Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK - so give me an example of a particle with a short lifetime that is NOT a particle, explaining why differ from everyone else in this? You made this up -->you have to answer

I stop here. The best of the best model physics has (as said by THH!) QED/QFT highly exact - is not even able to measure its most basic particles being quarks. Up & down quarks are supposed to represent proton & neutrons that form 99.9% of our universal matter. Their masses (up down quarks) simply are unknown in common thinking as they are less precise as a wether forecasts. E.g up quark with 50% error margin.

(CERN freely states that it was never able to separate the two up quarks...)

Most particles QED/QFT claims to be real are virtual particles wherein we should not mix up such particles that are long time stable as p, e, n, muon, neutrino and some extra heavy ones we don't yet understand.

QED/QFT is a theory about a virtual possibility how kinetic experiments can be predicted. If you live in a virtual world like CERN physicists do, then you can be happy with the current model as it tells you some qualities of the virtual outcome of your virtual particle experiments. On the other side of the field, in solid state physics, QM and virtual particles are very helpful.

The impact of CERN for real live and basic physics understanding is virtually 0. CERN misses all neutral particles that cannot be generated by an accelerator because these particles would need a symmetric generation environment like LENR reactions provide it. There is enough evidence such particles do exist. (Urutskov)

If CERN manages to switch back into providing some help with real physics as e.g. Holmlid does, it could again gain some reputation.

The construction of a larger storage ring for CERN would simply be nuts as the next higher allowed proton resonance would need a ring around Europe or may be even a bit larger ....It's also a question of the magnets used...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Actually dense aether model explanation of gravity field is fully compliant with deDuillier/LeSage theory of gravity, except that in role of tachyon ("ultramundane particles") shielding utilizes shielding of scalar waves of Nicola Tesla (i.e. hyperdimensional holographic noise in terms of mainstream physics).

Ether is the next level of theory we have to take on. But now I would first like to understand what is behind a magnetic flux line? Why are only e, p, neutrino? stable states of magnetic flux? What is the form factor of charge?

What is the impact on GER as we now know that gravity is an EM force?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

BTW the path of light in gravity field cannot be described by refraction rather by scattering. Einstein himself realized in 1908 already, that refraction-based approach to general relativity cannot be fully correct.

It's a refraction Zephir. Cross my heart and hope to die. It ain't called gravitational lensing for nothing. Refraction in glass is frequency-dependent because the light is interacting with electrons in the glass. In space it isn't. Your 1908 link doesn't work for me. See this. Einstein was talking about horizontal light rays. The vertical light rays don't bend. Note that he's talking about a variable c.

Young Einstein (and Maxwell, Kelvin and many others in their time) were pretty sure, magnetic field is vorticity (curl) of aether. Maxwell himself pushed an analogy of Lorentz force to Magnus-Robins force (a ten years before Magnus even published it). So that charge is analogy of rotation, i.e. spin - the particles which don't rotate don't exhibit Magnus force in aether, and they're also "sterile", i.e. chargeless. More exactly the half-integer charge (1, 2) is the manifestation of helicity (rotation torsion) of field inside particles, whereas integer charge is just a vorticity. Half integer spin is thus extradimensional vorticity - one half of vortex rotates in another set of dimensions (denoted by red color on animations here 1, 2) than the remaining one.

The Mobius loop model of electron comes on mind here. Electron behaves like two-quark particle like meson, but living on its very own instead of surface of atom nuclei, where mesons usually reside. One of quarks of 2/3 charge loop forming the electron is heavily collapsed like atom nuclei in topological inverted space-time and it's negative charge becomes positive one, so it's responsible for weak charge of electron. The second branch of 1/3 charge loop encircles the center loosely and it's responsible for electromagnetic Coulomb charge of electron.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm loving this discussion, but please ensure it doesn't get too tired and emotional. This is physics and the SM we are discussing in a public forum. Not football in a bar-room.

When people are promoting stuff that is not true, it is worth rebutting. That is how science works.

DF: no repeat when I've rebutted your point and you've used "proof by assertion to reply without addressing the point. So just a few trhings

He said "an electromagnetic field wiggles in the same way when it possesses waves. Applying quantum mechanics to this oscillator reveals that it must also have discrete, evenly spaced energy levels". It isn't true. Photon energy is E=hf. The f can take any value, and so can E.

