Just What Is a Twist, Anyway

The simulation work has opened up a goldmine of thinking about the unitary EM field twist. So much has come out of it that I can’t really do it justice here, but I’ll summarize some of what has happened.

First. Any solution that includes a discontinuity seems to be unworkable–I currently see no way to define an infinitely continuous unitary vector field that has discontinuities, the two concepts do not appear to intersect. Not as obvious as it might first sound (continuous fields actually can have discontinuities, but not if the field is always unitary).

Second. Any solution that has no discontinuity and acts only on neighborhood field elements dissipates and thus cannot provide a particle twist solution.

Third. Photons are circularly polarized, which rules out an about axis solution. A 3D vector field solution would have to have an in-axis component (the pictures in previous posts show an about axis solution, but this cannot produce circular polarization). There are several more related questions here that are still getting attention.

Fourth. Twist solutions in a background appear to be the only possible way that E=hv quantization can occur for any of the three Standard Model forces. This really is the foundation of the Twist Ring methodology and this current work and thinking substantiates it. In the final analysis, some variation of this conclusion is going to have to hold true.

Fifth and probably most important. The constraints that solutions cannot have (1) a discontinuity (be analytic) and (2) not dissipate imply that the force(s) on field elements cannot be confined to an epsilon neighborhood. There has to be a background force– E=hv quantization already implies a background state in complex vector space, but this conclusion also says that there must be a background force as well.

6. The requirement that the unitary EM field elements be complex is a bit of a red herring, I think. E and B field components are interchangeable depending on the frame of reference. I currently think that taking advantage of the imaginary component to form a solution (for example, by creating a point where the neighborhood force would not apply) is erroneous because it will only work in a specific frame of reference.

7. Any of these schemes need to keep entangled particle properties in mind. I think I see a way, I alluded to this many posts ago when I claimed entanglement requires that group waves are limited by the speed of light but that phase information is not so limited.

I actually did find a geometrical solution that meets the fifth rule, but haven’t put it in the simulator yet.

Not sure if I’ll have more to post before the Christmas season, so if not, best wishes and thanks to my readers for a joyous, peaceful, and meaningful holiday.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: