AP's 220th book of science// EXPERIMENTAL PROOF the PROTON is a TORUS of 840MeV with MUON as ELECTRON inside the PROTON TORUS.

What AP is going to do is cite the literature first, the literature available on the web. Then I rewrite the literature as to the truth of the experiment.

For example, below I cite NATURE. Then I rewrite it so it is truthful.

AP rewrite:
Abstract
The visible world is founded on the proton, the building block of matter that is stable in nature because the proton is a torus of 8 rings and the muon inside the 8 rings causes a rest mass of 840 + 105 = 945MeV. Stable is the proton because with the muon inside the proton torus, they together do the Faraday law and produce the 0.5MeV particles called the Dirac magnetic monopoles, and it is these monopoles that make up electricity we use everyday in our lives. Consequently, understanding the formation of matter relies on explaining the dynamics and the properties of the proton’s bound state its 8 rings to compose a torus. And the mathematics is simple for divide 360 degrees by 8 gives us a angle of separation of one ring with the next ring as 45 degrees. A fundamental property of the proton involves the response of the system to an external electromagnetic field. It is characterized by the electromagnetic polarizabilities1 that describe how easily the charge and magnetization distributions inside the system are distorted by the electromagnetic field. Moreover, the generalized polarizabilities2 map out the resulting deformation of the densities in a proton subject to an electromagnetic field. They disclose essential information about the underlying system dynamics and provide a key for decoding the proton structure in terms of the theory of the AP-EM laws of physics (the revised Maxwell Equations). Of particular interest is a puzzle in the electric generalized polarizability of the proton that remains unresolved for two decades2. Here we report measurements of the proton’s electromagnetic generalized polarizabilities that reveals indeed, the 45 degree separation of 1 ring of the proton torus versus its successor or predecessor ring.

--- quoting NATURE ---
NATURE

R. Li, N. Sparveris, H. Atac, M. K. Jones, M. Paolone, Z. Akbar, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, V. Berdnikov, D. Biswas, M. Boer, A. Camsonne, J.-P. Chen, M. Diefenthaler, B. Duran, D. Dutta, D. Gaskell, O. Hansen, F. Hauenstein, N. Heinrich, W. Henry, T. Horn, G. M. Huber, S. Jia, S. Joosten, …J. Zhou Show authors
Nature volume 611, pages 265–270 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract
The visible world is founded on the proton, the only composite building block of matter that is stable in nature. Consequently, understanding the formation of matter relies on explaining the dynamics and the properties of the proton’s bound state. A fundamental property of the proton involves the response of the system to an external electromagnetic field. It is characterized by the electromagnetic polarizabilities1 that describe how easily the charge and magnetization distributions inside the system are distorted by the electromagnetic field. Moreover, the generalized polarizabilities2 map out the resulting deformation of the densities in a proton subject to an electromagnetic field. They disclose essential information about the underlying system dynamics and provide a key for decoding the proton structure in terms of the theory of the strong interaction that binds its elementary quark and gluon constituents. Of particular interest is a puzzle in the electric generalized polarizability of the proton that remains unresolved for two decades2. Here we report measurements of the proton’s electromagnetic generalized polarizabilities at low four-momentum transfer squared.. We show evidence of an anomaly to the behaviour of the proton’s electric generalized polarizability that contradicts the predictions of nuclear theory and derive its signature in the spatial distribution of the induced polarization in the proton. The reported measurements suggest the presence of a new, not-yet-understood dynamical mechanism in the proton and present notable challenges to the nuclear theory.

Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
R. Li, N. Sparveris, H. Atac, M. Boer, B. Duran, S. Jia & M. Rehfuss
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, Newport News, VA, USA
M. K. Jones, A. Camsonne, J.-P. Chen, M. Diefenthaler, D. Gaskell, O. Hansen, W. Henry, S. Malace, M. McCaughan, B. Sawatzky & G. R. Smith
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
M. Paolone
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
Z. Akbar & X. Zheng
The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA
C. Ayerbe Gayoso & W. B. Li
Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, USA
V. Berdnikov, T. Horn, M. Muhoza & R. Trotta
Hampton University, Hampton, VA, USA
D. Biswas & A. H. Liyanage
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
D. Biswas & M. Boer
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
D. Dutta & A. Karki
Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
F. Hauenstein
University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
N. Heinrich, G. M. Huber, S. J. D. Kay & V. Kumar
Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, USA
S. Joosten & Z.-E. Meziani
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
X. Li, A. Smith & J. Zhou
Florida International University, University Park, FL, USA
P. Markowitz & C. Yero
Artem Alikhanian National Laboratory, Yerevan, Armenia
H. Mkrtchyan
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
C. Morean
Veer Kunwar Singh University, Arrah, India
A. Narayan
University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
B. Pasquini
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Pavia, Italy
B. Pasquini
Contributions
N.S. is the spokesperson of the experiment. He initiated, guided and supervised this effort. R.L worked on the data analysis and the extraction of the cross sections and generalized polarizabilities. H.A. worked on the data analysis and the extraction of the electric and magnetic polarizability radii. M.K.J. and M.P. co-supervised the data analysis efforts and worked on the simulation of the experiment. B.P. developed the DR code for VCS and produced the induced polarization density. The entire VCS collaboration participated in the data collection and online analysis of the experiment.

Corresponding author
Correspondence to N. Sparveris.

Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review
Peer review information
Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Cross-section measurements of the VCS reaction for out-of-plane kinematics.
a, Cross-section measurements for out-of-plane kinematics at Q2 = 0.28 GeV2. Results are shown for different bins in the total centre-of-mass energy of the (γp) system, W. Top, middle and bottom panels correspond to ϕγ*γ = 140°, ϕγ*γ = 28° and ϕγ*γ = 38°, respectively. b, Measurements for out-of-plane kinematics at Q2 = 0.33 GeV2. Top and bottom panels correspond to ϕγ*γ = 150° and ϕγ*γ = 30°, respectively. c, Measurements for out-of-plane kinematics at Q2 = 0.40 GeV2. Top, middle and bottom panels correspond to ϕγ*γ = 152°, ϕγ*γ = 35° and ϕγ*γ = 50°, respectively. The solid curve shows the DR fit for the two scalar generalized polarizabilities. The dashed curve shows the Bethe–Heitler plus Born VCS (BH+Born) cross section. The error bars correspond to the total uncertainty, at the 1σ or 68% confidence level.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Q2 dependence of the electric generalized polarizability.
a, The empirical fits to the electric generalized polarizability: the yellow band corresponds to a dipole fit (\({\chi }_{\nu }^{2}=3.7\)) and the purple band corresponds to the dipole + Gaussian fit (\({\chi }_{\nu }^{2}=1.9\)). The world data values for the electric generalized polarizability (open symbols) from the experiments MIT-Bates, MAMI-I, MAMI-IV, MAMI-V, MAMI-VI and JLab-I are summarized in the review paper of ref. 2. b, The Q2 dependence of the electric generalized polarizability as derived from the experimental measurements using the GPR technique, a data-driven method that assumes no direct underlying functional form. The error bars and the uncertainty bands correspond to the total uncertainty, at the 1σ or 68% confidence level.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Electric polarizability radius fits.
Top, the mean square electric polarizability radius fits using combinations of different functional forms (exp, gaus, pol and dipole correspond to exponential, Gaussian, polynomial and dipole functions, respectively). The fits denoted with solid lines were performed over the full Q2 range of the world data. The three functional forms denoted with dashed lines were performed in the low-Q2 range, namely in Q2 = [0, 0.28] GeV2. Bottom, the extracted mean square electric polarizability radius from the individual fits. The error bars correspond to the total uncertainty, at the 1σ or 68% confidence level. The blue band marks the final value for the extracted \(\langle {r}_{{\alpha }_{{\rm{E}}}}^{2}\rangle =1.36\pm 0.29\,{{\rm{fm}}}^{2}\).
Extended Data Fig. 4 Electric polarizability radius.
The electric polarizability radius \({r}_{{\alpha }_{{\rm{E}}}}\equiv \sqrt{\langle {r}_{{\alpha }_{{\rm{E}}}}^{2}\rangle }\) derived from this work is compared with the previous extractions of this quantity (open red symbols). The theoretical predictions of the models discussed in the paper are also shown as red triangles. The recent measurements of the proton charge radius rE (blue symbols) are also shown. The error bars correspond to the total uncertainty,at the 1σ or 68% confidence level.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Magnetic polarizability radius fits.
Top, the mean square magnetic polarizability radius fits using combinations of different functional forms (exp, pol and dipole correspond to exponential, polynomial and dipole functions, respectively). Bottom, the extracted mean square magnetic polarizability radius from the individual fits. The error bars correspond to the total uncertainty, at the 1σ or 68% confidence level. The blue band marks the final value for the extracted \(\langle {r}_{{\beta }_{{\rm{M}}}}^{2}\rangle =0.63\pm 0.31\,{{\rm{fm}}}^{2}\).
Extended Data Table 1 Cross section results at Q2 = 0.28 GeV2
Full size table

Sorry I made a mistake, and let "charge" slip by me in the abstract. Below I corrected my mistake.
> AP rewrite:
> Abstract
> The visible world is founded on the proton, the building block of matter that is stable in nature because the proton is a torus of 8 rings and the muon inside the 8 rings causes a rest mass of 840 + 105 = 945MeV. Stable is the proton because with the muon inside the proton torus, they together do the Faraday law and produce the 0.5MeV particles called the Dirac magnetic monopoles, and it is these monopoles that make up electricity we use everyday in our lives. Consequently, understanding the formation of matter relies on explaining the dynamics and the properties of the proton’s bound state its 8 rings to compose a torus. And the mathematics is simple for divide 360 degrees by 8 gives us a angle of separation of one ring with the next ring as 45 degrees. A fundamental property of the proton involves the response of the system to an external electromagnetic field. It is characterized by the electromagnetic polarizabilities1 that describe how easily the Magnetic Monopole and magnetization distributions inside the system are distorted by the electromagnetic field. Moreover, the generalized polarizabilities2 map out the resulting deformation of the densities in a proton subject to an electromagnetic field. They disclose essential information about the underlying system dynamics and provide a key for decoding the proton structure in terms of the theory of the AP-EM laws of physics (the revised Maxwell Equations). Of particular interest is a puzzle in the electric generalized polarizability of the proton that remains unresolved for two decades2. Here we report measurements of the proton’s electromagnetic generalized polarizabilities that reveals indeed, the 45 degree separation of 1 ring of the proton torus versus its successor or predecessor ring.
>

In real true physics there simply is nothing existing for "charge". This was one of Maxwell's mistakes in not recognizing that Gauss's law of no magnetic monopole was b.s.. It took a logical mind of Dirac in the 1930s to realize physics is amiss without the Magnetic Monopole. Only trouble was, the 0..5MeV particle that Thomson found in 1897 was not the Atom's electron but the long sought for Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon discovered in 1936 turns out to be the true electron of Atoms.

Whenever you feel the need to say "charge" do not say it, for it only shows your ignorance of logic and physics. Instead say Dirac magnetic monopole or say magnetic monopole or for brevity say monopole. Never say "charge".

Now I understand that this Proton stretchiness experiment will be undertaken some months in the future and use muons instead of the 0.5MeV particle. So the proton is just 840MeV as a torus with 8 rings and the muon inside the proton doing the Faraday law with the proton, and now researchers are going to impact the proton + muon with a muon outside the proton.

AP, King of Science especially Physics

I was looking and looking for SCIENCE, AAAS magazine that covered this story, and found none.

So going on to New Scientist and my rewrite of their story:

--- AP rewrite ---
The proton is not stretchier when you consider the proton is a 8 ring torus with the Atom's electron= muon inside the proton torus. This makes a combination of 840MeV proton + 105MeV muon inside proton measure of 945MeV particle, wherein many measurements give experimental values of 938MeV and 940MeV, close enough in sigma error to 945MeV. But physicists are now hopeful that for once and for always, the proton is recognized as a torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law.

Old Physics was imbecile physics with protons contain three smaller particles called quarks, which are held together by other particles called gluons, as well as very short-lived “virtual” particles. Old Physics was kook physics where people wanted to become famous and rich yet had no physics abilities other than a big loud mouth and they offered stupid math algebras which they called Standard Model. They could not call it a theory name for it had no mechanism, only kook algebra math patterns. And the Standard Model as long as it was used was a "postdiction" science, never a prediction science. After every experiment, the data would be sent to the Standard Model goonsquad and they would fudge their modeling as to say-- yes, look we predicted that. But the greatest fault, the greatest weakness of the Standard Model is that it had no room for the laws of electromagnetism. As if electromagnetism is foreign to the Standard Model and the particles of physics. On the other hand, AP's EM theory puts Faraday law in the center of a proton, and together with the muon inside the proton, circling around the proton torus in the Faraday law, produces the particles of electricity from 1eV all the way up to 0.5MeV, the magnetic monopole.

It is amazing that full grown physicists can believe in the Standard Model that says absolutely nothing about Faraday, Coulomb, Ampere, Maxwell laws and where their particles have no job, no task, no function. Absolutely amazing that grown ups who call themselves physicists actually believe in the Standard Model which is a kook imagination designed to get famous and rich, yet lacking any ability to do physics.

The extent to which the proton can be stretched in this way is determined by its electric and magnetic polarisabilities. These two quantities, which have been measured many times, tell us about the proton’s internal structure. In 2000, one of the first measurements of these found that as you examine ever smaller sections of the proton, it gets briefly stretchier in response to magnetic and electric fields, before becoming stiffer, or harder to deform. This is because the 8 rings of the proton torus is like a coil of copper wire in Faraday's law, as the muon inside thrusts through these 8 rings of the proton torus, the Faraday law produces electric current in the 8 rings of proton torus. This electricity is often carried to a nearby neutron and neutrons are particles as capacitors that stores up this electricity and thus grows the Atom in which the proton resides.

Now, Nikolaos Sparveris at Temple University in Pennsylvania and his colleagues have measured the proton’s stretchability to a higher level of precision and also found that, at certain length scales, it becomes stretchier to both electric and magnetic fields, as in the 2000 result.

“We see it with a higher precision,” says Sparveris.

And, as a proton torus with 8 rings, in 360degrees means each ring is separated from the previous and from the next ring by 45 degrees. We can begin to see this proton stretchiness as to how much off of 45 degrees we get.

To measure the proton’s stretch, Sparveris and his team fired a beam of low-energy monopoles (0.5MeV particles) at a liquid-hydrogen target. In their set-up, when a monopole moves past a proton within the hydrogen, it produces a photon, effectively an electromagnetic field, which distorts the proton. By measuring how the monopoles and protons scatter away from each other, the team can calculate how much each proton is distorted by each photon.

While the anomalous result appears similar to the 2000 work, the size of the effect has more than halved, says Judith McGovern at the University of Manchester, UK. It is very difficult in general to measure the proton’s polarisabilities at low energies with high precision, she says, and there is no obvious explanation from current theories for why it should spike as it does in Sparveris’s result. “I don’t think most people took [the 2000 result] really seriously, I think they assumed that it would go away, and, if I’m quite honest, I think most people will still assume that it will go away.”

Read more: Protons inside some types of hydrogen and helium are behaving weirdly
Different future experiments, like using a beam of positrons – the antimatter counterpart to the Dirac magnetic monopole – could shed light on whether this anomaly is really there or not, says McGovern. Sparveris and his team intend to do further experiments. “We have to eliminate any possibility that this is due to an experimental parameter or artefact, so we do plan to go back and perform more measurements,” he says.

Glory Hallelujah the terminal days of the stupid Standard Model of Physics are here. For as soon as the muon experiment of "proton stretchiness" is completed, we finally can call for the dumpster trucks to move the Standard Model out to the recycling bin or land fill.

--- quoting New Scientist ---
New Scientist reports:
New Scientist Proton's stretchiness is a puzzle for particle physicists

The particles inside a proton move around when exposed to electric and magnetic fields, causing it to deform, but this behavior is not well understood..

PHYSICS 19 October 2022
By Alex Wilkins

The proton is stretchier than we thought, according to new measurements. But physicists are divided on whether this anomaly will persist in future measurements or if our fundamental understanding of the proton’s structure will need to change.

Protons contain three smaller particles called quarks, which are held together by other particles called gluons, as well as very short-lived “virtual” particles. When a proton is exposed to electric and magnetic fields, these internal constituents move about according to their charge, causing the proton to deform, or stretch.

The extent to which the proton can be stretched in this way is determined by its electric and magnetic polarisabilities. These two quantities, which have been measured many times, tell us about the proton’s internal structure. In 2000, one of the first measurements of these found that as you examine ever smaller sections of the proton, it gets briefly stretchier in response to magnetic and electric fields, before becoming stiffer, or harder to deform.

However, these results were imprecise and more recent experiments disagreed, finding that the proton just gets stiffer as you zoom in on smaller sections, which is also what the standard model of the proton predicts.

Now, Nikolaos Sparveris at Temple University in Pennsylvania and his colleagues have measured the proton’s stretchability to a higher level of precision and also found that, at certain length scales, it becomes stretchier to both electric and magnetic fields, as in the 2000 result.

“We see it with a higher precision,” says Sparveris, thanks to gathering more data. “So, the ball now is on the side of the [standard model] theory.”

To measure the proton’s stretch, Sparveris and his team fired a beam of low-energy electrons at a liquid-hydrogen target. In their set-up, when an electron moves past a proton within the hydrogen, it produces a photon, effectively an electromagnetic field, which distorts the proton. By measuring how the electrons and protons scatter away from each other, the team can calculate how much each proton is distorted by each photon.

While the anomalous result appears similar to the 2000 work, the size of the effect has more than halved, says Judith McGovern at the University of Manchester, UK. It is very difficult in general to measure the proton’s polarisabilities at low energies with high precision, she says, and there is no obvious explanation from current theories for why it should spike as it does in Sparveris’s result. “I don’t think most people took [the 2000 result] really seriously, I think they assumed that it would go away, and, if I’m quite honest, I think most people will still assume that it will go away.”

Read more: Protons inside some types of hydrogen and helium are behaving weirdly
Different future experiments, like using a beam of positrons – the antimatter counterpart to the electron – could shed light on whether this anomaly is really there or not, says McGovern. Sparveris and his team intend to do further experiments. “We have to eliminate any possibility that this is due to an experimental parameter or artefact, so we do plan to go back and perform more measurements,” he says.

However, if the anomaly remains, there will have to be a revision to our understanding of the proton’s structure. “Other measurements will elucidate whether or not this has an experimental origin, but it seems to be a genuine discrepancy between theory and experiment,” says Juan Rojo at Vrije University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. “The question is, what does this discrepancy tell us? And, especially, what can we learn about the proton structure by understanding these things?”
--- end quoting New Scientist ---

AP's rewrite of the below article in Science News of 24Oct2022.

There was AP in 2016-2017 trying to complete his 8th edition of Atom Totality Universe textbook and wanted a chapter on elementary particles. While composing that chapter, AP noticed that 9 times the muon rest mass was almost equal to the rest mass of neutron and of proton, where 9x 105 = 945 while proton was listed as 938MeV and neutron listed at 940MeV. AP had studied what "sigma error" means, and realized that the actual proton was just 840MeV not 938 for it had inside the proton the muon as the Atom's true electron. That meant the 0.5MeV particle had to be Dirac's long sought for magnetic monopole. And AP was no slouch to logic and logical reasoning, for AP immediately sensed that a proton and muon with a job, a task, a function was far superior to a stupid physics Standard Model that had particles -- doing nothing. So by 2017 AP figured the Faraday law was going on inside a proton as a torus with the muon thrusting through and creating electricity in the Faraday law.

But how was AP to prove this is the correct picture, the structure of protons and atoms? Back in 2017, AP figured that Experimental Physicists would prove the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside by devising experiments that would "leak out the muon inside" and thus observe protons without their interior muon. Observe 840MeV protons by causing the interior muon to exit. But no, in the interim time of 2017 to nearly 2023, what experimental physicists probing the proton were doing was exciting the surface of protons and noticing a Stretchiness of protons. AP had hoped to confirm the 840MeV proton directly, but instead, the history of experimental physics by 2023 is about proton stretchiness.

New experiments seem to show that the quarks respond more than expected to an electric field pulling on them, physicist Nikolaos Sparveris and colleagues report October 19 in Nature. The result suggests that the entire picture of what a proton is and what the true electron of Atoms is, is now all up in the air. And that we need further experiments, especially ones using the muon and not the 0.5MeV particle.

It’s a finding at odds with the Standard Model of particle physics, a stupid and banal theory that plays on mathematics algebra, and is a means of getting stupid physics professors who have no logical reasoning abilities, a chance for them to gain recognition and fame and fortune but of no value to the science of physics. The Standard Model is kook physics-- those who want fame and fortune but not the truth of physics.

“It is certainly puzzling for the physics of the strong interaction, if this thing persists,” says Sparveris, of Temple University in Philadelphia. For AP showed in his AP EM Equations the Unification of all the forces of physics and that the strong nuclear was just a modified Coulomb force. Life in physics sucks when you lack a logical brain to reason with..

Such stretchiness has turned up in other labs’ experiments, but wasn’t as convincing, Sparveris says. The stretchiness that he and his colleagues measured was less extreme than in previous experiments, but also came with less experimental uncertainty. That increases the researchers’ confidence that protons are indeed stretchier than theory says they should be.

At the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Va., the team probed protons by firing Dirac magnetic monopoles those 0.5MeV particles at a target of ultracold liquid hydrogen. Electrons scattering off protons in the hydrogen revealed how the protons’ 8 ring torus of 840MeV respond to electric fields (SN: 9/13/22). The higher the monopole energy, the deeper the researchers could see into the protons, and the more the monopoles revealed about how the Proton was a torus structure for each of the 8 rings of a proton torus is spaced 45 degrees apart from one to the next ring in that 360 / 8 = 45 degrees.

For the most part, the Proton rings stretched and moved as expected when electric interactions pulled the Rings and monopoles in opposite directions. But at one point, as the monopole energy was ramped up, the Proton Rings appeared to respond more strongly to an electric field than the imp-theory Standard Model predicted they would.

But it only happened for a small range of monopole energies, leading to a bump in a plot of the proton’s stretch.

“Usually, behaviors of these things are quite, let’s say, smooth and there are no bumps,” says physicist Vladimir Pascalutsa of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany.

Pascalutsa says he’s often eager to dive into puzzling problems, having stalled from doing any physics from 2017 to end of 2022, but the odd stretchiness of protons is too sketchy for him to put pencil to paper at this time. Why, Pascalutsa cannot even admit slant cut of a right circular cone is always a oval, never a ellipse, and that Pascalutsa will probably forever think that a slant cut of cone is ellipse. “You need to be very, very inventive to come up with a whole framework which somehow finds you a new effect” to explain the bump, he says. “I don’t want to kill the buzz, but yeah, I’m quite skeptical as a theorist that this thing is going to stay.” Just as Pascalutsa wants Boole logic to stay so that he can say 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for that Boole and Pascalutsa love the truth table of AND to be TFFF and not be replaced with the correct truth table of TTTF. AP marvels at how many people in physics have not a single 1 marble of logical intelligence.

It will take more experiments to get theorists like him excited about unusually stretchy protons, Pascalutsa says. And, can the brain of Pascalutsa have any stretch in it or is it encased in solid reinforced concrete? He could get his wish if Sparveris’ hopes are fulfilled to try the experiment again with muons.

A different type of experiment altogether might make stretchy protons more compelling, Pascalutsa says. A forthcoming study from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen, Switzerland, could do the trick. It will use hydrogen atoms that have muons in place of the 0.5MeV monopoles that usually are created from the Faraday law thrusting around inside proton toruses. Muons are about 210 times as heavy as Dirac magnetic monopoles, and orbit much closer to the proton torus than do magnetic monopoles — offering a closer look at the proton interior (SN: 10/5/17). The experiment would involve stimulating the “muonic hydrogen” with lasers rather than scattering other monopoles from them.

“The precision in the muonic hydrogen experiments will be much higher than whatever can be achieved in scattering experiments,” Pascalutsa says. If the stretchiness turns up there as well, “then I would start to look at this right away.” And perhaps, Pascalutsa can finally admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse for a cone and oval have one axis of symmetry but a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. And in the long haul of science, if you cannot even reason in Geometry, you are almost totally useless in physics.

--- quoting Science News ---
Science News

Oct 24, 2022

Protons may be stretchier than physics predicts
Quarks inside the particles seem to move more than they should in an electric field
An illustration of a proton with red, blue, and green quarks
A proton (illustrated) contains three particles called quarks (red, green and blue blobs). In electric fields, those quarks seem to move more than theory predicts, making the proton stretchier than imagined.

By James R. Riordon
OCTOBER 24, 2022 AT 7:00 AM

Protons might be stretchier than they should be.

The subatomic particles are built of smaller particles called quarks, which are bound together by a powerful interaction known as the strong force. New experiments seem to show that the quarks respond more than expected to an electric field pulling on them, physicist Nikolaos Sparveris and colleagues report October 19 in Nature. The result suggests that the strong force isn’t quite as strong as theory predicts.

It’s a finding at odds with the standard model of particle physics, which describes the particles and forces that combine to make up us and everything around us. The result has some physicists stumped about how to explain it — or whether to even try.

“It is certainly puzzling for the physics of the strong interaction, if this thing persists,” says Sparveris, of Temple University in Philadelphia.

Such stretchiness has turned up in other labs’ experiments, but wasn’t as convincing, Sparveris says. The stretchiness that he and his colleagues measured was less extreme than in previous experiments, but also came with less experimental uncertainty. That increases the researchers’ confidence that protons are indeed stretchier than theory says they should be.

At the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Va., the team probed protons by firing electrons at a target of ultracold liquid hydrogen. Electrons scattering off protons in the hydrogen revealed how the protons’ quarks respond to electric fields (SN: 9/13/22). The higher the electron energy, the deeper the researchers could see into the protons, and the more the electrons revealed about how the strong force works inside protons.

For the most part, the quarks moved as expected when electric interactions pulled the particles in opposite directions. But at one point, as the electron energy was ramped up, the quarks appeared to respond more strongly to an electric field than theory predicted they would.

But it only happened for a small range of electron energies, leading to a bump in a plot of the proton’s stretch.

“Usually, behaviors of these things are quite, let’s say, smooth and there are no bumps,” says physicist Vladimir Pascalutsa of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Germany.

Now, the way I was told about remnants of a fission blast or a fusion blast site, is that there is no remnants left behind to study. There is no uranium or plutonium or lead to recover from the blast. And there is no helium to recover from a fusion blast site. There is nothing remaining to study.

So, when the World truth about the proton is 840 MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law with the muon packed inside the proton torus. We cannot study this proton+muon from a fissile or fusion bomb.

We can study it in a accelerator here on Earth.

But perhaps, better yet, we can study the Torus Proton with Muon inside from Stars.

It has always bothered me that from a star going to normal Red to that of Red Giant that it expands tremendously.

Now the Dirac Magnetic Monopole is 0.5MeV and the true electron of Atoms is the muon of 105MeV. Question here is, since muon is 210 times the energy of magnetic monopole. Question here is, when a star goes from Red to Red Giant, does its radius increase from 1 to 210 times larger???

If it does so, then that alone would be proof in physics that the true real electron is the Muon and that protons are toruses of rings doing the Faraday law with muons inside. And as we go to higher atomic numbered atoms, the proton is that much larger of a torus to have lighter atoms inside the torus doing the Faraday Law, not just muons.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Now the Muon is a fundamental particle, meaning, like the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV that it is not composed of other particles.

So in a decay of a Muon from 105MeV into a monopole and two opposite neutrinos, what that decay is all about is a transform of a rest mass particle into that of a Wave, a wave of energy.

Same thing can not be said of the Proton as fundamental particle for it is composed of 9 muons, 8 muons forming the proton torus and the independent muon being a thrusting bar magnet inside the 8 ringed proton torus.

So, when we have a nuclear fusion bomb or even a fission bomb or when we have a blue star or have a Red Giant star, or have a Nova or Supernova. In any of those physical events, we have to ask is the muon and the protons turned into a Wave of energy. Where the 8 proton rings become disconnected and turned into Waves of energy.

Now I heard it said that in a fusion blast, there is more energy in that blast than any energy found in stars, even supernova. Not sure if that is correct. But let us assume for the moment it is correct. Then, what we can say about that is the blast of a nuclear bomb is where the proton rings become transformed into Waves of energy of monopole plus two neutrinoes as energy waves.

AP, King of Science especially Physics

If.. it is true that 2/0.01 = 200c
1) 2/0.01 = 200c.. from which you should derive....which means:
2) 0.01*2 = 0.02m^2....since 0.02 * 10'000c^2 = 200c^2.
3) To understand it well and better : 200c/1c =>1c*200c = 200c^2.

What if you deign to square or cub by multiplying..
normal which, to multiply means to square or cub:
you could say : 200c /1c = 200c...And conclude that :
1c * 200c = 200c^2..which is the....square..exactly...
if..linear...just say : 1c * 100c = 200c = 2m, as a result.
That's why I created the T.n.p. which expresses in mode..
direct : both the squares .. of which I said .. and the Volumes of which I say :

1c*1c*1c = 1c^3 = 1g. === 0.001kg. =>1d. it is no longer .. volume.
1c *1c *1i = 10c^3 = 10g===0.01kg. ===> for 10c = 1i = 1dm.
1c*10c*10c =100c^3 = 100g ==1hg. ===> for 10c = 1i = 1dm.
10c *10c*10c =1000c^3= 1i^3 =1kg. =>nor the..kg...is +...volume.

1i *1i *1i = 1i^3 = 1dm^3 = 0.001m^3
1i *1i *10i =10i^3 =10dm^3 = 0.01m^3
1i *10i *10i =100i^3 =100i^3^3 =0.1m^3 => nor is 100 liters a volume
10i*10i*10i =1000i^3 =1000Litres => having found the value of the volumes.

After all, how do you calculate 10kg = 10i^3 if not for volumes?
What .. sayings like that even a 3rd grade boy would understand them.
Even if...I added for...You the 3 Results..which are equivalent..
but, I avoided saying that 1g = 0.000001.m^3 ​​which comes from (100c)^3.

Greetings from T.n.p. Which is as magical as it is simple -:))
a^2 + b^2 === 2ab +d^2. => (a + b)^2 = 2a * 2b + d^2
i5^2+i5^2=10i*5i =50i^2 => (5i+5i)^2=10i*10i=100i^2
i5^3 +i5^3 = 10i *5i *5i = 10i *25i^2 = 250i^3 = 250kg.
I did everything without +d^2..because..d^2 = 0^2 = 0 -:)))