Talk:Toroidal ring model

Bostick
I have not completed my work on this page, but insist that the paragraph on Winston H. Bostick is very relevant to the subject since it makes a case for a finite-size particle. I don't know who deleted it, but would appreciate having a copy of the deleted text. Furthermore the labelling of Parson's Magneton as obsolete is an opinion, not a fact. Whoever made the changes is not conforming to neutrality, which I understand is an important guideline for wikipedia. I have done my utmost to present both sides on any debatable issue, an stick to the facts. Whoever deleted my material is not playing by these rules.

Greg Volk


 * Hello Greg, I'm responsible for the deletion.  Deleted text can always be accessed by clicking the "history" tab on the top of any article, then clicking on the date corresponding to the version you want.      The fact that the toroidal-ring model is "obsolete" is supported (both in the Wikipedia-specific sense and the scientific sense) by the complete and utter lack of peer-reviewed literature, citations, or discussion of the topic.   There are no peer-reviewed journal articles arguing for the current relevance of the model; there are no mainstream journal articles arguing that it solves some flaw in quantum mechanics; there are no articles presenting predictions for this model and comparing them to data.     I'm aware that there are *non-mainstream* sources, namely "common sense science", which make this argument, and (perhaps) William Bostick's articles ... which did not appear in a mainstream journal, but rather in Physics Essays, whose whole reason-for-existing is to publish non-mainstream articles without checking them for accuracy .    Being self-published, non-peer-reviewed, etc., these sources are treated (both by academia and by Wikipedia) as "original research"; the relevant policy is discussed at WP:OR and WP:RS.   If this policy were not in place, Wikipedia would have competing articles saying Einstein was right/wrong/a fraud/a plagiarist, the Earth is round/flat/cubic, perpetual motion is impossible/real/suppressed-by-the-oil-industry/ on-the-verge-of-a-breakthrough-in-my-basement-if-you-will-please-invest-$100,000, and so on.   If the ring electron model were a debateable issue, the debate would have occured on the pages of Physical Review, not on the Web pages of one side.Bm gub 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Greg! The "theory" section is much improved by being in the past tense, thanks for making the change.  I am still a bit concerned that the article mixes ideas from Parson et. al. with fringe ideas from Bostick and/or the "Common Sense Science" people; does the original model really argue for an "odd number of fibers, probably three"?    These issues would be clearer if you could give more detailed citations in this section.  Bm gub 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

agree with Bm_gub
I have a qualified agreement with Bm_gub. CSS guys are looking for anything that fits their creationist framework. But if the ring model had absolutely no merit at all, it would completely disappear except for parody. The CSS guys have validated the model in simulations which introduces the idea of alternative modeling. I have discovered research that space-time can be modeled discretely. I have discovered research that indicates e.p.s can be modeled as defects in space-time and vortices in a super-fluid. I have found at least one paper that argues mathematically they are equivalent. So the beauty of modeling and perspective shows you that many formulations are possible (like the path-integral formulation of QM). Which is correct? Let Occam's Razor and history decide. Personally, I feel the multidimensional approach of string theorists is WACKO to say the least. In principle, those ideas can never be tested. A great paper on the whole mess by RL Oldershaw is at http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/thenewphysics.html And please Bm_gub, don't hide behind anonymity. It only weakens your argument. Otherwise, I love the way you've guided the main page and your comments fit. I've found it very helpful. For instance, the CSS guys would have you believe they've designed the model from scratch. They act like they own a patent on it. Anyways, a qualified "thanks again", Sam Micheal&amp;Delta (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight
I read this article, and I just can't help but feel that it is arguing "for" this model based, trying to associate it with big names in physics, rather than present the model and it's current acceptance (i.e., little, if at all). Many questionable (at best) sources at used, such as fringe journal Galilean Electrodynamics are used, and the history section seem to be original synthesis, rather than be based on reviews of the model. There is also a jarring discontinuity of tone when getting to the "current status" (which I think is fine, if a bit short), since the reader has been primed all the way to think this is an accepted model, confirmed by experiment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight?
I also read this article and I am familiar with the CSS contributors. I am not an expert in this area and so asked some physics friends. Their response was that physics is rife with alternate theories and this is just an example. However, I am also familiar with Gilbert Lewis's paper and I am not surprised that he might have accepted Parson's magneton ideas. I found the general article illuminating as it showed a much wider view of Parson's contribution than an isolated paper. One fact I would have wished is that the rejection of the Parson's magneton model be explained in greater detail. Perhaps that would help to offset any feeling that this page is arguing for a toroidal ring model.

Some background from my perspective, I was searching for missing pieces in atomic theory from a chemistry perspective. While I appreciate Wikipedia's rules to avoid a Fox News vs MSNBC version of science, science (or truth) is grayer than we would like. I have argued that in the strictest sense, "Ideas presented in peer-reviewed journals will contain a reference to their source. Therefore, a reader understands that the idea belongs to the source. If authors accept the principles first laid out, then they may become commonly accepted. However, in the strictest use of logic, it does not become more true. It will remain only as true as the original proof or proofs."

Without regard to CSS's Bergman, Parson has been credited with the first publication of the idea in a peer reviewed journal. What I would like to see and in the spirit of Wikipedia, a clear explanation of the rejection of the Parson magneton or toroidal ring model. I think that should suffice to the acceptance of the model.

Just as an anecdote, I believe more careful review of Pauling's electronegativity papers, namely that bonds are made up of covalent and ionic contributions, and Bohr's model for hydrogen from emission lines should have been rejected if the standard of their models satisfying their data were applied. Pauling argued that an ionic bond contribution of opposite charges can only strengthen a bond. The metal hydrides clearly contradict this and I think should have disproven the principle. The energy gaps in the hydrogen emission lines are so great that the absorption of that quanta of energy should have all resulted in an ionization or loss of the electron.

These are actually small points in the sciences, but they each result in inconsistencies as a result. However, it doesn't change our ability to make fire or program computers. I am not arguing for or against the toroidal ring model. I think to this point, it has been an interesting read. It would be interesting whether the CSS discussion were present or absent. PW 173.61.149.115 (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Story is not finished: role of gravity.
It was obtained by Carter in 1968 that the Kerr-Newman (KN) solution has g=2 as that of the Dirac electron, and there followed a series of the works on the KN solution as a model of a spinning particle. The KN solution is a natural generalization of the pointlike Coulomb source incorporating the spin and gravity. The main peculiarity of the KN solution is the Kerr singular ring which apppears instead of the pointlike Coulomb source. Since the spin of an electron is very high, the black hole horizons of the KN solution disappear, opening a naked singular ring, source of the KN EM field. The attempts to regularize the KN singularity were started by Werner Israel, and developed by Carlos Lopez, leading to the rotating bubble model formed by a charged disk of the Compton radius. If the Kerr parameter of rotation a =J/m tends to zero, the KN source takes the form of the charged sphere of classical size r_e =e^2/m. Edge rim of the disk concentrated the circular currents reproducing the `toroidal ring model'. It was also shown that the Kerr singular ring represents a circular string similar to the Heterotic string models Therefore, the non-trivial inner structure of the extended electron is supported from the gravity side. The subsequent development of this model turned the KN source into a spinning and gravitating soliton. The wave excitation of this soliton contains a pointlike singular node which circulates along the KN ring, and motion of this node is described by the Dirac theory of electron and it is exhibited in the experimental scattering processes. Some corresponding references can be found in the recent paper --193.124.157.203 (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Toroidal ring model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025030527/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205100120/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Rutherford-1911/Rutherford-1911.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Rutherford-1911/Rutherford-1911.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070918004659/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Lewis-1916/Lewis-1916.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Lewis-1916/Lewis-1916.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Toroidal ring model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070908233519/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Rutherford-Alpha&Beta.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Rutherford-Alpha&Beta.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070909091657/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Thomson-Structure-Atom.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Thomson-Structure-Atom.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070908233524/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us:80/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr/Bohr-1913a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)