The church of SM physics

  • The whole ultra dense H or hydrino story still defies rational explanation


    ultradense H has a rational explanation.. also hydrinos

    in physics there are many rational explanations..

    eg Celani et al ... Meulenberg... Mills

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…80610e2353e6779735565.pdf

    https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…df?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


    however not all explanations are experimentally verified.

  • Mathematical fiddles to obtain any answer you want! I prefer Wyttenbach's interpretation of events. But even so you have to agree ultra dense H with a density of >100 Kg/cm3 with a 1 pm inter-proton separation or indeed the hydrino in which the electron orbits so close to the proton it almost runs through it (without reverse beta decay to a neutron) is all pretty hard to imagine on planet Jupiter (where we do have massive pressures/gravityllow temperatures) let alone on planet Earth at room temperature and low pressures (100-300Pa). I think other possibilities like muon trapping should be re-examined.

  • Mathematical fiddles to obtain any answer you want! I prefer Wyttenbach's interpretation of events. But even so you have to agree ultra dense H with a density of >100 Kg/cm3 with a 1 pm inter-proton separation or indeed the hydrino in which the electron orbits so close to the proton it almost runs through it (without reverse beta decay to a neutron) is all pretty hard to imagine on planet Jupiter (where we do have massive pressures/gravityllow temperatures) let alone on planet Earth at room temperature and low pressures (100-300Pa). I think other possibilities like muon trapping should be re-examined.


    If the H* phenomena is metastable at ambient pressure and temperatures for significantly longer than a mouns half life, there's no denying catalytically formed hydrinos/H* are real.

  • I don't know what mechanism would allow this, but i've thought that maybe it is stable in metals, bound in molecules/compounds and suspended in organised plasma. Otherwise it disassembles into a low energy neutron or endothermically up to regular atomic H? I really hope it's a metastable substance.

  • A physicist at the University of California, Riverside, has performed calculations showing hollow spherical bubbles filled with a gas of positronium atoms are stable in liquid helium.

    The calculations take scientists a step closer to realizing a gamma-ray laser, which may have applications in medical imaging, spacecraft propulsion, and cancer treatment.

    Extremely short-lived and only briefly stable, positronium is a hydrogen-like atom and a mixture of matter and antimatter—specifically, bound states of electrons and their antiparticles called positrons. To create a gamma-ray laser beam, positronium needs to be in a state called a Bose-Einstein condensate—a collection of positronium atoms in the same quantum state, allowing for more interactions and gamma radiation. Such a condensate is the key ingredient of a gamma-ray laser.

    "My calculations show that a bubble in liquid helium containing a million atoms of positronium would have a number density six times that of ordinary air and would exist as a matter-antimatter Bose-Einstein condensate," said Allen Mills, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy and sole author of the study that appears today in Physical Review A.


    https://phys.org/news/2019-12-…laser-closer-reality.html

  • Would someone get more energy out than what was put in to create it? Atleast a moderate input loss as a storage medium.

  • Would someone get more energy out than what was put in to create it? Atleast a moderate input loss as a storage medium.


    I don't think that is part of the plan at the moment. This guy wants to build a laser. But the fact that you can create more stable positronium aggregares might well lead to some remarkable innovations in energy storage.

  • I don't think that is part of the plan at the moment. This guy wants to build a laser. But the fact that you can create more stable positronium aggregares might well lead to some remarkable innovations in energy storage.

    Yea a gamma ray laser is some penetrating stuff, I don't remember off the top of my head practical uses.

  • positronium is a hydrogen-like atom and a mixture of matter and antimatter...

    I'm pretty sure hydrogen is a mixture of matter and antimatter too. Don't forget that the only stable particles with mass are the electron, the positron, the proton, and the antiproton. If we have four particles a b c d we could label two of them matter and two of them antimatter. Let’s say a and b are matter and c and d are antimatter. We can then pair up those four particles in six different various ways: ab ac ad bc bd and cd. If we could somehow stick the two matter particles a and b together we could reasonably call the result “matter”. There’s only one way out of six that we could do this: ab. If we could somehow stick the two antimatter particles together we could reasonably call the result “antimatter”. There’s only one way out of six that we can do this: cd. However the other four combinations ac ad bc bd consist of both matter and antimatter.

  • From https://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment/10637-pharis-pdf/

    Weak Nuclear Force – Non-singular forces for different particles do not satisfy Newton’s Third Law. Within the DT, relativistic quantum mechanics for unlike particles produces the Yang-Mills equations. This means that weak nuclear forces are actually non-singular forces between unlike particles at nuclear distances.


    In one of Pharis's books he proposes that the standard model can be replace with one where protons and neutrons are replaced by combinations of electrons and anti-electrons. So one step further than suggested by John Duffield above.

  • A search for IceCube events in the direction of ANITA neutrino candidates


    It seems this is still a bit of a mystery, in another piece about this, the mysterious particles are said to have the same energy as a tennis ball served fast.


    ABSTRACT.


    Submitted on 6 Jan 2020)

    During the first three flights of the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) experiment, the collaboration detected several neutrino candidates. Two of these candidate events were consistent with an ultra-high-energy up-going air shower and compatible with a tau neutrino interpretation. A third neutrino candidate event was detected in a search for Askaryan radiation in the Antarctic ice, although it is also consistent with the background expectation. The inferred emergence angle of the first two events is in tension with IceCube and ANITA limits on isotropic cosmogenic neutrino fluxes. Here, we test the hypothesis that these events are astrophysical in origin, possibly caused by a point source in the reconstructed direction. Given that any ultra-high-energy tau neutrino flux traversing the Earth should be accompanied by a secondary flux in the TeV-PeV range, we search for these secondary counterparts in seven years of IceCube data using three complementary approaches. In the absence of any significant detection, we set upper limits on the neutrino flux from potential point sources. We compare these limits to ANITA's sensitivity in the same direction and show that an astrophysical explanation of these anomalous events under standard model assumptions is severely constrained regardless of source spectrum or time profile.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.01737

  • Once more the real nature of the strong force or what we can measure of it from Bernard Schaeffer.


    Electromagnetic Nuclear Physics


    Anomalous Rutherford Scattering discovered to be Magnetostatic


    Other mind cracking assumption of the standard model

    - In all decays the unknown rest energy (sometimes the bulk mass..) is assigned to a neutrino. Unluckily the current rest-mass balance for a neutrino is <=0.2eV.

    - Exchange particles have masses much greater than the particle and the exchange happens momentum/force free.

    - Consequence of such nonsense: The masses of quarks are unknown or we accept that we can have a precision of 5 bits...


    One the other side we must thank CERN that the measured sum of 2 down quarks and one up quark very closely delivers the expected mass of the proton perturbative mass (error 0.03%) . This is the only mass that interacts in medium energy collisions. This mass is invariant for protons/neutrons. This explains why SM fails as is tries to guess, what the remaining 98.8% of the mass does.

    This also shows that CERN measures useful stuff like the proton relativistic mass excitation they now call Higgs but is "explained by"/ "assigned to" a mind blowing model.

  • The masses of quarks are unknown

    Sunday school at the Jefferson Lab..

    Paul answers a question..

    "If different types of quarks have different masses, then why are protons and neutrons said to have the same mass,

    when they have different compositions of quarks"

    The proton and neutron are each made from three quarks. A proton is made up of two Up quarks and a Down quark

    while a neutron is made from two Down quarks and an Up quark

    If protons and neutrons only had quarks in them it would be easy algebra to get the quark masses.

    However, there is a family of lighter particles called Pions that are made from pairs of quarks.

    They are made from pairs of Up and Down quarks. They have masses that are a lot smaller

    than two thirds of the proton or neutron mass so determining the masses of the quarks isn't easy!

    . We could also set limits on the Up (Down) mass. The Up (Down) quark could be as heavy as the proton mass divided by three. That would make the Up (Down) around 310 MeV on the high end. So where are we with the quark masses by this crude method:

    Up ≈ Down ≈ 300 MeV

    Strange ≈ 510 MeV

    Charmed ≈ 1,500 MeV

    Bottom ≈ 4,800 MeV

    Top ≈ 91,000 MeV

    If we had a theory that could predict the binding energy of the common particles then we could calculate the quark masses. If we could produce free quarks we could simply measure their masses just like we have measured the proton, the electron, the neutron and other particles to very high accuracy. As I said before, free quarks have not been found so we must derive their properties by a mix of theory and experiments. The most successful theory (so far) of the particles is called the Standard Model. It has had great success for the last ~30 years, but it does not predict why the quarks have the apparent masses that they do!

    Perhaps one of you will someday work at CERN, Fermilab, or another lab and help make the big discovery!

    Author:

    Paul Brindza, Experimental Hall A Design Leader

    https://education.jlab.org/qa/particlemass_03.html

  • Less than 1% of the mass of a proton and neutron is due to the up and down quark masses,

    the rest come from the strong coupling force binding them together through the exchange of gluons.

    Due to confinement, quark masses cannot be directly measured.

    Quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) estimates a range of

    1.8-3.0 MeV for the up quark

    .. 4.5-5.5 MeV for the down quark mass

    https://www.longdom.org/open-a…analysis-jtco-1000125.pdf

  • CERN courier update on the confused state of the church

    Who ordered that?


    Just around the corner in the new super-cooper LEP ring we would like to have.


    A new toy for man with a rare kind of brain defect. Or a simple charm violation of the political charge symmetry between IQ-of-rulers versus IQ of tax payers, what might explain the mass of Euros needed as in ITER +(-) 1000%...