Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

Quote from Curbina

I don’t say it’s easy to visualize it, it’s “mind bending” and that’s perhaps why Wyttenbach’s idea is so good and so hard to digest at the same time. The vortex soliton you talk about can also be looked as a 3D projection of paths on the Clifford torus. One has to understand that all models are just tools to try to understand reality, and if the model provide better predictions one can use it to expand it until a new model is thought to fit better reality.

Sounds good to me.

Re an extra dimension, I do recall talking about Flatland, where horizontal stretching offers an extra dimension of sorts. It isn't an extra dimension like bending a part of Flatland into a circle in the third dimension. But it's something that needs more than just a simple 2D length x length measurement. Maybe Wyttenbach's fourth dimension is something like that. A wave in 3D space stretches space. Even when it's going round and round.

And so to bed.

Quote from JohnDuffield

It shows the Poynting vector marked with an S. It goes around and around. The article says this: “While the circulating energy flow may seem nonsensical or paradoxical, it is necessary to maintain conservation of momentum. Momentum density is proportional to energy flow density, so the circulating flow of energy contains an angular momentum”. Feynman also said this: “we know also that there is momentum circulating in the space. But a circulating momentum means that there is angular momentum. So there is angular momentum in the field”. You bet there’s angular momentum in the field.

If you understand how charge is generated in SO(4) then this is no longer a mystery. The fact is: No magnetic moment without ring a current (Sorry for QM ..) . -->We have to look for a hen-egg structure that is self sustaining and upholds both. In SO(4) the virtual charge stays e.g. in 5 rotation dimensions where as the magnetic generation flux stays in 4, that are enclosed by the charge loop. This implies that you have in average a constant change in flux (dϕ/dX)

in one dimension.

Quote from JohnDuffield

I just don't "get" this 4D path thing. Sorry. Maybe it's because I've lived with the Williamson / van der Mark electron for so long:

On a 3D sphere (S2) surface you cannot simultaneously walk in two dimensions without a crossing point --> you need - for a source current generation - spherical harmonics with the non radiation condition. With a torus there is no need for this as you simply can write down 2 orthogonal source currents.

No möbius strips: They are only torus equivalent as you can walk now inside & outside with a small oscillation given by the width of the strip. This is the reason why QED need potentials as the strip forces you to do 180^o turn...

Anyway classic mechanics tells you that in standard 3D space only 2 independent rotations are possible. Using the inside of a torus would need a diving point what is equivalent to crossing point.

A classic 3D mass can follow the Clifford torus doing 3 rotations at the same time whereas on the C-torus surface you can have 4 rotations.

This are half rotations of 180^o each. Here you also (could) see the connection to Fibonacci (golden ratio) as there are possible shortcuts after 2 (4 half) and 3,5 full rotations.

Quote from JohnDuffield

There is no evidence whatsoever that the electron is a point particle.

The SO(4) modeling shows that within the current set of physical constants the electron has no fix relativistic (magnetic mass) mass radius. The charge defining magnetic flux is not contained inside a closed minimal 3D surface and that's what experiments exactly say. This would imply that the electron flux runs on a scissored photon like Clifford torus orbit with at least on open side. The electron wave topology is (1x1) x (1x1) but one side (1x1) is in fact a degenerated wave on a 3D torus thus the SO(4) rotation surface is not closed.

Anyway: Modeling charge inside nuclear mass is fascinating and tricky as the electron or the charge mass inside a nucleus shows some different possible structures depending on the coupling wave numbers.

a single rotation A double rotation

http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/4d/vis/10-rot-1

Maybe this app is useful?

https://www.fourthdimensionapp.com/4dmanip/

Quote from Wyttenbach

If you understand how charge is generated in SO(4) then this is no longer a mystery. The fact is: No magnetic moment without ring a current (Sorry for QM ..) . -->We have to look for a hen-egg structure that is self sustaining and upholds both. In SO(4) the virtual charge stays e.g. in 5 rotation dimensions where as the magnetic generation flux stays in 4, that are enclosed by the charge loop. This implies that you have in average a constant change in flux (dϕ/dX)

in one dimension.

I'm sorry Wyttenbach, but I'm still not getting this 4D thing. I understand how charge is generated. Or at least I think I do. You simply wrap a sinusoidal electromagnetic field-variation into a double loop Mobius-like formation:

Then instead of a field-variation, it looks like a standing field. The Mobius strip is the same width all round, and appears to be phase-invariant. There's two orthogonal rotations. Only it isn't some flat strip, it's a torus, with no cowlick. As per the hairy ball theorem:

Only it's a torus that's so fat it looks like a sphere. Hence the electron has no discernible electric dipole. Here's a fatter torus:

Here's an even fatter torus:

Now it starts to look like an electron in a textbook:

But this depiction still isn't right, because the electron's field is what it is. Because the photon isn't a flat strip of paper. It's wave in space. So the first picture ought to be more like this:

The black round thing in the middle on the right corresponds to the purple sphere. Only the purple sphere isn't what the electron is. It's more like the eye of the storm.

Only there's two orthogonal rotations going on. It's difficult to draw, but it's something like this:

Poynting flux image found on physics stack exchange

Can you explain how charge is generated in SO(4) in this context?

Oh for God's sake, the images don't work. When I edit the post the images are visible, when I save it, they're not. Sorry Wyttenbach, I have to go.Use the quote option to view the images.

Quote from JohnDuffield

I'm still not getting this 4D thing. I understand how charge is generated. Or at least I think I do. You simply wrap a sinusoidal electromagnetic field-variation into a double loop Mobius-like formation:

You should start with the proton picture as this is well defined. To work with Clifford torus in a mind structure it took me about 3 moths of training but adding one more dimension for charge took much longer.

So I recommend to start with the infinite 3D coil projection with internal flux only. (here you see: Field is one D current 2D movement ) Then you start to bend the coil and think what happens to the flux lines if they migrate into a torus volume. Here you start with one velocity of light attributed to the magnetic flux. If you now start a second full light speed rotation then for symmetry reasons the magnetic flux has to migrate on the internal axes. To get SO(4) you need two such coils with 2 infinite rotations . Then you scissor the two tori and warp them around the Clifford torus doing this by joining (adding) one rotation. This is equivalent to adding the 4D tangent bundles.

Doing this you get the 3D/4D mass of SO(4) as you can see that the magnetic flux line(s) migrate onto the Clifford torus surface and each 3D torus inherits one more rotation. For 5 rotations you repeat the first step (1-->2 rotations) once more.

As a picture you can use 5D eccentricity of the 4D (D rotations) Clifford torus or the analog picture of a 4D mass orbiting a 5D rotation surface. (Add one more radius to Clifford torus).

As said. It can take some time and needs some mental training as there are no valid 3D projections that fully visualize all aspects.

The electron picture will be more complex as the orbit is not around a closed (in 3D projection!) surface. I did not devoted enough time to it to find a final topological sound solution. The basic question is:How many knots do we need.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If he is not arguing against QFT then as soon as he gets round to formulating a Lagrangian and working out from first principles the dynamics of his system he will find higher order expansions in alpha are necessary, because of higher order loops, which always exist.

As an engineer I know that higher order terms always are a picture (synonym) for an incomplete solution/understanding.

For Hydrogen and other highly symmetric particles we can give exact closed form solutions from first principle. Higher order (QED/QFT fudging terms) term only will occur of we will find a misbalance that looks like a potential that must be mediated between multiple dimensions. But certainly not in the handwaving way like it's done in (QED/QFT).

We still wait for a THH answer why the best of all physical theory(s) that seems to be "highly exact" is not even able to measure the mass of most abundant (up-quark) was forming particle even more thrilling is the answer to the fact that QED constructs claims based on Feynman loops, using therein such completely unknown masses, and finally claims to see exact results. May be you should devote some time to explain us Merlin physics ...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The 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.

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.

If you want to create a serious minded community you have to take each other seriously. The authors of the studies are confounded, Mills provides a valid - novel - explanation. If you can provide insight - Humphrey Maris at Brown University would like to know.

Since Brett did not cover this topic to a depth people here can understand (since it is probably the first time you've pondered the question) - I'm including a free excerpt from his book.

