Preon Model #5

[Ben6993]

I did not intend to start a thread on my preon model in this newer forum until I had a new model. But recent conversations on other threads has meant I have a new perspective on my old model, so here it is.

My previous posts on Preon Model #5 were on the old sci.physics foundations site at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 7WY_k8bexE
I have reports relevant to Preon Model #5 on my wordpress site:

Preon model 5: the building blocks of elementary particles http://wp.me/p18gTT-1l
Particle Interactions in Ben6993’s Preon Model #5 http://wp.me/p18gTT-1K
Emergent space using Rasch pairs analysis/ adaptive comparative judgment http://wp.me/p18gTT-26
Dark matter WIMP mass of 65.7 GeV/c^2 http://wp.me/p18gTT-i
Masses of N-Higgs-type particles http://wp.me/p18gTT-8

One specimen preon of the 48 preons in my model is: (R’)(–)(+)(–)(r).

Preons can be labelled as : (Preon spatial chiral dimension) (electric charge) ( spin) (weak isospin) (colour charge) e.g. R ’ – + – r.
In fact, the electric charge in the description is unnecessary as specifying the colour charge of the preon also determines the electric charge in my model.

So the fundamental properties of a preon are:
1. is the preon embedded in a Right handed or Left handed spatial dimension? This is space as seen [at least as I see it!] in Clifford algebra, ie not flatland space.
[If time is included, then that gives access to R' and L' which refer to antimatter versions of preons in those spatial dimensions, which refer to preons travelling backwards in our 'spacetime' time.]
2. is the spin + or - ?
3. is the weak isospin + or - ?
4. is the colour charge red or green or blue or antired or antigreen or antiblue?

ELECTRIC CHARGE

If the preon has a colour charge then its electric charge is - and if the preon has an anticolour charge then its electric charge is +.
I will here put aside a possible misconception. It is very easy to dismiss {wrongly} my argument in a few lines of logic:
the red down quark has colour red and electric charge -
the red up quark has colour red and electric charge +
hence my argument seems wrong as colour can [wrongly seem to] be + or - electrically.

This is incorrect because one needs to add up all the preons' colours in the particle and in my model the aggregate colour of a particle can be complicated.
The red down quark has preon structure: (A) (C’g’) (Cr) (C’b’) (A) (A'):
A has 24 colour preons
C’g’ has 8 anticolour preons
Cr has 8 colour preons
C’b’ has 8 anticolour preons
A has 24 colour preons
A' has 24 anticolour preons
which has net 16 colour preons: hence a negative electric charge.

The equivalent red up quark has preon structure: (A’)(C’g’)(Cr)(C’b’)(A)(A') :
A' has 24 anticolour preons
C’g’ has 8 anticolour preons
Cr has 8 colour preons
C’b’ has 8 anticolour preons
A has 24 colour preons
A' has 24 anticolour preons
which has net 32 anticolour preons: hence a positive electric charge, and double the size of that of the down quark.

This seems odd, but in terms of red, green or blue colour, A is colour neutral (white for 'colours') and A' is also colour neutral, but black for 'anticolours'. (This black/white terminology was also seen in a paper by Baez.) So A or A' do not affect the red description coming from the same block of preons labelled (C’g’)(Cr)(C’b’) in both quarks, but using A or A' does affect the overall count of white and black preons and does affect the overall electric charge.

SPIN AND THE SPACE-TIME METRIC

One or two summers ago, Leonard Susskind gave two long lectures at an FQXi summer conference on (spin) entanglement and separation of black holes. I watched them both online but cannot find them now.
The nearest I can find is http://article.wn.com/view/2013/12/04/Q ... _Physicis/

I saw a link between the ideas in the lectures and my own ideas about the construction of an emergent spacetime metric. (See my report http://wp.me/p18gTT-26)
Susskind was relating spin values to spatial separation, I was speculating about using spin values to determine the space metric using algorithms along the lines of those in the Rasch Model.

WEAK ISOSPIN AND MASS

The higgs field give rise to mass and the only net property of the higgs is weak isospin. So I associate weak isospin with the creation of mass. Mass appears to me to be created when a particle (with weak isospin) has, say, an interaction with the higgs and changes into a particle without weak isospin, plus a gluon which is a by-product of the interaction.
eg for a red down quark:

Parentheses are: (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour)
(-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (0, 0, 0.5) –> (-0.33, 0.5, 0, red) + (0, -1, 0)
red L.H. down + Higgs+ –> red R.H. down + gluon-

Which in preon units is: AC’g’CrC’b’ BB’ + A’B’CC AA’ BB’ CC’ AA’ BB’ CC’ –> BC’g’CrC’b’ AA’ + B’B’CC AA’ BB’ CC’ AA’ BB’ CC’
Note that the spin of the quark changes also in this interaction and there will presumably be some use of that spin change in the creation of the space metric.
The change in the weak isospin property seems to be what creates the mass.


NEXT STEPS

I need to add some mathematics to the model such as specifying Lagrangians as was done for the Rishon Model for preons (page 145 of http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/harari/f ... Vol204.pdf)(1982). The Rishon model has only one form for the electron:T'T'T' whereas I have two forms, a left-hand and a right-hand form which are not trivially different from one another because one form has weak isopin and the other form does not. So one cannot rotate my LH
electron into a RH electron: switching forms occurs in interactions. But I am not using two forms to by-pass the need for spin matrices etc. The spinor effects would apply to each of the LH and RH forms separately. So Clifford Algebra would apply to both forms separately.

There is a paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0223) of 2008 by Piotr Zenczykowski which tries to improve the Rishon model using Clifford Algebra. So I have a lot of reading/learning to do...

[Ben6993]

Majorana particles
There is an article about majorana particles in:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ntimatter/
Extract: "Now physicists have found strong evidence for one such entity inside a superconducting material. The discovery could represent the first so-called Majorana particle, ..."

and: "Many physicists suspect neutrinos—very lightweight particles with the strange ability to alter their identities, or flavors—are Majorana particles, ..."
[The full article is in Science needing a subscription which I have not yet made.]
There is also a YouTube video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZETm3Qj5SM

I have previously read (informally) about BECs and Cooper pairs and superfluidity so I can follow, maybe, the idea of electron pairs being organised wrt spin to potentially form pseudo-bosons with spin +/- 1 or even +/- 0. But I am unclear how the end electrons in the chain become majorana in form.

There are some majorana elementary particles in my preon model e.g. AA'BB'CC'AA'. But they are completely neutral particles. I have labelled them as vacuum particles and neutral particles, and more recently as axions because axions have no electric charge and no (or very feeble) other properties. None of the Standard Model particles are of this form. Not even the neutrinos, so my preon model gives the prediction that majorana neutrinos will not be found.

For example AA'BB'CC'AA' = ACBB' + A'C'AA' = LH electron + RH positron = second generation neutral axion, which is its own antiparticle and hence is a majorana particle.

In the article above, the end of the chain is a single electron which behaves like a majorana particle. Well, I can see that if the end particle was a majorana then part of it could be adhered to the chain as a sort of dipole with either the electron or the positron being the other, free end. This could be a sign that this elementary particle is not truly elementary as it is not behaving as a point particle eg such as the composite positronium. Or it could just demonstrate that this elementary particle maybe has structure.


Neutral meson oscillations: D0, π0, kaon0, B0

According to my preon model the following neutral mesons are also pairs of particles aggregating to a total which is equally particle matter and particle antimatter.
(I write it like that to distinguish from preon matter and antimatter as, in my model, all elementary particles have an equal amount of matter preons and antimatter preons.)
D0 = cu'
π0 = (uu'- dd')/sqrt 2
K0 = ds'
B0 = db'
The particles are very similar to the π0 subject to the addition or subtraction of the axion particle noted above from my preon model: AA'BB'CC'AA'

uu' is a majorana composite particle/meson and has the same preon content as has dd'.
dd' + the neutral axion AA'BB'CC'AA' = ds' = sd'
uu' + the neutral axion AA'BB'CC'AA' = cu' = uc'

Similarly
dd' + the neutral axion AA'BB'CC'AA'AA'BB'CC'AA' = db' = bd'

So how can the π0 oscillate between uu' and dd' using the preon model?

Method 1 :
For example, π0 = red up quark+ antired antiup quark
antired antiup + W+ -> antired antidown
(-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired) + (1, 1, 1) -> (0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antired)

and then:

red up -> red down + W+
(0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) -> (-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (1,1,1)

In this method, a W+ is taken from the vacuum and is sent back to the vacuum at the end, acting like a catalyst.
And the uu' has been converted to a dd'.


Method 2 reverses that process :
red up + W- -> red down
(0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) + (-1, -1, -1) -> (-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red)

and then:

antired antiup -> antired antidown + W-
(-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired) -> (0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antired) + (-1,-1,-1)


I cannot see anything about the pion0 which should violate CP parity and I am not sure that it does. Method 1 uses the W+ whereas Method 2 uses the W- so there is asymmetry there. But the pion0 seems so symmetric that Methods 1 and 2 are interchangeable. Also, maybe the pion0 is too light weight to demonstrate the CP violation?


The D0, K0 and B0 are less symmetric than the pion0, and maybe it matters that the higher generation quark may preferentially change first. That could lead to an asymmetry in interaction. For example if for the K0 (ds') the s' needs to be the first to interact (by decomposing into a quark + the neutral axion) of the pair then that interaction may be slightly easier than the changing of the d by adding it to a neutral axion.


For example, K0 = red down quark + antired antistrange quark:
antired antistrange + W- -> antired antiup + neutral axion
(0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antired) + (-1, -1, -1) -> (-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired) + (0,0,0)

and then:

red down -> red up + W-
(-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red) -> (0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) + (-1,-1,-1)

Which results in a pion0 + neutral axion
while the W- acts as a catalyst.

The next step is to convert the pion0 components + neutral axion into the sd':

antired antiup + W+ -> antired antidown
(-0.67, -0.5, -0.5, antired) + (1, 1, 1) -> (0.33, 0.5, 0.5, antired)

and then:

red up + neutral axion -> red strange + W+
(0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) + (0,0,0,) -> (0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) + (1,1,1)

So, my attempt at finding an asymmetry is that it may be easier for the antistrange to convert to an antiup (via a W- acting as a catalyst) before the up converts to the strange (via the W+ used as a catalyst). Because, in that order, the same neutral axion is freed from the s' before being used in the s.
The reverse procedure, from d's to ds' would require the break down to release the axion to be carried out by the W+, and the build up by the W-.

That last line in terms of preons could be, as an example:
red up + neutral axion -> red strange + W+
(0.67, 0.5, 0.5, red) + (0,0,0,) -> (-0.33, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (1,1,1)
A’C’g’CrC’b’ AA' + AA'AA'AA'AA'AA'AA'AA'AA' -> AC’g’C’r’Cb AA' AA'AA'AA'AA' + A'A' AA'AA'AA'
where the incoming preons are exactly balanced by the outgoing preons


K0 long and K0 short

In my preon model, I have covered a similar pattern with the gluons. The long form of K0 ([ds'+ sd']/sqrt 2) is, in my model, a more complex structure than the short form ([ds'- sd']/sqrt 2) so it is not surprising that they have different lifetimes. It is very surprising that they have identical masses.

[Q-reeus]

...The Rishon model has only one form for the electron:T'T'T' whereas I have two forms, a left-hand and a right-hand form which are not trivially different from one another because one form has weak isopin and the other form does not. So one cannot rotate my LH electron into a RH electron: switching forms occurs in interactions...

This does not clash with that electron helicity in one frame may have the opposite sign in another - since it's always possible to 'outrun' an electron?

[Ben6993]

Q-reeus wrote on Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:20 am:

Ben6993 wrote:
...The Rishon model has only one form for the electron:T'T'T' whereas I have two forms, a left-hand and a right-hand form which are not trivially different from one another because one form has weak isopin and the other form does not.
So one cannot rotate my model of a LH electron into a RH electron: switching forms occurs in interactions...

This does not clash with that electron helicity in one frame may have the opposite sign in another - since it's always possible to 'outrun' an electron?

I am not too sure about any of this, but here are my thoughts. Yes, the helicity of an electron can be different for different observers because its speed v is less than c. My preon model #5 gives the innate chirality not the helicity of an electron. And there are only two chiralities of an electron: LH and RH. These chiralities are very different because the LH form has weak isospin while the RH form has no weak isospin. Joy commented in another thread that there is no such thing as innate chirality of a particle as the chirality necessarily also depends upon the particle being viewed from an infinitesimal R3 space moving with the particle. But that seems good enough for me to view the particle as having chirality for my purposes.

If I take a LH chiral form, an experiment could record the electron as spin - or spin + depending on its helicity on measurement, irrespective of the chirality. I see this chirality as a hidden variable of the electron. That could be similar to Joy's use of the hidden variable. I view it as the LH form of the electron is -1 and the RH form is 1, say. Anyway, looking at the electron as a particle, its handedness only changes at an interaction so its handedness should be constant during the time of flight in the experiment, as will be the hidden variable.

On a thread not too long ago, Michel commented on non-quantum behaviour of an electron nearing its measurement. This raises the question of how does an electron behave in between measurements. Take an electron moving in a higgs field and acquiring mass. This is said to happen with no particle interactions, just field interactions. Well, that is OK in my preon model as elementary particles have not less than 96 preons each. And each preon is a string with structure, with maybe billions+ of sub-preons per preon. Speculative and fanciful maybe, but I do not need to account for the details of sub-preon structure. Just assuming preons is already a step beyond the standard model. So for me, a particle field is just the effects of the structure of the particle. And even though the electron particle may not be interacting with a higgs boson as a single quantised interaction, parts of the electron are interacting (lots of separate quantised interactions) with parts of the higgs. That is quite disconcerting as it implies that the electron could be gradually changing its chirality (and hence its composition of preons), rather than its helicity, in a non-quantum manner. I have no objection in principle to this, for my model, so long as the electron always fully achieves one of its two eigen forms, LH or RH, at a particle interaction.

In Joy Christian's model and/or in geometric algebra a particle changes its helicity gradually because of the geometry of spinorial space. Space is not flat but has, by a too-simple analogy, a moibus strip geometry. So, IMO, the electron keeps its hidden variable (chirality) constant but presents a gradual change in helicity to a fixed observer. (Hope I am not mashing that idea.) That is better for my model than the above because a lego-like fixed structure can gradually change its apparent form using geometry of its environment. I.e. the the spinorial space changes the apparent property of the particle and does not change the 'inate' property of the particle. On measurement, of course, there is only a quantum outcome of -1 or 1.

[Q-reeus]

Thanks for that considered answer Ben. There is just so much there that's counter-intuitive and conceptually beyond me even at that simplified and condensed level, it's hard to honestly comment. Other than to say, wish you all the best in further developing that model. And of course no need to advise that the thing that will gain real attention where needed is in extracting further explicit predictions having a real chance of verification in the nearer term!

[Ben6993]

Q-reeus wrote on Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:31 am:

Thanks for that considered answer Ben. There is just so much there that's counter-intuitive and conceptually beyond me even at that simplified and condensed level, it's hard to honestly comment. Other than to say, wish you all the best in further developing that model. And of course no need to advise that the thing that will gain real attention where needed is in extracting further explicit predictions having a real chance of verification in the nearer term!

Hi, and thanks. Intuition is very important and we well know in this forum that, say, having a flatland perspective makes you see flaws in a non-flatland analysis. And vice versa, of course. At this stage, perhaps being brainwashed by looking long at my own model, I find it hard to see any sense in elementary particles not having sub-structures. For example, structure explains different generations being very alike but not exactly the same. Last night, I was reading my notes of Susskind's online ten two-hour lectures* on the standard model of particles and at one point I had written (but have not been back to the videos to check Susskind's exact words) " ... but the REAL electron is a composite of LH and RH forms". So perhaps I have been subtly brainwashed by Susskind?

*Lecture Collection. Particle Physics: Standard Model
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... ature=plcp

I will aim to write another post summarising the predictions using preon model #5. I have made a number of quantitative predictions, and some merely qualitative implications, but they are scattered in a number of different places.

[muon200]

I have finished watching the video of The Standard Model lectures by Susskind. Thank you for the link, Ben. I am starting the second listen to the 9 part, 13 hour lectures.

My attention is drawn to the W and Z bosons for my purpose of defining gravity using quantum effects. The lecture ends with a discussion of the Higgs Boson. The Lagrangian is emphasized for producing field equations. Energy contributions to mass are described, including the r^4 gravity factor used to calculate a Planck length orbit of electrons.

I find several of Susskind's comments confirming my intuition for quantum gravity. I am on the right track in studying particle quantum physics. The mysteries of some particles leave an open door for me to propose gravity shrinking states and to include the drive of time to changing states. The temporary non-conservation of energy matches one of my expectations for the atomic manipulation of continuum.

Thanx for the linx to physix lextures.

[Ben6993]

muon200 wrote on Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:35 pm

Thanx for the linx to physix lextures.

You are welcome.
Susskind also has an excellent series of lectures on cosmology where he explains the need for dark matter.
To me, it is just another type of particle, and it is in my preon model, but not in the Standard Model, and was not in the previous lectures by Susskind.
http://glenmartin.wordpress.com/home/le ... -lectures/

[Ben6993]

Gravitons

I now have a preon model for the graviton: G+ and G-.
G+ = (0,2,0) ie (electric charge 0, spin 2, weak isospin 0) = BBC'C'BBC'C'
G- = (0,-2,0) = B'B'CCB'B'CC
Where B and C are units of preons.

These are the smallest gravitons with eight units of preons each which is the same generation as the Z boson, but there are bigger gravitons in higher generations
e.g. BBC'C'BBC'C'AA'AA'AA'AA' would be a graviton in the same generation as the higgs and the gluons.
Two photons, γ- (= B'B'CC) and γ+ (= BBC'C'), can exchange a graviton along the path between them. It will be a virtual graviton and it will be in entanged form, i.e. it will not be known if it is G+ or G-. In fact, the two photons will completely swap their preons and the gluon will be made out of the total of their preons. A single path between the photons implies that one of the photons' preons are travelling backwards in time within the graviton, but it is not known which photon does this. So the graviton is either
G- = B'B'CC & (BBC'C')' = B'B'CCB'B'CC
or
G+ = (B'B'CC)' & BBC'C' = BBC'C'BBC'C'
I need to prove that this is an attractive force.

The graviton can be used in very similar interactions between the Z bosons and between gluons.

It is early days yet as I only started thinking about the following yesterday, but I suspect that the graviton does not act directly on the fermions. Instead two fermions emit spin 1 bosons and the two bosons interact by exchanging a graviton. I have two diagrams like this. One links two electrons (via two photons (and they in turn are linked by a graviton)) and one links an electron with a positron (via two photons (and they in turn are linked by a graviton)), and both diagrams have a feature which I think makes it attractive in both cases (maybe). When I make the diagrams without the graviton and without one of the two photons, only the electron/positron has the feature which I interpret as leading to EM attraction. But I need to write it up.

[Q-reeus]

Gravitons
I now have a preon model for the graviton: G+ and G-...

Two photons, γ- (= B'B'CC) and γ+ (= BBC'C'), can exchange a graviton along the path between them. It will be a virtual graviton and it will be in entanged form, i.e. it will not be known if it is G+ or G-. In fact, the two photons will completely swap their preons and the gluon will be made out of the total of their preons. A single path between the photons implies that one of the photons' preons are travelling backwards in time within the graviton, but it is not known which photon does this. So the graviton is either
G- = B'B'CC & (BBC'C')' = B'B'CCB'B'CC
or
G+ = (B'B'CC)' & BBC'C' = BBC'C'BBC'C'
I need to prove that this is an attractive force...

Well Ben, it so happens that while recently reengaging in another forum thread after a long hiatus there, came to the conclusion that photon active gravitational mass made no sense. That despite the standard GR position that light does have active mass: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/1544/1/TOLpr31a.pdf
One big factor is that as you know, in accordance with it's null 4-vector status, 'time stops' for a photon. There afaik can be no motion of any internal machinery capable of for instance spitting out or absorbing 'virtual particles' of any kind. Indeed the notion of any kind of lateral propagation/disturbance other than owing to the photon field itself, is entirely outside the jurisdiction of SR. A photon is born (and dies) traveling at c, so unless one postulates that birth includes ab initio a necessarily purely transverse, infinitely extended 'electrogravitic' and 'magnetogravitic' field (once far removed from it's 'birht location' anyway - see below re 'bremsstrahlung crisis'), it's stuck for the rest of its life with whatever field structure can fit into the confines of its birth geometry. And my reasonable supposition is that will extend no further than ca lambda as defined in the rest frame of emitter (e.g. excited atom). So a photon goes whizzing by say a planet. It deflects in the gravitational field of said planet. But without that absurdly contradictory birth-limited, indefinitely extended g-field, said photon will not be in turn acting gravitationally on the planet. A failure of momentum conservation - yes.

Let's suppose though a photon does convect with it an active gravitational mass hence gravitational field. What happens to that field - moving at c, when said photon is annihilated/absorbed? By analogy with classical EM, we might expect severe gravitational bremsstrahlung. In fact classically, infinitely intense (but not infinitely brief)! And fair bet that just does not happen.
All-in-all what's implied is that a photon possesses an effective inertial/passive mass (by virtue of possessing momentum and propagation through curved spacetime), but zero 'gravitational charge' i.e. active mass. Yes this does imply that certain scenarios will yield failure of energy-momentum conservation, but that imo is a saner situation than that implied by photon active mass.
I realize above is mixing classical field notions together with QED photon concept, but then there ought to be a fair degree of classical-quantum correspondence involved imo. Any thoughts?

[Ben6993]

Q-reeus wrote on Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:53 am

Well Ben, it so happens that while recently reengaging in another forum thread after a long hiatus there, came to the conclusion that photon active gravitational mass made no sense. One big factor is that as you know, in accordance with it's null 4-vector status, 'time stops' for a photon. There afaik can be no motion of any internal machinery capable of for instance spitting out or absorbing 'virtual particles' of any kind. Indeed the notion of any kind of lateral propagation/disturbance other than owing to the photon field itself, is entirely outside the jurisdiction of SR. A photon is born (and dies) traveling at c, so unless one postulates that birth includes ab initio a necessarily purely transverse, infinitely extended 'electrogravitic' and 'magnetogravitic' field (once far removed from it's 'birht location' anyway - see below re 'bremsstrahlung crisis'), it's stuck for the rest of its life with whatever field structure can fit into the confines of its birth geometry. And my reasonable supposition is that will extend no further than ca lambda as defined in the rest frame of emitter (e.g. excited atom). So a photon goes whizzing by say a planet. It deflects in the gravitational field of said planet. But without that absurdly contradictory birth-limited, indefinitely extended g-field, said photon will not be in turn acting gravitationally on the planet. A failure of momentum conservation - yes.

See my two diagrams of a spin -1 photon (black) exchanging a graviton with a spin +1 photon (red).




In one diagram a G- is exchanged, in the other diagram a G+ is exchanged. We would never know which route occurred, so the graviton would be described as a virtual graviton which was an entangled composite of the two. Note how, without the use of preons, this would look like a typical particle interaction where two particles both swap handedness by exchange of a boson. But with the use of preons we see that the two photons actually swap places. The preons in the two photons cannot get mixed up with one another in the process as the γ- and γ+ have no preons in common (B'B'CC and BBC'C' respectively.) Now this seems to me to meet, if only in spirit, your wish not to see the photon break up or reassemble its internal structure in between birth and death? Say the graviton starts out at A and ends at B, where I think/observe/calculate that A precedes B . Then γ- goes from A to B while γ+ goes from B to A. They travel from A to B as a graviton made up of a γ- plus an anti-γ+ ie as a G-. That means, which seems to be acceptable in Feynmann diagrams, that γ+ is travelling backwards in time (that is my time as an observer, or the time in the vertical axis of the diagram) from B to A. As you say, the photon (and the graviton) do not themselves observe any passage of time in spacetime.

In my preon model, all the preons always travel at speed c at all times, so I do not see any problem in writing preon-style Feynmann diagrams where preons are exchanged between particles, or between bosons or from boson to particle. It is very handy having the interaction take place at a point in spacetime as I do not see how it could happen without that condition. As you say, you do not want the photon broken up and being at different points in space at the instant of interaction /or/ birth /or/ death.

The point nature of the interactions does raise one problem which may possibly be answered by applying GR. [BTW I previously wrote that I intend to follow Susskind's online course on general relativity. And, before I began the course, I wanted to have a try at finding a preon structure for the graviton, if it indeed exists, which is why I started this post! It was just to try and encourage me to use 'active' learning. So answering this last bit will take some study by me.] If A and B are two above-mentioned points in spacetime, then how can the two photons become closer after the interaction? Either the energy states of the two photons change in the interactions in such a way as to enable the attractive force, or else the geometry of spacetime means that the path AB at time A is different (longer presumably) from the path AB at time B (note that the interaction at A is earlier in my time than is the interaction at the later time B). The photon observes no passage of time between A and B, but that is no problem for me. The photon can have no way to distinguish the metric of space, so it (as a hypothetical self-observer) cannot feel a shortening of the length AB over time even if such a shortening was apparent to me. Photons feel no passage of time so they should not notice any time dilation effects due to a BH?

Another thought is that if A was in a black hole and B was outside the black hole then because the two photons can exchange places by temporarily travelling together in a graviton, then it is possible for a photon to get out of a black hole without quantum tunneling! Well it is a kind of tunnel with the graviton acting as the tunnel, but not really quantum tunnelling as one photon is replaced in the black hole by another. Elementary particles are identical/indistinguishable so it is not really an 'escape' for the particle, except that if you follow the paths of the preons you know that the four preons B'B'CC (= γ-) trapped in the BH become the four preons B'B'CC (= γ-) freed outside the BH. Similarly, if two fermions interact gravitationally by each giving off photons which subsequently exchange a graviton, then parts of one fermion can be freed from the BH, but not the whole fermion in one exchange. Conversely, as gravitons have a very long reach, a photon a long way from a BH may interact and find itself heading direct into a BH. And, even stranger, an electron of mine could interact with a graviton from a BH and send half of its preons on a trip into a BH, while the electron still on me gains some preons which were previously in a black hole! NB how likely is it that an electron of mine would interact with a graviton from a BH?

Say an electron in a BH emitted a photon aeons ago. That photon then travels forwards in my time towards me (disguised as half a graviton) and eventually swaps places with a photon emitted by one of my electrons. 'My' electron would change handedness, incorporating some preons that were originally in the BH aeons ago. 'My' photon would travel backwards in time for aeons and eventually deposit some of 'my' preons into an electron within the BH. Odd!!! But as I say, I have only been thinking about gravitons in the context of my preon model for a few days. It may be that the graviton does not exist, or does not exist in the form I have assumed, or it may be that features of BHs of which I am unaware prevent such interactions. Why is a graviton allowed to escape a BH when a photon cannot; how can a BH exert its gravitational pull via gravitons without letting them out of the BH, etc, etc, etc...

[Ben6993]

Extracted from http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/10/1 ... questions/

Top and Higgs: a dynamic duo?
A major question addressed at the workshop, held from September 29 to October 3, was whether top quarks have a special connection with Higgs bosons. The two particles, weighing in at about 173 and 125 billion electronvolts, respectively, dwarf other fundamental particles (the bottom quark, for example, has a mass of about 4 billion electronvolts and a whole proton sits at just below 1 billion electronvolts).

Prevailing theory dictates that particles gain mass through interactions with the Higgs field, so why do top quarks interact so much more with the Higgs than do any other known particles?

Direct measurements of top-Higgs interactions depend on recording collisions that produce the two side-by-side. This hasn’t happened yet at high enough rates to be seen; these events theoretically require higher energies than the Tevatron or even the LHC’s initial run could supply. But scientists are hopeful for results from the next run at the LHC.
etc ...

In my model, there is a 1/4 higgs, a 1/2 higgs, a 1-higgs , a 2-higgs, etc., so the top quark (173 GeV/c^2) could be interacting more with the heavier 2-higgs (calculated by me at 176 GeV/c^2) than with the lighter 1-higgs (125 GeV/c^2).

[Q-reeus]

See my two diagrams of a spin -1 photon (black) exchanging a graviton with a spin +1 photon (red)...
...But as I say, I have only been thinking about gravitons in the context of my preon model for a few days. It may be that the graviton does not exist, or does not exist in the form I have assumed, or it may be that features of BHs of which I am unaware prevent such interactions. Why is a graviton allowed to escape a BH when a photon cannot; how can a BH exert its gravitational pull via gravitons without letting them out of the BH, etc, etc, etc...

Apologies for late response but your last two posts sort of left me scratching head and could not really connect it to my query. I'm confident that any model of a photon convecting with it an active gravitational mass, as is normally assumed happens for a massive particle, has to be wrong. At a very basic conceptual level, seems from modern QFT perspective that, contrary to Einstein's SR that banished notion of an (19th C) aether, one does in fact have a multi-component Lorentz invariant 'modern aether':
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... -are-they/

That a photon is a propagating excitation of and through. In that picture, it might seem reasonable that active mass is not being convected with the photon, but rather momentarily induced in a given 'stationary' patch of modern aether as the photon excitation propagates through it. Trouble is this implies a gravitational monopole pulse there - rising and then falling active mass as the pulse passes through. And of course the process is continuous - implying a kind of conical shock wave trails out behind. At least on a hybrid model where gravitational field is a continuum as per GR. If one considers it will be quantized, then a 'monopole pulse' should be exceedingly rare, but relatively violent in compensation. In either case, lossy overall either continually or as a rare statistical 'jerk' - assuming of course the process actually exists and is conservative.

I don't think that duo of options is reasonable and stick by that the only sensible view is photons have zero active mass.

[Ben6993]

Hi Q-reeus

Q-reeus wrote on Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:52 am

Ben6993 wrote:
See my two diagrams of a spin -1 photon (black) exchanging a graviton with a spin +1 photon (red)...
...But as I say, I have only been thinking about gravitons in the context of my preon model for a few days. It may be that the graviton does not exist, or does not exist in the form I have assumed, or it may be that features of BHs of which I am unaware prevent such interactions. Why is a graviton allowed to escape a BH when a photon cannot; how can a BH exert its gravitational pull via gravitons without letting them out of the BH, etc, etc, etc...

Apologies for late response but your last two posts sort of left me scratching head and could not really connect it to my query. ...

Sorry for being unclear. That was my third draft of a response so I was having difficulties, and you did ask for my "thoughts" so I rambled on, particularly as the graviton ideas were new to me and on my mind. Apologies. By the time I first mentioned BHs, I had finished the reply to you and was rambling on, thinking out aloud about gravitons as preon structures. The post after that, about a hypothetical 2-Higgs mass, was not a reply to you.

In my preon model, all preons travel at speed c. It is the arrangement of preons in an elementary particle that determine if that particle has innate speed c (ie no rest mass) or is blocked in moving linearly at c (and therefore has rest mass). So in my model, the electron has rest mass but the photon does not. In my model #3, I gave a structure for the electron, i.e. not just the types and numbers of preons comprising the electron, but their arrangement too. Despite some changes to my model (now at version #5) the electron model#3 [a triple helix of fast twisting colour branes] is still approximately OK for the electron. In model #3, I had an incorrect model of the boson in the number and types of preons and I have not been back to attempt a photon structure for model #5. Speedboat propellers form the basis of my ideas for speed c by using paired counterrotating screws for maximum thrust (speed c). Counterrotating screws implies some element of symmetry of design. The electron in my model only has coloured preons, aggregating to colour neutral (white). This means that the electron is accessing the three (R,G,B) colour branes and moving only in the positive time dimensions of each of those branes. Which is what, in my model, defines negative electric charge. That gives an electron the asymmetry which destroys any chance of the electron having innate speed c. The photon is also neutral in colour but it has as many anticolour preons as colour preons and so is not white but an equal mixture of white and black, ie a genuine neutrality wrt colour branes. So on average the photon is neither travelling forwards or backwards in time within the three (R,G,B) colour brane dimensions. And so it has net zero electric charge. And that is a symmetry which does not prevent it having net speed c. The gluon has a very similar form to the photon, and also has speed c, but the gluon is a more complicated structure with four times as many preons as the up or down quark or photon. The photon does not have the capacity to have a quark's worth of preons within it. The gluon can have up to three quarks-worths of quark preons in it and so can enter into interactions with quarks which the photon cannot. The most complicated type of gluon is possibly a 2-gluon in the same generation as the 2-higgs and can have up to seven quarks-worths of quark preons within it and so can perform the say, rr' + gg' -2bb' role. So the gluon does not travel far before it interacts. As the gluon is still said to be massless and it is very interactive as a particle (I am assuming maybe wrongly that it is interacting as a particle), then particle interactions must not affect innate rest mass. The innate rest mass must be obtained via field interactions e.g. electron field moving through a higgs field. I cannot argue that an electron's asymmetry gives it innate rest mass and then suggest that the rest mass must rely on particle-particle interactions. That asymmetry must be related to how it interacts with the vacuum energy.

Particle-particle interactions transfer energy between particles which affects the (pc)^2 part of a particle's energy. If more momentum is transferred to a particle than it loses in the interaction then it gains mass. But I am not clear about how that energy is stored in the particle. Saying it is stored as a faster speed is not helpful in terms of structure, and also, that does not work for a photon which cannot gain more speed than c, and I trust it must be the same principle for electron and photon. The photon changes its frequency when it changes (pc)^2 energy. I do not yet have a preon structure for the photon, but for the electron it is a triple helix of spinning colour branes. I do not see an individual preon's chirality being affected by interactions but the global 3-helix structure could change with a gain in momentum, for example that helix could spin faster. That could affect how the electron field engaged with the higgs field .... which again points to even the (pc)^2 part of a particle's energy being stored in the particle structure but implemented against a higgs field very much like the (mc)^2 part of the mass. As for the (pc)^2 photon energy, I am not sure how that is implemented, although it could be maybe be stored in the photon as some kind of increase in global rotation or oscillation.

[Ben6993]

Gerard 't Hooft in In Search of Building Blocks, CUP, 1997, page 141, suggested putting numbers into the names for building blocks.
Assuming
molecules = 1
atoms = 2
protons = 3
quarks = 4
preons = 5th layer.

He suggested quinks instead of preons, but that never caught on. He also suggested 'sexks' for a sixth layer.
In my model, up to now, I have preons = 6th layer and blocks or units of preons as the 5th layer.

I am drafting a paper for vixra and am thinking of revising my naming system so that my units or blocks will become 'preons' and what I have been calling preons should become 'hexarks'. In my earlier models my preons were of about the same number as the Rishon Model preons so the terminology fitted for the early models, but, like Pinocchios's nose, the number of building blocks gradually grew, from a few to 48. Each time I found a snag with the model, the number of preons grew.

However, the number of blocks of preons became only three, very much like the Rishon Model numbers of preons except the Rishworth Model has two preons based on charge = 1/3 or zero, whereas my blocks have charge = 1/2.
All particle interactions can be described by swapping the blocks (now to be called preons) around at the point of interaction.

So my terminology for levels will be:
molecules = 1
atoms = 2
protons = 3
quarks = 4
preons = 5 (my old units or blocks [A,B,C,A',B',C'], sub-units or sub-blocks [Cr,Cg,Cb,C'r',C'g', C'b'])
hexarks = 6 (my old preons).

Don't really like the name 'hexarks' but I cannot think of anything better yet.

[Ben6993]

"Scientists To Test Model Suggesting Higgs Particle Disintegrates Into Dark Matter"
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/37619/20150305/model-suggests-higgs-particle-disintegrates-into-dark-matter.htm
"It suggests the Higgs particle itself may be a source for them, by disintegrating into one particle of light -- a photon -- and a particle of dark matter."


I suppose there are many ways a higgs can disintegrate, but assuming that the higgs disintegrates and forms one photon and a minimum of other particles:

Higgs --> photon + remainder
(0, 0, -0.5) --> (0, 1, 0) + (0, -1, -0.5)
where () values are (electric charge, spin, weak isospin) and colours are neutral.

{N.B. I don't like this disintegration as I don't believe in spontaneous disintegration so the higgs would need to interact with something else to cause the disintegration. But continuing anyway ...}

... the remainder could form a LH neutrino plus a LH sterile antineutrino
remainder --> LH ν + LH ν'
(0, 1, 0.5) --> (0, -0.5, -0.5) + (0, -0.5, 0)

So neutrinos could form the dark matter under this arrangement. But so could others under other arrangements.

If a single Higgs particle has a mass of 125 GeV/c^2, what is the mass of that single higgs particle in between interactions?
There must be a lot of higgs particles to give mass to all the quarks in the universe. Yes, I know that the higgs field (rather than the particle) is thought to give rise to particle masses but there must be a huge number of higgs fields in the universe, each higgs field being potentially turn-able into a particle in an accelerator. In normal conditions the higgs stay as fields, but surely a single higgs field also has a mass of 125 GeV/c^2. An electron will maintain its mass in between interactions, won't it? So should not the higgs field retain its mass in between interactions, too? So what is the total mass of the higgs fields in the universe?
My model for a dark matter particle is a 1/4-higgs with mass 65.7 GeV/c^2, See http://wp.me/p18gTT-i
but the full higgs could serve equally?

[lkcl]

...The Rishon model has only one form for the electron:T'T'T' whereas I have two forms, a left-hand and a right-hand form which are not trivially different from one another because one form has weak isopin and the other form does not. So one cannot rotate my LH electron into a RH electron: switching forms occurs in interactions...

This does not clash with that electron helicity in one frame may have the opposite sign in another - since it's always possible to 'outrun' an electron?

the extended rishon model has one, but it's only because you can go either clock-wise or anti-clockwise around the phase map to end up at the same result that it *appears* that there *might* be two... but i am beginning to suspect that there might actually be a separate (identical) phase map for left-chirality and right-chirality... it's... complicated.

ben: the model that you're developing needs to have an explanation as to why left-chiral particles do not "decay" to right-chiral particles and vice-versa. also an explanation as to why left-chiral is equal to the right-chiral anti-particle, with the exception of the neutrino where it's always left-handed. i appreciate this lot is fantastically complicated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics) but it's very very important to replicate correctly in any alternative theory.