Direct experimental proof of SO(4) physics

Quote from Wyttenbach

Nature published a paper where people claim to measure superluminal speed for photon propagation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8.pdf

That looks pretty much like what I discussed with other people. Since Holmids last paper I did suspect that the photon wave trajectory in spin matter is a trajectory on a halve way scissored SO(4) surface. This explains the extra circle the photon may take and these guys do interpret it as super luminal speed - what of course is halve way wrong. What they see is a second (4D) phase dimension - nothing more.

SO(4) is the correct mathematical space to describe dense matter. (see alsohttps://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20)

If you correct the measured speed of light 1.34c (given in paper at measurement axis 53 degrees)) with the ratio of sin(53)/sin( 45) then you get 1.51c this is exactly the ratio (to be measured in 3D,t space) we expect, if the wave occupies 3 out of 5 possible spin dimensions of SO( 4).

The 3 waves (2 phases) structure should be the maximum in free space as the scissoring cuts two axes of the Clifford torus homomorphous SO(4) charge carrying surface.

Key for LENR is that matter can go into a SO(4) spin (1FC - weak spin force) conform intermediate state (H(0) -Holmlid) that does/"is able" to directly interfere with a photon wave (e.g. laser wave packet).

The SO(4) spin photon trajectory has been predicted, but I didn't expect to get this answer from an experiment that quick. The experiment has ben done with skyrmions that represent spin matter.

Display More

Before I comment further, would you like to state what is the definite prediction you made from your theory before this paper?

THH

Quote from Wyttenbach

May be you should first read the paper...

I have read it, and don't find anything in it particularly noteworthy. I was more interested in your comment. #3 is a bit cryptic - I'd like to see how you think that fits into this thread.

Quote

Nature published a paper where people claim to measure superluminal speed for photon propagation.

Group velocity isn't "speed of photon propagation".

Help please.

I'm reading W's written documents NPPv2.0.1, v2.1.0, etc, etc.

Each document quotes results from earlier documents and introduces new results, stating that it should be read as part of the sequence of documents.

Following the spirit of this thread i'm looking at the experimental data for proton magnetic moment and reviewing how this is predicted by W's ideas as contained in his https://www.researchgate.net/p…r-and-particle-physics-20.

I've got stuck on the first attempt to do this: NPP2.0.1updateV1 Section 1.2 which I believe is wildly wrong.

In order to evaluate this work as a theory I need to be able to join up the ideas which are used to determine experimental predictions. In this case the later ideas on proton magnetic moment appear to depend on this earlier work which is not refuted.

Before I delve deeper I'd like to understand: which of this corpus of work is currently still held, and which is now retracted? Normally I'd have a single coherent paper with an uptodate summary of the ideas. Here I have not got that because each summary, when it makes experimental results predictions, depends on previous work. I absolutely have to work through all of this previous work in order to see whether the recent predictions come from the theory itself, or are just fudged to look close to the experimental data (something that many here have accused QED theorists of doing). Obviously with a better theoretical starting point W will expect to do better than QED, and generate results without fudge factors.

I'm therefore not sure how to progress having found a fundamental error in NPP2.0.1updateV1 Section 1.2. I do realise this is preliminary work and errors will probably have been retracted. Unfortunately I cannot find any such retraction, and so I now cannot know which parts of this work to check and follow as prerequisites for understanding subsequent work.

I think I'm not alone in this. I can't imagine anyone looking at this stuff and checking whether the calculations that provide precise agreement with experiment are correct would be able to do this without a bit more information than is contained in this link.

It is in W's interest to provide this clarification since nobody seriously looking at this will take calculations from a theory that generate good agreement with experiment (and hence evidence for the theory) without being able to perform these calculations themselves following the theory as it has been written up.

Regards,

THH

Has any part of the SO(4) theory been submitted to an appropriate peer-reviewed journal?

The advantage of doing this would be that an editor of such a journal has the ability to put a submitted manuscript before competent referees and request that they provide detailed feedback.

Wyttenbach needs to reach beyond ResearchGate. Publishing there is simply not good enough. As far as I can make out, no one there has ever seen fit to provide substantive feedback on the SO(4) theory. Nor does naive support from the denizens of this forum count as substantive feedback.

Quote from Bruce__H

. Nor does naive support from the denizens of this forum count as substantive feedback.

Certainly not the insubstantive and biased feedback contributed by Bruce-H.

Speak for yourself Bruce-H .... whoever or whatever denizen of wherever ....thou beest .

Quote from RobertBryant

Speak for yourself Bruce-H ...

I am. I have said several times on this forum that I do not have sufficient mathematical insight to comment effectively on Wyttenbach's work. And I am certain that Alan Smith (who has recommended close study of Wyttenbach's theories) is likewise incapable of providing effective feedback. Indeed I suspect that everyone here is in the same boat.

Except, I guess, you. From what you say, it seems that you feel you have such a heavyweight knowledge of group theory and particle physics such that you can check over Wyttenbach's ideas. Is it so? If it is then he has no need of submitting his work to a journal or giving talks. He doesn't need to put his work in front of world experts. He has you. Happy days!

Seriously. Wyttenbach's ideas about an SO(4) underpinning for particle physics are untested as far as I know. He need to have his theory checked out and not by amateurs. That will help him. Why do you object?

Quote from Bruce__H

Nor does naive support from the denizens of this forum count as substantive feedback

Bruce_H's carping criticism is useful in away.

I was happy to advise him on his miscalculation of G on this forum

I expected no thanks from this denizen and got none.

Hostility to paradigm breaking theory is nothing new

Reference .. Max Planck, Thomas Kuhn , Pam Mosier-Boss.

As I have stated before.. Wyttenbach can take his time

a few years on Researchgate/arxiv

-collect experimental data >> .. and referenced data

-collect substantive ( not lightweight Brucey ) feedback

then publish in a selected Journal.... 5 years more is not too long

Re: Einstein "It was pondering these developments that led Einstein to discover the special theory of relativity in 1905.

The discovery was not momentary. The theory was the outcome of,

in Einstein's own reckoning, seven and more years of work

Modern medical care extends our mortal coil beyond 3score +10

By Grace of God / warfarin my Dad still drives his electric car at 92.

Bruce-H may be in a hurry..does he have a terminal disease?

I hope not. God Bless him. It's a holiday today in Sydney .. Easter Friday

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.

While not about superluminal group velocity, the following new paper on super-oscillations may also be of interest --

"Roadmap on superoscillations"

https://iopscience.iop.org/art…1088/2040-8986/ab0191/pdf

Abstract: Superoscillations are band-limited functions with the counterintuitive property that they can vary arbitrarily faster than their fastest Fourier component, over arbitrarily long intervals. Modern studies originated in quantum theory, but there were anticipations in radar and optics. The mathematical understanding—still being explored—recognises that functions are extremely small where they superoscillate; this has implications for information theory. Applications to optical vortices, sub-wavelength microscopy and related areas of nanoscience are now moving from the theoretical and the demonstrative to the practical. This Roadmap surveys all these areas,providing background, current research, and anticipating future developments.

Worth noting is that properly shaped low frequency e-m waves can occasionally deliver unexpectedly high momentum kicks - e.g., a self-interfering infra-red wave can sometimes produce a gamma ray photon.

Quote from Alan Smith

I am certainly in the same boat as you and others mathematically. However, I have only pointed out in support that we have found Wyttenbach 's theories are both predictive and explanatory in terms of observed system behaviour in our laboratory, for me this experimental proof suggests his math also has a high probability of being right.

All well and good ... but unpublished.

Which predictions? Confirmed by what observations? Until I see all this fully described, I can neither agree nor disagree that Wyttenbach's theory has empirical support. I think that is reasonable.

RobertBryant

You appear to have misunderstood what I said. I haven't suggested a timeline at all.

I wish W well and will comment whenever there is something to comment on.

Thus far I can't comment on correspondence with experiment for two reasons:

(1) Much of the claimed predictive results have not been released (unless we are talking about the spectrogram posted here where the identified peaks in noise would not survive any normal significance analysis)

(2) There is not yet a clear theory that can make predictions. In the case of a theory that is still under work, considering its predictions which it is being developed has grave risk of overfitting data by choosing the variant from the large set of possibles that best fits and invoking unquantified higher order terms to explain any lack of fit.

THH