I made a new slide to illustrate the dynamics of a Noether core, which I think powers all standard matter particles. My decoding includes the hypothesis that physicists went off track narratively in the 1870s. If nature is based on point charges, then this seems to me like progress. It should be consistent with the patchwork quilt of observations, accepted theories, and math. p.s. It blows my mind that physicists can not immediately see how obvious this is and how much of the prior narrative on the difficult unsolved areas is nonsense. I posted this on the PBS Space Time Discord and responded to several questions.
This image is from the growing collection of New Physics in Pictures.
Q: What are the equations of motion you derive from this?
TL;DR: The equations of motion are dynamical and must be worked out step by step from the geometry and the substructures and all the existing patchwork of theory and observation. That’s a tall order for an N-body problem with large N.
That’s a wonderful question. The idea of the first slide is that every Noether core is described by three different frequencies, three different orbit radii, and three different energy levels, plus spin, chirality, and maybe more. Each of the six point charges is moving dynamically in response to the others. That potentially means that Noether cores have incredible diversity.
Is it possible that the Noether core parameters for lets say an electron are materially different than for the other standard model particles? Probably not too different since these particles can transmute into each other given certain reaction conditions including the energy level and gradient of the spacetime aether which is also Noether core based. This is a different world than thinking about only the fields that are generated. Those are still there and the field is a central subject of quantum physics and general relativity.
I am working on this solo as far as I know, although there has been an unusually sharp increase of traffic to my blog this year. One hobbyist chipping away at the architecture is fun, but productivity would be much faster if professionals took this up as a new promising way to model nature. Lately I have been considering if I would make more progress trying to connect to chemists, especially nuclear chemists. Or maybe philosophers of science would like to scoop the solution to nature? Or science historians. Or even biologists. It’s a completely different way to think about nature and although I am confident the professionals will be able to map it to existing physics, perhaps it would be better to have the fresh thinking of chemists who are not so skeptical and resistant to good new ideas.
Q : Why are you calling them Noether core?
For Emily Noether. I chose a term that fit with the function of these triple dipole engines. If you scan the functions and characteristics on the “The Noether energy conservation core” image, it seems to me to be a fit for Emily Noether’s exemplary work on symmetry and conservation.
They seem to me like they behave like a gyroscopic flywheel with each dipole ticking off units of h-bar j-s. Since it is a new “particle” in a sense, it needs a name to describe it. I attempt to choose names that might have a chance of making sense to physicists and be directionally compatible with existing physics. Hence Noether core. I also named the two flavors of point charge the electrino and positrino since that seems to fit with the choice of neutrino, which at the time was predicted as a small neutral particle.
Q : What are the experimental predictions of your theory?
There are many predictions, but given the point charges themselves are around the Planck length in radius the ability of experiment to detect directly looks challenging to me. However, I think there may well be new testable predictions or the ability to use this architecture to find a better explanation or theory for existing observations. Here are a few of many areas I recommend that professional theorists and experimentalists examine for testability:
1. The architecture predicts that the inner dipoles are present in Gen III fermions and other standard matter particles. Keeping in mind that they are neutral at extremely small radii, the electric field will be difficult to detect. However, the dynamical magnetic field is predicted to be responsible for a lot of known behaviour (e.g., strong force, relation to QCD, etc.). The big deal is the huge amount of shielded energy that existing physics doesn’t understand.
2. It is possible to go through the transmutation reactions in the PDG (particle data group) and balance the equations in point charges and even figure out how the sub-structures map from the reactants to the products. One thing that will be observed is that point charges don’t always balance in the known reactions. That is because the spacetime aether which is also point charge based, can contribute reactants or consume products. Physicists call this pair production and annihilation.
3. Consider the idea of immutability for the point charges. Now turn your mind to cosmology. Black holes couldn’t have singularities. The densest core in nature would be closely packed point charges. These have a lots of nice theoretical characteristics, such as topping out at zero relative motion to each other, with around the Planck energy per point charge, one microstate, zero entropy, and zero information.
Q: The N-body issue does not make it impossible to give equations of motion in terms of sums over particles though. What kind of a basis are you assuming? Does your model have quantum uncertainty? Is it classical? What’s the framework you work in? Classical electrodynamics?
The laws of physics in point charge theory are classical mechanics and electromagnetism with a few changes to adapt to the posited immutable nature of point charges. Yes, I presume we can abstract upscale and describe the motion of a standard matter particle through a sea of spacetime aether. But we already have higher scale math to describe that motion as you mentioned.
I think the most interesting aspect here is to trace through each individual point charge in the known reactions and develop ideas that map the point charges and sub-structures from reactants to products. Nucleons have 36 point charges in their structure. Gen I fermions have 12 point charges. We should be able to get the first pass simply by studying and diagramming known reactions. We may be able to surmise which Noether engine goes where and which personality charges end up in which reaction product.
Eventually it should be possible to describe reactions with precise mathematics that trace the specific path and velocity of every point charge through a reaction. Even then reactions are often Monte Carlo — because you never know what is going on in the local spacetime aether. Gravity is not a long range force, but rather apparent energy (mass) excitations from every structure spreading through via the spacetime aether structures.
On the uncertainty question, there is a lot of nuance but suffice it to say that several quantum theory concepts have perfectly rational explanations when starting with immutable point charges as the basis of nature. For example, the quantum is the smallest stable step increase or decrease of the angular momentum of a spinning electrino:positrino dipole.
Q: Don’t you need three kinds of charge to describe the strong interaction though?
Quantum Chromo Dynamics describes three types of color charge, but that is not a fundamental concept. What is described as color charge in a nucleon is a characteristic of the interaction between the three Noether core structures from the quarks in combination with whatever the quark personality charges do in a nucleon. My guess is the dipoles from the Noether cores act as gluons in this structure and the dipoles rather strong magnetic fields are doing the heavy lifting of the strong force. Note that with point charges it should be possible for professionals to map out the velocity and path of each of the 36 point charges in a nucleon.
A free neutron is unstable and will decay in about 880 seconds on average. What does that mean? What can we deduce. A stable neutron in a nucleus has its 18 electrinos and 18 positrinos flying very stable routes (aka orbits, wave equations). Since we know the neutron is unstable when free, we surmise that something in the overall nucleon structure is assisting with containment of the point charges. The free neutrino does not have this assistive containment, and it is just a matter of time until the point charges reach particular configurations where they react with aether particles and the reactants transmute into a proton, electron, and an anti-neutrino. Where did the three Noether cores in the neutron end up? In the proton? That seems like a good possibility. That means that the spacetime aether particle reactant had 24 point charges including two Noether cores, one of which is an anti-Noether core. The 12 personality charges in the aether particle include 6 electrinos and 6 positrinos and apparently the destination for each personality charge is a bit more complex.
- = 18- : 18+
- = 9 : 9 in personality plus 9 : 9 in Noether cores.
- = 15- : 21+
- = 6 : 12 in personality plus 9 : 9 in Noether cores.
- 9- : 3+
- 6 : 0 in personality plus a 3 : 3 Noether core.
- Electron anti-neutrino
- 6- : 6+
- 3 : 3 in personality plus a 3 : 3 anti-Noether core.
- Spacetime aether particle
- = 12- : 12+
- = 6 : 6 in personality plus 6:6 in Noether cores, one anti.
Q : Why is your “model” superior to the “old” one?
With this paradigm change in physics and rebase on immutable point charges, that is getting about as close to fundamental as I can imagine. Two particle flavors. Two parameters. A Euclidean void in space and time. Of course, even with this extreme parsimony I am certain there will be scientists, enthusiasts, and hobbyists seeking answers that NPQG doesn’t provide.
The point charge architecture illustrates the vision of how emergence takes these ingredients and creates all that we observe. To me, the utility of the point charge architecture is that this knowledge will enable incredibly advanced technologies to improve individual well-being, reduce individual suffering, heal Earth, and skedaddle into the cosmos.
Q : Forgive me if I’m missing the obvious: how does this structure add up to the observed energies of the standard model particles?
Here is a 10 second video showing a 2D representation of the velocity and radius of the dipoles in a Generation 1 Noether core. Besides the notion that each dipole can have vastly different energy, with higher energy on each more interior dipole, dipoles are always relativistic and that gets quite intense past the hockey stick upturn of the Lorentz curve. One of the items on my to-do list is to work on the geometry that takes the total energy of the dipoles and the orbital plane configuration and results in apparent energy which is what translates to mass via Einstein’s formulas. Total energy minus apparent energy = shielded energy. The current GR/QM era physics does not yet realize there is shielded energy in particles, although I kinda wonder if supersymmetry is a hint in that direction.
Q : Ok, but off hand I don’t see how this arrangement could possibly yield the observed mass/energy of standard model particles. I spent some time yesterday trying to think of ways you could combine and multiply e/6 to get to get to that but the results all seemed inconsistent.
that is cool that you spent some brain cycles on this. I think the big controller on apparent energy, i.e., mass is the relative orientation angles of the three dipole orbital planes at rest and in motion. As we perform work on a standard matter particle structure and accelerate it, not only are we increasing the energy of the dipoles but the orbital planes start moving towards a flatter 2D shape. Anyway, I haven’t figured this all out yet, but I can see the direction it is heading. Can you see how the three levels of dipole energy would map to fermion generations? When a collider causes the outer dipole to decay, then the 2nd dipole is revealed at full energy and perhaps some of the energy of the interior dipole as well. So that mapping right there shows the dominant portion of the gen I, II, III masses (apparent energy).
Q : It would be helpful if you would actually do the math for one or two different particles, I think, to make sure we all know what you are talking about.
I am steadily working towards the math. It’s a challenge, as I mentioned. Progress is good though.
Q : Also, I have to say that I’m concerned by the argument that “black holes can’t have singularities” because the particles are points. As a matter of ordinary logic, you would expect the opposite to be true, in that if nature did consistent of point charges at the fundamental level the ordinary problem of a singularity would be resolved by the fact that the particles are points, which are generally understood to be infinitely combinable in Euclidean geometry.
Regarding point charges being immutable, the way I think about it is there is a hard limit on how close any two point charges can approach. How to architect that is another topic I am chipping away at. It looks to me that for an electrino : positrino dipole you have Coulomb’s law of attraction, you have the kinetic energy of the point charge, and you have the magnetic field of the partner causing a force on the other. Also, I am thinking that the geometry of the dipole guarantees that the diameter times the frequency is always a constant, c. So that raises the question of can the point charges velocity range higher than c on their orbital path? If so, then the point charge would actually be affected by its own electromagnetic fields across a chord.
My expectation is that the results will be math that leads to the Planck constant equations as well as the Planck Law equation for black bodies. Also, in case any of the bright thinkers here want to also attempt this, one more idea is that there should be two solutions for each radius, one being high energy and one being low energy, except at the peak of this curve, where there is only one solution.
I am still a bit unclear on what causes the time dilation of a dipole. It seems like frequency has to keep increasing up to the Planck frequency. But if so, why would interior dipoles look slower? Is that an artifact of existing theory using photons to observe and those photons would have to climb out of a very deep energy well and that is what takes a long time? Arghh.
I am sure you can imagine how confusing this all is. First learn enough about existing GR/QM theory to get some clues, then try to sort of hold that in your mind as being possibly tainted by incorrect prior interpretations, then work on mapping point charge geometry to that nebulous GR/QM reference point, then making 2 steps forward and 1 step back progress and repeat ad nauseam until you understand which GR/QM priors and interpretations are likely incorrect and how the point charges map to what is really happening in nature. It is fun but slow.
Q : I am skeptical about this model As a future physicist studying in the field of laser and plasma physics I don’t really see how this model will be useful.
Skepticism is a good thing. However, there is a real bone structure here and the mapping to GR/QM is amazing even at this state of hobbyist development of the architecture. Now, if those inside the academic community were to start working on this, I imagine progress would be much much faster and it would be quickly apparent how useful it will be.
Q : Apart from energy/mass, are there any physical phenomena that your model can explain mathematically?
Geometrically it can explain inflation and expansion. I think I can see how redshift works without scattering. I’m a visual creative thinker. Currently I am working on mapping the point charge architecture of the standard model to the characteristics of spin, chirality, and etc for both the Noether core as well as the personality layer. Once that is all mapped out then it may be possible to reverse engineer todays GR/QM era formulas as to their root causes. Once that is understood, I would think it might be possible to make more general equations that fill in gaps, unify the theories, and add any corrections needed.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts
Note : a user on reddit r/particlephysics alerted me to the idea that leptons (electrons and neutrinos) may have their nomenclature reversed from ideal with respect to anti-ness. I think this makes sense, but it poses a challenge. If I change the terminology for NPQG it would be error prone and confusing to readers. I’m still working out how to handle this, but it may involve finding a more basic terminology now that we are chipping away at the architectural and geometry of nature.
p.s. Here are some of the questions that NPQG does not yet answer. Perhaps there are no answers to these questions other than “it is what it is”
- Euclidean 3D void of space :
- How and when was it created?
- Has it always been present?
- Is it infinite in all directions?
- Can 3D void space be destroyed?
- Energetic, immutable point charges
- How and when were they created?
- Have they always been present?
- What is a point charge made from?
- Why do opposite charges attract and like charges repel?
- What causes the right hand rule?