A new proton model: toroidal single particle

Quote from Shane D.

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:

A possible definitive confirmation of the theory implies that the experimental parameters of the stable elementary particles derive from electric currents generated by charges moving at the speed of light, respecting Maxwell-Proca, Planck and the Aharonov-Bohm equations. The curvature of the path is strictly related to the relativistic mass value and to the local value of the electromagnetic potentials. A possible connection with Ultradense Hydrogen and LENR has been presented few years ago:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330619569_Electron_Structure_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_and_Low_Energy_Nuclear_Reactions

and more recently

https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q0333#t=aboutBook

see also:

https://vixra.org/abs/1910.0156

Quote from Alan Fletcher

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.

https://www.cleanhme.eu/?p=639

In their defense, CleanHME has a rather large team, composed of multiple universities. They can probably afford to dedicate some time exploring the more fundamental issues, in the hopes a new understanding will translate to better lab results.

Quote from Andras

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.

Wyttenbach has claimed to have experimental results to back up his theory. If I remember correctly, we haven't seen them yet. Maybe sometime soon we will?

Quote from gio06

You are considering here E/B fields as fundamental physical entities, while they are simply the space-time derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential.

One more time you write down a standard model sermon that only indicates that you never throughly studied physics...

The 4 potential is only a mathematical unification for simplifying engineering work. It has nothing to do with the real fields of real field sources (e/p). This is a common beginners error.

The proton/electron produces 3 different fields where the 4 potential only covers 2 of them. The strongest field of the 3 the magnetic moment field is ignored as it can not be included due to a different origin!

If you like to learn what other crap the standard model folks invented here my compilation "basics of physics"

https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037

The video linked from that page

is very interesting.

Bottom line: he detects a new "nuclear electron" particle with a mass of 3 * regular electron, which is either captured by another nucleus, or decays into a regular electron in 10^-11 seconds.

TWO such decay tracks spotted --


Once you start looking, it shows up in experiments going back to 1930, including Letts and Swartz.

Quote from Shane D.

Wyttenbach has claimed to have experimental results to back up his theory.

Come on. Already in Assisi we explained that D-D fusion energy is transported (London experiments) by nuclear magnetic states.

In general: Atomic data did prove the model since day 1. Who knows what a neutron wave is? its about 1/5 of the neutron excess mass. It can directly be seen in the mass difference of more than a dozen isotopes like 14-C/14-N etc...

The SOP model shows that the neutron e/p binding is a 5 rotation binding same in Deuterium but with fully filled orbits.

Quote from Wyttenbach

One more time you write down a standard model sermon that only indicates that you never throughly studied physics...

The 4 potential is only a mathematical unification for simplifying engineering work. It has nothing to do with the real fields of real field sources (e/p). This is a common beginners error.

The proton/electron produces 3 different fields where the 4 potential only covers 2 of them. The strongest field of the 3 the magnetic moment field is ignored as it can not be included due to a different origin!

If you like to learn what other crap the standard model folks invented here my compilation "basics of physics"

https://vixra.org/abs/2209.0037

Display More

"The 4 potential is only a mathematical unification for simplifying engineering work"

Just a serious mistake widely present in mainstream literature. You should learn your own lesson:

"So forget your education as it will only blind and disturb you."

----------

"Konopinski’s analysis demonstrates the fallacy of the generally held view that the vector potential has no physical meaning in classical electromagnetism. His paper follows up on Feynman’s complaint that a bias exists regarding the vector potential [2]"

Quote from gio06

"The 4 potential is only a mathematical unification for simplifying engineering work"

Your paper just tells the same. It's ideal for far field EM modelling. But in fusion we talk about particles = field sources that cannot be handled by the 4-potential.

This also is the simple explanation why renormalization in particle physics generally fails due to not matching centers of fields.

All fields need sources!

Quote from Wyttenbach

All fields need sources!

Ok, now try to write a formal definition of "sources"!

Quote from gio06

Ok, now try to write a formal definition of "sources"!

You first have to accept that fields always need sources! Then you can try to include the magnetic moment field into your 4-potential... Good luck.

Quote from Wyttenbach

You first have to accept that fields always need sources! Then you can try to include the magnetic moment field into your 4-potential... Good luck.

Or first you have to accept that sources need fields?

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia

Personally, it is unpleasant for me to read what is stated in this thread ... My teacher Kanarev F.M. In 2000, he presented a model of the proton in the form of a torus. That was 23 years ago... Thousands of foreign experts know him. The Japanese published articles together with him. He gave his lectures in Switzerland....

Especially for English-speaking specialists, this site was organized in 2002 - http://guns.connect.fi/innopla…/story/Kanarev/index.html

I have a question - what is the NOVELTY of the proton model ???

Here is a link to the second edition of his book "Fundamentals of Physical Chemistry of the Microworld", 2003 - http://guns.connect.fi/innopla…y/Kanarev/book/index.html

In chapter 9.2 - http://guns.connect.fi/innopla…tory/Kanarev/book/09.html Kanarev writes -

"9.2. About the proton model

It is known that the rest mass of the proton is equal to the Electric charge of the proton is positive and equal to the negative charge of the electron. The magnetic moment of the proton is The electromagnetic structure of the proton is unknown. If we assume that it (like the electron) has the shape of a torus, then the radius of this torus will be the following ... "

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The magnetic moment of the proton is

"the magnetic moment of the proton is" ..???

lost in translation

Couldn't find it here either

Quote from Alan Fletcher

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.

https://www.cleanhme.eu/?p=639

The problem is that not going down the rabbit hole has caused stagnation towards understanding how LENR can happen.

An important point of Prof. Kanarev work that is strictly related to Occam's Razor principle:

ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ

Уважаемые искатели научной истины!

История науки свидетельствует: процесс распространения знаний, связанных с реальностью, неотвратим. Никакие запреты и инквизиторские костры не способны остановить этот процесс. И наоборот, знания, не имеющие связи с реальностью, неотвратимо отправляются в небытие.

Реальность Единства пространства, материи и времени очевидна. Поэтому распространение знаний, базирующихся на фундаменте аксиомы Единства, также неотвратимо.

FOREWORD

Dear seekers of scientific truth! The history of science shows that the process of spreading knowledge related to reality is inevitable. No prohibitions and inquisitorial bonfires can stop this process. And vice versa, knowledge that has no connection with reality inevitably goes into non-existence.
The reality of the Unity of space, matter and time is obvious. Therefore, the spread of knowledge based on the foundation of the axiom of Unity is also inevitable.

Quote from gio06

Or first you have to accept that sources need fields?

Fields are a mathematical concept only. Unluckily for you E (A) fields do not exists without separating sources and thus the logic is clear - you have to produce sources first. In SO(4) physics we show that charge is a topological effect of nested (knotted) magnetic flux thus all we see in nature is based on EM flux = magnetic (closed) field lines.

Charge is an exact physical equivalence relation for the force between harmonic EM flux that tries to start a new rotation.

For classic 3D physics I still like to use the term charge albeit it is a virtual effect only but it simplifies most math.

Your idea that charge can move at light speed is just a mathematical fantasy as we know no charge exists without a carrier and all carriers have mass hence you always violate some relativistic models...

The B field of the magnetic moment is part of the particles mass something most physicist missed... See also Mills. And most important EM flux is always relativistic what explains that the charge must be at rest! (I view of the EM flux)

This is one of the most basic (ancient) laws of physics. The equivalence principle! You claim to see a current producing a magnetic moment but in reality its just the visible part of the e/p mass for which you can derive (Maxwell) a corresponding current.

I will stop here as this discussion about flat toroidal particles is >30 years old and has been fruitless as basic laws of physics are violated. I just recommend once to study what a minimal Lagrangian for flux means that has a total 3D symmetric behavior.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Your idea that charge can move at light speed is just a mathematical fantasy as we know no charge exists without a carrier and all carriers have mass hence you always violate some relativistic models...

no charge exists without a carrier? Really? This is nothing more than a cognitive bias.

I think that no carrier exists without a charge and an associated magnetic flux...

I repeat again: learn your own lesson:

"So forget your education as it will only blind and disturb you."

Quote from gio06

I repeat again: learn your own lesson:

"So forget your education as it will only blind and disturb you."

You live in a fairy tale world. Also a kind of lesson for highly educated physics kids...

Quote from Andras

the authors of a new scientific publication introduce an experimentally matching proton model:

The Proton and Occam’s Razor

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.

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_M = 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_M = 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_M. We compare our calculations against experimental data.

Alas new theories need to predict (quantitatively) the direct experimental evidence of internal structure:

This paper does not mention it!

Although the quark-based model was inspired by the great variety of mesons, the proposed
quark masses do not add up the masses of observed mesons. According to quark proponents,
this is explained by a negative binding energy between quarks: any particle's valence quarks
masses are only a small percentage of the total particle mass, with the bulk of the particle mass
coming from virtual particles which represent the binding force: i.e. virtual quarks and gluons.
Moreover, the valence quark : virtual quark : gluon mass ratio is allowed to vary from particle
to particle in order to match the observed masses. Now what is the physical meaning of negative
binding energy? By denition, negative binding energy means a metastable bound state. This
model implies that individual quarks should be easily observable upon the break-up of their
metastable binding. However, quark proponents also postulated that these metastable bonds
between quarks can never be dissociated. There is a fundamental contradiction between the
hypothesis of metastable quark binding and the hypothesis of unbreakable quark bonds.

The mass of a proton is indeed most gluons. However, the argument that quark binding is metastable implies that individual quarks are stable.

They are not. To see why not - imagine separating bound quarks. Because the binding energy increases linearly with the separation, that is not possible.

Many explanations, but here is a fairly complete one:

Maybe the author is arguing that since binding energy cannot be positive that is not possible?

Ahh - but when you pull quarks apart so increasing the energy of the separated system - something else happens!

The available energy becomes high enough that spontaneous quark/antiquark pairs can be created. So we do not see far-away bound quarks.

But - there are an infinite number of bound states of quarks, corresponding to an infinite number of baryons and mesons. (They are compound particles - so it is not surprising we can go on making bigger ones).

Here is a great introduction to strong force weirdness

THHuxleynew , you may want to read what motivates this proton structure model instead of guessing.

New insights into the proton structure – CleanHME