A new proton model: toroidal single particle

Quote from gio06

A realistic electron electromagnetic-Zitterbewegung model should explain it

Zitterbewegung is a nice term for Americans, but it has no relevance on nuclear level even planets do it just much slower...

I generally use the term eccentricity, what is more physical and gives the true connections. Zitterbewegung has its origin in Biology - Brownian movement. If you study advanced rotator mechanics then you will learn that two orthogonally coupled rotators induce an oscillation along the third axes dimension. Even this you could brand Zitterbewegung...

So please use proper physical terms.

Please once try to show us how the "alleged" strong force is generated in your model not just somehow use it...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Please once try to show us how the "alleged" strong force is generated in your model not just somehow use it...

The electromagnetic nature of strong force is an interesting argument, however I was asking about Newton's law for an electron. An electron in a uniform electric field E is subjected to an acceleration a = F/m = eE/m. Is there an electron model that explains it?

Quote from gio06

An electron in a uniform electric field E is subjected to an acceleration a = F/m = eE/m. Is there an electron model that explains it?

Basic Newton laws and Maxwells laws are assumed to hold on all levels. So a linear acceleration of an electron works the Newton way not so on a circle orbit. SRT is a simplistic model that just tells us how mass increases with speed but not how it increases.

As all mass is EM mass, mass increase must mean adding EM flux. Here two models must be developed. How does the flux induction work in detail? Or is the mass increase due to deviation of the circular orbit (radius increase). Normally in stable mass at rest all flux orbits are orthogonal equivalent. But the CT is defined for all angles between the two generation circles.

I once started to model electron & photon orbits but this is mind blowing especially the charge generation that a kind of drags the photon/electron on very complex (internal) spiral orbit (photon or fast electron).

We definitely have to dig deeper. But so far my interest was focused on LENR and understanding the behavior of some elements we currently use in our experiments. Free electrons so far did play no role.

My tactic is simple. We blow off the old rotten N&P physics with a new LENR process only we can explain...So I'm not really eager to promote my work.

A new preprint on electron structure

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371909768_The_Structure_of_the_Electron_Revealed_by_the_Schwinger_Limits

ABSTRACT: This work suggests that the electron charge has a toroidal structure. An electromagnetic field defined by the Schwinger limits attends the Maxwell’s equations demonstrating that the energy of a free electron at rest is determined by the electromagnetic wave with energy within the cosmic ray spectrum. The electron spin taking the Schwinger anomalous magnetic moment into account is naturally found. The model shows that the electron charge travels at the speed of light in helical paths when orbiting the Bohr atom. The results also show that the kinetic energy of the electron mass is splitted from the energy of the electron charge.

Quote from gio06

The model shows that the electron charge travels at the speed of light in helical paths when orbiting the Bohr atom.

Only problem: What force does bend the flux (charge..)

All SO(4) modelling shows that the electron internal (flux binding) charge related mass is given by the electron g-factor (=1183eV) . This term is an invariant and also shines up in all nuclear calculations. E/B field energy can never be split 1:1 in dense mass (also in fields if you go into details). This is a logical fallacy. It works because EM equations have a symmetry that is given as an axiom.

In the real world one has to show how an eternal B/E field combination topologically looks like. Just using induce charge not the axiom charge...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Only problem: What force does bend the flux (charge..)

In the real world one has to show how an eternal B/E field combination topologically looks like. Just using induce charge not the axiom charge...

so please write an equation that relates electron mass, charge and magnetic flux

Quote from gio06

so please write an equation that relates electron mass, charge and magnetic flux

I did it for the proton. The electron is a bit more tricky because there is no classic stable radius for a spiral. Also the charge volume is orbiting what means classically not constant. So its on the list after CF works.

More important is that people understand that the classic photon equation describes a point particle, what is unphysical, as a point cannot express a B field...

Quote from gio06

A new preprint on electron structure

in which the average values are half of the Schwinger limits. The exponential term is justified by taking into account an electromagnetic wave which propagates along the azimuthal direction with wave vector given by 𝑘⃗⃗ = 2𝜋/𝑟𝑒 â𝜙, in the way that

(16) (PDF) The Structure of the Electron Revealed by the Schwinger Limits. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p…d_by_the_Schwinger_Limits [accessed Jun 29 2023].

