Quote from Edo

There is NO evidence for the existence of neutrino's other than that assumption. Neutrino are on my list of made-up stuff, forgot that one before.

See the other thread- we do not need to clutter up this one.

Quote from Fm1

Paneth & peters were forced under pressure to retract not because they believed they made a mistake and as for all those failed replications in 89 and 90 only one matters and it was the base for killing cold fusion. MIT failed replication was fraud as a whistleblower alerted gene malove to the fraud showing graf's and stats that proved a positive result. This is probably what formed your early skepticism or your newest uncertainty. All based on lies!

So, this account is contrary to that: which bit of it is wrong?

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1038/338692a0.pdf

Unlike Pons and Fleischmann, Paneth and Peters did not observe the release of large amounts of heat from their apparatus. They write that they would have expected only a fraction of a calorie of heat to be produced by the creation of w-• cubic centimetres of helium. Paneth and Peters conclude that the energy must be released in the form of radiation, but add that they had not detected it. In April 1927, came the retraction. Paneth et al. had tested their results at Cornell University and in Berlin and drew the conclusion that they had "underestimated" two sources of error. The first clue emerged during experiments designed to check whether helium could have diffused from the atmosphere through the glass walls of the apparatus. While performing numerous control studies, Paneth et al. found that glass heated in a hydrogen atmosphere yielded up absorbed helium, in amounts of about w-· cubic centimetres, whereas glass heated in a vacuum yielded none. Helium detections at this level, they concluded, were to be discounted. The second blow was the realization that the palladinized asbestos catalyst that had given the best results was, like glass, a considerable source of helium, which it released readily in the presence of hydrogen, but not in that of oxygen. In an almost self-mocking tone, Paneth et al. write that they must strike from their results all the trials with a palladinized asbestos catalyst, in which helium was 'created' in amounts up to w-' cubic centimetres, and upon which they had earlier placed "particular value".

Quote from JedRothwell

Anyone can know the approximate density by looking at the cell. If the density is so large that the waterline is totally obscured, you can tell by looking. As I said, a 5 year old could tell. If you asked her, "how high is the water now?" she would say: "I can't tell; there are too many bubbles." F&P would see there are too many bubbles, and they would abandon that technique.

I am not allowed to answer this!!!

Quote from Curbina

In fact, the latter conditions imply the emergence of fundamentally new interactions of contact, nonpotential and non-Hamiltonian type that, as such, require a generalized mechanics with a nonunitary time evolution (evidently in view of its non-Hamiltonian character). This is a main motivation for the proposal, construction and verification of hadronic mechanics as a nonunitary covering of quantum mechanics.

Sorry to keep on - but there is so much here...

unitary time evolution in QM is forced by the fact that probabilities of resulting states add up to 1.

You get non-unitary behaviour of subsystems - because of interactions with some arbitrary unmodelled external system - but not of the whole thing.

So this idea, mathematically, is opening lots of cans of worms and difficulty for the formulator - requiring all those worms to be put back into new cans properly.

Quote from Curbina

It has been impossible for me to believe that, at the time of the synthesis of the neutron inside a star, the permanently stable proton and electron simply "disappear" from our universe to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks, and then, at the time of the neutron decay, the proton and the electron simply "reappear" by academic fiat. Rather than conjecturing the existence of hypothetical particles for the evident purpose of maintaining the validity of a preferred theory inside hadrons, I elected instead to adapt the theory to nature and represent the neutron as a generalized bound state of a proton and an electron which is quantitatively possible when admitting their condition of total mutual penetration, with resulting non-Hamiltonian, thus nonunitary time evolution.

Just a note on this.

I think this person is allowing their feelings too much priority. What we feel is less important than what experiments tell us.

I also suspect that they are not familiar with the whole structure of modern physics. If they were they would not see protons as particles in that fundamental way, and would know we have evidence of particles appearing and disappearing (temporarily or in some cases permamently) all the time.

These "hypothetical" particles have been observed through deep inelastic scattering experiments, which are not compatible with electron + proton.

Obviously you can claim that everything changes and the properties of electrons do so too - at hadronic scales - but without that change electrons cannot be bound into nuclei. With that change you most certainly have a lot of extra arbitrary complexity. I guess you could fudge that to match some results. But not the deep inelastic scattering ones.

Quote from Curbina

In fact, the latter conditions imply the emergence of fundamentally new interactions of contact, nonpotential and non-Hamiltonian type that, as such, require a generalized mechanics with a nonunitary time evolution (evidently in view of its non-Hamiltonian character). This is a main motivation for the proposal, construction and verification of hadronic mechanics as a nonunitary covering of quantum mechanics.

This makes HM a lot more complex than QM. For this complexity to be justified you need strong evidence that it better predicts experiment.

Remember, adding degrees of freedom to theories allows them to predict things more accurately, even if not correct. You would need to look at this in detail to see how many new arbitrary parameters it adds, it is difficult to imagine that there are none such because it covers QM and is more complex.

I'm not against something more complex than QM. But it is tough to justify.

Here, for example, is a mathematical language that allows you to rewrite all of physics in a different (but provably equivalent) way.

Many would say it is more elegant and beautiful than classical formulations.

Introduction to Geometric Algebra

Quote from Curbina

Santilli was sent to the fringe of science because he invented his own alternative to Quantum Mechanics, which he called Hadronic Mechanics. IMHO this is only a different set of assumptions but at least from his point of view the neutron doesn’t exist as such nor the neutrino (he comes with other particle tho, and calls it “aetherino”)

I think people who invent something equivalent to existing theory, without acknowledging the equivalence, deserve to be on the fringe.

It is a bit like plagiarism! And comes from hubris and arrogance.

Whereas, if this theory is not equivalent, I am quite sure if overall it predicts the world better than existing theories he would be lauded. But, for it do do that, he has to not only acknowledge but prove that it will give identical results for nearly all of physics - just as Einstein had to.

I think the evidence for something with all the known properties of the neutron existing is pretty strong.

Quote from Curbina

Would you agree to the idea that the sacred “100 years of experiments” are more correctly described as “100 years of interpretation of experimental results under a wrong set of assumptions that built one over another”?

Not at all.

That would be like saying Newton is wrong because his theory is only an approximation to general relativity - and we now have measurements that show GR correct (always, so far, except in quantum limits, and it is not exactly wrong then, just incomplete) and a far better predictor of reality than Newton.

Nevertheless Newtonian gravity is useful and a very good theory - I am sure you have used it yourself in everyday life...

The key thing is that GR, although better, is provably the same as Newtonian gravity asymptotically, and those asymptotic conditions dominate in our everyday world. So without any work you have all of the successes of Newton also successes of GR.

Thus GR, in some sense, includes all of Newtonian gravity. Einstein knew that he had to make something that would be compatible with Newton to the extent of all those experiments.

It is like that with QM. Any better theory has to be equivalent to that spooky QM maths in approximation - because the QM maths explains so much of the world with great quantitative accuracy.

Quote from Edo

The nucleus is made up from nucleons, In standard model thinking that means protons and neutrons. Then you state that they are made up of smaller things, but the neutron is still a fundamental particle in the nucleus? Neutrino's are not seen directly, just assumed to do the nuclear decay. That is not proof of anything, just an assumption.

That is mostly true, for the standard model. However it was exactly true before the standard model some 50 years ago, and it remains taught at school because it is a useful simplification.

Nuclei are made up of quarks, as are neutrons and protons. It is true (and provable) that every nucleus is made up of quarks that can be divided up into an integral number of protons + an integral number of neutrons.

So you can think of a nucleus as being composed of nucleons, or of quarks. But which is true? Do the nucleons retain their shape inside the nucleus?

The answer is yes and no. The interactions between quarks in a nucleon are much stronger than those between nucleons - normally - but inside a nucleus there are also sometimes equally strong interactions between quarks in different nuclei.

So if you think of nucleons as being peas, whether we have mushy peas in a soup, or individual peas in a soup, is not precisely defined. What we have is enough to alter the characteristics of each pea quite a bit.

There's a Giant Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom in the Universe

No one really knows what happens inside an atom.

www.livescience.com

We do not have an answer to these questions because QCD is scientist's most annoying theory. It makes sense. It gives approximate answers pretty well. But it is very difficult to get exact answers and high order corrections are often significant, but too complex to work out. So for exactly how quarks interact inside a nucleus we probably need higher order corrections that we do not fully understand.

It is strange - in this case the problem is not that we need a new theory - but that the theory we have is so difficult to calculate even our biggest computers cannot do it. Maybe quantum computers one day will help us resolve quantum mechanics!

Or, maybe, a new theory, or new way of calculating the old theory, will make things much better.

To be fair, we do go on getting better at calculating QCD. But no-one likes something so very complex.

Philosophically - scientists tend to like things which are simple and easy to calculate. But there is no rule book which says our most accurate theory of everything HAS to be easy or even possible to calculate.

Quote from Edo

All that is based on your precious papers from the past, not my numbers, not my assessments.

Edo - I normally let people like W here who have their own ideas just get on with it.

You seem unable to promote your ideas without trashing everyone else's. I would not mind if you had read the stuff you were trashing - I might disagree - but I would not get so annoyed.

"All that" is based on experimental evidence from millions of scientists over 100 years - all consistent.

"Your numbers, assessments" are your own fantasy. That is absolutely fine - but until you engage with the body of existing experimental evidence you are not describing the real world. And therefore you cannot on that basis trash all those physicists who have done that.

Ok - without looking at any experiments you might by chance have a better theory. Einstein sort-of did that although he was in a way looking at experiments - because his principles of relativity were rooted in observation of the real world. And anyway - he made predictions and stood or fell by them as evidence came in.

Perhaps you are very young: many people are arrogant when young. Let me suggest to you that when you are my age you will look back on your current feelings of superiority over so many others with at least a wry smile, if not some embarrassment.

This is an open forum - so when you trash things that other people care about and make blatant mistakes they may get pointed out.

People here, after all, say all the time that they do that to me?

Quote from Edo

(yes also an anti-neutrino allegedly, but does not carry any real energy or mass, so we ignore it here)

Oh dear - I should not have started looking.

I can understand if you think neutrinos are not real that you also think this.

Neutrinos do absolutely carry a (varying amount) of energy.

ShieldSquare Captcha

The IceCube experiment detected neutrinos from cosmic rays with an energy of > 1 PeV

That is: 1 quadrillion (10¹⁵) electron volts.

The equivalent energy of a proton is approx 900MeV. This is some 1,000,000 times higher!

Of course neutrinos do not usually have such high energy.

We do not know how small the mass of a neutrino can be (ie its rest mass). We have a limit now of < 1eV.

Perhaps we could return to the original question?

Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!

No it is not - the relative masses are (approximately):

Neutron = 1

Proton = 0.99862349

Electron = 0.00054386734

Nuff said.

Quote from Edo

Neutrino is not even real, smaller is just reaching and fantasizing.

Both interesting statements.

Perhaps we could start with your reasons for the first? Those people who did the Opera experiment were measuring something: whether you or I choose to call it "real" maybe matters less than those measurements?

the undeniable quantitative spookiness of almost everything.

I misspoke.

I meant to say "the undeniable quantum spookiness of everything".

For those who find the above diatribes a bit arrogant - I am not the one saying I know better than all those boring mainstream physicists - as most here set themselves to do. I sit in awe and wonder at the beauty and mystery of modern physics - both what we know, and what we do not know. We are close to a major new understanding (and paradigm shift) of fundamental physics - it has been developing for the last 20 years. So I am not happy when people who have never bothered to follow recent developments in physics talk in such a dismissive way, and say mainstream physicists are afraid of paradigm shift.

Arrogant? I think not.

In addition: as a once-upon-a-time mathematician who a long time ago learnt theoretical physics quantum mechanics is supremely beautiful.

You don't need to be a pure mathematician to appreciate its beauty (though that helps) there are very many good books now.

That does not mean it is right - circular planetary orbits are beautiful too, but wrong.

The "spookiness" of QM - which underlies particle-wave duality and explains it in a way much simpler than the "duality" popular explanations shows that reality is not what we naively think.

Space and time are not fundamental.

I am not over-reaching saying this - although it is perhaps still unclear - till we have a complete theory of how the spacetime emerges from QM entanglement (the basic idea is that spacetime points that seem close together are more entangled). We do have work that shows how entanglement can generate, as an emergent property, the spacetime metrics of general relativity in which mass-energy curves spacetime.

Here is a great quite general and reasonably accessible introduction - this is all emerging research - so don't expect exact correctness - but many people from different directions point to this same thing.

[ for a more accessible but less pointed intro I suggest you go to quanta magazine - good for everything - and particularly https://www.quantamagazine.org…avity-come-from-20220504/ ]

THH

"quantum mechanics or limiting dogmas" Sheesh!

Quote from Edo

And the book which has all the evidence we gathered in it, very scientific and all that.

https://curtis-press.com/produ…he-structured-atom-model/

it is cheaper than most papers, so buy the book, read it and try to break it down please.

Can you explain double beta decay steps?
Can you explain the uneven fission or Uranium?
Can you explain how the PTE is formed?
We can, thorough and detailed even in a logical manner.

Display More

There are many things I, and you, cannot explain. I can however say that models contrary to experiment don't cut it.

So, below, I state how the model in this book is directly contrary to experiment at its most fundamental level in two respects.

This book is the result of an international research team pursuing the intuitive notion that the atomic nucleus should have structural properties. Starting with a few logical assumptions, they discovered that many properties of the atom and the nucleus can be explained rationally without resorting to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics. Using feedback from known experimental data, they identified several organizational principles that nature appears to use for constructing the elements, sometimes in unexpected ways. There are two assumptions underlying the Structured Atom Model (SAM). First, by replacing the neutron with a proton-electron pair, an electrostatic attractive force is reintroduced into the nucleus. The electrons acting as "glue" between the protons. Second, that "spherical dense packing" gives the nucleus its fractal shape--one of several organizational drivers in the buildup of the nucleus; other drivers being recurring substructures called "endings" and "nuclets." A SAM nucleus is constructed using these substructures in various combinations. The result is a new periodic table that hints at several missing elements most of which are suspected to be unstable, but probably not all. What emerges is nothing less than a new paradigm for thinking about the nucleus and physics. In SAM, several known nuclear phenomena follow directly from the structural configuration of the nucleus, including nuclear instability, radioactivity/radioactive decay, the asymmetrical breakup of fission products, and the various nuclear decay schemes. In addition, the team discovered an unrecognized store of energy that may very well be responsible for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).

There are various things here:

(1) Looking phenomenologically at patterns in isotopes is fine. Indeed some combinations of charge and mass in a nucleus are more stable than others, and those patterns can be simple - at least in approximation. We see this in many areas of science. Sometimes the emergent patterns do have some indirect basis in a more complex underlying theory, sometimes they directly indicate the theory. I have nothing against this book as that. It then over-reaches - as below.

(2) A theory of subatomic physics needs to explain (or at least be compatible) with everything about nuclear reactions, and all known data about particle physics (e.g. what do you see when you crash two or more particles together at varying energies).

(3) (a) In this case neutrons are not proton-electron pairs (from experiment). They contain particles with charges of +2/3, -1/3 which have a size of < 10^-4 that of a proton (it is assumed they are point particles, but we cannot be sure of course). We know this because we have photos of them (sort of) from deep inelastic scattering data. (b) The possibility of an electron being localised to a neutron size is just not possible - it would have too much momentum. That directly contradicts this model. See (4). for more detail.

(4) But in any case this model is phenomenological - it cannot say why things happen because it does not use quantum mechanics - which explains in exquisite detail the undeniable quantitative spookiness of almost everything. So whatever theory you want to add, it needs to include quantum mechanics (QM is really just a building block which matches experiment - like Clifford algebra). To replace QM you'd need to explain and predict all that spooky QM experimental stuff. Including entanglement over long distances. Which this model also does not do: and once you introduce QM the electron becomes impossible to localise to a nucleus from HUP (or rather, from the deeper QM math that underlies HUP - itself an approximation - and various other such principles). The simple explanation is that if you squeeze an electron down to nuclear size its wave packet frequency must be very high, which means its momentum is similarly high - too high for it to stay in the nucleus.

So, models are fine. Even this model is fine, though misleading. It is inaccurate if you want a deeper description of nuclear physics - however bad current models are, on the fundamental issue of "what is inside a neutron" - this model does not correspond to experiment directly looking at that, whereas quark-based models do.

It does not mean quark-based models are the last thing, or the most fundamental model. But any better model must follow them at the level of "what does the nucleus look like".

There is lots we do not know. And current models are not definite. But, you can't put forward a model that directly contradicts very many quantitative, replicable, certain, experiments and claim it is better than current models just because it does not "resort to quantum mechanics or the limiting dogmas about the nucleus that dominate current physics". Which phrase itself is arrogant and unsubstantiated (and is one cause of this rather long rebuttal).

It is monumental arrogance and hubris to ignore experimental evidence, as my namesake said:

“Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you shall learn nothing.”

Quote from Drgenek

The existence of quarks does negate the existence of nucleons

Not at all, but the evidence that nucleons have quarks inside them is and therefore are not fundamental is certain.

Quote from axil

The prower production from the mini is so large and its fantastic COP eliminates any comparison or uncertainty about the use of power by the light. The power production of the mini is beyond question eliminating any uncertainty.

Axil - has it occurred to you what is the major source of uncertainty?

Rossi is on record as having lied, repeatedly, about has 10 or so previous incarnations of free power.

All of those, if as his demos stated, would have solved the world's energy problems and given him a Nobel.

In one spectacular case (IH) working product would have netted him $100,000,000

In what world does he now have a working device because of a video that could be rigged about 10 different ways?

THH