Please join me in welcoming Dr Delbert Larson!

I recently had the pleasure to notice that Dr Delbert Larson has joined our board. Delbert Larson is most famous for the ABC preon model, in fact he is one of the pioneers of preon physics.

But his experience isn't limited to preons. After getting his PhD at the University of Wisconsin, he worked at the Fermilab, and taught at the UCLA. Now he's got some clean energy project in mind.

Since I am the author of a preon model myself, he and I came to become friends. He is full of ideas, he's quite a brilliant guy.

So ATS, please join me in giving a round of applause to member delbertlarson.

a reply to: swanne

Did he ever get his Wikipedia page reinstated?

If everything is well, Larson should be joining us in this thread in a few hours.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: swanne

Did he ever get his Wikipedia page reinstated?

No. Wikipedia seems to be thoroughly ignoring any post-1979 preon models.

a reply to: swanne

How close are physicists like yourself and Larson to proving your respective Preon theories?

Welcome Mr Larson to ATS and I'm interested to hear your findings on Preon theories.

I've got more interested in physics lately so you both can help me learn more with your threads.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: swanne

How close are physicists like yourself and Larson to proving your respective Preon theories?

I would say, closer than ever. My own model makes predictions about dark matter, so I'm waiting for dark matter data (an experiment is already undergoing). Some unsolved problems in physics can only be explained by the existence of preons. As for Larson's, some of his predictions such as neutrino oscillation has already been proven true, and I believe he's waiting for collision data - one of his preons could show up.

I do hope you and Dr Larson's dark matter theories bring you back undeniable data with testing different equipment, ie, more advanced partical accelerator or even some sort of containment chamber that can keep the dark matter energy of sorts.

I'm not a scientist, but one day when dark matter/energy can be "stored or utilised" it could be used to power many different things including space flight/homes etc...That's probably far of from now but possible as an energy source?.

Welcome.
In other news, ATS please join me in giving a round of applause to the ham & cheese sandwich that I am about to eat.

a reply to: swanne

So sweet!!!

Welcome Dr. Larson!!

Hi Delbert Larson and a warm welcome to ATS from Nashville, TN.

Hope you enjoy your stay here !

I look forward to hearing and reading about this theory.

Welcome to ATS Dr Larson , there's always room for more scholars here.

Ok, so what is his screen name here on ATS? I welcome him but would like to know who he is here on ATS.

a reply to: rickymouse

Surprise. It "delbertlarson"

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: rickymouse

Surprise. It "delbertlarson"

Oh, I see that name has posted here for a while. I wonder if he likes fishing?

Welcome Dr. Larson

Looking forward to your posts! A pleasure I'm sure.

Angelina

originally posted by: swanne
I recently had the pleasure to notice that Dr Delbert Larson has joined our board. Delbert Larson is most famous for the ABC preon model, in fact he is one of the pioneers of preon physics.

But his experience isn't limited to preons. After getting his PhD at the University of Wisconsin, he worked at the Fermilab, and taught at the UCLA. Now he's got some clean energy project in mind.

Since I am the author of a preon model myself, he and I came to become friends. He is full of ideas, he's quite a brilliant guy.

So ATS, please join me in giving a round of applause to member delbertlarson.

Thanks, John, for the kind words of introduction. And thanks to all of you who left welcoming comments. I'll get to some of the specific questions next.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: swanne

Did he ever get his Wikipedia page reinstated?

I haven't tried to get the Wikipedia article put back up yet. I didn't even bother to appeal the ruling. I have had several run-ins with censors throughout my career, and it has never ended well when I have objected.

This doesn't mean I ever give up, either. It is just that if you violate some rule of someplace you are, I see little point in pushing back. Everyone should be able to have their own rules. And at Wikipedia one rule was that deletions come up for a vote, and I lost 7 to 2. Another rule is that when there is any doubt, then the post should be kept. So things were close. If it was 7 to 4, it might still be up. (Hard to say for sure.) On the other hand, had it gotten to 7 to 4, my leading opponent would possibly have recruited more "delete" votes. I can't be sure, but I believe he recruited the original judge as well as others to come over to the "delete" side. I wrote to that judge to ask if he'd been recruited, but he did not write back. (I didn't recruit anyone for my votes.)

Another Wikipedia rule, apparently, is that if the work has a lot of secondary sources it should be kept up - even if the work itself is wrong. So the main thrust of the deletion effort was to note that my paper had zero citations. On several occasions, one of my tormentors asserted that the work was not peer reviewed, but it was indeed published in a peer reviewed journal - Physics Essays. I don't know if that was relevant to the deletion decision or not, but it should have been.

In any event, I am planning for a second publication on the ABC Preon Model, and I hope to get to it within the next six months. Once it gets published, the new work will cite the first, and I will try to put things back up on Wikipedia based on the fact that it will then be cited. It may also help to have a vigorous discussion here, as that may constitute "secondary sources", but I don't know how that would play out.

One thing that can be done next time though is for others to vote. You just join Wikipedia and then you can vote. Simple as that. That could make things interesting. It might be wise to join early, as some places won't let new members vote on such things.

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: swanne

How close are physicists like yourself and Larson to proving your respective Preon theories?

I don't know that you can ever fully prove an elementary particle theory. Instead, what is persuasive to me is for the theory to have predictive power. When the number of predictions vastly exceed the free parameters you can adjust, you can make a case that the theory is an excellent representative of nature.

For the case of the ABC Preon Model, there is considerable predictive power. The original paper predicted that neutrino oscillations should exist, and that prediction has been experimentally verified. The Model also predicts the masses of several high energy physics experimental results quite accurately, and it has more output data points than input parameters. So it is a very strong theory on those points.

On the other hand, the ABC Preon Model makes several predictions for things that have not yet been reported at high energy physics labs. This might be because the events have been screened out, or that the cross section for them is small, or that the ABC Preon Model is simply mistaken. But with so much data supporting it, I believe that if the events were searched for, then many or all of them would likely be found. And at that point, you might have something approaching a proof of the theory.

(High energy physics experiments do "data cuts". Most data is thrown away. You often have to have some idea of what you are looking for before you can find it. That is what I mean above by "screened out".)

a reply to: delbertlarson

1. You have a PM--see/click white envelope icon in upper left 3" of the screen.

2. Do you believe we are living in a simulated reality?

3. Do you believe in God?