I’ve come to terms with the idea that if there’s any geometrical basis for particles and special relativity, the unitary field twist, with a discontinuity, is the best such basis. E=hv implies a 3D modulo construct, and a twist is really the only practical way to do this. If you assume that every particle with mass is formed with a physically self contained twist loop, two fascinating results fall out. First, the special relativity Lorentz transforms result–see what happens when you take a loop and move it at some significant fraction of the speed of light. The beta factor sqrt(1- v^2/c^2) is a direct result of uncoiling the rotating cylindrical twist loop–unrolling the cylinder will flatten out the loop into a right triangle hypotenuse, where one of the right triangle sides is the particle velocity v,the hypotenuse is the speed of light, and the third side is the loop radius, set in arbitrary units to 1. For the time dilation results to work, I interpret the time to complete a single cycle as an intrinsic clock of the particle. I’ve noted previously the other fascinating result, that a photon, represented by an unbounded twist (that is, one that moves in a straight line and thus is not confined to a region like a particle model) will always appear to have the same maximum speed regardless of the frame of reference (except for the degenerate case where the frame of reference exactly follows the path of the loop). This can be seen by placing an unmoving, but rotating, loop in one frame of reference. Now any other frame of reference, the loop will become a cylindrical spiral that obeys the beta relation apparent in the original frame of reference. Doing the computation for the maximum speed of such a loop in the new frame of reference will show an asymptotic limit for the apparent speed of the loop relative to a clock in the original frame of reference. Kind of hard to explain on this blog–you can try it out on some scratch paper. The assumptions are that the loop cycle time, whether a flat loop or extended out into a “slinky toy” like spiral, is determined in either frame of reference by the time a rotation completes. You will see that the apparent speed as measured by a clock in that frame of reference will always appear to be the speed that the loop cycles once in the stationary frame of reference (ie, the one moving with the particle). I love this result because it says that if a particle is a loop, stretching it out due to being in a different frame of reference means that the measured transit time lengthens, but the apparent cycle time of the loop increases by the same amount (remember that the cycle time of a cylindrical spiral is the time to return to the same angle of rotation in the cylinder, but the slower the spiral turns due to increased particle speed, the slower the apparent time to that particle in a stationary frame of reference. The net result is we can show that the apparent maximum speed of the particle is the same regardless of which frame of reference is used.

So there you are–a geometrical basis for twists to obey Lorentz transforms and a maximum speed.

As I mentioned, I’ve concluded that such a system of twists must have a field discontinuity to allow the twist to exist. This has complicated my attempt to model (simulate) a field twist, but I think I figured out how to do it. I’ll be working on this for a little while and will share the results.

Agemoz

PS, Some hater commented on my stuff here, laughing at it. Yes, I know, there’s considerable hubris thinking that I’ve solved the mysteries of the universe when all the genius physicists have yet to do so. Just so you know, I’m fully aware, I have done nothing worth anything, no amazing discoveries or such that is worthy of a paper to Journal of Physics. Nothing here, move along. I think I have some good ideas, but they are a dime a dozen until proven somehow with independent verification. Maybe I will discover something with this latest simulation, or with some sort of experimental verification, or maybe even some more thinking–but right now I know I have nothing. That’s OK–I have never pretended that I did, I’m just enjoying exploring ideas in a currently unknown area and thinking I’ve found some that seem to work. This isn’t about seeking fame for discovering something amazing to all–this is just one person’s fun quest to guess at what might be the right way to interpret what we now see.

## Leave a Reply