Toroidal Electron

[crawler]

What kind of field is emitted by an electron?
emc fields emitted by an electron are photaenos of some kind. But as i mentioned in my earlier posting there are two kinds of photaenos, attached & shed (non-attached).

Once the rear of the central helix has passed the photaenos attached to the helix become non-attached. The non-attached photaenos continue to propagate out at say 5c, the leading edge propagates out at 5c & some distance back the trailing edge follows at 5c. Or praps the trailing edge stays put (probly not important). And praps the leading edge has a much higher velocity whilst attached (probly important).

So, up to a certain radius from an electron u will find attached photaenos & non-attached photaenos, & beyond that radius u will only find non-attached photaenos. That critical radius might be say five times the wavelength.

A non-attached photaeno must behave differently to an attached photaeno. I think an attached photaeno must have stronger effect when interacting with photaenos emanating from other electrons etc, ie a stronger effect on that other electron & a stronger feedback effect to its own parent electron.

A non-attached photaeno might have an effect because photaenos (both kinds) have their own mass, & hencely non-attached photaenos have their own inertia. Whilst attached photaenos have a combined inertia, ie their own inertia plus the inertia due to the mass of the central helix.

The trouble with my non-attached photaeno theory is that a non-attached photaeno cant feed any force etc back to the photon proper. Still thinking.

Ahah, it just occurred to me, a confined photon doesnt have any non-attached photaenos, because a confined photon has no ends, it is a continuous loop of some kind.
And that critical radius of 5 wavelengths must only apply to a free photon.

So, a confined photon emits only say a half of the number of attached photaenos emitted by a free photon, but these electron-photaenos have an infinite strong reach, whilst non-attached photaenos too have an infinite reach (& there are twice as many of them) but it is an infinite weak reach.

[crawler]

Departing briefly from our toroidal electron. But to give more creedance to photaenos & photaeno-drag in an electron model.

(1) That there critical radius (say 5 wavelengths) explains why Xrays can penetrate better than infrared (the critical radius of an Xray is smaller)(ie less interference from matter)(or praps i should say less interference of a blocking kind).

(2) Plus it explains why Xrays are slower than infrared in air water glass. Here the tighter helix in a photon of Xray results in more photaenos aiming ahead, aiming ahead somehow has a greater slowing feedback effect on the propagation speed of the main central helix of a free photon, ie when the (aimed ahead) photaeno interferes with other photaenos (emanating from other electrons etc ahead of the free photon), despite the smaller critical radius. More Xrays get throo (ie less blocking), but they go slower (ie more interference)(of a non-blocking kind).

(3) And photons reflect from a surface (mirror), ie reflexion is not an absorption/emission thing. The only problem here is that the photon has to return throo itself. But praps going throo itself aint a big worry, rays of light seem to pass throo other rays with minimal effect, so why shouldnt a photon be able to pass throo another photon, or throo itself even.

(4) And more drag on the sunny side of a photon gives 0.87 arcsec of bending of light passing the Sun. Which together with the 0.87 arcsec of the so called "ballistic bending" gives us the known 1.75 arcsec.

[crawler]

Can a dark electron give us dark matter?
If a neutrino (a dark photon) is made of two photons sharing the same helical axis, with fields 180 deg out of phase, ie cancelling, then if a neutrino became a confined neutrino (by forming a loop)(biting its own tail) then that might give us a dark electron (with praps zero charge)(& double the mass of an ordinary electron).

And we could have dark quarks, giving praps dark protons (with no charge)(& double the mass of an ordinary proton), & that would give us a dark matter. But that dark matter would not be atomic, it would be a kind of neutron star kind of matter, very dense, very massive.

[Steve Beck]

Is a confined photon one wavelength long?
Is a free photon one wavelength long?

Standard science doesnt mention the length of a photon. Or if it does then the inference is that it is at least one wavelength long.

Praps a free photon is one wave long. It makes sense that a photon has length, & length needs two ends. The emitted photaenos give a photon width, which i guess makes the photon a kind of cone propagating along & out. And the cone has a pointy front.
The rear of the cone is also a cone, a cone of nothingness, in effect parallel to the cone of thingness, two cones propagating along at c/n, both cones defining the edge between nothingness & thingness, the thingness in between the cones having an axis joining the two points, the axis being the main central helical part of the photon, & the rest of the volume tween the cones being full of photaenos emanating out squarely from the central helix (moreso than squarely from the axis).

But if a free photon is many wavelengths long, praps without a neat clear bum, then a confined photon might nonetheless be only one wavelength long, ie by virtue of an overlapping kind of process, rather than a clean head biting a clean bum kind of process.

If photaenos propagate outwards at c whilst the photon itself propagated forward at c then the two cones angle back at 45 deg. However a 45 deg angle would only apply to very long wavelengths, the angle for shorter wavelengths would be more than 45 deg because photaenos dont emanate squarely from the axis, they emanate squarely from the helix, hencely some photaenos angle forwards a bit. Hencely the leading cone is always more than 45 deg, the shorter the wavelength then the tighter the helix & the more forwardness of propagation of some of the photaenos.

And the rear cone (defining the rear edge of nothingness) would angle back at less than 45 deg, because some photaenos angle back a bit. At the rear the photaenos lose contact with the helix, ie they are shed off, ie individual photaenos are not dragged along by the helix.

However, photaenos propagate at praps 5c in the nearfield (Gasser), not 1c (or praps 5c/n i suppose). So here we have a problem. It means that for very long wavelengths the two cones dont angle back at 45 deg, ie 1 in 1, they angle back at 5 in 1 (ie giving very blunt cones).
And for very short wavelengths some photaenos must angle forward out ahead of the front of the main helix.
So, the forward cone might be very blunt, or even over-blunt, & the rear cone would have its own angle.

This free photon stuff must affect what happens inside & outside an electron (ie a confined photon), ie it must affect what an electron is & what it looks like & what it does. Just saying.

Thanks for the reply,

In the standard model photons can have different wavelengths. As for an electron to form, the photon has to be of a certain wavelength only. A single photon of twice the wavelength required to form an electron can "split" into the electron/positron pair, but only in the vicinity of another particle, like the nucleus of an atom. The full reasoning is not known to me, but near the nucleus of an atom there are photons "exchanged" between the bound electrons and the nucleus, keeping the electron from falling into the nucleus. Perhaps, the higher energy photon must have passed some of its energy onto one of those photons emitted from the electron or nucleus to "balance" out the energy, sort of like a higher energy billiard ball colliding with a still billiard ball, resulting in two billiard balls with more balanced out energy.

In the standard model, a photon is either a left hand circular or right hand circular photon and the wavelength is the time it takes to make a complete spin (photons are spin 1), much like a rotating bullet in the air. Point A is where in spacetime the rotation begins, and point B is where the rotation ends. It has little to do with the physical length of the photon as an object. However, of course this doesn't mean the photon isn't bigger or smaller at different wavelengths.

So far in the model, a trapped photon can be rotating either left or right (spin up or spin down electron) and the 720 degree spin, or spin 1/2, comes from how the trapped photon makes a full rotation in the form of the electron. It takes two laps around the ring path for a photon to make a complete spin. As a result, the electron spins at the speed of light. The photon might be a complete loop with both ends attached to each other, like a dragon chasing its own tail. As for the charge, the photon would lap clockwise or anti-clockwise in the torus. The spin up or down is the electron's magnetic dipole moment.

In string theory, the electron is a ring, for a bit of different reason, but similar to this model in the works. Both ends of the string is attached to form a closed string, and it rotates at the speed of light too. A photon is an open string, and the same string can convert to an electron as it closes. I don't know much about String Theory unfortunately, but I own a few text books on it. An open string can stretch in length, but they are usually ridiculously short.

Your photaeno model is interesting and important for me to learn and examine its implications on the model, so I'll have to set aside time to thoroughly absorb it. Thanks for contributing your ideas!

[Webbman]

Electrons are magnetic dipoles, and have "spin." Two high energy photons with the energy equivalents of the electron's rest mass convert into a pair of electrons, each with opposite charges. In the reverse, an electron and positron annihilate and convert back into photons.

So for the sake of reaching a unified theory, electrons appear to be the same as photons, just in different forms. In this model in the making, an electron is a confined photon with the topology of a torus. Ring models of electrons have been postulated for a long time, by Ampere for example, and by a few others. I think Rene Descartes, a famous philosopher, also believed in toroidal vortices in a fluid aether as the particles, that is if I am not mistaken.

Here's a starting paper for my research from 1997 that inspired this model of mine, Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?

Electron being vortex rings might be able to explain many phenomena in physics,like why electrons and positrons annihilate, among other things.

Here's an interesting experiment with photon beams forming "smoke rings," Optical "Smoke Rings" in Laser Pulses so light can produce vortex rings, much like smoke rings and bubble rings. There are also analogies to "smoke rings" in plasma physics too.

At the astrophysical scale, there are examples of ring-like phenomenon. In fact, the universe itself could be toroidal in shape.

I am sure others in this community share the same ideas as this, and I would hope this thread would bring some contribution to their research, as well as mine.

Kindest regards, Steve

in my view electrons arent so much toroidal photons as photons are torsioned electrons.

you need continuity of shape and function

heat = wild motion of free single strand/tube, basic building block of the aether.
electron = regulated loop for storage and transmission of waveforms.
light= torsioned loop, transport version of the electron. all waveforms accounted for by nature of torsion and tube count. Like electrons the larger structures are less stable.
electricity/electric/magnetic field= alignments of the tubes motions via transverse (current) and longtidual waveforms (pressure).

the tubes exist because they are at near infinite electrical pressure. Dont know how or why.

Thanks for the reply,

Unfortunately I don't understand how all this works. Let's begin with, what structure is your aether?

my ideas are here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17274

basically the aether is all the mass which includes a sea of free tubes ( which you could consider tubes or tornadoes) from which everything else arises. What you consider a torus i consider a loop but they are the same thing.

The difference is that i dont consider the aether to be apart from everything else. we can define the existence of mass as the presence of heat even if that mass is infinitesimal ( aka one single tube or tornado fro your perspective)

we can see thats its there because of heat and magnetism which shows its existence in both extremes of chaos and alignment. The perseverance of these tubes or tornadoes i think is related to near infinite voltage or electrical pressure which defines physicality.

perhaps the tornado is the better description than a tube, even though they are the same thing.

[crawler]

Thanks for the reply, In the standard model photons can have different wavelengths. As for an electron to form, the photon has to be of a certain wavelength only. A single photon of twice the wavelength required to form an electron can "split" into the electron/positron pair, but only in the vicinity of another particle, like the nucleus of an atom.

Alternatively 2 gamma rays (both LH?)(or both RH?)(or opposed?) can have a head-on collision to form an electron & positron. This kind of creation is the opposite of annihilation.
Something drastic has to make a photon bend to form a tight circle. Above it is a head-on collision.

Being near a nucleus might i suppose give some bending (1) due to photaeno-drag, plus some ballistic bending (2) due to gravity, but bending would need to be strong enough to send the photon into a very tight orbit where it meets its own tail, or at least happens to find itself in step with its own wavelength. This is very appealing, however i see a problem, how was the first electron created? There was no nucleus in existence to bend the photon. Where & how did it all start? Its a chicken & egg paradox, but here a photon & nucleus paradox.

(1)&(2) might be helped by (3) faux-gravity which is due to the centrifuging of aether. Aether is sucked in around the equator of a spinning nucleus due to inertia, & aether is then spat out near the two axial poles. The acceleration of the aether inflow (which is a 1/R thing) adds to the ordinary Newtonian ballistic gravity (which is a 1/RR thing).

Anyhow i guess that bending around a nucleus would only work for very long wavelengths. Not much good.

Re (1), photino drag, i have no equation for this, but we know that near the Sun the photaeno-drag bending yields 0.87 arcsec of bending, & is due to a weak long-range photaeno-drag arising from interference with photaenos emanating from the Sun, there being more interference on the sunny side of the passing photon.
But if a photon passes closely to a nucleus inside a critical radius then the bending due to (1) might be much much stronger. The critical radius CR is equal to the length of a photon if photaenos propagate out radially at c, whilst the photon propagates along at c.
Inside the CR photaenos emanating from the central helix are attached to the helix, & any interference or slowing of the photaeno is fed back to the helix (hencely slowing & possibly bending the helix). Inside the CR the closer to the nucleus then the greater the bending.
Outside the CR the photaenos are non-attached to the helix, having been shed off the end of the helix (or are attached but having not yet reached the CR), & any interference is not fed back to the helix.

In effect a photon has a soft effective diameter of 2*CR plus the diameter of the central helix, & this dia will be at least twice the length of the photon. The length of a photon (praps all photons) is probly equal to the wavelength (we dont know). So praps a photon is in effect a cone with R = L.

The full reasoning is not known to me, but near the nucleus of an atom there are photons "exchanged" between the bound electrons and the nucleus, keeping the electron from falling into the nucleus. Perhaps, the higher energy photon must have passed some of its energy onto one of those photons emitted from the electron or nucleus to "balance" out the energy, sort of like a higher energy billiard ball colliding with a still billiard ball, resulting in two billiard balls with more balanced out energy.

Thats the trouble with inventing a model for the electron, the model has to cater for everything. And just how/where/why/when a photon is absorbed by an electron or an atom etc, & HWWW emitted, is another major unknown. I will have to have a think.

In the standard model, a photon is either a left hand circular or right hand circular photon and the wavelength is the time it takes to make a complete spin (photons are spin 1), much like a rotating bullet in the air. Point A is where in spacetime the rotation begins, and point B is where the rotation ends. It has little to do with the physical length of the photon as an object. However, of course this doesn't mean the photon isn't bigger or smaller at different wavelengths.

So far in the model, a trapped photon can be rotating either left or right (spin up or spin down electron) and the 720 degree spin, or spin 1/2, comes from how the trapped photon makes a full rotation in the form of the electron. It takes two laps around the ring path for a photon to make a complete spin. As a result, the electron spins at the speed of light. The photon might be a complete loop with both ends attached to each other, like a dragon chasing its own tail. As for the charge, the photon would lap clockwise or anti-clockwise in the torus. The spin up or down is the electron's magnetic dipole moment..........

I picture a photon going around a loop of some kind at c' kmps, the potential c kmps having been reduced to c' due to photaeno drag from any nearby mass (not important). But i wouldnt call that looping motion a spin. I think a spin is where the loop itself spins around its own diameter. Am i correct? Can this spin have a circumferential speed of c kmps?

Then u can praps have a spin around an axis more or less orthogonal to the loop. Here the photon would be going around the loop & the loop would itself be rotating in that plane. Would that be possible? Might it reach c kmps?

[johnm33]

Steve jump to page 102 of this pdf, http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_ ... nature.pdf where an electron is 'remote viewed' the 'Phillips' referred to is here, http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/ where iirc there are links to Ron Cowens books. His desciption is similar to yours.

[crawler]

Steve jump to page 102 of this pdf, http://www.eso-garden.com/specials/the_ ... nature.pdf where an electron is 'remote viewed' the 'Phillips' referred to is here, http://www.smphillips.mysite.com/ where iirc there are links to Ron Cowens books. His description is similar to yours.

Page 104 says that atoms are frozen electricity. Jeans says bottled light.

"The atom of physics, says Steiner, is nothing but frozen electricity. And what is electricity?"

Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop explain that there is no such thing as electricity, electricity is merely an apparition due to the Heavyside signal which is due to the transverse electromagnetic wave which is a solid square halfwave. Electrons dont flow in a conductor, a TEM flows or propagates along outside a conductor (at c/n) & propagates outside between a pair of conductors (at praps much more than c/n). Anyhow TEM is my photaenos.

Which means that frozen electricity must mean frozen TEM waves, which is not correct, because we all here reckon that an electron is frozen light, ie matter aint frozen photaenos (a photaeno is a say half of a photon)(the TEM half).

[Steve Beck]

@crawler and johnm33,

Thanks for the replies. Good job for your contributions. Very much appreciated and will be studied upon.

Yesterday during my research spree I found this that may support this model: https://phys.org/news/2017-02-never-bef ... iquid.html

Toroidal solitons behave very much like the usual particles.

I believe johnm33's link seems cool, and it has references not only to toroids but string theory too, my favorite Theory of Everything contender, which I have been studying also.

There may be issues with the standard photon model and the photino model might have to solve it. You rise up some good points.

Kindest regards,

Steve

[Steve Beck]

The recently announced black hole observation is false. They observed no black hole, but a plasma torus. These plasma rings can be produced in the lab in small sizes. Where is the black hole in any of them? Matter is made of toroidal particles, but there is no black hole in any of them. Such hogwash masquerading as a scientific discovery. Pop science is hardly science. A large torus wouldn't exist if it is a black hole, since a black hole is a point mass singularity, not a large sized particle. A black hole also should have no escape velocity, but Hawking Radiation kind of contradicts this property of the black hole.

Just rubbish.

[crawler]

The recently announced black hole observation is false. They observed no black hole, but a plasma torus. These plasma rings can be produced in the lab in small sizes. Where is the black hole in any of them? Matter is made of toroidal particles, but there is no black hole in any of them. Such hogwash masquerading as a scientific discovery. Pop science is hardly science. A large torus wouldn't exist if it is a black hole, since a black hole is a point mass singularity, not a large sized particle. A black hole also should have no escape velocity, but Hawking Radiation kind of contradicts this property of the black hole.Just rubbish.

I saw Greene on PBS & he trumpeted the expected krapp re Einstein inventing blackholes with his bare hands, kiss kiss, & Schwarzschild equating BHs, lick lick, & BHs being proven in 2013, jerk jerk. Blackholes were of course predicted back in say 1783, & i believe that there can be say 8 kinds of BH, but the Einsteinian BH (ie a singularity) is impossible (alltho i suppose that Einstein had little to do with much of that)(did Alby believe in BHs?)(he didnt believe in GWs).
Anyhow i am keen to see what they come up with, even if their trumpeting makes me vomit.

Black holes
It was Michell who, in a paper for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, read on 27 November 1783, first proposed the idea that there were such things as black holes, which he called "dark stars".[15] Having accepted Newton’s corpuscular theory of light, which posited that light consists of minuscule particles, he reasoned that such particles, when emanated by a star, would be slowed down by its gravitational pull, and thought that it might therefore be possible to determine the star's mass based on the reduction in speed. This insight led in turn to the recognition that a star's gravitational pull might be so strong that the escape velocity would exceed the speed of light. Michell calculated that this would be the case with a star more than 500 times the size of the Sun. Since light would not be able to escape such a star, it would be invisible. In his own words:

If there should really exist in nature any bodies, whose density is not less than that of the sun, and whose diameters are more than 500 times the diameter of the sun, since their light could not arrive at us; or if there should exist any other bodies of a somewhat smaller size, which are not naturally luminous; of the existence of bodies under either of these circumstances, we could have no information from sight; yet, if any other luminous bodies should happen to revolve about them we might still perhaps from the motions of these revolving bodies infer the existence of the central ones with some degree of probability, as this might afford a clue to some of the apparent irregularities of the revolving bodies, which would not be easily explicable on any other hypothesis; but as the consequences of such a supposition are very obvious, and the consideration of them somewhat beside my present purpose, I shall not prosecute them any further.

— John Michell, 1784[16]
Michell suggested that there might be many "dark stars" in the universe, and today astronomers believe that black holes do indeed exist at the centers of most galaxies.[3] Similarly, Michell proposed that astronomers could detect "dark stars" by looking for star systems which behaved gravitationally like two stars, but where only one star could be seen. Michell argued that this would show the presence of a "dark star". It was an extraordinarily accurate prediction. All of the dozen candidate stellar black holes in our galaxy (the Milky Way) are in X-ray compact binary systems.[17]

Michell's ideas about gravity and light interested William Herschel, who tried to test them with his powerful telescopes.[15] A few years after Michell came up with the concept of black holes, the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace suggested essentially the same idea in his 1796 book, Exposition du Système du Monde.[3]

It has been written that Michell was so far ahead of his time in regard to black holes that the idea "made little impression" on his contemporaries.[3][11] "He died in quiet obscurity", states the American Physical Society, "and his notion of a 'dark star' was forgotten until his writings re-surfaced in the 1970s."[3]