A new Model is proposed to unify everything in physics: the four forces including gravity and the hundreds of elementary particles. Time, relativity, and gravity result from the interaction of the basic entities at a tiny scale.
Approaching the development of any model of fields generated by constituents such as strings, loops, gravitons and the like rather than by magic or mathematics leads to four useful questions and one important reality check:
How is information generated?
How does the information propagate?
What IS the information?
How is the information received?
How does the field information continue to be generated without diminishing?
Magnetic fields pose difficulties for the mnp Model, which aspires to an explanation for particles and forces with constituents operating only at a tiny scale. An honest look at magnetic fields leads the author to frame the general question: what issues are fundamental to the nature of fields and what issues arise in various model types. By asking the proper or useful questions, the author hopes to find useful answers.
Magnetism has two properties that gravity and static charge do not: 1) The reference line for force is an imaginary line of zero force, a vector perpendicular to the moving charge that creates the magnetism, with the force magnitude axially symmetric about that vector and 2) magnetism affects only moving particles and only by changing the direction of movement. It does not increase or decrease kinetic energy in traditional inertial frames.
In the mnp Model, gravity and static charge fields are purported to be understood, electrical fields from moving charges have been drawn but not well explained. Understanding how the field created by moving charge could lead to the influence on moving particles being symmetrical and directional about the line of zero force has so far eluded the author. Conceding defeat in this endeavor, the author feels a more general discussion is warranted. Therefore:
An information theory approach may be useful. What information is needed? What is the MINIMAL information needed? The author suspects that in physics and the universe, nothing is overdetermined. The approach, do all that is needed and no more, has served the author well in writing and programming. Don't program or say things twice. (For fear of self contradiction LoL.)
This discussion of information is the author's attempt to understand and refine his own development process. Recognizing that creating a single concept (such as frame independence or the equivalence principle) is not part of the intersection between his abilities and what a constituent model of fields needs to do, the author will muddle on.
The proto Model, mnp, so far offers glimpses of the possibilities. Information is received only by the redirection of basic constituents, is generated only by the redirection of the basic constituents of fields, and does not diminish over time because field constituents are, in the modern local universe, constantly replenished by recruitment.
The useful question emerges. What information do the (gravitons, magnetic field mediators, static field mediators) need to carry? Which quickly leads to the author's codification of Information Required by a Theory of Everything -or-
There are four important questions to be answered by a field theory that posits constituents such as strings, loops, gravitons, and the like. In chronological order:
How is information generated?
How does the information propagate?
What IS the information?
How is the information received?
In order as understood and developed by the author:
What is the information?
How does the information propagate?
How is the information received?
How is the information generated?
Reality checks on the process of field creation include:
How does the field information continue to be available/How does the field information continue to be generated?
The author hopes that with four concepts and one or more reality checks, explanations for fields can be developed and checked.
Though the author joined mathematics with magic by a rhetorical alternation in the abstract, the growing acceptance that, for example, a particle IS its wavefunction or a field IS its function means that the four information questions might be profitably asked of the functional form of the field or particle.
Illustrations may be helpful. For gravity, the mnp Model sees the information needed as 1) How much effect from the mass remains at this point and 2) which direction is the mass. The reality check, how can gravitons continue without being diminished, led to the concept of recruitment, to gravitons being bi-directional. Amount of effect is the number or density of gravitons. Direction to the mass and the radius part of acceleration is encoded in the angular divergence of the gravitons (and perhaps the related divergence in density with tiny differences in distance from the mass). Gravity is the simplest of the fields in the mnp Model because it relies only on the mediators (called m's in the mnp Model) and assumes their Axis (polarization) averages to 0.
For static charge, the information needed is similar. But instead of inventing a different mediator, that points in a negative or positive charge direction, the author is attempting to use the three constituents of the mnp Model. The charge constituents move, if matching the charge, more axially away from the charge. Those opposite the charge move more tangentially to the surface of the charge and so may return sooner but do not propagate. The third constituents, mediators, adopt the Axis alignment of the axial charge constituents and propagate more tangentially to the surface of the logical sphere around the charge, themselves recruiting charge constituents.
For magnetic fields, the information is the direction of the +B vector and how much influence exists at the point of interest. Since propagation is perpendicular to the information and since how the information is received and translated into changed motion with the influence being proportional only to the angle between receiver motion and +B vector direction, the author has much need for understanding and creativity. To be continued.
This blog post, like many of late, has jumped out of order. Describing and modeling the fields created by motion is overdue. Explanations of why the 3-vector and 4-momentum formulations with complex numbers work well and images of the meaning of mixing angle in the mnp Model await. Development of the scale established for the constituents of the mnp Model, as developed in Energy and h in the mnp Model, including investigation of the 10^-10m/s^2 limit for gravitational acceleration, is pending. Discussion of divergence and curl in the loops of particles can be postponed, as can the mundane topic with the dramatic title Gravitons' Return. A rewrite of the general mnp Model description is called for, to reduce embarrassment at the many mistakes therein, even though the development and understanding of field structure will lead to further changes.
Field constituent theories can be seen as a spectrum (or an n-space) from truly baryonic to pure instantaneous information with no mass. Baryonic constituents probably have mass and might be able to transmit energy, torque, and direction. Constituents might be specific to the field type or types. Constituents might be limited to the speed of light. Constituents of the field might well be different from constituents of particles. Constituents might be spread across the universe, as if all were holographic projections from a boundary. Pure mass-less endless information theories require that the recipients must have the ability to respond to all information by themselves.
The mnp Model is just one point in the range of constituent theories and shares many attributes with other constituent theories. In the mnp Model, all constituents move at the speed of light, only three types exist and form particles as well as fields. They interact on two attributes, Travel direction and Axis direction, and cease to interact if packed too closely. The author is trying to develop the mnp Model as a minimal set that will cover the range of physical phenomena and measurements. Someday.
For reference, a table of the scale for constituents as developed in Energy and h in the mnp Model is included. The influence distance is the most interesting number. The rest, including number of constituents in an electron and constituent mass, merely give a sense of scale.
Torus Cylinder Units
Influence distance - maximum 1.56e-25 m
Number of coils 2.45e25 m
Separation distance 8.0e-50 5.1e-50 m
Constituents per electron 2.25e50 3.5e50
Constituent mass 4.05e-81 2.6e-81 kg
Maximum density at separation distance (hexagonal packing)
9.1e66 2.25e67 kg/m^3
Compact electron size 5x5x1.6*10-25 1.6x1.6x3.2*10-25 m
Compact electron density xxxe45 xxxe45 kg/m^3
This estimate is based on four measured quantities: the speed of light, the mass of the electron, h, and the time for weak nuclear interactions to occur. It is based on the observation of consistency for those quantities and on the quantized behavior of electrons. Using the classic formula for angular acceleration only, the units of energy and the constituents ability to redirect other constituents and the units of h have physical explanations in the mnp Model.
The "what information do mediators need to carry" was the turning point in the author's musing about magnetic fields. The question seems to support the Axis (reversed?) along the B lines, yet how does the Axis get oriented that way rather than 180, when the charge is moving one direction? This related to the production of information or the transformation of information.
This might be an interesting paper in its own right, though it will be easier to write when the fields are complete. LoL Like issues of understanding physics but personally needed a causal picture to be able to understand enough.
For reference, a glimpse of how the author talks to himself:
How could we model the zero force lines for magnetism -
a) if the Axis were one way or another along the zero force vector then direction of B would be established and axial independence if propagation direction is not needed. Need to figure how current would cause axis to be 90 degrees to current axis alignment. Though being affected at 90 degrees may be a reciprocal arrangement
b) Zero force vector is perpendicular to both Axis and Travel, then Axis cross travel would give B direction. Need Travel and Axis to work out equal at all axial positions. Seems difficult to work out or at least hard to make excuses
c) if just axis parallel to negative current, not enough info to be axially symmetric about some other axis/coordinate line
d) propagation direction <notes> - does that have a wavelength and recruit similar? I'd think not - averaging out
Draw - electrons move vertical (current down) B equal force lines clockwise, Axis up. Not just equal force lines, but the zero force axis. In mnp, perpendicular to the spread of the magnetic field and perpendicular to the axis. Direction of the B (Could it be that Axis direction does not matter to a moving charge??)
Replenishment: eg. For static charge, the p's are sent out more tangentially, the n's sent out more axially, the balance of flow will need to be uniform. n's may be recruited and redirected from a distance, p's may seem to hang out closer but the net away must match the net toward if steady state is achieved. (I have at times thought that this might not be the case on a cosmological or long time scales, and have not entirely given up on this possibility) </notes>
The fields created by particle movement, which the mnp Model calls deBroglie fields, will be important to understanding all fields from moving particles. <notes>: - pull n's and p's more into parallel than the m's which then cause n's and p's to align with the movement, then cause m's to align more with the movement, so the zero force line represents the Axis. No, that would picture more axis parallel to the charge movement. But provides additional reason for Axis aligned with source. Wait - electron moving, n's oncoming pulled in less, n's parallel pulled in more. p's following pulled in less, p's oncoming pulled in more
m's come in by deBroglie, try to align with the mid-line, cross past it, do they try to reverse Axis? Axis only works around the line of travel? - no it does redirect. </notes>
Behavior of the constituents of a wave created solely by a particle or neturino or fhoton's movement, called here a deBroglie field, is counter-intuitive. Constituents recruited by the moving particle cross the mid-line and operate in a reverse fashion. Oncoming and "overtaken" constituents behave differently and interact with each other. The simulation and understanding of such fields, as posited in the mnp Model, will be useful. In addition to the investigation of the neutral (neutrino) moving particle and the polarized (fhoton) moving particle, it now becomes apparent that the charged (idealized electron or positron) moving particle and eventually the coiled/charged moving particle (electron and positron) will provide needed understanding of the fields created by movement.
Constituent Field Models and Structural Models of Everything may actually have a future, even if the author's approach in the mnp Model turns out to be merely interesting.
The mnp Model now offers an understanding of energy and the Planck constant h in a Model based on a limited set of first principles.
The ability to redirect other entities has the units mc2. So energy is seen as an ability to turn other entities. Mass emerges from the number of basic entities and their equal effects. The Planck constant arises from the behavior of electron shells and the basic ability to turn. The new understanding of the Planck constant allows the dimensions of the basic entities and a limit on the influence distance to be calculated, and suggestions for electron size and density to be offered.
Apparent energy of light and neutrinos in a moving frame is explained.
Transfer of energy into motion is discussed.
Momentum might be conserved by matter, but not by fields. This is the weakest part of the post, since an explanation and understanding of the useful four-momentum is not yet written out.
These developments grew from investigating the fields created by moving neutrinos, to be covered in a subsequent post.
The mnp Model sees all fields, matter, and potential in the universe as being formed by three types of basic entities with two ways to interact and few other attributes. These entities interact in a flat, unstructured region of three spatial dimensions. Since those entities all change locations at the same rate, the potential for time or change or entropy exists. The entities all have the same unchanging ability to influence other entities to align with the line of Travel (parallel or anti-parallel). The unchanging but limited amount that entities can influence and be influenced allows change to occur as entities cover distance. All entities have an Axis. For type n, Axis aligns with Travel. For type p, it is opposite Travel. For type m, Axis is perpendicular to Travel. All entities have the same ability to influence other entities to align parallel with Axis, though this ability is not as strong as the alignment with Travel. The abilities to affect are limited to short distances.
Over a much shorter distance, effects will be experienced by only one entity if overlapped. This is called Separation.
Entities can have two influences: to align by Travel direction and to align by Axis. Axis (which leads to charge/magnetism/electrical effects) will be ignored in this post. Over any short length of movement, an entity will attempt to change the Travel direction of any entity within the influence radius to be more aligned (parallel or anti-parallel) with its own direction. Both entities will change by an equal but opposite angle. The effect is symmetrical in the spherical coordinate system around any entity's line of Travel. All entities have the same ability to influence to align by Travel direction. Over any given length of movement when an entity changes the Travel direction of another entity by some angle, its Travel direction is changed by an equal angle in the opposite direction. If one entity affects two entities, its angle changes by the negative sum of the affect. So angle changes are additive and conserved.
[ 1. basic entities oncoming and 2. traveling similar directions ]
Basic entities interact only when separated from other entities by a tiny distance. If an entity is hidden by another within the Separation distance, it does not influence or receive influence until the covering entity has moved to no longer “ shield” the “ shielded”" entity. Events occur because the basic effects are limited in how much effect can be transmitted or received over a distance of movement.
Matter exists because basic entities can form filaments that form loops that twist into coils that can remain in one place or move slowly. Time is measured by matter oscillations.
The letter m was chosen as mediators, magnetic, messenger. The letter n was chosen for negative, the basic entities with an Axis parallel to the direction of Travel that make up electrons and the negatively charged filaments in quarks. The letter p was chosen for positive, the basic entities with Axis anti parallel to the direction of Travel that make up positrons and the positively charged loops that combine as six to provide the charge and structure force quarks.
The basic entities and the coils they form to provide the structure for fermions are tiny in scale, somewhat smaller than the author had imagined.
The speed of light, the number of basic entities, the ability of those entities to influence, the direction of those entities if uninfluenced, the influence distance, and the Separation distance are postulated to be conserved. (1)
What is mass? The equal ability of all entities to influence and be influenced is mass. Influence is posited as the same for all entities, so the mass of all entities is therefore the same.
Take the simplest “ particle” in the universe, the neutrino. For now consider the neutrino as a bundle of m entities whose Axis orientations are random with vector average of 0. (2)
What is involved in changing the direction of the neutrino? Since it cannot be sped up or slowed down, the influence and change must be lateral to the direction of Travel. In mnp, every result other than continuing in a straight line at c must be caused. A classical analysis of work does not help since no work is done by orbiting or changing direction. But the classic concept of change perpendicular to Travel, angular acceleration mV^2/R IS helpful. Pick an arbitrary R, the influence must be exerted perpendicular to Travel and be present over the distance of movement. As a scalar, that amounts to mv^2 over R times R times the angle of direction change. The R drops out. So to turn the neutrino 90 degrees takes mc^2 times pi/2. The same units as energy, classical and modern.
[ 3. Pure redirection - effort proportional to angle ]
What happens in the hypothetical case of neutrino capture? If the neutrino could be caught by a particle and the result then brought to rest, the neutrino would add m entities to the mass of the particle.
Capture and release of travelers is not a matter of changing just the direction of the traveler. The traveler will participate in the joining process and become part of the coiling of the particle. Release is the opposite - during the transition from particle to free traveler, the lateral portion of the change to traveler direction is provided by the coils. Let's try a restatement. The traveler, while part of a particle, is moving at c in circular coils with the rest of the particle. While a part of the particle, it contributes to the mass of the particle. During capture, as it is redirected into the particle, the lateral effort influence on the traveler as it turns is supplied by the coils. Only the longitudinal effort to turn the traveler 90 degrees is seen by particle. The effort required to absorb the traveler is mc^2, based on the integral of the longitudinal component of the centripetal acceleration.
If the particle were at rest before, after the mc^2 of the neutrino has been applied, the particle will have its entities, on average, moving at a slightly different angle. The angle of difference will be m/M (actually m/(m+M)) since the neutrino had to be influenced by mc^2 which came from changing the angles of the particle's entities. If seen as a ring,
[ 7. Diagram of logical ring with skewed entities ]
So the capturing particle has more entities and has a net angle of m/(M+m). If the particle had been at rest, the new velocity is now moving at mc/(M+m), hinting at classical conservation of momentum for particles at very low speeds absorbing small travelers.
If the particle were moving at .707c when it captured the neutrino, the entities in the particle are rotating .707c lateral to the velocity, and .707c in the direction of particle movement. The author thinks of 45 degrees as the attack angle. So only .5 of the mc^2 influence would be needed to capture that neutrino (the neutrino goes through a change of 45 degrees, but the lateral influence will be provided by the coils), since the other component of the neutrino's initial Travel becomes part of the particle's net Travel. Note that the particle would see the neutrino as having lower influence hence lower energy.
[ 8. diagram of logical ring with entities moving at 45 degrees for travel at .707c - 9. cross section of capture when traveling the same direction ]
So the units of direction change and energy are the same. The concepts may well be equivalent. Notice that the energy of the neutrino as seen by the moving, in Minkowski space, particle is less if moving the same direction. (3)
In this Minkowski space of angle change and capture by coil, some of the Lorentz transformations are already appearing.
For a particle to travel along a line at a velocity v, the entities must be redirected so that they will travel at an angle from a perpendicular to the line of travel equal to the arcsin of the desired velocity v over c. Since the author is interested in understanding what travel at velocity v requires in terms of turning the basic entities in the particle, a full development with limited hand waving is warranted. The entities in the particle must be bent from their average 0 degrees to move at angle A. A is the arcsin of v/c. The diagram shows a conceptual cross section of the entities rotating in a stationary particle reduced to a ring of rotating entities. Hand wave on averaging entities longitudinal coiling motion noted here.
[ 10. Motion and Attack Angle ]
For redirecting particles and for capture and emission, the differential effort required to move from the resting position is not da times mc^2. but
sin a da times mc^2. The indefinite integral of sin a da is -cos a. Integrating from 0 to A gives -cos A + 1 or the negated trailing terms of the Taylor series expansion for cos A, viz. A^2/2!-A^4/4!+A^6/6!-... so the result is mc^2 A^2/2
At low angles, Ac = v, so apparently the turning effort to reach speed v is
mv^2 / 2
which equals the classic kinetic energy to reach speed v from rest.
Previous blog postings have attempted to understand why the basic number of quantum mechanics has units of classical angular momentum. Two blog posts have investigated the reason for h's units and tried to make sense of the magnitude of h without notable success. The mnp Model's new answer to that question rests on the description of the electron as a coiled strand of 6 quantized filaments of charge material (n's) with Axis aligned with Travel direction, as described in the outdated mnp Treatise
The basis of electron behavior and shape remains the same as described before. Each of the six loops in the strand is a truly fixed length of entities moving at the same speed c. To form a closed shape, a single uncoiling of the strand is necessary. The exactly equal lengths leads to the need for an electron to uncoil and untwist in order to move or adopt the shape of a spherical or complicated shell. Two coils must be removed from the path of the loop for movement or to change orbital angular momentum.
Understanding how much angular change must be applied to the coils to achieve those uncoilings has taken the author some time. The coils, with the balance of Separation against Travel and Axis alignment effects, have a naturally tight coil and a fixed length of loop. That “ steady state” or “ reference frame” is moving at c and tightly coiled. If we conceptually unravel the coil and break it so we can draw a straight line of reference, we get
[ 11. cross section of coil change (in coiling reference “frame”) ]
where the curvature to be applied is enough to shorten the horizontal side. Since to take out two coils requires changing the strand curvature enough that its effective length is 2 coil circumferences less.
The change to the loop will be a curve of very large radius and small angle. The angle is so small the secant essentially = the arc length 2 theta.
If we use number of coils as the independent variable,
coil circumference = loop length / ncoils
theta must be chosen so that 1-cos theta = 2 coil circumference / loop length = 2 / ncoils
since theta is small, so 1-cos theta = theta^2/2
so substituting, theta^2 / 2 = 2 / ncoils or
theta = 2 / sqrt(ncoils)
The angle by which the curvature must be changed is twice the angle of “ uncoiling” so the effort to redirect Me by 2 theta is
Mec2 2 theta
Time for one loop completion is only a function of loop length
Time for one loop completion is loop_length/c
Effort sustained through one loop completion is
Mec2 2 theta loop_length / c -or-
Mec 2 theta loop_length -or-
Mec 4 theta loop_length / sqrt(ncoils)
Integrating the effort to open the two loops over the time taken for an entire loop traverse represents the duration during which the 2 loops must be kept open so the change in the electron shell, whatever it is, can complete. A sudden change in one area needs to propagate and, to reach a measurable steady state, even out over the entire electron. The electron may then be held in that configuration by m's trapped by its new larger surface or by the additional field of the new proton in the nucleus or by a magnetic field or, if moving, by the field created by its movement. More on fields created by moving particles in a subsequent blog posting.
The length of the loops that provide structure for the fermions is chosen to be 3 meters, since that is the distance the entities can travel at c in 10-8 seconds. Weak interactions take 10-8 seconds to completely change the structure of fermions or, in mnp terms, completely unravel the strand that makes up the fermion structure while perhaps forming a new structure. A table of values for angular effort times the time for changes in the loop to occur over its entire length gives:
[Number of Coils and J*s to Keep Entire Loop Open]
Since this range includes h, we might have enough confidence to calculate number of coils directly. In closed form:
J*s = Me c2 (4/sqrt(nc)) * (loop_length / c)
So in this universe, a direct calculation of number of coils from h is
(4 Me c loop_length / h)2 -or-
(4 Me c2 loop_time / h)2
Coil diameter would be loop_length/(pi*number_of_coils). Combining the two equations seems like code obfuscation.
So the mnp Model prediction for number of coils is
2.45e25 and coil diameter 3.9e-26 m which is far more plausible than numbers from the previous blog postings. The coil diameter is the upper limit on influence distance. Two possible origins for the quantized loops are investigated in the Appendix, giving Separation distance, entity sizes and masses within a factor of 1.6, and electron size and density ranges.
This is a back of the envelope calculation, but with the structural explanation of the mnp Model, suggests a reason for the magnitude and units of the Planck constant h.
Matter waves in modern physics are seen as having a real and an imaginary part. The analogue in the mnp Model is the coils of charge loop structure plus m's as gluons, surfaces, and fields plus the electron shell coils with their m's as trapped shell energy, all individually moving at c. So in a translation between the mnp Model and the matter wave model, the real part of the matter wave is the forward component of all the basic entities in the particle, the imaginary part is the component of the entity movement at c that is transverse to the wave/particle movement. The square of those magnitudes should be conserved since it represents the real coiling entities.
If the charge portion(s) are significant and different from the distribution of mass of the particle, the real part of charge matter wave is the longitudinal component of the coils of n's and p's while the imaginary part of the charge travel is the transverse component coiling of the n loops and p loops. Again, the square should be constant for an unchanging particle.
If mnp were reduced to a mathematical formulation, there would be three spatial dimensions for components of the wave, one time, three direction dimensions for the actual components of the field unless this is the “imaginary” part of the spatial dimensions, and three different types of entities (m's, n's, p's) on perhaps one or perhaps three dimensions, plus perhaps three dimensions for the net Axis direction at each point. Since Axis evolves in the opposite direction from Travel for p's and in the direction of Travel for n's, mathematical separation along an “entity” dimension or dimensions would be needed. So one could seek 10 mathematical dimensions (or 8).
For early development, the author believes discrete simulation will offer faster understanding and development, even though its falutin index (technical term credited to DDL, personal communication) is lower.
Recent work with the waves created in the random field potential that surrounds matter in a galaxy, to be documented in a forthcoming blog posting, leads to a major re-factoring of the mnp Model and profound re-examination of the Separation Effect.
The Separation effect does not cause any movement or change itself. So it is not an active effect If two entities coincide then one ceases to be influenced, so that when the first is influenced to move in some other direction, the second continues uninfluenced until it is separate enough to be influenced. One could take a quantum/statistical mechanics attitude and suggest that the two are indistinguishable. If the basic entities have conceptual parts or dFigments, those parts are indistinguishable and it is not possible to tell what went in from what came out, just that two basic entities came out.
Whether Separation is limited to situations when entities also have essentially the same direction or not is to be decided in simulation. In most cases other than in the coils that provide structure to matter and at the initial and only singularity at the origin of the universe, the time of overlap will be tiny, so the effect will be small. The strongest argument for similar direction being important may be the apparent durability of the coils, which have lifetimes at least as long as protons.
Separation could be seen as a quantum effect in that only so much influence can occur in a tiny region over a time or a distance. If more than one entity occupies the same tiny region, it is as if it isn't there in any fashion whatsoever. So in a sense, the mass of the universe was not apparent until the entities became separated enough. Or one can say the mass of the universe did not exist until the initial separation occurred.
The new understanding of Separation allows for the formation of quantum loops in a region too dense for normal behavior, due to a lack of competition and fields. (4) The elegance and simplicity of this new description of Separation makes it an attractive addition to the mnp Model.
The yet unpublished exploration of field effects from moving neutrinos and moving polarized bundles of energy called fhotons in the mnp Model has led to understanding of interaction leading only to redirection. This leads to understanding of energy, motion and energy, apparent energy in a moving frame, and the Planck constant. It led to an incomplete but better understanding of momentum and particles and matter waves, and to an ongoing refactoring of the mnp Model.
The author prefers to use the term figments in place of the phrase basic entities and indulges in that preference in the Appendix, though not in the endnotes.
For an electron, if loop_length is known, coil diameter is d, and the Separation distance is Sep, then
number of figments per electron is 6 loop_length / Sep,
number of coils per electron is loop_length / pi d.
Two images of quantized loop formation seem reasonable.
Cylinder Model - Torus Model of Quantized Loop Formation
If coils formed into a torus with figments packed as closely as possible in the coil and coils packed as closely as possible on the inner circumference of the “ hole in the doughnut", the diameter of the inner portion of the torus is equal to the coil diameter.
Number of coils around the center = Pi d / sep = loop length / pi d
Sep (loop_length / pi^2) = d^2 -or-
Since the Planck constant investigation has a coil diameter d,
Sep = pi^2 d^2 / loop_length
If the compact cylinder with a same curvature S shaped connector is the origin of quantized loops, then
Number of coils = 2 d / Sep (ignore any +1) = loop_length / pi d
nfig = 2pi 2d 6loop length over sep squared
Sep = 2pi d^2 / loop_length
Can coils emerge quantized from the dense soup because there is no competition? In a steady state, long cylinders would be the norm. In a “ pressurized" state, the torus model might be more likely. In any case, we have an approximate number for Separation distance and hence for the number of figments in an electron.
Torus Cylinder Units
Separation distance 3.2e-51 to 5.0e-51 m
Number of figments in an electron 5.7e51 to 3.6e51
Figment mass 1.61e-81 to 2.53e-82 m
Maximum density at separation distance (hexagonal packing)
2.3389e69 to 5.77e69 kg/m^3
Compact electron size 12x12x4*10-26 or 4x4x8*10-26 m
Compact electron density 2.2e45 7.7e45 kg/m^3
The electron is close enough to a point to be considered such in modern physics. Compare density to the Planck density 5.2e96 kg/m^3
Momentum is easy to picture, as net movement of the entire combination. The actual difficulties are discussed below.
The author has been blithely claiming absorption and emission of neutrinos and fhotons will conserve momentum, and any viable candidate model must follow experiment. An honest approach to the interaction of pairs of figments, suggests that classical momentum is NOT conserved at the single figment level. Apparently fields will not conserve momentum in and among themselves. Adjusting the simple calculations for time of interaction (oncoming figments have less time to interact than those intersecting at acute angles) may not be sufficient. For example, Travel alignment of two oncoming figments crossing paths will both align more closely and the momentum will shift in that direction and increase along the direction of Travel(?). With Travel alignment, two fellow-moving figments crossing paths tend to average their direction, slightly shifting momentum toward the bisecting angle.
The particle coils averaging and capturing of effects and figments is expected to be the major contributor to momentum “working out.” When the math or simulation of particles absorbing figments is worked out, then absorbing neutrinos fhotons and other particles including gluons will easily follow.
Tuning of the transfer functions of Axis and Travel may be needed, but that tuning can only depend on the angle of intersection (and issues of offset within the radius of influence).
Individual interactions might be Figment Dynamics (there will be no Figment Statics, as any waking audience members already guessed). Aggregate behavior may be called Figment Mechanics. In my dreams.
Axis only shows more transverse and more longitudinal variation compared to classical momentum. A mix of Travel and Axis alignment, with Travel twice as strong as Axis, shows intermediate variation.
The author hopes to avoid adjusting the transfer function in line with the time of interaction to tune for momentum. Hopefully an old fourth effect, Transverse will not be required to make momentum work directly.
The unevenness of momentum and the need for particles to react, capture, and release change requires that the coils be active in transferring effects. Matter waves will be useful simplifying concepts in this regard. See Coils, Momentum, and Matter Waves in the body of the post.
Gravity has monopoles precisely because the Travel effect works in both directions (symmetrically over each 90 degree range). There is no toward or away with gravity and Travel alignment, only the divergence of directions and the graviton count or density.
Magnetism does not have monopoles because the Axis alignment is one way, over a 180 degree range. Electric and magnetic effects always have a toward and away.
The ability to influence direction depends on the nature of the influencer. A short catalog:
A neutrino moving at c, with no polarization and no charge material, can change the angle of the figments in the field potential it passes through toward alignment in both directions along the line of Travel of the neutrino.
A magnetic field has m's with Axis aligned. The m's themselves will be moving perpendicular to the Axis alignment, so magnetic effects do not stay in one place but, to appear in one place, must be refreshed.
So alignment with the Axis will be the net effect. As charge approaches c, transverse magnetic fields are less and less effective since the angle between the Axis of the moving charge and the field are close (to be examined). For a stationary charge, the average Axis of the charge will be perpendicular to the Axis of the field, so no force or acceleration results.
A static charge field has Axis aligned radially with the source, Axis out for a negative charge and in for a positive charge. The m's in the field tend to move more tangentially, with Axis aligned with the charge Axis.
Gravity has gravitons mostly m's moving in and out of the mass along radial paths, attracting figments to align vertically going either in or out by Travel alignment.
Musings on Figment Dynamics later Figment Charge Dynamics
The ansatz used for Travel effect is that it is proportional to the cosine of the angle of intersection or near intersection. This guess allows the interaction to cross 0 at 90 degrees, where the Travel alignment effect is expected to be 0. So that figments in closer alignments affect more. In the distant future, tuning the Travel alignment function may be possible. For now, relative magnitudes and experience with simulation is a higher priority.
Using both spreadsheet and python, the author found comparison of both helped shake bugs out of both systems.
With good drawings, computation might not even have been needed. Clearly, the lateral is not preserved when oncoming. Longitudinal is going down in magnitude, since the one seen as skewed in the coordinate system gets more y change that the one initially aligned does. Alternate - both are becoming more opposed, so there is less net difference.
Even weighted averages (oncoming figments see each other for a shorter period of time) will not support a blind search for momentum conservation.
Still, since stationary collections and since particles are unified by their loops of charge material, they will not spread too far and at some level must act as a unit.
Philosophically, each figment must know only its own coordinate system and the effects of the nearby figments. They could remember a coordinate system (Axis supplies some of that, the basis for a 3d coordinate system for m's but only an axial coordinate system for n's and p's) but a remembered coordinate system doesn't seem useful in trying to force momentum conservation. A model that depends on a postieri tuning depending on coordinate systems is not viable.
Musings on Figment Mechanics
A first computational step in simulating the effect of a field figment on a coiling particle will be to model an electron at rest, with not fields, so influence can be introduced one at a time.
Is the “perfectly elastic” attraction of two figments - looks like it might not preserve momentum in orthogonal coordinate systems? Is so, does having a set of coils “stationary” allow that influence to be balanced out so that momentum is conserved
Classical mechanics conserves energy in non-dissipative systems. The entrapping particle is, in a way, dissipating the sideways (not forward) momentum.
History
The author has had the privilege of working on the mnp Model without public interruption or pressure since August of 2011. Early that month, sitting in the woods in southern Sweden, the author imagined “ the universe being filled with points so happy to be here that they all moved at a constant speed.” Even the author sees this as a rhetorical device, but proceeded to develop the mnp Model based on that idea.
Since basic entities are no longer created or destroyed, entities are conserved though they form the random field potential as well as the gravitational forces.
This blog posting has already seen energy described as ability of entities to turn and be turned. Energy emerges from a basic principle. Mass has been described as the resistance to influence (and the ability to influence) of the entities. The mnp concept of mass seems to be consistent with modern particle physics emphasis on rest mass and E and mc^2. Mass emerges and is conserved as long as the captured “ energy" of neutrinos and photons is included.
In like manner to mass, charge is persistent only in particles made of loops of n's and p's which have their Axis aligned with Travel. Free n's and p's are easily redirected and take crucial part in static electric and electromagnetic fields, but do not constitute charge. Current loops are conserved but some free loops may be present in the field potential. Since free loops are formed in the modern universe only when positrons and electrons annihilate, charge is conserved. (The author recognizes this exposition is descriptive, not persuasive.)
The author hopes to derive as much of physics as possible. In that he is not alone - string theory and quantum loop gravity have (had) similar ambitions.
Having had some success explaining concepts energy absorption in different frames, of time dilation and length contraction as being an essential part of movement, at understanding the two way speed of light experiments, at providing images of matter consistent with quantum mechanics, the author is guardedly optimistic. Hopes to derive concepts to “ explain from basic principles" gravity, fields, magnetism and electromagnetism. Derive Lorentz transformations though (spoiler alert) at the expense of frame independence.
Measured time will be derived, though time is inherent in the position change of all basic entities and the limit on amount of interaction over movement.
Questioning conservation includes future discussions of whether Travel direction is conserved (not would have made the initial formation of quantized loops simpler). Whether instead of space expanding the basic entities are slowing at a corresponding rate may be an interesting question.
The mnp Model has two views of the structure of neutrinos. They may be amorphous relatively dense collections of m's with random Axis orientations with resultant 0. They may be rings with balanced Axis either inward or outward directed. The exact form is not important in the present context of this blog posting. The behavior of neutrinos suggests to the author that there is no charge material (n's or p's) at all in neutrinos.
If moving different directions, the traveler's mass/energy will be seen as more by the capturing particle. At .707c toward, the neutrino will be hard to capture, since many of the oncoming entities in the particle will try to align with the neutrino rather than turning it toward the particle's direction. A charged traveler would be easier to capture. But say it is possible with the help of some coils of the moving particle moving, for a short distance, in the necessary direction. The last 90 degrees of the turn to join the particle will take mc^2 effort, as the section drawing on the right suggests. The first 45 degrees of turn, to perpendicular to the traveling particle's figment movement, is as difficult as the next 90 degrees, since the coils offer no assistance. Both the .5c component perpendicular to the particle and the .5c component anti-parallel to the average figment must be countered by the particle's coils. Mathematically, of course, mc^2/(tan .5 angle of intersection) behaves properly, but a
solid first principles mnp explanation is needed.
[ Schematic of traveler capture while traveling toward at .707c ]
The mnp Model offers an alternate explanation for the big expansion of modern cosmology. If the initial expansion proceeded at c without matter having been formed, there would be no time or history and that would allow gravitons to reach as far as they do so that they could return for the two-way behavior of gravitons to which the modern universe is accustomed, after which the recruitment of modern particles took place followed by the current expansion. Return and Looping will be a future post.
The conserved quantity energy and the constant h now have a firm and clear (at least to the author) explanation in the mnp Model's description of basic three different kinds of entities moving at c that make up all matter and fields.
The meaning and magnitude of the Planck constant h has meaning with respect to electron shell uncoiling, leading to spin and orbital angular momentum.
Momentum is, as explained before, the total of basic entities and their net movement compared to rotating at rest. It is conserved because entities cannot affect another's direction without an equivalent redirection of their own.
Energy causes the basic entities to change direction. Conceptually, matter at rest is made of basic entities rotating at c in loops and going nowhere. Motion requires that a lateral component be added to that inherent rotation, which takes away from the natural rotation. Neutrinos and photons move at c. To stop that motion requires a centripetal force integrated over pi/2. So mc2 comes from the centripetal force integrated over pi/2 required to make a turn of 90 degrees, either from resting to moving at c or from c to resting. Radius cancels in the integration over angle. This justifies the conservation of energy and mc2. Only so much redirection can go on (and investigation of fields shows it DOES go on for all motion even if we don't see it).
For the kinetic energy of motion, the coils have to be straightened enough to provide v. That is a fairly direct calculation. The angle for travel is arcsin(v/c), the shortening of the coils or amount of straightening from the natural coil radius is a centripetal force related to 1-cos(angle of travel). At very small angles, the arcsin and cos work out to 1/2mv2.
Even the awkward units for h, the Planck constant, make sense. Getting 2 coils from the loop forming an electron (or another fermion's charge loop structure) to uncoil is a 4pi change in direction for the whole loop, repeated for a second. The units on the number of times the loop passes per second is seconds(!), so the units of h would be energy times seconds. The effort needs to continue through time, it is not just a one time redirection. Energy needs to be put in continually from somewhere to keep the natural coils opened up. The sources of energy to keep the electron shell from collapsing are the basic entities that will start a photon if the shell collapses and the field created by the nucleus.
Further exposition and diagrams are needed, but the math and physics concepts are simple.
This development grew from investigating the fields created by traveling neutrinos. Details at 11, date unspecified.
At present, the author understands the public reaction of Archimedes. “What is this naked man talking about?” Full report to follow.
The development of mnp as a Model to explain the phenomena we know as physics has slowed, but continues.
Most of the effort in the mnp Model has been to determine whether the model based on three basic entities whose only difference is in one of the three methods of interaction is sufficient to explain the known electrical, magnetic, electro-magnetic, and gravitational properties of matter, fields, time, and space as measured by physics, experience, and life. (2013-11-07) The opposite question, are three entities different in only one aspect MORE than needed will be taken up in an Appendix below. The short answer may be yes, as long as dimensions, hidden or not, can be used by one entity to form three but not more basic units. The longer answer is no, effectively three different entities are needed.
Much needs to be developed in the mnp Model. Part of the slow pace can be attributed to the author's repeated experience and dismay of discovering that the current explanations for measured phenomena need to be adjusted, that there is very little on the level of elementary particles and below that can remain untouched or even unscathed if a unified explanation is to result.
Photons affect the spin of particles. In the mnp Model, particles are based on strands with quantized (in the limit) tight coils. Adding energy requires two uncoilings, affecting intrinsic or orbital spin in the case of electrons. But photons do NOT have spin themselves, they merely affect the coils and the angular momentum bound in those coils.
Dirac Spin (2013-10-31 and 2013-11-03)
The author is still trying to think in three dimensions and time. The electron remains a loop of six quantized filament loops in a strand. Pictures of the electron have included a figure eight so that the six filament loops moving together at c can be the same length. Two other possibilities exist. The filaments may wobble enough that the lengths remain the same, that wobble showing up as angular momentum. Or if the the strand of six filament loops (circling at c) can be seen as a flat loop with the length of each loop is constant, the loop is not static but must turn over 180 degrees with each revolution. This may help visualizing the Dirac equation of the electron, which indicates that a spin ½ particle must make a 720 revolution to return to an original condition. Single loop of strand is turning over 180 degrees with every revolution, so dynamic twist may obviate the need for a figure eight. In development.
Time Dilation in Gravitational Fields
Time dilation due to gravity is due not to the acceleration (or warping of space) but to the presence of mass(es) and their effects on gravitons returning and leaving the masses. For example, with two large masses there is a point between them at which the acceleration due to gravity (the warping of space along the axis of the masses' centers) goes to 0. The mnp Model suggests that at this point the time dilation is essentially the same as if the two masses were on one side of that point. With three masses, centers in a plane, the author suggests the time dilation is less than if the 3 masses were collinear on one side, but far more than nothing.
The GPS system is a strong experimental proof that gravitational and Lorentzian time dilations occur. The analysis involves careful correction for speed and gravity, ignoring other accelerations. The author suggests that a similar careful analysis of the GPS satellites view of Earth clocks will show that GPS satellites see Earth clocks as slower due to the increased gravity but FASTER due to slower movement, not slower due to relative movement of the Earth clocks. Hints of that may be available in the tuning of command frequencies, though since earth transmitters can easily be made more powerful, inefficiencies in satellite reception are not as significant as the timing corrections required by the GPS measurement system.
The author suspects that since acceleration does not lead to time dilation, the Twin Paradox may be history.
