Going back in time to the original thinkers in physics certainly brings back common sense thinking which seems to have been lost in recent years. Excellent work JD. Even going back not so far to eg Yukawa's original papers on mesons is far more instructive than reading any recent work on the subject (disappears into the world of QCD fantasy etc).
The church of SM physics
-
-
I read your piece with great interest. Well done!
Thanks Julian. I think there's some great stuff in the old papers. Especially the electromagnetism papers. And the Einstein digital papers of course. And the QFT papers from the 1920s. IMHO when you read all that stuff you realise what's wrong with the Standard Model.
-
Quote
And the Einstein digital papers of course
Speaking of vortex model of magnetism Einstein's 1st "paper" in particular. But he was dreamy boy these days.
-
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
RB - you have been very ready to accept numerical alchemy as the best way to judge physical theories.
It is not surprising that semi-classical approximations should lead to close answer to questions like this (in some cases the semi-classical answers are exact - though proving this is not always easy!).
In this case, the fundamental QFT solution is immensely complex - that quark-gluon soup!
Now: how can we rate the relative likelihood of "quark-gluon soup"?
You, from the content of your posts, reckon the skill in post-dicting masses and mass differences is the most significant factor that differentiates these theories. That ignores the deep inelastic scattering evidence that shows hadrons are indeed made up of 3 internal components, apparently point charges, with fractional values as suggested by SM? In terms of amount of information predicted (or postdisted) the scattering data exceeds to (single value) nass data by many orders of magnitude.
Do you deny this evidence? Or do you think there is some more skillful model of neutrons and protons (as determined by your numerical alchemy measure) that is also compatible with deep inelastic scattering data?
It is difficult to see how any non-quark model of what baryons are can withstand the 60 years of deep inelastic scattering data that shows quark-like interior components in hadrons exactly as predicted in 1964. Subsequent more detailed data shows quarks and gluons.
All this data means it is really easy for some alternative model of hadrons to provde itself. just predict in great detail the deep inelastic scattering data, of which there is an enormous amount!
https://www.slac.stanford.edu/…/getdoc/slac-pub-5724.pdf
In seeking a deeper explanation for the regularities of the SU3
classification scheme, Gell-Mann and Zweig invented quarks (1,2). In this
approach there are three fundamental quarks dubbed “up” or u, “down” or d,
and “strange” or s -and their antiparticles, the antiquarks. Mesons are built
from a quark plus an antiquark, while baryons are composed of three quarks.
The proton is a combination of two up quarks plus a down quark (written
uud), for example, while the neutron is made of an up quark plus two downs
(udd). By assigning a charge to the up quark of +2/3e (where -e is the charge
on the electron) and -1/3e to the other two, the charges on all the known
mesons and baryons came out correctly. But the idea of fractional charges was
fairly repulsive to physicists of the day; in his original paper, Gell-Mann even
wrote that “a search for stable quarks of charge -l/3 or +2/3 at the highest
energy accelerators would help to reassure us of the nonexistence of real
quarks.” After several years of fruitless searches (3), most particle physicists
agreed that although quarks might be useful mathematical constructs, they
had no innate physical reality as objects of experience.In the first inelastic experiment, which took place in the autumn of
1967, the 20 GeV spectrometer was used to measure electrons that rebounded
from protons at an angle of 6 degrees. The raw counting rates were much
higher than had been expected in the deep inelastic region, where the electron
imparts most of its energy to the proton, but there was considerable
d.._sagreement among the MIT and SLAC physicists as to the proper
interpretation of this effect. Electrons can radiate photons profusely as they
recoil from a nucleus or pass through matter (in this case, the surrounding
hydrogen and target walls); such an effect, which can lower their energy
substantially, has to be removed from the raw data before one can assess the
underlying physics. These “radiative corrections” were very time-consuming
and fraught with uncertainties; they involved measuring cross sections over
a large range of E and E’ for a each value of 0. After the experimental run was
over, a computer program (22) was used to deconvolute these data and obtain
corrected cross sections at the same kinematics as measured.
When the radiative corrections were completed in the spring of 1968, it
became clear that the high counting rates in the deep inelastic region were not
due to radiative effects. A plot of the cross section o versus the invariant
momentum transfer to the proton, Q 2 = 2EE’(Z - cos 0), showed that the
probability of deep inelastic scattering decreased much more slowly with Q2
(also written 42) than that for elastic scattering (Fig. 3). A way to interpret this
unexpected behavior was that the electrons were hitting some kind of hard
core inside the target protons. In hindsight, such an observation paralleled
the- discovery of the atomic nucleus by Ernest Rutherford (12), in which the
probability of large-angle alpha particle scattering from gold atoms was found
to be far larger than had been a n ticipated based on J. J. Thomson ’s “plum
pudding ” model o f the a to m . A t the tim e , however, there were a few o ther
possible interpretations o f the inelastic electron scattering d a ta (13) th a t had to
be excluded b e fore one could conclude th a t the M IT-SLAC group had found
evidence for constituents inside the proton.That was 55 years ago.
More detailed studies of the nucleon’s interior came during the next
round of MIT-SLAC experiments, in which inelastic electron scattering from
both protons and neutrons was measured-and with substantially greater
accuracy. As the probability of electron-parton scattering is proportional to the
square of the parton’s charge, such a comparison of proton and neutron cross
sections was designed to help differentiate between the various parton
models (16,17,24) that were being advocated at the time. In the simplest quark parton model,for example, one in which the proton (uud) and neutron (udd)
contain only three charged quarks, all with the same distribution in
momentum, the ratio of neutron to proton cross sections on/c+ should be
2/3, which is just the ratio of the sums of the squares of the quark charges. In
more complicated parton models, this ratio can be different or vary as a
function of X. In models where the electron scatters diffractively from the
nucleon as a whole, on/c+ was expected to be unity. Measurement of this
ratio therefore became one of the principal goals of the second generation of
MIT-SLAC experiments, which occurred during the period 1970-73.
..- Because free neutrons do not exist naturally (they decay within
.
minutes), high-energy electron beams were passed through targets of liquid
10 deuterium, which has a nucleus composed of a proton and a neutron,
Measurements made at the same E, E’ and 8 with liquid hydrogen targets
allowed subtraction of the proton contribution and extraction of cross sections
for electron-neutron scattering. Corrections were made (25) for the internal
motion of the proton and neutron within a deuteron; these “smearing
corrections” amount to a few percent at low values of x where F~(x) varies Islowly, but rise to more than 10 percent for x > 0.6, where F2 falls rapidly with
increasing x.
The first experiment with both proton and deuteron targets was done
in early 1970 using the 20 GeV spectrometer set to detect electrons scattered at
6” and 10” (26); a second experiment later that year employed the 8 GeV
spectrometer at angles of 18”, 26” and 34’ (27). Further measurements were
rriadb in 1971 with the 8 GeV spectrometer at 15”, 19”, 26” and 34” (28) to
improve the accuracy of the data at x greater than 0.5. These experiments
revealed that the ratio on/o? itself scales, and that it is close to 1 at x near 0 but
falls to about 0.3 at the highest values of x for which it can be reliably extracted
(Fig. 7). The data excluded purely diffractive models, which cannot account
for a ratio less than unity.
Within the quark-parton picture, the ratio has to fall between 0.25 and
- 4.0-depending on the momentum distribution of the u and 4 quarks within
the proton and neutron (29). Although the MIT-SLAC data comes close to the
lower limit of this range as x approaches 1, such a behavior is possible if the
odd..quark (the d quark in the proton and the u quark in the neutron) is the
only charged parton that is ever found carrying almost all the nucleon’s
momen tu m . The fact th a t onloP approaches 1 when x is near 0 can also be
explained within quark-parton models (26,24); a t low values o f x, the
dominan t process is electron scattering from a “sea” o f low-momen tum
quark-antiquark pairs th a t is the same in b o th the proton and neu tron. A t
high x, however, an electron usually encoun ters the “valence” quarks, which
differ for the two cases.
In tegrals over the structure func tions called “sum rules,” which could
now be evaluated using the improved d a ta sets, gave added con fidence in the
quark-parton model (4). Because the structure func tions represent sums over
the various probabilities o f an electron encoun tering each kind o f parton
(multiplied by the square o f its charge), specific parton models give d e finite
predictions for these sum rules. Fractional charges were favored by the d a ta ,
b u t certain sum rules still came in abou t a factor o f 2 smaller than was
expec ted based on a simple three-quark model o f the proton. More complex
models incorporating neu tral “gluons” to media te the force binding
quarks (24) were compa tible with the d a ta (4) if the gluons carried abou t half
the proton’s momen tu m .
Combined analyses o f all the d a ta from the second-genera tion
experimen ts (30,31) allowed extraction o f R = o ~ /or and the two structure
- func tions-for the proton, deu teron and neu tron-with substantially grea ter
accuracy than previously possible. The observation th a t R was the same for all
three cases allowed physicists to interpret the cross section ratio onloP as the
ratio-of structure func tions , to o . In each case, the magni tude and behavior o f
R was found to be consistent with partons being spin-l/2 particles-as
12 expected if they were quarks. The more detailed investigations of scaling that
also became possible with the improved data revealed that the structure
functions had little or no variation with Q2 for selected values of x c 0.3, but
they decreased slightly with increasing (22 at higher values of x (32). Such a
slow falloff had been anticipated in parton models that included gluons (32); a
cloud of gluons surrounding the charged partons was thought to give them a Ikind of structure that led naturally to small violations of scaling, as observed.
In 1973 the SLAC group made yet another series of inelastic electron
scattering experiments at angles ranging from 10” to 60’ using the 20 GeV
spectrometer and the 1.6 GeV spectrometer (which until that time had been
used only for counting recoil protons). The results of these
measurements (33) confirmed the violations of scaling found in the earlier
analysis and extended it to the higher values of Q2 that could be attained at
the larger angles.So to the present:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/221…es/9789814733519_0003.pdf
The enormous quantity of LHC and other data on deep inelastic scattering is what holds together QCD as a realistic and skilful theory. Howev rmuch you hate the QCD complexity - you can't dismiss it without some other way to explain that very large body of data - 1000 times more data that the one numerical value of hadron mass.
Whereas fitting single numbers is relatively easy using numerical alchemy, the larger the amount of data needed to fit, the more difficult that becomes.
-
And, for those wanting more digestible details:
-
Please be precise and link the paper whose authors you believe to have committed fraud?
As said you have a short memory: You linked the cheating paper about the 20000 Feynman loop to electron g-factor more than once in your comments. May be you can present the cheat once more....
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.
That's exactly the problem. Contrary to what others believe, I myself not not at all understand all aspect of the new model. I'm learning over time. E.g. I could'd do the derivation for gravity for more than half a year just because I didn't fully understand how to do it.
Now I came to the conclusion that I need to do one more deep learning step to more fundamentally understand how we can transport Maxwell equations from S3 to SO(4). The basic force modeling is great only for highly symmetric cases. The orbit model needs a more general approach to get the same precision for asymmetric nuclei like 3He, 3H. This affects only the general structure of the modeling.
I did much work on electron orbits too that need more attention. Not even to talk about the gamma spectrum of nuclei that was the initial work I did for about full 3 months! --- and there is LENR where I should write a paper about our experiments to show people how gamma radiation is linke to LENR.
ou, from the content of your posts, reckon the skill in post-dicting masses and mass differences is the most significant factor that differentiates these theories. That ignores the deep inelastic scattering evidence that shows hadrons are indeed made up of 3 internal components, apparently point charges, with fractional values as suggested by SM? In terms of amount of information predicted (or postdisted) the scattering data exceeds to (single value) nass data by many orders of magnitude.
CERN uses protons ( as hadronic mass) . The perturbative mass - the only part that can be (EM-) measured - of the proton couples as 3 wave structure, thus the CERN findings confirms the SO(4) wave structure. If you sum up the so called quark masses then you almost get the so called 3D/4D flux (3 wave part) of the proton mass. All the rest (quarks, gluons) physicists invented is bare nonsense.
THH's claims that mass (energy) is not important was the basis to create this thread because we want unmask that SM is not only a physics model - in contrary it is a religion based on fringe (as THH confirms) claims that the truth (= measurable high precision facts) is not important.
-
Display More
As said you have a short memory: You linked the cheating paper about the 20000 Feynman loop to electron g-factor more than once in your comments. May be you can present the cheat once more....
That's exactly the problem. Contrary to what others believe, I myself not not at all understand all aspect of the new model. I'm learning over time. E.g. I could'd do the derivation for gravity for more than half a year just because I didn't fully understand how to do it.
Now I came to the conclusion that I need to do one more deep learning step to more fundamentally understand how we can transport Maxwell equations from S3 to SO(4). The basic force modeling is great only for highly symmetric cases. The orbit model needs a more general approach to get the same precision for asymmetric nuclei like 3He, 3H. This affects only the general structure of the modeling.
I did much work on electron orbits too that need more attention. Not even to talk about the gamma spectrum of nuclei that was the initial work I did for about full 3 months! --- and there is LENR where I should write a paper about our experiments to show people how gamma radiation is linke to LENR.
CERN uses protons ( as hadronic mass) . The perturbative mass - the only part that can be (EM-) measured - of the proton couples as 3 wave structure, thus the CERN findings confirms the SO(4) wave structure. If you sum up the so called quark masses then you almost get the so called 3D/4D flux (3 wave part) of the proton mass. All the rest (quarks, gluons) physicists invented is bare nonsense.
THH's claims that mass (energy) is not important was the basis to create this thread because we want unmask that SM is not only a physics model - in contrary it is a religion based on fringe (as THH confirms) claims that the truth (= measurable high precision facts) is not important.
Ok Wyttenbach , sorry for assuming that you have all the model figured out. I agree the SO(4) space allows for a re modeling of all aspects of physics as we don’t know it, and therefore requires, or better said, demands, a lot of work, probably a lot is an understatement, and the appropriate wording should be “several lifetimes of work”. This makes it even more important to get more people on board, as I already said, by getting them to grasp the fundamental idea of what a powerful tool it is.
I already posted a link to a paper of another person trying to use the SO(4) for physics modeling, but he was trying to work backwards from there to accepted views, and he already had found, or realized, that SO(4) offered interesting possibilities for some aspects of time/space and anisotropy. The article is called “A new perspective on space time 4D rotations and the SO(4) transformation group” published online in February 2019.
Perhaps you should get in contact with him? Or perhaps you are already in contact with him?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S221137971832076X
-
I already posted a link to a paper of another person trying to use the SO(4) for physics modeling, but he was trying to work backwards from there to accepted views, and he already had found, or realized, that SO(4) offered interesting possibilities for some aspects of time/space and anisotropy. The article is called “A new perspective on space time 4D rotations and the SO(4) transformation group” published online in February 2019.
This looks similar to other tries to just find a more general form for the SM permutation (rotation) matrix. On first sight he does not use uniform (guv still there) space and uniform 4D rotations in SO(4). This - may be, if ever - can only be used to model a time like coupling to SO(4) in a projection of SO(4) to SO(3) and not for the magneto static EM solution in SO(4).
-
This looks similar to other tries to just find a more general form for the SM permutation (rotation) matrix. On first sight he does not use uniform (guv still there) space and uniform 4D rotations in SO(4). This - may be, if ever - can only be used to model a time like coupling to SO(4) in a projection of SO(4) to SO(3) and not for the magneto static EM solution in SO(4).
Of course Wyttenbach, the poor guy doesn’t know better, but he already is realizing that SO(4) is a good tool. That’s a start. Perhaps he needs a nudge in the right direction.
-
Its an amount of work thinking of the planet as a model. Like adding mass from space dust nonsense ya gotta unload a lot of old thinking.. Looking at the added mass from the black balloon expansion in the core, faults as electromags ect. Maybe we live on top of a cold one and just don't get it yet.~
-
Speaking of vortex model of magnetism Einstein's 1st "paper" in particular. But he was dreamy boy these days.
Thanks for that. Also see a simple experiment to demonstrate Ampere’s molecular currents. This was the Einstein-de Haas effect, which “demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics”.
-
Thanks for that. Also see a simple experiment to demonstrate Ampere’s molecular currents. This was the Einstein-de Haas effect, which “demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics”.
The talk of Magnetic vortexes reminded me the images that appear in the book of Howard Johnson.
-
The enormous quantity of LHC and other data....
I don't see how 1623 words of physics history cut and paste including Rutherford and" the various parton models (16,17,24)
show any evidence that QCD or QED modelling is going to reveal useful details of the neutron proton structure
when the best value that supercomputer QCD.QED modelling only can give for the n-p mass difference
is 1.5 Mev +/- 20+% compared to data of 1.2933321
very ready to accept numerical alchemy
Perhaps by numerical alchemy is meant checking the theory fit with experimental data
This seems to an accepted rite of physics since before Newton checked the falling moon with the falling apple
Accepted by physicists of many faiths.. including those in the SM church,.
such as Stephan Durr.. but perhaps not by Aristotle.
Also accepted by the SM propagandists..as a test.. (more cut and paste..)
"
QED), a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics, is among the most stringently tested theories in physics. The most precise and specific tests of QED consist of measurements of the electromagnetic fine-structure constant, α, in various physical systems.
Checking the consistency of such measurements tests the theory.
Tests of a theory are normally carried out by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions.
In QED, there is some subtlety in this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value of α, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment.
Because of this, the comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent determinations of α. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of α from different physical sources agree with each other. The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below.
This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.
Perhaps SM 's 10 ppb fitting of QED and the alpha value does not extend to QED/ QCD and fitting the neutron and the proton masses?
-
Wyttenbach:
I love to hear you preach against the SM church. Mills and Unzicker are a couple more from this genre for other fans out there. I looked at only one of your PDFs so far and I found one thing unsettling. The factors that you add to make your computed values were (that I saw) all close to power of 10, like 0.998 x 10^-3 etc. Then they might be added multiple times with an SO(4) (incomprehensible to me) explanation for why that many times. It looked like you were adjusting each place value more or less independently. Do you have an example where one of your geometrical factors is like 1.64 x 10^-5 or something that would make it harder to reach a target value than just adding ones in each place to make the value?
-
Wyttenbach:
I love to hear you preach against the SM church. Mills and Unzicker are a couple more from this genre for other fans out there. I looked at only one of your PDFs so far and I found one thing unsettling. The factors that you add to make your computed values were (that I saw) all close to power of 10, like 0.998 x 10^-3 etc. Then they might be added multiple times with an SO(4) (incomprehensible to me) explanation for why that many times. It looked like you were adjusting each place value more or less independently. Do you have an example where one of your geometrical factors is like 1.64 x 10^-5 or something that would make it harder to reach a target value than just adding ones in each place to make the value?
These constants are given by physics. The changes in dimension (radius) in fusion (e.g. D+D) are tiny. The factors are of geometric origin and have infinite precision. All factors have an exact physical explanation.
Some SM folks still hope it's all numerology... But be aware that the derivation of gravitation has been made a long time after all factors were found, what reduces this argument (numerology) to "0".
SM has been tested against ultra thin plasma states with a model that neglects magneto static forces. For dense matter its just fringe or simply nonsensical as it can calculate nothing of interest.
-
https://physicsworld.com/a/ele…to-a-small-proton-radius/
For nearly a decade the size of the particle that makes up the bulk of the universe’s visible matter has been in dispute, with experiments yielding two very different values for the radius of the proton. This disagreement may soon be resolved now that an electron scattering experiment has, for the first time, favoured the smaller of the two values.
-
https://physicsworld.com/a/ele…to-a-small-proton-radius/
For nearly a decade the size of the particle that makes up the bulk of the universe’s visible matter has been in dispute, with experiments yielding two very different values for the radius of the proton. This disagreement may soon be resolved now that an electron scattering experiment has, for the first time, favoured the smaller of the two values.
-
the_real_proton.pdf
In SI units, the CODATA value of μp is 1.4106067873(97)×10−26 J⋅T−1( 2.7928473508(85)
2.79284763508
μN.)
Bergman's 1991 proton ring model gives for the proton magnetic moment
µ = 9.284832 x 10-24 divided by 1836.15 = 0.505668 10−26 J⋅T−1.. are my calculations correct?
other models give more accurate calculation of the once socalled anomalous proton moment.
-
the_real_proton.pdf
The electron scattering plot (Fig3) is in absolute agreement with the SO(4) model that gives you a magnetic (center of mass) radius of 0.837653../2 fm and a charge radius of 0.840699fm... The neutron has no outer charge radius as its combined charge runs on a 5 rotation orbit that is neutral.
The problem with the proton ring model is it's lack of symmetry. The Clifford torus model is the same idea but with an SO(4) symmetry that is complete.
-
The proton isn't a mess of quarks and gluons. Nor is it just a ring. I think the ring electron is more or less right, although I also think it's better to think in terms of a fat torus. Anyway, the proton g factor is 5.585. That's nearly three times the electron g-factor, but not quite. So IMHO the proton is three incomplete rings, like the trefoil on the right below:
CCASA proton image by Arpad Horvath see Wikipedia Public domain trefoil image by Jim Belk, see Wikipedia
Trace round the trefoil anticlockwise from the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. See what Williamson and van der Mark said about identifying a quark with a confined photon state which is not sufficient in itself to complete a closed loop. It “would then only be possible to build closed three-dimensional loops from these elements with qqq and q̄q combinations”.
