Brilliant Light Power - Dec 16, 2016 UK Roadshow

    Quote from optiongeek

    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.


    Can you clarify how the non-radiation condition and acceptance of the orbitsphere bear upon the immediate question we're considering, which is the derivation of the neutron-electron mass ratio? It seems to me that this derivation is more basic and prior to the orbitsphere discussion.

    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'...


    The point here is that we are wondering whether Mills's work is a major advance in theoretical physicists, ignored by the mainstream but revealing gems if we study it, or whether it is not that in which case it would seem by far most likely that the numeric coincidences in the formulae come from ad hoc adjustment to make theory agree with experiment. In that case Eric would necessarily be unable to answer your challenge, because it is unanswerable. The onus however is on you to do this, not him, since you claim that these results are obviously true.


    If the formulae can be derived, via maths, from some explainable definite theory we have the major advance in theoretical physics.


    However, just proclaiming that this is so, without being able to demonstrate it step by step, is not convincing. Having word reasons for each step "this quantity is the diameter of the orbitsphere" without the axiomatic basis to validate how these relate to a coherent theory, is similarly unconvincing. I suspect that this is what Stefan and others find. Key points in the analysis contain these statements which seem plausible but are essentially ad hoc with no underlying validity.


    Maybe Mills is a genius who has made a great contribution to theoretical physics, but we can show this only by scrutiny of his work showing that it is mathematically complete and sound. That is obviously a lot of work, but Eric here is asking for only part of it. Saying that you have to spend years reading 400 pages does not resolve the matter, and leaves is no closer to understanding whether Mills is the genius that he claims.

    Just taking the non-scientist route with the orbitsphere - I like how Mills says that QM basically came about because scientists at the time couldn't see an electron interacting with the proton so they basically fell on their scientific instincts and claimed that the rotation of the electron around the proton must look a lot like the moon/earth rotation. Why wouldn't it? That's what they were able to see at the time in terms of two objects rotating around each other.


    This is something that will not have to be pure conjecture for the rest of our lives. As Mills points out, the imaging of electrons has improved dramatically over the past decade, and is sure to improve over the next. So we will be able to see the electron in due time, and if Mills is right it will look like an orbitsphere. I think the argument that Mills makes that there is no singularity with the electron is his single, best argument. I don't believe that something can be everywhere at once, even when it's not. That sounds like an extraordinary claim that may be backed up by some creative math, but probably won't hold up when we do succeed in actually seeing electrons in action.

    Quote from stefan

    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)






    Stefan, can you clarify which equation in the neutron-electron mass ratio derivation you're trying to get to, so that we can see how these formulas lead to it?

    Quote from stefan


    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.


    Let us know what you find out.


    Quote from stefan


    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?




    Ok. Now can you clarify how these equations are used in the neutron-electron mass ratio derivation?


    Quote from stefan

    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.


    Can you spell this out by showing the sequence of steps explicitly taking us from 32.43 to 37.42? I see no clear connection between 32.43 and what you have written up above. Where do we find "c/m" or "a" or any variant of them in 32.43, for example? Let's fill in as many steps of the derivation as we can, replacing suggestions with actual steps.

    Quote from stefan

    The orbisphere is needed if we dig further into this.


    Neutrons can exist for a period of time as free particles (with a half-life), as can electrons (indefinitely). The ratio of their observed masses would seem to be only very slightly altered in an atomic environment. In the discussion in Mills, the focus is on quark masses and so on. What is it about our neutron-electron mass ratio that necessitates bringing in orbitspheres? We do not need to take into consideration the details of ethane in order to obtain the mass of a carbon nucleus, because the composite nucleus is more basic than, independent of and prior to the molecule of which it is a part.

    > Eric: What is it about our neutron-electron mass ratio that necessitates bringing in orbitspheres? We do not need to take into consideration the details


    > of ethane in order to obtain the mass of a carbon nucleus, because the composite nucleus is more basic than, independent of and prior to


    > the molecule of which it is a part.


    The orbitsphere is needed e.g. when you need to find a velocity from mass and spinn. It is used in the deduction of the mass of the free quark, m_q = m_n/3/(2*pi). In this case one note that the charge is running in
    circles at constant speed and that loop will lead to constraining spinn,velocity and radious and mass used in (37.7). Also for calculating the correction to this mass for a bound quark one need to in the end refer to the
    magnetic field of the orbitsphere and go back to the basics of orbitsphere math. We can skip a check of this becasue this base is used everywhere and fudging an expression that are used in a pletoria of expressions is
    not probable.

    Eric: Stefan, can you clarify which equation in the neutron-electron mass ratio derivation you're trying to get to, so that we can see how these formulas lead to it?


    1.168 equals 29.15:


    mc^2 = 2 mu_B B


    This in 1.181:


    DE = alpha / (2 pi) * 2 mu_B B = alpha /(2 pi) * m * c^2


    Do get the ekvivalent mass loss then dived by c^2 assuming DM * c^2 = DE


    DM = alpha / (2*pi) m


    The corrected mass (we have three of them is them leading) mbound = mfree - DM/3 = (m/(2pi) - alpha/(2pi)) / 3 as is the formula in Mills equation.


    So algebraically you can deduce the mass of one of the bounded quarks. The actual deduction is fine. The question is if the physical motivation is sound. To all,
    if there are 100 physical motivation to choose from one can tweak the result by selecting one that fits the final outcome, something that can be easily done by
    a researcher with no clear physical understanding. Can anyone motivate the above deduction better
    (I'm just a mathematician and not a physisist. Mills explanation sounds good but is it?)

    Quote from stefan

    So algebraically you can deduce the mass of one of the bounded quarks. The actual deduction is fine. The question is if the physical motivation is sound.


    I am quite unpersuaded by the physical motivation at this point; like you say, one could put whatever one wants in there, and it might sound vaguely plausible. (E.g., "This term here has been added to counterbalance relativistic neutrino recoil.") My only interest at this point is the formal derivation. If we can get to the neutron-electron mass ratio through an explicit, deterministic sequence of transformations of the cited equations, that in itself will be impressive.

    >> Eric: Let us know what you find out.


    I found an argument without an answer, that is the discussion about the mass of a bound quark.


    Eric: Ok. Now can you clarify how these equations are used in the neutron-electron mass ratio derivation?


    m* = (2 pi) m <=>
    m = m*/(2 pi)
    If you look at formula (37.41) you see that all extra 2 pi could have come from a change of reference system and that you transformed the masses e.g. m -> m/(2 pi) which is to go from moving to rest.


    >> Eric: Can you spell this out by
    >> showing the sequence of steps explicitly taking us from 32.43 to 37.42? I see no clear connection between 32.43 and what you have written up above. Where do we find "c/m" or "a" or any variant of them in 32.43, for example? Let's fill
    >> in as many steps of the derivation as we can, replacing suggestions with actual steps.


    Take out a pen and pencil and do what I said, change a->A and c->C e.g and perform the indicated operations. C,A or (c,a) are just placeholders to simplify the expression in order to show the algebraic operation needed to solve the equation. The deduction is mathematically correct and needs no physical understanding so what's the point of arguing if you dont's follow simple algebraic manipulation or don't take my word for it we can simply stop it now - this is not the source of fudging. Much better possibilities for fudging can be attributed elsewhere as I already indicated but for godness sake not in these manipulations.

    Quote from stefan

    Take out a pen and pencil and do what I said, change a->A and c->C e.g and perform the indicated operations.


    Sorry Stefan! You will need to do your own work to support your claim about the neutron-electron mass ratio being derived from first principles. I will already be double-checking your work. It is obviously no derivation to suggest, vaguely, that such and such equations can be combined in a certain way, and then you should add in 2pi here or there for good measure. Mathematics is an exacting field of knowledge, and mathematical derivations are precise. Let us do this rigorously, and let us keep the burden of the work on the claimant (you).

    Are you playing with me? or do you want people with less knowledge of math to follow the reasoning? There is no need to go further down in the details unless you are very weak in maths in which case I think we should invite someone else to testify the steps. Also did you not see how m -> m / (2 pi) can be done in a change of reference systems and explains all 2*pi. It is consistent in that all quantities in that equation that transform does that. Yes to understand physically the transform you would want a more detailed argument but it can't lead to the needed fudging.

    Quote from stefan

    Are you playing with me? or do you want people with less knowledge of math to follow the reasoning? There is no need to go further down in the details unless you are very weak in maths in which case I think we should invite someone else to testify the steps.


    I am absolutely not playing with you. I am a little surprised we keep coming back to this; it suggests you have not had a rigorous training in math, which is fine, but perhaps inconsistent with your claim to have understood the Mills derivation. Mathematical derivations are not hand-wavy affairs that you push off onto others. They are rigorous activities where you set out each step explicitly and justify it. I suspect you have just eye-balled the equations referenced in Mills's derivation and have taken his word for it that they can be made to somehow work.

    Quote from stefan

    Well what can I say. You are a moderator. Enjoy your victory.


    I would not consider it a victory at all. We have not penetrated far into the question of whether the neutron-electron mass ratio can be derived from first principles, and only have vague impressions at this point, although we have seen a little of what is involved, which was useful. Hopefully someone who thinks the ratio is legit and is willing to make the derivation explicit will take over from the helpful work that you've done.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.