This is now once more century old/long repeated garbage as a particle is not a wave and real wave cannot follow a surface as there is no force that bends it. Further the electron shows a full 3D symmetry in mass like action thus this fictive "wave" should cover all the surface certainly not in one direction as only the B field is polarized not the E field that is symmetric.

Such things happen if you never attended a basic logic class and nobody did tell you that axioms cannot be refined by using the axioms. Once you have defined the Compton radius as a valid form factor the game is over and you have to explain why the electron in experiments shows no structure far below the C-radius. You also have to explain why a (moving) point equations defines the whole surface when we know that spherical surfaces are not homogeneous. and a simple 3D torus is not symmetric.

I hope all this physicists will go back to school and learn the basics of physics (includes logic) before digesting high level math.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I did it for the proton.

so, please, write an equation that relates proton mass, charge and magnetic flux, using only geometric and electromagnetic concepts

Quote from gio06

so, please, write an equation that relates proton mass, charge and magnetic flux, using only geometric and electromagnetic concepts

This has been done with the strong force equation. But be aware of all the changes induced by topology.

- center of rotation is the total Clifford torus (CT) surface. (not easy to grasp - due to charge induced rotation)

- Flux must be homogeneous in a stable equilibrium condition --> flux is just along the CT surface - on both sides

- The 5th rotation adds one more metric change to the two coupling radius going from 2^1/2 --> 3^1/2.

- Distance between virtual charge and flux is constant

- Using the 4D torus norm you can shrink the mass into a point same for charge and finally you end up with the classic circular orbit function for the force (EM force = Coulomb force - Biot Savart). The rest is assigning the proper mass structure of the proton and in a second step you have to add is the 5 rotation coupling.

As I once said: you will end up in higher dimensional mechanics. As we make projections from 6D--> 3D you can always find different paths that use different substructures. There is no complete Maxwell mechanics for 6D just the basic forces and induction operators survive.

For me still an open question is the minimum condition for induction. Is a closed 2 D path enough ? or do we need the same dimensionality as the EM flux manifold? The answer is important as the 2D solution leads to different charges e.g. of ++,+-,-+,-- type that could form out different coupling - quaternion like math required.

The even more basic question is: Does charge exist at all ? Or does knotted flux alone produce a kind of coupling we define as charge? As CF experiments show EM flux couples with other EM flux over a harmonic relation. Why?

Every progress we make asks at least 2 new questions.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This has been done with the strong force equation.

ok, but an an equation is worth more than thousand words.

I meant something like

m_p = ...

where on the right hand side we have only geometric and/or electromagnetic parameters (radii, magnetic fluxes, electromagnetic potentials e etc...)

Quote from gio06

I meant something like

mp = ...

Here you can use the classic magnetic mass formula with the contribution of the three wave parts.

(10) M_p (eV) = µ_p²*µ₀/(α* π* r_pr ³*e*(3FC*2FC*1FC)³ *(1-(α/(π*16)))²)

M_pr(eV) = µ_p²*µ_o/(α * π* r_pr³ *e) Is the magnetic core mass

(3FC*2FC*1FC)³ is due to the eccentricity of the proton flux that just occupies 3 CT orbits

(1-(α/(π*16)))²) is the full torus charge coupling/generation between magnetic core mass and perturbative mass.

The Higgs- fat proton mass =

M_prfat(eV) = µ_p²*µ_o/(α² * π* r_pr³ *e)*(3FC*2FC*1FC)²)

The charged Higgs needs 2 more factors for charge mass and eccentricity that reverses.

You also can rearrange the electron mass the same way::

Quote from Wyttenbach

the electron mass

I guess this is the magnetic "core " mass?

Quote from gio06

an equation is worth more than thousand words.

I read this awhile ago..but the equation was a little bit beyond understanding

and did not give me peace..

I vaguely remember that magnetic forces fall off according to the inverse cube law

using dipoles and point sources..

Perhaps this has something to do with 4D..perhaps not..

There is some facile explanation.using fields.Gauss's law Greens function..

why in 4D you might expect an inverse cubed law..point source -field POV

The 4D hypersurface formula is V = 2 π² r³

"You can get the force-field produced by a point source with suitable choices of surface

(a sphere concentric with the source). Then for any dimension you can see that your field obey the 1rd−11��−1 because the area of this surface (d�-sphere, S2�2) grow with rd−1��−1 (for d>2�>2)."

21 Reasons Protons Cannot Contain Quarks

"My name is Ray Fleming and I have been conducting research in quantum field theory for 30 years. We known from scattering experiments that the proton has a shell of quantum fluctuations at its charge radius. It turns out that the protons charge magnitude, spin, magnetic moment, radius and mass can all be accounted for as quantum field properties that emerge from this spherical shell structure. The bare proton in the middle only has to polarize with respect to electric charge and matter-antimatter."

Quote from gio06

It turns out that the protons charge magnitude, spin, magnetic moment, radius and mass can all be accounted for as quantum field properties that emerge from this spherical shell structure.

Bullshit!

if you are interested in real experimental physics then look at Sardin's neutron scattering. Here proton charge has to react on magnetic effects.

(PDF) About the symmetry of the deuteron structural charge density distribution

PDF | Seeking collaboration: I am looking for collaboration for further developments in approaching the proposed model of the deuteron structure within... |…

www.researchgate.net

This is the charge structure of the Deuterium. The proton flux joins as given by SO(4) physics on a (hyper-) toroidal orbit.

Forget all the SM fantasies told by sick minds. The standard model is a mad house that ignores real physics. Obviously there is no neutron structure too.

"The standard model is a mad house that ignores real physics."

Indeed the title of the video was "21 Reasons Protons Cannot Contain Quarks"

Quote from gio06

deed the title of the video was "21 Reasons Protons Cannot Contain Quarks"

It also has nothing to do with quantum field properties....

Quote from Wyttenbach

Here you can use the classic magnetic mass formula with the contribution of the three wave parts.

(10) M_p (eV) = µ_p²*µ₀/(α* π* r_pr ³*e*(3FC*2FC*1FC)³ *(1-(α/(π*16)))²)

What is the definition of FC (Flux Compression) ?

Could you write an equation that exactly defines FC ?

Quote from gio06

Could you write an equation that exactly defines FC ?

Energy conversion constants:    

For mass reduction for fraction/amount

3D/4D - 4D Flux compression 3FC = 0.99711307593398 3FC' = 0.00288692406602

3D-3D/4D Flux compression 2FC = 1 - (α/2π) = 0.99883859026758 2FC' = 0.00116140973242

2D-3D/4D Flux compression 1FC = 1 -16*(α/2π)² = 0.99997841803894 1FC' = 0.00002158196106

The construction of 3FC is explained in the "paper". Basically it is 5 rotation 2FC⁵ modulo "golden ratio change".

The ideal orbit for flux is circular where the moment of inertia "I" = 1. In the proton formula 3 rotations expand into space thus here the FC's are flux expansion coefficients (in denominator).

The "magic" result in SO(4) physics is = 1 what means all flux is circular. If 4 protons fuse to 4-He then the flux gets compressed. Energy gain, loss is always expressed as amount of flux gaining/leaving circular orbit. All SOP formulas are gained by looking for the deviation to "1" what means the average ratio of front/back side flux on CT.

So as you can see. We finally just need 2 constants (2FC,golden ratio) to define all forces and masses.

The first who detected such a flux compression effect was Randall Mills. He named the process space-rime compression. Going from a toroidal orbit to a circular orbit involves 2 changes: Path length and momentum change. As I still believe that magnetic flux path length is conserved the photon emission (result of compression) should conserve the total flux length.

This is just the simple view. In reality of p-p fusion there are many other changes too, like the binding charge mass changes orbit, what looks like you need less charge. What makes sense as the maximal force on a toroidal orbit is larger than on a (new) circular orbit.

The validity of these constants has been proven in early research already, where we could show that e.g. highly symmetric isotopes like 28-Si can be expressed from other isotopes by adding so called 3FC or 2FC quanta fitting up to 9 digits.

Has anyone seen my razor?