Could my proposal help to complete The Standard Model of Elementary particles

en.wikipedia.org...

There are currently 17 Elementary Particles listed as seen in the table on the right in the link above.

I am proposing 18.

I have tried running my thoughts of this proposal for a while now on Arbitrageur's Ask Anything ... thread.

This time. I have responded to the latest D/S exp "explanation" video. Heavily edited over the past few days.

Instead of copy/paste diagrams. I used his video to help explain my proposal.

I made my reply interactive and fun. To help see my diagrams. The reader is encouraged to take part using only paper, coloured pens/pencils and a ruler. It's easy to follow. Take 30 mins. Make yourself a coffee and have have a little fun too.

I will hopefully link the video. And, paste my reply to the video.

www.youtube.com...




It seems to me. A particle (as we think of it) is a wave in it's smallest form.
A wave is a propagating particle.
Has anyone considered there might be 18 parts to a photon?
In a 2d experiment like D/S experiment etc. We could demonstrate it with 3 parts.
The parts are charges. (-1) and (+1). They are connected by a (0) in the centre and can be plotted as an expanding parabola or equilateral triangle with the (0)at the very front of the wave. (-1) (0) (+1).
It then seems to me that entanglement isn't an association between 2 particles. But, between a (-1) charge and a (+1) charge.
Distance doesn't matter. As long as the (0) sits central and forwards of (in 2d exp) at equal distance to halfway between (-1) and (+1). A sharing of charges from within 2 source particles/waves at distance.
The (0) seems to be a real object upon detection or collapse (annihilation) of a wave. It also seems to be implied too. I say implied because it has zero value. But also manifests itself as real. And is counted as part of the total of my proposed 18 charges to a particle.
The (0) to me is the mechanism equivalent to the scientific phrase. "Popping in and out of existence". Implied. Then given back upon annihilation.
Why would i say 18 charges make a photon?
I have described how as few as 3 can be used in a 2d experiment. In reality. We're in a 3d situation. It is simply 3 charges for each direction. Up, Down, Forwards, Backwards, Left and Right. (Which i also believe are the correct names for Quarks).
As an example of my above comment.
In your video. In the cartoon at 6.23 mark. If the wave was represented as a (-1) on the left of the wave. (+1) on the right side of the wave. (0) at the centre of the wave.
The (0) is annihilated at the wall. The (-1) and (+1) are what make it to the slits.
Not one solid particle splitting itself in two. It's 2 from 3. Not 1 makes 2.
Added edit.
I have replied to this video because it is a subject of which i am interested to the point of obsessed with. Have been for a while.
I have put forward an absurd proposal above.
Although my proposal works as described in my example. It could just be that it fits for that purpose and won't stand up to the scientific method of rigorous testing to try to falsify my claims.
I am inviting you to apply the scientific method for my claims.
To give you a bit more to think about. I will take you through the next part of the experiment. Beyond the slits.
You will need a pen/pencil and some graph paper or make your own graph.
On your graph. Mark your wall with the slits in. The simplest way is 10 squares (total wall). The slits will be placed at equal distance from the centre line. Mark them 2 squares away from the centre. Which is 3 squares in from each end.
The wave to be produced from each of the slits is a magnitude of the previous wave which has made it through the slits.
The new wave has it's own set of axis'. In this case we only need the left/right and forward axis'.
Propagate a wave through each slit in an expanding parabolic manner. e.g 1 square up. One square left and one square right. With (-1) (0) (+1) marked on your waves.
You should notice that when you have propagated your waves to just 3 squares. You should now be looking at an entangled area at the central position in the wall of 1 square Parabola.
This is an entangled area. You will notice that you already have (-1) and (+1) in the right places. It only needs to have a (0) marked at the front of the wave. As i stated in first reply. It seems to be implied. By the framework already set up by 2 separate and distant sources. The properties of entanglement are dependent on the sharing of two charges from within 2 separate and distant sources. Any sources would work. It's the charges that are important and not the object.
As you propagate your two original waves. You will see the implied but definitely real new wave propagates also by entanglement.
Although entanglement is an instant action. It occurs because of a framework/structure created by the interaction of two charges from within two distant sources particles/waves which travel up to the speed of light.
You can carry on with the above experiment using different measurements etc. The result means the same.
In this next section. I would like to discuss what's inside a particle.
You will need paper and pens/pencils. Preferably different colours.
Inside the particle is a mechanism. It is 3 axis' A, B, C. A axis is the forward/backwards axis. B is the up/down axis. Ans, C is the left/right axis. You can draw this by using the same length of lines for your axis'. Draw a vertical axis. Then in an x shape. Draw the other 2 axis'. This will give it more of a 3d effect.
Now label the 6 ends of your axis' as Up, Down, Forward (fw), Backward (bw), Left, Right. It should be obvious where to label these 6 positions.
Next. Mark the centre of your axis's as 0.
At the end of each axis. Mark a - to the left of the axis. And a + to the right of the axis. And a 0 at the end if the axis. You should now have a diagram of all the 18 parts/charges connected by 3 axis', in 6 directions.
To take this further. There is a code involved. It is combinations of how to make 18.
At this stage. I can see things which i cannot recognise to be able to label things correctly. I am looking/asking for help with this theory. Hopefully someone might be able to recognise what i will help you draw.
You have already drawn the first code. 18 x 1. If you connect the ends of the axis'. You get a cube shape.
Now. put a small curved line across the end of each axis to demonstrate a connection of the - 0 +. These are the 6 quarks. It's code is 6 x 3.
The 3 x 6 code is 3 axis' x 6 quarks.
Now draw another set of axis' and label with the charges. Use different colours for the pos and neg. Then connect the points in the code as follows.
A = (fw) (- 0+) to (bw) (- 0 +). B = (up) (- 0 +) to (down) (- 0 +). C = (left) (- 0 +) to (right) (- 0 +). This is done by an S shaped line from a neg. Through the centre 0 (where all axis' cross). Then connects to other neg.
Pos to pos is similar. But use a backward S.
If you have drawn it correctly. You will have a flower type pattern with 6 petals.


