Maxwellian Electron Vortex
(c) Robert Neil Boyd
Please refer to http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9810059 -- Important!
Zazerskiy's "ONs" are subquantum entities which, IMO, comprise the Maxwellian electron vortex. This is related to Tony Smith's Compton radius vortex Kerr-Newman black hole model of the electron, which is related to Kiehn's Falaco solitons.
http://www.ltn.lv/~elefzaze/indx0300en.html
http://www.ltn.lv/~elefzaze/indx0304en.html
"...At transition to stationary ON-model of electron such counterbalance pressure is not required, but additional scalar repulsion field, acting on ON-currents of electron irrespective to a charge mark, is necessary. This role is executed by the field G.
G-repulsion, acting on positively charged ON-current, directed to electron centre, is reduced by E-attraction and the ON's speed is extinguished up to zero only upon achievement of a centre, then ON (+) is again accelerated and leaves in infinity, restoring their individual speed.
G-repulsion and E-repulsion act on negatively charged ON-current, directed precisely to an electron centre. They cancel speed up to a zero in a distance of two units from the electron centre.
This universal scalar G-repulsion is interpreted as an ON's rest mass variability dynamic effect, which is determined by a scalar field of scale invariance.
The field G is entered into expressions of density and flow of field energy and expressions (accurate to within common multiplier, which is determined by choice of system of units) are obtained:
2u = (E , E) + (B , B) + (G , G); (1)
g = [E , B] + (G , v) G. (2)
It is reasonable, but purely phenomenological approach. If we override stagnancy of thinking, we may write the density of field energy of an electron at rest in the following form: "
Zazerskiy's ONs are related to Shpilman's descriptions of subquantum particles which are involved with what Shpilman calls "THREADS".
[Zazerskiy]:
Qualitative analysis of scalar field manifestation at fundamental ON-level makes us to anticipate violation of symmetry of magnetic moment values in proton-antiproton pairs (hadron-antihadron), masses at rest and other low-energy parameters.
Big and laborious work is necessary to make up theoretical description of this phenomenon. An experiment can say its final word prior to any reliable theoretical results in this area.
Most accessible schemes of experimental situations should be analyzed and shown, as well as existing experimental result data bases should be examined in order to analyze anticipated asymmetry."
I think that this description may be what is actually responsible for the asymmetrical observations which are presently being called a "quark-gluon plasma" and so-called evidences for "free quarks".
As for the appeal for consistency, consistency maybe found *here*, IMO: Zazerskiy's "ONs".
Re Quarks:
It remains a fact that quarks have never been isolated. Doesn't it strike you as strange that recent experiments are using hypothetical particles (charmed quarks) as so-called "probes"? When the empirical existence of quarks in general has *never been demonstrated* in the first place? Where is the experimental evidence of an isolated "quark".
I wager that were the researchers forced to rely only on dilepton events as probes, that the entire experimental thesis would fall apart. In my view, it is only fair to exclude the use of hypothetical particles (quarks) from attempts to demonstrate hypothetical particles such as a "quark gluon plasma".
There are many ways to construct fantasies based on specious arguments, particularly if we are allowed to introduce whatever imaginary "facts" we wish, to support our arguments. So far, these experiments mean nothing. They rely on the insubstantial to support the insubstantial.
I am not a particle physicist. But I do know how to use common sense.
There are many, myself included, who hold the view that the entire spectrum of elemental particles are combinations of electrons and positrons.
I am interested in what comprises the electrons and positrons. Tony Smith, Kiehn, and Sarfatti have already agreed that there may be subquantum particles comprising the electron-positron vortices. Alexander Shpilman sent a post last week regarding particles with a rest mass of, what was it, 0.02 EV? He also mentioned particles of 1.0 EV in the vicinity of threads. What do you suppose these creatures are?
Possibly I could provide firsthand proof of this with the new subquantum optics technique I talked about briefly a few months ago, if my approach works. I'll need to do some more research to see if it can really work. It is possible that there may be form of radiation which allows for an infinitely small resolution.
Problem is that this has never been done, so it won't be cheap or fast. I am not in a personal financial situation that would allow me the luxury of constructing the required apparatus and testing them at each step of the way.