Agemoz's Physics Blog

There is something to be said for attempting to apply the unitary field twist theory to quarks–interesting what has shown up geometrically in my studies. But Feynman is turning in his grave. The strong force (gluons) that mediates quark interactions is far more complex than I realized, and it was rather presumptuous of me to think that a simple theory could explain the complexity of quark interactions. It’s admittedly rather presumptuous that it explains electrons and photons, but I have built up a case that is making some sense, to me, anyway. But quarks are a different animal. There are some pointers in the direction of the field twist. Point-like particles lend themselves well to the field twist approach, and there are some triplet geometries that look like up/down quark configurations. But the strong force is not really showing any connection that is making sense at this point. I suspect the interaction complexities are far beyond my current abilities to model or comprehend (look at ants carrying food back to home–there simply is not the neuronal capacity to absorb the concepts of general relativity). Perhaps some new mathematical tools? Dunno right now.

I’ll continue down this avenue, but chastened somewhat. I’ll play some games with the twist geometry, and research some more about quantum chromodynamics. Not sure where this is going to go, if anywhere.

I did take another look at some electron characteristics and see if there’s an unitary twist field connection I can draw. For example, the Pauli exclusion principle and the fine structure constant (probability of absorbing a photon). I might post some thoughts on this if something interesting shows up.

Agemoz

One thing had been nagging me–isn’t it just a little too covenient that I’ve found only two solutions that happen to conform to quark configurations for protons and neutrons? Since I know the desired outcome, you should be rather incredulous that I happen to find something that works. And, yes, I’m rather skeptical myself, that’s why you don’t see me jumping up and down on the sofa over these amazing results. No, I’m just letting these solutions filter through my head, trusting that if something is wrong, eventually I’ll see problems and make whatever corrections make sense. I have traversed lots and lots of potential twist geometric solutions, and have been able to cleanly reject the vast majority of them using the constraints of a unitary twist field. There’s no buck fever here–just a calm and careful exploration of a maybe, yet improbable (given the number of smarter than me people trying to figure this stuff out), theory. If it survives my analysis, it will (to the best of my analytic ability) only do so if it is true.

I mentioned that the only two workable stable solutions were the sets of three nested but orthogonal rings, one of which has a radius either half or twice that of the other two. One thing that bothered me, though–why can’t there be a solution of four rings? For example, same as the three ring solution, but with two rings each of a given radius and another radius twice as big. I realized, no, that can’t work. I’ve already thrown out nested rings for other reasons–it’s impossible to create such a system where the 1/r^3 forces are constant since the traversal time of a twist moves at c and thus cannot be the same in both rings. I rejected the 4 ring solution for this reason, but there’s another better reason.

I am so used to linear fields such as the EM field or the gravitational field. These central force fields can overlay linearly, so putting an object in the direct path of two particles has an insignificant affect unless it is large enough to block or disrupt the field. But a unitary twist field, because it is unitary, is not linear and cannot pass through field forces. I realized nested rings cannot work because the force on the far side of one ring is completely blocked by an inner ring. If you think about it, you will realize this is true–the inner ring is a complete twist. There is no topological way to superimpose the affect of another twist through the plane of a unitary field twist ring. Only if the ring planes are orthogonal can the twist project a 1/r^3 force to the other side of the ring–without that constraining force, the ring will dissipate into linear twists and the solution will not be stable.

But–there’s only three planes in our existence! The largest number of rings that can form a stable configuration is one per plane, or three. Hence at this point, given the constraints I’ve set for the unitary twist field theory, there cannot be any configuration of more than three ring twists that will produce a particle. And–I’ve been able to show that any non-ring solution cannot produce a constant force. Non-constant forces coupled with constant speed c means no stable solutions–this one needs to be proven rigorously, but certainly the extensive exploration of cases I have done has yielded no workable solutions other than rings.

To the best of my ability, I have found there really are only two new twist solutions, and they have a very remarkable correlation with what I’d expect for the quark configurations of protons and neutrons. You can be incredulous–yes, this is somewhat of a self-fulfilling conclusion. Trust me–I was once wild-eyed about my ideas when I was young, enthusiastic, and not very discerning. Now I just push forward as honestly as I can and try to think through whether I’m really getting close to the truth about how things work in this existence. I will check these configurations for expected mass, interaction profiles, internal states, and so on. But, as I said in the last post: Interesting….

Agemoz

PS–If you rebut my three spatial dimensions argument for why we have configurations with a maximum of three orthogonal rings with the 10/11 dimensions of M Theory, I will point out that the non-basic 7 or 8 dimensions are rolled up at Planck constant range, far tinier than the ring sizes we are talking about–I believe if there’s any effect from these dimensions, never mind whether they really exist, it would be miniscule…

PPS–the initial mass computations work out too–a simplified (approximate) calculation of the force on one twist from the other two has ratios of 5 (if charge of the first is -1/3) or 9 (if the charge is 2/3). The actual masses of the up and down quarks are 2.0 and 4.8, ratios of about 4 and 9. Interesting, but nothing conclusive…

Interesting. I spent a lot of time studying geometrical combinations of twists to see if there are other solutions besides the linear twist and the ring. I’ve found good connections there for photons and electron/positrons, but there are many other particles, most of which are not stable. I realized that a stable particle in a unitary twist field would have to be a restoring configuration of twists, such as the twist ring. Metastable solutions could yield all kinds of possibilities that wouldn’t necessarily have any geometrical or topological significance–a local minimum of restoring force, for example. However, a stable particle such as a proton or neutron would have to have a significant equilibrium geometrically. Forces have to balance and be restoring, and this knocks out the vast majority of combinations of twists. You can’t have overlapping but different twists without having two unitary field directions in the same place. You can’t have two twists with different curvature in the same local neighborhood (the twist force is a single value). You can have twists intersect provided the intersect neighborhood has a field direction that is constant. Field twists can only move at speed c. Twist forces have to be constant even as the twist moves (otherwise stability fails).

I went through a list of all kinds of possibilities, and only have two candidates right now–and these match the up-down quark configurations of the proton and neutron. You can have a pair of twist rings with a common center, lying in orthogonal planes, with a third twist ring lying in a plane orthogonal to both of the first two. The third twist ring must have a radius half or twice as big as the other. I ruled out any solution that has two rings in one plane because the 1/r^3 force cannot be made constant, and I ruled out any solution of three rings where the radius is the same for all, because there is no possible solution where the intersections have the same field direction–unless the twist rate is different for one of them. But if the twist rate is different, the resulting 1/r^3 force is different and the curvature thus has to be different, meaning that the radius has to be different.

In summary, I’ve only found two workable solutions (so far) for stable solutions of three twists. There are only two known stable particles, the positron and neutron, (the neutrino is currently unknown for stability, I’m putting that one aside) and these two three-ring solutions show an intriguing potential as representing the quark structure of these particles. Since quarks are only stable in combination with other quarks, I’m treating the triplet combinations as a set of three twists that are unstable when pulled apart (that is, it’s not possible to create a stable single quark, and in the same way, the three twist rings that make up a proton or neutron cannot exist on their own–the only stable single twist ring is the one representing the electron).

An interesting side track to this thinking is that there may be a twist ring pair solution–two electron rings with a common center and lying on orthogonal planes. Bose condensate? This type of solution, whether quarks or electrons, needs to be studied before giving it any credibility. I need to look at the internal forces according to what I’ve set forth for the twist ring for the electron and see if there is any level of consistency or if there are showstoppers to the extension of the twist ring concept to quarks. For example, if true, would the three ring solution yield the observed masses, or is this just a circus? Ha ha, get it? That was funny… uh, I guess it’s time to quit for now and do more analysis…

Agemoz

A fascinating insight. I’ve begun the work to search for other stable solutions to the Unitary Twist Field theory. If this theory matches reality, then it is reasonable that it should show other solutions that match other known stable particles. Quarks were the first particles I thought of–and got to thinking about that 1/3 and 2/3 charge. It occurred to me that it is really bizarre that a particle that shows no apparent ability to form stable states with the electron would have precisely this fractional portion of an electron’s charge. There is no known mathematical relation between the electron’s mass and the quark’s mass, they don’t form any composite particle with each other or interact at all except via the electromagnetic field, yet have this odd exact relation in charge. Why? I suddenly realized–how is that going to work anyway if quantization in the unitary twist field is achieved by having a full twist tied down at either end? In the unitary twist field theory, the twist causes the magnetic and charge behavior, but the twist must complete. How do you get 1/3 of a twist in a stable solution for the down quark? Then it hit me–you don’t! You wait three times as long as the twist ring electron to get a complete twist (assuming that the magnetic effect is proportionate to the twist rate). In the case of the 2/3 charge quark (up quark), you wait 1 1/2 times as long.

This is a remarkable clue, because the unitary twist field theory requires that the twist propagates at speed c (either in a line for photons or in a ring or other path). This constrains the stable solution set to search for–if the twist takes 3 times as long, the full twist path (for quantization) must be 3 times as long and the twist frequency must be 1/3 that of the electron. The up quark, with charge 2/3, would have a twist frequency twice that of the down quark, and intriguingly, is already known to have a mass that is twice that of the down quark. Note, though, the most recent studies show that the 2x mass factor is not exact in experimental measurements, so we can’t draw any conclusions from that. The charge is exactly double, though, and that is what I will use.

This could greatly simplify the search for a solution–because stable solutions in the unitary twist field mean that twist paths that have varying force between them are very unlikely to be stable–yet we know that protons/neutrons have both up and down quarks. How could we create a system where the force is constant between three particles–of different masses?!! If the orbit of one of the quarks is half that of the other–and this is only possible if the twist rate of one is half that of the other!

Since there are three quarks in a proton or neutron, this should point to a three way twist solution. I am going to see if this new clue shows the way to understanding quarks within the unitary twist field theory. I’m dubious that I will find it because quarks not only interact via the electromagnetic force, but also the strong force–which vastly complicates the potential solution. Gluons exchange the strong force–and gluons have mass of their own. Nevertheless, I’m going to head down this road and see if any stable solution results from a three way combination of particles with 1x and 2x masses and 2/3 and 1/3 charge.

Agemoz

I added a sidebar entry that provides a brief description of this twist ring idea I’ve developed over the years. I’ll add more in the next few weeks, but this should give you an idea of why I find this line of thought interesting.

Agemoz

My previous post showed how the unitary field twist would work and not contradict the findings that no lumniferous ether can be observed. The second stage of checking the validity of the unitary field twist theory to real life is to show how the speed of light will be the same in every frame of reference.

The unitary twist field theory has linear twists (photons) and circular twist solitons (electrons/positrons). Presumably other self-contained twist geometries would give other particles. However, for this case, let’s assume that a system of electrons moving with a frame of reference can detect the speed of a photon, and let’s pick any arbitrary frame of reference to be an absolute reference frame for the unitary twist field. I can show that regardless of the chosen frame of reference, the system of electrons will think that the photon is moving at the same speed as the absolute reference frame–that is, in all frames of reference, the speed of light is the same. This can be seen when you realize that the twist ring that represents the electron has an implied clock that equals the rate at which it spins. This twist ring, when moved, must still have the path, which now becomes a spiral, limited to the speed of light in the absolute frame of reference. This causes the “clock”, the spin rate of the twist, to slow down when observed from the absolute frame of reference–so when measuring the time taken for the photon to travel from point A to B, in the frame of reference of the system of electrons, time should slow down by exactly the amount that would make it appear that in that frame of reference, the photon was moving at the speed of light.

Of course, the assumption here is that the spiral spin rate really corresponds to the apparent clock or time passage variation sensed by the system of electrons. I need to think about this to see if I really buy that, but with that assumption, I see how the apparent constant speed of light in all frames of reference results from the geometry of a speed limit of light in one particular frame of reference. It actually doesn’t matter which frame of reference we pick as the “absolute” frame of reference, any will do. From this and the fact that rings turn into spirals in such a way to affect its spin rate and hence apparent clock time, ring twists will always observe linear twists as having the same speed regardless of the frame of reference of either the observing system of electrons or the photon.

OK, let’s look at this in more detail–it’s actually pretty easy to see how this works. As mentioned, create an imaginary system where two electron “clocks” are spaced at points A and B in a frame of reference we will call the absolute frame. Now shoot a photon from A to B with the intent of measuring how fast it goes. In our absolute frame of reference, we know the distance between A and B and the difference in the electron clock times (that is, electron twist ring cycles, and thus can compute the speed of light in this frame of reference. For convenience, let’s set the distance from A to B to be one electron ring cycle.

Now, let’s take this whole system and put it in a frame of reference that is moving in the direction from A to B. We will have the electron clocks be part of that system, but point B, and the photon, and the electron clock triggers, will all be moving with the new frame of reference. (Why not point A? because in both frames we can set things up so that the time and distance measurements have the same start point, with no loss of generality). OK, first, what do we see in our absolute frame? The same thing we saw before, since the only thing that is changing is the behavior of the electron clocks, which, in the moving frame, now look like a spiral to us in the absolute frame and will look like it takes longer to complete a cycle. To us, these clocks look like they are running slow proportionate to the velocity of the moving frame. There are two cases to consider, the photon travelling in the same direction as the velocity vector of the new frame, and the second case traveling in the opposite direction. Consider the first case. Here, point B in the moving frame will move away from A, making the distance that the photon travels longer proportionate to the velocity of the new frame (from the point of view of our absolute frame). But–the apparent time (seen from the absolute frame) that has passed before the photon hits the moving frame point B will also will seem to be longer since the electron clock at point b is not a ring but a spiral–and since in the absolute frame the electron clock spiral edge is limited to speed c, the apparent time passing will be proportionate to the velocity of the new frame (unroll one cycle of the spiral, you will get a right triangle and the hypotenuse will vary proportionately to the frame velocity edge v. The hypotenuse transit time will vary from the ring transit time proportionate to v.

Now take the case where the photon measurement moves opposite the velocity of the new frame. In this case, point B will appear to be moving closer to point A in the absolute frame, so the photon will get to point B more quickly. However, the clock will also be abbreviated since the time it measures will be proportionate to the abbreviated path. No matter what the frame velocity is and the corresponding distance the photon has to travel, the clock will also rotate proportionately. The observed passage of time and the distance traveled will have a constant ratio–the apparent speed of light will remain the same in any frame of reference.

Pretty fascinating! I still have work to do to prove this is generally true–but it’s an interesting consequence of the twist ring geometry that seems to have a real-life connection–the constant speed of light in all frames of reference that is declared by the special theory of relativity.

Agemoz

One of the principles of the unitary field twist as a model for quantization is the need for a background state vector direction. Quantization results because twists in the field cannot dissipate (because it is both unitary, ie, directional, and topologically stable (cannot unravel without moving the twist somewhere). If there were no background state, there would be no tying down of the ends of the twist (that is, matching the background state direction) and hence no quantization. For this to work, there has to be a lowest energy state model if vectors align to this background state–I still am thinking about how that would work. I suspect that the physical requirement of analytic continuity may be sufficient, but in any event, the field twist theory requires a default localized direction preference.

I have to be careful though. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, EM waves were discovered, and light was discovered to be an EM wave. Up to that point, and even to now, all other wave environments had a medium that the wave propagated through (for example, ripples on water). It was hypothesized that light also had a medium, called the lumniferous ether, that oscillated to permit propagation. Michelson and Morley tested for the existence of this ether by trying to observe directional variations in the speed of light, and found no trace. Light and other EM waves show no trace of a medium–yet I am hypothesizing a background state.

I think the field twist theory is OK, though–I am only proposing that there be a localized directional, but continuous, background state. Different frames of reference would show only that the field was pointing in a particular direction as a default–there is nothing in this scheme that affects the constant speed of light property in all frames of reference. I’m not saying that there is a medium, I’m only saying there is a localized background preferential direction–very different than claiming the existence of a lumniferous ether.

Agemoz