Direct experimental proof of SO(4) physics

Quote from Alan Smith

The same presumably applies to criticism.

Yes. That is why I have explicitly refrained from criticizing Wyttenbach's SO(4) stuff.

Ok then so where do the gammas come from, does W's theory predict they are released following d-d fusion to energized Helium 4 which then releases a gamma? (along with tritium, protons, neutrons etc depending on which pathway the decay takes). These are just the 'fusion basics' of what possibly happens to the deuterium during cold fusion, none of it is well established or even generally agreed upon - so it would be certainly worthwhile if W's theories, whilst being entertaining and imaginative could shed some light onto what are the real reactions underlying this phenomenon so we can use this information in a predictive way so that. after 30 years we can at long last construct a working reactor. (we have a pretty good idea but it would be nice to have such theoretical backup rather than spending too much time on predicting proton masses etc)

https://home.cern/news/news/ph…es-light-scattering-light

Here is a prediction made by QED in the 1950s (not possible in Maxwell's equations) that has only now, with the LHC, been directly observed!

Quote from Bruce__H

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

But I have suggested a timeline

5 years or more is fine.

Agreed? Let's have no more of these vociferous , naive calls for publication

The bun's still in the oven

I never objected to publication by the way

and I have published

... it took me four years to publish my stuff

why did you ask me if I object.

In the end it is not your lightweight call ..but Wyttenbach's

Quote from Dr Richard

does W's theory predict they are released following d-d fusion to energized Helium 4 which then releases a gamma

No.. not by my reading

gammas are only a very minor part of the energy transfer mode ,,, anyway..

they are only a shadow play of what's going on

the task now is to get BTS and know the main action

try reading a bit on researchgate

Quote from RobertBryant

But I have suggested a timeline

5 years or more is fine.

Agreed? Let's have no more of these vociferous , naive calls for publication

The bun's still in the oven

From the description of NPP2.1 provided by Wyttenbach on ResearchGate ...

"Now NPP 2.1 is able to calculate the exact magnetic moments of some low Z isotopes. We also show the relation between particle masses (Pion,Kaon,Muon) and the proton mass and use the Mills metric. Further we found an exact magnetic mass formula for the proton that shows an alpha quantization, that could explain some experimental findings.New confirming experiments needed!

The neutron energy hole/excess energy, halve live is explained.

The correct derivation for SO(4) to SO(3) is presented together with new drawings to explain how mass rotates in 4 dimensions. The 4D de Broglie radius is explained and related to the energy compression process."

Sounds to me as though this is ready to go now. Preparing a manuscript for expert review will be a good experience, not a bad one. And in the end Wyttenback should be able to get informed reactions to his theory. That is something he is not getting right now as far as I can see.

Quote from Bruce__H

Sounds to me as though this is ready to go now

Naive presumption

You have no idea Bruce-H

Have you published btw?

5 yrs or more for paradigm breaking research is fine

Now let's get back to the topic rather than lenr-forum.com/attachment/8243/

this feigned impatience from those anonymities who have zero skin in the research

Any substantial comments on

Optical space-time wave packets having arbitrary group velocities in free space:

Supplementary Material

Kondakci et al.

I've got another three hours before Easter Sunday service.

The message today from Pastor Hiidome might be

resurrection photons or atarashii hikari

It is a trilingual message.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I had a conversation with a team member of the experiment!

The implications of the experiments go much farther than SO(4) and thus I would say it's not a direct prof of anything I did. The implications are that rotational mass is not time bound at all and also not space (e.g. SO(4) ) bound and thus from a mathematical point of view we may end up in any possible higher dimension.

This gives much more freedom for further modeling and could explain some strange LENR radiation" that has been seen out of range of shields!

Basically higher dimensions rotational mass can tunnel (= using a higher dimensional orbit where the speed of light is e.g. 64c) over a distance. Even more strange, any energy bound to the phase space can do work at distance even if the mass stays in place ...

Display More

Strange, but not much feedback to that, which sound almost revolutionary to me.

If i understand this correctly the experiments prove (at least indirectly) that the reality consists of more than the usual 3+1 dimensions.

Then this probably also means that exactly the same 3-dimensional reflection we observe in our would could be a consequence of several different types of events in higher dimensions.

If we arrange two similar test cases and get different results, is there any possibility to check that the test-setup was the same in higher dimensions ?

The second part - could that be some kind of starting point of explaining the entanglement ?

https://www.quora.com/What-are…by-quantum-field-theories

Quote from Wyttenbach

THHuxleynew : Basic Maxwell physics does say nothing about a forbidden photon photon scattering. It's the self implied restriction by a non Maxwell model that assumes such a fact and tries to shed in on Maxwell...Today we call this fake news or fake facts.

To my understanding photons are nothing but EM mass that since ever could infer with other EM mass based on basic Maxwell laws... As long as the photon energy is much larger than h you can always assume that a photon behaves as a gigantic sets of waves with a common center of (EM-) mass.

Latest after the experiment with v_g >>> c it is clear that photon interaction can be mass like. We could also say that a new branch/understanding of photon physics just starts.

Of course it is very difficult to scatter 2 photons as they are really small targets!

Once more: A prediction of a phenomenon is only valid when you can give at least one characteristics like the energy where such an effect starts or you can give the exact formula for the scattering modes etc...

Display More

W.

I learnt Maxwell's equations a very long time ago. They do not allow two photons to scatter each other. It is not that this is forbidden - more that linearity of the equations means it has no meaning.

Group velocity in any wave description of phenomena can be larger than wave velocity - and that has no implications for the dynamical equations which remain linear - nor BTW in this case for loss of causality. Group velocity is not "movement" in any real sense.

A good easily explainable analogy is this. Take a heliograph reflecting the sun's rays. Observe the reflected light on the moon. The spot of light can easily move across the moon's surface faster than c. Does this mean anything significant? No.

You need QFT.

"photon energy much larger than h" Could you clarify what you mean by this, since this is dimensionally incorrect? The only natural length at which things change for photons that I can see is when their frequency is comparable with the Planck length: But for photons with energy much larger than this boundary we have frequency higher and this is so much energy in one particle that it can create a black hole all by itself.

The frequency here is 1/tP =

1 / (hG/2πc⁵)^1/2

= 2 * 10⁴³ Hz

So the source of the mysterious gammas from deuterium cold fusion remains obscure - another possibility could be that the high energy proton released by the other D-D fusion branch interacts/ collides with another D atom so p + D = He3 + gamma? Sorry to be boring in trying to work out such 'fusion basics' but if we really need some consensus on the underlying physics of LENR. Then there are the further possible reactions of Helium 3 combining either with itself or deuterium, releasing further high energy protons:

Two types of fusion reactions make use of Helium-3 to produce clean energy. The first uses deuterium (deuterium is hydrogen with a neutron) reacting with Helium-3, to produce helium and a proton. The second type of reactions uses two atoms of helium-3 to create helium and two protons. The protons created during the reaction are the crown jewel of Helium-3 fusion

Which is why people were talking about mining He3 on the moon and being the energy supply of the future. If such reactions occur in cold fusion following on from the initial D-D fusion reaction, then we have the potential for a chain reaction based on protons, not neutrons as in fission. Because each proton generated from these reactions would generate more p + D = He3 + gamma reactions. The preponderance of high energy protons would also easily account for the transmutation of elements observed too, with proton capture reactions by heavier elements. So maybe small reactors like the E-cat have insufficient mass for the energetic protons to accumulate and drive the fusion reaction to produce appreciable levels of excess heat - we might see more excess heat per g of reactor as the mass is increased (as reported by Grigori Tsetkov)

Which is why I'm proposing building a 25 Kg reactor and calling it the cold-fusion answer to ITER, the International Cold Fusion Experimental Reactor or ICFER.

High energy protons generated from D-D fusion = He4* = tritium + proton

to reiterate :

lenr-forum.com/attachment/8255/

and this mainly comes from the astrophysics of brown dwarfs which are thought to burn D rather than Hydrogen as in hotter stars.

In substellar objects[edit]

Hydrogen fusion requires much higher temperatures and pressures than does deuterium fusion, hence, there are objects massive enough to burn deuterium but not massive enough to burn hydrogen. These objects are called brown dwarfs, and have masses between about 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter. Brown dwarfs may shine for a hundred million years before their deuterium supply is burned out.

Objects above the deuterium-fusion minimum mass (deuterium burning minimum mass, DBMM) will fuse all their deuterium in a very short time (∼4–50 Myr), whereas objects below that will burn little, and hence, preserve their original deuterium abundance. "The apparent identification of free-floating objects, or rogue planets below the DBMM would suggest that the formation of star-like objects extends below the DBMM."

In planets[edit]

It has been shown that deuterium fusion should also be possible in planets. The mass threshold for the onset of deuterium fusion atop the solid cores is also at roughly 13 Jupiter masses.

Other reactions[edit]

Though fusion with a proton is the dominant method of consuming deuterium, other reactions are possible. These include fusion with another deuterium nucleus to form helium-3, tritium, or (more rarely) helium-4, or with helium to form various isotopes of lithium.

Which perhaps makes Deuterium a better fusion reactor fuel than hydrogen. All have very low reaction rates in cold fusion - we do what we can to optimize this. Without proton or neutron release how can you account for all the transmutation data which I think is probably the hardest evidence for cold fusion?

Further you are claiming D-D fusion releases EM energy - how does fusion occur without formation of He4*?

Quote from THHuxleynew

more that linearity of the equations means it has no meaning.

Nonlinear terms in Maxwell eqns may well have meanings during GEV collisions of heavy Pb ions

as mentioned in

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.01243

Perhaps Maxwell never envisaged machines that would collide heavy ions at 5000 MEV energy levels in 1870

it is quite possible that at more common MEV levels linear Maxwell eqns are quite sufficient

to describe the photon interactions and other events

especially at the energy levels seen in LENR energy exchanges in the region

4 eV - 2.2 MEV

Its a bit like the anomalous Rutherford scattering that is seen at higher collision

energies due to Poissonic forces as opposed to Coulombic forces.(Schaeffer,2016)

Quote from RobertBryant

Nonlinear terms in Maxwell eqns may well have meanings during GEV collisions of heavy Pb ions

as mentioned in

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.01243

Perhaps Maxwell never envisaged machines that would collide heavy ions at 5000 MEV energy levels in 1870

it is quite possible that at more common MEV levels linear Maxwell eqns are quite sufficient

to describe the photon interactions and other events

especially at the energy levels seen in LENR energy exchanges in the region

4 eV - 2.2 MEV

Its a bit like the anomalous Rutherford scattering that is seen at higher collision

energies due to Poissonic forces as opposed to Coulombic forces.(Schaeffer,2016)

Display More

There are no nonlinear terms in Maxwell's equations: electromagnetism is linear.

If you wish to posit some different nonlinear theory that is fine - but it is not Maxwell's equations and then of course also you have a whole load of new fudge factors you can adjust since there is not experimental evidence of what nonlinearity there might be - or else Maxwell's equations would have been modified to incorporate that.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Thus v_g > c implies that EM mass can move faster than light and this is exactly what happens inside dense mass.

I'm sorry but this is plain not true. Did you read my heliograph analogy in the post you replied to? A spot of reflected light moving superluminally across the surface of the moon does not imply that any physical object or wave moves faster than light. The analogy is exact.

What you mean is that interfering waves can be set up such that the position at which they constructively interfere moves faster than C. True.

That however is not anything moving FTL - for example it does not allow FTL signalling - as it would were there really to be FTL movement.

There have been many discussions of this apparent paradox:

See here for another great analogy: the crest of a wave can move along a beach at faster than the wave speed (and indeed faster than light).

Quote from Wyttenbach

This was a shortcut: E = hv. V is usually very large that form the EM mass point of view there can be structure for a photon.

I understood that: and you emphasise my point. In order for their to be a behaviour transition at "large energy" or via this equation "large frequency" you need to know what counts as "large".

Since frequency has dimensions 1/T that requires some natural time (or frequency).

I showed you the only one (natural time related to Maxwell's equations) I was aware of - clearly that is not what you meant - so therefore I'm asking you how do you generate some natural time value at which behaviour changes from that relevant at "small v" to that relevant at "large v".

If you wish - this could be yet another fudge factor inserted as needed to make your theory work. My point is that when you join up the dots, if agreement with experiment requires fudge factors, it is good to be clear about that.

The point is that these are high energy 5GEV collisions bro..

probably no relation to LENR at <2. 2 MEV

Maxwell's linear equations most probably still apply

you might try reading the arxiv paper for some background to nonlinear

"From the arxiv paper

So far the ATLAS"and CMS collaborations obtained first evidence of photon-photon scattering for invariant masses Wγγ > 6 and 5 GeV, respectively. Due to theexperimentalcutsontransverse photon momenta pt,γ > 3GeV,theresultingstatistics is so far rather limited. The ATLAS result is roughly consistent with the Standard Model predictions for elementary cross section embedded into state-of-art nuclear calculation including realistic photon fluxes as the Fourier transform of realistic charge distribution]]

Any idea what roughly consistent means?