Quote from Jarek

Specifically, while 3 leptons are topological charges here (for electric charge quantization), there are also fluxons/Abrikosov vortex-like topological structures, which simplest knots resemble baryons - including e.g. explanation why proton is lighter than neutron.

The neutron (as SO(4) physics shows) simply is a proton with a coupled electron + an additional charge generation wave of the proton. A neutron cannot simply be produced outside a nucleus as it is the basic connection between p-p electro-strong (deuterium) or strong bonds as in 4-He.

The standard model math is based of SO(3)xSU(2)xU1 what is garbage as the resulting symmetries do not allow for stable, homogeneous flux on a 4D manifold. Only the double torus cover SU(2)x(SU(2) = SO(4) allows stable, homogenous flux as it (Clifford torus) also is a minimal Lagrangian (= stable).

The problem with mathematicians is that they believe O(4) means 4 common center rotations what is OK for a fully connected body but is neither stable nor homogeneous. SO(4) also owns the double torus cover with 4 connected rotations that is stable and homogeneous. So this is a 4D 4 rotation Möbius surface.

Standard model topological charge has once been defined as winding number, hence it is just a mathematical fantasy. Charge of any kind can only be produced by following the Maxwell laws, what means toplogically fully enclosed (in one plane) EM flux produces a "boarder charge". This is why I urge people (mathematicians) doing theoretical physics to go in a beginners lab and do some basic experiments like Faraday's induction before they repeat SM mantras that have no use at all.

I also previously worked with SO(4) vacuum here, but this February ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ) improved to more physical Lorentz invariant: SO(1,3) Lorentz group: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group

SO(1,3) has both spatial rotations - which dynamics gives Maxwell equations for EM (+quantum phase for twists) ... plus boosts: which dynamics gives second set of Maxwell equations: for gravity as confirmed by Gravity Probe B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

Here is my candidate for final Lagrangian and generalization of electromagnetic F_munu F^munu to include also QM and gravity as vacuum dynamics:

Quote from Jarek

SO(1,3) Lorentz group:

It depends on what you want to model. EM flux is relativistic thus there is no need for the Lorenz group to model a stable particle or nucleus. The Lorenz group gives you no hint how charge is produced by self enclosed flux as the 4 potential cannot be used for this purpose to model particles.

Any 1,1,1,-1 metric includes time and is real world 3D just enhanced with delayed coupling. Key is to find a manifold that allows for stable and homogeneous flux. This excludes 3 rotations solutions as you have an asymmetry in rotation as we basically only can have 2:1 or 1:1 actions.

The worst deception in the field is that there is no conjugate symmetry. So any operator in the form FF* simply does not reflect the reality of the conversion of mass to a flat field. The e-/e+ annihilation is a 3 photon process!!!!!!!!!!! So the Dirac equation is a brain fart.

You can use classic formulas only for the far field approximations in best case where the potential is linear...

The wave coupling in nature evolves along the Fibonacci numbers 1,2,3,5...what means 2 couples over 3 to 5. So the standard model stays at 2 (photon like) and misses the 3,5 coupling despite experiments show it. (5 e.g. in muon and proton based mass).

As said many times. QM evolved by people that missed some basic mechanics teaching and had no access to modern experiments. QM is a crude engineering method and far from being physical at all. Classically physics is done the other way::

- What are the general symmetries? (forces)

- What are the action symmetries?

- Is the H function stable ( non dissipative)

QM misses the magnetic force, the second spin axes and a stable Lagrangian because a "charge cloud" induces divergence. Coulomb fields of non point sources are not divergence free!!!! (This beginners error was introduced by only modeling one side of the field....)

There are multiple level, EM is only a part - sure easy to make Lorentz invariant.

However, e.g. nature has quantized electric charge: Gauss law can only return integer multiplicity of e - what can be obtained by interpreting curvature of a deeper field as EM field, this way Gauss law counts topological (quantized) charge of such deeper field.

This is Faber's model (e.g. derivation of finite size: running coupling effect - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.13374 ), to get further particles we have to expand it.

Going from above S^2 vacuum to SO(3), from one side is analogous to going from uniaxial to biaxial nematic liquid crystals, from the other allows for 3 realizations of the same charge - 3 leptons, then further e.g. baryons with proton lighter than neutron.

To add gravity, my first approach was extension SO(3) -> SO(4), but then improved to more physicals SO(1,3) Lorentz group ... additionally providing mechanism for de Broglie clock/zitterbewegung (confirmed experimentally: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 )

Some diagram (longer introduction: https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2856493 )

Quote from Jarek

However, e.g. nature has quantized electric charge: Gauss law can only return integer multiplicity of e -

As said above: Real charge has nothing to do with a winding number except that it at least must be 2. The formation of charge needs self enclosing flux!

Gauss's flux law is only valid in topology and can return any value according Faraday... In physics it only works (derivation for force, gradient, energy density) for single point charges. Multiple point charges as an ensemble do not allow to form a gradient (charge = field strength) according the Gauss law. This is a common SM mistake. And of course all real charges e/p/u/K,pion are non point charges...

So your winding number is only valid for the total surface (Says nothing about the field strength of charge in one direction!!) of a half field thus E is nowhere constant in a particle particle interaction.

Do you understand that a real physical field needs a source and a sink and that both fields must be modeled???

That SM uses the trick that a single sided field just generates a point symmetric force and nothing else? This is not physics just a mathematical fantasy (just works for far field only) . As said non point sources lead to divergence - hence the real charge is not constant! This is what you see in all atoms that at the state +1 have a totally different field strength.

So you can only model systems with point symmetry what is useless as no such particles exist.

In nature Gauss law can only return an integer multiplicity of 'e', what is easy to get interpreting field curvature as EM field - making Gauss law count (quantized) topological charge ... if you disagree, please provide an alternative explanation for charge quantization.

Regarding particles as perfect points, it is nearly necessary in QFT due to mathematical difficulty to consider anything more complex ...

... but for real particles it makes no sense, e.g. electron as perfect point would mean infinite energy of electric field alone.

And looking at experimental evidence, the available one rather suggest femtometer-scale size of electron: as deformation of fields not to exceed with energy the mass of electron ... and such finite size effects are in agreement with the running coupling effect: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.13374

Experimental boundaries for size of electron?

There is some confidence that electron is a perfect point e.g. to simplify QFT calculations. However, searching for experimental evidence (stack), Wikipedia…

physics.stackexchange.com

Also, there are many suggestions to require also stable (fluxon/Abrikosov) vortex-like 1D structures - probably also of topological nature (both diagrams are slides from https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dl2…20crystal%20particles.pdf - containing the links).

Quote from Jarek

Also, there are many suggestions to require also stable (fluxon/Abrikosov) vortex-like 1D structures

You must distinguish between macroscopic (ensemble of particles) physics and the particle's physics itself. A particle mass must have full 3 rotation 3D symmetry what is not possible with the classic 3D,t space.

The intrinsic problem with the definition of charge is that we base it on isolated electrons/protons. In reality it should be defined by the field strength. Also charge quantization must not be integer like also 1/n is allowed in the quantum hall effect.

Only if you use bare topology its an integer = winding number.

The problem(miss use) of the Gauss law in physics is that one bases the gradient/energy density on the charge number, what is wrong. Gauss's E (charge number) is an abstract property of the total enclosed volume. It does not define any other property (force,potential, Energy) outside the volume. Only in the far field the error is small enough and you can use the SM garbage formulas but certainly never for a particle itself.

Last: the more tiny an electron is the bigger the the induced divergence on the proton if you properly model both fields.

"21th century scientists":

"The proton is a state of two up quarks and one down quark bound by gluons, but quantum theory predicts that in addition there is an infinite number of quark–antiquark pairs."

"We establish the existence of intrinsic charm at the 3-standard-deviation level, with a momentum distribution in remarkable agreement with model predictions"

Evidence for intrinsic charm quarks in the proton

Nature- Impact Score, Overall Ranking, h-index

Quote from Wyttenbach

You must distinguish between macroscopic (ensemble of particles) physics and the particle's physics itself. A particle mass must have full 3 rotation 3D symmetry what is not possible with the classic 3D,t space.

Particles are complex field configurations, e.g. electron is simultaneously: electric charge, magnetic dipole, "gyroscope", and clock (confirmed experimentally: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 )

Quote from Wyttenbach

The problem(miss use) of the Gauss law in physics is that one bases the gradient/energy density on the charge number, what is wrong. Gauss's E (charge number) is an abstract property of the total enclosed volume. It does not define any other property (force,potential, Energy) outside the volume. Only in the far field the error is small enough and you can use the SM garbage formulas but certainly never for a particle itself.

Gauss law is example of Stokes' theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem ), calculating something inside the enclosed region ... and physics says it has to be integer multiplicity of 'e' - I know only one version containing such quantization of this "something": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%E2%80%93Bonnet_theorem

Dear Jarek, as it’s your country would you present a paper at the next Polish ICCF ?

Quote from Jarek

Particles are complex field configurations, e.g. electron is simultaneously: electric charge, magnetic dipole, "gyroscope", and clock (confirmed experimentally: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-008-9225-1 )

Gauss law is example of Stokes' theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_theorem ), calculating something inside the enclosed region ... and physics says it has to be integer multiplicity of 'e' - I know only one version containing such quantization of this "something": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%E2%80%93Bonnet_theorem

Display More

Thanks, but it is quite far from nuclear fusion ... my hints for fusion is only the need for electron assistance - I see the most active thread here: Physics

Another hint which might be useful for nuclear physics is in Ring laser might allow for revolutionary new effect suggested by CPT symmetry (I search for access/collaboration)

Specifically, CPT symmetry suggests that beside standard "pushing photons" to target by laser, there is also accessible its CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from target.

So e.g. if there is a low probability nuclear transition producing characteristic gammas, we could try to "pull them" (with free electron laser) - hopefully increasing rate of this transition ...

It seems useful for fission (maybe also stimulated proton decay), are there some fusion scenarios where it might be useful? Some lower energy state which might make fusion more likely ...

ps. To stimulate discussion, I have just started a separate thread for the latter: Nuclear physics applications of "pushing photons" to target by laser, and its hypothetical CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from target?

Here this is only a general forum by which sometimes you will meet interesting people but most of the time you will have only some kind of relevant point of view as TTH knows or great physical breakthrought from the daily Kazazh..

If you wan't to profit the opportunity to be at home with this soon ICCF i understand you are flying at this same hidden levels as this 2 guys ? Only bla bla ??

Quote from Jarek

Thanks, but it is quite far from nuclear fusion ... my hints for fusion is only the need for electron assistance - I see the most active thread here: Physics

Another hint which might be useful for nuclear physics is in Ring laser might allow for revolutionary new effect suggested by CPT symmetry (I search for access/collaboration)

Specifically, CPT symmetry suggests that beside standard "pushing photons" to target by laser, there is also accessible its CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from target.

So e.g. if there is a low probability nuclear transition producing characteristic gammas, we could try to "pull them" (with free electron laser) - hopefully increasing rate of this transition ...

It seems useful for fission (maybe also stimulated proton decay), are there some fusion scenarios where it might be useful? Some lower energy state which might make fusion more likely ...

ps. To stimulate discussion, I have just started a separate thread for the latter: Nuclear physics applications of "pushing photons" to target by laser, and its hypothetical CPT analogue: "pulling photons" from target?

Display More

Quote from Jarek

Particles are complex field configurations, e.g. electron is simultaneously: electric charge, magnetic dipole, "gyroscope", and clock

Here we fully agree. But the electron cannot be a point particle due to the magnetic moment hence it also has not a point like action in every experiment... The other problem is that physics currently has no means to dig deeper.

Quote from Jarek

calculating something inside the enclosed region ... and physics says it has to be integer multiplicity of 'e' -

No basic physics does not say this. The law of Faraday knows no quantization. Charge can have any granularity. You mix up charge and free charge carriers. As said its math (topology) that demands an integer number in the case you believe that charge is a LEGO like effect just depending on helicity. (What of course is SM nonsense - see Faraday)

The standard model has no clue of the physical process of photon mass interaction because SM also has no valid model for mass. As said bound electrons accepting photons do 3 rotations photons basically 2. So classically said you need to known how to convert 3D,t space-time to 6D space time.

Zitterbewegung is default in SO(4) as you have 1 out of 5 rotations that is not common center.

Again Wyttenbach or Edo aren't "on the same theorethical understanding" however are both very sympathic and open minded. I had met them, discussed during some LENR events...

Quote from Cydonia

Here this is only a general forum by which sometimes you will meet interesting people but most of the time you will have only some kind of relevant point of view as TTH knows or great physical breakthrought from the daily Kazazh..

If you wan't to profit the opportunity to be at home with this soon ICCF i understand you are flying at this same hidden levels as this 2 guys ? Only bla bla ??

Cydonia, thanks, I am theoretician working far from this field - visiting this forum from time to time is sufficient for me.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here we fully agree. But the electron cannot be a point particle due to the magnetic moment hence it also has not a point like action in every experiment... The other problem is that physics currently has no means to dig deeper.

Indeed finding electron's field configuration is far nontrivial, for charge quantization it should be topological charge e.g. hedgehog configuration.

For clock/zitterbewegung there should be still internal evolution as twist, which also provides the angular momentum and leads to magnetic dipole moment:

Quote from Jarek

For clock/zitterbewegung there should be still internal evolution as twist,

There is no need for that. In SO(4) we have 4 common symmetric coupled rotation and a fifth that has the same coupling as e.g.

e - p that rotate around a common center. Only in an asymmetric action (magnetic moment coupling) the Zitter-Effect comes into play as the moment exciting structure does not symmetrically couple with the 4:1 rotation center due to the 2:3:5 wave structure in the proton and the 2:1 ((1x1) X (0.5x0.5)) coupling in the electron.

Try once to model mass as EM flux! This is a rotation only(closed loop) field. Crucial is to understand that only orthogonal coupling is possible as in direction of the flux, there can be no delayed action. Also there is no volume like solution to attain global symmetry because volume flux never can be homogeneous! So particle physics is like chemistry. Just the surface (manifold) moves. Thus forget your pictures above.

We live in 3+1 dimensional spacetime.

With SO(3) spatial rotations allowing for above liquid-crystal-like (biaxial nematic) configurations in agreement with electron properties: (quantized) topological charge e.g. hedgehog of long axes, plus evolution of twists of this axis ... mathematically leading to EM for tilts + QM ~Klein-Gordon for twists.

Then adding time we should extend not to SO(4) - the mistake I also previously made, but to SO(1,3) Lorentz group: adding 3 boosts to 3 rotations - which dynamics leads to second set of Maxwell equations - for GEM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

Quote from Jarek

We live in 3+1 dimensional spacetime.

Yes! Macroscopic physics lives there. But not the internals of particles.

But fully - volume like - connected mass cannot do 3 rotations at the same time. This is college knowledge. SO(3) is a fake if you claim 3 space like rotations. Or you have to explain the physical meaning of a mixed space time rotation...

Space time is not homogeneous (Minkovski like) as it for ever will be fact that time is a 1D property and related to an event not even to a particle. SO(3) further is not an allowed solution space as flux on its surface is not homogeneous and it also is not a minimal Lagrangian hence not stable = all internal forces are constant.

I suggest you once study basic logic. Then you will understand that you cannot explain "charge" by using charge itself. The disparate trial of the untallented SM bunch to declare charge = winding number (helicity) just only shows that these people miss all basic physics education. Helicity just is a precondition for charge that's all. The amount of charge produced is defined by Faraday's law.

Last question. Why do you believe that for a spin field you need time?? Events are only connected by fractions. Stable particles show no time like behavior.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Or you have to explain the physical meaning of a mixed space time rotation...

A mixed space-time rotation is simply an hyperbolic rotation in Minkowski space-time with signature [+++-]. This is related to the variation of mass with speed in special relativity.

"The motion of a massless charge that moves at speed of light can be described using a composition of a rotation in the γ_xγ_y plane followed by a scaled hyperbolic rotation in the γ_zγ_t plane and can be encoded in Cl_3,1 algebra with a single spinor."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274378_Maxwell%27s_Equations_and_Occam%27s_Razor

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274514_The_Electron_and_Occam%27s_Razor

Popular very physical example of field of 3D objects rotating in 3D are liquid crystals (biaxial nematic) - e.g. using Landau-de Gennes model awarded with Nobel prize ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Gilles_de_Gennes ).

From one side I modify this model to using Lorentz invariant Lagrangian, then further to 4D spacetime - with the fundamental field as 4x4 real symmetric tensor field, which are very popular in physics e.g. stress-energy tensor, I use them with Higgs/Landau-de Gennes potential for SO(3) -> SO(1,3) vacuum: with dynamics unifying EM + QM + GEM gravity.

E.g. here is numerical calculation of effective Coulomb potential for such topological charges in various distances:

Quote from gio06

A mixed space-time rotation is simply an hyperbolic rotation in Minkowski space-time with signature [+++-]. This is related to the variation of mass with speed in special relativity.

Exactly, with SO(1,3) Lorentz group - the model I am considering uses as vacuum, its dynamics unifies EM + QM + GEM gravity.