Is the Patchwork Quilt of Physics and Cosmology Isomorphic to the Point Charge Universe?

I think it would be great fun to brainstorm and imagine how a photon might propel itself. It feels odd to write those words and thoughts that way. What if phrasing it that way is isomorphic with saying that a particle conserves momentum? Then it doesn’t seem so odd. Let’s explore these ideas and see if it goes anywhere. This is a brainstorm post that may or may not lead to ideas and insight that could apply to the photon or beyond.

In mathematics, an isomorphism is a structure-preserving mapping between two structures of the same type that can be reversed by an inverse mapping. Two mathematical structures are isomorphic if an isomorphism exists between them.

The interest in isomorphisms lies in the fact that two isomorphic objects have the same properties (excluding further information such as additional structure or names of objects). Thus isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished from the point of view of structure only, and may be identified. In mathematical jargon, one says that two objects are the same up to an isomorphism.

An automorphism is an isomorphism from a structure to itself. An isomorphism between two structures is a canonical isomorphism (a canonical map that is an isomorphism) if there is only one isomorphism between the two structures (as it is the case for solutions of a universal property), or if the isomorphism is much more natural (in some sense) than other isomorphisms. For example, for every prime number p, all fields with p elements are canonically isomorphic, with a unique isomorphism. The isomorphism theorems provide canonical isomorphisms that are not unique.


Let’s visualize the dynamical structure of a photon. In object oriented software terms let’s make (a primitive attempt at) a class structure that might lead to a taxonomy. Thinking and programming in object oriented languages has always been a challenge for me because while I understand some of the concepts there are others that I simply don’t grok due to a mental block. I’m a poet and I didn’t know it, as my Dad used to say.

I presume I must have some sort of a subconscious rebellion against the very formulation of object oriented languages. Perhaps I just don’t get it yet, which is the highly likely. I added the “yet” because I do wish I could truly understand. Sometimes the most obvious inerpretation can be plainly evident yet we can not grok it. Grok is a great word. Grok implies to me that I’m just an assemblage of well meaning point charges trying to figure out what is going on and how to interpret my inputs and control my outputs according to my principles. Lately I have been doing more object oriented programming and I am starting to have flashes of insight and am making progress. I still hope to find a simpler way to think about the concept of object orientation, if only for my benefit.

Aside : My first introduction to object oriented computing was via the Intel IA-432 processor. Those were early days for the concepts of object orientation. Intel went boldly into hardware before there was significant mainstream language support. Perhaps my attempt to understand object orientation at this turbulent time has something to do with why I am so confused. Or I just don’t get it yet.

The iAPX 432 was referred to as a “micromainframe”, designed to be programmed entirely in high-level languages. The iAPX 432 instruction set architecture and programming model is a stack machine with no visible general-purpose registers. It supports object-oriented programming, garbage collection and multitasking. Direct support for various data structures is also intended to allow modern operating systems to be implemented using far less code than for ordinary processors. Intel iMAX 432 is a discontinued operating system for the 432, written entirely in Ada, [the] intended primary language for application programming. In some aspects [ iAPX 432] may be seen as a high-level language computer architecture.

These properties and features resulted in a hardware and microcode design that was more complex than most processors of the era, especially microprocessors. Using the semiconductor technology of its day, Intel’s engineers weren’t able to translate the design into a very efficient first implementation. Along with the lack of optimization in a premature Ada compiler, this contributed to rather slow but expensive computer systems, performing typical benchmarks at roughly 1/4 the speed of competitors. This initial performance gap to the rather low-profile and low-priced 8086 line was probably the main reason why Intel’s plan to replace the latter (later known as x86) with the iAPX 432 failed. Although engineers saw ways to improve a next generation design, the iAPX 432 capability architecture had now started to be regarded more as an implementation overhead rather than as the simplifying support it was intended to be.

Widkipedia – edited for brevity

Okay! I’ve hemmed and hawed long enough, let’s give it a first go! Here is one view (relational database sense) of classes that lead to the structure of the photon through inheritance. I’ll try to make it JSON-ish , but I don’t know JSON so bear that in mind.

