It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
IDENTIFICATION OF CRYSTALLINE MATERIAL IN TWO INTERSTELLAR DUST CANDIDATES
FROM THE STARDUST MISSION
You talked about so called planes intersecting the shape only touching one of the preons, and it being obvious that this predicts 3 generations... well firstly there is no physical reason why you need this, or why it even works more than a lucky find.
It does remind me of the Platonic solids model.
A nice exercise of numerology and pattern finding, but I don't think it really expresses the under pinning of the standard model, what the standard model and its calculations do are much above all this. If this model is to be a fundamental, you must start with the standard model and rebuilt it from the ground up.
There is currently no evidence for the quark being composed of any further constituent parts
The expanded Phoenix/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy
All the speculations in the Phoenix-I/II Theory directly come from the Standard Model's data, or observations. In the event where observations contradicts the standard Model
The Phoenix-I successfully described all matter and energy particles electric charges exchanges. I quickly published these findings in an article some time ago
The Phoenix-I sparked a controversy amongst more conservative physicists.
Its incomplete form was wrongfully interpreted as direct denial of the Standard Model's properties
even if the road was a lonely one, is was a wonderful one.
The theory doesn't just explain charges anymore. Now, it expanded to a point where it explains many things all other preon models failed to account for, such as the spin of all particles, the 3 generations, antimatter...
All known particles have no more, no less than 6 preons each.
This very suggestion already explains the charges of all particles, but also the exact mechanism during particle decay.
Compare a mainstream Feynman diagram of the phenomena, with Phoenix-I's Feynman diagram of the same phenomena
This alone gave the theory more accuracy than most other preonic models
The expanded (speculative) Pheonix-II Model
First of all, what solid will a group of 6 preons form if they were all to have the same distance from the center of such said group? A quick search in geometry will provide the answer: an octahedron.
The same solid than a crystal of diamond will crystallize into. In other words, inside any given elementary particles, there will always be 6 preons forming an octahedron, with one preon at each apexes.
One could say that around the (for now assumed to be empty) center of a group-particle
dfn. Center of a Group-Particle
A term corresponding to the octahedronal apexes than a crystal of diamonds crystallizes into, vis-a-vi preons.
These positions are fixed relative to each other (except when decay occurs, where preons will be exchanged in a manner which is covered by Phoenix-I)
Additionally, one could in theory assign the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) to each of the preons inside of the octahedron.
This allows only 3 rational states to be possible: apex touches Plane, vertices touches Plane, and whole face touches Plane.
It is obvious the more preons are allowed to touch the plane, the more massive such a particle will become.
In Phoenix-II's hypothesis, primeons, instead of being monopole-like particles, would in fact be bidirectional wave-like packets whose e-negative curve is aligned forward in time, with their momentum direction. Their e-positive curve is facing the past.
a rendering of such a primeon would look like:
swanneWe see now that preons are not true magnetic monopoles, but really dipoles.
The reason why they act a bit like monopoles is caused by the fact that their other, "inactive" pole is facing the Past (out of or normal time).
Imagine an electron.
These are composed, according to Phoenix-I, of 6 primeons. Now, remember when is was stated (in the beginning of this chapter) that primeons are "bidirectional" charge waves?
They also have a vertical charge of -0.1666 (here upward) and +0.1666 (here downward).
Now, if one was to re-draw our electron using this new hypothesis, the electron would in fact look like this
The group's momentum direction is aligned with the electron's charge of (6 x -0.1666) -1. But it also has an equivalent top-most electric charge value (-0.1666). As the electron spins on its axis, the group of preons flip. Once the group achieves 1/2 spin, the group shows the inverted top-most value. At each 1/2 spins on its axis, the electron's top-most value changes.
This brings us the ability to now differentiate photons (spin = 1) from neutrinos (spin = 1/2).
In essence, a neutrino's sequence is different from a boson in the fact that its top-most preon (preon 2 according to figure 2) is identical to its bottom-most preon (preon 5).
An hypothesis in Phoenix-II is, a particle (group of 6 preons) going back in time looks exactly like its antiparticle going forward in time.
The muon is a second-generation lepton. As postulated in the chapter titled, "generations of fermions", a muon's preonic composition is exactly similar to an electron's
But unlike an electron, a muon has both its preons 1 and 3 aligned to the Plane, which is an imaginary plane exactly perpendicular to the particle's momentum direction.
As a neutrino travels in space, it undergoes an oscillation, in which a neutrino will change its very flavor as it travels near to the speed of light. This phenomena too might be explained by Phoenix-II.
The mechanism behind such a change in flavor might be nothing more than a precession of the particle's poles as it travels forward.
But Phoenix-II theory does notice an interesting link between mass and the group-particle's alignment.
In other words, the shift of a group-particle would be the cause of its mass, along with its internal sequencing.
It would be logical to speculate that since preons may not move relative to each other, their position inside a group-particle (for instance a quark) is determined by a probability wave, not unlike those for electrons surrounding atoms.
This probability wave would be a rational number (here "4") transposed as not as the frequency of a vibrating closed d-1 brane loop, but of a vibrating closed d-3 brane loop.
Although not perfect, the Phoenix-I/II Theory seems far more successful at explaining observations than one of the most celebrated attempts, the Rishon Model.
or does it?
Unfortunately I am not much of a mathematician. That being said, one must remember that quantum theory is, in a sense, very numerology-like, in the sense that it bases itself on numbers such as the Balmer series and the electron's probability to appear somewhere around the nucleus.
Although not precisely determined in the OP yet, the concept is nevertheless familiar, if not the same.
I can't share your certainty about that. Many details in the SM (such as the EMC effect, particle decay, etc) leads me to strongly consider the possibility that something smaller, which I concede would be elusive to our current probing technology, could compose the wide variety of properties observed in the Standard Model.
Sorry... I am not from any institutes... I am just (literally) a peasant, from Quebec. No diplomas, no PhDs. Learned physics on my own.
I also strongly suspect these preons would be wave-like in nature, since they may compose gauge bosons.