Progress(?) Report on the mnp Model

Introduction

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.

Table of Contents (abbreviated)

• Introduction
• Thoughts since the June 2013 Blog Entry
• Realism
• Stark Realism
• Appendix A - Musings - Three Entities and Three Interactions
• Appendix B - Humor - Parallel Universes

Thoughts since the June 2013 Blog Entry

Photon Spin (2013-11-02)

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.

Realism (2013-10-30)

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.

Stark Realism (2013-10-31 to 2013-11-03)

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.

- Fini

Appendix A - Musings - Three Entities and Three Interactions

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.

Appendix B - Humor - Parallel Universes (2013-07-25 and 2014-02-12)

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.

So maybe there's hope.