Posts Tagged ‘particles’

Electrons and Charge Central Force Equation

March 21, 2021

The Standard Model describes probability distributions for particle motion and interactions, but does not tell us why we have the particle masses and charge forces we can experimentally observe. I’ve found two concepts that can be tacked on to the model–the proof that particles that experience the properties of special relativity have to be composed entirely of waves (see the paper referenced below) and that E=hv implies that particle wave components can be modelled as twists in a unitary vector field in R3+I+T (agemoz.wordpress.com/2021/01/23/unifying-the-em-interactions/). I am very certain of the former, and think the latter is the most likely of all alternatives I can think of.

Since then, I have tried to synthesize hypotheses that would result. Previous posts show how I understand the difference between virtual particle and real (on-mass shell, e.g., conserves momentum at any point in time) particles as partial/returning twists and complete quantized twists respectively. I wrote how real photons have quantized twists with angular momentum through the axis of travel, thus providing the polarization degree of freedom.

Electrons are much more difficult because experiment shows they are infinitely small point particles. So many people have proposed variations of the DeBroglie standing wave in a circle using EM fields–but these cannot explain why experiment collisions show the point particle radius is smaller than any measurable constant. I am certain that EM fields cannot work for many reasons (discussed in previous posts) but even a loop in the unitary twist vector field doesn’t explain the unmeasurably small radius of the electron. In order to define the difference between photons, and to explain photon capture by an electron, whether free or bound to an atom, I saw years ago that a twist loop would be a great explanation (photons try to go through the loop center field region, but at the moment of collision creates a momentary standing wave reflection that cancels itself out, causing a transfer of angular momentum to the electron). But this can’t work if the electron is a point particle. I thought of a new reason to dispute the zero electron radius assumption.

Admittedly, the bare electron doesn’t exist in the real world as a point–it is surrounded by a cloud of particle/anti-particle creation/annihilation operators. The problem remains, however–the central force nature of the EM field forces quantum field theory to renormalize out infinite forces arbitrarily close to the electron inside the cloud.

Renormalization is necessary because of the central force nature, the strength of the field varying as 1/r^2, of the EM field–the charge of the electron produces this field which then impedes the motion of the electron to some extent. This field strength asymptotically goes to infinity as you approach the electron, that is, as r goes to zero. If the electron is truly point sized, we have to compute the effect of the field arbitrarily near the electron, and the only way to get non-infinite results reflecting reality is to arbitrarily cancel out the field infinite forces near it.

There’s a really interesting way to look at the central force equation near point particles, and it comes from the behavior of gravitational masses. Gravitational particles can experience infinite central force behavior, or more accurately, forces far beyond the energies present in the local region of the system. Look at the particle jets emitted from spinning black holes–the masses present in the jets are accelerated to incomprehensible velocities. We see the same thing when a spacecraft swings close enough to a planet to give it enormous kinetic energy, sufficient to rocket it out of the solar system like the Voyager spacecrafts.

It suddenly hit me–we do not see this happen with electrons! Even the most powerful collisions at CERN never shows this asymptotic slingshot behavior–the interaction momentums are always conserved. I think we will find answers to the nature of electrons by comparing the two systems. The potential energy near a gravitational mass can become enormous as the radius of the mass gets smaller, but this doesn’t happen for particles! Why not? One thing is for sure–the fact that we see no jets or massively accelerated particles in electron interactions means that the existence of an infinitely small point electron in a central force EM field, the central assumption of quantum field theory renormalization, cannot be an accurate description of reality.

Agemoz

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

Quantum Interference as a Cause For Charge Force

October 26, 2020

In the previous post, I posited that the difference between radiation pressure and charge force, both of which are mediated by photons, is due to different properties of photons. Radiation pressure is due to the ability of massless photons transferring angular momentum from a source such as atomic electron state changes to a destination (which also could be an atomic electron that changes state). Charge force cannot be the result of a momentum exchange, otherwise energy would not be conserved–charge forces exert continuously in all directions simultaneously. Nor could you have attractive forces, since momentum transfer is observably always positive, not negative. To address the fact that we know charge forces are mediated by photons, but cannot be transferring energy, I had posited that quantum interference (which redirects particle paths without expending energy) is responsible for charge force. This scheme does allow for negative momentum transfer necessary for charge attraction. However, I now see that this approach cannot work, at least in the way I have proposed.

A problem with this idea is that quantum interference requires identical frequency waves from two sources, or from the same source but via different paths. I can readily model charge attraction via quantum interference in my simulator (see many previous posts on attraction force simulations). However, this approach gets into trouble for two reasons–one is that charge is constant, but waves from a source particle can Doppler shift if the source is moving relative to the destination. If charge forces are due to quantum interference, the wave and the destination particle will have to have the same frequency when they meet, and Doppler shifting of a moving source particle means they won’t have the same frequency and won’t interfere.

The bigger problem with this approach comes from trying to explain the central force behaviour of charge. I had assumed that charge force, which decreases as the square of the distance from the source, was a result of the granular distribution of photons from the source. Any given neighborhood volume at a radius r from a source is going to occupy a percentage of the total surface area at that radius r. If there is a fixed emission of photons from the source, there will be a fixed distribution of photons within a surface area that varies as r^2, hence the central force dropoff of charge force (a generalization results than any system with quantized particles will observe central force behaviour). If the charge force is mediated by quantized photons, this works–but that cannot be, because then you have energy transfer that would dissipate the source mass. But if quantum interference of waves is the cause of charge force, then you don’t have particle quantization needed to get the central force 1/r^2 dropoff in charge field strength.

This is a variation of the quantum wave vs. particle dilemma. Photons act like waves or particles depending on the circumstances. However, neither particles (quantized photons) nor waves (quantum interference) explain charge forces. It appears to be some combination of both. Further work is needed before a satisfactory answer is found.

Agemoz

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

Rotation Field Momentum Transfer Induces Curvature

January 15, 2020

I am digging deep into the details of how an R3+I unitary vector field behaves.  I study this field because I’m hypothesizing that it is a good candidate for an underlying field that will produce the particle zoo of reality.  I’m not trying to figure out gravity or dark matter or any of that–I just want to find a workable underlying structure that could explain why there are stable and unstable particles, and why quantum creation operators evolve particle/antiparticle pairs.   If you take a look at some of my recent prior posts, you’ll see the thinking I used to come up with this field concept.

I really like this study, because it avoids the handwaving problem of trying to prove that some new idea represents actual reality.  Every amateur (and I’m sure most real-life physicists) have their pet idea of how things work, and the central problem in promoting that idea is not discovering new science, but rather the socio-political problem of convincing others, and in particular, professional researchers, that your idea is right.  That is a really hard problem that doesn’t involve actual science research.  I have attempted to publish papers in the past and have discovered that that activity is an exercise in futility.  What I love about my study of the R3+I unitary rotation field is that I leave that all behind–I’m just exploring how this field behaves, all the while keeping an eye out for something that might invalidate the field as a candidate for reality.

And to this end, I have discovered some great properties of this field.  The field so far shows the right degrees of freedom to produce linear and closed loop particles, shows why quantization occurs (the lowest energy state of the field is the +I rotation direction, confining twists to integer multiples of complete cycles) and clearly shows how the two types must interact.  Since (see previous posts) the field is blocking, a linearly propagating twist rotation through +I will propagate until it encounters a closed loop twist in this field.  Non-unitary fields such as an EM field permit varying vector magnitudes, including regions with zero magnitude.  In that type of field, there is no possible way that a linearly propagating twist can intercept and be absorbed by a closed loop through the center (think photon striking an electron).  But a unitary twist field, as shown in previous posts, has a very specific stable configuration of rotations that must exist in the center of the loop.  When a linearly propagating twist tries to collide with the closed loop, it cannot pass through (remember that unitary rotations cannot linearly combine, there is no magnitude other than 1).  It will pass its momentum components to the rotations in the loop, but cannot dissolve the loop unless the momentum of the linear particle approaches the momentum of the loop components and breaks the loop.  I know this sounds like handwaving, but I think if you do your own analysis of this field you will find this to be true.

Now on to the new findings:  as I dug deeper into the specifics of this interaction, I had to define exactly how rotation momentum would propagate through the rotation field, and in so doing discovered a very important principle, shown in the figure.  I described how momentum translates in spacetime with a single rule as follows–a delta rotation in R3+I propagates in the direction of rotation.  Quantization says that there must also be a background state restoration force (note that the momentum itself is not unitary, it can be zero or even infinite, and everything in between.  It’s only the vector magnitude that has to be unitary in the R3+I unitary vector field).  When looking at the geometry of this, I discovered something very important about the unitary rotation field R3+I–geometrically, if conservation of momentum is to hold, in certain circumstances, the momentum path must curve.

curved_momentum

Normally, if a quantized rotation twist propagates through the +I background rotation state, there is no reason why the momentum propagation rule wouldn’t ensure a straight line path.  However, suppose the twist passes through a region where the field is not at +I (the low energy state).  If this region is pointing orthogonal to the twist path, the resulting sum of the propagated twist rotation direction and the existing field direction would be linear and momentum magnitude and direction would be conserved.  But you cannot sum vector directions in this field–it is unitary, only rotations are allowed.  The only way the incoming momentum magnitude could be conserved is if the rotation follows a curved path (see illustration).

What this means is that in most circumstances, linear twists will propagate in a straight line since the default state for the path will be at the +I rotation direction.  But if it passes through a field region where there is an angle offset from +I (for example, in the neighborhood of a closed loop particle), it will curve in the plane of the angle offset and the direction of travel.  Two adjacent twists will curve antiparallel to each other and produce a sustained closed loop path, thus forming a field soliton.

In earlier posts, I hypothesized that quantum interference in an R3+I system would redirect a particle’s linear path and form a soliton–we know that to be true from experiments like the two-slit experiment, but I didn’t know why the curvature  would happen.  I was on the right path with quantum interference, but by breaking down how rotations must propagate, now I know geometrically that if we assume a unitary rotation vector field, then closed loop particles must occur.  Even better–the effect is contravariant.  That is, higher twist momentums lead to smaller closed loops.  In Newtonian physics’ descriptions of orbiting particles, the larger the momentum, the larger the resulting orbit.  The effect on path is covariant.  But you should be able to see (reference the figure) that in the R3+I unitary rotation vector space, the larger the momentum, the greater the curvature must be to conserve momentum magnitude, and the smaller the resulting path must be.  This field clearly provides the means for the contravariant relation between particle energy and particle wavelength–something no other theory that I know of has been able to explain.

Agemoz

 

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

Defining a Unitary Rotation System Interaction

November 17, 2019

The new quantum interference interpretation described in previous posts provides a great connection between Newtonian physics, special relativity, and quantum mechanics.  I wrote a paper on it (group_wave_constant_speed), and then began working out a mathematical model that uses the main premise of the interpretation (particles form from a sum of instantaneous phase waves).  I’m taking some time from that work to post this progress report–a list of assumptions and structures I am assuming in this model, along with an effort to justify them.

The first question that has to be answered is whether the precursor waves (the instantaneous phase group wave described in the paper) can be modeled as single valued or can be superposed on each other in a linear combination.  Since I’m trying to construct a model representing the real world, I chose the E=hv relation to help answer this question.  This equation specifies that a given frequency can only have one energy for a quanta of that frequency, so that constrains the precursor field to just a single degree of freedom.  That strongly implies that a geometrical/mathematical model of a quanta must be a single unitary twist in some vector field.  In order to anchor this twist to a single rotation, there must be a lowest energy background state for the rotation, with a cost applied to any deviation from the background state.  This locks in the rotation to a single state.  If we allow the rotation vector to have a magnitude, we have too many degrees of freedom for E=hv to hold, so that means several things–first, that the rotation vector space is unitary, and secondly single valued–you cannot put two waves on top of each other in this field.  This has the additional effect that the field is blocking–you cannot pass information through a limiting neighborhood of a field without altering the vector orientation in that neighborhood.

The background vector state cannot exist in R3 without inducing a detectable dimensional preference in R3 (see Michelson experiment and similar), so I hypothesize a fourth imaginary dimension for it.  I realize that this violates the KISS (keep it simple) premise of science, but I believe it is required and so I assume a unitary four-vector field in R3 + I.  For the time being, time T will be independent of R3 + I but later I will bring in the necessary adjustments for special and general relativity.

With these assumptions in place, we are ready to define the mathematical basis for the precursor field, and make some more assumptions about how particles could interact.

It should be straightforward to define each element of this single-valued rotation field as a unitary three-vector, e.g., x = [xy_rot, xz_rot, and xi_rot] where ||x|| = 1.  Since this is a unitary vector field, no magnitude exists and a fourth vector element is not needed.

Let’s now consider two basic twist types in this vector field and determine a construct for how they will interact.  The first twist type is a linearly propagating twist, a quanta, of one complete cycle from the background state and back again.  The second twist type is a twist loop with one complete cycle (previous posts on this site describe how quantum interference will work to confine such a loop).  Can we propose a model interaction of these two types?  You can see why I propose a single-valued field–multiply-value fields cannot constrain the interaction, and in fact I believe that such a field would cause the two twists to fail to interact at all.  The blocking behavior of the single-valued field is necessary for interaction.

Now, both particles will have a fundamental wave frequency (see the paper for a more specific treatment), so let’s set up an interaction where the linearly propagating twist approaches a stationary twist loop.  We will use conservation of momentum to help constrain what happens.  The momentum of both particles is proportional to the fundamental wave frequency (E=hv, again), so if the linear particle is absorbed by the twist loop, the twist loop will emerge from the interaction with the same momentum as the propagating linear twist.

One promising way to make this momentum transfer work in our R3 + I vector field is to allow momentum transfer only when both particles have parallel vector alignment.  Then in that delta time, a delta momentum (which is inversely proportionate to the linear particle’s wavelength because the orthogonal rotation rate of the linear particle will vary as its frequency) will be exchanged.  Integrating over the time of the linear propagating particle, momentum will be conserved.  Note that only when the linear particle goes through the loop there will be a unique parallel vector alignment.  Nearby particles may have partial rotation absorption, however any virtual particle interaction such as this having an incomplete quantized rotation will fall back to the background state without having transferred a net momentum to the twist loop.

We have shown how the momentum exchange will produce a transfer inversely proportionate to the incoming particle’s momentum, but now we need to de-construct how the motion of the twist loop particle is affected  by this momentum change.  As this post is already too long, let’s start a new post for that…

Agemoz

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

Noncausal Characteristics of Quantum Interference Solitons

July 6, 2019

In physics I fully understand the need to filter out the crackpots and their onslaught of verbiage, whether wrong, vague, incomplete, or meaningless.  Real science is built on a very large collection of proven concepts–if any component is wrong but makes it into the collection, trust in the system as a whole is damaged.  If you look at Arxiv.com, there’s some junk that somehow got in there, and that means you need some system of qualifying what you see so you can trust what you use in your own work.  To avoid this, new papers submitted to journals always require verification by qualified reviewers.

The problem I am having is that I tried very hard not to be a crackpot, I think i proved something important, wrote a paper that got good qualified pre-reviews, and submitted 5 times and got 5 rejections.  Nobody looked at the proof and said I did something wrong, and nobody showed me why my conclusion was wrong.  Two of the journals were probably not the right target for the paper (this), but the other three did not see value in what I did.  The trouble is–I still think the idea is important, and that the proof is valid (confirmed by the pre-reviews).

Basically, in the paper, I proved that if a classical Newtonian particle is formed by a Fourier composition of a specific class of waves, the particle must obey the principles of special relativity.  The class of waves is simple–a phase change across any wave component is noncausal, that is, instantaneous across the length of the wave, but the rate of change of that phase is causal, or limited to some maximum change per unit of time such as the speed of light.

To me, this is incredibly important because it suggests the converse–if something obeys the principles of special relativity, it must *only* be composed of instantaneous phase waves.  I haven’t proven the converse–working on it–but if this is true, then this opens a big door into what causes the existence of subatomic particles.  A logical analysis of the two-slit experiment and the entangled particle decoherence behavior comes from the paper’s derivation (discussed in previous posts).  It also shows how a soliton (stable construct) could emerge due to quantum interference (see the last two posts).  And now, it shows specifically how the waves have to exist in the first place–very specifically showing what oscillations form the waves and where causality comes from.  From this, I see how the concepts of space and time might emerge out of something like the Big Bang.

You see, if a delta function of some sort is present in 3D space, and it is composed of these instantaneous phase waves, you *cannot* see the delta function do this:

single_spiral

The waves are instantaneous!  Here you see variations in space (and time, if you were to make a movie of the particle).  But that’s not possible with one delta function–it does not oscillate.  Oh, ok, no problem, handwave it and make it oscillate from a + to – peak and back again.  You *still* would not see this first figure–the wave phases are instantaneous, but this picture has variations in space and time.  Even if you put two of these delta functions near each other, one that is Pi/2 out of phase with the other, you would see something like this, where the two delta functions oscillate up and down out of phase with each other (this shows the Pi/4 halfway point):double_deltaThere are no waves here, because the sum of the delta functions can never produce anything but a plane, no matter how fast they oscillate in time.  I realized that now I think I know why electrons are not deBroglie circular waves with a Compton radius size–they have to be infinitely small.  The waves shown in the first figure have to result from a non-causal sum of a rotating and infinitesimally spaced, oscillating pair (or more) of delta functions.  Space and time for a particle emerge in a non-causal way from the orbiting pair of oscillating delta functions to produce the spiral waves shown in the first figure.  Only then could you see non-causal spiral waves emerge.  There’s other work I’ve done that shows that the delta functions must reflect some sort of twisting vector field in R3 + I  (NOT an EM field vector, those are photons).  Along the same lines, I’m sure you’ve seen the recent experimental observation of twist momentum found in photons.  Can you see why I see so much exciting work emerging from the simple theorem proof I describe in the paper?  Frustrating not to be able to publish it–I think I have something there, but can’t convince anybody else of it!  And until someone else sees the validity of what I’ve done, there’s no science here.

Auuggh!

Agemoz

 

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