New youtube channel: real particle physics and physics foundations

    I created a new youtube channel, aimed to discuss real particle physics and physics foundations:

    Particle Physics and Physics Foundations
    www.youtube.com


    I feel there is a need for a particle physics channel that contains videos teaching actual physics equations - and which is rooted in a direct interpretation of experiments (not infested by the lunacy of other "particle physics" channels).

    There will be about 1 new video post per week.


    The channel is aimed at viewers who are interested to better understand what particles and nuclei are made of, what internal structure/topology they have, and what experimental & theoretical tools are useful for their study.

    The channel will contain only such videos that consider physics to be an experimental science, where one aims to find the most direct interpretation of experimental measurements. In particular, it is not allowed to invent any "particle" without direct experimental evidence - no fantasy particles. The fundamental Lagrangian must be kept as simple as possible. The foundations of physics must be respected - no violation of energy/momentum conservation.


    Hope many will find the content interesting.

    If you have video content that you suggest for the channel, feel free to send me.

    Мои добавления в подробный разбор ошибок Максвелла в его трактате , 10 мая 2024 года – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA22kIrTSRM


    Разбор эксперимента Дж.Томсона и моё доказательство того, что электрона нет в природе, 13.09.2023 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al_xk_hMZ-U


    Открытия протона в начале 20 века не было, 10 декабря 2023 года – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJRZ35AW2M4


    Разбор эксперимента Чедвика и моё доказательство того, что нейтрона нет в природе, 28 июня 2023 года - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18zCS2SZPK4


    Влияние ошибок Максвелла на кризис современной теоретической физики, 21 апреля 2024 года, часть 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6B6f9qjAh0


    Влияние ошибок Максвелла на кризис современной теоретической физики, 21 апреля 2024 года, часть 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PIHCm3Xac


    Разбор экспериментов Роберта Милликена и его заблуждений в 1910 году, 25 апреля 2024 года, часть 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVARaJFk5Rk


    Разбор экспериментов Роберта Милликена и его заблуждений в 1910 году, 25 апреля 2024 года, часть 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxWYd5Q0jY

    "The channel will contain only such videos that consider physics to be an experimental science, where one aims to find the most direct interpretation of experimental measurements."


    Only poor Andras does not suspect that he was taught false physics. What does it mean ? This means that in nature there are no “electric charges according to Maxwell”, in nature there are no “electric fields according to Maxwell”, in nature there are no “electric forces according to Maxwell”, in nature there are no “charged particles according to Maxwell”, in nature there are no ions and no ionization... For this reason, the physics of the so-called tracks in the TANK was handed to you FALSE. The muon tracking system is interpreted by physicists absolutely incorrectly! Physicists interpret almost all the processes in the LHC incorrectly - their misconceptions are fatal and so deep that there can be no talk of any science - EVERYTHING there, absolutely everything is scientific garbage... So I would advise Andras, who is well trained in false physics, to calm down his ardor... No Today there is not a single detector in the world whose physics would be understood correctly by research scientists!

    Andras Thanks for the attempt at "real particle physics"

    Your Amazon reference costs $50..

    however. the "proton Occam's razor" is available on RG

    I quite like your counter notes to the quark refrain of the SM

    "

    1.2. Experimental counter-evidence to the quark model


    Although the quark-based model was inspired by the great variety of mesons, the proposed quark masses do not add up the masses of observed mesons. According to quark proponents, this is explained by a negative binding energy between quarks: any particle's valence quarks masses are only a small percentage of the total particle mass, with the bulk of the particle mass coming from virtual particles which represent the binding force: i.e. virtual quarks and gluons. Moreover, the valence quark : virtual quark : gluon mass ratio is allowed to vary from particle to particle in order to match the observed masses. Now what is the physical meaning of negative binding energy? By definition egative binding energy means a metastable bound state. This model implies that individual quarks should be easily observable upon the break-up of their metastable binding. However, quark proponents also postulated that these metastable bonds between quarks can never be dissociated. There is a fundamental contradiction between the hypothesis of metastable quark binding and the hypothesis of unbreakable quark bonds.


    Proton-antiproton reactions provide rather direct counter-evidence. Figure 1.1 shows traces of a proton-antiproton reaction event, highlighting the produced pion tracks. According to the quark model, a proton-antiproton pair comprises six quarks. After a partial annihilation of quark-antiquark pairs, there can be up to four remaining quarks, which may be organized into two pions. However, Figure1.1 shows at least eight pions emerging from the annihilation event, which contradicts the quark model. A quark model proponent may try to explain this phenomenon by assuming that the kinetic energy of the incoming antiproton was converted into the production of numerous pion-antipion pairs just prior to its annihilation. However, such an explanation is refuted by reference [7], whose authors exposed a nuclear emulsion to antiprotons, and then analyzed the resulting tracks in the emulsion. Their discussion Reference [7] clearly states that the antiproton first came to a rest in the emulsion, and then produced at least 5 pions upon annihilation with a proton. Such large number of pions emerging from proton-antiproton reactions is impossible under the quark-antiquark annihilation model.


    According to the quark model, the proton and neutron both comprise three quarks, only differing in one quark type. However, a recent work [23] establishes that the neutron comprises a positive and a negative elementary charge, which again invalidates the quark-gluon model.

    Finally, we mention that the postulated spin correlation among the three valence quarks leads to a mathematical paradox, that will be discussed in section 6.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giorgio-Vassallo/publication/370848758_The_Proton_and_Occam

    Quote from RobertBryant

    After a partial annihilation of quark-antiquark pairs, there can be up to four remaining quarks, which may be organized into two pions. However, Figure1.1 shows at least eight pions emerging from the annihilation event, which contradicts the quark model.

    The best experiments I know are the ones from Schaefer and Sardin. Both completely refute the standard model.


    In SOP we have shown the exact structure of the proton and other particles including the fake Higgs once.

    The proton mass has three resonant structures one knows as Kaon, Pion ,muon.

    The kaon corresponds to the strong force split of the proton where as the pion reflects the 7 and the muon the 9 (7/4; 9/8 I - torus rigid mass rotation form factor).

    The kaon is a 4 rotation particle (as expected from strong flux coupling) the pion is a 3 rotation particle where the muon is a 3/5 rotation particle.


    The masses of the protons quarks correspond to the proton free flux of about 11.67 MeV. This is the proton external acting flux mass.


    Why the standard model is crap is explained in detail in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379078038

    Crap or not not crap you shouldn't not be so rough all the time

    Anyway your followers ( as me) continue following your postulates.

    I can understand your are angry all the time about the phantom physics as I am about the phantom Clean HME program. In fact, it's important not to get too angry, but to be as vicious as these notoriety and funds suckers... We should do also some videos at least more consistent, not difficult.

    To stay serious ( rather than speaking about babies ass magic powder) what do you think about the J coupling ?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…20and%20local%20electrons.


    To summarize how surrounding electrons could interact with nuclei to generate Lenr ?

    Probably your torus model have to give complementary elements...

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Proton-antiproton reactions provide rather direct counter-evidence. Figure 1.1 shows traces of a proton-antiproton reaction event, highlighting the produced pion tracks. According to the quark model, a proton-antiproton pair comprises six quarks. After a partial annihilation of quark-antiquark pairs, there can be up to four remaining quarks, which may be organized into two pions. However, Figure1.1 shows at least eight pions emerging from the annihilation event, which contradicts the quark model.

    As explained in the discussion in the link below, in the quark model, number of quarks are not conserved, but the quantum numbers are (barion number, strangeness, etc). So not having the same number of quarks before and after is commonplace. I haven't read yet the refutation links yet. But I have always thought of the quark model as just being a tool to calculate which particles exist, not that quarks even really exist. I always understood they could never exist on their own so I think people put too much significance on them. I think the discussions on Wikipedia "explaining" the difference of quark masses and the combined particle masses not matching are all hand waving and show the basic flaw in the theory.


    Why is the sum of quarks in proton anti-proton annihilation different in the produced mesons?
    The proton anti-proton annihilation at Wikipedia describes the process as not as simple as the electron-positron annihilation. Especially it states:…
    physics.stackexchange.com

    i think today that nucleons are only speed variations of the clifford torus generating these " quark pictures" .. Okay only thoughts..

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    As explained in the discussion in the link below, in the quark model, number of quarks are not conserved, but the quantum numbers are (barion number, strangeness, etc). So not having the same number of quarks before and after is commonplace. I haven't read yet the refutation links yet. But I have always thought of the quark model as just being a tool to calculate which particles exist, not that quarks even really exist. I always understood they could never exist on their own so I think people put too much significance on them. I think the discussions on Wikipedia "explaining" the difference of quark masses and the combined particle masses not matching are all hand waving and show the basic flaw in the theory.


    https://physics.stackexchange.…the-pro?noredirect=1&lq=1

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.