This is the twelfth thread in the series on the ABC Preon Model. Links to earlier threads will appear in the comment below.
There is one experimental result where it may at first seem that the ABC Preon Model fails, and that involves the experimental evidence for the top
quark. In fact, the abstract of the original 1997 publication ended with the final sentence "The model does not require the existence of the top
quark." In this thread we will explore the meaning behind that final sentence, as well as present powerful additional evidence for the existence of
Above we recall our earlier depiction of the delta-plus particle, wherein the up quark is identified as the binding of an A particle to a C particle.
Also recall that the ABC Preon Model defines the charm quark as the first excited state of the A and C binding, and that the top quark would be the
second excited state, should it exist.
But note that there should be no binding at all if the A can be freed from its bond at an energy less than that of a possible second exited state. As
an approximate upper limit, it should not be possible to have a quark form at a mass much above twice the mass of the A, since putting that much
energy into the bond should be enough to free the A from the C particle.
To see how this is so, observe that a free A will have a mass of m_A. Less obvious is that the remnant that the A escapes from will also have a mass
estimated to be about m_A. This is because the energy of the bond reduces the total mass of the system containing both entities that participate in
the bond, and here I propose an estimate that when freed each entity has a mass that is about equal to the other entity participating in the bond.
Hence, if we put into the bond an amount of energy equal to about twice the mass of the A times c squared, the A will be freed. It may require
somewhat more or less energy to free the A, but twice the mass of the A is a reasonable upper estimate for how heavy the top quark could be.
In an earlier thread
we found that twice the mass of the A is 91.2 GeV/c^2, and yet
the top quark has been reported to exist with a mass of 172.4 GeV/c^2. Since 172.4 GeV/c^2 is much more than 91.2 GeV/c^2, this would at first appear
to be counter-indicative of the ABC Preon Model. In fact, for some years after the announced discovery of the top quark, I had thought that the
likelihood of the ABC Preon Model being a correct model of nature had been considerably damaged experimentally by the proclaimed top quark
But then I noticed an important point, which is that the top quark is theorized to decay very quickly. The experimental evidence does not come from
the top quark itself, but rather from its decay products, which in turn come from the decays of a bottom quark and a W boson. And it is clearly
possible to create a bottom quark in conjunction with a W boson as understood from the ABC Preon Model.
Above we see the case where a C particle and three B particles are produced in a high energy collision. Recall from our previous threads that the C
preon has a mass of 67.9 GeV/c^2 while a B preon has a mass of 34.8 GeV/c^2. Hence, the combination of a C and three B's as shown above has a total
mass of 67.9 GeV/c^2 + (3 x 34.8) GeV/c^2 = 172.3 GeV/c^2, which is an excellent fit to the observed mass associated with what is known as the top
quark. (What is known as the top quark is observed at a mass of 172.4 GeV/c^2.)
In addition to getting the mass correct, it also is important what the decay products are. If an A anti-A pair forms out of vacuum, the anti-A B
combination can be recognized as leading to the W signature (as shown in this earlier
, and one of the C B bindings can readily be seen to be able to form a bottom quark. After formation of a W and a bottom quark, the
remaining B and A preons as well as background production of other preon and neutrino pairs will hadronize the bottom quark, resulting in the
signature identified as the top quark signature.
So the ABC Preon Model does indeed predict the top quark signature as found in high energy physics experiments, both qualitatively (it gets the
correct decay channels) and quantitatively (the center of mass of the decay products is predicted). The explanation for the observed results are
different from those of the Standard Model, since instead of a top quark forming, the ABC Preon Model recognizes the results as showing the formation
of free preons.
The nearly exact match between the predictions of the ABC Preon Model and the experimental results presently known as the top quark signature provides
significant additional support for the ABC Preon Model. In our previous thread
how the ABC Preon Model predicted all three deep inelastic scattering ratios by fitting a single parameter, the C mass, to the data. In this thread,
we see that the ABC Preon Model predicts the top quark mass with no additional free parameter required.
As can be seen, the ABC Preon Model makes more predictions than what can be arrived at by setting the few free parameters that go into the model -
which is leading to increasing evidence that the ABC Preon Model may indeed be the correct model for what makes up our world.