The current H1 lambshift cannot be accounted for by only QED
A good classic approach for Lamb shift is given by Mills GUT-CP chapter 2.132.
Of course QED is no help because of the missing magnetic energy.
The church of SM physics
-
according to Julian Krauth,.
I just checked the reference. They also claim a new muonic Deuterium radius of 2.12771fm.
The problem of such experiments is the complete lack of a model that describes the change of orbit perturbation between an electron and muon measurement.
I just checked the data. The difference of the old/new Deuterium radius is mainly given by a change in the perturbation between what an electron and muon feels. This means the new radius is no way better than the old one.
Such erroneous conclusions are the result of 80 years nonsensical modeling!
Muons do not match the Deuterium nuclear orbits that are 5:4 similar as in 4-He where we also see wrong data/conclusions.
.
-
Such erroneous conclusions are the result of 80 years nonsensical modeling!
I might ask Julian about that in two day's time..its Monday here..
-
SO(4) physics shows that charge is a topological effect of nested magnetic flux. All problems with unsolved infinities of point charges, mass density etc. do vanish under the proper assumptions.
I think you are implying that charge is not fundamental but a derived, secondary property, and that magnetic flux is fundamental?
Or is it that moving charge and magnetism are two sides of the same coin?
What topological property of the magnetic field creates a positive charge vs a negative charge?
Why does the electron and proton have the same absolute quantity of charge?
Thanks for any insights.
-
All problems with unsolved infinities of point charges
I think that electric fields can be said to be caused by magnetic fields and vice versa..
neither is fundamental..
Newton started at a point.. somewhere near the swampy River Cam ~1679
I guess you have to start somewhere.
Newtons 17C point mass idealisation led onto
Coulombs 18C point charge and field idealisation from large pith balles
However 19C Maxwell's equations deal .not with points but with fields.. magnetic fields ,B and electric fields.E. .
(Note: Gauss's law is expressed with charge density not point charge)
In the 20C Einstein said that the choice of electric/magnetic field depended on the frame of reference
however the mythology of the point charge was retained by Bohr
and I believed in the point charge for five decades
Feynman retains the point charge crutch here
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html#Ch13-S6
The idea that both mass and energy are generated by circulating magnetic flux
and that there are no point masses or charges is a 21C idea.
but it is difficult for me walk without this 17C/18C crutch...
-
Display More
To beed up at little bit your corona time I want try to deepen the general knowledge of the average user of LENR forum.
Classic Maxwell, particle physics is based one halve each on the electron and proton -- ignoring some other puzzle stones.
The biggest unsolved question of SM (Standard model) is the oversimplification of the charge concept that many time is mixed up with an electron.
The worst idea ever was the assumption that the electron is a point particle and hence the charge is an infinitesimal small unity - what is great for mathematics only. As a conclusion of this, charge must be indivisible, what is not the case as some fake particles show e.g 1/3 charge. And worse in the quantum hall effect we see almost all possible fractions of charge.
But how do mass and charge coexist? Especially if the electron has no volume then it must be of infinite large density.
More worse. QM assume that charge e.g - around a proton is smeared over a complex orbit modeled by multipole expansion of waves. Now the electron suddenly has a very large volume!
In the simplest case charge is smeared over the surface of a sphere. But unluckily it's not smeared in a uniform way as the charge = electron shows a magnetic moment. This violates the rule of a uniform distribution what needs adding a spin what violates the logic of a symmetric behavior of charge and finally leads to the question:
If charge is not a point and smeared over a surface why is itself not repulsive??
Here any logic stops as current physics (Standard model) has no explanation (detail model for charge) and not the faintest idea to explain why charge violates the axioms. This is known since 100 years but so far nobody could solved the problem and like you ignore the bad behavior of a good friend physicists stop to think about it.
SO(4) physics shows that charge is a topological effect of nested magnetic flux. All problems with unsolved infinities of point charges, mass density etc. do vanish under the proper assumptions.
Thank you Jürg, One of the best introduction to your SO(4) physics you have made so far!
-
I think you are implying that charge is not fundamental but a derived, secondary property, and that magnetic flux is fundamental?
Or is it that moving charge and magnetism are two sides of the same coin?
What topological property of the magnetic field creates a positive charge vs a negative charge?
Why does the electron and proton have the same absolute quantity of charge?
Thanks for any insights.
The basic question is: Why exactly are the proton/electrons the only two stable form factors that define all (bulk-) mass. All charge is produced by a topological effect as Robert said in perfect symmetry according Maxwell.
If you are satisfied with 4-5 digits precision than you can use SM logic of LEGO particles, charge being axiomatic invariant bricks.
Somewhat Simplified:
In SO(4) you have an in and an outside that you can show to the classic 3D,t world. The generating waves of the "poles" are either more in or outside. Even more simplified: You could also say that the net ring current presented to the outside is positive in one case an negative in the other. But the real picture is 6D and not easy to project. (parallel currents are attractive but "parallel" fields do only go into resonance.) To generate the mediating charge a complex rotation structure is needed.
Only the e+ & e- have the exact same quantity of charge what ever you mean with charge... In reality the field is what counts for the mass not the charge. Charge is only equivalent if you move it and generate a macroscopic current.
According to the 5 rotation strong force equation charge (q) q2 =mass*radius*"torus form factor-constant". Most of this charge is internal charge and binds the magnetic field lines to the 6D orbits. But there are some lower dimensional waves (doing 2,3 mass-rotations) that generate the external visible charge based on the same principle.
Because we can derive the exact electron mass and structure from the proton structure we must assume that these particles are a kind of siblings what explains some equivalent behavior.
-
The idea that both mass and energy are generated by circulating magnetic flux
and that there are no point masses or charges is a 21C idea.
"He picked up the children's history book and looked at the portrait of Big Brother which formed its frontispiece. The hypnotic eyes gazed into his own. It was as though some huge force were pressing down upon you—something that penetrated inside your skull, battering against your brain, frightening you out of your beliefs, persuading you, almost, to deny the evidence of your senses. In the end the Party would announce that the infinities in your equations must be ignored, and you would have to believe it. "
https://genius.com/George-orwell-nineteen-eighty-four-book-1-chapter-7-annotated
-
Synopsis: Anomalous Magnetic Moment Still Anomalous April 1, 2020• Physics 13, s39
Supercomputer simulations rule out a known quantum effect as the cause of the muon’s unexpectedly strong magnetic moment.
-
Wyttenbach : Jürg, do you have a specific new view on BEC's in relation with your new theories?
I am asking since BECs normally do occur at very low temperatures, while Leif Holmlid seems to describe UDH/UDD alike BECs in his experiments at room temperature. -
The electron muon magnetic moment ratio (206.7669883) is almost equal to the mass ratio (206.7682830).
What's the "official" explication for this "coincidence"?
-
Jürg, do you have a specific new view on BEC's in relation with your new theories?
I am asking since BECs normally do occur at very low temperatures, while Leif Holmlid seems to describe UDH/UDD alike BECs in his experiments at room temperature.Classic physics is based on lego like abstraction of particles. But even with this you can calculate classic BEC condition at higher temperature, when you restrict the degree freedom for movement form 3D --> 1D. You have to use low pressure and to rig the formula a bit.
Of course the idea that wave functions do overlap is superficial as this only works for some electrons and not for nuclei.
UDH (H*/D*) is a two step process. 1) electron long range spin-spin pairing SC-like. 2) nuclear wave synchronization with the induction of the general Rydberg state. It's all in the new writeup including experimental measurements .
-
Near Room Temperature Superconductivity at Extreme Conditions
-
2 posts above moved from the 'useful book' thread, since they are papers - but well worth a read. Than you Ahlfors.
-
https://arstechnica.com/scienc…-a-human-hair-and-passes/
"This and many other experimental refinements have allowed them to measure gravitational attraction down to a distance of just 52µm. Once they add additional stabilization against vibration, they will be able to measure at even smaller separations. In the meantime, they have verified that the inverse-square law holds for distances shorter than 50µm, and therefore we have no New Physics."
-
distances shorter than 50µm, and therefore we have no New Physics
"distances shorter than 50µm.." should read "distances greater than 50µm."
and "therefore we have no New Physics" should read "therefore we may have no old Yukawa"
The authors were looking for the Yukawa interaction..at microscopic distances..
Yukawa is not new physics..
Of course the atomic nucleus is a little bit smaller than 50µm..
Nuclear physics still has the "strong" fierce force which is old physics... as old as Yukawa.
Perhaps Chris needs to do reading ..then writing.
" Although his writing used to be alcohol fuelled, Chris has embarked on an exciting new adventure: writing while sober."
-
Yukawa is not new physics..
Feymnan is not new physics either..
Toby explains his PhD..
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
Display More
"distances shorter than 50µm.." should read "distances greater than 50µm."
and "therefore we have no New Physics" should read "therefore we may have no old Yukawa"
The authors were looking for the Yukawa interaction..at microscopic distances..
Yukawa is not new physics..
Of course the atomic nucleus is a little bit smaller than 50µm..
Nuclear physics still has the "strong" fierce force which is old physics... as old as Yukawa.
Perhaps Chris needs to do reading ..then writing.
" Although his writing used to be alcohol fuelled, Chris has embarked on an exciting new adventure: writing while sober."
Inverse logerithmic gravitional/strong force within an atom would equal with coulomb repulsion and proton/electron charge interactions to allow a new stability. Chemical bonds within atoms, picoscale distant nuclear force interaction contributing. Question is it not talked about because it is old or becuase it is out of fashion?
-
Question is it not talked about because it is old or becuase it is out of fashion?
The authors of the minute gravity balance paper(on arxiv-Adelberger,
have been refining their technique for a decade and are gradually getting more microscopic.. in 2020 they have verified
that Newtonian inverse square gravity law holds down to 50 micrometers or less. which is quite an experimental feat
They showed that there was no sign that an old..postulated Yukawa interaction... which is a 1/r dependency (I think ) evidenced at greater than 50 microns..
Similarly Coulombs inverse square law has been verified by measurement to microscopic distances..
According to the newest physics on the block ..both Newton and Coulomb laws should mostly hold sway down to the boundary of dense matter.
which is something like the proton radius,, ~ 1 femto meter... inside of which is a newer Jurisdiction which has precedence
dating back to ~1830 with Faraday's magnetic flux..
https://www.thenewatlantis.com…th-of-faraday-and-maxwell
however in special circumstances this fluxious jurisdiction can extend further.out .as in Holmlid's dense hydrogen. to picometer extent and even further..
