Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

  • and aren't in fact just errors in the current theories?

    THHuxley demonstrates errors in reading QED/QCD arxiv papers such as Durr et al 2015


    and understanding the intentional/unintentional dark smoke/fudge in them.

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


    Why worry about understanding dark energy/mass? when he asserts that

    1.5 MeV......... +/- 0.3 is extreme precision

    versus the experiment value for n-p

    1.293 332 05(48) MeV

  • Reading Mills claim the derivation of aspect results where no probability of hidden variables is employed. The hidden variable method in Bell inequality is using

    probability theory regarding hidden variables of a point. Mills does not use that, but in stead uses a direct deterministic calculation from the photon electric

    field of a photon that extends in space, a derivation that lead to very exact results of the Aspects Experiment using his measurements of transmittanses.

    Anyway his recent version of the book has a detailed derivation of the identity. Note that the photon is not a point in Mills theory.

  • Mills GUTCP theory for outside the nucleus has a much better fit than QED/QCD fudging

    That is a given.


    but for LENR it is fitting theory with

    the nuclei and the neutrons/protons that is more important.

    I fully agree with this but suspect Mill’s likely understands much further. He must be curious about thd Nucleus.


    I think Wyttenbach l’s theory has found the bridge between nuclear and EM realms in the most elegant way I can imagine. It fits beautifully.


    I suspect the gate way though is 1D loosely coupled spin resonance between nuclear or more accurately maybe “localized particle” effects associated with spin space and it’s resonance with EM space in the near field for the wave lengths involved. I’m curious if the 3D EM Surface (or brane or what ever it is) between these realms (in which the resonances we call fermions appear) with its associated constants permitivity and permissivity in free space or speed of light is it self a consequence of internal spin and it’s Properties. The 1D loose resonant coupling is a simply the consequence of a single property in a single dimension (although internally it maybe more complex) passing through a surface resonantly the properties of that surface. This to me is the simplest thing possible and also consequently the most likely... just one property and one surface. Spin is great as it’s naturally 3D orthogonal (it’s this property and it’s resinsnce in EM space that I think can be linked to the properties and families of the particles associated in QCD). So two 3D spaces connected in 1D fits beautifully (a conjoined Clifford Torus pair?). Even “spin” it self could be a consequence of locality In different loosely decoupled spaces only connected by 1D


    Anyway despite my thoughts which could be wrong, I think the search is for elegance and simplicity that explains our observations and for sure Wyttenbach’s theory is that. I’m looking forward to further experimental verifications

  • Mill’s likely understands much further. He must be curious about thd Nucleus.

    Mills is really busy trying to realise his hydrino power. and investor's returns

    He may not be on the right track. and GUTCP is definitely not high priority right now.


    If he is curious once more about the nucleus .. when he has time to reflect... he might reflect upon 4D.

  • Not me.

    I emailed a few Russians who have LENR theories Magnitskii, Mishinsky inter alia


    Mills is busy in his life work...its crunch time..

    maybe his supporters have more time.. Driscoll Holverstott


    besides today I can't access Wyttenbach's Researchgate

  • Well for me Wyttenbach is right on track and ahead of all of us. He deserves credit for what he is pursuing and for doing the hard work of putting the maths in to context. The field benefits hugely from his works theoretical support.


    The discussion here between Wyttenbach and Robert Bryant and the others is definitely inspiring.


    4D spin geometry seems to be the bridge that pulls everything together between EM space and the nucleus . The Clifford Torus is also the simplest and most elegant expression of space time.

  • Are you absolutely positive they exist, and aren't in fact just errors in the current theories? Well I guess if they both don't exist they are the same thing, in a sense.

    https://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists-invisible-dark.html


    I think "errors in the current theories" is exactly what they are. But, whether that is (given our current state of knowledge) best described by some new particles (WIMPS etc) or some modification of gravitation or whatever, is unclear. Either way the two phenomena see quite likely to be part of the same whole in our cosmic-scale understanding of the universe. It is not that surprising we have such holes: our information at those scales is pretty limited, with no possibility of doing control experiments.


  • think "errors in the current theories" is exactly what they are

    These errors may go back to the 19th Century

    A perceptive comment from KBK about https://phys.org/news/2016-07-scientists-invisible-dark.html

    KBK Jul 21, 2016 Regarding the missing matter, it has always been my contention, or thought, that it exists in other dimensional spaces and frames of reference.
    That it is a spacer a divider (if you will) that has extra or external dimensional considerations so it cannot easily be seen or referenced in this space.
    If we go back to Faraday's original works and that of Maxwell's..which was based on it ...and put back in the missing weakly interacting outlier calculations that Heaviside removed due to being too complex to calculate at the time (all done by hand)..... then you might find the thing you seek.
    As for Einstein's works and all that followed..it's all based on using Heaviside's math, Heaviside's shortened math....... with all the super fine outlier unidirectional resonant residuals missing.

    Imagine that. A fundamental flaw, in fundamental physics.
    Right under your nose.

