Is There a Six-Preon Theory with Specific Charge and Color Assignments?

[kodama]

@nnunn listed 9 papers by Yershov dating from 16 to 22 years ago. A simple search reveals that, since then, these works have been cited a total of 19 times, of which 9 are by Yershov him/herself. So only 10 cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time. By that, I judge the interest-in and influence-of Yershov's work to be essentially nonexistent. (And you should learn to use Google Scholar so you may answer questions like this yourself and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff of physics literature.)

how often are preon papers, especially past 20 years cited ? are preon papers heavy cited ?

did Authors: V. N. Yershov retired ?

what about Deur ? how many cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time?

 

[renormalize]

how often are preon papers, especially past 20 years cited ? are preon papers heavy cited ?

For comparison, the original preon paper by Pati and Salam Lepton number as the fourth "color" has been cited a total of 7089 times since 1974, with about 173 of those cites from 2024 alone.

what about Deur ? how many cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time?

Again, why aren't you using Google Scholar to determine this yourself? Why ask others on PF to do your work?

 

[ohwilleke]

I wrote a Wikipedia page for Yershov which was deleted for non-notability. He's one of the best of the preon theorists IMHO, but it is a dead end.

 

[kodama]

I wrote a Wikipedia page for Yershov which was deleted for non-notability. He's one of the best of the preon theorists IMHO, but it is a dead end.

could you re post on your blog

 

[ohwilleke]

could you re post on your blog

I did blog his work back in 2005 (before it was finished). https://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2005/08/modern-physics-preons.html

Yershov's really key contributions were: (1) he came up with a way to fit all the particle masses with a small number of possible preons, (2) his scheme did not just add up the masses of component preons blindly and instead used another system, which avoided some problems of other approaches, (3) he fit all the existing fundamental particles without creating new ones.

But, the experimental tests of compositeness really pretty much rule out his proposals anyway.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Again, why aren't you using Google Scholar to determine this yourself? Why ask others on PF to do your work?

Because he has us to do it for him. You also need to check to see that the papers say what he says they do. That is not universally the case.

 

[nnunn]

In those papers linked above (Yershov, 2002-2008), Yershov tried to sketch an alternative to standard model wavicles. By disposing of wavicles, he felt he could also dispose of any Higgs-type field, thus throwing a healthy baby out with the bathwater. And undermining his model.

Recent discussions (about a smallest possible wave in Matt Strassler's "Impossible Sea") reminded me of Yershov's work. In an ultimatonic alternative (mentioned above), I was thinking about replacing Yershov's ultimate preon with some alternate irreducible thing, quantized by Planck's quantum of angular momentum acting on a Higgs-type condensate of weak hypercharge.

Being literally a vortex of weak hypercharge, such a spinning, quantized, weakly hyper-charged thing would naturally interact with all standard model fermions. And since it's always interacting with that Higgs-type field (from which it's made), it would have a curious mode of interaction with that extreme disturbance in the field, a so-called "Higgs boson". Also, given the way such an ultimatonic preon solves the dark matter mystery, it remains an interesting idea.

Question is: how to model, let alone measure, such an ultra-short, ultra-fast flavor changer?

PS: Back in 2010 when I was discussing all this with Prof Yershov, he explained with some regret that his scheme was aggressively ignored by colleagues in cosmology and particle physics. However, he did briefly raise some interest among those working on superconductivity and condensed matter.

This link includes some of V. N. Yershov's more recent (cosmological) work.

NN

 

[nnunn]

So, can a preon model help to clarify the foundations of physics?

As I understand it, part of these foundations is the Brout, Englert, Higgs mechanism (Nobel, 2013). This involves the interaction of certain types of particles with a condensate of weak hypercharge, nowadays called a "Higgs-type field". This interaction does not involve the percussive, longitudinal disturbance predicted by Peter Higgs.

Which brings us back to Susskind's emphatic distinction between the (observed) Higgs-type "bosonic" disturbance, and a very different particle that can actually mediate the transfer of quanta of weak hypercharge. In typical Susskind style, he called this more interesting (and important) particle a "ziggs". So-named because this was the type of particle predicted by Brout, Englert and Higgs for actually transferring quanta of weak hypercharge, leading to a predicted chiral oscillation of Z-bosons, and that mechanism for acquiring inertial mass. The actual mass being defined by the rate of this chiral oscillation.

Is this the right idea, or have I misunderstood these fundamentals?

Assuming the above is on track, then for a preon model to be of any use in clarifying the foundations of the standard model, the issue reduces to explaining how various classes of clusters of preons might interact with this condensate of weak hypercharge.

Of particular interest is the possibility that a base level, ultimate preon involves an irreducible (topologically protected) quantum of angular momentum (h), acting -- as a quantized vortex of weak hypercharge -- on that condensate (of weak hypercharge). Self-interaction of such weakly charged objects enables clustering (confinement), and such weakly charged chiral clusters interacting with that condensate might help explain that mechanism proposed by Brout, Englert and Higgs.

What caught my interest in all this was an implied energy density.

While the actual quantity of energy associated with such an irreducible, quantized, spinning thing might be truly tiny, if this quantized vortex of weak hypercharge were confined within a Planck-scale volume, the energy density of such an ultimate uncuttable ("ultimaton") might serve as a quantum of classical curvature.

NN

 

[PeterDonis]

the Brout, Englert, Higgs mechanism

Susskind's emphatic distinction between the (observed) Higgs-type "bosonic" disturbance, and a very different particle that can actually mediate the transfer of quanta of weak hypercharge

Of particular interest is the possibility that a base level, ultimate preon involves an irreducible (topologically protected) quantum of angular momentum

Do you have references for these?

 

[PeterDonis]

What caught my interest in all this was an implied energy density.

While the actual quantity of energy associated with such an irreducible, quantized, spinning thing might be truly tiny, if this quantized vortex of weak hypercharge were confined within a Planck-scale volume, the energy density of such an ultimate uncuttable ("ultimaton") might serve as a quantum of classical curvature.

This looks like personal speculation, which is off limits here.

 

[mitchell porter]

There was a thread ten years ago about what Susskind meant by the "ziggs". I also discussed some of these topics with @nnunn last year. Important points:

The Higgs condensate has four different scalar excitations. Three of these correspond to the spin-0 components of W+,W-,Z bosons, and the fourth is the Higgs boson. Susskind's ziggs is either one of the first three, or the scalar in a simpler toy world where there's only a U(1) charge and no SU(2), I forget which.

There are no "quanta of weak hypercharge" per se in the standard model, no more than there are "quanta of spin", or (@nnunn didn't say this one but it would be analogous) "quanta of energy". The quanta are all particles for which weak hypercharge, spin, energy are properties that they possess. Thanks to laws of conservation, a particle in an interaction may in effect as a carrier of these properties that transfers them, that's all.

Now, it is true that in condensed matter physics, one sometimes hears of quasiparticles with names like "spinon". These seem to involve entangling elementary particles like electrons, then factorizing or disentangling these entanglements, in a way which clusters spin degrees of freedom separately from (e.g.) charge degrees of freedom. It's logically possible that the fundamental particles can be refactored in such a way, so as to produce a theory or an ontology in which there really are "quanta of weak hypercharge" and so on. But I don't know a concrete example of such a theory.