Some really exciting results from my simulation results of the Twist hypothesis! I have been simulating this for a while now, to recap: The twist theory posits (among many other things) that underlying the photon elements of an electromagnetic field is a unitary twist field. This unitary twist field is a direct (or mapped) result of the E=hv quantization of all particles. Photons are linear twists of the unitary field, whereas massive particles are self-contained twists, such as a ring for electrons/positrons. Quarks and other massive particles are posited to be other geometrical constructions. If this model is studied, one very interesting result is the correct representation of the special relativity space and time Lorentz transforms, where linear twists travel at a maximum, but constant, speed in all frames of reference–but all self-contained structures such as the electron ring must obey time and spatial dilation. The model correctly derives the beta dilation factor.

As a result of this work, I have put together a simulator to model the twist behavior in the hopes of verifying the existing corollaries to the twist theory, and also to see if more complex geometrical structures could be determined (say for quarks, although it is certain that the strong force would have to be accounted for somehow).

One of the results of the theory seemed to imply that a static linear twist should be possible, yet static photons do not exist in nature. I’m very excited to have the simulator show its first demonstration of why this happens! When I set up the simulator to do a static linear twist, I discovered (see previous posts) that the twist always self destructed by dissipation, and it took a lot of work to find out why. This will be easiest to show with this diagram:

The premise of the unitary twist theory is that E=hv particles can only be quantized geometrically in a continuous field system if particles exist in a localized background field direction have a fixed amplitude twist. The fixed amplitude (different from an EM field that allows any magnitude) prevents the quantized entity from dissipating, and the background direction enforces quantization of the twist–partial twists (virtual particles) are not stable and fall back to the background direction, whereas full twists are topologically stable since the ends are tied down to the background direction such that the twist cannot unwind. The frequency of the twist is determined by the twist width, shown in the diagram as omega.

Iteration of the linear twist in the simulation showed that, even though the unitary twist magnitude could not dissipate, the twist would vanish (see previous post pictures). At first, I thought this was an artifact of the lattice form of the simulation, I represented a continuous twist with a stepwise model. Further sims and analysis showed that the behavior was not a lattice effect (although it definitely interfered with the correct model behavior). As this diagram shows, I was able to demonstrate that a static twist cannot exist, it is not stable. What happens is that the twist width cannot be preserved over time because the ends experience normalizing forces to the background. This process, demonstrated in the simulation, ultimately causes the particle to approach a delta function, at which point the simulation twist model gets a single lattice node and eliminates it.

It would be a valid statement to say that the sim does not correctly model what happens at that final stage, but there’s no question in my mind of the validity of the narrowing of the twist width. There is only one way that the linear twist can be stable–if the light cones of each twist element are out of range of each other. This can only happen if the twist elements are moving at speed c.

I was disappointed at first, I didn’t have a working model of the twist field. But I didn’t see that the sim had handed me my first victory–the explanation of why there are no static photons.

Agemoz

Tags: electrons, quantization, quantum, special relativity, strings, theory

## Leave a Reply