Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

  • SM does not guess quantised spin

    I guess SM predicts quantised spin...somewhere..

    By SM.. the socalled Standard Model

    I guess THHNew is referring to the QED/QCD/ SU??? composite of ninety years of post-Bohr trial and error

    Brett Holverstott refers to the "Quantum bubble"

    Sean Carroll describes quantum mechanics as an “incredibly successful theory” but the frequency with which we hear this refrain does not make it more true.

    It is in fact a hot mess defined by constant failure and revision in the face of new experimental data.

    The theory has never been compatible with special or general relativity; it didn’t predict electron spin,

    and it failed to predict a host of subtle changes in electron energy levels

    such as the Lamb Shift, Fine Structure, and Hyperfine Structure.

    Yes it can calculate the excited state energies for hydrogen,

    but not for helium or anything that comes after.


  • Forgive me for not viewing Brett Holverstott, writing a puff for Mills, as a reliable scientific source.

    And, indeed, QED (you know that theory that predicts virtual particles, etc) did indeed predict the lamb effect, contrary to what BH says. Before QED there was no explanation.


    In fact it can predict very accurately the lamb effect in He too (same link).

    And QED makes very accurate predictions for the ionisation energies of He hyperfine structure, etc:


    BH seems to have picked exactly the things QED calculates and say it does not...

  • I guess THHNew is referring to the QED/QCD/ SU??? composite of ninety years of post-Bohr trial and error

    Which most physicists would see as an incredibly exciting 90 years of theoretical and experimental progress, with extraordinary successes from QED and QCD, and predictions of particles only much later discovered.

    However what physicists don't like is that the LHC has discovered no new physics - SM is too accurate, and it is annoying. Everyone was expecting new physics. Anyway I'm sure there will be new physics and a better more fundamental way to understand SM physics - but that will not come from those who claim incorrectly (as BH above) that accurate SM calculations do not exist for the things that they do exist for!

    Here BTW is a good personal but accurate and well informed account of the development of the standard model, its strengths and weaknesses:


    on electroweak unification

    But there was a big problem with all these proposals. Some mechanism had to be found
    to break the symmetry, leaving the photon massless while giving large masses to the other
    gauge bosons. Just putting in masses by hand spoiled the nice properties of gauge theories,
    and indeed rendered them unrenormalizable; the process of renormalization could not be
    used to make them give finite answers. So people began to ask, could the symmetry be
    broken spontaneously? Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a well-known and ubiquitous
    phenomenon. It means that the underlying theory remains symmetric, but the particular
    realization we are dealing with is not. It frequently occurs at a phase transition, as from
    liquid to solid, where we move from a phase where the symmetry is manifest to one where it
    is hidden. If you place a circular bowl of water on a table, it looks exactly the same from
    every direction; it has rotational symmetry. But when it freezes, the ice crystals will line up
    in particular directions, breaking the symmetry. The breaking is spontaneous in the sense
    that we cannot predict in advance which direction will be chosen, unless we know of external
    features that already break the symmetry, such as imperfections in the bowl.
    However, this did not immediately solve the problem, because it was widely believed that
    in any theory compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity spontaneous symmetry
    breaking would always lead to the appearance of unwanted massless “Nambu-Goldstone
    bosons”, unwanted because no one had seen any such particles, though they should have
    been easy to detect. These particles correspond to waves in the direction of the symmetry
    breaking. When Steven Weinberg visited Imperial College on sabbatical in 1961, he and
    Salam spent a lot of time discussing this problem. Their unhappy conclusion, that such
    particles are inevitable, was the content of the “Goldstone theorem”, published together with
    Jeffrey Goldstone.
    The escape from this obstacle was found in 1964 by three groups of people independently,
    firstly François Englert and Robert Brout from Brussels, then Peter Higgs from Edinburgh,
    and finally a couple of months later by two American colleagues, Gerald Guralnik and Carl
    Richard Hagen, and myself at Imperial College. The three groups all published papers in
    Physical Review Letters in the summer and autumn of 1964. They approached the problem
    from very different perspectives, but came to essentially the same conclusion. There is
    nothing wrong with the proof of the Goldstone theorem, but it relies on a very natural
    assumption that is nevertheless false for gauge theories. The mechanism has been described
    as one in which the gauge bosons “eat” the Nambu-Goldstone bosons and hence acquire
    mass. The spontaneous symmetry breaking is achieved through the action of a new scalar
    field, whose corresponding particles are the Higgs bosons. “Scalar” here means that the
    Higgs bosons, uniquely among known elementary particles, have spin zero.
    These three papers attracted almost no interest at the time. Although by then we had in
    place both Glashow’s unified model and the mass-generating mechanism, it took three more
    years for anyone to put the two together. I wrote another paper on the subject in 1967,
    exploring the way the mechanism would apply to more realistic models, not just the simplest
    gauge theory discussed in the 1964 papers. That work helped, I believe, to revive interest in
    the problem, particularly Salam’s interest. Finally a unified theory of weak and
    electromagnetic interactions, combining Glashow’s model with the mass-generating
    mechanism, was proposed by Weinberg in late 1967. Salam developed essentially the same
    theory independently, and presented it in lectures he gave at Imperial College in the autumn
    of that year, but he did not publish it until the following year. He called it the “electroweak
    theory”. Both he and Weinberg believed that the theory was indeed renormalizable and
    therefore self-consistent, but this was only proved in 1971 in a remarkable tour de force by a
    young student, Gerard ’t Hooft. The correctness of the model was confirmed over the next
    twenty years by experiments at CERN and elsewhere, including the discovery of the W+, W–,
    and Z0 particles in 1983.

    On QCD

    Physicists took some time to be convinced that this apparently artificial solution is in fact
    correct. But colour proved to be the essential key to understanding the strong interactions.
    Han and Nambu suggested that strong interactions might be mediated by an octet of gauge
    bosons, called “gluons”, coupled specifically to colours. This idea forms the basis of the now
    accepted gauge theory of strong interactions, quantum chromodynamics (QCD). This colour
    force induced by gluon exchange has some really odd features. Familiar forces like
    electromagnetism always fall off with increasing distance. But in 1973 David Gross and
    Frank Wilczek, and also David Politzer, showed that by contrast the colour force exhibits
    what they called “asymptotic freedom”, namely it becomes very weak at short distances.
    (“Asymptotic” here indicates that the effect is seen in collisions at very high energy.) This is
    very fortunate for theorists, because it means that the usual perturbation-theory technique can
    be used to calculate these high-energy effects. Why no one has seen any free quarks or
    gluons is explained by the obverse of this phenomenon, called “confinement”, namely that
    the colour force between particles that are not colour-neutral grows at large distance; it is as
    if the quarks inside a proton or neutron are bound together by elastic threads and can never

    And the future?

    This may seem a very strange theory but it is now well established; QCD and the
    electroweak theory together constitute the standard model, with spin-½ leptons and quarks
    and spin-1 gauge bosons. It has been tested by innumerable experiments over the last forty
    years and been thoroughly vindicated.
    Until recently there was however a gap, the Higgs boson. Back in 1964, the existence of
    this extra particle was seen as a relatively minor feature; the important thing was the
    mechanism for giving masses to gauge bosons. But twenty years later, it began to assume a
    special significance as the only remaining piece of the standard-model jigsaw that had not
    been found. Finding it was one of the principal goals of the large hadron collider (LHC) at
    CERN. This is the largest piece of scientific apparatus every constructed, a precision
    instrument built in a huge 27 km-long tunnel straddling the French-Swiss border near Geneva
    — a truly remarkable piece of engineering. Protons are sent round in both directions,
    accelerated close to the speed of light, and allowed to collide at four crossing points around
    the ring. At two of these are large detectors, Atlas and CMS, also marvels of engineering,
    that over a period of twenty years have been designed, built and operated by huge
    international teams of physicists and engineers. In 2012 this mammoth effort paid off, with
    the unequivocal discovery by both teams of the Higgs boson.
    So is this the end of the story? Surely not. The standard model can hardly be the last
    word. It is marvellously successful, but far from simple. It has something like 20 arbitrary
    parameters, things like ratios of masses and coupling strengths, that we cannot predict and
    that seem to have no obvious pattern to them. Moreover there are many features for which
    we have no explanation. Why for both quarks and leptons are there three generations with
    very similar properties but wildly varying masses? Why do quarks come in three colours?
    One theory is that all these choices are random. There may have been many big bangs, each
    producing a universe with its own set of parameters. Most of those universes would probably
    be devoid of life. But that is for many a profoundly unsatisfactory answer; we certainly
    hoped for a more predictive theory!
    On the observational side, there are still many things we cannot explain. What is the
    nature of the dark matter in the universe? Why does the universe contain more matter than
    antimatter — leptons and quarks rather than antileptons and antiquarks? Moreover there are
    a few points on which the standard model definitely does not agree with observation. In
    particular, in the standard model the neutrinos are strictly massless. But we now know that
    do in fact have non-zero, albeit very tiny, masses. We really have no idea why.
    Finally, there is the elephant in the room: gravity, which does not appear at all in the
    standard model. It is in fact very difficult to reconcile our best theory of gravity, Einstein’s
    general theory of relativity, with quantum theory. That is a problem we have been struggling
    with for the best part of a century. There are hopes that string theory, or its more modern
    realization, M-theory, may successfully unite the two, but that effort has been going on for
    decades without as yet reaching a conclusion

  • indeed, QED (you know that theory that predicts virtual particles, etc) did indeed predict the lamb effect

    THHNEw says that QED predicted the Lambshift??

    Which one came first

    QED or the 1947 Lambshift.measurement

    Perhaps THHnew means postdict rather than predict.

    Perhaps he should read tenses and dates more exactly in the sources he quotes...


    "The theory is inspired from experiments that show devations from the Dirac description,

    most notable in experiments on the Lamb shift and the g-2 factor of the electron

    Certainly Dirac didnt predict the Lambshift. After the Lambshift etc Feynman,Schwinger etc formulated an explanatory theory called QED

    in the 1960s? unless THHuxleynews virtual reconstruction of history can be trusted.

    Of course there are other postdictions that are just as viable.

  • Certainly Dirac didnt predict the Lambshift. After the Lambshift etc Feynman,Schwinger etc formulated an explanatory theory called QED in the 1960s?

    Hans Bethe & QED in 1947 and earlier

    QED is not only explanatory - it is predictive and from a very small basis (e.g.the measured value of alpha) can calculate an enormous number of experimental results to incredible precision

    From my previous post: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06902.pdf

  • We can't see the new physics because the SM (especially QED and QCD) superimposes a totally artificial model on reality - which makes us content and complacent in our 'new discoveries' such as the Higg's boson and the three different quark red, green and blue flavours. But these are pure fiction, pure invention to satisfy other previous artificial symmetry rules (Pauli principle - why should it apply here anyway?) Then the strong force will probably turn out to be predominantly magnetic, the weak force electrostatic - it just a theoretical mess really and the really ridiculous/dangerous acceptance of such a theory is NOT BEING OPEN to NEW PHENOMENA eg Holmlid's work/ LENR which would not be predicted or consistent with the SM.

  • Thanks THH: A real marvel SM orgiastic paper with full blown heuristic and no concrete content.

    A simple hamiltonian handcrafted with polynomials up to the 7th degree...

    May be you once could provide a paper that uses QED not a fudge version of an already fudged side model of QED....

    Just one thing: They write: "where m/M is the electron-to-nucleus mass ratio" what unluckily is not a constant if you still believe in conservative fields and relativity...

  • cpsq2BZiQ4eZPYcpQaEME2m9Bl7v0SC-qoETwb2muN0.jpgThe Quantum Bubble: Do two key experiments invalidate quantum mechanics?  The nature of free electrons in superfuid helium a test of quantum mechanics and a basis to review its foundations and make a comparison to classical theory.

    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.

    In this experiment, you can measure the drag that the electron bubbles experience as they move through the fluid in order to measure their size, and it is a good match for the quantum prediction. However, from 1969 to 1972, scientists found at least sixteen additional charged species moving through the superfluid at a rate faster than what quantum mechanics predicted for an electron bubble. These species formed only when we would expect electron bubbles to form.

    Physicists scratched their heads, and decided that most likely, they were an excited state of an electron bubble. Theoreticians explored this option, but unfortunately, excited state bubbles were predicted by quantum theory to be invariably larger (???) than the ground state bubble. So these species should have a higher surface area and be moving more slowly through the fluid.

    Grasping for another option, Humphrey Maris suggested that under certain conditions, an excited state electron bubble with a double-teardrop shape and a small waist could perhaps be made to split into two pieces, each of which could migrate separately through the fluid. He called these electrinos. Some theoreticians rationalize it by arguing that the two halves of the electron are still conjoined, even while physically separate, in a quantum entangled state. but physicists have been unable to split electrons by smashing them together at phenomenally high energies.

    Unlike the quantum model, when electron bubble absorbs light to form an excited state, it shrinks. Mills explains it by assumption, that the electron within bubble goes into subquantum state, which form at a series of radii that are 1/2, 1/3, 1/4… etc, the radius of the ground state bubble. Unfortunately for Randell Mills the explanation of this conundrum is very simple: the shrunked state is actually normally excited state, i.e. energetically richer state, because electron inside of bubble is subject of higher surface tension: the pressure inside small bubbles gets higher than inside of larger ones. Cavity inside helium would simply behave in opposite way, than density blob around atom because its density gradient is opposite. If someone could get confused with something like this, it just shows that quantum theorists are really poor experts in Victorian era physics. But it also shows, why and how Randel Mills actually describes quantum mechanics from its abstract dual perspective.

  • Let’s move on to our second model experiment that demonstrates the failure of quantum mechanics with even more fireworks.

    Heat up some pure silver until it is molten, and let a droplet fall into some distilled water at room temperature. Pluck out the hardened pellet and shake it off. Next, place it between the copper electrodes of a 75kW spot welder. Flip a switch that delivers a very short burst of power. In this experiment, over 12 milliseconds the current should delivers 15 volts with a peak amperage of 25kA. The total power delivered to the pellet should be just enough to melt the silver. ..There is nothing in the pellet to react. Just silver, and trapped water molecules that are impregnated in the solidified pellet.

    What happens? The pellet explodes.

    Specifically, it explosively releases a supersonic expanding shock wave, and an extremely bright burst of extreme ultraviolet light. What the experiment finds is an extraordinary amount of very high energy light, and a significant power gain, measured both optically and through calorimetry. In one study, a pellet with a volume of 10 microliters produced an excess power of 400kW for a fraction of a second.

    This experiments is a bit more intriguing and worth of re-examination. But one should keep on mind, that electric power delivered to conductor is proportional to its resistance. A poor conductor would exhibit higher voltage drop and the largest voltage drop would be undoubtedly at the surface of both contact areas, where also most of heat will be generated. Potentially way more heat than across silver ball itself.

  • Heat up some pure silver until it is molten, and let a droplet fall into some distilled water at room temperature. Pluck out the hardened pellet and shake it off. Next, place it between the copper electrodes of a 75kW spot welder.

    Not much magic. We know from LENR experiments that silver has a long living (40s) magnetic gamma state (88,..93keV) that can be triggered by a strong field. Further if the field is stable it does not decay as expected. If this can be proven without LENR great!

  • Quote

    We know from LENR experiments that silver has a long living (40s) magnetic gamma state (88,..93keV) that can be triggered by a strong field.

    How it explains exploding of silver pellet? Even if I would consider without checking, that you're right, the "magnetic" isomer of silver must be somehow formed first, which would consume just this energy, which can be triggered later.

  • It is strange. I generally (not always, I admit) read stuff that others post before being so sure they are wrong.

    from my Bethe link above:

    This 'Lamb Shift' was addressed by Bethe in his own inimitable style: He was
    returning to Cornell after attending a select workshop in the summer of 1947 in Shelter Island (NY), where the
    anomaly posed by the Lamb-Retherford discovery was the subject of several brain-storming sessions, with top
    experts in the field participating in threadbare discussions on various aspects of the 'problem' vis-a-vis the
    existing knowledge on QED [2]. One of the participants was H Kramers of Holland, who unfolded his idea of
    renormalizatian in this context (see Section 2 for a logical exposition of the concept). Apparently he found
    the solution in the train itself (!), on his return journey - a repetition of a similar feat a decade earlier on the
    mechanism of energy production in the Sun, which was to fetch him his Nobel Prize

    I also find the attitude here - lack of generosity, interest, towards the great adventure that was 20th century particle physics, most regrettable.

    I get it, that people here like the idea of non-standard theories to replace SM - even though that does not seem (to me) the most likely route towards LENR - if you reckon LENR exists.

    I don't accept this means sneering and playing down what has been achieved. In fact understanding that history sympathetically - and the maths that goes with it - is surely a prerequisite for making wise decisions about what might be wrong with the standard model.

    This thread is about debunking obviously false information and some here seem to think that means the Standard Model. Whereas I think that means the myths that have accumulated here about how the Standard Model is obviously wrong.

    More contentiously - and we have not quite done this yet - I expect I will be happy also to debunk the idea that a non-predictive (no Lagrangian, nor as of this post other predictions claimed) model with a few hand waving equations matching particle masses and no coherent theoretical underpinning is obviously preferable to QED and QCD. Perhaps we can leave Bethe's Nobel and move on to examining the merit of the W hypothesis mass predictions? I'm not dismissing these - closed form predictions of mass ratios etc might well be an indication of underlying structure so let us examine them carefully.


  • It's one big fairy tale Huxley. A tottering tower of fantasy that's been peddled for so long that some think it's fact. Even though the predictions are postdictions, the "discoveries" are rigged, and it flatly contradicts classical electromagnetism, E=mc², and general relativity. Even though it's a pack of lies-to-children and a moveable feast: if some experiment shows the Standard Model to be wrong, it is adjusted to fit. Meanwhile it has no foundations: it does not explain the photon, or pair production, or the electron. It claims the electron is a point particle, even though all the evidence says it's the wave nature of matter and spin is real. Worse still, its advocates willfully refuse such foundations in the certain knowledge that they'll bring the whole edifice crashing down.

    When you understand the electron, you understand that mass is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. So you know that the Higgs mechanism is wrong. When you understand the electron, you know that charge is what you get when you wrap a sinusoidal field-variation into a spin ½ path. So you know that color charge is wrong. When you know that an electron goes round and round in a magnetic field because of Larmor precession, you know that messenger particles do not exist. Then you know that quantum electrodynamics is pants. When you know that the neutron charge distribution matches the nuclear force, you know that the weak interaction is pants. When you understand the proton, you know that quantum chromodynamics is pants. When you know that light curves because the speed of light varies, you know that the great white hope called quantum gravity is trash. Knowledge of physics shows you just how awful the Standard Model is. And you can't stop that knowledge, Huxley. Because we have the internet. We will prevail.

  • I guess the assertion that QED predicted the 1947 Lambshift over 13 years before QED existed

    is TTHistorynew after all.

    Perhaps Bethe predicted it?

    Perhaps you should read the link (referenced now twice) on the history of QED and Bethe's work before commenting?

    "QED" did not suddenly emerge fully clothed in 1960 - it was a progression and Bethe's Nobel-winning work on Lamb shift prediction was an important part of that.

  • it was a progression and Bethe's Nobel-winning work on Lamb shift prediction

    I guess it should be called the Bethe shift... rather than the Lamb shift

    since Bethe predicted it before Lamb discovered it???

    Is that not what "Lamb shift prediction" means?

    Perhaps you should read the link

    THHuxleynew, perhaps you should read the link..

    Your extreme bias towards the predictive power of QED is writing more THHistorynew.

  • Its amusing to watch THHnew try to wriggle out of his erroneous statements

    "QED predicted the Lambshift"

    No it didn't. History says no emphatically

    PreLamb QED was discrepant with the Lamb shift

    Bethe adjusted QED to explain the Lambshift on a train trip after it was announced at a summer conference by Lamb.

    In 1940s, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford carried out several experiments in microwave spectroscopy in an effort to improve on previous attempts to detect absorption of short-wavelength radio waves in a gas discharge of atomic hydrogen.

    They noticed that the transition frequency did not match that predicted by traditional Quantum Electrodynamics

    (QED), the study of electromagnetic fields on atomic structures.

    The disagreement between Lamb’s work and QED was first presented in the summer of 1947 at the Theoretical Physics Conference on Shelter Island, NY; this discrepancy intrigued conference attendee Hans A.Bethe, a theoretical particle physicist from Cornell.

    Bethe calculated the relativistic corrections

    to the hydrogen spectrum on the train ride from the conference.