Preon Model #6

The Standard Model and beyond, QED, QCD, etc.

Preon Model #6

I have been writing a paper on my preon model #5 for the last month or more. Hopefully to go on vixra. No chance of arxiv as the paper is not mathematical nor do I now have an address on campus. I had almost finished the paper, dotting 'i's, crossing ts and cross-checking, when I found an error in the weak force treatment one week ago. Fortunately, I have recovered a preon structure using a new model, #6.

I should have spotted the error long ago, or been wise enough to have avoided the error in the first place. My error was to assume the following incorrect eigenstates for the up quark and the neutrino:
where () = (electric charge, spin, weak isospin)
LH up = (2/3, -0.5, -0.5)
LH ν = (0, -0.5, -0.5)

whereas they should be:
LH up (2/3, -0.5, +0.5)
LH ν (0, -0.5, +0.5)

But I have now corrected this. It required a fourth preon, preon D, with properties (-0.5, 0, +0.5) in order to be able to build the ν and up quark using only four preons to conform with the pattern for the first generation elementary particles.

There were two other structural effects: the higgs (0,0,-0.5) can now be built in two different ways: ABC'C' X6 as before but also as D'C X7 (where Xn is n neutral pairs of preon + antipreon).

Also, there must be two different forms of W- : (-1,-1,-1) and (-1,+1,-1). This is because to send an LH up (2/3, -0.5, 0.5) to a RH down (-1/3, 0.5,0) requires an addition of (-1, +1, -0.5) while to send a RH up (2/3,0.5, 0) to a LH down (-1/3, -0.5, -0.5) requires an addition of (-1,-1,-0.5). That requires the two forms of W-. And the extra 0.5 weak isospin that is needed comes from a 1/4 higgs which complies with many interactions in my preon model which require the 1/4 higgs or 1/2 higgs or higgs as a participant.

I have also introduced a new term which correlates exactly with electric charge: hypertone. The preons have hypercolour which aggregate to quark colour in a way that has no dependence of electric charge on quark colour. The red up and red down are both red yet have opposite electrical charge. But if the hypercolour of the preon is relabelled as white (=-1) for coloured preons and black (=1) for anticolour preons then blackness and whiteness represent tonal values for the preons. Aggregating the tonal values across preons in an elementary particle gives an exact match for electric charge in my model. I named the tonal value of the preon as 'hypertone' and because I am an amateur artist (see my wordpress website) this use of tonal values pleases me more than anything else that I have done in the preon model. It also give a connection between QCD and QED caused by aggregation and losing degrees of freedom in that aggregation process. An arxiv paper on preon models used 'hypercolour' for the colours on the preons, which is why I used hypertone rather than tone and I am now also using the term hypercolour for the preon 'colours'.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

I have finished my vixra paper (27pp) and it is now loaded onto the vixra website:

http://vixra.org/abs/1505.0076
Title: Hexark and Preon Model #6: the Building Blocks of Elementary Particles. Electric Charge is Determined by Hexatone and Gives a Common Link Between QED and QCD.
Abstract: The paper shows a model for building elementary particles, including the higgs, dark matter and neutral vacuum particles, from preons and sub-preons. The preons are built from string-like hexarks each with chiral values for the fundamental properties of elementary particles. Elementary particles are unravelled and then reformed when preons disaggregate and reaggregate at particle interactions. Hexark colours are separately described by hue (hexacolour) and tone (hexatone). Hexacolour completely determines particle colour charge and hexatone completely determines particle electric charge. Hexacolour branes within the electron intertwine to form a continuously rotating triple helix structure. A higgs-like particle is implicated in fermions radiating bosons.

I need a rest!
Ben6993
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

I have added, to my wordpress website, a very short explanation of how electric charge can be related to colour charge for preons (I have used socks instead of preons in the short explanation in order to simplify) and yet that relationship is lost after aggregation to quark level.

Electric charge and coloured socks
http://wp.me/p18gTT-4k
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

LHC spots a consistent oddity in decays with leptons

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/09/ ... h-leptons/
" ... the LHCb collaboration tracked decays that produced either muons or taus, and then measured their relative frequency. ... taus were produced slightly more often than expected ... it may hint at other particles out there that we have yet to discover ..."

--------------------

This effect sounds like it could be similar to the flavour changing that is found to occur with neutrinos. In my preon model this would not require new particles.

Parentheses are: (electric charge, spin, weak isospin)

Higgs+ + LH muon - –> RH tau + Z-
(0, 0, 0.5) + (-0.5, -0.5, -0.5) --–> (-0.5, 0.5, 0) + (0, -1, 0)
16 preons + 12 preons --–> 20 preons + 8 preons

A’B’CC (BB’AA’BB’CC’AA’BB’) + AC (CC’AA’BB’CC’AA’ ) --–> BC (CC’ AA’AA’BB’CC’AA’BB’CC’AA’) + B’B’CC (AA’BB’)

In this interaction, a Z is also produced. These Zs do not get detected when neutrinos are flavour changing but they should be detectable at the LHC when muons are flavour changing.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

HIggs-like particle masses

A new vixra paper two days ago by Lamont Williams, "Higgs Boson Mass Can Be Derived From Masses of Z and W Bosons" (see http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0268 ) says: "the author shows that the mass of the Higgs boson can be calculated using the mass values of the Z and W bosons". This is a simple sum of the three masses of Z, W+ and W- divided by 2 giving 125.98 GeV/c^2 which is within one percent of the latest experimental value of approx 125 units. So that looks maybe like simple numerology.

The above paper cites work by Torrente-Lujan, E. in 20014 " The Higgs mass coincidence problem: Why is the Higgs mass MH^2 = MZ*Mt in Eur Phys. J. C 74:2744 (2014) (see http://vixra.org/pdf/1509.0268v1.pdf). This is a different idea but still maybe numerology.

There is also a 2014 paper by Paheli Ghosh et al, "The mass of higgs boson" (see http://www.ejournalofscience.org/archiv ... 4no2_5.pdf) in ARPN Journal of Science and Technology,which also cites the MH^2 = MZ*Mt formula and uses it to estimate a higgs mass of 125.8 GeV/c^2 which is within one percent of the latest experimental value.

My own blog post of March 2013 (see https://ben6993.wordpress.com/2013/03/1 ... particles/) uses a similar formula to the latter formula above but with important differences.
My formula calculates a mass of approx 176 GeV/c^2 for my hypothetical 2-higgs elementary particle, This is close to the mass of the top quark (173.3 GeV/c^2). IMO the closeness of these two masses may be interfering with a discovery of a hypothetical 2-higgs were anyone to be looking in the region ~175 units. Also higgs particles at high energy decay into quark anti-quark jets and the top quark would be seen as a jet too. It may be confusing/confounding to distinguish a 2-higgs decaying from a top quark decaying. Rather than use a squared relation, my formula uses the (approximate) square root version. For example, if MH=125 and MZ=91.2, then MH = MZ* 1.388, and M2H=MH*1.388 = 176. Where 1.388 is a slightly doctored version of the square root of 2. These values could by substitution give approximately the formula MH^2 = MZ*Mt but only because Mt (top mass) is approximately the same as M2H (2-higgs mass). So in my method, the top mass should play no role in the calculation as it there purely by coincidence.

I now prefer to explain my formula as a way of calculating the huge mass deficit involved in confining preons within elementary particles. In my preon model there is no limit of three generations per fermion. And also the bosons have generations. If we get new elementary particles in the second run of the LHC, I would expect this to be from higher generations of the standard Model particles rather than from SUSY. There are early (too early) glimpses maybe of new particles at 1.8 TeV/c^2 and at 5.3 TeV/c^2. (see http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diar ... tev-157286 and http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diar ... tev-156030)

I have predicted, in my 2013 blog, a higgs-like particle at 1.7 TeV/c^2 , which is quite close to the 1.8 mentioned above, but have predicted nothing between 4.7 and 6.5 TeV/c^2, However IMO there are more particles to be discovered than just the higgs-like ones, for example higher generation electrons or quarks, and I have only predicted masses of higgs-like particles, It is startling to state that my particle for mass of 1.8 TeV/c^2 is as much as a 256-higgs. I.e. generation 11. (The higgs is generation 3 in my model.) Some of the lower order generations have also approximately matched (non significantly, statistically speaking) tentative experimental results eg. 244, 338, 2420 and 3360 GeV/c^2.

