Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?


  • Robert: you are not reading the paper.


    The n-p value in the 2015 paper is clearly stated as 1.51MeV = 2.52MeV + -1.00MEeV (the QEC and QCD contributions, each solving a simplified version of the real problem - note 0.01 difference caused by rounding). See the link I posted Section 10.3.


    You don't have to engage with what they actually did, you can just dismiss it without reading. But that would leave you uninformed.


  • RB - I corrected that in a subsequent post (3.5 SF not 6SF). Calling the QM calculations funk is no substitute for examining them and understanding how they work.


    Those calculations do something important: they make predictions for future (not yet known) experimental results.

  • THHuxleynew.


    As I now read the forum you state that the value is 1.51, robert links to 1.293 33 and it looks like you claim 6 digits precision in the flow of discussion.

    Something doesn't add up is robert linking the wrong value or do you refer to another result? of less precision?

  • 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.


    Stefan. It still does not help, because spacelike boundary conditions (enough to fix the universe) still are not nonlocal, and Maxwell's equations allow deterministic solution from a space-like slice of boundary, Therefore Bell's equation applies.


  • Robert. That does not make sense. You are either not reading me, or not reading the paper. Perhaps you could give precise references, from me and the paper. I think you've lost it on this thread. You are not paying attentsion to what I've said just like you were not paying attentsion to what the paper said when you first dismissed it as having 3 values for the mass difference.

  • 3.5 digits precision is reasonable what I would expect with a datafit but currently it looks like 1 digits of accuracy. That's not

    that impressive.


    It is 3.5 digits on the masses.


    What makes it impressive is that set of mass differences which are all calculated 3 agreeing with experiment (and 3 making predictions). The calculation method was pretty good: one team calculated with random input data therefore not knowing what the result was supposed to be (unlike W here).

  • Then QM is also local because the solution fields are deterministic given all boundary conditions and initial condition. There is an interpretation of a randomness

    but that's just a function from the fields to a value, you can do the same trick with a EM fields so I don't get the difference.

  • A local theory means that you from conditions in a very local area e.g. arbritrary small region you get the behavior. If you have a parametrized (rigid body movement)

    or even a discrete set if boundary conditions that you move between or a finite combination of such you just cannot setup the rules via patching the effect of

    small regions. The reach for a meta stable state create a dependancy on distance that cannot be resolved with infinitesmal small regions. Now I think that the maxwells equations

    are also reaching some meta stable state so it's not just the boundary conditions (you cannot patch parametrized solutions and get Maxwells equations back)


  • RB - I corrected that to 3.5 SF (on the masses) see #44.


    The thing is this, W has predicted ONE of these mass differences AFTER knowing the experimental value. That is not prediction.


    This paper predicts 3 masses, and while the other three were known if you note their methodology one of the teams doing the calcs independently did it blind, with input data randomised so they could not know what the correct output was supposed to be.


    Actually, in terms of info (or Bayesian hypothesis fitting) 6 predictions at 3 SF is 10^-18 probability, far, far better than one prediction at 9SF (10^-9).

  • Anyway QM is not

    funk, it is a good fit and probably the most advanced fit


    With regards to the dense matter of the nucleus e,g proton,neutron mass,,, proton neutron magnetic moment

    The older QM is not a good fit relative to other newer theories..

    Mills GUTCP may be a good fit outside of dense matter but not inside dense matter

    1. N. Magnitskii . Compressible Ether Russia

    http://newinflow.ru/pdf/pub26.pdf

    2. R.Mills. GUTCP USA

    https://archive.org/search.php…y+of+Classical+Physics%22

    3. J. Wyttenbach. NPP2.0 Switzerland

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog


    MAGNITSKII ETHER 2019..

    MILLS GUTCP 2016..

    WYTTENBACH NPP2019..

    QM

    MEASURED

    Mag moment PROTON

    2.7927

    2.79253


    2.79284763

    2.7?