In any bounded system f & E take discrete values. Practically this is usually the case. However, in an infinite no boundary space photon frequencies are continuous.

He later says "the particle that emits the virtual photon loses momentum p in the recoil, and the other particle gets the momentum". That isn't true either. Positronium doesn't twinkle. As for his effort to "explain" an attractive force via virtual photons, it's just risible.

VPs carry momentum, which is how they mediate forces. I've got no idea what "positronium does not twinkle" means. VPs (by definition) interact only with the two particles they join and therefore can't twinkle. They are observed through the effect of the momentum change.

A photon doesn't turn into a virtual massive particle. Photons interact with photons, end of story. So the Standard Model is wrong.

It should be clear that in QFT any transition allowed by cons laws can happen.

photons can't fluctuate into single particle - but they can form a quark/anti-quark or electron-positron - according to the inverse anihilation reaction. And that can be true at energies lower that the rest mass of the particles subject to HUP - the particles must be short-lived before they interact again. This is quite simple, and makes sense, once you pay attention to what every particle physicist teaches about VPs instead of viewing it all as wrong.

Details: https://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html

Are you quite sure you want to take on every particle physicist on this one?

I've told you that this is patent blatant nonsense. A 511keV photon doesn't fluctuate into a 511keV electron and a 511 keV positron. Conservation of energy forbids it. A 511keV electron and a 511 keV positron do not annihilate into a single photon. Conservation of momentum forbids it. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurred!

We have covered this but just to ensure you are remembering, conservation of energy need not apply to short-lived intermediate states (or virtual particles, which are certainly that). That is because of HUP in its deltaE X deltaT form. Or do you deny this?

Having established that we do not need intermediate cons of energy, your argument re momentum falls. All yor arguments assume that VPs must satisfy conservation of energy - but they are so short-lived that is not true.

Surreal! There are no quarks inside a photon. You don't really believe this twaddle do you? Come on man! Get a grip!

Since quarks inside a photon have been experimentally observed I'd have to think my theories above reality not to believe it! But in any case if you agree that a quark-antiquark pair anhihilates to a photon, then you must agree the reverse can happen. If the photon energy is lower than that allowing quark-antiquark it can only happen virtually, as a fluctuation.

I gave you the interaction chart. You know that Feynman diagrams show the electron and positron interact by exchanging a photon. The electron is said to interact with the photon, and so is the positron. But in truth they interact with each other.

Since photons are carriers for em fields electrons and positrons do interact through exchange of virtual photons. They also anihilate to make a photon. How could they interact with each other (except via another particle?).

THH: I have no idea why you say this. it is 100% unevidenced. See above for why VPs pop in and out of existence. Light does not go round and round, because photons travel geodesics. But if they did, they would not form electrons since an electron has charge and spin, a photon has neither. Both charge and spin are conserved.There is ample evidence for electron spin. The Einstein-de Haas experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, circular electron motion in a magnetic field.

This is a weird non-sequitur.There is ample evidence for electron spin, but no evidence it has any connection with light going round. Indeed there is no evidence electron spin has any relationship to rotation - except that it obeys similar laws to quantised angular momentum. The link between spinors and macroscopic rotation is pretty tenuous, especially because electrons appear to best effort investigation to be point particles.

Weird stuff about GR.

I prefer Einstein's version.

Do you know what The Trouble with Physics really is, Huxley? Is isn't String Theory. It's the tragic fact that the people who pimp the Standard Model have been peddling nonsense and standing four square in the way of scientific progress for fifty years. It's got to stop.

OK - so I understand this type of thought process - I don't share it.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Ether is the next level of theory we have to take on. But now I would first like to understand what is behind a magnetic flux line? Why are only e, p, neutrino? stable states of magnetic flux? What is the form factor of charge?

I think the answer is in TQFT. I think the electron is a trivial-knot photon. The proton is the next knot in the knot table. A trefoil-knot photon. The electron g-factor is -2.002. The proton g factor of 5.585 is nearly three times as much.

CCASA image by Arpad Horvath see Wikipedia Public domain image by Jim Belk, see Wikipedia

See the picture of the trefoil knot on the right? Imagine it’s elastic, like a fat rubber band. If you threw rocks at it, the rocks would bounce back right in your face. Hence deep inelastic scattering. You might think there are hard points inside the proton, but there aren't any. It’s elastic so if you could grab hold of two of the loops and try to pull them apart, it would be more and more difficult, like the bag model. If you break it you aren't left with three loops. Now trace around the trefoil anticlockwise from the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. Now where have you heard that before? See my other posts where I inflated the torus into a spindle sphere torus. The electron has a spherical geometry and a toroidal topology. It's stable because h is what it is, and only one wavelength will do to make a "knot singularity in the field". You need a different wavelength for a more complex knot. As for magnetic flux lines, you might like to read a little something I wrote on the screw nature of electromagnetism. Followed by how a magnet works. IMHO classical electromagnetism is not well taught. John Jackson said “one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field F_μv rather than E or B separately”. But that’s in section 11. It ought to be in section 1.

Quote

What is the impact on GER as we now know that gravity is an EM force?

It reverts to Einstein's original theory. The General Relativity you read about today is not true to Einstein's General Relativity.

Quote

It's a refraction Zephir. Cross my heart and hope to die. It ain't called gravitational lensing for nothing

The refraction is only extrinsic approximation of gravitational lensing in similar way, like the curvature of 4D space-time is intrinsic one. Actually the very existence of dark matter indicates, that path of light across space-time isn't just about refraction. And the path of light around black holes is just topologically inverted path of light across Universe - and our Universe doesn't refract the light - it scatters it and this scattering can be approximated by bending of light for small curvatures - but not for larger ones.

W:

I stop here. The best of the best model physics has (as said by THH!) QED/QFT highly exact - is not even able to measure its most basic particles being quarks. Up & down quarks are supposed to represent proton & neutrons that form 99.9% of our universal matter. Their masses (up down quarks) simply are unknown in common thinking as they are less precise as a wether forecasts. E.g up quark with 50% error margin.

(CERN freely states that it was never able to separate the two up quarks...)

OK - so I get it you don't like quark containment. And I get it you don't like 99.9% of the mass of protons being not the quarks, but the exchange gluons that hold them together. It seems that your understanding of particle physics is rather skewed towards rest mass calculation? As you can see from proton, this is often the least important thing.

Most particles QED/QFT claims to be real are virtual particles wherein we should not mix up such particles that are long time stable as p, e, n, muon, neutrino and some extra heavy ones we don't yet understand.

That is like saying a photon is not real because it is an exchange particle, or a neutron because it has a limited free lifetime.

Take the W- boson. That is an exchange particle, but also can be created in particle collisions, lasts quite a long time as a real particle. What is so magical about 10^-25s that makes thinks that last that time not real?

QED/QFT is a theory about a virtual possibility how kinetic experiments can be predicted. If you live in a virtual world like CERN physicists do, then you can be happy with the current model as it tells you some qualities of the virtual outcome of your virtual particle experiments. On the other side of the field, in solid state physics, QM and virtual particles are very helpful.

The impact of CERN for real live and basic physics understanding is virtually 0. CERN misses all neutral particles that cannot be generated by an accelerator because these particles would need a symmetric generation environment like LENR reactions provide it. There is enough evidence such particles do exist. (Urutskov)

I disagree, and most would, that Urutsov has evidence of any new particles. And LHC etc can indeed create many neutral particles, so this argument fails.

If CERN manages to switch back into providing some help with real physics as e.g. Holmlid does, it could again gain some reputation.

The construction of a larger storage ring for CERN would simply be nuts as the next higher allowed proton resonance would need a ring around Europe or may be even a bit larger ....It's also a question of the magnets used...

Curbina likes this.

No content here.

See the picture of the trefoil knot on the right?

IMO proton and neutron looks like this - once can clearly see 2/3 charge quarks and 1/3 one. On your trefoil knot not.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The refraction is only extrinsic approximation of gravitational lensing in similar way, like the curvature of 4D space-time is intrinsic one. Actually the very existence of dark matter indicates, that path of light across space-time isn't just about refraction. And the path of light around black holes is just topologically inverted path of light across Universe - and our Universe doesn't refract the light - it scatters it and this scattering can be approximated by bending of light for small curvatures - but not for larger ones.

