Does the Standard Model have a "nonradiating" condition?

[lkcl]

Very simple question: having learned about the existence of the nonradiating condition from the Ring Model (and other sources), it occurred to me to establish whether the Standard Model has either an explicit or an implicit similar condition that prevents the energy within the mathematical representation of the particle it represents from simply... dissipating (escaping) and thus being an invalid model. I am aware for example that the Schroedinger Equation becomes radiating unless v <<< c. How is an equivalent of a "nonradiating" condition achieved within the Standard Model?

[FrediFizzx]

Very simple question: having learned about the existence of the nonradiating condition from the Ring Model (and other sources), it occurred to me to establish whether the Standard Model has either an explicit or an implicit similar condition that prevents the energy within the mathematical representation of the particle it represents from simply... dissipating (escaping) and thus being an invalid model. I am aware for example that the Schroedinger Equation becomes radiating unless v <<< c. How is an equivalent of a "nonradiating" condition achieved within the Standard Model?

I would think it would have to otherwise there would be no rest mass-energy for elementary particles.

[lkcl]

hiya fredi, thanks for responding. i wanted to say btw i really appreciate your paper about gravity, it made sense once i worked out that torsion is a helical mode of Orbital Angular Momentum of light (or is the changing of the elliptical polarisation axis) so of *course* that would appear to "absorb" some of the energy from a particle as it clearly takes energy to maintain that rotation... if there's only one helical rotation (ok half a rotation for a mobius if we're talking about FRW spacetime that joy uses in the EPR-Bell proof) per orbit around the radius, then of _course_ the torsion reduces as the radius increases...

... anyway that's all as background to saying that you're one of the people i know who understands the various contributions to the mass of particles.

my surprise is then more that the standard model doesn't *explicitly* make mention of any kind of nonradiating condition. the mistake's been made once already (schroedinger equation) so why isn't it explained and nailed down so that people who want to learn about this stuff - and even people who should really know what's going on - don't make a fundamental error.

so the next most obvious question would be: if it's *implied* that there is a nonradiating condition in the standard model, how does that occur? i know for example in classical maxwell's equations spherical charges may simply be superimposed (summed), and that laplace's equations may be used to represent a balance of electrical charges... but where (and what) is the "equivalent" to that in the Standard Model?

[lkcl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_anomaly

would _this_ be an example? they're talking about baronic charge non-conservation there, with "non-vanishing quantum terms". *sigh* from applying conservation of energy as being absolute above all else in the extended rishon model, "anomalous currents" and these kinds of things just feel... so... wrong. which is why i need rather urgently to understand what the *actual* true and fundamental "energy conservation" laws (equivalent to the nonradiating condition being one of paramount importance) are of the standard model.