This blog post is based on my unpublished article.

So we have the iconic Einstein formula,

Mass i simply related to energy, this says, and also the mass here depend on the velocity of the particle, which is a little hidden here. I will try to motivate another definition that may lead to new insights in the basic properties of the particle physics area.

The whole idea is in my view that we should base our understanding of Energy density in stead of the total energy. Let's contemplate that mass is an aggregated property, that is related to a particle as seen from a distance. But if we zoom in we will see structure and in that structure we will have an energy density. So the first basic assumption are that mass is not a mathematical point.

In the paper we describe a candidate structure that is based by aggregation of loops of current. And we assume that it is the most fundamental building block. By aggregating many o these current loops we can build up the particle and all the electromagnetic fields that are attached with this structure. Another property are that we would like to model with current streams that does not have mass as that would make us define mass by using mass. Hence the speed of the charges will be the speed of light. This basic building block is different from what we are used to and asking anyone with an education they will say that this is impossible. And they are right. We have never previously seen such an object and perhaps we will, like the string theory, never be able to measure them. But we can build larger objects from them, theoretically, that we can measure.

The interesting thing with this object are that one can Hypothesize that these streams will not interact with each other unless they are parallel and also perhaps give some motivation why. We could also view the word as a fluid of those streams and they produce a base point of an energy density level in our world. This idea is not new and is inspired by the field of zero point energy and perhaps could be related to the Higgs field, if we tried to point to a more modern formulation that most people are accustomed to. Now space may not be entirely uniform and the baseline may be different in different areas of the universe.

In our physical formulation typically a baseline of energy is not important for the physics of the world. But here we would like to change that idea. We will simply assume that there is a limit for how much energy density space can hold and that's the same constant everywhere in the universe. This implay that the basline is important, at least for very extreame situations found in particles and black holes.

In order for this to be a formulation that have a chance to produce all known result we must at least make our laws so that the energy density for a stream is the same in all Lorenz reference systems, or reference system that are moving with a constant speed relative a particle (as we build up all objects out of streams). This can be done, we can just postulate it and demand our laws to have this property and investigate the consequences. The first consequence of cause are that our law is Lorenz invariant e.g. the physics should be independent whatever speed our reference system is moving relative the particle we are investigating. No natural law would be accepted if this is not the case because this is what we have been observing in basically all experiments.

What about \(E=mc²\) that is a confirmed formula and from that the Newton mechanics will follow. We must reproduce this for sure. And we can do this under one condition. That the ending charge distribution after building the object from loops, is spherically symmetric. This basically means that basically all our particles that we know follow Einstein's special relativity and must be spherical symmetric, with at least one exception, if I guess correctly (I asked CHatGPT if she knew any such experimental result), the free electron. For sure when it is bounded in atoms and ions, it, must be spherically symmetric. But what about the free electron. Here we propose that one should try measure the energy of the free electron as a function of velocity and direction of it's angular momentum. This test could give some hint if the assumption here holds any water. It cannot directly disprove this idea, as it would just mean that we also need to assume the shape of the electron to be spherical as well.

Although the charge density of the particle is spherically symmetric you can still have angular momenta and a non symmetric magnetic field. This is in line with our measurements. The reason why this is possible is that you can think of angular momentum as a result of magnetic circular flow inside the particle. And the + or - of this flow is not important for the energy density. This basic facts leads in the end to the existence of particles with a spherical symmetry charge, but with an angular momentum. We also assume that energetically it will be beneficial for the streams to produce angular momentum in the same direction just like magnets will interact if they are shaken and point in the same direction - taht's what you see in magnetic iron. This means for a setup the angular momentum will quantize.

If we assume that a particle is stable e.g. the forces are balanced we can think of a setup which can scale down by loosing energy. Now systems usually shrink if that can be continuously downsized and now we do a new observation, as we shrink the system, the energy density will go up. So this process will continue and hence stop if we have a limit of the amount of energy density that the system can have. If we have multiple parts and variations in the system, like different charges for plus and minus charges and so on it is quite possible that the model ends up quantization charge, mass, angular momentum for different constellations that should, if things work out right, reproduce our experimental findings in particle physics.

The conclusion from this is now that the sum of all the energy density is essentially mass, particles will follow the law of special relativity and be Lorenz invariant and also the usual constants are explained.

The next fascinating observation in this thought experiment considers the soup of streams moving in all directions that we began with. We concluded that they bring energy with it and a surplus from the base level of energy density would interact with matte. As we concluded matter as at areas reached the maximum energy density. We cannot simply push the stream through the mass object where it reaches this level, it will bounce. If now all this is done with the same intensity in all directions, we would not see any effect, especially if the effect is much smaller than all other electromagnetic effects. We would simply not be able to measure this. But if two planets are close to each other. Obviously they would shadow each other and the end result is then an attraction. The speculation is therefore that this is how gravity come about.

The density of the soup will then be different in space and it is not too distant to assume that this will end up creating a curvature effect. E.g. mass can be interpreted as creating curvature in space, something that is observed. Sure this is only a qualitative argument, but this hole system is similar in effect. It looks like it could produce what general relativity models.

This opens also up a new avenue when it comes to how the universe might behave. Macroscopic the base level, e.g. the base of the energy density can vary in different part of the universe. This description could hint of how this variation can behave dynamically and this means that an electron mass may be different in other parts of the universe than ours and charge may as well be different. I guess c is constant in this model, but Planck's constant may differ as well as the similar quantities for all other particles. The obvious implication of this observation are that it have the potential to explain dark mass and dark energy. And not only this, by going to a proper mathematical analysis we may be able to produce equations that can be validated by astronomical observations.