It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The ABC Preon Model. A Needed Improvement.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2017 @ 06:39 AM
This is the sixteenth thread in the series on the ABC Preon Model. Links to earlier threads will appear in the comment below.

In the threads so far it has been shown that the ABC Preon Model dovetails nicely into the power of the Standard Model, and that the ABC Preon Model is simpler in its underlying description of nature. The previous thread lists numerous predictions for new physics that are expected to be observed in the future, many of which are predictions beyond what the Standard Model anticipates. Therefore the ABC Preon Model is presently in the position of being a good start at a viable alternative to the Standard Model. Yet the ABC Preon Model certainly has opportunity for improvement.

The biggest area of needed improvement is that the ABC Preon Model has very limited calculational abilities. Ideally, there should be some underlying theory that can be used to derive the masses of the various composite particles that are known to exist. Note that the Standard Model also has difficulties in this regard, but that the Standard Model is further along with its theory of quantum chromodynamics.

At present, the ABC Preon Model is a model, not a theory. It does have some high level calculational ability that enables many predictions that indicate that it may be a correct model of nature, but there is no dynamics as of yet. The calculational ability that it does have comes about simply because once preons are freed, the cumulative mass of the preons so freed lead to predictions on that basis alone.

To go beyond a simple model we need to develop an underlying theory as well. Yet there is a major problem in arriving at an underlying theory, and that involves the strength of the binding, which precludes a typical perturbation analysis. The leptons are modeled as simple two body states, and yet finding a theoretical framework for deriving lepton masses has proven elusive.

In another thread I outlined the derivation of an equation for a non-perturbative, high-velocity, quantum mechanics that offers some hope for attacking the problem of a theoretical underpinning for the ABC Preon Model. The goal of that approach is to achieve something similar to what is achieved by the very successful quantum mechanical treatment of the hydrogen atom. I spent a couple of years looking for an analytic solution to the equations, but so far I have been unable to find one. I now believe that numerical techniques are likely required to solve the equation.

One problem with the development of the ABC Preon Model is that it has only been pursued by a single individual for about three years of cumulative effort, whereas the Standard Model has been pursued by a large community of physicists for decades. Hence, it of course stands to reason that the ABC Preon Model remains in its embryonic state, and opportunity exists for improvement. My request of the high energy physics community is that they not look for the first possible reason to reject the model and then consign it to the heap of nutty ideas, but rather that the high energy community point out reasons for rejection and then work to understand how to possibly overcome those problems. Keep in mind that the Standard Model grew in just that way.

The difference of course is that the Standard Model has been the leading model for decades, and so when problems arose it was viewed as a great achievement to overcome such problems. The problems were not used to condemn the entire Standard Model. As one example of how this approach can be applied to the ABC Preon Model, consider the top quark analysis presented in thread 12. At first I believed that since the ABC Preon Model does not allow a quark at such a high mass that this was a severe indictment against the model. But upon further reflection, I understood how the signature naturally came about. I suspect that a similar process may be required when new problems arise. Of course it may be that salvation of the model requires that some new particle be proposed at some point. And while that would be somewhat regrettable, it would not be surprising. Note that every theory of matter has suffered from just that problem in the past. But such a fate does not mean that we should abandon the theory completely, as it still can be very useful. For instance, one need look no further than the Standard Model itself.


log in