The Soliton Model of Elementary Particles (Dennis Braun)

Talk given by Dennis Braun in Bonn, 2024,
In the Machian Gravity Meeting held in Bonn, Alexander Unzicker, Jonathan Fay, Dennis Braun and Jan Preuss discussed about how to deal with Dennis Sciama's 1953 groundbreaking discovery of linking inertia and gravity. See also:
vixra.org/abs/...
Sciama's paper: academic.oup.c...
See also: www.amazon.com...
and Jonathan Fay's site: www.jonathanfay...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/

[@jaydenwilson9522]

I'm really proud of you Prof. Unzicker! Its rare to see the olden generation guide the younger these days.

[@marcuslambert8722]

Prof. Unzicker ? is he a physics teacher for University ?

[@theanimationlads7598]

@@marcuslambert8722no he is not. He doesn’t even have a PhD in physics lol. Just a bachelor’s. His PhD is in neuroscience.

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

Dennis Braun shows some great physical insight in terms of trying to understand how gravity and inertia are potentially related. However a major problem with current physics is not being able to uniquely specify how "energy" is distributed in the field around stationary and moving masses and charges. I hope a "Machian Unified Field Theory Meeting" is on the way to discuss this and other things.

[@axeman2638]

energy is not distributed in a field, fields don't have any physical existence, they are a map of potential, no more, no less.

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

I put "energy" in quotes because if you want to understand what gravity and inertia is then you need concepts at the same time analogous to force, potential and energy and yet more fundamental than force, potential and energy. The origin of Force, Energy and Potential as currently defined has to be understood at a deeper conceptual level, Einstein's way has failed to unify physics, perhaps a Machian unified field theory is the way to go.

[@lucaveneri313]

What I would pay to hear Dr.Witten comment on this… Great presentation!!

[@ienjoyapples]

10:18 Bro just derived E = mc^2 just by making the inertial mass dependent upon the gravitational potential. Incredible.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

But inertia exists in places where there is no gravity? Am I missing something? Or you could say inertia doesn't change as gravity changes. Also an object travelling at speed only has high inertia for a static observer, if you were alongside also travelling at the same speed the object would respond to your touch as if it was static.

[@stoppernz229]

The object will respond to your touch the same way regardless of its speed relative to yours

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

@@stoppernz229 No if you are static and you touch a speeding bullet it hurts. If you are alongside bullet you can touch it.

[@walterbrownstone8017]

What is Newtonian energy e=1/mv². But I'm order to create something from nothing God has to create 2 particles with opposing directions. So newton says the rest mass of a particle is e,=mv² and Einstein changed one letter in this equation and he's a hero.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

@@walterbrownstone8017 Newton was describing kinetic energy (inertia) Einstein is talking about a different kind of energy.

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

This seems impressively broad. Revolutionary!? How can we facilitate more discussion on this? I am electrified.

[@clmasse]

The sine-Gordon equation is Lorenz invariant, then it necessarily gives back the kinematics of special relativity. This idea was already proposed by Enz in 1963, but then there was the Derrick theorem that shows it doesn't work in more than two dimensions, at least with such a simple model.

[@clmasse]

In realistic dimensions it becomes almost mathematically intractable because there are many independent simplifications in two (1+1) dimensions. The solitons of the Einstein equation have been investigated, and they have none of the features of known existing particle. So if any progress in this direction would be achieved, it is far away in time, and we can deduct nothing from what we know today.

[@clmasse]

The Minkowski metric of 1+1 space-time is dx² − dt², from this a Lorenz invariant wave equation is built with ∂/∂x² − ∂/∂t². It is not a property of the field _per se._

[@nunomaroco583]

Very interesting, great presentation....

[@marcuslambert8722]

no

[@joonasmakinen4807]

Do you have a Discord channel where to discuss these, or, have your team joined DemystifySci’s server already? We should open a VSL topic there.

[@debrainwasher]

In my humble opinion, the concept of an inertial mass as the product of a gravitational mass times the gravitational potential divided by c² makes only sense in the context of electro-gravitic- and magneto-gravitic fields, because these are not Lorentz invariant. E.g. if a vessel in such a field makes an instantaneous U-turn at a velocity of Mach 10, upon changing the sign of the potential, passengers would always feel a free-fall condition and not turned into steak tartare. This is exactly, we can observe.

[@MrHichammohsen1]

Can you please look at the structured atom model (SAM)?

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

The SAM is a good first start but unrealistically ignores neutrons entirely. Knots can provide a similar approach to SAM but with an emphasis on neutrons

[@axeman2638]

@@davidsaintjohn4248 no it doesn't, it says neutrons are a proton-electron pair. Which is what they decay into once they are free from the nucleus.

[@jaydenwilson9522]

@@axeman2638 Yep! And neutrons are just "balanced" spin-opposed charges so it fits rhyme and reason.

[@amarq1509]

Back to square one.

[@JackBellesPhotography]

This is really interesting. I hope you can make real progress with developing these ideas further.

[@walterbrownstone8017]

Okay I made a final video describing alpha the fine structure constant. Just search "The electron is made of 101 unit particles.

[@riadhalrabeh3783]

If you use projections into a sphere, it is not necessary to have a nonlinear equation in order to get a soliton solution.

[@starexplorers1202]

Why no animation or video footage? There are SO many ways to visualize a soliton yet hardly any graphics. Why?

[@ienjoyapples]

This is an academic discussion, not a popsci video. The equations tell you all you need to know.

[@starexplorers1202]

@@ienjoyapples Mathematics ALWAYS fails when our concept of how Nature works is wrong. String theory, an untestable theory, is a perfect example of this dilemma. Asking for a video clip to help see how the mathematics works can be done quite easily. Far more than our limited Calculus-based mathematics could ever explain, especially when our arrogance leads us far away from how Nature works and how we have ignored the problem for over 150 years since the unification of electromagnetism.

[@clmasse]

@@ienjoyapples Some people understand better by visualizing, even (or especially) in an academic discussion.

[@ienjoyapples]

@@clmasse Einstein didn't have any pretty pictures in his papers, no physicist does. If you don't understand the equations, you can't understand the physics. Visualizations are only used in pop science to give the public the illusion of understanding and keep them engaged.

[@jamesrarathoon2235]

Patrick Cornille in his book "Advanced Electrodynamics and Vacuum Physics" talks alot about solitons in the electromagnetic field, but he doesn't say much if anything about gravity - I find his book very difficult to read.

[@martinsoos]

Two masses not colliding at a point? I am thinking of how metals bend and transform in sheets of atoms and am guessing that a "point" is being used as smaller than the aria of contact.

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

Ask the guys to look at knots like kelvin did

[@joonasmakinen4807]

Sticky this! It is the key to understanding charge, constant masses, constant particle sizes, anomalous magnetic moments, … of electrons, protons, …

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

@@joonasmakinen4807 I bet we could have an interesting chat

[@johnlord8337]

Using the Electro-statics (ES) and ELectro-gravitics (EG) model, and translating what he is saying ... In regards to the electro-static objects with their (corrected) weak nuclear force ... and the electro-gravitic objects with their (corrected) strong nuclear force, they have different Aether domain sub-particulate and matter particle properties. Only the higher electro-gravitic composite objects have portions of internal gravity cores and outward gravity wave functions. Whereas the electro-static composite objects have minimal properties (of non-gravity and non-gravity waves). This shows that there are 2 different properties of the electron and positron colums, ... while their compatriot graviton (pure graviton composition) has the highest of any electro-gravitic composite and gravity wave function. So the ES and EG model further explain all these otherwise observed properties : EG EG ES EG ES EG/ES ES/ES EG/EG strong strong weak strong weak strong/weak weak/weak strong/strong ES/EG Electron/Positron Electron/Positron weak/strong Electron/Positron Tensor Matter universe particles and quantum entanglement : Electron Transitions Tau electron level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Higgs-1) Neutron Photon (Lyman) Muon electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Higgs-2) Neutron Photon (Balmer) Electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Boson (Lord-1) Neutron Photon (Paschen) Quantum foam (Cosmic microwave background raditation) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Aether domain particulates and sub-quantum entanglement : Small electron energy level : Graviton - and + Electron Electron Positron Positron Bosino (Lord-2) Neutrino Photino (Pfund) Electrino energy level : Graviton - and + Electrino Electrino Positrino Positrino Bosino (Lord-3) Neutrino Photino (Humphrey) Base graviton energy level : Graviton - and + Graviton - (=) Graviton - Graviton + (=) Graviton + Bosino (Lord-4) Neutrino Photino --------------- Looking at the various energy levels on the chart, we notice those EG composites have full gravity as a strong nuclear force and gravity waves. Those with EG/ES or ES/EG (tensor bosons and tensor bosinos) composition have half gravity strong force and halved gravity waves. Those with ES or ES/ES have no gravity strong force (only weak nuclear force) and no gravity waves. Those photons and photinos with ES/ES have no gravity and no gravity waves. Thusly, you can see how photons have gravitational lensing (with full energy light speed), while the lesser variable light speed photinos (are gravitationally captured). Neutrons and neutrinos as ES/ES have no gravitational atraction or manifested gravity waves to anything else. Tensor bosons and bosinos, acting as the explicit and pure fusion agents for stellar engines (photosphere fusion of Hydrogen to Helium up to Iron, chromosphere fusion of Cobalt up to Element 118), having both ES and EG properties, allowing fusion to overwhelm the Van der Wahl's radius, and the Coulomb nuclear boundary) providing a fusion slipstream process. The end result is the electrons returning to their rest state, having emanated their excess energies as their electron transition properties. When looking at the EG gravitons - and +, ... and the EG electron/electrino and EG positron/positrino composites, ... they display their own gravity energy level and gravity wave values. All of these 6 energy levels have differing gravity and gravity wave values. There is no G constant !!! This shows that the ES and EG model fully explains ... and gives the expected quantitative energy range values of these composite particulates and particles. No more BS of the faked Bell curve, and explicit ignorant, arrogant, and hubris of stating absolute values of the energy levels of electrons etc. as 0.511 meV/c2 etc. The lower and upper composite energy ranges are all valid for these objects. The same applies to the EG, EG/EG, ... and the ES/EG and EG/ES objects having full, partial, or minimal gravity and gravity wave values. So when discussing gravity and gravity wave fields, one must properly assign which and what EG, EG/EG, ES/EG, or EG/ES particles or particulates they are attempting to document and chart.

[@johnlord8337]

When you have ES particles and particulates, they display their Meissner (ES) force field around them, making them "appear" to be massless, when they do have real mass energies - but no gravity (strong nuclear force mass attrraction). Thus, an ES electron/electrino, ... ES positron/positrino, ... ES/EG or EG/ES (half property) tenson boson/bosino ... appear to have differing mass (gravity) values. The ES/ES neutron/neutrino, composed of both ES electron/electrino and ES positron/positrino, have these dual energy value, but the ES field around them, make them appear to be massless (i.e. gravity-less, no gravity mass attraction). Newton's Law of Gravity and Mass needs to be corrected with the ES and EG model, as mass (density and volume) have NOTHING to do with gravity and any manifested gravity wave field ! Mass by explicit definition can only be found with pure gravitons, or by their EG composite particulates or particles.

[@Achrononmaster]

It ain't gonna work if you want entanglement, right? You need non-trivial topology too, wormhole substructure to elementary particles. Describe that local topology using a Clifford frame and you can get su(2)xu(1). Include bipartite structure and you can also get su(3). All in 4D gravity. It's nonclassical GR since you've permitted nontrivial topology, hence closed timelike curves exist. This is a feature, not a bug, since CTCs are exactly what one needs to obtain the nondistributive orthomodular lattice of measurement propositions from GR (i.e., "Quantum Logic"). There is no classical FTL signalling since ER=EPR wormholes are not classically traversable (Geroch's topological censorship theorem).

[@dragoscoco2173]

Entanglement is not that mysterious.

[@lean_sumek]

C'est possible 😊🥰🤣

[@clmasse]

In fact inertia is a self-referring concept. Gravitation has an absolute significance but only globally, which is the gist of general relativity and the equivalence principle. That's why it doesn't and can't implement the Mach principle.

[@davidrandell2224]

1- p=E/c. 2-p=mc. 3- E/c=mc. 4- E=mc^2? Simple classical equations concerning ‘light.’ Light is a cluster of expanding electrons- particles, objects, matter with mass. Too simple for the modern brain. “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well..... everything.

[@georgewchilds]

There are days when I wish I were this smart. Sounds like he just made Einstein his bitch. I hope this means we can keep ignoring String Theory.

[@xavierdumontperso]

I'm french, I 'm not a physicist, I'm interested in your research, but I really am not able to follow a video with such poor audio. Think about your international audience !

[@TheMachian]

I tray my best with separate audio tracks, AI noise reduction and frequency filter post-production... any further suggestions are welcome. I am sorry that you have difficulties. Maybe subtitles help.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, etc. Not this “noise.”

[@clmasse]

@@TheMachian The subtitles have difficulties too.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

Nope. Look, its very simple, aether allows photons to act gravitationally & inertially on other photons, but aether itself (the fundamental fluid of our infinite eternal universe) has no mass or inertia. This photon to photon action (a reverberation) occurs at at least 20 billion c. Hence distant photons have less effect. All particles are photons. Ok, i have given u all a good start, now u can all have a proper think.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Just a thought experiment so far, have to ask LIGO what they think of Black Hole Singularity positioning in Black-body Holographic Eternity-now reciprocation-recirculation Interval of point nothing axial-tangential mono-dualistic nodal-vibrational location in No-thing Relativity, logarithmic vanishing-into-no-thing Perspective alignments. So a mono-dualistic axial-tangential e-Pi-i 1-0-infinity Limit of conic-cyclonic coherence-cohesion i-reflection Pi-bifurcation objectives is a 0-1-2-3ness cone-hyperbolic atomic-node compositions of potential quantization fields as differentiates integrated holistic relative-timing ratio-rates.., and I think I agree in parallel coexistence Principle with the concept of Soliton total interpenatration that naturally relocates the axial-tangential hole in the Aether. Ie Flash-fractal recognition of relevant circumstances. And another great job for good Math-Physics practioners advancing toward better holography explanations.

[@surendranmk5306]

What is gravity? Oh... very simple, it is solitons. Nobel prize next year!

[@SciD1]

We've got plenty of bullshitons already in fantasy physics.