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…



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: