Posts by Wyttenbach

    For this best of calculated, best of tested value, QED is consistent with experimental error, Mills theory is 200X SD wrong.


    I just want to remind you that all QED calculations also are based on alpha (and its error) ... But I completely agree that Mills, while doing calculations, sometimes works very sloppy. I never used his alpha for the el-g-factor which in fact is off by a factor of 100 (2 digits) in average. You can do 4D corrections (still a tiny error) but the error/current uncertainty in alpha has the same dimension.


    The main problem is that nobody seems to be able to divide out rules for independent measurements of basic constants. I wait for Klitzings next publication about alpha -could take some while. The rubidium measurements are great but you have to believe that they really measure alpha an no other effects interfere...


    SM people still believe that the muon is a heavy electron what is utterly wrong. As a consequence the charge radius of the helium is now completely off because the muon is partially repulsive when joining the 4-He orbit. (For proton attractive!)

    Such errors are my main concern as THH also confirms that the muon loop is used in the el-g calculations...


    As a consequence I focussed my work on deep connections between the best and most reliable measurements in physics world. The more values we can connect the more stable the base will ring to be.


    The best mathematical explanation of alpha is De Vries that results in ;

    0.00729735256865385/137.0359990958. May be we should use it as long as there is no agreement.



    I will further, here, point out why such ignorance of conventional theoretical physics, and wrong ideas about it, impacts on Mills' other work. Mills has not been able to write up his theoretical ideas (nor any bit of them, to my knowledge) in a way that allows critique by other scientists.


    THH: Calm down! You very well know that Mills stuff is well written and has been published in may journals. His APS publishing of an accepted paper with a given publishing date has been suppressed with mafia methods. (To ensure CERN/ITER money...)


    That reference gives a useful comparison of different values for alpha:


    The current SM discussion about alpha is the end of a catastrophic model that finally will bring down physics if they allow these guys to head on.


    According to trusted experimenters (e.g nobelist Klitzing himself..) the quantum hall method is the only trusted/safe one to deliver higher precision for alpha (fine structure) than currently known. As you may note your references are all off by magnitudes compared to quantum hall.


    The experiments you site use fudging QED that has no real base in physics. Just to repeat it once more: The Coulomb gauge is off after 5 digits (Hydrogen)...For 4-He after 3 digits...The use of QED to calculate any more deep values is wired or simply nonsensical...May be you once look at the (NIST) QED-Argon fudging for the 4-He mass...

    That contains the correct and proven inequality corresponding to HUP.


    HUP is also a direct consequence of information theory. Its just a basic law of math matched to physics. But classically HUP was to restricted. You have to be careful which quantities you relate over a HUP condition. E.g. folks messed the spin and momentum. But I would prefer to talk about real progress not about a philosophy of what could be right if e.g. QED would be OK...


    Entangled photons transport information (that is by its abstract nature massless) at infinite speed. This is not possible in a time bound space but matter seems to be connected over space bindings that we still have to explore.


    As said this is experimentally proven. But if you look at the integral process that includes moving the entangled photons then the total communication is "slow" and can never exceed c!


    But e.g. for communication with a spacecraft this plays no role. The question only is how long can you maintain the entangled state after a communication.


    Mills has a bad habit to tell something is wrong even if it looks the same. I prefer saying incomplete (e.g. QED,QCD) or restricted (e.g. QM). Mills also is completely "wrong" about the strong force... (but otherwise mostly OK).



    ..heavy elements, the atoms of which are so large, that the electrons in outer orbital shells are forced to revolve them at high speed.

    These heavy electrons, i.e. electrons of high relativistic mass also play a role in many chemical and physical properties of heavy elements, the atoms of which are so large, that the electrons in outer orbital shells are forced to revolve them at high speed. Because such an electrons are thus more massive, their orbitals get shrunken, which brings a number of anomalies into periodic table of elements..


    This "electrons in outer orbital shells..." is nonsense - may be a typo: "inner shell orbits are supposed to move faster. But calculations show that there is no classic correlation between relativistic mass increase due to higher speed in deeper nuclear orbits. The main reason is that inner electrons move on SO(4) orbits and not on classical ones...


    Even worse: If you look at e.g. gold then you cannot see inner electrons on orbits anymore. One more modeling challenge.


    Only free electrons acquire classic relativistic mass but these certainly play no direct role in LENR. But they could provide the oscillating fields we need.

    QM wave packets, which can represent single particles that are localised.


    There is no such reality: Single particles consist of a rotating flux of em-mass. QM is a just a simplification of physical facts. All known particles can be represented by relativistic mass and perturbative mass something that has nothing in common with a single wave!!

    The correct SO(4) modelling of the electron/proton pair fully reproduces the experiments where as QM totally fails on nuclear/close to nuclear orbits level..


    QM on nuclear level is just mathematical fantasy...QM wave/particle only "exist" (make sense) in the limits of a pure Coulomb gauge and disappearing internal magnetic forces.

    That merely changes the question to finding a natural length at which the transition happens. Without such a natural length (or time) "large" has no meaning. So after several iterations you are still not answering my question "what do you mean by large"?


    This fact is simple to answer and already given by information theory. For particles time disappears at distances smaller than the de Broglie radius. I did show that this can be proven by simple math as the first step of "massification" (fusion) is getting rid of the de Broglie potential!

    Rather it shows that a never proven informal inequality commonly used is inexact as was known previously (2003) proven from QM theory. So far from disproving QM HUP this is in line with what has been proven.

    How does QED do? A 2017 improved QED 10 loop calculation is


    As mentioned earlier (many times) QM is not and never will be a fundamental theory as its original gauge (Coulomb) now is in complete discrepancy with reality! The QED paper THH mentions (now felt the tenth time) is simply formulated mathematical fraud as the weights they use are 5 digits in average what is not allowed to get 10 digits precision. Such an approach only works if you have e.g. 1 Million measurements and an make an average. Summing up terms with 5 digits precision to claim a 10 digits result is simply mathematical nonsense. This is typical for mathematician that never learned the rules of computation. E.g. the minimal error in the sum of 10000 values given with 5 digits is at least 0.00001 * 2log(10000) what is about 14 times larger than the single error. (This error is just for one summation!) But some formulas use values with less than 2 digits precision...


    For any theory to be fundamental it's base form must perfectly match the reality! currently QM/QED/QCD have no working gauge. Currently only SO(4) models can do this in certain cases. QM is just a good engineering tool for non magnetic interaction.


    Entanglement:


    On the other side Mills gives not much more insight about what entanglement really is. The simplest form of entanglement everybody knows is the spin-pairing of e.g. the 4-He electrons. This effect can only be explained by SO(4) physics. Mills approach for 4-He energies, which I studied in deep detail is much better than QM but he uses some cheating for the reduced mass in a place where there is no (simple) reduced mass...

    What we know today is that SO(4) physics gives the absolute exact ionization energy of Hydrogen/Deuterium and almost exact for 4-He. The problem with 4-He is that the nucleus itself is not totally symmetric. It also has a quadrupole moment. Thus the perturbation of the SO(4) orbits must be adjusted by the weights that caused the quadrupole effect. Doing this is just boring work I might do some time.


    The electron g-factor Mills calculates is the best what you can do with 3D,t Maxwell physics together with 4D ad hoc rules for mass-conversion. The Mills value can be corrected by the 4D perturbation to get 2 more digits what is already off precision we can trust.


    The problem with Mills is that he never gets the absolute correct value and explains these facts with wrong arguments like alpha being with low precision. But the good or lets say the excellent, physically correct explanation of the electron g-factor outweighs such deficits.

    Physics will only make progress if it first looks at Mills and then switches to SO(4) space with the two "X" coupled "2 -potential" approach.


    Now the most serious problem: Starting (2005) latest 2014 NIST itself more and more fudges values of the famous "table" just to hide discrepancy within SM... I did delete the latest NIST table to avoid making wrong usage. Please don't use new alpha / 4-He/alpha-particle mass values, 4-He charge radius as there is no true experimental base for the corrections made.

    Since frequency has dimensions 1/T that requires some natural time (or frequency).

    QED predicts nonlinearity (and scattering) via virtual electron-positron exchange.


    Frequency can be expressed independent of time if you use wave numbers. Wave numbers are given as oscillations/per unit of path. In dense space, where we have no time, we use wave numbers and quotients of wave numbers e.g. 3/5. This also defines energy relations.


    You did not understand my point and the experiment with vg >> c. Anything you measure = information = energy (-discrimination)..


    If you study the vg >> c paper, then you will notice that people had to insert a delay line to match the over speed/c signal again with the source signal (that is at c). This has nothing to do with your experiment of thought.

    If you would understand how dense mass works, then you could immediately see that mass in higher dimensions than 3D,t (e.g. SO(4)) moves faster than c at any point in space. My first assumption was that photons also follow the SO(4) orbit because it follows 3 rotations in the experiment. But this would (most likely) limit the (phase=rotations-induced) speed to 32c.


    "virtual electron-positron exchange", is an artifact of a badly defined theory. Such an exchange would only be possible at v > c and that's the reason they call it virtual. In realty there is never a particle exchange. What we see is an oscillation of e.g. 2 SU(2)xSU(2) coupled systems. But from a mathematical point of view it could result the same solution if by mere luck the two coupled system are symmetric (what they rarely are).


    There is no doubt that photons can follow/flow on open SO(4) orbits. As all mass in the same SO(4) system couples by "X" we need no prediction to say that such a coupling is non linear. It's just natural understanding of true physics laws.


    If you stick to 3D,t you will never understand the true laws of physics.

    it does not help to make such arguments before having read how space & time can emerge from QM entanglement.


    It would be nice if you once could give us a paper that proves that QM (QED/QCD)) is (are) a basic/fundamental model(s) that allow(s) to exactly reproduce experimental quantities like the proton radius given other exactly known experimental values.


    If you use a non fundamental model (e.g. QM) to prove something fundamental = given by an experiment then any logical derivation is wrong = a complete fail.


    This is the arrogance of the current physics priests, that they believe and make people claim that QM (QED/QCD)) are fundamental! As soon as you use the inexact Coulomb gauge you are dead = no longer fundamental! The classic Coulomb gauge gives you 5 out of 10 digits for Hydrogen and far less for all other nuclei...

    The only point where QM (QED/QCD)) have some merits are derivations from the permutation space that explain a part of the structure (not the ,masses!!) of the particle zoo.


    As the newest experiments show: Entanglement is space like and not time bound! This also proves that the dimension of space can (must!!) be much greater than 4 what is the number the people use in your paper to explain space-time....

    John Wallace has some problems with status quo QM.


    Wallace was in Asti. He makes like many others (e.g. Bernard Schaeffer) simple classic experiments that directly refute the QM based SM.


    The SM space is 3D,t X "permutation space".


    There will never ever be any physics that explains our world based on this simplified view of the world. The biggest problem of the SM mathematical space is its lack of symmetry, what makes me always laugh, when I read an SM paper and see the term symmetry violation... If you like true comedy reading SM papers is an endless source of entertainment. It's a pity how much time and brainpower the best physicists/ mathematicians waste in finding a path out of the self chosen labyrinth!

    One recent task (covered by many papers) was to explain that QM is more fundamental than all other models used for SM... This is what happens when mathematicians take over physics. They have absolutely no clue what fundamental means and needs - to be truly fundamental.

    As said elsewhere: Precision is the prime key. If you can exactly calculate e.g., then "proton property" mass out of its magnetic moment. SM is a complete fail. They have absolutely no clue how to link basic properties to an integral picture and cannot make such calculations. Experiments count!!


    In SO(4) all 4 forces are unified and can mathematically be derived and explained from hard measurements with absolute precision. SO(4) has a very high degree symmetry and nice features to describe connections. And of course we can calculate the proton mass from its magnetic moment.


    Finally: Einstein knew that he was not right! He devoted his whole live to find a better model. And may be if he had had excel and a strong person computer we would already have it. Nevertheless he was a genius of his time and he was key for progress of the field!

    Group velocity in any wave description of phenomena can be larger than wave velocity - and that has no implications for the dynamical equations which remain linear - nor BTW in this case for loss of causality.


    Anything you can measure is related to energy transport. This is even more basic than Maxwell. (Shannon). Thus vg > c implies that EM mass can move faster than light and this is exactly what happens inside dense mass. In the classic Einstein/Maxwell world we are satisfied that the in average energy moves at c! This saves the live of the framework. But this also points at the classic limits of them framework. In 3D,t space you cannot explain the basic physics of matter and EM mass - no way.

    "photon energy much larger than h" Could you clarify what you mean by this, since this is dimensionally incorrect? T


    This was a shortcut: E = hv. V is usually very large that form the EM mass point of view there can be structure for a photon.

    So the source of the mysterious gammas from deuterium cold fusion remains obscure - another possibility could be that the high energy proton released by the other D-D fusion branch interacts/ collides with another D atom so p + D = He3 + gamma?


    You should stop to mix hot-fusion and LENR.


    In LENR D-D fusion is input momentum free! Or more classically said: No linearly moving masses meet. Dense mass rotates: The joining flux starts to rotate faster but only if he can get rid of the corresponding excess mass.


    We did exactly report about the absolutely non mysterious gammas we measure. Nuclei with magnetic gamma states are able to take over a part of the D-D fusion EM- energy. They are possible antennas for the strong field that is produced by the joint D-D complex.

    This is something that is strongly forbidden by SM...


    Other groups with a more kinetic LENR approach (glow discharge) report about k-electron radiation they measure what is the seconds possible antenna for the EM mass in LENR.


    May be you could teach us which element in the periodic table undergoes a decay with proton ejection...

    Here is a prediction made by QED in the 1950s (not possible in Maxwell's equations) that has only now, with the LHC, been directly observed!

    THHuxleynew : Basic Maxwell physics does say nothing about a forbidden photon photon scattering. It's the self implied restriction by a non Maxwell model that assumes such a fact and tries to shed in on Maxwell...Today we call this fake news or fake facts.


    To my understanding photons are nothing but EM mass that since ever could infer with other EM mass based on basic Maxwell laws... As long as the photon energy is much larger than h you can always assume that a photon behaves as a gigantic sets of waves with a common center of (EM-) mass.


    Latest after the experiment with vg >>> c it is clear that photon interaction can be mass like. We could also say that a new branch/understanding of photon physics just starts.


    Of course it is very difficult to scatter 2 photons as they are really small targets!


    Once more: A prediction of a phenomenon is only valid when you can give at least one characteristics like the energy where such an effect starts or you can give the exact formula for the scattering modes etc...

    There is not yet a clear theory that can make predictions.


    True predictions of completely new facts can rarely be made. The only strong one we have so far is the quantization of the proton magnetic moment. (A bit weaker of the electron too). We also predict spectral shifts of known isotope lines due to the proton magnetic moment quantization. But as usual a model must fit the experiments and if none happen we produce just vapor ware.


    But the main task of any physical model is the prediction of physical facts. We also call such a theory exact. E.g. Newton mechanics, Maxwell's electro dynamic etc... are exact tom a large known extent.


    But SM,QED etc. are never exact. They are far off.


    NPP2.0 is exact in describing the formation process of masses or in calculating magnetic moments or ionization energies. We also can exactly give the fake Higgs mass.


    The main target is to show the folk,s that the current approach is a complete fail because it is based on inadequate math and wrong gauging. The true universe is all magnetic. But SM,QED use Coulomb potentials in 3D,t. They did start with the top of the pyramid as the foundation (base to start upwards) - simply the worst thing that could have been done. Charge associated mass in any nucleus is a tiny fraction of the overall story and worst: It is not responsible for the structure e.g. the gamma spectrum.


    In 50 years actual SM papers will be a treasure for comedians...

    I am quite unusually happy to be pinned down and answer the specifics, based on facts rather than character comment.


    I suggest you follow my suggestion in #363 - and do things properly!

    Here are the latest QM ramblings on the magnetic moments.

    in nuclear magneton (NM) units

    Notice the error fudge ..


    I would very much like if everybody could spend his time with tasks to help progressing the field.


    We know that SM is a fail in most aspects of physics, but we know also know that already tomorrow there could be a better solution/model than we have today.


    I just remind you what SM could to the last 90 years: Predictions: There must be a particle in the energy range X to Y with certain properties given by the permutations matrices. But SM could never predict any (closely matching) energy!

    But physics is not about telling there is a red color particle with spin x and charge Y. It is the mass/energy that counts because only this makes it reliably measurable.


    A consequence of this failure is the tremendous amount of money and manpower (CERN, fermilab etc..) needed (wasted) to verify such inexact predictions.


    But once you are aware of these facts you should no longer mention them and start to be better than the old splendid gang.


    But as THH said: You must be better and well founded otherwise the gang will go on with wasting money for e.g. a useless super CERN.

    So... we should fund fusion research dollars on the basis of how many MJouleSamples/$ bang-for-the-buck.


