A Promising Precursor Field Geometry

November 29, 2016

I’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

twist_in_restoring_i

Precursor Field Curving Twists

November 18, 2016

I 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.

Agemoz
central-twist-induced-curve

String Theory vs Twist Theory in QFT

November 11, 2016

I’ve worked for some time now on a twist field theory that supposedly would provide a description of how quantized particles emerge, and have been working out the required constraints for the field. For example, it’s very clear that this precursor field cannot be some variation of an EM field like DeBroglie and others have proposed. In order for quantization to occur, I’ve determined that the field cannot have magnitude, it is a unitary R3 + I vector field with a preferred orientation to the I dimension, thus allowing geometrical quantization and special relativity behavior (see previous posts for more details). Particles arise when the twist forms a ring or other closed loop structure. I’ve been attempting to work out enough details to make possible an analytic solution and/or set up some kind of a computer model to see if the quantized particles in the model can somehow represent the particle zoo of reality. As I tried to work out how the field elements would interact with each other, I started to see a convergence of this twist field idea with quantum field theory, the field components would interact in a summation of all possible paths that can be computed using Feynman path integrals. If it were true, I think the twist field theory would add geometrical details to quantum field theory, providing a more detailed foundation for quantum physics.

Quantum field theory assumes the emergence of particles from the vacuum, provided that various conservation properties are observed. All interactions with other particles or with EM (or other) fields take place using specific exchange particles. Quantizing the field in QFT works because only specific particles can operate as exchange bosons or emerge from the background vacuum, but QFT does not provide a means to describe why the particles have the mass that we observe. QFT uses quantized particles to derive why interactions are quantized, but doesn’t answer why those particles are quantized. I worked on this twist field theory because I thought maybe I could go a step further and find out what quantizes the particles of QFT.

At this point, I’ve determined that the fundamental foundation of my theory could be described simply as saying that all of the particles in QFT are twists, some closed loop and some linear. So what? You say potay-to, I say potah-to? Particle, twist, what’s the difference? No, it’s more than that. Particles have no structure that explains why one particle acts differently than another, or why particles only exist with specific intrinsic energies. As I have described in many of my previous posts, describing the QFT component particles as geometrical loops of twists can constrain the possible loop energies and enable only certain particles to emerge. It is a model for QFT particles that I think will provide a path for deepening our understanding of quantum behavior better than just assuming various quantized particles.

I realized that my thinking so far is that the unitary twist field really is starting to look like a string theory. String theory in all its forms has been developed to try to integrate gravity into QFT, but I think that’s a mistake. We don’t know enough to do that–the gravity effect is positively miniscule. It is not a second order or even a tenth order correction to QFT. We have too many questions, intermediate “turtles” to discover, so to speak, before we can combine those two theories. As a result, the math for current string theory is kind of scattergun, with no reasonable predictions anywhere. Is it 10 dimensions, 20, 11, or what? Are strings tubes, or one dimensional? Nobody knows, there’s just no experimental data or analysis that would constrain the existing string theories out there. As a result, I don’t think existing string theory math is going to be too helpful because it is trying to find a absurdly tiny, tiny sub-perturbation on quantum field math. Let’s find out what quantizes particles before going there.

The unitary twist field theory does look a little like strings given the geometry of axial precursor field twists. The question of what quantizes the QFT particles is definitely a first order effect, and that’s why I think the unitary twist field theory is worth pursuing first before trying to bring in gravity. It’s adding quantizing geometry to particles, thus permitting root cause analysis of why we have our particle zoo and the resulting QFT behavior.

I really wish I could find a way to see if there’s any truth to this idea in my lifetime…

Agemoz

Precursor Field Connection to Quantum Field Theory

November 8, 2016

I’ve done some pretty intense thinking about the precursor field that enables quantized particles to exist (see prior post for a summary of this thought process) via unitary field twists that tend to a background state direction. This field would have to have two types of connections that act like forces in conventional physics: a restoring force to the background direction, and a connecting force to neighborhood field elements. The first force is pretty simple to describe mathematically, although some questions remain about metastability and other issues that I’ll mention in a later post. The second force is the important one. My previous post described several properties for this connection, such as the requirement that the field connection can only affect immediate neighborhood field elements.

The subject that really got me thinking was specifically how one field element influences others. As I mentioned, the effect can’t pass through neighboring elements. It can’t be a physical connection, what I mean by that is you can’t model the connection with some sort of rubber band, otherwise twists could not be possible since twists require a field discontinuity along the twist axis. That means the connection has to act via a form of momentum transfer. An important basis for a field twist has to consist of an element rotation, since no magnitudes exist for field elements (this comes from E=hv quantization, see previous few posts). But just how would this rotation, or change in rotation speed, affect neighboring elements? Would it affect a region or neighborhood, or only one other element? And by how much–would the propagation axis get more of the rotation energy, if so, how much energy do other non-axial regions get, and if there are multiple twists, what is the combined effect? How do you ensure that twist energy is conserved? You can see that trying to describe the second force precisely opens up a huge can of worms

To conserve twist energy so the twist doesn’t dissipate or somehow get amplified in R3, I thought the only obvious possibility is that an element rotation or change of rotation speed would only affect one field element in the direction of propagation. But I realized that if this field is going to underlie the particle/field interactions described by quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, the energy of the twist has to spread to many adjacent field elements in order to describe, for example, quantum interference. I really struggled after realizing that–how is twist conservation going to be enforced if there is a distributed element rotation impact.

Then I had what might be called (chutzpah trigger warning coming 🙂 a breakthrough. I don’t have to figure that out. It’s already described in quantum theory by path integrals–the summation of all possible paths, most of which will cancel out. Quantum Field theory describes how particles interact with an EM field, for example, via the summation of all possible virtual and real particle paths via exchange bosons, for instance, photons. Since quantum field theory describes every interaction as a sum of all possible exchange bosons, and does it while conserving various interaction properties, all this stuff I’m working on could perhaps be simply described as replacing both real and virtual particles of quantum theory with field twists, partial or complete, that tend to rotate to the I dimension direction in R3 + I space (the same space described with the quantum oscillator model) of my twist theory hypothesis.

I now have to continue to process and think about this revelation–can all this thinking I’ve been doing be reduced to nothing more than a different way to think about the particles of quantum field theory? Do I add any value to quantum field theory by looking at it this way? Is there even remotely a possibility of coming up with an experiment to verify this idea?

Agemoz

Precursor Field Continuing Work

October 28, 2016

I suspect that groundbreaking work in any field which involves the old saw of 5% inspiration, 95% sweat applies to what I’m doing with the precursor field. It may be a rather big chunk of chutzpah to call my work “groundbreaking”, but it’s definitely creative, and is definitely in the “tedious work out the details” phase. To summarize what I am describing here, I have invented an area of study which I’ve encapsulated with a concept name of the “precursor field”. As discussed in many previous posts, the one-line description of this area of study is “If a single field could bring forth the particle zoo, what would it look like”. For the last bunch of posts, I’ve been working out an acceptable list of assumptions and constraints for this field. Not very exciting, but I’m trying to be thorough and make reasonable conclusions as I work step by step on this. Ultimately I want to derive the math for this field and create a sim or analysis to verify that stable particles resembling the particle zoo will emerge.

Up to now, as discussed in many previous posts, I’ve been able to show that the precursor field cannot be derived from an EM field like DeBroglie and others have done, they failed to come up with a workable solution to enable emergence of stable quantized particles. Thus, there has to be a precursor field from which EM field behavior emerges. I’ve been able to determine that the dimensions of this precursor field has to encompass R3 + I as well as the time dimension. The field must be orientable without magnitude variation, so a thinking model of this field would be a volume of tiny weighted balls. Quantum mechanics theory, in particular, non-causal interference and entanglement, force the precursor field to Fourier decompose to waves that have infinite propagation speed, but particles other than massless bosons must form as group wave clusters. These will move causally because motion results from the rate of phase change of the group wave components, and this rate of phase change is limited (for as yet unknown reasons). The precursor field must allow emergence of quantization of energy by having two connections between field elements–a restoring force to I, and a neighborhood connection to R3. The restoring force causes quantized particles to emerge by only allowing full rotation twists of the precursor field. The neighborhood force would enable group wave confinement to a ring or other topological structures confined to a finite volume, thus causing inertial mass to emerge from a twist in the field.

I’ve left out other derived details, but that should give you a sense of the precursor field analysis I’ve been doing. Lately, I’ve come up with more conclusions. As I said at the beginning–this is kind of tedious at this point, but needs to be thought through as carefully as possible, otherwise the foundation of this attempt to find the precursor field structure could veer wildly off course. I’m reminded of doing a difficult Sudoku puzzle–one minor mistake or assumption early on in the derivation of a solution means that a lot of pointless work will follow that can only, near the end of the puzzle derivation, result in a visible trainwreck. I would really like for my efforts to actually point somewhere in the right direction, so you will see me try to be painstakingly thorough. Even then, I suspect I could be wildly wrong, but it won’t be because I rushed through and took conceptual shortcuts.

OK, let me now point out some new conclusions I’ve recently uncovered about the precursor field.

An essential question is whether the precursor field is continuous or is somehow composed of finite chunks. I realized that the field itself cannot exist in any quantized form–it must be continuous in R3 + I. Thus my previously stated model of a volume of balls is not really accurate unless you assume the balls are infinitely small. I make this conclusion because it appears clear that any field quantization would show up in some variation of a Michelson-Morley experiment, there would be evidence of an ether–and we have no such evidence. I thought maybe the field quantization could be chaotic, e.g, elements are random sized–but then I think the conservation of momentum and charge could not strictly hold throughout the universe. So, the precursor field is continuous, not quantum–thus making the argument that the universe is a computer simulation improbable.

The necessity for twists to allow quantized stable particle formation from a continuous field means that this field is not necessarily differentiable (that is, adjacent infinitesimals may have a finite, non infinitesimal difference in orientation). Quantization has to emerge from the restoring force, but cannot pre-exist in the precursor field.

I realized that the emergence of twists within a volume (necessary to form stable solitons) puts a number of constraints on the connecting force (one of the two connections necessary for the precursor field). First, the connection cannot be physical, otherwise twists cannot exist in this field–twists require a discontinuity region along the axis of the twist. Thus, the connection force must work by momentum transfer rather than direct connection. Another way to put it is there cannot be “rubber bands” between each infinitesimal element. Momentum transfer doesn’t prohibit discontinuities in field orientation, but a physical direct connection would.

Secondly, the neighborhood connection can only work on adjacent infinitesimals. This is different than an EM field, where a single point charge affects both neighborhood and distant regions. EM forces pass through adjacent elements to affect distant elements, but the precursor neighborhood force can’t do that without presupposing another independent field. This discovery was a very nice one because it means the field math is going to be a whole lot easier to work with.

Third, the precursor field must be able to break up a momentum transfer resulting from a neighborhood force. It must be possible that if the action of one infinitesimal induces a neighborhood connection, it must be possible to induce this connection force to more than one neighboring infinitesimal, otherwise the only possible group wave construction would be linear twists (photons). A receiving infinitesimal could get partial twist momenta from more than one adjacent infinitesimal, thus the propagation path of a twist could be influenced by multiple neighbors in such a way to induce a non-linear path such as a ring.

Lastly (for now, anyway!) the restoring force means that sums of momentum transfers must be quantized when applied to another field infinitesimal. I realized it’s possible that a given infinitesimal could get a momentum transfer sum greater than that induced by a single twist. In order for particle energy conservation to work, among many other things, there must be a mechanism for chopping off excess momentum transfer and the restoring connection force provides this. The excess momentum transfer disappears if the sum is not enough to induce a second rotation. I can see from simple geometry that the result will always be a single path, it’s not possible for two twists to suddenly emerge from one. I think if you study this, you will realize this is true, but I can’t do that subject justice here right now. I’ll think about a clear way to describe this in a following post, especially since this work will set the groundwork for the field math.

I’ve come up with more, but this is a good point to stop here for now. You can go back to more interesting silly cat videos now 🙂

Agemoz

Precursor Field and Renormalization

September 25, 2016

As I work out the details of the Precursor Field, I need to explain how this proposal deals with renormalization issues. The Precursor Field attempts to explain why we have a particle zoo, quantization, and quantum entanglement–and has to allow the emergence of force exchange particles for at least the EM and Strong forces. Previous efforts by physics theorists attempted to extend the EM field properties so that quantization could be derived, but these efforts have all failed. It’s my belief that there has to be an underlying “precursor” field that allows stable quantized particles and force exchange particles to form. I’ve been working out what properties this field must have, and one thing has been strikingly apparent–starting with an EM field and extending it cannot possibly work for a whole host of reasons.

As mentioned extensively in previous posts, the fundamental geometry of this precursor field is an orientable 3D+I dimensional vector field. It cannot have magnitude (otherwise E-hv quantization would not be constrained), must allow vector twists (and thus is not finite differentiable ie, not continuous) and must have a preferred orientation in the I direction to force an integral number of twists. Previous posts on this site eke out more properties this field must have, but lately I’ve been focusing on the renormalization problem. There are two connections at play in the proposed precursor field–the twist quantization force, which provides a low-energy state in the I direction, and a twist propagation force. The latter is an element neighborhood force, that is, is the means by which an element interacts with its neighbors.

The problem with any neighborhood force is that any linear interaction will dissipate in strength in a 3D space according to the central force model, and thus mathematically is proportionate to 1/r^2. Any such force will run into infinities that make finding realistic solutions impossible. Traditional quantum field theory works around this successfully by invoking cancelling infinities, renormalizing the computation into a finite range of solutions. This works, but the precursor field has to address infinities more directly. Or perhaps I should say it should. The cool thing is that I discovered it does. Not only that, but the precursor field provides a clean path from the quantized unitary twist model to the emergence of magnetic and electrostatic forces in quantum field theory. This discovery came from the fact that closed loop twists have two sources of twists.

The historical efforts to extend and quantize the EM field is exemplified by the DeBroglie EM wave around a closed loop. The problem here, of course, is that photons (the EM wave component) don’t bend like this, nor does this approach provide a quantization of particle mass. Such a model, if it could produce a particle with a confined momentum of an EM wave, would have no constraint on making a slightly smaller particle with a slightly higher EM wave frequency. Worse, the force that bends the wave would have the renormalization problem–the electrostatic balancing force is a central force proportionate function, and thus has a pole (infinity) at zero radius. This is the final nail in the coffin of trying to use an EM field to form a basis for quantizing particles.
The unitary twist field doesn’t have this problem, because the forces that bend the twist are not central force proportionate. The best way to describe the twist neighborhood connection is as a magnetic flux model. In addition, there are *two* twists in a unitary twist field particle (closed loop of various topologies). There is the quantized vector twist from I to R3 and back again to I, that is, a twist about the propagation axis. And, there is also the twist that results from propagating around the closed loop. Similar to magnetic fields, the curving (normal) force on a twist element is proportionate to the cross-product of the flux change with the twist element propagation direction. My basic calculations show there is a class of closed loop topologies where the two forces cancel each other along a LaGrangian minimum energy path, thus providing a quantized set of solutions (particles). It should be obvious that neither connection force is central force dependent and thus the  renormalization problem disappears.  There should be a large or infinite number of solutions, and the current quest is to see if these solutions match or resemble the particle zoo.

In summary, this latest work shows that the behavior of the precursor field has to be such that central force connections cannot be allowed (and thus forever eliminates the possibility that an EM field can be extended to enable quantization). It also shows how true quantization of particle mass can be achieved, and finally shows how an electrostatic field must emerge given that central force interactions cannot exist at the precursor field level. EM fields must emerge as the result of force exchange particles because it cannot emerge from any central force field, thus validating quantum field theory from a geometrical basis!

I thought that was pretty cool… But I must confess to a certain angst.

Is anybody going to care about these ideas? I know the answer is no. I imagine Feynman (or worse, Bohr) looking over my shoulder and (perhaps kindly or not) saying what the heck are you wasting your time for. Go study real physics that produces real results. This speculative crap isn’t worth the time of day. Why do I bother! I know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof–extraordinary in either experimental verification or deductive proof. Neither option, as far as I have been able to think, is within my reach. But until I can produce something, these ideas amount to absolutely nothing.

I suppose one positive outcome is personal–I’ve learned a lot and entertained myself plus perhaps a few readers on the possibility of how things might work. I’ve passed time contemplating the universe, which I think is unarguably a better way to spend a human life than watching the latest garbage on youtube or TV. Maybe I’ve spurred one person out there to think about our existence in a different way.

Or, perhaps more pessimistically, I’m just a crackpot. The lesson of the Man of La Mancha is about truly understanding just who and what you are, and reaching for the impossible star can doing something important to your character. I like the image that perhaps I’m an explorer of human existence, even if perhaps not a very good one–and willing to share my adventures with any of you who choose to follow along.

Agemoz

Precursor Field Constraints

August 31, 2016

I’m continuing to work through details on the Precursor Field, so called because it is the foundation for emergent concepts such as quantized particles and the EM field/Strong force. I mentioned previously that this field has a number of constraints that will help define what it is. Here is what I had from previous work: the precursor field must be unitary to satisfy the quantization implied by E=hv (no magnitude degree of freedom possible). It must be orientable to R3 + I, that is, SO(4) to allow field twists, which are necessary for particle formation under this theory. It must have a preferred background orientation state in the I direction to enable particle quantization. Rotations must complete a twist to the background state, no intermediate stopping point in rotation–this quantizes the twist and hence the resulting particle. This field must not necessarily be differentiable (to enable twists required for particle formation). There must be two types of field connections which I am calling forces in this field–field elements must have a lowest energy direction in the imaginary axis, such that there is a force that will rotate the field element in that direction. Secondly, it must have a neighborhood force whenever the field element changes its own rotation. I’ll call the first force the restoring force, and the second force the neighborhood force.

These constraints all result from a basic set of axioms resulting from the Twist Theory’s assumption that a precursor field is needed to form quantized stable particles (solitons).

Since then, I’ve uncovered more necessary constraints having to do with the two precursor field forces. Conservation of energy means that there cannot be any damping effect, which has the consequence that the twist cannot spread out. The only way this can occur is if the quantized twist propagates at the speed of light. This introduces a whole new set of constraints on the geometry of twists. I’m postulating that photons are linear twists which will reside on the light cone of Minkowski space, and that all other particles are closed loops. A closed loop on Minkowski space must also lie on a light cone for each delta on its twist path, which means that the closed loop as a whole cannot reach the speed of light. This can easily be seen because closed loops must have a spacelike component as well as a timelike component such that the sum of squares lies on the twist path elements light cone. This limits the timelike component to less than the speed of light (the delta path element has to end up inside the light cone, not on it).

One interesting side consequence is that a particle like the electron cannot be pointlike. The current collider experiments appear to show it is pointlike, but this should be impossible both because the Heisenberg uncertainty relation would imply an infinite energy to a pointlike particle but also because if an electron cannot be accelerated to exactly the speed of light, this forces its internal composition to have a spacelike component and thus cannot be pointlike. Ignoring my scientific responsibility to be skeptical (for example, another explanation would be massive particles are forced to interact within an EM field via exchange particles, thus slowing it down for reasons independent of the particle’s size–but if this were true, why doesn’t this also apply to photons), I have a strong instinct that says this confirms my hypothesis that particles other than the photon are closed loops with a physical size. This also makes sense since mass would then be associated with physical size since closed loops confine particle twist momentum to a finite volume, whereas a photon distributes its momentum over an infinite distance and thus has zero mass. Since collision scattering angles implies a point size, the standard interpretation is to assume that the electron is pointlike–but I think there may be another explanation that collider acceleration distorts the actual closed loop of the electron to approach a line (pointlike cross section).

Anyway, to get back on topic, my big focus is on how to precisely define the two forces required by the precursor field. I realized that the restoring force is the much harder force to describe–the neighborhood force merely has to translate the field elements change of rotation to a neighborhoods change of rotation such that the sum of all neighborhood force changes equals the elements neighborhood force. This gives a natural rise to a central force distribution and is easy to calculate.

The restoring force is harder. As I mentioned, conservation of energy requires that it cannot just dissipate into the field, and a quantum particle must consist of exactly one twist (otherwise the geometrical quantization would permit two or more particles). I’m thinking this means that a change in rotation due to the restoring force must be confined to a delta function and that the rotation twist must propagate at the speed of light, whether linearly (photons) or in a closed loop (massive particles). I suspect we can’t think of the restoring force as an actual force, but then how to describe it as a field property? I’ll have to do more thinking on this…

Agemoz

Quantizing Fields–Twist Field vs. Semiclassical and Canonical Field Quantization

August 28, 2016

I’ve done all this work/discussion here about this unitary twist field scheme and how it uses quantized rotations to a background imaginary axis. While my primary intent is for my benefit (keep track of where I am and to organize my thinking) I’ve tried to make it readable and clear for any readers that happen to be following my efforts. I try to be lucid (and not too crack-potteryish) so others could follow this if they wanted to. To be sure, my work/discussion on the unitary twist field is very speculative, a guess on why we have the particle zoo. However one big thought has been running through my head–if any of you are following this, you would be forgiven for wondering why I’m doing this field quantization work given that there is already plenty of well established work on first and second quantization of fields such as the EM field.

This is going to be a very tough but valid question to elaborate on. Let me start with a synopsis: my work on this precursor field, and quantum mechanics/field theory work are operating on very different subjects with the unfortunate common concept name of quantization. Quantum theory uses quantization to derive the wavelike behavior of particles interacting with other particles and fields. Unitary Twist Field theory uses a different form of quantization to help define an underlying basis field from which stable/semistable particles and fields (such as the EM field) can form.

Let me see if I get the overall picture right, and describe it in a hopefully not too stupidly wrong way.

Both quantum theory and my Unitary Twist Field work reference quantization as a means to derive a discrete subset of solutions concerning fields and particles from an infinite set of possible system solutions. Quantum theory (mechanics, field theory) derive how particles interact, and quantization plays a big part in constraining the set of valid interaction solutions. Unitary Twist Field theory (my work) involves finding a field and its properties that could form the particles and field behavior we see–an underlying field that forms a common basis for the particles and the interactions we see in real life. Quantum theory and the Standard Model currently provide no clear way to derive why particles have the masses and properties that they do, Unitary Twist Theory attempts to do that by defining a precursor basis field that creates solitons for both the stable/semistable particles and force exchange particles required by the Standard Model and quantum theory.

Standard Model particle/field interactions in quantum mechanics (first quantization) is a semiclassical treatment that adds quantization to particles acting in a classical field. Quantization here means extending the classical equations of motion to include particle wavelike behavior such as interference. Second quantization (either canonical or via path integrals, referred to generally as quantum field theory) extends quantization to fields by allowing the fields to spontaneously create and annihilate particles, virtual particles, exchange particles, fields, etc–it’s a system where every force is mediated by particles interacting with other particles. This system of deriving solutions gets generalization extension via gauge invariance constraints, this work gave rise to antiparticles and the Higgs Boson. Quantization here means that particle/field interactions interfere like waves, and thus there is generally a discrete set of solutions with a basis that could be called modes or eigenstates (for example quantized standing waves in electron orbitals about an atom).

The quantization I am using as part of the defining of the Unitary Twist Field is a completely different issue. I’ve done enough study to realize that the EM field cannot be a basis for forming particles, even by clever modification. Many smart minds (DeBroglie, Compton, Bohr, etc) have tried to do that but it cannot be done as far as anyone has been able to determine. I think you have to start with an underlying field from which both particles and the EM field could emerge, and it has to be substantially different than the EM field in a number of ways. I’ve elaborated on this in extensive detail in previous posts, but in a nutshell, quantization here means a orientable, unitary, 3D + I (same as the quantum oscillaor) field that has a preferred lowest energy direction to the positive imaginary axis. This field should produce a constrained set of stable or semistable solitons. If all goes well and this is a good model for reality, these soliton solutions should then match the particle zoo set and exhibit behavior that matches the EM field interactions with particles described in quantum theory and the Standard Model.

I am attempting to keep in mind that a twist field theory also has to be gauge invariant at the particle level, and has to be able to absorb quantum theory and the Standard Model. That’s to be done after I first determine the viability of the unitary twist field in producing a set of particles matching the known particle zoo. This is a truly enormous endeavor for one not terribly smart fellow, so just one step at a time…

Don’t know if that makes things clearer for readers, it does help narrow down and add clarity in my own mind of what I’m trying to do.

Agemoz

More Details on the Precursor Field

August 25, 2016

I’m getting ready to start some detailed analysis work on the proposed precursor field. This effort is intended to show how the quantized particle zoo and the EM and strong forces could emerge given a field with an underlying (“precursor”) set of properties I’ve worked out in previous posts. I am taking the liberty of using this post as a placekeeper for keeping track of the details–this might help a reader understand better what I’m proposing but this particular post is not really intended to be especially profound. If it gets freshly pressed, that would be funny in an ironic way!

This precursor field, as described in previous posts, has unitary magnitude and rotates in R3 + I, or 4 dimensions. This will map to a rotation group (SO(4)) and will embed two types of field connections. I think of the connections as forces, although forces actually are a particle concept (ignoring general relativity for now) and technically this word probably shouldn’t be used here. There’s a semantic issue here which right now I want to ignore as I try to prove the concept, so I’m going to use the word force here to describe the required connections.

The necessity for these two connections is described in previous posts and consist of the quantizing force and the rotation force. The first is a force that attempts to restore an element of the field to the imaginary dimension. It has no effect on neighborhood elements. The second is a true connection from one element rotation velocity to neighborhood element rotation states. I will experiment with various specific functions for each of these forces, but will start with some simple guesses. For the quantizing force, I will use a linear restoring force (to the I dimension) that gets stronger as the angle from the imaginary axis increases.

The rotation force is tricky. It is tempting to use a central force (1/r^2) where the rotation velocity of an element will cause a proportionate weighted delta rotation to neighborhood elements, dropping as 1/r^2. This force must be normalized to a finite value at zero–but 1/r^2 has a pole there, that won’t work. A workable solution that avoids renormalization would be to use a Gaussian, but doesn’t have as good a physical justification.

The central force approach can easily be justified as linearly proportional to the number of elements present at the function’s radius, which grows as r^2 in the R3 space. (Dont let the I dimension fool you–that is only a direction dimension. The real part, which is the only part that the radius value r is dependent on, is what determines the magnitude of the rotation force). Nevertheless, right now I see no way to use this because of the pole at zero, so I will just take the gaussian as a guess for a function that is finite at zero r and declines to zero at infinity. If this guess yields the expected stable particle zoo or something resembling it, then work to exactly derive the rotation force function will need to be done.

There you have it–that is a mathematical definition of the Precursor Field that should yield a particle zoo and the EM and Strong force interactions. I’m setting up a sim and some analysis to see what this construct will yield. I’ve yakked for a long time why this twist field thing makes sense, now it’s time to fish or cut bait…

Agemoz

PS, note that I’m ignoring quantum wave functions for right now and treating the precursor field elements as actual physical states. If the concept pans out, the math will have to be generalized to composite states (wave functions). It will also be necessary to generalize to relativistic speeds. It’s my guess that neither of these are necessary to explain the particle zoo, although once shown, refinement for quantitative analysis would then have to be done.

One Rule To Rule Them All: The One Question Every Human Being Must Ask

August 18, 2016

I’ve been doing a great deal of thinking and analysis on what the precursor field would have to be.  I’ve had some discussions and conclusions about the precursor field that I’ll get into shortly here–but I wanted to digress a little because one of the discussions homed in on why I’m doing this work.  The discussion was extensive but revealed a crucial point about humanity’s search for meaning.  Let’s see if I can summarize the extensiveness of this conversation down to the bare essentials in a clear way:

The main driver for the approach I am taking is that this universe emerged from nothing.  To put it another way by using a popular physics aphorism, it’s not turtles all the way down, the first turtle emerged from nothing.  As I detailed in several previous posts, I see how this could happen–essentially a massive generalization of the principle that infinity times zero can give a finite number.  This drives many of the requirements of the precursor field that I am developing which causes emergence of quantized particles and emergence of particle motion and the EM field, the strong force, and related properties.

This question–did the universe emerge from nothing–is *the* most fundamental question a human being can ask, and is beautiful and elegant in its own right.  It encompasses many issues, especially the question “Is there a God”.  It’s rare that a question can be formed with such simplicity in our language.  The whole study of philosophy of all forms spends a lot of time clarifying what is a “real” question versus what is semantics, i.e, an artifact of the language we choose to work in.

For example, the common philosophical study of “I seek the Truth” raises semantic questions like “what do you mean by truth?”  “What does the concept of seeking mean?”  Or, the question “What is the meaning/purpose of life?”  Well, what does “meaning” mean to you?  How do you define life?  Does it involve consciousness?  Memory?  A tree is alive, and on a very long timescale likely has the same stimulus/response capability as faster moving animals or humans.  It’s really tough to extract the various philosophical issues out of the semantics of most questions.

But the question “did the universe emerge from nothing”, while not immune from semantics, cuts to the core issue easily and elegantly.  It asks whether the observed rules of our existence are intrinsic or not.  If there is even just one rule that has to be there in addition to nothing (and yes, there are semantic issues with “nothing”, so we do have to tread carefully even here)–then the universe didn’t emerge from absolutely nothing.  Then you are forced to ask what caused that rule to emerge, and with a lot of thought I think you have to declare that there is a God–an intellect, a being, or other organized structure that formed the universe.  Then you have to ask what formed those.  It is a recursion of thought that leads some to say “it’s turtles all the way down”, that there is no beginning.  But if you do that, you still are saying there is a God, I think.  This question is so elegant because the dividing line is so precise.  Either the universe emerged from nothing, or else there is no point in continuing because a God or Being or Computer or *something* takes a turtle, puts it there, and voila, we as humans emerge.

The assumption of a God is so problematic in my mind–you simply cannot answer the question of how did this universe get created, you also *cannot ask the question why are we here*!!!  By defining a God, we have taken that question out of our hands and put it in the hands of an unknowable entity.  By saying it’s turtles all the way down (similar to saying there is no beginning, the universe has always existed), we throw up our hands and say these questions cannot be answered.

On the other hand, if we study the approach that we came from nothing, there is a path that can truly be followed, and that is exactly what I am trying to do.  I assume this precursor field had to emerge from nothing and that constrains the characteristics of the field in many ways.  For example, the particle zoo has to emerge from it, so a geometrical basis should exist.  Or, getting on the subject I’ve been focusing on, the precursor field has to emerge from nothing, so it cannot have extra degrees of freedom, which implies rules preceded the field–a no-no in forming the field description.  If there are rules, there has to be a God of some form.

The astonishing thing to me is how clear the path for humanity has to be.  There really is only one study worth doing–how could we emerge from nothing.  Any other explanation for our existence appears to have no fundamental value in investigating!

I hope you find this digression fascinating and helpful why I am doing this study.   It has so far led to the following conclusions, some of which I’ve described in previous posts:

The precursor field cannot require continuity (differentiability) otherwise quantized twists are not possible, and such twists are required for the formation of stable particles in the particle zoo

The field has no vector magnitude, it is a unitary directional field with an R3 + I dimension plus time.  This means that the field elements are orientable (that is, there is a property of the field element that distinguishes from other field elements both by physical location and by direction)

The elements of the field do not move.  They can only rotate.  Movement is an emergent concept that results from the formation of rotation structures that can propagate through the field

Rotation of a field element induces rotation of neighborhood field elements.  This induction is infinity elastic otherwise the field would be forced to be continuous and differentiable, which is contradictory to enabling field twists

Field elements are quantized by creating a preferred orientation to the imaginary dimension direction.  This, combined with the ability to form field twists, is what allows the formation of stable particles

There are other properties I am uncovering, but this list is a good starting point for setting up a computer simulation and for analytic derivations.  My goal is to uncover the specific quantized states available and see if they match with what we see in the particle zoo.

Agemoz