Why Particle Physics is Stuck in a Dead End
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
In few words , what is the guiding line ?
In few words , what is the guiding line ?
The main guide line is the use of Occam's Razor as a fundamental epistemological tool.
--------------------------
The trapped light ie towards an electromagnetic theory of elementary particles
Display MoreThe main guide line is the use of Occam's Razor as a fundamental epistemological tool.
--------------------------
The trapped light ie towards an electromagnetic theory of elementary particles
I celebrate the willingness to open a debate with proposals to solve the shortcomings of existing models. This is always refreshing.
The assumptions behind the quark model
Briefly, the authors re-establish the proton’s elementary particle status, and discover that the proton has a toroidal internal structure.
Great! after 4 years we know the complete proton structure thanks to the SO(4) physics model we fall back to the stone age and a 3D torus structure.
Are you aware that the real proton an all mass formed by protons show a 3D uniform behavior that is impossible with a flat 3 rotation torus? Further E/B field mass/energies are never the same. This is just true for EM field calculations where we do not postulate which field acts.
In reality there exists no possible 3D B/E field configuration that can reproduce the E field from the B field and the other way round. Key is to understand that B field flux can be contained by charge, where it in the electron case it is only 1183eV needed (for charge mass).
Great! after 4 years we know the complete proton structure thanks to the SO(4) physics model we fall back to the stone age and a 3D torus structure.
Are you aware that the real proton an all mass formed by protons show a 3D uniform behavior that is impossible with a flat 3 rotation torus? Further E/B field mass/energies are never the same. This is just true for EM field calculations where we do not postulate which field acts.
In reality there exists no possible 3D B/E field configuration that can reproduce the E field from the B field and the other way round. Key is to understand that B field flux can be contained by charge, where it in the electron case it is only 1183eV needed (for charge mass).
If you have a proton model, you could post a link to the document describing it. The document should contain physics equations, not just words, otherwise it's not physics. I will then check how well it matches experimental data, and what predictions follow from the equations.
[ I posted that link in another topic, but I'm glad to see it promoted. ]
I'd be interested to see the equivalent neutron model.
Edit: this link suggests a positive-charge torus and a negative-charge torus
No math .. but yin and yang
I'm pretty sure that proton and neutron look like this
If you have a proton model, you could post a link to the document describing it. The document should contain physics equations, not just words, otherwise it's not physics. I will then check how well it matches experimental data, and what predictions follow from the equations.
Wyttenbach has already published a series of documents pertaining to his proposed SO4 based model. The proton and electron are here:
Wyttenbach has already published a series of documents pertaining to his proposed SO4 based model. The proton and electron are here:
I looked at this Wyttenbach document. As far as I understand it, he is trying trying to calculate the mass of various particles as magnetic field energy. The positive aspect of his work is that he recognizes the electromagnetic origin of particle masses. That being said, there is nothing else positive which I could find. He doesn't write any proper derivations of his ideas, so his "calculations" are impossible to verify; it is just mambo-jumbo text and tables (red flag). He is only concerned with massaging numerous measurable parameters till there is apparent fit to particle masses, which is classic over-fitting (red flag). His formula (4) assigns the electron mass purely to magnetic field energy: this is obviously wrong because electric charges have electric field energy around them, which he forgets about (red flag). When coming across other people's work, who also investigate the electromagnetic origin of particle masses, he only has trolling comments to say (major red flag). He keeps referring to his non-existing / unverifiable derivations as "physics" (red flag).
We have more red flags here than in Chinese communist parade.
[ I posted that link in another topic, but I'm glad to see it promoted. ]
I'd be interested to see the equivalent neutron model.
Edit: this link suggests a positive-charge torus and a negative-charge torus
It follows from the single particle proton structure that the neutron-proton difference is the presence of a negative elementary charge. Many people came to this conclusion, but understanding the neutron's internal structural details remained a difficult challenge.
Understanding the proton structure indeed gives a new foundation for exploring the neutron structure. I am proposing the attached neutron structure. The figure illustrates that the charge radii of the neutron's positive and negative charges are very different: 0.0015 fm versus 0.4 fm. This negative charge has Zitterbewegung along the proton's toroidal structure, one could say that it is "locked " in the proton torus (or that the negative charge moves along the toroidal surface). I am working on an article which will explain the experimental evidences that lead me to this structure.
I also understand Zephir's perspective with the knotted structures: the surprising stability of such electromagnetic constellations has been studied by many scientists (referred to as Bateman's construction).
The toroidal structures shown in my figure are seen from the particle rest frame only. Keeping wave-particle duality in mind, every particle has a motion along its axial direction as well. I am currently trying to understand this full picture, and how it is related to knotted topologies.
which is classic over-fitting (red flag). His formula (4) assigns the electron mass purely to magnetic field energy: this is obviously wrong because electric charges have electric field energy around them, which he forgets about (red flag).
You post to much nonsense. A bound charge stores no electric energy. electric energy just occurs if you separate charge.
A E field only exists with sources that first need to be separated.
The whole SO(4) model is based on two constants thus your over fitting hope is just self deception.
The final prove is the nicely and exact fitting gravity constant that contains no fudge factors.
So forget your education as it will only blind and disturb you.
but understanding the neutron's internal structural details remained a difficult challenge.
The SO(4) model gives all details of the neutron. The internals are in an older version and it is in agreement with the aspect maximum recoil results. The missing mass is the coupling of the 5 rotation energy of the charge bond that can only be released as EM energy.
Great! after 4 years we know the complete proton structure thanks to the SO(4) physics model we fall back to the stone age and a 3D torus structure.
Are you aware that the real proton an all mass formed by protons show a 3D uniform behavior that is impossible with a flat 3 rotation torus? Further E/B field mass/energies are never the same. This is just true for EM field calculations where we do not postulate which field acts.
In reality there exists no possible 3D B/E field configuration that can reproduce the E field from the B field and the other way round. Key is to understand that B field flux can be contained by charge, where it in the electron case it is only 1183eV needed (for charge mass).
You are considering here E/B fields as fundamental physical entities, while they are simply the space-time derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential.
---------------
"As a matter of fact, nowhere in the pantheon of electrodynamic protocols that shall be cited, has the impact of the curl-free vector potential most clearly been shown to be felt, than with the Maxwell-Lodge effect. So much so, that when the significance of this phenomenon is duly appreciated by mainstream physics, it might represent the underpinnings to finally elevate the vector potential to its natural birthright physical status in CED; for this was the mantle it was originally intended to take on according to the worldviews of Maxwell and Faraday in the 19 th century."
"This work shows incompleteness and inconsistency in classical electrodynamics (CED) and quantum electrodynamics (QED). Extended electrodynamics (EED) resolves these issues. Stueckelberg-Horwitz-Piron (SHP) theory is equivalent to EED with important implications."
the authors of a new scientific publication introduce an experimentally matching proton model:
Briefly, the authors re-establish the proton’s elementary particle status, and discover that the proton has a toroidal internal structure.
A brief overview of the timeliness of this model can be found here.
Thank you. If proven true, do you believe your theory will lead to a better understanding of LENR? I ask because the authors are affiliated with the EU Horizon funded CleanHME Project. Also, a brief summary of the theory is on the CleanHME website. In fact, they have this to say about it:
"We emphasize that we are at the “opening of dialogue” stage, and it requires further investigations to make definite conclusions. Currently, the CleanHME community is split between scientists endorsing the above-mentioned contradictions of the quark model, and scientists endorsing the novel single-particle toroidal proton model.
This dialogue marks the start of a new road, which eventually leads to a deeper understanding of elementary particles and nuclear structures. There are still many questions to investigate further. For example, the article points out that it is yet to be clarified whether the proton has a single magnetic flux quantum, or two magnetic flux quanta along the poloidal and toroidal directions."
Currently, the CleanHME community is split between scientists endorsing the above-mentioned contradictions of the quark model, and scientists endorsing the novel single-particle toroidal proton model.
Very interesting. But I'd be scared to see them go down the rabbit hole of rewriting a huge chunk of modern science, rather than concentrating on "anomalous" effects, even if they can't be explained.
