Posts Tagged ‘entangled causal’

Basis Field For Particles

July 16, 2016

I think every physicist, whether real or amateur or crackpot, goes through the exercise of trying to work out a geometry for the field that particles reside in.  This is the heart of many issues, such as why is there a particle zoo and how to reconcile quantum theory with relativity, either special or general.  There are many ways to approach this question–experimental observation, mathematical derivation/generalization, geometrical inference, random guessing–all followed by some attempt to verify any resulting hypothesis. I’ve attempted to do some geometrical inference to work out some ideas as to what this field would have to be.

Ideas are a dime-a-dozen, so throwing something out there and expecting the world to take notice isn’t going to accomplish anything.  It’s primarily the verification phase that should advance the block of knowledge we call science.  This verification phase can be experimental observation such as from a collider, mathematical derivation or proof, or possibly a thorough computer simulation.  This system of growing our knowledge has a drawback–absolute refusal to accept speculative ideas which are difficult or impossible to verify (for example, in journals) can lock out progress and inhibit innovation.  Science investigation can get hide-bound, that is stuck in a loop where an idea has to have ultimate proof, but ultimate proof has become impossible, so no progress is made.

This is where the courageous amateur has some value to science, I think–they can investigate speculative possibilities–innovate–and disseminate the investigation via something like a blog that nobody reads.  The hope is that pursuing speculative ideas will eventually reach a conclusion or path for experimental observation that verifies the original hypothesis.  Unlike professional scientists, there are no constraints on how stupid or uninformed the amateur scientist is and no documentation or credentials that says that science can trust him.  The signal-to-noise is going to be so high that it’s not worth the effort to understand or verify the amateur.  The net result is that no progress in our knowledge base occurs–professional scientists are stuck as publishable ideas and proof/verification become more and more difficult to achieve, but no one wants to bother with the guesses of an amateur.  I think the only way out is for an amateur to use his freedom to explore and publish as conscientiously as he can, and for professionals to occasionally scan amateur efforts for possible diamonds in the rough.

OK, back to the title concept.  I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on the field of our existence.  I posted previously that a non-compressible field yields a Maxwell’s equation environment which must have three spatial dimensions, and that time is a property, not a field dimension as implied by special relativity.  I’ve done a lot more thinking to try to pin down more details.  My constraints are driven primarily by the assumption that this field arose from nothing (no guiding intelligence), which is another way of saying that there cannot be a pre-existing rule or geometry.  In other words, to use a famous aphorism, it cannot be turtles all the way down–the first turtle must have arisen from nothing.

I see some intermediate turtles–an incompressible field would form twist relations that Maxwell’s equations describe, and would also force the emergence of three spatial dimensions.  But this thinking runs into the parity problem–why does the twist obey the right hand rule and not the left hand rule?  There’s a symmetry breaking happening here that would require the field to have a symmetric partner that we don’t observe.  I dont really want to complexify the field, for example to give it two layers to explain this symmetry breaking because that violates, or at least, goes in the wrong direction, of assuming a something emerged from nothing.

So, to help get a handle on what this field would have to be, I’ve done some digging in to the constraints this field would have.  I realized that to form particles, it would have to be a directional field without magnitude.  I use the example of the car seat cover that is made of orientable balls.  There’s no magnitude (assuming the balls are infinitely small in the field) but are orientable.  This is the basic structure of the Twist Field theory I’ve posted a lot about–this system gives us an analogous Schroedinger Equation basis for forming subatomic particles from twists in the field.

For a long time I thought this field had to be continuous and differentiable, but this contradicts Twist Theory which requires a discontinuity along the axis of the twist.  Now I’ve realize our basis field does not need to be differentiable and can have discontinuities–obviously not magnitude discontinuities but discontinuities in element orientation.  Think of the balls in the car seat mat–there is no connection between adjacent ball orientations.  It only looks continuous because forces that change element orientation act diffusely, typically with a 1/r^2 distribution.  Once I arrived at this conclusion that the field is not constrained by differentiability, I realized that one of the big objections to Twist Field theory was gone–and, more importantly, the connection of this field to emergence from nothing was stronger.  Why?  Because I eliminated a required connection between elements (“balls”), which was causing me a lot of indigestion.  I couldn’t see how that connection could exist without adding an arbitrary (did not arise from nothing) rule.

So, removing differentiability brings us that much closer to the bottom turtle.  Other constraints that have to exist are non-causality–quantum entanglement forces this.  The emergence of the speed of light comes from the fact that wave phase propagates infinitely fast in this field, but particles are group wave constructions.  Interference effects between waves are instantaneous (non-causal) but moving a particle requires *changing* the phase of waves in the group wave, and there is a limit to how fast this can be done.  Why?  I don’t have an idea how to answer this yet, but this is a good geometrical explanation for quantum entanglement that preserves relativistic causality for particles.

In order to quantize this field, it is sufficient to create the default orientation (this is required by Twist Field theory to enable emergence of the particle zoo).  I have determined that this field has orientation possible in three spatial dimensions and one imaginary direction.  This imaginary direction has to have a lower energy state than twists in the spatial dimension, thus quantizing local twisting to either no twists or one full rotation.  A partial twist will fall back to the default twist orientation unless there’s enough energy to complete the rotation.  This has the corollary that partial twists can be computed as virtual particles of quantum field theory that vanish when integrating over time.

The danger to avoid in quantizing the field this way is the same problem that a differentiable constraint would require.  I have to be careful not to create a new rule regarding the connectivity of adjacent elements.  It does appear to work here, note that the quantization is only for a particular element and requires no connection to adjacent elements.  The appearance of a connection as elements proceed through the twist is indirect, driven by forces other than some adjacent rubber-band between elements.  These are forces acting continuously on all elements in the region of the twist, and each twist element is acting independently only to the quantization force.   The twist discontinuity doesn’t ruin things because there is no connection to adjacent elements.

However, my thinking here is by no means complete–this default orientation to the imaginary direction, and the force that it implies, is a new field rule.  Where does this energy come from, what exactly is the connection between elements that enforces this default state?

 

Oh, this is long.  Congratulations on anyone who read this far–I like to think you are advancing science in considering my speculation!

Agemoz

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

22 Years!

September 9, 2015

It’s been 22 years since I started as an amateur crackpot, and have nothing more to show for it except that I’m still an amateur crackpot.  However, I did reach the goal of a better understanding of the physics behind the particle zoo and the history of physics.  I still think that my basic premise could work to produce the array of particles and force mediators we know to exist.  The idea is analogous to the Schroedinger wave solutions for excited electrons and is based on the assumption that at quantum scales there is a way (other than gravity) to curve EM waves.  We already know that this outcome cannot result from Maxwell’s equations alone, so I have proposed that EM field twists can occur.  These could be considered strings and consist of an axially rotating field vector that propagates only at speed c.  If the axis is a straight line, we have a photon that cannot rest and has no rest mass.  However, a twist that forms in a closed loop must only exist in quantized structures (any point on the loop must have a continuous vector twist rotation, so only complete rotations are possible).  Loops can exist as a simple ring or more complex knots and linked knots and would provide the basis for a particle zoo.  The loop has two counteracting magnetic fields that curve and confine the loop path, thus enabling the soliton formation of a stable particle–the twist about the axis of the twist, and the rotation of the twist about the center of the loop. Mass results from the momentum of the twist loop being confined to a finite volume, inferring inertia, and electric charge, depending on the loop configuration, results from the distribution of  magnetic fields from the closed loop.  Linked loops posit the strong force assembly of quarks.

The biggest objection to such a twist model (aside from assuming an unobserved variation of Maxwell’s equations that enables such a twist field) is the resulting quantized size of particles.  Electrons have no observed dimensional size, but this model assumes they result from twist rings that are far larger than measurements indicate.  I have to make another assumption to get around this–that collisions or deflections are the result of hitting the infinitely small twist ring axis, not the area of the ring itself.  Indeed, this assumption helps understand why one and only one particle can capture a linear twist photon–if the electron were truly infinitely small, the probability of snagging a far larger (say, infrared) photon is vanishingly small, contrary to experiment (QFT posits that the electron is surrounded by particle/antiparticle pairs that does the snagging, but this doesn’t answer the question of why only one electron in a group will ever capture the photon).

In order for this twist theory to work, another assumption has to be made.  Something needs to quantize the frequency of axial twists, otherwise linear twists will not quantize like loops will.  In addition, without an additional constraint, there would be a continuous range of closed loop energies, which we know experimentally does not happen.  In order to quantize a photon energy to a particular twist energy, I posit that there is a background state direction for the twist vector orientation.  In this way, the twist can only start and finish from this background state, thus quantizing the rotation to multiples of 2 pi (a complete rotation).  This assumption leads to the conclusion that this background state vector must be imaginary, since a real background state would violate gauge invariance among many other things and probably would be detectable with some variation of a Michelson-Morley experiment (detecting presence of an ether, or in this case an ether direction).  We already describe quantum objects as wave equations with a 3D real part and an imaginary part, so this assumption is not wildly crack-potty.

So in summary, this twist field theory proposes modifying the EM field math to allow axial twists in a background state.  Once this is done, quantized particle formation becomes possible and a particle zoo results.  I’ve been working hard on a simulator to see what particle types would emerge from such an environment.

One remaining question is how does quantum entanglement and the non-causal decoherence process get explained?  I propose that particles are group waves whose phase instantly affects the entire wave path.  The concept of time and distance and maximum speed c all arise from a limit on how fast the wave phase components can change relative to each other, analogous to Fourier composition of delta functions.

You will notice I religiously avoid trying to add dimensions such as the rolled up dimensions of various string theories and multiple universes and other such theories.  I see no evidence to support additional dimensions–I think over time if there were other dimensions connected to our 3D + T, we would have seen observable evidence, such as viruses hiding in those dimensions or loss of conservation of some quantities of nature.  Obviously that’s no proof, but KISS to me means that extra dimensions are a contrivance.  My twist field approach seems a lot more plausable, but I may be biased… 🙂

Agemoz

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

Simulation Construction of Twist Theory

December 2, 2014

Back after dealing with some unrelated stuff.  I had started work on a new simulator that would test the Twist Theory idea, and in so doing ran into the realization that the mathematical premise could not be based on any sort of electrostatic field.  To back up a bit, the problem I’m trying to solve is a geometrical basis for quantization of an EM field.  Yeah, old problem, long since dealt with in QFT–but the nice advantage of being an amateur physicist is you can explore alternative ideas, as long as you don’t try to convince anyone else.  That’s where crackpots go bad, and I just want to try some fun ideas and see where they go, not win a Nobel.  I’ll let the university types do the serious work.

OK, back to the problem–can an EM field create a quantized particle?  No.  No messing with a linear system like Maxwell’s equations will yield stable solitons even when constrained by special relativity.  Some rule has to be added, and I looked at the old wave in a loop (de Broglie’s idea) and modified it to be a single EM twist of infinitesimal width in the loop.  This still isn’t enough, it is necessary that there be a background state for a twist where a partial twist is metastable, it either reverts to the background state, or in the case of a loop, continues the twist to the background state.  In this system–now only integer numbers of twists are possible in the EM field and stable particles can exist in this field.  In addition, special relativity allows the twist to be stable in Minkowski space, so linear twists propagating at the speed of light are also stable but cannot stop, a good candidate for photons.

If you have some experience with EM fields, you’ll spot a number of issues which I, as a good working crackpot, have chosen to gloss over.  First, a precise description of a twist involves a field discontinuity along the twist.  I’ve discussed this at length in previous posts, but this remains a major issue for this scheme.  Second, stable particles are going to have a physical dimension that is too big for most physicists to accept.  A single loop, a candidate for the electron/positron particle, has a Compton radius way out of range with current attempts to determine electron size.  I’ve chosen to put this problem aside by saying that the loop asymptotically approaches an oval, or even a line of infinitesimal width as it is accelerated.  Tests that measure the size of an electron generally accelerate it (or bounce-off angle impact particles) to close to light speed.  Note that an infinitely small electron of standard theory has a problem that suggests that a loop of Compton size might be a better answer–Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem says that the minimum measurable size of the electron is constrained by its momentum, and doing the math gets you to the Compton radius and no smaller.  (Note that the Standard Model gets around this by talking about “naked electrons” surrounded by the constant formation of particle-antiparticle pairs.  The naked electron is tiny but cannot exist without a shell of virtual particles.  You could argue the twist model is the same thing except that only the shell exists, because in this model there is a way for the shell to be stable).

Anyway, if you put aside these objections, then the question becomes why would a continuous field with twists have a stable loop state?  If the loop elements have forces acting to keep the loop twist from dissipating, the loop will be stable.  Let’s zoom in on the twist loop (ignoring the linear twist of photons for now).  I think of the EM twist as a sea of freely rotating balls that have a white side and a black side, thus making them orientable in a background state.  There has to be an imaginary dimension (perhaps the bulk 5th dimension of some current theories).  Twist rotation is in a plane that must include this imaginary dimension.  A twist loop then will have two rotations, one about the loop circumference, and the twist itself, which will rotate about the axis that is tangent to the loop.  The latter can easily be shown to induce a B field that varies as 1/r^3 (formula for far field of a current ring, which in this case follows the width of the twist).  The former case can be computed as the integral of dl/r^2 where dl is a delta chunk of the loop path.  This path has an approximately constant r^2, so the integral will also vary as r^2.  The solution to the sum of 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 yields a soliton in R3, a stable state.  Doing the math yields a Compton radius.  Yes, you are right, another objection to this idea is that quantum theory has a factor of 2, once again I need to put that aside for now.

So, it turns out (see many previous posts on this) that there are many good reasons to use this as a basis for electrons and positrons, two of the best are how special relativity and the speed of light can be geometrically derived from this construct, and also that the various spin states are all there, they emerge from this twist model.  Another great result is how quantum entanglement and resolution of the causality paradox can come from this model–the group wave construction of particles assumes that wave phase and hence interference is instantaneous–non-causal–but moving a particle requires changing the phase of the wave group components, it is sufficient to limit the rate of change of phase to get both relativistic causality and quantum instantaneous interference or coherence without resorting to multiple dimensions or histories.  So lots of good reasons, in my mind, to put aside some of the objections to this approach and see what else can be derived.

What is especially nice about the 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 situation is that many loop combinations are not only quantized but topologically stable, because the 1/r^3 force causes twist sections to repel each other.  Thus links and knots are clearly possible and stable.  This has motivated me to attempt a simulation of the field forces and see if I can get quantitative measurements of loops other than the single ring.  There will be an infinite number of these, and I’m betting the resulting mass measurements will correlate to mass ratios in the particle zoo.  The simulation work is underway and I will post results hopefully soon.

Agemoz

PS: an update, I realized I hadn’t finished the train of thought I started this post with–the discovery that electrostatic forces cannot be used in this model.  The original attempts to construct particle models, back in the early 1900s, such as variations of the DeBroglie wave model of particles, needed forces to confine the particle material.  Attempts using electrostatic and magnetic fields were common back then, but even for photons the problem with electrostatic fields was the knowledge that you can’t bend or confine an EM wave with either electric or magnetic fields.  With the discovery and success of quantum mechanics and then QFT, geometrical solutions fell out of favor–“shut up and calculate”, but I always felt like that line of inquiry closed off too soon, hence my development of the twist theory.  It adds a couple of constraints to Maxwell’s equations (twist field discontinuities and orientability to a background state) to make stable solitons possible in an EM field.

Unfortunately, trying to model twist field particles in a sim has always been hampered by what I call the renormalization problem–at what point do you cut off the evaluation of the field 1/r^n strength to prevent infinities that make evaluation unworkable.  I’ve tried many variations of this sim in the past and always ran into this intractable problem–the definition of the renormalization limit point overpowered the computed behavior of the system.

My breakthrough was realizing that that problem occurs only with electrostatic fields and not magnetic fields, and finding the previously mentioned balancing magnetic forces in the twist loop.  The magnetic fields, like electrostatic fields,  also have an inverse r strength, causing infinities–but it applies force according to the cross-product of the direction of the loop.  This means that no renormalization cutoff point (an arbitrary point where you just decide not to apply the force to the system if it is too close to the source) is needed.  Instead, this force merely constrains the maximum curvature of the twist.  As long as it is less that the 1/r^n of the resulting force, infinities wont happen, and the curve simulation forces will work to enforce that.  At last, I can set up the sim without that hokey arbitrary force cutoff mechanism.

And–this should prove that conceptually there is no clean particle model system (without a renormalization hack) that can be built from an electrostatic field.  A corollary might be–not sure, still thinking about this–that magnetic fields are fundamental and electrostatic fields are a consequence of magnetic fields, not a fundamental entity in its own right.  The interchangability of B and E fields in special relativity frames of reference calls that idea into question, though, so I have to think more about that one!  But anyway, this was a big breakthrough in creating a sim that has some hope of actually representing twist field behavior in particles.

Agemoz

PPS:  Update–getting closer.  I’ve worked out the equations, hopefully correctly, and am in the process of setting them up in Mathematica.  If you want to make your own working sim, the two forces sum to a flux field which can be parametrically integrated around whatever twist paths you create.  Then the goal becomes to try to find equipotential curves for the flux field.  The two forces are first the result of the axial twist, which generates a plane angle theta offset value Bx = 3 k0 sin theta cos theta/r^3, and Bz = k0 ( 3 cos^2 theta -1)/r^3.  The second flux field results from the closed loop as k0 dl/r^2).  These will both get a phase factor, and must be rotated to normalize the plane angle theta (some complicated geometry here, hope I don’t screw it up and create some bogus conclusions).  The resulting sum must be integrated as a cross product of the resulting B vector and the direction of travel around the proposed twist path for every point.

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

Principle of Replication and the Particle Zoo

June 27, 2014

I am continuing to develop the new twist simulation, and hope to get first runs maybe in the next several weeks or months.  It’s been a good exercise because it has forced me to be very clear and explicit about how the model works.  To paraphrase Feynman very loosely, “the truth does not lie”–I can’t just make the theory work just because I want it to.  But the exercise has been good because it’s clarified some important concepts that are distributed all throughout this blog, and thus a casual reader is going to have a very difficult time figuring out what I am talking about and whether there’s any real substance to what I’m thinking.  While there is a *lot* of thinking behind this approach, here are the fundamental concepts that are driving how this simulation is being built:

The twist field concept starts with E=hv for all particles, and this is a statement of quantization.  For any given frequency, there is only one possible energy.  If we assume a continuous field, the simplest geometrical model of this is a full twist in a field of orientations.  E=hv implies no magnitude to the field, you can imagine a field of orientable dots within a background state direction–quantization results when only a complete rotation is permitted, thus implying the background default direction that all twists must return to.

The second concept is a duality–if there is a vast field of identical particles, say electrons, the dual of exact replication is a corresponding degree of simplicity.  While not a proof, the reason I call simplicity the dual of replication is because the number of rules required to achieve massive repeatability has to withstand preservation of particles in every possible physical environment from the nearly static state–say, a Milliken droplet electron all the way to electrons in a black hole jet.  The fewer the rules, the fewer environments that could break them.

The third concept is to realize causality doesn’t hold for wave phase in the twist model.  Dr. Bell proved that quantum entanglement means that basic Standard Model quantum particles cannot have internal structure if causality applies to every aspect of nature.  The twist model says that waves forming a particle are group waves–a change in phase in a wave component is instantaneous across the entire wave–but the rate of change of this phase is what allows the group wave particle to move, and this rate of change is what limits particle velocity to the speed of light.  This thus allows particles to interfere instantaneously, but the particle itself must move causally.  Only this way can a workable geometry for quantum entanglement, two-slit experiments, and so on be formed.

Within these constraints the twist model has emerged in my thinking.  A field twist can curve into stable  loops based on standard EM theory and the background state quantization principle.  A particle zoo will emerge because of a balance of two forces, one of which is electrostatic (1/r*2, or central force) and the other is electromagnetic (1/r*3).  When a twist curve approaches another twist curve, the magnetic (1/r*3) repulsion dominates, but when two parts of a curve (or separate curves) move away from each other, the electrostatic attractive force dominates.  Such a system has two easily identifiable stable states, the linear twist and the ring.  However there are many more, as can be easily seen when you realize that twist curves cannot intersect due to the 1/r*3 repulsion force dominating as curves approach.  Linked rings, knots, braids all become possible and stable, and a system of mapping to particle zoo members becomes available.

Why do I claim balancing 1/r*2 and 1/r*3 forces exist?  Because in a twist ring or other closed loop geometries, there are a minimum of two twists–the twist about the axis /center of the ring, and the twist about the path of the ring–imagine the linear twist folded into a circle.  Simple Lorentz force rules will derive the two (or more, for complex particle assemblies such as knots and linked rings) interacting forces.  Each point’s net force is computed as a sum of path forces multiplied by the phase of the wave on that path–you can see the resemblance to the Feynman path integrals of quantum mechanics.

Soon I’ll show some pictures of the sim results.

Hopefully that gives a clear summary of why I am taking this study in the directions I have proposed.

Agemoz

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

Noncausal interactions in the Unitary Twist Field Theory

December 10, 2012

It’s been a little while since I’ve posted, partly because of my time spent on the completion of a big work project, and partly because of a great deal of thinking before posting again (what a concept!  Something new!).  This blog has traveled through a lot of permutations and implications of the unitary twist field theory.  It starts by assuming that the Standard Model is valid, but then tries to create an underlying geometry for quantization and special relativity.  This twist vector field geometry is based on E=hv, and has worked pretty well–but when we get to entangled particles and other noncausal aspects of quantum theory, I’ve needed to do some new thinking.  While the noncausal construct is easily built on group wave theory (phase information propagates at infinite speed, but group Fourier compositions of waves that make up particles are limited to speed c), there are significant consequences for the theory regarding its view of the dimensional characteristics of the 3D+T construct of our existence.

As I mentioned, the unitary twist field theory starts with E=hv, the statement that every particle is quantized to an intrinsic frequency.  There really is only one way to do this in a continuous system in R3+T:  a twist within a background state vector field.  Twists are topologically stable, starting from the background direction and twisting to the same background direction with an integral turn.  Quantization is achieved because partial turns cannot exist (although virtual particles exist physically as partial turns for a short time before reverting back to the background state).  With this, I have taken many paths–efforts to verify this pet theory could really work.  For example, I tested the assumption of a continuous system–could the field actually be a lattice at some scale.  It cannot for a lot of reasons (and experiments appear to confirm this), especially since quantization scales with frequency, tough to do with a lattice of specific spacing.  Another concern to address with twist field theory occurs because it’s not a given that the frequency in E=hv has any physical interpretation–but quantum theory makes it clear that there is.  Suppose there was no real meaning to the frequency in E=hv–that is, the hv product give units that just happen to match that of frequency.  This can’t be true, because experimentally, all particles quantum interfere at the hvfrequency, an experimental behavior that confirms the physical nature of the frequency component.

So–many paths have been taken, many studies to test the validity of the unitary twist field theory, and within my limits of testing this hypothesis, it seems so far the only workable explanation for quantization.  I believe it doesn’t appear to contradict the Standard Model, and does seem to add a bit to it–an explanation for why we see quantization using a geometrical technique.  And, it has the big advantage of connecting special relativity to quantum mechanics–and I am seeing promising results for a path to get to general releativity.  A lot of work still going on there.

However, my mind has really taken a big chunk of effort toward a more difficult issue for the unitary twist field theory–the non-causality of entangled particles or quantum interference.  Once again, as discussed in previous posts here, the best explanation for this seems pretty straightforward–the particles in unitary twist field theory are twists that act as group waves.  The group wave cluster, a Fourier composition, is limited to light speed (see the wonderful discovery in a previous post that any confined twist system such as the unitarty twist field theory must geometrically exhibit a maximum speed, providing a geometrical reason for the speed of light limit).  However, the phase portion of the component waves is not limited to light speed and resolves the various non-causal dilemmas such as the two-slit experiment, entangled particles, etc, simply and logically without resorting to multiple histories or any of the other complicated attempts to mash noncausality into a causal R3+T construct.

But for me, there is a difficult devil in the details of making this really work.  Light-speed limited group waves with instantaneous phase propagation raises a very important issue.  Through a great deal of thinking, I believe I have shown myself that noncausal interactions which require instantaneous phase propagation, will specify that distance and time be what I call “emergent” concepts–they are not intrinsic to the construction of existence, but emerge–probably as part of the initial Big Bang expansion.  If so, the actual dimensions of space-time are also emergent–and must come from or are based on a system with neither–a zero dimensional dot of some sort of incredibly complex oscillation.  Why do I say this?  Because instantaneous phase propagation, such as entangled particle resolving, must have interactions in local neighborhoods that do not have either a space or time component.  Particles have two types of interactions–ones where two particles have similar values for R3+T (physical interactions), and those that have similar values only in phase space.  In either case, two particles will affect each other.  But how do you get interactions between two particles that aren’t in the same R3+T neighborhood?  Any clever scheme like the Standard Model or unitary twist field theory must answer this all important question.

Physicists are actively trying to get from the Standard Model to this issue (it’s a permutation of the effort to create a quantum gravity theory).  As you would expect, I am trying to get from the unitary twist field theory to this issue.  Standard Model efforts have typically either focused on adding dimensions (multiple histories/dimensions/string theories) or more exotic methods usually making some set of superluminal assumptions.  As mentioned in previous posts, unitary twist field theory has twists that turn about axes in both an R3 and a direction I that is orthogonal to R3 in time.  Note that this I direction does not have any dimensional length–it is simply a vector direction that does not lie in R3.  When I use the unitary twist field theory to show how particles will interact in R3+T, either physically or in entangled or interfering states, those particles would simply have group wave constructs with either a matching set of R3+T values (within some neighborhood epsilon value) or must have matching phase information in the I space.  In other words, normal “nearby”  interactions between two particles happen in a spacetime neighborhood, but quantum interference interactions happen in the I space, the land that Time and Space forgot.  There is no dimensional length here, but phase matches allow interaction as well.  This appears to be a fairly clean way to integrate noncausal behavior into the unitary twist field theory.

Obviously, there are still things to figure out here, but that is currently the most promising path I see for how unitary twist field theory will address the noncausal interaction construct issue.

Agemoz

 

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

Multiple histories. Baloney!

June 29, 2012

I’ve dug in deep to trying to find out how to make a valid field description that will be implementable in a simulation.  The hope is, just like Conway’s game of life, the right unitary twist field model will show self sustaining quantized behavior that could provide a geometrical basis for the particle zoo.  When you do this, a lot of the baloney in a crackpot idea is forced out into the open–not easy to fool yourself when you have to actually implement an idea.  No surprise that that’s a tough road to follow–what I’ve found is that there are an awful lot of cool ideas that die this way.

I’m still working and thinking, but today I had a great discussion with a friend about a different topic.  Someone was asking me about multiple dimensions and multiple histories, and I told him what I thought–and we had a great time!  You may think physics is a mined out field with not much prospect of exciting work, but discussions like this are why I find this field so fascinating.  There’s not really any chance that I will actually add anything to the base of human knowledge–that’s for university physicists with papers to write.  But we can still think–and that is what I love to do!

Here’s the deal.  Multiple histories and String theory (theories, actually, including M-theory and other multiple dimensional approaches) are two broad classes of theories that try to resolve the non-causality of quantum problems such as entanglement and the dual slit experiment.  In other words, these are theories that try to form a common mathematical basis for general relativity and quantum theory.  These are really the only two approaches that are considered by mainstream physicists–and I don’t think a lot of them really like either approach.  Multiple histories, the idea that all possible alternatives to a triggering event  exist, and that observation resolves the alternatives to a single outcome without violating causality, and multiple dimension theories, which remove causality by providing a near zero length alternative path (via an additional set of dimensions) both have serious problems.  I have no doubt that the history of physics is full of fiery debate about which approach works and is real.

There’s no debate in my mind, though, I think they both severely violate the keep-it-simple-stupid rule–because I think there’s a far better answer.  Causality is a property of particles, massive or massless (eg, photons).  Quantum entanglement and non-causal interference is a property of wave phase.  A simple answer is that the Fourier composition of a collection of group waves is limited in velocity (to c), but the phase information propagates at infinite speed.  The phase information gets to the target (observation point) instantly, but the actual particle takes a while to arrive.  There’s a lot of details to this approach that I won’t cover in this post, but hopefully that is enough for you to get the gist.  No piling on of dimensions, no absurd multiple copies of the universe weaving in and out of observer views (do we have to include all possible observer outcomes as a set of histories–but then just where does it resolve to one observed outcome…. etc).

So my friend asks, if this is a real option, why isn’t presented and considered in the literature or in pop physics books and all?  Well, there’s an excellent chance that this idea *was* considered back in the early quantum theory days and rejected for obvious reasons, just not obvious to me.  Unfortunately, the literature only records successes, not failures and the reasons behind the failure–so valuable information and research about why something *wont* work does not get captured for future generations.  Perhaps a future version of the scientific method will evolve that realizes the value of wrong information (properly labeled) and include it with papers describing groundbreaking correct discoveries.

Even though I suspect a real working physicist would have an easy answer why this approach can’t be, I haven’t heard it yet, read of it yet, nor thought of a good reason why this can’t be the right answer–despite having a hopefully skeptical sense that I am unlikely to have a right answer when no one else has found it.  Don’t know what to tell you there, except that this phase/group wave idea seems a far simpler and more logical explanation than adding dimensions or whole universe copies to our existence.  And in any event, thinking about it and having fun discussing it isn’t restricted to university physicists!

Agemoz

PS:  It may look like I’ve left out the Copenhagen interpretation, which says the process of observation causes composite quantum states to resolve (decohere).  Not really–I categorize this interpretation as a variation that falls under the multiple histories category–the composite quantum state vector contains all possible outcomes).

PPS:  And, then you might come back with:  Oh, this looks like the discredited Pilot Wave approach, where there are multiple pieces to the particle and the surrounding part “guides” the particle.  Dr. Bell, who should have won a Nobel before he died, disproved that one by showing there cannot be internal structure explaining entanglement.   My counterpoint:  You are getting warmer, a better objection–but Fourier composition does not mean physical components–the Pilot Wave is not the same as a group wave composition forming a particle.

Then there’s DeBroglie, Bohm, and a whole bunch of others.  I’ll leave you to research the rest of it.  It’s kind of a tired debate now…

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

entangled particle consequences

July 8, 2008

Another important revelation on entangled particles–particles either are un-entangled (resolve only to one particular state) or are entangled (share orthogonal states with one or more other particles). If, say, two particles are entangled, they share a pair of states, such that when one particle resolves to one of the two states, the other particle must resolve to the other. It’s extremely handy to represent this situation with a complex variable where the states are represented by a vector basis (not necessarily the real and imaginary axes). Resolving a particle state (e.g, an electron with spin up or spin down states) means projecting the current superposed pair of states to one or the other basis vector, and if the particle is entangled with another, then the other particle must resolve to the opposite (orthogonal) basis vector.

You can think of this by representing the superposed state of each vector by a sum of waves, each representing one of the basis vectors, that are constantly shifting phase. When one particle resolves in a detector, that wave (basis vector) is removed from the sum, leaving the other particle with only the remaining wave basis vector to resolve to.

But look at this–in the previous post, I said there was evidence that the wave phase information is not affected by distance since entanglement remains in effect regardless of the separation between the entangled particles. Here’s even better evidence, and a new insight, for me, at least: entanglement still happens regardless of what is put in between the particles after they fly apart. You could conceivably put a planet or a star or even a black hole in between the two particles and entanglement resolution would still happen. You could attempt to block every possible Feynman type path between the particles and theory says the particles must resolve to different states. Whoa! The resolving of the entanglement condition is not using the physical space between the separating particles to communicate–the phase information is either coupled via another non-causal dimension–or, my previous hypothesis, there is no distance between the particles as far as wave phase is concerned!! Really, if you think about it, those two ideas can be considered equivalent, since a non-causal dimension really means there is no distance within it, and thus it truly is not a dimension by definition.

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »