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

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

ImaFungi
But if the entirety of the universe is one big/infinitely many mini electric field and magnetic field...combined... when a photon goes off, why doesnt it interact with the neighboring electric and magnetic fields which are everywhere!
The simple answer is because a photon has no charge.

There is something called Delbruck scattering.


Delbrück scattering, the deflection of high-energy photons in the Coulomb field of nuclei as a consequence of vacuum polarization has been observed. However, the process of scattering of light by light, has not been observed.[1] In both cases, it is a process described by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
I think I looked into this before, and determined that when people say there's no interaction, what they really mean is that any such photon interaction is usually small enough to be negligible, so for most practical purposes there's no interaction.




posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok but what im asking about is; A photon,em radiation is thought to be an electric field interacting with a magnetic field alternatingly constantly. If the entire universe is full of an EM field ( Im also curious how a single 3d (field can and does exist in the first place) field can consist of 2 separate components, how are the electric and magnetic components connected as the same field and how does this field exist everywhere.

So what im wondering is if Em radiation is created which is part of this fields parts, electric field and magnetic field interacting with each other, why the entirety of electric and magnetic field components of the all encompassing field isnt interacted with by a moment of light in an area. If a photon is made, isnt it made by an electron vibrating the em field, and that vibrated em field is the photon, well if you can just take an electron anywhere and do that, it is assumed the electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere just waiting to be disturbed, so when an area is disturbed, why does that disturbance create a cascading effect, why doesnt the disturbed magnetic field create an electric field, which disturbs immediate magnetic fields, which disturb near by electric fields?



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Oh no... he works at an underground lab... Ugh, I can't imagine never seeing the sun or the sky. I'd go ill.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   

mbkennel
That the eigenvector of mass is not quite the same as the eigenvector of flavor?

Aren't the flavour of neutrino determined solely by their mass? I mean, if you think about it... all three flavours of neutrino have exactly the same properties (Hell, they look so alike, that they're even considering the possibility that neutrinos are Majorana fermions), except their mass.




edit on 11-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I have decided to call this theory Phoenix-I Theory, as I am working on a second version, Phoenix-II Theory.

Phoenix-I (And the upcoming Phoenix-II) stands for the rebirth of preon theory.

That being said, I hesitate on posting Phoenix-II Theory on this site. I probably will share it only to a few private friends. I think even Phoenix-II will displease more people that it will please.

At Time's End,

Swan



posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok but what im asking about is; A photon,em radiation is thought to be an electric field interacting with a magnetic field alternatingly constantly. If the entire universe is full of an EM field ( Im also curious how a single 3d (field can and does exist in the first place) field can consist of 2 separate components, how are the electric and magnetic components connected as the same field and how does this field exist everywhere.


It's two 3-D fields. Classically there are two vectors, each with independent direction and magnitude at every point in space.



So what im wondering is if Em radiation is created which is part of this fields parts, electric field and magnetic field interacting with each other, why the entirety of electric and magnetic field components of the all encompassing field isnt interacted with by a moment of light in an area. If a photon is made, isnt it made by an electron vibrating the em field, and that vibrated em field is the photon, well if you can just take an electron anywhere and do that, it is assumed the electric and magnetic fields exist everywhere just waiting to be disturbed, so when an area is disturbed, why does that disturbance create a cascading effect


Because that's what Maxwell's equations say happen. There's no deeper reason as far as we know.

You're starting to understand some science now. I strongly recommend that you read or watch the Feynman lectures on basic physics.


why doesnt the disturbed magnetic field create an electric field, which disturbs immediate magnetic fields, which disturb near by electric fields?


Changing magnetic fields do create electric fields. In the fields themselves, electric and magnetic are symmetrical. That's no longer the case for charged matter. There are isolated charges, electrons and protons for 99.999999% of the time, which can move and be manipulated. There aren't any magnetic monopoles, by contrast.

Elementary particles do have magnetic dipole moment, meaning that they beam a 8-shaped magnetic field out, and if you twist them back and forth you also make propagating electromagnetic radiation.

But in practical engineering, it's more efficient and technologically simpler to shake electrons back and forth to make E&M radiation.

edit on 22-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
In the neutrino sector, the flavour and mass states are different.

If there are 3 states, m1, m2 and m3, the idea is that an electron neutrino is composed of a mix of m1, m2 and m3 and it is this composition that causes the flavour oscillation. The wiki page on neutrino oscillation covers this quite well.

One of the questions posed is the neutrino mass scale, we already know that the difference between the mass states and that it is very small, and one of the splittings is even smaller. However we do not know the hierarchy.

scienceblogs.com...

that is, if m1 is really the lowest mass, m2 the next and m3 the next. As we can only measure the differences between them unless that is we go for a direct neutrino mass measurement.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

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

by John SkieSwanne

~

I am one of those who firmly believe there exists something smaller than quarks, leptons and even gauge bosons. That preons do exist.


I am with you there.

There are a number of issues that need to be overcome however, firstly and fore mostly the scientific community are clinging onto the standard model at all costs and anyone whom looks to shake that get's labeled a crack pot and is pushed out of the community... which trust me, is not very pleasant.

The other main issue is centered around the corruption in the way projects are funded. an example would have to be the LHC. One might think that to spend money on science is a good thing, but not when its results are fat cat's sat on large sums of money to interprit results to seeming success I.E. the HIGGS.....

IF indeed the Preonic Model is correct as we both think then the whole persute of high energy physics is a waste of time and funding should be placed else where.

Why do I think this?

Because the foundation of particle physics is to find out what the fundamental building blocks of the universe are.... which when considering the Preonic Model, is a joke... as there are no real particles at all, only coherence caused by the chaotic nature of space time, which gives rise to Preons.

In other words matter is made of space time not a kind of substrate by which matter exists within. This would mean that MASS is not derived by a boson but is a consequence of space-time concentration.

I don't know what they found at the LHC but it certainly wasn't a mass component particle i.e. the HIGGS....

There are many threads on here about such Quantum Gravity theory derivatives, this is in my opinion a truer picture of the universe then string theory.

Peace,

Korg.


edit on 23-10-2013 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

swanne

abecedarian
I'm perplexed why some 'particles' have identical preon arrangements.

Indeed. Here you see two particles having the same arrangements - the neutrino and the gauge boson. I too am perplexed about this feature, but not surprised. Both have very low mass and are neutrally charged. That's why I think these two properties are related to the arrangement (the "sequence") of the preons. The same should go for the spin too. I don't know, maybe "aababb" gives particles with spin=2, and "aaabbb" gives particles with spin=1/2. Like DNA sequence, the end result depends on the sequence.


It's caused by the Twist of the preon from the base.

An example...



To understand this further you should read the following paper.

Quantum Gravity and the Standard Model


We show that a class of background independent models of quantum spacetime have local excitations that can be mapped to the first generation fermions of the standard model of particle physics. These states propagate coherently as they can be shown to be noiseless subsystems of the microscopic quantum dynamics. These are identified in terms of certain patterns of braiding of graphs, thus giving a quantum gravitational foundation for the topological preon model proposed by one of us.

These results apply to a large class of theories in which the Hilbert space has a basis of states given by ribbon graphs embedded in a three-dimensional manifold up to diffeomorphisms, and the dynamics is given by local moves on the graphs, such as arise in the representation theory of quantum groups. For such models, matter appears to be already included in the microscopic kinematics and dynamics.


Peace,

Korg.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


So is the EM field infinite photons (or not infinite as in uncountable, but infinite as in moment to moment their number changes) that are touching or near touching, and when an electron is accelerated, its not that it shoots the nearest photons surrounding it from point A to point B, but that the photons react as a newtons cradle in a way, the balls being the photons? But then again it is more like how water waves, if the molecules of water in a still pool represented the photons of the EM field at equilibrium, and then a finger or electron was dipped into this field, the molecules would not move as the wave, the wave is an energetic and momentary displacement of the position of the quanta.

And so theoretically as perhaps one could measure the transfer of energy from one molecule to another, the transfer of energy from one photon to another is the particle nature? Its near impossible to get this network of photons to like a newtons cradle send energy in a straight line, so that is why it is said they are particle in nature, yet also always wavelike when detectable as an energetic phenomenon.



posted on Oct, 23 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

You happened to post this while I was meditating upon an explanation for mass pattern in the standard model. Coincidence? I think not...

This is really interesting!

I notice this twist of spacetime can even account for chirality (the electron neutrino can come in two different patterns).



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

You happened to post this while I was meditating upon an explanation for mass pattern in the standard model. Coincidence? I think not...

This is really interesting!

I notice this twist of spacetime can even account for chirality (the electron neutrino can come in two different patterns).


The theory deepens string theory and fleshes out the concept. It also goes nearly all the way to unifying quantum mechanics with the observable universe at macro scales.

An example would be a black hole. According to the math of quantum gravity derived from preonic concentration (space-time density) a black hole is better thought of as an area of space time with the greatest number of preons tangled up into a small area... in other words the Black hole is not a hole at all.. more like a big dense wooly area of space-time...

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Korg Trinity
The theory deepens string theory and fleshes out the concept. It also goes nearly all the way to unifying quantum mechanics with the observable universe at macro scales.

Yes, I noticed the same thing. It's really intriguing!

One thought, though. In this picture...




, one can see that electrons have more twists than quarks. Yet electrons are less massive than quarks. Neutrinos are OK (they have no twist relative to the others), but electrons leave me wondering how come more twist means less mass for this specific case.

edit on 24-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

swanne

Korg Trinity
The theory deepens string theory and fleshes out the concept. It also goes nearly all the way to unifying quantum mechanics with the observable universe at macro scales.

Yes, I noticed the same thing. It's really intriguing!

One thought, though. In this picture...




, one can see that electrons have more twists than quarks. Yet electrons are less massive than quarks. Neutrinos are OK (they have no twist relative to the others), but electrons leave me wondering how come more twist means less mass for this specific case.

edit on 24-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)


That's a very good question and perhaps highlights that it is not a complete picture or my understanding is incomplete somehow, as you know in physics there is always another puzzle to solve, otherwise the subject would be consigned to closed books.

I will delve a little further on this very point and see if I can come up with an answer.

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Oct, 25 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Hi Eros. I would have a question for you.

CP violation states that the neutral Kaon (d + strange antiquark) will decay differently than its antiparticle (down antiquark + s), and with the parity "reversed". One thing which is not clear for me is, I must assume BOTH the down antiquark and the s are parity-reversed? I read antiparticles already have their chirality reversed relative to their normal counterpart. Is the term "parity inversion" in CP redundant?... Meaning, in CP violation, is the down antiquark left-handed or right-handed? And into what does this parity-reversed anti-K0 decays to?

I hope I don't sound too confusing.


edit on 25-10-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Eros?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Sorry, many people might seem me come and go from ATS where I will post a lot for a period of a week or so and then vanish for about a month. Its normally because I get busy and just cannot dedicate time to catch up with sometimes hundreds of posts.

Some power point slides www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kass/P780_L6_sp03.ppt

and general wiki page that does a good explanation en.wikipedia.org...

To answer your question, no it is not redundant.

The reason for this is that it is about applying the operators for charge and parity together and resulting in the same thing. Basically along the lines that CP=PC basically what we see is that this principle is violated in a select few cases, it is that this behavour works so perfectly for all systems, but, when you apply it to specific neutral species things go a little strange and you see significantly different behaviour from particles that should for all intent and purpose be identical.
Charge conjugation is basically the flip from particle to anti particle
Parity conjugation is often shown as a dimension flip, or a spacial flip, it can as you point out be a good test of chirality.

But for CP, we dont talk about just one or the other, it is a full flip of both, which theory says, the symmetry says should not be violated.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Okay, Many thanks! That was most helpful.

Don't worry about you "vanishing", I understand. Time... can indeed be quite short.

Thanks again.



At Time's End,

Swan



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Part two of this thread:

The expanded Phoenix-I/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy

edit on 22-11-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel
 


So is the EM field infinite photons (or not infinite as in uncountable, but infinite as in moment to moment their number changes) that are touching or near touching, and when an electron is accelerated, its not that it shoots the nearest photons surrounding it from point A to point B, but that the photons react as a newtons cradle in a way, the balls being the photons?


It's not quite like that---there is no conservation law for photons. Unlike normal matter in normal cases they can be created and destroyed at will. Do you know classical E&M? Go to your chapters on waveguides and resonant modes. What a resonant eigenmode is to classical E&M, a photon is to quantum electromagnetic field theory: an eigenstate of some operator where calculations become simple. Think about classical E&M. In the full case you have 3-d partial differential equations for the fields from Maxwell. But because of the geometry and boundary conditions you can expand the lower frequency behavior into a sum of those modes and then the partial differential equations separate and you get a series of ordinary scalar differential equations for the mode amplitudes. (Do you understand/remember all this? If not, learn classical E&M first. QFT is hard. Impossible if you don't know classical E&M. I remember recommending you the Feynman Lectures on Physics. Please read them all, and then you start to be prepared to learn quantum optics.)

Many classical electromagnetic states don't even have a precisely defined number of photons---the state is "mixed' in the photon number basis.


But then again it is more like how water waves, if the molecules of water in a still pool represented the photons of the EM field at equilibrium, and then a finger or electron was dipped into this field, the molecules would not move as the wave, the wave is an energetic and momentary displacement of the position of the quanta.


Electromagnetic fields are not like water waves. Water waves there is an underlying physical substrate and the waves are motion of that substrate.

There is no simple "mechanical" analog to photons or picture of photons. They aren't balls. All the simplest explanations are in some ways misleading. At the core, there are Maxwell's equations as the classical field then you go to QM and find quantum field wavefunctions of classical electromagnetic fieldfunctions. There are then 'equations of motion' which you get by combining QM and Maxwell's laws. There are mathematical 'bases' (the coordinate system in QM, or the basis of resonant modes in classical E&M) where the equations of motion become simpler for some tasks. The 'eigenmode' of some of those bases are 'photons'.

The really correct explanation is known as "quantum optics", and in there you finally learn what a photon really means.


And so theoretically as perhaps one could measure the transfer of energy from one molecule to another, the transfer of energy from one photon to another is the particle nature?


Photons don't transfer energy to other photons.


Its near impossible to get this network of photons to like a newtons cradle send energy in a straight line, so that is why it is said they are particle in nature, yet also always wavelike when detectable as an energetic phenomenon.


It isn't that the photons are always there waiting to be pushed around. It's more like one component of the mathematical series expansion of a field. If you have 'one photon' then it means that the quantum state of the classical fields has a certain configuration. Just like if you had a certain minimum energy in a classical mode of a resonant microwave cavity the E & B fields would have a certain defined shape and amplitude. In classical physics the amplitude can be any continuous real number down to zero. In quantum mechanics, it isn't so.

ErosA433: please correct any mistakes I've made.

edit on 22-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-11-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join