Maybe in the Lattice QCD universe the mass of the proton and neutron
are 1150+Mev .. Beane et al 2021
These folks have no clue of basic physics. The Dirac equation is garbage as mass has no wave relation over E=mc2. There is also no common 4-potential possible if you have 3 fields...
These SM church members behave as the Catholic church, that also invented complete fakes like Immaculate conception that could only produce a female...
Sabine Hossenfelder tells it like it is.
Sabine Hossenfelder tells it like it is.
External Content youtu.beContent 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.
Comments Cherepanov A.I. to what Sabina Hossenfelder (Germany) said in this video, August 7, 2023 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/tX7V/WyknTAwgJ
Comments Cherepanov A.I. to what Sabina Hossenfelder (Germany) said in this video, August 7, 2023 -
Comments Cherepanov A.I. to what Sabina Hossenfelder (Germany) said in this video, August 7, 2023.docx
Misunderstanding the difference between mathematics and physics, July 29, 2023 - https://docs.google.com/file/d…4F8WB9yD/edit?usp=sharing
Sabine Hossenfelder tells it like it is
Great! "Hossi" got the first thing right. Immaculate conception does not work for males...
But she still believes in all other SM garbage like general relativity (has no experimental proof just refutations..) Higgs particle = fake of the century not only because they found 2 instead of one...It's just a fat proton.
She believes in the Dirac equation just an other blunder of the century or even worse quantum gravitation what is flying toasters around the moon....
Either you like the church or not. Just listening to a more "progresive" priest is no way out...
It is the old known problem of looking for the keys under the lamp post because the light is better there. An atavic fear of the dark.
It is the old known problem of looking for the keys under the lamp post because the light is better there. An atavic fear of the dark.
Moreover, it is also the fear of returning to where the keys were lost. I mean the fear of the aether.
Physicists might have spotted an elusive isotope of nitrogen that stretches the definition of a nucleus. Nitrogen-9’s nucleus is composed of a helium-like core of two protons and two neutrons, surrounded by five ‘unbound’ protons — a wildly unbalanced arrangement that stretches the nuclear glue of the strong force to breaking point. The five untethered protons quickly escape and the isotope lasts a mere 10–21 seconds. The boundary beyond which an isotope is too lopsided to live is called the ‘drip line’: “something like the end of the existence of nuclei”, in the words of nuclear physicist Marek Płoszajczak. If the evidence of 9N is confirmed, it will test the limit of just where the drip line might be.
Reference: Physical Review Letters paper
I would like to know about your SO(4) model: is it somehow related to the 4-dimensional Euclidean space? The fact is that on the one hand SO(4) is a rotation group R^{4}, and on the other hand R^{4} is topologically isomorphic to R^{3}xS^{1}. In turn, the space R^{3}xS^{1} is an excellent foundation for the creation of both relativistic and quantum mechanics. To do this, it is only necessary to fill it with ether, that is, a vector field of velocities (or accelerations) of moving matter.
I would like to know about your SO(4) model: is it somehow related to the 4-dimensional Euclidean space?
The construction of SO(4) is made by connecting 2 all orthogonal circles by The two different tangents. As tangents and circles can only be once in the same space the other two tangents extend O(4) by R(2). So SO(4) is 6 dimensional. You can also write it as SU(2) X SU(2) as the double torus group. Your isomorphism are to a subspace of SO(4) and are often used to simplify/generalize QM math. E.g. one usually extends SO(3) --> SO(4).
But be aware that O(4) is not the center symmetry of SO(4)! It's the rotation surface called Clifford torus that is also a minimal Lagrangian surface (manifold). So all logic from SM gets inverted!! There is no simple point symmetry on group level.
The construction of SO(4) is made by connecting 2 all orthogonal circles by The two different tangents. As tangents and circles can only be once in the same space the other two tangents extend O(4) by R(2). So SO(4) is 6 dimensional.
I didn't understand. Is there any other way to tell about this?
I didn't understand. Is there any other way to tell about this?
Sorry this is math/topology!
Without these basics you won't grasp its structure!
But it seems to me that you are not being strict enough. By the way, I also expressed myself carelessly when I talked about the equivalence of a 4-dimensional Euclidean space and the direct product of a 3-dimensional Euclidean space on a circle. In fact, there is a feature there - at the zero point of a 3-dimensional Euclidean space, the circle is drawn to a point, and therefore, strictly speaking, we get not a cylindrical manifold, but a cone manifold.
At least tell me where you build two orthogonal circles and their tangents, and what is R(2).
the circle is drawn to a point, and therefore, strictly speaking, we get not a cylindrical manifold, but a cone manifold
You can draw the two defining circles for a CT in the X1,X2 and X3,X4 plane using the origin. You can get a minimal 90 degree Clifford torus in 4D just using the connections between all X1,X2 and X3,X4 points. But these fibers construct new "circles" with coordinates (X1,X2,X3,X4) that need 2 more tangents for all possible rotations in SU(2) X SU(2).
May be more easy to understand as S3L X S3R.
SO(4) has a very rich structure what helps in finding projections to classic models.
Thus, you recognize that you are building circles in 4-dimensional Euclidean space. This can also be shown using a Lie algebra composed of vector fields tangent to the Clifford torus. When you talk about a 6-dimensional space, you are talking about the dimension of a group manifold, and these are two different things, as they say in Odessa.
As for my constructions, I must point out another inaccuracy. I have written R^{4}=R^{+}xS^{3}, but this is incorrect because at the zero point of R^{+}, the sphere S^{3} shrinks to a point. So, it will be correct R^{4}=R^{+}*S^{3}=R^{3}*S{1}, where the asterisk indicates the Cartesian product with a singularity at the zero point.
Thus, you recognize that you are building circles in 4-dimensional Euclidean space.
The complication comes from physics where the orthogonal rotations are mapped to orthogonal planes. In math a field can rotate in place a body can't. So 2 rotations fully cover 3 dimension. etc.. So one picture is rotation axes (4) the other is real dimensions covered by a real rotating body.
The CT is not Euclidean as "x" (cross product) is only defined for 2 vectors not for 4. The left maximal cover (S3L) gives a different path than the right cover. This for the CT (in SOP) finally leads to the fact that left/right winded matter is not the same.
You also can write : R4/-{(0,0,0,0)}=S3 but it always depends on what you want to say. Here = just means isomorph.
A discussion about the validity of the standard model is going on in the LENR field, between those who consider it a mere shibboleth, and those who regard it as the true church. This is my contribution...
On the topic of the standard model, I recommend reading 'The Higgs Fake' by Unzicker in which he demolishes the superstructure that has been built on the SM since the 1930's by high energy physics. His principal objections are that the existence of the particle zoo in all its colours and flavours is supported by experiments which cannot be independently replicated. This is because there is no access to similar systems to those at CERN, for example, because they don't exist. Also the postulated lives of the naked particles are so short that they are never directly detected - their existence is only inferred from perturbations in things that can be detected, and the software used for detection and analysis and the raw data are not available outside the groups that use it to support their claims. Nothing is ever overseen -or is even over-seeable- by those outside the big tent. As he points out high energy physics is the biggest industry in the world that has produced no usable products, unlike the workers at Ford, who at least drive their own cars.
The Higgs Fake'
The fake Higgs particle has already been detected around 2001... As at that time the signal was only 3 sigma it got not published and CERN did keep in reserve in case the new collider cannot find the Higgs.
Of course CERN couldn't find any new physics/Higgs particle in the extended energy range (7TEV) of the new collider what tells us that we did waste some 10 billions for nothing except for a machine that could also work, with higher luminosity, in the old energy range up to 130 GeV...
So everything around the Higgs particle is just fake except that the found particle is a real particle what the Higgs cannot be.
A particle is real if one can measure its properties at t0,t1 at a distance > internal 4D De Broglie radius!! Thus must CERN particles (quarks bosons,..) are only virtual not real.
But worst:::
The fat proton (Higgs) like the Kaon/Pion is a doublet charged/neutral.... a very bad fit for Higgs...
The problem of cold nuclear fusion LENR cannot be solved in principle within the framework of the Standard Model, because it describes only the interaction of elementary particles. She, to put it simply, explains how various “dishes” are made from various “ingredients” (6 quarks, 6 leptons, 4 bosons + Higgs boson + antiparticles). But it does not explain at all how and where these ingredients come from, are born and disappear, that is, the non-mechanical movement and change of fermion-baryon matter in the “space” surrounding it, which is the essence of the cold nuclear fusion LENR process.
