Totally out of my competence zone ... but this paper (Posted on Rossi's site) discusses a 2022 paper on the structure of the electron  a charge moving in a "Zitterbewegung" circular orbit at the speed of light  and proposes a similar structure for the proton  a charge moving on the surface of a torroidal structure.
Claims to overcome all the problems with the quark model, and matches a number of experimental results with reasonable accuracy.
BLP update


Totally out of my competence zone ... but this paper (Posted on Rossi's site) discusses a 2022 paper on the structure of the electron  a charge moving in a "Zitterbewegung" circular orbit at the speed of light  and proposes a similar structure for the proton  a charge moving on the surface of a torroidal structure.
Claims to overcome all the problems with the quark model, and matches a number of experimental results with reasonable accuracy.The Proton and Occam's Razor
https://www.researchgate.net/p…8758_The_Proton_and_Occam's_RazorYes this is not new ideas, but this is most likely different in that I match two helical and add limits to the charge density and I use a very simple model for the interaction that assumes that you must be aligned e.g. two helical loops must be parallel in order for them to interact or you need to consider parallel line segments that are sort of at minimal distance. This allows one to motivate why under this model we can construct a energetically stable geometry and deduce a lot of answers to long list of why's that have not answered yet and mostly punted with current theories. With this amount of puzzles that fit together one wonders a bit of why this is not known already. The math is also on a very fundamental level and anyone with just a one or two years in a technical university is able to understand the deduction that take advantage of the simplistic model that is basically needed in order for e.g. the charge limit to be Lorentz invariant. Something I have not seen people do before. So my answer is that this is not found in the literature are that people complicate stuff too much. Anyway thanks for posting this and indicate that there is work previously that has inspired myself. I only just take it in little different direction and draw the conclusions of it. So no alien math is needed, just some basic human ingenuity and being able to draw strategical conclusions.

Even the two authors of that paper don't agree, so it contains two models (one in the appendix).

You might find this paper more approachable... http://commonsensescience.net/…icles/the_real_proton.pdf

. Anyway thanks for posting this and indicate that there is work previously that has inspired myself. I only just take it in little different direction and draw the conclusions of it. So no alien math is needed, just some basic human ingenuity and being able to draw strategical conclusions.
An optimal choice of the mathematical tools however greatly simplifies the interpretation of equations. In this paper on electron structure the real Clifford algebra Cl_{3,1 }allows
"A geometric−electromagnetic interpretation of mass, relativistic mass, De Broglie wavelength, Proca, Klein−Gordon, Dirac and Aharonov−Bohm equations".

You might find this paper more approachable... http://commonsensescience.net/…icles/the_real_proton.pdf
This interesting paper is cited in the "Proton and Occam's razor" article:
"The advantages of a simple ringshaped proton model were indeed pointed out by David L. Bergman in his paper "The Real Proton" [2]. This approach, while works well for muons, introduces unacceptably large errors if naively used for proton modeling. Firstly, the magnetic moment of such a simple model is equal to the nuclear magneton µN , while the experimental proton magnetic moment value is approximately 2.79 times larger. Secondly, as discussed in section 2.2, the proton's experimental radius value is 0.839 ± 0.007 fm, while the scaled positron model yields a 0.2103 fm Zitterbewegung radius."
Quo vadis, particle physics?
The particle zoo and the parallel to the Middle Ages

I think I have some new exciting result. Turns out that the pitch of the helix is essentially alpha and if we assume that n pitches makes up a full loop
we get e.g. 137 is the number of turns the helix does in one total cycle
1/alpha = n = 137
This explains why 1/alpha is close to an integer natural number. And one also realize that as we need to bend the helix to form a path on a torus, we will need to compress
it a little leading to the real identity for the pitch
alpha f = 1/137
a guess are that f ~ /(1 + r / R)
@Whyttenbach
Do you have a link to that paper that finds alpha from an identity?

Do you have a link to that paper that finds alpha from an identity?
alpha or 2FC is the exact space time compression of the electron orbit. See also Mills.
Here a closed formula for alpha: DE Vries fine_structure_constant.pdf

alpha or 2FC is the exact space time compression of the electron orbit. See also Mills.
Here a closed formula for alpha: DE Vries fine_structure_constant.pdf
Another formula is,
a=alpha
a/(1 a/(x(a)^2  1)) = 1/137
with x(a) solving (this is 2 order polynomial
x = 1  2pi / (1  pi a/(1 + 2pi/(1 4 pi a/x)))

New version of my paper is now out. I have been working hard on this and I like the result now so much that I submitted it to vixra. Anyway it looks like it should be possible to verify the theory as it assumes the mass is different for particles and anti particles. But they are close and the difference is smaller than 0.2%. Currently we measure masses of antiparticles to the precision of 1% so we can't verify it currently but I do not thing 0.2% is out of reach. I have now a pretty good grasp of a theory why about the fine structure constant and why we have 137. It turns out that we have a formula that was just made by trial and error indicate that if we assume that there is a corresponding \alpha to each number of pitches per loop, we will will have r/R = constant * \alpha. This leads to in the end to a unique choice for $N$ in order to match the energy density limit. Of cause I may be wrong, but I did my best to get the theory into a reasonable shape. Enjoy!

New version of my paper is now out. I have been working hard on this and I like the result now so much that I submitted it to vixra. Anyway it looks like it should be possible to verify the theory as it assumes the mass is different for particles and anti particles. But they are close and the difference is smaller than 0.2%. Currently we measure masses of antiparticles to the precision of 1% so we can't verify it currently but I do not thing 0.2% is out of reach. I have now a pretty good grasp of a theory why about the fine structure constant and why we have 137. It turns out that we have a formula that was just made by trial and error indicate that if we assume that there is a corresponding \alpha to each number of pitches per loop, we will will have r/R = constant * \alpha. This leads to in the end to a unique choice for $N$ in order to match the energy density limit. Of cause I may be wrong, but I did my best to get the theory into a reasonable shape.
amazing job, though conclusions are a bit controversial.

amazing job, though conclusions are a bit controversial.
Sure it is stepping out of the traditional thought process. It's a first step and with this work one should be able to find the underlying constants and be able to use them in future work to show more measurements. But currently it's just an hypothesis. I will probably downplay the conclusions in the end as nothing is really proved yet. Anyway take care! not an easy time to live now, not at all!



stefan : Charge is always repelling especially on short distance. So anything like a chain of charge is totally unstable.
The only gluing possible is charge bent by EM flux what also is the basic requirement to produce (EM) mass since Poincaré.
no, in the rest frame of the charges moving at the speed of light they are infinitely separated due to the length contraction. I define the physics there which is ellegant as it automatically means that the defined physics is lorentz invariant. Now the rest frame of something moving at the speed of light is not well defined just like 0/0 is and one need to define the frame through a limiting argument just as lim_{x>0} sin(x)/x = 1.

I am not sure how relevant this is, but the speed of magnetic flux in metals is very finite.
And you can find out  how did you come to this conclusion ... The power of permanent magnets is different ... If so, does this mean that the "magnetic fluxes" are different there? I'm not interested in energy  I'm interested in how this different FORCE is generated?

And you can find out  how did you come to this conclusion .
By measurement. It was about 20 years ago, so the details are hazy but the experiment is simple. Put a solenoid coil around one end of a steel bar say a meter long. Energise the coil to create a short powerful pulse. At the other end of the bar you have a sensor another coil. When the far end of the steel bar becomes magnetised the coil detects the flux and creates a current pulse. Both input pulse and output are measured using an oscilloscope. I cannot remember the lag figure, but it was clear and unambiguous.

By measurement. It was about 20 years ago, so the details are hazy but the experiment is simple. Put a solenoid coil around one end of a steel bar say a meter long. Energise the coil to create a short powerful pulse. At the other end of the bar you have a sensor another coil. When the far end of the steel bar becomes magnetised the coil detects the flux and creates a current pulse. Both input pulse and output are measured using an oscilloscope. I cannot remember the lag figure, but it was clear and unambiguous.
An automobile coil has a finite chargeup time caused by the delay in the core saturation. This is very noticeable on old Multi Spark Discharge systems, where up to 20 sparks per revolution occur at the required time at idle, but only 1 or 2 sparks can squeeze in the timing window at moderately high revolution rates (something like 4500 rpm), and only one spark per rpm is used thereafter.

Hi. That was avoided AMAP by using a lowvoltage highcurrent system with the lowest possible inductance. I think the details must be in store somewhere, if you are interested I can look.

So I need to assemble such a scheme, but there really isn’t anything. Maybe someone has a highvoltage laboratory, maybe you can do my research, this is a very reliable theory, geology will not lie ...
Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.