Hah! You read that title and thought you were getting a socially interesting topic rather than the boring amateur physics I usually post about! But I’m not all mean, let me help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_%28series%29

OK, now that all those guys are gone, let’s talk physics. Hello? Anyone left? Guess not. Well, then I can make outrageous crackpot claims and no one will care.

Last week, Prof Jones started in on reviewing the Unitary Twist Field idea. He’ll be back, but today I want to address a crucial question about unitary twist fields. The basic premise is built on a geometrical model of quantization using E=hv. I see three principles that create an underlying geometry for EM fields that gives us both quantization and special relativity (see many previous posts). These three principles are:

1: The E=hv quantization for fields and particles is enforced by a rotation in a vector field, that is, a twist.

2: To ensure that only single complete rotations can occur, the field must have a local background state that the rotation returns to.

3: To ensure that the energy of the rotation cannot dissipate, the vector field must be unitary. Every field element must have constant magnitude but can rotate in 3D+T spacetime.

I have figured out that the special relativity relations hold in such a geometry–there will always be a maximum possible observable speed c, and the Lorentz equations for space and time will also hold. The correct number of degrees of freedom for photons (linear twists) and electron/positrons (ring twists) exist. I’ve found that the uncertainty relation will hold for particles in this system. I’ve found a bunch of other things that appear to match reality as well. Yes, I am guilty of massaging this theory to get the facts to fit, but I’m doing the best to do it without glossing over any obvious fallacies–and when I encounter one, I adjust the theory. I keep waiting for one to really kill off the theory, but so far that hasn’t happened. However here is one that could kill it:

How does the theory explain attraction and repulsion of charged particles?

Real QFT theory, unlike my la-la land unitary twist field theory, says that this is mediated by exchanges of photons. On the surface, this has a momentum problem because there is no way a particle can emit something with momentum in such a way that a second distant particle *approaches* the emitting particle. That violates conservation of momentum and hence conservation of energy. The mathematically derived QFT solution uses virtual photons to have the field around the second particle change in such a way that the particle moves toward the first–but this seems disengenuous to me–contrived, just as much or worse as my theory. Nevertheless, the math works and that is enough for real physicists.

However, I am positing a new theory, somewhat outrageous in its claims, and thus demanding outrageously thorough verification. Unitary Twist Field theory must have a (hopefully better) explanation how attraction and repulsion would work. This issue is part of the more general issue of electron-photon interactions, and there are a whole huge array of sub-issues that come with this one simple interaction. For example, photons of all frequencies (energies) and polarizations can interact with an electron, so any geometrical solution must not assume any preferred orientation of the electron moment or photon polarization or external electrostatic or magnetic field (ie, nearby sets of photons). If the electron is one of many in a region, and a low energy photon that is far “larger” than the array hits the array, how is it that exactly one and only one electron absorbs the photon? I could go on and on, but let’s zero in on this attraction issue. How do I claim that would work in unitary twist field theory?

Actually, let’s ask the attraction question in a slightly different way so you can see clearly what the dilemma is for real-world physics theory. QFT says that attraction/repulsion of charged particles is mediated by exchanges of photons. Arrays of photons form an EM field that causes charged particles to change their path of motion in space-time. This means that in a given frame of reference, a photon must be an element of either a magnetic field or an electrostatic field. Here’s the question:

What’s different about the photon generating an electrostatic field and a magnetic field?

Real-world theory says that photons are oscillating electrostatic and magnetic fields–a rather unsatisfactory way to describe a photon because it is self-referential. Electrostatic and magnetic fields are themselves composed of photons. Nevertheless, the math works, so let’s ignore that for now. However, referring to the question about what is different, photons have only one degree of freedom, polarization. There is no anti-particle for photons, it is its own anti-particle. Not a lot to work with here! So–what is a “magnetic” photon, and what is an “electrostatic” photon? Or is there something magic about how the photons are arranged as a group that explains the field property? And don’t forget, this is in one particular frame of reference! Go to a different frame and the field state *changes* from electrostatic to magnetic or vice-versa.

Unitary Field Twist theory has a very novel explanation. Let’s wait for the next post to see it.

Agemoz

Tags: charge, electrons, photons, quantum, relativity, twist theory

## Leave a Reply