**Thesis : Ontological errors in the assumptions of Lienard and Wiechert circa 1900 led to the false conclusion that there was no classical solution to nature. Their research was about unit potential point charges, their spherically expanding potential fields, and the effect of point charge path history.**

The assumption errors are :

- The magnitude of a point charge is equal to that of the electron or proton, i.e. -1 or +1 for short.
- The speed of the spherical potential field emitted by a point charge is c, the speed of light.
- The speed of a point charge may not exceed c, the speed of light.

**SPOILER ALERT **: The only clue you need to solve nature is the chart above. The remainder of this essay has more clues, insights, and solutions.

Assertion / Conjecture:

- Lienard and Wiechert ‘s assumptions do not model nature.
- As a result, a deduction was made that classical solutions could not model nature.
- Hence the diversion to “effective theories” of general relativity and quantum mechanics that enabled technological progress, but have failed to discover the implementation of nature.

So now what? It appears that not only do general relativity and quantum mechanics express no implementation in nature, they also abandoned classical theory on a very tenuous and perhaps naive set of assumptions. Ergo, it is reasonable to consider other assumptions, and a neoclassical model.

Let’s lay down some minimal ground rules for a neoclassical model.

**Zero woo.**No appeal to anything mystical or non-causal.- The neoclassical model, at maturity, must match observations, possibly with reframing of general relativity or quantum theory.
- There should be ontological and mathematical mappings between the neoclassical model and general relativity and quantum theory.

These are the minimal requirements for a neoclassical theory, but of course the advanced insights into nature and the resulting technology are the real test of the model.

Let’s first examine the assumption about charge, q. It is logical that Lienard and Wiechert only considered magnitudes q = {-1, +1} given what was known at the time. It was 60+ years later that “fractional” charge was discovered. One might think the discovery of fractional charge would have caused a revisitation of Lienard and Wiechert’s assumptions, and it may have, but let us focus on the conjecture where |q| = |e/6|. Specifically, that the unit potential point charges have a charge magnitude equal to the electron or the proton divided by six.

Next we observe that an orbiting pair of opposite point charges is a dipole with a net neutral charge. Orbiting dipoles may have vastly different kinetic and potential energy, the kinetic related to the orbital speed of the point charges, and the potential due to their proximity. A stationary unit potential emits a field where x^{2} +y^{2} +z^{2} = @t^{2}, where @ is a symbol for the speed of the spherically emitted potential from each point charge. *N.B. This maps to the metric signature whether it is written as (+,−,−,−) or (−,+,+,+).*

One of our requirements is to map to quantum theory, so let’s now consider that each dipole orbits around an axis, and there are two poles per axis, and in each pole is a vortex of potential that is related to the energy of the dipole. Let’s imagine three dipoles at different energy scales (and different frequency and orbital radii) that are strongly nested or coupled. There are six polar vortices. Let’s imagine that a much weaker energy point charge may be bound in each of the six vortices. Interestingly, as the figure shows, we have now defined a geometry of an assembly with a dozen point charges that produces all the charge levels we need for the standard model.

Why did we consider a nested set of three dipoles? The point charge itself incorporates classical Euclidean time and 3 dimensional space. The location of a point charge is given by (t, x, y, z) in absolute Euclidean dimensions. Likewise we can imagine the path of a point charge as a continuous sequence of real (t, x, y, z) locations. Each dipole has an orbital axis. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider a nested set of three dipoles such that the three orbital axis are translatable to 3 dimensional space.

Without really realizing it, we have now modeled standard model particles as assemblies of point charges with an architectural pattern, for fermions at least, as strong sub-assemblies and weak vortex charges. If this conjecture turns out to be true, then we may imagine the photon itself as an assembly of point charges.

*Aside : it’s too deep for this note, but consider photons implemented as contra-rotating coaxial planar tri-dipoles traveling along their orbital axis sailing on their own fields. Yep, they make E-M waves. Now consider the role of photons in scientific measurements. What are the implications? Profound, eh?*

At this point we should note that Lienard and Wiechert both chose the speed of the photon, c, as the speed of the potential field and the maximum speed of a point charge. Huh!? This is an ontological inversion! Now that we are imagining photons as assemblies of point charges, on what rational basis would the speed of a photon assembly determine any characteristics of a point charge? It wouldn’t! Rather the characteristics of the point charge would determine the behaviour of all assemblies of point charges, including the photon. Therefore we need to reconsider these assumptions.

Let’s give the spherical potential speed a separate symbol, let’s say “@”, which we will turn out to be the upper limit of photon speed. However, what shall we set the maximum speed of a point charge? We have no observations to guide us for an individual point charge, so for now we select “unlimited”. Yet, how far would an individual point charge travel before reacting with other point charges and producing assemblies? It depends on the conditions of course.

We can consider the upper bound on point charge speed in the first order dipole assembly. First we note that when the speed of the orbiting point charges in the dipole reaches field speed @ we have a symmetry breaking point. Below speed @ the point charge experiences no self-action. Above speed @ the point charge experiences self action from it’s own path history. I’ll leave it to others to determine what happens when the point charge speed matches field speed, but apparently it is no big deal or we wouldn’t be here.

Let’s go back and fill in our quiz with new assumptions.

The patterns that emerge from this set of assumptions are amazing. Here is a preliminary decoding of the standard model. For more patterns see New Physics in Pictures.

I think this post should be of particular interest to philosophers — for the following reasons :

- If these conjectures are correct, the error occurred circa 1900 and has not been detected by the scientific method in the intervening period. If we then reframe Michelson-Morley we have 150 years of off track science. Why did the scientific method, which is in the domain of philosophy, not detect this problem? In my view the scientific method does not include sufficient proactive detection of problems in the course of science.
*Aside : This may be a moot point because with NPQG we will have the source code to nature in hand, and science will be far less likely to go significantly off track. Everything can be simulated..*

- If these conjectures are correct, then this is a huge step forward in the ontology of nature. With the “source code to nature” in hand, how might philosophers re-evaluate the historical body of work in their own field?

Thanks for reading. You may contact me at npqg.inquiries@gmail.com.

*J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts*