21 posts
• Page **1** of **2** • **1**, 2

Executive Summary

The radius of an electron is calculated to be 10^-42 meters by using the gravitational force between two half-electrons that orbit a common center.

Summary of Part One and Part Two

An electron is modeled in Part One as two uncharged masses and the gravitational force between them is calculated using a spin rate of the inverse Planck Time. By setting the gravitational force equal to the centrifugal force of a rotating pair of half-electron masses, the radius is calculated to be 10^-42 meters. That radius is less than a Planck Length, which is permissible.

In Part Two, these uncharged masses are modeled as two bar magnets that repel. The spinning magnetic object generates an electric field which is perceived at a larger scale to have an electrical charge of -q.

By adjusting the magnetic repulsion force inside the electron, and by adjusting the spin rate to be slower, the radius can be changed. The gravitational attraction is balanced by the magnetic repulsion so that the electron does not collapse. Bar magnets are used as a model for a general repulsive force, but that can be modified.

Background for Part One

Classical physics are used to calculate the radius of an electron. The basis for this calculation is done with the simple equations:

F=Ma

Force equals Mass times acceleration. Units kg*m/(s*s)

F=G(M1*M2/(r*r)

Force of Gravity from Issac Newton

G is 6.673*10^-11 (m*m*m)/(s*s*kg)

M1 is half Mass of an electron = 4.555*10^-31 kg = M2 = M

F=M*r*w*w

w is omega, the angular velocity in radians per second

r is the radius of an electron = unknown

F is centrifugal Force

The Calculation When Charge is Not Considered (Part One)

Set force of gravity equal to the centrifugal force of the spinning pair of half-electron masses.

M*r*w*w = G(M*M/(r*r) = F (Equation 1)

divide by M

r*w*w = G*M/(r*r) = F (Equation 2)

multiply by r*r

r*r*r*w*w = G*M

divide by w*w

r^3 = G*M/(w^2)

therefore the radius is

r = cube root(G*M/(w^2))

G is 6.673*10^-11 (m*m*m)/(s*s*kg)

M is 4.555*10^-31 kg

f = inverse Planck time is 1/(5.4*10^-44 seconds) frequency

Assume w is f radians per second as a starting approximation.

r = cube root((6.673*10^-11 * 4.555*10^-31 )/((1/(5.4*10^-44))^2) meters

simplify

r = cube root((6.673*10^-11 * 4.555*10^-31 )*(5.4*10^-44))^2) meters

coefficients 6.673*4.555*5.4*5.4 = 886

powers of ten -11-31-44-44 = -130

r = cube root(8.86*10^-128) meters

r = 3*10^-42.7 meters

simplify exponent

10^-42.7 = 10^-42 * 10^-0.7

10^-0.7 = 0.2

r = .6* 10^-42 meters

r = 6*10^-43 meters

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Planck Length is 1.6*10^-35 meters

So the calculated electron radius is 27 million times smaller than a Planck Length when the electrical charge is ignored.

Part Two

Electron Radius Calculation using Gravity Plus Electromagnetic Effects

(to be finished later)

The gravity attracts the two masses and here in Part Two, a magnetic repulsion is added to the model. To increase the radius of the electron, the repulsion can be increased or the w angular frequency can be increased. But this dos not seem to result in the radius increasing to a Planck Length.

To be continued... maybe.

Part Three

Relativistic Effects on the Calculated Radius

The two masses are moving quickly. If they approach the speed of light, the masses increase. In Equation 1, the gravity increase with the square of the mass, but the centrifugal force is linear with mass. So increased mass makes the radius larger.

The radius of an electron is calculated to be 10^-42 meters by using the gravitational force between two half-electrons that orbit a common center.

Summary of Part One and Part Two

An electron is modeled in Part One as two uncharged masses and the gravitational force between them is calculated using a spin rate of the inverse Planck Time. By setting the gravitational force equal to the centrifugal force of a rotating pair of half-electron masses, the radius is calculated to be 10^-42 meters. That radius is less than a Planck Length, which is permissible.

In Part Two, these uncharged masses are modeled as two bar magnets that repel. The spinning magnetic object generates an electric field which is perceived at a larger scale to have an electrical charge of -q.

By adjusting the magnetic repulsion force inside the electron, and by adjusting the spin rate to be slower, the radius can be changed. The gravitational attraction is balanced by the magnetic repulsion so that the electron does not collapse. Bar magnets are used as a model for a general repulsive force, but that can be modified.

Background for Part One

Classical physics are used to calculate the radius of an electron. The basis for this calculation is done with the simple equations:

F=Ma

Force equals Mass times acceleration. Units kg*m/(s*s)

F=G(M1*M2/(r*r)

Force of Gravity from Issac Newton

G is 6.673*10^-11 (m*m*m)/(s*s*kg)

M1 is half Mass of an electron = 4.555*10^-31 kg = M2 = M

F=M*r*w*w

w is omega, the angular velocity in radians per second

r is the radius of an electron = unknown

F is centrifugal Force

The Calculation When Charge is Not Considered (Part One)

Set force of gravity equal to the centrifugal force of the spinning pair of half-electron masses.

M*r*w*w = G(M*M/(r*r) = F (Equation 1)

divide by M

r*w*w = G*M/(r*r) = F (Equation 2)

multiply by r*r

r*r*r*w*w = G*M

divide by w*w

r^3 = G*M/(w^2)

therefore the radius is

r = cube root(G*M/(w^2))

G is 6.673*10^-11 (m*m*m)/(s*s*kg)

M is 4.555*10^-31 kg

f = inverse Planck time is 1/(5.4*10^-44 seconds) frequency

Assume w is f radians per second as a starting approximation.

r = cube root((6.673*10^-11 * 4.555*10^-31 )/((1/(5.4*10^-44))^2) meters

simplify

r = cube root((6.673*10^-11 * 4.555*10^-31 )*(5.4*10^-44))^2) meters

coefficients 6.673*4.555*5.4*5.4 = 886

powers of ten -11-31-44-44 = -130

r = cube root(8.86*10^-128) meters

r = 3*10^-42.7 meters

simplify exponent

10^-42.7 = 10^-42 * 10^-0.7

10^-0.7 = 0.2

r = .6* 10^-42 meters

r = 6*10^-43 meters

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Planck Length is 1.6*10^-35 meters

So the calculated electron radius is 27 million times smaller than a Planck Length when the electrical charge is ignored.

Part Two

Electron Radius Calculation using Gravity Plus Electromagnetic Effects

(to be finished later)

The gravity attracts the two masses and here in Part Two, a magnetic repulsion is added to the model. To increase the radius of the electron, the repulsion can be increased or the w angular frequency can be increased. But this dos not seem to result in the radius increasing to a Planck Length.

To be continued... maybe.

Part Three

Relativistic Effects on the Calculated Radius

The two masses are moving quickly. If they approach the speed of light, the masses increase. In Equation 1, the gravity increase with the square of the mass, but the centrifugal force is linear with mass. So increased mass makes the radius larger.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote:The radius of an electron is calculated to be 10^-42 meters by using the gravitational force between two half-electrons that orbit a common center.

Well, that certainly is consistent with the Standard Model of Partice Physics' notion that the electron is point-like. However, I suspect that considering the radius of an electron without it's charge may be point-less. (pun intended) Since I believe an electron gets its mass via its interactions due to its charge. Here is a link to my FQXi essay about it.

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1500

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1188**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm**Location:**California, USA

Hello FrediFzxxx, I read your paper from that contest. I see there were 250 other papers to be judged, but I am too lazy to read all of those. Your paper is nice. I am not well read on many points in your paper, or even conversant, but that does not stop me from fabricating a rube-goldberg mechanism to describe an electron. I have no physics reputation to preserve, so I am glib. I am retired in Maui and will haunt this nice Forum for a few weeks before ebola drives me into the nice ocean.

Concerning my essay about gravity and electron radius, I am developing the idea in three parts:

Part 1: Radius if gravity balances centrifugal force for two masses

Part 2: Adding electrical charge into part one using magnets

Part 3: Including relativistic effects for the orbiting magnets

Fred wrote, " I suspect that considering the radius of an electron without it's charge may be point-less."

No. It is useful to start out with a simple model and then refine it. People can then question me on what makes my gravity claims perfect and obviously irrefutable. You can ask where magnets come from that spin so fast. Then after I make a fiction about that, other folks can doubt each level, each force, each particle, and each dimension of time and force. An infinite number of shells of explanations can be constructed. I look forward to finishing that in October.

Part One

Gravity is used in Part One, like a little solar system in a fractally self-similar style. I will explain Gravity next week.

Part Two

The electrical charge of an electron (q-) is explained by the action of the rotating magnets. The origin of the magnets will be described later. Assume that magnetism and electricity are joined as electromagnetism. Or doubt that. The charge is measurable but the magnets are hidden in a radius of 10^-42 meters plus or minus some error bars.

The north poles of the two magnets face each other to repel and that balances the gravity attraction. The gravity has a square law and the magnetic force varies faster than the square of distance, so it is a stable radius.

The magnets are orbiting quickly. It takes a Planck Time for each radian of revolution. A spiral wave of a south magnetic field is radiating out from the electron at the speed of light. This magnetic field becomes chaotic as it speeds away from the electron as it encounters the rest of the universe. Close encounters in a solid material immediately convert magnetism to charge through induction. In a vast vacuum, that happens after a delay. For example, an electrometer is encountered by the magnetic spiral waves and electricity is measured because the magnetism induces electrical fields.

That electromagnetism from an electron is untiring and eternal. Even though the magnets are causing work to be done, they do not slow down. The electron moves its position and the work done is reflected in a change of total kinetic energy of the electron, but the work does not slow down the magnetic spin rate.

The electron is seen externally as two south poles that rotate so fast that it can only be measured as an electrical charge. The north poles are not measurable from outside the radius. If the magnets were stopped , flux line would loop as usuall from the south to north poles, but with the rapid spinning, that loop of magnetic flux is mixed and diverted to produce the electrical charge aspect. At a close distance, the electron appears as a magnetic monopole vibration, but far away it seems like a charge. In my dreams.

Concerning my essay about gravity and electron radius, I am developing the idea in three parts:

Part 1: Radius if gravity balances centrifugal force for two masses

Part 2: Adding electrical charge into part one using magnets

Part 3: Including relativistic effects for the orbiting magnets

Fred wrote, " I suspect that considering the radius of an electron without it's charge may be point-less."

No. It is useful to start out with a simple model and then refine it. People can then question me on what makes my gravity claims perfect and obviously irrefutable. You can ask where magnets come from that spin so fast. Then after I make a fiction about that, other folks can doubt each level, each force, each particle, and each dimension of time and force. An infinite number of shells of explanations can be constructed. I look forward to finishing that in October.

Part One

Gravity is used in Part One, like a little solar system in a fractally self-similar style. I will explain Gravity next week.

Part Two

The electrical charge of an electron (q-) is explained by the action of the rotating magnets. The origin of the magnets will be described later. Assume that magnetism and electricity are joined as electromagnetism. Or doubt that. The charge is measurable but the magnets are hidden in a radius of 10^-42 meters plus or minus some error bars.

The north poles of the two magnets face each other to repel and that balances the gravity attraction. The gravity has a square law and the magnetic force varies faster than the square of distance, so it is a stable radius.

The magnets are orbiting quickly. It takes a Planck Time for each radian of revolution. A spiral wave of a south magnetic field is radiating out from the electron at the speed of light. This magnetic field becomes chaotic as it speeds away from the electron as it encounters the rest of the universe. Close encounters in a solid material immediately convert magnetism to charge through induction. In a vast vacuum, that happens after a delay. For example, an electrometer is encountered by the magnetic spiral waves and electricity is measured because the magnetism induces electrical fields.

That electromagnetism from an electron is untiring and eternal. Even though the magnets are causing work to be done, they do not slow down. The electron moves its position and the work done is reflected in a change of total kinetic energy of the electron, but the work does not slow down the magnetic spin rate.

The electron is seen externally as two south poles that rotate so fast that it can only be measured as an electrical charge. The north poles are not measurable from outside the radius. If the magnets were stopped , flux line would loop as usuall from the south to north poles, but with the rapid spinning, that loop of magnetic flux is mixed and diverted to produce the electrical charge aspect. At a close distance, the electron appears as a magnetic monopole vibration, but far away it seems like a charge. In my dreams.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote:...In Part Two, these uncharged masses are modeled as two bar magnets that repel. The spinning magnetic object generates an electric field which is perceived at a larger scale to have an electrical charge of -q...

Setting aside a host of other severe issues like e.g. ignoring or just eliminating Heisenberg uncertainty principle (how to even apply at hugely sub-Planck length scales!), one may ask what kind of fundamental modification to classical ME's (Maxwell's equations) is implied here. Whether one models a bar magnet on the Gilbert model (comprised of 'genuine' magnetic monopoles), or Ampere model (comprised of current loops - which would be a recursive paradox here given the currents would themselves consist of circulating charges!), arbitrary motion of such bar magnet(s) cannot, according to the standard ME's, give rise to a net charge under any circumstances. Maxwell-Gauss law in particular demands that any net flux of electrical field lines through a bounding closed surface requires an interior source of net actual electrical charge. Given your electrical engineering background, seems this is a daring attempt to knowingly propose new EM - among other radical things.

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Hello Q-Reeus, Yes, the criticisms are appropriate. I will now respond to each of your points and describe the motivation for the model.

"ignoring or just eliminating Heisenberg uncertainty principle (how to even apply at hugely sub-Planck length scales!"

Right. This is a model, not an electron. Models are simpler than real things. It is not practical to describe a fully featured electron model on this chat room in the first pass. You are right to mention Heisenberg and to doubt this exploratory calculation. But Gravity is often ignored for electrons and it deserves some calculations to demonstrate the scale of gravity as compared to this scale at which coulombic repulsion cannot be balanced by gravity.

As a starting point for this calculation of radius, I have chose Gravity to be considered as a force to influence the radius. This is a radical whim, not founded on experiments. The memories from my 1989 electrical engineering education for a Master of Science Degree have informed me that the radius of an electron is smaller than 10^-15 meters. There is no known limit to how small an electron might be. It might be a point or 10^-999 meters , but people do not know.

An electron might be an elementary particle with a charge of -q and that is all. End of story. No recursion, no quark, just an electron. Maybe it is eternal, untiring, and it is a point. Maybe all experiments in the next 7000 years will be consistent with that.

But just in case an electron has sub-structure and a radius, Gravity should not be ignored, so it was put in a simple calculation.

"seems this is a daring attempt to knowingly propose new EM - among other radical things".

You are being polite. This is a crude proposal as a raw speculation about hidden basics. EM electromagnetism theory is changing over the decades. Before quarks were said to have charges of -1/3 q or +2/3 q, universities taught about protons with +q and electrons with -q and integers were required. What next? Will electrons be seen as 3 down quarks? That seems possible. But coulombic repulsion would force the quarks away, so something holds it together, similar to a nuclear force or a magnet.

In my essay, I wrote, "Bar magnets are used as a model for a general repulsive force, but that can be modified". My model addresses that replacement of magnets with anything else I choose on my whim. Progress can be strenuous, painful, or embarrassing. New things might be needed for the model. New surface integrals for surfaces smaller than a Planck Length. New chaos ideas may be shoved at you in which any fictional attributes may be included in trial calculations.

Gravity is weak. Magnets are weak. Electron repulsion is strong. Any sub-structure must create a net charge when measured from a long distance. Therefore, in order for gravity to hold the pieces in orbit, charge cannot be present at the core of an electron. In this model, the electron has no charge at the scale of the orbit.

Electric generators use big magnets that move relative to a big conductor. Or the magnets can be motionless and the changing magnetic flux density can induce electricity to flow at large scales. The conductors can be copper or a plasma. Electrical arcs can jump through a vacuum for a meter. At the small scale inside an electron, those features can be preserved or obsoleted by radical proposals, as follows.

" what kind of fundamental modification to classical ME's (Maxwell's equations) is implied here"?

At a scale of size 27 million times smaller than a Planck Length, Maxwell’s Equations are replaced by my Omnilobe Equations. In this proposal, chaos and crossing flux lines spring into action. Space is subject to change. Gravity happens because space is changing. Inside the electron, no recursion is needed to get a magnet to exist. Charge is not needed to make weak magnets, the weak magnets are the elementary particles that create charge. Those proposed Omnilobe Magnetons are like quarks in the sense that they are a sub-structure. These Omnilobe Magnetons are gravitationally attracted to each other and magnetically repelled as two north poles face center and two south poles face outwards. The small scale allows for radical surface topologies to defy classical notions of inside, and the result is that the magnets create a rapidly changing chaotic field that creates charge.

"motion of such bar magnet(s) cannot, according to the standard ME's, give rise to a net charge"

"flux of electrical field lines through a bounding closed surface requires an interior source of net actual electrical charge."

The following fabrication might be true:

The Maxwell Equations (ME) are not valid at this scale. This link shows the differential form of ME:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... tions.html

Equation 1 shows that charge density is needed for a divergence of an electric field.

In the integral form, this link shows equation 1.14

http://www.uic.edu/classes/eecs/eecs520 ... node3.html

The surface integral in 1.14 assumes that charge is basic. What if it is not basic at a small scale? What if an electron is not a single particle at small scales and it has two parts? How can we imagine a story that explains charge without charge? We fabricate a proposal. It is proposed that the “surface” integral is not appropriate at the small scale, but strange rules emerge to match the thought experiment. Charming rules. Colorful virtual conductors appear out of tiny reservoirs of anti-conductors. A non-intuitive collision of Omnilobe Magneton pseudo-flux lines makes charge. I wish this is true so gravity is balanced by weak magnets or something to hold an electron together forever with no increase in the orbital period.

Conclusion

I invoke creativity as a justification for breaking the law. Progress is disturbing the peace. Since it is permissible to fabricate theories about things smaller than a Planck Length, I take the liberty of breaking some rules, too.

I want to propose more details about the spiraling magnetic south pole fields that radiate from the orbit to create a macroscopic charge. This strange phenomenon is imagined to excuse any illogical use of classical mechanics to invade the brittle quantum spaces near a point.

"ignoring or just eliminating Heisenberg uncertainty principle (how to even apply at hugely sub-Planck length scales!"

Right. This is a model, not an electron. Models are simpler than real things. It is not practical to describe a fully featured electron model on this chat room in the first pass. You are right to mention Heisenberg and to doubt this exploratory calculation. But Gravity is often ignored for electrons and it deserves some calculations to demonstrate the scale of gravity as compared to this scale at which coulombic repulsion cannot be balanced by gravity.

As a starting point for this calculation of radius, I have chose Gravity to be considered as a force to influence the radius. This is a radical whim, not founded on experiments. The memories from my 1989 electrical engineering education for a Master of Science Degree have informed me that the radius of an electron is smaller than 10^-15 meters. There is no known limit to how small an electron might be. It might be a point or 10^-999 meters , but people do not know.

An electron might be an elementary particle with a charge of -q and that is all. End of story. No recursion, no quark, just an electron. Maybe it is eternal, untiring, and it is a point. Maybe all experiments in the next 7000 years will be consistent with that.

But just in case an electron has sub-structure and a radius, Gravity should not be ignored, so it was put in a simple calculation.

"seems this is a daring attempt to knowingly propose new EM - among other radical things".

You are being polite. This is a crude proposal as a raw speculation about hidden basics. EM electromagnetism theory is changing over the decades. Before quarks were said to have charges of -1/3 q or +2/3 q, universities taught about protons with +q and electrons with -q and integers were required. What next? Will electrons be seen as 3 down quarks? That seems possible. But coulombic repulsion would force the quarks away, so something holds it together, similar to a nuclear force or a magnet.

In my essay, I wrote, "Bar magnets are used as a model for a general repulsive force, but that can be modified". My model addresses that replacement of magnets with anything else I choose on my whim. Progress can be strenuous, painful, or embarrassing. New things might be needed for the model. New surface integrals for surfaces smaller than a Planck Length. New chaos ideas may be shoved at you in which any fictional attributes may be included in trial calculations.

Gravity is weak. Magnets are weak. Electron repulsion is strong. Any sub-structure must create a net charge when measured from a long distance. Therefore, in order for gravity to hold the pieces in orbit, charge cannot be present at the core of an electron. In this model, the electron has no charge at the scale of the orbit.

Electric generators use big magnets that move relative to a big conductor. Or the magnets can be motionless and the changing magnetic flux density can induce electricity to flow at large scales. The conductors can be copper or a plasma. Electrical arcs can jump through a vacuum for a meter. At the small scale inside an electron, those features can be preserved or obsoleted by radical proposals, as follows.

" what kind of fundamental modification to classical ME's (Maxwell's equations) is implied here"?

At a scale of size 27 million times smaller than a Planck Length, Maxwell’s Equations are replaced by my Omnilobe Equations. In this proposal, chaos and crossing flux lines spring into action. Space is subject to change. Gravity happens because space is changing. Inside the electron, no recursion is needed to get a magnet to exist. Charge is not needed to make weak magnets, the weak magnets are the elementary particles that create charge. Those proposed Omnilobe Magnetons are like quarks in the sense that they are a sub-structure. These Omnilobe Magnetons are gravitationally attracted to each other and magnetically repelled as two north poles face center and two south poles face outwards. The small scale allows for radical surface topologies to defy classical notions of inside, and the result is that the magnets create a rapidly changing chaotic field that creates charge.

"motion of such bar magnet(s) cannot, according to the standard ME's, give rise to a net charge"

"flux of electrical field lines through a bounding closed surface requires an interior source of net actual electrical charge."

The following fabrication might be true:

The Maxwell Equations (ME) are not valid at this scale. This link shows the differential form of ME:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics ... tions.html

Equation 1 shows that charge density is needed for a divergence of an electric field.

In the integral form, this link shows equation 1.14

http://www.uic.edu/classes/eecs/eecs520 ... node3.html

The surface integral in 1.14 assumes that charge is basic. What if it is not basic at a small scale? What if an electron is not a single particle at small scales and it has two parts? How can we imagine a story that explains charge without charge? We fabricate a proposal. It is proposed that the “surface” integral is not appropriate at the small scale, but strange rules emerge to match the thought experiment. Charming rules. Colorful virtual conductors appear out of tiny reservoirs of anti-conductors. A non-intuitive collision of Omnilobe Magneton pseudo-flux lines makes charge. I wish this is true so gravity is balanced by weak magnets or something to hold an electron together forever with no increase in the orbital period.

Conclusion

I invoke creativity as a justification for breaking the law. Progress is disturbing the peace. Since it is permissible to fabricate theories about things smaller than a Planck Length, I take the liberty of breaking some rules, too.

I want to propose more details about the spiraling magnetic south pole fields that radiate from the orbit to create a macroscopic charge. This strange phenomenon is imagined to excuse any illogical use of classical mechanics to invade the brittle quantum spaces near a point.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote:Hello Q-Reeus, Yes, the criticisms are appropriate. I will now respond to each of your points and describe the motivation for the model.

Hi Muon200; having struck many unpleasant types who feel the need to project always a personal image of infallibility, it's refreshing to engage someone like yourself - big enough to publicly change position as you did in another thread, and to good-naturedly acknowledge criticisms as done here. Full marks from me on that score!

Right. This is a model, not an electron. Models are simpler than real things. It is not practical to describe a fully featured electron model on this chat room in the first pass. You are right to mention Heisenberg and to doubt this exploratory calculation. But Gravity is often ignored for electrons and it deserves some calculations to demonstrate the scale of gravity as compared to this scale at which columbic repulsion cannot be balanced by gravity.

Think I understand the basic thought here re gravity - at extremely small separations, classical orbital mechanics predicts enormous KE's which translates into huge relativistic masses (or rather energies in currently approved terminology) which in turn allows gravity to be comparable to EM interactions in such instance. Magnetic charge invariance vs mass/energy non-invariance. Without working out the specifics as to stability of such a scenario (e.g. what would act to prevent magnets from reorienting to be mutually attractive? Presumably bar magnet aspect ratios are one factor), it has per se a certain appeal.

As a starting point for this calculation of radius, I have chose Gravity to be considered as a force to influence the radius. This is a radical whim, not founded on experiments. The memories from my 1989 electrical engineering education for a Master of Science Degree have informed me that the radius of an electron is smaller than 10^-15 meters. There is no known limit to how small an electron might be. It might be a point or 10^-999 meters , but people do not know.

An electron might be an elementary particle with a charge of -q and that is all. End of story. No recursion, no quark, just an electron. Maybe it is eternal, untiring, and it is a point. Maybe all experiments in the next 7000 years will be consistent with that.

Yes it might just be an irreducible brute fact but there are hints of at least peeling back the onion by one more layer a bit sooner than 7000 years. Some other forum members seriously into particle physics have ideas on that.

You are being polite. This is a crude proposal as a raw speculation about hidden basics. EM electromagnetism theory is changing over the decades. Before quarks were said to have charges of -1/3 q or +2/3 q, universities taught about protons with +q and electrons with -q and integers were required. What next? Will electrons be seen as 3 down quarks? That seems possible. But columbic repulsion would force the quarks away, so something holds it together, similar to a nuclear force or a magnet.

Gluons I suppose. I doubt electron could be so constructed - but will leave any further possible comment on that to the particle people.

In my essay, I wrote, "Bar magnets are used as a model for a general repulsive force, but that can be modified". My model addresses that replacement of magnets with anything else I choose on my whim. Progress can be strenuous, painful, or embarrassing.

I can personally attest to that!

At a scale of size 27 million times smaller than a Planck Length, Maxwell’s Equations are replaced by my Omnilobe Equations. In this proposal, chaos and crossing flux lines spring into action. Space is subject to change. Gravity happens because space is changing. Inside the electron, no recursion is needed to get a magnet to exist. Charge is not needed to make weak magnets, the weak magnets are the elementary particles that create charge. Those proposed Omnilobe Magnetons are like quarks in the sense that they are a sub-structure. These Omnilobe Magnetons are gravitationally attracted to each other and magnetically repelled as two north poles face center and two south poles face outwards. The small scale allows for radical surface topologies to defy classical notions of inside, and the result is that the magnets create a rapidly changing chaotic field that creates charge.

So, I can try and translate that to: otherwise closed lines of E, which moving magnets can generate ok as per classical ME's, can via some subtle new interactions 'open out' a bit like flower petals. If that's about right, it's an idea needing, ummm... considerable development. One obvious issue is how to account for classically humungous emissions of radiation from orbiting magnets. There are SED (stochastic electrodynamics) folks who seem to be able to pull it off for say hydrogen atom model - but not afaik at sub-Planckian distance scales.

The following fabrication might be true:

The Maxwell Equations (ME) are not valid at this scale...

The surface integral in 1.14 assumes that charge is basic. What if it is not basic at a small scale? What if an electron is not a single particle at small scales and it has two parts? How can we imagine a story that explains charge without charge? We fabricate a proposal. It is proposed that the “surface” integral is not appropriate at the small scale, but strange rules emerge to match the thought experiment. Charming rules. Colorful virtual conductors appear out of tiny reservoirs of anti-conductors. A non-intuitive collision of Omnilobe Magneton pseudo-flux lines makes charge. I wish this is true so gravity is balanced by weak magnets or something to hold an electron together forever with no increase in the orbital period.

Conclusion

I invoke creativity as a justification for breaking the law. Progress is disturbing the peace. Since it is permissible to fabricate theories about things smaller than a Planck Length, I take the liberty of breaking some rules, too.

I want to propose more details about the spiraling magnetic south pole fields that radiate from the orbit to create a macroscopic charge. This strange phenomenon is imagined to excuse any illogical use of classical mechanics to invade the brittle quantum spaces near a point.

Just remember the make-or-break with any such radical new proposals is accord with two basic tests: full internal consistency, and correspondence with the known external world. Good luck in trying. I fear though your ultimate barrier to success will be dealing with quantum considerations. Again, will defer to the particle people who have a far better grasp of this general subject than myself.

As a postscript, I should confess to some radical ideas of my own re EM. When writing earlier about Maxwell-Gauss law as constraint, there was something left out. Back around the mid-to-late 1980's, as someone untrained in classical EM, became fascinated with a certain textbook development of the fully relativistic FE's (field equations) - as developed from Lienard-Wiechert potentials. i had complete confidence in accuracy of the latter owing to e.g. known Synchrotron radiation spectrum attesting to their extreme accuracy to ultra-relativistic energies. On a hunch and somewhat naively, decided to apply the FE's to certain steady-state scenarios. Initially I missed one particular subtlety and got answers that were just 'too good to be true'. It was a matter of some personal pride back then that I figured out for myself the correct procedure, and lo and behold - there were still present what will term 'residual fields' that did not accord with two of the Maxwell equations - Maxwell-Gauss and Maxwell-Ampere. Did the exercise enough times in enough situations to be confident it was there for sure. [will add here that the nature of such departures from those two ME's does not support your own position. The symmetric nature of discovered 'residual fields' precludes any net charge appearing from any sort of dynamics. The spatio-temporal average comes back to fully respect all the usual ME's.]

Most physicists will laugh and point out that Lienard-Wiechert potentials are fully consistent with ME's. Well they aren't! I have never pondered closely just how the disparity arises at a deep mathematical level, but heuristically could see back then that 'apparent-present-position' - applied to a complete circuit, is involved. There were some obvious implications and being of a practical bent, only real interest then was in any technological application. But after looking over a large number of possible arrangements, it seemed the viability was at best iffy, so basically just buried the ideas with no thought to publicly disclose. So there you have it - another one of my 'heresies'. If time and opportunity permits, may publish to viXra and post a notice this forum.

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

I am retracting part of what I wrote, but keeping some, too. There was too much magic needed to get the magnetic flux to transform into a charge. I was wrong. Charge is in the foundation of physics.

The magic that I invoked is composed of the following ideas:

Maxwell's Eq. are only valid when no discontinuities are present for the integrals and derivatives.

Space has discontinuities at a small scale.

The spinning magnets make a flux line that spirals away.

Chaos was invoked to serve my wishes.

Electromagnetism is a two-sided force, so magnetic stuff affects electric stuff.

The magnets are elementary particles with amazing properties.

All this is retracted.

Not retracted: the radius was calculated from gravity.

The magic that I invoked is composed of the following ideas:

Maxwell's Eq. are only valid when no discontinuities are present for the integrals and derivatives.

Space has discontinuities at a small scale.

The spinning magnets make a flux line that spirals away.

Chaos was invoked to serve my wishes.

Electromagnetism is a two-sided force, so magnetic stuff affects electric stuff.

The magnets are elementary particles with amazing properties.

All this is retracted.

Not retracted: the radius was calculated from gravity.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote:I am retracting part of what I wrote, but keeping some, too. There was too much magic needed to get the magnetic flux to transform into a charge. I was wrong. Charge is in the foundation of physics.

The magic that I invoked is composed of the following ideas:

Maxwell's Eq. are only valid when no discontinuities are present for the integrals and derivatives.

Space has discontinuities at a small scale.

The spinning magnets make a flux line that spirals away.

Chaos was invoked to serve my wishes.

Electromagnetism is a two-sided force, so magnetic stuff affects electric stuff.

The magnets are elementary particles with amazing properties.

All this is retracted.

Not retracted: the radius was calculated from gravity.

Clearly a work in progress! Again - good that you are prepared to change and not stubbornly cling to a dogmatic position.

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

muon200 wrote on Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:53 am:

I agree with Fred's comments about the electron getting its mass through interactions.

I have a preon model in which the structure of all elementary particles are modeled. Three quarks cannot make an electron in my model as three quarks would have three times as many preons as an electron. Further, three down quarks do not have the correct properties in my model to make an electron, even ignoring numbers of preons. I should say here (before Fred does!) that what I write is very speculative. But your point was interesting so I tried to "build" a muon out of three quarks and it is possible. NOTE that I only mean that a count of the preons and their types will match, I do not mean that there is a process to make the muon from the quarks:

A (chirally Left Handed) muon can be made from a

LH antiup antired quark plus a

RH antidown antigreen quark plus a

LH antiup antiblue quark

In my model the muon has three times the number of preons as does the electron, so that is OK for a preon number count.

This looks like the wiki description of an antiproton, except the antiproton has gluons holding it together. In my model, the preons for the muon are held together more tightly than by gluons, making the muon a point-sized elementary particle like the electron.

My Wordpress blog paper:

Preon model 5: the building blocks of elementary particles

http://wp.me/p18gTT-1l

What next? Will electrons be seen as 3 down quarks? That seems possible. But coulombic repulsion would force the quarks away, so something holds it together, similar to a nuclear force or a magnet.

I agree with Fred's comments about the electron getting its mass through interactions.

I have a preon model in which the structure of all elementary particles are modeled. Three quarks cannot make an electron in my model as three quarks would have three times as many preons as an electron. Further, three down quarks do not have the correct properties in my model to make an electron, even ignoring numbers of preons. I should say here (before Fred does!) that what I write is very speculative. But your point was interesting so I tried to "build" a muon out of three quarks and it is possible. NOTE that I only mean that a count of the preons and their types will match, I do not mean that there is a process to make the muon from the quarks:

A (chirally Left Handed) muon can be made from a

LH antiup antired quark plus a

RH antidown antigreen quark plus a

LH antiup antiblue quark

In my model the muon has three times the number of preons as does the electron, so that is OK for a preon number count.

This looks like the wiki description of an antiproton, except the antiproton has gluons holding it together. In my model, the preons for the muon are held together more tightly than by gluons, making the muon a point-sized elementary particle like the electron.

My Wordpress blog paper:

Preon model 5: the building blocks of elementary particles

http://wp.me/p18gTT-1l

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

Some further points:

three down quarks do not sum to the properties of an electron because of spin and weak isospin.

LH electron = (-1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral) = (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour)

The LH muon has the same properties.

LH down red quark = (-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red)

Three LH down quarks of different colours add properties to (-1, -1.5, -1.5, neutral), so the electric charge and colour matches the electron but not the spin nor weak isospin. It is easy to "build" an elementary particle with the properties of three down quarks, but that structure is not seen experimentally. That is seen as a problem with preon models, and with supersymmetry, but one won't see such particles if there has been no process to make them. Also, finding the higgs depended on observing its decay products. A lighter higgs, with as many preons as an electron cannot decay further. And a light higgs can be built with my preon model. So it would be hard to know how to observe the lighter higgs, and not from any decay products. ( I should add my usual proviso that all of this post is speculative.)

The aggregate of the following three quarks match the LH muon in all of the properties: (-1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral)

1. LH antiup antired quark (-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired)

2. RH antidown antigreen quark ( 0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antigreen)

3. LH antiup antiblue (-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antiblue)

AGGREGATE = ( -1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral)

The connection that I have suggested, in the previous post, between the antimuon and the proton is interesting because of the current issue of proton spin. The antimuon has the same preon content as the proton but does not need gluons to hold it together. If a LH muon interacts with the higgs it becomes, in an instant, a RH muon with properties: (-1, 0.5, 0, neutral). The quarks in the proton are continually interacting with gluons but as the proton is not an elementary particle the three quarks should not need to switch handedness in unison at an instant, unlike the antimuon, though their handednesses must be coordinated because of conservation requirements. The quarks in the proton should be expected to change handedness (and therefore change spin) at interactions with gluons but a gluon has properties (0,-1,0,neutral) or (0,1,0,neutral). To change handedness requires gaining or losing weak isospin, which in my understanding is an orthogonal property to spin. So how can the gluon, which has no net weak isopin, cause a quark to gain or lose weak isospin? See below ...

I started working on my preon model over three years ago after reading Joy Christian's papers refuting Bell's paper wrt entanglement. I had seen the entanglement descriptions of the eight gluons and seen the entanglement spookiness in Bell's ideas. How can one build a lego-like preon model in an environment of magic? But reading Joy's paper gave me encouragement because they removed the spookiness. Despite that, in my preon model, the entanglement of gluons is still there but it is not a spooky entanglement, it is entanglement born of complexity. Not only the gluon, but the higgs is of a similar level of complexity to the gluon: the higgs and gluon are made from the same number of preons as each other and so are of the same generation. That is why the higgs has so many decay modes. And that is why the lighter higgs, of the same generation as the electron, and my candidate for dark matter with mass 65.7 GeV/cc, cannot be seen via decay paths. It has no decay paths.

The entangled descriptions of the gluons all involve colour combinations yet the gluon is net colour neutral. But when the gluon is bisected, its two parts can each have colours. And because a gluon is a higher generation, and therefore with many preons, it can be bisected. Some gluons can be split into four parts [NB not exactly like this though] each with colour so it can take part in multiple interactions requiring colour. A gluon has no net weak isospin but every preon is either + or - wrt weak isospin. So the gluon can be split into coloured parts which may or may not have net weak isospin. So the gluon can yield a RH quark. This kind of entanglement is not spooky.

three down quarks do not sum to the properties of an electron because of spin and weak isospin.

LH electron = (-1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral) = (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour)

The LH muon has the same properties.

LH down red quark = (-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red)

Three LH down quarks of different colours add properties to (-1, -1.5, -1.5, neutral), so the electric charge and colour matches the electron but not the spin nor weak isospin. It is easy to "build" an elementary particle with the properties of three down quarks, but that structure is not seen experimentally. That is seen as a problem with preon models, and with supersymmetry, but one won't see such particles if there has been no process to make them. Also, finding the higgs depended on observing its decay products. A lighter higgs, with as many preons as an electron cannot decay further. And a light higgs can be built with my preon model. So it would be hard to know how to observe the lighter higgs, and not from any decay products. ( I should add my usual proviso that all of this post is speculative.)

The aggregate of the following three quarks match the LH muon in all of the properties: (-1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral)

1. LH antiup antired quark (-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired)

2. RH antidown antigreen quark ( 0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antigreen)

3. LH antiup antiblue (-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antiblue)

AGGREGATE = ( -1, -0.5, -0.5, neutral)

The connection that I have suggested, in the previous post, between the antimuon and the proton is interesting because of the current issue of proton spin. The antimuon has the same preon content as the proton but does not need gluons to hold it together. If a LH muon interacts with the higgs it becomes, in an instant, a RH muon with properties: (-1, 0.5, 0, neutral). The quarks in the proton are continually interacting with gluons but as the proton is not an elementary particle the three quarks should not need to switch handedness in unison at an instant, unlike the antimuon, though their handednesses must be coordinated because of conservation requirements. The quarks in the proton should be expected to change handedness (and therefore change spin) at interactions with gluons but a gluon has properties (0,-1,0,neutral) or (0,1,0,neutral). To change handedness requires gaining or losing weak isospin, which in my understanding is an orthogonal property to spin. So how can the gluon, which has no net weak isopin, cause a quark to gain or lose weak isospin? See below ...

I started working on my preon model over three years ago after reading Joy Christian's papers refuting Bell's paper wrt entanglement. I had seen the entanglement descriptions of the eight gluons and seen the entanglement spookiness in Bell's ideas. How can one build a lego-like preon model in an environment of magic? But reading Joy's paper gave me encouragement because they removed the spookiness. Despite that, in my preon model, the entanglement of gluons is still there but it is not a spooky entanglement, it is entanglement born of complexity. Not only the gluon, but the higgs is of a similar level of complexity to the gluon: the higgs and gluon are made from the same number of preons as each other and so are of the same generation. That is why the higgs has so many decay modes. And that is why the lighter higgs, of the same generation as the electron, and my candidate for dark matter with mass 65.7 GeV/cc, cannot be seen via decay paths. It has no decay paths.

The entangled descriptions of the gluons all involve colour combinations yet the gluon is net colour neutral. But when the gluon is bisected, its two parts can each have colours. And because a gluon is a higher generation, and therefore with many preons, it can be bisected. Some gluons can be split into four parts [NB not exactly like this though] each with colour so it can take part in multiple interactions requiring colour. A gluon has no net weak isospin but every preon is either + or - wrt weak isospin. So the gluon can be split into coloured parts which may or may not have net weak isospin. So the gluon can yield a RH quark. This kind of entanglement is not spooky.

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

Dimly recall first reading of then newly proposed rishon model several decades ago in a NewScientist article. One sceptical physicist pointed out then the problem of mass cancellation e.g. rest mass vs KE vs PE fine-tuning required. And decades later, that still seems to be, even more, the number one issue for preon (or variously named variants) models in general. As per this article by Lubos Motl: http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/pr ... exist.html

- see under sub-heading "But there exists a problem with preons that is even more serious: their mass." Given the LHC data indicating no evidence of 'sub quarck/gluon structure' up to TeV range. That issue has been fully factored in to current efforts?

- see under sub-heading "But there exists a problem with preons that is even more serious: their mass." Given the LHC data indicating no evidence of 'sub quarck/gluon structure' up to TeV range. That issue has been fully factored in to current efforts?

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Q-reeus wrote on Mon Sep 22, 2014 2:55 am

First I should say that my (very speculative) preon model is up to model#5 at the moment. Each time I finished a model number, I thought I could not possibly go any further and yet I did extend them. Needless to say, I think Model #5 is complete as far as I can take it. (But I probably just do not know enough physics to see what is wrong.) Model #3 was wrong for bosons and for weak isospin, but the triple colour brane helix model for the electron in version #3 still works approximately for me. Just as the weak force was dealt with last in the standard model, so it was the last piece of the lego structure to be built into my preon model. In some ways I see the weak force as somehow connected with mass but the relationship is not clear-cut. The Z particle is the oddest one out (suspiciously strange to me and I intend to keep working on that) as it has mass but no weak isospin. The LH neutrino (not the sterile one) has weak isospin and may or may not have mass. I think it might not have mass despite flavour oscillations, and despite having weak isospin.

I have treated mass in models 3 - 5 and that hasn't really changed. My preons are massless. They all move at speed c. Their chiral structures, plus rotation in an unspecified higgs-like medium, provides the mechanism for linear motion of preons at speed c. (Rest) Mass is a property of elementary particles not of preons. (Rest) Mass is acquired by interactions of an elementary particle with the higgs field. (Note that I am not saying that a preon interacts with 'The' higgs field.)

For example a LH muon interacts with the higgs field and turns into a RH muon. This interferes with any possibility of a linear speed c of the muon. I presume that to conserve observable spin, the RH muon moves in the opposite direction to the LH muon so both spins would be the same to the same observer. This gives rise to the zbw effect (see Hestene's paper, though I may have mangled the explanation!) where the electron or muon continually changes handedness, with very high frequency. So in a sense, the electron is a hybrid of the LH and RH forms. You might even say that the LH form and RH form are both massless but they never live long enough to demonstrate linear speed c. The photon and gluon both come in LH and RH forms and they too would show zbw and have mass if only they ever interacted with the higgs field. But they don't so interact. So the LH photon stays LH and the RH photon stays RH, and both are massless. So (rest) mass is an elementary particle interaction effect, and preons are not elementary particles.

However there are a few more points about masses of elementary particles.

See my blog paper on Masses of N-higgs type partiles: http://wp.me/p18gTT-8

and Dark matter WIMP mass of 65.7 GeV/c^2

http://wp.me/p18gTT-i

Tommaso Dorigo published on his blog some unexplained resonance masses and noted that he would research them with some students. I have suggested an explanation of those resonances using my preon model. Well it is a stand-alone explanation really. I have not posted my ideas to Tommaso as professionals do not normally like to hear from amateurs; whereas I am very pleased to see his data! Although the preons are massless, there seems to me to be a pattern among the masses of bosons depending on the number of preons in them.

If you double the number of preons in a boson, you do not double the mass [well, I don't]. At this level, mass squared seems more fundamental than mass. (See the koide formula which involve sqrts of masses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula) So I use pythagoras and square the two masses add those squares and take the square root. (This seems to fit in with moments of Inertia in orthogonal dimensions.) So if you have two bosons at mass 90 their aggregate will have mass of sqrt(90*90 + 90*90) = approx 125. Also, it is not quite the sqrt but a little less: 1.388 rather than 1.414. This corresponds to a mass defect as found in fissioning of chemical elements. [I am still waiting in keen anticipation for Jay Yablon to complete his series of papers on explaining the mass defects for all nucleides of all chemical elements.]

As one might expect, the mass defect for elementary particles is huge. That represents a huge amount of energy to bind the the preons together within the elementary particles. So 90+90 = 180 yet the observed mass is only 125, so 180-125 = 55 units of mass used as extra binding energy. Yet the preons themselves are massless.

Dimly recall first reading of then newly proposed rishon model several decades ago in a NewScientist article. One sceptical physicist pointed out then the problem of mass cancellation e.g. rest mass vs KE vs PE fine-tuning required. And decades later, that still seems to be, even more, the number one issue for preon (or variously named variants) models in general. As per this article by Lubos Motl: http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/pr ... exist.html

- see under sub-heading "But there exists a problem with preons that is even more serious: their mass." Given the LHC data indicating no evidence of 'sub quark/gluon structure' up to TeV range. That issue has been fully factored in to current efforts?

First I should say that my (very speculative) preon model is up to model#5 at the moment. Each time I finished a model number, I thought I could not possibly go any further and yet I did extend them. Needless to say, I think Model #5 is complete as far as I can take it. (But I probably just do not know enough physics to see what is wrong.) Model #3 was wrong for bosons and for weak isospin, but the triple colour brane helix model for the electron in version #3 still works approximately for me. Just as the weak force was dealt with last in the standard model, so it was the last piece of the lego structure to be built into my preon model. In some ways I see the weak force as somehow connected with mass but the relationship is not clear-cut. The Z particle is the oddest one out (suspiciously strange to me and I intend to keep working on that) as it has mass but no weak isospin. The LH neutrino (not the sterile one) has weak isospin and may or may not have mass. I think it might not have mass despite flavour oscillations, and despite having weak isospin.

I have treated mass in models 3 - 5 and that hasn't really changed. My preons are massless. They all move at speed c. Their chiral structures, plus rotation in an unspecified higgs-like medium, provides the mechanism for linear motion of preons at speed c. (Rest) Mass is a property of elementary particles not of preons. (Rest) Mass is acquired by interactions of an elementary particle with the higgs field. (Note that I am not saying that a preon interacts with 'The' higgs field.)

For example a LH muon interacts with the higgs field and turns into a RH muon. This interferes with any possibility of a linear speed c of the muon. I presume that to conserve observable spin, the RH muon moves in the opposite direction to the LH muon so both spins would be the same to the same observer. This gives rise to the zbw effect (see Hestene's paper, though I may have mangled the explanation!) where the electron or muon continually changes handedness, with very high frequency. So in a sense, the electron is a hybrid of the LH and RH forms. You might even say that the LH form and RH form are both massless but they never live long enough to demonstrate linear speed c. The photon and gluon both come in LH and RH forms and they too would show zbw and have mass if only they ever interacted with the higgs field. But they don't so interact. So the LH photon stays LH and the RH photon stays RH, and both are massless. So (rest) mass is an elementary particle interaction effect, and preons are not elementary particles.

However there are a few more points about masses of elementary particles.

See my blog paper on Masses of N-higgs type partiles: http://wp.me/p18gTT-8

and Dark matter WIMP mass of 65.7 GeV/c^2

http://wp.me/p18gTT-i

Tommaso Dorigo published on his blog some unexplained resonance masses and noted that he would research them with some students. I have suggested an explanation of those resonances using my preon model. Well it is a stand-alone explanation really. I have not posted my ideas to Tommaso as professionals do not normally like to hear from amateurs; whereas I am very pleased to see his data! Although the preons are massless, there seems to me to be a pattern among the masses of bosons depending on the number of preons in them.

If you double the number of preons in a boson, you do not double the mass [well, I don't]. At this level, mass squared seems more fundamental than mass. (See the koide formula which involve sqrts of masses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula) So I use pythagoras and square the two masses add those squares and take the square root. (This seems to fit in with moments of Inertia in orthogonal dimensions.) So if you have two bosons at mass 90 their aggregate will have mass of sqrt(90*90 + 90*90) = approx 125. Also, it is not quite the sqrt but a little less: 1.388 rather than 1.414. This corresponds to a mass defect as found in fissioning of chemical elements. [I am still waiting in keen anticipation for Jay Yablon to complete his series of papers on explaining the mass defects for all nucleides of all chemical elements.]

As one might expect, the mass defect for elementary particles is huge. That represents a huge amount of energy to bind the the preons together within the elementary particles. So 90+90 = 180 yet the observed mass is only 125, so 180-125 = 55 units of mass used as extra binding energy. Yet the preons themselves are massless.

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

Ben6993 wrote:...My preons are massless. They all move at speed c. Their chiral structures, plus rotation in an unspecified higgs-like medium, provides the mechanism for linear motion of preons at speed c. (Rest) Mass is a property of elementary particles not of preons. (Rest) Mass is acquired by interactions of an elementary particle with the higgs field. (Note that I am not saying that a preon interacts with 'The' higgs field.)...

...(rest) mass is an elementary particle interaction effect, and preons are not elementary particles....

Which makes them? Sub-particles, or....?

Looking briefly at http://ben6993.wordpress.com/2014/01/20 ... particles/

notice that, additional to above, every preon is electrically charged and color charged - yet massless! I am not a particle physicist's bootlace but recognize that represents truly radical physics.

Well Ben6993, Lubos obviously never took into consideration your kind of preon model. Maybe you should correspond, if not already done.

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Q-reeus wrote on Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:12 pm

Hi, that was very nicely/kindly put and I take no offence at the 'truly radical physics' though I realise it means "this is physics, Jim, but not as we know it". I was reading this morning a (spoof?) article about Alex Salmond being a trekkie which is why that phrase came to mind. I understand any incredulousness: for elementary particles, having electric charge to my mind prevents speed c and implies a particle mass.

In my model, mass is not a fundamental property of a preon. Which is why I wrote that a preon has no mass. For elementary particles, mass is caused by interactions and hence is not a fundamental property. In my model, electric charge is not a fundamental property. It is a very important property, which is why I included it in my early preon models and at that stage I did think it was fundamental but I since realised that electric charge depends completely on the more fundamental colour charges. Single preons each having a chiral property do not prevent an aggregate of those chiral structures producing speed c. I take your point that it looks odd for preons to have these qualities that on the face of it look like they might prevent speed c, but judicious arrangements of preon aggregates is the key to any required aggregate property.

As a concrete analogy of a judicious arrangement, take a speedboat with one propeller (say left handed) no rudder and no keel. Start the engine to set the propeller turning. In practice that boat would turn in tight circles, having a net linear speed zero. But if a right handed propeller is added to the boat, it now has two counter-rotating screws and a positive linear speed is now available. No tight circles for this arrangement.

In my model, colour attraction between the preons in an electron causes the electron structure (a triple helix of ever twisting colour branes) to keep on ever twisting. So colour in the electron has a function.

Despite the radicalness, I have tried over the last few years to keep improving my model using proper physics. I followed Susskind's excellent online course on the Standard Model, and his even more excellent course on string theory. In my view the preons are strings existing in multidimensional space. They can be open or closed on a colour brane etc. So they seem to me to fit in with string theory. I have followed the weak theory on Susskind's course and the maths of the higgs field, sombrero hat fields and the like. (I am a mathematician/ statistician.) Mass is the weak link (pun intended) in traditional physics. The higgs gives mass to particles and the only property that the higgs has is weak isospin. That is why I say that weak isospin has a key role in mass. So it is very strange that the Z has mass but does not have weak isospin. Not only that, my preon model has a higgs-like structure (a 1/2 higgs) in the Z generation, ie with as many preons as the Z particle, but that 1/2 higgs has not been found. Moreover the Z has mass but no weak isospin. I just wonder if there is something wrong there ....

The neutrino has weak isospin but the sterile neutrino does not. If the sterile neutrino does not exist then the neutrino could be formed in a LH state and be unable to convert to the RH form (the sterile one) and hence would be massless. But if the neutrino has mass then I cannot see how it can do so without the existence of the sterile neutrino. So I would be happier wrt the weak force if the sterile neutrino existed and the neutrino had mass, and that the story was not yet over for the Z and 1/2 Higgs. The 1/4 higgs partners the photon and is dark matter.

I have made predictions of masses, in my model, for a 1/2 higgs to have the Z mass. There is also a 2-higgs predicted with, by pure coincidence, approximately the mass of the top quark. I also predicted that the higgs should have mass 126.6 GeV/cc and was very pleased when one of the CERN teams came in with that value; and that was a long time after the 125.3 value was first reported. But I think that may have been withdrawn/amended now. Not sure.

I have, a while back, seen the Lubos blogsite a few times but did not feel any urge to comment there. I should take another look. Thanks.

Which makes them? Sub-particles, or....?

Looking briefly at http://ben6993.wordpress.com/2014/01/20 ... particles/

notice that, additional to above, every preon is electrically charged and color charged - yet massless! I am not a particle physicist's bootlace but recognize that represents truly radical physics.

Well Ben6993, Lubos obviously never took into consideration your kind of preon model. Maybe you should correspond, if not already done.

Hi, that was very nicely/kindly put and I take no offence at the 'truly radical physics' though I realise it means "this is physics, Jim, but not as we know it". I was reading this morning a (spoof?) article about Alex Salmond being a trekkie which is why that phrase came to mind. I understand any incredulousness: for elementary particles, having electric charge to my mind prevents speed c and implies a particle mass.

In my model, mass is not a fundamental property of a preon. Which is why I wrote that a preon has no mass. For elementary particles, mass is caused by interactions and hence is not a fundamental property. In my model, electric charge is not a fundamental property. It is a very important property, which is why I included it in my early preon models and at that stage I did think it was fundamental but I since realised that electric charge depends completely on the more fundamental colour charges. Single preons each having a chiral property do not prevent an aggregate of those chiral structures producing speed c. I take your point that it looks odd for preons to have these qualities that on the face of it look like they might prevent speed c, but judicious arrangements of preon aggregates is the key to any required aggregate property.

As a concrete analogy of a judicious arrangement, take a speedboat with one propeller (say left handed) no rudder and no keel. Start the engine to set the propeller turning. In practice that boat would turn in tight circles, having a net linear speed zero. But if a right handed propeller is added to the boat, it now has two counter-rotating screws and a positive linear speed is now available. No tight circles for this arrangement.

In my model, colour attraction between the preons in an electron causes the electron structure (a triple helix of ever twisting colour branes) to keep on ever twisting. So colour in the electron has a function.

Despite the radicalness, I have tried over the last few years to keep improving my model using proper physics. I followed Susskind's excellent online course on the Standard Model, and his even more excellent course on string theory. In my view the preons are strings existing in multidimensional space. They can be open or closed on a colour brane etc. So they seem to me to fit in with string theory. I have followed the weak theory on Susskind's course and the maths of the higgs field, sombrero hat fields and the like. (I am a mathematician/ statistician.) Mass is the weak link (pun intended) in traditional physics. The higgs gives mass to particles and the only property that the higgs has is weak isospin. That is why I say that weak isospin has a key role in mass. So it is very strange that the Z has mass but does not have weak isospin. Not only that, my preon model has a higgs-like structure (a 1/2 higgs) in the Z generation, ie with as many preons as the Z particle, but that 1/2 higgs has not been found. Moreover the Z has mass but no weak isospin. I just wonder if there is something wrong there ....

The neutrino has weak isospin but the sterile neutrino does not. If the sterile neutrino does not exist then the neutrino could be formed in a LH state and be unable to convert to the RH form (the sterile one) and hence would be massless. But if the neutrino has mass then I cannot see how it can do so without the existence of the sterile neutrino. So I would be happier wrt the weak force if the sterile neutrino existed and the neutrino had mass, and that the story was not yet over for the Z and 1/2 Higgs. The 1/4 higgs partners the photon and is dark matter.

I have made predictions of masses, in my model, for a 1/2 higgs to have the Z mass. There is also a 2-higgs predicted with, by pure coincidence, approximately the mass of the top quark. I also predicted that the higgs should have mass 126.6 GeV/cc and was very pleased when one of the CERN teams came in with that value; and that was a long time after the 125.3 value was first reported. But I think that may have been withdrawn/amended now. Not sure.

I have, a while back, seen the Lubos blogsite a few times but did not feel any urge to comment there. I should take another look. Thanks.

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

Ben6993 wrote:Hi, that was very nicely/kindly put and I take no offence at the 'truly radical physics' though I realise it means "this is physics, Jim, but not as we know it". I was reading this morning a (spoof?) article about Alex Salmond being a trekkie which is why that phrase came to mind. I understand any incredulousness: for elementary particles, having electric charge to my mind prevents speed c and implies a particle mass.

And a nicely put response.

In my model, mass is not a fundamental property of a preon. Which is why I wrote that a preon has no mass. For elementary particles, mass is caused by interactions and hence is not a fundamental property. In my model, electric charge is not a fundamental property. It is a very important property, which is why I included it in my early preon models and at that stage I did think it was fundamental but I since realised that electric charge depends completely on the more fundamental colour charges. Single preons each having a chiral property do not prevent an aggregate of those chiral structures producing speed c. I take your point that it looks odd for preons to have these qualities that on the face of it look like they might prevent speed c, but judicious arrangements of preon aggregates is the key to any required aggregate property.

As a concrete analogy of a judicious arrangement, take a speedboat with one propeller (say left handed) no rudder and no keel. Start the engine to set the propeller turning. In practice that boat would turn in tight circles, having a net linear speed zero. But if a right handed propeller is added to the boat, it now has two counter-rotating screws and a positive linear speed is now available. No tight circles for this arrangement.

Dumbed down enough for me to get a feel for that point. As an aside use of counter-rotating propellers to suppress torque has had varying practical success in aviation.

Despite the radicalness, I have tried over the last few years to keep improving my model using proper physics. I followed Susskind's excellent online course on the Standard Model, and his even more excellent course on string theory. In my view the preons are strings existing in multidimensional space. They can be open or closed on a colour brane etc. So they seem to me to fit in with string theory. I have followed the weak theory on Susskind's course and the maths of the higgs field, sombrero hat fields and the like. (I am a mathematician/ statistician.) Mass is the weak link (pun intended) in traditional physics. The higgs gives mass to particles and the only property that the higgs has is weak isospin. That is why I say that weak isospin has a key role in mass. So it is very strange that the Z has mass but does not have weak isospin. Not only that, my preon model has a higgs-like structure (a 1/2 higgs) in the Z generation, ie with as many preons as the Z particle, but that 1/2 higgs has not been found. Moreover the Z has mass but no weak isospin. I just wonder if there is something wrong there ....

Can't help you there! But it's evident your's is nothing like a typical crackpot project and deserves respect for not only the much learning involved, but originality woven in to the theory.

I have made predictions of masses, in my model, for a 1/2 higgs to have the Z mass. There is also a 2-higgs predicted with, by pure coincidence, approximately the mass of the top quark. I also predicted that the higgs should have mass 126.6 GeV/cc and was very pleased when one of the CERN teams came in with that value; and that was a long time after the 125.3 value was first reported. But I think that may have been withdrawn/amended now. Not sure.

Very encouraging to have made a detailed prediction and evidently got it right. Keeping that success going will be the thing.

I have, a while back, seen the Lubos blogsite a few times but did not feel any urge to comment there. I should take another look. Thanks.

Maybe you'll feel like withdrawing that last remark if oft pugnacious LM subsequently goes on the attack!

- Q-reeus
**Posts:**272**Joined:**Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Hi Q-reeus

You are again kind. I am not interested in macho confrontations so I will give Lubos a miss.

I finished my preon model #5 this spring and since then I have been coasting along, feeling tired. Participating in the Bell threads for relaxation! By now I would have expected to have had a eureka moment and to have seen the light on flaws in my model. But I do not know enough physics to see a new problem. I need to study geometric algebra more and maybe Penrose's spinor theory. But first I will return to Susskind's online lectures and work on general relativity. So I am in a lull at the moment waiting for inspiration. I also paint life studies and have recently put some of my work on my website: http://wp.me/p18gTT-2i. So I have plenty to do besides the preon model.

If I have had no more inspiration by next spring I may write a paper on preon model#5 for vixra. I will wait and see. No hurry.

One last thought in the spirit of trying to remove magic from QM. I use a preon model to try to write decay paths like chemical equations. I may have the wrong impression but it seems to me that particles seem to be thought [at least in many amateur blogs] to be conjured out of energy. For me the number of preons in the BB universe,including its vacuum, is finite and, in principle, countable. The matter appearing out of energy is actually coming out of the vacuum. The harder one hits the vacuum, the more particles can be produced, but the preons are already there in the vacuum. Similarly, I distrust spontaneous particle decay or nucleus decay. That is with or without supposedly pure random timing. For me the decay should be written as a preon exchange equation where something hits the particle and there are decay products which include the preons in the particle and the preons in whatever hit the particle. Count the preons in and then count them out again. The randomness applies only because a particle in an environment with incoming projectiles occasionally has an interaction with one of the projectile particles. One example is an accelerating electron emitting a succession of photons. The preons in the emitted photons are coming from a mix of pre-existing preons in the electron and in the vacuum (and the preons can be in fields, which to me are just particles in between interactions). And each photon emission is caused by an interaction not by a spontaneous decay. The decay paths are well covered in my blog

Kind regards.

You are again kind. I am not interested in macho confrontations so I will give Lubos a miss.

I finished my preon model #5 this spring and since then I have been coasting along, feeling tired. Participating in the Bell threads for relaxation! By now I would have expected to have had a eureka moment and to have seen the light on flaws in my model. But I do not know enough physics to see a new problem. I need to study geometric algebra more and maybe Penrose's spinor theory. But first I will return to Susskind's online lectures and work on general relativity. So I am in a lull at the moment waiting for inspiration. I also paint life studies and have recently put some of my work on my website: http://wp.me/p18gTT-2i. So I have plenty to do besides the preon model.

If I have had no more inspiration by next spring I may write a paper on preon model#5 for vixra. I will wait and see. No hurry.

One last thought in the spirit of trying to remove magic from QM. I use a preon model to try to write decay paths like chemical equations. I may have the wrong impression but it seems to me that particles seem to be thought [at least in many amateur blogs] to be conjured out of energy. For me the number of preons in the BB universe,including its vacuum, is finite and, in principle, countable. The matter appearing out of energy is actually coming out of the vacuum. The harder one hits the vacuum, the more particles can be produced, but the preons are already there in the vacuum. Similarly, I distrust spontaneous particle decay or nucleus decay. That is with or without supposedly pure random timing. For me the decay should be written as a preon exchange equation where something hits the particle and there are decay products which include the preons in the particle and the preons in whatever hit the particle. Count the preons in and then count them out again. The randomness applies only because a particle in an environment with incoming projectiles occasionally has an interaction with one of the projectile particles. One example is an accelerating electron emitting a succession of photons. The preons in the emitted photons are coming from a mix of pre-existing preons in the electron and in the vacuum (and the preons can be in fields, which to me are just particles in between interactions). And each photon emission is caused by an interaction not by a spontaneous decay. The decay paths are well covered in my blog

Kind regards.

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

ben6993 wrote:

"particles seem... to be conjured out of energy"

This is a profound idea from modern science. E equals m c squared. I imagine energy to be one kind of energy, or several kinds. Energy without particles is ghostly. Is energy from the four basic forces of gravity, em, and nuclear? Is energy always calculable from force or mass? Is it always using the work-energy-heat-torque equivalence of units?

Work equals force times distance.

Torque is force times distance.

Work is energy

Heat is energy.

Energy is in quantum stuff.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

All of these facts from classical mechanics might be replaced by quantum mechanics unless vast numbers of particles are treated statistically. Mass might be basic or it might be from interactions of sub-atomic particles. Where is an authority to resolve all questions of quantum physics? There is no final judgement in 2014, but there are many possible answers being written up.

That Preon model Rev. #5 looks like it categorically gives every permutation of charges, spins, etc. Since it covers all possible combinations, it must be right if the underlying theory of preons is right. But the author of Rev. #5 admits he is not all knowing about physics. He admits studying on-line and not under close supervision of a professor of a famous institution. Physics are in a chaotic situation in 2014. I wish that the universe has infinite time, space, and proposed layers of reality. But maybe it is finite.

"particles seem... to be conjured out of energy"

This is a profound idea from modern science. E equals m c squared. I imagine energy to be one kind of energy, or several kinds. Energy without particles is ghostly. Is energy from the four basic forces of gravity, em, and nuclear? Is energy always calculable from force or mass? Is it always using the work-energy-heat-torque equivalence of units?

Work equals force times distance.

Torque is force times distance.

Work is energy

Heat is energy.

Energy is in quantum stuff.

Force equals mass times acceleration.

All of these facts from classical mechanics might be replaced by quantum mechanics unless vast numbers of particles are treated statistically. Mass might be basic or it might be from interactions of sub-atomic particles. Where is an authority to resolve all questions of quantum physics? There is no final judgement in 2014, but there are many possible answers being written up.

That Preon model Rev. #5 looks like it categorically gives every permutation of charges, spins, etc. Since it covers all possible combinations, it must be right if the underlying theory of preons is right. But the author of Rev. #5 admits he is not all knowing about physics. He admits studying on-line and not under close supervision of a professor of a famous institution. Physics are in a chaotic situation in 2014. I wish that the universe has infinite time, space, and proposed layers of reality. But maybe it is finite.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote on Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:40 pm:

It is not clear from the words you quoted that I do not believe that particles are conjured out of energy. E=mcc represents equivalence between mass and energy but I do not see that mass is identical to matter. I will come back to this later/below.

Agreed. It is a work in progress for all humanity.

The struggle is for humanity to understand nature. Obviously the professionals should and do decide what is the norm eg the Standard Model. There is a place for amateurs and a place for professionals and the logic used by anyone is publicly available to examine and learn from or discount or adapt etc.

I wrote that I believe the number of preons to be countable and finite. I also believe that the preon is a string with structure and hence content. That content may be sub-preons, with a finite and countable number of sub-preons. Which themselves have structure etc. etc.

I admit that I find energy very hard to visualise in concrete terms within my preon model. Energy is equivalent to mass, and matter can have rest mass; and I model the electron as a particular preon structure eg ACAA', which are four blocks of preons united in a single particle. An equivalent muon structure is ACAA'-AA'AA'AA'AA' where I have included three times as many preons in the structure, ie more matter is included. And the rest mass of the muon has increased beyond that of the electron. A preon/antipreon pair such as AA' is neutral with no net properties. That part is easy. But, thinking out aloud here, how does one model an electron's mass increasing with speed through a vacuum filled with untouchable neutral blocks of preons? Maybe as a swimmer pushes water ahead and feels the resistance of that water then the electron temporarily picks up more blocks of AA' and by the time it has accrued an extra AA'AA'AA'AA' it has the same total mass as the muon rest mass. However, that seems too absolute an explanation and I do not believe it. In fact, one problem with the preon model may be that it is too absolute or too concrete a solution. In my model, I have an electron gaining mass by interactions which repeatedly change the handedness of the electron. In my model the different handednesses are different particles. The LH electron has weak isospin and the RH electron does not have weak isospin so I cannot see the LH and the RH as morphing into one another by a rotation etc. as one cannot simply drop such an important property as weak isospin via a rotation. If one believes that quantised values are really based on continuous structures then one might view the electron LH and RH forms as being observer effects based on the same single structure. However, I believe that LH structure does not equal RH structure in absolute terms.

In my preon model, I believe that the fundamental properties of matter are: spin, weak isospin, red charge, green charge, blue charge. I also built the the 4D space and time dimensions into the model, but not their metrics.

The only net property of the higgs is weak ispospin and I associate weak isospin with the generation of mass as an emergent property, not a fundamental one.

The property of spin seems to me to be associated with the construction of the space metric, as an emergent property. Susskind at a FQXi conference two years ago spoke [the video is available free online] about entanglement (of spins) being implicated in the metric of spatial separation.

I could easily be wrong as I am not a professional physicist....

{Edit} PS I forgot to mention electric charge in the final paragraph. I usually describe the electron as colour neutral but with electric charge -1. John Baez in one paper partitioned colour neutral into white or black. In my model, a particle having net colour white has net negative electric and net colour black has net positive electric charge. White is determined by a net colour neutral charge while black is determined by a net anticolour neutral charge. Eg a particle with red-green-blue preons is net colour white. A particle such as antired-antigreen- antiblue has net anticlolour and is black.

That sums the fundamental properties in my model as spin [causing the spacetime metric], weak isospin [causing the mass property] and red, green and blue charges [causing electric charge].

This reminds me of painting where I work with secondary colour pigments but the genuine primary colours [IMO] are those of light. What we think of as fundamentals (mass, length metric and electric charge) are all secondaries.

ben6993 wrote:

"particles seem... to be conjured out of energy".

This is a profound idea from modern science. E equals m c squared. ...

It is not clear from the words you quoted that I do not believe that particles are conjured out of energy. E=mcc represents equivalence between mass and energy but I do not see that mass is identical to matter. I will come back to this later/below.

Where is an authority to resolve all questions of quantum physics? There is no final judgement in 2014, but there are many possible answers being written up.

Agreed. It is a work in progress for all humanity.

That Preon model Rev. #5 looks like it categorically gives every permutation of charges, spins, etc. Since it covers all possible combinations, it must be right if the underlying theory of preons is right. But the author of Rev. #5 admits he is not all knowing about physics. He admits studying on-line and not under close supervision of a professor of a famous institution. Physics are in a chaotic situation in 2014. I wish that the universe has infinite time, space, and proposed layers of reality. But maybe it is finite.

The struggle is for humanity to understand nature. Obviously the professionals should and do decide what is the norm eg the Standard Model. There is a place for amateurs and a place for professionals and the logic used by anyone is publicly available to examine and learn from or discount or adapt etc.

I wrote that I believe the number of preons to be countable and finite. I also believe that the preon is a string with structure and hence content. That content may be sub-preons, with a finite and countable number of sub-preons. Which themselves have structure etc. etc.

I imagine energy to be one kind of energy, or several kinds. Energy without particles is ghostly. Is energy from the four basic forces of gravity, em, and nuclear? Is energy always calculable from force or mass?

I admit that I find energy very hard to visualise in concrete terms within my preon model. Energy is equivalent to mass, and matter can have rest mass; and I model the electron as a particular preon structure eg ACAA', which are four blocks of preons united in a single particle. An equivalent muon structure is ACAA'-AA'AA'AA'AA' where I have included three times as many preons in the structure, ie more matter is included. And the rest mass of the muon has increased beyond that of the electron. A preon/antipreon pair such as AA' is neutral with no net properties. That part is easy. But, thinking out aloud here, how does one model an electron's mass increasing with speed through a vacuum filled with untouchable neutral blocks of preons? Maybe as a swimmer pushes water ahead and feels the resistance of that water then the electron temporarily picks up more blocks of AA' and by the time it has accrued an extra AA'AA'AA'AA' it has the same total mass as the muon rest mass. However, that seems too absolute an explanation and I do not believe it. In fact, one problem with the preon model may be that it is too absolute or too concrete a solution. In my model, I have an electron gaining mass by interactions which repeatedly change the handedness of the electron. In my model the different handednesses are different particles. The LH electron has weak isospin and the RH electron does not have weak isospin so I cannot see the LH and the RH as morphing into one another by a rotation etc. as one cannot simply drop such an important property as weak isospin via a rotation. If one believes that quantised values are really based on continuous structures then one might view the electron LH and RH forms as being observer effects based on the same single structure. However, I believe that LH structure does not equal RH structure in absolute terms.

All of these facts from classical mechanics might be replaced by quantum mechanics unless vast numbers of particles are treated statistically. Mass might be basic or it might be from interactions of sub-atomic particles.

In my preon model, I believe that the fundamental properties of matter are: spin, weak isospin, red charge, green charge, blue charge. I also built the the 4D space and time dimensions into the model, but not their metrics.

The only net property of the higgs is weak ispospin and I associate weak isospin with the generation of mass as an emergent property, not a fundamental one.

The property of spin seems to me to be associated with the construction of the space metric, as an emergent property. Susskind at a FQXi conference two years ago spoke [the video is available free online] about entanglement (of spins) being implicated in the metric of spatial separation.

I could easily be wrong as I am not a professional physicist....

{Edit} PS I forgot to mention electric charge in the final paragraph. I usually describe the electron as colour neutral but with electric charge -1. John Baez in one paper partitioned colour neutral into white or black. In my model, a particle having net colour white has net negative electric and net colour black has net positive electric charge. White is determined by a net colour neutral charge while black is determined by a net anticolour neutral charge. Eg a particle with red-green-blue preons is net colour white. A particle such as antired-antigreen- antiblue has net anticlolour and is black.

That sums the fundamental properties in my model as spin [causing the spacetime metric], weak isospin [causing the mass property] and red, green and blue charges [causing electric charge].

This reminds me of painting where I work with secondary colour pigments but the genuine primary colours [IMO] are those of light. What we think of as fundamentals (mass, length metric and electric charge) are all secondaries.

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

I am beginning to gain more respect for your preon ideas. I assume they build upon the work of other folks. I am not conversant in quantum physics, but that does not stop me from writing stuff.

Ben 6993 wrote, "I also believe that the preon is a string with structure and hence content."

I am boycotting string theories. My mind is closed.

Ben... "I associate weak isospin with the generation of mass as an emergent property, not a fundamental one. The property of spin seems to me to be associated with the construction of the space metric".

My prayers are that you are right. If it is that simple, then I pray that muons can be forced to form molecules that last hours, not microseconds. Then those tiny molecules can be tasked with making tiny physics labs inside chemicals.

Ben 6993 wrote, "I also believe that the preon is a string with structure and hence content."

I am boycotting string theories. My mind is closed.

Ben... "I associate weak isospin with the generation of mass as an emergent property, not a fundamental one. The property of spin seems to me to be associated with the construction of the space metric".

My prayers are that you are right. If it is that simple, then I pray that muons can be forced to form molecules that last hours, not microseconds. Then those tiny molecules can be tasked with making tiny physics labs inside chemicals.

- muon200
**Posts:**67**Joined:**Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:53 pm**Location:**Maui Island, Pacific Ocean

muon200 wrote on Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:14 pm

Yes, I adapted from the already existing Rishon Model to give a base to start my model.

I can understand your boycott. Note that my model has up to 24 dimensions, so maybe you won't like that part of my model. I often call my model a lego model but that is because the model is not mathematical yet (I need to make it so), but it is a multidimensional lego model. I think that I need to start a new thread on my model.

Not sure...

I am beginning to gain more respect for your preon ideas. I assume they build upon the work of other folks. I am not conversant in quantum physics, but that does not stop me from writing stuff.

Yes, I adapted from the already existing Rishon Model to give a base to start my model.

Ben 6993 wrote, "I also believe that the preon is a string with structure and hence content."

I am boycotting string theories. My mind is closed.

I can understand your boycott. Note that my model has up to 24 dimensions, so maybe you won't like that part of my model. I often call my model a lego model but that is because the model is not mathematical yet (I need to make it so), but it is a multidimensional lego model. I think that I need to start a new thread on my model.

Ben... "I associate weak isospin with the generation of mass as an emergent property, not a fundamental one. The property of spin seems to me to be associated with the construction of the space metric".

My prayers are that you are right. If it is that simple, then I pray that muons can be forced to form molecules that last hours, not microseconds. Then those tiny molecules can be tasked with making tiny physics labs inside chemicals.

Not sure...

- Ben6993
**Posts:**287**Joined:**Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:53 am

21 posts
• Page **1** of **2** • **1**, 2

Return to Sci.Physics.Particle

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest