Hints of Recent and Future Developments in the mnp Model

[Edited 2019-12-29]
[Edited 2020-01-06, major reconsiderations needed]

Since the last blog post exactly a year ago, the mnp Model has undergone some development, as has the author. Undergrad courses to fill out a minor in Physics have challenged the Model and offered opportunities. Rather to the author's surprise, the opportunities seem to outweigh the challenges. In quantum mechanics, the Rydberg formula denominators and the "allowed" transitions of electrons bound to atoms fit extremely well with the coiled picture of electron charge structure. The understanding of Spin in the mnp Model has been improved. The equivalence of magnetism and electrostatic charge depending on reference frame "in the first order" is an opportunity to not explain the "nth" order right away. Exposure to ideas and education has expanded the list of experiments the author would like 1) to do or 2) inspire others to do or 3) find already done carefully.

[2020-01-06:] However, further introspection casts doubt on any easy explanation of the Rydberg denominators and has challenged one of the author's founding assumptions about charged particles. Apparently, an unbound electron must be heavier than a bound electron since it has more energy. In the mnp Model, this means that the free electron, instead of being purely charge material, must attract some of the mediators m's that make up fhotons, neutrinos, fields, gluons, most of gouts of energy, and all of the relativistic portion of mass. The early calculations in the mnp Model of basic entity dimensions must be revised downwards. Good thing, since they seemed too big to spread far enough and evenly enough to reach necessary limits of gravity. [/2020-01-06]

Opportunities in Quantum Mechanics

One of the author's conclusions from two semesters of quantum mechanics is that angular momentum and spin are of the same process undergone by particles.

The mnp Model is reasonably compatible with quantum mechanics. Electron shells are seen as unitary, never completely separated, and approximate in that the constituents moving at c will change, oscillate, and vary much as wave functions do. The charge structure of electrons can pass through itself and other particles, rather like wave functions. The mnp Model sees the constituent loops making up elementary particles as limited in circumference and all movement and charge related information traveling at c, so the quantum mechanics "everything is entangled with everything" is limited in extent (three meters by the not so current estimate) and time (distance/c) in the mnp Model.

The author received presents on waking the 25th when he thought he could see electron shell quantum number n as explainable in the mnp Model, then saw the shell shape as explainable in the Model, and THEN saw that the preferred/allowed/easy transitions between shell forms were ALSO explainable in the Model. [2020-01-06:] Now the first insight seems more like an apophany. [/2020-01-06]

Electrons and Shells

Electrons are, in the mnp Model, six stranded quantized loops of negative charge material (n's). Linear sequences of charge material tend to coil on themselves, with the constituents having maximal effect and coiling at the minimum possible radius. The "linear sequences" formed loops in a Big Bang or thereabouts a long time ago and far away, and six loops stranded form an elementary particle. A free electron is tiny. Perhaps little more than 4 radii.

[2020-01-06:] Major rethinking will require major changes to the electron:shell relation, so some of the next three grayed out paragraphs are history. Bunk. For smooth transitions in energy and hence mass, free electrons must be heavier than bound electrons. The basic entities CAN curve more in a bound state than in the free state. There will still be a limit to that curvature, and there will be a lower bound of charge material that forms the basic structure and charge of an electron, but to expand into a shell the electron the coils of charge materials must be influenced by (and influence) the central electrostatic attraction of the nucleus and so be unable to attract as much mediators as the free electron does. Coil count is INCREASED as the shell number goes down to 1. Perhaps the first shell represents the minimum radius for the coils that form the structure of the electron, so that bigger shells DO involve fewer coils as initially thought, but issues of different nuclei and the energy of the first 1s electron for a big nucleus need to be looked into. [/2020-01-06] When expanded into a shell, the strand is unsprung a little. In the first shell 1s, only TWO coils are "popped open" which allows the strand to expand enough to approximately cover a sphere.

To form a 1s "shell," an electron needs to lose a pair of its (huge number of) coils. This leaves the strand making one less coil pair than normal (nc coils), so each coil opens up 2/nc of its minimum radius. That means that it is traveling cos(1/nc) of its normal coiled path, so is able to attract 1/(1-cos(2/nc)) of it's mass in mediators. [Edit 2019-12-29 start:] Since 2/nc is such a tiny number, the Taylor expansion would be 1/(1-(1-(2/nc)^2/2)) or a proportional addition of energy in the form of mediators of nc^2/(4*n^2 * 2) or proportional to 1/n^2. Shell 2s would require losing 2 coil pairs, so that the additional energy/mass of m's would be proportional to 1/2^2.

Actually, things are nowhere near that simple. Coiling less does allow the charge material to attract mediators/energy in the form of m's and the amount attracted will be proportional to one less than the γ of special relativity if the greater than minimum radius is uniform. The single pair uncoiling DOES set a minimum for the 1s shell, since a given charge in the nucleus can only pull the electron in so much. To free the 1s electron requires re-coiling the pair, which usually requires adding enough energy to the electron to free it from the nucleus but may occur if another electron with the same spin is in the same shell. [/2019-12-29]

To form a |2,1,m_l> shell, the electron must gain back one of those coil pairs but instead of shrinking and giving up energy, the two coils allow the requisite two foldings of the shell. Picture the constituents of the electron, traveling in a strand at the speed of light, passing from one lobe to the other and then traveling back from that lobe to the first to make a round trip. Side note: in the mnp Model, the fixed length of each of the 6 filaments that make up the strand require that the strand has rotated only 180 degrees in making a round trip. Yes, this step is a weak argument, based somewhat on "needs to be," for why the amount of energy attracted by the electron changes only slightly when the two more coils are present in a |2, 1, m_l2> electron than in the |1, 0, 0> electron.

If that picture of shell number n and geometric l numbers holds under closer inspection, the |2,1,m_l> shell has the same number of coil untwists (2) as the 1s shell. This could well explain the preferred changes between |2,1,m_l2> and |1,0,0> as well as |3,2,m_l3> and |2,1,m_l2> and the "allowable"/preferred/probable transitions from |3,1,m_l3> to |2,0,0> and from |3,2,m_l3> to |4,3,m_l4>. But it does not so readily explain |3,2,m_l3> to |4,1,m_l4> if going to and from a higher shell n number with a lower geometric l number is in fact a preferred transition. [2019-12-29:] If the transition from for example |3,0,0> to |2,1,m_l2> involves the same number of coil pairs unwound, but the unwindings of one pair are in the opposite direction as the other 3, followed shortly by two pairs of unwindings cancelling themselves, then perhaps the "allowed in the direction of increasing l could be explained. The author would expect this process to take slightly longer than expected for |3,2> to |2,1> spontaneous emission (or might expect the subsequent |2,1> to |1,0> transition to occur faster when starting from |3,0> than when starting from a |3,2> state.[/2019-12-29]

The author has up to now pictured electrons in shells as being coils oriented with axis perpendicular to the line toward the nucleus, so that the outer half of each coil would be moving at c with minimum radius and slightly greater radius on the inner half, when the Axis of the electrostatic field would cause the basic entities to try to align with the electrostatic field of the nucleus. This may still apply, but introspection also suggests that if the coils are flat, with axis parallel to a line to the nucleus, then wobbling or misaligned coils will be pulled in and so back into alignment by the nucleus' electrostatic field.

Coil Topology

In some topological sense, those allowed/preferred/easy transitions in the mnp Model are as alike as the standard topological doughnut and handles mug. If "Coil topology" or "Stiff Coil Topology" or "Stiff Non-Physical Coil Topology" has not already been "done" it might be somebody else's dissertation. Or at least an interesting paper.

A search for Coil Topology produces much investigation on antenna, magnetic circuit, and power transfers where topology is used as a synonym for physical configuration. Some results emerge dealing with DNA and protein coiling, including notes about closed loop DNA which loops are also known as plasmids. Some of that vocabulary may be useful if coil topology is not well ensconced in mathematical literature. For example, supercoils from wikipedia DNA_supercoil speculates in the second sentence (!) on joining the DNA in a circle. The terms twist is used for the overall (first order) twist. Writhe produces lobal contortions. As a count of contortions, in circular DNA the sum of twist and writhe is constant and represents supercoiling. Written there as Lk = Tw + Wr.

A difference with mnp coils is that here, the coil length is stiff but the coils can cross over each other. So there may well be room for investigation. Another difference is that mnp coils are incapable of overcoiling.

Changes in Spin Picture

Spin must have other origins and explanations beyond the need for the mnp Model's six stranded coils of electrons and quarks to be individually continuous and of fixed length. Up to now, the author thought the direction of coiling of the strand determines Spin direction. Spin orientation, at least at the Bloch sphere/undergraduate level, could be explained by an "impossible" orientation for this ineffable but measurable concept of spin. That something is immeasurable is sometimes seen in the mnp Model as a result of our measurement devices. Measuring devices and experiments are made of electrons and waves or photons. Devices and experiments are only capable of measuring as closely as the constituents of those electrons, waves, and photons are capable of turning. The mnp Model sees uncertainty as at least partially based in the "physical" realities of our experiments.

The author now sees a two-fold explanation of Spin as necessary in the mnp Model. The documented coils of charge material do establish a left hand and right hand turning as the strand makes forward progress, but the coils now need to be seen as having an imbalance centered spherically around an axis that coincides with the spin axis on a Bloch sphere. So a right hand coiling electron, in the same physical configuration with a left hand coiling electron both with imbalances at the same orientation/direction will have opposite (aggregate) spins. This may allow two versions of chirality in addition to spin. Whether two chiralities, one small but much bigger than an even smaller one, are measurable is currently a mystery to the author. For reference, those chiralities are the direction of coiling of the strand and the (smaller in magnitude) direction of strands rotation within the strand of six loops, sometimes called "lay" when referring to rope.

Reassurance for the mnp Model

If movement of unbound particles in the continuum is NOT quantized, a whole realm of "quantum explanations" need not be entered. Or manufactured. Which is good for the Model.

The muon storage experiments seem solid, if not very well known. so a whole realm of explanations are not needed for how physical acceleration changes clocks and dimensions. In the Bailey 1977 CERN muon storage ring experiment, muons were subject to up to 1e18 g acceleration with no impact on time dilation. In 1980 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, Roos exposed Sigma baryons to longitudinal acceleration from .5 to 5e15 g, with no variation from ordinary time dilation and decay. (Thank you, wikipedia.) This allows the author to continue to look at gravitational fields as separate from the acceleration due to gravitational fields in the mnp Model and allows philosophical space for the resolution of the twin paradox to be an absolute frame/two way speed of light model.

Challenges to the mnp Model

The mnp Model has not survived undergraduate quantum mechanics unscathed. The Aharanov-Bohm effect, in which an electrically charged particle is affected by the electromagnetic potential in regions believed to be free of magnetic and electrostatic fields, is a new challenge. Is it lack of truly infinite solenoids? Something like evanescent waves leaking out anyway? Lack of true balance in the current, which is proceeding up and around the solenoid? If a picture of potential (in addition to fields) can be shown to be created by the action of charged particles on the mediators (m's) in the mnp Model, Aharnov-Bohm effect might actually support models like mnp. Further, if the mnp Model can suggest ways to picture or create regions of zero electrical field with varying electrical potentials so that the equivalent electrical effect could be measured ... Ah, well, one can dream.

These issues are in the "having written down the problem, think hard about it" stage. Of course, "write a better description of the problem" may be part of the process.

Thoughts on Education

Undergraduate education is seldom affected by modern research. One of the few examples is how polarization in dielectric materials is pictured, no longer as discrete cells of polarization, but as an edge effect created by changes in the bulk. Very little of a model like mnp is expected to change undergraduate education. One possible exception, the concept that free electrons CANNOT absorb complete photons, can be dealt with by postulating that such discussions have no place in undergraduate physics. Though the flip side offers opportunity, if impossibility has not been proved by experiment. Inventing an appropriate experiment to test absorption by free electrons may be difficult, but is on the author's short list of interesting experiments.

One of the effects of education is that I may sound slightly more like a physicist. For humorous example, describe the mnp Model in quantum postulate form: (The conceit of) The mnp Model (is that it) postulates that there exists a set of principles that can explain most of the experimental results in physics. In a conceptual space, called for lack of a better term, a Hauser space denoted by a script H there exists a small set of functions with a small set of operators that act in manners that mimics the observed behavior of energy and matter, though not necessarily the theorized behavior of energy and matter. Those functions are figments denoted as m's, n's, and p's. The operators are conceptual interactions called Travel and Axis and perhaps Overlap.

Changing (or turning on a) paradigm to functional notation, yields three operands and two or three operators. We might call m's, n's, and p's operands and Travel and Axis operators. So that, having invented a theoretical space, all further development might be classed as discoveries.

Hints of the Future of mnp Model Posts

The author has identified eight interesting experiments, some of which may have been done already but some of which may only have been done half heartedly. To post:

• Discussion of the experiments the author is interested in doing.
• The extreme care that is required to do experiments with possibly surprising results when the experimenter is hoping for surprise,
• The essentially forensic nature of such experiments as conducted in a public realm.
• The issues of funding and motivation for the research.

Unfortunately for the author, the eight experiments on the author's short list fit into no one category, which may motivate application to Universities with varied research foci.

Further explication of magnetism and reference frames is (long) overdue. Mathematics tying movement and mass using principles of minimal action are needed as part of continued investigation of the Lorenz Transformation.

To be continued...