Farsight wrote:Papers have been published on this. See
Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology? by Williamson and van der Mark, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997). There's also
The nature of the electron by Qiu-Hong Hu, Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004. The experimental evidence is there in pair production and annihilation along with electron angular momentum and magnetic dipole moment.
This is no fantasy. The fantasy is that spin is "intrinsic" and that quantum mechanics
surpasseth all human understanding . Then it's but a small step to
things don't exist until you look at them and parallel worlds. Amazingly, the people who swallow this garbage trot out any old pathetic excuse to dismiss scientific evidence and peer-reviewed papers.
OK Twiglet, you're on. Give us a demonstration.
The emphasis isn't on me at all farsight. The paper which you cited, along with the various wikipedia links you quoted contain good science, none of which are supporting a word you say. Latching on to the odd sentence, such as those identifying the inconsistencies between SR and QP is not news. It's widely recognised that the two theories are fundamentally at odds with each other, which is why physicists have been looking for a way to bridge the gaps for well over half a century.
What you are suggesting doesn't bridge the gaps at all, what it does is to fall into some fundamental errors over some of the most basic concepts behind SR. You can't build grand ideas of faulty premises. If the building blocks don't work, the rest won't either.
I started contributing to this thread to help someone out who was trying to understand special relativity, and you started half- agreeing with my explanation in order to entertain a debate, but it has become abundantly clear that you are simply trying to push your pet theory as if I should somehow validate it with you through argument. Your problem is that you don't have a credible argument at all, which is probably why you are left touting it on anonymous bulletin boards to strangers instead of having your work published and winning adulation for unifying quantum theory with relativity.
I'm not seeking to be groundbreaking at all in my explanations, just to explain widely accepted theory at nothing more than a first year undergraduate level. The mistakes you are making over concepts like time dilation are not even at that level, I'm sorry to say. Pasting in slabs of text surrounded by arguments unrelated to their content isn't helping your cause.
Allow me to treat what you say with some credibility after it has been backed up by rigorous experimental data, and published in a peer reviewed journal. After which I look forward to hearing about how you redefined the laws of physics on primetime news. Until then, I'll stick to helping people out in small ways by explaining things according to the conventional wisdom, against which my understanding has been validated by a Masters degree in physics, in which, coincidentally, my specialist areas included Quantum theory, Particle physics and Nuclear Physics. Special relativity was taught as a first year course. I have nothing to prove to you whatsoever.
Geek rap at its finest!