Preon Model #7

[Ben6993]

I have today put a paper onto the vixra website at: http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0115

Title: Hexark and Preon Model #7: for Standard Model elementary particles, Higgs, Gravitons, Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Abstract: This paper shows a model for building all elementary particles of the Standard Model plus the higgs, dark matter and gravitons, out of preons and sub-preons. The preons are built from string-like hexarks each with chiral values for the fundamental properties of elementary particles. Hexark colour and tone completely determine particle colour charge and electric charge. Gravitons occur in three generations: the first generation graviton is colourless and gives rise to dark energy. The third generation gravitons are coloured with colour-anticolour, like the gluon, and give rise to a generally attractive but very weak force over an inter-galactic range, just as the gluon gives a generally attractive but much stronger force over a much shorter distance. The third generation higgs, recently discovered, also has colour-anticolour. Model #7 replaces the old Model #6 of May 2015 which did not cater for the graviton.

Some more web links for my preon model:
quantum gravity vixra paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0338
quantum gravity page on this website : viewtopic.php?f=6&t=211
Preon model #6 page on this website: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=161
old preon model #6 vixra paper: http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0076
one page summary of gravitons on my wordpress website: http://wp.me/p18gTT-4L

I am already at work amending the model, to a new #8, to allow a strong colour binding of preon to preon within an elementary particle. That means amending the structure of every preon, while retaining the ability of the preons to build all the elementary particles.

BTW, the preon model is a hidden variable model. LH and RH particles are supposed in QM to represent unphysical particles, while physical elementary particles are superpositions of LH and RH particles. But I seem to have built a comprehensive array of elementary particles out of LH and RH forms where these LH and RH forms have conservation of structure inbetween interactions.

Model #7 was required because preon D in Model #6 was inadequate to make the first generation graviton, 1/4 G, using only four preons. So preon D was replaced by preon E which is much more in line with the properties of 'half an up quark'. I pushed on fast with the gravitation vixra paper last month as I had a strong feeling someone might beat me to publishing the idea of a colour-anticolor graviton. And the Model #7 vixra paper has tidied up and published the new structures including the new preon E.

[Ben6993]

Is gravity always attractive?

On a link provided by Q-reeus
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/gravity-gravitate-part-2-sequel/
given at
http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=242#p6267
it says that spin 2 gauge bosons always generate attractive forces.
If that is true then my gravitons would always result in attraction. However I have checked further and am not convinced this is true without assuming mass to be the gravitational charge and in my model mass is not a gravitational charge.

I have found two relevant links at:
https://www.quora.com/Quantum-Field-Theory/Why-do-particles-of-odd-integer-spin-generate-forces-which-can-be-both-attractive-and-repulsive-whereas-particles-of-even-integer-spin-only-attract
and
http://www.science20.com/standup_physicist/blog/spinning_interaction_story_attraction_and_repulsion_3_3-85840

Both references give the table:

spin odd
q1q2 < 0: attractive
q1q2 > 0 : repulsive

spin even
q1q2 > 0 : attractive
q1q2 < 0 : repulsive


The spin odd case covers QED such that an electron repels an electron as (-1)( -1) is positive.

In the spin two case, a (-1)(-1) is positive and would result in attraction between two electrons.
A (-0.33)(+0.67) is negative and would result in a repulsion between an up and a down quark.
This would apply to my model of the QED-like graviton, but would not necessarily affect the QCD-like graviton which acts on colour charge not electric charge. In my model, the QED-like graviton only dominates when the particles are vastly separated in space.

In the first reference, it is stated that: "In the case of gravity, mediated by spin 2 particles, charge is mass, which is always positive. Thus, q1q2 is always greater than zero, and gravity is always attractive. For spin 0 force mediators, however, there is no restriction on the charges and you can very well have repulsive forces."

The first sentence of this quotation explains why it is said that spin 2 gravity is always attractive. It depends on mass being the gravitational charge, but
this is not true for my model.

The second sentence refers to zero spin bosons such as the higgs, and says that such bosons can produce attraction and repulsion but gives no rule to explain how to obtain either.

