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

Quote from Alan Smith

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.

This is at least the third time here the proton gets shaved by Occam. Unluckily its nothing new and based on classic SM fantasy. There is no moving charge in a proton a fact you only grasp if you understand the true structure of matter.

Classic charge needs a carrier = mass what excludes light speed. Also a spherical charge topology can be ruled out as spheres are not stable (you need a force to bend the charge...) .

Of all those discussing this topic, Wittenbach is closest to the truth ... I understand many of you - you lived an interesting scientific life, you were taught from textbooks in which people like Maxwell, Milliken, Hertz, Rutherford, Bohr, Dirac, Pauli, but the time has come and we learn with "horror" that Maxwell was engaged in mathematical manipulation and none of his followers noticed this defamation ... We learn that the great Charles Coulomb did not see his mistake - a mathematical mistake when he presented his "regularity" to the world -

Charles Coulomb went against the rules of arithmetic! And this - his mistake, Maxwell also did not see, and thus the fake Coulomb's Law was born ... Do you understand that you "caught this hook" - the incorrect application of the rules of arithmetic in physics?

What a shame - to live an interesting scientific life and stumble over this "petty little thing" ... - arithmetic ...

For example.

You write a harmless phrase - it is known from textbooks to all physicists all over the world - "The quantum of the magnetic flux Φ = h / e stabilizes the trajectory of the proton charge." Do you understand that this physics is fundamentally wrong? There is no "electrostatic charge" "e" on the proton! This is Maxwell's invention - it is the result of his mathematical manipulations - erroneous manipulations. There is no this charge on the proton and the proton does not have an "electric field" ... But the most important thing is that there are no "electric forces" or "Coulomb forces according to Maxwell" in nature, and therefore there is no FORCE that accelerates protons or electrons ... In the accelerator you you get the result. But you are misinterpreting it! It’s not a proton or an electron that flies in the accelerator, but a “mass” - an “ethereal mass” that they move, thanks to clusters of free electrons ... You simply don’t see them ... And they are there and electrons in these clusters "conditionally" stand, not fly ... Therefore, you are not observing electron scattering, but "mass scattering" by free electrons - any track on your photos is a visualization of free electron clusters ... Anderson did not know this in 1932 and therefore he invented the positron, there are no positrons in nature...

I find it funny and sad when physicists try to "satisfy everyone" and reconcile everyone with such reasoning - "Our model uses only relativistic and electromagnetic concepts, emphasizing the primary role of electromagnetic potentials and magnetic flux quantum Φ = h / e. Unlike previous proton models, our methodology does not violate Maxwell's equations, Noether's theorem, or the Pauli exclusion principle Given that the proton has an anapole (toroidal) magnetic moment, we assume that the proton is a spherical charge moving at the speed of light along a trajectory that encloses a toroidal volume. electromagnetic potential" is nonsense in the light of what I said above. Maxwell's equations, which use the strength of the "electric field", are fake. A proton does not move at the speed of light! This is fake too!

Maxwell picked up the unfinished work of Oliver Heavyside - which from memory used Quaternion Mathematics. It has been said that Heavyside was closer to the truth than Maxwell. But I am not expert enough to know

The history of physics turns out to be very interesting after you have worked with it as an investigator who is investigating some kind of crime. I read with interest what William Thomson wrote about Harris. I recommend reading and comparing with what Maxwell-W did. Thomson, Electrostatics and magnetism, 1872

- https://archive.org/details/reprintofpaperso00kelv

For example, page 19.

I am surprised because only a year later Maxwell published his treatise and completely crossed out the paradigm in which both Harris and Thomson argued. Sometimes I come to a fantastic idea - it seems that Maxwell deliberately turned physics in its wrong direction of development.

Did he deliberately misrepresent Thomson? See page 44-45.

Quote from Alan Smith

that moves at the speed of light along a path that encloses a toroidal volume.

I guess the toroidal volume for the "OccamRazor" proton is 3D

I think this is different from the 4D Clifford Torus in Wyttenbach's model

which is more fun.,,

An interesting visualisation is at

Clif4d: A Track-Torus

The rendering below is a Clifford torus, a figure that lives in four dimensions, on the 3-sphere (in fact, cutting it into two equal halves). You can rotate…

observablehq.com

use shift-drag for 4D effects

there are more than 10(28) protons in the human body

so we may have a fair bit of 4D space inside us..

lenr-forum.com/attachment/22236/

What problems do modern physicists have if we examine the texts of treatises of physicists of the past? They are problems that come from the fact that none of you wants to understand the relationship between what was written by these physicists in the past with the texts that are presented to you in modern textbooks and in modern information resources ... You are not able to understand at what point retransmission of the knowledge of physicists of the past, forgery and transformation of this knowledge took place ... You are not interested in this, since you are "infected" with authoritarian thinking, naively believing that they are the followers of Charles Coulomb, they acted completely responsibly and impeccably ... You even have such thoughts it doesn’t occur to me that the followers of Charles Coulomb could simply trivially make a mistake and thus, due to their fatal mistakes, lead you, modern physicists, into an impasse in physics ... In this impasse, you are completely deprived of the opportunity to correctly interpret any most -the most wonderful and delightful experiment... You are not able to look at yourself from the outside and you naively enjoy your delusions... But the time comes and one of you starts to find contradictions... He starts asking you unpleasant questions about this... You start arguing, swearing among yourselves... But at the same time, all of you are not able to correctly to reason as you all as one rely on that false physics that one of the "great" physicists imperceptibly and maybe accidentally threw up to you ... For example, Maxwell turned out to be such a "hooligan" ... None of the physicists for 150 years even could imagine that this person is capable of making mistakes... We were all infected with authoritarian thinking and believed that such a "great" physicist as Maxwell was not capable of making mistakes... But it turned out that this was not so... Very capable was Maxwell and made his fatal mistakes...

Mathematics in physics works wonders - all the fantasies of physicists because of mathematics ...

By the way ... It is about mathematics that William Thomson writes on page 15 -

"Thus, the problem of the distribution of electricity in equilibrium on a conductor of any shape was transferred to the field of mathematical analysis; but the solution, even in the simplest cases, was such a difficulty that Coulomb, having studied it experimentally for bodies of various shapes, could only compare his measurements with the results of his theory using very crude methods of approximation."

The key phrase is "transferred to the field of mathematical analysis ..." Written in 1872 ... Today you have the results of research by millions of physicists behind you, you boldly use such concepts as "electron", "proton", neutron "... And Thomson and Harris did not know anything about this and were forced to engage in "mathematical analysis" ... Maxwell did the same ... It was mathematics that led physicists to those delusions that we today "sip with a huge spoon" and do not understand the tragedy of the situation ...

Some time ago I mentioned that this video existed and that caused a polemic.

It mentions Maxwell and Heavyside, perhaps it could be of interest for this and others discussions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There is no moving charge in a proton a fact you only grasp if you understand the true structure of matter.

I'm trying to understand it...

The magnetic flux bit is OK for me..

Like Faraday trying to understand Maxwell?

So 'visible' ''measurable?' charge is generated in 4D?

by flux around the proton radius?

and..gravitational mass is part of 'classic EM Mass'?

Faraday would be elated

This cartoon reconstructs history.

but the communist manifesto was 1848...

a few years later

not Faraday's cup of tea..

3.1

What is the base of SO(4) physics (SOP)?

Basically SOP shows how to integrate/project Maxwell equations, basically the forces, into 6D dense matter structures.

All mass is classic EM mass and “occurs” between magnetic flux lines and topological charge.

All charge is classic virtual (topological) charge

generated by nested magnetic flux.

From this it is obvious,

given by the nature of magnetic flux,

that the surface of the acting physical space must be single sided,

because magnetic field lines do not cross.

The topology must be toroidal as the finally generated external visible charge cannot have a singularity.

SO(4) is the first space that allows us to express Maxwell equivalent force equations under total symmetry

in connection with the needed topology (2:1 force action[17]) due to its Clifford torus (CT) center symmetry space.

Further it is well known that the CT is a minimal Lagrangian surface[ That means the CT is an absolute “center” of mass & force and all deviation from its surface leads to excess energy orbits.

arXiv:1710.00322.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305787334_Covariant_theory_of_gravitation_in_the_framework_of_special_relativity/figures?lo=1

Quote from Cherepanov2020

What problems do modern physicists have if we examine the texts of treatises of physicists of the past?

The main problem was the missing of computers. So everybody used linear (tensor) systems. So now we have a very deep understanding of linear equivalent mathematics what includes the structure of mathematics itself.

Unluckily the electric force between the two known different charges is not linear. Of course Maxwell physics works fine in the far field where the force is degenerated and linear.

So physics is perfect for most engineering. But physicists still know nothing about the nature of charge & mass that still are axioms. The structure of particles is totally unknown or even worse based on sandbox fantasies like quarks that just show a regular scattering pattern at some > 50..100GeV...

So please be precise with critics! Charge is real for engineering physics at least, not so for basic physics where just the Biot Savart operator is real.

A good physicist is one that exactly knows the limits of the models he uses!

If you can't present a better model then criticizing "old ones" is a childish act.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is at least the third time here the proton gets shaved by Occam. Unluckily its nothing new and based on classic SM fantasy. There is no moving charge in a proton a fact you only grasp if you understand the true structure of matter.

Classic charge needs a carrier = mass what excludes light speed. Also a spherical charge topology can be ruled out as spheres are not stable (you need a force to bend the charge...) .

This means only that you haven't read the pre-print!

"classic SM" ? really ?

Quote from RobertBryant

I guess the toroidal volume for the "OccamRazor" proton is 3D

The toroid enclosed by the trajectory is 3d but the charge's time coordinate t (4th dimension) is characterized by a specific period T (De Broglie period) and by an angle 2pi*t/T that is the charge Zittrebewegung phase. The time derivative of this angle is equal, in natural units, to the proton mass and to the module of the charge momentum p=eA=mc

Quote from gio06

The toroid enclosed by the trajectory is 3d

Hi Gio .. I read the first sentence

"Otto Stern's 1933 measurement of the unexpectedly large proton magnetic moment

indicated to most physicists that the proton is not a point particle."

and a bit more.

Otto Stern would have been dismayed to see the

" quark plus super glue-on " model for protons and neutrons

currently marketed in the popular press!

About your model moment calculation..

the proton magnetic moment is not explicitly calculated

but you use a 3D major torus radius of 0:5873608214 10􀀀^-15m

in the Wyttenbach model ,the SO(4) 4D ?radius (0.59458487...)

is calculated from 3D 'measured radius geometrically via Sqrt 2.

The Wyttenbach calculation for the model moment appears to be almost exact (7 s.f.).

after corrections for flux compression.

What is the explicit proton moment calculation in your current model.?

But ,as you know, a model is more than a moment...

In addition can your model accommodate

1.proton mass calculation

2.."strong force" calculation

Quote from Edo

that we introduce structure, which is inevitable!

The model structure of the proton needs to specify known values such as mass and moment

before we build/model complicated structures...like bricks in a house,

QCD bricks are low quality

QCD proton magnetic moment

1.4 +-0.1 versus 1.41060607..,,x10^-26 JT^-1

QCD proton mass

930+- 30? versus 938.2720813 Mev

http://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/talk_09_psi.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2043289_Non-perturbative_chiral_corrections_for_lattice_QCD/figures?lo=1

"

Quote from gio06

The time derivative of this angle is equal, in natural units, to the proton mass and to the module of the charge momentum p=eA=mc

I explicitly did go back to the fundamentals - also in math. To much in current physics is sandbox knowledge = we believe/describe what we see like children.

Of course there never can be an orbiting charge as this violates momentum conservation and leads to an inhomogeneous action. Further charge can never stay on a flat surface as charge is repulsive.

A simple torus therefor can be ruled out as a solution of any mass as this also leads to an inhomgeneous charge density.

Key is to understand that EM flux/mass moves at light speed and generates what we call topological charge. As we see the mirror of this we assume the mass = EM flux as stationary and hence believe that the charge is moving at light speed.

The other problem is that the relation of charge/ EM flux is highly asymmetric = the charge bound energy is much much smaller than the EM flux energy. This is something you can find out when you do a little bit more "real" work.

Real physics starts in your brain. You have to deeply understand rotating mass mechanics and how quantum mechanics evolves from coupled rotating mass. (This was already clear at Sommerfelds time!!) You have to understand that a stable mass must be a minimal Lagrangian. You must understand that only a structure of genus >= 2 can hold flux else the flux radiates away. Further only a self enclosing manifold can hold flux that generates topological charge.

And please forget SM bullshit like helicity = charge. This is just one part of the condition all said above must hold in parallel too.

I hope that you now understand that your model violates all necessary conditions for a stable mass solution.

Quote from RobertBryant

the proton magnetic moment is not explicitly calculated

but you use a 3D major torus radius of 0:5873608214 10^-15m

....

1.proton mass calculation

2.."strong force" calculation

The proton magnetic moment is computed multiplying the toroidal component of the current Ipt =(alpha/2pi)Apt for the enclosed area pi*Rpt^2. Apt is the toroidal component of the charge vector potential (mv/e=Apt) and Rpt is the major radius. m is the proton mass and v the toroidal component of the charge speed c.

The proton mass is simply the inverse of the minor radius in natural units. m=1/rpp=eAp

The strong force is an attractive magnetic force between the nucleons.

Quote from gio06

The strong force is an attractive magnetic force between the nucleons.

Thanks Gio

There is a lot of work there,I see that you have fixed the toroidal/poloidal radii with moment and mass..

1/rpp = 938.272083

rpp= 1:06578893 x 10^-9 eV 􀀀

About the 'strong' force

The proton is one nucleon.
The magnetic forces that hold it together have an interesting dependency on radial distance

I look forward to seeing your ideas on that..

Perhap they are not as colourful as the 2004 Nobel Prize winners' explanation..

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004 was awarded jointly to David J. Gross, H. David Politzer and Frank Wilczek "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the…

www.nobelprize.org

The "strong force" is a good example of Occam's razor violation. Why is it necessary to invoke another kind of force in an environment with huge magnetic forces? Moreover, the coulomb repulsion between charges that move parallelly at speed of light can be fully balanced by the Lorentz force.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CookNmodelsofth.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328701802_A_SOLUTION_TO_THE_80_YEARS_OLD_PROBLEM_OF_THE_NUCLEAR_FORCE

Quote from RobertBryant

The magnetic forces that hold it together have an interesting dependency on radial distance

I look forward to seeing your ideas on that..

Perhap they are not as colourful as the 2004 Nobel Prize winners' explanation..

https://www.nobelprize.org/pri…ysics/2004/press-release/

Quote from gio06

environment with huge magnetic forces?

Thanks Gio

the referred works by Norman Cook(huge)

and Paolo di Sia are great works

they give some ideas for the force between nucleons

but do not answer my question

which does not conflict with

"pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"

how do the huge 'magnetic forces' hold a single proton together

what keeps the torus stable?

I look forward to your answer..with calculations if possible

you mention

"centripetal magnetic force:

both your and Wyttenbachs's models are amazing to me..

the mass and moment calculations are within my grasp

but

I am still trying to understand his 'strong force equation' after two years..

Quote from gio06

Moreover, the coulomb repulsion between charges that move parallelly at speed of light can be fully balanced by the Lorentz force.

There is no need to invent a fantasy mass less charge what you would need to complete your case. It looks like you miss basic logic of physics as classically charge needs a carrier. If not you have to define how it looks like and where it moves (Torus) to form a perfect uniform surface. Then you have to show how this charge generates a field to bend itself....This, of course, does not work with a torus.