    This is only the energy side: Hot-fusion, if they really have the intention to fire up ITER for more than a minute, will produced some 10 to100 k Tons of nuclear waste. LENR does not produce significant amounts of active nuclear waste unless you use the wrong process like high voltage "glow" discharge or you use elements that produce mid-range active intermediates. Elements with A>150 tend to produce longer lived intermediates. If you use Hydrogen then the result is much worse than with deuterium. The reason is that hydrogen adds like a neutron.

    That seems, I believe you think, to be a relatively safe statement: and therefore you can be in a position to state a precise model. For example, for the proton - which seems to be one of the simplest dense matter objects in your model - you could state what mathemetical object represents the proton nucleus, how that maps to 3+1D Lorentzian space, what is the equivalent moving charge model from which things like proton magnetic moment can be derived? Or, for some other relatively simple object for which your theory makes theoretical predictions of a known experimental value. If the key match is magnetic flux rather than charge that would be as good - I should point out that in L4 magnetic flux and charge are closely related, so if you can model one, and add Lorentzian invariance, you can also model the other one. So I think you can be confident that if you have a more fundamental theory that matches Maxwell's equations for magnetic flux it will also do that for charge.

    In dense space mass must be split into relativistic & perturbative mass. The relativistic mass does not follow the classic metric (speed always c and already renormalized to rotational mass) and "seems" not directly responsible for charge/(potential) generation. Electric/magnetic neutrality seem to be related to surface waves of S3,S5. This information is derived from the isotope structures we can directly model with the NPP2.0 compression rules.

    Perturbative mass is a consequence of lack of (higher S3,S5) symmetry. Thus before I will look for a classic proton model, that is conform to 3D,t L space I will try to find the SO(4) structure of the solution and the corresponding Eigenvalues. This did finally work very well for the gravitation constant.

    But do not expect that one single person that only can max work about 3 hours/day will find the solution in a few weeks. The gravity (-constant) took half a year of collecting ideas/understanding, where as the final modeling could be done in a week.


    THHuxleynew : Thanks for the references.


    I'm reminded of celestial mechanics before Kepler when the only trajectory considered possible for planets was circular: and to match observations models of planets orbiting with epicycles were needed. The best epicyclic models matched observations very well indeed: better than the initial ellipsoidal equivalents. But the problem was complexity, as observations got better more epicycles were needed with more arbitrary parameters (the radius and orientation of the epicyclic motion). Whereas much simpler models using ellipsoidal motion, with fewer arbitrary parameters, matched as well.


    This is one astonishing fact: 4D orbits can be modeled like 2 coupled ellipsoidal orbits. The total perturbation is the product of the two single orbit perturbations based on the "x" coupling rules! This is one reason why it is relatively easy to find connections in SO(4) physics. Here we may also see one source of perturbative mass (= eccentricity) , that in the symmetric case is a classical square term!


    About quaternions: The main reason to use them is that they directly offer 4D rotations as a basic concept. Of course you can map everything to clifford algebras but the amount of "formulas" might increase dramatically. The only important result I got out of quaternions so far is the linearization constant of (2)3D/5D rotations being a logarithm of quaternions.


    About NPP2.0: THH is completely right. We have some very compelling results and outstanding explanations of physical facts, but there is no complete picture yet. E.g we can calculate the magnetic moments of low Z nuclei something SM fails. But here again we would like to have a general model. We can exactly (at measurement) give the mass evolution from n,p,e --> n,2H,3H,*he,4He etc. but we also would like to have a (more) general set of rules. But we know the exact magnitudes of all nuclear forces including gravity.


    But how many physicists did work on SM??


    Thus I ask everybody that is "somewhere" skilled in the art to join the modeling. I personally had great moments when e.g. the all 10 digits fit for the hydrogen ionization energy plopped out of the spreadsheet or the exact value of the gravitation constant exactly corresponded to the model in mind. Believe me there are other great moments ahead and of course it's nice if I can harvest all low hanging fruits. But I would like it much more if others could fill their baskets too!

    I could immediately start 10 projects for different modeling targets but I have to focus on one or two in parallel and I'm able to progress only if my health is allowing it.


    E.g.: One project related to classical physics is the detailed modeling of the magnetic Bohr model for quantum states > 1. Here the last 2 digits are missing!