Just to reassure those (if any) with a physics background, this work I’m doing on twist rings isn’t some crackpot attempt to replace the Standard Model. It may be a crackpot attempt, but it’s not *that* particular crackpot attempt. The Standard Model describes the particles that have to exist in order that the three known forces (other than gravity, which isn’t included in the Standard Model) can work within R3 + T and still remain invariant to translation and rotation in any frame of reference obeying the Lorentz transforms. I believe that this requirement is another way saying that our existence within these forces are constrained by gauge symmetries, which when defined mathematically imply the existence of (among other things) energy exchange particles such as photons. My work is nothing more than to hypothesize an underlying field construction for one of those forces (EM) that has stable states. This field construction is a unitary version of Maxwell’s field and can be shown to allow stable states such as a linear twist and a circularly connected twist. Further computations show that there is a real life connection to photons and electrons/positrons–the stable states will obey E=hv and can result in twist ring solitons with only one possible mass–the measured mass of an electron. They also can be shown to exhibit time and spatial distortion matching the Lorentz transforms.

This results solely from considering the unitary Maxwell field–when the other two forces (strong, weak) are brought into play, I’m guessing that I would find other stable states that would have masses of quarks, etc. However, note that I’m careful not to try to disprove anything in the Standard Model, that would get me nowhere. The Standard Model declares that there will be both exchange and stable particles, but empirically adds them to the model to make the gauge symmetry math work out (for example, the particle components of Maxwell’s equations). I am adding a hypothesis about the underlying field that would unify the EM field and particle existence such that the symmetries will still exist–sort of a “why” there are the symmetries, particles, and Lorentz transforms.

I had thought we might get quarks solely from doing some unitary field for the strong force (note that as I mentioned, a unitary field seems to be a very elegant way of getting the E=hv quantization, regardless of which forces are involved)–but I’m pretty sure that the EM force also must be added in, otherwise I don’t see how we would get charge, and in particular charge that is exactly 1/3 (or 2/3) of the electron. I’m doing simulation work on the electron case, but my thinking is looking for stable states when the strong force is brought in for quarks. I’m betting that my simulations will show a 1/3 charge case when the strong force is brought in–wouldn’t it be cool if a quark mass value results!

However, I have realized that the unitary field model does not explain something that is critically important–entangled particles. Something is wrong here–entangled particles remain entangled even when a hypothetical “plank” is delivered between them. Entangled particles must have some type of connection in order to resolve uniquely to opposite states (for the case of the two state entangled pair). But I see no way that the unitary field could support this mechanism. This is a problem that has to be worked through. There’s an awful lot going for the unitary field–it is the cleanest way I can think of how a field could exhibit E=hv quantization–and I can even envision the physical mechanism for a unitary field, and also see an elegant connection to the infinite array of quantum oscillators (what is called Fock space). But entangled particles doesn’t seem to evolve in any way I can think of from this unitary field construction. This is getting a lot of my attention right now.

Agemoz

## Leave a Reply