Einstein

Welcome Forums Gravitation Einstein

This topic contains 60 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  Gyula Szász 1 year, 2 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #559

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,
    You asked the question whether the electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic interactions (forces) become one in the very strong field. First of all, they become not one!

    The interaction between particles is always the addition of electromagnetism and gravitation. For instance for proton/elton the static gravity is (g∙mP)^2/e^2 ≈ 10^-42 time weaker than the static electric force and it is independently of r. For electron/positron we have the relation (g∙me)^2/e^2 ≈ 3.4∙10^-36. The r-dependence of both static forces is 1/r^2. Since the condensed matter is either proton-based, or elton-based, the relation of electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism depends of the mass density of matter and the density of the motions of the particles, that is mainly the density of protons/eltons and the density the static magnetic momentums of the bound two-particle systems. In the following we want consider the proton-based condensed matter. In very strong gravitational potential, at very high mass density of condensed matter and in case of uncoordinated magnetic momentums of the neutrons, we have to calculate the relation of the static gravity of the neighbor protons and the electric force of the elementary electric charge, e.

    It should be noticed that during the static gravitational forces of neighbor protons are added together, the static electric forces neutralize itself. The addition of gravitational forces of the protons with a constant proton density, ρ, since the force is 1/r^2 dependent, is an integration of 1/r^2 about the whole space from the distance, d, of the neighbor protons to a big radius, R. The situation is similar to the inner of a hollow sphere. The static gravitational force is zero, however, the gravitational potential has a big constant value within the sphere.

    Since the particles cannot approach to each other too close, two kind of “maximal mass density” can be derived.

    The one kind of density follows from the sizes of stable neutron N0 = (P,e) and of the electron-neutrino νe = (e,p), The sizes are 0.702∙10^-13 cm, respectively 0.703∙10^-13 cm. The gravitational mass, mg, of these two-particle systems are mg(N0) = mP – me ≈ mP and mg(νe) = 0. If we calculate that in a cube with the side length 10^-13 cm there is one N0 and the cubes are dense packed, the mass density is

    ρ(mg(N0)) ≈ mP/(10^-13 cm)^3 = 1.67∙10^-27/10^-36 kg/cm^3 = 1.67∙10^+9 kg/cm^3.

    This is the mass density of neutron-stars. The gravitational potential within the neutron star is constant, however has a big value. The static gravitational force is zero. The relation of the static gravity force to the static electric force of e would be the same as given above.

    Another situation arises for the mass density if we calculate the mass density for the size of the proton-neutrino, νP = (P,E) and for the size of the (P,e)-system, whereby the bound (P,e)-system would have the bound energy E(bound) = (mp + me)∙c^2. The sizes are 0.383∙10^-16 cm, and 0.382∙10^-16 cm, respectively. The gravitational mass of the (P,e)-system is mg(P,e) = mP – me ≈ mP and of the neutrino mg(νP) = 0. If we calculate that in a cube with a side length of 10^-16 one bound (P,e)-system resides, the mass density would be

    ρ(mg(P,e)) ≈ mP/(10^-16 cm)^3 = 1.67∙10^-27/10^-48 kg/cm^3 = 1.67∙10^+21 kg/cm^3.

    The relation of the static gravity to the static electric force would be the same as above; however, a considerable greater constant potential term must be added.
    At both extreme situations for mass density dominate the static electric force about the static gravitational force.

    We can also calculate the mass density of normal matter if we assume one proton is in a cube with side length of 10^-9 cm (approximately the distance between atoms with the sizes somewhat greater than 10^-8 cm)

    ρ (matter) ≈ mP/(10^-9 cm)^3 = 1.67∙10^-27 kg /10^-27 cm^3 = 1.67 kg/cm^3.

    In matter the static electric force dominate over the static gravitation force.

    The presented calculations were simple for an orientation about the relation of the static electric and static gravitation force in any cases, using the knowledge of the sizes of two-particle system, I have given, and with the knowledge of the five natural constants, c, e, mP, me and g =(4∙π∙G)^1/2. The most experimental uncertainty is with g which can be calculated with the CODAT value of the universal gravitational constant G. However, the true value of G is 1.5% smaller than the CODATA value of G.

    However, we did not have calculated until now the possibility of coordinated static magnetic momentums. Such a situation exists in nature; they are the pulsars, the quick rotated neuron stars. The calculation is not easy. For instance we must make some assumption about the thermodynamically situation of the star; about the temperature distribution within the neutron star. In any case, the static magnetic momentum of the instable neutron N = (P,e,p,e) is experimentally known, and the static magnetic momentum of the stable neutron N0 = (P,e) can be calculated.

    ————————————–
    I am expecting from my students that they learn, beside my conceptual simple theory I am teaching, to think self-employed. I am somewhat impatient if I recognize that they didn’t have learned, or are unable, thinking self-employed. I don’t expect that they should not make errors. Self-employed thinking means self calculations with simple inputs of my theory.

    Simultaneously, I know that the overwhelming number of researcher in physics, in any case all reviewer of physical journals I have met, obviously cannot think self-employed. They are ready to accept theories of authoritarian researches, no matter if the theories are stupid or not. But, they cannot think independent and self-employed and they don’t criticize the accepted theories.

    I am Hungarian. In our country the most people think broadly independent. Sometimes two people have tree different meaning. Authority is less asked in the own meaning. Probably, the Hungarian language is the dept. In this language you can formulate complicated things in a very easy exact fashion. You are not forced to use detrimental and complicated grammatical rules. I have another meaning about physics as the Hungarians Loránd Eötvös, J. v. Neumann, Wigner and Teller thought. In any case, I have another meaning as Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Feynman and the other authoritarian physical researches thought. And I have enhanced also the simple gravitational theory which Kepler, Galileo and Newton have left us over.

    I am thinking, my theory is conceptual very simple. Furthermore, the theory is mathematically and physically consistent and correct. And I use only appropriate mathematical tools. Occam’s razor which I use is very sharp. Therefore, I believe that my theory describe Nature comprehensively. “Nature does nothing in vain.” said Sir Isaac Newton.

    Sincerely,
    Gyula

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    #562

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    I have downloaded the English version of your textbook.
    Chapters 9 and 10 seem to be missing.

    As I come to parts that I do not understand, I will post
    to get clarity.

    I am hoping that thoughts of Entropy will not surface, but
    please be patient with my “candy-store” approach to
    Information Theory and numerical simulation in general.

    Thanks for your effort and time, I sincerely have appreciated the experience and look forward to your help in
    the future when “mental-blocks” stand in my way.

    Bill

    #564

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Unfortunately, the editors and reviewers of the physical journals, Phys. Rev., EJPC, ZNA and Foundation of Physics could not begin somewhat physically with my new quantum field theory and rejected all my emitted articles. Therefore, the new theory came not in the circulation of physical science.

    A comparison of quantum field theories

    The currently used quantum field theories quantize the energy and the interaction with the Planck constant h and the special relativity theory states the energy-mass equivalence relation, E = m∙c^2. I have defined another kind of quantum field theory in which only the sources of the interactions are quantized. The energy and the interactions are not quantized and the energy is not equivalent the mass. We have obviously to do with two physically quite different kinds of quantum field theories.

    I collect the key features of the new quantum field theory:
    – The sources of the interactions are the conserved elementary charges. We know two kinds of elementary charges, they are the elementary electric charges qi = {± e} and the elementary gravitational charges gi = {± g∙mi}. Assumption: Physically no more elementary charges exist.
    – The elementary charges generate two kinds of continuous fundamental interaction fields which propagate with c. These fields are at the presence of charges non-conservative and the two fields are independent from each other, they do not influence each other. The universal gravitational constant is G = g^2/4π.
    – The elementary charges are distributed on four stable elementary particles, e, p, P and E. Each particle has two kinds of elementary charges. The elementary pariticles are the electron (e), the positron (p), the proton (P) and the elton (E). The elton is usually called as “antiproton”. Assumption: Physically no more stable elementary particles exist.
    – The masses me and mP are the elementary masses of electron (e) and proton (P). The inertial and the gravitational masses of the elementary particles, e,p,P,E, are in each case equal and only for the stable elementary particles are the inertial and the masses equal. Assumption: These stable particles are not composed of any other particles.
    – There exists a general uncertainty: neither the positions, nor the velocities of the elementary particles can be ever exactly observed. Infinitely large and infinitely small relative distances between particles do not belong to a physical description.
    – Time and space are homogeneous and the space is isotropic. Because the interaction propagation with c the time and space are connected; the Minkowski space describes the connectivity of space and time.

    Results of my new quantum field theory:

    An action integral

    I = ∫Ω L(x) (dx)^4 (1)

    can be constructed in finite ranges {x}εΩ of Minkowski space with the key features. The elementary charges, qi and gi, generate the vector fields A(em)ν(x) and A(g)ν(x). The Lagrange density L(x) is the sum of the free particles parts, of the free fields parts constructed with the Faraday tensors, F(em)νμ, F(g)νμ, and of the interaction parts

    L(int)(x) = + j(em)ν A(em)ν(x) – j(g)νA(g)ν(x), (2)

    whereby j(em)ν and j(g)ν are the probability density currents of the charges. All parts of L(x) are constructed Lorentz-invariantly. Since all parts of L(x) are caused by the conserved elementary charges the action integral does not depend on the boundary conditions of the surface of Ω containing some numbers of particles, Ni. The action integral is not an expression of energy. Within Ω there exist different kinds of subsidiary conditions, one kind for the fields and another kind for j(em)ν and j(g)ν. The subsidiary conditions of the fields are known as Lorenz conditions. The Lorentz conditions express that the fields propagate with the constant velocity c within Ω. With these subsidiary conditions for the fields and applying the Hamilton principle on the action integral, I, we get the Maxwell equations for the fields. The Maxwell equations for the electromagnetic field and the gravitation field differ only on the sign of the probability density currents of the charges.

    The determination of the equations for the particle motions

    In order to get a Lorentz-invariant action integral, we put for the particles parts in the Lagrange density, L(x), the continuity equations of particle numbers, ji(n)ν(x), for i=e,p,P,E, multiplied by the constants mi∙c

    L(p)(x) = Σi=e,p,P,E mi∙c∙∂ν ji(n)ν(x). (3)

    Additionally, the subsidiary conditions of the particles, Gi, are to be considered at the variation

    Gi = ∫Ω ∂ν ji(n)ν(x) (dx) 4 = 0, i=e,p,P,E. (4)

    Before we perform the variation we must express the j(n)ν (x) in a quadratic form, with the Dirac spinors and with the γν matrices

    j(n)ν (x) = c ⋅ Ψi(x) γν Ψi(x). (5)

    Ψi(x) = Ψi(x) γ0 are the adjoin spinors to the spinors Ψi(x) and the expression Eq. (5) has the correct transformation behavior under Lorentz transformation. γ0 γ0 = 1 is the unit four matrix. We have to use the spinors because neither the positions, nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known. Furthermore, the Noether charges

    ∫V Ψi(r,t) γ0 Ψi(r,t) d^3x = ∫V Σj=1,4 Ψ*i,j(r,t) Ψi,j(r,t) d^3x = Ni, i=e,p,P,E (6)

    are used for the normalization of the spinors for each volume V and at each time t. The sum j is taken about the four components of the four dimensional spinor. Applying the Hamilton principle we get the equations of motions for the particles expressed with the spinors. The stationary of the variation of I, considering the subsidiary condition, Gi,

    δI + Σj Σi=e,p,P,E λj∙δGi = 0, (7)

    cause the appearance of Lagrange multipliers, λj, in the Euler-Lagrange equation of the spinors in using independent variations of the adjoint spinors Ψi(x) and Ψi(x) for each particle i=e,p,P,E.

