what PhD students would bother to use QCD ... given 28+-10 Mev accuracy
2 sf?
Grossman was ecstatic and astounded by 400,000 eV accuracy
for the n-p mass diff
QCD ,,, given time,,,maybe one thousand years
may achieve 1 eV accuracy
right now QCD is in the 500,000 to 10,000000 eV range,,
10 Mev accuracy for the binding energy of the He4..
Here is a 3eV accuracy for SO(4) for the He4 binding energy..
Display MoreGrossman was ecstatic and astounded by 400,000 eV accuracy
for the n-p mass diff
QCD ,,, given time,,,maybe one thousand years
may achieve 1 eV accuracy
right now QCD is in the 500,000 to 10,000000 eV range,,10 Mev accuracy for the binding energy of the He4..
Here is a 3eV accuracy for SO(4) for the He4 binding energy..
I think you are not understanding physics if you judge a theory of everything by a few non-predictive numbers.
When (boring mainstream real) physicists do these calculations they actually make them with random (unknown) deviations included so that those doing the calculations cannot check their results or be influenced - consciously or unconsciously - by what they are "supposed" to be. I wonder whether these SO4 calculations have the same discipline.
But in any case the predictivity required of anything replacing standard model encompasses an enormous amount of high energy collision data - and other things. compound particle masses are juts one tiny part of it.
I'd have respect for SO(4) if it showed that it was equivalent to SM for all of those successes, and then did something better.
All I have heard so far is claims to calculate known particle masses, without the normal "no result-bias" checking.
THH
PS - I guess it also depends on which model you mean:
That one is entirely compatible with SM and has some merit - though not fundamental and not claiming to be that.
This is the simple SO(4) mass calculation for 4-He based on the corrected strong force that increases by a logarithm. 4 protons and 4 electrons form a 4-He nucleus.
1) 4 protons get "compressed" by the strong force. The bond frees energy.
2) The external binding potential of 4-He is double the one of a (4) proton, so halve gets released (1.0896..MeV).
3) 4 electron masses get removed. (As we show the electron is just a resonance of the proton so the coupling is removed)
4) The 4-He internal charge is made of 2*5* electron internal charge mass (1183.10..eV) . This gets added.
In total we remove 82.67 to much what corresponds to the potential of the 4-He electrons and also is seen as alpha particle excess mass. The total error is around 1eV or < 10-9.
To repeat:: Deuterium has 5* electron "internal charge mass" (1183.10..eV). This is just an electro strong bond. Strong force bonds start with 4-He.
It is astonishing that the electron "internal charge mass" (1183.10..eV) is an universal form factor we find in all nucleus. So nature can only form stable mass following strict rules = flux/charge relations.
On November 26, 2020 I posted my article from December 2017 in this thread -
I wrote an article - The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 - https://drive.google.com/file/…12BxqdNU/view?usp=sharing
The use of the hydro wave method for the purification of aqueous solutions and thermonuclear reactions, December 7, 2017 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/27Ad/4bDGJ92rH
I present to you an excerpt from this article -
«After this news Kanarev F.M. stated in his article "NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS FOR THE DEBATE RESULT 2015" ??? -
“The scientific concept of 'neutrino' was born long ago. It has been established experimentally that protons, absorbing electrons, are converted into neutrons. In this case, the number of electrons absorbed by the proton is not an integer.
The proton mass is equal to mр = 1.6726485 • 10-27 kg. The neutron mass is equal to mN = 1.6749543 • 10-27 kg.
The electron mass is equal to me = 9.109534 • 10-31 kg. The difference between the masses of a neutron and a proton is ∆mNP = 23.058 • 10-31 kg.
The mass absorbed by a proton during the formation of a neutron is equal to 23.058 • 10-31 / 9.109534 • 10-31 kg = 2.531 electron masses. If a proton absorbs 3 electrons, and its mass increases by only 2.531 electron masses, then the question arises: where does the remainder of the electron mass (3,000 - 2.531) me = 0.469 • 9.109 • 10-31 kg = 4.272 • 10-31 kg go?
If this remnant is formed into a photon, then its mass will correspond to an X-ray photon. "
The question arises: why for so long they could not experimentally record the trace of this photon in the accelerator - for me this served as an impetus for a completely "fantastic" thought - all the same, one electron (and not three electrons) "falls", but it adds 1.531 electron masses in the form ether ...
Another circumstance that speaks in favor of one electron and the attachment of the ether - three electrons carry "three negative charges" - one of the charges of one electron and the charge of a proton neutralize each other and therefore the neutron is a neutral particle - if three electrons "fell" , then the charges of two electrons become "extra", so this is another argument in favor of the fact that only one electron falls and adds 1.531 electron masses in the form of ether ...
(Dear reader, I must note to you that this article was written by me in 2016-2017 ... Unfortunately, then I still believed that there are "electric charges" and "electric field" in nature, I believed that that there is a "Coulomb barrier" in nature ... But in 2018 I realized that this was a delusion of physicists ... And in 2020 these my fears were confirmed - I read the works of Charles Coulomb in the original ...)
Kanarev himself "led" me to this thought - I quote -
“Since there are no electrons with fractional mass, the proton must absorb an integer number of electrons. If it absorbs three electrons, and its mass increases by only 2.531 electron masses, then the question arises: where will the rest of the electron mass go?
(3.0-2.531) me = 0.469me? The old physics explained the disturbed mass balance in this process simply: by the creation of a neutrino, which has no charge, therefore, as it is believed in the old physics, the birth of this particle is very difficult to register. However, we will see later that the transformation of the non-absorbed part of the electron by the proton into ether is a more fruitful hypothesis. "
It is the foregoing that allows us today to say that there are no neutrinos. Why is that ? But ... But to begin with, I do not agree with my teacher and my inspirer - Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich, - there is no absorption of three electrons, but there is another process - by contracting to the size of a proton during e-capture, an electron "attaches to itself the mass of ether." those. shrinking, it is an electron, "becomes heavier" ...
So we have before us a fundamental nuclear reaction - the reaction of e-capture by a proton -
1р1 + e + [ether - the mass, which is equal to 1.531me] → 0n1
∆m = m1р1 + me + 1,531 • me – m0n1=
(1.007276466879 + 0.0005485799 + 1.530987739 • 0.0005485799 - 1.008 664 915 88) amu. = 0.0 amu
∆E = ∆m • c2
∆E = 0.0 amu. • 1,661 • 10-27 kg / amu. • 9 • 1016 m2 / s2 = 0.0 • 10-13 J = 0 MeV
If we put neutrinos in this reaction on the right, as "relativists" do, then we get the following - according to the Law of Conservation of Mass -
1р1 + e + [ether is the mass, which is equal to 1.531me] + [neutrino mass] → 0n1 + [neutrino mass]
This is absurd. There is no neutrino in nature.»
Your fight in this thread is impressive... But, unfortunately, many of you continue to be mistaken, believing that there is an "electrostatic charge" on the proton and electron... I advise you to get rid of such delusions as soon as possible...
As for the extract I presented above, I’ll explain - the article was written in December 2017 - it was then that I came to the conclusion that there was no “electric charge” on the proton and electron ... And only after 3 years - in January 2021 years I was able to find the culprit of this fatal error in physics - it turned out to be James Maxwell.
Realizing this, I thought about the following problem - we misunderstand the mass defect and everything connected with it - thus, the obtained numbers, which supposedly appear to us as the mass of the proton, electron and neutron, must be revised - the methodology must change ... Formula ∆ E = ∆m • c^2 - not true - energy does not turn into mass - this is a mistake that came to us from Einstein, who by modern standards could not know physics to the extent that we know - physicists living today.
energy does not turn into mass
mass is already energy...
energy being the 'LCD' of the material world...
but there are different packages of energy
of different dimensionality.twist etc..
some being more stable than others..
and some are colored blue 
Two of the largest packages are
PROTON 938.272088 Mev
NEUTRON 939.565420 Mev
A smaller package is shown here..
however there are different mythologies,,
however there are different mythologies,
and some of them are pathologies
Display Moremass is already energy...
energy being the 'LCD' of the material world...
but there are different packages of energy
of different dimensionality.twist etc..
some being more stable than others..
and some are colored blue
Two of the largest packages are
PROTON 938.272088 Mev
NEUTRON 939.565420 Mev
A smaller package is shown here..
however there are different mythologies,,
http://backreaction.blogspot.c…t-your-protons-right.html
I'm shocked by this terrible text ...- " mass is already energy...
energy being the 'LCD' of the material world...
but there are different packages of energy of different dimensionality.twist etc..
some being more stable than others.. and some are colored blue "
Robert Bryant writes for the physical community and at the same time does not know the common truths in physics - this is taught at school ... I quote specially for Robert Bright English Wikipedia -
«In physics, energy (from Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια, enérgeia, “activity”) is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of work and in the form of heat and light.»
It is for people like you that it is written that energy is “the quantitative property” ... Since when did the concept of “the quantitative property” become matter or mass? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Final sentence removed- insulting. Alan.
If you like, such a phrase “The Quantitate Characteristic” ... In Russian textbooks of general physics, it is written as follows -
This textbook was written by the head of the department of NIYAU MIFI Saveliev I.V. - I studied from him according to his textbooks - “the course of general physics”, volume I, -
I quote - “Work - algebraic quantity.”, I.e. In other words, this is a mathematical parameter, not physical ... This algebraic value is used by physicists to analyze the amount of movement ... “... a value that characterizes the ability of the body or system of bodies to perform work is called energy. The energy of the body can be caused by the causes of the double kind: firstly, by moving the body with some speed and, secondly, by finding the body in a potential field of forces. ”
Energy is a purely mathematical parameter, a mathematical quantity that does not describe physical motion, but only characterizes the "quantity of motion" ...
Final sentence removed- insulting. Alan.
Alan. You are applying double standards on this forum... Why don't you delete the nonsense that Robert Bryant writes that offends me as a physicist? Why should I read this nonsense? I hope people who know "general physics" have gathered here ...
Alan. You are applying double standards on this forum... Why don't you delete the nonsense that Robert Bryant writes that offends me as a physicist? Why should I read this nonsense? I hope people who know "general physics" have gathered here ...
In this forum there are people like me with STEM background but without specific physics education, you need to be aware of it and adjust your sensibilities accordingly, and be willing to share your wisdom or correct someone politely. Politeness is a mandatory lenr-forum rule.
Politeness is a mandatory lenr-forum rule.
And so it is. You can disagree with people's views on scientific matters, but we ask always this it be done without stooping to insults. Civil and respectful discourse is what makes this forum a special place, many other fora allow totally uninhibited speech, but in general they die young and unloved.
If a proton absorbs 3 electrons, and its mass increases by only 2.531 electron masses, then the question arises: where does the remainder of the electron mass (3,000 - 2.531) me = 0.469 • 9.109 • 10-31 kg = 4.272 • 10-31 kg go?
You ask the wrong question... Where is the charge going to....
Energy is a purely mathematical parameter,
There is only one basic form of energy:: Photons!
Already the old Egyptian's or Inkas new about this long before some physicists made some assumptions.
All other forms of energy can be derived from photon energy. Photons/phonons are the ingredients of live not some paper equations.
So the basic form of exchanging energy - all over the universe - are photons and to some extent EM waves.
Already the old Egyptian's or Inkas new about this long before some physicists made some assumptions.
That’s surprising coming from you, not that I disagree, but how you came to that conclusion? Is because both cultures worshipped the Sun?
You will be interested... I graduated from high school in the city of Sebezh, Pskov region in 1971... I studied physics from the textbooks of Peryshkin Alexander Vasilievich - Russian scientist, physicist, candidate of pedagogical sciences, professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, corresponding member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR, laureate of the State Prize of the USSR, holder of the Order of Lenin and the October Revolution.
In 1957, the definition of work and energy was given in a textbook for the 8th grade... Education in the USSR in secondary school was from the 1st to the 10th grade. And in 1967-68, the definition of work and energy was already given in the 7th grade.
«За величину работы принимается произведение силы на путь, пройденный по направлению силы.» -
- «The amount of work is taken to be the product of the force and the path traveled in the direction of the force.»
«Энергия есть величина, характеризующая способность тела совершать работу.» -
«Energy is a quantity that characterizes the ability of a body to do work.»
After 22 years - in 1869 the textbook was republished for the 10th time... And we read the same thing...
«Энергия - это величина, которая показывает какую работу может совершить тело.» -
«Energy is a quantity that shows how much work a body can do.»
Thus, I am talking about the knowledge of a high school student, and not the knowledge of an institute or university student ... which (the knowledge of a student) is no different from the knowledge of a schoolboy, since the definition of work and energy is the same.
There it says energy is a quantity
I think we are being caught on semantycs here, the basic idea that matter and energy are equivalent comes from Einstein’s E=mc2 equation, which is the basis for using eV instead of mass units when describing particles. This is common practice and widespread, regardless of it being correct or not (which is something I am not asserting), in fact I was a bit surprised that one of Cherepanov2020 ’s posts uses the mass units instead of the energy ones.
I think we are being caught on semantycs here, the basic idea that matter and energy are equivalent comes from Einstein’s E=mc2 equation, which is the basis for using eV instead of mass units when describing particles. This is common practice and widespread, regardless of it being correct or not (which is something I am not asserting), in fact I was a bit surprised that one of Cherepanov2020 ’s posts uses the mass units instead of the energy ones.
Enough papers have appeared in Russia stating that, on the one hand, Einstein's formula is incorrect in the sense that "the basic idea that matter and energy are equivalent comes from Einstein's E=mc2 equation...". , and on the other hand, there are researchers who claim that Einstein was distorted and this formula implies a completely different meaning ...
Also in Russia, there are more and more physicists who believe that there was and is no annihilation in nature ... I support them and substantiate this statement by the fact that, firstly, Andersen was mistaken in believing that a positron participated in his experiment - it was not a positron , and it was an electron, or rather there are tracks from two electrons and the latest information - there is a visualization of two different clusters of electrons that interacted with the magnetic poles of a permanent magnet. Since it is absolutely clear to me today that James Clerk Muswell made a fatal mistake in presenting "Electrostatics" in his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", it became obvious that there are no "electrostatic charges" on electrons and it is absolutely clear that on Anderson's "positron "also there was no this "electrostatic charge" - thus, at least we can talk about an ordinary electron, but if we analyze the whole physics of this process even deeper, then in the picture we see a trace not from an electron, but we see a visualization of a luminous cluster of free electrons ... When you press your finger on the surface of the table, the same thing always happens - the bound electrons on the surface of the skin of your finger meet the bound electrons of the table material on their way - these electrons interact with each other not with their bodies, but with "magnetic coats" - this is the ethereal mass that surrounds the electrons ... And note that never with the pressure of a finger on the table does the annihilation of the electron ronov... There is no annihilation of electrons in nature...
Baziev (Moscow State University) showed with his experiments that the speed of light of "red photons" differs from the speed of light of "violet photons" ... Nobody measured the speed of infrared photons, ultraviolet photons, X-ray photons and gamma photons ... So the constancy of speed the light that Einstein postulated in Russia is not only questioned, but we simply consider this statement of Einstein to be nonsense ...
Enough papers have appeared in Russia stating that, on the one hand, Einstein's formula is incorrect in the sense that "the basic idea that matter and energy are equivalent comes from Einstein's E=mc2 equation...". , and on the other hand, there are researchers who claim that Einstein was distorted and this formula implies a completely different meaning ...
Also in Russia, there are more and more physicists who believe that there was and is no annihilation in nature ... I support them and substantiate this statement by the fact that, firstly, Andersen was mistaken in believing that a positron participated in his experiment - it was not a positron , and it was an electron, or rather there are tracks from two electrons and the latest information - there is a visualization of two different clusters of electrons that interacted with the magnetic poles of a permanent magnet. Since it is absolutely clear to me today that James Clerk Muswell made a fatal mistake in presenting "Electrostatics" in his treatise "Electricity and Magnetism", it became obvious that there are no "electrostatic charges" on electrons and it is absolutely clear that on Anderson's "positron "also there was no this "electrostatic charge" - thus, at least we can talk about an ordinary electron, but if we analyze the whole physics of this process even deeper, then in the picture we see a trace not from an electron, but we see a visualization of a luminous cluster of free electrons ... When you press your finger on the surface of the table, the same thing always happens - the bound electrons on the surface of the skin of your finger meet the bound electrons of the table material on their way - these electrons interact with each other not with their bodies, but with "magnetic coats" - this is the ethereal mass that surrounds the electrons ... And note that never with the pressure of a finger on the table does the annihilation of the electron ronov... There is no annihilation of electrons in nature...
Baziev (Moscow State University) showed with his experiments that the speed of light of "red photons" differs from the speed of light of "violet photons" ... Nobody measured the speed of infrared photons, ultraviolet photons, X-ray photons and gamma photons ... So the constancy of speed the light that Einstein postulated in Russia is not only questioned, but we simply consider this statement of Einstein to be nonsense ...
This is all very interesting and controversy is good for development of new approaches, however we are veering wildly off topic, and also remember this is a forum in which the quest is for answers to the LENR conundrum, not physics itself, and we have to focus our discussions towards that end. If you wish to keep discussing physics in general and debate all what you want about who was historically right or wrong, I offer you the opportunity to do so in the off topic talk forum, by opening a thread there or posting in one of the threads already existing. If you wish to continue here, please focus on the topic of the thread and also remember that this is always treated from an LENR point of view. In fact, the nuclear model proposed by the opener of this thread Edo proposes that neutrons are not a real fundamental particle which opens multiple options for explaining LENR, and this is why we engage in this discussion.
Baziev (Moscow State University) showed with his experiments that the speed of light of "red photons" differs from the speed of light of "violet photons" ... Nobody measured the speed of infrared photons, ultraviolet photons, X-ray photons and gamma photons ... So the constancy of speed the light that Einstein postulated in Russia is not only questioned, but we simply consider this statement of Einstein to be nonsense
Perhaps not entirely...
Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light
Daniel Giovannini, Jacquiline Romero, Vaclav Potocek, Gergely Ferenczi, Fiona Speirits, Stephen M. Barnett, Daniele Faccio, Miles J. Padgett
QuoteThat the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam's transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several microns over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves. Introducing spatial structure to an optical beam, even for a single photon, reduces the group velocity of the light by a readily measurable amount.
