Yershov's Preon Theory & Bilson-Thompson & LQG & mass prediction

[bananan]

it's my understanding that Yershov's Preon Theory can predict particle masses a priori and his paper also describes second and third generation particles, whereas Bilson-Thompson only the first generation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301034
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207132

Is it compatible or derivable from Bilson-Thompson's theory, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503213 which apparently can be derived from LQG spin networks.

Yershov paper here http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207120 seems to make points of contact with Bilson-Thompson. Could Bilson-Thompson ribbon model make use of Yershov's Preon model to predict particle masses?

Incidentally, John Baez or Lee Smolin will Bilson-Thompsonplan to publish papers mapping out the remainder of the SM? His paper were only for first generation.

Has there been any there been any indications Bilson-Thompson might publish an article along with Yershov?

What would be cool would be starting with spin networks, which give rise both to general relavitivity and the standard model, you can map out the entire standard model using preons and predict particle masses.

"Yershov Properties of space can be used for explanation of some patterns of nature. For example, topology of space might be responsible for the enigmatic spectrum of masses of quarks and leptons, which so far has not been explained. Here we consider a topological structure discovered in 1882 by F.C.Klein and show that properties of this structure necessarily lead to formation of a set of secondary topological structures, number of which matches the number of known fundamental particles. Some features of these structures can be related to quantum numbers and masses of the particles"

 

[CarlB]

I like the idea behind the paper. The neutrino masses he gives are incompatible with current measurements of the neutrino oscillations. But in 2002, they might have been reasonable.

Converting his neutrino mass numbers into eV by multiplying by the weight of a proton = 938272310 eV, his numbers are:

\begin{array}{rcl}<br /> \nu_e &amp;=&amp; 0.00447 eV\\<br /> \nu_\mu &amp;=&amp; 0.00798 eV\\<br /> \nu_\tau &amp;=&amp; 0.00903 eV<br /> \end{array}

The differences between these numbers squared (which is what is measured in neutrino oscillations) are:

\begin{array}{rcl}<br /> \nu_\mu^2 - \nu_e^2 &amp;=&amp; 2.0 \times 10^{-5} eV^2\\<br /> \nu_\tau^2-\nu_\mu^2 &amp;=&amp; 1.8 \times 10^{-5} eV^2\\<br /> \nu_\tau^2-\nu_e^2 &amp;=&amp; 6.2 \times 10^{-5} eV^2<br /> \end{array}

Measured values for the differences are 2.5\times 10^{-3} eV^2 and 8.0\times 10^{-5} eV^2.

Now this is subject to the assumption that his neutrinos, \nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau are the same as what people SHOULD call \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3. By "should" I mean that the flavor neutrinos are not mass eigentates and so talking about their masses should be avoided. I think the whole subject would be better understood if people never talked about flavor neutrinos at all, but instead referred to those things as mixed states of the numbered neutrinos. This thing eventually made it onto the wikipedia for neutrino oscillations after I complained. See the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutrino_oscillation

On the other hand, if what the author is talking about really are the flavor neutrinos (which are not mass eigenstates), then the experimental numbers may not exclude his figures. I'd have to go look up the latest mixing data to do the computation. Uh, that doesn't look really trivial as the experimental data restricts only two degrees of freedom.

Also, here is a related, later article, by the same author:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301034

Carl

 

[bananan]

well you'd think that since string theory has been worked on for over 30 years, by the best minds, string theory could give us predictions?

I like the idea behind the paper. The neutrino masses he gives are incompatible with current measurements of the neutrino oscillations. But in 2002, they might have been reasonable.

Converting his neutrino mass numbers into eV by multiplying by the weight of a proton = 938272310 eV, his numbers are:

\begin{array}{rcl}<br /> \nu_e &amp;=&amp; 0.00447 eV\\<br /> \nu_\mu &amp;=&amp; 0.00798 eV\\<br /> \nu_\tau &amp;=&amp; 0.00903 eV<br /> \end{array}

The differences between these numbers squared (which is what is measured in neutrino oscillations) are:

\begin{array}{rcl}<br /> \nu_\mu^2 - \nu_e^2 &amp;=&amp; 2.0 \times 10^{-5} eV^2\\<br /> \nu_\tau^2-\nu_\mu^2 &amp;=&amp; 1.8 \times 10^{-5} eV^2\\<br /> \nu_\tau^2-\nu_e^2 &amp;=&amp; 6.2 \times 10^{-5} eV^2<br /> \end{array}

Measured values for the differences are 2.5\times 10^{-3} eV^2 and 8.0\times 10^{-5} eV^2.

Now this is subject to the assumption that his neutrinos, \nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau are the same as what people SHOULD call \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3. By "should" I mean that the flavor neutrinos are not mass eigentates and so talking about their masses should be avoided. I think the whole subject would be better understood if people never talked about flavor neutrinos at all, but instead referred to those things as mixed states of the numbered neutrinos. This thing eventually made it onto the wikipedia for neutrino oscillations after I complained. See the discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neutrino_oscillation

On the other hand, if what the author is talking about really are the flavor neutrinos (which are not mass eigenstates), then the experimental numbers may not exclude his figures. I'd have to go look up the latest mixing data to do the computation. Uh, that doesn't look really trivial as the experimental data restricts only two degrees of freedom.

Also, here is a related, later article, by the same author:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0301034

Carl

 

[bananan]

From Vladimir Yershov

Unfortunately Bilson-Tompson's and my models are not compatible.
The reason is that they are based on incompatible first-principles.
Bilson-Tompson's twisted ribbons are abstract entities, the origin
of which is not explained. In contrast, the preons in my model are
postulated to be the simplest possible objects with no properties,
except those arising from the symmetries of the 3D space. These
symmetries force preons to cohere in structures of different
complexity.

There is no need in inventing anything: the structures emerge
automatically. They grow as strings of preons, eventually some of
them closing in loops, which precludes their further growth.
So these loops are more or less stable (in comparison with strings).
Their behaviour is complicated: they oscillate, spin and interact
with each other. Surprisingly, the variety of these stable species
can straightforwardly be mapped to the variety of known
elementary particles, which indicates that this model is on the
right track.

The only thing these two models have in common is that both of
them consider matter particles as organised patterns of empty space.
But this idea is not new: perhaps the first who proposed it was
J.A.Wheeler in 1962.

The incompatibility of these two models can be seen from yet
another point of view: Bilson-Tompsons' model is based on quantum
mechanical approach, whereas mine uses the principles of general
relativity. Maybe you know that QM and GR are not compatible
in principle. That is why loop quantum gravity does not help either:
it is a QM-based theory and therefore it is in a blind alley, whereas
the general-relativistic approach is already much more promising.
Still there is a very long way before an acceptable relativistic
description of the preon structures could be achieved. But there
are some indications that GR is a primary theory, whereas QM
is secondary. You can find some more information as to how quantum
properties could emerge from the GR-based preon-loops in the paper:

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054

Regards,

Vladimir

I want to thank bananan for his generous donation without which this post would not be possible.

 

[bananan]

Dear Marcus, John Baez, Lee Smolin, & LQG community, would you like to help out Vladimir Yershov out? If you can embed his preon theory with Sundance-Thompson, his Preon theory gives rise to the entire standard model, gives an account of why there is only 3 generations, and predicts masses in agreement with observation. It may also predict particle half-times, and **if** you can embed his theory with Sundance-Bilson, all these achievements starting with spin foam models, which also give rise to gravity (i.e Rovelli)


Vladimir Yershov expressed to me via email a desire and willingness to work with the respective LQG community.

Of course, you can post my e-mail to the physics
forums. I agree that the preon-models is a valid
alternative to the string theory and they have to be
discussed and taken seriously.

>
> Is your particle also able to predict half-lifes for
> particles? I've studied string theory at some level,
> but my textbook/instructor never mentioned string
> "instability".

I believe that by proper simulations it would be possible
to compute the half-lives of different particles. The strings
arising from an ensemble of preons must be extremely
short-living species (much shorter than any known particle).
However, when those strings close into loops they must
become extremely stable. Then, when the simplest
(shortest) loops combine and form strings of loops,
these "second-order" strings will be unstable again
and so forth. Theoretical calculations of their half-lives
must be very difficult, virtually impossible. So, my plan
is to use the computer power for calculating the decay times
for the W-boson and neutron. I know how to do this but
I'll probably need a few years to get something workable
(there are a lot technical difficulties and, in addition,
I am not a great expert in the field).

>
> I disagree with your statements about LQG, which is a
> quantized form of general relativity, resulting in
> wilson lines labelled by spin networks.
>
> " Bilson-Tompson's twisted ribbons are abstract
> entities, the origin of which is not explained. "
>
> His followup article shows that those ribbons arise
> naturally from spinfoam models of LQG. (see below). Do
> you think you can embed your preon theory into a
> spinfoam model? Spinfoams and LQG is supposed to give
> rise to general relativity with quantum corrections.
>
>
> Please review this http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0603022
>

Many thanks for the reference. After having a quick
look at this paper I can see that actually there are
more things in common between my model and that
by Bilson-Tompson/Markopoulou/Smolin.
In their model the ribbons are embedded into
a three-manifold, whereas in my model ribbon-like
structures can only occur in a (3+1)-manifold
(as a result of preon's dynamics).
Maybe it would not be difficult to extend their model to
a four-dimensional case? Perhaps they have already
done this (I have to read their paper). However, still
I see the main difference between these two frameworks:
that is, LQG is trying to find a possibility of GR to emerge
from QM (e.g., by decoherence), whereas I am trying to
get exactly the opposite thing: the emergence of QM from
GR (I do not know if somebody else is going this way).
How could these two opposites be reconciled?
- I don't know.


Regards,

Vladimir






I want to thank bananan for his generous donation without which this post would not be possible.

 

[marcus]

bananan, thanks for including me in the list of those to whom the forgoing was addressed! My role is purely that of an observer, unlike the others you mentioned. I am glad to know about the research you mentioned and have the pointers, but i cannot suggest any appropriate action. Hopefully others will have some ideas and/or will want to reply to Yershov.

 

[bananan]

bananan, thanks for including me in the list of those to whom the forgoing was addressed! My role is purely that of an observer, unlike the others you mentioned. I am glad to know about the research you mentioned and have the pointers, but i cannot suggest any appropriate action. Hopefully others will have some ideas and/or will want to reply to Yershov.

No problem Marcus. Have you had a chance to review either or both Yershov and Bilson's preon model paper? I'm not entirely clear how either model gets around The mass paradox problem for preons. Is it they are extended objects (much like strings) rather than point particles?

How would you respond to some of Yershov's questions such as

1 However, still I see the main difference between these two frameworks:
that is, LQG is trying to find a possibility of GR to emerge
from QM (e.g., by decoherence), whereas I am trying to
get exactly the opposite thing: the emergence of QM from
GR (I do not know if somebody else is going this way).
How could these two opposites be reconciled?

2-Many thanks for the reference. After having a quick
look at this paper I can see that actually there are
more things in common between my model and that
by Bilson-Tompson/Markopoulou/Smolin.
In their model the ribbons are embedded into
a three-manifold, whereas in my model ribbon-like
structures can only occur in a (3+1)-manifold
(as a result of preon's dynamics).
Maybe it would not be difficult to extend their model to
a four-dimensional case?

3-Unfortunately Bilson-Tompson's and my models are not compatible.
The reason is that they are based on incompatible first-principles.
Bilson-Tompson's twisted ribbons are abstract entities, the origin
of which is not explained. In contrast, the preons in my model are
postulated to be the simplest possible objects with no properties,
except those arising from the symmetries of the 3D space. These
symmetries force preons to cohere in structures of different
complexity.

I know you're an enthusiastic support of LQG, and LQG & preons could together become a TOE.
thanks

 

[torsten]

No problem Marcus. Have you had a chance to review either or both Yershov and Bilson's preon model paper? I'm not entirely clear how either model gets around The mass paradox problem for preons. Is it they are extended objects (much like strings) rather than point particles?

How would you respond to some of Yershov's questions such as

1 However, still I see the main difference between these two frameworks:
that is, LQG is trying to find a possibility of GR to emerge
from QM (e.g., by decoherence), whereas I am trying to
get exactly the opposite thing: the emergence of QM from
GR (I do not know if somebody else is going this way).
How could these two opposites be reconciled?

2-Many thanks for the reference. After having a quick
look at this paper I can see that actually there are
more things in common between my model and that
by Bilson-Tompson/Markopoulou/Smolin.
In their model the ribbons are embedded into
a three-manifold, whereas in my model ribbon-like
structures can only occur in a (3+1)-manifold
(as a result of preon's dynamics).
Maybe it would not be difficult to extend their model to
a four-dimensional case?

