Posts Tagged ‘particle zoo’

Special Relativity and Unitary Twist Field Theory–Addendum

February 2, 2017

If 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.


Special Relativity and Unitary Twist Theory

January 30, 2017

I’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.


Quantum State Superposition in the Precursor Field

January 1, 2017

I’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.


*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.

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.


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

December 15, 2016

In 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.



Precursor Field Does Not Have to be Discontinuous

December 3, 2016

In 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!


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…



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.


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…


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 🙂