Addendum: Cosmological constant problem
Addendum: Dark Matter Absorption Spectra
Addendum (a very speculative one)s
Addendum What happened to the multiverse?
Addendum: On the Pauli Exclusion Principle
Addendum: A Model for the Neutron (and a proposal for a more exotic particle)
Addendum: The Lepton Family
Addendum: Neutrino Oscillation
The Quantum Forest
With most of the trails now mapped out, we can take on the task of visualizing the whole of our quantum forest. This is where we give free rein to our imaginations, to look for meaning and context.
The basic structure of the forest depends on initial conditions established with the Big Bang. How we perceive the many trails that connect in this forest is dependent on one trail we haven’t gone down: the trail marked ‘Our Time’.
To get to this trail, let’s suppose initial conditions were different. Perhaps another label can help with the narrative here: our universe started not with a bang, but with a Big Entanglement. What happens if different amounts of energy were involved in the Big Entanglement?
As a first scenario, assume the initial charge was an amount necessary to create only the VN (Vacuum Network). There is no local excess of charge or entanglement energy, in either the VN or the quantum foam. So, there aren’t many trails in our forest: no light, no gravitons, no particles, no Dark Matter, and no Black Holes or Dark Energy. Although we have an entanglement clock ‘ticking’ away, I can visualize space, but not time.
What we do have is a perfectly structured spatial network, embedded in quiescent quantum foam. There are no instantaneous magnetic or entanglement fields at work, between ‘ticks’ of the quantum clock. As nothing changes between ‘ticks’, there can be no sense of time passing, relative to the VN itself.
This gives us our first clue about the nature of time: to perceive time in the VN, can it be measured only from a spacetime that doesn’t experience the ‘ticking’ of the VN clock? More on that, later.
As a second scenario, suppose there was sufficient initial charge to create the VN, and just enough extra to create photons of light, or gravitons of entanglement. Is there a perceived time? I can’t visualize one. Relative to the photons or gravitons, no time passes. Relative to any QEST ("Quantum Element of Spacetime") in the VN, no time is passing there as well, as no photon or graviton persists across multiple ‘ticks’.
A third scenario shows us when the dam of perceived time bursts: suppose there is sufficient extra energy to create separate spacetime from the quantum foam. Now we have both the particle and Dark Matter trails appearing in our forest.
Both these quantum entities have their own entanglement clocks, ‘ticking’ away completely independent of the VN, and of each other. We can visualize how the VN acts to contain these entities, and to relate change, but only change between those entities. To the VN itself, they appear static (if they are not accelerated).
It is change in the relative positions and velocities of the particles (and Dark Matter) that we can perceive as time. This is possible, in this third scenario, only from the reference frame of energy entangled outside the VN.
The fourth scenario coincides with our model of the Big Entanglement. We visualize enough energy from initial conditions to create all the trails in the forest. Now we can visualize change in the VN itself, particularly around Black Holes. So, change in structure and charge allows the passage of time to be perceived, relative to the QESTs entangled in the VN.
Where does that leave us? We are comprised of particles hosted by local spacetimes, exchanging photons of energy mediated by quantum foam. As I visualize this, we simply do not directly perceive the passage of time, as registered by the VN itself. We each perceive a local time, hosted by entangled QESTs, all outside the VN. Our only direct interaction with the VN is through quantum foam.
Beyond the Forest
Some questions that we may ask, with our map of the quantum forest now in hand, focus on origins and context:
· How did the forest come to be?
· Where did all those QESTs, and the energy to entangle them, come from?
· Is there something beyond the forest?
· Is there a purpose to all this?
To imagine answers to such questions, we should be prepared to expand our modelling toolkit. I visualize a toolkit that includes a Continuum. This is as much a mathematical tool as a physical one.
Such a tool is something that physics itself seems to be ambivalent about. While everything in the quantum world is discrete, the mathematical description of that world is continuous. So, physics definitely uses the tool to build models.
And the models are not only continuous, but differentiable. Physical models, from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, to Quantum Field Theory, implicitly involve taking limits of quantities that vary with time and space. These limits involve letting time and space go to zero.
In our model, time and space are explicitly quantized in the VN, so there is no ‘going to zero’. Nothing is differentiable, or continuous, in the VN. The same applies to any local spacetimes held by the quantum foam, in the VN.
Might the quantum foam be continuous? As we visualize it, the foam is the furthest thing from continuous. No limits in time or space are even possible, as neither exists in a coherent manner.
That is, unless we expand our view, and include a background continuum. I visualize this as a dense ‘something’ that permeates the foam, in a manner analogous to foam permeating the VN. Only the Continuum has what mathematics refers to as ‘non-zero measure’.
Everything in the foam, and the VN, is discrete, and exists in at most a countably infinite number of states. This is a set of measure zero. Relative to the Continuum, our entire universe is a set of measure zero. It is, essentially, a point in the Continuum.
How might such a Continuum help us in answering the questions we posed above?
All in an Instant
What properties might we visualize for the Continuum?
Because it is dense, it contains all its limit points.
Let’s imagine a circle, for example. In our discrete universe, an ‘ideal’ circle can not be constructed. The best we can do is an approximation. We reach a point where we are effectively trying to express pi to infinite precision. And that limit point does not exist for us.
What about energy? To measure energy, we need time. In the Continuum, time itself is continuous. Any ‘measure’ of energy would yield infinity, unless what we are measuring is sampled, or strobed, over a sequence of instants.
And that reveals a problem, to my way of visualizing. While all imaginable things may exist in the Continuum, they would be expressed only instantaneously. Why? Simply because there are too many accessible ‘nearby’ alternative states. These states may differ between themselves by an amount of measure zero, but they are (at least) uncountably infinite in number.
To have anything of non-zero measure persist in the Continuum would take infinite energy. Drawing an analogy with our quantum universe, the thermodynamics of the Continuum would favour countably infinite sets, each of measure zero.
Now we can visualize how well adapted our quantum foam is to provide such a favourable configuration. For this, we must assume QESTs are discrete components of the Continuum itself.
We have not specified what the ‘native’ currency of energy is in the Continuum. We can, however, now imagine that individual QESTs, as elements of the Continuum, can express this in a quantum manner.
Entangled QESTs in the VN will manifest this energy in a discrete, static fashion, between ’tick’s of the entanglement clock. We perceive this as static charge, and assign the labels ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ to local surpluses and deficits, which are again quantized.
Each QEST in the foam, as we have modelled it, expresses this ‘native’ energy, or charge, instantaneously, and randomly. A very favourable thermodynamic configuration for the Continuum, as this maximizes entropy in a set of measure zero.
As we visualized our model of the Big Bang, an initial charge was captured as entanglement energy in the foam, instantaneously. Again, this is a thermodynamically favourable outcome for the Continuum, as a set of measure zero is involved.
Why should this entangled configuration, which expresses our Vacuum and all within it, persist?
One explanation that I visualize is inspired by the precision of all entanglement clocks, both in the VN and all particulate matter. Such precision could be hosted in the Continuum, as resonant feedback.
These resonances are between domains of entangled foam, uncountably infinite in number, and each of measure zero. The resonances would be expressed through the entangled QESTs only. The ensemble forms a stable set, once again of measure zero.
What we are left to visualize is an uncountably infinite number of universes, each connected by entangled QESTs, all derived from quantum foam, and all resonating within the Continuum.
No Ripples in Time
Gathering around the fire as night descends in our quantum forest, with just the glow of the Milky Way above us, we come to our final question: does our model provide any clues as to purpose, in all we have imagined?
Purpose implies intent, so we might rephrase the question: does our model provide any evidence of intentional design, expressed in the structure of the quantum forest? To my way of visualizing, the most compelling evidence is the nature of time, and the origin of QESTs.
Our model relies on the precise, uniform ‘ticking’ of entanglement clocks. One is expressed globally in the VN, and others ‘tick’ away independently, in local spacetimes. Complete uniformity and precision is fundamental to all. This ensures conservation of energy, persistence of coherent spatial structure, the uniform speed of light, and isolation of energy in particles and Dark Matter.
We visualized this precision and uniformity as resonance, arising as entanglement within the Continuum. But we have no further clues for this. Our model relies entirely on the level of precision and uniformity that only a continuous source could provide.
That such resonance is even possible rests on a further assumption: all QESTs, from components of quantum foam, to those of the VN hidden within Black Holes, are expressed as elements of the Continuum.
How so much structure could arise by chance alone, seems counter to our arguments about the thermodynamic properties of the Continuum. There are just too many ‘nearby’ states of measure zero, each providing an opportunity for quantum chaos, to support such a view.
So whatever time may have in store for our quantum forest, and us in it, design itself suggests a purpose.
Alone in the Forest
Do we have any hints to suggest what that purpose might be? I can imagine two: the Fermi paradox; and, the nature of ‘intelligence’ in the Continuum.
The Fermi paradox highlights the observation, or rather the lack of observation, of signs of other ‘intelligent’ life in our universe.
Geological evidence indicates that life arose quite early in the history of our planet. The search for exoplanets in the ‘goldilocks’ zone suggests there are likely billions of planets that can also host life. But no sign of life has been found, in what should be a universe teeming with it.
How might this lack of evidence provide a clue as to purpose in the design of our quantum forest?
As we have imagined it, our universe is merely a point in the Continuum, a set of measure zero. Every ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock, every change in the quantum state of every quantum element in our forest, exists in its entirety as an instant in the Continuum.
And we have visualized an uncountably infinite number of such universes. The singular presence of intelligent life arising in each universe may be an aspect of an overall design. Every universe might provide a unique example of ‘intelligent’ life. Creation of such life may serve as purpose, in itself.
This brings us to a very challenging task: can we imagine the nature of ‘intelligence’, native to the Continuum?
As I visualize it, the Continuum is not intelligent in the most fundamental sense that we might presume. There is no need in the Continuum for the equivalent of ‘mental models’ that underlie self-awareness and guide intelligent behaviour.
All things exist, at least for an instant, in the Continuum. So, for the Continuum to directly experience all the laws and behaviours possible in a particular universe, then it ‘simply’ creates that universe. No model is required, if everything can be experienced directly, and all at once.
We can imagine, then, that some form of model building, self-aware ‘intelligence’ is common to each of the infinite number of universes hosted by the Continuum. While the Continuum itself may not be intelligent, as we might define the term, it can experience intelligence directly through us.
References
Here are a few of my favourite sources for constructing quantum forests.
(1) Vector spaces are a handy tool to have in your mental backpack. They feature prominently in quantum mechanics and are especially useful in visualizing anything orthogonal. My ‘go to’ reference was always Serge Lang “Linear Algebra” Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1971
(2) The physics of electricity and magnetism offer clues to building any quantum model. I started off with Arthur Kip “Fundamentals of Electricity and Magnetism” McGraw-Hill Inc., 1969
(3) Special and General Relativity are simply the bedrock underlying all our imaginings. My guide has been I.R. Kenyon “General Relativity” Oxford University Press, 1990.
(4) An accessible guide to the very dense forest of Quantum Mechanics is in Leonard Susskind, Art Friedman “Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum” Basic Books 2014.
(5) I came across the notion of separate spacetimes arising from quantum disentanglement in a journal paper. We used the converse of this proposition extensively in building just about everything in our forest. M. Van Raamsdonk “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement” Gen Relativ Gravit 42 (2010)).
(6) I also found compelling the notion that time is an emergent property arising from Hilbert space factorization. See for example, M. Noorbala “Spacetime from Hilbert space: Decomposition of Hilbert space as instances of time" arXiv:1609.01295v2 (September 2016)).
(7) Unlike traditional Quantum Mechanics where time is an unobservable external parameter, time is intrinsic to our model. We visualized an entanglement clock that refreshes both the VN, and all local spacetimes embedded in the VN that express particles and Dark Matter. This clock does not refresh the quantum foam, which is disentangled and appears static. A similar view appears in “Magnetic clock for a harmonic oscillator”, where both an entanglement clock and static quantum states for disentangled systems are featured (A Coppo, A Cuccoli, and P Verrucchi Phys. Rev. A 109, May 2024.) They build on a much earlier proposal of Page and Wootters, Phys. Rev. D, 1983.
(8) We used the mathematical concept of measure to arrive at the boundary of the Continuum. Real Analysis supplies us with the definition of measure, and the property that the union of a countable number of sets, each of measure zero, also has measure zero. See for example R. Johnsonbaugh, W. Pfaffenberger “Foundations of Mathematical Analysis”, Marcel Dekker 1981.
(9) As examined in G. 't Hooft “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity” arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026v2 (2009), quantum gravity requires discrete degrees of freedom at Planck lengths. The degrees of freedom scale as the surface area, not the volume of a region of space time. This is directly a feature of our model, where only the boundary QESTs of a local region of space time hosting massive particles interact with the VN.
(10) Our snapshot approach to time quantization is analogous to spacetime foliation, as in R.L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C.W. Misner "The Dynamics of General Relativity" (reproduced in: Gen. Rel. Grav. 40:1997-2027, 2008)
Addendum: Cosmological constant problem
Cosmologists and particle physicists hold quite divergent views on the magnitude of energy held in the vacuum.
The former group expresses this energy as a ‘cosmological constant’, which contributes to vacuum expansion. It is predicted to have a relatively small value. The latter expresses the vacuum energy as the ‘zero-point energy’ of quantum field theory. In contrast, this is predicted to have a relatively large value, exceeding the cosmological constant by between 50 and 120 orders of magnitude!
Our model of the forest includes a vacuum with two components: (1) quantum foam, a domain of
unentangled elements of spacetime (QESTs); and, (2) the Vacuum Network (VN), formed from relatively few QESTs held in an entangled state. So, what might we predict for the ‘vacuum energy’?
We can visualize making not one prediction, but two. The first comes from the trail marked Dark Energy, and the second from the trail leading to the VN itself.
We visualized Dark Energy as entanglement energy released from the VN within Black Holes.
Quantum foam transfers this energy back to the external VN, between ‘tick’s of the entanglement clock. As the foam is a domain of zero measure with no coherent spacetime metric, it expresses this energy in an instant, and across the entire VN structure (the same entanglement process we visualized for the Big Bang). This inherent diffusion of energy suggests a relatively low (and time variable) magnitude for the cosmological ‘constant’.
The equivalent of zero-point energy in our model arises from energy held as either charge or entanglement in the VN (as photons and gravitons, respectively), and from particles, which are local spacetimes that express photons and gravitons, but are orthogonal to the VN.
We observe from collisions within particle accelerators, and from cosmic radiation, that particles and high energy photons are either dimensionless points, or extremely small. This implies very high energy density, held as entanglement and charge. This dense energy persists in the VN, and in local spacetimes, between ‘tick’s of the entanglement clock. We visualize this localized, very high energy density as the analog of ‘zero-point’ energy from quantum field theory.
So, we have two predictions to make: one, for a low value of the cosmological constant, as Dark Energy driving vacuum expansion; and another, for small regions of very high energy density which are in, or localized to, the VN. The latter express the high magnitude ‘zero-point energy’ of field theory.
The two widely divergent energy values are both consistent, within our view of the quantum forest.
Addendum: Wave-particle Duality
Addendum: Dark Matter Absorption Spectra
Astrophysicists, who are often found exploring in the quantum forest, use gravitational wave detectors to study high energy cosmic disturbances. Detectors such as LIGO, that rely on large scale, precise laser interferometry, are one example. Dynamic disturbances that alter the local structure of spacetime are revealed as they pass through the detector, at light speed.
In our model of the quantum forest, such disturbances are carried by lossless transmission in the Vacuum Network (VN). The VN was formed as a universe-scale network of QESTs, entangled at the moment of the Big Bang. It hosts particles, Dark Matter and Black Holes, each of which act to isolate local excesses of energy from the VN. How might an instrument such as LIGO support this view of the forest?
I can imagine it providing evidence for two forest trails: (1) that supermassive Black Holes achieve their size by rapid accretion of Dark Matter at their event horizons, through a process of positive feedback; and, (2) that Dark Matter consists of gravitons circulating in resonant structures, formed as local spacetimes (we viewed them as Hilbert spaces orthogonal to the VN). The latter are expressed by entangled QESTS, and are localized in the VN.
We can visualize one possible source for this evidence. If two supermassive Black Holes collide, they may inspiral to form a new structure. The final phase of this process is a brief period of intense vibration, termed 'ringdown'.
It is the frequency spectrum of this ringdown that may give us the evidence we need. Recall that gravitational disturbances with sufficient energy are expressed as gravitons in the VN, and transmitted at light speed.
Conventional stellar spectra reveal the presence of elements by the absorption of photons of specific frequencies. The latter are emitted in the stellar interior. Dark Matter concentrated at the event horizon of the newly formed Black Hole may act in a similar manner. Only in this case, it is gravitons of specific frequencies that are absorbed. The resonant structure forming Dark Matter is responsible for this specificity.
If the ringdown produces a wide enough frequency spectrum of gravitons, then Dark Matter will absorb some, but only at specific frequencies. LIGO may reveal this as a drop in the intensity of the graviton spectra at these same frequencies. The sharpness of these drops would also provide evidence for the extent of Dark Matter absorbing this energy.
We can anticipate then that ongoing results from LIGO may provide such evidence as our model predicts. Stay tuned.
Addendum (a very speculative one)
Is Quantum Antigravity Possible?
In our model (Ref 9), the gravitational effect of a particle’s static mass arises from entanglement of the particle's boundary QESTs with QESTs comprising the VN (Vacuum Network).
