Scattering - Science topic

Dear all, according to the equation, we can get the inverse relaxation time for the ionized impurity scattering mechanisms. But I don't know how to get the epsilon and electron wave vector. Looking forward to your answer.

For details, please open the attached file.

Is it refractive index

How is precipitation predicted and how can we use satellites and gauges such as Climate Prediction (CPC) Formation Algorithm (CMORPH), Global Precipitation Mapping Satellite (GSMaP), Tropical Precipitation Measuring Mission (TRMM), and some other satellites; Precipitation analysis (TMPA) used?

Precipitation is one of the important components of the global water cycle and is related to atmospheric circulation In climate and climate change that is used for weather forecasting, hydrological process modeling, disaster monitoring, etc. Because precipitation varies widely in space and time, it is accurate and reliable. Higher temporal and spatial precipitation products are needed for stakeholder decision-making. Local-scale decision-making is needed. Precipitation data can be both temporally and spatially. presented a series of spatial and temporal events indicating the tendency to increase rainfall in a particular region and the spatio-temporal distribution directly affecting the availability Water sources in rivers or watersheds. This availability of precipitation data is an important part of hydrological analysis, however, its inclusion is often insufficient and incomplete due to several factors such as the lack of both spatial and temporal observation data. Precipitation time series data, uneven number Precipitation stations, a limited number of observers and system observations, as well as manual data entry. this is . It is also difficult to obtain surface precipitation in real time. Observational data, which require preliminary investigation before they can be used directly. However, there is a need for accurate spatio-temporal and long-term precipitation data in climate change prediction, simulation study, hydrological forecasting, floods, landslides, droughts, disasters. Management and investigation of water resources Several factors that contribute to uncertainty, such as observation errors, boundary errors or initial conditions, model or system errors, scale differences and unknown parameter heterogeneity, have a significant impact on mass and distributed hydrological performance. models. Usually, the highest amount of precipitation is considered. An important meteorological input in hydrological and water quality studies is accurate measurement of precipitation. For reliable and consistent hydrological forecasts, the quantity and quality of water, the accuracy of precipitation data, is needed. including intensity, duration, geographic patterns and extent, significant impact on land surface output and hydrological models. has it. Large-scale hydrological models often rely on remotely sensed precipitation data from satellite sensors due to the lack of ground-sensing equipment and rain gauge networks. Gauges or satellites show regional and temporal variability and measurement errors although ground sensor Networks such as rain gauges and radars provide the most amount. Direct observations of surface precipitation and frequent They provide measurements with high time frequency The systems have significant drawbacks. Gauges limited to Point-scale observations, but they are also susceptible Misleading readings due to wind and evaporation effects. In addition, spatial interpolation of point-based observations Adds uncertainty to the final grid in addition to measurement errors Spatial precipitation dataset The distribution and density of gauges are critical factors Adequacy measurement has been shown by several studies to be fragmented And irregular rain gauge networks have a significant impact It can be based on the uncertainty of the hydrological model and that uncertainty It decreases with increasing densitometer or optimization distribution pattern. ground radar On the other hand, networks often provide continuous Spatial coverage with high spatial and temporal resolution. However, their accuracy is affected by signal attenuation and Extinction, surface scattering, illumination and effects, and Uncertainty in reflectivity-rainfall-rate relationship The latest technologies, such as remote sensing technology, It can overcome the lack or unavailability of precipitation data In the previous period, this means through satellite The possibility of obtaining precipitation data remotely measurements, thereby simplifying the collection process At any time and from any region, satellites generally have several Advantages over surface observation rain stations The measurement of precipitation amounts is one of the above spatial and temporal resolution with a wide coverage area, Near real-time data, continuous recording, quick access, weather effects, less field variability and easy data collection Because of the free download now, there are several satellite-based precipitation products available, each of which is different. Degrees of accuracy of the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) Formation Algorithm (CMORPH), Global Precipitation Mapping Satellite (GSMaP), Tropical Precipitation Measuring Mission (TRMM),Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA) and others.

Abbas Kashani added a reply

How precipitation is predicted and how to use satellites and gauges such as Climate Prediction Formation (CPC), Global Precipitation Mapping Satellite (GSMaP), Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and some other satellites. Precipitation analysis (TMPA) is used?

Precipitation is one of the important components of the global water cycle and is related to atmospheric circulation. in climate and climate change used for weather forecasting, hydrological process modeling, disaster monitoring, etc. Because precipitation varies greatly in space and time, it is accurate and reliable. Higher spatial and temporal precipitation products are needed for stakeholder decision making. Local decision-making is needed. Precipitation data can be both temporal and spatial. It presented a set of spatial and temporal events that indicate the tendency for rainfall to increase in a particular region and the spatio-temporal distribution that directly affects availability. Water sources in rivers or watersheds. The availability of precipitation data is an important part of hydrological analysis, however, its inclusion is often insufficient and incomplete due to several factors such as the lack of spatial and temporal observation data. Precipitation time series data, uneven number of precipitation stations, limited number of observers and system observations, as well as manual data entry. it is . It is also difficult to obtain surface precipitation in real time. Observational data that require preliminary investigation before direct use. However, in climate change prediction, simulation study, hydrological forecasting, floods, landslides, droughts, disasters, there is a need for accurate spatio-temporal and long-term precipitation data.

Management and investigation of water resources. Several factors that contribute to uncertainty, such as observation errors, boundary errors or initial conditions, model or system errors, scale differences and heterogeneity of unknown parameters, have a significant impact on mass and scattered hydrological performance. models. It is usually considered to be the highest amount of rainfall. An important meteorological input in hydrological and water quality studies is the accurate measurement of precipitation. For reliable and consistent hydrological forecasts, water quantity and quality, the accuracy of precipitation data is required. including intensity, duration, geographic patterns and extent, significant impact on land surface output and hydrological models. has it. Large-scale hydrological models often rely on remotely sensed precipitation data from satellite sensors due to the lack of ground sensing equipment and rain gauge networks. Gauges or satellites show regional and temporal changes and measurement errors even though the ground sensor

Share

Hello everyone. I got my raw data from VNA in the form of S11 (log), S11( Deg)....and so on. if you guys please assist me in that issue, I'll be thankful to you.

Note: I've attached my raw data excel form for your references.

Regards & Thanks

Dear colleagues!

I have encountered a weird bump in the BKG. Below at the picture you can see that the normal decay of air scattering intensity drops as usual, but then relatively sharply elevates average BKG level. If this would be everywhere this would not be a problem since everything would be on the same level, however such wave makes it very difficult to analyze peaks at lower angles. I tried various ways to organize optics to mitigate this issue and the best I could get is to shift the beginnigh of the bump towards 8 degrees instead of 6 via moving incident slit closer to the sample.

The manufacturer engineer said that this can be eliminated completely if you install parabolic mirror for parallel beam optics. However I personally think that this is BS, and such bump should not be there in the first instance.

Does anyone here have ideas of the origin of such bump and possibly how this could be removed.

The instrument is in reflection geometry, no monochromator, array detector, incident soller slit, knife edge is installed.

I am using Rhodamine6G as gain medium and silver nanoparticles as scatterers on a microscope slide and laser input 532 nm comes from above.

It was found in marine sediments in the Alboran Sea during the Pleistocene. Septate, brown, around 32x15 micrometers, with perforations scattered across the surface, and two apical pori.

We are developing the way to 'hyper'-scale X-ray diffraction and total scattering measurements and analysis. I envisage this playing a prominent role in searching large synthetic/processing parameter spaces for developing new materials, for coupling to materials prediction tools, and most importantly for democratising access to high-quality synchrotron data/analysis for researchers around the world and even new communities. I would like to hear researchers' opinions on this topic and particularly ideas for use-cases, especially out-of-the-box ones. Please comment if you have some ideas, I would love to get a discussion going.

Line defect - Photonic crystal in comsol . I am  able to get electric field Vs Arc length plot. I would like to know procedure to get electric field versus frequency (spectrum distribution) plot.I am using scattering boundary condition. It would be great if any body let me know how to proceed.I am trying the same as below link.

Hi, I performed a simulation of a Transmitarray structure with an impinging plane wave, designed to direct the output beam at 20° right with respect to the axe perpendicular to the structure. But processing the results, it seems that at the output there are both the contributions of the incident plane wave and the desired beam. How just the scattered field can be obtained?

Given the well-documented quantum Rayleigh scattering of single photons in a dielectric medium

[1] A. P. Vinogradov, V. Y. Shishkov, I. V. Doronin, E. S. Andrianov, A. A. Pukhov, and A. A. Lisyansky, “Quantum theory of Rayleigh scattering,” Opt. Express 29 (2), 2501-2520 (2021).

How can a single photon propagate in a straight-line inside a dielectric?

Otherwise, synchronized detections of the 'entangled' photons is impossible.

