Introducing new types of fundamental forces and particles for Quantum Physics
Nov 13, 2014
RELEASE 14-169
NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino Factory
The giant black hole at the center of the Milky Way may be producing mysterious particles called neutrinos. If confirmed, this would be the first time that scientists have traced neutrinos back to a black hole.
The evidence for this came from three NASA satellites that observe in X-ray light: the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Swift gamma-ray mission, and the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR).
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2014/14-169.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Evidence against the Standard Model of Cosmology
Blackfoot poetry: from Einstein to spacetime – Public lecture by Dr. Corey Gray
Suresh Wanayalae:
We can learn a lot of things from history. So we should not try to hide the true history. Einstein was correct about the curvature of space that can interact and make waves in space, but if that curvature is a result of a quantum force that can increase the density of space, then that gravitational wave is a space wave that originated on the quantum gravitational force. And if the elementary particles like neutrinos generate the gravitational force then neutrinos can make a counter gravity on each object after going through that object. And that process can hold the objects in space at the same place for a long time. If neutrinos can eat the space then that can happen. That is what my calculations show to me. Just don't ignore that possibility. And according to that possibility, Black Holes emit those elementary particles. And if some neutrinos are invisible then it is difficult to calculate the quantum impact of that force. I think that can help us to explain the bouncing nature of the universe, and that can change the theory about the Big Bang too. Thank you.
Helgefan (24-09-2021):
According to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, it's the amount of energy content (or to be accurate, the local energy momentum tensor) that curves spacetime. Since neutrinos have energy just as every other particle, they too can contribute to the curvature of spacetime.
Other than that, neutrinos "eating space", "holding objects in space at the same place for a long time" or "countering gravity" sounds not like something a physicist would say who actually studied physics though.
I'd like to know more about your calculations, did you publish them?
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Helgefan , Yes, I'm not a physicist or someone connected to science or mathematics. But I could discover the simple mathematics of the start of the first universe. And there are more things to discover. I published the first part of it (Name: Binary mathematical structures of the elementary ghosts - Finding the entanglement.). I could use it to explain the process of gravity, but I didn't publish my explanation about the process of gravity yet. I agree with your explanation about Einstein's general relativity, but I was talking about the possibility to disappear two opposite dimensions from elementary particles in space (from quantum foam) as a result of a dimensional rotation of neutrinos that can change the directions of dimensions that can cause cancel the dimensions making a 1-dimensional void as a force in the space while traveling through the space curving the spacetime (like creating a tensor in spacetime). If neutrinos have a 0.5 spin as 0.5+0.5, then it can take only one 0.5 for a spin, and then the other +0.5 should try to be stable making dimensions like +1-0.5.
But again it has created another unstable -0.5 dimension, so it should try to be stable again making dimensions like -1+0.5. Finally, that extra -1 dimension can try to annihilate the previous +1 dimension making a void in space and increasing the density of space as making the gravitational force while becoming the +0.5 dimension again with the spin 0.5. Neutrinos can make 3 types of neutrinos for each dimension increasing the standard dimension from 1 to 3 while neutrinos travel.
It is a very simple explanation. I guess that explanation is enough for you for now, and it is difficult to test and explain more about it without making visible dimensional structures, etc. Thank you for your reply.
Helgefan:
@Suresh Wanayalae Congrats on writing a book, but it seems like purely imaginary nonsense to me without any basis in reality. You‘re using words from quantum mechanics without a proper understanding of what they actually mean.
Maybe it makes sense in your head, but sorry - it‘s not a book I or any scientist would buy, because it reeks of esoteric mind-farts.
You first need to study physics properly including the language we use to describe it: Mathematics. Otherwise you are just grabbing BS out of thin air.
Helgefan:
@Suresh Wanayalae It‘s as if you are claiming to have an idea for a revolutionary car that will be able to fly, but all you‘ve done is collect a couple of tree branches and rocks in a forest as car material, believing that it should be possible to compete with established car manufacturers on that basis. And yet all you unterstand about cars is that they consist of 4 wheels, a steering wheel and a chassis.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Helgefan , I didn't want to sell my book to you. I didn't request your opinions or advice. I'm sure that I know real science (Abhidhamma in Buddhism) better than you. Some scientists are just jokers to me. Bye.
Helgefan:
@Suresh Wanayalae Ok, good luck on your spiritual journey!
I don't know much about Buddhism, and it's not all bad for sure.
I just hate it when people pretend to understand science by using technical terms, when actually they are just writing pseudo-science designed to appeal to gullible non-experts.
There's a reason actual scientific publications in influential journals require a thorough peer-review by competing experts of the same field:
Truth does not fear question.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Helgefan , Yes. I can understand. However, I was not talking about spirituality in Buddhism. There is quantum physics in Buddhism. However, some people don't know how to ask questions, and they just try to show that they are intelligent or they know how to find answers. And some people waste our time asking irrelevant questions on their ignorance even after receiving the right answer. So, I usually try to ignore those people. Bye.
Helgefan:
@Suresh Wanayalae Quantum physics happens mostly in elementary particles, not in Buddhism and not in some word-games. Also, it should be described in the precise language of mathematics in order to avoid ignoring what quantum physicists have figured out so far.
And for something to be scientific, it needs to be based on real-world evidence instead of made-up ideas that only happen in people's heads.
Bye
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Helgefan , If you think some people created quantum physics, I can understand your mentality. According to Buddhism, there are elementary particles in empty space too. And in Buddhism, there are more explanations about Quantum Elements. If we can discover them scientifically or mathematically then that is enough for Buddhism because the purpose of Buddhism is not about teaching mathematics. I'm sure that some scientists make a lot of fools, and that is why still there are a lot of religions (including materialism).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The super bizarre quantum eraser experiment
Suresh Wanayalae:
I have an answer. It is based on Quantum Entanglement and the electric moment and magnetic moment. When we detect particles the Electric moment or Magnetic moment interact separately, and then they entangle obtaining an Electric moment and a Magnetic moment separately becoming two new elementary particles. But if there are no two observers then it behaves like a wave with a probability of interactions on the screen.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the experiments about the Z bosons decay, in 10% of the Z-decays, charged lepton-antilepton pairs (Eg: 'electron'-'positron') are produced. The Z boson decays in 20% of the cases into a neutrino-antineutrino pair (Eg: 'Electron neutrino'-'Electron antineutrino'. The neutrino decay gives another 3 possibilities.). In 70% of Z decays, a quark-antiquark pair (Eg: 'down quark' - 'antidown quark') is produced. Adding up the 6 quark types (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom) each with 3 colors results in 18 decay possibilities. This gives a total of 24 decay possibilities, but only 21 are visible.
Z(-1 +4)/3 + z (+0.5+3)/3
===> D(+0.5+4)/3 + W(-1+3)/3 AND/OR
===> D(+0.5+4)/3 + (+1+1)/3
===> D(+0.5+4)/3 + ((N(+1-0)/3)+1)
===> D(+0.5+4)/3 + ((N(+0.5+0.5-0)/3)+0.5+0.5)
===>
D(+0.5+4)/3 - (D(-0.5-4)/3 +4/3) +
((N(+0.5+0.5)/3) - ((N(-0.5-0.5)/3) +0.5/3))
===>
D(+0.5+4)/3 - (D(-0.5-4)/3) +1 -0.5/3) +
(N(+0.5+0.5)/3) - ((N(-0.5-0.5)/3))
===>
D(+0.5+4)/3 - (D(-0.5-4)/3) +0.5/3) +
(N(+0.5+0.5)/3) - (N(-0.5-0.5)/3)
===>
D(+0.5+4)/3 - (D(-0.5-4)/3) + E(+0.5+6/3) -6) +
(N(+0.5+0.5)/3) - (N(-0.5-0.5)/3)
===>
D(+0.5+4)/3 - (D(-0.5-4)/3) + E(+0.5+6/3) + E(-0.5-6/3) +0.5/3) + (N(+0.5+0.5)/3) - (N(-0.5-0.5)/3)
According to the most possible dimensional interactions, that should be the best explanation for the transformation of the Z boson.
- Suresh
- සුරේෂ් මධුසංඛ
Do you think that there is a force-carrying particle for the gravitational force which requires to explain the quantum gravity?
Do you think that there is a force-carrying particle for the gravitational force which requires to explain the quantum gravity?
And if you think that the mass of objects makes the curvature of space as an interaction of a dimension can you explain the reason for that process?
Just imagine the process of gravity as a cyclic force in an elementary particle that occurs with an oscillation of that elementary particle.
There is an oscillation in neutrinos that cause changing the flavor of neutrinos from electron neutrino to muon neutrino, and then muon neutrino to tau neutrino.
If everything in the universe emits neutrinos then neutrinos can become a candidate for the gravitational force as a cyclic partial force.
The mass of objects like the earth, stars, black holes makes the gravitational force. And interactions between those objects make gravitational waves too.
Merging Black Holes and merging Neutron stars make gravitational waves on the curvature of space around those objects while moving.
Albert Einstein was right about the curvature of space that can interact and make waves in space,
but if that curvature is a result of a quantum force that can increase the density of space,
then that gravitational wave is a space wave that originates on the quantum gravitational force.
And if the elementary particles like neutrinos generate the gravitational force,
then neutrinos can make a counter gravity on each object after going through that object.
And that process can hold the objects in space at the same place for a long time.
If neutrinos can eat the space then that can happen.
And according to that possibility, Black Holes should emit those elementary particles to make the gravitational force.
And those elementary particles can come out from Black Holes making the gravity.
And if some neutrinos are invisible then it is difficult to calculate the quantum impact of that force.
That possibility can help us to explain the bouncing nature of the universe, and that can change the theory about the Big Bang too.
If neutrinos have a 0.5 spin as 0.5+0.5 between 3 standard dimensions, then it can take only one 0.5 for a spin, and then the other +0.5 should try to be stable making dimensions like +1-0.5.
And again it can become unstable because it has created another unstable -0.5 dimension too. So it should try to be stable again making dimensions like -1+0.5.
And finally, that extra -1 dimension can try to annihilate the previous +1 dimension making a void in space and increasing the density of space as making the gravitational force while becoming the +0.5 dimension again with the spin 0.5.
And when neutrinos travel neutrinos can make 3 types of neutrinos for each dimension increasing the standard dimension from 1 to 3.
So the nature of neutrinos is almost enough to explain the quantum process of the gravitational force.
And that shows the first layer of the elementary particles called Up Quark, Down Quark, Electron, Electron Neutrino in the standard model should generally be based on only 1 main standard dimension.
And generally, there is 1 more standard dimension in the second layer. And same like that, there are 2 more standard dimensions in the third layer.
- Suresh
Quantum Gravity Explained With Neutrino Oscillation By W. Suresh Madusanka
Suresh Ran Rahas
NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino Factory - Nasa (Nov 13, 2014 RELEASE 14-169).
There are no very large objects around the Sun with a Big core inside preventing traveling elementary particles through it. And if there were very large planets like that then the graviton (Eg: the partial force in neutrinos) can interact (eg: bend) in the core of those planets increasing the force between the planet and the Sun. And then those planets fall into the sun very soon. So that must be the reason for the fine-tuning of gravity for the small planets and planets with a dead core. Therefore we don't need a creator God or a Multiverse with different types of gravities to explain the fine-tuned weakness of gravity. And if the neutrinos take dimensions of space out while going out from the galaxies then neutrinos can increase the density outside the galaxies causing move the galaxies away from each other like becoming the reason to exist Dark Energy.
- Like
- Reply
- Share
- 1m
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the Universe Need Conscious Life? Documentary about Consciousness 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFZFbFD8uk0
metaRising:
Hi everyone, I hope you find this episode interesting! What do you think about the possibility that the universe requires the evolution of conscious life? Let me know what you think and let's talk about it.
You can help me continue to create videos like this by supporting me on Patreon. https://www.patreon.com/wakingcosmos
Suresh Wanayalae:
There is another way we can explain gravity. If the smallest elementary particles like neutrinos generate the gravitational force then neutrinos can make a counter gravity on each object after going through that object. There is an oscillation in neutrinos that cause changing the flavor of neutrinos from electron neutrino to muon neutrino, and then muon neutrino to tau neutrino.
If everything in the universe emits neutrinos then neutrinos can become a candidate for the gravitational force as a cyclic partial force. And according to that possibility, Black Holes should emit those elementary particles to make the gravitational force. And those elementary particles can come out from Black Holes making the gravity. And if some neutrinos are invisible then it is difficult to calculate the quantum impact of that force. That possibility can help us to explain the bouncing nature of the universe, and that can change the theory about the Big Bang too.
NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino Factory - Nasa (Nov 13, 2014 RELEASE 14-169).
Uwe Burkart:
@Suresh Wanayalae You May be right with all that but you missed the point, why is there then consciousness either as an emergent phenomena or as a teleological one. This is not physics alone but merely a metaphysical discussion!
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Uwe Burkart , Yes, I have an explanation for that too. According to Buddhism (Abhidhamma), our minds are based on an element called Citta (mind moment) which is 17 times faster than the lifetime of a matter zone, so therefore the mind can interact faster than material things while trying to survive even after the dissolution of some groups of matter (body). There are three moments in the mind moment called Uppada (arising), Thiti (presence), and Bhanga (dissolution). That element called Citta (mind moment) is just a natural process, and it is not a living being, and it is the place the mind observes things and lives from moment to moment. And everything we see is a very fast continuation of the observations of the mind (Eg: observing dimensions of elementary particles). The Buddha could understand the process of the Citta, and he told the monks that looking at the process of Citta was the hardest thing he did. And the Buddha could discover 28 Rupa (fundamental fields of material phenomena) and 52 Chaithasika (like fundamental fields of emotions). And I guess there are fundamental fields of emotions (48+4) that help the mind to survive even without using a lot of matter fields, but according to Buddhism the Brahma realm is based on the 4 great fundamental matter elements. And if we practice our mind to live between a very small group of elementary particles or fields, then we will have a very light body. I think it is a quantum science of the mind. The mind arose on a fundamental process of observation and action (Citta) in the Universe which is not reversible.
Uwe Burkart:
@Suresh Wanayalae wow, well explained! I didn't expect that you are so well into that as well. Thought first you to be a hard core materialist. All what you describe is nice. I also tried to read the explanations of Rene Guenon a French mathematician and philosopher later becoming a Sufi (he died in Cairo in 1952) about the vedanta. For us western minds all that is like metaphysical speculation. That's the only problem in general. We will never know just with our Buddhi (intellectual mind). Chitta seems to be that what we would say if we want to express what "global consciousness" could mean. But again it is not provable with our understanding of "natural science", 🥴 too bad.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Uwe Burkart , Thanks. Yes, Chitta is like the consciousness of the universe as a process in many conscious beings in the universe, and it is a fundamental phenomenon (Paramartha Dharma) in the universe. According to my analysis about dimensions in quantum fields, Chitta is connected to few fundamental quantum fields and there are different types of Chitta fields (Eg: Male, Female, Brahma, and probably a Nirvana Chitta to end the rebirth) related to a special process in fundamental elementary particles like neutrinos. According to my mathematical discovery, there is a process in neutrinos that can attract dimensions, absorb (cancel) dimensions, and select a dimension to react. So I think, that process can become a process similar to the process in Chitta. If our brain emits a lot of visible or invisible quantum fields (Eg: fields of neutrinos) when we think a lot, then we can try to use a scientific technology or a special power of the mind to detect those quantum fields.
Suresh Wanayalae:
The concept of Creator God is not a scientific argument for the existence of the fine-tuned universe. And the Multiverse argument is not the only argument for the fine-tuning of the universe. There are hidden variables (mathematical symmetry) that caused some scientists to be ignorant and talk about fine-tuning. And the fine-tuning argument just shows the failure (dead end) of modern science, and as usual, some scientists try to put God between the Gaps in science to hide their failure and support the propaganda of Abrahamic religions.
Uwe Burkart:
@Suresh Wanayalae I totally agree. Not only that, most so called "natural" scientist do fill in the gaps by introducing mathematical constants (that prove to be no constants or are something else) or by new bosons (Higgs boson) although the proof of that is lost in many calculations and idealized measuring results that could also be interpreted differently, or by dark energy and dark matter that are rather science fiction than provable facts. Not to speak of the weakening effect of light, - sorry wrong - of course the redshift effect acc. to Doppler for far distant galaxies (although Doppler effect is valid only for longitudinal waves not transversal waves like light etc. asf.
A lot of fiction but no hard core science!
Furthermore most of them are weak in metaphysical matters incl. mathematical concepts, as well as links between physical effects and mathematical descriptions often just assuming idealisations like "singularity" would exist in physical reality but not only in mathematics! (Where it only belongs) So also putting "belief" like big bang instead of saying "we don't know" and instead of saying exactly that: "we know that we don't know" !
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Uwe Burkart , I think, most scientists try to do their best within their limited environment (Eg: affiliations with politics and religions). They did remarkable discoveries and predictions. And discovering the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation helped them to understand that this universe started to make hydrogen atoms using the EXISTING subatomic particles. And theories about the singularity of this universe should be based on the energies of those subatomic particles to make it a scientific argument. But the problem is trying to connect two disconnected subjects called Quantum Mechanics and Gravity to talk about the size of that singularity. And scientists don't know about the area of the Big Bang in the universe or the size of the entire universe, so they don't know about the total energy of the Big Bang to decide the size of the singularity. And scientists should have a theory to explain the maximum energy in the smallest singularity. And there is a possibility to increase the size of the singularity on a cyclic Big Bounce.
Mathematical constants should be based on the mathematical symmetries and cyclic processes of the universe. And some scientists guess that the speed of elementary particles in Dark Matter slower than the speed of light. So we can't say that there is only one constant for everything, and there are 3 generations of elementary particles too. And a cyclic process in the universe or if we are living in a multiverse then an influence of another universe can change constants too (probably, the mass and force can increase a little after a Big Bounce according to symmetric mathematical ratios of each universe even without making a big difference). If there is extra space around this universe then that space can come between the galaxies while some elementary particles create an antigravity making the galaxies move away from each other showing us a work of energy called Dark Energy. And some reasons for the existence of some Dark Matter can change with a theory of quantum gravity too.
The Higgs boson is a mathematical requirement in Quantum Mechanics, and there is a possibility to exists 3 Higgs bosons as same as the existence of the 3 generations of the quarks and leptons. But the 3rd generation of the Higgs boson can cause to make a very small Back Hole too. However, predicting things like that is a part of science. But we shouldn't wait until scientists find all the answers to some big questions to understand the reality. We should be able to make decisions with or without the help of religion to try to understand the difference between good and bad to select our path because believing something or disbelieving something doesn't show us our future. There is nothing else in this universe that can help us more than purifying our own minds to be content.
Uwe Burkart:
@Suresh Wanayalae Appreciate your input. You are right many scientists are humble and know the limits of our findings and speculations. I only dislike those who are sometimes engaged for TV or our public mass media that pretent as if they have already all the answers. I like this here with you and many other people and all shows us that we can only see a glimpse of what all is, but that makes me happy I see that we are all connected! And we can think and act as one if we will!
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Uwe Burkart , Yes, I can understand. We can try to use science and other explanations to correct the existing science and the existing explanations. But the universe is not only the existing science until we find a reliable theory to explain everything. We are almost connected on the inter-dependence in nature!, and some people (including me) talk about the interconnection between living beings and all the other things too, but as I know, according to Buddhism, thinking like that as a self doesn't help us to understand the illusion of our existence as a living being (we don't have a permanent soul). And that is why the Buddha said, I call our own body the entire world. Thank you.
WOTM: Actionable Knowledge
Is Nobel Prize Winner Sir Roger Penrose WRONG?
Where Did the Big Bang Happen?
The Unexplained Mysteries of Chemistry
37 - How Neutrinos Might Be Hinting at Dark Matter | Why This Universe
A New Scientific Paradigm to Accommodate Matter, Mind, and Spirit | Bernard Carr, Ph.D.
How I learned to love pseudoscience
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🤔 Metaphysics: SOUL in Buddhism 🤔 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ous-gI6tP5c
Suresh Wanayalae:
Abhidhamma is all about the quantum process of the mind. Abhidhamma is like a scientific explanation, but the main teaching of all the Buddhas is purifying the mind. We need to know the process of the mind to remove illogical arguments about the process of the mind. However, still, most people in this world including most Theravada Buddhists don't understand the importance of Buddhist abhidhamma.
Theoria Apophasis:
abhidhamma is NOT BUDDHISM, my little son
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Theoria Apophasis , A lot of educated people and intelligent people try to find deep teachings about the reality and mind to accept other teachings about good and bad. If all the people can understand the difference between good and bad they would not follow some major religions. But the problem is some people don't care about purifying the mind if they can use a set of rules in religion to gain powers, wives, money, without searching for truth, and with illogical beliefs, and general knowledge about reality with fake interpretations to hide the unscientific knowledge, and few old discoveries that don't require a big scientific technology to discover, etc. And most teachings in some religions are not connected to other teachings, and therefore those teachings are not deep teachings. And those disconnected teachings don't help to understand the process of the mind or the nature of reality. But Abhidhamma teachings are logical and highly connected to other teachings like a mathematical connection that helps us to explain the nature of mind and reality theoretically. And there are explanations in Abhidhamma that we can investigate to find whether they are mathematically or scientifically right or wrong (falsifiable). A great Buddhist monk (Ven. Buddhaghosa Thero) said that someone should know Buddhist Abhidhamma to call him a good dhamma teacher. I don't know whether he was right or wrong, but some people said that his knowledge shows that perhaps he will be a Buddha. I think, during the first Buddhist council there were no arguments against most Abhidhamma teachings to discuss it or there were not enough Arhat Abhidhamma teachers to discuss it or argue about it, so I think, that is why there were no arguments about Abhidhamma in the first Buddhist council. But if you really want to know about fundamental aspects of the mind you can follow the Abhidhamma teachings first. (There are Physics in Abhidhamma: Professor Sumanapala Galmangoda teaches about it well.) The Buddha said (Pali verse:) "manō pubbaṅgamā dhammā" (Abhidharmic Translation (by Professor Sumanapala Galmangoda): Mind/Chitta is preceded by Chaitasikas | Common Translation: "The mind is the root cause in dhamma, (not matter)."). Abhidhamma teachings are important to understand the meanings of some Pali words. I have heard that the Buddha didn't want to teach Abhidhamma to humans, so that is why the Buddha chose heaven to teach Abhidhamma to heavenly beings, but Ven (Maha Arhat/Enlightened). Sariputta also could listen to that teaching, and he summarized it in order to teach it to humans by himself. So the language and the teaching style of the Ven. Sariputta can make a difference between Abhidhamma and the other teachings of the Buddha. And the Buddha didn't teach Abhidhamma to humans directly. However, I guess the Abhidhamma is not a big requirement to be a stream-enterer, but sometimes the Abhidhamma sounds like quantum physics to me.
The Buddha taught Dhamma to Humans and Davas, but Abhidhamma in Theravada Buddhism teaches about the mechanism of the mind, etc. I found this information from Wikipedia (Abhidhamma_Piṭaka):
"Tradition holds that the Buddha thought out the Abhidhamma immediately after his enlightenment then taught it to the gods some years later. Later, the Buddha repeated it to Sariputta who then transmitted it to his disciples. This tradition is evident in the Parivara, a late text from the Vinaya Pitaka, which mentions in a concluding verse of praise to the Buddha that this best of creatures, the lion, taught the three pitakas." However, humans should be intelligent enough to understand some explanations in Abhidhamma. And most humans don't have enough time to learn deep Buddhist teachings. Abhidhamma discourse was a single discourse that took around 3 months to teach to heavenly beings. But we just have a summary of it (maybe without some deep explanations about interactions of mind and matter, etc). As I know, around 42000 teachings from 84000 teachings in Buddhism (in Tripitaka) are Abhidhamma teachings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Magnetic Monopoles SHOULD Exist
Suresh Wanayalae:
I think if there is a -0.5 spin in electrons with -6 dimensions making an unstable -1 dimension on the interaction of spin and if there is an elementary particle with -1 spin as a hidden force with +5 dimensions while moving and replacing the -1 spin on the interactions of the +5 dimensions, then that elementary particle would try to attract the -1 dimension from electrons as an entanglement between unstable dimensions making a cyclic process from them like the Magnetic Monopoles. That symmetric process can keep those elementary particles with the help of electrons as satisfied invisible elementary particles. - S.M.W
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neutrinos: Messengers from a Violent Universe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Buddhism?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twisted Light Reveals Matter's SECRETS!
The Biggest Ideas in the Universe | 15. Gauge Theory
The Nature of Reality: A Dialogue Between a Buddhist Scholar and a Theoretical Physicist
Will Constructor Theory REWRITE Physics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible's Evil Superhero
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Beginning of The Universe - Sir Roger Penrose on His Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Model
All Fundamental Forces and Particles Visually Explained
Where did the Big Bang happen?
Is ACTION The Most Fundamental Property in Physics?
Preon Stars | Strangest Stuff In The Universe
Suresh Wanayalae:
I think the Planck scale is the smallest preon scale. And it could exist only for a moment(0) before becoming the mixture of black holes and other matter with antimatter. And an asymmetry could cause it to turn into Black Holes and other matter with antimatter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Al-Khalili has Strong Views on the Toughest Viewer Questions
The Huge Cold Spot in The Universe | CMB Cold Spot
What Is Nothing?
Particles are ONLY ever in One Quantum State.
The many worlds of quantum reality with Sean Carroll
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
විශ්වය හැදුන විදිය ගැන මං ලියපු පොතක් researchgate වෙබ් අඩවියේ Verifying The Origin Of Everything නමින් පල කරල තියනවා. ඒක Download කරගෙන ඒ ගැන අදහස් ඉදිරිපත් කරන්න හෝ ඒකෙ අඩුපාඩු පෙන්වන්න උත්සහ කරන්න. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gods In Buddhism and Other Religions
ඍද්ධියෙන් පියාසර කල භික්ෂුව ගේ කථාව | අජාන් බ්රහ්ම් (Story About Monk With Psychic Powers)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Quantum Mechanics Predicts the Structure of all Atoms
Where is the anti-matter?
Verifying The Origin Of Everything - Mathematical Science and Buddhism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the differences between quantum foam and standard elementary particles?
I made a mathematical calculation to find dimensions in the standard elementary particles and quantum foam. I could identify dimensions in the standard elementary particles, but I need to know about quantum foam to compare particles in quantum foam with the result of the dimensional calculation. (Eg: gluons in quantum foam are massive, but the standard gluons are massless particles.)
I have attached the result of the mathematical calculation of the dimensional interactions.
If gluons in ``quantum foam" are massive, that shows that the approach is wrong.
Seemingly, the gluons in the quantum form are not gluons. And they are a different type of elementary particle with an unstable Spin (0.5) that gets the mass from the Higgs field. So the Standard Model of elementary particles needs to change.
I'd suggest that the Standard Model is just fine. ``Quantum foam'' is just a catchphrase, that doesn't mean anything. Particles don't have dimensions, that statement doesn't mean anything, either. Using meaningless words isn't a good starting point.
Gluons have spin 1, not spin 1/2, and the only particles in the Standard Model, that have spin 1/2 and get their mass from interacting with the Higgs are the quarks (part of it) and the electrically charged leptons (all of it). The neutrinos are massive, but they don't get their mass from the Higgs, simply because right handed neutrinos aren't observed at the energy scales at which left-handed neutrinos are.
The fact that a particle is massive doesn't imply that it's ``unstable''-which, in the context of the Standard Model, in particular, is misleading. All particles can transform into other particles in ways that are consistent with energy and momentum (and angular momentum) conservation and the ``internal'' symmetries of the theory-which define the theory in general and the Standard Model in particular.
There's no reason to talk about ``quantum foam'' in the context of the Standard Model. It would be useful to first learn quantum field theory, then learn about the Standard Model, then learn what generalizations of the Standard Model are, already known and then try to think about going beyond them, keeping in mind that any generalization of the Standard Model must be consistent with it, when they both apply. And there is an overlap.
Stam Nicolis, I was not guessing that gluons in quantum foam have 1/2 Spin. That is a result of my calculation. If you read my question carefully, you will see that I have said that, I already have a set of candidates for elementary particles and quantum foam. There are two gluons in the dimensional calculation where there are (+1-1)/3 dimensions in the standard gluons and there are (+0.5+0)/3 dimensions in the gluons in the quantum foam. So according to that dimensional calculation, there are two different gluons. If you study the Standard Model carefully you will see that some elementary particles could get mass based on the charge and Spin (unstable Spin: 1/2). W and Z bosons don't have an unstable Spin (1/2), but they have dimensions like the charged particles to get mass from the Higgs fields. So they are massive. Neutrinos broke the symmetry in the universe, so they can get mass from something against the Higgs field. And Neutrinos can get mass on the unstable (1/2) Spin. According to my calculation, I'm sure that Standard Model is not perfect and must change. I was talking about dimensions based on my dimensional calculation. I was not talking about popular Quantum Mechanics. Dimensional interactions are the fundamental process in Elementary particles. The popular Quantum Mechanics is mainly a way to detect particles and interactions. But it can't explain the main reason for the interactions and results.
Once more: if the result of the calculation is that gluons have spin 1/2, the calculation is wrong. As are the statements about the other particles. It would be useful to actually study quantum field theory and the properties of the Standard Model, because the statements about them are either wrong or meaningless (for instance the statements about dimensions aren't wrong-they're meaningless). The neutrinos don't break any symmetry. And, once more, there aren't any ``unstable'' particles in the Standard Model, because the Standard Model is a ``unitary'' theory: Particles transform into other particles-and the particles of the Standard Model are enough to describe all the transformations; they don't ``disappear''. The transformations are constrained by Lorentz invariance and the internal symmetries of the theory. So an electron can't transform into another particle, because there doesn't exist an electrically charged particle whose mass is less than that of an electron. A muon can transform into an electron, because it has the same charge but higher mass-but additional conservation laws imply that other particles must be involved, namely two neutrinos and they can't be of the same kind. Conversely, an electron, an electron antineutrino and a muon neutrino can combine to produce a muon.
And so on. All this is known, so it doesn't make sense writing essays, where words are just shuffled around.The only thing that matters is the result of the calculation-and if the statement is that the result is that gluons have spin 1/2, the calculation is nonsense.
In the context in which the notion of gluons makes any sense, they are massless particles, of spin 1, in the adjoint representation of the gauge group-and for the Standard Model that gauge group is the SU(3) group that describes the strong interactions.
Of course it’s possible to use the word ``gluon" to label any particle, but that doesn’t mean that calling a particle by some name will change its properties, namely mass, spin and charge.
There’s no point spending time on changing the words with which particles are called. What matters are their properties. And a spin 1/2 gluon doesn’t make sense. It's wrong to claim that the Standard Model predicts that the gluons have spin 1/2-it assumes that they have spin 1 and, since the spin and the mass of a particle are invariant under Lorentz transformations, they can't change (one might think that mass renormalization is in contradiction with this statement-it's an interesting exercise to figure out that this is an illusion and requires some study).
Gluons are massless because of gauge invariance and the interactions can't break gauge invariance.
A framework that implies that the spin of a particle changes, implies that the interactions violate Lorentz invariance, which doesn't occur in the Standard Model.
All this time spent on nonsense should be spent on learning quantum mechanics already (the qualifier ``popular'' is meaningless, beyond sociology), quantum field theory and particle physics. There are courses on all these subjects and they're on-line, so there's no excuse pretending this knowledge doesn't exist. We're in 2021, not 1921.
For quantum mechanics, these might be useful:
For the Standard Model,
The reason the term ``decay rate'' is useful, is that we're not interested in the reverse interaction. But that doesn't mean that the reverse interaction can't occur in principle. Whatever isn't forbidden by a conservation law is mandatory-the rate is the non-trivial quantity and the non-trivial statement is whether it's zero, or non-zero.
For learning how it's possible imagining a framework that includes the Standard Model, but goes beyond it,
The Standard Model is, indeed, incomplete-but the incompleteness is constrained by Lorentz invariance and whatever completes it is consistent with it. The Standard Model is mathematically consistent. The statements about spin 1/2 gluons are not.
Stam Nicolis, I didn't say that standard gluons (in the Standard Model) have a 1/2 Spin. I said that the gluons in quantum foam (in space) have a 1/2 Spin. And that is why they are massive in space. Most scientists say that they don't know the reason for that. I can say that they don't know that (they can't measure) the Spin of gluons in quantum foam. Neutrinos oscillate (change flavor/mass) when they travel. It is a very popular idea that neutrinos broke and/or break the symmetry. So don't argue with me about that. Detecting interactions doesn't explain the reason why it happened. Scientists can't explain how an interaction makes an output. They should have a way to explain the way of changing the charge and Spin. Some interactions between quarks and leptons, the weak interaction (W boson interaction) are simple. So it looks like only a change of Spin and Charge. But they can't explain the reason for the Z boson decay as it is a very complex process of decaying. Measuring interactions is not a way to explain the reason for that interactions. If you can't understand that, then there is no point in talking about that more.
Gluons can't become either massive, or change their spin through interactions that respect Lorentz invariance. ``Quantum foam'' may be a term that's used in vulgarizations, it's meaningless. The meaningful term is ``interactions''. If you try to write any interaction of gluons, that respects global Lorentz invariance and the other known symmetries, you will find that gluons can't become massive, nor can their spin change from 1 to 1/2.
The spin of the gluon has been measured, when interactions are taken into account.
The fact that neutrino mass eigenstates aren't neutrino flavor eigenstates doesn't mean that any symmetry is broken.
Interactions are constrained by global Lorentz invariance and by gauge invariance-so, of course it's possible to explain how an interaction produces any output, given any input and what the input can be-not any input states are possible.
The reason charge and spin can't change is Lorentz invariance: Charge and spin are invariant under global Lorentz transformations.
The Z boson``decay'' is perfectly well understood-it's completely described by the symmetries of the Standard Model.
The ``reason'' for interactions is symmetries. It's the symmetries that imply what the interactions are. The symmetries of the Standard Model are global Lorentz invariance and local transformations that are described by a particular Lie group that acts on the particles in a very specific way. That determines everything. That wasn't understood 60 years ago, it is now.
Stam Nicolis, If you don't know about quantum foam, then you should learn about that first. Quantum foam is not a part of the standard elementary particles. There are low-energy particles in space that behave like the standard elementary particles, but there are a few differences between them. There is a big price for explaining the reason for the existence of mass in gluons in quantum foam. So they/scientists know that there is a different type of particle/gluon. I don't know why you can't understand that.
Because the statements about ``quantum foam'' don't mean anything. Particles are labeled by mass, spin and charges. For gluons these are 0, 1 and the eight charges of the adjoint representation of SU(3). The interactions of gluons with each other are uniquely defined by these properties and the quantum properties also. Nothing more is required.
Stam Nicolis, I just have to repeat that scientists do care about 'quantum foam' and it means a lot to them. That is why they want to find out more about the mass of gluon in quantum foam. But if you are arrogant about your level of knowledge and education, then you may not like to learn it from me. They/scientists didn't want to make big particle accelerators (Eg: LHC) to discover quantum foam. It is still a big problem for them, as they (some scientists) thought that they would need a particle accelerator with higher energies to discover low-energy particles. I can understand that you can't understand it and you don't know about quantum foam. So please don't try to argue with me about that more. I'm sure that there is a particle just like gluons in space (in quantum foam) that has a mass with an unstable (0.5) Spin. It is not a question/problem to me. I'm just trying to find more details about the other particles in quantum foam.
Why do tacos (and the universe) exist? | Even Bananas
The Biggest Ideas in the Universe QA 22 Cosmology
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top fanNarlajarla Seethapathy Rajesh Kumar' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M10.473 4C8.275 4 8 5.824 8 5.824S7.726 4 5.528 4c-2.114 0-2.73 2.222-2.472 3.41C3.736 10.55 8 12.75 8 12.75s4.265-2.2 4.945-5.34c.257-1.188-.36-3.41-2.472-3.41'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
1
Noble Mon (4 years ago):
#What_is_Abhidhamma?
Abhidhamma is the analytical doctrine of mental faculties and elements.
The Abhidhamma Pitaka contains the profound moral psychology and philosophy of the Buddha's teaching, in contrast to the simpler discourses in the Sutta Pitaka.
The knowledge gained from the sutta can certainly help us in overcoming our difficulties, as well as in developing our moral conduct and training the mind. Having such knowledge will enable one to lead a life which is peaceful, respectable, harmless and noble. By listening to the discourses, we develop understanding of the Dhamma and can mould our daily lives accordingly. The concepts behind certain words and terms used in the Sutta Pitaka are, however, subject to changes and should be interpreted within the context of the social environment prevailing at the Buddha's time. The concepts used in the sutta are like the conventional words and terms lay people use to express scientific subjects. While concepts in the sutta are to be understood in the conventional sense, those used in the Abhidhamma must be understood in the ultimate sense. The concepts expressed in the Abhidhamma are like the precise scientific words and terms used by scientists to prevent misinterpretations.
It is only in the Abhidhamma that explanations are given on how and at which mental beats a person can create good and bad karmic thoughts, according to his desires and other mental states. Clear explanations of the nature of the different mental faculties and precise analytical interpretations of the elements can be found in this important collection of discourses.
Understanding the Dhamma through the knowledge gained from the sutta is like the knowledge acquired from studying the prescriptions for different types of sicknesses. Such knowledge when applied can certainly help to cure certain types of sicknesses. On the other hand, a qualified physician, with his precise knowledge, can diagnose a wider range of sicknesses and discover their causes. This specialized knowledge puts him in a better position to prescribe more effective remedies. Similarly, a person who has studied the Abhidhamma can better understand the nature of the mind and analyse the mental attitudes which cause a human being to commit mistakes and develop the will to avoid evil.
The Abhidhamma teaches that the egoistic beliefs and other concepts such as 'I', "you", 'man' and 'the world', which we use in daily conversation, do not adequately describe the real nature of existence. The conventional concepts do not reflect the fleeting nature of pleasures, uncertainties, impermanence of every component thing, and the conflict among the elements and energies intrinsic in all animate or inanimate things. The Abhidhammadoctrine gives a clear exposition of the ultimate nature of man and brings the analysis of the human condition further than other studies known to man.
The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in the ultimate sense, or paramattha dhamma in Pali. There are four such realities:
1- Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as 'that which knows or experiences' an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.
2- Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta.
3- Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form.
4- Nibbana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final goal.
Citta, the cetasika, and rupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions sustaining them cease to continue to do so. They are impermanent states. Nibbana, on the other hand, is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and, therefore, does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of the names we may choose to give them. Other than these realities, everything -- be it within ourselves or without, whether in the past, present or future, whether coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near -- is a concept and not an ultimate reality.
Citta, cetasika, and Nibbana are also called nama. Nibbana is an unconditioned nama.The two conditioned nama, that is, cita and cetasika, together with rupa (form), make up psychophysical organisms, including human beings. Both mind and matter, or nama-rupa, are analysed in Abhidhamma as though under a microscope. Events connected with the process of birth and death are explained in detail. The Abhidhamma clarifies intricate points of the Dhamma and enables the arising of an understanding of reality, thereby setting forth in clear terms the Path of Emancipation. The realization we gain from the Abhidhamma with regard to our lives and the world is not in a conventional sense, but absolute reality.
The clear exposition of thought processes in Abhidhamma cannot be found in any other psychological treatise either in the east or west. Consciousness is defined, while thoughts are analysed and classified mainly from an ethical standpoint. The composition of each type of consciousness is set forth in detail. The fact that consciousness flows like a steam, a view propounded by psychologists like William James, becomes extremely clear to one who understands the Abhidhamma. In addition, a student of Abhidhamma can fully comprehend the Anatta (No-soul) doctrine, which is important both from a philosophical and ethical standpoint.
The Abhidhamma explains the process of rebirth in various planes after the occurrence of death without anything to pass from one life to another. This explanation provides support to the doctrine of Kamma and Rebirth. It also gives a wealth of details about the mind, as well as the units of mental and material forces, properties of matter, sources of matter, relationship of mind and matter.
In the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, a manual of Abhidhamma, there is a brief exposition of the 'Law of Dependent Origination", followed by a descriptive account of the Causal Relations which finds no parallel in any other study of the human condition anywhere else in the world. Because of its analytics and profound expositions, the Abhidhamma is not a subject of fleeting interest designed for the superficial reader.
To what extent can we compare modern psychology with the analysis provided in the Abhidhamma? Modern psychology, limited as it is, comes within the scope of Abhidhamma in so far as it deals with the mind -- with thoughts, thought processes, and mental states. The difference lies in the fact that Abhidhamma does not accept the concept of a psyche or a soul.
The analysis of the nature of the mind given in the Abhidhamma is not available through any other source.. Even modern psychologists are very much in the dark with regards to subjects like mental impulses or mental beats (Javana Citta) as discussed in the Abhidhamma. Dr. Graham Howe, an eminent Harley Street psychologist, wrote in his book, the Invisible Anatomy:
'In the course of their work many psychologists have found, as the pioneer work of C.G. Jung has shown, that we are near to [the] Buddha. To read a little Buddhism is to realize that the Buddhists knew two thousand five hundred years ago far more about our modern problems of psychology than they have yet been given credit for. They studied these problems long ago, and found the answers too. We are now rediscovering the Ancient Wisdom of the East.'
Some scholars assert that the Abhidhamma is not the teaching of the Buddha, but it grew out of the commentaries on the basic teachings of the Buddha. These commentaries are said to be the work of great scholar monks. Tradition, however, attributes the nucleus of the Abhidhamma to the Buddha Himself.
Commentators state that the Buddha, as a mark of gratitude to His mother who was born as a deva in a celestial plane, preached the Abhidhamma to His mother together with other devas continuously for three months. The principal topics (matika) of the advanced teaching, such as moral states (kusala dhamma) and immoral states (akusala dhamma), were then repeated by the Buddha to Venerable Sariputta Thera, who subsequently elaborated them and later compiled them into six books
From ancient times there were controversies as to whether the Abhidhamma was really taught by the Buddha. While this discussion may be interesting for academic purposes, what is important is for us to experience and understand the realities described in the Abhidhamma. One will realize for oneself that such profound and consistently verifiable truths can only emanate from a supremely enlightened source -- from a Buddha. Much of what is contained in the Abhidhamma is also found in the Sutta Pitaka. Such a statement, of course, cannot be supported by evidence.
According to the Theravada tradition, the essence, fundamentals and framework of the Abhidhamma are ascribed to the Buddha, although the tabulations and classifications may have been the work of later disciples. What is important is the essence. It is this that we would try to experience for ourselves. The Buddha Himself clearly took this stand of using the knowledge of the Abhidhamma to clarify many existing psychological, metaphysical and philosophical problems. Mere intellectual quibbling about whether the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma or not will not help us to understand reality.
The question is also raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of insight into the three characteristics of existence -- impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsara, Sankhara, Paticca Samuppada and Nirvana cannot be understood without a knowledge of Abhidhamma.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/67.htm
Pottymouth Yogini:
I am a SriLankan who was born a Buddhist but my true understanding came after learning abhidharma 🙏🏽
YASIRU GAMAGE:
from 84 000 Dhammaskandha
Half of them belong to abhidhamma
And also it was included in the kuddaka nikaya in the 1st place.
Finger Print:
Buddha taught only two things - Dukkha and how to eliminate Dukkha. That's it.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Finger Print , Abhidhaama is about Matter (Rupa-28), fields (Chethacika-52), mind moments, 89 existences (Chitta Bhumi), etc. It is like quantum physics (for spiritual use).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof of Evolution is Hidden All Over Your Body
Ep. 207 || धरती पर जीवन की शुरुआत कैसे हुई ? Origins of Life on Earth
Top fanAt that time famous religion was believing flat earth theory.
- Love
- Reply
- 2h
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOTMQ: Christian Nation(alism)
WOTMQ: Is God Evil?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do all bodies experience the same acceleration regardless of their mass, i.e., why is the inertial and gravitational mass the same???
It is wondering that in the GRT is strongly based on the "inertial mass" notion, when simultaneously SRT is based on the "rest mass", as it is claimed and convincing in the article attached below....
What do you really understand under the "mass" notion???
Best!!
15th Jan, 2022
What do you really understand under the "mass" notion???
Best!!
15th Jan, 2022
General Relativity ignores the existence of Gravitons and the speed/flow of gravity when objects move fast. The speed of an object can impact gravity. Eg: "If ‘Planet 9’ doesn’t exist (is small) or leaves orbit, the speed of the sun had an impact on the orbits of Trans-Neptunian Objects."
The acceleration of objects would depend on the medium they travel as a mathematical interaction with the medium. So if the space could stretch for any reason, then the speed would change too. It would be like jumping through a connected arrangement of rubber bands regardless of the level of the stretch of it.
If quantum gravity is a result of an elementary particle that it produces on interactions (Eg: beta decay, nuclear reactions), without depending directly on the inertial mass of that object, and if the gravitational mass of an object is different from the inertial mass of that object, then the equivalence principle is wrong.
I guess some people would not like to accept that Gravity is an emergence from elementary particles. Because if that is the case, then they would need to change the current standard model of cosmology that explains the early stages in the universe. They try to say that the universe started from Planck Scale when the time was almost equal to zero (Planck Time) according to General Relativity (like creating a perfect universe from nothing as creationism). But if the General Relativity is not fundamental, then the universe could be many sets of energies like many Planck energies (n×1.22×10^19GeV). But some evidence and my calculations suggest that General Relativity and also entropy can’t explain the size of the singularity or the energy packet in the early universe.
And a related question arises: one has a monochromatic electromagnetic wave (photon) flying in the space and close enough to the Sun. Find its deviation from the straight line motion caused by the Sun gravity, acting on the electromagnetic wave.
Does somebody know a solution to this problem, or where from one can extract such a solution?
Best regards and thanks in advance!
Does somebody know a solution to this problem, or where from one can extract such a solution?
Best regards and thanks in advance!
Anatolij K. Prykarpatski, Prof. Albert Einstien was dealing with the curvature (Geometry) in space that could behave like a force. So it's not like discovering a force that causes gravity. We use his energy equation (into this, E=mc^2 equation) to use it with light to measure the energy in mass. And it is not his equation (Einstien's Equation) about General Relativity. So there is a clear difference between his theories about energy and gravity. So the General Relativity is not about energy. Energy depends on mass, but gravity would depend on an elementary particle. Eg:
1.) “NASA X-ray Telescopes Find Black Hole May Be a Neutrino Factory”-Nasa (13-11-2014, R:14-169).
2.) Around 2 hours before the supernova 1987a star explosion (that happened when a dying star turned into a small Black Hole) the dying star started to release energy as neutrinos and continued that for around 2 hours before releasing light. But that light was only around 1% of the total energy that the star released, and around 99% of energy was released as neutrinos before making a Black Hole.
I suggest that if we can remove all the neutrinos from an object, it would not be able to create gravity.
I have explained a lot of details about elementary particles and forces in my research book (It will be updated with a few more details and better grammar in February):
Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hubble Constant: NOT Constant?
[Intermediate] Theravāda Buddhist English (Jan 16, 2022) - Abdhidhamma
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens inside a Black Hole?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Let's settle this. What came first? Egg, Hen
Suresh Wanayalae:
What happens inside a Black Hole?
Suresh Wanayalae:
It would be a very high polarization of elementary particles. "Astronomers using radio telescopes have discovered and characterized ASKAP J173608.2-321635, a highly-polarized, highly-variable, steep-spectrum radio source located just 4 degrees from the Milky Way’s center." It is just a highly compact object. According to my calculation, the compression ratio of it is 0:3 (It is the maximum compression ratio that an object can have.).
little poet😊:
Bro which subject are you currently studying??
