I computed the specific value of the radius of the twist ring result. This result will be valid for any field distribution rotating under the constraints of the electrostatic and magnetic fields generated by twists of the EM vector, and is fixed as a function of the ratio of the coupling due to electrostatic and magnetic forces. The resulting vector force equation is remarkable because it is very unusual to find a force equation in Schroedinger solution space that yields a “bump” if you will–a soliton. Analytic solutions of linear field equations are scale independent, and much unsuccessful work has been done in the last 30 years or more to try and create solitons. And here is one! And far better yet, it is *stable*–something truly unexpected. Central force solutions might show up an equipotential path, but rarely ever yields stable solutions, a far stricter requirement.

So, naturally, after swallowing my astonishment and realizing there isn’t a darn soul out there who cares, I pressed on. The computation of 1/r^2 and 1/r^3 force vector solutions yields the equation r = h/(4 Pi m c) and E = hv = 2 m c^2 (m being the mass of half of the twist ring). Logical and expected… BUT. ARgggh. That is the Compton radius.

In the last century, various physicists attempted to compute the radius of an electron, and assumed a spherical shell of charge e and mass me (experimentally determined mass of the electron). The resulting radius was called the Compton radius, after the physicist who presumably undertook this computation in 1927 or so. This is also called the classical electron radius, and is infamous for being a constant thorn in the side of quantum physicists who had experimental evidence that there cannot be a nonzero electron radius. Physics crackpots and wannabees (of which category I admittedly to some degree fall into) constantly try to put forth the argument that electrons have to be circular photons. The Compton radius, and any argument for it representing a real electron is resoundingly rejected, partly because collision experiments show that the electron definitely has no internal structure and seems to have a zero length radius. Now you know why I say ARRGH. Any new approach, such as the twist ring, that has a resemblance to the classical electron radius is going to be immediately rejected by physicists who will say, quit trying to think of a quantum particle in classical terms.

I’m not doing that, I think–I’ve quantized the twist ring, there is no mass term in my force vector solution (although it pops out after determining the radius), it is stable, and has a clean derivation–there’s no question that EM fields with a specific frequency and only that frequency will pop out a stable twist ring.

The Compton computation suffers from many unsolvable limitations, some of which are, “what is mass” (has no real meaning but is just a constant in this model representing inertial constraints on the shell), what keeps the spherical shell from collapsing on itself or dissipating (there’s no describable reason that counters the electrostatic attraction of the shell), where are the equipotential generating forces coming from (there’s no valid mathematical description in 3D of opposing forces, and a bunch of others. Such a solution requires the infamous handwaving defense “I don’t know, but it’s obvious that’s how it works”.

The twist ring successfully counters every objection I can find up to now–you can describe it mathematically explicitly, so I now know that regardless of whether the twist ring is a real model of the electron, I know *something* stable must result from EM waves that meet the twist ring conditions. There is no question that that frequency is physically significant, and is deeply connected to the relation of magnetic forces to electrostatic forces independent of mass, electron charge, or any other natural constants. The amazing thing to me about this latest work is that this frequency is the God frequency. It is the frequency that is E = hv = mc^2 mass of the electron.

Feynman said a good physicist is always very skeptical of anything he comes up with–I can see why, because it is so tempting to think you’ve really found something new! My biggest skepticism about twist rings is how can it be a true representation of an electron and yield the apparent zero radius (more on this in a later post, but my hypothesis, as of yet not advanced too far from the handwaving stage, is that relativistic motion encountered in accelerator experiments makes the loop into an asymptotically narrowing oval). The second skepticism has to be, why hasn’t somebody already taken this approach? The answer to that is partly because the twist ring is different from the Compton style charge loop (or sphere). It has a number of what I like to think are clever constraints that yield a marvelous solution–but Feynman would point his finger and say, that’s what I was talking about..!!

Agemoz

## Leave a Reply