twist ring

I spent some time thinking about the twist ring in the context of getting inertial mass from it. This is really important because this might point to an experiment that will for once and for all prove or disprove the ring idea for an electron–if a non-moving electron has a measurable ring size rather than the Standard Model point, relativistic collisions done in accelerators will distort the ring and make it look like a point. But if a non-linear field (for example) could show a motion explained by the ring components at different field points, a case could then be made for the ring model.

The old idea was that the process of applying an electrostatic force to a ring causes a change in path of the wave that might be found to be dependent on the frequency of the wave, and thus would be a connection to the ring’s momentum. When I did this analysis years ago, I ran into some issues. I did find a force proportionate to the field, but it was “close” rather than exact–and it depended on the field having a sinusoidal component at the frequency of the ring. There’s a number of problems here–the orientation and phase of the ring relative to the field, the quantum entanglement requirement that phase doesn’t behave causally, and worst of all–it doesn’t work in a multiparticle environment (the field will not be single sinusoidal anymore).

So, some more thinking lately, because I wanted to revisit the inertial mass idea. I thought that the inertial component might show up as the difference in field values or perhaps by computing the second order effect of a 1/r^2 non-linear field. However, this really doesn’t work, because since the ring has both a and – component, there cannot be a net effect. It is possible that there is a step effect depending on the ring phase–if the positive charge is closer to the field source, a step will go in that direction, then when the negative charge is there, there is a step in the opposite direction, and so on. In time, it is conceivable that there would be a net result, but I don’t think so–as soon as the step is taken, there will then be a *stronger* repulsion, hence a bigger step in the reverse direction, taking us back (literally) to square one. Even if there were a delta, why does an antiparticle move in the opposite direction–it also is a spinning particle with a positive and negative step.

Then it hit me–all these problems can be solved with a *twisted* ring! Now the scheme works in a uniform field–because the opposite side of the twist has the opposite twist–an unraveling that is necessary for the quantized ring energy (the wave vectors of each dipole element has to line up to connect). Now, the twist on the opposite side has the opposite spin and opposite direction, thus canceling each other out–resulting in both sides having the force applied in the same direction and working together to move the particle one way or the other. Electron rings then would spin one way or the other, whereas positrons would *twist* in the opposite direction. And this scheme has no dependency on a sinusoidal field or multiparticle field sources.

Let’s make sure that twist rings provide the right number of degrees of freedom:

a: spin up electron: ^ v, spinning clockwise (right hand rule twist in v dir)
b: spin down electron: v ^, spinning counterclockwise (right hand rule twist)
c: spin up positron: ^ v, spinning clockwise (left hand rule twist in v dir)
d: spin down positron: v ^, spinning counterclockwise (left hand rule twist)

This doesn’t work, because the spin up and spin down cases as shown are identical. Careful study will show that a clockwise spin from the top view looks like a counterclockwise spin from the bottom view, even the twists and spin moment will be the same. But if the twist pair is either a pair of identical twists or opposite twists (either a Pi/2 -Pi/2 twist or a Pi/2 Pi/2 twist) then the antiparticle spin-up and spin down will be geometrically different than the particle spin-up and spin down. The trouble with that is–only the twists that are opposite will have a net force in the same direction for both poles. But then there’s a problem with quantization–an unraveling does not have to be a multiple of Pi for a twist angle. Only the Pi twist followed by another Pi twist will enforce an integral momentum.

So–how do we get the required two degrees of freedom with a twist ring? By realizing that the twist has a complex phase component. There is a spin phase within the spin ring. When we look at *what* spins in the twist, we see a complex vector–so you could imagine, for example, that the twist has the real component first, then the imaginary component–or, vice versa. The necessary and sufficient two degrees of freedom are only provided by a ring–the direction of the twist relative to the ring spin direction, and the phase direction of the complex components of the twist. The standard model point electron cannot do anything with a point except say that we don’t know what distinguishes a spin up from a spin down electron or from a positron and an electron. Only the twist ring provides the exact model needed for the correct number of degrees of freedom.



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: