Yes, I agree that quantum mechanics can be best understood through relativistic approach of space-time transformations. I made a video lecture on that subject, I aim to introduce quantum mechanics without using postulates:
I hope you understand that GR/QM/QFT are based on ideal models (point sources/objects- fields) with ideal behavior, what has absolute no counterpart in real physics.
Here a presentation that explains an experimental failure of general relativity. https://www.researchgate.net/d…2Fwww.extinctionshift.com Here the most recent data of our famous telescopes are used to show that there is no gravitational lensing effect once claimed to be caused by gravity (here of our SUN). The effect is only off aberration nature what means the electrons in the sun plasma layer absorb-re-emit photons with a small added curl. Already Mills did show this defect some 30 years ago...
Same for QM. Complex (multi body) material does not follow QM rules as experiments with the Kraft-microscope show. The measured orbits are not QM like.
So its nice to talk about ideal models, but these have zero=no relevance for real basic physics problems. QM/QED/QFT can be used in engineering to excellently model EM interactions but not to solve basic physics problems.
The real basic nature of our world is defined by EM-flux interaction that needs a bit more complicated math (6D) than just 4D space time that anyway is not a proper math structure to host flux based solutions.
In chemistry QM often is a good approximation as already the simple potential well could be used to explain the first aniline color pigments that have been engineered.
But QM/QED/QFT/LQCD are no help for cold fusion.
But QM/QED/QFT/LQCD are no help for cold fusion.
They haven't been any help for hot fusion either.
I hope you understand that GR/QM/QFT are based on ideal models (point sources/objects- fields) with ideal behavior, what has absolute no counterpart in real physics.
Classical mechanics is also based on ideal models.
They haven't been any help for hot fusion either.
Consideration of bremsstrahlung from relativistic plasma.
V.I. Khvesyuk, A.Y. Chirkov, S.V. Ryzhkov
Bauman Moscow State Technical University
Bremsstrahlung is the main mechanism of losses from high-temperature thermonuclear plasma. The electron temperatures achieved in modern thermonuclear systems (about 50 keV) require consideration of both quantum and relativistic effects.
The commonly used formula for the bremsstrahlung power [1] is obtained in the classical approximation and is applicable for electrons whose kinetic energy does not exceed 27 eV [2]. Correction for quantum effects using Gaunt multipliers [1] does not allow taking into account the relativism of fast electrons, which, as calculations have shown, plays a significant role in the process of bremsstrahlung.
Classical mechanics is also based on ideal models.
Yes ideal, but not wrong! Points simply are wrong and lead to wrong field laws.
Yes ideal, but not wrong! Points simply are wrong and lead to wrong field laws.
Unreasonable and incomprehensible.
Unreasonable and incomprehensible.
Completely right right point field are unreasonable as nobody so far could find one...
But I guess you belong to the dreamers generation that has lost all understanding by daily repeating (SM) sermons.
As for real physics, any model is a simplification that does not take into account details.
Dirac's followers "claim" that the famous equation models an electron and positron all together. Such speaking is science fraud. The equation only models a certain aspect of the electron namely the charge based fields and neglects the other halve of Maxwell the magnetic field that usually dominates on "nuclear" level. Charge effects are restricted by the perturbed charge radius actions.
As a consequence of such mental corruption QED/QFT/LQCD started to claim being about mass, what can be 1000% excluded as the only mass relevant field the intrinsic magnetic field is not treated.
Current SM physics is about surface effects in the far field, where point approximations are good enough. But the standard model that includes QM has nothing to do with basic physics of particles and mass.
The only relevance of QM for cold fusion is in the field of "phonon coupling" modelling as Hagelstein, Dubinko tried with little success so far. Both failed to understand that matter is not homogeneous and lattice oscillations are not the same as (usually 1D) surface plasmons where we see huge resonances. But luckily cold fusion does not need an exact resonance frequence. The magnetic action is incremental what changes the frequence. Cold fusion needs a broad bad resonance like a wide conduction band.
Dirac needed the antimatter postulate ( positon) and the spin concept to well arrange his mathematical formulation.
As a consequence of such mental corruption QED/QFT/LQCD started to claim being about mass, what can be 1000% excluded as the only mass relevant field the intrinsic magnetic field is not treated.
It's strange somehow, in your opinion, the magnetic field is responsible for the mass. On the other hand, the magnetic field of a particle is related to its charge, and with equal charges, different generations of an electron have different masses. After all, the charge and the mass of a particle are different things. For example, in my concept, the mass of an electron is the angular velocity of rotation of a spherical flow, and the charge is a topological number associated with the nodal winding of the flow around the so-called "torus of time".
the mass of an electron is the angular velocity of rotation of a spherical flow,
This is correct!
But how does your 3(6)D symmetric force equation look like? Then you have to explain what force does bend the rotating mass. Of course a part of the mass is the virtual charge field as given by the electron g-factor.
Finally the equation has to exactly produce the measured charge...
If you use EM flux (magnetic field lines) as mass everything is simple!
If you use EM flux (magnetic field lines) as mass everything is simple!
Now it's clear. You call a magnetic field something that is not. As far as I understand, when you talk about SO(4)=SU(2)xSU(2) as a 6D-manifold, you mean the group manifold S^3xS^3 (the product of spheres) and your "magnetic field" is a flux on the product of two 3-spheres.
you mean the group manifold S^3xS^3
S3xS3 is the tangent product space not the inner product space. The inner symmetry manifold is the Clifford Torus - something new for SM folks as it is not O4 but homologue with 4 x 4 rotations.
Let's clarify once again what the 6-dimensional space in which your magnetic field lives is.
All you need is logic. How man rotations do you need for producing a self attractive magnetic field? - At least 4. Keep in mind that in classic math a rotation is 90 degree or what we call a (minimal orthonormal) coordinate transformation. Further you need 4D symmetry as the result in 3D space must be homogeneous. So you get 4x4. Or as I often write (2x2)X(2x2) as we only can have 2D actions that finally physically couple.
The definition of particle mass is about finding the minimal self attractive EM flux Lagrangian surface, what is fulfilled by the CT.
S3 is the local compact CT tangent space where we can roll it (S3 on CT "surface") like a ball. This is the "unlucky coincidence" with SM physics producing some fake correlation if you add fudge factors for the missing 2D of the 6D space.
You should not worry about such a property of space as closeness.
Its easy to understand that flux can only fill a volume in 3D. EM-Flux in higher dimensions - due to its rotation property and being homogeneous - must migrate on a manifold. The CT manifold is closed, Also its 3D projection on 2 3D tori.Finally you can map torus to cylinder then planes.
But each projection loses a part of the physical action!
