Agemoz's Physics Blog

Every physics student knows that quantum physics interactions are computed using wave functions as probability distributions. Rather than computing time evolving waves, we compute time evolving probability distributions, which has led to the conclusion that probability is an intrinsic property of elementary particles. We are taught to avoid applying classical mechanics to quantum events, but Einstein struggled with this conclusion and made the famous claim that “God does not play dice”. As I mentioned in the last post, there’s a simple explanation for why we cannot observe deterministic time evolving of waves and particles–waves result from zero time oscillations.

I think that a faulty assumption could have been made here (that quantum particles have an intrinsic random property). Every quantum experiment we can do shows the probabilistic nature of wave interference–but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we can never apply classical mechanics principles and laws (“shut up and calculate”). What these experiments really show is that we as observers cannot observe anything but a probability that something will have a given outcome. This can happen if particles have truly intrinsic randomness, or, it can mean that the rotation of a particle state takes epsilon or zero time and we can’t determine the phase of a rotation at any given point in time. Our instruments require a time interval and can’t catch a zero time wave phase. I think we have to choose one of those two assumptions, it’s not necessarily the case that randomness is truly intrinsic to quantum interactions.

To me, another part of established science confirms the idea of zero rotation time: the magnetic moment of an electron. As I described in a previous post, a inertial moment of an object is the integral sum of all point elements (such as a delta mass or charge) times its radius from a rotation axis, times the frequency of rotation. For a point particle, the angular moment results from a zero radius, and thus requires an infinite rotation frequency (zero rotation time) to get a finite inertial moment that appears when a magnetic field is applied to an electron. Just like the wavefunction probability distributions of quantum theory, this supports the idea of zero-time rotations.

So, I looked at this more, and combined it with the idea that particles are quantized unitary rotations, or vector twists, in 3D+T dimensions, where the T dimension direction is a background state. In previous posts I show that it is not possible to do a twist rotation in 3D without incurring a field discontinuity, but it is possible in four dimensions.

Now, if rotations occur in zero time, how do we get the non-zero wave time of the electron’s quantum interference property? A rotation of a vector that takes 0 time forms a disk, but we need to be mindful of the zero point size and zero rotation time, so this disk could be treated as an epsilon size and time while applying another classical property, precession. If the disk rotation plane (of epsilon size) does not line up with the inertial moment plane normal to its axis, the disk will precess at a rotation rate inversely proportional to its mass. I think this is where the quantum interference wavelength comes from. From previous posts, you can see that the elementary particle twist rotation occurs in the 3D+T plane that lies in one of the R3 dimensions and the T dimension direction (because this quantizes the rotation, see many previous posts). However, the particle’s magnetic moment lies in either the other two dimensions of R3, or in one of the other dimensions of R3 and the T direction. This particle of epsilon size and epsilon rotation time will precess in the plane normal to both the twist plane and the inertial plane. In this approach, photons are similar but the twist lies in the plane formed by one of the R3 directions along with the T dimension direction. Polarization is a degree of freedom set in the other two R3 dimension directions. Photons do not have the zero-time rotation and thus do not precess.

Now we can look at what happens when an electron and a positron collide to form two photons. It is established science that the collision removes the mass and charge of the incoming particles, and redirects the photon paths to lie on the lightcone (mass and kinetic energy is converted to frequency). If e- and p+ are precessing twists, note that the base frequency of the twist has to remain. You don’t have to assume twist theory to know that the photon energy frequency and the quantum interference frequency of the electron and positron are the same if there is epsilon-zero kinetic energy. The only thing that is cancelled out is the zero time twist! Therefore, both charge and rest mass then would have to be due only to the zero-time twist behavior of the elementary particles e- and p+. The photons have neither, so the precession of the zero-time twist becomes a non-zero time twist in the same R3+T plane but now moving on the lightcone.

Is this reality? Dunno, but it’s definitely a different way of thinking how quantum particles interact that doesn’t require intrinsic randomness.

Agemoz

I’ve always been amazed and intrigued by the universe’s vast array of electrons (and other particle types) that all have precisely the same rest mass, magnetic moment, and quantum interference wavelength. As I discussed in the previous post, the constants are exact regardless of location in space or time, of observer relative frames of reference, presence within electromagnetic fields, and even of gravitationally induced spacetime curvature. I’ve tried to come up with any geometrical construction that would convey this constant behavior over all spacetime, and ruled out any pure geometrical construct that would do this. I also ruled out any scheme dependent on the constant speed of light–in fact, I was able to convince myself that this could not come from any internal property of the activation layer, our current time slice called a 3D hyperspace in 4D spacetime. The only workable hypothesis is that these constant properties of particles are invoked upon creation, that is, when the probability in the creation operator in quantum field theory generates a path to a particle-antiparticle pair.

However, as I showed in the previous post, the creation operator needs to be constrained to provide a quantized particle (quantizing to a specific rest mass, for example), and I hypothesized that nature really only provides one way to do this, via a rotation that has a background state. We see this kind of behavior when looking at atomic orbitals, where the probability distribution must be continuous and thus only allows these quantized states–integer fractions of the time to follow one orbit, one complete rotation. This doesn’t really work the same way for point particles like the electron, though, and while it is clear that this quantization has to occur during the activation of the quantum creation operator, I had to come with new ideas how this could work for point elementary particles.

I believed that the quantized rotation is a big part of why the resulting elementary particles have a constant set of properties no matter where in spacetime the creation operator probability activates, but with no constraint on how long the creation process takes, it seemed like even a quantized rotation could not fully define the particle wavelength and hence mass. We see this in photons–any possible wavelength can result depending on the transition times between atomic excitation levels. It seemed like any possible mass could result from a creation operator activation, and thus electron creation could not explain the constant electron rest mass we see through all of spacetime.

A really nice clue comes from the magnetic moment of the electron. We are taught in physics class not to take spin literally for quantum particles, but I’ve always been disturbed by the magnetic moment paradox of elementary particles. Moments are proportionate to the radius of the center of mass times the angular rotation rate. However, elementary particles have essentially zero radius, so no finite angular rotation rate will give anything but a zero angular momentum. I suddenly realized, here was how the creation operator could produce an absolutely constant mass for the electron no matter where or when it occurs in the universe. The angular rotation rate is infinite! That is, the creation process produces a single complete rotation of a point particle in zero time. Now the radius times angular rate can produce a finite value, and now we don’t need to include passage of time to get the particle rest mass from the creation operator activation.

We aren’t done yet, though, there’s still some issues with this thinking. First, if the rotation rate is infinite, then how do we get the particle’s quantum wavelength? For this, you can go back to previous posts on this website how I propose explaining the apparent non-causal behavior of entangled particles or the dual slit paradox. In the case of entangled particles, the detection of one particle instantaneously enforces the complementary state detection of the other particle. In the dual slit paradox, a particle going through a barrier with two slits will cause an interference pattern on a target detector screen, such that there are places on the screen where the single particle will never go. But close one of the slits, and now the particle can go there. You can time this closing such that there is not enough time for the closing to affect the path of the particle, and yet we still get the corresponding presence or absence of interference region particle detection.

These experiments have caused all kinds of discussions and interpretations such as the EPR (Copenhagen) interpretation, Everett many worlds, and the two variations of the Bohm pilot wave approach. I have long since believed in a new interpretation that no-one else appears to have proposed. This interpretation provides a useful means for understanding the particle-antiparticle creation I’ve been discussing.

In this proposal, particles are group wave constructs. The group waves propagate instantaneously but the phase change of these waves are limited by the speed of light. This means that interference effects such as demonstrated by entangled particles or the dual slit experiment propagate instantaneously, but the particle (the group wave construct) cannot move faster than the speed of light.

Now back to our creation operator activation of a quantized rotation in zero time. The rotation completes in zero time, resulting in a fixed angular moment, but the phase change of this rotation generates the electron particle wavelength. It’s the rotation rate of the background state that sets the quantum interference wavelength (and hence its mass and magnetic moment). I like this idea a lot because it provides not only a means to get the electron constants regardless of spacetime curvature or observer frames of reference, but also provides a definitive answer why we can’t use the DeBroglie or Compton methods for modeling an electron, that is, of wrapping that wavelength around a ring like an atomic orbital–we always knew from experimental evidence that this wavelength was too big to represent any internal structure of the electron. This methodology (retrieving quantum wavelengths of a particle from phase shifting of a zero-time rotation spin rate) is a great explanation for why quantum mechanics works in wave functions and probability amplitudes rather than the math of propagating waves. This electron point particle model at last has a workable geometric construct and gets us much closer to why its properties never vary throughout our universe.

Agemoz

One of the great mysteries of the universe is why particles have precisely constant properties such as mass and magnetic moment for an electron everywhere in the universe, regardless of whether we are at the scale of electrodynamics or in the vast scale of electron jets from giant black holes. I have uncovered how the creation operator of quantum field theory may hold the secret as to why this happens.

I am definitely not the first to propose that gravity is an illusion, but I think I make the best case for it that I have seen. Einstein showed how space (R3) and time both act as interconnected dimensions, from which their curvature successfully derives gravitational effects. Since we only experience one moment in time, I have made the case ( see https://agemozphysics.com/2023/02/14/gravity-and-the-activation-layer/ and agemozphysics.com/2023/03/25/elementary-particles-and-gravity/ ) that this moment we experience is a 3D hyperspace in 4D spacetime, and that this hyperspace is moving along the time dimension. The effect we call gravity results in curved paths for object motion, but the fact that even static objects experience gravitational forces leads me to conclude that the hyperspace motion along the time dimension of curved spacetime is responsible for all gravitational effects. If we can answer why mass and energy curve spacetime, we can show how gravity becomes an illusory effect similar to centrifugal force even for stationary objects.

To do this, we have to have a detailed description for particles that doesn’t currently exist. By far the most important question I have ever considered is why particles such as the electron all have precisely the same mass, charge, and magnetic moment. From the scale of subatomic interactions all the way to electron jets in giant black holes, the properties of the electron (and quarks, and so on) never change. Something is enforcing this constant property set throughout all the known universe over all known time. Another way to say this is that the electron rest mass is quantized to one and only one value. The rest mass of any collection of electrons is an exact multiple the mass of a single electron.

I used to think that the answer could be found in geometry and the constant speed of light, but after decades of study I have finally determined that particle property quantization cannot come from geometry. It can’t come from the speed of light either–there is always a rotating frame of reference for which the elementary particle will have a different velocity or rotation, yet have the same constant particle properties.

There is only one way in nature to achieve quantization like this: a rotation from and to a default lowest energy background state (ground state). The background state cannot lie in R3 without inducing observable frequencies while moving or rotating, so the only remaining workable candidate is if the background state lies in the time dimension.

I had hoped that uncovering the principles of the activation layer would point to why this quantization occurs–and indeed, it points the way–but it’s not the activation layer that does it. We need to look at Einstein’s prize winning discovery that photons are quantized to get a powerful clue as to what is happening. Photon energy is precisely defined by its wave frequency. Normally, a wave has both frequency and amplitude, but photons cannot have a variable amplitude while still conforming to E=hv. From this, and the realization that nature only does quantization via a background state rotation, I conclude that photons are unitary vector rotations from and to the background state. Polarization results from the photons rotation axis orientation relative to its direction of travel.

To get a constant electron mass, the same thing must happen, but it took quite a while to figure out how it could work. One of many ideas I considered was when I attempted to build in the activation layer a pulse or constant rate of rotation that would define the electron mass through all the universe (imagine the activation layer expanding in all directions as a result of the big bang, and that particles in R3 are like the iridescent interactions on the surface of a soap bubble)–but this doesn’t work. For one thing, how could this pulse stay precisely constant in all directions for all time, and be unchanged by the spacetime curvature induced by masses such as black holes? How can this effect remain even in different frames of reference? After a fruitless search for any way that could work, I finally came to the conclusion that the activation layer alone cannot hold the reason for quantization of particle properties.

The answer has to lie in the creation operator of quantum field theory. This operator can only produce a quantized mass particle if it causes a single rotation to and from the same background state as photons. It can do this if momentum and energy are conserved over an interval of time. Photons only have one twist in R3 as well as T to conform to the single rotation rule, but particles such as electrons will be induced where more dimensions of R3 are involved. Electrons have to form along with positrons–and would normally recombine unless there are impacts that separate the masses. We already know this happens by observing Hawking radiation. At the time of the big bang, there would be huge masses of collisions that prevent great masses of particle-antiparticle pairs from recombining. It can also happen in our current time whenever an electron-positron pair form in a high energy magnetic field or amidst a concentrated photon beam.

If there is sufficient energy, even combined sets of particles, such as quark configurations and more complex particle combinations, can form as long as the net result of a creation operator results in a single background state rotation. We see hints of this combined particle set subrotations with the +1/3, -2/3 charge of quarks in a proton. This would have happened en masse during the sea-of-quarks phase after the big bang, where the presence of massive quantities of energy in the form of photons and other particles would have blocked many quark-antiquark recombinations.

I think that the quantum field creator operator has to hold the secret why the values of particle masses and other properties could arise with such vast and precise consistency.

Agemoz