Mordred

All collisions are elastic or inelastic. If the two masses touch its a collision even if its so instantaneous as to appear otherwise. Thanks for some reason I always thought it was in particle physics.

maybe wiki will help. Perhaps you might see Swansont is correct. Considering he has a Ph.D in particle physics. Which deals with elastic and inelastic collisions. He might just have a far greater understanding than you do. Just saying... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision "An inelastic collision, in contrast to an elastic collision, is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved due to the action of internal friction."

I can't see your link as it flags a hazard on my phone but every property I mentioned are intrinsic properties. Yet we cannot detect any of those properties without interactions to pin them down in the first place. All internal quantum numbers are intrinsic and describe the particles interactions. Got the link you have working had to switch to comp. Not sure how that link applies to elementary and fundamental particles which has no discernable volume. So how can shape apply? Are you perhaps considering orbital shapes within a atom ? Ie S orbital is spherical, P orbital is dumbell while the d and f orbital have more complicated shapes due to their quantum numbers. ? The number of shells is determined by the principle quantum number, The number of subshells within each shell is given by the azimuthal quantum number. The magnetic quantum number and the principle quantum number gives the orbitals within each subshell. Ie S subshell has 1 orbital as M=0, while p has 3 orbitals as m =-1,0,1. d has 5 as m=-2,-1,0,+1,+2. while f has 7 -3,-2,-1,0,+1,+2,+3. Though these apply to atomic particles. Unfortunately the internal structure of a proton is far more complex. Considering the proton cross sections through deep inelastic scatterings can show far more than just 3 quarks. What many people don't know is that the 2 up and 1 down quark is the excess. Not the exact number of quarks. Unfortunately wiki doesn't detail this but its explained here. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/proton-collisions-vs-quarkgluonantiquark-mini-collisions/

lol in a way. Think of it this way we cannot detect particles without some form of interaction. Yet this is also true for any size object. Unfortunately elementary particles have no discernable volume (pointlike) so in this regard the fishnet won't help Spin, charge, mass, parity, hypercharge, parity, isospin, color, flavor, cross section are all interaction properties. Even the particles decay rate depends on these interactions when coupled with the numerous conservation laws.

yes

Particles can and do have multiple interactions. Indeed those interactions define the particles. Quarks interact with all 4 force fields. Electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravity as well as the Higg's Within a proton the strongest field interaction (dominant field) is the strong force whose mediator is the gluon. This is the majority of the mass term of the proton. The Higg's field interaction however accounts for 1% of the mass. This is just a simple example but all properties of any particle involve field interactions in some manner. Whether its an individual field or a combination of fields. Take a Neutrino for example, it doesn't interact with the strong or electromagnetic field. So it can literally pass through a 1000 light years of lead without any change in path. It does interact with the Higgs field which is the only interaction the neutrino gains mass from. charge,color,flavor etc are also properties involving field interactions in point of detail define these quantum properties. Little hint how far a field interacts with a particle depends on its gauge bosons mean free path and lifetime which correlates to the fields coupling constant.

Take it from a professional physicist in Cosmology. Jim's video is a utter waste of time that is easily shown wrong once you apply a coordinate system.

That waste of a video, which I'm thankful isn't your work has little to do with your OP. I wouldn't trust anything from Jim Tassano's website but thats off topic to your thread. We're asking for the math specific to your model. Not Jim Tassano's wacked out and incorrect one.

To all the community here, Merry Christmas.

I'm way out of practice on Dirac lol Let me think about this. Its been awhile since I practiced Bra and Ket etc. Just out of curiousity which textbook do you have. I may have a copy of it. If I recall correctly part 1 is correct. But need to double check. Still thinking on the complex conjugate. PS I hope you won't mind if I reply in a manner that help others understand this notation. Subject rarely comes up

Why try to describe a physical realm when the Akashic library is a spiritual one.? Isn't all information not recorded in a non physical realm according to those beliefs? ie a non physical plane of existance?

So your space is the akasha space? not physical space? ie your entire direction is accessing the akashic records? If thats the case you don't need to change any physical dimensions as the akashic library is a spiritual realm

Whoever claimed any physicist does? we usually claim to the best of our understanding and research. However we can easily tell when someone is speaking out of ignorance. Particularly when they don't even understand the subject under discussion.

lol. The term real effect adds another dimension P Good example is redshift its an effect but it is a real effect. Or wavelength. Guess thats why metaphysics papers use the term " more real". Rather than just real lol. example presentism "My here-now is more real than your here-now". Yet there is no mathematical way to prove this is the case.

If more than one person agrees it bends via measurement I would say yes. After all you have to seperate illusions Ie visual perception. A mirage is a measurable effect. Just as objects appearing smaller at distance is a "real effect"

I absolutely agree on that lol. Thats why I've been stressing the importance of definitions of the terminology used 😉

Physical is tricky to define. You can have a physical property such a length, width, height color, smell etc. Or physical relations. ie force,strain, torque. voltage etc. Physical doesn't mean exclusively materialistic. Simple relations or measurable properties are physical even if virtual or quasi. Ie phonons. Unfortunately its a common misconception to equate materialistic with the term physical.

Take those images and don't just apply the numbers. Include a unit of measurement. example each unit or segmant is 1 metre long. So we have two segmants of length. Each segmant is 1 metre. 1 metre+1 metre =2 metres. This is still a 1 dimensional object. That dimension is length. (x) or (L) take your pick Now lets add the dimension of height. length×width. (W) or Y take your pick. We now have an axis of measurement that is (orthogonal) to the x axis (90 degrees) Length×width @90 degrees to each other. 1 meter ×1 meter= 1 meter^2. = 2 dimensions even though the value is 1. You have 2 variables Length×width. Volume uses 3 dimensions L×w×height. Now in regards to those variables if I change any of these mentioned variables (dimensions) I change the size of the object. Yet I can change L or W or Z without changing the other variables. Ie I can change the length without changing the height or width. Each of these variables are independant of the other. This is the definition of a dimension in geometry. I cannot change the size of any object without changing either the length, width or height. Size is the magnitude or dimensions(length,width height) of a thing, or how big something is. Size can be measured as length, width, height, diameter, perimeter, area, volume, or mass. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it for example, the point at 5 on a number line. A surface such as a plane or the surface of a cylinder or sphere has a dimension of two because two coordinates are needed to specify a point on it " So you two axis on those drawings. You have coordinates of x and coordinates of y. Those are two dimensional drawings. Coordinates x and y. The value of x or y isn't how we define a dimension That is the number of coordinate units. Not the number of coordinates needed to define any single point on those drawings. Now think about the line example. I have a line 1 meter in length. I can divide that line into an infinite number of segmants. The number of segmants doesn't describe a dimension. Its just the number of units.

If the Op can't listen to basic math rules none.

Then at least follow math rules in terms of units ie metres. You can't redefine geometey without following math rules under dimensional analysis. Did they not teach you in school that you also have to apply the formulas to the measurement units as well as the numeric value? 1 metre/1 metre=1 with no units. It is a 1 to 1 ratio not a dimension. I know your schooling taught you at least that much. If not retake all your math courses. Lets go back to grade 1. 1 apple divided by 1 apple equals 1. Not one apple

No I am correcting your definitions of a dimension. You can confirm that definition by picking up a basic geometry book.

Sorry this doesn't make any sense. any line can be described by 2 coordinate points. Segment or otherwise. The number of points isn't a dimension. A dimension is the number of required coordinates required to describe an object. The most complex objects in Euclidean space can be fully described by 3 coordinates at each point. Doesn't matter what shape or number of sides that object has. No your wasting our time. As resident experts are on the moderator staff. Though not full moderators. I highly recommend you address the questions and comments made by others. Otherwise this thread will get locked.

Ok lets properly define the difference between size and dimension. We have two objects with dimensions x,y,z. Object A has dimensions 1 metre^3. Object B has dimensions 2 metres^3. Both are 3d objects. so if we devide object a into object b we get a dimensionless number lets call it a scale factor. 2 m^3/1 m^3 = 2 with no dimensional units. The dimensional units equals zero=dimensionless variable or parameter. In this case the size difference ratio.

How does 4 independant variables A,B,C,D equal a 5 dimensional space? where is your 5th independant variable? Do you understand how a dimension is defined in geometry? Too bad, if your going to model develop you should expect critisism when you make blatant errors.

They are measurable quantities that more than one observer can agree upon under a standardized agreed upon format and definitions. I would consider that real to the best of our ability. To avoid confusion you don't measure math. Math does the measuring.