and the correct units of Electric Field E is E= kg*m^2/(C*s).
114) The true units of Force is kg*m/A*s^2 but where the A in denominator needs to be (A/m) as per the definition of current over a distance length of meters. This allows Force to be equivalent to energy, electric field, and angular momentum, all four concepts that obey the conservation principle of physics.
115) You cannot have in physics a unification of 4 forces, unless force itself obeys conservation principle.
116) It is easy to prove the Sun shines from Faraday Law, not fusion because of the broad bandwidth of Solar radiation from radio to UV, mostly Visible Light, whereas fusion would be a narrow bandwidth with much X-ray and gamma ray. And this simple proof of starpower as Faraday law also is a disproof of Big Bang theory, for the universe does not have two mechanisms of growth-- Faraday law with Big Bang.
117) Two Math Forms, the A=BCD for voltage and volume and the x^2/A^2 for motion path, both forms found in the AP-EM equations of 4 differential equations of (1) V' = (iBE)' (2) i' = (V/BE)' (3) B' = (V/iE)' and (4) E'= (V/iB)'.
118) The AP Principle of Maximum Electricity Production inside of atoms of their muon thrusting through proton coil of Faraday Law is true and the proof is all atoms are metals at 0 degree Kelvin and metal atoms are toruses.
119) The principle of Maximum Electricity determines the chemical bond.
120) Physics lead the way in science by Planck's1900 rising claim of quantum mechanics which entails a discrete space, yet everyone in physics still uses the mindless idiotic continuum by using Old Math's mindless "limit on a calculus that is wrong through and through". Physicists proved Discrete Space, so why not use a Discrete Calculus.
121) Since atoms have no nucleus for in the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden 1911 experiment with gold foil hit by alpha particles, the high angle of rebound was due to alpha particles colliding elastically head-on with a chain of muons circling inside proton toruses.
122) Since atoms have no nucleus begs the question of atomic energy and the atomic bomb which is explained as the atomic bomb is a short-circuited battery. This implies that atomic bombs the size of button batteries can be built and short-circuited.
123) The Hertzsprung-Russell diagram in Old Astronomy of the sequence of stars and how they evolve is utterly wrong for it is based on fusion as starpower when in fact it is the Faraday law of every muon inside of every proton producing magnetic monopoles that gives rise to starpower. And the silly mistake of graphing temperature versus luminosity of stars. Because temperature and luminosity are almost the same thing. It would be like graphing speed in km/hour as x-axis and meters/second on y-axis and expect a meaningful graph.
124) AP is reinventing Multivariable Calculus because the AP-EM Equations demand a new math of Multivariable Calculus, and see AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College textbook for details. So that AP throws on the trash pile the Green's theorem, Gradient theorem, Stokes theorem, Divergence theorem, manifolds, Line integrals, div, curl, and also vectors, throws them all out and replaces all of Multivariable Calculus with the simple easy notion that the calculus on polynomials is a polynomial solution. For example Y = x^2 and the derivative is the simple solution Y =2x, another polynomial, so there never was a need for a incomprehensible multivariable calculus.
125) Direct Current DC is a double transverse wave while AC, alternating current is a longitudinal wave.
126) Static electricity is monopole, open loops, while dynamic electricity is closed loops of two monopoles making dipoles.
127) Physicists never learned much logic to apply to the Ancient Greek theory of Atoms, "all things are atoms, logically suggest, the universe itself is a thing and thus a atom". Never learned, never applied logic.
128) We set up a matrix of the terms in Voltage = Coulomb x magnetic Field B x electric field E = CBE and the all possible permutations of differential equations C', B', E', V'. We set this matrix up in order to help interpret what each term means.
V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2
current production - Lenz law - DC, AC direction
V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2
B production - Displacement current - parallel attract
V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2
(E production = inverse square of distance) - synchronicity - push versus pull
C'BE + CB'E + CBE'
V production + DC current of dipoles from monopoles + AC current dipoles from monopoles
129) Now the proof that 3rd dimension is the largest and last dimension possible comes best from physics, more so than mathematics. Although in math we can see that a perpendicular to 3rd dimension remains a part of 3rd dimension and nothing new is built from adding a perpendicular.
But in Physics the proof is far more compelling. For it trespasses unto Electromagnetic theory of the speed of light. Do we have the speed of light a maximum constant and thus Special Relativity is true and allowing the existence of electricity and magnetism. Or, do we accept 4th dimension and higher, and toss out EM theory onto the trash pile. So here we have the choice of EM theory, the daily electricity we all use, or the choice of accepting 4th and higher dimension.
Because the physics proof that 4th and higher dimensions can not exist is that the speed of light is a constant, meaning, that it has no acceleration. Speed is meter/second. The derivative of calculus of speed is acceleration. So acceleration is meter/second^2. Acceleration is found in Force F = ma. Force is a subset of Energy where E =mv^2 or E = mc^2. Acceleration, force, energy are all 2nd dimensional inside of a 3rd dimensional Space-time. If a 4th dimension exists, then the units of Energy would have to be mccc not mcc. The speed of light would have to have acceleration in order to have a Force = mass x derivative of acceleration. The speed of light would have to be a variable for 4th dimension to exist of meter/second^2. For 4th dimension to exist, the light speed is no longer a maximum constant.
In Old Physics, they played a fool's game by saying time was the 4th dimension to 3 spatial dimensions. This is wrong for the derivative of speed is a time derivative and is exactly why 4th dimension cannot exist for it makes light speed a variable. And in Old Physics they played another game of calling higher dimensions curled up as the reason we cannot see them. This again is a fool's game.
Experiment to prove no 4th dimension.
We can actually devise a physics experiment to prove no 4th dimension or higher. We notice that a light beam or a star, or our Sun, radiates energy in light waves. We can theoretically determine how much light our Sun is supposed to radiate. If a 4th dimension exists, that dimension would decrease the amount of light than if we had just 3 dimensions. Because each higher dimension absorbs light radiation. Think of light as water as a analogy. So one dimension would be a sluice box of water. And second dimension would be a field. Third dimension would be all of Earth. So as the dimensions increase, you need more water to fill the more dimensions. Same thing with light, we can calculate what a radioactive decay beta emitter produces (beta is magnetic monopoles, not atom electrons). We know beta emissions and how much light they give. If the Universe is 3rd dimension and no more, then we observe how much light from beta emitters. If the Universe has a 4th dimension, much of the beta emission in radioactivity will go to filling 4th dimension and we would see less light than if the Universe was just 3rd dimension.
130) Old Physics had incorrect and mistaken units for EM theory of its magnetic field, electric field and Voltage. They showed a mass in those units when they are pure energy of zero rest mass. So a complete overhaul of the error filled units of EM theory is in the making. What AP believes is the correct units is replacement of kg in magnetic field by meters*meters= meters^2 and just simply drop the kg in electric field and in voltage.
131) Reincarnation is a true valid science of physics.
132) All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Prayer: Carbon in us, carbon of Plutonium. Fill us with life anew, that we may love what thou dost love, and do what you superdetermine us to do. Oxygen, oxygen of Plutonium, make us wholly thine, take us to the torus heaven divine. Plutonium in us, atom plutonium, thus shall we never die, but live with thee, part in your neutron serenity, part in your proton muon divinity. Atom
AP
King of Science
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content).
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Michael Moroney
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 132 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics. AP's 175th book; soon to be published as a Kindle book.
>
> Last revision was 3Oct2021.
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
...
132) Archimedes Plutonium
>