The Quandary of Attraction, part II

April 23, 2012

I mentioned previously that the attraction between two opposite charged particles appears to present a conservation of momentum problem if electrostatic forces are mediated by photon exchanges.  Related to this issue is the question of what makes a photon a carrier of a magnetic field versus an electrostatic field. QFT specifies that this happens because the field (sea of electron-positron pairs/virtual particle terms) absorbs the conservation loss, but as far as I can find, does not try to answer the second question.

Part of the difficulty here is that attempting to apply classical thinking to a QFT problem doesn’t work very often.  Virtual photons in QFT do not meet the same momentum conservation rules we get in classical physics, either in direction or quantity.

But, since I hypothesize an underlying vector field structure, it is interesting to pursue how the Unitary Twist Field theory would deal with these issues.

I ruled out any scheme involving local bending of the background field vector.  This would be an appealing solution, easy to compute, and easy to see how different frames of reference might alter the electrostatic or magnetic nature.  But this doesn’t work because you must assume any possible orientation of the electron ring, and it is easy to show that a local bend would be different for two receiving particles at equal distance but different angles from a source particle.  I worked with this for a while and found there is no way that the attraction due to a delta bend would be consistently the same for all particle orientations.

The only alternative is to assume that the field consists of twists, either full or partial returning back to the background state (photons and virtual photons respectively).  Why does an unmoving electron not move in a magnetic field but is attracted/repelled in an electrostatic field?  QFT answers this simply by assuming that the electrostatic and magnetic components of the field are quantized and meet gauge invariance.   My understanding of QFT is that asking if a single photon is magnetic or electrostatic is not a valid question–the field is quantized in both magnetic and electrostatic components, composed of virtual photon terms that don’t have a classical physical analog.

I suppose the unitary twist field theory is yet another classical attempt.  Nevertheless, it’s an interesting pursuit for me, mostly because of the geometrical E=hv quantization and special relativity built in to the theory.  It seems to me that QFT doesn’t have that connection, and thus is not going to help derive what makes the particle zoo.

This underlying vector field does not have two field components real and imaginary, just one real.  Even if this unitary twist field thing is bogus, it points to an interesting thought.  If  our desired theory (QFT or unitary twist field) wants to distinguish between a magnetic field or an electrostatic field using photons, we only have one degree of freedom available to do the distinction–circular polarization.  What if polarization of photons was what made the field electrostatic or magnetic?

An objection immediately comes to mind that a light polarizer would then be able to create electrostatic or magnetic fields, which we know doesn’t happen.  But I think that’s because fields are made of much lower energy photons.  Fourier decomposition of a field would show the vast majority of frequency components would be far lower even when the field energy is very high–in the radio frequency range.  Polarizing sheets consist of photon absorbing/retransmitting atoms and would be constrained to available band jumps–I’m fairly certain that there is no practical way to construct a polarizer at the very low frequencies required–even the highest orbitals of heavy atoms are still going to be way too fast.

If polarization is the distinguishing factor, then it poses some interesting constructions for the unitary twist field approach.  If it is not, then the magnetic versus electrostatic can only be an aggregate photon array behavior, which seems would have to be wrong–a thought experiment can be constructed that should disprove that idea.  Quantization of a very distant charged particle effect, where the quantized field particle probability rate is slow enough to be measurable, could not show the distinction in any given time interval.

Supposing polarization is the intrinsic distinction in single photons.  Unitary twist fields have two types of linear twist vectors, those lying in the plane common to the background vector and normal to the direction of travel, and those lying in the plane common to the background vector and parallel to the direction of travel.  (There is a degenerate case where the direction of travel is the same as the direction of the background state, but this case still has circular polarization because there are now two twist vectors in the planes with a common background vector and a pair of orthogonal normal vectors).

Since static particles are affected by one twist type (inline or normal) and not the other, and moving particles are affected by the other twist type, one proposal would be that the particle experiences only the effect of one of the twist types relative to the path of motion and the background vector.  For example, if the particle is not moving, only twists normal to the direction of travel will alter the internal field of the receiving particle such that it moves closer or further away (attraction or repulsion).  A problem with this approach is the degenerate case, which must have both and eletrostatic and magnetic response, but both twist vectors will be inline twists, there is no twist normal to the background state that will include the background state vector.

More thinking to come…

Agemoz

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | 2 Comments »

The Quandary of Attraction

April 20, 2012

Hah!  You read that title and thought you were getting a socially interesting topic rather than the boring amateur physics I usually post about!  But I’m not all mean, let me help you out:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_%28series%29

OK, now that all those guys are gone, let’s talk physics.  Hello?  Anyone left?  Guess not.  Well, then I can make outrageous crackpot claims and no one will care.

Last week, Prof Jones started in on reviewing the Unitary Twist Field idea.  He’ll be back, but today I want to address a crucial question about unitary twist fields.  The basic premise is built on a geometrical model of quantization using E=hv.  I see three principles that create an underlying geometry for EM fields that gives us both quantization and special relativity (see many previous posts).  These three principles are:

1: The E=hv quantization for fields and particles  is enforced by a rotation in a vector field, that is, a twist.

2: To ensure that only single complete rotations can occur, the field must have a local background state that the rotation returns to.

3: To ensure that the energy of the rotation cannot dissipate, the vector field must be unitary.  Every field element must have constant magnitude but can rotate in 3D+T spacetime.

I have figured out that the special relativity relations hold in such a geometry–there will always be a maximum possible observable speed c, and the Lorentz equations for space and time will also hold.  The correct number of degrees of freedom for photons (linear twists) and electron/positrons (ring twists) exist.  I’ve found that the uncertainty relation will hold for particles in this system.  I’ve found a bunch of other things that appear to match reality as well.  Yes, I am guilty of massaging this theory to get the facts to fit, but I’m doing the best to do it without glossing over any obvious fallacies–and when I encounter one, I adjust the theory.  I keep waiting for one to really kill off the theory, but so far that hasn’t happened.  However here is one that could kill it:

How does the theory explain attraction and repulsion of charged particles?

Real QFT theory, unlike my la-la land unitary twist field theory, says that this is mediated by exchanges of photons.  On the surface, this has a momentum problem because there is no way a particle can emit something with momentum in such a way that a second distant particle *approaches* the emitting particle.  That violates conservation of momentum and hence conservation of energy.  The mathematically derived QFT solution uses virtual photons to have the field around the second particle change in such a way that the particle moves toward the first–but this seems disengenuous to me–contrived, just as much or worse as my theory.  Nevertheless, the math works and that is enough for real physicists.

However, I am positing a new theory, somewhat outrageous in its claims, and thus demanding outrageously thorough verification.  Unitary Twist Field theory must have a (hopefully better) explanation how attraction and repulsion would work.  This issue is part of the more general issue of electron-photon interactions, and there are a whole huge array of sub-issues that come with this one simple interaction.  For example, photons of all frequencies (energies) and polarizations can interact with an electron, so any geometrical solution must not assume any preferred orientation of the electron moment or photon polarization or external electrostatic or magnetic field (ie, nearby sets of photons).   If the electron is one of many in a region, and a low energy photon that is far “larger” than the array hits the array, how is it that exactly one and only one electron absorbs the photon?  I could go on and on, but let’s zero in on this attraction issue.  How do I claim that would work in unitary twist field theory?

Actually, let’s ask the attraction question in a slightly different way so you can see clearly what the dilemma is for real-world physics theory.  QFT says that attraction/repulsion of charged particles is mediated by exchanges of photons.  Arrays of photons form an EM field that causes charged particles to change their path of motion in space-time.  This means that in a given frame of reference, a photon must be an element of either a magnetic field or an electrostatic field.  Here’s the question:

What’s different about the photon generating an electrostatic field and a magnetic field?

Real-world theory says that photons are oscillating electrostatic and magnetic fields–a rather unsatisfactory way to describe a photon because it is self-referential.  Electrostatic and magnetic fields are themselves composed of photons.   Nevertheless, the math works, so let’s ignore that for now.  However, referring to the question about what is different, photons have only one degree of freedom, polarization.  There is no anti-particle for photons, it is its own anti-particle.   Not a lot to work with here!  So–what is a “magnetic” photon, and what is an “electrostatic” photon?  Or is there something magic about how the photons are arranged as a group that explains the field property?  And don’t forget, this is in one particular frame of reference!  Go to a different frame and the field state *changes* from electrostatic to magnetic or vice-versa.

Unitary Field Twist theory has a very novel explanation.  Let’s wait for the next post to see it.

Agemoz

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Unitary Twist Field Dreams

April 12, 2012

I’m going to do something a little different in this post.  It’s every amateur’s dream to be taken seriously by the professionals, so I’m going to have a little fun today and pretend that a physics professor looked at this and decided to be nice (he just got a big grant approved for his research and was feeling unusually magnanimous) and go over it with me.  This is not for real–a real professor would almost certainly not give the time of day to an amateur’s ideas–it just is too much work to dig in and be precise about why any set of ideas wont work, nevermind those from someone who hasn’t spent a lifetime dedicated to this field of study.  But, amateurs all get their Walter Mitty dreams, and this is mine–and this is my blog, so I can do what I durn please here!  Actually I don’t care if I’m recognized for anything I come up with, but it’d be cool if some part of it turned out to be right.  Anyway, here goes.

Prof Jones:  Hello, what do you have for me?

Me:  I have this set of ideas about how particles form from a field.

Prof Jones:  You have a theory [suppresses noisy internal bout of indigestion]

Me:  Well, yes.  I think there is a geometrical basis for quantum and special relativistic behavior of particles.

Prof Jones:  We already have that in QFT.  Are you adding or revising existing knowledge?  I’m really not interested in someone telling me Einstein or anybody else was wrong…

Me:  I believe I am adding.  I have tried to take a overall high-level view of what is now known, especially the E=hv relation and the special relativity Lorentz transforms, and see some conclusions that make sense to me

Prof Jones:  Well, I’ve had a lot of ideas thrown at me, and they are a dime-a-dozen.  It’s not the idea that’s important but the logic or experiment that supports it.  A good theory explains something we don’t understand and allows us to successfully predict new things we otherwise would not find.  Is yours a good theory?  Do you have supporting evidence or experiment?  Can you predict something I don’t already know with QFT?  Does it contradict anything I already know?  If you can’t pass this complete criteria, the theory isn’t going anywhere but the round file.

Me:  I don’t have anything that proves it.  I don’t have anything it predicts right now but I see some possibilities.  I don’t think it contradicts anything, but there are some question marks.

Prof Jones:  Urrg…. Well, this is your lucky day.  I happen to be in the mood for shooting down the bright ideas of poor suckers that think Nobel prizes are given out like puppies from a puppy mill to people that haven’t paid their dues in this very, very tough field.  So, let’s start with this question:  What makes you think you are the one that has come up with something new in quantum theory?  After all, you can’t argue that the set of smart-enough people that actually can legitimately call themselves physicists, theoretical or related, have spent cumulative millions of lifetimes trying to break down the data and clues we have to solve the very well-known problem you are looking at.  Don’t you think someone, or many someones, with a much deeper background than you would have long since considered whatever you have and passed it by fairly quickly?

Me:  [meekly] yes.

Me:  But I have thought about this for a very long time, and refined it, and received feedback, and really tried hard to make sure it makes sense.

Prof Jones:  Unfortunately, so has every honest physics PhD, and I’m afraid they are going to have a lot more mental “hardware” than you, having both genuine talent and also having brutally difficult training in abstract mental comprehension and synthesis ability and current knowledge.

Me: OK.  I guess I could quit doing this–I just find it so interesting.

Prof Jones: [softens just slightly, realizing there’s a lot of snarky but not-classy power in putting down those who try, but are so limited in resources or study time].  Well, just so you understand.  You aren’t going anywhere with this.  But let’s see what you got.  Before I dig in, I want to know what you are adding to existing theory, as succinctly as you can communicate.

Me:  Alright.  I thought about the way quantization works on particles and fields, and in both cases the E=hv relation defines very explicitly what must happen.  I spent a lot of time trying to construct a model of a system that is continuous but obeys this relation at the smallest scale.  I came up with three constraints that describe such a system–in fact, it looks to me that the E=hv relation actually specifies a geometrically defined system.  These constraints are:

1: The quantization is enforced by a rotation in a vector field, that is, a twist.

2: To ensure that only single complete rotations can occur, the field must have a local background state that the rotation returns to.

3: To ensure that the energy of the rotation cannot dissipate, the vector field must be unitary.  Every field element must have constant magnitude but can rotate in 3D+T spacetime.

Prof Jones:  I see what you are getting at.  The E=hv relation only allows discrete energy states for a given frequency within an available continuous energy range.  A twist is a modulus operation that works in a continuous 3D field to provide such discrete states provided that there is a default idle state, which would be your background vector orientation.  However, you realize that EM fields do not have limitations on magnitude, nor is there any evidence of a background state.

Me: I understand that.  I am proposing that because QFT shows how EM fields can be derived from quantum particles (photons), my theory would underlie EM fields.  I see a path where EM fields can be constructed from this Unitary Twist Field Theory from sets of quantized twists.  I agree that the background vector direction is a danger because it implies an asymmetry that could prevent gauge invariance–but I suspect that any detector built of particles that are formed from this twist mechanism cannot detect the background state.  The background state direction doesn’t have to be absolute, it can vary, and a unitary vector field has to point somewhere.  Continuity and energy conservation imply that local neighborhoods would point in the same direction.

Prof Jones:  Sets of quantized twists, hunh.  Well, you’ve got a very big problem with that idea, because you cannot construct a twist in a background unitary vector field without introducing discontinuities.  If you have discontinuities, you don’t have a unitary vector field.

Me: Yes, I agree.  However, if the twist moves at speed c, it turns out the discontinuities lie on the light cones of each point in the twist and are stable, each light cone path has a stable unchanging angle.  In a sense, travelling at the speed of light isolates the twist elements from what would be a discontinuity in a static representation.

Prof Jones:  I don’t think I agree with that, I would have to see proof.  But another question comes to mind.  In fact a million objections come to mind but let me ask you this.  You are constructing an EM field from this unitary vector field.  But just how does this single vector field construct the two degrees of freedom in an EM field, namely electrostatic fields and magnetic fields?  Just how are you proposing to construct charge attraction and repulsion and magnetic field velocity effects specified by Maxwell’s relations?  QFT is built on virtual particles, in the EM case, virtual photons.  How are you going to make that work with your theory?  You realize the magnitude, don’t you, of what you are taking on?

Me:  These are questions I have spent a great deal of time with over the last 20 years.  That doesn’t justify a bad theory, I know.  So I’ll just present what I have, and if this dies, it dies.  I’d just like to know if my thinking has any possible connection to the truth, the way things really are.  I realize that we have a perfectly workable theory in QFT that has done amazingly well.  But we also have a lot of particles and a lot of interactions that seem to me to have an underlying basis that QFT or relativity don’t explain, they just happen to work.  Renormalization works, but why?  These are some issues that tell me we can’t stop with QFT.

Prof Jones:  [sotto voce] The hubris is strong in this one.

Me: What

Prof Jones:  Nothing.  Go on.  What is your theory going to do with charge and magnetic behavior?

TO BE CONTINUED, SAME BAT-TIME, SAME BAT-CHANNEL

Agemoz

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Twist Theory and Electrons

April 6, 2012

OK, applying this unitary twist field idea to photons seems pretty workable.  We get real photons and virtual photons, and get a good model for how quantization and circular polarization could work.

There are some big questions, though–the biggest of all is that this method of quantizing a continuous system requires a background vector state.  Now, this isn’t as bad as it would seem, because a unitary vector field has to have some direction, and continuity would imply that local neighborhoods would point in the same direction, and the model does not assume that the backround direction has to be absolute throughout, it can change.  Nevertheless, it would seem that a background direction might somehow be detectable with some variation of a Michelson-Morley experiment.  That’s going to get some attention on my part later, but for now I want to go in another direction.

Let’s talk electron models in the Twist Theory.  This is where real physicists have a heyday killing off new theories like this because the electron is so well studied and measured, there is so much that a theory would have to line up with before even beginning to come up with something new.  Don’t know what to say except it’s fun to see what comes out of such a study.

Let’s start with degrees of freedom, just like I just did with the photon, that could kill off the theory in a hurry–and for a long time I knew there was a problem, here it is:  electrons come in four permutations, spin up electron, spin-down electron, spin-up positron, and spin-down positron.  All of these have the same exact mass, charge (+ or -), spin moment, g ratio, and so on.  I have long felt that the electron is effectively modeled with a single unitary field twist ring.   Here’s a picture of the idea.

Twist ring model of an electron in a unitary field with a background state.

The ring has one point where the twist direction matches the background twist state.  The twist curves, unlike the photon, due to internal effects of the ring twist.  I have done math that shows there is a single such solution that is stable, but only in certain circumstances.  I will come back to the math of twist ring solutions, but right now, let’s just see if the degrees of freedom required would shoot this down even before getting to the math.  Sort of like checking to make sure an equation has consistency of units, otherwise the equation is just nonsense.  As I mentioned, there are four variations of the electron that have to have a unique twist field representation.  Are there four unique solutions for the twist ring?

Twist ring degrees of freedom with no background state. Note that two solutions are just mirror images of the other two, we only have one degree of freedom.

Of course, we have our four cases, and no more.  Ooops–wait, two of the four are just mirror images of the first two–we really only have two unique twist ring solutions!  It took me a while to realize there are actually four–in a unitary twist field there would only be two, but in a unitary twist field with a background state, necessary for quantization to work, there are actually four.

The background state required for quantization also provides a reference that prevents the two mirror cases from being identical to the first two cases. There are now two degrees of freedom.

The background state from which the twist must begin acts as a reference vector that keeps the mirror image twist rings from being identical by rotation.  To see this more clearly, look at the two degrees of freedom as a function of the planes they reside in:

The reference vector along with the ring center defines a plane (green) where two possible twist cases result in a unique degree of freedom. The blue plane that the ring resides in defines ring travel direction and is another unique degree of freedom.

One degree of freedom is establised by the ring rotation within the plane that includes the ring.  There are two possibilities, clockwise or counterclockwise.  The second degree of freedom is defined with the plane that the background vector lies in, as well as the center of the twist ring.  The background vector is the starting point for a rotation about the ring circumference.  It should be clear that the background vector creates a reference that makes the two mirror cases unique.  You could argue that it doesn’t matter if the mirror image rotation doesn’t have the same background state, but actually it does–it determines which way the ring will turn if it is moving in a magnetic field–the spin-up electron will move differently than the spin-down electron due to the opposite direction of its starting point vector.  I’ll keep thinking about this but so far, this appears to be valid.

Agemoz

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Twists and Photons

April 2, 2012

One thing that may not be clear as I look for unitary field solutions to things like photons–everything has to work, one counter-example and I’m a crackpot pushing a theory that can’t be right.  I had thought that my simulations were using the wrong type of unitary field twist to represent photons (see previous post), that it has to be in line (“bicycle wheel motion”) in order to meet the experimental requirement that photons have the degree of freedom called circular polarization.  I was thinking that only in that case can the twist have circular polarization since the in-line twist can take on any orientation about the direction of travel.

But this is wrong, since the background vector orientation necessary for quantization (all twists must return to this background orientation for quantization to work) specifies a *second* axis that must be intersected.  Acck!! Two non-degenerate (ie, non-overlapping) axes means only one possible plane of rotation.  Such a model provides no degree of freedom for circular polarization.  As I thought about it, I realized the mistake was assuming that rotation had to occur about the axis of twist travel, it doesn’t.  It only must rotate through the axis specified by the background field.   Here’s an attempt to show what I mean:

Demonstration of how the unitary twist model is constrained by the background direction, thus allowing both quantization and circular polarization of photons

So–this may be a crackpot theory, but not because it can’t correctly represent valid degrees of freedom for photon polarization.

So… onwards.  I now have a workable set of constraints that should allow me to model valid unitary field twist behavior.

Agemoz

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Conservation of Twist Energy

April 2, 2012

 I worked for a while with the 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 solution set and quickly discovered that this is just a lucky subset of the twist field solutions–every solved solution is unstable.  I can’t even find the solution that works in the ring case that appears stable, although I quit working on this because I realized that the twist field would yield a lot of cases that dont go into the 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 subset of solutions.

So, I went back to the generalized twist field, and  realized I had set up my simulations wrong.  The twist, as explained in a much earlier post (“Turning Bicycle Wheel”), has to be in-line with the direction of travel in order for the circular polarization degree of freedom of a photon to exist.  But even so, simulations show that the width, and hence the energy of the photon, has to be conserved but is not if the twist is not moving at the speed of light.  Even when moving at the speed of light, it was not clear why the width would be constant–but it has to be, else conservation of energy wont happen.  How can I make a simulation which observes both the quantization and conservation of energy of the twists in the vector field?

I thought for a while about this, and attempted to draw a Minkowski diagram (3D + T) representation of the twist.

Picture of field twist in Minkowski spacetime

This got really interesting really fast.  After a few mis-draws (my mind isn’t very well wired to view things in 4D), I realized that in Minkowski space, there is no twisting of the photon along the light cone path–in fact, in the one case of a twist moving at speed c, there is no acceleration at all–no forces needed to explain the twist structure!  Each light cone path has a twist angle that does not change over time, thus showing how twist width is conserved and thus how a photon holds its energy quantum without dissipation.  It’s hard to see, but I attempted a diagram–note that along the red light-cone paths, there is no change of the field angle.  A narrowing of the twist width either timewise or space wise would require a merging or deviation of angle paths not possible without some force source.

This should provide a basis for how to simulate the twists in a way that conserves energy.

Agemoz

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

String Solutions Search

March 12, 2012

The previous post outlines how twist solutions have to occur. In order for a twist solution to be stable, I discovered that width has to be preserved (this is logical since width of the twist is directly proportionate to energy) and that the twist has to move at speed c. This means that complex 3D structures can’t exist–only strings of twists. These apparently can be modelled by 1/r^3 – 1/r^2 solutions–I have two valid solutions, one of which is degenerate, so I’m going to hypothesize that there are more. I’m doing a deep dive to find out.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Why Static Twists Cannot Be Stable

March 11, 2012

Some really exciting results from my simulation results of the Twist hypothesis!  I have been simulating this for a while now, to recap:  The twist theory posits (among many other things) that underlying the photon elements of an electromagnetic field is a unitary twist field.  This unitary twist field is a direct (or mapped) result of the E=hv quantization of all particles.  Photons are linear twists of the unitary field, whereas massive particles are self-contained twists, such as a ring for electrons/positrons.  Quarks and other massive particles are posited to be other geometrical constructions.  If this model is studied, one very interesting result is the correct representation of the special relativity space and time Lorentz transforms, where linear twists travel at a maximum, but constant, speed in all frames of reference–but all self-contained structures such as the electron ring must obey time and spatial dilation.  The model correctly derives the beta dilation factor.

As a result of this work, I have put together a simulator to model the twist behavior in the hopes of verifying the existing corollaries to the twist theory, and also to see if more complex geometrical structures could be determined (say for quarks, although it is certain that the strong force would have to be accounted for somehow).

One of the results of the theory seemed to imply that a static linear twist should be possible, yet static photons do not exist in nature.  I’m very excited to have the simulator show its first demonstration of why this happens!  When I set up the simulator to do a static linear twist, I discovered (see previous posts) that the twist always self destructed by dissipation, and it took a lot of work to find out why.  This will be easiest to show with this diagram:

Why the static twist dissipates. Note the narrowing of the twist from the outside in.

The premise of the unitary twist theory is that E=hv particles can only be quantized geometrically in a continuous field system if particles exist in a localized background field direction have a fixed amplitude twist.  The fixed amplitude (different from an EM field that allows any magnitude) prevents the quantized entity from dissipating, and the background direction enforces quantization of the twist–partial twists (virtual particles) are not stable and fall back to the background direction, whereas full twists are topologically stable since the ends are tied down to the background direction such that the twist cannot unwind.  The frequency of the twist is determined by the twist width, shown in the diagram as omega.

Iteration of the linear twist in the simulation showed that, even though the unitary twist magnitude could not dissipate, the twist would vanish (see previous post pictures).  At first, I thought this was an artifact of the lattice form of the simulation, I represented a continuous twist with a stepwise model.  Further sims and analysis showed that the behavior was not a lattice effect (although it definitely interfered with the correct model behavior).  As this diagram shows, I was able to demonstrate that a static twist cannot exist, it is not stable.  What happens is that the twist width cannot be preserved over time because the ends experience normalizing forces to the background.  This process, demonstrated in the simulation, ultimately causes the particle to approach a delta function, at which point the simulation twist model gets a single lattice node and eliminates it.

It would be a valid statement to say that the sim does not correctly model what happens at that final stage, but there’s no question in my mind of the validity of the narrowing of the twist width.  There is only one way that the linear twist can be stable–if the light cones of each twist element are out of range of each other.  This can only happen if the twist elements are moving at speed c.

I was disappointed at first, I didn’t have a working model of the twist field.  But I didn’t see that the sim had handed me my first victory–the explanation of why there are no static photons.

Agemoz

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Twist Discontinuity Sim Results

January 11, 2012

I came up with a pretty good mathematical structure for a twist with a discontinuity.  It essentially weights neighboring connections less for bigger steps between lattice elements, or in other words, it rewards continuity but doesn’t break on discontinuities.  After a number of rounds getting the model right and verifying, I got some pretty clear results–the static twist model dissipates.  The only way this twist can sustain itself is by moving at speed c, that’s my next step.  Here are some pictures:

Twist boundary initial state:

Initialize entire field, including boundary initial state

Here I fix the boundary state but let the rest of the field absorb the impact of the boundary initial state:

Fixed initial twist state, but field is released

After a while, I see the field settling into a more or less stable state, so now I release the boundary initial state (the twist itself).  Here you can see how the twist dissipates into the axial dimension (I actually had proposed this as a means of getting into a twist without a discontinuity, but discovered that there is no possible way to do that.  This shows how the twist could emerge from a stable state with no discontinuities, but eventually there has to be a discontinuity.  I actually don’t see the discontinuity in this dissipated sim, but that’s going to be pretty hard to see in this 3D picture.  I’ll add some code that will show discontinuous regions overlaid onto this sim view.  Here are three pics showing how the twist dissipated.

Twist starting to dissipate, view along the twist axis

Twist starting to dissipate, view about 45 degrees off the twist axis

Twist starting to dissipate, view normal to the twist axis

So, it’s pretty clear–twist can’t work unless it’s moving along the axis at a speed such that nothing can get ahead of the twist, otherwise it will dissipate.  I’ll do another round of pics when I get that sim working.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Sim of twist with discontinuity

January 6, 2012

I’ve come to terms with the idea that if there’s any geometrical basis for particles and special relativity, the unitary field twist, with a discontinuity,  is the best such basis.  E=hv implies a 3D modulo construct, and a twist is really the only practical way to do this.  If you assume that every particle with mass is formed with a physically self contained twist loop, two fascinating results fall out.  First, the special relativity Lorentz transforms result–see what happens when you take a loop and move it at some significant fraction of the speed of light.  The beta factor sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)  is a direct result of uncoiling the rotating cylindrical twist loop–unrolling the cylinder will flatten out the loop into a right triangle hypotenuse, where one of the right triangle sides is the particle velocity v,the hypotenuse is the speed of light, and the third side is the loop radius, set in arbitrary units to 1.  For the time dilation results to work, I interpret the time to complete a single cycle as an intrinsic clock of the particle.  I’ve noted previously the other fascinating result, that a photon, represented by an unbounded twist (that is, one that moves in a straight line and thus is not confined to a region like a particle model) will always appear to have the same maximum speed regardless of the frame of reference (except for the degenerate case where the frame of reference exactly follows the path of the loop).   This can be seen by placing an unmoving, but rotating, loop in one frame of reference.  Now any other frame of reference, the loop will become a cylindrical spiral that obeys the beta relation apparent in the original frame of reference.  Doing the computation for the maximum speed of such a loop in the new frame of reference will show an asymptotic limit for the apparent speed of the loop relative to a clock in the original frame of reference.  Kind of hard to explain on this blog–you can try it out on some scratch paper.   The assumptions are that the loop cycle time, whether a flat loop or extended out into a “slinky toy” like spiral, is determined in either frame of reference by the time a rotation completes.  You will see that the apparent speed as measured by a clock in that frame of reference will always appear to be the speed that the loop cycles once in the stationary frame of reference (ie, the one moving with the particle).  I love this result because it says that if a particle is a loop, stretching it out due to being in a different frame of reference means that the measured transit time lengthens, but the apparent cycle time of the loop increases by the same amount (remember that the cycle time of a cylindrical spiral is the time to return to the same angle of rotation in the cylinder, but the slower the spiral turns due to increased particle speed, the slower the apparent time to that particle in a stationary frame of reference.  The net result is we can show that the apparent maximum speed of the particle is the same regardless of which frame of reference is used.

So there you are–a geometrical basis for twists to obey Lorentz transforms and a maximum speed.

As I mentioned, I’ve concluded that such a system of twists must have a field discontinuity to allow the twist to exist.  This has complicated my attempt to model (simulate) a field twist, but I think I figured out how to do it.  I’ll be working on this for a little while and will share the results.

Agemoz

PS, Some hater commented on my stuff here, laughing at it.  Yes, I know, there’s considerable hubris thinking that I’ve solved the mysteries of the universe when all the genius physicists have yet to do so.  Just so you know, I’m fully aware, I have done nothing worth anything, no amazing discoveries or such that is worthy of a paper to Journal of Physics.  Nothing here, move along.  I think I have some good ideas, but they are a dime a dozen until proven somehow with independent verification.  Maybe I will discover something with this latest simulation, or with some sort of experimental verification, or maybe even some more thinking–but right now I know I have nothing.  That’s OK–I have never pretended that I did, I’m just enjoying exploring ideas in a currently unknown area and thinking I’ve found some that seem to work.  This isn’t about seeking fame for discovering something amazing to all–this is just one person’s fun quest to guess at what might be the right way to interpret what we now see.

Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »