Bruce's 'Baffled' SO4 Thread.

  • The text does refer to Figure 1 several times.

    Here what the next reference tells:

    The drawing in Fig. 1 (also Fig.4 below) reflects only one side of the reality. This is a split view projection of

    the abstract “reality”. Magnetic field lines are always closed and the induced current (charge!) must be of 1,

    3 or 5 rotation symmetry to be able to couple with magnetic flux.


    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 ...

    I know that historians are allowed to talk about anything the way the like it. SO(4) physics first called NPP2.0 is a project and the first version like NPP 2.01 are full of references to old unsuccessful models!

  • Quote from Bruce__H

    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...

    I don't see how the "coming text" that you refer to addresses my questions about Figure 1. Can you not just answer some simple questions about the figure you prepared?


    In the figure there are green arrows labeled "B" which I believe are meant to represent the magnetic fields of the current loops you show. My question is about the directions in which these fields point. In particular, which direction is the field associated with the u,v loop supposed to point?


    This is a simple question that I have asked several times before. I know I am being persistent on this point but it seems to me that the answer I seek is fundamental to the other assertions in your SO(4) theory. So if there is an answer then why not state it? f you don't have an answer then why not say so?

  • @Bruce.


    I don't think this theory stands or falls upon your inability to understand it. The benchmark is its predictive power and agreement with experimental results. And that is a work in in progress. If you would like something simpler - which (mostly) dispenses with extra dimensions - I recommend Edo 's Structured Atomic Model.


  • @Bruce.


    I don't think this theory stands or falls upon your inability to understand it.

    What is at issue right now is not my inability to understand it. It is Wyttenbach's inability to explain what is supposed to be going on in a figure that he has placed in a prominent position in his ResearchGate paper. My lack of understanding is because of this failure of communication on Wyttenbach's part. But not just my lack of understanding ... you also have no idea what is going in that figure. Nor does RobertBryant. Nor does anyone here. And since Wyttenbach has not (to my knowledge) actually sent an account of his SO(4) theory to an expert for critical review, I think it can be said that no one in the world understands what is going on in that figure or in this part of Wyttenbach's arguments.


    And yet this all has to do with a fundamental part of Wyttenbach's theory ... how a circulating charge (or whatever it is) adopts a stable configuration so as to form the fundamental particles and forces of nature.


    The reason I keep asking a question about the direction of the induced magnetic fields in Figure 1 is because I believe that one can't define such a direction in 4 dimensions. And I note that after I have asked Wyttenbach this question many times, he has dodged giving an answer on every occasion. It now appears to me that this is on purpose. The reason is yet to be determined but certainly a candidate is that he has no answer and doesn't want to say so..


    Correspondence to experimental results? Possibly. The fundamental quantities that Wyttenbach calculates will tell the story here. But again ... this should be put before experts in the form of a focused, well-explained paper so that they can separate this from mere numerology. The readers here are not competent to judge. And instead of coming up with numbers that are already know experimentally, why not make a prediction? Choose a particle whose mass is not well known right now and publicly post a prediction for it, then wait a 2-3 years for the experiments to catch up. THHuxelyNew suggested such a program a couple of year ago. A successful prediction would be hugely persuasive for me!


    And what of Wyttenbach's predictions regarding the gamma radiation emitted by the Atom-Ecology fuel pellets? They are to be ignored until the reality of the basic observations can be confirmed. With the primary investigator having apparently abandoned the project, and no one else able to replicate the fuel or the findings the whole thing should be treated as a mirage ... and explanations of a mirage are worthless.


    Wyttenbach should get serious and submit some part of his SO(4) work to a serious journal. His present activities -- dancing around on a site full of people with no suitable background for judging this stuff -- is a fast road to obscurity.

  • From the Andreas Osiander foreword to Copernicus "De Revolutionibus"


    There have already been widespread reports about the novel hypotheses of this work, which declares that the earth moves whereas the sun is at rest in the center of the universe. Hence certain scholars, I have no doubt, are deeply offended and believe that the liberal arts, which were established long ago on a sound basis, should not be thrown into confusion. But if these men are willing to examine the matter closely, they will find that the author of this work has done nothing blameworthy. For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial motions through careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and devise the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt whatever suppositions enable the motions to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable. On the contrary, if they provide a calculus consistent with the observations, that alone is enough. Perhaps there is someone who is so ignorant of geometry and optics that he regards the epicyclc of Venus as probable, or thinks that it is the reason why Venus sometimes precedes and sometimes follows the sun by forty degrees and even more. Is there anyone who is not aware that from this assumption it necessarily follows that the diameter of the planet at perigee should appear more than four times, and the body of the planet more than sixteen times, as great as at apogee? Yet this variation is refuted by the experience of every age. In this science there are some other no less important absurdities, which need not be set forth at the moment. For this art, it is quite clear, is completely and absolutely ignorant of the causes of the apparent nonuniform motions. And if any causes are devised by the imagination, as indeed very many are, they are not put forward to convince anyone that are true, but merely to provide a reliable basis for computation. However, since different hypotheses are sometimes offered for one and the same motion (for example, eccentricity and an epicycle for the sun's motion), the astronomer will take as his first choice that hypothesis which is the easiest to grasp. The philosopher will perhaps rather seek the semblance of the truth. But neither of them will understand or state anything certain, unless it has been divinely revealed to him. Therefore alongside the ancient hypotheses, which are no more probable, let us permit these new hypotheses also to become known, especially since they are admirable as well as simple and bring with them a huge treasure of very skillful observations. So far as hypotheses are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it. Farewell.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Curbina

    When I say that I would be persuaded by a particle mass prediction that was later confirmed by new measurements, I am absolutely sincere.


    I am not talking about retrodicting a known mass. I am talking about a risky prediction that differs from the predictions of other theories. . Nailing something like that would be hugely impressive.

  • Curbina

    When I say that I would be persuaded by a particle mass prediction that was later confirmed by new measurements, I am absolutely sincere.


    I am not talking about retrodicting a known mass. I am talking about a risky prediction that differs from the predictions of other theories. . Nailing something like that would be hugely impressive.

    A known mass that the predominantly accepted model fails to calculate to the same 4th significant figure.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I am not talking about retrodicting a known mass.

    The current Standard model predicts the proton mass with an accuracy of 3%..

    Some SM propagandists call this 'precise'.

    Currently much of the QCD work is directed at reconciling theory with exptal values

    we are talking of millions of man hours and gazillions of teraflops..

    This 3% is unlikely to reduce in our lifetime..the QCD model is too crude IMHO


    Man proposes and experimental values dispose..

    to paraphrase the Latin from Kempis..or Proverbs 19.21(Living Bible)

    Dirac spent years on an electron model...

    unfortunately he failed because his model came nowhere near the exptal value for the spin

    For Dirac it was easier to dispose of God then the electron spin?

    3% of 938 Mevs is ~30 Mev..

    This the Standard Model error is too crude for LENR,,

    The fusion reaction can be simplified

    4H--> He + ~25 Mev

    in QCD theory has mass errors far in excess of the energy yield (~25 Mev)

    4H(+/- 120 Mev) ---> He( +/- 120 Mev)


    Wyttenbach has less errors for the proton mass.. also some other theories.. Magnetskiis. ether theory..

    These theories may be more useful for LENR

    Maybe Bruce-H has a better theory??

  • A known mass that the predominantly accepted model fails to calculate to the same 4th significant figure.


    No. I mean a prediction made before the measurement. Suppose that over the next 2 years experimenters add 5 significant figures to the measured mass of some particle. If Wyttenbach were to publicly predict, ahead of time, what those added digits were later found to be, that would be impressive. And if Wyttenbach's theory differed from others regarding the successful prediction then all the better.

  • From the Andreas Osiander foreword to Copernicus "De Revolutionibus"


    There have already been widespread reports about the novel hypotheses of this work, which declares that the earth moves whereas the sun is at rest in the center of the universe. Hence certain scholars, I have no doubt, are deeply offended and .........

    My memory of reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution" years ago is that the heliocentric theory was actually less accurate than the Ptolemaic theory for predicting the positions of the planets.

  • The reason I keep asking a question about the direction of the induced magnetic fields in Figure 1 is because I believe that one can't define such a direction in 4 dimensions.

    Mathematics has nothing to do with believe. If you don't understand Parsley then go on with this first. As said all basic actions are 2:1 and you can choose one dimension you like. Also in 4D, 3D"bodies" do interact. It is not homogeneous 4D math. Further there is no charge circulating. If you don't get this leave it. This is how nature works.

    You should ask the experts why they still use fringe GR/QED math with the provably wrong metric for mass.

    The drawing you miss to understand only explains that the interaction of magnetic moments in > 3D leads to a rotation and not to a twist. This is just a hint nothing more.

  • I am talking about a risky prediction that differs from the predictions of other theories.

    The most important prediction is the exact description of the gravitation force and its mechanism. The first prediction made was the quantization of the proton magnetic moment with a first energy of 1001eV that so far has been measured in 3 experiments. The next prediction we now deeply explore in our LENR experiments is that LENR reaction exchange energy by magnetic quanta we get from the so called magnetic states of isotopes. This has been verified by > 1000 spectrum.

    There are many more predictions and some I do not publish as I now use them for LENR consulting. That the model works I do know since 3 years where I could show that the SO(4) quantum structure is conform with what we see in the gamma spectrum of 127-Sn. You find this in older versions.


    As said by others too: QED/QFT/QCD/LQCD for dense mass is fringe physics. These model can only show interactions not actions of dense mass.

  • Wyttenbach

    You mentioned in some other thread earlier that these kinds of structures require > 3D.

    Also that the Maxwell-equations need to be extended to higher dimensions to achieve that.


    How about starting the whole discussion from the extended equations ? Would it be easier to understand

    these results as a consequence of the new set of equations ?

  • How about starting the whole discussion from the extended equations ?

    This is future work. We now just have de-caved some of the rules that form our universe. Once we know for 100% that the laws and the structure of matter are compliant, then we can do the next step.

    Goal: Find the underlying structures that in the 3D,t projection degenerate into the Maxwell laws.

    Still open: Whether we need the full Octonion base also for particles. We certainly need it for higher Z nuclei.

    But as said many time before: We just opened a new door into the world of true physics. Now more folks have to leave the children play ground and start to work out the details.

    My focus is on cold fusion.

  • The most important prediction is the exact description of the gravitation force and its mechanism

    There was an attempt made here.. by Roza in the Netherlands apparently Standard Modelish,,

    Note the fudge constant alpha.. this is as close to gravity as SM will get , IMHO

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08406.pdf

    My focus is on cold fusion.

    Michael Faraday invented his electric motor in 1822..

    He used the 'flux' to invent it.

    It is unlikely that his theoretical 'flux' would have been respected

    without a stream or flux of experimental results..and maybe James Maxwell

    would not have bothered to mathematize it..

    Best of luck with the experiments. and with the new instruments and with Sm Yb Ag Sn Pd Ni .etc :)


    "According to SO(4) math the maximum 3D-coupling of a 4D wave is half it's energy.

    This can easily be understood as a 4D the wave is running simultaneously on the 3D “visible” front side and the invisible back side with opposite rigid momentum. We see the maximum at the expected 78.37keV.

    This is halfthe energy of a neutron 4D energy hole wave. We also see peaks at the full wave energy (156.7keV) and the corresponding (symmetric) peak of the total release of neutron 4D excess energy release at 468.9keV.
    The reaction that delivers the spectrum is running with an isotope that owns one neutron 4D energy hole wave.

    It can accept one more neutron 4D energy hole wave or just couple with half the hole wave weight.

    In fact the spectrum shows the coupling of the proton magnetic moment with one neutron 4D energy hole wave.

    The yellow and orange rectangle (Fig.2) show just the exact numbers of peaks

    predicted by the proton magnetic moment model.

    (Also in the next 20keV interval the number is exact.) The maximal neutron wave coupling (78keV) region

    of the spectrum looks interesting and further work is needed to better understand

    why some energy levels seem to couple stronger than others.

