Clearance Items

Quote from IobseRvable

??? Explain, why You, as an unstudied individual, think, that You are in the slightest position to question this major discovery ???

@IobseRvable : May be that describes your position, unless you can show that you really worked for physics as I do now.

As I said some posts ago: The current "so called Higgs resonance" under discussion at 126GeV (the one below too) is a simple and exactly predictable proton resonance and certainly not any new particle. The so called "Higgs particle" is just the last phantasy/dream of a rotten model. In 50 years people will laugh about many things.

Wyttenbach

I think Mills is claiming a neutron resonans and not proton, the particle found has no spin and I would expect a neutron resonance to have a spin though.

Quote from stefan

I think Mills is claiming a neutron resonans and not proton, the particle found has no spin and I would expect a neutron resonance to have a spin though.

There are two different peeks: The classic proton one and the neutral one (somewhat lower) with the removed charge. Both match the proton mass extension. You must (lower energy case) just remove the relativistic 4D charge and change all wave functions form excess energy to compressed energy (as expected in a collision contrary to a free particle!)

Mills model lacks all 4D energy components. The 4D proton model gives the exact energies.

Sounds that you have exiting understanding from your theoretical work. But I'm still puzzled about the experimental finding of no spin, do you have an explanation of that?

Quote from stefan

Sounds that you have exiting understanding from your theoretical work. But I'm still puzzled about the experimental finding of no spin, do you have an explanation of that?

stefan : In the 4D model of NPP2.0 4D symmetric waves produce no net spin. In SO(4) all flux waves travel front & backside of the "center surface of mass" with opposite rigid momentum. The proton consists of two full base waves (see model) and some excess energy, that is leading to a asymmetric momentum.

The 126GeV proton event produces a "proton" with 4 full base flux waves, that from a complete symmetric cover in 4(6)D. The old perturbative energy is still around but now "seems" to couple symmetrically. The base of this reasoning is that all mass is EM mass and magnetic flux always covers/fills two dimensions.

The relation between excess energy to total energy is about 10 MeV to 126 GeV. In fact there could be a small net spin but to measure it, you need 6 digits resolution.

The classic spin model is an oversimplification of the "reality" and cannot explain why certain even nuclei isotopes have a magnetic moment. From NPP2.0 it is clear why.

Quote from IobseRvable

which field do you work for physics ?

I'm developing NPP2.0. A model for nuclear & particle physics based on SO(4) math. It is a spin-off of Mills model and shows some success...

Quote from IobseRvable

. so, Your education is what ?

@IobseRvable : It's your term first, as you just show troll behavior and contribute no substance to any discussion! And please give a verifiable link (- I can do it for myself) with no hiding!

If you don't want to go public, then use the conversation button of the forum.

Quote from IobseRvable

...

...

ok, You might effectively not know anything about physics.

Your logic:
Because I mistrust You and Your bla bla in here regarding the proven and accepted higgs mechanism, BUT i do not post with my real name, I AM TROLLING.

My logic:
What is Your education ?

Display More

I'm a phd in mathematics and has done the equivalent of master in separate courses in physics in paralell with my math degree.

I can confidently say that Wyttenbach education is good enough.

my linkedin profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefan-israelsson-81355289/

The higgs mechanism was never proven in the CERN experiment, if you read the wiki page you would see that one found a particle and assumed it to be the higgs boson.

The theoretical prediction of the higgs bosons mass was broad and what Wyttenbach is trying to do is to explore a model where the masses and more properties can be

calculated from the model with a high degree of accuracy. If you read up about the standard model, you'll see that there are a huge number of parameters fitted from

experimental data. So many that one can question if the approach is sound. Educated people know about this quote:

With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk

Standard model has, around 20 free parameters. Another artifact of the standard model is that we know that if we change a free parameter just slightly the resulting universe

can't support life and this has resulted in ideas that the parameters is as they are because we live, and in a multiverse we must select the version that can habitate

us. Now a more probable explanation is that the standard model has overly too many free parameters and the parameters are not free but coupled e.g. when you change

them they move together e.g. there exists a better model with much fewer free variables. Wyttenbach and Mills works indicate that this is so indeed.

Now the standar model is not wothless. It encapsulates our knowledge and has a well thought out structure but most probably we can do better.

"Now the standar model is not wothless. It encapsulates our knowledge and has a well thought out structure but most probably we can do better."

Agree, but we may not call it a joke or a phantasy...since there is no better and more widely accepted (by mainstream science) and experimental proven model in place.

Quote from zorud

"Now the standar model is not wothless. It encapsulates our knowledge and has a well thought out structure but most probably we can do better."

Agree, but we may not call it a joke or a phantasy...since there is no better and more widely accepted (by mainstream science) and experimental proven model in place.

