Registering Experimental Designs and Data Encouraged

Abstract

Saving designs before experiment and data before analysis and publishing and then (lightweight) publishing of negative or inconclusive results, are encouraged. A proposal for a lightweight registry of experimental designs and data may be more effort than it is worth, given current tools for timestamping and electronic lab notebooks.

Tenth Anniversary

On the approach of the tenth anniversary of the idea to register experimental designs without disclosing those designs publicly, the author is pulling that registry idea out into the light of a blog with single digit readership by updating the one page proposal, Appendix G from 2012, to account for the “new” internet. The registry is seen as an extremely lightweight method of recording the existence of files. Those files remain with the user and can later be shared privately or publicly at the user's discretion.

The proposal will be placed directly in the Appendix mnp Model's Journal of Negative Results in the main mnp Manual: An Architecture for the Fine-Grained Structure of Everything since the existence of free timestamp servers and well reviewed free electronic lab notebooks makes this proposal less attractive. One minor advantage of the proposal is that a creator can send a number or a line of data rather than a cryptic file to a receiver, though in all cases the original file will eventually need to be sent if verification is important.

For reference, here is the revised proposal for a registry of methods and data.

Lightweight Registry Proposal - Deprecated

Initially intended to be a registry of experimental designs in physics with no requirement to publish the designs themselves, the concept could be applied more widely. Proving that one did a body of work by a certain date is useful for academia in general, to prove prior experimental design but also to prove that a body of data was gathered by a time and maybe to prove drafts were done by a certain time. Registering lab notebooks occasionally at least puts a “seal” on the work, though dates and times between submissions are not “proven” by the contents of the notebook.

Outside academia, copyright in general is an effort to establish authorship and time. Establishing time of ideas for patents and prior art is relevant to some, including academia. The author's imagination is neither unlimited nor fast, so further ideas are welcome.

So proposed here is a fast lightweight method of proving a timeline for data that might be kept private or made public.

Prior Art

The need to prove that something existed at a certain time was handled in the past by mailing it to oneself in a stamped envelope so that the post office would postmark the package (thanks, E). One had one chance to open the package to prove the contents, after that the contents were out of the bag. The advent of photocopiers meant one could also use the materials before opening.

Notaries could be paid to put stamps on documents and record when that stamp was applied. This was a fairly heavy investment and depended on users keeping the documents unchanged. Without sealing the documents inside a container (see the previous paragraph), this might not be considered reliable.

Current Art

An industry buzzword is RFS 3161 compliant timestamping. The commercial services take information (as suggested here) and create a hash of the information and the servers credentials and send that file back as a timestamp token, which is stored by the creator of the information. No need to store the timestamp remotely. Other services store the original document remotely and create the timestamp remotely. Some free timestamp services exist, though finding them and verifying them can take time. And using them can require programming.

Not itself a lightweight solution.

Certainly the author is not introducing a completely new concept.

Putting anything on the internet is considered by many to be permanent. Photo owners who let their account lapse sometimes discover otherwise. Depending on reference frame, portions of the internet may become beyond the event horizon. Time of publication is an issue. Establishing that something was published at a certain time seems problematic. The author wishes material put on the internet DID have a date visible, that search results had a creation or substantive edit date. He has had the experience of reading material and documentation only to discover that it was written years ago about prior versions. Or written for completely different audiences, as when tax information addresses “you” but applies only to business owners.

If a blog post is considered proof that it was created on a certain date, blogging can be used. If the dates are not maintained or can be adjusted, this is not so reliable.

Creating a project on github maintains the commit date (thanks E and 2018 notebook entry) for all to see. The project name and author is publicly known, as is the contents. Github might not be amenable to keeping millions of projects whose single file consists of length, CRC32, and SHA-512 for free. Naming conventions might be established. Or not. All project names are unique to that author, so conflicts are not an issue.

NFT's, if the author could ever understand them, probably do not contain a date resistant to spoofing or counterfeiting.

Even heavier or more expensive solutions include:

ISO 9001 general quality control requirements can include keeping track of documents and dates. Costs.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has requirements for tracking work. Probably very heavyweight, given the profits and human safety issues involved.

Timestamp Servers

Direct timestamp services exist on the internet. Timestamp servers take a cryptographic hash of an existing file and return an encrypted file containing basically proof that that hash was submitted at a certain time to a trusted server. Many cost. Some are free. Most require programming.

Free Timestamp Servers

A list of free timestamp programs can be found in https://gist.github.com/Manouchehri/fd754e402d98430243455713efada710 . The list was last updated six months prior to January 2022 review. The discussion can reveal changed experiences and new servers found by others. Some servers are limited to 100 per month or 5 per day or 10 per day or 20 in 20 minutes or non-commercial use only. Finding and using a timestamp server requires either knowledge or a program, some of which make creating timestamps invisible.

Electronic Lab Notebooks

Electronic Lab Notebooks exist. Most cost. The idea has existed since the 1950's. Implementations started to be feasible twenty or thirty years ago. Most Electronic Lab Notebooks have improved (or been impemented) in the last ten years. Searching those three words turns up many reviews and sources. Reviews may include 40 products in the list. Many are industry specific. Many are large. Even searches adding the word free turn up reviews of mostly fee based services. For example, SciNote is accepted by the FDA, NIH, and European Commission, includes inventory tracking, standard operating procedures management, and project management. Most do much more than just provide timestamps for information.

Free Electronic Lab Notebooks

For electronic lab notebooks, two references might be useful. A review article relevant to academic research from Nature Protocols (2022-01-14): Higgins, S.G., Nogiwa-Valdez, A.A. & Stevens, M.M. Considerations for implementing electronic laboratory notebooks in an academic research environment. Nature Protocol (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-021-00645-8 runs ten pages in two columns. The short story: implementing ELN's is hard and requires knowing the lab's needs. ELN's offer advantages of searching, archiving, and sharing but have a learning curve.

A free, open source electronic lab notebook is eLabFTW https://www.elabftw.net It can be run locally or hosted by organizations centrally or remotely on the web. Installation normally uses Docker, so is moderately complicated or moderately easy depending on ones experience. To run locally, half a day for setup by a moderately savvy user is one estimate. The existence of such notebooks and timestamp services allows the author to put this Lightweight Registry for Experimental Design and Data on hold.

Deciding to use an electronic notebook after researching options and requirements takes some time. Using electronic lab notebooks might be useful for many.

Advantages of a Registry of Methods and Data

Without creating any stigma, having a registry for methods and data might make submitting to a Journal of Negative Results easier. If the methods are already packaged and the data can be packaged for delivery to responsible reviewers, then only a summary of results may be needed for submittal to a JNR.

Introduction to the concept of Journal of Negative Result

Regarding a public Journal of Negative Results, which attempts to create a repository for failed experiments and ideas, there have been many efforts. Motivations for a Journal of Negative Results include the oft cited 2005 paper by Ionnadis in PLOS Medicine which has a medical focus and suggests most published findings are false. At least that synopsis gains attention. It also suggests that negative studies in some fields, if published, might appropriately lead to abandonment of the field. Again, note the medical focus. Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 August 30, 2005.

Mentioned in https://www.aje.com/en/arc/negative-results-dark-matter-research/ are

• ALL Results http://www.arjournals.com/ojs/ encourages negative results as valuable pieces of information in science, including Nano http://arjournals.com/index.php/Nano and Physics http://arjournals.com/index.php/Phys , The website supports late editions of Internet Explorer 7, shows the current physics journal sample from 2011, and announces the creation of the Phys section in 2012-06-26. Appears moribund, sigh.
• (Mega) publisher PLOS takes, since 2015, inconclusive or null or negative results if the results make a contribution to the field as Positively Negative http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2015/02/25/positively-negative-new-plos-one-collection-focusing-negative-null-inconclusive-results/
• F1000Research f1000research.com
• further from physics is BMC Psychology http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpsychol which has created data notes as a shorthand method of making data available,
• PLOS One, Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine http://jnrbm.biomedcentral.com/

The dark matter article notes that negative findings, in the rare event of being published, are less likely to be cited http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0054583 . The author suggests a lack of citation may not be a measure of utility; researchers benefiting from negative results by avoiding an area or even a field may not cite, but still benefit by redirecting their energies. Measuring those intangible benefits is not easy. The article raises the question “Would you take the time to write up negative results if there were a simple template and some credit for your efforts?”

Motivations for a Journal of Negative Results include The often cited 2005 paper by Ionnadis in PLOS Medicine which suggests most published findings are false. At least that synopsis gains attention. Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Registry Proposal Details - Deprecated

Now that the reasons to create a registry are seen as transitory, the proposal itself is included here but not fully rounded out.

Data to Store

Perhaps timezone, but don't worry about spoofing. Perhaps URL, but do not worry about spoofing or VPN's.

Data Required

Hope to work without cookies. Hope to work without having the website re-written or spoofed.

Design Parameter

For a designer whose experience includes

• working on the Camp Fire response, which burned an area bigger than the Bay Area,
• using 16K DRAM chips from manufacturers claiming the rare errors were from cosmic rays
• upgrading to hard drives with 10 Megabytes of storage
• graduating from (shared) dial up to ADSL
• moving from ADSL to fiber only recently

the author retains an acute awareness of storage space, storage reliability, bandwidth, minimal resource demands, privacy, user effort, and user learning/knowledge requirements.

One concern, of course, is the user reaction “do I really have to learn something new?” Another, similar to modern reaction to email, “That looks really old.” “Like last year.” “Why do you use green rather than blue? It's ugly.”

Storing the data is the easiest part of this proposal. Keeping it secure is more work. Retrieving it is yet more work. Making the user interface pleasant is work. Making it secure and resistant to denials of service and tampering is a lot of work.

Limitations on Use

To limit the denial of service by a/some users creating a lot of entries: Set a limit on number of submissions per day? Use captcha or something similar to assure human use. Though the author finds that irritating.

If we really do not want commercial or vanity use, restrict users outside .edu addresses.

Responsibilities of the User

Primary is keep an exact copy of the file from which the record / time stamp / identity stamp was created. This applied to copyright applications since the advent of copyright, so will not be unfamiliar. Still, the author has at times struggled to keep archival copies locally or not so locally and keep them findable. Storing encrypted files on the net is fine. The user still must retain the key and assure the encrypted file remains accessible.

Personal Notes on Keeping Notebook

Keeping directories constant has been virtually impossible; single files are more manageable. The author has found it hard not to go back to electronic records of thoughts and do spell check without changing the substance. If I were really concerned, I'd know where the original was kept and what its name was. As an old time user of computers, I DO have a lot of backup copies. Just finding the version I want is tough and of course the contents COULD be spooked or changed.

Responsibilities of the Keeper

Keep the information as append only, do not go back to change previous entries, just allow additions. Backup the data in multiple manners, save the encryption key for those backups, have a succession plan, try to avoid Hollywood scenes of kidnapping or rubber hose steganography, Succession plans: does the community take over decisions, do we worry about privatization of the data. If backup is kept off-line (or on) bit-rot

Challenge

The start of bulletin board systems was accompanied by science fiction that worried about nefarious use of encrypted communication. There are so many ways to communicate, in the open and in “private” that I will not worry about that.

Naming

A catchy name is needed for new (or old) concepts hoping for acceptance. Meme's welcome.

• Container
• time capsule
• cache
• vault
• registry
• notary...
• store
• registry
• repository
• What stored
• plans
• myplans
• experimental time capsule
• experiment registry
• my notary proposal (note the favored mnp acronym)
• notebook repository
• lab notebook snapshots
• file
• methods
• Combined terms
• methods cache
• experimental methods
• journal of pending results
• registry of experimental design and data (redd)
• Bare terms trying to be memes
• knox no locks
• I did it
• I got it
• Proof
• 200 Proof
• prior art
• been there
• done that
• remember when
• back then
• my history
• keeper of the flame
• whats your plan

We want to go viral if we want lots of attention and use. More relevant for advertising or other money making ventures. And a dot com name, not a dot org name.

Academia, not so much.

Meditations on the Statistical Physics of Information Storage

The details of the proposal for a Lightweight Registry remind the author of the interesting proof from Introduction to Statistical Physics. That proof suggested that information storage need involve no energy. But retrieval does involve energy. And changing existing storage also requires energy to clear, to read and revise if necessary.

In like manner, a lightweight record keeper need keep no state or extra information. When limitations like number of requests per day or time between requests are placed, the programming energy costs go up, sometimes a lot if security is involved. Keeping cookies is work, and may require permission from the user, depending on reference frame. Again, increasing transaction energy and cost.

The original proposal from 2012 is included here. Since it too is outdated, it is mostly shown in lighter text.

Original Journal of Future Results Proposal - Appendix G
Journal of Future Results also known as Future Results Journal - (2012-02-01)

If researchers in a field were to file their methodologies and predictions prior to experiment with a registry, the subsequent results should have more power and respect in that field.

Required submission: length and more checksums (and proof that a human is submitting)

Optional submissions: Topic, Title, Author, Contact Info, Date, Keywords, Text. Any information can be kept “private” for a period of time chosen by the submitter.

The subsequent papers on that experiment would quote a submission number and length and checksums and provide the document that matches. This would allow readers to know the methodologies and predictions at the time of submission to FR Journal (jfr.com is taken).

The registry would take no view on the reliability of the checksums or the information submitted, only that the submission was made with the data provided. The users would decide how much to trust. For example, if it is subsequently found that a 1M file with a CRC32 and an SHA-256 is easily modified while maintaining length and sums, then the value of the submitted information would go down.

The data would be stored off-line after a (short?) while, rather than being maintained only on-line. Verifying old submisions might cost and be a minor profit source. Or bringing an old submission up for public view for a while might cost.

The Future Results Journal may be more relevant in fields with more and smaller experiments and in fields where variation is greater such as medicine, sociology, economics, biology, environmental science.

The initial idea stems from seeing medical research performed “to significance.” Which has significant negative results.

Musings oN Particles

Herein, a few demonstrations of thinking in the mnp and Constituent Models. This blog grows out of ongoing revisions to Appendix B of the main mnp Model document, An Architecture for the Fine-Grained Structure of Everything. One paragraph on Beta + decay of fluorine₁₈ grew into pages on quarks and the exchange of charge material seen as basic to weak and strong exchanges.

Quark Charges

Quark charges seem to be exactly -2/3, -1/3, 1/3, and 2/3 of the elementary charge of the electron/positron e⁺. Perhaps with puzzling corrections where the gluons seem to have a bit of charge in some types of experiment. The mnp Model can explain those ephemera as a result of the quarks contending for charge material. The mnp Model uses the basic experimental result to suggest that, mathematically and geometrically, those charges can be formed by combinations of +1/6 and -1/6 and that the quantum of charge is actually 1/6 of the elementary charge. In the mnp Model, these sixths are seen as filament loops. In the (or a) Constituent Model, the charge structure remains as just sixths with greater affinities for like charges and less for opposite charges, but quantized nonetheless.

Up is five positive plus one negative unit of (the new) quantized charge. Down is two positive and four negative.

Having a consistent size of charge structure for quarks has structural purity. The sixths of a charge picture allows positrons and electrons be “degenerate” quarks, which is attractive conceptually.

Current physics vocabulary does not seem to have a term for the smallest measured items with charge, so the author is casting about for alternatives. Lepton includes neutrinos but not quarks. Quarks include only fractional charges. New terms might be particulate, particulite, kwark, fepton, six-pack, six as a noun. No good word starting with f comes to mind. Fwark seems forced; the pun on fork might entertain some versed in software development but will dismay many others. For now, the author will use italic six as a noun. And call it \mnplepton in the latex source.

This picture of sixths also allows a three positive plus three negative “quark” that would be stable until it encounters another quark, when it would probably trade three of one charge or the other to convert the encountered quark into its charge opposite and produce a positron or electron.

This neutral six has not been seen in experiment, unless the Z is a candidate. Since it is more mixed in charge structure, the mass/size of the six's is expected to decrease from z to down to up to electrons and positrons.

This document will appropriate the letters n and p for the negative and positive quanta. Those are loops that strand as six in the mnp Model and just sixths in the Constituent Model. Apologies to particle physics for the overlap among the 26 letters. So the table of the charge structure of six's would be:

Charge Structure of Basic six Units

Quantized Charges	Net Charge	Particle Name
0n 6p	+1	positron
1n 5p	+2/3	up
2n 4p	+1/3	anti-down
3n 3p	0	z
4n 2p	-1/3	down
5n 1p	-2/3	anti-up
6n 0p	-1	electron

The n and p notation is also used in discussing and diagramming the lay (layout) of filaments in strands. Since this document uses loop and figment indicators much more than neutrons and protons this admittedly overlaps Particle Physics use of n and p. Again, apologies. This sixth of the elementary charge idea has been around a long time, at least since Post 12 (2012-10-26) - Many New Possibilities for the Charge Structure of Matter

Neutrons Emitting Electrons

The mnp Model posits that charge material is neither created nor destroyed, though it may be hidden at times. Neutron decay needs the charge material of an additional six. From 11/04/11 (a palindromic date if we ignore the century), neutron decay wants one down quark to convert to an up, so in filament notation, the neutron pppppn nnnnpp nnnnpp becomes the proton pppppn pppppn nnnnpp. Maybe a more readable way to write that is the neutron ppp ppn/nnn npp/nnn npp or 5p 1n/2p 4n/2p 4n becomes the proton ppp ppn/ppp ppn/nnn npp or 5p 1n/5p 1n/2p 4n. A solitary neutron would need filaments nnn ppp to change to a proton and create an nnn nnn which is an electron. The spaces are used like the thousands separator in currency notation and do not indicate that six's have a three and three structure. If nnn nnn and ppp ppp are recruit-able with a big enough photon in a high energy decay/collision experiment, then nnn ppp should be available too.

Starting with

        p p
       p   p
        p N             p p
                       n   p
    p P     P p         n n
   n   n   n   n
    n n     n n

One of the two down will attract an n from the z (which holds its filaments less tightly) in exchange for the p not in contention.

        p p
       p   p
        p N             p p
                       p   p
    p P     P n         n n
   n   n   n   n
    n n     n n

That down (which has changed to an anti up) then attracts another n in exchange for the P in contention, which is no longer in contention but an integral part of the new up. The remaining n in the new up becomes a victim of contention as the new up tries to take the P in contention from the remaining down. This leaves the incoming z as an up with its N in contention, behaving and looking exactly like an up in a nucleon.

        p p
       p   p
        p N             p p
                       p   p
    p P     n n         N p
   n   n   n   n
    n n     n n

which is bound to the original up and one of the original down as a proton, leaving the electron free.

   p p       p p
  p   p     p   p
   p N       N p

        p P            n n
       n   n          n   n
        n n            n n

The mnp Model suggests that a neutron in deep, empty or cold space cannot decay unless it encounters such filament loops. Whether the six figment loop of 0 net charge item called a z (the seventh and only neutral six in the Models) actually exists is open for debate. The LEP experiment at CERN did not find such a particle.

The author does not expect single filament loops to be available in just the right numbers for recruitment, though that is a possible explanation if experiment never finds z's as nnn ppp six's or particles. Single unaffiliated filament loops may well be present away from galaxies and might be part of dark matter.

Musings About 18F9 Decay in the mnp Model

Charge material conservation and figment and filament recruitment are central to the mnp Model. As an illustration, consider 18F9 becoming 18O8, for which two modes are possible. The more common is direct positron emission, the less common electron capture.

18F9 Beta Plus Decay

To give off a positron and convert a proton into a neutron, the mnp Model attempts a mechanism as follows, in keeping with the charge material conservation principle of the Model.

For reference, up is, in sixths notation, ppp ppn. Down is nnn npp. The proton is ppp ppn/nnn ppn/ppp ppn where the two up quarks are trying to recruit the same p filament coil from the down. If the two up were trying to recruit different p filaments from the down, the reaction would complete like most weak interactions in about 10^-8 seconds yielding 2 positrons and an electron.

The neutron is nnn ppn/ppp ppn/nnn ppn. The competition here can be seen as both down trying to recruit the n filament coil from the up. Or as the up is trying to recruit a p loop from each of the down. For a proton to decay to a neutron and a positron, additional charge material is needed. Picture the original proton in filament picture notation, with 12p and 6n:

      n n
     n   n
      p P

  p p     p p
 p   N   N   p
  p p     p p

This needs to become, in beta+ decay, a neutron and a positron, with 9 n, 9p, and a 6 p positron:

      p p          p p
     p   p        p   p
      p N          p p

  p P     P p
 n   n   n   n
  n n     n n

An additional 3n and 3p is needed. If the proton is relatively exposed in the unstable fluorine-18 nucleus, so it is not protected by the other nucleons, and it encounters a neutral z, the hypothesized 3n 3p six.

      n n          n n
     n   n        n   p
      p P          p p

  p p     p p
 p   N   N   p
  p p     p p

The strongest attraction for rearrangement comes from the two up, which have 5 p's to attract a sixth though both are already distracted by competition for one of the P's in the down. The six z might be considered a donor by the two up's, which would likely attract different filaments of the z.

      n n       n n
     n   n     n   p
      p P       P p

      p p       p N
     p   N     p   p
      p p       p p

Since the z is not attracting its three p's as much as the up is attracting p's, one of the up will win a p from the z, which z then becomes a down. Since the remaining up is trying to gain a P from the now down which has been the z, we have the picture of a neutron with a freed positron:

  n n     n n
 n   n   n   n
  p P     P p

      p N          p p
     p   p        p   p
      p p          p p

18F9 Electron Capture

The electron capture picture starts here. This picture has been harder to develop. For an up to become a down when an electron is captured, many images of the change are possible.

From conservation of charge material, proton 5p1n 5p1n 4n2p plus an electron 6n to yield a neutron 4n2p 4n2p 5pn1 starts with a total 12p and 12n and appears to end with 3p3n. If charge material is conserved, it appears that 3p3n has disappeared. The mnp Model answer would be that a z has been created. Still, changing the quarks is not easy.

For a down quark, it would need to lose one n and gain a p. But the result needs not just the existing down but a second. For an up quark to become a z involves losing two p to gain n. The closest relative to the electron is the down quark, which would entail losing 2 n and gaining 2 p. A direct exchange of 2 strands between electron and an up would seem to be called for. Explaining that is a challenge, though randomize and see what is stable emerge is one approach.

The hardest part of an electron capture explanation is starting the breakup of the electron.

The original situation in filament picture notation where capital letters indicate the filaments involved in contention shows a proton (up up down) and an energetic electron:

      n n          n n
     n   n        n   n
      p P          n n

  p p     p p
 p   N   N   p
  p p     p p

The total input is a proton, with 12p, 6n and a 6n electron. Picture the expected result, a neutron and a positron, with 9 n, 9p, with the disappering 3 p and 3n as a z.

      p p          p p
     p   p        p   n
      p N          n n

  p P     P p
 n   n   n   n
  n n     n n

Perhaps the simplest explanation: an electron is in proximity and with the compatible spin when a positron is created in Beta + decay and the two annihilate to become not one but two z's. Those z's must be of a size to absorb a reasonable amount of energy.

For a direct explanation, the electron needs to be or become energetic enough that its coils are opened up to a similar radius as the quark with which it will start exchanging.

Maybe the down wrestles an n from the electron to yield two anti up and the two up still contending for the P in the original down.

   n n     n n
  n   n   n   n
   n P     p n

  p p     p p
 p   N   N   p
  p p     p p

Then the new electron turned anti up tries to get an N from one or both of the up, since those N's are already accessible.

  n n     n n
 n   n   n   n
  n P     P n

  p p     p p
 p   N   N   p
  p p     p p

This contention appears nominally symmetrical. That might pull one of the anti up into close proximity with a down so that the coils can more closely align. If some portion of those coils arrange to a stranding of 3p 3n of the non-contending filaments, the coils will expand to a higher radius and separate from the other. Leaving briefly

  n n     n      p n
 n   n   n      p   n
  n P     P      p n

  p p     p
 p   N   N
  p p     p

The two 3 strands are still involved/intertwined with each other, so the N or P might drop out of contention. To go toward the observed result, the N would drop out and somehow the anti up gets a p from the nascent six. The author is not willing to end with either QED or the simple details are left to the reader. This is not satisfying. Worse ideas can be found in the JNR Appendix to the main mnp document.

18F9 Electron Capture - A Better Explanation

Direct explanation, number two, is just that the electron is compatible in energy and spin to one of the up, intertwines, and some of the coils reach 3p 3n and expand to separate from the other 6 strands. The temporary result can be pictured

  n n     n      p n
 n   n   n      p   n
  p P     n      p n

  p p     p
 p   N   N
  p p     p

the resulting six is a down, which is not interested in losing an N but in gaining one by latching onto the N already in contention, trying to give up a P.

  n n             p n
 n   n           p   n
  p P    n n      p n
        P   n
  p p    p n
 p   N
  p p

The nucleon stays intact. Voilà. With only one major appeal to magic. A slightly more satisfying explanation for electron capture. At least as a demonstration exercise in thinking about charge conservation and in recruitment toward stability, Not a total loss as a thought experiment. One hopes.

This emphasis on charge material conservation leads the author to suggest that the cross-section values for various interactions are not single numbers when the reaction depends on something outside or additional to the particles involved in the reaction. Some reactions like neutron decay may not happen in deep space, with little around. Vacuums in proximity to mass are not empty; energy in the form of recruitable m 's is available. Dark matter may be mostly recruitable, so some regions around galaxies are not empty either. And yet, the author finds himself, once again, suggesting alternates to the established physics. With no expectation of being persuasive.

Gamma Particles

From 11/05/11, another palindrommic date, Gamma particles from electron-positron destruction are seen as not just fhotons made up of \m-figments the way fhotons are pictured in the mnp Model. They are not even particles with a given size. They definitely are mostly energy, the m figments as energy released by the reaction. They also contain \ni and \p figments traveling at the speed of light. Those charge material figments are currently seen (2022) as staying organized in the quantized filament loops that provided the structure for the original particles. The mnp Model does not see the loops as being broken up by high energy reactions.

All n, p, and loop filaments n and p lack the ability to travel the very long distances that real fhotons have. Charge material will scatter faster.

If coils DO break up in high energy collisions, the individual figments will be hard to recruit into loops and thus would be seen as adding to dark matter in the current universe. Since the mnp Model sees black holes as retaining only figment count, momentum, and quantized charge material loops, this would also lead to loss of a significant portion of the only information retained in black holes. So perhaps the author's preference for the persistence of figment loops has an inherent bias toward existence.

The mnp and Constituent Models see weak interactions as the exchange of quantized charge materials between particles leading to different particles and the strong force as quarks attempting to exchange charge material but being prevented by the contention of another quark for the same quantized charge material.

A Tale of Two Models

The mnp Model may be presented either as a specific structural model with three entities and three effects that combine and operate as the universe or as a general conceptual model comprised of constituents moving at c. So instead of a single linear exposition, the author is faced with two (nay, more) choices. This dilemma has been faced before. Based on Dickens' model, here is one draft of a start with the original included for reference. On first reading, choose a column.

mnp/Constituent Models	Dickens
Adaptation:	Original:
A Tale of Two Models	A Tale of Two Cities
I. The Epoch	I. The Period
It was the best of times,	It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,	it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,	it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,	it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,	it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,	it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Understanding,	it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Dark Energy,	it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,	it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,	it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Understanding, we were all going direct to Confusion	we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way
— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on the Models being rejected, for good or for evil, as the height of folly, vanity, and foolishness with a priori no chance of success.	— in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
There were established journals and authorities on the thrones of science.	There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the throne of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the throne of France.
In all Disciplines it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the Discipline preserves of wisdom and knowledge, that things in general were settled for ever.	In both countries it was clearer than crystal to the lords of the State preserves of loaves and fishes, that things in general were settled for ever.

Or not.

Thank you, Charles Dickens. Original here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/98

In many ways, the present period is not so different from the year of the Current Era one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five. Or it is. Different.

So the mnp/Constituent Model exposition will be a Tale of shuttling back and forth between Two Models with a common origin but separated by a channel of specificity. This Tale is offered in quest of understanding and of an alternate to the current and Standard Models.

The current models have been preserved one hundred eighty, one hundred fifty four, one hundred forty five, one hundred thirty four, one hundred sixteen, one hundred thirteen, one hundred two, ninety three, ninety two, ninety one, and fifty one years, depending on which Current Model one chooses, by diligent experiment and explosive development of useful product. Preserved also by acceptance of the contradictions and unknowns with the promise one makes in science to revisit mysteries and other rough edges. (2)

The two new Models ARE based on the exposed bedrock of physics. The speed of light, c, is a constant. Experiments and the universe Exist (E). The general Model can be considered the Continental Model, since it has some mathematical connection to the rest of physics. It has been christened the Constituent Model. The more specific Model may be considered the island Model, since it appears untethered to any existing theory. It has been christened the mnp Model, for the three basic entities mediators, negatives and positives seen as making up matter, energy, and fields. The mnp Model adds an understanding of the third foundation/leg of modern physics, the Planck constant h.

The quest for novel understanding will be interesting. The tale unfolds...

Local Addendum - Current Model Dates

Pick your metric:

Area	Topic/Scientist	Year
Statistical Mechanics	Bernoulli	1738
	Maxwell	1859
	Boltzman	1864
	Statistical Mechanics proper	1870's
	Statistical Mechanics as a term by American mathematical physicist J Willard Gibbs	1884
	Boltzmann's collected Lectures on Gas Theory	1896
	Gibbs Elementary Principles of Statistical Mechanics, which formalized the basis of statistical mechanics and which was found to be very general	1902
Electro Magnetism	Maxwell's equations	1864
	Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism	1873
Relativity	Special Relativity	1905
	General Relativity	1916
Quantum Mechanics	in matrix form by Heisenberg Born and Jordan	1925
	in wave form by Heisenberg Pauli and Dirac	1926
	as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation (Schrödinger)	1927
The Standard Model		1967

Maybe Not Probabilistic: On Grades

Physics, learning, experiment, and discovery are fun. Humor can be part of that joy. Or not. Here, the author offers a not very serious consideration of probabilities:

Schrödinger's Transcript: A Meditation on Grades (2012-02-15)

Everyone was a high school student once, so perhaps can relate to this story of disappointment. Imagine you are taking a course in the field you want to study. The teacher knows the material, relays it well, but is an extremely difficult grader and not terribly computer savvy. The school has just gone to all computer grading. You know you are on the borderline between an A and a B, have taken the final on which you knew most of the material, and are now waiting for grades to come out. The computer system is known to be difficult - moving the mouse over the wrong area brings up a different student when the teachers enter the grades. Your teacher has submitted the course grades and just gone on sabbatical to Switzerland for vacation and left all cell phones at home.

What is your grade? Since grades come in large quanta and are scalar, quantum mechanics would be the truest description of your situation. The wave function of your grade has the schematic form

Ψ_grade = (Ψ_A + Ψ_B) / √ 2

Your grade is neither A nor B, but rather a linear combination of the two, until a measurement occurs. At that moment your observation forces the grade to “take a stand”: A or B. And if you find it B, then it's really you who destroyed your chance to get into your program of choice.

So, dreading knowing, you hope your parents open the grades (this is high school, after all, and you were not yet 18 most of that time). Then you can blame them.

College students can relate, except that graduate school or a job is on the line, you have a professor, and if your scoundrel of a roomate opens the mail, you can blame someone else for the grade. Post-docs don't know if the paper is accepted or not, especially when others are known to be submitting on the same topic, so can relate through an analogous situation. Is it better to blame yourself for taking the measurement or to hope your partner is curious and takes that blame? Tough choice.

Thanks to David Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edition 2005, pages 430-431.

Actually (2022-01-09), the author (usually) prefers to see that Ψ_grade probability as just a representation, which has nothing to do with setting up the situation and has nothing to do with reality or the result. The unthoughtful experimenters who put Schrödinger's cat at risk deserve any and all unkind thoughts directed at them. And those who see humor in the author's mixed state of preference are welcome.

The Constituent Model Generalizes the mnp Model

The Constituent Model, in which the constituents of particles, light, neutrinos, and fields are seen as traveling at c, is being developed as a generalization of the specific constituent model, mnp. This blog is a short attempt to describe the relation of Constituent Models and the mnp Model a little more closely.

Certain explanations and proofs work better in the general Constituent Model, for example the movement of particles and the energy/mass that must be added to effect movement. Certain details and explanations currently work better in the mnp Model, such as the origin of h and ℏ. Herein, a sketch of the state of that generalization. Most of this sketch was written at the end of 2018.

Frames

Most theorists in Special and General Relativity see no way the reference frame or the lab can change, no way a rotating frame itself can change, so all relativity must be apparent. The Constituent and mnp Models indicate that the lab DOES change, that particles DO change when they move, that time DOES dilate on movement. Ponder that while the author considers the verb in that sentence. The Models do posit, do not yet show or prove, and are far too dependent on the reality of Lorentz transformation to merely hint. The Constituent Model depends on the Lorentz transformations being real, and is an absolute frame system, as is the mnp Model. While not apologizing, the author IS a bit bashful and sometimes quiet about that necessity.

Natural Philosophy

The author thinks primarily in terms of the specific Constituent Model, the mnp Model. The advantages of the Constituent Model is that some proofs and developments are easier, for example, the validation of relativistic mass and momentum. These developments apply directly to the mnp Model as a specific type of Constituent Model. At other times, ideas such as the meaning/explanation for h and ℏ, seem to emerge more easily from the mnp Model. Applying specific thoughts to the general Constituent Model is at times much more challenging. So in the traditions of math and physics, the easier course will be chosen. Comment regarding mathematics: things are usually hard. When mathematicians find something dropping out, making things easier, they get really excited.

Constituent Model Principles

A Constituent Model posits that everything that makes up everything travels at c. The author suggests that the constituent(s) have ways of interacting with constituent(s) that are not classical or expected in any sense. For example, constituents probably do not occupy space, do not bounce off each other, and may not even repel each other. That seems to work well in the specific Constituent Model mnp.

The mnp Model posits that two basic entities at about the same point and traveling in about the same direction, only one will receive influence from nearby entities. If instead the limitation is seen as a maximum interaction over an area or volume (in addition to maximum influence given and influence received), the limitation works in a Constituent Model as well. Or one could posit that constituents have a maximum density. A maximum density or maximum influence over volume runs the risk of seeming like an ether based model, which the author would like to avoid for now in favor of a more pure entity or constituent based model.

Speculations Further Afield

If the effect that leads to gravity, called Travel in the mnp Model, is also passed transverse to the direction of travel of all basic entities, then gravity can remain consistent to it's a sub 0 limit. This might also be a benefit in picturing electrostatic fields and in picturing the surface of nucleons, with their smaller quarks inside actively trying to pull each other apart. But for the discussion of measuring time in the previous post on Time Dilation, those hints of future developments are not needed.

There may well be successful Constituent Models more general than the author's current theorizing, which is based on experience with a specific developing and changing Model, the mnp Model. (or is the gerund properly modeling when the creation is still light-years from a Theory.) At present, the author's effort is show the success of a Constituent Model. This effort may or may not be closely tied to the mnp Model. Later, further generalization may be possible. At present, picturing why an electrostatic field attracts opposites is explained in the mnp Model, based on the coiled structure of charge, but is NOT explained in a generalized Constituent Model.

A "success" can be claimed, for example, in gravitational fields which reasonably generalize from mnp's picture of basic entities streaming away and toward masses, with the attraction being to move parallel or anti-parallel. If the constituent gravitons or gravitational fields travel at c and attract each other to be more parallel and the gravitons attract transverse to their motion (also at c) to travel in their direction and have a limit on how far their attraction can extend based on how "much" constituent there is in a volume or an expanding plane, then the Constituent Model has a similar property to the mnp Model of having a limit beyond which gravity becomes non-uniform, preferring to be attracted to gravitational fields and masses already present or already "known." So for gravity, mnp's Travel attraction and distance might become a parallel or anti-parallel attraction of constituents based on an amount of constituent in a volume and distance to possibly affected constituents. This success is actually bi-directional - suggesting that mnp's Travel direction attraction is transmitted laterally in a cone expanding at c was partially motivated by interest in improving the Constituent Model as well as by recognition of the benefits of seeing gravitation as (up to its limits) approaching radial uniformity.

Apparently, fields may be trying to reach a steady state, to reach equilibrium, but are being perturbed by particles, neutrinos, and fhotons. A fhoton as seen as being a polarized bundle of energy that creates electromagnetic waves, while a neutrino creates analogous "gravity" waves without polarization.

The generalization of the mnp Model to a Constituent Model is a work in progress, as is the mnp Model itself.

Humor

In a comic strip from the 50's and 60's, Mandrake the Magician would wave his hands hypnotically whenever he got into difficulties. Well, I hope to avoid THAT. At times, I recognize that I am waving my hands. Hopefully, not hypnotically.

Hints of Recent and Future Developments in the mnp Model

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

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

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

Opportunities in Quantum Mechanics

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

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

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

Electrons and Shells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coil Topology

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

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

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

Changes in Spin Picture

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

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

Reassurance for the mnp Model

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

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

Challenges to the mnp Model

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

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

Thoughts on Education

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

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

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

Hints of the Future of mnp Model Posts

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

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

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

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

To be continued...

Time Dilation at Velocity Explained

Musings on the mnp Model and the Constituent Model

Time dilation as a function of velocity has a clearer explanation due to recent advances in the general Constituent Model and the more specific mnp Model. This explanation joins the explanation of relativistic mass and momentum that emerges from both Models (Constituent Models - Useful Supersets of the mnp Model).

The author recently (2018-07-17) realized that if the electrical/magnetic basis called Axis propagates at c in all directions rather than just along the line of Travel of the basic entities carrying the Axis information, then many explanations in the mnp Model become easier and more consistent with experience and experiment. Improved explanation and understanding of gravitation's lack of charge effects in spite of individual graviton's Axis information, magnetism itself, and the guide waves that lead to diffraction and "interference" by electrons at surfaces or edges or edges of slits are all advantages for the recent understanding/development of the mnp Model. The blog on uniform spread of electrical/magnetic polarity information awaits better pictures of magnetism and the frame. Perhaps the biggest advantage of Axis/polarity information propagating at c is that concomitant explanations in the Constituent Model become easier.

Time in. The words movement and moving refer to particles. Travel and traveling applies to the constituents or basic entities, which are seen as always traveling at c in a flat Minkowski space⁽¹⁾ in these absolute frame models⁽²⁾.

This post will demonstrate a generalized Constituent approach to measured time.⁽¹⁾ If time is measured by the oscillation of electron shells or nuclei, round-trip time for information or constituents themselves is involved. Since charge/polarity information propagates at c and constituents themselves travel at c, the time to cross a nucleus or shell when that nucleus or shell is moving can be examined as a proxy for oscillation. The easiest situation is when the information or constituents are traveling across the particle.

Figures 1 to 3) Oscillation, v = 0

At v=0, with particle width d_t, the time across is d_t/c and the time to return is d_t / c for a round trip of 2d_t / c. If the oscillation is around the ellipsoidal or circular surface of the particle, the round trip will be π d_t / c.

Figures 4 to 6) Transverse Oscillation, v > 0

If the particle is moving at v, information or constituents can be seen as traveling c on a diagonal, v on the longitudinal direction, and at a rate of sqrt(c²-v²) in the lateral/transverse direction. So the time for the constituent(s) or wave information to cross the particle d_t/sqrt(c²-v²), and the ratio of traversal time at rest to traversal time in motion is (2d_t/c) / (2d_t/sqrt(c²-v²)) or c/sqrt(c²-v²). The frequency of the oscillations or the ticks of a "clock" in a moving particle compared to one at rest is sqrt(c²-v²)/c, a familiar time dilation expression. If the path is not across but around the surface of a spheroid or ellipsoidal shell, the distance traveled is π d_t at v=0 and the time to make a circuit is π d/c. When the particle is moving, the time is π d_t / sqrt(c²-v²). The ratios are the same.

Examining the time taken to make a forward and backward circuit in a rest or moving particle is important and appears to involve different expressions. When the particle is at rest, the formulae for oscillation time is the same, 2d / c. When moving, the forward and backward times are different. Forward, d / (c - v), which takes longer. Backwards, since the back end of the particle is catching up with the returning information or constituents, the time is d / (c + v), shorter than the forward traversal. The total round trip is d_l(c - v) + d_l(c+v) / (c² - v²) or 2d_l c / (c² - v²), which looks and is very different from the convenient expression when the information or constituents are traveling transverse to particle movement.

Figures 7 to 9) Longitudinal Oscillation, v > 0

But note that the classic formula for length compression has a factor of sqrt(c²-v²) / c, so if d_l is d sqrt(c² - v²) / c, then the total round trip time is 2d / sqrt(c² - v²) and the ratio of absolute time taken for an oscillation for moving compared to rest particles is exactly the same as the time to make a round trip perpendicular to the direction of movement: c / sqrt(c² - v²). The ratio of oscillations or clock ticks is the inverse or sqrt(c² - v²) / c, also the same ratio as with oscillation transverse to the direction of movement. As expected, oscillations and clock ticks are slower for the moving particle.

Length compression actually saves the discussion of time slowing with movement, just as it saved discussions of the two way speed of light in absolute frame models early in the development of the mnp Model!

IF (and only if) length contraction occurs by the Lorentz or special relativity formulae, then time dilation by the classic formula is seen as real and equal across all diameters and circumferences of the particle.

Status of Length Contraction in the mnp and Constituent Models.

The author does not consider the length contraction formula entirely proven within the mnp Model to the degree that relativistic mass increase has been proven to be essential for motion. Length contraction has been shown as likely in the mnp Model, given that coils must flatten for movement to take place. Since the basic charge entities that are constituents of the mnp Model are traveling in coils, on average each coil must flatten so that the axis is no more than cos^-1(sqrt(c²-v²) / c) from the longitudinal axis. The average longitudinal dimension of those coils must not exceed sqrt(c²-v²)/c. In general, the author feels the coils should have a fairly even distribution from axis parallel to movement to the "maximum" orientation to minimize internal changes of direction, internal rotations, and internal or surface variations in density. This suggests but does not yet prove that the longitudinal dimension of the particle is reduced by a similar factor.

Length compression seems to be real in Constituent Models, but the author feels that the exact value for length compression needs at some point to be proved. A few embryonic thoughts toward proving length compression in the Constituent Model follow. The constituents traveling at c that make up particles must be curving in some fashion, so that the particle remains more or less a unit. The "surface" of the particle does not disintegrate with movement.

Embryonic Thoughts Regarding Particle Shape and Movement

The forward surface will remain intact, so that the range of velocities/directions in a dV portion near the front surface will have a limit on the directions available. In like manner, a dV portion of the back surface will limit the directions to NOT backward from that surface. Integration across that surface may show that the surface itself needs to change from a perfect sphere?? The particle will remain intact, perhaps the surface will remain smooth, though this may be an over simplification.

Developmental thoughts: At the perimeter transverse to movement, constituents cannot be traveling forward at c in direction of moving, but must be skewed to side so that forward progress is less than or equal to [remember rest condition, where it can move forward at c as long as the curvature keeps the constituent within the particle. Actually, must be tangent?? and curving in. Can be a maximum of v forward or less. Or actually exactly v forward if I allow no oscillation of the shape at all. No, just have to travel forward and away from the edge faster than being caught up with, since v 0 can be any direction as long as curvature radius less than or equal to radius of particle. At high speeds, must pull back from the surface if going backward-ish faster than particle surface is catching up.. Back from the edge, can be different. Could this lead to a curvature that represents an ellipse?? A diagram will clarify, for the author as well:

Figure 10) Constituent Travel at "Surface" of Particle

This diagram shows four extreme points - the center front, center back, and two of the lateral midpoints. At the front, forward progress for the constituent must be strictly less than v, at the rear strictly more than v, and at the lateral midpoints strictly more than 0 and less than c. Within, perhaps, some variation that does not affect the integrity of the particle. On further thought, if the particle is not moving at all, the lateral midpoints may be moving at c in any direction, as long as they are curving inward. So the limits on forward or backward progress at the lateral circumference may be more like sqrt(c²-v²) and curving inward.

The particle should remain symmetrical around the axis of movement (since it continues in that direction), the momentum will be consistent radially around that axis.

Acceleration must average 0 at all times for a stationary or non-accelerating particle, so the third derivative and above will also be 0. That acceleration averaging 0 would applies in all planes and axes of symmetry.

The more plausible rules the better, to limit the freedom internally. Acceleration may be limited compared to momentum/mass, which would limit the radius of turning.

At a given point within the particle, the direction amount is a 3d tensor, the magnitude in any direction representing how much constituent is going each way. At the surface, there are of course limits. If we assume no effect on each other, the change through time can be whatever it is. The integral over 3 dimensions of mv will give total mv. Change over time of the tensors should be radially symmetrical about the line of movement. Change over time at any point on the surface should be the velocity of movement. Conditions of continuity might apply, for example, a minimum radius of change might prove useful or necessary for the modeling.

Rotation within the particle around the axis of movement is not expected, but "no rotation" would be better emerging from the math than needing to be imposed.

Consistent density throughout the particle or across the surface would be better emerging from the math than needing to be imposed. Would it be provable??

Conclusion

Time dilation is explained in the Constituent and mnp Models. Length contraction with movement is demonstrated in both Models. However, since a fully convincing proof of time dilation relies on length contraction, the formula for time dilation remains unproved until the formula for length contraction is proved.

Footnotes:

(1) Both mnp and Constituent Models are absolute frame models, so some readers may need to suspend disbelief for a while. The lack of time dilation with physical acceleration, as shown by the muon storage experiment, and the absence of Twin Paradox from the GPS satellite system may make such suspension a little easier.

(2) Insuring that travel applies to basic entities and constituents and that movement and moving applies to particles, so that clarity of reference is maintained, has proved surprisingly difficult. The words were almost randomly distributed in the early drafts of this post. So information should spread or propagate, to maintain clarity.