    Heaviside had no use for quaternions

    Randell Mills has no use for quaternions in his GUTCP..or the fourth dimension


    But for the fourth dimension quaternions are very useful


  • Quaternions do not naturally model physics - even though they are neat algebraically. Whereas the algebraic structure you get from Clifford algebras does: specifically Cl(E4,L) where L is the Lorentzian metric, also called Geometric algebra.


    I have a lot of time for David Hestenes's reworking of conventional physics using Geometric Algebra. GAs are more than neat algebraically, they are an insightful way to visualise both interior and exterior tensor products within a single algebraic structure. anyone who has struggled in school with the apparently ad hoc nature of scalar and vector products in E3 can appreciate that.

  • Quaternions do not naturally model physics

    Matter of opinion


    What does the phrase naturally model even mean?

    What is the nature of physics... or the physics of nature who knows

    sounds like armchair philosophising to me

    They seem to be useful for rotations of 3D objects in computerised animations and may be useful

    for 3D/4D calculations when visualisation fails

  • Mathematicians use this idea quite a lot

    Definitely 'natural model and natural fit' are very loose... and subjective

    Fibonacci numbers might have more of a case for being a natural.fit .. model

    depending on what Nature means.

    Natural fit seems very prone to one's personal bias of what natural means

    I.m not sure if the 80 or more mathtypes who cited quaternions on arxiv

    in just the last month would find quaternions an unnatural model for their theory..


    Certainly they would not call quaternions evil..

    How times have changed. since the 1890's. ..

    now quaternions are quite acceptable, fit and useful.. even trendy


    Oliver Heaviside went so far as to call quaternions \a positive evil of no inconsiderable magnitude."

    William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) called them \an unmixed evil to those who touched them in any way, including Clerk Maxwell."


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v…79.4578&rep=rep1&type=pdf


  • No doubt I could find all sorts of weird historical references to other concepts - for example in medicine.


    I can't see historical views of quaternions as being relevant to this thread. When I was being educated Hestenes's reworking of Clifford algebra as geometric calculus was the exciting new thing, a new and insightful way to view tensor calculus on Lorentzian manifolds: "the 4th dimension" - if you want to popularise.


    Quaternions can indeed be used - like complex numbers which they are a higher dimensional generalisation of - in a variety of mathematical problems.


    None of which is relevant to my point about natural correspondence with physics.


    PS - I don't think quaternions, around for 100 years + count as trendy. GC sort of still is trendy though it is now 30 years + old.

  • On Quaternions


    This is OT for this thread. Still: quaternions look as though they should be very useful. They are one of the two extensions of the real numbers into a division ring - keeping most of the properties of a field. The other one - complex numbers - is of course highly useful so there is every expectation that quaternions would have similar uses.


    While they do have uses - and RB has highlighted one above - they have never gained the traction you might expect. I think this is juts because - unlike complex numbers which naturally map waves - they don't naturally map things in physics. As a mathematical system they have a bit too much built-in structure to be used a lot.


    Whereas: other Clifford algebras (yes - quaternions are one example of a Clifford algebra!) have much wider use, specifically the geometric algebra and associated geometric calculus.


    On W's ideas about SO(4)


    In terms of W's idea that SO(4) is important in describing nuclei and their properties:


    I've tried to read his researchgate set of notes and find it difficult because the basic definitions are not properly tied down. Thus, for example, I understand he thinks that the 4D rotation symmetry group is important. However how exactly that is used remains vague. It appears to be a semiclassical approach to hadrons in which massive particle spin is assumed to be exactly calculable from some moving point charge in a way calculable from Maxwell's equations. Unfortunately Maxwell's equations require a Lorentzian manifold (or something equivalent). I am concerned, reading W's writing, that I might make a category error:


    is SO(4) (each element of which describes a unique 4D rotation) used, via some suitable projection, to describe the world-line of a rotating point charge - as is implied by the derivation of proton magnetic moment?

    Or is it used in some more abstract way?


    I think the worldline explanation is correct - but then we need the mapping from an SO(4) element to the corresponding L4 manifold trajectory to be made explicit. A unique rotation is very different from a rotating particle trajectory. And the required map (for semiclassical calculations as done to work) must be a projection onto a 3D + time manifold (and for Lorentzian invariance - necessary to be compatible with electromagnetism - this must be a projection onto a 1D line in a 4D Lorentzian manifold). You could add extra dimensions folded tight, as the string theory people do, if needed. The derivation of proton magnetic moment relies on a mapping from SO(4) to E3 which does not allow application of Maxwell's equations and in any case does not answer the trajectory question.


    The talk of time being folded within nuclear matter is very unhelpful without more precision, since (Lorentzian or approx Euclidean) time is used to define Maxwell's equations - which seem to be used freely within W's work to show things.


    If we had concrete and precise terminology I could work out my own answers to the above category questions from the details. Alas we have no details, rather a hand-waving set of words which may or may not correspond to a precise mathematical framework. As a one-time mathematician (like W) I'm all to well aware that without precise math definitions things that seem like good mathematical proofs and should good often collapse. So, in this case, I cannot evaluate the various claims of this theory being a quick route to determining various physical constants without having a precise understanding of the theory.


    The danger here - an error which I believe Mills fell into - is in working backwards from the experimental data to a theory that works. You might think that is a good idea - and it is if the theory allows new predictions to be made, or gives some other useful insight. But if you do it you cannot then use the theory's prediction of these values as a reason to hold it.


    Specifically the difference is between a theory which is well enough defined that from a small number of axioms the numbers can be generated, and a theory that is not well defined, hand-waving arguments are used on a case by case basis to match physical constants, and the details of the theory itself are adjusted as needed to maintain a match over various different problems. That is called fudging: and the merit of the accepted Standard model is that although there are free parameters they are many fewer than the number of independent experimentally verifiable predictions.


    No-one looking at the complexity of SM would say it is the final word: it so clearly asks for some deeper theory even without the problematic lack of proper unification with GR. Equally though, it is very highly predictive from a relatively small set of concepts. Any competitive theory needs to at least predict something like SM - which is a very large amount of stuff.


    Research into physics has room for lots of way out ideas that don't fully work. Look at the plethora of attempted "quantum spacetime" ideas. They do need to be concrete enough to have value: which some idea based on dense matter having a different metric from that predicted by GR could be, perhaps. Without the concrete definitions and progress from them to results anything that does not at least in some approximation naturally generate something like QM or something like GR, looks unappealing, because it has no chance of predicting the world as we observe it.


    Once we do have concrete definitions we can of course test a new theory's results against those expected in any number of ways. People like it when way-out theories resolve outstanding problems, even if they do not appear to do this completely, or have other holes.

  • I think the worldline explanation is correct - but then we need the mapping from an SO(4) element to the corresponding L4 manifold trajectory to be made explicit. A unique rotation is very different from a rotating particle trajectory. And the required map (for semiclassical calculations as done to work) must be a projection onto a 3D + time manifold (and for Lorentzian invariance - necessary to be compatible with electromagnetism - this must be a projection onto a 1D line in a 4D Lorentzian manifold). You could add extra dimensions folded tight, as the string theory people do, if needed. The derivation of proton magnetic moment relies on a mapping from SO(4) to E3 which does not allow application of Maxwell's equations and in any case does not answer the trajectory question.


    The problem with the understanding of SO(4) physics is based on the fact that people believe that time is a free variable. This is not the case in higher rotation based dimensions as there is only one outgoing "path" -halve space! and all other relations are given by resonances. The notion of time breaks down if a rotating mass moves inward an gets compressed.

    Mills did show how you can convert classic time based Maxwell physics to 4D "time free" rules. NPP2.0 shows (strict math) how "Maxwell potential mass" is converted into rotational mass.

    As THH says correctly: All dynamic interactions of SO(4) masses must be given as projections to standard 3D,t space. Until recently it was not known which parts of the SO(4) mass follow a specific well known path. At the beginning there was hope that 4D (4 rotations) would be sufficient. The final findings clearly show that the basic structure is 5 rotations and all external interaction are bound to 2 rotations that generate e.g. a potential - Coulomb or gravitation, weak spin force.

    But after the latest experiment with group velocities (rotating mass part) above 32c it is obvious that more than 5 rotations are possible too. This opens new paths for modeling and gives a more deep understanding.


    One fact that looks safe now is: Magnetic flux in dense space is homogenous and strictly toroidal (in a projection to 3D) what also implies that in higher dimensions the flux is bound to a surface. (like Mills models the electron). The modeling of charge is much more complex as it is generated according Maxwell laws as a constant change in one dimensions of magnetic flux. This is often also called topological charge. I did not yet find a good (=exact) answer which magnetic flux topology e.g. generates the exact charge of the electron/proton. But as "charge" coupled mass makes 5 rotations and the energy Eigenvalues stays in 4 it is obvious that there is a gap of 1D!


    NPP2.0 just uncovered the basic relations between mass/energy (as rules between Eigenvalues) and did allow to track down all forces to known quantities of SO(4). It's still along way to a complete model.


    But other than the SM NPP2.0 can explain many parts of physics with absolute precision not just 2 digits.

  • ways. People like it when way-out theories resolve outstanding problems, even if they do not appear to do this completely, or have other holes.

    General THH type waffle

    Like his ACER/CCS pure speculation

    or his fictional 6 figure accurate QED n-p difference which he misreads on arxiv

    BTW THH never acknowledges his way-out bloopers but carries blithely on as if nobody noticed.

    I'm still trying to work out if THH believes Holmlid's work is LENR or not LENR ...or both LENR and not LENR at the same time

    THH makes mutually exclusive statements and then forgets them

    Credibility= zero.

    I think this is juts because - unlike complex numbers which naturally map waves - they don't naturally map things in physics. As a mathematical system they have a bit too much built-in structure to be used a lot... they have never gained the traction you might expect

    Check out arxiv for the last year.

    THH is a bit behind the times or in his own bubble

    Plenty of traction for quaternions. 250 or so papers. compared to Clifford Algebra

    Not offtopic at all.. directly relevant to GUTCP and uber-GUTCP physics.. Randell Mills will be there one day

    https://arxiv.org/search/?quer…l&source=header&start=200

    https://arxiv.org/search/?quer…rchtype=all&source=header