Hacker News Reader

Comment by poelzi | Hacker News Reader

That is exactly which brought me to the BSM-SG model. When nothing seems to fit well and the physics appear stranger and stranger, you should ask yourself: did we do everything right ? Did we do some mistakes in measurements ? Do we have some some wrong assumptions ?

Turns out: yes. If you remove those wrong assumptions, you end up with a classic logical model that makes sense in very aspect. QM is just to raw for explaining the quantum world.

Things seen as fundamental particles that are huge, huge structures. Even to look only at energy and ignore form and geometry (by definition), becomes absurd with deeper understanding.

View on HN

When googling "BSM-SG", the top result is a thread (by poelzi) on a cold fusion forum... Which contains this nugget:

"If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn?"

Really? You couldn't be bothered to sit down with an organic chemistry textbook and discover that QM is the basis for our entire understanding of how atoms form chemical bonds? You've never heard of sp3 hybridisation? E.g. Paula Bruice's book "Organic Chemistry" starts with QM as the most fundamental piece and builds everything from that. Read it.

Search for Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory then, its by Dr. Stoyan Sarg

QM is a theory. There are facts and theories and they should not be confused. Who we think the universe is governed is based on theories that are derived from facts. But for nearly all facts, you can find different explanations. It is not that the BSM-SG theory will not provide you with equations that are similar to QM equations, but then they differ in the interpretation for example.

Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like.

Then, you have many different theories in condensed matter physics, there are models that have no free electrons at all, and they work for their field also extremely well.

i know the spdf hybridisation model, had it @university, still it's a theory not a fact.

> Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like.

So I looked at all those pictures in the viXra paper, and there is not a single chemical bond or molecule anywhere. Care to explain?

There is a more detailed paper about it:

http://goo.gl/U2BHBL

I don't expect you to understand, took me month before it clicked and started to make sense. In fact, at some point I had to take a week off because I was so into the theory, I could not think about my dayjob ;)

Currently the main book is the only way to understand the theory more deeply, but one of our projects is, to do a video series explaining the model in a simple way. As a scientists, you will need the book until somebody writes a comprehensive one as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...

The papers helped me to get into the theory, but real deep understanding is not possible from them.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0031v1.pdf

What you see in the atlas are the proton and their geometric structure as they grow. These are not electrons ! There are some electrons drawn in on the H atom to show some of the different energy states.

You seem to be acquainted in physics, so, whats your explanation for our well tuned universe. The number of basic constants in the standard model is so high and simulations have shown, that small changes cause an unstable universe. In the BSM-SG model, all those constants and relations are derived. In fact, after some month you understand this: the fundamental growth principle and the geometric configuration nearly always lead to stable atomic structures and galaxies as we know them.

(There are some open questions and there is the possibility that when a matter - antimatter galaxies collide, some unstable galaxy could result. Maybe ill-formed galaxies are an result of such mergers).

Anyway, if somebody gives me a theory that is self stabilizing, derives all constants with very high rescission, fits so well to observed data and uses only 3 dimensional euclidean space. 1 fundamental force and 2 fundamental particles. Sorry, this is just the better theory.

Many people are not firm with logic and only know mathematical logic. Every logic is based on different fundamental assumptions, this is something you have to believe in for a logic to have a truth value for you. Classical logic is simply stricter then mathematical logic and has therefor a higher truth value.

In classical logic this you can't do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE

Hybridization is this wierd fiction. It's trivially true because you can create any orbital via conservative linear combination of other orbitals, but only some of them will be energetically meaningful.

What hybridization would you expect water to have? You're wrong. It's not.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/h2o_orbitals.gif

But our current qm are really bad at predicting bond angles. Vsepr is basically a geometric argument, and most of our understanding of bond angles is strictly emperical.

What are you talking about? QM is the most elegant, beautiful, and empirically verified theory ever. What does your "classical logical model" say about the Bell inequalities?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com