Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #667558 > unrolled thread

Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-24 19:46 -0800
    Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-25 13:02 -0800
      Re: Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-25 22:45 -0800
        possible 13th proof Re: Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton// never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-27 15:00 -0800
    Drs.Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-30 18:20 -0800
      Re: Drs.Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-01-31 02:44 +0000
    Re: Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-31 14:10 -0800

#667558 — Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

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 π−p→π+π−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 π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(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 
------------------ 
------------------- 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 


SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

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


Below, Don asks more questions, but why bother , for Don has joined the ranks of street urchins when in 2017 he admitted he could not understand that the conic section was a oval, never an ellipse. Don simply gave up doing math in 2017. Are the Princeton professors giving up on math and physics? 
----------- 

Don Redmond writes 

3:58 PM (40 minutes ago) 

Re: going from cube area to volume Re: unifying curved geometry with straightline geometry//formula for oval//Pythagorean theorem for curved geometry 

> 
> 1) A Pythagorean theorem for curved objects 

Depending what you mean this is known: see geodesics. 

> 2) formula for Oval 

What kind of ovals do you have in mind? There are various equations for the various types. 

> 3) A Theorem of Geometry Fermat's Last wherein A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has solutions, for example 
> if the Space is all cubes and all cubes with hollow cube cores 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 

Examples like this are a dime a dozen. See Hardy & Wright. They, after Euler, give a parametric formula that gives infinitely many solutions in integers. 

BTW, how are your eqn A^3 + B^3 = C^3 and 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 connected. One involves 3 curves (Which certainly has solutions over the reals) and the other 4. 

Don 


Princeton University Math dept 

Michael Aizenman, Zahra Aminzare, Manjul Bhargava, Nathaniel Bottman,  Nicolas Boumal, 
Jean Bourgain, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Francesc Castella, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, 
Otis Chodosh, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Hansheng Diao, Theodore Drivas, Zeev Dvir, Tarek Elgindi, Tolga Etgü, Charles Fefferman, Jonathan Fickenscher, David Gabai Chair, Professor,
Ziyang Gao, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Helmut Hofer, Henry Horton, Yong Hou, Tatiana Howard, Wu-Chung Hsiang, June Huh, Mihaela Ignatova, Alexandru Ionescu, Jennifer M. Johnson, Nicholas Katz, Casey Kelleher, Daniel Ketover, Ilya Khayutin, Seongtag Kim, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár,  Elliott Lieb, Francesco Lin, Yueh-Ju Lin, Chun-Hung Liu, Robert MacPherson, Adam Marcus, Fernando Codá Marques, Mark McConnell, Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Evita Nestoridi, Huy Quang Nguyen, Oanh Nguyen, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri,  Igor Rodnianski, Vermont Rutherfoord, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Yunqing Tang, Richard Taylor, Christine Taylor, Gang Tian, Konstantin Tikhomirov, Hale Trotter, Karen Uhlenbeck, Vlad Vicol, Ilya Vinogradov, Rafael von Känel, Joseph Waldron, Guangbo Xu, Paul C. Yang, Ian Zemke, Shou-Wu Zhang, Yongbin Zhang 

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics) 

Princeton Univ physics dept 

Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, Duncan Haldane, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, James Peebles, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Joseph Taylor, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten 



   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Princeton New Jersey? 

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron= muon/Calculus, your students deserve better. 

AP  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#667739

Are you a scientist or a foolish idiot when you believe Fe+2 is still iron atom

You are a scientist when you understand Fe+2 is Fe with 2 magnetic monopoles attached

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#667826

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 3:02:22 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Are you a scientist or a foolish idiot when you believe Fe+2 is still iron atom
> 
> You are a scientist when you understand Fe+2 is Fe with 2 magnetic monopoles attached
> 
> AP

explaining muon decay Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum Murray Gell-Mann John Schwarz of CalTech//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 5:27:34 PM UTC-6, Jan wrote: 

> 
> They are different particles. For example, electron is stable but 
> muon is unstable (mean lifetime 2.2 us). 
> 
> -- 
> Jan 

Not all of jumbo dumbo worthless Jan Bielawski in science posts are trash. Some force people to have to look at their silly physics mistakes. 
---- 

For instance, in physics, Old Physics, the muon decay is into a silly electron .5MeV and two neutrinos of 105/2 MeV. 

In New Physics, the muon is the electron and so, it does not decay, but rather, it finds a 840MeV proton particle and becomes hydrogen. 

Now, in the production of muons, did they come from a preexisting hydrogen atom where the electron= muon was stripped, and so the muon is just rejoining up with its proton it lost. 

Now, this begs the question of how many times has any physicist seen a 105/2 pair of neutrinos? So, did the decay of muon in Old Physics, just --- hypothesize the neutrino in the muon, for surely it is extremely difficult to ever even detect a neutrino. 

Now my intuition is telling me that muons are produced in high energy interactions with atoms like hydrogen, and so, it is conceivable that these high energy interactions strip away the electron = 105 MeV from its proton 840 MeV, and in a microsecond the electron finds its stripped off partner and reforms hydrogen. 

Wikipedia writes: "About 10,000 muons reach every square meter of the Earth's surface a minute; these charged particles form as byproducts of cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere." 

"When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance into muons, and muon neutrinos. These muons from these high energy cosmic rays generally continue in about the same direction  as the original proton,.." 

"The same nuclear reaction described above (i.e. hadron-hadron impacts to produce pion beams, which then quickly decay to muon beams over short distances) is used by particle physicists to produce muon beams.." 

So, what I am saying is the muon comes from matter of atoms, from atomic structure of proton + electron = muon, and so when you separate that Real Electron= muon from a proton of a atom, it must find that proton very quickly and rejoin. 

As for other decay products, you can have .5 MeV monopoles with the Muon. That is probably why they constantly find muon as 105.7 MeV for the 0.7 is an attached monopoles. 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668130 — possible 13th proof Re: Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton// never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

In the below website quote is a huge huge anomaly, one of many that the stupid Standard Model sweeps under the rug.

So I believe I have the making of my 13th proof that Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, Dirac's Magnetic Monopole are all those charged photons of .5MeV and even pions charged . The neutron = 945 MeV. Ions in chemistry are atoms with extra + or - monopoles. The electron of an atom rarely ever leaves its proton, but when it does-- the muon, it is very much nearby to the proton to regain that hydrogen atom union.


https://indico.cern.ch/event/402462/attachments/806290/1104933/JournalClub.pdf

T. Thompson UPenn
--- quoting---
The breaking down of the Fermi theory can be avoided if a mediating boson is introduced (W boson)
Problem is that this ratio of cross sections is much lower than predicted by the theory (<10-8	from experiment vs 10-4 from theory)!
This can be saved if the two neutrinos are different, a muon neutrino and an anti electron neutrino
How to test if neutrinos are different?
--- end quote ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668614 — Drs.Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> 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 π−p→π+π−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 π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(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 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> Below, Don asks more questions, but why bother , for Don has joined the ranks of street urchins when in 2017 he admitted he could not understand that the conic section was a oval, never an ellipse. Don simply gave up doing math in 2017. Are the Princeton professors giving up on math and physics? 
> ----------- 
> 
> Don Redmond writes 
> 
> 3:58 PM (40 minutes ago) 
> 
> Re: going from cube area to volume Re: unifying curved geometry with straightline geometry//formula for oval//Pythagorean theorem for curved geometry 
> 
> > 
> > 1) A Pythagorean theorem for curved objects 
> 
> Depending what you mean this is known: see geodesics. 
> 
> > 2) formula for Oval 
> 
> What kind of ovals do you have in mind? There are various equations for the various types. 
> 
> > 3) A Theorem of Geometry Fermat's Last wherein A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has solutions, for example 
> > if the Space is all cubes and all cubes with hollow cube cores 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 
> 
> Examples like this are a dime a dozen. See Hardy & Wright. They, after Euler, give a parametric formula that gives infinitely many solutions in integers. 
> 
> BTW, how are your eqn A^3 + B^3 = C^3 and 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 connected. One involves 3 curves (Which certainly has solutions over the reals) and the other 4. 
> 
> Don 
> 
> 
> Princeton University Math dept 
> 
> Michael Aizenman, Zahra Aminzare, Manjul Bhargava, Nathaniel Bottman,  Nicolas Boumal, 
> Jean Bourgain, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Francesc Castella, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, 
> Otis Chodosh, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Hansheng Diao, Theodore Drivas, Zeev Dvir, Tarek Elgindi, Tolga Etgü, Charles Fefferman, Jonathan Fickenscher, David Gabai Chair, Professor,
> Ziyang Gao, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Helmut Hofer, Henry Horton, Yong Hou, Tatiana Howard, Wu-Chung Hsiang, June Huh, Mihaela Ignatova, Alexandru Ionescu, Jennifer M. Johnson, Nicholas Katz, Casey Kelleher, Daniel Ketover, Ilya Khayutin, Seongtag Kim, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár,  Elliott Lieb, Francesco Lin, Yueh-Ju Lin, Chun-Hung Liu, Robert MacPherson, Adam Marcus, Fernando Codá Marques, Mark McConnell, Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Evita Nestoridi, Huy Quang Nguyen, Oanh Nguyen, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri,  Igor Rodnianski, Vermont Rutherfoord, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Yunqing Tang, Richard Taylor, Christine Taylor, Gang Tian, Konstantin Tikhomirov, Hale Trotter, Karen Uhlenbeck, Vlad Vicol, Ilya Vinogradov, Rafael von Känel, Joseph Waldron, Guangbo Xu, Paul C. Yang, Ian Zemke, Shou-Wu Zhang, Yongbin Zhang 
> 
> President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics) 
> 

Michael Moroney	writes:
7:44 PM (29 minutes ago)

Yes, you should try it sometime.  24 years of crooked, muddy thinking has 
gotten you nowhere. 

AP writes:: why is this jackarse even allowed to open his mouth in science, for he cannot even do a percentage correctly
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. 


> Princeton Univ physics dept 
> 
> Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, Duncan Haldane, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, James Peebles, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Joseph Taylor, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten 
> 
> 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Princeton New Jersey? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron= muon/Calculus, your students deserve better. 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668619 — Re: Drs.Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV

Poor, poor Archie is really losing it.  Not only is he still autistically
spamming the "12 Failures of Plutonium" in response to my post, rather 
than discuss it, he autistically spammed it to the _wrong topic_.  
Shouldn't this topic be for the poster you think is from Princeton??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#668733

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 9:47:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz of Princeton Univ, joining the ranks of street urchins?? never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole, neutron= 945MeV
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> 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 π−p→π+π−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 π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(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 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
> can exist, and does exist 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
> .01. 
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
> is the function graph itself. 
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
> what Calculus does. 
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
> rectangle for integral as area. 
> 
> From this: 
>         B 
>         /| 
>       /  | 
>  A /----| 
>   /      | 
> |        | 
> |____| 
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
> integral. 
> 
> To this: 
> 
> ______ 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> |         | 
> --------- 
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
> continuum exists in mathematics. 
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> ------------------ 
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> Below, Don asks more questions, but why bother , for Don has joined the ranks of street urchins when in 2017 he admitted he could not understand that the conic section was a oval, never an ellipse. Don simply gave up doing math in 2017. Are the Princeton professors giving up on math and physics? 
> ----------- 
> 
> Don Redmond writes 
> 
> 3:58 PM (40 minutes ago) 
> 
> Re: going from cube area to volume Re: unifying curved geometry with straightline geometry//formula for oval//Pythagorean theorem for curved geometry 
> 
> > 
> > 1) A Pythagorean theorem for curved objects 
> 
> Depending what you mean this is known: see geodesics. 
> 
> > 2) formula for Oval 
> 
> What kind of ovals do you have in mind? There are various equations for the various types. 
> 
> > 3) A Theorem of Geometry Fermat's Last wherein A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has solutions, for example 
> > if the Space is all cubes and all cubes with hollow cube cores 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 
> 
> Examples like this are a dime a dozen. See Hardy & Wright. They, after Euler, give a parametric formula that gives infinitely many solutions in integers. 
> 
> BTW, how are your eqn A^3 + B^3 = C^3 and 3^3 + 4^3 = 6^3 - 5^3 connected. One involves 3 curves (Which certainly has solutions over the reals) and the other 4. 
> 
> Don 
> 
> 
> Princeton University Math dept 
> 
> Michael Aizenman, Zahra Aminzare, Manjul Bhargava, Nathaniel Bottman,  Nicolas Boumal, 
> Jean Bourgain, William Browder, Tristan Buckmaster, Francesc Castella, Sun-Yung Alice Chang, 
> Otis Chodosh, Maria Chudnovsky, Peter Constantin, John Conway, Mihalis Dafermos, Gabriele Di Cerbo, Hansheng Diao, Theodore Drivas, Zeev Dvir, Tarek Elgindi, Tolga Etgü, Charles Fefferman, Jonathan Fickenscher, David Gabai Chair, Professor,
> Ziyang Gao, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Robert C. Gunning, Jonathan Hanselman, Helmut Hofer, Henry Horton, Yong Hou, Tatiana Howard, Wu-Chung Hsiang, June Huh, Mihaela Ignatova, Alexandru Ionescu, Jennifer M. Johnson, Nicholas Katz, Casey Kelleher, Daniel Ketover, Ilya Khayutin, Seongtag Kim, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár,  Elliott Lieb, Francesco Lin, Yueh-Ju Lin, Chun-Hung Liu, Robert MacPherson, Adam Marcus, Fernando Codá Marques, Mark McConnell, Stephen McKeown, Ana Menezes, Sophie Morel, Assaf Naor, Evita Nestoridi, Huy Quang Nguyen, Oanh Nguyen, Peter Ozsváth, John Pardon, Fabio Pusateri,  Igor Rodnianski, Vermont Rutherfoord, Peter Sarnak, Paul D. Seymour, Tatyana Shcherbyna, Nicholas Sheridan, Goro Shimura, Yakov Shlapentokh-Rothman, Yakov Sinai, Amit Singer, Christopher Skinner, Allan Sly, Elias Stein, Zoltán Szabó, Yunqing Tang, Richard Taylor, Christine Taylor, Gang Tian, Konstantin Tikhomirov, Hale Trotter, Karen Uhlenbeck, Vlad Vicol, Ilya Vinogradov, Rafael von Känel, Joseph Waldron, Guangbo Xu, Paul C. Yang, Ian Zemke, Shou-Wu Zhang, Yongbin Zhang 
> 
> President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics) 
> 
> Princeton Univ physics dept 
> 
> Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, Duncan Haldane, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, James Peebles, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Joseph Taylor, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten 
> 
> 

alouatta....@gmail.com writes:



12:10 PM (3 hours ago)



- show quoted text -
Hey!  Stupid!  Look at pi in binary: 

11. 

burs...@gmail.com writes



4:36 AM (11 hours ago)

You definitely lost your screws, did you drop them 
into the dish washing water when at Dartmouth? 

Maybe see a doctor. 


> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Princeton New Jersey? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron= muon/Calculus, your students deserve better. 
> 
> AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web