Posts Tagged ‘relativity’

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.

Agemoz

Advertisements

Precursor Field and Renormalization

September 25, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agemoz

The Arrow of Time and Misuse of Statistics

June 5, 2016

As an amateur physicist I try to avoid disputing established science, but one place I believe science has it wrong is the dimensionality of time.  If you read this blog at all, you’ll see I am trying to create a self-consistent world-view that conforms with peer-reviewed science.  My world-view attempts to add analysis and conclusions on some of the unanswered questions about our universe such as why are there so many elementary particles or how can quantum entanglement work.  I try never to dispute established science and to accept that my world-view is a belief system, not fact that must be forced on others–that is the mark of a crackpot that has just enough knowledge to waste other peoples’ time.

However, one place I break my rules of good behavior is this concept that time is one-dimensional.  For a long time, I’ve recoiled at the notion that the observer’s timeline could physically intersect a particular local spacetime neighborhood of an object event  multiple times.  I discussed this in a previous post, but now I want to discuss this disagreement from another angle–the claim for an existence of an Arrow of Time.

The Arrow of Time is a concept that describes the apparent one way nature of the evolution of a system of objects.  We see a dropped wine glass shatter on the floor,  but we never see a shattered wine glass re-assemble itself and rise up back onto a table.  We record a memory of events in the past, but never see an imprint of the future on our brain memory cells.  This directional evolution of systems is a question mark given that the math unambiguously allows evolution in either direction.  To put it in LaGrange equation of motion terms, the minimum energy path of an object such as a particle or a field element is one dimensional and there are two possible ways to traverse it.  The fundamental question is–why is one way chosen and not the other?

The standard answer is to invoke statistics in the form of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and I have always felt that was not the right answer.  Here is why I have trouble with that–statistics are mathematical derivations for the probability something will happen, and cannot provide a force that makes a particle go one way or the other on a *particular* LaGrangian minimum energy path.  It’s a misuse of statistics to use the thermodynamics laws to define what happens here.  In the case of the shattered wine glass, there are vastly more combinations of paths (and thus far higher probability) for the glass pieces to stay on the floor than there are for the glass shards to reassemble themselves–but that is not why they stay there!

The problem with the Arrow of Time interpretation comes from thinking the math gives us an extra degree of freedom that isn’t really there.  The minimum energy path can truly be traversed in either the time-forward or time-backward path, but it is an illusion to think both are possible.  Any system where information cannot be lost will be mathematically symmetric in time, creating the illusion of an actual path in time if only the observer were in the right place to observe the entirety of that path.  Einstein developed the equations of special relativity that were the epitomy of the path illusion by creating the concept of spacetime.  Does that mean the equations are wrong?  Of course not–but it exemplifies the danger of using the math to create an interpretation.  Just because the math allows it does not mean that the Arrow of Time exists–any relativistic system where information cannot be destroyed will allow the illusion of a directionality of time.

So what really is going on?  I’ll save that for a later post, but in my world-view, time is a property of the objects in the system.  There is only ONE copy of our existence, it is the one we are in right now, and visits to previous existences is simply not possible.  Our system evolves over time and previous existences no longer exist to visit.   Relativity does mean that time between events has to be carefully analyzed, but it does not imply its dimensionality.

Agemoz

The Quandary of Attraction

April 20, 2012

Hah!  You read that title and thought you were getting a socially interesting topic rather than the boring amateur physics I usually post about!  But I’m not all mean, let me help you out:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_%28series%29

OK, now that all those guys are gone, let’s talk physics.  Hello?  Anyone left?  Guess not.  Well, then I can make outrageous crackpot claims and no one will care.

Last week, Prof Jones started in on reviewing the Unitary Twist Field idea.  He’ll be back, but today I want to address a crucial question about unitary twist fields.  The basic premise is built on a geometrical model of quantization using E=hv.  I see three principles that create an underlying geometry for EM fields that gives us both quantization and special relativity (see many previous posts).  These three principles are:

1: The E=hv quantization for fields and particles  is enforced by a rotation in a vector field, that is, a twist.

2: To ensure that only single complete rotations can occur, the field must have a local background state that the rotation returns to.

3: To ensure that the energy of the rotation cannot dissipate, the vector field must be unitary.  Every field element must have constant magnitude but can rotate in 3D+T spacetime.

I have figured out that the special relativity relations hold in such a geometry–there will always be a maximum possible observable speed c, and the Lorentz equations for space and time will also hold.  The correct number of degrees of freedom for photons (linear twists) and electron/positrons (ring twists) exist.  I’ve found that the uncertainty relation will hold for particles in this system.  I’ve found a bunch of other things that appear to match reality as well.  Yes, I am guilty of massaging this theory to get the facts to fit, but I’m doing the best to do it without glossing over any obvious fallacies–and when I encounter one, I adjust the theory.  I keep waiting for one to really kill off the theory, but so far that hasn’t happened.  However here is one that could kill it:

How does the theory explain attraction and repulsion of charged particles?

Real QFT theory, unlike my la-la land unitary twist field theory, says that this is mediated by exchanges of photons.  On the surface, this has a momentum problem because there is no way a particle can emit something with momentum in such a way that a second distant particle *approaches* the emitting particle.  That violates conservation of momentum and hence conservation of energy.  The mathematically derived QFT solution uses virtual photons to have the field around the second particle change in such a way that the particle moves toward the first–but this seems disengenuous to me–contrived, just as much or worse as my theory.  Nevertheless, the math works and that is enough for real physicists.

However, I am positing a new theory, somewhat outrageous in its claims, and thus demanding outrageously thorough verification.  Unitary Twist Field theory must have a (hopefully better) explanation how attraction and repulsion would work.  This issue is part of the more general issue of electron-photon interactions, and there are a whole huge array of sub-issues that come with this one simple interaction.  For example, photons of all frequencies (energies) and polarizations can interact with an electron, so any geometrical solution must not assume any preferred orientation of the electron moment or photon polarization or external electrostatic or magnetic field (ie, nearby sets of photons).   If the electron is one of many in a region, and a low energy photon that is far “larger” than the array hits the array, how is it that exactly one and only one electron absorbs the photon?  I could go on and on, but let’s zero in on this attraction issue.  How do I claim that would work in unitary twist field theory?

Actually, let’s ask the attraction question in a slightly different way so you can see clearly what the dilemma is for real-world physics theory.  QFT says that attraction/repulsion of charged particles is mediated by exchanges of photons.  Arrays of photons form an EM field that causes charged particles to change their path of motion in space-time.  This means that in a given frame of reference, a photon must be an element of either a magnetic field or an electrostatic field.  Here’s the question:

What’s different about the photon generating an electrostatic field and a magnetic field?

Real-world theory says that photons are oscillating electrostatic and magnetic fields–a rather unsatisfactory way to describe a photon because it is self-referential.  Electrostatic and magnetic fields are themselves composed of photons.   Nevertheless, the math works, so let’s ignore that for now.  However, referring to the question about what is different, photons have only one degree of freedom, polarization.  There is no anti-particle for photons, it is its own anti-particle.   Not a lot to work with here!  So–what is a “magnetic” photon, and what is an “electrostatic” photon?  Or is there something magic about how the photons are arranged as a group that explains the field property?  And don’t forget, this is in one particular frame of reference!  Go to a different frame and the field state *changes* from electrostatic to magnetic or vice-versa.

Unitary Field Twist theory has a very novel explanation.  Let’s wait for the next post to see it.

Agemoz