Fact Check, debunking obviously false information


    The context here, and the matter not OT, is that many believe evolution to contravene 2LoT - my point was that this is a serious understanding of how 2LoT works. Nothing prevents living organisms, or species, from bucking the entropic trend since this only applies to whole systems, not parts of a system.


    2 questions (OT - but I'll answer)


    Why do evolution, when it does not look much like a scientific theory?


    My interest in this relates to ML and GAs, which I studied. Evolution is fascinating because it relates to optimisation algorithms in a most complex and interesting way. The objective function applies to genomes - not individuals. And the genotype -> phenotype mapping is complex and influenced by environment.


    As with many however - I do marvel, and understand, its ability to achieve quite extraordinarily finely adapted and complex systems (for example the mammalian eye) through incremental steps. Things that seem impossible turn out to be quire mundane.


    Why do you support evolution? Does it meet scientific muster the way SM does? Does it meet muster better than W's S(04) does? Or Mills? etc.??


    Yes absolutely. However it is different from other science (except cosmology) because it is difficult to do direct experiments, and the data is a bit indirect.


    However modern genetics has revolutionised the subject. The evidence for it now is much stronger than in the past.


    (1) We now understand genes, unexpressed genes, horizontal genetic transfer in exquisite detail. We can decode molecular mechanisms fot the things that make evolution work. Mechanics that was hypothesised in Darwin's time is now now proven - additional mechanisms that make evolution work, like silent genes, horizontal genetic transfer, co-evolution, are understood.

    (2) Genetic investigation of fossils has shown us the hereditary links between species and over time, giving us more info about how evolutionary jumps are made.

    I am not sure whether David Gross is interested in the Evolution debates

    But I am sure he is interested in QCD and the vision for QFT.

    Perhaps there is an ecumenical vision for SM/ QFT to incorporate other faiths

    I don't expect David to answer soon.. perhaps he will be at Church tomorrow


    re: David Gross.https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2004/press-release/


    Am 05.10.19 um 06:50 schrieb robert bryant:

    Professor Gross

    "I am an erstwhile engineer who’s first love was physics . I defer from Goethe’s grey view of theory

    Perhaps I am not so romantic or not so alive.

    So I watched the Brussel’s visions.. which you chaired well.

    https://livestream.com/streami…/8742238/videos/193714289

    Your rhetorical question/answer at tm 4.27


    What would I like the theory to achieve in 30-40yrs?

    I would have liked it to have been able to calculate the masses of the hadrons..


    We know that QED/QCD has failed to calculate nuclear masses accurately..so far

    You might be interested in an emergent theory NPP2…

    not EFT related ..but of course, still Maxwellian

    NPP2 calculated the proton mass as 938.27208277 Mev.in 2018/19

    8 figure precision compared to 938.27208130.

    There are also the small matters of gravity , cold fusion ..inter alia.

    If QFT wants new visions there are some


    Attached..NPP2

    Shalom

    Robert Bryant

    Sydney/Australia

    Not at all.I don't really know


    I'd be interested to know why 432 fitting procedures

    come up with a different answer

    for the nucleon ( = neutron or proton) mass.


    Perhaps THHuxleynew can give an expert opinion?


    I'm an informed amateur here, RB, as I'm sure you are too. the difference on this issue is that I'm paying more attention than you.


    nucleons have structure uud (proton) udd (neutron) where u and d are up, down quarks with approx masses 2.3, 4.8 MeV resp.


    Gluons, which occur in protons and neutrons as carriers of the strong force, have 0 rest mass.


    The point is that this structure tells us nothing about its mass. At 1GeV mass (roughly) protons and neutrons have mass coming almost entirely (99%) from the kinetic energy of their constituents.


    And the many-body problem from QCD that is a hadron is incredibly complex to solve numerically, even approximations that are soluble, claiming as good as maybe even 1% error, are contentious and may have systematic errors. Sometimes calculations are just not easy.

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    The fundamental physics I've been doing is all very "plain vanilla" with nothing mysterious.


    SO(4) is plain Vanilla math. It's just a bit more demanding to figure out 5 independent rotation orbits. What about the >= 11 dimension of string theory?? (The most nonsensical branch of physics...)


    Quote from JohnDuffield

    It isn't just me. There's a lot of people who take issue with the Copenhagen School and their point-particle electron.


    The math needs a point particle as otherwise charge cannot be first class citizen as we say in logic programming.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    "Point particle" means that no internal structure can be observed - just the wave function.


    Unluckily the electron has a structure as the 4D orbit model for hydrogen shows. (Of course also in all other particle models..) The structure defined by the electron g-factor is known since a long time, but the understanding was not complete. The electron consists of two attractive current loops and one locked in photon that balances the loops. The other good pictures a 2+1 wave structure where the "1" (based on e-g) wave is split into two what finally gives the highly asymmetric (1x1) x (1x1) structure.


    But charge, that is responsible for the coupling - also in QM -, can be modeled point like, but not the mass. This is a subtle difference! (As many people try to use mass density instead of charge density, what not will work out!)

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    the difference on this issue is that I'm paying more attention than you.


    I hope that David Gross can give an expert opinion without a personal dig


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    may have systematic errors. Sometimes calculations are just not easy

    Thanks for the explanation of why 432 fitting procedures

    give different answers for the mass..

    Systematic errors and calculations are not easy?

    Food for thought.. I guess.

    RB

    We know that QED/QCD has failed to calculate nuclear masses accurately..so far

    You might be interested in an emergent theory NPP2…

    not EFT related ..but of course, still Maxwellian

    NPP2 calculated the proton mass as 938.27208277 Mev.in 2018/19

    8 figure precision compared to 938.27208130.


    Unfortunately, without knowing how much hand waving and post hoc fitting went into these claimed calculations, it is difficult to evaluate their merit.


    In the case of QED/QCT we have Feynman diagrams precisely indicating specific integrals. OK, they are awfully difficult to do, and the result is a not so fast converging power series, but it is mathematically well defined and checkable, and each of the steps:

    • What are the Feynman Diagrams
    • How do you get finite numerical integrals from diagrams
    • How do you compute the solution to the integrals (including which do you ignore as too complex and small enough, and how do you bound the bits you ignore)


    Is shared and checked by multiple parties. BTW the last step is the v difficult one, with very many different solutions.


    The relationship between the (v simple and coherent) theory and the results is definite.


    The same theory predicts an enormous number of things,


    As I understand it NPP 2 does not even have a Hamiltonian, and therefore does not describe system dynamics. I don't think it can therefore predict hadronic masses except through post hoc numerological coincidences, given what we know experimentally about their complex and dynamic structure, with most of the mass coming from the dynamics.


    Also, NPP 2 does not, as far as I understand, make or reduce in some approximation to, a QFT, and therefore it is very difficult to see how all the QFT experimental success can be got from it.


    I'd also point out that NPP 2 does not need much in the way of numerological coincidence - most was done by Mills's hand-waving tome that equally pushes numerology to new levels.


    W could ask himself, during the long and tough evolution of NPP, in which many variants of the theory and its calculations were tried and discarded, what defined something that "worked"? If that was better fitting, it has little value. If it was something else that would need to be investigated.


    In addition, any theory with numerical results should have error bounds. I don't see these from NPP? It would help to have these unequivocally stated with values and published (say on vixra) so that in 2 or 5 years time claims of skill in fitting new experimental data could be checked.

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Thanks for the explanation of why 432 fitting procedures

    give different answers for the mass..


    Sorry: We should stop discussing the obvious nonsensical (QM/QED/QCD/QFT-) models that are just upheld to get the next years budget and to ensure the publication track-records.


    Anybody with an open mind and not deformed by the SM-physics religion immediately sees upon looking at the quark mass table that this is rubbish and never can be the product of a serious model that claims to be the best ever validated theory on planet earth.


    Newton mechanics is fundamental as the measured gravity constants gives you 6 digits precision in throwing an apple at a target. QM potentially needs an infinite number of measurements to give you the same quality for problem with no magnetic perturbance. Thus QM for electrons in dense matter is an infinite set of models that very often work fine.


    But dense mass is magnetic only - not made of any fantasy (Hicks..) stuff and thus QM/QED/QCD/QFT potentials are a total fail.


    Of course at CERN's 2 (7) TeV you will always find a potential like regime that can be approximate (thanks to 20+ fudge factors) by QM style models and finally behaves as "predicted". But only after you found the fudging formula and run the experiment a second time...


    CERN has proven that the SO(4) proton model is correct as the fake Higgs mass is a simple proton resonance that can exactly be derived with the known model and the known proton relativistic mass radius ...


    This radius has not been derived with the help of CERN .... like in all other fake models... It has been derived by first principle calculations.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Why do you support evolution? Does it meet scientific muster the way SM does? Does it meet muster better than W's S(04) does? Or Mills? etc.??


    Yes absolutely. However it is different from other science (except cosmology) because it is difficult to do direct experiments, and the data is a bit indirect.


    However modern genetics has revolutionised the subject. The evidence for it now is much stronger than in the past.


    Ok, I guess we would have to disagree. A point in case where people look at evidence and come to significant different conclusions.

    I do not see where evollution (nor found or been given examples of prediction, testability, qualitative measurement, driving mechanism etc. have ever been given.


    Perhaps you can point me to resources that posit reasonable ideas about how macro-evolution is theorized. I have never read anything that allows for the mammalian eye etc.! I have often had people tell me there were, but none have ever presented those actual attributive arguments.



    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (2) Genetic investigation of fossils has shown us the hereditary links between species and over time, giving us more info about how evolutionary jumps are made.


    Again, I have looked but never found nor been presented with any actual theorized mechanism that promotes massive jumps in evolutionary change such as in the Cambrian period, where macro-change creates major changes. (species, families, etc.)


    What mechanism drives evolution to massively, (there are many millions of life forms past and present) to drive from simplicity to complex and in bursting periods.

    Can you provide links to those? I have seen many about minor mutations, minor changes, but zero that can come close to theorize major, short term massive change. Neither the mechanism of change nor the driving mechanism for complexity.


    I do not want to get off topic so I will abandon this afterwards unless deemed to move the clearance thread, but I would be interested in the the above two resources if you have them. Thank you. (A side note to a few.... people can disagree and still have pleasant and fruitful debate! Something that seems rare here. :thumbup:)

    Unluckily the electron has a structure as the 4D orbit model for hydrogen shows. (Of course also in all other particle models..) The structure defined by the electron g-factor is known since a long time, but the understanding was not complete. The electron consists of two attractive current loops and one locked in photon that balances the loops.


    OK, so if this is physics - rather than hand-waving, that can be proved (or refuted) from the details of this.

    • Do the current loops and photon all obey Maxwell's equations? If not - what do they obey?
    • Does the charge obey QM?
    • What are the precise mathematical ground rules that turn this picture into a model?
    • Is it covariant?
    • And also - what is the size of this non-point electron and does that size change.
    • Does the "4D orbit model" of hydrogen differ from the QM description of orbitals. If not, how does it reduce to QM (and at greater accuracy QED). What Hamiltonian defines it (from which such reductions could maybe be found).


    vixra is your friend here, if you reckon no-one thinks the work interesting enough to be publishable. But, if even 10% correct, it would be highly publishable.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    numerical results should have error bounds. I don't see these from NPP?

    Good point

    If you are interested in nonhandwaving

    THHhuxleynew you could look at NPP2 in writing.

    I am sure that David Gross will read it at least


    Section 4.1 Proton Magnetic Moment Section 4.2 Magnetic Mass


    As far as I know the main error is due to the proton charge radius

    This is a problem for theoretical/experimental physics

    the proton radius puzzle is supposed to be solved

    but there is considerable dispute still.

    If one takes

    Exper. chg. Radius 0.84087 fm.

    Then the proton magnetic moment will have 5 figure precision?


    The proton mass formula depends on moment squared and radius to the third power.


    The final x- figure precision in this calculation will be less than the 5 figure precision

    because of the imprecision of the agreed proton radius.


    However compared to the best QCD value in 2008 after 7 years of gigaflops on the supercomputers in Wuppertal etc


    of 940+-26Mev.. two figure precision..

    the error bounds are much less with the NPP2 result


    and indeed much more easy to calculate,, and to identify the source of the error. IMHO

    I have never read anything that allows for the mammalian eye etc


    Here is a summary of how it is currently believed this happened. Approx 200 discovered intermediate steps. Also remarkable that current species show working eyes evolved through completely different paths at least 40 times! It is not so difficult after all to see.


    More details


    and fascinating, showing how modern genetics is revealing more


    RB - there are a lot of words here and I'm still not sure whether W does have error bounds for his values (in which case what are they)? Or not? I don't think it is helpful to read work in progress but will happily read it when published say on vixra. That is very fast and easy.

    RB - I refer you back to what I asked.


    1. Re NPP theory - see the things that would allow it to be evaluated
    2. Re numerical "results": error bounds, with results, published indelibly with date so that evidence can be gathered over time that they are something more than numerology
    3. For your post above (NPP2 proton magnetic moment) an error sensitivity analysis would be illuminating


    I'd actually be highly interested in either 1 or 2, but so far have neither.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    error bounds


    Ok.. from a mathematical POV... amateur of course.:)

    Equation1 Proton Moment m = rK (assume speed of light is constant)

    Equation 2 Proton Mass M=k m2 /r3 (assume pi and alpha are constants)

    Equation 3 Proton Mass M ~ r2/r3, , M ~1/r


    If there is 5 figure precision in r due to experimental error

    what is the precision in the Proton Mass M ~1/r?


    Answer.I get 5 figure precision..of course calculations are complicated.


    Thanks THHuxleynew for this error bounds.. I shall let David Gross know

    so he can compare with the 2 figure precision

    in Duerr's Proton Mass via SM QCD..(NobelPrizeworthy?)

    940 +- 26 Mev Duerr 2008

    938.27 +-.005 Mev NPP2 2018


    David may also be interested in Magnitskii's calculations 938.342 MEV

    and the Magnetic moments, which aren't very precise in QCD


    Perhaps there are more shades of grey than I have considered.

    Magnitskii ether

    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…42-6596/1141/1/012052/pdf

    NPP2 https://www.researchgate.net/p…/5d865a5e3843b0b982655cb9

    GUTCP:https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/

    RB - obviously I'm not quite as fast as people like you, and I need things spelt out a bit more.


    I had this idea (maybe wrong) that the table showed predicted values of some quantities, like proton mass, from other quantities and equations.


    All I'd need to understand this, for each predicted value, is:

    • what are the (experimental) inputs?
    • what is the equation relating inputs to prediction
    • is the predictive equation exact, or an approximation: if an approximation: what is a bound for the error? It is this which makes given theories or calculations proper science, because experiment outside error bounds can indicate the need for revisiting the hypothesis.

    The sensitivity analysis is just propagating experimental errors on inputs to the predicted output (in addition to the theoretical approximation error). It is often obvious from the form of the result (for example the dependence of alpha power series results on alpha measurements is obvious).


    i'm not trying to be difficult here but from the table I find, for each quantity listed, the experimental value and the NPP2 prediction. However I do not know what is the equation relating the prediction to its various inputs, I do not know how accurate is the prediction, nor whether the errors relate to input errors (and would tightened up from better measurement of the given input) or intrinsic errors from approximations in the calculation.


    I'm used to thinking about all this stuff whenever I look at QED/QCD predictions, and I find it is always the first thing stated - often tabulated with the results. The point is that a prediction of a given parameter is not just a number, it has an error bound, and that error bound often depends on the errors of other experimental results which are needed as inputs. These NPP2 predictions are, as I see it, the main claimed merit of the NPP2 hypothesis. So it would be nice to evaluate them. I'd also like to understand the nature of the error bounds. This relates to my questions about the details of W's useful explanation that his model of an electron as two rings of circulating charge bound together with a photon. That leaves many degrees of freedom (in fact mathematically I'm not yet entirely sure what it means). Any predictions from that model depend on those degrees of freedom. W is claiming very precise accuracy in predictions, so i'd like to understand this.


    THH


    PS - why do I feel this stuff is important, and ask this question about errors?


    I'm also interested in the meat of the hypothesis itself - but the researchgate documents I looked at left many things unclear. That is understandable and I'm sure when W has reached a more considered state he will be able to give us published outputs (I don't care about peer review - vixra is as good and serves as an indelible dated record).


    I think from what has been posted here that W is now clear about his hypothesis, because there are these very impressive and definite results, so I thought that to get clarity (without anything written coherently) starting with those results and checking the calculation would be the right way to go. Maybe this is tactless, I should just wait for a research output to emerge and then ask these questions. But, on here at least, quite a lot has already been posted about the claimed predictions, and the strong claim has been made that these prove NPP2 has more merit than Standard Model theory as a predictive theory of physics. So I think it is reasonable to ask for this stuff.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Do the current loops and photon all obey Maxwell's equations? If not - what do they obey?
    Does the charge obey QM?
    What are the precise mathematical ground rules that turn this picture into a model?
    Is it covariant?
    And also - what is the size of this non-point electron and does that size change.
    Does the "4D orbit model" of hydrogen differ from the QM description of orbitals. If not, how does it reduce to QM (and at greater accuracy QED). What Hamiltonian defines it (from which such reductions could maybe be found).


    Some of THH's question can only be understood from the perspective of an absolute believer in to QM. QM is just a mathematical framework to 3D,t distribute a homogenous point charge. From basic physical ground this can only work if charge is mass free and for a more deep understanding the action of charge is mass free. Unluckily the later is not given and thus QM fails for deeper orbits.

    Covariance only works if we have a 3D,t symmetry and fails for the true orbits as said above and also because magnetic effects introduce a circular dependency covariance is not possible.


    Nevertheless we can give a fully Maxwell compliant solution as we in reality do not need the covariance because magnetic flux is relativistic and needs no spatial projections...

    We can add a stationary Larmor excitation conform wave to the electron perturbative mass only that is finally dissipative.

    The homolog SO(4) orbit based solution only works with orbit perturbation(s), what looks the same as adding positive/negative mass(energy hole) waves but that time with SO(4) symmetry.


    Does the "4D orbit model" of hydrogen differ from the QM description of orbitals? Of course as it shows the reason for the various effects for quantum numbers n=1,2,3,4.. that are not seen in QM...


    Summary: QM adds no new knowledge to the Bohr model that is not already contained in the spherical harmonic multiple expansion Maxwell based solution given by Mills. QM fails to explain the effects we see for hydrogen states 1,2,3,4. (Mills fails to...)


    Finally the electron: We know that it has no defined magnetic mass radius. Thus it will be a challenge to find a dynamic structure. We only know that it's mass is splitting in the known SO(4) orbit structure, that also can be seen inside a nucleus.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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 beautifully 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).

    It isn't charge rotating. It's an electromagnetic wave rotating, in the guise of a "spinor". It looks like a standing wave, but there's angular momentum in there. A rotational Poynting vector.


    Spinor_on_the_circle.jpg

    GNUFDL spinor image by Slawkb, see Wikipedia.


    As for you having a predictive model, it's all postdiction. As for magic force, messenger particles constitutes the magic force.


    Quote

    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.

    Think of gamma-gamma pair production. You start with two electromagnetic field variations. You end up with two standing electromagnetic fields. Two "spinors". It isn't a "much worse complexity". A spinor is simply a wave going round and round, one that looks like a standing wave. Don't forget you can diffract the electron, and refract it. It has a crystal clear wave nature. Then in a magnetic field it goes round and round due to Larmor precession. That spin is real.


    So is the high curvature, but I don't have hard scientific evidence for that. Just a pedigree that goes back to guys like Maxwell and Clifford. There's curvature because the photon is a wave in space. A gravitational field isn't a place where space is curved, it's a place where space is inhomogeneous. That's what Einstein said. Particle experiments don't detect a ring torus because the electron is a spindle-sphere torus. With a spherical symmetry. You inflate the flat strip to a ring torus, then you inflate that through the horn torus stage to the spindle-sphere stage.


    Quote

    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

    Virtual particles don't exist. Charge is topological. Mass is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. it isn't complex. It just means the Standard Model is wrong on multiple counts. Which is why you're fighting shy of facing up to the electron.


    Quote

    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 complexity 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.

    Oh please, Huxley. The study of ephemera tells you nothing about the properties of photons and electrons and electromagnetic fields. You don't understand the first thing about the photon, or pair production, or the electron. Or the electromagnetic field. It has a "screw" nature you know. See Maxwell’s On Physical Lines of Force, and note this: “a motion of translation along an axis cannot produce a rotation about that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism, like that of a screw”.


    Quote

    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.

    There's no hand waving in electron diffraction. Trying to dismiss the Davisson-Germer experiment and the Thomson and Reid diffraction experiment because they don't provide "a calculable model of electron dynamics" cuts no ice.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    and their point-particle electron - that is more difficult, because point particle is simplest and works. No elaborate model makes different better predictions

    It doesn't work because it flatly contradicts the hard scientific experiment.


    Quote

    A mathematical technique can however enable understanding of physics through a rigorous mathematical model with calculable predictions.

    No it can't. It obviously can't. Because the mathematical technique is based on a point-particle electron which is at odds with the evidence. Then you have to introduce virtual particles to fill the gap in your understanding with mysticism.


    Quote

    And it is true that without mathematical understanding, you will never have complete physical understanding.

    Sure. But the physics has to take priority. The experiment trumps the maths.


    Quote

    You will never have a GUT. Not sure what is the point of that assertion?

    You were waxing lyrical about GUTs. The point is that when you understand the forces you understand that they don't unify at high energy.


    Quote

    That's not bad. Which means the electron isn't a point particle. N'est pas? Well it depends on what you mean by point particle. In QM - or QFT - all so-called point particles in finite space have indeterminate position, momentum. "Point particle" means that no internal structure can be observed - just the wave function. Sometimes particles that appear point particles reveal structure at higher energies than we have been able to probe of course. You can never rule that out.

    I mean the wave nature of matter. The electron has a wave nature, not a point-particle nature. Its field is what it is. It isn't some speck that "has" a field, it is field. The diffractiona nd refraction experiments tell you it's a wave. It's structure is revealed the way it moves in a magnetic field. Something is going round and round. The g factor tells you it's going round twice. The lack of an electric dipole tells you is has a spherical geometry. And so on.

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.