André Michaud: I'm glad to see you again.

You say: "Nature created only a few stable particles."

I claim: "Nature created only one pair stable particles - electron and positron."

Every analysis of particle decays leads to this result.

I'm very worried about the thought processes of the great theoreticians.

Dear Valeriy

In reality, nature did not create so many particles. Nature created only a few stable particles. Just enough in fact to build all elements of the periodic table.

All other particles in the Standard Model list are only fleetingly existing various excited states of the really existing restricted stable set momentarily excited or re-congealed from energy via destructive scattering. Within fractions of a second, they all decay back according to already well understood sequences into one or other stable particles of the stable set.

Ref: Michaud A (2017) The Last Challenge of Modern Physics. J Phys Math 8: 217. doi: 10.4172/2090-0902.1000217

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

Best Regards, André

André Michaud: I'm glad to see you again.

You say: "Nature created only a few stable particles."

I claim: "Nature created only one pair stable particles - electron and positron."

Every analysis of particle decays leads to this result.

I'm very worried about the thought processes of the great theoreticians.

Nature, like a two-year old, does whatever she likes, but she is frugal and not malicious! The quantum vacuum is her play ground. She eternally pulls from the quantum vacuum whenever and whatever elementary particles are required as evolutionary, physical and dialectical necessity to keep the infinite universe running and hides back the rest.

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Dear Hans,

Also glad that you are still active.

You wrote: "Nature created only a pair stable particles - electron and positron"

This is also my conclusion. If interested in how I think these were converted from minimally only two photons interacting at the beginning of the universe, this analysis is available here:

Michaud A (2016). On the Birth of the Universe and the Time Dimension in the 3-Spaces Model. American Journal of Modern Physics. Special Issue: Insufficiency of Big Bang Cosmology. Vol. 5, No . 4-1, 2016, pp. 44-52. doi: 10.11648/j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.17.pdf

You wrote: "Every analysis of particle decays leads to this result."

Also my conclusion.

You wrote: "I'm very worried about the thought processes of the great theoreticians."

They simply stopped studying real physics about 100 years ago and wasted all this time fascinated with self-consistent mathematical fantasies.

If interested in the bulk of my analyses, here is an unpublished index into the lot:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards, André

Dear Abdul,

To me, your three-way dialectical approach (two opposites + 1 middle) is a simple metaphor of all possible wave function extensions.

Example. The mean orbital distance of the Earth on its orbit is an idealized circle (the middle), and both perihelion and aphelion are the two opposites.

All three together as relatively fixed references allow establishing the resonance wave function of the Earth orbit.

If you add the 3 axial references of the Moon orbit about the Earth, you can then establish its resonance wave function.

Combining the two wave functions, you end up with the combined wave function of the Earth-Moon duo about the Sun, including the beat frequency introduced by the Moon resonance state.

And so on.

I see the same at the subatomic level.

Combining all wave functions, from subatomic to galactic, you end up with the complex wave function of the universe.

Best Regards

Interesting discussion.

Dear Valeriy Pakulin,

Thank you for sending your question…

It is easy to answer after André’s and Hans-G.’s responses… In my opinion, only one element exists which building up the electron matter (observed duality is connected to its presence or absence)…

Regards,

Laszlo

In continuation with above debates especially that of Andre Michaud, myself has analyzed these aspects & my article published online RESEARCHGATE forum along my science research collaborative team appears within articles....." Modeling Vacuum Energy Quagmire Probability Absolute Magnetic Solutions MathematizingPreprintFile available June 2019📷Rajan Iyer📷Emmanouil Markoulakis📷André Michaud[...]📷Emmanuel Antonidakis", " Structure of the Vacuum Energy Magnetic QuagmirePreprintFile availableJune 2019📷Rajan Iyer📷Emmanouil Markoulakis📷André Michaud[...]📷Emmanuel Antonidakis", and others.

These aspects may unify positron electron aspects of particle physics, that for me seemed plausible several decades ago, when I started to renew my interest in theoretical physics, after being a materials electrochemical scientist. The IPZ model that was developed by me working under Professor Pickering & his associates will also be useful to developing metrix protocol that metricizes through eventual matrix binary coding everything!!!!! applicable to physics overall integrated observational knowledgebase. These are only in infant stages now in terms of proof processes. We hope having our quantum magnetism primordial model experimentally proving conjectures published ASAP. We may all be coming to a hopeful convergence of idea to theory of everything meaningfully.........

André Michaud

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Abdul Malek

Jasim Hassen

László Attila Horváth

Rajan Iyer

I thank everyone for the informative answers. But I would like to hear more information from you. Do particles die? Particles are born in our time? What holds elements in composite particles? Just don’t say that they have an innate ability to attract.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy

You ask: "Do particles die? Particles are born in our time? What holds elements in composite particles?"

Electrons and positrons seem to have been continuously created from the beginning of the universe in a process that seems to apparently still be ongoing.

All observations and experiments ever carried out seem to show that the only way for an electron and a positron to stop existing is to recombine and reconvert to electromagnetic photon energy. Failing this, they seem to have an unlimited life expectancy, which seems to be confirmed from the trispatial geometry perspective.

If you have the patience of going through this rather long paper, you will understand what holds elementary particles captive in least action electromagnetic equilibrium state in hydrogen atoms, and by extension in all existing atoms from the trispatial geometry perspective.

The length could not be helped due to the large number of elements that needed to be put in correct perspective for the remainder of the analysis to make sense.

A simple scientific pocket calculator will allow you to verify every equation.

Ref: Michaud, A. (2018). The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1052-1110. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

http://www.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf.

Best Regards, André

Valeriy Pakulin

For materialist dialectics, the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing; i.e., no beginning or end. The quantum vacuum is both the source and the sink, from where new elementary matter/antimatter particle pairs (all bosoms: photons, W, Z bosons, gravitons etc. are their own anti-particles) come into being and the existing ones disappear, making the universe like a living animal, whose old cells die off and new ones are formed. Everything in this universe comes into being through evolution and passes out of existence, as Heraclitus posited from intuition, but now a scientific reality, specially after the quantum phenomena was recognized.

Please see some published articles and books, some of which were approved and appreciated by Halton (Chip) Arp - the famous heretic of modern cosmology::

Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*

Article THE COSMIC GAMMA-RAY HALO.

Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

Also: https://www.amazon.de/Dialectical-Universe-Reflections-Cosmology-February/dp/B01B98VUOQ

André Michaud: There was never a beginning of the universe! Space and time are generated and determined by matter. Matter is eternal. The fundamental question in physics is therefore: What is matter?

Physics invented different types of matter: Many different particles, dark matter, matter of 'Black Holes', primoridal matter, dark energy, neutron matter ... It shows a fundamental lack of recognition.

All real particles and observable matter are at least formed by electrons and positrons. They form initially the light mesons which are for their part building blocks of all heavier particles up to atomic nuclei.

The small and seemingly insignificant equation:

γ ↔ e+ + e− resp. E ↔ e+ + e−

is most fundamental in particle physics. It is necessary to understand the nature of matter and recognize the eternal cycles of matter.

Contemporary physics follows unfortunately religious lines of thought. The questionable theories are raised to the rank of principles of belief.

Best! Hans

Dear Valery,

Again I have luck:

Here my approach is close to the Abdul, but originating from objective natural idealism (Daoism, example my philosophical system: https://moly.hu/konyvek/horvath-laszlo-attila-az-eszme)

and Hans-G: he has a similar formulation with the no-existing and existing is in continuous interaction: what we observe 'now' it will get another form for 'tomorrow' (perhaps remaining 'same', but it, in reality, is not same, could have been more or less it depending from its ' existence and position'

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S:

Do particles die? Particles are born in our time? (they are in continuously changing... These questions create limits for better understanding, do not permit you to understand what happening around you even you get a reasonable response to them.)... What holds elements in composite particles? (here I will use the Daoism terms: Ying and Yang' look onto the famous picture)... Just don’t say that they have an innate ability to attract. (this statement create a limitation for the understanding the ability to attracting (because it is connected to specific conditions, which is not itself the existing, it is only the property of existing (behaving virtually like the existing)... (This response is not finished, needs more complex philosophically approachment)…

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "There was never a beginning of the universe! Space and time are generated and determined by matter. Matter is eternal. The fundamental question in physics is therefore: What is matter?"

Such a flat out assertion as an axiomatic premise without reference to some logical underpinning that "There was never a beginning to the universe" can only be this: a personal belief. The same with this other axiomatic assertion "Matter is eternal".

You state yourself, this time grounded on experimental evidence that we have since the 1930's that:

"The small and seemingly insignificant equation:

γ ↔ e+ + e− resp. E ↔ e+ + e− "

This directly reveals that matter is made of energy and that it is not eternal since after having been generated from energy, it can be reconverted back to energy.

So the fundamental question in physics cannot be: "What is matter?" since we now know that it is made of energy. Since the 1930's, the question has become: "What is energy?"

Axiomatic assertions are what led fundamental astray by preventing further investigation. Experimental evidence is what research must be grounded on.

Doing away with all axiomatic beliefs is required to completely explore physical reality.

Best Regards, André

Dear André!

Matter exist not only as material matter but the present term of matter ends as material matter. We have to define matter comprehensive as energetical matter and material matter. In other words: matter exists as energy and material, as liquid, flexible or free matter and as solid, more or less inflexible and fixed matter.

The equivalence of both forms of matter was written down by Einstein with the equation E = m*c2 . The actual significance of this equivalence is obviously unrecognised until today.

The eternal cycles of matter in universe resulting from the transformations of both forms of matter into each other.

Since I'm starting working with problems of physics I'm more and more disappointed about the analytic skills and the abstractive abilities of physics and physicists.

Hans

Hello Valeriy:

In answering your question: "Do particles die? Particles are born in our time? What holds elements in composite particles?", eventually we will have to wait till our team's paper about quantum field magnetic quagmire gets published, hopefully soon enough.

However, one possible way the nature holds the dynamic evolution & extinction in balance is via quantum decoherence balancing quantum entanglement. We are only beginning to comprehend possibility. Quantum entanglement might get proved really through quantum computers. We are trying as also other scientists to prove about quantum decoherence that generates quagmire. Essentially, quantum magnetic positron electron dynamics might explain continuously evolving real world energy matter. We are only addressing problem correctly recently. Once we have proper definition of the problem, after transforming paradoxes & puzzle, then we will seek out solutions. My agreement with Hans statement that analytic skills & abstraction abilities haven't progressed logically in the mathematics with physics operating problem solving algorithm. IT binary matrix code algorithm logical manipulation that I have conducted shows promise to solve these vexing audio image textual video communication configuration that will converge with control of input, throughput, then output that will involve particle dynamic energy matter. Thorough analytical thinking will give optimal outcome. More with time...........

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "In other words: matter exists as energy and material, as liquid, flexible or free matter and as solid, more or less inflexible and fixed matter."

We know that macroscopic gaseous, liquid and solid substances are all made of the same atoms from the periodic table. These substances behaving as gaseous, liquid or solid does not change the nature of the atoms of which they are made. Solid only means that the atoms and molecules cannot slide against each other, liquid means that they can slide against each other, and gaseous means they are too energetic to even remain in close contact and constantly bump against each other.

In physical reality, what really exists is the atoms of which they are made at the submicroscopic level. In turn we know that atoms are made of electrons protons and neutrons and that they are massive. This means that the mass of all macroscopic "substances" are the sum of the individual masses of the atoms of which they are made.

At the subatomic level, the same, until you only have massive "elementary particles", that is massive electrons and positrons captive in least action electromagnetic equilibrium, made of electromagnetic energy.

This is what needs to be explored and finally understood.

You wrote: "I'm more and more disappointed about the analytic skills and the abstractive abilities of physics and physicists."

