Thursday, June 22, 2017

Constituent Models - Useful Supersets of the mnp Model

Abstract

The term Constituent Model is explained as an attempt to model fermions and fields as made up of constituent(s) moving at c. Interpreting momentum, movement, and mass in a Constituent Model with constituent(s) moving at c is seen as leading directly to the familiar concepts of rest mass, gamma, and relativistic mass. Added: 2017-06-24

The author believes Constituent Model is a new term, though great minds may be working in the same direction.

The author recognizes a potential naming conflict; the term constituent is also used for constituent quarks, which are current quarks along with (some of) their associated virtual quarks and gluons. Constituent quarks are NOT directly related to Constituent Models, though the mnp Model sees quarks as intrinsically recruiting and keeping what QCD calls gluons.

The term Constituent Model is chosen intentionally, since particles are seen as more or less cohesive collections of participants in a given region. Net movement is the net of each contribution. Fields are seen not as specific motions but the result of imbalances in the random potential offered by constituent(s) moving at c. Field-particle interactions may be as dependent on the particle constituent(s) as on the field constituent(s). The word Constituent is specifically intended as an analogue to politics. Particle and field behavior is seen as rather like voting; individuals have their own paths but the net or average of a vote determines an issue. The plural of constituent is shown here as constituent(s) to indicate that constituent(s) may be either discrete tiny entities as posited by the mnp Model, in which case the "plural" would be constituents or may be continuous, in which case the "plural" would be constituent.

Interpreting the Ψ function of a particle as the particle is not far removed from a Constituent Model. If influences on the electron are seen as influences on the Ψ function itself, this picture is even closer to being a Constituent Model. Add an expectation that influences on a Ψ function and changes in the Ψ function travel at most at the speed of light, and the interpretation has become a Constituent Model. This necessitates seeing the Ψ function as representing both the particle, our incomplete knowledge of the location and movement of that particle, and accumulated inaccuracies due to the mathematical formulation. The author suggests the Ψ function has infinite tails only as a way to make the mathematics tractable. So "finding" an electron at a location does not require infinite time in a Constituent Model based on the speed of light.

The mnp Model is an example to a Constituent Model.

Introduction

Seeing fermions as made up of charge structure and mediators traveling at c is, the author suggests, useful in particle dynamics. Remaining stationary requires that the constituent(s) be rotating internally in a mostly symmetric fashion. Movement involves a net direction to that internal movement. Slight asymmetries may lead to spin and chirality.

Seeing quarks, electrons, and positrons as having charge structure in six parts, is useful for understanding nucleons, weak interactions, high energy collisions, and Quantum Chromo Dynamics. This is one level of greater specificity in the mnp Model.

Seeing the charge structure of leptons as consisting of coiled loops, may be useful in explaining spin, strong nuclear force, van der Waals forces and Casimir effects, Abraham-Lorentz forces, and the quantization of charge. This is another level of even greater specificity in the mnp Model.

Seeing fields made up of mediators and, in the case of electrostatic fields, charged mediators, will be useful for dealing with fields and offers hope of integration with gravity.

Seeing photons and neutrinos as bundles of energy may be useful for handling a puzzle of how constituent(s) traveling at c, traditionally seen as perpendicular, could possibly yield entities traveling at c again in a perpendicular direction. This is a different level of specificity in the mnp Model.

Seeing gravitational fields as made up of gravitons or diffuse field effects moving at c allows gravity to be integrated into a Constituent Model. Seeing gravity as resulting from gravity fields/gravitons recruited and acting both approaching and leaving the mass allows conservation of mass. If the recruitment is in proportion to the directionality of a mass, then the field varies with the mass's movement and rotation. Seeing gravitons as moving at c and having a span of effect allows small scale effects and short term effect limits without concern for singularities. This is yet a different level of specificity in the mnp Model.

Seeing gravitational fields as made up of gravitons which are the same as the mediators that make up neutrinos, photons, and "gluons" traveling both directions toward and from the mass allows simplification of a model and perhaps more confidence that recruiting for all fields will be possible. This is a greater level of specificity in the mnp Model view of gravity which has led to a great deal of integration with matter and the other fields in the mnp Model.

Constituent Models are physical. Resorting to extra dimensions can be useful during model and mathematical development and useful as an investigation of limits, but the author would prefer to minimize hiding wherever possible.

The mnp Model sees the constituent(s) as discrete and equal effect and range of influence and therefore the same "size" and "mass." None of the Constituent Models need to adopt this view. In fact, the author could see a useful Constituent Model CMp just addressing particles, energy, mass, and particle interactions.

The mnp Model makes a number of interesting but unsubstantiated claims and speculations that a Constituent Model might well eschew. An example is the explanation of galactic dynamics and the Pioneer gravitational anomaly as gravitons recruiting each other when spaced far apart between masses that have been closer at a previous time in their history. The explanation of particle spin as resulting from coiled loop dynamics and chirality from the stranding of 6 coiled loops could be ignored even by a coiled loop Constituent Model CMcl.

So for now, the author has seven categories for specialization and is looking for further differentiation between the mnp Model and generic Constituent Models. The criteria for separation are fault lines in understanding and acceptance. If some physicists find A easier to accept than B, then separating the two concepts into separate categories or sub-categories of the Constituent Model is appropriate.

Table of Contents

Edit history: 2017-06-24 minor changes to Abstract and Conclusion, major rewrite of Momentum in Constituent Models and addition of Minor Comments.

Constituent Models - Specialization for Branches of Physics

Constituent Model Types
TypeModel Name
Particles have constituent(s) traveling at cCMp
Fermion charge comes in 6 parts, resulting in charges -1 -2/3 -1/3 0 1/3 2/3 and 1CM6
Fermion charge structure is 6 coiled loops of quantized length and "mass"CMcl
Fields have constituent(s) traveling at cCMf
Photons and neutrinos are particlesCMpp
Gravitational fields have constituent(s) traveling at cCMg
Gravitational fields share constituent types with other fieldsCMg1

Should Constituent Models and CM types ever warrant verbal discussion in public, the pronunciation "c Model" would also be reasonable.

Beyond Constituent Models

The mnp Model has been developed assuming discrete basic entities and makes a number of claims consistent with discrete basic entities, but a useful Constituent Model need not follow that path. Some of the claims made by the mnp Model include:

Beyond Constituent Models
Issue(s)Model
Gravitons attract oncoming gravitons, leading to greater coherence of gravitational fields in galactic arms at extremes of low gravity and greater attraction of between the sun and spacecraft leaving the solar systemmnp Model
Photons do not carry spin, but affect particle constituent(s) in ways that measure as spinmnp Model
A very small number of constituent(s) could explain all phenomenamnp Model
Space is not expandingmnp Model at its most extreme

Constituent Model - Particles

The constituent(s) of a particle at rest would be moving at c within the particle, logically moving perpendicular to any axis through the particle. If the particle could be destroyed, the momentum of the constituent(s) would total mc, the momentum squared m2 c2 and the energy mc2. The constituent(s) of a particle in motion would have net forward velocity v, with the rest of the motion logically perpendicular to v. If all constituent(s) of particle are moving at c and a constituent of a particle is moving at the average velocity v of that particle, then a component c*sqrt(1-v2/c2) of that constituent's movement must be moving within the particle logically perpendicular to the particle motion or at least in some circular fashion. In the limit, as the particle dimension goes to 0, constituent(s) must all be making progress at the same speed in the direction of the velocity. The larger the region in which the particle exists, the greater variation in the constituent(s)' vector at a given time and the greater the variation in forward component. Momentum of the bundle is the (only) way to talk about movement of the bundle. See Momentum in Constituent Models - Proof #1 and #2. In 3 space, if the constituent(s) in a cohesive region (called here a bundle) have a mass m and a net momentum mv-> then the bundle velocity is v-> Therefore the square of the total internal momentum not involved in bundle movement is m2(c2-v2) and the total internal momentum perpendicular to the direction of travel is m sqrt(c2-v2) and the net momentum perpendicular to the direction of travel is 0.

CMp sees the energy involved in movement as part of the particle, so acceleration can be seen as adding or subtracting energy to change the net velocity, applied to the totality of the particle at that particular velocity. That change in energy/mass must be applied to the entire particle.

Relativistic expressions become the only expressions for the m in F=ma. A Constituent Model for particles seems to fit well with the use of relativistic momentum in high energy particle physics.

Constituent(s) do not act like particles, they just move at c. Addition and averaging of constituent(s) do not require relativistic corrections, just as photons and neutrinos do not require velocity or mass corrections. Gravity to be treated later.

The author admits that seeing particles as made up of constituent(s) is probably the easiest concept to understand or accept. The going gets harder from here on.

Constituent Model - Charges Quantized at 1/6 Electron Charge

Experiment shows quite clearly that quarks have +-1/3 or +-2/3 of a full charge, electrons -1 and positrons +1, with no other possible values. The author proposes that the (only) uniform way to get this result is to have all possible combinations of 6 charges which can be positive or negative. This does result in the possibility of a 0 charge "small" lepton of 3 negative and 3 positive charges. The mnp Model calls this a z and suggests that z are involved in naked proton and nucleon decay and (paired) in spontaneous creation of electrons and positrons. The mnp Model has made no progress in suggesting the z's mass or masses.

Quantized charge can lead to understanding of nucleons, weak interactions (trading of charge material), high energy collisions (trading, rearranging, recruiting charge material), and Quantum Chromo Dynamics. Quarks are seen as attempting to trade charge material but unable to complete the interaction. For example, in a proton, two up quarks attempt to take the same positive charge material portion from a down quark and continue to do so as long as the charge material is quantized and moving at c.

