Saturday, May 5, 2018

Constituent Models and the mnp Model
The First Lecture
Transcript and Notes of the Not Yet Given

Table of Contents

An introduction to Constituent Models or the mnp Model can be very short to very long. Here are a few, from 4 seconds to 40 minutes.

Elevator Speech: (30 seconds)

Imagine the speed of light is a speed limit because everything in the universe is made up of tiny constituents moving at c. I suggest this leads to another picture of spin, chirality, and the interaction of gravity with particles, makes quantum mechanics approachable and understandable, and just might inspire new thinking. Sound like fun? (24 seconds) Stay tuned. Or at least tune in occasionally.

Personal Introduction: (15 seconds)

Me? I want to do something useful. I am not ready to retire. I would like to stimulate the educational economy by going back to graduate school. Then I'd like to contribute and to teach. Physics.

The Egg Timer Speech: (3 minutes)

Here's a thought experiment: if everything is made up of stuff/constituents moving at c, the minimum number of types of constituent is three and the minimum number of interactions between constituents is two. Mass and energy become emergent concepts. From that simple basis, a great deal of complexity also emerges, but very little extra complexity. (35 seconds)

Particles gain mass as they move faster. The charge structure of particles is six quantized loops, stranded, in a huge odd number of tight coils. Removing two coils changes the angular momentum stored in the particle by the Planck constant. Electrons do not rotate in shells; coiled closed six-stranded loops with constituents moving at c change shell when coil pairs straighten out, so electrons appear not at an orbiting point but all around the nucleus. (33 seconds)

The time for particle rearrangement 1e-8 seconds represents the length of the loops, which trade places when particles rearrange in "weak" interactions. The three quarks in a proton or neutron attempt to rearrange their charge structure but cannot complete to process due to competition between the matching quarks. The generations of elementary particles gets rearranged; strange and another share the same family as down. (40 seconds)

A single type of mediator has charge information perpendicular to travel. Polarized collections of mediators make fhotons. Unpolarized collections make neutrinos, and gamma rays consist of neutrinos and or fhotons plus the unstranded charge structure loops of the annihilated particles. Mediators traveling perpendicular to the surface of the charge, with charge information pointing the opposite of the charge, form electro-static fields. Gravity is mediators of random charge information moving away from or toward the mass. Magnetism is mediators traveling at all directions in a plane, with charge information pointing in the plane. Particles recruit fields. Diffraction and diffusion arise from redirection of photons by coils of electrons influenced by the fields from previous photons. (64 seconds)

The Egg Timer speech should be followed by Predictions.

Predictions: (38 seconds)

Cobalt 60 decay would show a preference for right-handed chirality if it were rotating counter to the earth's rotation for a while (as in a centrifuge at the pole or a plane flying west near the poles. Careful laser tests across the sun will show that lasers must be aimed more away from the sun than we currently expect. Having a photon travel across a diffusion or diffraction experiment will tend to randomize diffraction/diffusion results.

Lunacy: (29 seconds)

Crazy is doing the same thing expecting a different result. Physicists aren't crazy. But we have been thinking more or less the same way, expecting a Theory of Everything to emerge. Maybe the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics requires thinking at a different scale, with energies AND dimensions smaller than Planck units. (24 seconds) Let's see what craziness THAT unfolds.

Probabilities: (22 seconds)

What are the chances of something interesting coming out of today, this 24 hours? Zero? Vanishingly small? Just very very small? What are the chances of something interesting coming out of our discussion today. Somewhat smaller, eh? Well, if I prove nothing else, I hope to prove THAT wrong.

Desperate Attempt to Cram Everything Into an Introduction to a Model of Everything (60 seconds)

Three space, one forward time dimension, three basic building blocks, 2 interactions, 1 non-interaction. We get c, particles, fields, Lorentz transforms where movement DEPENDS on contraction and dilation of measured time, gravity, time effects of gravity, length changes under gravity (but not as expected), an explanation of anti-matter and its rarity, maybe left handed preference , suggestions for what and where all the dark energy and dark matter are, why galaxy arms are spiral, why bucky balls diffract. We lose spooky action at a distance. And we get a number of unanswered questions. (11 more sec) So if we have a little more time, I suggest we start the way I started, asking: What is the bedrock of physics? I propose c, h, and backwards E ∃.

So let's start over with The First Talk, a forty minute introduction to a Model that will certainly not change the world or the world of physics. This year.

Introduction to Constituent Models, With Occasional Reference to a Specific Structural Model (40 Minutes)

Thank you for inviting me/reading my blog today. I'm hoping we can have some fun here.

Perhaps by seeing a completely different way to think. Or by seeing where that thinking could lead. Or maybe by realizing the ridiculous places that thinking leads. Maybe just by seeing someone else make a fool of himself trying to invent and explain too much at once. Maybe you will find subtitles like "Toward a Theory of Everything" humorous in themselves. What's the point of listening to the joke when the punch line is the second part of the title? Which is why I didn't put it there. Is calling our destination a MOE or Model of Everything any funnier?

I have no illusions, in fact no intention today of being persuasive. If I AM persuasive, I'm in big trouble for a number of reasons. [Some of the trouble persuasion would lead to? 1 All (four or four thousand) of the dissertations will be written before I get accepted to grad school. 2 David Deutsch points out the the originators of ideas don't understand those ideas, that only the subsequent holders/users of those ideas really know what to do with them]

Let's start by choosing some foundations of physics. First? (pause/drum roll) How about the speed of light c. Next? we exist. This is not an antropic or even carbon centered existence in my mind, but just that we appear to exist in our universe and that physics experiments exist and produce results that can be compared. Our shared experience seems to be quite/fairly consistent, What other foundations would you choose? Well, I'll pick h which seems to show up many places. [Oh, warping of space/time, the structure of space, special relativity... will go over here ... we'll hope to derive or emerge those from a Constituent Model] [e i pi 1 and 0 and -1 are useful mathematically, but do not themselves tell us anything about physics.]

Logo

If we mispronounce this logo as "Chay" and then think of it as Italian, we get "there is." And some insight into my warped (but definitely slower than c - clearly subluminal) sense of humor. Thank you for noticing subliminal.

I am not going to take you through all my historical development based on these three foundations. I will skip most of the dead ends and most of the specific structural thinking that initiated my developments of the last six and a half years, and will try to present an interesting set of ideas to give you a view of "this kind of thinking."

Language is essentially linear, thought is often non-linear, design MUST be non-linear in that it must account for multiple issues at once. The universe definitely has multiple dimensions. I'd like to expose you to two complementary ways of thinking about models using c, existence, and h as a basis. But until we've built up a quantum of understanding, that process of understanding might be challenging. I have every confidence that your ability and speed of understanding will exceed my ability and speed of speech. :-)

The topic here is decidedly not physics; there are severely limited abilities to shut up and calculate. If you HAVE to blurt out a concern, I'll put it over here on the board. If I add a smiley face, that will indicate I won't have much of/a complete answer.

Ready? What if the speed of light is such a foundation because everything that is anything is moving at c? Influences, Fields, Energy, even the particles that make up matter? How could matter stay in one place while moving at c? By going in circles in some fashion. I propose that geometry becomes an important branch of mathematics again.

First Look at Particles

Let's look first at particles made up of stuff traveling at c, both stationary and in motion. We could resort to hidden dimensions, but if we don't have to that it will make things simpler.

The generalized formulation I call a Constituent Model. A generalized model lets us treat some interesting issues, and postpone dealing with others. So if all particles/everything is made up of stuff moving at c, movement becomes interesting. At "rest" a particle's constituents move at c, so for a net 0 movement in each direction the total momentum in any direction must be 0. The integral of the momentum squared for the particle constituents will be m2c2.

Momentum and Relativistic Momentum

Note to Undergraduates: complex numbers do an extraordinarily good job of describing rotation or movement in a circle with some net effect or result. They are quite useful to calculation of spatial motion compared to internal movement in a particle. The real part of a differential volume is the net movement, the imaginary part is the "circling" movement of that dVOL. So if you don't love complex numbers yet, let me say you should. Correction, you WILL love them.

How do we add momentum to stationary particles? If the constituents of the stationary particle do not change, momentum changes perhaps by adding more constituents moving at c. Moving particles do not gain charge, so the additions must be constituents without charge. Note we are using ∃ (∃xistence aka ∃xperiment) as the basis for this conclusion.

Hidden Dimensions Not Needed

What if the charge constituents have a minimum radius at which they can change direction or rotate? A tiny radius would be hard to see. I suggest this may obviate the need for hidden spatial dimensions that string theory seems to want. That same tiny radius would be involved in ALL matter and involved whenever photons are generated or absorbed, so measuring anything smaller would be difficult. A wavelength shorter than twice that radius would be impossible to generate or even to measure.

That tiny radius may lead to a maximum angular momentum for the constituents at rest, with the Planck constant related to an increase in the radius of circling by an decrease in the count of "circles" made by the constituents. Your first hint that h has units of angular momentum for a reason.

The quantum mechanics concept of a location measurement would simply be a location at which the circling constituents happen to be measured or averaged or appear to be localized around a given time; the constituents would continue to travel at c, and depending on the measurement might be no more localized after than before the measurement.

Charge Constituent Proportions

An electron contains a fixed amount of charge material. So do positrons and, apparently, quarks. Charge seems to come in weird quantized amounts, -1 -2/3, -1/3, 1/3, 2/3, and 1. What could produce that? Ah, elementary fractions. Six sixths added and subtracted would combine that way. If that charge materials comes in sixths, so that six quantized portions of negative makes an electron, six portions of positive make a positron, then different combinations of negative and positive can form exactly the charges we see in quarks. And no (well one) others. Clearly the sixths themselves would not be divisible. Here we are using ∃ - both for what we see ∃xperimentally and what we DON'T see ∃xperimentally. You'd think models that posit 1/6th indivisible charges are hexed.

Electrons Don't Orbit

Electrons in a "shell" would not be orbiting but the constituents would be moving at c, actually forming a shell though not fixed in a single pattern. Leading to no limit on the number of shells electrons could adapt. The "circling" constituents would actually form something approximately like a shell. The Psi function of an electron would not be exactly the distribution of constituents, since the constituents would not extend to infinity, but a weighted probability of where constituents might be found, again with certain dimensional limits.

Particle collisions and annihilations conserve charge material and non-charge consituents. Whether muons can decay to 2 electrons and one positron from materials in the muon itself is seen as doubtful; extra charge material would lead to decay giving off gamma rays as ionizing as electron/positron annihilation. I suspect that charge material must be present near the specific collision or decay to allow such a rare result, as it would usually be in a collider. I might expect results to vary with ∃xperiment design or particle/collision density.

Black holes can be seen as recruiting gravitons which then travel away from the black hole at, you guessed it, c. Neutrinos could transit black holes. The constituents inside black holes still move at c, so no singularity would exist inside. The 1/6 charge constituents might remain, but the particles ripped apart on entrance to the black hole might or might not re-form. If/since they do not reform in a black hole, fhotons would not be generated. Black holes conserve charge material and non-charge constituents and momentum and angular momentum. Not necessarily particle count. Or Spin. Or Chirality. Or Strangeness. Or Tauness.

Gravity As A Field

General Relativity, except for the lack of time dilation due to physical acceleration, has been a useful theory, but I'd like to examine how gravity might work if it is made up of constituents moving at c. Clearly, the constituents cannot speed up or slow down in our c based model.

Gravitational fields cannot be generated by mass in a Constituent Model; the field must be recruited from some potential constituents. These constituents must be available, so it appears that constituents of gravitational fields should attract each other to travel along the same direction. Gravitons in a simple model can only attract along their length, they have no moment arm or ability to exert torque in themselves. When constituents recruited by neighboring masses encounter each other, it seems that they should to a degree attract each other to retrace the influencing or oncoming graviton's path, to be recruited by the other mass in turn. Gravitons recruited and traveling from a single mass would be random enough not to clump together, since they are diverging fairly uniformly. Gravity becomes a two-way, historical process based on where a mass is now and where the rest of the universe was when it sent out the gravitons. Acceleration of masses is a complicated effect on the circling constituents of the mass, leading to a net imbalance of constituent movement based on the divergence of the gravitons. [Drawing needed.]

Based on constituents attracting each other based on their direction of travel, let me introduce another concept, related to deBroglie wavelength. I suggest deBroglie wavelength is a somewhat meaningful dimension and represents the way the random non-charge constituents respond to the passage of matter, neutrinos, and yes, even fhotons. Not quite the "real" status of matter-waves in deBroglie-Bohm theory, nor a "internal periodic movement" nor a pilot wave that guides the particle, but a real side effect of the movement of the particle. However, the nearly instantaneous response of the random constituents and the continuous movement of the particle mean that a wave is a subtle reorientation of the random field potential, slightly more axial to the line of travel but with no change in the random symmetry forward or backward along the line of travel and with no change in axial distribution looking along the line of travel. [Drawing needed.]

Beyond gravity, fields get complicated in a Constituent Model and discussion the constituents themselves will be fruitful. Let me mention that generalized Constituent Model discussed here took me an embarrassing number of months before I even started on it. Some of the generalizations mentioned here come from a basis that took me an embarrassing number of minutes to formulate and an embarrassing number of years to get to its currently incomplete stage.

So let's step back and look more at constituents. This will help in discussing fields, electron shell changes, and quark interaction.

Number of Constituent Types

Consider a minimum number of types of constituent/"stuff?" It seems that negative charge and positive charge differ. No, that's not one type with a different attribute. Different sign makes them different constituents, since they behaves differently. Then there is everything else: non charge constituents, energy, fields, gravitational fields, gluons. So there must be at least 3 different constituents of a c based constituent model. Might we only need three types? I hope. Maybe. Though possibly more.

Parameters of Constituent Interaction

How do the constituents interact? Charge material and those constituents form "everything else" that provide mass and allow movement of particles do not significantly interfere with the constituents on the other side of "circling," which suggests that the influences may be acting only over short distances or attentuate very quickly with distance.

The influences that keep the charge constituents of matter going in circles but allow neutrinos to travel in essentially straight lines would need to operate over short distances or attentuate quickly over spatial dimensions [travel plus a skewed influence one way - awkward]

Constituents do not collide and may cross paths with other constituents, though they may not overlap indefinitely.

Neutrinos travel in straight lines unless influenced by the presence of mass, so must be made of non-charge constituents. Neutrinos have no electrical polarity, so must be non-polar non-charge constituents or random polarity-bearing non-charge constituents. Careful and expensive ∃xperiments allowing neutrinos to pass through long asymmetrical magnetic fields, then travel a distance through a vacuum, then be trapped (or not) by a piece of paper or reflected (or not) by a mirror would indicate whether neutrinos can be converted to light.

I've spoken as much as I can while dealing with constituent generalities.

To continue talking about fields, quark interaction, Casimir effects, requires further development of constituent properties. And at this point, we reach a watershed. Such detail currently requires that I veer into a specific Constituent Model that has occupied much of my free time and mind share over the last six years.

Constituent Influences

I've mentioned gravity constituents attacting each other to travel more along their paths, either forward or backward, with no other influence/torque/spin/hidden effects. Field constituents could do anything, but I'm searching for simplicity of understanding as well as action. What other kinds of influences could be involved? Not what is possible, but what minimal set is required. So lets see if c and short distances can explain fields, since if we allow long distance influences we need to explain THOSE based on everything that is anything moving at c. [Yes, we will get to spooky action at a distance] Charge or polarity seems to be essential to a model. By ∃ (∃xperience/∃xperiment) From the mnp Model investigations, let me offer a spoiler. It seems that "charge information" or "polarity information" seems to work if positive constituents have charge information pointing along the direction of travel, negative constituents have charge information pointing opposite the direction of travel, if non-charge constituents have "charge" or "polarity" information different from positive and negative directions. Perpendicular to the direction of travel is as far as we can get from axially, and if like polarity attracts and opposite polarity repels. So polarity is a directional effect that attracts and repels, rather than the bidirectional attraction that is the basis of gravity. For non-charge constituents, attracting and repelling may affect primarily or initially the charge/polarity direction rather than the direction of travel. Or not. If the deBroglie wavelength of a fhoton is the same as the electro-magnetic wavelength, then direction of travel is affected at the same time as polarity direction. Since quarks exist, with fractional but quantized charge, the opposite charge constituents must repel each other less than the fellow traveling effect, which is what keeps them together. So the constituent effect that leads to gravity looks to be stronger than charge effects!

Fields - Electrostatic

Charge information must be separate from gravitational information. Either charge field constituents are different from gravitational constituents, increasing our number of basic constituents by at least 2, OR we can draw electro-static fields using the proposed non-charge constituent model with polarity information perpendicular to travel. It looks strange; the propagation at c direction is perpendicular to the line toward the charge! Further, the polarity information is opposite of the charge. Recruitment of non-charge field constituents into that geometry requires a "surface," not a point, and details of what that "surface" is doing would be a distraction right now. tangential to surface/sphere- can show field.

Fields - Magnetic

Charge information - can show field. How field gets that way easy to show. How moving matter responds to fields requires digging into the mnp Model. The forward component of charge constituent movement is involved in creating and responding to magnetic fields. *** The forward component of all constituents would skew the created gravitational field and affect the response to gravitational fields. *** (And I'm not entirely comfortable with my explanation right now!)

Fields - Electro-Magnetic

One of the difficulties with all constituents moving at c is that Maxwell's equations need to be descriptive of light rather than causative. The fhoton passing generates changing electrical and magnetic fields if enough mediator constituents are present, but those mediators and fields are not needed for fhotons or neutrinos to travel in deep space. End with number of types of matter I'll talk soon about a specific constituent Model, the mnp Model, but so eventually I will skip ahead to a basis that took me an embarrassing number of minutes to formulate. But first, a generalization that took an embarrassing number of months before I even started on it.

The black typography is the first draft of an introductory talk. The gray text is notes, optional inclusions, comments, and distractions.

Of course, other standard measures can be seen as emergent properties in simple systems. For example, three dimensional space can be seen as emergent in Constituent Models. With Minkowski time and all constituents moving at c, dimension is "created" by the movement of the constituents. Three seems to be the minimum number of spatial dimensions that are interesting.

Before I run out of time, I want to mention that much of this Constituent Model arose first in a specific, more structural model called the mnp Model, where the 1/6 charge constituents actually form a loop, which strand with five other constituent loops to form a lepton (electron, positron, or quark). The strands coil quite tightly; not so tightly when mixed charges form quarks, so that the coils are able to attract more non-charge constituents and the lepton has a higher mass. This model meets one of the criterion for the electron, specifically; electrons and muons have been looked at quite closely by ∃xperiment and do not seem to have any measureable internal structure. They are essentially uniform throughout. So by ∃, our model should (and the mnp Model does) reflect that measured uniformity.

Mass - An Emergent Property

So for the Constituent Model, we used a concept of mass. Using a specific structural model, the mnp Model, let me show how mass is an emergent concept rather than a fundamental one.

The basis of the mnp Model has evolved into tiny basic entities of 3 types, with 2 interactions, and 1 effect of non-interaction. The basic entities can pass through each other, they only attract and repel, and do not bounce. If the constituents are tiny, numerable, with fixed dimensions of interaction, fixed amount of interaction, and fixed amount of influence that can be received, then "mass" is just a placeholder concept for "how much is there that can be influenced or that can influence." So in a = F/m, the m just represents how much there is there. The author posits that "how much is there that can be influenced" is the same as "how much is there that can influence."

Quick Intro to the mnp Model

I'd like to introduce the names I've chosen to avoid conflict with existing nomenclature. No more phrases like basic entities and constituents. We'll call the basic entities figments. Three types: n's are negative charge, p's are positive charge, m's are the mediators whose "charge" information is perpendicular to their direction of travel. n's have "charge" information in the opposite to their direction of travel. p's have "charge" information parallel to their direction of travel. I call that "charge" information Axis. I call the travel direction Travel, and those two names are the basis for the two effects. Figments (in our thought ∃xperiment) attact by direction of Travel and both attract and repel by direction of Axis, over short distances. Figments can go "through" each other's region of influence. If figments happen to be traveling the same direction and essentially coincide, one of them is not influenced (or influences are essentially random?) so that it continues to travel in a straight line. Oh, did I mention that all travel at c. Oh, did I mention that since space and time and particles are assumed NOT to have PhDs in Physics. The figments will, I hope, behave in manners from which time dilation and length contraction emerge. You are welcome to join my grandmother in a signature "Ha."

Mass emerges as the description and mathematical description of what embodies influence and what responds to influence. An electron has charge based on how many negative figments, n's, are in it. Those figments can each have a maximum effect on other figments and can absorb a similar amount of effect in a given time. The ability to influence, to be influenced, and to resist influence is based on the number of figments and their configuration, whether they are circling in particles or traveling freely at c as fhotons, neutrinos, field potential, or fields. Rest mass is just the resistance of particles to change, the m in a = F/m.

Maybe I have time to mention some of the advantages of the stranded/coiled/six loop model for Dirac fermions. Then maybe I don't.

Do we have time or interest for a discussion of my early struggles and failures?

Early Struggles

Gravity sends information only with no energy or mass? Then where does the energy and mass come from for the acceleration when space "informs" mass where to move and mass "informs" space how to shape? The effect of gravity seems not to diminish over long periods of time. If mass recruits its gravitational messengers rather than sending them, then it must have something to recruit. If the messengers just keep going until they encounter mass or the surface of a mass, very few of the messengers will be returned (in a finite but large distribution of mass) so there would be fewer messengers over billions of years. What if the messengers recruit oncoming messengers back toward a mass? How? The simplest model seems to be that the gravitational messengers attract other messengers to align with themselves, even if going the opposite direction. Make that align with each other. Oh, and never repel at any angle.

Model Failures - Early Attempts

Matter consists of constituents that circle in some fashion. Rings would be simple. If the ring moves by redirecting the circular motion to include a component perpendicular to the plane of the ring, the forward motion is v, the motion remaining around the circle is sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), the effort to deflect the constituents in the ring can be seen as related to the cosine of the deflection, which at low speeds approximates to the first term of the Taylor series, v^2/2. Look, we have time dilation on movement as well as a hint of kinetic energy. Are neutrinos single rings? Particles jointly attracting rings? If attracting rings then flatten as they move, with progress around the rings slowed by γ, we might even get length contraction.

But with that early promise, a number of problems emerge. We need constant angular rotation for the effects to hold. Rings wouldn't want to flatten and might not stay that way. Rings wouldn't hang together. Rings wouldn't move well Well, it took me an embarrassing number of days to realize that mutually attracting rings cannot move and would be hard to quantize. I admitted all that, then realized I was thinking like an architect in 2 or 2.5 dimensions. I still do.

Coils WOULD hang together. A loop could be posited to be fixed length and hence quantized and would remain consistent, especially if the attracting effects were the strongest effects around. Coiled loops. Some consider that objectionable, but ∃xperiment suggests the electron mass and charge seems to be fixed. Not many object to THAT. Movement, when a ring is moving along its axis, is very easy to picture. Coils are more difficult. Which is part of the motivation for a more general Constituent Model - we sweep some of the problems under the rug with a mathematical model. Uh, maybe I'm not alone in that.

When all orientations of specific coils are possible, picturing movement requires change in the random orientation of coils. An investigation of movement using a "constituent" model where the particle is modeled mathematically as mass moving at c shows mass increase consistent with special relativity. Time dilation and length contraction do not emerge as clearly.

The persistent bad news: a c based constituent model of any kind requires that we work with a Minkowski coordinate system and then account for why various effects (but not ALL) occur.

Excitement and Disappointment During mnp Model Development

A couple of opportunities to explain ∃xperiment got away during the development of the mnp Model. Pioneer's excess deceleration looked like a good example of gravitational fields remaining attracted to each other beyond limits where gravitons would cease to "see" each other. That deceleration is seen as thermal radiation aka recoil force. Though the integrity of galactic arms still calls for explanation.

Neutrinos still travel at c, now that the timers have been calibrated. So the possibility of neurtinos recruiting at their leading edge is no longer needed. Though neutrinos are still seen as recruiting as a function of their size and the amount of mass, hence as the square of the mass traversed. Neutrinos are seen as calving and losing mass as well.

So how am I doing? In 2006 Lee Smolin listed "Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics"

  • 1 quantum gravity - combine
  • 2 foundations of quantum mechanics
  • 3 unify particles and forces
  • 4 tuning - why values of free constants
  • 5 dark matter and energy.

Did I touch on each of these? Maybe not explicitly. Some of these? Do we see any hope here? Well, I hope I haven't been TOO persuasive, but you might understand why I'm still interested in physics.

Conclusion

I hope I've been clear enough in presenting a different way of thinking. The important ideas, if any, are:

  • All constituents move at c.
  • Matter has charge material "circling" and must add mediators to move.
  • Matter recruits and shapes fields from available mediator/constituents.
  • "Fields" result from imbalances in the random potential of the available mediator/constituents.
  • Matter responds to the imbalances that form "fields."
  • Matter must absorb or release enough mediators to change the internal angular momentum by h when changing shape or shell.
  • Polarized mediators traveling together form fhotons. Unpolarized mediators traveling together form neutrinos.

But:

  • Constituent Models cannot calculate much yet.
  • Constituent Models have serious challenges in explaining diffusion, diffraction, how gravity actually works.
  • Constituent Models' explanations for the two way speed of light sound rather like a conspiracy of light, a challenge all "preferred frame" models share.
  • The mnp Model seems to challenge almost everything; the Standard Model particle heirarchy, the nature of the Higgs, name it.

Heresies

The author entertains further heresies, not out of orneriness, but because they seem to arise from the mnpModel. Since each heresy is a barrier to acceptance, the author is also burdened by these and their corollaries. If shown as part of a slide supported presentation, these would be on ONE slide, with type small enough so all fit.

  • Fhotons are bundles of polarized mediators, so they might red shift on their own as they pass anything.
  • Gravitational "locking" may account for galactic dynamics, obviating the need for dark matter. Yet the mnp Model provides a few pictures of matter that would be dark.
  • Can fhoton energy loss explain the "expanding universe?"
  • Gravity is messy complicated, two way, reinforcing at the extremes.
  • Neutrinos are quantized only in the creation and detection, but recruit in proportion to their mass/energy and the "linear" density of the mass they pass through.
  • Gravity waves from colliding black holes are mostly neutrinos sent from matter pulled apart in the collision.
  • Spin is a physical property of matter, not of fhotons or neutrinos. W+, W-, and Z are virtual but z is the equivalent of quarks but with 3/6 of each charge and hence electrically neutral. A neutron must encounter a z or the equivalent to decay to an electron and a proton. Two z's encountering each other may create an electron and a positron.
  • Antimatter didn't disappear in the early universe. Constituent charge material was recruited differentially to be electrons and protons. Electrons may be slightly better at creating electostatic fields (and magnetic fields?) than positrons, especially at high speeds, and may have been able to escape the soup before the positive material did.
  • The unity and divisions between electromagnetism, the "weak" interaction, and the "strong" interaction do not lie where they are currently thought to be. Weak interactions are the most powerful in released energy, when charge material is restructured. Strong interactions are a "surface" phenomenon that allow, for example, nuclei to hold together. Since electrostatic fields require some distance to get organized, ES may not even work at some almost measureable dimensions. The author seems to encounter two different definitions of the strong nuclear force. Perhaps he needs to come up with different terms. Electrostatic and magnetic seem fairly safe, electromagnetic waves to refer only to the results of fhoton movement,
  • The constituent interaction that leads to gravity is the strongest interaction of the basic effects. It is also the interaction that allows the charge constituents of quarks to stay together. It also the effect that allows protons and neutrons to stay together in a nucleus. The electromagnetic fields associated with light and other radiation are results and guides, not causes.
  • Time never flows backwards; just because we don't measure something until time t doesn't mean that it or its constituents weren't there at t-&espilon;
  • Charge material is neither created nor destroyed, so gamma rays have charge material as well as mediators.
  • Rest mass is what particles have, mass is what everything has. Do I have to invent or adapt words not used in physics for this difference?
  • QCD is dead. Long live QCD.
  • Strange is an ally and relative of down, with a different strand cross section. There is another, shorter lived relative out there in the ∃xperimentation.
  • Black holes do not have singularities at their center, and can partially evaporate by neutrino emission.
  • The Higgs is a meson of one or more relative(s) of bottom.
  • The strong nuclear force is a "surface" phenomenon related to the attraction of charge structure to like charge structure (and the tolerance of opposite charge structure to be colinear with charge structure).
  • Electro static fields depend not on point charge but the surface of the charge (even of a free electron) and the paradoxical reversal of the charge information in the field.
  • Constituents have a minimum turning radius, so a minimum wavelength exists.
  • Quantum mechanics is explained neither by the Copenhagen interpretation nor the many-worlds nor the DeBroglie-Bohm nor quantum decoherence nor the realist position nor the agnostic refusal to answer. Wild (or somewhat orderly) coils of quantized loops or charged material behave rather in a Ψ squared fashion. The coils are spread in nearby space.
  • Measurements are done in labs made of ordinary matter made of ordinatry constituents, by ordinary capture of fhotons, by ordinary electrons whose internal angular momentum changes only in a quantized fashion.
  • Measurements have their limits, as does our knowledge of where the lab is and where it is going. Constituent Models and the mnp Model are hidden variable theories, hence highly ontic in a metaphysical sense. Puns about ontic and my own ontics discouraged.
  • The muon storage ∃xperiment punches a big hole in Special Relativity and General Relativity that is not fully appreciated.

Conclusion, Concluded

So, as I mentioned at the beginning, I hope you received a very mixed message. I would very much like to explain my modes of thinking about the foundations of physics. And I would very much like for you to understand those modes of thinking. And I would VERY much like for you to decide that those modes of thinking do not offer enough promise. So I can have this line of inquiry to myself for a while.

Finally, I hope you enjoyed our time together. I did. And I do hope I still have the field to myself.

Oh, I haven't forgotten my non-disclosure agreement, my vow of secrecy. If none of you use these speculations, this meeting never happened. I'm willing to take names or emails for further private conversation. We don't need a pair of fringe models flirting with lunacy out in public.

Afterword

Since this talk hasn't yet been given to a knowledgable audience, the author has no idea if it completes to an empty room, a chorus of raspberries, or a clamor of questions.

Invented or Discovered?

Are the Constituent Models and the mnp Model inventions? For now, the answer must be yes. Over the last six and a half years, many of the developments and "coincidences" have felt to the author like discoveries. For now, even those discoveries must be listed as mathematical or geometrical discoveries, since they are not accepted as models of our shared reality of the universe and the shared reality of physics. The author can say at most "in this model, we find..."

Humor

In keeping with the mnp blog traditions, attempts at humor are included. Here. So where was the four second introduction?

Four Seconds:

"Oh, you wouldn't like that." With two seconds to spare for audience response.

Shorter (1.4 seconds)

"I'm having fun."

Shortest (1 second)

"Save your time."

Nobody (10 seconds)

I've presented my ideas about physics to a few people. I've been assured "nobody is thinking this way." Hi, I'm nobody.

My Theory of the Electron (80 seconds)

I understand that professional physicists are exposed to a different amateur theory of the electron every day. Well, if it hasn't occurred already, here is your dose for today:

An electron needs to rotate 720 degrees to get back to its initial condition. That's due to its odd number of coils. And the six strands that make a 180 degree rotation in one complete path. The coils can progress right or left, offering spin that allows two electrons to inhabit one shell without interfering with each other. The strand of six loops can rotate left or right, which offers chirality. Oh, and the six loops are (usually) quantized, which offers charge and mass quantization.

There, you don't have to go looking for your daily electron theory today. (5 seconds)

On Realism and Mechanism

Sherlock Holmes tells Watson that when the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely, is the answer. Richard Feynman has one word of advice: "Renormalize." That Arthur Conan Doyle channels Richard Feynman, 61 years in the future, just proves that the search for mechanism is futile.

Many theorists ascribe to a model-dependent realism, some philosophers suggest its all a dream, some philosophers of science accept that the consistency we experience and measure suggest consistent laws, even though we encounter surprises at many different scales of experience and measure and do not yet understand all our measurements. Many physicists have given up on realism if realism must be an understandable, intuitive description of how and why ∃xperiment shows what it does. Some are perfectly happy just measuring what is and figuring out how to measure more phenomena, though the author suggests they often use models to decide the next interesting step.

More Humor

If a Model of Everything is a MOE, where's Curly Larry and Shemp? How weird would that be?

The nutty thing about constituent models and the mnp Model are how small the kernels are.

Those who think physics can be explained by a small kernel of ideas are nuts.

People who are paid to work are professionals. People who work for free are volunteers. People who pay to work are scouters. People who pay a lot to sit and do nothing are board members.

I used to say that the funniest things about race jokes are the people who tell them. If this talk has been somewhat entertaining, maybe the funniest thing about alternate models (or figment theory) is the people who tout them. Anyway, I hope you get some enjoyment or benefit from this (half) hour.

Have I thought of everything? No, I don't know everything known to physics ∃xperiment, so I can't have an explanation for everything. But I'm crazy enough to be willing to try. I have the great good fortune that many young innovators have of not knowing enough to know what I'm trying to do is impossible. That shared property, of course, doesn't make me young. Or necessarily an innovator. Which leads to more pure introspection:

Introspection

I went back to Emergency Medical Technician school to learn something useful that can improve people's health and that allows me to teach young people in the field of health care. I went to story time training to learn something useful about exposing pre-schoolers to the joy of reading. I've taken a lot of training in Scouting to make myself a better teacher of scouts and adult scouters. I'm doing all that to be useful. It's fun. Now I want to do something REALLY fun and learn more physics. Maybe stir up physics. And teach physics. And be useful.

I'm looking for an omega of 1 and a lambda of 0; entrance into a graduate program what won't stifle investigation of Constituent Models completely, but to be ignored enough that I can write my own thesis without having it written for me. Or before me.

I am a concrete kind of guy, which has nothing to do with my architecture degree. Reinforced by a certain amount of steel - but that is a work in progress, too.

I feel confident that I've got something here.

But just because the author has Constituent Models and the mnp Model as tools and wants to see what they can do, not everything may be a nut. Or a nail to be driven home. He might even be wrong, in detail or in the large.

Amateur theoreticians seem to hang on very tightly to the ownership of their theories. As proved by Monty Python's "My Theory" riff. I suppose I should be flattered if someone wants to take some basic ideas and see how far they can run with it. I even suppose I should be flattered if someone wants credit for aspects or thoughts related to Constituent or mnp Models. Little chance of THAT!

I call the circling charge material "structure" and consider the mnp Model and even Constituent Models to be structural. I know physics sees the mathematics as the structure and reserves sub-structure for the deprecated explanations for things like spin coherence of remote particles. I suppose I will lose that argument, and may even be ex-communicated for it, but can be quoted as maintaining "still, they have structure."

First Paragraphs

Over the years, a number of different approaches to talking about Constituent Models and specific models have been considered by the author. Here, a bit of history.

From 2013-11-03: To introduce the mnp Model, one might list the basic principles of our model of the physical world known as physics. 1) The speed of light is constant 2) Variation, jitter, and probability are fundamental/exist and lead to 3) particles and behaviors are discrete and consistent and 4) we and the universe exist. See Realism above.

From 2014-10-20: Is it possible to discover why charge quanta come in thirds, the four momentum works so well, and string theory finds basic stability in ten dimensions? Sherlock Holmes tells Watson that when the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however unlikely, is the answer. Richard Feynman (1948) has one word of advice: "Renormalize." That Arthur Conan Doyle channels Richard Feynman, 61 years in the future, proves that the search for mechanism is futile. So where does that leave us? Hoping that hope will triumph over experience? --Pause--

Well, what WOULD we base a new model on?

  • C
  • Existence or ∃xistence as it would be written here.
  • Things keep their nature but respond to influence. One image of the centrality of h based on Lewis diagrams:

     ~ ~
    ~ h ~
    ~   ~
     ~ ~

From 2014-10-23: A constituent theory (model actually) may be more amenable to mathematical approach and more acceptable to the community as a starting point for investigation. To quantum (loop) gravity I offer the sequel to preons. Quarks have 6 parts as basic charge constituents, plus glue. Might even be possible to create constituent model math for QCD. Posit that each one sixth part is unified, or can we "dispense with that hypothesis?" Probably not. Yet.

The model constains either 3 or 4 constituents, Negative constituents, positive constituents, and glue that is polarizable. The fourth might be glue that is not polarizable. I am trying to see that gravitational glue as glue with random polarization. May also be able to model Gravity as being related to the direction of the constituents at the surface and the mass, to get fields that skew and make gravity appear instantaneous for where the mass is “now.” Will time dilation and length compression arise from constituent theories? If formulated a certain generic way? It would be interesting to have a developed constituent theory and THEN decide if mnp is a model that fits the theory.

Criteria For a Successful Model

How would we know when we had a successful model? I suspect that a successful model will not be redundant, that things will not be multiply determined, that there will be few or no types of matter that we haven't seen. And that there may be fewer particles and fields than we have hypothesized. That magnetic monopoles will be impossible. A successful model will be as simple as possible but no simpler. I also suggest a successful new model probably has to be all or nothing. Maybe not quite all, but enough of all to be interesting and then persuasive. Spoiler - I will NOT be persuasive today. Nor complete.

Rebuttal to Issues That May Come Up

Constituent Models are preferred frame models. Therefore:

Special Relativity: Relativistic mass is a real phenomenon that emerges from the Models. Length change as well as time dilation are seen as emerging. The two way speed of light ∃xperiments are respected, with each direction a different speed. It emerges.

General Relativity: it is the author's hope that something like GR emerges from the Models. That emergence better be good, and as close or closer to ∃xperimental results as GR is. Some variation, especially over particle and universe history, are expected.

By not baking theories into the Models to start, though that approach worked well for String Theory, the author hopes the Models will have few tuning issues and so quicker tests and possible refutations. Talk of confirmation certainly is premature at this point.

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