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. 1. 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. 1. 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! 1. 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. 1. 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 21/2. 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
