Me:
If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate lepton number
conservation?

Copilot:
Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by emitting
a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how Majorana
neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:

Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a proton,
emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
[ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]

Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
In this process:
The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).

Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
Lepton Number Conservation:
Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged leptons,
and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the lepton
numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!

Me:
a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
NOT equal 2!

Copilot:
You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:

Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
[ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]

Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
In this process:
The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).

Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).

Correction:
I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation would be:
[ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to detail

On 03/01/2024 05:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> Me:
> If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate lepton
> number
> conservation?
>
> Copilot:
> Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by
> emitting
> a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how
> Majorana
> neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> proton,
> emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
> Lepton Number Conservation:
> Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged leptons,
> and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
> Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the lepton
> numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
> In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
> conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be a
> neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and
> conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!
>
> Me:
> a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
> conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
> NOT equal 2!
>
> Copilot:
> You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
> apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
> scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>
> Correction:
> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
> right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
> would be:
> [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
> Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to
> detail

Wow, Bing's sounds just like Google's.

That sort of makes sense, considering the
results of their search/hide huff/stuff
results are about same, but crucially it's
the language and style is about identical.

I wonder if you ask it to delve ...

The Beta decay, is one of the greatest things
getting back something continuous out of the
discrete. That is to say, Beta decay evinces
a continuous range of response, from what
was a discrete setting.

Consider in metaphor the spectroscopic lines
of hydrogen and sodium lamps, then the case
of sodium lamps in low pressure and high pressure,
and their various spectra, what were spectral lines.

The Majorana spinor then the predicted particle,
it's just sort of off a bivector for Cartan or
the geometric algebra, about why it sort of just
reflects a branch off the principal value,
to indicate by having two values that it's
a continuous singularity, the multiplicity
there, of it. I.e., as a particle, it's a wave, ....

On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> Me:
> If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate lepton
> number
> conservation?
>
> Copilot:
> Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by
> emitting
> a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how
> Majorana
> neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> proton,
> emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
> Lepton Number Conservation:
> Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged leptons,
> and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
> Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the lepton
> numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
> In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
> conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be a
> neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and
> conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!
>
> Me:
> a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
> conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles:  zero does
> NOT equal 2!
>
> Copilot:
> You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
> apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
> scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>
> Correction:
> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
> right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
> would be:
> [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
> Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to
> detail

If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton number
(and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would violate
lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you think.

On 03/01/2024 11:14 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>> Me:
>> If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate
>> lepton number
>> conservation?
>>
>> Copilot:
>> Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by
>> emitting
>> a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how
>> Majorana
>> neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:
>>
>> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
>> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
>> proton,
>> emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
>> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>
>> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
>> In this process:
>> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
>> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
>> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
>> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
>> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>>
>> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
>> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
>> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
>> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino
>> (νe).
>> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
>> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
>> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>> Lepton Number Conservation:
>> Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged leptons,
>> and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
>> Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the lepton
>> numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
>> In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
>> conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be
>> a neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and
>> conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!
>>
>> Me:
>> a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
>> conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
>> NOT equal 2!
>>
>> Copilot:
>> You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
>> apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
>> scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>>
>> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
>> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
>> proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
>> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>
>> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
>> In this process:
>> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
>> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
>> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
>> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
>> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>>
>> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
>> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
>> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
>> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino
>> (νe).
>> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
>> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
>> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>>
>> Correction:
>> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
>> right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
>> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
>> would be:
>> [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
>> Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention
>> to detail
>
> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton number
> (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would violate
> lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you think.

This is like an interesting conversation we
had here some time ago, about the standard model
of physics, the idea of neutrino physics, the
ideas of virtual particles, the ideas of partner
particles and symmetries, these reflecting flow
and flux and counterflow and counterflux,
here about Born rule and adding quantum numbers,
vis-a-vis "conversation and continuity laws".

It sort of went "Majorana own anti-particle", "Nuh uh", "Is so".

On 03/01/2024 11:26 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/01/2024 11:14 AM, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>>> Me:
>>> If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate
>>> lepton number
>>> conservation?
>>>
>>> Copilot:
>>> Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by
>>> emitting
>>> a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how
>>> Majorana
>>> neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:
>>>
>>> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
>>> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
>>> proton,
>>> emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
>>> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>>
>>> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
>>> In this process:
>>> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
>>> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
>>> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
>>> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
>>> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>>>
>>> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
>>> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
>>> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
>>> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino
>>> (νe).
>>> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
>>> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
>>> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>>> Lepton Number Conservation:
>>> Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged
>>> leptons,
>>> and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
>>> Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the
>>> lepton
>>> numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
>>> In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
>>> conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be
>>> a neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and
>>> conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!
>>>
>>> Me:
>>> a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would
>>> NOT
>>> conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
>>> NOT equal 2!
>>>
>>> Copilot:
>>> You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
>>> apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
>>> scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>>>
>>> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
>>> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
>>> proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
>>> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>>
>>> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
>>> In this process:
>>> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
>>> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
>>> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
>>> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
>>> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>>>
>>> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
>>> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
>>> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
>>> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino
>>> (νe).
>>> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>>> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
>>> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
>>> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>>>
>>> Correction:
>>> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
>>> right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
>>> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
>>> would be:
>>> [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
>>> Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention
>>> to detail
>>
>> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton number
>> (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would violate
>> lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you think.
>
> This is like an interesting conversation we
> had here some time ago, about the standard model
> of physics, the idea of neutrino physics, the
> ideas of virtual particles, the ideas of partner
> particles and symmetries, these reflecting flow
> and flux and counterflow and counterflux,
> here about Born rule and adding quantum numbers,
> vis-a-vis "conversation and continuity laws".
>
> It sort of went "Majorana own anti-particle", "Nuh uh", "Is so".
>
>

It's kind of like,

"second quantization",
"second generation quarks",
"second sound",
"central limit theorem now log-normal",
"multi-pole, or at least two",

"acceleration, velocity's meters, per s: seconds squared",

about getting from the regime that's basically first-order,
the classical, up out on into the higher order, the,
out of the linear to the nonlinear to the highly non-linear
to the asymptotic to the singular, that all these
sorts approaches are kind of like "well, how about
at least one higher order, second order".

It's like "Feynman's 4-vector", but mostly
it's that "singularity theory is multiplicity theory",
and, "quantum mechanics is a conceit for continuum mechanics".

Technicolour, is, "it's quarks all the way down".

SUSY the concept of supersymmetry is remarkably resilient.

The non-conservative these days, really mostly just
means what was thought closed was open wider in the
virtual, as it is or as it were, like "pseudomomentum".

I.e. it's still conservative, that continuity laws
are transitions of exchanges, physics as an open
system a closed system.

Then it's for matters of particle dynamics and
quantum dynamics for continuum mechanics and
continuum mechanics the "quasi-invariant"
why it's all so.

Like the pseudo-differential in quantum field theory.

And it's like "whither yon, Einstein" and he might say
"it is a differential-system and a sort of a total field
theory, and inertial-systems is pretty much where I'm at, ...".

Volney wrote:

> On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>> Correction:
>> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are
>> absolutely right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not
>> two. In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation
>> equation would be: [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ] Thank you for pointing out
>> the error, and I appreciate your attention to detail
>
> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton number
> (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would violate
> lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you think.

indeed, that's because you big physicists are judging quantum domain with
the brain, hence logic, of the macro scale. It's the quantum domain
pushing, not the other way around. Meanwhile, the guilty like shit murder,
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 from polkia polaker, subhuman excrement, 𝗶𝘀_𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 amrica,
again!!

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀_‘𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗕𝗲_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮_𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲_𝗜𝘁’𝘀_𝗧𝗼𝗼_𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲’
March 1, 2024 Baxter Dmitry 2
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/israel-demands-antisemitism-must-be-
criminalized-in-america-before-its-too-late/

Israel is demanding that “antisemitism” be “criminalized” in countries
including the United States in order to stop any and all criticism of
Israel regardless of their actions. The Israeli paper the Jerusalem Post
ran a […]

> Voney wrote:
>
> On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
> > Me:
> > If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate lepton
> > number conservation?
> >
> > ....
> >
> > Me:
> > a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
> > conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
> > NOT equal 2!
> >
> > Copilot:
> > You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
> > apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
> > scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
> >
> > Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> > In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> > proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> > [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> >
> > Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> > In this process:
> > The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> > The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> > The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> > The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> > The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
> >
> > Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> > If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> > The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> > In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> > The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> > The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> > The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> > The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
> >
> > Correction:
> > I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
> > right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
> > In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
> > would be:
> > [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
> > Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to
> >detail
>
> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton number
> (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would violate
> lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you think.

Anyway you slice it, if neutrinos are Majorana particles then lepton number is
not conserved. That would mean new physics. OTOH, if they're Dirac particles,
we're good here. Makes me wonder why some are looking for double beta decay.
I guess they want new physics. I'm okay with that. Clarke's second law:

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way
 past them into the impossible." -- Arthur C. Clarke

The neutrino still has a lot of the impossible about it:

"PTOLEMY: A Proposal for Thermal Relic Detection of Massive Neutrinos and
Directional Detection of MeV Dark Matter," ArXiv:1808.01892

"Snowmass white paper: beyond the standard model effects on neutrino flavor."
https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11049-7. (2023).

On 3/1/2024 7:36 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>> Voney wrote:
>>
>> On 3/1/2024 8:40 AM, gharnagel wrote:
>> > Me:
>> > If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate
>> lepton > number conservation?
>> >
>> > ....
>> >
>> > Me:
>> > a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino
>> would NOT
>> > conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles:  zero does
>> > NOT equal 2!
>> >
>> > Copilot:
>> > You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
>> > apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
>> > scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>> >
>> > Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
>> > In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
>> > proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
>> > [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>> >
>> > Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
>> > In this process:
>> > The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
>> > The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
>> > The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
>> > The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
>> > The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>> >
>> > Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
>> > If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
>> > The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
>> > In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino
>> (νe).
>> > The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>> > The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
>> > The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
>> > The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>> >
>> > Correction:
>> > I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are
>> absolutely
>> > right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
>> > In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
>> > would be:
>> > [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
>> > Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your
>> attention to >detail
>>
>> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton
>> number (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would
>> violate lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you
>> think.
>
> Anyway you slice it, if neutrinos are Majorana particles then lepton
> number is
> not conserved.  That would mean new physics.

Neutrino oscillation already violates lepton number, iff we consider the
three types of leptons to have separately conserved lepton numbers. For
example, a muon decays into an electron, muon neutrino and an electron
antineutrino, apparently conserving both the muon lepton number and the
electron lepton number separately. Majorana neutrinos may allow a
different type of violation involving positive and negative lepton
numbers, or maybe neutrino/antineutrino oscillation can happen. But I
think solar neutrino experiments would have detected that.

Volney wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >
> > Anyway you slice it, if neutrinos are Majorana particles then lepton
> > number is not conserved. That would mean new physics.
>
> Neutrino oscillation already violates lepton number, iff we consider the
> three types of leptons to have separately conserved lepton numbers. For
> example, a muon decays into an electron, muon neutrino and an electron
> antineutrino, apparently conserving both the muon lepton number and the
> electron lepton number separately.

I don't think lepton conservation is THAT finicky. All it cares about is
the L-word, not the e, m or t words.

> Majorana neutrinos may allow a different type of violation involving
> positive and negative lepton numbers, or maybe neutrino/antineutrino
> oscillation can happen.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

> But I think solar neutrino experiments would have detected that.

Not sure about that. If neutrinos are Majorana then lepton number is not
conserved. But no lepton has been observed to change its lepton number.
That would be like saying an electron can turn into a positron.

It's been suggested by Wheeler and Feynman that a positron is an electron
going backward in time, but I don't subscribe to such causality-violating
baloney.

On 03/01/2024 09:41 PM, gharnagel wrote:
> Volney wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >
>> > Anyway you slice it, if neutrinos are Majorana particles then lepton
>> > number is not conserved. That would mean new physics.
>>
>> Neutrino oscillation already violates lepton number, iff we consider the
>> three types of leptons to have separately conserved lepton numbers. For
>> example, a muon decays into an electron, muon neutrino and an electron
>> antineutrino, apparently conserving both the muon lepton number and the
>> electron lepton number separately.
>
> I don't think lepton conservation is THAT finicky. All it cares about is
> the L-word, not the e, m or t words.
>
>> Majorana neutrinos may allow a different type of violation involving
>> positive and negative lepton numbers, or maybe neutrino/antineutrino
>> oscillation can happen.
>
> That doesn't seem to be the case.
>
>> But I think solar neutrino experiments would have detected that.
>
> Not sure about that. If neutrinos are Majorana then lepton number is not
> conserved. But no lepton has been observed to change its lepton number.
> That would be like saying an electron can turn into a positron.
>
> It's been suggested by Wheeler and Feynman that a positron is an electron
> going backward in time, but I don't subscribe to such causality-violating
> baloney.

It's agreeable that "negative time" is a silly concept.

After: Alain Aspect and Aspect-type experiments and this kind
of thing, that "well it must have come down the tube one side
or the other", gets into the "photino", and helps illustrate
this notion current and countercurrent and re-current, the
back-and-forth, while time still never goes backward and
"there are no closed time-like curves" is fairly deterministic.

For quantum gravity, "ultramundate corpuscles", "altogether
weak yet everywhere and constantly pointing in the right
direction as from infinity", "gravitinos", gets into among
reasons why is part of a fundamental upswelling of theoretical
impetus to theory to arrive at why the great success of,

electron physics,
and,
the course after "the ultraviolet catastrophe",

results as for,

(electron) neutrino physics,
and,
the course for after "the infrared catastrophe".

The word, catastrophe, is sort of like "apeiron",
"it's infinite, it's bad, it's not good, it's bad".
Yet as well one should know the meaning from mathematics
and singularity theory, that catastrophe is also the
perestroika, "opening", from singularity theory to
multiplicity theory. So, singularity, perestroika,
opening, catastrophe, are words, kind of like,
"Chaos theory isn't bad, it's just not well understood".

"Flux", my friends, flux, here is differentiated in
meaning from flow, leaving flow as classical and flux
as super-classical, then light's flux as the first sort
super-classical, then for as that lights and photons have
a certain second-super-classical, what makes for photinos,
in the fundamental theory where anything's a particle.

Which are waves, ....

So, the "infra-red catastrophe", or "low-energy", then
is for the idea generally that neutrino physics basically
makes for the super-classical complement to particle physics,
in particle physics.

Then, a perceived goal is that that's back to unification
with the meso-scale, and the macro-scale, these things.
For a long time, the macro-scale was cosmology, and the
micro-scale was man. Then, after atomism, the theory,
then much, much later atomism the experimental science,
the micro-scale became the atom, while, it's yet so that
man is in the meso-scale, vis-a-vis, the macro-scale of
the large, and, the macro-scale, of the small.

Theory, can detach model, from model, here with respect
to "negative time", "anti-deSitter space", even with
like "quantum probability amplitudes", which though
have a great explanatory power and correspondence
and only sort of eventually "contradict intuitive"
as unintuitive. Ahem. Here though theory, is free,
to make models, for example Multiple Worlds, yet,
it's also not free, in terms of eventual overall
"connections", the connection to the commitment,
to the theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuYEsfrp0bA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=51&t=1200

So, "neutrino physics", is, ..., what it is, you know,
what it is, "infra-red catastrophe" is something I made up
meaning to fill the role of "infra-red catastrophe:
ultraviolet catastrophe 2: back to the continuum".

I.e. the idea is to get the theory back together,
and of course with the goal of unifying QM and GR,
and resulting having a sane theory of gravity in it.

gharnagel wrote: >> Voney wrote:
>> If the Majorna neutrino was its own antiparticle, then its lepton
>> number (and several other factors) must be 0. Beta decay still would
>> violate lepton number conservation, but differently than the way you
>> think.
>
> Anyway you slice it, if neutrinos are Majorana particles then lepton
> number is not conserved. That would mean new physics.

yes, I'm telling 𝗶𝘁 to them all the time. All these "𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀" of amrica not
even wrong. They take it as 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼_𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻_𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗲 and repeat what the got served
in their schools. Naming the Einstine in their papers, going to
"conferences" three days, 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱. Lol. That's the fucking
amrica, 94% of the published papers are 100% crap. Why, because 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲
𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 to publish papers, otherwise no feed your kids. Fucking
capitalism, my friend, like it or not. That's amrica. Aka, dual
citizenship wanker serving as "public servants" aka "elites".

𝗕𝗮𝗻_𝗗𝘂𝗮𝗹_𝗖𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽_𝗙𝗼𝗿_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻_𝗡𝗢𝗪_¤_𝗪𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗼𝗻_𝗖𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗕𝘆_𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗴𝗻_𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘀
https://bitchute.com/video/P6Ib3m7JyQwT

𝗘𝗨_𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆_𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝘀_𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀_𝗼𝗳_𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗼𝗶𝗹
Bulgaria has prematurely waived its exemption from a EU embargo which
allowed it to buy crude until the end of 2024
https://r%74.com/news/593569-germany-crimea-leak-probe/

𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗟𝗲_𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲
Paris is contemplating sending a small force into Ukrainian territory to
pose a “strategic dilemma” for Moscow, the French outlet has claimed
https://r%74.com/russia/593564-france-troops-ukraine-media/

𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆_𝗹𝗮𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼_𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸_𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸
The Defense Ministry fears that Russia may have spied on Luftwaffe
generals
https://r%74.com/news/593571-leaked-german-recording-authentic/

Once again the birthplace of Nazism poses itself as a threat to the
Russian people. That wall should never have come down by the looks of it.

Frankfurter Rundschau went from "Simonyan published some audio on a
propaganda channel" yesterday to "several german soldiers confirm the
audio, which is available, and the video conference was done with Webex"
Stay tuned. Webex...
Our end-to-end encryption uses Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128,
AES256, Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) 1, SHA256, and RSA. For audio, video,
and screen sharing, we encrypt shared content using the Secure Real-Time
Transport Protocol (SRTP). So Russian intelligence cracked SRTP. I am
impressed but I bet Cisco isn't.

Criminal nato f4ggots fighting their war while hiding behind the cheap and
expendable ukrainians. Ukraine seems to be the prostitute capital of
Europe who will do anything for a dollar.

West pride themselves on ability to spy even on their own citizens...
when it happens to them they act surprised ???

gharnagel wrote:
>
> Me:
> If neutrinos are majorana particles, wouldn't beta decay violate lepton number
> conservation?
>
> Copilot:
> Beta decay is a fascinating process in which a nucleus transforms by emitting
> a beta particle (either an electron or a positron). Let’s explore how Majorana
> neutrinos might impact lepton number conservation in beta decay:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a proton,
> emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
> Lepton Number Conservation:
> Crucially, the total lepton number (including neutrinos, charged leptons,
> and antileptons) must always be conserved in any particle interaction.
> Majorana neutrinos preserve this conservation by ensuring that the lepton
> numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos add up to zero.
> In summary, if neutrinos are Majorana particles, beta decay would still
> conserve lepton number, as the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino. The fascinating interplay between particle physics and conservation laws continues to captivate scientists worldwide!
>
> Me:
> a neutron decaying to a proton, an electron and an antineutrino would NOT
> conserve lepton number if neutrinos were majorana particles: zero does
> NOT equal 2!
>
> Copilot:
> You are absolutely correct, and I appreciate your keen observation! I
> apologize for the oversight in my previous response. Let’s revisit the
> scenario of beta decay with Majorana neutrinos:
>
> Standard Beta Decay (β- Decay):
> In standard beta decay, a neutron inside a nucleus transforms into a
> proton, emitting an electron (β-) and an antineutrino (ν̄e):
> [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
>
> Lepton Numbers in Standard Beta Decay:
> In this process:
> The neutron (n) has a lepton number of 0.
> The proton (p) also has a lepton number of 0.
> The emitted electron (e^-) has a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted antineutrino (ν̄e) has a lepton number of -1.
> The total lepton number is conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + (-1) = 0).
>
> Majorana Neutrinos and Beta Decay:
> If neutrinos are Majorana particles:
> The neutrino (νe) and antineutrino (ν̄e) would be the same particle.
> In beta decay, the emitted antineutrino would actually be a neutrino (νe).
> The process would look like this: [ n \rightarrow p + e^- + \nu_e ]
> The emitted neutrino (νe) would have a lepton number of +1.
> The emitted electron (e^-) would still have a lepton number of +1.
> The total lepton number remains conserved: (0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2).
>
> Correction:
> I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
> right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation would be:
> [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
> Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to detail

Your interesting interaction with bing chat is a typical responce
someone would
give in a science newsgroup.

It's called...backpeddling. Ai does it ALL the time!

I apologize
I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize
I apologizeI apologizeI apologize
I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize

(except. newsgroup members don't appologize.
they just keep changing the facts around to fit their narative)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

> > Correction:
> > I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are absolutely
> > right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation would be:
> > [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
> > Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your attention to detail
>
> Your interesting interaction with bing chat is a typical responce someone would
> give in a science newsgroup.
>
> It's called...backpeddling. Ai does it ALL the time!
>
> I apologize
> I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize
> I apologizeI apologizeI apologize
> I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize
>
> (except. newsgroup members don't appologize.
> they just keep changing the facts around to fit their narative)

Indeed. So the question is, is bing chat ai an honest ai or is it a typical
dishonest poster? Who wants to go question the ai to see if it really can
learn?

Some ai chats don't or can't delve into the online science, but this one can
and did. In a previous interaction, I asked it about tachyons. It gave me
the usual boilerplate about violating causality, etc., so I asked it this:
---------------
Me: What about harnagel in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 proving that tachyons would not violate causality?

Copilot:
Gary Harnagel, a physicist, has proposed that tachyons do not violate causality 1. In his paper, he discusses two different approaches to tachyon communication around a loop, one employing a “hand-off” between momentarily-adjacent observers in relative motion passing each other, while the other applies direct tachyon communication between moving observers who are not adjacent 1. Harnagel argues that an analysis of what would be observed in a physics laboratory, rather than what is inferred from a Minkowski diagram, attests that causality violation does not occur in the hand-off method, either 1. However, it is important to note that tachyons are still hypothetical particles and no verifiable experimental evidence for their existence has been found 1.

Learn more
1 academia.edu 2 academia.edu 3 hrpub.org

1 Tachyons from a Laboratory Perspective
2 Tachyons for Interstellar Communication
3 Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism and Simultaneity
---------------
So it found my infamous viXra papers on its own.

On 03/03/2024 01:17 PM, gharnagel wrote:
>> > Correction:
>> > I apologize for the confusion in my initial response. You are
>> absolutely
>> > right that the total lepton number should remain zero, not two.
>> In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the correct conservation equation
>> would be:
>> > [ 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 2 ]
>> > Thank you for pointing out the error, and I appreciate your
>> attention to detail
>>
>> Your interesting interaction with bing chat is a typical responce
>> someone would
>> give in a science newsgroup.
>>
>> It's called...backpeddling. Ai does it ALL the time!
>>
>> I apologize
>> I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize
>> I apologizeI apologizeI apologize
>> I apologizeI apologizeI apologizeI apologize
>>
>> (except. newsgroup members don't appologize.
>> they just keep changing the facts around to fit their narative)
>
> Indeed. So the question is, is bing chat ai an honest ai or is it a
> typical
> dishonest poster? Who wants to go question the ai to see if it really can
> learn?
>
> Some ai chats don't or can't delve into the online science, but this one
> can
> and did. In a previous interaction, I asked it about tachyons. It gave me
> the usual boilerplate about violating causality, etc., so I asked it this:
> ---------------
> Me: What about harnagel in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 proving that
> tachyons would not violate causality?
>
> Copilot:
> Gary Harnagel, a physicist, has proposed that tachyons do not violate
> causality 1. In his paper, he discusses two different approaches to
> tachyon communication around a loop, one employing a “hand-off” between
> momentarily-adjacent observers in relative motion passing each other,
> while the other applies direct tachyon communication between moving
> observers who are not adjacent 1. Harnagel argues that an analysis of
> what would be observed in a physics laboratory, rather than what is
> inferred from a Minkowski diagram, attests that causality violation does
> not occur in the hand-off method, either 1. However, it is important to
> note that tachyons are still hypothetical particles and no verifiable
> experimental evidence for their existence has been found 1.
>
> Learn more
> 1 academia.edu 2 academia.edu 3 hrpub.org
>
> 1 Tachyons from a Laboratory Perspective
> 2 Tachyons for Interstellar Communication
> 3 Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism and Simultaneity
> ---------------
> So it found my infamous viXra papers on its own.

These days you might consider that "photinos" are
the hypothetical particle, that's a super-symmetrical
complement, with its super-classical behavior, as
about point local global total a total field theory:
talking about photons as tachyonic and electrons
bradyonic, and photons as flux thusly, and photinos
as "second and final order flux", vis-a-vis, gravitinos,
as usually "final order flux", with regards to causality,
and, synchronicity. (And electron physics, the flow
of bulk and aggregate electron-holes.)

For complementarity and unitarity, ....

You can tell a lot about somebody
by how they treat their animals.

Man: is animal, and machine.
Yet man: is mind. Our species,
"homo sapiens", is like a man,
with a mind. Then, "homo sapiens sapiens",
is about double that, then that,
"homo sapiens sapiens sapiens",
has quite a large mind.

Homo, bro: no homo.

A variety of tachyons in neutrino physics,
have been found. Yet, you can find in the
literature, that anti-matter, though hypothesized,
has never been found. Yet, you can also find
later in the literature, that that's has-been.

You can also look into Brehmsstrahlung, or
braking radiation, Cerenkov, and for example,
Coriolis, and, for example, Casimir, each
explaining various effects either super-symmetric
in complementarity, and that a "theory of sum potentials",
has that the sum of the potentials is real,
and it's total, in a total field theory.
Also there's Coulomb force, "now in non-conservative".

The idea of anti-matter of course is that
matter + anti-matter = total mass -> energy conversion.

Of course: causality, is inviolable.
And: there are no closed time-like curves.
Conserved quantities are conserved,
not all quantities are conserved,
yet other quantities result when they're not.
All quantity is conserved. (It's an open system.)

Then, super-symmetry basically says,
"well, euh, something adds back up".
Then, super-symmetry has already put
out "and here are the definitive names
of these things, as hypothetically,
they're theoretical, their description".

The Beta decay, is one of the particular processes
that illustrates quasi-invariance at continuum
boundaries, and, the very nature, or, "quantization",
and quantization's, "normalization", itself.

.... That normalization is re-de- or de-re-normalization, ...,
in the doubling and halving spaces of mathematics' measure theory.

It's a continuum mechanics.

Put that in the large vector pipe and watch it smoke.

gharnagel wrote:

> Me: What about harnagel in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 proving that
> tachyons would not violate causality?
>
> Copilot:
> Gary Harnagel, a physicist, has proposed that tachyons do not violate
> causality 1. In his paper, he discusses two different approaches to
> tachyon communication around a loop, one employing a “hand-off” between
> momentarily-adjacent observers in relative motion passing each other,
> while the other applies direct tachyon communication between moving
> observers who are not adjacent 1. Harnagel argues that an analysis of
> what would be observed in a physics laboratory, rather than what is
> inferred from a Minkowski diagram, attests that causality violation does
> not occur in the hand-off method, either 1. However, it is important to
> note that tachyons are still hypothetical particles and no verifiable
> experimental evidence for their existence has been found 1.

which proves both harnagel and the so called ˝AI˝ are not undrestanding
relativity and tensors and so on. Trying to promote your paper through
crappy AI chat, shows the fool you are. I think it's significant.

𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹_𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗣𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗮𝗶𝗱_𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗼𝘆_𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀
The IDF has claimed that its troops only opened fire to protect themselves
from the hungry crowd
https://r%74.com/news/593704-israel-gaza-aid-convoy-deaths/

This is merely a continuation of British Imperial practices, under a
different brand. The ziojews are the world leaders in lying and deception
and death. The Devil's chosen scums at it again spreading lies....

“This is why we are facilitating aid, creating humanitarian corridors,
establishing unilateral humanitarian pauses, and exercising caution in our
use of force.” Hagari said. Every word of this is a 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆_𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮
lie.

NATO ITS A WEAPON OF THE ZIONIST, AS LONG THE ZIONIST CONTROL NATO AND
AMARICA THEY FEEL POWERFUL. Really!!! Musk doesn't know, NATO is there to
bomb poor countries??? ...and siphon tax money.

strange how the perpetrator is innocent while the victim is to blame ?
probably a normal way of thinking to the zionist mind ?

in a few months there will be no "𝗶𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹", since never existed, accordingly
"they" change the name from 𝗝𝗮𝗰𝗼𝗯, saying God did a mistake. They killed
Jesus, saying God did another mistake.

Zionist child killers are born liars and now running scared as despite
killing 32,000 plus Palestinian unarmed women and children they have lost
militarily to a small band of superhuman brave Hamas freedom fighters in
sneakers. In frustration Zionist cowards are killing babies, woman and
children.

These are murderors and will go without punishment. The killers are paid
by the USA. Amazing the fucking 𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘆 and 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁, population over 200 mil,
are not doing anything.

Ross Finlayson wrote:

> On 03/03/2024 01:17 PM, gharnagel wrote:
1 Tachyons from a Laboratory Perspective 2 Tachyons for Interstellar
>> Communication 3 Tachyons, the Four-Momentum Formalism and Simultaneity
>> So it found my infamous viXra papers on its own.
>
> These days you might consider that "photinos" are the hypothetical
> particle, that's a super-symmetrical complement, with its
> super-classical behavior, as about point local global total a total
> field theory: talking about photons as tachyonic and electrons
> bradyonic, and photons as flux thusly, and photinos as "second and final
> order flux", vis-a-vis, gravitinos, as usually "final order flux", with

i find difficult reading your papers. You write so vast and ample .

𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵_𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀’_𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗮𝗱𝗲_𝗶𝘀_‘𝗯𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱_𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆’_–_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆
Agricultural producers in Poland are outraged that their Ukrainian
competitors can sell grain in the EU without paying tariffs
https://r%74.com/russia/593718-zelensky-polish-farmers-protest-morality/

Zelensky and "morality"?... It's nice to start the week with a good
laugh!..

Careful ...he may march on Warsaw next

What's beyond morality is to continue to send young men to their death
because you refuse to negotiate peace. It's also beyond morality that you
are getting rich from it. Adolf Zelensky is a criminal who is robbing a
country of it's young citizens while filling his filthy pockets with U.S.
dollars. War pig!