I thought more about the latest electron work recently in the news (http://http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46085). It is not real clear from the article summary, but essentially it is saying that they found that the electric dipole moment of an electron is as close to zero as they can measure. The summary says that that means that it is perfectly spherical, but actually I’m not sure that’s the right conclusion to draw–what it really means that there is no off-center distribution of charge. For instance, if you try to represent the electron as a pair of opposite charges, there will be a measurable electric moment which will respond to an electric field. A zero electric dipole moment means that from every angle the electron will respond identically to an electric field, there is no “unbalanced” or asymmetrical charge distribution. The experiment leaves a little wiggle room (it sets an upper limit for the possible moment value) but probably shows that the electron is either a perfect point charge or has a perfect spherical distribution of charge.

The reason I suspect this means the end for the unitary twist field, at least the part that says that the electron is a twist ring of field elements, is that a charged ring, even a perfect ring, will have an electric dipole moment–an asymmetric distribution of charge. In fact, it also likely means that any string theory, such as the recently touted M-theory, is likely to be wrong.

The only way out that I see is the fact that a unitary field twist ring is not a distributed charge. It is a ring of constant field twist, which in the far field is going to generate a constant charge effect no matter what angle of the applied field is applied (this can be seen by doing a volume integral on the ring twist elements). An electric dipole moment will get a non-uniform value if there are diffuse charge regions that can block in-line charge potentials. So–maybe a ring of twists theory might squeak by and still be valid, although I admit I’m dubious and suspect it’s time to throw in the towel on this theory. Nevertheless, the theory is the product of years of work and I shouldn’t give up until I’m sure it’s really dead. After all, other than wasting my own time, I shouldn’t be doing any harm–unlike most crackpots, I try to make it clear this is the work of an amateur and is worth what you paid for it.

What keeps me going is interesting little tidbits about the theory that make me say, oh, that’s why this is so. For example, one long-standing question I’ve had is about quantum oscillators–the field of quantum oscillators maps C, or equivalantly R2) onto every R3+T neighborhood (this is an example of a “Fock space”, which maps a complex value onto every R3 location). But a unitary twist field would map R3 onto every R3 location (you can point a field vector in three directions). This was one question that has long made me doubt the validity of the unitary twist field theory. However, I suddenly realized this morning that the unitary twist field theory does indeed actually map onto the same field as the quantum oscillator field. This is because while the theory uses a 3D vector field in R3+T, the theory requires a background field direction, thus removing a degree of freedom because the only twists possible and stable are those that return to the background field direction! I now see how the unitary twist field theory would derive U(1) of the Standard Model for electromagnetic fields.

If I weren’t so discouraged about the implications for the unitary twist field theory of that experiment on the electron’s lack of an electric dipole moment, I would have said this is a remarkable discovery! But with the whole theory cast into doubt, at this point, I am not so sure it’s anything more than an interesting factoid…

Agemoz

June 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

Really good post!