    The second part of the spectrum has not yet been fully explored.
    We did not yet model the neutron-proton coupling, because

    this spectrum was a huge surprise and needs an urgent communication.

    We think that for the moment it is enough proof, that we see the exact amount of the expected resonance peaks and the exact energies for the coupling neutron waves. (between 20 and 80 keV, values in table 1 above).

    New instruments are needed to measure the energy range between 0 and 20keV."


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…context=ProjectUpdatesLog


    .

  • Here the version 2.1.1 -soon 3 years ago - base line gamma ray filter output that is based on a 4D simplified Hamiltonian for the coupling.

    It is already a miracle that this shows the integer number relations between different gamma base lines. Base line are lines that go down to "0" = fully de excite the nucleus. 127 SN.pdf


    117-Sn is the middle of the periodic table as 1/2 of all strong force orbits are filled. A strong force orbit contains 7 strong force quanta and basically represents the structure of the Alpha wave. The alpha waves forms from the torus 7:4 mechanical rotating rigid mass form factor. The rational numbers (e.g. 2x7 , 1/7, 1/3 used for the whole column is the - expected - best match) show the mass contributions of the different involved rotators. A number like 1.666 (5/3) tells that one factor must be changed to get an integer e.g. 5 or 3.

    The knowledge of the alpha wave is crucial for LENR and thus It will no be published until people understand the basics.


    "Hamiltonians" in SO(4) physics have the basic shape of f(X) = f(Y) or f(X)/f(Y) = 1. That is the "sum" of the perturbations must level out. The main problem is that e.g. the gamma ray process is a multi level step process with 6D then 4D then 3D matches. Nothing really simple.

    So the table shows the 4D - 3 rotator variation and not the 6D--> 4D-->3D matching. All values use the same 6D--> 4D and 4D-->3D fixed transformation that works on one class of coupling only

  • Here the version 2.1.1 -soon 3 years ago - base line gamma ray filter output that is based on a 4D simplified Hamiltonian for the coupling ...

    I see lots of effort here but I don't understand a word of it. Nor does anyone else on this site.


    These are, apparently, calculations having to do with a complex atomic nucleus (Sn117). Naturally, everything is complicated. I was hoping for something dealing with a much much simpler situation so that people can understand the rudiments. I don't understand why you want to exhibit these sorts of complex calculations on this site where no one can understand them or check them or even appreciate them. You need to publish such things in a real journal. Not ResearchGate or Arxiv, which are just public bulletin boards with no peer review.


    As I have said, the most basic part of your theory strikes me as wrong and/or vague. You haven't reassured me at all on that score. Your Figure 1 encapsulates the problem. As a crucial move You appear to use a 4D Biot-Savart relationship ... something that is mathematically impossible. Parsley's paper, to which you constantly refer for support about this, does not do what you say. It is not about a Biot-Savart operator in 4D. Instead, It uses a Biot-Savart operator in 3D tangent spaces to the 3 sphere in R4. I understand that, but how it applies to your situation is completely unclear.

  • Instead, It uses a Biot-Savart operator in 3D tangent spaces to the 3 sphere in R4.

    Then you understand the consequences and how flux transport works in R4. You then also understand that then going from R3 to R4 introduces no new structure and only the flux gets transported. Now you extend it with one more dimension and then note that the flux gets transported by its own and only the winding number (2) survives.

    The problem with the S3 picture is that on this surface you can only have two independent great circles that have no connection. Using a CT torus you can "line up = map" all 4 "great circles" to one line. For this you start with the 3D torus --> Cylinder --> rectangle --> diagonal. This is conform with the fact that all physical actions only can be 2:1. (4:1 = (2:1,2:1) : 2:1) or 22:1.

    This finally tells you that we can use the 3D,t rules and only must respect the metric changes induced by the real space (SO(4)) to 3D ,t space mapping. This is what I finally did. Change the sphere surface norm to CT torus norm and extend the involved radius (4) by square root 2 each. This only explains the flux not the flux tube needed for charge induction.