That seems, I believe you think, to be a relatively safe statement: and therefore you can be in a position to state a precise model. For example, for the proton - which seems to be one of the simplest dense matter objects in your model - you could state what mathemetical object represents the proton nucleus, how that maps to 3+1D Lorentzian space, what is the equivalent moving charge model from which things like proton magnetic moment can be derived? Or, for some other relatively simple object for which your theory makes theoretical predictions of a known experimental value. If the key match is magnetic flux rather than charge that would be as good - I should point out that in L4 magnetic flux and charge are closely related, so if you can model one, and add Lorentzian invariance, you can also model the other one. So I think you can be confident that if you have a more fundamental theory that matches Maxwell's equations for magnetic flux it will also do that for charge.

In dense space mass must be split into relativistic & perturbative mass. The relativistic mass does not follow the classic metric (speed always c and already renormalized to rotational mass) and "seems" not directly responsible for charge/(potential) generation. Electric/magnetic neutrality seem to be related to surface waves of S^{3},S^{5}. This information is derived from the isotope structures we can directly model with the NPP2.0 compression rules.

Perturbative mass is a consequence of lack of (higher S^{3},S^{5}) symmetry. Thus before I will look for a classic proton model, that is conform to 3D,t L space I will try to find the SO(4) structure of the solution and the corresponding Eigenvalues. This did finally work very well for the gravitation constant.

But do not expect that one single person that only can max work about 3 hours/day will find the solution in a few weeks. The gravity (-constant) took half a year of collecting ideas/understanding, where as the final modeling could be done in a week.

THHuxleynew
: Thanks for the references.

I'm reminded of celestial mechanics before Kepler when the only trajectory considered possible for planets was circular: and to match observations models of planets orbiting with epicycles were needed. The best epicyclic models matched observations very well indeed: better than the initial ellipsoidal equivalents. But the problem was complexity, as observations got better more epicycles were needed with more arbitrary parameters (the radius and orientation of the epicyclic motion). Whereas much simpler models using ellipsoidal motion, with fewer arbitrary parameters, matched as well.

This is one astonishing fact: 4D orbits can be modeled like 2 coupled ellipsoidal orbits. The total perturbation is the **product** of the two single orbit perturbations based on the "x" coupling rules! This is one reason why it is relatively easy to find connections in SO(4) physics. Here we may also see one source of perturbative mass (= eccentricity) , that in the symmetric case is a classical square term!

About quaternions: The main reason to use them is that they directly offer 4D rotations as a basic concept. Of course you can map everything to clifford algebras but the amount of "formulas" might increase dramatically. The only important result I got out of quaternions so far is the linearization constant of (2)3D/5D rotations being a logarithm of quaternions.

About NPP2.0: THH is completely right. We have some very compelling results and outstanding explanations of physical facts, but there is no complete picture yet. E.g we can calculate the magnetic moments of low Z nuclei something SM fails. But here again we would like to have a general model. We can exactly (at measurement) give the mass evolution from n,p,e --> n,2H,3H,*he,4He etc. but we also would like to have a (more) general set of rules. But we know the exact magnitudes of all nuclear forces including gravity.

But how many physicists did work on SM??

Thus I ask everybody that is "somewhere" skilled in the art to join the modeling. I personally had great moments when e.g. the all 10 digits fit for the hydrogen ionization energy plopped out of the spreadsheet or the exact value of the gravitation constant exactly corresponded to the model in mind. Believe me there are other great moments ahead and of course it's nice if I can harvest all low hanging fruits. But I would like it much more if others could fill their baskets too!

I could immediately start 10 projects for different modeling targets but I have to focus on one or two in parallel and I'm able to progress only if my health is allowing it.

E.g.: One project related to classical physics is the detailed modeling of the magnetic Bohr model for quantum states > 1. Here the last 2 digits are missing!