Posts Tagged ‘gauge invariance’

Precursor Field Forces

December 18, 2016

It 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.


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.


Mathematical Basis for Twist Theory

September 28, 2015

The field twist theory I’ve been working on is designed to provide a geometrical basis for the particle zoo as well as provide a non-bizarro explanation of quantum entanglement.  I’ve had a bit of a breakthrough thinking that provides a mathematical foundation for the theory.

The theory posits that particles arise from electromagnetic fields (there, I said it, I’ve lost 95% of you already!).  For that to be a tenable hypothesis, I have to modify Maxwell’s equations to provide quantization.  A preposterous proposition since that has already been done successfully and particles predicted with the renormalizable Yang-Mills gauge invariant extension/generalization of Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force equations.

The problem is that half of Maxwell’s equations, the particle terms, are empirical.  According to my studies, there is currently no known means, not even the Higg’s field, for explaining why the masses are what they are.  The twist field theory attempts to derive the particle zoo by positing a variation of Maxwell’s field equations that replaces the particle terms.  Geometrically, quantization can be mapped to a rotation of a field vector where there is a preferential background state, that is, there is a potential to go to a background ground state.  For this to be achievable using Maxwell’s equations and maintain gauge invariance, there is only one possible such state–the imaginary vector of the EM field.  A quantized packet of energy would require a specific energy to complete one and only one rotation–a twist–to this background state.  The remaining issue is field dissipation–there is only one way that a twist rotation would not dissipate.  It must move axially at the speed of light and must not have a diffuse axial radius.

Once these criteria are met, it is possible to construct a variety of rings and knots and links that should give rise to the particle zoo and the required masses.  The simplest non-linear case is a ring, which has counteracting magnetic field interactions to quantize the loop size (the twist provides one term, the loop itself provides the counteracting term).  As I mentioned, this can all be achieved by replacing the particle terms in Maxwell’s equations with a potential to the imaginary background state.  Such a modification could answer the question of “if this is a valid modification to Maxwell’s equations, why hasn’t it been experimentally observed” because there is no ability to create a sensor made of particles capable of directly observing this background state.  It is this background state potential that shows up when E=hv is measured.  The requirement that the twist axis diameter be non-diffuse would be the explanation for why elementary particles such as the electron are showing zero radius within observable limits.

Interesting investigation for me–I suppose science fiction for the vast majority of you!  But that’s fine–I never said I was doing any great, just some interesting thinking with the studies I’ve done.