A simple model of elementary particles

[Simple Particle]

Hi!

As a reaction to the very complicated and non-intuitive "Standard Model" of particle physics , I have challenged myself to come up with an easier, alternative model . After many attempts, I seem to have found a keeper! Despite its simplicity, it predicts the elementary charge, 1/2-spin, parity violation and more. It is based on classical physics.

In short, the hypothesis describes an elementary particle as a looping electromagnetic wave. The wave consists of a half or whole number of wavelengths, and for each half number the wave will twist 180° around its travel path. This allows for half-period closed waves, since the Möbius property makes positive and negative amplitudes identical.

In more detail: http://classicalatom.blogspot.com/20...s-protons.html

I have even tried to let the model explain gravitation: http://classicalatom.blogspot.com/20...avitation.html

What do you think? Please challenge the model, or suggest testable predictions! Don't be easy on it

[macaw]

Hi!

As a reaction to the very complicated and non-intuitive "Standard Model" of particle physics , I have challenged myself to come up with an easier, alternative model . After many attempts, I seem to have found a keeper! Despite its simplicity, it predicts the elementary charge, 1/2-spin, parity violation and more. It is based on classical physics.

In short, the hypothesis describes an elementary particle as a looping electromagnetic wave. The wave consists of a half or whole number of wavelengths, and for each half number the wave will twist 180° around its travel path. This allows for half-period closed waves, since the Möbius property makes positive and negative amplitudes identical.

In more detail: http://classicalatom.blogspot.com/20...s-protons.html

I have even tried to let the model explain gravitation: http://classicalatom.blogspot.com/20...avitation.html

What do you think? Please challenge the model, or suggest testable predictions! Don't be easy on it

OK, I'll bite

You say : "Only the electromagnetic force is needed to support the model."

Q1: Explain why the protons in the nucleus don't fly appart (remember, you are claiming that your model needs only the EM force)

Q2: explain why the electrons don't crash into the nucleus (remember, your model....)

Q3: Explain why only a certain number of electrons are allowed on each level of energy (you can also use only the EM force, as per your model)


Please use math in your explanations.

[Simple Particle]

Thanks for the reply, macaw

I'll try to answer your questions, though I can't find a clever way to fit math into the explanations (probably because math is not my strongest skill...):

Q1: The elementary charge is not radiating equally in the three dimensions, but is actually two-dimensional and limited to one hemisphere defined by the 180° twist. Each proton has to be positioned in such a way that its electric field is not conflicting the other electric fields. When the protons get too crammed this is not possible, and more neutrons (framework) have to be added...

Q2: The EM loop defining the electron has a much larger diameter than the proton's, and the charge only exists outside these loops (The charge can not be reduced to a point in this model). When the negative charge of an electron and the positive charge of a proton neutralize each other, this is actually occurring only outside the diameter of the electron. Inside the diameter of the electron the electric field of the proton still exists. An electron and a positron, on the other side, will totally overlap, and therefore annihilate.

Q3: This I will need to give more thought - so thanks for reminding me! I think, though, that conflicting magnetic fields can be the solution to this problem.

Thanks again! I hope I managed to give decent answers. I know I should have made graphical illustrations, but again my skills are limiting

[macaw]

Thanks for the reply, macaw

I'll try to answer your questions, though I can't find a clever way to fit math into the explanations (probably because math is not my strongest skill...):

Q1: The elementary charge is not radiating equally in the three dimensions, but is actually two-dimensional and limited to one hemisphere defined by the 180° twist.

Q4: How do you know this? Experimental data says exactly the opposite, that the em field is radially symmetric. Did you run any expriments that support your different point of view?

Each proton has to be positioned in such a way that its electric field is not conflicting the other electric fields.

Q5: How would you accomplish this amazing feat?

When the protons get too crammed this is not possible, and more neutrons (framework) have to be added...

Neutrons have 0 charge, so:

Q6: How does adding neutrally charge neutrons change the em forces between protons?

Q2: The EM loop defining the electron has a much larger diameter than the proton's, and the charge only exists outside these loops (The charge can not be reduced to a point in this model). When the negative charge of an electron and the positive charge of a proton neutralize each other,

Q7: The attraction forces still exist and they are gigantic, so, how come the electrons don't collapse into the nucleus?

this is actually occurring only outside the diameter of the electron. Inside the diameter of the electron

Q8: electrons are pointlike particles, so how can there be a "diameter of the electron"? How can we get "inside the diameter of an electron"?

the electric field of the proton still exists. An electron and a positron, on the other side, will totally overlap, and therefore annihilate.

Q9: What do positrons have to do with my question?

Q3: This I will need to give more thought - so thanks for reminding me! I think, though, that conflicting magnetic fields can be the solution to this problem.

Q10: What magnetic fields?

Thanks again! I hope I managed to give decent answers. I know I should have made graphical illustrations, but again my skills are limiting

Q11: So, who wrote the math in your blog?

[Simple Particle]

Thanks for spending time on this, macaw Certainly I had to use some time finding/formulating answers to all your questions! I hope this will make things clearer:

Q4:
I don’t know this is actually the case, but it is predicted by the presented model - which may or may not be wrong! I don’t know of any experiment that have been able to measure the direction of the em field from a single elementary charge. Also, this has to be done in a snapshot of time because of movement/rotation of the elementary particle, if not measured at 0 °K.

OK, the remark about the hemisphere is actually not quite accurate. The topology of the em field is more complicated than that. The main point is that it is two-dimensional, and that protons in principle can align in such a way that their charges don’t overlap.

IMO, the inverse square nature of the electric force suggest a two-dimensional description of the electric fields behind the scene...

Q5:
The protons do it themselves, by repelling each other when their (two-dimensional) em fields overlap. This requires freedom to move, though.

Q6:
By adding space, so that the em fields from the protons don’t need to overlap. It is crucial that the em fields are two-dimensional, as predicted by the model.

Q7:
No, the system will be at its lowest energy when the whole field of the electron is neutralized. If the electron moves in any direction relative to the proton the overlap/neutralization will be reduced.

Q8:
In this model the electron is not a point! If you regard the elementary charge as a point charge, that is extrapolation (according to this model). In this model the electron is more like a ring, so it is easy to get inside it.

Q9:
I just wanted to point out that the sizes of the particles are crucial. If they are not of the same size, they can not totally overlap their opposite em fields (and thus not collapse into each other).

Q10:
Since the elementary particles in this model consist of electromagnetic waves, they also contain a magnetic field. Actually, both protons, electrons and neutrons have known magnetic moments! These are explained away as “intrinsic” by the Standard Model, like are the charge and spin, by the way...

Q11:
I did! I used a lot of time on it though... I had to recall math that should have been elementary . I also calculated the charges of more complicated shapes during the process, and had great use of “The Integrator”!

Thanks for the interest

[macaw]

Thanks for spending time on this, macaw Certainly I had to use some time finding/formulating answers to all your questions! I hope this will make things clearer:

Q4:


OK, the remark about the hemisphere is actually not quite accurate.

Q12: So, it is false?

The topology of the em field is more complicated than that. The main point is that it is two-dimensional, .

Q13: How could it be two-dimensional? What happens in the third dimenson? What eexperimental confirmation do you have that it is two-dimensional?

and that protons in principle can align in such a way that their charges don’t overlap

Q14: What does this mean? What relevance does it have about the em forces between protons? As I told you the rejection force between like charges is enormous.

IMO, the inverse square nature of the electric force suggest a two-dimensional description of the electric fields behind the scene...

Q15: How so? Experiment tells us that it is three-dimensional, radially-symmetric. :

F=k*r/r^3
E=k1*r/r^3

where the bolded entities are vectors.

In your blog, you have E represented as a scalar, and that is wrong.

Q5:
The protons do it themselves, by repelling each other when their (two-dimensional) em fields overlap. This requires freedom to move, though.

But you claimed that the neutrons in the nucleus are responsible, this is your claim that I challenged:

"When the protons get too crammed this is not possible, and more neutrons (framework) have to be added..."

So, your above answer is a non-sequitur.

Q6:
By adding space, so that the em fields from the protons don’t need to overlap. It is crucial that the em fields are two-dimensional, as predicted by the model.

The neutrons are point-like particles, they do not "add any space". So, the em forces between protons are still the same. You are not answering the challenges, you are just making up stories as fast as you can.

Q7:
No, the system will be at its lowest energy when the whole field of the electron is neutralized.

Q15: Fields cannot be "neutralized", didn't you know that?

If the electron moves in any direction relative to the proton the overlap/neutralization will be reduced.

Q16: How so?

Q8:
In this model the electron is not a point! If you regard the elementary charge as a point charge, that is extrapolation (according to this model). In this model the electron is more like a ring, so it is easy to get inside it.

That's too bad because experiment tells us the contrary. So, your theory is false from the start.

Q9:
I just wanted to point out that the sizes of the particles are crucial. If they are not of the same size, they can not totally overlap their opposite em fields (and thus not collapse into each other).

In other words, positrons have nothing to do with the question I asked you, right?

Q10:
Since the elementary particles in this model consist of electromagnetic waves, they also contain a magnetic field. Actually, both protons, electrons and neutrons have known magnetic moments! These are explained away as “intrinsic” by the Standard Model, like are the charge and spin, by the way...

It isn't explained "away" in the SM, it is explained in a scientific way. The fact that you can't follow the explanations of SM doesn't mean that your explanation is valid. As we have seen, it isn't.

Q11:
I did! I used a lot of time on it though... I had to recall math that should have been elementary . I also calculated the charges of more complicated shapes during the process, and had great use of “The Integrator”!

Q17: If you did, then how come that you can't produce any mathematical answer to my challenges? You can no longer calculate?

[PraedSt]

In short, the hypothesis describes an elementary particle as a looping electromagnetic wave. The wave consists of a half or whole number of wavelengths, and for each half number the wave will twist 180° around its travel path. This allows for half-period closed waves, since the Möbius property makes positive and negative amplitudes identical.

Is this similar to string theory?

[Simple Particle]

macaw:

Q12: Yes

Q13:
You can look at the fields as a sheet (figuratively speaking) that can be folded in three dimensions. In this model, most of it is concentrated in the same plane, but a small part also originates from the 180 ° twist.

As already mentioned, I think the fact that the electric field from elementary particles follows an inverse square law can indicate a two-dimensional origin of this field.

Q14:
I means that the em field from one proton doesn’t overlap with the field from another. This is in principal possible in this model, because the field does not radiate spherically in all directions. Most of it is found in one plane, and also in one direction.

That also means that the rejection forces can be avoided. Yes, this model is conflicting the “proven” Standard Model in this part. I am playing with alternative explanations, you know...

Q15:
In my model all the field vectors are distributed radially, which means they can be treated as if originating from a point.

I have used the scalar product to find the net sum of the em field.

In this(!) model the neutrons space the protons apart, but the protons can still rotate to minimize repulsion from neighboring protons.

This model can not be discussed on the premises of other models, and in this model the neutron is not a point-like particle!

Q15:
No, I didn’t! Since a field can be described by vectors, another field with exactly opposite vectors should do just that... (Scalar product!)

Q16:
Because now all the em field vectors from the electron are overlapped by opposite vectors from the proton. Further movement will “expose” field vectors from the electron again.

You are wrong about the electron being a point! Even though the charge of it can be described as point-like (even in this alternative model!), that does not mean the electron is a point.

My model in not a theory as you state, but simply a hypothesis. And I don’t think you have falsified it yet.

The fact that you can't follow the explanations of SM doesn't mean that your explanation is valid.

I totally agree with you here

Q17:
Because I don’t know what to calculate.


PraedSt:

This model is not similar to string theory in any way I can think of.

[macaw]

macaw:

Q12: Yes

Since you admit your hypothesis to be false, the rest of your theory is all false.

Q13:
You can look at the fields as a sheet (figuratively speaking) that can be folded in three dimensions. In this model, most of it is concentrated in the same plane, but a small part also originates from the 180 ° twist.

You just admitted that this hypothesis is false (it is false indeed), so your answer is false.

As already mentioned, I think the fact that the electric field from elementary particles follows an inverse square law can indicate a two-dimensional origin of this field.

No, it doesn't, there is no such logical inference. Besides, experiment says that your hypothesis is false.

Q14:
I means that the em field from one proton doesn’t overlap with the field from another.

This is also false, ever heard about superposition of effects?

This is in principal possible in this model, because the field does not radiate spherically in all directions. Most of it is found in one plane, and also in one direction.

This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also (by your own admission) false.

[Simple Particle]

Since you admit your hypothesis to be false, the rest of your theory is all false.

I simply misinterpreted my own model on the fly. This neither changes nor falsifies the hypothesis.

You just admitted that this hypothesis is false (it is false indeed), so your answer is false.

No, the answer to Q13 still holds true (see above)...

Besides, experiment says that your hypothesis is false.

I don’t know of any such experiments, but you might very well be right! Please enlighten me.

This is also false, ever heard about superposition of effects?

The fields can superpose, but it will cost energy in this case. After all, same charges tend to fly apart from each other...

This is not only a non-sequitur, it is also (by your own admission) false.

I don’t follow your “logic”.

[Strange]

As a reaction to the very complicated and non-intuitive "Standard Model" of particle physics , I have challenged myself to come up with an easier, alternative model .

You seem to have replaced a beautifully simple and symmetrical theory with something that relises on ad-hoc assumptions such as the directions and distances over which the electric field of particles operates.

I means that the em field from one proton doesn’t overlap with the field from another. This is in principal possible in this model, because the field does not radiate spherically in all directions. Most of it is found in one plane, and also in one direction.

What magically constrains the field to one plane and one direction?

How does you theory account for the internal structure of protons?

[macaw]

I simply misinterpreted my own model on the fly. This neither changes nor falsifies the hypothesis.

Your model is false from the beginning, regardless of your own misinyerpreting it. This is due to the fact that it is falsified by experiment.

I don’t know of any such experiments, but you might very well be right! Please enlighten me.

Try reading on standard experiment in electrostatic and/or magnetism. Both the electric and the magnetic fields are radially symmetric.

The fields can superpose, but it will cost energy in this case.

Not "can". They "do". And your answer is a non-sequitur.

After all, same charges tend to fly apart from each other...

This is the only correct statement in the whole post. So, once again, why don't the protons in the nucleus "fly away from each other"?

I don’t follow your “logic”.

Stop " rolling your eyes" and read a book on particle physics.

[gzhpcu]

If you eliminate all other forces, how do you explain the strong nuclear force which keeps the protons in the nucleus together with your model?

How do explain the weak nuclear force and beta decay?

How do you explain quarks? Don't they exist in your model?

How do you explain gravity in your model?

[Simple Particle]

You seem to have replaced a beautifully simple and symmetrical theory with something that relises on ad-hoc assumptions such as the directions and distances over which the electric field of particles operates.

The beauty of the Stanadard Model can really be discussed. Also, it relies on forces and charges that have never been directly detected, and particles that may not even exist! When it comes to ad hoc, the Standard Model must have the world record!

What magically constrains the field to one plane and one direction?

The topology of the field is a direct consequence of the looping em wave that creates it. Again, I admit I should have made a figure to illustrate it... When you speak about magic, the Standard Model pops to my mind.

How does you theory account for the internal structure of protons?

My model/hypothesis (but not theory) doesn’t account for any internal structure of protons! Quarks, gluons, Higgs and whatever seem a little ad hoc to me. I think the proton’s internal structure remains quite an open question even in the model that introduced all these entities...

[Geo Kaplan]

The beauty of the Stanadard Model can really be discussed. Also, it relies on forces and charges that have never been directly detected, and particles that may not even exist! When it comes to ad hoc, the Standard Model must have the world record!

So, in your epistemology, what constitutes a "direct" detection?

The topology of the field is a direct consequence of the looping em wave that creates it. Again, I admit I should have made a figure to illustrate it... When you speak about magic, the Standard Model pops to my mind.

We're talking about your ATM idea, so please stick to that. You seem to think -- quite erroneously -- that bashing the Standard Model somehow enhances the validity of your idea. It's not a two-horse race. But the Standard Model has made verified predictions to umpteen decimals. So please do not make absurd comparisons. It just makes you look as absurd.

My model/hypothesis (but not theory) doesn’t account for any internal structure of protons! Quarks, gluons, Higgs and whatever seem a little ad hoc to me. I think the proton’s internal structure remains quite an open question even in the model that introduced all these entities...

Whether something "seems" ad hoc to you is quite irrelevant. The universe does not owe you personal aesthetic satisfaction. Science evaluates whether a theory makes testable predictions, and whether the test results are in accord with those predictions. If that doesn't seem elegant enough for you, fine, please develop an actual, elegant theory that also happens to reproduce all of the correct predictions of the "inelegant" theory it aims to displace.

[Strange]

The beauty of the Stanadard Model can really be discussed. Also, it relies on forces and charges that have never been directly detected, and particles that may not even exist! When it comes to ad hoc, the Standard Model must have the world record!

So you are not familiar with. Oh well.

The topology of the field is a direct consequence of the looping em wave that creates it. Again, I admit I should have made a figure to illustrate it... When you speak about magic, the Standard Model pops to my mind.

Could you show us the math for how these fields are generated then.

My model/hypothesis (but not theory) doesn’t account for any internal structure of protons! Quarks, gluons, Higgs and whatever seem a little ad hoc to me. I think the proton’s internal structure remains quite an open question even in the model that introduced all these entities...

But the internal structure of the proton has been observed in scattering experiments. So if your "theory" is unable to account for observation it has some serious shortcomings.

[Simple Particle]

macaw:
I think I have already answered for the claims you make in post #12.

Even “my” elementary particles will appear to have em fields radiating spherically because they move and rotate in a three-dimensional space. Their charges will therefore be point-like!

Interestingly, when it comes to symmetry experiments seem to challenge your point! Remember that circularly polarized light can change/create polarization of electron-spin. That should mean that the em field from the electron is chiral in some way – like it is in my model

gzhpcu:
All your your answers can be found in the description of my model (follow the provided links). Quarks are not needed in this model.

[macaw]

macaw:
I think I have already answered for the claims you make in post #12.

No, you haven't, all your answers have been shown to be incorrect.

Interestingly, when it comes to symmetry experiments seem to challenge your point! Remember that circularly polarized light can change/create polarization of electron-spin. That should mean that the em field from the electron is chiral in some way – like it is in my model

Q19: What does the above have to do with your incorrect claims about the fields associated with particles being two-dimensional?


Q20: What does the above have to do with your inability to show why the em force (the ONLY force in your model) doesn't rip apart the nucleus?

Q21: What does the above have to do with your inability to show why the em force doesn't cause the electrons to spiral into the nucleus?

Please go back starting at Q7 and start answering the questions. You have not provided ONE correct answer so far.

[Fortis]

My model/hypothesis (but not theory) doesn’t account for any internal structure of protons! Quarks, gluons, Higgs and whatever seem a little ad hoc to me. I think the proton’s internal structure remains quite an open question even in the model that introduced all these entities...

If so, then please can you explain why deep-inelastic scattering experiments indicate the presence of 3 distinct point-like particles within the proton?

[gzhpcu]

gzhpcu:
All your your answers can be found in the description of my model (follow the provided links). Quarks are not needed in this model.

Please answer the questions directly. Found no answers in your links.

[captain swoop]

If so, then please can you explain why deep-inelastic scattering experiments indicate the presence of 3 distinct point-like particles within the proton?

I think this is an important question. IF you model doesn't need Quarks, how do you expain this?
You don't get to pick and choose which bits of the evidence you want to include. Mainstream Models have an answer to this, does yours?

If your model can't explain everything that the current Mainstream Model can what good is it?

[Simple Particle]

Geo Kaplan:

So, in your epistemology, what constitutes a "direct" detection?

For example, if you claim to have a fundamental force you should be able to measure the field it creates. Or if you claim to have a (fractional) charge, you should be able to measure that charge.

I agree with you that bashing the SM doesn’t help my own hypothesis! But don’t forget that my model actually predicts some of the nature of elementary particles that other models just assume to be given. My model explains why the elementary charge has its particular value, and it also makes the wave–particle duality inevitable.

Also, the fact that it simplifies things should be a tribute itself (Occam’s razor).

Strange:

Could you show us the math for how these fields are generated then.

I have already done so in the description of my model.

But the internal structure of the proton has been observed in scattering experiments. So if your "theory" is unable to account for observation it has some serious shortcomings.

The exact internal structure of the proton has not been shown. Even in my model one should expect to find some structure, because the non-symmetric field of the proton is bombarded with non-symmetric electrons.

[Geo Kaplan]

Geo Kaplan:

For example, if you claim to have a fundamental force you should be able to measure the field it creates. Or if you claim to have a (fractional) charge, you should be able to measure that charge.

Thanks for the reply, but that's not an answer, for you have simply performed a semantic shift from "detect" to "measure," without providing the definition I asked for. No progress, I'm afraid. So I will repeat, what constitutes a measurement in your view? You seemingly apply arbitrary, ad hoc criteria to dismiss experiments in support of "forces" and "charges" in the Standard Model. So my question is not frivolous. Please define precisely what constitutes a measurement/detection/whatever in your epistemology.

I agree with you that bashing the SM doesn’t help my own hypothesis! But don’t forget that my model actually predicts some of the nature of elementary particles that other models just assume to be given. My model explains why the elementary charge has its particular value, and it also makes the wave–particle duality inevitable.

I haven't forgotten anything. We'll get to why your "derivation" of elementary charge is fundamentally flawed shortly. But please answer our pending questions first. I would like to progress in a more or less orderly manner. You will eventually see what is happening.

Also, the fact that it simplifies things should be a tribute itself (Occam’s razor).

Parsimony is terrific, but not at the expense of correctness. You certainly have simplicity, but correctness remains...elusive.

The exact internal structure of the proton has not been shown. Even in my model one should expect to find some structure, because the non-symmetric field of the proton is bombarded with non-symmetric electrons.

Again, that's a non-answer. The proton has been shown to have an internal structure. You have not demonstrated that your theory reproduces the results of the deep inelastic scattering experiments that revealed the proton's structure. You've only handwaved. That's not a theory.

[macaw]

My model explains why the elementary charge has its particular value,.

Let's check out this claim, ok? You say:

"Using radians, one can let |E| be represented by the definite integral

, where a is a constant. Letting the integral curve twice around the circumference of a circle, the 1/2-λ wave encloses a sphere of radius (r) λ/8π and volume (V) λ^3/384π^2."

Q22: Where did you get the expression for the integral representing E? It is not derived, it is put in by hand.

Q23: Show us how "letting the integral curve twice around the circumference of a circle, the 1/2-λ wave encloses a sphere". How does this happen?

The questions are accumulating and you aren't answering.

[Geo Kaplan]

Let's check out this claim, ok? You say:

"Using radians, one can let |E| be represented by the definite integral

, where a is a constant. Letting the integral curve twice around the circumference of a circle, the 1/2-λ wave encloses a sphere of radius (r) λ/8π and volume (V) λ^3/384π^2."

Q22: Where did you get the expression for the integral representing E? It is not derived, it is put in by hand.

Q23: Show us how "letting the integral curve twice around the circumference of a circle, the 1/2-λ wave encloses a sphere". How does this happen?

The questions are accumulating and you aren't answering.

Since macaw has started already, let's add some more questions to the queue:

GK1: What is Gauss' law? Do you notice a difference between how the textbooks define it, and how you have used it?

GK2: What is Coulomb's law? Do you notice a difference between how the textbooks define it, and how you have used it?

GK3: You invoke a photon volume energy density (misidentifying it as derived from Gauss' law), and then set it proportional to the E-field magnitude squared. How did you determine the proportionality constant, especially in view of your statement that half of the energy is in the E-field, and half in the H-field?

GK4: What are the meaning and dimensions of the parameter "a" in your integral?

That will do for now. Please add this to your "to answer" list. But answer the other pending questions first. You have a lot to do, so get to it!

[Fortis]

The exact internal structure of the proton has not been shown. Even in my model one should expect to find some structure, because the non-symmetric field of the proton is bombarded with non-symmetric electrons.

Please can you explain why deep inelastic scattering experiments show that the proton contains 3 point-like particles? This is interesting as the quark model had predicted that there should be three quarks inside the proton.

[captain swoop]

OK that's enough questions to be going on with. I would like Simple Particle to provide answers to some of the outstanding questions before rhe introduces anything else and before we get too many questions stacked up.

[Simple Particle]

Sorry for lagging behind! I’m a slow typer – or maybe just a slow thinker Anyway, I’ll work myself down the thread, chunk by chunk...

Please don’t refer to the model as a theory, because it is not. It is just a hypothesis. It is quite clear that all of you regard it as false, so I’m impressed you still bother to challenge it! I’ll do my best to defend it

macaw:
Q19: The 180° twist in the two-dimensional electrical field introduces chirality, and the field of real(!) electrons has been shown to be chiral. That's why it has much to do with my claims. (Let me guess, you will call this answer “non-sequitur”...)

Q20: I am almost sure I have already explained that the em fields in this model in principle can arrange in ways so they don’t conflict each other. I could always introduce a strange force to keep the nucleus from flying apart, but I would hate to do so...

Q21: See answers to Q2 and Q7. In this model the electron has a larger diameter than the proton. When the electron-proton system has its lowest energy, only parts of the proton’s field is neutralized, namely the area outside the diameter defined by the electron. The whole field of the electron is neutralized, though.

Fortis:
The lines produced in deep-inelastic scattering experiments have to be interpreted differently if testing my model of the proton. Why? Because one can not make the same assumptions about the probe (electrons or positrons). If testing “my” proton, one also has to take into account the particular structure of the probing electron. Its field topology and chirality will be parts of the resulting diagram.

No, I have not done any such new interpretations myself! And I will probably never have the power to do it either But they could falsify my hypothesis indeed!

gzhpcu:
Beta decay is explained under the heading “The neutron and antineutron” (first link).

No, quarks are not needed.

Gravitation is discussed in the second post (second link), from the third paragraph. Since I already have problems keeping up here, I suggest the draft on mass and gravitation can be discussed (or slaughtered ) in a new thread, when this one has been locked...

captain swoop:

If your model can't explain everything that the current Mainstream Model can what good is it?

It can explain things the current mainstream model does not explain.

[Fortis]

Fortis:
The lines produced in deep-inelastic scattering experiments have to be interpreted differently if testing my model of the proton. Why? Because one can not make the same assumptions about the probe (electrons or positrons). If testing “my” proton, one also has to take into account the particular structure of the probing electron. Its field topology and chirality will be parts of the resulting diagram.

No, I have not done any such new interpretations myself! And I will probably never have the power to do it either But they could falsify my hypothesis indeed!

Essentially this argument could be used against any awkward measurement or observation, i.e.

1) To correctly interpret this observation, you need to use my model
2) But so far I haven't developed my model enough to be able to do it, so
3) Therefore this observation cannot be considered to be evidence in favour of the standard model.

Now as there are an infinite number of potential theories out there that are in this state, i.e. no successful attempt has been made to model a specific observation, then by your reasoning we may as well give up and go home. No matter how many successful predictions are made by your model, there will always be someone who will say "Yes, but...."

Of course this isn't correct. If theory A predicts observation X, and observation X occurs (or it doesn't), then its use as evidence for (or against) the theory is independent of any other theory.

After all, if the standard model of particle physics predicted observation X, and X was not observed, then you would count that as evidence against the standard model, wouldn't you? It doesn't depend on your ability to derive what some other model predicts.

[macaw]

macaw:
Q19: The 180° twist in the two-dimensional electrical field introduces chirality, and the field of real(!) electrons has been shown to be chiral.

Q19a: What does chirality have to do with your lack of basic understanding of electrostatic fields?
Q19b: How does chirality explain your incorrect claim that charged particles of same polarity exhibit huge, non-null rejection forces, contrary to your claims that those forces somehow "cancel" each other?

Q20: I am almost sure I have already explained that the em fields in this model in principle can arrange in ways so they don’t conflict each other.

Q20a: But they don't. Experiment shows your claim to be false. Elementary electrodynamics (electrostatics, really) shows this to be false. So, please write down your model equations that support your claim.



.

Q21: See answers to Q2 and Q7. In this model the electron has a larger diameter than the proton.

But the electron is a pointlike particle, so the above claim is absurd. Besides:

Q21a: How does the disparity in "diameter" explain the contradiction I pointed out to you. Produce the equations that support your answer. Just saying that the "electron is larger than the proton" doesn't answer the challenge.

When the electron-proton system has its lowest energy, only parts of the proton’s field is neutralized, namely the area outside the diameter defined by the electron. The whole field of the electron is neutralized, though.

Really? You are making these things up as you go?
Q21b: The electrostatic force between the electron and the nucleus (protons) CANNOT be "neutralized". So, how come that the electron does not end up crashing in the nucleus. Please present your model's equations, no more made-up stories.