Electrons, quarks and neutrinos have family generations, each like the last but heavier, so 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 have heavier charm and strange quarks and very heavy top and bottom quarks but again after three generations, no more. The standard model describes family generations but doesn’t explain:
1. Why do family generations occur?
2. Why only three generations then no more?
3. Why are higher generations so heavy?
Figure 4.25. Electron generations as dimension repeats
If an electron fills the channels of one axis, a muon could do the same on two axes and a taon on three (Figure 4.25). All are still point entities and no more generations occur because space only has three dimensions. Each is heavier than the last because more overlapping channels increase photon interference to increase the processing that is mass. Taons are so heavy because interference cumulates, just as one traffic delay can cause another.
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 remainders occupy orthogonal quantum dimensions. A quantum processing model suggest that the three family generations reflect the three dimensions of space.
One can’t dimensionally repeat a quark structure three times, so quark generations aren’t simple duplicates but the tail-tail-head planar triangle of an up quark can 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 then fill a node with two up and down quark planes at right angles, with again more mass by interference. The mysterious generations of matter could arise from the dimensions of space and their large masses from quantum processing interference.
In the standard model, matter arose like Venus from the sea, complete and perfect with positive and negative charge an optional accessory. Our galaxy is charge neutral so physics supposes the universe as a whole is the same, but how did that happen? If charge is an inherent property arbitrarily allotted, why did its creation dole out equal amounts of it? The current answer, that the universe is charge neutral because it was made “just so”, is unsatisfactory.
Quantum events repeat at a fantastic rate so anything not 100% stable re-configures sooner or later. Every option is tried until one “sticks” and is stable. Electrons, neutrinos and quarks survived the initial chaos and the first atom arose because a proton and an electron survive better together than apart. Every periodic table atom has equal protons and electrons for the same reason, that they survive better together than apart.
It follows that the universe is charge neutral because matter survived as atoms that are charge-neutral, so the universe is charge neutral by evolution, not because some designer allocated charge that way.
A proton’s charge is one, the simple sum of its constituent quark charges, but its mass is a hundred times that of three quark masses. Quark charges add when they combine but their masses somehow multiply. Current physics attributes the extra mass to the gluons that bind quarks but can’t say how massless gluons make mass or why gluons don’t increase charge as well? The standard model describes particles with hugely varying masses but can offer no reason at all for the variation:
“… 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.” (Peroe, 2010) p153.
The mass problem is that the masses of elementary particle vary enormously for no apparent reason.
If charge is left-over processing, its limit is one quantum process per channel so charges can’t exceed the standard plus or minus one. Why then isn’t the total processing done, or mass, limited in the same way? The answer now suggested is that the processing done can interfere.
Interference in networks occurs when two processes seek the same resource at the same time. They interfere, just as two cars coming to an intersection at the same time can’t both enter the same space. Studies show that traffic flow slows down when traffic merges at motorway on-ramps because the cars have to negotiate who goes first. And the run-on effects of such slow-downs can cause traffic jams that extend for miles, so interference effects aren’t linear.
The same thing happens on a computer network as when processing interferes it must stop and try again, just as cars at an uncontrolled intersection must stop to agree who goes first. This wastes processing time so interference slows down computer networks just as it slows down traffic networks and again the effect isn’t linear as one clash can cause another. When computer networks tried central controls like the traffic lights on road networks, it was found to be inefficient. A better solution was protocols like Ethernet that lets processes access network resource when they want to but if a collision is detected, both stop and retry after a random time interval (to avoid repeat collisions). Computer networks under load slow down for the same reason that traffic networks slow down at rush hour, because parties can’t access the same resources at the same time.
The quantum network is essentially a first-come-first-served system with no central control, where interference occurs when photons compete for the same channels so some have to try again elsewhere. This wastes processing and, in this model, the total processing required is mass.
The mass increase can be estimated by the number of channel overlaps in the photon structure, as photons compete for channels. For example, an electron has two photon streams intersecting but a quark has three photon streams intersecting so a quark has more overlapping channels, more interference and hence more mass than an electron. Each quantum cycle, every photon has to find a channel and every time two or more photons try to access the same channel there is interference that uses up processing, so quarks end up with about ten times the mass of an electron. Quarks in a proton have even more overlap and thus more interference giving more mass. Mass as total processing done explains the “creation of mass” without recourse to magical gluons.
Interference even suggests why down quarks are heavier than up quarks. If an up quark is two photon tail sets colliding with a set of photon heads (Table 4.3), the tails fill channels first, leaving one set of heads to fight over the remaining channels. In a down quark, one tail set gets first access, leaving the two sets of photon heads to fight over the rest, giving more interference and so slightly more mass.
If we could simulate how photons fill channels in quarks and electrons, the time taken up by interference would reflect the extra mass created. In Table 4.1, the masses of leptons, quarks and neutrinos aren’t fixed like charge but vary over a range of values. The standard model assumes that quarks come in different sizes with different masses but in this model, every quark is exactly the same but its mass varies for the same reason that every day’s traffic jam delay is different. A quantum processing model explains why the mass of elementary particles varies enormously but their charges don’t.
If the laws of physics varied with position, each new location would need new rules. In our world, changing direction changes the values but not the equations and this spatial symmetry is basic to physics itself. Yet neutrinos violate this principle because they always spin left-handed, an asymmetry that is reflected neither in the world we see nor the laws that describe it. As Pauli said:
“I cannot believe God is a weak left hander” (Lederma & Teresi, 2012) (p. 256)
What is spin-handedness? If you point your left thumb forward, the fingers of your hand curl in a left-handed spin and if you point your right thumb forward, the fingers curl in a right-handed spin. If your hands only move forward the spin stays the same but move one hand backwards and they both have the same spin, as reversing direction reverses the spin. Reversing an electron’s direction should create a mirror image of it that spins the other way by spatial symmetry and electrons do indeed spin both ways. In contrast all neutrinos are left-handed and all anti-neutrinos are right-handed (Figure 4.24). While electrons spin either way, a neutrino reversing direction still spins left and an anti-neutrino reversing direction still spins right. The standard model can’t explain why neutrinos spin the same way when they reverse direction or why changing a neutrino’s spin makes it an anti-neutrino. That the mirror image of a neutrino isn’t a neutrino contradicts spatial symmetry.
The photon structure derived earlier for a neutrino suggests an answer. When the first photon moved up or down on space to make matter or anti-matter, it also had to spin left or right and apparently it went left. The electron’s entangled photon set both spin left so their opposite directions let it have both left and right spin at once. In a physical event, an electron can spin either way and changing direction reverses both spins so it still spins either way, randomly.
One might expect the same for neutrinos but while the electron’s mass comes from both photon sets colliding, neutrino mass comes from only one of the photon sets. A neutrino reversing direction changes phase so what create its mass is now the other set of photons, which also spin left. When electrons reverse direction their mass origin doesn’t change but when neutrinos change direction the other set of left spinning photons create the mass. Neutrinos always spin left because when they reverse direction the source of their tiny mass changes.
Since a neutrino processing in reverse is an anti-neutrino, they always have right-handed spin for the same reason that neutrinos always spin left. The mirror image of a particle should be the same particle but the mirror image of a neutrino’s processing is not the same by the asymmetry that created our matter universe. A quantum processing model explains why neutrinos always spin left and anti-neutrinos always spin right.
In quantum mechanics, all elementary entities spin but matter only half-spins. To us, spinning an object 360 degrees in space returns its original state but spinning an electron 360 degrees only half-turns it — it takes 720 degrees of turning to return an electron to its original state! As this applies to all matter, quantum matter entities are said to have a spin of half. Yet again, the quantum world does what the physical world can’t.
Even worse, current physics can’t explain spin in general, let alone half spin, because an electron is a dimensionless point that can’t physically spin, so 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
In contrast, if a photon is a quantum wave that vibrates into an unseen dimension outside space, it has a structure that can really spin (Note 1). In quantum realism, a photon is a two-dimensional structure in quantum space that, like an ideal sheet of paper, is invisible when viewed edge-on.
That our three-dimensional space exists with a four-dimensional quantum space adds three new quantum directions to every point, all at right angles to each other as well as our space (Note 2). The result is that photon structures that are polarized at right angles occupy different spaces that don’t overlap. This explains why horizontal filters stop horizontally polarized light but not vertically polarized light (see 3.7.2).
If an electron is photon structures filling the channels of an axis, only half of them will be visible for any line of view, as the others, like our ideal paper sheets, will be invisible because they are being viewed edge on. If one photon is 100% visible, another at right angles will be 0%, for one that projects 99% there is another that projects only 1%, and so on. If only half an electron’s photons register with us, we can only measure half its spin and so say it half spins.
Quantum space explains why it takes two 360 degrees turn to return an electron to its original state. This is impossible in three dimensions but an electron in four dimensions has two planes to turn into not one. A 360 turn in one dimension only turns half its photons and so another turn is needed to turn the other half. The quantum spin of matter is one half because we are Flatlanders in four-dimensional quantum space.
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 looked around to see an earth of mainly matter but astronomers looking at the cosmos today see mainly space and light with earth-like matter only about 4% of all the mass of the universe. In cosmic terms, the universe is firstly full of space, then light, with matter a distant third in the scheme of things.
Quantum realism agrees, as if space is a null process and light is a processing wave, they use far more quantum processing than matter does. That matter came after space and light is why this book addresses space, light and matter in that order. Seeing matter as the third product of the universe, not the first, allows us to revisit matter mysteries that still puzzle physics today.
Every periodic table element has a different number of electrons organized in shells. The number of electrons in a shell is the number of elements in a row of the periodic table and each row ends in an inert element like Neon. Neon doesn’t interact with other elements because all its electron shells are full so it doesn’t exchange electrons. In contrast, non-inert elements do exchange electrons in chemical reactions. Every chemical reaction, from acidity to oxidation, is atoms exchanging electrons to complete their outer shells in the now familiar search for stability. Stable molecules form when atoms with extra electrons donate them to those with deficits in chemical bonds that complete their electron shells.
The current electron shell description 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 were deduced from spectroscopic data analysis as shown in Table 4.7, where sub-shells called s, p, d, f, g and h contain 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 22 electrons. The logic was that the shell orbit could fit more electrons as it increased, so doubling the first two electron orbit quadrupled the area to allow eight electrons, tripling it allowed eighteen, quadrupling it thirty-two, and so on. sub-shells. Electrons then filled shells and sub-shells according to quantum numbers, so the inner orbits with fewer electrons filled before outer orbits. Hence the first row of the periodic table has the two elements Hydrogen and Helium, the second row has the eight elements Lithium to Neon, and so on as the periodic table grew.
This worked nicely except the third row 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:
The “logic” here is that it works if the third shell “fills” with an empty sub-shell, so generations of chemistry students have had to learn that Argon completes its third shell without the 3d sub-shell, even though that denies what a sub-shell means. If they asked why, the answer was because it does!
Instead of using abstract quantum numbers, that electrons actually exist as quantum waves predicts these properties:
1. Shell. Shell circumference around the atom nucleus that fits the electron’s lowest wavelength.
2. Sub-shell. The harmonicsthat the shell circumference allows.
3. Direction. The electron wave direction, where quantum waves at right angles don’t interfere.
The electron wavelength arises from its photon structure. If an electron is extreme photons entangled in a collision on one axis, they will also restart on other axes as extreme photons that vibrate up one cycle and down the next. The minimum shell circumference will be half this wavelength and this fundamental harmonic is the s sub-shell.
The next shell will have a circumference double that of the first shell, to allow not only a bigger fundamental but also a second harmonic that is twice the frequency. This second harmonic is the d sub-shell.
Figure 4.23. Wave harmonics for a length
Figure 4.23 shows how larger shell circumferences can have more harmonics where the number of waves that concurrently occupy each length is given in the right-hand column. The periodic table can now be explained using electron waves as follows:
1. The first shell has a half wavelength circumference that lets a bipolar wave vibrate up and down on alternate cycles (Figure 4.23a). The first harmonic of the first shell is the 1s sub-shell. This shell can accommodate two waves at right angles because a sphere has two directions at right angles to allow two electron waves, so the first shell completes with two electrons to give the first row of the periodic table, which is Hydrogen plus the inert gas Helium.
2. The second shell has a one wavelength circumference, which is double that of the first. The first harmonic for this circumference again alternates up and down giving a 2s sub-shell with two electrons. The second harmonic (Figure 4.23b) can accommodate two electron waves at the same time which for two directions is four electrons. The complex harmonics of two-dimensional waves, such as appear on a drum surface, allow two more electrons, giving six in total for the 2p sub-shell. The second shell thus allows eight electrons, giving the second row of the periodic table, Lithium to Neon.
3. The third shell hasa one and a half wavelength compared to the first, as it triples the first circumference. This again gives 3s and 3p sub-shells but the next 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 on a string one and a half times that, the result self-destructs. Adding another half-wavelength adds no new harmonics so the third shell, like the second, allows only eight electrons giving eight elements in the periodic table third row. An electron wave model has no 3d sub-shell.
4. The fourth shell hasa two-wavelength circumference, which quadruples the first. Four times the first radius allows a new harmonic that accommodates four electrons per circumference which for two directions is eight (Figure 4.23c), plus two complex harmonics is ten. The 4s,4p and 4d sub-shells 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 then fills the periodic table as follows:
1.1sHydrogen-Helium (2 elements)
2.2s, 2pLithium-Neon (8 elements)
3.3s, 3pSodium-Argon (8 elements)
4. 4s, 4p, 4dPotassium-Krypton (18 elements)
5.5s, 5p, 5dRubidium-Xenon (18 elements)
6.6s, 6p, 6d, 6fCesium-Radon (32 elements)
7.7s, 7p, 7d, 7fFrancium-? (32 elements)
Electrons now fill shells and sub-shells in strict order, with no strange jumping between them, based on:
1. Shell. The first shell circumference is half the wavelength of the highest frequency of light, i.e. a Planck length. The larger shells are multiples of this (1, 2, 3, 4, …).
2. Sub-shell harmonic. Where s is the first harmonic, p is the second harmonic, and so on.
3. Direction. The great circle axis orientation, where opposite waves don’t interact.
Electrons fill in the order they do based on:
1. Shell order. Each shell is a greater circumference. If an electron were pure light a longer wavelength would be less energy but it has a mass dimension so larger orbits require more processing and more energy. Shells then fill in the order 1, 2, 3 etc. because smaller orbits need less processing.
2. Harmonic order. Each sub-shell harmonic is a shorter wavelength for the same orbit circumference, so it involves more energy. Sub-shells fill in the order s, p, d etc. because lower harmonics need less processing
An electron wave model explains the rows of the periodic table as causedby the harmonics that a shell circumference can accommodate, so electrons fill the shells with no tweaks needed. In quantum realism, electrons in atoms are quantum waves described by wave harmonics not abstract quantum numbers.
Over a hundred years ago, Rutherford’s model of the atom saw the atom as a nucleus of protons and neutrons around which electrons orbited, much as the planets orbit the sun. Then it was realized that if electron particles really did orbit atomic nuclei as planets orbit the sun, they would occasionally collide, but they never do. An atom of lead has 82 electrons whizzing around in close proximity but is stable for billions of years, so why do all those particles never meet? 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 physics different for electrons in an atom?
