Wyttenbach, I believe the last place the earlier subthread was looking at concrete details before it went off course was in this post, which followed from an earlier post of Stefan's, where he was elucidating a step in the derivation.
Eric if we restart a discussion about GUT-CP we should enable as many people as possible to follow. The neutron-mass calculation needs at least four prerequisites, which must be fully understood before we can discuss it.
The best target of any GUT-CP thread is the path to the correct calculation of the tau/muonium/electron mass relations with 7 digits precision. This is more than 3 digits better than by any other known theory!
An other less far away target is the "anomalous" magnetic moment of the electron, which already needs the full understanding of the relativistic calculation of the magnetic energy - that is completely missing (or post fitted) in QM like models. This formula is used for the relativistic corrections of all (atomic, molecular) orbit calculations.
Finally, concluding from my work, I must admit that the current Mills formalism, on the nuclear level, only works for simple (most elementary) particles and not for compound ones (atoms wih Z >1). There we need some new concepts, which are far more complex (still much, much simpler than string theory) than the current Mills methods.
Thus I would restrict the discussion to themes which are tight and already more or less veryfied.
I would start with the discussion why flat SU(3,1) is wrong for any nuclear model below De Broglie wave length. How ART must be partially redefined to work in mass dense space.
If people start to understand the spheric model of dense space, then they also understand the model of the BCV,OCV, which is entirely based on strongly curved space.
Further on, if we do such a theoretic thread, the first post-level should be restricted to people which understand GUT-CP and make a contribution. All discussion should fork downwards in a tree like structure as in other forums.
I think the discussion that would primarily be of interest to me personally would be one that connects the individual steps in one of those GUT-CP derivations (doesn't need to be the electron-neutron mass ratio) to all of the antecedent steps mentioned in GUT-CP that lead up to the final result. My suspicion is that the steps do not connect as claimed, and that the final results are actually ad hoc. Presumably you now believe they are not? Can you show that with one of them? For this, I doubt you would need to go into SU(3,1), etc.
You are free to start a more theoretical thread that deals in those more esoteric considerations. But I doubt they're needed for a purely formal treatment that starts with the equations given in GUT-CP and derives the result in clear, explicit steps.
Further on, if we do such a theoretic thread, the first post-level should be restricted to people which understand GUT-CP and make a contribution. All discussion should fork downwards in a tree like structure as in other forums.
I see no need for such a restriction. Let's let this be the thread for dummies. In that case, you will need to make your derivation especially clear. If you'd prefer to go off on the more theoretical exploration, perhaps you can start a separate thread for that?
That's fine: It will take some time (some days) to do it properly. I will start with the strongly curved space and look for some nice pictures. In parallel I will explain the three energies Mills distinguishes for calculating/ explaining orbital physics. Thereof we can already see that something is missing in QM.
Hello Wyttenbach, beforehand, could you also present yourself and what is your background? How have you been interested in Mills GUT theory?
You seem to have a very deep understanding of theories as deep as you can play with it, like an old university professor.
Hello Wyttenbach, beforehand, could you also present yourself and what is your background? How have you been interested in Mills GUT theory?
Arnaud: I started studying Chemistry, but it didn't stress my mind enough. Thus I switched to Math's and Physics ( + completing Bachelor in Chemistry), but with one half of the brain following the grow up of Computer science.
Finally I "ended up" mastering (phd) Computer science developing new computer architecture, doing theoretical works in Logic & computability. It was a crazy time, where we spoiled all knowledge not doing patents... We had skype 10 years before skype appeared...We developed massive parallel algorithms with only one site .. really interested in and much more I will tell in a late dinner talk.
Physics always was a hobby. Mainly the core work at CERN. My brain always tried to figure out how the underlaying structure of mass/energy looks like. Today I believe we (I'm) are now close to understand it - certainly not String theory... (Long before Mills I told people that CERN, most of the time, only measure resonances not particles. But this was mere intuition - my only strength... )
I restarted doing theory about 1,5 years ago. Not easy for a that time lazy brain. (I'm still slow.)
Wyttenbach Thank you ! I hope we can meet one of those days
My ears (must say eyes) are open to listen to GUT theory. I've to admit I read it with passion 3~4 years ago, but my intuition told me there is something missing ... don't know what yet.
