A New Preonic Model for the Composition of All Known Matter and Energy

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


I have been working on a symbolic chemistry model which uses "charge glyphs" as the functional elements. your model reminded me that a month ago-ish I started assigning numerical values to the charges arbitrarily and found that many of my molecular representations had a charge symmetries in (multiples of) 6.


Hm, That looks very intriguing. I wish you could tell me more. Would you be disposed in privately explaining its principle through U2U? Or perhaps better yet, did you wrote a thread on it?


I hope that you do not find it insulting for me to inject a certain mysticism into your thread. I am always intrigued by intersections of esoterics and science.


Not at all, please be my guest! I actually find your findings about this "6" fundamental value quite remarkable, for this value did appear in my model too, in the form of 1/6ths. I do usually separate metaphysics from physics, but I admit that in some cases, such as here, it is imperative that such intersection between the two must be explored - it may hold quite a potential.

If this intersection was to be extrapolated into religion, for instance, we may even be able to rationally explain some seemingly odd codes and patterns transmitted by ancient mythologies. For instance, we might be able to explain why the Bible says that God created the universe in 6 "cycles" of "evenings", and why the carrier of Light (spacetime?) has been assigned the code "666". Particle-antiparticle pairs such as positronium all have a total number of preons which amounts to "12", another ever-present code in legends such as the number of apostles or the number of babylonian zodiacal signs. It may be because this value of "6" is universal and absolute on the ultimate subatomic level, may it be matter or energy.




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Moduli
So in other words you've discovered that you can write any number as a sum of fractions.

No. I discovered that particles could be made of smaller bricks. The whole system still works, and you can finally unify all matter and energy under only two kind of particles, "a" preons and "b" preons. Do you know how many current mainstream preons theories can't even achieve that?


Aside from the fact that you'd have to use, you know, actual math beyond what you learned in kindergarten to do real physics,

Incorrect, You don't need fancy mathematics to understand E=MC2, or DeBroglie' wave-matter equation λ=h/p. Divisions and squares are simple mathematics, yet they build the pillar equations of modern physics. As Ernst Rutherford said, "If you can't explain your physics to a barmaid it is probably not very good physics."


you'd have to explain, e.g., how confinement works,

I already gave two candidates for that, please see my posts.


lots of other quantum numbers,

Please be more specific.


calculate interaction cross sections,

One only has to check any mainstream models for that. Laws of physics still apply, you know. I just found out how things looked inside quarks and leptons and gauge bosons, I didn't suggest that we should put physics upside down - a car is still a car regardless of what sticker you put on its dashboard.


explain why this works even though the quark has been observed to have no signs of internal structure

Your claim is quite remarkable, since I was under the impression that no one actually observed a free quark at all. It would take so much work to simply isolate a quark that the energy itself would skew the results. Thus, it's incorrect to say that "quark has been observed to have no signs of internal structure" if no one ever actually observed a quark's internal structure.


What you have now is just counting that flagrantly violates pretty much all observations about how particles work.

Violate?! Hm, I actually used the observations themselves of particle decays (how particle "work") to deduce their internal structure.

You sure you read the OP?

edit on 15-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

swanne
No. I discovered that particles could be made of smaller bricks. The whole system still works, and you can finally unify all matter and energy under only two kind of particles, "a" preons and "b" preons. Do you know how many current mainstream preons theories can't even achieve that?


No, you didn't, and no, it doesn't. And, being an actual physicist, I am precisely aware of what any kind of preon theory can and cannot do.


Incorrect, You don't need fancy mathematics...


No, you do need fancy math to do it, that's why we use fancy math to do it. It's not just for fun, it's required. If you allege to make the same predictions as other theories, this must be shown using the same math that those other theories use!



you'd have to explain, e.g., how confinement works,

I already gave two candidates for that, please see my posts.


You have no such explanation. You do realize that this is a thing that is fairly well understood, in terms of that fancy math you claim you don't need to know.


lots of other quantum numbers,

Please be more specific.

Any other quantum number. Which is the way any person who knows what a quantum number is would interpret that sentence.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
etc...




calculate interaction cross sections,

One only has to check any mainstream models for that.


Using that fancy math you claim you don't need to know? You still have to show your model would reproduce them. You aren't relieved from proving you can actually reproduce them just because you claim you can. You have to use math.



explain why this works even though the quark has been observed to have no signs of internal structure

Your claim is quite remarkable, since I was under the impression that no one actually observed a free quark at all.


Well, I'm not surprised that you don't actually know anything about the thing you claim to be discussing. But even Wikipedia knows about this one, so you have the rare honor of actually having less accurate information than wikipedia on a scientific subject.

I would advise at least having some idea how we learned that quarks make up particles before jumping to the conclusion that we can't prove this (which is a remarkable claim if you claim that your "theory" is something which can be proven.....)


You sure you read the OP?


You sure you actually understand any physics at all?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


No, you didn't, and no, it doesn't. And, being an actual physicist, I am precisely aware of what any kind of preon theory can and cannot do.


Yes, I did. You seem to have the attitude of a Spanish Inquisitor, as you strongly give the impression that laymen are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science. I added in the OP that I acknowledged the model was missing important aspects, since physics is not my expertise and I'm only a humble peasant. I feel you are using this "I'm a physicist, and I just know you're wrong" argument to try and push an ever-elusive point. I also see that you, as a physicist "who is aware of any kind of preon theory", failed to answer my question: How many preonic theory has the potential to unify everything into only two preon kinds... and leave most of the particle decay observation data in agreement?


No, you do need fancy math to do it, that's why we use fancy math to do it.


"To do it". Again, very passionate words, but only a vague contribution to this thread.

And about maths: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein


You have no such explanation.


(*Sigh*)It's not in the OP, it's a reply to this first-reply physicist who, you know, actually had manners.


You do realize that this is a thing that is fairly well understood


No, it's not. Preons are not fairly well understood. You see, no one has ever observed preons. Theories out there can't even agree on how many preons there are. How can you even say that preons are " fairly well understood"?!


Using that fancy math you claim you don't need to know? You still have to show your model would reproduce them.


What you don't seem to understand (and I really hope this misunderstanding could be resolved), is that I simply took the data of multiple and unrelated particle decays, analyzed their pattern and common points, and formulated an approximation about their inner structure. My model isn't meant to replace mainstream theories, only add more meat to them.


Well, I'm not surprised that you don't actually know anything about the thing you claim to be discussing. But even Wikipedia knows about this one, so you have the rare honor of actually having less accurate information than wikipedia on a scientific subject.

I would advise at least having some idea how we learned that quarks make up particles


(*facepalm*) I rely on wikipedia to access most of my data. Of course I know how quarks were discovered. My point was not about how quarks were discovered. My point was about the fact that you don't know individual free quarks cannot be observed using current technologies.


before jumping to the conclusion that we can't prove this


What?! You're confused. I never said we can't prove the existence of quarks - where did you get that idea?! My theory relies on the existence of quarks!


You sure you actually understand any physics at all?


Hm, replying to my question ("You sure you read my OP? ") with another question. Which means the answer to my last question was probably negative, and to avoid showing a flaw, you asked another question instead. So I'm afraid I must insist and ask you again: did you read and understand the OP, or did you just skimmed the whole thing?

You're the first physicist to show so much confusion...

To answer your question: Yes, I know a deal of physics (but I don't know everything, and probably never will). Enough to see that some physicists have manners and help others (like this first-reply gentleman) because we all have a passion which we share, while some other physicists just boast about their superior knowledge but rarely bring in much contribution - may it be in a thread or in History.

~

I'll give you a star. I will let you know why: Because your posts and your attitude let me know that you don't have the capacity to falsify the OP altogether, only to make (high quality) protestations.

So for that, you actually have my most sincere thanks.

At Time's End,

Swan


edit on 18-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert on physics. I am just a normal guy whose hobby is physics and astronomy and who deduced the inner structure of particles by consulting particle decay data. I did not lift the whole mystery yet, and my model is far from perfect yet.

Please understand I simply deduced part of the inner mechanism of all particles - I deduced an approximation of what preons should look like.

edit on 18-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

swanneYes, I did. You seem to have the attitude of a Spanish Inquisitor, as you strongly give the impression that laymen are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science.


Scientists are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science. No one cares what anyone's thoughts or opinions or philosophies about science are. What you are required to provide is mathematical and experimental proof, and this standard is the same for scientists as it is for anyone else. You don't get special treatment.


No, it's not. Preons are not fairly well understood.


Yes, they are. You can literally write down the most general possible theory of preons, which any specific model must be included in. People have been able to do this since like the 1970s. This idea is ridiculously well understood. It literally could not be more understood.


You see, no one has ever observed preons.


Yes, because they don't exist. That does not preclude one from understanding why they must not exist.


How can you even say that preons are " fairly well understood"?!


Because I, and any other remotely competent theoretical physicist, understand them.


What you don't seem to understand (and I really hope this misunderstanding could be resolved), is that I simply took the data of multiple and unrelated particle decays, analyzed their pattern and common points, and formulated an approximation about their inner structure. My model isn't meant to replace mainstream theories, only add more meat to them.


And, what you don't seem to understand, is that you didn't do that. You randomly mashed some numbers together and then wrote some stuff down. That's not the same thing.


(*facepalm*) I rely on wikipedia to access most of my data.


Really? I'm shocked!


Of course I know how quarks were discovered.


Evidently not, because you don't understand what that has to do with preons.


My point was about the fact that you don't know individual free quarks cannot be observed using current technologies.


My point is that you don't understand that this has nothing to do with the experimental evidence that preons to not exist. You do not need to have quark in isolation to measure things about quarks!



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Scientists are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science.

Hehe, this is rich.

Hm, then I must guess you are implying Einstein wasn't a scientist:


But he does suggest that this idea would explain certain experimental results, notably the photoelectric effect

source


In another major paper from this era, Einstein gave a wave equation for de Broglie waves, which Einstein suggested was the HamiltonñJacobi equation of mechanics.

source


Einstein suggested to Erwin Schrˆdinger that he might be able to reproduce the statistics of a BoseñEinstein gas by considering a box.

source

And neither was Galileo:


Galileo published a description of sunspots in 1613 entitled "Letters on Sunspots" suggesting the Sun and heavens are corruptible.

source


You can literally write down the most general possible theory of preons, which any specific model must be included in.

No, I checked. For my theory to work, you can't just write down any numbers of preons. For instance, if the theory had stated that only 5 preons could fit in particles, you'd get serious trouble predicting the charges. But with 6-preons, you can actually predict all the charges in the world, and I am in the process of formulating a matter-generation prediction based on the geometrical disposition of preons inside matter/energy.

I checked other preonic models, just for fun. The Rishon model can't even predict any differences between matter and antimatter. Check my model again, and you'll see I resolved Harari/Shupe's failure. I also stumbled upon Dylan Wynn's model, which seemed a bit promising, but unfortunately failed to account for the neutrino's existence in preonic terms. If you check my model, you'll see the existence of the neutrino and its preonic composition are well defined. I am now in the process of accounting for (in this order: ) generations, then spin, and perhaps even mass.

Telling me I randomly put things together is an insult. After months of investigation, I succeeded at formulating one of the first, simple yet coherent, preonic platform for all matter, antimatter and energy. Yes, it still needs improvement, but the bases are set. The RM wasn't even able to do that, yet it's the most popular preon theory out there (well, according to Wikipedia). You should be ashamed of this baseless accusation against me. Have you even tried coming up with an unification reductionist (yet simple and elegant) theory lately? Can't you even recognize hard work when you see it?


they don't exist. That does not preclude one from understanding why they must not exist.

If you're referring to the Mass Paradox ("How could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta", etc), then I am sure you are also aware of the solution to this paradox ("This paradox is resolved by postulating a large binding force between preons cancelling their mass-energies.").


Really? I'm shocked!

Yeah, I know. They do say that the truth shocks, though.

For instance: Oprah gave about one million of votes in favor of Obama, allowing him to have an edge in the 2008 election race. Shocking, but true.


You do not need to have quark in isolation to measure things about quarks!

This applies to preons too. You don't need to have preons in isolation to deduce things about preons.

Tell me mate... Is it you sincere belief that there is nothing smaller unifying matter/antimatter with energy? Do you not share other scientist's hope for a Theory of everything? Imagine if everything in the universe could be explained simply by two elementary particles. A bit like a master binary code. I don't fear losing my physicist status, because I have no official physicist status. I really, really wonder why you are so reluctant?? I might be the one of the few who strive for a higher understanding of matter/energy - but as we are, I beg you guys to please don't shoot us in the wings out of pure reluctancy.

