Cropduster23

So, no need for tropical fruit then? Perhaps KOH will work?

So, let's say I require a macroscopic pile of Potassium-40 to do strange and wonderful beta-particle related shenanigans with. What exactly would I have to do to a banana(s) in order to retrieve this isotope?

Yes. This is exactly my point. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

If this Unity theory is really all these things at once, then it is a religion, or more accurately a spiritual philosophical outlook I suppose. based on the way to write and describe this, you seem to think you're some kind of enlightened new age Buddha-Jesus prophet. At what point exactly was it that you mentally snapped, my friend? Or perhaps a better question is - at what point do you decide to stop being a scientist in favor of the idea that you create your own subjective reality? Don't deny that's what you believe - people who believe this are tell tale in the way the think and write and talk about their own existence and the things they interact with. You're a solipsist I assume. I think that is the wrong way to go about life. With that said, I seems like you are a missionary attempting to spread your religion and "convert some scientists" to your world view, presumably because we must be so unenlightened and spiritually immature if we still "believe in current theories". You're a crank, buddy. A calm and somewhat reasonable one, but you are a crank and you have an aggravating condescension to match.

I say we give everyone on the planet an IQ test, and genocide all the people who score below 120.

Bob, what the hell do you mean "It's smeared"? You mean like a continuum spectrum? As opposed to a discrete spectrum? Which would imply - as opposed to a quantized spectrum? If your calculations are describing an electron in an EM field that does not obey quantized energy states then I have a jar of lumineferous aether to sell you. And what do you mean when you say such a thing? What part of the electron charge is "smeared"? Does it predict spin-charge separation in nano-scale conductors? More to the point, if your hypothesis is so "natural" then how does it explain or rationalize the existence of a "smeared charge" arbitrarily existing in space-time with no real reason? I could go on and on with this to infinite regress about what is "allowed to be real" in a theory. Ultimately, all physical theories are just mathematical models that implicitly assume they make the proper correspondence with the observed phenomenon. If it's falsifiable, and experiment can't rule it out, then it's the best we've got. This whole attitude with you is starting to sound like the old Popper vs Kuhn debate. And on that note, I would like to see this theory of yours in it's fullest detail. Do you have any published or preprint papers that describe it, or any dossiers? Care for a little peer review? You can't just come up into a public science forum (real or internet) and just start jumping into topics with one off opinions about how the Standard Model is shite followed by jargon words from your own hypothesis, but never explaining it to us. Yet this is what I've seen you doing around here in recent weeks. It borders on trolling, which is against the rules. If it pleases the court, so to speak, I too have a series of hypothesis that have to do with the vacuum energy behavior of Jarmo Makela's simply-connected quantized space-time models, but I don't go around shitting up the boards with Lubos Motl-style ex-string theorist borderline crankiness, mostly because no one asked or cares much around here about the Verlinde Hypothesis. Show us your work so we at least know what you're on about.

The length of my renormalization series is longer than yours.

One wonders if anti-Hydrogen is anti-combustible, given enough surrounding anti-Oxygen and ignited with anti-radiation.

Why are there so many "I've discovered the theory of everything, but it blatantly violates conservation of energy and makes predictions that are counter to observation, because it is simply a convoluted word salad projection of my own lunacy and ignorance of physics" cranks on SFN? And then they all think that the "scientific establishment cabal" is "out to get them" to "protect their own interests". LOL. Mainstream science is not a shadowy government conspiracy or a greedy corporation. It's a bunch of academics trying to figure out what the universe is made of via systematized trial and error.

Well, just being contrarian here but... In theory, a grand unified field theory would allow you to approximately treat any system of arbitrary size as a quantum system, as that's what the nature of all energy in the universe is. At the very least it would provide the proper context to describe the entire star system as a poly-atomic gas. For the sake of making the world safe for quantum gravity (at least), and because this is the speculation fourms and I'm allowed too, I reject your argument that any particular system is strictly "too big" to be analogized as a quantum field. For example, it's quite possible to find the Schrodinger Hamiltonian for, say, the orbit of Jupiter. It would probably correspond to a probability amplitude of %100, but still.

Being speculative within the reasonable limits of what is already known is perfectly fine - that's how science gets done. At least, that's how the theory gets done. The problem, of course, is that Physics already has a very good, phenomenon-fitting model of Hadrons (the family name for protons, neutrons, and other particles made of 3 quarks) that was not already understood by you, and of course it is not expected that you reproduce 50+ years of particle theory on your own in one day just by standing around and thinking about it in the shower. However, if you wish to understand what is already known about the structure of Hadrons and the various ways they can decay into radiation, then you already know where it look for the answers - the theory of the strong force. A good rule of thumb for analogizing quantum-scale forces was first discovered by the fathers of quantum theory and it is: Electrostatics is usually not the correct answer. Very much not.

Thanks for the diagrams. Just another note, a negative mass cloud would not be completely isothermal because if an outside force such as a positive mass object were to strike it, the cloud would "jiggle" and gain a little bit of localized [latex]\Delta T[/latex] T from the kinetic energy of the impact. Interestingly, if dark matter is in fact stabilized at the maximum of it's potential well, then the ground state energy of "Negative" or "Dark " matter will be completely determined by the boundary conditions of it's local environment. Is there some calculation you've worked out to determine the "energy maximum" of a dark matter potential? Also, this would mean that an increase in the temperature of the negative matter (such as in a collision with positive matter) would correspond to a decrease in it's negative mass by a related amount. It seems to me that you could eventually turn negative mass matter into positive mass matter by heating it up fast enough and with enough energy. In the specific example above (where the negative mass cluster is "jiggled" or bumped) this increase in entropy would be due to somewhat-easily tracked momentum changes, and so you could ostensibly turn the negative mass into positive mass by accelerating it fast enough, and vis verse for positive matter into negative matter. Perhaps when positive matter falls into a black hole, it turns into negative matter? What does your math for this say about black holes?

Yes, actually. It's called having a hangover and getting drunk, respectively. Gravity is caused by Jack Daniels. I win.

Is it possible to fill out the Dirac equation for the entire solar system (that is, everything inside the Oort Cloud) and calculate, roughly, the "spectral lines" of the star system? If so, how would you approach it? One assumes that such spectral lines would simply report back the percentages of the most abundant elements in the system, with hydrogen taking the number one spot, obviously.

since you "don't want to give too much away", I'm grasping at straws here so help me out with this if i've got it confused at all. From what I can tell, YBa2Cu3O7 sounds like a crystal that you want to focus a laser beam through. However, since you referance a vaccum, I'm assuming you're trying to pass the photons through some kind of amorphous solid where the atoms of the material are somewhat dispersed in the vacuum. Then it seems you want to create a vortex in this substance using magnets in order to "accelerate the particle speed of the laser". Ok hold on here cowboy. The particles that make up light are photons, so are you trying to increase their group velocity? In other words, are you trying to do the opposite of this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light Doing so would be equivalent to increasing the speed of pulses in a pulse laser. Slow light experiments usually pass lasers through Bose-Einstein Condensates made of element x, where the group velocity comes to a stop in the middle of the BEC cloud so that a matter wave made of element x comes out of the BEC with the same direction, frequency, amplitude, etc. the first thing is that if your equations (I don't know if they're wrong or not, you haven't shared) show that a vortex is unstable in a vaccum then that seems correct - in theory the vortex would be composed of virtual self-annihilating vacuum particles where the energy carried by the vortex would cancel out, and so wouldn't really be a vortex, would it? Furthermore, a vortex in space-time would simply be a twistor in the continnum and thus be a gravitational field or a gravitational potential. If the "vortex" were powerful enough then I'm sure the metric tensor would be that of a shwartzchild black hole since the field is otherwise empty...also not strictly a vortex, is it? If on the other hand you are attempting to use a magnet to make a vortex out of this substance "YBa2Cu3O7" (whihc i read as Yittrium 2Barium 3Copper 7Oxygen), then that entirely depends on weather this chemical is able to be magnetized or not when it is in a state where it can be swirled (such as a gas or liquid or something, perhaps a plasma). "YBa2Cu3O7" looks like a cuperate superconducting crystal to me. It would then indeed be an interesting experiment to see if this superconductor was able to remain a superconductor in different states of matter. But if it is anything like a normal cuperate superconductor, then the answer is No, it will only work for electron-transition, solid, or possibly below (quantum gas). The last thing is, you cannot alter the speed or direction of a laser beam using only a magnetic field. Exposing a laser to a magnetic field will change it's polarization only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect hence if you wanted to alter the vector of the pulses you would have to pass it through another material (like the chemical you mentioned) and refract it that way. I have no idea how to help with the raw theory of it because I don't know that much chemistry and you also have not shown us your work. But I hope that what I've said so far is helpful.

I support the Entropic gravity hypothesis, if it makes you feel better. It's the very latest cutting edge stuff these days, so It doesn't surprise me that you were fed the information in a dream.

I would suggest mixing hydrogen peroxide with toilet bowl cleaner. That will make lots of chlorine. I think.

Looking to put together a 300 to 500 megaelectron-volt linear electron and ion accelerator. Need tips on design. -How large a voltage source? -What kinds of cathodes for the particle emitter? -Should I just steal an electron gun out of a TV? -Is highly evacuated PVC tubing a good beam chamber? -Would it be a good Idea to build two, and then slam the electrons into one another? -Will there be positron creation at this energy? -How much lead shielding are we talking about? -Should I use a live cockroach as a particle target? -Is the Compton wavelength of the cockroach shorter than a breadbox? -Should I call the IAEA? Help a brother out.

Well it seems to me that the gravitational potential of the planet will decrease, because the mass of the planet will have decreased, as some of it's energy has been lost by the thermal radiation. But I guess my confusion comes from my understanding that gravity and the potentials it forms in space-time is a fictitious force, wholly dependent upon relative acceleration between reference frames, as is elucidated in the Einstein equivalence principle. From this I reasoned that when an object changes mass through emission and absorption, it still must "accelerate" into some dimension, and in the case of a body like Neptune where it's radiation is emitted into all 3 space-like dimensions (and thus doesn't move at all in those three) then perhaps that "acceleration" is into a complex space-like one, where the relationship is something like [math]\frac{\delta S}{\delta p}=\frac{\delta v}{\delta T}[/math] where S is the total entropy of Neptune, p is the average momentum of the thermal photons emitted (deBroglie relationship), v is the "velocity" of Neptune through such an extra space-like dimension, T is the average temperature of Neptune associated with it's entropy, and the derivatives are all with respect to time. I suppose that any hypothetical analysis such as this would not necessarily translate to real velocity differences in 3-space, so the orbit of Neptune would not be effected by the homogeneous burning of it's atmosphere. But, given that [math]e=mc^{2}[/math], the release of chemical potential energy as thermal energy, which then leaves the system, would in fact effect the relativistic mass. It would seem like a contradiction. Does an exothermic reaction on a system affect it's rest mass? If it doesn't then that would mean the resulting black body radiation would carry no energy and so you have a sort of inverse of ultraviolet catastrophe featuring "ghost" photons. I guess this whole line of reasoning is sort of like asking if Unruh Radiation is real...but the last time a checked, Feynman's bead on a stick still heats up. Am I wrong here? What am I missing? EDIT: I just realized that the equation I threw out above is also directly related to this: where p is the average momentum of the particles of hydrogen (or whatever else is on fire), such that v is the average velocity of the thermal expansion of the atmosphere.

but I thought that radiation conveys inertia...and that two objects of exactly equal mass would begin to differ in their mass if one of them was suddenly increased in temperature? Such a mass increase would imply an acceleration of some sort in another reference frame? Help me out here.

Also, pV=NkT Hot sexy scalar-on-scalar action.

The atmosphere of Neptune is 80% hydrogen. How would one go about setting the whole planet on fire? More to the point, would it not just explode? That is, assuming that Neptune is just gas all the way down...which seems reasonable. Also, would not a flaming Neptune have more kinetic energy then a not-on-fire Neptune? If so it would definitely change its orbit. Clearly this is an absurd and mostly humorous thought experiment about the violent thermodynamic destruction of an entire gas giant (no Death Star required, although it seems to me that the best way to do such a thing is indeed with a giant laser), and as such I've posted it in speculations.

I think you'll be intersted to know that this idea isn't really new. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar The major problem with this theory is that becasue of the thermodynamic structure of these gravastars, they seem to lose their structure under rotations and boosts.

Dude...why did you submit a print to vixra.org ? That place is full of cranks and conspiracy theorists. If you want to be taken seriously you need to clean up your hypothesis and submit it to a normal journal. It's a little expensive but if you write it up better, maybe even Physical Review Letters might review it. Just FYI, your theory implies that dark matter is made of tachyons. Just something to think about if you didn't already realize this, it could have implications that you didn't consider. Also, Paul Davies published an article some time ago about hypothesis such as yours, I you should probably have a look at it, you will find it very relevant to your idea. Link to the paper is below: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0403/0403048.pdf

Hey all. I've been lurking around, and this place looks like a steaming pile of awesome. You may call me Cropduster. Fear not; this is a reference to the practice of spraying pesticides with biplanes, not the practice of spraying pedestrians with flatulence. For one thing, you need a pilot's license for the former, and Taco Bell for the latter. In any case, howdy all, and do watch out for Schrodinger - 50% of the time, he kills cats every time.