Actually if Mills is right and if Wyttenbach is right we would all then wonder if "god is joking us".

I have a normal engineering work that brings home money. But I have some spare time, where I want to follow discussions of things not in line with main science.

I have tried to contact professors to chat but they don't have time. I've tried more mainline science sites but they are hard moderated and quite hostile. I find this site

quite refreshing and have quite a high bar of acceptance for both side of the fence. My phd was in mathematics and sometimes I use that here like suggesting

methods to estimate model errors or create alternative proof of theoretical facts that are easier to follow like prooving that Mills charge distribution does not

radiate. Beeing in CERN etc means postdoc and academic position - path I choose not to take.

Poor punctuation, terrible grammar, weak arguments, and lame trolling abilities?

...Welcome back ‘damn_right_man’! We haven’t missed You.

Quote from stefan

Now the standard model is not worthless. It encapsulates our knowledge and has a well thought out structure but most probably we can do better.

Well said. Thanks

Not sure if this pertains... Hope it helps.

During an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden

A theoretical physicist once said,

“As to the part which the new ether is to play in the physics of the future we are not yet clear. We know that it determines the metrical relations in the space-time continuum, e.g. the configurative possibilities of solid bodies as well as the gravitational fields; but we do not know whether it has an essential share in the structure of the electrical elementary particles constituting matter. Nor do we know whether it is only in the proximity of ponderable masses that its structure differs essentially from that of the Lorentzian ether; whether the geometry of spaces of cosmic extent is approximately Euclidean. But we can assert by reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation that there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe. In this case the universe must of necessity be spatially unbounded and of finite magnitude, its magnitude being determined by the value of that mean density.

If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the standpoint of the ether hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be only secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.

Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or — as they might also be called — space and matter.

Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation.” - Albert Einstein

Quote from Wyttenbach

axil : It's time to move off. Alan claims nothing! It is all your phantasy!

If you believe that the standard model explains LENR, then go to a classic physics forum...

The cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes. This theory is supported by experiment.

Quote from can

Neutron evolution

* * * * *

Board of Advisers
May 6, 2010 at 10:07 PM

This insight of Dr Dufour is very interesting. It merits a deep analysis. We never found emission of neutrons outside the reactor, with exception of once, when the reactor has gone out of control because we tried to raise further the pressure. In that case we got a strong emission of neutrons, detected from the bubble neutron revelators. But in average exercise we never had an emission of neutrons. Our shield is made by 20 mm of boron, 20 mm of lead. The water flow has not shielding power towards the neutrons. We detected emission of gamma rays, which have been thermalized in the water flow, and we have strong evidence of matter -antimetter reaction

(positrons + electrons), with production of energy through the annichilation, but we didn’t get neutrons. We think it is because we don’t reach the energy level necessary to the neutrons to get out of the nucleus. Nevertheless the analysis of Dr Dufour is extremely interesting and we want to go through it.

Andrea Rossi

Andrea Rossi

May 7th, 2010 at 6:52 AM

Very interesting. After 2 hours we still have thermal emission, but still we don’t have radiations out of the reactor. Of course, the lasting of thermal emission means that readiation (gamma) continues to be thermalized. We ( Focardi and me) are convinced that neutrons don’t reach the energy to exit the nuclea, with some exception, which is thermalized in 20′,also because our shielding od boron and lead is much lower that you calculated.

Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi

Andrea Rossi

May 1st, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Dear Mr Mauro Rossi:

1- we consume about 1 gram og hydrogen in 24 hours

2- I never saw neutrons and neutrinos, with exception of few times, when I saw neutrons, captured in bubble columns, but for a very particular experiment I made by myself, being very dangerous.

3- No, I didn’t.

Warm regards,

A.R.

Andrea Rossi

July 6th, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Dear Dr Enrico Billi:

1- yes, it is so

2- no, we have never detected neutrons outside the reactor

Lavolale, Lavolale!

A.R.

Display More

Can...

Now you can tell Alan Smith how Rossi make gamma radiation go away so that Alan can produce excess heat instead of gammas.

Can, while you are at it, you might explain how Alan Smith's experiment is producing gammas and yet is not producing any radioactive activation of the reactor.

Quote from axil

The cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes. This theory is supported by experiment.

Except that, as usual, there is no peer-reviewed manuscript providing evidence to support Axil's incoherent (but very "scientific" and intelligent sounding) babbling.

Or go ahead Axil, please enlighten us all and prove me wrong by providing the peer-reviewed manuscript supporting your statement that the "cause of LENR is left handed chiral polarized magnetic flux tubes that instantly stabilize radioactive isotopes" supported by experiment.