(Updates 1 and 2 below)

It’s been an amazing week working on the unitary twist field sim. Most of the kinks in the sim coding are fixed, and what I’m finding in the sim results I think are astonishing. Here’s what I’m finding:

a. There is now little doubt in my mind that there is a class of precursor fields based on a rotation (unitary) vector field that produces stable linearly propagating twist particles. I’ve attempted a geometric proof, and within the limits of the assumptions I am making, the particles appear to have to be able to exist in this type of field and are stable, and so far the sim results are confirming this.

b. An unexpected result from the sim–the particles have to move as a single rotation at the limiting speed of the sim. This is exciting because photons cannot exist unless they move at the speed of light, and this sim shows linear twists match this behavior. As I concluded in my last post, I realized that special relativity has to have a part to play here and in the sim it shows up as only one possible speed for the linear twist.

c. You cannot form a stable linear twist unless you do one full rotation as defined by the local background state. Any other partial twist dissipates (or has to be absorbed by something, e.g, virtual particles). There is an asymmetry in the leading and trailing edge angular momentum of any linear twist–the only way to resolve this is if both ends have the same change of momentum (leading edge incurs a momentum in the next cell, the trailing edge cancels out that momentum). This property prohibits a twist from being stable unless it completes a rotation, in which case the same change in momentum happens on both the leading and trailing edge.

d. It is looking probable (but not proven yet) that you can curve the twist path depending on the change of rotation vectors in the path of the linear twist. As mentioned in one my prior posts, a closed loop will create a changing tilt of rotation vectors internal and external to the loop, thus (in theory) sustaining the closed loop. This is a big difference between this precursor field and attempts to create stable particles out of an EM field. You cannot change the path of a photon with some EM field. However, for the unitary twist field, I’ve already shown that this should be possible geometrically (see back a few posts), but now I need to confirm it with a sim.

UPDATE 1: here is a picture–probably the most unimpressive picture ever produced by a GPU graphics card! Nevertheless, there’s a lot of computing that was done to generate it, and clearly shows both propagation and preservation of the emitted twist. The junk to the upper left is left over from the initial conditions that emitted the twist, I’ll fix the startup code shortly, but I thought you’d like to see the early results that I thought were exciting…

UPDATE 2: Better pictures coming. Just like with real photons, I can make these particles any length, modeling the continuous range of frequencies available. What is shown above is a fairly short “photon”, but I now have pictures of much lower frequency, hence longer, photon wave rotations. I am still getting perfect reproduction of the photon model as it travels, thus solidifying the conclusion that this field yields stable solitons. Next up–geometrically I can see that I should be able to get two parallel photons to lase–that is, phase lock. I’ll start the sim with two out-of-phase photons near each other and see if they lock. Stay tuned!

end of UPDATE 1 and 2

My biggest concern with thinking I have found something interesting as opposed to “not even wrong” or trivial is that I would have expected at least a few thousand real physicists would have already found this field behavior, perhaps fleshed this out a lot more than I have, and found it wanting as a theory underlying the formation of real-world particles. This thing is simple enough that I just cannot believe that a lot of people haven’t already been here. I also still have a ton of unanswered questions (for example, issues with the background state concept, whether the +/-I state is necessary, and so on).

So–other than having a lot of fun exploring this, I don’t see anything yet that means I should write a paper or something. I’ll keep plowing away. As an uncredentialed amateur, I know it’s more likely I’ll win the lottery than being taken seriously by a professional researcher, and I’m fine with that.

One thing that’s going to be really fun is setting up a sim of a major collision of some sort–I hope I don’t induce a cybernetic singularity and wipe out the universe…. 🙂

Agemoz