What are fields?
Introduction
After having discussions with people about physics and some of its concepts, I believe it would be useful to write a short paper on the topic of fields, to help clarify their scientific meaning. Elsewhere, I have written that there is nothing more fundamental in the universe other than fields, and significantly, that there is only one true type – Electromagnetic. These E-M fields make all the energy, mass and interactions we observe. They even make us:- Our bodies, and all our thoughts, feelings, memories and pain that are part of being human.
So what actually are these things physics calls fields. apart from their being all and everything? Why is it important for us to understand them?
What are fields?
Even the very concept of understanding and learning comes about because of the actions of fields in our neural system. They are like water to a fish, but could a fish contemplate what water really is? Most would just keep swimming. What sort of fish are you?
Since Newton, physics has introduced the idea of fields to explain what it calls action at a distance. I will try to summarize what it has to say about them, using material from an article in Wikipedia.
Fields in physics are physical quantities that are assigned to every point in space or spacetime. They are seen as extending throughout a large region of space and influencing everything. Some examples of fields in physics are:
· Gravitational field: generated by the presence of mass and has a direction.
· Scalar field: a field that has only one value at each point, such as temperature or pressure.
· Vector field: a field that has both a value and a direction at each point, such as velocity or force.
According to modern physics, this is quite a relevant and integral definition. Fields are a big thing. To the best of our current knowledge, they are our measure of what’s happening in space, due to some physical influence.
We could take this further and broaden our definition to include things like smell and loudness, but these require a medium (air) and are not true or fundamental fields according to this paper. Here, we concentrate only on those vector fields that pervade space alone, without a medium.
A new theory in physics, called SED or Structural Electrodynamics, says that while all fields do have the above properties, true electromagnetic fields have so much more. Firstly though, we should acknowledge how pervasive fields are, being everywhere, even in a vacuum or void. As we have said, they are a consequence of an influence, separated in space. Elsewhere, SED explains how everything is ultimately a field because fields create fundamental particles. And fundamental particles create all the matter in the universe. They are what you and everything else is made of.
Likewise, every event that each particle experiences is based on its interactions with the fields that made it. This is how events evolve according to Yin Yang. An unfolding vibration of opposites. Just what E-M fields are. This was also described by Newton when he said, F = ma. And even in this, both sides are fields.
Of all the types of fields and interactions that exist and are described by physics, SED contends there is really only one, electromagnetic, that is fundamental and the single source of all in the universe.
So the interactions of all particles are based on E-M fields. These fields are ubiquitous, as the following excerpt contends. It is taken from another part of the same article on fields in Wikipedia. While being more technically advanced, some readers may like to consider it as well.
In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a scalar, vector, or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.[1][2][3] For example, on a weather map, the surface temperature is described by assigning a number to each point on the map; the temperature can be considered at a certain point in time or over some interval of time, to study the dynamics of temperature change. A surface wind map,[4] assigning an arrow to each point on a map that describes the wind speed and direction at that point, is an example of a vector field, i.e. a 1-dimensional (rank-1) tensor field. Field theories, mathematical descriptions of how field values change in space and time, are ubiquitous in physics. For instance, the electric field is another rank-1 tensor field, while electrodynamics can be formulated in terms of two interacting vector fields at each point in spacetime, or as a single-rank 2-tensor field.[5][6][7]
In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum".[8] This has led physicists to consider electromagnetic fields to be a physical entity, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the edifice of modern physics. "The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real ... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have."[9] In practice, the strength of most fields diminishes with distance, eventually becoming undetectable. For instance the strength of many relevant classical fields, such as the gravitational field in Newton's theory of gravity or the electrostatic field in classical electromagnetism, is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source (i.e., they follow Gauss's law).
A field can be classified as a scalar field, a vector field, a spinor field or a tensor field according to whether the represented physical quantity is a scalar, a vector, a spinor, or a tensor, respectively. A field has a consistent tensorial character wherever it is defined: i.e. a field cannot be a scalar field somewhere and a vector field somewhere else.
However, we now ask the question: What are E-M fields really made of? These articles help to classify fields and describe their properties and even suggest that like particles, they possess energy and momentum. SED says that this is true, but that particles are made from fields, not the reverse.
Furthermore, SED claims that because the universe is physically only energy and matter, then perhaps this is also true of fields. Could it be that the electric field is actually like energy and the magnetic field is a type of momentum or matter in motion?
In another paper on charge and magnetism, I propose that there is a direct connection here. Electromagnetic fields are simply another form of energy and matter. It is interesting to consider Maxwell’s equations in this light, when they take on a new meaning similar to Newton’s laws.
In conclusion, SED has two further points to add. Firstly it acknowledges how close modern science is coming to an understanding of how matter is made from E-M fields, but physics has not yet grasped a mechanism to reveal how this happens. It has had no model. However there is a structure, which SED calls a roton, that is a soliton or sustained standing wave of energy. And this soliton creates matter from light. Light held in one place. Secondly, this roton, in addition to being the basis of all fundamental particles, is actually the elusive spinor, which physics has until now, been unable to define or picture. It is aware of the curious properties a spinor must have, yet despite some mathematical abstractions, can offer no description of the thing itself.
In a future paper, SED will publish material on spinors to try and rectify this.
what is a spinor?
Introduction
Spinors are an abstract mathematical entity, deeply involved in our ideas of particle physics and similar branches of science, but so far have evaded all attempts to explain exactly what they are physically. Despite many efforts, they remain another elusive concept in physics. Even one of the greatest experts on spinors and their geometry, Sir Michael Atiyah, admitted he had no idea of what they really were, although their importance to science was critical, because they are somehow involved in the formation of matter. This article will try to present some new light on spinors and help us understand how they create fundamental particles. It proposes that we now have a model that explains the structure of both the spinor and elementary particles. It is simple and beautiful and enables us to not only visualise a spinor, but to use this model to predict all the properties of fundamental particles and comprehend how matter is made.
This diagram, taken from Wikipedia, shows how spinors have until know, been thought of as a kind of Möbius band, exhibiting a sign inversion when the circle (the "physical system") is continuously rotated through a full turn of 360°. We see that a spinor is proposed to transform to its negative after the system rotates once. This is shown by the green and red arrows pointing in opposite directions. It takes another full turn, or double rotation of 720° for a spinor to go back to its original state and clear this inversion. What kind of model can depict this? This article proposes one that has already been used to explain how elementary particles are created from energy, using only electromagnetic fields. The model is integral to a new branch of physics called Structural Electrodynamics or SED. The theory of Electrodynamics is well established, being concerned with how light and matter interact and SED contends that with the correct model, we can now understand how matter was made during the early stages of the big bang. It maintains that all the properties of matter can be readily understood from first principles, using the structure of this model alone.
What is a spinor?
We note that in the above description and diagram of a spinor, taken from Wikipedia, physicists use the concept of a mobius strip as the initial or base physical system. This is a curious object made from a strip that has a single 180° twist in its formation, before the ends are joined, thus giving it a single surface. Of-course this is an interesting structure, but SED contends: Why use it as a starting point if it cannot help us explain a spinor? In SED’s model, we simply double the original 180° of twist to 360°, for each full rotation, as shown in the next diagram. With this change, we see that spinors can finally be visualized and have their properties interpreted physically. They are no longer the unfathomable mystery that only has meaning in abstract mathematics, such as orthogonal Lie algebra and Minkowski space. Simple geometry and mathematics, plus regular 3-D space will suffice.
Here we show how to make the model of a spinor, by first twisting, then joining the ends of a length of plastic strip. This should be at least 50 cm by 1 cm and marked-up with E and B-fields, as shown in figure 3 below. In reality, they are made from a single cycle of an electromagnetic wave that consists of one Plank constant, or h, of spin.
Figure 2 - Making a 2- Turn Helix or roton from a thin flexible strip.
The figure-8 shape on the right shows both the structure of spinors and the basic shape of all elementary particles. Spinors are fundamental to particle physics and we can now see how they are made. It shows how a spinor transforms to its negative when the space rotates through 360°, before returning to positive after another, or 720° in total. Please refer to the next diagram (Fig 3, below), while reading the following description.
The top drawing here depicts a single cycle of a normal electromagnetic wave, then, with the effect of a 3600 twist drawn below it. When the ends are joined, it shows how the E and B-fields evolve due to this structure. Starting at the crossover, we traverse one loop and 360°, to pass through the crossover again, when the magnetic field becomes opposite or negative. This continues in the second loop until we reach the crossover again, when the magnetic field returns to positive. So it takes a full rotation of 720°, for a spinor to go back to its original state. SED calls this model a roton and maintains it provides the structural basis for how matter is made from high energy light or gamma rays.
It can only form in a roton, with its unique shape that turns the field back on itself, twice each cycle.
The electron is a spinor
Today, there is a consensus among particle physicists that even though we do not know what either is, our science and mathematics point to the conclusion that the electron is a spinor. SED completely agrees and says that once we understand what one is, we will know the other. They go hand in hand. I have written a number of papers on this topic, the most relevant being, SED The Electron. For now, I will only write a few more words using inductive logic to close this argument.
Conclusion
The electron is a spinor.
The roton is a spinor.
Therefore, the electron is a roton.
References
[1] Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?
J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133 (1997)
what is gravity?
Introduction
Since Newton introduced the topic, there has not been a clear coherent theory on what gravity actually is - what causes it. Einstein was close when he said matter causes space to curve. But how? And Why? He was unable to say, other than comparing it to the behaviour of acceleration. Using his theories of general relativity, he and other scientists have gone on to write equations that describe its behaviour on a large scale with great accuracy. And even down to the small, when we use it with our GPS satellites for precise navigation.
He had a deep insight that changed science. However, what Einstein should have said is that matter not only curves space, it actually compresses space, but he didn’t have the mechanism or model of how this can happen. He didn’t have a roton, which is the fundamental structure that elementary particles use to create matter from energy. We will describe this shortly. Meanwhile, many physicists try to explain gravity using things like animated diagrams of elastic sheets and rolling balls of different sizes, but these don’t do this idea justice. They don’t depict how gravity works. It does not stretch space, as the bending sheets incorrectly show. It does the opposite. Matter pulls space in, from all directions, compressing it. This is gravity.
If Einstein had this model he would have laughed. Happily. Because he would then have understood the mechanism for what we mistakenly call the force of gravity. He knew there was no force. Just properties belonging to space and time. Because these two always go together. Like light.
How a roton creates gravity
This paper introduces a mechanism or model that simply explains what gravity is. Gravity is not a mysterious force, but a consequence of the structure of matter and its interaction with space. This paper also proposes that matter is made from rotons. And rotons are the framework that energy uses to produce mass. Pure energy, like light, is fundamentally 2-dimensional and has no volume. That’s why it moves at c, the speed of light. Mass, on the other hand, is the consequence of the inertia held in the 3-D structure of these rotons. The energy they contain is in the form of electromagnetic fields that are rapidly rotating simultaneously in two orthogonal axes. Each roton contains a single Plank constant of angular momentum, also referred to as spin or h. The energy (or mass) they possess is proportional to the frequency of their spin. What spins is energy in the path formed from the collision of two gamma rays and their subsequent superposition.
The diagram at left shows the structure of the roton with its two loops bent at 900 to each other, forming a volume from flat, 2-D energy. To make a roton or particle with matter, two original gamma rays or high energy photons collide at 900 to each other and superpose to form a soliton or standing wave, emitting a neutrino in the process. Angular momentum is conserved at 2h before and after the interaction. The roton’s spin is still one h overall, as is the neutrino’s and consists of two circular loops, both half the radius of each gamma ray’s Compton radius. That is why fermions, or particles with mass, have a measured spin of half h at any one time, and yet their total spin is still one full h overall. This explains a long-standing problem that particle physicists have had with the angular momentum of fermions. They have not understood this because until now, there have had no clear idea of what [1]spin really is. Now we know.
This path in the roton consists of two loops that are pulled together by their magnetic field, until they are at 900 to each other. This compresses space, with the result that the straight line between two objects with mass is shorter than all other lines, where there is no mass. When there are many rotons, such as in a planet or star or galaxy, this effect is considerable. This is the mechanism of gravity.
It is also mathematically defined by the universal law of gravitation. Of course, being purely a geometric phenomenon, means this effect is very small, and that is why the constant or G, in this law, is so tiny. We need a lot of mass to create gravity. Naturally, the inverse square relationship is also involved here, because as distances increase, the area over which the effect manifests, increase in direct proportion.
Furthermore and significantly, SED contends that gravity is not actually a force, causing attraction between two objects that have mass. Its properties are due entirely to the compression or shortening of space, owing to the presence of matter in each object. This is why it’s effect is so much weaker than the electromagnetic force – The only true force.
[1] Read my article, What is spin, for further insights.
what is spin?
Introduction
It is generally accepted by the modern physics academic community, that while elementary particles possess spin, they are not actually spinning. It does however accept that these particles have angular momentum, but it is an intrinsic form, arising from quantum mechanics, and not something that we humans can understand. This article proposes that this is an illogical belief, and that we need a new model to rationally understand spin.
There is a new branch of physics, called Structural Electrodynamics or SED, that proposes we take another look at some of the strange claims of quantum mechanics and try to find a more physical and comprehensible view of science and the world. SED is concerned with how matter is made from energy and suggests that this process is entirely coherent and one that can be simply described from first principles. Additionally, all the properties of fundamental particles such as charge, spin half h, mass, chirality, the two spin states of the electron - even what nucleons are and how the nucleus works, come about naturally as a result of the structure of these particles. There is no need to resort to abstract mathematics, multi-dimensional space, many worlds, quarks with fractional charge, Higgs bosons that miraculously supply mass to everything in the universe, and other bazar concepts such as going backwards in time, or half dead cats. A key role of physics is to explain science, not confuse and mystify people with ideas that are more like science fiction than reality.
The Standard Model insists that one of the main objections to spin being real spin is that fundamental particles are point-like, and that being infinitely small, there is nothing to spin. No radius for circular motion. We will soon see how SED, in combination with the well accepted idea of wave-particle duality, escapes from this dilemma.
What is spin?
To understand spin we first need to understand the structure of elementary particles and how they are formed. One of the main concepts SED invokes here is that of the Plank constant or quantum of angular momentum, often written simply as h. Its importance to this theory cannot be overstated. It is so vital to the whole concept of what particles are, that SED calls it the new atom of physics. In fact, it goes on to say that if something exists, it spins with h, or some whole multiple, of real angular momentum This idea is profound but strangely seems to have been overlooked by physicists, although most will agree that h is integral to quantum physics and occurs in virtually every equation in the subject. Too often though, it seems that h is considered merely a type of constant, whose physical importance is not especially significant. Using only elementary physics, SED hopes to change this.
The idea of a model that is spinning needs some physical entity for its construction. This is supplied by ultra-high energy electromagnetic fields or gamma rays, which experiments show are produced when elementary particles decay. The reverse of this process also happens, and SED simply contends that this is how energy creates matter. We therefore need to understand the mechanism of how this can occur.
Moreover, if SED is correct and that energy creates matter, the idea of wave-particle duality also explains why fundamental particles can appear to have no size. They are a soliton or standing wave, with a circumferential length based on their Compton wavelength or energy. However, they are not like a solid entity with mass and a surface. This is an illusion. And because they are so tiny and wave-like, we will never discover their structure directly, so they appear to be infinitely small, without any structure.
SED proposes a model and mechanism whereby matter is formed The model is called a roton and the mechanism is the spin of E-M waves or fields. [1]Elsewhere, I have written a number of articles about this, but it seems that conventional physics has so much inertia and self-belief in the Standard Model that it will be slow to change, despite many inconsistencies and shortcomings. We will see how time and fresh minds deal with this. Meanwhile, I can only write.
So how does spin come about in this model and what maintains it? What makes matter? The answer is Plank’s constant with its deep and far-reaching influence on everything in the universe.
This diagram at left shows the structure of the roton and that the proposed model maintains angular momentum. To make a roton or particle with matter, two original gamma rays or photons collide at 900 and superpose to form a soliton or standing wave, emitting a neutrino in the process. Angular momentum is conserved at 2h before and after the interaction. The roton’s spin is still one h overall and consists of two circular loops, both half the radius of each gamma ray. That is why fermions, or particles with mass, have a measured spin of half h at any one time, and yet their total spin is still one full h. This explains a long-standing problem that particle physicists have had with the angular momentum of fermions. They have not understood this because until now, they have had no idea of what spin really is. Now we know.
Spin is angular momentum at the smallest possible level, that of Plank’s constant – it creates all fundamental particles, and nothing exists without it, not even energy and fields. Always conserved and never divided, it is the ultimate quantum or atom of the universe.
The two spin states
Experiments on electrons in magnetic fields, reveal that they always exists in either one of two possible states, now called spin-up and spin-down. These two spin states have opposite magnetic moments and have spin values of +1/2 and -1/2 in units of h. This was a perplexing outcome for physicists, who were unable to explain why these two states exist. They referred to it as a purely quantum phenomenon, with no analogy in our larger world, and left it at that. However, SED has a simple explanation for what is happening in electrons, with no need for anything other than high-school physics. Please refer to the following diagram (Fig 2).
Using our roton as a model, we can see how an external magnetic field initially causes an electron to align itself with the field, in order to reduce potential energy to a minimum. This is the case as shown in the left-hand roton below (called spin-up). Now when the external magnetic is reversed, and if it has sufficient strength, the electron will flip, or turn inside-out, like an umbrella. It takes the energy to do this from the field. The model shows that the magnetic field direction in each of the rotons loops is reversed, but that the electric field direction remains [2]unchanged. This is how the magnetic moment or state of the electron is reversed, but that the charge remains the same. Only these two states are possible in fundamental particles.
Figure 2 - The two states of an electron, or fundamental particle, when inverted produce opposite magnetic moments.
The overall spin change is always h (or h-bar if we are considering radial and not circumferential angular momentum). This is the minimum that can occur. The electron or particle cannot spontaneously alter its state. Only with energy supplied by the external field, can this happen. This is another example of how real spin or angular momentum exists in all particles. Furthermore, SED proposes that because of its importance, universality and durability, Plank’s constant is fundamental to everything and is the new atom of physics.
References
[1] The Nature of the Electron By Qui-Hong Hu
[1] See my other papers such as: SED The Electron and The Atom – A structural view.
[2] A plastic strip made into a roton, marked-up with E and B fields, when inverted will show why this is so.
what is the fine structure constant?
Introduction
Until now, the Fine-structure constant, or α (the Greek letter alpha, as it is often written), has been one of physics greatest mysteries. Its exact value is known and confirmed by experiments, but so far there has been no theory to explain what it means , or why it has the value it has. We know it is a pure number, with no units - a dimensionless number like pi. Logic tells us it must therefore be a ratio of similar things because pi is a ratio of distances, the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Any alien living in flat space would understand what we mean by pi, regardless of our units here on earth. But what do we mean by α?
What does α mean?
The Fine-structure constant, also called the Sommerfield constant or α, is a fundamental physical constant, involved in the interaction between what we call charged particles. and the electromagnetic field itself. In [1]other papers I have discussed its definition according to the following formula, based on further fundamental constants.
Here, is the permittivity of free space and now called the electric constant, e is the elementary charge or charge of the electron, is the reduced Plank constant and c is the speed of light. So we know how to calculate its value, but why it should have this value is not understood. It has been an enigma with no origin. And yet it influences so much of quantum mechanics and particle physics.
There is a new theory in physics called Structural Electrodynamics or SED that offers an opinion on this. Electrodynamics is the branch of physics concerned with the interaction of light and particles and SED posits that this interaction is based on structure. It has discovered that all fundamental particles do indeed have a structure. One that was formed by the superposition of two gamma rays. These can merge and form a stable [2]soliton, or type of standing wave, that can last for billions of years. All the measured properties of particles such as charge, magnetism, mass, spin half h, and their two quantum states of an electron (up and down) are a natural consequence of this tiny structure. There is no need to say that particles are infinitely small points that somehow have intrinsic properties, with all the difficulties this approach entails. This model, which SED calls a roton, has a certain size based on the Compton wavelength, or energy of the particle and it is simply a matter of using first principles to calculate all these measured properties. This has been done in other papers by SED and they agree well with experiments.
Now we will use SED to try and discover why α has the value it has, and what this means to physics.
The roton has the structure of a lemniscate or infinity symbol draped over a sphere. It is composed of a single photon of an electromagnetic field in the gamma ray spectrum (an extremely energetic form of light). All photons and all elementary particles have an angular momentum of one h or Plank constant. It is the basis of this theory, as well as quantum mechanics and it never varies. The process of forming particles with mass (fermions) from photons without mass (bosons) is called supersymmetry. SED shows how the roton that is formed has two loops, and each has half the radius of the original photon. Therefore its angular momentum or h, is shared sequentially between the two loops. Thus, when we measure the spin or angular momentum of a fermion, we get half h at any one time. Remember that angular momentum at this level is defined as h = mcλ , where m is mass, c is the speed of light, and λ is the Compton wavelength’s circumference. Half the circumference means half the spin. Here spin is real angular momentum and what is spinning are the E and B fields in the particle. They form the endless path or λ of the roton, with their unique energy and momentum.
So, using λ or length as the unit, we have one half of the ratio that defines α. There is only one other candidate. This must be the width or thickness of the path itself - The essence or source of the fields. The space E and B occupy to create each other. Again, SED claims it is illogical to think that this should be infinitely small, a singularity. More likely, it must have some particular value for each type of particle and their unique λ. For the electron, we already have what is known as the classical electron radius, but can this concept be extended to all kinds of fundamental particle?
The answer comes from the amount of curve or curl the path must take to turn back on itself, creating each loop in the roton. Significantly, Maxwell’s two equations defining the curl of the E and B fields as they create themselves in electromagnetism, provide a mathematical result that we could use. These are:
1
2.
The left-hand side in each, represents the curl of the E and B fields and the right-hand side their value, which is basically how the opposite field varies in time. For the first equation this is inverse, because of the minus sign, so the curl of E opposes the time change of B. We can ignore the J term in the second, because this is only significant when we have a moving charge or current, as in macro systems. Inside the particles themselves there is no current. So each field has a curl that equals the time rate of change of the other. Remember also that the ratio of the E to B fields is c, the speed of light, making E much larger than B. Furthermore, this curl must come from inside the path itself, due to its size or thickness, and thus have a small angular momentum.
Geometry and structure show how this twist or curl has to make a perfect circle [3]twice in each cycle of the of the E and B fields. SED reasons that because of this, we now have the other half of the ratio that defines α. Only an exact amount of angular momentum inside the path itself will allow it to twist and line up correctly, to form a stable soliton. This is [4]about 137th the overall angular momentum of the roton, which we know is h. So SED contends that the ratio of the path thickness to the path length is α. Computer modelling will be needed to verify if this is so, and that only this ratio allows the roton, and hence all fundamental particles, to exist.
An image of the roton
In order to comprehend this idea, we need to visualize the structure of the roton and how it forms. It is a single cycle of a high energy E-M wave that has been created by superposition with another identical wave, interacting at 90 degrees to the first. This forms a soliton or stable standing wave, that persists in time and remains localised in space. Its size or path length is determined by its energy or Compton wave length. We can see from this diagram that only a certain twist in the path, due to its thickness, will sustain the ongoing motion in the roton and produce a stable particle.
Figure 1 - A 3D view of the Hubius Helix or roton. The roton creates α, due to the ratio of its path thickness and path length, or λ. (Image thanks to Qiu-Hong Hu) [1]
References
[1] The Nature of the Electron By Qui-Hong Hu
[2] Solitons Claudio Rebbi Scientific American Articles February 1979
[1] See my paper: SED The Electron among others.
[2] See the article: [2] in References.
[3] Imagine twisting a hose to make the folded figure 8 or roton with two loops. Then compare the overall angular momentum of the water through the hose, to the angular momentum inside the hose.
[4] Actually, this value is 137.035999084(21), the reciprocal of α.