    Bound states of elementary particles

    In order to get temporary stationary bound state of elementary particles, we have to consider conditional probabilities for particle density currents relative to center of mass system (COM) in the mutual fields of the particles: we are looking for the temporary stationary solutions for the particles and the mutual fields. The conditional probabilities depend on the relative distances of particles. Since the particle number conservations are further valid, the appearance of Lagrange multipliers, λi, is expected. Thus, the temporal stationary conditions are connected with the Lagrange multipliers in such a way that the probabilities to find particles in distances relative to COM are temporally stationary and the relative currents vanish. Simultaneously, the mutual interacting field is also temporary stationary. On this point enter the relativity in the physical description. We have to express the action integral, I, and the subsidiary conditions, Gi, relatively to COM. Thus, we have to use the spinors as conditional probabilities of particle density currents with relative coordinates. The finite range Ω must contains the unique point of COM. Generally, temporary stationary solutions of the variation for a λi are given with different values of an additional positive real parameter E. The largest possible discrete value of E belonging to a λi are labeled as the ground state with the bound energy E0(λi). The bound energies are always negative, therefore, we label with the positive E0(λi) the negative of the bound state energies. Generally, a set of discrete values of the parameter E exists with

    E0(λi) > E1(λi) > E2(λi) > E3(λi) …. > 0 (8)

    for each λi. A bound state is generally a superposition of temporary stationary solutions. Nevertheless, we don’t speak about energy quantization at the relation (8) because this superposition is connected not only to temporary stationary mutual fields, but also to the simultaneous presence of radiation component of the field. Bound states emit always radiation with continuous submission of radiation energy, until the energy E0(λi) is reached.

    The physical interpretation of the bound state problem

    We have to describe the problem of the capture of an electric charged particle, i, with the elementary mass, mi, in the electric field of other moving particles with elementary charges qj = { ± e} with the elementary masses {me, mP}. Thereby we know neither the initial positions, not the initial velocities of the particles (for instance for the captured electron by atoms). Generally, electric charged particles moving in an electromagnetic field radiate always electromagnetic waves and the waves (the fields) propagate with c. According to the subsidiary conditions of the particles, Eq. (4), Lagrange multipliers, λi, are appearing in the equations of particles motions and these constants ensure temporally stationary solutions at some real values Ei(λi) of the whole problem. Mathematically, we have to solve four coupled differential equations of the first order in space with the normalization conditions, Eq. (6), for the particles. Since the spinors describe the probability density currents of particles, in the four components of the spinors, Ψi,j(r), j=1,4, the three components of the velocities are coded. The result is finally the determination of the bound energies Ei(λi) of the particle system for the temporary stationary case. In the following we shall write for simplicity E0(λi) = E(bound) for the ground state belonging for one λi. and rename λi. with h.

    Fortunately, in the case of two-particle systems we have the possibility to say something about the relative velocity and about the relative distance of the ground state of particle systems in the mutual temporary stationary interaction as a function of E(bound) and of the reduced mass m’ = mi∙mj/(mi+mj), without solving explicitly the variation problem.
    For the Planck constant h, which describe the atomic shells, there exists an old expression set up by Sommerfeld

    h = e^2/2c∙(m’∙c^2/2∙E(bound))^1/2 = e^2/2c∙1/α, (9)

    for the hydrogen atom, where m‘ = me∙mP/(me+mP) ≈ me is the reduced mass of electron and proton and the bound energy of the ground state energy is E(bound) = 13.8 eV. However, in the current quantum mechanics is not understood why α = v/c has a value of α = 1/137.036. v is the relative velocity of the electron. With the same relation for h, Eq. (9), the positronium problem can also be determined with the energy of the ground state, E(bound; positronium) = 13.8/2 eV = 6.9 eV, since the reduced mass is m’ = me/2. We shall use the relation, Eq. (9), for each two-particle-systems with the opposite signs of electric charges in order to get other values for h, if we have different reduced masses m’ and different ground state energies, E(bound). With other words, we have with Eq. (9) a simple way to get expressions of the values of the constant h in cases of two-particle-systems. For two-particle-system we have the expression for the inertial mass

    mi = mi + mj – E(bound)/c^2.

    In case of an electron-positron system, (e,p), if we use the condition for the bound state that the inertial mass is zero, mi = 0, we have the condition

    2∙me = E(bound)/c^2.

    Since the inertial mass, mi, cannot be negative, this states the lowermost bound energy of the (e,p)-system. Setting this equation and the reduced mass m‘(e,p) = me/2 in the relation, Eq. (9) for h, we get another value

    h0 = e^2/2c∙(1/8)^1/2 = h/387. (10)

    Thus, we get a much smaller value for h0 as the Planck constant h. The relative velocities of the bound particle (e,p) can be calculated for instance according
    (v/c)/(1-(v/c)2) = (2∙E(bound)/(me∙c2).
    Since in the case of (e,p), we have two particles with the same mass, we must set in the half of the ground state energy, E(bound), in order to get (v/c) = 0.894. The particles move with the velocity 89.4% of c. We label this state of the electron-positron system as the electron-neutrino, νe = (e,p); the neutrino has as well the inertial as the gravitational mass zero.
    We have also a simple relation for the calculation of the relative distance of particles, of the size of the ground states radii,

    r = h^2/(4∙π2∙m’∙e^2), (11)

    For the electron-neutrino, νe, we get r(νe) = 0.703∙10^-13cm. Besides the (e,p)-system, we can also calculate with h0, Eq. (10), for the (P,e), (p,E) and (P,E)-systems the ground state energies, the relative velocities and the sizes. The ground state energies of the (P,e), (p,E) are 2.04 MeV. The ground state energy of the (P,E)-system is E(bound) = 2∙mP∙c^2. The size are d(P,e) = 2∙r(P,e) = 0.702∙10^-13cm and the same size appear also for the (p,E)-system. With the h0 calculated ground state of (P,E) we get a size of r(P,E) = 0.383∙10^-16cm: we label this state as the proton-neutrino, νP = (P,E). According to the finite sizes of two-particle ground states, we can state: in the interaction of elementary particles no singularities can occur and particles with the same mass don’t annihilate.
    In opposition to Einstein’s energy-mass-equivalence, E = m∙c^2, the electron-positron and the proton-elton pairs do not annihilate at their merging in our theory. The energies of particle systems and the electromagnetic interaction are not quantized with E = h ν in our new quantum field theory. The new quantum field theory is an atomistic theory of matter based on the four kind of stable particles e, p, P and E with the conserved charges qi and gi.

    Unfortunately, the transmission of upper and lower indexes does not work. Double appearing indexes are summed.

    Gyula I. Szász

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    #567

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Gyula said,

    “We have to use the spinors because neither the positions, nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”

    I can’t help but notice that Cedric uses Entropy when “neither the positions nor the velocities of the particles are ever exactly known.”

    To me, this is compelling, whether there is a connection or not. That is, while I don’t see much use for Entropy for
    small numbers of particles, I do see a connection for large
    numbers of particles… fluid dynamics… optimal transport.

    And a lot of other things too.

    So I think maybe the connection is the mathematics.

    I apologize in advance for bringing this up again.

    Bill

    #568

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    Why was it that you ended up using Lagrange Mechanics
    instead of Hamiltonian Mechanics? It would seem that
    both are quantizable the way you want, and H seems to be
    more fundamental or even more general.

    Bill

    #570

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,

    The description of Nature requires handling of non-conservative, non-closed physical systems without known inertial conditions. This problem can only be solved within the Lagrangian formalism, for instance in order to get the equations of motions.
    The Hamiltonian formalism which is based on energy expressions and on energy conservation is not able to deliver the handling of such important physical problems. For instant, I use only the conservation of elementary charges instead of the conservation of energy. No, H is not more fundamental and not more general. I use neither E = hν, nor the energy mass equivalence principle E = mc^2.

    My theory is a quantum field theory with only quantized charges as the sources of the interacting fields. The energy is not quantized.This new quantum field theory has unified the electromagnetism and the gravitation. The interacting fields propagate with c.

    The gravitation is neither universal mass attraction, nor it is a deformation of space-time. The gravitation is caused by conserved elementary gravitational charges of stable particles. And the gravitational masses are different from the inertial masses of bodies.

    Gyula

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by  Gyula Szász.
    #573

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,

    You see, all the learned standards of the so called “modern physics” are removed within my theory. Therefore, the resistances of physical journals are gigantic.

    Gyula

    #574

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    Yes, it is clear to me now. I’ve read all of your
    book at this point and my only objection is that you
    include entropy in the list of things that I also do
    not consider to be realistic, like the big-bang, black-
    holes and other preposterous degenerate extremes. So
    I am not satisfied that entropy should be included on
    that list. Why?

    Sincerely,
    Bill

    #575

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Dear Bill,

    I am not a researcher in thermodynamics. I know that entropy is an extensive status variable which is not defined sufficiently clear (to me). The entropy (usual symbol S) is a “measure of the number of microscopic configurations” that corresponds to a thermodynamic system in a state specified by certain macroscopic variables and entropy is generally used for closed systems. However, the thermodynamics don’t know anything about “microscopic configurations”.

    It is true, there are inter molecular order to be connect to intra molecular disorder, but how? Nobody knows at the moments.

    Sincerely,
    Gyula

    #576

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dear Gyula,

    It is true that entropy was born in thermodynamics, but
    it is now far more general. I would even go so far as to
    say that it governs the entire field of Information theory
    as well as any trivial mixture problem.

    I sincerely consider that I have grown by the understanding of your magnificent effort, but I also consider that we all
    need to grow; and that growth is far more important than
    ANY theory; including the also magnificent effort of Einstein.

    It is truly unfortunate that your reviewers have obviously
    stopped growing.

    Sincerely,
    Bill

    #577

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    “For a given set of macroscopic variables, the entropy measures the degree to which the probability of the system is spread out over different possible microstates. In contrast to the macrostate, which characterizes plainly observable average quantities, a microstate specifies all molecular details about the system including the position and velocity of every molecule. The more such states available to the system with appreciable probability, the greater the entropy. In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of “disorder” (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder).”

    Gyula

    #578

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    Within my theory, we have a very accurate imagination what happen in microstates. For instance, within the nuclei and within the neutrons, the protons, the electrons and the positrons move approximately with the velocity of light around the center of mass (COM) in regions of 10-13 cm under the influence of the electromagnetic interaction. The gravitation can be neglected.

    For the nuclear forces, no strong interaction, none of gluons and of partons (or whatever else) is needed. The atoms and molecules are consisting of the nuclei and the electron shells with the size of 10-8 cm. The “inter-molecular” movement is nearly independent of the overall temperature of the surrounding. The temperature of the surrounding determines the probability of the velocities of the COM-motions of micro-objects: these are intra-molecular velocities. The entropy connects somehow the average quantities of macrostates with the microstates properties.
    Gyula

    #579

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    Dr. Szasz said:

    “The entropy connects somehow the average quantities of macrostates with the microstates properties.

    YES; we may say something like, “the sum of the entropy
    of the microstates is nearly conserved in the macrostate.”

    E.G., the entropy of a container of water has nearly the
    same entropy as the sum of the partial entropies of the
    water’s microstates. This, I suggest, substantiates ALL
    atomistic type theories.

    I haven’t a clue as to what the entropy of radiation is,
    but only that it is accompanied by an increase of the sum
    of the entropies of the microstates; part or all of the
    entropy qualified by the second law of thermodynamics….
    But I see good reason to believe that the opposite
    happens; that radiations decrease the total entropy; but
    it can’t be both ways, can it? So I am rightly confused
    and torn between two extremes on this radiation matter.
    Dag-nab-it….

    The connection is therefore “conservation”, a symmetry,
    I suggest.

    Sincerely,
    Bill

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by  Bill Eshleman. Reason: symmetries give rise to conservation laws
    #581

    Gyula Szász
    Moderator

    The numbers of elementary particles and their elementary charges are the ONLY conserved quantities. With their conserved charges, the particles cause radiations during their motions. The microstates consist of particle AND radiations. The Lagrange multipliers prevent the radiation of particles. The thermodynamics didn’t recover the connection between entropy on the one side and particles, radiations and Lagrange multipliers on the other side.

    The symmetry comes out from the distribution of the elementary charges on the elementary particles and from the Lagrange density of the interactions.

    Sincerely,
    Gyula

    #582

    Bill Eshleman
    Participant

    I think we are on the verge of needing to consider
    that a deity placed your elementary particles (e,P,p,E)
    in our previously vacant universe and I do not like
    that circumstance at all. 🙁

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.