Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (BSM-SG)

Which structures contain mixed rectangular lattice? (BSM-SG page 2-13)

Every atom, either here or in a distant galaxy has exactly the same complex spectral signature. Even for the simplest atom, the hydrogen, we need a complex mathematics to describe its spectrum.
regards
Dissertation help

What defines the electrons second order handedness when the electron is not in orbit? What triggers a spin flip?

How does an electron reach optimal confined motion? Does it resonate with the CL space like the shell-positron system does? If it does, does that mean that it can accelerate while draining energy from the CL space? That would be weird.

Quote from Karl Fischer

What defines the electrons second order handedness when the electron is not in orbit?

@KF: Just for the curious, a relink of Landvogt's paper about the basic structure of the electron. It's worth reading, because it's carefully written and well done! (But not entirely complete)

http://www.commonsensescience.…l_particles_fos_v17n1.pdf

I have read the paper that was posted“the_current_loop_as_a_model_of_fundem…...”

It would take more than 1 day to go through the math. I liken it to I can read it but can not understand it” but if given enough time I would be able to.
That said, I will try to stick to the abstract.

*Agree that particles are “at least” 2 dimensional //easy one

*Almost agree with his complete description of “physical properties of fundamental particles” // almost means that I do not dismiss second order
observations that the paper does not address, as they mean to me that
the first order is missing something.

*The papers mention of “ Thus fundamental particles are not purely field-like such as photons and not (essentially) mass-like such as atoms, they represent a special kind of matter in between. “ // Well yes, but this is not fleshed out clearly enough background wise in the paper, even in the
math. So its meaning is not clear. If he is saying matter-waves (De
broglie waves) which I think he is, I wish it was more clear.

* It either dismisses or seems to dismiss bosons roles (WZ) as carriers and ties it into magnetic attraction only // I think that this one of the principle claims of the paper // This contradicts “in poor Rigel's
understanding” since the paper used used E=mc2 which to me that to paraphrase fermons=bosons + energy, and before someone points out the difference in spin. I get this (1/2 spin etc.) so it's clear and commonly agreed by everyone. So when I looked at the math, I am not sure that this is supported with experiment, so it (the math here) is not modeled properly.

I do not agree or I struggle to understand the electron is not a point particle-like per the paper. I also do not agree that it is not. (but I have not chased down [1] listed in the paper. Alas, to me it is a point particle because of intrinsic spin. The "intrinsic" part is an amazing part of nature.

I do not agree or struggle to understand his (forgive me I do not know how to inline equations in posts just yet, but have it on the to-do list as it
makes conversations easier. So to put it as I understand it.

The problem that I have with the math is that if the radius of the electron is taken as a real property of matter (as in it has a surface and is not a point particle) then based on math to paraphrase and forgive my notation
but it means simply to my simplistic and primitive understanding that
h-bar/2pi * radius = superluminal. I hope that this makes sense. If
the electron has a real surface with a true radius it would could
“not would depending” move FTL. This is my basis for
understanding that spin is intrinsic and not a point particle. Anyway
I like the paper. I just understand somethings differently. I will
try to read the rest of the thread as I am fascinated by properties
of fundamental particles and also bosons.

An electron is the end of a light sting. Electrons emerge from the vacuum.

http://dao.mit.edu/~wen/NSart-wen.html

Quote

Light and matter unified

"What if electrons were not elementary, but were the ends of long strings in a string-net liquid which becomes our space?"

A state or a phase correspond to an organization of particles. A deformation in the organization represents a wave in the state. A new state of matter will usually support new kind of waves. Wen and Levin found that, in a state of string-net liquid, the motion of string-nets correspond to a wave that behaved according to a very famous set of equations -- Maxwell's equations! The equations describe the behavior of light -- a wave of electric and magnetic field. "A hundred and fifty years after Maxwell wrote them down, ether -- a medium that produces those equations -- was finally found." says Wen.

Quote from Rigel

Alas, to me it is a point particle because of intrinsic spin. The "intrinsic" part is an amazing part of nature.

@Riegel: There are no point particles in physics mainly because this would lead to infinite (field) integrals. This means for the electron that the charge at the orgin of the point must vanish... which finally leads to an inhomogeneity in the charge distribution.

But any discussions at this dimensions ( below 1 fm) are purely philosophical! The problem with physics is that since 100 years nobody did sit down and think first and then do the experiments. I'm pretty sure that in 100 years people will laugh about the idea of exchange particles, because then they will know, that physicist simple measured complex (surfaces of) shapes of energy exchange.

I think the Landvogt paper is a good starting point ( I largly verified the math) how basic explanations could look like.

Wyttenbach,

I read the paper you linked , do you perchance have a reference on your statement, I will google your post to ensure I understand? I have to dig up my reference also. My point was particle/wave or matter wave or plan B. It involved an equation that I will have to find. How long did you take to go through the math? I want to gauge how slow I really am these days.
I really like the electron, any thing about it that I can learn is helpful.

@axil,
This is a repost I have your original link on my toolbar. I am too old to keep track of todays spin. Liquid or not.

@Wyttenbach

Here is a link to a youtube. Please start around 7:45 into it. Let me know if it is not valid. It has been a long time since I watched this video but it has the math I was looking for.

Spin-link

Quote from Rigel

I read the paper you linked , do you perchance have a reference on your statement, I will google your post to ensure I understand? I have to dig up my reference also. My point was particle/wave or matter wave or plan B. It involved an equation that I will have to find. How long did you take to go through the math? I want to gauge how slow I really am these days.

@Riegel: I did not read/verify the the paper in one step. My way to deal with papers usually includes three (4) steps. I omit the early discard one...

First read in and classify it (topic, how useful). Second: Read through and valuate it. Third step - paper is/may be important, validate the core math/physics and start to think...

Thus it's not easy to say how long it took to do the math only. The complex sums took some time, because I checked, if we can simplify it. Over all it took me one day, but not included the time for casual reflecting in between.

The paper deals only about the basic forces of the electron. There is no explanation for a spin. There is also no exact match between the precise Mill's formula for the electron g-factor and the result Landvogt gets. But it is relatively close.

Conclusion: The Landvogt model needs some refinement, but these are things I only discuss privately.

For the electron point particle you need no paper, just your brain. Look at the potential formula and how the electron potential is calculated - as work done from/to infinite to the point which is 1/delta(r) which will give a deep pole, if the charge is concentrated in the center. I think that the electron-proton radius is a good aproximation for the real electron charge (not mass!) radius, as it corresponds to the electron/positron annihilation energy!

I've read the Landvogt paper. Abandoning unnecessary particles like bosons and gluons and projecting an electron as a loop in stead of a point-particle is a step in the right direction, but as you wrote: "not entirely complete". BSM-SG is in the same direction but miles ahead of the Landvogt paper. BSM-SG is a complete model. It's absolutely worth reading.

Electron according to BSM-SG:

Quote from Wyttenbach

I'm handicapped in reading: So I mostly read PDF's. I' don't buy printed books.
Paying for science is matter of conduct. Either You like a free world or you play the old Greek (US) democracy game, where only the wealthy were free.

Wyttenbach: The reason you are not free is your refusal to play by somebody else's rules. Don't be stubborn: BUY THE BOOK!

(Beyond the Visible Universe is available in PDF:http://spectrumradionetwork.co…DF/flypage.tpl.html?pop=0. It is not the main book but has the basics of the model explained)

http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf

Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

Quote from Karl Fischer

I've read the Landvogt paper. Abandoning unnecessary particles like bosons and gluons and projecting an electron as a loop in stead of a point-particle is a step in the right direction, but as you wrote: "not entirely complete". BSM-SG is in the same direction but miles ahead of the Landvogt paper. BSM-SG is a complete model. It's absolutely worth reading.

@ Karl Fischer: I did read into different parts of BSM SG. The main problem is, that as soon as BSM-SG should reproduce real experimental data, it fails by a margin of up to 10%. Any new theory must at least be able to exactly reproduce the hydrogen atom and its complete spectrum.

But I never dismiss the ideas behind a new theory, because usually concepts are as valuable as the final theory. It's like a hen egg situation. R. Mills GUTCP completely describes most phenomenas known of atomic orbitals and much more. Thus reading exact theories first is a wise decision!

But what we still miss, is the basic link between matter and the background (ether or what you like to call it). SARGS model is way to simple and not scaleable to more than 3 dimensions. As you might know, we need at least 4 (6) dimensions to completely describe all phenomenas of space.

We now see just some light at the horizon and there is a good chance, that physics will see a revolution within the next ten years. It's a pity to see ten thousands of the best educated theoretical physicists to spoil their live with theories that will be degraded soon.
The only chance I see for SARG is, trying to find a gauge, which exactly links his concepts to the accepted reality!