In the process of working out the force computations, I’ve been able to winnow down the range of possible equations that will rule the components of the interaction. Note first that the sim I am doing is discrete while the theory is continuous, simply to allow a practical implementation of a computer sim. I can add as many nodes as I want to improve accuracy, but the discrete implementation will be a limitation of the approach I am taking. In addition, forces can be local neighborhood only since according to the theory there is only one element to the precursor field, you can’t somehow influence elements through or outside the immediate neighborhood of an element. The field is also incompressible–you cant somehow squeeze more twist elements into a volume.

To express a twist with all of the required degrees of freedom in R3 + I, I use the e^i/2Pi(theta t – k x) factor. Forces on these twists must be normal to the direction of propagation–you can’t somehow speed it up or slow it down. Forces cannot add magnitude to the field–in order to enforce particle quantization (for example E=hv) the theory posits that each element is direction only, and has no magnitude. I use the car-seat cover analogy–these look like a plane of wooden balls, which can rotate (presumably to massage or relieve tension on your back while driving), but there is no magnitude component. The theory posits that all particles of the particle zoo emerge from conservative variations and changes in the direction of twist elements. To enforce rotation quantization, it is necessary that there be a background rotation state and a corresponding restoring force for each element.

In the process of working out the neighborhood force for each field element, I made an interesting, if not astonishing, discovery. At first, it seemed necessary that the neighborhood force would have a 1/r^n component. Since my sim is discrete, I will have to add a approximation factor to account for distances to the nearest neighbor element. Electrostatic fields, for example, apply force according to 1/r^2. This introduces a problem as the distance between elements approaches zero, the forces involved go to infinity. This is particularly an issue in QFT because the Standard Model assumes a point electron and QFT computations require assessing forces in the immediate neighborhood of the point. To make this work, to remove the infinities, renormalization is used to cancel out math terms that approach infinity. Feynman, for example, is documented to have stated that he didn’t like this device, but it generated correct verifiable results so he accepted it.

I realized that there can be no central (1/r^n) forces in the unitary twist field (this is the nail in the coffin for trying to use an EM field to form soliton particles. You can’t start with an EM field to generate gravitational effects–a common newbie thought partly due to the central force similarity, and you can’t use an EM field to form quantized particles either). Central force fields always result from any granular quantized system of particles issued from a point source into Rn, so assuming forces have a 1/r^n factor just can’t work. The granular components don’t dissipate, after all, where does the dissipated element go? In twist theory, you can’t topologically make a twist vanish. Thus the approximation factor in the sim must be unitary even if the field element distance varies.

Then a powerful insight hit me–if you can’t have a precursor field force dependent on 1/r^n, you should not need to renormalize. I now make the bold assertion that if you need to renormalize in a quantized system, something is wrong with your model. And, of course, then I stared at what that means for QFT, in particular the assumption that the electron is a point particle. There’s a host of problems with that anyway–in the last post I mentioned the paradox of an electron ever capturing a photon if it is a point with essentially zero radius. Here, the infinite energies near the point electron or any charged point particle have to be managed by renormalization–so I make the outrageous claim that the Standard Model got this part wrong. Remember though–this blog is not about trying to convince you (the mark of a crackpot) but just to document what I am doing and thinking. I don’t expect to convince anyone of this, especially given the magnitude of this discovery. I seriously questioned it myself and will continue to do so.

The Unitary Twist Field theory does not have this problem because it assumes the electron is a closed loop twist with no infinite energies anywhere.

Agemoz

]]>This is a great first choice for a collision sim because in my mind there’s always been a mystery about photon/particle interactions. If the electron is really a point particle as the Standard Model posits, how can a photon that is many orders of magnitude larger always interact with one and only one electron, even if there are a gazillion electrons within one wavelength of the photon? The standard answer is that I’m asking the wrong or invalid question–a classical question to a quantum situation. To which I think, maybe, but quantum mechanics does not answer it, and I just get this sense that refusing to pursue questions like this denies progress in understanding how things work.

In twist theory there appears to be an elegant geometrical answer that I’m pretty sure the simulation will show–counting my chickens before they are in my hand, to be sure–the downfall of way too many bright-eyed physics enthusiasts. But as I’ve worked out before, the precursor twist field is an incompressible and non-overlapping twist field. If the electron is a closed loop of twists, and within the loop the twists revert back to the I direction (see previous posts for a little more detailed description), then any linear twist propagating through the loop will add a delta twist to some point in the interior of the loop. Since you cannot somehow overlap twists (there’s only one field here, you can’t somehow slide twists through each other. Each point has a specific twist value, unlike EM fields where you linearly combine distinct fields). As a result, the twist of the loop can unwind the linear twist going through it, causing the photon to disappear and the close loop will pick up the resulting linear twist momentum. This isn’t really a great explanation, so here’s a picture of what I think will happen. The key is the fact that the precursor field has one twist value for every point in R3. It’s an incompressible and unitary field–you cant have two twist values (or a linear combination–it’s unitary magnitude at every point!) at a given point, so the photon twists have to affect the twist infrastructure of the loop if it passes through the loop. It really will act a lot like a residue inside a surface, where doing a contour integral will exactly reflect the number of residues inside.

At least that’s what I think will happen–stay tuned. You can see why I chose this interaction as the first sim setup to try.

Agemoz

]]>I have been writing a C program but it was taking forever and I was bogging down on the UI and result display. So I took a look at the Unity gaming SDK and realized this might be a perfect way to get past that and quickly into theory implementation. It more than met my expectations!

CERN has nothing on me! Next up are Petavolt collisions! Well, not really, first I have a lot of model generation to do to truly represent the precursor field theory I’ve detailed in previous posts. In addition, the display is very coarse and needs to be refined–the cubes are nodes in discretized points on the twist. I want to get fancier but for now it’s pretty amazing to watch as the loop twists and turns. The funny and amazing thing is, though, I really could do a collision sim in a few hours. This infrastructure makes it very easy to set up interaction math and boundary conditions. Maybe my theory is hogwash, but this infrastructure isn’t–could I have finally made a usable contribution to science? If any of you are interested in this, send me a comment or email and maybe I’ll detail what I’m doing here. ]]>

Agemoz

]]>In fact, I wrote to several physicists and journals because to me the special relativity connection was as close as I could come to a proof that the idea was right. But here I discovered just how hard it is to sway the scientific community, and this became my first lesson in becoming a “real” scientist. Speculative new theories occupy a tiny corner in the practical lives of scientists, I think–the reality is much reading and writing, much step-by-step incremental work, and journals are extremely resistant to accept articles that might cause embarrassment such as the cold-fusion fiasco.

Back in my formative days for physics, sci.physics was the junk physics newsgroup and sci.physics.research was the real deal, a moderated newsgroup where you could ask questions and get a number of high level academic and research scientists to respond. Dr. John Baez of UC Riverside was probably one of the more famous participants–he should be for his book “Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity”, which is one of the more accessible texts on some of the knowledge and thinking leading to thinking about gravity. But on this newsgroup he was the creator of the Crackpot Index, and this more than anything else corrected my happy over-enthusiasm for new speculative thinking. It should be required reading for anyone considering a path in the sciences such as theoretical physics. Physicists 101, if you will–it will introduce you hard and fast to just how difficult it will be to be notable or make a contribution in this field.

I’m not 100% convinced, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, that there isn’t a place for speculative thinking such as mine, but this is where I discovered that a deep humility and skepticism toward any new thinking is required. You *must* assume that speculation is almost certainly never going to get anywhere with journal reviewers or academic people. Nobody is going to take precious time out of their own schedule to investigate poorly thought-out ideas or even good ideas that don’t meet an extremely high standard.

So, I even presented my idea to Dr. Baez, and being the kind and tolerant man he is, he actually took the time review what I was thinking at that time–has to be 20 years ago now! Of all the work I have done, none has been as conclusive to me as the connection to special relativity–but it did not sway him. I was sure that there had to be something to it, but he only said the nature of special relativity is far reaching and he was not surprised that I found some interesting properties of closed loops in a Lorentzian context–but it didn’t prove anything to him. Oh, you can imagine how discouraged I was! I wrote an article for Physical Review Letters, but they were far nastier, and as you can imagine, that’s when my science education really began.

But I want to now to present the special relativity connection to unitary twist theory. It still feels strongly compelling to me and has, even if the theory is forever confined to the dustbin of bad ideas in history, strongly developed my instinct of what a Lorentzian geometry means to our existence.

The geometry connection of unitary twist field theory to special relativity is simple–any closed loop representation of a particle in a Lorentzian systen (ie, a geometry that observes time dilation according to the Lorentz transforms) will geometrically derive the dilation factor beta sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2). All you have to do to make this work is to assume that the loop represention of a particle consists of a twist that is propagating around the loop at speed c, and the “clock” of this particle is regulated by the time it takes to go around the loop. While this generalizes to any topological closed system of loops, knots, and links (you can see why Dr. Baez’s book interested me), let’s just examine the simple ring case. A stationary observer looking at this particle moving at some speed v will not see a ring, but rather a spiral path such that the length of a complete cycle of the spiral will unroll to a right triangle. The hypotenuse of the triangle by the Pythagorean theorem will be proportionate to the square root of v^2 + c^2, and a little simple math will show that the time to complete the cycle will dilate by the beta value defined above.

When I suddenly realized that this would *also* be true in the frame of reference of the particle observing the particles of the original observer, a light came on and I began to work out a bunch of other special relativity connections to the geometry of the unitary twist theory. I was able to prove that the dilation was the same regardless of the spatial orientation of the ring, and that it didn’t matter the shape or topology of the ring. I saw why linear twists (photons) would act differently and that rest mass would emerge from closed loops but not from linear twists. I went even as far as deriving why there has to be a speed of light limit in loops, and was able to derive the Heisenberg uncertainty for location and momentum. I even saw a way that the loop geometry would express a gravitational effect due to acceleration effects on the loop–there will be a slight resistance due to loop deformation as it is accelerated that should translate to inertia.

You can imagine my thinking that I had found a lodestone, a rich vein of ideas of how things might work! But as I tried to share my excitement, I very quickly learned what a dirty word speculation is. Eventually, I gave up trying to win a Nobel (don’t we all eventually do that, and perhaps that’s really the point when we grow up!). Now I just chug away, and if it gives somebody else some good ideas, then science has been done. That’s good enough for me now.

Agemoz

]]>The trouble with inventing a theory like this is that the job is truly humongous. The number of details that have to be verified as correct is really beyond the reach of one person or even a team of people, so I’ve had to trudge on knowing that this whole thing will be laughed off in seconds by experienced theoreticians who spot a missing or wrong claim. This is definitely one of them, if I don’t provide a believable mechanism for quantum state superposition, nobody will bother to look.

So–I’ve spent some time thinking on this. I actually have enough worked out that I want to try a sim of the model, but then I thought–no, make sure quantum states can work with the model. Otherwise the sim will be a waste of time and probably not really even interesting. Probably the easiest and simplest quantum state superposition to think about is electron spin, which I’m going to take the liberty of modelling with a twist ring. There are two spin parameters in a twist ring, one of which is degenerate by rotation(*). To isolate the true degrees of freedom in a gauge invariant system, I will set the ring rotation direction as clockwise, for example, and then see just one degree of freedom in the axial twist direction along the rotation direction–it can be either clockwise or counterclockwise. I will call this the spin of the particle, either up or down.

Now, to specify a quantum state superposition, the particle spin can be either up or down or a linear combination of spin-up and spin-down. Does the unitary twist field theory precursor field allow this? I believe it is easy to say yes. Treat the loop as a transmission line with a discontinuity sheath surrounding the twist. The twist itself is a Fourier construction of standing waves that can encapsulate such a linear composition of the up and down spin. If the particle encounters a spin detector, an operator acts on the linear composition to filter the wave composition and resolve the spin state.

There’s my hand-wavy analysis, no proof by any stretch of the imagination. That is a chore that will have to wait. It looks viable to me, but I have so many other alligators in this swamp that this will have to do for now.

Agemoz

*Note that it’s only degenerate in R3 for purposes of this example. In reality, the R3 + I background state will be different for the two loop rotations, thus providing the required degrees of freedom for both spin and the particle/antiparticle duality.

]]>How I wish I could verify that particles have a twist and a discontinuity! Right now, I could be piddling my time away on useless thinking and have no way to verify if I’m even remotely on the right path. I’ve spent so much time thinking about this over the last 24 years or so–and suspect that my amateur efforts aren’t worth the time I’ve given them. I’m a classic Pinocchio story–how I wish I could be A Real Scientist! But I don’t have the university training (other than a year of quantum mechanics–went to a lecture once by R Feynman, who I could tell was an outstanding instructor among other things) nor university mentor contacts, and after a long (and well paying, just to count my blessings) engineering career, I don’t think I’m suddenly going to be a Real Physicist!

But you know what, I may not be the real deal, yet the thrill of discovery has still been available to me as I come upon new ideas or new knowledge. How cool is that–and a gift I should not take for granted given that those of you that have gone through the real training paid dearly in time and struggle to understand this material.

That just happened!

Here’s my story–The major work I’ve been doing right now is further constraining how the unitary (magnitude-free) orientable vector field could form twists, either linear or closed loops. If this field model works, we have a workable environment that could produce our particle zoo. I’ve been uncovering the necessary requirements and constraints on what this field would have to be in the last several posts.

Several new restrictions have become clear. One very important one is the twist loop must have an I orientation at the center (the I dimension of R3 + I is the background state). If it does not, it would have to have an asymmetric vector angle distribution and that would have to make the particle’s soliton unstable. You can see this by asking what symmetric solutions exist for a twist in R3, and the answer is none. Since curving twists occupy all three dimensions of R3, the only orientation possible that doesn’t point in a specific R3 direction is in the I direction, otherwise the loop cannot be symmetric, the center has to point in a R3 direction, giving it an unintended moment. I suppose it’s possible that you could have an unstable particle center pointing in some linear combination of the R3 basis vectors, but the chance for that directionality to show up in an experiment or causing some sort of a non-zero moment is extremely high. This is really unlikely to be true since magnetic and physical moments of subatomic particles have been done to extraordinary precision and show no moment.

In order for a twist to curve in a consistent way, there has to be a normal force. the background state force can’t be used here since the twist and the curvature reside in R3. The only other force we have in this theory is the neigborhood effect force (see previous posts), which has the path of the twist pushing through a tilted vector field. As I mentioned, for symmetry reasons there has to be a central I direction vector, and the loop twist itself has to be in R3. Similarly, a linear twist has the ends tied to the I direction, but the twist itself is in R3. The problem is, I can’t find a clean way to motivate twist curvature for the closed loop.

Here’s the issue–this tilting vector orientation (to I) I’ve been talking about would indeed cause curvature, but why would a ring have tilting vector orientation at the circumference of the loop? The tilting vector orientation to a central I vector is cool because its effect will be symmetric for all of R3, so closed loops should be possible regardless of translation or rotation of the loop. But when you look closer, it’s not clear that there will be a tilting vector orientation at the loop. Yes, there will indeed be a central I direction vector–but for any angular slice of the loop (i.e. a slice represented by an angle who’s vertex is at the center of the loop) there will also be another I direction vector outside the loop–remember, the loop is surrounded by a background state I. For any delta slice of the loop, the I orientation will be symmetric at the center and outside the loop and thus there will be no significant tilt force at the loop circumference.

Admittedly, there is only one point region with a central I directed vector on the inside, versus a whole ring of I direction vectors on the outside, so a hand-wavy guess says there will be a second order effect that will indeed tilt the ring vectors inwards. Having a large number of I direction vectors on one side and only one point on the inside would imply faster recovery to the I direction on the outside, thus implying more tilt on the inside. But right now that guess seems weak–and then a blazing insight suddenly hit me.

Twists have to be surrounded by a discontinuity sheath. In the case of the linear twist, the sheath is a cylinder, with I direction tie-downs at each end. In the case of the ring, the sheath is a torus. There is no way to break through that sheath (up to the energy of the twist), so as long as the twist cycle time (the E part of E=hv) cannot change, there is no need to introduce centrifugal forces to confine the size of the ring. I’ve been trying too hard to solve the wrong problem! What a beautiful insight! This whole twist theory may be fake (not a model of reality), but still yields some exciting and fun insights as to how maybe it could work! The funny thing is how much my work is starting to look a lot like the tubes of string theory…

Agemoz

]]>For example, it’s obvious to everyone that an EM field can’t be the basis for quantization or solitons–lots of historical efforts that many have looked at and ruled out. Twists in a background state is a geometrical definition of quantization. Lattice and computer sim schemes are ruled out (in my mind, anyway) because I think there should be observable ether-like consequences. Adding an I direction to the R3 of our existence is necessary since twists in R3 could not provide the symmetries required for guage invariance and exchange particle combinations. The I dimension, which is merely an element pointing direction that does not lie in a physical real axis of R3, enables twist quantization, and unlike photon ring theories such as DeBroglie’s, can enable twist trajectory curvature–a necessity to allow closed loop solutions that confine particles to a finite volume. There are many more necessary constraints on this precursor field, but the most problematic is the need for field discontinuities. Any twist in a unitary orientable vector field has to be surrounded by a sheath where the twist disconnects from the background state pointing in the I direction.

Requiring discontinuities needed for enabling field twists is an ugly complication. We know already that any quantizing field theory underlying particle creation/annihilation cannot be linear since dissipation destroys particle stability–solitons cannot be formed. Almost by definition this means that the field has to have discontinuities, but mathematically describing such a field becomes very problematic. Obviously, such a field will not be differentiable since differentiability, at least finite differentiability, implies linearity.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the precursor field has two connections that act like forces. From these connections arise linear and curving twists, exchange bosons of fields, and so on. The first force acts only on a field element, and provides a restoring force to the background state. The second, neighboring affect force, provides an influence on immediately adjacent neighboring elements of the precursor field. The first force should not be conceptually complex–it just means that, barring any other effect, a field element vector will return to the background state.

The second force is more complex. I see at least two options how this force might work. It should be obvious this force cannot be proportionate to the dimensional rate of change of rotation because discontinuities would make this force infinite. In fact, to keep a particle from dissociating, there must be an adhesion to nearby elements–but NOT across a discontinuity. Otherwise, the force due to the discontinuity would be far greater than the force holding the elements of the twists, where each end is bound to the background state (or to the 0 and 2Pi phase rotation connection of the closed loop twist). If that happens the forces across the discontinuity would be far greater that the force tying down the twist ends to the background state and our particle, whether linear or closed loop, would immediately be shredded into nothing.

The other possibility for the second force is to make it only proportionate to the timewise rate of change of adjacent elements (sort of like induction in magnetic fields), but again, the discontinuity sheath would bring in potential infinities. Right now this approach does not show promise at all for a bunch of reasons.

I think the only viable description of the neighborhood force would be an adhesion to nearby states who’s orientation is the same or very slightly different. That is, the angular delta from nearby elements causes a force to make that delta 0, but if there is a rip or tear then no force occurs). An important side question is whether the neighborhood connection is stronger than the restoring to I force. It’s not clear to me right now if it matters–I think field quantization works regardless of which is stronger.

This finally gives me enough description that I can mathematically encode it into a simulation. I realize that just about all of you will not accept a theory with this sort of discontinuity built into every single particle. Like you, I really am quite skeptical this is how things work. I hope you can see the logic of how I got here, the step-by-step thinking I’ve done, along with going back and seeing if I overlooked a different approach (eg, more dimensions, string theory, etc) that would be more palatable. But that hasn’t happened, I haven’t seen any other schemes that could work as well as what I have so far.

Agemoz

]]>The proof is simple. If the two ends of the twist are bound to the background state, but there is a field twist in between, it must be possible to create some other path connected to the endpoints that does not have a twist, since the background state must completely surround the twist path–see the diagram below. But this is impossible, because in a continuous system it must be topologically possible to move the paths close to each other such that an epsilon volume contains both paths yet has no discontinuities. Since this field is unitary and orientable (I like to use the car seat cover analogy, which is a plane of twistable balls for infinitesimal field elements), there is no “zero” magnitude possible. Somewhere in the epsilon volume there must be a region where the field orientations show a cut analogous to a contour integral cut.

It doesn’t matter how many dimensions the field has, if I’ve thought this through correctly, twists always require a discontinuity in a unitary orientable vector field.

This is a relief in most ways–otherwise this whole scheme falls apart if twists can dissipate. The only way a twist can unravel is in a collision with another twist of the opposite spin or some other similar geometrical construct.

Agemoz

]]>Up to now, the concept seemed to be workable, but I always have struggled with the field twist concept. I knew that in R3, you cannot have a field twist without a field discontinuity along the twist axis, which really caused me to doubt the veracity of the unitary twist theory. I know of no instance in the real universe where there’s a true discontinuity–even in black holes. To have our existence form from particles made of twists and field discontinuities has always seemed unlikely to the extreme–I have several times nearly abandoned this work because non-analytic fields seemed non-intuitive, non-differentiable, and non-geometrical.

However, when I tried to detail the specific mathematical possibilities for describing a curved twist in the R3 + I field, I discovered something quite surprising. Every mathematician probably knew this already–but when vector fields are described in four dimensions (R3 + I), axial twists can form in three of the four dimensions and not cause a discontinuity. The I orientation gives the field surrounding the twist an extra degree of freedom that removes the necessity for a discontinuity.

However, this does cause a different problem with the unitary twist theory. We all know that trying to form a soliton out of photons (an EM closed loop solution) is impossible because nothing can curve a photon into a ring. A big problem with trying to describe quantized photons out of EM waves is the dissipation problem, why doesn’t a quantized photon just radiate into nothing, thus losing the apparent quantization and conservation of energy? Currently, Standard Model physics doesn’t really provide an answer to that, but in unitary twist field theory work, I had determined that the discontinuities in a precursor field had acted as a lock that prevents unraveling of the particle, and thus may be necessary for particle stability. You can’t unravel a quantized twist in R3 (causing a particle loop or linear twist to disappear) because you would have to somehow resolve the discontinuity to the background state–and that definitely can’t be done in R3. But in R3 + I, there is no discontinuity required, and thus I think any twist configuration could disappear, thus potentially destroying the energy present in the particle.

So–which is it? We need R3 plus I to achieve quantization and closed loop twists–but R3 + I means we don’t have to have discontinuities–a far more realistic and likely representation of our universe via a unitary vector field, but with the disadvantage that what now enforces quantization? Are there solutions in R3 + I that still depend on a discontinuity for stability and conservation of energy?

Looks like more study and thinking is needed.

I’ll bet there’s a few scientists out there wondering if I could achieve something a lot more significant if I’d put all this time and energy into something worthwhile!

Agemoz

]]>