JohnDuffield Member
  • Member since Sep 25th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by JohnDuffield

    SM physics rethink: from topdown unification to suggestive bottomup phenomenology..

    Has CERN's failure to find evidence of supersymmetry thrown particle physics into crisis? Ben Allanach explains his shift to bottom-up science.?

    External Content
    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.

    I enjoyed watching that. Thanks Rob.

    What do you, my fellow fusion enthusiasts think : " Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and not a fundamental interaction. The theory, based on string theory, black hole physics, and quantum information theory, describes gravity as an emergent phenomenon that springs from the quantum entanglement of small bits of spacetime information. As such, entropic gravity is said to abide by the second law of thermodynamics under which the entropy of a physical system tends to increase over time."

    I think it's rubbish. Gravity is absolutely nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Entropic gravity is based on string theory, which has been discredited, and it says general relativity is wrong, when it isn't. Au contraire, general relativity is the best-tested theory we've got. See this article where I quote Einstein explain how gravity works.

    Thanks Bob. Amazingly, this sort of stuff goes back nearly two hundred years. I wrote something about it in an article called A worble embracing itself. It starts like this:

    See the 2014 essay on the fluid dynamics of James Clerk Maxwell by Henry Keith Moffat. He referred to Maxwell’s 1867 letter to Peter Guthrie Tait. That’s where Maxwell said the simplest indivisible whorl “is either two embracing worbles or a worble embracing itself”. A worble embracing itself has a ring to it. I think it’s one of the secrets of the universe myself. Because John Williamson and Martin van der Mark were talking about something similar in their 1997 paper Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

    Toroidal electron image by John Williamson and Martin van der Mark

    This makes sense. In the models where an atom has structure and isn't composed of probability clouds of points (even if just for engineering and applied technology) how does this work. An electron orbitsphere or toroidal feild as a more accurate possible representation would work with these same principles?!

    An electron is an electromagnetic wave in a closed path which sits around a proton to form a hydrogen atom. Think of the electron as something like a hula hoop of light. It goes around the proton, but it isn't some speck that goes around it like a planet round the sun. And it isn't stiff. If it interacts with an incident photon some or all of the photon is kind of sliced off and becomes part of the electron, which is then no longer symmetrical. So it moves. But it's still wrapped around the proton, so the orbital changes. I tried to describe the electron here. To make an electron you "wrap" a 511keV photon into a double-loop trivial-knot configuration where the minimum and maximum field variation combine, along with all points between, to form a spin ½ standing-wave "spinor" with a standing field:

    strip5electronSpinor.pngStrip images by me, GNUFDL spinor image by Slawkb, see Wikipedia

    Only the electron isn't a flat strip. Inflate the strip to a twisted torus then inflate that to a spindle sphere torus to get the right geometry. Only then you have to remember that the the spindle-sphere torus is something like the eye of the storm. It's the central portion of the electron, that's all. There is no billiard-ball thing in the middle that has a field. The electron is field.



    Gifs courtesy of Adrian Rossiter’s torus animations, S-orbital image from the 2010 Encyclopaedia Britannica

    That sounds like an incomplete gamma-gamma pair production. If the interacting photons were traveling 100,000 times slower, it sounds as if they're looping somehow. Maybe moving in a helical fashion.

    I don't know if you know, but if you slow down a photon to a little less than c, some of the photon energy is exhibited as effective mass. Then if you slow it down to zero by making it loop round a closed path, all of the photon energy is exhibited as effective mass. This is the photon in the mirror-box thing as described in A mirror-box containing a photon is harder to get moving than a mirror box containing no photon, because you have to change the photon's path. I think the wave nature of matter plus things like pair production and annihilation and electron spin make it clear that the electron is a 511keV photon in a box of it's own making, and mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path.

    The TSO is a closed path. So it meets your criteria. It's an odd concept because you've never learned about it - but its not advanced math its a physical model.

    OK noted.

    Looking into McDonald in 2018 he said this: This experiment has never been repeated, and we welcome future efforts to confirm and extend our results.

    That was the impure Breit-Wheeler process that involved gamma photons and laser light. See…y-turn-light-into-matter/ for something more recent.

    As for the Breit-Wheeler process, this seems to be the case. Although the pure photon–photon Breit–Wheeler process was one of the first sources of pairs to be described, its experimental validation has yet to be accomplished. I don't know enough about QED or experimental physics to really understand how plausible this is and what flaws they might be here.

    Yes you do. You know about electron-positron annihilation to gamma photons. Gamma-gamma pair production is the reverse process.

    However, by conservation of energy and momentum the statement that this is plausible seems weak. How do you answer this? How do photons annihilate, the energy part makes sense, but where does the lost momentum go? This doesn't add up.

    The photons don't annihilate. The electron and the positron annihilate. When they do energy and momentum are conserved. The same is true for the reverse operation. Conservation of energy and momentum always applies. That's why a single photon can't turn into an electron and a positron. You need matter for pair production from one photon. But not from two.

    By the way, that video looks wrong. Electron positron annihilation results in two (or more) photons, not one.

    Mills says that two oppositely circular polarized photons (w/ at least 511keV) superimpose to strike a proton. This results - in his theory - for a volume of space creating the "transition state orbitosphere" where matter and energy are indistinguishable -- space is ringing at its resonant frequency -- interestingly the TSO is made a R= 1/alpha *a0 (bohr radius) . This goes on to make a free electron and positron. Thus, via the proton collision the linear momentum of the photons is conserved. What do you make of this?

    It sounds rather exotic and rather odd to me, Navid. Sorry. A transition state orbitosphere is not something I'm familiar with. As far as I know matter is what we call it when energy moves in a closed path. That's all. That's what de Broglie and Schrodinger talked about. And David Bohm.

    Do you have evidence that matter is not involved?

    Matter is not involved in gamma-gamma pair production. It's called the Breit-Wheeler process. See Kirk McDonald's website which refers to the 1998 PhysicsToday article gamma rays create matter just by plowing into laser light:


    Image by Gil Eisner from the November 1997 issue of Photonics Spectra above a brief note about the SLAC experiment

    And you say that photons interfere with themeselves, but what do you make of Mills argument that "photons cannot be created or destroyed by superimposing. If this were true, it would be possible to cool a room with illumination. Constructive and deconstructive interference violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics."

    He's perhaps talking about out-of-phase photons. If you combine a bunch of out-of-phase photons you aren't left with nothing, you end up with something like this:


    That apart, gamma-gamma pair production is real. Two 511keV photons interact to become an electron and a positron. The opposite process is annihilation. Energy is converted to matter and vice versa.

    The electron has a (1x1)x(0.5x0,5) wave structure what is 3 occupied one hybrid split wave orbits or as Mills would say two photons with one additional locked in. In dense mass we also do call the third wave virtual mass as its the glue (charge related mass) that bends the two original waves. The 3D,t 10 digits exact g-factor calculation is given by Mills chapt. 1 starting at (1.163).

    I'm sorry Wyttenback, but the evidence says it's one wave in a double loop. That's why the electron is a spin ½ particle with a g-factor of 2.002319. In electron-positron annihilation we typically see two 511keV gamma photons.

    magnetic mass (flux) of course is never at rest. The only thing that may happen is that its envelope stays at a fix point in space. For an electron to get bound it must go into resonance with nuclear flux what is classically interpreted as a potential. This, potential, is a first order approximation only and did lead to a Kindergarden physics model called SM - QED/LQCD etc..

    I think the nuclear force is electromagnetic. Bernard Schaeffer has been saying it for years, and I think he's right. I think tThe force that binds a 511keV photon to form it into an electron is electromagnetic too. The question you should ask yourself is this: where does the strong force go in low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons? I don't think it disappears, it's still there in the photons, but we don't recognise it as such.

    But: What I was questioning is: Which mass parts do follow gravitation and to what extent. Gravitation is the electro weak residual force of the 5 rotation strong force coupling and it is only outside a particle a "homogenous" force!

    5-rotation strong force coupling? That doesn't sound right. Something as simple as a photon is a concentration of energy, and thus is has a gravitational field. I see it as something like this.

    The question is which part of any particle acquire mass under what concrete binding relation. The electron mediates gravitation as a consequence a (small) part of it has no gravitational mass. The question is only important for experiments where people e.g. do measure elements weight with a balance! (e.g. a big bottle with 4-He).

    Sorry Wyttenbach, I don't know what you mean here.

    But can I offer this: a 511keV photon has no rest mass because it isn't at rest. But if it's interacting with itself it goes round and round in a closed path, then it's effectively at rest. Like the photon in the mirror-box which adds mass to the system. Only there is no box. The photon is trapped in a box of its own making, because displacement current does what it says on the tin. Only we don't call it a photon any more. We call it an electron.

    Hi Oliver. I think your paper is great. It is forensic physics at its finest. I'm doing a physics detective article on it. You will like it.

    No Mark, the photon-photon interaction is really strong. It's the interaction that makes an electron stay an electron. It;s also the interaction that makes a proton stay a proton. We have good scientific evidence that the electron is a photon interacting with itself, and so is the proton:


    Annihilation images from CSIRO Australia Telescope National Facility

    See Louis de Broglie;s 1923 letter on waves and quanta published in Nature. That’s where he said “the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”. The electron is just a light wave in a closed path. So is the proton. That's why it's the wave nature of matter. And that's why light interacts with matter. Because it's really light interacting with light.

    Can beams of light experience "interference" in an experiment without matter being involved (except at the source of emission of the light and at the detector)?

    I don't think so. Because of this I think Mills has it right.

    Yes. It's called gamma-gamma pair production. Light interacts with light. I wrote an article about it:

    Quote from Mark U

    Well, tell me where light on light interference occurs in the absence of matter.

    In the dual slit experiment.

    I think it's an interference phenomenon Navid. I wrote about it. Art Hobson gave a similar explanation of the double slit experiment in his 2013 paper There are no particles, there are only fields. See page 12. I’m surprised I hadn't heard about it. But there again, the Church of the Standard Model loves to peddle myth and mystery.

    Any comment ?

    "Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been conducted from the creation of QED through today."

    Something is Rotten in the State of QED

    That's an excellent paper. Only I'd say the situation is even worse than Oliver Consa thinks. QED was wrong from the very beginning. I've studied the history, and spent a lot of time looking into this. Here's some articles I've written on the subject:

    The old quantum theory begins
    The old quantum theory and Bohr
    A potted history of quantum mechanics
    Quantum electrodynamics in the 1920s
    Quantum electrodynamics in the 1930s
    Quantum electrodynamics
    The hole in the heart of quantum electrodynamics

    Misconceptions in particle physics

    Even physicists don’t understand quantum mechanics

    QED is badly wrong, and the Standard Model is a development of it. Only it's worse, because of the Higgs mechanism which contradicts E=mc², and because of the massive messenger particles. Have a read of Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z by Gary Taubes, and The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.

    It's all baloney. Since it's the wave nature of matter, a more massive particle has a shorter wavelength. Martin van der Mark wrote about this. See on the nature of stuff and the hierarchy of the forces: smaller mass means bigger wavelength, so you can’t fit a longer-wavelength 2.3 MeV quark inside a smaller-wavelength 938.27 MeV proton.

    Sadly Martin died on Monday. He had a brain tumour. Very sad. He and his wife Inge stayed overnight at my house a few years back. We had a great evening. His close friend and co-author John Williamson sent an email to large list of people, including me.

    positronium is a hydrogen-like atom and a mixture of matter and antimatter...

    I'm pretty sure hydrogen is a mixture of matter and antimatter too. Don't forget that the only stable particles with mass are the electron, the positron, the proton, and the antiproton. If we have four particles a b c d we could label two of them matter and two of them antimatter. Let’s say a and b are matter and c and d are antimatter. We can then pair up those four particles in six different various ways: ab ac ad bc bd and cd. If we could somehow stick the two matter particles a and b together we could reasonably call the result “matter”. There’s only one way out of six that we could do this: ab. If we could somehow stick the two antimatter particles together we could reasonably call the result “antimatter”. There’s only one way out of six that we can do this: cd. However the other four combinations ac ad bc bd consist of both matter and antimatter.