The question awoke in
this author the thought that
charge could be interpreted as a "braking" of
in direction inwards; a conception that became the direct origin to this dimension model in 1970.
What is "charge"?
The question is put by D. Park in his book "The modern
physics", a pocket, from 1967 in Swedish,
and he said there that physicists hadm't any answer.
A car for example, with constant velocity
90 km/h, colliding with a concrete pillar, would lose some
of its length and transforms along a new vertical coordinate
axis. (Cf. objects, if with velocity of light, loses their
length dimension according to Lorentz' transformations!)
The question what charge actually is, "in reality",
can presumably only be answered by the physicists through
other concepts or mathematical formula for connections that
forwards the question to those other terms.
Charge as a 2-dimensional shell character:
According to first suggestions about physical quantities
and their mutual relations and identifications in a dimension
chain, Charge is presumed to be a 2-dimensional quality
in relation to Mass when this is analysed as 3-dimensional
(We could think of dimension degrees in a simple chain or
perhaps level degrees in a superposed chain of levels.)
One simple argument is of course that (+/-)-charges
implies a polarization of matter. And geometrically
of 3-dimensional volumes in microcosm, in atoms in an inner
nucleus and an outer electron "shell".
According to physicists the Charge in atomic nuclei
is also of a shell character, a shell that in
heavier atoms is thickening inwards towards something like
a high plateau and the the talking about potential barriers
à la crater-walls.
( Of course, charge is hardly the concept for the creation
of surfaces separating celestial bodies and vacant space
in macrocosm, but should be viewed as related as everything
in this model
See about FA-
FG-forces and FE-FM-forces
Charge, interpreted as a shell building property, as a barrier,
can be associated with the concept and physical quantity
The permeability is inversely proportional
to the charge squared.
Charge2 ~ -------------- [μ =
(M x D) / Q]
That is to say, the higher the charge, the
This seems to support the hypothesis about
Charge as a "surface" property, as a 2-dimensional
Embryo of an atom!
From the aspect of higher d-degrees towards lower degrees,
the step Mass → Charge as
Surface could be compared with the step from an embryo as
a filled ball of cells to a "blastula", a cell
membrane around an inner hollow with extra-cellular liquid
- as a first "built-in anticenter":
(Note that at the blastula stage the cells get differentiated
roles depending on angles of direction, with the "animal
pole" upwards and the "vegetative pole" downwards.
Compare the differentiation of electron shells around
an atom through the so called "quantum numbers",
which reasonably should have its correspondence in the nuclei.)
Cf. further down about quarks.
Negative (inward) and / or "inverted" velocity?
In a dimension chain there are 2 d-degrees "branched
off" at d-degree 3, and looking the other way around
from d-degree 0/ 00 of Motions inwards, in "negative"
direction, we can see them meeting in the middle of the
That is a view connecting Charge as property with negative
- and or "inverted" velocity inwards or the like;
perhaps squared, perhaps also with an added factor of acceleration?
(Velocity, outwards, in this model identified with the d-degree
steps, the "quantum jumps" outwards.) Cf. the
relation Mass - Gravitation - negative Acceleration.
How If we should transform the physical qualities Mass
and Charge into expressions for distance and time, metres
(m) and seconds (s):
Suppose that Mass is interpreted as 3-dimensional
and coupled to negative acceleration (~ gravitation), and
that Charge is interpreted as 2-dimensional and in some
way seen as derivative of Mass:
Instead of Time as of d-degree 1 (one
pole of this d-degree), we have to presume that this pole
represents the inverse of time, 1/T, the frequency f, with
d-degree 1. What do we get, in terms of derivatives?
- Mass (M): M ~ - m x f2 =- m/s2
(Mass as equivalent to negative acceleration.)
- y´(derivative with respect to the frequency)
- Charge (Q):Q ~ - m x f (Charge as negative velocity,
- y´´ (secondary derivative of Mass, derivative
- Distance (D): D ~ -m, the right d-degree and quality
but in negative !
Charge becomes the integral of negative distances! (Cf.
the speculation about the strong interaction force.)
EM-fields and Charge:
Charge as property is coupled with EM-fields according to
established, well founded science - in the same way as Gravitational
fields are connected with the property Mass.
As written about forces
and "MEGA"-fields the EM-force is here
seen as differentiated and identified as such in d-degree
The EM-force or field becomes the inner
connection and binding force between charges of complementary
structure and signs in d-degree 2 as presumed here: Charges
seen as the results of an underlying em-field,polarized
and "inverted" to particle-like structures through
a d-degree step.
We have two aspects at least on this presumed "inversion":
1. One is the change from electromagnetic waves outwards
to inward (negative) direction. The dimension chain seen
from the d-degree of motions we get built-in motions and
curved 1-dimensional potentials at d-degree 2, the more
particle like character (see about EM-waves here).
Compare first when quanta of em-waves
(with motions in 3 dimensions) in inward direction gets
absorbed by an atom and transform into higher, "circular"
amplitudes of the electron orbitals.
Then we have the fact that a photon with
enough of kinetic energy can give birth to pairs of electrons,
e-/e+: Yet this only occurs, so it is said, in the neighbourhood
of heavy atom nuclei (or atoms?), "which can absorb
the momentum of the photon".
Why? We could interpret this condition
in such a way that heavy atom nuclei as Masses define the
direction of the photon (a unit of waves) as inward direction
- that is towards higher dimension degree.
If so, this could give cause for the first
hypothetical interpretation of "Charge" as a property
developed as "surface" out of "a braked motion"
in direction inwards, connected with negative velocity.
Further, in direction outwards, zero-charged
elementary particles as π°
and ∑° can disintegrate directly
into electromagnetic radiation. This seems to show on a
primary "inversion" of em-waves into unpolarized
2. "Inverted" could also mean a role exchange
between E and M, the two forces FE and FM
in the em-field:
Within plasma physics, as said
elsewhere, there are formulas which describe the proportionality
between p and e related to M and E respectively:
p+ ~ M2
e- ~ E2
The underlying EM-field shall perhaps be
considered as squared - ? - in the transformation
into "particles". And p+ and e- should represent
opposite complementary relations of the combination E and
M. (Anti-matter the inverse.)
If we in em-waves
can see the magnetic component as the anticenter pole from
"vacant space"(with heritage from the 00-pole),
the proton - with most of the mass gets the center role,
the electron the anticenter one.
As said about "MEGA"-fields:
with the proton responsible for the most of the mass of
the atom, the electron for the kinetic energy, and mass
related to the G-force, these formulas seem to show on a
connection between G- and M-fields, A- and E-fields.
(If p+ is proportional to M2
according to the formulas, it could perhaps be interpreted
as result of a minus-energy squared giving plus-energy ?)
(According to definitions of old classical
mechanics Magnetic flux and flux density is proportional
to Mass, while Mass appears as proportional to Electric
field intensity. Electric flux and flux density is proportional
to Charge, while Charge appears direct proportional to Magnetising
field intensity. Electric field intensity.
Reading these definitions in a very simple
way, we could perhaps see them revealing a role exchange
between the poles M and E from field intensity to flux.)
If we take the quotient E/M of these physical
concepts, we get the expression:
[Q2 / M] x [s / m2]
for flux and flux density, the inverse expression for the
field strength. In the factor [s / m2] or the
inverse we could imagine one time factor (s) transformed
to a distance factor (m) in the relation for acceleration:
m/s2. (See about motions.)
The potential barrier?
About the formulas with components of EM-fields squared:
perhaps we could imagine the potential wall of the nucleus
as 2-dimensional, squared to a 4-dimensional curve:
The strong force Fst acting in the middle, the magnetic
component Fm in the wall, the electric component Fe outside
in opposite directions...?
Compare the "tunnel effect": α-particles
able to pass through the potential barrier with much lower
energy and expected. The α-particles
then are said to have "negative velocity" inside
N.B. Here there is mentioned this
negative velocity which here primarily is assumed to
characterise the charge property.
In opposition to the quantum of electromagnetic fields
(the photon with spin 1) the charged particles proton and
electron - and other elementary particles with mass, the
so called "fermions" - has spin 1/2
Something has happened in the step from
force fields to matter.
According to Hawking one can describe
this property spin as how much the quantum has to be turned
around to look the same again. The number 1 of the photon's
spin means that the photon has to be turned one revolution,
360° Spin 1/2 means that the fermions, the more "material"
particles, have to be turned around 2 revolutions (!),
that is 720° How explain that?
The first suggestion here is to imagine a band witch is
twisted once to an "8", giving two loops: If we
start at the outside of one loop, we will after one rev
come to the inside of the other loop and then after 2 revolutions
back to the starting point on the outside again.
The condition for this interpretation
is that we have a 2-dimensional "band", with an
inner side and an outer side.
Hence, this could be another argument
for interpreting charges as 2-dimensional structures. (And
of course for interpreting Matter
as a question of structure complexity. Quanta of forces
are attributed integer spin. Yet note that these "carriers"
of forces in the standard model concerns the outer relation
or interaction between units, in terms of the model here,
not the same as the inner bond as common origin.)
We could also imagine a wavelength of a sine wave as "reflected",
turning back again, inside and outside coupled to directions
and (+/-)-signs of coordinate axes.
Even if this aspect on spin has relevance, there are problems
too: Electrons with apparently simple structure has spin
(Electron paired through opposite spin
as taking opposite directions in the double-loop above,
starting from inside and outside respectively? Cf. illustrations
of the electron figurations in different atomic shells:
some electrons parted with half along the (+)-axis, half
along the (-)-axis of the coordinate system.)
Neutrinos has spin 1/2 too, but it's
not sure if they have any mass. And the recently found,
invented or produced W-bosons, as carriers of the weak force,
have both charge and are extremely heavy - but are attributed
This implies that there isn't any simple
correlation between the complexity of structure (the mass
property), charge and spin number. We should at least have
untwisted "bands" too for the property of charge.
Physicists point out that spin isn't an ordinary rotation
of a particle. We could probably (?) associate it with that
one d-degree of motion which according to first fundamental
postulates in this model is attributed to the 4th d-degree
of vector fields: Opposite spin directions with roots in
the inward / outward directions of 4th d-degree. Built-in
motions of polar field components, geometrically transformed
in lower d-degrees.
(Could there possibly exist some correspondence in macrocosm?
Not only does the planet Mercury rotate around its axes
and in an elliptic orbit around the sun. Also the (geometrical)
plane, the orbit itself as a 2-dimensional "structure",
rotates (if rightly understood), in a way which Einstein
solved, setting it in relation to the gravitational force.
More about Spin here.
Quarks - partial charges and gastrulation:
The physicists observed something like three divided
parts or areas in the proton, and experiments with shooting
quanta on the proton and registering the spreading pattern
gave the theory about protons consisting of 3 "quanta",
the quarks. These should have the charge +2/3, -1/3,
+2/3 (to get the charge unit +1).
In spite of this "quanta view"
on these quarks, they have never been possible to set free,
and the assumption for the present is that they cannot be.
(Well, we cannot pick out the rooms from a three-room flat
Where do we else have such a construction?
A suggestion here is to look at the embryology
step from a blastula to gastrulation. The blastula as a
shell of cells already has a defined "animal pole"
and "vegetative pole" in opposite directions:
The vegetative pole invaginates into the blastula,
as drawn inwards and forms the intestine and the device
for nourishment from outside (the original mouth), read
for the proton the "vacant space" (see about Matter).
The process illustrates the (partial) building-in of the
00-pole, the surroundings.
From this original intestine the cell
membrane as "2-dimensional" evaginates on both
sides "outwards" to hollow forms, so called "celoms"
which develop upwards.
The Direction of the first invagination
of the vegetative pole is inwards, to read as "negative"
energy which could be associated with the presumed negative
charge of -1/3 of the d-quark.
The Direction of the evagination of the
celoms is outwards, which then could be associated with
the positive charge of the 2 "up"-quarks in a
proton, two times +2/3.
According to estimates the two "up"-quarks
have also only half the energy (~5 MeV) than the "down"-quark
The process illustrates
- the building-in of vacant space into the nuclei,
- a certain combination of positive and negative energy
- charge as 2-dimensional structures like the cell membranes,
- the reason for the difficulty to set the quarks free,
- and, not least, a "negative curvature" of space
(where surfaces grow faster than proportional to the radius
Hence, already the proton could reveal this main
principle in biology for the development towards life.(See
14 in Genetic Code.)
It could be that we also have a combination of what the
mathematicians have called an elliptic and a hyperbolic
Perhaps we could bring the similarity a bit further:
It's from the inner membrane of the celoms (read positive
up-quarks) that the sexual organs are developed:
compare the proton's relation to electrons - and the sexual
polarization with that of charges!
What about the animal pole (its
development not included in the simplified figures above)?
Apparently in charge of the whole! The central part of its
membrane invaginates, induced by a meeting with the ventral
membrane, to form inwards the tube of the central nervous
We could possibly imagine this small
invagination as the electron in a neutron* when it
disintegrates into p+ and e- (and ν)
outside an atom, that is without the drawing force from
the complementary pole. Remember the central nervous system
as responsible for also the communication with the outer
world - and ditto for the electrons, forming molecules and
The other membrane around the animal pole
is growing circular downwards, forming the surrounding skin
of the embryo (while the vegetative pole is growing radially
in its invagination). So does the electron shell around
* Why more neutrons in heavier nuclei?
is to oxygen molecules H2O where
H-atoms can attract
the other side of the O-atom in another H2O-molecule.(?).
geometries: these complementary growing directions of
the membrane, circular and radial, illustrates the postulated
poles of 3rd d-degree in geometrical terms, between which
the 2nd d-degree of surfaces is presumed defined. (And we
have of course a lot of "convex and concave" forms
of surfaces too, as in sine waves.
The embryo development
concerns batrachians (frog type).
The embryo simile, spin 1/2 and p ~ M2,
e ~ E2:
The development of the membrane from cells around the
neural plate is a growing both outside, downwards, and inside
along this surrounding membrane, with circular form. This
could illustrate the interpretation of spin 1/2 too: one
loop of the "8" or twisted band turned into the
other. (Skin and its deeper layer, "epidermis"
Perhaps there is also a connection with
he formulas from plasma physics which indicated squared
relations between p and M2, e and E2?
Phase-displacement between E- and M-components?
Can we guess that there is another phase displacement between
E- and M-components in Charge (or between charged particles)
than in electromagnetic waves (90°)? One of 45°
The preliminarily supposed angle in d-degree 2. Tan +/-
45° = 1, taken as unit for the charge of p and
Compare the phase displacement of 90°
as a means to propagation. Charges do not propagate
as enclosed units.
Radiation outwards also implies jumps
between (energy) levels, as d-degree steps. Not charge as
a mostly "static" property coupled with "particles"
of inward direction.
If we should believe in the simile with
embryo development above, and interpret the opposite forces
as E- and M-components, we have both the polarity of c-ac,
360°, the antiparallel of 180°, and circular to
radial, 90°. representing the angles in d-degrees 5-4-3
according to first suggestions.
What about a phase displacement or angle
of 22,5°- 45°, in d-degree steps 1-2, which should
be closer to a parallel (!) relation? Is there anything
like that, perhaps in squared forms in plasma physics perhaps,
according to the relations p ~ M2,
e ~E2? Eventually connected with the development
Keeping to the embryological approach we have
a curious thing in the development on the 2-cell stage:
the so called "grey half-moon" of the membrane
at the lower, vegetative side, somewhere in the direction
of 11,25°--22,5° --45° as it seems: This area
must be represented if an individual shall develop.
a, c: Grey half-moon before and after its creation
(Figure from R. Olsson:
Koordatzoologi Stockholm 1971 and P.E.Lindahl et al: Zoofysiologi,
We could perhaps also note the direction of
celom evaginations from the original mouth or intestine
Another aspect on the angle of 45° concerns what the
electron shell reveals: 8 electrons make a full shell: 360/8
= 45°. There are many other angles in these shells through
all "quantum numbers", and they surely
should correspond to the nucleus, revealing its structures.
A third aspect is to imagine these smaller
angles connected with the partial charges of quarks. Most
2 < 2a------(1)-------2b
3 <3a------(2)-------3b √ 2,
+/-1 = tan (45° +/-22,5°).
4 < 4a------(3)-------4b
Some mathematical operations (??) :
Arctan 1 - arctan 2 = arctan -1/3.
Arctan 3 - arctan 2 + arctan 1 = +4/3,
divided 2 x (+2/3)
Arctan 5 - arctan 1 = +2/3
= Arctan 1 - arctan 1/5 (45°- 11,3°).
(0,2= tan 11,3°: cf. presumed rest angle 11,25°.)
Tan 45° +/- 22,5° = √ 2,
Tan [arctan 3, +90°] = - 1/3 (arctan
3 + arctan + ∞ !)
Arctan 7/4 - arctan 1/2 = arctan +2/3
Arctan √ 2
has values: sin = √+2/3,
cos = √ +1/3:
[sin (arctan √ 2)]2
= +2/3, [cos(arctan√2)]2
*E- and M-components, if associated with sine
and cosine numbers, should perhaps be squared to trace the
charges: In the other direction then, at least one of the
numbers is reasonably an imaginary one, coupled to inward
(And what about sine-cosine relations
and numbers in a non Euclidean room?)
a. Geometrical series:
Suppose a = 1, k = charges of quarks: then we get the sum
of the series to number 3 divided with the 5-4-3-2-1-numbers,
- in this order:
(The proton charges should then include or enclose one factor
from 3-4-step, connected with mass and gravitation, and
two of the d-degree 1 in relation to 3.).
b. 2/3 = sum of the series 1/2 + 1/8 + 1/32...etc,
next number always a quarter of the previous one.
c. If partial charges were interpreted as
10 power exponents(!):
Cube root out of 101 = 101/3,
out of 102 = 10+2/3
Through three operations repeated, all numbers
through oscillation approach and end up in these +2/3 and
-1/3-numbers as exponents to 10.
1. x 10,
2. Inversion (/\
3. Extracting the square root, √
10+2/3 - 10+1/3 = 2,48
= the difference in quotients between the n/e and p/e, proton
and neutron in relation to rest mass of electrons: 1838,6
Attraction - and Repulsion between p and e:
In closer analysis physicists have noted factors of
both attraction and repulsion.
There are certainly several ways to explain
this fact, but one could refer to different, complementary
impacts from E- and M-components in the protons. (Simplest
perhaps imagined as a repelling force from the negative
built-in vector field in the proton, an attracting force
from the positive partial charges.)
Some such view should be able to explain
why electrons not "fall into" the nucleus (as
planets not fall into the sun, in spite of gravitation).
According to basic proposels in this model higher d-degrees
act as binding forces in (next) lower degrees, and lower
d-degrees as polarizing forces towards higher ones.
How is it possible to define "volumes"
of d-degree 3 - unpolarized - as such a binding force? What
should it be? Easier to define Mass + Vacant space as poles
3a and 3b as this binding force. Do we have any representation
of the unpolarized unity of Mass and Vacant Space?
Nest question: the d-degree of Motion,
0/00, movements to and from each other, should be the force
separating charges +/-, creating and defining Distance as
concept. But this concept is of course much wider, defined
through each d-degree step where 1 d-degree is "lost".