No, as a study of extended objects shows.

As an assumption, likely some elementary particles get mass depending on dimensional interactions of the Charge and/or Spin. E.g., Up Quark has a 2/3 Spin. Therefore 2/3 -3/3 is equal to -1/3. If so, only 1 dimension gets mass. Down Quark has a -1/3 Spin like 3/3 -1/3 equals 2/3. Likely, it has 2 dimensions to get mass. The Down quark is nearly 2 times more massive than the Up Quark. But electrons (minimum -3/3 or -1) and neutrinos (maximum 0/3 or 0) don't have an extra or minor charge. Electrons would get mass using the Spin dimensions (1/2). Neutrinos are asymmetric (E.g., only left-handed, Neutrino Oscillation). And they don’t interact with the Higgs field to get mass.

Elementary particles and forces are generally 1D, 2D, and 3D (standard 3 dimensions: up-down, left-right, forward-back) dimensional sets. So we can simplify the standard model of elementary particles by removing the 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) elementary particles (E.g., 2-dimensional Charm Quark, 3-dimensional Top Quark, etc.).

Scientists (including Dr. Peter Higgs) could predict the existence of ‘Higgs Boson’'. As we now know, it has a mass of around 125 GeV. But some scientists expected a higher mass for the Higgs boson. I tried to compare the mathematical structures with the properties of elementary particles in the Standard Model (of particle physics) using ratios, patterns, etc. I compared a mathematical ratio in the dimensional groups with the standard mass of particles. I could guess that there is probably ANOTHER Higgs Boson with a mass around 4000 (or maximum 4800) GeV that can emerge as a 2-dimensional (2D) Higgs Boson. The maximum energy produced in the 27 km long LHC is around 1000 GeV. And that energy is not enough to discover a relatively higher mass experimentally. But according to the dimensional structures, 3-dimensional (3D) structures emerged in the universe first. The energy required to make the 3rd Higgs Boson (like a solid Higgs Boson) or higher energy/pressure would make a tiny Black Hole. E.g., Likely, the core of a massive dying star makes a tiny Black Hole that can grow.

The energy/mass in elementary particles/waves is related to their frequency. Perhaps, the mass represents a complex quantum process in frequency. The wave function in the Schrödinger equation is a complex (unexplained) function. And quantum field theory uses complex/imaginary numbers (E.g., √2) to get real solutions. So possibly, the most fundamental (super quantum) nature of frequency/energy is based on sets of linear dimensions (linear kg, m, s units). Mass (Kg) is like the Spin dimension.

My research: Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything

Suresh Wanayalaege ,

Thank you for the interesting information you've shared.

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis,

I'm glad. I shared it from my research book, and it is a simple explanation.

Thanks for the interest.

Suresh

We should not forget that the task of particle physics is to provide a description of processes at the subatomic level that is at least consistent with experimental data, but not to solve mathematical problems by redefining Nature.

The experimental data do not show any structure of the electron. Renormalisation is not per se unphysical, as scattering experiments at high energies show. On the other hand, there is no experimental evidence for infinite renormalisation factors.

This suggests that the reason for the infinities observed in quantum electrodynamics is not an incorrect description of single electrons, but a faulty perturbation algorithm. This opinion is supported by the following observation:

The Standard Model (of particle physics) is based on multi-particle product representations of the Lorentz group (SO(3,1) x SO(3,1) x … ) together with interaction terms that are also based on a product representation. On the other hand, a multi-particle configuration with well-defined total momentum and angular momentum is described by an irreducible multi-particle representation of SO(3,1). Irreducible multi-particle representation are obtained by reducing product representations to a direct sum of irreducible representations of SO(3,1). They are characterised by an effective mass and an angular momentum, similar to the mass and spin of an elementary particle.

The perturbation algorithm of quantum electrodynamics is an algorithm on a product representation. It does not contain a reduction to irreducible representations, which, however, would be necessary to perform a perturbation calculation in a mathematically meaningful way, resulting in well-defined multi-particle configurations (with well-defined effective mass and orbital angular momentum).

Thus, the Standard Model ignores elementary elements of the representation theory of the Poincaré group, i.e. of Poincaré invariance.

By the way, there are neither infinities nor dressed electrons in irreducible multi-particle representations of the Poincaré group.

Dear Walter Smilga ,

Thank you very much Sir for your expert input.

However, if this is formilized so well why there are many references in the literature and even consensus expresed that the size of the mass of the electron has an upper limit size

Emmanouil,

There is a consensus that the experiments performed so far are consistent with a structureless, point-like electron and that the experimental radius of an electron in any case is < 10-18 m.

https://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/overviews/ElectronSubstructure/ElectronSubstructure.html

I don’t see any 'contradiction'.

Walter

These upper limit experiments were done accelerating electrons at energies more than 50GeV. Is there any proof that the electron retains its size within its own frame of reference when accelerated at these speeds?

Article Search for contact interactions, large extra dimensions and ...

We need measurements at lower energies approaching 0.511MeV.

The provided link is dead (at least for me, Europe resident).

Try this link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190410164332/https://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/overviews/ElectronSubstructure/ElectronSubstructure.html

I searched it yesterday and the original link stated in the WP "Electron" page was dead. It exist only as a web.archive.org link also given alternative from WP.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

You may know about these experiments already, but I'm sending links to them just in case you are interested.

When it comes to the roundness of the electron, here is an older article showing that experiments indicate that electrons appear to be perfectly round:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electron-perfectly-round-to-one-part-in-million-billion-experiment-finds/#

Here is a more recent report. The accuracy has improved by orders of magnitudes, but the result is the same. No sign that the electron is not perfectly round:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/electron-shape-round-standard-model-physics

When it comes to the mass of the electron, I agree that it does make sense to treat the particle as a dimensionless point.

Doug Marman ,

Thanks for the links, Yes I am aware of these measurements which however don't contradict with the SM view of the electron as a dimensionless massive point particle. They just prove the homogenous distribution (sphere) of the charge interaction with its environment at the relative far field. You cannot measure directly on the charge since you don't even know what it is since you regard it according SM as a dimensionless point, you measure only its interaction with its environment for example inelastic photon scattering.

For what it is worth, for the Standard Model (SM) the charge is an intrinsic property of the electron dimensionless particle that generates a value in coulomb electrostatic units we can measure with accuracy when it is interacting with its environment and our apparatus.

What exactly this charge is? What its morphology and energy flow is? And how with what mechanics and process it generates this measured electrostatic force these are all unknowns and frankly the SM doesn't care that much to find out.

Emmanouil,

Yes, I agree with everything you said. There is no contradiction because the massive dimension of the electron is involved with a different force than the charge interaction.

I picture the electron's mass as the result of its interaction with the Higgs field. This will not change if the electron has massive volume or is a dimensionless point. And it is clear that the electron should not have massive volume.

However, renormalization is needed when dealing with the charge interactions. I see these charge interactions as exchanges of virtual photons. The renormalization process suggests that there is a cloud of virtual particles surrounding the electron, but there is nothing in quantum theory that explains why this should be true. And, as you said, SM doesn't really care about this. The math works. That's good enough.

Since all electrons carry the same amount of charge, this suggests the it is the electron particle field that defines this property of all electrons. However, it is the electron, not the electron particle field, that is involved with charge interactions. This raises questions about the electron particle field, since it defines both the mass and charge, as well as the spin of all electrons.

No, it is not good enough for me. I want to know what exactly this "dimensionless" massive point is and its "intrinsic" mechanics?

This is my proposal:

Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

The charge of the electron is a whirling EM flux energy manifold confined in a volume in space creating its mass. The charge is also its mass. And yes it is interacting with the Higgs field. Its interaction with the environment creates the B and E field however these are interchangeable entangled under a unified EM flux manifold we call charge of the electron or better just electron.

Bellow in the link animation, the double horn formation is the magnetic dipole charge of the electron and the surface of the sphere is the electric charge. Both entangled components form the unified total charge of the electron. This confined EM flux energy manifold focuses the energy at the center of the shown topology at a dimensionless point, center of mass we call mass of the electron:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

So, here you have it, the electron. Both a bare mass dimensionless point particle and a dressed charge particle. The charge of the electron (that's all there is actually) consists of unified EM flux (virtual photons).

Don't believe this is the electron? We talk again 10 years from now since this model is ahead its time... :)

BTW, the electron's intrinsic mechanics are deterministic.

Doug wrote:

[ "I picture the electron's mass as the result of its interaction with the Higgs field." ]

and Emmanouil wrote:

[ "And yes it is interacting with the Higgs field." ]

As I understand it, a standard Higgs-type mechanism requires that only the "left handed" state (or phase) of an electron interacts with a Higgs-type field, while the "right hand" state (or phase) does not. In this standard version, the observed mass of a standard model electron is related to the rate of this chiral flipping.

Emmanouil, does your very interesting model accommodate this complication, or do you envisage a different type of "Higgs mechanism"?

Nigel

Emmanouil,

I read through the end of the first chapter in your paper that you provided a link to. I find the approach you are taking interesting.

However, it leaves me with questions. I could probably answer these by reading the rest of the paper, but I thought it would be better to ask you directly.

First, are you proposing that the electron itself actually possesses volume and its intrinsic spin angular momentum is the result of the body of the electron spinning? That would be problematic. So, I think this must be wrong. But you said a number of times that the intrinsic spin angular momentum must come from the electron spinning and this means it must occupy volume.

Or, looking at the page showing the spinning flux image, are you proposing that the electron is a dimensionless point and it is the energy flux that is spinning?

If you are proposing the second, I am assuming that you are saying that the electron itself is spinning, and this is what causes the electric field to spin, since the body of the electron is a dimensionless point.

What I am trying to distinguish here is that if the body of the electron possesses volume, then the mass of the electron would fill that volume. This creates a serious problem because such a spinning body is going to lose energy over time as any spinning object does.

However, if, as we were saying in our discussion, that the massive body of the electron is a dimensionless point, then it is meaningless to say that it is spinning. A point can't spin. This raises the question of why the electric field would spin. And even if it did spin, why would this cause angular momentum?

What you are talking about, however, is interesting to me because it comes close to my naive way of picturing what quantum spin means. When I look at the math describing quantum spin, I see complex numbers. This is the way all quantum states are represented.

This representation has led me to picture an electron as spinning, but not in spacetime. Rather it is spinning in a dimension that is a component of spacetime and has an influence on spacetime, but is not fully in spacetime. This is similar to Hilbert space dimensions.

This dimension is connected to spacetime in the same way an imaginary number is connection to real numbers. In other words, when you multiply two imaginary numbers, you get a real number. In this same way, when quantum spin interacts with other quantum states, it can produce measurable angular momentum.

Here is how all of the comes close to what you are proposing, if I understand you correctly: If there are indeed a cloud of virtual photons surrounding an electron, this would also be in a Hilbert space dimension. The spinning of this cloud could indeed act like a spinning energy flux, although this would be purely a quantum state, not real energy in spacetime. But, when an electron interacts with an electric field, this is when we can see real angular momentum that is quantized. This is how the quantum spin state is projected onto the spacetime dimension.

I haven't tried to describe this before, because it is really just a naive idea that allows me to picture what is happening. But it is interesting that what you are proposing seems close.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Hi !

Doug Marman ,

Thanks for your interest and supporting words and justified questions raised.

The proposed research, Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

Yes, you are right of course either way physically, the electron must source its energy from somewhere in order to sustain its confined energy stable at rest of 0.511MeV and the SM mathematical trick to assign and attribute to it no any dimensions does not answer physically nor explains really the question. It is more like a convenient workaround supported by our inability to isolate and make direct measurements on its confined charge since we can only interact with its generated E and B fields and is difficult to distinguish in space where these fields stop and the charge of the electron starts. Thus, we cannot define experimentally any charge radius as shown very clearly in the above figure.

(Base graphics source credits: https://nationalmaglab.org/about/maglab-dictionary/electron-magnetic-resonance)

From where will you start to measure the yellow region shown in the above figure and without disturbing it? The charge distribution measurements you have linked before are examining its E far field and not directly on its charge which is anyway by SM a dimensionless charged point demoting it to an unnatural physical phenomenon.

The proposed analytical and simulated fiber model for the electron defines its dimensions of an isolated electron at rest in vacuum space within its own frame of reference and the fine structure constant α (read end of the article section 3.3. although I strongly recommend to read the whole article) as a geometrical proportionality constant of its charge manifold. The existence of the fine structure constant actually infers strongly that the electron has a finite charge radius and is not a dimensionless point as shown in the second figure provided and also this study here:

Preprint Indirect experimental evidence that the origin of Fine Struc...

(see reference [1] in the above article).

About now from where the electron sources its stable precise energy at rest 0.511MeV. Our proposed fiber model in our article does not go into this domain and is concerned in answering first of what this charge actually is and how it generates intrinsically all of the measured properties of the electron including its mass value including its interaction with the Higgs field. We withhold to describe from where the energy actually sources in a next publication. You mentioned Hilbert space, yes this is a possibility although we find it difficult how to connect by physical description Hilbert space with our spacetime reality which is a priority in all of our papers.

In our "book", the unified electromagnetic flux (there is no really separate electric and magnetic flux both are constituted by the same stream of virtual photons and only the curl changes, please read this here,

Preprint The Electromagnetic Flux

as gravity is, is a distortion in the fabric of spacetime itself and is a more elementary phenomenon than the electron. This EM flux distortion formation (i.e. stream of virtual photons formation) in spacetime makes the electron and not the electron the EM flux. It is like a thread that weaves the electron charge as a energy dipole vortex formation manifold.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s.1. I am planning in the next moths to make a detailed youtube video presentation-lecture of the electron 1/2 spin fiber model paper. I will put a link on the comments section of the RG article page as soon this is ready.

p.s.2. Related to this answer RG preprint:

Preprint Classical explanation of the interaction of the electron wit...

Hi!

Nigel Nunn ,

Interesting proposition.

quote:

"Doug wrote:

[ "I picture the electron's mass as the result of its interaction with the Higgs field." ]

and Emmanouil wrote:

[ "And yes it is interacting with the Higgs field." ]

As I understand it, a standard Higgs-type mechanism requires that only the "left handed" state (or phase) of an electron interacts with a Higgs-type field, while the "right hand" state (or phase) does not. In this standard version, the observed mass of a standard model electron is related to the rate of this chiral flipping.

Emmanouil, does your very interesting model accommodate this complication, or do you envisage a different type of "Higgs mechanism"?

Nigel"

==========================

The terms Left and Right handedness in the Higgs mechanism for massive elementary particles refer to the helicity of the particle and a constant of motion which however may I remind you is not Lorentz invariant and depends also on the frame of reference of the observer and can be also described as "apparent chirality".

On the other hand, chirality is an intrinsic property of the massive particle and Lorentz invariant but not a constant of motion.

An electron propagating in vacuum space in the direction of its momentum collides with the Higgs bosons and in every collision changes its helicity from left handed to right handed [https://bctp.berkeley.edu/neutrino/neutrino3.html] and vice versa thus due this frequency of flips gains its mass from the Higgs field. Meaning it switches continuously its spin angular momentum vector to the direction of its momentum (right handed) and opposite to the direction of its momentum (left handed) as shown in the first two top blue animations of our model below with the momentum vector imagine it pointing up on the z-axis:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

(please do not confuse the magnetic moment vector S-N shown in the above link with the spin vector which is always found with the right hand rule twisting your fingers in the direction of rotation CW or CCW and the thumb showing the direction of the spin angular momentum vector)

As mentioned above chirality on the other hand is an intrinsic property of massive lelementary particles, Lorentz invariant and not a constant of motion but rather a static feature similar as looking at your two hands. This is also best demonstrated in our fiber model for the electron below:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

where as you see in the above animation all electrons are always left chiral with the charge flux lines leaning always on the left independent of the helicity whereas all positrons are right chiral with the charge flux lines leaning always to the right of the vertical z-axis.

Also notice here, the relation of the charge sign of fermions with their chirality? As far as I know a negative charge elementary 1/2 spin particle like the electron -e is always left chiral whereas all positive charged fermions rigth chiral.

Finally demonstrated also in our fiber model and above animation and also known in the literature a negative charge particle has always its spin magnetic dipole moment vector S-N opposite to the direction of its spin vector whereas all positive charged fermions like the positron +e have both vectors pointing in the same direction.

The fiber model shows how all these physical properties, charge, helicity, chirality, magnetic moment, combine and correlate under a single unified energy flux manifold.

Last but not least, especially for the Higgs field, our research in the paper:

Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

Suggests, that Higgs field in order it interact with an elementary particle, the particle must occupy a volume in space in our spacetime therefore it cannot be a dimensionless point. This volume the particle occupies is the reason why a massive particle can travel less than speed of light c through vacuum space opposite to a photon which is a 2D entity and occupies only an area surface in three-dimensional space thus can travel at c.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s. Related to this answer preprint:

Preprint Classical explanation of the interaction of the electron wit...

There is a discussion I've initiated in PSE about what actually the SM means in terms of the charge of the electron being left-chiral eL and right-chiral eR electron concepts mathematical attributions representations in the Higgs mechanism by which the electron gains its mass.

Some quotes from this forum tread:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/698416/are-there-in-nature-any-right-chiral-isolated-electron-particles

"Left-chiral and right-chiral electrons don't exist as isolated long-lived objects.

Instead, what we call an electron (with rest mass m), is actually a particle constantly oscillating between being a left-chiral electron (eL) and a right-chiral electron (eR)."

"In its rest frame, an electron is an equal superposition of its left-chiral and right-chiral components. The two pieces transform differently under boosts, for reasons which occupy a chapter or two in textbooks on field theory. So if you are holding a polarized electron in your hand at rest, you’ll think it’s equal parts left- and right-chiral. But if I run past you relativistically, I’ll see your electron as one chirality or the other depending on whether I run at its “north pole” or its “south pole.”

The charged weak current only interacts with the left-chiral parts of the matter fields, and with the right-chiral parts of the antimatter fields. In the rest frame of the decay, electrons created by the charged current are purely left-chiral, and so the more energetic they are, the more strongly they are also left-polarized. But in the rest frame of the created electron, it is equal parts left- and right-chiral the whole time."...

---------------------------

Apart of nice mathematical linguistic interpretations and imaginary left eL and right electron eR versions theoretical manifestations, I' m sure they don't have a clue how this unnecessary complicated descriptions physically translate to the electron?

Let me remind you that Quantum field Theory (QFT) adopted by the SM and all these are actually effective theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_theory never actually claiming that they represent physical reality but only can predict with accuracy results and outcomes from quantum interactions with the environment.

The electron is one and all the electrons at rest are the same. There are physically no isolated separate eL and eR electrons. What the above and the Dirac Spinor equation actually is referring to, is the complex charge flux manifold of the physical electron.

Here comes our proposed parameterized Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

The charge flux model of the electron:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/mm-index.html

The charge flux of the electron as viewed from above its N pole (left animation) and S pole (right animation) transparently, see-through towards its opposite pole:

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/polarview.html

Physical interpretation of the left-chiral and right-chiral electrons mathematical concepts of QFT:

You can see clearly from the last above animation (polarview of the electron at rest) that the left-chiral electron and right chiral electron terms actually refer to the charge flux spiral trajectory of the single electron at rest as viewed by an observer above its pole, N pole (left animation) or S (right animation).

Looking down to the electron from above its N pole (left animation) we can see the more fade blue flux lines of its charge in the background (seethrough towards its opposite pole, representing eR) have opposite chirality than the ones on front (eL electron). The two chiralities are alternating in time and are in superposition in space as described in this awkward way may I say, by the QFT and the SM which uses (invents) two different imaginary versions of electrons in superposition to describe the single physical electron at rest and also uses this explanation to describe how this continuously flipping in time of the eL and eR creates the mass of the electron via the Higgs field as described also by the Dirac spinor. In reality, there is only one electron and the eL and eR are actually its two different chirality charge flux manifolds on its two poles as viewed from above one of its poles.

Looking down to the electron from above its S pole (right animation) the same holds as described above only now everything is in reverse.

https://www.horntorus.com/particle-model/polarview.html

Preprint e(L) and e(R) charge flux components of the electron at rest

Emmanouil

A video presentation of the published paper, Article A ½ spin fiber model for the electron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVFpoUs3kz4

For best viewing experience view at full screen at 720p resolution. Use of headphones is also recommended.

Emmanouil, thank you for that excellent video presentation of your model! I must say I agree whole-heartedly that we need a better description of the electron.

And I'm sure you would agree that if we are to improve or replace the standard model, we'd better get the basics right. For example, the difference between a Higgs field and a Higgs boson, and what is meant by "interaction with a Higgs-type field".

Technically, a standard model Higgs-type field is a (tachyonic) condensate of weak hypercharge, while a standard model Higgs-type boson is an (energetic) disturbance to that field.

The reason this type of disturbance is called a Higgs-type boson (rather than Anderson / Brout / Englert / Guralnik / Hagen / Kibble-type) is that Peter Higgs added that paragraph to his 1964 paper predicting that a very particular type of excitation of this field should be possible. Thus one of the design goals of the LHC was to hit the hypothetical "Higgs-type condensate" hard enough to excite this predicted "Higgs-type disturbance".

Which brings us to that "Higgs-type mechanism". This mechanism proposes that a "particle" can interact with this condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs-type field) only if it HAS weak hypercharge. In the early 1960's those researchers listed above all came to a similar conclusion: that if certain standard model particles could flip between charged and uncharged states (charged with weak hypercharge), this oscillation -- between charged and uncharged states -- would allow interaction with the condensate, inducing a kind of inertial mass for those particles. This interaction is what we now call "a Higgs-type mechanism".

With regard to electrons "getting a mass" in this way, one of the mysteries in this scheme goes: how does the electron acquire, then lose, the necessary quanta of weak hypercharge? What is it about an electron (or quark) that distinguishes these charged and uncharged (chiral) states?

Here, let's recall that the standard model's electric charge is modeled as a combination of weak isospin and weak hypercharge, Q = T_3 + (1/2) Y_W

Which makes one wonder: is electric charge emerging from the dynamics of weakly charged components? For example, that superposition of Weyl spinors implied by Dirac's model?

Add to this picture the sort of fractional electric charge required by the "Fractional Quantum Hall Effect", and the fact that neutrinos only interact via weak hypercharge, and that weak hypercharge mediates the flipping of quarks between their "up" and "down" states.

All of which, taken together, suggests that we take seriously Bob Laughlin's old idea, of complicated properties like {rigidity, charge, mass} emerging from hundreds of "tiny ghosts linking arms":

See page 42 of Laughlin 2005, "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", https://archive.org/details/differentunivers00laug

PS: If we model Laughlin's "tiny ghosts" as being charged with weak hypercharge, think how we might redefine the "massive" in W.I.M.P. not as "heavy", but as "first measurable quantum" of mass. In other words, are Laughlin's "tiny ghosts" part of the invisible (dark) foundations both our standard models need? Axionic preons?

PS2: note that the "speed of light" in your model is defined relative to a local electrical permittivity and magnetic permeability. Is there any good reason to believe that the permittivity and permeability WITHIN a galaxy is the same as that BETWEEN galaxies? Which is another way of asking... should we predict that both permittivity and permeability are functions of a "non-homogeneous" Higgs-type condensate?

Many miles to go before we sleep!

thanks again,

Nigel

Dear Nigel Nunn ,

Thank you for you excellent most interesting and intriguing information shared and deep understanding of the related literature and arguments and the current status quo in "mainstream science" about the related matter but also all the relevant implications you have presented.

You definitely posses a much broader picture of the quantum and particle physics current landscape than me that allow you to do these correlations both from physical but also mathematical approach of solving these problems and unknowns.

Allow me please with my relative limited knowledge of all the subjects and fields you masterfully presented interconnected and correlated to present from my experience a simple fact of wisdom:

You cannot go to unravel a complex knot by pulling from all of its sides. This is done more by sequence. You take the first step before you go to the next.

How we can ever answer these big unknows before not answering first the more simple ones right under our nose? How can one or many find if the Higgs field is a weak hypercharge condensate possible tachyonic, if we don't really understand what the charge of the electron is? Using the SM you will never find out theoretically what the answers are to these questions which IMO can be found locked in the interior of the elementary particles. But here is the problem today, the same wonderful model (SM) that allows us so many discoveries is also the main reason for keeping out further progress in particle and quantum physics today because it forbids any intrinsic mechanics of elementary particles. So there is nothing really to discuss further and you hit a dead end.

However the fine structure constant almost proves with certainty that elementary particles must in origin have a finer intrinsic structure not necessarily in the form of sub particles but as specific energy flux formations.

Also notice that if you come to such a deep level IMO effective theories like string theory will not cut it simply because there can be only one way to do it which also is the actual one or physical. It is like sw programming If you go to the assembly language level there are actually no many ways to program other than by simple add and push-pull instructions.

IMO, EM flux distortion (virtual photons) in the fabric of spacetime is currently the most elementary quanta in our observable Universe and the thread by which all elementary matter is woven. So I think it is a valid ansatz that the electron's charge flux energy manifold, is made up from this same stuff namely EM flux.

Therefore EM flux makes up the electron and not the electron the EM flux.

We have to find out what the specific charge flux manifolds for each particle generations are? If you can do that you can unify the known physics and also possible trace down the origin of quantum induced gravity.

After that, next is the unseen fabric of spacetime? What these elementary EM flux distortions really are? Distortions of what thing? Surely space is a thing and not nothing. If EM flux is stream of virtual photons coming out apparently from nowhere, this nowhere must be a hidden to us domain but similar to our domain physics but at a higher energy level not accessible to our spacetime domain. In my book this can only be when exceeding the speed of light c.

Therefore any subsequent theory trying to describe this vacuum space condensate must be tachyonic and phase shifting.

Renormalisation is one of the most amazing idea in modern physics and goes back, as far I know, to an suggestion by Heisenberg: to get rid of infinities found in computing the effect of vacuum fluctuations on the energy levels of the hydogen atom. There one has to assume that the mass and charge of the electron as they appear formally in the formulation of the problem without quantum fluctuations are infinite, to compensate so to speak the divergences of the "bare" theory. After a lot of subtle calculations this idea lead to a precise calculation. of the Lamb shift, something rightly considered as a major achievement of the physics of the 20th century, by remaining inside the framework of quantum mechanics laid down by Schrodinger, Dirac, Heisenberg and others.

Yves Pomeau