Scalar and Vector Potential

Scalar and vector potential action
tells point charges how to move.

This post is about scalar and vector electric potential and how the summation, aka superposition, of these potentials controls the point charge universe. It’s not precise to say that general relativity’s spacetime geometry tells matter how to move. It is not correct to say that NPQG’s spacetime aether tells matter how to move.

Wheeler’s idea is true at scales of applicability where the geometry of Noether core based structures implements general relativity. Wheeler’s idea is imprecise when examined at the smallest scales in the realm of local dynamics of point charge structures. The correct statement is that the dynamical scalar and vector potential are what causes point charges to move. Point charges assemble into structures we call matter (standard matter) and structures that form the spacetime aether (low apparent energy Noether core detritus).

Are point charges considered to be material? Are structures assemble from point charges matter? As we will see, this requires new and revised science terminology. Etymologically and ontologically the concepts of matter and mass are closely aligned. Interestingly, photons are not considered to be matter because they are considered to be massless. This distinction regarding the photon was another rough spot in GR/QM based physics and in hindsight was an enormous blind-spot and clue.

This shows how a false prior infection can cause an entire field to miss for a century that which is right in front of them. Still my point is that the terms matter and mass have not been properly understood. So when we ask whether a point charge is material, matter, or has mass we need to first set down an updated definition of those concepts themselves.

There may be a philosophical debate about whether point charges should be considered material. Let’s imagine a universe with a single point charge moving in a straight line at any speed above or below @, the speed of its electric potential emission. That point charge, although discrete, is not “matter” because there can no action. There is no action since there are no other point charges and the single point charge is not in causal contact with it’s own field.

Returning to our universe I think point charges are matter given :

  1. point charges are discrete and they exist with no known beginning nor end to their time and space path.
  2. point charges have the ability to cause action and to be acted upon,
  3. point charges implement asymptotic safety which has a causal result in a time and space immutability as distinct from the geometrical point of the point charge.

We know from Einstein that mass represents energy. We need to update this with the concept of energy shielding and redefine mass based upon apparent energy. However, at the lowest level we must compare Coulomb’s Law and the Law of Gravitation and determine how to bridge these ontological concepts and unify our language as we also tackle a new geometrical formulation.

This is going to be interesting, because standard matter at rest contains a LOT of kinetic enery in the form of spinning point charge dipoles. Obviously that will require rethinking our concept of intertial mass and velocity = 0. For inertial mass, the velocity of the structure is considered to be zero, or effectively near zero relative to the spacetime aether and absolute T3S. Yet, even if the structure is at rest, the internal point charges have velocity and carry kinetic energy.

It seems that we are heading in the direction of a bridge between rest mass and the potential energy of a charge.

In physics, chemistry, and biology, a potential gradient is the local rate of change of the potential with respect to displacement, i.e. spatial derivative, or gradient. This quantity frequently occurs in equations of physical processes because it leads to some form of flux.


Aha, now I know why my electrostatics approach to figuring out the geometry of the orbiting dipole didn’t work out! Cool. I suppose it is finally time to read Griffiths Electrodynamics! This seems relevant :

I am sort of getting the picture of the patchwork quilt theories of physics as being highly related, but covering different point charge structure or sub-structures. It is starting to sound to me like a change of gauge is a way to apply the theory to a different Noether core based structure, a substructure, or a structure in different conditions. If a structure is Lorentz invariant then it is most certainly powered by one or more point charge dipoles, i.e., Noether cores.


Check out the Coulomb gauge where the vector potential is quantized by the Coulomb interaction is not. That makes total sense when the vector potential is caused by a Noether core structure and we are working on problems directly related to the continuous realm of individual point charge behaviour. Wow. How cool is that?


That’s really interesting and totally makes sense. The dynamical geometry of charge paths must include the assembly into variety of structures that are reused in structures of higher assembly number.


I wonder if the Lienard-Wiechert are truly the right set of equations for point charges or if they are confused ontologically. The mention on the Lorenz gauge is concerning because that implies the Noether core dipole in my estimation. Note the timeframe 1898 & 1900. Were the Einstein’s aware of this work? It is kind of dumbfounding to see that Wikipedia even states that electromagnetic radiation in the form of waves can be obtained from these potentials which originate from moving point charges! Remind me again why point charges were set aside?


I think I found a key error in scientific logic in this Wikipedia quote. The outlook was that quantum was below the layer of charge since quantum is ontologically below the electron, neutron, and proton. That makes total sense they would think that way considering that standard matter particles are sometimes thought of as point particles.

However, I think the situation was exactly the opposite, as you can see from an assembly level below the standard model with point charges of magnitude |e/6|. These are Liénard–Wiechert potentials which come from classical point charges (not standard matter particles). Liénard–Wiechert should have responded that the standard model, the quantum, and general relativity were all expected behaviours of the structure that would emerge from moving point charges emitting electric fields that superimpose and time lag to form their potentials.

I an non-plussed. I will have to dig into these methods and see if I can find the reason they were discarded. Note that it says they were not corrected for quantum mechanical effects, but that is because the ontological narrative was at the wrong level of abstraction.

The Liénard–Wiechert potentials appear to build in special relativity and the speed of light. That means photons. We can not allow photons to be smuggled into a geometry from first principles describing the layer below structures that gives rise to structures. Specifically, it is not reasonable to leverage the speed of light, and photons, and special relativity based upon photons because photons are an emergent structure assembled from point charges. Now this might be a quick fix, just replace all uses of ‘c’ with the field speed of electric potential, which I call ‘@’ which is also the speed of photons in the limit that we call c. But then I need a derivation of special relativity for point charges with no photon observer, so it has to be a geometrical proof. Then I need to check that whether this ontological mixup has caused any issues with the equations for the Liénard–Wiechert potential.

We’ll probably need to redefine special relativity geometrically. I bet that has already been done. No need to reinvent the wheel.

The study of classical electrodynamics was instrumental in Albert Einstein’s development of the theory of relativity. Analysis of the motion and propagation of electromagnetic waves led to the special relativity description of space and time. The Liénard–Wiechert formulation is an important launchpad into a deeper analysis of relativistic moving particles.


Ok, I need to do a deep dive into the Liénard–Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko’s equations. There is a huge flaw the size of a barn door in these geometrical approaches. Ontological confusion has caused a miss of the idea that point charges are not photons and that point charge speed is not limited by c, nor by electric potential field speed. Point charges cause some fascinating behaviour when they exceed their own field speed.

I’ll finish this post with quick meta thoughts on theory replacement.

GR has its own holes and will need replacing, especially to be unified with QM, but also to handle stuff like the inside of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang. It will remain a useful simplification (lol) over quantum gravity, I am sure, for those situations where it is appropriate


It’s not so much that existing theories need wholesale replacing in the grand unification theory. I think it will be a new dynamical geometry that will be able to reproduce today’s theories at their scales of applicability in energy, distance, and time. The new dynamical geometry may identify and correct issues with GR and QM, and will be more tightly predictive to the limits of instrumental precision. I think an important question will be whether new analytics or computational techniques can be developed that are better than the highly effective theories of GR and QM. If so, then those new techniques could become the norm in some subfields. However, just like COBOL software, sometimes it’s sensible to maintain a prior era theory if it is doing the job effectively.

There is another important factor and that is whether the new dynamical geometry changes the ontology in a way that is better served with a different terminology. In that case it could increase the cost of maintaining prior era theories.

J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts

Here are some good reference videos on electric potential.

By J Mark Morris

General relativity and quantum mechanics rest upon the false priors of Lienard and Wiechert. It is an easy fix and anyone can discover the architecture of nature.