Posts by THHuxleynew

    W: Later you say QM is fundamental and claim it's not based on measurement.

    Quote please. I never said QM is not based on measurement. it was developed exactly because of measurements that did not otherwise make sense!

    However it is fundamental - and just possibly more fundamental than spacetime and GR, which it seems can emerge from a QM/QFT basis, at least in some special cases.

    What and when was the best electroweak theory prediction of the Higgs Boaston mass.

    after the 1999 prophecy of anywhere btw 60 and 1000GeV

    Post 2012? 125 Gev?

    RB - no prediction of mass. Why so you feel that rest mass measurement is the only possible prediction a theory can make. It is about 0.001% of the experimental data predicted.

    in case you had not realised, there are not very many fundamental particles - and they fit symmetries. They have all been found. Except (then) the Higgs, which does not fit into gauage symmetries. It was predicted but not found. And now found.

    All of which motivates work like Bee Hossenfelder's own research

    A generally covariant version of Erik Verlinde's emergent gravity model is proposed. The Lagrangian constructed here allows an improved interpretation of the underlying mechanism. It suggests that de-Sitter space is filled with a vector-field that couples to baryonic matter and, by dragging on it, creates an effect similar to dark matter. We solve the covariant equation of motion in the background of a Schwarzschild space-time and obtain correction terms to the non-covariant expression. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the vector field can also mimic dark energy.

    She is one of many theoretical physicists trying to get something better than SM by unifying QM and GR - and having some success.

    That is done from the standpoint of accepting the experimental results and the SM simplification of them, and trying to find some more fundamental way to get that stuff. Which we all want.

    Whereas the rejectionist view here ignores all that experimental work and goes back to Newton.l

    I think the rejectionist arguments here are true pseudoskepticism - not even looking at the stuff they reject!

    This is a rubbish argument. Indeed masses are not known. That is because SM physics is not a religion!

    That article showing (from previous searches) that Higgs must be > 60Gev and less than 1000GeV was the state in 1999, not much better than initially when mass was even more weakly known.

    And in 2018 we got multiple confirmations of the 125Gev Higgs particle discovery.

    BUT - a new particle is a big deal - a Higgs boson has specific predicted properties. It was FOUND some 60 years after its prediction.

    That is positive evidence for the Higgs mechanism. Which I find quite important since Higgs field is kludged onto other (unified) fields. in fact that this has been found is a triumph of SM prediction - one of many.

    That some here do not understand that perhaps explains their lack of interest in the many, many other successes of SM physics.


    You obviously don't understand QM. It has always, since Schrödingers time, been used based on measurements. And it noway is exact as it cannot predict the energies of e.g. hydrogen lower states.

    Your weird claims are based on high level orbits, that are not influenced by magnetic perturbations.

    As said: QM is an engineering method - approximative only - the lower the potential the better the result!

    W - I await your comment on the (many) experiments with quantum entanglement I referenced, and how your "better-than-QM" theory predicts those experimental results?

    This is catholic logic: As long as SM has no success in deriving anything of importance e.g. gamma radiation, magnetic moments from, radius etc.. it is just a religion with a virtual mass, field based particle logic only.

    The definition of anything of importance to be a 0.001% subset of all possible experimental data is surely what a religion does?

    A prediction is something "real=number" you can measure

    A prediction is something you can measure. But it might be, for example, that there exists a new particle with some fixed mass and zero spin that decays as Higgs is supposed to decay (thus telling us its spin, etc) giving the expected reaction rates.

    That is much more information predicted than a single real number, it is a whole load of parametric relations on amplitudes of particle accelerator counts. And the prediction, a new boson with specific characteristics, is strong.

    I think that looking for a way of avoiding the problems and incoherences of QM and the SM is not looking backwards, but moving forwards.

    Again, citing Pollack “Treating any scientific formulation as sacred is a serious error”.

    Two points:

    • QM/SM is overall very coherent. While there are problems, noticed by scientists none of whom to my knowledge treat any physical theory as sacred, you need a better theory which is as predictive or more to replace it with.
    • None of the "we hate anything after Maxwell/Newton" ideas here help because they do not match real experiments. In particular all the quantum effects, both entanglement, and QFT-related effects.

    I'm of course open to ideas that are realistic, in the sense that they correctly predict what has been observed, but I've not yet seen them here. All I've seen is proposals motivated by having some analog to Maxwell/Newton that do not address the many quantum spookiness or QFT uber-spookiness results.

    I'd rather call this thread "the church of mainstream experimental science rejection".

    Throughout the last 80 years, theoretical and experimental advances have gone hand in hand. experimental data has driven new theories, causing rejection of some, and acceptance of others, no matter how weird they seem or what is the initial opposition.

    This process continues.

    I see nothing in this root and branch rejection that shows better agreement with experiment. Quite the reverse. The semi-religious idea that any good theory should have an exact connection to Maxwellian and Newtonian Physics is indeed I think the main motivation for this rejectionist philosophy. I've argued elsewhere that I see that is an anthropomorphic lack of imagination. Like saying that molecular kinematics is bad because it does not have an exact connection to the laws of thermodynamics.

    I've asked many times for merit in such claimed new physics. Even some way to explain the vast amount of existing data, hundreds of thousands of parametric relationships, equally with SM/QED/QFT. Or some clear and interesting new prediction, like the intermediate vector bosons and the Higgs, all predicted and then later found. Readers interested in the criticisms of the Higgs discovery on this site as a "125MeV proton resonance" should read the relevant thread. The Higgs has experimental evidence from multiple experiments showing it to be a 125GeV zero-spin (as of 2017) particle. It is a tour de force of QFT as fundamental theory that a whole new particle invented as needed to make a a kludged-on Higgs field to explain apparent rest mass should be discovered with exactly the correct properties to do this.

    Having said all that - I and most others hope for something new and better. But you are doomed, looking for something better, unless you can replicate the enormous success of SM/QFT. That means in practice being able to derive the QM/SM/QFT results - explaining enormous quantities of particle accelerator data as well as many other things - from some more fundamental theory - not reject it and retreat to an exact connection with Maxwellian and Newtonian physics.

    There are more than enough attempts to vary current theory - many alternative QFTs, other approaches, which obey this simple rule of replicating the successful predictions of current theory. There are exciting root and branch reform ways to do this using aspects of string theory and quantum entanglement as something more basic than space or time. Why look backwards?

    W: QM is [not] somehow a fundamental theory. Fact is that QM only works together with a good base measurement and only for e.g. orbits states n >1. Thus QM is not basic and explains nothing fundamental about physics. It's a good math. engineering tool not more.

    QM - and its elaborations all of which depend on the basic ideas - have proven correct over tens of thousands of measurements, and made many many correct predictions. They have never been shown incorrect, except in the limited way that they do not unify with GR.

    I have no patience for subjective, almost mystical, complaints that it "explains nothing fundamental". Here are the extraordinary and counter-intuitive experimental results that it explains:

    • double-slit experiments
    • non-locality of entangled photons, electrons (many, many experiments)
    • Casimir effect
    • quantum computers
    • many many other things

    I can accept that a more fundamental theory might exist from which all the maths of quantum mechanisms could be derived. It would then equally explain all this stuff and would be interesting. It might (in principle) be philosophically more satisfactory. I have not seen any such attempt to show how all of QM and QFT, as experimentally validated, can be proven from something else. Many people have given different interpretations of QM (Pilot wave etc) which are essentially identical, and I don't mind, as long as they are close enough to predict all the positives that QM does.

    To answer the OP question:

    The paper contains 3 examples of claimed problems with standard theory, which are solved by an idea giving particles travelling at speed c non-zero rest mass.

    The OP asks for errors in this idea.

    I see no errors, except that it is more complex than the normal theory (not an error, but undesirable) and, it makes no predictions distinct from normal theory that have been observed.

    I do see errors, quite grievous ones, in the rationale for the paper which starts by highlighting 3 problems in standard theory.

    The argument in the paper sort of makes sense if you adopt a particle-only view of photons. But, photons are (just) e-m waves. The energy of given e-m waves is very precisely and properly described, and related to the corresponding fields. One photon of a given frequency is well defined, in a cavity, and corresponds to a given energy based on its frequency E = hc/lambda where lambda is the photon wavelength. Lambda can be arbitrarily large, leading to energy arbitrarily low. thus for the photon energy to come from rest mass we would need an entirely different idea of rest mass, something that can be arbitrarily variable in a way that is different from all the rest of quantised physics.

    Nothing wrong with that, except complexity (simpler for everything to work the same way), and lack of motivation: it makes no distinct predictions that have been observed.

    The paper notes that Lorentz relativistic mass formula cannot be used to determine the mass of a particle travelling at c, since it shows a singularity. But that argument is silly. It is often true that one mathematical derivation leads to an undefined quantity when another one gives a correct and consistent asymptotically defined value. Using the argument here you would say that derivatives were undefined and a "problem" for mathematics!

    There are many interesting alternate theories of fundamental physics published and commented on by mainstream science. Everyone sort-of hopes one of them will gain traction, because unlike what many here think (in a pseudoskeptical and contemptuous ignoring of the reality) physicists are profoundly and actively interested in new ideas. The ones highlighted here, without any traction in mainstream physics, seem attractive if you are disturbed by one or more of the profoundly counter-intuitive experimental facts of quantum physics. They produce semi-classical equivalent explanations with no merit except that they are "real physics". For example here the disturbing idea is that rest mass (as viewed as an interaction with a Higgs field that creates inertia) can be zero (no interaction) in which case particles travel at the speed of light.

    The idea that a semi-classical explanation of quantum physics is "more real" than a quantum explanation is, in my view and that of most who have ever properly worked with QM and GR, profoundly reactionary and anthropomorphic. why should the fundamental physics of the world be familiar from the human-scale physics that we learn from playing cricket (er, for some, baseball) when young?

    I see it as the opposite of what this site otherwise tries to do - being open to new unexpected ideas.

    Just wanted to remind everybody that the Ni-H Rossi like LENR reactions seem to work as expected. See Parkhomov presentation Assisi. Also Takahashi has a stable Ni-H process with 50Watt constant excess.

    The only thing you can do is blaming AR to possibly not be able to reproduce his own findings... Denying Ni-H LENR is flat earther business!

    If that is the case, why did this site - given a long time to consider - not recommend google replicate these "seeming to work as expected" Rossi-like reactions?


    ECG did not write that. He copied a comment by Matts Lewan. Making it even more interesting IMO. Looking forward to Lewan's "will try to confirm my hypothesis, and report on it some day".

    Mats was equally deluded during the Court case, and the Lugano test aftermath where he first said he would get some independent advice on whether the TC damning criticism of the positive results was correct, then went dark on that.

    I can't see mats wrong again is interesting.

    At least Mills is doing some research and experiments. This area of research doesn't favor theorists - only experimentalists can get finally success here. Mills is about to realize it too I guess. BTW Mills reported a COP over 37 in his nickel - aqueous potassium carbonate solutions in cheap and simple arrangement in similar way, like Notoya, Niedra, Patterson and many others.

    Why no one (including Mills himself) is trying to replicate these seminal experiments goes over my head. Such a disgust for replications is simply unexplainable.

    Perhaps... because when done properly they do not work?

    The simple explanation is usually the correct one.

    So if as you say we don't have mass conversion to energy, where does the energy come from in LENR? And how do transmutation reactions occur without some mass - energy conversion?

    Good question.

    Element/isotope conversion => nucear reactions. Any attempt to get these without large amounts of energy release or input is really really difficult.

    To be fair - there is a lot of obviously false info to debunk.

    I think there is a kind of PR-based censorship in LENR.

    For example, the Mizuno paper got a lot of publicity. That - unusually - spurred many people to replicate. You might expect a sort of running table here of all replications, number of confirmations (=> similar results) number of negatives.

    What we get is not that. Any replications have complex non-Mizuno behaviour posted if it cannot simply be worked out what it is. No summary. No count of negative results.

    I don't think this is dishonesty. it is that LENR experiments don't usually (with a few honourable exceptions) have negative results. Here is typical replication:

    (1) replicate

    (2) fail to find the large result expected

    (3) repeat many times

    (4) still fail to find this result, or anything like

    (5) notice some result anomalous but different from the large result expected

    (6) abandon interest in original result, and spend whole time looking at new anomaly

    Steps (2) and (4) don't get much publicity.

    But, actually, working out why apparently strong positive results are completely unreplicable is sort of important, and would help subsequent evaluation of results.

    Anyway I trust this jaded view will prove wrong over the many Mizuno replications!

    When we follow that link, what we see is this:

    "Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path".

    As I pointed out above, it is a matter of interpretation and nomenclature, not physics, whether to view travel with time dilated as being slower, or the same speed with time dilated. The two things mean the same thing in casual speech. However when it comes to having consistent maths c not changing, and time dilating, is 100% compatible with all known observations. Whereas c varying, to the extent that it is not just an equivalent formulation of the same theory, is problematic. if you refer to an equivalent formulation of the commonly accepted maths, with no different predictions, that is fine - who cares?

    Wire, or fuse, explosion is a fascinating subject. Most of the power applied gets pushed into small metal bridges just before it breaks, since these then have high resistance, at incredibly high power density.