The church of SM physics

  • those befuddled by the word chemistry describing LENR results.

    Theory-only paper..

    IF theory only .. there should be close comparison with known parameters at least

    or firm predictions..

    but not in this paper.

    there ae quite a few papers lke this on vixra.. .vague prediction/comparison..


    "the experimental search of the predicted phenomenon should be probably performed with plasmas or using a source
    of low-energy protons.

    The energy release in the course of proton trapping might be accompanied by Auger-processes
    and X-ray emission"

  • SM physics rethink: from topdown unification to suggestive bottomup phenomenology..


    It is impossible to recondition trained monkeys to become openly thinking humans again ...


    These folks will even deny the existence of a muffin they just eat if it would contradict the their mind set.


    If you once do understand SO(4) physics then the outraging nonsense inherent to current models will jump in your eyes. On a surface of a 3-sphere you cannot - never - find any higher symmetry. But such idiotism are perfect claims to draw an infinite amount of taxpayers money.

  • It is impossible to recondition trained monkeys to become openly thinking humans again ...


    These folks will even deny the existence of a muffin they just eat if it would contradict the their mind set.


    If you once do understand SO(4) physics then the outraging nonsense inherent to current models will jump in your eyes. On a surface of a 3-sphere you cannot - never - find any higher symmetry. But such idiotism are perfect claims to draw an infinite amount of taxpayers money.

    It's counterproductive to your hope or mission to constantly say people can't change or won't listen to your ideas. If you believe it, it resonates with your intuition, you've done the math and farely compared the alternatives, positively stand by it. Just because there maybe a clergy of inflexible minds doesn't write of the other 7 billion in humanity. There are ways to explain the results without invoking immaterial overunity, or contrived shortcuts to avoid the unexpected, perhaps more people than you think will study a whole new approache/category.

  • It's counterproductive to your hope or mission to constantly say people can't change or won't listen to your ideas.


    I have no mission! I just reposted what other said 80 years ago about new physics. Live will only change when the profiteers die out and the children have to gorw up.


    Or lets hope we see some success in LENR soon!

  • The Proton Sea...From the Cern courier

    https://cerncourier.com/a/the-proton-laid-bare/


    ", a picture in which the flavour properties of the proton are governed by three valence quarks immersed in a sea of quark–antiquark pairs"


    'the sea still amounts to only around half of that of the proton.

    This missing momentum was termed an energy crisis,

    and was solved by the existence of gluons with spin 1

    , which bind the quarks together and confine them inside the proton."


    "The sea seems to be unpolarised, and about 20% of the proton’s spin is in gluon polarisation,

    though it is not possible to measure ..

    Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that all of the missing spin is in gluons,

    and the puzzle is not yet solved"


    However latterday Chaldeans attempt to destroy this Holy Sea



    "The F2 data appearing to remain constant for w > 3 in Fig. 2

    led Bjorken and Paschos to assume the proton F2 remained constant as x → 0 (11).

    Based on this, they developed a case for a proton made of the three quarks,

    now called “valence” quarks, immersed in a background of
    quark-antiquark pairs they called a pion cloud, which we call “sea” quarks, today (11).


    The JLAB data shows that the Bjorken and Paschos assumption was wrong.

    Consequently, their justification for the existence of sea quarks in the proton appears to be invalid."


    "https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/66fb/a7247f3d1bb1e077b6965894096f08c01240.pdf?_ga=2.65038510.1621016044.1594637804-1882556141.1594144327

    Proton structure from electron-proton deep inelastic scattering
    William L. Stubbs

  • From the high priest..Gross ...SM Chronicles in the year 5779...

    the next update in 5780 has been cancelled.. Hosanna

    "

    elementary particle physics is the discovery and understanding of the basic

    building blocks of matter and the forces that act on them that is expanded after

    the success of the standard model to include our understanding of gravity

    dynamical space-time and therefore cosmology in the history of the universe

    and I'll be discussing very briefly all of these subjects in very little time"


    "culminating at the end of the 20th century in a comprehensive standard theory

    it is beautiful

    those of us who understand it a bit know what I mean... for others

    it might not look so beautiful ...but believe me

    it is it's based on deep symmetry principles quantum mechanics relativity and local

    symmetries of nature


    " we can't no one has ever seen a quark and that ..

    we understood is because the vacuum the properties of the quantum vacuum

    which is like a medium, a strange medium that pushes squeezes the flux lines of force into a tube and

    if you just apply Gauss's law to flux lines that are squeezed into a tube you

    will find that the force between the......"


    But David...when we sacrifice billions on the altar of a muon collidier..?? we will see a quark?

    if I should live so long.. and may you live to 120...


  • if you just apply Gauss's law to flux lines that are squeezed into a tube you

    will find that the force between the......"


    That's exactly the key question. But the symmetry of SO(3) X pseudo SU(2) X U(1) is completely wrong to get it right!


    If Gross talks about beautiful symmetry then in fact this is based on very low level (max 2-3 digits measured) coincidence seen in the particle zoo.


    The self deception of SM addicted people stems from the fact that these lost any understanding of how math can be used to describe physics.

    What I learnt in numerical computing master classes is that you can approximate any regular (mathematical continuous) system of any order by Taylor like series/polynomials.

    Once you have a fitting development this will allow you to interpret a given experiment. But unluckily just this one experiment and nothing more. It has nothing to do with a basic physics model except that you once started with a good guess.


    if you just apply Gauss's law to flux lines that are squeezed into a tube you

    will find then a topological charge emerging if the tube exhibits a winding !