Bruce's 'Baffled' SO4 Thread.

  • Charge is a topological effect of magnetic flux. It is a very useful concept to model the Biot Savart interaction. But in nuclear & particle physics charge cannot be used as a basic concept as it just represents the first order approximation of the magnetic force.

    In the real world charge based models are sufficient for most purposes.

  • Charge is a topological effect of magnetic flux. It is a very useful concept to model the Biot Savart interaction.

    Can you give an example of the Biot Savart interaction? Not necessarily as it relates to your particular theory (which is complex) but something that in very simple terms illustrates how it works in 4 dimensions.

  • Did you read the paper of Parsley?? At least it did sound so...

    Yes. I didn't see the relevance since the operator in that paper since it worked on subdomains of the 3-sphere (in 4d). I do see that the structures in your theory exist on such 3d subdomains but it seems to me that they are sort of stable end states that appear because of the operation of laws that need to hold in the full 4 dimensions.


    And I don't see how Biot-Savart can work in 4 dimensions. It isn't defined.

  • I do see that the structures in your theory exist on such 3d subdomains but it seems to me that they are sort of stable end states that appear because of the operation of laws that need to hold in the full 4 dimensions.

    Our current laws evolve from 3D,t space. Why do you want to work them in full 4 homogeneous 4D space when SO(4) has 6D? And Octonions we need for modelling higher Z nuclei has 8D? We have to find the more basic laws and show how these produce the current laws. Theoretical Physics today is still in deep childhood.


    Basically our world is made out of infinite - because closed - flux strings of EM "energy" that only shine up due to self induced charge. These flux strings follow the topology of SO(4) or Octonions.

    What we see in the modelling is that the circular (4D) 2:1 connections give an exact picture about the outer structure of an alpha particle.

    As said we only have 4 division algebras we can use for modelling. The only basic step we will need is going from a 2:1 to a 4:1 structure induced by the CT orbits.

    But there currently is no math available we directly can plug in here. The solution is outside the classic domain/dual (2:1; 1:1) mapping as there is an intermediate step where we have a 4:2:1 mapping and the 2 is not a simple dual. May be in Octonions it could be the case where we can use a circle (C) as the dual. I did not dig deep enough there yet. But math has to match the physical "reality" and not the other way round. So the general solution can only be given in "O".


    For my current purpose I can live with the projections from SO(4) that are based on the 3D/4D rotating mass (+ 4:1 CT symmetry) but this only works for highly symmetric cases and for most particles.

    What concerns me far more is the fringe use of math in GR/QED with the wrong 3,1 metric, that is impossible to use together with mass. Here the math (for stress energy tensor!) obviously violates the physical structure.

  • Our current laws evolve from 3D,t space. Why do you want to work them in full 4 homogeneous 4D space when SO(4) has 6D?

    nature's laws work in 4 spatial dimensions. It seems to me that you are the one saying this.


    - You repeatedly talk about 4D rotations

    - When you come to try an explain basic concepts you explicitly use 4 dimensions (as in Fig 1 of yur ResearchGate paper)

    - SO(4) is an algebra of rotations in 4 dimensions. I understand that this algebra requires 6 degrees of freedom for specifying an arbitrary rotation, but the base space is 4 dimensional


    A Biot-Savart like law that specifies the magnetic field due to a moving charge simply doesn't exist in 4 dimensions. Can you explain Figure 1 of your ResearchGate paper without 4 using dimensions?

  • When you come to try an explain basic concepts you explicitly use 4 dimensions

    For anybody that understands basic physics it is obvious that 4 Rotations cannot be made in 4D....The same holds holds for people that like to use fringe QED/GR math that use 3 rotations in 3D,t space what violates the basic laws of mechanics.


    Only a fantasy mass less source term free field can mathematically be warped that way. Unluckily physics knows no such fields...

    Either you try to understand what 3D/4D mass is about and how it produces the 4D = 4 rotation coupling (inside SO(4) always) or you stop discussing about a figure you try to interpret your way.

  • For anybody that understands basic physics it is obvious that 4 Rotations cannot be made in 4D....

    I am not talking about "4 Rotations ... in 4D". I am talking about any rotation in 4D space. Figure 1 in your ResearchGate paper is labelled "Coupled 4D Rotation". What does that mean? The figure itself purports to show two current loops ... one in the "x,y plane" and another in the "u,v plane". Thus, there are 4 spatial dimensions here. No?


    I take it that Figure 1 shows a very basic part of your theory. Right now your description of what this figure is meant to show is not clear.

  • I am talking about any rotation in 4D space.

    The last time: You can show 4 rotations in 4D but physically & mathematically for the solution you need 5D at least!


    When I started with the modelling I did hope that we can stay with 4 homogeneous dimension as this covers the 3D/4D mass. Then it became clear that the CT = 4 rotation is the inner symmetry space (4-He) and the 5th rotation is the self containment of the flux.

    Either you read on and try to understand or stop to ask questions of no real value.

  • What is mass What generates mass.. Where is the equation in fundamental constants

    Perhaps the answer is in the little extra dimensions . I shall ask Juan.

    Juan M. Maldacena - Are there Extra Dimensions?

    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.

  • The last time: You can show 4 rotations in 4D but physically & mathematically for the solution you need 5D at least!


    When I started with the modelling I did hope that we can stay with 4 homogeneous dimension as this covers the 3D/4D mass. Then it became clear that the CT = 4 rotation is the inner symmetry space (4-He) and the 5th rotation is the self containment of the flux.

