Saturday, February 19, 2011 at 4:30 am UTC + 05:30 Just a simple calculation, I did, says; the heaviest meson we know, is 35% lighter, than the water molecule, and about 22000 times heavier than electron. I am thinking along side… Read More ›
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. “
(Agility, dynamism and masculinity etc, see how I found therefore, 力 in 男 which means man or male. The latter 男, come by merging: strength 力 and sun 日, the power of the sun are what male are usually, woman’s kanji 女, called onna, jou-sei, dan-sei or jo=jiyo=jou=jiyou, they all mean ladies or feminine, comes from other reasoning, it comes from how people 人 who bond together are women, 人 + 人 = 女 )
So, while asleep, it occurred to me, 月, is 力 + 日 (the reason where, see or look/view/vision 見 is different is both 九 and 目, which are both different from 力 and 日, also note, male 男 and moon/month 月 would have looked same, with slight maladjustment, but the central part is they come from same elements, thats unification, plus when elements change slightly; eg 九 and 目, the 2ndary and tertiary meaning changes, and what we have is, 見)
May I add one more small note, see how easy it becomes to understand an “order of estimate”; A good student, that is one with a good maths background, should immediately pick up, population ~ 1.19 million. 61.26 % male. 58.04 % female. (Not only literate but total male and female). Then even, one question can be asked, what is male-female disparity, in terms of their population. (That is, without regard, to any further attributes, such as literacy numbers, or purchasing power distributions etc, which are btw non-existent variables in India, because research in India means Governmental Apathy.)
Its a slightly tricky question, if you already note, there is a mistake in the above, The % is not scaled to 100. Its an over-estimation by a factor of 1.193, and the really smart student recognizes this, (s)he doesn’t go and change all calculations. See how all numbers came just from the first few digits of the given numbers; 11,92,948 >> 1.19 million, vs over estimation factor; 1.193 (or less precise 1.19). Male: 6,12,597 >> overestimated percentage: 61.26. Female; 5,80,351 >> overestimated percentage: 58.04.
You would know they are over-estimated, because these two numbers, male and female population, while exclusive parameters, hence must add up to normal: 100 or 1.00, added up to 61.26+58.04 = 119.30, or (61.26+58.04)/100 = 119.30/100 = 1.193, do you see how easily, without doing any further adding etc, I caught the actual overestimation factor, above, to be 1.193? Cool Huh? Just from the first few numbers. If maths runs in your mind, you can do all these, if it doesn’t, but you have the right numbers, you will be led to believe nobody would catch your mistakes, and lie about the numbers. Possible. Just from the numbers as are stated, we can, catch the inconsistency, thats why maths education is important. In-fact, I committed the mistakes and wanted to catch the inconsistency, and from the calculations gradually caught it, so a more consistent picture was envisaged.
A small primer on optical attributes of Light.
( — largely edited, 18-19 January 2014, originally from; Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 3:58 pm UTC + 05:30 )
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.