# The Extended Rishon Model

*The working simple definition, under exploration, of a particle:*

A looped frictionless non-radiating photon that indefinitely sustains itself.

*The working more comprehensive definition, under exploration,
of a particle:*

A phasor-phased-harmonic array of one (or more photons) with a positive
self-stabilising feedback loop between their own centripetal force and their
own electro-magnetic field that sustains a perfect *non-radiating* frictionless
balance with self-correcting feedback on its radius, with a perfect uniform
current distribution.

# Plan

To see if superposition of 3 Mills-esque quarks actually results in a stable pattern. Page here plan

- take the description of the electron BECV (orbit generation, blue, red circles)
- take the description of the neutrino (likewise)
- find their mathematica descriptions (BLP website)
- recall the Pieces of E(8) matches the Weinberg Mixing angle matches the Extended Rishon Model phase diagram, fundamental 12 particles are assumed to be Mills Photons with different phase angles, that's all.
- assume that an angle of 0 is the electron
- an angle of pi / 2 is the neutrino
- and that the up quark is 1/12th of 2pi
- that the down quark is 2/12ths 2pi
- thus it must be possible to derive Mills-esque BECV equations for up quarks and down quarks
- following the work done here http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0131 which shows how to do it, rotate and superimpose 3 BECV equations
- if the end result has a near-identical "overall" pattern identical to a
*POSITRON*(actually a proton +1 charge) then it's probably correct

things to watch out for are that they Y0(theta, phi) superposition will likely only succeed (in a stable pattern) at the exact radius of the proton. that's assuming that Dr Mill's work is correct. the problem being, we don't know if the Special Relativity correction-factor for the radius of the proton given by Mills is *actually* correct, but as a first effort it makes sense to assume that it is.

this really is all that there is to it, with the exception being that the actual axis about which the rotation of the quarks must occur is unfortunately *not known*. however it may be possible to take a brute-force approach to that with some appropriate mathematical expressions of the relevant equations, in e.g. python.

once one "particle" works and the rotation angle follows, the next task will be to confirm that the same approach works with the neutron. after that it gets REALLY interesting as it will have broken the entire suite of particles wide open.

the only other caveat is, the equation that Dr Mills has for the neutrino looks suspicious. there is no explanation that i can ascertain for the... cos^{2} something-or-other "multiplication" factor. this may prove to be a rather annoying block on working out exactly what the equivalent blue/red-circle BECV equations are for the up and down quarks.

# GUTCP Verification

GUTCP is hard to penetrate and one can be helped by discussions outlining parts of it in a more friendly way here are some points,

The simplest thing to note that indicate that GUTCP has something would be to elaborate on the hydrogene atom. Basically by assuming that it is non radiative, is a covering of uniform loops with same velocity and charge, has a specific angualar momentum one can deduce classically the radius and also produce the correct ionisation energy to a relative error of about 0.1%. see http://www.c-lambda.se/a-deep-question.html

The non radiation condition is a bit clumsily deduced in GUTCP and we would like to give a better proof of it. http://www.c-lambda.se/maxwell.pdf

Many of the results in GUTCP follows from a good approach but then there is a change of reference systems that alters the formula and typically this change is not easy to follow in all detail. Shedding light on this is of utmost importance to be able to understand GUTCP. A first thought about these reference changes is http://www.c-lambda.se/transform.html.

A lot of heat and critiques comes at the statement that the orbitsphere has a constant current density. This is not hard to explain see http://www.c-lambda.se/current.html - Summary is: the MAGNITUDE of the current (the sum of all contributions to any given point) must be uniform (the same) at all points on the sphere, it is just the DIRECTION that can be different at each point.

Some currents on the orbitsphere for l > 0 see http://www.c-lambda.se/shake.html

More analysis of oscillating solutions of the orbitsphere see http://www.c-lambda.se/solution.html

# Links

- https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/
- https://www.aldacenter.org/aklc/build-skills/webinars-past
- http://www.c-lambda.se/a-deep-question.html
- https://www.physics.uci.edu/~tanedo/files/teaching/P121W2006/ChargedSphereElectron.pdf
- http://www2.engr.arizona.edu/~ziolkows/research/Non-Radiating%20Sources%20&%20Related%20EM%20Phenomena.html
- https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26876-mobius-strips-of-light-made-for-the-first-time/
- https://www.sciencenews.org/article/knotted-structures-called-skyrmions-seem-mimic-ball-lightning

Optics Links

- <arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0300>
- http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html
- <dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12512>
- http://physics.technion.ac.il/~msegev/
- http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3987
- http://web.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm

# Discussions:

# Authors with relevant bodies of work

- Dr Randall Mills
- Ido Kaminer
- Jay Yablon
- Castillo (spinors, jones matrices)
- Joy Christian
- Carl Brannen

# Test of TexImg plugin