Posts Tagged ‘quantum’

Newer Entries »

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 »

Yang-Mills Mass Gap

January 12, 2014

My study of vector field twists has led to the discovery of stable continuous field entities as described in the previous post (Dec 29th A Particle Zoo!).  I’ve categorized the available types of closed and open solutions into three broad groups, linear, knots, and links.  There’s also the set of linked knots as a composite solution set.  I am now trying to write a specialized simulator that will attempt quantitative characterization of these solutions–a tough problem requiring integration over a curve for each point in the curve–even though the topology has to be stable (up to an energy trigger point where the particle is annhiliated), there’s a lot of degrees of freedom and the LaGrange methodology for these cases appears to be far too complex to offer analytic resolution.  While the underlying basis and geometry is significantly different, the problem of analysis should be identical to the various string theory proposals that have been around for a while.  The difference primarily comes from working in R3+T rather that the multiple new dimensions postulated in string theory.  In addition, string theory attempts to reconcile with gravity, whereas the field twist theory is just trying to create an underlying geometry for QFT.

One thing that I have come across in my reading recently is the inclusion of the mass gap problem in one of the seven millenial problems.  This experimentally verified issue, in my words, is the discovery of an energy gap in the strong force interaction in quark compositions.  There is no known basis for the non-linear separation energy behavior between bound quarks or between quark sets (protons and neutrons in a nucleus).  Dramatically unlike central quadratic fields such as electromagnetic and gravitational fields, this force is non-existent up to a limit point, and then asymptotically grows, enforcing the bound quark state.  As far as we know, this means free quarks cannot exist.  As I mentioned, the observation of this behavior in the strong force is labeled the Yang-Mills Mass Gap, since the energy delta shows up as a mass quantization.

As I categorized the available stable twist configurations in the twist field theory, it was an easy conclusion to think that the mass gap could readily be modelled by the group of solutions I call links.  For example, the simplest configuration in this group is two linked rings.  If each of these were models of a quark, I can readily imaging being able to apply translational or moment forces to one of the rings relative to the other with nearly no work done, no energy expended.  But as soon as the ring twist nears the other ring twist, the repulsion factor (see previous post) would escalate to the energy of the particle, and that state would acquire a potential energy to revert.  This potential energy would become a component of the measurable mass of the quark.

The other question that needs to be addressed is why are some particles timewise stable and others not, and what makes the difference.  The difference between the knot solutions and the link solutions is actually somewhat minor since topologically knots are the one-twist degenerate case of links.  However, the moment of the knot cases is fairly complex and I can imagine the energy of the configuration could approach the particle energy and thus self-destruct.  The linear cases (eg, photons, possibly neutrinos as a three way linear braid) have no path to self destruct to, nor does the various ring cases (electron/positrons, quark compositions).  All the remaining cases have entwining configurations that should have substantial moment energies that likely would exceed the twist energy (rate of twisting in time) and break apart after varying amounts of time.

The other interesting realization is the fact that some of these knot combinations could have symmetry violations and might provide a geometrical understanding of parity and chirality.

One thing is for sure–the current understanding I have of the twist field theory has opened up a vast vein of potentially interesting hypothetical particle models that may translate to a better understanding of real-world particle infrastructure.

Agemoz

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

A Particle Zoo!

December 29, 2013

After that last discovery, described in the previous post, I got to a point where I wondered what I wanted to do next.  It ended the need in my mind to pursue the scientific focus described in this blog–I had thought I could somehow get closer to God by better understanding how this existence worked.  But then came the real discovery that as far as I could see, it’s turtles all the way down, and my thinking wasn’t going to get me where I wanted to go.

So I stopped my simulation work, sat back and wondered what’s next for me.  It’s been maybe 6 months now, and while I still think I was right, I miss the fun of thinking about questions like why is there a particle zoo and whether a continuous field could form such a zoo.  While I don’t sense the urgency of the study anymore, I do think about the problem, and in the recent past have made two discoveries.

One was finding a qualitative description of the math required to produce the field vector twist I needed for my Unitary Field Twist theory, and the second was a way to find the available solutions.  The second discovery was major–it allowed me to conceptualize geometrically how to set up simulations for verification.  The problem with working with continuous vector fields required by the twist theory is that solutions are described by differential equations that are probably impossible to solve analytically.  Sometimes new insights are found by creating new tools to handle difficult-to-solve problems, and to that end I created several simulation environments to attempt numerical computations of the twist field.  Up to now, though, this didn’t help finding the available solutions.

What did help was realizing that the base form of the solutions produce stable solutions when observing the 1/r(t)^3 = 1/r(t)^2 relation–the relation that develops from the vector field’s twist-to-transformation ratio.  Maxwell’s field equations observe this, but as we all know, this is not sufficient to produce stable particles out of a continuous field, and thus cannot produce quantization.  The E=hv relation for all particles led me to the idea that if particles were represented by field twists to some background state direction, either linear (eg, photons) or closed loops, vector field behavior would become quantized.  I added a background state to this field that assigns a lowest energy state depending on the deviation from this background state.  The greater the twist, the lower the tendency to flip back to the background state.  Now a full twist will be stable, and linear twists will have any possible frequency, whereas closed loops will have restricted (quantized) possibilities based on the geometry of the loop.

For a long time I was stuck here because I could see no way to derive any solutions other than the linear solution and the ring twist, which I assigned to photons and electrons.  I did a lot of work here to show correct relativistic behavior of both, and found a correct mass and number of spin states for the electron/positron, found at least one way that charge attraction and repulsion could be geometrically explained, found valid Heisenberg uncertainty, was able to show how the loop would constrain to a maximum velocity for both photons and electrons (speed of light), and so on–many other discoveries that seemed to point to the validity of the twist field approach.

But one thing has always been a problem as I’ve worked on all this–an underlying geometrical model that adds quantization to a continuous field must explain the particle zoo.  I’ve been unable to analytically or iteratively find any other stable solutions.  I needed a guide–some methodology that would point to other solutions, other particles.  The second discovery has achieved this–the realization that this twist field theory does not permit “crossing the streams”.  The twists of any particle cannot cross because the 1/r(t)^3 repulsion factor will grow exponentially faster than any available attraction force as twists approach each other.  I very suddenly realized this will constrain available solutions geometrically.  This means that any loop system, connected or not, will be a valid solution as long as they are topologically unique in R3.  Immediately I realized that this means that links and knots and linked knots are all valid solutions, and that there are an infinite number of these.  And I immediately saw that this solution set has no morphology paths–unlike electrons about an atom, you cannot pump in energy and change the state.  We know experimentally that shooting high energy photons at a free electron will not alter the electron, and correspondingly, shooting photons at a ring or link or knot will not transform the particle–the twists cannot be crossed before destroying the particle.  In addition, this discovery suggests a geometrical solution to the experimentally observed strong force behavior.  Linked loops modelling quarks will permit some internal stretching but never breaking of the loop, thus could represent the strong force behavior when trying to separate quarks.  And, once enough energy were available to break apart quarks, the resulting particles could not form free quarks because these now become topologically equivalent to electrons.

My next step is to categorize the valid particle solutions and to quantify the twist field solutions, probably by iterative methods, and hopefully eventually by analytic methods.

There’s no question in my mind, though–I’ve found a particle zoo in the twist field theory.  The big question now is does it have any connection to reality…

Agemoz

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

Noncausal solution, Lorentz Geometry, and trying a LaGrangian solution to deriving inertia

December 31, 2012

Happy New Year with wishes for peace and prosperity to all!

I had worked out the group wave concept for explaining non-causal quantum interactions, and realized how logical it seems–we are so used to thinking about the speed of light limit causing causal behavior that it makes the non-causal quantum interactions seem mysterious.  But when thinking of a universe that spontaneously developed from nothing, non-causal (infinite speed) interactions should be the default, what is weird is why particles and fields are restricted to the speed of light.  That’s why I came up with the group wave construct for entities–a Fourier composition of infinite speed waves explains instant quantum interference, but to get an entity such as a particle to move, there is a restriction on how fast the wave can change phase.  Where does that limitation come from?  Don’t know at this point, but with that limitation, the non-causal paradox is resolved.

Another unrelated realization occurred to me when I saw some derivation work that made the common unit setting of c to 1.  This is legal, and simplifies viewing derivations since relativistic interactions now do not have c carried around everywhere.  For example, beta in the Lorentz transforms now becomes Sqrt(1 – v^2) rather than Sqrt(1 – (v^2/c^2)).  As long as the units match, there’s no harm in doing this from a derivation standpoint, you’ll still get right answers–but I realized that doing so will hide the geometry of Lorentz transforms.  Any loop undergoing a relativistic transform to another frame of reference will transform by Sqrt(1 – (v^2/c^2)) by geometry, but a researcher would maybe miss this if they saw the transform as Sqrt(1 – v^2).   You can see the geometry if you assume an electron is a ring with orientation of the ring axis in the direction of travel.  The ring becomes a cylindrical spiral–unroll one cycle of the spiral and the pythagorean relation Sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)) will appear.  I was able to show this is true for any orientation, and hand-waved my way to generalizing to any closed loop other than a ring.  The Lorentz transforms have a geometrical basis if (and that’s a big if that forms the basis of my unitary twist field theory) particles have a loop structure.

Then I started in on trying to derive general relativity.  Ha Ha, you are all laughing–hey, The Impossible Dream is my theme song!  But anyway, here’s what I am doing–if particles can be represented by loops, then there should be an explanation for the inertial behavior of such loops (totally ignoring the Higgs particle and the Standard Model for right now).  I see a way to derive the inertial behavior of a particle where a potential field has been applied.  A loop will have a path through the potential field that will get distorted.  The energy of the distortion will induce a corrective effect that is likely to be proportional to the momentum of the particle.  If  I can show this to be true, then I will have derived the inertial behavior of the particle from the main principle of the unitary twist field theory.

My first approach was to attempt a Lagrangian mechanics solution.  Lagrange’s equation takes the difference of the kinetic energy from the potential energy and creates a time and space dependent differential equation that can be solved for the time dependent motion of the particle.  It works for single body problems quickly and easily, but this is a multiple body problem with electrostatic and magnetic forces.  My limited computation skills rapidly showed an unworkable equation for solution.  Now I’m chewing on what simplifications could be done that would allow determining the acceleration of the particle from the applied potential.

Agemoz

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

The Quandary of Attraction

April 20, 2012

Hah!  You read that title and thought you were getting a socially interesting topic rather than the boring amateur physics I usually post about!  But I’m not all mean, let me help you out:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_%28series%29

OK, now that all those guys are gone, let’s talk physics.  Hello?  Anyone left?  Guess not.  Well, then I can make outrageous crackpot claims and no one will care.

Last week, Prof Jones started in on reviewing the Unitary Twist Field idea.  He’ll be back, but today I want to address a crucial question about unitary twist fields.  The basic premise is built on a geometrical model of quantization using E=hv.  I see three principles that create an underlying geometry for EM fields that gives us both quantization and special relativity (see many previous posts).  These three principles are:

1: The E=hv quantization for fields and particles  is enforced by a rotation in a vector field, that is, a twist.

2: To ensure that only single complete rotations can occur, the field must have a local background state that the rotation returns to.

3: To ensure that the energy of the rotation cannot dissipate, the vector field must be unitary.  Every field element must have constant magnitude but can rotate in 3D+T spacetime.

I have figured out that the special relativity relations hold in such a geometry–there will always be a maximum possible observable speed c, and the Lorentz equations for space and time will also hold.  The correct number of degrees of freedom for photons (linear twists) and electron/positrons (ring twists) exist.  I’ve found that the uncertainty relation will hold for particles in this system.  I’ve found a bunch of other things that appear to match reality as well.  Yes, I am guilty of massaging this theory to get the facts to fit, but I’m doing the best to do it without glossing over any obvious fallacies–and when I encounter one, I adjust the theory.  I keep waiting for one to really kill off the theory, but so far that hasn’t happened.  However here is one that could kill it:

How does the theory explain attraction and repulsion of charged particles?

Real QFT theory, unlike my la-la land unitary twist field theory, says that this is mediated by exchanges of photons.  On the surface, this has a momentum problem because there is no way a particle can emit something with momentum in such a way that a second distant particle *approaches* the emitting particle.  That violates conservation of momentum and hence conservation of energy.  The mathematically derived QFT solution uses virtual photons to have the field around the second particle change in such a way that the particle moves toward the first–but this seems disengenuous to me–contrived, just as much or worse as my theory.  Nevertheless, the math works and that is enough for real physicists.

However, I am positing a new theory, somewhat outrageous in its claims, and thus demanding outrageously thorough verification.  Unitary Twist Field theory must have a (hopefully better) explanation how attraction and repulsion would work.  This issue is part of the more general issue of electron-photon interactions, and there are a whole huge array of sub-issues that come with this one simple interaction.  For example, photons of all frequencies (energies) and polarizations can interact with an electron, so any geometrical solution must not assume any preferred orientation of the electron moment or photon polarization or external electrostatic or magnetic field (ie, nearby sets of photons).   If the electron is one of many in a region, and a low energy photon that is far “larger” than the array hits the array, how is it that exactly one and only one electron absorbs the photon?  I could go on and on, but let’s zero in on this attraction issue.  How do I claim that would work in unitary twist field theory?

Actually, let’s ask the attraction question in a slightly different way so you can see clearly what the dilemma is for real-world physics theory.  QFT says that attraction/repulsion of charged particles is mediated by exchanges of photons.  Arrays of photons form an EM field that causes charged particles to change their path of motion in space-time.  This means that in a given frame of reference, a photon must be an element of either a magnetic field or an electrostatic field.  Here’s the question:

What’s different about the photon generating an electrostatic field and a magnetic field?

Real-world theory says that photons are oscillating electrostatic and magnetic fields–a rather unsatisfactory way to describe a photon because it is self-referential.  Electrostatic and magnetic fields are themselves composed of photons.   Nevertheless, the math works, so let’s ignore that for now.  However, referring to the question about what is different, photons have only one degree of freedom, polarization.  There is no anti-particle for photons, it is its own anti-particle.   Not a lot to work with here!  So–what is a “magnetic” photon, and what is an “electrostatic” photon?  Or is there something magic about how the photons are arranged as a group that explains the field property?  And don’t forget, this is in one particular frame of reference!  Go to a different frame and the field state *changes* from electrostatic to magnetic or vice-versa.

Unitary Field Twist theory has a very novel explanation.  Let’s wait for the next post to see it.

Agemoz

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

Why Static Twists Cannot Be Stable

March 11, 2012

Some really exciting results from my simulation results of the Twist hypothesis!  I have been simulating this for a while now, to recap:  The twist theory posits (among many other things) that underlying the photon elements of an electromagnetic field is a unitary twist field.  This unitary twist field is a direct (or mapped) result of the E=hv quantization of all particles.  Photons are linear twists of the unitary field, whereas massive particles are self-contained twists, such as a ring for electrons/positrons.  Quarks and other massive particles are posited to be other geometrical constructions.  If this model is studied, one very interesting result is the correct representation of the special relativity space and time Lorentz transforms, where linear twists travel at a maximum, but constant, speed in all frames of reference–but all self-contained structures such as the electron ring must obey time and spatial dilation.  The model correctly derives the beta dilation factor.

As a result of this work, I have put together a simulator to model the twist behavior in the hopes of verifying the existing corollaries to the twist theory, and also to see if more complex geometrical structures could be determined (say for quarks, although it is certain that the strong force would have to be accounted for somehow).

One of the results of the theory seemed to imply that a static linear twist should be possible, yet static photons do not exist in nature.  I’m very excited to have the simulator show its first demonstration of why this happens!  When I set up the simulator to do a static linear twist, I discovered (see previous posts) that the twist always self destructed by dissipation, and it took a lot of work to find out why.  This will be easiest to show with this diagram:

Why the static twist dissipates. Note the narrowing of the twist from the outside in.

The premise of the unitary twist theory is that E=hv particles can only be quantized geometrically in a continuous field system if particles exist in a localized background field direction have a fixed amplitude twist.  The fixed amplitude (different from an EM field that allows any magnitude) prevents the quantized entity from dissipating, and the background direction enforces quantization of the twist–partial twists (virtual particles) are not stable and fall back to the background direction, whereas full twists are topologically stable since the ends are tied down to the background direction such that the twist cannot unwind.  The frequency of the twist is determined by the twist width, shown in the diagram as omega.

Iteration of the linear twist in the simulation showed that, even though the unitary twist magnitude could not dissipate, the twist would vanish (see previous post pictures).  At first, I thought this was an artifact of the lattice form of the simulation, I represented a continuous twist with a stepwise model.  Further sims and analysis showed that the behavior was not a lattice effect (although it definitely interfered with the correct model behavior).  As this diagram shows, I was able to demonstrate that a static twist cannot exist, it is not stable.  What happens is that the twist width cannot be preserved over time because the ends experience normalizing forces to the background.  This process, demonstrated in the simulation, ultimately causes the particle to approach a delta function, at which point the simulation twist model gets a single lattice node and eliminates it.

It would be a valid statement to say that the sim does not correctly model what happens at that final stage, but there’s no question in my mind of the validity of the narrowing of the twist width.  There is only one way that the linear twist can be stable–if the light cones of each twist element are out of range of each other.  This can only happen if the twist elements are moving at speed c.

I was disappointed at first, I didn’t have a working model of the twist field.  But I didn’t see that the sim had handed me my first victory–the explanation of why there are no static photons.

Agemoz

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

Newer Entries »