Continued on next page.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Continued from previous page.

Next is the 2 x 9 code. This is made by 2 x groups of 3 lots of charges together.
Again. Draw the axis' and their charges. And with different colours. Follow the code as.
A = (fw) (- 0 +) to (bw) (+ 0 =). B = (up) (- 0 +) to (down) (+ 0 ). C = (left) ( 0 +) to (down) (+ 0 -). With this code. The connecting lines are a backwards 3 type shape for the neg. And a 3 type shape for the pos. It comes from the neg/pos but bounces off the central 0 (not through) and on to its partner.
If you have done it correctly. You will have the same 6 petal flower shape as before. Except. there is a difference in the colours of the connections.
The final code is 9 x 2. This is different in that there are no 0's involved. You will also have to draw this as 3 separate axis's individually.
The code connections are as follow.
A = (fw) (-) to (bw) (+). A = (fw) (-) to (bw) (-). A = (fw) (+) to (bw) (+).
B = (up) (-) to (down) (+). B = (up) (-) to (down) (-). B = (up) (+) to (down) (+).
C = (left) (-) to (right) (+). C = (left) (-) to (right) (-). C = (left) (+) to (right) (+).
To draw these. The only way i can understand it is. They come out and encircle the whole mechanism. Looks a bit like magnetic effects.
These represent my 18 parts proposal.
The codes give you the pairs/anti pairs.
My problem is. I can't label what i'm seeing. And, i don't want to guess.
One more aspect of this mechanism is. All charges seem to be zero value. But have a value when propagated.
It seems that the current standard model has 17 parts inc quarks, leptons, mesons etc. Do you think they might be missing a part?

a reply to: blackcrowe

I'm not sure ATS is the right forum for discussing something so esoteric. You might want to write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Or partner with an established professor in the field. Good luck.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: blackcrowe

I'm not sure ATS is the right forum for discussing something so esoteric. You might want to write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed journal. Or partner with an established professor in the field. Good luck.

Lol. You are the king of esoteric posts. Someone finally submits a question about science and that is where you put your foot down? Go back to the threads about ghosts and astral projection.

a reply to: blackcrowe

I’ll gladly look over your proposal.

I say the answer is D: All of the above.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Despite the dig from Woodcarver.

A partner in the field of physics would be ideal. If i'm correct.

I'm not a scientist. Not after the Nobel Prize. No fame. Just some money would help. And get this monkey off my back.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Thanks.

Even if it's wrong.

It's fun to have a look at and join in with.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Where did you receive your PhD in particle physics?

I think it's best to assume that of we have no training, we probably aren't going to make a major physics breakthrough, that hundreds of people with PhDs over 80 years haven't.

Read the transcript only, no viewing of youtube-videos.
If I understand OP correctly, you are using an approach via symmetrical, "beautiful" geometrics to explain why there should be 18 particles.

Does your model answer what physical properties the 18th particles would have?
Does your model answer why there should be an 18th particle besides symmetry, when the idea of Super-Symmetry is already being discarded?

I have questions.

a reply to: hombero

Where did you receive your PhD in particle physics?

Arbitrageur.

I think it's best to assume that of we have no training, we probably aren't going to make a major physics breakthrough, that hundreds of people with PhDs over 80 years haven't.

I understand that point.

I have proposed something. If you can falsify it. Fine.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Does your model answer what physical properties the 18th particles would have?

Maybe. But i have trouble putting a label on something i can see. I'm hoping someone else can label what i have described if you draw the diagrams.

Does your model answer why there should be an 18th particle besides symmetry,

It is what it is. If it works as i propose.

I'm not as concerned with what it is. As long as it's true and works.

a reply to: blackcrowe

Reads like numerology to me.

As a first step I'd suggest to clarify how exactly your particles are related to the ones in the standard model. This should also help identifying what your 18th particle is supposed to be.

Also "a picture is worth a thousand words". Post your drawing instead of a description of it.

a reply to: moebius

originally posted by: blackcrowe
en.wikipedia.org...

There are currently 17 Elementary Particles listed as seen in the table on the right in the link above.

I am proposing 18.

I searched your link for 17 and for seventeen and neither of those appear in the text anywhere, so your source does not say there are 17 particles in the standard model, which would be incorrect. Maybe you counted up those labels yourself, and got 17 that way, but that doesn't work, because if you count the gluon as one particle, you have vastly undercounted since according to your source, there are 8 gluons:

The eight gluons mediate the strong interactions between color charged particles (the quarks).

There are multiple versions of some other particles too like various colors according to quantumchromodynamics (QCD), and of course there are also anti-particles so counting all those there are far more than 17 particles. This is from the latest (2018) PDG reference on just the mesons (I guess the 2019 version isn't out yet).

pdg.lbl.gov...

originally posted by: blackcrowe
Do you think they might be missing a part?

A leading hypothesis for explaining dark matter observations is that there are one or more particles missing from the standard model which could possibly have the properties needed to explain dark matter observations. So yes many scientists think the standard model may be missing something but searches so far haven't turned up what they are searching for.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Does your model answer what physical properties the 18th particles would have?
Does your model answer why there should be an 18th particle besides symmetry, when the idea of Super-Symmetry is already being discarded?

Again it wouldn't be the 18th particle since there are more than 17 already, but asking what properties any additional particle would have is an excellent question. We had some idea of what to look for with the Higgs boson before finding that.

We have some idea of what properties we are searching for with dark matter candidates though the parameter space is fairly large and we haven't searched all of it yet, but there could be one or more particles to be added to the standard model to explain dark matter observations, if we ever detect them in the searches being conducted in several labs.

blackcrowe, I think you understand particle physics even less than I do and I make no claims to be an expert on that topic, though I do know something about it. There is a physicist who understands it better than either of us who tried to make a beautifully symmetric model, but nature may not cooperate with such efforts because I think that none of what he predicted was seen in LHC experiments (Supersymmetry has the same failings as ManFromEurope suggested), though you may still enjoy watching his video. It's a complex topic and the model though having beautiful symmetry is still very complex and based on math few people understand outside of mathematical and related fields.

A theory of everything | Garrett Lisi

Physicist and surfer Garrett Lisi presents a controversial new model of the universe that -- just maybe -- answers all the big questions. If nothing else, it's the most beautiful 8-dimensional model of elementary particles and forces you've ever seen.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you.

I searched your link for 17 and for seventeen and neither of those appear in the text anywhere, so your source does not say there are 17 particles in the standard model, which would be incorrect. Maybe you counted up those labels yourself, and got 17 that way, but that doesn't work, because if you count the gluon as one particle, you have vastly undercounted since according to your source, there are 8 gluons:

Yes. The labels are what i counted.

I haven't said there aren't 8 gluons. I proposed 18 parts to a particle.

If my proposal says there aren't 8 gluons. Then something might not be right.

And. I might be wrong. And, will have to concede to a falsification.

But. As i already consider that the current model should be 18. I don't consider it is right as it isn't complete.

I also named the quarks. Of which i'm sure. A query about that might be more constructive. As i am struggling with identification.

As for the many more particles. I agree.

They would be all created from combinations of my proposed 18 parts.

Thanks for the video. It was interesting.

Not sure i agree with him on the coral analogy. But, liked some things he said.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In your above reply.

When you say "according to your source".

Is my source the link for the Standard Model or my proposal?

Are you asking why my model doesn't say 8 gluons?

If you take a look at the diagram of the cube shape.

Each point would have to be connected. And that would be by gluons. There are 8 gluons in that case.

Sorry if i'm being a dumbass.

But. Hope i have answered what you asked now.

a reply to: blackcrowe
You have failed to count the three colour states of each quark. You CANNOT count quarks and leptons without considering colour states because leptons are the colouress counterparts of the hadrons, so when you count the former, you must include the coloured states of the latter.

There are six quarks, each in three colour states: total = 6x3 = 18.
There are six leptons.
Total number of fundamental fermions = 24.
There are eight gluons, one Z, one W, one photon.
Total number of spin-1 bosons = 11.
There is one spin-0 (Higgs) particle.
Grand total = 36.