Is the neutron actually less massive than the proton is?!

Quote from Wyttenbach

You ask the wrong question... Where is the charge going to....

It seems to me that we do not understand each other ... You are quoting an excerpt from my article, and the excerpt contains a quote from an article by Philip Mikhailovich Kanarev, with which I did not agree ... This is the first ... Second - you want to talk about this - "Where is the charge going to..."

But I have repeatedly written on this forum - my analysis of the "Electrostatics" section of Maxwell's treatise "Electricity and Magnetism" from 1873 showed that Maxwell made 6 fatal errors in his reasoning and mathematical manipulations ... For this reason, i.e. taking into account these 6 mistakes of Maxwell, and taking into account the treatises of Charles Coulomb (1785), William Thomson (1872), I came to the conclusion that Maxwell not only made mistakes, but also perverted the teachings of Charles Coulomb. There was no Maxwell's law, which he "called" "Coulomb's Law", in nature there was and is not. Also, there is no "electric charge according to Maxwell" in nature ... But what is there? In 2011, Georgy Shpenkov described the electric charge as the speed of mass movement -

[3] G. P. Shpenkov, What the electric charge is; http://shpenkov.com/pdf/Elec-Charge.pdf

In 2022, I - Aleksey Ivanovich Cherepanov, independently of Shpenkov, came to the conclusion that electric current is the movement of free electrons of the ethereal mass or photon mass.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

In 2022, I - Aleksey Ivanovich Cherepanov, independently of Shpenkov, came to the conclusion that electric current is the movement of free electrons of the ethereal mass or photon mass.

Here we can agree: Current is not transported by electrons as a such. The EM flux of the electron couples as magnetic spin current that induces the charge effect at the end of a transmitter.

The speed of electrons is just a few mm in a conductor.

Charge - what we measure as such - is produced when we separate two EM flux loops. We (SO(4) physics) can show that the electron is a resonant mass of the proton.

The Coulomb law is a far field law and does not hold for particles as the shape is not spherical.

See also:: https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037

Quote from Wyttenbach

Current is not transported by electrons as a such.

This is something that has caused a controversy raised by a rather popular scientific divulgation YouTube Channel called Veritassium, which stated that electrons did not flow through wires carrying energy as is often depicted, but that it flows through the EM field that arises when a circuit is formed. I found the whole controversy very entertaining as it came from someone as mainstream as it can be. He of course offers only maisntream explanations, but the fact that this was discussed at all was fascinating for me.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

It seems to me that we do not understand each other ..

an understatement.....

"My task on this site is for each of you to accustom yourself to the idea that any of us can be wrong,

that the great physicists from whom we studied physics were also wrong" Cherepanov 2020..

Question 1.

Does any of us include " I - Aleksey Ivanovich Cherepanov" ?

Question 2?

Did you actually look at Unzicker's QED ... or is youtube banned where you are,

like #Kherson is banned?

It appears that at least three Nobel prize winners

Tominaga, Feynman, Schwinger were indeed "wrong"

With regards to Dr Kanarev from the Kuban... .. God Bless Him

I quite like his torus model of the electron..

Question 3,4

Did you, manage to calculate the magnetic moment of the Kanarev electron?

Did it correspond with the measured value?

−9.2847647043(28)×10⁻²⁴ J⋅T⁻¹.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V07NO3PDF/V07N3kan.PDF

Quote from RobertBryant

Что касается доктора Канарева с Кубани... .. Дай Бог ему здоровья

Мне очень нравится его торическая модель электрона.

Вопрос 3,4

Удалось ли вам вычислить магнитный момент канарёвского электрона?

Соответствовало ли оно измеренному значению?

−9.2847647043(28)×10⁻²⁴ J⋅T⁻¹.

http://redshift.vif.com/Journa…01/V07NO3PDF/V07N3kan.PDF

Display More

I briefly analyzed the fatal delusions of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich here -

Quote from Cherepanov2020

fatal delusions of Kanarev

Did Kanarev survive his ah.." fatal" delusions?

Yevtushenko..1961 Siberia

"The twentieth century has often fooled us.
We've been squeezed in by falsehood as by taxes.
The breath of life has denuded our ideas
as quickly as it strips a dandelion."

Probably this applies to 20C Quantum Mechanics

but we are almost a quarter of the way through a new century..

the dandelion blooms again soon

Does the iconoclast of Maxwell thru to Kanarev,

Cherepanov, build something new. a blooming dandelion

.. a new model of the electron.?

Perhaps this can be continued on another thread.the iconoclast one.....

Edo,

I noticed that apart from binding energies you a have as a goal

Modelling gamma energies

As you probably know a brief search of the 'standard' wisdom

yields just empirical correlations..wishy washy stuff

it seems that 20C quantum mechanics fails to model anything with less than a 300,000 eV error

whereas gamma spectra yield results which are much more accurate

example Li7..the 477.612 line which appears to be with an error of 1 eV

Gamma spectra are relevant to LENR because the gamma 'jumps' or energy packages of that size may be intermediates from the large 20 Mev delta down to emitted packets of energy in the infrared level... 0.2 ev (6 microns, 300C) and less.

You may be aware that SO(4) provides a more accurate means of modelling than empirical wishwash.

The Li6 first line calculation appears to have an error of only 3 EV.

.

Cherepanov2020

I wish to thank you. Your observation about the extra 1.531 electron mass and lack of a neutrino has reinforced my ideas concerning the nature of an electron. That is, it has size and shape. The 1.531 electron mass is due to work done in squeezing the electron down to the fentameter level. Obviously, when the neutron decays the energy is reabsorbed by the electron. No neutrino needed.

There is a process for calculating the energy stored in a charge distribution by using the Calculus and bringing elements of charge into the distribution from infinity. If we model the electron by a thin spherical she'll of charge of radius a, the energy goes as k/a. Decreasing a then requires work to be done, an input of energy.

Quote from GRMattson

No neutrino needed.

Unluckily something like neutrinos does exist. But the most brilliant people on the planet (SM church adepts) so far did 1000% fail to find the photon structure/nature and thus we still deal with a ghost.

In many cases neutrinos are used as an excuse for a missing mass explanation....

The (rest-) mass so far cannot exceed 0.1eV.

If a positron and an electron meet normally 3 photon are generated almost never two. The famous 511keV gamma is a myth as it almost exclusively is produce by nuclear decays.

The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/T6Ca/pGqyanpRZ

The pattern of Charles Coulomb from 1785 is exactly this, on October 17, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…rgs7pmLI/edit?usp=sharing

Quote from Edo

When we on the other hand destroy the deuteron, we have to input of that amount of energy.

Edo,, Can you elaborate on that? the deuteron is fairly stable..perhaps God 'destroys'

Do you mean when 2 deuterons fuse to become a helium atom..

I agree with your ~1.442 Mev as the ppe delta for the deuteron

Your contention that helium forms from 4 protons and 2e ? rather than 2n2p

and that the free neutron is not involved.I agree with..

the following excerpt from SO(4) is instructive,

presumably 3He from pp(pe)

I guess we can think of the 'neutron' as a 'proton -electron' construct' (pe)

with a 'charge' of some sort, Unlike Wyttenbach I cannot think in 6D..:) 4D gives me a headache,

I

I think you are trying to make a bonding schema that predicts energies and structures for the

Periodic Table,,, a noble cause. It depends on what accuracy you want.. The SO(4) modelling

is lots of work for lots of PhD students/researchers..for decades..

but it seems to be a lot more accurate than QED/QCD or any empirical method

the particular modelling here for C12 is 240eV accurate..out of 11.18Mevs..

But the most important thing for the planet right now is LENR,,. not C12,,

Edo

The decay of the neutron is not delayed for the half life of the particle. Rather half of the initial number of particles has decayed by the time the half life has expired. All that tells us is that there is a random process that determines when a neutron decays. Another way to put it is that the same percentage of remaining neutrons decays each second. It's a lot like how inflation robs the value of the dollar every month.

Quote from RobertBryant

think in 6D

Unzicker is just starting with SO(4) ..since 2021

in Portugal

he used to be an SM follower..then found S3

he must have seen the light

or a quaternion

maybe he can think in 6D now..better than me

Thank you to everyone contributing to this discussion, which is yielding (for me at least) some interesting concepts as well as a sense that SM ultras will have to accept that all is not well with current models. As an experimenter rather than any kind of theoretician I appreciate the fundamental importance of clear models of the behavior of matter, something we very clearly do not have.

Edo

I'd like to share a calculation I did some time ago involving the half life of thorium. Joseph Papp claimed his engine was nuclear based and said he placed 8 grams of thorium in the engine (4 grams each cylinder). I wanted to know how many alpha particles were emitted per second. Here's how I solved it.

Let T represent the number of atoms of (assumed pure) thorium, 8.949x10^19 atoms initially. Let f be the fraction that decays per year. The half life of thorium is 14 billion years so f is very small.

The first year Txf decays, so after one year. Tx(1-f) is left. After two years Tx(1-f)^2 is left. After N years Tx(1-f)^N is left. After 1.4x10^10 years T/2 is left.

(Tx(1-f)^1.4x10^10)=T/2

Take the logarithm of both sides:

LnT+1.4x10^10xLn(1-f)=LnT-Ln2

The LnT's cancel, the Ln(1-f) can be approximated (very well in this case) by -f,and Ln2=0.693, so we can write:

( -f)x1.4x10^10=-.693

f=4.43x10^9 atoms decaying per year.

Or 140.5 alpha particles per second.

You can also solve the problem directly in terms of seconds. That's the beauty of logarithms. They tame big numbers.

Protons may be stretchier than physics predicts

Quarks inside the particles seem to move more than they should in an electric field

At the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Va., the team probed protons by firing electrons at a target of ultracold liquid hydrogen. Electrons scattering off protons in the hydrogen revealed how the protons’ quarks respond to electric fields (SN: 9/13/22). The higher the electron energy, the deeper the researchers could see into the protons, and the more the electrons revealed about how the strong force works inside protons.

For the most part, the quarks moved as expected when electric interactions pulled the particles in opposite directions. But at one point, as the electron energy was ramped up, the quarks appeared to respond more strongly to an electric field than theory predicted they would. But it only happened for a small range of electron energies, leading to a bump in a plot of the proton’s stretch. See also:

Physicists surprised to discover the proton contains a charm quark

The Proton and Occam's Razor

September 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33959.62883/1

Giorgio Vassallo, Andras Kovacs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363770513_The_Proton_and_Occam%27s_Razor

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.