So how did Horst react to your question ?
Vielleicht..
Hoffentlich nicht
Ich warte..
Ich warte..
Horst did reply
"Dear Robert,
thanks for this hint. The paper of Wyttenbach states what also we at the
AIAS institute say: the standard model of elementary particles is a
collection of experimental findings that have been brought into an
ordered scheme, and nothing more. It is not so easy to understand his
torus with 4 spatial dimensions. He is successful in deriving elementary
quantities from this geometrical model, which is definitly a progress.
In ECE theory, we go a different way and derive physical properties from
fundamental equations of state, which in turn are derived from basic
geometry. A torus structure in any dimension then should come out as a
solution of an equation set. The equations of electromagnetism and
gravitation are the same on the geometric level, this is our
unification. As a result, both fields comply to general relativity,
which is not the case for standard quantum mechanics or electrodynamics.
Concerning your question, particle masses must come out from solutions
of a generally relativistic wave equation in our theory. Perhaps one can
assume point masses in a first approximation. In my paper it was shown
that the static electric field depends on the ratio between mass and
charge density in the vacuum. One would have to make assumptions on the
spin connection, i.e. space curvature for such a situation. For
point-like particles, its dependence of radial distance is 1/r like the
potentials.
A simple reasoning (without any progressed theory) is the following:
assume a proton and an anti-proton (or an electron) in static distance
and compute the field energies of the electric and gravitational field
between both. The ratio between both energies depends on the masses,
charges and field constants like G.
Regards,
Horst
Display MoreHorst did reply
"Dear Robert,
In my paper it was shown
that the static electric field depends on the ratio between mass and
charge density in the vacuum. One would have to make assumptions on the
spin connection, i.e. space curvature for such a situation. For
point-like particles, its dependence of radial distance is 1/r like the
potentials.
A simple reasoning (without any progressed theory) is the following:
assume a proton and an anti-proton (or an electron) in static distance
and compute the field energies of the electric and gravitational field
between both. The ratio between both energies depends on the masses,
charges and field constants like G.
Regards,
Horst
It has been 5 days since I sent my articles to Horst. He doesn't want to change anything... He doesn't want to change his mind! Horst does not want to notice Maxwell's completely obvious mistakes! This is pride! This is vanity! All of this bothers us all! People like Horst block the development of physics by ignoring my articles... If things go on like this, it will be difficult for experimenters to understand the physical phenomena in their LENR installations.
Display MoreHorst did reply
"Dear Robert,
of the electric and gravitational field
between both. The ratio between both energies depends on the masses,
charges and field constants like G.
Regards,
Horst
Robert ! It is important for us to know Horst's opinion. Ask his opinion about my articles, please! Maybe he just didn't have time to study them...
Display MoreRjzk. Interesting thread. I totally missed this before. Really glad to see it now.
Is this the first place Wyttenbach mentions 6D space? And it s quotient of two 3D spaces nature?
I’m curious about this concept and if and how it relates to his recent 4D and 6D descriptions
I wonder if there is a coupling between 2 3D spaces. Perhaps through spin? Or if each 3D dimension is split in two some common 4 th dimensional source. And what kinds of vector or scalar spaces it relates to. And how that explains time. Probably it’s deep in the maths but I wonder if there is a simple visualization?
(I like the idea of a coupling of two 3D spaces 3D seems quite fundamental consequence to me in spinning or rotating systems. Would the two 3D spaces need resonances to couple. And could it imply resonant coupling in the near field is required when they occur?)
If you are really interested to know exactly where the doublet of Euclidean spaces manifests itself in physics, then let me explain that the Lie algebra of tangent linear vector fields of a 6-dimensional space with a neutral metric (3+,3-) is isomorphic to su(3)
This is vanity!
I shall pray for his salvation
the Lie algebra of tangent linear vector fields of a 6-dimensional space with a neutral metric (3+,3-) is isomorphic to su(3)
6D SO(4) has a 4D tangent space as already the name (O4) implies. 6D Clifford torus physical action needs a bit more thinking than basic algebra. You have to find the invariant between magnetic flux and charge!
Let me remind you that the group of undisturbed symmetries of the standard model of elementary particles is the product of $U(1)xSU(2xSU(3))$. And now attention - this product is easily generated by the algebra of linear vector fields of an 8-dimensional space with a neutral metric, i.e. a doublet of Minkowski spaces. Thus, nature tells us that the dual Minkowski space is not observable, since it is folded into the product of $S^{1}xS^{3}$, but the doubling of the Minkowski space generates all gauge (electromagnetic, weak and strong) interactions.
8-dimensional space
8D is less parsimonious than 4D.. but God is not mean spirited,,
The 8-dimensional space itself is dead, and its soul is matter moving in it. In turn, the equations of motion of matter (Newton, Maxwell, Schrodinger, etc.) follow from the condition of local minimality of vector fields of accelerations of moving matter.
and its soul is matter moving in it.
But what of Gravity, by which we measure the weight of the soul?\
is there a mathematical relation in 8D?
"Gravity.
Surely this force must be capable of an experimental relation to electricity, magnetism, and the other forces,
so as to bind it up with them in reciprocal action and equivalent effect."
Faraday...
Notebook entry (19 Mar 1849)
Calibration fields are set by twisting the vacuum vector field of accelerations of moving matter, and gravity is set by changing the geometry of the vacuum vector field. Imagine that the coordinates of the Minkowski space are the helical lines of an 8-dimensional cylindrical manifold. Then gravity manifests itself in the form of a change in the pitch of these helical lines. And finally, the twist and pitch changes of the helical lines are interrelated.
So E=mc^n in a n-dimensional Universe? What if the constants we calculate are all wrong?
The 8-dimensional space itself is dead,
One aspect is the dimension of the mathematical space the other is the dimension of the physical space. Call Furey did show that in O (octonions) you can unify all current standard model quack approaches. This implies : If the SM failed for 100 years to find anything of value its end of game.
The real physical space is SO(4) 6D and of course potentials are nonsense as a primary physics quantity in dense matter physics! All physical action is 2:1 D so only its square (2:1)2 is allowed as a next step. Octonions are a special case as this allows for parallel sets of SO(4) actions.
The world is full of dreamers adhering to fields only. It will take a lot of brain washing time to wipe out such irrational first order models. Such models onyl work for engineering!
All physical action is 2:1 D so only its square (2:1)2 is allowed as a next step.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Check out the work of https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi
From a math point of view everything is clear fields and dual spaces are synonyms. There is do "trial space" hence there are no 3D tensor fields with a 3D generator. But You can have a kind of 4D fields with a 2x2 generator! But there is no single radius potential.
Ghabussi missed it and we started once a private discussion.
FYI:
Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS)
homepage seems to be updated.
From there I noticed that Horst Eckardt has made a youtube-presentation about the (very) basics of ECE-theory already earlier this year.
The german version is also available.
Thank you, I will definitely familiarize myself with this theory. At the same time, let me share my research. According to my theory of minimal flows, Maxwell's equations are a differential condition for the local minimality of flows of vector fields in Minkowski space. In other words, these equations describe locally minimal level surfaces in 4-space with the Minkowski metric.
