Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • The experimental measured result is 782,332. 9 eV

    The experimental measured result for ( n- p) is 1.293 332 05(48) MeV

    the proper Neutron mass excess of ( n-p-e) = 0.7823329 MeV


    It really doesn't matter which one (n-p) or ( n-p-e)......


    Quantum funk like QED or QCD can't get 2 sig fig accuracy .. let alone 6 sig fig accuracy.


    Its lucky that Maxwell wrote down a classical equation for c long ago..


    otherwise QED and QCD supercomputers would come up with 3+-0.1 x 10(8) instead of 299,792,458...m/s

  • You have only a few hours to solve the issue.


    THHuxley cannot find six dp accuracy in his arxiv source for (n-p) even if he has 2 weeks... it just isn't there.


    On the other hand Ascoli65 and THHuxley might have more time on the Italian website..

    https://fusionefredda.wordpress.com/tag/ascoli65/

    if it still exists.

    Google translate works fine for me.


    "January 13, 2017 at 7:27 pm

    @ Camillo, (Franchini)

    - Use unnecessarily unpleasant expressions in a comment where you claim that humanity is in trouble from an energy point of view.


    Ascoli65

    said:

    I apologize to you for the unpleasant harshness of some of my sentences, but I was forced to try to overcome an impasse that by now made our exchange of views similar to a dialogue between the deaf.

    However, this blog of yours is the only site left in Italy to deal with cold fusion. It is not a small thing, especially if the FF(COLD FUSION) is not taken in its own right, but it is considered for what it is, that is the most absurd and ridiculous attempt by man to deceive himself about his ability to procure the energy of which he needs to continue to benefit permanently from the comforts and luxuries deriving from the fortunate discovery of a treasure hidden for millions of years, but alas in the process of exhaustion. The last revival of the FF(COLD FUSION) is destined to become extinct soon, perhaps with a certain media hype, at the conclusion of the judicial affair between Rossi and IH. But this will not put an end to the deceptive sirens, as shown by the latest issue of Le Scienze and the news of the NSA just posted above
  • Very good article Sam linked here. - and it mentions richard's favourite SAFIRE..


    'In 2014, Montgomery Childs led the first phase of the Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment (SAFIRE) and his team created an experiment in which DC power was applied to a spherical metal anode that had been positioned in a glass bell jar, filled with a low pressure of hydrogen gas.

    As the power was increased, the gas around the anode began to glow, creating a plasma. First, small violet glowing tufts of plasma spaced themselves out around the sphere. Then, at higher power, a series of nested spherical shells emerged.

    These ‘double layers’ were made up of segregated, alternating layers of positive and negative charge, glowing beautifully in blue or violet.'

  • Here is the 6 digit precision asked for by Wyttenbach.


    That's the kind of jokes we like to have. QED is just a nonsense model for describing dense matter as it still uses the guv metric, which cannot be used in dense space. QED might be used to analyze the the particles CERN produces as they stay in 3D,t space and the guv metric is adequate then. That's the main reason why it never will be able to calculate anything ab initio. QED is just a post mortem model for matter not a model for matter itself.


    Such papers, as THH referenced, might explain why STDM profiteers like hot fusionist Ascoli now have to cheat others that certainly will overtake their stake.


  • I still recommend that everybody interested in learning physics should first read Mill's GUT-CP. It is far superior than any nuclear/chemical physics textbook as all its logic is based on strong causality physics: Newton & Maxwell.


    Of course you will find some deficits like the incomplete space metric, because Mills did not arrive to understand the equality of space & time. Also Hydrinos are a nice concept with no given physical basis - just mathematical logic. But these deep states exist and certain Hydrino (H(1/4)2) like Hydrogen molecules certainly were produced and follow Mills chemical physics rules with reasonable precision. I want just remember that you can use the same Mills chemical physics rules to model the deuterium bond with still a reasonable precision - in STDM terms...


    Only if physicists start to understand the real nature of matter, that can not fully be described by STDM physics and start to improve Mills model, then we will see real progress.


    In fact it is outrageous how the current physics circus fools the public. Based on 90 years fruitless modeling to understand mass the so called Higgs particle = particle!!! that gives other particle mass has been invented. Nobody had any clue how heavy this particle should be but soon after CERN found a new resonance (Yeas CERN mostly sees no particles only resonances of their energies) they claimed it to be the Higgs. But unluckily there are two resonances that are very close - something Higgs fans did not predict...


    Fact is: The so called Higgs particle is a simple resonance of the proton mass that can be exactly calculated based on SO(4) physics rules. The measurement is that good that in fact it confirms SO(4) physics and certainly not a Higgs mechanism that never could give any reason for a particle with the measured mass.


    The usual way STDM circus works: Write a new paper and make the data fit the post-prediction...


    And now please give CERN more money! Why don't they repeat Holmlid's work and make a meaningful contribution to our future??



  • Robert - this is not a "choice of methods" this is three quite different values!


    The (real) mass splitting has nearly two independent components: electromagnetic (calculated using alpha =0 to knock out QCD effects), and QCD, calculated using md = mmu to knock out e-m effects, as detailed in

    http://science.sciencemag.org/….1452.DC1/Borsanyi-SM.pdf

    Section 10.3


    You are maybe complaining that this separation is improper e.g. that the two effects are dependent, but section 10.3 presents good experimental evidence that any errors are far smaller than the precision of the results.









    energy equivalence of rest mass of proton 938.27231(28) MeV
    energy equivalence of rest mass of neutron 939.56563(28) MeV



    The isospin mass split on nucleons is 1.29MeV (not 0.782 MeV as i think you imply).


    That compares with 1.51 MeV from this method - which is nicely within the expected error bars.


    THH

















    Looking at the predictions here (half the results are predictive, the other half look back to experiment, but all use the same method):





  • ...

    Many people like epimetheus find it difficult to believe this - but it happens to be well attested from experimental results, and also clear from QM.


    It is also so improbable as to be impossible that anything as big as a cat can be treated like this: the correlations amongst the enormous number of degrees of freedom available for a macroscopic object at normal temperatures make reconstituting a neither dead nor alive cat in this case impossible.

    ...


    Yeah right. It is difficult to believe! And you have to believe - you have to "shut up and calculate" because it does not make any sense at all. You belive in QM because you can calculate most of the relevant physical properties of our world and you have experiments that show that the equations work. This is true for many experiments, but not for all. Because there is no alternative to QM in the eyes of the believers, they seem to have the tendency to say "ahh...98% of QM works - just wait ten years and the last 2% will fit somehow". That is the same arrogance as the physicists showed in the end of the 19th century ("Dont study physics. Nearly everything in physics is known."). QM believers have no reason to be so arrogant. Ever heard of dark matter or mass? There are huge blind spots in the eyes of believers. That is true for me but definitly also for THH, SOT and the whole QM community.


    QM failed so miserably and describing mass (that Higgs particle thing is ridiculous: oh. Our collider found a new peak. For what particle are we looking? Uh... the Higgs Boson. OK. It has to be the Higgs Boson.) or dark matter. If someone comes along and has a good hypothesis what dark matter could be and if this someone tells you how you can perform experiments that can produce this dark matter candidate and if these experiments where succesfully replicated independently by great physicists with much expertise (Prof. Conrads and Prof. Driessen) and they also find unusual behavior perhabs that would be a good time to descend from the white QM horse and replicate. But they would rather build another 10 billion $ collider or 500 million $ dark matter detector then to perform simple experiments of someone who talks bad about QM. That is not the behavior of adults and it is definitly not "scientific".


    I know that there are many experiments out there that show "quantum behavior". But can you look me in the eye and swear that it is not possible that another (completely different) theory is able to describe these experiments? You cannot. So we are at the beginning. I believe the probability function approach of QM is just a mathematical model and is not our physical reality and Mills has a much better approach. You believe the opposite. You cannot proof that you are right and me neither. But perhabs you can admit that it could be a good idea for mainstream physics to replicate Mills. Not in the 1989 cold fusion style of replication - "We worked our asses off in the last 40 days and could not find anything...so cold fusion must be fake." but with a reasonable time frame, staff and budget.

