quarks | Agemoz's Physics Blog

Posts Tagged ‘quarks’

Quantum Chromodynamics and R3+T Dual-Spin Elementary Particles

December 12, 2023

Since we live in a four dimensional spacetime, I have long known that it is possible for elementary point particles to have simultaneous independent spins on two orthogonal planes, for example, one rotation axis normal to the x-y plane, and another axis normal to the z-t plane. I discovered that when combined with the R3 hypersurface we live in within the R3+T universe, the projection of dual-spin particles onto the R3 hypersurface causes a single elementary particle to appear as (for example) two or three independent particles from our point of view.

This seemed like a great way to make progress on why we have bound systems of quarks but never see isolated quarks. I recently posted on this (see https://wordpress.com/post/agemozphysics.com/1754, for example). I had hoped that this approach would allow a more analytic view of quantum quark behavior than the perturbative methods we currently use in quantum chromodynamics, why we have bound quark systems that are color-charge neutral, and why we have the SU(3) color charge behavior of quarks and gluon interactions.

Alas, I found that dual-spin doesn’t lead directly to the SU(3) solution of chromodynamics or any of the rest of it. The observation in R3 of R3+T dual-spin particles yields three identical particles (see the 3:1 dual spin ratio shown in the figure) rather than two up quarks and one down quark, and gives no hint why most of the quark combinations in real life are unstable. It doesn’t explain conservation of baryon number, the large mass of the bound quarks in a proton, or any of the other things we see in quantum chromodynamics. Nor do I see nothing that points to where the different gluon color charge pairs come into play, for that matter, why we have gluons at all.

Here is the corrected (from the previous post) projection in R3 of a single R3+T dual spin elementary particle. Note this displays the spin direction only, there is no actual physical displacement. (You cannot have physical displacement within an elementary particle as it would cause all kinds of consistency problems in a relativistic environment). Each of these three R3 pseudo particles lie on an axis with a positive and negative direction shown.

I did a bit of research to see if anyone had looked at spins in four dimensions, or even if someone had published the fact that elementary particles in R3+T can have two simultaneous and independent spins that project onto our R3 hypersurface reality, and so far, it doesn’t look like anybody has considered this. There is no reason why a product of Pauli matrices couldn’t describe a real particle in R3+T, which I think gives the degrees of freedom we need for color charge in quantum chromodynamics. Indeed, the solution I found in the previous post listed above looks like it gives us the colors we need for quarks (red, green, blue). The fact that real-life elementary particles only have color neutral combinations (e.g., protons must have each of a red, green, and blue quark) to me hints strongly that the bound quark system making a proton is a single dual-spin elementary particle in R3+T.

So, I don’t want to give up. I still think I might be on the right track, or close to it. Do any of you agree or am I doomed to crackpot purgatory?

Agemoz

Tags:particle-physics, physics, quantum, quantum theory, quarks, science, special relativity, special-relativity
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Properties of a Unitary Rotation Field

January 6, 2020

The unitary rotation field in R3+I dimensions is part of a quantum interpretation that obeys special relativity. Recently I was able to show that the field can produce both linear and closed loop soliton solutions that do not produce discontinuities in the field. This is a big step forward in the hypothesis that this field is a good representation of how things work at the quantum/subatomic scale. Note that this field is NOT the EM field, which under quantum field theory reduces to a system of quantized and virtual particles.

This unitary rotation vector field is derived from the E=hv quantization principle discovered by Einstein more than a century ago. This principle only allows one frequency dependent degree of freedom, so I determined that only a field of unitary twists of vectors could produce this principle. (I didn’t rule out that other field types could also produce the principle, but it’s very clear that any vector field that assigns magnitude to the vectors could not work–too many degrees of freedom to constrain to the E=hv property). This has two corollaries: first, no part of the field has zero magnitude or any magnitude other than unity, and, the field is blocking–you cannot linearly sum two such fields such that a field entity could pass through another entity without altering it.

Why did I determine that the rotation has to be in R3+I, that is, in four dimensions (ignoring time for now)? Because of the discontinuity problem. If the field were just defined as R3, you cannot have a quantized twist required to meet E=hv. No matter how you set up the rotation vectors around a twist of vectors along an axis, there must be a field discontinuity somewhere, and field discontinuities are very bad for any reality based physical model. That makes the field non-differentiable and produces conservation of energy problems (among many other problems) at the discontinuity.

However, all of quantum mechanics works on probability distributions that work in R3+I, so that is good evidence that adding a fourth dimension I for rotation direction is justified. It doesn’t mean there is a spatial displacement component in I–unlike the R3 spatial dimensions, I is just a non-R3 direction. And the I dimension does at least one other extremely important thing–it provides a default background state for all vectors. In order for photons and particles to have quantized twists, a background starting and stopping vector rotation is necessary. The unitary field thus normally would have a lowest energy state in this background state.

Aha, you say–that can’t work, the vacuum is presumably in this lowest energy state, and yet we know that creation operators in quantum mechanics will spontaneously produce particle/anti-particle pairs in a vacuum. You would be correct, I have some ideas, but no answers at this point for that objection. Nevertheless, I recently was able to take another step forward with this hypothesis. As I mentioned, it is critical to come up with a field that does not produce discontinuities when vector twists form particles. Unlike R3, the R3+I field has both linear and closed loop twist solutions that are continuous throughout.

This was very hard for me to show because four dimensional solutions are tough to visualize and geometrically solve. I’m not a mathematician (whom would undoubtably find this simple to prove), so I used the Flatland two dimensional geometry analogy to help determine that there are continuous solutions for vector twists in four dimensions. There are solutions for the linear twist (e.g., photons) and closed loop particles. There are also solutions for linked closed loops (e.g., quarks, which only exist in sets of two or more).

I will follow up next post with a graphical description of the derivation process (this post is already approaching the TL;DR point).

Now, this is a very critical step indeed–there is no way this theory would fly, I think, if field discontinuities exist. However, I’m not done yet–now the critical question is to show that the solitons won’t dissipate in the unitary rotation field. If there are no discontinuities, then the solitons in a field are topologically equivalent to the vacuum field (all vectors in the +I background state). What keeps particles stable in this field? As dicussed in previous posts, my hypothesis has been to use the displacement properties of quantum interference–now that the discontinuity problem is resolved, a more thorough treatment of the quantum interference effects on the unitary rotation field approach is now necessary.

Regardless of how you think about my hypotheses that unitary rotation vector fields could represent subatomic particle reality, surely you can see how interesting this investigation of the R3+I unitary rotation field has become!

Agemoz

Tags:electron, photon, physics, quantum, quantum theory, quarks, special relativity, subatomic, vector field
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Summary of Findings So Far

February 5, 2018

I took the time to update the sidebar describing a summary of the unitary twist field theory I’ve been working on. I also paid to have those horrid ads removed from my site–seems like they have multiplied at an obnoxious rate on WordPress lately.

One problem with blogs describing research is the linear sequence of posts makes it really hard to unravel the whole picture of what I am doing, so I created this summary (scroll down the right-hand entries past the “About Me” to the Unitary Twist Field Theory) . Obviously it leaves out a huge amount, but should give you a big picture view of this thing and my justification for pursuing it in one easy-to-get place.

The latest: I discovered that the effort to work out the quark interactions in the theory yielded a pretty exact correlation to the observed masses of the electron, up quark and down quark. In this theory, quarks and the strong force mediated by gluons is modeled by twist loops that have one or more linked twist loops going through the center. This twist loop link could be called a pole, and while the twist rotation path is orthogonal to the plane of the twist loop, the twist rotation is parallel and thus will affect the crossproduct momentum that defines the loop curvature. Electrons are a single loop with no poles, and thus cannot link with up or down quarks. Up quarks are posited to have one pole, and down quarks have two. A proton, for example, links two one-pole up quarks to a single two-pole down quark.

The twist loop for an up quark has one pole, a twist loop path going through the center of it. This pole acts with the effect of a central force relation similar (but definitely is not identical to an electromagnetic force) to a charged particle rotating around a fixed charge source–think an atom nucleus with one electron orbiting around it. The resulting normal acceleration results from effectively half the radius of the electron loop model, and thus has four times the rotation frequency and thus 4 times the mass of an electron. The down quark, with two poles, doubles the acceleration yet again, thus giving 8 times the mass of an electron.

It will be no surprise to any of you that this correlates to the known rest masses of the electron, up quark, and down quark: .511MeV, 2.3MeV, and 4.8MeV.

I can hear you screaming to the rafters–enough with the crackpot numerology! All right, I hear you–but I liked seeing this correlation anyway, no matter what you all think!

Agemoz

Tags:electron, particle zoo, physics, quantization, quantum, quarks, special relativity, strong force, twist theory, twists quantization, weak force
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

About Me

I'm an amateur physicist. I've studied physics and philosophy for a very long time, and have investigated some of the unanswered questions in physics with an intent of finding some possible explanations or theories on how they might work. Two of the most interesting questions for me are whether there is a geometrical basis for quantization and special relativity, and why there is a particle zoo (that is, is there an underlying structure that results in the particle zoo). I'm well aware of the danger of crackpot theories (usually characterized by just enough knowledge to get things wrong or silly), but allow myself to pursue ideas anyway as long as I'm clear about their speculative nature. I don't pretend that I have any significant discoveries to report, but thoroughly enjoy pursuing various ideas about how the universe works. To faciliate this study, I've created a lattice simulator that allows me to test a variety of ideas.

Unitary Twist Field Theory

A long description and justification for the thinking that has led to the Unitary Twist Field Theory. Note, IANAP (I am not a Physicist). This is long and describes the historical evolution of the Unitary Rotation Vector Field. The latest work has changed several parts, I am in the process of updating this.

Summary: A unitary rotation vector field is investigated as an underlying field that gives rise to the particles and fields of the Standard Model. The underlying field is single-valued, waves cannot pass through other waves. This is the means by which quantum interference redirects particle paths. The simulation work has revealed a new principle:

Quantum interference is responsible for redirecting particles along wave interference peaks–and also for creating those particles.

Long description: This effort to work out the details of this unitary twist field is based on the underlying assumption that our existence can emerge from nothing, and posits a reductionist approach to explaining the particle zoo. The theory basically says that there is a continuous rotation field in R3 + I that can produce stable solitons. Here is a list of the steps I have taken to arrive at this theory:

a: If existence does not require an intellect to form, the existence must arise from nothing, both space and time.

b: If existence does require an intellect (e.g, God) then further investigation isn’t really necessary because the rules for existence are set in a place we do not have access to.

c: One way to determine if the creating intellect exists would be to determine if the existence could not come into being without at least two rules, and such rules would have to come into existence from a creator. Saying that existence formed with one and only one rule is equivalent to saying that existence could arise from nothing and God is not required.

d: Finding God seems to be pretty much unanswerable without clear direct communication from God, whereas coming up with a way that existence could form from nothing seems to be an alternative possible approach for a human mind to answer the question about the existence of God.

e: Such an approach could start with the limits of current human knowledge, the known existence of the particle zoo. If a reductionist approach could be taken as to why the particles exist, we may be a step closer to saying that an intellect is not needed to create this existence. Conversely, if we can show with reasonable probability that it’s impossible to form particles from some continuous field, that’s an argument in favor of the necessity of an intellect in creating our existence.

f: I am assuming that a continuous field that can create stable particles is a reductionary step–that is, a step in the direction of finding a single rule defining this existence.

g: Now I start applying known physics to this field to determine what it must look like. I am assuming that this field is opaque, that is, there aren’t any parallel overlapping fields. This is clear because multiple rules are necessary to form two fields.

h: I assume that this field has elements that can only rotate. No displacement or magnitude can be applied to any field element. This assumption comes from the E = hv relation for particles, which basically says that particles are described only by frequency, there is no field degree of freedom equivalent to field magnitude.

i: when objects move, the field elements pass rotations via three types of momentum to adjacent elements. In this theory, no field element ever “moves”, instead particles move because field rotations pass as momentum from one field element to the next.

j: In order for E = hv to work, there has to be a means of ensuring that no partial or multiple count of rotations can exist. This is a form of field quantization, and I have proposed a background lowest energy state. In such a system, field rotations called twists start and stop at the background state rotation angle.

k: To ensure that R3 does not have an observable resonance (which would be experimentally discernable) that would undermine gauge theory symmetries, this background states points to an imaginary dimension. It is not possible to have the background state point to a basis vector in R3.

l: If the field has a crossproduct momentum transfer as well as the more standard linear translation of angular momentum of field rotation elements, this becomes a necessary and sufficient condition for forming stable linear particles of arbitrary frequency. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for particle formation.

m: the crossproduct rule for momentum displacement allow a particle to start a single twist, and allows the particle to end the twist after one full rotation.

n: The crossproduct rule also allows the formation of twists that move along a curve. This is possible due to the vector combination of the crossproduct that is normal to the current element rotation orientation and speed. UPDATE: simulation work shows that quantum interference is responsible for path curvature.

o: If twists can curve, there are some twists that will form stable closed loops. There are many possible stable curve solutions, which I am proposing is the basis for the particle zoo.

p: A single free linear twist models a photon of some energy and length defined by the frequency of twist rotation.

q: Since the twist moves from +I background state to an R3 direction and continuing to rotate through to the +I direction, polarization of this twist arises as a linear combination of the two R3 vectors normal to the direction of twist travel. UPDATE: new simulation data suggests that quantum interference and momentum provide a basis for polarization, this will be revised.

r: The crossproduct momentum translation is necessary to allow a twist to start and to stop, otherwise field symmetry would propagate in both directions simultaneously at every point in the twist, and stable particles could not form (they would dissipate). In other words, the quantization of the field is ensured with the background state, and the ability to start and stop a twist arises from the crossproduct momentum translation. Thus it can be stated that to form stable particles from a field, it is necessary that a field capable of forming stable particles must have a handedness that can only come from a crossproduct momentum property. UPDATE: simulation results show this and following sections needs to be revised.

s: This handedness thus must be ingrained in any field solution that produces stable particles. This handedness of the field will show up in some cases as a chirality violation.

t: In order for the twist propagation to be stable, the only possible momentum transfer via crossproduct relation is at the speed of light, where the leading and trailing edge of the twist cannot be affected or connected to neighboring element rotations.

u: Any closed loop rotation sequence thus will be limited to the speed of light. If one were to unravel the cylindrical spiral path this loop takes in Minkowski space, a single quantized twist will form a right triangle where the hypotenuse is the speed of light times the time of one rotation of the twist, one side is the particle travel distance, and the other side of the triangle is the radius of the loop. This right triangle enforces a relation between the loop travel speed and the speed of light. This relation computes to the beta factor of special relativity and is the means by which special relativity geometrically arises from the twist theory.

v: A corollary to u: above is that time dilation for every particle results from the constrained stretching of the spiral helix in Minkowski space as the particle increases speed proportionate to the speed of light. In other words, each particle’s relativistic clock is implied by the time to complete a single twist. Observing from different frames of reference will alter the apparent time to complete a twist and thus affect the relative passage of time between particle and observer.

w: A single closed loop models the electron of one type of spin. The twist direction relative to direction of travel defines a spin-up or spin-down electron, whereas the loop curvature relative to the handedness of the field defines the particle vs the antiparticle version of the electron. Note that a linear twist does not have these degrees of freedom, so there is no antiparticle to the linear twist photon.

x: Quarks are posited to be linked twist loops, the up quarks have a single link going through its center and the down quark has two. The strong force results when linked twist loops are pulled apart such that twist momentums approach each other with an asymptotic direction conflict. The passage of a twist through the center of a loop affects the rotation of the loop by increasing the crossproduct momentum of the loop. Note that since electrons are modeled by a loop with no central twist going through it, electrons (and positrons) cannot combine with quarks.

z: This modeling of quarks seems to correlate to the masses of the up and down quarks–the twist going through the center of a up quark loop acts with a central force that causes the loop radius to reduce by half. The doubling of the resultant normal (to direction of twist travel) acceleration results in a loop that is 1/4 the size of the electron loop model. Similarly, a down quark has two twists going through its center, doubling again the normal acceleration of twist travel and causing that loop to be 1/8 in size. The rest masses of the electron, up quark and down quark correlate to this geometric analysis of particle loops. Electrons have a .511MeV mass, up quarks are 2.3MeV, and down quarks are 4.8MeV. Admittedly this may all be numerology, but I was surprised to find this mass correlation to loop length.

y: A possible model for the weak force results because there is a small chance for linked twist loops to tunnel through each other. If the rotation of one twist loop matches the rotation of a linked loop right at the point where linked loops are being pulled apart, the loops can separate. This is proposed as particle decay and would model the randomizing effect of the weak force.

Glossary

3D + T: the three spatial and 1 time-wise dimensions of our existence. Equations usually are set up for solutions in this space.

Causal: Causality: The property where a particle or field changes according to special relativity, that is, changes cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.

Dirac Equation: Relativistic equations using operators that effectively describes electron behavior in an atom and relativistic interactions of particles

Electron, Positron: charged fundamental quantum particles with spin (no known substructure with a fixed rest mass)

EM: EM Field: Electromagnetic Field.

Entangled Particles: A property of a system of particles where resolving a state of one of the particles instantly (non-causally) affects the remaining particles

Frame of Reference: Used in Special Relativity, refers to the observer's position relative to a system being observed. Special Relativity describes how a system (for example, a set of particles) will appear to the observer that is dependent on how fast and in what direction the observer is moving in relation to the system.

General Relativity: Einstein's theory describing the stress-energy tensor, which details the equivalence of acceleration and gravity and describes how dimensions distort and forces apply when objects are accelerated, especially as speeds approach the speed of light. For example, it describes how a particle's mass increases as it is accelerated.

Interference: Quantum interference: The property at small (quantum) scale where the probability of a particle state or location varies according to wave superposition, the trait of waves interfering with each other

Lorentz Transform: equations that describe how dimensions of time and space distort in different frames of reference (special relativity)

QFT: Quantum Field Theory: theory of how fields, such as the electromagnetic field, are quantized.

Quantum, Quanta: property where fields or particles have a property that can only have a particular value from a set (the set of real or complex numbers, for example)

Quantum Mechanics: the equations that describe the wave-like behavior of particles in various systems, such as a particle in a box.

Photon: quantum of light. Only one possible value of energy, depending on frequency.

Planck's Constant: The lower bound for simultaneous measurement of two orthogonal properties such as a particle's position and momentum.

Relativistic: Usually refers to particles or interactions of particles with velocities that approach the speed of light

Rest mass: Since any particle with mass will have that mass increase as it is accelerated, rest mass is defined as an intrinsic property of a particle that is not moving

Schroedinger Equation: Wave Equation: second order differential equation that describes the probability distribution of (for example) an electron around an atom

Special Relativity: Einstein's theory that describes how dimensions (space and time) interconnect and vary according to an observer's frame of reference. It specifies causality of all particles or field components, and that the speed of light is the same constant in every frame of reference.

Twist: Field Twist: Author's idea of how photons and electrons (twist rings) substructure could be described

Uncertainty relation: Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the lower bound (planck's constant) for resolving two orthogonal properties of a system.

Unitary: in transforms, the property that preserves magnitude (such transforms can cause rotation or displacement, but cannot change the size or shape of objects). In vector spaces (such as fields), unitarity implies that all vectors have a constant magnitude, only direction varies.

Agemoz's Physics Blog

Posts Tagged ‘quarks’

Quantum Chromodynamics and R3+T Dual-Spin Elementary Particles

Properties of a Unitary Rotation Field

Summary of Findings So Far

Sidebar Categories

About Me

Archives

Unitary Twist Field Theory

Glossary