See Sonia Bacca's work on helium nuclei - she basically energises them to see how large they'll inflate before popping, finding that the standard model predictions formulating the nuclear binding force in terms of virtual charged pion exchanges perform no better than chance. Arguably the simplest nucleus, two protons, two neutrons, yet we can't accurately model its behaviour. The fact that this attractive force responsible for binding all atomic nuclei together isn't being regarded as fundamental, lacking its own gauge boson mediator, should be a red flag. But we don't even treat it as a constant, flipping its sign to repulsion in order to explain why protons don't simply attract all the way in to a collision. It attracts _or_ repels as required, varying as a function of distance. Co-orbiting massive particles however can never actually collide, all else being equal, because this would require the velocity component of their conserved orbital momentum to go to infinity; in other words nucleons probably don't collide simply due to the constancy of c and the conservation of energy. There _is_ this attractive force between them however, and it behaves as a curvature of spacetime, only much steeper and much shorter-ranged than gravity as we know it. So are there *two* forms of gravity, or else, might our familiar 'gravity B' be a residual aggregate effect of the more-fundamental 'gravity A' holding all nuclei together, in much the same way we currently treat it as an epiphenomenon of the more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction holding nucleons themselves together? Additionally, consider that any model able to accurately predict higher islands of stability will also likely hint at hitherto unforeseen means of synthesising those exotic species..
Well put, thank you. You should consider it yourself, there are stand alone downloads you can use. Or services to use. Where you could randomly, by trial and error, attempt some experiments toward these goals. Also, you might start a small non-profit cheaply, then use it to find like-minded people to finance and pursue these worthwhile goals. Social media teaches us that any specificated belief or goal can attract many with the same belief or goal and they can work together.
Agreed. I don't know much about AI but from what I've seen it can make surprising connections... Now used for predicting new materials and drugs, interpreting radiological data in medicine, etc., it will be a wonderful tool.
From what I know about ai IT might be Well possible that IT might make a better prediction than Humans. But IT will be next to Impossible to figure Out how IT did do that.
As to Bohr, at that time the neutron wasn't known, so they thought there should be electrons in the nucleus to explain the mass number. This electrons had to follow other laws than quantum mechanics to remain in the nucleus, at the scale of 10^-15 m. Contrary to atomic physics, in nuclear physics there is no approximation, so that an analytical theory is not possible. It is the more general N-bodies problem.
Have you considered Kaal et al’s radical SAM (Structure of the Atom Model) which does away with neutrons as fundamental particles? It also abolishes the strong force and introduces proton-electron pairs into the nucleus. The model is so radical that I gave up any hope that mainstream theorists would consider it. But the model has such great explanatory power to explain the stability of some isotopes and the instability of others, I thought it would be worth some serious experimental testing and that a heretic like you would give it a second glance. What do you think?
AI is good at connecting the dots. E.g I created a very good article by connecting general topology and some physics stuff. It posited good thing but was not able to provide me with proofs of two very obscured A-topology theorems. Once ALL knowledge, all books, all monographs, all blogs, all everything is incorporated be prepared for big surprises. Neuro-transmitters conundrum, I believe AI will solve it. Non-linear systems, complex systems as well. We just need to open all ports to knowledge.
I'm still trying to make the normal boring human intelligence work. I just found my copy of Wladimir Guglinski's book Quantum ring theory. I having trouble finding time to read it, I have to move house. I've also been watching Pavel Werner's UA-cam channel and papers. Both are very nice ring theory models. I'm less inclined to think we need AI. Like all science its bound by assumptions. In peer review that's limiting the definition of acceptable peers and their willingness to consider a heterodox paper. In AI its the question of how you weight the data and what rewards you give to the AI. In lab work and testing its access to the labs, who is considered competent, how things are calibrated, and whether a skeptical team can even see a result they believe is impossible. We really don't have a data problem or a shortage of theories. We have lots of both but no test to rule in or out a given theory. Pavel Werner's close to defining a test. I am not sure if Wladimir is at that point.
The Reciprocal System can calculate the proton-electron mass ratio, as well as the masses of other subatoms and isotopes - all derived with only ONE empirical value (1/16 the mass of O^16; contrast the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula with FIVE adjusted-to-fit-the-data constants). It also goes some of the way toward theoretical calculations of alpha-decay half lives. (And R.W. Satz even proposed a theoretical calculation of the lifetime of the neutron). Might AI help resolve the remaining issues there? To find Satz's paper containing the calculations on the matters just described (except for the neutron one) search for Mathcad Transpower masses and half lives. Hint: that thing down there is NOT a "nucleus" but rather the atom itself, and it has NO particle constituents. The interatomic SPACING in a solid results from a force equilibrium.
Can you toss a pebble into the water behind you? (I figure that is actually a looping video background and you are in a studio, properly illuminated. I was transfixed by the wavy motion of the water against the sand - it looked like this water motion was just CGI. Next thought is that the background is a scene generated by AI). The question of AI in advancing fusion is a very interesting one to me. We know a lot about various types of containment, but, as you suggest, most of it based on rough rules and constrained experimental results that AI may be able to exploit and develop better rules that are more accurate approximations and thus bump us along the developmental path.
Shell model, water drop model, standard model all invane . AI can even make sense of dried mud land structure as tiles. But gamma ray !!! Spa of various dimension of particles in standard model and antistandard model failed even those virtual particles (not forces). Fundamental and anti Problem or anti problems. Thank to Unziker .Who else can make it ..
I would like to see AI to come up with a superdeterministic model beyond QM. AI is able to do symbolic regression now, so i think it is achievable ua-cam.com/video/fk2r8y5TfNY/v-deo.html
I think positron/electron to muon mass ratio is important, and muon, proton/neutron and tau mass ratios are clues. AI could solve a few riddles, but it's limited to its input which is very biased. What if by some miracle I'm (roughly) correct for instance? I have different explanations for lots of physics that adds up in a few ways but even the best AI with free range of the internet and all proper academic papers would not come up with it, or likely anything like it. Fudge in, Fudge out! -- POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours MASS: p+ / e- = half cell (& whole cell as +-+ / -+-)? Polarises field as + & - shells. SPIN: centre polarisation axis STRONG DARK GRAVITY: field repels mass. Particles trap cells? Voids grow as charge lost to gravity shrinks cells DARK 'MATTER': thinning galaxy charge gradient. lowering charge aids acceleration. TIME: velocity/gravity slows it INERTIA: field rebalances behind returning lost kinetic energy with a kick. GRAVITATIONAL WAVE: big longitudinal wave BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen POSITRONIUM: e+p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link? BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell? PHOTON: field cell polarisation and/or lateral movement wave. NEUTRINO: 1 to 3 cell longitudinal wave? DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
I would like to see the Edwin Kaal`s theory -collaborated with James Sorensen, Andreas Otte, and Jan Emming`s work. “Nature of the Atom - An introduction to the Structured Atom Model” used by AI. I would be interested to see if it can get from three ( 3 ) Lithium to one hundred and eleven ( 111 ) Roentgenium because I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Also I can`t find the calculator on a modern Windows OS and don`t know how to use the " maths input panel " which may have replaced it.
Height, local gravity AND the nature of the magnetic field of the falling object. A dynamic and correctly shaped magnetic field reduces the mass of an object. Enough energy going into the manipulation of the magnetic field and those UAP videos make a little more sense. Will AI explain how?
I have a very low opinion of "AI" but i do believe we will create machines able to map the structures of particles & spacetime, but this is something we would need to make an AI do by design, opposed to an abstract desire to do it for itself for the possible benefits of knowledge and improvement. Its possible that it would be fixated upon other problems we gave up on and accepted as read. I laught at the idea of an AI arguing that light is observed to bend and space is constant as occam's razor is thrown to the wind as it rewrites the wheel.
👉Yea, of course it can help to see unseen mathematical relations. But we need a revolutionary idea or model, sth that AI is not the best, right now it is not very innovative, ask chat GPT about politiical things... Right now AI is more like a parrot...
I agree, we already have a big problem of confusing models of reality with reality itself. This problem started with misleading space-time diagrams in special relativity, continued further with Feynman diagrams and even further with supersymmetry. AI model dependence will only further this confusion, and further our inability to make the real connections ourselves, so I can only think that Unzicker has sold out to someone or company who is paying him to promote AI, as it doesn't fit at all with the idea of finding a genuine theoretical solution and gaining a genuine understanding of reality beyond the misleading models that are confounded with reality in the typical case of the error A.N.Whitehead pointed out a long time ago of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Just want to point out, I think Unzicker is clearly being paid to promote AI, it doesn't fit with his other ideas and it certainly doesn't fit with the attempt to make sense of basic theoretical physics.
That's a bs allegation. I concede that what I am conveying here is kind of orthogonal to what I do in fundamental physics. Yet, I believe that AI will have some impact here, too.
I only came to troll his comments since we've already solved unification without A.I. and the proof is in the prime spiral relationship found by Azra Wind as well as my work, starting with a prediction that electron neutrinos move to the galactic bulge in 96 not realized until over 10 years later by the Ice Cube project evidence. He never seems to read any of the comments and just goes on and on blabbing about nonsensical dogma we know is far beyond it's spoil date.
Hopeless with humans brilliant ideas , God gifted vision on Mathamatcs and Geometry to make sense what this unseen world. We need the learning technology so that these unconscious behavior could make sense in graphics . We are no where rather random. Sorry it speaks aginst Pof. Roger's insight of Mathamatcal world view.
I solved unification of the fields and have 27 years of predictive proofs on this with zero error. I truly hate making videos though. You want progress? okay then look at the proven prime spiral relationship found by Azra Wind then explain to me how anything can explain why it exists. We don't need A.I. to show us, although a supercomputer simulation showing how particles decay in space and galactic funnels is opposing the outbound flow of boson creation from stars would be handy. I modeled that simulation in 95 btw, without A.I. just my I.
I have looked at this supposed spiral, its a very vague spiral indeed, akin to finding the face of a man in Mars moon rocks. We are geared to see patterns. Azra Wind I search is a channelling and ascension guide, There is no mathematical proof here, just a vague pattern.
@@jonathanhockey9943 Then you haven't looked. The pattern is quite complex and matches every force far beyond any doubt so what you're saying is bs nonsense
Protons are made of quarks and other constituents. That's a fact. So the proton electron mass ratio is not fundamental. Better search for the cause of the higgs fields coupling strength with other particle fields.
Great sound
See Sonia Bacca's work on helium nuclei - she basically energises them to see how large they'll inflate before popping, finding that the standard model predictions formulating the nuclear binding force in terms of virtual charged pion exchanges perform no better than chance. Arguably the simplest nucleus, two protons, two neutrons, yet we can't accurately model its behaviour. The fact that this attractive force responsible for binding all atomic nuclei together isn't being regarded as fundamental, lacking its own gauge boson mediator, should be a red flag. But we don't even treat it as a constant, flipping its sign to repulsion in order to explain why protons don't simply attract all the way in to a collision. It attracts _or_ repels as required, varying as a function of distance.
Co-orbiting massive particles however can never actually collide, all else being equal, because this would require the velocity component of their conserved orbital momentum to go to infinity; in other words nucleons probably don't collide simply due to the constancy of c and the conservation of energy. There _is_ this attractive force between them however, and it behaves as a curvature of spacetime, only much steeper and much shorter-ranged than gravity as we know it. So are there *two* forms of gravity, or else, might our familiar 'gravity B' be a residual aggregate effect of the more-fundamental 'gravity A' holding all nuclei together, in much the same way we currently treat it as an epiphenomenon of the more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction holding nucleons themselves together? Additionally, consider that any model able to accurately predict higher islands of stability will also likely hint at hitherto unforeseen means of synthesising those exotic species..
Your comments is very crucial for AI driven search for new theory . It appear that the switching force type is conscious decisions.
Well put, thank you. You should consider it yourself, there are stand alone downloads you can use. Or services to use. Where you could randomly, by trial and error, attempt some experiments toward these goals. Also, you might start a small non-profit cheaply, then use it to find like-minded people to finance and pursue these worthwhile goals. Social media teaches us that any specificated belief or goal can attract many with the same belief or goal and they can work together.
Agreed. I don't know much about AI but from what I've seen it can make surprising connections... Now used for predicting new materials and drugs, interpreting radiological data in medicine, etc., it will be a wonderful tool.
From what I know about ai IT might be Well possible that IT might make a better prediction than Humans. But IT will be next to Impossible to figure Out how IT did do that.
As to Bohr, at that time the neutron wasn't known, so they thought there should be electrons in the nucleus to explain the mass number. This electrons had to follow other laws than quantum mechanics to remain in the nucleus, at the scale of 10^-15 m.
Contrary to atomic physics, in nuclear physics there is no approximation, so that an analytical theory is not possible. It is the more general N-bodies problem.
but the neutron really is a proton plus an electron in the nucleus!
AI and Physics. Unzicker is the future of physics. Gimmick stacked upon gimmick!
Have you considered Kaal et al’s radical SAM (Structure of the Atom Model) which does away with neutrons as fundamental particles? It also abolishes the strong force and introduces proton-electron pairs into the nucleus.
The model is so radical that I gave up any hope that mainstream theorists would consider it. But the model has such great explanatory power to explain the stability of some isotopes and the instability of others, I thought it would be worth some serious experimental testing and that a heretic like you would give it a second glance. What do you think?
AI is good at connecting the dots. E.g I created a very good article by connecting general topology and some physics stuff. It posited good thing but was not able to provide me with proofs of two very obscured A-topology theorems. Once ALL knowledge, all books, all monographs, all blogs, all everything is incorporated be prepared for big surprises. Neuro-transmitters conundrum, I believe AI will solve it. Non-linear systems, complex systems as well. We just need to open all ports to knowledge.
Can you formulate a question that you want the artificial intelligence to ask to the big bunch of available data?
Thank you. It's good to be hopeful🎉
I'm still trying to make the normal boring human intelligence work. I just found my copy of Wladimir Guglinski's book Quantum ring theory. I having trouble finding time to read it, I have to move house.
I've also been watching Pavel Werner's UA-cam channel and papers. Both are very nice ring theory models.
I'm less inclined to think we need AI. Like all science its bound by assumptions. In peer review that's limiting the definition of acceptable peers and their willingness to consider a heterodox paper. In AI its the question of how you weight the data and what rewards you give to the AI. In lab work and testing its access to the labs, who is considered competent, how things are calibrated, and whether a skeptical team can even see a result they believe is impossible.
We really don't have a data problem or a shortage of theories. We have lots of both but no test to rule in or out a given theory. Pavel Werner's close to defining a test. I am not sure if Wladimir is at that point.
The Reciprocal System can calculate the proton-electron mass ratio, as well as the masses of other subatoms and isotopes - all derived with only ONE empirical value (1/16 the mass of O^16; contrast the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula with FIVE adjusted-to-fit-the-data constants). It also goes some of the way toward theoretical calculations of alpha-decay half lives. (And R.W. Satz even proposed a theoretical calculation of the lifetime of the neutron). Might AI help resolve the remaining issues there? To find Satz's paper containing the calculations on the matters just described (except for the neutron one) search for Mathcad Transpower masses and half lives. Hint: that thing down there is NOT a "nucleus" but rather the atom itself, and it has NO particle constituents. The interatomic SPACING in a solid results from a force equilibrium.
Can you toss a pebble into the water behind you? (I figure that is actually a looping video background and you are in a studio, properly illuminated. I was transfixed by the wavy motion of the water against the sand - it looked like this water motion was just CGI. Next thought is that the background is a scene generated by AI).
The question of AI in advancing fusion is a very interesting one to me. We know a lot about various types of containment, but, as you suggest, most of it based on rough rules and constrained experimental results that AI may be able to exploit and develop better rules that are more accurate approximations and thus bump us along the developmental path.
Shell model, water drop model, standard model all invane . AI can even make sense of dried mud land structure as tiles.
But gamma ray !!!
Spa of various dimension of particles in standard model and antistandard model failed even those virtual particles (not forces).
Fundamental and anti
Problem or anti problems.
Thank to Unziker .Who else can make it ..
I would like to see AI to come up with a superdeterministic model beyond QM. AI is able to do symbolic regression now, so i think it is achievable ua-cam.com/video/fk2r8y5TfNY/v-deo.html
...A LNM (large nuclear model) perhaps?
I think positron/electron to muon mass ratio is important, and muon, proton/neutron and tau mass ratios are clues.
AI could solve a few riddles, but it's limited to its input which is very biased. What if by some miracle I'm (roughly) correct for instance? I have different explanations for lots of physics that adds up in a few ways but even the best AI with free range of the internet and all proper academic papers would not come up with it, or likely anything like it. Fudge in, Fudge out!
--
POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours
MASS: p+ / e- = half cell (& whole cell as +-+ / -+-)? Polarises field as + & - shells. SPIN: centre polarisation axis
STRONG DARK GRAVITY: field repels mass. Particles trap cells? Voids grow as charge lost to gravity shrinks cells
DARK 'MATTER': thinning galaxy charge gradient. lowering charge aids acceleration. TIME: velocity/gravity slows it
INERTIA: field rebalances behind returning lost kinetic energy with a kick. GRAVITATIONAL WAVE: big longitudinal wave
BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen
POSITRONIUM: e+p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau
WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p
NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link?
BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell?
PHOTON: field cell polarisation and/or lateral movement wave. NEUTRINO: 1 to 3 cell longitudinal wave?
DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
chaos -1/uncertainty balances superdeterminism or if you prefer the will of god finger? quantummech wall entropy in time?
How do I get AI to study Russellian Science?
I would like to see the Edwin Kaal`s theory -collaborated with James Sorensen, Andreas Otte, and Jan Emming`s work. “Nature of the Atom - An introduction to the Structured Atom Model” used by AI. I would be interested to see if it can get from three ( 3 ) Lithium to one hundred and eleven ( 111 ) Roentgenium because I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Also I can`t find the calculator on a modern Windows OS and don`t know how to use the " maths input panel " which may have replaced it.
Height, local gravity AND the nature of the magnetic field of the falling object. A dynamic and correctly shaped magnetic field reduces the mass of an object. Enough energy going into the manipulation of the magnetic field and those UAP videos make a little more sense. Will AI explain how?
SSDD.
I have a very low opinion of "AI" but i do believe we will create machines able to map the structures of particles & spacetime, but this is something we would need to make an AI do by design, opposed to an abstract desire to do it for itself for the possible benefits of knowledge and improvement.
Its possible that it would be fixated upon other problems we gave up on and accepted as read.
I laught at the idea of an AI arguing that light is observed to bend and space is constant as occam's razor is thrown to the wind as it rewrites the wheel.
SSDD
👉Yea, of course it can help to see unseen mathematical relations. But we need a revolutionary idea or model, sth that AI is not the best, right now it is not very innovative, ask chat GPT about politiical things... Right now AI is more like a parrot...
I agree, we already have a big problem of confusing models of reality with reality itself. This problem started with misleading space-time diagrams in special relativity, continued further with Feynman diagrams and even further with supersymmetry. AI model dependence will only further this confusion, and further our inability to make the real connections ourselves, so I can only think that Unzicker has sold out to someone or company who is paying him to promote AI, as it doesn't fit at all with the idea of finding a genuine theoretical solution and gaining a genuine understanding of reality beyond the misleading models that are confounded with reality in the typical case of the error A.N.Whitehead pointed out a long time ago of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
I don't think so .. even if AI is set to reject the particle path.. the math is to seductive.
Just want to point out, I think Unzicker is clearly being paid to promote AI, it doesn't fit with his other ideas and it certainly doesn't fit with the attempt to make sense of basic theoretical physics.
That's a bs allegation. I concede that what I am conveying here is kind of orthogonal to what I do in fundamental physics. Yet, I believe that AI will have some impact here, too.
The one (Alex unzickier) who neither understands AI or Morden Physics like particle physics, Quantum Field Theory
I only came to troll his comments since we've already solved unification without A.I. and the proof is in the prime spiral relationship found by Azra Wind as well as my work, starting with a prediction that electron neutrinos move to the galactic bulge in 96 not realized until over 10 years later by the Ice Cube project evidence. He never seems to read any of the comments and just goes on and on blabbing about nonsensical dogma we know is far beyond it's spoil date.
Yes absolutely true. The difference between him and all the rest is he's almost the only one to admit it.
Hopeless with humans brilliant ideas , God gifted vision on Mathamatcs and Geometry to make sense what this unseen world. We need the learning technology so that these unconscious behavior could make sense in graphics .
We are no where rather random.
Sorry it speaks aginst Pof. Roger's insight of Mathamatcal world view.
2:45 you're there man! boom! you found it without realizing - why QM exists. Freudian slip of the century!
I solved unification of the fields and have 27 years of predictive proofs on this with zero error. I truly hate making videos though. You want progress? okay then look at the proven prime spiral relationship found by Azra Wind then explain to me how anything can explain why it exists. We don't need A.I. to show us, although a supercomputer simulation showing how particles decay in space and galactic funnels is opposing the outbound flow of boson creation from stars would be handy. I modeled that simulation in 95 btw, without A.I. just my I.
I have looked at this supposed spiral, its a very vague spiral indeed, akin to finding the face of a man in Mars moon rocks. We are geared to see patterns. Azra Wind I search is a channelling and ascension guide, There is no mathematical proof here, just a vague pattern.
@@jonathanhockey9943 Then you haven't looked. The pattern is quite complex and matches every force far beyond any doubt so what you're saying is bs nonsense
0:38 Professor Francis Yu on quantum mechanics ua-cam.com/video/0b-45KxvpJo/v-deo.html Is he wrong?
too vague
Protons are made of quarks and other constituents. That's a fact. So the proton electron mass ratio is not fundamental. Better search for the cause of the higgs fields coupling strength with other particle fields.
Alex, b4 I watch Ur video, I must state that AI is based on human perception, nothing new here...
The problem is political, not technical.
So sad , we need ai to solve our problems