    Either you read on and try to understand or stop to ask questions of no real value.

    In spite my efforts, I have been unable to get you to provide a simple explanation of Figure 1 in your paper. Among the questions that remain unanswered are whether the events depicted there are supposed to play out in 4 spatial dimensions and how you determine what direction the green arrows labelled "B" are supposed to point. These are really basic questions. I think that the answers to these questions are of fundamental importance for anyone trying to access your theories. I don't understand what is going on in Figure 1 and I don't think that anyone else reading this thread understands any more than I do.


    Do you know of anyone, anywhere, who has understood the basics of your theory?

  • In spite my efforts, I have been unable to get you to provide a simple explanation of Figure 1 in your paper.

    If you don't understand basic math/physics then try it with a textbook first. You obviously are not interested as you did not notice that in the coming text no reference is made to this figure...

  • You obviously are not interested as you did not notice that in the coming text no reference is made to this figure...

    I am working from a ResearchGate document called "The proton, electron structure, its resonances and fusion products", dated October 2020. The text does refer to Figure 1 several times. RobertBryant even posted the figure and a region of text talking about it (as you will see by clicking here). Are you now saying you have altered the figure or your description of it?

  • You're asking answers which You cannot comprehend.

    So Zephir has talked to Juan?

    Zephir knows him.. Lucky Zephir?

    So what is mass? What generates mass.. What is the formula in fundamental constants

    So what is charge . What generates Charge?


    Zephiir's answer has "What the physical theorists are doing is both a good joke!"

    Juan may have a better answer.

    External Content youtu.be
    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.

  • Взаимодействие с другими людьми

    If you don't understand basic math/physics then try it with a textbook first. You obviously are not interested as you did not notice that in the coming text no reference is made to this figure...

    I think it is correct to make a complaint about Wittenbach's materials on this forum - https://www.researchgate.net/p…hysics-20-new-SO4-physics

    In his article "The proton, electron structure, its resonances and fusion products" dated March 21, 2020, he writes -

    "How can we find a new physics“ standard ”model?

    Initially only three questions needed an answer.

    1) What is the exact dimensionality of the mathematical space we need for the new model

    2) What is the basic shape of particles

    3) How does mass compression work, when particles (proton, neutrons) join / fuse to form larger ones?

    The frst question very soon was reduced to the answer “at least 4 homogenous uniform ones”. The

    second question about the shape was easily answered by studying existing mass & radius data. The shape

    must be toroidal. "

    It is necessary to remind Jurg Wittenbach that in 2001 Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich had already presented to the world his toroidal model of the proton and electron ...

    Here is a joint article by Kanarev and Mizuno "Cold fusion in plasma electrolysis of water" in the journal "New Energy", 2003 - http://faraday.ru/10rus.pdf

    Literature - item 5 and 6 -

    5. T. Mizuno. Nuclear Transmutation: The reality of Cold Fusion. Infinite Energy Press. 1998 151 pages.

    6. Ph. Kanarev. Foundations of Physchemistry of Microworld. Krasnodar 2002.330 pages. (In Russian and in English).

    Another link - https://www.skif.biz/files/f0d833.pdf

    F.M. Kanarev The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld. 8th edition. Krasnodar, 2007

    Link to the 12th edition - “The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld. 12th edition. Volume I. Krasnodar 2009. 687 p. " - “The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld. 12th edition. Volume II. Krasnodar 2009. 448 p. " - http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/9923.html

    2011…

    1. Kanarev F.M. The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld. Monograph. Volume I. 15th edition.

    http://www.micro-world.su/

    2. Kanarev F.M. Pulsed energy. Volume II of the monograph

    "The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld." http://www.micro-world.su/

    3. Kanarev F.M. Answers to questions about the microworld. Volume III monographs

    "The beginnings of the physical chemistry of the microworld." http://www.micro-world.su/

    4. Kanarev F.M. Theoretical mechanics. Volume III "Mechanodynamics".

    http://www.micro-world.su/

    Wittenbach wrote his article and presented it to us in such a way that he was the first physicist to come up with a toroidal model of an electron and a proton ... Why are there no references to Kanarev's materials in Wittenbach's article? This is a shameless act!

  • This is a shameless act!

    Why are there no references to Kanarev's materials in Wittenbach's article?

    1915.. The Brits were first.. according to Wikipedia.

    that was then.. since then physics has become much more cosmopiltan alas not much coming out of the Cavendish for a while..in physics.. they need to spend 100,000 $ and do some LENR....


    "The toroidal ring model, known originally as the Parson magneton or magnetic electron, is a physical model of subatomic particles. It is also known as the plasmoid ring, vortex ring, or helicon ring. This physical model treated electrons and protons as elementary particles, and was first proposed by Alfred Lauck Parson in 1915.


    Comrade Cherepanov,,

    Kanarev's model may be Parson's Mark2 version.. but I quite like it.. maybe if he were alive today.. he would add a dimension or two.. and acknowledge Parson's in his references.

    Both Parson's and Kanarev were 3D.

    I think Wyttenbach's models are Mark6D..


    Kanarev also hypothesized a toroidal proton...3D of course..

    "

    Electromagnetic structure of the proton is unknown. If we suppose that it (as the electron) has the form of a torus, radius image008.gif of this torus is as follows [109]"


    I respect his electrolysis LENR experiments in the Kuban. Its a pity no one followed them up.