If you are a scientist, be aware this is amateur work and there is nothing for you here. I use this site to help me keep track of my own thinking, which tries to adhere to known science but explores some “out-of-box” thinking to help synthesize my own world view of how I think things might work to explain subatomic particle existence. If physics is your profession, skip this, it’s not worth your time here.
There are previous posts from before the pandemic, there’s a lot of ideas there most of which I think are wrong. However, I’ve done a lot of thinking and some research since then, and am going to list here some that I think hold up to scrutiny. These foundational elements still seem to hold up and will form the basis for further work.
a: I am starting with the assumption that there is an underlying geometric basis for particles such as photons, electrons, and quark composites. This doesn’t necessarily hold true but for the purposes of my study I am assuming this.
b: Any group wave construction moving at some fixed speed in an observer’s frame of reference will classically doppler shift in such a way that an observer in some other frame of reference moving at some relative velocity will see the same group wave velocity. I wrote a paper on this that proves this, you can easily derive it yourself–take the Fourier transform of the group wave of a delta function deconstruction, then classically doppler shift these components before returning the group wave to the time domain. You will find that the velocity seen by the original observer is the same as that seen by the moving observer. Additional derivations show that any geometrical model of a particle that obeys special relativity must be composed entirely of waves, any non-wave components will not move at the same relative speed as the group wave and the particle will dissociate. Therefore, I am assuming that all elementary particles are formed entirely of some form of waves.
c: E=hv for all elementary particles describes a translation from a single unbreakable quantum of energy to a specific frequency. Therefore, at this frequency, only integer multiples of this energy are possible, and the only geometrical way to construct such quantization is by unitary vector rotations to and from a background state. I assume that elementary particles such as photons, electrons, and quarks consist of a single rotation in this background unitary vector rotation field.
d: I assume this background state cannot lie in R3, an additional imaginary dimension is required. If the background state were in R3, we would not see consistent particle behavior independent of the observer’s frame of reference (in particular, his rotation), and a cosmic background radiation would then become detectable that was dependent on the observer’s relative rotation. We do not see this, so therefore, I assume that elementary particles must consist of a vector wave rotation from and to the I part of an R3 + I vector field.
e: We already know from the standard model that every elementary particle emits a field of waves in the form of quantized virtual particles. Interference of these waves, for example in a two slit experiment, creates probability amplitudes for how the particle moves. However, these waves by themselves cannot define an elementary particle location. There must be a way to define the particle’s existence (within the constraints of the uncertainty principle) without introducing a non-wave entity (see assumption b above). I see that the only way to meet assumptions b and c is if the particle emits waves polarized in some direction v normal to the background state I, but the particle itself is defined by a complete integer twist normal to this set of polarized waves. Since this is essentially the second Bohm pilot wave model which is considered a leading model for quantum interference and entanglement, I am going to assume that this is the right construct for elementary particles.
f: Twists are not possible within a continuous field without introducing potential discontinuities, but are possible in a granular (quantized) field. I am assuming that the vector field allows this quantization and thus twists without causing energy discontinuities.
f: Photons travel linearly and have no rest mass, so I am going to assume that all of their energy is contained in the angular momentum of this wave twist normal to the I background state and the direction of travel. This defines the photon’s polarization.
g: All particles with mass are confined to a physical neighborhood, and because of the previous assumptions must consist of one or more wave twists as described in assumption e. A closed loop system of twists must move at the same speed c (otherwise the sum of their confined masses would vary).
h: At sufficiently high temperatures (more specifically, within a sea of high-energy photons since there are no known vibrational modes for electrons), electrons are known to dissociate into at least two photons, never a single one (because of momentum conservation). However, at rest, such dissociation will cause two photons of half the energy of the electron, and thus twice the wavelength of the electron energy wave. I am assuming that it is not possible to generate waves with this wavelength (unlike atomic emission, there are no vibrational states of the free electron that could generate longer wavelength photons). Therefore, I assume that electrons have to consist of two twists with doubled wavelength and hence half energy. I’m well aware that this contradicts the known point-particle behavior of the electron and currently am proposing that this two twist solution is completely inelastic and cannot exhibit any vibrational states.
i: If quantum interference defines the allowable probabilistic positions of these twists, and if these twists must always move at speed c (else their momentum would spontaneously change), there are only two possible stable constructions of twists. The first constraint forces the particle to lie in the region that is either 1/2 wave (for oppositely charged twists) or full wave (for identically charged twists), and the second constraint means that all twists in the system are moving in the same direction. I see only two solutions, both lying on a circle: the dipole, and a tripole. The dipole is obvious, but to enforce the tripole solution, there must be a pair of + twists separated by a full wavelength and a single – twist separated from the other two by a half wavelength that is a multiple of the full wavelength for the + twists. No other solutions in R3 are possible, although frequency multiples of these two solutions are possible. Note, this is not an EM field solution–no central force field can yield solitons on its own.
This ends the list of assumptions that I believe are sufficiently logical that I will base my model on them. What follows are attempts to find further constructions that will hold up.
I’m going to stop now and continue to add to this post in a bit.
Agemoz
Agemoz's Physics Blog 