Mordred

No that would violate numerous conservation laws of particle physics. For example conservation of isospin, charge, lepton number, energy/mass momentum, color, flavor. There are others but the incoming particles and outgoing particles must obey those laws.

Possibly but we will see the main thing is to throw away the billiard ball or bullet image of a particle.

Some decay rates example Higgs boson at 10^(-22) seconds you don't really have time for a second look...though it's never instant resonant particles decay extremely fast to the point of second look isn't fast enough. Lol

It helps to understand that particles are not little bullets with corpuscular (matter like) constituents. It's best to think of them as field excitations. This is the QFT view but when you get into the Feymann path integrals you quickly learn this is a very accurate description. Though keep in mind those integrals also incorporate probability functions as well as the particle state.

Dark matter no plausible on DE and zero point energy though the zero point energy led to the vacuum catastrophe where it's calculated energy was 120 orders of magnitude too high. It's still not discounted however as it's still a viable possibility

It also helps to read over the guidelines in the Speculation forum in the locked threads at the top. Simply posting assertions without any actual science doesn't help

Aren't you forgetting the needed equations for magnetic confinement ? The cross section calculations for different elements used in the fusion process ? What temperature do you need to reach to fuse deuterium as opposed to helium 3 for example . Claiming something but unable to supply any related calculations isn't very practical in my opinion. A star has gravity working in its favor as well as a huge volume of plasma to act as a temperature trap we don't have that on Earth so must use other means. With fusion power there is something called the Lawson criteria are you familiar with it ? Its directly related to the power output compared to the power demands and will differ in different reactions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion If you had shown those calculation you bet I would have been more inclined to listen. However random claims amount to zilch zero nothing.

Somehow I don't see the connection with what you just posted to showing a practical design for a fusion reactor.

I lost track of how often I hear such claims. Yet when asked direct questions or mathematical models the poster seldom can answer with anything resembling actual science. It's too bad most ppl don't recognize that the very job of a physicist is to do calculations in order to validate any physics based theory. That isn't equivalent to writers block. If one cannot mathematically describe a physics theory then it's useless simple as that. Try calculating the amount of energy required at a specific focal point to cause fusion under the atmospheric conditions on the Earth's surface. Do that and maybe you might convince someone.

The different drag components isn't strictly mechanical either. You will likely see a drag/drift effect associated with similarities to a magnetic cyclotron. In so far as the related mathematics most are already mentioned. Though we didn't go quite that far via Maxwell. The two primary formulas to describe the above will be Lorentz force law and the Magnetic force law. (When you start varying the E and B field you get some interesting side effects)

Is time something that exists on its own ? Of course not. That isn't described by physics to start with. Time is a property describing rate of change nothing more. One certainly doesn't require any papers to describe the above. Just a clear understanding of physics to start with.

As others have mentioned and our forum rules describe. I have no interest in downloading papers from another site. I hope your papers include the relevant mathematics rather than just pictures and words but I'm not placing much hope in that. Let's start with mistake number one. (ct) used in the Interval as per GR is not the same as time itself (which is a property describing rate of change) it does not describe distance. The Interval is used to give dimensionality of length. If you based your papers on the above statement we can stop now as it's already falsified under incorrect premise. That should have been obvious if you simply asked " What is the length of a second ?" Obviously a second does not include any length term

No you had some good ideas it's simply the scalar field only contributes to the T_(00) component of the stress tensor which describes the energy density but doesn't give rise to curvature. So your questions were good ones. The curvature terms are described using the particles that have acquired mass (though massless particles can contribute) but not the Higgs field itself. That's an important distinction.

No that description doesn't work. When particles acquire the mass term they then contribute to the energy momentum tensor which in turn gives rise to curvature. A non interacting Higgs field doesn't contribute to the energy momentum terms for curvature. When particles acquire mass there is a mixing angle involved ( mathematical mixing angles ) not space/spacetime mixing angles. \(A_\mu\) an \(Z_\mu\) \[W^3_\mu=Z_\mu cos\theta_W+A_\mu sin\theta_W\] \[B_\mu= Z_\mu sin\theta_W+A_\mu cos\theta_W\] \[Z_\mu=W^3_\mu cos\theta_W+B_\mu sin\theta_W\] These are the mixing angles. After electroweak symmetry these mixings gives rise to the Mexican hat potential to the Higgs VeV (vacuum expectation value.) The left over degree of freedom due to no mixing angle for photons is what gives rise to the Higgs field VeV value today. However that left over doesn't contribute to curvature. ( in point of detail assuming Higgs as Cosmological constant is correct) then it's value would act as the cosmological constant term.

In this sense I like Sean Carolls descriptive he once gave in a lecture. If you want a Higgs boson you need to poke it. As Mentioned by Joigus the Higgs scalar field is a scalar field in order to get A Higgs boson out of it you need sufficient localized energy. The difference between scalar fields vs other fields such as vector, spinor and tensor fields is well described by Migl. One thing that Joigus correctly noted the Higgs field has 4 effective degrees of freedom making this scalar field a complex doublet.

First off strong piece of advise. Don't think of spacetime as some materialistic fabric. I mention this as its a very common misconception. Mass energy does tell spacetime how to curve. This is correct, but one detail to recognize is this describes geodesic paths through spacetime due to relativistic effects. Mathematically speaking we describe spacetime using geometry but one of the tenets of GR is invariance of geometric choice. There is also invariant properties to all observer example proper distance etc. However Observer affects also affect how we measure the variant properties ( time dilation, length attraction etc). Is there a limit to the mass energy term that causes curvature such as a BH. Well we simply don't know what the limit is assuming there is one. Example the true singularity condition of a BH at R=0. An example of a variant property is infinite redshift at the EH of a BH. Trying to describe this as "drawing in spacetime" doesn't make sense. Its more accurate to describe, the geodesics paths due to curvature. Past the EH all spacetime paths lead towards R=0 and never escape the EH. Yes there is equations to support this. Under GR one uses the Einstein field equations

Why are you now showing images for Calibi -Yau manifolds? Your not dealing with string theory ? Though even a string is larger than Planck units.

There is zero soap boxing in my post I posted actual physics relations. You are incorrect in your understanding of the graph showing the principle quantum numbers and how they correlate to the 720 degree rotation for spin 1/2 and spin 1 (360 degree rotation). To get the other rotations for other spin values you need to directly look at the spin statistics for each.

You keep mentioning dark matter but I haven't seen a single calculation that can possibly describe DM or it's density. In terms of spin particles with spin 1/2 require a 720 degree rotation to return to its original state. That is not true for spin zero or spin 1 particles. Spin however is not a spinning ball it is internal relations that have rotational symmetry. Example a sinusoidal wavefunction has rotation symmetry. As I mentioned before take time learning physics instead of randomly declaring your idea does this or that with zero basis of accuracy.

Too bad your not listening to the advise of two physicists. Your grids will only make sense if you incorporate phase space for each particle. The volumes you have are insufficient to be able to get any measurable quantities in regards to anything measurable on a particle. We cannot measure anything at Planck volume yet we can measure particle properties.

Let me describe a useful voxel that would work. Each voxel represents the phase space describing the state of a particle. Now you can apply all the standard model of particle physics formulas under that geometric treatment.

You may be using a couple of physics terms and values but your not applying anything one can describe as particles. Nor are you looking at mainstream equations. If you were you would know how mainstream physics applies pressure with regards to a particles equation of state.

I've read both books preferred both over 100 Roads to reality by Penrose (though some of Penrose commentary was rather amusing)

Have you ever considered simply studying physics instead of trying to invent your own. Nothing you have posted so far makes any sense.

The tesseract does nothing with regards to the claims you made above. We are all aware of the tesserect. There is literally nothing new about it.