As mentioned already, orthodox theoreticians have not been studying real physics for the past hundred years, but wishful mathematical construct not grounded on experimental evidence. They are meaningless and can contribute nothing to further progress.

Fundamental physics can be explored only grounded on experimental evidence.

On my part, I explored and analyzed what experimental evidence we have about the subatomic level from the trispatial electromagnetic perspective.

Best Regards, André

Dear Ándré,

You have made wisdom answer, but you did not understand well the deep meaning from the last answer of Hans –G exact the sentence is a good expression: ‘Matter exist not only as material matter but the present term of matter ends as material matter. We have to define matter comprehensive as energetical matter and material matter. In other words: matter exists as energy and material, as a liquid, flexible or free matter and as solid, more or less inflexible and fixed matter.’ Other words matter mater and dissolved matter evaporated matter… The actual theoretical science is stuck in the limits created in last 130-150 years… and this limits not permitted to hear the simply song of nature which was discovered by Chinese 2700-3000 years ago… I have forgotten the next image from my previous post…

Regards,

Laszlo

André Michaud

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Abdul Malek

Dear friends,

"Energy" was a trend in physics at the beginning of the twentieth century. Avenarius and Mach claimed that matter is converted into energy. In philosophy, we studied Lenin's book "Materialism and Empire-Criticism". Energy is the property of matter to move only.

Matter cannot become its property. Matter can go into another phase. So ice when heated (i.e., with an increase in its energy) turns into water. Water turns into steam when heated. Phase transitions of a substance can occur, for example, in Black Holes. Huge pressure crushes the structure of elementary particles. They turn into an electromagnetic field. This is just another phase of matter. If the field quanta are crushed , then they turn into Prematter (see figure).

Prematter escapes through the poles of Black Holes with superlight speeds (jets). At the same time, the jets are cooled. Prematter turns into a field, a field into neutrinos and elementary particles. Therefore, there is no need to invent the Big Bang. "Small Explosions" in the Black Holes are a commonplace phenomenon. They constantly make the circulation of matter in the eternal Universe.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear László,

You wrote: "The actual theoretical science is stuck in the limits created in last 130-150 years"

Maybe, but like many others, I am not stuck with the limits that ignorant orthodox theoreticians keep themselves prisoners of.

We have learned much since the last 130 years. Experimental evidence discovered over the course of the past hundred years of the true structure of matter is available to all.

As I remarked recently, similarly to the old saying that "Nature abhors a vacuum", searching minds abhor the vacuum of ideas in the orthodox theoretical community.

The only way forward is first to learn real physics and build on the current confirmed pool of experimental evidence and finally to circumvent them and move forward without them.

Like many others are doing, this is also what I have been actively working at from the new experimental evidence that the orthodox theoretical community is apparently unable to take into account.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

Exact I wanted to send my response from my computer but it becomes inactive (perhaps was an action of the thought thieves because I am close to making forecasts of earthquakes). In the lost text mentioned it that the nearly similar idea with Hans-G was gotten in the last November with earthquakes forecasting possibility... That is why can be supposed that Hans-G has a great secret... Sorry rest you see my earthquake forecasting:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_You_see_the_Earthquakes-Prediction_Forecast_or_Random_events#view=5d90e3baf0fb6210c6002dbe

Regards,

Laszlo

Dear André!

Physics has accepted already that the largest part of the mass of atoms is energy. On particle level is it the same and the elementary particles electron and positron arise directly out of energy. Both particles e+ and e− are provable the elementary building blocks of all particles and atoms.

It is time to understand and accept that all material matter regardless of its state of aggregation at least is nothing than energy. Material matter in its manifold manifestations has only one root: Energy.

The term of "matter" needs to be extendet or better to say corrected. Matter exists as material matter and as energetical matter. Both are two sides of the same coin.

The protons and neutrons you mentioned consist also of electrons and positrons on elementary level. Electrons and positrons connect to the well-known light mesons and this particles are the substructural building blocks of protons, neutrons, nuclei an other particles. The structures of protons and neutrons melt together in the atomic nucleus. Protons and neutrons do not exist within the atomic nucleus but their sub-particles.

Some examples:

Charged pions have the structures:

π+ (2e+ 1e−) ; π− (1e+ 2e−)

Muons are exited electrons resp. positrons:

μ+ (e+*) ; μ− (e−*)

The interaction between proton and anti-proton demonstrate their structures as follows:

p+ (π+ π− μ+) = (4e+ 3e−) ; p− (π− π+ μ−) = (3e+ 4e−)

As you can see consist protons actual of three particles but not of 'quarks'.

Anti-matter is inverse structured matter. It is not caused by an assumed 'anti-property' of particles.

My Regards! Hans

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

Dear Hans,

I agree with all of your conclusions.

I also agree with you for "quarks" in general.

About this badly chosen name "quark", you may not know about this, but in the 1960's, at the SLAC accelerator, electrons were accelerated sufficiently to penetrate the very small volume occupied by protons (nuclei of hydrogen atoms).

In fact, they built the SLAC accelerator specifically to become able to accelerate electrons sufficiently to overcome the energy level required to penetrate inside this proton volume, that electrons always rebounded on with complete elasticity.

Some of these electrons sufficiently accelerated at SLAC rebounded highly inelastically against "something" inside protons. They localized in this way 3 such electrically charged particles whose masses cannot be much higher than that of the electron (we know this from the highly inelastic rebounding, meaning that much of the energy of the incoming electrons was lost in the collisions - absorbed by some particles in the same mass range as the electron).

Not knowing what they were at the time, they named them "Up-quark" and "Down-quark". So for these two at least, we have physical evidence of their existence.

From the trispatial perspective, they can now be identified as highly accelerated electrons and positrons, whose masses and electric charges are warped into these altered states by the intense electromagnetic least action equilibrium states that they are captive of.

