Good evening to all,

this scientific debate is interesting and at high quality.

To know what an electron is, what it isn't, to imagine the multidimensional structure of things via 4D models, it's interesting .. but not the main question, I think.

At the same time that I began to take an interest in Lenr, I had crossed Mediterranean sea by boat. I was amazed by size of things, their number too!

In fact, I imagined billions of billions of hydrogen atoms in this sea. Knowing also the insignificance of our planet in the universe,

I tried to imagine number of SIMILAR hydrogen existing atoms. things of things that will give us an answer to many things should be the atoms "conformation".

I don't think it's a word that exists in English but it means both forming and congruent.

So the question is how can a hydrogen atom be the same size so extrapolate the same properties from one end of the universe to the other without variation ?

This question is the same level as that from Albert when he asked: who am I if I sit on a ray of light that goes at the speed of light and who am I if I sit on a ray of light that goes at 2 times the speed of light ?

Answers?

John:

I'm quite sure you will not agree with what I say below, and I don't propose to continue arguing, but think it fair I should be as forthright with you about your ideas as you have been with us about the Standard Model and your perception of its failings. I'm going to reply to your comments.

"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."

"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."

"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 diffraction and 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."

1/ These comments are helpful, I can see where you are coming from. You don't understand, as a predictive model also providing strong physical intuition into a very different world from classical, in which every thing is quantum, and therefore intrinsically a wave-particle duality behaving like both at the same time according to precise rules, what QM is. and hence also you reject what its elaboration (QFT) is. I'd be surprised if you have ever worked through and mastered a 2nd year Maths Quantum Mechanics module teaching the linear algebra, and coordinate-free notation, as well as Schroedinger equation. Or if you did that perhaps it just did not allow you to make the weird set of connections that we call intuition. If you have, then you could I am sure provide a more sophisticated explanation of your dismissal of QM as unphysical, which I'd be interested in.

2/ You do not, I suspect, understand how curved spacetime, or curved space, works mathematically. Or you would have given precise models for what "going round" is. The string theory guys do this, the easy way. They invoke extra dimensions. You are as I understand explicitly saying it is 3D space that is curved, in which case you need to provide the math for how this works. It is not simple. Quite possible, but till you have done that you cannot have any idea what you are dealing with. I'd worry about how Maxwell's equations interact with so many spatial singularities. More likely you want your fields to curve spatially within a Minkowski flat spacetime. But then you have the complexity of what makes the curl, why are these e-m wave so different from all the others we see, what are the equations that reduce to Maxwell except in the vicinity of an electron, where they turn into something quite different. That is a big ask too. I'm not saying it could not be done, just that it needs to be done and you are avoiding it. Without a good solution that works you have no physics. With such a good solution you have more complexity - but maybe it would be justified - or maybe not.

3/ Perhaps one thing might help others. The 20th Century was the time when, with GR and QM, we realised that the simplest and most accurate descriptions of the universe at very large and small scales were profoundly unlike what we expect from classical mechanics. And then we realised that the very small scale physics could also apply over light-years. At that time (for example the papers you quote) and for a few people after there was profound psychological discomfort that at all scales the universe should not mirror structure what we understand in our lives, and that quantum weirdness should be as it is, non-local and profligate in how much inaccessible physics it creates (those many worlds which are needed to remove God's dice). For me, it is wonderful and exciting that the world is so very different from our medium-scale intuition. That wonder is inextricably wedded to the maths, which provides incredibly compact and simple, intuitive, algebraic descriptions from which emerge enormous complexity. The same simple equations give us classical approximations, a host of quantum phenomena, and a 4d Minkowski spacetime that is profoundly different from what we anthropomorphically expect.

4/ Your arguments above about what is "physical" and what is not are thus from my personal POV profoundly incorrect, and show a reluctance to move from a classical viewpoint to something new.

5/ The point about understanding forces emphasises this. You have things that seem un-unifiable and therefore say you know they cannot be unified. That is profoundly arrogant. The one thing we do know is that as we move up the energy scale physics changes profoundly. For example, at neutron star energies (or in an LHC ion collision) we have a soup of quarks and gluons that bears no relationship to the nuclei we know or the long scale forces we see outside of nuclei. This is not guesswork, it is based on experimental evidence. Electrical and weak forces appear completely separate until you see the common symmetry, and understand how symmetry breaking with a Higgs field can make both part of a very simple larger structure. So I think you are not thinking as somone interested in exploring physics and finding more; the quest for simpler more fundamental structure is never over.

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.

"resistance to change in motion" is familiar from our known physical world, I agree. Children learn it as part of sensorimotor awareness and it is embedded in our experience. But why does that make it less complex? Above I've indicated why the rest of your hypothesis needs reification, and when/if that is done will be some unknown amount more complex. What makes that resistance? Why does it happen? The Standard Model provides a profound and simple answer that incorporates all forces except gravitation - and that as we know is another story intimately related to space-time itself. I would not necessarily disagree that charge is topological - that covers a wide range of possibles. But one thing you'd need to answer is what makes it conserved in your model. When two electrons collide why does the charge always stay constant, even when diverse particles come out?

That's an interesting question - how about a free neutron traveling through outer space having been released from a fusion reaction in a supernova at just below light speed c . This neutron travels from the supernova to our solar system and has a lifetime of 10 min before beta decaying to a stable proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino. If the antineutrino is released at close to the speed of light, what is the speed of the antineutrino relative to Earth?

So the question is how can a hydrogen atom be the same size so extrapolate the same properties from one end of the universe to the other without variation ?

What makes you think that the two ends of the universe are so different from each other when an entangled pair of photons could make the two as one?

THHuxleynew you said:

What makes you think that the two ends of the universe are so different from each other when an entangled pair of photons could make the two as one?

Nothing is stable in the universe, everything that composes it has a present, a precedent and will have an after. atomic disintegration may seem long in our lives, but everything is relative, as Albert said.

Quote from Dr Richard

If the antineutrino is released at close to the speed of light,

Plug in u'=0.9c and v=0.9c into the relativistic addition eqn

https://opentextbc.ca/physicst…c-addition-of-velocities/

Quote from THHuxleynew

5/ The point about understanding forces emphasises this. You have things that seem un-unifiable and therefore say you know they cannot be unified. That is profoundly arrogant. The one thing we do know is that as we move up the energy scale physics changes profoundly. For example, at neutron star energies (or in an LHC ion collision) we have a soup of quarks and gluons that bears no relationship to the nuclei we know or the long scale forces we see outside of nuclei. This is not guesswork, it is based on experimental evidence. Electrical and weak forces appear completely separate until you see the common symmetry, and understand how symmetry breaking with a Higgs field can make both part of a very simple larger structure. So I think you are not thinking as somone interested in exploring physics and finding more; the quest for simpler more fundamental structure is never over.

The invented QED/QFT/QCD framework is a true outbound of simplicity....

It is so simple that it even doesn't work for the most frequent particle in dense mass the up quark. But talking of sea of quarks is even more simplistic and shows that THH is reproducing the SM sales pitch without one second reflection about the true content of the model.

Fact: There is no and never will be any proof for a Higgs (hicks..) mechanism as CERN just measured two easy to calculate well known proton resonances they desperately try to sell as Higgs.

QED/QFT/QCD at very high energies can be gauged like any other QM experiments to give a good agreement with the model because at high energies the magnetic interaction at the distance where CERN measures plays no role.

Fact: As said an Operator based model (like QED/QFT/QCD) is incomplete (mathematical proof!) and will never be able to describe a stateful coupled system. A state in physics is a mediating particle with an infinite response that cannot be approximated by so called Feynman loops as these are purely functional. The electron has a memory as adding energy to an electron (happens always) changes it's interaction and you simply are no able to give a finite close form for a non linear (non square integrable) magnetic two side 3 particle interaction.

QED/QFT/QCD is a one sided approach that tries to break down everything to a field only interaction. QED/QFT/QCD is engineering level of physics and has nothing to do with the basic reality of particles or a basic theory.

THH: Before next time you try to sell a rotten theory for dense matter to LENR forum:

Please show us the famous mass calculation based on SM:QED/QFT/QCD for the up-quark !

and then related the outcome (experiment) to the nonsensical model for dense matter you propagate.

Quote from Dr Richard

That's an interesting question - how about a free neutron traveling through outer space having been released from a fusion reaction in a supernova at just below light speed c . This neutron travels from the supernova to our solar system and has a lifetime of 10 min before beta decaying to a stable proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino. If the antineutrino is released at close to the speed of light, what is the speed of the antineutrino relative to Earth?

First, the lifetime of the neutron traveling at nearly the speed of light will be extended significantly beyond 10 minutes because the time it experiences will slow down.

Second, if the supernova can expel neutrons into our solar system that get here in ten minutes, that almost certainly means it is OUR sun that went supernova. So forget the antineutrino and say a prayer or something.

Third, I assume you mean the antineutrino goes in the same direction as the neutron was. (It could go the opposite way, and be almost stationary relative to the Earth)

Quote from Cydonia

I don't think it's a word that exists in English but it means both forming and congruent.

'Emergent' ?

Quote from Cydonia

So the question is how can a hydrogen atom be the same size so extrapolate the same properties from one end of the universe to the other without variation ?

Cyclonia.. Clerk-Maxwell thought about exactly the same question

about 150 years ago.

I think Maxwell is saying that the hydrogens at different ends of the universe

come from the same factory.

"They continue this day as they were created,

perfect in number and measure and weight,

and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them

we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement,

truth in statement, and justice in action

, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men,

are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created,

not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist."

It might be difficult for Clerk-Maxwell to publish this in Nature today.

The nature of Nature is not as immutable as hydrogen.

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html

"from Maxwell's 'Molecules', which appeared in the September 1873 issue

of Nature and, according to a note, was a

"Lecture delivered before the British Association at Bradford, by Prof. Clerk-Maxwell, F.R.S."

Maxwell might have imagined dense hydrogen at that time.. who knows.

Quote from THHuxleynew

1/ These comments are helpful, I can see where you are coming from. You don't understand, as a predictive model also providing strong physical intuition into a very different world from classical, in which every thing is quantum, and therefore intrinsically a wave-particle duality behaving like both at the same time according to precise rules, what QM is. and hence also you reject what its elaboration (QFT) is. I'd be surprised if you have ever worked through and mastered a 2nd year Maths Quantum Mechanics module teaching the linear algebra, and coordinate-free notation, as well as Schroedinger equation. Or if you did that perhaps it just did not allow you to make the weird set of connections that we call intuition. If you have, then you could I am sure provide a more sophisticated explanation of your dismissal of QM as unphysical, which I'd be interested in.

Spare me the mathematical smokescreen Huxley. It's the hard scientific evidence that tells you the electron is not a point-particle. Then you know that QM is a fairy tale.

Quote

2/ You do not, I suspect, understand how curved spacetime, or curved space, works mathematically. Or you would have given precise models for what "going round" is. The string theory guys do this, the easy way. They invoke extra dimensions. You are as I understand explicitly saying it is 3D space that is curved, in which case you need to provide the math for how this works. It is not simple. Quite possible, but till you have done that you cannot have any idea what you are dealing with. I'd worry about how Maxwell's equations interact with so many spatial singularities. More likely you want your fields to curve spatially within a Minkowski flat spacetime. But then you have the complexity of what makes the curl, why are these e-m wave so different from all the others we see, what are the equations that reduce to Maxwell except in the vicinity of an electron, where they turn into something quite different. That is a big ask too. I'm not saying it could not be done, just that it needs to be done and you are avoiding it. Without a good solution that works you have no physics. With such a good solution you have more complexity - but maybe it would be justified - or maybe not.

As above. I don't have too provide the maths to tell you a banana is curved, and nor do I have to provide the maths to tell you space is curved. These e-m waves aren't so different from all the others we see. When an ocean wave moves through the sea, the sea waves. When a seismic wave moves through the ground, the ground waves. When an electromagnetic wave moves through space, space waves. It's that simple Huxley. And like I said this idea has pedigree. It dates back to Maxwell and Clifford. And do note that where space waves, space is curved.

Quote

3/ Perhaps one thing might help others. The 20th Century was the time when, with GR and QM, we realised that the simplest and most accurate descriptions of the universe at very large and small scales were profoundly unlike what we expect from classical mechanics.

No, we didn't. General Relativity is based upon continuum mechanics. Schrodinger came up with a wave equation. It was Bohr who sold us the pup that quantum mechanics surpasseth all human understanding. Stop peddling it. Physics is science, not mysticism.

Quote

And then we realised that the very small scale physics could also apply over light-years. At that time (for example the papers you quote) and for a few people after there was profound psychological discomfort that at all scales the universe should not mirror structure what we understand in our lives, and that quantum weirdness should be as it is, non-local and profligate in how much inaccessible physics it creates (those many worlds which are needed to remove God's dice). For me, it is wonderful and exciting that the world is so very different from our medium-scale intuition. That wonder is inextricably wedded to the maths, which provides incredibly compact and simple, intuitive, algebraic descriptions from which emerge enormous complexity. The same simple equations give us classical approximations, a host of quantum phenomena, and a 4d Minkowski spacetime that is profoundly different from what we anthropomorphically expect.

It's cargo-cult science. The electron's field is what it is. There are no virtual particles popping in and out of existence. Spontaneoudly, like worms from mud.

Quote

4/ Your arguments above about what is "physical" and what is not are thus from my personal POV profoundly incorrect, and show a reluctance to move from a classical viewpoint to something new.

It's based on all those papers I showed you. Read them.

Quote

5/ The point about understanding forces emphasises this. You have things that seem un-unifiable and therefore say you know they cannot be unified. That is profoundly arrogant. The one thing we do know is that as we move up the energy scale physics changes profoundly. For example, at neutron star energies (or in an LHC ion collision) we have a soup of quarks and gluons that bears no relationship to the nuclei we know or the long scale forces we see outside of nuclei. This is not guesswork, it is based on experimental evidence. Electrical and weak forces appear completely separate until you see the common symmetry, and understand how symmetry breaking with a Higgs field can make both part of a very simple larger structure. So I think you are not thinking as somone interested in exploring physics and finding more; the quest for simpler more fundamental structure is never over.

Unfortunately when you understand the electron, you know all this is a fairy tale. There is no Higgs field because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. The gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual. Nobody has ever seen a quark. In low energy proton-antriproton annihilation we see gamma photons. Not quarks. Pions decay to electrons neutrinos and photons. When you know that charge is topological, you know color charge is a fantasy.

Quote

"resistance to change in motion" is familiar from our known physical world, I agree. Children learn it as part of sensorimotor awareness and it is embedded in our experience. But why does that make it less complex? Above I've indicated why the rest of your hypothesis needs reification, and when/if that is done will be some unknown amount more complex. What makes that resistance? Why does it happen?

Because waves are energy, and energy makes things move, because those things are waves too, and the interaction transfers some wave energy from one thing to another. It's all very simple.

Image from Rod Nave’s hyperphysics

Quote

The Standard Model provides a profound and simple answer that incorporates all forces except gravitation - and that as we know is another story intimately related to space-time itself. I would not necessarily disagree that charge is topological - that covers a wide range of possibles. But one thing you'd need to answer is what makes it conserved in your model. When two electrons collide why does the charge always stay constant, even when diverse particles come out?

Conservation of angular momentum.

PS: It isn't my model. I didn't write those papers. I just read them.

Worth a read. Compton effect 2 pages. Dr. Mills equation of the photon is said to be consistent with the photon explanation of the Compton effect. Dr. Booker at UNC says it works, but maybe someone here can dive in.

Quote from Navid

Compton effect 2 pages.

Sorry Navid: Currently my focus is on LENR and LENR related physics. The SO(4) model gives great support and may be I should stop talking about it as nobody really (except Stefan & Robert) has the guts/gifts to dig in.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Sorry Navid: Currently my focus is on LENR and LENR related physics. The SO(4) model gives great support and may be I should stop talking about it as nobody really (except Stefan & Robert) has the guts/gifts to dig in.

I think your audience may not be me. However, my only suggestion is to do something step by step - almost in a brain dead fashion - like an Ikea product manual - a calculation like that done and presented in excel with instructions -- can go a long way. My only insight is that to communicate with Ph.D. physicists about something new, it is best to bring it down to 2nd year engineering level...

Quote from Wyttenbach

... may be I should stop talking about it as nobody really (except Stefan & Robert) has the guts/gifts to dig in.

As far as I can see, you are avoiding genuine scrutiny of your SO(4) model by refusing to put it in front of experts. You need to publish in a serious journal. Obviously, this internet forum is not such a venue, nor is Researchgate or an LENR conference. For my part, because your theory has not had the benefit of expert analysis, and because I am no expert myself, I have to regard it as a sort of zombie ... not exactly dead but not alive either.

So I suppose we should now talk about something you yourself brought up -- guts. Do you have the guts to send your work to a high-impact journal where truly knowledgeable people will be asked to look at it and deliver a judgement? Only you know. Maybe you will surprise us all and say you have done so already.

RobertBryant

the original problem remains this of first atom nucleation. we are unfortunately forced to refer to all analogies surrounding us, mathematics are useless here, it's almost spiritual.

I reassure Jurg and JohnD, I will make links in a few days with 4D model and electrons too.

the model that all misleads us is this of big bang. imagine that you throw a big stone against a wall, you will not find 2 pieces of the same size. Some knowledgeable will say...however at atomic level this is not the same thing. Know that in fission context , uranium atom is not even able to break in 2 equal parts too !

we could imagine a kind of genital hole that would make these atoms one by one .. we could thus respect the conformation, the same size for all these atoms. The problem is that it would take a very long time to make all these atoms, and respect image that we had from beginning of universe namely a big bang.

It could still make sense, if time was variable. If the absolute length of time was in relation to the quantity of matter "producted", so for a small amount of atoms made, we will have a great length of time and as the universe grows, in view of this large amount of atoms produced, the length of effective time would shorten. This would have an impact on E = mc2 also on the supposed universe dilation which would be only an effective variation of absolute duration of time.

This hypothesis remains interesting but I don't like it very well because I can't imagine a hole inside the primordial void, I will share another hypothesis these next days, which I like much more, in order to comfort this need of conformation, also to connect too the famous ether to our universe, suspense suspense ..

Quote from RobertBryant

Cyclonia.. Clerk-Maxwell thought about exactly the same question

about 150 years ago.

I think Maxwell is saying that the hydrogens at different ends of the universe

come from the same factory.

"They continue this day as they were created,

perfect in number and measure and weight,

and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them

we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement,

truth in statement, and justice in action

, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men,

are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created,

not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist."

It might be difficult for Clerk-Maxwell to publish this in Nature today.

The nature of Nature is not as immutable as hydrogen.

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html

"from Maxwell's 'Molecules', which appeared in the September 1873 issue

of Nature and, according to a note, was a

"Lecture delivered before the British Association at Bradford, by Prof. Clerk-Maxwell, F.R.S."

Maxwell might have imagined dense hydrogen at that time.. who knows.

Display More

Quote from Cydonia

only an effective variation of absolute duration of time

Before Einstein time was a Swiss clock...

After Einstein, time depended on speed(special) and mass (general)

Now , one hundred years later our GPS depends on Eins-time

Mills in GUTCP postulated a sec that was different form our MKS second by a factor of

0.997546714. This is the time that the electron experiences due to a circular dependence of mass/energy and spacetime.

However AFAIK Wyttenbach's NPP2 postulates 4D space where time

becomes a spatial dimension indistinguishable from the other three..

there is no time.

We may have to wait awhile to see whether Mills-time or Jurg-no time are useful.

Experimental evidence takes time to accrue.

Quote from Cydonia

beginning of universe namely a big bang

The BB is theoretical..

Rutherford said there were two kinds of science.. physics and stampcollecting

Actually there are two kinds of physics

theoretical and experimental.

Which do you think Rutherford's was?

If these two travel hand in hand the journey is merrier

Unfortunately with origins of the universe.. no experimental science is possible

so theoretical science is rather lonely.

Quote from Bruce__H

As far as I can see, you are avoiding genuine scrutiny of your SO(4) model by refusing to put it in front of experts. You need to publish in a serious journal.

This is a straw man argument: I recently tried to get access to a QM/QED conference. First task:You need a login to a group to be able to submit. Guess what happened?

Some people are well aware that their time is running down. As already mentioned the breakthrough award (3m$) was granted to complete nonsensical work about super gravity despite somebody related to the jury did know that it (gravitation) can be exactly (no using a single fudge factor..) derived from SO(4) basic form factors.

Do not believe that a mafia controlled journal even will do a review of my manuscript!

SO(4) physics will not go away as it absolute exactly (9 digits average as measured) explains to many things.