Time doesn’t work for anti-matter as it does for matter (Amjor, Jurkiewicz, & Loll, 2008). Strange as it seems, the Feynman diagram of an electron colliding with an anti-electron shows the latter going backwards in our time (Figure 4.8), yet both the electron and anti-electron are entering the collision not leaving it.
Does this time reversal reverse causality? Minkowski interpreted Einstein’s theory so that objects move in time dimension, to allow a block theory of time, where every event that ever was or will be can be paged like a book (Barbour, 1999). If time is a dimension, an entity going backwards in time reverses causality, but the anti-electron in Figure 4.8 is entering the collision just as the electron is, so there is no causal reversal. Assuming that time is a dimension then doesn’t explain how anti-matter time works.
Einstein argued that every object in the universe has its own clock, so there is no space-time canvas upon which objects exist. In processing terms, time varies because every point in the network runs at its own rate. Time then ticks by for matter as clockwise cycles complete but for anti-matter, time ticks by as anti-clockwise cycles complete. Anti-matter then exists in anti-time as matter exists in time because its processing runs in reverse. It follows that to a matter entity, anti-matter runs time in reverse, but to the anti-matter entity, matter is running time in reverse. Anti-matter exists by anti-processing as matter exists by processing, so both their times pass as processing cycles complete.
Note that time can run in reverse because it is virtual, so Feynman diagrams need two time axes, one for matter and one for anti-matter. Time based on processing has a direction, so every entity in our universe has not only its own clock but also its own clock direction.
If time is virtual, can we reverse it, as the Back button of an Internet browser does? The browser back button can undo your last act, but it can’t undo interactions like online registrations. This would require both parties to undo, and with six degrees of separation, rolling back six events for one person could affect the entire web, so rolling back your time could require the entire network to roll-back!
Neither time nor anti-time can be reversed because a physical event is a reboot that can’t be undone. Anti-matter runs anti-time between physical events, but it can no more undo a physical event than matter can. Time then can’t be reversed, rewound, or fast-forwarded, whether by matter or anti-matter, so time travel is a fantasy.
Matter and anti-matter are equivalent opposites, so the laws of physics would be the same in an anti-matter universe, except anti-matter atoms would have positive electrons. The standard model expected the big bang to produce matter and anti-matter equally, but where then is the anti-matter? Did the big bang produce:
1) No anti-matter, for some unknown reason?
2) Matter and anti-matter equally, but the anti-matter in our universe is hidden?
3) Matter and anti-matter equally, but matter somehow overcame anti-matter?
Physics dismisses the first option by its equations, and the second because no anti-matter meteors, planets, or stars have been seen, so it assumes the big bang made equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but matter then somehow overcame anti-matter to give our universe. That no evidence supports this view is called a mystery of physics:
“The lack of anti-matter is a deep mystery that cannot be explained using the Standard Model.” (Oerter,2006), p101.
Figure 4.7. Rotation in and on space
What then does processing suggest? A clockwise rotation in a space is anti-clockwise from the other side (Figure 4.7a), but a first-up rotation on a surface stays that way however it is viewed (Figure 4.7b). If our universe began with one photon, it had to first vibrate up or down on the surface of space, and either way, its offspring would follow suit.
It follows that our universe filled with matter not anti-matter because the first photon chose to vibrate up then down. Light then evolved into matter only, so the anti-matter the standard model is mystified by never was. The first event of our universe led to matter and from then on, anti-matter was a path not taken. Nothing in our universe will ever explain why it is made of matter not anti-matter because that was decided when it began.
Processing explains mass, charge, and why neutrinos exist, but what about anti-matter? Dirac’s equations predicted anti-matter before it was found, but why do all matter particles have evil twins of the same mass but opposite charge? The standard model just added an anti-matter column to fit the facts, but why matter has an inverse is a mystery, as how can a substance have an anti-substance?
However if matter arises from a process, the same process in reverse can produce antimatter. Processing predicts anti-processing, as a process can run both ways, so matter must allow anti-matter.
So far, we have taken the basic network process to be a clockwise circle, but an anti-clockwise circle would work just as well. For light, a clockwise process means that photons go first up then down on the surface of space, while for an anti-clockwise process they go first down then up. These two photon types, first-up and first-down, aren’t equivalent.
What would a universe based on an anti-clockwise process be like? For an electron, it would produce the same net processing but a positive remainder, so an anti-electron has the same mass as an electron but a positive charge. Anti-processing not only explains anti-electrons, but also why they annihilate any electrons they meet. Anti-matter then is to matter as neutrinos are to electrons, a necessary alternative.
Figure 4.6. Lepton photon structures
Figure 4.6 summarizes the leptons of physics by their photon structure as follows:
1. Matter. First-up extreme photons collide to give either an:
i. Electron (Figure 4.6a) First-up heads collide to give mass and a negative charge remainder.
ii. Neutrino (Figure 4.6b)First-up heads mostly cancel first-down tails to give a tiny mass but no charge remainder.
2. Anti-matter. First-down extreme photons collide to give either an:
i. Anti-electron (Figure 4.6c)First-down heads collide to give mass and a positive charge remainder.
ii. Anti-neutrino (Figure 4.6d) First-down heads mostly cancel first-down tails to give a tiny mass but no charge.
All the leptons of physics then have the structure of a one-dimensional photon collision.
Processing explains electrons but what about their little brother, the neutrino? Our world needs electrons, as without them there is no chemistry, and so no life, but it also has vast numbers of a little nothing that until recently, we didn’t even know existed. The sun floods the earth with them every day but they mostly pass through it, like ghosts, so why did nature make so many of them?
The standard model expected neutrinos to have no mass at all, because they have no charge, but their tiny mass was how we detected them in the first place. When asked why neutrinos have no charge but a tiny mass, the current answer is that they just do, but we knew that already.
Figure 4.5. A neutrino channel overload
However processing allows another possibility, as if electrons arise when light collides in-phase, it can also collide out-of-phase. The result is that two points overload and one successfully reboots (Figure 4.3). Again, all the channels of an axis overload, but while heads meeting heads gives an electron bump, heads meeting tails gives the little nothing we call a neutrino. The neutrino is then the other option of an electron, not a useless building block.
Why then isn’t a neutrino’s mass exactly zero, as its charge is? If the quantum network was perfectly synchronous it would be, but that isn’t so (see 2.4.4). The photons in Figure 4.5 are slightly out of synch, so the heads and tails don’t exactly cancel but the remainder still does, giving a tiny mass but no charge.
For different neutrinos the asynchrony varies, so their mass also varies despite the zero charge. If an electron is a bump on space, a neutrino is a smudge, whose tiny mass comes from the asynchrony of the quantum network.
Table 4.2 below shows the processing that creates electrons and neutrinos with the properties of:
1. Stability. When the total processing fills the axis bandwidth, the entity produced is stable.
2. Mass. The net processing after opposite displacements cancel defines its mass.
3. Charge. The net remainder after opposite displacements cancel defines its charge.
Note that a tail-tail meet isn’t possible because it implies a prior head-head meet.
In summary, extreme light can overload one axis of a point of space to give a constant standing wave, which is an electron or neutrino, depending on phase. They are then brother leptons because both are one-dimensional matter, though to us, one is something and the other almost nothing.
In current physics, charge is what causes electrical effects and electrical effects are those caused by charge, a circular definition that doesn’t tell us much. Charge is just accepted, as mass is, so no attempt is made to explain why it exists, but reverse engineering bases everything on processing.
Figure 4.3. An electron channel reboot
In Figure 4.3, extreme photons collide at a point to give an electron whose mass is the net processing that repeats, so there will be negative processing that never runs, as shown by the dotted lines. A network must keep its processing books in order, so it is reasonable that the charge of an electron is its constant processing deficit. If mass is the net processing that repeats, and charge is the processing left over, the charge of an electron will be negative, as it is. This definition fits the properties of charge, as a processing remainder can:
1. Be positive or negative, as charge is.
2. Cancel its opposite, as opposite charges do.
3. Have a constant value, as an electron’s charge is.
An electron’s mass is the net result of processing that runs before a network point overloads and charge is the remainder that doesn’t run. If then all mass and charge come from how matter was made, charge is a necessary byproduct of mass, so they relate in a way that the standard model doesn’t predict.
In the standard model, an electron exists at a point that occupies no space, but how can it then have mass? A particle’s mass should come from its substance, but a particle with no size can’t have a substance, so the idea that electron particles have mass but no size seems seriously flawed. But if an electron is processing in some form, as light was in the last chapter, it can exist at a network point that, like a screen pixel, occupies a space but can’t be divided.
Our networks transfer data by communication channels, where each channel handles different data just as different TV channels present different shows. If the quantum network is the same, when light passes through a point in space, one photon is handled by one channel, and another photon polarization is another channel, so there are many channels per point. And as our channels are mostly duplex (they work in both directions), we expect the same here. Finally, every channel has a finite bandwidth, which in this model is the quantum process defined earlier (3.3.1). Based on this logic, each channel of a point of space can:
1. Accept one photon with one polarization coming from one direction.
2. And at the same time accept a photon with the same polarization from the opposite direction.
3. Up to a bandwidth of one quantum process per cycle.
One channel is then represented by a line through a point, plus a plane cutting it to represent the polarization it accepts. Hence, if two photons with the same polarization enter a point from opposite directions, one channel can handle both, up to its bandwidth of one quantum process. Since each photon is a quantum process spread over many points, light rays in general don’t collide, as is observed, but this approach suggests an exception.
One photon is one quantum process distributed over its wavelength, and the channel bandwidth is also a quantum process, so photons don’t usually overload it, but if high frequency photons that divide over two points meet, the channel will overload. Note that this wavelength, of two Planck lengths, is the shortest possible, because one process at one point is empty space. Now let an extreme photon be one that is distributed over two network points. Each point runs half a quantum process, so two extreme photons meeting head-on in a channel will overload it’s one process bandwidth, so instead passing through each other, they will collide in a physical event.
Figure 4.2. Extreme light rays meet head-on on an axis
Yet a photon spins on its movement axis, so it can just restart in another channel, but what if every channel overloads? If rays of light with extreme photons in every polarization plane meet head-on at a point, every channel on the axis will overload at the same time (Figure 4.2). There are no free channels for the photons to carry on, so they must restart at that point. This result is unlikely, but extreme light was common in the first plasma, so by the law of all action 3.6.3), it had to occur because it is possible.
Figure 4.3. An electron channel overload
Figure 4.3 shows the result for one channel, with every channel the same. Now if a photon head is its leading half, and its tail is the following half, two heads meeting that each request half a quantum process will overload the channel bandwidth of one. These photons then restart in the next cycle, to set off in opposite directions, but again collide in another overload that restarts them again, and so on. This recurring overload repeats every cycle because every channel is the same. The network that once hosted only waves now has a constant processing bump, which is an electron.
The result is stable, because any photon arriving on that axis finds all the channels taken, while a photon arriving at right angles passes through it by a different channel. An electron is then a repeating overload, like a stuck record that keeps repeating the same song, and its mass is the net processing that repeats.
Figure 4.4. A standing wave on water
Is such a repetition possible for quantum waves? In experiments, electro-magnetic waves can repeatedly interact to form static states (Audretch, 2004, p23), as frequent observations maintain the quantum state if the time delay is short (Itao, Heizen, Bollinger, & Wineand, 1990). Feynman’s PhD partitioned the electron wave equation into opposing advanced and retarded waves, but he didn’t pursue it. Other theories that let waves oppose include Wheeler–Feynman’s absorber theory, where retarded and advanced waves give rise to charge (Wheeler & Feynman, 1945), Cramer’s transaction theory of retarded and advanced waves (Cramer, 1986), and Wolff‘s idea that electrons are in-out spherical waves (Wolff, 2001). If quantum waves form standing waves as other waves do (Figure 4.4), an electron could be a standing wave created by extreme light.
This conclusion contradicts the standard model in several ways. Instead of a particle of matter with no size, which makes no sense, an electron now runs at a network point that has a size, just as a screen pixel does. Instead of having no structure, an electron is now a one-axis collision. Instead of matter being an inert substance, it is now light pulsing constantly in a never-ending loop. Matter is then light stuck at a point, in a standing wave of light that seems static but is actually active. However as this result only applies to one axis, an electron is just one-dimensional matter.
When a computer process hangs in an infinite loop that a restart can’t fix, we call it a glitch, but for the quantum network, the matter glitch was an evolution not an error.
If our universe began as a cauldron of massless high energy light, how did matter arise? Electrons and neutrinos are the smallest matter entities, so they are the most likely candidates for the first matter.
The standard model of physics took over a century to build and summarizes:
“… in a remarkably compact form, almost everything we know about the fundamental laws of physics.” (Wilczek, 2008), p164.
It is currently considered by physicists to be:
“…truly the crowning scientific accomplishment of the twentieth century.” (Oerter, 2006), p75.
In the standard model, everything is particles that are either made of matter (Fermions) or carry a force (Bosons) (Table 4.1). For example, electrons and quarks are made of matter so they collide with each other, but light is made of bosons that don’t collide. Electrons and quarks should then cause all the mass of an atom, but as will be seen, they don’t.
Matter particles can be like electrons and neutrinos or like up or down quarks, where both also have higher generations for some unknown reason. Up and down quarks then form protons and neutrons that with electrons make the atoms of ordinary matter. Apart from neutrinos that whizz around for no reason, and anti-matter that wasn’t expected, it all seems fairly tidy, but as Woit notes:
“By 1973, physicists had in place what was to become a fantastically successful theory … that was soon to acquire the name of the ‘standard model’. Since that time, the overwhelming triumph of the standard model has been matched by a similarly overwhelming failure to find any way to make further progress on fundamental questions.” (Woit, 2007), p1.
For example, some key questions that the standard model doesn’t answer include:
Why don’t protons decay as neutrons do?
Why is our universe made of matter not anti-matter?
Why do neutrinos have a tiny but variable mass?
Why do leptons and quarks have three particle generations then no more?
Why do electrons half spin?
Why don’t particle masses add like charges do?
Why do neutrinos always have left-handed spin?
Why do quarks have one-third charges?
Why does the force binding quarks increase as they move apart?
What is the dark matter and dark energy that constitute most of our universe?
It isn’t just that these questions are unanswered, but that over fifty years has seen no progress at all in answering them. The great hopes of string theory and super-symmetry led nowhere, so will the next fifty years be the same? The model now proposed explains not only what the standard model does, but also what it doesn’t, as listed above.
In current physics, matter is fundamental, so it should break down into particles, and it seemed to. Electrons and quarks are examples, and even photons with no mass or charge are said to be particles. This method, of breaking apart matter to find out what it is made of, began with the atom.
Initially, atoms were thought to be indivisible, like little billiard balls, but when Lord Rutherford fired alpha particles at a piece of gold foil, they mostly went straight through and only a few bounced back. It turned out that 99.9999…% of the mass of the atom is in its nucleus, and the rest is just a cloud of tiny electrons whizzing about.
Bohr then suggested that the atom is like a solar system, but held together by electrical forces not gravity. Yet electrons routinely pass right through each other which planets don’t, and two electrons can occupy the same orbit which planets can’t, and planet orbits are elliptical but electron orbits are perfect spheres, so the atom isn’t like a tiny solar system! The modern view, called the standard model, summarizes what physicists currently know about atoms and matter.
“That everything came from matter is just a theory, and scientists who don’t question their theories are priests” (Whitworth, 2025)Download Whole Chapter
The previous chapters explained space, time, and light in network terms as follows:
1. Space. Space is a null process running on the network, so it is something that outputs nothing in our terms.
2. Time. Time is processing cycles completed, so if the network slows down, time can dilate as Einstein says.
3. Light. Light is the same process as space, but spread over many network points to give the entire electro-magnetic spectrum. It is passed on every cycle, so nothing goes faster than it.
Figure 4.1. If a photon is space stretched out, what is matter?
Space then is null processing not nothing, time is cycles completed not a dimension, and light is space distributed on a network that passes it on, but if this approach (Figure 4.1) doesn’t also explain matter, it fails as a model of the physical world. The last chapter concluded that the big bang exploded to create light not matter, but what actually is matter?
