But other than the SM NPP2.0 can explain many parts of physics with absolute precision not just 2 digits.with absolute precision not just 2 digits
Of course THHuxleynew maintains that there is a QED result on
arxiv that gives six figure precision for the neutron-proton mass difference
It is 1.5+/- 0.3 Mev.!!!
Display MoreThe 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!
Thanks for this response: and apologies for the relatively high noise on this thread.
I appreciate that in formulating models of this type there are many possible options. That is good if you want to get a precise phenomenological model of specific results, because you have more "fudge factors" to adjust. It is less good if you want likelihood of the model generalising to other results in the way that a fundamental theory of physics must. Physicists will have little interest in purely phenomenological models when there exist, for the same observations, more powerful theories such as the standard model.
I'm still in a position (as I think anyone else reading your material so far would be) of not being sure what your mappings are. For example: 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.
That seems, I believe you think, to be a relatively safe statement: and therefore you can be in a position to state a precise model. For example, for the proton - which seems to be one of the simplest dense matter objects in your model - you could state what mathemetical object represents the proton nucleus, how that maps to 3+1D Lorentzian space, what is the equivalent moving charge model from which things like proton magnetic moment can be derived? Or, for some other relatively simple object for which your theory makes theoretical predictions of a known experimental value. If the key match is magnetic flux rather than charge that would be as good - I should point out that in L4 magnetic flux and charge are closely related, so if you can model one, and add Lorentzian invariance, you can also model the other one. So I think you can be confident that if you have a more fundamental theory that matches Maxwell's equations for magnetic flux it will also do that for charge.
I'm reminded of celestial mechanics before Kepler when the only trajectory considered possible for planets was circular: and to match observations models of planets orbiting with epicycles were needed. The best epicyclic models matched observations very well indeed: better than the initial ellipsoidal equivalents. But the problem was complexity, as observations got better more epicycles were needed with more arbitrary parameters (the radius and orientation of the epicyclic motion). Whereas much simpler models using ellipsoidal motion, with fewer arbitrary parameters, matched as well.
You believe a strength of your hypothesis is that it makes experimental predictions ab initio. That would set it apart from many other alternates to the standard model, or attempted unifications of GR and QM. Publishing the precise mapping that defined the model then would go a long way to convincing a skeptical audience that your ideas have merit. However, in order to do this, any claim of correspondence must be made with a model precise enough to do the calculation, and the same model must then explain multiple observations. The simpler such a model is, the less chance its agreement with experiment can be coincidental. First step is to lay out the model in such a way that the derivation of experimental quantities is precise and anyone reading it would agree that is what they must be (to the claimed precision: obviously small errors due to higher order terms in a calculation need not initially be considered).
The other side of this (why no-one takes Mills seriously) is that without a precisely stated model from which quantitative results can be derived we have just a phenomenological description of less interest, where no-one (including the proponent) can know whether derived experimental results are a combination of coincidence and retro-fitting of details in theory to known experiment, or whether they represent a reason to trust the theory has merit.
Display MoreGeneral 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.
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
Moderators: maybe this discussion of geometric algebra vs quaternions could go somewhere else? It is a bit interesting to me, but not as much as the main thread topic.
RB: there would be less noise in this thread if you did not repeat personal stuff about me. I have answered specific points (such as the two above) once: after I've done this you then repeat your point many times ignoring my answer. And commenting on my credibility is not helpful: it is what it is and if you engage in dialog with me then it is linked to your credibility! Anyone reading the dialog can then decide between the two of us for themselves. How about this: if you feel strongly that I am not fessing up and repeating mistakes, you start a thread "Challenge to THH on unadmitted mistakes" where you summarise such mistakes (once each) and I reply with a suitable correction - either admitting mistake, or to your understanding, or both. Then we could separate discussion of quaternions and CAs from stuff about my mistakes?
You are quite right that quaternions have been around for a long time and have many uses in maths. In fact I agreed with your original point there if you look back.
However, quaternions are not a natural structure to model physics, whereas other Clifford Algebras are. Remember that CAs in fact include quaternions as one example, it is just that the examples which model spacetime, or QM are different from the one that is isomorphic to quaternions.
A further complexity here is that what you need to model physics is a geometric algebra, where the generating bilinear form is a metric. The terminology is confusing: Clifford originally used the term geometric algebra, this got changed to Clifford algebra, David Hestenes then revised the original term in the context of an algebra to represent physics. Now GA is defined as a CA derived from a vector space over the reals (as opposed to a vector space over any field, which would be a CA). Anyway terminology is not precise but "geometric algebra" is the best keyword if you want applications in physics. In that case the CA bilinear form has a natural (yes that word again!) interpretation as a physical metric.
Thus if you do a similar search for "geometric algebra" you get about 200 results (10% of your "quaternion" search)
https://arxiv.org/search/?quer…ounced_date_first&size=50
However if you then compare the contents of the papers you find that nearly all the quaternion results are pure math with no relationship to physics, whereas a lot (not all) of the geometric algebra results are directly applicable to physics.
Which is the point I was making above, as I think you will have to agree if you read carefully what I was saying.
Quaternions and physics
Interestingly, for those interested in algebraic structures with physical relevance, the string theory proponents seem to like not quaternions but octonions!
As you move to higher dimensions so the mathematical properties get looser: complex numbers a field, quaternions a non-commutative division ring, octonions a non-commutative non-associative division algebra.
https://www.quantamagazine.org…nderpin-physics-20180720/
Mathematically, octonions are an extension of quaternions, so if RB claims that he can also claim a lot more interesting physical significance for quaternions (sort of).
THH
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.
Topological charge is used to indicate a conserved system-level property that cannot locally be changed. This is fertile ground for reasoning about what must be quantised. For a simple non-physics example you might consider the loop phase of an oscillating feedback system to be a topological invariant - and related (topologically) to the winding number of the corresponding frequency response argand diagram. Given the constraints you must wind an exact integral number of times.
https://physics.stackexchange.…rge-what-is-it-physically
The idea applies to quasiparticle systems in many ways (nothing to do with fundamental physics) but has also been used to explain things like the 1/3 charge of a quark (because there are 3 quark flavours).
So this (in the standard model) is fertile ground for understanding how experimental quantitative results relate to a given model (in this case the quark model of hadrons - which has an awful lot of merit to it!).
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!
I think that such "obviousness" will only become apparent to anyone else with a much more detailed model of the system symmetries and topologically enforced invariants, and how this relates to measured physical quantities. Given such a detailed model it can be tested against a whole load of other things to see whether we have a model that generalises and therefore looks a good candidate for a new fundamental physical theory.
Without quantitative detail and precision it is possible to put a lot of time and effort into something that no-one else will see merit in. I find myself that having to pin down precisely and mathematically why things are "obvious" is a very useful discipline. It often transforms understanding.
That seems, I believe you think, to be a relatively safe statement: and therefore you can be in a position to state a precise model. For example, for the proton - which seems to be one of the simplest dense matter objects in your model - you could state what mathemetical object represents the proton nucleus, how that maps to 3+1D Lorentzian space, what is the equivalent moving charge model from which things like proton magnetic moment can be derived? Or, for some other relatively simple object for which your theory makes theoretical predictions of a known experimental value. If the key match is magnetic flux rather than charge that would be as good - I should point out that in L4 magnetic flux and charge are closely related, so if you can model one, and add Lorentzian invariance, you can also model the other one. So I think you can be confident that if you have a more fundamental theory that matches Maxwell's equations for magnetic flux it will also do that for charge.
In dense space mass must be split into relativistic & perturbative mass. The relativistic mass does not follow the classic metric (speed always c and already renormalized to rotational mass) and "seems" not directly responsible for charge/(potential) generation. Electric/magnetic neutrality seem to be related to surface waves of S3,S5. This information is derived from the isotope structures we can directly model with the NPP2.0 compression rules.
Perturbative mass is a consequence of lack of (higher S3,S5) symmetry. Thus before I will look for a classic proton model, that is conform to 3D,t L space I will try to find the SO(4) structure of the solution and the corresponding Eigenvalues. This did finally work very well for the gravitation constant.
But do not expect that one single person that only can max work about 3 hours/day will find the solution in a few weeks. The gravity (-constant) took half a year of collecting ideas/understanding, where as the final modeling could be done in a week.
THHuxleynew : Thanks for the references.
I'm reminded of celestial mechanics before Kepler when the only trajectory considered possible for planets was circular: and to match observations models of planets orbiting with epicycles were needed. The best epicyclic models matched observations very well indeed: better than the initial ellipsoidal equivalents. But the problem was complexity, as observations got better more epicycles were needed with more arbitrary parameters (the radius and orientation of the epicyclic motion). Whereas much simpler models using ellipsoidal motion, with fewer arbitrary parameters, matched as well.
This is one astonishing fact: 4D orbits can be modeled like 2 coupled ellipsoidal orbits. The total perturbation is the product of the two single orbit perturbations based on the "x" coupling rules! This is one reason why it is relatively easy to find connections in SO(4) physics. Here we may also see one source of perturbative mass (= eccentricity) , that in the symmetric case is a classical square term!
About quaternions: The main reason to use them is that they directly offer 4D rotations as a basic concept. Of course you can map everything to clifford algebras but the amount of "formulas" might increase dramatically. The only important result I got out of quaternions so far is the linearization constant of (2)3D/5D rotations being a logarithm of quaternions.
About NPP2.0: THH is completely right. We have some very compelling results and outstanding explanations of physical facts, but there is no complete picture yet. E.g we can calculate the magnetic moments of low Z nuclei something SM fails. But here again we would like to have a general model. We can exactly (at measurement) give the mass evolution from n,p,e --> n,2H,3H,*he,4He etc. but we also would like to have a (more) general set of rules. But we know the exact magnitudes of all nuclear forces including gravity.
But how many physicists did work on SM??
Thus I ask everybody that is "somewhere" skilled in the art to join the modeling. I personally had great moments when e.g. the all 10 digits fit for the hydrogen ionization energy plopped out of the spreadsheet or the exact value of the gravitation constant exactly corresponded to the model in mind. Believe me there are other great moments ahead and of course it's nice if I can harvest all low hanging fruits. But I would like it much more if others could fill their baskets too!
I could immediately start 10 projects for different modeling targets but I have to focus on one or two in parallel and I'm able to progress only if my health is allowing it.
E.g.: One project related to classical physics is the detailed modeling of the magnetic Bohr model for quantum states > 1. Here the last 2 digits are missing!
Moderators: maybe this discussion of geometric algebra vs quaternions could go somewhere else? It is a bit interesting to me, but not as much as the main thread topic.
We generally expect some drifting off topic on every thread, and only start moving posts if it gets to be too much. Since this is a very dense discussion (fun to try and follow though), I will leave it to you to decide what is "too much".
Moderators: maybe this discussion of geometric algebra vs quaternions
Maybe THHuxleynew could go somewhere else if it is to much for him,
Another Ascoli65 trying to moderate a thread.
Quaternions are grest for computerised 3D and4D rotational calculations...which is why they are being increasingly used for such
Here is typical THHuxley waffle..misinfo disinfo
Quaternions do not naturally model physics - even though they are neat algebraically. Whereas the algebraic structure you get from Clifford algebras does
What does this even mean ?
Without quantitative detail and precision it is possible to put a lot of time and effort into something that no-one else will see merit in
This sums up what THHuxleys verbioseness amounts to .
However when it comes to numbers THHuxley;s disinformation becomes very evident
as when THHhuxley asserts that
1.5+/- 0.3 Mev has 6 figure precision
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf
and then refuses to acknowledge his egregious error.
As you move to higher dimensions so the mathematical properties get looser
Another looser statement from the forum's resident 6figure significant mathematician.
Shall we call it the THH THL the higher-looser theory?
Maybe THL will get incorporated into the next quaternion tutorial.
or the next dedicated THH THL thread
E.g we can calculate the magnetic moments of low Z nuclei something SM fails.
SM QCD modeliing of magnetic moments fails the six significant figure test...just as
Kepler found that Ptolemy;s epicycles/equants
failed his 8 minute precision test on the orbit of Mars
https://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Vicarious.htm
Kepler's insights corrected not only Ptolemy
but also Copernicus.
Copernicus used inferior data.
Shall we call it the THH THL the higher-looser theory?
Enough of this Robert - play nicely now.
Enough of this Robert - play nicely now.
Its frustration with vague THHist untruesims or distruisms such as
no one takes Mills seriously
I don't take THHuxleynew seriously after his many blunders
he is so worthy of parody.
But in truth, rather than parody of the pseudoscience of assertion
I prefer the science of numbers and facts
Its frustration with vague THHist untruesims or distruisms
such as
I am quite unusually happy to be pinned down and answer the specifics, based on facts rather than character comment.
I suggest you follow my suggestion in #363 - and do things properly!
am quite unusually happy to be pinned down and answer the specifics
So,,numbers and facts.. THH's forte...
Is 1.5+/- 0.3 Mev. for the n-p mass difference accurate to six significant figures?
as you stated you found in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf
Yes or No, Specifically
and if No
.. how significant is it?
Specifically... since it makes you unusually happy 
to be pinned down
Please do things properly!! BTW I wish you an unusually Happy Easter ,,
Note: this is not a character test or anything personal.. it's just facts and numbers
SM QCD modeliing of magnetic moments fails the six significant figure test.
Here are the latest QM ramblings on the magnetic moments.
in nuclear magneton (NM) units
Notice the error fudge ...
proton mmp = 1.792(19)(37) neutron mmn -1.138(03)(10)
In my book this simplifies to
proton mmp = 1.79+- 0,05, mmn -1.14 +- 0.01 NM
If anyone can find six figure significance for
mmp and mmn by currently popular SM methods such as QCD
please advise me
Randell Mills by simple formulas rather than QCD epicyclic correlations and fudging
has 4 significant figures in GUTCP
Of course there is the Wyttenbach emergent theory NPP2.0 which does way better than GUTCP2016
Its a bit like... Kepler versus Copernicus versus Ptolemy ...where SM is standard Ptolemy.. (to use a THH-analogy)
Magnetic moments of light nuclei from lattice quantum chromodynamics ;
Beane, S R ; Chang, E ; Cohen, S ; Detmold, W ; Lin, H W ; Orginos, K ; Parreño, A ; Savage, M J ; Tiburzi, B C ; ,
peer_reviewed,
Physical review letters, 19 December 2014, Vol.113(25), pp.252001
I am quite unusually happy to be pinned down and answer the specifics, based on facts rather than character comment.
I suggest you follow my suggestion in #363 - and do things properly!
Here are the latest QM ramblings on the magnetic moments.
in nuclear magneton (NM) units
Notice the error fudge ..
I would very much like if everybody could spend his time with tasks to help progressing the field.
We know that SM is a fail in most aspects of physics, but we know also know that already tomorrow there could be a better solution/model than we have today.
I just remind you what SM could to the last 90 years: Predictions: There must be a particle in the energy range X to Y with certain properties given by the permutations matrices. But SM could never predict any (closely matching) energy!
But physics is not about telling there is a red color particle with spin x and charge Y. It is the mass/energy that counts because only this makes it reliably measurable.
A consequence of this failure is the tremendous amount of money and manpower (CERN, fermilab etc..) needed (wasted) to verify such inexact predictions.
But once you are aware of these facts you should no longer mention them and start to be better than the old splendid gang.
But as THH said: You must be better and well founded otherwise the gang will go on with wasting money for e.g. a useless super CERN.
Display MoreSo,,numbers and facts.. THH's forte...
Is 1.5+/- 0.3 Mev. for the n-p mass difference accurate to six significant figures?
as you stated you found in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf
Yes or No, Specifically
and if No
.. how significant is it?
Specifically... since it makes you unusually happy
Please do things properly!! BTW I wish you an unusually Happy Easter ,,
Note: this is not a character test or anything personal.. it's just facts and numbers
You are not helping this thread. I'm happy to REPEAT what I've previously said answering all your posts but NOT ON THIS THREAD. Start a new one, as I've said multiple times.
I'm happy to REPEAT what I've previously said answering all your posts but NOT ON THIS THREAD
Why NOT ON THIS THREAD?
I guess THHuxleynew will persevere with his bulldoglike attachment
to the 6 digit precision of QED?QCD modelling for nuclear physics.
Its this same THHuxleynew who pronounced 6 digit Durr et al
ON THIS THREAD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf
Why is he so chihuahualike coy about Durr et al 2015 now
I mean this thread is about calculation and precision. is it not?
Randell Mills' GUTCP beats QED/QCD modelling outside the nucleus
and is also better than it in the nucleus
but Wyttenbach 's NPP2 modelling beats both hands down in the nucleus,
THHuxley will be unusually happy to know that I will not ask him again
but Durr et al's 1.5+- 0.3 MEV is NOT 6 digit . It is 2 digit precision.
Its time to let go of Ptolemaic .. epicyclic QED/QCD. ON THIS THREAD
Why NOT ON THIS THREAD?
Because I care about the content here which gets obliterated by your repetition.
Moderators: I'd like to keep W's discussion thread free of this RB noise, could you possibly move his noisy posts and my answers to them to a new thread? There, I will answer him to his heart's content without the repetition destroying other stuff.
