Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


That same symmetry determines not only the allowed charges, but the entire functional form of the allowed interactions. It pretty much determines everything.

No it doesn't. it doesn't even determine the particle's mass. Trust me, I know: nobody can explain this (except perhaps Higg's Mechanism). It doesn't explain why all the species in the zoo, neither.


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.

See? Now that was actually helpful.

But then, unfortunately...


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.

Right. So again, it goes back your old argument. My suggestions in my OP aren't valid, because I simply don't "know" better.

(*sigh*)I feel our communication is getting nowhere fast. I told you my theory is not random, it's the result of factual analysis, but you won't listen. I also told you it's not perfect yet, it's a theory which is still young, but again you won't listen, and instead of helping and adding new bricks, you just throw those bricks at it. You and me can't seem to agree upon anything. It may be my fault, since I am not, as you put it in your signature, "an actual physicist". But there are evidences for a physics beyond the Standard Model, I am exploring it, and will explore it.

This thread is about alternative, sometimes controversial theories, such as preons. If you don't like preons, then don't go in a thread which talks about preons.

Period.




posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
ANNOUNCEMENT

I'd like to make an announcement:

In addition to electric charges (which I already exposed in my OP), I recently (more precisely last monday/tuesday, that is, while this thread was undergoing arguments during my absence) discovered how come there are 3 generations of matter. In fact this has to do with the 6-fold nature (and the sequencing) of my preonic model. Now, today, about at 12h45 UTC, I resolved the spin numbers. It took much work, but the solution was simple, it's just that I didn't see it before, although it was right there all along, I'm really excited.

So to better share my findings, I will probably make a Part 2 thread about my Expanded preonic model which applies to all known matter and energy. I just need to make sure things work first. And see if I can find a solution to the problem of mass, a solution to which nobody contributed in a meaningful manner yet.

Oh, and also think about better names for the preons. Any suggestions? I am strongly considering calling "a" preons "primeons". That leaves the "b" preon with no name yet (except "b" preon, of course).

Anyway,

At Time's End,

Swan

edit on 26-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

I know absolutely nothing about physics. (I thought I'd get that out of the way early and save everybody some time) I can't even remember the name of the Greek who started thinking about the possibility of atoms. I think it's long and begins with a "D," but Demosthenes was an orator, not a primitive physicist. OK, have I satisfactorily established my lack of credentials?

It seems safe to view Swanne as at least a semi-talented amateur, with a sudden insight or vision. I don't believe he is claiming much more, and it doesn't seem a stretch to grant him that. I can think of three useful things to do.

1) Tell him that his theory is being worked on independently and guide him to the papers and people working on it.

2) Look at his ideas completely from scratch and point out if, and where, they are logically self contradictory. Not where they contradict current understanding, but where his theory contradicts itself.

3) Put yourself in his shoes (if physicists wear shoes. I sort of imagine them in sandals.), see what he is seeing, envision his goal, allow yourself to be mildly infected by his enthusiasm, and work with him until his project irrevocably fails, or the two of you share a Nobel.

There is one useless thing I can think of for you do to, and that's pretty much everything you've seemed to have done so far in this thread.

This is an Internet forum, not a symposium or a graduate seminar. Here, you'll find fresh, sometimes bizarre thinking. The kind of thinking that is like panning for gold. Sure, you get a lot of gravel, but if you don't have a spirit of adventure and excitement in your heart, then your soul has already used up several half-lives.

C'mon, give the kid a break. Take him under your wing, encourage him. You never know what he'll grow into. And in the meantime, you'll stay young, and can feel good knowing that you're passing knowledge and a love for science to a whole new group of people.

Think about it.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
ANNOUNCEMENT:

I analyzed the dynamics of my model for a short time now, and I quickly discovered that it predicts an anomalous dipole magnetic moment for the muon. At first I interpreted this a flaw in my model, so I checked out yesterday the muon's properties in an encyclopedia. It seems muons do in fact have an anomalistic magnetic moment, according to observations.

edit on 28-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


very nice.

the fresh eyes of an outsider's perspective + a systems-thinking approach = an incredibly simple and fascinating theory. it is very encouraging that you attempted to falsify your theory (by predicting something that was unknown (to you)) and end up supporting. this is an essential characteristic of good science ....moduli would be proud.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

charles1952
reply to post by Moduli
 

It seems safe to view Swanne as at least a semi-talented amateur, with a sudden insight or vision. I don't believe he is claiming much more, and it doesn't seem a stretch to grant him that. I can think of three useful things to do.


He isn't. It's like claiming a little kid scribbling letter-like shapes on a piece of paper is a "semi-talented writer." No, what he is doing in no way resembles any kind of physics at any level in any way. It's pure, 100% garbage and numerology.

This kind of stuff is what gives forums like these a bad name (well, aside from the whole conspiracy thing, but really, this kind of thinking--that ignorance is a benefit instead of a crippling handicap--is endemic to the rest of the forums, too...)



1) Tell him that his theory is being worked on independently and guide him to the papers and people working on it.


His theory isn't being worked on independently, because it's insane.

The idea that quarks may be made of something else was researched decades ago, and is a very well understood topic, and pointing him to the papers which discuss it will be useless because he refuses to acknowledge that he needs to learn any of the math or physics involved in it.



2) Look at his ideas completely from scratch and point out if, and where, they are logically self contradictory. Not where they contradict current understanding, but where his theory contradicts itself.


There is nothing about them which is not contradictory. And again, pointing out how they contradict real physics is a waste of time because he refuses to understand real physics.

It would be different if he would actually try to learn any real physics and math. But absolute refusal to learn anything, or follow the standards of science, is not something anyone is required to take seriously.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I feel like a lot has happened in this thread, so it's a bit hard to jump in, so I'll just start with my initial thought on the OP.

What really interested me was the idea of being able to break down what is happening during Pair Production.

The explanations I've seen of Pair Production always seemed lacking to me...like we nobody really knew the DETAILS of what was happening. We just knew that two particles collided, and then like...stopped existing?, and then...BAM, some different particles exist now.

The OPs theory seemed to make this interaction make sense for me.

I'd like to know...
1) Is the OPs description a possibility?
2) If not, why not?
3) Aside from the OPs idea, is there a theory that reall BREAKS DOWN Pair Production into what is specifically happening? I really can't find anything that doesn't boil down to "...and magically we have new particles".

Thanks!



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

AlliumIslelily
I'd like to know...
1) Is the OPs description a possibility?
2) If not, why not?
3) Aside from the OPs idea, is there a theory that reall BREAKS DOWN Pair Production into what is specifically happening? I really can't find anything that doesn't boil down to "...and magically we have new particles".

Thanks!


1) No, not even close.
2) It flagrantly contradicts experiments and the laws of physics.
3) Yes, it's called quantum field theory. In particular, if you're thinking of electron-positron pair production, this is explained by quantum electrodynamics, and has been fully understood since the 1930s. The reason you don't see any explanations more than "and then there are more particles" is because any explanation more than that requires understanding real physics. Open a book on quantum electrodynamics, and you'll find more explanation than you can deal with
.
edit on 28-9-2013 by Moduli because: typo



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


In the big bang theory of inflation and expansion, I know they have their time signatures of when events occurred, do you know at what time after the big bang they posit mass existed? At first was it all massless particles? If so could it be that mass is do to the existence of that original energy being charged in some way, and so charge is responsible for mass, in that the attraction or non attraction of 2 waves or quanta of energy, caused resistance, and if this occurred between countless quanta around the same time, it would have been like a chain reaction and ripples of energy and gravity and changes in momentum? Just some thoughts birthed out of not understanding how the higgs field exists when and how it was created, what its made of, whether or not it itself has mass, etc.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

AlliumIslelily
What really interested me was the idea of being able to break down what is happening during Pair Production.

The explanations I've seen of Pair Production always seemed lacking to me...like we nobody really knew the DETAILS of what was happening. We just knew that two particles collided, and then like...stopped existing?, and then...BAM, some different particles exist now.

Yes. Now some physicists are gonna tell you that no, these pair productions are governed by some obscur laws that has been understood by "Actual Physicists" for eons... I found it simpler to describe the mechanism in terms of preonic exchange.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


2) It flagrantly contradicts experiments and the laws of physics.

You seem to miss a great deal of what I write. Perhaps you should actually read the OP and the replies I made.

My theory does not contradict experiments, because it is from experiments that I derived my theory. Do you even read the material I post?


However, neutrino oscillations are known to violate the conservation of the individual leptonic numbers. Such a violation is considered to be smoking gun evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, there is something beyond the standard model. That's where preons come in.


The reason you don't see any explanations more than "and then there are more particles" is because any explanation more than that requires understanding real physics. Open a book on quantum electrodynamics, and you'll find more explanation than you can deal with .

You could have saved alot of time (and in the same shot, provide some actual contribution to this thread instead of trolling) if you would have simply told us what exactly in QED contradict the OP, instead of invoking some books and calling us heretics. Wasn't invoking a Book and calling people heretic a major feature of religion, which science was supposed to supersede?

The true scientific method is to consider all theories as equally likely, unless absolutely proved wrong, and by facts, not by another theory.


This kind of stuff is what gives forums like these a bad name (well, aside from the whole conspiracy thing...

What?? Then what are you doing here in ATS, exactly??

We investigate. We consider new possibilities. If one doesn't like it, then one can go in a "real" physics forum, where new theories are automatically rejected without investigations. Some would feel comfortable in such narrow forums, but we ATSers don't.

edit on 29-9-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

swanne
Yes, there is something beyond the standard model. That's where preons come in.


Ah, yes, more non sequiturs! Something else therefore I'm right. Flawless.


You could have saved alot of time (and in the same shot, provide some actual contribution to this thread instead of trolling) if you would have simply told us what exactly in QED contradict the OP, instead of invoking some books and calling us heretics.


Heretic? A little full of ourselves, are we? I'm not calling you a "heretic," I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. Big difference.

You're making this out as much bigger than it really is. This is not some religious crusade against the poor, noble peoples who simply think differently than scientists do, and just want to live their lives in peace. This is about someone who is actively claiming scientists are wrong, because of numerology.


The true scientific method is to consider all theories as equally likely, unless absolutely proved wrong, and by facts, not by another theory.


The scientific method insists all theories are to be treated as WRONG until demonstrated right by math and experiments. You do not assume a theory is right until someone else proves it's wrong, that's all kinds of insane. And claims and assurances that it agrees with experiments does not count!

I am not required to prove your numerology wrong, because that's not how science works. You have to prove it right, and all you've offered is numerology and hollow assurances that what you have "agrees with experiments," without even providing a claim for what that even means.

I've even given you dozens of benchmarks for things you'd need to compare with to justify this. Remember that big physicsy list of things a while back that you ignored? Yeah, that's what the point of that was.

I've given you ample suggestions for how to start to do something like this right, and you've not only ignored them (and pretended that I haven't even made those suggestions), but you've claimed that you don't even need to know them! And then you've turned those suggestions into attacks against me


instead of invoking some books and calling us heretics


Posting a thread about a topic and refusing to take part in a discussion of it, simply claiming "I'm right and brilliant, listen to me!" isn't acceptable. If you want to have a discussion, then have one. Do your homework and learn about the topic, instead of refusing to believe it's required.


We investigate. We consider new possibilities. If one doesn't like it, then one can go in a "real" physics forum, where new theories are automatically rejected without investigations. Some would feel comfortable in such narrow forums, but we ATSers don't.


And that's why you have a bad name. You present nonsense numerology, refuse to learn anything about the subject you're talking about, and then paint yourself as the poor victim who's being attacked by the Big Bad Establishment.

You have no interest in actually learning anything about this topic, as you've made very clear by refusing to even acknowledge that learning something else would be necessary for you. You already know everything, after all, and anyone who says otherwise is just out to get you. And anyone who disagrees with you should leave.

That's not "investigating," it's not "considering," it's not "discussing." It's ridiculous, childish behavior, that gives this forum a bad name.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Hey, mate. Hope I'm not intruding into my own thread...



I'm not calling you a "heretic," I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about.

(*tired shrug*) Yes, you're calling us heretics. Definition of heresy according to Wikipedia: "Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma." Sure, you're not using this exact word, but you sure make people feel as if you did.

You say I don't know what I'm talking about. I say, The simple OP, with its charge-only capability, was able to make more accurate explanation of reality than the Rishon Model, a leading preonic model of the 80s. RM could literally only do half of what my OP can do.

And I'm not finished yet. I'm now resolving spins, the 3 generations of matter, T symmetry, muonic magnetic moment anomaly, etc.


This is not some religious crusade against the poor, noble peoples who simply think differently than scientists do, and just want to live their lives in peace.


Then how come you are in this thread, crusading against me, a person who indeed thinks differently? I just want to live in peace... okay, that's only partially true.


This is about someone who is actively claiming scientists are wrong, because of numerology.


I never claimed the Standard Model was wrong! In fact my theory heavily relies on the Standard Model being right!

And by assigning the definition of "numerology" to anything that is composed of fractions, you're implying that the standard Model is, too, "numerological" in essence. The Standard Model uses ALOT more non-integers than I do, you know. "Numerology of gluons" is BTW a big part of the Standard Model itself.


The scientific method insists all theories are to be treated as WRONG until demonstrated right by math and experiments.


Strangely enough, you just implied that the Standard Model itself is to be treated as nothing more but a successful hypothesis. Remember that falsification only can kill the Standard Model (as any other models), but evidences in favor is not a proof that the Standard Model (or any other models) is absolutely right.


I've given you ample suggestions for how to start to do something like this right, and you've not only ignored them (and pretended that I haven't even made those suggestions)


Oh no!, please don't assume that! I did read everything in your list. I'm currently working on it! Not because I didn't talked about it means that I discarded it! Quite the opposite - I'm always working with your list, since it reminds me in a quick glance of what I must improve. I didn't ignored your list! I'm sincerely sorry if you felt that I did.


simply claiming "I'm right and brilliant, listen to me!" isn't acceptable.


I keep repeating that I know my model isn't perfect yet. That's why this thread was about "Constructive Brainstorming". What you are doing is "Destructive Storming".


You have no interest in actually learning anything about this topic, as you've made very clear by refusing to even acknowledge that learning something else would be necessary for you.


You mean, learn more about the Standard Model's inability to account for rest mass; or learn more about its inability to account for the CP violation?

Okay, my turn now! Hm, gimme a second... okay, I got it:

You have no interest in evolution. You recently graduated and you seem to be here to gain more fame as an Ask-me-anything expert, hoping that ATS would be less conspiracy-oriented and more aligned with those mainstream ideologies you learned in school. You refuse to even consider (not subscribe! Just consider!) any other hypothesis than the ones you learned. You find "hilarious" ATS's variety of thoughts and ideas.

You have to be flexible, mate. Okay, not flexible like him



But at least just a wee bit.

Swan


edit on 6-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

swanne
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


You are perfectly allowed to express suggestions regarding science, just as scientists who do it for a living can say whether it is useful or a total crock of baloney. Moduli actually knows particle physics for real.

The Spanish Inquisition didn't have a discussion with its victims. The attitude of the Spanish Inquisition wasn't that its victims were arguing theology incorrectly, it was that they were Jews and they were going to Convert Or Die or preferably both since then they could kill them in clean conscience.
edit on 6-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

swanne
Oh no!, please don't assume that! I did read everything in your list. I'm currently working on it! Not because I didn't talked about it means that I discarded it! Quite the opposite - I'm always working with your list, since it reminds me in a quick glance of what I must improve. I didn't ignored your list! I'm sincerely sorry if you felt that I did.

I keep repeating that I know my model isn't perfect yet. That's why this thread was about "Constructive Brainstorming". What you are doing is "Destructive Storming".
You acknowledge he provided you with a list of suggestions on how to do something like this the right way (the list you say "I'm currently working on it!)"

That seems constructive to me.

As for being blunt about what's right and what's wrong, some of my scientist friends are just blunt like that, and if they see something is wrong they just say so and explain why. Some may see that as destructive, but actually that's constructive also, if they explain why it's wrong and how they know it. And by the way the fact that there are problems with the standard model doesn't make 213 alternate ideas (including yours) any more correct.

And even more importantly, a good scientist is his own worst critic. If he's really thought through his ideas he will try to think of every possible objection to them before anybody else does.

I think you've acknowledged you haven't studied this field nearly as much as moduli, so I'd think you'd welcome his feedback rather than seeing the feedback as adversarial. Maybe you welcome his feedback more than I thought if you're working on his list of suggestions, which up until now I didn't think you were. That's good to know.
edit on 6-10-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


He didn't falsify my theory. All he did is say "you're wrong, and your theory isn't perfect". I already know that my theory isn't perfect, I said so in my OP. What I am criticizing is his Attitude.

But I clearly stated in my OP that this theory is not the final version. Yet moduli seems to have overlooked that part, and seems to treat my theory as such. The OP is not an university-grade paper - it's a thought, a thought that I was hoping to expand.

CP violation is obviously caused by some inner structure inside quarks and matter particles - preons. But now that I realize no physicists will explore this possibility with me, I guess I'll have to explore it on my own.

I'm not upset, I'm just disappointed that people shoot my baby before it has the chance to even grow up.

Since you're here I would like to at least ask you a question. Neutrino oscillation... does it occurs like this,

Ve - Vu - Vt - Vu - Ve - Vu - etc. ?

BTW It's good to see you again. I value your thoughts.

-

Swan

edit on 7-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

mbkennel
The Spanish Inquisition didn't have a discussion with its victims. The attitude of the Spanish Inquisition wasn't that its victims were arguing theology incorrectly, it was that they were Jews and they were going to Convert Or Die or preferably both since then they could kill them in clean conscience.

How can an Inquisitor know if the victims were catholic or not, if the inquisitor had no discussion with his victims?


You are perfectly allowed to express suggestions regarding science, just as scientists who do

According to Moduli, I am not. I'm not allowed to make any suggestion. And, furthermore, still according to him, even scientists themselves aren't allowed to make suggestions.

Moduli:

Scientists are not allowed to express suggestions regarding science.


He supposedly took physics courses and he knows he's right. He made 2 threads, in both of which he bragged about his superior knowledge. He wants to have more credit as an AMA expert.

In his first thread, "I am a scientist", which mods moved to "HOAX", moduli proudly stated,


I am a scientist. Specifically, I'm a theoretical physicist who specializes in high energy particle and string theory.

(...)

Why do I read these boards? Simply: they're hilarious.

(...)

So, feel free to, in this thread, ask me any physics questions you want and I will answer them to the best of my (flu-ish, sleep-deprived) ability!

(...)

for those of you who'd like to actually learn actual science from an expert, I'm happy to give some time to answering your questions!

Let me tell you specifically what I do.

I work primarily on string theory

(...)

String theory is definitely correct. It's not a "speculative" or "controversial" theory. The details of why we definitely know it's right are too complicated to discuss here...


Overlooking his bragging around, his suggestion that "string theory is definitively correct" by itslef contradicts quite shockingly with the fact that he then tells me,


The scientific method insists all theories are to be treated as WRONG until demonstrated right


Then, moduli made a second (and last) thread, which was called "I am Still A physicist", a thread in which he said the following:


As a follow-up to my previous thread (www.abovetopsecret.com...), which was hilariously declared a hoax, I am giving you the once-in-a-lifetime-opportunity (act now!) to ask me science questions once again. This time, in the science forum, me being a scientist and all.

First, about me:
I have a graduate degree in theoretical physics, specializing in string theory, from a top physics university. I also have a graduate-level understanding of several areas in math, applicable to physics. I am a very good physicist, with an expert understanding of many topics, including string theory, quantum mechanics, and general and special relativity.

I'm giving you this opportunity because (in addition to the fact that most people, including people on this forum, do not typically have the chance to ask questions to an actual research scientist) I find these boards' lack of understanding of science hilarious, and figure it is my due diligence as a scientist to give you the chance to learn something.

(...)

1. My expertise is in physics and math, and to a lesser extent, astronomy and astrophysics.

(..)

5. I will not respond to posts demanding I "prove" I am a physicist. I have better things to do (and so do you).


So, he brags for two threads about him being a "physicist", yet he won't prove he's a physicist. Hmmm....

edit on 7-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
edit on 7-10-2013 by swanne because: double post



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by swanne
 


Swanne, Moduli may be a physicist.
His 2 threads that you cite may just be his/her sense of humour



posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Ugh. Good point.









 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join