# A new proton model: toroidal single particle

• Do the De Broglie postulates fit too into Occam's Razor ?

Definitely there are no doubts that Standard Model is deeply flawed and unrealistic. It's an excellent example of Occam's Razor principle violation.

Also the mainstream Dirac equation interpretation is not acceptable.

It's quite easy to find the electromagnetic origin of the inertial mass (i.e. Newton law F=ma) using the vector potential, but as far as I know nobody has proposed a pure electromagnetic origin of inertia using only E/B fields.

Edited once, last by Cydonia ().

• Do the De Broglie postulates fit too into Occam's Razor ?

Yes, the energy-mass m of the charged elementary particles is equal to the Zitterbewegung angular speed ω in natural units. This value is also equal to the product of the elementary charge e and the module of the vector potential A and to the curvature of the Zitterbewegung trajectory 1/re

ħ = c = 1

m = ω = eA = 1/re

The charge's vector potential module consequently is a measurable value being simply the value of mass/charge ratio.

This is in perfect agreement with Prof. Kanarev concept of "axiom of Unity":

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

Edited 6 times, last by gio06 ().

• It is all post-dictions, in the style of "oh yeah, our calculations also explain it".

The first prediction of SO(4) physics was made prior to the London experiments where I arrived with list of magnetic lines we expected to see in our experiment. The second prediction concerned the "neutron wave lines". Of course both confirmed.

Yes, the energy-mass m of the charged elementary particles is equal to the Zitterbewegung angular frequency ω in natural units.

This is just the classic view. In reality the de Broglie wave length depends on the internal flux winding number and on the space metric that e.g. for SO(4) adds a factor 4. So the SOP proton de Broglie radius is 4*0.21..fm.

This is important for scattering results as the separation distance for events increases!

• The first prediction of SO(4) physics was made prior to the London experiments where I arrived with list of magnetic lines we expected to see in our experiment. The second prediction concerned the "neutron wave lines". Of course both confirmed.

You say "both confirmed". Is the confirmation what you are describing in the manuscript titled "A new experimental path to nucleosynthesis", that you posted on Researchgate?

• Is the confirmation what you are describing in the manuscript titled "A new experimental path to nucleosynthesis", that you posted on Researchgate?

This is much far reaching as we there describe a new cold fusion reaction. We did run dozen of experiments and most visible lines have been from magnetic states.

Do not expect that everything of importance gets published. I usually publish stuff to prevent other from patenting.

• We did run dozen of experiments and most visible lines have been from magnetic states.

On reading your manuscript, I was unable to understand how you assured yourself that the lines you identified selectively corresponded to your predictions.

The spectrum was very crowded. It seemed to me that many different sets of pre-identified lines, perhaps even random sets, could likewise be found in that same spectrum. I don't see your work as confirmation of your theories unless you can demonstrate that competing predictions would fail.

• Do not expect that everything of importance gets published.

I won't.

It would be nice, however, if you posted enough information for people to replicate your work. Since that manuscript depends on an empirical gamma spectrum emanating from a fuel whose identity has never been published, it is fundamentally nonreplicable. Your work is doomed to obscurity unless you change this.

• if you posted enough information for people to replicate your work.

if Bruce-H you are really interested in replicating

why not Storms stuff?

a few \$

Seebeck calorimeter diy...palladium a bit of vacuum

no gamma spec..

should be simple

after that .

• 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?

It is difficult wresting sensible answers from Wyttenbach, but I think he has indicated that some of the material he posted in Dec 2021 on ResearchGate (here) contains experimental confirmation of predictions from his SO(4) theories. In the manuscript, which also bears Russ George's name, he presents gamma spectra taken from fuel said to be undergoing LENR. He says that his theories predict the spectral lines that are observed.

The manuscript is poorly written. What is claimed in the text often does not match what is shown in the tables and badly prepared figures. In the manuscript Wyttenbach claims to be able to specifically detect his predicted lines, yet the spectral resolution of the gamma detector he uses is far below what would be needed to make this argument work. Moreover, the spectra are heavily affected by Poisson noise because of low count numbers in the detectors. Yet in all this Wyttenbach takes no steps to assure the reader that his analysis is doing anything other than seeing what he wants to see in what is a very busy spectrum. These things could all be addressed but Wyttenbach seems sometimes unaware, and sometimes uncaring about them.

So, yes, I think we have already seen an attempt by Wyttenbach to claim that his SO(4) theories has made successful predictions of lab results. But no, this one wasn't successful. No one can yet rely on a claim that Wyttenbach's theory has empirical support from the lab.

• No one can yet rely on a claim that Wyttenbach's theory has empirical support from the lab

Shucks I guess Bruce won;t be replicating anytime soon

there always Palladium a la Storms to wrestle with

if he likes the physical stuff

• We agree that experimental results trump incompatible theories.

Andras

on the matter of the proton magnetic moment

2·79277 ± 0·00005 Mn exptal where Mn is the neutron magnetic moment

QCD(1982) calculations give a derived value of 2.87-3.55

The mismatch of the"remarkable agreement"

is 3-25%.?.depending on the fudge factors..

I think Wyttenbach used a 4D radius sqrt2 correction to get it 98.7% correct

and then flux compression corrections to get it >99.9999% correct in his SO(4) model

It was mentioned in the youtube video you had a new paper deriving the magnetic moment

how does that calculation compare with QCD or SO(4)? derived values?

• Robert: the accuracy of calculations is important mainly for real predictions (the probability of matching prediction depends on the accuracy of result, i.e. a highly matching prediction is unlikely to be coincidence).
Here, you are talking about post-diction type calculations. Claimed accuracy is not the only aspect, because anybody can massage numbers into apparent 99.999999999999% accuracy.

What matters is the combination of following:
1: Are calculations based on verified physical equations? The principal equations of electrodynamics, GR, or QM are a verified basis.
2: Can calculations be verified, i.e. are they properly documented and explained, so that one can make sure that there are no errors? In our articles we precisely document each step of the calculations, so they can be verified.
3: What is the number of assumptions/postulatеs going into the calculations? Are there any assumptions that contradict measurements? Ideally there should be as few assumptions as possible. Considering the toroidal topology to be experimentally indicated (anapole magnetic moment measurement), there is only one topologial assumption going into our calculations: the number of quantized magnetic fluxes.

4: What is the accuracy of calculation results with respect to measurement, if measurements are correctly interpreted? In the mentioned forthcoming article, all results are 99% accurate, including the magnetic moment.
5: What is the ratio of calculation input / output parameters? Ideally there are as many output parameters as possible, calculated from as few input parameters as possible. We take the proton mass as input parameter, and in this article also the magnetic moment is input parameter.
A calculation is interesting and valid if all (or most) of the above conditions are fulfilled.

As far as I know, the quark model based "calculations" fail ALL of the above criteria, so objectively speaking those are not even worth the paper that they are written on.

• The principal equations of electrodynamics, GR, or QM are a verified basis

This claim is false. QED uses the 4 potential without respecting the electron magnetic moment field. So its a simplified fields only model with no relation to real particles.

Same for GR that has no relation to real mass.

• ## The Charming Proton ...

or "What happens when you don't care about Occam's razor"

## "A Charming New View

Recently, a team led by Juan Rojo of the National Institute for Subatomic Physics in the Netherlands and VU University Amsterdam analyzed more than 5,000 proton snapshots taken over the last 50 years, using machine learning to infer the motions of quarks and gluons inside the proton in a way that sidesteps theoretical guesswork.

The new scrutiny picked up a background blur in the images that had escaped past researchers. In relatively soft collisions just barely breaking the proton open, most of the momentum was locked up in the usual three quarks: two ups and a down. But a small amount of momentum appeared to come from a “charm” quark and charm antiquark — colossal elementary particles that each outweigh the entire proton by more than one-third."

inside the proton the most complicated thing imaginable

Edited once, last by gio06 ().