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 Epilogue. Trying to get a Review. Censors at Wikipedia.

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

You are referring to the so-called "Mass Paradox".

I believe it has already been stated that the Mass Paradox could be resolved by proposing a binding force which would cancel the momenta.

I personally am not intimidated by the "Mass Paradox", in fact I believe it to be fully true and existent. It is my belief that the Mass Paradox is actually the key behind the mass and lifetime of the W Boson, and even the key to dark matter.


edit on 2-6-2017 by swanne because: The Typomaster strikes again! No posts are safe - who will dare challenge the Typomaster's grip uon the World?




posted on Jun, 2 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Not sure its totally the same paradox and id not call it a matter of intimidation but one of logical consistency. A powerful binding could cancel the momenta as you say, but, in this case suggesting that the binding is brought around by neutrinos is for me inconsistent with observations.

It is sort of one of those things where a criticism people have of the standard model is that without the Higgs you get divergences to infinity that are not so nice to deal with. Now the Higgs solves that in a tidy manner, ultimately was tested... but people still criticize the model despite proof being put in place and observed

Then something even more simple as this kind of mass paradox which if was to be solved with a neutrino preon coupling, it requires there to be a stronger coupling of neutrinos to the nucleon in general. As all evidence suggests that neutrinos are extremely weakly coupled... it is a bit of a sore thumb.

Like a circular argument and thus paradox, you need high energy to have the neutrino actually interact at the distance scale within the dense object, but this large mass-energy is a problem, so you create a binding that allows it... so the neutrino still has super high energy? or not? if it still has high energy, you have a horribly unbalanced system and it doesn't then make sense that nuclear interactions release a few MeV when the amount of potential energy there is so large.


not sure, the jury is still out on Dark Matter... and the latest round of experiments are still running



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
The bottom line is this... nothing will become mainstream in science without a great deal of effort and convincing evidence. The harder you try to make people look the more desperate you come off and the more your theories may be perceived as pseudo-science. Wikipedia has no reason to create a new article just because one paper was published, notable means it must be fairly well known, even ATS has had its listing removed due to a lack of notability, it's not even listed as of today. I'll admit though ATS should clearly be on Wikipedia and they do have a bad habit of censoring information, I know that for a fact, but in your case it was very easy for them to justify.


Thank you for your perspective. Each reply is helpful for me to understand how to better proceed. A common theme here is that I posted too many threads. In retrospect I see that things may have come off better with one lengthy thread. We live and learn! At least we learn if we are willing to admit our mistakes and correct them! But without being aware of our mistakes, we can't even admit to them, let alone correct them, and so the stylistic comments here have been very helpful indeed.

My understanding on Wikipedia is that it is a community driven project and that deletion decisions come down to a vote. I think if there is a desire for ATS to be on Wikipedia there should be plenty of people here who could become editors (you just need to sign up to become one) and vote "keep". But I've had only one experience there, so perhaps there was more to it than that on the ATS deletion. Can you share additional details?



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks again for taking some more time on this. Your comments are exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for. I am thinking things over and I plan to reply before too long.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson


A common theme here is that I posted too many threads.

Well you did post quite a few threads but I was speaking more in regard to your failure to make other researchers pay attention. If your framework and predictions are strong enough that should speak for its self and people will be forced to pay attention. The other core reason I think you aren't getting much feedback is because "serious" researchers tend to avoid any theory which seems out of the box, and preon models appear to fall some what into that category. They fear being mocked and isolated from the scientific community, which seems to have happened to you. Of course it's sad that mainstream science works like that but as I said we live in an age of free information access and strong models cannot be ignored forever.

BTW have you seen this thread: A Breakthrough? The Singular Primordial Preon Theory, Finally a Solution to Many Mysteries


My understanding on Wikipedia is that it is a community driven project and that deletion decisions come down to a vote.

Well I'm far from an expert on how Wikipedia works but there is of course a power structure and people with a large degree of control over how the site is operated, it's far from a simple "community project". You wont really notice it though until situations arise where highly controversial information needs to be suppressed.


I think if there is a desire for ATS to be on Wikipedia there should be plenty of people here who could become editors (you just need to sign up to become one) and vote "keep". But I've had only one experience there, so perhaps there was more to it than that on the ATS deletion.

ATS was listed on Wikipedia for quite some time with lots of information, it was at least a year or so, but I believe it has been removed a few times. The point is ATS far exceeds the notability requirements for a website to be listed on Wikipedia and its been around since the 90's so it also has some historic value.

I view Wikipedia as a great source of information for most topics, it's a very powerful resource and most people use it for general research. Of course I'm not the only one who realizes how powerful Wikipedia is, and it would be naive to believe certain forces wont attempt to control the flow of information on Wikipedia. Even if there's a great deal of evidence backing up an argument, if that argument goes against their agenda they will attempt to censor it and portray a completely unbalanced perspective. It's almost like a pathological need to portray the mainstream narrative because that's the "intelligent and sane" thing to do, regardless of how weak that narrative is and how insane you need to be to believe it.
edit on 3/6/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
The bottom line is this... nothing will become mainstream in science without a great deal of effort and convincing evidence. The harder you try to make people look the more desperate you come off and the more your theories may be perceived as pseudo-science. Wikipedia has no reason to create a new article just because one paper was published, notable means it must be fairly well known, even ATS has had its listing removed due to a lack of notability, it's not even listed as of today.


The point is well expressed - Wikipedia is not going to give a page to any idea that is not relatively well-known. There are tens of thousands of us (I'm talking scientists with research publications) who have not had their ideas (or names) mentioned in Wikipedia and who are not well known.

Getting known here on is not a standard for acceptance on Wikipedia or elsewhere. If you want your concept to be widespread in the scientific community, then the key is writing papers with others and presenting at conferences (in your case, nuclear physics conferences.) You will have to address the points that the physicists make, one by one.

In many cases, you will have to trot out the math.

As to the silence here, as others have pointed out, we're not qualified to judge the soundness of a proposal.


edit on 3-6-2017 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I think if there is a desire for ATS to be on Wikipedia there should be plenty of people here who could become editors (you just need to sign up to become one) and vote "keep".


That's how ATS got on there in the first place.

HOWEVER ... this is a fairly easy tactic for anyone to do, which means that marketers and self-promoters leaped all over this as a way of showing how important they were. They'd get friends to sign on and promote their importance and they'd use "sock puppets" (multiple fake accounts) to try and convince people of their importance. Now anyone who shows up with a single narrow item to discuss or edit is considered suspect. The influential ones contribute over a broad spectrum and have shown their expertise.

At one time there was a good case for us being on Wikipedia, since we were a "go to" source and there were a lot of innovations as the board evolved. This has not been true for about the past eight years or so.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thanks again for this follow-up. It is educational for me.



The other core reason I think you aren't getting much feedback is because "serious" researchers tend to avoid any theory which seems out of the box, and preon models appear to fall some what into that category.


All of what I consider my best works are in the "out of the box" category. In fact my best stuff is quite far out of the box. I suspect you are right about that being a big part of the problem.

I may have had a blind spot because of my earlier success. In accelerator physics I have three sole-author Phys. Rev. Lett.'s, which I believe is quite a few. And although each of them were of some importance in that field, they weren't of fundamental importance. And then when I did things that I thought were of fundamental importance (the preon model was one) they suffered a quick rejection, and no one would even appear to take it seriously. It all seemed rather strange to me. But I am thinking you are right. What I think is most important may simply be too far outside the norm.



BTW have you seen this thread: A Breakthrough? The Singular Primordial Preon Theory, Finally a Solution to Many Mysteries


Yes. It was swanne's work that made me aware of ATS. It was my Wikipedia article that made swanne aware of me. He posted about my deletion from Wikipedia, which is how I found ATS. I have since sent swanne a review of his work and we have been in correspondence from time to time. I believe he has done some nice things with his model, for sure. He independently came up with a model for weak decays that is quite similar to mine.

Thanks also for your perspective concerning Wikipedia. Yes, there is power in the web. I suppose, for what people believe are good reasons, there will have to be deletions from time to time. And I guess that being outside the norm might be one such reason. Yet Wikipedia does have both a preon page and a page on the Rishon model. The Rishon model was a primitive preon model that is quite discredited now. So I thought my preon model should appear on Wikipedia as well. I still do think it belongs there, but I can understand how others may have differing opinions.



posted on Jun, 3 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
The bottom line is this... nothing will become mainstream in science without a great deal of effort and convincing evidence. The harder you try to make people look the more desperate you come off and the more your theories may be perceived as pseudo-science. Wikipedia has no reason to create a new article just because one paper was published, notable means it must be fairly well known, even ATS has had its listing removed due to a lack of notability, it's not even listed as of today.


The point is well expressed - Wikipedia is not going to give a page to any idea that is not relatively well-known. There are tens of thousands of us (I'm talking scientists with research publications) who have not had their ideas (or names) mentioned in Wikipedia and who are not well known.

Getting known here on is not a standard for acceptance on Wikipedia or elsewhere. If you want your concept to be widespread in the scientific community, then the key is writing papers with others and presenting at conferences (in your case, nuclear physics conferences.) You will have to address the points that the physicists make, one by one.

In many cases, you will have to trot out the math.

As to the silence here, as others have pointed out, we're not qualified to judge the soundness of a proposal.



Thanks for this information. I am in the process of publishing a second paper on the ABC Preon Model. The reviewer asked some good questions about the Weinberg angle, running couplings, and its relation to Grand Unified Theories. I have responded with changes to the manuscript and we shall see how the review process plays out going forward.

However the problem I had with the first peer-reviewed paper was getting anyone to read it. It successfully passed a review, and then nothing. And when I tried to present it at conferences I was not allowed to. I am happy that ErosA433 is providing some criticism here. My model could certainly be wrong, but I'll never know without good honest criticism after a thorough read.

For those not qualified to judge, I have no problem. I was hoping for only a few, and maybe only one, and it appears there are one or two here now (ErosA433 and moebius) offering criticism and that is a start!

Thanks also for the additional background concerning Wikipedia. I myself wouldn't see the harm if ten thousand scientists all had their best ten or so works there, and everyone worked to cross-link them, but perhaps it would be too technical for the common readership.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

You have touched on many interesting topics! Thanks for the comments.


I often find this place to get a little bit intense with mixtures of incorrect statements, boastful ignorance, and un-needed conspiracy. There are topics and people however that are very very interesting


It would be a nearly impossible service to try to correct the chatter by the uneducated. I am glad you are taking some time with me.


Issue 3 is a big one. A theorist looking at a paper that states that postulate in the way that you did... will have the same or similar thought chain as me up there and be like "No way" and then put the paper down and read no more.


I agree that you are likely correct that scientists will often stop once they find a single item they view as a fatal flaw, if they even bother to look at a new theory at all. While it does only take one truly fatal flaw to invalidate a theory, I have always gone quite a bit further when I have reviewed works of others. I usually try to find at least three fatal flaws. There are two reasons for my approach. One is that I could be wrong about what I think is a fatal flaw, and if I study further I may find that I was misinterpreting the author's point. The second reason is that it can often be the case that a single flaw can be overcome by some alterations in the theory. In fact, multiple flaws often can be overcome this way. I have seen authors make such corrections as we have worked together toward a publishable work during my reviews. If the central theme of the work has merit, even though problems exist, it can often be become sound as problems are overcome. Please note that the standard model has grown precisely in this way, and the Higgs (at least as I understand it) is an excellent example of that.


My issues still remain summarized

1) Neutrinos as Majorana particles

2) There is only one type of neutrino

3) Neutrino interactions and cross sections


I believe that your first two objections fall into the realm of things that might need future correction but I don't believe they are things that couldn't be fixed if need be. One could postulate that bindings between preons involve a neutrino and that bindings between anti-preons involve anti-neutrinos, and that would lead to close agreement with present theory for many experiments. However, the binding of C preons to C anti-preons makes it more likely (in my view) that the neutrino is its own antiparticle. Further, one could start applying flavor labels to bound neutrinos within certain bound states as well, as it could turn out that they are, indeed, different. But if one does that then we are simply going down the path that the Standard Model has taken, adding as needed the particles observed in nature. That would make the preon model no worse than the Standard Model in that aspect, but it would start to reduce its appeal. By the way - I would not expect, not in the least, that my model is the complete and end story on things. I do believe it answers a lot of questions and makes many important qualitative and quantitative predictions, and is hence a major step toward a new theory of matter, but every theory in the history of man has needed modifications as nature teaches us more as we continue to test her.

From your third objection, I see that you have not found my previous arguments concerning neutrinos persuasive. From your comments, I also believe that you and I are looking at things from quite different perspectives, however. My perspective has been to make some simple observations, essentially noting that if certain entities (preons) are postulated with some very simple attributes, then all observed empirical results follow. You have probed more deeply into theory, and I believe you have done so from an expert perspective of the prevailing understanding, and you have raised excellent points about neutrinos and their interactions. However, I believe you have done so all from the present theoretical standpoint and with certain underlying assumptions I may not share.

When dealing with these matters it is of course hard to say what is "theory" and what is "measurement" since the interpretation of measurements are guided by theory. In what you write, it appears to me that there is a lot of assumed theory that goes into it. Again, I don't doubt your expertise in presently prevailing theory, I simply doubt the presently prevailing theory. This especially holds true when discussing PeV and EeV phenomena. When I checked the paper you refer to, I find theory up to EeV, but experimental measurements only to 10's of GeV - which is to be expected, given the state of accelerators around the globe. I would be very surprised if any theory actually holds without change as we continue to explore orders of magnitude higher in energy scale. Perhaps - but it would be a first in human history.

My perspective is to look at things in a much more basic way. For me, the cross section data must simply be determined empirically, although even there we have some difficulty. In the prominent example, we start with a beam of muons, the intensity of which we can reasonably be certain of, and then we can see how many muons decay and assume they formed neutrinos. Then, downstream we can see how many events occur in our detectors under the assumption that it was the neutrinos that caused the events. We can turn our muon beam off and on, to verify a cause and effect on the events that occur. So we do have a pretty reasonable experimental basis for our understanding of neutrinos in the energy range we can access, but not outside of that.

Also on the topic of cross sections, it is important to mention resonances. In the nuclear/electromagnetic realm one important one is the C13 + proton -> N14 + gamma resonance. The point being that sometimes cross section varies rather enormously because of internal characteristics of what is being scattered off of. I don't know if the neutrino cross-section data is precise enough yet to uncover similar resonant structures. Although as discussed in my next response, I am not sure that matters to our discussion, but this paragraph and the one above indicate that I have big doubts about the full accuracy of our knowledge of neutrino cross sections.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

But the more important point is that I believe that the present neutrino cross-section data sheds little light upon the question of what may be happening inside of an electron comprised of an A anti-preon, a B preon and an neutrino. For me, a bound state system consists of two entities with charges and one quanta of the binding entity. That bound state system is stationary in the sense that it is always the same internally (unless it decays). The various entities may have internal motion (they may orbit each other or have spin) but those internal motions remain the same. This description can hold both for an electron comprised of preons and a neutrino or for a Hydrogen atom comprised of a proton, an electron and a photon. And for me, since the states are stationary, there is no incessant scattering between the internal constituents to hold things together. Rather, the charges form a potential (carried by the force carrier) and the entities are then bound within that attractive potential with everything stably executing whatever internal motions they have. This is quite different (to me) than scattering phenomena, and so I don't believe the scattering cross sections are dispositive with respect to the binding. Instead I have tried to model things with a high velocity Schrodinger-type approach. Unfortunately, it is a rather nasty problem!

Returning to the broader scope, I would appreciate it if you could read my entire presentation if you have not yet had the time to do so. You may find other objections we can discuss, and you may find other things I need to improve. And you may also see why I resurrected this 20 year old theory. I did so because as more and more HEP experiments come in, they seem to align quite well with my model, both qualitatively and quantitatively. (Without any change to the original postulates, although better data does improve the constants.) My model makes many more quantitative predictions than can be fit by adjusting its parameters, and I think the experimental record is now getting to the point where it is less and less likely that it is all just a mere coincidence. My model may have flaws that need correction, but I am becoming of the belief that it just might be the basis for an important and correct new way to look at nature. And so I have spent some time trying (and largely failing) to publicize it so that it becomes known to the wider physics community.


Long gone are the day when physicists would send a letter to you personally to discuss a paper, they simply do not have the same amount of time to sit and write and think as they once did.


I regret that the days of writing back and forth are largely behind us, and even more so that the time to think has passed, as I fear that such a loss likely means a significant reduction in the chances of true advance in physics. Thanks again for taking some more time on this. Perhaps you and I can continue our conversation here when you can find the time. I understand the need to make a living, and if it takes months to get to, no problem.







 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join