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

Posts by JohnDuffield

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from LeBob

    Hey, interesting write ups. How do your interpretations relate to the experimental results quoted by Lief Holmid and Randall Mills. Skimmed the most recent article. I have nothing personal against quantum field theories but classical derived theories seem more intuitive and intuitive physics is what has been stifled by overdependence on simulated models derived from imprecise simulated models stated as fact. Do ultra dense states of hydrogen and catalytic resonant energy transfers predicted from properties of non singularity electron orbits coincide?

    I don't think my interpretations relate to results quoted by Lief Holmid or Randell Mills. I saw this about Lief Holmid saying dark matter is some kind of ultra-dense hydrogen. I don't think it is - see my take on dark matter here. Nor do I agree with the idea of a hydrino. Neutrons apart, I don't think there are any ultra dense states of hydrogen. So I don't think there's any coincidence with non singularity electron orbits. However I don't think there's any issue with cold fusion. A welder uses blue heat and no pressure, a blacksmith uses red heat and hammering pressure, and cold welding uses no heat and massive pressure. IMHO the same general principle applies to nuclear fusion.

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from zorud

    Instead of enlightening me it would probably make more sense if you would help those guys to find the right way and results...I am no expert in particle nor wave nor nuclear physics, but I try to follow those findings, reports and endeavors that help to explain and understand our world and where we came from and will probably go to better....

    I've been trying to do that, Zorud. See http://physicsdetective.com/. I'm afraid there's a lot of hostility.

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from zorud

    Oh man...It is somehow boring to constantly read this repetitive assessment of current mainstream QM and physics being total BS. Not a good strategy...Interested folks from many specialties will browse through this forum probably regularly just to read and note that they are idiots... I would love to see W to discuss his new theory with his scientific colleagues (idiots?) out there at eyelevel and argue on all pros and cons in good style...if he continues with his vendetta there will never be a chance that his work will make it into mainstream media or to a celebrated presentation on important annual congresses around the globe...

    It is total BS I'm afraid. The more you understand about physics, the more you realise this.


    See for example the UCL small tutorial in gamma-gamma physics. It says this: “From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don’t carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”. It’s flat out wrong. A 511keV photon does not magically morph into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron. A 511keV electron and a 511keV positron do not magically morph back into a single 511keV photon. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurs, spontaneously, like worms from mud. Pair production occurs because photons interact with photons. It's a very strong interaction, but it's missing from QED and the Standard Model.


    It gets worse. See what Cathryn Carson said in the peculiar notion of exchange forces part I and part II: the exchange-particle idea worked its way into QED from the mid-1930s, even though Heisenberg used a neutron model that was later retracted. That means the exchange-particle idea is wrong. That's why the Standard Model can't tell you why an electron and a positron move towards one another and around one another. Or why they go round in opposite directions in a uniform magnetic field. See my article on the theory of everything for more.

  • The church of SM physics

    The proton isn't a mess of quarks and gluons. Nor is it just a ring. I think the ring electron is more or less right, although I also think it's better to think in terms of a fat torus. Anyway, the proton g factor is 5.585. That's nearly three times the electron g-factor, but not quite. So IMHO the proton is three incomplete rings, like the trefoil on the right below:


    protontrefoil1.png

    CCASA proton image by Arpad Horvath see Wikipedia Public domain trefoil image by Jim Belk, see Wikipedia

    Trace round the trefoil anticlockwise from the bottom left calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. See what Williamson and van der Mark said about identifying a quark with a confined photon state which is not sufficient in itself to complete a closed loop. It “would then only be possible to build closed three-dimensional loops from these elements with qqq and q̄q combinations”.

  • Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    A closed path is what we have in SO(4). Unluckily the old man were not yet aware of this famous symmetry structure inside SO(4). But this truly proves that he understood what de Broglie said.

    He understood it all right. And I understand the double rotation. But I'm still not getting this SO(4) I'm afraid. Sorry.


    Quote

    I'm not sure whether this is the correct picture. What ( exact effect!) does generate this resistance?

    Energy. A photon is a wave, and a wave is energy. Imagine an ocean wave. Take some energy out of it with a wave power generator, and the amplitude of the wave is reduced. Take all the energy out of it, and the wave isn't there any more. The photon is similar. In his E=mc² paper Einstein said this: “If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²”. Radiation is a form of energy. The photon isn’t some billiard-ball thing that has energy. The photon is energy. And matter is made of it. An electron is just a photon in a closed path. Have a read of the mystery of mass is a myth.


    Quote

    The second question is: Do you still believe that mass is different from EM mass ? This was the basic error behind all the nonsensical inventions around the Higgs blabla.

    Sorry Wyttenbach. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mass is resistance to change in motion. Electromagnetic mass denotes how much the electron's electromagnetic field contributes to its mass. The answer is all of it, because the electron is field. Only that field is only there because the electron is a wrapped-up photon. The minimum and maximum portions of the electromagnetic wave add up to the same value all round, so it looks like a standing electromagnetic field:


    ?key=a3138f81118b4e6c914cdd745ba4cb75bc66cfa1f4159ea75ddf41271e8666b1-aHR0cDovL3BoeXNpY3NkZXRlY3RpdmUuY29tL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fkcy9zdHJpcDVlbGVjdHJvbi1lMTU2ODQ2NTU3OTEwOS5wbmc%3D


    Dammit. the image isn't appearing. See this: https://www.lenr-forum.com/ima…TU2ODQ2NTU3OTEwOS5wbmc%3D


    Quote

    We have mass that in our reality has a weight because it is built of EM mass with a certain topology.

    I kind of agree with that, but would express it in a slightly different fashion.


    Quote

    Protons react obviously different than electrons or photons in a situations where a large mass is close to them.

    I'm not sure they do. A proton is merely a wrapped-up wave with a more complicated topology. But no matter, I definitely think the Higgs mechanism is abject nonsense.

  • Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from Navid

    this is the core of my post...its comical because someone I worked with in the past sent her a softball philosophical question. She seems to want to debate what the purpose of science is, and what a starting point to embark on a new direction would look like. Meanwhile - energy is a great place to ground all of that - reality!


    As for philosophy...these physicists could not handle 10seconds of true scholarly debate with any religious / philosophical scholar without squirming in their seat...they always have hubris that because they are in physics that gives them an elevated position to sound off on all of reality, cosmology, and the like.


    The best way to bring them back would be to put their hand in a SunCell for a few seconds and ask them if they can propose a theory to stop the pain...

    Noted Navid. The "new energy tech" is something people tend to be cautious about. But IMHO that doesn't warrant deletion of the comment. Especially since the other stuff is spot on. Which presumably is the real reason why such comments don't appear. The $64,000 dollar question is this: if the Standard Model is wrong, how could they have possibly discovered the Higgs boson? There aren't many people who are willing to spit it out.

  • Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from Shane D.

    I did not know there was a crisis in mainstream Physics, but after reading this well written article...maybe they do?


    https://backreaction.blogspot.…cs-is-not-only-about.html

    There is. I wrote a piece a few years back about it for James Delingpole's "Bogpaper" blog. Here we go, 2013:


    https://bogpaper.wordpress.com…ith-john-duffield-crisis/


    "There’s been some feather-spitting outrage on the internet this week. It concerns a speech made last month by Neil Turok, director of the Perimeter Institute. He was on-stage for about forty minutes welcoming a fresh intake of graduate students. He said theorists working on particle physics were in a state of confusion, and “to a large extent the theories have failed”. He said the extensions to the standard model were supposed to simplify matters, but made it more complicated. He explained that the number of parameters in the standard model is about 18, whilst supersymmetric theories have at least 120. He also said “string theory seems to predict 101000 different possible laws of physics, this is called the multiverse, and is the ultimate catastrophe”. He went on to say that theoretical physics has led to a crazy situation where theorists seem to have no definite predictions at all. And that there’s a fundamental crisis wherein “the lines of enquiry that have been pursued have sort-of self-destructed...”


    Note though that Sabine Hossenfelder isn't sincere about all this. If you were to post a useful comment that pointed to the real issue, she'd delete it. Because she's just banging her own drum. It's the Sabine Hossenfelder show. For example, if you were to post a comment pointing to my article on a potted history of quantum mechanics where I talk about the electron papers by people like de Broglie, Schröodinger and Darwin, your comment would never see the light of day. Even though she talked about "looking at the history of physics" and my strapline is "perhaps the past, if looked upon with care and hindsight, may teach us where we possibly took a wrong turn".


    The old papers include Schrödinger’s 1926 quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. On page 18 he said this: “let us think of a wave group… which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. Once you get a handle on this you know that electron mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. Then you understand E=mc² and then you know that the Higgs mechanism is wrong. Then you'll really understand what the crisis is really all about. The irony is that Alfred Nobel did more harm with his prizes than with his dynamite.

  • Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Navid, since entanglement, and quantum computing, both exist, this seems a surprisingly counterfactual attempt.

    Entanglement and spooky action at a distance is claimed to exist, Huxley. But take note of the 2007 New Scientist article written by Mark Buchanan called Quantum Entanglement: Is Spookiness Under Threat? He referred to a paper by Joy Christian entitled Disproof of Bell’s Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables. Joy Christian said John Bell got his famous theorem wrong because he assumed that hidden variables commute. However Bell didn’t consider rotations, which do not commute. Joy Christian received opprobrium for this, from the likes of Scott Aaronson, an advocate of quantum computing. See Aaronson’s 2012 blog post entitled I was wrong about Joy Christian. And before you mention quantum supremacy, I recommend you read the Nature article and pay careful attention to this:


    “The team challenged its computer, known as Sycamore, to describe the likelihood of different outcomes from a quantum version of a random-number generator. They do this by running a circuit that passes 53 qubits through a series of random operations. This generates a 53-digit string of 1s and 0s — with a total of 253 possible combinations (only 53 qubits were used because one of Sycamore’s 54 was broken). The process is so complex that the outcome is impossible to calculate from first principles, and is therefore effectively random. But owing to interference between qubits, some strings of numbers are more likely to occur than others. This is similar to rolling a loaded die — it still produces a random number, even though some outcomes are more likely than others”.


    That’s no calculation. That’s rolling 53 loaded dice, then saying a real computer can’t calculate how they’ll turn up. It isn't quantum supremacy. By the way, here's a depiction of a qubit:


    Qbituntitled.png

    Qubit image from The Future of Computing – Quantum & Qubits by Sam Sattel autodesk


    And here's a couple of depictions of an electron. The spin is hidden because it looks like a standing wave with a standing field. Rotation is the hidden variable:


    SpindleTorusFlipHorizontal.gifs-orbital4.jpg

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

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    I read your piece with great interest. Well done!

    Thanks Julian. I think there's some great stuff in the old papers. Especially the electromagnetism papers. And the Einstein digital papers of course. And the QFT papers from the 1920s. IMHO when you read all that stuff you realise what's wrong with the Standard Model.

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I don't myself think SM is complete, or that it will be the way we think about things in 20 years time, let alone 50. But many of its elements - those symmetry groups, the elementary particles - those will all persist because they are real, just as the idea of nuclei with specific properties that determine electronic shells and therefore chemical behaviour has persisted because it is real.


    Given those symmetry groups, the Higgs, QM results, whatever replaces SM QFT has got to model it awfully closely in some approximation, even if it sounds like a completely different theory. Personally I like QFTs, they are a step in the right direction towards simplification.

    It just isn't true Huxley. The Standard Model is badly wrong. You'll be horrified when you come to appreciate just how badly wrong it is. Here, I've written something on grand unification for you: A grand unified history lesson.

  • The church of SM physics

    I read this paper. I think Thomas Minderle is correct about some things. Like this:


    "Both the electric and magnetic wave equations can be derived from this. What we visualize as electric and magnetic fields fluctuating into each other while propagating through space as part of an EM wave, may in actuality be a single magnetic vector potential wave. In fact, the primacy of the vector potential demands that it be

    more “real” than either, with the electric and magnetic components just being derived abstractions. This is important because one of the arguments that there is no ether was made on the basis that magnetic and electric fields can sustain each other while traveling through a vacuum, but if the real wave is a single vector potential
    wave without a supporting partner, then there must be a medium of propagation. In fact, the vector potential itself being made of scalar superpotential shows that, ultimately, even transverse EM waves are naught but ripples in a scalar field, the medium of ether"    .


    Here's my picture of that. The upper portion depicts your typical orthogonal electric and magnetic waves, the lower portion depicts the real wave. E is the slope of it, B is the time rate of change of slope.


    Afieldblog3.gif

    However I think he's wrong about some other things, primarily because he doesn't have an electron model. He doesn't know about a worble embracing itself. So he doesn't understand mass or charge, and he doesn't know why an electron moves linearly or rotationally in a field. I should talk to this guy. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I would ponder gratefully the time such a ban saves you. You can lead donkeys to the water trough, but you cannot make them drink.

    You can lead a horse to water to water, but you can't make it drink.

    You can lead a PhD to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

    Ba Dum Tish!


    What's this about Einstein-Rosen? Einstein and Rosen’s 1935 paper was the particle problem in the theory of general relativity. They talked about a mathematical representation of space wherein a particle is represented by a bridge connecting two sheets. Whilst I'm normally an Einstein fan, I didn't like this. Ditto for David Finkelstein’s 1958 paper past-future asymmetry of the gravitational field of a point particle. He was saying an antiparticle was some kind of white hole, which it isn’t. Nor is it a point-particle. This little paper lacks foundation. There's no understanding of gravity here, or the wave nature of matter. And yet along with the Einstein-Rosen paper, it's used as some kind of foundation for unscientific speculations on wormholes.

  • The church of SM physics

    I'd like to back Wyttenbach up on this. I've said something about the Higgs mechanism elsewhere. Let me repeat it for you:


    The idea comes from the electroweak sector of the standard model, where the weak force is said to be mediated by massive vector bosons. They have to be massive because the force is short range. See the Wikipedia Higgs mechanism article where you can read that “according to Goldstone’s theorem, these bosons should be massless”. If they aren’t, the bosons aren’t gauge bosons, and the theory isn’t a gauge theory. And since electromagnetism is, the result would not be the electroweak theory. So a fix was needed, and it was provided by a number of contributors. They “discovered that when a gauge theory is combined with an additional field that spontaneously breaks the symmetry group, the gauge bosons can consistently acquire a nonzero mass”. Interestingly enough Peter Higgs’s original paper was rejected by Physics Letters in 1964 as not having any relevance to particle physics. So Higgs added a sentence at the end saying it implied “the existence of one or more new, massive scalar bosons”, then he submitted it to Physical Review Letters. It was called Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. It’s only a page and a half. You can read all about it in Higgs’s 2017 article on the prehistory of the Higgs boson. The trouble with all that is this: Einstein didn’t say the mass of a body was due to some interaction with some space-filling field. He said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, not something else. So somebody who says mass is something else, is saying Einstein was wrong. They’re also saying E=mc² is wrong. It isn’t. There is clearly something amiss somewhere. Sheldon Glashow didn’t call it “Weinberg’s toilet” for nothing.


    Basically, the Higgs mechanism is moonshine. You guys will understand this when you understand that electron capture does what it says on the tin, and that beta decay is the reverse process. A neutron's mass-energy .939 GeV, It doesn't decay because an 80GeV W-boson pops into existence. Spontaneously. Like worms from mud. That's what's called "lies to children". And I'm afraid the Standard Model is a whole pack of them.

  • Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote from axil

    What is the quantum measurement problem?

    It's basically this: "How does wave function collapse occur?"


    I think it's the result of an optical Fourier transform. I talked about it here: http://physicsdetective.com/the-double-slit-experiment/


    fourier3.gif

    Image from Steven Lehar’s intuitive explanation of Fourier theory


    When you detect the electron at the screen, you perform something akin to an optical Fourier transform on it, so you convert it into something pointlike, and you see a dot on the screen. Then when you detect the electron at one of the slits, you perform something akin to an optical Fourier transform on it, so you convert it into something pointlike. So it goes through that slit only. So the interference patterns disappears.


    Art Hobson gave a similar explanation of the double slit experiment in his 2013 paper There are no particles, there are only fields. I was surprised I'd never heard about it before.

  • The church of SM physics

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    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.


    You aren't open to ideas that are realistic. I gave you umpteen references to Einstein as well as to the hard scientific evidence. You dismissed it all, in order to cling to convictions that are not based upon hard scientific evidence. Now you're promoting myths that have no foundation whatsoever.


    Come on now, have you ever sat down and thought about that cosmic treacle you’ve read about? Space isn’t like molasses, not one bit. Cosmic treacle is just "lies to children". So is the celebrity at the cocktail party. Look closely at that. The celebrity on her own is supposed to be massless, and she supposedly gets her mass from people in the room. But hang on a minute, they’re massless too. So this analogy is just some turtles-all-the-way down non-explanation. A fairy tale. For a real explanation, take a look at Einstein’s 1905 E=mc² paper Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-Content? He refers to energy as L rather than E, but no matter, because he also refers to the electron. There’s a sentence that says “like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10)”. Follow the link to §10 and you find yourself reading Einstein’s special relativity paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. Look at the title. Then do a find on “electron” and there’s 33 matches. So, do you think the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, unless it's an electron, whereupon it's a measure of its interaction with some fabulous cosmic treacle? Do you think E=mc² is wrong?


    It isn't wrong. When you understand the wave nature of matter, you know why See Louis de Broglie's 1923 letter to Nature on waves and quanta. He said he’d ”been able to show that the stability conditions of the trajectories in Bohr’s atom express that the wave is tuned with the length of the closed path”.

    Photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving at c in a straight line. Electron mass is a measure of resistance to change in-motion for a wave moving at c in a closed path. It's that simple.


    The irony of all this is that the Higgs mechanism is supposed to be responsible for the mass of “fundamental” particles like the electron, but not the Higgs boson. Yes. You can read about that here and I quote: “the W and Z particles, the quarks, the charged leptons and the neutrinos must get their mass from a Higgs field. It’s not possible for them to have masses any other way. But this is not true of the Higgs particle itself”.


    Please so note that you haven’t seen a picture of the Higgs boson. There are no particle tracks because its lifetime is so conveniently short. Instead its existence is “inferred” from a bump on a graph. Not a spike, a bump. But that’s OK, it’s a five-sigma bump. The fact that this could be anything hasn’t made it into the media. Nor has the fact that what we’re dealing with here contradicts E=mc². But the hype has made it into the media, and how. Because there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. And when a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.