https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/1/015802
For example, a free neutron (outside a nucleus) decays in about 15 minutes to a proton, an electron and a neutrino.
This is a correct argument for electromagnetism and it is also correct for the weak force for the same basic reason. At least it is true for the version of the weak force described so far...
uh… don’t think I understand the whole wave argument really… why did they bring them up?
Similarly, we will see below that the electron and the neutrino represent the same particle but rotating in different ways in the weak sphere.
?
This randomness follows a very precise law, which is encoded in the precise form of the probability distribution. We will not give the precise formula here (it can be found in the appendix), but we simply note that it is such that configurations of exchange rates and gold prices become less probable when there are greater opportunities to speculate.
A left handed electron and the left handed neutrino are basically the same particle but moving in different ways on the weak sphere. The weak force transforms one into the other.
hmm… need to look up more on it…
recovering Maxwell equations from economic argument + time? derivatives as a result of banks adjusting exchange rates according to the gain?
I guess one slight difference with real currencies is that the domain of currency values is unbounded, whereas the angle is [0, 2 pi), but perhaps this doesn’t make that much of a difference?
Or I guess could map via a tangens function… that way 1-1 correspondence between angles and real axis
The conclusion is that for a massless particle the notion of whether the spin points along the direction of motion or opposite to it is some characteristic of the particle, independent of the reference frame.
Earnshaw’s theorem: a system of charged particles cannot reach stable equilibrium by means of electrostatic forces alone, — this is exactly what I’ve faced when trying to simulate those