The church of SM physics

  • preprint: Proton model with Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics


    Abstract:

    "Otto Stern's 1933 measurement of the unexpectedly large proton magnetic moment indicated to most physicists that the proton is not a point particle. At that time, many physicists modeled elementary particles as point particles, and therefore Stern's discovery initiated the speculation that the proton might be a composite particle. In this work, we show that despite being an elementary particle, the proton is an extended particle. Our work is motivated by the experimental data, which we review in section 1. By applying Occam's Razor principle, we identify a simple proton structure that explains the origin of its principal parameters. Our model uses only relativistic and electromagnetic concepts, highlighting the primary role of the electromagnetic potentials and of the magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e. Unlike prior proton models, our methodology does not violate Maxwell's equation, Noether's theorem, or the Pauli exclusion principle. Considering that the proton has an anapole (toroidal) magnetic moment, we propose that the proton is a spherical shaped charge that moves at the speed of light along a path that encloses a toroidal volume. A magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e stabilizes the proton's charge trajectory. The two curvatures of the toroidal and poloidal current loops are determined by the magnetic forces associated with Φ. We compare our calculations against experimental data."

  • By applying Occam's Razor principle, we i

    ..... Fail once more to understand the most basic elements of physics..


    Citation: The other half of the proton mass comprises its magnetic energy



    This is total nonsense. Maxwell equations are not symmetric. The origin for this garbage is the old photon envelope function that makes the same wrong claim. Key is to find a topology where E-field and B-field produce a stable nucleus.


    Other nonsense is charge that travels at light speed... Only EM flux travels at light speed. So far nobody ever could find a charge traveling at light speed...



  • From Dirac Nobel Lecture


    https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dirac-lecture.pdf


    "It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by experiments"

  • The electron’s circular orbit at the speed of light constitutes

    Such people should be detained into mad house. Such papers I read when there is no comedy available on TV.


    No particle with a claimed mass can move at light speed....

    From Dirac Nobel Lecture

    Dirac is the origin of the mess in physics. His famous equation is the biggest blunder in physics history that contains at least two major conceptual errors. Such things happen if a mathematician with no clue of physics start to produce a new fantasy world...


    https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037

  • Dirac is the origin of the mess in physics. His famous equation is the biggest blunder

    Dirac has many disciples,,,

    https://av.tib.eu/media/42651

    but Nature is a bit more complex than the 1939 Bra-Ket

    "

    4.1.2 There is no Bra-Ket symmetry
    The most basic form of energy is photons and not field energy. Photon transport (besides radiation fields) is the most
    universal form of energy exchange in the whole universe. For simple cases of photon transport in an electron shell the
    Bra-Ket operator works fine as photon is pretty close to a wave. But transforming an arbitrary mass into field/photon
    energy does not fit the formalism!
    The misconception of transforming mass into energy was based on the experimental finding

    that an electron can be transformed into a gamma photon of 511keV. [7]

    But for this you need a positron to complete the operation

    Unluckily, also here, nature shows – most of the time - no symmetric decay of a free e+/e- “pair”

    into two 511keV – Bra-Ket symmetric - photons.

    Normally e+/e- undergo a binding reaction and do form out a positronium.

    This introduces a secondary orbital momentum, which perturbs the decay.

    Only e+/e- inside dense mass (in para state) can potentially undergo a symmetric 511keV decay.

    But also there the 511keV is just a small peak and not the main event. See [7]fig. 7.9.

    So nobody ever found that you generally can symmetrically split mass into two waves that
    do conform with classic field models. This was a historical speculation only
    ...



    [7] Yoshihiko Hatano Yosuke Katsumura A. Mozumder, Charged Particle and Photon Interactions with Matter Recent
    Advances, Applications, and Interfaces, CRC Press Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4398-1180-1, 2011 Chapter VII

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305702849_A_feasibility_study_of_ortho-positronium_decays_measurement_with_the_J-PET_scanner_based_on_plastic_scintillators/link/57b0f88308ae15c76cba29ce/download

  • No particle with a claimed mass can move at light speed....

    None of the cited papers says that. It's the massless electron's charge that moves at speed of light (Zitterbewegung).

    Indeed, this explains the light speed limit and the very origin of the inertial mass.

    Mass is not an "intrinsic" property of a particle but a consequence of its charge Zbw.

    -------

    Erroneous interpretations of the Dirac equation are the true "origin of the mess in physics".

  • so charge

    Erroneous interpretations of the Dirac equation

    Iits not just the equation but the theory and assumptions behind it,,,"


    Thus in allowing negative-energy states, the theory gives something which
    appears not to correspond to anything known experimentally,
    but which we
    cannot simply reject by a new assumption.

    We must find some meaning for these states.
    An examination of the behaviour of these states in an electromagnetic field
    shows that they correspond to the motion of an electron with a positive
    charge instead of the usual negative one - what the experimenters now call
    a positron.

    One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons in
    negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will not do, because the
    observed positrons certainly do not have negative energies.

    We can, however, establish ‘a connection between electrons in negative-energy states and
    positrons, in a rather more indirect way.


    We make use of the exclusion principle of Pauli, according to which
    there can be only one electron in any state of motion. We now make the
    assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all the states of negative
    energy for the electrons are occupied, .


    .https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dirac-lecture.pdf

    etc usw zbw..:)

  • so charge

    Iits not just the equation but the theory and assumptions behind it,,,"


    etc usw zbw..:)

    A special point of view on charge dynamic

    https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0187v1.pdf

    "Waves of Charge and Four Dimensional Analytic Functions"

    "Basically, the paper concerns the generalization of the Cauchy-Riemann equations to spacetime, so (Hestenes, quote) we can expect it to have a rich variety of solutions. The problem is to pick out those solutions with physical significance. I could expect Hopfions, EVOs and so on. I write only the conclusions, skipping all the speculations and physical
    meanings that led me to this.""

    "As I said, I write only the final results of the argument , skipping all the speculations that led me right here. I only say , as far as my notations are concerned , that a brief but exhaustive explanation can be found in a few, few pages, of [1 ]. Other interesting readings are in Bibliography. Of other avant-garde and more or less contested topics, EVO by Shoulders , Condensed Plasmoids , Ball Lightning etc I have found no trace in the official scientific literature, therefore I have not put them in the Bibliography. However, they can be
    found on the Internet."

  • It's the massless electron's charge that moves at speed of light (Zitterbewegung).

    Indeed, this explains the light speed limit and the very origin of the inertial mass.

    If you switch the side of your logic then you simply can see that in the rest frame of any particle the EM flux as usual moves at light speed and charge is at rest what confirms that charge is a topological effect. From the particle point of view everything is 100% clear. But most physicist lack a basic education in logic and just think in the way the learned it as children in the sand box.


    Charge as defined by Maxwell and standard model cannot move at light speed as it needs a carrier. Charge paths cannot cross as charge is repulsive. Charge is never stable on a classic 3D torus without being coupled with mass as it is repulsive. Zitterbewegung is the result of topological charge that is induced outside the minimal Lagrangian (CT) of the strong force coupled EM flux that forms all particles including photons.

    Did you know that no particle has a stable orbital momentum of h'/2 ? This has also been believed because of a lack in logic education. The magnetic moment of e,p just is random at any point in time and does not work like Bohrs sand box planet image.

    Only in a field.,due to interaction, the moment axis is coupled and does precision around a claimed axes. Then the magnitude of h', h'/2 is OK.

  • Charge as defined by Maxwell and standard model cannot move at light speed as it needs a carrier.

    Charge e and magnetic flux h/e are the two sides of the same coin. You cannot separate them at microscopic (Compton scale) level. The concept of "massive charged particles" is only an approximation that only works at macroscopic scale.

  • Except that one side of the coin is much smaller....99% of the mass is EM flux and about 1% is the induced charge coupling.

    Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The mass is a consequence of the charge momentum mc=eA. The electron momentum is just the component of this momentum in the direction of electron velocity mv=eAv.

    Newton law has a pure electromagnetic origin:

    F = ma = m dv/dt = edAv/dt

  • Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The mass is a consequence of the charge momentum mc=eA. The electron momentum is just the component of this momentum in the direction of electron velocity mv=eAv.

    Newton law has a pure electromagnetic origin:

    F = ma = m dv/dt = edAv/dt

    gio06 , you are probably familiar with the DTS idea of Cardone and the late Mignani, they sustain the Minkowski Spacetime is anisotropic, or can be made anisotropic by way of energy. I just mention it because you are using it as starting point.


    I really am a mere spectator of this interesting discussion, having read a lot of different views I tend to see what are the parallels and incompatibilities between them.


    Jürg’s ideas are mind bending, I had to read a lot of other material just to get enough of a grasp of what a 4 dimensional rotation means, but what is more impressive about them is their heuristic ability and the fact that it connects the so called forces as mere manifestations of the electromagnetism. I am not an advocate of his ideas as much as I have a thin understanding of their full implications, but find them intriguing enough to keep studying them as much as I can.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Jürg’s ideas are mind bending, I had to read a lot of other material just to get enough of a grasp of what a 4 dimensional rotation means, but what is more impressive about them is their heuristic ability and the fact that it connects the so called forces as mere manifestations of the electromagnetism.

    The electron's charge helicoidal trajectory can be described by two orthogonal rotations in the four dimensions (six planes) of Minkowski spacetime. One rotation is an ordinary rotation, while the second one is an hyperbolic rotation and is at origin of the relativistic mass increase. Both rotations can be encoded together in a single spinor (eight real values) of the spacetime algebra [Cl3,1(ℝ) Clifford Algebra]

  • Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

    As I did note in "basics of physics" most physicists missed a class in basic logic and category theory. Further they never did think about the stability of their proposed solutions. All physics based on S3 (SO(3) x..) as a solution space is ridiculous. Flat surfaces cannot carry charge as there is no stable configuration. Also the missing of basic mechanics classes is obvious. All stable solutions must be based on a stable minimal Lagrangian surface. This implies 2DF models as Farhad Ghabussis https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi did prove a long time ago.

    One rotation is an ordinary rotation, while the second one is an hyperbolic rotation and is at origin of the relativistic mass increase.

    This is nonsense logic. For hyperbolic rotations you have to provide the force equation. And as said no light speed allowed for an electron. Further if you couple two rotations this always leads to a oscillation along the third axis (from basic - advanced mechanics classes) also this equation must be provided. There is always an an exchange of energy among coupled rotating orbits!


    Physics is not a simple mind business as most SM freaks make us claim.

    Further all spaces used in SM are linear but the near field of e/p are not linear. May be once consult Jackson about when (far field only) you can use such SM like approaches.

  • Definitely proton is charming

    Ciao Gio...Apropos nothing ..Your link is from June 1980?

    however ,I do read with interest the latest 'charming' QCD revelation..from the mainstream Higgsers..

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08372.pdf


    "A toy PDF set at Q0 = √ 2 GeV is evolved up to Q = 100 GeV for equal values of the factorization and renormalization scales, Qf = Qr = Q. We show as representative results those corresponding to the total valence quark V and the quark singlet Σ distributions. Excellent agreement is found, in particular with PEGASUS which also perform QCD evolution"


    Here are some views on renormalisation via a physicist who gave up on physics

    I have reassured him that there is 'hope for physics' and invited him back into the fray,,