Andras Verified User
  • Member since Jul 1st 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by Andras

  • Structure of the nucleus (Structured Atom Model)

    In my post I was referring to the Be9 rotational excitations only, which have 5/2- and 7/2- J state. The existence of molecular-like structure can be deduced from the energy levels of these rotational excitations.

    I did not have any ambition of explaining other excitation energy levels, which may correspond to various internal rearrangements or oscillation modes.

  • Structure of the nucleus (Structured Atom Model)

    I think that Edo and his SAM team colleagues are doing very interesting work on understanding nuclear configurations.

    In my opinion, the foundation is to understand the proton's and neutron's correct internal structures. Once that is clear, we can rationally discuss how they interact. I.e. this thread is closely linked to the New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth" thread.


    It would be good to precisely understand the deuteron internal structure and binding, as next step.


    Regarding 9Be and 10Be, its molecular-like structure can be also deduced from its excitation levels. The attachment illustrates that a subset of 9Be excitations is just rotational excitation. The existence of such rotational excitation is indeed the signature of alpha+alpha+n molecular-like structure: I discuss the details of this in the "The proton's and neutron's internal structures" book.

    Good news RobartBryant: we don't need to wait a decade for the explanation :)


    9Be-rotation.pdf

  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"


    "The Standard Model is extremely well tested experimentally"

    The physics funding pyramid works in such way that both experimentalists and theorists are obliged to keep repeating the above sentence; any person saying otherwise looses funding.

    Having been around for 50+ years, the Standard Model should have given some experimentally verified predictions. I challenge you to show any prediction that it successfully gave (e.g. predicted new particle mass, or something else). I went through this exercise of finding its predictions, and all I found were POST-DICTIONS.

    I did not go into this topic of bashing the Standard Model in the book, because I aimed to keep its tone positive and constructive.


    "Regarding Gauss theorem, it is not only true, but additionally the real one contains built-in charge quantization - e.g. forbidding half-electron"

    Understanding the exact reason for elementary charge quantization is a very interesting topic for me. I will contact you to discuss it further.

    In Natural Units, the elementary charge value is related to the fine structure constant value. I.e. if one understands reasons for the specific elementary charge value then one knows where the 137.036 number is coming from, and vice versa.


    "However, getting rid of quarks in a proposed model, we still need to explain the reasons quarks were introduced in the first place"

    Yes, we go into the historic reasons in the book. There was a certain logic to it in the 1950s and 1960s, but it becomes ever more untenable each decade, as experimental contradictions accumulate. You can see the details in the book.

    I think history would have been different if the electron's internal structure was more seriously investigated, instead of settling on a "renormalized point-particle" electron and "negative energy" positron hypotheses. That would have allowed scientists to rationally discuss the electron vs. proton similarities and differences already a long time ago.

  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    Quote from Jarek

    Deuteron is well known have strong electric quadrupole moment: 0.2859 e·fm2 - what means "+-+" type charge configuration - cannot be toroidal.


    See e.g. 86 pages experiment-based "The Deuteron: Structure and Form Factors": https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/0-306-47915-X_4

    Jarek: your contemplations about the structure of deuteron, alpha particles, etc. are on the right track in my opinion.

    But you don't need to start from zero: the main result of our book is that it describes the precise and experimentally validated proton and neutron structures.


    The next step is to understand the deuteron structure, which represents the basic nuclear binding structure. It comprises two proton toroids, and one negative charge loop.

    Summing up the magnetic dipole moments of proton + neutron gives almost exactly the deuteron magnetic dipole moment. This indicates that the two proton toroids are axially aligned, and there are two possibilities for this: a) two proton toroids along the same axis, or b) two proton toroids side-by-side in the same plane.

    The "+-+" charge configuration that you deduce from the large electric quadrupole moment suggests option a): i.e. two proton toroids along the same axis and the negative elementary charge circulates also along the same axis, in the middle between the two protons.


    It would be good to understand what exactly stabilizes the negative elementary charge against decay in the deuteron configuration.

  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    Quote from Jarek

    And what are charge distributions, especially of neutron?

    Here are some 3 articles claiming positive core, negative shell:
    https://inspirehep.net/literature/1377841

    http://www.actaphys.uj.edu.pl/…eries=Reg&vol=30&page=119
    http://www.phys.utk.edu/neutro…chool/lectures/greene.pdf

    Regarding neutron charge distribution, the more correct picture of the positive and negative charge distribution is this attached chart (red color represents positive elementary charge, blue color represents negative elementary charge). It shows that the neutron's positive and negative charges are at almost the same radial distance from the neutron center.

    If you sum up the positive and negative distribution values, you end up with the charts shown in the 1999 and 2015 publications that you cited. Technically correct, but nevertheless gives misleading picture.


    Regarding proton charge distribution, the 1962 publication that you cited gives inaccurate proton radial charge distribution. The more accurate distribution is given by the red curve in the attached chart.


    I show in the book that the proton's and neutron's actual charge distribution extends out to 1.3 fm. The exponential tail beyond 1.3 fm is the measurement error tail (it relates not only to instrument error, but also vacuum noise, etc)


  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    high energy physics as this is a dead road for understanding anything about particles and mass.

    We agree that the THEORY used by high energy physicists does not help to understand anything about particles and mass.

    I was writing that we analyze EXPERIMENTAL DATA of high energy physics experiments. It's your choice which data you want or don't want to look at.

  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    Quote from Shane D.

    Congratulations. Since it has something to do with LENR, I will ask my colleagues about including it in either this month's Newsletter, or maybe the next.


    You mention it being simpler than "current nuclear equations". Enough so that it will be readable by a layperson?

    Thank you for informing about it in your newsletter.


    A layperson will surely understand the meaning of experimental data that we describe.
    I think a layperson (who has some scientific education) also has the ability to understand the equations that we use, if he/she knows vector algebra and invests some days into it. At the beginning of the book I list three comprehensive reference articles that explain the needed theory background, and the rest is self-contained.

  • New book published: "The proton's and neutron's internal structures: Physics foundations and new measurements reveal the truth"

    I published a book, which concludes my nuclear studies over the past years, and I believe it is a major milestone in physics. The pieces of the puzzle come together: it finally becomes possible to understand what comprises the matter that we touch, and the internal structures of the proton and neutron become crystal clear. The book is available here:

    https://www.amazon.com/protons-neutrons-internal-structures-measurements/dp/9526531418

    It has been an incredible series of coincidences that led me to writing this book. The existence of CleanHME project, and Giorgio Vassallo's pioneering work and suggestions have been essential.


    I am quite sure that you will find the book interesting, if you are interested to know what matter is made of, and what the internal nucleon structures are. I attached the book abstract and contents.

    Naturally, it will take quite some time for these discoveries to be widely acknowledged and accepted. Perhaps it will be only in the 22nd century. So only read the book if you want to know 22nd century physics - but don't worry it is simpler than the current nuclear equations ;)


    One part of the work is theoretical, and then theory results are compared against experiments. The experiments that I go through are mostly high-energy experiments.

    Does this work have anything to do then with LENR? Actually yes:

    - I firmly believe that the correct understanding of nuclear structures and basic interactions is the foundation for all nuclear technology development - including LENR.

    - I describe a simple experiment, which indicates catalyzed double-beta decay. That is a new type of nuclear reaction, if confirmed. The experimental set-up is simple and replicable, and therefore skeptics can validate it themselves.

  • A new proton model: toroidal single particle

    In general relativity, it is not just "mass" that curves space-time, but energy density in general. I.e. whenever you have electromagnetic energy density, you have space-time curvature.

    The Kerr-Newman solution can be a description of an electromagnetic interaction's ground state: we explore this duality between QM and general relativity in our book titled "Unified field theory and Occam's razor".
    In this sense, it is misleading to say that "gravity" holds a zitterbewegung ring together.

  • On quantum Mechanics

    Yes, I agree that quantum mechanics can be best understood through relativistic approach of space-time transformations. I made a video lecture on that subject, I aim to introduce quantum mechanics without using postulates:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    bayak : I am interested in your chaotic dynamics approach. A long-standing challenge is to understand the origin of the fine-structure constant (1/137.036). I was considering whether the fine-structure constant is related to the Feigenbaum constant, or not. You can message me if you are interested in that question.

  • Correlations between Apparent Peaks in LENR Transmutation Data.

    Dude, my involvement in LENR started with a (modified) replication attempt of Parkhomov's high-temperature reactor. After some trials, we measured strong bursts of elevated Geiger counter reading. If that's not a nuclear indication, I don't know what the indication would be.

    There are many well-documented experiments, which measured neutron emission peaks, peaks in the gamma ray spectrum, appearance of new elements, etc. Your time could be better spent by reading those experimental reports, than Huizenga's "nothing to see here" book.


    If there is a contradiction between what LENR experimenters observe, and what hot fusioneers observe in D-D fusion, then it is logical to consider that we might be looking at some other reaction than plain D-D fusion. That possibility did not occur to Huizenga, because he used his tax-payer funded position only for destructive purposes, was not interested scientific progress.

    BTW: are you Axil teaming up with someone else, or he just randomly happens to quote you when he slanders LENR theory works?

  • LK99 -- A new room temperature superconductor?

    Here is a recent video of an apparently successful LK99 replication:
    https://www.douyin.com/video/7263715495256378659

    Some people have been wondering whether LK99 is a proper superconductor, or a highly conductive oxide material that also happens to be diamagnetic. The above video looks to me like flux pinning, not just diamagnetic levitation. Comments?
    Also, the authors of a recent replication (https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01516) claim diamagnetic transition in the 320 - 340 K range. I assume that transition also makes superconductivity more likely than inherent diamagnetism, isn't it so?

    There are some LENR theories which propose that superconductivity catalyzes LENR. Now it might be easier to test that hypothesis.

  • A new proton model: toroidal single particle

    Robert: the accuracy of calculations is important mainly for real predictions (the probability of matching prediction depends on the accuracy of result, i.e. a highly matching prediction is unlikely to be coincidence).
    Here, you are talking about post-diction type calculations. Claimed accuracy is not the only aspect, because anybody can massage numbers into apparent 99.999999999999% accuracy.

    What matters is the combination of following:
    1: Are calculations based on verified physical equations? The principal equations of electrodynamics, GR, or QM are a verified basis.
    2: Can calculations be verified, i.e. are they properly documented and explained, so that one can make sure that there are no errors? In our articles we precisely document each step of the calculations, so they can be verified.
    3: What is the number of assumptions/postulatеs going into the calculations? Are there any assumptions that contradict measurements? Ideally there should be as few assumptions as possible. Considering the toroidal topology to be experimentally indicated (anapole magnetic moment measurement), there is only one topologial assumption going into our calculations: the number of quantized magnetic fluxes.

    4: What is the accuracy of calculation results with respect to measurement, if measurements are correctly interpreted? In the mentioned forthcoming article, all results are 99% accurate, including the magnetic moment.
    5: What is the ratio of calculation input / output parameters? Ideally there are as many output parameters as possible, calculated from as few input parameters as possible. We take the proton mass as input parameter, and in this article also the magnetic moment is input parameter.
    A calculation is interesting and valid if all (or most) of the above conditions are fulfilled.

    As far as I know, the quark model based "calculations" fail ALL of the above criteria, so objectively speaking those are not even worth the paper that they are written on.

  • A new proton model: toroidal single particle


    When you have a field where participants receive lifetime government grants for repeating what the cult leader says, and any alternative interpretation of experimental data has the consequence of automatic expulsion and grants cut off, it is hopelessly naive to formulate opinion based on what the majority of "experts" write/cite. That is exactly where quark proponents are today.

    My son was 9 years old when he watched the "Emperor's new clothes" fairy tale, and he understood it perfectly. I don't know why this stuff is so hard to understand.


    Below is the link to Bill Stubbs' book. He goes through the analysis of JLab and Hera data. You can go through his data analysis, and find errors. But don't expect any "expert" citations.

    https://www.amazon.com/Three-Quarks-Missed-Mark-Standard/dp/1698130368/


    Yes, it is a better idea to look for predictions. I went through this exercise, and could NOT find any successful predictions that quark proponents made BEFORE experimental measurements. It is all post-dictions, in the style of "oh yeah, our calculations also explain it". Show me the example of ANY particle whose mass the quark proponents predicted before its discovery.

  • A new proton model: toroidal single particle

    We agree that experimental results trump incompatible theories. I spent a lot of time going through DIS data, and discussed a lot with Bill Stubbs, who wrote a whole book on this subject.
    It is clear that the DIS data trumps the quark hypothesis. It seems to me that you are adapting other people's opinions, without having looked at the data yourself. I outline the data in this presentation:

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
    (just 10 minutes to watch). Besides the DIS data, all other experimental measurements also contradict the quark-based proton model.
    What comes to neutrons, quark proponents double down on the craziness, and claim (without any experimental evidence) that the neutron decays by emitting an 80 GeV particle. The word "absurd" doesn't even begin to describe it, this is certainly not physics in my understanding of the word.

    If you care to read the article, you find our proposition that the bumps in the F2 DIS data are simply caused by muon-antimuon and electron-positron pair creation. In other words, quark proponents misinterpreted pair creation signature as sub-particle signature! If you care to look at electron-positron DIS data, you will see that its F2 function also has a peak.

  • A new proton model: toroidal single particle

    Quote from Shane D.

    Thank you. If proven true, do you believe your theory will lead to a better understanding of LENR? I ask because the authors are affiliated with the EU Horizon funded CleanHME Project. Also, a brief summary of the theory is on the CleanHME website. In fact, they have this to say about it:


    "We emphasize that we are at the “opening of dialogue” stage, and it requires further investigations to make definite conclusions. Currently, the CleanHME community is split between scientists endorsing the above-mentioned contradictions of the quark model, and scientists endorsing the novel single-particle toroidal proton model.

    This dialogue marks the start of a new road, which eventually leads to a deeper understanding of elementary particles and nuclear structures. There are still many questions to investigate further. For example, the article points out that it is yet to be clarified whether the proton has a single magnetic flux quantum, or two magnetic flux quanta along the poloidal and toroidal directions."

    In a nucleus, the size of proton's is not negligible in comparison to the inter-proton distance. Therefore, the protons cannot be treated as point particles if one wants to understand/calculate nuclear interactions; i.e. one must understand its correct structure.
    A correct proton model must eventually lead to practical reaction/reactor design. But that requires further work.

  • The Totally Civil Covid Thread. (Closing 31/05)

    I share a few personal stories before the thread closes.
    At our small office we have only 8 people. One colleague's father-in-law died suddenly within 10 days of taking the vax. He was about 60, and in good health. Everyone told him and his wife that this is just coincidence, so they also took the vax a few months later. His wife then gets into the hospital with a serious reaction. She tells the hospital staff that her condition is because of the vax, but everyone refuses to write anything about the vax onto her medical record.

    I have a childhood friend who didn't want to take the vax, but was blackmailed with loosing her job, and thus was coerced to take it. Three months later she is diagnosed with cancer, from which she fortunately recovered. She is about 35 years old.
    I met a lady some months ago, who told that her father suddenly passed away 5 days after taking the vax. She really didn't want to take the vax because of this family tragedy, but was nevertheless blackmailed with loosing her job, and thus eventually conceded to the coercion.

    I have a friend who had a serious case of covid, and went to see the doctor. While he is talking to the nurse, the doc comes in and scolds the nurse: "Why are you even talking to an unvaxed person?". My friend thought: that's what I get after paying a ton of money into the medical system, each month for 25 years. The nurse walked with him back to his car, and said in the parking lot: "Lately some unhappy patients have been breaking the windshields of doctors' cars". No surprise there.

    I share my friend Bob Greenyer's story about doctor attitudes and bounty: https://photos.app.goo.gl/sRXS4eGqhcPnNobG7

    I contracted covid only in the summer of 2022. My parents are both 4x vaxed, and they both contracted it from me, the vax was no help. Fortunately we all had mild symptoms. In fact, almost every vaxed person I know ended up contracting covid at some point.

    I don't have a large social circle, which means that most people probably experienced similar stories. How brainwashed one has to be turn a blind eye to all the victIms and corruption?

  • Vacuum tubing material?

    In cylindrical Li-ion batteries, the insulation of caps is made of nylon material. In these batteries, air-tightness and very low moisture content are crucial. Therefore, if nylon was problematic sealant, it would not be used in batteries.