- Member since Oct 10th 2014
"In the books 'The Physics Delusion - the urgent need to reinterpret modern physics -' and 'Superconductions at Room Temperature without Cooper Pairs', the author, Johan F Prins, describes an experiment where a superconducting bond made up exclusively of electrons is created at room temperature between two tiny diamond electrodes separated by a gap of many microns [7–9]. This kind of superconductivity obviously cannot be modeled by the widely accepted BCS theory of Cooper pairs. In the latest book , the author writes [pp. 304–305]: 'I was forced to conclude that the stable phase which forms between the two interfaces has to consist entirely of electrons. There is no other experimental explanation, and one must believe experimental evidence'. Surprisingly this bond is stable and does not disappear when there is no potential difference between the electrodes even when the potential is reversed. This behavior has also been observed in our experiment. This scenario rises however a key question: How is it possible that a structure consisting exclusively of electrons can be stable despite Coulomb repulsion?
Prins recognizes the importance of this problem writing : 'why does it remain stable when the power supply is switched off?' 'There must be some other mechanism. This mechanism should also explain why the electrons do not repeal each other and 'fly out of the gap' when switching off the applied potential.' 'I have discovered this mechanism and found that it relates to the formation of a single macro-wave'."
“If you wish to become a philosopher, the first thing to realise is that most people go through life with a whole world of beliefs that have no sort of rational justification, and that one man’s world of beliefs is apt to be incompatible with another man’s, so that they cannot both be right. People’s opinions are mainly designed to make them feel comfortable; truth, for most people is a secondary consideration.”
― Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing and other Essays (1942)
What angular speed are you talking of???
There is no electron orbiting any particle, but you can construct a simple equivalence relation with the help of a central force. Real flux speed is always "c" the speed of light!
Exactly. The angular speed is consequently ω=c/R where R is the Zitterbewegung radius (i.e. the reduced Compton wavelength)
i like very well last Simon Brink expectations, i think he touched a key point.
Wave-particle equivalence" identifies that particle mass is equivalent to curvature energy, so mass is inversely related to particle radius, in accordance with the reduced Compton wavelength."
This is a key point that shows also the fundamental role of Ehrenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm relations. Zitterbewegung radius curvature, mass, angular speed and electromagnetic potentials are different faces of the same entity.
What is complex is the interpretation of the observations in the "deep inelastic scattering" experiments. This does not necessarily imply a complex proton structure.
It is like trying to understand the structure of a glass beaker by shooting it with a gun and studying the fragments produced.
"Proof that the proton contains multitudes came from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in 1967. In earlier experiments, researchers had pelted it with electrons and watched them ricochet off like billiard balls. But SLAC could hurl electrons more forcefully, and researchers saw that they bounced back differently. The electrons were hitting the proton hard enough to shatter it — a process called deep inelastic scattering"
Leave off the deuteron.
Even the proton, as shown by experiment, is quite extraordinarily complex. So any alt-physics theory of its structure must predict that complexity.
Well, i have always thought that time was correlated with the spatial variation.
After all, everything that grows (or shrinks ) around us does so over time.
So a 3d,t vision seems right, however why only one time and not 3t because 3d ?
This relation d vs t troubles me a lot and makes me say that this "3d" dimensional space seems anisotropic to work well and that is the main thing we should understand better.
In Minkowski spacetime [with signature(+++-)] you have six planes. So you can encode at same time in the same spinor both ordinary rotations (in the 3 pure spatial planes xy yz xz planes) and hyperbolic rotations (Lorentz transformations) in the other 3 planes (xt, yt, zt) planes.
I am commenting on your statement in a strange way ... But if you read this material to the end, then it seems to me that you will understand what is at stake. -
Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://docs.google.com/file/d…UNlwxkJz/edit?usp=sharing
Answer Cherepanov A.I. Elena Arkhipova and Vladimir Yashkardin October 28, 2022 – https://cloud.mail.ru/public/6Qw5/zdeQZX4q8
"We have just fixed the fact that "e" is a dimensionless quantity - it must be a dimensionless quantity"
Using natural units (hbar=c=1) the elementary charge e is a dimensionless constant (i.e. a pure number) with a value of 0.085424546, It's related to the internal geometry of the elementary particles.
Its square is just the fine structure constant α. Even mass is not a primitive concept but has the dimension of the inverse of a length.
Consequently the "Coulomb force" between two elementary particles has always the simple form ±α/d2
"Thus also related quantities such as mass, momentum, potential and current are of 1/L quantities in geometric units included in a 2D curved geometry with two degrees of freedom."
how do the huge 'magnetic forces' hold a single proton together
what keeps the torus stable?
I look forward to your answer..with calculations if possible
The stability is determined by an appropriate stationary Action condition. The relative Lagrangian L for Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics is very simple:
dφ = eA . cdt = eVdt
dφ/dt = eA = eV = m = 1/Rpp
L = eA . c - eV = 0
The curvatures of the trajectory are determined by the Lorentz forces generated by a magnetic flux ΦM= h/e. Elementary charges are always associated at microscopic level to this magnetic flux.
The "strong force" is a good example of Occam's razor violation. Why is it necessary to invoke another kind of force in an environment with huge magnetic forces? Moreover, the coulomb repulsion between charges that move parallelly at speed of light can be fully balanced by the Lorentz force.
The magnetic forces that hold it together have an interesting dependency on radial distance
I look forward to seeing your ideas on that..
Perhap they are not as colourful as the 2004 Nobel Prize winners' explanation..
the proton magnetic moment is not explicitly calculated
but you use a 3D major torus radius of 0:5873608214 10-15m
1.proton mass calculation
2.."strong force" calculation
The proton magnetic moment is computed multiplying the toroidal component of the current Ipt =(alpha/2pi)Apt for the enclosed area pi*Rpt^2. Apt is the toroidal component of the charge vector potential (mv/e=Apt) and Rpt is the major radius. m is the proton mass and v the toroidal component of the charge speed c.
The proton mass is simply the inverse of the minor radius in natural units. m=1/rpp=eAp
The strong force is an attractive magnetic force between the nucleons.
I guess the toroidal volume for the "OccamRazor" proton is 3D
The toroid enclosed by the trajectory is 3d but the charge's time coordinate t (4th dimension) is characterized by a specific period T (De Broglie period) and by an angle 2pi*t/T that is the charge Zittrebewegung phase. The time derivative of this angle is equal, in natural units, to the proton mass and to the module of the charge momentum p=eA=mc
This is at least the third time here the proton gets shaved by Occam. Unluckily its nothing new and based on classic SM fantasy. There is no moving charge in a proton a fact you only grasp if you understand the true structure of matter.
Classic charge needs a carrier = mass what excludes light speed. Also a spherical charge topology can be ruled out as spheres are not stable (you need a force to bend the charge...) .
This means only that you haven't read the pre-print!
"classic SM" ? really ?
Antiprotons from Ultradense Hydrogen?
"A method of producing nuclear energy from ordinary hydrogen through annihilation has been demonstrated, which is a factor of 100 more efficient than nuclear fusion: it converts around 46% of the hydrogen atom mass to recoverable energy, compared to 0.3% of the mass to energy for D + T fusion."