[lkcl]

Zitat von Struktron

Hallo Luke,

Deinen Beitrag verstehen hier vermutlich viele. Er ist auch interessant.
So wie Du mit Hilfe von Google ausgewählte Abschnitte mit Rechtsklick übersetzen kannst, können wir das auch. Dass es bisher keine Antworten gibt, liegt meiner Meinung nach an der Komplexität des Themas. In Wikipedia gibt es über Rishonen genügend Informationen. Dass jemand von den hier Mitlesenden intensiv selbst daran arbeitet, glaube ich eher nicht. So kannst Du wohl kaum erwarten, dass jemand viel Zeit für eine Beschäftigung mit Deinen Fragen opfert.

yes, indeed, i am using chrome, it works well to automatically translate. thank you for replying, your comments are most kind. it is indeed a complex topic, Harari worked with the Rishon Model for almost two decades before stopping. I have researched it for 30 years and am only now finding the mathematics, but not in Particle Physics: it is the field of optics where the advances are made!

and that is part of the problem: the mathematical notation is quite different. it is only through Castillo's paper of 2008 that i have been able to find a link between SU(2)xU(1), Pauli Matrices and Jones Vectors. I am presently working on a paper which is under development, deliberately not mentioning "particles", that shows how the elliptically-polarised light wave-forms of the quarks may superimpose successfully without constructive or destructive interference. if nothing else, just on this one topic alone where the paper is only planned to be around five pages in length, would be extremely valuable and a very important contribution not just in the field of optics but also to science as well.

Interessant sind einige Links in Deiner Arbeit. Yablons Überlegungen zur Feinstrukturkonstante sehe ich selbst als einen momentan noch erfolglosen Ansatz. Mills "GUT" und die erreichte Finanzierung einiger Versuche, sehe ich als "genial" an, aber leider mit einem zweifelhaften Hintergedanken... Trotzdem wären sicher viele glücklich, wenn eine kalte Fusion mit Hydrinos funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.

yes, jay's work is fascinating, he is very smart. he notes "in passing" the similarity between his work and that of the de vries formula, rather than offers a solution. it was, however, after this work, that i was able to come up with the insight that alpha may be a recursive solution to Special Relativity, and in support of that i have been made aware, only just today, of another paper which explores the possibility that particles are "spherical standing waves" (a well-known solution in audio industry) - see doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.28

regarding dr mills it is most unfortunate that he has advanced so far ahead in the context of an industrial environment where "commercial secrecy" had to be so important. this is not uncommon: i have a friend who now works at a UK-based University, he worked for a Hard Drive company, and he said that he quit because not only were they were routinely carrying out reverse-engineering deconstruction of competitor's products (as their competitors also did to them), but that EACH COMPANY was INDEPENDENTLY and SECRETLY spending vast amounts of money to derive theoretical work that was TWENTY YEARS AHEAD OF MAINSTREAM PUBLISHED SCIENCE.
my friend found this to be so unethical and unacceptable that he quit and returned to academia.

nevertheless, i suspect that dr mills is not stupid, he is extremely smart, knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. he's advanced the scientific community's knowledge in the field of MRI scanning and in chemistry enormously through his work, and that was even before he began work on hydrinos. to ignore his work, as many people are doing, is to do one's self a huge dis-service. whilst i appreciate it's a huge work in its own right, i am saddened to encounter many people who really should know better whose "belief" takes an ad-hominem priority over the evidence before their eyes in the form of an 1800 page "from first principles self-consistent" document.

as a reverse-engineer i do not (cannot) make such "belief" judgements: i apply a "probability" to each piece of research, then search in parallel for more pieces of evidence that support (or refute) that line of reasoning. actual *understanding* comes very very much later on - possibly years later. many people cannot handle this approach: they assume that understanding is *required* - right here, right now - before proceeding further. it leads them into spending years in dead-ends from which their minds cannot then escape, as it is too late in their career.

this, then, explains why i am structuring the document as i have, with multiple sections assigning "probability" to each, but also recording the ongoing notes as well as the keywords under investigation.

i really appreciate even the time that you have taken to read what i have written.