Neutrinos
Neutrinos do not appear to be quantized, but recruit mass as they travel through matter. Their initial mass seems to depend on what interaction created them, but since quantized loops of charge material are basic to the mnp Model of particles, it seems that neutrinos would not include the basic entities of charge. The best description of neutrinos at the moment appears to be made of the same m-figments that make up most gravitons and form fhotons (which have all m-figments aligned so they can be affected by magnetic and electric fields) but configured as balanced rings. This description leads to two types of neutrinos moving at c (axis in or axis out) which might respond differently to different nuclei or measurement techniques.
Approaching c (2013-09-16)
As particles approach the speed of light, they become increasingly difficult to accelerate further using magnetic or electromagnetic means. The author wonders, though, if the back emf from the accelerated particles goes up as well or if that has not been measured as being miniscule compared to the effort involved in maintaining the magnetic fields. To whom it may conCERN.
The author suggests that gravity is a far more efficient accelerator of particles, and that particles can achieve c in a large enough gravitational field. The author suggests that neutrinos might easily accelerate high speed particles, even if traveling in the same direction rather than the opposite direction. The experimental difficulty, of course, is taming enough neutrinos!
Gravity (2013-10-28)
Gravity has gotten no simpler in the mnp Model of gravitons moving both away from and toward mass. If the material universe is expanding, returning gravitons in a two-way model may WELL look just like gravity from a distant source once the gravitons have reached the boundary where they are separated by more than the Separation/Existence distance and start to return non-uniformly.
Permittivity and Permeability (2013-06-19)
Permittivity constant e0 and permeability constant u0 should be not a function of the density of the field potential in our labs but a function of how much influence can be transmitted per second.
Progress (2014-02-07)
In developing the mathematics of the mnp Model, it appears that the basic effect now called Separation (which keeps figments in a strand from occupying exactly the same location and direction) is not computationally important for many relevant aspects of physics. That is, we can defer the details of THAT third of the mnp Model to later. Though Separation may prove useful in describing the deflection of a fhoton by a field. And the (short) range of Separation will explain the anomalies in gravity at great distances, when the gravitons are further apart than their tendency to separate, and so are more strongly influenced by oncoming gravitons. [The author feels that the progress created by deferring a solution to some unspecified date in the future is more appropriate to politics than science. Prioritizing efforts is useful in science too, it is just not properly called progress.]
Wavelength is Inversely Proportional to Energy
The mnp Model still does not yet have a good explanation of why the fhoton (the basic propagator of electro-magnetic radiation) grows in area transversely as the square of the energy in the fhoton so that the length of the fhoton goes down as the inverse of the energy of the fhoton. At wavelengths greater than 1 meter it appears that the fhoton is not as dense as the Separation effect would allow, so this inverse relation must depend on an interaction other than the separation of figments. The mnp Model suggests the existence of a maximum wavelength, minimum energy for a fhoton. The mnp Model still does not have a convincing explanation of why the fhoton is redirected by the relatively weak fields created in, for example, diffraction experiments.
Infinities - There Are None (2013-10-07)
The mnp Model uses the time required by weak interactions (which change the strand structure of fermions in the mnp Model) of 10-8 seconds to suggest a length for the quantized loop that forms the structure of matter. This leads to the suggestion that the Standard Model's generations and Feynman propagations in interaction and Feynman diagrams have limits based on the time required for the possible interactions. The possibilities and regressions and oscillations can never become infinite.
Many theorists ascribe to a model-dependent realism, some philosophers suggest its all a dream, some philosophers of science accept that the consistency we experience and measure suggest consistent laws, even though we encounter surprises at many different scales of experience and measure and do not yet understand all our measurements. Many physicists have given up on realism if realism must be an understandable, intuitive description of how and why experiment shows what it does. Some are perfectly happy just measuring what is and figuring out how to measure more phenomena, though they use models to decide the next interesting step.
To the author, discussion and decision about how to understand and how best to proceed are, at large scale, philosophical questions. Recent authors' writings about physics (Greene, Deutsch, Hawking, Gribbin) should be recognized, appreciated, and respected as Natural Philosophy, even if they use phrases such as heterotic string theory and ask and try to answer questions about how it is that we know what we know. Most seem to feel that physicists have abandoned explanation entirely, that a few are seeking simpler mathematics but that most have gotten used to acceptance and utility in place of understanding. In these readings, this author hears a small Munchkin voice asking Sir. What I want to know is if you are a good realist or a bad realist. Eventually, the author hopes to be a good realist with an understandable, intuitive description of how and why experiment shows what it does. But I repeat myself. Actually, mnp's position has to be starkly realist - local variables, substructure, single photon
diffraction, photon wavelengths, gravity as measured are all to be explained without magic, extra universes, wormholes, or singularities. No one is thinking this way. So it seems cold, windy, and lonely on this mountaintop, which may be a peak or just a local maximum, but the author persists in thinking that incompatible understandings and explanations may well indicate that all sides of all incompatibilities need to be revisited and re-explained.
So what is stark realism? (Deep breath in) The speed of light IS constant. Particles are made up of constituents that do not travel faster than light.
The variability of particle location and momentum is an inherent part of change in location and velocity just as the Lorentz transforms are an inherent part of movement. We cannot know both the nearly exact position and the nearly exact momentum below a certain limit. In fact, we cannot know a location exactly, despite many texts positing just that. There are no points. (This in concert with String Theories.) Electrons and muons are uniform in structure but can spread out in appropriate fields, do surround nuclei as a loop tightly coiled with constituents moving at the speed of light but do not orbit. Particles become foreshortened to a fuzzy limit at high velocities, and exist longer if they are moving. Moving particles create skewed fields as they move. Space is measured by matter and by light and by neutrinos. Time measured by matter compared to light may lead to different measurements, but we will never be able to measure the underlying Minkowski space-time except by inference. Wormholes won't be found. (2013-10-31) Black holes warp only matter's ability to measure distance and time by destroying matter. Black holes limit the theoretical ability to send out coherent signals by altering the paths taken by those theoretical signals. Black holes do not change the underlying non-structure of space. Black holes preserve mass/energy and charge and momentum but not particles or spin or orbital angular momentum. The universe has no access to other universes on its own. There are no extra dimensions. Measured space may not expanding if the underlying movement of all entities that make up matter energy and fields are slowing. (2013-08-19) Quantum Mechanics just works even though physicists don't care about the exact wave functions. The mnp Model suggests some limits at the extremities of Psi functions, but is realistic enough to recognize the inherent rightness of QM and Dirac's equations for the electron. Please, do not try to read this paragraph in one breath. Oh, too late.
Perhaps philosophers of science will someday have new vantage points to discuss how complex numbers, quantum mechanics and string theory got so much right. In the mnp Model, tight coils make a circuit and come back a slightly different location with a slightly different direction, which may have analogies in complex numbers making a revolution and returning to a pure real number.
(2013-10-10) Elementary string theory's need for 9 spatial dimensions plus one temporal dimension to make the infinities go away (Greene p.84) may be related to coils in three dimensions, with the 3 pairs of imaginary dimensions hiding in the coil's traverse of the other 2 physical dimensions before finishing a revolution with time simply marching on (or measured by the duration of a revolution.) Flattening with movement involves hidden rotating in the two dimensions perpendicular to movement. Maybe the hidden dimensions are hiding in plain sight.
Quantum Mechanics wave (Psi) function squared may be related to a coil's having one degree of non-freedom of movement (at c along the axis of movement) with freedom to move in 2 dimensions perpendicular to the movement along the coil.
There (2013-10-30)
Channeling Virginia Wolfe's pronouncement on the author's surrounding city Oakland, let me suggest Space has no 'there'ness without matter, energy, and fields. So conceptual space may extend forever, but space measured by matter or fields is limited by the region visited by matter and fields.
Uncertainty (2013-10-30)
Greene (Fabric of the Cosmos 2004) discusses measuring EXACTLY. From what, I ask. Consider generating two entangled particles. Well, they come from an atom from some orbit(s) but I have no confidence they come from exactly the same point relative to the nucleus at exactly the same time and that we can even have any idea exactly where that origin is. Adiabatically, the center of the atom may be a useful origin if the atom does not jiggle or move afterward. In a crystal, it will vibrate. If not a crystal, what is holding it to some where? (Note some and where are separate words by choice.)
More rants on views of uncertainty (also 2013-10-30) You may have measured v and p. Fine. That's what you think. Be assured you might even have been right. About both. You just can't KNOW you were right.
It gripes me that physicists talk about knowing exactly where something is and having NO IDEA what its momentum was. Dirac's delta is a useful convenience, NOT a description of reality or measurement.
So in spite of mnp's attempt to explain much and the author's now calm confidence that thinking this way will be useful, much development remains.
Introduction to The First Talk, Not Yet Given (2013-11-03)
To introduce the mnp Model, one might list the basic principles of our model of the physical world known as physics. 1) The speed of light is constant 2) Variation, jitter, and probability are fundamental/exist and lead to 3) particles and behaviors are discrete and consistent and 4) we and the universe exist.
In any model, variability is required to create consistency and quanta are required for a non-homogeneous universe.
In the mnp Model, all (3) of the underlying constituents of matter and fields move at the speed of light and hence nothing real can travel faster than light. Variation is explained, as when an electron makes the transition from one energy state to another, or fails to make the transition and re-emits the exciting photon. Mechanisms are proposed for quantization. Time dilation and length contraction are required for movement and inertia. Quanta necessarily arise from the 3 basic and unchanging entities and the 3 basic and unchanging interactions. To be continued.
What's In a Name (2013-11-03)
Never underestimate the power of a good name might have been said by a physicist before the mantra was picked up by advertising executives and branding specialists.
Most of the mnp blogs have referred to the 3 basic constituents as basic entities. In the absence of feedback, the author will be experimenting with reverting to the earlier term for the constituents. Seen as uniform in range and strength of the three influences or interactions, m's, with axis perpendicular to travel, n's with axis parallel to travel direction, and p's with axis anti-parallel to travel direction are together called figments. The interactions, a tendency to align Travel direction, a (weaker, apparently) tendency to align Axis, and a strong but extremely short range effect to separate heretofore called Existence. Separation is, as of today, seen as a better choice. Together, these three interactions are called effects.
Closing
This 25th blog entry is offered as a status update with no major new development.
In the classical manner of proof by exhaustion, the question
Is the mnp Model of three basic entities whose only difference is in one of the three methods of interaction is sufficient to explain the known electrical, magnetic, electro-magnetic, and gravitational properties of matter, fields, time, and space as measured by physics, experience, and the existence of life?
must be paired with the opposite question Are three basic entities necessary? Could two suffice? One? Offering no proof, the author's initial answer is no - three values on one conceptual dimension seems like a minimum. Conceptual dimension is used in place of property to emphasize how few are needed, not to inflate the number of dimensions in the Model or to conflate physical dimensions with concepts properties and behaviors.
Side Trip Into Different Ways to Create Variation in Interactions
The author admits there are many ways to form those three or more values on one conceptual dimension. From a single entity combined in different ways, limiting the number of results is important. If 5 or 9 or 10^n possibilities arise with similar probabilities or sizes, then the results are not simple enough; the combinations are too complicated.
Further reflection suggests that topology holds the key to reducing the 3 entity issue. Some single basic entity could form positive, negative, and truly neutral foundations but would need 3 dimensions to form unique shapes in those 3 dimensions. that involves opposing (directions? foldings) for positives and negatives or additional dimensions that give a basic identity opportunity to combine topologically in different fashions. In three dimensions, a figure eight path that rotates about an axis on one side of the figure eight either has the path leading in at both poles or leading out at both poles, forming two shapes that could interact differently. But how would such convolutions be matched by other configurations that would limit the number of interaction types seen at a higher level? That is, how would the system limit the number of possibilities to be commensurate with
String sections all identical with identical properties could also combine to form different shapes in multiple dimensions, with the topology of the presentation being different in our three space.
Note that interesting rotations become possible in 3 space and confusing and non-unique in higher dimensions.
End of Side Trip
The interesting issue is to create negative fields and particles and to create positive fields and particles do we need 2 or 3 different patterns? The author suggests for a negative static electrical field, we need something that responds one way to a field around a negative charge (attracted) and something else that responds the other way (repelled). For that field to exist, something must propagate that field without being consumed itself.
Apparently the concept of proof has over the last century gradually become quality of explanation since the foundations of the Theory of Proof have been moving or changing. Even so, the author recognizes that the mnp Model can make few claims to Quality of Explanation.
The multiple parallel universes model of physics seems to be becoming more acceptable and mainstream as diffraction and interference experiments get harder to explain.
A standard thread is that the other parallel universes exist when any probabilistic choice is made. In other universes the opposite DID happen.
So now parents have an even stronger tool for offspring control. Bad enough that parents say you will _fall down_ or if you do that you're going to _hurt yourself_ thus usually proving to their children that they don't know what will happen. I personally prefer you might ___ or if you do that you might ___ or I don't want you to ___ so at least they don't need to question my honesty or knowledge.
Now parents can say think about what will happen in all those other universes even if it doesn't happen to you in this universe. So don't ___ because even if you don't get hurt in this universe, all those other children like you will get hurt in the parallel universes.
Heavy karma for anyone to be dragging around.
Remember, though, that royal scapegoats didn't work too well for raising future kings. Or at least kings seemed to do what they wanted, hence the length of the Dark Ages.
