Einstein was right? QM is ??


  • It's spooky if you interpret it as such. Read the quote again, you can have an interpretation, and it is an acceptable one, of QM, where it is no effect at all, no spookiness with more that there is a correlation that you get from initiating the photons at the source in a certain way. You don't need some kind of communication between the photons at the measurements. Kind of strange that you dismiss LENR and Mills, but still prefer a spooky version of QM before an acceptable interpretation where there is no spooky action at distance. You don't need a many world interpretation. In a probabilitic interpretation, something that is natural you will find that you need non locality to explain what you see due to Bell. But again if you view QM as something unique of it's own e.g. just another way of generating the expectations than taking a probabilistic mean, you can satisfy Bell and have a locality view. What's interesting is that Mills shows another system that is not a probabilistic one

    which is not a local hidden variable theory.

  • I hold by my statement that this specific statement (made by Mills) is both wrong and ignorant.

    You actually did not make a specific statement

    You actually said

    Mills's critique of conventional science is so clearly both wrong and ignorant

    it was one or your BROAD SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS..

    Besides actually Mills does not disagree with all conventional science

    just the fuzzy recent bits characterised by QED since around 1930

    Now the task for you is to justify this generalisation for all his critique

    otherwise you may well find yourself WRONG and IGNORANT.


    Randell Mills has long and detailed critique...

    which is fine since you have regained your will.


    It might take just a few more posts to examine his whole critique..

    it might involved reading a lot of GUTCP 2018.

    you said OK, OK I think re this critique>>>>>>>>

    Is it OK??? or wrong and ignorant.

    BTW there is a 2017 4 loop QED confabulation of the electron g factor here which Mills may not have read

    BTW2. GUTCP is not my inerrant Bible.. Mills is just as errant as you or me.. but his physics knowledge is a tad deeper.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06996

  • That contains the correct and proven inequality corresponding to HUP.


    HUP is also a direct consequence of information theory. Its just a basic law of math matched to physics. But classically HUP was to restricted. You have to be careful which quantities you relate over a HUP condition. E.g. folks messed the spin and momentum. But I would prefer to talk about real progress not about a philosophy of what could be right if e.g. QED would be OK...


    Entangled photons transport information (that is by its abstract nature massless) at infinite speed. This is not possible in a time bound space but matter seems to be connected over space bindings that we still have to explore.


    As said this is experimentally proven. But if you look at the integral process that includes moving the entangled photons then the total communication is "slow" and can never exceed c!


    But e.g. for communication with a spacecraft this plays no role. The question only is how long can you maintain the entangled state after a communication.


    Mills has a bad habit to tell something is wrong even if it looks the same. I prefer saying incomplete (e.g. QED,QCD) or restricted (e.g. QM). Mills also is completely "wrong" about the strong force... (but otherwise mostly OK).



  • You actually did not make a specific statement

    You actually said

    Mills's critique of conventional science is so clearly both wrong and ignorant

    it was one or your BROAD SWEEPING GENERALISATIONS..

    Besides actually Mills does not disagree with all conventional science

    just the fuzzy recent bits characterised by QED since around 1930

    Now the task for you is to justify this generalisation for all his critique

    otherwise you may well find yourself WRONG and IGNORANT.


    Dear all on this thread. I'm not going to answer RB again on this point: it feels like Groundhog Day.


    He persists in claiming I did not give specific reasons for my statement that Mills (in what he said about QM and therefore conventional science) was wrong and ignorant. He then interprets my justified and correct statement out of context in the broadest possible way and accuses me of making sweeping generalisations? It is something that is easy to do when you isolate individual quotes from context and repeat them ad infinitum.


    I gave these specifics in #23 and repeated them in summary again in #61.


    I will further, here, point out why such ignorance of conventional theoretical physics, and wrong ideas about it, impacts on Mills' other work. Mills has not been able to write up his theoretical ideas (nor any bit of them, to my knowledge) in a way that allows critique by other scientists. Therefore we do not have the normal checks and balances against him being wrong or indeed just rubbish that we would have for a published author of a radical new theory. In fact, radical new theories are seldom the result of just one person, the initial ideas get expanded by many people.


