The equation F = qvxB means that any charged particle moving in a magnetic field will experience a force at right angles to the component of its motion that is at right angles to the magnetic field. Hence, in a uniform magnetic field, a charged particle will trace out a helical path.

Hi Frederick,

Yes, but it also says that a stationary electron will not experience any magnetic force thus it will not accelerate and therefore remain in its position.. This has been never verified by experiment.

Hi Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

IMO if an electron is stationary relative to the surrounding media, then it will have no rotation, spin, orbit...

JES

But, if you apply a magnetic field to the electron then the electron will start to spin. It will not move but it will be surrounded by its own magnetic field produced by its spin.

JES

Hi Preston,

I'm impressed with your answer and how it wraps it all up!

For a detailed description of the unified electromagnetic flux energy manifold of the electron and its intrinsic mechanics taboo "forbidden" by QM to explore, see my newest publication here:

Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

Data Significance and Novelty of this paper & Research Highlights

The physical model simulations result to all its known measured 'intrinsic' fixed rest values like charge, magnetic dipole moment, mass, angular momentum, helicity etc. Also, the fine structure constant α, has been deciphered as geometrical proportionality constant of the electron and that the electron is actually a twisted, deformed spin-1/2 photon, physically spinning in 3D space.

Needless to say, that these every time measured, fixed properties values of the electron are because there is nothing probabilistic about the intrinsic mechanics of the electron, how could it be? It works like clockwork, like a precision machine in its core.

Whoever, believes that nature at its most fundamental elementary core level would rely on fuzzy probability mechanics is in ignorance and deluded.

There is nothing probabilistic in how nature works only our observations and methods are. Emphasizing our inability to measure and observe and comprehend the complexity of the very small and their enormous speed interactions. So what we do? We guess. Here is your probabilistic QM physics but nature and the Universe is not operating under this man-made physics. The Universe is deterministic. There are no classical or quantum mechanics there is only nature mechanics which is the same everywhere only the scale changes.

I am grateful, now at the end of my PhD study these last 6 years to be part of a team of brave bread of new researchers worldwide, to defy the status quo and taking the consequences and may have shed a bit more light to the puzzle.

I will defy and resist to any science philosophy which tells me "I don't care how it works? Just what the result is..." for me this is not Physics but computation.

Best Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s. You still haven't answered the damn question, will the stationary electron be attracted towards a magnet? :)

Hi Emmanouil, There are two kinds of magnetic force. One is where a stationary charged particle experiences a magnetic force E = −∂A/∂t, in a time-varying magnetic field, where ∇×A = B, and hence where ∇×E= −∂B/∂t. The other kind is the convective kind, E = v×B, where the force acts on a charged particle that is in motion in a magnetic field.

And this applies to all charged particles, and not just to electrons. So electromagnetism is not an intrinsic phenomenon of the electron. It'll be a phenomenon of the luminiferous medium, which of course in my opinion contains electrons.

Cheers. That's all I wanted to confirm and physical thing to happen.

Hi Emmanouil, It's important to note that the magnetic force that acts on the magnetic spin of a particle is not listed explicitly as one of the three components of the Lorentz force. It will of course be covered by the electrostatic component, but that requires further elaboration. It's not just a simple case of it being an electrostatic force. Further explanation of the context is required to explain how it could be an electrostatic force.

The mathematical treatment of attracting and repelling bar magnets is very sparse in the modern literature. We know however that not only do they attract or repel each other, but that they naturally orientate into the attractive north to south pole situation. Maxwell gets into this in Part I of his 1861 paper and this gives us clues as to how these fundamental aspects of magnetic force, well known to the public at large, are closely related to Gauss's law of electrostatics in the context of a sea of tiny aethereal vortices.

Thanks Frederick for your input.

Yes you are right, The Lorentz equation is incomplete related to QED and for the v=0 case also misleading which concludes to another of these science cliche popularized that "if the charge (fermion) it's not moving there will be no magnetic force applied to it and the charge will remain stationary"...which is not true.

I was expecting when an equation is stated of such importance this to hold to any sub-field of physics like the Einstein Equation. However, I see now this is not the case here.

Maybe we must review some of these classical equations stating the exclusions to the general rule clearly. The Lorentz equation was formulated before Quantum physics discovered that the electron has an intrinsic spin magnetic dipole moment on it independent of any translational motion.

Surely, no one believes that if I insert with my hand a magnet inside an external magnetic field, hold it still there for a moment and then release the magnet, it will remain unaffected and not forced to motion by the magnetic field?...

Hi Emmanouil Markoulakis ,

If you want to discuss fundamental EM then you have to forget the permanent magnet since this is produced by electrons moving within the material. The fundamental EM-field is produced by the electron in the interaction between the electron and the surrounding local "media".

JES

Hi Emmanouil, The Lorentz force is sort of complete. There certainly isn't any additional component of magnetic force that doesn't appear in the Lorentz force. The problem is simply that considerable elaboration is required in order to explain how bar magnet forces come under the jurisdiction of the Gauss's law component. That would be a specialized topic in its own right.

Hi Frederick,

The Lorentz magnetic force equation which assumes that magnetism is created only by moving charges was derived before it was proven that the electron a so called dimensionless point elementary charge possesses an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment. So if the own elementary charge is magnetic what charge is moving? The charge of the elementary charge? You see where this is going? Of course this is explained in my latest published paper referenced previously.

Later today, I will release a RG preprint where I will formulate the magnetic force on a free hypothetical stationary electron in a vacuum inside a magnetic field.

Stay tuned.

Emmanouil

The question for me is whether a stationary electron has an electric field. It seems to have an intrinsic magnetic field. And it seems to produce an electric field when moving. But how does one get a non-moving (in some inertial frame) and non-rotating electron? Hence, the Faraday Paradox (or the "moving magnet and conductor problem") is solved by considering the electron as a magnet without an intrinsic charge (that there are 2 different types of magnetic field in Maxwell's Equations).

Hi John,

Interesting proposition!

Dear All,

Driven from various discussions I had about this topic I formulated a small preprint for the record since there is little information in the literature about it:

Preprint Magnetic force on a free hypothetical stationary electron in...

Your feedback is most welcomed.

Emmanouil

Hi Emmanouil,

Before we go any further, are you intending the term “Lorentz force” to apply to the full expression, as in,

F = q[v×B−∇Ψ −∂A/∂t] ?

Two of the components apply to stationary particles.

∂A/∂t magnetic vector potential IMO is irrelevant since there is no induced electric field from a stationary electron.

H=-∇Ψ the scalar potential is interesting, never thought how it could relate...

go on!

An electron has an electric field around it, this is the radial force equilibrium of the electron and its surrounding "media". The magnetic field is produced when the electron is moving relative to the surrounding "media". If you examine the magnetic interaction between two charges you find the relation v1/c x v2/c which is due to the interaction between the electron and its surrounding "media".

The electron's "spin" is an entirely different story: The "spin" is due to a misunderstanding in the interaction between the electron and the nucleus in an atom. It's a quite simple application of induction leading to the "spin" phenomenon. If you want to know more details have a look at The Atom on the site "https://daontheoy.com"

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson ,

Thanks for your input.

Emmanouil

Hi Emmanouil, Are you talking about the electric field acting on a charged particle, or are you talking about the electric field surrounding a charged particle? The Lorentz force is about the former, and its full form is,

F = q[v×B−∇Ψ −∂A/∂t]

The −∂A/∂t term is very much a part of the Lorentz force and it applies to the force acting on a stationary charged particle in a time-varying magnetic field.

As regards −∇Ψ, this is simply the Coulomb electrostatic force. But its also the term which could be shown to apply to the attractive force between a north and a south pole magnet.

I just want to know if a strong magnet will attract a free hypothetical stationary electron in a vacuum like the magnet does with iron filings?!!

Hi Emmanouil, If it does, the force is not included in the Lorentz force.

Hi Emmanouil, Do we have evidence of the Stern-Gerlach experiment applying directly to individual electrons in isolation? If we do have such evidence, that will answer your question.

https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/stern_gerlach/

"The Stern-Gerlach apparatus consists of an oven that heats a gas of neutral silver atoms. The rapidly moving atoms escaping from the oven are collimated (limited in the vertical dimension) and sent between two magnets, one of which has a sharp point that concentrates the magnetic field. If the field were homogeneous, there would be no effect of the atoms' trajectories. The inhomogeneous magnetic fields bends the trajectories proportional to the amount of spin."

By "sent"... I guess it means blown away from the oven into the magnet thus they have a non-zero velocity.

"...If it does, the force is not included in the Lorentz force."

Frederick,

The unpaired electrons of the iron fillings have an orbital translational velocity around the atoms therefore a non-zero velocity and the classical Lorentz magnetic force equation applies.

Hi Emmanouil, In the case of magnetic attraction, I doubt if we will be using the vxB component of the Lorentz force. We will likely be using the Coulomb electrostatic component with the attraction being due to positive to negative attraction along the double helix magnetic lines of force. In the case of repulsion, yes, we will be using the vxB component.

Emmanouil Markoulakis,

Dear Emmanoil, I see such the physical model ofthe electron (see figure):

An electron contains two vortexes of neutrinos with oppositely directed velocities. Neutrinos rotate at light speed in a circular orbit around a common point in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the rings. This rotation creates the electron's magnetic moment. In this case, the moments of the neutrino are opposite. The new vortex formed during the rotation the electron's own mechanical moment (spin) h/2.

It is easy to see that the neutrinos rotating in the electron form a kind of "gear pump". Neutrinos at the point of adhesion tightly squeeze the central part and push the rotating flow along the axis. The rotation of the flux emanating from the electron forms a left screw with the direction of the flux. The positron emits a right-handed stream. We identify the helical flow of gravitons with its own electric field. The flow rate (kg/s) determines the particle charge. Formally, at the beginning of the outgoing flow, the positron has a source, and the electron has a sink. Therefore, the charge of the positron we call positive, and the charge of the electron we call negative.

Electron neutrinos rotate in the environment of gravitons of the electromagnetic field. Figure shows that neutrinos carry away the boundary layer of the medium during rotation. The field flux occurs at point “a”. The medium layer rotates together with the neutrino around the electron axis along the path “abcd”. Next, neutrinos eject gravitons along the axis along the line “ae” in the form of a narrow rotating beam. The translational velocity of the flux of gravitons in the beam is much less than the speed of light.

The mass of the boundary layer of the medium around each neutrino is equal to the electromagnetic (relativistic) neutrino mass. Consequently, the mass of the emitted ray flux per one turn of the neutrino is equal to the relativistic mass of the electron and depends on the speed. Charge е [kg/s] is the mass of the flux of gravitons emanating from an electron in one second or in 1.7·10^11 neutrino revolutions. Electric field strength Е [V/m] is the longitudinal velocity of the flow of gravitons, expressed in [m/s]. The dynamic concept of charge refers rather to the characteristic of the medium adjacent to the particle.

You ask: Is electromagnetism an intrinsic phenomenon of the electron?

My answer: Yes, electromagnetism is an intrinsic phenomenon of the electron.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy,

Thank you for your detailed and very informative input.

You are one among a few researchers I know who dare to touch the "forbidden" by the Standard Model subject of the intrinsic mechanics of elementary particles.

I highly appreciate this.

Emmanouil

Hi Valeriy, What about making it that a neutrino is simply a rotating electron-positron dipole and that the positron is an aether source and an electron is an aether sink. Then neutrinos would attract each other in their axial direction and repel each other in their equatorial planes. And magnetic field lines are made up of rotating electron-positron dipoles stacked along their mutual rotation axes. Then magnetic attraction would simply be electrostatic attraction channelled along the double helix.

Preston Guynn

I remind you, because the electron is continuously Larmor precessing its magnetic moment around the B vector with a precession angle θm the gradient Fm= ∇(B ⋅ μ) will never go to zero and thus also Fm is always non-zero and therefore a hypothetical initially stationary free electron in vacuum inside a homogeneous B field will move forward thus v≠0. After that, the normal Lorentz force takes over q(v ×B ) and the electron goes to spiral translational motion.

As a conclusion, with the given equations in my preprint,

Preprint Magnetic force on a free hypothetical stationary electron in...

a free electron in a vacuum inside a homogeneous or non-homogeneous magnetic field will start Larmor precessing its magnetic moment around the B vector with the precession axis aligned to the B vector independent its initial orientation of its magnetic moment in space and start translate is space even if it was initially stationary.

Unless, someone proves to me that it is possible an electron inside a homogeneous magnetic field is not forced to align its Larmor precession axis to the B field, thus there can be electrons inside a magnetic B field that will not precess, I would say that all electrons inside an external magnetic field are all forced to Larmor precess an thus also move forward even if stationary as we discussed herein independent their initial magnetic moment orientation in space.

Emmanouil

(picture show, precession cone of magnetic moment vector of electron continuously precessing on the surface of this cone that is at angle Θm to the z-axis aligned with the B vector. The axis of the precession cone shown is aligned to the B field vector (z-axis shown of the scale).

Hi Emmanouil, The vxB component in the Lorentz force is fine as a repulsive force, and it's fine where spin is involved, since it is ultimately centrifugal force based. It can explain repulsion due to spin in the equatorial plane. But the big problem that you seem to be having is with magnetic attraction, such as in the case of Stern-Gerlach. Maxwell made an attempt at explaining attraction in the axial direction due to the tension caused by spin. But if you use rotating dipoles, then that removes all ambiguity. The attraction in the axial direction then simply becomes due to electrostatics, and that ties in with the scalar potential component in the Lorentz force.

Are you familiar with the Lorentz force when expanded openly into its three components? Or do you just know about the vxB component?

Hi Frederick,

Quantum spin must be interpreted anyway as classical spin in the Lorentz formulation since it is a classical electrodynamics equation.

So of course we must assume that the electron is a physically spinning dipole else there is no point in applying the Lorentz equation (simple form) to study its motion.

Hi Emmanouil, Before we continue this, I need to be sure that we both have the same idea as regards what we mean by the Lorentz force. Can you please write down the formula for what you believe to be the Lorentz force.

Once we agree on what the Lorentz force is, then we can properly apply it to the attractive force that acts on spin.

Frederick,

Since it seems you prefer to work with potentials:

The E and B fields can be replaced by the magnetic vector potential A and (scalar) electrostatic potential ϕ

https://tinyurl.com/2tmz88ew

Hi Emmanouil, I don't have a preference. I just want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing. The version you have given is correct but it is written in an impractical way.

I would write the Lorentz force as F = q[v×B − ∂A/∂t −∇Φ].

Hi Emmanouil, When I'm sure that you accept this formula,

F = q[v×B − ∂A/∂t −∇Φ]

as the complete Lorentz force formula, then we can discuss which of the three components applies in the case of a magnetic force of attraction acting on spin.

new model has been developed which does not require any magnetic field, fine structure is explainable not requiring corrections.class 12th education is sufficient....electron don't radiate...no em field or wave exist....all these is due to erroneous formulation of quantum mechanics...which predicted wrong energy levels....

Emmanouil Markoulakis

There are two wrong things regarding the electron in current theories:

1- It is missing in quantum electrodynamics an atomistic structure of the electric field of elementary particles.

2- There is not a structure for the electron in current theories.

The repercussions of those missings are shown in the book Subtle is the Math.

https://www.editions-saint-honore.com/produit/subtle-is-the-math/

In this book it is shown that:

1) Coulomb's Law is incomplete. And this has repercussions in nuclear physics:

Article Procedure error published in Physical Review Letters: what r...

2) From the atomistic structure of electric fields (missing in QED) is calculated the proton electric charge:

Preprint Where the energy of the quantum vacuum is coming from?

The structure of the electron is proposed in the book Subtle is the Math.

In the page 263 of the book begins the paper "On the origin of mass of particles through electron's mass calculated from the electric charges of fermions of the quantum vacuum".

Besides, there is a big problem with the procedure from which the current theories of physics were developed, because:

a) The starting point of all theories of modern physics is the mathematics.

b) Such a procedure would be acceptable if, together with the mathematics, all the fundamental laws existing in Nature were adoted for the development of the theories.

c) However, several laws existing in Nature are missing in modern physics, and some laws adopted in modern physics do not exist in Nature.

For instance, as shown in the book Subtle is the Math, the symmetry does not play a fundamental role in nuclear physics, and so the theory was developed from a wrong starting point.

Such question is analyzed here:

Preprint What is controversial in physics?

CONCLUSION:

Before to look for an answer for the question "Is electromagnetism an intrinsic phenomenon of the electron?", there is need to find answers for many other questions not solved in current theories of physics.

Wladimir Guglinski

Great information and references shared.

Thank you.

I agree with you 100% especially about the repercussions of the electron charge not be given an internal structure (not sub particles but at least we should attempt to describe what its charge is?)

I do that here describing a possible flux manifold of the electron charge:

Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

Video presentation of the paper: https://twitter.com/markoul1/status/1504561472327893003

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Concerning the electron charge, I suggest you to read this paper, published by Physics Essays in 2021:

Calculation of proton charges from the electric charges of the fermions of the quantum vacuum

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1852-2-wladimir-guglinski-calculation-of-proton-charges-from-the-electric-charges

As theelectric charges of the proton and electron are the same, the paper published by Physics Essays is also applied for the electron.

Here is the Abstract:

The electric charge of the fermions of the quantum vacuum is calculated in this paper. The value of e0 is 5.06532·10-45 C. From this value of e0, together with the fundamental constants KO, c, h, and α=1/137, the electric charge of the proton is calculated, achieving the value e= 1.6026·10-19 C, which is very close to the experimental e = 1.60218·10-19 C. This successful calculation represents the first objective evidence that something very fundamental is missing in the standard interpretation of quantum electrodynamics.

Why is the charge of the electron exactly equal to that of the proton charge?

JES

Stellan Gustafsson To understand why the positive charge of the proton is the same as the negative change of the electron you first have to understand the nature and cause of electric charge.

Electrons, protons and neutrons are looped waves in Spacetime. In the case of the electron and proton there is a wave variation in the time dimension synchronised with the space wave. This has the effect of leaving a net compression or expansion of space. So you can see that electromagnetic forces are delivered by space curvature in the medium of space.

When you go through the calculation of the net compression and using E=hf you find that the f cancels and so the charge magnitude is independent of the mass.

Preprint The Unification of Physics (Feb 2022)

Richard

Dear friends of physics, relativity, cosmology and elementary particles,

Indeed, the electron is the source of electromagnetism, see the LINK:

OCTOBER 2021

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355889856_The_Elementary_Charge_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Thereby, the electron is also the source of the weak and elctroweak interaction, see the LINK:

MARCH 2022

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359426539_The_Electroweak_Interaction_Explained_by_and_Derived_from_Gravity_and_Relativity

In both cases, the details of the generated fields can be derived with the principle of least (or stationary) action, PLA, and by using the principle of gauge invariance, PGI.

Please note that my results are in precise accordance with observation, whereby I execute no fit at all. Moreover, my results provide a unification of gravity, relativity and quantum physics, see LINK:

FEBRUARY 2022

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358581911_Quantum_Physics_Explained_by_Gravity_and_Relativity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358968719_Droplet_Model_Used_to_Analyze_the_Early_Universe

Furthermore, my results provide a unification of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and elementary particle physics, see LINK:

AUGUST 2021

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353851329_Cosmological_and_Elementary_Particles_Explained_by_Quantum_Gravity

Additionally, my results provide a unification of cosmology, gravity, relativity, quantum physics and elementary particle physics, see LINK:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354270074_Physical_Explanation_of_the_H_0_-Tension

and

MARCH 2021

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350373240_Quanta_of_Spacetime_Explain_Observations_Dark_Energy_Graviton_and_Nonlocality

Thank you for your interest.

I am interested in your comments, thank you in advance for these.

Kind regards,

Hans-Otto Carmesin

Stellan Gustafsson

"Why is the charge of the electron exactly equal to that of the proton charge?"

Another explanation could be that there both have the same amount of electric flux. Flux density is proportional to their mass. More mass more flux density but in a smaller volume (the more massive the particle the smaller it is) therefore the total amount of flux is the same for both particles.

ΦΕ=Q/ε0

Stellan Gustafsson

In the page 147 of the book Subtle is the Math is calculated the charge of the electricitons that compose the electric field of the proton. The value achieved is ep= 5.06532x10-45C. They move with the speed of light in the electric field of the proton.

The quantity of electricitons ep which compose the proton's electric field is calculated in the page 155. The quantity of electricitons ep (inside a sphere whose radius is equal to Bohr's radius) is QTp= 3.16387x1025 .

Between the pages 246 and 259 of the book is calculated the charge of the electricitons that compose the electric field of the electron. The value achieved is ee= 7,66964x10-36C. They also move with the speed of light.

The quantity of electricitons ee which compose the electron's electric field is calculated in the page 259. The quantity of electricitons ee (inside a sphere whose radius is equal to Bohr's radius) is QTe= 2,08957x1016 .

As you see, the electricitons which compose the field of the proton have an electric charge weaker than those that compose the electron field, but the quantity of electricitons in the field of proton is very large than that existing in the field of the electron.

That's why they have the same value of the charge.

When the aether that fills the space was created in the Big-Bang, the electricitons ep and ee were created in a way to give to the proton and electron their fields with the same value of their charges. Otherwise, the existence of the universe would be impossible.

A very simple answer would be that the proton is made up of electrons and positrons. It follows that all particles are simply combinations of electrons and positrons.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

Yes, a very simple answer would be that.

Unfortunatelly electrons and positrons anihilatem themselves when they meet together.

Wladimir Guglinski

Correct. That is why you have decay from heavier particles to lighter ones.

Obviously, the proton must have a specific geometry to remain stable.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

There are a lot of other problems with your model of proton.

1- The electron has charge -e, and the positron has charge +e. A proton composed by electron and positron will have null charge.

2- The mass of the proton is 1800 times larger than the electron, whose mass is the same of the positron. So, a proton formed by electron and positron would have mass 900 times lighter than measured by experiments.

3- The proton has spin 1/2. The proton formed by electron+positron would have spin zero or 1.

4- The experiments show that proton is formed by 3 quarks.

5- According to your theory, all particles are simply combinations of electrons and positrons. But if the neutron would be formed by electron+positron, in its decay would be emitted one electron and one positron. But experiments show that in neutron's decay are emitted one proton, one electron, and one antineutrino. Besides, the mass of such a neutron would be 900 times lighter that that measured in experiments.

If you want your theory be considered seriously, you have to find answers for those problems, beyond many others.

Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

I'm happy to see your interest: According to the Daon Theory, the positron is made by 8 positron positioned in the form of a cube whereas the 7 electrons are positioned in front of each plan plus one in the center of the cube. This is the necessary geometry when you have particles with the same but opposite charge.

The mass of electrons/positrons changes under interaction (for example in the LEP experiment) so that the proton mass can be accommodated.

The spin of a proton should be 1/2 since there are 8 positrons and 7 electrons.

The three quark story comes from experiments showing 3 different types of interaction, so the most simple explanation is three objects within the proton. But, in the case of the Daon Theory, you have 8 identical positron 6 identical electrons and one central electron ( much lower mass than the others) which leads to 3 types of interaction.

I'll end with the neutron; a neutron is a proton together with an electron. In this case, the distance between them is much shorter than the associated wavelength of the electron (the electrons intrinsic movement can't be developed) the result is therefore a proton with an associated electron. The electron can't break up the geometry of the proton since this is much stronger than the binding energy of the electron.

JES

I cannot say anything about any low level structure of the proton or neutron other than quarks and how all these combine in the nucleus. These is beyond me and highly speculative. I am interested only at physical models and not effective and I don't have enough information for this.

The only thing I am allowed to speculate but within a large degree of confidence is because in a non-zero total spin atom (i.e. a ferromagnetic atom) only a single magnetic dipole moment can be measured namely the total spin of the atom, meaning you cannot measure individually the spin of the nucleus or the electron cloud, neither individually the spin of each electron in the electron cloud, that unless you brake the atom apart, this strongly infers that the geometrical structure of the nucleus with the electron cloud is a nested geometry. Meaning that the spin of the nucleus is co linear on the same axis with the spin of the electron cloud for any atom.

It is hard to visualize it but a pedagogical animation of the nucleus spin nested inside the electron cloud spin are the following:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/H-1-m-flux.html (H-1 atom)

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/He-4-m-flux.html (H-4 atom)

Please notice in the above animations, that electrons are not represented as dimensionless point charge particles orbiting the nucleus but rather each as as a specific EM flux manifold (horn spheroid) creating co nested shells of EM flux around the nucleus like layers of an onion. All layers together create the electron cloud around the nucleus of the atom. As you see all spin axis and therefore also all magnetic moments axis are co linear aligned and unified into one axis inside the atom.

Thinking particles not like abstract points or spheres but more like dynamic specific EM flux manifold formations immediately also resolves the wave-particle duality paradox as you can see in the above animations how it can be both.

Maybe this can give some answer to Stellan Gustafsson very interesting question:

Preprint Why does the proton have the same elementary charge value e ...

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis,

There, I think that you put the chart before the horse (I don't remember the exact English expression). The magnetic angular momentum is calculated using the charge, and not the other way around.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

I would like to speak about some questions on the models of proton p=(electron+positron) and the model of neutron n=(proton+electron).

1- Neutron formed by proton+ electron

a) In my paper “Re-evaluation of Fermi’s theory of beta decay” is proposed a model of neutron formed by proton+electron, whose structure is (d,u-e-u), where “u-e-u” is an electron sandwished between two u quarks:

https://fundamentaljournals.org/index.php/ijfps/article/view/39/62

The following questions are addressed in the paper:

b) In the end of the page 21 is shown that the magnetic moment of deuteron cannot be explained from the current model of neutron (d,u,d) composed by quarks, since new experimental findings have shown that makes no sense the speculation that the magnetic moment is due to a mixture of the states 3S1 and 3D1. But the magnetic moment of the deuteron is very well calculated by considering the model of neutron whose structure is (d,u-e-u), without any speculation.

c) Between the pages 23 and 25 is demonstrated that, by considering the current model of neutron (d,u,d) it is impossible to achieve the radial distribution of charges in the neutron, measured at Jefferson Lab in 2007. That distribution measured by JLab can be achieved only from the model of neutron (d,u-e-u).

d) The best theoretical value of the magnetic moment of the neutron, from the standard quark model (u,d,u) is -1,86 , very far of the experimental value -1,913.

e) Between the pages 33 and 38 is presented the calculation of the magnetic moment of the neutron through the structure (d,u-e-u), and from the radial charge distribution of the electron inside the structure of the neutron, as exposed between the pages 23 and 25. The value achieved is -1,9071 (page 38, Eq. 45)

f) In the page 38 is calculated with the Bohr equation μ= -(e/2m)L the magnetic moment of the neutron (d,u-e-u), being the electron in the same position which it has for the mag. mom. calculated in Eq. 45. The value, achieved in Eq. 47, is -1,9073, very close to that obtained in the Eq. 45.

CONCLUSIONS:

The neutron model (d,u-e-u) is very best than the current model (u,d,u), in several aspects.

So, Stellan Gustafsson, we conclude that the model of neutron formed by proton+electron, in which the proton is composed by electron+positrons, is not a good candidate for the neutron, because in a neutron with structure [(electron+positron)+electron] the electron must occupy the center of the proton. Thereby, there is no way to achieve with calculations the radial charge distribution of the neutron measured in JLab, as also there is no way to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron.

g) Furthermore, the neutron has two lifetimes when measured from two different experiments: from neutrons stored in a bottle, and from the neutron’s decay. The difference of the two lifetimes is 8 seconds, and cannot be explained by the current model (u,d,u) neither by the model proton+electron where the proton has structure electron+positron. For the explanation of the 8 seconds of difference there is need to consider that the proton radius has shrinkage inside atomic nuclei, and so the neutron has two different decays, as follows:

· When the neutron leaves a nucleus, the proton of the structure (d,u-e-u) experiences a dilation during 8 seconds, because inside the nucleus the proton radius was shorter. During the 8 seconds the process of neutron’s decay does not begin. The decay starts when the proton radius achieves the value 0,85fm.

· When the neutron is stored in a bottle, its radius is 0,85fm. Then when it leaves the bottle its decay starts immediately. So the decay is 8 seconds shorter than when the neutron leaves a nucleus.

So, the model of neutron whose structure is [(electron+positron)+electron] cannot explain the 8 seconds of difference in the neutron’s decay, because there is no way to explain why a proton formed by electron-positron has shrinkage inside the nuclei.

2- Proton with structure (u,d,u)

a) The shrinkage of the proton radius inside the nuclei is a mechanism responsible for the mass defect measured by Einstein’s equation E=mc². This is successfully confirmed by calculations. The magnetic moment of the proton depends on the rotation of the quarks around the line center of the proton, as also depends on the mass defect of the quarks, when they are packed inside the proton.

The magnetic moment of the proton is calculated in the page 193 of my book Subtle is the Math, and the calculation is also exposed in this link:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357930446_Proton_magnetic_moment_calculated_through_a_model_where_quarks_have_angular_momentum

b) From the shrinkage of the proton radius inside the deuteron and tritium, as also from their mass defect, it is calculated successfully their magnetic moments, in the pages 183 and 186 of the book Subtle is the Math. The values are respectively 0,6644 fm and 0,6415 fm.

c) In the page 489 of the book Subtle is the Math is calculated the radius of the proton inside the structure of He4, by starting from the radius of He4 measured in 2021 at the Paul Scherrer Institute. The measured radius of He4 is 2,00621 fm, and the proton radius inside the structure of He4 must be 0,69515 fm, as calculated in the page 489, which is very close to 0,6644 fm and 0,6415 fm calculated for proton radius inside the structures of deuteron and tritium.

d) The proton has a property impossible to be explained from the current model u,d,u of the Standard Model, because in this model the quarks do not move around the center of the proton. But in my model of proton u,d,u proposed in my book Subtle is the Math, the quarks move with velocity close to the light speed around the center of the proton. And due to this velocity of quarks, the proton has an asymmetric structure, which explains why W bosons are emitted with different rates in polarized beam proton’s scattering (impossible to be explained by the model u,d,u of Standard Model, because it has symmetric structure), as also cannot be explained by the model of proton (eletron+positron), whose structure also must be symmetric.

CONCLUSIONS:

1- Even if a proton composed by (electron+positron) may have contraction inside atomic nuclei, there is another problem: the shrinkage of the proton radius would change its magnetic moment. And so, from the proton p=(electron+proton) is impossible to calculate the magnetic moment of nuclei as deuteron, tritium, etc., in order to achieve a value close to the experimental measured in the experiments. But as explained in the page 197 of the book Subtle is the Math, in the model u,d,u proposed in my book there is a mechanism from which the magnetic moment of the proton does not change with the shrinkage of its radius.

2- In 2018 the journal Physics Essays published my paper “Calculation of proton radius to be measured in the Project MUSE”, in which is calculated that the proton radius to be measured at the Paul Scherrer Institute will be between 0,616 and 0,722 fm.

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1640-3-wladimir-guglinski-calculation-of-proton-radius-to-be-measured-in-the-project-muse.html

It is expected that the value measured will be announced in 2022. If the value measured will be close to that calculated in the paper, this experimental result not only will it overturn the current Standard Model, but will require a new theory in which the proton radius has shrinkage inside the atomic nuclei. And it seems there is not any other candidate beyond my theory.

3- Structure of the quantum vaccum

Evidently a structure of proton formed by electron+positron (which is symmetric) requires a symmetric structure of the quantum vacuum.

But if the structure of the quantum vacuum would be symmetric, after the Big-Bang the quantity of particles would annihilate with the same quantity of antiparticles, and the universe would never be created.

In the page 62 of the paper “On how proton radius shrinkage can be connected with Lorentz factor violation” is proposed that the quantum vacuum has an asymmetric structure.

https://fundamentaljournals.org/index.php/ijfps/article/view/41/66

The quantum vacuum is composed by

gravitons g(+) and g(-)

magnetons m(+) and m(-)

electricitons e(+) and e(-)

permeabilitons p(+) and p(-)

permeabilitons P(+) and P(-)

· The asymmetry lies in the difference between the permeabilitons P and p, as explained in the page 62:

Concerning the question on why does not exist antimatter in the universe, the answer must be found in some asymmetry of the aether structure. For instance, the following asymmetry.

1- There is a permeability particle “P” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(+).

2- There is a permeability particle “p” which promotes the interaction between gravitons g(+) and electricitons e(−).

3- As the singletons S(+) of the positron are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), then when occurred the Big Bang the positrons were not created, because the interaction between gravitons g(+) with particles P was suitable of producing only protons, and the interaction between gravitons g(−) and particles p was suitable of producing only electrons.

4- Therefore, antiprotons were not produced, because their quarks are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(−), and their interaction with the particle p is not suitable to produce antiprotons, while the positrons were not produced because their singletons are crossed by a n(o)-flux of gravitons g(+), and their interaction with the particle P is not suitable to produce pósitrons.

4- Structure of neutrinos

Stellan Gustafsson , in your answer you wrote:

“It follows that all particles are simply combinations of electrons and positrons”.

· But then how the neutrinos can be composed by electrons and positrons, since their masses are very smaller than the masses of electrons and positrons?

The structure of neutrinos is proposed in my paper “Lorentz's Factor Violation by Neutrinos Moving with the Speed of Light”:

https://www.vibgyorpublishers.org/content/ijanp/fulltext.php?aid=ijanp-3-010

The neutrino structure is seen in the Figure 9, and in the paper it is shown why their masses are so much very small.

More about the structure of neutrino is addressed in the page 263 of the book Subtle is the Math, where it is also explained why the neutrinos arrived to the Earth (coming from the supernova SN 1987A) two hours earlier than the light. Therefore, sometimes neutrinos move faster than light.

And a calculation in the page 284 shows that in the MINOS experiment, performed in 2007, the neutrinos arrived to the target earlier than the light, in a time equivalent to the two hours when the neutrinos arrived to Earth earlier than light, coming from the SN 1987A.

Wladimir Guglinski

Let's see:

I propose that the proton is constituted by 8 positrons and 7 electrons, where one electron (with a much smaller mass) is situated in the center. I can in principle calculate its magnetic moment but, it demands a dedicated program, which will be quite a time-demanding task, so this is not feasible for the moment.

You are saying that the proton/neutron radius varies if it's inside a nucleus or not, I think that I can agree with you about this, although the definition of the size is to be discussed.

The anti-matter symmetry is simply due to an exchange between the electron and the positron. IMO there are two Universe one matter and another anti-matter. Nature likes symmetry.

All particles are constituted by electrons and positrons; here I define the particles as those which obey the mass law E=mc^2. I have demonstrated that this is the case for the electron.

The neutrino and the photon are constructed directly by the basic object of construction (the DAON - the Daon Theory), they don't follow the mass law. Their mass is constant from the moment of creation; the photon has the characteristic that it's accelerated against the surrounding media, whereas the neutrino obtains its velocity at the moment of creation. The neutrino can have a velocity equal to that of light in a vacuum, but not faster.

JES

Stellan Gustafsson

I- In your model of neutron a pair (electron-positron) must be in the center of the neutron, since you claim that "Nature likes symmetry", which means that you believe that Nature never can betray the symmetry.

Such model of neutron cannot have radial charge distribution. It must have null charge in any point along the radial direction, because it's null the charge in the center of the neutron, ocuppied by the pair (electron-positron).

If your model is right, then the experiments made by JLab are wrong.

II- Nature likes symmetry. However, sometimes she needs to betray the symmetry, because she knows that, if symmetry would play a fundamental role in all the structures existing in the univeres (including the structure of the quantum vacuum), then the existence of the universe would be impossible.

So, the Nature had not other choice than sometimes to betray the symmetry.

III- Concernning "Nature likes symmetry", the nuclear theorists (as all the physicists in general) also believed that. And that's why, after 100 years, they did not succeed yet to conciliate any current nuclear model with the data obtained in the experiments.

Symmetry does not play fundamental role in my new nuclear model. And from this nuclear model are calculated successfully the magnetic moments of all the exotic light nuclei, a task impossible in nuclear physics.

An example of calculation seen here:

Preprint Magnetic moment of lithium-6: among the most accurate calcul...

My book THE NEW NUCLEAR PHYSICS will be published now in 2022:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/back-cover-blurb-book-new-nuclear-physics-wlad-wladimir-guglinski/?trackingId=bhny8PQdwWhWzL%2FWNNyIgw%3D%3D

Here is the Back Cover Blurb:

==================================

In nuclear physics a very interesting procedure sometimes is used: when nuclear theorists are unable to find a force responsible for some specific behavior of nucleons (protons and neutrons), they give up to look for the force, and simply describe the behavior through the mathematics, as if the force doesn’t exist. But it is obvious that math cannot produce forces. Then there are two hypotheses:

1- First hypothesis: The structure of nuclei existing in Nature is like that conceived by the nuclear theorists. But in this case it is missing, in the current nuclear models, the force that obligates the nucleons behavior to fit those models.

2- Second hypothesis: The structure of nuclei existing in Nature is different of that conceived by nuclear theorists. Therefore, the way from which the nucleons take place inside atomic nuclei can be different of that proposed in current nuclear models.

The results of experiments, that measure the magnetic moment, nuclear spin, and electric quadrupole moment of atomic nuclei, points out that the second hypothesis must be the correct, because some light exotic nuclei have the values (of those three nuclear properties) impossible to be achieved by current nuclear models. For instance, experiments measure that 5B10 has:

· spin 3

· magnetic moment 1.8

· quadrupole moment four times larger than that of 7N14

But from current nuclear models 5B10 must have:

· spin 1

· magnetic moment 0.8

· quadrupole moment smaller than that of 7N14

Many experimental results of other light exotic nuclei corroborate the second hypothesis.

==================================

All the current problems of Theoretical Physics lies in the initial assumption that symmetry plays a fundamental role in the universe. The starting point of the development of Theoretical Physics is wrong.

IV- Concerning "The neutrino can have a velocity equal to that of light in a vacuum, but not faster", it seems neutrinos are disagre such belief, since they arrived to Earth two hours earlier than light, when the came from the supernova SN 1987A.

Hello,

Please refrain using my question as a debate for a subject which is not related to the question and certainly not suitable to host a peer-review. The nucleus and hadrons is not the topic of this question here. Please, be respectful to each other. Each has sacrificed and humongous time and effort in developing his/her theory and continuously arguing against is pointless and will not change his/her mind about the core of the theory.

It would be more productive to try to develop the phenomenology of a theory thus explaining qualitatively or quantitatively known or unknown phenomena using the theory or suggesting experiments that can prove the theory consistent.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

You are right. Let's come back to the initial question.

IMO the Lorentz force equation is perfectly valid for macroscopic physics but not for distances in the order (or less) of the associated wavelength of the particle.

If I use the electron as an example; the trajectory of an electron is not a straight line but a spiraling trajectory (due to the interaction with the surrounding media; the Daon Theory). The transverse interaction is the reason for L. de Broglie's law. So already here you have a weak magnetic source.

If we consider an atom, you have that the electron must make 2 turns to get a closed orbit (the Daon Theory), this is the reason for the spin 1/2.

So, to answer your question: No, the electron has no magnetic field if its velocity is 0 relative to its surrounding!

JES

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Sorry.

It's my oppinion that for discovering how Nature operates requires to discover the true structure of the models which she uses, otherwise we will not discover what are the mechanisms from which the physical phenomena are produced.

When an author idealizes a model, for example a model of proton or neutron, he needs to verify if his model is able to reproduce the properties of the proton and the neutron, measured by experiments.

If the author verifies that his model is unable to reproduce those properties, it means that the model he supposed is wrong. And he has to abandon his model, and try to look for another model, because the results of experiments are pointing out that the model is wrong.

This was the method addopted by me.

If decades ago I had realized that my models are unable to reproduce the phenomena measured by experiments, at that time I would have already given up of my theory.

I have continued in my work along decades because:

1- I have verified that my models were able to reproduce the phenomena already detected by experiments.

2- New experimental findings were confirming my models, as for instance what is proposed in my book Quantum Ring Theory: that nuclei with pair number of protons and neutrons have ellipsoidal shape.

In 2006, when my book was published, that prediction of my book was IMPOSSIBLE, as believed the nuclear theorists, because there was a dogma in nuclear physics along more than 50 years, according to which those nuclei have spherical shape.

In 2012 the journal Nature published the paper "How atomic nuclei cluster", which detected that those nuclei have ellipsoidal shape, showing that the prediction of my book was right.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/thorn-side-maria-borge-editor-in-chief-european-wladimir-guglinski/?trackingId=42OCqfe5T4mCRZBAaRyOHA%3D%3D

If an author conceived a model, and later he realizes that his model is unable to reproduce the properties of the model existing in Nature, but he neglects the failure of his model, and continues deceiving himself believing that his model is correct, such a research is not according to the scientific method, and that wrong model will never be accepted by the scientific community.

Even by proposing a correct new model, which is able to reproduce the phenomena existing in Nature, but if that model defies the prevailed dogmas existing nowadays in physics, it is very hard to convince the scientific community that the model is correct, and the current models are wrong, and must be replaced.

However, if the new model defies the current theories, but it is unable to reproduce the phenomena measured by experiments, then there is no chance such a model can be accepted by the scientific community.

Dear Wladimir Guglinski ,

I agree with all you points. Also current mainstream quantum theories are not wrong quantitatively (for the most part) but qualitatively questionable. It is their interpretations that are under question and this is also acknowledged by the community. You cannot have a complete theory with a dozen different physical interpretations. If a theory is not complete both qualitatively and quantitatively it means that you are missing information or misinterpreted your results and your effective model as you increase the level of detail of experimental data squired will start loosing predictive power and at some point and after will fail. We see this happening lately more often with the g-2 fermilab experiment and also this recent announcement of a 7σ discrepancy https://www.quantamagazine.org/fermilab-says-particle-is-heavy-enough-to-break-the-standard-model-20220407/ in the W boson mass.

My only objection is that this here is not the right place to do this type of peer review discussions and irrelevant to the question asked.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Please allow me to add one more final commentary.

Along more than 50 years the nuclear theorists wrongly supposed that nuclei, with pair number of protons and neutrons, have spherical shape because nuclear physics was developed from this initial premise: that symmetry plays a fundamental role in the structure of atomic nuclei.

The experiment published in the journal Nature in 2012 overthrew that dogma: in true those atomic nuclei have ellipsoidal shanpe.

Therefore, the symmetry does not play a fundamental role in nuclear physics.

So, dear Emmanouil,

be aware that symmetry is not a fundamental law in physics.

Nature likes the symmetry, yes. But sometimes she does not use symmetry. Because sometimes from symmetry it's impossible to get a stable model. For instance, from a symetric structure of the quantum vacuum, it is impossible to get a stable universe, because particles and antiparticles cancel each other.

Then, when you develop a new theory, believing that you have to keep symmetry in your model, be careful. Perhaps the Nature used an asymetric structure.

Unfortunatelly, threre is need a good intuition, so that to discover where Nature uses the symmetry, and where she was obliged to reject the symmetry.

Along the development of Theoretical Physics, the theorists believed more in the math than in their intuition, by supposing that symmetry plays a fundamental role in all phenomena existing in nature.

The mathematics suggested that to them. However, the mathematics does not show us the right way of discovering. The intuition is indispensable.

Good luck in your work.

I will not disturb anymore the discussion here.

Dear Wladimir Guglinski ,

Your wisdom and knowledge shared is more than welcomed and I thank you for you important contributions and information shared.

I don't know about the symmetry of the nucleus but I can confirm your finding that a quark cannot be symmetrical (i.e. sphere) with αs=1. The only energy manifold, shape, allowed by the strong force coupling constant value of 1 is that of a cylinder.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Regarding "The only energy manifold, shape, allowed by the strong force coupling constant value of 1 is that of a cylinder", this is a mathematical conclusion, based on the assumption that strong force is one among the four fundamental forces existing in Nature.

However, in the first paper of my book Subtle is the Math is demonstrated that strong force does not exist.

The theorists supposed the existence of the strong force because they had no other choice: they have supposed that only by considering the strong force is possible to explain the stability of nuclei, since inside the atomic nuclei the extremely strong Coulomb repulsion required the conjecture of a new force.

But they did not discover the atomistic structure of the electric field of elementary particles, and this is the reason why they had to adopt the hypothesis of the strong force.

However, by considering the atomistic structure of the electric fields, we realize that Coulomb's law is incomplete.

The true Coulomb law is F= KQq/d(X+Y).

The parameter X varies with the distance between the particles with charges Q and q, and the parameter Y varies with their relative speeds (the value of Y increases with the growth of the velocity between the particles). So, whereas X decreases when alpha particle moves toward the U238, the value of Y increases with the relative speed between them.

Inside atomic nuclei the value of X is shorter than 2, which is the value of the standard Coulomb's law. So, inside atomic nuclei the Coulomb repulsion is very weaker than the nuclear theorists supposed.

With this new Coulomb's law the enigma why the atomic nuclei are stable is solved, without the need to the hypothesis of strong force.

Rutherford wrongly interpreted his experiments, where an alpha particle moves against a nucleus U238.

His experiment suggested him that:

a) the velocity of the alpha particle does not play any role in the Coulomb's repulsion

b) and that the exponent "2" in F= KQQ/d2 does not change with the distance "d".

However, his conclusion was wrong, because the effect due to the parameter Y is cancelled by the effect of the parameter X. And so, at the first glance, it seems that F= KQq/d2 is correct.

This wrong interpretation had a dramatic repercussion in nuclear physics.

There are only two fundamental forces: the gravitational, and the electromagnetic.

The weak force is not fundamental. It is a special case of electromagnetism, as also shown in the page 115 of the book.

In the Figure 5 of the first paper it is shown that the electric field of particles is composed by two regions:

Region Beta: in this region occurs the stronger interaction force between electricitons of the fields of two protons A and B, because the interaction between two electricitons in this region occurs by they moving in contrary directions. The interaction is maximum when the angle between the line forces along they move has 90o.

Region Alpha: in this region occurs the very weak interaction force between electricitons of the fields of two protons A and B, because the interaction between two electricitons occurs by they moving in the same direction (but not parallel).

The weak force occurs in this region.

In this region two protons have attraction through the weak force.

The asymptotic freedom also does not exist. David Gross said that he proposed it because there was need a desperate solution, in order to explain the statility of quarks inside the proton.

With the new Coulomb's law F= KQq/d(X+Y) the strong nuclear force is dispensable for the explanation of why:

a) Coulomb's repulsion can be equilibrated by the electromagnetism inside atomic nuclei

b) as also is dispensable the asymptotic freedom for the explanation of the stability of quarks in the proton.

Dear Emmanouil,

sorry for this additional commentary.

However, despite you said that "The nucleus and hadrons is not the topic of this question here", from the exposed here you may realize that the foundations of nuclear physics may repercute in all branches of physics.

And if really the true version of Coulomb's law is F= KQq/d(X+Y), you may realize how much the current theories must be re-evaluated.

I suppose a similar question: Is electromagnetism an intrinsic phenomenon of a photon?

Dear Zhen G Ma

The photon and the electron are both directly constructed with "electromagnetic fields" making them up and surrounding them. The problem is just to give a correct definition of such a field.

JES

I beg your pardon for my ignorance, but what IMO means?

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

I agree; yet, different from an electron which has a definite size, a photon does not own an exact size, i.e., unable to be localized. The related E&M description is thus different.

Dear Zhen G Ma ,

They have of course different characteristics in their field.

But, the photon has in fact a size (depending on definition), depending on its energy. It accelerates very quickly against the surrounding media until it reaches c in an asymptotic way. Of course, you can localize a photon very precisely, take for example photography.

The electron has a similar but not very precise size (depends on definition).

Both the electron and the photon have a spiraling trajectory, leading to the famous particle-wave behavior.

JES

J.A. Souza

IMO means In My Opinion!

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson ,

The photon does not have a size physically; it is defined as the basic unit of energy. Let's compare it with a phonon. When we talk, we emit phonons which are received by others. Can we determine the size of one phonon? By the way, I am afraid there might be no acceleration "very quickly against the surrounding media until it reaches c". Once a photon comes into being, it is born with the intrinsic property of c (in vacuum; no media there). A lady researcher did froze the light speed to 17 m/s around 2000 in a superfluid.

Dear Zhen G Ma

If you have a real interest in physics, you must start with the basics.

In my profile, you can find a short paper demonstrating that the special relativity theory is wrong and that all masses have a surrounding media. This paper is simple logic, there is no alternative interpretation.

So, once you are convinced about the existence of the surrounding media, you are ready for the next step.

JES

Dear Stellan Gustafsson

You mean you are challenging the basic Michelson–Morley experiment? In this case, I hope you go ahead well with your own idea. Bye

Dear Zhen G Ma

The Daon theory is in agreement with all experimental data (as far as I know).

I suggest that you read the indicated paper before doing stupid comments.

JES

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

Experiment at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory

(June 28, 2022)

four months after the end of the ResearchGate discussion

==============================

Physicists confront the neutron lifetime puzzle

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-physicists-neutron-lifetime-puzzle.html

To solve a long-standing puzzle about how long a neutron can "live" outside an atomic nucleus, physicists entertained a wild but testable theory positing the existence of a right-handed version of our left-handed universe. They designed a mind-bending experiment at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory to try to detect a particle that has been speculated but not spotted. If found, the theorized "mirror neutron"—a dark-matter twin to the neutron—could explain a discrepancy between answers from two types of neutron lifetime experiments and provide the first observation of dark matter.

"The neutron lifetime is an important parameter in the Standard Model because it is used as an input for calculating the quark mixing matrix, which describes quark decay rates," said Gonzalez, who calculated probabilities of neutrons oscillating for the ORNL study. "If the quarks don't mix as we expect them to, that hints at new physics beyond the Standard Model."

To measure the lifetime of a free neutron, scientists take two approaches that should arrive at the same answer. One traps neutrons in a magnetic bottle and counts their disappearance. The other counts protons appearing in a beam as neutrons decay. It turns out neutrons appear to live nine seconds longer in a beam than in a bottle.

Over the years, perplexed physicists have considered many reasons for the discrepancy. One theory is that the neutron transforms from one state to another and back again. "Oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon," Broussard said. "If a neutron can exist as either a regular or a mirror neutron, then you can get this sort of oscillation, a rocking back and forth between the two states, as long as that transition isn't forbidden."

The conclusion

No evidence of neutron regeneration was seen. "One hundred percent of the neutrons stopped; zero percent passed through the wall," Broussard said. Regardless, the result is still important to the advancement of knowledge in this field.

With one particular mirror-matter theory debunked, the scientists turn to others to try to solve the neutron lifetime puzzle. "We're going to keep looking for the reason for the discrepancy," Broussard said. She and colleagues will use the High Flux Isotope Reactor, a DOE Office of Science user facility at ORNL, for that. Ongoing upgrades at HFIR will make more sensitive searches possible because the reactor will produce a much higher flux of neutrons, and the shielded detector at its small-angle neutron scattering diffractometer has a lower background.

Because the rigorous experiment did not find evidence of mirror neutrons, the physicists were able to rule out a far-fetched theory. And that takes them closer to solving the puzzle.

If it seems sad that the neutron lifetime puzzle remains unsolved, take solace from Broussard: "Physics is hard because we've done too good a job at it. Only the really hard problems—and lucky discoveries—are left."