Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

Quote from Eric Walker

Thank you, Wyttenbach, for the sharp eyesight. I missed those and have updated the earlier post to incorporate them, as well as the final equation you mentioned.

@Eric Walker : I deleted my correction! May be you tell us once how we can post pictures that don't get truncated...

One more thing: What is your impression after seeing the astonishig high precision of the Lepton mass ratios? The explanations are rational and mathematically consistent. May be that some fine tuning corrections are still missing:

But least by now, I exactly know, why the CERN family is hating Mills, when he explains that no more particle will be found... Thus nobody will actively promote his GUT-CP...

Quote from Wyttenbach

I exactly know, why the CERN family is hating Mills, when he explains that no more particle will be found...

Why. . .it's almost as if you're accusing the high-energy physics establishment of self-interest. Perish the thought! (/s for sarcasm)

BTW, here's a good book (https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-F…OU0CXG/ref=cm_cr-mr-title) that dismantles high-energy physicists.

Quote from Mary Yugo

Wyttenbach If anyone dislikes Mills, perhaps it's because he sucks millions in research dollars over decades and produces nothing but razzle dazzle flashes (and more unlikely claims) for all that work and those resources, which could be better used.

@MY: Do you ask for a new car or something else...?

Quote from Wyttenbach

I deleted my correction! May be you tell us once how we can post pictures that don't get truncated...

To get nice screenshots, I open up the PDF in Google Chrome, which displays it with a pre-determined width; then take the screenshot using CMD-SHIFT-4 (on a Mac); then upload the image to imgur; then from the "Copy" dropdown menu select "Get share links"; and then select "BBCode (Forums)".

Quote from Wyttenbach

One more thing: What is your impression after seeing the astonishig high precision of the Lepton mass ratios? The explanations are rational and mathematically consistent. May be that some fine tuning corrections are still missing:

I'll agree that the lepton mass ratios are astonishing. But I am unpersuaded so far that they are derived from first principles if their derivation is similar to that of the neutron-electron mass ratio. I'm hoping that when Stefan has a free moment he will be able to walk us through how the equations can be tied together to get the final result.

a few million dollars here or there is small change comparison to the billions
spent on nuclear fusion by governments orgs in the past decades

http://www.world-nuclear.org/i…nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

or for that matter

Viagra. Viagra had more to show for it than tokamak tech. eta..2035? if ever

>> @Eric How do we obtain 38.31, which was also shown on p. 3, from the preceding equations? No doubt there's a simple sequence of algebraic transformations that you can walk us through to understand how to obtain this equation.
What's differing is the last fraction which is a small correction. We could look into that later but in order to judge it is not necessary the value is still too close to be by chance - so a tweak or a genuine one.

>> @Eric stefan wrote:There is a derived relation of the quark mass from the neutron mass, do you accept that one?
>> Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?

This is the same as understanding if eq. (37.40) is genuine. This equation is built from (37.38) and (37.39). I can follow (37.38)
but (37.39) is harder.

>> @Eric Stefan: There are relativistic corrections to the equation that results in 2*pi corrections do you think those are the manipulation? These corrections are everywhere and consistant.
>> Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?

There is a notion of reference frame that Mills is using internal to the light or in lab frame ang oing between them means that you, according to Mills should scale quantities. There is a specific rule how to do this and in order to tamper it is enough to verify that not all quantities get's there transform or that the transform differs from the usual one. Just tampering through saying there is a differnece in reference frames is to grannular to be able to tune the equation significantly. I can't see that the done transform indicate tampering although I think that this step is what most would attribute as a fudging.

>> @Eric Stefan: He substitutes the compton wavelength bar for the radious is this a source of tampering?
>> Can you elaborate on what you're referring to here?
in (32.43) we have the radious in the denumerator inside the square root this is replaced by the compton wavelength shown to be equal to the radius in the neutron version of (37.7)

/Stefan

Thank you, Stefan, for your reply.

Quote

What's differing is the last fraction which is a small correction. We could look into that later but in order to judge it is not necessary the value is still too close to be by chance - so a tweak or a genuine one.

Eventually we will need to look at the change from 38.23 to 38.31. Neither supporter nor skeptic would suspect the change to be by chance. I suspect it’s intentionally there, without justification, to get the previous value closer to the experimental value. Whether or not this is true, we can agree that that since the modification is a small one consideration can wait until 38.23 is sorted out.

Quote

This is the same as understanding if eq. (37.40) is genuine. This equation is built from (37.38) and (37.39). I can follow (37.38) but (37.39) is harder.

How do you build 37.40 from 37.38 and 37.39? When I rearrange 37.40, I get

But from 37.38, we have that

,

and presumably 1 ≠ α. In which case both equations could only be true if m_n and m_1q were always 0, which would be a trivial result. When Mills writes that "Combining Eqs. (37.38) and (37.39) gives the bound individual quark mass", is he modifying one or both equations before combining them?

Quote

There is a specific rule how to do this and in order to tamper it is enough to verify that not all quantities get's there transform or that the transform differs from the usual one.

Can you explain that rule? Can you justify your conclusion that tampering with things by applying this rule inconsistently would not change the result in a favorable way?

Quote

in (32.43) we have the radious in the denumerator inside the square root this is replaced by the compton wavelength shown to be equal to the radius in the neutron version of (37.7)

Eq. 32.43 refers to "ti", G, M, and r*_α. Is r*_α identified with r_n,q? What happens to "ti", G, and M? How does 32.43 fit into the rest of the derivation?

>> Eric: Eventually we will need to look at the change from 38.23 to 38.31. Neither supporter nor skeptic would suspect the change to be by chance. I suspect it’s intentionally there, without justification, to get the previous value closer to the experimental value. Whether or not >> this is true, we can agree that that since the modification is a small one consideration can wait until 38.23 is sorted out.
Check!

>> How do you build 37.40 from 37.38 and 37.39? When I rearrange 37.40, I get ...
Logically you are correct, but It look like Mills is sloppy in the presentation 37.38 as I understand, is the mass of a free quark and when it is combined with a gluon you need
to correct the mass. But I want to have clarification of this correction. I asked on Mills forum if anyone can explain this correction more thoroughly.

>> Eric : Stefan :There is a specific rule how to do this and in order to tamper it is enough to verify that not all quantities get's there transform or that the transform differs from the usual one.
>> Can you explain that rule? Can you justify your conclusion that tampering with things by applying this rule inconsistently would not change the result in a favorable way?
Tampering with this rule inconsistently e.g. invent new version of it for each relation will give some opportunity to fudge and is the most obvious candidate. But it is when it is applied consistently
that the room for fusging becomes nil. You can find a discussion of this change of reference system around p 115. Eq. (1.271) and (1.273) is applied in this derivation did I miss any else?

M is the quark mass

>> Eric: Eq. 32.43 refers to "ti", G, M, and r*α. Is r*α identified with rn,q? What happens to "ti", G, and M? How does 32.43 fit into the rest of the derivation?

ti is sec as concluded before for the lepton ratios and M is the mass of the quark/gluon, G is the gravitation constant. What you have in 32.43 is basically

c/m=sec*sqrt(am²) <=>
c/m^2=sec*sqrt(a) <=>
m = sqrt(c/sec/sqrt(a))

e.g. you can solve for the mass and the result of solving for the neutron mass is eq (37.42). When you then dived this with the mass of the electron (36.3) you realize that G and sec is algebraically removed e.g. like sec/sec = 1 etc.

Quote from Eric Walker

Eventually we will need to look at the change from 38.23 to 38.31. Neither supporter nor skeptic would suspect the change to be by chance. I suspect it’s intentionally there, without justification, to get the previous value closer to the experimental value. Whether or not this is true, we can agree that that since the modification is a small one consideration can wait until 38.23 is sorted out.

This is the same as understanding if eq. (37.40) is genuine. This equation is built from (37.38) and (37.39). I can follow (37.38) but (37.39) is harder.

How do you build 37.40 from 37.38 and 37.39? When I rearrange 37.40, I get

Display More

@Eric Walker : The quark-gluon pair stores magnetic energy, which is (was) usually released during the buildup-phase. Mills is here accounting for the missing energy - stored in the field. The same correction (1 - alpha) - virtually - stored dipole (quadrupole in case tau) interaction energy also appears in the lepton equations (but different factors for spin!).

I very much appreciate the discussion ongoing regarding the fundamental particle mass ratios. It's something I've worked through on my own some time back but struggled in the same areas folks here are raising. For what it's worth, a similar exercise can be done with the calculation of the ionization energies for 1 through 20-electron ions.

However I would like to assert (but stand willing to be corrected) that despite the issues raised, there is simply no alternate derivation based on the physics accepted under the QM/Standard Model that comes even close. It's my understanding that these results, assuming no as yet undiscovered "fudge factor" is revealed, are unique in the field. Can this statement be refuted?

Thank you for the apology.

The most important thing Ive ever learned is this..."keep an open mind" I neither believe or disbelieve claims by Rossi, Mills, et all, I certainly hope that what they have is real but I certainly don't take them at face value. I have been fed so much doo doo as a project inspector that I never take a bite out of a sandwich a contractor hands me unless I smell it first. (wastewater analogy) Unfortunately I cannot examine a quarkX or suncell to see how it actually operates but I have to sift through videos, reports and statements to get a picture of what is happening.

I have come to some basic conclusions:

1. There is some unknown physics that has been discovered that releases energy in a way that is neither chemical or nuclear (ie fusion, fission, chemical reactions)

2. Many different groups are trying to build a commercial device to exploit this discovery and or trying to buy into this work by throwing money around purchasing IP rights.

3. Many companies and countries are working behind the scenes to develop this science into workable technology. The military applications are staggering, transportation, mining, manufacturing... everything will change

Somehow, somewhere, somebody will make a breakthrough and produce a workable device. Now this may only be cost effective for certain applications and never replace grid electricity and automotive applications. How much would the military pay for such an energy device in remote locations, surveillance, and offensive weaponry systems?

The one thing I worry about is that LENR will get tied up in patent disputes where everyone is suing each other and nothing gets built. I think in the long term this technology will be developed and will be cost effective to change the planet. My top 3 technology's to watch are- LENR, EM Drive, and 3D printing(precursor to nano manufacturing)

Quote from optiongeek

However I would like to assert (but stand willing to be corrected) that despite the issues raised, there is simply no alternate derivation based on the physics accepted under the QM/Standard Model that comes even close. It's my understanding that these results, assuming no as yet undiscovered "fudge factor" is revealed, are unique in the field. Can this statement be refuted?

I am sympathetic to your fascination with Mills's derivation. But what we have seen so far is not a derivation. It's a series of non-sequitor steps that do not follow from one another, where two equations disappear and a third magically appears with only a superficial resemblance to the earlier ones. Being generous, one might suspect that this is not Mills's fault and instead is simply due to gaps in our knowledge about how fill out the derivation. In that case there would be a lack of clarity in the original exposition that should be remedied. But my hunch is that those really are non-sequitors. Because logic has a primary role in math, if what we have are non-sequitors at even one or two points in the derivation, the derivation is just a sleight of hand.

The fudge factor in this case would be the use of non-sequitors. But we have not delved in deep enough to know for sure that these are being used, so let us continue to explore the neutron-electron mass ratio.

Quote from Eric Walker

The fudge factor in this case would be the use of non-sequitors. But we have not delved in deep enough to know for sure that these are being used, so let us continue to explore the neutron-electron mass ratio.

I'm certainly willing to be convinced that Mills' theory is incomplete. Perhaps the areas identified so far are, in fact, fudge factors. However, are they truly fudge factors that have no basis in physical reality? Or are they true but represent something other than what Mills has described them? Or is Mills correct and we simply don't understand them due to the difficulty of the material and poor presentation? It's been my experience that Mills has been challenged on a variety of occasions and I don't recall him ever needing to issue a revision to the theory. If the last case is true then perhaps a good editor with close access to Mills and a deep understanding of the material would perhaps be the way forward.

However, my sense is that between the two, QM/Standard model & GUTCP, that the latter is perhaps closer to providing consistent analytical results. But, yes, let continue to explore the faults (if they are faults) and find what is left to find.

Quote from Eric Walker

I am sympathetic to your fascination with Mills's derivation. But what we have seen so far is not a derivation. It's a series of non-sequitor steps that do not follow from one another, where two equations disappear and a third magically appears with only a superficial resemblance to the earlier ones. Being generous, one might suspect that this is not Mills's fault and instead is simply due to gaps in our knowledge about how fill out the derivation. In that case there would be a lack of clarity in the original exposition that should be remedied. But my hunch is that those really are non-sequitors. Because logic has a primary role in math, if what we have are non-sequitors at even one or two points in the derivation, the derivation is just a sleight of hand.

@Eric Walker : For me the derivation is streight forward and compelling: But your observation is correct. To fully understand what he says, you would have to read more than 400 pages of the atomic theory. Mills very often tells more ore less informal - as we have shown in QM discussion about the trapped photon.. etc..

He does not repeat the explanations!!

What I like to tell you is just one thing: There is no five minute way to find a refutation of Mills theory. There is also no 5 hours way. It will take you some weeks to understand his thinking and logic. Even if you use the (my preferred) top down approach you will have to read the crucial parts at least three times and search/ build up the connections.

If you use again such comments like "where two equations disappear and a third magically appears with only a superficial resemblance to the earlier ones. " I will handle this a simple trolling by a QM apologet. I told you where the factor comes from! Just re-read!

Mills work is outstanding and far beyond the children level approach of QM (just believe the electron will not radiate.. no synchroton radiation no.. just believe.. = bible = axiom..)
Mills, contrary to many other researchers theory, published all his thoughts, presents them well structured and does not mix 90% of bla bla with 1% findings and 9% discussion.

That time no mafia trick (as happend 1991 with physical review letters) will prevent a broader public to read his work. May be you know it: Did the CERN/JET mafia block Mills publication in 1991? Or the same people that pressure Santilli?

Wyttenbach, let me be frank: I have always found your contributions here to be high-noise, low-signal, and sometimes worse, bordering on trolling. I think the general level of discussion would actually be raised if you were to leave for some other forum and not come back here. This is your first warning: please moderate your tone and attitude and refrain from personalizing an otherwise impersonal discussion.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Eric Walker : For me the derivation is streight forward and compelling: But your observation is correct. To fully understand what he says, you would have to read more than 400 pages of the atomic theory. Mills very often tells more ore less informal - as we have shown in QM discussion about the trapped photon.. etc..

A mathematician with no knowledge of physics does not need to read 400 pages of atomic theory in order to verify the formal correctness of a derivation if there are people with knowledge of the gaps that will help to fill them in. Perhaps we do not have such people here? In that case, I wonder how anyone here could have concluded that the neutron-electron derivation is correct; or perhaps people are just impressed with the math?

Quote from Wyttenbach

He does not repeat the explanations!!

We don't need him to repeat explanations. We need someone here with a claim that his neutron-electron mass ratio is correct to repeat them for our benefit.

Quote from Wyttenbach

What I like to tell you is just one thing: There is no five minute way to find a refutation of Mills theory. There is also no 5 hours way. It will take you some weeks to understand his thinking and logic. Even if you use the (my preferred) top down approach you will have to read the crucial parts at least three times and search/ build up the connections.

If that non-sequitor in the derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio is not patched up at some point in this discussion, we can conclude at minimum that no one here has a basis for trusting that specific calculation. That is not quite a refutation, but it certainly isn't an endorsement.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you use again such comments like "where two equations disappear and a third magically appears with only a superficial resemblance to the earlier ones. " I will handle this a simple trolling by a QM apologet. I told you where the factor comes from! Just re-read!

You are free to conclude what you wish. See my warning above.

Quote from Wyttenbach

That time no mafia trick (as happend 1991 with physical review letters) will prevent a broader public to read his work. May be you know it: Did the CERN/JET mafia block Mills publication in 1991? Or the same people that pressure Santilli?

I don't know what you're referring here, and at any rate, I don't see how it's relevant to this thread.

Quote from Eric Walker

Wyttenbach, let me be frank: I have always found your contributions here to be high-noise, low-signal, and sometimes worse, bordering on trolling. I think the general level of discussion would actually be raised if you were to leave for some other forum and not come back here. This is your first warning: please moderate your tone and attitude and refrain from personalizing an otherwise impersonal discussion.

@Eric Walker : As an Administrator you are free to go the wiki suppression way...

We all are waiting eagerly for your first contribution to show us a path to explain a Mills equation!

If you think, that your skills are well above ours, then you should manage to do this in a few minutes. But is OK for me, if you just tell us, 'its not worth spending the time to dig into just another GUT, you think (hope?) which will vanish anyway'...

By the way: I'm in the same situation: Why should I spend time to serve a piece meal for somebody, who anyway just looks for a quick way to dismiss an unpleasant finding?

But if I'm wrong and you really are interested in a new path to physics, independent of the establishment directions, then tell us! Then I will appolgize because I thought you are just trolling us. (Remember you posted the uncorrected values for the lepton masses?)

I'm peaceful minded and will stop this 1:1 discussion at this point and certainly not leave the forum.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Eric Walker : As an Administrator you are free to go the wiki suppression way...

Rest assured, I will not hesitate to swiftly give you a 2-day ban if for whatever reason you are unable to moderate your tone and attitude. I will do it with the satisfaction of knowing that this forum will have saner, more informed and more pleasant discussions for two days.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We all are waiting eagerly for your first contribution to show us a path to explain a Mills equation!

If you think, that your skills are well above ours, then you should manage to do this in a few minutes. But is OK for me, if you just tell us, 'its not worth spending the time to dig into just another GUT, you think (hope?) which will vanish anyway'...

I have not claimed skill above anyone else here; to the contrary, I wish to learn from anyone with a claim that Mills's derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio is based on first principles. This much should be apparent from the discussion up to now. Your bringing in personalities is a distraction to this effort. Perhaps you will be able to point to where I've thought or hoped to be able to make GUT-CP vanish? Rather I hope it remains available indefinitely for people to study and learn from as a cautionary tale.

Quote from Wyttenbach

We all are waiting eagerly for your first contribution to show us a path to explain a Mills equation!

It's the other way around: those who claim to understand the derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio will need to step up and walk us through it. Thankfully Stefan is helping out with this. We will either derive that final equation, or fail trying.

Quote from Eric Walker

It's the other way around: those who claim to understand the derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio will need to step up and walk us through it. Thankfully Stefan is helping out with this. We will either derive that final equation, or fail trying.

After having spent the better part of ten years going through Mills' derivations, I can tell you that it is unlikely that someone can get much from them unless they do the work necessary to understand them from first principles. In this case, first principles means beginning with the non-radiation condition as expressed in Appendix A (aside: Stefan claims Mills has an error in the convolution, an error which I don't see, but I think Stefan nonetheless has an alternate form that he thinks will work. In addition, Mills asserts that Haus himself reviewed his derivation while he was still alive). Once you accept the non-radiation condition is true, then it becomes easy to see how Mills uses the boundary condition of i) the stability of the hydrogen ground state to radiation together with, ii) the immutability of h_bar of angular momentum in fundamental particles and then develops the classical force balance equations that describe the electron as an orbitsphere. Once you believe the orbitsphere is correct, then all of the other applications of electric and magnetic dynamics fall out directly from that. If you don't understand this aspect of the theory then you can't possibly understand how his equations are derived from first principles as claimed.

Calm down. Asking questions is good and I have now a good view of for the alpha correction of the mass. I thank you all helping me understand these things.

Basically the energy of a spin flip is 2 mu_B B (see (1.168)) and according to (29.14),(29.15) equal to m c ^2 Putting that in eq. (1.181) e.g. the energy for magnetic flux "capture"
which lead to the correction of the mass. Elegant!! (You would expect the mass to be lower for a bound quark)