The church of SM physics

Cold nuclear fusion theories. Exploration of exotic hydrogen states

Bergen Open Research Archive: Cold nuclear fusion theories. Exploration of exotic hydrogen states

Quote from Wyttenbach

That in reality is fat proton which mass is easy to calculate if you understand the proton structure that is unknown to the dumb standard model physicists.

So the CMS coalition of 4000 of the best minds in physics

doesn't really need a 13 TEV collision to find a fat proton..

Its just as well, since it takes 10 years for the data to become public and 10 more years of salary

"Completing the delivery of Run-1 data within 10 years after data taking reaffirms the CMS collaboration’s commitment to its open data policy.

CMS completes the release of its entire Run-1 proton-proton data | CMS Experiment

"

n the CERN fake Higgs situation because in a crash symmetry

never will increase and the formation of 4He needs a 4 fold symmetry.

As we, in a collision, can only stimulate the 3D,t visible site of a particle

we also do only see a 2D compression.

"But as soon as CERN was aware that this simple derivation would end their happy live they started to fudge

the measurements and to suppress the second (higher) proton resonance mass.

In the most recent papers

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-20-new-SO4-physics

Hossenfelder" Why I lost faith in particle science"

She maintains that the axion is dead but the Higg's boson is 'discovered'

the Standard Model looks good.

Perhaps a few LENR tests costing a few thousand $ are needed..

What is new from your laboratory investigations ? A paper soon ?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Le CERN n'a jamais trouvé de boson de Higgs car la particule qu'ils nomment n'a donc aucune propriété d'une idée fictive nommée boson de Higgs. L'énergie d'environ 126GeV est connue depuis plus de 20 ans et personne ne l'appelait boson de Higgs jusqu'à ce que la recherche de la fiction échoue...

Personne n'a prédit une paire de bosons de Higgs... C'est en réalité un gros proton dont la masse est facile à calculer si vous comprenez la structure du proton qui est inconnue des stupides physiciens du modèle standard.

Quote from RobertBryant

something like Quantum gravity? something like quarks:..neutrinos...numerology?

Weinstein nuclear dialogue

inside the quackery built on Einstein...

quantum gravity, ganja, stoning out on string theory for 5 decades

who else is afraid of Witten..Voldemort?

Quote from GRMattson

Cherepanov2020

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.

Display More

You write - "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." I understand your desire for me to explain absolutely everything to you... So I will upset you... Recently, the Klimov-Zatelepin seminar was held - it was on March 1, 2023, following which I have already recorded 13 videos... The leitmotif of my message from the physical The community is like this - modern physics is completely destroyed with the discovery of Maxwell's errors. The concept of "electronvolt" is absolutely false and unacceptable... The physics of detectors - almost all detectors existing in the world, is absolutely false... Personally, I am shocked by the realization of these deep processes... Physics has been going to this dead end for 150 years and finally reached on January 19 2021 after I completed my many years of research related to "electric charge according to Maxwell" - it does not exist in nature ... New physics is just emerging and we may need ten to twenty years to correctly describe the operation of the Hall sensor and correctly understand " Hall effect".

Look at this material - Notes on magnetostatics. Part 7. Magnetostatics notes P7. Siberian Nicholas. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 1 Basic knowledge. Magnetostatics notes P1. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 2. Potential fields. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 3. Magnetic field scanner -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 4. Magnetostatics notes P4. vision of invisible. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 5. Magnetostatics notes P5. vision of invisible. Chapter 2 -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 6. Magnetostatics notes P6. Magnet interaction model -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 8. Magnetostatics notes P8. magnetic field in distance. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 9. Magnetostatics notes P9. Trying to see a scalar magnetic field. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 10. Magnetostatics notes P10. Magnetic field of single wire -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 11. Magnetostatics notes P11. circuit with current. Field of wire loop. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 12. Magnetostatics notes P12. conductors with current. wires w/current. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 13. Magnetostatics notes P13. circuits with current. loops w/current. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 14. Magnetostatics notes P14. step reels. step coils. -

Notes on magnetostatics. Part 15. Magnetostatics notes P15. bifilar coils. flat coils. -

Ferromagnets Ch1. Notes on magnetostatics, part 16. Magnetostatics notes P16. Ferromagnets p1 -

The structure of the field of a conductor with current. Notes on magnetostatics. Part 17. Magnetostatics notes P17. -

The magnetic field of several conductors. Notes on magnetostatics. Ch 18. Magnetostatics notes P18. -

The magnetic field of a coil with current. Notes on magnetostatics. Ch 19. Magnetostatics notes P19. -

Radius of an Electron Understanding Errors, December 8, 2022, Part 1 –

Radius of an Electron Understanding Errors, December 8, 2022, Part 2 -

Note on the characteristic size of an electron, Rukhadzde A A , Laptukhov A I , June 25, 2015, part 1 -

Note on the characteristic size of an electron, Rukhadzde A A , Laptukhov A I , June 25, 2015, part 2 -

Description of the structure and size of particles in quantum theory, Samsonenko NV, June 25, 2015, part 3 -

Correspondence of Cherepanov A.I. with Sergey Belov on February 5-13, 2023 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/fVSx/pDhzeRvrq

Quote from RobertBryant

Weinstein

More from theoretical pundits

following Weinstein's holo-revelation

Sabine makes an LENR-relevant comment

TM 34.42

"We need some new technologies.. and they must come from the foundations of physics..

not from Quantum Gravity"

Maybe.. from Quantum Mechanics? Maybe from nickel reactors..

Quote from uncertainH

first came to this forum a number of years ago when I was diving into the ridiculous concept of the point particle and was looking at different extended electron models. I have appreciated all the discussions, ideas, links to scientific papers etc. I don't participate much anymore but have learned a lot and continue to do so. Many of the members here are well aware of, and challenge the orthodoxy that surrounds SM, QM and the concept of the point particular etc. Critics of LENR are often quick to assign words like "fringe", "misinformation" or even "fraud" to these investigations and dismiss them out of hand as heterodox ideas. Even journals often refuse to publish work in this area.

I wonder if you have actually understood QM if you think that it shows "point particles".

Classical atomic physics had the idea of point particles which broke down in the early 20th century.

so-called "point particles" now are named that merely in the sense that they have no internal structure (unlike, say protons, where deep inelastic scattering experiments show up an internal structure of quarks) . However the best model to visualise no internal structure particles (like electrons) is a "packet" of waves which can be more or less concentrated in one place, this makes perfect sense of wave-particle duality and of course is exactly what the maths says you get.

No-one thinks Qm is "it". There is clearly some deeper structure to particle physics which we have many hints of, and many exciting theories for, but as yet not enough evidence to move to any one. There are certainly many mysteries still left for us to decode.

But worrying about "point particles" as part of the orthodoxy is only for those who have not understood the orthodoxy.