Correcting a mistake is assistance. You mentioned the E field of the electron. That's the electric part of the electromagnetic field, which is carried by photons. You then proceeded to talk about the electron diffracting, which is due to the electron's wave function. You explicitly mention the electron's wave function and this hurricane analogy in the same sentence, "QM says a subatomic object is described by a wave function, so think of the electron wavefunction as being something like a spherical version of a hurricane." You have conflated the electromagnetic field about an electron with the electron's wave function. There's no two ways about it. Removing the electron's charge and thus all of your hurricane analogy still results in a diffraction pattern, just as it does for the photon's diffraction pattern or the neutron or Sodium or Bucky balls or anything else. The electric field is irrelevant here. Furthermore you also made a conceptual error in saying to consider the spherical version of the hurricane. The hurricane has an axial symmetry, it rotates about the central axis and this rotation is orthogonal to radial lines coming out from the axis. The electric field example doesn't generalise. In 2d you can draw the radial lines and then consider circles of constant E modulus. These form the concentric rings you refer to. In 2d there's a unique (up to scaling) notion of an orthogonal vector to the radial lines, which form the tangent lines to the circles in question. There isn't any actual rotation here but you can still define radial lines and orthogonal circles to give you this vortex picture. It doesn't quite work like that in 3d. You define radial lines using the electric field but then there's no unique (up to scaling) orthogonal vector, instead there's an orthogonal plane! Instead of concentric 1d circles you now have concentric 2d spheres. You can't have a rotation without a preferred direction, which is what provides a rotating system with the necessary broken symmetry to induce a magnetic field. The long and the short of it is that simple assumptions which seem valid in 2d sometimes don't carry over into 3d. Particularly when involving rotations. For example rotations in 2d commute, in 3d they generally don't. If you want to make sure you're not falling foal of such misunderstandings then you'd be wise to do a basic course in vector calculus. Nothing heavy weight, something you'd cover towards the end of A Level mechanics and the first term of an undergrad course. Enough to be comfortable doing vectors, using matrices, changing coordinates, that sort of thing. I'm not being patronising or anything, I honestly think anyone interested in physics beyond pop science would do themselves a massive favour if they did a basic course in vector calculus. Even the most trivial and basic of published papers assume such things as second nature to the reader, to say nothing of how it would improve grasping multi-dimensional dynamical systems. And this brings me back to something else I said in my post. I asked you if you could formalise anything you said. You clearly believed that what you'd just outlined was a valid description, it would lead to the correct conclusions. Beyond your utterly unjustified self confidence do you have anything to actually back that up? Remember how you keep complaining how string theory doesn't produce any results? I can't believe you're unaware of the hypocrisy of such comments given your repeated and complete ignoring of every request I've ever made for you to provide a justified working model of anything you wax lyrical about (and you wax a lot). You challenged me to 'offer assistance'. Unlike you I'm in a position to provide assistance and so I'll offer to do so. If you would like me to suggest a simple, relatively short and general introduction to vector calculus textbook (not a big thing, one of those A5 sized ones) I will do so. Then we could make say a fortnightly thread where you go over your understanding of each chapter in turn, I and others here discuss any issues or misunderstandings you might have, provide elaborations of proofs and yes, even check your answers to the problems in the book. You'd benefit by actually learning something, those of us who've covered it would improve our explanation experience (as well as perhaps blow out some mental cobwebs here and there) and everyone else would see a few good discussions and perhaps want to join in. We actually do this sort of thing at my work. Each week or fortnight someone is given an area of maths to read up on, then do a 30~45 minute overview on it back to everyone and we discuss any issues or interesting things which were encountered. So how's that for some assistance? You clearly have the time to spare and you clearly have significant holes in your knowledge/understanding (even on conceptual levels). You have nothing to lose but your ignorance.