Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    GQEnergy revealed composition of its new graphene batteries and it has begun with experimentation of the first self-powered vehicle.

    You may also want to check Facebook video based on ver. 1.0 of technology (backup)


    Zephir - nothing wrong with a carbon-magnesium battery, of course.


    However if you believe these guys have a 12V 60W power generator that delivers power continuously for longer periods of time than any battery could, may I suggest:


    (1) If they had this they would not demonstrate it with normal batteries and an EV (in such a way that whether or not the power generator actually works continuously as billed is obscured).

    (2) No, they would allow just one of their power generators to be tested externally (black-box testing, no loss of IP). After which their IP would be worth trillions, they would get arbitrary investment money to do whatever they wanted.

    (3) Strange that some people never learn. Many people have done the "magic battery - test in EV" thing. All have been scams.

    W: I say it's incomplete and as engineering model it is sometimes useful, but it is not a basic theory of physics and will never be one.


    incomplete - agreed


    engineering model sometimes useful - I think you mean it predicts an enormous amount of experimental data - agreed


    not a basic theory of physics - I think to judge that you'd need to understand what basic theory of physics it is - e.g. that it predicts quantum systems that can undergo interactions with short-lived intermediate states not conserving energy, and hence higher order photon-photon interactions.


    Anyway, anything which encompasses em, weak, strong interactions and predicts the whole pantheon of observed particles, their properties, their conserved quantities, and their interaction cross sections, from a theoretical basis that is a few very simple symmetry groups looks pretty much like a basic theory of physics to me.


    THH

    Re fundamental predictions made by SM.


    Here are the set of values observed only from electron-positron collisions. The proposed FCC (Future Circular Collider) will have much higher luminosity and provide more accurate experimental data for all these constants than the LEP. The work to predict values at 3x better accuracy than this from QED + hadronic corrections is summarised from https://link.springer.com/arti…40/epjc/s10052-019-7255-9


    this is just one (simple) example of the type of experimental cross-checking that shows SM is successful, and that some new competitive theory, unless it approximated provably to SM, would need also to make:



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean here - but you do realise that there is no fundamental distinction between electric and magnetic fields, don't you? They are reference-frame specific. There is just an electromagnetic 4-vector which is Lorentz-invariant. Perhaps by "magnetic gauge" you mean something different.


    So it works like this:


    electric and magnetic fields -> em 4-vector


    One more THH joke: This works only for open space 3D,t not for dense space... The action/reaction of a magnetic field in dense space is not symmetric as in 4D (time bound frame) the transport of EM energy is cyclic. It also works only for a field solution not for a many body problem as the two EM forces are not symmetric. This is one of the basic SM failures as it tries to describe everything as field solution -- please don't touch me....

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Mathematically it perhaps easiest to take a very concrete example, an electron in a potential well with finite height sides. The electron does not have enough energy to escape the confines of the well but it does of course manage eventually to do this. If we look at why, we can see that the wave function (spatial basis) shows a non-zero value at energies above the actual energy of the electron. This indicates that there is some probability of the electron having this elevated energy - because momentum (and hence energy) is imprecise in a spatially constrained box.


    This is gobble gock logic. Say it simple: In a collective we have a distribution of energies. The average expectation is below the barrier but as said we have a distribution and some of the electron collective are above the barrier. This has nothing to do with a single wave function it's just a mapping of collective function into a single expectation function, what finally is the nature (basis) of QM. This is also not tunneling it's just a nice picture to explain it. Real classic tunneling is occurring when we have a non linear (resonant) coupling that is (far) above the average distribution of energy and also above the max energy of a single particle. For that we use catalysts!


    If you believe that a mathematical function can move an electron over a barrier without a force that's ok for me - it at least explains something....


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    this is just one (simple) example of the type of experimental cross-checking that shows SM is successful, and that some new competitive theory, unless it approximated provably to SM, would need also to make:


    Its funny day today...


    Expectation up quark 2.7 +-0.7 MeV model add an other +-0.5. This is world class 1.2 bit precision or just black or white and a little gray....

    This is gobble gock logic. Say it simple: In a collective we have a distribution of energies. The average expectation is below the barrier but as said we have a distribution and some of the electron collective are above the barrier. This has nothing to do with a single wave function it's just a mapping of collective function into a single expectation function, what finally is the nature (basis) of QM. This is also not tunneling it's just a nice picture to explain it. Real classic tunneling is occurring when we have a non linear (resonant) coupling that is (far) above the average distribution of energy and also above the max energy of a single particle. For that we use catalysts!


    No collective, my example was a single electron with a known (constant) energy. It is classic tunnelling through a potential barrier.


    If you believe that a mathematical function can move an electron over a barrier without a force that's ok for me - it at least explains something....


    So please repeat: does QM allow reaction branches with short-lived intermediate states having energy > reactant energy? This would allow photon-photon higher order reactions.

    (1) Yes or No (you are currently, like DF, saying No)


    I'd like to tie you down on this.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'd like to tie you down on this.


    Does QED/QCD predict the neutron-proton mass with 6 figure precision..

    as in Durr et al 2015

    I vaguely recall a resident QM expert tieing himself down to 6 figure precision on this..on LF

    perhaps he untied himself.. it was unclear


    Accuracy of 300 kev .. gives a figure of ~1.5+- 0.3 Mev?


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf


    I need to contact Stephan again

    Guten tag Stephan,,, und Guten SO(4)

    Gibt es 6stellige Genauigkeit in diesem Jahr?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So please repeat: does QM allow reaction branches with short-lived intermediate states having energy > reactant energy?


    As QM is not fundamental this plays absolutely no role. QM does allow it. This does not, in a circumstance, prove that it happens that way.


    The synchronization of magnetic flux (mass) in SO(4) allows to show how a magnetic flux mass like an electron can move from one side of a body to an other without any QM just as a fundamental mechanism how a matter wave works.


    In QM no mechanism is given just a probability. If you would move a real electron by a QM mechanism this would need an infinite acceleration of a 511keV mass and also the same deceleration and guess how many h quanta of uncertainty you would consume for this nonsensical idea??? It is far out of HUR! Such ideas of QM only work in the range of 10-7eV upwards where we cannot measure with high precision and magnetic effect play no role.


    As said: QM is an engineering method only that can calculate statistical predictions for a charge density but has no connection to mechanics as it does not explain how a mass - in your example - moves.

    OK, glad to have established that.


    photon/photon higher order interactions happen.


    Such ideas of QM only work in the range of 10-7eV upwards where we cannot measure with high precision and magnetic effect play no role.


    OK - so we have not established it. 10-7 eV upwards includes pretty well everything, and can be measured with high precision, so I don't understand what you mean.

    Anyway lack of energy conservation (with possibly large energy excess) happens at all energy levels. So I guess you are saying NO. And that is unfortunate.


    In QM no mechanism is given just a probability. If you would move a real electron by a QM mechanism this would need an infinite acceleration of a 511keV mass and also the same deceleration


    That is a human-centric view that includes lots of concepts like movement, acceleration/decceleration not appropriate when considering a nonlocal wave function.


    Trying to make the quantum world obey more familiar mechanics is v bad idea.


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    this is just one (simple) example of the type of experimental cross-checking that shows SM is successful


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Trying to make the quantum world obey more familiar mechanics is v bad idea

    There is no quantum world

    there is a model called quantum QED/QCD mechanics

    which is a very inaccurate model of the nuclear world.


    1.5+-0.4 MEV for the neutron-proton mass difference isn't very successful (26% error!)


    given 50+ years or so of QED/QCD..

    and 7 years + of supercomputer mega giga teraflops by one of the best QED/QCD mechanics ..

    Dr Stephan Durr in his Wuppertal workshop.

    In the experimental world, the n-p mass diff is

    1.2933324 +_ 0.0000005 MEV


    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf


    Stephan declares that n-p mass difference is crucial to the physical world


    "The mass of the visible universe is a consequence of the strong interaction (1),

    which is the force that binds together quarks into protons and neutrons.

    To establish this with percent-level accuracy, very precise calculations based on the lattice formulation of quantum chromodynamics

    (QCD), the theory of the strong interaction,were needed. ..

    ...the relative neutron-proton mass difference which was experimentally measured to be close to 0.14% (2).

    Precisely, this difference is needed to explain the physical world as we know it today (3).

    For example, a relative neutron-proton mass difference smaller than about one third of the observed 0.14%

    would cause hydrogen atoms to undergo inverse beta decay,

    leaving predominantly neutrons.

    You haven't been paying attention. A photon is an electromagnetic wave. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. What you think of as an electric wave is the spatial derivative of four-potential. What you think of as the orthogonal magnetic wave is the time derivative. That's why they're always in phase.


    Again, virtual particles are virtual. The clue is in the word virtual. That's virtual as in not real. An electron goes round in circles in a uniform magnetic field because spin is real. Not because virtual photons are popping in and out of existence like magic.


    As for conservation of energy, let me tell you something. A 939 MeV neutron does not decay because an 80GeV W boson spontaneously pops out of a 4.8 MeV down quark, converting it into a 2.3 MeV up quark. And then magically turning into an electron and an antineutrino with a combined energy of 1.5MeV. Before you can even see it! It's a fairy tale, Huxley. Like a lot of the other things you're clinging too. So yes, let's agree to differ.

    You haven't been paying attention. A photon is an electromagnetic wave. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. What you think of as an electric wave is the spatial derivative of four-potential. What you think of as the orthogonal magnetic wave is the time derivative. That's why they're always in phase.

    Again, virtual particles are virtual. The clue is in the word virtual. That's virtual as in not real. An electron goes round in circles in a uniform magnetic field because spin is real. Not because virtual photons are popping in and out of existence like magic.


    I'm not sure here what your point is. Why do you consider mathematical constructs (fields) that are only related to reality through the forces they exert on particles as more real than mathematical constructs (virtual particles) that are only related to reality through the forces they exert on particles? Because you think things being created and destroyed is magic? Weird.


    In any case physics does not actually care what words you use to describe maths, so I don't see why this matters. And I don't see further purpose from engaging more in arguments about whether some part of a mathematical description of the world (AKA physics) is real. I'm not a philosopher. I think I was dragged into this by your making a meaningless statement (about some types of being physical models being real and others not) and me replying to it! Apologies for going down that rabbithole.


    As for conservation of energy, let me tell you something. A 939 MeV neutron does not decay because an 80GeV W boson spontaneously pops out of a 4.8 MeV down quark, converting it into a 2.3 MeV up quark. And then magically turning into an electron and an antineutrino with a combined energy of 1.5MeV. Before you can even see it! It's a fairy tale, Huxley. Like a lot of the other things you're clinging too. So yes, let's agree to differ.


    However what does matter is whether you understand the SM that you so roundly criticise, and its building blocks, like the quantum description of particles. From the above you persist in asserting that energy must be conserved through short-lived intermediate states - and therefore the standard explanation for photon-photon higher order loop interactions is a fairy tale? Also, presumably, you believe that tunnelling does not exist - since this too requires particles temporarily to have an energy higher than conservation of energy would allow (the length of time depends on the particle speed and the length of the barrier).


    THH


    PS - The level of provably and simply incorrect assertions here is getting too high for me - so unless you weasel out of the above contradiction that is probably as far as we can get.


    DF thinks the above branch for free neutron decay is a fairy tale.


    i'd guess he does not really mind subatomic particles decaying - because it is observed that they do.


    The thing he highlights about this path is that the intermediate state: uud + W- is much higher in energy than the initial or end state.



    neutron: 0.9395 GeV

    proton: 0.9383 GeV

    W- boson: 80GeV


    So there is in this reaction a 79GeV energy surplus in the intermediate state. Not borrowed from anywhere - just possible because when a particle has a very short lifetime its energy cannot exactly be measured, and therefore its existence is not constrained by conservation of energy.


    If you look at the quantum wave functions, and their time evolution, this becomes crystal clear. There is no loss of energy conservation. However the instantaneous energy of the system does not (HUP) have a sharply peaked probability distribution, which allows the short-term existence of the W- . Strictly speaking the instantaneous energy of the system just does not exist - but the very short time measured energy does exist, only with a very broad peak.

    Just for DF - more Scientific American which seems to be the right level given he does not agree with HUP.


    https://www.scientificamerican…re-virtual-particles-rea/


    Gordon Kane again on the reality of virtual particles (they are real) and their observation via Lamb effect.


    Also one of the many many predictive successes of the SM:


    Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.


    And below is a fascinating account of the ways top quark mass is determined now, both theoretical and experimental. The fact that many different sets of experimental data - from different reactions - all are consistent typifies why physicists are so confident in the success of SM. It predicts so much. Were any of those complex calculations wrong they would be jumped on and corrected because there are so many cross-checks. in fact - they do get corrected quite often. Teams doing new theoretical calculations often divide into subgroups doing the calculation by a different method - completely independently - and compare results.


    https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…3389/fphy.2019.00054/full


    My take on VPs


    Virtual particle exchange is the underlying mechanism for forces. If you (like me) see a likely GUT as coming out of a quantum entanglement first model where the fabric of spacetime, and the equations of GR, is derived from QM this is an expected explanation of what forces are. the characteristics of teh virtual particle exchnaged then determine those of the force, e.g. massless VP => long-range force.


    VPs are also seen as intermediate states in nuclear reactions and as intermediate states in tunnelling - in this case an electron crossing a potential barrier it is energetically unable to cross must be virtual as it crosses .


    So what makes a VP virtual? It is the fact that its QM wave function amplitude does not sum to 1.


    VPs occur in only part of a mixed system wave function and it is not surprising that particle-style metaphors fall down in detail when used to explain them. You can think of this as the particles/states as having a given probability of existing, as opposed to a "real" particle that 100% exists.


    Of course, most famously here, Casimir effect is one way in which we observe virtual particles. A vacuum - no e-m fields nor anything else - when quantised consists of fields that cannot be precisely zero. The quantum fluctuations correspond to virtual particles.


    And going a bit deeper (this is foundations stuff - and not anything that changes the physics)


    A dislike of VPs I think comes from not understanding how they emerge from the unitary evolution of QM state vectors, and how they are probabilistic in nature. It takes everyone a fair amount of time to get their heads round that math of QM. Without a thorough understanding of that maths, and how it relates to calculated physical results, you just have no good intuition for how quantum scale stuff works. You then resort to mechanistic non-probabilistic models.


    Of course Einstein famously did not like the essentially probabilistic view of the world necessitated by QM. Since then a lot of effort has been put into trying to find interpretations that take the probabilities out. Without much success.


    The jury is still out on what we will eventually think. You see the idea of probability is a complex one; Bayesian? or frequentist? And it is related intrinsically to time because Bayesian probabilities relate to the causal connection between past and future via Bayes theorem. it (has become) clear that Baysian probability rules the day and therefore that probability is intimately related to causality, and also to the knowledge of the world that exists. If you know more about the state of an observed system something that was previously uncertain can be come certain.


    When we factor in a future GUT that constructs spacetime from QM entanglement we may get a much more satisfying and deeper appreciation of how QM apparent probabilities relate to underlying structure. We are not there yet although there are many tantalising hints.


    So all the above is why I see antidiluvian objections to QM or SM based on emotional dislike of the weirdness they entail as wrong. Which does not mean I view SM as either fundamental (it clearly is not, when it stands so separate from GR) or completely accurate (at least particle physicists hope for more, though they are currently having a tough time finding it).


    Reversing the logic


    For many years QM has been disliked because it is so essentially nonlocal. And yet, mysteriously, the nonlocal connection between entangled particles cannot be used to send information faster than the speed of light and so break causality.


    It does not take a genius to see a likely connection here between the speed of light as a fundamental constant of Minkowski space and quantum entanglement as a way of getting round locality.


    The (obvious but not yet done) solution is to put this the other way round. Maybe locality only exists because of quantum entanglement making places related to each other. We know entanglement is everywhere - because QFT inevitably leads to a quantum vacuum full of stuff. In this case QM interactions come first - existing before the space and time in which they are observed by us. Those interactions then weave the fabric of space, and the causal structure that allows us to say some things happen after others.


    This is a very fundamental and beautiful idea. More importantly, and why I talk about it, some very clever people have made substantial progress with it.


    https://phys.org/news/2019-07-…m-spacetime-geometry.html

    https://www.quantamagazine.org…tum-fabric-of-space-time/


    THH

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    From the above you persist in asserting that energy must be conserved through short-lived intermediate states - and therefore the standard explanation for photon-photon higher order loop interactions is a fairy tale?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So there is in this reaction a 79GeV energy surplus in the intermediate state. Not borrowed from anywhere - just possible because when a particle has a very short lifetime its energy cannot exactly be measured, and therefore its existence is not constrained by conservation of energy.


    This is a very good summary of the CERN fairy tales. The W boson is not a particle as e.g. THH states it lives only a very short time and the energy cannot be measured with high precision. According to information theory you must be able to do 2 measurements within one halve oscillation of the de Broglie frequency of a particle. The halve live of the W is about 3×10−25 s... to be declared particle it should live longer than 10−22 s.


    So now we know there is no W particle (it's just a resonance) and as it is no particle it cannot be modeled as a particle and will not react as a particle. Resonant waves must be modeled as magnetic flux and certainly not as SM like potentials!


    Conclusion: QED/QFT is built upon half century long cheat of CERN related physicists that have no clue what it means for particle to be a real particle. Or the other way round: For money and a fun live it's worth to cheat.

    So if, like me, you have followed the progress of QM and GR for many years, annoyed at the complete lack of connection, now is an exciting time.


    The arguments here about how SM is old, SM is wrong, etc, I take with many pinches of salt. Of course SM is incomplete. And pretty well every particle physicist hopes to find something with which to chnage SM, whether experimental anomaly or theoretical change.


    I've always seen SM/QM is very incomplete. But, ironically, the complexity that bothers people so much: probabilistic nature of QM, virtual particles, QFT, seems to me to be exactly the thing that will most likely end up unifying QM and GR, and give us a deeper more complete model.


    Equally, I see attempts to use mechanistic semiclassical approaches to reconstruct QM/SM as doomed, and also bizaare. I see anything that will replace SM as needing to (in some suitable approximation) derive SM. And QM/QFT is central to many observed phenomena, it will stay central - although perhaps a deeper view will give more insight into why it works. Little things like SM not predicting rest masses, or relative strength of interactions is expected. Even though there are a few numbers not predicted the number of independent experimental observations from which those numbers can be determined is much much larger, so a few parameters is not a problem. The calculational issues (in QFT especially) are unfortunate but not a critique of the theory. No reason a theory should make it easy to calculate very complex many-body problems.

    This is a very good summary of the CERN fairy tales. The W boson is not a particle as e.g. THH states it lives only a very short time and the energy cannot be measured with high precision. According to information theory you must be able to do 2 measurements within one halve oscillation of the de Broglie frequency of a particle. The halve live of the W is about 3×10−25 s... to be declared particle it should live longer than 10−22 s.


    So now we know there is no W particle (it's just a resonance) and as it is no particle it cannot be modeled as a particle and will not react as a particle. Resonant waves must be modeled as magnetic flux and certainly not as SM like potentials!


    Conclusion: QED/QFT is built upon half century long cheat of CERN related physicists that have no clue what it means for particle to be a real particle. Or the other way round: For money and a fun live it's worth to cheat.


    I'm not sure who here agrees with this rhetoric. Does anyone seriously believe W's assertion here that the precise determination of W boson rest mass is incorrect.


    As a VP (my post) - for example part of an intermediate state in neutron decay - the W boson exists for a very very short time - much shorter than its free lifetime quoted correctly above by W. In the free lifetime its energy could be measured to within 10Mev or so (v approx - work it out for yourself). As a VP the lifetime is at least 8000X shorter.


    I find it difficult to give much credence to W's work when he continually makes statements about particle physics that are just wrong, and show no understanding of the underlying physical structure that comes from basic QM. My guess is that at some emotional level W rejects QM, has not deeply looked at its math, and therefore has not deeply looked at QFT (a good deal more complex than QM). Without that I don't think he is qualified to work in this area, and certainly he is not qualified to critique QM/QFT/SM. Rejecting such a wonderful and complex work is not tenable unless you first understand it from the inside, and know what you reject.


    W perhaps comes from a differential geometry background. It is ironic that the smooth manifolds it describes, at some fundamental level, come from statistical agglomeration of very not smooth quantum operations.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.