  • Class : dipole
    • First order substructures : 2
      • Distinct Substructure configuration : positrino
        • Substructure class : immutable point charge
      • Distinct Substructure configuration : positrino
        • Substructure class : immutable point charge
    • Frequency : f
    • Radius of orbit : r
    • Wave equaton typen : circular-elliptical
    • Wave equation : x2 + y2 = r
    • N.B. a more sophisticated class may include formulas and factors that account for elliptical orbits.
  • Class : tri-dipole
    • First order substructures : 3
    • Distinct Substructure configuration : Gen III dipole
      • Substructure class : dipole
      • Energy role : high
      • Frequency : high
      • Radius : small
    • Distinct Substructure Configuration : Gen II dipole
      • Substructure Class : dipole
      • Energy Role : medium
      • Frequency : medium
      • Radius : medium
    • Distinct Substructure Configuration : Gen I dipole
      • Substructure Class : dipole
      • Energy Role : low
      • Frequency : low
      • Radius : large
  • Class : Photon
    • Point charge count : 12
    • First order substructures : 2
      • Distinct substructure configuration : Pro
        • Substructure class : tri-dipole
        • Substructure orientation : lead | trail
      • Distinct substructure configuration : Anti
        • Substructure class : tri-dipole
        • Substructure orientation : lead | trail
    • Substructure configuration : lead-trail type
    • Redshift mechanism : continuous via slow phase shift?
    • FAA and ARCGIS identifiers : just kidding (for now)

How parsimoniously does nature define a tri-dipole? For example, what is the orbital direction of each dipole or does that even matter given symmetry? How are the three frequencies and phases related? How is redshift implemented? If dipoles synchronize, how does that work and is it related to Koide’s formula? There is a trememdous amount of knowledge to be gleaned and used to refine our class structure.

Does the counter-rotating coupling mechanism create a situation where the leading dipole is the sail, and the trailing dipole provides the propulsion via it’s field acting as a wind, as it were? Is the leading tri-dipole surfing the electric field of it’s partner tri-dipole? Is the leading tri-dipole also towing it’s trailing partner tri-dipole along? The challenge is to visualize a set of point charges tracing certain paths through a Euclidean void filled with low apparent energy Noether cores, all the while observing Maxwell’s equations.

When I visualize dynamical point charge structures, I imagine using Coulomb’s Law but slow it down by so many orders of magnitude that I can visualize the dynamic electric field wavefront being emitted from each of the twelve point charges in the photon and the dynamic action on each point charge from all incoming fields. As a first order approximation, I simplify the visualization by focusing on the four lowest energy point charges, the two outer counter-rotating dipoles. Since I have an intuition that the three dipoles are coupled, I suspect that this approach may be good enough until a mathematical model and simulation are developed. Even if this particular structure visualization is flawed, this process helps us develop our ability to mentally simulate point charge structures.

We also need to understand how the photon is interacting with the aether of cold appearing Noether cores, i.e., the ocean the photon is sailing through. We know the photon’s path is influenced by the energy and energy gradients in the aether. Consider that the fields of the counter-rotating dipole comprising the photon must do some lovely a/c corkscrew through the aether as the dipoles pass at the speed of light. It occurs to me that saying “pass at the speed of light” is redundant. A photon is light.

One of the challenges to overcome with point charge theory is to ascertain how point charge immutability is implemented. There are a set of interrelated factors that need to be sorted out as a precursor to divining the math. One factor is the speed of electromagnetic fields through absolute Euclidean space and time. I have gone back and forth on this question and wrote quite a bit about the fields themselves possibly being impeded by the local strength of other electromagnetic fields, and related to what we call permittivity and permeability. More recently I am leaning the other way and think that fields don’t interact, considering superposition to be a passive aggregation that neither space and time, nor the fields themselves are aware of. It would be extremely parsimonious if we can concentrate the mechanisms of nature into the the action of fields on point charges AND give no active role to fields interacting with other fields, space, or time. That is quite a healthy serving of word salad, but it’s important to spell this out. Hopefully some day I can go back through all my blog articles and revise or annotate the ideas that turned out to be incorrect.

Is the patchwork quilt of physics and cosmology isomorphic to the point charge universe? I believe so and the evidence is growing stronger by the day.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

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: