A new Model is proposed to unify everything in physics: the four forces including gravity and the hundreds of elementary particles. Time, relativity, and gravity result from the interaction of the basic entities at a tiny scale.
Edited: 2022-03-05 to include classical B and F on diagrams. Added Figure 3 - Gradient Anti-Parallel to Electron Movement, Axis Tensor Perpendicular for reference. Title adjusted - partial progress.
Edited: 2022-03-06 to note that in a moving particle, finding matching points on matching coils with opposite z components in the coil is easy, but given velocity v the z components and hence the x and y components of the basic entity travel are NOT opposite.
(Non and Partial) Progress
This post is a further investigation of particle response to magnetic fields started in Post 48 - Toward a Unified Charge Information Field Model as part of the mnp Model approach to the (massive) topic of electromagnetism. That post has been lightly edited to note that it and this post are a work in progress; not all the “proofs” are satisfying. This material has grown so that inserting it back into Post 48 would be difficult.
Given ∃xperiment and the universe’s ∃xistence, the fundamental finding that coils perpendicular to the Charge Information Tensor Field (called Axis Tensor here and akin to the traditional Vector Potential) do not respond to the Field except for nuances related to mediator travel that lead to creation of attractive electrostatic fields and to electron shell repulsion by the nucleus is deemed a solid part of the mnp Model. A single field, the Axis Tensor Field, is still seen as the origin of all electromagnetic exchange.
Electromagnetism - a Symmetries/Commutation Relation Approach
Here is an approach to picturing and describing moving particle response to Axis Tensor Fields that attempts to use symmetries in the particle, the coils, and the basic entities in those coils. Using travel of the mediators as part of the picture of gradient of the Axis Tensor Field is being avoided here. At the end of February, 2022, the symmetries/Commutation Relation Approach is not very satisfying let alone complete. The exercise may prove useful as an education in “Thinking in the”mnp" Model." It may prove useful in limiting the degrees of freedom in the Model.
For example, thinking about moving particles in an Axial Tensor Field has lead to the thought that velocity v is a part of all the basic entity travel in the coils of a particle, that coil orientations close to perpendicular to the direction of motion become very rare, and that this “Darwinian” selection of coil orientations may lead more of less directly to particle shortening in the direction of movement. This picture feels relativistic; the coils do their normal stuff, just slower by 1/γ and velocity v is tacked on uniformly as if the laws of physics DO apply in all inertial frames. Or not. To be continued…
Principles of Particle Response
Some principles or guidelines for (the author’s use in) thinking about electromagnetism in the mnp Model.
Entity behavior in the Field:
The Axis Tensor causes redirection by the Axis Alignment property of the basic n (or p) entities attempt to align their Axis, opposite the direction of travel for n’s and along the direction of travel for p’s.
The redirection is only perpendicular to the path of the basic entity/entities.
The gradient only indicates direction of (increasing) Axis Tensor, but is useful for finding “matching” coils and positions on the coil.
Increases from one side to the other of a particle may lead to turning caused by the Axis Tensor. To be determined.
For electrons, the particles shown here in all drawings, if the Axis Tensor Field would guide the axis of the entity into the coil, the effect is permitted since the travel direction would be moved out. Mathematically expressed, if Axis Tensor projected onto the radius from center to entity on coil is negative, effects are possible. ?? as (?) Entities in coils, with axis cross Axis Tensor _ away _ from coil can be affected. Here, if the radius on the coil is toward the Axis Tensor, there will be no effect. ??? Need coil direction. ???
Particle Geometries:
Given velocity v is along the z axis
The moving particle is therefore an ellipsoid compressed in the z direction.
The particle is rotationally symmetric about a line through the center in the v direction. Call that the centerline.
The particle is mirror across the plane through the center perpendicular to the v direction. Coil rotations are mirrored as if the coil have been slid across the (representational) surface of the ellipsoid.
Symmetries:
Start with a point (a) on a coil (A) at a position in the particle. There will be a (huge) number of coils at the same relative orientation to the centerline.
For any plane containing the centerline, there will be a matching coil and point across that plane.
For any plane containing the centerline and perpendicular to the first chosen plane, there will be two more coils and points in symmetry.
Across the equatorial plane, there will be 4 more points and coils in symmetry, but the direction of motion v will cause a z offset to the basic entity travel in the coils. The “moving in coil” directions will mirror, but the z offset will add. Alternate expression: Since the basic entities in the coils are oriented “off coil plane” in moving particles, the basic entity orientation is NOT mirror symmetric in the plane perpendicular to the velocity.
Other planes cut through the center parallel to a chosen plane through the centerline will cut an ellipsoid of coil orientations, which may be useful but the only matches on density of states will be across the equatorial plane and the center plane perpendicular to the logically cutting plane.
Other planes cut through the center at skewed angles will cut an ellipsoid of coil orientations which may be useful, but there is no guarantee that the density of states of coil orientations or basic entity presence will be symmetric.
Further, there will be a (regular but not determined) distribution of coil orientations and corresponding points on an ellipsoid in any chosen plane perpendicular to the gradient, so the corresponding positions in coils to (a) given coil will be continuously distributed, though that distribution may not be exactly linear or identical.
A certain limited amount of “representation” may be used in the discussion. The author hopes to minimize “representation” and describe the assumptions and reasons when needed.
Drawings:
Axis convention: Velocity is parallel to the z axis.
Coil orientations and points are symmetric about the x axis and the y axis.
The y’ axis will be in the opposite direction from the gradient. Any y’z plane will be a plane of symmetry.
All drawings here will be of electrons, with Axis by Franklin’s convention opposite the direction of travel. Electrons are assumed to be spherical(ish) shells or (tiny) spherical(ish) free electrons.
The goal of all this exercise is to show that 1) the off-gradient component of the Axis Tensor does not affect the speed of a (moving) particle but only redirects the particle and 2) if the particle is moving perpendicular to both Axis Tensor and gradient, there is no resultant. An intermediate step is recognizing the symmetries, analogous to looking for commutation relations. Proving a cross product relationship is left for the future.
The symmetries are not exact. Due to the huge numbers of coils and basic entities in the particle and the speed of the basic entities in coils (c) and the tiny time taken for basic entities to traverse one loop and the macroscopic lack of lateral movement, the particle symmetries can be considered exact for the pictures here. Note that for now the coils are assumed to always have correspondents for the planes of symmetry. “Exactly” 90 degrees or “exactly” parallel can be ignored for now as having a vanishingly small density of states, but may be revisited later.
The figures show coil orientations at the “front” of the particle above the coil orientations at the “back” of the particle below. The figures show an equivalent particle with opposite spin on the right, in case the argument for balance needs the opposite spin as well.
Hopes for the “symmetries” (commutation relation) approach are collected here:
Find corresponding positions/basic entities so that an “integration of resultants” is not needed.
If coil symmetry itself must be used, we hope not to need to assume that the coil itself sees a uniform Axis Tensor.
Avoid a foray into argument from statistical physics and finding balance in opposite spins. Hopefully, this is NOT necessary for fields with constant gradient. Thus:
Avoid using the right hand images at all.
Perhaps avoid needing to find matching points at other than symmetry positions in coils of symmetrically matching orientations and positions.
Integrating around a coil or over all coils is avoidable.
Integrating around an ellipse of distributions of coil orientations or positions on the coils of that ellipsoidal distribution is avoidable.
Develop the author’s and the diagrams visualization of the effect of Axis Tensor on the particles. The simulation of coil orientations and entity positions and net effects will benefit from this visualization. And this discussion may benefit from the calculations. A work in progress.
Both Gradient and Axis Tensor Perpendicular to Velocity
Figure 1 - Gradient, Axis Tensor, and Velocity All Perpendicular
This diagram shows the Axis Tensor in the xy plane at 45 degrees clockwise from the y axis, pointed away from the viewer.
The gradient is in the xy plane at -45 degrees from the y axis. (“Without loss of generality.”) Axis Tensor is perpendicular to velocity. Missing from the diagram is a little halo around the end of the dark arrows, indicating the limits of effect which must be perpendicular to the movement of the entities. Actually a half halo would be appropriate, indicating it cannot coil more tightly.
So, in this isometric, the plane of uniform Axis Tensor parallel to the point of view so shows as a vertical line with the plane projecting directly out of the screen/paper. (a) (a m) (a u) and (a m u) are in a plane of equal Axis Tensor perpendicular to the gradient. Each of those points has a corresponding point across the coil in the plane of uniform Axis Tensor. They are in coils of mirrored orientation in the xy plane (front to back in the upward moving particle) and the vertical plane that includes the gradient. Within a single coil, there is another point on the plane of constant gradient opposite (a), shown as (a o) on the diagram. It is in a line symmetrical position in the coil (across the projection of the gradient onto the plane of the coil) but not similar orientations to the Axis Tensor. On the other side of the z axis (mirrored in the plane x=y) are four corresponding points (b) (b m) (b u) and (b m u), which each see the same higher Axis Tensor as much above the Axis Tensor through the center of the particle as (a) and company see an Axis Tensor below the center/average. The author hopes to not need that “symmetry.”
The classical B comes from a line source to the right, with (+) current moving along x=y so at the origin B is up in the z direction and F is expected to be 0.
Want to show: in a plane of equal Axis tensor, the net change in basic entity direction is 0 perpendicular to the velocity. Even better, the change in basic entity direction is 0.
Half of each coil will be unable to respond to the Axis Tensor. Some of the points in the diagram cannot be affected by the Axis Tensor, since that would require the impossible tightening of the coils. Points (a m u) (x m u) and (a m) and (x m) and (a o) cannot be affected. So in this diagram, of the a series, only (a) and (a u) are candidates for balancing effect as are (x) and (x u):
This proof/argument appears to depend on the effect at supplementary angles being the same. This proof/argument gets easier if the velocity component of EACH basic entity is the same, in the direction of the overall velocity. So for now, assume that the true orientation of EACH basic entity n in the coil has a v component separate from coil motion. By ∃xistence/∃xperiment. For now.
In the figure, (a u) is mirrored in the horizontal plane though the center and matches the (a) familiar from earlier figures. The z component of figment movement in the coil is the same, the x and y components are opposite. The v component offset from the coil is the same. The angles to the Axis Tensor are supplementary. So the Axis Tensor influence on the two will be the same, toward a line x=y in a horizontal plane, but the x and y components will be opposite for no net effect on the particle. The effect on the z component will not balance, since (a u) is being directed down and (a) is being directed down. So the only net non-symmetry is the z component of the offset. Using a statistical physics argument with density of states overtones, there will be as many (x) and (x u) pairs at that Axis Tensor value in the coils that supply the (a) and (a u) pairs, with z components down. The Axis Tensor will tend to redirect those up, hopefully balancing the effect on the z component of n entity motion. A second attempted argument: Since any redirection of that z component must be in that z component direction and the constituents of the particle are already moving at c and cannot be accelerated or decelerated, therefore all other changes will cancel when the Axis Tensor is perpendicular to travel and the gradient is perpendicular to velocity, there will be no effect to redirect velocity. This pairing exists for all basic entities and coil directions in the moving particle. (QED) Sorta.
The “no effect on the z component of the velocity” part of the argument still seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Gradient Anti-Parallel to Velocity, Axis Tensor Perpendicular
(Edit 2022-03-05) The initial post had Axis Tensor anti-parallel to velocity and gradient perpendicular to both here. That did not succeed completely. Subsequent investigation of the gradient anti-parallel to the velocity and the Axis Field perpendicular to the velocity toward -x and so still perpendicular to the gradient, initially intended to follow, was more successful.
In the following diagram, we want to show that the resultant (F) is in the y direction, that there is no resultant parallel to the gradient and velocity.
Figure 2 - Gradient Anti-Parallel to Electron Movement, Axis Tensor Perpendicular
Here the classical B is generated by a line source running +x to -x below the diagram. At the origin, B is in the positive y direction, so F is in the +x direction.
Horizontal planes cut through the particle see uniform Axis Tensors, so (a) (a m) (b) and (b m) AND (a mirrored) (y) (x) and (x m) see the same Axis Tensor direction and magnitude. (a) (b) (a mirrored) and (y) cannot respond, (a m) (b m) (x) and (x m) can respond by redirecting away from the coil. (a m) and (b m) have the same angle to the Axis Tensor, with the same y and x components and opposite z components. They will balance in the z direction. All points on all coils will have a corresponding point on a coil at the same Axis Tensor so no resultant in the z direction is expected. (x) and (b m) have a supplementary angle to the Axis Tensor, with opposite z, y, and x coordinates. The y coordinates of resultant will cancel. The x component of (b m) will increase, the x component of (x) will increase as the coil at that point traveling in the -x direction attempts to open. For all points on all coils that can respond, a corresponding point on a symmetrical coil exists. QED. Sorta. Actually not too bad! (2022-03-06) That proof only works if we ignore the z component due to velocity v. Further investigation of response of the entities as part of the coil are needed.
Note that (a m) and (x m) show on the same coil only because the B and D coils are shown as exactly perpendicular, that actually (a m) would have a corresponding point on another coil also nearly perpendicular to the xz plane so the proof holds. Exactly perpendicular has such a low (essentially 0) density of states that we are ignoring it for now.
Note that investigation of whether partial response is possible or useful remains. Note that "useful" means "shows results consistent with ∃xperiment," which of course looks to some like tailoring the Models.
Gradient Perpendicular to Velocity, Axis Tensor Anti-Parallel
Next, consider the gradient perpendicular to the velocity and the Axis Field anti-parallel to the velocity, so still perpendicular to the gradient. Want to show that the resultant is in the direction of increasing gradient, that there is no resultant perpendicular to the gradient and no resultant parallel to the velocity.
Figure 3 - Gradient Perpendicular to v, Axis Tensor Anti-Parallel to v
Here limitations on which points are affected by the Axis Tensor apply. Pairs (a o) (a u o) and (a m o) (a m u o) are affected, the (a) and (x) series are not in this drawing. Points (a o) and (a u o) make then same angle to the Axis Tensor, with opposite x' and y' and the same z component. The x' components of the resultants match, showing no net resultant in the x' direction. Each affected point on each coil has an equivalent point on a coil mirrored in the y'z plane, so the resultant has no x' component. (1/3 QED) Change to basic entity direction must be perpendicular to the basic entity direction and will be in a vertical plane including the entity travel direction vector. This model of interaction ignores coil orientation and neighboring basic entities, which may also present limiting effects. In this simple model, it appears that the z component of the resultant for (a o) and (a u o) are both increased. It appears the y' components cancel, so this simple Model of interaction with entities in coils needs to be revised. Point (a o) might be usefully paired with (a m o) since they make supplementary angles to the Axis Tensor with opposite x' y' and z' components (except that v increases both z components), so a simple search for canceling/commutation does not appear promising here either. If the resultant must be perpendicular to the coil (due to effects from nearby entities in the coil) then having a velocity component perpendicular to coil motion may provide means for that perpendicular effect to occur and might actually allow a resultant proportional to that component perpendicular to the coil. More thought required.
From the first post: These (a o) and (a u o) pairs are chosen because they have point symmetry in the plane perpendicular to the Axis Tensor in x’ and y’ and match z, so that their x’ and y’ components of movement are opposite and their z components match. The pairs make the same angle with the Axis Tensor, with opposite x’ and y’ components and resultants. The z resultant will be greater by an equal amount for (a o) and (a u o). For corresponding points and coils on the other side of the particle, the effects will be similarly balanced but stronger, causing the electron to move from higher to lower gradient (and accelerate) Clearly this does not happen in ∃xperiment, so something is wrong with the argument. A naive approach to electrostatic fields (like attracts and electrons in shells are attracted to the nucleus) did not work before, so the author needs to think about this more. A lot more.
Here the classical B is caused by a line current to the right, with (+) current flowing down, so B is in the x=y direction and F would be in the -y=x direction.
If the Axis Tensor were upward, similar geometries would exist but the (a) and (x) series would be affected and the (...o) series would not.
Translating Back to Magnetic Fields and Forces
The gradient is higher to the right, so the source of the Axial Tensor Field is a vertical current to the right, flowing down the wire. The electrons are moving up, representing a current down.
To repeat, the result I’m getting is wrong.
Possible adjustments or change in approach for now:
Just do calculations and simulations, with various reasonable Axis Alignment assumptions, and see what happens. Maybe I have made a mistake in logic or geometry.
Coils with a z component may behave differently and prevent direct redirection of coils in the z direction. Nature can be arbitrary, as the discoverers of the muon found. Still, it will be consistent.
Examine small differences in Axis Tensor Field caused by the response of the “near part” of the particle.
Look at what experiment tells us happens and figure out a way to make the basic entities or coils or collections of coils behave that way. (Next to last choice!) We want the response to be proportional to velocity v, to be perpendicular to v, and to be in the -y’ direction. Not too much to ask.
Of course, there is the “give up” option. After years of “triumphs” of mechanism, that would be hard. What triumphs, you ask? Mechanisms for shell repulsion, electrostatic opposites attract, universe expansion, slowing universe expansion, ultra high speed cosmic particles, the durability of protons and certain few quark triplets, why quark “strings” get stronger and bigger, explanation of the Higgs particle, two step electron shell preferred expansion and contraction, spin, the one third charges in quarks. Leaving only most of physics to be explained.
Possible adjustments to effects on entities in coils:
The movement of the particle is (anti) parallel to the Axis Tensor. Still, we want the effect proportional to particle speed.
Consider going back to the change in orientation of the v component as perpendicular to the coil, so it gives the Axis Tensor something to grab onto.
Consider allowing only effects perpendicular to the coil. Careful to not undo some of the electron shell and electrostatic Axis Field generation effects.
Compare to the electrostatic case, which should see no effect. The only difference (other than γ correction) is the addition of a component of v perhaps perpendicular to the coil. Or a component of the entity Axis opposite v to attract to the Axis Tensor and …
Note here that if v is zero, we have seen (a o) and (a u o) exactly opposite effects if the pesky z would go away.
Does coming from a region of higher gradient toward smaller make for different effect than from smaller to greater?
Will partial effect occur rather than nothing in a not-allowed situation? Different for Axis Tensor than a single figment leaving a coil? Might be easier to investigate numerically.
Might “changing the whole coil orientation” be a better mode or model for influence on particles?
The Work Not Shown
If this had been successful, then investigating skewed Axis Tensor Fields and then skewed gradient would have been appropriate. One diagram is shown here for reference.
Skewed Axis Tensor Field
Drafts of a skewed Axis Tensor Field approach follow, with limited success.
Figure 4 - Axis Tensor Skewed from v, Perpendicular to Gradient
To align with the gradient and Axis Tensor, rotate x and y 45 degrees to create y’ parallel to the gradient and x’ axes perpendicular to v and the gradient. y’ is hidden by the gradient and x’ is hidden by v and z in the isometric drawing.
The magnetic field is generated by a (+) current moving up in a wire to the right of the diagram, the classical B is in the -x' direction, the (+) velocity v+ is down, and the expected resultant F in the -x',y' direction
If the Axis Tensor is perpendicular to the gradient but NOT to the velocity, the four points mentioned still see equal Axis Tensors, but that tensor is skewed. Here, the Axis Tensor points up and back in the isometric. So the arrows are seen bigger in the up and down direction since they are in a plane sloped perpendicular to the viewer.
The x=-y component of the two movements is the same, the z components are the same perpendicular to the plane parallel to the now skewed Axis Tensor, but the x=y component differ. A better corresponding coil to A and position (a) is across the ellipsoidal distribution in the chosen plane, using the Axis Tensor as the dividing line. A view, from -y’ toward y’, centered on the particle and cut on the (a) equal Axis Tensor plane, which locates (a e) across the ellipse. Note the avoidance of the term “section” or “cross section.”. In the following figure, the fuzzy gray ellipse represents coil locations on the approximate surface of the particle. Coil Ae may NOT have the same density of states as coil A so the balances can NOT be investigated about the skewed Axis Tensor. Sigh.
Figure 5 - Cut View of Particle in Iso-Axis Tensor Plane for Skewed Axis Tensor
For now, this effort requires more thought and “unconscious time.” Experimentation with computational modeling is appropriate. Fortunately, resorting to computation is not seen as the last resort of scoundrels in modern physics.
Neutrino spectrum literature is investigated, both for solar and atmospheric (cosmic ray decay) sources. Comparison to solar radiation (electromagnetic flux) gives interesting results, even with moderate levels of uncertainty in the flux predictions and measurements.
Since neutrino availability affects commercial prospects of energy extraction (though neutrino availability appears to not affect investment extraction), the author hopes the exercise of extracting energy totals from existing spectrum information is done properly.
Solar Neutrino Spectrum and Intensity
No convenient tabulation of energy availability for neutrinos was found.
Review of Particle Physics 2020 1 shows neutrino flux for solar sources in Figure 14.1 page 292 and references original sources for solar neutrino and atmospheric neutrino spectra.
The following table is developed from the original sources:
Table of Solar Neutrino Energy, Mev/(cm2s)
Source Type
Flux Exponent
Flux Mantissa
Energy/ν MeV
Energy MeV
Percent of Total
pp
10
5.98
0.259
1.549E+10
75.9067
pep
8
1.44
1.400
2.016E+08
0.9880
hep
3
8.04
10.000
8.040E+04
0.0004
7Be
9
5.00
0.850
4.250E+09
20.8290
8B
6
5.58
5.000
2.790E+07
0.1367
13N
8
2.96
0.700
2.072E+08
1.0155
15O
8
2.23
1.000
2.230E+08
1.0929
17F
6
5.52
1.000
5.520E+06
0.0271
eN
5
2.34
2.220
5.195E+05
0.0025
eO
5
0.88
2.754
2.424E+05
0.0012
eF
3
3.24
2.761
8.946E+03
0.0000
————
————-
————-
Total
2.040E+10
100.0000
Serenelli(2016)2 Figure 3 is the source of Figure 14.1 mentioned above, which shows a vertical log scale per 100keV. The 2018 version of the same diagram had both per 100keV and per MeV noted as the vertical scale. Table 3 lists the solar flux under various models, the SFII GS98 chosen by Review. The data has not changed since Serenelli(2011)3. Tabulation of fluxes is in Table 3. The SFII-GS98 column had appeared in Review 2018 but not 2020. Energies used for the fluxes are measured from the diagram, taking the value slightly to the left of the peak of the distributions (reason below).
Due to the variation in stated vertical scale, the author expanded the figures and performed a graphical integration of flux for the pp curve, yielding a value of 6.738e+10 compared to the published 5.98e+10. This is considered confirmation of the published magnitudes of the fluxes and the 100MeV vertical scale and, when scaled to the published flux, showed an average energy of 0.259 GeV just to the left of the peak flux shown in the graph.
Villante(2014)4 page 3 provides the three electron capture flux numbers ecCNO for 13N, 15O and 17F as count per centimeter squared per second. The GS98 column agrees better with measurements. Energies are taken from the same page, just below equation (1). The ecCNO neutrinos make up about 1% of the solar neutrino budget. Or less.
Converting from the realm of particle physics to SI units or energy requires a very tiny conversion factor: 1eV = 1.602176634E-019 J, though converting from MeV adds 6 to the exponent of 10 and converting from square centimeters to square meters adds another 4.
Atmospheric Neutrinos
Honda(2015) 5
has calculated atmospheric neutrino spectra for various locations around the globe, with varying atmospheric densities and conditions, compared to the long used US-standard ’76 atmosphere which has no seasonal or location parameters. The year averaged data is available from the author(s) https://www.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mhonda/nflx2014/index.html. Variations in site averaged over the year were up to 10% in the arctic regions. The tropics were seen as 5% different. Choosing the Kamiokande year round data Solar-min and Solar-max without mountain looming over for comparison with Solar neutrino intensity shows data as flux (count) per meter squared per second per steradian per GeV (since it is a continuous spectrum) on a log scale from 100MeV to 10,000GeV, for four neutrino types, νμ ν̅μ νe and ν̅e. Data is shown in 20 ranges of cosine Z, averaged over 360 degrees of azimuth. The tables start at 100MeV neutrinos, so some low energy neutrinos are missing, principally from muons hitting rock or ice. The data show that the spectrum energy per GeV is dropping to less than half the peak around 500MeV neutrinos, so the loss is expected to be minor.
Calculating a single number for intensity on a horizontal square meter requires calculating the incident neutrinos on a horizontal plane from above and below, averaging solar minimum and solar maximum data (which differed by 5%), and summing the energies of all four neutrino types. The year round average was 8430 GeV/(m2s) or 1.34x10-6 J/(m2s). A tiny number, hiding very rare but VERY high energy neutrinos! Uncertainties of 10 to 20% or even 50% do not turn the atmospheric neutrino energy availability into a big number.
Compared to the solar neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos are interesting but rare and offer little energy per unit area.
Solar Electromagnetic Spectrum and Intensity
For comparison, solar spectrum has been summarized in ASTM G-173-03 6. Standard sea level and extraterrestrial sprectra are available. Seventy percent of the solar electromagnetic energy is in the visible spectrum.
Table of Solar Electromagnetic Radiation Energy
Location
watts/(m2)
J/(m2s)
Outside Atmosphere
1348.2
1348.2
Global Tilt
1000.6
1000.6
Direct+Circumsolar
900.3
900.3
Lunar Electromagnetic Spectrum and Intensity
Christopher et al(2017)7 answers How bright is moonlight? The moon, on a clear fall night when the moon is close to the Earth, on a plane perpendicular to the moon, measures 0.3 lux (0.26 lux horizontal). A few hours a year, in the tropics, this would reach 0.32 lux. When “in the extremely unusual case of a near-perigee full Moon, near-zenith, under near-ideal atmospheric conditions, the maximum possible horizontal photopic illuminance is approximately 0.3 lux.”
For the solar spectrum, a standard value is 1 lux = 0.0079 watts/m2, so the lunar intensity ranges up to .0024 w/m2 or .0024 J/m2/s.
Conclusion
A table of relative energies is simple:
Neutrino and Electromagnetic Radiation: Energy Available
Source
Energy J/(m2s)
Relative to sunlight
full sunlight
1000 J/(m2s)
100%
solar neutrinos
32 J/(m2s)
3%
full moonlight
<.0024 J/(m2s)
.00002%
atmospheric neutrinos
0.00000135 J/(m2s)
.000000135 or 1.35x10-7%
In a moderately cloudy environment, integrated over 24 hours, neutrinos might represent 30% of the energy available from sunlight, requiring over 3 times the area to generate an equivalent amount of energy over a day, assuming similar efficiencies.
Even the large error bars are not expected to allow development of a vigorous energy production industry based on neutrino energy. Already the financial markets are seeing development of a vigorous investment industry based on neutrino energy. Search “neutrino energy harvesting” for investment opportunities. Good luck to that. Speculators may choose not to dump their battery stocks just yet.
Appendix - Musings on Neutrinos as Particles in the mnp Model
The mnp Model sees neutrinos as having energy, no rest mass, and as being distinguished only by energy level, unlikely by length, and even less likely by transverse pattern of mediator distribution. Neutrino change is seen as non-quantized recruiting of mediators as the neutrino passes through mass and gravitational fields. Since that recruiting is seen as proportional to neutrino energy, the change might be exponential with a very low constant in neutrino energy and traversed mass. The Model has no effective picture or response to the “tiny mass” and “anti-neutrino” descriptions. Early attempts at explaining those variations are now seen as disasters. See the mnp Manual - Appendix J - Journal of Negative Results.
Appendix - My Notes on Programs
To find the tiny numbers offered by atmospheric neutrinos, the author spent a lot of energy installing a notebook server and getting it to work locally. A frustrating but ultimately satisfying experience, not recommended for those without gurus. The web is NOT a guru.
More information on sources, page numbers, and calculation techniques than would be required in a paper is included here, as “notes to self” and as compensation for a less than eidetic memory.
ASTM International (2020) ASTM G173-03 - Standard Tables for Reference Solar Spectral Irradiances: Direct Normal and Hemispherical on 37° Tilted Surface (ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA).
https://www.nrel.gov/grid/solar-resource/assets/data/astmg173.xls Retrieved 2022-02-21↩︎
Christopher C M Kyba, Andrej Mohar, Thomas Posch, How bright is moonlight?,
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 58, Issue 1, 1 February 2017, Pages 1.31–1.32, https://doi.org/10.1093/astrogeo/atx025↩︎
Work on explaining and understanding magnetism's effect on particles is continued in Post 50 More (Non) Progress on Electromagnetism in the mnp Model. Not all the "proofs" here or there are satisfying. Some of this post has already been marked as deprecated.
Given ∃xperiment and the universe's ∃xistence, the fundamental finding that coils perpendicular to the Charge Information Tensor Field (called Axis Tensor here and akin to the traditional Vector Potential) do not respond to the Field except for nuances related to mediator travel that lead to creation of attractive electrostatic fields and to electron shell repulsion by the nucleus is deemed a solid part of the mnp Model. A single field, the Axis Tensor Field, is still seen as the origin of all electromagnetic exchange. Magnetism remains incompletely explained.
Abstract
The mnp Model and Constituent Models finally have a reasonable approach to picturing charge information, the influence of particles on charge information and charge information on particles. The separation of resultants along the gradient of the charge information and perpendicular to that gradient are seen as the result of particle constituent behavior. The classical separation of electric and magnetic fields is seen as understandable but amenable to unification. The name adopted in the Models is Axis Tensor Field, a more generally accessible name is Charge Information Field. Formalization and scaling of the Charge Information Field model is not yet complete.
An unexpected result of this unification is seeing the electrostatic field of the nucleus as having a resultant on electron shells outward, answering the author’s long standing question “what is holding them out there?” This surprise joins the “one way acceleration due to spreading gravitons” explanation for early universe expansion of the previous post in the list of exciting “discoveries.”
The mnp Model has had pictures of electrostatic fields, but has not had a successful explanation of magnetism and the electrostatic picture has been incomplete. Now, at least, it seems to be showing progress.
The Model has always had only one indicator of charge, Axis, which is perpendicular, anti-parallel, and parallel to travel direction in m mediator n negative and p positive basic entities respectively. The Axis Alignment Effect is the basic influence of figments to align Axis. Now the Model needs to discuss and see Axis information in the aggregate, and needs a different term.
Vector potential is out, though explaining a correspondence to the vector potential of classical electrodynamics is desirable.
Axis Vector
Axis Tensor - Though it is a vector, the name indicates greater conceptual separation from other Axis terms in the mnp Model and from "vector potential." Author’s choice.
Axis Field may be a good term for Axis Tensor information over space.
By enumerating possibilities, the author is able to choose.
Axis orientation and magnitude is now seen as communicated in all directions between mediators as long as (enough) mediators are present, at c. The magnitude and direction of the sum of all Axis Alignment Effect at a point will be called the Axis Tensor here. The set/collection of Axis Tensors in space or a region will be called the Axis Field. The Axis Tensors in a Field are effectively averaging constantly, at c. Just as the first junior high school science class teacher said, "it spreads in all directions from every point." Now the author thinks he sees the mechanism; the averaging of Axis information in space, at c. Any other change in Axis information is caused by charge or moving charge or photons. Fhotons, as groups of mediator m’s moving at c with aligned Axes cause Axis information change beyond averaging, which information evanesces at the Compton/deBroglie
wavelength of the fhoton.
Since long before choosing the Axis Tensor and Axis Field terms above, the author has been trying to develop a method of describing electromagnetic fields from mnp Model principles as a single vector/tensor field without using the entire set of tools available in classical electrodynamics. For purposes of mnp Model development, much of electrodynamics can be considered Established by Experiment and so have the backwards E of Existence. The author still prefers, where possible, to refer directly to experiment than to refer to concluded (even if obvious) theory.
By developing the theory from first principles and THEN determine the correspondence with Electrodynamics theory will allow experimental values and “constants” to tune a few numbers in the mnp Model. One hopes. For now, progress in the Model can be shown, perhaps at the risk of exposing the author’s lack of mastery of the mathematics of EM.
The development here is all geometry, with no charges or units or permeability or permittivity applied. The author admits CGS envy. Not. Note that permeability and permittivity are expected to grow out of the way particles influence the Axis Field and the way the Axis Field affects particles in the mnp Model. Going back and carefully identifying units, separating count from density and the like as well as scaling the constants and insuring the correct direction1, remains.
Superposition: A Side Note
The m mediators make up the random field potential in the vicinity of matter in the current universe (vicinity may be very far from large masses!) and organize imbalances to form fields. The mediators are seen as, up to a limit based on mediator density, supporting superposition. By ∃xperimental measurement this can be considered established fact.
Creating Electrostatic Fields
From static charges, Axis information is communicated radially to the surrounding random field potential as Axis magnitude pointing toward the charge (if negative) and away from the charge.2 How that happens is one of the interesting, almost backhanded explanations that the simplicity of the mnp Model provides. That sentence was written the end of January, 2022. Drawings were done and the conversion to on-line hi-res low-bandwidth SVG graphics started.
Then the author looked carefully at the diagrams and lost confidence that they show what I wanted to show.
Electrons in shells are coils essentially perpendicular to the the surface. Free electrons are seen as tiny, too small to measure with modern equipment, but still are seen as having the same approximate coiled surface that electrons in shells do. Three times the diameter of a single coil is a reasonable ballpark size of the free electron. Note that size (by Experiment showing the same charge from free electrons and electrons in other forms) does not seem to matter for the creation of Axis influences, that there are enough mediators passing through the volume of a free electron to fully form the expected Axis influence.3
m figments traverse the environment, as random field potential and not so random when organized as superimposed fields.
For reference, a diagram of a coil on the surface of an electron. The coil is not a ring, but part of a larger loop whose coils make a little progress(noun) along the axis as the basic entities in the coil progress(verb) at c. This post/chapter uses the convention of showing electrons, with n basic entities as the charge material with, by Franklin’s convention, a negative charge and the Axis opposite the direction of travel.
Figure 1 - Coils on the Surface of an Electron
Travel Effect Influence on Exiting Mediators
Travel of mediators has proved a useful investigation even when charge issues seem paramount, as in investigating the evanescent fields from fhoton travel which determine wavelength. Notice that mediators leaving the surface from the rising portion of the outer coil will mostly be turned slightly toward traveling away closer to the radial, in the coiling direction. More outward than they otherwise would.
Mediators approaching from the underside of the coil will, if approaching on the downward inner quadrant, be redirected very slightly toward traveling away from the radial, more outward than they otherwise would but less than mediators leaving from the rising quadrant of the outer side because they spend less time near the coil. Thus, matter redirects the random field potential to travel more radially from the matter.
Figure 2 - Coils Influence on Mediator Direction (Gravitons!)
The hint of spin direction is interesting, but spin is random in bulk, so the information is probably not usable. Measuring the nuances of gravitational attraction from a single particle with spin may not be easy. Using those nuances may be beyond us.
Axis Effect Influence on Exiting Mediators
Understanding how coils influence mediators Axis leaving the coil will (hopefully) lead to a picture of Axis Fields pointing back at negative charges and away from positive charges. A simple (and relatively rare) condition of a mediator leaving perpendicular to the coil shows that all mediator Axis can be directed toward the Axis of the coil. Backwards in the case of n figments and the electron, though that is just a convention. A mediator will affect the coil by attracting it sideways, which since it opens the coil slightly is a permitted direction. On average, with the random direction of incoming perpendicular mediator’s Axis, there will be no sideways net effect on the coil.
Figure 3 - Mediators Leaving Parallel to the Plane of the Coil
The schematic diagram shows perpendicular mediators coming from inside the coil with any Axis orientation and leaving with Axis influenced to be parallel to the Axis of the coil. Of course there will not be time for the interaction to cause all Axes to be perfectly aligned, but the preference over perfectly random will be an imbalance in the Axes direction.
That concept of no effect when trying to close the coil, inherited from the Travel Effect/gravity picture, leads to seeing limitations on the Axis directions that can be influenced for mediators leaving at other angles.
The mediator Axis and the coil Axis will attempt to align, conceptually toward the average of the two Axes. If the mediator Axis has a component away from the coil, influence or net influence is prohibited since the coil cannot tighten to allow the coil Axis to angle more upward and the travel direction to be as a tighter coil. Since the lateral component of the effect on coil and mediator does not matter, the picture of influence can remain a 2-d projection. Calculations of net effect at various angles and then integration of the total will need 3-d coverage. A denominator of 137 is not expected to arise directly.
Figure 4 - Axis Angles With No Effect
If the mediator Axis has a downward component, then influence will tend to shift the mediator Axis backward compared to the coil direction while opening the coil (a little).
Figure 5 - Axis Angles Affected by the Coil
When the mediator is exiting against the direction of the coil Axis, the Axis will tend up. When the mediator is exiting with the direction of the coil, it is spending more time with the coil and so will be more influenced. The net effect is downward direction of the Axes of mediators leaving an electron. Note that, if random, seventy percent of the mediators leaving a surface will be less than 45 degrees to that surface.
Figure 6 - Summary of Allowed Angles and Direction of Influence
Note that this does not show the volume of Axis effects. Coils are close to each other, essentially in parallel, with slightly greater distance apart on the outside surface as on the inside of the coil. In a free electron, this may be a “significant” difference and may or may not be important. Since free electrons have the same measured charge at shell electrons, this is expected to be minor.
At rest, the coils will be oriented essentially perpendicular to the surface, so the field due to the electron will be spherical, with the next Axis Tensor down for an electron. QED.
High Speed Electrostatic Corrections, a Side Trip
Moving, the electrons will tend to flatten and motion around the coils will slow as the particle approaches the speed of light. The instantaneous electric field from a fast moving electron is expected be reduced, since the basic entities in the coils will be oriented toward net movement and will be progressing/rotating in the coils at a slower rate than c (by a factor of 1/gamma). Since the coils flatten as well, most of the diminished (by a factor of 1/gamma) field is expected to be perpendicular to the direction of movement.
Spin, a Side Trip
The coils wind either left or right and, as long as they do not doubly cover the surface, that progression may be the source of spin. This is an alternative to the folding into coils that the six stranded quantized six loops must undergo, since the length of coils is fixed,
which has been taken as the (only) source of spin in the Model up to now.
This showing coils one way on the surface makes seeing some angular momentum that could be measured as a constant over 2, and reversal would then require a change of the angular momentum of constant, but why the unfolding of a full coil would also change the angular momentum by that constant and why the wavelength of a photon would be that constant divided by the energy of the photon both remain to be explained.
Creating Magnetic Fields
From moving charges, the figments are mostly rotating in their coils. The component of net progress in the charge movement is simply made available as Axis pointing in the same direction as the charge. The effective movement component for the electrons has just been shown, with the coiling component at c shown schematically.
Figure 7 - Moving Electron Influencing Axis Orientation by Movement
Take the v/c component of the electrons’ velocity times the electrons’ charge to see Axis information generated at the surface of the conductor, opposite the direction of electron movement by convention. This Axis information will then spread at c in all directions. So a current in a long conductor produces an axial field of Axis information pointing parallel to the current. The onset of a current in a wire requires getting all the electrons started when voltage is applied. The mnp Model sees that process as passing Axis information down the wire, at c but with the effect spreading slower as electrons start to move.
The author has been trying to make a good static drawing of the reorientation of travel direction from coil form. Here is another attempt with better scaling of the arrows.
Figure 8 - Movement of Coil
Better yet would be a movie. Here is one you browser users can, we hope, see
Figure 9 - Animated Movement of Figments in a Coil.
Magnetic Corrections (Mostly High Speed), a Side Trip
Though the Lorentz Transforms are an essential part of movement in the mnp Model, a Lorentzian correction to the static electric field is available and may be required. (Electrons balance the nuclei in most conductors, so a wire carrying current has a net charge of zero in classic high school and undergraduate EM).
A hoped for breakthrough devolved into a mere Lorentzian correction as follows. Current is usually moving electrons on a wire, electrostatically neutral. But, since the movement of electrons however slow involves Lorentz contraction and slowing of the rotation of the coils in the mnp Model, those negative electrons have LESS electrostatic presence, by 1/gamma. The electrostatic fields of the electron will go down, so that the positive fields of the nuclei will become a little more visible. Unfortunately for one theory of magnetism, the Taylor expansion
of 1/sqrt of 1+v2/2c2. The Taylor expansion of gamma sqrt(1-v2/c2) is 1 - v2/2c2 for low speeds. In a conductor the reduction factor is v2/2c2 (of negative charge) so the numeric value of the static field goes up. Not enough to influence magnetism in the lab. Even if the c^2 in the denominator equals mu sub 0 epsilon sub 0.
Axis Fields
The development here will now assume the Axis information has been transmitted to the random field potential, leaving the previous description of how that information was transmitted to the field as given. An electrostatic field from a point charge points back at negative charges, out for positive charges. For an electron, the field looks like:
Figure 10 - Axis Field From a Spherical Negative Charge
The field from a constant line current looks cylindrical (surprise!)
Shown here, electrons are moving down, their net Axis from movement is up, and the Axis Tensor is up.
Figure 11 - Axis Field From Line Current
The author would like to explore the potential (uh, pun recognized) of this single Tensor Field formulation without diving directly into classical electrodynamics.
The gradient of the Axis Tensor Field, a vector, is the spatial rate of change of the Field. It or its direction seems like the second most useful statistic about the field. The perpendicular to the Axis Tensor and the gradient may also be useful, at least for magnetism effects. The gradient is toward the center in the first case, toward the line current in the second. The perpendicular to both, the line of no Axis change, is any line tangent to the sphere of equal Axis magnitude. For the line current, it is tangent to the circle around the line current with planar axis. Lower case a. The Axis Tensor at a point will be noted as A. I may use a when more general notation is needed.
Figures 12 - Axis Gradient Field From Spherical Charge and Line Current - ∇ A
A perpendicular at a particular point to A and ∇ A in the field shows that there is a plane of perpendiculars in the electrostatic point charge case and only one line perpendicular to both the Axis Tensor and the gradient at a point in the magneto-static case.
Just for mathematical interest, the divergence of the Axis Field, a scalar, ∇ ⋅ A
is non zero if it contains the static charge, zero if it does not, and zero everywhere in the line current case. A cylindrical volume around the current in the second case has the Axis Vector oriented vertically, everywhere, so the top and bottom have different direction vectors and cancel and the curved parts of the cylinder have a dot product of 0. The Curl, a vector, ∇ ❌ of A
is 0 for an electrostatic field and points along the traditional B line of no force for a magnetic field. The Laplacian of A, a scalar,
looks like the gradient of the gradient and may or may not be useful.
In these static cases, the derivative with respect to time is 0. If sources are varied, the derivative with respect to t will change correspondingly as the change spreads at c. In all cases, except for sources of Axis influence, the Axis Tensor Field will attempt to average at c.
At least two narratives for the Axis Tensor and its gradient are possible in the mnp Model.
The figment narrative sees mediators providing the Axis Tensor by traveling perpendicular to the Axis. In the case of the spherical charge source, they will be traveling in all directions tangent to the sphere at the point of interest, randomly distributed throughout that plane. The coiling charges that could be affected by the Axis Field will not be able to redirect all the mediators without affecting the travel direction of some, which will effectively cause change to the particle, to cause some of its figments in coils to take Axis direction more closely aligned to the Axis Field. The axis narrative sees the neighboring Axis Tensors as supplying resistance to change or support for the Axis Tensor of interest, so that the Axis Tensor will impart change (of speed) to the coils of the particle of interest while the Axis Field adjusts in response.
For the line current, the figment narrative sees mediators providing the Axis Tensor by traveling in the direction perpendicular to Axis Tensor and perpendicular to the gradient. Stationary coils will just reorient the Axes without taking any net change of direction or speed. Moving particles, with the small v/c component in the direction of travel, apparently must have a component of velocity perpendicular to this effective direction of travel of the mediators in order to be redirected. The magnitude and direction of the Axis Field will be involved in that turning. The v/c component cannot be sped up as in the electrostatic case but it can be turned. Speeding up would require an electrostatic field with support in both directions for the Axis Tensor.
The axis narrative sees the neighboring Axis Tensors as supplying resistance to change or support for the Axis Tensor in only half the plane perpendicular to the Axis Tensor Direction, not in the direction of dropping magnitude.
Note that the Axis Tensor, ∇ A, and traditional E field are in the same direction.
Magnetic Direction
Note the traditional B, the line of no magnetic force, is the one perpendicular to A and ∇ A with a line current.
Looking at both diagrams, the concept of the spread or change of the Axis Tensor seems to be useful. This concept seems to be independent of the travel direction of the m mediators/random field potential that are carrying the Axis information, though recruitment or redirection of mediators to travel in the effective change direction of the Axis Field may be useful at some point. In the static case, the change is parallel to the Axis Tensor. In the pure magnetic case, the change is perpendicular. Since the Axis Alignment Effect is spreading at c in all directions, the change in the Axis Tensor at a point is the spherical integral for Axis Tensors around the point with respect to time. But since the radius is ct and dr is cdt,
the derivative can be with respect to dr with a c factor in there, meaning that the radial outer integral need not be taken. Just divide that inner integral, a vector, by its magnitude to get the direction.
The magnitude of the change may not be important, only the direction.
Note that for the electrostatic case, if the Axis Tensor is the governing direction of influence as the author suspects, the magnitude of static influence is Axis Tensor dot the unit (normalized) Change Direction vector aka Change Direction divided by |Change Direction|. Or it might be the projection of the Axis Tensor onto the Change Direction unit vector. One will be proportional to the classic E field.
With respect to magnetism, taking for now the concept of B as Experimentally established, B the line of no magnetic force is perpendicular both to Axis Tensor and the direction of change of Axis Tensor. This concept of parallel and perpendicular may be attractive for simplifying the Model and handling the geometry of moving charges and reincorporating Maxwell’s equations for mixed conditions and incorporating changing electric fields.
Separating Components of the Axis Fields
If the component of Axis Tensor parallel to the Axis Gradient can be conceptually removed, we have the components perpendicular to the Axis Gradient, which presumably are magnetic.
The Axis tensor that remains has no component parallel to the gradient, so can be seen as having two components.
The gradient has already claimed one of the axes of the coordinate system. The remaining Axis tensor, projected onto the plane defined by the gradient, can claim another. Since the perpendicular to both has been identified in ∃xperiment, that should be used as the third axis. So the component of Axis perpendicular to the two axes gradient and, for want of a better letter, B, the coordinate system. Or the perpendicular to both, with components chosen in the Axis Tensor direction and a third as perpendicular.
The author’s hope had been to find a component perpendicular to the Axis Gradient that does not take part in classical magnetism.
Axis Field Around the Infinite Solenoid
In the infinite solenoid (the author cannot bring himself to deal with sheet current of infinite extent), current is flowing evenly around many many loops, no conventional magnetic fields are seen outside the solenoid, but particles (with spin) passing the solenoid pick up a phase shift in their wave function. Explaining the Aharanov-Bohm effect seemed like an opportunity for a new model. Axis Fields are seen in the infinite solenoid, around the coils and slightly along the coil since current is flowing at an angle. The longitudinal effect is the current times the pitch of the coils over 2 pi radius times the ratio of the radius to the distance away. The circumferential effect from one/each coil is as expected right next to the coil, but will fall off faster than 1/r when points start to see the other side of the Axis Field with Axis in the opposite circumferential direction. So far, no mysterious forces but no complete disappearing of magnetic effects. Maybe later.
Figure 13 - Circumferential Axis Field Around Long Solenoid
Thoughts on Mathematical Approaches in Physical/Structural Models
The mnp and allied Models see Axis information is spread in all directions at c, even if the mediators are each traveling in one direction at c. In the modern universe, near matter, mediators are seen as available enough that the machinery of statistical physics is not needed to help explain phenomena or understand interactions.
Axis information does seem to behave differently in the mnp Model than gravity and its related effects, since those effects depend on mediators’ travel direction itself and since great imbalances (at least in relatively empty space) in mediator travel direction occurs due to the recruitment by great masses. The averaging of Travel information perpendicular to travel does occur at c, but is not seen as very relevant until the mediator gravitons become relatively sparse.
Voltage Difference
Classic voltage differences should be compatible with the Axis Field formulation, since I see voltage difference as equivalent to charge presence. The machinery (mathematics and its attendant assumptions) of electrodynamics allow the arbitrary addition of V voltage everywhere in a region of interest and sees no effect; the users of that machinery are assured that only voltage differences are of interest. The Charge Information or Axis Tensor Models do not have such a luxury; a voltage difference will show up as Axis information supplied by a charge/current source. (2022-02-10) Adding a uniform Axis Field value and orientation will not change a gradient, but will change the dot and cross product with the gradient.
To explain the response of particles that will respect Experimental reality, I will need to explain particle response AND field response.
Particle Response to Axis Fields - mnp Model
The spread and description of Axis Fields can be described mathematically. Before just accepting "particles are influenced, the author would attempt to explain particle response in the mnp Model. It is harder than I hoped.
But all this requires that the mediators are capable of providing an effect on the structure of the particle. Earlier mnp Model diagrams show a single figment will align its Axis without influencing the particle if it can simply redirect its Axis without changing travel direction. Currently, seeing Axis Tensor as an independent result independent of figment travel but only requiring physical presence of the mediators, requires a more aggregate understanding. The Axis Tensor apparently needs support from surrounding figments. By ∃xperiment, only Axis information in the direction of the gradient of the Axis information is capable of accelerating particles.
In the following development of particle response to Axis Fields, direction of the Axis Field will be taken as constant over the small coil or particle sized region of interest and the magnitude of the Axis Field will be assumed to be affected only by the gradient. Second order or second derivative changes will not be dealt with unless forced by ∃xperiment/∃xperience.
Charged particles, with their coiled loops of charge material, respond to Axis information by attempting to align with that net Axis direction in proportion to the Axis magnitude. By ∃xperiment, particles respond directly only to the Axis information that is parallel to the gradient.
Coiled Particle Response to Axis Parallel to Gradient
These diagrams show coils of an electron for repulsive field (positive charges) on the left and attractive (positive charge) field on the right. Top are coils in a plane parallel to the Axis Tensor (component) which receive little or no net influence, middle are coils angled to the Axis Tensor (component) which receive influence only on the half where the coil can respond by opening, bottom is a split diagram of coils in a plane perpendicular to the Axis Tensor (component) which receive influence at all points in the coil since the coil will open in all 360 degrees of its path. The two portions show half the coil with the basic entities in the coil progressing right, above, and left, below. Notice that for creating electrostatic fields, the coils perpendicular to the surface send out Axis information from intuitive expectation. To receive the electrostatic influence,the entire particle (surface) is relevant, and the ability of basic entities and Axis information to spread and superimpose is important. Summary: The coils flatter to the Axis Field (component) do the responding.
Figure 14 - Coils Responding to Axis Influence in Electrostatic Field
Not diagrammed is the field response to the effect it is having on a coil or particle. The mediators of the Axis information will be redirected corresponding to the response of the particle, thus weakening the field.
Electrostatic Field on the Inside of an Electron Shell
This no longer modest blog post (and its predecessor) started with picturing the effect of an electrostatic field on the inside of a (spherical) electron shell. Creating and interpreting this picture was not possible until some of the preceding material was created/invented/discovered.
Figure 15 - Effect of Nuclear Charge Field on Inside of Electron Shell
Spherical shells, with their coils mostly perpendicular to the radial electrostatic field from the nucleus, see little or no net attraction (!) to the nucleus. The coils are being influenced by the field and influencing the field, hence the arrows showing redirection by the inner half of the coils. That redirection allows the portion of the coil entering the outer half to see a small outward effect. On the web, the little area of red on the left side of the coil above the black travel direction arrow is visible with enough magnification. Not so visible if printed. The incoming side sees less of that effect because the coils are slightly shielded by the nearby or adjacent coils. The tiny net effect is outward. Capitalize that. Outre-ward. In the vernacular again, WTF.
But this picture of electrons being held out in the shell by the electrostatic influence of the nucleus makes sense. Free electrons are tightly coiled little bundles of free particle unless influenced.
Electrons in shells have less energy and mass because the coils are using some of their Travel Alignment Effect and Axis Alignment Effect to influence the field of the nucleus, so they attract fewer m mediators with the Effects left in coiling. Most of that influence and influencing balances so there is no inward component of motion. This new picture also explains a smooth transition from bound lighter electrons to more energetic electrons in outer shells to free electrons. If the Model showed attraction to/from the nucleus, that would probably collapse the electron inward and shells would not exist. No ∃.
Understanding the scale of effects and tuning the Model so it actually follows the tuning of the universe remains.
The coil orientation will be a little different in the p d and f shells, and net attractions and repulsions remain to be investigated. For example, in a p shell, most of the coils can still be perpendicular to the nucleus at the outer part of the shell and seeing repulsion. Those flatter coils progressing (spiraling?) inward will see an attraction to the nucleus, those returning out will see again an attraction to the nucleus and be slowing their progress out to the main part of the shell. I strongly suspect that there is a single path down to the nucleus and a single path back, so that there is very little of the electron close to the nucleus.
Shells, in the mnp Model, are not seen as fixed but as moving and adapting, but since the electron is a quantized closed loop, coiled, it acts like an adaptive closed surface when expanded into a shell while retaining presence everywhere approximately in the shell, with no net momentum other than the angular momentum of shell shape and spin. Hence the great utility of the spherical harmonics machinery of quantum mechanics and other physics.
Side notes:
Cosmological/initial recruitment speculation: Positrons in shells around a nucleus or stretched out in a field would collapse, not be driven away, so once a few extra protons exist, electrons could be safer in shells. To be continued.
Once again, the semi-classical approach to electrodynamics seems useful; fields are fairly even, particles do what they do in response and are in fact present over (most of) the wave function. At least outside the atom and outside charged particles, fields seem to be useful.
Uh, maybe all my comments about not changing undergraduate education are accurate, but the comments about not changing undergraduate explanation may be premature.
I have been assuming that the electron shells have increased uncoiling as shells get bigger. It may be that huge shells have little uncoiling, that more unfolds as the shell gets smaller. If true, that means there would be a “maximum” possible shell number. That would give a smooth transition to free electrons, though physically there seems a big difference between a big shell and a free electron in any case, so re-coiling while returning to tiny free electron size may not be a problem.
Coiled Particles Response to Axis Perpendicular to Gradient
In responding to what look like magnetic fields, apparently (by ∃xperiment again) the coils will see no net effect. A few approaches to explaining this come to mind.
The coils only respond when the Axis is supported by other mediators carrying Axis, that is if the change is in the direction of increasing gradient. A diagram of coil response in this explanation shows coils responding to Axis when change is in the direction of increasing gradient.
Figure 16 - Coil Response to Partially Supported Axis Information - Movement Results
In this (1 hypothetical model of partially supported Axis), coils do response, this is not a successful model. Other explanations are needed.
The mediator (component) has no effect on the coils when the mediator travel direction (component) is perpendicular to the gradient, since the (component) Axis can be freely changed by coils when the (component) of mediator travel is not changed. As if other mediators traveling a similar direction will take on any Axis information not used in an interaction with particles, with the net direction perpendicular to the (gradient of the) interaction. This explanation would require an investigation of components and m behavior to be fully supported by the mnp Model.
The mediators actually organize themselves into traveling parallel or perpendicular to the gradient, due to the Axis Alignment Effect. For simple pictures of electrostatic sources and line currents, this is attractive. Whether it is consistent with mixed fields is not yet decided.
Invoking the machinery of quantum mechanics, the Axis Tensor is what it is until particles force it to make a decision and some mediators choose parallel travel and some do not. As the reader might guess, this is not in keeping with the approach of the mnp Model.
For now, choice 2 seems the most attractive to the author. For now, “nature just behaves that way” is the temporary solution for the formalization of the Axis Field model.
Failed Proof #0 - Moving Coil Component Response to Axis Perpendicular to Gradient
By ∃xperiment, the moving “v” component of the particle’s constituents is the only component of a coil that responds to Axis components perpendicular to the gradient, and since the constituents are already moving at c, must allow the v component of the charge material of the particle to change perpendicular to its direction of travel. Which an undergrad will automatically recognize as a rotation. And sounds like magnetism’s way of doing no work. I have my work cut out for me.
The author has spent much time investigating the effect of fields on moving particles by looking at the velocity component of the moving particle. Culminating in notes and pictures as recent as 2022-02-11:2308, Some of the typed notes end with
Coordinate systems are worth establishing, to know about Axis perpendicular to the gradient requires working with directions, so ∇ hat and A hat will be needed. First coordinate axis is the gradient. Second is the perpendicular to gradient and Axis Tensor, ∇ hat ⨯ A hat. Third, the component of A perpendicular to the gradient is ∇ hat ⨯ (∇ hat ⨯ A hat) The projection of A onto the third Axis is ∇ hat ⨯ (∇ hat ⨯ A) Note that this is the Axis Tensor projected onto the plane established by the gradient and is perpendicular to the gradient ⨯ the Axis Tensor.
Figure - Finding the Coordinate System for Axis Tensor Perpendicular to Gradient
__
So the (component) of a coil with a certain v can be affected by the Axis information only to the degree that the influence is perpendicular to the v.
Figure - Coordinate System Based on Gradient and Axis Tensor (show v??)
Figure - Coordinate System Based on v and _ either A or gradient
This may not get us where we want to go or explain why (we got there)
That geometric (component) approach could not explain why electrostatic fields (the field component parallel to the gradient) nor v perpendicular to both the gradient and the Axis Tensor yielded no change of direction. Nor did it provide any hint of why the curl of the Axis Tensor should determine the classical magnetic line of no force B.
Again, looking at the coiling nature of particles for clues to the response of moving particles to the Axis Tensor components parallel and perpendicular to gradient might work. For these diagrams, work in the coordinate system of the particle, with ∇ ⨯ A as another coordinate (or the gradient ∇ if parallel)
Mathematical Proof #1 - Stationary and Moving Particles in Axis Fields
This proof actually follows the sketch in Prospective Proof #2 - Computations which follows. The enumeration of symmetries provided the key to understanding why electrostatic and magnetic effects have the directions they do. Given that particles have constituents moving at a constant rate (at c, though the proof does not require that), stationary particles have radial symmetry in three dimensions. Moving particles have two dimensional radial symmetry perpendicular to the velocity v and a one directional imbalance along the v axis.
The gradient is important in all cases, for a moving particle the v direction is of primary importance.
Stationary Particles in Axis Fields
For the stationary particle with constituents coiling at c or the stationary component of a particle with constituents coiling at the square root of (1-v2/c2), the particle is radially symmetrical about all axes. Therefore it is symmetrical about the direction of the gradient. Therefore any coil at an orientation will have an equal density of coils at that angle to the gradient around the gradient. Therefore the resultant of any interaction between the field and the particle must be along the gradient. Note that this ignores the small effect of coiling in the same direction that leads to spin and progress of the coils that might lead to chirality, but when combined with an equal number of particles with coils in the opposite direction to be an ensemble with spin 0, the net effect of spin will be 0. This diagram represents all the coils in a particle with a given angle to the gradient in a plane of equal Axis Tensor, not the physical positions of coils. Only four coils are shown, but there would be a huge number of coils at (almost) that angle to the shown centerline, evenly distributed in horizontal orientation angle around the orientation axis shown.
Figure 17 - Influence of the Axis Information Parallel to the Gradient When Stationary
The plane of uniform Axis Tensor is horizontal in this diagram, so every basic entity (part of the particle) in that plane sees the same Axis Tensor. Take a logical centerline through the sphere parallel to the gradient. At any coil angle to the gradient there will be coils (essentially) equally distributed in orientation around the centerline. For every point on a coil in an orientation to the gradient in a plane of constant Axis Tensor, there will be a mirrored point across the centerline on a mirrored coil in that plane of constant Axis with the opposite angle projected onto the plane of constant Axis Tensor. So whatever influence the Axis Tensor has on the first figment will apply to the mirrored figment, in the same z direction and opposite x and y direction. In the diagram, two points are labeled (a) and (a mirrored) QED, Any component of interaction between Axis Tensor and the (n if this is an electron) basic entities perpendicular to the gradient will always balance to 0.
Note that the diagrams are a mix of spatial (the gradient, the Axis Tensor direction), orientation choice (single coil orientation angle to the gradient), and representation of states (coils evenly distributed in phi angle around the gradient in a plane of uniform Axis Tensor. Note that the machinery of Statistical Physics also being used here. The number of basic entities in a coil probably exceeds the 1.45e25 coils with coil diameter 3.9e-16m and basic entity count of 6.7e51 from post 27 Momentum Energy and h (2014-08-04), also currently chapter 4 of the mnp Manual. The numbers were based on calculations assuming the charge material comprised the totality of a free electron when actually the total amount of charge material in a free electron is less or much less than the entire mass of the electron, The numbers FAR exceed the number of coils, 2e11, and the coil radius 2.5e-12m proposed by partially deprecated post 24 Mechanism for Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum Revisited (2013-06-11). The number of coils in an electron or quark exceeds Avogadro’s number, so the argument that all positions are balanced over a very short period of time should be sound.
The component of Axis information perpendicular to the gradient is next. Note that for a spherical particle, we can continue to use the gradient as one axis and choose an axis based on the Axis Tensor component perpendicular to the gradient without loss of generality. In this drawing, the plane of constant Axis Tensor is still horizontal. The gradient determines the z axis, the Axis Tensor the -x axis. Again the centerline of the particle coil distribution is chosen parallel to the gradient. The coils of a particle with opposite spin but at the same plane of equal Axis Tensor is shown on the right.
Figure 18 - Influence of the Axis Information Perpendicular to the Gradient When Stationary
In this diagram, canceling in the y and z direction occurs if we can find, for every position, a position on a coil that is the mirror image for a plane including the gradient through center of spherical distribution perpendicular to the Axis Tensor. Here, the coil A happens to be perfectly perpendicular to the Axis Tensor (its density of state will of course be vanishingly small). A (a) and (a_f) show y and z canceling. Coil B is mirrored in coil D, and point (b) is mirrored in (b f), showing y and z canceling.
Canceling in the x direction is harder. Finding, for every position, a matching position on an equivalent coil is as before, crossing the center in the plane of equal Axis Tensor. Look at (a) and (a mirrored) again. Since the mirror figment is pointing away from the Axis Tensor at the same angle as the original position is pointing toward it, the x component cancels only if the x component of the influence is the same magnitude.
Other arguments can be attempted to see the cancellation of the x component.
The figment can only be affected perpendicular to its travel direction (it is traveling at c and will until the end of the universe), if the lateral affect of the Axis Alignment Effect depends on the lateral component of the Axis Tensor compared to the figment, the lateral component will be the same for oncoming and leaving figments, leading to the same curvature and same affect on x direction.
Figure 19 - Axis at 175 and 5 Degrees Showing Same Lateral Effect
The Axis Tensor is shown as strong as the moving n shown here, so that the Axis Field changes but little. Entity resultant, the tiny vertical arrow, is greatly exaggerated. Well, that explanation actually seems reasonable, so that the x component of figment travel could change the same amount for forward and backwards Field influence.. When the magnitude of the influence function is the same for angle a between axes as for the influence function of pi - a, then the coil opposite (mirrored by the centerline) the one under consideration will have the same x component but of opposite sign, canceling any x component of influence. In the diagram, (a) and (b) would cancel the x component. As would (a f) and (b f).
An alternate explanation uses the spin 0, large number of particles argument to see that the same symmetry of Axis Alignment is needed. The right hand side of the figure before Axis Effect shows a particle of opposite spin, at the same coil orientation and distribution. The x component of any effect on (a) would be canceled by (c) or (c f) but again, a symmetry of the Axis Alignment Effect is needed. This second argument, using an ensemble approach, does not provide any advantages for cancellation of the Axis component, so is superfluous. Nice try.
The Axis Alignment Effect could take many forms. The cross product of 2 vectors has the right form: 0 at 0 and 180 degrees and symmetrical. The sine of the angle between, the square of the sine of the angle between, 1 - the square of the unit vectors’ dot product (oh, wait that’s the same), the angle between times pi - the angle between.
Repeat: The subtle effects of coil direction are not addressed here. The assumption is that the particle or particle ensemble (bulk) has net coil direction/spin 0. The computational investigations outlined in the next section will address coil direction. Mathematical machinery to handle imbalance on a surface does exist, probably enabling closed form solutions.
Now, the hardest of the three conditions: if the Axis Tensor has an angle to the gradient, Axis Field theory corresponds to classical electrodynamics if the component of result in the gradient direction exists and is proportional to the component of the Axis Tensor in the gradient direction, but all other effects be canceled by the rotation or coils and even distribution of those coils. Without loss of generality, take the Y axis in the plane of the Axis Tensor as before, perpendicular to gradient and perpendicular to the Axis Tensor.
Now, picture mirroring through the centerline and reflecting across the plane containing/perpendicular? to the Field Tensor. The diagram has become fairly representational - the plane of equal Axis Tensor is horizontal, the Axis Tensor is skewed in the xz plane and equal at the skewed n coils moving in circles A and friends.
Figure 20 - Skewed Axis Tensor Effect
To identify pairs with the same angle (or supplementary angle) to the field can lead to cancellation in the axis of opposing resultants. Angles (a) and (d f) ((a) and (a f) have opposite x and y coordinates) are the same orientation to the Axis Tensor but with opposite y components. There will be no component in the y direction.
To prove no component in the x direction requires finding matching points at opposite angles to the Axis Tensor that have opposite x components, ideally at the same Axis Tensor in the plane of the gradient.
Mirroring in the y-Axis Tensor plane would show no effects perpendicular to that plane in the (skewed) x direction. If it is possible to assume that there will be equal coil distribution in the plane of the gradient, the skewed x direction 0 proof is done.
If less hand waving is desired, relying on the gradient not changing may allow finding equivalent coils equidistant from a plane of constant Axis Tensors, with a linearly changing Axis Tensor Field. Then finding corresponding coils and positions with the same angle to the Axis Tensor but with opposite relative z coordinate. This requires, for skewed fields, finding or assuming the distributions are uniform in any sphere annulus and the gradient is uniform for linear distribution. (repeat) one hopes it is possible to find matches across the centerline parallel to the Axis tensor and then matches in the same plane of equal Axis Tensor. Hopefully this will balance the changes in Axis Tensor at equal distances from the original Axis Tensor plane. Sounds like work.
Looking at Axis Tensor effects, since the plane is uniform and lateral dimensions in the diagram are not spatial but represent variation and density of states of coil orientation, the gradient can be taken as perpendicular to the Axis Field in “orientation space.” Therefore the first electrostatic figure applies: the only component possible is along the Axis Tensor. The second, perpendicular figure applies; there are no effects from Axis Tensor perpendicular to the perpendicular to the (spatial) gradient. So the only component of the Axis Tensor that can have an affect is that parallel to the gradient. QED That seems almost as loose though not as fast as some of the intro to quantum rotating and relabeling proofs.
Even for Axis Tensor perpendicular to the gradient, this proof does not seem airtight. Computations might help for combined situations, to determine if the components really are separable. Computations will help to determine the effect of the “rest state” portion of particles moving, because moving particles are not quite spheroids but in order to move MUST flatten. A very little.
Moving Particles in Axis Fields
Now, to picture the effects of particle motion in four steps. The particle is symmetrical around the direction of v. Motion is achieved by particle direction angling at v/c to the coil. Adapted from Figure 8, showing the reorientation of the basic entities within a n electron coil undergoing movement.
Figure 21 - Coil and Figment Orientation with Movement
Note that the resultant Axis and Travel direction change is greatly exaggerated. Note also that any change must be perpendicular to the direction of movement for the basic entities/figments. The net change in velocity (speed or direction) may well be perpendicular to the plane of the coil.
Regarding symmetries, the moving particle is, of necessity, an ellipsoid shortened in the direction of movement. Coil orientation distribution is symmetrical radially in any plane perpendicular to the line of velocity. The coil orientation distribution is mirrored across any plane through the centerline of velocity, so that planes through the gradient and velocity show mirror symmetry as do planes through the Axial Tensor and the velocity. Coil orientation may be mirrored across the plane of the ecliptic (the plane through the center perpendicular to velocity) and would then be mirrored across the center. Note in a moving particle, the progress around the coil will probably be symmetrical, but the off coil component of entity velocity (speed c) will not be mirrored. (2022-02-15) This information is not used yet in the following sketches of analysis.
Figure 22 - Influence of the Axis Information Parallel to the Gradient When Moving
Examining the points/basic entities on (each) coil on the line of equal Axis Tensor, the lateral coordinates of resulting influence should balance. The net influence dot the velocity component will also balance, leaving only the static portion of the rotating coils to respond in the z direction to the field. Pending further thought.
Note that influence cannot be, without further justification, applied just to the net movement components of each basic entity. The rotation formalizations might help, and (repeating…) the redirection of entities already traveling at c is the only effect possible.
Another simplification of the geometry is that, since results are proportional to the Axis Tensor magnitude, a constant gradient is just applying a constant factor per distance.
Figure 23 - Movement Perpendicular to the Gradient
Coil orientations will be evenly distributed around the velocity. The gradient will provide no variation in influence on the n constituents perpendicular to the gradient, the Axis Tensor orientation will provide the only variation seen by the longitudinal component of basic entity motion.
Mirror symmetry across a plane containing the gradient and the line of travel shows no sideways component for 0 spin ensembles from the gradient.
Figure 24 - Influence of the Axis Information Perpendicular to the Axis Tensor
Coil orientation will be evenly distributed around the velocity vector. The Axis Tensor will provide no variation in influence on the n constituents perpendicular to the Axis Tensor.
Mirror symmetry across a plane containing the Axis Tensor and the line of travel shows no sideways component for 0 spin ensembles from the Axis Tensor.
Figure 25 - Influence of the Axis Information Perpendicular to Both Gradient and Axis Tensor
Since movement perpendicular to either gradient or Axis provides no influence from the respective directions, when perpendicular to both there is no variation for the velocity component of the moving coils of the figment. Once the electrostatic diagrams are adapted to show the basic entity/coil component of entity travel in the direction of movement, this may become clearer and allow identifying corresponding points/entities on coils.
Influence will be proportional to the magnitude of the Axis Tensor/Field in all cases.
These “proofs” of electromagnetism in the mnp Model are not complete and in some “complete” cases not satisfying, but the author has laid out the parameters and considerations for further development.
Acknowledgments
For these “proofs,” the author thanks the machinery, specifically the approaches of quantum mechanics (symmetry and commuting) and electrodynamics (get the direction right :–) and statistical mechanics (identify the degrees of freedom and density of states) and solid state (for practice in abstraction). Errors remain the property of the author and do not belong to the education.
Take Away Message on “Proof”
The take away message: finding the zeroes is important. Particles, with their constituents moving at c, do their own averaging of influences. So the Axis information parallel to the gradient has resultant along the gradient for the balanced portion of the particle’s constituent movement. The directional imbalance of constituent movement has no response to the Axis information in the direction of the gradient. The directional imbalance of constituent movement has no response when perpendicular to both the gradient AND the Axis information. Due to constant constituent speed, the directional imbalance of particle movement can only be turned, not changed.
Prospective Proof #2 - Computations
This sketch of computational investigations preceded the mathematical proof above and was instrumental recognizing symmetries and therefore in development of that proof:
The two and a half dimension diagrams the author can show himself may not suffice in the 3-d realm of magnetism. Notes on program requirements, in no order but categorized:
Axis field direction (magnitude 1)
Gradient direction, % of Axis field per 1 unit
Radius of coil (magnitude 1)
Orientation of velocity (constant in a direction)
Coil orientation to velocity
Number of coils to place at coil orientation around velocity (fixed-ish parameter like 12)
Charge (-1 electron with axis reversed from travel)
Early calculations can be done with evenly spaced coils and points, eventually should be done with larger data sets of random distributions. Still, even distributions are expected/assumed.
Interaction/effect assumptions may or may not be important but must be included
Axis Tensor is Axis + from gradient, is assumed to be a plane and changing only perpendicular to that plane of the gradient. Er, changing only parallel to the gradient. No side to side variations.
Compute for turning one way, separately for turning the other way
Compute for coils at that angle to velocity and 180-that angle (front to back symmetry) (side to side and around symmetry)
Angle averaging (assume Axis field big? or small? - big in comparison to the effects it has (then counter… later) vs Cartesian averaging.
Watch for tightening (in 3-d) - if up to or not at all or as much as possible plus sideways if non tightening
Information expected:
Report with coils all one way (particle with spin) and coils both ways
net in direction of velocity, net perpendicular
Report projection of Axis on gradient, perpendicular
Having a good picture of velocity might help. For now, I’m being lazy that the average redirection is v/c, combined with flattening of the coils, will handle things OK. Still want a 3-d picture of constant effort by the charge material loops.
(2022-02-12 2200 while working elsewhere) Symmetry is important for the computations. Stationary particles are spherically symmetrical and will average out off kilter effects. Moving particles are imbalanced only in the direction of movement v and are radially symmetrical about the v axis. Barring spin effects, though in the bulk and in spin 0 ensembles this will average out. This thought then greatly informed the development of Proof #1 above.
(2022-02-13, my lucky day) The mathematical proof of direction indicates that computations will confirm the mathematical proof. One hopes. That should be independent of the exact distribution of the Axis Alignment Effect, but might lead directly to tuning that distribution if it is found that one distribution of the Axis Alignment Effect creates the relative magnitude that v ⨯ (∇ ⨯ A) gives. The Axis Alignment Effect is known to be 0 when the Axes are aligned (nowhere to go) and 0 when the Axes are anti-aligned (no way to make a choice) so perhaps may be greatest then the Axes are perpendicular. Less likely would be also 0 when the Axes are at 90 degrees, though that result is true of the Travel Alignment Effect. The computations can use either an angle averaging between figments in the charge material loop which is seen as more likely to be accurate at the figment level. Or simpler Cartesian coordinate averaging, which is not seen as the way figments interact but is much simpler computationally. The mathematical proof of direction indicate that no matter how the interaction is modeled, the directional results will be the same. The referees might want to delay publication until those computations are available, but I do not have the luxury of referees.
Dynamic Conditions
If all charge is shielded and all current turned off, the Axis Field will average out at the speed c. For this averaging, the partial of Axis with respect to t (∂ / ∂t A) is not particularly relevant. Without charge or current changing over time, time is not part of the function for the Axis Tensor. Once the change is put into the Axis Field, the Axis Field will propagate that change. In the field, the derivative with respect to time (dt) is effectively dα/c (ɑ/c) where α is the differential of (spherical) space in the Axis realm. The Axis field will adjust as an integral of spherical space around each point. Doing spherical integrations around each point to get a derivative with respect to time sounds tough.
The instantaneous change in Axis Tensor will be in the direction away from the gradient and the magnitude of instantaneous change will be the gradient. Times c if we want per time instead of per distance. At a point, at time t, the Axis Tensor will be the spherical integral of the Axis Tensor in a sphere of radius t c.
Remaining is picturing how change in the Axis Field has the influence on particles of magnetism by changing the gradient and how change in the gradient perpendicular to the Axis Tensor has the influence on particles of charge (or lack of charge) remains.
Charge Information Field
The Axis Tensor Field concept might be useful or interesting in physics, for general use outside the mnp and Constituent Models. It might need a different title, “Charge Information Field” and “Charge Information Tensor” and “Charge Information Field Gradient” are proposed. The author has not yet scaled the four parameters for electrostatic influence by particles, magnetic influence by current, electrostatic influence on particles and magnetic influence on moving particles, that will make up mu sub 0 and epsilon sub 0.
With more experience and time understanding the Axis Tensor Field, the author expects to separate the mathematical treatment out as a separate post. To be continued.
Graviton Information Field
Here, some VERY preliminary thoughts inspired by this post 48 and the previous. The Travel Alignment Effect might also be seen as a field, though the bidirectional nature of that alignment might prove nettlesome in a mathematical formulation. Some of the symmetry arguments used with Axis Tensor Fields aka Charge Information Fields may well be useful. Since the field is carried by the motion of the mediators, change can (mostly) only be carried along the direction of the field. I think; the spread of Travel Alignment resultants also average laterally at c but that is seen as relevant only at the edges of gravitational influence (the MOND limit?) and perhaps at a sub 0 limits in nucleons. The gradient will be perpendicular to the direction. The time derivative of the gradient might be useful in the early universe expansion and slowing, when masses enter black holes, and perhaps with rotation. In the modern universe, the gradient does not change much. The tensor could contain information about the imbalance of graviton direction.
Naming the Alignment Tensor Field is not complete. A catchier title is needed, that hints at what it does without specifying the resultant or results.
Gravity Information Field
Gravity Information Tensor Field
Graviton Field
Travel Information Field
Graviton Information Field (when the directionality imbalance is included)
The title of this section keeps changing as better naming ideas emerge. Gravitons seem to be becoming a better concept and term, now that universe expansion as well as conventional gravity is seen as depending on mediators. Emergence to continue…
Why is this heavy topic here and not in post 47? Well, it develops from/depends on the thoughts here in post 48. And 47 was intended to be a unification of Travel Alignment and Axis Alignment into a field theory, but had such interesting results that it was put out separately.
The exploration of the formalization of Travel Alignment Tensors into a Graviton Information Field will be interesting.
Glossary - Axis, f-words, and Others
Axis is used in many phrases. The author hopes to keep the meanings of those phrases consistent and separate, without overlap. Just like the rest of physics. Right. Cross section, I’m looking at you.
Phrase
Meaning
Axis
The direction of the fundamental property (related to charge) for a single basic entity also called figment. For mediator m’s Axis is perpendicular to Travel Direction, for negative n’s opposite the direction of Travel, and for the third fundamental figment positive p’s Axis is in the same direction as Travel. All, of course, moving at c.
Axes
Plural of Axis, used rarely and only when talking about two or a small number of basic entities.
axis
the normal geometric term. The author will try not to use it to start a sentence.
Axis Alignment Effect
The fundamental effect of very close basic entities to align their Axes. There, I used Axes. Properly. A unidirectional effect, unlike Travel Alignment. Zero at 0 and 180 degrees.
Axis Information
The collection (set if you will) of Axis for a collection of basic entities under discussion. Pre formalism this was/is “Axis information.”
Axis Field
The collection (set if you will) of Axis Tensors.
Axis Tensor
The net total of Axis directions at a point. Includes units of charge influence per volume. Not currently scale factors, so a geometrical concept for now.
Axis Tensor Direction
A vector, the Axis Tensor divided by the Axis Tensor Magnitude.
Axis Tensor Magnitude
A scalar, a traditional magnitude as the square root of the Axis Tensor dot itself.
Axis orientation
A pre-formalism term for the net direction of Axes. Used in talking about basic entities.
Axis influence
A pre-formalism term for what happens to Axis information. Used in talking about basic entities.
Axis effects
A pre-formalism term for what results from the combining or averaging of Axis information. Used in talking about basic entities.
Axis directions
A pre-formalism term for the (set of) Axis directions of a group (set) of basic entities under discussion. Used in talking about basic entities.
Axis magnitude
A pre-formalism term for the net amount of Axis influence available from the group (set) of basic entities under discussion. Used in talking about basic entities.
machinery
Approaches, mathematical tools, assumptions, and shortcuts.
m or mediators
The basic entity that has Axis perpendicular to travel direction. Imbalances make up fields. Traveling toward and away from masses makes up most of gravity. Makes up most of gamma rays, the additional mass recruited by moving particles, the “gluons” seen around quarks. Versatile stuff.
n or negative or negatives
The basic entity that has Axis anti-parallel to travel direction. Make up the charge material for n loops and electrons.
p or positive or positives
The basic entity that has Axis parallel to travel direction. Makes up the charge material for p loops and positrons.
travel
Used here only, I hope, with respect to the direction (at speed c) of basic entities, figments, and entities in coils, fhotons, and neutrinos. Movement or progress should be used when referring to particles and larger masses.
Travel Alignment Effect
The tendency of basic entities, when close, to align travel direction, either toward parallel or anti-parallel. Zero at 90 degrees.
f-words
The author suggests, with a smile and humorous intent, to claim all words starting with f and F for the exclusive use of the mnp and Constituent Models. And some starting with f and F.
feutrino
The mnp and Constituent Models’ version/picture of neutrino. Pronunciation “few-trino.” The reader is welcome to retain the connotation of few for the near future.
fhoton and fhoton
The fundamental particle of electromagentic radiation, seen as causing the measured electric and magnetic fields. Commonly printed fhoton, since no overlap exists.
figment and figment
The tiny basic entities of the mnp Model, mn and p.
formalism
The attempt to use the concepts and terminology of mathematical physics to describe what happens in the mnp and Constituent Models. When truly formalized, will not need to be an f-word.
Humor:
fhysics
A fevered figment of the imagination, in the perhaps futile hope that there IS a unification. The h is aspirated when humor is intended.
Figment Dynamics
Alternate name for the mnp Model.
fritter and fritter
Informal verb: to waste. The technical term starts with p, one of those four letter Anglo-Saxon words my mother warned me about.
Praise for Modern Tools
Most physicists and virtually all young physicists do not remember (that there even was) a time when writing was done by typewriter or pen and pencil and that editing was done with scissors (and more recently, tape). There was an era before it was possible to search a document without hiring a scribe or undergraduate student to look over (what we now call hard) copy. Wonderful to be able to search for Axis or axis or both ignoring case. Of course that means expectations are higher. It is also easy to fritter time and the power of the tools. Technical term for fritter omitted. See glossary. Akin to the corollary of Moore’s law “and the software people will fritter away all the processor gains” would be “and the users will fritter away all the software productivity gains.” The author WAS able to replace all Axial mistypings with Axis. And to examine travel to make sure it was used only for the basic entities moving at c. Huge.
Afterword
David Griffiths, in the Preface to his Fourth Edition of Introduction to Electrodynamics notes that
Unlike quantum mechanics or thermal physics (for example), there is a fairly general consensus with respect to the teaching of electrodynamics; the subjects to be included, and even their order of presentation, are not particularly controversial
As a completely new take on electrodynamics and quite incomplete in development, controversy is expected. The intent is not to persuade but to present another way of looking at physics as clearly as possible, warts shortcomings and all. Maybe the Charge Information/Axis Tensor Field concept could be useful for Electrodynamics. Or at least a fun target.
Some of this development is taking place at the keyboard and as drawings are created. The accepted wisdom of ∃periment shows a very clear set of goals: electromagnetism theory describes everyday experience VERY well.
Deriving answers in electrodynamics in the privacy of the classroom, one professor admitted that when one gets to the end and the sign is wrong, one just changes it.↩︎
Note that when the author is speaking of effects within space, he tries to avoid the mathematical terms which he considers descriptive and not causative. Whether referring to Axis information, represented by the set of all Axis vectors in the discussed region and summarized by the vector sum of figment Axis directions, or referring to Axis magnitude, the intensity of the Axis information, when talking about physical effects proves awkward remains to be seen. The mnp Model prefer to see the interaction of the basic entities as supplying the structure and to use mathematics as descriptive and predictive without taking it to be "structure" or the influences and causes itself.↩︎
Note that size does not seem to matter for the creation of Axis influences, that there are enough mediators passing through the volume of a free electron to fully form the expected Axis influence. Phrase this backwards: if the expected or necessary density of mediators is never seen, the mnp Model is no longer viable. Deep space may not provide enough mediators, though any large gathering of matter visiting deep space will be bringing mediators with it, and the mnp picture of the fhoton does not require electric and magnetic fields to propagate but sees the fields as a result of fhoton movement when mediators are present.
So when the author says “must” or “would” about the Model, a testable or semi-testable hypothesis is created. Those words are also a signal that for further explanation within the Model is needed.↩︎
