One thing had been nagging me–isn’t it just a little too covenient that I’ve found only two solutions that happen to conform to quark configurations for protons and neutrons? Since I know the desired outcome, you should be rather incredulous that I happen to find something that works. And, yes, I’m rather skeptical myself, that’s why you don’t see me jumping up and down on the sofa over these amazing results. No, I’m just letting these solutions filter through my head, trusting that if something is wrong, eventually I’ll see problems and make whatever corrections make sense. I have traversed lots and lots of potential twist geometric solutions, and have been able to cleanly reject the vast majority of them using the constraints of a unitary twist field. There’s no buck fever here–just a calm and careful exploration of a maybe, yet improbable (given the number of smarter than me people trying to figure this stuff out), theory. If it survives my analysis, it will (to the best of my analytic ability) only do so if it is true.

I mentioned that the only two workable stable solutions were the sets of three nested but orthogonal rings, one of which has a radius either half or twice that of the other two. One thing that bothered me, though–why can’t there be a solution of four rings? For example, same as the three ring solution, but with two rings each of a given radius and another radius twice as big. I realized, no, that can’t work. I’ve already thrown out nested rings for other reasons–it’s impossible to create such a system where the 1/r^3 forces are constant since the traversal time of a twist moves at c and thus cannot be the same in both rings. I rejected the 4 ring solution for this reason, but there’s another better reason.

I am so used to linear fields such as the EM field or the gravitational field. These central force fields can overlay linearly, so putting an object in the direct path of two particles has an insignificant affect unless it is large enough to block or disrupt the field. But a unitary twist field, because it is unitary, is not linear and cannot pass through field forces. I realized nested rings cannot work because the force on the far side of one ring is completely blocked by an inner ring. If you think about it, you will realize this is true–the inner ring is a complete twist. There is no topological way to superimpose the affect of another twist through the plane of a unitary field twist ring. Only if the ring planes are orthogonal can the twist project a 1/r^3 force to the other side of the ring–without that constraining force, the ring will dissipate into linear twists and the solution will not be stable.

But–there’s only three planes in our existence! The largest number of rings that can form a stable configuration is one per plane, or three. Hence at this point, given the constraints I’ve set for the unitary twist field theory, there cannot be any configuration of more than three ring twists that will produce a particle. And–I’ve been able to show that any non-ring solution cannot produce a constant force. Non-constant forces coupled with constant speed c means no stable solutions–this one needs to be proven rigorously, but certainly the extensive exploration of cases I have done has yielded no workable solutions other than rings.

To the best of my ability, I have found there really are only two new twist solutions, and they have a very remarkable correlation with what I’d expect for the quark configurations of protons and neutrons. You can be incredulous–yes, this is somewhat of a self-fulfilling conclusion. Trust me–I was once wild-eyed about my ideas when I was young, enthusiastic, and not very discerning. Now I just push forward as honestly as I can and try to think through whether I’m really getting close to the truth about how things work in this existence. I will check these configurations for expected mass, interaction profiles, internal states, and so on. But, as I said in the last post: Interesting….

Agemoz

PS–If you rebut my three spatial dimensions argument for why we have configurations with a maximum of three orthogonal rings with the 10/11 dimensions of M Theory, I will point out that the non-basic 7 or 8 dimensions are rolled up at Planck constant range, far tinier than the ring sizes we are talking about–I believe if there’s any effect from these dimensions, never mind whether they really exist, it would be miniscule…

PPS–the initial mass computations work out too–a simplified (approximate) calculation of the force on one twist from the other two has ratios of 5 (if charge of the first is -1/3) or 9 (if the charge is 2/3). The actual masses of the up and down quarks are 2.0 and 4.8, ratios of about 4 and 9. Interesting, but nothing conclusive…

## Leave a Reply