AP's 220th book of science// EXPERIMENTAL PROOF the PROTON is a TORUS of 840MeV with MUON as ELECTRON inside the PROTON TORUS.
21m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 21, 2022, 4:22:44 PM (2 days ago)

AP's 220th book of science// EXPERIMENTAL PROOF the PROTON is a TORUS of 840MeV with MUON as
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 21, 2022, 11:32:25 PM (yesterday)

Sorry I made a mistake, and let "charge" slip by me in the abstract. Below I corrected my
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 21, 2022, 11:34:33 PM (yesterday)

New Scientist on Proton "stretchiness" is because the proton is a Torus of 840MeV with the
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 2:11:49 AM (yesterday)

I was looking and looking for SCIENCE, AAAS magazine that covered this story, and found none. So
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 3:25:26 AM (yesterday)

AP's rewrite of the below article in Science News of 24Oct2022. There was AP in 2016-2017 trying
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 4:42:36 PM (yesterday)

Now, the way I was told about remnants of a fission blast or a fusion blast site, is that there is no
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 5:18:53 PM (24 hours ago)

Now the Muon is a fundamental particle, meaning, like the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV that it
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 8:17:04 PM (21 hours ago)

So, what exactly is a Dirac Magnetic Monopole?? It is the replacement for the meaningless term "
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 8:29:57 PM (20 hours ago)

Doing the same for particles of rest mass 840 MeV, the pure proton torus without a muon inside and
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 8:50:41 PM (20 hours ago)

Some people in Poland observed the 840MeV proton torus, although they did not recognize it as such. -
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 9:09:08 PM (20 hours ago)

I suspect some scientists in Poland observed the world's first true proton torus as indicated in
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 22, 2022, 9:45:17 PM (19 hours ago)

No luck in finding any Particle Physics Machine finding a 1050MeV particle, except, except for AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:37 AM (15 hours ago)

AP's rewrite of the PHYS ORG article of "Physicists confirm hitch in proton structure"
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
4:53 PM (2 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's rewrite of PhysicsWorld understanding of Proton stretchiness. Remember this is AP's attempt to correct fake physics interpretation of experimental data as are all these rewrites by AP.

Physicists puzzling over proton stretchiness is no more bizarre than Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden interpretation in 1909-1911 that Atom's had nuclei when atoms truly do not have nuclei.

Virtual Compton scattering
Collision course: diagram showing the real photon (γ) that is produced when an electron scatters from a proton. (Courtesy Nikos Sparveris/Temple University)
New electron scattering data from the US suggest that the electromagnetic structure of the proton is a 8 ring torus or 840 windings torus of a 840MeV proton particle with its electron=Muon tucked inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law with proton torus – an observation that partially corroborates earlier measurements done in 2000.

The explanation for why most physicists get important physics wrong is because interpretation of a physics experiment is usually the very most difficult part about doing physics experiments. Becuase physics professors usually, not always, lack a Logical brain in doing physics, why they get degrees from colleges and universities around the globe but few if any of those schools require a single course in formal logic to see if the person thinks straight, can think clearly, and thus graduating another kook physicist to be unleashed into the physics community. A Kook physicist is one that treasures fame and fortune over that of truth in physics, and can be seen by mindless idiots pandering black holes; Standard Model; slant cut of cone is ellipse; numbers of mathematics as Reals; Boole's 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction because Boole mistakenly switched AND truth table for OR; no-one in physics or math can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus; that the sine and cosine function are sinusoidal waves when in truth those are semi-circle waves; everyone in physics too stupid to understant a proton, electron, neutron have electromagnetic functions, jobs, tasks such as the muon is the real true electron of atoms doing the Faraday law with proton, but thrusting around inside the proton torus of 840MeV, not the idiot physicists 938MeV proton.

The anomaly and disease of kook physicists is heavy in physics, for colleges and universities cannot even teach correct Logic with their mindless Boole 2 OR 1 = 3, with AND as subraction, so can you actually blame physicists with their mindless b.s. of black holes. Their mindless Standard Model, that never predicted a single thing in all of physics for 70 years of the existence of the kook physics called Standard Model. In the future we will use the Standard Model to teach students how heavy kook physics had become-- never prediction, instead postdiction.

The physics bullshit of strings, of quarks, of gluons, all vapid of logic reasoning and only a desire by kook physicists who have no Logical abilities to gain fame and fortune, for surely, they have no logical marbles in their heads to gain the truth of physics. Kook physics is--- quarks inside a proton are bound by the strong interaction and the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) describes how this interaction is mediated by gluons.

True physics requires Logical intelligence, intelligence to realize Dirac was correct when he said magnetic monopoles must exist. And thus AP in 2016-2017 realized Thomson in 1897 screwed up with identifying the true electron of atoms-- it is the muon discovered in 1936, and what JJ Thomson had found was the Dirac magnetic monopole. The monopole is Electric current itself, and is produced by Nature as in every proton in Nature is a 840MeV proton torus with the muon inside doing the Faraday law.

Ask your local ignorant physics or astronomy professor why the Sun and stars shine? Ask them. For their answers should all be the same kook answer-- by fusion, the fusing of hydrogen to make helium. A little, a tiny little of fusion does go on in stars and the Sun, but the majority, over 95% of the Sunshine or Starshine, is caused by the muon thrusting round and round and round inside every proton that exists in that star or in the Sun. Faraday Law creates Sunshine and Starshine.

So, naturally, as we do Stretchiness Experiments on the Proton, naturally the input of 0.5MeV monopoles on a torus of Faraday Law is going to stretch that proton torus with its interior muon making electricity.

In 2000, researchers at the Mainz Microtron in Germany used the Compton scattering of virtual photons produced by collisions between 0.5MeV monopoles and liquid hydrogen to measure the generalized electric and magnetic polarizabilities of the proton. These show how easily a body deforms in response to electromagnetic excitations.

Theory suggests the electric polarizability should increase as one focuses deeper into the proton torus with its muon inside, as the structure becomes stiffer. And the 840MeV proton torus, the experimental data appeared consistent with the scattering pattern predicted by chiral effective field theory.

In the new research, Sparveris and colleagues repeated the Compton scattering experiment, but used some advanced capabilities of the Jefferson lab to reduce the uncertainties. We throw 0.5MeV monopoles at a proton, a virtual photon is exchanged between the monopole and the proton, and then a real photon is produced at the end. The real photon produced exposes the system to the electric and magnetic field that you need to allow the polarizability to be measured; the energy of the virtual photon defines the scale of the observation. The researchers measured the reaction at different energies and momenta exchanged in collisions – which defined the wavelength of the virtual photon.

If the proton becomes stiffer on smaller scales, the measured electric polarizability should drop smoothly with the wavelength of the virtual photon. Like the Mainz data from 2000, however, the Jefferson Lab data also seem to deviate from this trend.

Smaller, but there nonetheless
At some point there is some local enhancement – a plateau or small bump where it temporarily increases before falling off again, and outlining the Proton as a Proton Torus of 840 windings or as 8 rings with 45 degree angle separation of rings from one another.

--- quoting PhysicsWorld from the web ---
PhysicsWorld

Proton’s puzzling electromagnetic structure is observed in new experiment
28 Oct 2022
Virtual Compton scattering
Collision course: diagram showing the real photon (γ) that is produced when an electron scatters from a proton. (Courtesy Nikos Sparveris/Temple University)
New electron scattering data from the US suggest that the electromagnetic structure of the proton may differ from theoretical predictions – an observation that partially corroborates earlier measurements done in 2000. The explanation for the anomaly is unclear, but the researchers believe more insights may emerge as increasing computing power allows theoreticians to perform direct calculations of the interactions between the proton’s constituent quarks.

The quarks inside a proton are bound by the strong interaction and the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) describes how this interaction is mediated by gluons. The process is similar to how photons mediate the electromagnetic interaction in quantum electrodynamics, however, unlike photons, gluons interact with each other as well as with the particles they bind. This makes calculations highly non-linear and often puts direct QCD predictions of collisions beyond available computing power. Researchers therefore rely on approximations, one of which is chiral effective field theory.

In 2000, researchers at the Mainz Microtron in Germany used the Compton scattering of virtual photons produced by collisions between electrons and liquid hydrogen to measure the generalized electric and magnetic polarizabilities of the proton. These show how easily a body deforms in response to electromagnetic excitations.

Disagreement with theory
Theory suggests the electric polarizability should decrease as one focuses deeper into the proton as the structure becomes stiffer. However, if the proton was assumed to have its conventional structure, the experimental data appeared inconsistent with the scattering pattern predicted by chiral effective field theory. “These measurements came with a large uncertainty, and in view of the lack of independent confirmation [the observation] was viewed with some reservation”, says Nikos Sparveris of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Virginia and Temple University in Philadelphia.

In the new research, Sparveris and colleagues repeated the Compton scattering experiment, but used some advanced capabilities of the Jefferson lab to reduce the uncertainties. “We throw electrons at a proton, a virtual photon is exchanged between the electron and the proton, and then a real photon is produced at the end,” explains Sparveris. “The real photon produced exposes the system to the electric and magnetic field that you need to allow the polarizability to be measured; the energy of the virtual photon defines the scale of the observation.” The researchers measured the reaction at different energies and momenta exchanged in collisions – which defined the wavelength of the virtual photon.

If the proton becomes stiffer on smaller scales, the measured electric polarizability should drop smoothly with the wavelength of the virtual photon. Like the Mainz data from 2000, however, the Jefferson Lab data also seem to deviate from this trend.

Smaller, but there nonetheless
“At some point there is some local enhancement – a plateau or small bump where it temporarily increases before falling off again,” says Sparveris.“What we see [from the new results] is that there is indeed something there, not at the magnitude that was originally suggested – it appears to be smaller…but now we have two independent groups reporting it the question from the theory side is: if indeed something is really there, what can explain it?”

More theoretical insights may come soon increasing as computational power makes it possible to perform full lattice QCD simulations of the collisions at Jefferson Lab. “They will most likely be able to do it in the next few years,” says Sparveris. The experimentalists intend to perform more measurements to confirm that the peak does indeed exist and map out its shape. “Further into the future one would ideally like to measure this through an independent reaction channel, and this could potentially become available at Jefferson Lab if a positron beam were to become available.”

Proton pressure
Internal pressure of proton is measured for the first time
“Such intriguing data!” says experimental nuclear physicist Ronald Gilman of Rutgers University in New Jersey. “The structure of the proton is complicated, and over many decades we keep finding that the simple assumptions we make before we can measure some property are just wrong…So it would be great if here again we have something new to learn!” He adds, however, that: “If the old uncertainties were underestimated a factor of two – which is not crazy — the significance of the peak would be much reduced, and you can just about imagine a smooth curve describing all the data pretty well… I would really like to see another new result of similar quality to this one before I become absolutely convinced.”

University of Maryland theoretical physicist Xiangdong Ji is more skeptical: “Every model predicts a monotonic decrease,” he says; “I would go so far as to say that the monotonic decrease is a generic feature of the theory that must be true.” He would therefore require an extremely high level of statistical significance to accept a contradictory conclusion: “[The researchers] have three data points, one of which looks slightly higher than the other ones – I think it’s not a statistically meaningful measurement,” he concludes.

The research is described in Nature.
--- end quoting of PhysicsWorld take on proton stretchiness ---