Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!

Quote from THHuxleynew

Sorry to keep on - but there is so much here...

unitary time evolution in QM is forced by the fact that probabilities of resulting states add up to 1.

You get non-unitary behaviour of subsystems - because of interactions with some arbitrary unmodelled external system - but not of the whole thing.

So this idea, mathematically, is opening lots of cans of worms and difficulty for the formulator - requiring all those worms to be put back into new cans properly.

Display More

Well, I think the book from where I have been quoting covers all of your concerns, but it’s quite a large book.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf

Bear in mind that I by no means think Santilli is the ultimate answer to this conundrum, I just quote him for relevance to the general idea that the Neutron is not a fundamental particle, and that The quarks are mere mathematical fictions to uphold the validity of QM.

Quote from Edo

Prove to me,
- neutrino existence (invented to make up for the spin in free neutron decay)

Not covered by other thread. (The rest is).

Many different things, here is a most impressive modern one.

They have an incredibly small mass - but we now know they are not massless. The mass lies between 0.1eV and 1eV. (I should not be so definite - there might be a mistake in these estimates, but it is ballpark and what we currently think).

https://physicsworld.com/a/neu…l%20Prize%20for%20Physics .

Quote from Curbina

they first synthesize neutrons from protons and electrons;

This is the basic blunder as it never will happen!

Santilli tries to extend an old rotten model with new - in part - even worse ideas...

Quote from Edo

Ядро состоит из нуклонов. В стандартной модели это означает протоны и нейтроны. Тогда вы утверждаете, что они состоят из более мелких частиц, но нейтрон по-прежнему является фундаментальной частицей ядра? Нейтрино не видны напрямую, предполагается, что они производят ядерный распад. Это не доказательство чего-либо, просто предположение.

Основы физики или почему стандартная модель не работает – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/gru3/WxixJTVdV

Основы физики или почему стандартная модель не работает – https://docs.google.com/file/d…UySfJG0R/edit?usp=sharing

Quote from Curbina

Сантилли был отправлен на периферию науки, потому что он изобрел свою собственную альтернативу квантовой механике, которую он назвал адронной механикой. ИМХО, это всего лишь другой набор предположений, но, по крайней мере, с его точки зрения, ни нейтрона как такового, ни нейтрино не существует (хотя он приходит с другой частицей и называет ее «этерино»)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruggero-Santilli/publication/307210336_Santilli_Synthesis_of_the_Neutron_According_to_Hadronic_Mechanics/links/57c473d808ae9b0c824c250b/Santilli-Synthesis-of-the-Neutron-According-to-Hadronic_Mechanics.pdf? Xti1XUQgL9PIbrpPpWOqu24bFv3gNqIAjymIEvQRtwjsGv-bOGec2_JbNzOLa7bYm7lF9o3pXmm_Iuwst7U8uQ.7rYKwGgnVd7NQEC8HeUZk4U_tKI5vbSs2aWGeBJX-8Kxt8HKU6KcHbIxAk-7kO8W_yxsb_BMxMp9uuO8azFLIg&_sg%5B1%5D=IR8fLlM3J8bmGCGDEEMNZvhtXvZgoKfJ-LWfbemSkNRGKSXfB4BE-lGkQWIMh2d-y3ocpQ26IMy6M0yRrm7TOdlCTn_YozvoFiqTIWYFTxoF.7rYKwGgnVd7NQEC8HeUZk4U_tKI5vbSs2aWGeBJX-8Kxt8HKU6KcHbIxAk-7kO8W_yxsb_BMxMp9uuO8azFLIg&_iepl=

Информация о Сантилли, Черепанов А.И., 5 октября 2022 года - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/YkYa/1xL2MX1fZ

Информация о Сантилли, Черепанов А.И., 5 октября 2022 года - https://docs.google.com/ file /d/1DVXR1TRSnx9ZZm5XMHLDfkdTsESMFooz/edit?usp=sharing

Quote from Curbina

Well, I think the book from where I have been quoting covers all of your concerns, but it's quite a large book.

http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf

Bear in mind that I by no means think Santilli is the ultimate answer to this conundrum, I just quote him for relevance to the general idea that the Neutron is not a fundamental particle, and that The quarks are mere mathematical fictions to uphold the validity of QM.

I would like to comment on people citing a not well known book, and when there are specific criticisms of its content - suggesting that the book answers those criticisms without reason or specific reference.

I understand that you like this book because it supports a general idea that you also support. Namely that quarks are mere mathematical fictions to uphold the validity of QM. That is false ^* , as I have clarified earlier in this thread linking the relevant experimental work which proves it. And, for the same reason, and more, the book is highly misleading.

There are a large number of fringe books about Physics. Some are interesting, and have merit, even if unusual. Some (many) are written by people with an idea and no interest in whether it conforms with the real world. They may however say that it explains things which no-one else does, and ignore the fact that it is incompatible with most experiments. It is much easier to present a new idea that way, than to publish in mainstream literature, get critiqued, have to explain how it relates to existing theory and how it agrees with existing experiments.

Also, if you do not have to agree with nearly all of the experiments, it is much easier to put together a model which works for just one little bit. In this case the little bit the model is supposed to work for (the nucleus's structure) it does not in two important respects: it supposes electrons to be a possible nucleus constituent (ignoring experiments showing that not possible), and then it ignores experiments that show quark-like objects - distinct from electrons - inside a proton or neutron.

If I am doing the book an injustice - I will happily correct this - I am going on the very short summary posted above which - surprisingly - contains these inaccuracies. Perhaps it is badly written? But, everyone else posting here seems to be repeating those same inaccuracies.

Such books are misleading to anyone not familiar with the experiments or theory they ignore.

I think it is fair - even important - to make that point?

* Quarks may be mathematical fictions - in the sense that some better underlying theory gives us better insight. But this better theory must also predict point-like objects in nuclei with the electromagnetic properties of quarks, because deep inelastic scattering shows us that. Probably all the other properties have similar very direct evidence - but I do not think people here will appreciate me going on unnecessarily about it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I would like to comment on people citing a not well known book, and when there are specific criticisms of its content - suggesting that the book answers those criticisms without reason or specific reference.

I understand that you like this book because it supports a general idea that you also support. Namely that quarks are mere mathematical fictions to uphold the validity of QM. That is false, as I have clarified earlier in this thread linking the relevant experimental work which proves it. And, for the same reason, and more, the book is highly misleading.

There are a large number of fringe books about Physics. Some are interesting, and have merit, even if unusual. Some (many) are written by people with an idea and no interest in whether it conforms with the real world. They may however say that it explains things which no-one else does, and ignore the fact that it is incompatible with most experiments. It is much easier to present a new idea that way, than to publish in mainstream literature, get critiqued, have to explain how it relates to existing theory and how it agrees with existing experiments.

Also, if you do not have to agree with nearly all of the experiments, it is much easier to put together a model which works for just one little bit. In this case the little bit the model is suppose to work for (the nuclear structure) it does not.

Such books are misleading to anyone not familiar with the experiments on theory they ignore.

I think it is fair - even important - to make that point?

Display More

Except that Santilli was formed in physics as you know and worship it, and saw too many holes in it, and wanted to contribute to its completion. Santilli is by no means obscure, controversial is a word I think may fit him better.

Quote from Curbina

Except that Santilli was formed in physics as you know and worship it, and saw too many holes in it, and wanted to contribute to its completion. Santilli is by no means obscure, controversial is a word I think may fit him better.

I am happy to accept the correction that he is controversial rather than obscure. I am also happy to accept that based on that posted very short summary I have misunderstood his work.

I stand by my corrections because everyone else here seems to have misunderstood it the same way,

Quote from Curbina

physics as you know and worship it

I am not the worshipping type.

People here may have worked that out.

I mean - Vermeer's "Girl Reading a Letter" is a beautiful painting, and a supreme work of art, but I do not worship it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not covered by other thread. (The rest is).

Many different things, here is a most impressive modern one.

They have an incredibly small mass - but we now know they are not massless. The mass lies between 0.1eV and 1eV. (I should not be so definite - there might be a mistake in these estimates, but it is ballpark and what we currently think).

https://physicsworld.com/a/neu…l%20Prize%20for%20Physics .

Display More

The neutrino mass that I found by fitting of values of phat photons, proton mass, neutron mass, hydrogen radius, nucleon radius is 0.10867 eV. In this model the neutrino is likely a Majorana particle. The fitting is based on an electron-neutrino string. The various energy of phat photons results from the decay of an electron-neutrino strings to an electron and a neutrino and a phat photon. As an electron-neutrino string, this complex can replace an electron in an atom. That replacement causes the atom to have an extreme magnetic field. Hence, such extreme magnetic atoms attract each other to form magnecules. That is atoms bound to atoms as a magnet to another magnet.

I did the mass balance and stoichiometry on the data from Santilli's intermediate fusion on the basis of magnecules. This equation results from that analysis O₂ +7D₂ = 2N₂ +2H₂. Coefficients of an equation are considered true values. This data predicts the coefficients to 4 decimal places.

The probability that fusion does happen by this equation is extremely remote based on the remarkable precision and accuracy of the stoichiometry.

Quote from THHuxleynew

But this better theory must also predict point-like objects in nuclei with the electromagnetic properties of quarks, because deep inelastic scattering shows us that.

This has been said by a mind that still sticks in the sandbox reasoning. There are no point like objects in physics. This is totally different from the conclusion that some objects under some conditions just act point like. In the far field charge looks point like and we have yet no mean to dig deeper. Not in the sandbox...

SM is LEGO physics.

Quote from Drgenek

O2 +7D2 = 2N2 +2H2. Coefficients of an equation are considered true values. This data predicts the coefficients to 4 decimal places.

Such equations are OK in chemistry. In physics this simply is nonsense. Without showing why and how this should happen with finally an extremely low precision is just garbage. But people doing SM are proud if they get 4 digits. I discard all result below 6 digits precision. In case of quantities known with 10 digits 8 digits is the minimum. So the above equation just is noise.

I asked for feedback on a specific topic

Never ask a clown for feedback unless you like to laugh...

Quote from Edo

Dear Edo,

I am aware of my own limitations. With W's work, as with anyone else's, unless I am doing work very close to it (in which case obviously I'd be familiar and no doubt one of W's referees, as he would be one of mine) I rely on the web of citations and references in citations to put it into context.

Thus far I have not found those of a form which would help me.

I live in hope.

I realise W may be a new Einstein - but even Einstein was embedded in a community of other people doing serious related work.

Where there is serious theoretical work within the LENR field it will have those links to the very many extremely bright and capable theoretical physicists in the broader community - if only because the LENR work will be aware of and building on their work.

THH

Quote from Wyttenbach

Never ask a clown for feedback

As I recall,,on this forum.. awhile back

The same clown grabbed a QCD paper

and said it was accurate to 6 s.f..

Clowns don't read,,

the n-p mass diff was actually accurate to ~2 s.f

n-p= 1.51+_ 0.4 Mevs or so..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4088.pdf

Feedback on this blooper? ..never

I guess that's why clowns wear a mask ... or a persona..

I remind our members to avoid using derisive terms to address other members. We can disagree profoundly without need to resort to that kind of language.

Quote from Edo

You are arrogant beyond belief. You are incapable of commenting on the content of the original post and hopelessly unaware of actual nuclear physics in your precious standard model even. Stay in your little "extremely brilliant" group and ignore the pearls that have been thrown in front of you, am sure you can finish the saying. You are nothing but a nuisance here. Nuff said.

Edo , I can understand your frustration but please don’t take things to a personal level. We are here discussing ideas. THHuxleynew has shown repeatedly to have ideas very close to Huizenga, and we profoundly disagree, but his position, no matter how we may dislike it, deserves some respect if only for being civil. We will just have to keep disagreeing until either side acknowledges being wrong, which is unlikely for the time being.

Again, no need to take this as a personal attack and start attacking him personally.

We keep THH for target practice, and he's pretty good in that role. Target theory was a big topic in radiobiology when I was a white-coated bottle washer. THH is a modern exemplar of a moving target, but we do like him so be nice.