answer by yes or no to the question, if the electron is composed of three fragments of charges? it is like saying that scientific theories are only mood jumps.

The question is asking about an inconsistency of reporting a point like particle in collision experiments and a rotating volume in spin momentum and magnetic moment experiments. Also there seems to be a way to get the definitive answer, since fractional charges make one magnetic profile, and single charges make a different profile. There is a lot of data in libraries that might contain an answer.

Much of science seems happy not to know the answer. It becomes important at extreme high energy like deep space transport, where exclusion rules are challenged.

Nobel Prize 20 years ago and still not widely known in the larger research community.

Integer charge in electron should make an additional magnetic spectra that is not reported, while fractional charges could make the reported results. Maybe it is so small to look like a point, while not being a point.

My interest as before in other threads is what place vacuum space might play in the confinement of fractional charges. The electron is a cleaner question than the mesons where a plasma of quarks and gluons is found briefly in the result of excess energy.

It seems to lead toward properties of vacuum that are not well explored, but would be experienced in deep space at high speed. So far the available information is suggesting a wormhole could be produced at some energy density less than the fragmentation point of familiar matter, but close enough to take precautions in the design and planning.

Thanks 𝗠. 𝗔𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗶

when we want to collide the particles they are considered as accelerated billiard balls, because we need their mechanical part "the mass". Then the question arose: since we are dealing with a mass, so how is the distribution of this later? Is it In the (bulk) or on the surface? Unlikely! despite several attempts by brilliant scientists, the electron always hides behind the two aspects separately "an charged point " or "a body with a mass, without considering the charge"… really! very misterious our little electron.

For a new particle model which considers the electron (as well as other "elementary" particles) as a composed object consisting of 3x2=6 constituents see the working paper of the ongoing project

https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY

https://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_OverviewResearchProjects.pdf

https://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

https://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH02-CH04.pdf

Jerry Decker,

You mentioned "Nobel Prize 20 years ago and still not widely known in the larger research community".

The Nobel Prize you're referring to is the discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations, by Laughlin, Stormer and Tsui back in 1998. I agree that the larger research community does not give this sufficient attention today. I further believe that this leptonic structure could give further clues as to how perhaps the atomic nucleus is also arranged, or even that of dark energy.

In my geometric theory of the Unified Field, I have successfully incorporated this feature, describing this "quantum fluid" utilizing the quasiparticles which carry the e/3 fractional charge, and from this foundation further describe the geometry onto which the electrons utilize as they fill their spdf shells about the atomic nucleus, correctly following the build sequence groups of the Periodic Table.

If interested, follow me here to receive notification as to when this UFT is due to be published (2019 time frame).

PS: I have not entered into the possibilities of what this knowledge could lead to, such as a possible wormhole creation, so cannot add much towards this particular subject.

- J.L. Brady

Thanks for reply and explanation J.L. Brady

I did follow your project.

My mention of wormholes was in reference to the energy level predicted and some expectation from the answers that quarks would not become unglued and electrons would not be fragmented before the wormhole energy could be achieved.

In consideration of deep space transport at high speed and prolonged acceleration , a number of questions arose about strength of materials, health of travelers, stability of space time, and kinetics of chemistry, physics, and biology. These were discussed in other threads, along with questions of propulsion, acceleration, and organization of travelers society.

Results so far have suggested that difficulties can be resolved over a period of time with star travel being achieved after some smaller steps like the Mars programs.

It appears that a high speed vehicle interacts with the space it passes through, and a critical energy density might be achieved after one year of acceleration like earth gravity. Some of the field effect programs might achieve this.

Vacuum can be represented in 4D as scale one in the system of Scale Relativity. To approach light speed needs at least 6D of folded space through which a wormhole might be opened. The scale two is 5D like the Kaluza Klein model where a second dimension of time generates the Maxwell Equations in a massless vacuum. To generate mass in the vacuum requires 6D at scale three and a third dimension of time. Continued acceleration eventually predicts scale four, vacuum in a squeezed quantum state, and the spontaneous opening of a wormhole around the vehicle.

Unfortunately scale five at somewhat higher energy density represents big bang conditions of enormous temperature and fragmented matter becoming radiation. The present question is asking if matter like a vehicle and people will be stable and functional at wormhole energy; apparently yes but with caution in design and operation of machines.

A 6D system near light speed is convenient in that it avoids the transformation of space like and time like coordinates. Higher dimensions are possible maybe 12D in a super symmetry to describe all the physical processes.

In other threads I demonstrated that higher dimension frames can be constructed and tested on velocity base units instead of distance base units. If a separate clock is attached to each velocity base, it is 6D. To get 12D only requires a separate electroscope and magnetometer to be attached to each velocity base. Higher dimensions like 26D of non symmetric string theory can be constructed by adding more velocity components at various angles, adding accelerometers, and attaching each clock and meter to a separate velocity component. There is one redundant meter in 26D.

Information about the electron is suggesting it will be stable enough for star travel unless we get careless with it.

Thanks everyone.

Igael,

Yes, I agree there is limited observable data within the quantum realm, and only a couple of measuring tools in our toolbox available to attempt to decipher all of the quantum interactions, let alone the attempts to theorize how these interactions take place using this limited data. What I believe is lacking is a vision of a geometric structure upon which perhaps we could place these SM particles upon in lieu of our empty toolbox, and put it to the test. What if a dynamic geometric structure could be theorized and presented which successfully demonstrates most of the SM properties we have come to agree upon, such as particle charge, spin, flavor and their interactions including the complete number of quarks and gluons, and their anti-particles. This would add a significant tool within our toolbox now to help us visualize not only what we have established thus far, but now perhaps even go further utilizing the basics of the structure to apply future theories upon, and test these new theories. Geometry is or should be the ultimate litmus test of theory since it is the foundation of anything observable, the bridge between the quantum realm and the macro observable realm. Equations alone can never be directly observable, which true science demands. They can only help us attempt to theorize how the observable geometry might behave.

Now that we have walked the quantum theory path for over a century, establishing many fantastic discoveries on how, it is time to visualize its quantum interactions and finally answer the many questions of why, which symmetric geometry can answer. It is this dynamic geometric structure described above which I plan on presenting.

- J.L. Brady

Newton's thought is powerful not because it's beautiful as P.Dirac said about his equation! but because it is simple; with natural ingredients is accessible to the five human senses. It is a thought that naturally thought in three dimensions (3D) with a parameter time (t) later became a fourth dimension. It explains almost everything (almost) and never stops to advance human thought.

then we must put ourselves in the place of newton under the apple tree, and say that the apple is in 6, 8 or n dimensios (N-D) and that its chut is explained in a space with n dimensions too ...! the human spirit and very smart, it hides its inability to explain things one canse each time derierre a new dimension. but maybe life is much better at 20 dimensions than it is at 4 dimensions !!!!

it is only a modest reflection of a modest living 4-dimensional.