Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reveals how proton dynamics explain radius discrepancies, indicating novel insights in particle physics.
The Standard Model of particle physics treats the proton either as an immutable rigid structure or as a blurred cloud of mathematical probabilities, running into insoluble contradictions such as the "proton radius puzzle". Drawing upon the Kenophobia paradigm, this paper demonstrates that the proton is a purely hydrodynamical entity lacking any rigid membrane or skin. Anchored in a fractal universe governed by the principle of Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) and Universal Darwinism, the proton is revealed to be a stationary toroidal vortex (triangular Hill’s vortex) composed of 919 e⁺/e⁻ pairs and a single central positron (totaling 1839 electron masses). Through the unified thermodynamic equation: E = Mₚ · c² = Pᵥ · V we establish how the steric volume of its Hill sphere dynamically and elastically adapts to variations in vacuum pressure Pᵥ. This fluid and fractal model: Resolves the proton radius puzzle recorded at the Paul Scherrer Institute (2010) by explaining the radius contraction from 0.877 fm (electronic spectroscopy) to 0.841 fm (muonic spectroscopy) as a direct barometric compaction (Pᵥ increasing locally from 5.33 × 10³⁴ Pa to 6.02 × 10³⁴ Pa) caused by the kinetic stress of the heavy muon. Establishes the natural respiration radius at terrestrial rest at R = 0.981 fm for a baseline pressure of the depleted Plenum of Pᵥ = 3.8 × 10³⁴ Pa. Assigns to the peripheral electron the role of a mechanical regulating valve, adjusting its orbit onto the exact interface where internal centrifugal pressure balances the confinement of the Plenum. Builds a direct fractal bridge to black hole astrophysics, modeling Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*) as a polyhedral macro-hadronic core measuring 4088 km in diameter under a critical density of 2.3 × 10¹⁷ kg/m³.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Philippe PITCHON (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: