In Table 4.1, electrons, quarks, and neutrinos have family generations, each like the last but heavier. An electron has a muon elder brother of the same charge but two hundred times heavier, and a tau eldest brother that is three and a half thousand times heavier. Up and down quarks also have heavier charm and strange quarks, and massive top and bottom quarks, but again after three generations, no more. The standard model describes these generations but doesn’t explain:
1. Why do family generations occur?
2. Why are there only three generations, then no more?
3. Why are higher generations so heavy?
Figure 4.26. Electron generations as dimension repeats
The matter structures proposed suggests why electrons, neutrinos, and quarks have family generations. If an electron fills the channels of one axis, a muon could be the same on two axes, and a taon on three (Figure 4.26). All are still point entities, and no more generations occur because space only has three dimensions. The photons of an electron fill all the channels of an axis on two quantum dimensions, as light rays can polarize two orthogonal ways. Adding another photon collision at right angles will be the same, so the photons of a muon compete for channels, giving interference that accounts for its increased mass. A taon as three sets of photons colliding on three axes at right angles creates even more interference, so it is massive because interference can cumulate, just as one traffic delay can cause another. In this family, each adds more interference so it is heavier than the last, and there are only three members because space has three dimensions.
But if a muon is an electron collision doubled, why doesn’t it have a minus two charge? It does, but we can only measure charge one axis at a time, and after each measurement the system resets. On any one axis, a muon’s charge is minus one because the other remainder occupies an orthogonal dimension. A processing model then suggests that the three family generations of electrons reflect the three dimensions of space, and neutrinos will be the same.
For quarks, the situation is more complex, as their photons collide in a plane, not one axis, so one can’t just repeat the quark structure in three dimensions. However, the tail-tail-head planar triangle of an up quark could form a charm quark pyramid, whose every side presents an up-quark’s charge but with more mass by interference. A tail-head-head down quark could likewise form a strange quark pyramid. Top and bottom quarks could then fill the channels of a point with two up and down quark planes at right angles, with again more mass by interference.
In conclusion, the three generations of electrons, neutrinos, and quarks could arise from the three dimensions of space, and their increased mass from the increased interference this produces.
Charge neutrality is that charge comes in equal positive and negative amounts. The earth is charge neutral, as is our galaxy, and the whole universe is probably the same, but why? The standard model assumes that matter began as Venus arose from the sea, complete and perfect already, with charge an optional accessory that has two flavors, but why are they equal? Why are there as many electrons as protons in our universe? It is not at all obvious why are twice as many down quarks as up quarks, but it seems to be so. If matter just began, why dole out equal amounts of positive and negative charge? To say that it is so because it was made so, is unsatisfactory.
Quantum theory tells us that events repeat at a fantastic rate, so any entity that isn’t 100% stable will re-configure, sooner or later. Every option is tried until one sticks, i.e. is stable. After the initial chaos, electrons, neutrinos, and quarks survived by being stable, and the first atom formed for the same reason, that a proton and an electron survive better together than apart. Other atoms then evolved in the same way, with equal numbers of protons and electrons. The electrons around a nucleus shield it from neutrino strikes that could disrupt it, by turning a neutron into a proton, and the nucleus holds the electrons in orbit, so they don’t fly off. Atoms exist because they are stable.
It follows that our universe is charge neutral because matter survived as charge-neutral atoms. Matter evolved rather than just began, so the universe is charge neutral by evolution, not by an initial design allocation. The evolution of matter then explains charge neutrality better than the assumption that it was just made so by some design.
The standard model assumes that matter just is but in this model, it evolved by the law of all action, that whatever can happen eventually does, because the quantum world tries every option. This law then implies another principle of our universe, that it is evolving to a future based on what survives. Yet the standard model denies both these principles. Firstly, it opposed the randomness of quantum theory, seeking instead to impose its own fixed laws on matter. Secondly, it focused on transient particles, like the Higgs boson, that by evolution have no relevance because they aren’t stable. Physics needs a better model than one that is both anti-quantum theory and anti-evolution.
A proton’s charge is one, the simple sum of its constituent quark charges, but it has a hundred times their mass. Charge adds when quarks combine but mass multiplies a hundredfold, so why? The standard model attributes the extra mass to the gluons it says bind them, but how do massless gluons make mass? And if they do, why don’t they increase charge as well? The mass problem is that the standard model can’t explain why its particles have the masses that they do:
“… though the actual value of the basic electric charge … remains a theoretical mystery … all other charges found in the universe are … multiples of this value. Nothing like this appears to be the case for rest-mass, and the underlying reason for the particular values of the rest-masses of … particle types is completely unknown.” (Penrose, 2010), p153.
Mass varies radically for no known reason but all charge is based on the electron, and this model suggests why. The charge of an electron is the processing left-over when the channels of a point overload one axis. Each channel can handle one Planck process, and the photons colliding contribute twice that, so the result can’t exceed the value of one Planck process. If all mass arises from similar collisions, all charge must be a multiple of the electron’s charge.
However mass, as the total processing done, isn’t limited like this because processing can interfere. On networks, interference occurs when processes try to access the same resource at the same time. It is like two cars arriving at an intersection, they can’t both use the same space and if they do, they collide unless they stop to negotiate. Either way, time is wasted, so interference slows down road networks as it does computer networks. Cities use traffic lights to reduce collisions but on computer networks, such controls were found to be inefficient. Instead, protocols like Ethernet let processes access network resources freely, and if a collision is detected, they stop and retry after a random time to avoid a repeat. Almost all our networks let processes compete freely for resources because it is ten times faster, so the quantum network is expected to be the same.
The quantum network is then a first-come-first-served system, where photons compete for channels as we compete for road use, but with no traffic lights, so they can interfere. This occurs when two photons try to access a channel that can only accept one. One channel can’t accept two photons from the same direction at the same time, so they have to try again elsewhere, which is more work, or in this case more processing that in this model is mass. The mass of a point entity then increases if its structure results in more channel interference.
It follows that the mass increase caused by interference depends on how often photons try to access the same channel from the same direction. For an electron, two photon streams access the channels of a point from opposite directions, so there is no interference, but for a quark, photon streams intersecting in a plane sometimes access the same channel, and so interfere. Thus a quark’s mass, which is its net processing, is more than expected from adding just one photon stream, and indeed it has about ten times the mass of an electron.
For a proton, the channel interference is more, so it has more mass than its quark constituents. Every time two photons try to access the same channel they have to try again, which increases the processing needed, and that is its mass. That mass is the processing needed to fill the channels of an entity explains the mass of protons without recourse to magical gluons. The mass problem of physics is then explained by channel interference.
For example, in Table 4.1, down quarks are more than twice as heavy as up quarks for an unknown reason. But if an up quark is two photon tail sets colliding with one set of photon heads, the tails fill channels first, leaving one set of heads to compete for the remaining channels. However in a down quark, one tail set gets first access, leaving two sets of photon heads to fight over the rest, giving more interference, which doubles their mass.
Also in Table 4.1, the masses of quarks and neutrinos vary over a range of values when observed, but shouldn’t identical elementary particles have identical masses? The standard model assumption that all mass comes from basic particles, like a universal Lego set, is again flawed. In contrast, this model lets quark masses vary by interference. Each quark observation is a new event, so its mass varies because it interferes differently, just as the rush-hour traffic delay varies every day, even for the same number of cars. Processing interference then explains not only the mass problem of physics, but also the masses of elementary particles in general.
If the laws of physics varied with position, each new point would need new rules but in our universe, gravity works on Mars as it does on earth. This spatial symmetry is basic to physics but neutrinos violate it because they always spin left-handed. This asymmetry is reflected neither in the world we see nor in the laws that describe it, so as Pauli said:
“I cannot believe God is a weak left hander” (Lederma & Teresi, 2012), p256.
What is spin-handedness? If you point your left thumb forward, the fingers of your hand curl in a left-handed spin, but with your right thumb forward, they curl in a right-handed spin. Figure 4.25 shows how left and right-handed screws differ, and particles also spin differently as they move.
However particles that reverse direction change their spin, so if both your hands move forward, they spin differently, but if one hand moves backwards, they spin the same. Reversing direction reverses spin, so reversing an electron’s direction should make it spin the other way, and electrons do indeed spin both ways.
By spatial symmetry, this rule should also apply to neutrinos but they all spin left, and all anti-neutrinos spin right. Electrons spin either way but their brother neutrinos don’t, and the standard model can’t explain why, or why changing the spin of a neutrino makes it an anti-neutrino. That neutrinos always spin left is a deep mystery that contradicts spatial symmetry.
Pauli couldn’t believe that God is a left-hander but what if the first event was left-handed? When the first photon made our universe matter not anti-matter, it also had to spin left or right and apparently it went left. The photons of an electron collide from opposite directions so in a physical event, it can spin either way, randomly. Changing its direction reverses both spins, so it still spins either way.
However, while an electron’s mass comes from two photon sets, a neutrino’s mass only comes from one photon set. And reversing a neutrino’s direction changes its phase, so what create its mass is now the other set of photons, which also spin left. When an electron reverses direction, the origin of its mass doesn’t change, but when a neutrino reverses direction, the other set of left-spin photons create its mass. Neutrinos then always spin left because when they reverse direction, the source of their tiny mass changes.
If anti-neutrinos are neutrino-processing in reverse, this also explains why they always spin right. Spatial symmetry requires the mirror image of a particle to be the same particle, but for a wave on a surface, this doesn’t apply. It follows that the asymmetry that made our universe matter not anti-matter is why neutrinos always spin left and anti-neutrinos always spin right.
The elementary entities of quantum mechanics all spin, but matter only half spins. Spinning an object once in our space returns its original state, but spinning an electron 360 degrees only half-turns it. It takes two whole turns to return an electron to its original state. The same applies to all matter entities, so they are said to half spin because it takes two 360º turns to spin them once.
For this reason, and because an electron is a dimensionless point that shouldn’t spin at all, particle physics has simply given up trying to understand quantum spin:
“We simply have to give up the idea that we can model an electron’s structure at all. How can something with no size have mass? How can something with no structure have spin?” (Oerter, 2006), p95.
However in this model, an electron has a structure despite being a point particle, as it is made of photons that also have a structure. A photon travelling in a direction seems one-dimensional, but it vibrates into an unseen quantum dimension outside space, based on its polarization, to give a two-dimensional structure, like a piece of paper, that can also spin (Note 1), as photons do. It is also expected, again like a thin piece of paper, that it can’t be seen when it is viewed edge-on.
In addition, the four dimensions of quantum space let photons vibrate in two different directions at right angles to each other (Note 2), which explains why horizontal filters stop horizontally polarized light but not vertically polarized light (see 3.7.2).
Now if the photons of an electron fill the channels of an axis, they vibrate in two different directions at right angles, so only half of them will be visible for a line of view as the others, like an ideal paper sheet, will be invisible edge-on. If one photon is 100% visible, another at right angles will be 0%, for one that projects 99%, another will project only 1%, and so on, because these photons vibrate in two orthogonal directions, not one.
In our space, one turn returns any object to its original state because a rotation needs an axis line and two dimensions to rotate around. That adds up to three dimensions, but electrons exist in four-dimensional quantum space, so it takes two 360º turns to return them to their original state. One 360º turn only turns half its photons, and another 360º turn is needed to turn the other half. Hence, electrons only half spin in our terms, and other matter entities are the same.
Note 1. For a photon moving in direction X, its quantum amplitude Q vibrates in plane QX, so the structure QX can spin.
Note 2. The orthogonal directions X, Y, Z of space give three orthogonal planes XY, YZ and XZ. A fourth dimension Q adds three more orthogonal planes Q1X, Q2Y, Q2Z, where Q1, Q2 and Q3 are at right angles.
Aristotle saw an earth made mainly of matter, but today astronomers see a cosmos of mainly space and light, where matter is rare. Our universe is firstly space, then light, and matter is a distant third in the scheme of things.
In matter terms, space is nothing at all, but in network terms, it is a vast processing investment. Filling it with light is the same, but the additional processing needed for the specks of matter we call stars is tiny by comparison. That matter is the third product of our universe, not the first, lets us revisit what still puzzles us about it today.
The periodic table organizes the elements of matter based on electron shells. Each row of elements represents an electron shell that ends when it is full with an inert atom like Neon. Neon doesn’t swap electrons with other atoms because its outer shell is full, but other atoms do. In every chemical reaction, from acidity to oxidation, atoms exchange electrons to complete their outer shell. Stable molecules form when atoms with extra electrons donate them to those with a deficit, in chemical bonds that complete their electron shells.
The current description of electron shells is based on two quantum numbers:
1.Shell n (1, 2, 3 …). Initially the orbit radius.
2.Sub-shelll(s, p, d …). Has no agreed meaning.
The shells and sub-shells deduced from spectroscopic analysis are shown in Table 4.7, where the sub-shells s, p, d, f, g, and h contain 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 22 electrons respectively. Bigger shell orbits fit more electrons, so doubling the first orbit quadruples its area to allow eight electrons, tripling it allows eighteen, quadrupling it thirty-two, and so on. Electrons then added to atoms based first on shells, inner before outer, then on available sub-shells, again in order. Hence, the periodic table first row has two elements, and the second row has eight elements, Lithium to Neon, but then there was a problem.
The problem was that the third row of the periodic table is still only eight elements, including the carbon and oxygen we need to live, and the expected eighteen elements only occur in the next row. The initial model predicted periodic table rows of 2, 8, 18, 32, 50, and 72 but instead the rows were 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, and 32. So in the by now well-established practice, theory was fitted to fact by tweaking the model so the sub-shells fill in this odd order:
Note that the third sub-shell 3d is pushed down to row 4, so generations of chemistry students had to learn that Argon completes the third shell without one of its sub-shells. Obviously, this denies what a sub-shell is but if anyone asked why, the answer was because it does! And it does because the model was fitted to the facts.
Now instead of rules based on abstract numbers, let electrons be waves with the properties:
1. Shell. The circumference around the atom nucleus that allows the electron’s lowest wavelength.
2. Sub-shell. The harmonicsthat the shell circumference allows.
3. Direction. The wave direction, where waves at right angles don’t interfere.
In music, a wave harmonic arises when a fundamental wave length lets other waves occur as well, so a fundamental and its harmonics can overlap at the same time. Figure 4.23 shows how a fundamental length can accommodate three additional harmonic levels, where the number at the right is how many harmonic waves occur for each level.
Figure 4.23. Wave harmonics for a length
That sub-shells are wave harmonics then explains the rows of the periodic table as follows:
1. The first shell is the orbit circumference that lets a wave vibrate up and down on alternate cycles (Figure 4.23a). In this model, it is extreme light whose wavelength can’t be reduced, so there is only one harmonic, the 1s sub-shell. But a spherical orbit allows two directions at right angles, so it allows two waves at right angles that don’t interfere. The first shell then has one or two electron waves, so the first periodic table row is Hydrogen and the inert gas Helium.
2. The second shell orbit circumference is double that of the first, and allows two harmonics. The first is again a fundamental that alternates up and down, giving a 2s sub-shell that can hold two electrons. The second harmonic (Figure 4.23b) then allows two more waves at once, which for two directions is four electrons, and the complex harmonics of two-dimensional waves seen on a drum surface allow two more electrons, giving six in total for the 2p sub-shell. The second shell then allows eight electron waves, giving the second row of the periodic table, Lithium to Neon.
3. The third shell orbit circumference is triple that of the first, so it hasa one and a half wave-length compared to the first. This again gives 3s and 3p sub-shells but the third harmonic can’t occur. A bipolar (up-down) wave can vibrate once on a string half its wavelength, and twice on a string of its wavelength, but a string one and a half times that gives nothing further. Adding a half-wavelength adds no new harmonics, so the third shell, like the second, only accommodates eight electrons, giving eight elements in the periodic table third row, so there is no 3d sub-shell.
4. The fourth shell is a two-wavelength circumference that quadruples the first. This allows a new harmonic that accommodates four waves, which for two directions is eight electrons (Figure 4.23c), plus two complex harmonics is ten. The 4s,4p, and 4d sub-shells then give 18 elements in the periodic table fourth row, as observed.
5. The fifth shell, like the third, allows no new harmonic, so its 5s, 5p, and 5d sub-shells repeat the previous total of eighteen, giving the periodic table fifth row, again as observed.
6. The sixth shell allows a fourth f harmonic with six electrons (Figure 4.23d) which doubled is twelve, plus two complex harmonics is fourteen. This plus eighteen from the s, p, and d harmonics gives the thirty-two elements of the sixth periodic table row that include the Lanthanide series.
7. The seventh shell again has no new harmonic so it also has 32 elements, including the periodic table Actinide series.
An electron wave model based on sub-shell harmonics then fills the periodic table as follows:
Note that the third orbit has no 3d sub-shell and the fourth orbit has no 4f sub-shell, so electrons fill shells and their sub-shells in a logical order. Compare this to the strange order implied by quantum numbers (Figure 4.24), where by Klechkowski’s rule, the 3d sub-shell fills after the 4s sub-shell!
The properties of electrons in atoms are then not quantum numbers but:
1. Shell. The first shell circumference is the minimum wavelength of light and larger shells multiply this.
2. Sub-shell. Sub-shells are wave harmonics, where s is the first, p is the second, and so on.
3. Direction. The great circle axis orientation, where orthogonal waves don’t interfere.
Electrons then fill in the order observed in the periodic table, based on:
1. Shell. Each shell is a bigger orbit, which for an electron with mass means more processing and so more energy. Shells then fill in the order 1, 2, 3 … because smaller orbits need less energy.
2. Harmonic. Each sub-shell harmonic is a shorter wavelength for the same orbit, so again needs more energy. Sub-shells then fill in the order s, p, d … because lower harmonics need less energy.
Electron shells with sub-shells based on wave harmonics predict the periodic table without quantum numbers that need to be tweaked, so science can work forwards not backwards.
In 1909, Rutherford describe the atom as a proton-neutron nucleus around which electrons orbited as planets orbit the sun. Yet matter particles doing this would occasionally collide, but electrons never do. An atom of lead that has 82 electrons whizzing around in close proximity is stable for billions of years, so why don’t they collide? And a particle in orbit is accelerating, so it should lose energy and spiral inwards, but again electrons never do this. Are the laws of particles different for electrons in an atom?
The standard model handles this by letting virtual photons shield electrons from the nuclear attraction, but why then do they stay in orbit? It also lets an electron be a particle in space and a wave in an atom, by the miracle of wave-particle duality. A particle isn’t a wave, nor is a wave a particle, but this lets us use different equations for electrons in orbit and in space. Yet how does the electron know to be a particle in one place and a wave in another?
Apparently, electrons know Pauli’s exclusion principle, that they can overlap like waves if they have different quantum numbers. These numbers let electrons co-exist in atomic orbits, but they aren’t based on, or compatible with, any other physical laws. It is a classic case of science operating in reverse, as quantum numbers were invented after the fact.
The electron photon structure proposed earlier paints a different picture. It describes electrons as one-dimensional matter, that is matter-like on one dimension but light-like on the other two, so its matter dimension is why it moves slower than light in space. But on a two-dimensional surface, like the sphere around an atom, it can be like light, entirely wavelike. A particle orbiting a center needs an agent to stop it falling in, but wave can pulse forever on a circumference that is its wavelength, and it can’t spiral in because its wavelength needs that orbit circumference. It follows that if electrons around an atom vibrate at different wavelengths, they will never collide (see 4.6.3 next).
An electron matter-light hybrid can be a particle in space and a wave in an atom without miracles. It then moves slower than light in space but pulsates in atoms at the speed of light.
The first atom, Hydrogen, is one proton and one electron, and the next, Helium, has two protons and two electrons but it also has two neutrons in its nucleus, and no-one knows why. Each higher element has not only another proton and electron, but also one or more neutrons, so:
“… all the stable nuclei have more neutrons than protons (or equal numbers), and the heavier nuclei are increasingly neutron-rich.” (Marburger, 2011), p254.
For some reason, heavier nuclei need more neutrons to be stable (Figure 4.22) but no theory can explain why. The shell model that explains electrons doesn’t work because some nuclei aren’t spherical. The standard model doesn’t help because if gluons hold the protons together, why have neutrons? And how do the gluons know how many neutrons a heavy nucleus needs to stabilize? Current models generally show the nucleus as protons and neutrons sitting side-by-side, like fruits in a bowl, with gluons forcing them together.
In the structure given earlier, protons and neutrons are quarks sharing photons in a closed triangle. This allows the triangles to open up and recombine in longer quark strings if the same rules are satisfied: namely a closed string with the internal angles of an equilateral triangle.
This suggests that a Helium nucleus isn’t proton and neutron particles sitting like fruit in a bowl, but a single quark string that closes back on itself when two protons and neutrons share photons.
In the fruit-bowl model, a Helium nucleus is separate proton and neutron particles held together but, in this model, it is one string of quarks held together by photon sharing. The only rule is that each link bends the string 60º, so quarks must rotate to connect. Higher nuclei then form in the same way.
This then explains why neutrons are needed. Protons can’t come close enough together to share photons because they repel, so neutrons have to act as buffers. When the nuclear quark string forms, neutrons sit between same-charge protons that can’t exist side-by-side, so there are at least as many neutrons as protons, as observed (Figure 4.22). For example, a Helium nucleus of two protons needs two neutron buffers between the protons in the closed string.
Closed quark strings will be compact and nearly spheres, as observed, but large nuclei may need more neutrons to avoid fold-back loci that happen to make protons adjacent. This nuclear evolution also makes some shapes more stable:
“Nuclei with either protons or neutron equal to certain “magic” numbers (2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126) are particularly stable.” (Marburger, 2011), p253.
If atomic nuclei are closed quark strings, they will fold in space to form shapes as proteins do. Those shapes that are symmetric will be more stable, so their nuclei numbers are the magic numbers that we see in symmetric shapes.
This model explains why atomic nuclei need neutrons while the fruit bowl particle model doesn’t.
It was once thought that we were created as we are now, until science discovered that we evolved from animals over millions of years. Likewise, the particle model assumes that matter always was, but we now know that complex atoms came from simpler ones by the process of nucleosynthesis, that continues today in stars and supernovae. The elements of the periodic table (Figure 4.21) wouldn’t exist without it, and neither would we, but while life evolves based on survival, matter evolved based on stability.
