For the record, I rarely

underline for emphasis. In my posts, it's usually a supporting reference link.

Pivot wrote:Atomic/Plasma physics models represents it as a mass-less point charge.

The standard model ascribes mass (a.k.a. "rest mass") to all fermions. This is often given in energy units, as per

E = mc². For example, an

electron has mass ≈ 511 keV.

Pivot wrote:E2M represents it as concentrated core energy with intrinsic spin plus spin-off energy (i.e. its magnesphere). Energy and spin alone are all there is’ is the E2M punchline.

What do you mean by "intrinsic"? (Don't feel bad. No one knows, except to say "

not extrinsic" or "not explicit".)

Your "spin" appears to be classical, about a spatial axis. The "spin½" of a fermion is not at all like that, after being extensively tested. For example, it's magnitude is the same in

every direction tested, though sign(±) varies probabilistically.

Pivot wrote:…a host of adjustments (e.g. half-spin, strange ‘spdf’ orbitals etc.) have to be made to make the maths work

.

Agreed! "

Spin½" is an

oxymoron as a

quantum of anything, including spin, is defined as

indivisible. In my personal view, the problem lies in the way

Planck's constant is reduced.

"

In applications where it is natural to use the angular frequency (i.e. …in terms of radians per second…) it is often useful to absorb a factor of 2 pi into the Planck constant…called the reduced Planck constant…equal to the Planck constant divided by 2 pi, and is denoted ħ (pronounced 'h-bar')"

If spin is chronaxial (about time) then reduction by 2 pi radians is

not sufficient. Chronaxial spin occurs in a 3-plane (i.e. is

solid-angular), requiring reduction by 4 pi steradians. Then it all works out fine. No "

half quanta" of spin to deal with.

Pivot wrote:‘energy and spin alone are all there is‘

I'm all for reduction to first principles. My problem with your model is in selecting

energy as an

object* rather than a

behavior.

*And a fairly complex object at that.

I attribute energy to spin

behavior. That leaves selection of a fundamental object to do the spinning. For my theory, that's a tiny wormhole (a "

pinhole"). It's hard to get simpler than a hole. In this case, a hole in the 4D continuum, bypassing space and time.

Pivot wrote:a mathematical asymptote indicating an electric field increasing to infinity will never happen

Your skepticism is well taken. Rather than wrestle with infinity, let's restate: At any diameter attributable to an electron, the electric repulsion would be sufficiently strong to disperse any material with intrinsic electric charge. This is one reason the Standard Model requires a point particle.

This doesn't seem to matter to E2M, as you see charge as resulting from the material’s behavior rather than being inherent to the material itself. My theory is similar, in that respect, but relies on pinhole spin rather than a spinning fluid-like material.

Pivot wrote:your quote "The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space…" needs finishing along the lines ‘unless combined or modified by other fields

Gravity holds galactic clusters together across billions of light-years. Similarly, for recently detected gravitational waves. EM is on the order of 10

^{40} stronger than gravity! It's reach must be at least as far.

Some like to think of the universe as electrically

neutral. I prefer to think of it as equally

positive and

negative. The difference is that

dark matter, such as a neutrino, is fundamentally neutral, while a neutron is an equally positive and negative composite of quarks.

Pivot wrote:your "Some of us think we do" know what energy looks like comment, please send me a photo

I think I already did above.

Energy in my model ("

Phyxed") is specifically the

effective chronaxial spin rate of a pinhole. More spin is greater mass-energy.

Pivot wrote:concepts such as spacetime, I believe is a big ask.

I share a concern here, preferring Euclidean interval-time coordinates to the conventional non-Euclidean spacetime of Minkowski. Suffice it to say, we have 4 well-recognized, independent means of distinguishing two events relative to each other (thus, 4 coordinate specifiers).

Pivot wrote:viscosity… an analogy to describe behavior…Energy is definitely considered the baseline substance (does the word substance also imply structure?) from which everything else is built.

Yes, it does. How else can we distinguish it from an empty region?

I find it helpful to define:

system – that specified by more than one coordinate location.

object – any movable system.

These are nearly interchangeable, since motion is relative. It means that if motion is detectable, there are at least two objects, effectively measuring each other (i.e. interaction is always mutual, or Newton’s 3rd Law).

Pivot wrote:EM fields are considered by E2M to escape from and be recovered by concentrated energy.

Like I said, that's a complicated fluid object, begging for deeper explanation.

Pivot wrote:E2M is just probing interactions of subatomic particles and the spins of those particles from an energy perspective.

Have fun!