Posts Tagged ‘twists physics’

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 »

twists

October 26, 2008

Some pretty interesting thinking, but difficult to pin down. I thought a lot about the twist in the surface that I hypothesized explains the quantization of particles. I previously had proposed that a single twist would best explain quantization, but needed to really nail down this concept. On a second path, I did a lot of thinking about the idea of ideas.

First–about twists. The going premise is that this is a world which doesn’t require a guiding creator, otherwise the main point of all this thinking is answered–and as a corollary, no further thinking really is needed, because a guiding creator could alter the existence according to His whims, thus making logical analysis less useful. The much more interesting question is whether the universe as it is could come into being without such a creator. In this scenario, logical analysis is particularly useful because the formation of our existence is not guided or sustained, but must result purely from consequence–the purest target of logical analysis.

So, in proceeding down the path of scaleless system formation, the integration of quantization observations appears to suggest that our 3D world either consists of a twist of a two-state material within the 3D world, or that the 3D world is a surface of a 4D bubble, and the twist is about an axis rotating into the 4D world. The twist itself should not have a radial dimension but must vary in the length along the axis of the twist to generate the degree of freedom required by unconstrained photon energy. This approach makes a whole lot of sense when we think of the EM field properties of a propagating photon as well as the Plancks constant (E = hv) quantization of particles. But it raises a bunch of questions, too: if only full turns of the twist can exist due to quantization, it would seem that a field rip or cut is required about the twist axis–and it would appear to require that the field has two components so that the components line up before and after the twist, although this is consistent and implied by the E and M nature of photons as well. But–how can this cut exist without being a field discontinuity? One thing for sure–if particles are explained as rings of twist pairs, or more complex structures of twists, such cuts imply that they cannot dissipate. Topologically, a twist with cuts in 3D space cannot be equivalent to any continuous field, and thus is stable. Such a system, having no path to dissolution, will lead to conservation of matter/energy if one assumes that particles and photons are systems of twists. Particles become self contained sets of twists rotating, say, in a circle at the speed of light, while photons are linear sets of twists propagating in a straight line. One thus could interchange energy and mass, but it is not possible for the total energy represented by either form to be added to or removed.

Twists thus are an exciting possibility for representing the quantized state of the EM field, and strengthens the case for some variation of the charge loop hypothesis that I’ve proposed throughout this journal. But those questions remain. There is that need for a field discontinuity (implied anyway by conservation–any analytic field solution would dissipate). Why does the twist have to propagate? It appears that observation does not allow the twist to stay in one place. Another question–the twist is stable in time and space–whether in energy form (photons) or matter, so since interchange between mass and energy forms is possible, but one way or the other, the twist cannot vanish or spontaneously appear. Yet, quantum theory specifies that a pure vacuum is not the lowest energy state, that in such cases, photon pairs or electron-positron pairs (or other particle combinations) will spontaneously appear. Why? Does the twist model explain this in some way? The converse, where particles annihilate, and the situation where electrons absorb a photon, all beg for understanding using this twist theory. And what about the other forces, the Strong and Weak forces and gravity–what role do these play in this twist theory?

Uggh. That’s enough to swallow for one day…

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »