Why Gravity may never be unified with other forces?

´╗┐Why Gravity may never be unified with other forces?

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 at 2:54 am UTC + 05:30
I made an integration joke on this day, which I do not have with me, at the moment, I might have lost due to information access issues, on social media. Merely I said; constant of integration, could be zero.
That led to this idea >> (for gravity force) “so the infinite distance means zero force and thats where zero-potential is set .. hence .. but other forces are complicated, hence need gauge variations one of the reasons why quantum-gravity is not yet possible ( — its mathematically not possible yet. ) So it seems because zeroness ( or zero variation ) in the functions, (integration yields functions) is a gravitational property and gauge variations ( — hence multitude of functions can describe same thing) it sounds this is the mathematical condition; which prevents the unification of the forces. Because, 3 types of forces allow variation and one type does not. If there is no answer to this, the unification is out for ever. “

Simple explanation of OPERA Anomaly of FLT

Simple explanation of OPERA Anomaly of FLT

I just wrote two tweets, one of which, is a concise explanation of OPERA anomaly of Faster than Light neutrinos. (FLT neutrino). Einstein’s Relativity Theory would be invalidated if neutrinos move faster than the photons, which is what OPERA experiment suspected it obtained, but Quantum Mechanics Uncertainty relations would save the grace of Relativity of Einstein, from falling off as an invalid theory. Its a bit tricky, but I explained it in 140 characters.

Here are the tweets.

Heisenberg would have tweeted in 1925:

1. when Q. Mech came physical variables got hats 2wear and were called as operators rather than variables, Heisenberg wanted2 tweet so in 1925.

OPERA anomaly would also be explained by Heisenberg in 1925 via tweeter. Look guys.

2. Q. Mech uncertainty; E=f(t), p=f(x) >> E-t, p-x fuzzy, mixing of variables E-t, p-x, if E-x mix, eg E=f(x), E-v fuzzy, as v=f(x) > OPERA FLT

Whats Light. A small primer.

A small primer on optical attributes of Light.

Manmohan Dash,

( — largely edited, 18-19 January 2014, originally from; Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm UTC + 05:30 )

Updated Discourse.

If you ever seem, to be caught up between: they say light always moves at the same speed-c, they keep on harping, why then, its energy so different; we have light of various energy and frequencies. One that are harmful, like x-ray or ultraviolet and one that are quite soft on us all. The answer is there are two kinds of speed, when it comes to vector emissions like light, one speed is on the plane of polarization, giving us the energy or frequency or intensity of light waves, and the other, the speed perpendicular to that plane, that is; the speed at which energy of light is transmitted across the galaxy, its this latter speed, which is slated to be known as speed-of-light (instead of, speed of light’s energy transmission vs speed that determines the energy value of light transmission) and always a constant known as c, whose value is unchanged, as long as a single quantum of light is considered and in vacuum.

Note that vector emission means there are 3 dimensions, in which this wave is created or propagated, light wave, its a plane + a perpendicular dimension to that plane. The plane is called plane of polarization which always contains two fields, Electric and Magnetic field, and the perpendicular dimension is the direction in which the energy of the light wave is propagated, therefore, gives the light-wave-speed; which are again of two definition, the physical or actual speed known as group velocity, and the virtual, conceptual speed of each wave train, known as phase velocity. This definition of phase and group velocity are always to occur; for any kind of waves and not just light wave. So, the light-wave-group-velocity (for a single quantum-of-light, called photon) is always c = 2.99 x 10 (8) meters/second, in vacuum.

The Chandra Angle !!

But the neutron stars are still quite large. This is because the electrons are about 1000 times as longer in how much space they require to sit in that system, than the neutrons. the neutrons are heavy hard attitude guys, they will go no where. But the electrons while occupy such a large couch are far far less heavier than are neutron. So they are basically whats called “soft”. They are long legged and eat less energy and when vanish the neutron stars have collapsed into an adjacent mass state but quite so very smaller in volume, a 1000 times, smaller.

So two things happened that are called supernovae (that is super star phenomena).

1. (Type Ia supernovae) White dwarf > induced by atomic disintegration due to gravity pressure > Core of the star

2. (Core collapse supernovae) Core of the star > induced further by emission of electrons > neutron star

Neutrinos, the new smurfy hulks.

Looks like a well done Physics measurement.

These tiny little morons called as neutrinos are now becoming ubiquitous (some would take an objection to me calling these beautiful smurfs morons simply because I don’t get them, what are they saying again? blurp blurp blurp this time time we have a lotta energy, wanna mess up buddy?)

Ubiquitous is not an adjective for only finding 28 of them. But compare that to how many would be found if we are not to have smart technology and a dint of luck and a lot of hard work, probably 0.3 neutrinos, confirmed by a Bayesian technique opposed to say a frequentist method (are they the same, I won’t know since I am a science writer lol) !!