Categories
Nature

Visualising the Dynamics of the Electron Structure

Background : To gain a present era undergraduate understanding of electromagnetism including point charges I recommend Prof. Carlson’s series as excellent pedagogy. There is some really fascinating math about how the fields of point charges superimpose and the rate at which those fields decrease with distance, which in some cases are faster than distance squared. https://youtu.be/v57B_1ZBAho

Today, I was learning and experimenting with Manim, which is 3Blue1Brown’s mathematical graphics engine. I’ve attached a very crude 2D visualization conjecture for an electron structure in the point charge model. When opposite charges orbit, there are fascinating implications, especially when you also think about distance and frequency (time) scales. The electromagnetic fields at most locations near a dipole are fluctuating rapidly as the opposite charge sweeps through 1/2 a revolution after its partner charge. The situation along the axis of the orbit is worth pondering as well.

Imagine the three dipoles in the core of the electron are orbiting at radii far below what experimentalists can observe directly. Just for example’s sake, let’s say radii of orbit at 10^-32, 10^-28, and 10^-24 meters. From the perspective of an outer dipole, the next inner dipole is four orders of magnitude away (in this example). The opposite charges of each dipole cancel out, so there is this net neutral object at scale 0.0001 and it is throwing off a strong magnetic field and also alternating electric field. Then pop out to the outer dipole. The inner dipole is now 8 orders of magnitude smaller in radius of orbit, .00000001.

Now consider that each orbit also has an angular momentum vector, orthogonal to the orbital plane, described by two angles and a magnitude. Would it be possible for those three angular momentum vectors to oscillate and precess a bit while still conserving momentum? Would the three dipoles interact and possibly harmonically synchronize their frequencies? (Koide?) Where would the six low energy personality layer electrinos like to orbit in their wave equation? Would they spread out as far as possible towards +/- i-hat, j-hat, k-hat? What if the basis vectors of the three orbital planes were aligning due to the electron moving at high velocity?

I’m hoping these visualizations will help others see what I’m imagining in my thought experiments. These ideas are entirely based upon standard classical electromagnetism and mechanics, with point charges retrofitted with immutability. Still these are just visualizations. The simulations and math will reveal what is really going on.

My goal is to actually simulate point charges and see what emerges. I’m leaning towards OpenGL, but Manim is fun too. Manim looks like a great choice for making educational videos about NPQG.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

For historical purposes here are some posts I recently made in a forum. Much of this is content that I have previously written about. I’m only posting my side of the conversation, but suffice it to say that per usual the feedback was aggressively negative and insulting.

There are about 1.75 x 10^30 point charges comprising the average human. This is based on the atoms estimated of each element, and 36 point charges per nucleon (proton or neutron) and 12 point charges per electron. 60% of the point charges are in oxygen and 23% in carbon, so perhaps we should be considered to be oxygen based life forms?

It is important to follow what is happening in particle physics these days. The theories like quantum mechanics are being positioned as “effective theories” which essentially means they have math that matches observations and are very precise in doing so. There is rather general agreement that there are so many open and unresolved issues that there must be something below all of the effective theories that is far more natural. i.e., a paradigm change.

I have always said my goal is to match up the point charge model to the effective theories and experiments. I have no issues with the experimental results nor the math that describes them. What I have said very clearly is that the narratives of quantum mechanics and cosmology (lcdm) and to some extent general relativity are just plain wrong.

Experiments stand and so does the math of the “effective theories”. In my view the “effective theories” are a patchwork quilt which I think we can replace or refactor based upon the point charge model.

In my view, the scientific method has failed physics and cosmology, because of a single bad prior in the 1800’s when physicists abandoned point charges because of concerns that they could approach infinitely closely and the math blows up with the separation distance in the denominator. That can be fixed by making the point charges immutable, meaning no two point charges can approach closer than some distance. At this point, I think that distance is the Planck length divided by 2, but as the math emerges, that may change. It is really hard to both reverse engineer the math and start fresh from point charges at the same time. My goals for 2022 is math and simulation, and it is going quite well.

Let me try to explain the diagram, which is essentially a set up for solving the math. It basically says that opposite charges will orbit and that the point charge speed can vary from 0 to c times pi/2. Well, not really c, because this level precedes photons. For now, mentally imagine that c is the speed of the electromagnetic wave caused by the point charges. Now, the really cool thing that I think the math will show is that as we increase the orbital rate from zero the radius of the orbit will increase to a certain point. I think that peak will be at Wien’s peaks (the black body curves on the left) and I think that peak will occur when the speed of the point charges matches the speed of the electromagnetic field. Beyond that point, the point charge will encounter it’s own field along a chord of the orbit. So the peak is a symmetry breaking point, and it makes a lot of sense to me that it would correspond intuitively to the symmetry breaking point in the Mexican hat diagram that is known and loved in physics. (edited)

If this is right, it turns physics and cosmology on their head and the paradigm shifts. Einstein’s general relativity would then need to be understood from the perspective of these orbiting dipoles and the structures they form. My thought experiments suggest that a tri-dipole structure forms, with each dipole at a vastly different frequency separated by orders of magnitude. The basic dipole frequency would peak at the Planck frequency where the radius of orbit would have shrunk again until the point charges are at their closest, like they were when frequency was 0. So the curvy-stretchy spacetime of Einstein would actually be implemented by these tri-dipole structures which change shape with energy. Oh, I forgot to mention that the quantum of energy changes the dipole frequency by 1. Give or take an h-bar of angular momentum and the frequency goes up or down by 1 and the radius adjust accordingly.

Think about what this means for expansion of the universe. Here is what I think it means : The universe is expanding, but not like cosmology thinks it is. The energetic tri-dipole structures emerging from high energy events in the cosmos would grow in volume as they shed energy. Well, first they would inflate on the steep part of the curve, then they would be expanding on the gradual part of the curve. But that wouldn’t mean that the whole universe is expanding outward, it would mean it is expanding in place. Not only that, but because spacetime would be implemented by tri-dipole structures made of point charges, and those same point charges make the standard matter particles, that standard matter precipitates or reacts out of spacetime. Physicists call this pair production. I understand that this flips everyone’s narrative inside out but all the experiments and effective theory math would hold. Ok, enough for now.

One more thing – I think the dipoles in these tri-dipole structures may be the gluons, and therefore relate to what we call ‘color charge’.

Would you not agree that the scientific method will be defeated by a false prior that is not corrected? Do you not think that modern day GR/QM/LCDM have glaring holes? It seems to me that a very large proportion of the physics and cosmology outreach content talks about the glaring holes, or paradoxes, or mysteries, or unknowns, call them whatever you want. There are no other fields of science that have as many of these issues as particle physics and cosmology.

Let’s consider three types of false prior :

  1. False prior in experiment,
  2. False prior in theory,
  3. False prior in narrative.

I think a false prior in experiment or theory would be found in short order, let’s say years to decades. A false prior in narrative can be insidious however. A false prior in narrative leads to more false priors and before long you have effective theories that no one can explain naturally.

The scientific method is not self correcting. It does not detect and alert for situations where there must be something majorly wrong. Sure, we have Sabine, Sir Roger, and Lee Smolin and others saying that something major is broken, but the field isn’t really addressing this seriously. The fields just keep doing more of the same. What they really need is to invest in looking for false priors. I’m offering what I think it is and have now written 300 short articles describing how the universe could work on the basis of immutable point charges. It all checks out in my opinion, although it has been incredibly difficult to get anyone else interested and I take a lot of personal attacks, but hardly any real consideration of my logic and thought experiments.

The diagram basically says that standard matter particles are sort of constructed like the Bohr atom idea, with orbitals of 2-2-2-6 to make the fermions. I’ve also got a line on Fermi-Dirac statistics vs. Bose-Einstein statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle. Think about the three planes of orbit of the 2-2-2 in the tri-dipole. If they are not aligned you have a 3D structure, if they are all aligned you have a flat 2D structure. And with the 2-2-2 probably doing quite a bit of precessing while preserving momentum and energy, and the personality layer of six charges at an even larger radius, that is going to be quite a wave equation and have all kinds anomalous moments, etc.

The strong force is implemented by the tri-dipole, the 2-2-2 which the interior of which are at very high energy, corresponding to Gen II and Gen III of the standard model. Now, when you take three quarks to make a nucleon, I have no idea of the dance all these structures and substructures are doing, but I presume it will map directly to strong force, color charge, gluons, etc.

Maxwell’s equations pretty much describe these point charges. The only correction I think I need is how to model the immutability radius. I haven’t figured out how point charge immutability would be implemented. Sometimes I wonder if something akin to asymptotic safety is at play, but that could be wrong. I think my best way forward is working on the math from the first diagram. I really wish more people would suspend disbelief and join in on the thought experiments and math. If I am right, it’s not hard. I am slow and deliberate, but I am happy with the progress. I think it won’t be long now until one other person gets on board and contributes and that is probably all it will take to go exponential.

I haven’t yet visualized the dance of the quark structures and substructures in a nucleon (proton or neutron), but there would be 9 of these dipole substructures. Maybe 1 of the 9 somehow provides containment, leaving 8 to be exchanged between the quark personality layers? That might not be right, but strong force and color is a higher level concept that will require simulation or math that would be built upon the foundational math of the dipole itself.

I also wanted to mention another linkage with the standard model. Each of these tri-dipoles 2-2-2 has some really interesting characteristics. Imagine that all three orbital planes of a tri-dipole are orthogonal, so that their angular momentum vectors are pointing along the x, y, and z axes. But those three angular momentum vectors represent vastly different energies, so you might think of them as H-M-L for high, medium, and low. Note that the mapping H to x, M to y, L to z is very different than H to x, L to y, and M to z. I suspect that this is related to matter and anti-matter. In other words, what we call matter or anti-matter would be determined by the orientation of the three angular momentum vectors. There are a lot of imaginative degrees of freedom in point charge structures, and really this is a tremendous puzzle of trying to work from GR/QM/LCDM to point charge structures, and also from point charge structures to GR/QM/LCDM. It does require suspension of disbelief to let your mind explore this imagination space, yet the more linkages I see, the more confidence I have that these mappings are there and just waiting to be discovered.

Right now I am working on mapping the standard model to point charges structures and doing that from first principles, i.e., starting from truly nothing, adding immutable energetic point charges and figuring out what happens with math and simulation. The images I’ve posted show where I am heading on the math. I think this is the highest priority because it has the best likelihood of gaining more attention with the least effort.

A couple of years ago, I thought cosmology would be easier to breakthrough because it has a more messed up narrative, and simply suggesting a volumetrically immutable basis of field generation leads to really interesting ideas in cosmology. For example singularities and wormholes go away entirely in an instant, and the insight I mentioned before about galaxies expanding into one another and particle rain as opposed to the rather fantastical Big Bang and expansion of the universe outward.

If you think of an electron as a swirling structure of 12 point charges, then finding anomalous magnetic moments might be straightforward to explain with a physical model. I would expect the model would also be able to explain things in the observational data that are currently not explained. That’s a special kind of post-diction. Here’s a 2D electron structural pattern or architecture. The three dipoles on the darker gray orbits in the center are at vastly different energy scales, radii, and it appears that observation can only detect some of their characteristics. I’m working on a 3D simulation. Presently I am thinking of using Manim (from 3Blue1Brown) as the visualization tool, but I’m open to suggestions if anyone has recommendations for a tool that’s free and easy to use and integrated with Python.

One of the communication issues on social media seems to be that others are displeased with my approach or my starting knowledge or even my creative problem solving technique. I’ve done all this work openly so people can look back and see the sausage being made. This probably makes scientists really uncomfortable. I get that. Some people mentioned Einstein in the pejorative (You’re no Einstein!) and I want to be very clear and humble in that I am no Einstein and I am not a scientist.

I am a good creative problem solver and reverse engineer. I also seem to have a good B.S detector and am fairly skeptical of the narrative of GR/QM/LCDM (experiments and math are good though!). I’m also a non-linear thinker in that I attack a problem from all kinds of angles or you might say run out on a lot of mental tree branches to see if they will bear a load. If you think of Gulliver representing GR/QM/LCDM and me as a Lilliputian it seems to me my thought experiments pretty much have Gulliver tied down six ways from Sunday and the logic is inescapable. Still, the math, yes the math. That is the focus of 2022 now that I can visualize how nature works.

Examine this architectural pattern. Who knew that the combinations of six e/6 point charge only produce net charges in multiples of e/3 which is exactly what we need for the standard model, especially the quarks? Plus it has hints of the ~30 degree Weinberg angle. Plus it provides a physical explanation for anti-matter vs matter, and left vs. right handed particles. This is by pure thought experiment without ever doing any written math, and simply imagining point charges with classical mechanics and Maxwell’s equations.

