SIMPLIFYING PARTICLE PHYSICS

Joel Sheinmel
September 2022

ABSTRACT

Today’s particle physics is a subject expressed through advanced mathematical equations. For
the most part, the reality behind these equations is ignored. Instead, particle physics falls into the
category of instrumentalism, whereby the reality is of secondary importance to the predictability
of these equations. Unquestionably, present equations of quantum mechanics and quantum field
theory have proven themselves invaluable in making accurate predictions. But this comes at a
price of missing out on a complete understanding of what is going on behind the curtain of these
equations. The question becomes can we understand what’s behind the curtain? This short
paper answers in the affirmative. It demonstrates how, with a new perspective, a view behind
the curtain becomes possible resulting in simplifying particle physics.

1.1 A NEW ENERGY EQUATION

It is possible to write a particle energy equation in a form where, when the relationships between
the terms of the equation are understood, a clearer understanding of a particle can be obtained.
This new equation will not interfere with any of the equations of QM or QFT. It will, however,
show them in a new light leading to a clearer understanding or particles. The new particle
energy equation takes the form:

E = rsf

In this equation r is the particle’s momentum, s, a displacement that will be defined below, and,
f, the frequency associated with the displacement. All the terms, energy, momentum,
displacement, and frequency are quantized. The equation can also be used for radiation, but in
the case of radiation the displacement term, s, becomes the wavelength of radiation and the
frequency of displacement become the frequency of radiation. For now we will avoid the
equation’s applicability to radiation and concentrate only how it can be used for a particle. The
link to radiation will be covered later in the paper.

Since the product of a displacement and a frequency of displacement equals velocity, the
equation could be written in the form, E = pv, where v is velocity. However, this form provides
us with much less information. An understanding of the new equation is contained in the
relationships between its terms. The product rs (momentum and displacement) in the new
equation always equals Planck’s constant h. When s is taken as the particle’s wavelength, this
becomes consistent with de Broglie’s relationship. However, s is not only the particle’s
wavelength, but equals the size of a loop of curved space. The loop can be circular, or take on
other elliptical forms. The product sf, as previously stated represents a velocity. It is the
velocity we associate with the loop of curved space. This velocity divided by the loop, s,
represents the frequency of the curved space, and becomes a measure of spatial geometry in the
same way acceleration is a measure of gravitational geometry.
If the loop of curved space spins around its diameter it will form an orbital. For the simplest case
of the hydrogen electron, these orbitals match the orbitals predicted by solutions to Schrödinger’s
equation for the hydrogen electron.

By defining the term, s, as a loop of curved space as a spatial geometry, the new energy equation
becomes the energy of a field, and a particle represents a concentrated field. This is not far
removed from QFT, where the electron has been defined as a vibration in an electric field. One
advantage of a field model of a particle, linked to loops of curved space, is an ability to generate
an electric field. In demonstrating how an electric field can be generated, by a loop of curved
space, the author will speculate a little.

If the loop, s, is a magnetic loop, then when it spins around its diameter it will generate an
electric field at the surface of the orbital it creates in accordance with Maxwell, whereby a
changing magnetic field generates an electric field. The sign of the charge will depend on the
magnetic loop’s field direction. We will say that a clockwise magnetic loop direction generates a
negative charge, and a counter-clockwise magnetic loop generates a positive charge.

If all of this sounds a little too much to swallow for the reader, it is merely a re-instatement of a
popular adage in physics that there are no privileged frames of motion in the universe. We exist
in a very open geometry, the geometry of our gravitational field. There are other geometries in
the universe, and particles by this model are merely tight geometries existing in the universe.
This accords with Einstein goal to prove particles were concentrated geometries. But Einstein
had a problem to achieving his goal that we will discuss at the end of this paper.

Solutions to Schrödinger’s equation show which orbitals are allowed. Schrödinger believed his
orbitals were the electron, and in this the author agrees. However, the details associated with
Schrödinger’s interpretation had a couple problems. First, he felt his orbitals were pulsing
clouds of charge which proved to be unstable. Secondly, he felt he needed these pulsing clouds
of charge to pulse at more than one rate simultaneously to generate radiation. Schrödinger
missed that his orbitals came with a frequency defined in all cases by the f term in the new
energy equation. This frequency is linked to the spatial loop that generates the orbital. The
frequency value changes when the loop, that generates the orbital, changes size as demonstrated
in the next paragraph.

