NEOCLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM GRAVITY *Imagine that nature emerges from a Euclidean 3D void space populated with immutable oppositely charged Planck spheres, which we call the electrino and the positrino. These are the only carriers of energy, in electromagnetic and kinetic form. They observe classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations. Nature overlays Euclidean space (Map 1) with a lightly interacting Riemannian spacetime æther (Map 2). 𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚 is compatible with GR, QM, and Λ*CDM observations, *while providing a superior narrative that explains nature and the universe. **For *𝗡𝗣𝗤𝗚* basics see: Idealized Neoclassical Model and the NPQG Glosssary.*

Let’s brainstorm on the structure and wave equations of the composite particles of standard matter-energy. There are only two **non-composite** particles: these are the fundamental electrino and positrino. Composite particles have a formula specifying the number of electrinos and positrinos. The composite particle with a 1/1 formula (electrinos before the ‘/’, positrinos after) is an electrino-positrino dipole. 1/1 is also the formula for a tau neutrino. 1/1 may also be a packed configuration at or near Planck scale. I imagine the last several energy layers before Planck scale may have specific packed geometries (with faults of course). Besides the formula, a composite particle also has a structure.

Composite particles have orbital layers or shells? Are those orbitals similar to electron orbitals in an atom? Clearly, each electrino and positrino has a wave function. Yet we might also talk about a composite wave equation of a group or orbital of coordinating particles. For example, an electron neutrino is a 3/3 particle and we might guess at it’s simplest, it might be three electrino-positrino dipoles each orbiting at radius r in planes at right angles to each other. How would they avoid colliding? Perhaps the wave function solutions define the timing at each energy level so there are no collisions for stable particles. Perhaps unstable particles don’t have a wave function solution, or the solution may lead to decay with a certain probability and breakup into particle-energy groups.

All composite particles have a neutral shell or concentric layers of neutral shells. Furthermore I will intuit that the shell(s) provide some special capabilities depending on the situation. One special capability is a spacetime æther of empty shells at low energy. Another capability of particle shells is encapsulating a payload.

The square of the wave equation is the probability density of finding the particle at a specific “location” and time. Yet quantum mechanics (QM) says standard model particles are indivisible. So I’m not sure how to translate “location” to a composite particle. Also, each particle experiences its own rate of time as a function of its energy. The higher the energy the slower the time, and vice versa.

Each pole of a dipole is chasing the electromagnetic shadow of the fields emitted by its partner. This mechanism may scale to one energy quanta below the Planck phase, by the electromagnetic attraction of each particle in the dipole to the point where the partner ** appears** to be. However, where the particle appears to be is where it was delta time in the past where delta is given by local speed of light.

Wikipedia

Gauss’s law for magnetism states that there are no “magnetic charges” (also called magnetic monopoles), analogous to electric charges. Instead, the magnetic field due to materials is generated by a configuration called a dipole, and the net outflow of the magnetic field through any closed surface is zero.

Why are physicists still trying to answer the magnetic dipole question? Gauss gave the answer!

Free particles tend to “seek” lower energy states and will transfer energy when given lower energy degrees of freedom. When particles are confined and energy is added, the particles seek higher energy states and that may be via geometry, spin, shell structure, electromagnetic storage, or decomposition and reformulation.

What is the highest energy configuration of a volume of neutral particle shells, or ultimately electrino-positrino dipoles in a black hole core? Do the dipoles separate and arrange themselves according to charge? Is that the ultimate configuration considering like particles repel? Force them to be adjacent?

What are the possible geometries? Does a volume of electrinos form at one pole of a black hole core and positrinos at the other, like a giant north-south magnet? I doubt it.

Ok, sure that would make the magnetic fields depicted for spinning “charged” black holes make sense. So “charged” might mean that the black hole is overall neutral but the charge has separated at the Planck layer.

*Aside: the North-South terminology of magnetism is anthropocentric relative to scientists on Earth.*

The problem I see with the polar charge separation idea is that would make one jet electrinos and the other jet positrinos. That is very asymmetric and it seems the particles would cool and only electrons and positrons would be made, on opposite sides of the galaxy. This seems to me to not be sensable so I’ll set it aside.

Maybe the Planck particle configuration is like a giant battery with alternating layers of electrinos and positrinos. Actually that makes a lot of sense from the point of view of energy storage. If the dipoles are all aligned establishing a polar charge distribution, then does this build in parallel and in series? Does it need to be planes of charge? Or does a spherical alternating charge shell geometry store more energy? Are particles packed in a crystal-like geometry? Face centered cubic (FCC)? How does the core configuration relate to the magnetic field of the black hole?

It may be possible to explore these configurations by simulation or possibly geometrically in closed form to determine the optimal progression of configurations at energy levels up to and including the Planck scale.

*J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : July 20, 2019 : v1*