Posts Tagged ‘qft’


June 25, 2017

I’m working on the math for the Unitary Twist Field Theory sim. The first sim to run is the easiest I know of, the electron/photon interaction, and if the theory doesn’t yield some reasonably good results, the theory is dead, there’s no point in going further. If that happens, hopefully there will be an indication of how to modify it to make it work, but this will be a defining moment for my work. Just recently, something quite astonishing came out of this work to find the equations of motion for the precursor field of this theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


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 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?


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 🙂


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.


Simulation Construction of Twist Theory

December 2, 2014

Back after dealing with some unrelated stuff.  I had started work on a new simulator that would test the Twist Theory idea, and in so doing ran into the realization that the mathematical premise could not be based on any sort of electrostatic field.  To back up a bit, the problem I’m trying to solve is a geometrical basis for quantization of an EM field.  Yeah, old problem, long since dealt with in QFT–but the nice advantage of being an amateur physicist is you can explore alternative ideas, as long as you don’t try to convince anyone else.  That’s where crackpots go bad, and I just want to try some fun ideas and see where they go, not win a Nobel.  I’ll let the university types do the serious work.

OK, back to the problem–can an EM field create a quantized particle?  No.  No messing with a linear system like Maxwell’s equations will yield stable solitons even when constrained by special relativity.  Some rule has to be added, and I looked at the old wave in a loop (de Broglie’s idea) and modified it to be a single EM twist of infinitesimal width in the loop.  This still isn’t enough, it is necessary that there be a background state for a twist where a partial twist is metastable, it either reverts to the background state, or in the case of a loop, continues the twist to the background state.  In this system–now only integer numbers of twists are possible in the EM field and stable particles can exist in this field.  In addition, special relativity allows the twist to be stable in Minkowski space, so linear twists propagating at the speed of light are also stable but cannot stop, a good candidate for photons.

If you have some experience with EM fields, you’ll spot a number of issues which I, as a good working crackpot, have chosen to gloss over.  First, a precise description of a twist involves a field discontinuity along the twist.  I’ve discussed this at length in previous posts, but this remains a major issue for this scheme.  Second, stable particles are going to have a physical dimension that is too big for most physicists to accept.  A single loop, a candidate for the electron/positron particle, has a Compton radius way out of range with current attempts to determine electron size.  I’ve chosen to put this problem aside by saying that the loop asymptotically approaches an oval, or even a line of infinitesimal width as it is accelerated.  Tests that measure the size of an electron generally accelerate it (or bounce-off angle impact particles) to close to light speed.  Note that an infinitely small electron of standard theory has a problem that suggests that a loop of Compton size might be a better answer–Heisenberg’s uncertainty theorem says that the minimum measurable size of the electron is constrained by its momentum, and doing the math gets you to the Compton radius and no smaller.  (Note that the Standard Model gets around this by talking about “naked electrons” surrounded by the constant formation of particle-antiparticle pairs.  The naked electron is tiny but cannot exist without a shell of virtual particles.  You could argue the twist model is the same thing except that only the shell exists, because in this model there is a way for the shell to be stable).

Anyway, if you put aside these objections, then the question becomes why would a continuous field with twists have a stable loop state?  If the loop elements have forces acting to keep the loop twist from dissipating, the loop will be stable.  Let’s zoom in on the twist loop (ignoring the linear twist of photons for now).  I think of the EM twist as a sea of freely rotating balls that have a white side and a black side, thus making them orientable in a background state.  There has to be an imaginary dimension (perhaps the bulk 5th dimension of some current theories).  Twist rotation is in a plane that must include this imaginary dimension.  A twist loop then will have two rotations, one about the loop circumference, and the twist itself, which will rotate about the axis that is tangent to the loop.  The latter can easily be shown to induce a B field that varies as 1/r^3 (formula for far field of a current ring, which in this case follows the width of the twist).  The former case can be computed as the integral of dl/r^2 where dl is a delta chunk of the loop path.  This path has an approximately constant r^2, so the integral will also vary as r^2.  The solution to the sum of 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 yields a soliton in R3, a stable state.  Doing the math yields a Compton radius.  Yes, you are right, another objection to this idea is that quantum theory has a factor of 2, once again I need to put that aside for now.

So, it turns out (see many previous posts on this) that there are many good reasons to use this as a basis for electrons and positrons, two of the best are how special relativity and the speed of light can be geometrically derived from this construct, and also that the various spin states are all there, they emerge from this twist model.  Another great result is how quantum entanglement and resolution of the causality paradox can come from this model–the group wave construction of particles assumes that wave phase and hence interference is instantaneous–non-causal–but moving a particle requires changing the phase of the wave group components, it is sufficient to limit the rate of change of phase to get both relativistic causality and quantum instantaneous interference or coherence without resorting to multiple dimensions or histories.  So lots of good reasons, in my mind, to put aside some of the objections to this approach and see what else can be derived.

What is especially nice about the 1/r^2 – 1/r^3 situation is that many loop combinations are not only quantized but topologically stable, because the 1/r^3 force causes twist sections to repel each other.  Thus links and knots are clearly possible and stable.  This has motivated me to attempt a simulation of the field forces and see if I can get quantitative measurements of loops other than the single ring.  There will be an infinite number of these, and I’m betting the resulting mass measurements will correlate to mass ratios in the particle zoo.  The simulation work is underway and I will post results hopefully soon.


PS: an update, I realized I hadn’t finished the train of thought I started this post with–the discovery that electrostatic forces cannot be used in this model.  The original attempts to construct particle models, back in the early 1900s, such as variations of the DeBroglie wave model of particles, needed forces to confine the particle material.  Attempts using electrostatic and magnetic fields were common back then, but even for photons the problem with electrostatic fields was the knowledge that you can’t bend or confine an EM wave with either electric or magnetic fields.  With the discovery and success of quantum mechanics and then QFT, geometrical solutions fell out of favor–“shut up and calculate”, but I always felt like that line of inquiry closed off too soon, hence my development of the twist theory.  It adds a couple of constraints to Maxwell’s equations (twist field discontinuities and orientability to a background state) to make stable solitons possible in an EM field.

Unfortunately, trying to model twist field particles in a sim has always been hampered by what I call the renormalization problem–at what point do you cut off the evaluation of the field 1/r^n strength to prevent infinities that make evaluation unworkable.  I’ve tried many variations of this sim in the past and always ran into this intractable problem–the definition of the renormalization limit point overpowered the computed behavior of the system.

My breakthrough was realizing that that problem occurs only with electrostatic fields and not magnetic fields, and finding the previously mentioned balancing magnetic forces in the twist loop.  The magnetic fields, like electrostatic fields,  also have an inverse r strength, causing infinities–but it applies force according to the cross-product of the direction of the loop.  This means that no renormalization cutoff point (an arbitrary point where you just decide not to apply the force to the system if it is too close to the source) is needed.  Instead, this force merely constrains the maximum curvature of the twist.  As long as it is less that the 1/r^n of the resulting force, infinities wont happen, and the curve simulation forces will work to enforce that.  At last, I can set up the sim without that hokey arbitrary force cutoff mechanism.

And–this should prove that conceptually there is no clean particle model system (without a renormalization hack) that can be built from an electrostatic field.  A corollary might be–not sure, still thinking about this–that magnetic fields are fundamental and electrostatic fields are a consequence of magnetic fields, not a fundamental entity in its own right.  The interchangability of B and E fields in special relativity frames of reference calls that idea into question, though, so I have to think more about that one!  But anyway, this was a big breakthrough in creating a sim that has some hope of actually representing twist field behavior in particles.


PPS:  Update–getting closer.  I’ve worked out the equations, hopefully correctly, and am in the process of setting them up in Mathematica.  If you want to make your own working sim, the two forces sum to a flux field which can be parametrically integrated around whatever twist paths you create.  Then the goal becomes to try to find equipotential curves for the flux field.  The two forces are first the result of the axial twist, which generates a plane angle theta offset value Bx = 3 k0 sin theta cos theta/r^3, and Bz = k0 ( 3 cos^2 theta -1)/r^3.  The second flux field results from the closed loop as k0 dl/r^2).  These will both get a phase factor, and must be rotated to normalize the plane angle theta (some complicated geometry here, hope I don’t screw it up and create some bogus conclusions).  The resulting sum must be integrated as a cross product of the resulting B vector and the direction of travel around the proposed twist path for every point.

A Particle Zoo!

December 29, 2013

After that last discovery, described in the previous post, I got to a point where I wondered what I wanted to do next.  It ended the need in my mind to pursue the scientific focus described in this blog–I had thought I could somehow get closer to God by better understanding how this existence worked.  But then came the real discovery that as far as I could see, it’s turtles all the way down, and my thinking wasn’t going to get me where I wanted to go.

So I stopped my simulation work, sat back and wondered what’s next for me.  It’s been maybe 6 months now, and while I still think I was right, I miss the fun of thinking about questions like why is there a particle zoo and whether a continuous field could form such a zoo.  While I don’t sense the urgency of the study anymore, I do think about the problem, and in the recent past have made two discoveries.

One was finding a qualitative description of the math required to produce the field vector twist I needed for my Unitary Field Twist theory, and the second was a way to find the available solutions.  The second discovery was major–it allowed me to conceptualize geometrically how to set up simulations for verification.  The problem with working with continuous vector fields required by the twist theory is that solutions are described by differential equations that are probably impossible to solve analytically.  Sometimes new insights are found by creating new tools to handle difficult-to-solve problems, and to that end I created several simulation environments to attempt numerical computations of the twist field.  Up to now, though, this didn’t help finding the available solutions.

What did help was realizing that the base form of the solutions produce stable solutions when observing the 1/r(t)^3 = 1/r(t)^2 relation–the relation that develops from the vector field’s twist-to-transformation ratio.  Maxwell’s field equations observe this, but as we all know, this is not sufficient to produce stable particles out of a continuous field, and thus cannot produce quantization.  The E=hv relation for all particles led me to the idea that if particles were represented by field twists to some background state direction, either linear (eg, photons) or closed loops, vector field behavior would become quantized.  I added a background state to this field that assigns a lowest energy state depending on the deviation from this background state.  The greater the twist, the lower the tendency to flip back to the background state.  Now a full twist will be stable, and linear twists will have any possible frequency, whereas closed loops will have restricted (quantized) possibilities based on the geometry of the loop.

For a long time I was stuck here because I could see no way to derive any solutions other than the linear solution and the ring twist, which I assigned to photons and electrons.  I did a lot of work here to show correct relativistic behavior of both, and found a correct mass and number of spin states for the electron/positron, found at least one way that charge attraction and repulsion could be geometrically explained, found valid Heisenberg uncertainty, was able to show how the loop would constrain to a maximum velocity for both photons and electrons (speed of light), and so on–many other discoveries that seemed to point to the validity of the twist field approach.

But one thing has always been a problem as I’ve worked on all this–an underlying geometrical model that adds quantization to a continuous field must explain the particle zoo.  I’ve been unable to analytically or iteratively find any other stable solutions.  I needed a guide–some methodology that would point to other solutions, other particles.  The second discovery has achieved this–the realization that this twist field theory does not permit “crossing the streams”.  The twists of any particle cannot cross because the 1/r(t)^3 repulsion factor will grow exponentially faster than any available attraction force as twists approach each other.  I very suddenly realized this will constrain available solutions geometrically.  This means that any loop system, connected or not, will be a valid solution as long as they are topologically unique in R3.  Immediately I realized that this means that links and knots and linked knots are all valid solutions, and that there are an infinite number of these.  And I immediately saw that this solution set has no morphology paths–unlike electrons about an atom, you cannot pump in energy and change the state.  We know experimentally that shooting high energy photons at a free electron will not alter the electron, and correspondingly, shooting photons at a ring or link or knot will not transform the particle–the twists cannot be crossed before destroying the particle.  In addition, this discovery suggests a geometrical solution to the experimentally observed strong force behavior.  Linked loops modelling quarks will permit some internal stretching but never breaking of the loop, thus could represent the strong force behavior when trying to separate quarks.  And, once enough energy were available to break apart quarks, the resulting particles could not form free quarks because these now become topologically equivalent to electrons.

My next step is to categorize the valid particle solutions and to quantify the twist field solutions, probably by iterative methods, and hopefully eventually by analytic methods.

There’s no question in my mind, though–I’ve found a particle zoo in the twist field theory.  The big question now is does it have any connection to reality…


Experimental Confirmation of Lattice-Free Spacetime

September 1, 2012

In my previous post, I posited that spacetime cannot be a lattice at Planck scale distances, and by sheer coincidence, this completely different experimental report also confirms the likelihood that spacetime is smooth at this scale:

A smooth spacetime means that Planck scale lumpiness (a lattice of one of the types I describe in the previous post) will not explain quantization.  I suspected that anyway, because quantization is scale independent.  Low energy photons are quantized over distances that are enormously vast (hundreds of orders of magnitude) compared to Planck scale distances, so I did not see how a lattice could induce that quantization.

The field twist is also scale independent, so is another nice arrow in the quiver for unitary twist field theory.  But I’m grappling with a big problem as I develop the specular simulator for the unitary field twist theory.  The probability of electron motion is affected by its ability to self absorb a virtual photon, and this probability is directly proportionate to the fine structure constant.  I believe that this number is the square of the probability to emit and the probability to absorb, making each have about an 8 percent chance of occurring.  Physicists have absolutely no clue why this probability is what it is.  QFT gives no guidance but uses the experimentally determined value of interaction probability as a foundation for every quantum interaction of particles and fields.

As usual, I am trying to find a geometrical reason that the unitary field twist theory might give that probability–some ideas, but nothing obvious.  I have to figure something out before I can even start constructing the specular sim.