Jarek mentioned earlier:
"... - it assumes we live in 4D submanifold of some higher dimensional space, we should see e.g. thermal interaction with these additional dimensions - energy escaping e.g. from stars ... but we don't see anything like that."
What's your comment Wyttenbach about higher dimensions v.s that comment ?
Rjzk , In this SO(1,3) Lorentz group field dynamics unifying QM (low energy twists) + EM (tilts) + GEM (boosts), further recreating the Standard Model with quantized charges and quark strings as topological vortices ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ) :
spacetime is flat, only space is curved - 3D submanifolds orthogonal to local time direction (modified by boosts).
More specifically, SO(1,3) field has local rotations in Gamma direction, and boosts in tilde{Gamma} below:
Cross-products of two Gammas are spatial curvatures, interpreted as EM dual F tensor here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D…electricity_and_magnetism) ) to make Gauss law count (quantized) topological charge (duality changes magnetic monopolies into electric - charges).
Cross-products of tilde{Gamma} are such boost/gravitational curvatures - leading to second set of Maxwell equations for GEM ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism ).
Cross-products Gamma and tilde{Gamma} correspond to EM-GEM interaction, e.g. slowing down EM propagation for time dilation and lensing through Fermat principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light ), also brings tendency for periodic process from mass - e.g. zitterbewegung or neutrino oscillations.
Best of luck with your future quantitative work. in particular. deriving the value of G..
Maxwell equations for GEM
First time I used Chat GPT
What is a theoretical prediction for the universal gravity constant?
ChatGPT said:
There isn't a widely accepted theoretical prediction for the value of the gravitational constant G in modern physics. Its value is considered a fundamental constant, determined experimentally rather than derived from theory. However, various attempts have been made in theoretical physics to predict or explain G in terms of more fundamental quantities or theories. Some of the approaches include:
String theory, which attempts to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces, implies that G could be derived from the string scale and other fundamental parameters, but it has not yet provided a precise value for G that matches the experimental value. String theory does offer ways to understand gravity in the context of quantum mechanics, but it remains speculative without yielding a specific prediction for G.
Some theories of quantum gravity, which aim to quantize spacetime and gravity, suggest that G could emerge from more fundamental principles, like the behavior of spacetime at very small (Planck-scale) distances. However, no such theory has yet succeeded in producing a precise, experimentally verifiable value for G.
Some speculative theories suggest that the value of G may be a result of the anthropic principle, which proposes that the constants of nature, including G, take the values they do because they allow for the existence of life and the universe as we observe it. In this context, G could be seen as a contingent value in a multiverse scenario, rather than one that can be predicted from first principles.
While these approaches attempt to connect the gravitational constant to deeper physics, a definitive, predictive theory that yields the exact value of G as experimentally measured remains elusive. The current value of G is still determined through experimental measurements.
The above view combining Landau-de Gennes and skrymion models requires at least 2 parameters (~G and ~hbar), which should allow to derive all 20+ parameters of the Standard model - from their comparison should also allow to improve accuracy for G.
And this is just dynamics of field rotations+boosts: extremely general view, allowing further questions "of what" to search for an even deeper model - which might allow to derive G instead of assuming.
we should see e.g. thermal interaction with these additional dimensions -
Some theorist use mind blowing ideas to explain their misunderstanding of real physics.
Real fields need real sources!
There is no general (E,B) A (vector pot.) field symmetry that can be used in any general field formalism. Most classic standard model physics simply is mind boggling garbage.
Please once study the real basics of physics, that certainly is not provided by tensor field physics. Tensor field math is good for approximate engineering but that's it!
A particle = "charge source" is a finite entity and not a mathematical point. Thus describing particles with points that are based on finite charge= points again is a sign of mental insanity.
Real fields need real sources!
Additionally, for electric charge these sources are quantized: there are fundamental restrictions for outcomes of Gauss law, hence also for these A, B/E fields.
The only way to repair it I have seen (searching since 2009) is introducing even deeper field like M above - define 'A' with its connection, F (E/B) with its curvature - this way Gauss law returns topological charge (winding number) of this deeper field, getting required built-in charge quantization.
And it is realized experimentally e.g. in liquid crystals below (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z ) - observed Coulomb-like interactions for quantized topological charges/sources.
In contrast, gravitational mass is not quantized - here while elementary electric charge covers entire spherical angle, gravitational mass usually covers only a tiny fraction of space of boosts (unless black hole-like situations).
Additionally, for electric charge these sources are quantized:
The basic quanta is one electron/proton charge what is a symmetry today but not in reality.
From Maxwells laws there exists no quantization for charge in the general form of q that acts Biot-Savart like. Aware that this topological charge q produces no E field! ( as claimed by QFT). Maxwell charge - B-field equations must be treated as topological equivalence relations and only in the free field world as causal relations. E.g. induced charge (current in a conductor) that can only happen inside matter due to charge separation/polarization (final result of Biot Savart action!!) !
In contrast, gravitational mass is not quantized
In SOP I show how the GR force (G) comes into live!
The only source of G is the p -e - p interaction. So we have a kind of minimal mass needed to produce G. But G can act on all toroidal EM fields.
Without charge quantization built into Gauss law, there would be allowed e.g.
511 keV -> half electron + half positron
and different fractions - we need mechanism forbidding it: forbidding Gauss law to return non quantized ...
Without charge quantization built into Gauss law, there would be allowed e.g.
511 keV -> half electron + half positron
and different fractions - we need mechanism forbidding it: forbidding Gauss law to return non quantized ...
Gravity is quantized because mass is quantized.
How would that work? Mass interacts with another mass as they pass each other via the Lorentz relationship, that interaction creates gravity, entropy, wave/particle duality and dark energy all same time. The particles which cause those relationships are not identified in the standard model but are quanta which (via build-up mechanism) create the families of the standard model. The shear of particles or conversion of relative mass to mass creates entropy. The extreme shear of blackholes creates a gas of fundamental particle (the fundamental particle is the one that is a constituent of all other matter). The effect called dark energy is just the quantity of the gas of the fundamental particles increasing. The partially reversible interaction of fundamental gas with momentum is the uncertainty principle. The part the shear that is not reversible is entropy.
Gravity is not quantized, e.g. heating a gas, you increase its energy, hence should also increase its gravitational mass.
In SO(1,3) vacuum dynamics unifying QM + EM + GEM:
- QM is low energy twists, quantized to pi or 2pi - leading to 1D fluxon magnetic field/angular momentum quantization e.g. in superconductors/superfluids,
- EM has point-like quantization instead - here coming from 4pi full spherical angle - making Gauss law counts such winding number,
- GEM is by tiny boosts instead, getting macroscopic spherical angles only in black-hole-like situations.
Gravity is not quantized, e.g. heating a gas, you increase its energy, hence should also increase its gravitational mass.
Mass increases and decrease due to heating and cooling have been discussed in another thread. What happens is the mass increases and decreases show some type of hysteresis, but the mass/energy conversion appears real and otherwise is as expected based on mass to gravitational mass being equal.
Just because the quanta are very small doesn't make them not real.
Just because the quanta are very small doesn't make them not real.
So what do you think is the quanta of mass?
Having single electron and changing its velocity, you change its energy - which acts as gravitational mass ...
Sure one can assume everything is quantized ... but why?
Do you have any advantage over standard assumption that everything is continuous?
While in space it is easy to quantize with 2pi complete angle of quantum phase (e.g. quants of magnetic field/angular momentum in superconductor/superfluid),
or 4pi complete spherical angle - which seems perfect for electric charge quantization,
... this kind of effects for gravity seem only near black-holes - do you have any argument for mass quantization?
When we have a depper look on the element periodic table we can that relative masses doesn't follow exactly their element.
This is not because you add one proton to shift in an heavier element that the relavite mass will rise by a same value..
So i tend to explain that an heavier atom mass is correlated with an average smaller distance between their nuclei.
For example for 2 hypothetic atoms with 200 nucleons each, this one with a smaller nucleus radius will weight more..
i think this is the starting point to try explaining gravity. If lighters have a smaller radius that could be explained by the fact they released energy becoming a kind a negative potential attracting the heaviest.
Display MoreSo what do you think is the quanta of mass?
Having single electron and changing its velocity, you change its energy - which acts as gravitational mass ...
Sure one can assume everything is quantized ... but why?
Do you have any advantage over standard assumption that everything is continuous?
While in space it is easy to quantize with 2pi complete angle of quantum phase (e.g. quants of magnetic field/angular momentum in superconductor/superfluid),
or 4pi complete spherical angle - which seems perfect for electric charge quantization,
... this kind of effects for gravity seem only near black-holes - do you have any argument for mass quantization?
Binding nucleons into nucleus is something different from mass quantization, especially there are subtle keV-scale differences e.g. between isotopes.
1D topological vortices are unavoidable, required e.g. as quark strings, and lead to particles in LHC collisions through string hadronization ( http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar…t_generators#String_model ).
They allow for such various size objects: nulcei as knots of topological vortices.
A strong argument for nuclei being knots of color/quark strings are halo nuclei: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus ,
http://theor.jinr.ru/~ntaa/07/files/lectures/ershov.ppt
They bind single neutrons or protons for miliseconds in a few fm distance - larger than of nuclear force, also there are needed three-body forces ... we need them being connected by 1D quark string/Abrikosov vortex.
Sorry i don't believe in a kind of mounting you propose.
A nucleus as the sun is "stable" because its concentrated energy fluctuates between 2 limits.
For the sun, it 's well knew with at one side its own gravity and at reverse side the thermonuclear reactions.
About a simple nucleus, the 2 limits are the speed of light and at other side the pseudo geometrical "center".
Protons, neutrons doesn't exist nor quartz according to their classic description.
Only nucleons exist depenting of their rotation direction ( vs a radial direction) with "appear" as a proton or a neutron.
About quarks UUD or UDD, in fact their are the 3 main states of position/kinetic energy of these nucleons.
Roughly a proton is moving tangentially from an UP1 to UP2 position then reaching the speed of light , at this stage it can't continue accelerating, so it will lose energy which will do the radial electron wave and in the same time, as lighter it will both fell down in D position more close to the nuclei center.
About nucleons which will become rather neutron, they will accelerate from D1 to D2 position tangentially up to reach the speed of light too, this way they will climb/repelled to an higher radial position U.. As there is more space at higher layer than more close to the nucleus center, they couldn't need to lose energy explaining that a neutron don't generate an electron.
About proton behavior , when their respective electron will go up at nucleus external skin , it next will go down to the nucleon to restart from a UP1 position.
In fact electrons are only radial standing energy waves of protons. Radially they appear as the wave but tangantially as a particle...
No complicated sketch to explain that.. All of this well explain why we meet both NIH reaction or spallation in another cases.
Display MoreBinding nucleons into nucleus is something different from mass quantization, especially there are subtle keV-scale differences e.g. between isotopes.
1D topological vortices are unavoidable, required e.g. as quark strings, and lead to particles in LHC collisions through string hadronization ( http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar…t_generators#String_model ).
They allow for such various size objects: nulcei as knots of topological vortices.
A strong argument for nuclei being knots of color/quark strings are halo nuclei: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_nucleus ,
http://theor.jinr.ru/~ntaa/07/files/lectures/ershov.pptThey bind single neutrons or protons for miliseconds in a few fm distance - larger than of nuclear force, also there are needed three-body forces ... we need them being connected by 1D quark string/Abrikosov vortex.
For nuclei you first need to explain why they don't fall apart - against extremely strong Coulomb repulsion there.
Then what binds single neutron/protons in halo nuclei?
Both could be responded with topological vortices (quark strings) literally knotting them - they are necessary both topologically and e.g. between quarks, decaying during string hadronization in LHC ...
Then indeed the quark structure - fractional charges localized inside baryons - requiring these 1D quark strings to avoid conflict with charge quantization.
Finally the most crucial are charge distributions - below from 3 articles: for neutron - positive core, negative shell.
So baryon itself requires charge - neutron has to compensate it (explaining larger mass), proton can just enclose such quantized charge.
Then deuteron is crucial - somehow binding and having electric quadrupole moment - indeed required for baryons needing some charge.
So what do you think is the quanta of mass?
- do you have any argument for mass quantization?
Yes, consider the model in post 209 above. It says there is a nuclear reaction which instead of releasing binding energy by transmutation would be caused by shear to release the fundamental quantum particle.
The reason I proposed that model was to explain images of Matsumoto blackholes. Electrons which seem to be point objects can convert to physical strings. These strings link-up to a visible net about a Matsumoto blackhole. The net is visible because Matsumoto blackholes are a source of coherent radiation. Image magnification is as if the source were a laser.
The mass and charge difference between an electron and an electron-string is in the range of the mass and charge of a neutrino. A string-electron in not a simple harmonic oscillator. The volume swept-out by a string-electron causes time dilation and space contraction. It causes electron-gravity. Hence of cluster of string electrons will become a charge cluster. Hence, one can do a balance on a string-electron at the escape horizon of a charge cluster. That balance lets one find that the gravitational constant for electron gravity is near the order of magnitude of the electromagnetic force. One finds that the electric potential (repulsive force between a string-electron and the cluster of string electrons) grows as the number of string-electron in the cluster increases. A large enough cluster can produce energy sufficient to overcome the coulomb barrier to fusion.
I developed the above electron gravity model to explain the mass balance and stoichiometry of Santilli's ICFP and AquaFuel. The mass balance and stoichiometry prove transmutation just as they do for the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen to water.
So, fusion happens, it appears to be due to a not-thermal distribution of energy caused by gravity. So, this is where Matsumoto blackholes come into the explanation. It is a nuclear reaction that disintegrates matter rather than releasing binding energy. The model for ICFP is a charge cluster which attracts anionic hydrogen and anionic oxygen. Near the escape horizon of charge clusters, the kinetic energies are large enough to cause fusion. The reaction equation derived by stoichiometry indicate hydrogen to hydrogen fusion, photolysis of deuterium to produce neutrons, absorption of neutrons to oxygen, absorption of deuterium to oxygen and absorption of deuterium to its subsequent products, fission of the limit fusion product at silicon-28 and synthesis of oxygen by sequential fusion of hydrogen/deuterium to hydrogen/deuterium.
Matsumoto was studying the radiation from underwater spark discharge. Since, he did not know about the mass balance and stoichiometry above he was at a lost to explain the nuclear products and energy balance. He hoped to analysis the radiation products by traces they left on film. He found various expected traces but in low numbers compared to hot fusion expectations. He also found Matsumoto blackholes. Hot fusion produces neutrons. Electron-gravity catalyzed fusion produces Matsumoto blackholes. A blackhole results from a neutron star. The electron gravity constant is sufficient to convert cluster of neutrons to blackholes. But rather than neutrons one has string-neutrons. These are emitted from the charge cluster as slightly anionic.
The presence of strings with the neutrons causes restructuring of the neutron cluster. A net structure emerges. The net is proposed as composted of electrons and anti-electrons as strings. Matsumoto called it an ionic net, or a net composed of itons. When the net goes supernova and therefore separates from the cluster, it leaves behind a coherent source, a Matsumoto blackhole. Rather than traces on film, the coherent source creates images. Images occur because the blackholes are trapped by the film interface. The interface electric field algins the blackholes magnetic field.
The coherent radiation creates an image of a ring. The ring fills in until the image becomes a spot. If the blackhole becomes mobile, it leaves an animation of a moving ring. The spot (image) is developed pixel by pixel as radiation from the blackhole develops the film.
Question? is the coherent radiation source composed of low integer numbers of string-neutrons? Does a blackhole shear fundamental quanta from itself and hence radiate out of existence? If so, then the area of the spot must correlate to the number of string-neutrons from which it was produced.
So, if one assigns an integer to the size of each Matsumoto blackhole then does a correlation to measured size of their spot, one gets this graph.
As a fundamental particle passes a mass composed of fundamental particles, there is a shear caused by relative motion (repulsion of aligned dipoles), velocity and gravity. At the escape horizon one balances the repulsion to attraction. One assigns the mass mc as the fundamental and creates the desired relationship from the Schwarzschild equation.
In case that I missed something you needed, there is more detail in various pdfs in the thread on electron gravity. You could find the one called "Quantum of Matsumoto's Blackholes". It should be useful.
Sorry this answer is so long,
Agree that taking in account the physic of these halo nuclei should push forward the field .
Display MorePour les noyaux, vous devez d'abord expliquer pourquoi ils ne se désagrègent pas - contre une répulsion coulombienne extrêmement forte.
Alors qu’est-ce qui lie les neutrons/protons simples dans les noyaux de halo ?
Les deux pourraient être répondues par des tourbillons topologiques (cordes de quarks) les nouant littéralement - ils sont nécessaires à la fois topologiquement et par exemple entre les quarks, se désintégrant lors de l'hadronisation des cordes dans le LHC...
Ensuite, en effet, la structure des quarks - charges fractionnaires localisées à l'intérieur des baryons - nécessite ces chaînes de quarks 1D pour éviter tout conflit avec la quantification des charges.
Enfin, les distributions de charge sont les plus cruciales - ci-dessous, à partir de 3 articles : pour les neutrons - noyau positif, couche négative.
Ainsi, le baryon lui-même nécessite une charge - le neutron doit la compenser (ce qui explique une masse plus importante), le proton peut simplement enfermer une telle charge quantifiée.
Le deutéron est alors crucial : il se lie d'une manière ou d'une autre et possède un moment quadrupolaire électrique, ce qui est en effet nécessaire pour les baryons nécessitant une certaine charge.
About the halo nuclei former french physicist R de Puymorin just after WW2 as Czerski recently at Strasbourg, postulated that the Coulomb law was done macroscopically.
They thought that at nucleus distance Coulomb law could not be represented by a continuous curve but rather by an wavy's one. This wave behavior could be neglected beyond 2 to 3 nuclear radius so 10 wavelength.
Below these 10 wavelength, calculations look like doing an interaction between 2 systems of stationnary waves well explaining these nucleons off centered .
Display MoreFor nuclei you first need to explain why they don't fall apart - against extremely strong Coulomb repulsion there.
Then what binds single neutron/protons in halo nuclei?
Both could be responded with topological vortices (quark strings) literally knotting them - they are necessary both topologically and e.g. between quarks, decaying during string hadronization in LHC ...
Then indeed the quark structure - fractional charges localized inside baryons - requiring these 1D quark strings to avoid conflict with charge quantization.
Finally the most crucial are charge distributions - below from 3 articles: for neutron - positive core, negative shell.
So baryon itself requires charge - neutron has to compensate it (explaining larger mass), proton can just enclose such quantized charge.
Then deuteron is crucial - somehow binding and having electric quadrupole moment - indeed required for baryons needing some charge.
Coulomb interaction is relatively trivial (no magic needed) - observed experimentally for quantized charges e.g. in liquid crystals like https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16200-z , https://journals.aps.org/pre/a…0.1103/PhysRevE.76.011707 , https://pubs.rsc.org/en/conten…m/c9sm01710k#!divAbstract
But halo nuclei are indeed extremely interesting and require to rethink what we know about nuclear forces e.g. needing 3-body interactions, borromean-like ... I will start a separate thread about them soon.