My curve for estimating the 2-higgs mass is based on the 1-higgs mass (125 GeV/c^2) and the Z mass (or half-higgs). I am not equatig the half-higgs with the Z particle but I believe that the half-higgs mass is mistakenly being attributed to the Z. Z interactions in my model are always accompanied by an unobserved half-higgs. The Z needs to be there in interactions of course because of its spin 1 value. Similarly the photon is often accompanied in interactions inmy model by the quarter-higgs which is the smallest higgs-like particle. Note that for me to estimate the 256-higgs mass at 1.7 TeV/c^2 requires a huge degree of extrapolation. Also, it is quite likely that more glue is needed to hold together the higher generational elementary particles, in other words the mass deficit could be much larger for the higher generational particles/fields. So my estimated masses for the higher generational higgs-like particles could be overestimated masses. In other words, to estimate the 256-higgs mass from the 128-higgs mass might require using the formula say 256-Higgs mass = 1.2 * 128-higgs mass (rather than using the multiplier 1.388 which could perhaps underestimate the mass deficit in this mass range).
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

A new arxiv paper at http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00302 The simplest 3-3-1 model by Le Tho Hue and Le Duc Ninh, has an interesting abstract:
"A simple extension of the Standard Model (SM), based on the gauge group SU(3) C⊗ SU(3) L ⊗ U(1) Y with Y being the hypercharge, is considered. We show that, by imposing an approximate global SU(2) L × SU(2) R custodial symmetry at the SM energy scale, the Z − Z′ mixing is absent at tree level and quantum corrections to the ρ parameter are the same as in the SM. Tree-level flavor-changing neutral currents are also reduced to three particles, namely Z′, a CP-odd Higgs and a CP-even Higgs. The model predicts new leptons with electric charges of ±1/2 e and new quarks with ±1/6 e charges. Their masses are unfortunately free parameters."

There are quite a few features of this abstract that I find interesting wrt my preon model. The paper predicts electrons with charge -0.5 e. My preon A is identical to a left-handed electron but only has charge -0.5 e. My preon B is identical to a right-handed electron but only has charge -0.5. All my sub-preons Cr, Cg and Cb are identical in colour to the quark colour and only have electric charge -1/6 e. However they are not identical to the quarks in spin or weak isospin. Having (sub-)particles (preons) with charge 1/2 e and 1/6 e is important in my model as it allows the quarks to be constructed to have the appropriate balance of charge against spin and weak isospin.

Also interesting is the absence of "Z-Z' mixing ..." as I believe that the Z in the Standard Model is not quite correct, at least with respect to its mass which IMO belngs to the 1/2 higgs. The paper modifies the model for the higgs which looks plausible (though I am too naive to understand the arxiv paper properly).
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

I recently wrote here that I thought the graviton might only act direct on bosons, and indirectly on fermions. I suppose that is what spurred me on to try to see ways the graviton could act direct on fermions. I had a eureka moment yesterday and found some ways for a graviton-fermion interaction!!! But actually a (possible) graviton interaction between quarks fell into my lap quite accidentally when I was trying simply to get gluon attraction between quarks. In the past (if I remember correctly) I had the gluon linking quarks of opposite chiral (not helicity) handedness. That was straightforward in my model. If the two quarks were the same handedness then either I ignored the interaction or decided I could not get that to work (or my memory is not good). I had also decided to write a new paper for vixra on some preon model matters not covered in enough detail in my first vixra paper. One was the twisting triple colour helix model of the electron and another matter was to try to show a clear, and common sense interpretation of exchanging particles as a force mechanism and showing the clear difference between attraction and repulsion. Maybe using preons it is easier to see this effect, than just using "indivisible" elementary particles? But, no, it is still easier to see the repulsion than the attraction. Using preons, not just the color but the two entire quarks seem to swap places, in what seems like quantum "exchange" or a simultaneous double quantum tunneling effect, with the gluon forming the path of the exchange.

I should remind that my interactions do not rely on spontaneous emissions. I just do not like that effect as it seems very wrong, For example the electron does not spontaneously emit a photon. In my model the electron interacts with a 1/4-higgs and (c.f. atoms rearranging into new molecules in a chemical reaction) the eight preons rearrange into two new particles: an electron with the opposite chiral handedness and a photon. Each of these four particles is made of four preons. Similarly, in my model, a quark does not spontaneously emit a gluon, something needs to make it happen, and it is done by interaction with an incoming particle. That was until a few days ago in my model, only a higgs interacting with the quark, and the gluon then going on to interact with a second quark with the opposite handedness. But when I tried this on a second quark of the same handedness, it worked only if a spin 2 particle is then emitted.

