Bugger it moll. Now you’ve gone and reminded me an electron is most likely a naked singularity it just supports my conclusion that a photon becomes an electron while refracting from an atom.
a) Singularity is required to access 2d space for entanglement maintenance purposes.

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum.

c) We know an atom has fields that interact with other particles and facilitate momentum phasing.

d) It is only a supposition that an electron from the nucleus jumps to the next shell. Unless I am unaware of direct evidence to support this?

e) I think there is something to do with polarisation that further supports it but I’ll get back to you on that.

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum. If the atom has already engaged the photon with it’s fields why does it need to act further and shift an electron? The photon phase-shifting once it’s wavelength is trapped is a response to capture.

How does an electron from the nucleus jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?

Postpocelipse said:

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum. If the atom has already engaged the photon with it’s fields why does it need to act further and shift an electron? The photon phase-shifting once it’s wavelength is trapped is a response to capture.

How does an electron from the nucleus jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?

If it only takes photons to make shells then an EH simply becomes the atmosphere of the outer shell of ever decaying neutrons doesn’t it?

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

b) The Occam’s razor question is which mechanism represents conservation of momentum. If the atom has already engaged the photon with it’s fields why does it need to act further and shift an electron? The photon phase-shifting once it’s wavelength is trapped is a response to capture.

How does an electron from the nucleus jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?

If it only takes photons to make shells then an EH simply becomes the atmosphere of the outer shell of ever decaying neutrons doesn’t it?

At the very least it doesn’t seem to have to be much more than that.

Gravity simply becomes an issue of field resonance mediated by ever present photon interactions.

Postpocelipse said:

Gravity simply becomes an issue of field resonance mediated by ever present photon interactions.

My guess is DM is the refraction of Hawking radiation…………..

My guess is DM is the refraction of Hawking radiation. And you know what that means……………

Postpocelipse said:

My guess is DM is the refraction of Hawking radiation. And you know what that means……………

When Hawking radiation strikes a neutrino it creates a momentary graviton, the half life of which is relative to the amplitude of the Hawking radiation.

Well there you go. You really can thank the light.

Probs about as easy to prove as hitting a neutrino with a photon.

You remember I said I wanted to make a neutrino laser moll.

> you’ve gone and reminded me an electron is most likely a naked singularity
Yes
>a photon becomes an electron while refracting from an atom.
No. I’ve already told you this. An electron is matter, a photon is not. You can’t change one into the other.
>Singularity is required to access 2d space for entanglement maintenance purposes.
Don’t know. That’s a possible extension of ER=EPR
>which mechanism represents conservation of momentum.
See Emmy Noether’s work. Conservation of momentum is a consequence of the shift invariance of empty space.
>momentum phasing.
No such thing
> an electron from the (atom) jumps to the next shell. Unless I am unaware of direct evidence to support this?
There is a huge amount of direct evidence. All spectroscopy directly supports this, and to extremely high accuracy. I could even go on to say that the jumping of an electron from one shell to another is the most accurately known event in the whole of science.
> If the atom has already engaged the photon with it’s fields why does it need to act further and shift an electron? The photon phase-shifting once it’s wavelength is trapped is a response to capture.
Why? It’s called conservation of energy. You may have heard of it.

> How does an electron from the (atom) jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?
Actually, that’s a fair question. Conservation of energy causes electrons to jump shells. Obviously momentum is conserved because of the law of conservation of momentum. Let’s see what happens when the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are applied simultaneously. Momentum is a vector, so the net momentum in every direction of an electron in an atomic orbital is zero. An incoming photon has nonzero momentum so on being absorbed by an atomic electron the momentum from the photon is transferred to the whole atom, not to the electron. So it’s all consistent.

> How does an electron from the nucleus jumping shells satisfy any conservation of momentum?
Stop saying “from the nucleus”, please.

> If it only takes photons to make shells then an EH simply becomes the atmosphere of the outer shell of ever decaying neutrons doesn’t it?
No. That’s simply wrong.

> My guess is DM is the refraction of Hawking radiation.

No!
1. Hawking radiation isn’t matter, so it can’t be dark matter.

2. Dark matter makes up 94.5% of the universe’s matter (including stars). Hawking radiation makes up less than 0.0000000001% of the radiation in the universe. The radiation in the universe is 0.0000000000001% as much as the amount of matter in the universe.

So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation to relate in any way to dark matter. The amount of refraction of Hawking radiation is too small to account for DM by a factor of more than 100000000000000000000000000.

So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation, refracted or otherwise, to account for dark matter.

Hit a neutrino with an x-ray or above photon. Only way to convince me I’m wrong moll.

I’ll look up how to do it if I have to………..

mollwollfumble said:

No!
1. Hawking radiation isn’t matter, so it can’t be dark matter.

2. Dark matter makes up 94.5% of the universe’s matter (including stars). Hawking radiation makes up less than 0.0000000001% of the radiation in the universe. The radiation in the universe is 0.0000000000001% as much as the amount of matter in the universe.

So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation to relate in any way to dark matter. The amount of refraction of Hawking radiation is too small to account for DM by a factor of more than 100000000000000000000000000.

So there’s nowhere near enough Hawking radiation, refracted or otherwise, to account for dark matter.

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

No new blah de blah just a simple proposition.

I guess the other option is see if feeding free neutrons neutrinos sustains the half life.

Two transitons: electron/electron neutrino

A proton is an inflated electron transiton

A neutron is an inflated electron neutrino transiton

Vacuum produced a photon which tied itself in a knot. Then it tied vacuum a knot and told it to back the hell up!

Photon was all ‘wah-cha-zen’ about it like “You have had your time vacuum. Now, no matter how much you evacuate, you will smell my farts”.

I’ll tell you sure as shit I won’t be telling Xander there are any paradoxes in science. Only in humans.

Postpocelipse said:

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

Are you drunk?

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

Are you drunk?

Why is that unreasonable? The neutrino oscillates. Just like an electron. They are the remnant of the neutrino instanton.

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

Are you drunk?

Why is that unreasonable? The neutrino oscillates. Just like an electron. They are the neutron instanton.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Are you drunk?

Why is that unreasonable? The neutrino oscillates. Just like an electron. They are the neutron instanton.

Asking if I’m drunk doesn’t make it unlikely. Hit a neutrino with a photon it will turn into a neutron. Basic maths in the end. Don’t know what everyone has been making a fuss about for so long.

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Why is that unreasonable? The neutrino oscillates. Just like an electron. They are the neutron instanton.

Asking if I’m drunk doesn’t make it unlikely. Hit a neutrino with a photon it will turn into a neutron. Basic maths in the end. Don’t know what everyone has been making a fuss about for so long.

Unless of course the discipline is to avoid stating the obvious so people work it out for themselves.

Apparently this subject gives kii a headache(poor darling) so unless you wish to discuss the probability associated I’m going to drop the subject, moll.

Postpocelipse said:

Apparently this subject gives kii a headache(poor darling) so unless you wish to discuss the probability associated I’m going to drop the subject, moll.

Except to mention there is likely to be 3 instantons. Electron/proton-electron neutrino/neutron-Graviton.

If I can figure out the amplitude of Hawking radiation I can figure out the half life of the Graviton and it’s decay path.

Postpocelipse said:

Except to mention there is likely to be 3 instantons. Electron/proton-electron neutrino/neutron-Graviton.

If I can figure out the amplitude of Hawking radiation I can figure out the half life of the Graviton and it’s decay path.

Aww cool! Super-mutants become plausible if an organism is capable of including stable gravitons in it’s gene codes. I won’t tell IS…………

Postpocelipse said:

Postpocelipse said:

Except to mention there is likely to be 3 instantons. Electron/proton-electron neutrino/neutron-Graviton.

If I can figure out the amplitude of Hawking radiation I can figure out the half life of the Graviton and it’s decay path.

Aww cool! Super-mutants become plausible if an organism is capable of including stable gravitons in it’s gene codes. I won’t tell IS…………

I don’t think their 2 billion dollars would be enough to achieve a mutant army so don’t worry yourselves about that little problem. ;P

Postpocelipse said:

Vacuum produced a photon which tied itself in a knot. Then it tied vacuum 2 knots one for it’s mouth and one for it’s arse and told vacuum to back the hell up!

Photon was all ‘wah-cha-zen’ about it like “You have had your time vacuum. Now, no matter how much you evacuate, you will smell my farts”.

hmmm, an FRB is quite likely to be the final evaporation of a BH. IMO……..

Postpocelipse said:

hmmm, an FRB is quite likely to be the final evaporation of a BH. IMO……..

If a BH becomes ejected from the galaxy that spawns it, it is left with minimal maintenance. The relative velocity of it’s ejection will determine it’s half life……..

Instantons can be plotted using the Finite subdivision rule

Postpocelipse said:

Instantons can be plotted using the Finite subdivision rule

In other words energy does work in Mandelbrot sets………..

The emission of out-falling Hawking radiation is analogous to the acceleration of solar plasma from a star’s atmosphere. The polarisation of the particle pairing will not allow the out-falling HR to travel through space without an initial refraction. This occurs at the periphery of a galaxy and involves immediate absorption of the HR by a convenient passing neutrino. If the photon’s bandwidth is within normal matter’s range the product will be a nucleus stripped of it’s electrons. If the bandwidth is above the range of normal matter a graviton will be produced before decaying through neutron refraction.

Solar wind acceleration exhibits slightly more complex mechanism and the energy involved may stem from annihilation factors.

Well I finally understand why this exercise messed with my head. From photon to electron to proton it is like tracing a mandelbrot set. For the instanton phases above that it is like turning that mandelbrot set inside out. Not recommended as a hobby………..

Postpocelipse said:

Well I finally understand why this exercise messed with my head. From photon to electron to proton it is like tracing a mandelbrot set. For the instanton phases above that it is like turning that mandelbrot set inside out. Not recommended as a hobby………..

At least not if you are going to try to do it in words………….

Well my exercise is telling me it’s finished and has supplied the equations I was seeking moll. Thanks for indulging me. If I have questions for you from here they should be a whole lot easier to follow.

:)

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

Are you drunk?

—-

Says it all about your protege

tauto said:

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

A neutrino is an electron. Hit it with a photon and it will develop at least a neutron. Hit it with higher intensity stuff you’ll probably make a graviton. Plain and simple. No real matter involved.

Are you drunk?

Oooh aren’t you clever.

—-

Says it all about your protege