Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

Quote from THHuxleynew

without the repetition destroying other stuff.

Its not destroying stuff THHuxleynew and you well know it

Don't chihuahua-like yap to the Moderators. with your noise

Why should I start another thread?

Your arxiv find Durr et al 2015>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

was right on the topic of this thread..

-precision and calculation in modelling of physics

It's just that your precision has been found very wanting and you can't man up to admit that

you mistakenly assumed 6 digit precision which turned out to be 2 digit precision

So much for your assumed precision of QED/QCD modelling of nuclear physics

Another thread as Wyttenbach suggested should be devoted to

"but we know also now that already tomorrow there could be a better solution/model than we have today."

perhaps I will start another thread Einstein was right? Virginia

Quote from Shane D.

two of our biggest brains

Disputable flattery ..

as well

THHuxley's6 figure Durr et al stuff which he introduced on this thread

was exactly but imprecisely on topic... as is my response

his evasion is expected.

there is a new topic.. which I can squeeze in before atarashii hikari today

Quote

Kind of embarrassing to see two of our biggest brains going at it in a cat fight.

At least, it's not an e-cat fight.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

At least, it's not an e-cat fight.

to run away from data is unbulldog-like

QM via QED/QCD is less accurate than more modern theories for neutron/proton parameters

This is an interesting discussion Bohr Model, the technique with deriving the Hamilton Jaccobi equations really is interesting. It do look that spherical shells and Mills theory can popup

from this feature of QM. To me they essentially look the same and explains why Bohr and hence also Mills which does essentially what Bohr did but with a better model that explains a

lot more than Bohr did.

Quote from stefan

This is an interesting discussion Bohr Model, the technique with deriving the Hamilton Jaccobi equations really is interesting.

It also shows (see comments) that many people still don't understand the Bohr model as one guy says Bohr defined circular orbits... With the reduced mass you in fact defined a set of nested circles that fully covers an ellipsis and thus in fact the orbits are elliptical but can (must!) be treated circle like. This implies that if you externally look at the orbit you see an ellipsis but if you calculate it then it behaves circle like. This is the same in planet mechanics where the center of rotation is not e.g. the center of the sun.

The full understanding you only get if you switch to SO(4) orbits. Both QM and Mills fail to correctly model the full magnetic coupling in 4D / 4 rotations.

Wyttenbach

Hmm I'm wondering about the Hamilton Jaccobi equation for three orbitals, if you write it out includeing the typicall magnetic influence you will find in QM have

p(1,x)^2 + p(1,y)^2 + p(1,z)^2 + p(2,x)^2 + p(2,y)^2 + p(2,z)^2 + p(3,x)^2 + p(3,y)^2 + p(3,z)^2 + m^2 + U(r1)L1.Ltot + U(r2)L2.Ltot + U(r3)L3.Ltot

All p's has 12 degrees of freedom S0(4) have 7 degrees of freedom. fixing the influences of the magnetic field via L1.Ltot, L2.Ltot, L3.Ltot, fixates three dimensions

12-3 = 9. And also energy is a constant that will give you 12-4 = 8 degres of freedom. Finally the total angular momentum is fixed (in magnitude) and you are left

12 - 5 = 7 degrees of freedom. Hmm Wyttenbach I believe you and me might be on the same track.

/Stefan

Quote from Wyttenbach

The full understanding you only get if you switch to SO(4) orbits. Both QM and Mills fail to correctly model the full magnetic coupling in 4D / 4 rotations.

Wyttenbach One question does your theory along with Mills/Holmid allow for more than 3 spatial dimensions? Always assumed the name was about 4 demensions like how string theories allows for up to 11 demensions depending on which version you use. So do you believe that according to your and related theories there are more than 3 spacial demensions (not including time).

LeBob

Dimensions is the wrong word, degrees of freedom is better, for example movments of a rigid body have more than three degrees of freedom

and could be seen as living in a space with 6 dimesions mathematically speaking as you have 6 degrees of freedom. Wyttenbach theory is an

abstract theory which uses the freedoms and symmetry of SO(4). And connects the geometry of that object to results in particle physics.

This does not nessesary mean (but can perhaps) that space has 4 dimensions, just that you can find the SO(4) structure in the math. The

same applies to all theories talking about dimensions. My point is that combining the 3 fields above means that essentially you have the

same degrees of freedom as in SO(4) and could perhaps be a direct model that shows the one property needed to prove Wyttenbach's

results is indeed included in the formulation.

Quote from stefan

All p's has 12 degrees of freedom S0(4) have 7 degrees of freedom. fixing the influences of the magnetic field via L1.Ltot, L2.Ltot, L3.Ltot, fixates three dimensions

12-3 = 9. And also energy is a constant that will give you 12-4 = 8 degres of freedom.

This is a bit to simple I guess. Full SO(4) has 6 dimensions and thus 6 classic vector momenta and 5 independent rotations of classic 3D mass. But... there are higher order rotations of e.g. 5D mass or 4D mass that cannot be represented as classical 3D rotations. This missing understanding of higher dimension body structure is what is neglected in classic reasoning. (What is the "mass" of a 4D body?)

"Your model" just works for the 3D/4D mass that orbits the Clifford torus and still behaves classically except it has one more rotation. But the charge mass interaction includes the 4D mass that does a 5D (4D +1) rotation.

What I try to do is to split the model in subparts. E.g. the 4D magnetic rotation coupling with the 3D/4D perturbative mass that generates the charge.

Further 3D mechanical mass that rotates is fully 3D connected. Magnetic mass (in SO(4)) is 2Dx2D rotation connected via a virtual charge and ring logic (e.g. only right handed induction)! This connecting charge has no mass if the symmetry is total & maximal but as soon as it is not maximal (different dimensionality) the virtual charge has mass. This pain will end all simple integral classical reasoning. I will not exclude that there once will be such a "simple" integral solution. But first as said we should find solutions for the proton 3D/4D perturbative mass and the 4D magnetic mass. Coupling the two with the 2 wave potential structure is then the last step.