I tried finding list of species in various literature but information is very scattered. As i am new to North East i am finding it very difficult to compile the list of RET species.

The sunlight is not visible in the space because there is no particles in space to scatter and reflect the sunlight. Am I right?

Hello, I have the results for scattering rates, from epw software, but am wondering how I can plot the graphs of scattering rates as a function of energy as we have in this paper fig 6(a). .kindalyshare some information.

Thank You,

# Electron linewidth = 2*Im(Sigma) (meV)

# ik ibnd E(ibnd) Im(Sigma)(meV)

1 2 0.74585345124266E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

1 3 0.74585345124268E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

1 4 0.74585347474930E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

2 2 0.69732345805421E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

2 3 0.73937712638922E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

2 4 0.73937714320523E+01 0.00000000000000E+00

3 2 0.56870328376178E+01 0.59380777038025E+01

3 3 0.72215714326816E+01 0.11854851602414E+01

3 4 0.72215715157624E+01 0.11854851602414E+01

4 2 0.39942422518922E+01 0.13872317960828E+02

4 3 0.69880162209008E+01 0.20934857870599E+01

4 4 0.69880162474195E+01 0.20934857870599E+01

5 2 0.22701285746477E+01 0.79408123683872E+01

5 3 0.67274356213107E+01 0.26055621742724E+01

5 4 0.67274356625937E+01 0.26055621742724E+01

We have elastic scattering excitation function data in tabular form and want to obtain partial wave scattering phase shift data for each partial wave say l=0, 1, 2....whats the process to do so and is their any code available to do so

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-quantum level structure, and that they are compound hardrock particles with a specific non-zero sized form. Jean Paul Vigier postulated that quarks and leptons are "pushed around" by an energetic sea of vacuum particles. 6 David Bohm suggested in contrast with The "Copenhagen interpretation", that reality is not created by the eye of the human observer, and second: elementary particles should be "guided by a pilot wave". John Bell argued that the motion of mass related to the surrounding vacuum reference frame, should originate real "Lorentz-transformations", and also real relativistic measurable contraction. Richard Feynman postulated the idea of an all pervading energetic quantum vacuum. He rejected it, because it should originate resistance for every mass in motion, relative to the reference frame of the quantum vacuum. However, I postulate the strange and counter intuitive possibility, that this resistance for mass in motion, can be compensated, if we combine the ideas of Vigier, Bell, Bohm and Salam, and a new dual universal Bohmian "pilot wave", which is interpreted as the EPR correlation (or Big Bang entanglement) between individual elementary anti-mirror particles, living in dual universes.

Fred-Rick Schermer added a reply:

Abbas Kashani

A lot to work with, Abbas.

However, I am standing in a completely different position, and want to share my work with you. I hope you are interested about this completely distinct perspective.

My claim is that Einstein established a jump that is not allowed, yet everyone followed along.

Einstein and Newton's starting point is the behavior of matter through space. As such, one should find as answer something about the behavior of matter moving through space, and yet Einstein did not do that.

To make the point understandable quickly, Einstein had not yet heard about the Big Bang yet. So, while he devised his special relativity, he actually had not incorporated the most important behavior of matter through space.

Instead, he ended up hanging all behaviors of matter on spacetime. It does not matter that his calculations are correct.

--

Let me find a simple example to show what is going on.

We are doing research on mice in a cage, and after two years we formulated a correct framework that fully captures all possible behaviors of these mice in the cage. That's the setup.

Now comes the mistake:

The conclusion is that the cage controls the mice in their behaviors.

Correctly, we would have said that the mice are in control of themselves, yet the cage restricts them in their behavior. We would not say that the cage controls the mice.

Totally incorrect of course, and yet that is what Einstein did. He established a reality in which matter no longer explains the behavior of matter through space, but made it space (spacetime) that explains the behavior of matter. It is a black&white position that has to be replaced by the correct framework (which is a surprise because it is not based on one aspect, but on both aspects).

--

I know I am writing you from a perspective not often mentioned, and it may not interest you. I'll find out if you are interested in delving deeper into this or not.

Here is an article in which I delve into this matter more deeply:

Article On a Fully Mechanical Explanation of All Behaviors of Matter...

Anomalies in the behavior of matter, such as seen with the precession of Mercury, led researchers to look for the ether as the additional aspect that would explain the anomalies. Or, in the case of Albert Einstein, this led to appointing a curvature to Spacetime to explain the anomalies. This paper explains the anomalies based on an additional behavior of matter instead. The additional behavior of matter is known by all, but for some reason did not get incorporated into the prevailing scientific models.

When Albert Einstein published his General Relativity theory, he did not yet know about the materialization process, now commonly known as the Big Bang theory. That means that the behavior of matter based on the materialization process itself did not get incorporated in his framework. While Einstein will have reviewed this new Big Bang information for his General Relativity theory, he did not look for a mechanical explanation that would explain the anomalies.

What Einstein produced was a mathematical model to explain the anomalies (including predicting some outcomes that were not yet known). As such, the mathematical information is correct and is therefore not the subject matter of this paper. Instead, it is the explanation underneath the celestial outcomes that is distinct from Einstein’s gravitational model. A far more normal overall mechanism is proposed to be the reason for all behaviors of matter moving through space and that means that Spacetime can be discarded (though not the mathematical calculations).

The reason the mathematical information is correct, but the explanation of General Relativity is not, is based on the First Motion of matter. The Big Bang event produced a ‘sent-off’ action for matter. This means that all matter in the entire universe is on the move. There exists no matter that is at a standstill, and as such the lack of matter at a standstill should be understood as matter being a result, and how the materialization process itself produced that First Motion for all matter.

The amount of gravity in a galaxy that is required for a pure GR model is insufficient, and either the ether or dark matter are proposed to fill that gap. In the First Motion model, however, the currently known amount of gravity is exactly all the gravity there should be. There is no gap; there isn’t anything missing.

The specific point why Einstein’s mathematical framework is correct, but not the underlying reality, is that this First Motion action occurs in a ‘straight’ line through space. There is no gravity involved in this linear direction. Gravity is discovered only with the subsequent motions of matter.

· Second Motion: Circular motion of matter in a galaxy.

· Third Motion: Revolution of planets around their star.

· Fourth Motion: Spinning action of planets (moons in tow).

Therefore, the mathematical framework predicts the specific motions of matter, yet it does not explain why. While this may appear a minor aspect, it is a major aspect as this paper will show.

· Einstein’s GR uses gravity to fully explain the anomaly of Mercury’s precession.

· First Motion uses First Motion + Gravity to explain the anomaly.

--

To explain what is going on for a galaxy, and why less gravity is in play than required in GR, an analogy may help make this plain and obvious quickly. The analogy is that of 200 ice skaters. They are all skating in a group on a frozen canal. All are going at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment, at the same time.

Very clearly, one can see group activities, such as racing, pushing, hanging on to the strongest skater, playing, etcetera. Yet the vital aspect to understand is that the group is not skating as a group. In fact, the group is not skating as a group at all.

When an individual decides to stop skating, then the remainder of the group moves on. This shows that each skater is skating on his or her own power. There is no collective power for this group; the individuals are all doing the skating, and not the group.

For each of the 100 billion masses in the Milky Way, there is no option to stop ‘skating’. The First Motion that was put in place 13.8 billion years ago is on-going. There is no escape from this motion unless something specific interferes with the First Motion of a mass.

· All masses in a galaxy are moving in the same direction through space, at the same speed, at the same time, in the same environment.

That means that while there are collective behaviors noticeable and that gravity does play a role internally, the individual masses are not controlled by just gravity. The prime mover for each mass is applied to each mass and is not associated with the group.

There is no need to look for the ether or for dark matter, because the First Motion declares that there is just the amount of gravity required that has already been mapped fully. The group is a group because the prime mover of each of the individual masses is doing the exact same thing at the same speed, in the same direction, in the same environment.

--

This setup also indicates that the anomaly of Mercury’s precession can be explained by the specific aspects of First Motion in combination with the other motions. Note how this is a complexity and may take time to understand.

First an example of Sun, planet Earth and the Moon to warm up the mind.

These celestial bodies are like a truck, a car and a motorcycle, all speeding on the freeway in one and the same direction. The truck drives in a near-perfect straight line, whereas the car and the motorcycle going at the same speed also circle the truck (while the motorcycle circles the car as well). Their overall speeds are the same. They are on the same road, each driving the roadway by themselves.

· Important to note is that the Sun is not involved in the revolving actions that the planets are involved in.

The following is essential to understand: the Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the Solar System swirl and is not involved in revolving. Therefore, the planets show extra behaviors (revolving and spinning) that the Sun is not involved in.

Mercury is the planet closest to the central position of the Solar System’s swirl, while revolving and spinning. Not gravity, but the position in the swirling action of the Solar System is key. Keep in mind that all celestial bodies are moving at their fastest speed in the same direction.

To make the specific situation more understandable, one more analogy, this time about the Eye of the Hurricane. The closer to the Wall of the Eye of the Storm, the more an item will be swept up by the wind force. Meanwhile, in the Eye itself, there is no wind force. Where the center has a minimumexpression of wind force, the location right next to it presents a maximumexpression of wind force. There is no gradual change between this minimum and maximum, other than the gradual change in wind force when being further removed from the Eye of the Storm, from the maximum then to the minimum found much further out. The force is zero in the center, one right next to it, and then gradually diminishing toward zero again, at the edge of the entire storm.

The Sun is found in the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. The Sun is therefore not affecting the precession anomaly of Mercury. It is Mercury’s specific location in the swirl that causes the anomaly to occur. It is closer to the Eye; Mercury is closer to the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl. It is affected disproportionately in its precession due to this closeness to the center (though not located in the center itself).

This visual from an article published in Nature (“Curved space-time on a chip”) is used to show Einstein’s GR with the gravitationally heaviest entity, the Sun, located in the center. The reason being is that the Sun does the curving that is then affecting the entity (be it either Mercury or for that article, photons) also shown in the image.

The same image can be used to show how First Motion + Gravity functions.

The Sun ‘sits’ in the center of the swirling motion of the Solar System. A requirement is then that the Sun is mostly made up of light-weighted materials, otherwise it would have been thrown out of this position a long time ago.

Indeed, while the Sun has amassed enormous amounts of material, hydrogen and helium make up most of the Sun. Despite heavier materials being present and despite the enormous amounts of materials being present, the Sun can be declared a light-weighted mass. It ‘sits’ in this central location because the light-weighted materials cannot get thrown out of that position.

One more analogy to make this easier to envision. The Sun is then like a very large but light-weighted ball ending up in a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast. This large ball cannot get pulled under due to its size and light-weighted essence, and it cannot go anywhere else because the maelstrom captured it. The Sun is physically stuck in place in the center of the Solar System swirl (Third Motion), while the entirety of the Solar System is on the move (in First and Second Motions).

Then, Mercury’s position should become obvious as well. Mercury is involved in Third and Fourth Motions (as well as First and Second Motions). The maelstrom is affecting the precession of Mercury; it becomes distinct compared to the other planets revolving around the Sun because the effects of the maelstrom play a role on Mercury whereas the maelstrom does not directly affect the specific behaviors of the other planets revolving around it. All other planets are located at a greater distance from the center of the Solar System swirl.

As visual aid, one can envision the behavior of a plane, its flight path mapped out on a flat screen or shown with the planet as backdrop. In one case, the straight line appears curved. In the other case, the line is straight instead. The interesting part is that the anomalies are not expressed like a flight path on the curved surface of a planet, but rather on the curved edge of the Wall of the Eye of the Storm.

Mercury’s anomaly is real, but in GR the reason is the Sun, whereas in FM+G the reason is found with the edge of the net-zero position of the Solar System swirl.

In both cases, GR or First Motion, the line is bent toward the viewer, and the effects therefore the same. Yet the GR model makes it all out to be as gravity based, and therefore ends up missing a large amount of gravity to explain how a galaxy is held together. In First Motion, there is no missing gravity.

--

A point to reiterate is how the model is complex and yet the various parts need to be understood as one model.

First Motion: Straight line of action (involving all matter). Not based on gravity.

Second Motion: Trajectory for Sun and Solar System. Gravity involved.

Third Motion: Trajectory just for planets in Solar System. Gravity involved.

Fourth motion: Planets spinning, moons in tow. Gravity involved.

· Each spinning, swirling reality will produce that Wall of the Eye, and this leaves a discussion about gravity wide open. That discussion is not part of this article.

Each swirling reality will produce a net-zero position in the center. Earth has its own spinning reality, stuck in the center of that swirling reality. The Solar System has the Sun stuck in the net-zero position. A galaxy’s center is more complex even still (but left unaddressed in this article as well).

The trajectory for planets is based on their own action in the larger Solar System setting with the Third Motion. Most planets are not pulled toward the center action of the First and Second Motions; they are far more involved in their own actions. Mercury, however, is placed in the position closest to where the First and Second Motion have their greatest influence. This becomes visible in the precession anomaly of Mercury.

--

A mechanical model explains all behaviors of matter moving through space.

Where Einstein envisioned two or three motions, he did not incorporate the most important motion, the First Motion. He left it out, even after becoming aware of it.

When models are not based on all motions, then researchers can claim that the ether is real or that Spacetime is a reality for matter.

--

Note once more how this does not involve any changes to the mathematical model. If the mathematical model is like a dog, then the issue discussed in this paper is about whether a dog wags its tail or whether the tail wags the dog. The dog itself is not the issue. The mathematical framework is not the issue.

Einstein’s GR is wagging the dog.

Ether is wagging the dog.

Dark matter is wagging the dog.

First Motion has the dog wag its tail.

--

First Motion is part of the Big Whisper model, which is a twin Big Bang model, yet it explains fully the behavior of matter through space and does so in a mechanical manner.

Fred-Rick Schermer

This is a write-up to express an alternate approach to calculating Space Expansion.

Please help me improve this paper. The biggest problem to overcome is not the data, but the model used for calculating Space Expansion and the suggested acceleration. Next to the two known methods, there is a modification available to the FLRW metric when a model is picked that is not dependent on an inflationary epoch.

--

At issue is whether as system can start from zero. The claim is that no such system is available, and this will then have consequences for how the expansion rate of space is calculated.

The question next is whether we can envision the materialization process to have started from close to that zero position, or whether another model is more logical, such as the suggested Big Whisper model, a twin Big Bang model, it then not containing an inflationary epoch. Rather, the source for matter is then not associated with the zero position, but rather much further removed, found closer to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation itself.

If we are positioned at number 9 in the decimal system and look at the speed in which we arrived from 0 at that number 9 spot, the answer will be quite different from when we calculate the speed from 1 to that same number 9 spot. As such, the model is vital to get the calculations right.

The calculations will be off automatically if we use a model that does not reflect what happened 13.8 billion years ago.

It is very important to understand that a choice is made by physicists to declare the starting point as the zero position. It appears illogical that the material result we are fully aware of would have appeared from an improbable position such as the zero position. It is more logical that energy that we know ended up becoming matter would have taken up space initially already.

It is far more logical to start from 1 than from 0 when actual entities are considered. It is not logical to have actual entities begin from a position that equals zero.

If we follow the Lambda-CDM model, then the starting point is one of extreme high tension. That indicates a rather clear storyline that does not start from a zero position, cannot start from a zero position.

That leaves us with the question which position to start out with. And that depends on which model we are using. Change the model, and the starting point changes.

Some models may get close to the zero position, nearly making the currently used calculations be sufficient when starting out from the zero position.

Other models are much further removed from the zero position.

If the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is set at a 380,000-year distance from the mathematical center, then any position between 5,000 and even 375,000 years can be suggested as the starting point for the materialization process model and its subsequent actual entities.

Anything less than a 5,000-year distance and the problem did not truly go away of needing actual space for whatever ended up becoming the known actual entities. Anything greater than a 375,000-year distance and there appears to not be enough distance in space for the original energy to transform into the known actual entities.

In the Big Whisper model, a suggested distance is that the starting point would be found near 17,500 years distance from the CMBR. As such, the difference between the prevailing calculation position and the proposed starting point for space expansion calculations is then 362,500 years.

If the universe is estimated to be 13,800,000,000 exact, then a subtraction of 362,500 years is required to discover the first moment in time that the actual entities were first around.

While this specific time/distance is just a suggestion, the point is that this leads to a completely different outlook on the expansion rate of space and its potential acceleration. And that is the point of this article: What model are we using because each model is unique and will have its own calculations for the expansion rate of space?

Note: In the Big Whisper model (named for Penzias and Wilson) the center of the materialization process did not become matter. Matter derived from Zone 2, not from Zone 1 in the center, and Zone 2 is suggested to have established the reason for matter to come about at a 362,500-year distance from its mathematical center.

--

Thank you for your careful consideration about the current models used for calculating the expansion of space and this alternate approach that declares that models are the true uncertainty in the calculations, and not the data. What truly happened at the materialization process informs the model, and the prevailing Lambda-CDM model appears incorrect about the starting point of the materialization process and melds things together that should not be melded together.

Fred-Rick Schermer

When Albert Einstein published his General Relativity theory, he did not yet know about the materialization process, now commonly known as the Big Bang theory. While he will have reviewed this new information for his GR theory, he did not look for a mechanical explanation. This paper explores the possibility that a mechanical aspect provides the foundation to predict the same outcomes GR predicted, plus a few more predictions.

First the lay of the land, because the Big Whisper model is a distinct model. Wilson and Penzias discovered the ‘whisper’ of the materialization process, and this provides a good substitute in name for what is in essence a twin Big Bang model. Both models are near identical from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation on outward. Yet, with the pre-CMBR scenarios, both models differ – and differ starkly.

A quick point to mention is that the pre-CMBR scenario of the Big Bang model contains the possibility that Time, Space, Matter and Energy all appeared for the first time. This option is not available for the Big Whisper model. It declares that the materialization process is nothing more than the moment some energy transformed into matter. Note that the scientific data allows both scenarios to be considered. The BB would have all begin some 13.8 billion years ago, whereas the BW only has the transformation occur at that time, and the universe (without matter) then already in existence.

The last playful item to discuss in this quick lay of the land is an example that shows two conclusions when walking into a room with a broken toy on the floor:

1. Everything of the toy is still present in the room where the toy ended up breaking. Nothing evaporated into thin air; the toy is just all in tatters.

2. The special trick the toy was capable of performing is gone forever.

This is then the scenario also followed in the Big Whisper model; a prior state ended up breaking at a fundamental level, establishing a new universal foundation then in pieces. The original ability gone forever. Had this been a broken vase then each piece would have unified properties available per each piece but no longer at the overall level. The space between the broken pieces would then represent nothing less than no longer part of the vase. Space would then just be space.

--

Inside the Big Whisper model, the First Motion is a term used for the prime mover of matter once the CMBR point has been crossed. It declares that matter was already on the move and that the Milky Way, for instance, is involved in three/four motions.

The First Motion declares that specific motion of the entire galaxy collectively moving in a singular direction, away from the materialization process.

· This is the motion that Albert Einstein did not capture.

The Second Motion is the motion of the entire galaxy swirling around itself.

The Third Motion is the swirling motion of a solar system.

The Fourth Motion is the spinning and swirling motions of planets and their moons.

What should become obvious immediately is that the Sun is involved in the First, Second, and Third Motion, but not in the Fourth Motion. Meanwhile, planets are involved in all four motions.

--

The Big Whisper model is distinct from any model proposed so far.

For instance, when discussing the outbound motion considered for all matter, then the origin of this First Motion is considered a catapulting action. It is therefore not an exploding action, but rather a retracting action.

Once enormous pressures had been established, and once that setup broke, all that proto energy retracted toward their original starting points from which their participation in the pressure buildup had begun. However, due to damage sustained in Zone 2 (and not in the center location, Zone 1), there was no returning to the original state of the universe possible any longer. The First Motion got established like a cocked gun sustaining damage and then triggered.

This will be discussed in more details later.

Einstein was very smart and understood that the anomalies seen among the behavior of matter, for instance, with the precession of Mercury, had to have an actual framework that would explain these finer aspects. He correctly envisioned his Spacetime framework, yet once he had acquired knowledge about the materialization process, he did not review whether a mechanical aspect could explain the finer behavioral aspects of matter just as well.

In short, Einstein missed out on one Motion. This one motion is not considered in his General Relativity theory. Interestingly, he did capture the framework well. Yet as a result, one can state that it was Newton who had his feet on solid grounds, albeit on a planet floating through space, but that Einstein put his feet on space first. It is important to understand that the subject matter for Einstein (and Newton) always was the behavior of matter, and not the characteristics of space or time. The importance of mentioning this is that Newton and Einstein are not positioned in the same direction of matter.

The framework Einstein provided works well in most cases, but it does not predict the lesser amount of gravity seen among masses in a galaxy. General Relativity requires there to be more gravitational force to keep a galaxy together than what is found in place.

The First Motion of the Big Whisper model explains that when a collective is on the move at the same (highest) speed and in the exact same direction, then less gravity is needed to keep this collective together.

· When twenty people are skating as the same speed and in the same direction, then they may indeed all be family members. However, the perception of this being a group is based first on their collective behavior in that singular direction, and only secondary on the familial or friendship band they may possess. Their bond may be understood, but their condition as a group is based first on their primary action.

--

The focus of the First Motion is a ballistic, mechanical aspect that involved and continues to involve all matter in the universe. It predicts why there is less gravity than required to hold a galaxy together.

The First Motion model is quite complex.

In plain English, if all gravitational forces were to be eliminated from the Milky Way today, then the galaxy would still be moving at the same fastest speed it is today, though then just in its single straight-line direction that was established 13.8 billion years ago. The reason for the First Motion is therefore not placed with a force, but with the happenstance of the materialization process directly itself. The entire Milky Way is moving at its fastest speed in a single common direction, and only the internal movements are gravity based.

Let’s review the setup. What needs to be accepted in this model is that proto energy already existed, and that it had an ability, just like the toy had before it broke. This is called proto force, and the entire setting can be declared as unified, though this would then be true particularly from our perspective.

The proto force caused a collective inward motion among all proto energy. In effect, this caused three temporary conditions to come into existence.

Zone 1 is found in the center of the collective inward motion. All proto energy in Zone 1 is stuck in place. The pressure coming in from all sides is at its maximum, though nothing is damaged in Zone 1.

Zone 2 is found right next to the equilibrium point of the entire collective motion. The equilibrium point itself is where the last layer of stuck proto energy got added to Zone 1. Since there is a tiny bit of friction available in the first layer of Zone 2, proto energy in Zone 2 ended up churning. This churning caused proto energy to be damaged, to become a quark soup, still under enormous pressures.

Zone 3 is the largest setting, also with inward motion, but the pressure levels never reached the maximum pressure of Zone 1, nor the very high levels of pressure seen with Zone 2.

With Zone 2 churning its proto energy into a quark soup, the equilibrium point established by the collective pressure shifted away from the edge of Zone. With Zone 3 continuing to add inward pressure, some of this energy may have entered Zone 2 and this would get churned into quark soup then as well. With the churning continuing, the equilibrium point would shift away from the edge of Zone 1, found then internally within Zone 1.

This provided some release of pressure for the proto energy in Zone 1 and a slow bulging outward would get established for this zone. Soon, however, and much like Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park waiting for the conditions to be just right, Zone 1 would catapult outwardly. All proto energy of Zone 1 and Zone 3 and all churned quark soup of Zone 2 would catapult outwardly.

Notice how this is a retracting action and not an exploding action. A return by compressed proto energy to the original starting point of the collective inward motion is a retraction, not an explosion.

However, due to the damage of proto energy in Zone 2, there was no returning to the situation it had been before the start of that action. With Newton’s Laws in hand, the motion put in place continued. This is the First Motion.

While the First Motion can be said to have been put in place by a force, the force itself did not survive. It had not been possible to return to the original situation. The vase broke, and the foundation for the universe no longer unified but scattered among its pieces. Each piece shows the unified qualities of the setup that broke the vase.

To complete the Big Whisper model in quick steps, the quark soup of Zone 2 finally reached the CMBR points where there was now space to move about. Instantly, the quarks all aligned to become neutrons and protons.

· This model shows that electrons entered the material realm via a different route.

Undamaged, the electrons provided the negative charges to counter the positive charges of the protons. The charged reality among matter is that from an overall perspective a neutral situation is discovered, yet at the subatomic level a charge between protons and electrons is found.

What this model makes possible is to view the First Motion as an expression not of a force, but of the destruction of a force. Viewed from the current perspective, the proto force is the potential that would end up becoming the weak-nuclear force, the strong-nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force, no longer unified.

No counter action has interfered with this singular outward First Motion since, beyond the occasional happenstance, such as smaller galaxies combining into a large galaxy. Our entire Milky Way and all its energy and material started out from proto energy, from just a small part of the entire Zone 2 energy, and all this got involved in the catapulting action, propagated by Zone 1.

--

Replacing Albert Einstein’s GR theory leads to making the same predictions plus additional predictions. The simple nature of mechanisms explaining anomalies would indicate that a reasoned alternative to Einstein’s theory is indeed available. The First Motion model explains the precession anomaly of Mercury and other phenomena as mechanical in essence; Mercury’s anomaly is then not based on gravity, but on the specifics of the four motions it is involved in (some based on gravity indeed, but not all).

A quick review of the motions of planet Earth can help show what the mechanics are:

· Spin of Earth itself

· Revolution around the Sun

· Circular motion of the Milky Way

· The speeding away of the entire Milky Way setting in a singular direction

The first three actions are gravitationally involved actions. There is the spin of the planet, its revolution around the Sun, but also the large circular motion of the galaxy, each larger setting operating at a faster speed than the smaller ones. The last action on this list, however, is predicted by the First Motion model and is fully not-based on gravity. As such, one can state that Einstein’s theory does not acknowledge this original motion, whereas the First Motion model is squarely based on it as the prime mover.

Just to provide an additional view on the complexity of layers of the First Motion model: The Sun moves through space whereas Earth moves through space the same way as the Sun while also circling the Sun. The levels of motion are therefore not identical for star and planet. This motion-based distinction plays a vital role in explaining Mercury’s anomalous precession. However, this requires further specific insights into the importance of the prime mover in relationship to the various layers of circling motion.

--

An exhibit at the Exploratorium in San Francisco shows, albeit in limited fashion, how Motion and Gravity are distinct aspects for the resulting outcome.

A cylinder filled with water and silver slivers can get spun by visitors of the Exploratorium. Once in motion, the swirl inside the cylinder picks up all silver slivers in the water, who are then randomly moving about in the swirling motion.

Once the visitor stops the exhibit from spinning, the internal swirl continues, though slowing down with time. Before the swirling has come to a complete stop, all silver slivers are collected in a single heap in the center on the bottom of the cylinder.

The slowing motion ends up causing the zone in the center of the swirl to widen some, in which area there is no motion. The randomly moving silver slivers end up touching, one by one, this net-zero zone and stopped from moving further with the swirling motion. Once caught in the center zone, there is no other possibility for the silver sliver than to follow the gravitational attraction of planet Earth. All silver slivers end up in that single heap in the center on the bottom of the cylinder, until the next visitor cranks up the exhibit that picks up all slivers from the bottom once more.

There are therefore two aspects involved in this exhibit. The first aspect is the swirl of motion with its net-zero central location. Only after a silver sliver entered the central net-zero zone can gravity play its role. With the swirling motion in play, gravity has no control over the result except for that center spot that widens up over time when the swirling motion slows. Once the speed is increased, the net-zero spot in the center contracts and the speed is too much for gravity to grab a hold -- all silver slivers end up moving about once more.

--

If this exhibit represented a galaxy, the visitor would not be able to capture all that was happening, because a galaxy has on average 100 billion stars. It is better to start at square one to understand how the Milky Way functions on both the action of the First Motion as the prime foundation of motion with gravity then taking control wherever it can, influencing the motion of matter additionally.

The Milky Way is based on just a tiny, small section of the pre-CMBR proto-Energy. The singular direction of all collective matter would have shown not only the specific and different moments of release of pressure, but also the churning motion as had taken place in Zone 2. As such, one can distinguish circular motions occurring among matter involved with the prime mover.

The four motions, as expressed in the simple example for planet Earth, were most likely all present already at the CMBR. During the catapulting action, the damaged proto energy had to wait until the CMBR location before the opportunity existed for this quark soup to align itself as neutrons and protons. Naturally, quarks would align at first opportunity, and the distinguished outcomes seen with the CMBR imaging is therefore explained as areas where pressure had relaxed to such levels this was possible.

· Release of pressure predicts the differentiations of resulting outcomes among the CMBR data as well as the damaging action of churning Zone 2 into a quark soup. The First Motion model predicts the distinctions seen among data of the CMBR. It could not have been a fully smooth outcome.

Once the First Motion is accepted, then the next step involves identifying the two characteristics of swirls. The outer regions of the swirl will be slower than the inner regions of the swirl, while the center itself is net-zero motion. This net-zero area has a changing width depending on the size and speed of the swirl.

An important aspect to reiterate with an example is that an eddy in a river can collect leaves, whereas a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast can pull entire tree branches under. This shows that the speed and size of the swirl declare whether material is collected in the center of the swirl or not. The process for mass formation is more complex still but not discussed in this article.

Yet once light-weighted materials enter an eddy or maelstrom, then this can collect into a much larger setting that does not get pulled out of the center location. Once there is a large collection of light-weighted materials, then heavier materials can also get collected in that center spot.

By mass, the Sun is nearly 100% hydrogen and helium with various metals making up less than 0.1% of the mass. If we envision a maelstrom in the center of the Solar System swirl, then the light-weighted mass, enormous as it otherwise is, will not get pulled out of that spot.

The maelstrom image explains the major implication for the precession of Mercury because the anomaly is then not explained by gravity but by the closeness to the central net-zero zone. In effect, Mercury’s precession is influenced like a small football in a maelstrom in front of the Norwegian coast that already contains a very large football in the center, representing the Sun. The closer the ball nears the center, the faster it will spin.

Stepping back from this image, one can see once more how the Sun is involved in three motions whereas Mercury is involved in four motions. The fewer motions, the more the prime mover will express the results. The more motions, the less the prime mover expresses the results other than Mercury and the Sun both moving at the same speed together with the entire Milky Way.

In essence, the First Motion exerts more power on the Sun than on the planets. Yet, when close enough, the First Motion can tug on Mercury.

--

The precession of Mercury is predicted in the First Motion model since it is closest to the swirling center of just these three motions. With the Sun located in the center of the Solar System Swirl, Mercury is located closest near the maelstrom of the swirl. Not the Sun, but the nearest object or mass would experience the maelstrom most intensely. Planets further out would be involved in their own swirling motion inside the Solar System swirl, influenced less by just the prime mover.

The final prediction is therefore that gravity plays a lesser role than in Newton’s classical mechanics or Einstein’s General Relativity because the prime mover occurs first and is today still the fastest speed that matter in the Milky Way is involved in.

While the First Motion model and Einstein’s General Relativity framework are near identical, the First Motion predicts and explains aspects that GR does not predict or explain. As such, it could be an excellent competitor for declaring our universe more precisely.

Newton’s work can be presented as a positive, but Sepia Tone photograph, old-fashioned.

Einstein’s work can be presented as a negative, perfect in what it shows, but not from a positive perspective.

The Big Whisper model, with its First Motion action not based on a force but on the destruction of a force, is then a modern positive photograph.

Fred-Rick Schermer

The Big Bang model, called Big Whisper, is named for Penzias and Wilson who discovered the whisper of the materialization process. It is the oldest scientific data we have about the universe, though the oldest scientific data does not mean the universe is not older than the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

The Big Whisper model is mechanically complete, which means that the storyline it follows is a full explanation of what happened. What the model does not provide is the certainty that no other model could also declare a mechanically complete storyline. Nor does the model reach for the position that is easily attained in religion: making everything one.

· The Big Whisper model is not about the creation of the universe.

The only scientific data that rivals the CMBR is the fact that energy does not get lost. While there may be uncertainty about the extent of energy never being lost, the Big Whisper model accepts that energy was already being present prior to matter coming about.

· The Big Whisper model is about the transformation of energy into matter.

Despite Einstein’s fantastic work, the Big Whisper model recognizes Spacetime only as a framework that accurately predicts the behavior of matter in what commonly is understood as the gravitational framework. This model has an additional level on top of Spacetime and at that level there is no gravitational involvement expressed. In short, Newton may have worked with two motions involving the behavior of matter; Einstein may have worked with three motions involving the behavior of matter, but the Big Whisper model uses four motions as the standard to understand the behavior of matter.

--

The Big Whisper model contains a scientific step that is absent in the Lambda-CDM model. It declares that the materialization process was two-staged. It had an inbound motion followed by an outbound motion. Compared to the Lambda-CDM model, an extra step is involved while the reason for this extra step is still and fully associated with the known result.

First some structural exercises, just for the human mind:

When folding space and folding it more and more, one could potentially end up in a zero location when all space got folded neatly into a single spot.

When folding energy, however, one could never end up in a zero location when all the folding that was possible got done. Energy is not identical to space; energy takes up space. As such, a distinction between space and energy must be understood to comprehend this model.

Additionally, when discussing the material results of the universe, one must recognize that the results are distinct from the source that created the result. It does not matter what the original state was, but it must be fully acknowledged that it delivered the results, nevertheless. Energy can therefore not be equated with space because the source for matter will have had different properties.

Lastly, the material result from an immaterial source can only mean one thing: The source did not survive the creation of matter intact. Using an analogy to make the point, an omelet cannot result from an unbroken egg. There are no constructions available in which a truly distinct result came forth from a source without a fundamental alteration of that source.

--

The transformation process of energy into matter in the Big Whisper model is not about the transformation of all energy into matter. Rather, establishing a distinction between all immaterial energy itself is the essential aspect of the model.

To show this, the extra step already mentioned needs to be explained as essential to the outcome.

When making a cake, four steps are involved, and not three.

1. Getting the cake ingredients

2. Mixing the ingredients into a batter

3. Putting the batter in the oven

4. Done

In the Lambda-CDM model, just three steps are investigated. Instead of getting the cake ingredients and mixing this into a batter, physicists are investigating cake particles. Instead of looking for the ingredients, the cake is considered both the outcome and the starting point in some kind of diminished quality. The storyline of the Lambda-CDM model is therefore illogical, despite the accuracy of the scientific data used to explain the result.

A result that never existed before cannot grow from a starting point. A result that never existed before points to a fatal occurrence that took place fully in the prior state. In the Big Whisper model, that fatal occurrence is about that prior state splitting itself into distinct parts and that led to some of that state to end up as matter.

--

As mentioned, the Big Whisper model starts out with a collective inbound motion among all (immaterial) energy. While there is no reason provided why this started up, the inbound motion can be fully understood as the starting requirement for the subsequent outbound motion seen among all matter. A pressured state got established first, and the essence of the Big Whisper model is that this inbound motion did not stop. Like a toy wound up too much, the internal mechanism erupted. A disconnect occurred because the force that established the extreme pressure is not the same as a force that did the breaking.

From this, the largest level of behavior of matter in our current universe is automatically not based on a force. It is based on the destruction of a force.

--

The collective inbound motion delivered three temporary areas of pressure.

A: Zone 1, in which all (immaterial) energy was stuck in place due to the incoming pressures from all sides. This follows the mechanical idea that same will compress same to the maximum extent possible.

B: Zone 2, in which all (immaterial) energy was under enormous pressure, but friction was indeed possible. This friction caused a churning among the energy in Zone 2, and that churned the energy into a quark soup, still under enormous pressure.

C: Zone 3, in which all (immaterial) energy took part in establishing the collective inbound pressure. None of Zone 3 experienced extreme pressure, except very close to Zone 2.

This is a temporary setup. Required is that Zone 1 reached the maximum pressure possible, it got fully stuck. If any transmission of information was part of the prior state of immaterial energy, then Zone 1 could not be transmitting any information.

Zone 2 would not appear until all collective inbound pressure had reached the maximum extent possible for Zone 1. Exactly at the spot where the equilibrium was achieved between fully stuck in place and no longer fully stuck in place, that is where Zone 2 appeared. Since the pressures were enormous, the first potential for friction would show a devastatingly strong expression of that force. This is then much like the Eye of the Hurricane representing a net-zero location of wind force in the center, while the Wall of the Eye situated immediately next to it unleashes a wind force expression to the maximum extent possible.

The immaterial energy in Zone 2 is the source for matter, and Zones 1 and 3 are not churned into a quark soup.

--

It may be prudent to reiterate that immaterial energy is a requirement for this model. The known material outcome must be based on a source, and since matter was not present for that source, one can declare the source as immaterial.

Another aspect that can be ascribed to the source is that the ability to establish this setup was indeed available.

Walking into a room and finding a broken toy on the floor may help see the prior state better, though it cannot be declared enough that we do not have any scientific data about the prior state other than the certainty it could establish the result.

Two facts can be gleaned from a broken toy on the floor:

1. Everything about the toy is still present, just in tatters.

2. The special trick the toy could perform is now gone for good.

The minute something breaks, the reality that existed prior ended up becoming the reality in which everything is still there, but now with a flaw either replacing the prior reality or being added to the prior reality.

--

Zone 2 is the location in which original immaterial energy got damaged. Instead of remaining immaterial, the energy became material. Still under enormous pressure, Zone 2 ended up containing a quark soup.

Notice how this setup establishes major distinctions with the Lambda-CDM model. Since matter did not derive from the exact center (and Zone 1 could have been quite extensive in size), the calculations for matter’s appearance will be distinct as well. For instance, the super-hot starting conditions in the Lambda-CDM model are not found in the Big Whisper model.

· The adiabatic cooling process took place across 380,000 years in the Lambda-CDM model, yet it could have been as short as 5,000 years in the Big Whisper model. This difference establishes a major distinction in heat outcome for the starting position. Obviously, an extreme churning of immaterial energy will have produced heat, yet there is no need to pronounce this as super-hot.

Another (physically impossible) solution that the Lambda-CDM model embraces – cosmic inflation – is also absent in the Big Whisper model. There is no singularity from which matter derived, no central zone, no central aspect at all. Zone 2 is not found in the center. As such, the behavior of matter on its outbound journey will have been ‘normal’ as it should be, since cosmic inflation is not an aspect that belongs in a mechanical storyline.

With the inbound motion not stopping, the equilibrium point shifted nevertheless with the churning of immaterial energy of Zone 2. Through this churning action, the energy of Zone 2 stopped being available for continuing the collective inbound motion. The pressure dropped in Zone 2, and while the pressure from Zone 3 will have moved inwardly to the extent possible, the maximum pressure on Zone 1 received a release during this event. With the amount of pressure coming from Zone 3 not reestablishing the prior equilibrium seen for the boundary of Zone 1, the entire Zone 1 ended up catapulting outwardly.

With the catapulting action of Zone 1, the damaged energy of Zone 2 and the immaterial energy of Zone 3 would also end up catapulting outwardly.

--

To complete the model’s outcome, the second stage with the resulting outbound motion for all energy involved caused pressures to subside. The further away all this energy moved from the starting point, the more the pressure would drop.

At the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation point, the quark soup finally had its moment to align itself into neutrons and protons, which can be declared as at first opportunity.

Like the batter in a cake mix, the outcome would have been smooth, though imperfections would of course have been present.

Zone 2 is the location from which matter in the universe derived. That is, protons and neutrons. The surprise comes from the electrons.

Once the protons are established with their positive charge, a negative countercharge had to be produced as well. The negative electrons are pulled in from the remaining immaterial energy, using just a fraction of that immaterial energy.

Therefore, matter got established via two different pathways. The first was a pathway of damage, and the second pathway one of reestablishing a neutrally charged outcome. It is at the subatomic level that the charges tell their story, whereas the material outcome overall does not tell this story.

With the electrons, a connection is established between the material protons (and neutrons) and the remainder of immaterial energy. As such, the spatial universe is the stage on which the material universe shows the nature of matter in both disconnecting and connecting manners.

Even the remaining immaterial energy does no longer connect at a universal level. The largest settings in which ‘islands of energy’ can be found are galaxies.

--

The Big Whisper model is named for Penzias and Wilson who discovered the whisper of the materialization process. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1434807/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_pl

Fred-Rick Schermer

This is a write-up to express the potential for unifying the four forces through synergy.

Please help me improve this paper. The biggest problem to overcome is that the mind needs to understand what is presented. There is no data required to show the manner of unification presented in this single-page paper.

Synergy is that outcome that is distinct from the other outcomes, and yet is not based on anything new. It is a collective outcome of the parts that is itself distinct from the parts.

The four forces are:

· Weak-nuclear force

· Strong-nuclear force

· Electromagnetic force

· Gravitational force

The odd one out is Gravity; it is seemingly impossible to connect it to the other forces. Yet Gravity can be declared the synergistic outcome of the other forces. From three forces there is then automatically a fourth, distinct force.

A simple example to show this is found with the following:

· Fathers

· Mothers

· Children

· Families

The fourth group of Families is already present when the first three groups are acknowledged. From three groups, we get a fourth, distinct group.

Interestingly, we can associate these human realities with forces, for instance, the force of a mother to protect her child. Or the ability of children forcing us to laugh.

The family force is also well known. It is not an individual force, but rather the collective that has (or tries to have) an impact on an individual within the family.

Same for gravity. It can be distinguished from the other forces in that it has very general characteristics, applicable to all matter.

Thank you for helping me promote this synergistic explanation that unifies the forces with a secondary level existing among the known forces.

I have been trying to measure the size of the human lysozyme protein with DLS. The instrument is Otsuka ELS-Z 1000. The upper and lower measurement size limits are 10 nm and 4000 nm respectively, and they cannot be changed in my SOP. However, after the measurement, a 'Recalculate' option is available which allows me to set a size lower than 10 nm. I have tried to measure the size for months now- I have changed buffers and concentrations, but to no use. The concentration is always optimal before and during measurement (~20,000 cps) but there are always insufficient data points, and the recalculate option cannot be used if there isn't sufficient data.

Measurement Conditions Temperature :25.0 (°C) Diluent Name :WATER Refractive Index :1.3328 Viscosity :0.8878(cP) Scattering Intensity :17957 (cps) Attenuator 1 :100.0 %

Measurement delay: 300 s

Scattering angle: 165 degrees

I clean the cell well (with soap solution, acetic acid 5%, DI water, ethanol), dry with Nitrogen air flow, use protein concentrations between 1-10 mg/ml, use KCl buffer at pH 2.5 (Lysozyme is most stable at pH less than 4/5 (I also tried PB, 1x PBS and 0.1x PBS) and use 0.2 micromolar membranes to avoid dust.

The measurements are successful with larger proteins, or when there is aggregation, but not with my samples. Any advice?

Hello all,

I am doing point mutation using overlap methods. I got my overlap , transformed to vector got positive colony pcr result as well. Isolated the plasmids again did pcr with the plasmids got positive result then sent the same plasmids for sequencing. The alignment from the sequencing result is scattered. After seeing the results I again did pcr with the same plasmid and I can see positive result. 4-5 times I did this and got false sequencing result.

What could be the reason for false sequencing result? Should I go ahead with expressions and purification with this plasmid without confirming through sequencing?

What is a correct way to estimate s0 parameter for Volcano plot visualization in Perseus?

The documentation says: "Artificial within groups variance (default: 0). It controls the relative importance of t-test p-value and difference between means. At s0=0 only the p-value matters, while at nonzero s0 also the difference of means plays a role. See (Tusher, Tibshirani, and Chu 2001) for details." Now the article states: "To ensure that the variance of d(i) is independent of gene expression, we added a small positive constant s0 to the denominator of Eq. 1 (i. e. d(i) = (avg-state1(i)- avg-state2(i))/(gene_specific_scatter(i) + s0)). The coefficient of variation of d(i) was computed as a function of s(i) in moving windows across the data. The value for s0 was chosen to minimize the coefficient of variation. For the data in this paper, this computation yielded s0 = 3.3."

Now should I calculate the CV for my data and then estimate the s0 or am I missing something?

Mean, median, Range, one way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, spatial distribution with scatter plot, species richness and Shannons index are applied to the data. Is there any other tools are to be included for the data?

What is the accuracy of optical scattering from microplastics?

Like bar graph, box plot, scatter plot etc. and attractive data visualization for various qualitative traits ?

Which factors really lead to a significant difference in 2 cross section values?

I have a finite array of unit cells, completely backed with PEC. When I try to illuminate it with incident plane wave, I get strong scattered waves from the PEC, apart from scattering at desired directions. But the PEC at the back of the metasurface is supposed to block transmission of the incident wave. Still I get strong far field scattering.

I used both open boundary and FE-BI boundaries for the whole metasurface array for this this purpose with no positive results.

Kindly help me.

In a closed room , a candle lights up a certain area. Or a tubelight lights up the room. Intensity of light or light just got scattered? We will differentiate it cause it's scattered equally in the room which has a finite area. Am I right?

I was conducting EBSD (Electron Back Scatter Diffraction) of a forged beta titanium alloy (Ti-10V-2Fe-3Al).

The alloy cylinder was heat treated (solutionized + aged) after forging in beta phase field. However after conducting EBSD (along and perpendicular to direction of forging) the phase fractions turned out to be different. It is similar to what was found in this paper (on Page 4) ( ).

Can someone pls explain why we are getting this difference?

I am getting 60 percent beta 40 percent alpha along Longitudinal direction but 85 percent alpha and 15 percent beta along transverse direction.

I am trying to plot the scatter and fitting line plot with below code

sns.regplot(x='np.array(Y_test)',y='model.predict(X_test)')

plt.show()

Error is showing

Must pass `data` if using named variables.

x are the actual value and y are the predicted value of test variable.

Then what data I have to pass

I study undoped CdTe substrates for applications in THz photoconductive emitters. The antennas fabricated on the substrate have been excited above the bandgap photon energy and biased by a high external bias field of ~50 kV/cm. The excess energy of generated free carriers in the Gamma valley is slightly lower (~0.92 eV) than that of the L valley (1.09 eV). I wonder what the main scattering mechanism in CdTe would be and what the likelihood of scattering electrons with excess energy at an applied bias field of 50 kV/cm would be. Thanks

How to disable grid line in scattering parameter plot in CST? (I am not asking about unchecking the bounding box)

Mie scattering occurs when the structural scale is comparable to the wavelength, so what about Mie resonances? And what is the connection between them? And how are localized resonances related to them?

There exist some basic models for the angle dependence of sigma0. In R.E. Clapp, 1946, “A theoretical and experimental study of radar ground return” three such models are presented:

[1] sigma0(theta) = constant * cos(theta)² called: “Lambert’s law”

[2] sigma0(theta) = constant

[3] sigma0(theta) = constant * cos(theta)

[3] is actually more complicated since it can also include multiple reflections from deeper layers of the surface. If however one only considers direct reflections the model takes the form as shown above.

In Ulaby, Moore, Fung, 1982, “Microwave Remote Sensing, Active and Passive” vol. II the authors also discuss these models of Clapp.

With models [1] and [3] one cosine(theta) term accounts for the decrease in incident power per unit surface area when the radar measures the ground return under angle theta. With [1] a seccond cosine(theta) term is added in accordance with Lambert’s law: a radiating surface whose angle-dependent emission is according to I = I₀ * cos(theta) [Wm-2].

The well-known integral form of the radar equation applied to surface returns is (see for example Ulaby1982):

P_rx = P_tx * [ lambda² / (4 pi)³ ] * integral[ G² / R⁴ * sigma⁰(theta) , dA ]

What I don’t understand is why there is not a cosine term in this equation by default? So

P_rx = P_tx * [ lambda² / (4 pi)³ ] * integral[ G² / R⁴ * sigma⁰(theta) * cos(theta) , dA ]

Because the way I see it: regardless of the scattering properties of any surface the incident power per unit surface area must be rescaled according to cos(theta).

Are you a researcher looking to streamline your reference management process? Look no further! 🚀✨

In today's rapidly evolving world of academia, researchers must stay organized and maintain a seamless workflow for citing and managing references. That's where reference management software like EndNote comes to the rescue! 🎯💡

🔸 Simplify Your Citation Process: Bid farewell to the days of manually tracking citations and formatting references. EndNote and similar tools automate the entire process, allowing you to focus on what truly matters—your research! 📝🔬

🔸 Centralize Your References: Say goodbye to scattered files and endless searches. With EndNote, you can create a comprehensive library of your references, making it effortless to retrieve, sort, and organize your sources. 🗂️🔎

🔸 Collaborate Seamlessly: Working on a collaborative project? Reference management software enables smooth collaboration by facilitating the sharing of references and bibliographies among team members. 💪🤝

🔸 Discover Alternatives: While EndNote is a powerful tool, researchers must explore different options based on their needs. Explore alternatives like Mendeley, Zotero, or RefWorks, each offering unique features and benefits. 🔄🔀

✅ In today's competitive research landscape, investing time in mastering reference management software is a game-changer. Not only does it save you valuable time, but it also ensures accurate and consistent citations, boosting the credibility of your work. 🏆💼

📣 Embrace the power of reference management software and take your research to new heights! Let's stay organized, efficient, and at the forefront of innovation. 💪✨

We assume both are correct.

div D = ρ applies to emw propagation in infinite boundless space.

And Div D = ρ + α dV/dt applies to emw scattering under Diriclet boundary conditions on the voltage V in bounded space.

But the question arises, can it be proven theoretically or experimentally?

How to make a scattering region

Psychological theories are scattered and lack sufficient coherence. Researchers have worked without attention to each other. These valuable theories, if they are put together, find great value. isn't it?

It is common practice to represent a poor scattering channel like millimter wave MIMO channel with a clustered channel model consisting of few clusters of rays. I have also seen in a few papers that poor scattering nature is also captured in terms of a Finite Dimensional channel.

1. Can anyone clarify the difference between the two channel models?

2. As per my knowledge, both channel models are used to reflect the poor scattering property of practical MIMIO channel. Which one to use under what channel conditions?

I shall be highly obliged if someone could spare time and share his/her knowledge.

Hi all,

I am looking for areas of application of the neutron back scattering technique in industries

I want to simulate a discrete random  media with FDTD method.

the simulation environment is air that is filled with random spherical particles (that are small to the wavelength) with defined size distribution.

what is an efficient  and simple way to create random scatterers in large numbers in FDTD code?

i have put some random scatterers in small area but i have problem producing scatterers in large numbers.

 any tips, experiences and suggestions would be appreciated.

thanks in advance.

Some of the results of EDX analysis are quite scattered e.g. for Ca K: from about 3% to 27% at. They agree don't with the atomic composition of the compound. Any comment on it? Please answer

It seems to me that everyone just refers to J. W. Goodman's book "Speckle phenomena in optics: Theory and Applications". I agree this is a good book, however in my opinion there are some differences in ultrasound.

I would like to find answers to the questions:

- how realistic is it to assume that the ultrasound signal has a single spectral component (monochromatic light assumption in Goodman)? Is this assumption required?

- what is the effect of ultrasound transducer and the transformation from pressure to RF signal?

Thank you for your answers.

How do you create and customize data visualizations in Jamovi, such as bar charts, scatter plots, and box plots, to effectively communicate your findings to various audiences?

The low energy neutron's scattering cross section is σ_s, when the target nucleus could be deemed as bound. However, when the target nucleus is unbound, the scattering cross section is [A/(A+1)]²σ_s. The reason for the presence of factor [A/(A+1)]² is the reduced mass of neutron when the unbound target nucleus would be recoiled.

Some literatures say that the unbound scattering length is also [A/(A+1)] that of the bound one. Does anyone know which literatue would be one of the best to show this relationship?

Thanks.

For a particular pixel across multiple co-registered InSAR images, the amplitude value of the received echo may fluctuate from a mean value based on how sustained/changing is the scattering mechanism by the targets within such pixel over time. The selection of pixels as persistent scatterers candidates used for creating a deformation map through time series analysis of several acquisitions is primarily based upon the amplitude dispersion index thresholding at low values in order to properly estimate the phase stability/dispersion only when the Signal-to-Noise ratio is high enough for such pixels, according to the work of (Ferretti et al., 2001).

Source of the figure:

(PDF) Permanent scatterers in SAR interferometry. IEEE Trans Geosci Remot Sen (researchgate.net)

1) What is meant by phase stability in this case?

2) How is the phase's standard deviation across a time series affected by the amplitude dispersion?

3) How does the contribution of uncompensated propagation disturbances such as the atmospheric phase contribution and the satellite's orbital position inaccuracies besides other sources of noise affect the phase stability ?

Hi there!

I was hoping that someone who works/ed with Aqualog Horiba (with polarizers) could assist me in this matter. Currently I am developing a methodology to analyse protein-polymer (nanomolar range) interaction using EEM.

During the experiments, even applying different equipment settings and sample conditions, there is a sensible change on light scattering (+-30% on intensity) whereas emission is fairly constant (error +- 5%).

For these experiments I'm using 10x2 mm quartz cuvettes freshly cleaned and using the same sample per cuvette, avoiding other external changes that would impact our results.

In addition, these samples are summited to light scattering analysis (DLS) and there is no correlation between scattering and size. Anyone had similar issues?

We are analysing such dataset and it seems that such EIS measurements are not fully consistent. The phases are scattered and very limited in absolute value. The Magnitude values look a little better but still not satisfactory.

Has someone also investigated this dataset and would like to discuss shortly with me about it?

Notice about the frequency measurements : we try to distribute the frequency values in linear as well as in logarithmic mode. But the Nyquist or bode does not look consistent.

Suggestions? Opinions?

Looking at the data from this radar I get various scattering centers with their coordinates as well as a value for the RCS. My question is, how does it actually calculate the RCS? Is it just using the radar equation together with the observed distance and the measured received power density? I could not find an explicit explanation on how exactly the RCS is calculated.

Thank you for your help!

Hi, I have a ramachandran scatted plot (as shown below) obtained using the "gmx rama" command of gromacs. Can anyone suggest, how one can obtain a contour plot of the same? Any leads would be appreciated.

Generally, pure metals are expected to exhibit lower thermal conductivity with increasing temperature (lattice vibration-induced scattering and a decrease in the mean free path).

1. What about alloys/solid solutions? Can anyone explain the basic physics?

2. Can Fe/Ni-based high-temperature capable alloys show increasing thermal conductivity with temperature (13 W/mK to 26 W/mK)

Minor variations in the trend may be acceptable in alloy systems due precipitation and dissolution mechanisms. But this increase appears very significant to me. Why?

It is a method used to created an interferometric time series developed by Hooper [2004-2007] following the persistent scatterer approach of Ferretti 2001, which produces surface line-of-sight deformation with respect to the multi-temporal radar repeat-passes and mitgate the temporal phase decorrelations due to the instrument errors, DEM error and atmospheric contribution to the phase delay.

SNAP2StaMPS is a Python workflow developed by José Manuel Delgado Blasco and Michael Foumelis collaboration with Prof. A. Hooper to automate the pre-processing of Sentinel-1 SLC data and their preparation for ingestion to StaMPS. Much appreciation goes to the great work of those honorable professors.

StaMPS method follows 8 steps that are carried out on Matlab on a virtual Unix machine or a Linus OS system

If I understood this correctly. Step 3 selects separate groups (each subset contains a pre-determined density of pixels per square kilometer, those pixels have random phase) from the initially selected PS pixels in step 2 that was based on their calculated spatially correlated phase, spatially uncorrelated DEM error that is subtracted from the remaining phase, temporal coherence.

Then, in step 4 (weeding) those groups of pixels per unit kilometers are further filtered and oversampled and in each group, a selected pixel with highest SNR is taken as a reference pixel and the noise for the neighbouring adjacent pixels is calculated, then based on a pre-determined value of (‘weed_standard_deviation’), some of those neighbouring pixels are dropped and others are kept as PS pixels.

A) Am I correct?

B) What is a pixel with random phase?

C) What is the pixel noise? is it related to having multiple elementary scatterers where none of them is dominant therefore their backscattererd signal is recieved at a different collective phase at each aquision even if the ground containing those scatterers were stable over time ?

D) Due to the language barrier, I have read Hooper's 2007 paper , but I couldn't fully understand what the difference between correlated and uncorrelated errors are, and what spatially correlated/uncorrelated errors means.

E) what is difference between by the spatially uncorrelated DEM (look angle) error that is filtered at StaMPS step 3, removed at Step 5, and spatially correlated look angle error that is removed at Stamps Step 7?

There are attached some test results and I would appreciate if someone inform me how I may remove the persistent atmospheric contribution. I have only used the basic APS linear approach using TRAIN toolbox developed by Bekaert 2015

Respected Nick Papior,

Sir Iam using SIESTA v4.0.2

I want to fix electrode position in scattering region calculation. In manual of v4.0.2 SIESTA it is given as

%block GeometryConstraints

position from -1 to -8 # to fix atoms

%endblock GeometryConstraints

but when i tried this atoms are not fixing there respective positions.

i also tried many syntaxes to fix positions but nothing worked.

Any help will be highly appreciated.

Thanks & Regards

Shanmuk

I want to design a horn antenna which only produces incident field along theta (it's got copolarization along theta). how can I do that?

Laser diffraction mathod is a process of sample analysis in metal extracting metallurgy from ore. In this process while doing lase analysis finer particles inducing more scatter than coarse. Why?

I have a cylindrical dipole arrangement and I have run the DDSCAT simulation in online mode with the ddscat.par file having NPLANES=1, in the nanoHUB portal and it's alright but in case of offline mode its showing an error, the output is given below. >  **** Select Elements of S_ij Matrix to Print ****  >REAPAR CMDFRM=TFRAME : scattering directions given in Target Frame  >REAPAR **** Specify Scattered Directions ****  >REAPAR JPBC=0, about to read specs for scattering plane   1  >>>>> FATAL ERROR IN PROCEDURE: REAPAR  >>>>>  Error reading ddscat.par file  >>>>> EXECUTION ABORTED But I can run the offline simulation with NPLANES=0, so I cannot understand its meaning. Please explain this to me and also explain the meaning of NPLANES.

Any software that can process this?

In text books defined that if in a collision the total kinetic energy before and after collision is conserved then it is called elastic collision other wise in-elastic ( momentum conserve in both cases).

The Compton scattering total kinetic energy is conserved before and after collision, but is called inelastic scattering. In literature it says that "

Elastic scattering occurs when there is no loss of energy of the incident primary particle. Elastically scattered particle can change direction but do not change their wavelength.

Inelastic scattering occurs when there is an interaction that causes loss of energy of the incident primary particle. In-elastically scattered particle have a longer wavelength."

Now my question : (1) Is the collision and scattering are different?

If yes, then (2) how define both the collision and scattering and how to distinguish?

Dear Sir,

I have designed a Raman Spectromter but struggling with signal, Could you please help me in this Regards.

1. have designed Spectrogrpah and calbratd with Xe Ar lamps. working nice.

2. an objective lens is used to direct the laser light and collect the scattering from sample.

3. semrock make edge filter is used to remove laser line

only laser iine is appearing not a single hump of Raman spectra.

I have two raster dataset of NDVI and LST, both calculated from Landsat data. I have extracted the NDVI and LST values for each pixel. Now I want to calculate the soil moisture index using the LST values. For that I have plotted the LST vs NDVI scatter plot. But I am unable to put two different regression lines to the dry edge and the wet edge of the scatter diagram. How to draw the graph?

Hi,

I am working on the HEC HMS rainfall-runoff simulation and I have seen many research authors showing, scattered plots for calibration and validation by comparing simulated discharge and observed discharge in both cases. The graphs are attached, can someone explain to me what they tryna show?

Dear Sir/Mam

I am facing a problem related to Transiesta (scattering) calculation, i selected the optimized molecule from gaussian software and attached left and right electrodes to it. After scattering (Transiesta) calculation is over, i checked the carbon to carbon distance of the optimized molecule, the distance between c-c atoms after scattering calculation is increased than before why it is happening and is this ok or not.

Thankyou

I have to classify the urban growth into infill, sprawl, ribbon and scattered development. All literatures gave theoretical base but couldn't find tutorials for practical approach. Can anyone aid me in finding materials for the same?

I am calculating the Scattering and absorption of nanoparticles (Silica is the core and Ag is the shell). I selected the refractive index of the solver FDTD as 1.44. I am not getting the results

Does anyone know how to calculate scattering and absorption on Lumerical

Thanks