I posted a much shorter version of this on reddit r/particlephysics. I wonder how it will fare? Edit: See updates on the response at the tail end of this post.
Hi, I am a hobbyist seeking to re-imagine the long discarded classical point charges and map them to GR, QM, and the standard model of particle physics. Sometimes patterns emerge that I feel should be brought to the attention of the physics community, in case they lead to insight. I think I have found such a pattern, and here is the first draft.
My idea is that if immutable point charges were to come in plus and minus |e/6| and that was all there was to generate fields and make structures, then what would happen? I think at incredibly high energies the point charges would like to orbit each other in very tight high frequency orbits. Then I thought, maybe these spinning point charge dipoles would be able to capture higher energy dipoles. Or perhaps it is the other way around, high energy dipoles capture lower energy dipoles at larger radii.
Well, if this were to settle out at three encapsulated dipoles acting a lot like a 3D gyroscopic energy flywheel then this basic structure could be a building block, which I call a Noether core. Except it comes in two versions depending on the orientations of the three angular momentum vectors from the dipoles. It can also rotate in two ways, which we will call right and left.
Then these Noether cores would be surrounded by a weak personality layer with six point charges. Whatever wave equation these weak layer charges follow, it can go forward or backward, or perhaps that is what physicists call left and right. So now we have pro and anti Noether cores and left and right personality charge layers. All of this might lead to a physical implementation for the standard model and perhaps lead to new insight. Given all that backdrop, here is the pattern I am seeing.
Note the potential linkage to the Weinberg angle. One might imagine that each weak personality layer of six point charges forms a planar orbital with an angle to the orbital to the Noether core related to the net charge of the orbital. There is an apparent 30 degrees pattern per each 1/3 charge delta as shown in the four quadrant decoding.
Here are more fascinating patterns with point charge particles adorning a well known electroweak particle pattern. Note the correlation to the Weinberg angle and electroweak theory. Note the pattern for pro/anti and left/right. Note the explanatory power for so many other mysteries. Physics is fun!!! Next we need more creativity and study to bridge the point charge geometry to electroweak theory.
The diagram is a pattern. When I overlay my decoding of standard matter particles in terms of point charge structure we see another pattern. Therefore there is some kind of mapping. By mapping, I mean that we should be able to imagine the dynamical geometry of point charge structures in one hand, and the existing electroweak math in the other hand, and we should be able to apply our mind to figure out what the heck is really going on by pattern analysis, induction, and all the other techniques we have have ever imagined. Bottom line, physicists made a giant taproot of a false prior by discarding point charges. This led to a tree of false priors which is why we are in the mess we are in today.
- What is the history of the thinking about point charges.?
- Why were they discarded?
- Is it possible physicists were too hasty?
- Can point charges be rehabilitated?
There are so many problems that become simple if we assume that revitalized point charges are immutable.
Surely the four quadrant decoding must map to one or more topologies or symmetries in modern physics. Note that as a particle’s velocity increases, the angular momentum vectors must gradually turn to align with the direction of travel. Yet there are three angular momentum vectors of different magnitudes and they are presumably precessing or rotating around each other. There are two distinctive polarities. If we examine clockwise towards the line of forward travel, the structure is either S-M-L or S-L-M (using logarithmic t-shirt sizing). In other words there are two distinct organizations of the structure. What if the structure is orbiting counter-clockwise? Again, two unique organizations. Now the question is what does nature do? Are there four forms of Noether core? Pro-right, Pro-left, Anti-right, Anti-Left? Or is the right-left distinction implemented in the personality charge layer? I suspect the answer would be quite obvious for an academic, but I’ll need to do more research on this question. Perhaps the core and personality layers are related and that would help explain the four quadrant decoding of the standard model fermions.
Next we must study this pattern until it reveals more secrets! Note the beauty of a mix of six point charges. All possible charge summations result in thirds, which is exactly what we need for the quarks in the standard model! Check it out in the table below. How cool is that? Also, note that there are seven rows in the table. Isn’t that interesting? Are there hints about Majorana particles in the 3/3 configuration? We could have shown two rows, at +0 e and -0 e. These are important ponderings and will help us understand how nature works and how to map nature to the existing standard model.
|Electrinos (-e/6)||Positrinos (+e/6)||Net Charge|
I don’t know why, but my non-linear mind has now focused on the two inner dipoles. Standard matter particles possess energy hundreds to thousands times their apparent mass. That is not to mention the shielded energy in photons and most of all, spacetime aether particles, both of which appear massless, but are just very low apparent mass.
Oh, I buried the lede again. Now I remember. I was thinking about the two inner dipoles because of the Cosmic Microwave Background. The two inner dipoles in any standard matter particle MUST have been formed in very high energy environments, perhaps not unlike a “bang”, although I am more of a fan of parallel independent mini-bangs than a singular Big Bang. Again I digress. This mental spaghetti is an artifact of the field of physics going off track! The point is exactly what I blurted out ages ago on Stacy McGaugh’s Triton Station blog, to wit :
Brainstorm mode on : The CMB looks to me like the decay of photons. And I think that is exactly what it is. There is most definitely a point where photons lose their planar shape and puff up and drop out of light speed. There may even be a point where the outer dipole of a photon decays and the inner two dipoles set off a chain reaction of energy transfers. I suspect that is what we are measuring in the cosmic microwave background power spectrum. Essentially the CMB is a measurement of shielding decomposition of a photon. The science of the power spectrum of the CMB may be very important to the science of energy shielding. Note this would still be compatible with the 1 in 100,000 variation in the CMB which is the variation in intensity from the radiating regions. Still, those photons degrade somewhere, and I think that is what we are measuring. Can we measure radio wave photons? What is the lowest frequency photon that is detectable? Do we need to go to the dark side of the moon to answer these question?
I think there is a very good news aspect to this post. If we can explain the CMB and its power spectrum with routine processes in a never-ending universe then we can get away from the idea of the Big Bang and/or the the Ice-Nine and Plasma-Ten equivalents, which are/were quite disconcerting to me. I mean it’s one thing to fear that someone could take point charge technology and destroy the Earth, but it is quite another to wonder if a Plasma-Ten destroy the Universe type event could be likewise initated. I suspect that science already knows the answer to these questions given that they create gen II and gen III fermions and other high energy exotics as a matter of routine course and that is nothing at all compared to the energy intensity of high energy events in the laboratory of the universe. If it were possible to create a Plasma-Ten event, one might expect that the vast variety of reactions in the universe would have done so more frequently than what in our cycle appears to be 13.8B years. Bottom line, I think I can begin rehabilitating my confidence in the never-ending universe in space or time.
It seems that point charge theory is near to conceptually and mathematically bridging point charge structure geometry and dynamics directly to many aspects of GR, QM, QFT, QCD, QED and even LCDM. I presume some readers are already working on that now. I’d love to hear your point charge related ideas. You may email me at email@example.com.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts
T0+1 Day Update : The post was fast out of the gate and quickly gained 3 upvotes! However, then the moderators disappeared it with no explanation.
T0+2 Day Update : The post has now transitioned from a limbo state to one where I see a banner that says the moderators removed it. I wrote the mods the following letter.
Hello Mods of Particle Physics,
I’ve been attempting to post more abstract material where I try to get to the essence of the patterns I am seeing with my “revitalized” point charge modeling, because I think these patterns are new and unique and can be mapped to the standard physics of GR/QM/QFT/QCD/QED, and a lot of other leading edge ideas in physics (such as Khoury’s on dark matter). I have been trying to draw the patterns in somewhat geometrical pictures. I know you would prefer math, but with where I’m going I can’t even start that math without understanding how it all works geometrically. Now, if any of you would be interested, I presume this would be entirely easy for you and that’s cool, it’s all open information on my end. It would be nice if you listed me as a hobbyist co-author, but even an acknowledgement would be fine. I mean, this is your field, not mine. I’m just a creative person, trained by all your fields work and outreach, trying to think of some new fresh ideas by going back to old ones and repairing them.
So I haven’t yet been banned (again) yet and that is a pleasant sign. Therefore I presume I am saying something interesting. Can you provide any guidance on how to express my concepts such that they have less chance of being removed by the moderators?
p.p.s. Ruh-roh, I may have just burned another twitter account that follows Sean Carroll. Maybe he’ll actually read and think this time rather than exercising his itchy finger and clicking on BLOCK USER.