Leaderboard

Shouldn't the sum of all spins of the fermions in my body sometimes add to n + 1/2 so I am a fermion as a whole? Then by turning around 2 times I should look in the opposite direction. I try several times per day, but it never happened. Physics is wrong!

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation. Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

First of all, as @Mordred pointed out, this is from Quanta Magazine, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Second of all, if that were true, it doesn't mean it validates the numerology of paper under discussion. Third of all, you chose to ignore morsels of language that are very relevant: [...] may be [...] [...] hints that [...] [...] If true, it would be [...] [...] It's possible we're seeing [...] And, above all, (from provided source; my emphasis.) All of that you interpret as "actually, vacuum dilutes [...]" I'm kinda old. I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not.

Here is an example of what I mean Let us consider some deals on the stock exchange. Define Buying 3 shares as -3 shares Selling 3 Shares as +3 shares Selling a share at $5 above par as +$5 or $5 profit Selling a share at $5 below par as -$5 or $5 loss par is the same as face value. Now let us say consider 4 different deals assume that as soon as each deal is done the company redeems the share at face value. Deal 1) Sell 3 shares at $5 above face value That is +3 x +5 = +15 or $15 profit Deal 2) Sell 3 shares at $5 below par That is +3 x -5 = -15 or $15 loss Deal 3) Buy 3 shares at $5 above par That is -3 x +5 = -15 or $15 loss Deal 4) Buy 3 shares at $5 below par That is -3 x -5 = +15 or $15 profit Deal 4 is obviously the case of negative times negative makes positive. So it depends upon how you assign the plus and minus. Which is why mathematically they are called directed or signed numbers.

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-weakening-major-astrophysics-study-finds-20240404/

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality. Are you agreeing with this definition.

It might be easier to explain to a child that negation in math is like an inversion or flipping the number line. Multiplication is simply making an inversion one or several times. So, one inversion of minus three is -1x-3. Invert the number line and you flip minus three to three. So -3x-3 is inversion of minus three three times, and each time adds a flipped segment 3 units long, getting you to 9. This shows that positive and negative are really somewhat different in character - one just extends, the other flips.

OK. We can use the "× -1" label to get from positives to negatives. How do we come to use the same label to get from negatives to positives?

It is not so in the grown-up's algebra, but might be a good order for learning. However, there seems to be a logical gap there: To introduce negative numbers it uses multiplication by -1, but where does the -1 come from if there are no negative numbers yet?

Yes that's not a bad explanation (but not proof) for beginners. Consider a transformation T such that T2 (-1) = 1 We could also compare a transformation T2 (-1) = -1 The first transformation might actually be a reflection. The second one will be equivalent to introducing i. I said I needed to dig out some old books from the depths. Yes indeed htere are many approaches to this but we must remember two things. Firstly who are 'they' ? Years ago only children at a grammar school would have learned anything about negative numbers. In primary school great efforts were made to work only in the positive. So for instance the subtraction of 2092 from 3513 would be carried out as follows 2 from 3 leaves 1 9 from 1 won't go so borrow 1 (ten) and find 9 from 11 leaves 2 1 from 5 leaves 4 (or alternatively reduce the 5 to 4 and take zero from it) 2 form 3 leaves 1 Answer 1421 All done in the positive. These children would not have been introduced to graphs so there was no baclground for 'the number line' Grammar School started at age 11 - 13 . Most children did not go to grammar school. Those that went to a non grammar secondary school were often apprentices and schooled in the practical. So quite a number of introductory practical examples were developed for these. Grammar school children were introduced usually by Hall and Knight - first pub 1895 and still going strong in the second part of the 20th century. This has an algebraic development, less advanced than Birkhof and Maclean.

To me, the very notion of negative numbers implies multiplication by -1. This suggests that prior introduction to multiplication of the natural numbers (not to mention the role of zero) is a more logical order of learning.

Slight correction it depends on how the vacuum is defined. If it's a vacuum with an equation of state other than w=-1 such as a quintessence vacuum it would dilute any vacuum with equation of state w=-1 such as the cosmological term does not. The rest of the above I agree with

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

Am all a where of that....the universe is well evolving towards that...am trying to be careful however,I think we can get something out of that...or maybe learn more...

Good point. I was thinking of using reflections too, until I remembered fermions. I don't think children would care too much about fermions tho... I agree. Any other choice would give you problems with the distributive property and/or other equally fundamental properties though. After all, there must be a reason why we've been choosing that option and no other one has resulted in an interesting algebraic framing.

6 years 1 way Earth time, 3.58 years on the ship. The figures reflect more the actual distance and not just 4 light years exactly. If it was 4 light years exactly, it would be 3.46 years on the ship.

My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. Mordred is more qualified to answer that question...I have my concepts, he and other residential experts in this forum input and arguments offer guidance,esp when I stray too much to my concepts.

New NYT/Siena poll has the race tied, but there’s this (posted on bluesky) Not only ignoring recent history but also the post-Dobbs voter registration surge

Either you don't understand the Holographic Principle, or you are misusing it.