An exciting day! I found a better working environment for sims, and very quickly was able to get some elementary particle sims up and running. I like to think I finally actually did something noteworthy by creating an easy to use infrastructure that allows me to investigate and test mathematical concepts such as the unitary twist field theory that are far too difficult to solve analytically, even with simplifying assumptions. If I had chosen physics as a career path, one major area for contribution is setting up new environments or mathematical tools that allow others to build and test theories.

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.

## Sim Infrastructure in Place

June 2, 2017## Special Relativity and Unitary Twist Field Theory–Addendum

February 2, 2017If you read my last post on the special relativity connection to this unitary twist field idea, you would be forgiven for thinking I’m still stuck in classical physics thinking, a common complaint for beginning physics students. But the importance of this revelation is more than that because it applies to *any* curve in R3–in particular, it shows that the composite paths of QFT (path integral paradigm) will behave this way as long as they are closed loops, and so will wave functions such as found in Schrodinger’s wave equation. In the latter case, even a electron model as a cloud will geometrically derive the Lorentz transforms. I believe that what this simple discovery does show is that anything that obeys special relativity must be a closed loop, even the supposedly point particle electron. Add in the quantized mass/charge of every single electron, and now you have the closed loop field twists to a background state of the unitary field twist theory that attempts to show how the particle zoo could emerge.

Agemoz

## Special Relativity and Unitary Twist Theory

January 30, 2017I’ve been working diligently on the details of how the quantizing behavior of a unitary twist vector field would form loops and other topological structures underlying a particle zoo. It has been a long time since I’ve talked about its implications for special relativity and the possibilities for deriving gravity, but it was actually the discovery of how the theory geometrically derives the time and space dilation factor that convinced me to push forward in spite of overwhelming hurdles to convincing others about the unitary twist theory approach.

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

## Quantum State Superposition in the Precursor Field

January 1, 2017I’ve been continuing to work on what a field would have to look like if it were the underlying mechanism for the particle zoo and force fields. One thing I haven’t discussed that will be noticed instantly by anyone who studies physics–this precursor field must allow quantum state superposition. I’ve so far posted a geometrical set of constraints, but I’ve always had an awareness that the model is incomplete–or won’t work at all–if I can’t provide some means for state superposition.

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.

## Constraints on a Twist Field Loop–Big New Insight!

December 30, 2016I’ve been working out the geometry of what a twist field loop in a background state would look like. At the same time, my confidence in this field’s quantization model has increased. I can see clearly that any geometric scheme to limit particle mass/sizes has to use an orientable twist field with a background state. This provides a very clear and simple path to quantization–a field orientation tends toward the background state, thus forcing a twist to only have a fixed integer number of rotations. I really feel like this is the only simple way to model our observed quantization such as E=hv–but I have absolutely no clue how to prove it.

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

## Precursor Field Forces

December 18, 2016It looks clear now (see previous posts) that the precursor field (my underlying field proposal that is hypothesized to give rise to the particle zoo and EM and other fields) has to have a discontinuity to enable twists. This is great for quantization as mentioned in the previous post, but is really ugly for the math describing the field. Could nature really work this way? I’m dubious, but all of my analysis seems to show this is the only way, I’ve only gotten here because I have seen no other paths that appear to work.

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

## Nope: Precursor Field With a Background State Has to be Discontinuous

December 15, 2016In the last post, I had come to the conclusion that the proposed R3 + I precursor field that would give rise to the particle zoo and EM and other fields could have twists and not have a discontinuity. This posed a problem, however, since quantization of a unitary twist field depends on the twist not being able to dissipate–that the discontinuity provides a “lock” that ensures particle stability over time. Further study has revealed that the extra I dimension does NOT topologically enable a continuous field that could contain twists.

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

## Precursor Field Does Not Have to be Discontinuous

December 3, 2016In trying to ferret out the properties of a precursor field that would give rise to the particle zoo and EM fields and so on, I had been working out just what this field would look like if it could form a loop. I have so far determined that it would have to reside in a orientable, unitary R3 + I vector field, the same dimensionality as the quantum oscillator field, and that to achieve E=hv quantization, quanta would take the form of twists in a background state pointing in the I direction. I figured out that a twist would curve in R3 if it formed a loop around a central background state region, because regardless of the loop topology in R3, it would always pass through a field orientation tilt toward the central I background region.

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

## A Promising Precursor Field Geometry

November 29, 2016I’ve been trying to find a geometrical description of how a unitary field twist could curve. If my hypothesis for the particle zoo arising from a precursor field is correct, the precursor field has to have a number of constraints. I’ve described what I know so far in depth in previous posts–here’s a summary of some of the basic requirements:

a: The precursor field cannot be an EM field with some sort of quantization added to it. The precursor field has to give rise to EM fields (and particles) but it has to be a continuous vector field with no magnitude (orientable only).

b: This field resides in R3 + I (same as the quantum oscillator spacetime) where quantization is achieved via twists that return to a background state pointing in the I direction.

c: There must be two connections built into the precursor field–a restoring force to I, and some kind of angular momentum transfer to neighboring field elements. This transfer force cannot be physical, otherwise field twists would not be possible since twists require a field discontinuity.

d: Field twists can be linear (eg photons) or confined to a finite space in the form of loops or knots or linked combinations of both.

e: There must be some means for a twist propagation to curve (otherwise the loop twists are not possible. I have investigated in detail various mechanisms within the R3 + I space, and believe I see a possibility enabled by the restoring force to the I dimension orientation.

The huge overwhelming problem with this hypothesis is that we appear to have zero evidence for such a precursor field or a background state or the two force connections I’ve described, the restoring force and the neighborhood connection force. I trudged forward with this anyway, knowing no-one out there would give this concept a second’s thought. I searched for possibilities in R3 + I where a loop twist could form and be stable, and for quite a while couldn’t find anything that made any sense.

I’ll tell you, I almost threw in the towel thinking this is a stupid quest. No evidence for a precursor field, no self-sustaining loop geometries that I could see, and experimental physics says any loop solution has to be too small to measure–a basic monkey-wrench in the whole unitary twist idea. I thought a lot, I’m just a dumb crackpot that doesn’t even have it wrong.

Yet something in the back of my mind says to me–when you look at the big picture, the particle zoo has to have a reductionist solution. For this existence to arise from nothing, there has to be some kind of field that gives rise to stable clumps we know as particles. For reasons I’ve discussed in previous posts, this can’t be some sort of computer simulation, nor can there be a creating entity. This all has to arise from nothing, I think–and from a deductive perspective, to me that means a single field must underlie particle formation. I’ve been able to come up with a number of constraints that this field has to have. I keep coming back to not seeing evidence for it, so I feel like I’m wandering around in a sea of ideas with no ability to confirm or deny any intermediate details of how things work. I see no realistic possibility that I could convince somebody this would work, I can’t even convince myself of that. Yet–there has got to be something. I have faith that Humanity can’t have reached the limit of understanding already!!

Not knowing what else to do other than abandon ship, I looked at R3 + I twist solutions, just about all of which couldn’t possibly work. Most fail because of symmetry issues or fail to provide an environment where twists could curve or be self-sustaining, regardless of how I describe the precursor field forces. Just yesterday, however, I happened upon a solution that has some promise. As discussed in previous posts, the restoring force to I is an enabler for quantization, but I realized it’s also an enabler for altering the path of a twist. I used the example in a previous post of how a field twist in R3 will curve if a regional part of the field is tilted in another dimension (imagine propagating a falling dominoe sequence through a sea of dominoes that is already partway orthogonally tilted). I am still checking this out, but it looks like there is one way to form the twist where this happens–if the twist loop resides in two of the dimensions of R3, and the axial twist in that loop resides in the remaining R3 dimension, but the restoring force is to the I dimension direction, the center of the loop will hold an element pointing in the I direction, thus causing all of the surrounding elements including the twist loop itself to feel a swirly (ref the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon!) that causes the twist propagation to pass through the field that is curved toward the center of the R3 loop.

This concept is ridiculously difficult to visualize, but essentially the I restoring force causes the field to always twist toward the center, regardless of loop orientation within R3. This is what the unitary twist field has to have–any other dimensional geometry simply does not provide the necessary twist curve. Believe me, I tried all other combinations–this is the only one that seems to consistently work no matter what kind of a topological loop configuration is used. Here is a pathetic attempt to draw out what I am thinking…

Agemoz

## Precursor Field Curving Twists

November 18, 2016I think I see the geometry of how the twists could form closed quantized loops. If there is a geometrical explanation for the particle zoo, I think this model would be a viable candidate. It has a huge advantage over all the geometric attempts I see so far, all of which have been shot down because the experimental evidence says subatomic particles have no size–collision angles suggest zero size or very tiny, yet all previous geometrical solutions have a Compton radius. This model has the ring in the R-I plane, meaning that collisions would have to hit a one dimensional line, thus appearing to have zero radius.

I have to wonder though, am I just spitting in the wind. No serious physicist would entertain primitive models like this, it’s like the old atom orbital drawings of the 60s before the quantum concept of orbital clouds really took hold. I had one physicist tell me that my geometric efforts faded out in the early 1900s as the Schrodinger view and wave functions and probability distributions really took over. Geometry lost favor as too-classical thinking.

Yet I really struggle with this. Geometry at this level implies logical thinking even if it accompanies a probabilistic theory (quantum theory). If we abandon geometry to explain the particle zoo, are we not just admitting that God created everything? Really, saying geometry cannot drive the formation of particles is like saying some intellect put them there. The reason I persist with a geometrical model is because I just don’t believe this universe was intentionally created, instead, I think it spontaneously formed from nothing. It’s very much one of the few true either-or questions–creator or spontaneous formation. If there’s a creator, I’m wasting my time since the particles are intentionally formed with a basis I cannot see–but that approach has the “what created the creator” paradox. I strongly believe that the only possible valid self-consistent solution is spontaneous creation, and that requires a logical (geometrical, in some way) explanation for the formation of particles. That is why I persist with these silly primitive efforts–with what I know, a logical derivable explanation has to be there and I’m using all my thinking efforts to try to find it.

Anyway, I think I figured out how unitary fields could produce rings from curving twists. The picture below is really tough to draw, because the arrows draw propagation direction, not twist orientation for a given point. But what I realized is that when the background state is constant, a twist will propagate linearly. However, if the background state has some rotation, trying to rotate normal to that rotation actually induces a rotation that has its maximum twist in an offset, or curved, direction. Perhaps if you imagine a field of dominoes pointing straight up, pushing one domino will cause a linear path of fallen dominoes. But if all the dominoes are slightly tilted normal to the direction of propagation, the fallen domino path will veer away from the linear path. This means that you should be able to form a twist ring if the twist line of the ring lies in the Ry-I plane, but there is a rotation in the Rx direction at the center. More complex geometries can easily form from other closed loop structures when the means for twist curvature is brought into the model.

So far, in the quest for a geometrical explanation of the particle zoo, this is what I think has to happen:

a: R3 + I

b: restoring connection to I to enable twist quantization

c: neighboring connection to propagate the twist

d: twist propagation can be altered when passing through an already tilted twist region, where this twist region is normal to the twist curvature

e: whole bunch of other issues on causality/group wave/etc etc discussed in previous posts.

I fully admit my efforts to explain the particle zoo may be primitive and too much like old 1900s classical thinking. I am thinking that twists to a background direction are the only geometrical way quantization of the particle zoo energies can be achieved. Whether that is right or wrong, I am resolute in thinking that there has to be a logical and geometrical basis for the zoo. The current searching for more particles at CERN so far doesn’t seem to have shed light on this basis, and assuming that particles just are what they are sounds like either giving up on humanity’s question for understanding or admitting they were intentionally created by something–but then what created that something? That line of thinking just can’t work. There’s just got to be a way to explain what we observe.