    2.79284763508

    Mag moment NEUTRON

    -1.9131

    -1.91253

    1.91303604

    1.9?

    -1.91304272

    Mag moment He-3

    2.1252

    Not

    calculated

    -2.12736

    ???

    -2.127625306

    'Mass' PROTON Mev

    938.272

       938.2720

    938.27208277

    940?

    938.27208130

    NEUTRON Excess Mass Mev

    0.7570011

       0.7525

    0.782332921

    zero

    0.782332874

  • A local theory means that you from conditions in a very local area e.g. arbritrary small region you get the behavior.


    This is the key base error of nuclear QM aka QED. They made initially the 180 degree wrong decision to use a coulomb like gauge (a single dimension "local" potential - restricted to 3D,t) for all calculation.


    Mills corrected most of the sloppy QED stuff by introducing the deterministic magnetic force but still in 3D,t. That's why Mills also only delivers approximations, that are good to about 5 digits because he neglects the spin force. The latest modeling shows that many effects can be nailed down to the spin potential (1FC in my model).

    My feeling is that there could be one more big surprise as the charge, as we use it , could be a non basic feature of matter and the effect of a complex magnetic flux.


    I never said that QM as method has no value. It's a good engineering tool for chemists to model electron configurations and especially to model charge distribution in dynamic configurations what is not easily done with Mills model.


    But I definitely state that the only contribution of QED is in "approximately modeling post mortem collision particle responses". The idea to model forces/masses by exchange particles is complete nonsense and can only be explained by lack of true understanding of mass that of course is EM mass.


    The only aspect of the STDM that will survive is the region of overlapping projections from SO(3)XSU(2)XU(1) and SO(4). The inherent error of QUED is given by the 3D,t metric (guv) that misses the space/time alpha correction of the magnetic mass. Thus the average QED error is in the region of the value of the fine structure constant.


    THHuxleynew : I decided to stop deep readings of QED papers at the time I understood that the whole method is of minor value and never will deliver any "exactly" fitting result, with the exception of boolean like results based on symmetry rules. If you are satisfied with 2 digits precision then you can live with QED.


    There is a 3 to4 figure precision fit by Nikolai Magnitskii...2019.. don't ever forget the Russians.



    Ether models could be the gold standard of future modeling. There are many Russians involved and a year ago I did deeply read into Krasnoholovets's papers. But first we should understand what we measure.


    Locality: This has finally been introduced by physicists and is as "wrong" as QUED. Entanglement is not bound to an over-all field/"change of energy" as it represents only abstract information. Experiments show that the propagation of entanglement is > 7 *c - faster than the speed of light! The speed of light is only limiting (EM) mass but not information!


    Thus one key question is: Are forces (fields) faster than light? We believe not, but we can only do measurements with objects that have mass and are bound to "c". Any idea for a clever experiment?

  • I have an idea for an experiment.


    Produce a powerful and sudden electric discharge to produce longitudinal waves in a conductive metal enclosure (to block traditional transverse waves) and measure how long it takes for the signal to propagate over a long distance utilizing round, spherical antennas and/or horizontal rods antennas. I predict for the signal to be of sufficient strength a very powerful discharge may be required such as from a high capacity Marx generator.



  • Re QED. Perhaps you don't consider the very many experimental results accurately predicted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED


    Re locality and entanglement:


    (1) entanglement does not "propagate". To view it as doing this implies it is some worldline in spacetime: it is not because QM is truly non-local

    (2) because QM is nonlocal no local theory (including field-local theories) can accurately model experiment (Bell).

    (3) e-m fields are known to propagate at speed of light.

    (4) => e-m forces (mediated by virtual photons) so propagate

    (5) gravitational forces propagate at speed of light (quasar measurements https://medium.com/starts-with…d-of-gravity-8ada2eb08430)

    (6) strong, weak forces - neither has been measured because both highly local, but expected strong speed of light (gluons massless) weak < speed of light (interaction with Higgs via massive W & Z slows it)