I just produced a first draft of the Metaphysics page of my new physics site. It does not only deal with the fundamental concepts we have been developing but – as importantly, if not more – it also offers some thoughts on all of the unanswered questions which, when trying to do science and be logical, are at least as important as the questions we do consider to be solved. Click the link or the tab. Enjoy ! 🙂 As usual, feedback is more than welcome!

# Tag: electron model

# A theory of matter-particles

**Pre-scriptum (PS)**, added on 6 March 2020: The ideas below also naturally lead to a theory about what a neutrino might actually be. As such, it’s a complete ‘alternative’ Theory of Everything. I uploaded the basics of such theory on my academia.edu site. For those who do not want to log on to academia.edu, you can also find the paper on my author’s page on Phil Gibb’s site.

**Text:**

We were rather tame in our last paper on the oscillator model of an electron. We basically took some philosophical distance from it by stating we should probably only think of it as a *mathematical equivalent *to Hestenes’ concept of the electron as a superconducting loop. However, deep inside, we feel we should *not *be invoking Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics to explain what a proton and an electron might actually *be*. The basics of the ring current model can be summed up in one simple equation:

*c* = *a*·ω

This is the formula for the tangential velocity. Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation and the Planck-Einstein relation explain everything else[1], as evidenced by the fact that we can immediately derive the Compton radius of an electron from these three equations, as shown below:The reader might think we are just ‘casually connecting formulas’ here[2] but we feel we have a full-blown theory of the electron here: simple and consistent. The geometry of the model is visualized below. We think of an electron (and a proton) as consisting of a pointlike elementary charge – pointlike but *not* *dimensionless***[3]** – moving about at (*nearly*) the speed of light around the center of its motion.

The relation works perfectly well for the electron. However, when applying the *a* = *ħ*/m*c* radius formula to a proton, we get a value which is about 1/4 of the *measured *proton radius: about 0.21 fm, as opposed to the 0.83-0.84 fm charge radius which was established by Professors Pohl, Gasparan and others over the past decade.[4] In our papers on the proton radius[5], we motivated the 1/4 factor by referring to the energy equipartition theorem and assuming energy is, somehow, equally split over electromagnetic field energy and the kinetic energy in the motion of the *zbw *charge. However, the reader must have had the same feeling as we had: these assumptions are rather *ad hoc*. We, therefore, propose something more radical:

When considering systems (e.g. electron orbitals) and excited states of particles, angular momentum comes in units (nearly) equal to *ħ*, but when considering the internal structure of elementary particles, (orbital) angular momentum comes in an integer fraction of ħ. This fraction is 1/2 for the electron[6] and 1/4 for the proton.

Let us write this out for the proton radius:What are the implications for the assumed centripetal force keeping the elementary charge in motion? The centripetal acceleration is equal to *a*_{c} = *v*_{t}^{2}/*a* = *a*·ω^{2}. It is probably useful to remind ourselves how we get this result so as to make sure our calculations are relativistically correct. The position vector ** r** (which describes the position of the

*zbw*charge) has a horizontal and a vertical component:

*x*=

*a*·cos(ωt) and

*y*=

*a*·sin(ωt). We can now calculate the two components of the (tangential) velocity vector

**= d**

*v***/dt as**

*r**v*

_{x}= –

*a*·ω·sin(ωt) and

*v*

_{y}

*y*= –

*a*· ω·cos(ωt) and, in the next step, the components of the (centripetal) acceleration vector

**:**

*a*_{c}*a*

_{x}= –

*a*·ω

^{2}·cos(ωt) and

*a*

_{y}= –

*a*·ω

^{2}·sin(ωt). The magnitude of this vector is then calculated as follows:

*a*_{c}^{2} = *a _{x}*

^{2}+

*a*

_{y}^{2}=

*a*

^{2}·ω

^{4}·cos

^{2}(ωt) +

*a*

^{2}·ω

^{4}·sin

^{2}(ωt) =

*a*

^{2}·ω

^{4}⇔

*a*

_{c}=

*a*·ω

^{2}=

*v*

_{t}

^{2}/

*a*

Now, Newton’s force law tells us that the magnitude of the centripetal force will be equal to:

F = m_{γ}·*a*_{c} = m_{γ}·*a*·ω^{2}

As usual, the m_{γ} factor is, once again, the *effective mass *of the *zbw *charge as it *zitters *around the center of its motion at (nearly) the speed of light: it is *half *the electron mass.[7] If we denote the centripetal force inside the electron as F_{e}, we can relate it to the electron mass m_{e} as follows:Assuming our logic in regard to the *effective *mass of the *zbw *charge inside a proton is also valid – and using the 4E = *ħ*ω and *a *= ħ/4m*c* relations – we get the following equation for the centripetal force inside of a proton:

How should we think of this? In our oscillator model, we think of the centripetal force as a restoring force. This force depends linearly on the displacement from the center and the (linear) proportionality constant is usually written as k. Hence, we can write F_{e} and F_{p} as F_{e} = -k_{e}*x* and F_{p} = -k_{p}*x* respectively. Taking the ratio of both so as to have an idea of the respective strength of both forces, we get this:

The ** a_{p}** and

**are acceleration vectors – not the radius. The equation above seems to tell us that the centripetal force inside of a proton gives the**

*a*_{e}*zbw*charge inside – which is nothing but the elementary charge, of course – an acceleration that is

*four*times that of what might be going on inside the electron.

Nice, but how meaningful are these relations, really? If we would be thinking of the centripetal or restoring force as modeling some *elasticity *of spacetime – the *guts *intuition behind far more complicated string theories of matter – then we may think of distinguishing between a *fundamental *frequency and higher-level harmonics or overtones.[8] We will leave our reflections at that for the time being.

We should add one more note, however. We only talked about the electron and the proton here. What about other particles, such as neutrons or mesons? We do *not *consider these to be elementary because they are not stable: we think they are not stable because the Planck-Einstein relation is slightly *off*, which causes them to disintegrate into what we’ve been trying to model here: stable stuff. As for the process of their disintegration, we think the approach that was taken by Gell-Man and others[9] is not productive: inventing new quantities that are supposedly being conserved – such as strangeness – is… Well… As strange as it sounds. We, therefore, think the concept of quarks confuses rather than illuminates the search for a truthful theory of matter.

Jean Louis Van Belle, 6 March 2020

[1] In this paper, we make abstraction of the anomaly, which is related to the *zbw *charge having a (tiny) spatial dimension.

[2] We had a signed contract with the IOP and WSP scientific publishing houses for our manuscript on a realist interpretation of quantum mechanics (https://vixra.org/abs/1901.0105) which was shot down by this simple comment. We have basically stopped tried convincing mainstream academics from that point onwards.

[3] See footnote 1.

[4] See our paper on the proton radius (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0160).

[5] See reference above.

[6] The reader may wonder why we did not present the ½ fraction is the first set of equations (calculation of the electron radius). We refer him or her to our previous paper on the effective mass of the *zbw *charge (https://vixra.org/abs/2003.0094). The 1/2 factor appears when considering *orbital *angular momentum only.

[7] The reader may not be familiar with the concept of the effective mass of an electron but it pops up very naturally in the quantum-mechanical analysis of the linear motion of electrons. Feynman, for example, gets the equation out of a quantum-mechanical analysis of how an electron could move along a line of atoms in a crystal lattice. See: Feynman’s *Lectures*, Vol. III, Chapter 16: *The Dependence of Amplitudes on Position *(https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_16.html). We think of the effective mass of the electron as the relativistic mass of the *zbw *charge as it whizzes about at nearly the speed of light. The rest mass of the *zbw *charge itself is close to – but also not quite equal to – zero. Indeed, based on the measured anomalous magnetic moment, we calculated the *rest *mass of the *zbw *charge as being equal to about 3.4% of the electron rest mass (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0315).

[8] For a basic introduction, see my blog posts on *modes *or on music and physics (e.g. https://readingfeynman.org/2015/08/08/modes-and-music/).

[9] See, for example, the analysis of kaons (K-mesons) in Feynman’s *Lectures*, Vol. III, Chapter 11, section 5 (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_11.html#Ch11-S5).

# The Mystery Wallahs

I’ve been working across Asia – mainly South Asia – for over 25 years now. You will google the exact meaning but my definition of a *wallah *is a someone who deals in something: it may be a street vendor, or a handyman, or anyone who brings something new. I remember I was one of the first to bring modern mountain bikes to India, and they called me a *gear wallah*—because they were absolute fascinated with the number of gears I had. [Mountain bikes are now back to a 2 by 10 or even a 1 by 11 set-up, but I still like those three *plateaux *in front on my older bikes—and, yes, my collection is becoming way too large but I just can’t do away with it.]

Any case, let me explain the title of this post. I stumbled on the work of the research group around Herman Batelaan in Nebraska. *Absolutely fascinating !* Not only did they actually do the electron double-slit experiment, but their ideas on an actual Stern-Gerlach experiment with electrons are quite interesting: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=physicsgay

I also want to look at their calculations on momentum exchange between electrons in a beam: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/701/1/012007.

Outright fascinating. Brilliant ! […]

It just makes me wonder: why is the outcome of this 100-year old battle between mainstream hocus-pocus and real physics so undecided?

I’ve come to think of mainstream physicists as peddlers in mysteries—whence the title of my post. It’s a tough conclusion. Physics is supposed to be the King of Science, right? Hence, we shouldn’t doubt it. At the same time, it is kinda comforting to know the battle between truth and lies rages everywhere—including inside of the King of Science.

JL

# The ultimate electron model

A rather eminent professor in physics – who has contributed significantly to solving the so-called ‘proton radius puzzle’ – advised me to *not *think of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron as an anomaly. It led to a breakthrough in my thinking of what an electron might actually *be*. The fine-structure constant should be part and parcel of the model, indeed. Check out my last paper ! I’d be grateful for comments !

I know the title of this post sounds really arrogant. It is what it is. Whatever brain I have has been thinking about these issues consciously and unconsciously for many years now. It looks good to me. When everything is said and done, the function of our mind is to make sense. What’s sense-making? I’d define sense-making as creating consistency between (1) the structure of our ideas and theories (which I’ll conveniently define as ‘mathematical’ here) and (2) what we think of as the structure of reality (which I’ll define as ‘physical’).

I started this blog reading Penrose (see the About page of this blog). And then I just put his books aside and started reading Feynman. I think I should start re-reading Penrose. His ‘mind-physics-math’ triangle makes a lot more sense to me now.

JL

PS: I agree the title of my post is excruciatingly arrogant but – believe me – I could have chosen an even more arrogant title. Why? Because I think my electron model actually explains mass. And it does so in a much more straightforward manner than Higgs, or Brout–Englert–Higgs, or Englert–Brout–Higgs–Guralnik–Hagen–Kibble, Anderson–Higgs, Anderson–Higgs–Kibble, Higgs–Kibble, or ABEGHHK’t (for Anderson, Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen, Higgs, Kibble, and ‘t Hooft) do. [I am just trying to attribute the theory here using the Wikipedia article on it.] ^{}