Constituent Model - Coiled Loops as the Basis of Particles

Coiled loops are seen as useful in explaining

  • h/2 is the angular momentum in the one loop that must be present for the loops to complete and exist in real space
  • h is the angular momentum in two loops that must be removed if the electron is to expand into the simplest shells
  • spin results from coiled loops that can proceed either clockwise or counter clockwise in the direction of progress

At least in the mnp Model, if coils attract one another by the direction of their travel both in the direction and in the opposite direction as gravitons do, then explanations become possible for:

  • strong nuclear force
  • van der Waals forces and Casimir effects, Abraham-Lorentz forces
  • positrons and electrons interact if their spin is appropriate

Constituent Model - Fields

Electrostatic and gravitational fields have, classically, a logical point source and are linear in propagation and effect. Magnetic fields have a logical linear source and are planar in propagation and effect; they only redirect and do not change speeds in classical formulations.

Note that the words propagate and propagation are used as intransitive verb and noun form of movement respectively to describe the movement of constituent(s) at c in spreading and maintaining the field. This clearly contracts with the way quantum mechanics uses the different term propagator for the function or matrix that represents the probability amplitude of particle travel or travel with a particular energy and momentum.

Magnetic fields may be the easiest of the fields to be seen as made up of constituent(s). While charge is conserved, energy is used to create the field and affects the current. But first: Magnetic fields traditional description uses "Magnetic Lines of Force," which the author finds to be a terrible misnomer. "Magnetic Lines of Zero Force" seem much more appropriate. If the constituent(s) of the magnetic field are propagating from the line of current in all planes containing that line of current, the constituent(s) are able to affect moving charges in directions within that plane but not perpendicular to that plane. The author suggests that the difference between stationary charges and moving charges is that the constituent(s) of the moving charge have a net direction forward and that the magnetic field affects only this net direction, not the component of constituent movement rotating with the charge at c but net perpendicularly to the direction, and are unable to add energy to the particle.

Electrostatic fields do not diminish or increase charge over time, therefore the constituent(s) of the charge cannot provide the constituent(s) of the electrostatic field. The author suggests that potential for electrostatic fields must exist around the charge. The charge then recruits constituent(s) to form the field, in proportion to the magnitude of the charge. Since electrostatic fields have two directions, the field organized by a negative charge must point the opposite direction from that organized by a positive charge. The author also suggests that point charges are useful mathematical fictions and that recruitment may well require that charge has dimension.

Gravitational fields, which appear simple and uni-directional in concept and become complicated when interacting with matter, are treated separately below as CMg. The author suggests that mass concentrated at a point is a useful mathematical fiction, that recruitment requires dimension and surface area.

Electromagnetism is not easily treated as part of a Constituent Model without accepting photons and perhaps neutrinos as particles of energy, treated below as CMpp. The author admits he has not integrated the planar nature of magnetic fields back into his views of traditional electromagnetic radiation. He holds some small hope of headway in that direction.

Constituent Model - Photons and Neutrinos as Particles

The author suggests that if the constituent(s) act at c, that electrical and magnetic fields do not interact fast enough to create electromagnetic radiation propagating at c. The author suggests that as bundles of energy, they affect the field potential through which they travel to create attenuating oscillating fields. Non polarized particles such as neutrinos create deBroglie waves. In the case of photons which are polarized, this will lead to electrical and magnetic fields. Photons must be created by electron or positron shells and cannot be recruited by changing electrical fields, if the constituent(s) are traveling at c and not already formed. Diffraction and interference remains to be explained, but the current thought is that it occurs as electrons influenced by the coherent electromagnetic field redirect or absorb the photons.

Constituent Model - Gravitational Fields

If c is the maximum speed for everything, then models of gravitational fields fall into three categories: pure information, affective, and magic.

If gravity is pure information, then matter and electromagnetism "know what to do" when presented with gravitational information, as in General Relativity. If the model insists that matter does not have any part in responding to that information, then the author suggests the interpretation fits in the third realm, magic. Which is OK, magic is just that which we don't really understand yet. "It just works" is a powerful argument for any theory, and postponing investigation and decision is an effective and often appropriate strategy in science and in politics. If gravitational fields cause change in matter's clock, mass or apparent mass, and movement, then those gravitational fields have energy.

Pure information field models must offer some means for matter to affect the information, for information to affect matter, and either for information emanating from one mass to interact with that from other masses or for that information to propagate at c and superimpose perfectly without influence from other information and without its travel being influenced by gravity, which is in contrast to current theory that electromagnetic radiation and neutrinos are affected by gravity. Pure information models have the advantage of mass and energy conservation.

Affective models of gravity (for want of a better term and a better word than affective) see matter as creating gravitational fields to which matter then responds. These fields are seen as having energy that is provided to matter when affected by the field. Since conservation of mass and energy are experimental facts, four explanations can be enumerated.

Mass and time are "running out" at a universally coordinated rate so that the experience of mass and time remains constant Mass absorbs as much as it sends Mass sends only what it can recruit Mass recruits and responds to potential that exists independently and which recruits influence each other.

All possibilities other than the first see two way exchange, so that gravitational fields travel away from mass and toward mass so that masses are not reduced by emitting gravitons. The simplest explanation is that gravitons have the same effect whether they are moving toward or away from the nearest mass. An alternate, rejected by the mnp Model, is that gravitons are always assumed to be "pointing to where they came from." The difficulty with this directional model is that incoming gravitons must equal outgoing gravitons over a relatively short time since the masses are not emitting. The author suggests that gravitational fields are not recruited by static mass but by the directionality of that mass; if constituent(s) are moving more in one direction, that the gravitational field is skewed forward and backward based on the balance of constituent movement.

This constituent sub-model CMg is a different area of specificity in the mnp Model which sees gravitational fields as requiring recruitment rather than emission and as propagating at c. If that field is made up of basic entities, as suggested by the mnp Model, some string theories, and perhaps quantum loop gravity, those gravitons could be tiny, non polarized, and distinct from the basic entities that act as mediators of the other forces. The entities that constitute relativistic mass could be mediators, which could become photons when released by electron shells. Or relativistic mass could conceivably be the non polarized gravitons. The mnp Model posits a unification of gravitons and mediators, as follows.

Constituent Model - Gravitational Fields Unified with Other Mediators and Other Fields

Seeing gravitational fields as gravitons being mediators that have random orientation of polarity would seem to allow unification of mediators and gravitons. Simplicity, reduction in the need for the mass of two separate fields, and personal preference are the author's only reasons for preferring the reduction in mediator type count.

A challenge posed by this unification is that gravity works the same for all masses, where charges have sign electrostatic fields attract or repel. Therefore, the constituent(s) of a gravitational field are bi-directional while the constituent(s) of an electrostatic field are directional.

The mnp Model

The mnp Model can be seen as an extreme version of the seven (and counting) Constituent Models. The mnp Model attempts to radically simplify basic explanations. In doing so, it more than occasionally creates complicated three dimensional geometry. The mnp Model is NOT complete and NOT numerically satisfying at this time.

The mnp Model suggests that there are three basic entities, with two basic effects and one non-effect on overlap, that result in all particles and fields, that the basic entities that lead to charge bind tightly into stranded coils that provide the hidden structure for electrons, positrons, and quarks.

The mnp Model could be consistent with expanding space, but since the speed limit c is built into the foundation of the Model, nothing will be seen as exceeding c in a local region. The author claims the Model has higher ambitions for explanation, so is not conceding the expansion of space. Yet.

The mnp Model's approach to providing directional information in electrostatic fields using a single mediator is complicated. The mnp Model posits that electrostatic fields propagate slower than c. The mediators propagate perpendicular to the line toward the charge, with their polarity information pointing toward the negative charge and away from a positive charge. The basic entities that form charge are oriented and travel in the field in the direction toward the opposite charge and then are sent off from the charged particle at more oblique angles.

Constituent Models - Roadblocks to Acceptance

Constituent Models, even the most general particle only model CMp, all suffer a powerful roadblock to acceptance. They do offer hope of integration between small scale effects at a quantum level and large scale effects up to galactic dynamics. But they offer no hope of going back to special or general relativity as "virtual" or "apparent" theories. They offer no hope of relying on frames of reference, in the author's estimation, though reconciliation and explanation of why existing theories work well in appropriate conditions will necessarily follow development and will probably precede acceptance for Constituent Models - edited 2017-06-24. Particles are not seen as the same when they are moving as when they are in the never seen state called stationary.

Constituent Models must offer alternate explanations for experiment:

  • inertia
  • the two-way speed of light
  • time dilation
  • length contraction
  • gravitational time dilation
  • lack of time dilation due to rotational acceleration

and of course the currently unexplained

  • diffraction and interference
  • galactic dynamics

The author has every faith in physicists' ability to consider the impossible. Examples include "the only possible other explanation is sub-structure," those Theories of Everything that depend on an absolute frame of reference, "God does not play dice with the universe," the multiple universe models initially rejected and later seen as saving some theories, dark matter. Scientists' and theoreticians' ability to be honest is impressive though not quite universal. Still, the author has every expectation that the mnp Model will benefit for now from further obscurity. With a readership now into the low two digits...

The author is preparing to revise the now ancient 2012 "treatise" on the mnp Model and plans to codify the level of Constituent Model involved in the various discussions. So far, Constituent Models enumerates 7 sub-scripts: p, f, 6, cl, pp, g and g1. The author seeks a complete list. He would eventually like the Model to resemble a menu; to get an explanation for ____, certain levels of a Constituent Model must be posited... Some explanations or ideas may remain idiosyncratic to the mnp Model, and would be labeled as such. For example, the mnp Model is looking for alternate explanations of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and for the apparent expansion of space, but expect the Constituent Model to yield explanatory success in those areas.

Earth's Frame of Reference - For Reference

  • The Earth's gravity gives rise to the greatest component of the gravitational field experienced on earth.
  • The Earth is rotating on its axis, giving rise to the greatest component of angular momentum of large scale objects on earth.
  • The solar system is orbiting the galactic core, giving rise to 220 km/sec movement.
  • The solar system (not galaxy?) has a speed of 371 km/s in a co-moving reference frame toward Leo, somewhat near the plane of the ecliptic of the galaxy. This frame appears to be useful in studies of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

So, in models and theories that depend on an absolute frame of reference, Earth's labs have NEVER been stationary.

Singularities and Constituent Models

If a Constituent Model accepts that fermions and fields are made of constituent(s) traveling at c, the author suggests that no singularities can exist beyond perhaps the instant of initial creation of the universe. Any other local singularities have exceeding low probabilities and evaporate at, well, the speed of light.

The mnp Model and Natural Philosophy

This discussion of Constituent Models is part of an on-going attempt by the author to understand our understanding of natural phenomena, to examine the approaches to understanding, to understand where radical simplifications can take place and what the effects of those simplifications would be, and to provide ways to translate the experimental results and theoretical language of modern physics into a different Model.

It that translation is even moderately successful, explanations of why current theory works so well should prove interesting and even fruitful. Failure at that translation may still aid the understanding of physics and the universe.

Movement in Constituent Models - Proofs #1 and #2 - 2017-06-24

This development of a toy Constituent Model will address only movement of a "bundle" and the constituent(s) comprising said "bundle." It will not address charge or mechanisms for acceleration and will (usually) avoid the term particle for bundle.

The Constituent Model's need to model action within a bundle/particle is different from the mathematical needs of basic physics (though the momentum term will be familiar), high energy particle physics (though the momentum squared term may be familiar), quantum mechanics (Ψ2), and mechanics and statistical mechanics. The use of a momentum term to apply to constituent(s) is as non-standard as the concept of constituent(s). The following development of constituent and bundle velocity and velocity squared may (nay should) be reminiscent of other developments in physics, but will attempt to refer for validation or permission to experience and experiment rather than to other branches of physics.

The first question of interest in a Constituent Model is "where are the constituent(s) going within the particle." Such a model sees even those particles considered to be points as merely having dimension too small to be seen by current experiments. Mass is seen as merely an ability to influence and to resist being influenced. No assumptions are made about mass, except that it does not change for a given tiny constituent or a differential volume of constituent(s) at a given time.

Three concepts are useful:

  • Where and how fast are the constituent(s) and the aggregate bundle going?
  • How much motion are the constituent(s) exhibiting?
  • How much of that constituent motion is in the axis of bundle travel?

Momentum, mv, is a good measurement for the where and how fast question. Aggregate motion is a volume integral of differential mass times velocity. Absolute value of constituent(s) motion times mass is a good measure for the how much questions, but the square root of dot products is computationally inconvenient so the expedient of squaring the integral will be used.

Givens and Nomenclature:

  • an inertial frame with no fields
  • constituent(s) in a cohesive region (reminiscent of a particle), called here bundle b
  • total mass of constituent(s) in the region, called here m
  • constituent(s) differential of mass, called here dm
  • velocity of the constituent(s) in dm, called here prog
  • all constituent(s) move at the speed of light, c
  • direction of travel of the cohesive region, called here the x axis with no loss of generality
Since Constituent Models look directly at the constituent(s), no complex numbers are required. Complex numbers are required when processes and progress within a particle are occurring but are not measured outside the particle.

  • The total mass of the bundle is a volume integral: b∰ dm = m
  • The total momentum of the bundle is a volume integral: b∰ progdm dm = mv
  • The velocity of the bundle is the momentum volume integral divided by mass: b∰ progdm dm / m = v
  • When the bundle is at rest in the inertial frame, velocity and momentum are 0.
  • When the bundle is at rest in the inertial frame, the author suggests the absolute quantity (integrated over the volume of the bundle) of constituent(s) progress (sometimes called here absolute progress or absolute momentum) is b∰ abs(progdm) dm -or-
  • b∰ sqrt(progdm) dm -or- Shown using the components of prog:
  • b∰ sqrt((progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm
  • Working with square roots is a pain, so we will use the crude expedient of squaring the whole mess.
  • b∰ sqrt((progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm b∰ sqrt((progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm
  • Experimental results indicate moving particles such as electrons have no parts that are distinguishable. So recognize that m is independent of progress and progress does not depend on m so that the square roots can be gathered within one integral, leading to
  • b∰ (progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm b∰ dm

The result should be mc2m or m2c2 since the constituent(s) are moving at c. Note that for continuous rather than discrete constituent(s), the integral also implies integrating over all directions present in the differential of volume, treating the constituent(s)' directions rather as a tensor. Constituent(s) absolute momentum would be the square root of the result, or mc. Note that we cannot add the squared results directly to represent a particle.

What happens if constituent(s) are added to the bundle at rest, moving at c along the x axis? Call the amount of constituent(s) added md. If this is added to the bundle (and integrated in somehow so that it does not just escape the other side), m for the total bundle (called bt here) would become m0 + md (called mt here). One might think that the momentum added would be md c and the resulting velocity of the bundle md c/mt, but to integrate the added constituent(s) into the bundle, the total movement of all the constituent(s) at c must be taken into account.

Experimental results indicate moving particles such as electrons have no parts that are distinguishable. So movement within the moving bundle that does not result in net bundle movement is represented by

  • sqrt[ bt∰ ( (progdmx - v)2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm bt∰ dm] or
  • sqrt[ bt∰ ( (progdmx2 - 2 progdmxv + v2) + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm bt∰ dm ]
  • Note that since bt∰ progdmx dm is mtv -and-
  • bt∰ -2 progdmx v dm is (-2 mtv2) -and-
  • the integral of v2 dm is (mtv2) -then-
  • the integral of what the constituent(s) are doing in the moving frame of reference is
  • sqrt[ (bt∰ (progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm - bt∰ v2 dm ) bt∰ dm ]
  • The first integral is mtc2.
  • The second integral is mtv2.
  • So the resulting momentum is sqrt [ mt2(c2 - v2) ] -or-
  • mt sqrt (c2 - v2)

To express mt as a function of v and m0 requires some algebra and some physics (proto-physics? pseudo-physics?). The total (absolute) momentum of constituent(s) in the moving bundle is mt c, so the momentum seen outside the bundle is

  • mt( c - sqrt (c2 - v2 ))
  • The momentum imparted by md is mdc
  • which since md = mt - m0
  • can be written as (mt - m0)c.

The before and after momenta are equal. The results are very interesting:

  • mt( c - sqrt (c2 - v2 )) = (mt - m0)c
  • m0c = mt sqrt (c2 - v2 )
  • mt = m0 c / sqrt (c2 - v2 )
  • mt = m0 / sqrt (1 - v2 / c2 )

Surprise! Er, QED, though the author did not fess up to that intention to start. A Constituent Model where particles and energy are made up of constituent(s) moving at c yields the familiar gamma and familiar mass of a moving particle.

Let us look back at the (square of the) absolute momentum of the bundle in the moving frame:

  • sqrt[ (bt∰ (progdmx2 + progdmy2 + progdmz2) dm - bt∰ v2 dm ) bt∰ dm ] -or-
  • mt sqrt(c2 - v2) -or- written in terms of m0
  • [ m0 / sqrt (1 - v2 / c2) ] sqrt(c2 - v2) -or-
  • m0 c sqrt(1 - v2 / c2) / sqrt (1 - v2 / c2) -or-
  • m0c

So the absolute momentum of the constituent(s) of a moving particle within that moving frame is identical to the absolute momentum of the constituent(s) of a stationary particle within that stationary frame. Again, surprise. Er, QED.

The author humbly suggests that Constituent Models with all of the stationary or moving particle's constituent(s) moving at c is in fact viable and interesting.

Minor Comments After Momentous Conclusion - 2017-06-24

Apologies for the pun.

The author suggests that adding constituent(s) askew to the direction of travel might contribute to a new direction of travel, but only that portion aligned with the new direction of travel will be incorporated into the bundle with its new momentum.

If constituent(s)/energy could be directly "added" opposite the direction of the bundle's movement, the momentum will go down and the mass that can stay with the bundle goes down so the "added" energy plus that much again will be released probably in random directions unless the bundle is an electron shell. If the energy stayed with the bundle, experiment would show that bundles aka particles constantly gained mass. Experiment shows particles seem to be themselves and to be identical when traveling at the same speed in a frame of reference.

In like manner, if energy is added at an angle to the bundle's movement, the momentum will change in magnitude and direction and the total mass/energy of the bundle's constituent(s) will adjust for the magnitude of the new velocity.

Note that this discussion of bundles and internal momentum applies to particles and not to fields. Fields are seen as (except for electro-static fields) propagating at c, with none of the effectively circular motions required by particles to exist at sub-luminal velocities. So field constituent(s) interact only by affecting angles rather than conserving quantities in Cartesian components.

Conclusion - edited 2017-06-24

The author has submitted Constituent Model as a term for a set of generic approaches to modeling particles and fields and forces in physics, with a few specific sub-models.

With all constituent(s) moving at c, the concepts of rest mass and the gamma correction for moving mass are seen as growing organically out of the Model.

The author's mnp Model is an example of a specific Constituent Model using discrete tiny constituent(s) of three types interacting in three ways over very short distances. Whether "anyone else is thinking like this" remains to be determined, developed, and perhaps recruited. The author concedes Constituent Models are probably more interesting to many potential contributors.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 28, 2017

Principles of Movement in the mnp Model

Abstract

The last year and a half of work and benign neglect on the mnp Model has yielded some minor understandings, some major roadblocks, some few conclusions based on those roadblocks, and to the author's continuing dismay, yet more explanations at odds with current models.

An investigation of the annihilation of electrons and positrons offers some understanding of gamma rays, though the suggestions that 3.4K radiation may result is currently not persuasive. A Principle of Equal Effect emerges from the introspection about electron movement and electron shells. The author finally admits that movement by the basic entities in coils requires redirection somewhat more than v/c.

Introduction

The mnp Model is an attempt to explain the universe from a small set of first principles. The most fundamental of those principles: that everything is made up of entities moving at c. The goal of the author is to develop and explain the Model. He has no illusions about being persuasive.

No blog posts in a year and a half of collecting ideas, thoughts, and thought fragments means that everything seems new, everything seems old, nothing has been written, and everything has been written. Readers, bots, silicon, and electrons please bear with me.

The Principle of Least Astonishment is a useful design guide. It has worked well for the author in architecture, in architecting computer programs in and documentation. Violations are warranted only when useful or, rarely, dramatic. Unfortunately, no comprehensive model of the universe will avoid astonishing physicists. A model such as mnp, that tries to get below the descriptive mathematics so effective in modeling and predicting in modern physics to posit an underlying simplicity, appears guaranteed to astonish even more. The author does suggest that the approach "what would it take for this simplicity to work and to explain" seems to offer promise as well as a tour through the process of natural philosophy.

The geometry of six stranded loops, coiled, that has emerged as the structure of electrons, positrons, and quarks in the mnp Model, allows a number of conceptual flexibilities consistent with quantum mechanics and observed reactions and offers a fundamental integration of gravity with the other forces. The electron can spread though not infinitely, can change shape, has a large scale coiling consistent with spin and a smaller scale twisting that may be consistent with chirality, is quantized with respect to charge and mass and energy and shell shape but not velocity. Leptons can be recombined with other leptons into charges of 0, +-1/3, +-2/3, and +-1 but no others. Mass is not a property of the basic entities but emerges from their influence and ability to be influenced.

Table of Contents

Changes From Previous mnp Model Conventions and Terminology

Notes for those few regular readers of the mnp Model blog: The author is choosing to consider and draw the "Axis" of basic entity n's as opposite to the direction of "Travel" where the basic entity p's that make up positively charged matter have the "Axis" positive with the direction of "Travel." This yields better consistency with the convention that electrons are negatively charged.

The author is looking for good phrases for coil "direction" and for strand twist. Since the coils and strands are made up of basic entities moving at c, coils and strands always have an underlying direction. Coils essentially form a (joined to self) helix. So helix geometry is a useful starting point, though the author specifically disavows the term chirality for coil direction as used for coiled springs and helixes. Spin also is disavowed as useful for talking about coil and strand geometry and saved for discussions using the traditional mathematical meanings with respect to elementary particle behavior (though the mnp Model suggests that spin remains in ALL coordinate systems even after a determination about one axis has been made.) For consistency with helical geometry, coil direction can be right handed (thumb along the axis of direction of progress of the coil, with fingers along the progress of the coil itself) and left handed. Strand twist in like manner can be right handed or left handed, in keeping with rope and wire rope terminology. Terms lay and laid will not be used.

Side note: the "spin" ascribed to photons is only a measure of the effect the photons have on electron shells which by their coiled nature accept photons by uncoiling and hence changing spin. Just in case you, dear reader, were thinking about going along for the ride and hoping to finish a paragraph without controversy.

[Drawings of coiling and twist] [Lay of the rope]

Some basic "mnp Model think" will help examining the electron motion, shell, and other properties. Each tiny basic entity will exert (up to) maximum influence on the entities in its region of influence. Each tiny basic entity will receive (up to) the maximum influence on it, meaning that there is a tiny minimum radius for each entity's travel, meaning that there is a minimum radius for the coils of charge material that form the structure of matter. If those coils are larger than the minimum, the coils will influence mediators (or perhaps loose charge material basic entities for short periods of time) to join the coils, increasing their mass but not their charge.

Nascent thought regarding mnp Model geometry When two basic entities are "too close" or virtually coincident and traveling the same direction, mnp suggests that one of them receives no influence and so may continue straight for a while. When coils interfere too much with reach other, that may lead to lengthening just based on not receiving influence rather than on any "stiffness" heretofore hypothesized. So "stiffness" may just be a geometric result.

Electron-positron annihilation, movement, magnetic fields, and the nature of muons are discussed in this post, with few conclusions.

Reference Frames

The mnp Model shares with many Theories of Everything the need for a universal or cosmic reference frame. An investigation of that frame and the energies involved in movement will prove useful to a number of the discussions in this blog post.

Earth or satellite labs are rotating around the Earth's axis, around the sun, around the galactic core, may be moving compared to nearby galaxies, and might be moving compared to distant galaxies. This last is presumed to be negligible by modern cosmology. The table of speeds, fraction of the speed of light, and the v^2/(2c^2) first term of the Taylor series of the dilation/compression factor shows how very low the rotation and solar orbit are compared to galactic rotation.

Earth Speeds as a Fraction of c and Corresponding Relativistic Factor
MotionSpeed (km/s)Fraction of cDilation factor
Equatorial speed of Earth's spin.45621.55x10^-61.2X10^-12
Average speed of Rotation around the Sun29.789.9e-54.9e-9
Speed of Rotation around galactic core2207.3e-42.69e-7
Speed toward (some galaxy or star in) constellation Leo3781.24E‑37.65e-7

Variations due to the speed of Earth's spin at a given spot on Earth is approximately proportional to the (absolute value of the) sin of the latitude. The Earth's rotation around the sun varies by 3.4% from closest to furthest for a relatively circular orbit. Both variations are small compared to galactic rotation.

Galactic rotation is by far the largest speed of the first three Calculations. Using the "co-moving cosmic frame of reference" with the Cosmic Microwave Background calculations seems to "work out". Daily or yearly variations are much less than those that unfold over 150 million years. Apparently current consensus in cosmology is that the galaxies are not rushing away from each other by movement, but by expansion of the underlying space. If movement between galaxies is ignored, there is essentially no variation in speed during galaxy rotation. If movement between galaxies is significant, then large but subtle variations in speed occur over the course of 150 million years and the author would suggest interesting differences in clocks, Earth magnetism, solar activity, climate, and asteroid behavior might result. Diurnal and seasonal variations are seen as insignificant in velocity. Angular momentum should be added to the table; highest will be that due to the Earth's rotation which is seen in the mnp Model as leading to particle preference for left handed spin.

Movement in the mnp Model

A discussion of movement in the mnp Model will provide background for the discussion or energy release from particle collision and annihilation.

A physical model of the twisting that must occur in same length loops is the effort needed to "fold" a round sun shade or baseball backstop into thirds. The flexible but stiff circle becomes 1/3 its size if twisted at the 4 o'clock and 8'o'clock positions. The mnp Model does not follow this demonstration exactly; energy as added to uncoil, since the coils are naturally at their smallest and change requires that they expand. Strands can pass through themselves.

The coiled strand structure of electrons provides an easy image of paired uncoiling as the mechanism for electron shell expansion, with h representing the change in coil angular momentum. Plank constant h/2 represents the intrinsic odd number of coils required to complete the loop, though the angular momentum is a reduction in the natural coiling of the constituents moving at c, subtracted rather than being added. The author has been assuming that movement/velocity also requires uncoiling and therefore movement would be quantized. He now considers that a mistake, that movement may involve redirection of the coils and the basic entities in the coils but does not change coil count.

One of the first drawings of the new mnp Model showed a ring moving at c in a plane perpendicular to the direction of travel. On of the first successes was seeing the basic entity direction in the ring as offset by v in the direction of travel, with the time required for a basic entity to get back to its original position offset by the particle motion as proportional to 1/square root(1-v^2/c^2). The basic entities had 1/square root( ) less influence on each other and might be available to recruit mediators in that proportion. This suggested that mass would increase for moving rings in a like proportion.

Axis Travel m n Axis Travel m p

1) Basic Entity Travel Around a Ring/Coil at "Low" Particle Velocity for n's and p's
From blog post On Movement

The very early attempt to see the basis for matter as rings that attracted each other did not travel well. Nothing hung together when it moved, hence the coil model.

Modeling movement as coils is simplified to collections of rings at different orientations, with a different perhaps sinusoidal or elliptical distribution of ring orientations. The modeling has not yet been satisfying. The author would like to see, for inertial movement, uniform orientation of the basic entities within the coils leading to inertial movement.

Enumerating the parameters or variations available to coiled loops may be useful.

  • Coil radius (or effective radius of the curvature of the strand making up the coil) hence number of coils.
  • More important than the absolute number of coils is the relative number of coils. Uncoiling by two to allow the folding and unfolding needed to keep travel distances the same. pitch of the coils,
  • Attack of the coils that is the relative "out of line" ness of the basic entities compared to the static coil center line,
  • Rotation of the coils themselves with respect to the static coil center line, rotation of the filaments in the strand. Variation may allow redirection of the next coil as in turning points in complicated shells.
  • Coil overlap leading to longer coil circumference due to straight line travel in areas of overlap single filament coil radius may be a little smaller than strand coils, allowing a filament separated from its strand to make a sharper turn or correction
  • Range of influence of the mediators attracted to strands and filaments; a suggestion of how much leeway strands coils and filaments have before recruited mediators leave the electron. The range of influence might be less than the radius of coil curvature.
  • Each of the six loops travels exactly the same distance in the time of one complete loop traversal. If not, the filament loops will be changing their relationship with each completion of the loop. Possible, just unattractive as a theory since difficulties of formation and differences between electrons would result.

Basic entities cannot change direction faster than some minimum radius, so variation is only possible above that radius.

Movement: if all angles are constant in each ring/coil then rings with axis parallel to the direction of travel will move quickly to the front of the whole quicker than coils/rings at any other orientation. As of 2017-04-28 0900: Actually, if a constant angle to the coil plane is applied, the particle as a whole MUST be moving slower, since the ring with axis parallel to velocity makes the MOST progress in a cycle.

Rings and coils with axis perpendicular to the line of travel make no forward progress and may be "selected" out of the whole almost entirely. Hence there WILL be differential movement. an electron will not be internally static. In fact, to the author's dismay, it appears that coil movement will be chaotic if the angle of movement is pretty much the same over the entire electron

Nearby coils at differing orientations may have mutual influence so that angles in each ring/coil can vary. Much of the author's thinking is 2.5 dimensional. That may not be adequate to approach a useful result. Looking at movement issues in three dimensions will be necessary. May need to look at this in three dimensions. As speed increases, the distribution of ring orientations change. Orientations that lead to basic entities moving backward become increasingly rare. The distribution may be sinusoidal or elliptical or ...

Some orientations with coils in the plane of travel are NOT good candidates for a given velocity, since the forward part of the coil will fall behind within the particle since it cannot travel faster than c. What reorientation is required? and what re-orientation is required to get a proper er sin distribution of the coils

Could particles move essentially with mostly coils perpendicular to travel with a relatively few "course corrections," almost as a collection of connected columns? This would not behave well for electron shells in moving particles...

Movement - Path to Resolution?

As of 2017-04-28 at 2200 PDT, the author admits to embarrassment at how long he stuck with the v/c inclination of the basic entities in a coil. Since honest application of functional analysis or limit theory would have made it quite clear that a higher inclination is needed at low speeds, the chagrin is warranted though cognitive dissonance theory would suggest such behavior is human. Back from this digression into natural philosophy (the study of how humans organize themselves to experience, experiment, and understand the natural world) to limit checks. Approaching c will allow approaching inclination 90 degrees to the coils, so the math will approach the proper asymptote with all coils approaching perpendicular to travel and all basic entities approaching c in the limit. The author is not ready to concede that the expression for time dilation is not quite 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) but reserves the right to come to that conclusion.

The author has found no simple geometric change that leads to organized patterns of the coils and is about to conclude that motion involves a somewhat chaotic movement of the coils rather than a smooth pattern that can be drawn. Coils affect adjacent coils as well as themselves, and at present the author is left with the rudiments of what he calls "constituent theory" and relativistic momentum. And the need to calculate. And acceptance that movement and inertia will not be as pretty as hoped.

Electron Movement Symmetry

Do moving electrons need to exhibit radial symmetry around the axis of movement or is quadrant symmetry going and coming enough? Can overall rotation of the electron be ignored? The author suspects regular rotation would be noticed and measurable, so for now the mnp Model and constituent models need practically radial symmetry or sector balance in coil geometry.

Mediator Behavior With Coils - Relativistic Mass

An enumeration of the possibilities for mediator behavior with the coils is useful. This list is incomplete.
  • Trying to catch up
  • constant low level replenishment
  • unevenness in the unfolding leading to a direction
  • evenly distributed along the coil, with the mediators also attracting each other to stay integrated if small variations in coil influence occurs over short distances

Thoughts on Mediators Recruited By Moving Particles

  • Given the observed relativistic masses, the coils must be attracting mediators.
  • Could it be n's that are recruited for increased mass...no because the charge would get greater. Or does it in some small proportion?
  • Movement maintains itself - do the m's drag the n's? Seems to work the same no matter how spread the shell is
  • In moving does the electron need to replenish or does it truly bind the m's - in truly interstellar or intergalactic space it makes a difference
  • Travel in deep space is believed to be consistent, so the coils would not be losing mediators unless exposed to a force.

Notes on the Rejection of Quantized Movement

A number of questions lead to the demise of the "movement requires coil count change."

  • 1) Expanding in shells holds much higher energy than some basic single quantum of movement energy; how does losing two coils in each case lead to such different results?
  • 2) What direction do coils progress? Along the axis of the coil, or in the plane of the coil by overlap by which basic entities in the same location with the same direction receive only as much influence as possible in that region, leading one to continue essentially straight through that region. This planar movement seems fraught with variation.
  • 3) Movement maintains itself. How?
  • 4) Movement seems to work the same no matter how spread the shell is. Changing coil counts and evening out the movement would seem to take time and lead to jerky changes in velocity. Ideally the geometry of the change would be spread uniformly across the entire coil.
  • 5) Does the recruitment of mediators (m's) drag in the free basic entities of charge (ns)? with the moving electron? The basic entity n's are needed for electrostatic fields, but moving electrons do not seem to increase in charge.
  • 6) How and where does coil unwinding on movementalign with or explain Quantum Field Theory - Particles, particle shells, and particle interactions seem to be the focus of QFT shows where I am in understanding and experience with quantum field theory.
  • 7) Might folding in and out lose spin direction?

Electron Shells

Electrons are not point particles that orbit but are coiled loops of basic entities continually moving around the nucleus in the mnp Model. The shell can be thought of as an approximate rather than a true surface. The continuous loop of coils is rather like the "powerful dishwashing metal scouring pads" available on-line and at grocery stores. or a continuous end-joined slinky. Note that the basic entities can cross or go "though" each other.

The net movement of a basic entity across the shell is not at c but at c * pitch divided by 2 pi times the radius of the coils of basic entities that provide the structure of the electron. Field effects are mediated/caused by basic entities called m's and perhaps by the basic entities of charge. Field effects may propagate across the shell at c.

Thoughts: An electron in "a shell" around a nucleus has as uniform as possible a change in relative positions between basic entities in forming the appearance of a shell for the coil. [To be proven mathematically. That might be fun.] If a change in coil direction and entity orientation in the coil is sharp, mediators are expected to be emitted. In electron shells, that emission would be seen. Side note: in the mnp picture that replaces Quantum Chromodynamics, sharp changes in orientation or coil curvature is expected to free basic entities that would then be trapped in the larger nucleon. The "folding in 3-d" should be similar to the Hall Fractional Effect, with each logical folding actually a smooth effect. As with all quantum phenomena, the shell and folds will be probabilistic. The differences in what it takes to actually fold electron shells may lead to subtle differences in the energy of various shell configurations. Ideally, after the mnp Model is tuned, the resulting predictions about measured potentials will match experiment. The goal is that the mnp Model to NOT be an infinitely tunable system.

Spin is not the twist itself but the twist expressed in coils. Er, I better understand that. Even if constant angle in coils does not work, the investigation will be useful. Electrostatic field potential from the nucleus as affecting and affecting the complicated shells will also be interesting, though the author is reluctant to see variation in mediator recruitment along the length of the stranded loops. Perhaps constant "angle of attack" with variation in pitch and perhaps radius might produce the shell shapes needed by experimental reality.

Check whether the shell energy translates back to a reasonable angle to basic entity to coil, as if all the energy available when the shell collapses is already in the shell and not nearby and recruit-able with enough time. Determine what pitch is needed with the coils in a shell to meet that energy storage.

Note that the electron in a shell is pushed out by the electrostatic field from the nucleus rather than moving independently on motion. Even from a single proton, the field may be stronger than required to keep the electron out in a shell, as long as the field is not strong enough to push the electron into the second shell.

If an electron is stripped from a shell, it must retain the energy/mass of m's that allow it to move. This seems like it will require careful tuning to separate the m's that take part in shell expansion from those that take part in its velocity

Hall Fractional Effect

Geometry and coiled loops help with possible explanations for the Hall Fractional Effect. The author, of course, would like to minimize the course corrections by the coils as needed to explain the fractional effect. The same issues as with electron shells apply. The author hopes to avoid losing mediators in one portion of the shell and gaining mediators in another unless required by the electrostatic and/or magnetic fields forming the Hall Effect shape. Therefore, kinks in the coils - even if evenly spaced - are deprecated unless the kinks are subtle reorientation or twist or skew of the strand similar to that which may be required in lobed electron shells. Geometry: if the denominator is 2, the electron is essentially planar and the two halves interfere with each other and the magnetic field, which is why Hall Fractional Effect denominators must be greater than two. If the changes in coil and strand direction are minimized, then the denominator may well need to be an integer. If the changes in coil and strand direction can be random, then there is no need for an integer number of divisions and an integer denominator. Experiment seems to rule out random variation.

Note that in the mnp Model and any Theory of Everything relying on a universal rest frame, the lab IS moving.

Spin Reversal

The easiest means of reversing the spin of an electron is to turn the electron shell inside out over a nucleus or for an electron to become free and then be captured by a nucleus so that it has a (less than?) 50% chance of reversing the progression of the coils. Would be interesting if the energy to do that reversal were anything related to muon energies.

Casimir Effect

Two uncharged plates in a vacuum, a few nanometers apart, either attract or repulse depending on the physical configuration. The author suggests that the Casimir effect is the surface (but remember that a moving surface of coils is not in an exact location) attraction of electron's coils by alignment of Travel and Axis. At 10nm or 100 atoms the pressure is significant (1 atmosphere) The author has nothing to say about how and when the plates would repulse, though it appears that repulse effects are rare and require liquids or anisotropic electrical materials. Perhaps if the coils in electron shells spend more time moving outward (at an angle) than returning (more perpendicularly) to the surface, the repulsion would occur. Or the coils spend more time moving back after moving outward (more perpendicularly) to the surface.

Principle of Equal Effect

This collection of thoughts on electrons leads the author to enunciate a guiding principle in understanding coils. The charge material structure in the stranded loop of an electron exerts equal effect on the recruited mediators along the length of the loop, within necessary "error bars" in which the recruited mediators influence each other to remain with the stranded loop. A corollary is that the strand will influence itself equally along its length, again within the same error bars.

Electrons meet Positrons

The mnp Model pictures a stationary electron as 6 quantized loops of negative charge material. Movement recruits (and depends on) mediators in the proportion 1/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), polarized with charge Axis toward the center of each coil. The twisting of the 6 loops may also recruit mediators. An electron meeting a positron of the opposite coiling direction at low or parallel speeds may unravel the entire strands, with the twelve loops forming the ionizing portion of gamma rays. The mediators recruited by movement may be released as a polarized bundle of energy, called a fhoton in the mnp Model to distinguish from the multiple meanings of photon in current physics usage. Additional energy recruited by strand twist may be released with the movement energy. If the energy is released as an unpolarized bundle of energy in one direction, a neutrino results. If the mediators are released while still polarized before the coils of charge material unravel, classic photons result. If the energy is released in many directions during or after unraveling, disorganized and unquantized mediators are released as energy.

The single loose loops are expected to be unable to retain mediators and hence do not retain momentum and so after a short time are expected to become stationary in the universal frame. So the author expects ALL energy of movement to be released. The loops might soon essentially disappear except gravitationally. The mass/energy released will be that held by the velocity of the particles and perhaps a small amount of energy bound with the twisting of the loops. Telling those three types of energy and potential apart seems difficult experimentally. If the interaction is at high speed, since ALL the mass/energy recruited by the coils is released, the fhotons released may be quite energetic. When a proton and anti-proton meet, all the extra energy/mass/mediator recruited by the proton and anti-proton will be released. That energy release represents most of the mass of the nucleons. The 36 coils of charge structure (6 per quark time 6 quarks) will disappear or become available for electron and positron formation. For an isolated annihilation of proton and anti-proton, 3 electrons and 3 positrons would be a maximum result. The mnp Model allows that, if 6 strands of negative material find each other then an electron would result, and if 6 strands of positive material find each other a positron would result. The mnp Model does not insist that electrons and positrons be created at the same time. The mnp Model suggests the appearance of the particle will occur (time)x 220 to 337 km/s away

This suggests that the mnp Model would see the center of the spontaneous generation of electron and positron as receding at least 220km/sec +- 30km/sec from the position of the annihilation. The details of how loose loops are influenced by static charge fields, gravity, and magnetism is not worked out. The author suspects that since matter has tight coils that are organized and balanced (modulo movement) with each coil being influenced by the divergence of the field, matter is much is more influenced by those three macro forces than loose loops are.

The author does not hold much hope that careful experimentation at different times of the day on earth, at different velocities, at different seasons, at different positions in the galactic orbit (taking 150 million years...) would yield different energies. Further speculation - if electron and positron formation differ spatially, that formation occurs/is centered where the lab frame was at the time of the interaction, giving a hint as to the lab frame absolute velocity. Mark this paragraph a wild speculation.

Musings on Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

CMBR may represent the energy stored in a 6 strand so when positrons and electrons annihilate at low speeds they give off 2 fhotons of the expected energy. This is the most economical explanation of the CMBR phenomenon in the mnp Model. Variation due to distant masses at the time the radiation passed them is reasonable, since annihilation was probably more common in the early universe. Annihilation continues, so somewhat greater uniformity would be expected.

Magnitude checks are appropriate.

Electron Properties
QuantityValueUnits
electron energy0.511MeV/c^2
electron energy (j) mc^28.199E‑14Kg m^2/s^2
electron mass9.11E‑31kg


Electron Properties When Moving
Co-Moving frame speed371km/second
Energy in comoving frame3.90747953771253E‑07MeV/c^2
6.26955474084823E‑20Kg m^2/s^2
Relativistic mass added by comoving6.96617193414397E‑37kg
Energy in relativistic mass6.26955474072958E‑20eVs
Wavelength c/f3.17059359741879E‑06m
Frequency E=hf9.46E+13per second
Galactic Rotation Frame speed220km/sec
Energy in galactic rotation frame1.37402277666787E‑07MeV/c^2
2.20462088930249E‑20eVs
Relativistic mass added by galactic rotation2.44957876468627E‑37kg
Energy in relativistic mass2.20462088821765E‑20eVs
Wavelength c/f9.01661152557124E‑06m
Frequency E=hf3.33E+13per second

CMBR Peak Radiation
Wavelength.001818m
Frequency1.65e+111/sec
Energy1.09333e-22Jsec or Kg m^2/s^2
Energy6.82e-4eVs

Photons in the CMBR average one two hundredth the energy required for an electron to gain or lose 220 km/sed and one six hundredth the energy required for an electron to gain or lose 371 km/sec. Therefore, a "CMBR results from positron-electron annihilation" explanation requires some assumptions;

  • 1) The energy of twisting is released in polarized form.
  • - And -, to account for the very close to blackbody radiation spectrum of the CMBR, either
  • 2a) The extra energy of motion released with twisting energy applies only to the energy of twisting. The energy of motion of the loops of charge material themselves is released separately.
  • - Or -
  • 2b) most of the electron positron annihilation that contributes to the Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background occurs at low speed in free space, where radiation will not be absorbed. The energy of motion of the loops may still need to be released separately.

Even the author does not see the this CMBR hypothesis as convincing.

Muons in the mnp Model

Muons are heavy electrons, uniform in structure to the degree we can determine experimentally, and not made of any other parts. They behave like electrons, and can "orbit" a positive nucleus albeit closer to that nucleus.

The mnp Model has a number of possible descriptions of muons that correspond. The author seeks the simplest explanation.

  • 1) A muon is just an electron with an extra full twist to the half twist of the six electron strands. This makes the 6-strand "stiffer" so that it does not curve so tightly, which leads to recruitment of m's hence additional mass. This would mean that, in empty space, a muon will almost NEVER decay to an electron plus an electron positron pair since there will not often be 12 loose loops to recruit. In a soup of destroyed particles as in a collider, the probability of 3 particle results increases greatly but still requires recruitment of loops. If a muon has some measured or mathematical symmetry at 240 degrees (as an electron has a symmetry at 720 degrees) this explanation becomes more likely. If tau's have some measured or mathematical symmetry at 144 degrees, this suggests that they have 2 and a half twists of the basic charge material. The half twist of the strand in electrons is due to equal travel distance for each of the six filaments/loops in the twisted strand. One of the sources of muon instability in suggestion 1 is expected to be the extra twist, and the two extra twists with compensatory separation is expected to be an even greater source of tau instability.
  • 2) Er, the electron has one full twist so the muon needs two or is it three. A full twist in the electron is not seen as consistent with the need for travel distance in each of the six loops to be the same.
  • 3) Er, one twist one way and two twists the other
  • 4) Muons have extra loops of charge material, either 9 negative and 3 positive or 12 negative and 6 positive. This would STILL require recruitment of loose loops in the 2 electron 1 positron result. The extra strands should make the muon coils MUCH stiffer than a quark, so that the author would expect a particle with 12 strands to be VERY massive.
  • 5) Muons have 12 negative and 6 positive loops. The author would expect this configuration to be WAY more massive than the simple quarks, and the 2 electron 1 positron result more common in all situations than observed in colliders.
  • 6) The six stranded loops are twisted in both directions at various portions of the loop length. Harder to picture, with all cross-section and recruitment difficulties of the first alternative.
  • 7) More than one extra twist is needed, based on some aspect of spherical geometry, Bernoulli numbers, or other magic.

The author is still speculating on what anomaly might be seen in the high speed collision of muons at 90 degrees. His best guess so far is that at high (near c) speeds, the charge material in each muon (or electron) would see essentially no attraction either by charge Axis or Travel direction so they would simply pass each other. Contrary to the 0 magnetic attraction between the muons, the author would expect to see particles near c widen and flatten less than predicted by relativistic length contraction and so interact more than expected. If the mediators/mass/m's somehow get polarized or organized with their charge axis perpendicular to the coils away from the expected "toward the center of their coil" then mass may be pulled off of each muon, leading to earlier decay. How the Axis of the mediators arranges in electrons in motion or electrons in shells is not determined beyond the "toward or away from the plane of the coils"

Question for experiment: Does the cross sections of collisions depend on a minimal density of other stuff or constituents and loops around, so that in more sparse environments collisions of muons never create 2 electrons and a positron? Other than citing past experiments with varying particle densities, this will not be easy to resolve. Providing an oblate testing and measurement chamber, with careful monitoring of season and time of day and location on Earth, might suffice.

Tau in the mnp Model

Taus are extremely heavy electrons, very short lived, and apparently uniform in structure to the degree we can determine experimentally, and not made of any other parts.

The mnp Model's descriptions of taus follow the posibilities for muons. The explanation for tau can wait for better understanding of muons.

  • 1) A tau is just an electron with two extra full twists to the half twist of the six electron strands. This makes the 6-strand much "stiffer" so that it does not curve so tightly, which leads to recruitment of m's hence additional mass. This recruitment may not be linear, but may increase with increased recruitment, that is, the basic entities recruited may influence the charge structure to even more opening of the coils of the tau. If tau's have some measured or mathematical symmetry at 144 degrees, this suggests that they have 2 and a half twists in the basic charge material.
  • 2) Five full twists to go with 1 for electrons and 3 for muons.
  • 3) Er, five twists, alternating in direction
  • 4) Taus have even more extra loops of charge material, a total of 12 negative and 6 positive or 15 negative and 9 positive.
  • 5) Taus have 18 negative and 12 positive loops. The author would expect this configuration to be WAY more massive than the simple quarks, and the 2 electron 1 positron result more common in all situations than observed in colliders.
  • 6) The six stranded loops are twisted in both directions multiple times at various portions of the loop length. Harder to picture, with all cross-section and recruitment difficulties of the first alternative.
  • 7) More than two or four extra twists are needed, based on some aspect of spherical geometry, Bernoulli numbers, or other magic.

Electro-Magnetism

The mnp Model still has not explained diffraction and interference. One line of experimental thought is to determine what coherence is needed for current experiments. Indeed, the mnp Model needs to decide what coherence IS. If photons can be generated or disturbed to be out of phase with previous photons, do the same experimental results apply? Is the disturbance absolute yes/no or probabilistic? Is an in-phase photon with 1/3 or 3 times the energy of the photons creating the field also diffracted albeit less? If photons out of phase or sending a photon across the diffraction or interference region between photons disturbs diffraction and interference effects, that argues in favor of "guide field" models like mnp. The author is aware that greater minds have been unable to use guide fields to explain current diffraction/interference experiments.

Background on the Energy in Photons

The mnp Model sees electro-magnetic radiation as made up of gatherings of mediators, all with the same polarity (called Axis orientation), with the electric and magnetic fields the result of that energy moving through the random potential of mediators and negative and positive basic entities. These fields are seen as attenuating after the passage of the energy, called a fhoton in the mnp Model. The name is based on figments, the alternate name for the basic entities in the mnp Model, forming a photon.

Recruiting Photons

Since the mnp Model sees the constituents of everything as traveling at c, the author sees getting enough energy concentrated in one location moving in one direction to form a fhoton under the influence of changing magnetic or electric fields as unlikely. That fhotons of all sizes and directions are available to be recruited seems highly unlikely. The fhoton does not arise from the changing magnetic field away from the electrons along the conductor, but must be released full size by the moving/changing electrons or by positrons or nucleons in a tailored experiment. Normally, the basic entity mediators, the m's, are released by an electron dropping energies, which energy had been trapped by the moving electron. Release, direction and guidance of the resulting fhoton will be a stochastic process [be stochastic] The mnp Model does not have an adequate description of how guide waves work in this and in diffraction/interference situations. [and will be informed by the future description of guide waves.] That description of electron shape and travel will need to include why the fhoton is sized to the wavelength of the changing electric/magnetic field. That sending off a fhoton in a given direction would mean an inverse influence on the forming field is required; the conservation of momentum by particles but not necessarily fields will be involved in that discussion. The constituent model supports this "opposite reaction/reverse EMF."

Optics

Diffraction itself is posited to be mostly or entirely a phenomenon of change of direction mediated by the electrons of the boundary, which themselves are affected by the existing coherence of the electric and magnetic fields. If fhotons going through a slit that has been "set up" by a coherent field, electrons or portions of electrons may be oscillating in that coherent field. Still, if a fhoton encounters part of an electron, the author would expect that coil or coils to straighten somewhat and then eventually let the fhoton continue with the resultant direction being entirely random.

Antennae

Undergraduate questions: Are free electrons needed to form an antenna or can moving fields along a logical surface without free electrons act as an antenna? Does the nature of the surface of an antenna change it's properties radically? Does electricity flow along the surface of a greedy non-conductor? Would EM radiation be reduced if there are no electrons free enough to vibrate well? Is radiation improved if electrons spread along the conductor but are not usually free to actually separate from their atoms?

Since electric fields propagate along a wire at near light speeds (rather than never or seldom exceeding c/pi speeds), the mediators of that field must be affected by electrons but must be fundamentally separate from the electrons for the mnp Model to be consistent. As released m's released from electrons or as pure potential fields?

Speculative questions: Could we have non-emitter lengths tuned magnetically or chemically or some other manner, so that the emitter lengths are tuned to the frequency to be emitted. Could that tuning be fast enough to enable FM tuned emission? Could tuning at least allow for temperature adjustments? How to achieve that tuning?

Could a carbon based structure have free or free-enough electrons on its surface that would allow it to be an antenna?

Magnetism

Magnetism redirects rather than accelerates or decelerates in the direction of movement. The concepts of relativistic mass and relativistic shortening and relativistic momentum are easy to handle in a constituent model. Magnetic redirection is not quite as convenient. Magnetism requires thinking of an axis in the direction of travel. The classic "magnetic lines of force" are actually the lines of no force, since magnetic force propagates in the plane perpendicular to the "line of force" and exerts its effect in the plane perpendicular to the line of no force. The author currently sees the propagation of the magnetic field as statistical, averaging in the plane through the line of current, but NOT uniform in all directions as the recruited mediators move. The author suggests that the reason magnetic force is equal at all equal particle movement angles around the magnetic line of no force is a result of radial symmetry in the particle about the line of travel rather than any radial symmetry in the plane of the magnetic field.

The transfer of influence from the field to a moving charged particle may well be akin to gravitational attraction in that it requires divergence in the field (in two dimensions with gravity and one dimension the magnetism from the convenient straight wire.) and requires the complete loop nature of particles with coiled structure to even out and to the receive the influences of the fields.

Moving charge creates magnetic fields precisely because the net direction of charge is in the direction of travel, and moving charged particles receive influence because more of the constituent circulation at c is forward, rather than being perfectly balanced as in stationary particles.

A moving charge in a magnetic field is affected BECAUSE it is shortened in the direction of travel? Not exactly, though possibly contributing. It is affected because there is a net forward component to the charge's constituent basic entities. The component of the constituents perpendicular to travel is radially symmetrical so magnetic effects etc will balance out.

The picture of how magnetic fields affect coils is not complete. To get a net effect, there must be a result either way on spin-rotation of the coil. Magnetic fields cannot be shown just with a section perpendicular to the magnetic line of zero force, since the net force in all cases is perpendicular to the motion of the particle Apparently, magnetic effects must be different either in direction of field propagation in divergence of the field which is spreading as the field constituents moves away from current that is the origin. Fields stimulate basic entities to propagate inward as well. Question to be investigated: Is travel in line with propagation or against likely to lead to more more fresh influence?

Conclusion

This blog post has collected most of the author's thoughts since mid 2015. While development of the mnp Model has slowed over the years, the author is not ready to conclude it has reached asymptotic progress short of its potential. To be continued.

Addenda

Disparate thoughts, small ideas, and notes to self of the last year and a half are collected here. Some repetition can be noted. Chipping away, trying to carve a simple explanation of physics, sometimes requires multiple approaches or attacks on the same area that seem repetitious, though the author finds phrasing questions and possible answers in different ways sometimes leads to understanding or illumination.

Witness the recent admission that, yes, at low speed movement the basic entities need to be angled MORE than v/c for a three dimensional particle to move at v. That realization took the slow witted author years of talking about the issue of movement.

Thoughts Inspired by the Dirac Lectures of Feynman and Weiner

The difference between the basic entities in the mnp Model that lead to positive charged and negative charged particles is that p's have the Axis parallel to the direction of Travel while n's have the Axis anti parallel to the direction of Travel. The Travel effect is symmetrical about the perpendicular to travel, so the Travel effect is equal for entities traveling in the opposite direction. Therefore, an n traveling on one direction has the same offect on its surroundings as a p traveling in the opposite direction. If we conceptually reverse the direction of time, the p has an Axis opposite the direction of travel and the n Axis is parallel the direction of travel if time is moving backwards.So n's and p's would have reversed roles. But the coils of the loops that make up matter are in opposite directions if the direction of movement is reversed. The twisting of the strands is also the opposite direction.

The mnp Model suggests that coiling leads to Spin and twisting may lead to chirality, so in a conceptual time reversal, the mnp Model would see spin and chirality reversing.

Strands as the Strings Seen When Trying to Separate Quarks

Coils or charge structure material, since they are joined by a combination of Travel and Axis effects and are tightly bound, exhibit the strongest coherent force that the universe can provide. This suggests durability. Left to their own devices, the coils will be as tight as possible. Quarks are not quite as tightly bound, since the filaments are of differing charge material, but since the Travel effect is stronger than the Axis effect and the Axis effect is 0 at 180 degrees, the strands in quarks are also quite strong. As the coils are straightened, the basic entities are able to recruit more m's as long as more mediators are available or passing through as part of gravitation or other fields, leading a what might become a visible thickening (almost without limit?)

Quark Tripling

A proton may need both up quarks to be fighting over the SAME filament/loop of positive charge material in the down quark for the binding to be stable and long lived. In the early universe or a quark gluon plasma, if the up quarks happen to be pulling at different filaments in the down quark, they will quickly become two positrons and an electron. Background: the mnp Model sees up quarks as containing 5 loops of positive charge material and one of negative, while a down has 2 loops of positive and 4 of negative charge material. coils of like charge material attract each other slightly more than between coils made up of opposite charge material, though the larger effect is of "fellow traveling."

Thoughts Inspired by David Deutsh's Hidden Reality

Hidden Reality spurs enumeration of the variables in my cosmological scheme:

  • ratio of axis to travel effect,
  • sphere of influence,
  • function of influence

Thoughts on Statistical and Quantum Mechanics

Electrons are fungible. Unlike dollar bills, which are also fungible unless one plays liars poker, they do not have serial numbers. They do have spin, which the mnp Model sees as resulting from the charge material structure of the electron and the direction of coil progression. If in a system an experimenter gets hold of one by a coil, she cannot be sure which one she got except for spin.

In quantum mechanics enumeration of possibilities to determine the denominator of probabilities, when one of the two or more fungible objects/particles enters a reaction, there may be only one place for the other or others to go. So when any of the fungible make a determination, the others are determined too, as long as that is the only physical possibility once the first determination is made.

The mnp Model sees limits that may be hard to translate into quantum mechanics - Psi function moves at most c and for particles is usually much slower. The psi function does not proceed with non-zero values to infinity. Converting to Fourier series is not as easy or accurate with limited Psi. Does another set of perpendicular functions handle that attenuation better as a basis for approximation (with accurate modeling in the infinite series)? Sines and cosines are VERY convenient for calculation, differentiation, and integration. The mnp Model sees recalibration needed (frequently) when the approximation that is the math diverges. Divergence will be minimal if the particles stay in the same region but will increase as the particle moves.

Thoughts on Strand Geometry

Strand geometry will bear close scrutiny at some point in the development of the mnp Model. Questions include How much jostling from a perfect circle is needed to form perfect strand? r then call distance between loops sigma.

The strand helix might be reasonably tight, with adjacent coils attracting each other too. If curvature of the strand stays pretty close, maybe differences in adjacent filament travel is significant. What keeps a strand close but not crossing over completely randomly? This raises the old mnp question: is a certain amount of repusion needed at very very small distances?

Knot theory may help with geometry of coiled strands, though mnp s assumption of passing through makes escape and change possible

Approaches to Computation

Creating a model that is easy to compute is appealing, but natural philosophers should not focus on coming up with a system that is easy to compute. Create a Model that works conceptually, then figure easy ways to compute it. GPUs may be WAY more efficient at computing massively parallel effects - gather influence then distribute influence. This sounds rather like radiative transfer, with which the author has some experience.

Accuracy of pure simulation will be an issue, since the basic entities are so tiny and in a few cases such as electro static fields, surface effects with the edges of the coils are expected to be important. The author suspects careful geometric analysis will be needed to extract symmetries and simplifications so that floating roundoff does not eat the results entirely.

Fourier series have been useful in modeling particles, changes, perturbations, and fields. The author suggests that Quantum Field Theory has an infinty of oscillators as a result of the success and familiarity with Fourier analysis. Will the author find that electrons that have a finite extent have Fourier series that behave badly at the _falloff_ zone and so behave in a fundamentally different manner than having the probability drop smoothly to infinity? Will it be possible to find orthogonal functions that naturally fall off as a basis for modeling quantum phenomena? Will that basis have two dimensions (phase and spread) to handle phase issues better than basic quantum mechanics?

GPUs may be WAY more efficient at computing massively parallel simulations. Over a tiny time and distance, gather influence. Normalize. Distribute that influence. (Normalize) Repeat.

Some notes on computation:

  • A given ring/coil has to be oriented SOMEHOW so initial position can be arbitrary. Simulation variables include number of divisions, angle to use -sin- can handle radius outside with display or AVG (average?)
  • Modeling rings, do we need to renormalize directions after some rotation? that would suggest change on movement. Weird if the change related exactly to additional mass or energy needed. Or not weird.
  • Modeling the geometry of coiled loops: start with 2**20 segments. For a bare circle only change in direction in plane of circle is needed.
  • A stranded loop takes a tiny bit of skew from the plane of overall loop. Work on multiple loop non stranded first.
  • Three coils per loop takes a little skew from the direction of path
  • Start out with a straight filament with a slight bend at the front. Where does it go?
  • Start out with a straight strand with a slight bend at the front. See where it goes in a simulation. How does it bend? To start? To steadyish state? How does it twist? How long does it take to reach a steady state?
    • Calculation: for perfect strand twisted 3 times how much imperfection is required, apropos muons. Regarding coil geometry - does twist need to be related to opening of coils, now that spiral60 seems to work Is a balance of radius and twist necessary or sufficient to close the coil when twisted? Geometric computations were trying to draw 3 and 5 coil pictures, so try to get those to close first.

Musings on Scaling the Figment Model

The mnp Model currently posits two active effects (attraction to Travel direction and attraction/repulsion to Axis direction) and one passive effect (overlapping basic entities receive less of the two effects). If there is another effect, a slight push laterally, that might help gravitons stay spaced and help with the initial growth from a big bang. Gravitons may not need any help staying space: straight travel uninfluenced by balanced field potentials may be a satisfactory explanation. Or not. If gravitons just stay more or less spaced that may be good enough in the probabilistic averaging that particles provide.

If gravitons are not big enough to stay separated for the measured distances and if the 10m loop dimension derived from weak interaction times is instead measured across the loops rather than along them, then the figment count is WAY higher than previous blogs have suggested.

The author considers this suggestion unlikely. Ten meters across the coils applies only if adjacent coils are in similar distances in all particles that have similar reaction times.

Mediators might exert much less influence and accept much less influence than n's and p's but over the same range, then they may be able to separate more than current back of envelope calculations suggest. Having all basic entities exert the same influences is an attractive simplicity, but weaker and more numerous m's would not change any other aspects of the mnp Model.

Musings on General Relativity

The mnp Model suggests there is nothing apparent or virtual about time dilation, relativistic mass, and relativistic shortening with movement in an inertial frame. Effects in a gravitational field are more complicated but are seen as real as well, affecting matter and fields. The mnp Model sees labs as changing with movement and gravitational fields. An external observer would see the rulers change length as they rotate.

The muon storage experiment showed that physical acceleration did NOT slow clocks, so general relativity's equivalence principle may prove worth examination. Or at least call for detailed understanding. The author needs to think more about the Michelson-Morley experiment perpendicular to travel and acceleration in an accelerating frame due to movement vs gravity.

Clocks would seem to NOT be equivalent, so movement in the time light takes to travel across should be different. May be no further askew, but the time to travel the round trip perpendicular to travel should be greater in the accelerating in gravity elevator compared to the round trip in the physically accelerating elevator. The mnp Model suggests that length shortening in a gravitational field may be accompanied by widening, but nothing conclusive is posited at this time. Widening in the frame in a gravitational field would make the suggested discrepancy even greater. A conspiracy of gravitation is not expected any more than a conspiracy of light is expected.

Musings on Cosmology

The formation of quantized loops in the early universe is still a matter of speculation. The formation of coils is "settled" in the author's estimation. The author considers it unlikely that an explanation for the speed of light and the speed of all basic entities will be based on an early repulsion of those basic entities, since variation would be expected in a spherical expansion. This despite the Model's interest in explaining by geometry and recruitment.

Musings on Gravity

The strength of gravitational fields is posited to influence time, length (and width) as experienced by matter in the field. Fhotons are seen as being influenced differently. Gravitational acceleration depends on field strength AND divergence, which is a different issue. The individual basic entity interactions probably not vary with direction since the attraction to Travel direction that is the mnp Model basis for gravity is a bi-directional effect.

Musings on Methods

Is the mnp Model being created or being discovered? For now, since there is absolutely no assurance of success at predicting nor of acceptance, the Model is being created. At times, the journey has seemed one of discovery to the author, when one idea or explanation seems to apply to different topics.

Sometimes creation can be willed, sometimes ideas arrive spontaneously, sometimes they just seem to hide. The process of enumeration is the author's way of trying both to create ideas and to see if the range of possibilities has been covered. Reviewing those ideas, testing them against experiment, current explanations and theory, and even against intuition (see Useful, Wrong, and Untutored) then often leads to further ideas. Listing or admitting failures is useful for keeping the author modest, keeping a record of what has been examined to others don't need to navigate the same shoals of difficulty, and providing a basis to come back for review and further development as understanding changes.

The process of documentation allows the writer or designer to review the topic. If an idea or process is difficult to document, either the understanding or motivation needs to be reviewed or the design itself needs to change. The author has found that process useful in the design of buildings, computer programs, documentation itself, and now physics. Never easy, often a challenge to honesty, that commitment to reviewing and changing the design when documentation is difficult has always been rewarded by improved design.

If philosophy is the conscious examination of the way humans do things, then the author is attempting natural philosophy: the conscious examination of the approach to understanding and explaining nature.

The author would be perfectly happy to be told, some decade in the future, that he in fact invented nothing and designed nothing but merely discovered explanation that has been there all along. We should all be so lucky.

Interesting Ideas

Five issues on the author's long short list of interesting ideas:

  • Neutrino capture or shielding (Possibly only for well specified directions, with crafted magnetic fields that would turn neutrinos into fhotons),
  • Loose coil capture or shielding (Electron shells seem to shield protons from loose positive coils of appropriate high velocities that could turn an up quark into a positron),
  • Shielding from loose balanced particles of no charge nicknamed z's in the mnp Model (farfetched of course),
  • Gravitational field shielding or shaping (Unlikely and maybe),
  • Is there a saturation limit for fields that can be tested, for example, in space? (Unlikely)

Humor

Twenty first century physics is echoing the real estate dictum: Computation, computation, computation. Better then repeating three times quickly "circumlocution."

I've got a lot to be modest about.

So soon old and so late smart; why did it take to long to see v/c or 1-v^2/c^2 as a limit for coils, not as the average.

Figments Forming a Photon will get an F in many circles... But then I'm going in circles. What can I say? Phooey?

The long title of this post might be Principles of Movement in the mnp Model and Minimal Movement by the Principal. What Moves the Principal? Exhortations include: Move, Principal and Principal, Move and What Moved the Principal This Time? On Movement? Moving On... Movement on Principles...

OK, OK. I admit that the dog didn't eat my homework. Floating roundoff did.

Reflections

The famous line "I have no need of that hypothesis" will apply to the mnp Model for a long time or until the author gives up trying to do better than create the equivalent to the benzene ring that will explain the nature of organic chemistry AND the universe. Toss off lines may be entertaining but definitely not persuasive.

  • "The six sided strand is the DNA of the universe."
  • "Even if the author THINKS he knows why quantum mechanics works, he doesn't KNOW why it works."
  • "A long time ago, in a galaxy from away, Marshall McLuhan suggested that 'anything that works is obsolete.'" Or something like that.
  • "The mnp Model sounds like a Just So Story." True: many aspects need to fall into place for the mnp Model to be viable.
  • Even if coherence is needed for diffraction experiments to work, the mnp Model has a lot of heavy lifting yet to be done.

The author is attempting natural philosophy; asking questions about natural processes and about his own conceptualizing and approach to the topic and adjusting the approaches as needed.

The author hopes that someday he may be able to say of many branches of physics "I have no need of that distinction" if integration proceeds... Recent personality tests suggests the author is even more an Integrator than Pioneer and Guardian. The mnp Model might need a Driver too...

Side note: Modeling mistakes and misunderstandings can be a disaster. Chasing illusions and chimera is a waste of time.

Science Fiction Finds the mnp Model Disappointing

To retain simplicity, consistency, and intergity, the mnp Model must offer explanations that disappoint physicists. Even worse is the disappointment offered science fiction fans.

  • No magic, other than possible influence at a very low energy level from non-quantized loops. DNA, life, and intelligence are the only levers for influence. Butterfly wings may effect hurricanes but planning that influence is impossible.
  • No travel faster than light.
  • No time travel.
  • No wormholes in space.
  • No point singularities or black holes offering travel, shelter, or new starts.
  • No big crunch.
  • No do overs.
  • No folding or unfolding of dimensions.
  • The universe seems too big and too detailed to be simulated accurately.

Of course, the mnp Model does not repeal Goedel's Theorem. Issues beyond the Model are inaccessible to the Model.

Final Speculation

The constituent model may be the most durable of the mnp Model's suggestions. It may be the most acceptable as well. The coiled loop model may outlast any of the posited letters; it is a specific type of constituent model.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)