I’ve written quite a bit about the supramolecular orbital and the quite boring properties of Planck spheres. But I haven’t yet been explicit about one thing. A single Planck sphere cannot have a charge.
The reason why no one thinks that electrons move at the speed of light is because while electrons are made of Planck spheres, what we can detect from them is not the action of a single Planck sphere, but an immense collection of them. Thus, the negative charge observed in an electron is an emergent property of how the Planck spheres interact together as a whole.
What this means that the electron behaves in all (or at least most) situations by repelling a negative charge and attracting a positive charge. I don’t have a good idea of exactly how this takes place in all cases but know that it must involve the physical collisions of Planck spheres, as there should be nothing else causing forces in nature.
However, I am not completely clueless about the mechanisms. If we consider a Planck sphere to be like a perfectly round billiard ball pushing against another identical billiard ball, but in a direction that is different than the path of the path of the billiard ball being pushed, you can veer it off the linear course it would otherwise be on. If you imagine a large circle comprising a string of these balls, just the pushing of the ball behind keeps all the balls in a circular trajectory, or orbital.
The above example assumes their movement on a flat plane. Next, if you consider a more complex example, where the Planck Spheres in their orbitals outside the primary orbital causes the flat, circular orbital to become three-dimensional. Below is the simplest example of this. The two connected circles represent the circular orbital twisting into a double circular orbital. The collisions of the two orbitals causes the two colliding orbitals to spin in opposite directions. The concept of spin, introduced by Wolfgang Pauli and further developed by Paul Dirac, surely isn’t a coincidence.
The only thing is that the molecular orbital probably isn’t this simple. My hunch is that its shape is identical (or at least highly similar) to the simplest supramolecular orbital. The electron passes the core of the proton in its orbit, so it wouldn’t be too far fetched to assume that the orbital goes through the proton.
And as we know that the proton comprises of three quarks: two up quarks, with a charge of +2/3 and one down quark, with a charge of -1/3, it would also be logical if the orbital passes through each of these quarks.
The theory of supramolecular orbital indicates that in this orbital two of the four loops continue the path along the same spere when passing the intersection of two spheres, whereas two loops skip from one sphere to another. If the charge of the electron and the quarks relates to the direction of the rotation of the orbitals, perhaps the repellent effect of the negative charge in the down quark causes the Planck spheres to “jump” from one sphere to the next, whereas the up quarks would keep the Planck spheres in the original sphere
Of course, what I have just said has to be taken with a huge grain of salt, as I am by no means an expert in these matters. The problem is that if the postulate of Planck spheres moving at the speed of light is true, there are no better explanations yet on what charge means.
This means that charge is true, but probably badly misunderstood. My intuition says it relates to the rotation of closed loops, with the sign of the charge relating to the direction of the rotation. Or more specifically, if charge isn’t related to rotation, I have no idea what else could it be.
But from the fumbling nature of my logic, it is clear that I will not be publishing this any time soon. If someone was able to take this rough idea and turn it into a proper theory, it would probably be of interest to quite a few people. I will probably not do it myself but can be of assistance if someone wants to take a crack at it.
The good thing about all of this is that none of it really matters one way or another as our LignoSpheres are concerned, so even if I’m completely wrong, nothing is lost.
Comments