The church of SM physics

  • We attribute this finding to Weyl nodes—singularities of the Berry curvature—

    Low T effect. 2 K
    Berry curvature?
    Maybe one should call this the Hamilton Lloyd

    Bortolotti etc berry etc etc ahanarov- bohm curvature ?

    TM 78:56

    Geometric phases and the separation of the world by Michael Berry

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

  • I have seen you debating with the peeps at ResearchGate, at some point You will have to admit that you were born a couple of centuries earlier. People just read their sacred books to you in increasing volume, until they just give up trying to convince you, but looking at your model and your data, that’s heresy.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • People just read their sacred books to you in increasing volume,

    Another psalm from the Standard Model liturgy


    "the muon is in essence a carbon-copy of the electron,

    identical in every way except that it’s around 200 times heavier.


    Some physicists have writing/cooking skills.. Harry Cliff's

    How To Make An Apple Pie From Scratch, which will be published in August 2021.

    https://theconversation.com/ev…t-our-new-findings-157464

  • Test of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays Standard Model of particle physics currently predicts that the different charged leptons, the electron, muon and tau, have identical electroweak interaction strengths. Previous measurements have shown a wide range of particle decays are consistent with this principle of lepton universality. This article presents evidence for the breaking of lepton universality in beauty-quark decays, with a significance of 3.1 standard deviations, based on proton-proton collision data collected with the LHCb detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider. The measurements are of processes in which a beauty meson transforms into a strange meson with the emission of either an electron and a positron, or a muon and an antimuon. If confirmed by future measurements, this violation of lepton universality would imply physics beyond the Standard Model, such as a new fundamental interaction between quarks and leptons.


    It's hard to tell whether these interactions really fall outside the Standard Model, which routinely operates with so-called Yukawa interaction  - i.e. "dark matter" analogy of Casimir force at short distance scale. This force is mass dependent so it should manifest itself during decay of all heavy quarks at the moment when product of decay stay close each other. In gauge theory all forces should be mediated by some boson particles, in this particle it's hypothetical particle called a leptoquark. Leptoquark behaves as so-called Nambu–Goldstone boson, that is like quasiparticle it would have different coupling strengths to electrons and muons.

  • In gauge theory all forces should be mediated by some boson particles, in this particle it's hypothetical particle called a leptoquark. Leptoquark behaves as so-called Nambu–Goldstone boson, that is like quasiparticle it would have different coupling strengths to electrons and muons.

    All these fantasy structures are based on a field only Hamiltonian energy density. The degree of freedom for such a Hamiltonian is gigantic you can fit everything with everything.

    There obviously is no strong force as careful experiments by B.Schaeffer Electromagnetic Nuclear Physics Bernard Schaeffer.pdf did reveal. So the whole building foundation of the standard model already crashed a long time ago.


    For me reading SM papers sounds like listening to a talk among some moronic individuals. This woolgathering can obviously only be estimated by people that are willing to believe into nonsense. But we already had this many times in human history. Phlogiston or flat earth are the most prominent or the geocentric model.


    Nonsense will for ever be nonsense independent of how many bright people support/believe it.

  • no wiggling space for elementary forces.

    and in the beginning mass is created by Higgs,,we know

    but Gravity??? who created that..? ET?


    So, what are the fundamental physical constants? We have 26. If we use the ones that theorists like best, they are:

    • the mass of the up quark
    • the mass of the down quark
    • the mass of the charmed quark
    • the mass of the strange quark
    • the mass of the top quark
    • the mass of the bottom quark
    • 4 numbers for the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix
    • the mass of the electron
    • the mass of the electron neutrino
    • the mass of the muon
    • the mass of the mu neutrino
    • the mass of the tau
    • the mass of the tau neutrino
    • 4 numbers for the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix
    • the mass of the Higgs boson
    • the expectation value of the Higgs field
    • the U(1) coupling constant
    • the SU(2) coupling constant
    • the strong coupling constant
    • the cosmological constant

    Most of these are masses, so clearly we need to understand how particles get their mass!

    In the Standard Model, they get it from interacting with the Higgs boson, so all the masses listed above —

    and also the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa and Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrices —

    really show up when we describe how particles interact with the Higgs.


    The Higgs has not yet been seen — at least not with any certainty — but of the 26 fundamental constants of nature,

    22 describe it or its interactions with other particles! Isn't that weird???

    I suspect we're in for some big surprises here....

    https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html


  • Quote

    and in the beginning mass is created by Higgs

    Mass of Higgs boson is just the thing, which Standard Model has nothing very much to say about: you cannot plug it into any equation of SM. During time Higgs boson mass was guessed from 109+-12 GeV to 760+-21 GeV (plus two unconventional theories with 1900 GeV and 1018 GeV). There are so many comparably likely models - most of which contain continuous parameters whose values aren't calculable right now - that the whole interval is covered almost uniformly.

  • I propose from ignorant perplexity another complication: Lo (Occam's Length) : the minimum length of the equation(s) needed to show the relationship of all these "constants".


    Even Mills' reductionist GUT hasn't offered an approximation of completeness. So many fudge factors, so little time.... perhaps if time itself is not treated as a constant some of the other terms will drop out.

  • As I recently said:


    But the main problem is the silly standard model that assumes that everything is a field. But the standard model has no clue how such a field is generated!! They simply postulate it like the church postulates anything you have to believe. Electron = charge = point mass/field = Kindergarten physics.


    The true qestion is: What produces the fields? The answer is simple: Topologically nested EM flux. So all you need to understand is: What actions are caused by nested magentic flux lines?


    That's what I did with SO(4) physics and solved all open questions.

  • Electron = charge = point mass/field = Kindergarten physics.

    ..the Field be with the kids! the Field be with all of us..

    "

    So there is spread everywhere throughout this room something

    that we call the electron field.

    It's like a fluid that fills this room and, in fact, fills the entire universe.


    There are fields that underlie everything.

    And what we think of as particles aren't really particles at all,

    they're waves of these fields tied up into little bundles of energy. This is the legacy of Faraday...

    "

    It's an extraordinarily difficult problem.

    You know, it's writing the kind of thing I do.

    I don't know a single person in the world who's actually working on this problem.

    That's how hard it is.

    We don't really even know how to begin to start understanding these kind of ideas in quantum field theory.


    Maybe David Tong could start here...

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…edResearchPublicationItem

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

  • Maybe David Tong could start here...

    TM 30.00

    David Tong

    "We have the equations. Everything should be there.

    We just need to work hard and figure out

    what the mass of the proton is just by doing calculations.

    We've been trying to do this for about 40 years now.

    We can get it to within an accuracy of something like 3%.

    Which isn't bad. We're 3% there.

    But we should be much, much better.

    We should be sort of pushing these levels of accuracy.

    And the reason is very simple.

    We've got the right equation."


    Maybe this is a better equation for proton mass

    Equation 10..

    an accurracy of 0.0011 % looks a bit closer than 3%..


  • Maybe tinkering with a flyback coil and seeing the tug of the wire from the spark would let the imaginary magnet field doing this help think out why there is a tug at the system.

    this video will not show the tug but its a starting point.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

  • Here is a another theory of everything. This one doesn't have any masses as constants and its not SM physics.


    Derivation &Experimental Proof of Universal Force Charles W (Bill) Lucas Jr 2014 - YouTube

  • I was watching a documentary about Manhattan project recently. What struck me was that young age.of scientists who made key contributions.

    Most of the most talked about companies these days are also powered by younger people.

    Then the above video and many other videos from scientific conferences increasingly resembling brunches at retirement residence.


    Can we expect a revolution in science where both oppressors and rebels are way past their prime?