Quaternions aren't new maths - They are so old that Maxwell used them in the first place! ...Heaviside removed them, to simplify things.
http://www.rexresearch.com/maxwell1/20equations.pdf
Thanks for the tip. I did not know about all the work done over the last 150 years to upgrade the Maxwell equations. The Standard model must have absorbed all that theory. Anyone looking to replace all that work is in for a very big job.
axil I didn't state anything I just re phrazed your own post. So if somebody is wrong here that must be you.
"So all your things like antimatter, virtual particles etc can be just a mathematical formula artifacts which have nothing to do with reality."
I don't remember saying that.
Theoretically if you do a calculation it should take up some space time. If an algorithm is exponential ,like most probably factorizing primes. Now assume a 1000 bit
wide prime. Then assume the complexity is 2^1000 > 10^250 the size of a nucleus is 10e-15 and you can fill 1 m^3 with 10^45 densly packed nucleus sizes. Now for 1m^3
of quantum computer, assume that you do 10^20 cycles in one seconds. Then your 1 m^3 quantum computer would need to run for more than 10^100 s in order to
factorize the number. See the problem, Quantum computer folks say that we need to beware of the cracking capabilities of the quantum computer and wipe the issue
I tried to illustrate away. This folks is loosing the touch to the ground and we put an immensly large sum of money assuming that my point is a non issue. Meanwhile the same
folks say that LENR is theoretically impossible and is no science worth spending. Yes for hot plasma theory it is such, but not for dense matter at lower energies it is proven
impossible. I can just summarize it with that our intelligensa are ballonies loosing touch with the ground. This is how I feel about all this: Skriet
Interesting article about Quaternions, Octonions, Physics etc:
https://www.quantamagazine.org…nderpin-physics-20180720/
Interesting article about Quaternions, Octonions, Physics etc:
We all question the (from "article") cited "why this symmetry group — SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)?" This symmetry just explains very view information about particles and worst it does not hold for all particles....
To find an other math e.g. Octonions (x .. x ..) to better explain a failed model is the wrong approach, but the only one standard model people will accept if you want to publish...
The real physical space, SO(4) is best explained by quaternions no mystics no standard model symmetry, just real value calculations.
The so called unexplained (from "article") 3 generation of particles has been explained since about 30 years - by the under carpet showed R.Mills...
Some new findings...food for thoughts. Maybe axil can figure out how this contradicts or supports his many LENR theories...
Interesting article about Quaternions, Octonions, Physics etc:
https://www.quantamagazine.org…nderpin-physics-20180720/
https://www.quantamagazine.org…nderpin-physics-20180720/
octonion-math is Vortex based math.
I beleive that this math explains how the properties of quarks come from the operaations of octonion-math, This following article shows how quarks are connected by a vortex like flux tube.
https://academicworks.cuny.edu…icle=1075&context=lg_pubs
QuoteThere is good phenomenological evidence that in a rotationally excited baryon a quark-diquark (q - D) structure is favored over a three-quark (qqq) structure[8];[9];[10]. Eguchi[11] had shown that it is energetically favorable for the three quarks in a baryon to form a linear structure with a quark on one end and bilocal structure qq at the other end. Similarly, Bars and Hanson[12], and independently Johnson and Thorn[13] had shown that the string-like hadrons may be pictured as <u><i><b>vortices of color flux lines which terminate on concentration of color at the endpoints</b></i></u>. A baryon with three valence quarks would be arranged as a linear chain of molecule where the largest angular momentum for a state of a given mass is expected when two quarks are at one end, and the third is at the other: At large spin, two of the quarks form a diquark at one end of the string, the remaining quark being at the other. Regge trajectories for mesons and baryons are closely parallel; both have a slope of about 0:9(GeV )^-2. If the quarks are light, the underlying quark-diquark symmetry leads to a Miyazawa symmetry between mesons and baryons. Thus we studied QCD with a weakly broken supergroup SU(6=21). Note that the fundamental theory is not supersymmetric. For quarks, the generators of the Poincar´e group and those of the color group SU(3)c commute. It is only the effective Hamiltonian which exhibits an approximate supersymmetry among the bound states q anti-q and qD.
Here is another reference to vortex flux tubes in particles. This looks exactly like what we saw in the LION experiments.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-07.PDF
QuoteDisplay MoreThe geometrodynamics of the famous scientist John Archibald
Wheeler, who passed away in 2008, does not seem to
find favor among modern physicists.
According to J.Wheeler’s geometrodynamic concept
charged microparticles are considered therein as singular
points located in a non-unitary coherent two-dimensional surface
and connected to each other through “wormholes”, current
tubes, or current force lines of the input-output (sourcedrain)
kind in an additional dimension, thus forming a closed
contour. However, “wormholes” in space, if they are not considered
as purely mathematical constructions, in its physical
embodiment can only be vortex formations of some kind substance
that has the properties of an ideal fluid.
https://hiup.org/micro-black-holes-elementary-particles/
Based on John Archibald Wheeler's ideas that participles are black holes with wormholes. Not all particles might be black holes but some quasiparticles surly are since we have seen them in experiments, and these quasiparticles can interact with the quarks inside particles through vortex flux tube reconnection producing transmutation.
An old idea but from what we have seen in our experiments, it is most likely true
Black Holes as Elementary Particles
Christoph F. E. Holzhey
Frank Wilczek
