It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ABC Preon Model, Background: the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   
This thread is the first of what I plan to be a series of several threads concerning my ABC Preon Model. I look forward to everyone's comments. To get started, I'll first present a review of how the science of elementary particle physics got to where it is today.



The figure above shows a portion of the particles that were discovered using particle accelerators. The number of such particles became so large that it was termed "a particle zoo". It was clear by the early 1960's that the number of particles discovered was getting so large that there was likely some underlying pattern that could simplify our view of elementary particle physics.

A major step forward in simplifying mankind's view of nature occurred in 1964 when Murry Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed an underlying model. Gell-Mann had used the term quark for the elementary particles, while Zweig had used the term ace. Eventually, the term "quark" was accepted by the community. In the quark model, Hadronic matter is proposed to be built from underlying quarks. Baryons are states that have three bound quarks, while mesons are a bound quark-antiquark pair. Leptons were identified as a separate type of matter. As a result, in 1964, simplicity was reestablished. Nature consisted of three quarks, named up, down, and strange, and four leptons, which were the electron, the muon, and their two associated neutrinos.



The initial simplicity of the quark model began to fade into complexity almost immediately. In 1965 Glashow and Bjorken proposed a fourth quark, the charm quark, which was discovered by Richter and Ting in 1974. In 1970 Kobayashi and Maskawa theorized that CP violation in experimental results could be explained by adding two more quarks, and indeed these quarks were discovered by Ferimab researchers. The bottom quark was discovered in 1977 and the top in 1995. Also, over the period between 1974 and 1977, a new lepton, the tau, was discovered at SLAC by a team of collaborators.

In addition to the quarks and leptons, force carriers are a central part of today's standard model. In 1979, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam proposed the electro-weak theory of particle interactions to unify the weak and electromagnetic forces in a single theoretical framework. This work predicted the existence of three more particles, which were called the intermediate vector bosons. The weak bosons, called the W and Z, were discovered by a team at CERN led by Carlo Rubia in 1983. Simon van der Meer enabled the discovery by leading the development of stochastic cooling of particle beams. Note that the W boson comes in two types, one with a positive electric charge and the other negatively charged, while the Z particle has zero electric charge.



In the figure above we see a depiction of the standard model for elementary particles as advertised by its proponents. The depiction shows a rather simple set of 16 particles, which includes six quarks, six leptons and four force carriers.

Despite the advertised simplicity of the standard model, the model has several problems that leave it rather unsatisfactory from a philosophical point of view. The first additional complication is that the rules used to form particles involve a color charge. It is of course perfectly acceptable that nature may employ otherwise identical particles that have one of three color charges, but the downside is that this means that there are actually three quarks for each one listed in the figure above. The theory also specifies that there are eight different gluons, not just the one shown above. Secondly, each quark and lepton shown in the figure above has an antimatter counterpart. This too is OK, even necessary, but it means that there are twice as many particles than the number advertised above. And beyond the counting slight of hand, there are additional problems.

Fundamental to present theory is the result that no quark can be isolated. As quarks become separated from their partners, the theory stipulates that the force pulling them back in gets ever larger. Before a quark can be freed, separating it involves a force so large that the energy associated with it is capable of generating a quark antiquark pair, and each member of the pair then associates with the fragments of what was being pulled apart, so no quark can ever be isolated. In light of this, as philosophers we should ask: How can something be proven to exist if it can never be isolated? I would submit that such existence can never be proven - only inferred.

Another problem is that the weak force has no direction. Typical forces such as the electric, magnetic and gravitational forces have both magnitude and direction. They are vector quantities. But the weak force is really a particle exchange phenomena that has no direction associated with it. A last known problem is that there is no satisfactory calculational framework for the standard model. There are many good approximation schemes, but the mathematics is not anywhere close to the elegance and accuracy of quantum electrodynamics. This makes it hard to compare results against theory to test the model. (For instance, a pion is presumed to be a two body state. The two body problem is well known, yet there is no standard model prediction for pion masses.) For all of these reasons, despite its success, it took quite a while for the quark model to gain full acceptance in the physics community. I recall back in the early days speakers starting their comments by saying, "in what is now the standard way of doing things" and eventually "in what is becoming the standard model of our field". The standard model was indeed the model that became the standard way of looking at things, but early on everyone was under the belief that something better would soon come along.



Above we see a figure that is more honest in its presentation of the existing standard model. Shown above are each of the three colors of each of the six quarks as well as their antimatter partners. Also shown are all six leptons along with their antimatter partners. Lastly, all the force carriers are shown. With this full accounting of particles it is seen that the standard model involves 61 elementary particles, since there are 18 quarks, 18 anti-quarks, 6 leptons and 13 force carriers. While some standard model proponents may argue that a red up quark is the same as a blue up quark, the rebuttal is that we certainly don't believe that a positron is the same particle as an electron. Even though a positron is identical to an electron in every aspect except for its electric charge and lepton number we still recognize that any such difference means that the particles are different particles. Similarly, an up quark with a red charge should be recognized as a different particle than an up quark with a blue charge if we are going to have an honest appraisal of our elementary particles. With this honest appraisal it is clear from the diagram presented above that the standard model has reached the point in its development where a simpler underpinning is desirable.




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
The treatment I have presented here so far has focused solely on a mental picture of what particles and forces make up our world. But modern physics in general, and the standard model specifically, is considerably more than just a physical model. Indeed, there are many who take the position that a physical model of nature is not something we as mere mortals are even capable of understanding. That latter philosophy dates back to relativity and the early quantum theories, theories that originally seemed quite odd, but theories that survived every important test. And therefore, with the underlying physical modeling so difficult to mentally grasp, modern physics turned toward mathematics and underlying principles instead of physical mental pictures. Between them, the principle of relativity and the principle of least action have been used very successfully to blend into a Lagrangian approach that has produced a mathematical understanding of our world. The pictures above are rather gross simplifications of the true theory, and while those simplifications are useful to describe things to the public at large, the truer picture of the standard model comes from the Lagrangian, which is far more complex that even the rather complicated picture of 61 "elementary" particles.



Above we see the first of 30 equations from a reference available here einstein-schrodinger.com... that serves as one reference for the Lagrangian of the present Standard Model. The terms in the Lagrangian got a good start based on the work of Dirac, who successfully arrived at a covariant formalism (meaning it is manifestly consistent with relativity) for electrons and positrons. From there, the work of many others has been successfully incorporated into a theory of mammoth proportions. We have come a long way from the simple expressions used by Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz and Einstein. So now, with such vast complexity, I believe we should ask "Is nature really that complex? Or might there be a simpler understanding?"

Of course, there are many good things about the standard model. First, it gets everything right. No known experiment is in violation of the standard model. And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model. Furthermore, development of the standard model has involved man-centuries of effort by some of the best, brightest and most trained members of the globe. As a result, the standard model is a monument to the creativity of man, and one that results in a complete modeling of all known particles and forces.

But at this moment, it is also important to note that there were many good things about the Music of the Spheres model www.crystalinks.com... for celestial mechanics as well. First, it got everything right. No known observation of stellar or planetary motions were in violation of its tenets. And whenever new experiments indicated that something might not quite fit, the celestial mechanics model exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Additional spheres, cycles and epi-cycles were added to the model over time as new observations became verified. The analysis techniques were extremely complex, and it took practitioners of the time a decade or more to fully grasp the intricacies of the model. Furthermore, development of the classical celestial model involved man-centuries of effort by some of the best, brightest and most trained members of the globe. As a result, the classical celestial model was a monument to the creativity of man that resulted in a complete modeling of all known stellar and planetary motions.

Please be advised that I am not attempting to mock the standard model by comparing it to the medieval and now discredited celestial model. I truly believe that the medieval celestial model was indeed a monumental achievement, and I feel it deserves much more credit than it presently gets. The credit should come because of its attention to detail, its coherent fundamentals, and its mathematically correct and exact derivations that led to explanations of all experimental data. It was indeed an impressive effort. However, Kepler and Copernicus showed us that a much simpler model was possible. And it is my belief that nature is simpler than the standard model as well, the details of which we will get into on my next thread in this series.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

It's a bit above my head but interesting non the less.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Here is overwhelming evidence for quark compositeness, proving that the Standard Model is only a phenomenological description of subatomic particles and their forces:
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%201-4.pdf
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
You might want to check your model against the huge body of details describing preons in quarks that was published over a century ago (that is, once you have recovered from your shock that the existence of a form of remote-viewing of microscopic particles has been scientifically established beyond reasonable doubt and accepted by a Nobel prize winner in physics, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former science minister in the Indian government).



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Thanks for the thread. I'll have to go back & read it again more carefully (with pen & paper for notes) and get back to you.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
Here is overwhelming evidence for quark compositeness, proving that the Standard Model is only a phenomenological description of subatomic particles and their forces:
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%201-4.pdf
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
You might want to check your model against the huge body of details describing preons in quarks that was published over a century ago (that is, once you have recovered from your shock that the existence of a form of remote-viewing of microscopic particles has been scientifically established beyond reasonable doubt and accepted by a Nobel prize winner in physics, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a former science minister in the Indian government).


I read the first few pages (the second page was quite long) on your first link. I then skimmed through some more of the pages on the site until I found material on quarks. (FYI - The third and fourth links led to a site that was not available when I clicked.) I found your historical recap interesting to read. However, on the merits, it will be seen in later threads on the ABC Preon Model that I am proposing an underlying nature of material bodies that is significantly different than the quark/lepton model. If the micro-psi predictions can easily accommodate such a difference, then I suspect micro-psi is not science, as science must make predictions that are either born out or not. Anything that is infinitely malleable is of no real scientific value at all. On the other hand, if micro-psi clearly disagrees with the ABC Preon Model and favors quarks/leptons/superstrings instead, then we must await further experimentation to tell which theories are scientifically sound.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
... we should ask: How can something be proven to exist if it can never be isolated? I would submit that such existence can never be proven - only inferred.
According to Richard Feynman, no scientific theory can ever be proven right, they can only be proven wrong, which certainly applies to the standard model and the quarks that comment refers to (ignore the stupid youtube title which has nothing to do with the video as far as I'm concerned, this is 2 minutes and 39 seconds of Feynman explaining this concept about proving theories):




originally posted by: delbertlarson
I truly believe that the medieval celestial model was indeed a monumental achievement, and I feel it deserves much more credit than it presently gets. The credit should come because of its attention to detail, its coherent fundamentals, and its mathematically correct and exact derivations that led to explanations of all experimental data. It was indeed an impressive effort.
I agree and we shouldn't forget the lessons learned from that, however we were eventually able to prove that model wrong, and if the standard model is wrong we should eventually be able to prove that wrong also. The example given by Feynman was that Newton's "wrong" model took 300 years to prove it "wrong", so this can take a while. It's also interesting to note that we still use Newton's "wrong" model more often than the "right" model because his model was so close to being right outside of specialized applications like GPS and particle accelerators that the difference was and still is negligible in many cases.


originally posted by: delbertlarson
Of course, there are many good things about the standard model. First, it gets everything right. No known experiment is in violation of the standard model.
Correct, so it's not proven right but it's not yet proven wrong either.


And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.
This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.


originally posted by: delbertlarson
(FYI - The third and fourth links led to a site that was not available when I clicked.)

The links work, but any time you see text continuing with no space after the clickable link on ATS it means that ATS has broken the link. The way you can still use the link is by clicking "quote" and then copy/paste the link from the quoted text which I did and the links indeed work.


... I suspect micro-psi is not science, as science must make predictions that are either born out or not.
You're right, it's not science, but there are some scientific lessons to be learned from occult chemistry of which micro-psi is a notable branch discussed in those two links you tried to access but couldn't:

Serious Scientific Lessons from Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance

Lessons

From beginning to end Occult Chemistry is a tale of deception and gullibility, so in most ways it is not particularly edifying. Still, it provides some worthwhile lessons.

Recognizing the prevalence in the late 19th century of ideas like Babbitt's and the Occult Chemists' makes one more sympathetic toward Hermann Kolbe and more understanding of his scathing and misguided criticism (1877) of structural organic chemistry in general and of young van't Hoff's ideas in particular.

More importantly, Occult Chemistry provides an object lesson in the necessity of treating surprising reports with healthy skepticism. Most scientists, like other humans, tend to assume the good faith, if not always the good sense, of those who report new phenomena. Students must be aware that reporters can be dishonest like Leadbeater, as well as misled or deceived by Nature, or their fellows, as were Crookes, Lodge, and perhaps Besant. While there may be parts of the human experience where there is no substitute for faith, understanding our physical world is not one of them. Repetition of experiment, formulation and testing of unambiguous predictions, and honest analysis of probabilities are better guides in scientific matters.

Annie Besant's career in chemistry certainly reinforces Pope's admonition that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Fondness for the vocabulary and glitz of science without an understanding of its experimental basis is a recipe for disaster.

The current popularity of the paranormal does not speak well for our system of science education. Too many citizens fail to appreciate standard science and how overwhelmingly the balance of experimental evidence has tilted in its favor over the past two centuries.

The Occult Chemists have not been alone in asserting scientific concepts on the basis of authority, rather than testing clearly formulated theories on the basis of experimental evidence. Science students at all levels should be encouraged to ask "How do you know?" and to insist on sensible answers. Too often curricular demands to cover a large body of material are used to excuse shoddy logic and intellectual sleight-of-hand. Time must be made available to provide students sufficient detail to illustrate the logic and power of real science in carefully chosen cases. Only then can they be captivated by genuine science and empowered to recognize and avoid bad science and "paranormal" nonsense.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks so much for the detailed and interesting comments, Arbitrageur.

I am now, about 35 years after the initial ideas, to the point where I believe there is something quite correct about the ABC Preon Model. However, as you and Feynman point out, "quite correct" does not mean "absolutely correct". I would say that the standard model is "quite correct", as are Newton's laws, as was the medieval celestial model. "Quite correct" to me means that the model applies over a vast array of data and is used for future predictions with a degree of accuracy equal to the measuring apparatus available at the time. I suppose that no model will ever be absolutely correct, but I would say that our aim should be to get as close as we can to being correct, while at the same time simplifying our underlying approach if at all possible. I believe the ABC Preon Model does this, as I plan to present in several upcoming threads.

There is however the issue of whether existence can be proven as separated from a theory being proven. For instance, I believe that it is pretty well established that electrons exist. We make beams of them. We can trap single electrons in a trap and measure their properties. It is rather inconceivable to me how one could ever say electrons don't exist without getting into some nasty philosophical questions regarding ultimate reality such as those dealt with by Descartes. (Cogito Ergo Sum type of stuff.) So my view is that there are some touchstones within science that we can say are pretty much proven. Hydrogen has been found, as has deuterium, oxygen, (and so on with chemical elements and isotopes), electrons, protons, neutrons. All have been isolated and their properties studied. We can argue that our exact present definition of them may not be completely precise, but the fact that they exist I think is pretty much proven. Quarks, however, are another matter, as they have never been isolated and the theory states they never can be.



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
For instance, I believe that it is pretty well established that electrons exist....Quarks, however, are another matter, as they have never been isolated and the theory states they never can be.
I'm not convinced that isolation is a necessary prerequisite for proving the existence of something, but it's good that you believe in electrons because they were key in the Friedman, Kendall and Taylor series of experiments from 1967 and 1973 that used the electron linear accelerator at Stanford to study deep inelastic scattering of electrons from protons and neutrons.

www.osti.gov...

The SLAC finding of unexpectedly large numbers of electrons being scattered at large angles provided clear evidence for the pointlike constituents within nucleons. These constituents are now understood to be quarks.
So if they aren't quarks, what is scattering the electrons at such large angles? I agree it's an inference, but I think if you look closely you'll find there are many inferences taking place with small scale observations. For example, when things are too small to see with an optical microscope so an electron microscope is used, is the image from the electron microscope "real" or is it inferred from electrons interacting with the object being imaged, and if the latter, is it that much different than using electrons to interact with matter in the Friedman, Kendall and Taylor series of experiments?



posted on Mar, 9 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


The deep inelastic scattering experiments will be shown to be important in the preon theory. I believe the scattering centers were preons. I will be getting to that, but it will be several threads into the future. I do agree though that there is certainly some inference whenever we measure anything really. My point is more along the lines of what we envision - at least we can envision free photons and leptons. Quarks must always be bound, so that to me indicates a lack of independence, and if something is not independent, how can it have its own existence? Yet I must say that such a philosophical point is likely not too relevant, scientifically. Rather what is important is what experiments tell us, and while there is evidence for something like quarks, I will show what I believe to be a better way. And for that, I think it will only be three or so threads from now. I do apologize that I can't answer it all right away, but the model will take some time to present. I will try to get thread two up tomorrow, and by thread four or five some of this will come into focus.

I am very happy to get critical readership. I published the ABC Preon Model almost 20 years ago now, and I don't know if anyone ever read the paper. So this is great.



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Although study on DNA transfection, I'm still interested in physics. It' s just attractive to me.



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 06:10 AM
link   

And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.


This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.


These two statements are very correct, A PhD in physics specific to the standard model typically will give you a good understanding but mostly in a specific sector. The other important aspect is that physicists are not all ego-maniacs that believe their word is gospel, most, when faced with questions about something they are not expert on, will (or should) be clear where their expertise is, but present their understanding all the same. The issue is often that people presenting challenges to the model typically fall into two categories

1) Completely Ignorant of the actual model they are opposing - these are typically quite difficult to converse with since they typically won't actually understand the detail at which a model/theory has to go to in order to really prove a current theory incorrect. We have witnessed this here on ATS numerous times, especially in things like Electric Universe people... Where they simply have no idea what the box contains and so accuse the current models and theories as being pathetically barren... which is often the opposite.
2) People with a passing knowledge, typically documentary or superficial knowledge of the model/theory they are opposing - This is even harder than the above because typically their belief in the little bit they do know only amplifies the sense of 'what i am saying is right' all aspects of point 1 count here too. The issue is that these models typically have lots of complexities that their surface knowledge simply doesn't cover and so their pet models just simply contain none of what would be required to -'fix'- physics.

Best example I can think of, was by one of our own posters, who posted up a pure numerical model 'predicting' the mass of all the standard model particles. As a scientist, with a PhD, and experience mostly in the hardware aspects of particle physics, I could see the model for its impressiveness in terms of numerology, BUT, could also quickly point out that the number of free parameters was essentially the same as the number of particles it wanted to predict.

A 16th order polynomial to give you... 16 solutions... It was numerology... VERY VERY IMPRESSIVE NUMEROLOGY... but numerology all the same.
I loved that thread and the idea simply because it was impressive in the same way as the perfect shapes theory, which kinda works, but doesn't do as well as some people like to claim it does in predicting orbits of planets. It was still in many ways a beautiful model.

The thing with the standard model is that it really is a predictive model, with rules and as already said, it gets a lot of things very very right. Is it perfect? No not at all, it still has ragged edges, there are still gaps that need to be filled.

I myself have gone from building a Dark Matter detector (taking data currently (about 6 months of production data in the bag)) to working on a prototype experiment for measuring proton final state interaction cross sections at low momentum... so we will see how that goes haha Ill have to brush up on my standard model thats for sure



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
Best example I can think of, was by one of our own posters, who posted up a pure numerical model 'predicting' the mass of all the standard model particles. As a scientist, with a PhD, and experience mostly in the hardware aspects of particle physics, I could see the model for its impressiveness in terms of numerology, BUT, could also quickly point out that the number of free parameters was essentially the same as the number of particles it wanted to predict.

A 16th order polynomial to give you... 16 solutions... It was numerology... VERY VERY IMPRESSIVE NUMEROLOGY... but numerology all the same.
I loved that thread and the idea simply because it was impressive in the same way as the perfect shapes theory, which kinda works, but doesn't do as well as some people like to claim it does in predicting orbits of planets. It was still in many ways a beautiful model.


I, too have run across theories where the author has an equal number of parameters as results. (I served as a reviewer for Physics Essays for a couple of decades.) In the ABC Preon Model we will see in upcoming posts that three parameters will be sufficient to predict far more than three results, and that five of those predictions, and maybe a sixth, have already been experimentally verified. I will admit that it could be a coincidence, but I myself believe it is more than that.



I myself have gone from building a Dark Matter detector (taking data currently (about 6 months of production data in the bag)) to working on a prototype experiment for measuring proton final state interaction cross sections at low momentum... so we will see how that goes haha Ill have to brush up on my standard model thats for sure


Dark matter - did you perhaps know Dr. David Cline? He was my thesis advisor back in the 80's.




top topics



 
11

log in

join