With all due respect, the whole question is incorrect.

Science practices standard model of atom, which it still is a theory. On the other hand, Electron/positron, proton/neutron, quark, Higgs, fermion...etc are theory of probability under atom's theory. Which means no one knows or observed electron...than what is electron?? or what is particle??

If science cannot answer....

Atoms are complete sentient entity that no one be able to know anything inside of atom... think for minute. Can mass of electrons go around nuclei with speed of light in the mass of iron atom ?

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Preston Guynn You say: “The quantum mechanical methodology adopts "intrinsic" characteristics instead of characteristics viewed as the units having physical meaning….QM practitioners reject outright any attempt to show that these "intrinsic" characteristics have a physical basis.”

I never cease to be amazed how most physicists are willing to discard the conservation of angular momentum law when this conflicts with their favored point particle model. I claim that an electron has real physical angular momentum that is always conserved.

If an electron is assumed to be a point particle, it is impossible for it to have a physical angular momentum of ħ/2. Students are taught an electron has an “intrinsic” property of “spin.” The word “intrinsic” implies that this is not physical rotation, and students should not attempt to understand it conceptually. However, the Einstein-de Haas experiment proves that reversing an electron’s spin with a magnetic field imparts physical angular momentum to a ferromagnetic rod. [1]. For example, in iron, almost all the observed angular momentum transfer to the iron rod is due to reversing the angular momentum of the electrons. [2]. This is experimental proof that reversing the electron’s spin direction imparts physical angular momentum to a rod. Claiming that an electron possesses “intrinsic spin” requires the assumption there must be a non-rotational form of angular momentum that can be converted to a physically rotating iron rod. I claim the point particle model is wrong. It fails numerous tests including physical angular momentum.

As you apparently know, I favor the electron model that is rotating soliton wave in a quantum mechanical field. This model explains the observed wave-particle properties and possess ħ/2 physical angular momentum. These waves also possess an enormous internal pressure that is offset by opposing pressure exerted by the field. If there is further discussion on this point, I will elaborate further.

Here are the references on the Einstein-de Haas experiment.

[1] Einstein A. de Haas WJ. Experimental proof of the existence of Ampère's molecular currents (in English). Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Proceedings. 18 I, pp. 696–711. (1915)

[2] Reck RA, Fry DL. Orbital and Spin Magnetization in Fe-Co, Fe-Ni, and Ni-Co. Physical Review. 184 (2): 492–495. (1969)

But I would ask the following simple question: Does any fermion, which of course is always at motion, have for that reason some internal activity? If the measurable energy of a fermion is high, then, should it not mean that it has higher activity too, and higher intensity of activity would mean higher density too? I ask without involving any technicalities. This is just to keep the question clear enough to all.

Quantum Mechanics as such - but not at all it’s *completely invalid statistics based mathematical model* typically using renormalizaton trickery which on the other hand doubtless reflect high precision experimental results - is not wrong, as a recent *single* neutron in a beam splitter experiment has shown in an imho extremely impressive and hence convincing way. This is imho often not stated clear enough in discussions like this.

As the creator of iSpace theory (the first theory finally able to compute constants of nature from simple purely *multiplicative* integer geometric first principles - see my RG home) I had 20+ years basically tried to show that QM as such had to be wrong, as virtual particles et al are logically incompatible to the iSpace intrinsic LEGO style 10D (6D+3D+1D) spacetime model.

However - seeing the result of said single neutron beam splitter experiment (recently also prominently presented in Scientific American and Spektrum der Wissenschaft, i can lookup and add a link later) I immediately „switched sides“ and think QM and it’s „multiple simultaneous path at the same time„ attitude is indeed an intrinsic mechanism of spacetime.

So this in turn shows what - or *who* - is wrong: it’s basically not the physicists but the *entirely wrong mathematical apparatus* - and by design, as Feynman already basically said (not an exact quote here) „we do not cancel in sums, also not infinities, but we do not know any better for now and this trick works so well“.

It’s about time mathematicians and more so the actual „problem ones“ - the highly trained and mathematically most talented physicists - compared to the still *honest* true actual physicists like even most inventors of QM had been - *must be stopped*.

Todays so called mainstream QM experts are nothing more than noisy parrots repeating and defending their mathematical mistakes ad infinitum for now over 100+ years and without getting anywhere, for that matter.

This *simply must come to an end* as it is in an evil yet unfortunately highly effective way blocking also for 100+ years the careers of scientists with not unlikely many of which had the proper ideas on how to fox all this, but are not even allowed to peer-review publish their ideas as seen by the vary bad example arXiv - not even electronically.

*„Der Ksiser ist nackt!“* and at least I am very thankful to the existence of the ResearchGate platform. We possibly would be not even able to efficiently discuss all this without RG.

Raphael Neelamkavil You ask the question: "Does any fermion, which of course is always at motion, have for that reason some internal activity?" The Durac equation implies that an electron is always moving at the speed of light and has zitterbewegung ("jittery motion" in German). If an electron is visualized as a corpuscular particle, then these properties are incomprehensable. However, these are conceptually understandable properties of an electron is modeled as a rotating soliton wave. If this wave is also required to create an electron's de Broglie wave properties, then this requirement dictates the wave's frequency (wavelength) and mathematical radius. The wave-based model not only creates an electron's known properties, but it also makes predictions about an electron's gravitational and electromagnetic forces. The rotating wave generates the internal pressure implied by the question here. Stabalization of this pressure is an important part of the electron model.

Preston Gyunn, very impressive.

John A. Macken, you started replying to my question. But I think you did not complete it.

Christian G. Wolf, very good work. But do you face resistance from the QM community?

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil you stated above:

“Christian G. Wolf, very good work. But do you face resistance from the QM community?“

Thank you for recognizing iSpace theory to be useful („very good work“)!

With respect to your question on resistance from the QM community: I have talked to many (and very prominent ones up to Nobel level) on iSpace theory. The higher the level (read: way above average intelligence), the less critical but interested and even helpful the feedback was. So my comment was not about the QM community as a whole (brilliant exception to note here were my very fruitful discussions with all I met from Wolfram Research at NKS-2012 and IMS-2015 in Prague).

But especially so mathematically talented (the average intelligent ones) and hence focused on persons with possibly in addition having a photographic memory (and lots of those do seem to have and need such to be able to successfully work in this field to enable themselves to cope with the inherent complexity) are the most problematic ones from my personal experience. I do not have such very helpful photographic memory - but I am open-minded and creative instead like a scientist should be, and even then when not at all agreeing with someone else ideas or theories.

These persons outright - even fanatical - refuse to let mentally loose of anything which could make the slightest scratch in their decade long learned and worked on model (Standard Model, both QM and Relativity do apply here, for that matter).

But by now with every new experimental result not (fully) compatible their beloved model it anyway gets massively scratched, but all they do is trying to wipe this under the carpet.

All i wanted - and in 15+ years never was able to achieve - is to get the two (2) simple recommendations from actively working on and hence frequently posting articles in recommended typical groups of arXiv - to no avail (when I long ago created my arXiv account there was no such regulation in place, as a funny detail but iSpace was not ready for prime time as it is now). So no chance whatever I tried, and finally I simply gave up.

So it’s not my fault when these self-declared group of experts living like in a echo-chamber bubble will read from the news (or maybe a went viral Youtube video) what is the solution on the problems they failed to solve in the last 100+ years collectively.

Peer-Review as such I do still concern of utmost importance, but be it here at RG in a friendly atmosphere and open discussion - or as I believe a by today completely broken by design peer-review process does not matter. The universe and its mechanics does not rely in any way on such experts, who long ago choose they want to persue a road to wits end.

QM in its current form (esp. g-2 value) is not the most precise physical theory of the world - but it’s a tricky form of hidden *numerology* - and iSpace theory was and is able to reveal this. That said - iSpace theory is the most precise physical theory of the world, as by design it has a zero error bar - either it’s completely correct or the biggest numerical accident ever happend.

Dear Christian G. Wolf,

Exactly this is what I expected to happen. Although I am not such an expert like you in QM or Relativity, I have suffered much resistance and derision from some expert quantum physicists and many quantum philosophers, and from some of my own professors who, in my opinion, have got themselves fossilized in their physics, cosmology, and philosophy of physics. In the face of derisive smiles, I have kept quiet, further kept on reading and reflecting, writing down my ideas and reflections, etc.

Let me cite from Max Planck:

“A new scientific truth does triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

– Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1950, pp. 33-34.

Grüße,

Raphael

Science is practicing standard modeling of atom which it is a theory (not reality), and nothing inside of atom never been observed, including fermion, thus everything you say is incorrect, because the whole things is a theory not reality.

Javad Fardaei Javad, we heard you a couple of times now, and nothing you say makes it better (or even close to "not even wrong") when you repeat it multiple times. You imho with all due respect show the behavior of a Troll, which is unwilling to accept scientific experimental and theoretical facts, so all you state is your *opinion*. Opinions now are correct by definition, which hence are not helpful nor wanted in a scientific discussion. As you do seem not to understand this (seeing your posts like this multiple times on very different questions repeating yourself for month now), it counts for us with the sign "Please do not feed the Trolls!". Seriously, please either choose a philosophical or religious discussion group (or maybe a mix of both) best on a completely different forum than RG and leave us alone here. Thanks!

(Note this is a one-off and I will not answer to any of your future comments and just block you in my RG profile).

Have you ever read anything about atom?

I'm sure you know standard modeling of atom is theory, it is imagination of few people and it runs for a century. and up to date nothing inside of atom confirmed by any experimentalist, fermion, quarks...are just imaginary things.

“…If an electron and a positron interact, they release over a megajoule of energy…..”

If an electron and a positron interact, they release a bit over 1.6x10-13 joule of energy

Cheers

Nothing inside of atom has been discover, such as electron or positron...how could E/P can release 1.6* 10^*13 joule energy, while science cannot goes under ^9 as nano-tech explain?

Atoms are the complete unit of our universe, this the fact.

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

Article Quantum Solar System

Sergey Shevchenko

Sergey - You caught my mistake. Thank you. I intended to say a mega electron volt (106 eV) rather than a megajoule 106 J. I have fixed the mistake.

Dear Preston Guynn ,

Let me understand, the total angular momentum is √3/2 ħ and is as if one electron spins around three axes at the same time?

I found also this paper about the topic.

https://www.physics.umd.edu/grt/taj/411c/EinsteindeHaas.pdf

Dear Preston Guynn ,

I guess you might be able to provide a rational explanation then to the anomalous frequency shift due to the transverse Doppler found in the rotor experiments after Kunding.

There is a discrepancy with the predicted value 1/2 v2/c2 as the normalized frequency shift of the radiation and the value of 2/3 v2/c2 experimentally found. I made the hypothesis that there could be something related to the spins of the nuclei which is agreement with SR in the crystals which altered the frequency of the gamma radiation absorbed/emitted.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_explain_the_frequency_shift_ratio_of_radiation_of_2_3_found_in_some_experiments_instead_of_the_expected_1_2_according_to_rel_dynamics

Dear John A. Macken ,

I think this recent paper is partially inline with your theory.

Article Physical Mechanisms Underpinning the Vacuum Permittivity

John A. Macken You always ask the most interesting and fundamental questions, John.

I'm not sure I agree with the equations in your first paragraph. I know they're standard, but I think you are going to need to show N=M to give them the same dimensional units.

I heartily agree with infinite radiation pressure of massless particles. I demonstrated it with a thought experiment in Preprint How Radiation without Annihilation Creates Gravitational For...

So yes, I believe infinite extension applies to all particle phenomena. My answer to your final, all-important question:

Gravity. (Or rather, gravitational feedback.)

All best,

Tom

T. H. Ray You stated:

“I'm not sure I agree with the equations in your first paragraph. I know they're standard, but I think you are going to need to show N=M to give them the same dimensional units.“

John is completely right about this, which is most easy to see in iSpace theory, and within the unit systems iSpace-SI (using SI identical metric values but only Volt, Ampere, Meter and Second as base units) and iSpace-IQ units (first of its kind able to get away without human artifacts whatsoever, but only iSpaceVolt, iSpaceAmpere, iSpaceMeter and iSpaceSecond).

So (J/m^3) = (N/m^2) are indeed also unit and not only metric value wise identical, because (J:=VAs) and (N:=VAs/m) which naturally results in (VAs/m^3).

Other than that, iSpace is able to *exactly* predict constants of nature in two completely different unit systems, one of which having no need for any human artifact, yet being 100% forward and backward compatible. An as all iSpace math is simple purely first order multiplicative (plain *integer geometry* !!) it cannot be related to anything „infinity“ and hence proves, John‘s question is more than a valid one (esp. with respect to do called „Standard Model“).

As QM is how imho a physically completely correct model of our world, it leaves us with the conclusion the „just“ the mathematical (continuum) model of R and C (complex numbers, i^2=-1 and so on) is completely on the wrong track or otherwise said - only a nice approximation up up exactly Bohr radius devided by FSC alpha (10*-13m about) so all physical activity below that distance is governed strictly by discrete iSpace (LEGO style) rules with so called „changed distance definition„ Pi3=3 (6 around 1 cell) base geometry.

An this is solves the problem stated in Johns question - hence there is of course no infinite pressure or energy density. So please also note this does not at all contradict a so far experimentally verified point particle model (in some hypothised 4D continuum spacetime). as iSpace states 10D=6D+3D+1D spacetime and 6D subspaces are Calabi-Yau d style rolled-in giving an entity with only inside (in 6D) and no outside (in 4D) so no length in 4D gives naturally a point particle - which solves the case.

T. H. Ray, Christian G. Wolf

T.H Ray: Thank you for the compliment that I always ask the most interesting and fundamental questions. I have a saying: "Other people are looking for answers and I am looking for exciting questions." In my mind, finding these questions is a key part developing creativity.

Both you and Christian made the comment about needing to show N = M. I do not understand this comment. Energy density (J/m3) and pressure (N/m2) have units of kg/s2m which is M/T2L when converted to dimensional analysis terminology. This connection is well known. For example, stars have a core temperature above about 107 K. The tremendous energy density of this electromagnetic radiation generates the pressure required to prevent the star's gravitational collapse. A star collapses when the fuel has been exhausted and radiation energy density (radiation pressure) cannot resist the gravitational pressure.