Our model also provides that all QESTs are components of the Continuum, wherein the native currency of energy is charge. We perceive this as static charge, maintained in the VN from ‘tick’ to ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. Within the VN, the photon is the carrier of charge.
Let’s imagine a scenario where charge is pulsed, on and off, at a frequency approaching that of the entanglement clock. A pulsed laser could be such a source of charge. Recall that QESTs in the quantum foam can act to hold the energy of the momentary charge by becoming entangled.
Any particle that is influenced by the momentary charge is hosted by a spacetime outside the VN. The boundary QESTs hosting this particle can react to the charge by increasing local entanglement. To enforce conservation of energy between ‘tick’s, the VN must react by decreasing entanglement.
To an external observer, the momentary pulse of charge occurs within a 'tick' of the entanglement clock, and is not perceivable. The particle’s charge retains its quantum value. What does change is the apparent mass of the particle, which decreases by a quantum amount equivalent to the charge absorbed through entanglement. Again, this relative to an external observer.
In effect, the gravitational field of the particle, as expressed in the VN, is reduced (boundary entanglement relative to the particle would increase, which is tricky to visualize). The effect is only momentary, as subsequent ‘tick's will propagate entanglement back to the VN, and across the network, at light speed.
To maintain “antigravity", the pulsed charge must also be maintained in perfect synchrony with the VN's entanglement clock. Surely something outside our engineering capabilities, but still fun to visualize.
Addendum
What happened to the multiverse?
Missing from all that we visualized in our model is any mention of a multiverse.
This seeming omission is really an opportunity to highlight the role that quantum foam plays in everything we have imagined. Recall that the foam hosts particles and Dark Matter, in what we have termed “orthogonal spacetimes”.
Quantum foam can do so because it has a ground state of complete disentanglement. Local entanglement energy arising in the VN (Vacuum Network) produces local, coherent spacetimes from the foam. This is the concept we adapted from the paper by Van Raamsdonk (reference 5), and used extensively in mapping out the trails of our quantum forest.
These local spacetimes support local wavefunction propagation, and isolation of energy. In conjunction with the VN, they replace the apparent “collapse” of wavefunctions with a process of entanglement. “Spooky” action at a distance between entangled particles is mediated by the foam, where limits to entanglement interactions across time and space are not enforced. No metric or coherent quantum structure exists to impose such limits on quantum foam.
What some multiverse theories call parallel universes, each with their own spacetime, would in our model be visualized as “orthogonal" Hilbert spaces. That was the label we used in modelling both particles and Dark Matter in local spacetimes.
We can now visualize the role that quantum foam plays in localizing many of the notions that are common to multiverse theories. Rather than embedding our universe in a (vastly) larger structure, or expressing “parallel” universe-scale structures, we visualize a single, persistent VN embedded in quantum foam. The latter hosts, and mediates, local wavefunction propagation and observational “collapse", through entanglement.
One consequence of such spacetime localization is that our model supports conservation of energy. We introduced the entanglement clock to make time discrete. The ‘ticking' of the entanglement clock allows everything that is on, or localized to, the VN to refresh….to express time. Between ‘ticks', energy is conserved.
So there is no need to go branching off into a multiverse, which seems at the very least to defy energy conservation (not to mention making navigation in the quantum forest much more difficult).
Addendum: On the Pauli Exclusion Principle
As formulated in classical quantum mechanics, no two electrons in ‘orbit’ about a nucleus can share all four of their defining quantum numbers. Three of these are sufficient to describe an ‘orbital’. Within an orbital, the remaining spin quantum number has only two possible values, so for electrons to share this orbital, their spins must be different.
How can we capture this behaviour, using our model of the quantum forest?
We visualized the electron as a photon circulating in a local spacetime, which is orthogonal to the Vacuum Network (VN). When combined with the property that photons can express only two possible polarizations, we have most of the structure we will need.
But the full picture, once again, relies on quantum foam, and conservation of energy in the VN.
Specifically, all energy that is isolated from the VN and held in local spacetimes, must remain isolated across ‘tick’s of the entanglement clock. We saw that this is possible only if no quantum of
energy persists in the same QEST in the VN, across multiple ‘tick’s.
The electron has energy from both local entanglement and the charge of the photon. In our model, the QESTs hosting an electron do not share the same entanglement clock as the VN. But between ‘tick’s, quantum foam instantaneously expresses both as entanglement and a magnetic field, respectively.
The magnetic field is not transported away, as with a photon, in the VN. Individual QESTs in the VN can express charge, but only for an instant. This produces a momentary static charge field, with measurable size.
Similarly, local entanglement is not transported away, as with a graviton. A local, momentary dimensional structure is expressed in the VN, within ‘tick’s of the entanglement clock. This structure acts to limit the geometry of charge expression in the VN.
Because charge and size are expressed on a given QEST only for the duration of a single ‘tick’, no fixed location or size measurement can be assigned to an electron, in the VN. Conservation of
energy precludes this. In effect, the energy isolated in local spacetimes is strobed in the VN, from ‘tick’ to ‘tick’.
This allows the electron to express its static charge as a field in the VN, with nonzero dimension (as well as static mass and magnetic moment).
Note that the exclusion of entanglement and charge to individual QESTs across ‘tick’s also applies between local spacetimes.
Energy from an electron cannot be expressed in QESTs hosting the local spacetime of a proton, for example. They can experience each other’s local entanglement and charge, but only in a strobed manner, similarly to the VN. Without added entanglement, an electron will not ‘collapse’ into the spacetime of a proton. Once again, conservation of energy precludes this.
How do we provide for the behaviour of orbital electrons, as stipulated by the Exclusion Principle?
The two allowed spin states of a photon might help us here. Can two electrons share an orbital, if they host photons of opposite spins?
This can only occur if they express momentary fields in quantum foam which do not engage the same QESTs in the VN (or in each other). If we recall the cavity resonator geometry that we visualized for the electron, then polarization must restrict photon circulation.
The circulation in each local spacetime must be precisely aligned to prevent any overlap. Something challenging to visualize!
Addendum: A Model for the Neutron (and a proposal for a more exotic particle)
How can we visualize the neutron, as a particle in our quantum forest?
The observable properties of the neutron offer us many clues for this task.
A neutron has mass greater than the sum of the mass of a proton and an electron. The free neutron decays readily into a proton, and electron and an antineutrino.
And it has two additional properties that will help us infer internal structure: the neutron has neutral charge, while still expressing a magnetic moment.
The role of the antineutrino will be pivotal in our model. It effectively provides a local domain of entangled QESTs that isolate electric fields (as expressed by particles internal to the neutron) from the Vacuum Network (VN). This role will also lead us to a trail in the forest marked 'exotic particles'.
We can start by first visualizing the model for the electron. We imagined a photon circulating in a local spacetime which is orthogonal to the VN. The boundary of the domain of QESTs hosting this spacetime express charge and spatial structure in the VN.
In the VN, charge can be expressed by its entangled QESTs, but only for the duration of a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. This is a constraint arising from conservation of energy.
The VN effectively strobes the boundary QESTs of the electron, with quantum foam mediating the expression of the electron’s point, static charge out to adjacent QESTs in the VN. We see the result as the electron’s static charge field, established at light speed in the VN.
But within this field, no QEST of the VN can host the charge beyond the duration of a single ‘tick’. Otherwise, the electron’s charge would be seen to decay.
Electron decay has not been observed, but physicists are confident that if it did, the decay products would be a photon and an electron neutrino. These are precisely the components in our model for the electron: a photon circulating in an orthogonal spacetime of locally entangled QESTs, the latter comprising the electron neutrino.
We visualized the proton as a similar structure, except the local spacetime hosting its photon has a lobed structure. The photon spends a fraction of its path in each lobe.
When this structure is strobed by the VN, multiple points of partial charge and static mass are projected. We call these projections quarks. Their expression on the QESTs of the VN are for a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock (again, this is conservation of energy at work: the proton's charge is conserved).
The neutron is also comprised of quarks. How these appear to differ from the quarks of the proton is a key aspect of our model.
The proton has two up quarks, each of charge +2/3, and one down, of charge -1/3. To achieve this charge distribution, the circulating photon must spend twice as much (local) time in the lobe expressing an up quark (perhaps by reflection) as in the lobe for the down quark. The positive and negative static charges arise from the opposite charge of the photon's alternating charge pattern, expressed over local QESTs.
The neutron borrows much of its structure, as expressed in the VN, from the proton. It also has three quarks that, through projection, produce a particle of comparable size.
One key difference is that the net charge on the neutron is zero. Our visualization of the neutron's quarks reveals another difference: while particle physics stipulates two down quarks and one up, our model is simpler. We assume the same quarks are in the structure of the neutron as for the proton. But what appears to be an up quark 'flipped' to a down quark is actually the electron interacting with an up quark, mediated by the QESTs of the antineutrino.
Recall that the separate domains of entangled QESTs for the proton, electron and antineutrino each form local spacetimes. These are mutually orthogonal, and all are orthogonal to the VN. Each sees the others as points. If charge is moving, or changing in local spacetime, quantum foam mediates its expression as magnetic fields, expressed instantaneously between 'tick's of the entanglement clock.
How can we now visualize the composite structure of the neutron?
In a neutral hydrogen atom, we have the charge field (expressing spatial size) of an electron interacting with charge fields (and spatial size) of the proton's quarks. The VN hosts this interaction by "strobing" these fields on its entangled QESTs.
In a neutron, we have essentially the same components, but with an added antineutrino. We can now visualize how the QESTs of this antineutrino can displace those of the VN: the static fields now interact only with QESTs of the antineutrino. This eliminates all spatial charge fields from the VN.
The electron and quarks appear within the antineutrino's local spacetime as point masses (with associated quantum properties), and static charge fields. The electron can perform a similar interaction with a quark's charge field as it did with the combined quarks in the VN (this would be a new configuration of an electron 'orbital'). Because this interaction is isolated from the VN, the result appears to be an 'up' quark, flipped to a 'down' quark.
The composite structure expresses no charge field in the VN. But quantum foam will still express the magnetic fields arising within the component particles.
To summarize, we see the neutron as a combined projection, forming a neutral particle similar to a proton in size, but comprised of three quarks with altered charge, no external charge field, and a magnetic moment.
Holding this image in mind, can we visualize more exotic particles?
Instead of the component particles of neutral hydrogen, suppose we started with those of neutral deuterium: here the nucleus sources both a proton and a neutron, with an electron also available.
In a high energy interaction with antineutrinos, these might combine to form an exotic particle. This would have properties similar to a neutron, but with slightly more than twice the mass.
A flux of neutrons could provide the required antineutrinos, as decay products. The interaction would require strong magnetic fields. Might there be naturally occurring conditions where this interaction takes place?
A neutron star seems tailor made for such interactions. If neutral deuterium impinges on the star surface, it may briefly form such an exotic particle, before decaying into neutrons.
With a rich supply of neutrinos from neutron decay, and extreme gravitational fields, neutron stars may also source another particle: Dark Matter. Recall that our model for the Dark Matter particle requires only a graviton and a local spacetime. Both should be available in abundance. But unlike with a Black Hole, new Dark Matter particles would not be confined to an event horizon.
The presence of Dark Matter formed in this way may be detectable: galaxies with an abundance of neutron stars may exhibit more pronounced Dark Matter halos. Such an observation would confirm much of what we have imagined in our quantum forest.
Might this process of Dark Matter (DM) formation be replicated at the micro scale, to produce a few particles in a lab setting?
The required ingredients are a source of neutrinos; an intense, rapidly changing gravitational field; and, a means of precisely combining both.
A neutron rich isotope, such as californium-252, placed in a generator of strong magnetic fields might provide, through neutron decay, the required beam of focussed neutrinos.
But two huge engineering challenges remain.
The first is generating an extremely brief, localised change in the gravitational field. Perhaps a powerful, pulsed ring laser on a chip might source such a field. The design constraints are the smallest possible size, shortest duration pulse, and highest possible intensity.
The second, and perhaps insurmountable, challenge is to detect the few particles of DM that might be produced. As a graviton circulating in a local spacetime, the DM particle does not want to be detected!
We must measure a gain in mass equivalent to only those gravitons isolated by neutrinos. Other gravitons will propagate in the VN, as a changing gravitational field. And all this, while accounting for the minute mass of a flux of neutrinos.
Quite fun to visualize! The weightlessness of space is likely the only gravitational setting where such an experiment could even be imagined.
Addendum: The Lepton Family
The electron is the lightest of the charged particles in the family of leptons. The muon and tauon form successive generations in this family, with progressively larger mass. The tauon has very high mass, approaching that of the hadrons, which are characterized by the strong nuclear force.
The proton and neutron are examples of hadrons, and our models of these particle will inform our model of the tauon.
The heavier leptons are short lived, and particle physics describes the many ways they decay. The muon exhibits leptonic decay into an electron, a photon, and two neutrinos.
The much heavier tauon exhibits primarily hadronic decay, forming two pions (one charged, the other neutral) and a tau neutrino. The charged pion is not stable. It rapidly decays into a muon and a muon neutrino. The even less stable neutral pion almost instantly decays into a photon (gamma ray).
These decay products provide us with most of the clues we’ll need to visualize heavier lepton structures. And once again, our model of neutrinos will play a key role.
They provide QESTs that, through entanglement, form local spacetimes. We visualized the electron as a photon circulating in a spacetime formed by an electron neutrino. The boundary charge on this local spacetime interacts with QESTs in the VN. We see a charge field as a result.
With our model of the neutron, we saw how an additional neutrino can shield such local charge fields from the VN. This allowed an electron to ‘flip’ an up quark to down in a proton, while shielding the entire charge field from the VN.
The muon exhibits leptonic decay into an electron, a photon, and both a neutrino and antineutrino. With this, let’s try to visualize the structure of the muon.
Imagine a high energy setting where a “host” electron absorbs the components of another electron, plus an antineutrino. The latter forms a local spacetime that reduces the absorbed electron to an uncharged static point mass, relative to the host’s spacetime.
So relative to the VN, no charge field is produced by the absorbed electron and neutrino. Only the extra mass and magnetic moment are expressed (the latter via quantum foam). The muon appears to be a heavier electron, with altered magnetic moment.
The key aspect to visualize is how the additional neutrino supplies local entangled QESTs that shield the VN from the point charge of the absorbed electron. The host electron sees a neutral mass with magnetic moment, but no charge. The combined result is a muon.
To describe the tauon, with its very heavy mass, we need to visualize quarks, and the strong nuclear force. The quarks come in pairs, forming mesons. The mesons produced by tauon decay are called pions. We must keep in mind that these are exotic, unstable particles that decay almost the instant they are formed.
When we imagined the proton, we visualized three quarks arising from a local spacetime with a lobed geometry. The strong force binding these quarks expresses the strong entanglement configuring the lobes. The origin of the strong force is essentially local gravitation.
We can apply this model to the tauon. It has near hadronic mass, which suggests its component neutrinos will form a geometry with only two lobes.
Tauon decay products include a charged pion and a tau neutrino. This suggests the latter provides a local spacetime to reduce the pion to a point mass, with no charge field expressed in the VN by its host electron.
The decay of a charged pion to a muon and a muon neutrino is unusual, as the pion has positive charge, opposite to the muon. As no photon is emitted, the same photon that circulated in the pion remains in the muon. Less entanglement energy is required for a muon. This energy is preserved as the muon neutrino decay product.
Decay of the neutral pion does not follow our model for stable particles. To source the high energy of the single gamma ray produced, with no corresponding neutrino, the gamma photon must include local entanglement energy.
Only magnetic fields expressed in quantum foam can perform such a conversion. For the briefest of intervals, a transient magnetic field must form. It combines the pion photon with the local entanglement energy shielding its charge.
So no neutrino remains, only the high energy photon produced by this field. Very exotic, and very unstable!
Addendum: Neutrino Oscillation
Neutrinos come in three flavours: electron, tauon and muon. Each has extremely small mass, on the order of 1 eV. From observations of the solar neutrino flux, we know that neutrinos can oscillate between flavours. Quantum Mechanics models this as phase shifts, occurring within a quantum superposition of flavours.
How might we see this oscillation occurring, within our model of the quantum forest?
We visualized the neutrino as a domain of locally entangled QESTs, propagating in the Vacuum Network (VN). The speed of this propagation must be less than that of light. Otherwise, the VN would bundle this energy as a photon or graviton, as these are the only forms of light speed energy transmission our model allows.
Neutrinos have no charge, so the quantum foam does not react by creating a magnetic field. But the entangled QESTs of the neutrino do express a small static mass. And this mass is moving in the VN at near light speed.
QESTs in the VN can react to this transient energy with each ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. This momentary interaction must preserve conservation of energy: no entanglement energy from the VN can persist in the local spacetime of the neutrino beyond a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock. But with each ‘tick’, the QESTs of the neutrino can be momentarily “strobed” with energy from the VN.
We imagine then that such strobing with entanglement energy might alter the geometry of the neutrino. The QESTs forming the neutrino must observe the conservation rule: additional entanglement energy is expressed by any individual QEST only for the duration of a single ‘tick’ of the entanglement clock.
This is a transient process, with exchange of entanglement occurring frequently between the VN and the neutrino.
We see oscillation in flavour as oscillation in local geometry, and it arises from gravitational interaction with the VN.
We can predict that such oscillation would be enhanced in stronger gravitational fields. Astrophysical experiments might reveal this. One form of evidence could be neutrinos from strong gravitational sources exhibiting more rapid change in flavour, within a given detection interval.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.