One more question regards the existence of the magnetic lines. Does
the theory identify a cause for the lines between events? Regarding
this question, application of the Biot-Savart Law of classical EM theory
is used in SO(4) physics, is it not?
You (I needed it too.. ) will need quite a long "learning phase
to"/understand how a magnetic field propagates in SO(4). Already to
visualize the Clifford torus single sided surface that is 4D needs some
deep minding.
In fact you must be able to see two things based on the flux change
(induction) law. A change in magnetic flux flowing through an area
induces an electric field what is equivalent to separated charge
(current). Second all such induced charge again interacts with magnetic
flux in all!! adjacent dimensions. As soon as a magnetic flux lines
leaves the optimal (SO(4) symmetric) orbit additional charge is
generated what compensates the movement and classically is known as
strong force.
The main difficulty is to see/understand that the 5^th rotation induced
by the charge coupling leads to a topology that fully encloses the
magnetic flux inside a closed trajectory what finally results in a
"static" condition between amount of charge and radius of Biot-Savart
coupling. The Biot-Savart operator (coupling) is restricted to 3
dimensions what explains why the "center" of mass must be a Clifford
torus surface as the force is always orthogonal to the surface and "flux
tubes" do run along the surface. For the modelling I used projections to
the real torus.
You seem to say that the lines propagate in 3-D space at the speed of
light as in classical/relativistic theory, but are associated with a
Clifford torus, which “starting at the source, what typically is a
harmonic moving charge.” It seems that you suggest that that the
rotating torus surface is itself a dimension and influences all points
in 3-D space (which you call “free space.”) I may be inferring too much?
The classic real (Minkovski) space ends at the De Broglie radius of
(particle-) mass. Below this radius classic physics by definition no
longer works as this is also the horizon of uncertainty given by the
measurement symmetry when using E/B fields. SO(4) treats everything
below De Broglie radius.
Light speed is the wrong concept for dense mass as only the frequency
allows to make a connection to energy. The wave packets, classically the
phase, can propagate at least at 64c according to the latest
experiments. My guess was that the maximum speed of light inside dense
mass is given by the power of 2 of the maximal possible rotations times
the group measure.
Is there any free space that is not influenced by the magnetic lines?
I too would like to understand the real reason (only mass?) why & when
virtual charge is generated (that is influenced by magnetic lines) .
Obviously there exist only a few basic topologies (e,p, relativistic
muon ) that are long time stable and produce "visible" charge. E.g. the
charge inside a photon cannot be seen externally, but as soon as it
enters dense mass the photon may couple over an SO(4) orbit (see
Holmlid), besides being "classically" absorbed.
Does the concept of “cause and effect” apply to the mapping you discuss?
The cause/effect currently is restricted to Maxwell laws. The current
model is not perturbative for all coupling dimensions. To understand
e.g. radioactive decay (cause/effect) we must be able to add small
perturbations to combined "many body" SO(4) orbits. I would say that we
just opened the door to a new view on the real inner part of our world.
The next steps will need far more time an brain power!
Please also keep in mind that this is just one more step in the
direction of understanding the basics of nature. Whether mass is just a
wave node of e.g. a perturbation in the ( more complex) background
(ether) is an other story.
J.W.
Am 13.01.20 um 21:37 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com:
Jurg—
Thanks for those additional comments. I would guess that those folks
not familiar with the nature of the SO(4) 6 dimensions will have some
of the questions I sent along.
One more question regards the existence of the magnetic lines. Does
the theory identify a cause for the lines between events? Regarding
this question, application of the Biot-Savart Law of classical EM
theory is used in SO(4) physics, is it not?
You seem to say that the lines propagate in 3-D space at the speed
of light as in classical/relativistic theory, but are associated with
a Clifford torus, which “starting at the source, what typically is a
harmonic moving charge.” It seems that you suggest that that the
rotating torus surface is itself a dimension and influences all points
in 3-D space (which you call “free space.”) I may be inferring too much?
Is there any free space that is not influenced by the magnetic lines?
Does the concept of “cause and effect” apply to the mapping you discuss?
Comment:
I have started to read reference 8 concerning the Biot-Savart
operator. It appears to apply to SO(4) physics. However it does
appear that the math of reference 8 assumes a continuous vector
function that would address angular momentum. In my humble opinion
angular momentum is quantized at h/2pi in the real world where the
Biot-Savant operator is applied per the assumption of reference 8. (h
is Planck’s constant.)
I also conclude that the magnetic flux of SO(4) physics is quantized
in order to explain real quantum changes in a system’s angular
momentum. I.e., the “spinors” should be predicted to exist in
discrete quanta.
Bob Cook
*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
*Sent: *Monday, January 13, 2020 3:30 AM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:SO(4) Physics
Am 13.01.20 um 05:40 schrieb bobcook39...@hotmail.com
<mailto: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?
The natural trajectory of EM-flux (= magnetic field lines) in SO(4) is
a complex 2,3,5 or 8 fold rotation. A EM flux that spans the full
Clifford torus surface (Moves through all 16 hyper quadrants) needs to
do 8 360 degree full rotations. In free space EM-flux (= magnetic
field lines) travel outwards (radial), at light speed, starting at the
source, what typically is a harmonic moving charge. In dense space the
EM flux orbits are closed "loops" what I call rotation. This is pretty
much what you call spinors in classic theory but with one more dimension.
As EM flux is equivalent to energy flux = mass it also follows
mechanical laws for mass. In each rotation dimension mechanical
rotation energy is stored. This can be directly seen in the magic
nucleus 28-Si that has the second torus rigid momentum (=7/4, in body
rotation) proportion added to the protons 9/8 diameter axial rotation.
(Always seen as a projection to classic space! ) ( Also seen in 56/84
symmetric! nucleons)
Be aware that EM-flux alone is "mass less" or virtual mass only. Real
mass is generated on Biot-Savart coupling, but we know that the
nucleus only works with such coupling and thus it is OK to use the
term mass.
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?
Time is of course a virtual concept and works fine for classic
problems. Anybody that would like to have a basic proof for the
impossibility of a global time axes (communication between entities,
also called stopping/halting problem) should read basic information
theory.
3. The Introduction refers to various references for background
theory and other references are made throughout the paper. A
list of references is desirable.
The literature reference is after the theory, before the LENR part end
of chpt. 10. Sorry I just added the LENR part.... I poste it below!
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?
SO(4) has 6 dimension O(4) (Euklids 4 rotations) is the center
symmetry part given by the geometry of the Clifford torus (2 sided 8
rotations). The tricky part is to understand that the whole torus
itself can have one more rotation, what is responsible for the virtual
charge that binds all nuclear EM flux.
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.
**
We all stay in "real" space and can only do measurements in real
space. Thus all calculations/experiments we can do must be performed
or mapped to real space. Such mappings are tricky as the group measure
for one radius is 2^1/2 . Even more complicated is the
understanding/distinction between real and virtual mass.
A change in reference frame usually includes 2 radial dimensions what
gives a factor of 2. If e.g an electron (= charge mass) moves from the
"chemical" orbit to the nucleus then the virtual charge mass is 2
times larger, what reduces the effective= real charge mass.
There is not all info in the summary as in reality I should write a
book. The full rotation matrix is in fact in one of the first
versions... Also the quite interesting classic! virtual deuterium
model can be found there. Not even to mention the gamma ray calculations.
J.W.
[1] B.I. Ivlev Conversion of zero point energy into high-energy photons
Instituto de F ́ısica, Universidad Auto ́noma de San Luis Potos ́ı,
San Luis Potos ́ı, 78000 Mexico, Revista Mexicana de F ́ısica *62
*(2016) 83–88
[2] Lipinski WO2014189799 united gravity about LiP (H*) fusion.
[3] Leonardo Chiatti, Quantum Jumps and Electrodynamical Description
[4] 2016: Mills, Randell L., The GRAND UNIFIED THEORY of CLASSICAL
QUANTUM MECHANICS;ISBN 978-0-9635171-5-9 (2016) online.
[5] T. Schenkel*, 1, A. Persaud1, H. Wang1, P. A. Seidl1, R.
MacFadyen1, C. Nelson1, W. L. Waldron1, J.-L. Vay1, G. Deblonde2, B.
Wen3, Y.-M. Chiang3, B. P. MacLeod4, and Q. Ji1, Investigation of
light ion fusion reactions with plasma discharges;
arXiv1905.03400
[6] J.A.Wyttenbach NPP 2.1, researchgate, (2018, online),
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Nuclear-and-particle-physics-20
[7] Leif Holmlid, Emission spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes
in ultra-dense deuterium D(0): Rotational transitions in D(0) with
spin values s 1⁄4 2, 3 and
4,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2016.10.091
[8] Robert Jason Parsley , THE BIOT-SAVART OPERATOR AND
ELECTRODYNAMICS ON BOUNDED SUBDOMAINS OF THE THREE-SPHERE,
DISSERTATION University of Pennsylvania, 2004
[10] Gertrud E. Konrad Measurement of the Proton Recoil Spectrum in
Neutron Beta Decay with the Spectrometer aSPECT: Study of Systematic
Effects ; Phd Thesis. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz (2011)
(page 18)
*Bob*
**
**
**
*-----------------------------------------*
**
**
**
**
**
*From: *Jürg Wyttenbach <mailto:ju...@datamart.ch>
*Sent: *Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:31 PM
*To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr.22
8910 Affoltern a.A.
044 760 14 18
079 246 36 06
