The Paradoxes of the Electron Point Source

Robert D. Morrison, Revised Sept 9, 2009

Revised Aug 22, 2010, added field description

Abstract: The Standard Model quantum representation of the electron as a point source
has been mathematically successful with the fullest verification possible with
experimental collision results, but has logical paradoxes that have not been resolved.
These paradoxes have been relegated to the “not yet understood” class by researchers, but
the author investigates a unitary vector field model that gives logical solutions to the
paradoxes.

The Electron Paradoxes

The electron, and its anti-matter counterpart, the positron, are elementary particles with a
constant charge and magnetic moment which enables versions that are either spin up or
spin down when detected. Extensive experimentation, in particular, scattering and
photon excitation experiments, have shown that the electron has dimensional
characteristics of a singularity—the region of homogeneity and internal structure of a
collision cross section has been shown to be less than an epsilon radius that is smaller
than measurable with the best available colliders of our time. Standard Model physicists
believe that the best logical conclusion, based on theoretical analysis of these results, is
that the electron physically is a point singularity, that is, it is a zero dimensional object
(or possibly very near zero dimensional with internal structure at the Planck length, i.e,
10-37 cm, some 24 orders of magnitude smaller than an atom).

However, such a conclusion gives rise to several paradoxes. Some paradoxes are less
severe than others, but there are a sufficient number of these that the conclusion of the
electron as a point particle has been often questioned over the last century. There is no
question that experimental results show a knife edge character, but from a geometrical
standpoint, it is easily shown that it is not possible to determine whether the knife edge is
a point, a line, a ring, or other shape—we only can know, and do know, that the cross-
section of a collision is zero dimensional. There is another class of experiment that might
be called excitation experiments, where a high energy photon is absorbed by a particle.
The resulting behavior of the particle, where some portion of the photon is absorbed such
that not all of the energy is immediately applied to the particle’s momentum, can show
internal structure. For example, if the particle obtains additional angular momentum, or
enters an excited energy state, this generally implies internal structure, but the electron
clearly shows neither.

The first and most obvious paradox comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty relation,
which in one of its many corollaries to the generalized form says that a discrete object
cannot have a pair of orthogonal physical parameters such as momentum and width
multiply to less than Planck’s constant. Experimental collision experiments show that the
measurable point representation of an electron violates this to an extreme degree. The
Standard Model represents the electron as a zero dimensional object, although currently
physicists expect to find internal structure at the Planck length. The problem with this is
that if this is true, the uncertainty relation then specifies a minimum momentum of
absurdly large values that only approach validity as the electron approaches the speed of
light.

The second paradox, equally serious, is the problem of momentum conservation.

Electrons are repelled by sources of negative charge (such as another electron) and
attracted by sources of positive charge, such as a proton or positron. The Standard Model
(in particular, Quantum Field Theory) concludes that the force on an electron is mediated
by photons traveling from the source of the charge to the electron. The problem is that
when attraction is considered, momentum of the system is not conserved—the
momentum of all entities prior to the interaction is the inverse of the momentum of the
system after the interaction.

The third paradox, also quite serious, is the question of electron-photon absorption. A
photon of any energy will interact with an electron if the experimental circumstances
permit it. The quantum nature of both particles is such that if a photon is absorbed, it is
completely absorbed by only one electron, regardless of nearby particles that are also
capable of absorbing the photon. If an electron is a point source, the geometrical ability
to uniquely capture a complete photon whose wavelength may be billions of times larger
than that of the target electron, instead of billions of other electrons within the photon
wavelength, strains the imagination—and raises a serious question of the accuracy of the
point source model of the electron. An important permutation of this is the quantum
interference property that causes an electron to have wave properties when heading
through two closely spaced slits—a clear violation of the believed point dimensionality of
electrons. Even if the electron had structure at the Planck length, the wave effect would
be far too small to cause the experimentally observed wave properties of the electron.

The fourth significant paradox is that there are four permutations of particles that have
the characteristics of the electron—the spin-up electron, the spin-down electron, the spin-
up positron, and the spin-down positron. All of these particles are currently concluded to
have the zero-dimensional point size. The problem is that there are two degrees of
freedom here that under the Standard Model are not allowed to have a physical
dimensional element. Quantum field theory resolves this by assigning the particle
properties that do not have physical attributes. Magnetic moment (responsible for spin) is
problematic (and is the paradox) here, because in every other case it results from motion,
yet if there is no dimension, it is not possible in theory to give rise to a magnetic moment.
It is possible to say that the electron is not a true point but is very close to it (structure at
the Planck length) to get around this, but this is pure speculation at this point in time.

The fifth very important paradox is the charge renormalization problem that occurs with a
point source. If the electron were truly a point source, the 1/r2 nature of electrostatic
forces introduces infinities as the interactions near the singularity, causing severe
inconsistencies with theoretical levels of energy that do not appear in reality. Many
techniques to renormalize the infinities, that is, make them go away, are used to make the
point source model match reality, but this should be a red flag that there is a problem with
the point source model.
There has been considerable investigation into “clothing” the bare electron singularity
with a shell of virtual electron-positron particle pairs. Similar to the methods shown in
quantum field theory, this becomes a recursive problem that can compensate or hide the
infinite 1/r2 nature of electrostatic attraction at r=0. While this clothing model could
explain this fifth hypothesis, scattering experiments do not reveal evidence of such a two
component structure to the electron.

In summary, there are clear problems and questions about representing the electron as a
point singularity or close to it. Consequently, researchers point to the success of the
Standard Model’s ability to predict results and take the view that these are questions that
are not yet known and don’t really have to be answered to generate predictions. This
approach, sometimes called the “shut-up-and-calculate” approach, shuts down the
question-and-answer method of logical analysis, with the result that short-term, we are
able to get results, but long term, this will result in a stalling of theoretical progress. This
is the case for elementary particles—the last significant breakthrough really was the
discovery of quark substructure more than 30 years ago. It is time to look at these
paradoxes and see if logical analysis will move our understanding of elementary particle
physics forward.

Why the Point Source Model Is Accepted In Spite of Paradoxes

There is no question that scattering experiments show a knife edge characteristic for
electron internal structure, and that photon excitation experiments show no evidence of
internal modes for the electron. Scattering experiments can show if there is a
homogeneous region for a particle by analyzing the distribution of scattering angles, and
it can show evidence of internal composition, such as multiple point sources, by
analyzing the distribution of scattering angles combined with the momentum tracks of
post collision particles (this is how evidence for two and three quark particle composition
was found). However, it is not possible for collision experiments to control specifically
where, in a given cross section, a particle will collide—thus it is not geometrically
possible to distinguish a point from a line or ring of zero width. To do that, it would be
necessary to hold a particle still and then exert control of source particles to hit
distinguishably different points on the target particle—neither of which is remotely
possible due to the coarseness of control of either the source or the target particle position
in experimental setups. The other very effective method for detecting internal structure is
done by imparting energy to a particle to see if excited states can be reached—particles
with no internal structure cannot generate detectable angular momentum or other
excitations of a ground state. These experiments show no exceptions, even for brief
periods of time, to the electron case—all the absorbed photon energy is immediately
converted to the electron’s momentum.

While the collision results for electrons have always shown that its size is at or very near
zero, the paradoxes, particularly the Heisenberg uncertainty relation problem mentioned
previously, have stimulated interest in a variety of alternate electron models. In 1927, a
model for the electron was proposed that was a shell, a sphere, with a radius (Compton
radius) that corresponded to the measured energy wavelength of the electron. It was
postulated that there was a charge distribution on the shell that kept the shell from
collapsing, and further refinement of this model suggested that the electron mass
momentum of the shell gave it the inertial component necessary to sustain the shell
radius. This model was repudiated in the 1950s when the magnetic moment of the
electron was discovered and when scattering experiments showed that a surface or
homogenous distribution of the charge was not possible. It turns out that a dipole will
also give the Compton radius, but once again, scattering and excitation experiments
showed that no evidence for internal structure with two nodes was present. About 15
years ago, I proposed something called a charge-loop, a zero width rotating ring variation
of the dipole that also has the Compton radius, and uses the momentum of the rotation to
counteract the inward attraction of opposite sides of the ring. This looked promising
because it shows the knife edge characteristics demonstrated by experiment, but did not
explain the specific mass of the electron, the two degrees of freedom for spin and
matter/anti-matter, or the attraction of oppositely charged particles. It also was
problematic because of the dependence on inertial mass in the ring traveling at relativistic
speeds. It depended on the electrostatic attraction of E field components, which is not
consistent with Maxwell’s equations.

These efforts to form particles from Maxwell’s field equations fail because they are
linear. Linear systems of equations cannot produce stable, physically localized states (a
soliton), nor can they produce integral (quantum) energies at a given frequency required
by E=hv. The only way to form a delta function of any type in a Maxwell field is by a
Fourier or equivalent composition of an infinite number of waves, and these are not
stable over time and are not quantized. The latter constraint (E=hv) implies that a degree
of freedom needs to be removed from Maxwell’s field equations—since there is no
constraint on photon frequency, the only other possibility was to constrain EM field
magnitude. A reasonable candidate for a field solution with frequency as an independent
variable is to constrain field amplitude, which suggests a unitary vector field obeying
Maxwell’s field equations. This unitary vector field which I will call SU3 (unit
magnitude complex value over R3) turns out to be very satisfactory because it not only
generates quantized energy as a function of frequency, it also permits localized field
twists that are topologically stable. Only complete 2 Pi twists are possible because this
field SU3 has a (localized) default background direction, so partial twists must either
dissipate or complete.

I then discovered the linear and twist ring solutions of this field, which turns out to
overcome all of the listed paradoxes for the point source model of the electron, and fixes
the problems with the original charge loop model. And most interesting of all, the twist
ring is a true stable soliton independent of the twist quantization—a single twisting, self-
correcting field wave solution that happens to have the Compton radius and energy of the
electron and does not need mass to explain its structure, nor does it need attraction of E
field components. This SU3 unitary field twist solution forms the basis for the twist ring
model of the electron and the linear twist solution for photons.

Why the Twist Ring Resolves the Paradoxes

After describing the field solution of the twist in a unitary vector field in detail, I will
examine how the twist ring model forms the four related electron particles and photons,
and addresses why there are antiparticles for electrons but not for photons. I then will
examine each of the paradox cases to show how the twist ring is a more effective model
for electron behavior. Further, I will then show how the twist ring has only one possible
frequency in this subset of a Maxwell EM field that is directly tied to the coupling force
ratio of electrostatic forces to magnetic forces, and additionally is stable to perturbative
forces. Finally I show how the twist ring model of particles geometrically gives rise to
the Lorentz Transforms of special relativity for both photons and electrons.

First, note that the twist ring for the electron, and the corresponding photon straight line
quantum twist, is a unitary complex valued vector field (called SU3 in this document)
such that the twists move only at speed c (structures of twists such as circulating rings
can go slower or stop, but the twist itself propagates at c). As mentioned, it should be
clear that the general Maxwell field (without the particle equations) cannot yield either
solitons or quantized photons obeying E=hv, since this has a linear solution space that
will dissipate and allow a continuum of energies at a given frequency.

Thus, the SU3 field is a vector field in R3 that is a continuum of unit length vectors. A
physical field with no particles such as photons or electrons has a default state, and a SU3
field with full twists will form particles within the default state. This field is analytic and
the gradient of the field is always finite (no field discontinuities are possible). It is easy
to show that these constraints cause topological states to be stable—if there is a twist in
the field, it is not possible for that twist to disappear without a discontinuity, nor is it
possible for a single twist to spontaneously appear (but pairs of twists can spontaneously
form if they are complementary). There is no constraint on the length of the twist, nor on
the assembly of multiple twists in sequence—but because there is a default field
direction, topologically any partial twist must dissipate (be equivalent to the default
field), only full 2 Pi twists can remain stable in this field. There are many stable twist
possibilities in this field model, two of which are a linear twist and a twist ring. It should
be clear that this field solution describes both quantized twists and energy states that are
only a function of frequency, and thus should be an ideal model for photons and
electrons. Models of other particles are possible and further research is underway for
these.

It is necessary and sufficient to have each point in R3 described by two angles that are
constrained to +/- Pi. For convenience, this will map to a vector field U3 of z on R3.
This vector field is a phase field transformation of the actual physical field, and exhibits a
mapping that provides the physical field property that every location has a unit magnitude
vector.

A photon is the simplest twist structure, and therefore quantization of the photon must
occur since only one twist of 2 Pi radians will yield the required full rotation of the
complex valued field. If there were more than one twist to a photon, then fractional
energies should be possible in Einstein’s photomultiplier experiment (note that photons
are often drawn showing multiple twists but such a system of n complete twists should
have energy multiples that are harmonics of n twists and thus is not correct). Note that
the twist rotation circle of the complex valued field entity can be oriented with two
degrees of freedom about the axis—thus permitting the twist model of the photon to
correctly represent photon polarization. Different photon energies are represented by
faster or slower twist spins. There are no other degrees of freedom for the photon that
might give rise to an antiphoton.

Obviously, the electron is the more complex case, but will be represented by a field entity
that has a ring shape. The ring consists of exactly one complete twist. It is tempting to
think that twist quantization (the requirement to return to the starting twist vector
direction) is sufficient to establish the electron mass and radius, but it is not, since a
larger radius can fit a slower twist rate. Finding the characteristics of the Twist Ring
model that define the specific energy of the electron was critical to establishing the
viability of the Twist Ring model, and I will show that momentarily. First, though let’s
make sure that the Twist Ring has the right number of degrees of freedom to represent the
four electron variations, and explore why photons have no antiparticles, but electrons do.
This case is tricky since there is one degree of freedom for twist rotate direction relative
to the motion of the ring—and it might be tempting to say that the second degree of
freedom is the direction of spin of the ring, clockwise and counterclockwise.
Unfortunately this can’t be the case, since the clockwise motion ring is identical to the
counterclockwise motion from the other side of the ring—you can’t form two unique
particles just from ring rotation direction. However, since the ring twists are complex
valued, there is another degree of freedom that comes from whether the positive real part
or the imaginary part is first in progression around the twist (see Fig. 1). Thus there are
two true degrees of freedom and no more, thus showing that the twist ring is the only
possible model that could give the spin-up electron, the spin-down electron, the spin-up
positron, and the spin-down positron. Clearly, a point source electron model can give us
no guidance as to why there are four permutations, but the twist ring shows how we get
exactly four.
Fig. 1: The second degree of freedom for twists

We still need to deal with the question of why the electron only comes with one particular
rest energy (mass). The twist ring, as mentioned, has every possible radius as a solution
as long as the twist rate about the ring circumference can vary. The twist quantization
requirement is upheld for every possible case. What is it about the twist ring that would
point to why every electron at every location in the universe has exactly one particular
rest energy? To answer this, and to show why the twist ring won’t dissipate or otherwise
break up, let’s look at the forces within the ring. We cannot assume a mass, like
Compton did with his Compton electron model, because of two serious problems: first,
the elements within his shell are moving at speed c, causing relativistic inconsistencies,
and any perturbation of shell components is not stable (equipotential central force
solutions are not stable under perturbation, for example, planetary motions show that
perturbations will cause elliptic variations in the orbits). In addition, even if somehow we
force a circular path, this is a 1/r2 – 1/r2 differential equation which has a LaGrange
minimum that is not unique to a specific radius. Finally, the distributed charge was
assumed to be repulsive to prevent the shell from collapsing, but E field levels do not
repel (Maxwell’s equations show a repulsive force only for particles).

But the addition of vector twist motion to the twist ring means that an internal repulsive
magnetic field with a field strength that varies as 1/r3 will be present on the opposite side
of the ring, thus the ring will follow the Lagrangian minimum of a 1/r3 – 1/r2
differential equation. This is not a central force differential equation—it is far better,
because it is a restoring force equation that not only guarantees stability, but it only has
one solution. It is important to note that the electrostatic attraction term is not caused by
opposite sides having an electrostatic attraction, which would cause inconsistencies with
Maxwell’s equations, which show attraction only for particles, not field components.
The electrostatic term is due to the force caused by a loop or twist moving through an E
field. And far better still, this solution, this one valid circular solution to the twist ring,
happens to have the same value as the experimentally measured rest mass energy of the
electron. Here is a simple 2D derivation that assumes field elements lie in a common
plane:

The Lorentz force equation is

F = q E + q/c (v x B)

When traversing the minimum energy path, the net radial force is zero but the velocity in
the direction of motion cannot change--in the twist mode, twists always propagate at
speed c. Therefore, the solution to the Lorentz force equation for a twist ring can be
modeled to a first order by assuming that the field components of the twist are rotating
such that opposite sides of the ring have complex vectors that are always pointing in
opposite directions, and thus have a constant electrostatic attraction. In addition, each
point of the twist ring has a complex vector that is rotating at a constant rate, thus
generating a magnetic field that varies as Me/r3, where Me is the experimentally
determined magnetic moment of the electron, that is, q h / (4 π me c r3). We then
have:

Fr = q2/rr2 – q c Me / (c r3) = q2/rr2 – q c q h / (4 π me c r3)

= q2/rr2 – q2 h/ (4 π me rr3)

In the 2D case, this will solve to a stable solution at the Compton radius, given the correct
initial conditions:

rr = h / (4 π mec)

This radius forms a circumference that will be traversed in time tr, the reciprocal of
which gives the twist ring frequency:

c tr = 2 π rr = 2 π h / (4 π me c) = h / (2 me c)

tr = h / (2 me c2) = 1 / fr

f r = 2 m e c2 / h
Since Ee = h v = h v / 2 π, and v = 2 π fr,

E e = 2 me c 2

for each of the two field elements, giving the expected rest energy of the electron as
represented by the twist ring.

Because the twist loop is self restoring, even incorrect initial conditions will
asymptotically approach the stable solution. This is easily shown by realizing that if the
actual r is greater than the stable r, there is a restoring force that is dominated by the 1/r2
term (the electrostatic term) over the 1/r3 magnetic repulsion term, causing a net
attractive force that will push the field parts toward the stable r. If the actual r is less than
the stable r, the 1/r3 repulsion force will dominate and push the field parts back toward
the stable r. The solutions for these cases are somewhat more complex, but are easily
demonstrated with iterative simulations.

Figures 2 and 3 show simulation results that demonstrate how opposing field elements
will eventually settle into the twist ring due to the self-restoring nature of the twist ring.
It is especially important to note that any electromagnetic system of components that
obeys Maxwell’s equations, not just electromagnetic field vectors, will observe a
singularity of behavior at the Compton radius. This radius forms a soliton, a ring, in any
field that obeys Maxwell’s equations that is solely a function of the ratio of the
electrostatic attractive force to the magnetic normal force of an element in motion. This
soliton can only happen at the Compton radius and is independent of twist frequency,
mass, or even initial conditions.
Fig. 2: Simulation of EM field twist components approaching quickly to the Compton
radius
Fig. 3: Simulation of EM field twist components, magnified, with different initial
conditions that were somewhat unstable before settling into the Compton radius.

Now that we’ve established that the twist ring has the right parameters to represent the
electron, unlike the point source model, let’s look at what the twist ring does for our
paradoxes.

The first paradox is the point source model of the electron violates at least one corollary
of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, especially for electron speeds much less than the
speed of light. The twist ring does not; in fact it upholds it exactly regardless of the
speed of the electron. This can be shown in the case of width versus momentum by
computing Δx·Δp as the ring moves—any object with a ring of radius h/(4 Pi mec)
will observe the uncertainty relation from standstill to just below the speed of light. The
Δx·Δp relation becomes the resolvable size of the ring (Δx = 2 * h/(4 Pi mec))
times the smallest resolvable component momentum (mec) of the twist going around the
ring gives h/2 Pi. As mentioned, the point source (or even the commonly believed
Planck length electron structure) gives momentum values in the uncertainty relation that
are at least 20 orders of magnitude too large. There have been efforts to get around this
(see the Feynman checkerboard theory or other quantum jittering solutions) but these
introduce internal motions and accelerations of such high energy that abandoning any
semblance of known physics is necessary and thus is pure speculation, a problem the
twist ring solution does not have.

The second paradox for the point source is very clearly resolved in the case of the twist
ring. Instead of trying to show motion by the exchange of photons, which will always
yield a conservation of momentum paradox when managing the particle attraction case,
the twist ring twists generate Lorentz force law motion in an EM farfield (Quantum field
theory specifies that this also is done by the complex exchange of photons, but now there
is no violation of overall conservation of momentum as is the case for the electron point
source). As shown in Fig. 4, the twists that are parallel to the change in the EM field will
have a net force in the direction either toward or away from the EM field source. Both
sides of the ring will have the same force because the twist rotations (red arrows) are
opposite, causing opposite direction magnetic fields for the opposite side, but so is the
charge current flow, thus causing both sides to experience a Lorentz magnetic field force
in the same direction. Note that current rings, of which the twist ring is a quantum
version of, will align magnetic moments (coming out of the page in the figure) and thus
the figure would correctly represent the stable case.
Fig. 4: Twists on opposite side of the twist ring generate magnetic fields that induce net
force (orange arrows) in an electromagnetic field

The third paradox where the electron must absorb a giant photon is a very interesting one.
The basic case for the point source electron isn’t really a paradox, researchers just don’t
know how it could work or just handwave it away—for example by saying that there has
to be one electron more likely than all the others in the region to absorb a giant (very low
energy) photon. But geometrically this is very problematic, and the usual resort is to say
to quit thinking classically, this is a quantum mechanical issue. That shuts down any
attempt to logically think through a solution. In addition, the corollary to this paradox is
even more important—a point source electron going through a two point slit apparatus
simply cannot yield a viable solution, geometric or otherwise, and leads to the great
philosophical discussion of non-local action at a distance. The twist ring does not have
this problem—the two slit apparatus should be a textbook proof of why the point source
model cannot be the correct representation of the electron. The twist ring model clearly
can retain its particle characteristics while interacting with (and getting interference from)
both slits, unless a detector causes a chaotic disruption of the phase characteristics of the
ring.

The twist ring does provide an attractive solution to the giant photon absorption problem
which the point source model simply cannot address. A giant photon headed toward a
large group of electrons is still a zero dimensional twist (it is tempting to think of the
radial complex field values of the twist occupies a non zero radius because it is often
drawn as arrows normal to the direction of propagation, but remember this is just a
direction indicator, not a measure of physical distance). This giant photon twist thus will
be able to penetrate through only one electron twist ring before being absorbed, providing
a clean geometrical answer to why only one electron will absorb the photon.

The fourth paradox where two degrees of freedom are needed to represent the electron
particle variations has already been discussed.

The fifth paradox is resolved with the twist ring because the twist ring has no internal
subparticles or states that must adhere to Maxwell’s equations for particles. Unlike the
point source particle model, there are no components of the ring that have electrostatic
attraction, which in the point source model causes energy/force infinities due to E field
components increasing as one approaches the singularity. It is the twist alone that
interacts with the electrostatic field, and this field magnitude is finite by definition of the
twist ring (twist ring of unitary EM field components). All of the renormalization efforts
necessary for point source electron model interactions close to the singularity are not
needed for the twist ring, no infinities arise.

An important question to ask is why experiments do not show evidence of twist ring
structure—if the twist ring were the correct model for the electron, it would seem
probable that experiments would show differences than what a point source would do.
Both collision and excitation experiments are commonly used to find internal structure of
a particle. As mentioned previously, an excitation experiment involves shooting a high
energy photon at a particle to cause an excited state or to add detectable rotation
momentum. If the photon is absorbed in such a way that the energy does not show up
instantly and entirely as outgoing particle momentum, some of the energy must have
gone into particle rotation or some other internal excitation. It would seem that the twist
ring would have to have a different momentum profile than a point source electron, but
some examination of the twist ring shows that it cannot be distinguishable—the twist ring
is a soliton, there is no solution with alternate energy levels, rotations, or other internal
variations. Even if the twist ring had a momentary absorption of a photon before re-
transmitting it (implying an internal excited state) this would be detectable by experiment
—but the soliton solution only has one valid geometry and radius, there is no other stable
solution. Since the ring rotates at speed c, it is not possible to add to or subtract ring
circumference momentum—and trying to spin the twist ring about the ring diameter is
also not a stable solution. As a result, the traditional method of discerning internal
structure in a particle has no distinguishing trait from the point source solution, and both
the twist ring and the point source have the same zero dimensional cross section in
collisions. As a consequence, photon excitations or collision experiments cannot
distinguish between a point source and the twist ring.

One additional note: the photon is modeled as a quantized EM unitary field twist. If the
twist ring responds to the E field presented by the opposite side of the ring, why doesn’t
the twist of a photon respond to an E field source? This can be seen by realizing that the
E field component of both sides of the ring are always pointing in opposite directions,
whereas an E field from a distant source points in one direction. A photon twist will see
an E field vector alternating parallel and anti-parallel to the twist E field vectors, and
never see a net attractive or repulsive force.

Finally, the twist ring shows a geometrical basis for the equations of special relativity.
Since the twist within the ring must propagate at speed c, even if the ring as a whole is
moving relative to a given frame of reference, it can be shown that the ring will obey the
Lorentz transforms. The clearest way to see this is if the ring moment is parallel to the
direction of motion of the ring. If a marker were placed on the ring where the real vector
is maximum, this marker will trace a spiral on a cylinder. If one revolution of the spiral
is unrolled, geometrically you will get a right triangle. This right triangle proportionally
defines the rotation velocity as slowing down (because the twist rotation now must travel
the spiral distance at speed c rather than just the ring circumference) according to the
composite ring velocity v0 (see figure 5). When the ratio of ring rotation time in the
observer’s frame of reference to the rotation time in the ring’s frame of reference is
computed, the following results:

Sqrt[c2 – v02] * tr’ = c * tr

Thus, the apparent time to complete a revolution of the ring from the observer’s frame of
reference will be

tr’ / tr = c / Sqrt[c2 – v02]

= 1 / Sqrt[1 – ß2]

which is the special relativity time dilation factor. Similar computations can be computed
to get the other Lorentz transform equations.

Notice that the photon in the twist model is a straight line twist, there is no radial
component such as in the electron’s twist ring, so the only effect of a changing frame of
reference is to change the apparent twist rate. This will geometrically explain why
particles see relativistic contractions due to the Lorentz transforms but photons do not.
Photons appear to the observer to be moving at speed c regardless of the motion of the
frame of reference in this model, just like in real life.
Fig. 5: The unrolled spiral of a twist ring moving radially at speed v0

SUMMARY:
There are many paradoxes and unexplained consequences of assuming an electron point
source model. While scattering experiments clearly show a knife edge zero dimensional
attribute to the electron, this defines a set of a solutions only one of which is the point
source. Another potential solution is the twist ring, and I show how this solution yields
results that are a far better representation of the electron substructure. I have found that a
unitary vector field that obeys Maxwell’s field equations has both quantized energy states
and the capability of forming localized and topologically stable twists. These twists can
be assembled in many ways, two of which are the linear twist and the twist ring. I have
shown how the twist ring is a viable single, stable field solution that forms a stable
soliton at the electron Compton radius. I have shown how a twist ring derives both
electrostatic repulsion and attraction without resorting to photon exchanges that induce a
momentum conservation violation. I have shown that twist rings provide an effective and
simple answer to quantized absorption of giant photons. I have shown how the twist ring
has exactly the right number of degrees of freedom to represent the four electron
permutations, and shows why there is no photon antiparticle. I have shown how the
questionable tactics of renormalization are not needed for the twist ring. I have shown
why the twist ring would be indistinguishable from a point source model of the electron
in experiments such as scattering or excited energy level experiments. Finally, I have
shown how the linear twist and twist ring model yields the special relativity relations for
electrons and for photons. I have made a clear case for why the twist field solutions in
SU3, rather than the point source, are indicated as the correct representation of electrons,
positrons, and photons.
CURRENT RESEARCH:
A computer simulation model of the twist ring has been created that has been extensively
used to verify (or deny) analysis of the SU3 field behavior and is currently undergoing
testing for pair production and other twist combinations. If successful, this model will
test various interactions and provide a path for creating an analytic solution to the twist
ring field. I expect to find additional possible geometrical twist combinations for other
elementary particles such as the various quarks, muons, and neutrinos.