Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Antiphotons and Charge Force

August 29, 2020

One of the interesting asymmetries in physics involve photons and charged forces. Photons have been observed to carry positive momentum from an atom to a detector (for example, another atom with electrons that can be knocked free, forming an electric current that can be measured). We can also measure the radiation pressure of photons, always exerting force away from the source. Finally, we can observe photon interactions in the form of electromagnetic forces between particles.

Charged forces are attributed to photons, both real and virtual, and are measured to be either attractive or repulsive. By symmetry, I would expect photons could also carry negative momentum, observable in antimatter atoms emitting antiphotons or as negative radiation pressure toward the source emitter.

We see negative momentum via charge attraction forces, but we don’t see attractive radiation pressure. Hence, I thought it logical to assume the existence of negative momentum photons–antiphotons.

I actually arrived at this conclusion from a different path–the photon model in the unitary rotation vector field theory has neither mass or momentum of its own but can carry either positive or negative momentum from a source to a destination. For this reason, I predicted the existence of antiphotons, but shortly thereafter realized that even if you don’t believe the unitary rotation vector field theory, antiphotons should exist by symmetry.

That was a daring statement to make–and it makes me nervous, because we’ve done enough high-energy particle collisions with antiparticles that I would have suspected we would have seen evidence of antiphotons. Both the asymmetry of the photon mediating charged interactions and the promising studies of the unitary rotation vector field suggest that antiphotons should be common in antiparticle interactions. In addition, the lack of antimatter in the universe strongly suggests an asymmetry in how gravity and radiation pressure affect formation of stars. Stars cannot exist without a balance of radiation pressure and gravity–if radiation pressure is negative, it will not form a stable state with gravity to form stars.

So, lots of good evidence that antiphotons should exist–so why don’t we see them? Either they are really hard to distinguish from photons, or are really hard to generate, or they don’t exist. I’ve put a lot of thought into this, and realized that studying charge forces using the unitary rotation vector field might suggest the correct answer.

According to quantum field theory, electric and magnetic forces are mediated by photons. Looking at the LaGrange equations of motion for electron/photon interactions, you can get both positive and negative momentum solutions for the photon wave equation, and in the standard model, attractive forces are interpreted to be photons interacting with an EM field via constructor/annihilator operators. In addition, virtual photons can exist for bounded spacetime neighborhoods that don’t conserve momentum.

The crucial question here is–why the asymmetry? Why couldn’t you interpret this in a symmetric way simply by saying the negative LaGrange solutions are simply photons carrying negative momentum–antiphotons? As mentioned previously, there’s many good reasons to think antiphotons should exist. But we don’t! Why not? We have negative momentum charge (attractive forces), but no observed negative radiation pressure, even though both are mediated by photons. We see no antimatter stars in astronomy, strongly suggesting that such stars do have negative radiation pressure, yet we see no evidence of an antimatter protostar cloud collapsing rather than assuming a stable state in the form of a star.

One answer is that antiphotons are hard to detect. An experiment to observe an anti-atom emit an antiphoton is going to be difficult to set up. You would have to have a detector that could tell the difference between an antiphoton and a photon. As I suggested in a previous post, this might be a positron brehmstrallung experiment that measures the tiny radiation pressure from antiphotons generated by positrons travelling through a magnetic field. Maybe the reason has simply been that no one has looked for an antiphoton, after all, we’ve been taught for so long that photons are their own antiparticle, there is no such thing.

Although I thought the derivation of antiphotons from the unitary rotation vector field was clever, I really have doubts. I think we would have seen antiphotons in high energy collisions creating a negative momentum collision track. There’s good reason to believe that antiphotons should exist, yet there has to be a reason why we don’t see negative momentum carrying photons, but do see negative carrying charge forces.

For this to make sense, the answer may be much more controversial: that photon mediated charge forces and photon radiation pressure forces involve photon particles that are different in some way. If photons cannot carry negative momentum, we are forced to conclude that charge forces are not mediated by the same particles as radiation particles–a theory that goes against the well tested Standard Model. Alternatively, we could decide the issue has to do with the difference between photons and virtual photons (or similarly, quantized photons versus the quantized EM field), but it is very clear to me that neither case can explain the observed asymmetry in photon mediated interactions.

I think insight into the question of antiphoton existence and the charge force asymmetry question can be found by looking at the way the unitary rotation vector field addresses these photon interactions. Since this post is already long, I’ll present my observations in my next post.

Agemoz

One Rule To Rule Them All: The One Question Every Human Being Must Ask

August 18, 2016

I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking and analysis on what the precursor field would have to be.  I’ve had some discussions and conclusions about the precursor field that I’ll get into shortly here–but I wanted to digress a little because one of the discussions homed in on why I’m doing this work.  The discussion was extensive but revealed a crucial point about humanity’s search for meaning.  Let’s see if I can summarize the extensiveness of this conversation down to the bare essentials in a clear way:

The main driver for the approach I am taking is that this universe emerged from nothing.  To put it another way by using a popular physics aphorism, it’s not turtles all the way down, the first turtle emerged from nothing.  As I detailed in several previous posts, I see how this could happen–essentially a massive generalization of the principle that infinity times zero can give a finite number.  This drives many of the requirements of the precursor field that I am developing which causes emergence of quantized particles and emergence of particle motion and the EM field, the strong force, and related properties.

This question–did the universe emerge from nothing–is *the* most fundamental question a human being can ask, and is beautiful and elegant in its own right.  It encompasses many issues, especially the question “Is there a God”.  It’s rare that a question can be formed with such simplicity in our language.  The whole study of philosophy of all forms spends a lot of time clarifying what is a “real” question versus what is semantics, i.e, an artifact of the language we choose to work in.

For example, the common philosophical study of “I seek the Truth” raises semantic questions like “what do you mean by truth?”  “What does the concept of seeking mean?”  Or, the question “What is the meaning/purpose of life?”  Well, what does “meaning” mean to you?  How do you define life?  Does it involve consciousness?  Memory?  A tree is alive, and on a very long timescale likely has the same stimulus/response capability as faster moving animals or humans.  It’s really tough to extract the various philosophical issues out of the semantics of most questions.

But the question “did the universe emerge from nothing”, while not immune from semantics, cuts to the core issue easily and elegantly.  It asks whether the observed rules of our existence are intrinsic or not.  If there is even just one rule that has to be there in addition to nothing (and yes, there are semantic issues with “nothing”, so we do have to tread carefully even here)–then the universe didn’t emerge from absolutely nothing.  Then you are forced to ask what caused that rule to emerge, and with a lot of thought I think you have to declare that there is a God–an intellect, a being, or other organized structure that formed the universe.  Then you have to ask what formed those.  It is a recursion of thought that leads some to say “it’s turtles all the way down”, that there is no beginning.  But if you do that, you still are saying there is a God, I think.  This question is so elegant because the dividing line is so precise.  Either the universe emerged from nothing, or else there is no point in continuing because a God or Being or Computer or *something* takes a turtle, puts it there, and voila, we as humans emerge.

The assumption of a God is so problematic in my mind–you simply cannot answer the question of how did this universe get created, you also *cannot ask the question why are we here*!!!  By defining a God, we have taken that question out of our hands and put it in the hands of an unknowable entity.  By saying it’s turtles all the way down (similar to saying there is no beginning, the universe has always existed), we throw up our hands and say these questions cannot be answered.

On the other hand, if we study the approach that we came from nothing, there is a path that can truly be followed, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.  I assume this precursor field had to emerge from nothing and that constrains the characteristics of the field in many ways.  For example, the particle zoo has to emerge from it, so a geometrical basis should exist.  Or, getting on the subject I’ve been focusing on, the precursor field has to emerge from nothing, so it cannot have extra degrees of freedom, which implies rules preceded the field–a no-no in forming the field description.  If there are rules, there has to be a God of some form.

The astonishing thing to me is how clear the path for humanity has to be.  There really is only one study worth doing–how could we emerge from nothing.  Any other explanation for our existence appears to have no fundamental value in investigating!

I hope you find this digression fascinating and helpful why I am doing this study.   It has so far led to the following conclusions, some of which I’ve described in previous posts:

The precursor field cannot require continuity (differentiability) otherwise quantized twists are not possible, and such twists are required for the formation of stable particles in the particle zoo

The field has no vector magnitude, it is a unitary directional field with an R3 + I dimension plus time.  This means that the field elements are orientable (that is, there is a property of the field element that distinguishes from other field elements both by physical location and by direction)

The elements of the field do not move.  They can only rotate.  Movement is an emergent concept that results from the formation of rotation structures that can propagate through the field

Rotation of a field element induces rotation of neighborhood field elements.  This induction is infinity elastic otherwise the field would be forced to be continuous and differentiable, which is contradictory to enabling field twists

Field elements are quantized by creating a preferred orientation to the imaginary dimension direction.  This, combined with the ability to form field twists, is what allows the formation of stable particles

There are other properties I am uncovering, but this list is a good starting point for setting up a computer simulation and for analytic derivations.  My goal is to uncover the specific quantized states available and see if they match with what we see in the particle zoo.

Agemoz

The Arrow of Time and Misuse of Statistics

June 5, 2016

As an amateur physicist I try to avoid disputing established science, but one place I believe science has it wrong is the dimensionality of time.  If you read this blog at all, you’ll see I am trying to create a self-consistent world-view that conforms with peer-reviewed science.  My world-view attempts to add analysis and conclusions on some of the unanswered questions about our universe such as why are there so many elementary particles or how can quantum entanglement work.  I try never to dispute established science and to accept that my world-view is a belief system, not fact that must be forced on others–that is the mark of a crackpot that has just enough knowledge to waste other peoples’ time.

However, one place I break my rules of good behavior is this concept that time is one-dimensional.  For a long time, I’ve recoiled at the notion that the observer’s timeline could physically intersect a particular local spacetime neighborhood of an object event  multiple times.  I discussed this in a previous post, but now I want to discuss this disagreement from another angle–the claim for an existence of an Arrow of Time.

The Arrow of Time is a concept that describes the apparent one way nature of the evolution of a system of objects.  We see a dropped wine glass shatter on the floor,  but we never see a shattered wine glass re-assemble itself and rise up back onto a table.  We record a memory of events in the past, but never see an imprint of the future on our brain memory cells.  This directional evolution of systems is a question mark given that the math unambiguously allows evolution in either direction.  To put it in LaGrange equation of motion terms, the minimum energy path of an object such as a particle or a field element is one dimensional and there are two possible ways to traverse it.  The fundamental question is–why is one way chosen and not the other?

The standard answer is to invoke statistics in the form of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and I have always felt that was not the right answer.  Here is why I have trouble with that–statistics are mathematical derivations for the probability something will happen, and cannot provide a force that makes a particle go one way or the other on a *particular* LaGrangian minimum energy path.  It’s a misuse of statistics to use the thermodynamics laws to define what happens here.  In the case of the shattered wine glass, there are vastly more combinations of paths (and thus far higher probability) for the glass pieces to stay on the floor than there are for the glass shards to reassemble themselves–but that is not why they stay there!

The problem with the Arrow of Time interpretation comes from thinking the math gives us an extra degree of freedom that isn’t really there.  The minimum energy path can truly be traversed in either the time-forward or time-backward path, but it is an illusion to think both are possible.  Any system where information cannot be lost will be mathematically symmetric in time, creating the illusion of an actual path in time if only the observer were in the right place to observe the entirety of that path.  Einstein developed the equations of special relativity that were the epitomy of the path illusion by creating the concept of spacetime.  Does that mean the equations are wrong?  Of course not–but it exemplifies the danger of using the math to create an interpretation.  Just because the math allows it does not mean that the Arrow of Time exists–any relativistic system where information cannot be destroyed will allow the illusion of a directionality of time.

So what really is going on?  I’ll save that for a later post, but in my world-view, time is a property of the objects in the system.  There is only ONE copy of our existence, it is the one we are in right now, and visits to previous existences is simply not possible.  Our system evolves over time and previous existences no longer exist to visit.   Relativity does mean that time between events has to be carefully analyzed, but it does not imply its dimensionality.

Agemoz

Mathematics, Chaos, and God

August 25, 2013

I have made the greatest discovery of my life.

You see, I have spent the majority of my life searching for the mind of God, and I did this by observing the world around me, reading about it, and trying to draw conclusions unfettered by wishful or unsupportable thinking.  I thought that by understanding physics, in particular the underlying geometry of quantum field theory coupled with special relativity, that I might see better how God works and thinks.  Along the way, I came to the conclusion that this Unitary Twist Field idea made a lot of sense, and spent a lot of time trying to show how it might work.  I wrote several simulators and tried to refine the ideas sufficiently–and maintain a Feynman skepticism whether they were workable or just simply wrong.

I still maintain that the main idea is probably right–and was beginning to come up with an experiment to induce a linear twist field.  This turns out to be extremely hard, because the timing of the twist has to move at the speed of light–the twist generator has to be both very small and very high frequency.  I envisioned sort of a prefetch driver mechanism that would charge plates in a cylinder in such a way that the field phase was anticipated.  The assumption is that the rotating field would induce the magnetic portion of the twist and that detectable emission would occur.  The reason I think nobody has built something like this before is that the phase timing of the plates has to be such that the twist propagates at speed c–you cannot make a propagating circuit to do this because electrons will travel down wires at less than the speed of light.  You must design a circuit at multi-gigaHertz frequencies that adds phase to take the slower electron path and cancel it out.  Such a configuration cannot occur in nature or even in antennas of any design.  I have sufficient electronics knowledge that I know how to do this–but it still would be a difficult undertaking.

I was starting down the path of doing this when I watched the movie Pi.  Kind of nutty, but still a good movie, I thought.  A mentally disturbed mathematician uncovers a sequence of numbers that forms the unspeakable name of God and goes crazy uncovering the implications.  He reaches peace only by expelling (literally) the knowledge from his mind.  This movie gets a bunch of things wrong, but the principle is a great one.  First, it claims mathematics is the language of all nature, and second, all nature is based/driven by patterns–wrong on both counts.  Nature is the profound mixture of mathematics and chaos–not everything in it is well described by the language of mathematics.  As a corollary, patterns are only part of the game, intrinsic randomness also drives the behaviors we see in nature.

But the point is still valid–while the “answer” wont be a 216 digit number, the mind of God could be said to take a form that could reside as an abstraction inside a human mind.  That’s what I’ve been doing for about 25 years or so–trying to find that abstraction, or more likely some new portion of it.  Then, the meaning of my life gets some resolution as I get closer to knowing God.

I tried to envision what would happen, like in the movie, if some human succeeds.  Does that become a humanity singularity that is eventually inevitable?  Is that the destiny of humanity–probably not me, but someone will eventually find that key?  I woke up this morning and realized I had my answer, a life changing answer.  Just waking up is a great time to do your mightiest thinking–that emerging consciousness is cleared and refreshed.  I remember doing a lot of thinking about death and what it really means about us and God, and one day walking in a cemetary suddenly realizing “God Is Not Here”.  Answers will not be found in the study of dying–it’s just the point where our thinking stops.

This morning, I woke up and realized that is also true of my study of physics.  God Is Not Here.  Because my leading hypothesis of existence is that there is a way for something to emerge from an infinity nothing (search for my previous posts on scale-less systems and the resulting something-from-nothing process), discovering another underlying structure to quantum field theory will NOT get me closer to God–He is not there.  He might be involved somehow at a higher level, but the creation of existence from nothing is a series of steps that eventually results in the Big Bang and then the evolution to our existence.  My discovery is this:  the discoveries of physics is the process of discovering those steps, but does not point us to God (at least directly).

I have had my life profoundly turned on its head, for the search I’ve so diligently pursued and tried to do as rigorously as I could has come to an end–there is no point other than the pleasure of figuring something out.  God Is Not Here.

Of course, new questions arise from the ashes–then, where is God?  What do I do now?

Agemoz

I

Experimental Confirmation of Lattice-Free Spacetime

September 1, 2012

In my previous post, I posited that spacetime cannot be a lattice at Planck scale distances, and by sheer coincidence, this completely different experimental report also confirms the likelihood that spacetime is smooth at this scale:

http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

A smooth spacetime means that Planck scale lumpiness (a lattice of one of the types I describe in the previous post) will not explain quantization.  I suspected that anyway, because quantization is scale independent.  Low energy photons are quantized over distances that are enormously vast (hundreds of orders of magnitude) compared to Planck scale distances, so I did not see how a lattice could induce that quantization.

The field twist is also scale independent, so is another nice arrow in the quiver for unitary twist field theory.  But I’m grappling with a big problem as I develop the specular simulator for the unitary field twist theory.  The probability of electron motion is affected by its ability to self absorb a virtual photon, and this probability is directly proportionate to the fine structure constant.  I believe that this number is the square of the probability to emit and the probability to absorb, making each have about an 8 percent chance of occurring.  Physicists have absolutely no clue why this probability is what it is.  QFT gives no guidance but uses the experimentally determined value of interaction probability as a foundation for every quantum interaction of particles and fields.

As usual, I am trying to find a geometrical reason that the unitary field twist theory might give that probability–some ideas, but nothing obvious.  I have to figure something out before I can even start constructing the specular sim.

Agemoz

Lattice fields and Specular Simulation (latest work)

August 25, 2012

The latest work on the twist model is proceeding.  This work makes the assumptions noted in previous posts–EM interactions are mediated by photons as a quantized linear field twists.  The current work assumes these photons comprise the macroscopic electrostatic and magnetic field,  are unitary, and that they are sparse (do not interact).  It assumes that the twist has a common imaginary axis and three real dimensions on R3, similar but not the same as the QFT EM field, which is a complex value on R3 (t is assumed in both cases).  Electron-photon interactions occur when a twist ring captures a linear twist and absorbs it.  I am assuming that a photon twist is magnetic when the real axis of the twist is normal to the real dimension direction of travel, and is electrostatic when the real axis of the twist is tangent to the direction of travel (note how relativistic motion will alter the apparent axis direction, causing the expected shift of photons from electrostatic to magnetic or vice versa).

This set of assumptions creates a model where the linear twist of the photon will affect a twist ring electron in different ways depending on the photon twist axis direction.  Yes, this is a rather classical approach that ignores the fact that quantum interactions are probability distributions, among other things.  My approach is to create a model simulation environment to test the hypothesis that quantization can accurately be represented by field twists, the foundation of the unitary twist field theory.  It does not currently include entanglement, which I represent as the assumption that field twist phase information is instantaneous but that particles (twists) are group wave assemblies that propagate no faster than the speed of light.

These assumptions require that I make changes to my current simulator, which is a lattice approximation of a continuous vector field twist.  I was able to show in that simulator that a continuous twist solution could not work due to the unitary field blocking effect.  From that (and from QFT), I concluded that the twist field must be sparse and specular, where interactions are mediated by linear twist photons that do not interact.  I cannot use my existing simulator for this model but must make a new version, which is underway.  It will take a while so my posts will become less frequent until I get this working.

However, since I am now going away from a lattice simulator to a sparse model simulator, it did make me think about lattices as a representation of existence, and I concluded that that cannot be.  I have often seen theories that our universe is a quantum scale lattice of Planck length.  This supposedly would explain quantization, but I don’t think it works–the devil is in the details.  If the lattice is periodic, such as an array of cube vertexes or tetrahedral vertices, then there should be angles that propagate photons differently than others.  If our existence is spinning on a periodic lattice, we should see harmonics of that spin as background noise.  Within the range of our ability to detect such “radiation” from space, neither are happening.

So, suppose the lattice is not periodic but is a random clustering of vertexes, which solves the problem of periodicity causing background frequencies.  In that case, I would expect that photon propagation would have velocity variation as it propagated through varying spacing of vertexes.  There would have to be an upper bound to the density of vertexes to ensure apparent constant speed, and I struggle to think what would enforce that bound.  This is probably the most workable of the lattice ideas, but due to the necessity of a vertex spacing constraint, there would have to be an upper limit to the allowable energy of a photon, something we have no evidence for.  At this point, I think there is no likelihood that existence can be described as a lattice.  That hypothesis is attractive because we can easily imagine a creator God could build a computer that could most easily create a model of existence using a lattice of some form.  But even though the Planck length lattice is far too small for us to detect directly, I don’t think the evidence points that way.  (Side note:  it’s so interesting to look at early literature to see the historical evolution of what people thought formed the underlying basis for our existence–early on, God creating and controlling a mechanical model, then universe models were complex automated assemblies of gears and pullies, then the steam-engine or steam-punk type of machine, then mechanical computing engines, and now computer program driven machines simulating a lattice…  What is next? !)

Back to the lack of evidence for an underlying lattice to our existence.  This is a more important  realization than it might appear, especially from a philosophical standpoint.  If there was evidence that the universe was built on a lattice, that would strongly imply creation by a being, because a lattice is an underlying structure and constraint.  Evidence that there is no lattice, which is what I think I am seeing, would imply that there is no higher being because it is hard for me to imagine constructing a world without a lattice.  Of course, it would only be a mild implication, because my ability to imagine how a universe could be constructed without a lattice is limited.  Nevertheless, it is a pointer in the direction of existence coming from nothing rather than being constructed by a God.

Pretty interesting stuff!  More to come as the new simulator work gets underway.
Agemoz

Quark Quark, Quark

April 21, 2011

Very very interesting. I went through the various potential solutions beyond the linear twist and the ring twist. I discovered some really interesting things. First–there is no possible solution where any twist moves slower than speed c. If there were such a thing, then changing the frame of reference introduces all kinds of bizarre artifacts that can’t happen in real life–in particular, energy isn’t conserved. Second, while the twist speed of propagation is fixed, the twist rate is not. But at this point I do not see any possibility for a non-planar solution that is stable. I don’t yet see any stable solution that isn’t one or more rings. I don’t see any possible solution with two rings, each with one twist, none are stable.

But here is an amazing discovery: it looks like there are two stable solutions with two rings, one of which twists twice as often as the other. There’s no constraint, even under quantization, of how frequently the twist happens. You can put one slow twists in series into an outer ring, and two fast twist making the center ring–or take two fast twists in series for the outer ring, and a slow twist for the center ring. This appears to be the only possible stable solutions for embedded rings. Why does up-up-down and down-down-up spring to my mind? Because I’m a hopeless optimist! That’s the terrible danger of scientific investigation: you know the solution you want, and the mind starts seeing things that may or may not be real… But this is exciting stuff! I did take a look again at the two ring/one twist solution–it looks like it might also be stable, I need to recheck that. I’ll do some simulation work this weekend to confirm.

I don’t know if what I am doing has any relation to reality whatsoever, but something else more important is happening. I have, all my life, wanted to be a scientist, a researcher. My life went in other directions and the opportunity to do that is probably long gone–yet it’s been thrilling to do this amateur level thinking. I wouldn’t be surprised if many real physicists get disillusioned with the difficulty of doing novel work these days or gaining respect for their papers or research–there’s just few areas to investigate truly novel ideas, and way too many very smart researchers. But as an amateur, I am free to explore and discover and be excited about whatever I choose–and when I find something fun to think about and investigate, doesn’t that make life worthwhile and meaningful?!! There’s definitely a theme from Man of LaMancha here. If one of you real researchers were to hand me a mirror, I would most likely be disappointed in what I see, but the hope for me will be that this was a life well lived anyway…

Agemoz

The Search is On

April 12, 2011

After doing a lot of thinking about where I’m going with all of this, I concluded that if there is any possibility of truth to the Unitary Field Twist theory, there should be other particles predicted by it. I’ve done a lot of promising work on why it works for photons and electron/positrons, but it is now time to see if any connection can be found for other particles. I will look at other geometrical twist combinations and see if anything else stable shows up. Quarks, for example–by themselves, quarks cannot exist, unless in ultrahigh energy fields such as close to the big bang. But protons and neutrons are stable combinations of three quarks. Mesons are not stable, but are simpler (quark/antiquark pairs). Neutrinos are stable (lifetime not currenly known) but muons are not. I am going to set up 1/3 and 2/3 charge twists for quark models, and look at other +/- charge twist cases and see if there’s any stable geometrical solutions that point to these particle masses.

No numerology here, though. I’m not playing any wishful thinking games here, there’s not going to be any reports here of “it’s so close, it has to be right!”. None of that crackpot baloney. I would have to be extremely lucky to find anything, and I’m betting a million physicists have already been down the road of trying to find a numerical pattern to the particle zoo. I’m coming at it with the different insight of the unitary twist field, so perhaps I’ll find something. But more likely than not, I won’t–because I would guess every possible mathematical relation has already been searched. So–this is more for me than for science as a whole. I would be remiss not to do this search given that so much of this unitary field twist work has looked so promising. If I find something, I would be in seventh heaven because that would vindicate my work (at some level, anyway–it still wouldn’t be proof). Far more likely, I will find no combination of twists that will yield other particles, in which case I will have to concede that the promising work has just been a flash-in-the-pan (I assume that expression comes from a false alarm for gold panning).

But I think this is the right course of action. It’s time to fish or cut bait–either other particles will show up as geometrical twist solutions, or it’s time to let the unitary twist field head out to pasture. I’ll report on what I find here.

Agemoz

Uh, what was that?

March 20, 2011

Yow. That was a post that needed editing–blogging has the problem of you can really ramble–I try to be organized and I often go back and edit, but sometimes a post just doesn’t come through. Which is a shame, because it contained a really great realization, I think.

The twist ring theory describes a geometry that explains why the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference. Any system that perceives time (e.g., has a clock) that varies linearly with the relative velocity of its frame of reference is going to have a constant speed of light in every possible frame of reference, and the twist ring theory is one of those. My previous post goes into detail (kind of messily, but the concept is there).

I’m not sure I’ve read anywhere about any studies of geometries that allow for constant speed of light like this one–where the constant speed of light can result from classical geometry rather than claiming time is a dimension coupled with spatial dimensions (I’ve never really believed this, I’ve always suspected time is a property of objects, not a dimension in its own right). Now I see how field twists cause clocks measuring time to be influenced by the relative velocity of a frame of reference–and if so, then the standard model space-time dimensions model is not correct. The math works out, but the interpretation of time as a dimension would be wrong.

And what do you suppose the odds of convincing anybody of that is? This has crackpot written all over it. And yet the sad thing is, I am suspecting this idea is right. Hardly anybody actually reads blogs, so I’m pissing into the wind (many thanks to anyone who does read this stuff–I hope these posts give you interesting things to think about).

Since I’ve come up with these theories and all of the corollaries I’ve worked out over the years, I’ve repeatedly felt like this is wasting time and thought about throwing in the towel and doing something else. Feynman says be skeptical of your pet theories and be diligent about searching for the truth, even if it doesn’t line up with what you’ve believed. Yet all the thinking I have done has made me more sure, not less–and this latest revelation (twist rings are a methodology/geometry that intrinsically provides a constant speed of light in all frames) has really elevated my awareness that this has possibilities.

I’ve thought of writing a peer reviewed paper, but Unitary field twists and the resulting twist ring theory are too speculative for physicists, regardless of how sure I am of it. Such a project would require a gigantic amount of work and research, all for something that almost certainly would get shot down. I could write a “Letters” paper to the physics journal, which I believe isn’t held to quite such a high standard, but it still would be a gigantic project.

Anybody out there want to offer an opinion? Throw in the towel? Write a paper? Just continue my howling at the moon here?

Agemoz

Cargo Cult Science

February 12, 2011

(corrected the cargo cult story–I didn’t remember it quite right)

Every physics student gets some variation of the cautionary tale called Cargo Cult Science. Supposedly a tribe of South Pacific Islanders wanted US planes flying overhead in World War II times to continue to land after the war, and embarked on a project to build an airstrip and airplanes. They were very careful to observe every detail (their eyes were superb and planes flew a lot lower than they do now). They constructed replicas of planes and other airstrip functions from wood and whatever other materials they had on the island, but were disappointed and didn’t understand why their models didn’t attract US planes to come back to their (fake) airstrip. There are several points to draw from this, but it is frequently used to illustrate bad science even when done with good intentions. I’ve been thinking about how much of my thinking is just cargo cult science, and given the amount of thinking I do whether I’m wasting a lot of mental energy that could be spent a lot better elsewhere. Part of me says I don’t care–I’m trying to be honest and not portray any of it as anything other than an amateur physicist doing some thinking and reading. I don’t care if anything comes out of it–it’s just fun for me to think about and see if I can figure out some of these puzzles. I could go play computer games, but those are contrived with no real puzzles to solve. Physics has many, many real puzzles where we don’t even know if they can be solved. Just like Guitar Hero–you can play the fake instrument really well, or you can play a real instrument really well, they both take a lot of time and the only issue is whether you get more pleasure out of a contrived environment or the uncertainties of a real environment. And–a computer assisted guitar with fake buttons still produces an entertaining musical experience, so at what point does fake become real? I’ve had many posts with this type of thinking frequently here.

In the same way, I’ve gotten a lot of pleasure out of my thinking about Twist Rings, and even the thought process of trying to determine how much of it is Cargo Cult science–bad science. Let’s look at what those South Pacific Islanders did that was so bad–physics professors use Cargo Cult as a bludgeon to tell students, do your homework, study and understand all of known the theory rather than get just enough knowledge to make a crackpot theory that is hopelessly out of touch with reality. I think there’s at least two other more important morals from this story though, which makes me think that Cargo Cult Science is really more about how much observation is needed before an accurate and usable model can be created–and how do you know when you have the knowledge needed to create the model with sufficient accuracy. If you observe, but ignore previous observations and studies because they don’t line up with a theory you’ve constructed, OK, you are heading down the path of bad science. But the Cargo Cult Science islanders didn’t do that–they did the best they could with what they knew. Maybe they even used remarkable ingenuity in creating a shiny metal like surface for the planes, or windows, and so on. They were only guilty of not having sufficient knowledge to actually make their airstrip useful and the planes fly. Most importantly, they didn’t know that they didn’t know enough, and so they proceeded with their project. Now look at “real” physicist, and an amateur physicist. As an amateur physicist, I know I’m not dealing with a full deck–there are areas where I haven’t done my homework. I think that’s true of real physicists as well–they will say “that’s not my area of specialty” and avoid making claims there. I, however am making claims in an area where I know I haven’t done all my homework, and therein lies the danger. I try to caveat my claims by just saying these are ideas that make sense to me, and try to follow them through–but I think my nagging feeling that I am indulging in Cargo Cult Science is justified. So, if I’m honest and want to do the right thing, it’s my responsibility to do my homework and do more study of the existing knowledge–but then I run into the problem of “oh what a grind that will be, what’s the fun in that!”. In addition, I have a full time job, and an unrelated non-work area of study that consumes my free time–so I have to consciously choose how deep to make my study of “real” physics, versus how much time I spend elaborating on my pet theory. It’s a compromise for me that gets some level of real study periodically vs thinking about field twists and how they might solve some real-life puzzles in physics.

And, speaking of real-life puzzles, my last post raised a whole pile of questions. There are four that occupied much of my time in the last couple of weeks:

a: QFT says electromagnetic fields are composites of photons (real and virtual). What makes a field electrostatic versus magnetic, and why do they interchange depending on the frame of reference? What is the difference when you zoom in to see what the individual photons are doing that makes a field have magnetic or electrostatic properties? In theory is it possible to have a one photon electrostatic field or a one photon magnetic field? If so, what’s the difference between those two photons? If not, if field type is dependent on composite behavior of photons, once again I ask–how is this composite behavior different for electrostatic fields versus magnetic fields–and more importantly, why does the composite behavior change just because we’ve changed the frame of reference velocity? Essentially I am asking how do two field types emerge from one or more exchange particles?

b: Photons have momentum but only in a frame of reference other than their own. What is this momentum, and why are magnetic field properties coupling to it?

c: If field twists are the foundation of photons, could magnetic versus electrostatic properties emerge depending on the axis of the twist relative to the propagation direction of the photon? If so, does that mean the twist is actually moving, or is a twist just a relative passing of a property from one static element to the next (the car seat mat made of balls that I used as an analogy in a previous post). If it’s just a relative passing of a property, how can motion of a frame of reference induce the presence of a magnetic field since nothing is moving?

d: Are field twists point entities (timelike only) or are they spacelike, extended entities at a given point in time?

Yow. Those are puzzles. I think I’ll go play a computer game where I know there are answers…

Agemoz