December 28, 2020 : Morning Edition

I am brainstorming ideas during NPQG Breakthrough Days. Enjoy.

Overnight, it occurred to me that the Planck ‘constants’ apply to a free Tau dipole, not to a collection of Tau dipoles reacting with one another in a supermassive black hole core. At the Planck energy a Tau dipole isolated in absolute Euclidean space, could still rotate, be it ever so slowly at one cycle per Planck time. Theoretically, an electrino and a positrino, each with the Planck energy stored (almost entirely) kinetically, could be on a path towards each other that is the perfect path for Coulomb’s law and classical mechanics to operate together to so they enter into this tiniest of orbits where they appear to be rotating while adjacent and the energy is stored almost entirely electromagnetically.

The implications of this insight are :

  • The Planck length Lp, may not be the ultimate radius of the dipole rotation when adjacent.
  • Instead, Lp may be the path length of the closest orbit at adjacency.
  • If so, then r at adjacency is Lp/τ = Lp/2π.

I’ll think on that for a while and if it becomes clear that this is how nature works, I’ll adjust the model for this new insight on the natural basis of Lp as the circumference of a planar tau dipole orbit at adjaceny. Another reason this makes sense is that if you think of using Lp for an absolute ruler, how would you fix one end of the ruler at the origin inside the point charge. Maybe it makes more sense to measure the circumference which is accessible. One full orbit of adjacent point charges is theoretically observable (not practically though) in nature, so that suggests Lp is a better fit as that metric.

If this line of thinking is correct, the state of zero energy for a dipole is hard to fathom as is the state of Planck energy plus one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy. If we examine the electromagnetic field energy in concentric spherical surface layers then the sum of that field energy in each surface layer would correspond to one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy. For a Tau dipole orbiting at a frequency of 1 cycle per absolute second, the interior of the shell contains one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy and the entire volume of the void background space outside the shell contains one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy. This seems like it would involve mathematical integration. This makes sense since there are two point charges and a total of two Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy for a one Hz Tau dipole. Is it always the case that the field energy inside a Tau dipole equals the field energy outside the Tau dipole, that the total energy of a dipole is always equally split between interior and exterior? Again, let’s go back to the adjacent dipole with the Planck energy per point charge. That would suggest that the field inside the spherical layer from Lp/τ to 2Lp/τ contains one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy and the field energy outside the 2Lp/τ sphere, i.e., the remainder of the universe is also one Planck’s constant h J⋅s units of energy. These are interesting thoughts and I need to noodle them for a while to see if they hold. The next step is to gather all the formulas for the Planck constants and see what they reveal for the adjacent point charge case. We also need to think about what the experiences of the local observer and the Euclidean observer.

In the Euclidean frame we see that the Tau dipole has a frequency of 1 Hz at its lowest per point charge energy level of one Planck’s constant h J⋅s as well as at the maximum Planck energy. That is odd to think about. For every energy level of the tau dipole, is the energy divided between equally between kinetic and electromagnetic forms? Is this leading towards permittivity and permeability being where the Lorentz factor comes into play? This is promising. Stay tuned.

I have been thinking about how the shells of standard matter might be architected.

  • Is it one shell after another nested all the way down to the payload?
  • Is it possible that the payload can be trapped between layers or distributed between layers?
  • Can a shell have a branching factor of sorts and hold 2 or more shells at the same level much as atoms hold multiple protons and neutrons in containment?
  • Can a shell have any number of point charge pairs at the same radius? What is stable? How do they behave?
  • A general architectural pattern is branching with distributed payload at various shell levels.
  • Perhaps we can prune this pattern and the design will be what remains.

Let’s keep an open mind about the possibilities for the shell architecture and go looking for clues and patterns that might help us reverse engineer what in tarnation is going on down there.

We already know about the Koide formula and have linked it up to NPQG.

  • Koide formulas appear to describe three 3 orthogonal layers as containment shells for the electron(muon(tau)) and the field iteractions between them.
  • They suggest that the muon and tau are actually contained within the outer shell of the electron.
  • They suggest that a shell layer can mask or shield the energy in whole or in part from the internal layers.

Recently there was a breakthrough in the use of a deep neural network to solve the electronic Schrodinger equation.

  • The preprint is open access on arXiv : Deep neural network solution of the electronic Schrödinger equation
  • Named PauliNet, it can scale to medium size molecular systems.
  • Their research and especially the wave equations might provided insight.
  • Perhaps it would be better to start with wave equations with far less superposition from all the point charges.

Wave equations for less complex particle structures may be available. Perhaps by studying them insight can be gained about the shell architecture. The NPQG decoding of stable standard matter in order of total point charges is :

  • Neutrino : 3/3
  • Photon : 6/6
  • Electron : 9/3
  • Neutron : 18/18
  • Proton : 15/21

In 1951 Friedrich Lenz identified an interesting case of numerology potentially related to the ratio of the Proton and Electron masses.

  • Lenz wrote what is considered the shortest paper ever published in Physical Review.
  • The number, 6π5, is potentially a clue since we know fermion generations increase in mass by many multiples each generation.
  • Also the π is promising since we are considering orbits related to circles and spheres.
  • It is thought that the proton mass consists primarily of gluons and the quarks.
  • There is a hint in NPQG that gluons may be tau dipoles, more specifically, captured tau neutrinos.
  • “A gluon (/ˈɡluːɒn/) is an elementary particle that acts as the exchange particle (or gauge boson) for the strong force between quarks. It is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.” — Wikipedia
  • I’m imagining the quark’s yielding some of all of their shells and some of those shells forming the outer containment for the proton and others becoming tau dipoles trapped along with the at least partially de-shelled quarks.
  • The proton is a 15/21 particle so that gives up to 15 tau dipoles to distribute as shells or trapped neutrinos.
  • The gluon has only two polarization states. Does that indicate two tau dipoles per gluon?
  • If there are three colors and three anti-colors that could correspond to a 3 shell with three orthogonal dipoles.

What is the implementation of “anti-ness”?

Wikipedia image of a spinor
  • It could be the point charges executing the wave equation forwards vs. backwards. I thought a dipole would have that symmetry though, why would it matter which way it is rotating if it is free?
  • If it is free.” — is that a clue? Maybe there is more structure than I realized and that makes a difference which way each dipole is rotating.
  • The PauliNet pre-print, discussing a “one-dimensional scan of the wave function and its local energy LiH molecule” says : “from left the Li nucleus, a spin-up electron, a spin- down electron, and the H nucleus.” Is spin-up and spin-down an artifact of the structure? Is it saying that there is a difference based on which way the point charges execute the wave equation?
  • Only certain structures are stable for any significant length of time. So the wave equations for the point charges in a structure must be just right to maintain stability.
  • Another idea is that each dipole has a plus and minus point charge, so perhaps the observations and theory are picking up on that somehow.
  • If dipoles are cycling in synchronicity, perhaps a conflict arises if some dipoles are at 1/2 frequency which can happen since it is a spin 1/2 particle. At a 1/2 frequency step the point charges are in opposite position compared to at integer frequencies.
  • QCD is a gauge theory with SU(3) gauge symmetry. Quarks are introduced as spinors in Nf flavors, each in the fundamental representation (triplet, denoted 3) of the color gauge group, SU(3).” – Wikipedia
  • Let’s examine the image of a spinor to see if we can imagine a point charge / dipole construct that has this behaviour.
  • Imagine a very high energy tau neutrino, with reduced radius and moving very slowly due to the Euclidean speed of fields dropping quickly at those energies.
  • Now introduce another tau neutrino with the same energy passing by at close range but where its slowly moving point charges happen to be oriented 180 degrees.
  • Can they form a double dipole of sorts where we have a tau particle chasing another tau particle but its really just Coulomb’s law at different energies?

Can low energy spacetime aether particles exist inside of a composite matter shell? Do they pass through? Does composite matter pass right through the orbits of low energy spacetime aether particles, with their relaxed radii? Remember, spacetime aether particles are extremely non-interactive, but they do have a tiny apparent energy. Yet, close to an energetic particle the aether is gaining energy radiated by the apparent energy (ne mass) of the matter. Clearly the aether must be right along side if not passing right through.

Is a photon a neutrino — anti-neutrino pair? I just came across the “Neutrino Theory of Light. which is not mainstream physics.” My current decoding of a neutrino is 3/3 and of a photon is 6/6 which can be six dipoles or two groups of three. Most recently I was looking at groups of three orthogonal dipoles since that may be a repeating pattern. A neutrino is Ψ while an anti-neutrino is . I had coded a photon as ΨΨ but perhaps it is Ψ which is a tau particle containing an anti-tau particle. I don’t understand anti-ness yet, but perhaps it is stable inside a regular shell.

Einstein is noted for the concept of energy mass equivalence and the popular equation \mathbf{E=mc^{2}} for an object at rest. A better description is : Mass is a measure of how your apparent electromagnetic energy couples with spacetime aether. Your inertial energy is your apparent energy paced by permittivity and permeability. It’s that simple. We know \mathbf{c^{2}=\frac{1}{\epsilon \mu }} . We can express mass as \mathbf{m = E \epsilon \mu } . Makes a lot more sense right? Now consider the electric and magnetic fields expressing your energy. The electric field expression is paced by permittivity \mathbf{\epsilon} and the magnetic field expression is paced by the permeability \mathbf{\mu} . Rest mass is a simple concept and Einstein made it complicated.

In physics, the energy–momentum relation is the relativistic equation relating any object’s rest (intrinsic) mass, total energy, and momentum:


holds for a particle having intrinsic rest mass m0, total energy E, and a momentum of magnitude p, where the constant c is the speed of light, assuming the special relativity case of flat spacetime.


What is the energy momentum equation telling us? Notice the form \mathbf{a^{2} + b^{2} = c^{2}} which is the form of the Pythagorean theorem for the relationship of three sides of a right triangle. So the theorem is really telling us that these two forms of energy, your rest energy coupling and your moving energy coupling are orthogonal. They are vector components. You add them as you add vectors. It is as if your energy has a direction. Your apparent energy at rest is the lossless AC coupling of your composite particles to spacetime aether. If a force is applied to accelerate you, it is causing dipoles in your shells to gain energy. If after doing work W, the force is removed, you now have momentum and your shells plateau in energy. Why is that not simple addition?

Oh, I see, this starts as a very acute triangle. You are not really adding all that much energy to your shells until you start getting fairly near c. Then the energy spikes. This is Einstein’s curvy-stretchy spacetime biting us in the ass! What is happening from our Euclidean observers point of view as you get close to local c? They are seeing you slow down and shrink and they notice you have to apply ever increasing amounts of energy for your shells to continue to speed up. Why? Two reasons. Coulomb’s law and the density of the electromagnetic fields causing permittivity and permeability to change. It’s like it is saying — your fields are no good here. And that is exactly what is happening, because of the maximum field strength defined by nature. The final step is when the electrino and positrino are adjacent and it essentially looks like they are rolling on each others immutable spherical surface boundaries. Interestingly, were you able to conduct this experiment in empty Euclidean void space the dipole would actually appear locally to have a Planck length/tau radius, Planck frequency, Planck mass, and the other Planck constants at the high energy end of the scale. It is only in a Planck core that the final step occurs which has not been considered before. Once you pack those Planck energy dipoles together, they can not rotate relative to each other, although possibly the entire core could rotate as a whole.

What does all this mean? I think it means that in the Euclidean world your apparent energy and your momentum energy add linearly, as would seem natural. We will know soon.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : December 28, 2020

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s