AI and Physics: Neutrinos
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The recent development of AI presents challenges, but also great opportunities. In this series I will discuss possible AI applications:
One important field to fix is neutrino physics...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
There's much evidence for something you can call "neutrinos", both direct and indirect, though not necessarily all the details.
1. Conservation of angular momentum. Neutron =1/2. Proton+electron+(n) photons all add to a whole number.
2. Detected burst from supernova 1987a
3. Sending message via neutrinos (albeit at low bandwidth) from nuclear reactor to underground neutrino detector.
BTW, allegedly ~3% of the energy of a fission reaction is carried away by neutrinos. So for a 1GW reactor that's 30 MW!!!!! If that was EMR all the staff nearby would be immediately cooked to a crisp!
A voice of reason in a desert of ignorance. Thank you!
@@obiwanduglobi6359 So what he said was that nuclear reactions release particles that don't interact with matter but we can use detectors made of matter to detect them. Well if they don't often interact with matter prove they exist more often. Right, you have math theory more exists. Good for you. Theory is a presumption, detection is evidence. For very high energy particles, that means they have very short wavelengths and therefore they are much more likely to interact with matter. Only very long wavelength, low energy particles could evade collision with most matter. It not expected that particle type would appear in nuclear reactions.
@@donaldkasper8346 Neutrinos rarely interact with matter, but due to their enormous quantity, we can still detect them using large-volume detectors like those filled with water or ice, capturing the rare instances of interaction. The existence of neutrinos, initially hypothesized by Wolfgang Pauli to account for missing energy in beta decay, has been confirmed by empirical evidence, notably through detection efforts by Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines. Contrary to common misunderstandings, neutrinos' ability to pass through matter is less about their energy and more about the weak nuclear force, which governs their interactions differently than other particles. High-energy neutrinos, while elusive, are slightly more likely to be detected due to their marginally higher interaction rate. Produced in nuclear reactions such as those in the sun or nuclear reactors, neutrinos vary in type and energy, reflecting the processes that create them. This evidence underscores the balance between theoretical foundations and empirical validation in understanding neutrinos.
We definetly should to repeat all those experiments. But we don't have AI for the physics, only large ML was built pretty successful, and it's not for fundamental sciences at all.
I would have loved to have been that grad student coming up with that paper. "Hey professor, I found a new particle". "Wow, cool kid, where is your data?" "Data? There is no data. It doesn't interact with matter. But I have this set of really cool equations that proves its existence". "Wow, how impressive. Publish your results". "There are no results, professor".
Again I answer this fully in my model. Neutrinos are just radiation, but specific radiation from the neutron's dimensional zone. This is the key reason is that they are different from gamma rays which reference the nucleus structure and different dimensions. This explains the "Particle" trace as it is detected in these tanks - it is not a particle but the radiation referencing the electron orbitals of several atoms in a row. As a side note my model also explains why x-rays are not absorbed by lower elements in the periodic table. it is everything to do with how the nucleus is constructed.
Again, Alexander please get in touch - my model answers many, if not all your questions you keep positing on your channel.
Thank you
Please feel free to check out this post - dconstructionmodel.wordpress.com/2024/03/08/four-major-mysteries-of-physics-solved-including-the-duality-of-light/
@@graemenicholls2836 Out of curiosity, I checked your "Theory" with AI (GPT4). The result seems to be quite interesting:
"The text presents the "D Construction model" which allegedly solves major mysteries of physics like the nature of time, matter, energy, and light. However, it falls short scientifically and philosophically for several reasons:
1. **Definition of Time**: The model's definition of time as "the movement between two (or more) dimensional objects in a higher spatial dimension" lacks clarity and fails to align with established physical theories. Time in physics, especially in Einstein's theory of relativity, is treated as a dimension intertwined with the three spatial dimensions, forming a four-dimensional spacetime fabric. This is not merely a conceptual model but one backed by experimental evidence and mathematical rigor.
2. **Explanation of Matter and Energy**: The descriptions provided for matter and energy are vague and not grounded in established physics. The concept of "GeNions" and "dimensional interactions" is not recognized in any scientific community. Real scientific explanations, like those in quantum mechanics and general relativity, provide predictive power and have been validated through experiments.
3. **Particle-Wave Duality**: The text misunderstands the dual nature of light. The particle-wave duality is a well-established concept in quantum mechanics, describing the inherent properties of photons and other quantum entities. This duality is not a paradox but a fundamental characteristic observed through rigorous experimentation.
In conclusion, while imaginative, the D Construction model as described lacks empirical evidence, contradicts well-established physical laws, and offers explanations that do not enhance our understanding of the universe. True scientific models require validation through experimentation, mathematical formulation, and consistency with the laws of nature.
Giving something another name does not make it non matter. Fields are matter. Radiation is matter. Photons are matter.
you are not mistaken. neutrinos, even though they are real, like real something, they are not particles, they are particle spread. not in the sense of scattering particles, but in the sense that one particle spreads itself in certain ways. neutrinos are not real particles. as long as they exist, so to speak, they are still parts of other real particles. that is what i call particle spread, or particle spreads.
Fantasy physics.
Great science fiction though.
What might be the alternate interpretations for conservation of neutron spin? They're obviously not bosonic, yet ½ + ½ = 1, implying neutrons must maintain two discrete axes, effectively making them binary rather than singular particles..?
Firstly, the conservation of neutron spin doesn't directly imply that neutrons must maintain two discrete axes or that they are binary rather than singular particles. In quantum mechanics, the spin of a particle like the neutron is a fundamental property, akin to its mass or electric charge, though it doesn't correspond directly to classical notions of spinning objects.
Neutrons are fermions, not bosons, because they have half-integer spin values (specifically, a spin of ½ħ, where ħ is the reduced Planck constant). This property subjects them to the Pauli exclusion principle, distinguishing their behavior significantly from bosons, which have integer spins and do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle.
When we say ½ + ½ = 1, in the context of adding angular momenta (or spins) in quantum mechanics, we're usually discussing the combination of spins or angular momenta from two different particles or systems, not from within a singular particle like a neutron. This process involves quantum mechanical addition of angular momentum, which is more complex than simple arithmetic addition and includes considerations of how different quantum states combine and interfere.
The idea that neutrons must maintain two discrete axes might be a misunderstanding. In quantum mechanics, particles like neutrons exhibit quantum superposition, meaning they can exist in all possible spin states simultaneously until measured. The concept of discrete axes is more related to the measurement process, where the spin of the neutron is quantized in the direction of measurement. This doesn't mean the neutron inherently maintains two discrete axes in the absence of measurement.
Spin is NOT a scalar quantity. Rather, it is a VECTOR quantity. The former leads to neutrino and issues with NIST data. The latter leads to no neutrinos and no issues with NIST data.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Dude a neutron is a proton and electron, spin-half fermions with a sum of 0 or 1 depending on the signs, yet the neutron, paradoxically, remains a fermion having spin-half. *_This_** was the original reason for the inception of the neutrino* - it was assumed that in order to conserve net spin, the neutron must contain _some other,_ additional fermion donating that extra half-spin, even if that meant it must also have negligible mass and charge (or at least both being too small to be measurable).. Hence the first introduction of the tau neutrino - a new particle inferred to possess infinitesimal mass and charge, but resulting in a neutron with three components not just the proton and electron; to make a neutron requires a tau absorption, which must be re-emitted when the free neutron decays.
Hence if we're to entertain Unzicker's proposition then our first open question demands an explanation of how neutrons remain fermionic: why does it appear to have spin-half when the sum of its component proton and electron spins can only be 0 or 1? If neutrinos are a fundamental misstep then our first priority is explaining conservation of spin in neutron formation and decay, the role for which neutrinos were initially proposed; if neutrinos don't exist then why isn't the neutron a boson? How can ±½ + ±½ = ½?
@@joonasmakinen4807 H2 (deuterium) is a boson, because a proton and a neutron are both fermions, so they have an integer-spin sum. A particle comprised of a proton and electron should likewise thus be bosonic, yet the neutron still behaves as a fermion. Spin can be vector or spinor / bi-spinor, but half plus half is either one or zero..
@@MrVibrating As I already told you: The equation "±½ + ±½ = ½" doesn't follow conventional arithmetic because it pertains to quantum spin, where the rules for combining spins are different from simple addition. In quantum mechanics, when combining two spins, we consider all possible alignments of the spins, leading to multiple possible outcomes.
