gio06 Verified User
  • Member since Oct 10th 2014

Posts by gio06

    "Charge can never be a wave"

    Just another cognitive bias...

    Please explain your point if you have one. Nobody is interested in statements that have no solid basis.

    Proca equation has a very clear and simple interpretation: The electron is a current ring generated by a charge moving at speed of light and is associated to a magnetic flux h/e. Is this motion that is at the very origin of its mass:

    m = ħω/c2 = eA/c

    Bohr Postulates Derived from the Toroidal Electron Model

    "The quantization of the electron orbits in the Bohr atom is revisited. The toroidal electron model, in which electron charge is described by Schwinger electromagnetic wave orbiting the electron mass, offers a natural explanation for the orbit quantization. As a consequence, the four Bohr postulates can be directly derived from the toroidal electron structure. A physical meaning for the Rydberg constant is also proposed."

    Keywords: Toroidal Electron Model; Schwinger Electromagnetic Wave; Bohr Postulates

    Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics – a research program

    "Spacetime Algebra (STA) provides unified, matrix-free spinor methods for rotational dynamics

    in classical theory as well as quantum mechanics. That makes it an ideal tool for studying particle

    models of zitterbewegung and using them to study zitterbewegung in the Dirac theory. This paper

    develops a self-contained dynamical model of the electron as a lightlike particle with helical zitter-

    bewegung and electromagnetic interactions. It attributes to the electron an electric dipole moment

    oscillating with ultrahigh frequency, and the possibility of observing this directly as a resonance in

    electron channeling is analyzed in detail. A modification of the Dirac equation is suggested to incor-

    porate the oscillating dipole moment. That enables extension of the Dirac equation to incorporate

    electroweak interactions in a new way."

    Is Holmlid 0.023 angstrom D-D separation a signature of a triple D Efimov state enabling Deuterium fusion?

    "Badiei, Holmlid and associates have postulated the existence of metastable "ultradense deuterium" because they have observed 315 eV deuterium after laser pulse induced coulomb explosions, indicating a separation between two deuterium atoms of 0.023 angstrom. Instead of "ultradense deuterium", the 315 eV deuterium signal might be the signature of a triple deuterium Efimov state induced by the laser pulse. In the triple D state the average D separation would be 0.023 angstrom; the energy might be around 120 eV. Sometimes, the 3 D's would fuse to alpha + D, rarely to T + 3 He. This would explain the amounts 4 He >> T >> neutrons observed often in LENR electrolysis, glow discharge, laser pulse, and deuteron beam experiments. The Efimov state might relax to a lower Efimov state with an average D separation of 0.52 angstrom, giving a solid kick to the surrounding nuclei, creating heat. A deuterium glow discharge lamp with a zirconium deuteride cathode on the wall might demonstrate the existence of "Efimov fusion". Ultradense Deuterium? Badiei, Holmlid and their associates [1-13] induced coulomb explosions in D2 adsorbed to potassium promoted iron oxide dehydrogenation catalyst by laser pulses. By time-of-flight measurements they observed many particles at 315 eV [1-4]. They deduced a separation between two deuterons of 0.023 angstrom. Accelerations of deuterons from other naked nuclei of the catalyst would not explain the 315 eV signal [1]. They therefore postulated the existence of metastable ultradense deuterium, where D's are separated by 0.023 angstrom."

    Once more some old errors get repeated again:: Planck: energy is quantized in frequency!

    Planck equation E=hf definitely does not say that energy is quantized!

    What is quantized is information. At microscopic scale energy is related to information density in space-time.

    "It is possible to define a link between fundamental concepts of information, space, time, frequency and energy. A “quantum of information” carried by a single photon will have a “necessary reading time” and a “spatial dimension” inversely proportional to its energy. A simple example is given by radio antennas (dipoles), whose length is proportional to the received (or transmitted) “radio photons” wavelength and inversely proportional to their frequency and to the number of bits that can be received in a unit of time. In this perspective, the concept of energy is closely linked to the “density” of information in space and in time."

    Bekenstein bound

    k = ћ = c =1

    S <= λE

    Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia

    Yeong E. Kim publications

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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."


    "We study the fusion of a proton with a nucleus with the emission of two photons at low incident energy of the order of eV or smaller. We use a step model for the repulsive potential between the proton and the nuclei. We consider the reaction both in free space and inside a medium. We make a simple model for the medium by assuming a hard wall potential beyond a certain length scale. This essentially leads to discretisation of the energy spectrum which is expected inside a medium and is seen both for a crystalline lattice structure and for amorphous materials. We use second-order perturbation theory to compute the transition rate. We find that the rate in free space is very small. However, in the medium, the rate may be substantial. Hence, we conclude that nuclear fusion reactions may take place at low energies at observable rates."

    A toy model for low-energy nuclear fusion

    ICCF22 Assisi Panel Discussion Marianne Macy interviews Bill Collis, David Nagel and Michael Mckubre

    External Content
    Content 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 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 confirms
    The near-perfect roundness deepens the mystery behind how the universe came to be filled with matter as opposed to antimatter.