# A new proton model: toroidal single particle

• A mixed space-time rotation is simply an hyperbolic rotation in Minkowski space-time with signature [+++-]. This is related to the variation of mass with speed in special relativity.

This is clear from a math point of view. But time cannot rotate as it is strictly 1 dimensional. As said time can only be defined as "difference" between two events. May be you once should read the basics of information theory.

What rests behind is a kind of metric for mass (-increase) that as such can never be homogeneous in 3D because in 3D only 2 rotation are allowed. The more severe problem is that real mass with real dimensions rotating at light speed cannot be covered by such a "relativistic" formalism...

You must strictly separate the time bound dimensions (Usually radial actions) from the fully relativistic static (rotation) dimensions.

So all the above SM equations are fruitless fantasies if you deal with particles!.

Edited once, last by Wyttenbach ().

• We can make a short summary.

The standard model (SM) has been developed around classic 3D,t free space physics where it works well enough.

For particles an other approach is needed as you can not use axioms (like charge "e") to prove axioms. If you understand that all mass is EM flux many other violations inside SM immediately shine up.

So its no surprise that SM cannot explain the most basic step of CF the formation of H*-H*/ D*-D* that has been proven in many experiments (Holmlid, Mills, Santilli etc.).

SM also fails to explain the formation of matter beginning with clusters of H* that provably produce 4-He (shown by Holmlid) without the presence of neutrons!

• This is clear from a math point of view. But time cannot rotate as it is strictly 1 dimensional.

The concept of time in physics (special relativity) cannot be separated by the concept of space. A rotation is always associated to a plane (only in 3d we can associate a rotation with an axis!). Therefore in 4d spacetime there are 6 possible rotation planes.

Lorentz transformation are encoded by hyperbolic rotations in "mixed spacetime" planes
https://www.physicslog.com/blo…entz-hyperbolic-rotation/

• Therefore in 4d spacetime there are 6 possible rotation planes.

Unluckily these rotation planes are not uniform if you keep time as 1 dimension. So you have matter only rotations and mixed matter-time rotations.

Even worse because field flux travels at light speed (inside mass) it cannot be changed by the classic metric. Einstein simply has forgotten that all stable matter rotates and if this rotation is related to "c" the whole relativistic field theory breaks down. For slower rotating mass you can add and S term to GR to recover the missing energy but in the case of a pulsar/black hole this does not work.

Mass & particles can easily be modeled with classic mechanics and Maxwell equations. All the magic numbers 14/28/56 immediately show up as these are well known moments of torus inertia.

The concept of time in physics (special relativity) cannot be separated by the concept of space.

You mix up moving object with internal movements in objects. All SM freaks have the same wrong understanding because they do crappy experiments with moving (relativistic) particles. Not so Holmlid,Mills etc... This is the root of the evil as a matter point that rotates (internally) and is accelerated close to c (externally) has a relative speed that is >> c or on the way back "0".... So SM can only handle LEGO's = entire point particles and has to assign abstract spin numbers that have no value at all.

Or simply said: These CERN crap experiments cannot give any insight into particles because the model does not match the reality.

• "Einstein simply has forgotten that all stable matter rotates and if this rotation is related to "c" the whole relativistic field theory breaks down."

Using an appropriate Zitterbewegung model the electron's charge moves always at speed of light in all inertial frames. The internal rotation has a precise clock c/re that is proportional to the relativistic mass and inversely proportional to the Zitterbewegung radius re. As a consequence of the invariance of charge's light speed c this radius decreases with increasing electron speed. The radius of the charge helicoidal trajectory decreases as the radius of an extended spring.

• As a consequence of the invariance of charge's light speed c this radius decreases with increasing electron speed.

Really? Then the electron mass should decrease!

The real problem is that we don't know how the relativistic extra mass is added. The simplest solution is that the EM flux just does increase as more force is needed to stabilize (hold together) the flux. Adding a 1D movement leads to eccentricity of the internal orbits as I mentioned above due to c+v in one direction c-v in the other what deforms the flux torus.

The only stable orbit lays in the vertical plane in direction of the acceleration where finally the bulk of the mass ends up. I'm pretty sure that we can find a nice correlation with this plane mass and synchrotron radiation anomalies.

• Really? Then the electron mass should decrease!

The real problem is that we don't know how the relativistic extra mass is added.

No, mc2=ћω=eAc and ω=c/re consequently mass is exactly inversely proportional to the Zitterbewegung radius and directly proportional to the charge's vector potential A. This explains inertia (without Higgs boson!) and how the relativistic extra mass is added

Edited 3 times, last by gio06 ().

• mc2=ћω

This is an equivalence relation not a physical reality. You cannot convert mass 1:1 into a photon.

• This is an equivalence relation not a physical reality. You cannot convert mass 1:1 into a photon.

Why is not a physical reality? This is just another "mainstream" cognitive bias. Electron is not a photon however they share the same universal energy-frequency relation in a Zitterbewegung model.

• Why is not a physical reality? Electron is not a photon however they share the same universal energy-frequency relation in a Zitterbewegung model.

Yes! Just in your model. An electron positron pair decays into 3 photons. I hope that you are up to date with real physics = experiment.

• An electron positron pair decays into 3 photons. .

Exactly, this indeed suggests that electron, positron and photon share a common electromagnetic origin i.e. gaugeless Maxwell's Equations.

Three-vector and scalar field identities and uniqueness theorems in Euclidean and Minkowski spaces
Euclidean three-space and Minkowski four-space identities and uniqueness theorems are reviewed and extended. A Helmholtz identity is used to prove two three-vec
pubs.aip.org

Edited 2 times, last by gio06 ().

• Exactly, this indeed suggests that electron, positron and photon share a common electromagnetic origin i.e. gaugeless Maxwell's Equations.

The electron is an excitation of the proton as we can exactly derive (SO(4) physics) all electron properties from the proton properties.

The paper you reference is based on the wrong claim that the green function can be given as :.

... leads to Green(r , r') = 1 / 4πr. This only holds for a central point charge (volume like delta F is the same) or homogeneous incompressible volume like fields (that are not real). The other problem is the reduction of the total field equation to a force-field equation that also only works for point particles. This is far field (CERN) physics, where we can use such linear simplifications. But this tells almost nothing about the particles internals.

Just look at Hydrogen or the e-p system. Where do you see any time like field?? In real world physics = experiments fields only exist if you separate sources (= two fields are produced!) . In mathematical physics you can only make simplifications of the model = "one side field" and topology = "point field". For such LEGO physics the math is clear and known since long time. But its not physics.

Same for E=mc2. Known and proven for particles since Poincaré is only dm = E/c2. The Einstein guess only is an equivalence relation "=" not a physical equation.

• The electron is an excitation of the proton as we can exactly derive (SO(4) physics) all electron properties from the proton properties.

Same for E=mc2. Known and proven for particles since Poincaré is only dm = E/c2. The Einstein guess only is an equivalence relation "=" not a physical equation.

Separating the concepts of mass, energy and frequency is just an example of Occam's razor rule violation

• Separating the concepts of mass, energy and frequency is just an example of Occam's razor rule violation

What you say is not clear. Restmass is not equal EM mass. This was Einsteins error multiplied by Dirac. SM only works for fields. Because the winding number in mass (proton) is larger is not conform with fields.

• I am loving this. Please carry on.

Some Wyttenbach posts are useful in highlighting some mainstream deeply rooted cognitive bias that have hindered a serious progress in theoretical physics:

Charge cannot move at speed of light

Vector potential is just a mathematical tool

Planck equation E=hv is valid only for photons

mass/charge ratio is not related to charge's vector potential

Energy-mass is not related to a geometric parameter (Zitterbewegung radius)

Aharonov-Bohm equations are not related to the particle structure

elementary charge and its magnetic flux are not strictly related by a very simple equation 𐌘=h/e

you can add extra spatial dimensions if your theory needs it

What you say is not clear. Restmass is not equal EM mass. This was Einsteins error multiplied by Dirac.

So please, write down your formal definition of energy and restmass

Edited 2 times, last by gio06 ().

• So please, write down your formal definition of energy and restmass

The only exchangeable & quantifiable form of energy is photons = EM radiation. For this physics works as known. Restmass can only be given as equivalence relation to charge and photon energy (eV). You cannot (never= convert a proton in the energy = mpc2 without first adding extra energy. Thus this is not a universal physical equation that you can include in other equations like Dirac's failed approach.

So unstructured restmass is a questionable term that did trouble the minds of many (Einstein, Dirac, Klein,Gordon etc..) . I prefer to only use energy. Only for mechanical calculations - force induced by rotating flux - I use the equivalence relation between mass (kg) and energy what works well under 1D orthogonal conditions.

There are more fundamental errors in SM like the missing knowledge about rotator mechanics, the 2:1 or 1:1 action principle or just the simple fact that real mass cannot do more than 2 space like rotations at the same time.

When Sommerfeld helped to define the electron mass structure it was clear to use the moment operator (magnetic moment equivalent). Two symmetric moments have been defined that usually must be orthogonal hence two spin numbers are needed. The missing part then was covered by the electron g-factor - the deviation from 2 orthogonally spinning moments. The rest is history made by untallented (in physics) mathematicians with no clue of mechanics.

New physics needs better definitions. The detailed structure of a proton is given by SO(4) physics. It perfectly allows to show how the strong force from p --> helion increases where SM fails by 100%.

• The only exchangeable & quantifiable form of energy is photons = EM radiation. For this physics works as known. Restmass can only be given as equivalence relation to charge and photon energy (eV). You cannot (never= convert a proton in the energy = mpc2 without first adding extra energy. Thus this is not a universal physical equation that you can include in other equations like Dirac's failed approach.

does all this mean that for mass there is no equation that can define it?

How do you explain the origin of Newton's equation F=ma?

• does all this mean that for mass there is no equation that can define it?

How do you explain the origin of Newton's equation F=ma?

You mix up macroscopic physics (bulk mass) with the origin of mass. Same with SM, that is far field physics dealing with far field actions (GeV,TeV!!) of particles.

Today's physics misses all you need for doing particle physics. You cannot analyze an axiom (charge/charge structure) with axioms...Children's mistake.

The SO(4) physics proton mass (energy!) is exactly given as a mechanical rotator equivalent of a 2,3,5 rotation coupled spin only wave. Once you understand how the CT topology works you also will understand how the nature of the nuclear force emerges and why it is stronger inside the alpha particle etc..

• You mix up macroscopic physics (bulk mass) with the origin of mass.

F=ma is valid for microscopic objects (as electrons) and macroscopic objects, isn't it?

A realistic electron electromagnetic-Zitterbewegung model should explain it

## Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required