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

Id love to see the paper on this one. All these complicated calculations, Iv done some of them just using the SM qed and qcd style, gamma matricies and all... and it took many many many many pages just to prove a couple of things.

Would love to see the 5 pages for a cross section calculation with the extra preons in this model.

Not to sound totally like a cynic, but I am in spirit with Modulii here, because there are many models down the years that are based entirely on numerology that don't explain very much and are just in essence a "I don't like the diagram so i am going to change it to add my own flare, oh but the model is the same so its obviously correct"

Modulii is actually trying to help you, as much as he doesn't appear to be, he is trying to say that theorists have toyed around and played with many many hundreds of models and gotten closer than this one... but they still were not able to prove anything substantial or match observed data. Because the data doesn't suggest anything smaller than a quark.

Also, with just two types of preon as you said... how do you get the whole zoo of particles? what for example is different between Ks and Kl in this model?

swanne
I'm not upset, I'm just disappointed that people shoot my baby before it has the chance to even grow up.

I'm not a particle physicist, but if I was working on an idea in that area I would value feedback from someone who was. If the feedback was that something was irreparably wrong with my idea, maybe shooting it and starting over with a new one would be better, or maybe learning enough about the topic so I could debate on par with other particle physicists could be another alternative instead of letting my stillborn baby try to grow.

I remember Lawrence Krauss saying that most of his ideas as a theoretical physicist have turned out to be wrong, and he does this for a living. It's only to be expected that non physics professionals would have even lower batting averages because of lower levels of training and experience in the field.

Since you're here I would like to at least ask you a question. Neutrino oscillation... does it occurs like this,

Ve - Vu - Vt - Vu - Ve - Vu - etc. ?

BTW It's good to see you again. I value your thoughts.

Thanks. I'm not sure exactly what you're after here, but from what I know the neutrino oscillations are probabilistic rather than absolute. Here's a long range probability plot for oscillation:

Neutrino Oscillation

Electron neutrino oscillations, long range. Here and in the following diagrams black means electron neutrino, blue means muon neutrino and red means tau neutrino.

There is also a short range oscillation plot at that link if that's what you're after.

This pdf may be more informative but it's a bit dated:

pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/numixrpp.pdf

There's active research in this area since that paper was written, with some new results published this year, and I haven't kept up with it to be honest. I do plan on getting around to reading it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Lol, with yr user name, I always thought you were German
but when you talk of batting averages ( as in cricket ), you seem to be British

Neutrino oscillation occurs in theory because the neutrino flavour is determined as a mix of mass states. As the neutrino propagates, the mass and flavour states are out of sync and a neutrino born as an electron type neutrino, oscillates into a muon type or tau type. All modes of oscillation have been observed and this process appears to be a real thing.


Neutrinos from the sun as observed by about 4 different experiments are shown to be electron neutrino reduced compared to what the source should be. This is because you detect neutrinos either by a radio chemical process (only sensitive to Nu_e) or by a scattering process, where the neutrino knocks out an electron, and you detect that process. While scattering is sensitive to all types of neutrino, the electron neutrino is most dominant.
There is another process called neutral and charge current reactions in which you inverse beta decay an atom, which is only sensitive to electron type neutrinos.

The SNO experiment used heavy water to amplify these extra signals, and were able to deduce the electron neutrino signal within the scattering signal and observe all the expected neutrinos from the sun.


The Super Kamiokande (and SNO) detetors where able to look at Atmospheric neutrinos (these are neutrinos produced in cosmic ray showers) In cosmic ray showers we expect a 2:1 ratio of muon type to electron neutrinos, but what was observed in SuperK is that the flux of upward going neutrinos was significantly lower than downwards (upwards pass through the earth) While you do expect to loose some flux through the Earth, the amount of reduction was far greater than theoretically possible without something else happening. It is evident that those neutrinos are oscillating away into an undetected flavour... the Tau neutrino.


The OPERA experiment used a high energy muon neutrino beam, and looked for the appearance of tau neutrinos, it was successful observing 3 events, not many, but the tau neutrino is heavy and the sigma level for these events was high enough to claim evidence and a discovery that what was happening was oscillation.



So neutrinos oscillate. depending on energy and distance of baseline, you can obtain different oscillation probabilities. So you can get

Nu_e -> Nu_mu
Nu_e -> Nu_tau
Nu_mu -> Nu_e
Nu_mu -> Nu_tau
Nu_tau -> Nu_e
Nu_tau -> Nu_mu

and of course you can get survival.

Just some info there... I was in T2K until I finished my PhD so some of these details are fuzzy as it was a while ago.

reply to post by ErosA433


So if there is nothing smaller then a quark, that would just mean that there are quark fields, and the smallest massed quarks are the smallest possible ripples in this field? And there is nothing smaller, because that would mean that the field would be made of a field? And a field already doesnt have components, so a field cant be made of a field with smaller components...or something?

ErosA433
So neutrinos oscillate. depending on energy and distance of baseline, you can obtain different oscillation probabilities. So you can get

Nu_e -> Nu_mu
Nu_e -> Nu_tau

Thanks, you probably know more about it than me.

If I'm reading that graph I posted correctly, at say around 16500 km/GeV it looks like the probability of those two oscillations can be about equally likely, maybe about 42% chance each, with a 16% chance it will remain an electron neutrino, but then a little further along the horizontal axis, let's say maybe 17,000 km/GeV where the probabilities diverge, there is still somewhere around a 14% chance it will remain an electron neutrino, but the probability of oscillating to a muon neutrino is 68% and to a tau neutrino is 18%, so the two transitions have gone from being about equally likely to one being almost 4 times more likely than the other.

The point is it's more complicated than a simple oscillation sequence, as swanne's suggestion appeared to convey.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

The dictionary says that word is French so I don't know why you were thinking German?

Arbitrageur
I remember Lawrence Krauss saying that most of his ideas as a theoretical physicist have turned out to be wrong, and he does this for a living. It's only to be expected that non physics professionals would have even lower batting averages because of lower levels of training and experience in the field.

Hm, you're right. Well said mate.

I'm not sure exactly what you're after here, but from what I know the neutrino oscillations are probabilistic rather than absolute. Here's a long range probability plot for oscillation:

Neutrino Oscillation

Electron neutrino oscillations, long range. Here and in the following diagrams black means electron neutrino, blue means muon neutrino and red means tau neutrino.

There is also a short range oscillation plot at that link if that's what you're after.

This pdf may be more informative but it's a bit dated:

pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/numixrpp.pdf

There's active research in this area since that paper was written, with some new results published this year, and I haven't kept up with it to be honest. I do plan on getting around to reading it.

Many tanks, this was exactly what I was looking for!

Okay, one last thing. CP violation states that the neutral Kaon (d + strange antiquark) will decay (into u + Vu) 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? And into what does this parity-reversed anti-K0 decays to?

I hope that it doesn't sound too confusing....

ErosA433
Also, with just two types of preon as you said... how do you get the whole zoo of particles? what for example is different between Ks and Kl in this model?

edit on 7-10-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

These are made of quarks. Which are made of preons. The model in my OP doesn't account for the 3 matter generations (and the kaon's strange quark / antiquark), but I'm working on it - I recently solved why there are 3 and only 3 generations.

As for why the Kaon decyas into either Kl or Ks... all I can say is, That's a Very Good Question.

ErosA433
Also, with just two types of preon as you said... how do you get the whole zoo of particles? what for example is different between Ks and Kl in this model?

edit on 7-10-2013 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

These are made of quarks. Which are made of preons. The model in my OP doesn't account for the 3 matter generations (and the kaon's strange quark / antiquark), but I'm working on it - I recently solved why there are 3 and only 3 generations.

As for why the Kaon decays into K long or K short... all I can say is, That's a Very Good Question. What is the SM's explanation? The SM's explanation may be the best we have for now...

This may be unrelated but what is the relationship between Electromagnetic field, electric field, and magnetic field? Are they all the same thing? How do these exist in space together? And how is it related to charge, does only electron or negative charge particle interact with EM field?

ImaFungi
This may be unrelated but what is the relationship between Electromagnetic field, electric field, and magnetic field?

An electric field moving inside a loop of wire will create a magnetic field. The inverse is true: A loop of wire inside a moving magnetic field will create an electric current. Electromagnetism appears when both an electric field and a magnetic field travels into space and "pulses" (oscillates) on a specific frequency.

reply to post by swanne


Ah interesting, so if I understand; Electrons moving in relation to one another is electricity; Electrons aligned in the same direction in a material is magnetism; Electrons accelerated is electromagnetism.

So electromagnetism is really when 2 aspects of the field the electron is coupled with interact with one another? Electrons moving in relation to one another makes an electric field, but because those electrons have a net alignment, there is some magnetic field action going on? Could electric field just be the magnetic field vibrating on a different axis or something? and/or vice versa? Can magnetic fields interact with electric fields, or is this what you are saying light is? Even though its the same field? How can this field be imagined, it seems weird, like 2 sided coins everywhere in space, one side is electric field one side is magnetism, and its the same object, but 2 different phenomenon.

ImaFungi
Electrons moving in relation to one another makes an electric field

The electron doesn't need to be moving in relation to an other electron to make an electric field. Since electrons are considered point-like particle (infinitively small), their charge is an electric field.



In addition: in a wire loop, if the magnetic field moves, it forces a current of electric charge through the wire.

Any time an electron simply moves, no matter if there's another electron around or not, the electron will generate a magnetic field.

How can this field be imagined, it seems weird, like 2 sided coins everywhere in space, one side is electric field one side is magnetism, and its the same object, but 2 different phenomenon.

Hm, unlikely... When I build an electromagnet coil, and pass a current through it, the coil does generate a magnetic field. But the current doesn't disappear - the charge is still exiting the coil, back to ground. So the electron can still exist as an electric charge and generate a magnetic field.

reply to post by swanne


Some day I will just have to accept that it makes absolutely no sense to me. Positive charge and negative charge representing the field like that in the image, how their motions create EM radiation, and what exactly em radiation is, and if the EM field is one thing, or 2 things, electric and magnetic field (which is what i meant by 2 sided coin, one object that has 2 aspects or components). Is an electric field a magnetic field, and magnetic field is an electric field, its only one or the other depending on relative motions of the observer, of the fields themselves, of the electrons? And then light is when the field is disturbed at a point, and this disturbance cant settle itself to equilibrium, so it just transfers the energy outward until its absorbed? I know the images of light being the magnetic wave field causing electric wave field causing magnetic wave field etc. but what does this mean? What does it mean the field is composed of?

And when EM radiation is created does it spread from the point of creation 3dimensionally like a spherical wave headed off in all directions? Or when an electron vibrates does it just send a ripple that equals the vibrational energy in a perpendicular direction in relation to the plane or axis of the electrons vibration? Because that would be interesting as well, how this field exists everywhere, but the energy doesnt leak and cause chain reactions to the field surrounding this event of EM radiation being created.

ImaFungi
I know the images of light being the magnetic wave field causing electric wave field causing magnetic wave field etc. but what does this mean? What does it mean the field is composed of?

Of both. Both an electric and magnetic field.

And when EM radiation is created does it spread from the point of creation 3dimensionally like a spherical wave headed off in all directions?

No, not if you only have 1 photon. Unlike mechanical waves (sound), photons can be thought of as particles going into specific direction.

Or when an electron vibrates does it just send a ripple that equals the vibrational energy in a perpendicular direction in relation to the plane or axis of the electrons vibration? Because that would be interesting as well, how this field exists everywhere, but the energy doesnt leak and cause chain reactions to the field surrounding this event of EM radiation being created.

The field doesn't cause chain reaction, because for a reaction to occur, the photon has to crash head-on into another particle or atom. If a photon gets past an atom, it won't affect the atom laterally.

Some day I will just have to accept that it makes absolutely no sense to me.

It is unlikely you (and me, for that matter) will ever see that day... You have too much of an investigative mind. Ignorance is something that itches, and you'll never simply accept things that makes no sense to you. And for that, I tip my hat, mate.

reply to post by swanne

I'm glad you found that helpful.
As I said I'm not a particle physicist (though I am learning), so I would refer that particle physics question to others who know more particle physics than me for an answer, if they care to respond.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by swanne

 

I'm glad you found that helpful.
As I said I'm not a particle physicist (though I am learning), so I would refer that particle physics question to others who know more particle physics than me for an answer, if they care to respond.

OK

Hm... a particle physicist... is Eros one?

swanne
Hm... a particle physicist... is Eros one?

Yes, but not the type who works at CERN. He describes some branches of the science here and clarifies his area of work:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

swanne

The field doesn't cause chain reaction, because for a reaction to occur, the photon has to crash head-on into another particle or atom. If a photon gets past an atom, it won't affect the atom laterally.

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!

ErosA433
Neutrino oscillation occurs in theory because the neutrino flavour is determined as a mix of mass states. As the neutrino propagates, the mass and flavour states are out of sync and a neutrino born as an electron type neutrino, oscillates into a muon type or tau type. All modes of oscillation have been observed and this process appears to be a real thing.

Am I incorrect in assuming this "oscillation" is exactly the same as any other QM oscillation where a system was not put into a pure QM state like Rabi oscillations?

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

Is there something preventing a neutrino from being created in a state of "pure muon flavor" for instance and what's keeping it from staying in that state?