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."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319921004080

Something is wrong in the state of QED

O. Consa

"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). An examination of the history of QED reveals that this value was obtained in a very suspicious way. These suspicions include the case of Karplus & Kroll, who admitted to having lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in the history of QED. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Karplus & Kroll affair was not an isolated case, but one in a long series of errors, suspicious coincidences, mathematical inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug."

EVOs as charge waves in the Vacuum

Waves of Charge

"The big jump is as follows:
we jumped from the waves to the "corpuscular nature of light".
From the electromagnetic field as a "thing" ..... to photons.
We could now do the reverse passage for electrons. Switch from the traditional particle vision
to a single entity: the charged field. Go from charges, from particles, protons, electrons, to a
different single entity. Here this "thing" takes on a different light
Problems such as "masking of Coulomb repulsion in the EVO Shoulders" are gone ....
because there are no electrons. From the physical / mathematical point of view it serves to
justify ... only a solution of Maxwell's equations "gaugeless", charged. Full stop.
All that is needed is a profound conceptual revolution, that is, to believe in the existence of a
single entity: the charged field, in which the concept of particles, and the presence of particles, no longer exists.
Isn't it that we are ready to make this big jump"

Quote from Curbina

gio06 , you are probably familiar with the DTS idea of Cardone and the late Mignani, they sustain the Minkowski Spacetime is anisotropic, or can be made anisotropic by way of energy. I just mention it because you are using it as starting point.

I

Any anisotropy in Minkowsi spacetime implies that the Vacuum is structured as experimentally confirmed by the Aharonov-Bohm effect. A four-vector field [electromagnetic four potential] can be used to represent the structure of the Vacuum.

Aharonov-bohm effect as the basis of electromagnetic energy inherent in the vacuum - Foundations of Physics Letters

The Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that the vacuum is structured, and that there can exist a finite vector potentialA in the vacuum when the electric field…

link.springer.com

Quote from RobertBryant

Ciao Gio...Apropos nothing ..Your link is from June 1980?

however ,I do read with interest the latest 'charming' QCD revelation..from the mainstream Higgsers..

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08372.pdf

"A toy PDF set at Q0 = √ 2 GeV is evolved up to Q = 100 GeV for equal values of the factorization and renormalization scales, Qf = Qr = Q. We show as representative results those corresponding to the total valence quark V and the quark singlet Σ distributions. Excellent agreement is found, in particular with PEGASUS which also perform QCD evolution"

Here are some views on renormalisation via a physicist who gave up on physics

I have reassured him that there is 'hope for physics' and invited him back into the fray,,

Display More

I fully agree with Feynman and Dirac citations on renormalization!

Something is rotten in the state of QED

Quote from Wyttenbach

As I did note in "basics of physics" most physicists missed a class in basic logic and category theory. Further they never did think about the stability of their proposed solutions.

This is nonsense logic. For hyperbolic rotations you have to provide the force equation. And as said no light speed allowed for an electron.

Seems that you don't even read my answers in this thread. Good luck with your theories...

Quote from Curbina

Jürg’s ideas are mind bending, I had to read a lot of other material just to get enough of a grasp of what a 4 dimensional rotation means, but what is more impressive about them is their heuristic ability and the fact that it connects the so called forces as mere manifestations of the electromagnetism.

The electron's charge helicoidal trajectory can be described by two orthogonal rotations in the four dimensions (six planes) of Minkowski spacetime. One rotation is an ordinary rotation, while the second one is an hyperbolic rotation and is at origin of the relativistic mass increase. Both rotations can be encoded together in a single spinor (eight real values) of the spacetime algebra [Cl_3,1(ℝ) Clifford Algebra]

Quote from RobertBryant

A mainstream physics assumption...

Also a commonsense assumption.

Definitely proton is charming :), even for mainstream

The intrinsic charm of the proton

Quote from Wyttenbach

Except that one side of the coin is much smaller....99% of the mass is EM flux and about 1% is the induced charge coupling.

Electric and magnetic fields are the derivatives of the electromagnetic four potential in the four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The mass is a consequence of the charge momentum mc=eA. The electron momentum is just the component of this momentum in the direction of electron velocity mv=eA_v.

Newton law has a pure electromagnetic origin:

F = ma = m dv/dt = edA_v/dt

Quote from Wyttenbach

Charge as defined by Maxwell and standard model cannot move at light speed as it needs a carrier.

Charge e and magnetic flux h/e are the two sides of the same coin. You cannot separate them at microscopic (Compton scale) level. The concept of "massive charged particles" is only an approximation that only works at macroscopic scale.

Quote from RobertBryant

so charge

Iits not just the equation but the theory and assumptions behind it,,,"

etc usw zbw..:)

A special point of view on charge dynamic

https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0187v1.pdf

"Waves of Charge and Four Dimensional Analytic Functions"

"Basically, the paper concerns the generalization of the Cauchy-Riemann equations to spacetime, so (Hestenes, quote) “we can expect it to have a rich variety of solutions. The problem is to pick out those solutions with physical significance.” I could expect Hopfions, EVOs and so on. I write only the conclusions, skipping all the speculations and physical meanings that led me to this.""

"As I said, I write only the final results of the argument , skipping all the speculations that led me right here. I only say , as far as my notations are concerned , that a brief but exhaustive explanation can be found in a few, few pages, of [1 ]. Other interesting readings are in Bibliography. Of other avant-garde and more or less contested topics, EVO by Shoulders , Condensed Plasmoids , Ball Lightning etc I have found no trace in the official scientific literature, therefore I have not put them in the Bibliography. However, they can be
found on the Internet."

Quote from Wyttenbach

No particle with a claimed mass can move at light speed....

None of the cited papers says that. It's the massless electron's charge that moves at speed of light (Zitterbewegung).

Indeed, this explains the light speed limit and the very origin of the inertial mass.

Mass is not an "intrinsic" property of a particle but a consequence of its charge Zbw.

-------

Erroneous interpretations of the Dirac equation are the true "origin of the mess in physics".

David Hestenes

"Zitterbewegung structure in electrons and photons"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.11085.pdf

"The electron’s circular orbit at the speed of light constitutes the most elementary superconductor possible, generating the flux quantum h/e"

From Dirac Nobel Lecture

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/dirac-lecture.pdf

"It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by experiments"

Something from Nothing?

preprint: Proton model with Aharonov-Bohm electrodynamics

Abstract:

"Otto Stern's 1933 measurement of the unexpectedly large proton magnetic moment indicated to most physicists that the proton is not a point particle. At that time, many physicists modeled elementary particles as point particles, and therefore Stern's discovery initiated the speculation that the proton might be a composite particle. In this work, we show that despite being an elementary particle, the proton is an extended particle. Our work is motivated by the experimental data, which we review in section 1. By applying Occam's Razor principle, we identify a simple proton structure that explains the origin of its principal parameters. Our model uses only relativistic and electromagnetic concepts, highlighting the primary role of the electromagnetic potentials and of the magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e. Unlike prior proton models, our methodology does not violate Maxwell's equation, Noether's theorem, or the Pauli exclusion principle. Considering that the proton has an anapole (toroidal) magnetic moment, we propose that the proton is a spherical shaped charge that moves at the speed of light along a path that encloses a toroidal volume. A magnetic flux quantum Φ = h /e stabilizes the proton's charge trajectory. The two curvatures of the toroidal and poloidal current loops are determined by the magnetic forces associated with Φ. We compare our calculations against experimental data."

Quote from Wyttenbach

Fields need sources. Without a source no field. Not the other way round....

Correct, but we should be careful in choosing the correct "source"!

In other words, what really is "charge"?

Another interesting paper, based on the Geometry of space-time, related to EVOs and LENR

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228363280_Three-vector_and_scalar_field_identities_and_uniqueness_theorems_in_Euclidean_and_Minkowski_spaces