EDIT: The conventional explanation is "fission" of the wave function. Un hunh. https://advanceseng.com/study-…e-electron-wave-function/

This discussion reminded me of an article by Werner Hofer I read a while ago which you can find here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.00227.pdf

I revisit the Bohr-Einstein controversy of 1935. Bohr’s assertion that there are no causes in atomic
scale systems is, as a closer analysis reveals, not in line with the Copenhagen interpretation since it
would contain a statement about reality. What Bohr should have written is that there are no causes
in mathematics, which is universally acknowledged. The law of causality requires physical effects
to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes
by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical
elements. I show that this is the case for most of quantum mechanics

Quote

If you want to create a serious minded community you have to take each other seriously.

Serious or not, bubbles in helium require neither subquantum physics with fractional quantum states, neither fission of wave function for explanation of their shrinking after excitation. Electron wiggling inside the bubble behaves like pushed string - the smaller space it has, the faster it vibrates, the higher energy density it has. Why it should expand with increasing energy?

Very nicely put by Werner Hofer, the shortcomings of QM....

Predictions can only be made, if a mathematical model relates a physical cause to motion or other physical effects, and hence observations. Only Newton’s theory of gravitation, which provided these causes forty years after Galilei’s death, is capable of making these predictions.
The same applies to quantum mechanics. The mathematical models do not connect physical causes to physical effects, because there are no physical causes. The theory is therefore in principle unable to make predictions. All it provides are correlations between mathematical models and experimental observations. Historically, it involved the invention of mathematical objects to account for experiments. First, the invention of matrices in Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics, then the invention of wavefunctions and spins in wavemechanics. Not one of these objects is a physical object in real space. A similar case in point, to be analysed in the future, will probably be provided by particle physics, which was forced to add a plethora of new mathematical elements, called particles, as the experiments progressed. Given that it is always possible to add new mathematical elements to the description if a model is not in line with observations, there is also no way to falsify such a theory. Quantum mechanics would, logically speaking, also fail Popper’s test for a valid scientific theory.
Quantum mechanics, in short, is not science.

'Not even wrong' but not correct either - and if non-predictive how useful(less) is that?

Quote from JohnDuffield

All: Huxley isn't being straight with you here. He's giving you a false narrative.

The Wikipedia history of quantum field theory article tells you how in the 1930s QFT was “plagued by several serious theoretical difficulties”, and the situation was dire, desperate, and gloomy. The problem of infinities or “divergence” was the big one. It stems from the point-particle electron. This was proposed by Yakov Frenkel in 1925. He said electrons “have no extension in space at all. Inner forces between the elements of an electron do not exist because such elements are not available”. This was adopted and promoted by Heisenberg and Pauli and the rest of the Copenhagen school despite the following:

• Gustav Mie’s 1913 foundations of a theory of matter. That’s where Mie said electrons “are not, as has been believed for twenty years, foreign particles in the ether, but they are only places at which the ether takes on a particular state”. Mie’s chapter 2 is Knot Singularities in the Field.

• The 1917 Einstein-de Haas effect which demonstrated that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics.

• Arthur Compton;s 1921 paper on the magnetic electron. He referred to the Parson electron or magneton which featured a rotation with a “peripheral velocity of the order of that of light”. Compton said “we may suppose with Nicholson that instead of being a ring of electricity, the electron has a more nearly isotropic form”.

• The 1922 Stern-Gerlach experiment which demonstrated that the spatial orientation of the electron's angular momentum is quantized. They used silver atoms, which have an outer electron.

• Louis de Broglie's 1923 letter to Nature on waves and quanta. He said he’d ”been able to show that the stability conditions of the trajectories in Bohr’s atom express that the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. His 1924 thesis was on the theory of quanta,

• The 1926 discovery of electron spin by Samuel Goudsmit and George Uhlenbeck. Their paper on spinning electrons and the structure of spectra was printed in Nature.

• Llewellyn Thomas's 1926 paper on the motion of the spinning electron.

• Erwin Schrödinger's 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part I. He said things like “a closer definition of the surface harmonic can be compared with the resolution of the azimuthal quantum number into an ‘equatorial’ and a ‘polar’ quantum’” and the “main difference is that de Broglie thinks of progressive waves, while we are led to stationary proper vibrations”.

• Erwin Schrödinger's 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. He talked about wavefunction and phase and geometrical optics, and on page 18 said classical mechanics fails for very small dimensions of the path and for very great curvature.

• Erwin Schrödinger's 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part 3. He says “since then I have learned what is lacking from the from the most important publications of G E Uhlenbeck and S Goudsmit”. He referred to the angular moment of the electron which gives it a magnetic moment, and said “the introduction of the paradoxical yet happy conception of the spinning electron will be able to master the disquieting difficulties which have latterly begun to accumulate”.

• Erwin Schrödinger's 1926 Physical Review An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules. This is where he said material points consist of, or are nothing but, wave-systems.

• Franco Raseti and Enrico Fermi’s 1926 paper on the rotating electron. They said “the electron has almost always been considered to be a material point up to now”. They also said this: “it was only in recent years that Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit made the hypothesis that the reason for some spectroscopic phenomena – in particular, the anomalous Zeeman effect – was to be found in a structural element of the electron. Those authors assumed precisely that the electron is animated with a rotational motion around itself, in such a way that it possesses a quantity of a real motion, namely, a magnetic moment”. Raseti and Fermi also said “despite the grave energetic difficulties that have been pointed out, one can conclude that the hypothesis of the rotating electron must not be abandoned”. Unfortunately for quantum electrodynamics, it was.

• The 1927 Davisson-Germer experiment, as well as diffraction experiments by George Paget Thomson and Andrew Reid which proved the wave nature of matter.

• Charles Galton Darwin’s 1927 Nature paper on the electron as a vector wave, which talked about a spherical harmonic for the two directions of spin.

• Charles Galton Darwin's 1927 PRSA paper on the electron as a vector wave. He said we must regard the electron as a wave, and its motion in free space or weak fields can be treated by the ordinary theory of waves. He said “it is possible to regard the wave of the electron as in ordinary space”.

• Charles Galton Darwin's 1928 papers on the wave equations of the electron, the magnetic moment of the electron, and on the diffraction of the magnetic electron.

• Louis de Broglie's 1929 Nobel lecture on the wave nature of the electron?

• Robert Oppenheimer’s 1930 note on the theory of the interaction of field and matter. Oppenheimer said “the theory, is, however, wrong, since it gives a displacement of the spectral lines… which is in general infinite”.
• Landau and Rudolf Peierls' 1931 extension of the uncertainty principle to relativistic quantum theory. They talked of absurd results and the complete failure of the theory, and said “it would be surprising if the formalism bore any resemblance to reality”.
• Max Born and Leopold 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”. On page 17 they said this: “the rest-mass occurring in our theory is not, as in Dirac’s, an absolute constant of the system but the total internal energy, depending on rotation and internal motion of the parts of the system. An external field will influence not only the translational motion, but also these internal motions”. On page 23 they said this: “in the classical theory we got the result S = D x B = E x H”. They’re talking about the Poynting vector. That's light going round and round.

Renormalization was a kludge. A clumsy fix that was only necessary because the Copenhagen school somehow managed to successfully promote their point-particle electron. Despite all the evidence and papers to the contrary. It's been downhill ever since. Or should I say it's been all downhill since 1925. That was when Pauli shot down Ralph Kronig’s electron spin using the straw-man claim that the electron’s surface would have to be moving faster than light.

JohnDuffield you do not of course know me very well, I seldom ignore tech details others post.

In this case you have posted a whole load of papers from 1913 - 1935, when sub-atomic physics was in an initial state of flux and the mystery of "what are sub-atomic particles" was still in its early days of investigation. You have to be very sure of yourself (as I can see here you are) to ignore the next 84 years of particle physics research, deciding that you alone realise where all other physicists went wrong.

You summarise (I paraphrase) "in the 1930s QFT was plagued by severe difficulties, caused by infinities, themselves caused by the assumption that electrons are point particles". I agree. QFT was very difficult for anyone to accept because of those infinities, and other problems. However the next 35 years show how one by one all those difficulties were overcome. You don't consider this - for example regularisation - relatively late to the party - which turns a fix into a proper and provably correct mathematical technique. we will probably understanmd more when we have a GUT - which now looks highly likely to be fundamentally quantum, with the equationms of GR emerging naturally from an emergent spacetime produced from quantum events.

I think anyone wanting to consider this topic "is QFT correct" could properly look at the various ideas floated in the 1920s and 1930s, but they would also need to look with sympathy and understanding at the work afterwards. That includes the later (19702, 1980s) work on renomalisation groups and regularisation. It is often the case that hacky things that give the right physical results but seem weird end up having proper mathematical explanations. So it has been with renormalisation, although i'm not saying we have a full underlying explanation of QFT - clearly we need a GUT for that. Still, the direction of travel is towards problems with QFT being solved and successes multiplying. The strong indications are that a GUT will emerge from basic QM operations and so at a fundamental level explain QFT as well as GR.

Anyway enough on your throwaway dismissal of QFT (forgive me if I've misinterpreted it, it sounded like that).

I'm going to summarise what I think are the key ideas in these early papers (you may disagree) and your comments, and then state how I think they relate to modern thinking, and why few others agree with you that the 84 years after have gone in a wrong direction which can now clearly be identified.

The three basic ideas are:

(1) there is plentiful experimental proof that electrons are waves

(2) the electron is not a fundamental particle, but rather has structure: as a rotating ring or other shape of charge. The rotation then means that geometrically we have a torus, but AFA these papers go the exact topology is not so important, whereas the fact that an electron is a rotating charge is.

(3) electrons are in fact spacetime twists carrying standing wave photons, which appear to be charge because the twisting space causes the E field to be uniformly inward.

(3) has some recent support, so I've added it. Although I'm not sure it existed in any of the early papers.

I'm going to give you one line answers to (1) and (2) and (3) on the understanding that much more could be said on each, but a summary shows you and everyone else where I stand.

(1) - indeed electrons are waves and QM describes exquisitely well all of the many effects that this causes. A "rotator" view of electrons would need exactly to emulate the defined QM wave characteristics which are precisely defined and consistent with experiment. Thus, specifically, the frequency of these waves varies with electron momentum. The waves vary in shape, forming specific calculable functions in potential wells or in boxes or in free space. The "size" of the electron (viewed as a wave packet) varies from smaller than we can measure to as large as the universe (only a slight exaggeration).

(2) and (3)

These two models are different and have severe different individual technical critiques, which we could consider later. They share one critique as follows:

Both suffer from a similar enormous complexity.

In (2) we have a charge rotating with no mechanism to make this happen. In the 1920s this was perfectly acceptable, when very little was understood. Now that we have very accurate predictive and coherent models for all the subatomic behaviour we can see you need a very large motivation to prefer a more complex model with a new magic force, no simple dynamics, no easy correspondence with QM. Spin as a spinor is beatifully simple. Spin as some composite object having not understood dynamics (why does the charge rotate, many other questions) even if identical behaviour can in the end be got from it is much more complex and therefore not attractive (sorry about the pun).

In (3) we have a mechanism (clever) for the rotating charge - it is not charge, it is an e-m field with a twist. We then have a much worse complexity - how is this twisting and variable sized pocket of spacetime formed? How does it evolve? Why does it evolve. Why do we not see evidence of these spacetime pockets elsewhere? How can these low mass-energy high curvature regions so different from GR curvature relate to GR? Why do particle accelerator experiments, which bound electron size much lower than this, not detect the ring/torus? Or, if the ring is variable size, how does that work - yet more complexity.

e-m fields, Maxwells eqns magic complexity ==> electron

Looks much more complex than what QFT does, which goes the other way:

electrons + virtual photons as force carriers ==> maxwells equations, e-m fields

Especially because we get photons and electrons with their properties out of an "8-fold way" symmetry of particles all of which have now been discovered, and which have conserved quantities according to the symmetries. OK, there is quite a bit of complxity here because SU(2) is broken, but it is still a very very simple structure from which the properties of electrons and e-m fields can be derived.

In addition - both (2) and (3) suffer from hand waving. They do not provide a precise, unique, calculable model of electron dynamics. If they did, a lot of precise checking could be done. They do not (AFAIK) even approximate the known QM wave packet properties - All that solid state physics stuff where electron orbitals can be calculated.

I'll save the more specific and serious criticisms for later.

Quote

I understand how charge is generated. Or at least I think I do. You simply wrap a sinusoidal electromagnetic field-variation into a double loop Mobius-like formation:

How the positively, neutral and negatively charged particle looks like. Normal 3D elastic matter cannot undulate like this, but 4D one can (the forth dimension is density gradient of vacuum). The charge is measure of helicity of vacuum foam torsion inside particle.

In Maxwell theory symmetrized by unitary U(1) gauge the vacuum undulates like elastic foam: if we squeeze it at some place, it will expand in perpendicular direction. On this behavior the symmetry of electric and magnetic fields is based.

When we jump on elastic mattress, it will deform at the center and torsion deform similar to circular vortex will establish there. But real vacuum behaves more like soap foam - if we shake it, it gets more dense at the place of most intensive shear reversibly. This place will be form the central loop of vortex and vacuum will gain mass density and inertia here, so that it will resist the deform. In certain moment the vacuum will collapse and it will start to undulate in perpendicular direction like composite vortex ring pictured above, but in spiral-like fashion. In this moment sterile particle will change into a charged one.

Quote

I just don't "get" this 4D path thing. Sorry. Maybe it's because I've lived with the Williamson / van der Mark electron for so long:

It's important to realize that 3D elastic environment cannot mediate wave, which contains component perpendicular to wave propagation direction. Normal foam would never undulate like this, but foam in which every bubble remains filled by smaller ones can already mediate polarized waves. Here the smaller internal bubbles will mediate the perpendicular component of the large wave, thus effectively forming a nested subspace or extradimension for large wave. Even normal 3D fluid cannot form 4D spiral-like vortices - but this compressible one (supercritical fluid) can.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This are half rotations of 180o each. Here you also (could) see the connection to Fibonacci (golden ratio) as there are possible shortcuts after 2 (4 half) and 3,5 full rotations.

Can't find Fibonacci yet or the GR.. maybe in a few years.

but Ii did figure out a bit about the rotations.

Squeezing 8 more octants into my cut orange is a bit tricky.

"

A general rotation motion of a mass in 4D(1, 3) has 1 radial

and 3 spheric components. 4D(1, 3) space has 16 hyper-quadrants. To walk/move through all 16 hyperquadrants you have do make 16 complete (1, 3) half – rotations ( 3 curved dimensions), where always one

dimension builds the radial component.

Table 0 gives the complete boolean rotation matrix for a full walk through all 16 4D hyper-quadrants "

For me it's sorta symptomatic, that no one attempted to simulate supercritical fluid, despite that computer simulations of normal incompressible fluids routinely exist. In supercritical fluid every local overpressure leads immediately to condensation and establishing of phase interface, at which refraction and dispersion of waves would occur. This phase interface can also serve as an environment of its own surface ripples which will interfere with these volume ones. Vortex ring generated inside of compressible supercritical fluid would form a loop resembling closed pipe , inside of which the fluid would undulate with opposite phase and charge with compare to this one outside the vortex. Nevertheless, because supercritical fluid is still fully elastic, both parts of wave would contribute to the spiral-like motion of resulting vortex. In future we could observe similar motion in fast rotating black holes.

I'm tempted to model the superfluid 3-He with the known orbit structure of Helium as we here possibly see the same active 1FC orbits as in LENR.

But the basic info seems to be paywalled... (even Mills paper...)

Predictions can only be made, if a mathematical model relates a physical cause to motion or other physical effects, and hence observations. Only Newton’s theory of gravitation, which provided these causes forty years after Galilei’s death, is capable of making these predictions.

The same applies to quantum mechanics. The mathematical models do not connect physical causes to physical effects, because there are no physical causes. The theory is therefore in principle unable to make predictions.

I disagree that a magical and not explained force at a distance (Newtonian gravitation) is a physical cause. It is a mathematical trick that approximates reality well.

OTOH:

GR is more like a physical cause, since it explains how the gravitational "force" happens.

QFT does the same for other forces, where photons, vector bosons, gluons provide a physical cause for the physical effect.

QM is needed as the mathematical basis for QFT. So QM shows how physical causes (VPs) cause physical effects.

QM/QFT does of course make predictions.

The nature of free electrons in superfuid helium

The Mills He electron bubble bad science.

I remember ages ago having great fun Looking at the literature tail around Marris's work - where he thought bubbles splitting in He represented fractional charge.

There was a mundane explanation that did not require fractional charge. I can't remember now, but it was fun. When I have time and inclination I'll come back to this (or resurrect the old stuff which I think I posted), and will show why the He electron bubble guys go on doing their experiments and modelling results without any need for Hydrinos.