Schrödinger orbitals in this model change size at the speed of light. The velocity (sf) of the loop
of curved space, that gives rise to the orbitals, does not change during excitation from one loop
size to another. When this loop velocity, for a particular ground state electron is held constant,
then the radiation resulting from any energy shift will always equal the change in frequency from
one loop frequency to another divided by 2. This not only works for the hydrogen electron,
whose spatial loop velocity is equal to c/137, but can also be shown to work for every energy
shift of the helium+1 ion electron. In the case of the helium ion electron, the velocity associated
with the helium ion electron’s loop is twice the velocity of the hydrogen electron’s loop velocity.
Therefore, the helium ion electron loop velocity assumes a value of c/68.5.

The reader might recall that Heisenberg distaste for Bohr’s orbits, which led Heisenberg to
dismiss orbits in his model, was based on Bohr not being able to link orbit frequencies to
radiation frequency. In this model, spatial loop frequency changes are linked to radiation
frequency in a deterministic manner.

As a side note, this also explains the fine structure constant associated with hydrogen, since the
loop velocity is constant at c/137 for the hydrogen electron in all its energy states. The fine
structure associated with the helium ion would not be c/137, but rather c/68.5. Every atomic
electron has its own fine structure based on its ground state spatial loop velocity.

Before discussing how protons and neutrons can be defined in the new energy equation,
something further needs to be said about the electron. We mentioned that the hydrogen electron
has a loop velocity of c/137, and the helium ion electron has a loop velocity is c/68.5. Recall in
the new equation that the product of the electron’s momentum and loop size is a constant equal
to Planck’s constant. Because the helium ion loop velocity is twice that of the hydrogen
electron’s loop velocity, the helium ion’s electron momentum will be twice as large as the
hydrogen electron’s momentum. However, because the product rs is constant, the loop size of
the helium ion electron is half that of the hydrogen electron loop size. Since the helium ion
electron has twice the loop velocity, and half the loop size of the hydrogen electron, the
frequency associated with the helium ion electron, in its ground state, will be four times as large
as the hydrogens electron’s frequency in its ground state. As a result, the helium ion ground
state electron’s energy will be 4 times larger than the hydrogen electron’s ground state energy.
All energy shifts of the helium ion electron will result in 4 times as much radiation energy as
comparable shifts of the hydrogen electron. This matches the data in the literature.

If one equates energy to a matter equivalent, the helium ion ground state electron has a matter
equivalent four times the matter equivalent of the ground state hydrogen electron. For the reader
who has been able to follow this presentation, this obviously presents a problem for the
contemporary particle model, whereby all electrons in atoms are given the same matter
equivalent. The reader might note that the author is not using the term mass. Mass is not
included in the new energy equation. In the model of this paper, a point particle electron, or
corpuscular electron, does not exist. The new energy equation represents the rest energy of the
electron, and the rest energy of the helium ion electron is four times the rest energy of the
hydrogen electron. Can the author’s model be validated?

Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, verified in tens of thousands of instances, is predicted to

not be 100 percent universal. It gives the correct energies in the nucleus for nucleons (to be
discussed below), and will give the correct energy for high energy electrons and positrons. It is
proposed it will not be valid for very low energy electrons (10 to 50 eV), as can be shown when
they collide with very low energy positrons of similar energy. In these events, Einstein’s
relationship predicts gamma radiation will result. However, in the model of this paper, that treats
the electron as a field, it is predicted the radiation, in these low energy events, will result in only
ultraviolet radiation. Namely, it is predicted the resulting radiation will be about 10,000 times
lower in energy than predicted by Einstein’s equation. Can this be validated?

