Posts Tagged ‘twists quantization’

Newer Entries »

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 »

Mathematics, Chaos, and God

August 25, 2013

I have made the greatest discovery of my life.

You see, I have spent the majority of my life searching for the mind of God, and I did this by observing the world around me, reading about it, and trying to draw conclusions unfettered by wishful or unsupportable thinking.  I thought that by understanding physics, in particular the underlying geometry of quantum field theory coupled with special relativity, that I might see better how God works and thinks.  Along the way, I came to the conclusion that this Unitary Twist Field idea made a lot of sense, and spent a lot of time trying to show how it might work.  I wrote several simulators and tried to refine the ideas sufficiently–and maintain a Feynman skepticism whether they were workable or just simply wrong.

I still maintain that the main idea is probably right–and was beginning to come up with an experiment to induce a linear twist field.  This turns out to be extremely hard, because the timing of the twist has to move at the speed of light–the twist generator has to be both very small and very high frequency.  I envisioned sort of a prefetch driver mechanism that would charge plates in a cylinder in such a way that the field phase was anticipated.  The assumption is that the rotating field would induce the magnetic portion of the twist and that detectable emission would occur.  The reason I think nobody has built something like this before is that the phase timing of the plates has to be such that the twist propagates at speed c–you cannot make a propagating circuit to do this because electrons will travel down wires at less than the speed of light.  You must design a circuit at multi-gigaHertz frequencies that adds phase to take the slower electron path and cancel it out.  Such a configuration cannot occur in nature or even in antennas of any design.  I have sufficient electronics knowledge that I know how to do this–but it still would be a difficult undertaking.

I was starting down the path of doing this when I watched the movie Pi.  Kind of nutty, but still a good movie, I thought.  A mentally disturbed mathematician uncovers a sequence of numbers that forms the unspeakable name of God and goes crazy uncovering the implications.  He reaches peace only by expelling (literally) the knowledge from his mind.  This movie gets a bunch of things wrong, but the principle is a great one.  First, it claims mathematics is the language of all nature, and second, all nature is based/driven by patterns–wrong on both counts.  Nature is the profound mixture of mathematics and chaos–not everything in it is well described by the language of mathematics.  As a corollary, patterns are only part of the game, intrinsic randomness also drives the behaviors we see in nature.

But the point is still valid–while the “answer” wont be a 216 digit number, the mind of God could be said to take a form that could reside as an abstraction inside a human mind.  That’s what I’ve been doing for about 25 years or so–trying to find that abstraction, or more likely some new portion of it.  Then, the meaning of my life gets some resolution as I get closer to knowing God.

I tried to envision what would happen, like in the movie, if some human succeeds.  Does that become a humanity singularity that is eventually inevitable?  Is that the destiny of humanity–probably not me, but someone will eventually find that key?  I woke up this morning and realized I had my answer, a life changing answer.  Just waking up is a great time to do your mightiest thinking–that emerging consciousness is cleared and refreshed.  I remember doing a lot of thinking about death and what it really means about us and God, and one day walking in a cemetary suddenly realizing “God Is Not Here”.  Answers will not be found in the study of dying–it’s just the point where our thinking stops.

This morning, I woke up and realized that is also true of my study of physics.  God Is Not Here.  Because my leading hypothesis of existence is that there is a way for something to emerge from an infinity nothing (search for my previous posts on scale-less systems and the resulting something-from-nothing process), discovering another underlying structure to quantum field theory will NOT get me closer to God–He is not there.  He might be involved somehow at a higher level, but the creation of existence from nothing is a series of steps that eventually results in the Big Bang and then the evolution to our existence.  My discovery is this:  the discoveries of physics is the process of discovering those steps, but does not point us to God (at least directly).

I have had my life profoundly turned on its head, for the search I’ve so diligently pursued and tried to do as rigorously as I could has come to an end–there is no point other than the pleasure of figuring something out.  God Is Not Here.

Of course, new questions arise from the ashes–then, where is God?  What do I do now?

Agemoz

I

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

Atom Energy Quantization

July 30, 2013

I have taken a digression from my sim work to think about quantization of atomic energy levels.  These energy levels, to a first order in the simplest (hydrogen) atom, are defined by the Rydberg equation.  The rest energy of elementary particles such as the electron is defined by E=hv, and I have posited that field twists geometrically achieve this quantization.  I’ve then followed down a bunch of different paths testing this hypothesis.  However, it’s not just rest mass that is quantized.  The kinetic energy of electron orbitals in an atom are also quantized.  In the non-relativistic case we can look at the solutions of the Schrodinger equation, although refinement of the solutions for spin and other 2nd order and quantum effects has to be applied.  Ignoring the refinements, does this quantization also imply field twists?

I think so for the same reason as the E=hv rest mass case–to achieve a modulo energy value that quantizes, a geometric solution requires a twist in a background vector field state.  There has to be a lowest energy state called the background state.  You can imagine a plane of floating balls that each have a heavy side and a tenuous connection to adjacent balls.  Most balls will tend to the heavy side down state (obviously, this is a gravitational analogy, not a real solution I am proposing).  But if there is a twist in a string of balls, the local connection for this twist is stronger than the reverting tendency to the background state, and the twist becomes topologically stable.  Several geometrical configurations are possible, a linear twist could model a photon, while a twist ring could model an electron.  What could model the energy states of an electron around an atom?

One thing is pretty clear–the energy of the lowest state (S orbital) is about 8 orders of magnitude smaller than the rest mass energy of the electron, so there’s no way a single field twist would give that quantization.  The electron twist cannot span the atom orbital–the energy level is too far off.  The fact that the energy levels are defined by the Rydberg equation as 1/r^2 increments suggests either that each energy level adds a single twist that is distributed over the orbital surface (causing the effect of 1/r^2 over a unit area), or that the energy level is the result of n^2 new twists.  Since I cannot imagine a situation which would enforce exactly n^2 new twists for each quantized orbital energy level, I think the former is the right answer.  There is a constant energy twist being applied each time an orbital reaches another excitation level, distributed over a surface.

But what quantizes that first energy level (corresponding to the 1.2 10^-5 cm wavelength)?  This cannot be related to the electron wavelength (2.8 10^-13 cm) because the S orbital is a spherical cloud that is far larger than an EM field twist solution would give.  An EM twist about a charged stationary object would have about 4 times the classical radius of the electron–but the actual cloud is around 7 orders of magnitude larger.  The thing that causes the atom orbital size to be so large is the strong force, which prevents the electron and the positively charged nucleus from collapsing.  Trouble is, this is a complication that I don’t have any thoughts about how the Twist Field theory would work here, other than recognizing that any type of quantization requires a return to a starting state–implying a twist.  DeBroglie proposed that the probability function wave has to line up, but we don’t really have a physical interpretation of a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, so what does it mean physically for that wave to line up?  No such problem in Twist Field theory, and twists are so closely related to the sine waves involved (they are a reverse projection) that I don’t think it’s preposterous to propose field twists as an underlying cause.

But there’s a lot of gaping holes in that explanation that would require a lifetime of investigation.

Agemoz

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

Sim Results Show Wrong Acceleration Factor

July 18, 2013

Well, it looked promising–qualitatively, it all added up, and everything behaved as expected.  But it’s a “close, but no cigar”.   The acceleration at each point should be proportional to 1/r^2, but after a large number of runs, it’s pretty clearly some other proportionality factor.  I’ve got some more checking to do, but looks like I don’t have the right animal here.  One thing is clear though–this model, which attracts and repels, is the first one that shows qualitatively correct behavior.  If twist rings have mass due to the twist distortion, this is the first model that shows it, even if the mass can’t be right.

So, I stepped back and ran through the list of assumptions, and see some flaws that might guide me to a better solution.  Many theories die in the real world because of the glossy effect, as in, I glossed over that and will deal with it later, it’s not a major problem.  I unintentially glossed over some problems with the model, and in retrospect I should have addressed them from the get-go.

First, twist rings (as modelled in my simulation) have a real planar component, but twist through an imaginary axis.  The twist acts as an E field in the real space and as a magnetic field in the imaginary space.  The current hypothesis is that the loop experiences different field magnitudes from the source particle, and this causes a curvature change that varies around the loop.  The part of the loop that is further away will experience less curvature, the closer part more curvature (curvature is a function of the strength of the magnetic field from the source particle).  This simulation shows that if that is the model, you do indeed get an acceleration of the ring proportionate to the distance from the source particle–and the acceleration is toward the source particle–attraction!  If you switch the field to the negative, you get the same acceleration away–repulsion.  So far, so good, and the sim results made me think–I’m on the right track!  I still think I might be on the right track, but the destination is further away than I thought.

First, as I mentioned, the sim results seem to show pretty clearly that the acceleration is not the right proportionality (1/r^2).  That might just be a computational problem or just indicate the model needs some adjustments.  But there are some things being glossed over here.  First, while the model works regardless of how many particles act as a source, there is always one orientation where every point on the ring is equadistant from the source particle–in this case, there is no variation in curvature.  The particle would have to act differently depending on orientation.  It could be argued that the particle ring will always have its moment line up with the source field, and so this orientation will never happen–fine, but what happens when you have two source particles at different locations?  The line-up becomes impossible.  OK, let’s suppose some sort of quantum dual-state for the ring–and I say, I suppose that is possible, some kind of sum of all twist rings, or maybe a coherence emerges depending on where the source particles are, but then we no longer have a twist ring.  In addition, the theory fixes and patches are building up on patches, and I’d rather try some simpler solutions before coming back to this one.  The orientation problem is a familiar one–it shoots down a lot of geometrical solutions, including the old charge-loop idea.

Here’s another issue:  I make the assumption that there is a “near side” and a “far side”, which has the orientation problem I just mentioned–a corollary to that is that it also could get us in trouble as soon as relativity comes in play since near and far are not absolute properties in a relativistic situation).  I then get an attraction by assuming the field is weaker on the far side and thus there is less curvature.  The sim shows clearly the repulsion acceleration away from the source when this is done.  Then I cavalierly negated the field and Lo! I got attraction, just like I expected.  But I thought about this, and realized this doesn’t make physical sense–a case of applying a mathematical variation without thinking.  This would mean that the field caused *greater* curvature when the twist point is further away (the far side).  Uhh, that does not compute…

While not completely conclusive, this analysis points out first, that a solution cannot depend on source field magnitude variation alone within the path of the ring.  The equidistant ring orientation requires (more correctly, “just about” requires, notwithstanding some of the alternatives I just mentioned) that the solution work even if all neighborhood points on the ring have exactly the same source field magnitude.  In addition, there’s another more subtle implication.  The direction a particle is going to move has to come from a field vector–this motion cannot result from a potential function (a scalar)  because within the neighborhood of the ring, the correct acceleration must occur even if the potential function appears constant over the range of the twist ring.

This is actually a pretty severe constraint.  In order for a twist ring to move according to multiple source particles, a vector sum has to be available in the neighborhood of the twist ring and has to be constant in that neighborhood.  The twist ring must move either toward or away from this vector sum direction, and the acceleration must be proportionate to the magnitude of the vector sum.  Our only saving grace is the fact that this vector sum is not necessarily required to lie in R3, possible I3–but a common scalar imaginary field of the current version of the twist theory is unlikely to hold up.

Is the twist field theory in danger of going extinct even in my mind?  Well, yes, there’s always that possibility.  For one thing, I am assuming there will be a geometrical solution, and ignoring some evidence that the twist ring and other particles have to have a more ghostly (coherent linear sum of probabilities type of solution we see in quantum mechanics).  For another, my old arguments about field discontinuities pop up whenever you have a twist field, there’s still an unresolved issue there.

But, the driving force behind the twist field theory is E=hv.  A full twist in a background state is the only geometrical way to get this quantization in R3 without adding more dimensions–dimensions that we have zero evidence for.   Partial twists, reverting back to the background state, are a nice mechanism for virtual particle summations.  We do get the Lorentz transform equations for any closed loop solution such as the twist theory  if the time to traverse the loop is a clock for the particle.  And–the sim did show qualitative behavior.  Fine tuning may still get me where I want to go.

Agemoz

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

New Papers on Speed of Light Variation Theories

April 28, 2013

A couple of papers to a European physics journal (http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/28/17958218-speed-of-light-may-not-be-constant-physicists-say?lite –probably not the best place to get accurate reviews, but interesting anyway) attempt to show how the speed of light is dependent on a universe composed of virtual particles.  The question here is why isn’t c infinite, and of course I’ve been interested in any current thinking in this area because my unitary twist field theory posits that quantum interference results from infinite speed wave phase propagation, but that particles are a Fourier composition that moves as a group wave that forms a twist.  Group waves form a solition whose motion is constrained by the *change* in the relative phases of the group wave components.

Both theories were interesting to me, not because they posited that the speed of light would vary depending on the composition of virtual particles, but because they posit that the speed of light is dependent on the existence of virtual particles.  This is a match with my idea since virtual particles in the unitary twist field theory are partial twists that revert back to a background vector state.  Particles become real when there is sufficient energy to make a full twist back to the background state, thus preserving the twist ends (this assumes that a vector field state has a lowest energy when lining up with a background vector state).  But virtual particles, unlike real particles, are unstable and have zero net energy because the energy gained when partially twisting is lost when the twist reverts back to the background state.

These papers are suggesting that light propagates as a result of a constant sequence of particle pair creation and annhiliation.   The first glance view might be that particle pair creation is just a pulling away of a positron and an electron like a dumb-bell object, but because charged particles, virtual or real, will have a magnetic moment, it’s far more likely that the creation event will be spiralling out–a twist.  Yes, you are right to roll-your-eyes, this is making the facts fit the theory and that does not prove anything.  Nevertheless, I am seeing emerging consensus that theories of physical behavior need to come from, or at least fully account for, interactions in a sea of virtual particles.  To keep the particle zoo proliferation explanation simple, this sea of virtual particles has to be some variation of motions of a single vector field–and in 3D, there’s only two simple options–linear field variation, and twists.   Photons would be linear twists and unconstrained in energy–but particles with rest mass would be closed loops with only certain allowed energies, similar to the Schrodinger electron around an atom.  Twists in a background vector field also have the advantage that the energy of the twist has to be quantized–matching the experimental E=hv result.

Agemoz

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

Higgs and time for me to move on

March 18, 2013

The evidence for the recently found Higgs particle is starting to look pretty solid–the Standard Model made a successful prediction, which means any alternate physics viewpoint is going to have an especially high bar to clear–as if crackpot physics doesn’t already.

While my twist field idea doesn’t contradict anything in the Standard Model, the Higgs is an explanation for some portion of the mass of various particles.  The twist field approach has a different means to get mass, and I don’t see any overlap, which raises the question of whether it is worth my time to continue to work out twist field simulations and derivations.  The twist field approach gives rise to 3D+T solutions that form some  stable particles, and my thought has been that the other particles, including possibly the Higgs, are just more complex geometrical arrangements of twists.

Nevertheless, progress in finding an underlying geometry for the particle zoo now seems more likely to come straight from the Standard Model rather than this twist field idea, which came directly from the E=hv concept as a way to quantize a field structure.  A concept as basic as a twist field should have led to some new revelations similar to the magnitude of the Higgs particle find, but all I have found has been some degree of confirmation of stuff we already know.

I think the time has come to put aside this effort.  Not all paths lead to truth, and while this path has not ended conclusively, I think my travels on it have.  Others may find some validity to the ideas I’ve brought here and continue this line of thought, but not me.

Sayonara to all, I have new worlds waiting for me.

Agemoz

 

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

Gaussian Wave Packets

February 20, 2013

It’s been a little while since I’ve posted, mostly because I have an unrelated big project going on, so I’ve been focusing on trying to get that out the door.  And, I’m working on getting the twist ring inertial math to work, a laborious project since the Lagrangian equation of motion has too many variables for solving.  I’m trying to find ways to simplify.  In addition, I also have an iterative sim of the inertial response ready to go but haven’t had time to set it up and run it.  Hopefully with the other project almost done I’ll get to it this weekend.

One thought I’ve had in the meantime–many  quantum mechanics exercises involve modeling a photon with a wave packet that is described as having the Gaussian integral form.  The most basic variation of this form (Integral[Exp[-x^2]]) is a bell shaped curve with amplitude 1 at zero and asymptotically goes to zero at +/- infinity.  I’ve had lots of lectures where an oscillating squiggle is used to represent the magnitude of the quantized photon wave packet.

A very interesting thought occurred to me is that this integral is a great representation of the unitary twist version of a photon packet.  A one dimensional magnitude projection of a twist from the Unitary Twist Field Theory would be represented exactly by a Gaussian curve, and if we use a complex value r to completely represent the twist function, then the Gaussian integral becomes Integral[Exp[-r^2]] and then this can be interpreted as a working model of twists–and thus support the notion that the twist theory has a well proven basis in the math of quantum mechanics.  Do I buy that, or should my skepticism meter be dinging my thinking process?  Right now, the idea looks pretty workable–it seems pretty clear that the r form clearly would represent a twist as well as a Gaussian envelope packet over a frequency of oscillation of E and B fields–making the twist theory a viable alternative to the magnitude constrained wave packet interpretation.  For the twist theory to be acceptable, there has to be a path to the math of quantum mechanics, and I think I see how this could happen.

Agemoz

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

Unitary Continuous Fields Cannot be Linear

June 11, 2012

Well, after considerable thought on that surprising revelation of the previous post, I realized that it is true only for unitary fields.  The QFT solution can be both continuous and linear, because the magnitude of an EM field is not constrained.  I thought of the case of a rogue wave on water, and realized that the median plane symmetry problem results from the  ability of the unitary field to block information from passing.  A unitary field that has a stable state over any surface will block information from passing through.  The median plane between two oppositely charged particles, by symmetry, has to consist of background state vectors, but the field that QFT resides in is non-blocking–think of the rogue wave on water analogy.  One wave can ride on top of another because the magnitude is not constrained, and thus is not blocking.  Information from one charged particle will make it through the median plane to the other particle–but NOT in my unitary twist field theory.

This is a show-stopper for unitary twist field theory.  Unitarity (of field magnitude) is necessary to geometrically create quantization.  I see two options:  either my original premise that the field is sparse, or something other than field magnitude is constraining twist magnitude.

Agemoz

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

twists and quantization

November 13, 2008

I wouldn’t fault you for asking so what? to twists, since I claim that the solution should be valid for standard model physics, in particular as solutions to the Schroedinger and Dirac equations. But twists bring some new things to the table. First, the one dimensional nature of the twist provides for two degrees of freedom in 3D (see prior two posts), thus permitting both satisfactory twist models for both circularly polarized photons and electron/positrons, assuming they are rings. Second, this one dimensional topological structure shows a geometrical means for a tiny particle to absorb a low energy (and hence very very large) photon in its entirety (to me, this is an important question that standard model physics doesn’t appear to raise at all, as far as I know). And third, and conceivably most importantly, the requirement that a twist must contain one or more complete turns provides a geometrical mechanism that explains Einstein’s discovery of quantized photons (the Standard Model does not provide a reason for why quantization exists).

You could imagine an atom orbital electron starting to emit a twist in the EM field that would propagate as a photon, but suppose it doesn’t quite have enough free energy in an orbital level drop to produce a complete twist (rotation of the EM field that makes up a photon). Unable to propagate due to the requirement that the start and end points of a propagating photon must have the same normal vector direction, the orbiting electron retains the energy. Only those orbital drops that produce sufficient energy for the twist will emit.

This leads to the question, why wouldn’t a partial twist propagate, or exist at all? I have some ideas–it may be as simple as a topologically stable twist must point in the same direction as the background EM field (remember my proposal that produces particles simply by altering the phase of unitary waves–this is the only workable explanation for entangled particles, the two slit experiment, etc). This feels uncomfortable, though, since you could argue that there are local areas in a field where waves cancel, thus having no available direction to enforce quantization.

I’ll have to do some more thinking on that–but there’s no question in my mind that twists just about have to be the only available geometrical model that will give photon and particle quantization. I want to see if this sets the path for a good explanation for why rest state free electrons have a specific mass and no other.

Agemoz

Tags:
Posted in Physics | Leave a Comment »

Newer Entries »