Agemoz's Physics Blog

By now, I’m guessing every reader has heard the news of the measurement of a zero dipole moment of the electron. A non-zero dipole moment would imply an internal structure of charge (for example, a +1 and a -1 charge). Since it has been measured as close to zero as the experiment will allow, the conclusion is that there is no uneven distribution of charge–the electron is perfectly spherically symmetric. In this blog, I’ve postulated a ring with a single twist of a unitary field. This ring twist is not composed of charged elements–but the ring, being an electron, would eventually have to generate a negatively charged field that is spherically symmetric regardless of ring orientation. I have trouble concluding that a ring could produce a zero dipole moment, even if it is not composed of charged elements. Unlike everything else I’ve seen that would disprove this unitary twist field theory, this is the first time I’ve seen something that would disprove it fairly conclusively. I’ll have to think about this, see if there’s any way the twist ring could work, but this could spell doom for this theory. It’s been fun anyway, and I’ve learned a lot.

Agemoz

I’ve talked about the unitary twist field model for photons and electrons, it’s a much better approach than some of the old other approaches that use the Compton radius of the electron (see the charge sphere, Bohm and others back around 1930). It actually looks a lot like a string theory geometrically since the cross section of the twist is going to be asymptotically tiny, but the loops have a much bigger diameter than what string theories hypothesize for the electron.

One thing that occurred to me is that readers would wonder why I never talk about the theory with respect to the background vacuum energy states. A big part of how electrons and quarks behave, and the foundation of Quantum Field Theory calculations, is because of the interaction with the vacuum–the tendency to pull out virtual particle-anti-particle pairs. I am fully aware of this and need to explain how the unitary twist field fits in. Since the twist field is unitary, the vacuum state of this field has virtual particles everywhere in varying twist states, all of which point approximately to a local background direction unless there are particles (various twist geometries) in the region. There is nothing special about the local background direction, and in fact this will likely drift to various directions over large regions. The unitary aspect to this theory is what makes the vacuum states work–small variations, for example, jittering, of rotation twists will exist everywhere. There is no need for a particle, real or virtual, to have a vacuum “emergence from zero” because in the twist field theory there is no non-unitary magnitude. Conservation of charge and energy will require that these partial twists will form in pairs or triplets or more, and will normally just twist back in time to match the background twist direction–the virtual particles used in QFT calculations.

Only when circumstances in a system produce a full twist, such that both ends of the twist lock onto the unitary field background direction with a twist in between, can the virtual particle transform into a quantized real particle.

That is why I haven’t talked about it much–it’s just part of the theory and it just hadn’t hit my conscious that I needed to explain this. As I looked into quarks and how its mass is dominated by the interaction particle (gluon) rather than the rest-mass particle (quarks), I realized I’d better get that part of the twist field clarified here.

There is a marvelous physics archive paper arXiv:hep-ex/0606035v2 by S. Bethke on the history of quark knowledge. He actually wrote a physics paper that is clear to the average idiot like me–it’s well worth your time to check this out. Another very readable guide to the quark realm is the book called Quarks, The Stuff of Matter by Harald Fritzsch. He’s one of the big players in quark theory, but has written something with the intent of educating mortals what’s going on here. You know, I’m sure being one of these guys is not all tea and cupcakes, but I would have absolutely loved being on the forefront of discovery about our existence.

Unlike the electron, quark combinations such as the proton and neutron are unbelievably complex and I am straining to think that the unitary twist field theory would effectively model the quark-gluon pile in a proton. Nevertheless, protons and neutrons share some very important traits with electron/positrons and photons that still make me think something like the unitary twist field has to underlie it. First is the pointlike nature of quarks–matching the pointlike nature of electrons. Unitary field twists have an infinitesimal cross section, and the particle energies are definitely quantized, which is the very basis of the unitary twist field. A twist has to be quantized in order for the twist to be stable–only one full twist will survive in this field. The electron has only one possible diameter for its twist loop because of the relation between electrostatic and magnetic field components. Quarks interact electrostatically, magnetically, and via the strong force, (weak force too, but I confess to not having spent much time here) and must have two or three (or more) components (mesons, baryons, respectively), all of which will interact in incredibly complex ways. Using supercomputers and a lattice of field points, it’s possible to compute how quarks interact, but that’s no place for an amateur physicist like me, I’m thinking.

But it still seems like the unitary twist field has to be behind all of it. Why? Because just like electrons, quarks emerge from a background field. We get virtual quark-anti-quark pairs, and sometimes, in the right circumstances, these become real. So just what is it that only lets certain particles form out of the vacuum? Why can I pull two vastly different types of stable particle/antiparticles out of the vacuum that always have these specific masses and interactions? There’s got to be a simplifying commonality here. Yes, I admit to have trying to think the strong force is somehow the same as the electromagnetic force, that there is something special about quark/gluon clusters that makes it look different when it’s actually the same force. However, the reading I’m doing acknowledges no possibility of that–so I’ve got to think of how the unitary twist field theory might create the existence of a strong force. But this doesn’t change my original question–what is it about a vacuum field that allows *both* of these quantum particles to emerge? There’s got to be a common factor here, and I’m hoping the unitary twist field provides an answer…

Agemoz

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