This electron is a photon torus paper is good enough I probably should have done a more detailed exposition in its own post. The others are worth a look/think as well, but are not as good.

This model of the electron as a photon on the torus explains pretty much all of the weirdness of electrons. The electron is no longer a point: the average of it looks like a point from a short distance/timescale, same as any other central potential. Spin 1/2 is simply the field moving through the two rotational axes of the torus. I remember the lady teaching my group theory section emphasizing the connection between SU(2) aka spin-1/2 and SO(3) aka normal rotation in 3-d, and thinking "yeah but WHY is it 2-dimensional, where did other dimension go." Torus is why. You can sort of stretch it out into a Moebius strip, making the spin-1/2 thing as natural as anything is on a Moebius strip. I assume the instructor knew about these things (Penrose student), but we were junior year students with no point topology, and our exposure to the origins of SU(2) in SO(3) was like 1-2 days of the seminar, so we all shrugged and moved on. The fact that you get correct masses, charges, magnetic moment and toy quantum mechanics with correct Compton wavelengths out of all this indicates that this is the right direction to march in.

I encourage everyone interested in this to watch the Huygens optics video exposition: youtube.com/watch?v=hYy… The fact that you have to live with a photon on a torus and wonder how it got on a freaking torus is, to me, irrelevant details. Presently, physicists happily live with all manner of absurdities; renormalization, spin-1/2 particles, charge 2/3 and 1/3 quarks, problems with relativity light cones and QM, bare charges of the electron, point-like electrons, quantum absurdities, tunneling, wave-particle duality: the list is extremely long. They should be able to tolerate a photon living on a torus, which makes a lot of these absurdities go away with a relatively simply geometric model. That's a psychological problem with contemporary physics people: they're trained to be good little schoolboys who accept the absurdities of modern physics. They're flattered that they understand more than the normies because they accept these ridiculous things, when in reality their peasant-nature has caused them to accept stupid things in a bovine manner. It's somewhat natural in the indoctrination phase of physics: you're overwhelmed with mastering new ideas, and so you're forced to accept some of the weirder ones. The problem is, most of them never outgrow their bovine peasant-mind acceptance of these things, even when they go back and teach it to the young. They're too busy in their narrow research field to actually revisit the ideas they're presenting. This is the same psychology that causes experimental physicists to wear paper covid-cuck masks; "must accept muh science looking thing. "

My personal educational experience also didn't dive deep into the Dirac equation, which makes all of this much more natural. We lept from Schroedinger/Heisenberg picture with a little Dirac correction terms to make the hydrogen atom results work better, directly to quantum field theory, which appeared to be pulled directly from someone's anus. I suspect most people from Boomers onward have had this didactic experience. Makes me want to go back and give the Dirac picture a 6 month deep dive: the didactics I never got.

Anyway, exciting idea. If I were a young theoretical physicist, I'd try to extend it in various directions. The same bag of ideas should work on other elementary particles and you should be able to extend the reasoning up to the rest of quantum mechanics to replace it with something testable.