New journal article from Brilliant Light Power


  • lol, I do some misstakes in english sometimes or misses a point, just sloppiness and and effect of putting the cheek out, probably not a hen issue.

  • Don't you listen to what I'm saying. It was much more compact before and it was then I got the down voting, the voters wanted me to be more stringent.


    You provided one interpretation, namely this one. I provided another possible interpretation. Perhaps yours is the correct one.


    I'm sorry to say but you are not a matematician and weak at it. That's clear from our previous discussion


    One of the two concentrations of my bachelor's degree was mathematics. The only thing that could be concluded from the earlier discussion is that you are not accustomed to the rigors of setting out a mathematical proof and the requests that are raised in this connection. I deduce therefore that you did not get a degree in mathematics. :)


    Actually if the site is run by morons and they refuse to upvote it it's not my buisness. Then I know that they are a bunch of clowns or that there is a conspiarcy or such.


    The mathematics StackExchange site is no doubt a site run by brilliant mathematicians who can help you out with your question. The decisions that you make will affect whether you get a question answered there. The choice is yours.


  • This is a case of information conflicting each other. You failed, in our previous discussion, to acknowledge that a quite simple equation has a solution, If you just said that it had the solution shown, but wanted more steps for others to see I have bought that. The thing is, that the solution of that equation was so standard that normally in research discussions, the middle steps is left out. So I deduced that your skill was not that good and lost interest. But in either case, what should I leave out of the definition of the system of type G? give me some clear direction! I can't find anything that is not needed for stringence or to explain a mathematical concept for the more ignorant. Shall I leave out the comment that geodesics are great circles, is that what you mean with making it more compact? Well I'm actually think that you are right about the staff, but the thing it was downvoted to -2 quickly before the quality of it went up and I think that it is due to this reason not seen by the good ones. Only people who can't upvote.

  • You failed, in our previous discussion, to acknowledge that a quite simple equation has a solution, If you just said that it had the solution shown, but wanted more steps for others to see I have bought that.


    You've made a claim that I failed to acknowledge a simple solution. Shall we reprise that discussion and see if your claim has merit, or, alternatively, whether you simply failed to fill out some important details, thereby allowing your argument to be vague and hand-wavy in the manner of Mills's exposition in GUT-CP? A vague and hand-wavy exposition is the opposite of a rigorous, explicit exposition.


    Perhaps you can point to the request that I made that was misguided, and we can go from there?

  • Eric Walker wrote "his task is even bigger"


    weak .. strong interactions.. Mills has his eye on the stars , I think that's where his end task is.


    His fifth force generator is postulated to go through the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of seconds..


    Velocity 9 km/s for a 1000 tonne vehicle at 200 amps (of pseudoelectrons.) and 47 million Volts..

    Without a wobble... that's some American dream!:)


  • You've made a claim that I failed to acknowledge a simple solution. Shall we reprise that discussion and see if your claim has merit, or, alternatively, whether you simply failed to fill out some details and allowing your argument to be vague and hand-wavy (the opposite of an explicit exposition)?

    No I think that you should be a good akademic and prove that the solution to the equation is wrong, I did my duty as a good critical akademic when it comes to pointing out weaknesses of Mills deduction en the stack exchange question. It's only right that you play that role this time.

  • No I think that you should be a good akademic and prove that the solution to the equation is wrong, I did my duty as a good critical akademic when it comes to pointing out weaknesses of Mills deduction en the stack exchange question. It's only right that you play that role this time.


    First, I'm not an academic. :) The earlier challenge that we were discussing was not to disprove anything of Mills's. It was a challenge to make Mills's implicit exposition of the neutron-electron mass ratio in GUT-CP explicit, by filling in the missing steps in which the various equations are combined and derived from one another. My suspicion is that the gaps cannot be filled, because the equations are just thrown in there to look impressive, and the final result, the equation for the neutron-electron mass ratio, is not really related to all of that fancy-sounding exposition. In the earlier thread I was hoping that someone who disagreed with this impression of mine and had the energy to meticulously fill in the gaps would be willing to do so.


    Regarding your StackExchange question — I was hoping you would edit and reword it so that someone would answer it and it would get some upvotes.

  • That would of cause be awsome if true, but it's a loooooong way for it to be true. Meanwhile we will argue till our fingers bleed about microcosmosology. I kind like to point out to my friends how much star trek

    Mills ideas are. I always say that it is a nice fantasy, and fun to watch but with the added tenseness that maybe maybe it's all true.

  • First, I'm not an academic. :) The earlier challenge that we were discussing was not to disprove anything of Mills's. It was a challenge to make Mills's implicit exposition of the neutron-electron mass ratio in GUT-CP explicit, by filling in the missing steps in which the various equations are combined and derived from one another. My suspicion is that the gaps cannot be filled, because the equations just thrown in there to look impressive, and the final result, the equation for the neutron-electron mass ratio, is not really related to all of that fancy-sounding exposition. In the earlier thread I was hoping that someone who disagreed with this impression of mine and had the energy to fill in the gaps would be willing to do so.


    Regarding your StackExchange question — I was hoping you would edit and reword it so that someone would answer it and it would get some upvotes.

    Yes I can reword it, so it feel less clumsy in the mouth, e.g. easier to grasp as a reader. But you are asking to condense it and I simply fail to see what I can do about that and they actually downvoted me when I left out parts of the definition.


    If you like we can continue the old discussion. As you now this part is not as clear as one would hope and I pointed out a few weaknesses as we did go. The thing is that the part where we hung up was not a point where we should hung. I think that the issues might be elsewhere. Anyway if you like I could tex out the steps in solving that equation for you and we could take up the discussion again. But later. I think that what I'm (we) are doing now is more important.


    I will ask my fellows at my old math institution about the stack exchange question. I can always come back with additional info if you are interested or ask them to comment on the question at stack exchange.

  • The thing is that the part where we hung up was not a point where we should hung.


    Ok, fair enough. Please point out my misguided request, and we can go from there. A few weeks ago I created a special thread for this, since the discussion was kind of off topic in the original thread.


    Anyway if you like I could tex out the steps in solving that equation for you and we could take up the discussion again.


    Rendering the steps in Tex would be fantastic.

  • @THH: The Dirac equation does not include the magnetic energy stored in the field. May be you should ask somebody competent in Maxwell physics to get a better judgement. If QM would include the magnetic energy, the equation are no longer separable, because there is no symmetry between electric forces and magnetic forces.


    The even more severe mistake of nuclear physicists is the use of Minkovski space for nuclear models. But that needs an even a more deep understanding of mathematical structures ...


    To make is clear: There are some Mathematicians out there, that simply laugh about the math physicists use. But that is unfair, because as an engineering model it often works quite well.


    This is not as you have written it clear.


    the Dirac equation does not itself include necessary QED calculations. Not surprisingly: we know that QM => virtual particles so total energy now becomes complex, but calculable.


    QED is a great theory making precise predictions (even though the calculations are perturbative and necessarily approximate) with wonderful match to experimental data. Mills may claim to have something better than QED. My point is that no-one is competent to say that until, at least, they have a full understanding of QED, unless Mills' stuff is provably more predictive than QED.


    I think many people argue something like "QED is complex and weird, some other (easier to understand) must be better". But that is not a true argument. QED is complex computationally and conceptually, but very logically derived from QM (which we know for many other reasons must be true). So the additional complexity of QED - given QM is known - is computational and conceptual but not problematic because there are lots of new assumptions. There is a computational trick to do renormalisation which introduces a parameter, but that parameter can be calculated from multiple different experiments.


    My conclusion is the same as that of any experimenter: With Mills I get 3 digits more precision - simply, if I use his rules. Thus: It's not up to me to prove that he is right. The other have to (dis-) prove it.


    You'd have to make a comparison with QED and experiment for accuracy. QED is phenomenally accurate for computable cases, and what is computable gets more complex all the time. Furthermore, for the 3 digits from Mills in some cases these are post hoc. Thus Mills is working out how to apply his stuff knowing the correct answer, and his rules are not clearly grounded in other known correct theory - they are free for him to bend to make fit the data. 3 digits could for example come from linear combination of known constituents which might be good enough, but has nothing to do with the specific theory.


    If he made predictions provably different than best known values, which turned out after more accurate experiment to be much closer than the best values that would be important and lead one to see that there must be important truth in his stuff. But, remember, that has to be better than the best of the experimental and theoretical from other methods values at any given time. Mills would have these values and would naturally check his results against them and correct errors if his results proved obviously different. You have shown no evidence of Mills actually doing better than figures he could get from others (theoretical or experimental).

  • Electron capture is made more mysterious, not less, in Mills's model. Mills's model does not fit what we already know in this instance, unless we are also to abandon our understanding of how the weak interaction works.


    According to Mills logic there is no weak force, at least not in the sense of a primary (force) phenomen. Mills did a huge task and I will not blame him for not covering everything to the deepest possible level. K-Shell captures according Mills should be modeled as an effect of multi pol forces & energy transitions. (39.52 for transition possibilities).

    For the alpha-decay he has some beefed up formulas in the 2016 version, showing that his first guess is in line with the expected decay rates. Whether it is better than the standard, has to be answered by the literature.


    The dirac fields couples with electromagnets, I think you need to give me some background on why you don't think that a resonant coupling can't ork. What I mean with this is just as with resonant couplings you see nada when there is no resonanse e.g. it is only for special setups of the EM fields that you will get a measurable effect so it is quite possible that we missed it. Allso Mills model is an attractive idea due to it's simplicity, everything is electromagnetic theory and also the weak forces and strong forces are actually a special electromagnetic phenomena.


    On nuclear level, we seem to have only resonances = ratios of energies/frequencies. There is a lot of ongoing work (- not using the classical standard assumption, that never had success). Mills theory ends (fails = needs extensions) as soon as we go to the first true nucleus. The adding of a neutron to a proton still can be calculated (=> correct deuterium mass) but for higher compounds the model breaks = less accurate. This is no surprise as also Maxwell needs some strict assumptions, which are no longer given in a soup of protons & neutrons. (E.g. We live once in a light-like field, where some masses move at light speed if we assume they are masses - e.g. the electron of a neutron and in other cases - proton it is - mechanically non-kinetic.) In Mills model you have to carefully separate the light-like frame parts from the others, because for each (nested) frame of reference you have to use different measures. There are nested relativistic frames.. and who knows where they exactly sit.


    Regarding the proof of Mills convolution formulas: I did once a different approach based on a more logical reasoning: What we know is, that in a synchronized system waves must interfere in the turning point of the second derivation, if we want a perfect non resonance (No added curvature => no added momentum). This implies that the waves must meet orthogonally, in phase, in all intersection points. The two great circles are per definition orthogonal, different Legendre polynoms are orthogonal too, thus their convolution always holds this criteria. In the case of a locked in photon the third circle alway violates the first criteria. Thus the proof is only challenging for outer non S-orbits.




    I would put it differently. It is hard to follow several volumes of word salad, because the individual details are disjoint and do not provide an actual mathematical argument.


    Eric : Can you give us a specific example of word salad? I agree, if you are use to standard terminology, then you expect other words.


    For an alpha particle scattering off of lead, at ~ 25 MeV the scattering angle starts to depart significantly from the Rutherford prediction as a result of the nuclear interaction. There are probably tens of thousands other such experimental phenomena that will also need to be examined anew if we're to set aside the nuclear and weak interactions and attempt to explain them as being derivative of the electromagnetic force.


    Another example: if the electromagnetic force is infinite in range, and the weak interaction is derivative, why does the weak interaction work at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?



    @Why is QUED not able to calculate the proton charge radius? The measured deviation is larger than your 1%...

  • Can you give us a specific example of word salad?


    I have in mind specifically the narrative text that joins all of the equations I copied in this post. In physics, "word salad" conveys the impression of technical jargon which, although recognizable from the relevant field, is being used improperly and does not join together into a coherent thought. Is my impression incorrect that this exposition is likely to be word salad? This can be shown to be the case if someone enterprising were to connect the dots in the exposition with explicit steps.


    @Why is QUED not able to calculate the proton charge radius? The measured deviation is larger than your 1%...


    I'm not really familiar with the proton radius problem. There appear to be various studies which look at this question and raise different possibilities, such as this one, which suggests a "mismatch of renormalization scales." (Are they wrong? Because if they're not wrong, it seems there's not really a problem.) But more to the point, how does your question bear upon what has been discussed up to now in this thread?

  • I'm not really familiar with the proton radius problem. There appear to be various studies which look at this question and raise different possibilities, such as this one, which suggests a "mismatch of renormalization scales." (Are they wrong? Because if they're not wrong, it seems there's not really a problem.) But more to the point, how does your question bear upon what has been discussed up to now in this thread?


    Eric Walker : Just logic: If you say (the weak interaction works at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?) the weak force seems to be known more exactly that the dimension of the source of the force. For me just an indication of an other kind of salad.

  • Eric Walker: Just logic: If you say (the weak interaction works at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?) the weak force seems to be known more exactly that the dimension of the source of the force. For me just an indication of an other kind of salad.


    The proton charge radius is determined experimentally, as is the range of the weak interaction. The point you brought up had to do with the theoretical QED calculation. Pointing out that the QED calculation is off does not impugn the experimental determination of the charge radius. But I also am not wedded to the exact specifics of the range of the weak interaction, for I am simply referring to a claim made here, by someone much more knowledgeable on the topic than I am.


    My point stands if the weak interaction has a range far less than the radius of an n=137/137 orbitsphere (i.e., no shrinkage). So the 0.1 percent proton radius diameter claim is not critically important, even if your point did not succeed in calling it into question. What matters is that the electron orbital must be within range of the weak interaction with the proton in order for electron capture to occur.

  • The proton charge radius is determined experimentally, as is the range of the weak interaction. The point you brought up had to do with the theoretical QED calculation. Pointing out that the QED calculation is off does not impugn the experimental determination of the charge radius. But I also am not wedded to the exact specifics of the range of the weak interaction, for I am simply referring to a claim made here, by someone much more knowledgeable on the topic than I am.


    Eric Walker : Mills calculates the fundamental vector Boson (Z0) as a resonance of the Muon. The energy calculation is off by 0.02% (GUT-CP 37.46) The follow-up decay to the W is more complex an the result a bit more off, about 0.2%.

  • Eric Walker: Mills calculates the fundamental vector Boson (Z0) as a resonance of the Muon. The energy calculation is off by 0.02% (GUT-CP 37.46) The follow-up decay to the W is more complex an the result a bit more off, about 0.2%.


    Ok. But how does this bear upon the earlier discussion? Perhaps you're suggesting that the Mills calculation is more accurate than the QED calculation?

  • Eric Walker : Just logic: If you say (the weak interaction works at only 0.1 percent of the diameter of a proton?) the weak force seems to be known more exactly that the dimension of the source of the force. For me just an indication of an other kind of salad.


    I can't understand that. The source of the weak force is quark-quark flavour-swapping interactions mediated by virtual intermediate vector bosons. Quark diameter is not known but has been determined experimentally to be less than 0.43E-16m. The length scale for weak can be determined simply from the lifetime of virtual IVBs. This is very very small given their high mass (Heisenberg bounds detaT and deltaE) , hence weak cannot exist over longer distances. Whether the weak length scale is smaller than quark size is not known, but if quarks have finite size and therefore some constituent structure beyond standard model, then presumably this would be what carried the weak force. So in this (unknown whether true) case there is still no contradiction.


    BTW the experimental discovery of predicted IVBs was a predictive triumph for the standard model. I don't see any such triumph from Mills.

  • I wrote:


    The proton charge radius is determined experimentally, as is the range of the weak interaction.


    It looks like I might have been wrong about the experimental basis of the range of the weak interaction. According to Wikipedia, Fermi's original formulation for the weak interaction proposed a contact force with no range to account for beta decay. With respect to the modern understanding of the weak interaction, one notable contributor at PhysicsForums writes: "it looks like it was more the accumulated general success of the model rather than any direct measurement."


    So the the understanding of the range of the interaction might well go back to a purely theoretical consideration of the masses of virtual W and Z bosons and how far they can travel given their masses, along the lines of THH's suggestion.

  • I did a rewrite of the stack exchange question and are on -1 now, one up from -2. I found some bugs and tried to make things clearer e.g. more well defined. Also

    I clearly separated the commentary from the question so that the question is clearly stated. Now only ignorant trolls would downvote it. E.g. people with little

    knowledge of math but a diss-like for Mills, we should be clear that those will try to downvote this question now if they can which is downright stupid.


    Anyway the outcome is not important and if it is not upvoted it shows that stackexchnge is flawed. I can simply ask people at my old institution.