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

Quote from RobertBryant

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

Yes this is a tough one. In "reality" the EM flux runs on the CT surface on all 4 circular radius like orbits. One full orbit is 8 circular rotations. As the classic 3D torus surface is the natural 3D projection of the CT flux we can use the torus measure to calculate the forces.

The true complication is the fifth rotation iduces by the generated topological charge. This adds one more circle to the torus orbits and enlarges the radius by the O(5) measure square root 3 versus 2^1/2 for CT.

The rest is just setting all 4 rotation equivalent mass centrifugal force equivalent to the center force by the topological charge.

Here we treat the charge as an attractive current hence you see e².

To see the two virtual currents (in fact EM mass rotates) you have to visualize the rotating CT that produces 2 parallel charge segments. CT is a partially closed surface what means that any line going through CT passes 2 different charge segments.

6D is complicated and you have to start with teh plain 4D CT and e.g. a simple projection to understand what the 5th rotation does introduce.

The only approximation I do in the strong force equation is using teh 4D mass together with the 2D potential mass what leads to a slight asymmetry. The correction for the 5th rotation is obvious as a charge coupling always is 1FC (electro weak force). The same you see in the gravitation formula!

Quote from RobertBryant

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

The stability is determined by an appropriate stationary Action condition. The relative Lagrangian L for Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics is very simple:

dφ = eA . cdt = eVdt

dφ/dt = eA = eV = m = 1/Rpp

L = eA . c - eV = 0

The curvatures of the trajectory are determined by the Lorentz forces generated by a magnetic flux Φ_M= h/e. Elementary charges are always associated at microscopic level to this magnetic flux.

Quote from gio06

The stability is determined by an appropriate stationary Action condition. The relative Lagrangian L for Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics is very simple:

As said you must prove that you uniformly cover the whole surface of a minimal lagrangian. All spheres are not stable minimal Lagrangians.

It is not enough just to cite a differential equation. In physics you always have to show the proper solution (-space) of the differential equation. All standard model solutions (spaces) don't work due to missing uniformity or instability. See Farhad Ghabussis on RG.

Thanks Gio

I need to read the paper more closely

Lagrangian..sounds more accessible than Hamiltonian

I remember doing some simple Lagrangian in high school last century

Wyttenbach also uses a Lagrangian.. but not the same one..

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi/3

Quote from gio06

he relative Lagrangian L for Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics is very simple:

One more remark. The electron (proton) classically does not produce a known 4 potential (A) as the "static field" of the electron/proton magnetic moment (the strongest field indeed) is not co-linear with the B field of the moving electron/proton. (In fact the moment does freely rotate around all axes)

This is the main reason why the Dirac equation fails for everything about matter in the near field. The other is the wrong equality of mass and field.

Simple equations only solve simple problems. SM like physics = children physics = sand box physics.

Quote from Alan Smith

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi/3

Ghaboussi published in 1997.

[3] F.GHABOUSSI, Department of Physics, University of Konstanz A Topological Approach to Quantum

Electrodynamics arXiv:9710092v2.pdf. 22 October 1997

He mentions Aharonov-Bohm

"We discuss a two dimensional topological approach to quantum electrodynamics which can be helpful to

understand dynamical aspects of two dimensional topological quantum effects such as flux quantization,

cyclotron motion, Aharonov-Bohm effect and QHE. Note that all these effects can be considered as two

dimensional quantum electrodynamical phase effects caused by a magnetic field which is perpendicular

to the two dimensional surface of motion of electrons."

Quote from RobertBryant

[3] F.GHABOUSSI, Department of Physics, University of Konstanz A Topological Approach to Quantum

Electrodynamics arXiv:9710092v2.pdf. 22 October 1997

The main purpose behind this study was showing that physics has a so called 2DF structure. What means 2D motion/rotation with a 1D action the basic principle of rotating mass. This rules out that any general 3D (3D,t) structure (3D field generators) of any physical problem does exist.

The next allowed topology is 2DF x 2DF = 4DF' or 4D(F*F). This is the same we do in SO(4) physics.

So from this you can see that 3DF (SO(3)) as used in SM is nonsensical.

Quote from Alan Smith

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Farhad-Ghaboussi/3

Farhad Ghaboussi

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359370105_Dimensional_structure_of_physics_and_mathematics_extended

"Thus also related quantities such as mass, momentum, potential and current are of 1/L quantities in geometric units included in a 2D curved geometry with two degrees of freedom."

Quote from gio06

"Thus also related quantities such as mass, momentum, potential and current are of 1/L quantities in geometric units included in a 2D curved geometry with two degrees of freedom."

Yes: This is the classic view with mass/charge as an axiom. Now the next step is to find a mechanism how charge and mass are generated.

One hint: Two torus rotations are not symmetric in respect to our real 3D world. Matter with two rotations would behave strangely!

Quote from gio06

Фархад Габусси

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359370105_Dimensional_structure_of_physics_and_mathematics_extended

« Таким образом, родственные величины, такие как масса, импульс, потенциал и ток, равны 1 /L величины в геометрических единицах, включенные в криволинейную двумерную геометрию с двумя степенями свободы. "

I am commenting on your statement in a strange way ... But if you read this material to the end, then it seems to me that you will understand what is at stake. -

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…UNlwxkJz/edit?usp=sharing

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6Qw5/zdeQZX4q8

Quote from Cherepanov2020

I am commenting on your statement in a strange way ... But if you read this material to the end, then it seems to me that you will understand what is at stake. -

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…UNlwxkJz/edit?usp=sharing

Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6Qw5/zdeQZX4q8

"We have just fixed the fact that "e" is a dimensionless quantity - it must be a dimensionless quantity"

Using natural units (hbar=c=1) the elementary charge e is a dimensionless constant (i.e. a pure number) with a value of 0.085424546, It's related to the internal geometry of the elementary particles.

Its square is just the fine structure constant α. Even mass is not a primitive concept but has the dimension of the inverse of a length.

Consequently the "Coulomb force" between two elementary particles has always the simple form ±α/d²

Quote from Alan Smith

Maxwell picked up the unfinished work of Oliver Heavyside

Both the Wyttenbach(2020+) and the Vassallo (2022) model of the proton

build on the electromagnetic framework of Maxwell .

their main point of difference appears to be over the nature of dense space...

whether it is 4D⁺ (without time) - or 3d,t (with time becoming the fourth spatial dimension)

It is always good to remember Maxwell's humility ,

e.g.

The rate of change of scientific hypothesis is naturally much more rapid than that of Biblical interpretations,

so that if an interpretation is founded on such an hypothesis,

it may help to keep the hypothesis above ground long after it ought to be buried and forgotten.

At the same time I think that each individual man should do all he can

to impress his own mind with the extent, the order, and the unity of the universe,

and should carry these ideas with him as he reads… passages

[of the Bible] (Hutchinson 1998)

It remains to be seen which model survives "above ground"

and which leads on to a useful model of the nucleons and all isotopes and 'unity'

Maxwell (1865) affirmed Faraday's theory of the electromagnetic origin of light

but both lacked the tools to deal with gravity...like others since

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1865.0008

Quote from gio06

"We have just fixed the fact that "e" is a dimensionless quantity

In the MKS units the 'dimensions' for Joule are kg⋅m²⋅s⁻²

There are seven base units in the SI system... Coulomb is not one of them

The electron Volt eV and the Joule,J, are related by the dimensionless constant e

eV = e x J.

In the following calculation of G,the gravity constant,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347528262_The_proton_electron_structure_its_resonances_and_fusion_products?enrichId=rgreq-c78ff6bd4986365fb82d53dae9121ee4-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM0NzUyODI2MjtBUzo5NzEyOTkxNzAwMjk1NzBAMTYwODU4NzE3NjgxOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

the value of e is ~1.602176634 × 10⁻¹⁹ but it is 'dimensionless' in Line f

'(apologies to Coulomb)

Quote from gio06

"We have just fixed the fact that "e" is a dimensionless quantity - it must be a dimensionless quantity"

Using natural units (hbar=c=1) the elementary charge e is a dimensionless constant (i.e. a pure number) with a value of 0.085424546,

Using natural constants is not a priori a bad idea. But using it the wrong way helps nothing. IF you don't have an equation that relates charge and mass in the proper way you gain nothing.

As you can see in the strong force equation (17) : In:: "The proton, electron structure, its resonances and fusion products" e² =.. r*m. Charge square is proportional to a moment of force/torque (no alpha occurs). WE can also say charge is as Maxwell equation say the result of changing rotating field. (Next step to digest...)

So the classical natural units just relate to the idealized Coulomb field. Of course alpha has nothing to do with charge. Alpha only gets introduced when charge is perturbed and handled as a mass orbiting a center of mass. With a little bit of research you easily can find out that alpha (fine structure constant) is the relativistic length contraction in one dimension = the dimension you loose with the simplification of the Bohr/QM model.

The same you see in SO(4) physics, when we add the perturbative correction for the 5th charge bound rotation. Here alpha is introduced by the relation of 1FC*2FC'.

The correction relates 1 added charge rotation to the total of 5 rotation. So 5 times the radial correction for two parallel electroweak/electro-strong couplings are added.

The remaining tiny error is due to the slight asymmetry introduced by adding the potential 2 "rotation wave" to the 4 rotation mass.

Well, i have always thought that time was correlated with the spatial variation.

After all, everything that grows (or shrinks ) around us does so over time.

So a 3d,t vision seems right, however why only one time and not 3t because 3d ?

This relation d vs t troubles me a lot and makes me say that this "3d" dimensional space seems anisotropic to work well and that is the main thing we should understand better.

Quote from RobertBryant

Both the Wyttenbach(2020+) and the Vassallo (2022) model of the proton

build on the electromagnetic framework of Maxwell .

their main point of difference appears to be over the nature of dense space...

whether it is 4D⁺ (without time) - or 3d,t (with time becoming the fourth spatial dimension)

Quote from Wyttenbach

IF you don't have an equation that relates charge and mass in the proper way you gain nothing.

Yes, this is a key point of utmost importance!

Quote from Cydonia

Well, i have always thought that time was correlated with the spatial variation.

After all, everything that grows (or shrinks ) around us does so over time.

So a 3d,t vision seems right, however why only one time and not 3t because 3d ?

This relation d vs t troubles me a lot and makes me say that this "3d" dimensional space seems anisotropic to work well and that is the main thing we should understand better.

In Minkowski spacetime [with signature(+++-)] you have six planes. So you can encode at same time in the same spinor both ordinary rotations (in the 3 pure spatial planes xy yz xz planes) and hyperbolic rotations (Lorentz transformations) in the other 3 planes (xt, yt, zt) planes.

Quote from gio06

(xt, yz, zt) planes.

Unzicker

speculating on "godhoods"

"there is no reason why reality should have such a peculiar 3+1 dimensional structure.."

talks about Occam's Razor..too

the problem with the medieval razor is that it does not give a sharp enough shave

and then suggests the 3sphere..(2019)

Maybe he will arrive at the Clifford Torus sooner or late

Quote from RobertBryant

"there is no reason why reality should have such a peculiar 3+1 dimensional structure.."

And there is no reason why it should not.