I am assuming for now that the particle emitted is a graviton. It has the following preons: A B' B' B' C C (X X X X X) where X could be AA' or BB' or CC'. So for example the graviton could be A B' B' B' C C (C C' B B' A A' B B' B B'). It has the following properties: electric charge = 0; spin = -2, weak isospin =-0.5, colour = neutral. I would prefer it to have weak isospin = 0 but that is not what is being found in the interactions. I have checked a few of these interactions and found the preons 'incoming' do balance the preons 'outgoing' from the interactions. However I need to cover a lot more interactions. But first, below is the path for a graviton hitting a right hand (=RH) red down quark and changing the quark to a LH green down quark and carrying on as a rg' gluon. The rg' gluon goes on to hit a RH green down quark and changes it to a LH red down quark, while the gluon continues on as a full higgs.

For interactions that I had previously used on quarks of opposite handedness, a full higgs hits the first quark changing its colour and handedness and emiting a gluon. The qluon hits the second quarks of a different handedness, then after that interaction, the quark changes colour and handedness and a full higgs of exactly the same qualities as the first one is emitted. Note that the higgs is unchanged before and after the interaction, but changes form between the two interactions. In that sense it acts like a catalyst for the interaction. But when the two quarks have the same handedness, the gluon acts between the two quarks but the stimulus particle and finally-emitted particle are the graviton and the higgs.

I can now set out to try to generate a sequence of interactions of gravitons and gluons and higgs hitting a succession of fermions: LH and RH electrons, LH and RH red down quarks and LH and RH green. down quarks. That is a lot of interactions to test, with a lot of different handedness, and so I may need to make a spreadsheet and try to generate the incoming boson and a succession of fermions chosen at random, with their handedness also at random. BTW, the graviton with opposite properties to the one above is A' B B B C' C' X X X X X which has the following properties: electric charge = 0; spin = +2, weak isospin = +0.5, colour = neutral. So in my model there are two chirally opposite gravitons. That is the same situation as with the photon. As it is standard to say that there is only one photon, I suppose that there is only one graviton. Nevertheless, in my model, the photon with spin +1 is the antimatter version of the photon with spin -1.

Now more details for the path given above of a graviton hitting a right hand (=RH) red down quark and changing the quark to a LH green down quark and carrying on as a rg' gluon. The rg' gluon goes on to hit a RH green down quark and changes it to a LH red down quark, while the gluon continues on as a full higgs.

A graviton hitting a right hand (=RH) red down quark and changing the quark to a LH green down quark and carrying on as a rg' gluon. The rg' gluon continues on its way:

graviton- + RH red down quark --> LH green down quark + rg' gluon-
16 preons + 4 preons --> 4 preons + 16 preons
AB'B'B' CCAA'XXXX + BC'g'CrC'b' X --> ACgC'r'C'b' X + B'B'CCXXXXX C'g'CrC'b' C'g'CrCb
(0,-2,-0.5) + (-1/3, 0.5, 0, red) --> (-1/3, -0.5, -0.5, green) + (0, -1, 0, red/antigreen)
where parentheses are (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour if appropriate)

The rg' gluon goes on to hit a RH green down quark and changes it to a LH red down quark, while the gluon continues on as a full higgs.

rg' gluon- + RH green down quark --> LH red down quark + higgs+
16 preons + 4 preons --> 4 preons + 16 preons
B'B'CCXXXXX C'g'CrC'b' C'g'CrCb + BCgC'r'C'b' X --> AC'g'CrC'b' X + A'B'CCXXXXXX
(0,-1,0, red/antigreen) + (-1/3, 0.5, 0, green) --> (-1/3, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (0, -1, 0, red/antigreen)

These preon equations completely balance so long as one can substitute X for any AA' and X for any BB' or CC'. Next, on to find more pathways ...
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

The penultimate line of the last post read:
(0,-1,0, red/antigreen) + (-1/3, 0.5, 0, green) --> (-1/3, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (0, -1, 0, red/antigreen)
but should have read:
(0,-1,0, red/antigreen) + (-1/3, 0.5, 0, green) --> (-1/3, -0.5, -0.5, red) + (0, 0, 0.5)

Sorry about that error. I type my posts on notepad and transfer to here which needs quite a bit of editing, reducing line spacing and increasing line lengths etc. Also just when I was going to submit the post I needed a final check on editing which requires me to minimise the window, which allows me to check that I have correct line breaks everywhere. I pressed 'close window' instead of 'minimise' by accident and had to start transferring from notepad all over again.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

Since my previous post, I have been calculating interaction paths for gravitational interactions involving all particles with one another. My graviton model seems to work fine for all particles. So my next step is to write a paper for Vixra. I suppose I should call this Preon Model #6+ as it is an add-on to model #6 without amending anything concerning the other particles.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

A few more points about my new finding on graviton elementary particle interactions.
The hidden cause of the emission of a photon by an electron is the impact by a 1/4 higgs on the electron. On absorption of a photon the 1/4 higgs will be emitted. Also, a 1/2 higgs can impact the electron and cause a Z particle to be emitted. Absorption of the Z particle by another electron will cause a 1/2 higgs to be emitted. But if the second electron is of the same handedness of the first incoming electron, then instead of a 1/2 Z being emitted, a 1/2 graviton will be emitted. There is no 1/4 graviton as the simplest graviton is a 1/2 graviton requiring eight preons. A similar interaction occurs for the full graviton with 16 preons emitted when a gluon impacts on a quark, or a say rr' gluon impacts on an electron.

I did all the verification work over the weekend by hand for all particle pairings as I just had to get on with it. So I did not make a spreadsheet, and I did not need it. I have written down dozens of interaction paths and here below are two, but I won't include the preon names for brevity [G=graviton]:

LHe- +Z- --> RH e- + 1/2 G-
(-0.5, -0.5, -0.5) + (0, -1, 0) --> (-0.5, 0.5, 0) + (0, -2, -0.5)
where parentheses are (electric charge, spin, weak isospin)

γ- + 1/2 H- --> γ+ + 1/2 G-
(0, -1, 0) + (0, 0, -0.5) --> (0, 1, 0) + (0, -2, -0.5)

The paths are reversible to cater for incoming gravitons.

I recently took this quote from http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article ... gs-belongs :
" ... There are three inherent qualifications required for a field to generate a force: The field must be able to switch on and off. It must have a preferred direction. And it must be able to attract or repel. Normally the Higgs field fails the first two requirements—it’s always on, with no preferred direction. But in the presence of a Higgs boson, the field is distorted, theoretically allowing it to generate a force. “We think that two particles can pull on each other using the Higgs field,” Strassler says. “The same equations we used to predict that the Higgs particle should exist, and how it should decay to other particles, also predict this force will exist.” Just what role that force might play in our greater understanding of the universe is still a mystery. “We know the Higgs field is essential in the formation of stable matter,” Strassler says. “But the Higgs force—as far as we know—is not. ...".

I am an amateur physicist and either do not understand some of this quote or else it is wrong. The higgs particle may not have a preferred direction but it does come in two forms, one with weak isopin -0.5 and one with weak isospin 0.5. So it does have a kind of 'direction' wrt a fundamental property. In my model the higgs- is screwing in the opposite direction to the higgs+, but the weak isospin dimension may perhaps be a compactified set of 4D and not identical to spacetime.
In my second path shown above, the higgs field certain switches off. The 1/2 H- is a field until it hits the electron, It then is a particle for an instant and then immediately becomes a field again. Except in my second path above, the 1/2 higgs gets re-assembled into a different particle. But its preons still exist.

As the 1/2 higgs can act as a kind of catalyst in the emission of a Z particle by an electron, and its absorption by a second electron, is is tempting to think that maybe the higgs does not have a field collapse. In other words, the electrons have a field collapse but not the 1/2higgs. The interactions could maybe borrow the higgs field for the duration. And the Z is a massive particle which will need to interact again quickly. Tempting, but ... in an interaction between an up and a down quark exchanging a Z, the incoming particle is a 1/2 higgs- but the outgoing particle is a 1/2 higgs+. So that is not an interaction using a catalyst. And if that interaction does not use a catalyst then I do not see why any interaction of the type above should use it as a field-only effect.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

Another eureka moment this morning. With an accompanying frustration of "why did I not see his sooner?"
In my recent posts I also noted that the higgs [for strong force] [or 1/2 higgs ... for weak force] or {1/4 higgs ... for EM force] was being used as a catalyst to initiate and carry out boson exchanges.
But, I have been using a colourless higgs and colourless graviton in gluon interactions in my model, but now realise they both need to be colourful, like the gluon. The use of a colourful higgs and graviton makes all the difference to gravity being 'always' attractive. And a coloured higgs is emitted after the force exchange, which has the same colour as the incoming higgs, so it is a catalyst in that the coloured higgs is eventually returned to the environment in identical form.

So why is gravity always attractive? Well in my new model, it isn't. Two electrons will repel one another gravitationally. But the force is so weak it hardly has any observable effect. In my model, gravity is carried out by a suite of bosons which are weaker versions of the EM, weak and Strong force bosons. That is why the full higgs has to be coloured. as is the gluon. The EM 1/4 higgs does not have a partner graviton as the graviton needs to be a 1/2 higgs size or greater, so the electron-to-electron gravitational repulsion needs to be carried out via the 1/2 graviton [via Z or W] or the full graviton [via gluon].

The strong force acts (very approx.) over 10^-15 metres. The gravitational version of the strong force is much weaker and should act over a huge distance (10^41 * 10^-15 metres?) before confinement kicks in. Just as protons and neutrons are attracted within a nucleus, all the quarks within a huge intergalactic range are attracted to one another in net effect. Outside that range the attraction could cease. (This sounds like a possible explanation for dark energy though I don't want to give up my other model of dark energy too easily!)

Electrons will be gravitationally attracted to quarks just as electrons are EM attracted to quarks.

But what about EM repulsion of quarks? In the atom, the EM repulsion of quarks (or protons) only dominates outside the nucleii. So in far intergalactic space, the weak gravitational version of the EM force might kick in with a repulsion in far off realms. I have done some back of the envelope calculations and I cannot see this repulsive force kicking in until distances of the length of the universe are reached. But the repulsions need to kick in sooner to match with dark energy ... but as I say, I have a different model for that.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Preon Model #6

After publishing my vixra paper on quantum gravity (see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=211) I now have a preon model which can build all Standard model particles plus gravitons. This required amending Preon Model #6 to become Model #7 in which Preon D was replaced by Preon E. My next task should be to publish a definitive Model #7 on vixra, although the differences between Models 6 and 7 are shown in the quantum gravity vixra paper. I had been waiting to recover some energy before tackling the Model #7 paper and in the meanwhile I have been 'resting' by following Susskind's online Basic Concepts course showing how to model bosons and fermions in QFT.

I had already had the idea that I would need to make the hexarks less all-or-nothing in their chirality towards the physical properties (electric charge, spin, weak isospin, colour). And also make the preons less all-or nothing with respect to the hexarks. That is the entities still need to have the net chiral properties but maybe there needs to be more neutral bulk in them. The neutral bulk will be a mix of properties. The neutral bulk in an entiity can then be mined to provide more of a property e.g. more red or more spin where required. This flexibility may be needed in trying to model fractional charges in the Quantum Hall Effect.

Another task is to try to model how the preons are attracted to one another within an elementary particle. I have had an idea about this tonight and the gluon could be the force mechanism between the Preon A and Preon C in the electron. I have worked out an interaction diagram for this and it all balances out nicely, but to do so I had to tweak the design of Preons A and C by inserting some colour-anticolour into them while leaving the overall electron colour neutral. Say Preon A has colour-anticolour like the gluon. To do this I had to double the number of hexarks in a preon (I haven't changed my model in that way for ages. And there would be the worry of why the Z has colour but not colour-anticolour if I increase the numbers of hexarks per preon.) So if Preon A has red-antigreen, then Preon C must have antired-green to make AC colour neutral. This allows the gluon to be the force exchange particle between Preons A and C. But that stops a simple division of Preon C into three equal thirds: Cr, Cg and Cb which each have a single colour which is necessary elswewhere in the model. But Maybe C does not divide so simply. I need to look further and I hope to extend the model without completely breaking it!

Another idea is that the force boson is made of much fewer hexarks than the gluon.
Also, I read that spin 3 and spin 4 bosons are out of bounds for physical models, but I suspect that one of them may be involved. But how? Cannot see it at present.

I should publish Model #7 before I get too attached to my prospective Model #8.
Ben6993

Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm