Vacuum and Twist Fields

I’ve talked about the unitary twist field model for photons and electrons, it’s a much better approach than some of the old other approaches that use the Compton radius of the electron (see the charge sphere, Bohm and others back around 1930). It actually looks a lot like a string theory geometrically since the cross section of the twist is going to be asymptotically tiny, but the loops have a much bigger diameter than what string theories hypothesize for the electron.

One thing that occurred to me is that readers would wonder why I never talk about the theory with respect to the background vacuum energy states. A big part of how electrons and quarks behave, and the foundation of Quantum Field Theory calculations, is because of the interaction with the vacuum–the tendency to pull out virtual particle-anti-particle pairs. I am fully aware of this and need to explain how the unitary twist field fits in. Since the twist field is unitary, the vacuum state of this field has virtual particles everywhere in varying twist states, all of which point approximately to a local background direction unless there are particles (various twist geometries) in the region. There is nothing special about the local background direction, and in fact this will likely drift to various directions over large regions. The unitary aspect to this theory is what makes the vacuum states work–small variations, for example, jittering, of rotation twists will exist everywhere. There is no need for a particle, real or virtual, to have a vacuum “emergence from zero” because in the twist field theory there is no non-unitary magnitude. Conservation of charge and energy will require that these partial twists will form in pairs or triplets or more, and will normally just twist back in time to match the background twist direction–the virtual particles used in QFT calculations.

Only when circumstances in a system produce a full twist, such that both ends of the twist lock onto the unitary field background direction with a twist in between, can the virtual particle transform into a quantized real particle.

That is why I haven’t talked about it much–it’s just part of the theory and it just hadn’t hit my conscious that I needed to explain this. As I looked into quarks and how its mass is dominated by the interaction particle (gluon) rather than the rest-mass particle (quarks), I realized I’d better get that part of the twist field clarified here.

There is a marvelous physics archive paper arXiv:hep-ex/0606035v2 by S. Bethke on the history of quark knowledge. He actually wrote a physics paper that is clear to the average idiot like me–it’s well worth your time to check this out. Another very readable guide to the quark realm is the book called Quarks, The Stuff of Matter by Harald Fritzsch. He’s one of the big players in quark theory, but has written something with the intent of educating mortals what’s going on here. You know, I’m sure being one of these guys is not all tea and cupcakes, but I would have absolutely loved being on the forefront of discovery about our existence.

Unlike the electron, quark combinations such as the proton and neutron are unbelievably complex and I am straining to think that the unitary twist field theory would effectively model the quark-gluon pile in a proton. Nevertheless, protons and neutrons share some very important traits with electron/positrons and photons that still make me think something like the unitary twist field has to underlie it. First is the pointlike nature of quarks–matching the pointlike nature of electrons. Unitary field twists have an infinitesimal cross section, and the particle energies are definitely quantized, which is the very basis of the unitary twist field. A twist has to be quantized in order for the twist to be stable–only one full twist will survive in this field. The electron has only one possible diameter for its twist loop because of the relation between electrostatic and magnetic field components. Quarks interact electrostatically, magnetically, and via the strong force, (weak force too, but I confess to not having spent much time here) and must have two or three (or more) components (mesons, baryons, respectively), all of which will interact in incredibly complex ways. Using supercomputers and a lattice of field points, it’s possible to compute how quarks interact, but that’s no place for an amateur physicist like me, I’m thinking.

But it still seems like the unitary twist field has to be behind all of it. Why? Because just like electrons, quarks emerge from a background field. We get virtual quark-anti-quark pairs, and sometimes, in the right circumstances, these become real. So just what is it that only lets certain particles form out of the vacuum? Why can I pull two vastly different types of stable particle/antiparticles out of the vacuum that always have these specific masses and interactions? There’s got to be a simplifying commonality here. Yes, I admit to have trying to think the strong force is somehow the same as the electromagnetic force, that there is something special about quark/gluon clusters that makes it look different when it’s actually the same force. However, the reading I’m doing acknowledges no possibility of that–so I’ve got to think of how the unitary twist field theory might create the existence of a strong force. But this doesn’t change my original question–what is it about a vacuum field that allows *both* of these quantum particles to emerge? There’s got to be a common factor here, and I’m hoping the unitary twist field provides an answer…

Agemoz

Advertisements

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: