Loops May Be a Quantized Basis for Particles in the mnp Model

The mnp Model is now a collection of the numerous possibilities for structural models based on tiny entities acting only over very short distances. Some of the discoveries and inventions and re-discoveries in the Model may be useful in other “structural theories” such as preon models, string theory, and quantum loop theory. See Mental Leaps Required in a Structural Model.

To differentiate the various possibilities within the mnp Model, the author will now start naming the alternates for convenience of thought and discussion. The early mnp Ring Model is now deprecated, but led to many useful insights.

The mnp Coiled Filament Model sees the basic entities form filaments that coil. The Coiled Filament Model suggests that the length of the filaments is set by the coil's progress over the logical surface of the electron or positron.

The mnp Strand Model sees filaments make up strands that are all the same length and suggests that the configuration of the six filament strands leads to different charges and different sphere sizes and different masses for “elementary” particles by recruitment of the basic entities that make up photons, magnetic fields, and most gravitational fields.

The new mnp Loop Model sees the filament loops as all the same length/size/mass, and suggests that the many different particle sizes do not recruit basic entities to be filaments that happen to be the same length, but are combinations of pre-existing filament loops. The filament loops would probably be recruited in very dense regions of the universe, perhaps before electrons and positrons formed or as part of electron and positron formation. Certainly loops would exist in their quantum length before the larger particles formed.

Interactions of particles could be a matter of snipping and splicing coils, which would suggest electrons may eventually form one long filament in a 6 sided strand. This suggestion is unlikely due to the observed quantization of particles and the hypothesized quantization of loops. More likely, interactions of particles is a matter of removing and recombining filament loops in the strands that form the structural basis of particles. The author is reluctant to call this version the mnp Quantum Loop Model, though the phrase would be accurate.

Questions raised by the mnp Loop Model include:

• Does electron/positron annihilation destroy the loops or just unravel both of the strands of six loops completely, leaving twelve filament loops of charge structure?

• Are loose filament loops a better image of dark matter than loose linear filaments? Both images are better than loose tiny entities of charge material, which are basic constituents of fields as well as filaments. Such loops would probably travel less than uni-directional filaments, and so may cluster closer to masses than filaments would. Dark energy might then be the tiny entities that form magnetic fields and light, recruited by the loose loops. Or dark energy may be filaments of the tiny entities that are not organized in pairs to be photons and travel as light. Both images are better than loose tiny entities of magnetic material, which are the basic entities of fields and photons.

• If loose filament loops allow for “spontaneous” change or creation of particles, is the Model more attractive to modern theory by making such events more likely than pure creation of particles from the very basic three entities in the Model?

Conservation of Charge Material in the mnp Model

Beyond the charge conservation of the Standard Model, the mnp Model proposes that charge material is conserved, so that the charge material in neutrinos is maintained over time as is the charge material in the neutral leptons, mesons and big bosons. The good news: material is available for recruitment. The bad news: material is no longer being created or destroyed. If charge shows up somewhere, the material had been in that region and close enough to arrive at the speed of light or less.

This conservative attitude, keeping track of the charge material in a reaction, informed much of the particle speculations of the early Ring versions of the Model and much of the particle speculations in the Unsolved Issues appendix and the Ancillary appendix. For example, if muons (or some muons) can become two electrons and a positron, even if rarely, those muons would have enough charge material (eighteen loops) to form the three leptons. Particle spin is seen as less conserved than charge material, though if opposite spin is needed for electrons and positrons to annihilate, then spin gets to come along for the conservative ride.

Summary - the mnp Loop Model

The Loop variant of the mnp Model offers advantages and disadvantages as a proto-theory. Quantization makes logical sense, but “kicks the can down the road” by postponing the decision on why 85.17KEv/c^2 should be the mass of a loop. A defensible model could be built around such a concept, and quantization may have occurred when electrons and positrons first formed, or when “tiny” electrons and positrons of a single filament formed at the ultra high densities of the early universe. For a while in the expansion of the early universe, the compactness of electrons and positrons may have been favored, with the quarks and larger hadrons forming later. The tendency of charge material to stay in a filament would be a very strong combination of the two basic alignment tendencies in the mnp Model, which would explain the persistence of the loops since their formation.

Since the third type of entity in the mnp Model, the mediator or m, does not have the two types of alignment working along the same axis, the filaments formed will not be nearly as strong and so can form light and fields but not the basic structure for matter.

Loopier and Loopier

Ideas Come in Batches - Reflection and Catching Up

This entry is more introspective and personal than the previous entries, containing many small ideas that have gathered over the last few days.

(2012-10-22) After having one MASSIVE step backwards yesterday, and feeling at a loss this morning, I've had three good ideas today. Feels a little like old times. Since two or all of the new ideas are covering old ground in a new way, those three steps may not be so much net gain. But as a hiker knows, continuing down the wrong path won't get you where you want to go and the steps taken have to be retraced.

The new structure proposal for neutrinos is already posted.

Cooper Pairs Over a Distance (2012-10-22)

Cooper pairs (two electrons that seem to act as one) over distant regions of a crystal lattice have always been a puzzlement. With the new filament model of the electron, we may see two electrons as forming one filament but having two (or more?) local regions where they are allowed to coil and collect by the partial potentials in those regions. The coil model makes the Partial Quantum Hall Effect more plausible, but does not explain the preference for rational fractions of an elementary charge e.

The earlier writings about Cooper Pairs were based on rings, and may or may not be salvageable. They look pretty ugly now.

Naming and Claiming

(2012-10-22) Separation is a better name for the first tendency of figments

The basic tendency of figments to separate should not be called Existence because that will have different connotations for readers. During the Initial Expansion, the Grand Expansion, whatever we call it, the tendency led to the separate existence of the figments, but Separation will be a better name for the tendency since then.

N.B. Axis Alignment and Travel Alignment have been the new names used the past few months for the deprecated Spin and Proximity, since they refer better to the tendencies of figments to align in those two directions. Axis Alignment is the tendency that leads to charge. magnetism, and electromagnetism effects. Whether figments will be seen as having their own spin is not clear and has been a useful concept for the author, but the term is confusing with other concepts of spin. Travel Alignment is the tendency of figments to align their travel axis whether going the same way or opposite. Travel Alignment leads indirectly to gravitation acceleration and gravitational fields.

Do I need to change the name Axis, since I want a different name from the center or axis or direction of filaments? I need to make sure I'm using direction for the Travel Alignment effect, and check on the filament centerline phrase to see if I am using axis misleadingly.

(2012-10-22) The abstract and introduction need to be more circumspect in their claims. They should not read like advertising. Maybe "provide interesting hints of explanation" "suggest a picture of the structure of fields." And just lose the stuff I am not confident of, like muons who have been seen in the wild or at least the lab orbiting as heavy electrons. Over-promising is a good way to lose attention. Been there. Done that.

LoL, turning this into a blog post and then folding it into the Latex documentation will take time. Hopefully, my unconscious can use that time to review past ideas and create new ones. Muons, quarks, charm, strange may all benefit from this 4 filament strand, though string was an attractive idea as initially presented. Time for the unconscious is a good thing. I no longer come up with new ideas every day. Or even every week. (2012-10-24-2300) Two days later, even muons have an interesting new strand structure.

(2012-10-26) Thoughts on Yet Another Structure of Matter are ready, not for prime time, but exposure. They have come out before this blog post.

A number of thoughts about the development process are gathered here.

Ideas and Documentation (2012-10-22)

In manufacturing, sales and marketing is usually expected to exceed the cost of the product. In programming, discussion and documentation exceeds the time taken to program. That's the way it is. In doctoring, documentation and billing exceeds the time practicing medicine at least in our country. Unfortunately. In cell phone development, patent litigation and patent preparation now cost more than research. That is outrageous. But it is.

In science, education, background research, discussion, and documentation far exceed the time spent creating new ideas. That's the way it has to be.

Already, my time writing about these ideas exceeds the time spent having them. But if an idea or a program or a product is good, the sales, marketing, documentation, user training, and teaching are easier and more successful. If one wants those ideas or programs or products used, someone has to put in the perspiration.

Questioning Ones Self (2012-10-22)

Why am I willing to question myself? A long time ago, I worked with a designer, inventor, programmer who would submit his program as a deck of cards to the company's "in" hopper, swagger back to the office and exclaim "PERFECT." Turnaround was good enough that he could pick up the results within 25 minutes, make a change, resubmit the deck, and swagger back with the same exclamation. By induction, you may understand why I don't want to go there. Better for me to find mistakes than have the customer or a reviewer find them. So since I'm alone in this arena for now, some of my time has to be spent reviewing my own work.

Why I "Think Like No One Else" (2012-10-22)

A designer I once worked for wanted me, the junior designer, to work up some planning details so he could make a choice. I investigated what he wanted, found it would not meet the criteria, and presented conventional plans that would. I realized, later, he was faster and more experienced than but did not have the time to work out the details to see if he liked the result. He wanted to see my failures to meet the criteria so he could make decisions or adjustments or extensions (or criteria changes) himself.

Maybe I am working out the details of fields and particles using a particular approach so the senior designers can make an informed choice, to decide if they like the results enough to change the design or the criteria or if they dislike the results enough to continue accepting phenomena without explanation..

Since I've been more or less serious for a while, I offer some comic relief:

The Implausible and the Impossible (2012-10-25)

In high powered physics, time flows backward as well as forward.

The surest proof I know is that some seventy years before Richard Feynman told Quantum Mechanics to add up all that was possible and re-normalize, Arthur Conan Doyle had Holmes tell Watson ”when you've eliminated all the impossibilities, the implausible must be true.”

The fact that we can't explain the mechanism for Doyle channeling Feynman proves we shouldn't go looking for mechanism.

Onward

Many New Possibilities for the Charge Structure of Matter

Earlier writings developing the mnp Model had suggested that matter was made up of rings of charge material that, in the case of particles larger than electrons and positrons, recruited entities of the third type, magnetic mediators, to flow over the enlarged surfaces and to form the glue between quarks. Realizing that electrons behaved more like coils of a single filament and then that neutrinos could not survive or move as opposing rings lead to new pictures of those “elementary” particles. The image of neutrinos as basically a ring of 4 filaments in cross section led to a new picture of strands that might form the structure for other matter.

Thoughts About Strands (2012-10-23 2230)

If 6 member strands exist and can be stable, that could explain the charge choices for quarks. Quarks' charge can be seen as made up of mixtures of plus and minus with the denominator 6. Down has charge -1/3, which could be 4/6 - and 2/6 +, and up has charge +2/3 which could be 5/6 plus and 1/6 negative. Six sided strands work in the mnp Model. There is no center filament, since it would be pushed out by the Separation effect to the perimeter of the hexagon whenever a bending occurs.

For down, two p filaments separated by 2 n filaments on each side could form a hexagon with sides "d" the Separation distance. Effects would be: (1+2/2+2sqrt(3)/2) Travel and 1-2/2-2sqrt(3)/2) Axis so Travel alignment would need to be safely greater than sqrt(3)/(2+sqrt(3)) as strong as Axis alignment. But for up and anti-up, with only one filament of one charge, the Travel alignment effect would have to safely exceed the Axis alignment effect.

Since charge has always been stronger than gravity, the first reaction is just to rule out the possibility. I'll have to think about that some. Could the way that Travel works automatically lead to lower accelerations due to gravity than to charge even though the basis effect is stronger?? That will require more development for the fields and gravity.

Strand Possibilities (2012-10-24)

Cross sections of 6 filament strands have a countable number of configurations.

A balanced strand of 3n and 3p filaments has 3 geometric possibilities (representing forms of Z0?). Cross sections as ASCII art:

 n n      n p      n n
n   p    p   n    p   p
 p p      n p      n p

The strand for down with 4n and 2p filaments has 3 geometric possibilities. Anti-down would have n and p reversed.

 p p      p n      p n
n   n    n   n    n   n
 n n      n p      p n

5 and 1 has 1 possibility
6 and 0 has 1 possibility

My guess is the first of the 4 and 2 possibilities represents down, so that quarks up and down both are unbalanced in the strand.

(2012-10-24 2200) If the strands twist 180 degrees with each coil rotation, the unbalanced strands may actually reinforce adjacent coils better. The 180 twist may well be necessary for the filaments to travel equal distances in each coil (within the limits of unevenness as the coil "moves across" or covers the virtual surface of its sphere).

All these bigger and mixed strands would be stiffer in some sense, I think, than the pure strands that are electrons and positrons, so may lead to bigger spheroids. I still want to see the extra mass being from m-figments/glue but I do not yet picture how that energy would be trapped into rotating as part of the structure and so being mass. One thought is that the twisting of mixed strands leads to much more swirling in the fields immediately adjacent to the strands than the twisting in the uniform strands of electrons and positrons and that this swirling behaves as mass. Incomplete.

How these quarks would then recruit even more m-figments to interact with each other in a dynamic rather than static way is not clear to me either. If the quarks are each separate spheroids, the bonding would be complicated. Definitely not ready for prime time.

Muons as Big Strands of Filaments (2012-10-24 2300)

Muons would be able to form shells like electrons if they are actually three down strands together, eighteen filaments in all, traveling the same direction. ASCII art:

 n n   n n
n   p p   n
 n p   p n
    p p
   n   n
    n n

Wild speculation: If there is a single "break" or imperfection in the muon strand, the life of the muon is related to the length of the filaments and the muon "comes unglued" when that imperfection has traveled the entire length of the strand? This would at least correspond to the time dilation of travel - the filaments effectively move slower around the coils in the universal reference or Minkowski frame as the velocity increases. Makes for a fairly long filament!

So the mnp Model offers new possibilities that answer some questions. Those possibilities do raise a troublesome issue - how could the tendency to align in Travel direction (the basis of gravity) be stronger than the tendency to align in Axis direction (the basis of charge and electromagnetism)?

The Adventure Continues

Neutrino Structure Must Change in the mnp Model

Neutrinos as opposing rings can not travel. (2012-10-21) Yikes. Panic. Relax. Sleep.

So what to do today (2012-10-22)?

Start with understanding the situation.

As opposing rings gain velocity transverse to the plane of the rings, the two rings' tendency to Axis alignment pulls away from each other, leading to a tendency to return to parallel. At velocity .707c, the Axis effect may be 0, but then increase again as velocity increases then reduces to 0 again at c. Moving pulls neutrinos apart in the old Model.

What can neutrinos teach us? What can we learn from neutrinos? The second question is different from the first, but hopefully we are open to learning so the second is a very large subset of the first.

Neutrinos exist. They travel at the speed of light and probably slower as well. They go through matter with very little effect. They have very little or no charge. They have very little magnetic moment. The last two are probably precisely why they go through matter.

How to create a picture of neutrinos that works in the mnp Model? Or is it time to abandon the Model? Well, the second step after understanding the situation is to figure out what could be. Ergo,

Brainstorm.

What are the possibilities, implausibilities, and impossibilities?

Idea:	Comment: (usually added later)
Opposing rings	cannot travel as any kind of unit
Ring of one charge	unbalanced charge, though may be small
Opposing coils	problems "getting back" when traveling
Coils not flat but vertical
Coils in a torus ("doughnut" to you Simpson fans)
Wound strands moving opposite	getting back, same travel difficulties as rings
Opposing charge moving same direction	may make bigger coils
If electrons are to be believed, coils are natural once started
Figments have a movement direction as a third attribute	Ugh
How could n and p filaments traveling the same direction be kept together. At parallel, they have no influence on each other but if they wobble, they will start to repel. That implies something keeps them together.
Multiple strands, for example 2n and 1p
Different diameters for n and p figments, so filaments of one travel inside the other.	I don't like this, but it might lead to a left hand preference as in the decay of cobalt-60 and a prevalence of protons and electrons in this solar system or galaxy.
A coil like a solenoid, with a few coils stretched to return back where the coil sticks out a little from the other charge coil, which also heads back through free space in the center	travel issue
Simple rings interlocked at 90 degrees	travel much above .707c would lead to flattening and crossing at 2 points.

Twenty five minutes later, I start the second page of notes:

Two strands linear going and 2 strands returning from two collections of coils (rather like the quark bulbs of 2011)	strands must be separated or they conflict
Coils as fundamental, looping back on opposite sides?	v=c looks ugly
Single filament of mixed n's and p's	Ouch - how does a filament maintain stability at the interface between n and p?
For travel, the filaments want to go the same direction.	Make that have to. Deal with it.
How about two filaments of each type, a cross in cross section.	A little complicated, but what would that take?

Side notes: Most of the value judgments here were added after the list was "complete." I do not like to stop the flow of ideas with loud NO's.

When is a list complete? Either when we run out of ideas completely, or the flow of ideas has slowed greatly and an idea looks promising.

Fortunately, the last idea did look promising. As ASCII art, the cross section:

  n

p+p

  n

where the + is just a logical "center" for the four filaments. Or

n p

  x

p n

And we can go on to step three.

Evaluate.

Neutrinos as Two Pairs of Charge Structure Filaments

With a matched pair of n-filaments across the diagonal of a square attracting each other by Axis alignment and Travel alignment, the other matched pair of p-filaments attracting each other by Axis and Travel. The adjacent mis-matched filaments attract by Travel but repel by Axis. Could that be balanced to be stable?

The first crude "effect" calculation in cross section suggests t (travel alignment effect) from 3 filaments plus the axis alignment of the single matching filament must be stronger than the axis alignment repulsion from the closer two, opposite filaments. The net repulsion is 2/sqrt(2) of the direct repulsion from one opposite filament. Use d as the distance between opposing filaments, so sqrt(2)d the distance to the far filament.

Oh, but remember that the filaments are REALLY close and overlap. If the effect strength is inversely proportional to distance between the figments, going to 0 at 2r, and the filaments are as close as their Separation will "normally allow" in a steady state, all effects will be at essentially maximum, so discussions of whether the effect is linear with distance due either to magic or the proportion of "spherical shell" that interacts are unnecessary at this point. So ignore any differences between 2r-d and 2r-sqrt(2)d. Since the filaments are so close, ignore that each figment might see very slightly more of the neighboring filaments than the opposite matching filament. How strong must the Travel effect be compared to the Axis effect? By 55 minutes after starting the second page, the formula is ready. If t is the Travel effect and a the Axis effect,

(t+a) + (2/sqrt(s))(t-a) must be safely > 0

(sqrt(2)+1) t must be safely > (sqrt(2)-1) a

t safely > .1716 a.

I have always assumed the "charge" effect of Axis Alignment is greater than the "gravity" effect of Travel Alignment. This ratio may work. Note I used "safely" since the two simplifying assumptions assume a little extra stability than would actually be present.

To maintain stability, each outer filament must stay outside the line between the two adjacent, opposite type filaments. But pushing a majority of the whole filament a distance opposed by the Separation effect of the other three filaments probably takes some doing.

One good aspect of travel in the same direction means that at velocity v, all figments in the filaments can have the same angle of travel to centerline, maintaining inertia as with coils and filaments in general.

Now what form does this cross section take to become a neutrino? A linear filament would always move at c and not be quantized and might be hard to recruit and start, so maybe a ring would be simplest.

The inner two rings may wobble in their travel and the outer rings not. The inner rings may be shorter and so rotate a little faster. Or the inner and outer rings may switch places so that each travels the same distance. I imagine that usually two filaments would be inside and two outside rather than having one longest ring and one shortest ring.

Strands Twist (2012-10-23)

If the filaments could twist enough that all have the same length, that would be an improvement. With a little thought and a few sketches, what if the assembly of 4 filaments twists 180 degrees per ring revolution. That would lead to two filaments, 1 n and 1 p, the same length, traveling 2 circles or rings. The only difficulty is that at c, the filaments overlap. They will not be rotating at c (rest mass will be 0) and all figment motion will be in the direction of travel, so the discontinuity in filaments may be minor.

Growing filaments is fairly easy at least in high density regions like the early universe. Growing the neutrino may not be quite as simple, since getting opposing filaments to travel or form in the suggested cross section going the same direction is hard to picture. At rest neutrino type rings could bend from filaments going opposite directions, but how that would translate to bent filaments of opposite types going the same direction is not clear.

I am not entirely happy with this whole development, but it is feasible. This neutrino game ain't over 'til its over.

And more of the basic document needs to be rewritten.

So we have another image of opposing tendencies leading to stability. Let me add an exclamation point to that!

With thanks to William Shakespeare, one of the giants of literature, 

"And thus by opposing them, conserve them."

Mental Leaps Required in a Structural Model

Much of human development has required mental leaps, sometimes singly and sometimes in groups. Here, I sketch the leaps involved in "thinking in mnp." Some of those leaps are common to all science, some to any model that hopes to unify physics, some to a structural model, and some specific to the mnp Model. I conclude by listing some of the leaps made by all humans and all physicists, to illustrate that the leaps in mnp, if useful, would be a small part of life.

Leaps Required to be a Scientist 

• What exists and has been measured is. 
• A theory can be measured. 

Leaps Required in All Unifications 

• Simplicity is the ultimate goal. 
• The universe should not need a doctorate, in the author's opinion. Yes, that last sentence is a value judgment and not a fact. 

Leaps Required in All Structural Models

Structural Models, as defined by the author, posit or seek explanations using mechanisms and existences smaller than observed fields and elementary particles that interact in ways that cause observed phenomena to emerge. The author includes Preon models, String theories and Quantum Loop theories here, but should practitioners feel their theories are not structural they may opt out.

• All long distance interactions will be mediated by fields created by recruitment rather than by emission. Recruitment is key. Whatever creates gravity is either static or moves both in and out. 
• A structural model may seem like a great leap backward, since Special Relativity has been a better explanation than Lorentz-Poincare models have offered the last hundred years. Yet if "hidden variables" are to be explained, gravity to be integrated with everything else, MOND gravity data to be explained, and dark matter-energy to be understood, a great leap in some direction will be needed. 
• All structural models require a great leap. The author is convinced a Local Reference Frame will be required. Special Relativity and structural models cannot coexist. While the space-time effects of gravity may make General Relativity useful or even necessary, the author suggests a more fruitful approach is purely structural. The space and time experience we have as matter is different from the space/time experienced by the fundamental constituents of the universe. Matter measures space and time as it is able. So we need to be open to the possibility that geodesics, measuring time and length, may be properties of matter rather than properties of space. I offer this statement with apologies. 
• “Frame independence” has been such a useful concept to physicists and engineers that it will be hard to unlearn with respect to relativity partly because it was so hard TO learn with respect to relativity.
• The mental ability to picture frame independence must not be lost, since it is so useful in statics and non-relativistic dynamics as well as geometry. So, sorry undergrads, it will still be part of the curriculum. But since it will be useful, I'm not too sorry.

Leaps Useful in All Structural Models

• Opposing tendencies will lead to stability. 
• Rotation may be transmitted over distance by the units of the model, but Moment and Torque will not. For example, there are no strings leading to centripetal force.
• The tendency of the structural units to separate from each other is not absolute.
• The structural units can pass through each other.
• Interactions will occur by redirection rather than "Force" 

Leaps Requested in the mnp Model 

• Geometry is the key to each type of interaction. There must be some arrangement of the basic units that differentiates static charge from moving charge from magnetism from electro-magnetism. Gravitational acceleration must be different from the magnitude of the gravitational field and its time and length effects. 
• Structural units interaction depends on which edge approaches which edge. The time of interaction combined with the direction of interaction will lead to differentiation. 
• Minimal tools should suffice. Avoid adding concepts such as marking “I'm ingoing” wherever possible. Rigorous simplicity may lead to deeper understanding. For example, if gravitons go both ways as required by recruitment, only direction and convergence/divergence are available. The latter is the ONLY indicator of which way gravity goes. That may mean an infinite plane would have no acceleration, only time and length effects, in the limit? 
• Fields are formed in a random soup of structural units, and are local imbalances in that randomness. 
• Fields have conservation properties. There is no net movement of structural units either linear OR spin. Secondary fields may be generated, but they too lead to no net movement as well. The field created by a moving charge may be considered a “two deep” model. For example, by sending some units one way and other units another or by sending those units already upward bound more and the downward bound less, the balance for the propagator means no loss of “energy” or change in direction.
• If the field is affected by something else (measured) that will lead to a change in the propagator. Even then there is not “loss of energy” but just a different configuration or orientation.
• Fields attenuate. 
• “Energy” and “mass” are a matter of direction, not quantity. 

Note that this section used "requested" in the title. Since the Model is not complete, it can do no "requiring." When the Model is ready for prime time, the mental leaps required to understand the mnp Model will be smaller than those required by Quantum Mechanics. The leaps are more akin to statistical mechanics, which has been described as "the other life changer for physics students." The author suspects that, in practice, the mnp Model will have MANY similarities to statistical mechanics.

Leaps Required to be a Model Developer

Those interested in understanding Structural Models or the mnp Model can stop here. Those interested in the context of mental leaps can skip to the next section. Those interested in the leaps required to create or extend the mnp Model may continue here.

• Everything must be explained by short distance interactions.
• Everything must, in its essence, be simple even if the accumulation of simplicity leads to complexity.
• The universe does not have a doctorate, though it makes complexity possible. 
• Everything is “on the table,” so whatever it takes to form the conceptual house of cards, including cannibalizing earlier ideas or admitting I was wrong.
• If a measurement cannot be explained, either I don't understand the measurement, I haven't worked the principles well enough, I don't understand the principles, or the principles are wrong. In developing the mnp Model so far, I've experienced all four.

Leaps Required to be Human and a Physicist 

Humans, especially physicists, have made many mental leaps already, far outnumbering those requested by the mnp Model. Starting as babies with "Pushing back on our hands and knees will make us go forward" and ending when we give up learning. In roughly reverse chronological order I offer an incomplete list:

• ... 
• Manifolds 
• Shroedinger's equation 
• Quantum Mechanics 
• LaPlace transforms 
• Fourier transforms - flipping frequency to time or physical domain 
• Complex numbers to model “physical Hilbert spaces,” 
• Conservation of properties in Feynman diagrams 
• Differential Equations 
• Tensors 
• Frame independence 
• Integration by parts 
• Integration - chain rule
• Induction 
• Symmetry proofs 
• Matrix transforms 
• Equal and opposite reactions 
• Reversing point of view 
• Algebra (for example, dividing to solve a multiplication problem)
• Negative numbers 
• Making the string go back and loop when we want to make a knot that will tighten and tie a shoe 
• We are separate individuals 
• We can go to something, not everything comes to us. (If we were horses, who walk at birth, we would learn that if we wait some things will come to us) 
• Pushing back on our hands and knees will make us go forward 

So the mnp Model is learning to crawl now. Push back is useful.

Coils, not Rings, Provide a Better Image for Particles and Make Inertia and Movement Feasible

Changing the picture of how rings interact and exist seem to remove many of the carbuncles and a few of the warts on the mnp Model.

The charge structure of an electron is seen as figments making one long filament with a fixed curvature based on two sets of opposition. Figments tend to maintain proximity to other figments of like axis and direction but resist getting too close and so form filaments. A filament tends to maintain a fixed curvature because the tendency to align axis is slightly forward looking and so maintains curvature and the tendency to resist being too close prevents collapse. Closing the smallest feasible 3d sphere may lead directly to quantization and a preferred size. When in a shell, the curvature of the filament may be a little different due to influences of charge and mediators (m's), so I am looking at pure "point" particles for now.

The long filament image also helps with movement and inertia, which was sketched earlier but was dependent on "fixed angular change." I had wondered how rings could maintain themselves when they appeared to need to make very fast angular progress when in the "retrograde" portion of movement and to have varying angles of "attack" and lateral movement and attraction. The drawings of rings with plane parallel to travel should be seen as sections of "coiled filament" rather than "ring" travel. I should not have seen the diagrams as elevations. If the figments in a filament have a uniform angle of travel to the axis of the filament, they will reinforce each others orientation and will move over the surface of the oblate spheroid. Length compression of the spheroid will follow. Changes and waves across the surface of the spheroid will propagate slower as the lateral velocity increases and the longitudinal velocity decreases, in keeping with the Lorentz transformation for measured time. Inertia comes from the angle of travel for each filament to the axis of the filament and the tendency to maintain that angle once achieved and uniform.

The filament model also obviates need for rings to attract each other to maintain the integrity of the electron and allows shell changes while maintaining the unified particle. This new image of a long "stiff" coil feels more in keeping with quantum mechanics and more ready to parasitize that good work.

Early calculations suggested a maximum change in one coil's rotation when on a sphere of radius just above 1.8 times the coil radius, but refinements and programmatic bug squishing have lost that local maximum, at least for one model of coil curvature.

Question:

Is there a measured maximum wavelength for light (and hence a minimum energy and mass for a photon)? A length and minimum mass would help scale the filaments by provided mass/length and lead directly to a filament length for the unit charge. From early numerical investigations of curved filaments over a sphere, it looks like huge numbers of "coils" rather than "rings" will be involved. Such scaling is not really needed now for early investigations but only in late stages of Model development.

Prediction:

Have the Shapiro experiments or in fact any of the light ranging/transit of a large mass experiments looked at occlusion? I suggest that if occlusion occurs when light is traveling near a mass, that it is seen earlier than relativity predicts when the occluding body is headed toward the mass and later than predicted if the body is somehow leaving the mass. (Solar flares are more likely than spaceships, I suppose) If the occluding body is moving transverse to the mass, it will need to be further from the mass to achieve occlusion. Of course, this is based on calculations of expected occlusion. The occluding object will be observed by light traveling the same path as the occluded object. Asked another way, do objects falling into a mass, when viewed from the side, appear to slow a little compared to predictions as they near the mass?

The mnp Model documentation has NOT yet been updated to replace rings with coils. The new terms Axis (Alignment) and Travel (Alignment) rather than the deprecated Spin and Proximity also remain to be folded in. Many of the basic concepts remain, including short distance interaction, recruitment, fields as non-random orientations in the "sea of random figments," rest mass as diminishing toward zero with increasing velocity, and the universal reference frame.

Adventure Awaits