If you are interested in the actual trispatial mechanics of acceleration of triads of electrons and positrons to become protons and neutrons, this is explained in this paper:

Ref: Michaud A. The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN : 2278-800X, Volume 7, Issue 9 (July 2013), PP.29-53

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

Here is a link to the highly inelastic collisions experiments carried out at SLAC in the 1960's:

Breidenbach M (1969) Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering. Phys Rev Lett 23: 935-939.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear André!

A funny note: If someone talks nonsense we say in German: "Er redet Quark!" ("He speaks Quark!", Quark = cheese curd). This is my idea if I hear pysicists talk serious about the 'quarks' :-)

The experimental methods have not revolutionize since Rutherford 1910 as you can see on the example of SLAC and LHC too. Merely the energies are much higher and the used particles are different.

But there are modified experimental setups possible which would give us more insight as even more gigantically accelerators at CERN. This method is exhausted.

I guess that within the next 20 years the pipe dreams of theories will collapse. The failure of the LHC-experiment was the thin end of the wedge. Some scientists are in doubt now.

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "The experimental methods have not revolutionize since Rutherford 1910 as you can see on the example of SLAC and LHC too. Merely the energies are much higher and the used particles are different."

I think you do not realize the major difference between the non-destructive scattering exploratory method used at SLAC in its first years of operation and the useless destructive scattering method used at LHC, and even at SLAC after the first years of true research.

The failure of the LHC method was entirely predictable, but the success of the SLAC non-destructive exploration has simply not been understood by the ignorant mathematicians who designed and operate the LHC, and who have hijacked the field of theoretical physics, chasing away true physicists like Marmet and others.

They do not even understand the difference between non-destructive scattering exploration and destructive scattering, which is what has caused them to chase their Standard Model pipe dream instead of exploring real matter, made of physically existing stable elementary particles that the SLAC confirmed. They have wasted the past 50 years of true theoretical physics exploration possibilities.

I invite you to read this paper that clearly explains the difference between non-destructive exploratory scattering and destructive scattering.

Michaud A (2017) The Last Challenge of Modern Physics. J Phys Math 8: 217. doi: 10.4172/2090-0902.1000217

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

The collapse of their pipe dreams is not in 20 years, but much sooner now. Real physics is being referred to again with proper references to truly carried out and easily repeatable experiments.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

I agree mostly with you.

But the destructive scattering method is or better to say was by no means useless. It demonstrates by fragmentation of nuclei their structural fragments. This puzzle was not understood until today.

I said above: The impact experiments (in German: Stoßexperimente) espacially the proton collisions are exhausted. The experimenters do the applied experiments and the theoreticians do not understand the results since decades. The proper result of this experiments: If particles collide with a certain energy than arise particles up to the mass of the equivalence energy. The "prove" of the W- and Z-bosons and recent the Higgs-boson is nothing than self-deception. It exists always a real particle with properties close to a predicted particle except for particles with elementary charge divide into three.

I would remind also the elastic scattering experiments at lower energy. They prove a well-defined surface of atomic nuclei. Compare please the atomic nuclei on the picture below with the result of the scattering experiments.

Best wishes! Hans

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "But the destructive scattering method is or better to say was by no means useless. It demonstrates by fragmentation of nuclei their structural fragments. This puzzle was not understood until today."

Actually, destructive scattering (Zerstörerische-Stoßexperimente) is meaningless because it simply causes elementary particles making up nucleons to convert to EM photon energy that immediately reconverts to excited states "outside" the confines of protons and neutrons, that immediately decay to ultimately leave behind more stable electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons. This type of scattering reveals nothing about the inner components of protons and neutrons, except that it can be converted to transient EM photon energy that immediately reconverts to transient overexcited massive partons that immediately decay to one or other of the stable forms of the restricted set.

None of the fleetingly existing particles that thus congeal from this liberated energy exist within proton structure.

The non-destructive scattering (Zerstörungsfrei-Stoßexperimente) revealed 50 years ago already the physical existence of the only 3 elementary subcomponents of protons and neutrons, that you yourself concluded are only electrons and positrons. What more can you wish for as confirmation of your conclusion?

This is what the leading mathematicians of the time did not understand. This is a puzzle today only for those who do not understand the mechanical meaning of "highly inelastic scattering" (Hochinelastische-Partikel-Stöße).

To understand physical reality, the transient excited states of fundamental particles that recongeal from the liberated EM energy due to destructive scattering, that make up the Standard Model are totally useless. What needs to be understood are the simple stable states that cause permanent existence of matter and that were confirmed at SLAC.

This is what the upcoming generation will now have at its disposal to consider after 50 years of wasted time due to failure in the formal community to understand this and to properly refer to these conclusive experiments in the formal literature.

Best Regards, André

Dear André!

In short: The destructive scattering (better: destruction) shows us all the particles which are building blocks or fragments of nuclei. But this puzzle is hardly to resolve. The energies on particle and nuclear level are so high that additional particles arise especially if the impact particles are highly accelerated = more or less exited. A proton at nearly light speed is no longer a proton but at least an exited proton or a bundle of energy.

The elastic scattering give us indications to structures.

We need both informations to recognise the structures of the particles and nuclei!

Very important is the fact that particles not only arise but as well disappear during decays and interactions by pair production or annihilation. Therefore we have to differ between rule (Regel-) decays, superior number (Überzahl-) decays and outnumbered (Unterzahl-) decays. Par example the decays of uncharged pions π0 according to ParticleDataGroup:

π0 → e+ + e− rule decay

π0 → 2 γ outnubered decay

π0 → e+ + e+ + e− + e− superior number decay

The elementary structure of the π0 is therefore (1e+ 1e−)

All decays of all particles can be classify in this scheme.

I would like to refer to the paper:

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "In short: The destructive scattering (better: destruction) shows us all the particles which are building blocks or fragments of nuclei. But this puzzle is hardly to resolve."

But didn't you conclude that only three elementary particles were inside protons?

This is what I understood that you had concluded.

If I understood you correctly, how can you now say that there are more blocks and fragments inside protons then than these 3 scatterable subcomponents?

There never were any such puzzle for me, since we have direct experimental proof by non-destructive scattering since the 1960's that only 3 scatterable elementary particles make up the inner structure of protons and neutrons.

It is physically impossible for sufficiently energized incoming electrons and positrons to non-destructively back-scatter against more particles than exist inside the proton structure, and the 1960's experiment revealed only 3 such back-scatterable particles.

Metaphorically speaking, if you have only 3 numbered balls on a pool table, if you send a white ball to knock against them, it can collide with only these 3 numbered balls.

The mechanics of their establishment is very simple and is analyzed and explained from the trispatial perspective in my papers. Available for the upcoming generation to consider.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud:

Sorry that my declarations were misleading.

Analysis leads to the following results:

Protons consist of three sub-particles as follows:

p+ (π+ π− μ+)

This has to be defined as substructural level. The substructural particles (pions, muons and within many nuclei also kaons) are not elementary. They are composed of the elementary particles electrons and positrons in certain relations by accumulation of typical and high amounts of energy. The elementary structures according to analysis are:

Pions: π+ (2e+ 1e−) ; π− (1e+ 2e−)

Kaons: K+ (3e+ 2e−) ; K− (2e+ 3e−)

Muons μ+ (1e+) ; μ− (1e+)

The structures of protons in full are:

p+ (π+ π− μ+) = (4e+ 3e−)

p− (π− π+ μ−) = (3e+ 4e−)

Some conclusions

- We have to differ between elementary and substructural level of particles and nuclei.

- Matter and anti-matter are noting than inversely structured to each other.

- Some particles have the same elementary structure, but different substructutes. Par example neutron and Omega782:

n ( K+ π− ) = (4e+ 4e−)

ω0782 ( π− π+ π0 ) = (4e+ 4e−)

and many others.

This way to describe the 'particle-zoo' is consistent. All particles can be structural described. Additional particles are not required. It allows predictions without mathematical tricks....

Best Wishes! Hans

Dear Hans,

You wrote: "Protons consist of three sub-particles as follows: p+ (π+ π− μ+)"

Ok. Now I understand correctly. But pions are not "elementary". The non destructive SLAC scattering experiments revealed only 3 "elementary" subcomponents with fractional charges.

"Elementary" meaning "behaving point-like" in all scattering experiments like electrons or positrons, which is what was observed at SLAC, that is, not being complex structures made of elementary particles, which pions happen to be.

The trispatial geometry allows mechanically explaining why the mass and charge characteristics of only 2 positrons and 1 electron (which are "elementary") are warped by the electromagnetic stresses of this most intense least action electromagnetic equilibrium state, in conformity with the observed characteristics of these 3 subcomponents detected in 1966-1968 at SLAC, into the positrons becoming slightly more massive than the positron, with 2/3 of their charge and the electron becoming slightly more massive than the now more massive warped positrons with only 1/3 of its charge:

Ref: Michaud A. The Mechanics of Neutron and Proton Creation in the 3-Spaces Model. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN : 2278-800X, Volume 7, Issue 9 (July 2013), PP.29-53

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

When they are expelled from nucleons by destructive scattering, they simply recover their normal unstressed characteristics, which is why no fractionally charged "elementary" particles have never been observed during destructive scattering experiments.

I see now how our two interpretations diverge.

Thank you for sharing.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

We should not argue about the shapes of particles. "Point-like" is a mathematical simplification for easier calculations. "Point-like" would mean in reality "nothing". All particles - elementary and composed too - have structures. Otherwise they were unable to interact as observed. Therefore every particle has a charakteristical shape.

Our colleague Richard Gauthier develops ideas about the spatial properties of electrons/positrons based on their origin in photons.

The form of particles is different from our experiences. They are not massive bodys but merely shaped fields. I assume a fundamental relation between electrostatics and spinproperties.

We are not at the end of recognition like some scientists claim we are always at the beginning.

Best! Hans

Dear Hans,

"Point-like behavior" during elementary particles scattering experiments simply means that no unbreachable limit is met however close such particles come to each other's centers of inertia, however close they come to each other, like two electrons sent on head-on collision. Protons for example do not display point-like behavior.

Nothing to do with the mathematical "point-like" tool.

On the other hand, pions are not stable and have too short life-spans to be part of the stable inner structure of protons.

You write: " They are not massive bodys but merely shaped fields. I assume a fundamental relation between electrostatics and spinproperties"

Seeing that you think that I am not aware of this simply shows that you have not read my papers.

This is fine with me. I am here only in search of any info that may have escaped me, not to convince people that my analyses are correct.

I now understand your model, which is what was intriguing me.

Once again, thanks for sharing.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

You say: "... pions are not stable and have too short life-spans to be part of the stable inner structure of protons."

They become stable in confinement! Certain arrengements of particles do not decay. Electron and positron annihilate in close contact but they are more stable in confinement and at least stable within the confinement of stable particles. If you know the actual structures of all particles than you will recognise that atomic nuclei are nothing than particles with certain structures. They are the stable islands within the sea of particles.

The stability of atomic nuclei is fragile. If the density of matter and energy exceed a limit than they decay resp. annihilate. Within the centres of galaxies occur periodically explosions up to gigantic outbursts of energy. The history of life on earth demonstrate and preserve such events. The universe exist in eternal cycles of matter (matter = energetical and material matter!).

The existence of "black holes" is absolute impossible. They would immediately explode. It is one of the mysteries in physics what type of matter a "black hole" would be.

Contemporary physics can only considered with misgiving.

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans,

You assert that pions become stable in confinement and that Protons consist of three sub-particles as follows: p+ (π+ π− μ+)

You also say that pions: π+ (2e+ 1e−) ; π− (1e+ 2e−) and Muons μ+ (1e+) ; μ− (1e+)

If pions remained stable as you say, inside protons, the electrons and positrons of their inner structure would not stop existing separately, and the 1960's SLAC non-destructive scattering experiments would have detected 7 "elementary charged particles" (4 e+ and 3 e-), but they detected only 3 "elementary" charged particles.

I think you do not understand the meaning of "non-destructive elementary particle scattering".

You also explaining to me all these other obvious properties of nuclei and non-existence of black holes again shows that you have read none of my papers.

I now understand your model, but a coherent discussion between us cannot occur unless you study and understand my analyses.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Dear friends,

I thank you for discussion. I asked about wisdom of Nature. But it is a strange picture. Nature create the problems for itself. And then it begin to fight with them. You suggest the electrons and the positrons instead of the quarks. André suggest some reactions: e+++ > e++, e--- > e-, e+++ + e--- > photon, ets. The main idea: there are the pushing forces inside! Hence it is necessary to struggle with it. You do not say: what is charge?

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear André,

I have to excuse me. It would be the best if we would discuss face-to-face.

The 1960's SLAC non-destructive scattering experiments have exactly proven the sub-structure of the proton with three sub-particles. If the electrons with higher energy would scan deeper parts than the structures of the protons resp. the confinement of the sub-particles would be destroyed. Scattering experiments have also limits. And we can only examine stable structures like protons. Neutrons - impossible.

The results of the scattering experimennts are congruent with the reaction between proton and antiproton. The problem of all destructive experiments is that particles resp. fragments not arise well-ordered. We have to solve a puzzle.

What does an analyst do in chemistry? He is desteoying the material resp. the chemical compound and than he reconstructed the structures step by step and not by mental games and theories like the physicists do.

Physics has all the necessary knowledge about the particles and nuclei always collected to reconstruct the actual structures of the microcosm.

But the great theoreticians in physics watch over the doctrine like the church dignitaries in the Middle Ages over the doctrines of the church.

My Regads! Hans

Dear Hans,

You write: "The 1960's SLAC non-destructive scattering experiments have exactly proven the sub-structure of the proton with three sub-particles. If the electrons with higher energy would scan deeper parts than the structures of the protons resp."

Protons are not particles. They are "systems of elementary particles" just like the solar system is a system of separate massive bodies.

The 1960's SLAC non-destructive scattering experiments have detected in the inner structure only three "elementary" sub-components. Since only electrons and positrons can be made from free moving electromagnetic energy, they are the only elementary particles that nature can use to build protons, so these 3 sub-components can only be 2 stressed positrons and 1 stressed electron.

There is nothing more inside protons to be scattered against or else non-destructive scattering would have detected it.

If you increase the energy of the incoming electrons, you enter the range of destructive scattering, that converts at least one of these 3 subcomponents to energy, that then recombines outside the now destroyed proton structure into the meta-stable partons that are observed. These partons never were part of the inner structure of the proton.

To understand why this makes sense and is consistent with electromagnetism and other experimental findings, I invite you to read my papers, where all is put in self-consistent perspective.

Best Regards, André

I am sorry to interfere in your conversation, but it is my conviction that mankind created so many elementary particles... nature has nothing do do with it ! How can something that doesn't exist in time be fundamental ? Fundamental particles must be existing... today, tomorrow and later, otherwise they are not existing. Stable "existence" means to be observable through time... but this doesn't apply to most "fundamental particles" with a life time of microseconds...

Dear Berndt,

I completely agree.

The only massive and charged elementary particle know and experimentally proven to be generated from free electromagnetic energy are the stable electron and the stable positron.

It is well established since Carl David Anderson's experiments in 1933 that any free moving massless electromagnetic photon of energy 1.022 MeV or more, generated as a byproduct of cosmic radiation, will destabilize when grazing a massive atomic nucleus, and will convert to a pair of massive elementary particles, which are one electron and one positron, whose respective rest masses of 0.511 MeV/c^2 are each made of 0.511 MeV of the massless photon energy. Any energy in excess of this specific amount of 1.022 MeV that the photon had before conversion is then expressed as momentum energy equally shared between both elementary massive particles, which causes them to move away from each other with a velocity corresponding to this excess energy.

The details of detection by Anderson of such massive electron-positron pairs production from massless cosmic radiation are described in a paper published in the Physical Review Journals, titled "The Positive Electron" and whose formal reference is "Phys. Rev. 43, 491 (1933:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.43.491

Also, research carried out by Kirk McDonald et al. in 1997 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), during experiment #e144 confirmed that by converging two sufficiently concentrated massless photons beams towards a single point in space, one beam involving massless electromagnetic photons exceeding the 1.022 MeV threshold, massive electron/positron pairs identical to those observed by Anderson as described in Reference 1 were created without any atomic nuclei being close by.

The details of experiment #e144 are described in a paper published in Physical Review Letters, Phys. Rev, Lett. 79, 1626, titled "Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering:

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

Since these two are the only massive particles ever proven to directly emerge from a conversion of electromagnetic energy, it seems entirely logical that they must have been the only possible building blocks available for protons and neutrons to come into being.

All fleetingly existing massive partons generated in high energy accelerators systematically degrade within fractions of a second into the only existing stable forms, that is electron, proton, neutron and free energy, which includes electromagnetic photons and neutrino energy, as far as can be analyzed.

As far as can be verified, the whole universe is made of only the atoms of the periodic table.

Best Regards, André

Dear Valeriy

You write: "there are the pushing forces inside! Hence it is necessary to struggle with it."

Yes there are. There is a least action resonance electromagnetic equilibrium that defines the size of the proton, and a less intense least action resonance electromagnetic equilibrium that defines the size of the hydrogen atom.

Both are explained from the electromagnetic perspective in this paper:

Michaud, A. (2018). The Hydrogen Atom Fundamental Resonance States. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1052-1110. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

http://www.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2018042716061246.pdf

The paper is long because the setting up of all required premises is required, but if you are patient, you will understand what the pushing forces are inside protons, that prevent total collapse, and also what prevents the electron from crashing on the proton.

Best Regards, André

Dear André!

A particle is a very small material unit in our sense of the microcosm. An elementary particle is indivisible and even smaller than other particles. A 'quark' wouldn't be an elementary particle because it is divisibe resp. it can decay. Only electron and positron are elementary. I think that we both agree.

"... what prevents the electron from crashing on the proton." The result would be a less stable particle. The structures of the proton do not premit to install an electron. Neutrons are radicalic protons or protons with an temporary additional electron after leaving the binding state. They are logical instable.

Certain atomic nuclei are able to capture electrons because their structures have a lack of electrons. The electron capturing can be replced by pair production at decay energies of 1,022MeV or more. The electron will be integrated in the structures, the positron is structural superfluous and will leave the nucleus.

If proton and anti-proton are interact we observe the following: See the added picture.

The conclusion is that protons consist at least of pions and muons and this particles decay at least in electrons/positrons and/or energy.

I can't follow the idea of stressed electrons and positrons. We have not only to find a declaration of the particle structures we have also to declare the origin of the real observed particles.

My Regards! Hans

Dear Hans,

I understand what you explain, but from my understanding, it is contrary to experimental evidence.

You wrote: "I can't follow the idea of stressed electrons and positrons."

I know. Unfortunately, I cannot explain more clearly than I already have.

Nobody can be forced to accept experimental evidence or even to understand it in the same manner.

Best Regards, André

André Michaud

Dear André,

I looked at your work again, thanks. But we changed the subject in this discussion. I asked only about elementary particles. Therefore, I ask you to state your opinion on the structure of the electron and positron. Do you have any idea what a charge is?

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy

You ask: "Therefore, I ask you to state your opinion on the structure of the electron and positron. Do you have any idea what a charge is?"

Yes. I have a very clear idea of what a charge is, but it can be understood only within the Maxwell interpretation compliant trispatial geometry:

The explanation is very clearly summarized on page 8 of the following reference.

Michaud A (2017) The Last Challenge of Modern Physics. J Phys Math 8: 217. doi: 10.4172/2090-0902.1000217

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

Quote: "This perspective immediately sheds new light on the issue of the sign of electric charges, given that they would henceforth "live" within Y-space. The electric charge of elementary particles can now be represented as a vector with a negative, positive or null sign in Y-space. The charge of the electron would then amount to momentum in the negative direction along the Y-x axis, that of the positron to momentum in the positive direction along the Y-x axis, and the null sign of de Broglie's half-photons' charges would become explainable by these charges oscillating in opposite directions on the Y-y/Y-z plane perpendicularly to the Y-x axis, as put in perspective in reference [7]."

And the mechanics of establishment of the charge of the electron and the positron as they are being generated from destabilizing a 1.022 MeV electromagnetic photon is completely explained in the following paper:

Michaud A. The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 6, Issue 10 (April 2013), PP. 36-49

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

You say: " The charge of the electron would then amount to momentum..."

But the dimension of momentum is [kg*m/c], and the dimension of charge [kg/c].

Not is so? I say about physical sence of the electron charge.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy

In electromagnetism, the unidirectional energy sustaining momentum is in joules, and the definition of joules is (C2m/s2) Coulomb squared by meter divided by seconds squared.

The charge is a unit meaningful in electromagnetism, but not in classical mechanics.

Electromagnetism deals with energy and inertia, not with mass.

The charge is in Coulombs (C).

Coulombs, meters and seconds are the fundamental units of electromagnetism. See Section XI in this paper (page 37):

Michaud A (2013). Deriving Eps_0 and Mu_0 from First Principles and Defining the Fundamental Electromagnetic Equations Set. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 7, Issue 4 (May 2013), PP. 32-39

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue4/G0704032039.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

I thank you very much. It is so interesting to speak with you!

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy

Thank you for the appreciation.

If you wish to understand how classical/relativistic mechanics can be harmonized with electromagnetism, this string of papers can progressively build a coherent picture of the fundamental level from these two previously separated perspectives.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards, André

There seems to be a problem... as you can see in my paper, my Proton weight of 1,65600335367E-27 kg (about 1% deviating from the official Proton) is 100% accepted by Niels Bohr basic equation for the Hydrogen atom... the difference from the official weight of the Hydrogen atom to my Proton is about 19 times the Electron mass... since my calculations are 100% consistent something is wrong... but what ? Any suggestions ? Please look at the file added...

Dear Berndt,

I note with your equations 1.13 and 1.14 that you seem to be working with an estimated volume for a hydrogen molecule (H2). I could not identify further on if you switched to the volume and other parameters for a single H atom.

Am I missing something?

Best Regards, André

I use the volume of one Hydrogen molecule which is 1 divided by the number of Hydrogen molecules in one cubic meter... and I don't switch to a single Hydrogen atom. If N hydrogen atoms occupy a space of one cubic meter, then one Hydrogen atom needs a space of 1/N. That is of course the radius without use of a packing factor and is thus greater than the real radius. I made a mistake since I wrote:

"The mass density of the Hydrogen atom is now given of..."

I should of course say "The mass density of the Hydrogen molecule...

kind regards

Berndt

Dear Berndt,

I see. But could this have a role to play in the discrepancy that you find, because the parameters of the H2 molecule involve 2 protons and 2 electrons which, from my understanding, does not seem to involve a spherically centered distribution?

Best Regards, André

Yes, I fully understand your argument... however, the problem are the numbers... unless you believe in coincidental 100% exact agreement of numbers... if it's coincidental it must get a place in Guinness record book...

Besides, a spherical atom with a spherical electron orbiting it... is unthinkable, but I agree that the H2 molecule would not be spherical...

kind regards

Berndt

Dear Berndt,

Note that I don't think that the Hydrogen atom is spherical either, nor do I see the electron as spherical, and nor do I see the electron as orbiting the proton.

I see them however as in spherically centered axial resonance state.

To me, the problem with numbers boils down to succeeding in matching the experimentally measured values, irrespective of any theory.

Best Regards, André

Dear Andre,

It is not that easy pushed aside, I didn't "succeed" with some action... I didn't expect this result and further it is not the official Proton, but my postulated Proton. I suspect that the measurement with a mass spectroscope is not exact... because you ionize an atom, that has a magnetic moment and accelerate it with high voltage and deflect it with a magnetic field... but this ion has both an electric and a magnetic moment, how can you be sure to measure only the mass of the particle without the influence of the electric and a magnetic moment ?

kind regards

Berndt

Dear Berndt,

You wrote: "how can you be sure to measure only the mass of the particle without the influence of the electric and a magnetic moment ?"

Well I am convinced that it is always measured with the influence of the electric and magnetic fields that guide them, because they are electromagnetic particles to start with. this is what causes them to move.

Equal density ambient electric and magnetic fields causes them to move in straight line, and higher density ambient magnetic field causes them to move on curved trajectories. The higher their intensities, the faster they move.

Mass of classical/relativistic mechanics, which is actually omnidirectional inertia in electromagnetics (resistance to their state of motion to be changed) is one of their normal electromagnetic properties.

Mass is part of the equation used to calculate the transverse magnetic force to be applied to keep electrons (or protons) on spiral or circular trajectories.

That's how their mass can be precisely calculated.

Check equation (5) in this paper for example:

Michaud A (2013). On The Electron Magnetic Moment Anomaly. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 7, Issue 3 (May 2013), PP. 21-25

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue3/E0703021025.pdf

This equation can be found in textbooks dealing with accelerating electrons, for example:

Stanley Humphries, Jr. Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration, John Wiley & Sons, 1986.

Best Regards, André

Dear Andre,

I understand the mechanism of the mass spectroscope... and I am also sure that you can distinguish between the different elements and their isotopes, but I have doubts regarding the precision in that process. If the Protons mass really is 1.6726 231E-27 kg and not 1,65600335367E-27 kg then I have a problem and ask myself why my Proton delivers fully consistent answers all the way round whilst the official Proton delivers inconsistent numerical answers... However... I have much to do to solve that problem...

kind regards

Berndt

There is one more question I have and that is: how do you know that you really measure on a "naked" Proton ?

Dear Berndt,

You write: "and I am also sure that you can distinguish between the different elements and their isotopes, but I have doubts regarding the precision in that process"

What I know is that in all atoms more complex than the simplest hydrogen atom (one proton nucleus - which excludes deuterium and tritium), in all atomic nuclei, protons are less massive than in the simple hydrogen atom.

From my analysis, this is due to the Coulomb interaction between the neighbouring elementary charged subcomponents of other nucleons inducing adiabatic momentum energy oriented outwards for all elementary charged subcomponents of the nucleons in each nucleus, that cause nucleons to slightly increase their resonance volume, thus diminishing the inward oriented adiabatic momentum energy that the charged subcomponents of each triad induce in each other, which diminishes their mass (as a function of the inverse of the now increased distance separating them).

This is analyzed in this separate paper:

Michaud A (2013). Inside Planets and Stars Masses. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 8, Issue 1 (July 2013), PP. 10-33

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

You ask: " how do you know that you really measure on a "naked" Proton ?"

Because to my knowledge, in high energy accelerators, they are able to accelerate protons that have been stripped of their electrons (ionized hydrogen atom nuclei), and so by means of the force they have to exert transversely to keep them on circular orbits, their exact rest mass can be confirmed, once the velocity related relativistic transverse magnetic field increment energy is mathematically separated from their actual rest mass.

They then obtain the actual rest mass of protons at Earth ground level.

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

you said "...protons are less massive than in the simple hydrogen atom."?

Can you explain please?

Hans

Dear Hans,

What I wrote was "In all nuclei other than the simple 1 proton nucleus of the hydrogen atom, protons have been measured as being less massive than in this simple hydrogen atom".

This is an experimentally measured fact. The same for neutrons. Even in the deuterium atom, the neutron is less massive than an isolated neutron.

Easily verified by calculating and verifying that the measured mass of all complex nuclei is less than multiplying the rest masses of isolated protons and neutrons by their numbers contained in each nucleus.

The mechanical explanation provided by the trispatial geometry is in this paper:

Michaud A (2013). Inside Planets and Stars Masses. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X, Volume 8, Issue 1 (July 2013), PP. 10-33

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

Best Regards, André

Dear André,

Thank you for answer.

I ask again: Less massive in the sense of lower mass or lower density of mass?

As we know there is a mass defect if the particles form the nuclei. Mass becomes energy and vice versa.

A very small mass defect arise also in cemical bonds but it is inmeasurable.

I agree with you fundamentally: There is a great many experimental results and observations which have to be evaluated unconventional. We have to leave the well trodden tracks.

Best! Hans

Dear Hans,

You ask: "I ask again: Less massive in the sense of lower mass or lower density of mass?"

In the sense of both. Less massive due to lower density, itself due to all nucleon charged subcomponents being pulled outwards by the increased presence of close by surrounding other charged particles, due to Coulomb interaction at play between all existing charged elementary particles in the universe. Maxwell's first equation at play, which is Gauss's equation for the electric field.

You wrote: "As we know there is a mass defect if the particles form the nuclei. Mass becomes energy and vice versa."

This is not what electromagnetism reveals. What happens due to Coulomb interaction is an adiabatic variation of elementary charged particles carrying energy due to variation of the distances separating them.

This is analyzed and explained in the last paper I referred you to, from the Maxwell interpretation compliant trispatial geometry perspective.

You wrote: "There is a great many experimental results and observations which have to be evaluated unconventional. We have to leave the well trodden tracks."

I must say that I have left the well trodden tracks long ago. In fact, as soon as I understood that practically nobody in the community understands electromagnetism. The well trodden path is fuelled by "simple lack of comprehension of electromagnetism".

Unexpectedly, "unconventionally reevaluating all experimental results and observations" boils down to reevaluate all of it from Maxwell's very conventional initial interpretation, that the community has neglected and eventually forgot about for the past 150 years.

Best Regards, André