The validating experiment makes it necessary to bring low energy mono-energetic electrons, and
low energy mono- energetic positrons, together to determine the radiation energy produced by
their mutual annihilation. In this experiment the low energy electron and low energy positrons
must be brought together in as narrow an angle as possible. In this case their direction of travel
would be nearly the same. It would also be necessary that the two, almost parallel beams, be
very close and shielded from each other before they collide where the resulting energies of
annihilation can be recorded. The objective is to minimize the amount of acceleration of
electrons and positrons, resulting from their attractive forces, that would increase both particles
energies prior to their collisions. Some particle acceleration, due to electrostatic attraction,
cannot be avoided and could result in some x-ray radiation formation.

To the author’s knowledge this form of experiment has never been conducted, or if it has the
results have not been reported, since the experimenters would have to account for all the missing
energy. Assuming the radiation energies match the author’s prediction, the only way of saving
the present model would be by the addition of an ad-hoc hypothesis. For example,
experimenters might speculate that the missing energy was being carried away by neutrinos that
couldn’t be tested for. The history of physics shows that those who have put their faith in
existing models do not give up without a fight. If the author’s prediction is confirmed, it would
not be expected to be any different here.

Before discussing nucleons, we consider the applicability of the equation to radiation, and the
differences and similarities of the equation to radiation and particles. For radiation, the s term, as
already mentioned, is the radiation’s wavelength. Additionally, for radiation the product sf
always equals c. Unlike radiation, the product sf for a particle doesn’t have to equal c. We will
see it will equal c for nucleons. It will also come near to equaling c for high energy electrons.

There is one further thing to notice with regard to the new equation. By the equation, both
particle and radiation have particle and wave properties simultaneously. Momentum is the
particle property, and wavelength and frequency are the wave properties for radiation and
particles. The difference for a particle is that the wavelength also represents a loop of curved
space. When the loop of curved space spins around its diameter to generate an orbital, the
volume of the orbital is irrelevant. A particle is defined merely by the surface area of the orbital.

2.1 NUCLEONS

The only difference in the equation, when applied to a proton in an atom, is that the product sf
will always equal c. For those who feel a particle (matter) cannot be tied to c, it is important to
bear in mind that the c in this case is the precipitate velocity associated with a loop of curved
space - a spatial geometry. It is not a movement of a macro body, or little corpuscular pea,
through space. The loop size, s, associated with the proton is very small, on the order of 10-13
cm. And, as already mentioned, when the loop forms an orbital by spinning around its diameter
it will have a charge on its surface if the loop is a magnetic loop. For the case of the proton, the
direction of the loop’s geometry would be opposite that of the electron. A proton’s magnetic
spatial loop would operate in a counter-clockwise direction. As stated, the author is speculating
when it comes to the origin of charge. However, it is felt this speculation, with regard to the
origin of charge, is only slightly speculative.

What about the neutron? How can one create a neutral particle in this model? The neutron in
this model is a composite of two loops. Each loop would be approximately twice the size of the
size of the proton’s loop, and like the proton’s loop the neutron’s two loops have an sf value
equal to c. This would make the energy content of each neutron loop about half the energy of the
proton loop, since each neutron loop frequency would be about half the proton’s loop frequency.
The sum of the two neutron loops would have an energy close to the energy of the proton loop.
This would make the matter equivalent of the neutron and proton close to one another. For
reasons to be explained, it is felt the neutron’s negative loop would be slightly smaller the
neutron’s positive loop so that the negative orbital, formed by the neutron’s negative loop, would
reside inside the orbital formed by the neutron’s positive loop.

Is there a degree of proof, or a logic, in support of this model of the neutron? It turns out there
are two known facts that offer credence to this neutron model. The first fact relates to the
stability of the deuterium and tritium isotopes of hydrogen. For the case of deuterium, it is
expected a single neutron surrounds the proton to give it stability. As already stated, the negative
orbital of neutron resides inside the positive orbital of neutron, in which case the negative orbital
would be closer to the proton’s positive orbital. For the case a tritium, it is proposed a second
neutron surrounds the first neutron. This would make the second neutron slightly larger than the
first. This coincides with the binding energy of tritium being higher than deuterium (8.48 MeV
for tritium versus 1.115 MeV for deuterium). Since in tritium the outside neutron would have
larger orbitals than the inside neutron, the energy of the outside neutron orbitals would be less
(have lower frequencies) than the inside neutron orbitals. The outside neutron, because it has
less energy than the inside neutron in tritium, also represents less matter than the inside neutron.
How neutrons aid to stabilize complex atoms is unknown, nor will the author speculate. But it
can be seen in this model a gluon is not needed for the stability of deuterium or tritium.

The second known fact, providing support for this model of a neutron, is linked to deuterium’s
nucleus deuteron. There is currently in physics a theory called the Oppenheimer-Phillips process
to explain why the energy of a deuteron, when fired at a carbon 12 nucleus to form a carbon 13
nucleus, requires less energy than would be expected due to electrostatic repulsion of the
deuteron from the carbon nucleus. According to Oppenheimer and Phillips, who proposed an
answer that is still accepted today, on its way to the carbon nucleus the proton in deuteron ducks
behind the neutron. This event is easier to explain if the proton in deuteron resides inside the
proton mitigating some of deuteron’s positive charge.

3.1 A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR PARTICLE SPIN

The author debated whether to include this short section on particle spin, since it does not relate
back directly to the new equation as do the other sections of this paper. It would be easy to adopt
an instrumentalist approach with regards to spin. Particles spin, their spins can be measured, and
that is all that should matter. This paper has opposed instrumentalism, and has attempted to
provide explanations. Like the answer to why particles have concentrated spatial geometries, the
answer to why particles spin may also come down to there being no privileged frames of
reference in the universe to define motions.

The earth exists with a 23.5 angle with regard to our solar system’s ecliptic frame. The earth’s
angle to the ecliptic changes slightly through thousands of years. The sun’s ecliptic frame also
rotates, but very slowly. Other solar systems don’t have the same ecliptic as ours, and it is
expected their ecliptics also change gradually. At the micro level, the planes of the ecliptic
associated with particles could change rapidly. If they didn’t, we would be providing privileged
frames of reference for particle ecliptics. If particle ecliptic frames are spinning rapidly, they
would account for particle spin. The question becomes why there are two opposite spins? Just
as there is a balance in spatial geometry direction. which accounts for why we have equal
amounts of positive and negative charge, it seems logical there could be a balance in ecliptic
frame spins. The rate of these spins, which are the spins of magnetic loops around their
diameters, would be expected to have a connection to the strength of the charge formed on the
surface of orbital particles. It might be born in mind that some of the greatest errors in the
history of physics and cosmology have come about from the human tendency to provide
privileged frames of reference in the universe.

4.1 QUARKS

It is reasonable to expect that the orbitals of nucleons change size in high energy collision events.
Temporary quark energy states, brought on by nucleon high energy collisions, are consistent
with the model of this paper. However, this model does not support quarks as little corpuscular
entities (or point particles) existing inside protons and neutrons with fractional charges. It is
realized this brings about a conflict with the Standard Model.

5.1 CONCLUSION

A new energy equation provides a way to simplify our understanding of particle physics. The
equation is both a field energy equation, and an alternate particle rest energy equation. The
equation does not interfere with present equations of QM or QFT. On the contrary, the model
resulting from this equation blends in well with QFT and has a strong link to Schrödinger’s
equation. The new equation also provides a deterministic model to link radiation frequency back
to spatial geometry loop frequencies. It removes many, if not all, aspects of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, by making complementarity superfluous. The equation demonstrates how particle
and wave aspects of both particles and radiation exist simultaneously. Most significantly, the
new equation removes the concept of mass from physics. In place of a physics built on the
foundational concepts of mass, displacement and time, it shows how physics can be constructed
on a foundational base of momentum, displacement and frequency. Lastly, the paper describes
an experiment to validate the problem of mass as fundamental concept.

6.1 A FINAL NOTE

It was not possible for Einstein to realize his dream to describe particles as concentrated
geometries as long as mass remained a part of physics. When the foundational concepts of
physics include mass, particles are defined in terms of masses. However, when momentum
replaces mass as a foundational concept, then particles are described in terms of motions
(concentrated fields). The new energy equation removes mass from physics without affecting
the results obtained by current equations.