The unstable self-Coulomb repulsive potential energy is ~ +e^2/r. We are in the rotating non-inertial rest frame of the charged shell. Therefore, the effective rotational potential energy is ~ +J^2/mr^2.

This total classical potential is unstable repulsive. OK zero point energy comes to rescue! That's what Lorentz, Abraham & Becker and Poincare did not have back ~ 1900. We have an inner core of negative zero point energy ZPE density ~ Λzpf with positive quantum pressure. This will strongly gravitate according to Einstein's 1916 GR. It is the attractive glue for stability. Furthermore the effective Sakharov ZPE induced gravity is so strong that the electron looks like a "point particle" to Ibison's AFO from the extreme micro-space warping! Same for quarks of course explaining deep inelastic electron scattering off protons etc... [read the math at: SarfattiScienceSeminars Yahoo group].
-------------------
[PJW]: ...But stability is not so easy to achieve. All known stable solitons require "topological charge" of some kind. (See Makhankov et al, The Skyrme Model, or Rajaraman, Solitons and Instantons.) They end up having to have rotation... i.e. spin coupled to isospin.

This is the start of a very important story -- but only the start.

Best of luck to us all ... Paul
--------------------
Hal Puthoff [HP]: I just published a paper in May issue of Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. that gets around the infinite energy/self repulsion problem of a point-particle electron - see attached.
--------------
[JS]: Here is the difference between my model and Hal's - at least his earlier one that I discuss in my book Super Cosmos. It's the difference between a photographic print and its negative. Hal does not, or did not a few years ago, believe that uniform zero point energy has any effect. He is wrong as proved by the discovery of dark energy accelerating the universe.

Consider a shell of charge. Hal has no zero point energy inside with positive pressure zero point energy outside such that Λzpf ~ 1/(Compton wavelength)^2. Hal relies on MECHANICAL PRESSURE to hold the charge in. However his universe could not exist. It violates Einstein's GR.

I have the zero point energy inside with very little outside. It's strong short range gravity attraction G* ~ 10^40G that sucks the charge in in my my model where I also have Λzpf ~ 1/(Compton wavelength)^2.

Or that was it some time ago unless he changed it. I have not yet looked at his latest paper.
------------------
[HP]: In a message ...sarfatti@ writes: "... his electron is way too big and does not explain why the electron looks point-like ~ 10^-16 cm when his scale is ~ 10^-11 cm."

My paper is about a POINT particle. What you say has nothing to do with my publication.
------------------
[PJW]: On a preliminary look at the Puthoff paper, it seems to be essentially parallel in spirit to today's regularization. The underlying theory is defined to be the limit as something goes to zero of a family of... "scaffolding models"... which we are urged not to take seriously. Like the Pauli-Villars potential, or fractional dimension models.

This cannot really explain why masses are what they are, for example. It is just another device for inserting an infinity at a point.

If the "scaffolding models" made more sense for FINITE radius, I would be a lot more comfortable with them. Also, if they came with either a Lagrangian or a rigorous stochastic "dynamic" model which generalizes the old notion of a Lagrangian system. Without well-defined axioms at that level, it involves a certain amount of handwaving.

It's not as if the mainstream alternatives today made any sense either. But if no one learns to do better... no one will have warp drive, for openers.

But after yesterday's Senate vote, maybe we won't have cars either.
(Please forgive me if mood is less constructive than usual... but images of a billion dead bodies are hard not to react to.)

Best of luck to us all,

Paul
------------------
[JS]: 1. I have clearly explained what is wrong with Hal's basic idea. His ambient zero point energy density outside the electron is 78 powers of ten larger than is possible for our universe to exist. Hal does not accept Einstein's GR that even a uniform zero point energy "bends" spacetime. Hal does not believe in the equivalence principle, nor does he accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, OR, he is inconsistent since his model violates the latter two mainstream views.

2. I have shown the basic physics of warp drive and we see actual warp drive vehicles in our skies.
---------------
[HP]: Your 78 POWERS OF 10 is the difference between the cosmological vacuum of empty space, and the regularized vacuum applicable to a problem in particle physics where topology matters.  Read my previous response.  As I said before:
 
When you cite w = -1 it is clear that you are talking about vacuum energy, as in cosmology.  Irrelevant.  We are talking particle physics here, Jack, not cosmology.
 
Specifically, when one talks about EM zero-point fluctuations interacting with EM boundaries, it's a horse of a different color, a different vacuum state. 
 
Read B. DeWitt, "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime," Physics Letters C, vol. 19, pp. 295-357 (1975), specifically p. 305, Eq. (31) ff.  To quote: "This (stress energy tensor T) has exactly the same form as the stress tensor of a photon gas at rest (zero total 3-momentum) in the chosen frame."
 
In short, topology matters.  The stress tensor for interaction with the EM vacuum fluctuations must be regularized when dealing with EM boundary conditions.  The stress tensor for an empty vacuum that applies to cosmology is not applicable to the particle problem.
 
Hal
....................

Read the rest of this thread ( Re Werbos on point-particle electron  - Puthoff solution in IJTP) at SarfattiScienceSeminars Yahoo Group