Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Drs.Charles Fefferman Jonathan Fickenscher David Gabai of Princeton
Univ, never understanding that Real Electron = muon &.5MeV was monopole//
because-- can they do percentages correctly??

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 3, 2018 4:48 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 18,572 Registered: 3/31/08
Drs.Charles Fefferman Jonathan Fickenscher David Gabai of Princeton
Univ, never understanding that Real Electron = muon &.5MeV was monopole//
because-- can they do percentages correctly??

Posted: Jan 3, 2018 4:29 PM

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
>
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction ??p??+??n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (?250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction ??p?D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ?(770) and falls likepLAB?2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Princeton University Math dept

Michael Aizenman Professor

Zahra Aminzare Lecturer

Manjul Bhargava Professor

Nathaniel Bottman Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Nicolas Boumal Instructor

Jean Bourgain Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

William Browder Professor Emeritus

Tristan Buckmaster Assistant Professor

Francesc Castella Instructor

Sun-Yung Alice Chang Professor

Otis Chodosh Veblen Research Instructor

Maria Chudnovsky Professor

Peter Constantin Professor of Mathematics and Director of PACM

John Conway Professor Emeritus

Mihalis Dafermos Professor

Gabriele Di Cerbo Assistant Professor

Hansheng Diao Instructor

Theodore Drivas Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Zeev Dvir Associate Professor

Weinan E Professor

Tarek Elgindi Instructor

Tolga Etgü Visiting Fellow

Charles Fefferman Professor

Jonathan Fickenscher Associate Research Scholar

David Gabai Chair, Professor

Ziyang Gao Instructor

Javier Gómez-Serrano Assistant Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

Robert C. Gunning Professor

Jonathan Hanselman Assistant Professor

Helmut Hofer Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Henry Horton Postdoctoral Research Associate

Yong Hou Lecturer
Mathematics
Tatiana Howard Lecturer

Wu-Chung Hsiang Professor Emeritus

June Huh Veblen Fellow

Mihaela Ignatova Instructor

Alexandru Ionescu Professor

Jennifer M. Johnson Senior Lecturer, Associate Departmental Representative

Nicholas Katz Professor

Casey Kelleher Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Daniel Ketover Instructor

Ilya Khayutin Veblen Research Instructor

Seongtag Kim Visiting Fellow

Sergiu Klainerman Professor

Simon Kochen Professor Emeritus

Joseph Kohn Professor Emeritus

János Kollár Professor, Department Representative

Elliott Lieb Professor Emeritus

Francesco Lin Veblen Research Instructor

Yueh-Ju Lin Instructor

Chun-Hung Liu Instructor

Robert MacPhersonVisiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor
Mathematics

Fernando Codá Marques Professor

Mark McConnell Senior Lecturer

Stephen McKeown Postdoctoral Research Associate

Ana Menezes Assistant Professor

Sophie Morel Professor

Assaf Naor Professor

Evita Nestoridi Instructor

Huy Quang Nguyen Postdoctoral Research Associate

Oanh Nguyen Instructor

Peter Ozsváth Professor, Director of Graduate Studies

John Pardon Professor

Fabio Pusateri Assistant Professor

Igor Rodnianski Professor

Vermont Rutherfoord Postdoctoral Research Associate

Peter Sarnak Professor

Paul D. Seymour Professor

Tatyana Shcherbyna Assistant Professor

Nicholas Sheridan Assistant Professor

Goro Shimura Professor Emeritus

Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman Instructor

Yakov Sinai Professor

Amit Singer Professor

Christopher Skinner Professor

Allan Sly Professor

Elias Stein Professor Emeritus

Zoltán Szabó Professor

Yunqing Tang Instructor

Richard Taylor Visiting Lecturer with Rank of Professor

Christine Taylor Senior Lecturer

Gang Tian Professor

Konstantin Tikhomirov Instructor

Hale Trotter Professor Emeritus

Karen Uhlenbeck Visiting Research Scholar

Rafael von Känel Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Joseph Waldron Instructor

Guangbo Xu Associate Research Scholar

Paul C. Yang Professor

Ian Zemke Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Shou-Wu Zhang Professor

Yongbin Zhang Visiting Research Scholar

YOU SEE, I CAN DO A CORRECT PERCENTAGE PROBLEM WHEN I SEE ONE. For, the muon is 105 MeV and Old Physics proton was 938 MeV so if I multiply by 9 the muon I have 945 MeV and missing the Old Physics proton by just 7 units. So, for me, who knows and understands percentages I see it as 7/945 = .007 which is 0.7% not even 1 percent.

Now kooks and flakes and failures of math and physics such as Konyberg and Moroney can never ever get percentages correct and could never ever understand why the real electron is the muon.

But is the percentage math the reason that none of the Princeton professors can understand Real Electron = muon. Do Princeton math professors need to brush up on percentage????

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:05:53 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Good thing I enjoy this banter.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:04:36 PM UTC-6, konyberg wrote:

> >
> > >You failed on 8.8 versus 9, calling it 12 % short
> >
> > >Too hard for you
> >
> > >What percent is 99 versus 100, hint it is not 10%
> >

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

> >
> > Man, are you stupid or what?!
> >
> > 9*105.6583745 (muon mass) = 950.9253705.
> > Proton mass = 938.2720813.
> >
> > Difference = 12.6532892.
> >
> > 12.6532892/105.6583745 = .119756614 or 11.975% of a muon mass too
> > small.
> >
> > Proton mass is 11.975% of a muon mass smaller than 9 muon masses.

>
> You use words like "out of" and versus. I can somewhat understand "out of", but what do "versus" mean here. Do you mean the same?
> Then Moroney is ca precise in comparing the numbers. No need to scream.
> KON

Date Subject Author
1/3/18 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
1/3/18 Jan Bielawski