Mordred

So here Is was deeply immersed in studying a dissertation on CKM mixing angles with regards to Higgs and electroweak symmetry breaking. Going through the unitary triangle etc when I come across a technical term I couldn't believe. I almost thought the author had gone batty until I dug deeper. "The Feymann Penguin diagrams" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_diagram Literally it is the one loop diagrams I have worked with and seen in dozens of technical literature however this was the first time I had ever seen them referred to as penguin diagrams. I nearly pissed myself laughing so hard.

No I gave you a light weight figure which is significantly smaller than what would be viable for any serious practical purpose so that you can apply f=ma. Figure out how many Newtons such a light weight craft would require to move. Then realize that having radiation going in every direction with only a slight amount of extra in one direction will not be sufficient to move the craft. You would be far far better off too use ionized plasma with your magnetic field. The thrust is substantial. I already linked that option in this thread.

Ever weigh copper or even aluminum wire in large enough quantity capable of moving even a craft the size of a communication satellite ? Particularly with this design with radiation in every direction instead of directional ? Believe me ten tons us a low low estimate. The NASA spaceshuttle weighs 165000 pounds for one example that is without fuel and cargo. Just to give you some real world perspective...

Calculate how many Newton's of force would be required to move a 10 ton craft. Then try and tell me efficiency doesn't matter. Does the everyday wind move a ten ton rock ? Ps ten tons would be a light estimate for all the wiring you would need to generate a substantial force (ever picked up a decent size transformer ?

The system would be so inefficient it wouldn't be able to move the mass of its own wiring let alone the mass of the craft

Nice find thanks for sharing

I was wondering how long this would take...

You might want to consider how much weight the wiring will add to the craft. As well as the amount of force that would be required to move said craft. This I can readily see being a major factor against any practicality of this design

Imagining has little to do with reality. I can imagine being the greatest physicist ever to exist. Reality says otherwise. It's good to have imagination in problem solving but to be effective must be backed up by reality.

You can't fall through spacetime regardless of how small the object is spacetime is still present.

So that's where it went lol must be tired. Edited it out roflmao

NoNo SUSY or SM particle can break any of the conservation laws. I don't think you can connect quintessence with the higgsino if memory serves me correct it is the fermionic superpartner to the Higgs boson and thus will have fractional spin. While quintessence is spin 0 (bosonic). I will of course check that Edit confirmed each SM boson will have a fermionic superpartner under SUSY.

Edit removed overtired wrong thread post

This is yet another typical example of someone wanting to formulate a GUT with his personal model that has absolutely no idea what is involved in a GUT theory.... One of the most fundamental steps is the mathematics that offer a means of testing such a theory . A theory without mathematics that is based on simply verbal word play is utterly useless You cannot build a working circuit without being able to calculate the required resistance and capacitance to create an RC timing circuit. Nor can you predict how our universe will evolve in terms of expansion (which quite frankly required nearly every field in physics) nor can you make predictions of particle decay nor interactions You require mathematics for that.... This formula is far closer to a GUT than anything I have seen of your posts. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] You have absolutely no idea how detailed this formula truly is in terms of all the tensors/matrices complex conjugates etc. If you ever hope to build a GUT then you had best be able to decipher this equation. At the very least recognize each term Just for the record you have three spatial dimensions time is seperate as an independent variable which is the mathematical definition of a dimension. Hence spacetime containing four independent quantities that can change value without affecting any of quantity

An expanding object such as a balloon the surface of the balloon certainly counts as an object and once you blow air into it. It accelerates outward from rest in all directions simultaneously.

Why not simply use a Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. There is already research into this application for spacecraft.

Thanks for sharing this development. Yes it will certainly aid in gathering greater detail on the astronomical objects you mentioned. Anytime we gain tools to examine different bandwidths of the EM spectrum will add greater detail to our datasets

A very crucial part indeed

With the magnetic field you still have a flow 9f electrons. You will also be influenced by other ionized particles in the vicinity. In other words as often mentioned your still susceptible to the conservation of momentum laws

It would take too long to go through all the CKMS mixing angles for that. Needless to say your Formula is quaranteed to get the wrong answer. For example the mass of the electron can be determined by the Rydberg constant and the fine structure constant and the appropriate formula. (Easily Google'd the formulas on wiki electron rest mass page are correct)

Here is a clear example of where your methodology is wrong. The mass in this example is derived by the Higgs self coupling constant with the vacuum expectation value. I can post the relevant two formulas later on. Your methodology makes no sense considering mass is resistance to inertia change and invariably all particle mass terms will depend on their relevant coupling constants and not on G The mass term has no relation to particle size but is a measure of how strongly a particle couple's as seen by the definition of mass in physics There are numerous formulas involving the Higgs field cross sections in determine the coupling constant involved. Far too many to post however the two primary formulas are [math]v^2=-\frac {\mu^2}{2\lambda}[/math] [math]M_H^2=2v^2\lambda [/math] Where v relates to the VeV of 246 Gev and [math]\lambda[/math] is the Higgs self coupling constant. [math]\mu [/math] is a decay mode derived through the cross sections

Good link better than the second example I was going to post. Needless to say these studies are well underway and is highly detailed on pros and cons of each alternative

There are polymers that may offer a light weight solution as opposed to the usage of heavy metals https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/am300783d&ved=2ahUKEwjF8tG08qPjAhXDHjQIHV90CTEQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0RnU_hFdhHlngAahIujVZw

In the same manner the Van Allen belt traps ionized particles

You would attract ionic particles which could be detrimental to the craft. Particularly at the speeds involved.