A Breakthrough? The Singular Primordial Preon Theory, Finally a Solution to Many Mysteries

a reply to: swanne

dark matter (WIMPs) share the same profiles: high mass, and can only interact via weak force.



Dumb this down a bit =)

a reply to: swanne

could the correlation between, preons and darkmatter be but a tiny tiny part like 1% or less, just to make the building stones interact in a balanced way.. One preon will be countermeasured by 5 or less quarks, and the binding is 1% or less darkmatter? Otherwise it collapses?

a reply to: swanne

now i get it.......

a reply to: swanne

Maybe you are observing the preon right now, you just dont know it? The preon is just a theory and defies many aspects of natural physics.. Could a singular preon be made by mere darkmatter, could it maybe be a split in two? Counterbalance?

First congrats on your work and effort and thank you for sharing it with us here.

If i understood right, you are working on the assumption that there exist, in fact, albeit we cannot observe them yet, primordial prions which basically make up in any combination thereof all elementary particles known so far to us. Now, elementary assumes that there is nothing smaller, tinier than that, we have reached the bottom of the barrel.

I also understand the limitation we have as of now in observing and ascertaining the presence, behaviour and function of said "elementary" entities.

Someone mentioned consciousness, and you said you are not into "new age" stuff. Now beside the speculation whether consciousness is or is not necessarily new age, i wonder if at any point in all your work and research and that of others in likewise field you have not come accross of some sort of order, intent, behaviour of aforementioned elementary particles? Do they smash around willy nilly, and lo and behold, everything is created, infinitesimaly small and as well big, carrying life in it, and consciousness/awareness too, not limited to human species?

Who's to say for certain these things do not go smaller ad infinitum? Is the whole shebang just physical then?

These were just some concerns i, as a layman like many others here, had and thought of addressing.

Thank you for your time.

a reply to: Ubei2

i think the preon is a singular event that goes unnoticed if it doesnt lash on to something, i think of it as a magnet..

originally posted by: Ubei2
First congrats on your work and effort and thank you for sharing it with us here.

It is I who thank you, for taking the time to read.

If i understood right, you are working on the assumption that there exist, in fact, albeit we cannot observe them yet, primordial prions which basically make up in any combination thereof all elementary particles known so far to us.

You understand correctly indeed!

i wonder if at any point in all your work and research and that of others in likewise field you have not come accross of some sort of order, intent, behaviour of aforementioned elementary particles? Do they smash around willy nilly, and lo and behold, everything is created, infinitesimaly small and as well big, carrying life in it, and consciousness/awareness too, not limited to human species?

This question is more of an excercise in Metaphysics than Physics, but I do think it is a very fair question given that in the OP we have reached the ultimate level of reductionism.
In physics we do try to avoid thinking of things as being pushed by the "hand of God", to put it bluntly. But now that we stumbled upon the Bricks of the Universe (the master preon), I think it is valid to ask if an Architect is anywhere to be seen.

In my opinion, we might be looking at it from the wrong angle. There are two things we can learn from Physics: it takes work to change the state of a system; and entropy increases with time. Since everything started out homogeneous (perfect, smooth, with not much large-scale chaos), then something must have worked for the universe to change this state to a more imperfect one (in which matter dominates over matter, and in which lumps are created to give birth to galaxies and stars and planets). Since the change is relevant to all the content of the universe, then whatever causes the change is linked to space and time itself. What some perceive as "god's hand" could actually be a simple property of spacetime itself - namely, entropy.

Who's to say for certain these things do not go smaller ad infinitum?

Because at one point, when you realise that everything is composed of only one particle, then going on and say that this one particle is made of one particle is redundant. Once you discovered that One Particle, there is no logic in postulating smaller "one particles"; and postulating the existence of more than one particles to compose the One Particle would break the whole idea of reductionism.

a reply to: Hyperia

Whoa! Slow down mate!

I got an idea: let's talk over U2U, here is a link to your inbox.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
In the twin universe model the dark matter is just a gravitational illusion so if we found an actual particle responsible for dark matter then the twin universe model would fall apart.

I feel nostalgic when you mention gravitational illusion. I myself used to stand against the existence of any form of dark matter, trying hard to look for alternatives such as dipoles from quantum jitter or coupling with another universe. Now I am on the fence - part of me still entertain the idea that dark matter may not exist, and the oter part of me just cannot wait for the day we trap a dark matter particle!

If anti-matter travels backwards through time that means anti-matter has negative mass and should repel normal matter, yet according to all the evidence we have, anti-matter does not repel normal matter.

Ha! But matter going back through time does not imply negative mass.

According to Gerard 't Hooft:

every physicist recognizes immediately what is wrong with the idea of gravitational repulsion: if we throw a ball high up in the air so that it falls back, then it's motion is symmetric under time-reversal; and therefore, the ball falls also down in opposite time-direction.[17] Since a matter particle in opposite time-direction is an antiparticle, this proves according to 't Hooft that antimatter falls down on earth just like "normal" matter.

But if that is true then why should it be so hard to detect? I find it very hard to believe the anti-matter wouldn't interfere with our deep space imagery.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment.

Proposition: the presence of intergalactic antimatter would

-stay clear of normal matter galaxies through gravitational repulsion, which has one of the longest range of all forces

-and be transparent to photons from surrounding galaxies

Although I am not sure I subscribe to negative mass, I cannot help but propose the points above in favour of your own model to which you express your counterarguments!

a reply to: swanne

Isnt it just metaphysics?

I didnt get a reply on my question =)

why?

originally posted by: Hyperia
Isnt it just metaphysics?

No, preons are much more of a Physics idea than it is of Metaphysics.

But then, in Aristotle's time, Physics and Metaphysics were strongly associated with one another. And according to many philosophers, one cannot go without the other.

originally posted by: Hyperia
I have no wtf clue what this is, dumb it down insanely to a few sentences please?

I think he said we are tied to the bison in the middle.

a reply to: swanne

Aristotle used observation in nature and made it into metaphysics in space cause he couldnt observe space at first hand, his philosophy is, we have everything here..

According to many philosophers we change linguistics to fit the moral and ethics of the paradigm which physics are in...
Modern science swaps name on area of expertise when it doesnt fit the paradigm or dogma...

a reply to: Hyperia

Oh jeez, enough of the dogma nonsense.

a reply to: GetHyped

or we could say, hey everything was invented in the last 100 years....

a reply to: Hyperia

Which would be demonstrably false.

a reply to: GetHyped

not if you look how dogma works

Are you referring to your own theory as a breakthrough?

a reply to: Hyperia

Please, tell me more of your deep insights into the scientific community and its apparent dogma. I do enjoy it when people with no clue what they're talking about espouse opinions and criticisms drawn from their non existent experience.

a reply to: swanne

I feel nostalgic when you mention gravitational illusion. I myself used to stand against the existence of any form of dark matter, trying hard to look for alternatives such as dipoles from quantum jitter or coupling with another universe.

I don't stand against dark matter at all, I think WIMP's are a very probable answer to the problem, but I also think inverse gravitational lensing is a very probable answer. I also didn't seek out an alternative explanation for dark matter, the explanation came to me as I was trying to develop a zero-energy universe model based on negative energy. I realized that since negative energy would be repelled from positive energy, it would create spherical matter-free zones around galaxies which create the illusion of a dark matter halo. I personally think it's a much better solution than the LCDM model because it solves several serious problems including the cuspy halo problem and missing satellite problem. It also helps explain why we have yet to detect a single dark matter particle or detect any sign of it anywhere near us.

this proves according to 't Hooft that antimatter falls down on earth just like "normal" matter.

Well that's just another reason in my mind why antimatter probably doesn't have a negative mass. If the twin universe model is correct then there must be some type of negative mass particles which experience negative time (aka travel backwards through time) and it cannot be antimatter. I am fairly certain that only negative matter can experience negative time but I may be wrong about that since antimatter seems to act like normal matter traveling backwards through time. But if that's the case then antimatter should repel normal, yet it doesn't seem to do that. I feel like there's a very important point to be learned from this but I cannot quite see it yet.

Although I am not sure I subscribe to negative mass, I cannot help but propose the points above in favour of your own model to which you express your counterarguments!

Yes perhaps my first criticisms weren't that great, but I'm still quite certain there would be many problems with assigning antimatter as the negative mass. One of the main criticisms I didn't mention yet is the fact that antimatter will still collide with normal matter all over the place and I'm guessing we would see very tell tale signs of that happening because it would produce gamma bursts when they collide. I really wish scientists had a definitive answer to whether antimatter repels normal matter or not, then we could definitely answer so many other important questions.