The math behind the twist ring is getting nasty–and now I think I understand why physicists dont go down this road. A Maxwell’s field solution is well known to be analytic (no discontinuities) and cannot permit any solution that has a discontinuity, and also is well known for degrees of freedom that allow any concentration of field energy to dissipate. Obviously, the quantum nature of photons and other particles doesn’t allow dissipation, and the twist ring approach has been my attempt to geometrically model a field system where this quantum behavior results. I do this by asserting that the twist ring approach requires a unitary field solution for quantization of twists to work. The observed macro behavior of electrostatic fields with magnitude (non unitary) is hypothesized to result from masses of (unitary field) photons–that is, I am asserting that the underlying behavior of normal electrostatic/magnetic fields, which is clearly non-unitary, results from the quantized behavior of a unitary field. The whole twist ring concept is based on this idea, since a twist in a normal electrostatic field clearly has degrees of freedom where it could dissipate–even a quantized photon cannot be represented in a Maxwell’s field.

However, if a unitary field cannot sustain a field twist, all is lost here and the twist ring approach would have to be abandoned. My recent work has demonstrated the likelihood that a full field twist (as opposed to a partial twist that returns the field back the way it came in a propagating photon model) requires that there is some region of the field that will have an epsilon neighborhood, arbitrarily small, where field vectors are not analytic or continuous. However, the unitary field requirement is very interesting because unitarity may sustain a twist where the discontinuity is forced to be distributed and a pole of infinite potential would not be formed.

No answers yet, but certainly clarification of what won’t work (true EM field). My other work especially with twist rings shows that unitary fields has the right degree of freedom to make quantization, special relativity, and electron states possible. But–a precise mathmatical model runs into trouble with the apparent need for a field discontinuity for twists. Don’t know where this is heading yet…

Agemoz

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

This entry was posted on December 9, 2009 at 1:51 am and is filed under Physics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

March 5, 2010 at 3:38 am |

Although I wouldâ€™ve preferred if you went into a little bit more detail, I still got the gist of what you meant. I agree with it. It might not be a popular idea, but it makes sense. Will definitely come back for more of this. Great work