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

    Quote from axil

    over a long period of time, decay rates will average out even though for a very short period there could be a large change over a short time. The solar flare produces huge amounts of magnetism thought a release process called reconnection.


    This is not true: If the theory of nuclear decay is exact, then there will be no variation with time that exceeds the statistic confidence intervall. Hence you have to exactly define what you mean by short in relation to half-time.


    In the above mentionned experiments the half-time(s) show different time variation for a "very long time". Climatic influences can be rules out completely. You should read the "paper".

    Quote from poelzi

    The femtospace is where the BSM models differs quite strongly.


    Hello poelzi: Contrary to R.Mills SARG is after the money. Mills theory is published for fere use, SARG is quite costly.


    Further: From the few condensing papers of SARG I read, I don't get a clear picture of his ideas. His definition of the Youkata potential is not novel and somehow contradicts the proposed asymmetric structures of the nuclei.


    Mills reasoning is straight forward, as he mostly only compiles the "offroad ideas" of others! Nevertheless Mill's theory is far from beeing complete.


    If you can show us one novel (exact!!) prediction, that could be made out of SARG's theory then the picture might change.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is not true: If the theory of nuclear decay is exact, then there will be no variation with time that exceeds the statistic confidence intervall. Hence you have to exactly define what you mean by short in relation to half-time.


    In the above mentionned experiments the half-time(s) show different time variation for a "very long time". Climatic influences can be rules out completely. You should read the "paper".


    The period related to solar flares as mentioned in the articles are in days, a day or two...

    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...


    Even if they pull it of to make boron fusion work, they still might not understand what they are doing. Man used fire for thousands of years before discovering its nature. And I don't want to be rude but I don't need them to tell me what to think. I have a brain of my own.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    But there have been papers published in quiet corners which suggest a link between decay rates and solar activity for decades- but seldom by such credible sources as the ones mentioned in this article.


    Relation does not mean causation. A change in static CL pressure might influence both the solar activity and isotope stability.


    Quote from poelzi

    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.


    The instability of Be-8 is surprising considering the similar deuteron orientation and symmetry in boron-11. Apparantly the extra triton in B-11 has a very positive effect on stability.


    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Hello poelzi: Contrary to R.Mills SARG is after the money. Mills theory is published for fere use, SARG is quite costly.


    Just over $40 for a 3 pound book on science for a limited audience is not "going for the money". This comment only confirms the first sentence of this thread.

    Quote

    There is an interesting phenomena in humans, that is really strong opposition if you don't believe in the standard model of physics.

    Quote from Karl Fischer

    The instability of Be-8 is surprising considering the similar deuteron orientation and symmetry in boron-11


    According to which theory this is surprising ?


    PS: I'm handicapped in reading: So I mostly read PDF's. I' don't buy printed books.
    Paying for science is matter of conduct. Either You like a free world or you play the old Greek (US) democracy game, where only the wealthy were free.

    Quote from poelzi

    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 ?


    Or, it could be my way of expressing what I think of the theory!


    I do not think that it is easier for LENR to be accepted of it requires that the whole of physics has to be modified. Rather the opposite I would think!


    I don't know how many imaginative new unified theories there are out there, probably in the hundreds. I got the latest ("Time Energy Theory", unfortunately probably not the last) two days ago via email. I do not think I will read it. It will go with the spam.


    The theories are either very vague using fancy technical terms which together become complete nonsense, or they are an exercise in maths completely detached from experimental physics (like Randell Mills' effort).

    Quote from Peter Ekstrom

    Could you explain this, please. To a nuclear physicist it sounds like gobbledygook!


    This was about the paper in the post above: "decay rate change during sun eruptions"


    I don't think that the weak interaction is fooled by any external effect. The alpha decay is a complete different path.



    For the moment I would not say more and hope that a few more people measure the Ra226 effect and falsify it!!

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    PS: I'm handicapped in reading: So I mostly read PDF's. I' don't buy printed books.
    Paying for science is matter of conduct. Either You like a free world or you play the old Greek (US) democracy game, where only the wealthy were free.


    More and more papers are published with Open Access since funding agencies demand it. It is a slow process, however, since the publishers demand very high profits. We who are affiliated to a university are blessed with almost complete free access - for a very high cost to the university, however.


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.6276.pdf


    Abstract


    Experimental results are presented on laser-induced accelerated alpha-decay of Uranium- 232 nuclei under laser exposure of Au nanoparticles in aqueous solutions of its salt. It is demonstrated that the decrease of alpha-activity strongly depends on the peak intensity of the laser radiation in the liquid and is highest at several terawatt per square centimeter. The decrease of alpha-activity of the exposed solutions is accompanied by the deviation of gamma-activities of daughter nuclides of Uranium-232 from their equilibrium values. Possible mechanisms of the laser influence on the alpha-activity are discussed on the basis of the amplification of the electric field of laser wave on metallic nanoparticles.

    I tried to look BSM-SG up, are there any videos that have good sound? Is S Sarg cited by other researchers? It looks elegant.
    But honestly the Helical Structures site looks like a sales website from 1993.


    Also poelzi I assume that is you on the EM-drive forum. I see we have a sub here on EMD. But in regards to the effect, I keep thinking lorentz force must be completely addressed. I have learned though a lot (MiHsC) from reading about it. Not sure if real but interesting.


    On a small tangent,here is an interesting way to spend a few hours. Sean Hartnoll (credit Axil) on duality. His explanation of BCS is amazing.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Peter E wrote: "More and more papers are published with Open Access since funding agencies demand it. It is a slow process, however, since the publishers demand very high profits. We who are affiliated to a university are blessed with almost complete free access - for a very high cost to the university, however. "


    Peter at least you recognize it. I am still paying my childs student loan off. That cost to the university is carried over many shoulders. Thank Cthulhu the Sanford and MIT video series are amazing and free.
    OTOH research costs money. I am unaware if Springer pays it forward in anyway.

    I stumbled upon a paper with an interesting question:

    Quote

    The discovery of many new types of strange particles during recent years has drawn new attention to the fact that we really don't understand why those particles exist with the properties we observe. Why is a proton 1836 times heavier than an electron? Why is there no neutral µ meson of mass 200? Why is hc/e2 equal to 137? An ultimate theory of matter should explain such things.


    From: http://www.ejournal.unam.mx/rmf/no044/RMF04402.pdf


    Why is hc/e2 equal to 137? Is it? I assume:


    h = 6.6E-34 Planck's constant
    c = 3.0E+08 speed of light
    e = 1.6E-19 charge of electron or
    e = 2.71828 mathematical constant


    Neither e gives the result of 137.
    If my assumptions are wrong and hc/e2 is equal 137 could BSM-SG explain why?

    Quote from Longview

    See this pdf for far more detail: <a href="http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-28-01.PDF" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-28-01.PDF</a>


    Tnx Longview, this is an interesting paper. That pi4.sqrt(2) seems fundamental.

    Quote from Karl Fischer

    I stumbled upon a paper with an interesting question:
    Quote: “The discovery of many new types of strange particles during recent years has drawn new attention to the fact that we really don't understand <i>why</i> those particles exist with the properties we…


    According to BSM everything we think is a fundamental particle is HUGE, a very HUGE object. Of course you can have quite different unstable heavily mangled structures. You can create all kinds of strange stuff, everything you can imagine 3 dimensional basically, but nothing of this stuff is stable.


    Towards the Integer numbers:


    There are a number of integers in the BSM model and they usually have a very simple explanation.
    137 has multiple occurences. In the BSM model, α is one of the most fundamental natural constants, but it is most likely implemented in the first tetrahedron that builds up a prism. Chapter 12 goes into details and has a theory of the origin of the fine matter constant. It uses some theoretical derived work from others but it's interpretation is new.
    According to BSM, alpha is resonance difference between two resonances purely due the geometric buildup.


    137 has a second appearance a bit higher:



    l_c = Compton Wavelength
    s_e = electron helical step


    s_e is ultimately caused by the differences of E(CP) and E(TP) and therefor α. When you understand the underlying principle of the fine matter constant inside the prism and the high level structure of the electron, it becomes clear why this signature is visible on multiple places.


    There are some other integer numbers in BSM.


    Quote

    .... When applying a relativistic correction (multiplying by the estimated above gamma factor for the kinetic energy of 13.6 eV) the number of the electron turns becomes 1 ⁄ α3 . The phase repetition
    conditions will be satisfied if this number is integer. Substituting α by its value from CODATA 98
    we get: 1 ⁄ α3 = 2573380.57.
    It is interesting to mention, that the closest integer value of 2573380 is obtained by Michael
    Wales, using a completely different method for analysis of the electron behavior


    The number of turns of helical cord in the electron (can't kind find it now).

    Quote from Longview

    See this pdf for far more detail:


    Longview: That's exactly at what I'm look at: Relations of 4-dimensional space, with so called three dimensional "physical artefacts".


    Any fundamental description of matter needs at least 4 dimensions and no notion of time! At least no time as we feel/understand it...

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Quote from Longview: “See this pdf for far more detail:”


    Longview: That's exactly at what I'm look at: Relations of 4-dimensional space, with so called three dimensional &quot;physical artefacts&quot;.


    Any fundamental description of matter needs at least 4…


    From the BSM perspective you could say that every object has a 3 dimensional spacial property and if you like to really see it as a dimension you could say that it's resonance frequency is the 4th dimension. But it has nothing to do with being something orthogonal, it is more a intrinsic property. Those frequency is the basis of time as we perceive it, but it's lowest level is unfortunately way beyond our current technological point to actually measure. The Plank Frequency is most likely already the first tetrahedron or even larger and as we simply have no pure fundamental particles here, it is hard to find out.


    If you want to stick with this perspective, you should also take into account that both types of fundamental particles have a different resonance frequency, therefor different time basis.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.