Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (BSM-SG)

Quote from Wyttenbach

R. Mills theory gives a simple answer why we will find a wave pattern in the double slit experiment. Short: The spin of an electron interacts with the slit (+- recoil). Intersting would be an experiment with polarized electrons (Spin in one direction) with a strictly up/down spin oriented slit.

Testing the Mechanical Behaviour of Light.
I found this a very interesting model of light as it is very, very similar of the the BSM model. The only difference is of course, that the waves are propagated through CL space, but the magnetic and electrical wave have the same configuration.

The case of the electron is similar but different as the electron is a 3 body system with complex internal resonances and modulation of it's surroundings.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Quote from poelzi: “Please note that according to BSM, we will never be able to generate anti-matter in a particle accelerator and those particles DESY and other labs produce have a different explanation. Their lifetime will never exceed 1 second much…

I meant specific anti-protons.
If you mean positrons, which the standard model sees as some sort of anti-electron is something different in the BSM model. Positrons have nothing to do with antimatter in the BSM model. The electron is an open 3 body object in the BSM model composed of the electron shell, positron and negative helical cord. It has 2 internal resonances frequencies which you can detect in the fractual quantum hall effect - btw. the BSM model explains all of the states and their width, which your model does not. As far as I know 7/2 and 11/2 are not explained so far.

You can increase lifetime of damaged particles with a magnetic cage, this is expected under the BSM model.

According the BSM, in a antimatter galaxy, the electron is also a 3 body object and has the same geometric buildup. The difference is that the internal angles are exactly opposite. The electron shell has the one we have in the proton shell, the positron in the antimatter galaxy has the angle we have as electronshell.

If you do not mean positrons, please give me some link so I can try to analyze their findings under the BSM perspective. You always have to reanalyze papers if you change a model, ALWAYS.

As I tried to explain over and over again, this difference between matter and antimatter in the BSM model is quite extrem. According to BSM, the positron you "created" was there all the time in the first place. It is part of a normal electron as we know it, but due the geometic structure and the priciple how Newtonian mass is derived, it's mass is hidden as long as it is inside the electron shell. The positron is a stable particle.

Natural antimatter as created by galaxies are something completely different.

Same goes with the antiproton made in particle accelerators. They are partially destroyed protons with a damaged shell. Due the way electric charge is derived, it becomes clear that the charge is negative and the mass similar to a proton. Yet, this is not a stable particle while the positron is.And again, this has nothing to do with a natural antiproton made by a antimatter galaxy as those are stable.

I can assure you, the BSM model is a very different perspective on matter organization. Of course, you will find all the "constants" and many relations of the standard model, a model must explain things you can measure, but the internal relationship is very different.

The paper you linked is what I meant with magnetic cage.I read some newer papers which clearly showed that those antiprotons decay in < 1sec which is the predicted lifetime of those mangled protons in the BSM model. If you bring me a paper where they bring such atoms to a rest and have them stable, this would contradict the BSM model and I will reconsider my opinion.

You seem to have insight into physics, so please, read the primary literature to understand the model. It is 600 large pages for a good reason, physics is complex at least and a different model is different. You have to understand the basic functioning of a model to really understand and test it. As far as I can say, my testing of this model in the last year or so, have not brought up anything that was contradicted by papers I have found. I had my ups and downs how much I was convinced by this model, but every time I stumbled upon something that made not instantaneously sense, some more thinking about the forces and structures involved, solved my doubts.

You should never see physics as separated models or views. Everything from the smallest particles to the largest objects must follow one and the same framework and must be unified in all aspects. Laws do not change just because you look at chemistry and not particle physics. For this framework you should really consider Einstein:

Quote

We can invent as many theories we like, and any one of them can be made to
fit the facts. But that theory is always preferred which makes the fewest number of assumptions.

- Albert Einstein

And this is the point you will understand once you have understand the BSM model, you can not make viewer assumptions as the BSM model does. And this is why I'm convinced as long as I don't find anything contradictory measurements.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

For once I agree completely with Wyttenbach! .

This Fantasy-tendency is too common with LENR-believers. We have a few more examples in the forum, no names but you know who...

There are measurements and there are theories. We can make up all kinds of theories but the ultimate test is always the measurement, and whatever theory you use, if you gonna say it is the truth, it must fit always with no exceptions whatsoever. And in my opinion, it should be logically sound and understandable, classical logic preferred and free of paradoxes. At least the standard model does not fulfill any of those criteria.

Peter: I can assure you at least of one thing, from the BSM perspective it is much less magical then the standard one. No spooky action at a distance (- of course you have the effect, but it's not spooky anymore), no wired big bang where all the formulas collapse and you have already invented over 20 free parameters to make the theory at least fit in some aspects, no strange neutrino oscillations and all this magic. That we are talking currently about more exotic effects that do not touch us in day to day life is a different matter.

Quote from Peter Ekstrom

What's BSM? Bull Shit Model?

You answer to threads in which you clearly have not even read the first post to approximately get what the thread is about. Are you a troll ?

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are two US-companies trying to comercialize Boron fusion. May be you should ask them whether they can confirm the idea of two existing quasi floating deuterons along a He₄ core...
I personally think that the current core model just somehow covers one aspect of high energy physics. With a bit of phantasy, we will probably soon get a more adequate view of the physical property of the Femtometer space!

The femtospace is where the BSM models differs quite strongly. Protons and Neutrons are very large in the BSM model compared to the standard model. I asked Eric J. Lerner how directs the Focus Fusion Group and also published some papers in which they concluded that the big bang model in sum does not fit the expected values. As those values fit to the expected values in the BSM model, i thought it may be of interest to him, but I never received an answer.

Quote from Karl Fischer

How do the two valence deuterons from Be-8 merge into a helium core?

If we look at Be in the BSM periodic table (if you have not read the book, this table will not make much sense for you):
http://www.helical-structures.org/Atlas_ANS.pdf
At Be, you see that the two valence protons are in opposite position. There seems to be a error in the picture as it looks like Be 10 from top and side view while the bottom is from Be 8.
In the case of Be 8, there is one neutron on each valence proton and it will be very symetric.
Be has a very weak binding on the top protons as the mass density is still very low - compared with the later elements, as you can see if you follow the buildup trend. The bindings get stronger over growth and build later GBcp bindings which are very strong.

My guess (hypotheses) is, that the symmetry of the valenceprotons in Be 8 cause the top binding to fail, they slip into each other and you get 2 alpha partices. Be9 will have one neutron more on one side, which will shift it's angle slightly to the bottom as there is the center of mass. This deviation could cause the stability of Be9.
But please don't quote my about this one and would need to check with Stoyan if I got this right - I'm still a student of this theory myself and I may get things wrong which I can't prevent

Back to Be, the angle of those two protons is perfect for slipping into each other building up a He atom. When I think about it, it could easily be, that according to BSM those will not be a neutron free fusion. If the parameters are good you will get beta decay +H otherwise a neutron flux with Be 9.

Some elements alpha decay if you cause a neutron spin change, it was written in the fusion book of stoyan sarg