A new theory of scale

[Ben6993]

Ref http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F% ... fQ6OoeFNKg

I am not sure why it is a "radical new theory" but I like the idea of an emergent Mass and Length and probably Time also.
In my preon model (ref far below) the preons are moving at speed c and are massless and, maybe like photons, have no location in our spacetime. So if preons are speculated to be the lowest level fundamental entities, then M, L and T must be emergent properties for my model as M and L do not feature in my list of preon properties.

Baez and Huerta (2010, page 32, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf) state that each elementary particle in the first generation can be represented by a 5-bit code where the values of the five bits depend on the answers to five questions: {assign yes => 1, no => 0, for each question}
is the particle isospin up?
is it isospin down?
is it red?
is it green?
is it blue?

Then 01100 is a red down quark
and 10011 is the antired antidown antiquark
Then using the three colour bits, they assign ..000 as black and ..111 as white and they note that quarks have one colour and antiquarks have two colours.

Based on their five questions, I suggest that a red up quark would be 10100
The three colour bits are 100 which in terms of their black/white scale is nearer to black than white.

This does not fit with my model. In my model there is an extra component (a block of preons) to the quark which has colour 111 for a spin down quark and colour 000 for a spin up quark.

So, a red down = 111 + 100 = 4 parts white and 2 parts black = net 2 parts white and hence -ve electrical charge
antired antidown = 000 + 011 = 2 parts white and 4 parts black = net 2 parts black and hence +ve electrical charge
red up = 000 + 100 = 1 part white and 5 parts black = net 4 parts black and hence +ve electrical charge
antred antiup = 111 + 011 = 5 parts white and 1 parts black = net 4 parts white and hence -ve electrical charge

where white indicates a particle has -ve charge and black indicates +ve charge.

So in my model, the electric charge of a preon is not a property independent of its colour. And hence for a particle to be neutral in electric charge it must be neutral in colour, and that means a greyness with an equal quantity of black and white. Charge in my preon model seems more fundamental than M and L, despite being dependant on colour

charge.


See Preon model 5: the building blocks of elementary particles
http://wp.me/p18gTT-1l

[Joy Christian]

Ref http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F% ... fQ6OoeFNKg

I am not sure why it is a "radical new theory" ...

It is a radical theory in that particles attain masses as a result of scale-symmetry breaking rather than gauge-symmetry breaking. But the idea of a scale-invariant theory is not new. It goes back to Weyl's original scale-invariant theory of 1918 (whose defect was quickly pointed out by Einstein). Weyl's theory eventually gave rise to the modern gauge theories and the idea of symmetry breaking to attain masses. Thus, in a sense, the idea of scale invariance is a backward step by about 96 years!

[Ben6993]

Does it have to be all or nothing in the one theory? I see the emergent space separately from emergent mass.

Mass:

Higgs gives mass to some particles, eg electrons. Massless, speed c gluons seem to provide most of the nucleon mass supposedly without the help of the higgs.

I suspect that the gluon could lose its spin entirely on interacting with a quark and gain a weak isopin plus a colour charge. It would now be a like a higgs particle but with a colour rg'. So not really a higgs, but a new particle: higgs&rg' say. And perhaps be a virtual particle with an off-shelf mass. Preon models give rise to many forms of "elementary" particle, which is only good if the particles are later discovered.

For example:
LH red up quark + gluon -> higgs&rg' + RH green up quark
(-2/3, -1/2, -1/2, r) +(0,1,0) (0,0,-1/2, rg') + (-2/3,1/2,0,g)
where parentheses represent: (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour excess[if present]).

It is probably much more complicated than that, but the new and hypothetical "higgs&rg' " presumably has mass given to it by interacting with the higgs field. That could make the higgs field responsible for all masses.


Emergent Length:

See my wordpress website for a paper: Emergent space using Rasch pairs analysis/ adaptive comparative judgment
http://wp.me/p18gTT-1P

Adaptive comparative judgement is used in examination research to make scales as much like objective physical scales as possible. You need objects (eg scripts) and judges (eg examiners/raters), or pseudo-random simulation of objects and judges. The objects need to be placed on an objective scale just using rated binary decisions such as "Is script A better than script B"? If yes, score 1 for pair AB, else zero.

My paper shows that the more uncertainty the raters have in making their judgments, the closer together are the points on the scale. Raters cannot make an interval scale at all if they have zero uncertainty in making their ratings. Having no uncertainty in rating corresponds to data with a Guttmann pattern which is anathema to making a physical scale.

In my analogy the scripts would be the fermions and the judges would be the photons. It is tempting to think of the spin of the photon being the binary rating but I don't really see how that works. At an FQXi conference (last summer?) with lecture videos kindly put online, Susskind was working on a connection between entanglement [sorry!] and proximity in astronomical terms. Eg entangled black holes [ie BHs connected by wormholes?].