Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

Does QED have six figure precision for dense matter physics,.. quantities? NO.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Re QED. Perhaps you don't consider the very many experimental results accurately predicted?

THHuxleynew asserted that QM had six figure precision for the neutron-proton

n-p mass difference... mass splitting.... but couldn't find it

.

Then he found 3.5 figure precision in the arxiv paper

in this post.. where he advised to "look at the predictions here" Figure 2 Post #287

Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

I did look at the predictions here in Figure 2 using paint.. 3.5 figure precision???????..

I could only find 1 figure precision

1.5 MeV......... +/- 0,2? 0.3 ? 0.4?

versus the experiment value for n-p

1.293 332 05(48) MeV

Perhaps THHuxley should consider what 300 kev is in Mev? and read arxiv correctly.

Or enquire from Stephan Durr whether he meant to write just 3 keV .. not 300 keV?

http://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/

"We performed lattice QCDand QED with four nondegenerate

Wilson fermion flavors and computed the neutron-proton mass-splitting

with an accuracy of 300 kilo-electron volts,

Durr et al 2015 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

Quote from RobertBryant

Does QED have six figure precision for dense matter physics,.. quantities? NO.

THHuxleynew asserted that QM had six figure precision for the neutron-proton

n-p mass difference... mass splitting.... but couldn't find it

.

Then he found 3.5 figure precision in the arxiv paper

in this post.. where he advised to "look at the predictions here" Figure 2 Post #287

Randell Mills GUT - Who can do the calculations?

I did look at the predictions here in Figure 2 using paint.. 3.5 figure precision???????..

I could only find 1 figure precision

1.5 MeV......... +/- 0,2? 0.3 ? 0.4?

versus the experiment value for n-p

1.293 332 05(48) MeV

Perhaps THHuxley should consider what 300 kev is in Mev? and read arxiv correctly.

Or enquire from Stephan Durr whether he meant to write just 3 keV .. not 300 keV?

http://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/

"We performed lattice QCDand QED with four nondegenerate

Wilson fermion flavors and computed the neutron-proton mass-splitting

with an accuracy of 300 kilo-electron volts,

Durr et al 2015 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

Display More

Robert - I think you are just not very good at reading stuff.

I did say 6SF, then I corrected myself to 3.5

1 in 3000 is 3.5 (on mass).

The mass difference accuracy is less, of course.

I'm still interested in how W managed to work out his results without reference to the correct figure (which he knew at the time). They, as I pointed out, did not trust themselves, and had a control that made such retrofitting impossible.

And of course 3 of their results are genuine predictions.

The other issue is error bounds. Their results are rooted in a definite complete theory that has a unique computable results: since it is a numerical lattice monte carlo calculation they can bound the (statistical) error + error from higher order terms not considered.

I'd be interested in W doing the same.

Finally, the argument here is about the merits of QED/QFT. I've not yet heard any rebuttal of the (I believe unanswerable) argument about nonlocalism. Experiment shows physics to be deeply nonlocal in ways precisely explained by QM: so alternative theories need to be compatible with that and able to model nonlocal results quantitatively.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

I did say 6SF, then I corrected myself to 3.5

The result on Figure two is not accurate to 3.5. figure precision

Durr et al do not write the numbers explicitly in the text.

Their result is 1.5 +/- 0.3 Mev

which they say is

" greater by 5 S.D from zero"

You are confused.

300 keV accuracy =+/- 0.3 Mev

Don't worry about W.

get your own facts straight

Quote from RobertBryant

Don't worry about W.

get your own facts straight

THHuxley needs to read arxiv papers better.

Of course it may not be an intentional act by the authors Durr et al ,2015

to not write the imprecision of their result explicitly..

they expended at least 5 grants ,plenty of manhours and teraflops

to get neutron-proton mass difference

= 1.51 +/- 0.3 MeV

It's better than their 2008 result , which was zero,

by five S.D. (5x0.3)

Wow!

Such a long way to go to for QED/QCD!

1.293 332 05(48) MeV

Quote from THHuxleynew

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

THHuxleynew : QED never ever even approximately predicted a measured result with reasonable precision:

You seem to follow the priests spell and assume that a good experiment serves the religion.

All the experiments wiki mentions are independent of QED. What QED once tried is to approximate the electron g-factor by using 20000 loops (Feynman diagrams) of known coupling of particles.

Only blind followers with no grasp of numerics can believe that this el-g factor approximation has any value. If you e.g. count in a pion or kaon loop then your precision by default goes down to 5 digits.

The key question is: How long will they go on with cheating themselves??

By the way: Mills exactly calculates the electron g-factor with very high precision and if you add the 4D forces you get the exact value. Just no cheating!

What do you prefer? A formula with 5 factors/Terms or a computer program developed by dozens of physicists that always needs a manual adjustment if one out of hundreds base value changes????

Quote from Wyttenbach

You seem to follow the priests spell and assume that a good experiment serves the religion

THHuxleynew grabs a QED/QCD paper off arxiv .. reads it briefly and then in full confidence

1. asserts that it has 6 figure precision for neutron-proton mass difference

2. after my response ''corrects" that down to 3.5 figure precision

3. after I point out that it only has 1 figure precision ... goes silent.

Durr et al have made a little progress in 7 years with supercomputers and QED/QCD

2008. n-p = zero +/- 47 MEV

2015 n-p = 1.5 MeV +/- 0.3 Mev

but it is a long way to go to 6 figure precision 1.293 332 05(48) MeV

In those seven years..these eleven people

Sz. Borsanyi1, S. Durr1;2, Z. Fodor1;2;3, C. Hoelbling1, S. D. Katz3;4, S. Krieg1;2, L. Lellouch5, T. Lippert1;2,

A.Portelli5;6, K. K. Szabo1;2, B. C. Toth1

received the aid of

"

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant SFB/TR55,

-Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe (PRACE) initiative,

-Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V,

-EuropeanResearch Council grant (FP7/2007-2013/ERC No 208740),

-Lend¨ulet program of the Hungarian Academyof Sciences (LP2012-44/2012),

- ”Origines, .. et Evolution de l’Univers” (OCEVU) Labex (ANR-11-LABX-0060),

-A*MIDEX project (ANR-11-IDEX-0001-0) funded by the ”Investissements d’Avenir” French government program

-the Grand Equipement National de Calcul Intensif–(IDRIS) Grand Challenge grant 2012 ”StabMat” + grant No. 52275.

to get a result five standard deviations away from zero... WOW! 1.5 MeV +/- 0.3 Mev..

Maybe ... just maybe ... S.Durr et al could try another method rather than QED/QCD????

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

If the time evolution of a solution to normal partial equations satisfy a bounday condition then typically they are not local.

QM is not local because all solutions are constrained to be zero at infinity (actually have a finite square norm integral). In Mills

GUTCP the EM solutions are constrained to not radiate which in Haus condition means that the fourier transform of the

charge is zero for light like wave vectors. The boundary condition exchanges information in the solutions over

long distances and it would be crazy to call such laws local. Note :

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings

Partial equations with only initial values is local in that the progression is determined by a local exchange of information, not so if you introduce boundary condition.

basically the partial equation that is local is

X_0 = x0 (0)

X_{i+1} = A X_i (1)

with A only exchanging information at infitiesemal distances

But with a boundary condition you have

X_0 = x0

X_{i+1} = A X_i

BX_{i+1}=C (2)

The linear constaint (2) added to (0) (1) typically means that you loose locality of the system (0) (1) in navier sokes equatoins for uncomperssible fluids

the linear conditions is a partial equatyion put on space. For QM it is a boundary how it behaves at infinity, for GUTCP its how the fourier transform

of the charge behaves at the light cone. All lead to an addition very much like (2)

Another example of non locality is a rigid body and their movements. With such an object you create a dependancy that transport information faster than the speed of light.

GUTCP has boundaries that moves like rigid boddies that is Lorenz invariant e.g. all possible non accelerating rigid boddies is generated from the Lorenz transform and

a translation and orthogonal transformation (and phase shift) of the stationary particle. Mills models photons as a particle, it is extended in his model and the electric fields

on it is constraind to quanta and phase. This combinations means that description of the photon is not local but non local and a should be seen as a surface with a few variations.

and has not the full variation needed to satisfy locallity. Hence it is not strange that Mills derives Aspects results with good accuracy.

Quote from stefan

If the time evolution of a solution to normal partial equations satisfy a bounday condition then typically they are not local.

As per definition there can never be point particles/masses locality is anyway a philosophical question! The question is if e.g. the mass (center of mass) acts as it would be constrained in a point or if an density can be written as an average of a volume if the volume (body) acts like a point mass.

All stable energy states are non local and a consequence of interaction of forces and masses. The question of locality did arise because physicists did look for action behind the scene. Are there hidden forces? Is ether aka zero point energy such a hidden action?

Quote from Wyttenbach

THHuxleynew : QED never ever even approximately predicted a measured result with reasonable precision:

You seem to follow the priests spell and assume that a good experiment serves the religion.

All the experiments wiki mentions are independent of QED. What QED once tried is to approximate the electron g-factor by using 20000 loops (Feynman diagrams) of known coupling of particles.

Only blind followers with no grasp of numerics can believe that this el-g factor approximation has any value. If you e.g. count in a pion or kaon loop then your precision by default goes down to 5 digits.

The key question is: How long will they go on with cheating themselves??

By the way: Mills exactly calculates the electron g-factor with very high precision and if you add the 4D forces you get the exact value. Just no cheating!

What do you prefer? A formula with 5 factors/Terms or a computer program developed by dozens of physicists that always needs a manual adjustment if one out of hundreds base value changes????

Display More

Hi W,

Well you ask interesting questions.

I would prefer a simple closed formula: but only if it could be derived from a simple fundamental model of physics that also predicted the rest of the physical world...

I know - it is a tough ask but then the standard model / QM is very very good (I'm hiving off GR and gravity because their integration with QM is obviously still WIP).

Many people dislike QFT because it needs renormalisation - unfortunate but no bar to precise no hand waving results. Many people (e.g. RB here) dislike QCD because the calculations are so very difficult to do and hence results not very accurate. But, it makes predictions, many many predictions, which are validated. Many people dislike QM because it is nonlocal and stochastic (from the POV of an embedded quantum observer - though not in terms of the math). That is different from the physical world apes evolved to understand, but it is wonderful and neat.

Now, as for QED. You can only object to its extreme precision inasfar as all results are scaled by a parameter alpha which must be determined by experiment. But those are a lot of results, measure any one and you know the others to extreme precision. And no hand waving, the calculations have only one solution and the underlying theory is weird but simple.

Personally I don't see incomputability as the mark of a bad theory. It would be very surprising if physics generated equations with easy closed form solutions. Certainly that is no mark of physical simplicity.

As per definition there can never be point particles/masses locality is anyway a philosophical question!

Well, no, it is an experimental concept. Bell's theorem, which has been validated by experiment, shows how to generate an experiment that demonstrates clear non-local behaviour and therefore cannot be modelled by a local theory (even with hidden variables). This is non-locality over very large spacelike separations. Now, if some other theory generates the some results as QM in terms of nonlocality then it might be consistent with experiment. For example, if you embed Lorentzian ST in some higher dimensional space (as string theory) you could in principle generate 3D slice nonlocality from higher dimensional locality. That would need proving, and details to show how the QM results can be modelled by some other underlying theory. But if it avoids predicting these experiments, or predicts different results, then it is knocked over by QM.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Now, as for QED. You can only object to its extreme precision

QED and QCD do not have extreme precision

not six figure precision, not 3.5 figure precision( as claimed by THHuxleynew) with respect to neutron and proton parameters

Here is the precision of the neutron-proton mass difference

1.5+- 0.3 MEV

compared to

1.293 332 05(48) MeV

Maybe ... just maybe ... S.Durr et al could try another method rather than QED/QCD????

after seven years and more of churning

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

Here is the reply from Stephan Durr

He was kind enough to reply to my email

Note that Stephan does not use the THH expression "extreme precision"

"

Dear Robert Bryant,

the value 1.5 +/- 0.3 MeV [more precisely 1.51 +/- 0.16
+/- 0.23 MeV as you can tell from Tab.1] is a post-diction. In other words, we
pretended we don't know the n-p mass difference and try to compute it from
first principles. Of course, the n-p mass difference is determined in
experiment with much higher precision: 1.2933321 +/- 0.0000005 MeV. Within
errors our result is well compatible with the experiment --
our result has a
combined uncertainty of 0.28 MeV, so 1.51 +/- 0.28 MeV agrees with 1.29 MeV.
For us, this splitting was a side-issue which,
nevertheless, served as a cross-check of our calculation. Our main goal was to
understand how this n-p mass difference would split into a QED contribution and
a QCD part.
This split-up cannot be determined in experiment.

Best regards,
Stephan

Robert the actual masses has a higher accurace. When you take the difference of masses you have a cancellation and you are left with less accuracy.

Quote from stefan

When you take the difference of masses you have a cancellation and you are left with less accuracy

That is why it is a good test case for QED/QCD... which is why I chose n-p

I am thankful that Stephan Durr and colleagues work seven years and more to get that

1.51 +/- 0.28 MeV agrees with 1.29 MeV.

but to me it is 1.5+/- 0.3 because they never wrote it explicitly in their paper

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

When it comes to Mills derivation of the ionisation energies for atoms, something not stressed is the following important fact.

Let's compare the ionisation energy for O7+ (heaviest one calculated nonrelativistic e.g. the fastes one) we have:

for experimental values see table

Experimental E: 871.4101 eV

Mills Theoritecal Nonrelativistic E: 870.77eV, Absolute Error = 0.64eV

Mills Theoretical relativistic E: 871.47768eV, Absolute Error = 0.067eV

This indicates that the formula Mills derives is indeed physical. Because one can verify that he applies special relativity correctly to the

quantities in his formula and indeed it improves accuracy. This does not look like a fudge formalization and funk science but indeed

a theoretical derivation.

Quote from stefan

Experimental E: 871.4101 eV

Mills Theoretical relativistic E: 871.47768eV, Absolute Error = 0.067eV

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.

Quote from RobertBryant

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.

True Robert! But note that Wyttenbach takes great inspiration from Mills ideas and he is working very closely with LENR.

Quote from stefan

But note that Wyttenbach takes great inspiration from Mills ideas and he is working very closely with LENR

"

Thanks go to R. Mills for his outstanding theory[2] and its brilliant presentation and explanation. Without

him/ “his theory” this work would never have happened." Wyttenbach

https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20

And now I have both GUTCP non 4D and NPP 4D headaches periodically

Quote from THHuxleynew

and to understand dark energy/mass - which BTW look increasingly likely to be two aspects of the same thing.

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