  • That's the kind of jokes we like to have. QED is just a nonsense model for describing dense matter as it still uses the guv metric, which cannot be used in dense space. QED might be used to analyze the the particles CERN produces as they stay in 3D,t space and the guv metric is adequate then. That's the main reason why it never will be able to calculate anything ab initio. QED is just a post mortem model for matter not a model for matter itself.


    Such papers, as THH referenced, might explain why STDM profiteers like hot fusionist Ascoli now have to cheat others that certainly will overtake their stake.


    Even the more difficult QCD lattice calculations can be extended to curved space:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1371.pdf


    QED can be done in curved space too:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3837


    You'd need to discuss in detail why the methods used there do not in your opinion work - no doubt you could publish any contribution to state of art.

  • Because there is no alternative to QM in the eyes of the believers, they seem to have the tendency to say "ahh...98% of QM works - just wait ten years and the last 2% will fit somehow". That is the same arrogance as the physicists showed in the end of the 19th century ("Dont study physics. Nearly everything in physics is known."). QM believers have no reason to be so arrogant. Ever heard of dark matter or mass? There are huge blind spots in the eyes of believers. That is true for me but definitly also for THH, SOT and the whole QM community.


    I think you are not examining the evidence. Many people (including me) see the merit of QM because of the 99.9% of physics that is DOES accurately describe. Including all the predicted weird behaviour never expected before QM (non-locality etc).


    That means you need QM or something like it to model all these known results. That is a FACT that any alternate theory needs to deal with.


    Now, there are some things not understood. Including Higgs - and other particles - masses. Related to this - why do we have the fundamental forces that we have with the strength rations we observe?


    There is every likelihood that something new will answer these questions: and those who understand QM and look for new theories - for example some completely new way to generate those same QM results - are in a decent position to try and find it.


    Whereas those who criticise without understanding and consider only classical theories that cannot model quantum weirdness, nor all the exquisitely accurate computations from QED, and hence are known to be contra-physical, are in a less good position to look for new stuff because they are ignoring most of the experimental evidence.


    QM guys are in the forefront of those who try to work out new different theories - and to understand dark energy/mass - which BTW look increasingly likely to be two aspects of the same thing.


    Those who dismiss all that experimental theoretical work, and who dismiss QM, are the ones who are arrogant.

  • GUTCP is constraining the solution to a non local boundary condition. Hence it produces non local results. My view is that there exists local theories behind the scene that sort of maintains

    a more slowly varying meta stable state. The models of GUTCP and QM targets these intermediate state. If you view these theories in this light you will be less likely to say it is mysterious. For example the aspect theorem states that you cannot fix an initiate state in a local theory to explain the seen interaction as non spooky action at distance. But if you say that quantum fields or the mills fields are physical and hence non local, it's pretty fine to state that those fix the state at the beginning and there is nothing that transport information a gazillion miles in a blick. By linking in that those non local theories is just a local fast theory at some kind of steady state you end up with no mystery at all except the need to nail what that underlying local theory can look like.

  • GUTCP is constraining the solution to a non local boundary condition. Hence it produces non local results. My view is that there exists local theories behind the scene that sort of maintains

    a more slowly varying meta stable state. The models of GUTCP and QM targets these intermediate state. If you view these theories in this light you will be less likely to say it is mysterious. For example the aspect theorem states that you cannot fix an initiate state in a local theory to explain the seen interaction as non spooky action at distance. But if you say that quantum fields or the mills fields are physical and hence non local, it's pretty fine to state that those fix the state at the beginning and there is nothing that transport information a gazillion miles in a blick. By linking in that those non local theories is just a local fast theory at some kind of steady state you end up with no mystery at all except the need to nail what that underlying local theory can look like.


    Stefan: I think you are saying that

    (1) Mills theory predicts QM results

    (2| It provides and explanation that is less mysterious than QM


    I'd like to see (1). I've not noticed it, and it would be something very different from anything Mills has written. It would need to be demonstrated.


    As for (2) - QM non-locailty is counter-intuitive because we are used to macroscopic causality and our thinking is based on a macroscopically situated operant experience in a physical environment.


    Once you get to grips with GR and QM they seem very natural - for their areas of usage - and of course QM non-locality does not generate harmful acausality nor FTL signalling (though there are types of non-harmful acausality that can exist).


    So I don't see QM as at all mysterious.

  • Robert - this is not a "choice of methods" this is three quite different values!


    So which value for n-p is valid

    !.51,2.52 or -1.00 Mev

    which one is closest to 1.293 332 05(48) MeV


    The same neutron-proton mass difference. But 2015 not 2008


    Perhaps for neutron-proton mass difference

    (n-p) the 2015 value 2.520 000 MeV. is closer to 1.293 332 05(48) MeV

    not the 2008 value 1.510 000 MeV?

    Forget about isospin.. irrelevant

    whatever spin THH uses these quantum funk results are indefensible

  • You'd need to discuss in detail why the methods used there do not in your opinion work

    The methods ""work "" but they do not work to 6 figure accuracy as claimed by THH

    Here is the 6 digit precision asked for by Wyttenbach.

    This is not a matter of opinion.

    It is a simple matter of comparing quantum funk calculations with NIST values.

    1.510 000?

    2.520 000 ?

    -1.000 000?

    versus NIST

    1.293 332 05(48) MeV

    https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mnmmpc2mev

  • I said that QM is not mysterious and brought forward one facet the Aspect theorem, that typically interpreted as mysterious action at distance. Which if

    you accept non locality it's not. It's just a field theory. I think there is a connection with GUTCP and QM, just that how is not evident. I note that Mills theory is

    also typically Non local because of the use of the non radiation condition. The atoms non locality behavior is a result of maxwells equations which are a local

    theory. And I hypothesize that the time constants reaching meta stable properties in particles and atoms are so fast that what we see in Aspect like experimets.

    GUTCP is a function of essentially a non local theory, e.g. parametrized boundary value solutions of maxwells equations. I would like to add that the local properties

    of the singularites is not well defined in GUTCP e.g. the full physical description of the intrinsic surface behavior, which can perhaps experience a faster that light

    properties in it's true description. Perhaps it's just electrical charge elements constrained to live in 2D and not 3D, perhaps there is more to it. Mills himself is assuming

    2D charge infinetismals, but i'm not certain that that's the whole picture. Anyway whatever is the truth, QM is not mysterious and what's called quantum properties

    may very well be modellable by a local theory like Maxwells equations, that's my main point.

  • To note I find the QM theory something of a fake for understanding nature, it is and the derivation of QM from QED shows that. But QED is fantastically simple and elegant and probably is important for understanding. The STDM looks like a mess if you write out the equations and is probably far from the final solution, really looks like a complex datafit.


  • Maxwell's equations are local, and provably cannot model experimentally verified aspects of QM non-locality. (Bell's Theorem).

  • Maxwell's equations are local, and provably cannot model QM non-locality.

    No the boundary conditions are not. For practical purposes it's following non local law, so the total results are a non local behavior. I missed it though, Maxwell + unknown local 2D theory that is approximated well as a Maxwell + non local 2D theory due to the fast time constants in the original local theory. Here we assume that the time constant to reach

    a steady state or cyclic states are so fast that the result is essentially non local. Note I have not seen stuff calculated for noncyclic and nonstationary solutions of the charge distribution.

  • Here is the 6 digit precision asked for by Wyttenbach.


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


    The same neutron-proton mass difference. But 2015 not 2008


    so TTHuxleynew has found a calculated value for n-p of

    1.293 33 Mev

    in the arxiv paper by Durr et al 2015... this compares well with

    1.293 332 05(48) MeV

    https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mnmmpc2mev


    The only problem is... I can't find it in the Durr et al paper

    and neither can Durr et al find it

    despite the tera flops of a supercompute:(

  • These models are fitted to a ton of data so getting that accuracy is what to be expected by a datafit. Datafits is okej

    science if what you get can reach this precision with some ease of calculation and you are not moving too far from the allowed

    region. Producing a theory that almost no one can understand and calculate, then the science is of less use. The ultimate task for

    science is to help humanity and the art of engineering. I think that QM fails this in a lot of fields and therefore Wyttenbach approach

    is so interesting.