The church of SM physics

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Do you know the Goos-Hänchen effect of optics

    From GUTCP..


    A bound electron is a resonator cavity, and can capture photons of the appropriate energy level. The “mass” of the photon is the momentum contained in its electric and magnetic fields.[4].



    It would be a triumph for the GUTCP model of the electron and photon if it gives a more excellent postdiction to explain the size/sign of this effect..

    especially the metal reflection occurrence

    "

    We report the first observation of the Goos-Hannchen shift of a light beam incident on a metal surface

    This phenomenon is particularly interesting because the Goos-Hanchen shift for p polarized light in metals is negative

    and much bigger than the positive shift for s polarized light.

    The experimental result for the measured shifts as a function of the angle of incidence is in excellent agreement with theoretical predictions.

    In an energy-flux interpretation, our measurement shows the existence of a backward energy flow at the bare metal surface

    when this is excited by a p polarized beam of light.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2278

    Quote from Mark U

    No. You should know that in interferometry the light passes though lenses and bounces off mirrors, before detection.

    I want to hear of light from different sources interact only in empty space and cause "interference" patterns, as seen on a detector.


    If you're like me, in high school physics you got to experiment with water waves and see the constructive and destructive interference.

    That is water on water interference. Then we were told that light is like that. Well, tell me where light on light interference occurs in the absence of matter.

    OK, I kind of get what you mean, I think.

    But, in order to answer your question, how do we know there is light at all (at any particular moment) if it does not interact with matter?

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    OK, I kind of get what you mean, I think.

    But, in order to answer your question, how do we know there is light at all (at any particular moment) if it does not interact with matter?

    We know a photon is emitted from the source, which we'll say is a laser. We then see the photon strike the detector. Classical thinking would have us believe that in-between the emitter and detector the photon follows straight line path.

    But no. Heisenberg's mighty Principle graciously bestows upon us the doctrine that at any moment, independent of measurement, the photon truly has no fixed momentum (manifest as frequency and direction) and position. All it has is a mathematical blend of the two. Specifically, delta momentum x delta position >= h/2. Given this, isn't it miraculous that despite the uncertainty at every moment, all the potential branchings of possibilities, the photon somehow manages to end up at the detector just where it was aimed, and with the same frequency as it left the emitter? Wonders never cease.

    Forgive me Heisenberg, for I have sinned.

    Quote from Mark U

    We know a photon is emitted from the source, which we'll say is a laser. We then see the photon strike the detector. Classical thinking would have us believe that in-between the emitter and detector the photon follows straight line path.

    But no. Heisenberg's mighty Principle graciously bestows upon us the doctrine that at any moment, independent of measurement, the photon truly has no fixed momentum (manifest as frequency and direction) and position. All it has is a mathematical blend of the two. Specifically, delta momentum x delta position >= h/2. Given this, isn't it miraculous that despite the uncertainty at every moment, all the potential branchings of possibilities, the photon somehow manages to end up at the detector just where it was aimed, and with the same frequency as it left the emitter? Wonders never cease.

    Forgive me Heisenberg, for I have sinned.

    I am no expert on this, but I am fairly sure that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not apply to things with no mass.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

    Mark U is saying that the so-called HUP just doesn't apply.. to anything much,,

    HUP seems to be one of the solid planks of the good ship QED..

    virtual particles can pop out of the Heisenberg uncertainty some say..


    for a more involved discussion.. refer to GUTCP pg 1368

    which feature's Mill's interpretation of Stephan Durr's 1998 microwave interferometry with rubidium atoms

    which Mills states invalidates the idea that HUP causes waveparticle duality.,,,


    Durr also has developed a non HUP explanation..I think.in 1998

    perhaps both agree that HUP does not apply to the situation..

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/…8Natur.395...33D/abstract

    https://qudev.phys.ethz.ch/sta…omint/1998NaturePaper.pdf

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I am no expert on this, but I am fairly sure that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does not apply to things with no mass.

    Oh yes, the HUP is certainly supposed to apply to photons.

    For instance, Neils Bohr himself (and other key people in QM) thought the laser (maser at first) was impossible because they thought it violated HUP.

    Good thing that Townes ignored the naysayers and kept plugging away.

    Quote from Mark U

    We know a photon is emitted from the source, which we'll say is a laser. We then see the photon strike the detector. Classical thinking would have us believe that in-between the emitter and detector the photon follows straight line path.

    But no. Heisenberg's mighty Principle graciously bestows upon us the doctrine that at any moment, independent of measurement, the photon truly has no fixed momentum (manifest as frequency and direction) and position. All it has is a mathematical blend of the two. Specifically, delta momentum x delta position >= h/2. Given this, isn't it miraculous that despite the uncertainty at every moment, all the potential branchings of possibilities, the photon somehow manages to end up at the detector just where it was aimed, and with the same frequency as it left the emitter? Wonders never cease.

    Forgive me Heisenberg, for I have sinned.


    Mark U - if that is meant to be a rational argument against the standard QM/QED analysis of photons then you are seriously misinformed.


    HUP is a derived (can be proven under some conditions in some cases) principle, often quoted because it expresses a real inequality about the universe, that also precisely is explained by the use of QM state vectors to describe things. When you do that all those words about "no fixed momentum, position, frequency" and also the definition of what is a single "photon" since a photonic state is bosonic and can therefore contain any number of photons, become imprecise without much more care about what you mean.


    Using such physically imprecise language is a classic way to obtain apparent (not real) paradoxes.


    Now, if you have a genuine point, by all means say what you mean precisely (using maths to express what you think is surprising). If you just wish to express your feeling that based on an imprecise understanding it don't seem right that is a different matter. If you were to do it with a questioning mind, not assuming that QM as currently well understood (a lot of people, even physicists, misunderstand the fundamentals, but there are also some who will take on all the apparent paradoxes and explain them beautifully and in precise detail) has to be wrong just because it is counter-inituitive, we could have further discussion about the specific example you raise, what would be expected, etc. That would be interesting.


    You could start by defining the precise system that would emit a photon and detect it in such a way that frequency can be precisely measured. What that system is will characterise the rest of the discussion I think.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    If you were to do it with a questioning mind, not assuming that QM as currently well understood (a lot of people, even physicists, misunderstand the fundamentals, but there are also some who will take on all the apparent paradoxes and explain them beautifully and in precise detail) has to be wrong just because it is counter-inituitive, we could have further discussion about the specific example you raise, what would be expected, etc. That would be interesting.


    As long as you stay inside the QM formalism everything is fine. Unluckily some experiments are not covered by QM and show some small odds that of course cannot be tackled by SM-QUED/QCD/LQCD. The world is not a closed formula.


    The most obvious fail for QM is Rydberg matter of the dense kind also called H*/D*. It's a collective structure not a single formula object....


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


    Do not mixup fail with giving an approximation in that case as there is none.


    QM is an over simplistic model of nature with ridiculous assumptions about spin values being (half-) integers only, where as in reality all particles do have multiple, coupled arbitrary spinning masses. QM physicists will face their corona shock soon, when they have to question their past live. CERN will need to understand that it was 100000000% impossible to find new physics at higher energy as you need particles at rest with stronger order to understand how mass is formed. No wonder they don't understand Holmlids results, that now have been confirmed by severals teams.

    • Official Post

    The points raised by Wyttenbach Made me remember some research I knew about years ago from a biology researcher that was studying a pathway of entry of certain ion in vegetable cells.


    That person was attempting to extrapolate what happens in a whole organism from an over simplistic model that used individual Cells, naked From their cell walls (what is technically called protoplasts) cultured in a liquid media. She was completely incapable of realizing that she was subjecting the cells to conditions absolutely outside what a plant experiences in reality, and she was saying that the ion, which normally causes toxicity in even small concentrations, was actually helpful for plants.

    All field experiments prove that research wrong, but she still gets a lot of attention because her model is very easy to reproduce and gives consistent results in these absolutely unreal conditions. Only actual agricultural scientists are capable of realizing how wrong is extrapolating her results to real interacting vegetal organisms and populations.


    High energy experiments have the same problem: it’s a fancy model and very successful within its own constraints, but thinking that what happens to a few particles at those energies can explain what happens in dense matter at much lower energies is simply unrealistic.

    THHuxlenew, if you noticed my little diatribe wandered all over the place. It started as a diatribe against the traditional understanding of classical optics as it regards the double slit experiment ( specifically that light "interference" patterns are not due to light interfering with light, but with light interacting with matter), then it morphed into a diatribe against the HUP. Regarding the latter, I largely agree that the practical measurement process will result in something resembling the HUP (although some experiments seem to be circumventing this). What I don't agree with is the mysticism that results from making the universe into the image of our mathematics. So for instance we are taught that a particle cannot, in reality, possess both a definite momentum and a definite position in space. I don't buy it.


    I highly doubt that anyone could explain the apparent paradoxes within QM, and beautifully no less. For now I'll take Richard Feynman's word for it, that no one truly understands QM.

    Quote from Mark U

    For now I'll take Richard Feynman's word for it, that no one truly understands QM.

    Dyson's words on QED are always noteworthy..

    2 years of intense concentration and convergence was non Q. E. D. in 1951


    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 was able to reduce the Schrödinger equation and the Heisenberg operators into the form which I thought would make them convergent

    and so as far as the formalities were concerned, everything seemed to work.

    "I suddenly felt a sense of enormous relief, that I wasn't having to fight this monster any more, which had gone on for two years

    and it was obviously something that would remain beyond my reach, and that was it"


    Consa's contention that "something is rotten in the state of QED

    is well supported by cumulative evidence

    https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf

    Dyson is of course more polite.. "something is ramshackle.."

    "

    The reality of the QED is better reflected by Dyson’s description in a letter to Gabrielse in 2006:

    “As one of the inventors of QED, I remember that we thought of QED in 1949 as a temporary and jerry-built structure,

    with mathematical inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug. We did not expect it to last more than 10 years

    before some more solidly built theory would replace it.

    Now, 57 years have gone by and that ramshackle structure still stands.”


    This is in Italian but related to the Di Tommaso–Vassallo physical model of the electron.


    Taking their model as a starting point, Francesco Ferrara goes a step further and extends it to the neutron, where it is composed of two current loops: one positive (proton) and one negative (electron). The Coulomb attraction and magnetic repulsion would balance each other at a close distance, rendering it a stable ensemble at least inside the nucleus. It would not be stable in isolation and would eventually decay into a proton and electron like regular neutrons do.

    In a way this reminded me in a way of Santilli's neutron model. Are there others where the neutron is modeled as a proton+electron entity?

    Quote from can

    In a way this reminded me in a way of Santilli's neutron model. Are there others where the neutron is modeled as a proton+electron entity?

    CSS Concept of a Neutron:

    "The neutron is not an elementary particle but a paired electron and proton. This coaxial and coplanar configuration, with the same direction of particle rotation,stores the maximum excess energy called beta decay energy. Arrows show direction of moving charge."

    https://it.scribd.com/document…gman-Notions-of-a-Neutron


    Quote from can

    Are there others where the neutron is modeled as a proton+electron entity?

    Yes..quite a few..

    Here is Schaeffer''s rudimentary model to calculate deuteron properties

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o…522-1802257604.1579556522

    lenr-forum.com/attachment/11607/



    It would be good if Francesco Ferrara could derive the

    magnetic moment of the neutron

    and mass of the neutron from his model..


    as in this more sophisticated model..

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…-in-SO4-NPP216-update.pdf


    This description does seem to be similar to Ferrara's model.

    Here is the original non-Scribd source for the paper linked: http://commonsensescience.net/pdf/articles/neutrons.pdf


    Quote from RobertBryant

    It would be good if Francesco Ferrara could derive the magnetic moment of the neutron and mass of the neutron from his model..


    These appear to have been calculated in the more detailed pdf by Francesco Ferrara that I linked earlier, but I have only quickly skimmed through it.

    http://www.proffonlineall.it/a…neNuovoModelloToPrint.pdf

    RobertBryant

    Google Translate can also translate PDF documents, but it destroys the formatting.

    https://translate.google.com/t…neNuovoModelloToPrint.pdf


    Towards the end of the document two tables are provided with calculated masses and magnetic moments for the proton, electron, neutron and current loops formed according to the model. I tried reformatting them into a spreadsheet and translating them; below are two screenshots. Please refer to the original version to ensure that values are correct.



    I haven't tried putting enough brainpower yet to check out how these values have been derived and if the calculations are correct. I was looking at the model in very general terms in the first place and I am not claiming any detailed understanding of it.


    More in detail, I just found that the ideas of a proton as a current loop similar to the electron and the neutron as a composite particle were interesting.

    I think it's an interference phenomenon Navid. I wrote about it. Art Hobson gave a similar explanation of the double slit experiment in his 2013 paper There are no particles, there are only fields. See page 12. I’m surprised I hadn't heard about it. But there again, the Church of the Standard Model loves to peddle myth and mystery.

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.