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. Deep Inelastic Scattering. The C Mass.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 05:36 AM
link   
This is the eleventh thread in the series on the ABC Preon Model. Links to earlier threads will appear in the comment below.

In an earlier thread we investigated experiments that allow a determination of the masses of the A and B preons. In order to determine the mass of the C preon we turn to a look at deep inelastic scattering experiments. Deep inelastic scattering experiments are done by having a high energy electron beam collide with hadronic matter. For the case of the proton, these experiments resulted in observations consistent with 35% of the proton momentum being carried by particles with positive charge, about 18% by particles with negative charge, and 47% by particles of neutral charge. The standard model agrees with these values by assigning 35% of the proton momentum to be carried by positively charged up quarks, 18% of the proton momentum to be carried by negatively charged down quarks, and the remaining 47% to be carried by charge neutral gluons.

For the ABC Preon Model the situation will of course be a bit different. The proton as understood by the ABC Preon Model is shown below:



In the ABC Preon Model, it is readily observed that if we set the mass of the C particle to be 67.9 GeV/c^2, we have a situation where 35% of the mass of the proton consists of the positively charged C particle, 18% by the mass of the negatively charged B particle (34.8 GeV/c^2), and 47% by the mass of the two uncharged A particles (45.6 GeV/c^2 each, for a total of 91.2 GeV/c^2). Hence, by fitting a single parameter (the C mass) we obtain a good fit to all three data points. When developing this model, I was struck by this fact. There were not enough free parameters to fit the data, and therefore I took this to be a rather strong confirmation that the model is indeed representative of nature. The ABC Preon Model did not need an additional proposal to explain the result, such as the gluon proposal needed for the standard model interpretation. Also, like the quark model, the ABC Preon Model involves small particles within the proton that can serve as scattering centers for the hard scattering events discovered in the deep inelastic scattering experiments. It appeared to be an excellent fit between the ABC Preon Model and experiment.

The original publication of the ABC Preon Model appeared in the reviewed journal Physics Essays in 1997. At that time, the issue of deep inelastic scattering was treated no further than what is mentioned above. Yet while the ABC Preon Model readily explains the right division of momentum within the proton, deep inelastic scattering analysis involves more than just that simple top-level result. The Standard Model analysis of deep inelastic scattering goes much further and is quite detailed and complicated. (Ref. 1)).

There are a couple issues of concern when we dig further into deep inelastic scattering as it pertains to the ABC Preon Model. The first issue of concern is that the ABC Preon Model specifies that the small objects within the proton have masses on the scales of 10's of GeV, and that is much larger than the quark masses of the Standard Model. However note that early theorizing regarding deep inelastic scattering involved the possibility of heavy proton constituents. Quoting from one of the Nobel prize lectures (Ref. 2): "there was a serious problem in making the 'free' behavior of the constituents during photon absorption compatible with the required strong final state interaction. One of the ways to get out of this difficulty was to assign quarks very large masses" (Ref. 2, page 9 of the 24 page PDF, which is labeled as page 723.) The second issue of concern with the ABC Preon Model is that the "isospin symmetry" argument used in Ref 1 is now rather dubious, since in the ABC Preon Model the neutron will have a different number of charged scattering centers than does the proton. Although as far as neutrons are concerned, we should note that there are problems with understanding deep inelastic scattering still to this day. (See Ref. 1, bottom of page 11 of the 15 page PDF, which is labeled as page 197.)

Despite the above issues, there is reason to believe that the ABC Preon Model is consistent with the deep inelastic scattering experiments due similarities between it and the quark model. In the quark model of the proton, the ratio of the charge on the positively charged up quarks to the charge on the negatively charged down quarks is -2. (2/3rds to -1/3rd.) In the ABC Preon Model of the proton, the ratio of the charge on the positively charged C particle to the negatively charged B particle is also -2. (2 to -1). Also, the ratio of the mass of the positive charges within the proton to the mass of the negative charges within the proton is the same in both models. As a result of these facts, it should be possible to obtain a match to the experimental data by adjusting the assumed probabilities that underlie the calculation. Note that while Ref. 1 does not mention the assumed probabilities behind the deep inelastic scattering analysis, the Nobel prize lecture, Ref. 2, does. (See Ref. 2, P(N) on page 8 of the 24 page PDF, which is labeled as page 722.) Therefore the ABC Preon Model will continue to use the high level deep inelastic scattering results to set the C mass at 67.9 GeV/c^2, noting that this also results in the positive, negative and neutral constituents of the proton having the same contribution to proton momentum as they do in the present quark model.

With the masses for the A, B, and C preons now estimated, it is a good time to step back and take notice of an important aspect of the theory. Recall that we have postulated than the massive leptons are made up of an A antiparticle bound to a B particle with a force mediated by the neutrino. And yet we have seen that the mass of the A is 45.6 GeV/c^2 and the mass of the B is 34.8 GeV/c^2. But the mass of the lightest massive lepton, the electron, is only 511 keV/c^2. Therefore the ABC Preon Model is proposing that the constituents of the electron weigh about 100,000 times more than the electron itself! Of course such a situation is indeed entirely possible. Perhaps the best known equation in all of physics, incorrectly attributed to Einstein by the way, is the formula E = mc^2.

It is well known that the atomic nuclei that bind protons with neutrons have lower masses than the sum of the masses of the protons and neutrons making them up. The lighter mass is due to the effect of the binding energy between the protons and neutrons. Similarly, in the ABC Preon Model, the light mass of the electron shows that there is a considerable amount of binding energy between the A and the B. In fact, the binding energy is so large that the mass of the electron is only a small fraction of the mass of its constituents. This condition also holds for the hadrons and mesons, as they are much lighter than their constituents as well.




posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

WOW! I'm a sincerely impressed by your hard work and understanding of this problem? Equation?

But it is unfortunately way above my pay grade.

I was lost after reading the first thread regarding the ABC Preon Model.

But I tried.

If I try reading all ten of the earlier threads my brain may get kicked into school mode and might be able to understand it fully.

I'll let you know how it goes, and if I run into a wall or two I will U2U you.
If you don't mind that is.


P.S. I'm not kidding at all



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Spader

Thanks for the nice comment. Those are always welcome!

U2U would be OK, but often comments on the threads are likely better. Others may have the same questions.


As for what it is, the ABC Preon Model is a model of the elementary particles that make up the universe.

Since thread 1 was meant to serve as background, it covered the presently accepted elementary particle model, which is know as the Standard Model. Hence, there is a lot in thread 1, and it is easy to get lost. Thread 2 starts on the very beginnings of the ABC Preon Model and things start out reasonably simply. Of course simple is not the same as easy, so it can still present some difficulties in understanding.

If you are new to this whole field, what I suggest you do is to think of all of nature as being made up of little balls. The little balls then can combine with other little balls to make things up. Often they make up slightly larger balls. Atoms can be thought of as balls that are made up of balls of neutrons, protons and electrons. My goal has been to search out what the "smallest" of those little balls are, at the most elementary level. The model developed from those little balls must then lead to predictions for what we see in experiments. In a nutshell that's what this series of threads is about. The ABC Preons are little balls that make up the larger neutron, proton and electron, as well as other little balls that have been discovered.

Practitioners of the Standard Model view things quite differently. There, the mathematics take precedence, and the reality of the little balls is questioned. A lot of that has to do with a conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, but fortunately you don't need to be concerned about all of that to follow most of the threads on the ABC Preon Model.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
RE: The lighter mass is due to the effect of the binding energy between the protons and neutrons.

It seems to be a universal constant that reality always turns out to be stranger than anything we could have ever imagined.


edit on 31-3-2017 by dfnj2015 because: typo



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

Searched for a basic definition + explanation of "preon" - not to be found. I know prions and found freon but no preon.





posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: delbertlarson

Searched for a basic definition + explanation of "preon" - not to be found. I know prions and found freon but no preon.






Wikipedia has an article about preons that you can check out by clicking here.



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Preons are in consideration what follows quarks and leptons in so far as structurally but the situation is more complicated than that last statement. We have not directly observed the internal structure of a quark of lepton but based upon what we know. What we today can say though is Preons have something to do with structure beyond the constructs of quarks and leptons.

Its like determining that a planet exist in orbit around a star due to its wobble. Based upon the information we have developed in that sense and with respect to sub-atomic particles, this appears relevant.


edit on 31-3-2017 by Kashai because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: delbertlarson

Searched for a basic definition + explanation of "preon" - not to be found. I know prions and found freon but no preon.






Wikipedia has an article about preons that you can check out by clicking here.



Thanks.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I find these articles very interesting. I've tried reading every article I can find in order to learn about this field. How does preon theory interact with the shape of atomic nucleii? Some are said to be more like american footballs or even pancakes. These tend to be the very unstable nucleii.

www.accessscience.com...

www.mn.uio.no...

These are quite readable, I'm fascinated by the fact that atomic nucleii seem to be able to change shape like magnetic putty. The diagram of the quadrupole deformation of the nuclear ground states using a Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculation really seems to make me think there's a whole unknown space in the periodic table.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
I find these articles very interesting. I've tried reading every article I can find in order to learn about this field. How does preon theory interact with the shape of atomic nucleii? Some are said to be more like american footballs or even pancakes. These tend to be the very unstable nucleii.

www.accessscience.com...

www.mn.uio.no...

These are quite readable, I'm fascinated by the fact that atomic nucleii seem to be able to change shape like magnetic putty. The diagram of the quadrupole deformation of the nuclear ground states using a Hartree-Fock-Bogolyubov calculation really seems to make me think there's a whole unknown space in the periodic table.


Atomic nuclei are made up of protons and neutrons, and the ABC Preon Model simply proposes an alternative to the quark model for how protons and neutrons are made. Hence, the ABC Preon Model really doesn't change the description of nature at the nuclei level. The differences with the Standard Model are predicted to show up predominantly in high energy collisions.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join