The view that electron mass is fixed is due to the limits of instruments. In fact one can assume all particle physics suffers from this entanglement between measuring stick and measurements.
The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment measured only the average electron mass in a particular material in particular circumstances. It is more likely, as Einstein suggested, that there is an infinity of gradation in subatomic physics - as with the macro universe.
Electrons are like planets. Inner planets are small. S shell is thus easily resolved in mathematics as spherical. Outer planets are massive. P shell is assumed dumbbell shape - but why? It's simply the erroneous math of holding electron mass constant.
Odd Orbital Shapes May Resolve To Ellipses
In fact it's possible if we allow for variable electron mass, p shell orbitals would simplify to spheres as with s shells.
Einstein, it is known, did not do all his own maths. He collaborated with a professional mathematician - Ernst Gabor Strauss - to do his advanced calculations. Perhaps one is needed here to do the proof.
More resolution to the ellipse may be expected on higher orbitals as well, if the mass of the electron may be varied. Yet another factor exists, which must be considered in understanding orbital shapes.
One hypothesis that follows naturally here, if we hold to the analogy, is the existence of moons for electrons. It's probable that someday we will detect particles orbiting electrons themselves - especially the outer, more massive electrons. Their added motions would no doubt create a variation to the plain ellipse.
The question arises - are atom smashers already showing us these electronlets?
Now on to charge... what is charge? It seems if we follow the analogy to a solar system, perhaps positive and negative charge are nothing but descriptors of location and heat...
A good way to view the nucleus of the atom is as a star resting at the centre of the solar system.
A hot inner core - aka protonic matter - is surrounded by a cooler, outer shell of ‘neutronic matter’. The view of a nucleus as a set of billiard balls is archaic, absurd and unfounded. There are no discrete clumps we can call protons. There are an infinite variety of gradations in masses of nuclei and their components.
The question arises - is the force keeping electrons in orbit the same as that keeping the planets around a star? How? Inverse square, but with a time-twist...
The idea that there is only one force in physics is not novel. The EM force is already viewed as one with the weak force. Gravity and the strong force remain. The clue to understanding these four as one is time.
Time is not constant. It changes with scale. On small scales time moves fast. On large scales it goes slowly. If one had a strong enough microscope one would see the cosmos in an atom.
This leads to a new math. Action at-a-distance is the basic concept. Is it possible that by applying a time modulus, all the forces could be subsumed into one?
A spinning nucleus creates a dipole - electromagnetic lines of force act on electrons in orbit. So too a spinning star or planet. Again, spin seems to hold the key. In this case, it creates the field which directs other nearby bodies.
A handwritten and signed letter by physicist Albert Einstein, from June 1950, discussing his work on unified field theory. (Courtesy: Kedem Auction House)
Images from giphy.com and Wikipedia in public domain. Original theories presented on this site are copyright of the author Paul Hallelujah BScH MTS & marst.io. For my children Sunna and Joey. Please attribute accordingly as per Creative Commons Licensing Agreement. To help us with animating this material into a feature documentary film please consider making a donation. Our Public Address to Receive BTC: