Spidergrams and particle interactions

In summary, the "weight-principle" is a theory that assigns different interaction weights to particles based on their properties, potentially providing a finite theory of particle interactions. It is related to the power-counting principle of renormalisation and uses diagrams, similar to Feynman diagrams, to illustrate these interactions. However, it does not account for quarks and gluons and predicts a relativistic scalar field for gravity, which may require a re-examination of our understanding of gravity. Further research and experimentation is needed to fully understand the implications of this theory.
  • #1
picasso
In this post I would like to discuss the "weight-principle". This is a rule-of-thumb principle, related to the power-counting principle of renormalisation, which says that different types of particles are given different "interaction weights" specifically the following:

graviton:0
gravitino:1
gauge boson:2
fermion:3

and also the derivative is given a weight of 2. The weight principle says that the only interactions that can occur are those who weights add up to 8. This includes all interactions from Yang-Mills Theory (where we write S for the Dirac Spinor spinor):

Action = (DA)(DA) + AA(DA) + AAAA + SDS + SAS

If we call the "interaction weight" of a particle, W, the number of indices of that particle is also given by W. (The indices must have values from 1 to 8). The 'spin' of the particle we shall define in a different way to normal as 2-W/2. This gives fermions spin 1/2 as we want. We find that the 2 extra indices of the fermion actually form an index giving the generation number.

The total number of components of the fermion field, for example, which has 3 indices is 8x7x6/(3!) which gives 56, and because a fermion field has 8 inpedpendent real components and 56=8x7, this gives 7 fields in total.

By examing the total number of components of each of the 4 different kinds of fields, if the "weight principle" holds then there can be no more than 1 graviton, 2 gravitinos (with half the components of a fermion), 7 gauge-bosons, and 7 fermions.

So we can account for these observed FREE particles: graviton, photon, W+,W-,Z0 weak gauge bosons, (+3 more gauge-bosons in an SU(2) representation),the 3 generations of leptons and neutrinos.

But we CAN'T account for quarks and gluons. Thus if the "weight principle" hold, we must look elsewhere for the structure of protons and neutrons. It is feasible that they could be made of leptons held together by some kind of charge changing force so that they appear on average to have a fractional charge. Their weights would be distorted by this force to give them the apparent weights of the quarks. This is simply one alternative to the quark model - there are others.

Further it is thought that gravitino fields acting in pairs would consitute the Higgs field. Much like electrons acting in pairs create super-conducing materials.

The graviton has interaction-weight 0 and so can attach itself to any interaction in any quantities. In fact it is useful if we call the graviton field H to construct a new field G given by

G=1 + H + H^2/2 + H^3/6 + ... =exp(H)

Now this is a scalar field and solving its field equations for a symmetric source gives:

G = 1-2m/r

We find that this predicts elliptic orbits but no bending of light, which is at odds with current thinking. However, like superstring theory, we cannot alter things as we wish and so if we accept the "weight principle" we would have to re-examine the explanation of the bending of light by the sun. It may be caused by something else besides gravity. (More about gravity modeled as a scalar field can be found at http://users.whsmithnet.co.uk/paulbird/gravbook ).

The entire action derived from the "weight principle" can be found using 4 dimensions, x, and 8 grassman numbers, G, and is given by:

Action= Integral{ exp( F(x,G) + GDG ) } dx^4 dG^8

where F is the superfield, D is the derivative mutiplied by an 8x8 real ant-symmetric dirac matrix. The terms of this expansion gives all those terms consistent with the "weight principle".

In conclusion I would like to say that the "weight principle" gives a complete theory of particle interactions which because it is related to the power-counting principle of renormalisation is possibly finite. The differences between this and the Standard Model are 2 things:
1) The structure of protons/neutrons are not made of fractional quarks according to this principle.
2) Gravity, by this principle, is given by a relativistic scalar field and so no bending of light is predicted as a result of gravity.

The most interesting aspect of this theory is whether it can be proved to be finite.

Diagrams
========
The "weight principle" is calculated with interesting diagrams like Feynamn diagrams except that each vertex has 8-legs. For example 3 legs grouped together represents a fermion and a loop represents a derrivative. Because of the coinindence that the dirac matrices can be written in complex form, the lines can also be given arrows. Each line coming into a vertex is numbered from 1..8 (or 1..4 with arrows) and no two lines coming into a vertex can be given the same number (unless the arrows are opposite). However, the lines change number before going into a different vertex. Since these diagrams all have 8-legs another name for the "weight principle", which I quite like is "Spider-gram Theory".


Dr Paul Bird

paulbird(a)whsurf.net
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Dear Dr. Paul Bird,

Thank you for bringing up the "weight-principle" and its potential implications for particle interactions. This principle, which assigns different interaction weights to particles based on their properties, is certainly an interesting concept to consider. It is also intriguing that this principle is related to the power-counting principle of renormalisation, which suggests that the theory may be finite.

I appreciate your suggestion of using "Spider-gram Theory" as an alternate name for the "weight-principle", as it accurately describes the diagrams used in this theory. I also find it interesting that this theory predicts elliptic orbits but not the bending of light, which may require a re-examination of our understanding of gravity.

However, I do have some questions and concerns about this theory. Firstly, while it is able to account for the observed free particles, quarks and gluons are not included in this framework. As you mentioned, this raises the question of the structure of protons and neutrons and their possible composition of leptons. Have there been any experiments or observations that support this idea?

Additionally, the use of grassman numbers and a superfield in the action may be difficult for some to understand and visualize. Can you provide more details or perhaps an example of how this action is derived and used in calculations?

Overall, I find the "weight-principle" to be a thought-provoking concept and I look forward to seeing further developments and investigations into its validity and implications. Thank you for sharing your insights and ideas with the scientific community.
 

1. What is a spidergram?

A spidergram, also known as a radial diagram, is a visual representation of the interactions between different particles in a system. It is used to show the relative strength and direction of these interactions.

2. How are spidergrams used in science?

Spidergrams are commonly used in fields such as physics and chemistry to analyze and understand the interactions between particles in a system. They can also be used to make predictions about the behavior of these particles.

3. What do the lines and symbols in a spidergram represent?

The lines in a spidergram represent the strength of the interactions between particles, with longer lines indicating stronger interactions. The symbols at the end of the lines represent the particles themselves, with different symbols representing different types of particles.

4. What is the difference between a spidergram and a particle interaction diagram?

While both spidergrams and particle interaction diagrams show the interactions between particles, the main difference is that spidergrams use radial diagrams while particle interaction diagrams use more traditional line graphs. Spidergrams also tend to focus on the relative strength of interactions, while particle interaction diagrams may show more specific quantitative data.

5. Are spidergrams only used to show interactions between particles?

No, spidergrams can also be used to represent other types of interactions, such as social networks or organizational structures. However, in science, they are most commonly used to show interactions between particles in a system.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
478
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
919
Back
Top