Has anyone seen my razor?
A new proton model: toroidal single particle
-
-
The charge of the electron is "really round" not the electron.
"Electrons are really, really round.
A new measurement confirms the subatomic particle’s spherical shape to a record level of exactness, physicists report in the July 7 Science.
That near-perfect roundness deepens the mystery behind how the universe came to be filled with matter as opposed to its counterpart, antimatter. Any asymmetry in the electron’s shape, namely the distribution of the particle’s electric charge, would point to a related asymmetry in the laws of nature, one that could explain this feature of the cosmos."
Electrons are extremely round, a new measurement confirmsThe near-perfect roundness deepens the mystery behind how the universe came to be filled with matter as opposed to antimatter.www.sciencenews.org -
That near-perfect roundness deepens the mystery behind how the universe came to be filled with matter as opposed to its counterpart, antimatter.
Of course if you believe in the standard model religion then its a mystery.
If you know that charge is a topological effect only then everything is clear. The roundness is given by the magnetic flux that follows circular CT orbits and not by the charge.... Further EM flux is not elastic and reacts as a whole.
According the classic meme there should be a current
on the electron surface that defines a magnetic moment that breaks all symmetries.... -
Now about the charge "quantity" in your way, do we take in account a bigger rotation speed of the magnetic flux to exlain an increase in quantity ( energy) ?
In this way, you should consider that this magnetic flux is a continuum even if the quantum physic main postulate is talking about superposition of kind of quantas ?? Still std model ?
Of course if you believe in the standard model religion then its a mystery.
If you know that charge is a topological effect only then everything is clear. The roundness is given by the magnetic flux that follows circular CT orbits and not by the charge.... Further EM flux is not elastic and reacts as a whole.
According the classic meme there should be a current
on the electron surface that defines a magnetic moment that breaks all symmetries.... -
Now about the charge "quantity" in your way, do we take in account a bigger rotation speed of the magnetic flux to exlain an increase in quantity ( energy) ?
Only the flux radius/internal charge does increase.
-
That means more the radius is low more energy is stored or the reverse ?
Only the flux radius/internal charge does increase.
-
That means more the radius is low more energy is stored or the reverse ?
This is kind of Gobbeligock...
Adding energy = adding more flux.
more flux ==> more charge needed to bend it on orbit
But there are "tricks". Acceleration displaces flux on the axis that is not affected what changes the angle between the CT circle orbits what has the same effect as adding charge!
-
Could Quark model turn out to be false?
"Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.
Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within baryons or mesons.
This sentence makes me very nervous: Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement
This sentence is Like I want to prove something spurious to save the subject (quark)."
Coodan answer:
"OK, I think, you are completely right with your lawful doubts.
We had seen that kind of approach in Medieval Years. That time they told us that it is possible/impossible to count the number of angels on the top of the needle. Angel/demon confinement? :))))
The truth is that Chadwick in 1932-1934, knowing no negative particles except from electron told them that neutron is elementary particle like proton with no real proof. Just (speculative!) statement. Sakawa, then Gell-Mann trusted that very and as a result we have quark model with fractional charges.
In fact, apart from that strange beliefs about neutron, we have to confess that neutron is composite particle consisting of proton and negative pion, so idea of fractional charges of quarks is just an error.
No fractional charges is possible in the Nature. Limited is our understanding."
-
No fractional charges is possible in the Nature. Limited is our understanding
Standard model people are clueless and most are totally untalented as over a time spawn of 10 years the phd's (of particle physics) have to digest stockpiles of highly toxic garbage. The real answer is::
The standard model has no clue how charge is generated and how charge works inside any nucleus.
Sakawa, then Gell-Mann trusted that very and as a result we have quark model with fractional charges.
Nobel prices sometimes have really bad effects as people afterwards believe that these are given for some really good experiments/ theoretical findings. Fractional charges are quite normal - see quantum hall effect. The question is how and when do we see fractional charge fields at work? At least for the proton the 4/3 -1/3 (5/3) junks are correct from the view of the mass building wave (2:3:5) structure.
Of course quarks do not exists as these are based on a principal misunderstanding of the real mass structure. But it is interesting that the sum of the quark masses is equal the SO(4) physics mass weight of the perturbative (3 rotation) waves.
-
The standard model has no clue how charge is generated and how charge works inside any nucleus.
phd's (of particle physics) have to digest stockpiles of highly toxic garbage.
The view from top of the charming garbage heap... still no clue about what generates either charge or mass
but 'charge radius" is not "mass radius"
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. -
My particular favourite.
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. -
The view from top of the charming garbage heap... still no clue about what generates either charge or mass
but 'charge radius" is not "mass radius"
Averaging this proton mass radius (0.55 fm) and the proton charge radius (~ 0.83 fm) we get a value (0.675 fm) that is not far from the experimental value of the radius that contains half of the proton charge, according to JLAB measurements (0.627 fm). The "half charge radius" of the model proposed in "Proton and Occam's Razor" paper is 0.624 fm.
-
Averaging this proton mass radius (0.55 fm) and the proton charge radius (~ 0.83 fm) we get a value (0.675 fm) that is not far from the experimental value of the radius that contains half of the proton charge, according to JLAB measurements (0.627 fm). The "half charge radius" of the model proposed in "Proton and Occam's Razor" paper is 0.624 fm.
Serious question. Is there a justification for averaging these two separate measurements apart from convenience in calculation? I ask because it seems to me wrong in principle. My old Alfa GTV is 4.5M long and has a maximum speed of 62M/sec. Averaging those two figures to give a value of 33.25M - which relate to entirely different aspects of the car's potential behaviours - states as different as charge and mass - is not helpful.
-
Serious question. Is there a justification for averaging these two separate measurements apart from convenience in calculation? I ask because it seems to me wrong in principle. My old Alfa GTV is 4.5M long and has a maximum speed of 62M/sec. Averaging those two figures to give a value of 33.25M - which relate to entirely different aspects of the car's potential behaviours - states as different as charge and mass - is not helpful.
Is there a relation that clearly relates mass and charge? If the concept of mass cannot be separated from the concept of charge (at microscopic scale) than the averaging of the two values may have sense. In the proposed proton toroidal modal this relation is very simple: mc=eA.
In your example you are averaging two uncorrelated parameters.
-
Is there a relation that clearly relates mass and charge?
Try first to answer how charge is generated. Then ask a better question.
-
Try first to answer how charge is generated. Then ask a better question.
The charge quantum e and the magnetic flux quantum h/e are the two faces of the same coin (as electric and magnetic field in an electromagnetic wave). Charge density is the time partial derivative of the four divergence of the electromagnetic four potential in gaugeless (or Aharonov-Bohm) electrodynamics. The charge moves at speed of light and has a mechanical moment p=eA=mc and an angular momentum eAr = ħ = 1. This means that the mass has definitely a purely electromagnetic origin.
-
The charge moves at speed of light and has a mechanical moment p=eA=mc and an angular momentum eAr = ħ = 1.
This is the only point where I cannot agree. Real - elementary - charge can never move at light speed as it is always bound to mass. But e.g. the charge of the magnetic moment is just virtual as in reality the generating flux moves at light speed and thus it looks like charge is moving at "c". This is the symmetry (of reference frames) that still exists due to the axiomatic (= non basic) definition of classic physics.
Further all classic quantities e/h/alpha/ are mutually dependent due to their derivation from the electron charge/mass.
So with classic definitions we can not make any real progress until we understand the generation of charge and mass and the more deep interdependence.
-
This is the only point where I cannot agree. Real - elementary - charge can never move at light speed as it is always bound to mass.
It is the electron that can never move at light speed not its charge!
Yes, the charge is always bond to mass because it is at the very origin of mass. The electron moment is p = mv = eAp = eAv, consequently the Newton equation is well explained by the simple equation f = ma = e dAp/dt, where Ap is the component of the charge's vector potential A parallel to electron speed v. Charge speed is always c, electron speed consequently is always v < c. -
An additional note for the charge-discussion from this ECE-page, chapter "A new achievement in understanding the foundations of physics", written by Horst Eckardt:
"Since no electric charges are assumed in the geometric model,
it is remarkable that the forces produced by the centrally symmetric spacetime have a divergence,
which corresponds to a source charge.
This charge is of topological origin exclusively.
In other words, the centrally symmetric spacetime produces a structure,
which we experience as electric charges."
-
An additional note for the charge-discussion from this ECE-page, chapter "A new achievement in understanding the foundations of physics", written by Horst Eckardt:
ECE theory is interesting. It is however somewhat obscured by the language used. As an example the meaning of "ECE wave equation" 11.73 is more understandable if the mysterious tetrad q is recognized as the charge's electromagnetic four potential and the curvature -R as a value equal to square of the inverse of the charge trajectory radius.