    I would suggest that Mills' inability to get his ideas published comes from his ignorance. Specifically, when you critique, or propose alternate solutions to, existing work it is always important first to be expert in the working you are seeking to replace. For obvious reasons. Mills has shown himself, in the specifics I've quoted, to be non-expert and have severe misunderstanding. Anyone proposing something new without awareness of what is currently done will rightly get little attention. After all, existing theory encodes so much validating experiment: some new and better theory needs to be compatible with all that existing experiment. If you are not aware of all the validated consequences of existing theory you are handicapped.


    There is no proof that Mills is completely wrong. There never can be. And, if his ideas have some kernel of truth in them, they might be helpful. It does not seem likely, and could never be known until Mills or somone else puts effort into fully understanding existing QFT and its experimental support, as well as understanding Mills new theory (which, however, may not be possible if it is incoherent).


    THH

  • Dear all on this thread. I'm not going to answer RB again on this point

    Mills's critique of conventional science is so clearly both wrong and ignorant


    SO does THHuxley care to limit his broad and sweeping generalisation


    to specific inferences that Mills has made

    Yes or No.???

    It is never a good idea to generalise...

    actually Mills makes some fairly interesting points in

    his critique of QED etc. which are quite relevant to this thread

    and we can go through each one of them


    one by one.


    I liked his point about the Feynman diagrams.. and the loops...

  • I don't think that Mills must be completely wrong - there can be less or more spherical shadows of metastable subquantum levels beneath fundamental s- d- orbitals close to atom nuclei, for dense clusters of atoms or for atoms inside narrow cavities - sorta like dark matter/energy of quantum mechanics. Smoke only rarely comes without fire. Unfortunately XUL spectral lines pushed by Mills as a proof of his theory can be explained by Auger electrons and direct hydrino evidence is inconclusive so far.


    Quote

    Mills has a bad habit to tell something is wrong even if it looks the same... I would suggest that Mills' inability to get his ideas published comes from his ignorance


    Well, exactly. The liberal frontiers have tendency to disagree mutually even when they actually agree each other. They're negativistic each other like particles of dark matter. They tend to exaggerate their ideas in an effort to give them more merit than they deserve and they present them as more fundamental / omnipresent, than they really are. Mills and his theory/software is so full of it. But nature doesn't work so. Even the finding of pile dark matter wouldn't invalidate predictions of relativity within its well established validity scope (we can spot this scope easily, as it applies to less or more spherical bodies - the more the shape of object deviates from sphere, the more it also tends to deviate from general relativity).


    In dense aether model the physical theories act like low-dimensional reductionist onion slices of hyperdimensional reality. The physicists are pushing multiverse model without even realizing, they invented it already in form of their own theories. The fact that ripples don't spread at the water surface in regular circles for large/small energies and/or large/small distances still doesn't invalidate fact, that at average distance scales they're routinely doing so. So that we can have simplistic reductionist Maxwell or special relativity theories based on such spherical spreading for average distance scales and energies and another theories for their spreading under more extreme conditions. These more advanced theories would apply elsewhere and they wouldn't interfere classical theories too much. In adition, from dense aether model follows, the more distant we get from scope of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the more models and perspectives we could apply to observable reality at the same moment, because this reality gets hyperdimensional and individual theories will become low-dimensional projections of it (Einstein's lensing comes on mind here).


    mRe1LDG.gif

  • it might involved reading a lot of GUTCP 2018.


    GUTCP 2018 updates the previously posted GUTCP 2016 - following whose working Mills shows a 1000 X error bound discrepancy with experiment for electron AMM.


    GUTCP 2018 can be found here (since RB has not linked it): https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/


    Lets look at the 2018 arguments on the same topic.



    Mills claims good agreement with experiment. Actually, he does not give (and should give) the error bounds in his analytic value inherited from those on his value for alpha. I'll do that for him:

    alpha-1 = 137.03603(82) (6E-6 fractional error) =>


    g/2 - 1 also has 6E-6 fractional error


    The Mills equation value is thus:

    1.001 159 652 137(6000)



    That is silly, let us write it more normally as:


    Mills: 1.001 159 652(6)

    Experiment: 1.001 159 652(0)


    Indeed the Mills value coincides with experiment, but it has an error of approx 1 in 10-5

    so this is not a good correspondence, except that by luck Mills has got values that coincide exactly in the 9th decimal digit of ae, even though the error bounds from alpha are 6 on this digit!


    For his 2018 comparison, Mills chooses values for alpha and ae from 1987!




    He makes some other arguments about constant values: again using CODATA values from 1998


    For an argument that replies on precise agreement with experiment this is disingenuous. Presumably, he realises the lack of agreement with more accurate values and uses this 1987 (30 year old) data for his headline comparison for that reason, and again 1998 (20 year old) CODATA values.


    Mills makes a valid argument that some derivations of alpha come from ae and the QED theoretical value - since this is significantly more precise than experimental alpha. Using such a value to validate QED would be circular. However, other experimental values are derived independently of ae.


    I am happy to review the modern literature on this matter (unlike, it would seem, Mills).


    Particularly interesting and relevant is Measuring the fine structure constant as a test of the standard model


    Measurements of the fine-structure constant α require methods from across subfields and are thus powerful tests of the consistency of theory and experiment in physics. Using the recoil frequency of cesium-133 atoms in a matter-wave interferometer, we recorded the most accurate measurement of the fine-structure constant to date: α = 1/137.035999046(27) at 2.0 × 10−10 accuracy. Using multiphoton interactions (Bragg diffraction and Bloch oscillations), we demonstrate the largest phase (12 million radians) of any Ramsey-Bordé interferometer and control systematic effects at a level of 0.12 part per billion. Comparison with Penning trap measurements of the electron gyromagnetic anomaly ge − 2 via the Standard Model of particle physics is now limited by the uncertainty in ge − 2; a 2.5σ tension rejects dark photons as the reason for the unexplained part of the muon’s magnetic moment at a 99% confidence level. Implications for dark-sector candidates and electron substructure may be a sign of physics beyond the Standard Model that warrants further investigation.


    This gives us α = 1/137.035999046(27) measured independently of QED and ae.


    Using this value, and the CODATA value for ae we can compute Mills' equation with confidence.


    That reference gives a useful comparison of different values for alpha:



    Note the good correspondence between most accurate QED ae (red) and recoil (green) measurements that directly test QED derivation of ae.


    Against this Mills derivation can be tested.


    1.001 159 652 137 (Mills derivation from alpha-1 = 137.03603)


    correct value of alpha-1 =

    137.035999046


    error 0.000030954

    fractional error = 2.25E-7


    Change in Mills calculated ae due to error in alpha (alpha is fractionally higher than the quoted Mills value)

    0.000 000 000 259


    Modern Mills value of ae:

    0.001 159 652 396


    Best current value of ae:

    0.001 159 652 181 643 (764)


    So this is an error of 200X the uncertainty in alpha and ae, where alpha is measured independently of QED and ae.


    It is a pity that Mills does not address this issue. If he did, he would be able to consider what assumptions in his derivations lead to innacurate calculations (just like anyone else would do).


    THH

  • innacurate calculations

    Maybe Mills doesn't have 6 figure precision n-p mass

    but then Durr et al 2015 has even less.

    Perhaps Durr should be looking at his assumptions too.:)


    There are also some other interesting point in Mills critique.

    point 3 the spooky one looks especially interesting..

    summarised on several pages.

  • I will further, here, point out why such ignorance of conventional theoretical physics, and wrong ideas about it, impacts on Mills' other work. Mills has not been able to write up his theoretical ideas (nor any bit of them, to my knowledge) in a way that allows critique by other scientists.


    THH: Calm down! You very well know that Mills stuff is well written and has been published in may journals. His APS publishing of an accepted paper with a given publishing date has been suppressed with mafia methods. (To ensure CERN/ITER money...)


    That reference gives a useful comparison of different values for alpha:


    The current SM discussion about alpha is the end of a catastrophic model that finally will bring down physics if they allow these guys to head on.


    According to trusted experimenters (e.g nobelist Klitzing himself..) the quantum hall method is the only trusted/safe one to deliver higher precision for alpha (fine structure) than currently known. As you may note your references are all off by magnitudes compared to quantum hall.


    The experiments you site use fudging QED that has no real base in physics. Just to repeat it once more: The Coulomb gauge is off after 5 digits (Hydrogen)...For 4-He after 3 digits...The use of QED to calculate any more deep values is wired or simply nonsensical...May be you once look at the (NIST) QED-Argon fudging for the 4-He mass...

  • RB - the issue here was calculation of electron anomalous magnetic moment.


    Why is that more relevant? It is calculated from QED, a simpler and stunningly accurate theory that Mills dismisses as wrong. Mills has a closed form determination of it from alpha, and QED has closed form determination up to alpha^3, with monte carlo simulations for the higher order terms.


    Although the correct (QED) determination does have electroweak (dependent on muon mass) and QCD (hadronic) components, which complicate the pure QED calculation, these are relatively small.


    For this best of calculated, best of tested value, QED is consistent with experimental error, Mills theory is 200X SD wrong.


    You might think Mills would want to propose some higher order correction, and refine his theory? But it seems he is not able to do this, and instead comments on the good fit using 1987 data.


    It is not proper behaviour from a scientist. Although, of course, Mills has commercial interest in the matter, wants to promote investment in his company, and is not in any conventional sense a scientist (although he does have some experimental work published).


    QED 4 loop confabulation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06996


    This is a guy he is giving 100 digit accuracy for one component of the calculation (the QED 4 loop one). It is I guess good to have an exact numerical solution for this but at even 11 sig fig the QCD and electroweak components become significant, and practically I can't see the merits in this over other numerical techniques and in particular efficient monte carlo based techniques.


    Still, it is a lot of effort...


    Mills vague accusations about QM


    I've read Box I.1 in Mills' 1000 page book. He makes major charges against conventional theories in one or two sentences with no (or almost no) references and no details. It is difficult to take this seriously. Each of these one liners would be (if real) the subject of 10s or even 100s of papers arguing and clarifying it, if real. In fact there are a lot of papers that do that on many topic within QM, arguing corners of it. Mills does not engage with this: and dismisses existing work without evidence.


    RB - you say some of these one-liners seem interesting to you. Perhaps then you could do the literature survey that Mills avoids, show where the existing theory as described in research papers is wrong, and give full reasons? Or find somone else who has done that?


    Otherwise this type of sound bite science is in my view contemptible, because it makes serious and weighty accusations without evidence or checking.


    Let us do this for RB interesting criticism 1.


    It appears based on https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004605626054

    Journal of Low Temperature Physics

    August 2000, Volume 120, Issue 3–4, pp 173–204 | Cite as

    On the Fission of Elementary Particles and the Evidence for Fractional Electrons in Liquid Helium

    H.J.Maris

    We consider the possibility that as a result of interactions between an elementary particle and a suitably designed classical system, the particle may be divided into two or more pieces that act as though they are fractions of the original particle. We work out in detail the mechanics of this process for an electron interacting with liquid helium. It is known that when an electron is injected into liquid helium, the lowest energy configuration is with the electron localized in a 1s state inside a spherical cavity from which helium atoms are excluded. These electron bubbles have been studied in many experiments. We show that if the electron is optically excited from the 1s to the 1p state, the bubble wall will be set into motion, and that the inertia of the liquid surrounding the bubble can be sufficient to lead to the break-up of the bubble into two pieces. We call the electron fragments “electrinos.” We then show that there is a substantial amount of experimental data in the published literature that gives support to these theoretical ideas. The electrino bubble theory provides a natural explanation for the photoconductivity experiments of Northby, Zipfel, Sanders, Grimes and Adams, and possibly also the ionic mobility measurements of Ihas, Sanders, Eden and McClintock. Previously, these experimental results have not had a satisfactory explanation. In a final section, we describe some further experiments that could test our theory and consider the broader implications of these results on fractional particles.


    Let us do a citation check in google scholar:


    2001 [Mills has a citation in which he critiques QM, but does not contribute to the "facrtional charge" mystery]

    The Schrödinger equation was originally postulated in 1926 as having a solution of the one electron atom. It gives the principal energy levels of the hydrogen atom as eigenvalues of eigenfunction solutions of the Laguerre differential equation. But, as the principal quantum number n⪢1, the eigenfunctions become nonsensical. Despite its wide acceptance, on deeper inspection, the Schrödinger solution is plagued with many failings as well as difficulties in terms of a physical interpretation that have caused it to remain controversial since its inception...

    2001 Jackiw, Rebbi, Schreiffer

    We argue that electrons in liquid helium bubbles are not fractional, they are in a superposed state.


    2001 Rae, Vinen

    It has recently been suggested that a bubble in liquid helium containing an electron could be excited into a state where the electron is divided between two smaller half bubbles, and that these “electrinos” would have increased mobility. This proposal is discussed critically, and it is concluded that, if such a state were to form, it would quickly collapse into an incoherent quantum superposition of two separated ground-state bubbles. All the measurable properties of this state are identical with those of a single bubble.


    2003 Maris

    We present calculations of a number of properties of electron bubbles in liquid helium. The size and shape of bubbles containing electrons in different quantum states is determined based on a simplified model. We then find how the geometry of these bubbles changes with the applied pressure. The radiative lifetime of bubbles with electrons in excited states is calculated. Finally, we use a quantum Monte Carlo method to determine the properties of a bubble containing two electrons. We show that this object is unstable against fission.


    2008 Moroshkin, Hofer, Weiss

    The studies of defects formed by impurity particles (atoms, molecules, exciplexes, clusters, free electrons, and positive ions) embedded in liquid and solid 4He are reviewed. The properties of free electrons and neutral particles in condensed helium are described by the electron (atomic) bubble model, whereas for the positive ions a snowball structure is considered. We compare the properties of the defects in condensed helium with those of metal atoms isolated in heavier rare gas matrices.


    2008 Maris

    An electron injected into liquid helium forces open a small cavity that is free of helium atoms. This object is referred to as an electron bubble, and has been studied experimentally and theoretically for many years. At first sight, it would appear that because helium atoms have such a simple electronic structure and are so chemically inert, it should be very easy to understand the properties of these electron bubbles. However, it turns out that while for some properties theory and experiment are in excellent quantitative agreement, there are other experiments for which there is currently no understanding at all.



    Maris 2003 looks like a good one to dig in: Maris posed the initial anomaly and goes on working on it.


    When an electron is injected into liquid helium, it forces open a cavity
    free of helium atoms, referred to as an electron bubble. In a recent paper1
    (referred to as I), we considered what happens when an electron bubble is
    illuminated by light. If the electron is excited from the lowest energy 1S
    state of the initially spherical bubble to the 1P state,2 the bubble shape will
    change. At high temperatures, the liquid contains many thermal excitations
    (phonons and rotons) and the damping of the motion of the bubble wall is
    large. One can therefore expect that the bubble will slowly relax to a new
    equilibrium shape. It was shown that this equilibrium shape resembles a
    peanut. However, at lower temperatures, the liquid contains few excitations
    and so the damping of the bubble wall becomes small. As a result, the
    bubble will change shape rapidly and after the equilibrium shape has been
    reached, the liquid surrounding the bubble will still be in rapid motion. The
    inertia associated with the liquid may then be sufficiently large to cause the
    waist of the peanut to shrink to zero, thus dividing the bubble into two
    parts. What happens after this point was not definitely established, and is
    under experimental investigation. Elser3 has argued that before the division
    of the bubbles takes place the wave function of the electron will cease to
    deform adiabatically as the bubble shape develops and that, as a result, all
    of the wave function will end up in one of the parts. This part would then
    expand and become a conventional 1S electron bubble and the other part,
    containing no wave function, would collapse. A different argument has
    been presented by Rae and Vinen.4 They claim that if the bubble divides
    into two baby bubbles each containing half of the wave function, this state
    would quickly collapse into an incoherent quantum superposition of two
    separated ground-state bubbles which would have properties no different
    from ordinary 1S bubbles.

    When electron bubbles are introduced into helium, a space charge field
    is set up which drives the bubbles out of the liquid. This limits the number
    density of the bubbles. As a result, conventional optical studies of the
    bubbles are extremely difficult.5, 6 Several experiments have shown that
    the absorption of light results in a change in the mobility of the bubbles;7–9
    the origin of this change in mobility is not clearly established. Very
    recently, a new experimental method for the study of the bubbles has been
    developed.10 In this experiment, a negative pressure is applied to the liquid.
    If the pressure is negative with respect to a critical pressure Pc , an electron
    bubble in the liquid will become unstable and explode. The explosion pressure Pc is different for each quantum state. Thus, a measurement of the
    pressure required to make a bubble explode provides a means to identify
    the quantum state. This provides the basis for a new method to study the
    properties of electron bubbles in excited states.



    So, basically, no fractional charge particles. Maris proposed (speculatively) that when a one-electron bubble splits it is

    possible that the wave function would be stable in a coherent split between the two halves (possible) leading to two bubbles

    sharing an electron!


    It is an interesting idea, and Maris explored it (he is the expert on He electron bubbles). However others pointed out that such a coherent structure would have a very short lifetime, even in liquid helium. Maris has one on to explore lots more stuff about these electron bubbles without finding evidence for fractional charge. One of the issues is that bubble mobility varies with electron excited state, and after teh first paper he found a neat way to explore the energy state of the bubble's electron by varying pressure and looking at when the bubble exploded. With this more powerful tool he has a lot more stuff on bubbles, but no more speculation about fractional charged bubbles because of no evidence for them after better experimental work.


    Maris 2008 (more He bubbles)

    An electron injected into liquid helium forces open a small cavity that is free of helium atoms. This object is referred to as an electron bubble, and has been studied experimentally and theoretically for many years. At first sight, it would appear that because helium atoms have such a simple electronic structure and are so chemically inert, it should be very easy to understand the properties of these electron bubbles. However, it turns out that while for some properties theory and experiment are in excellent quantitative agreement, there are other experiments for which there is currently no understanding at all.


    Mauracher et al 2014

    Helium droplets provide the possibility to study phenomena at the very low temperatures at which quantum mechanical effects are more pronounced and fewer quantum states have significant occupation probabilities. Understanding the migration of either positive or negative charges in liquid helium is essential to comprehend charge-induced processes in molecular systems embedded in helium droplets. Here, we report the resonant formation of excited metastable atomic and molecular helium anions in superfluid helium droplets upon electron impact. Although the molecular anion is heliophobic and migrates toward the surface of the helium droplet, the excited metastable atomic helium anion is bound within the helium droplet and exhibits high mobility. The atomic anion is shown to be responsible for the formation of molecular dopant anions upon charge transfer and thus, we clarify the nature of the previously unidentified fast exotic negative charge carrier found in bulk liquid helium.


    It looks like more recent work has identified anomalies previously noted in these systems.


    Summary of Mills/RB interesting criticism 1.


    This is certainly interesting work on He3 superfluidic systems which can expose all sorts of weird effects. Jumping from this to fractional charged electrons is only done by Mills. Fractionally charged bubbles after fission due to coherence, as was was tentatively proposed by Maris but not supported by better later experiements - does not seem likely. Maris has continued doing this work.


    Related (a bit more google search) finds this fascinating work on splitting wave packets (very fast time resolution - since as noted above such coherent splits cannot last for long).


    https://phys.org/news/2015-05-electron.html



    There is a pattern here. Science is complex, and all sorts of anomalies have multiple possible solutions. If you are Mills you leap to the solution that requires reformulating the whole of physics in a way that requires new particles, and no longer correctly predicts fundamental constants, or the non-local results of QM.


    If you are anyone else you do real experimental work to understand the phenomena, come up with a whole load of other explanations, and eventually work out which one if right based on better empirical evidence!

  • If you are anyone else you do real experimental work to understand the phenomena,


    Sorry ...can't buy a cyclotron on ebay

    even a simple gamma spectrometer at $2000 + is a bit much

    but there appears to be some work in CERN (Eu taxes) and Essex ( gratis)

    This is certainly interesting work on He3 superfluidic systems which can expose all sorts of weird effects.

    Mills did refer to superfluidity in a oneliner five liner summary

    but to properly engage with his critique requires

    some serious reading >>>>GUTCP2018


    Mills has explained in classical terms.. photoconductivity/ mobility ánomalies' in superfluid helium

    I'm not sure if it was He3???? expensive stuff


    he talks abut Maris's explanation too... electrinos?? QED Schroedinger?

  • For this best of calculated, best of tested value, QED is consistent with experimental error, Mills theory is 200X SD wrong.


    I just want to remind you that all QED calculations also are based on alpha (and its error) ... But I completely agree that Mills, while doing calculations, sometimes works very sloppy. I never used his alpha for the el-g-factor which in fact is off by a factor of 100 (2 digits) in average. You can do 4D corrections (still a tiny error) but the error/current uncertainty in alpha has the same dimension.


    The main problem is that nobody seems to be able to divide out rules for independent measurements of basic constants. I wait for Klitzings next publication about alpha -could take some while. The rubidium measurements are great but you have to believe that they really measure alpha an no other effects interfere...


    SM people still believe that the muon is a heavy electron what is utterly wrong. As a consequence the charge radius of the helium is now completely off because the muon is partially repulsive when joining the 4-He orbit. (For proton attractive!)

    Such errors are my main concern as THH also confirms that the muon loop is used in the el-g calculations...


    As a consequence I focussed my work on deep connections between the best and most reliable measurements in physics world. The more values we can connect the more stable the base will ring to be.


    The best mathematical explanation of alpha is De Vries that results in ;

    0.00729735256865385/137.0359990958. May be we should use it as long as there is no agreement.



  • I just want to remind you that all QED calculations also are based on alpha (and its error) ...

    The best mathematical explanation of alpha is De Vries that results in ;

    0.00729735256865385/137.0359990958. May be we should use it as long as there is no agreement.


    I'll go with the experimental data for alpha. Previously that would have been problematic, because the most accurate determination was via ae and QED.


    Now we have very accurate (direct) experimental atom recoil data:

    α = 1/137.035999046(27)


    QED data is closer to your value, but given that QED data depends on SM particles, and dark particles could modify this at high accuracy, I prefer the direct value, 2 sigma away from yours.


    This very accurate data (and current most accurate muon data) hints at new physics in the form of a new particle, but disfavours it being a dark photon. The great thing about SM and QED calculations is they all have error bounds and are multiply checked - so there are many different independent experimental results which either confirm theory or require theory to be revised. You can't say that of Mills' stuff nor anything else that I know.


    See https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6385/191 for details of the current possible parameter space for dark photons and bosons from different measurements.


    There is every reason to expect even more accurate alpha measurements from different sources as time continues and therefore even better tests. QED SM checks are one of the key things conventional science looks at with interest hopeing for a discrepancy - since if there is one it needs new physics to explain.


    THH



  • Re De Vries,


    Unfortunately Kolmogorov complexity is only defined to within a constant factor. To get a constant accurate to within N digits numerologically you need approx 10N/3 bits of information. So for alpha currently that is about 32 bits.


    The 3 equation recurrent formula given looks like it would need a good deal more than that to code using a natural symbolic encoding big enough to manage all three equations, making this of no value as a hypothesis on probabilistic grounds, but the trouble with KC is that all depends on the coding language and it is difficult to resolve. If you think this is justified on KC grounds the thing to do would be to pick a simple language (with as few symbols as possible but not arbitrarily fitted to the required equations) for coding symbolic expressions and try coding it. Interesting to try.


    THH

  • Possible description language for the De Vries formula: very compact!


    Define terms in an applied (curried) lambda calculus and some constant functions to define the problem domain.


    Sigma0 T(n) sum from n = 0 to infinity. T is a function of n

    Sigma1 T(n) sum from n = 1 to infinity. T is a function of n

    Pow n T (coded for n = -4 .. +4 without 0 using 3 bits)

    plus a b

    minus a b

    times a b

    divide a b

    K (constant in range -3 ... 4 including 0 coded in 3 bits)

    e

    pi


    Define functions compactly using Curry combinators: S,K,I - these blow up a bit and are a pain to abstract so add a few more: B, C (variants of S in which one of the two terms split over is constant)


    Would be great fun to work with this for a while and see how compact one could squeeze the De Vrises formula.


    As a very rough first pass we could code constants in 5 bits. We code expressions as application of two subexpressions with some coding overhead (maybe 2 bits per application).


    We then need to code the De Vries recurrence.


    I'm pretty sure it would be > 100 bits. Maybe it could be optimised quite a bit by doing variable length encoding of symbols, adding unary operators, etc, according to likely frequency, but I can't see less than 50 bits.


    Guess though - if anyone would like to do this it would be a fun exercise!


    (You need < 32 bits for the Kolmogorov complexity argument to look compelling).

  • great thing about SM and QED calculations is they all have error bounds and are multiply checked


    the problem is that the calculations are rather imprecise for nuclear parameters

    especially for the n-p mass difference.


    Still Stephan Durr is young yet...

    who knows what another seven years of teraflops will bring.>>>>



    Perhaps the adoption of the Wallaces' five term Schroedinger equation may improve

    the precision.. who knows


    http://vixra.org/pdf/1809.0582v2.pdf

  • For instance the A-B effect cited by some as a QM effect is explained by Mills classically

    ...

    As usual, Evans has his explanation about, in this case, Aharonov-Bohm:

    "The Aharonov Bohm effect is defined in ECE2 as a region where electric and magnetic fields are absent hut in which the vacuum four potential is non-zero. The Aharanov Bohm vacuum is distinguished from the vacuum defined by the absence of charge current density and it is shown that the Aharonov Bohm vacuum contains a vector potential which can cause electron spin resonance and nuclear magnetic resonance in the absence of a magnetic field."

    Text (hand-written equations) and calculation simulations

  • Possible description language for the De Vries formula: very compact!


    Change the formula to a bracket vision like: (excel notation using alpha and 2pi()) 7th degree needed!

    =1+AD706*(1+(AD706/AD708)*(1+(AD706/AD708^2)*(1+(AD706/AD708^3)*(1+(AD706/AD708^4)*(1+(AD706/AD708^5)*(1+(AD706/AD708^6)*(1+(AD706/AD708^7))))))))

    This gives you about 15 digits with 5 cut & pastes in excel... manual fix point iteration... and add the norm of course...

  • Change the formula to a bracket vision like: (excel notation using alpha and 2pi()) 7th degree needed!

    =1+AD706*(1+(AD706/AD708)*(1+(AD706/AD708^2)*(1+(AD706/AD708^3)*(1+(AD706/AD708^4)*(1+(AD706/AD708^5)*(1+(AD706/AD708^6)*(1+(AD706/AD708^7))))))))

    This gives you about 15 digits with 5 cut & pastes in excel... manual fix point iteration... and add the norm of course...

    Yes, you'd need something much more compact then that, and straight zip encoding would have too large a codebook.


    An interesting challenge to write a very compact code for maths. Remember 32 bits is only 6 characters or so!