An Idea

[labelwench]

This should be good, advice from she who knows not, residing north of who knows where, time challenged as to now from when...

Still, I venture where angels and even brave men fear to tread, relatively unscathed. Such is the perview of crazy people.....

Unless we all develop tolerance for each other's ideas, even though we may not share them, how then, are they to be explored in full, and either proven or disproven.

Reminding all, that virtually every thing we have ever known 'for sure' has revealled itself in fuller detail, over time, and some ideas turned out to be mistaken.

So much so, that in retrospect, one wonders how we could have ever believed such nonsense.

Yet, it was not nonsense in it's day.

I'm gonna love listening in on this conversation in another few years, to see which way the black cat jumps. Hope you are all still well and speaking to one another, lol...

As ever,

Lorrina

[G_burnett]

This is a work in progress and although I put it here in the public domain of this site, all rights are reserved. This is inclusive to use for educational purpose without prior agreement in writing with me of approval as I would in a case of educational use as a tool with proper citation used and student feed back by unconditional release of any project papers written by such students to me to use in the final publication planned.

In the first pictorial, I show a model of an electron torus. For observable state, I have given a cross section view. For the clarity of a cross section pictorial, I have identified what can be the predictable value of polarity state to the platform of view.


The clarity pictorial structure meeting the standard model explains many observations that can be made of the electron. In the above picture one should note the core value is apart from the torus but connected with a symbolic wave value.

One later explanation will be of course is where uncertainty becomes determinate in axial variation or wobble due to where the torus wave function is effecting the over all mass of the electron by charge in circlet motion. Further ponder will lead to understanding and clarity of electron tunnelling.

As pictured the false – value that will seem positive by the view in the right side of the cut of the torus, is with the remind that in the torus tube the charge value will be in different quadrants of the tube based on location and wave frequency in the cycle. This is in regards to the relative energy polar state of position.

The center form of the electron model shown is given boundaries as separate motion of varied pulse is noted in the electron perpendicular effect to the tube. Once more this is I believe with in the standard model.

Keeping in mind should be this is a whole electron pictorial. Key words should be pulse value, axial variation, core value, and wave value.

By wave, varied modulation exists to a certain value greater then zero measurement of the state in results of the measurements taken. In a “yes” answer to the question “can an electron in this model be affected by other in such manner under the standard model accepted today,” I will be posting varied scenarios in extended pictorial for comment and discussion.

The next picture is in consideration of a pulse influence upon the electron. The picture is indicating the pulse is an electromagnetic negative energy motive effect put to the electron.

[G_burnett]

“The Maple Seed”

Diagram E.2

In above view, I have added the initial wave define w(a) and secondary w(b). I have added the axis(c) variant consideration for both the initial and cycle state.

As pictured the pulse event by –EM wave on the electron throws off what cyclic symmetry of the initial state existed by increase of wave density or energy of the wave to do work. The frequency of the w(a) can be predicted to increase in motion around the core in a time frame to event. (Simple {a2 + b2 = c2} geometry.)

The first event would be as the tube of the torus increases a radius value from the z point of the core as the increase in lack of symmetry increases the axis(c) value expand of the initial variation. This better explained in vortex view of the tubular motion of energy of the torus but I will leave that up to Vincent Wee-Foo if he so wishes as I have learned a lot from him but not all he can offer in this area.

Taking the value of the –EM force and carrier we can thus then predict the release of a bosom and further creation exercises. Using the –EM wave form in my pictorial was for the sole purpose to have many of you wonder what the difference would be with a positive EM energy wave.

There would be no difference to creation of a pulse in the electron but a difference in first advanced state and entropic effect to axial variations and wobble. Either positive or negative can be used but the creation exercises will vary when we get to that ponder and later clarity toward the Standard Model.


For clarity, the negative use in the pictorials now will assist considerations of a non pulse of repetitive nature but a singular motive energy particle structure.

The wobble of axis being effected by wave front is consistent on the whole of the electron plane of effect (as explained in other post immaterial in my model from which direction of impact as the electron would spin to the above symmetry). Further with the torus motion of energy in different quadrants thus predictable are variations with time to the value to effect and increase or decrease of wobble will take place as the greater effect will be with the closer energy wave state in that quadrant in that slice of the torus.

Where becomes dependent on the structure state of the electron with wave value. This is where the math fails in the standard model of ponder, the uncertainty principal is used, and where new math in caritas geometry will explain the numbers using this pictorial.



As many readers here will know I subscribe to a rule one of particle interaction that involves a vortex dance taking place to a wave frequency degrade in perpendicular directional change compared to the less natural smashing event. A good grasp of this postulated subscription will enlighten the reader to how I have come to the model so described in these postulations.

We have to some humor in our lives.

Enjoy Kind regards, Graham

[Profpat]

An electron in motion, as captured by
a quantum stroboscope.

Thanks for your theory G. Mine is centered around the proton and only recently am considering the electron as a seperate particle. I always viewed it a a negative wave or vortex. I'm sorry I am unable to give you further comment but my knowledge in this regards is very limited.

Best,

Pat

[G_burnett]

they are related through the neutron in ponder afterthought .. ... good photo, i saw it before and it got me going on the torus lol ..
graham

[Profpat]

Hi Lorrina;

I think we have difficulty in communicating at times because we all have our favorite medium, be it math, words or pictures, to convey abstract concepts. As for me I really require a picture or image before I can begin to understand it. I'm not sure which came first language or cave pictures.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Probably motions and gestures came first, since we still use them when we talk, even on the phone where listeners can't see them. Pictures would be next, as they are the motions and gestures recorded on a cave wall or in the dirt.

There are also mannerisms and different looks as motions, too.

[Fredrick]

Phenomena of Nothing = Fredrick__Self-Admitted...rrr

Well, that is nothing but a repeat, Lloyd. We already covered this; it is included in the list under number 1:

Phenomena of Nothing

1/ Rejection (Lloyd)
2/ Exclusion (Lloyd)
3/ Muting (Lloyd)
4/ Voiding (Pat)

Straight-out Confirmations

A/ Incompleteness (Lloyd)
B/ Einstein's Gap (Labelwench)
C/ Lack of Money (Fredrick)


1/ Rejection of another person's information or presentation equals making it have zero value. Hence, confirmation of the evidence presented.

The question I have is whether it was Lloyd the scientific person responding or if it was Lloyd the non-scientific person responding.

I guess if it were Lloyd the scientific person responding he would bring something scientific to the table.

[Fredrick]

No Fredrick, I make no such distinction among the quarks. To me a quark, is a quark. No up/down.

Best,

Pat

Would you have information that supports your choice?

[Profpat]

Would you have information that supports your choice?

No the little guys are too small to see.

Gell-Mann not only arbitrarily came up with his fractional charge to explain how 3 quarks could make up a proton and a neutron but he had to also arbitrarily come up with a concept of an up and down quark. The up +2/3 charge the down quark -1/3 charge.

His model needs gluons to keep it confined and presently there is no good explanation for the asymptotic feedom exhibited by the 3 quarks.

My model requires no gluons for confinement or for QCD to be present, and my model SHOWS why the quarks have asymptotic freedom.

Which model to you has the better representational faithfulness.

Best,

Pat

P.S. My An Idea rests on logic and simplicity to explain the observed phenomena of confinement and asymptotic freedom of the 3 quarks.

P.P.S. If you have a better model of the 3 quarks being confined with asymptotic freedom capabilities please share it with me.