Current physics handles this by saying a cloud of virtual photons shield electrons from the nuclear attraction and other electrons. In addition, while an electron is a particle in space, it can be a wave in an atom by the miracle of wave-particle duality. Everyone knows that a particle isn’t a wave nor is a wave a particle but this miracle lets physics choose one set of equations for electrons in orbit and another for electrons in space, but how does the electron know to be a particle in one place and a wave in another?
Apparently, electrons know Pauli’s exclusion rule that they can overlap like waves if they have different quantum numbers. The shell model lets electrons co-exist in “orbits” by quantum numbers that aren’t based on or compatible with any other physical laws. It is a classic case of backward logic, as quantum numbers were made up after the fact.
In quantum realism, an electron is one-dimensional matter so it is matter-like on one dimension but light-like on the other two, and its matter dimension is why it moves slower than light in space. In contrast, on a two-dimensional surface around an atom, it can be entirely light, i.e. entirely wavelike. A particle circling a center needs an agent to stop it falling in but wave can pulse forever on a circumference that matches its wavelength and it can’t spiral in because its wavelength has a minimum orbit circumference. It follows that if different electrons around an atom vibrate at different wavelengths and harmonics, they will never “collide” (see next section).
Electrons as matter-light hybrids lets an electron be a particle in space and a wave in an atom. It predicts that electrons move slower than light in three-dimensional space but pulsate in atoms at the speed of light.
In the periodic table, a Hydrogen nucleus has one proton surrounded by one electron. A Helium nucleus has two protons and two electrons and it also has two neutrons but no-one knows why. Each higher element has not only one more 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 how neutrons keep the nucleus stable. 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 are needed to stabilize a heavy nucleus? Current nuclear models generally represent the nucleus as proton and neutrons sitting side-by-side with gluons forcing the protons together, like fruits in a bowl.
The quark structure given earlier describes protons and neutrons as quarks sharing photons in a closed triangle string. This allows such triangles to open up and recombine in longer quark strings if the same rules are satisfied: namely a closed string shape with the internal angles of an equilateral triangle.
This suggests that a Helium nucleus isn’t proton and neutron particles sitting separately together like fruit in a bowl but a single quark string that closes back on itself made from the quarks of two protons and two neutrons sharing photons.
The fruit-bowl model sees a Helium nucleus as separate proton and neutron particles just sitting together but a quark string model sees the Helium nucleus as a single string held together as protons and neutrons are, by photon sharing. The only restriction is that each link must bend the string 60º which requires quarks to rotate to make a connection. Higher nuclei then also form in the same way.
The quark string model explains why neutrons are needed. As photon sharing needs direct proximity, a proton can’t come that close to another proton because they repel, so neutrons are needed as buffers. When the quark string nucleus forms, neutrons are needed in between same-charge protons that can’t exist side-by-side. This requires at least as many neutrons as protons, as observed, so a Helium nucleus of two protons needs two neutrons to act as buffers between the protons in the closed string.
Closed quark strings will be compact and nearly spheres, as observed, but larger nuclei may need more neutrons to avoid fold-back loci that happen to make protons adjacent. In this nuclear evolution certain shapes will be 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, those with a magic number of nucleons are more stable because they form the symmetric shapes that gave rise to magic numbers in the first place.
A quark string model explains the properties of atomic nuclei and why they need neutrons. In quantum realism, atomic nuclei are not bundles of protons and neutrons but are single closed quark strings that fold in space as proteins do.
People once thought we were created as we are now by God, 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 from came from simpler ones by a process called nucleosynthesis that continues today in stars and supernovae. The periodic table of elements (Figure 4.21) would not exist without it and neither would we, but while the evolution of life is about survival, the evolution of matter is about stability.
