Yup, that’s the image I have of the photon model of the unitary Maxwell’s field twist. There are four factors that determine why I think this is the correct image of the E field component. Physics textbooks show the photon wave as E and B sine waves orthogonal to each other on the axis of photon travel–but this cannot be the correct picture if all four factors are valid:

a: photons are circularly polarized about the direction of travel

b: photons are quantized as E=hv, which implies that for a given frequency there is only one possible energy. I claim this implies a unitary background field state because only in such a field is it possible to have a twist that is stable if and only if it completes one full twist before returning to the background state.

c: E=hv also implies that the E field component cannot go to zero, because then the E field component would have an additional degree of freedom that would allow the twist to dissipate. Once again, hopefully you can see why I think a unitary (directional only, fixed magnitude) field is required.

d: A static continuous field cannot support a twist without introducing a discontinuity. The only possible way to have a twist in a unitary E field is if the twist is moving at c such that it can have an unreachable region (light cone limit) outside of an epsilon neighborhood.

I realized that if the E field vector is turning in a circle such that the circle intersects the line of travel (hence the title of this post, the analogy of a bicycle wheel moving forward), that all requirements would be met. If arranged this way, the degree of freedom implied by the polarization of light is generated, and the E=hv constraint will be met–and since the twist axis is normal to the direction of travel, special relativity says that any observer (except for one in the frame of reference of the photon) must see the complete twist occur in an infinitesimal region–the bicycle wheel will turn into a line segment normal to the direction of travel. This line segment is not physical, it is just a pointer indicating the direction of the twist, so the complete neighborhood of the twist is infinitesimally small (perhaps the bicycle wheel hub is a better analogy for the twist, the spokes would be non-physical but indicate twist direction). To any outside observer, the direction of the unitary field is consistent–the twist is confined to an infinitely small region, where only a full twist is possible if the outer region is to remain consistent.

It could be argued that a background unitary field can’t be true or experiments would have picked this up–but another way to visualize my hypothesized field is by imagining one of those car seat mats that is an array of wooden balls–supposedly more comfortable for your back while driving. Imagine each ball painted white on one half, and black on the other half–and unlike a real mat, imagine that this array of balls is free to turn in any direction, but has a restoring force on neighborhood balls. The lowest energy state of all the balls is in one direction, but this direction can be anything. Now imagine a line of balls that twist such that the beginning and end point in the default direction. This model should help illustrate that there’s really nothing special about a default direction, yet should also show the special properties of a twist in such a field.

This is all well and good, but in the frame of reference of the photon, how is this going to work? The twist is going to have to be stable. Once again, special relativity may help us. The frequency of the twist will undergo a doppler effect such that in the frame of reference of the photon, the period is infinitely long, and the energy is zero–no particle.

One of the things I like about this picture of how things work is that the infinitesimal region (for any observer not in the frame of reference of the particle) will always orient itself such that the twist axis is normal to the direction of travel. It is easy to imagine the influence of the twist on neighboring field elements–the mechanism for the inducing of magnetic field elements (and vice versa) becomes evident as a percentage propagation of the twist (ie, the twist will induce neighboring field elements to bend a bit about the axis of the twist). This has major significance because this would alter the default field direction. And that would then do something really interesting–if another twist started in one field direction but ended up finishing the twist in another field direction, the direction of travel would change (because slightly less that a full twist would be required to reach the default field direction. This would provide the mechanism for the twist ring model of the electron–and as a second order effect, even show a way for general relativity (gravity) to work.

The other thing I really like about this model is what it says about the B field. It’s always been an interesting question in my mind why an E field morphs into a B field and vice versa by doing nothing more than changing the velocity of one’s frame of reference. Note that in this model, the B field is simply an E field vector that is moving in the direction of the E field vector. In the physics textbooks we see photon B field vectors orthogonal to both the E field wave and to the photon direction of travel–but I wonder if the reality of a B field is better shown as an E field vector in the direction of photon travel (so that the bicycle wheel can lie on the axis of travel–when the orienting spoke is pointing normal to the axis, it is an E field, when pointing parallel to the axis, it is a B field. This makes so much sense when you think of how the E field transforms to a B field just by adding velocity to the observers frame of reference.

Yow! That was a long post! That’s enough for now, but hopefully you can see how fascinating this line of thinking has been for me!

Agemoz

## Leave a Reply