Posts Tagged ‘twists’

Discovery: Precursor Field has Two Stable Potential Wells

October 14, 2017

potential_wellMy work described on this blog can be summarized as trying to find and validate a field that could sustain a particle zoo. Previous posts on this blog detail the required characteristics and constraints on one such field, which I call a precursor field. When I began building the mathematical infrastructure needed to analyze this field, I made an absolutely critical discovery that strongly validates the whole field-to-particles approach.

I give it the “precursor” name because there are many fields in known physics, and this precursor field has to form a foundation for all of them. I’ve pursued many paths in my investigation, described in many of my previous posts, and in summary have determined the following:

The precursor field must be single valued, unitary (directional only, no magnitude), continuous, but not necessarily analytic. It must form from a basis of three real (physical) dimensions but the field element can also point in an imaginary dimension. Because the field value is unitary with no magnitude component, it can be modeled as a rotation field.      The field must have a background state pointing in the imaginary direction. I also discovered that the precursor field and its operators cannot be one of the existing fields in physics such as the EM field. It’s a new field that creates the basis for something like the quantized photon mediated EM field or the strong and weak force interactions in quarks.

If you question any of these requirements, I’d recommend looking back in previous posts where I justify my thinking–this simple paragraph just summarizes much of the work I have done in the past. I don’t want to revisit that right now, but to give you new news of a big discovery I have made about this field in the last few weeks.

I have been preparing both an analytic infrastructure and a computer sim that will hopefully provide some level of validation or refutation of the precursor field concept. The analytic work sets up the algebra that the sim will follow.
There are many issues with assuming that a continuous field will produce a particle zoo, but the biggest is what might be called the soliton problem. You can easily prove that Maxwell’s field equations cannot produce a stable particle, so historically, many efforts to quantize or otherwise modify these equations have been done without success. Compton and DeBroglie are famous for attempting this using an EM field (waves around a ring, sphere of charge, etc.) but no one has succeeded in a theory that successfully confines the EM field potentials into a stable soliton. I’ve long been convinced that you cannot use an EM field as a particle basis, and the QFT model of exchange particles (quantized photons in the case of EM field interactions) supports this way of thinking.

I discovered that the aforementioned precursor field can form either of two types of stable potential wells. The fact that the precursor field is directional only, thus field values cannot go to zero, combined with the omnipresent tendency to go to the default background state, leads both to quantization (only full integer twists out of and then back into the background state are stable) and to the formation of stable potential wells around either the background state or its opposite. I found that the background state tendency can be described as a force that is strongest when an element’s direction is normal to the background state, but is zero at either the background state or its opposite! It turns out it is nearly linear and thus forms a potential well near both zeroes. Thus a stable particle can form around a negative background state pole. You could also form a stable positive pole in a negative background state region (think antiparticles), and could even link together or overlap multiple particles in a chain or set of rings and have the result be stable. I can even visualize spontaneous formation of particle/antiparticle pairs so crucial to QFT, but that’s jumping the gun a bit right now.

It’s such an incredibly important step forward to find a field with a set of operators that could form stable particles, and I believe I’ve done that. The key is having the scalar field be unitary and having a preferential orientation–this set of field characteristics appears to succeed at producing solitons where all others have failed.

UPDATE: While this was an important finding, further work has shown that the background force has to be accompanied by a neighborhood connection, otherwise a discontinuity or possibly other cases may destabilize the particle.  To truly prove that this field can produce stable particles, all issues and details need to be fully flushed out. I suspect that the idea is on the right path but I have more work to do.



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.


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.

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.



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?


22 Years!

September 9, 2015

It’s been 22 years since I started as an amateur crackpot, and have nothing more to show for it except that I’m still an amateur crackpot.  However, I did reach the goal of a better understanding of the physics behind the particle zoo and the history of physics.  I still think that my basic premise could work to produce the array of particles and force mediators we know to exist.  The idea is analogous to the Schroedinger wave solutions for excited electrons and is based on the assumption that at quantum scales there is a way (other than gravity) to curve EM waves.  We already know that this outcome cannot result from Maxwell’s equations alone, so I have proposed that EM field twists can occur.  These could be considered strings and consist of an axially rotating field vector that propagates only at speed c.  If the axis is a straight line, we have a photon that cannot rest and has no rest mass.  However, a twist that forms in a closed loop must only exist in quantized structures (any point on the loop must have a continuous vector twist rotation, so only complete rotations are possible).  Loops can exist as a simple ring or more complex knots and linked knots and would provide the basis for a particle zoo.  The loop has two counteracting magnetic fields that curve and confine the loop path, thus enabling the soliton formation of a stable particle–the twist about the axis of the twist, and the rotation of the twist about the center of the loop. Mass results from the momentum of the twist loop being confined to a finite volume, inferring inertia, and electric charge, depending on the loop configuration, results from the distribution of  magnetic fields from the closed loop.  Linked loops posit the strong force assembly of quarks.

The biggest objection to such a twist model (aside from assuming an unobserved variation of Maxwell’s equations that enables such a twist field) is the resulting quantized size of particles.  Electrons have no observed dimensional size, but this model assumes they result from twist rings that are far larger than measurements indicate.  I have to make another assumption to get around this–that collisions or deflections are the result of hitting the infinitely small twist ring axis, not the area of the ring itself.  Indeed, this assumption helps understand why one and only one particle can capture a linear twist photon–if the electron were truly infinitely small, the probability of snagging a far larger (say, infrared) photon is vanishingly small, contrary to experiment (QFT posits that the electron is surrounded by particle/antiparticle pairs that does the snagging, but this doesn’t answer the question of why only one electron in a group will ever capture the photon).

In order for this twist theory to work, another assumption has to be made.  Something needs to quantize the frequency of axial twists, otherwise linear twists will not quantize like loops will.  In addition, without an additional constraint, there would be a continuous range of closed loop energies, which we know experimentally does not happen.  In order to quantize a photon energy to a particular twist energy, I posit that there is a background state direction for the twist vector orientation.  In this way, the twist can only start and finish from this background state, thus quantizing the rotation to multiples of 2 pi (a complete rotation).  This assumption leads to the conclusion that this background state vector must be imaginary, since a real background state would violate gauge invariance among many other things and probably would be detectable with some variation of a Michelson-Morley experiment (detecting presence of an ether, or in this case an ether direction).  We already describe quantum objects as wave equations with a 3D real part and an imaginary part, so this assumption is not wildly crack-potty.

So in summary, this twist field theory proposes modifying the EM field math to allow axial twists in a background state.  Once this is done, quantized particle formation becomes possible and a particle zoo results.  I’ve been working hard on a simulator to see what particle types would emerge from such an environment.

One remaining question is how does quantum entanglement and the non-causal decoherence process get explained?  I propose that particles are group waves whose phase instantly affects the entire wave path.  The concept of time and distance and maximum speed c all arise from a limit on how fast the wave phase components can change relative to each other, analogous to Fourier composition of delta functions.

You will notice I religiously avoid trying to add dimensions such as the rolled up dimensions of various string theories and multiple universes and other such theories.  I see no evidence to support additional dimensions–I think over time if there were other dimensions connected to our 3D + T, we would have seen observable evidence, such as viruses hiding in those dimensions or loss of conservation of some quantities of nature.  Obviously that’s no proof, but KISS to me means that extra dimensions are a contrivance.  My twist field approach seems a lot more plausable, but I may be biased… 🙂


New Papers on Speed of Light Variation Theories

April 28, 2013

A couple of papers to a European physics journal ( –probably not the best place to get accurate reviews, but interesting anyway) attempt to show how the speed of light is dependent on a universe composed of virtual particles.  The question here is why isn’t c infinite, and of course I’ve been interested in any current thinking in this area because my unitary twist field theory posits that quantum interference results from infinite speed wave phase propagation, but that particles are a Fourier composition that moves as a group wave that forms a twist.  Group waves form a solition whose motion is constrained by the *change* in the relative phases of the group wave components.

Both theories were interesting to me, not because they posited that the speed of light would vary depending on the composition of virtual particles, but because they posit that the speed of light is dependent on the existence of virtual particles.  This is a match with my idea since virtual particles in the unitary twist field theory are partial twists that revert back to a background vector state.  Particles become real when there is sufficient energy to make a full twist back to the background state, thus preserving the twist ends (this assumes that a vector field state has a lowest energy when lining up with a background vector state).  But virtual particles, unlike real particles, are unstable and have zero net energy because the energy gained when partially twisting is lost when the twist reverts back to the background state.

These papers are suggesting that light propagates as a result of a constant sequence of particle pair creation and annhiliation.   The first glance view might be that particle pair creation is just a pulling away of a positron and an electron like a dumb-bell object, but because charged particles, virtual or real, will have a magnetic moment, it’s far more likely that the creation event will be spiralling out–a twist.  Yes, you are right to roll-your-eyes, this is making the facts fit the theory and that does not prove anything.  Nevertheless, I am seeing emerging consensus that theories of physical behavior need to come from, or at least fully account for, interactions in a sea of virtual particles.  To keep the particle zoo proliferation explanation simple, this sea of virtual particles has to be some variation of motions of a single vector field–and in 3D, there’s only two simple options–linear field variation, and twists.   Photons would be linear twists and unconstrained in energy–but particles with rest mass would be closed loops with only certain allowed energies, similar to the Schrodinger electron around an atom.  Twists in a background vector field also have the advantage that the energy of the twist has to be quantized–matching the experimental E=hv result.


The Quandary of Attraction, Part III

April 26, 2012

I worked quite a bit with figuring out a way to make twists work in the electron-photon case.  I had excluded partial twist bending as a means of propagating the charge field of a remote charged particle, but this really troubles me, because it is a very clean way of representing virtual photons.  Virtual photons actually come from QFT as partial terms of a total expression of interaction probabilities.  They are a mathematical artifact only in the sense that there are constraints on the sum of all virtual interaction probabilities.  Even though they aren’t really “real”, they derive from real field behavior in aggregate, so there must be some physical analog if I’m going to construct an underlying theory.  Partial twists were perfect–since they have to return to the background direction without executing a full twist (otherwise there would be a real photon there), and since they have a linearity property where multiple charge sources can create a sum of bends, there was a good match for the QFT virtual particle artifice.  Such a bend will have an effect on a remote ring (charged particle) caused by the delta bend from one side of the particle to the other.  Here’s a simple picture that illustrates what I am thinking:

Problem with bend solution to Unitary Twist Field theory in a charged particle array

If bends are correct, there’s a whole bunch of problems that show up, the Figure 2 shows one of them–it doesn’t work correctly if a third charged particle is added at an angle to the line of the first and second particles.  In addition, the bends aren’t even correct if the field due to the receiving particle is added in.  It just doesn’t work, and so I decided to throw in the towel and say that bends are not virtual particles and there is no option but to only consider full twists for real photons.  The twist model won’t have a QFT equivalant mapping with virtual photons.  Oh, I really don’t like that.  I also really don’t like the background vector in R3 in order to enforce quantization–I see a large number of problems creating such a system that is gauge invariant (what I mean by that is that the system’s behavior is independent of absolute position, rotation, and Lorentz invariant to frames of reference in space-time).

It occurred to me that all these problems could be solved if we put the background vector direction orthogonal to our R3 space.  Not really a 4th dimension because nothing will exist there, but a 4th dimension direction to point.  I think multi-particle bends will correctly sum to create an electrostatic or magnetic field that QFT would generate with virtual photons, and now there is no preferred angle in R3 that would ruin gauge invariance.

I have to think about this a lot more because now there may be too many degrees of freedom for twists.  The work on circular polarization for photons wont be affected since the background direction just provides a reference for the available twists.  But the ring solution might end up with too many possibilities, I have to figure that out.  But I see a lot of promise in this adjustment to Unitary Twist Field theory–I think it is a closer match to what we know QFT and EM fields will do, yet still preserves the quantization and special relativity behavior that makes the Unitary Twist Field idea so compelling to me.


Twists and Photons

April 2, 2012

One thing that may not be clear as I look for unitary field solutions to things like photons–everything has to work, one counter-example and I’m a crackpot pushing a theory that can’t be right.  I had thought that my simulations were using the wrong type of unitary field twist to represent photons (see previous post), that it has to be in line (“bicycle wheel motion”) in order to meet the experimental requirement that photons have the degree of freedom called circular polarization.  I was thinking that only in that case can the twist have circular polarization since the in-line twist can take on any orientation about the direction of travel.

But this is wrong, since the background vector orientation necessary for quantization (all twists must return to this background orientation for quantization to work) specifies a *second* axis that must be intersected.  Acck!! Two non-degenerate (ie, non-overlapping) axes means only one possible plane of rotation.  Such a model provides no degree of freedom for circular polarization.  As I thought about it, I realized the mistake was assuming that rotation had to occur about the axis of twist travel, it doesn’t.  It only must rotate through the axis specified by the background field.   Here’s an attempt to show what I mean:

Demonstration of how the unitary twist model is constrained by the background direction, thus allowing both quantization and circular polarization of photons

So–this may be a crackpot theory, but not because it can’t correctly represent valid degrees of freedom for photon polarization.

So… onwards.  I now have a workable set of constraints that should allow me to model valid unitary field twist behavior.