We'll have to agree to differ on this Zephir. I've got to go, but take a look at page 26 of Schrödinger’s quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. That’s where he said “let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. On page 27 he talked about light rays influencing one another and showing remarkable curvature. Also see Born and Infeld’s 1935 paper on the quantization of the new field theory II. On page 12 they said this: “the inner angular momentum plays evidently a similar role to the spin in the usual theory of the electron. But it has some great advantages: it is an integral of the motion and has a real physical meaning as a property of the electromagnetic field, whereas the spin is defined as an angular momentum of an extensionless point, a rather mystical assumption”. The point to appreciate is that a photon is a wave in space. Space is curved where a photon is. And if a photon moves through that space, its path curves. Then if it moves through itself, it can end up in a closed path. Then it's phase invariant. That's what gauge invariance really is.

You cannot explain vortex just by refraction. Aether is dynamic and with scattering this seamless transition is possible.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That is like saying a photon is not real because it is an exchange particle, or a neutron because it has a limited free lifetime.

Take the W- boson. That is an exchange particle, but also can be created in particle collisions, lasts quite a long time as a real particle. What is so magical about 10-25

quite a long time as a real particle is a matter of opinion.

The free neutron has a lifetime of 881.5±1.5 s

The measured lifetime of the entity called the W-boson is 3x10-25 seconds.

The mass/energy is measured as 80.379±0.012 GeV/c² but nothing much else has been measured..not enough time.

The difference in times with the neutron is by a factor of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000... 27 zeroes.

I was wondering what phenomenon would be quite a short time on the THHnew relative scale of quickness

In 2004 the yocto second was considered very quick at 10-24

https://www.scientificamerican…hat-is-the-fastest-event/

But in 2019 a yocto is considered slow...more than quite a long time by some.

Maybe I will have an an attosecond watch (10-18) one day.. if I should live so long

Then I can measure the relativistic time dilation due to a leisurely stroll-a- long.

Quote from Wyttenbach

If CERN manages to switch back into providing some help with real physics

There are just a few minor problems with the Coulomb interaction in describing nuclear interactions,,

Perhaps CERN could give more focus on these lowlevel mundane problems before another round of quarkbashing..and Higgshunting.

R.Machleidt,2019 " What is wrong with our current nuclear forces?"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.01473.pdf

quite a long time as a real particle is a matter of opinion.

Well - 10^-25s is >> the time needed for boson neutron decay to be possible given HUP. The heavy W- can only exist for a much shorter time if it is virtual, which is why i made my comment.

I was wondering what phenomenon would be quite a short time on the THHnew relative scale of quickness

A time short enough for the particle to be virtual. deltaEdeltaT <~ h/(4pi)

The point to appreciate is that a photon is a wave in space. Space is curved where a photon is. And if a photon moves through that space, its path curves. Then if it moves through itself, it can end up in a closed path. Then it's phase invariant. That's what gauge invariance really is.

Gravity is an ultra-weak force. The spatial curvature around a photon (GR tells you - we can look at the tensor equations if you like) is incredibly small. Could never ever be measured. To make photons curl up on each other you need a micro black hole.

(1) that would be much much heavier

(2) if only the mass-energy of a photon - (you can theoretically get a photon mass black hole) it would evaporate in hawking radiation

(3) either way when curved it would not be a photon, which from many experiments looks like an electromagnetic field and is always "uncurled" into the QM wave-packet that it is, can exactly measured, and agrees precisely with its standard definition.

THH

Re highlighted Machleight comments.

I don't disagree. He wants to emphasise the uncertainty in SM physics. The reason particle physicists want to build different and bigger colliders. Everyone is sorry that LHC has not found new physics (except Higgs - which was strongly predicted). It has done something useful by knocking on the head supersymmetry - but it has NOT found any deficiencies in SM, nor sign of other particles.

THH

IMO LHC collider is as ineffective in searching for "New Physics" as tokamak/NIF for ignition of fusion - from similar reasons. The cold fusion is matter of multiparticle low-dimensional collisions. In addition many initial results were overlooked and needlessly averaged in wider statistics IMO. See for example Searching for additional Higgs Bosons beyond the Standard Model: There May Be Five Higgs Bosons, or None at All.

Weren't they really unobserved?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Gravity is an ultra-weak force. The spatial curvature around a photon (GR tells you - we can look at the tensor equations if you like) is incredibly small.... Could never ever be measured. To make photons curl up on each other you need a micro black hole.

(1) that would be much much heavier

(2) if only the mass-energy of a photon - (you can theoretically get a photon mass black hole) it would evaporate in hawking radiation

(3) either way when curved it would not be a photon, which from many experiments looks like an electromagnetic field and is always "uncurled" into the QM wave-packet that it is, can exactly measured, and agrees precisely with its standard definition.

You're missing the trick here Huxley. A gravitational field is a place where space is like neither homogeneous nor isotropic. Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. It's inhomogeneous. Spacetime curvature is where the inhomogeneity is non-linear. To understand this, imagine you’re standing on a headland overlooking a flat calm sea near an estuary. The water is saltier on the left than on the right. You see a single ocean wave, and notice that its path curves left a little because of the salinity gradient. The sea is an analogy for space. The salinity gradient is an analogy for a gravitational field. The ocean wave is an analogy for a photon. Now look at the surface of the sea where the wave is. It’s curved. It’s curved in a far more dramatic fashion than the curved path of the wave. This might sound unfamiliar to you, and perhaps radical. But see what Percy Hammond said in the 1999 Compumag: “We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction”. See what Schrödinger said on page 18 of his 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part II: “classical mechanics fails for very small dimensions of the path and for very great curvature”. Also see what Maxwell said when he was talking about displacement current in 1861: “light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena”. When Wheeler proposed his geon, he thought gravity was the cause. It isn't. Electromagnetism is the cause. He should have called it an electron.

Quote from THHuxleynew

- but it has NOT found any deficiencies in SM

But there are deficiencies in SM..

Re highlighted Macleight comments...

Macleight referred to Lu et al 2019

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.10928.pdf

There are deficiencies in the binding energies for atoms

eg C12 85 Mev predicted versus 92 MEV experimental

even with four fudge factors to fit the data to the best modelling that SM can do.

Of course THHnew may call 7MEv an uncertainty

but I call it a deficiency,

The deficiency seems to be fairly systematic...

the binding energy is being underestimated by SM theory,,, it is not uncertainty

Quote from JohnDuffield

“let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”

Quote from JohnDuffield

Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. It's inhomogeneous.

The wave group picture is interesting as a wave group usually consist of an overlapping of different waves different frequencies. On nuclear level, due to the circular nature of the "relativistic" frame, only matching waves can have an impact on the structure as inside an unperturbed structure there is only one single frequency allowed. A photon in free space is like a soliton wave and can directly attach to the nuclear structure if the energy matches the nuclear state (including the relativistic change factor).

More general is the picture we see in the Holmlid case where polarized photons do accumulate in nuclear orbit levels. The natural orbit for polarized photons is the SO(4) 1x1 orbit (open & closed) where we can have two orthogonal wave vectors that are - inside matter - conform with the H*-H* dense Hydrogen weak nuclear bond orbit. SO(4) 1x1 orbits also explain why we can have materials with negative refractory indexes that finally store light (photons).

We don't need fantasy conversion particles (THH) to explain how photons finally generate charge, what always is a consequence of adding mass to a dense mass rotation frame. Further without moving (virtual!) charge there is no field. (Hen-egg)

The SO(4) gravitation force formula shows that G slightly varies with the coupling perturbative mass of the bound electrons. As all matter is inhomogeneous the gravitation field thus can not be homogenous!

Quote from JohnDuffield

It reverts to Einstein's original theory. The General Relativity you read about today is not true to Einstein's General Relativity.

The true problem is that in SO(4) we have 4 (3 in average proton) dimensions already covered with masses moving at light speed. SO(4) has 6 dimension thus 6-3 makes 3 left (2 for true 4D rotation mass ). Thus there are simply not enough dimensions left to model gravitation classically in full 3D,t freedom. I see here a need to rework gravitation (GER) for fitting SO(4) the natural (high symmetry) space of physics.