I had decided (in the last post) that the model I was using couldn’t be right for several reasons in spite of some promising sim results. But upon thinking about it, I realized I was a little too hasty–I discovered a way that a potential (scalar) function could work in accelerating a twist ring in spite of the orientation problem and the curvature problem. This is an important question because it gets at the heart of why a particle would move due to EM fields. Conventional theory just asserts the Lorentz force laws, and this works under all relativistic situations. Conventional theory also says that the electron is an immeasurably small particle. I have worked out that the twist field particle, which would not be immeasurably small, shows that as it is accelerated relativistically, it stretches to approach the behavior of a linear twist–asymptotically approaching radius size zero. My hypothesis is that scattering experiments make the electron appear to be infinitely small because of this stretching. I do have to admit that this experimental result is the chief reason why other physicists discount any electron theories that require non-point like models.

Anyway, back to the sim conclusions–I’ve been trying to create a hypothesis as to why it moves as it does with the twist field theory, and created my simulation environment to test the hypothesis. I needed to know how a particle knows which way to move when there is one or more nearby sources, and I need it to work right regardless of relativistic behavior.

A big question is whether the particle as a twist ring would sense a variation of field magnitude, or whether the field has to be a vector and the particle senses which way to move based on this vector (which would be a vector sum if there was more than one source). The scalar field is preferable because then motion can result from the potential function, but I had thought that the orientation problem as well as the curvature problem of negative fields (see previous post) meant that the twist field ring would have to respond to a vector field, that the particle would have to accelerate independent of the orientation. I also think the stretching of the ring in a relativistic situation might not hold up to correct behavior, but the scalar field is more likely to work than the vector field (simpler–fewer complications in different scenarios).

However, I realized that all of these reasons for thinking the twist sim model are wrong are not all-encompassing. There’s a way around them, which means I have to check those out. First, the negative field situation, which uses curvature analysis to show a paradox (stronger curvature for a field component that is on the far side of the ring). I had done the math and things worked correctly, but had reasoned that the math couldn’t be right because it implied a force that didn’t decay with distance. Now I realize the math is right, because there are three components that add to create the normal acceleration that determines the local curvature of the ring. The end result of this sum is that while a weaker far-side field cannot induce more curvature, a cancelling out of part of the sum of the near-side acceleration caused by the negated field would result in *less* acceleration there and would achieve the same acceleration (as the far-field stronger field) for source particles that attract. The sim was correct, I just wasn’t drawing the right conclusion.

Secondly, I realized that the orientation problem may cancel itself out. I’ve reasoned that since some orientations cause every point on the twist ring to see exactly the same field, so a solution that depends on the particle sensing the delta field cannot work in that case, and thus invalidates that solution as a general one. But it is possible that the potential is sensed whether or not the delta field is sensed. There has to be different behavior between a constant potential field and a sloping potential. If the orientation problem is real, then there would be no difference in what the particle sensed from source particles and what it would sense if there were no source particles. The field component would be the same in the local neighborhood in either case and there would be no information available that would indicate where the particle would move to. But a solution that has acceleration also due to potential alone, regardless of a change in potential, would work–kind of a switching between normal and tangental effects. I will pursue this more–this idea isn’t flushed out yet.

If the delta potential *is* sensed, then this means that particles like the electron must have non-zero size, otherwise the delta field that the particle sees would still be flat. Then the only information where the sources were would come from a directional component resulting from the vector sum of source fields at that point (where the ring is located). Current experiment appears to show that the base electron has no size, which means it cannot sense potential across the twist ring. In addition, the notion that an electron is imeasurably small has a real problem with Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. It is fundamental to the twist ring theory that the electron does have physical size, the Lorentz transforms arise from that, and the E=hv quantization of the ring depends on that. One way or the other, a determination has to be made whether we have a scalar or vector field inducing motion. The sim model I have now depends on a scalar field (potential) and is qualitatively correct.

So, in summary–the question of whether motion results from travel through a potential is still possible–and unresolved. More work ahead.

Agemoz

Tags: quantization, simulation, twist ring, twist theory, vector field

## Leave a Reply