# The church of SM physics

• My speech on February 27, 2020 at a seminar at RUDN University at 3 hours 40 minutes 46 seconds -

Influence of magnetic interaction on the mass spectrum of elementary particles Nikolay Samsonenko, 27.02.2022

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.

“Thank you for the report Nikolai Vladimirovich! Very good report. From this report, what is very important for me? Firstly, you understood, I think many of you understood that, unfortunately, what Nikolai Vladimirovich presented to us is that there are a lot of searches for mathematicians and a lot of mathematics ... Mathematicians are trying to find something - they are investing their knowledge and everything everything ... They do a lot of things ... But ... I want to say my point of view right away ... What is the global mistake, from my point of view? I point to the formula “E = mc ^ 2” written on the board and continue - They want to reduce everything to the consideration of energies ... Nobody sets a task for themselves and as an example I want to give the following phenomenon - “neutron decays” ... But how is the force generated, which leads to neutron decay? Should a FORCE be generated in order for the body of a neutron to be torn apart? And note - each time the division occurs in the following ratio - 1 part is the mass of the electron and 1836 times more mass is the mass of the proton. And it is important for us to understand this process from the point of view of the “action of FORCES” in this process, and not from the point of view of “energies” and something else ... And here, it seems to me, we are going the wrong way ... We are not looking for FORCES ... Now look - I am pointing to the formula written on the board “m0c^2 = ћω0” and pointing to the parameter “ω0” - Here is the angular velocity of the particle ... The neutron decayed into a proton and an electron, both of which rotate. The question arises - "What did the neutron do before the decay?" After all, if it, a neutron, does not rotate before the act of decay, then rotating particles will not appear - a proton and an electron, i.e. they will not have rotation ... Understand - in order for them - a proton and an electron, to rotate, it is necessary that, according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the neutron must, must rotate ... Therefore, if the neutron rotates, then, respectively, both the proton and the electron will then rotate according to the law conservation of momentum. Makes a remark with a thorn - “So it is!” I continue - “So it is ... But the question arises -“ Since the neutron rotates, then it is in itself - in the body of the neutron, it must generate these FORCES that tear it apart. But he himself can not unwind! Therefore, the question arises that “something” spins the neutron before its decay ... And it’s very good that in the report Barrott named the proton, electron and neutrino ... But here I would actually agree with Barrott if we called that under the neutrino , what I came up with for myself - I called this particle “yoctomagnetik” ... That's when Nikolai Vladimirovich said that along the magnetic lines - like in a chain, they line up one after the other - what is lined up? From my point of view, magnets line up - these are magnets ... Their size is 10^-69 kg - by weight, size - 10^-30 meters is their size ... How did I calculate it? I took the mass of the relic photon from the table of Kanarev F.M. , I took the mass of the proton, the size of the proton, the size and mass of the electron, the size and mass of the gamma photon ...

And I got these parameters ... And then, if we start to consider in this paradigm, then we find that the neutron breaks the "secondary magnetic field" - the forces of the "secondary magnetic field" ... which is created from these particles - "yoctomagnets". And thus, we get - here it is this formula - hωe = me •r^2 •ωe •ωe - this is the formula of Kanarev F.M. And I liked what I liked in this formula - when the electron added mass - it absorbed a photon - the mass of a photon, the radius of the electron fell ... And this kinetic moment actually controls this process ... Forces are generated there - these are inertial forces ... “Someone” or “something” then "the neutron spun, it disintegrated, inertial forces continue to rotate both the electron and the proton, and these forces control these processes ... Gennady Shipov notices from the spot -" You are right about this - one cannot but agree! I answer - "Everything! I have nothing more to add."

• it is my understanding that conservation of angular momentum means that if the neutron has zero angular momentum then the resulting particles have angular momentums that add up to zero when added. What say you?

• You have some strange question ... Therefore, I answer as I understood your question ... In stable nuclei (atoms, molecules), the neutron does not have an angular velocity and therefore it does not decay there ... Why is that? But because the bonds of a given neutron with a proton and neighboring neutrons prevent this rotation. But an unstable neutron has one bond with a nucleus or a nucleus neutron and therefore can rotate ... As for a free neutron, these are the so-called "reactor neutrons", then nothing interferes with their rotation at all and therefore they usually decay after 12-13 minutes ...

Only the neutron that has the ability to rotate decays... And what gives the neutron rotation? Photons... And first of all, gamma photons and possibly also X-ray photons... In the second case, I have doubts, since the mass of X-ray photons is still small... All these options require reflection and analysis.

it is my understanding that conservation of angular momentum means that if the neutron has zero angular momentum then the resulting particles have angular momentums that add up to zero when added. What say you?

• Aa1

• The question was kind of an American idiom which means "what do you have to say about this assertion?".

In reality the free neutron can rotate or not. It makes no difference.

In my view both the electron and proton are there. The instability of the free neutron is an internal effect due to the interactions between the two particles. That is, it is caused by the EM field interactions. In your view magnetic only. In my view involving both electric and magnetic fields.

• The question was kind of an American idiom which means "what do you have to say about this assertion?".

In reality the free neutron can rotate or not. It makes no difference.

In my view both the electron and proton are there. The instability of the free neutron is an internal effect due to the interactions between the two particles. That is, it is caused by the EM field interactions. In your view magnetic only. In my view involving both electric and magnetic fields.

Your reasoning reminds me of Munchausen, who pulled himself out of the swamp by his hair ... Since January 19, 2021, electric fields have been completely excluded from physics - these fields are Maxwell's invention - the fruit of his fatal mistakes, about which you probably have not heard anything ... For this reason, there is no interaction of the "electromagnetic field" and cannot be, since there is no such field in nature ... The neutron cannot spin itself - we are serious people and do not deal with fairy tales ... Isn't it? Photons spin the neutron... I have already explained the rest...

• The question was kind of an American idiom which means "what do you have to say about this assertion?".

In reality the free neutron can rotate or not. It makes no difference.

In my view both the electron and proton are there. The instability of the free neutron is an internal effect due to the interactions between the two particles. That is, it is caused by the EM field interactions. In your view magnetic only. In my view involving both electric and magnetic fields.

You wrote - "... there is a proton and an electron ..." You do not take into account a very important circumstance - there is an electron mass and a proton mass in the neutron, but there is still a significant addition - when the electron is compressed to size during "e-capture" neutron, then it attaches an impressive mass to itself or to the neutron - the mass of the ether is equal to 1.531 electron masses ... Therefore, the phrase you said above or the phrase you wrote distorts the nature of this physical phenomenon - the birth of a neutron as a result of e-capture by a proton ...

• I got involved in this because you had seemed to forget that angular momentum has direction and as such is characterized by a vector. So a particle of zero angular momentum could be made up of sub particles each having angular momentum such that the total is zero. For instance if the proton angular momentum is directed in the Z direction then the electron angular momentum is directed in the -Z direction, and the magnitudes are equal.

It's all about modeling. I prefer the electron surrounding the proton. Now magnetic field lines form complete loops. In a magnet the field lines exit the north pole, circle around the magnet, and enter the south pole before completing the journey through the magnet to the north pole.

Now, let the proton be at the center of the coordinate system such that the north pole lies on the positive Z axis and the south pole on the negative Z axis. The north pole of the electron lies below the south pole of the proton and the south pole of the electron lies above the north pole of the proton There's a trap here. It's tempting to have the field lines from the electron and proton cancel each other out. That's not allowed. Field lines must form closed loops. The field lines passing from the south pole of the electron to the north pole cannot pass through the proton. They must pass around it. Fortunately, the field lines from the proton external to the proton are going in the right direction. So, the field lines from the electron are stretched and squeezed in with the external field lines from the proton. This requires an input of energy. Is this enough to account for the increase of mass? Should be.

Notice that this treatment did not require electric fields.

• Well, in general you need to keep paying to attend and submitting abstracts. A slow and patient business and it is not easy if you are not from a company or a university. For theoreticians they like a university.

I am curious if that will apply for meetings that are more or less related to „our“ LENR topic (e.g. ICCF24) as well?

• I got involved in this because you had seemed to forget that angular momentum has direction and as such is characterized by a vector. So a particle of zero angular momentum could be made up of sub particles each having angular momentum such that the total is zero. For instance if the proton angular momentum is directed in the Z direction then the electron angular momentum is directed in the -Z direction, and the magnitudes are equal.

Your methodological mistake is that you want to fit physical phenomena to a mathematical understanding - "vector addition" ... But nature does not know about your mathematical "tricks" - nature lives according to its own laws and does not care what you do there in your beloved mathematics. I haven't forgotten anything about this...

• And you want to shoehorn nature into your fantasies. Modeling physical processes will always involve mathematics. The only mathematics I invoked here was vector algebra, which is trivial. You ignore the physics and focus on a simple math concept. There are rules about how magnetic fields behave.

• And you want to shoehorn nature into your fantasies. Modeling physical processes will always involve mathematics. The only mathematics I invoked here was vector algebra, which is trivial. You ignore the physics and focus on a simple math concept. There are rules about how magnetic fields behave.

You write - "Modeling physical processes will always involve mathematics." You are almost right ... But you did not indicate the main thing - before using mathematics, you need to create at least some kind of "physical model of the process" ... You need to start with a "physical model" ... But you ignored this and immediately slipped me vector algebraic addition ... There is no logic in this and this is an absolutely wrong approach ... It is with people like you that I fight, for example, in Russia ... Mathematicians have ruined our beloved physics is precisely this - mathematical formalism. Our physics suffered from the mathematical formalism of Maxwell, Dirac, Bohr, Pauli and many other mathematicians in physics ... You acted unworthily accusing me of behaving as you wrote - "You ignore the physics and focus on a simple math concept." You accused me of what I never allowed myself to do and never did - I was always a physicist first and only then used mathematics. They say about people like you in Russia like this - "The thief shouts -" Stop the thief!

• I got involved in this because you had seemed to forget that angular momentum has direction and as such is characterized by a vector. So a particle of zero angular momentum could be made up of sub particles each having angular momentum such that the total is zero. For instance if the proton angular momentum is directed in the Z direction then the electron angular momentum is directed in the -Z direction, and the magnitudes are equal.

It's all about modeling. I prefer the electron surrounding the proton. Now magnetic field lines form complete loops. In a magnet the field lines exit the north pole, circle around the magnet, and enter the south pole before completing the journey through the magnet to the north pole.

I'll have to "grab your hand" again and show you exactly what you wrote above -

"I got involved in this because you had seemed to forget that angular momentum has direction and as such is characterized by a vector. So a particle of zero angular momentum could be made up of sub particles each having angular momentum such that the total is zero For instance if the proton angular momentum is directed in the Z direction then the electron angular momentum is directed in the -Z direction, and the magnitudes are equal."

It is easy to understand that you don’t have any physical model ... You started to impose vector addition on us from the threshold ... You, and not me, started with mathematics and forgot about physics ... How dare you throw accusations at me - " You ignore the physics and focus on a simple math concept." This is just arrogance on your part ... They don’t conduct a discussion like that - this is pure defamation.

• It's all about modeling. I prefer the electron surrounding the proton. Now magnetic field lines form complete loops. In a magnet the field lines exit the north pole, circle around the magnet, and enter the south pole before completing the journey through the magnet to the north pole.

Another oddity for me. You wrote - "It's all about modeling. I prefer the electron surrounding the proton." And why should I believe your preference? Have you provided evidence for such a simulation? No, you didn’t bring anything, but simply “took it from the ceiling” and hung this nonsense on our ears ... I don’t agree with this ... It doesn’t exist in nature ... The expression “surrounding the proton” itself is pure fantasy, but I'm not into fantasies... Please explain - "Where do you postulate this physical process - "the electron surrounding the proton." ?"

• Well, you ignored the physics when you ignored the magnetic moments having direction. You write of precession occurring in the hydrogen atom, which implies a change in physical direction. You can't have it every which way. You need to be consistent.

The model came from where all models come from, the human mind. You now wish to squash inventiveness? Please lighten up.

• This is an interesting paper from Edward Teller. 50 years old now, in this paper he has a lot to say about electrets, electromagnetism, and gravity.

• Well, you ignored the physics when you ignored the magnetic moments having direction. You write of precession occurring in the hydrogen atom, which implies a change in physical direction. You can't have it every which way. You need to be consistent.

The model came from where all models come from, the human mind. You now wish to squash inventiveness? Please lighten up.

You write about precession ... What did you want to prove to me with this? What do I see in your reasoning? Elementary formalism... But at the same time, an incident occurs - you point to a model - a physical model, but at the same time you yourself do not pay attention to the physical model. What are we talking about? Yes ! Both the proton and the electron precess ... But the distance between them is huge by the standards of the microworld ... The size of the proton is 10^-15 meters, and it interacts with the electron, which precesses, but at the same time it is at a distance from the proton a million times greater than the size of the proton and 100 or 1000 times larger than the size of an electron. Here is such a physical model... And now ask yourself about the magnetic moment... On paper, this geometry should work as you calculated it, but in nature it all happens differently!

• This is an interesting paper from Edward Teller. 50 years old now, in this paper he has a lot to say about electrets, electromagnetism, and gravity.

According to Edward Teller, rotation causes electric polarization of solids, and according to Siparov (anisotropic geometrodynamics), rotation on astronomical scales causes an additional force (an addition to Newton's law), which eliminates the need for dark matter and dark energy. Thus, according to Siparov, rotation also acts on gravity. Let me remind you that, according to my assumptions, rotation also acts on LENR.

• So show us. You never actually show us anything new arising from your theory or views. I still want to know how you explain the 'Hall Effect', which has proven so important is studying semiconductor properties.

In studying precession of the electron in the hydrogen atom one needs to introduce directions for the magnetic moments and operating forces. It's this need to be specific that is at issue here, not the relative distances.

I see you don't know the size of the electron either. That is one of the things that vexes me, so I prefer to let the electron be deformable (can be compressed).

Concerning the model for the neutron: Note that it is very hard to make one (takes the pressures from the collapse of the core of a star), but is easy to get rid of (just let it alone for awhile). As I see it, the decay of a neutron comes about because of the distortion of the magnetic fields (like in the model I suggested). The instability that leads to decay is built in.

• Here is a video from "see the pattern" about QED and some historical perspective....

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.

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