[Q-reeus]

Is gravity always attractive?
In the first reference, it is stated that: "In the case of gravity, mediated by spin 2 particles, charge is mass, which is always positive. Thus, q1q2 is always greater than zero, and gravity is always attractive. For spin 0 force mediators, however, there is no restriction on the charges and you can very well have repulsive forces."

The first sentence of this quotation explains why it is said that spin 2 gravity is always attractive. It depends on mass being the gravitational charge, but
this is not true for my model.

Ben, in GR and most alternate theories rest energy = rest mass is typically the only significant contribution to 'gravitational charge' but the full source contains contributions from energy/mass, momentum, and stress. Tension is negative stress thus formally a source of 'negative charge'. However there is no realistic situation where such could overall dominate, and typically is a quite minor perturbation. There are fringe notions of 'exotic energy' that is -ve and conjectured to allow 'stable wormholes' but such ideas are too way out for my liking.

The second sentence refers to zero spin bosons such as the higgs, and says that such bosons can produce attraction and repulsion but gives no rule to explain how to obtain either.

As afaik the sole example of a spin 0 particle, the Higgs is both extremely massive and highly unstable with a very short lifetime. Hence if it were to be a Yukawa type force carrier, the range would be exceedingly short and likely operative only at the kind of extremes expected at the big bang epoch. Bound to be theory articles out there somewhere dealing with that sort of thing but I probably wouldn't understand anything of the maths invoked.

[Ben6993]

Hi Q-reeus

In my model the higgs is generation 3 and so there are at least two lighter higgs, one of which is confounded with the Z. There is no restriction to three generations in my model and there also could have been a heavier generation at one time. The lighter higgs are in the vacuum and I see interactions as always involving a catalyst boson, often one of the lighter higgs. It starts an interaction off and can return to the vacuum later on. Maybe a little like Brownian motion. This is my way of having matter (in the form of preons) inputted into interactions rather than just energy inputted. This is also how I differentiate between generation of photons say or gravitons in an interaction, and how I get rid of spontaneous emission. So this differs from the Standard Model.

Positive mass is not an inherent property of (my) preons. I did build electric charge into the model but found that it is identical with colour charge tone. I thought about including hypercharge but decided it was unnecessary if weak isospin was included. Energy is not directly in the model except that the hexarks have speed c built into them and a twisting motion, which implies energy. But I need to learn a lot more about energy.

The twisting motion of the hexarks (components of the preons) do imply opposing signs of energies. Such as adding together two opposing vortices could cause them to cancel out to zero motion. However, motion at speed c seems to prevent such cancellation of sources, ie destruction of hexarks, although it maybe could cancel their effects. [Also preons have matter and they never destruct. Particle annihilation is not destruction.] This is how a say higgs boson is a scalar in its effects (though it does have non-zero weak isospin effects). If I believed that the effects did not cancel out maybe I could believe more in always positive energy. In some cases the opposing spins can create an aggregate body with speed c and no rest mass, which also seems to point away from opposing vortices each having a positive energy. Anyway, I need to think more about it. I had the graviton idea in September, wrote the graviton vixra paper in October, and then revised the preon model vixra paper in November. Then I had flu (despite having the flu jab) and was tired. So I decided to put any serious physics work on hold until after Easter. But I know I need to work up a more mathematical model now.

[Q-reeus]

Hi Ben,

Positive mass is not an inherent property of (my) preons....Energy is not directly in the model except that the hexarks have speed c built into them and a twisting motion, which implies energy. But I need to learn a lot more about energy...The twisting motion of the hexarks (components of the preons) do imply opposing signs of energies...

As you may have gathered, when confronted with a somewhat complicated theory that may or may not have sophisticated mathematical underpinnings, I go for the basics.
In this case, that means noting especially "Positive mass is not an inherent property of (my) preons".
Leaving aside so-called active mass, it's a fundamental tenet of GR and most alternate theories of gravity, that passive mass = inertial mass.
Hence, if a preon has negative passive mass (rest energy), it's also implied it will exhibit negative inertia. Which in turn implies some interesting tachyonic dynamics (try a search using e.g. 'tachyon instabilities').

To be fair there are, just like in GR and QP, different schools of thought as to viability of tachyonic states. I go with that school that thinks they are forbidden.
Have you thought that matter through and made sure such preons are inherently stable and indeed possible entities?

[Ben6993]

Hi Q-reeus

Thanks. I have searched for 'tachyon instability' and found the topic more interesting than I expected. Not sure I am up to it though. The analogy of normal mass being in a normal pendulum is fine. And I note the analogy of negative mass being in an pendulum pointing upwards, precariously balanced and hence unstable. That does appear to give normal mass an asymmetric advantage over negative mass. Presumably because normal mass is correlated with our time direction whereas negative mass is anticorrelated. So that is not an unexpected or unfair advantage. Similar to normal matter being correlated with our time direction in feynman diagrams and antimatter being negatively correlated. And similar to normal matter being more stable amongst normal matter than antimatter is when mixing with a predominance of normal matter. I think it is important that the preons can function equally well as a group irrespective of the prevailing time direction of the universe.

Antimatter in my preon model is not as clear cut as in the Standard Model. It is my hexarks which determine matter/antimatter most fundamentally. though what the properties are of the constituents that make up hexarks could ultimately spoil that picture too. But I don't go there. But certainly the SM view on antimatter is undermined in my model. For example in my model, a spin + photon is the anti(hexark)matter version of a spin - photon.

A LH vortex on it own will appear to have a rest mass, and a RH vortex on its own will appear to have a rest mass, and I am not sure how you could distinguish one type of mass mass from the other on their own. And maybe if you keep them isolated from each other (ie so that the do not undergo a particle interaction) then they do sum as if they were both positive. However, particles can be massless and in my model that means that combining vortices can eliminate their rest mass.

I made my model after following online a quantum course and a string theory course and a few others. I see hexarks as strings and that means they are relativistic entities. Strings are built using relativistic formulae so I assume that my hexarks have relativistic properties. And just as photons do not lose speed c, in a vacuum, then neither do the hexarks. I do not remember discussion of stability or the maintenance of relativistic speeds of strings in the online course.

I also see elementary particles as beginning and ending just as in Penrose's CCC. So the hexarks have an internal time direction just as does the universe. They exist as fields but start and end as points at interactions, and they end not by contracting back to a point but by "popping" by analogy with a soap bubble. As in CCC, they expand until their internal space metric is lost, then they resume with a new metric. The hexarks are so stable that they contain everything required (especially their dimensions) in order to restart a new field. Space may lose its metric but the hexarks do not lose their dimensionality.

[lkcl]

ben: two bits of advice that i am freely giving, for both you and anyone else considering developing a HEP theoretical model:

(1) the law of conservation of energy is absolute. matter-antimatter creation is okay as long as that matter (and anti-matter) go in exactly equal and opposite directions (even for the briefest period of time), and also have the exact same anti-phase, and exact same frequency and size and composition and so on... but creating matter (or charge, or anything else) out of THIN AIR is such a basic fundamental violation of common sense that it has to be ruled out. not in an unquestioning way, but in a very very strong rational one based on empirical observation of the way that the universe has operated for billions of years.

(2) the nonradiating condition, first raised as part of the ring model from the early 1900s, is absolutely critical. if the model in ANY WAY has a "leakage of energy" in its particles, it's flat-out an invalid model... period. put another way: it's demonstrable that except at v<<<c the schroedinger equation leaks energy. thus if it is even ATTEMPTED to base a model solely on the schroedinger equation, it's automatically calling that model into question, and if v begins to approach c even just a tiny bit within the model, the model may be declared 100% to be completely and utterly wrong.

the important thing about the nonradiating condition is that it says that the particle is self-protecting and self-stable. the particle "protects" itself and *actively resists* attempts by events that attempt to either take away or add to its total energy. some of those events may *exceed* that resistance (such as particle "decay" or electrons jumping orbital "shells") but that's a different matter.

put another way: we do not see particles just spontaneously bursting into a cloud of lethal x-rays. we do not see them "deflating like a balloon over time". thus we may logically conclude that particles do not "leak" - they do not "radiate" - thus, mathematically, there *must exist* a "nonradiating" condition with which to work on our models.

hope this helps.

l.