The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Hadrons.

A simple new proposal for lepton substructure was presented in my previous thread, The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Massive Leptons, which showed the following picture:



So it is now time to take a look at the hadrons. In all of the high energy physics experiments done over the last 70 years, it has been observed that almost all elementary particles that have been found can be classified as either a lepton or a hadron, and it has been observed that the hadrons come in two types. There are baryons, which are proposed to be made of three quarks, and there are mesons, which are proposed to be made of a quark and an antiquark.



In the picture above, the delta family is shown as a representative baryon family. As can be seen, there are four possible ways to make a delta particle out of up and down quarks, and it is observed in nature that only these four particles are found. Shown below the delta family is the pi-meson (pion) family, which is a representative meson family. As can be seen, there are four ways to make pions out of up and down quark-antiquark pairs, and three pions have been found in nature. There is some evidence that the neutral pion is actually a superposition of two different types of quark substructure, as is show in the picture.

Note that the over-arching rule for making hadronic matter is that the total color of all particles must be white, and that one can obtain white particles in one of two ways. One can combine three primary colors, as in the case of the deltas, or one can combine a color with its anti-color, as in the case of the pions. Here we see why baryons are formed of three quarks, since that is how the three color combination can be achieved. And we can see why mesons must consist of quark-antiquark pairs, since that is how a color/anti-color combination can be obtained. In addition to the delta and pion families shown here, there are many, many more similar families of particles found in nature. The quark model allows for a replacement of a down quark by a heavier strange quark, or by an even heavier bottom quark, and it also allows for the up quark to be replaced by a heavier charm quark or an even heavier top quark. It is easy to see that making all permutations of such replacements would lead to an enormous number of particles. Of all particles found to date, there are none that fit outside of the quark, lepton and force carrier model, and hence there is quite good agreement between experiment and the present quark and lepton theory.

So it is clear how all known hadrons can be made from a model using quarks and antiquarks. However, there is another way that these particles can be made, as seen in the picture below:



Above we see that if we propose a new preon, called C, and let it be bound to three A or B preons (where the A and B preons have been proposed in earlier threads of this series) that we again can have only four possible ways to make a delta particle. By assigning the electric charge of the C preon as plus two, the delta particle will have possible charge states of plus two, plus one, zero, and minus one just as is found in nature. We can also see that the mesons can be made if we allow a C preon to bind with its anti-preon, and further allow the C preon to bind to one additional A or B, and lastly allow the C anti-preon to bind to an anti-A or anti-B.

While at first it may seem that the arrangements shown in the picture above are arbitrary groupings, it can be shown that the groupings easily follow if we assign a neutrinic charge of plus three to the C preon. (Indeed, such neutrinic charges are shown in the diagram.) As in the case where the leptons were analogous to Hydrogen atoms, we can now see that the Baryons are analogous to Lithium atoms. In the Lithium atom a nucleus with an electric charge of plus three is orbited by three electrically negative particles. In baryons, a C preon with neutrinic charge of plus three is orbited by three neutrinically negative particles.



In the picture above I also show the binding neutrino for each binding. In this instance, I show a particle with electric charge of plus one, since the C particle has an electric charge of plus two, the B particle has an electric charge of minus one, and the A particles have zero electric charge. Of course, as shown in the previous picture, we could have three B's, three A's, or two B's and an A orbiting around the C preon, and in those cases the electric charges are different from what is shown above. But the important point is that assigning a neutrinic charge of plus three to the C preon leads to a situation where all of the known Delta particles can be formed, and no additional Delta particles are allowed. Hence, this new model is every bit as good as the quark model in predicting all of the known Delta particles. The same perfect match to nature is found with the Pi mesons.

Of course, there is a close relationship between the ABC Preons and quarks. The relationship of the ABC Preon Model to quarks will be discussed in my next thread.

The Exposition of the ABC Preon Model will involve many threads. Here are links to previous threads in this series, in the order that they appeared:

The ABC Preon Model, Background: the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics

The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Massive Leptons.

The ABC Preon Model. Assigning Some Quantum Numbers.

I just want to know if Mill's Hydrinos are real.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Trying to understand quantum mechanics is like trying to play poker blindfolded.

It's been seven years. Surely by now the LHC should've detected something but so far there is nothing but Rumsfeld's i.e "there are known knowns and there are known unknowns." If the LHC can't complete the standard model by 2030 it will not only go down as the most expensive scientific experiment in history but the most expensive scientific flop in history.

Theories cost a penny compared to the LHC and if theories can't be replicated via practical application then what reasoning could be used to justify the construction of these colliders? Only time will tell and I hope I'm wrong.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I just want to know if Mill's Hydrinos are real.

I don't believe so. The quantum description of the atom is pretty good, and it doesn't predict Mill's Hydrinos.

In any event, the Hydrinos proposal is more in the realm of atomic physics than sub-nuclear physics, so the ABC Preon Model won't have much to say on the matter.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: delbertlarson

Trying to understand quantum mechanics is like trying to play poker blindfolded.

It's been seven years. Surely by now the LHC should've detected something but so far there is nothing but Rumsfeld's i.e "there are known knowns and there are known unknowns." If the LHC can't complete the standard model by 2030 it will not only go down as the most expensive scientific experiment in history but the most expensive scientific flop in history.

Theories cost a penny compared to the LHC and if theories can't be replicated via practical application then what reasoning could be used to justify the construction of these colliders? Only time will tell and I hope I'm wrong.

I believe the LHC is already seeing evidence of preons. This will be described in future threads. The prevailing theory is that the LHC did find the Higgs, and while that alone does not complete the Standard Model it is heralded as a rather major achievement of the LHC. So on that score, progress is being made. (It is my opinion that the Higgs signature is really a preonic signature. But it will take several more threads to bring this story of the ABC Preon Model that far.)

I have always been of the opinion that high energy physics is one of mankind's noblest endeavors. Everything in life can't be judged by how much money we make, nor who achieves dominance over whom. While I agree there are clear and present practical problems that need solutions, understanding our physical world is still something I find important to work on. As I wrote in comments of an earlier thread, we cannot always know what practical advances will occur from our new knowledge ahead of time. Understanding Newton's laws, electricity, magnetism, and quantum mechanics has led to a vast improvement in lives around the world. It is my belief that understanding nuclear and sub-nuclear physics will someday also lead to great practical advances as well.

a reply to: delbertlarson

It is my belief that understanding nuclear and sub-nuclear physics will someday also lead to great practical advances as well.

Good point, and I must refer to what I call 'Frank's law.' In Everybody loves Raymond Ray's father asks "who invented the lawn?" and while grass always existed the lawn didn't, and that's Frank's law: you may ask a question but we may never know the correct answer. That's my fear about the LHC, we can learn the where and when but maybe we will never learn about the why...or the who.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: delbertlarson

Trying to understand quantum mechanics is like trying to play poker blindfolded.

It's been seven years. Surely by now the LHC should've detected something but so far there is nothing but Rumsfeld's i.e "there are known knowns and there are known unknowns." If the LHC can't complete the standard model by 2030 it will not only go down as the most expensive scientific experiment in history but the most expensive scientific flop in history.

Theories cost a penny compared to the LHC and if theories can't be replicated via practical application then what reasoning could be used to justify the construction of these colliders? Only time will tell and I hope I'm wrong.

Where did you get the 2030 number from and why exactly should the LHC go down as the most expensive scientific flop in history?

From what I see it has been doing what it was built for, running experiments and producing data used to test/verify theoretical models, data which would not have been available otherwise.