For two spin-½ particles (like electrons, or the quarks inside a neutron), their spins can align either in the same direction (parallel) or in opposite directions (antiparallel). When the spins are parallel, the combined spin can be 1 (because ½ + ½ = 1). But when the spins are antiparallel, the combined spin can be 0 (because ½ - ½ = 0). These combinations lead to different quantum states.
However, the individual particles still retain their intrinsic spin of ±½; the combined spin does not change the intrinsic spin of the individual particles. The “½” in the question is the intrinsic spin of each particle, not the result of adding their spins together. The process of combining spins is a key part of quantum mechanics and underlies the complex behavior of quantum systems, including how particles like neutrons behave and interact.
First comment.. thank you for the videos!
Alex: You cannot have real physics without critics!
:
Fundamentally everything is one and all comes from a singularity the universe is a toroidal shape and on the other side of the singularity time flows in reverse proof of mathematical singularities in real life existence is inside of a convex or concave mirror or inside of a magnetic structure. For a Multiverse to be 100% factual all there has to be is a fourth spatial Dimension and a fourth spatial Dimension would present itself in the form of Mandela effects making infinite three-dimensional Universal potentiality can fit into any size four dimensional existence... I recently observed the boiling point of water switch to 212 degrees Fahrenheit which it used to be 200° f.
Your obervation regarding the boiling point of water could be explained by difference in air pressure. Did you recently move from the mountains to lower grounds?
There's always been 180 degrees between the freezing point of water (32 F) and the boiling point of water (212 f). 180 degrees is 1/2 of a circle, which is why the word "degrees" was used to measure temperature in the first place. So-called "degrees" is Metric aren't degrees at all. FTR, 0 F is the freezing point of salt water.
@@xxxYYZxxx At sea level: yes.
I don't believe in particle physics, I believe in real physics.
Believing stands in strong opposition to empirical sciences. But feel free...
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Well over the last 20 years I have 100% record for being right in opposition to science...Over 140 times.
Yes, we ought to build up real mechanics. You can deny all stupid particles except electron and positron by which all the matter is made of!
@@surendranmk5306 Well I don't even include those. Using my physics an electron is a quantum hole with gravity spinning inside it, and particles are just holes in gravity like bubbles are holes in water.
@@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591 Great to hear! Just in case: Writing and publishing a paper may bring you a Nobel Prize which is 1 Mio. USD afaik. I honestly wish you good luck!
Yeah, it would have been way better to leave open something we know poorly rather than imposing a messy hypothesis.
ask AI if English uses an alphabet, then have it define what an alphabet is, and ask it why it's contradicting itself. it won't even notice the problem.
neutrinos...ahahaha.. only a physicist cares about cookie crumbs
If all you had to eat was crumbs, you would choose then, to die? So why bother commenting in the first place? Ego? The electron neutrino has a most terrifying power; that it is superior above all others in hydraulic space which we know exists based on electron photography evidence that's been around since 1955 !!!
@@mikefromspace ;-) You do confuse observation and interpretation;-)
@@hollaadieewaldfeeeHere's what I see; a majority of the population tends to believe a thing. It does not mean that thing is true, and believing in it does not make it true. The act may in fact only prove the bulk of people have a mental defect, especially when the facts keep piling up against them while they repeat the use of the same dogma they've used for the past 100 years just as the definition of insanity revolves around repeating the same useless task and expecting a different result. Interpretation is a matter of perspective, and from my perspective it is more than obvious there has been no person or group on earth to explain the real reason behind the prime spiral to force map relationship. But that's just my opinion that 1+1=2. You may have you own theories and keep them to yourself or debate them, but don't simply make statements like that without backing them up with facts or you're only repeating the acts of an insane person the likes of which I find no end to on brainless youtube comments by everyone pretending to be experts.
I have over 27 years of predictive proofs in copyrights and www records, which to date, is the only thing which has ever provide anything close to true unification of the fields. You may quote any theory , article, paper, book, whatever, but the only force map we know of, matches the prime spiral so perfectly, that if you do not have something to explain why the prime spiral has a real relationship to those forces, then you are not providing useful commentary and are only attempting to boost your own ego.
I have yet to see the "intelligence"in AI algorithms.
It always seems to simply be a regurgitation of that which has been published, mindless regurgitation.
Exactly. We didn't built any of them yet.
AI does not reason. All data inputs have equal weight. Solving problems with incomplete and conflicting data is not possible. It has no intuition. It deals with simple language nouns and verbs when language online is often corrupted and poorly constructed text. The merit of comments based on stature of the author is not known. All knowledge is not online or published. The latest work is often confidential. For example, working at a chemical engineering company two decades ago, I was surprised to learn that chemical companies all have their own temperature for the melting point of copper. The concept of one number is one person's opinion of the value, but companies in the field of metal processing do not agree.
@@donaldkasper8346 well stated!
@@brynduffy All of our chemical constants have different values by all the major oil companies. That chemical engineering company applies the proprietary data set of each company in release builds to them when it puts out updates. The engineering company is just the basic management and application of all that such as efficient distillation algorithms. For example, I saw one major company build, which was quite different from the build for other major oil companies. These data sets were all held under confidentiality agreements. So how someone can blather off what neutrinos are or are not when basic things like melting points have no agreement is hard to understand. It also means the materials of construction of these socalled detectors don't have agreed upon properties in the first place. The situation is vastly more complex than Unzicker shows or likely understands. He could not know as that data is all confidential.
A.I. = "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" So far it's nothing more than a psyop.
Recently I posited a question to chatgpt. The question was:
"Due to the fact that neutrinos are created in nearly every nuclear reaction, and neutrinos rarely if ever interact with anything, why isn't the universe overflowing with neutrinos?"
Answer from chat GPT:
"While neutrinos are indeed produced in various nuclear reactions, they interact very weakly with matter. Most neutrinos pass through the universe without interacting, making them challenging to detect. The vast majority of neutrinos created in the universe continue to travel through space without significant interactions contributing to the difficulty in detecting their overwhelming presence."
So I would conclude that AI cannot reason this out logically. The reason is that the source of AI is based on a mountain of literature that supports opinions rather than evidence.
I'm with you 100% about taking a look at the data rather than the opinions. There is much to do and AI is a great tool.
Thanks
Here's the much better answer of the much better GPT4 to exactly this question:
"The universe actually is overflowing with neutrinos, but in a way that doesn't significantly affect us or the cosmos in an immediately visible way. Neutrinos are indeed produced in vast numbers by nuclear reactions in the sun, other stars, and during events like supernovae. They also were produced in huge quantities during the Big Bang.
The reason we don't typically notice neutrinos, despite their abundance, is precisely because they interact so weakly with other matter. A neutrino can pass through light-years of lead without being stopped. This weak interaction is why they don't significantly impact the structure or behavior of the universe in the way that, say, electromagnetic radiation or matter does.
However, the sheer number of neutrinos does mean that the universe is filled with them. Estimates suggest that hundreds of billions of neutrinos pass through every square centimeter of Earth's surface every second, mostly originating from the sun. But again, because they so rarely interact with matter, they pass through the Earth (and us) without leaving any noticeable effects.
This abundance isn't without scientific interest, though. Neutrinos can carry information about the processes that created them, like the nuclear reactions in the sun's core, which are otherwise hidden from us. Detecting and studying neutrinos can help scientists understand more about these processes and about fundamental physics. However, their weak interaction with matter makes neutrinos very challenging to detect, requiring sophisticated and large-scale experiments."
To answer your question, I'd add another explanation: Nuclear reactions are seen mostly in stellar objects. The neutrino density decreases with the squared distance to this object. Because the cosmic distances are huge, the neutrinos we get from other objects than the sun are neglibile. The stake we get alone from Alpha Centauri, our nearest star, is 0,0000001309% of our sun's neutrinos.
Isn't it possible for a neutrino to hit your eye and make small flash of light, at least in theory? For this to make sense, why it basically never happens, the chance of this must be so small that it will not happen, statistically, in a human lifetime, or billions and billions of human lifetimes. One must wonder how it was detected in the first place.
There are several problems with published literature. 1. The project data is 3 years old. 2. The best is just not published. 3. Counter opinions are thwarted by pal review. 4. The actual data is never shown so we cannot use it for ourselves for analysis or in other experiments.
Yes, it's currently a consensus engine with limited capacity for inductive or deductive reasoning, obviously an LLM alone is just a Chinese room, spoofing natural language as an abstraction layer for concepts and meanings it's oblivious to.. we're in that uncanny valley just the other side of the Turing test.. What Dave Chalmers dubbed 'zombie Dave' - intelligence, sans sentience. It' intricately related to the alignment problem, in turn the embodiment problem and ultimately the binding problem of general cognitive science. True artificial sentience - as opposed to just aping it - would entail AI that experienced things like the equivalence of octaves and thus a perception of harmonic consonance and dissonance, and rhythm induction, as well as multi-modal sensory feedback within a unitary resolving framework. Just at a conceptual level, a limbic system needs to be built upon a cerebellum consolidating all afferent and efferent data, and you need to emulate the myriad corticothalmic feedback and feed-foward loops applying temporal expansion and compression to induce something akin to a conscious state. This is decades away, at best - the hard problem - not something you can wing by pattern-matching..
@@MrVibrating AI is not aware of the real science, what is unpublished. It cannot reason to make discovery. It does not innovate. It does not apply technology in different domains. It is more and more fast computer chips regurgitating more spew, faster. Lastly, it deals with facts assembly, not analysis of the approach to problem solving. It applies rules it is told, it does not make rules. So, it is dodoisms run really fast. It cannot make judgement calls. It cannot discount some information as speculative or bogus or untrue. All facts have equal weight, so it would appear to produce self made logical fallacies regularly.
I wouldn't trust AI anymore than I'd trust the corrupted peer review system and academia in general. The greed of the world has taken it to the point of having to review it all over again. Trust and integrity is everything to science.
The latest science is not published and most data is proprietary. Very little is in the public domain.
I doubt AI is needed the problem is that all the data is not in the same place and freely accessible. Us normal intelligence meat-bags could have a go. AI is just neural nets and modeling software. Its always limited by the programmers knowledge and biased by their selection of weights. What do you reward the AI for doing? The choice of rewards decides the out comes.
Thank you Alexander! I too am hopeful and optimistic AI will analyze without human bias and come to new fundamental understanding. Huge fan, thanks for your work
i called standard model "Epicycles" 10 years ago!
That made you probably stupid 20 years ago!
It’s good to hear someone challenge the existence of, though it be a dangerous heresy; the arbitrary, yet orthodox, superstitious, religious belief in the divine, immaculately conceived, miraculous, impossible to empirically verify, Paraclete like, supernatural, neutrino. Amen.
“We have verified your results completely. It seems to me now that there can be absolutely no doubt that you were completely correct in assuming that beta radiations are primarily inhomogenous. But I do not understand this result at all.” Lisa Meitner to Charles Ellis. 20.07.1929.
Lisa confirms the difference between the measurement, 0.35 MeV, and the calculation, 1.05 MeV, of 0.7 MeV energy release during radium decay. But even she does not doubt the validity of the SRT equations; which are unscientific nonsense anyway! And in a flash, a new particle is postulated: The “neutrino”, which should somehow carry away this 0.7 MeV;-)
And the Lord said "Whence comest thou?" Saint Neutrino answered "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."
If the majority of scientists still believe the Earth was flat AI I would say the Earth is flat. There is no intelligence here. You would first have to define the mathematics and physics parameters that are used. You would have to teach it the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply. Another word you'd have to send it back to physics and Mathematics 101 otherwise you would have classic "garbage in garbage out". What AI knows about this subject is from cosmetologist and theoretical physicist.
Llm (actual ai) are very good searching and finding patterns , thats one way the data can be analise again , of course thats dont means its "correct" in the same way there are imagin systemes that analyses lung radiography and tell yuo if there is a problem, yuo always need a human to recheck the results
The patterns that AI is searching for are set up by cosmetologist and theoretical physicist. I've done some AI searches on physics. What is suggest is; the physics you've been teaching is wrong. Who do I believe AI or you?@@noway8233
Doesn't it bother you this isn't a BIG point in EVERY conversation because people are just trying to sell you something? I pray for those who don't know how to sift through information. At the end of the day NOTHING is as good as hitting the books, alone, and in silence. Unreplaceable and unreplicable. And if you're not a REAL NERD, I don't want to hear you. Bye-bye!
You are basically correct, but what's your message? That all modern sciences are garbage?
james, I'm building an ai model for this task. Completely new approach, from scratch. Where can i talk to you? Are you available on twitter or instagram?
There are about 10^{22} stars in the universe with an average neutrino flux of 10^{50} neutrinos/second/star. Assume that production is constant for the last 14 billion years = 4.42 \times 10^{17} sec. With no neutrino sinks, 4.42 \times 10^{89} neutrinos presently exist in the universe. Assume each has energy of one Mev=1 amu= 1.66 \times 10^{-27} kg/amu. (take it as one ev if you like), then the present mass of neutrinos in the Universe is
7.3 \times 10^{59} tons. This is considerably more than the present estimated mass of the Univers,e which is about 2 \times 10^{49} tons. Either neutrinos have sinks, or they do not exist.
If Neutrinos do not interact with any matter,and keep travelling at the speed of light,they would travel outside any boundary of the Universe,if it had one,and keep travelling,creating new space??Or do they bounce off any boundary,and continue to bounce like billiard balls within the Universe.Live long and prosper.😊
Neutrino was postulated by Pauli to account for the observed momentum conservation violation in the beta decay. But wait a minute, the law of conservation of momentum is just a consequence of the Newton's third law, to which nuclear interactions are not necessarily bound to. Even Newton's first law doesn't hold for an electron, given the way it moves across a double slit. Something more fundamental is certainly at play.
"Raw Data". That would be nice but probably not. The published and tenured crowd might see that as a threat to their incomes and fame which is far more important than SCIENCE. "CLOVIS FIRST" I say again!
the lack of resolution to fundamental issues says what we are back to Epicycles but there are too many careers involved and too much institutional investment for change to happen
What is a neutrino and why is it not a photon.
Because photons interact with matter, neutrinos ususally don't. Photons collide with matter and are absorbed or reflected, neutrinos travel right through it without doing anything.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Until you remember wavelength matters. Then your explanation goes up in smoke.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Matter that does not interact with matter is not logical. No detector could see it.
@@walterbrownstone8017 High energy, short wavelength would presume high interaction with matter. It would seem to take exceptionally low energy, long wavelength behavior to evade interacting with most matter.
@@donaldkasper8346 Folks, I gave a simple answer to a simple question. If you want to make it more complicated, just go for it.
I say Python has the potential to replace and integrate other languages . Dunamic and object oriented everywhere.
Aether : Graviton neutrino, Electrino neutrino, small Electron neutrino ... Physical matter : Electron neutron, Muon electron neutron, Tau electron neutron. Neutrinos are a part of the Aether - thus part of the (said) Dark Matter universe of energies, forces, and particulates.
“We have verified your results completely. It seems to me now that there can be absolutely no doubt that you were completely correct in assuming that beta radiations are primarily inhomogenous. But I do not understand this result at all.” Lisa Meitner to Charles Ellis. 20.07.1929.
Lisa confirms the difference between the measurement, 0.35 MeV, and the calculation, 1.05 MeV, of 0.7 MeV energy release during radium decay. But even she does not doubt the validity of the SRT equations; which are unscientific nonsense anyway! And in a flash, a new particle is postulated: The “neutrino”, which should somehow carry away this 0.7 MeV;-)
@@JoeDeglman Actually, point by point, the stellar engine has a solid dense supercompacted (superconductor) core of gravitons (creating its mass and gravity). Stars are not gaseous cores and stellar collapse etc. Surrounding this is the gas-liquid-metallic hydrogen. In this area is also the fusion region of gas-liquid (-metallic ?) helium. It is the photosphere with the tensor bosons as force carriers that Hydrogen is fused into Helium to Iron) via Aether paritculates mentioned above. The chromosphere is the physical matter particles of electrons and positrons etc (mentioned above) that fuse Cobalt to Element 118.
When you see the actual ES and EG model your mention of dense packed aether particulates (and bosinos) and physical particles (and bosons) you validate my findings and research.
It is the Aether where the whole Grand Unified Field Theory happens, and the same between the photosphere and the chromosphere of the sun/star. Electrrical force, gravity force, weak nuclear (ES), strong nuclear (EG), ... don't say electro-magnetism as magnetism related to wires. If anything electro-magnetism relates to the tensor boson force carriers of both forces in alternating current, that are the Birkelund currents as micro and macro energy levels of existence. When you understand the proper tension of the aether and physical universe, you can understand the stellar engine tension of the photosphere and chromosphere making fusion.
At the graviton level all it united as the graviton - and graviton + are separate, while the graviton neutrino = graviton tensor bosnino = graviton photino. Only at the higher level of their compositions, does the electrical force separate from the gravity force. Electro-static and electro-gtravitic particulates (and the higher ES and EG particles) separate the weak and strong nuclear forces. Seeing this, you find all the answers for the accurate model of all things.
@@JoeDeglman As mentioned in the vid, the existence (or appearance) of an implied dipole property is an accurate observation. But it is more accurately shown in the ES and EG models of all these particulates and particles - when you SEE the actual composition of these objects and how they are composed. Electro-static particulate and particles (lets use electron) has 3 electrino compositions (like a triangle). There is an internal positrino composition holding this ES object together. As Electro-gravitic particle has a PURE graviton composition, with higher gravitational force. It appears like a quark diagram of their quarks and gluons, where the gluons can be 3 separate units holding the other particles together, or as an internal holding force with the 3 quarks orbiting this core. So yes, dipolarity is in both ES and EG model particulates and particles.
The only operations of fusion happen with the tensor bosino particulates (or the higher tensor boson particles. These are the compositions of electrinos/positrinos and electrons/positrons. And tensor bosons (with 0 integers - showing they have to have - 1/2 spin and + 1/2 spin, must have their dipolar particulates and particles in that object.
It is the ES-ES neutrino or neutron that has both ES electrino/electron matched with its ES positrino/positron counterpart, making a neutrino/neutron. There is no gravitons (per se) in the core, and looking like a Magen David (Seal of Solomon) Star of David, this makes the entire perimeter of this particulate or particle have a neutrino or neutron shell of non-attraction to anybody. Thus they fly through 30 light years of steel without stopping.
The EG-EG photon has an EG electron and EG positron. It is this graviton core and its outer neutron sphere, that photons fly light speed, but they are attracted by large gravity objects (and gravitational lensing), while the variable light speed (less than light speed) photinos are gravitationally captured (like in the stellar engine photosphere).
The tensor bosino and boson force carriers are ES electron - EG positron or EG electron - ES positron. This duality of half electro-statics and half electro-gravitics allows them to have this force carrier and tension properties in the particulates, particles, space fabrics, ... and corrected Hubble tension, cosmic tension, and what tension is used in nuclear fusion of elements.
@@JoeDeglman As per the photinos (Einstein variable light) particulates - these truly answer the proverbial question. Is light a wave or a particle. A wave is Hertz frequency, while a particle is angstrom and particle (light) physics. Photinos are light WAVES (!). Photons are particles. Question solved. Photinos have less-than-light-speed-velocity and gravitational capture. Photons are light-speed, variable gravitaitonal lensing (and escape velocity). Photinos are in the photosphere. Photons are in the chromosphere. Such ionization (as said by physicists) and electron enrichment (excitation) from (photinos and) photons are partially correct, but an incomplete answer - as aether tensor bosino particulates and physical matter tensor boson particles are the actual foundation upon which fusion happens.
The evidence from the Sun is that Hannes Alfven was right. Minus the matter-antimatter idea.
The energy of the Sun does not migrate from the core or from below the photosphere.
The energy of the Sun comes directly from the photosphere and then ionizes and propels the charged particles out of the chromosphere by ponderomotive force and by first ionization potential.
This is why the hottest part of the Sun is in the corona, not the core. The backpressure of the magnetic flux out of the upper photosphere forces the hydrogen into a liquid-metallic state in the photosphere.
Fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements then must be a side-effect of the electric currents in the lower chromosphere.
Fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere, just like it does on Earth in lightning strikes.
'The impact of multi-fluid effects in the solar chromosphere on the ponderomotive force under LTE and NEQ ionization conditions' - arXiv 2211.09361
A Forbes article on how the main energy of the Sun cannot be from fusing hydrogen into helium.
Fusion has never been able to produce energy on par with the Sun or e=mc^2, only on par with plasma recombination.
'The Sun's Energy Doesn't Come From Fusing Hydrogen Into Helium, mostly' - Forbes 2017
The evidence is that the Hans Beth proton-proton chain is Zionist propaganda.
The helium spectrum from the Sun shows that helium 4 mostly exists in the prominences and flares and is most likely created there as alpha particles from the breakdown of unstable elements in the flares.
Neutrinos have never been created in fusion experiments, only fission, so far.
So given the evidence, the Sun most likely produces neutrinos via fission, not fusion.
The Sun most likely gets its main energy from thermal breakdown of the hydrogen proton directly out of the photosphere.
We can get e=mc^2 energy in CERN experiments by breaking down protons via super collision.
The Sun does this then by resonate frequency which breaks the proton back down into photons and neutrinos directly from the photosphere.
Neutrons are composite particles consisting of protons and electrons. When an electron leaves the surface of a proton, it creates a pulse of electric field, which is called a neutrino. Neutrinos are the shortest electric field pulses. From the moment it occurs, it moves at the speed of light. Mass does not exist. These characteristics mean that neutrinos are electromagnetic waves.
This statement is incorrect. Neutrinos are not electromagnetic waves; they are fundamental subatomic particles. They are not composed of protons and electrons, nor are they created by electrons leaving protons. Neutrinos have a very small, but nonzero, mass and do not move at the speed of light if they have mass. They are also not associated with electric field pulses.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Mal wieder brav den Mainstream-Mist runtergebetet. Bravo!
@@norbertbuchholz Ich bin jederzeit offen für inhaltliche Kritik.
Where do neutrinos come from
I'm open minded on Neutrinos as I have a fairly sensible possibility for them in terms of my new fully quantised model outline. A neutral field cell displacement wave (1 to 3 field cells move forward 1 to 3 field cell lengths before stopping, with the wave carrying on at C).. This new model would be quite fun to implement on the old compooter. Haven't got spin and the left / right hand rule properly nailed down yet. Was the Electro-positronic field of +ve cells packed by free-flowing -ve gas, now it's the....
--
POLECTRON FIELD: packed cells (positron & electron in superposition) split by Full Escape Energy as e_p pairs
MASS: charged particles separate (polarise) field cells into alternating +ve / -ve shells widening to a packed core
ELECTRIFIED FIELD: cells polarised longitudinally. MAGNETISED FIELD: longitudinally polarised cells aligned laterally
HEAVY FORCE: mass multiplier annihilates all but (anti) protons/neutrons
BIG BANG: 2 p+ oppositely hit 1 e- (more than 2 e- hit 1 p+)? Huge black hole exploded? Result was hydrogen plasma soup
POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau
BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. Beta+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p. WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs
NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by measurement? Physical link?
GRAVITY: empty field trying to stay balanced repels mass from all directions. TIME: velocity / gravity slows Local Time
DARK ENERGY: universe material mass increase grows the universe? Gravity shrinks cells? red giant count, C or G evolve?
BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as heavier tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell?
DARK STUFF: (fast) free cells? more (anti) muon/tau (solitary cores?) as the galaxy thins out? Quantised inertia? MOND?
PHOTON: field cell polarisation and/or movement wave. NEUTRINO: wave of 1 to 3 cells travelling 1 to 3 cells?
DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
INERTIA: energy lost moving through the field is returned as the field rebalances behind with a kick straight on
ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
Hey! Got a better battery yet?
@@gyrogearloose1345 .. No!... but I do have a better engine design I'm sitting on. Far more down to earth than this spaced out stuff... a 'piston turbine' engine that combines the instant high pressure of a piston engine with the crankless radial simplicity of a turbine engine. It's also a heat engine using trapped high pressure CO2 and steam (it's a hot cold engine).. 1 STROKE so combustion, exhaust, stroke after next intake all while compressing the next stroke, with compression also providing power.. It has a simpler but similar turbo heat engine.. While one side is heated the other is cooled with steam that also provided power.... POWER POWER POWER!.. It's a condensing water heater too..