I went to a talk. One point that was said is that the
electron
going forwards is mathematically the same as an electron
going backwards in time.

I was thinking any momentum forward is going to affect
an
entity by morphing the object. It's parts being affected
by the
motion momentum
differently. This would give an
electron
and it's form, a change in constructional
geometry while in motion. An electron would have a
head and
tail.

Why I gave electrons quarks is beyond me but in my mind
the idea stands. Why can't electrons have mathematical
tails.

Changing the charge around an electron, puts pressure on
the electron to move therefore there is an environmental
differential the electron sits in. All the electrons
attributes are facing varying strengths of field. So
wouldn't the electron have a lead change and a the tail
drag of last change.

Admittedly, if the field was part of the mathematical
calculation -T would have the electron moving away from
the positive.

I think, I'll start imagining electrons as inverse Lagrange
points in the EM field, spinning and moving around the
nucleus.

I would imagine the area of a Lagrange point would have
a shape because of masses motion in 3D space.

Bonding would be the meshing of atoms' EM Lagrange
menagerie. All completely under the rules of the
Schrödinger equation and the standard model's orbitals,
of course.

although I am epically clueless, this reminds me of they way weyl fermions exist at crystal lattices. So do the crystal lattices distort to have bulges or tails when the weyl fermions travel? they might even though the 1 dimensional points presumably wouldn't.

Note this is supposed to be different than those squishy orbital images.