irockyou wrote:I don't understand what En is supposed to be. I understand the n part, but what does the E mean? Is it the atomic number?
Also, the bonds in the angle brackets dont make sense. If the numbers represent the number of bonds, why are there two numbers? Are there two different connections, each one in a different 2d plane?
I'm no expert, though I'd like to be... if you could explain a bit more?
irockyou wrote:So the "E" (which means electron) is replaced with the atomic number of the atom? Ok, that makes sense.
Here's one final question: how do you know that certain bonds between certain electrons are more or less stable?
iNVERTED wrote:By thinking about it. Razz
e.g. A double bond (<1-1, 2-2>) is stronger than a single bond (<1-1>) because there is more than one bond. A crossover bond (<1-2, 2-1>) is stronger than a double bond because they overlap.
iNVERTED wrote:No it isn't... E1 means an electron with 1 coil. E2 means an electron with 2 coils. Etc. You don't replace the E with anything... :?
G.f.: Product_{k>0} 1/(1-x^k) = Sum_{k>= 0} x^k Product_{i = 1..k} 1/(1-x^i) = 1+Sum_{k>0} x^(k^2)/(Product_{i = 1..k} (1-x^i))^2.
a(n) - a(n-1) - a(n-2) + a(n-5) + a(n-7) - a(n-12) - a(n-15) + ... = 0, where the sum is over n-k and k is a generalized pentagonal number (A001318) <= n and the sign of the k-th term is (-1)^([(k+1)/2]). See A001318 for a good way to remember this!
a(n) = (1/n) * Sum_{k=0, 1, ..., n-1} sigma(n-k)*a(k), where sigma(k) is the sum of divisors of k (A000203).
a(n) ~ 1/(4*n*sqrt(3)) * e^(Pi * sqrt(2n/3)) as n -> infinity (Hardy and Ramanujan).
a(n) < exp( (2/3)^(1/2) pi sqrt(n) ) (Ayoub, p. 197).
G.f.: Product (1+x^m)^A001511(m); m=1..inf. - Vladeta Jovovic (vladeta(AT)Eunet.yu), Mar 26 2004
a(n)=sum(i=0, n-1, P(i, n-i)), where P(x, y) is the number of partitions of x into at most y parts, and P(0, y)=1. - Jon Perry (perry(AT)globalnet.co.uk), Jun 16 2003
G.f. : product(i=1, oo, product(j=0, oo, (1+x^((2i-1)*2^j))^(j+1))) - Jon Perry (perry(AT)globalnet.co.uk), Jun 06 2004
G.f. e^{Sum_{k>0} (x^k/(1-x^k)/k)}. - Frank Adams-Watters (FrankTAW(AT)Netscape.net), Feb 08 2006
Euler transform of all 1's sequence (A000012). Weighout transform of A001511. - Frank Adams-Watters (FrankTAW(AT)Netscape.net), Mar 15 2006
a(n) = A027187(n)+A027193(n) = A000701(n)+A046682(n). - Reinhard Zumkeller (reinhard.zumkeller(AT)lhsystems.com), Apr 22 2006
iNVERTED wrote:+Quark - charge +0.2, mass 0.2
-Quark - charge -0.3, mass 0.2
xQuark - charge -0.16r7, mass 0.0001
Proton - charge 1, mass 1, made of 5 +quarks.
Neutron - charge 0, mass 1, made of 3 +quarks and 2 -quarks.
Electron - charge -c, mass 0.0006c, made of 6c xquarks where c = number of coils.
Catron - charge -3, mass 2, made of 10 -quarks.
iNVERTED wrote:Well what does all this mean then?
...
One thing I would like to know is if that sequence of numbers (1,2,3,5,7,11,15,22) is actually mathematical in some way... I should continue with finding these coilatopes
+Quark - charge +0.2, mass 0.2
-Quark - charge -0.3, mass 0.2
xQuark - charge -0.16r7, mass 0.0001
PWrong wrote:One thing I would like to know is if that sequence of numbers (1,2,3,5,7,11,15,22) is actually mathematical in some way... I should continue with finding these coilatopes
It's a very important sequence. It's the number of rotatopes in n dimensions .
I like your idea, even though it seems a bit arbitrary.
Of course, it would be better to use quantum mechanics, but that hasn't worked so far.
I don't know about your attempt at 4D particle physics. Is every particle a coil, or just electrons? And how do you make a coil out of six quarks?+Quark - charge +0.2, mass 0.2
-Quark - charge -0.3, mass 0.2
xQuark - charge -0.16r7, mass 0.0001
Where did these numbers come from? In 3D we have 6 flavours of quark, in three different colours, plus their antiquarks (that's 36 different quarks). Why are there only three in 4D? Also, you've left out the muon, tau, and three kinds of neutrino.
Quantum mechanics makes no sense to me... it's just completely illogical
So I tried simplifying things a bit, so sue me. It's only a hypothetical model, if it doesn't work it can be fixed
What's a catron, you ask. Well, since electrons are "stuck" to the atoms, it's impossible to have metallic bonding or electricity. So catrons answer that.
Ok, fair enough. But if you want to make things simpler, then I don't see the point of introducing quarks at all. If you want them, you might as well make them the same as in 3D.
So is a catron a coil or a point particle?
Where did these numbers come from? In 3D we have 6 flavours of quark, in three different colours, plus their antiquarks (that's 36 different quarks). Why are there only three in 4D? Also, you've left out the muon, tau, and three kinds of neutrino.
If I didn't have quarks I wouldn't be able to explain the catron.
Although, I admit that the electron quark configuration is farfetched. Maybe I should just have an E-quark and the electrons En made from n connected E-quarks?
5 quarks in a group is the most stable configuration in 4D.
PWrong wrote:If I didn't have quarks I wouldn't be able to explain the catron.
Although, I admit that the electron quark configuration is farfetched. Maybe I should just have an E-quark and the electrons En made from n connected E-quarks?
Well, in our universe, electrons aren't made of quarks at all. They're fundamental particles.
5 quarks in a group is the most stable configuration in 4D.
Why? In 3D you only find quarks in groups of 2 and 3. And that's purely because of conservation laws, not geometry.
irockyou wrote:iNVERTED wrote:+Quark - charge +0.2, mass 0.2
-Quark - charge -0.3, mass 0.2
xQuark - charge -0.16r7, mass 0.0001
Proton - charge 1, mass 1, made of 5 +quarks.
Neutron - charge 0, mass 1, made of 3 +quarks and 2 -quarks.
Electron - charge -c, mass 0.0006c, made of 6c xquarks where c = number of coils.
Catron - charge -3, mass 2, made of 10 -quarks.
If an electron has 0 charge, how come it has more +quarks than -quarks? Wouldn't that give it a positive charge?
What are xQuarks supposed to be; in other words, what problem in your theory are xQuarks supposed to fix?
Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests