After that last discovery, described in the previous post, I got to a point where I wondered what I wanted to do next. It ended the need in my mind to pursue the scientific focus described in this blog–I had thought I could somehow get closer to God by better understanding how this existence worked. But then came the real discovery that as far as I could see, it’s turtles all the way down, and my thinking wasn’t going to get me where I wanted to go.

So I stopped my simulation work, sat back and wondered what’s next for me. It’s been maybe 6 months now, and while I still think I was right, I miss the fun of thinking about questions like why is there a particle zoo and whether a continuous field could form such a zoo. While I don’t sense the urgency of the study anymore, I do think about the problem, and in the recent past have made two discoveries.

One was finding a qualitative description of the math required to produce the field vector twist I needed for my Unitary Field Twist theory, and the second was a way to find the available solutions. The second discovery was major–it allowed me to conceptualize geometrically how to set up simulations for verification. The problem with working with continuous vector fields required by the twist theory is that solutions are described by differential equations that are probably impossible to solve analytically. Sometimes new insights are found by creating new tools to handle difficult-to-solve problems, and to that end I created several simulation environments to attempt numerical computations of the twist field. Up to now, though, this didn’t help finding the available solutions.

What did help was realizing that the base form of the solutions produce stable solutions when observing the 1/r(t)^3 = 1/r(t)^2 relation–the relation that develops from the vector field’s twist-to-transformation ratio. Maxwell’s field equations observe this, but as we all know, this is not sufficient to produce stable particles out of a continuous field, and thus cannot produce quantization. The E=hv relation for all particles led me to the idea that if particles were represented by field twists to some background state direction, either linear (eg, photons) or closed loops, vector field behavior would become quantized. I added a background state to this field that assigns a lowest energy state depending on the deviation from this background state. The greater the twist, the lower the tendency to flip back to the background state. Now a full twist will be stable, and linear twists will have any possible frequency, whereas closed loops will have restricted (quantized) possibilities based on the geometry of the loop.

For a long time I was stuck here because I could see no way to derive any solutions other than the linear solution and the ring twist, which I assigned to photons and electrons. I did a lot of work here to show correct relativistic behavior of both, and found a correct mass and number of spin states for the electron/positron, found at least one way that charge attraction and repulsion could be geometrically explained, found valid Heisenberg uncertainty, was able to show how the loop would constrain to a maximum velocity for both photons and electrons (speed of light), and so on–many other discoveries that seemed to point to the validity of the twist field approach.

But one thing has always been a problem as I’ve worked on all this–an underlying geometrical model that adds quantization to a continuous field must explain the particle zoo. I’ve been unable to analytically or iteratively find any other stable solutions. I needed a guide–some methodology that would point to other solutions, other particles. The second discovery has achieved this–the realization that this twist field theory does not permit “crossing the streams”. The twists of any particle cannot cross because the 1/r(t)^3 repulsion factor will grow exponentially faster than any available attraction force as twists approach each other. I very suddenly realized this will constrain available solutions geometrically. This means that any loop system, connected or not, will be a valid solution as long as they are topologically unique in R3. Immediately I realized that this means that links and knots and linked knots are all valid solutions, and that there are an infinite number of these. And I immediately saw that this solution set has no morphology paths–unlike electrons about an atom, you cannot pump in energy and change the state. We know experimentally that shooting high energy photons at a free electron will not alter the electron, and correspondingly, shooting photons at a ring or link or knot will not transform the particle–the twists cannot be crossed before destroying the particle. In addition, this discovery suggests a geometrical solution to the experimentally observed strong force behavior. Linked loops modelling quarks will permit some internal stretching but never breaking of the loop, thus could represent the strong force behavior when trying to separate quarks. And, once enough energy were available to break apart quarks, the resulting particles could not form free quarks because these now become topologically equivalent to electrons.

My next step is to categorize the valid particle solutions and to quantify the twist field solutions, probably by iterative methods, and hopefully eventually by analytic methods.

There’s no question in my mind, though–I’ve found a particle zoo in the twist field theory. The big question now is does it have any connection to reality…

Agemoz

Tags: electron, particle zoo, qft, quantum, quantum theory, twist ring, twist theory, twists quantization, vector field

## Leave a Reply