1D objects: vortices/color strings/gloun flux tubes at heart of particle/nuclear physics?

  • Do you really believe such garbage as "confirmed experimentally"?????


    This experiment can only weakly stimulate one oscillation mode of the electron and

    hence does prove nil, nix, nada!

    The first problem is that the De Broglie frequency is not in line with the electron eigenmodes. But for the SM freaks any 2 digits fit is a prove and 4 digits are heaven, where for SOP 4 digits just are noise and 6 may be a good hint and 8 a good result.

    As said. the initial proclaimed Higgs mass of 125.95GeV is a simple SOP proton derived mass, that needs zero fudging. Of course CERN could not live with this and now fudges the measurement!


    If you do not make one or two steps out of the SM universe you will never be able to understand all the cheating that is in place and that just faith (proves!!!) replaces physics.


    So show us an experiment with an 8 digit fit!!!! (Hint even 1000 sermons wont help...)

  • To oscillate between three types of neutrinos having different masses not violating energy conservation, in my view they have energy density per length - can change length during oscillations.


    In contrast, leptons do not oscillate as it would violate energy conservation, only decay to the lowest energy: electron.

    But they have single degree of freedom of constant energy - of quantum phase twist for electron, leading to coupled pilot wave for quantum phenomena, as predicted by de Broglie and required by relativistic QM.


    So how do you interpret this increase absorption they observe?

  • So how do you interpret this increase absorption they observe?

    A 8% dip is seen at 81.1 MeV/c, at a momentum 0.28% higher than the central

    momentum of 80.874 MeV/c, but this is compatible with the accuracy of our floating

    wire calibration (±0.3%). The dashed curve shows the result obtained with our model

    if dz = L.


    This only tells that they, as usual ignore the electron-g factor influence that is 0.232%....Or simply forget it. If you don't use a perfect crystal then also everything is mot.

    The other more serious problem is the short 1 um crystal length that can lead to standing waves...and may be much better explains the graph shape by Framed (standing) Bessel functions of second order-....

  • The slight shift probably can be explained by mass eigenbasis being slightly shifted as for neutrinos ... anyway there is clear increased absorption, very close to where it is needed by relativistic QM, and I haven't seen any alternative explaination for this dip.

  • Let me summarize: neutrino field structure can freely oscillate/rotate in all 3 directions - not violating energy conservation (e.g. by changing loop length having energy density per length).


    However, there are no lepton oscillations - as they have different masses, only decay to the lowest energy: electron.


    Electron has single constant energy degree of freedom: the quantum phase, its field can only rotate in this direction - but maybe as for neutrino it has 3 types of oscillation tendencies, which just project into this single allowed rotation direction - adding to shift the dip by 0.28% ?


    Anyway, I think the de Broglie clock is much more complicated than just mc^2 = hv ... the clock propulsion mechanism suggested by my model are subtle negative Hamiltonian terms for spatial field rotations in gravitational field (Gamma * \tilde{Gamma} terms below from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 ) - to calculate energetically preferred oscillation frequency I would need to optimize the entire field structure of the particle, additionally there is interaction with surrounding clocks ...


  • my model are subtle negative Hamiltonian terms for spatial field rotations in gravitational field (Gamma * \tilde{Gamma} terms below from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.07896 )

    You already fail here by copying standard SM garbage ideas from others.


    Analogously to Faber, we would like to define dual F EM
    tensor as proportional to R~
    µν = ~Γµ × ~Γν, and for GEM
    analogously using R~ gg
    µν = ~Γgµ × ~Γgν as curvature of space:

    The E-field as a result of a rotation also has a rotation structure and is never a vector!!!!! Such things you would learn in the basic electro technics lab.

    If the flux forms a torus the charge is formed (as a circle) at the rim of the torus. To measure a field you must introduce a charge attractor (metal) and short it. Then you can define one side as U=0 and the other as U(rot).

    In real world no (just tiny amounts) free charge occurs in any conductor. The transport of current is made by EM field polarization that only has an equivalence relation with charge. Electron (virtual) speed in a conductor is about 0.1..1mm/s.


    So Maxwell math is a simplification of real world physics and using it for nested calculations simply is an error. You can work around this (as in SOP) by defining a closed volume charge as in higher space e.g. SO(4) all physics must happen on manifolds what means all 3,4D etc. volumes are mapped to manifolds as without this You would break the symmetries.


    Or more simply said:: Never write down physics equation systems (tensor fields) without telling which real field sources should satisfy them.


    Alos the believe that charge simply is given by helicity is kindergarten level as such charge has no higher symmetry and thus is not real physics. The key problem SM folks never understood is the fact that the electron charge and the electron mass do not allow to generate the mass from the charge or the other way round that B field energy is not equivalent to the E field energy! Once you understand this you will make progress!

  • The key problem SM folks never understood is the fact that the electron charge and the electron mass do not allow to generate the mass from the charge or the other way round that B field energy is not equivalent to the E field energy! Once you understand this you will make progress!

    The key problem is that the modern scientific paradigm has exhausted itself. It is necessary to move to a new scientific paradigm, postulating the primacy of the movement of matter, in which charge and mass are identical to the movements of the matter of our World. On this path, you can find solutions to overripe problems.

  • Wyttenbach , the first step is reparation of Gauss law - the naive one can give any real charge, while in nature charge is quantized, and I am only aware of Faber's approach to handle this fundamental issue: interpret curvature as dual F tensor, and use standard EM Lagrangian for it. Below effective Coulomb is calculated by integrating such sum of curvatures^2 Hamiltonian, more detailed calculations give also running coupling corrections to Coulomb in very short distance/large energy as observed experimentally ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.13374 ).


    Then I add single low energy vacuum degree of freedom to above (S^2 -> SO(3)) corresponding to quantum phase (as in popular Landau-de Gennes model), and turns out it automatically gives looking perfect agreement with the Standard Model - I am only exploring this correspondence with decades of guessing&fitting terms to get nearly perfect agreement with experimental data ...

    Then going to 3+1D: SO(3) -> SO(1,3) adding boosts, they automatically recreate second set of Maxwell equations for gravity.


    Edited once, last by Jarek ().

  • the first step is reparation of Gauss law - the naive one can give any real charge, while in nature charge is quantized, and I am only aware of Faber's approach to handle this fundamental issue: interpret curvature as dual F tensor, and use standard EM Lagrangian for it.

    Charge indeed is a tricky issues. What we know is that the only universal charge form factor is the electron g-factor as this factor defines also the nuclear/internal bonds in all known isotopes. In SOP I did use the well known single charge as it was clear that what we see/measure as charge depends on the interaction topology that e.g. is 2 (5-3) rotations for the known charge in e/p and 3 for the magnetic moment. So in the first case you see a "plane" and in the second case a "line" (in curved space). The 1/3 charges one claims for quarks are an artefact of mixed dimensions.


    The mentionned paper uses some fiction as basic assumption like electron mass to source distance mapping what makes the field of equal size as the mass. As I said the charge equivalent mass is only 1183eV - to much fantasy.


    Of course (in eality) for perturbations charge can differ from 1. or n.

    But all your /the papers classic models have the wrong symmetry (O)n what means e.g. (0,0,0,0) is a special point where we all know that physics cannot be based on points because points (as singularities) do not support varriations.

    In SO(4) you can use the higher order CT 4D tangent space that also supports 4 rotations but in a connected path. So there is no need for weird math crutches like sphericals...Keep also in mind that the generator of SO(4) is SU(2) X SU(2) and thus the tanget space of interest is not tangent to (0,0,0,0) and any radius from there. Look for Clifford Torus Construction.


    There are some minimal rules physics has to stick to. Action must be 2:1D (or1:1) square form is allowed 4:1 as on CT. Actions surface (for 2/3D symmetric flux problems) can only be tori for 3D physics or hyper tori (single sided!!) for > 3D physics.


    As you have see in Sardin's experiment that disproves SM models, charge has no center! It has the same (flux like) structure as I explained above as this is the real physics of nature - not the paper formula a mathematician with no clue of physics will use!



    So please do not spin in circles by proving that one formula is equivalent to an other SM formula what has alreaday been shown (C.Furey) about 20 year ago on algebra level. That way you only link garbage with garbage and contribute nothing new.


    Fact is: SR is nonsense and has been experimentally falsified 1971 by Haefele Keating. Thus GR is nonsense to. Same for Dirac EQ etc...that uses to much of Einstein garbage.

    Did you ever read in Jacksons electro dynamics book? He explain why you can't use the vector (4-) potential approach for particles. The errors inside SM are of children level and I wonder why people accept all this!

    Why do you write the SR/GR etc. gamma factor as 1/(1+v2/c2)1/2 ?? physically correct would be to write (value_of(v)/value_of(c))2 then this would prevent diletantes to make derivatives of gamma, that is a unit less constant you generate by first getting rid of the units!!!!! So there is no v there!!!! latest now you will understand why SRT;GR/Gravity for mass like 3D physics simply is garbage and failed its first real test.

    EM physics is an diferrent story! There v is defined by delay and v is a vector!

  • Charge quantization is at heart of modern physics, with lots of experimental confirmations, starting e.g. with Millikan a century ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

    You both need it built in Gauss law, and doing so the lightest charge becomes electron ... and dual F as curvature is the only approach to get it I am aware of.


    I have tried using SO(4) vacuum in the past, but corrected to SO(1,3) Lorentz group.

  • You both need it built in Gauss law, and doing so the lightest charge becomes electron ... and dual F as curvature is the only approach to get it I am aware of.

    Gauss tells nothing about the charge magnitude. Gauss just counts field lines/area what you also can write in differential form for a homogenous charge (only). To get the real charge you must gauge it.


    The main problem is that q- (electron) a q+ do not produce the same field, what should make it clear that charge only can be a topological affect and is just a proportional quantity. Charge is produced by rotating EM mass! Here it depends on number of rotations and weight of mass that rotates.


    If you want to learn some real physics then try once to model the states n=1,2,3,4 for Hydrogen where you can see that the field is not linear and undergoes EM flux coupling. So any new physics about charge first needs to understand the real field(s) produced by real charge not by any SM fiction!

  • Naive Gauss law can return charge being any real number, e.g. e/2 for "half-electron" ... e.g. allowing to create "half-electron + half-positon pair from 511keVs".

    However, in nature there are no "half-electrons - it is not possible. The Nature's Gauss law can only return integer multiplicity of e ... how to repair our Gauss law?

    Still the only way I am aware of is making Gauss law count topological charge ... what automatically recreates agreement with the Standard model.

    Sure there are also fractional charges like in charge distribution of neutron, still fractions of topological charges fit perfectly here ... and asymptotically Gauss law can only return an integer multiplicity of e, we need to build into ours.


  • how to repair our Gauss law?

    First you must understand that the Bohr radius is a kind of border where open space physics begins and inside close space = spin only physics starts.


    Second flux physics does not allow local laws, these must be global. One can use this to reduce e.g. a torus flux tube to a circle. But this only work for interfaces from

    4D-->3D,t.

    6D is an other world. Here one possible charge generation function looks as following.

    F(charge):: sin(x) + sin(x+72) + sin(x+144) + sin(x+216) + sin(x+288) = 0. (x is just numerical the same value , in reality it cover 6D) This is conform with the Golden ratio and harmonic flux quantization. So internal +/_ charge always have the same magnitude.

    The most weird thing is that classically the rotational momentum in all but one dimension = 0! because for all xij xji pairs you also have a counter rotation. This gives - unluckily a random - single external spin axes, because flux is fully connected and walks through the full space.

    This also explains that proton spin is not conform with its mass.


    Rotating a Clifford torus around one more circle and produce reasonable picture for the charge is still an open task. May be using Octonions would be simpler.

  • Bohr radius is a completely different level than quantization in Gauss law ... once again there is pair creation:

    2x 511 keV -> electron + positon

    ... but there is no e.g. 511 keV -> half-electron + half-positon ... due to electric charge quantization - natural e.g. as topological like below.

    If you don't like it, provide a different explanation.


    For orbit quantization, see walking droplets experiments - getting even double quantization below, due to resonant condition: coupled "pilot" wave has to become standing wave. https://dualwalkers.com/eigenstates.html

  • First you must understand that the Bohr radius is a kind of border where open space physics begins and inside close space = spin only physics starts.

    No, the Bohr radius is the radius of the sphere on which electrons are formed during a spherical drain to the nucleus of a hydrogen atom according to Gauss’s law with the resulting energy potential difference equal to the speed of light squared.

  • Saturday talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od85ljeS4jA

    Slides: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dl2…20crystal%20particles.pdf


    Geometric interpretation of the Standard Model as topological excitations


    In perturbative QFT we decompose scenarios into Feynman ensemble of diagrams, each of them should correspond to a field configuration - I would like to present and discuss geometric/topological approach to find them, based on liquid crystal Landau-de Gennes model. To enforce charge quantization in Gauss law, we interpret dual F tensor as curvature of a deeper field (Faber’s approach), this way Gauss law counts its topological charge. To prevent infinite energy of singularity in its center, we use Higgs-like potential to regularize it to a finite energy (mass), what leads to short range corrections of Coulomb interaction, in agreement with the running coupling effect (arXiv:2210.13374). Living in 3D, charges appear in 3 families of different mass, resembling 3 leptons. There are also 3 types of vortices resembling color strings - which inward/outward field rotation by pi would correspond to elementary electric (as topological) charge, and fractional rotations to 6 types of quarks, e.g. appearing in quark-antiquark pairs with increased energy between them for confinement. The u quark is preferred energetically due to suggested baryon configuration, explaining why proton is lighter than neutron, also e.g. binding mechanism and electric quadrupole moment of deuteron. Hadronization can be viewed here through reconnections of such high energy color string into various final configurations. Suggested neutrino oscillations through field rotations also seem in agreement: mainly between muon and tau neutrino, with more freedom in PMNS than CKM mixing matrices.


Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.