I have continued to think a lot about the unitary field twist theory (in spite of the recent electron electrostatic moment results). I still think that the foundation of the theory is valid–to quickly review, the theory builds on the principle that E=hv specifies quantization of all particles at a given frequency. A photon can have any possible frequency, but every other aspect is fixed, such as magnitude, kinetic energy/momentum, and so on. I’ve based the theory on the assumption that the photons and other particles can emerge spontaneously from a continuous field. This has basis in QFT since it accurately describes particle interactions as functions of all possible combinations of emerging real and virtual particles. The same field that brings forth a photon of any frequency but fixed proportionate energy also appears to permit emergence of electron and quark particle-antiparticle pairs. This to me clearly indicates a continuous field (primarily because emergent photons can have any frequency, implying a continuum of possible emerging energies).

The only way I can see a continuous field produce a stable quantized entity is if a complete 2-Pi rotation field twist occurs within a background of constant amplitude. Such a twist will be topologically stable if the continuous field has constant amplitude (that is, a unitary vector field) with the right set of assumptions about being analytic and that there is a force that restores to the background field direction. I am assuming that this field is the underlying structure behind the electromagnetic field, and thus these twists exert a 1/r^3 central force, which can be shown to yield a soliton ring that has the mass and energy of an electron. In addition, such a ring gives rise to the special relativity Lorentz transforms, because the path of a ring moving at velocity gives a spiral. This spiral can be unwound into a right triangle and shown to yield the sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) time and distance factor (the beta of the Lorentz transforms). There are many other confirming computations that seem to point to the validity of the thinking behind the unitary field twist theory.

In such a theory, the twist is quantized because only a full 2-Pi rotation is possible–a fractional rotation cannot exist in the background field, and integer multiples of rotations have no connecting force and so can disperse into single twists. These twists are only stable if in a ring (or possibly more complex geometries, but must be spatially confined). Photons moving at c can be represented by linearly propagating twists.

Just like any other certified crackpot, I just don’t want to let go of the clarity and computational confirmation that the theory provides. So, I have chosen to put the zero electrostatic moment question aside, and think about another question.

If this theory is true, it seems like it should provide some insight into the problem of electrostatic charge attraction and repulsion. QFT says that these forces are mediated by photon exchanges. The problem is that if a system of opposite point charges, for example an electron and a positron, exists at some distance r between them, momentum doesn’t appear to be conserved in the attracting case. QFT computations should show that somehow this mathematically works–I’m studying this and maybe I’ll soon understand. I’m guessing that in QFT, the photons are dumped into the field in such a way as to affect the aggregate field behavior on the receiving particle. But in the meantime, I’ve been wondering if the unitary field twist theory could provide some insight.

The most interesting question to me is this: if we try to separate the system into three parts, the electron, the photons representing the electrostatic field, and the positron, what is different about the photons than if both particles were electrons? Yes, I know, the standard answer is that you can’t separate out the system in those three parts, shut up and calculate, the math works out (I’m assuming that is what I will find when I study QFT in more detail). You see my point, though–if the force is mediated in both cases by photons, the receiving particle must get photons that are somehow different depending on whether the sending particle (the one generating the initial electrostatic field) has positive or negative charge. How can photons carry this information when they themselves are not charged? What is different about the photons, or perhaps the aggragate, in the two cases?

In the case of the unitary field twist theory, it happens to have a degree of freedom that would explain what is different. As I mentioned previously in many posts, photons are represented by a linear path field twist where the twist axis vector is normal to the direction of travel (see the bicycle wheel post, think of the twist visualized as a bicycle wheel in line with the axis of travel–but remember that the twist vector is a direction only, it has no physical length). This system has the required degree of freedom to represent the polarization of light, the angle of the wheel on the axis relative to some fixed angle. But it has another degree of freedom, a rather clever one, I think–it can spin either clockwise or counterclockwise relative to the direction of travel. The receiving particle will have no knowledge of the charge of the sending particle, but can distinguish between a particle that twists forward in the direction of travel, or backwards.

If you are visualizing this correctly, I think your first response should be, wait a minute–the two aren’t unique since one is just the 180 degree polarized version of the second! And I would say, that’s what I thought at first–but remember that the unitary field twist exists and is quantized within a background field. This is what provides the base orientation for the rotation direction. You can have a full 2-Pi range of polarized photons from a negatively charged particle creating a negative electrostatic field, or a full 2-Pi range of polarized photons from a positively charged field. There is no overlap when using the unitary field twist model.

OK, so we have the required degrees of freedom in the photon spray that represents the quantized electrostatic field from a charged particle. Why does the receiving particle experience a force? How could the unitary field twist theory resolve the apparent contradiction of unconserved momentum if the particles are attracted to each other? How does this match up with the path integral approach of QFT? And can we quantitively compute just how much force will be created?

I’ll write more soon.

Agemoz

## Leave a Reply