Physics from reason alone

[friend]

As usually developed, if we have Quantum Theory and Special Relativity, Paul Dirac derived antimatter, electrons and positrons. Great! But I seem to have derived by other means Quantum Theory and the particle content of the Standard Model of particles and antiparticles. So I have to wonder if it is possible to derive Special Relativity from QM and the existence of matter and antimatter. Does anyone have any insight on this? Thanks.

[minkwe]

Foundational questions about logic, math, and physics seems to be an ongoing debate to the present by experts.

There is no debate about the foundations of Logic. It's well understood and universally accepted.

Specifically, we don't yet have an agreed upon interpretation of quantum physics. Sure, professors will teach quantum physics to students starting with some basic principle of QM. But when they start calling these basic principles axioms, I hear students moan because axioms are supposed to be intuitively obvious which QM is not........ yet.

So you assume that's because QM is illogical? Logic is used in every theory. The problems you identify have a different origin than lack of logic.

"the meaning of logic", you ask of me? Logic is supposed to be self-contained and self-explanatory. How could I possibly add to it. What you want is metalogic, not logic. And it is probably a matter of subjective importance to each individual.

I asked you to explain what you understand logic to mean, not to add to it. That's the minimum someone who claims to be deriving all physics from logic should be able to do to be taken seriously. You haven't yet done that.

Are we trying to pick apart and prove that everything in the universe is necessarily logical in every realm in all details? It is inherently impossible to actually observe and measure all things in order to prove this. So how could we prove or disprove that it is so? We can't. So it must remain an assumption. For there simply does not seem to be any rational alternative except to assume that everything in the universe is rational. My claim is that the ultimate theory of physics must be derived from logic. The only alternative is to suggest that the foundations of reality are irrational. Is that what you're implying? Or are you agreeing that science makes this assumption?

You are not getting it at all. Is the universe sad, happy, angry? Is the universe deceitful, truthful? Don't you understand that certain concepts are only meaningful in the context of human thought? When you say the universe is logical independently of human reasoning/thought, that is goobledygook. Logic is only meaningful in the context of how humans process information and make inferences about it. In this sense every theory is based on logic, all of physics is already based on logic. NOTE, by physics, I mean the logical structure of knowledge and theories invented by humans as a way of organising their thoughts and observations about the universe. Some people use "physics" synonymously with the "universe", which is completely wrong. You appear to be conflating those as well.

Logic is the scientific study of the processes of sound thinking and reasoning. Reason and thinking are epistemological processes that take place in the human mind. Therefore by definition, logic is limited to the human mind.

Are you trying to suggest that physical reality is not necessarily logical because it is not of the mind? Or are you saying that there must be a supernatural mind out there to ensure that reality remains logical? Or are you saying that we cannot possibly know if all facts are logically consistent with other facts? Granted, that we cannot measure all the facts.

The universe doesn't care what theories and concepts humans have invented to explain it. Logic is completely epistemological.

But doesn't science always assume that all of physical reality is reasonable, and hence logical?

Science is a logical process. Science is a creation by humans. Science is epistemological. Perhaps if you would provide an example of what an unreasonable illogical universe could look like then what you suggest would make more sense. The adjectives "reasonable", "logical" do not apply to the universe.

[minkwe]

But you fail to understand basic facts.

What qualifies you to grade me?

Logic.

[friend]

You are not getting it at all. Is the universe sad, happy, angry? Is the universe deceitful, truthful? Don't you understand that certain concepts are only meaningful in the context of human thought? When you say the universe is logical independently of human reasoning/thought, that is goobledygook.

All you seem to be concerned with are secondary issues. None of your objections so far address the steps I take in my derivation. I have gone into great detail to explain with mathematical precision just exactly how I derive physics from logic. The ball is in your court to show me where I may have made a mistake in the math. The website is at: logictophysics.com

[minkwe]

You are not getting it at all. Is the universe sad, happy, angry? Is the universe deceitful, truthful? Don't you understand that certain concepts are only meaningful in the context of human thought? When you say the universe is logical independently of human reasoning/thought, that is goobledygook.

All you seem to be concerned with are secondary issues. None of your objections so far address the steps I take in my derivation. I have gone into great detail to explain with mathematical precision just exactly how I derive physics from logic. The ball is in your court to show me where I may have made a mistake in the math. The website is at: logictophysics.com

Using logic to derive theories in physics is what physicists have been doing for millennia. If you can find flaws in their logic, it is okay to point it out but don't pretend you are the first person to suddenly discover that logic can be used to derive theories. This is not a secondary issue, it is the core. You may be doing something mathematically interesting but the way you have framed it does not even make it worth the effort for me to try to figure it out since the premise of your efforts does not make sense to me as I've explained. And you do not appear to be willing to make it any clearer.

If I claim to have detailed mathematical proof that "everything can be described with a description". Nobody will bother to read my website to understand what I'm doing, even if what I'm doing may be quite interesting.

This will be my last post on this topic. Good luck in your endeavours,

[friend]

The difference between my efforts and others is that I'm showing how physics relies on logical necessity. Given the usual concepts of logic, physics can be developed with no reference to measured data from experiments. It is simply necessary that the physical world should be this way. Every other effort to date seems to rely on the contingency of measurements. They go through clever means to derive equations that predict results. And that's all the import that their efforts have, it's all just curve fitting and math matching. The equations are only used because they happen to work. And so they are provisional; we can never be sure that they will not be falsified by some experiment in the future. And we are always asking why this math and not something else. Compared to my work I find these efforts devoid of meaning whose foundations rest on contingent accidents of nature.

[friend]

One thing lacking in my framework is the inherent angular momentum of elementary particles. And I have an idea that might work.

It seems we have virtual particles popping into existence, traveling a bit, and then cancelling each other out at some end point. So if virtual particle pairs, particle and antiparticle, can cancel each other out at a point, then they cannot travel exactly over the top of each other at every point of their trajectory from where they start to where they end. For then they would cancel each other out at every point in their path and never travel at all.

So it seems that virtual particle pairs must avoid each other as they travel from start to end. This means they must curve around each other during their path. This curving of their path gives rise to an angular momentum. I don't have a means of calculating the numerical value of this angular momentum yet. What we measure may be the result of an averaging of all the possible values, or an expectation value.

As a check on these ideas, I have a few questions. Does angular momentum depend on the dimensionality of spacetime? I'm thinking not because it only involves the magnitude of its orbit times the magnitude of its velocity. (I don't have a derivation of the dimensions of spacetime yet.) Thanks.

[Austin Fearnley]

Its a while since I read about your ideas. I remember that an implication seemed interestingly like wavefunction collapse of many points in a set to a single point or implication. (Though QM does not use sets.) Does a wavefunction exist in spacetime? If it does, then do you have to have every point in the set for an electron wavefunction avoiding every point in the set for a positron? Or is it only the (final) implication that is actually in spacetime and needs its own space (as in Pauli's Exclusion principle).

I usually like your ideas but I do not like your 'avoidance' idea for elementary particle spins. But that is maybe because I have my own ideas for the origin of intrinsic spin related to my preon model. Intrinsic spin is a little like perpetual motion.

I wrote this recently on Sabine Hossenfelder's blog:
"I have a naive preon model for elementary particle compositions. A long time ago I suggested that a photon behaved like a boat with two counter-rotating engines. Such a boat travels fast. A (chiral) boat with say two left-rotating engines and no rudder would stay approximately in one spot but would still require the seemingly perpetual motion engines. So, paradoxically (?), in my naive model it requires engine motion to stand still. The engines are at several levels down the chain within elementary particles, and as energy increases with small time intervals, there may be enough energy to give the appearance of perpetual motion."

I like the idea that intrinsic spin is derived from other dimensions. Just as the Kaluza-Klein extra dimension could explain electric charge then a similar extra dimension could explain intrinsic spin. With the spin dimension(s) curling around 3D space like a solenoid coiling around a core. Similarly I have colour charges dependent on extra dimensions.

[friend]

Its a while since I read about your ideas. I remember that an implication seemed interestingly like wavefunction collapse of many points in a set to a single point or implication. (Though QM does not use sets.)

As a reminder: I start with individual points and describe each with individual coordinates. (I don't have the dimensions of space or a metric yet.) And like anything else, you describe them using propositions which are either true or not. But now having propositions, we can consider conjunctions and disjunctions of them and how one might imply the other. A space consists of a logical conjunction of all the points in the space. And a conjunction between any two points implies an implication one way in conjunction with the reverse implication. Implication is represented with a complex Gaussian for reasons explained on the website. An implication looks exactly like the propogator (wavefunction) of a particle; the reverse implication is the complex conjugate that then looks like the antiparticle. Both seem to be traveling from the same start and end points at the same time, and since they start from nothing they end in nothing; they cancel each other out. In other words, we have virtual particles popping in and out of existence between every two points in the space that you can imagine, a sea of virtual particles making up the quantum fields through which particles travel.

Does a wavefunction exist in spacetime?

The complex Gaussians that represent implications are functions of time and space. Without a spacetime to begin with, there are no Gaussians.

If it does, then do you have to have every point in the set for an electron wavefunction avoiding every point in the set for a positron? Or is it only the (final) implication that is actually in spacetime and needs its own space (as in Pauli's Exclusion principle).

You may not need the number of dimensions to specify angular momentum. But you do need a metric to specify the magnitude of the radius times the magnitude of the velocity. Is it possible to specify a metric without specifying the dimensionality?

My website is at: logictophysics.com

[Austin Fearnley]

friend wrote:
Is it possible to specify a metric without specifying the dimensionality?

I would say that it is possible to have dimensions without a metric.

I have a paper including this issue here: https://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329

Table 3 shows a deteriorating situation as you go down the sub-tables. The top tables show good metrics have been created while the lower tables show a breakdown of the ability to make a metric.

Similarly, Penrose's CCC model of a cyclic universe has the metric of the universe failing at the end of each cycle. I endorse how the metric falls apart in his model similar to how a metric fails to form in my paper.

The key issue is that there must be some significant error of measurement to allow the metric to form. Guttman data have insufficient error to allow a metric to form in my paper. At the end of a CCC cycle, the number of fermions has dwindled and the distance between them has increased so as to disallow light to travel back and to between fermions. Photons keeping contact between fermions being a vital part of the contruction of the metric, and as such photons take the role of judges in the adaptive comparative judgements in my paper.

There is much to speculate on dimensions but I will save that for another time.

friend wrote:
An implication looks exactly like the propogator (wavefunction) of a particle; the reverse implication is the complex conjugate that then looks like the antiparticle. Both seem to be traveling from the same start and end points at the same time, and since they start from nothing they end in nothing; they cancel each other out.

Won't an electron (or rather its successor electron after interaction) need a reverse implication immediately after its implication, so it can start a new wave function? And how do you distinguish implications and reverse implications between electrons and positrons?

I suspect that you did not mean literally 'nothing'. The vacuum is not nothing and in my model the fields in the vacuum are involved in the creation and annihilation events. Nothing is actually created other than in a changing of form. At least not in my preon model. Count the preons in to an interaction and count them all out again afterwards. Preons are preserved in all interactions but combinations of them will vary.

[friend]

Won't an electron (or rather its successor electron after interaction) need a reverse implication immediately after its implication, so it can start a new wave function? And how do you distinguish implications and reverse implications between electrons and positrons?

You guessed it! Exactly! In my view, a particle is just half of a virtual particle pair of whatever type. We have all these virtual particle pairs constantly popping in and out. And each particle (or antiparticle) in a virtual pair is just like any other particle (or antiparticle) of any other virtual pair (of the same type). So if a particle can annihilate with the appropriate antiparticle, it does not matter where the particle's annihilation partner comes from. The particle could annihilate with its original virtual pair partner. Or it may annihilate with an antiparticle from some other virtual pair. Of course, if it does not annihilate with its original pair partner, then it leaves behind a particle like itself when it annihilates with the antiparticle of some other pair. It could take quite a few exchanges before all the open particles find an open antiparticle to annihilate with, if at all.

This is how I define energy. A particle is an unannihilated particle that has lost contact with its original virtual pair partner. It then annihilates with the antiparticle of some other pair, leaving behind the particle of that pair. And this in turn annihilates with yet another antiparticle of some other pair, leaving yet another particle of that pair to do the same. So the unmatched particle seems to propagate as it is being traded with the antiparticle of various pairs. It then appears to move through space in a random walk. Energy so happens to be the rate of this virtual particle trading.

For every frame of reference the points in that space are perfectly stationary in that frame of reference. If there is a free particle, it will engage with antiparticles of various pairs at a certain rate and so have some rest energy / mass. However, in a frame for which the particle is moving, then it is engaging in more virtual particle trading than at first and so have a larger energy, more than its rest energy.

The choice of which implication or reverse implication is associated with an electron and the other with a positron is an arbitrary choice. I think you end up with the same general description of physics whatever the choice. It's just a convention.

I suspect that you did not mean literally 'nothing'. The vacuum is not nothing and in my model the fields in the vacuum are involved in the creation and annihilation events. Nothing is actually created other than in a changing of form. At least not in my preon model. Count the preons in to an interaction and count them all out again afterwards. Preons are preserved in all interactions but combinations of them will vary.

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong on this one. I thought virtual particles were said to pop into existence from nothing and annihilate back into nothing.

[Austin Fearnley]

My view is more along the lines here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

Electron annihilates (=interacts, IMO) with a positron and converts to two photons.
e− + e+ → γ + γ

I have read about creation from nothing but I do not go along with it. I think I did not put in a paper my calculations using my preon model in describing particle decay products. But one can get many different decay products after interactions and my preon model showed all of the supposed products when I set out to verify them. Preons into an interaction are conserved in the preons coming out again. Different decay products after an interaction depend on inputting different vacuum products into the calculations for the interaction. If the vacuum was 'nothing' then there would have to be categories of 'nothing' :) to explain such decay products.

This is the sort of decay products that I calculated in terms of preon content but never wrote up:
K+ → π+ e− µ+
K+ → π+ e+ µ−
KL → µe
KL → π0 eµ
KL → π0 π0 eµ
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/rpp201 ... decays.pdf


I am still unsure how you keep tabs, in your model, on which particle is an electron and which is the positron after the creation event. Don't you need to use an index?

friend wrote:
This is how I define energy. A particle is an unannihilated particle that has lost contact with its original virtual pair partner. It then annihilates with the antiparticle of some other pair, leaving behind the particle of that pair. And this in turn annihilates with yet another antiparticle of some other pair, leaving yet another particle of that pair to do the same. So the unmatched particle seems to propagate as it is being traded with the antiparticle of various pairs. It then appears to move through space in a random walk. Energy so happens to be the rate of this virtual particle trading.

I sympathise with this view, of course. Though 'energy' is IMO still being misunderstood in modern physics. Not that I have any answers to energy in my preon model.
In my recent papers the antiparticles are dissipated through the universe causing both Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Dissipated because of negative mass. Leaving an excess of positive-mass particles around us. Antiparticles are in my model travelling backwards in time compared to particles. Energy is usually paired with time (and momentum is paired with space) so losing negative energy antiparticles to our neighbourhood is maybe equivalent to associating positive energy [and positive direction of thermodynamic arrow of time] to our neighbourhood.

[friend]

My view is more along the lines here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

Electron annihilates (=interacts, IMO) with a positron and converts to two photons.
e− + e+ → γ + γ

I have read about creation from nothing but I do not go along with it.

You do raise an interesting question for me. When do electrons and positrons annihilate to produce nothing as in virtual particle pair production and annihilation. And when do electrons and positrons come together to produce photons, for example? Let me venture a possibility. With the annihilation due to virtual pair production, the electron and positron have to come back together at exactly the same place at exactly at the same time. And they both have to have the exactly opposite spins of each other. Then everything cancels out. But perhaps free electrons from an arbitrary source might not have the exact same spin as a free positron that happens to collide with it. And perhaps they don't collide at exactly at the same place, but just near miss each other and combine to form some other particle, say photons, for example. I suppose it quite improbable for stray electrons and stray positrons to meet together at the same place at the same time with the exact opposite spin. So their energy and momentum do not cancel out but must propagate in some other form.

I am still unsure how you keep tabs, in your model, on which particle is an electron and which is the positron after the creation event. Don't you need to use an index?

My convention is to let the electron have the negative complex exponent in the gaussian, and let the positron have the positive complex exponent.

[Austin Fearnley]

My view is that interactions always have two incoming particles. One of those particles could be a vacuum field. However, my preon model has a dark matter field and if that field could spontaneously decay (I do not like spontaneous decays) then it would look like particle-antiparticle creation. And likewise the particles could return a dark matter field back to the vacuum.

A dark matter field could generate an electron + positron, or a higgs + antihiggs, or two photons, etc.

To understand this in detail, the preons ought to be specified. There are four preons: A, B, C amd E and four antipreons A', B', C' and E'. A total aggregate gives zero properties (except that it has mass): AA'BB'CC'EE'. Other aggregates also give dark matter e.g. ACXA'C'X, BCXB'C'X, BBC'C'B'B'CC, ABC'C'A'B'CC.
Where X can be any of AA', BB', CC' or EE'. And therefore X = X'

These four versions of dark matter decay respectively to:
LH electron + RH positron ACX + A'C'X
RH electron + LH positron BCX + B'C'X
two photons with opposite spin BBC'C' + B'B'CC
two higgs with opposite weak isospin ABC'C' + A'B'CC.


Say LH electron + RH positron ACX + A'C'X are created, then these could possibly later re-decay into two higgs so long as the Xs are BB' and CC'.

Likewise, say RH electron + LH positron BCX + B'C'X are created, then these could later decay into two photons so long as the two Xs are also BB' and CC'.

I am not sure that this preon model will be of use to you, but I am using it to explain that I prefer creation from something rather than nothing. That is from vacuum fields. And there are a variety of fields available. Even a range of different types of dark matter field. (Though I also have dark matter fields caused by antiparticles in a different model.)

[friend]

However, my preon model has a dark matter field and if that field could spontaneously decay (I do not like spontaneous decays) then it would look like particle-antiparticle creation. And likewise the particles could return a dark matter field back to the vacuum.

I think we're both on the same hunt for something to explain the Standard Model. However, from what I can tell so far, the Preon model does not explain quantum theory to begin with. Instead, (correct me if I'm wrong) the Preon model only uses the assumed, presupposed validity of quantum mechanics on the more basic particles known as preons in an attempt to show the underlying structure of leptons and quarks. We both agree that the subatomic particles of the Standard Model may be composite, that there may be some structure to these particles.

It seems obvious that there must be some substructure to the particles of the Standard Model, some progression of composition to their structure. For we have electrons and positrons which only have electric charge, but we have Weak W and Z bosons which have both electric charge and Weak Isospin charge, and we have quarks which have electric charge, Weak Isospin charge and color charge. So we might look for some means of incorporating electrons and positrons into the W and Z bosons. And we might look for a means of incorporating the W and Z bosons into the quarks. Not only does my model derive quantum theory, but it accounts for the number of particles with the charges they have.

You mentioned that you were uncomfortable with the concept of virtual particles popping into existence from nothing and annihilating back into nothing. What is this "nothing" you seem to be asking. And you pose some new field out of which these particle come. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, quantum field theory proposes that there are various fields imposed on top of spacetime, that these fields are functions of spacetime presupposed to exist in order to accommodate these fields. And so QFT has trouble describing and incorporating spacetime itself into the quantum world.

In my model, these quantum fields are derived from spacetime; these fields are an alternate interpretation of spacetime. Any two points of space exist in logical conjunction with each other. This conjunction implies an implication from one point and the other in conjunction with a reverse implication from the other point back to the one. The implication one way can be represented by an electron, the implication the other way can be represented as a positron. Since they exist simultaneously with opposite properties, that both travel from the same point in spacetime to the same different point in spacetime, they cancel out as easily as they form. These virtual particle pairs are just a different interpretation of having two points in spacetime. And since these virtual particles exist for all points in spacetime, they can be described as a field, a quantum field. They exist simply because there is spacetime. Or in other words, spacetime is made of these quantum fields. So the quantum properties of spacetime can be derived by the way these virtual particles interact with each other. Or in other words still, gravity (or geometry) is the result of the aggregate properties of virtual particles and how this aggregate accumulation responds to free particles.



logictophysics.com

[Austin Fearnley]

friend wrote:
Instead, (correct me if I'm wrong) the Preon model only uses the assumed, presupposed validity of quantum mechanics on the more basic particles known as preons in an attempt to show the underlying structure of leptons and quarks.

Yes, more or less. I retired 16 years ago and my first aim was simply to be able to write down the elementary particles from memory. Then I became immersed in particle properties and then the realisation that the particle table had all the beauty of a dog's dinner.

friend wrote:
...we have electrons and positrons which only have electric charge, but we have Weak W and Z bosons which have both electric charge and Weak Isospin charge, and we have quarks which have electric charge, Weak Isospin charge and color charge. So we might look for some means of incorporating electrons and positrons into the W and Z bosons.

Left-handed electrons have electric charge, spin and weak isospin.
Spin 1/2
Weak isospin LH: −1/2 , RH: 0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

I only need to see the appropriate preons in all particles without the need to see electrons et al inside other particles. Also, IMO there is no need of proofs of how many particles or generations of particles exist. The E8xE8 model of Lisi Garrett nicely tries to predict all the particles and their properties in a Lie Group, so there may perhaps be something in that approach.

friend wrote:
... as I recall, quantum field theory proposes that there are various fields imposed on top of spacetime, that these fields are functions of spacetime presupposed to exist in order to accommodate these fields. And so QFT has trouble describing and incorporating spacetime itself into the quantum world.

I suppose that is correct, but it is too linear for me. I think of the universe as being like a particle. It popped out of an exterior vacuum field, if you like. Even in Penrose's CCC the universe has a spacetime metric except for the instant of creation and end points of its cycles. Does the universe still have a spacetime (minus metric) at the CCC nodes? I think so. In my preon model the dimensions are always contained in the preons, and the preons continue to exist at the CCC nodes. Preons are always conserved and there is no such thing as annihilation to 'nothing'. So the dimensions are never lost. In the CCC model the universe starts out wholly comprised of bosons. These convert to fermions due to universe expansion and eventually the fermions dwindle (back to bosons). The bosons like to share the same state in Bose Einstein Condensates and so the nodes of the CCC are points of lowest entropy. And just as the universe has a time direction, I see no reason why electrons should not contain internal time directions, and also have their own internal CCC structures.

[friend]

I only need to see the appropriate preons in all particles without the need to see electrons et al inside other particles.

If there are preons inside electrons, and preons inside Weak bosons, and preons inside quarks, then is the same configuration of preons inside electrons a subset of the configuration of preons inside Weak bosons, etc?

Also, IMO there is no need of proofs of how many particles or generations of particles exist. The E8xE8 model of Lisi Garrett nicely tries to predict all the particles and their properties in a Lie Group, so there may perhaps be something in that approach.

But then there is no explanation for why the E8XE8 group other than it just so happens to work.

In my preon model the dimensions are always contained in the preons, and the preons continue to exist at the CCC nodes.

This sounds like a contradiction of terms. How can a particle that travels through (the dimensions of) space contain the dimensions they travel through inside themselves? I thought particles were something that traveled through the dimensions of space. So how can they contain the dimensions they travel through?

Preons are always conserved and there is no such thing as annihilation to 'nothing'.

Let's try not to get too hung up on the word 'nothing'. The problem may be in the way I am talking about the mathematical entities found in my framework. They are derived from logic, but they seem to be describing the physical objects called particles. When I say that they pop out of and return to nothing, the word 'they' and the word 'nothing' should not be taken too literally. They are just allegory devices used for convenience. I'm just saying that certain math structures appear in the formalism. These words make it sound like we are talking about some physical objects that are different from space are suddenly appearing in space without cause. Remember, if particles are indeed point particles, then nothing (different from space) is all of a sudden existing in space without cause. In the reality of my efforts, these are just mathematical structures found in the framework.

[Austin Fearnley]

friend wrote:
How can a particle that travels through (the dimensions of) space contain the dimensions they travel through inside themselves? I thought particles were something that traveled through the dimensions of space. So how can they contain the dimensions they travel through?

In my preon model the fundamental particle properties indicate multiple dimensions: electric charge, spin, weak isospin and red, green and blue colour charges. This ignores gravitation.

In Susskind's online string theory course I picked up the idea that motion at or near speed c compactifies information to quantised 0 or 1 bits, to an outside observer. So red versus antired could indicate a 4D red dimension that we are moving through at near speed c. In my view antired indicates that the red universe, at that point, is moving in the opposite direction to the natural time direction of the red universe. Say at a particular point you hold in your hand a snatch or knot of red + antigreen + blue dimensions. Or say the three bits 1,0,1. Then the particle, at that point, would have the property 101 which is an 'antigreen' particle.

So the particle is a knot of dimensions. It is only briefly at a point when measured. After that is is a distributed field which is easier to see as having the form of dimensions.

Let a hosepipe represent 4D dimensions and the direction of water indicate the time direction. Take a tangled hosepipe. Pick some of it up in one hand and some parts of the hosepipe in your hand will have water travelling in opposite directions. To mimic an interaction, take another knot of hosepipe in your other hand and squeeze the two knots together to as small as possible a point. Rearrange the pipes and separate the knot into two, with different parts now aggregated together.

In this way, I see the fields/particles being made up of dimensions. Spacetime may be an 'emergent' feature and may or may not be less fundamental than colour dimensions. As I said, the metric of spacetime is vulnerable to collapse. But an hypothetical observer inside the hypothetical red dimension might also calculate that the red metric is vulnerable to collapse. So who knows?

friend wrote:
If there are preons inside electrons, and preons inside Weak bosons, and preons inside quarks, then is the same configuration of preons inside electrons a subset of the configuration of preons inside Weak bosons, etc?

Well, I do not need to look for such patterns but they may be there. I have three generations of 'photons'.

Generation 1 = photons BBC'C' and B'B'CC
Generation 2 = Z BBC'C'XX and B'B'CCXX
Generation 3 = gluons BBC'C'XXXXXX and B'B'CCXXXXXX but with further asymmetrical colour sub-divisions of the C and C' preons
I call the BBC'C' blocks pexons (or active ingredients) and the XXXs are pintrons which are neutral ingredients, though the pintrons seem to add mass to some particles [all except the gluon].
(https://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0038v2.pdf)

friend wrote:
Let's try not to get too hung up on the word 'nothing'.

That's OK. But ... I have tried to follow QM as much as possible but there are a few places in QM that I do not like. Spooky entanglement is one place. QM setting up photons as evanescent puffs of nothingness is another. In my model the preons take the role of SUSY which tries to bring together bosons and fermions under one mathematical umbrella. Likewise, preons can be a part of a boson and also a part of a fermion. Another point is that an electron and a positron decay into a photon and an antiphoton, not into two photons. It is true that a photon 'is' its own antiparticle but losing track of the antiphoton is part of the 'energy' problem with QM. In the presence of overwhelming matter, antimatter behaves like matter, and so it appears to have positive energy. But it is still antimatter in its essence. Viewed in the presence of overwhelming antimatter, an antiphoton would not appear to have positive energy. All is relative and dependent on where the observer and the antiphotons are.

P.S. You might like this? I originally made hexarks with ANDs and ORs of 0/1 variables. AND joining spin and weak isospin and 'any colour' with OR joining red, white and blue colour charge. I realised much later that maybe ANDs joining all of these would have been neater. My hexarks are based on L.L. Thurstones poles of the mind (1920s idea). The hexarks are multidimensional poles.

So my origin would be the 0/1s of the individual dimensions. Then combine these into multidimensional entities or hexarks. Then combine the hexarks into preons and then etc.

[friend]

In my preon model the fundamental particle properties indicate multiple dimensions: electric charge, spin, weak isospin and red, green and blue colour charges. This ignores gravitation.

Your Preon model sounds a bit complicated and a little ad hoc. I'd have interest in it if there were evidence to support it. Is the Preon model falsifiable? Does it make any predictions we can possibly observe that would uniquely confirm it? Are you actually talking about anything even remotely provable?

[Austin Fearnley]

Predictions made of the properties of the hypothetical leptoquark and charged higgs:
https://vixra.org/abs/1907.0038
Abstract:
A CERN article of May 2019 hints at a possible use of two non-Standard Model bosons in decays of the bottom quark (b --> c τ ν'). Three paths are explored in the present paper and exact properties of the hypothetical charged higgs and leptoquark are derived using Preon Model #9 which is a minor adaption of Preon Model #6 (Fearnley, May 2015). Finding these structures does not guarantee the existence of these new particles nor their use in the bottom decay paths as the preon model says nothing about energy requirements. The leptoquark found here has electric charge +2/3, spin zero, weak isospin +0.5, and a strong colour charge (red, green or blue). The charged higgs found here has electric charge -1, spin zero, weak isospin -0.5 and no colour charge. The leptoquark has as many preons as the higgs (16 preons in Model #9) whereas the charged higgs has 24 preons: which makes this charged higgs occupy a higher generation category than the higgs.

Best wishes with your project.
Regards