Photon, electron, hydrogen atom

Ring model of the structure of the photon, electron and hydrogen atom.

[DougMayhew-dsug]

That is a beautiful composition, even if it’s wrong. This lit up my switchboard like nobody’s business. This would be fun to model and play with the perimeter knobs.

[tomlafleur]

Thanks for providing a way out of statistical quantum mechanics and doing something that should have been done a hundred years ago, were it not quashed by our Bohr friend. Please keep extending this good and much needed work. It seems that resistance to this approach is endemic in the established thought (as usual) and I trust your thoroughness and diligence will help to overcome this resistance.

[xrysf]

If that's not a secret, what software tools do you use to make those beautiful 3D models? Is that all manual work in some solid modeler, or do you have some automation = simulation tool to help you with that work?

[DougMayhew-dsug]

If nothing else this opens up rich ground for discussion, what a wonderful convergence of ingredients and their history. Please allow me to brainstorm a little more.

One other fun symmetry is the round wave pool of water, surrounded by an array of computer-controlled paddles, around the circumference of the pool. Then, precise waveforms of paddle motion, akin to beam forming in phased arrays, can cause predetermined letters or shapes to briefly appear in the center of the pool surface when the paddle-generated waves converge.

My sixth sense is telling me to mix your model with that one somehow in a lawful manner to create the ultimate cause for the rings. It also seems to be closer to the idea that whatever these field’s ultimately come from, the more original a cause is in the chain of causality, the more it must partake of apparent non-existence, because such a high-ranking cause necessarily bridges existence and non-existence. The wave pool gives this impression; as the form of the letter or shape which appears, is hidden until the waves collide. If you extend that wave pool to a 3-D sphere, or who knows, maybe even a Taurus, you could have a reflection model, perhaps resulting in a similar magnetic toroidal arrangement.


It may be useful to consider a 4th dimension as well, which is said to project into 3d and appear as something growing in size from nothing, such as a 4D sphere projected into 3D.

Then, also, I wonder if it’s toroids all the way down, like turtles all the way down. I couldn’t help but notice the self similarities, and upon reflection, you could almost call it a toroidal fractal series. Then you start to wonder what golden number or transfinite number would join them as a lawfully organized transfinite series across scale.

There’s one other symmetry that you hinted at which is Fourier idea, bridging spectrum and topological harmonics and back again, perhaps like the hologram concept.

This hologram concept also reminds me of the wave pool, but with fractal symmetry and making use of a higher dimensionality, where the information gets projected onto a surface of lower dimensionality, and reflected back somehow to reform the original field structures.

My gut is telling me that your model is too concrete. It needs something else which partakes in the ephemeral, or at least wave reflections or orbital resonances which are subsumed under a higher organizing principle, whose chief quality is that it is usually not apparent at the same level of mental absorption faction, as the level under immediate consideration, which itself suggests a transfinite series of higher order geometries that remain out of view. At least this is the Platonic tradition; a nested-quality of magnitudes which transcends any particular one in that series, while setting the generational boundaries at each level of abstraction; it’s the boundary of the boundaries, if you will.

But apologize in advance if I gave you a headache. It’s nice to know there is another mind out there that routinely plays with deep abstractions and maybe something will click to augment the consideration-space on your model. Great stuff; very few people trigger such brainstorming in me, lol.

[petrowi]

Good presentation, fresh ideas. Are there any predictions that you can make with this ring model that are either hard or impossible to compute with SM and can be observed? Any disagreements with SM?
The concept is very good, but if it doesn't provide "new" insight, then it's an "interpretation" instead of "theory". So what new insight does it give?

[alexbenzie]

The more I read this theory the more fitting it seems to be. However, I would like to see some criticisms of it mentioned also.

[ENetArch]

Here's where this video lost me .. time index 0:49 seconds. That's right. If you're going to use string theory to build ring theory, and build up from there, then you have to show how all the forces propagate from those simpler concepts, not just jump to the next level and say .. well the rights are held together by another force that can't be modeled. Show how the rings are held together by the strong, weak, electric, magnetic, forces, how photons interact with the rings and so on. Bottom up

[hugomeder]

Does ths theory explain anything which is not known since about 100 Years?

[DougMayhew-dsug]

Take a look at Sonoluminescence, curious how mechanical vibration produces light in a vessel of water.

[aniksamiurrahman]

Where can I find the detailed mathematics of this? Say reference to original papers?

[misewixe]

Now incorporate also the Dzanibekkov effect, the Bloch Space occurrence and maybe the Cooper-pairing as well? :)

[ashdiamondjunior]

It is interesting. However, I have a concern, maybe fundamental. How does "ring theory" (I use quotation mark since we have used the name in the context of mathematics) recover quantum mechanics and even quantum field theory? I think it should be in the same principle as general relativity, which recovers Newtonian mechanics in so-called Newtonian limit.

Moreover, to build an analogue of string in string theory as ring in this "ring theory" is kind of a leap since the string in string theory is at least 10-dimensional object, when the ring in "ring theory" is (I assume) 3-dimensional object.

[yiddishekop]

This remind me ideas from "ring models" of the Russian scientist Ilya Lvovich Gerlovin/ Highly controversial Gerlovin's work started in 1970s and was hated and rejected by majority of his peers. Later it was published in books the “Principles of Unified Theory of all Interactions in Matter” (or “Theory of Fundamental Field” and in I. L. Gerlovin, “The Foundations of United Theory of Interactions in a Substance, ” Energoattomizdat, Leningrad, 1990).

[DougMayhew-dsug]

There’s so many things right about this model that it’s likely to be at least partly right. Another dynamic you might want to explore, is the action of the rings expanding and contracting while in the same plane, as they pass through one another in a cycle.

[misewixe]

Refreshing video. Thanks for the upload!

[DougMayhew-dsug]

I guess the real magic is on whether these models can hold themselves together by virtue of the emergent forces between the pieces. There’s so many layers to these things.

Another one is don’t overlook Weber’s model which includes magnetism from relative velocity and acceleration of electric charges relative to each other.

The other factor I’ve read about is retardation, a relativistic correction which grows as you approach the speed of light.

I’m thinking that it might not quite work completely until you get all the ingredients into the cake batter, but the recipe looks very promising so far.

[mylittleelectron]

I see an obvious explanation of asymptotic freedom in the strong interaction, if such a phenomenon would still be required.

[charlesstewart]

Rings, yes but of what? In what? Is it rings all the way down? If your rings don't collapse at gentle observation then they won't reproduce QM. Yet I also think this work is a valuable insight and I'm very pleased by it. This is the most interesting physics I've read in a long time and I shouldn't complain that it doesn't model all of physics since it does well what it purports to do well and it's taught me something I'm glad to now know. Quite an anti-dote also to QM gee whiz bizarreness.

[LuisAldamiz]

But we know that the orbital of a hydrogen's electron is spherical, not toroidal. Replacing Bohr is find and was done long ago... but what about the real experimental facts about the spherical orbital?

[MyrLin]

That's it! Thats the ticket :) ... I've got to go find some papers :)