I think the math of the basic electrino positrino dipole will reveal Planck’s equation, Wien’s law of the peaks of those black body radiation curves, and the formula for the radius of the dipole from 0Hz to Planck frequency, both endpoints of which are point charges at their closest approach possible. It should be a system in 1.855 x 10^43 equations, separated by h-bar kicks in angular momentum. Then we will have a dipole that changes size and frequency with energy and it should be clearer to folks that these little dipoles are the “dynamo batteries” that power everything.

I’ve been contemplating Planck’s Law and I am currently running background mental processes trying to figure out what Temperature means in point charge structures. It seems that temperature and frequency can vary independently. So if we put a stake in the ground and say frequency is the outer of the tri-dipoles, then what is temperature? Would that be the kinetic energy in the personality layer? I dunno. This is how I make progress. I think about that for a while, and then eventually something clicks and it all makes sense (at least to me.).

To follow up (again) on the Einstein comment — one of the truly wonderful aspects of the immutable point charge model is that understanding nature from the raw ingredients or ‘source code’ level will make particle physics, general relativity, and cosmology truly understandable to the non-professional (contingent upon, of course, the point charge model being directionally correct). Here is what that means for the many non-professionals who are fans of PBS Space Time : You, yes you, can get in on the ground floor and contribute during this period where the professionals are in denial. Sure, once they take the L and get on board, they’ll leave us in the dust, but until then it’s an enormous creative space for discovery of linkages to existing experiments and math, less the old incorrect narratives.

The point charges are orbiting each other. As far as I can tell, there is no meaning to spin of a single point charge, so I have not introduced that concept. So the point charges are orbiting each other like two black holes orbit, or two neutron stars. Nature loves to repeat itself with dualities at different scales. The axis of the orbit will be orthogonal to the plane of the orbit and will pierce the plane at the bisection of the line segment between the two point charges.

It’s really a puzzle trying to decipher these patterns in a way that leads to linkage to the standard model and insight. I started with a giant mandala of a diagram, with all the particles arranged around a single circle, but that was too much. This version appeared to make more intuitive sense. It may evolve further. Things to think about are majorana particles and the particles that haven’t been observed like right handed neutrinos, and left handed anti-neutrinos. My goal with this diagram was to account for all the combinations and then spread them out over pro vs. anti, and left vs. right.

NPQG predicts that gen II and gen III fermion energy is contained and shielded within the gen I dipole of every tri-dipole Noether core. NPQG predicts that spacetime is an aether overlay on a Euclidean void, with the aether also being a structure made of point charges in tri-dipole configurations. Continuing that line of logic, the spacetime aether would contain massive numbers of point charges and massive energy which current science has nary a clue about. If we could figure out how to crack open aether particles, then we could 3D print matter or energy directly from spacetime aether. That last part is a big if though.

Currently science is just barely able to sustainably fusion atoms to unleash energy in a way that doesn’t crack open any Noether cores in the protons, neutrons, or electrons. So this is probably quite a technology challenge, even with the blueprints for nature. Also, for fun contemplation, there is this nasty problem of the Drake equation and why don’t we see any signs of intelligent life in the observable bubble of 13.8B year travel time of high energy photons to our observational instruments.

It worries me that such technology could also be used for destructive purposes given that humans as a group can be quite irrational. I’ve notified the Department of Energy and other U.S. agencies, but if they even received my messages they would be dismissed because the current science narratives are so inside out that those agencies would think my ideas are nonsense. I can only hope that knowledge of the blueprints of nature doesn’t lead to the ability of some evil person or group being able to introduce the life extinguishing factor into the Drake equation. Note, this is what I call the Plasma Ten scenario loosely modeled after Frank Wilczek’s Ice Nine scenario, which he borrowed from Vonnegut.

So, that was a kind of fun and hopefully humorous exposition, but the more likely scenario is that with the blueprints to nature, scientists and technologists would be able to discover simpler and cheaper ways to exploit nature and do so at a pace faster than Moore’s Law exponential progress in semiconductors. Our simulations could track the provenance of each and every point charge in reactions. That would be huge. Once you can model precisely what is happening it is only a short matter of time until we figure out how to control those reactions at levels far beyond what we are capable of today. So in that way point charge theory would be akin to CRISPR++ in the DNA sciences. This is why I claim that once scientists get on board with point charge theory their earning potential will increase beyond the highest compensated technologists today, i.e., artificial intelligence pros or crypto pros. I predict that shortly after point charge theory is accepted there will be massive investment by huge corporations and a brain drain from universities.

I think you should be careful about concepts like perpetual motion machines. What will stop a rotating dipole in void Euclidean space and time? Nothing would. So that is in fact a perpetual motion machine. But in the world of point charges Euclidean space is filled with an aether so there will be interactions, and wait for it, redshift. Yep, DeBroglie was on to something. Since all stable structures have a tri-dipole Noether core and they are moving and interacting with each other, all structures are experiencing redshift. So that redshift would preclude a perpetual motion machine. However, since there is so much shielded energy in standard matter and in the aether, one could have limitless energy if it could be extracted. Also, it seems to me that we will need to alter the 2nd law to be an equality in the point charge universe. Also, a tightly packed (FCC?) core of point charges, such as might be found in the core of a supermassive black hole would have one microstate and no entropy. This would explain why scientists say the temperature of a black hole is zero, which has been confusing. Anyway, I need to get on to math and simulation, but the way we think of these basic concepts does change at the lowest level of point charges. Don’t worry though, because as more structure emerges, it leads to all the accepted math at scale.

As I have mentioned before, countless times, until scientists jump into this model and nail down all the concepts scientifically and mathematically it is a wild west imagination zone, yet it is fairly straightforward to develop reasonable hypothesis and conjecture. Sure some of those will be wrong, but a lot will be directionally right. I’m not worried about each step in developing this model being 100% correct. It is ok to take 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

When I am asked for specific predictions after writing nearly 300 blog posts about this new point charge model for nature and the universe, I am perplexed by the questioners. Are they engaging in a reasonable intellectual manner? Here are some specific predictions :

  1. Nature can be described by a Euclidean void and a density I of immutable point charges carrying a density II of energy.
  2. The energies of the generation II and III fermions are contained and shielded by the generation I fermion through superposition.
  3. Mass is caused by the apparent energy of a point charge structure. Shielded energy does not contribute to mass, but is revealed as velocity of the particle increases. (Energy-Momentum equation).
  4. Expansion has been misconceived by cosmologists. The universe is not expanding outward. Distant galaxies are not receding from us at great speed. Instead, as all matter including the particulate aether redshifts, the Noether cores vary in physical radius (and frequency and energy). Galaxies expand into one another and the expansion of Noether cores generated or energized in high energy events is balanced by standard matter precipitation and reaction.
  5. Redshift of photons is not understood properly and we don’t know the mechanism, but I’d first look at a very slow and gradual phase shift of the tri-dipole cores in each photon as they interact with expanding aether they are traversing.
  6. There was no big bang. There are many mini-bangs in galaxies that release high energy point charge structures. I’d look at the jets from super massive black holes again. Anton just released a video on a galaxy where the jets span 16.3 million light years. We already know that CMB photons started as high energy photons from processes we understand and are routine in galaxies.
  7. Science will need to retract and refactor the 13.8B “age of the universe” to be the time for high energy photons to redshift to microwave frequencies.
  8. The JWST observations will falsify LCDM.

I also joined the Manim discord server and posted this introduction.

Hi. My name is Mark. I am planning to use Manim to visualize systems of immutable point charges and explore how the standard model of particle physics may or may not map to a vision of nature based on a Euclidean void in space and time which is populated by energetic immutable point charges, the electrino and positrino, with charge magnitude |e/6|. An example of something I would like to visualize in Manim is this static 2D decoding of the standard model in terms of point charges. I’d like to make moving 3D+T visualizations and incorporate classical mechanics and electromagnetism in the motion of the point charges. One challenge will be visualizing on a logarithmic scale, since the three inner dipoles are orbiting at vastly different energies, frequencies, and orbital radii. (edited)

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: https://www.paypal.me/johnmarkmorris

https://jmarkmorris.com
https://twitter.com/J_Mark_Morris
https://www.facebook.com/NPQG/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnmarkmorris/