[Vo]:SO(4) Physics

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Jurg—

I am continuing to study your papers regarding SO(4) physics.  The latest is 
your item on ResearchGate  “Nuclear & Particle Physics version 2.0 < SO(4) 
physics > Main achievements” of September, 2019.

Some questions and comments follow:

  1.  In the introduction and throughout the detailed sections you refer to 
rotations of a something.  It seems that the rotating entity is a real charge 
of a certain magnitude relative to classical physical constants.  Is  this what 
the SO(4) modeling assumes?
  2.  Also in the introduction you indicate: “ A uniform time axis is a 
mathematical trick that allows us to model events that change the relation 
between an old and a new state in a regular fashion. But from the more 
fundamental information theory we know that there is no global time and we can 
only model phenomena that are based on a partial order of events.”  I would 
infer that time is a virtual concept—not a real dimension.  Is this a correct 
inference?
  3.  The Introduction refers to various references for background theory and 
other references are made throughout the paper.  A list of references is 
desirable.
  4.  The NPP2.0 seems to include 3 real space dimensions and up to 3 more 
dimensions.  Are  these additional  dimensions described by a continuous 
numerical scale or an eigenvalue or finite element space dimension or some 
other measure?
  5.  Most of the constants NPP2.0 includes involve time and distance.  If time 
is not a global dimension, then it seems the constants are nothing more than 
virtual (not real) ideas.



Bob







-











From: Jürg Wyttenbach
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom

The quark picture of SM is bare nonsense as nobody ever could measure a mass of 
any quark better than two bits what is nothing. Quarks are not particles rather 
resonances of a complex wave ensemble that forms e.g. the proton. All reasoning 
using standard model is a dead end as even the math is provable incomplete - 
not able to correctly handle a three body problem.

The article you reference already in the first sentence presents provable 
nonsense, as we know today that a proton & neutron is not bound by the strong 
force. This only starts after 4-He! and only holds for the nuclear core mass.


I recommend to read into the SO(4) model : 
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-20

The structure of the nucleus is much more complex than SM thinks and on the 
other side much simpler to handle if you understand the correct physics behind 
mass. SO(4) physics gives the correct internal structure of a proton/neutron 
and shows how you e.g. get the correct gamma lines of 6-Li a simple enough 
nucleus. (This is not in the summary!)

J.W.



Am 08.01.20 um 18:14 schrieb H LV:
There's a Giant Mystery Hiding Inside Every Atom in the Universe

By Rafi Letzter - Staff Writer

No one really knows what happens inside an atom. But two competing groups of 
scientists think they've figured it out. And both are racing to prove that 
their own vision is correct.

Here's what we know for sure: Electrons whiz around "orbitals" in an atom's 
outer shell. Then there's a whole lot of empty space. And then, right in the 
center of that space, there's a tiny nucleus — a dense knot of protons and 
neutrons that give the atom most of its mass. Those protons and neutrons 
cluster together, bound by what's called the strong force. And the numbers of 
those protons and neutrons determine whether the atom is iron or oxygen or 
xenon, and whether it's radioactive or stable.

Still, no one knows how those protons and neutrons (together known as nucleons) 
behave inside an atom. Outside an atom, protons and neutrons have definite 
sizes and shapes. Each of them is made up of three smaller particles called 
quarks, and the interactions between those quarks are so intense that no 
external force should be able to deform them, not even the powerful forces 
between particles in a nucleus. But for decades, researchers have known that 
the theory is in some way wrong. Experiments have shown that, inside a nucleus, 
protons and neutrons appear much larger than they should be. Physicists have 
developed two competing theories that try to explain that weird mismatch, and 
the proponents of each are quite certain the other is incorrect. Both camps 
agree, however, that whatever the correct answer is, it must come from a field 
beyond their own

https://www.livescience.com/mystery-of-proton-neutron-behavior-in-nucleus.html?fbclid=IwAR0IlQmBawS5EkgkaXxl9SET0bExL-su9Yt3dETNlsea0G9AfWzLV7-7OHQ



--

Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr.22

8910 Affoltern a.A.

044 760 14 18

079 246 36 06

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Slow neutrons react with a large variety of isotopes. e.a., boron naturally 
occurring isotopes, cadmium, hafnium, used in fission reactor control to absorb 
them. They do leave a radioactive isotope which frequently emits energetic EM 
radiation in its decay.

That is not typical of LENR.  I would say the slow neutron reaction is like a 
regular 2-body reaction with low momentum during a cold temperature reaction 
with a “target” isotope exhibiting the appropriate resonant motion to couple 
with the slow neutron

Bob Cook


From: JonesBeene
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 9:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

Hi,

Well Miley himself was fully invested in the Fusor device  (and sold his 
neutron generating company to Daimler)

AFAIK he never mentioned that LENR was involved in that technology and if 
anyone should know – it is him.

The W-L theory predicts extremely low momentum neutrons - which somehow avoid 
thermalization. Thus they would presimably never escape a reactor.

Jones

From: Nicholas Palmer

Here's a voice from the past...

Did anyone ever consider using a Farnsworth Fusor as a source of low energy 
neutrons to catalyse the putative Widom-Larsen pathway to LENR?

Nick Palmer

Jed Rothwell wrote:
QUOTE:

Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation
Low-energy nuclear reactions. The House report encourages NSF to “evaluate the 
various theories, experiments, and scientific literature surrounding the field 
of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit of cold 
fusion. It also 
directs NSF to “provide a set of recommendations as to whether future federal 
investment into LENR research would be prudent, and if so, a plan for how that 
investment would be best utilized.”

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-national-science-foundation


Nothing will come of this.

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Andrew Meulenberg]

Thx Jed.  I did look closer and found I could read the book.

On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:14 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:
>
> I suspect that, like me few have bothered with Kindle readers.
>>
>
> Kindle readers are great! But you don't need one to read a Kindle book.
> You can read it with any browser on a PC, a Mac, Chromebook, etc.
>
> Amazon sells about half of all books in U.S. Amazon does not report what
> fraction of books are ebooks, but in overall market they are supposedly
> 20%. I expect Amazon sells more than 20% ebooks.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Jed Rothwell]

Andrew Meulenberg  wrote:

I suspect that, like me few have bothered with Kindle readers.
>

Kindle readers are great! But you don't need one to read a Kindle book. You
can read it with any browser on a PC, a Mac, Chromebook, etc.

Amazon sells about half of all books in U.S. Amazon does not report what
fraction of books are ebooks, but in overall market they are supposedly
20%. I expect Amazon sells more than 20% ebooks.

Re: [Vo]:Looking for feedback on gravity control experiment

[Andrew Meulenberg]

I suspect that, like me few have bothered with Kindle readers.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:16 PM Frank Znidarsic  wrote:

> Only 10 free Kindle books were downloaded.  In the past a free sale would
> have generated a download of at least 20 or more Kindle books.  No relevant
> comments came from this group.  There is no interest in this line of work
> an interest in LENR has faded.
>
> Frank Znidarsic
>

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

[JonesBeene]

Hi,

Well Miley himself was fully invested in the Fusor device  (and sold his 
neutron generating company to Daimler)

AFAIK he never mentioned that LENR was involved in that technology and if 
anyone should know – it is him.

The W-L theory predicts extremely low momentum neutrons - which somehow avoid 
thermalization. Thus they would presimably never escape a reactor.

Jones

From: Nicholas Palmer

Here's a voice from the past...


Did anyone ever consider using a Farnsworth Fusor as a source of low energy 
neutrons to catalyse the putative Widom-Larsen pathway to LENR?

Nick Palmer

Jed Rothwell wrote:
QUOTE:

Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation
Low-energy nuclear reactions. The House report encourages NSF to “evaluate the 
various theories, experiments, and scientific literature surrounding the field 
of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit of cold fusion. It also 
directs NSF to “provide a set of recommendations as to whether future federal 
investment into LENR research would be prudent, and if so, a plan for how that 
investment would be best utilized.”

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-national-science-foundation


Nothing will come of this.

Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

[Nicholas Palmer]

Here's a voice from the past...

Did anyone ever consider using a Farnsworth Fusor as a source of low energy
neutrons to catalyse the putative Widom-Larsen pathway to LENR?

Nick Palmer


On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 15:20, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> QUOTE:
>
> Final FY20 Appropriations: National Science Foundation
> *Low-energy nuclear reactions.* The House report encourages NSF to
> “evaluate the various theories, experiments, and scientific literature
> surrounding the field of LENR,” which is most associated with the pursuit
> of cold fusion
> . It also
> directs NSF to “provide a set of recommendations as to whether future
> federal investment into LENR research would be prudent, and if so, a plan
> for how that investment would be best utilized.”
>
>
> https://www.aip.org/fyi/2020/final-fy20-appropriations-national-science-foundation
>
>
> Nothing will come of this.
>

RE: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Its nature implementing the 2nd law—changing order to disorder (a system with 
high potential energy to a system with more kinetic energy and disorder.)  This 
is termed qualitatively an increase of entropy.

It only happens, if angular momentum is conserved and can change its location  
within the system in quanta of h/2pi and at the same time conserve energy.

The laser input is able to create a change in potential energy of the system as 
the energetic photon enters the stable system and initiates the coupling 
conditions that occur.

Bob Cook


From: Jürg Wyttenbach
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 3:21 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:AIP mentions cold fusion

First think then understand then design experiments!

The UDH disproportion reaction (Kaon,Pion,Muon cascade) of Holmlid can be 
induced by switching on the lab light.

It's as I said: Only rotten minds that use a rotten standard model can believe 
that fusion is energy dependent.  It's the contrary: LENR only works if you 
know how to remove the excess energy. The balancing magnetic force to start 
this reaction is only given with hydrogen (UDH) at rest.

The Boron reaction has a very high threshold of > 300keV and I doubt you can do 
this with a simple setup.

But it is to early to give any definitive judgement. We just started to 
understand the new model and I'm pretty sure in 50 years people will make jokes 
about what we say today.

J.W.

Am 11.01.20 um 20:49 schrieb Jones Beene:
Here is a question for you Jürg.

You mention the tabletop chirped laser, which is becoming commonplace in labs. 
Holmlid does not use a particularly robust  or chirped laser so this looks like 
a grand way to proceed to get better results.

Have you modeled the hydrogen-boron reaction which Miley et al have been 
suggesting?

If so, has a tabletop chirped laser experiment been designed to explore and 
characterize this reaction? Presumably it would be neutron-free. Seems 
reasonable that this can be scaled down to where almost good lab could do it, 
yet there are few reports of successful efforts.


Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:


The laser setup at Livermore is a dead dinosaur. Today tabletop chirp pulsed 
lasers can get the 1000 fold energy density of LL ignition factory with a 
fraction of the input energy. The EU will soon be ready with such an laser.

But this will not change the result of the alleged confinement fusion as fusion 
is not a function of confinement only. Somebody should tell these folks that in 
fact the Hydrogen (deuterium) bomb is a Lithium bomb and thus still fission not 
fusion...First think then understand then design experiments.

J.W.


Am 11.01.20 um 17:20 schrieb Jones Beene:
Miley and other respected experts have been pushing for this kind of 
implementation - for some dozen or more years. It could allow for a factor of 
several orders of magnitude reduction in laser energy needed and be far cleaner 
(almost neutron-free).



--

Jürg Wyttenbach

Bifangstr.22

8910 Affoltern a.A.

044 760 14 18

079 246 36 06