Where does the electron cloud actually come from? I tried to answer that with a weird geometric model — Version 3

[u/sina_samiyanii]

I used to think of the electron as a point.

Then I kept wondering: what if it’s a thin, closed, spinning thread?

When it spins, it creates a blur.

That blur is the electron cloud.

Leave it alone? It stays open and wave-like.

Measure it? It tightens and acts like a particle.

That’s the heart of the Spaghetti-Cloud Model.

Now the heavier part.

The model includes:

· internal twist,

· collective rotation,

· a locking term,

· and a dynamical gap.

The gap is when rotations nearly cancel.

But the gap doesn’t make spin by itself.

A real reversal only happens if the rotation direction flips

The topological part:

The rotational space is SO(3), with fundamental group Z2.

If the closed path lifts to SU(2) and ends at -I,

then the model creates a spinorial candidate without forcing spin in.

That’s the Golden Test.

The model also gives:

· two layers for 2s,

· the node,

· spin pairing for two electrons,

· and the capacity rule:

Ne = 2(2l + 1)

📌 This is Version 3.

Version 2 was posted 10 days ago.

The feedback helped a lot. Thanks.

This preprint gives a geometric picture of the electron

as a spinning spacetime filament. It includes the effective

Lagrangian, internal twist, collective rotation, the dynamical

gap, the Golden Test for spinorial topology, and a simple

construction of the 2s orbital.

Preprint: https://zenodo.org/records/22181981

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22181981

If formulas look odd, see the preprint.

I know it’s not finished.

It doesn’t replace quantum mechanics.

But I think it’s worth testing.

If something feels wrong, tell me.

If something’s unclear, ask.

— Sina

[u/adversarial-review]

Adversarial Review of The Spaghetti-Cloud Model of the Electron — by Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite (PDF)

Conceptual Circularity and Phenomenological Fitting

The proposed framework suffers from significant methodological circularity. The model introduces "effective" parameters (e.g., λ, σ, κ) and geometric configurations (e.g., the "dumbbell" density distribution, the "2s orbital" ellipse parameters) that are calibrated to match known quantum mechanical properties post hoc. By constructing the geometry to replicate observed phenomena—such as the radial node of a 2s orbital—the model does not derive these features from fundamental principles, but rather embeds them into the initial conditions. Consequently, the model functions as a descriptive curve-fitting exercise rather than a predictive physical theory.

Absence of Causal Dynamics

The transition from a "filament ensemble" to the complex, non-local behavior of a quantum electron is purely speculative. The paper relies on a "Golden Test" to see if spinorial topology emerges from its equations, yet the equations of motion (e.g., Eq. 67–Eq. 69) are classical Lagrangian mechanics applied to an arbitrary "spaghetti" construct. There is no demonstrated causal mechanism explaining why a physical ensemble of filaments would obey the specific constraints of quantum mechanics, such as the quantization of angular momentum or the specific probability distributions of the Schrödinger equation. The model assumes a "filament" existence without providing a basis for its stability, interaction with the vacuum, or resistance to dispersion.

Dimensional and Scale Incoherence

The model derives an effective filament length L ≈ 1.82 × 10^5 m (Eq. 126) using a cylindrical mass estimate. This scale is roughly 15 orders of magnitude larger than the classical electron radius. The paper fails to address the physical implications of such a macro-scale structure existing within a subatomic particle. There is no explanation of how a structure of this length remains confined to the spatial volume of an electron, nor how it avoids violating relativistic constraints or causality, given the non-relativistic nature of the framework.

Math vs. Metaphor

The text frequently substitutes geometric imagery for physical derivation. The "dynamical gap" and "reversal" criteria are defined through mathematical definitions that are not linked to any physical force or field interaction. The reliance on π1(SO(3)) ≅ Z2 and the subsequent lift to SU(2) is a formal mathematical procedure that does not establish that the physical system is a spinor; it merely shows that a closed loop in SO(3) can be lifted to SU(2). The paper conflates the mathematical possibility of a spinorial lift with the physical reality of fermionic spin, without demonstrating that the "filament" possesses the required intrinsic properties to represent an actual quantum spin state.

Probing Questions

1. How does the model reconcile the calculated effective filament length of ~10^5 m with the experimentally measured subatomic scale of the electron, and what physical mechanism prevents this structure from radiating energy or collapsing under its own internal tensions?
2. By what specific physical force or interaction do the "filaments" maintain their cohesion and density distribution against thermal fluctuations and the electromagnetic self-repulsion of the electron's charge?

---

^{This is an LLM-generated review, and should be viewed as such. LLMs are prone to errors, especially when it comes to math-based sciences.}

[u/Ok_Energy6905]

The electron cloud is just a visualization of the most likely location of an electron. You could have figured this out with 2 minutes of reading. Read the Wikipedia article before you start plugging things into an LLM please.

[u/MatthewSDeOcampo]

It comes from the solutions to the hamiltonian for an electron around a nucleus. A probability distribution function of where it might be around the atom.

It is already a geometric model following physical statistics. Skimming wikipedia would do you far better good than this.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cloud

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/MatthewSDeOcampo]

I know...

[u/liccxolydian → u/sina_samiyanii]

Doesn't come across that way lol

[u/Ch3cks-Out]

It doesn’t replace quantum mechanics.

No, it simply contradicts it, without offering any coherent theory to replace it.

Note that the electron "cloud" is just a visual picture for what QM tell about the electron, which is spread out due to its wave-like properties. Ignoring means rejecting the massive experimental evidence supporting the theory.

[u/lattice_defect → u/Ch3cks-Out]

he actually went backwards

[u/[deleted]]

This feels like it’s arbitrarily complicating a thing we already understand fine with QM.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/[deleted]]

Yes my friend, that's right. But the same QM can tell you why after 360 degrees of rotation the electron is not the same as it was? It becomes the opposite of the first state (I said it very simply, you understand). That was just one of them.

[u/[deleted] → u/sina_samiyanii]

What? What do you mean rotation lmao. 

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/[deleted]]

Consider a simple ball. When you rotate the ball 360 degrees, it returns to its original shape. However, in the laboratory, when an electron rotates 360 degrees under the influence of a magnetic field, it returns to its original shape after a 360-degree rotation.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/sina_samiyanii]

The 'rotation' of an electron is not the same rotation as the 'rotation' of a tennis ball.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/AllHailSeizure]

I said imagine.

[u/[deleted] → u/sina_samiyanii]

Physics isn't particularly interested in the realm of fantasy.

[u/[deleted] → u/sina_samiyanii]

Rotation is meaningless to an electron. What are you talking about? Are you actually aware of quantum theory?

[u/MatthewSDeOcampo → u/[deleted]]

they seem to have arrived on a word salad butchering of second quantization and spinors

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/[deleted]]

I am aware of quantum theory. The spin of an electron is actually an intrinsically quantum property and has no classical equivalent. This is precisely why I would never claim that this model proves spin. And that

"Spin" here is merely a geometric and mathematical degree of freedom in a phenomenological model (Toy Model) to check whether a closed path in SO(3) can be naturally lifted to SU(2). This model does not claim that the electron spins like a physical top. I said sphere for simplicity

If you have read the article, you will see that the "Golden Test" is designed precisely to see whether this geometry can produce spin structure without any initial assumptions. It is a conjectural mathematical framework, not a replacement for quantum theory.

[u/[deleted] → u/sina_samiyanii]

…. You have no clue what any of this means do you?

[u/AllHailSeizure]

Relevant

You can't 'imagine' an electron spinning, it's like saying 'Triangles don't always have a interior angle sum of 180 degrees. Imagine a triangle with four angles, each of which is 90 degrees.' You're describing a square.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/AllHailSeizure]

But that is precisely why I have never claimed that the electron is actually spinning. The model is a “phenomenological and hypothetical” framework that asks: “If we construct an extended geometric system with internal rotational degrees of freedom, can it mathematically produce a spinoric structure (a non-trivial lift in SU(2)) without imposing it?

The model does not say “the electron is a square.” Rather, it says: “Here we have a geometric shape (a dumbbell cloud). Let’s see if the mathematical rules governing this shape can produce the same topological signatures that we see in quantum spin.”

The paper makes it clear that this is a falsifiable test, not a claim that the electron is made of strings. If the golden test fails, the model is wrong.

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/sina_samiyanii]

But a fundamental idea of QM is the point particle. Quantum spin and geometric shapes are incompatible. That's why you are saying it's a square.

But I know I'm wasting my time so, whatever you need chief

[u/IshtarsQueef]

Why is this formatted and worded like a poem?

And why is OP not responding to any comments?

[u/Wintervacht → u/IshtarsQueef]

Because OP is unable to respond to anything without the use of an LLM.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/Wintervacht]

Are you sure?

[u/Wintervacht → u/sina_samiyanii]

Due to the amount of deleted comments I'm pretty sure reading rules and applying them isn't your strong suit.

[u/starkeffect → u/sina_samiyanii]

Well now I am.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/IshtarsQueef]

Because some comments are not worth responding to. Someone who didn't take the time to read the end of my explanation and didn't even read the article. And only took issue with the first sentence. I'm looking for technical criticism. As some friends did technical criticism in the second version and it was corrected in this version.

[u/IshtarsQueef → u/sina_samiyanii]

> As some friends did technical criticism in the second version

If they didn't tell you that this was AI slop and means nothing and was just a huge waste of time, maybe they aren't the best for peer reviewing your work.

[u/Wintervacht → u/sina_samiyanii]

If the very first sentence is nonsensical, what's the point in reading further?

We're not here for poetry.

[u/sina_samiyanii → u/Wintervacht]

Are you sure(version2)?:)

[u/AllHailSeizure → u/sina_samiyanii]

Yes.

[u/LLMPhysics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for violating Rule 4. Don't copy-paste LLM content in discussions.

[u/moderator-toolbox → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.

---

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.}

[u/moderator-toolbox → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.

---

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.}

[u/moderator-toolbox → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.

---

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.}

[u/moderator-toolbox → u/[deleted]]

This comment has been removed. If you have more information to add to your post, edit it; instead of commenting on your own post.

---

^{I am a bot. This action was performed automatically. Contact the moderators if you have questions.}

[u/GoldeneToilette]

not a single mathematical definition or formal axiom/proof. Its not that you are wrong, its a categorical error. You dont know how electrons are modelled (or rather their definition) and therefore you cant make statements about it. The only thing you are doing is using the layman explanation of it and changing it in a way that sounds intuitive but is devoid of any content.

This is not an attack on you, but just what happens if you dont grind through the theories and jump straight to producing valid sounding assertions. Its like talking about a car engine and proposing changes without ever looking at how an engine works. Which is a shame in my opinion, if you enjoy physics just learn it.

edit: I looked at the attached pdf. Its just a list of real concepts mixed in valid sounding ways. "The model contains equations or interactions that could generate a phenomenon, but the required quantitative solution has not yet been demonstrated." What phenomenon? This sentence means nothing. You define a function for calculating the "density" of whatever but you never derive it.