Science used to be different from religion in the fact that religion banned free expression. Now all I see is a settled science competing with a more and more liberal Church.

Food for thoughts,

Swan

edit on 21-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Scientists are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science.
.....you do need fancy math to do it.....this must be shown using the same math that those other theories use!


in all of your years of scientific expertise, you appear to have lost sight of what science is and how it actually works. this dogmatic, bullying claptrap is an embarassment to yourself and the scientific community. swann, and people brave enough to put themselves in his position, is under no obligation whatsoever to use "the same math", or to make his hypothesis relevant in any way to the current paradigm. further, he is (at least initially) not required to provide unique empirical evidence. his reformulation of existing observation into a context which is incomensurable with your dogma is perfectly within the boundaries of science.

dont believe me? lets look at an obvious example....

before the gaps were plugged between einstein and newton's theories of gravitation, they were incomensurable. and, in spite of the "plugged gaps", they really are fundamentally different descriptions of reality. when einstein reformulated the existing observational data, he did so without paying any mind about using "the same math" as newton or making it relevant to newton in any way.... nor did he have any unique empirical evidence, which would only come later on.

at first, i am sure that einstein suffered many objections similar to yours about swann's..... demanding that he must explain hyperbolic spacetime in terms of eucledian geometry.... and that his theory is nonsense because it lacks any empirical evidence.

but einstein was right. the newtonian paradigm was wrong.



being an actual physicist, I am precisely aware of what any kind of preon theory can and cannot do.....This idea is ridiculously well understood. It literally could not be more understood. because they don't exist. That does not preclude one from understanding why they must not exist.


you only understand what a preon theory can and cannot do in terms of your own model. they "must not exist" according to the current dogma.

but swann is not making an appeal to the current dogma. he is using current observational data to reformulate, and it appears that his reformulation is incomensurable with the current paradigm. your insistance that he must make his reformulation relevant to the current model is invalid.

you are mistaking physics' ability to make predictions using the current model as an explanation of the underlying dynamics. but even the casual layman can plainly see that physics has successfully explained exactly NOTHING. therefore, swann's attempt at a satisfying explanation is honorable and should not come under such heavy condemnation, ESPECIALLY in an alternative science forum.

and, in case you have forgotten your history of science, the new and great theories rarely (if ever) come from people in your position.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

tgidkpswann, and people brave enough to put themselves in his position, is under no obligation whatsoever to use "the same math"


Yes, they are! Otherwise you can not compare their predictions!!



dont believe me? lets look at an obvious example....

before the gaps were plugged between einstein and newton's theories of gravitation, they were incomensurable. and, in spite of the "plugged gaps", they really are fundamentally different descriptions of reality. when einstein reformulated the existing observational data, he did so without paying any mind about using "the same math" as newton or making it relevant to newton in any way.... nor did he have any unique empirical evidence, which would only come later on.


What crack are you people on?? The whole point of Einstein's calculation is that it is directly compared term-by-term to Newton's! That's how it was argued to be correct! No one would have believed it if he hadn't done that!

And he did have empirical evidence! It was called Special Relativity! And by demanding it be mathematically identical with Newton's gravity to leading order is how it was derived in the first place.

Read any book on General Relativity. Literally all of them derive it this way. They do it for a reason.

books.google.com... AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Gravitation%20misner%20thorne%20wheeler&f=false

books.google.com...=on epage&q=General%20relativity%20wald&f=false


but swann is not making an appeal to the current dogma. he is using current observational data to reformulate, and it appears that his reformulation is incomensurable with the current paradigm.


I.e., it is not correct. Demonstrably falsifiable. Inconsistent. Wrong.


case you have forgotten your history of science, the new and great theories rarely (if ever) come from people in your position.


If by rarely, you mean, "literally all of the time," then yes, that's correct.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


fine then. let us use an even more obvious example.

do you suppose anyone informed newton that unless he can make his theory relevant to and use the same methodology as the archemidian "heavenly spheres", his theories are meaningless?

NO! because even though they are descriptions of the same phenomena, their formulations are incommensurable. newton is not required to formulate his theory using "the same math" as the archemidian dogmatists.

likewise, swann is not beholden to you and yours. it just so happens that i am taking a graduate level philosophy of science this semester..... and you have really made yourself look like an idiot here. and a mean one at that.

get over yourself.



posted on Sep, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

tgidkp
do you suppose anyone informed newton that unless he can make his theory relevant to and use the same methodology as the archemidian "heavenly spheres", his theories are meaningless?


Yes, they did--AND HE DID. Have you studied any actual scientific history? Of course he had to compare his model to existing ones! Not only that, but he derived his model from understanding those ones!

Also, he didn't say anything about the ancient Greek's models, because that was already done away by Copernicus, Kepler and others, long before Newton wrote down his theory (100 or so years for Copernicus, and 60 or so for Kepler). It was Copernicus who compared his models to the ancient Greeks. The Greek's models, by they way, were in fairly good agreement with observations, and he had to explain why. That's why it was such a big deal. And anyone who has any understanding of science understands why the old model of epicycles is surprisingly good, and how it leads to understanding heliocentric and elliptical orbits.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I never said that swann is free from the obligation of "explaining why" his model is relevant. I just said that his explanation is not required to satisfy your restrictions, or in any way resemble the current models in the slightest.

believe it or not, there are many other scientific disciplines beyond physics, and they all work this same way. the new paradigm very rarely has any basis of comparison to the old paradigm. think about it for a minute.... its nearly irrefutable. see Thomas Kuhn.

and so, even though Aristotle and Newton's theories actually could be compared in a meaningful way (as can newton and Einstein's), that does not mean that the basis of their theories are the same. they are two totally different (incommensurable) descriptions of the same thing.

therefore, swann is not required to meet your demands for explanation. his not meeting your demands does not reflect poorly upon his theory. he is, however, required to offer some type of explanation and suffer the burden of arguing the basis of its legitimacy.

I feel that he has more than met that requirement in this thread.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Moduli

Also, he didn't say anything about the ancient Greek's models, because that was already done away by Copernicus, Kepler and others, long before Newton wrote down his theory (100 or so years for Copernicus, and 60 or so for Kepler). It was Copernicus who compared his models to the ancient Greeks. The Greek's models, by they way, were in fairly good agreement with observations, and he had to explain why. That's why it was such a big deal. And anyone who has any understanding of science understands why the old model of epicycles is surprisingly good, and how it leads to understanding heliocentric and elliptical orbits.



I do not disagree with any of this.... and actually, I did know all of those things. this points out something very telling about your method of argument. it appears that you begin from the premise that the people you are speaking to are stupid.

notwithstanding the errors I have made, which you so competently corrected, you have failed to successfully refute my argument. why are you so resitent to this? can no one but you have good ideas?



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Hey folks, try not to get "spun-up" over this.
It's an interesting discussion. Let's keep it civil, and that will keep it interesting.
Refute the topic, and don't get personal.
Thank you!



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

tgidkpI never said that swann is free from the obligation of "explaining why" his model is relevant. I just said that his explanation is not required to satisfy your restrictions, or in any way resemble the current models in the slightest.


They are not my requirements, they are science's requirements. They are not optional.


believe it or not, there are many other scientific disciplines beyond physics, and they all work this same way.


True or not, irrelevant, because this thread is about physics.


the new paradigm very rarely has any basis of comparison to the old paradigm.


This is always false, 100% of the time. It is required that it must.


see Thomas Kuhn.


Philosophy is not physics. Science is not done according to some philosopher's whims, and does not need to account for their preconceptions. The requirements I have stated are those required, in practice, by the entire scientific community, and are a fundamental part of modern science.


and so, even though Aristotle and Newton's theories actually could be compared in a meaningful way (as can newton and Einstein's), that does not mean that the basis of their theories are the same.


(Ignoring the fact that this blatently contradicts what you said, not one post ago...)

This is philosophical gibberish, and you are playing a linguistic game designed to evade the point of the discussion, which is: an exact mathematical correspondence must be established between the new model, the old model, and all previous experiments and measurements. This is not even the final condition, it's the starting one. You need this in order to get scientists to even consider reading about your idea, the standards to get them to take it seriously are even greater, and to get it accepted as plausible are immensely greater.

The fact that no one supporting this idea seems to understand even the entrance requirements is very telling.

This requirement has been met by every serious scientific theory proposed in the last 200 years, and there are no exemptions from it. Numerology is not sufficient.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



This is philosophical gibberish, and you are playing a linguistic game designed to evade the point of the discussion, which is: an exact mathematical correspondence must be established between the new model, the old model, and all previous experiments and measurements.


what I am about to say might just blow your mind.....

your quote above (underlined)? it is also a philosophical statement. what you have stated here is pure philosophy. and, thus, by your own criteria, gibberish. science is built upon this gibberish..... it is not merely some unfortunate artifact. someday, physics will speak a NEW gibberish. will you be able to understand it?

one of the interesting things that the philosophy tells us is that 100% of the time (you do love this generalization, don't you?), as the prevailing model becomes more and more theory laden, popular, and dogmatic, the more ripened it becomes for revolution. 100% of the time: old paradigms are replaced with new ones.

by all accounts, you are on the wrong side of this argument. if it is not swann, it will be someone else. and when the time comes, all of your crying about the supposed mandates of science will be for naught.


LET THE NEW GIBBERISH BEGIN.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

tgidkp
your quote above (underlined)? it is also a philosophical statement.


No, it's not, it's a precise mathematical statement. I'm sorry if you can't understand how to translate something into math, but it's not my fault. It's still the case that this is done mathematically in actual real science done by actual real scientists.

But hey, what do the people who built particle accelerators, understand black holes, can tell you how the universe started, figured out chemistry (yeah, the chemists didn't--it was the physicists doing quantum mechanics), learned how to build transistors, solid-state technology, computers, electron microscopes, MRIs, CAT scans, discovered how to make nanotechology, and make constant new discoveries every day--what do they know about how theories work?

Clearly, you, guy who once read some stuff on the internet about philosophy, know more than the entire scientific community about how science is done. You, who has never done any science, are, of course, in a unique position to judge science from the outside and tell them how to do it. Not held back by literally centuries of knowledge, you are in the perfect position to tell us how science should be done.

Much like how you are in the perfect position to tell a doctor the best way to preform a surgery, because you are not burdened by "medical knowledge" or "studies" or "experience." You can bravely push the limits without fear of making a mistake; as, if you did, you wouldn't know due to your lack of any actual knowledge.

In the same way, you are the best person an engineer should consult when building a new bridge, because you aren't limited by his knowledge of "safety concerns" or "materials science." You've expanded your mind beyond that with philosophy.

Your eloquent argument from the internet, complete with lack of proper punctuation and grammar has swayed me to your side. The world would be a much better place if all of the scientists would do things your way, instead of being held back by the dogma of expertise and using math.

Indeed, if only us string theorists would stop wasting our time with advanced math, and trying to rigorously connect models in string theory to other well-understood models, and instead composed badly-written philosophical gibberish, who knows where we would be today in our understanding of the universe?

You've handily won this argument, sir, I concede.



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 



Numerology is not sufficient.

It's a much simpler "numerology" than the zoo of electric charges fractions which the Standard Model proposes. If you check the Standard Model of elementary particles, you'll see 7 different species of electric charges:

electrons/muons/tauons/W-: -1

anti-up/anti-charm/anti-top: -2/3

down/strange/bottom: -1/3

gauge bosons/neutrinos: 0

anti-down/anti-strange/anti-bottom: +1/3

up/charm/top: +2/3

positron/antimuon/antitauon/W+: +1

My theory shows that there are only two species, and all particles are composites of such species:

"a" preon: +1/6

"b" preon: -1/6

It's the universe's Nature. One can choose to deny or to explore that nature. I chose to explore, because it came up in my investigations. And, I must say, it's quite promising. Much more than Rishon's Model, that's for sure. I successfully explained ALL charges values of all known particles (and even conversion through known modes of decay), and as we speak I am on the verge of my theory explain the 3 generations of matter.


an exact mathematical correspondence must be established between the new model, the old model, and all previous experiments and measurements.

Does that mean Darwin's theory of natural selection is invalid, since Darwin didn't provided any mathematical correspondence with it?

