Posts by Wyttenbach

    Wyttenbach:

    I love to hear you preach against the SM church. Mills and Unzicker are a couple more from this genre for other fans out there. I looked at only one of your PDFs so far and I found one thing unsettling. The factors that you add to make your computed values were (that I saw) all close to power of 10, like 0.998 x 10^-3 etc. Then they might be added multiple times with an SO(4) (incomprehensible to me) explanation for why that many times. It looked like you were adjusting each place value more or less independently. Do you have an example where one of your geometrical factors is like 1.64 x 10^-5 or something that would make it harder to reach a target value than just adding ones in each place to make the value?


    These constants are given by physics. The changes in dimension (radius) in fusion (e.g. D+D) are tiny. The factors are of geometric origin and have infinite precision. All factors have an exact physical explanation.


    Some SM folks still hope it's all numerology... But be aware that the derivation of gravitation has been made a long time after all factors were found, what reduces this argument (numerology) to "0".


    SM has been tested against ultra thin plasma states with a model that neglects magneto static forces. For dense matter its just fringe or simply nonsensical as it can calculate nothing of interest.

    There is no entanglement. Photon correlation is not spooky action at a distance. We are trying to prove this out.

    Thus there is no quantum computing.


    Entanglement or at least what looks like this is the basis of quantum cryptography. If you switch the spin at location A then location B can see the switched spin.


    Such entangled states are transmitted without being bound to light speed. This is an experimentally proven fact and was the basis for some Swiss companies that sell such infrastructure.


    Mills as others too completely misses SO(4) physics as he does not understand the nature of the second radius flux that is not time bound. Photons can entangle over the weak force orbit that is 2D (rotations) orthogonal to the other 2D time like flowing energy of the photon. All masses that are equivalent can entangle = bind over such a shared orbit. This is one of the big miss conceptions of QM as the true nature of entanglement is not just overlaying the wave function.

    When resonance condition of both periodic effects is met, the even subtle neutrino can affect nuclear reactions significantly, because it can bounce from inner surface of atom nuclei multiple-times.


    The energy of neutrinos seems to be below 1 eV - the current max threshold from experiments. Of course this could still be enough to trigger an early decay in an unstable nucleus as potentially any perturbation can do this. Could be the same effect as we see in the molten glass tears that seem to be exceptionally strong but a scratch of a needle make them exploding.

    Triggering LENR is quite an other story as LENR needs no triggering, it needs support to remove the excess energy.

    I already posted a link to a paper of another person trying to use the SO(4) for physics modeling, but he was trying to work backwards from there to accepted views, and he already had found, or realized, that SO(4) offered interesting possibilities for some aspects of time/space and anisotropy. The article is called “A new perspective on space time 4D rotations and the SO(4) transformation group” published online in February 2019.


    This looks similar to other tries to just find a more general form for the SM permutation (rotation) matrix. On first sight he does not use uniform (guv still there) space and uniform 4D rotations in SO(4). This - may be, if ever - can only be used to model a time like coupling to SO(4) in a projection of SO(4) to SO(3) and not for the magneto static EM solution in SO(4).

    Please be precise and link the paper whose authors you believe to have committed fraud?


    As said you have a short memory: You linked the cheating paper about the 20000 Feynman loop to electron g-factor more than once in your comments. May be you can present the cheat once more....


    At some point you have to acknowledge that you have an immense advantage, that you have a gifted mind for visualizing this complex mathematical space and use it to describe the physics of nucleus and particles. For others to get enough interest to catch up, you need to get better at communicating your ideas. I say this in the best spirit and without any intent if criticizing you as a person. I myself am very aware of my communication skills shortage, and when I need to get a point across to a broad audience I am in need to get help.


    That's exactly the problem. Contrary to what others believe, I myself not not at all understand all aspect of the new model. I'm learning over time. E.g. I could'd do the derivation for gravity for more than half a year just because I didn't fully understand how to do it.

    Now I came to the conclusion that I need to do one more deep learning step to more fundamentally understand how we can transport Maxwell equations from S3 to SO(4). The basic force modeling is great only for highly symmetric cases. The orbit model needs a more general approach to get the same precision for asymmetric nuclei like 3He, 3H. This affects only the general structure of the modeling.

    I did much work on electron orbits too that need more attention. Not even to talk about the gamma spectrum of nuclei that was the initial work I did for about full 3 months! --- and there is LENR where I should write a paper about our experiments to show people how gamma radiation is linke to LENR.


    ou, from the content of your posts, reckon the skill in post-dicting masses and mass differences is the most significant factor that differentiates these theories. That ignores the deep inelastic scattering evidence that shows hadrons are indeed made up of 3 internal components, apparently point charges, with fractional values as suggested by SM? In terms of amount of information predicted (or postdisted) the scattering data exceeds to (single value) nass data by many orders of magnitude.


    CERN uses protons ( as hadronic mass) . The perturbative mass - the only part that can be (EM-) measured - of the proton couples as 3 wave structure, thus the CERN findings confirms the SO(4) wave structure. If you sum up the so called quark masses then you almost get the so called 3D/4D flux (3 wave part) of the proton mass. All the rest (quarks, gluons) physicists invented is bare nonsense.


    THH's claims that mass (energy) is not important was the basis to create this thread because we want unmask that SM is not only a physics model - in contrary it is a religion based on fringe (as THH confirms) claims that the truth (= measurable high precision facts) is not important.

    We are talking here about the 99.99% of experimental data, not the 0.01% (particle rest masses).


    THHuxleynew : You live in a phantasy world: CERN does measurements since > 50 years. For each particle, by post diction/analysis they generated huge SM like formulas, that now can be used to analyze Billions of new measurements. Nothing of this measurements fits any basic SM model with may be the exception of the binary structure given by the permutation matrix.


    Thus SM - does in the sense of a real model - predicts nothing of what CERN ever found. This deficiency is well known about independent (of CERN) physicists. As I will remind you such a - now 90 years - depressive state pushed them (QED folks) even further to finally commit fraud as they

    published a cheated paper about the electron g-factor, that uses illegal mappings to infinite series to avoid the unavoidable rounding errors.


    I do not know your motivation behind the FUD you post & claim. May be you once should fetch a younger still independent physics prof. and ask him about the reality... As said I did it and they share my view. They wait for a new model!

    There is no currently known mathematical contradiction between GR and QM and causality. Many have claimed this (including Einstein) and more sophisticated and careful analysis has shown them wrong.


    Either you understand what I have said about the fundamental knowledge of math & structure or you don't.


    The result is as I said: QM is not fundamental because it's complete. Thus all results depend on the viewpoint (global v.s. local) you take. It's all about understanding logic or not. Of course there is no contradiction under the precondition that QM is complete and not closed.

    Even more fascinating is the knowledge that information is not bound to time albeit it's bound to energy! The energy you need to extract it!


    The problem is that physics folks (e.g. CERN) do not grasp that QM/QED is fundamentally (mathematically) inadequate to fully describe an experiment. What they would need is a second model that can handle systems that exchange energy and not only states or state bound energies.

    Actual truth may be well outside of both LENR, both hydrino theory. But this thread is about Brillouin Energy and their theory is about Electron Capture Reaction. Which is essentially classical physics process, I just don't know, how they got into this mechanism. Like Widom-Larsen theory,Godes proposes that neutrons are created as a first step, bothvia LENR proton + electron + 0.782MeV = neutron and via deuteron +electron + 3MeV = “di-neutron” . He says that a di-neutron is not bound,but it’s “very nearly” bound.


    Widom Larson is not a theory: It is just a set of fringe claims (of two very business oriented untalented -I would say suspect physicists) as nobody ever has use neutrons in LENR.


    We know that the first step to LENR is H*/D* aka dense hydrogen. H*/D* can be promoted like a neutron. H*/D* can move behind the electron! coulomb barrier and attach/synchronize with the nuclear structure. But fusion dos not happen because a so called strong force does attract H*/D*. The orbits of a nucleus and H*/D* must match in energy to be able to do the first binding.


    Any believe that neutrons can be formed is way more fringe than ITER's claims once to be able to fuse Hydrogen. Neutrons are only stable inside a nucleus thus we can only say that a neutron equivalent structure can be formed inside a nucleus! But the neutron inside a nucleus is not the same particle as the free neutron because n = e+p and the combined structure engages in different substructures of any nucleus.


    Thus the classic picture of a nucleus being made of neutrons and protons only holds if you smash it into basic particles. A nucleus is a complex structure of proton/electrons - or more general charge.

    What's this about Einstein-Rosen? Einstein and Rosen’s 1935 paper was the particle problem in the theory of general relativity.


    Todays understanding of QM is directly linked to the above first detection of a mathematical contradiction between GR & QM and causality. As consequence we today know that QM is equivalent to a closed formalism that can in no way be enhanced. Only restrictions are allowed as possible modifications. Closed formalisms only allow the global view on a problem as the connection of the problem must match the internal connections in the algebra.


    If you understand these subtle difference then you also understand why QM as a part of QED/QCD/QFT cannot be used to evaluate all details of an experiment as it only describes the global structure of matter that is no longer global when e.g. a beam enters a chamber.


    Said from the view point of information theory: To describe a communicating system - every 3 particle/partners system is such and you can make no experiment with less that 3 - you need a complete system math.


    This does in no case invalidate QM. It only tells it's use is neither fundamental nor all mighty, is of restricted use only.


    The more deep problem with QED/QCD/QFT is the lack of the magneto static solution, what completely invalidates all results regarding mass and somehow explains the screwed up try with the so called Higgs field/mass.

    What do you think is hidden? are you saying that between 4 and 31 July all the atlas team engaged in a conspiracy to hide a result - which stayed hidden for 7 years afterwards as more data was collected?


    The paper is from Jan. 2019... I very well understand your methods & spin. ( Do you get a bonus from CERN??)


    I now start again to call you a FUD'er.


    By the way today I had a long talk with some younger prof's (QM cracks) at ETH Switzerland today evening. They fully understand why QED/QFT/QCD fail and only wait for a better model. They also fully understand the points of JohnDuffield and agree that QM is a closed formalism and thus not able (due to mathematical restrictions (closed) - needed is completeness ) to describe all aspects of reality. They gave some interesting versions of proof based on quantum information theory too! We also discussed the Einstein Rosen paper - thanks John! It's top on the citation list currently!

    Perhaps you could say where in that paper you feel there is mention of suhc a hidden resonance?


    From that paper:

    What I told THH....


    Look e.g. at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06878.pdf VII. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK ....


    It seems that THH is somehow handicapped in reading posts and papers as he obviously is not able to find chapter VII conclusion, in a well written paper...


    Exceptionally I do this very complicated work for him and post the two sentences he had to find.


    VII. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK

    One of the most important task of future colliders is to study the properties of the Higgs-like particle with mh = 126 GeV discovered at the LHC.


    CERN has two detectors one found a Higgs with 125GeV the one with 126GeV. The lower one was "expected" the higher one is now under the carpet.

    perhaps you'd like to be more precise which resonances you feel make your point?


    Short memory is prerequisite to follow SM: CERN found two Higgs masses both with same significance now they hide one ...

    SM:QED/QFT/QCD -for dense Matter is fringe science not in any way related to classic physics and has no power to explain even the simpelst things we like to know e.g. how to calculate the energy of the first gamma line of 6-Li.


    One more try to explain it to undergraduates



    Historically the system of constants(h,c,mp,me,alpha,e) used in nuclear physics has been defined upon the magnetic mass (from exactly measured electron mass --> μB) of the electron and it's relation to the proton mass given by charge. The above formula is just a variation of the known quantities, known since about 100 years...


    This formula shows that, what we call mass or "real" -, massive particles have as a basis a 4D magnetic coupling. μB is the Bohr magneton = magnetic moment of the electron corrected by the electron g-factor. The same formula also holds for the proton.

    In classic 3D,t space and in all variations of spaces used by QFT etc. such a coupling in 3D,t space results in asymmetry or friction (stress) as the two ring currents that are the basis of the μB must share one dimension. But particle like atoms do not show time like behavior what is the basic underlying mechanism of QFT and the origin of stress.


    The mathematical space used by SM (QED etc.) SO(3)XSU(2)xU(1) has the wrong symmetry and thus the most time when reading an SM paper/ you read symmetry breaking it is just only a consequence of inadequate mathematical modeling.


    SO(4) is the first & lowest symmetry group that is able to describe a frictionless coupling of two attractive ( by induced virtual charge) magnetic masses.


    This results in the conclusion that SM is incomplete as it misses the (time free!) magneto-static solution of the EM fields.



    The consequences of this are huge as almost all models for dense mass including GR must be reworked to fit the true nature of physics.


    But as SO(4) physics shows: You gain everything you wanted to have the last 100 years including the exact derivation of gravitation and the unification of all forces. Finally we can now calculate nuclear properties what SM obviously - because of wrong math - cannot do.

    The terms look like a simulation of a magnetic coupling!


    The explanation (symmetry breaking) as said is a basic misunderstanding of physics because SM uses the wrong groups it would need for a proper circular coupling.


    The presenter states :: This mass (Higgs boson) still has to be determined experimentally! ==> SM is not fundamental as it cannot give any relation to existing masses that should be given by existing masses.


    ==> next excuse of SM: particles have partially a Higgs mass and partially an other (what ??) mass...


    3 more beers !!

    Weird. We (normal people that is) accept that interactions with fields can add mass-energy to particles.


    I guess you missed some physics bachelor class. Mass is only added as a consequence of work. If you could understand that a field never can add mass without doing so (work) would be great.


    Unluckily interactions with a conservative field are symmetric you can temporarily add mass e.g. on an eccentric orbit but this mass is released again.


    The only thing you can claim is that a particle with e.g. the fringe Higgs field does a mass like interaction = it feels a force that in average must be "0", not quite what they want to have....


    Finally you end up where I said: Higgs replaces gravitation because SM is unable to explain mass...

    I've no idea even what this means! Mechanical mass is made up of 80% energy 20% rest mass of particles.


    I hope you passed bachelor exams without this question. Up to date mechanics postulates that inertial mass and gravitational mass are 100% identical. For particles Einstein found the correct extension to this rule...


    The correct definition of rest-mass is as the term says: Mass of a particle at rest, what is not always quite exact as e.g. an electron is never 100% at rest. (See De Broglie formula.)

    As i see it, the only successes you claim are all numerical alchemy - magic formulae from which fundamental numbers can be derived. There is a long and well known history of this stuff - possible because semi-classical approximations are sometimes exact, and sometimes close, and hand-waving "corrections" easy to generate.


    I agree it (SO(4) physics) looks like number alchemy to somebody with a SM troubled mind. The only question that remains is: Why does it fit for everything. Why can it give the gamma energy of e.g. 6Li, the levels of 4He and many others? Why can it calculate the magnetic moments from charge radii? Why does the gravitation constant pop up after it has been predicted (based on the 4-He mass measurement ) to interact with the electron perturbative mass? Why do all the isotopes (gamma spectra) follow the SO(4) quantum structure ?? Why can we e.g. explain= calculate the exact(at measurement) mass of 4He, 2H & neutron from proton and electron with the same basic structure?

    I think from anwers thus far your main issue with physics is that you don't like algebra, are suspicious of symmetry-based explanations of physics, particularly don't like broken symmetry as explanation for physics:


    I repeat it once more: Energy in nature is magnetic flux = photons. SM is potential based =>> only a subset of nature. The brimborium of SM/QED/QFR/QCD has been developed by mathematicians (like Dirac, Hilbert) that have no basic clue of physics or reality.


    Higgs's idea is the o called Münchhausen cheat of physics define something missing by the missing...


    The symmetry SM claims to see is not suited to represent magnetic coupling as this needs at least SO(4). How creepy must these people be to finally not understand that there is no symmetry breaking, when there in fact is not the correct symmetry used!!


    I like algebra, but even more I like logic something that is completely missing when you analyze an SM paper and know the history.


    If you don't understand that magnetic coupling is missing in SM and cannot be handele by the SM group structure then any future discussion is fruitless.


    May be you believe, as others do, that the usage of a 4 potential is enough to satisfy magnetism. But this is utmost wrong as magnetism/magnetic coupling is not following the guv metric due to the fact that the magnetic mass already is at light speed and can no longer follow a time like manipulation. May be this is what SM believes to be symmetry breaking.... ( Do not tell me that you can - time like - convert a magnetic mass in a current/charge..I'm talking of a static force, magnetic interaction at a well defined radius...)

    The issue of Higgs particle rest mass is fascinating:

    https://profmattstrassler.com/…particle-its-mass-or-not/


    Anyway W above shows no understanding of it:



    Yes: Indeed fascinating for each particle you have to do millions of measurements to get a fantasy coupling factor to the Higgs field... Yeep yeah 246 GeV not one eV less is the general coupling constant for the Higgs field 7Bit precision... just a little more than 12 arch angles...


    Gravity is nothing to do with the Higgs field or the Higgs particle. This is an amateur mistake:

    https://profmattstrassler.com/…nd-gravity-are-unrelated/


    I know Einstein was an idiot e=mc2 has to be "Higgsinated" now.


    For normal people mass and energy are equivalent but not for the Higgs church. Higgs postulates a third form of mass obviously not interchangeable with mechanical mass.


    Please THH I do not talk about gravitational mass just about its energy equivalent given by mechanics...


    Conclusion: Higgs mass is the fantasy relation of virtual SM particle masses (what ever that is.. one Higgson?) as SM was unable to give any relation to mechanics & Maxwell equivalent masses. 2 digits precision is great. This is about the same people in the stone ages made their deals. 60 cows for 3 woman or 100 trees.


    SM:QED/QFT/QCD -for dense Matter is fringe science not in any way related to classic physics and has no power to explain even the simpelst things we like to know e.g. how to calculate the energy of the first gamma line of 6-Li.


    Please THH: Gives us once more the manna: How does SM calculate the proton mass from basic values as the magnetic moment or the charge radius. We like to have more fun!!

    Given that the input power of this kind of cleaning baths is not usually beyond 100 W and normally much less one can only wonder what kind of process is happening there.


    The temperature at the cavitation hot spot is equivalent to several million degrees as the hydrogen jet impacts with up 7 mach. We know that sono fusion works - since more than 50 years. Before 1991 it was simply classified. Thus I prefer to look a Panda Video...


    We just wait for somebody to engineer a coffee pot heater that uses a fraction of todays energy. The knowledge to do it is available and obviously people (behind the doors) work in this field what new patents about bubble guides make claim.