I posted this on reddit r/particlephysics.
There have been a few posts lately sort of related to transmutation of standard matter particles, so I thought I would post my current draft hypothetical mapping of point charges to the standard model with some geometrical interpretation. One goal is to hook this geometry up to the quantum numbers and other known math. Other goals are to work through more PDG reactions to understand the reactants and products especially those at lower energies than what we can currently measure, i.e., that involve the spacetime aether, i.e., pair production and the like.
As I envision it, the three inner orbitals, which I call the Noether engine core, carry a LOT of responsibility (Dr. Guth will love how they inflate) and they are way too small and high energy for us to get a direct look at experimentally. But if you think about it, three vastly different high energy orbitals with three different angular momentum vector magnitudes has some really nice mathematical properties, e.g., chirality. Then the angles of the orbital planes changing with velocity are very interesting with respect to apparent energy and mass.
At the very least it seems like cool patterns that are far more interesting than e8, the eightfold-way, singlets, octets, decuplets, etc., wut?
Q : What insight does this bring? I see you’ve managed to get the electric charges right, but there are other relevant quantum numbers. And the configuration of the photon is identical to the e neutrino? so what, are they the same particle? SM mixing states Z and photon are mixed, they should either be identical or very similar in this case. Z should less be grouped with Ws than to the photon, this here basically puts Z as a variant to Ws.
R: I am tentatively thinking that a photon is a Noether core and an anti -Noether core, each planar and orthogonal to the velocity and they must counter-rotate to generate our familiar electromagnetic waves. The two cores may be slightly offset, not sure. I can sort of visualize how polarization works. Also, yes, I’m thinking perhaps a photon can redshift so much it becomes a neutrino. This would require a longer discussion on the concept of apparent energy which relates to mass, and shielded energy of the gen II and III dipoles.
Q: So I guess according to that, all observed neutrinos should have a lower energy than all observed photons?
R: Still trying to work that out. There are many reaction processes that generate neutrinos, and likewise many that generate photons. If we want to tally the total energy of a structure we must sum the kinetic energy, electric field energy, and magnetic field energy of every point charge in the structure. Most of that energy in a gen I particle structure is in the two tiniest dipole orbitals in the Noether core engine and often that energy is shielded (precession and Faraday cage like effect from the outer dipole?). This architecture predicts that an up quark contains the energy of the charm and top, for example.
Neutrino oscillation would be a dynamical change of the orientation angles of the three orbital planes that varies the shielding and hence the apparent energy which we equate to mass. Bosons are more flat and planar hence their statistics, whereas fermions are more 3D at rest and hence the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Performing work on a fermion and accelerating it causes the orbital planes of the core dipoles to shift their orientation. I have an intuition that this would tie into the work by Dr. Denton et al on neutrino eigenvalues.
I need to understand how the structures are architected (emergently!) before attempting even the easy math, yet I am starting to “see” how the Planck equations are implemented and the energy-momentum relation as well. Frankly, I’m pining for the day when this idea gets to the level where professionals get interested — because they will be orders of magnitude faster than me on making progress. Plus, I want to know the next levels of insight into nature and watch the investment and technology ramp up.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts