I occasionally pop in to the PBS SpaceTime Discord to give an update on my point charge architecture of the universe. The episode on Magnetic Monopoles is perfectly explainable by my architecture. All you need to do, is take today’s standard model in which particles transmute into each other and add TWO layers below it.
In terms of magnetic monopoles, no they do not exist. Yet, we will see that a Noether core dipole of electrino and positrino orbiting each other generates a tremendously large magnetic field with a large rotating magnetic field shear along the axis of the orbit. The hints physicists think may be signs of magnetic monopoles are likely related to these Noether core magnetic fields.
Level 1, the new most fundamental level is the electrino and positrino immutable point charge with charge magnitude |e/6|, i.e., one-sixth of the electron or positron charge.
Level 2, is substructures formed by these point charges. Enjoy this periodic table of the standard model. Do you see how fermions are constructed from Noether cores and personality layers? Do you see how the Noether cores and personality substructres apply to the bosons? Can you imagine that the apparent energy of the structure determines the emergent concept of mass while there remains a portion of the structure energy that is shielded? I’m currently starting to think about how to map this periodic table directly to quantum numbers. Of course anti-particles are now simple to understand.
Using this Rosetta Stone, I imagine we can find many reactions in the 2021 Particle Data Group (PDG) representation of reality to in fact be missing low energy reactants and products of each reaction. Suffice it to say the PDG mission and staff will need to raise their game by several orders of magnitude! I imagine a RESTful API that models reactions. You provide the known reactants and energies and local Higgs field and gradient and the PDG should be able to calculate that portion of the theoretical universal phase diagram. I’ve communicated with the PDG staff and have been sending them updates regarding the point charge era needs. I think the demand will ramp quickly — as computational models should be the bailiwick of physicists now that they will understand the architecture of nature.
The substructure physicists don’t yet understand is the Noether core of three spinning dipoles each at vastly different energy levels. With three electrinos and three positrinos, this “neutral” gyroscopic flywheel substructure is present in every generation 1 fermion as well as the photon, and weak bosons. Furthermore, the Noether core is present in what you call dark matter particles, and what I call the particles that form spacetime aether.
If you are already inculcated in GR/QM/LCDM era physics, please suspend disbelief and study the images in this post. Then watch the PBS Space Time episode. Repeat, until the insight truly develops. You will know when to pause, when you can’t go back because it is simply too nonsensical to go back to current era GR/QM/LCDM. Take a break and let your mind cool down.
I hope you will realize that the spinning dipoles in the Noether core present magnetic field hints that may give hints of the magnetic monopoles that Matt and others pine for. The Noether core is also responsible for so much more including the strong force, the quantum of energy h-bar j-s angular momentum increment between stable orbits, containment and core for the weak personality layer and the weak charge layer, and etc. This point charge model maps directly to the math and observations of existing general relativity and quantum era physics.
SPOILER ALERT : the point charge architecture turns a number of GR/QM/LCDM interpretations inside-out. Please don’t get stuck on those interpretations. Interpretations are a dime a dozen. Focus on the underlying physical geometry and classical electromechanics.
I had some insight about Maxwell’s equations while watching this episode. It will soon be time to go through Maxwell’s equations in detail and show how they relate to immutable point charges. I can already see that it will be a fascinating topic, especially when we calculate charge density self referentially from immutable point charges.
As always, this project is open source and I welcome collaborators and contributors. I have a number of readers around the world, especially India in recent months. I would love for you to write me at npqg.inquiries and let me know what you think of NPQG. I visited India once on an extended trip to Hyderabad, Delhi, Agra, and Jaipur. It was perhaps 2015. I enjoyed my trip immensely from my work colleagues in Hyderabad through to the tourist portion of my trip to hear the sounds, and taste the amazing food with fresh spices, and see the wonderful historical structures and artifacts in the Golden Triangle. Yes, it was touristy, but it was also very real to me. It would be fun to collaborate with other students of nature from India and anywhere around the world. Please write to me with your insights and questions at email@example.com
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts
So it turns out that the PBS Space Time discord readership berated me for my post, because it was too long according to many, and pushed out other content and was rude. Wow. For the first few days no one commented on the content. I will say that as always @ericishere who is the moderator was incredibly fair and balanced.
‘Too many notes, dear Mozart, too many notes’ is what Emperor Joseph II supposedly said after the first performance of the Entfuhrung aus dem Serail in Vienna’s old Burgtheater. Mozart’s reply was: ‘Just as many as necessary, Your Majesty.’ This episode has served to condemn the poor Emperor as musically illiterate, but in fact the opposite was true. He was a decent cellist and every week in his Schönbrunn Palace he either listened to the latest chamber music or played it himself, all under the guidance of his court composers Gassmann, Salieri and Gluck.https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/crafty-art-of-opera/too-many-notes/A00D42E5F362E147362F718CF4F6747F
Q : Hi – I don’t have the background to engage very deeply but a few questions come to mind: The diagrams for the electron neutrino and the photon are identical. Is that intentional? Does this model make testable predictions? What does this model do better than the mainstream models? The diagrams look similar to Bohr atoms. Is this coincidence, is there some parallelism between the proposed structure of particles in this model and the structure of atomic matter? Without understanding the math, I vaguely understand that the Schrodinger equation is significant in understanding the behavior of electron orbitals and from there the properties of the elements. Is there similar mathmatical justification for the diagrams shown in your model?
R : I am trying to work out the structure of the neutrino and photon. The photon appears to be a Noether engine coupled to an anti-Noether engine and counter-rotating. That is why we see E and B fields. (Imagine the counter-rotation and the cancelling effects and additive effects). The thing is, if you have a neutral personality layer, who is to say that is not just a lower energy Noether core that is somewhat more inflated/expanded? Anyway, this is a journey and I am currently perplexed on this topic. Usually it will sort itself out with further thought experiments and geometry exploration. I also recently changed my model of the neutrinos from just a bare Noether core, to including a low energy personality layer. I think this works better and makes the PDG reactions I’ve looked at so far balance in a more consistent way with the aether.
Q : I read the blog post but I don’t see the connection with magnetic monopoles. The blog post mentions a “neutral gyroscopic flywheel substructure” of point charge pairs, and “I hope you will realize that the spinning dipoles in the Noether core appear just like magnetic monopoles that Matt and others pine for. That should be enough said, Q.E.D.” In the macroscopic world a spinning electric dipole doesn’t generate a magnetic monopole, it generates circularly polarized photons. Am I missing something?
R : Regarding the “neutral gyroscopic flywheel substructure” let me unpack that for everyone. Just for grins, let’s imagine a set of three electrino/positrino pairs. The highest energy pair, which would map to the energy source for Gen III fermions, is let’s say an electrino:positrino pair orbiting each other very quickly at a radius around 10^-32 meters. The velocity of the point charges is in the vicinity of ‘local c’. And yes, there is a local c around these two point charges because each is under the influence of the others field and in some cases their own field. We would think of this as permittivity and permeability, but it is local, I mean really local, like in this case at 10^-32. Now let’s say we pop WAY out to a radius of 10^-28 meters. Now the charge density is not so high, so local c, which is determined by the diameter of the orbit divided by the time for a full orbit (1/freq). I mean we are talking 10^-28 at this second orbital, which corresponds to the Noether engine orbital for generation II fermions. Finally let’s pop out to what, I have no idea, let’s imagine 10^-20 meters as an example, and now local c is faster still because the field density is lower due to so much space encircled in the 10^-20 radius orbit, which may well be precessing. This is the orbit of the Noether core that corresponds to generation I fermions. Now, if you are really following what I am saying, it predicts that everything we know has about hundreds to thousands times more energy than we realize, because it is shielded in these neutral gen II and III dipoles that are time dilated and radius contracted relative to gen I. Kapiche? Much to Sabine’s potential dismay, it IS entirely beautiful. I hope someone else gets it soon. Once you see it and the click happens, it is absolutely amazing and there is no going back.
R : I’m just a lucky idiot savant with just enough classical theory and near zero GR/QM university education that put me in a great position to imagine alternative solutions that were out of the mainstream. I went to the physics bone-pile of discarded ideas and fished out point charges, buffed them up, and gave them minimal necessary and sufficient characteristics, and relied on emergence to do the rest. Seriously, that is the thought experiment. It is amazing how many of the major problems have obvious solutions once you commit yourself to immutable point charges.
TL;DR: My wish is for physicists to say “Mark, We get it, and we own the faulty interpretation issues we had, thank you, and we’ve got it from here.” If physicists don’t wake up soon, I will have no other option but to go to the chemists and philosophers and physics historians. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I truly think the best thing all around is for physicists to eat some humble pie and totally own their screwed up interpretations. I mean, nature really is a trickster. I think interested non-physicists will understand once it is explained. Who would think that the a Noether core of dipoles would be at the center of everything, including spacetime aether? It is really mind-blowing how nature emerges.
The issue with ‘testable predictions’ is that it is a trope of the standard scientific method which is actually a complete joke. I mean seriously someone needs to think outside the box on the scientific method. It presumes a relentless acquisition of the truth and always operating from the truth. The scientific method has no provisions for crisis in the field, stagnancy of understanding of the subject matter, nor most egregiously the very real possibility of false priors, especially false priors of INTERPRETATION.
Interpretations are the words we use to try to describe the concepts that help us describe our understanding. What if those concepts are totally fubarred? Well, they ARE! That is a major problem. I have no doubt that if you took today’s physicists and erased their interpretational knowledge and sent them back to 1870 that they would have figured out nature in closed form by 1890. It’s really not hard. The problem is screwed up priors. When your prior interpretations are faulty it prevents physicists from seeing the obvious, that which is right in front of their noses. It is truly amazing to behold this tragedy. I love physics and physicists and thankfully after a little humble pie, this is all UPSIDE. Seriously, you have the dna to nature, the source code. Do you know what that means?
Returning to the subject of testability, let’s be clear that I am not an experimentalist. However, let’s enumerate a few issues. For someone starting with point objects with immutability radii of the order 10^-36 there is no hope at direct testability in the near term. Even the Noether core is apparently well below direct detectability, although the Noether engine behaviors are so well known, e.g., GR, strong force, conservation, and on and on.
I understand that testability is important, but what are we to do if the elements of nature are of scale far below direct testability? One thing we can do is to make far more accurate models of nature and explain known anomalies, thus providing a higher sigma match to theory. Another idea is to predict new behaviors under non-standard conditions that we CAN measure. I think these will be apparent to professionals in short order. In my view professional physicists are in the 0.1% percent brightest people on the planet, so I am confident that once they get on board, the testable predictions will be quite evident and even better, lucrative as technology.
Did I say lucrative? I suggest that the minimum entry compensation for a Ph.D. physicist should be around $200K or maybe $250K in this new era. Physicists will be just as valuable if not more valuable than AI software experts. In many cases they will work together. Nature is dynamical. It is a perfect fit for AI. I am not joking, and you might be surprised by how rapidly this change will occur once investors get a clue this is real. So, it is in the best interests of physicists to take me seriously and see if they can build on it. I am not a physicist. I was a reasonably talented engineer, architect, and technologist. This architecture is the ultimate. This is it.
Q : What does this model do better than the mainstream models?
R : It explains the mainstream models and provides an fabric that can fill in the blanks and super-cede the patchwork quilt of existing theories that work amazingly well. But we can do better. We can truly understand nature and the universe!
Q : The diagrams look similar to Bohr atoms. Is this coincidence, is there some parallelism between the proposed structure of particles in this model and the structure of atomic matter?
R : Yes and no. Clearly the personality layer has some pattern of orbitals that define a wave equation. The Noether core orbitals are typically elliptical but strongly circular. A major perturbance can cause a reaction. These 2D diagrams are only vaguely descriptive. I think we should look forward to 3D animated descriptions.
Q : Without understanding the math, I vaguely understand that the Schrodinger equation is significant in understanding the behavior of electron orbitals and from there the properties of the elements. Is there similar mathematical justification for the diagrams shown in your model
R : Gosh, I will speculate or stipulate that this geometry leads to any observed behaviour. The question is how is that proven? I think the focus needs to be on reproducing the standard model and general relativity. Regarding the Schrodinger equation it is clearly describing a Noether core based structure. Orbiting dipoles transact energy in h-bar j-s of angular momentum, so that is a big clue. Sure, it makes sense that for every step in energy in a Noether core that the wave equation of the personality layer may adjust. If we take a look at the time-dependent Schrödinger equation I hope everyone is clear that ‘time’ t in this context is a discontinuous function of integer frequency. Of course the point charges are moving continuously through space and time, but the wave equation ‘collapses’ and re-emerges for each energy step h-bar.
In this video, Dr. Alan Tennant talks about what he thinks are magnetic monopoles, but which I suggest are characteristics of point charge structures and their magnetic fields, rather than fundamental magnetic monopoles, which don’t exist.