This has been done with the strong force equation.
ok, but an an equation is worth more than thousand words.
I meant something like
mp = ...
where on the right hand side we have only geometric and/or electromagnetic parameters (radii, magnetic fluxes, electromagnetic potentials e etc...)
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
Webinar: 30 June 2023 (7:00 am CEST): Towards Clifford Algebra, Geometry, and Information Science Foundations of Theoretical Physics, including Social Aspects
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
A new preprint on electron structure
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.
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?
You mix up macroscopic physics (bulk mass) with the origin of mass.
F=ma is valid for microscopic objects (as electrons) and macroscopic objects, isn't it?
A realistic electron electromagnetic-Zitterbewegung model should explain it
The only exchangeable & quantifiable form of energy is photons = EM radiation. For this physics works as known. Restmass can only be given as equivalence relation to charge and photon energy (eV). You cannot (never= convert a proton in the energy = mpc2 without first adding extra energy. Thus this is not a universal physical equation that you can include in other equations like Dirac's failed approach.
does all this mean that for mass there is no equation that can define it?
How do you explain the origin of Newton's equation F=ma?
I am loving this. Please carry on.
Some Wyttenbach posts are useful in highlighting some mainstream deeply rooted cognitive bias that have hindered a serious progress in theoretical physics:
Charge cannot move at speed of light
Vector potential is just a mathematical tool
Planck equation E=hv is valid only for photons
mass/charge ratio is not related to charge's vector potential
Energy-mass is not related to a geometric parameter (Zitterbewegung radius)
Aharonov-Bohm equations are not related to the particle structure
elementary charge and its magnetic flux are not strictly related by a very simple equation 𐌘=h/e
you can add extra spatial dimensions if your theory needs it
What you say is not clear. Restmass is not equal EM mass. This was Einsteins error multiplied by Dirac.
So please, write down your formal definition of energy and restmass
The electron is an excitation of the proton as we can exactly derive (SO(4) physics) all electron properties from the proton properties.
Same for E=mc2. Known and proven for particles since Poincaré is only dm = E/c2. The Einstein guess only is an equivalence relation "=" not a physical equation.
Separating the concepts of mass, energy and frequency is just an example of Occam's razor rule violation
An electron positron pair decays into 3 photons. .
Exactly, this indeed suggests that electron, positron and photon share a common electromagnetic origin i.e. gaugeless Maxwell's Equations.
This is an equivalence relation not a physical reality. You cannot convert mass 1:1 into a photon.
Why is not a physical reality? This is just another "mainstream" cognitive bias. Electron is not a photon however they share the same universal energy-frequency relation in a Zitterbewegung model.
Really? Then the electron mass should decrease!
The real problem is that we don't know how the relativistic extra mass is added.
No, mc2=ћω=eAc and ω=c/re consequently mass is exactly inversely proportional to the Zitterbewegung radius and directly proportional to the charge's vector potential A. This explains inertia (without Higgs boson!) and how the relativistic extra mass is added
"Einstein simply has forgotten that all stable matter rotates and if this rotation is related to "c" the whole relativistic field theory breaks down."
Using an appropriate Zitterbewegung model the electron's charge moves always at speed of light in all inertial frames. The internal rotation has a precise clock c/re that is proportional to the relativistic mass and inversely proportional to the Zitterbewegung radius re. As a consequence of the invariance of charge's light speed c this radius decreases with increasing electron speed. The radius of the charge helicoidal trajectory decreases as the radius of an extended spring.
This is clear from a math point of view. But time cannot rotate as it is strictly 1 dimensional.
The concept of time in physics (special relativity) cannot be separated by the concept of space. A rotation is always associated to a plane (only in 3d we can associate a rotation with an axis!). Therefore in 4d spacetime there are 6 possible rotation planes.
Lorentz transformation are encoded by hyperbolic rotations in "mixed spacetime" planes
https://www.physicslog.com/blo…entz-hyperbolic-rotation/
Or you have to explain the physical meaning of a mixed space time rotation...
A mixed space-time rotation is simply an hyperbolic rotation in Minkowski space-time with signature [+++-]. This is related to the variation of mass with speed in special relativity.
"The motion of a massless charge that moves at speed of light can be described using a composition of a rotation in the γxγy plane followed by a scaled hyperbolic rotation in the γzγt plane and can be encoded in Cl3,1 algebra with a single spinor."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274378_Maxwell%27s_Equations_and_Occam%27s_Razor
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320274514_The_Electron_and_Occam%27s_Razor
"21th century scientists":
"The proton is a state of two up quarks and one down quark bound by gluons, but quantum theory predicts that in addition there is an infinite number of quark–antiquark pairs."
"We establish the existence of intrinsic charm at the 3-standard-deviation level, with a momentum distribution in remarkable agreement with model predictions"
Quarks (weight 3..6 MeV) eject (exchange..) 80MeV Gluons...an even more crazy fantasy...
The standard model has been invented by fools lost in endless math, that never studied basic experiments- only the fudged CERN ones...
I don't think they are "fool" in the strict sense of the word. They simply put career, money and social acceptance before truth seeking.
"and please stay tuned for exciting news about the proton."
"Maar wat heeft dit te maken met het proton, ik hoor jullie denken? Nou, een proton weegt ongeveer een giga-elektronvolt. Een giga-elektronvolt is een handig meeteenheden in de wereld van elementaire deeltjes. Een charm quark, die “zwaardere neef” van het up quark, weegt ongeveer 40% meer dan een proton. Het zou best gek zijn als protonen bevatten charm quarks, toch?
Stel, jij ontvangt een pakketje, en die pakketje weegt een kilo. Valt mee, niet zo zwaar. Maar opeens, als je het pakketje opendoet, de inhoud weegt 2 kilo’s! Hoe kan dat? Zo’n vreemde situatie is uiteraard verboden in ons dagelijkse leven, maar het komt voor in de opmerkelijke wereld van de kwantummechanica."
we are here behind the Magic Mirror of "kwantummechanica"
Alice in Wonderland
"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
