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. Quarks.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
This is the fifth thread in the series on the ABC Preon Model. Links to earlier threads will appear in the comment below.

At this point in our development we can now make an identification between the ABC preons and quarks. In the figure below, we again see a depiction of the delta plus particle as understood by the ABC Preon Model, but I have placed rectangles around some of the components.



The rectangle drawn around the B preon, a binding neutrino, and a portion of the C preon is identified as a down quark. Rectangles drawn around an A preon, a binding neutrino, and a portion of the C preon are identified as up quarks. In the ABC Preon Model, quarks don't actually exist as particles. Instead, quarks are identified as quantum states involving the orbiting A and B preons and the central C preon. As with leptons, this realization allows us to understand how generations of quarks come about in nature. The u and d quarks are the ground states of their respective systems, while the strange quark is the first excited state of the orbiting B preon, and the bottom quark is the second excited state of the orbiting B preon. Similarly, the charm quark is the first excited state of the orbiting A preon, and the top quark (should it exist, we'll discuss that in a later post) would be the second excited state of the orbiting A preon.

With mesons known to be composed of quark antiquark pairs, we can now construct mesons in the ABC preon model by taking the relevant preons and anti-preons and combining them appropriately. First, we see below how the pi mesons are modeled in the standard model as quarks bound to anti-quarks.



In the ABC preon model, the u quark is seen two pictures up to be the state composed from an A preon bound to a C preon, and that structure appears in some of the pi mesons has well. Also a d quark was seen to be composed of a B preon bound to a C preon. Moving to anti-quarks, the anti-down quark is be proposed to be a B anti-preon bound to a C anti-preon, while the anti-up quark is an A anti-preon bound to a C anti-preon. The figure below shows mesons as understood by the ABC Preon Model with boxes drawn around what are now known as quarks and anti-quarks.



In the above picture, I have introduced a notation where a line joining two preons or anti-preons is used to represent a binding neutrino. Since the C preon has a neutrinic charge of plus 3, and its antimatter partner has a neutrinic charge of -3, a double bond appears between the C preon and its anti-preon. Hence, a total of three bonds appear in the diagram above for both the C preon and the C anti-preon. Note that I have also used the standard notation for anti-particles in the diagram, where a bar appearing above the letter indicates an anti-particle. The double bond between the C preon and the C anti-preon is analogous to double bonds in chemistry, where atoms share electrons in chemical bonding. Here, the binding neutrinos play the role that the binding electrons play in chemistry. Each C preon and anti-preon have three neutrino sites available for binding, while the A and B preons and the A and B anti-preons each have a single neutrino site for binding.

Note that in the model proposed here, quarks are identified as simply being a notation for an energy level and type of binding between a C preon and either an A or a B preon. And while it can be seen how massive leptons can be isolated as an A anti-preon bound to a B preon, it is clear that a quark can never be isolated by itself since it is in reality the manifestation of a portion of a C preon bound to an A or a B preon. This explains why free quarks have never been observed. Finally, note that in all of the modeling we have done so far, the rule has been that particles found in nature are those that have zero total neutrinic charge. This fact was true for the modeling of massive leptons, and it is also true for baryons and mesons. Hence, already in our development we have answered three questions about nature: 1) Why do generations of quarks and leptons exist? 2) Why can quarks not be isolated? and 3) Why do only certain types of leptonic and hadronic matter form? As a subset of question 1, we can answer I.I. Rabi's question about the muon (which was who ordered that?). The ABC Preon Model has clear answers to all of these questions, while also greatly reducing the number of elementary particles required by nature.

So at this point in the development we can now formalize much about the constituents of the ABC Preon Model. The model consists of three preons. The A preon has zero electric charge and a neutrinic charge of minus one. The B preon has an electric charge of minus one and a neutrinic charge of minus one. And the C preon has an electric charge of plus two and a neutrinic charge of plus three. The anti-preons have the opposite charges of the preons. Two force carriers have been proposed. The photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, and the neutrino, which carries the neutrinic force.

The particles of nature as described by the ABC Preon Model are shown in the drawing below.





posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   
The Exposition of the ABC Preon Model will involve many threads. Here are links to previous threads in this series, in the order that they appeared:

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

The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Massive Leptons.

The ABC Preon Model. Assigning Some Quantum Numbers.

The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Hadrons.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson


while it can be seen how massive leptons can be isolated as an A anti-preon bound to a B preon, it is clear that a quark can never be isolated by itself since it is in reality the manifestation of a portion of a C preon bound to an A or a B preon. This explains why free quarks have never been observed.

This, right there, is in my opinion a major clue that you're on the right track.

Remember how a negative hydrogen ion was observed to not behave like a proton? Well, you might very well have found the simplest answer why.




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Unless I can use this knowledge to create an anti-gravity device what's the point?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Unless I can use this knowledge to create an anti-gravity device what's the point?

Most often (but not always) we must understand our world before we can control it. Elementary particle physics is an endeavor to understand.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Unless I can use this knowledge to create an anti-gravity device what's the point?

If we every do develop anti-gravity, then there would be a good chance that an understanding of elementary particle physics would be involved in that anti-gravity development.

Quarks are the most basic building blocks of all matter (most basic, as far as we know), and If we are looking for a way to make matter react differently with respect to gravity, then I bet understanding quarks would be a good start.

edit on 2017/3/17 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: delbertlarson


while it can be seen how massive leptons can be isolated as an A anti-preon bound to a B preon, it is clear that a quark can never be isolated by itself since it is in reality the manifestation of a portion of a C preon bound to an A or a B preon. This explains why free quarks have never been observed.

This, right there, is in my opinion a major clue that you're on the right track.



Thanks. We're just getting into this, and there are several other things that line up well with the model too, including six quantitative results that come about after fitting only three parameters. It is my opinion that the evidence for the ABC Preon Model is now reasonably strong. I also will make further predictions for future HEP discoveries. All of this will come in future threads, and it of course takes a bit of time to prepare and present, but it is coming.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Does the ABC Model make predictions about Dark Matter? I can't remember if I've already asked you in our messages.


Wait, I did ask you. Dark matter was made of neutrinos, right? It explained its neutral electric charge.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: delbertlarson

Does the ABC Model make predictions about Dark Matter? I can't remember if I've already asked you in our messages.


Wait, I did ask you. Dark matter was made of neutrinos, right? It explained its neutral electric charge.


I have not spent much time thinking about dark matter and universe expansion. I know there are many theories. The reason I have avoided the topic are two. First, we live in a very small portion of the universe. So small that it is not at all obvious to me that the physical laws that hold here are perfectly good throughout all of the rest of the universe. Second, I have never seen how one can do controlled experiments about such things. We can get a lot of data from the stars, but we can't move things around and see what happens.

So as a result, the ABC Preon Model, and even my Two Component Aether, do not address the issue of universe expansion and dark matter.



posted on Mar, 18 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I find a logical inconstancy

if the binding of neutrinos with preons is so strong we have as yet been unable to observe any compositeness... it should logically follow that neutrino interactions with quarks should thus be strong... they are as is observed... not.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
I find a logical inconstancy

if the binding of neutrinos with preons is so strong we have as yet been unable to observe any compositeness... it should logically follow that neutrino interactions with quarks should thus be strong... they are as is observed... not.


Thank you for this thoughtful critical comment. When the ABC Preon Model been criticized by physicists in the past, it is usually done in a vituperative and ad hominem way with little if any substance. You are correct about the strength of the binding, and this topic is scheduled for a thread in the week after next. I do not know if my exposition at that time will dissuade your argument or not, and I will look forward to discussing it at that time. Rest assured I will not forget! I have rarely gotten substantive criticism, so I am quite sure I will remember to raise this again. I am also remembering Arbitraguer's deep inelastic scattering comment that will also be discussed at about the same time. The comment about the additional decay modes of the muon should also be understood somewhere along the discussion, or else work will need to be done. So I am very happy that there are some here who appear knowledgeable and who are taking the model seriously enough to offer such valid criticisms. I am also very appreciative of the positive comments.

Sometimes I wish I could produce the threads faster, but the drawings take time and it takes time to write things well. On the other hand, I hope that the pace may be appropriate for anyone to think about each thread for a bit before we move along, so maybe the pace is good.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

thanks - I think one of the other models presented by another member here was talking about the compositeness of dark matter being made of charged particles like quarks. It kind of follows that if you have force carriers such as charge, there is always a residual... be it forming a magnetic moment or actual charge.

The neutron for example, even though it is neutral, does undergo interactions, they do have the ability to kinda bounce around in materials, because they don't loose energy by ionizing their surroundings, only scattering mostly.

But still they interact. It would then as you say, require a mechanism to suppress that binding.



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I see I was mistaken about the timing of some upcoming topics. In working on the threads for this week, the topic of neutrinos, including comments related to the strong binding, are scheduled to be posted Wednesday.
On Wednesday, things will just be discussed assuming the binding is "strong". In the following week "strong" will be quantified.

I will of course look forward to any comments once things are posted.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Unless I can use this knowledge to create an anti-gravity device what's the point?

If we every do develop anti-gravity, then there would be a good chance that an understanding of elementary particle physics would be involved in that anti-gravity development.

Quarks are the most basic building blocks of all matter (most basic, as far as we know), and If we are looking for a way to make matter react differently with respect to gravity, then I bet understanding quarks would be a good start.

Here are two books published in 1980 and 1996 that scientifically prove otherwise:
Extrasensory Perception of Quarks
smphillips.mysite.com...
ESP of Quarks and Superstrings
Chapters 1-4
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%201-4.pdf
Chapter 5-6
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
When some of you have finished wondering about how many angels can sit on a pin's head, perhaps you could devote some time to studying facts already proved 36 years ago in research whose legitimacy has been accepted by some Nobel Prize winners in physics but yet to be confirmed by orthodox scientific means when preon structure is finally detected in quarks.



new topics




 
3

log in

join