And as I can't stress enough, I do not intend on "replacing" the Standard Model. This is one great misunderstanding you seem to have about my model. I simply intend to explain why particles, in the Standard model's zoo, look like they do, using deduction. (A good example of this kind of process would be: There are about a hundred of chemical elements. Each of them have their own properties. But all of them can be explained simply by considering 3 particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. That doesn't mean that chemistry science is rendered invalid). That means I consider experiments and measurements (such as particle decay) to be paramount, and then I simply provide a deep, preon-oriented analysis of those.

So, if you wish to share some insights with us, please feel absolutely free to do so; I really, really mean it. I sincerely have confidence in your knowledge! Other than your arguments against preonic existence (which, I assure you, I duly noted), Perhaps there's something you would like to share with us regarding the topic? The universe is a riddle, an universal riddle, the kind of which we all attempt to answer...

Hm, just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know the equation that predicts the rest mass value for all known particles, would you? This would kind of, you know, be the Holy Grail for any model...



posted on Sep, 25 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   

swanneIt's a much simpler "numerology" than the zoo of electric charges fractions which the Standard Model proposes.


The Standard Model charges aren't numerology--they're group theory. The allowed charges are not arbitrary, they come from the algebraic structure of the symmetry group of the theory. That is very highly constrained. That same symmetry determines not only the allowed charges, but the entire functional form of the allowed interactions. It pretty much determines everything. Saying you have a gauge theory with SU(2) x U(1) broken to U(1) determines electromagnetism.


I successfully explained ALL charges values of all known particles


No, you haven't! You just wrote those charges in terms of some other random numbers, all the while completely disregarding how the rest of physics works.


(and even conversion through known modes of decay)


No, you didn't. You noted that charge is conserved, and you used the fact that a number equals itself. That's not an explanation. And it has nothing to do with why charge is really conserved.


Does that mean Darwin's theory of natural selection is invalid, since Darwin didn't provided any mathematical correspondence with it?


Aside from the fact that that's not physics, there was no previous theory to match with (let alone a quantitative one). And Darwin did, by the way, provide some simple mathematical models for his ideas.


And as I can't stress enough, I do not intend on "replacing" the Standard Model.


And, as I cannot stress enough, your model contradicts the Standard Model. The Standard Model is very intricate and highly constrained. You can't just add random things to it without regards to how anything works.

It should not be a shock that you should have to understand a theory first, before you can successfully modify it!


So, if you wish to share some insights with us, please feel absolutely free to do so; I really, really mean it. I sincerely have confidence in your knowledge! Other than your arguments against preonic existence (which, I assure you, I duly noted), Perhaps there's something you would like to share with us regarding the topic?


Right, you have confidence in my knowledge, except the parts where I say what you're doing is wrong and doesn't make any kind of sense, and totally destroys all of the structure in the Standard Model.

My advice to you is to learn something about how the Standard Model actually works. Be able to make at least one nontrivial calculation with it using standard methods. Be able to derive its known properties. Can you explain how electroweak symmetry breaking works? Can you explain what hypercharge has to do with electric charge? How does weak charge come into play? Why are there so many types of charges? How does a state vector transform under symmetry operations associated with these charges? What does the Lagrangian for this look like? How does it transform? What do the allowed vertexes that show up in Feynman diagrams look like? The propagators? Why are other possibilities not allowed? Can you derive them from path integrals? How do we ensure that there are no negative normed states in the spectrum? Etc, etc.

That is all basic basic stuff that any grad student in physics should know. If you aren't fluent in that technology, you don't have nearly enough understanding of the Standard Model to claim to have made any contributions to its understanding.



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


I have a bachelors in biotechnology and am working on a masters in nanotech. you earlier presumed I was stupid. but now I am actually insulted. I did not read this philosophy off the internet. in an earlier post I mentioned that i am currently in a philosophy of science course (did you actually read anything I wrote?). it has had an enormously positive effect on my perspective. I highly recommend it over sarcasm, presumption, pretention, and general bullying group-think tactics.

how dare me think that new ideas can come from unexpected places.

I had forgotten that people like you have it all figured out.

please do tell me when I (and swann, for that matter) am free to speak and think.

surely we shall appease.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join