AFZ SIJO:
@little poet😊 astrophysics most probably
Suresh Wanayalae:
@AFZ SIJO , No, I'm an independent researcher. And it is a totally different subject. I can explain about the formation of other compact objects and elementary particles too. Eg: "The early interactions made a few compressed structures like different strengths of the compressions which seems able to make many compact objects like a chain of many compressions. There are 4 higher compression ratios (1-mid:2, 1:2-last, 1-last:2, 0:3-all) like matter compression in Stars, White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars, and Black Holes."
AFZ SIJO:
@Suresh Wanayalae what about maganetars
Suresh Wanayalae:
@AFZ SIJO , Magnetar is also a Neutron Star. No big difference, I guess.
AFZ SIJO:
@Suresh Wanayalae mmmmm magnetar is a type of neutron star believed to have an extremely powerful magnetic field. The magnetic-field decay powers the emission of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, particularly X-rays and gamma rays
Suresh Wanayalae:
@AFZ SIJO , Yes thanks. And they are very small. So maybe it was a result of the size of it (the nature of a very small neutron star. Just like a hypothetical very small Black Hole that would be unstable and radiate a lot as a result of the size of it.!).
-----------------------------------------
Let's settle this. What came first? Egg, Hen
Suresh Wanayalae:
Cells replicated, and then they evolved and some of them started to cover their babies like making Eggs. It's that simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deriving Einstein's most famous equation: Why does energy = mass x speed of light squared?
Suresh Wanayalae:
Energy: mc^2 seems fundamental, but if photons are massless and quantum space decides the speed of light (c), then isn’t mc^2 is greater than the quantum area/size of particles? So seemingly that equation is disconnected from the fundamental nature (quantum nature) of the universe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Ash1 day ago (edited)
"The MAGIC NUMBER that Shaped the Universe! The Mysterious Fine Structure Constant" - This constant is just a dimensionless number, but one that led to our existence. Why is it important? What does it represent? Who found it? Is it really even constant?
Suresh Wanayalae:
It is not this: 1/137. It should be (1/22)/6.2 on the small difference between the Planck Constant (h) and the reduced Planck constant (h-bar). Using the reduced Planck constant to calculate it gives that unique/tuned number. But the reality is not that. It is just a simple balance between 22 values of something (1/22). Likely it is a balance between around 24 elementary particles like 1 + 22 + 1. Only 9 particles in the standard model are unique. The other 8 particles are just an increase of the mass of the fundamental particles. And the standard model uses 19 extra parameters that they discovered experimentally. So, I'm sure that fundamentally there are around 24 or more (9+19) fundamental particles.
Arvin Ash
"The MAGIC NUMBER that Shaped the Universe! The Mysterious Fine Structure Constant" - This constant is just a dimensionless number, but one that led to our existence. Why is it important? What does it represent? Who found it? Is it really even constant?
Suresh Wanayalae:
It is not this: 1/137. It should be (1/22)/6.2 on the small difference between the Planck Constant (h) and the reduced Planck constant (h-bar). Using the reduced Planck constant to calculate it gives that unique/tuned number. But the reality is not that. It is just a simple balance between 22 values of something (1/22). Likely it is a balance between around 24 elementary particles like 1 + 22 + 1. Only 9 particles in the standard model are unique. The other 8 particles are just an increase of the mass of the fundamental particles. And the standard model uses 19 extra parameters that they discovered experimentally. So, I'm sure that fundamentally there are around 24 or more (9+19) fundamental particles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really want to explore sathipathana suta. Should I go for pali language texts or else commentry is enough? Does sathipathana vipassana associated to metacognition, spirituality and self-awareness?
Focusing attention on something again and again for a long time is the best way to see that thing as it is. And it’s like being mindful of something very deeply. Satipatthana (the Pali word ‘Satipaṭṭhāna’ sometimes translated as ‘the establishment of mindfulness’) Sutta (scripture) shows a way to focus attention on the body (Kāyagatā), feelings (Vedanā), mind (Chitta), and phenomena (Dhammā). And there is a process in those things that we should see called Arising, Vanishing/Ceasing, Both Arising and Vanishing/Ceasing. According to Buddhism, there are three characteristics of all existence and beings, namely impermanence (aniccā), non-self (anattā), and unsatisfactoriness or suffering (duḥkha). I tried to bring the essence of those teachings into a single meditation. If meditations are helpful for any reason, then learning and using a practical meditation is conceivably intelligent research or investigation that a person can do to learn more about it and experience the change in life. Eg (to understand and experience):
i.) Breathing is not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Causes suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
ii.) Postures are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
iii.) Behaviors are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
iv.) Obnoxiousness in the body: 32 dirty body parts are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
v.) Primary Elements (Dhātu): Earth (Patavi), Water (Āpo), Fire (Thejo), Air (Vāyo), Space (Ākāsa). Primary Elements are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
vi.) A dead body in a charnel ground that undergoes the natural stages of the decaying process while eaten by animals is not someone. It’s not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Causes suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
vii.) Sensations are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
viii.) Intentions are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
ix.) Five Hindrances (nīvaraṇa): Sensual desires (Kamachanda), Anger/ill will (Vyapada), Sloth & torpor / Depression (Thinamidda), Restlessness & Worry (Uddhaccha Kukkuccha), Doubt/suspicion (Vicikiccha). Five Hindrances are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
x.) The Five Aggregates Of Clinging (upādāna-skandha): Materiality or Form (Rūpa), Sensations or Feelings (Vedanā), Perceptions and/or cognitions (Sañña), Volitions or Mental Formations (Saṅkhāra), Consciousness (Viññāṇa). The Five Aggregates Of Clinging are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
xi.) Combinational results that arise by meeting Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body, Mind with Form, Sound, Odor or Smell, Taste, Touch and Thoughts are not me, not mine, nor my soul. Impermanent. Cause suffering. There is nothing as a self. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
xii.) Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Satta Bojjhaṅgā): Mindfulness (Sati), Investigation of the nature of reality (Dhamma Vicaya), Energy/determination (Viriya), Joy or rapture (Prīti), Relaxation or tranquility (Passaddhi), Concentration/ Clear awareness (Samādhi), Equanimity (Upekkhā). Mindfully stay and see the arising, ceasing, and both arising and ceasing Seven Factors of Enlightenment. May all beings 'be at ease', 'be healthy', 'be well'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If quantum space decides the speed of light, and photons are massless, then isn’t mc^2 > quantum?
Mass (m) becomes Energy (E) as E = mc^2. But if the speed of light depends on the density of vacuum space (dvs), it would impact the speed like this: 'the speed of photons' / 'the density of space' = 'c^2' / '(dvs)^2'. If we can find the mass density in space like this: 'Mass of space in a Planck volume' / Planck volume, then we can apply the mass density in space ((Mass in Planck space)/ℓp^3) into the E = mc^2 equation to show the connection between the speed of light with the density of space as well. If we write the mass in a Planck volume like this Mps/ℓp^3, we can find the energy like this: E = m(c^2/(Mps/ℓp^3)^2). There are Kg^-1 m^8 s^-2 units in that energy equation. Perhaps the Energy per Kilogram (Kg^-1) unit with m^8 s^-2 units represents the fundamental (quantum) units in energy better than Kg m^2 s^-2 units.
c = 299792458 ms^-1, ℓp^3 = 4.2217×10^-105 m^3
E = m(c^2/(Mps/ℓp^3)^2) == mc^2
c = 299792458 ms^-1, ℓp^3 = 4.2217×10^-105 m^3
E = m(c^2/(Mps/ℓp^3)^2) == mc^2
E = m ((c^2 / (Mps / 4.2217×10^-105)^2) == mc^2
E = m x (c^2 x 4.2217×10^-105)^2) / Mps^2 == mc^2
Mps^2 = (4.2217×10^-105)^2
The current mass of vacuum space in a Planck volume: Mps = 4.2217×10^-105 kg Based on the accelerating expansion of the universe, the calculated mass density of the vacuum is about 6.5±0.5 ×10^-27 kg/m^3. So that vacuum mass/energy of space in a Planck volume == (6.5±0.5 ×10^-27)/(4.2217×10^-105) == 1.54±1 ×10^-132 kg. It is not equal to the above Mps value of 4.2217×10^-105 kg. Perhaps, calculating the mass density of the vacuum space based on the accelerating expansion of the universe doesn't show its real value. Based on that energy equation, the minimum Planck mass in spacetime is the mass density in Planck space. The Planck energy in space: Eps = m ((c^2 / (Mps / 4.2217×10^-105)^2)
Eps = 4.2217×10^-105 x ((89875517873681760 / (4.2217×10^-105 / 4.2217×10^-105)^2)
Eps = 4.2217×10^-105 x 89875517873681760
Eps = 3.794274738×10^-88 Kg^-1 m^8 s^-2
Does the E=mc^2 equation represent all the dimensions in actual quantum energy? Isn't these Kg^-1 m^8 s^-2 units are representing energy better than these Kg m^2 s^-2 units?
Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything
No. It would be a good idea to learn classical electrodynamics and quantum field theory to understand how relativistic quantum systems can and are described in a mathematically consistent way.
Stam Nicolis, I think, the Mass in mc^2 is not a quantum mass.
It doesn't matter.
If the theory is invariant under Lorentz transformations, the mass of any particle can receive corrections from quantum effects, that describe the interaction of the particle of that mass with other particles, beyond the effects of the classical equations of motion. At any given approximation in which these corrections are calculated, mc^2 is invariant under Lorentz transformations. Quantum effects remain consistent with global Lorentz invariance. The mass of any particle is as Lorentz invariant as the speed of light in vacuum.
For particles, whose mass is constrained by certain symmetries, such as the photon and the gluons, their mass, which is zero at the classical level, due to gauge invariance, remains zero due to the property that invariance under gauge transformations can be imposed in a way that's consistent with how quantum effects are taken into account; so quantum effects don't give rise to a mass for the photon or the gluons.
Stam Nicolis, Vector Space is not the real space. The energy/mass density in space is the bottom layer of quantum nature. This equation E = m(c^2/(Mps/ℓp^3)^2) contains the dimensions/units in the real space too. If there are kg^-1 m^8 s^-2 units in a unit of energy, then there are 11 dimensions (kg^-1 m^8 s^-2: 1+8+2 = 11) in a quantum unit of energy.
The energy/mass in elementary particles/waves is related to their frequency. Perhaps, the mass represents a complex quantum process in frequency. The wave function in the Schrödinger equation is a complex (unexplained) function. And quantum field theory uses complex/imaginary numbers (Eg: √2) to get real solutions. So possibly the most fundamental (super quantum) nature of frequency/energy is based on sets of linear dimensions (linear kg, m, s units).
7th Feb, 2022
Dimensions don't have anything to do with units. It's possible to measure mass in any units (whether in kilograms or Planck units doesn't matter); the mass is an invariant quantity under global Lorentz transformations. We're talking about spacetime, where particles move and fields evolve.
That energy, under certain circumstances, can only take discrete, not continuous, values is a totally different matter. If one has a finite number of particles, labeled by their rest mass, then mc2 takes a finite number of values. However when these particles move in spacetime, their energy is given by the expression E2=|p|2c2+(mc2)2 and the momentum and, thus, the energy, can take continuous values-indeed if it can't then Lorentz invariance isn't globally defined, since energy and momentum depend on the reference frame and Lorentz transformations are continuous transformations.
Energy-and frequency-isn't a Lorentz invariant quantity. The relation E = mc2 holds in a very particular reference frame. In any other frame, E2-|p|2c2 is the Lorentz invariant quantity, that defines the mass of the particle in any inertial frame-and if this combination vanishes, the particle is massless.
These statements hold whether quantum effects are taken into account, or not.
In the presence of external effects-such as potentials or boundary conditions-it can occur that quantum effects can change the allowed values for the energy and momentum. The most striking example is that of the hydrogen atom, where, classically, the electron can't remain bound to the proton due to electromagnetic radiation that, when quantum effects are taken into account, isn't present. The reason was found by W. Pauli in 1926 and fully explained by V. A. Fock in 1935.
Stam Nicolis, I'm not talking about modern quantum physics. Spacetime is not vectors. There is a mass density (quantum form) in vacuum space. Energy is not only based on the fake space called Vector/Hilbert Space. E^2=|p|^2c^2+(mc^2)^2 equation doesn't work with mass. It only works with massless particles like photons as E=|p|c. So it is not a good equation too. Making another error to fix an error is not a good/intelligent thing. Changing the reference frame and equation is not a good way to justify the problems in those equations. E=mc^2 is not completely wrong, but it is not completely correct too. The unit called Kilogram (Kg) is not a single thing/dimension like distance (m) and time (s). So, If we want to make it a quantum unit, we need an equation to make it a single (linear) dimension. Everything interacts on dimensions of moments (directional moments), whether you accept it or not. I guess you can't understand it using popular quantum mechanics.
I have explained fundamental/original quantum mechanics in my research book:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything
8th Feb, 2022
No, vacuum is zero energy density (since particles can be massless and can carry energy, it's energy density, not mass density that's relevant), therefore, no particles-this is unique, when invariance under Lorentz transformations can be globally defined and isn't when they can't, i.e. in curved spacetime (in which case the vacuum isn't uniquely defined and therefore can be observer dependent). Energy doesn't have anything to do, as such, with Hilbert space, which is the space of states of a quantum system. Energy describes the property of physical systems to be invariant under time translations-i.e. in spacetime.
The equation E2=|p|2c2+(mc2)2 contains a parameter, m. It ``works'' whatever the value of m, precisely because it can be proved that the combination E2=|p|2c2 is invariant under global Lorentz transformations and this invariance is relevant for our world. It is this property that allows the definition of mass as a quantity independent of the reference frame and implies that a massless particle in one inertial frame is massless in any other inertial frame.
In the particular frame where p=0, E=mc2 and this frame exists only for massive particles.
All this is the material of physics courses, all over the world, isn't new and, since it doesn't involve Planck's constant, doesn't have anything to do with quantum mechanics. What is interesting is that when quantum effects become relevant, it is possible to describe relativistic effects and quantum effects in a compatible way.
Quantum effects are those where Planck's constant appears and it's not possible to ``make it'' from other constants-it's a new constant, that describes our world. Classical physics corresponds to the limiting case in which angular momenta, or the product of energy and time or the product of momenta and position and so on, that all have the dimensions of Planck's constant, take values much greater than Planck's constant. When combinations that have the dimensions of Planck's constant take values comparable to Planck's constant, quantum effects can't be neglected and classical effects don't make sense. Since Planck's constant is dimensionful, it's possible to choose units such that it takes the value equal to 2π (i.e. hbar=h/(2π)=1). This simplifies many expressions.
This isn't new, either.
8th Feb, 2022
Stam Nicolis, E=pc can be applied to particles that DON'T have a rest mass. The standard equation for Kinetic Energy is 'K. E = 1/2 m v^2'. It's NOT E=pc. The Mass disappears in E=pc. The Momentum (p) is related to the Mass. Changing Mass (m) into Momentum (p) shouldn't cause to disappear Mass if the way those equations use Kilogram (Kg) is fundamental. So, the Kg unit in the units of energy (Kg m^2 s^-2) doesn't represent the fundamentally related units of energy. If we count the mass/energy density in the vacuum space, these units Kg^-1 m^8 s^-2 for energy (E) are more fundamental than that.
Thanks for your replies. I don't like to repeat the same arguments. And I'm currently busy with some personal work, and I can't spend more time explaining more about it in detail, like trying to explain something to a baby. So, bye for now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Dilation Explained in 6 Minutes
Suresh Wanayalae:
Relative time/gap could emerge from a moment in the universe. If everything is a moment and moments increase with the expansion of the universe, then multi-dimensional moments can make time relatively. Also, classical physics could emerge like that. Fundamental binary physics must be a process of a moment that makes the universe using a collection of it. There must be only 1 moment between the plus and minus infinities of the universe that comes from the nothingness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Wanayalae added a new photo to the album: Existence of the Universe and Life.
Verifying the Origin of Everything with Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism: (ගණිතමය බයිනරි භෞතික විද්යාව සහ බුදු දහම මගින් සෑම දෙයකම ආරම්භය තහවුරු කිරීම) https://www.researchpublish.com/pdfviewer/Verifying%20the%20Origin-22022022-2.pdf
Suresh Wanayalae, 5 days ago
The speed of light depends on the density of space. So the energy (E) is not equal only to mc^2. It should be mc^2/(density of space in the Planck volume)^2. It changes the units of energy. The unit called Joule Is not energy. Volt is energy, but there is an unknown unit called Ampere (A). There is a way to find the actual units in Ampere. That is how the theory of everything works.
Erwin Müller:
Speed of light is not c. c is the natural constant of mass/energy equivalence and space bending and time dilation. The unit of energy is very much Joule. Volt is not energy, it is the difference of energy between two points. And ampere is how much charge is flowing in one second through a wire.
For example, a charged battery have 9 V. That means that between the + and - end of the battery there is a difference of energy of 9 V. On the - end there are too many electrons and they want to flow to the + end. But if on both ends there are an equal amount of electrons than between those ends there is 0 V. Volts is a difference of the amount of charges.
Ampere is simply put how many charges flow between those two ends. Bigger wires allow for more charges to flow, increasing the amperes, longer wires have greater resistance, decreasing how many charges can flow, reducing ampere.
And Joule: "The joule (/dʒuːl/ ;[1][2][3] symbol: J) is a derived unit of energy in the International System of Units. It is equal to the amount of work done when a force of 1 Newton displaces a body through a distance of 1 metre in the direction of the force applied. It is also the energy dissipated as heat when an electric current of one ampere passes through a resistance of one ohm for one second."
We have other units of energy. Ws or kWh is used for electric energy. Nm for mechanical energy.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Erwin Müller, Energy is the work done. So it is a change, not a consistent entity like joule. The work done between a distance is energy, so Volt represents energy more than Joule. And joule is like Potential energy, not active energy.
Erwin Müller:
@Suresh Wanayalae There is no difference between "active" and potential energy. Energy by definition is the capacity of a system to do work. To do work you need energy. Work and energy are two different physical concepts.
For example, a charged battery have the capacity to move a motor and this capacity is what we call energy. This energy is measured in Joule. The charged battery isn't doing any work without a motor (or lamp or anything else).
Likewise, without a wire connecting the + and - of the battery there is no flow of charges and no voltage. The battery still have energy, but there is no voltage.
And what about other forms of energy, like potential gravitational energy? There ain't no charges there, so no voltage. Thermal energy? Kinetic energy? No charges, no voltage.
Suresh Wanayalae:
@Erwin Müller, If an object is traveling, then its Kinetic energy should depend on the density of space. So, using these Kg.m^2.s^-2 units for Kinetic energy work is wrong. In that case, The work of Kinetic energy is related to the gaps of space. Energy output is work that does something, taking time or distance. I don't like to argue about that more. There are hidden dimensions that emerged dimensions are depending on.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the early universe inflate?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NgXinZhao:
The list of mental factors in Abhidhamma is just a rough guide.
Verifying the Origin of Everything with Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism (Abhidhamma)
I used this mathematical formula to calculate the density of nothings: (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2
Nothings between the 6 directions: (+0-0)^6 = (+1-(-1))^3 x (+0.0-0.0)^3
And then, it makes 8 formations of dimensions from this: (+1-(-1))^3
= (+1)^3-((+1)^3x(-1)-(-1)^2x (+1)^2)+(-1)^2x(+1)-((+1)^2x(-1)-((+1)^2x(-1)^2-(-1)^3x(+1))+(-1)^3)
Seemingly, there are these four fundamental/great elements:
((+1)^3 - ((+1)^3 x (-1)^1 - (-1)^2 x (+1)^2) + (-1)^2 x (+1)^1)
I would like to call the first 8 combinations of dimensions ‘Pure Eight Ghosts’ (like the ‘Suddhāṭṭhaka’ explained in ‘Abhidhamma Piṭaka’ in the Theravada Buddhist tradition). I found a lot of details about paramount (‘Paramārtha’) facts in nature from Buddhism. And they are similar to the results in the calculation of dimensional interactions. So those details were surprisingly a kind of verification of the results.
E.g.:
i. “The 4 Great/Fundamental units of Forms/Ghosts (Pali: ‘Catu Mahā Bhūta’).”
ii. “The Pure Eight (‘Suddhāṭṭhaka’).”
iii. “28 Material Forms/Phenomena (‘Rūpa’).”
iv. “52 Mental Factors (‘Chetasika’).”
v. “The 4 Innumerable Aeons (the 4 ‘Asaṃkhyeya Kalpas’) in The Great Aeon (‘Mahā-Kalpa’).”
vi. “The Lifetime of a ‘Matter Area’ (‘Rūpa-Kalāpa’) is equal to 17 Mind/Heart-mind (‘Chitta’) moments/conscious-moments (‘Cittakkhaṇas’), or 51 short instants (17×3 = 51); as there are 3 short instants in a moment of mind (‘Chitta’).”
According to Abhidhamma teachings in Buddhism, there are 8 fundamental elementary ghosts (invisible elements) called Pure Eight (Pali: Suddhāṭṭhaka/ Sinhala: Shuddāshtaka), including 4 great fundamental ‘invisible elements’ (ghosts) and 4 elements with character/‘Gati’ of them. Just like that, we can see 8 elementary particles as two groups of particles in the ‘Standard Model of Elementary Particles’ (UP Quark, Down Quark, Electron, Electron Neutrino, and Gluon, Photon, Z Boson, W Boson) including the 4 force-carrying particles in the atoms. Indeed, those 8 elementary particles could emerge from those Pure Eight elements as two different groups of elementary particles.!
According to Abhidhamma, the mind continues (itself is) a paramount moment called the Chitta/mind moment (Cittakkhaṇa). It has three moments called arising, existing, and dissolving moments. Chitta continues processing sensations between 17 moments called Citta Vīthi/series. A Matter Zone (Rūpa-Kalāpa) has 17 Chitta moments too.
Assumptions And Approximations
The Standard Model has 9 unique and fundamental particles (Higgs particle, 4 Fermions, 4 Bosons). But experiments show 19 extra parameters that need to be applied for the theory by hand (E.g., adding masses, charges, etc.). Likely, there are around 19 particles hidden between the 9 elementary particles. E.g., 9+19=28. And that seems like the 28 or 24(+4) material forms mentioned in Buddhism.
According to Buddhism, there are four paramount natures in the universe called ‘Paramārtha Dharma.’ Those four (4) ultimate realities are known as Rupa (4 great material forms + 24 material forms, or 28 in number), Chaitasika (52), Chitta, and Nibbana (timeless state). There are 8 fundamental formations called Pure Eight, including the 4 great fundamental forms (ghosts/Bhūta). According to the dimensional calculation, visibly, there are 4 fundamental dimensional sets (elements) and 48 more dimensional sets (8×6) as 24 pairs (8×3) on the same dimensional structure in every 2 sets in Area 1 of the structure. It appears that those sets are like electric moments and magnetic moments. But possibly a polarization (extremes in a wave function) could break that symmetry while emerging as matter and force particles. In that sense, surprisingly, there are 28 material formations in the dimensional structures too.
Reference:
Verifying The Origin Of Everything: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356670047_Verifying_The_Origin_Of_Everything
This expansion makes no sense.
Say (a-b)^3=(a-b)(a^2-2ab+b^2)
=(a^3-3a^2 b+3ab^2 -b^3)
Replace a=1, b=-1 and check with your expansion above.
We only get (+1)^3-3(+1)^2(-1)+3(+1)(-1)^2-(-1)^3.
Your middle terms are wrong, and you’re missing the correct middle terms.
Anyway, let’s evaluate the numerical value, of (1-(-1))^3=8, which is also the value of the expansion I had done. 1+3+3+1.
Your expression evaluates to: (+1)^3-((+1)^3x(-1)-(-1)^2x (+1)^2)+(-1)^2x(+1)-((+1)^2x(-1)-((+1)^2x(-1)^2-(-1)^3x(+1))+(-1)^3)
=1-(-2)+(1)-(-1-(2))+(-1)= 6 ah, so close, but too bad, wrong answer.
Given this, it’s not really worth it to read the rest of your paper.
And it’s super cringe to see your numerology reason for 28 above. You might want to revise the 28 matter in abhidhamma. How can the male and female element be somehow fundamental at the subatomic level? It’s at most the X,Y chromosomes of DNA.
And also, do expect that the standard model will change. It’s super cringe.
NgXinZhao:The list of mental factors in Abhidhamma is just a rough guide.
There are 96 sets of dimensions as 48 pairs in the structures, depending on the first four formations. Just like the 24+4 = 28, Likely, there are fundamental causes for the mental factors as 48+4 = 5. I didn’t make those dimensional sets to compare them with Buddhism. I didn’t know those Paramartha Dhamma when I made those calculations. Surprisingly, the results in the calculation are compatible with the Paramartha Dhamma. And that is why I used them to verify my calculations. Those Binary Physics does not belong to the constructed mathematical rules in common maths. They are the ultimate mathematical rules in the universe. So it is better to show a difference between them using different mathematical terms (Eg: using x instead of *). Please don’t make childish arguments. I was not talking about modern physics. Your bachelor’s degree in physics doesn’t help to verify that calculation. You should know about Quantum Mechanics, differential equations, and multi-dimensions (according to String Theory there are 11 dimensions)to understand them. It is about finding the theory of everything. Please don’t think that your knowledge is enough to understand it.
That Binary Physics project challenges your knowledge about quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, gravity, astronomy, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Elementary Particles, forces, etc. If you can’t understand it, do you really think that you are a good thinker who can think outside the box to verify the reality of something?
According to Buddhism, there is a ratio of destructions in the universe: 56:7:1 as ((7+1)×7):7:1 which is triggered or caused by 3 great elements called Heat, Water*, and Air. *In Abhidhamma, Water is a great element with Liquid nature.
Trying to hide educational resources that provide different knowledge is not a good way to make discussions between each other in order to come to a better conclusion. You should be brave enough to discuss with others and challenge them too.
The Pure Eight (Pali: Suddhāṭṭhaka) in Buddhism
According to Buddhism Suddhāṭṭhaka (“suddha” for “pure” or fundamental” + “āṭṭha” or “eight”) means a unit of matter consisting of eight fundamental entities. Four of these are the “Satara mahā bhūta“ (The Four Great Bhūta. Bhūta is another name for “ghost” because of their elusive nature.): Pathavi (Solid/Earth), āpo (Liquid/Water), tejo (Heat/Fire), vāyo (Gas/Air). These are indeed the most fundamental units of matter, but they cannot be detected by themselves. The four mahā bhūta (‘Matter’) are with four basic “gati” (‘Character of Matter’/ ‘Force’/ Antimatter): Pathavi gati (hard/coarse), āpo gati (bound/attracted/liquidity), tejo gati (fiery or energetic), vāyo gati (motion). Thus, in Buddha Dhamma, it says, “gati (character) attracts a similar gati”.
The origin of the smallest unit of matter, called a “suddhāṭṭhaka.” (sometimes written as suddhāshtaka). When enormous numbers of these suddhāṭṭhaka fuses, they get to a more condensed state of “mahā bhūta.” The subtle bodies of Brahmā and some gandhabbā are made of mahā bhūta. Only when vast amounts of these mahā bhūta fuses together to become even more condensed, that we can see them. In this highly condensed state, the matter is called “dhātu.” Bodies of devas are made of finer dhātu. That is why we cannot see devas, but Brahmā can see them. Thus our bodies are made of more dense dhātu that we can see. That is why solid objects are called “Pathavi dhātu“; suddhāṭṭhaka in such solid objects have predominantly Pathavi.
According to Buddhism, there are 4 elementary ghosts in the Universe called ‘Character of the Great (Matter) Ghosts’ (Pali word: ‘Gati’ of the Maha Bhūta) which created the 4 matter elementary ghosts in the Universe called ‘Mahā Bhūta’ (The Four ‘Great Ghosts’). And traditionally it says, the Gati (character) attracts a similar Gati too. There is a relationship of the mind with a kind of immaterial ghosts (‘Gati’), and that ‘Gati’ caused the ‘Mahā Bhūta’) (So, it sounds like the mind (the process of the ‘Gati’) can make ‘Mahā Bhūta’ (matter) too.). And mathematically, there are 4 elementary ghosts under or outside the first 4 elementary ghosts, like this:
The first 4 elementary ghosts x (The next 4 elementary ghosts)
OR
The next 4 elementary ghosts x (The first 4 elementary ghosts)
(+1-(-1))^3 =
Heat…: + (+1)^3
Solid…: - ((+1)^3 x (-1)
Liquid.: - ((-1)^2 x (+1)^2))
Gas…: + (-1)^2 x (+1)
- (
- (+1)^2 x (-1)
- ((+1)^2 x (-1)^2
- ((-1)^3 x (+1)))
- (-1)^3)
))
Read more (Next Page): https://arguments-on-buddhism.blogspot.com/p/the-origin-of-everything-cetasika-rupa.html
No comments:
Post a Comment