Well, you’ll have to bear with me–I am spending a lot of time with twist rings because there’s so much potential for representing real particles, and I just recently had a remarkable insight! The original work I did on charge loops petered out because it ran into problems explaining multi-particle interactions, and it wasn’t possible to model the four electron types (spin-up electron, spin-down electron, spin-up positron, spin-down positron). The twist ring works in both of these situations, and brings a lot more to the table–such as explaining why photons are quantized without limiting possible frequencies (integral number of twists required).

I had been concerned with any ring model of the electron because I could not see how a scale-less system could produce a particle with a constant energy/wave frequency as a ring–but now I see a possibility, one that also has the potential to derive the particle displacement response to a force. This, of course, means that twist rings have a way of having inertial properties–that is, mass.

But, let’s look at the radius of a ring. Charge loops and twist rings both have the experimental problem of not being the point kernels we see in accelerator experiments. It should be obvious that a point kernel is not possible under the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation, but Standard Model physicists do not consider that a fatal objection, just something we don’t understand yet. The only way I can see any ring solution being acceptable is if rings distort to narrow ovals as they are accelerated (and interestingly enough, using the semiclassical Compton radius in such a situation results in a ring that exactly obeys the Heisenberg relation Dx * Dy = h). As the particle approaches the speed of light, the ring becomes almost a straight line and thus could look like a point without violating the Heisenberg relation (in fact, could explain why the Heisenberg relation is true!).

Nevertheless, there is another problem with any ring solution that goes beyond why do experiments seem to show point sources for electrons: If it is a ring, why do electrons only have one possible radius? Why are there no stable particles that have 1.1 times the mass of an electron just by decreasing the ring wave frequency a bit and increasing the ring radius a bit? Valid stable rings of any diameter should be possible if we look at twist rings as systems of single cycle standing waves, where there are momentum (centripetal) and electrostatic forces in balance.

I suddenly realized that I had been assuming a momentum element that, in the case of a twist ring model, isn’t a valid assumption–nowhere in that model is there a means of expressing momentum. I could fell two birds with one stone if I got rid of that assumption, because it turns out that twist rings do have counter-balancing forces without need for momentum, and this has the potential of then deriving the particle momentum and hence its mass. Unlike charge loops, twist rings have intra-particle electrostatic *and* magnetic forces at play, and they counteract each other in a stable way, it is not metastable: Since magnetic forces drop off as 1/r^3, and electrostatic forces drop off as 1/r^2, there are two extremely important results that not only guarantee that there is only one stable radius, but it guarantees that a twist ring that gets a little too big has a correcting attractive force to reduce its size, and a particle that gets a little too small gets a correcting repulsive force that lets the particle ring get a little bigger. Take a look, it’s fascinating–if the radius gets bigger, the 1/r^2 term, which is the attractive electrostatic force, predominates over the 1/r^3 term, but when the radius gets smaller, the repulsive magnetic force that goes as 1/r^3 predominates over the 1/r^2. The twist ring has one fixed radius set by opposing electrostatic and magnetic forces, and it is self-correcting. The twist ring could be the solution that gives us the God frequency (mass of the electron). I should now be able to use the behavior of a twist ring in an electric (or magnetic field) to derive the inertial response using F = Eq = ma, and from there derive the mass and momentum of the particle.

Wow. I have to think about that for a while. I bet there is not one single person in the universe that believes what I said has truth to it! I’m not even sure I do either, but it’s an astonishing revelation!

Agemoz

Tags: twist ring

## Leave a Reply