The church of SM physics

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I would ponder gratefully the time such a ban saves you. You can lead donkeys to the water trough, but you cannot make them drink.

    You can lead a horse to water to water, but you can't make it drink.

    You can lead a PhD to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

    Ba Dum Tish!


    What's this about Einstein-Rosen? Einstein and Rosen’s 1935 paper was the particle problem in the theory of general relativity. They talked about a mathematical representation of space wherein a particle is represented by a bridge connecting two sheets. Whilst I'm normally an Einstein fan, I didn't like this. Ditto for David Finkelstein’s 1958 paper past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle. He was saying an antiparticle was some kind of white hole, which it isn’t. Nor is it a point-particle. This little paper lacks foundation. There's no understanding of gravity here, or the wave nature of matter. And yet along with the Einstein-Rosen paper, it's used as some kind of foundation for unscientific speculations on wormholes.

    Quote from JohnDuffield

    What's this about Einstein-Rosen? Einstein and Rosen’s 1935 paper was the particle problem in the theory of general relativity.


    Todays understanding of QM is directly linked to the above first detection of a mathematical contradiction between GR & QM and causality. As consequence we today know that QM is equivalent to a closed formalism that can in no way be enhanced. Only restrictions are allowed as possible modifications. Closed formalisms only allow the global view on a problem as the connection of the problem must match the internal connections in the algebra.


    If you understand these subtle difference then you also understand why QM as a part of QED/QCD/QFT cannot be used to evaluate all details of an experiment as it only describes the global structure of matter that is no longer global when e.g. a beam enters a chamber.


    Said from the view point of information theory: To describe a communicating system - every 3 particle/partners system is such and you can make no experiment with less that 3 - you need a complete system math.


    This does in no case invalidate QM. It only tells it's use is neither fundamental nor all mighty, is of restricted use only.


    The more deep problem with QED/QCD/QFT is the lack of the magneto static solution, what completely invalidates all results regarding mass and somehow explains the screwed up try with the so called Higgs field/mass.

    Todays understanding of QM is directly linked to the above first detection of a mathematical contradiction between GR & QM and causality. As consequence we today know that QM is equivalent to a closed formalism that can in no way be enhanced. Only restrictions are allowed as possible modifications. Closed formalisms only allow the global view on a problem as the connection of the problem must match the internal connections in the algebra.


    There is no currently known mathematical contradiction between GR and QM and causality. Many have claimed this (including Einstein) and more sophisticated and careful analysis has shown them wrong. FTL signally is not possible from entanglement. Schroedinger's cat, or more sophisticated Wigner and Wigner's friend "paradoxes" are only paradoxical when incorrect assumptions are made about the knowledge of observers. I'll happily go through the details of this if anyone wants to post a detailed thing that they think shows mathematically or otherwise a causality paradox.


    If you understand these subtle difference then you also understand why QM as a part of QED/QCD/QFT cannot be used to evaluate all details of an experiment as it only describes the global structure of matter that is no longer global when e.g. a beam enters a chamber.

    Said from the view point of information theory: To describe a communicating system - every 3 particle/partners system is such and you can make no experiment with less that 3 - you need a complete system math.


    Which QM provides. QM can describe isolated systems quite happily. Detail a system where you think QM fails for this reason and I will show you why it does not.


    There are a lot of people who misunderstand foundations of QM and as a result see paradoxes that do not on more careful reading actually exist.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    There is no currently known mathematical contradiction between GR and QM and causality. Many have claimed this (including Einstein) and more sophisticated and careful analysis has shown them wrong.


    Either you understand what I have said about the fundamental knowledge of math & structure or you don't.


    The result is as I said: QM is not fundamental because it's complete. Thus all results depend on the viewpoint (global v.s. local) you take. It's all about understanding logic or not. Of course there is no contradiction under the precondition that QM is complete and not closed.

    Even more fascinating is the knowledge that information is not bound to time albeit it's bound to energy! The energy you need to extract it!


    The problem is that physics folks (e.g. CERN) do not grasp that QM/QED is fundamentally (mathematically) inadequate to fully describe an experiment. What they would need is a second model that can handle systems that exchange energy and not only states or state bound energies.

    Either you understand what I have said about the fundamental knowledge of math & structure or you don't.


    The result is as I said: QM is not fundamental because it's complete. Thus all results depend on the viewpoint (global v.s. local) you take. It's all about understanding logic or not. Of course there is no contradiction under the precondition that QM is complete and not closed.


    W: you will realise that I take such unsubstantiated assertions as only that. QM foundations is an interesting subject, one I am qualified enough to review research on, and I have donme this with much inclusing - for example, the recent Wigner's friend revived experiment.


    I'd be happy for you to point to a paper you are others have written substantiating your claim. I will then comment on it, and provide peer reviewed counter-evidence if need be.

    The problem is that physics folks (e.g. CERN) do not grasp that QM/QED is fundamentally (mathematically) inadequate to fully describe an experiment. What they would need is a second model that can handle systems that exchange energy and not only states or state bound energies.


    Specify this model that QM cannot handle?


    Whilst eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian are useful for time-independent solutions QM happily handles any dynamic system you like. The time evolution is well defined. For example, any number of interacting systems, all given QM state vectors, with defined QM interactions, form a dynamical system that is correctly predicted by QM (and which interpretation you choose makes no difference to the observations obtained in such a system).

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Specify this model that QM cannot handle?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    that is correctly predicted by QM



    QCD/QED correctly predict (or to be precise postdict) the neutron-proton mass difference at one figure precision.

    Those Hamiltonians must be working overtime in supercomputer teraflops..

    under the direction of Professor Stephan Durr ..one of the disciples in the SM church..

    Dear Robert Bryant, the value 1.5 +/- 0.3 MeV [more precisely 1.51 +/- 0.16 +/- 0.23 MeV as you can tell from Tab.1] is a post-diction. In other words, we pretended we don't know the n-p mass difference and try to compute it from first principles. Of course, the n-p mass difference is determined in experiment with much higher precision: 1.2933321 +/- 0.0000005 MeV. Within errors our result is well compatible with the experiment -- our result has a combined uncertainty of 0.28 MeV, so 1.51 +/- 0.28 MeV agrees with 1.29 MeV.

    For us, this splitting was a side-issue which, nevertheless, served as a cross-check of our calculation. Our main goal was to understand how this n-p mass difference would split into a QED contribution and a QCD part.

    This split-up cannot be determined in experiment.
    Best regards,

    Stephan Wed 10/04/2019 1:25 AM

    I read this paper. I think Thomas Minderle is correct about some things. Like this:


    "Both the electric and magnetic wave equations can be derived from this. What we visualize as electric and magnetic fields fluctuating into each other while propagating through space as part of an EM wave, may in actuality be a single magnetic vector potential wave. In fact, the primacy of the vector potential demands that it be

    more “real” than either, with the electric and magnetic components just being derived abstractions. This is important because one of the arguments that there is no ether was made on the basis that magnetic and electric fields can sustain each other while traveling through a vacuum, but if the real wave is a single vector potential
    wave without a supporting partner, then there must be a medium of propagation. In fact, the vector potential itself being made of scalar superpotential shows that, ultimately, even transverse EM waves are naught but ripples in a scalar field, the medium of ether"    .


    Here's my picture of that. The upper portion depicts your typical orthogonal electric and magnetic waves, the lower portion depicts the real wave. E is the slope of it, B is the time rate of change of slope.


    Afieldblog3.gif

    However I think he's wrong about some other things, primarily because he doesn't have an electron model. He doesn't know about a worble embracing itself. So he doesn't understand mass or charge, and he doesn't know why an electron moves linearly or rotationally in a field. I should talk to this guy. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

    RB.


    And your point is?


    We are talking here about the 99.99% of experimental data, not the 0.01% (particle rest masses).


    And anyway, since hadrons are composite particles - complex soups of quarks and gluons all bound together by strong force, with most of the mass-energy coming from that binding, not the rest mass of the constituent leptons, difficultly in making accurate calculations is not surprising?


    Whereas predicting whole elementary particles, with specific properties, and the fact that many many years of data have as yet (shame) found only the predicted particles, exactly all of the predicted particles, and no others, is pretty good!


    Rest mass ((might surprise people here) is not the only parameter of interest about particles...

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    We are talking here about the 99.99% of experimental data, not the 0.01% (particle rest masses).


    THHuxleynew : You live in a phantasy world: CERN does measurements since > 50 years. For each particle, by post diction/analysis they generated huge SM like formulas, that now can be used to analyze Billions of new measurements. Nothing of this measurements fits any basic SM model with may be the exception of the binary structure given by the permutation matrix.


    Thus SM - does in the sense of a real model - predicts nothing of what CERN ever found. This deficiency is well known about independent (of CERN) physicists. As I will remind you such a - now 90 years - depressive state pushed them (QED folks) even further to finally commit fraud as they

    published a cheated paper about the electron g-factor, that uses illegal mappings to infinite series to avoid the unavoidable rounding errors.


    I do not know your motivation behind the FUD you post & claim. May be you once should fetch a younger still independent physics prof. and ask him about the reality... As said I did it and they share my view. They wait for a new model!

    W: pushed them (QED folks) even further to finally commit fraud as they published a cheated paper about the electron g-factor, that uses illegal mappings to infinite series to avoid the unavoidable rounding errors.


    Please be precise and link the paper whose authors you believe to have committed fraud?


    Again and again above I've asked you to be precise, instead of making general vague accusations. The devil is always in the detail. If you do this, I will answer. (see above).


    In addition, if you published your SO4 work to the standard expected in a self-contained readable paper (or set of papers) it would be possible for others to critique it. You do not in the internet age need to pass peer review (though going through that process does tend to improve quality, and reject outright rubbish). Anyone can published on vixra.


    One advantage of even vixra publication for you: you could predict all the masses that you claim your theory determines to a significantly greater accuracy than is currently known. Stating your prediction accuracy. Then, in 3 years time when better experimental data exist, the timestamped publication would prove the skill of your theory.


    THH

    • Official Post

    Wyttenbach , I agree that following attached to the SM and insisting it is the way to advance is a dead end. Many agree with this as a general view, so we are in increasingly good company on that aspect.


    Somehow I see that you imply this is being purposefully done to keep better models from being developed, and there’s where I disagree with you because I think there is no organized effort to keep us in the dark age of SM, but simply a group of humans that don’t want to acknowledge they have been increasingly led astray and are doing their best to stretch their model to fit reality.


    I think this won’t last much more. But for it to be acknowledged, there’s a need for a model to be proposed and take its place, and this is the tricky and difficult part. No new model has gained following without its share of “blood, sweat and tears”.


    Your model looks like a great conceptual tool, as far as I have been able to look and understand, it is like a “Swiss army knife” in the sense that it can provide answers to all current problems and puzzles, but with the added benefit of it being accurate and efficient. But in this lies its current and transitional weakness, that hinders its acceptability: it is so good that will take years to apply it to everything and appreciate how much better it is. With the added complication that it is mathematically mind bending and not easy to visualize. I have been reading a lot of SO(4) mathematics, topology and a thesis made by some Thailandese PhD student that develops a software for visualizing 4D rotations in SO(4) just to be able to try and grasp what the expressions on your model mean. After all that one begins to see what you mean.


    At some point you have to acknowledge that you have an immense advantage, that you have a gifted mind for visualizing this complex mathematical space and use it to describe the physics of nucleus and particles. For others to get enough interest to catch up, you need to get better at communicating your ideas. I say this in the best spirit and without any intent if criticizing you as a person. I myself am very aware of my communication skills shortage, and when I need to get a point across to a broad audience I am in need to get help.


    In this sense, I think You might get far more succes in the discussion of your ideas if you resort to build a team of people that can help you “socialize” the more easier to grasp parts of your work, and other people to help you make easier to visualize the more complex parts of your work to other scientists. I know is easy to suggest things as a “back seat driver” but I am doing so as I am fully aware that your voice alone has slim chance of being heard in the short term unless you gather an ensemble of talents to help you roll the ball into a future wider acceptance and awareness of your proposal.

    In this sense, I think You might get far more succes in the discussion of your ideas if you resort to build a team of people that can help you “socialize” the more easier to grasp parts of your work, and other people to help you make easier to visualize the more complex parts of your work to other scientists. I know is easy to suggest things as a “back seat driver” but I am doing so as I am fully aware that your voice alone has slim chance of being heard in the short term unless you gather an ensemble of talents to help you roll the ball into a future wider acceptance and awareness of your proposal.


    I just want to reiterate - to get others interested it helps to have publishable quality material so that it can be read and reviewed independently. People are quite willing to comment on way out theories as long as they are self-contained and joined up. If, like Mills, you need a discoursive (and very long) book to describe a theory that is far from conventional ideas then that is likely to be because it is not a precise theory, but a set of hand waving leaps in the dark.


    in addition: those who have some interesting new theory tend not to justify this by claiming that QED papers are fraudulent. New theories are interesting and if worthwhile stand by their own merits. If the only merit of your theory is that (you claim) it works better than some claimed fraudulent conventional theory, it will not get notice from anyone except those who already believe your critique of standard theory.


    As well as the SO4 paper, you could publish a "this is the error in SM" paper. Again, if you claim bias, it can be published on vixra. The discipline of having to write things down, correctly and completely referenced, is still very helpful.

    • Official Post

    I agree that “fraudulent” is a strong word full of implications. “Biased” or “partial” would be perhaps a better word.


    I would also not say that I believe any critic of the SM but I think it has the problem of being circular, in the sense that it made predictions and complex experiments were performed to prove those predictions that were not always fruitful and many corrections were made to both model and experiments to make them agree. In this way you can prove anything so far as the resources to prove or disprove something are in the hands of a few that have all to win or lose if they can’t prove their own predictions. I am not implying dishonesty, but in this context there sure eagerness has played a role.

    I would also not say that I believe any critic of the SM but I think it has the problem of being circular, in the sense that it made predictions and complex experiments were performed to prove those predictions that were not always fruitful and many corrections were made to both model and experiments to make them agree. In this way you can prove anything so far as the resources to prove or disprove something are in the hands of a few that have all to win or lose if they can’t prove their own predictions. I am not implying dishonesty, but in this context there sure eagerness has played a role.


    There I can agree, in part.


    • Indeed experiment has led to discovery of errors in theory (or sometimes motivated new theory).


    I disagree that this is a valid criticism of SM. It would be surprising if SM, or any other theory, was not driven by experimental results!


    • Also the things predicted are looked for, in some cases with a few parameters freedom.


    The issue is how much skill there is in the theory other than the free parameters. It is only a criticism if the overall skill is low and therefore all the results are circular. The literature claims a lot of such skill and indeed just naively it would seem that predictions of neutral currents and Higgs bosons subsequently found is pretty impressive. In more detail the theory has to predict exact scattering amplitudes at different angles a vast number of experiments. The quark structure of hadrons has been validated by any number of completely different experiments, all consistent. You don't like the fact that there are free parameters to fit those amplitudes. But if the number of deggrees of freedom in data predicted >> the number of fitted parameters that is irrelevant. Case in point is Higgs. If two independent experiments looking at different products find bumps in scattering data explained by the same mass of spin 0 boson that is pretty impressive data and shows this exists even though the mass was originally fitted to that data.


    There are many many valid criticisms of SM.

    • The Higgs field has a weird Hamiltonian that is not pinned down - the standard model is merely the simplest such that works, but many other are possible.
    • There are fundamental interaction strengths not predicted
    • There is (not yet) any unification with gravity.
    • Neutrinos are not well understood
    • Supersymmetric particles have not been found, so mass of Higgs is unnatural (but explainable on anthropic principle grounds)


    Why think up criticisms that are just wrong?


    I don't myself think SM is complete, or that it will be the way we think about things in 20 years time, let alone 50. But many of its elements - those symmetry groups, the elementary particles - those will all persist because they are real, just as the idea of nuclei with specific properties that determine electronic shells and therefore chemical behaviour has persisted because it is real.


    Given those symmetry groups, the Higgs, QM results, whatever replaces SM QFT has got to model it awfully closely in some approximation, even if it sounds like a completely different theory. Personally I like QFTs, they are a step in the right direction towards simplification.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I don't myself think SM is complete, or that it will be the way we think about things in 20 years time, let alone 50. But many of its elements - those symmetry groups, the elementary particles - those will all persist because they are real, just as the idea of nuclei with specific properties that determine electronic shells and therefore chemical behaviour has persisted because it is real.


    Given those symmetry groups, the Higgs, QM results, whatever replaces SM QFT has got to model it awfully closely in some approximation, even if it sounds like a completely different theory. Personally I like QFTs, they are a step in the right direction towards simplification.

    It just isn't true Huxley. The Standard Model is badly wrong. You'll be horrified when you come to appreciate just how badly wrong it is. Here, I've written something on grand unification for you: A grand unified history lesson.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    the Higgs, QM results, whatever replaces SM QFT has got to model it awfully closely in some approximation

    "model it awfully closely in some approximation" Sounds awfully rhetorical.


    how about the neutron and the proton.... the stuff of the Periodic table?


    Has "HiggsQMswhatever" got the fundamentals to improve Stephan Durr's neutron-proton mass difference via QCD /?QED

    from his best supercomputer estimate   of 1.5 +/- 0.3 MeV agrees with 1.29 MeV


    to "1.2933 +/- 0.00005MeV." agrees with "1.2933321 +/- 0.0000005 MeV


    I think even Stephan Durr has given up on teraflops on supercomputers and is waiting for something better..

    in addition to a few younger physicists

    n-p is so important to Durr... he spent 10 years mediating on it...something to do with the stability of the universe...

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.