3-Unfortunately Bilson-Tompson's and my models are not compatible.
The reason is that they are based on incompatible first-principles.
Bilson-Tompson's twisted ribbons are abstract entities, the origin
of which is not explained. In contrast, the preons in my model are
postulated to be the simplest possible objects with no properties,
except those arising from the symmetries of the 3D space. These
symmetries force preons to cohere in structures of different
complexity.

I know you're an enthusiastic support of LQG, and LQG & preons could together become a TOE.
thanks

Hi,

that is only a short message to tell you that you are not alone. We also try to extract QM from GR. For that purpose we use a structure on the 4-manifold which is always choosen trivially, the differential (or smooth) structure. But on 4-manifolds there is an infinite number of possibilities (in all other dimensions there is only a finite number).
We had the first success with that approach: We are able to derive the operator algebra of the fermions. See our paper gr-qc/0511089.

Now we using the same approach to derive the cosmological constant (gr-qc/0609004).

Torsten

 

[bananan]

Hi,

that is only a short message to tell you that you are not alone. We also try to extract QM from GR. For that purpose we use a structure on the 4-manifold which is always choosen trivially, the differential (or smooth) structure. But on 4-manifolds there is an infinite number of possibilities (in all other dimensions there is only a finite number).
We had the first success with that approach: We are able to derive the operator algebra of the fermions. See our paper gr-qc/0511089.

Now we using the same approach to derive the cosmological constant (gr-qc/0609004).

Torsten

Dear Dan,

Thanks for the message!

Yershov on his own model v.s Bilson

Unfortunately something has happen
to the indicated web-page (it does not work).
Instead I had a closer look at
Bilson-Thompson/Markopoulou/Smolin's paper
Now I can see that I was wrong and you are
right about LQG, which, indeed, is trying to get
QM emerging from GR (sincerely, I was thinking
the opposite). Of course, when you embed 2-surfaces
(ribbon graphs) into a 3-space and map their
states to a Hilbert space, it is a kind of transition
from GR to QM.


Of course I am still far from the understanding
of this model. I can see the kinematics of preons
but not dynamics. It is said in the paper that the
dynamics is generated by the ribbon transformation moves.
But it is not clear what might cause those moves?
The whole idea looks pretty nice. If we assume that
space is formed of ribbons on the sub-Planck scale then
it is logical to think that these ribbons must be twisted
and interwined, which could give rise to topological
invariants. These can be identified with some quantum
numbers like charge, handedness etc. But where the magnetic
properties of particles come from?

When invariant states are identified with elementary
particles, this is regarded as the answer to the question
as to the physical meaning of the braids and twists.

But if you look at the cited Bilson-Thompson's paper,
his question about the physical meaning of twisting and
braiding is different. He asks: What physical process these
twisting and braiding represent?

My answer to this question would be: They are twisted
and braided paths of the truly primitive particles from my model.
Even some pictures from my paper look like 180-degree twisted
ribbons, although in my model they are closed in loops - not the
open ribbons like in Bilson-Thompson's graphs. Could this be
a kind of link between Bilson-Thompson and my models?
Difficult to say...

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[Severian]

I must confess, I don't understand this preon model of Yershov. It seems that the force is just coming out of thin air. Equation 2.3 of hep-ph/0207132 looks very odd to me - what is the mechanism of transfering momentum between the preons to give this force? Is this supposed to be action at a distance?

It is interesting because he seems to get almost the right masses. The neutrinos are wrong, and the top mass is a bit off, but the others are pretty good. Unfortunately I am not following how he derives the number of preons in a particle.

Also, I don't understand what happened to the energy associated with the force. The mass of a bound state is really just the energy contained in it as seen in its rest frame - so what happened to the energy associated the force between the preons which supposedly hold them together. (Compare for example, the proton mass, which is not simply the sum of the constituant quark masses.)

 

[bananan]

I must confess, I don't understand this preon model of Yershov. It seems that the force is just coming out of thin air. Equation 2.3 of hep-ph/0207132 looks very odd to me - what is the mechanism of transfering momentum between the preons to give this force? Is this supposed to be action at a distance?

It is interesting because he seems to get almost the right masses. The neutrinos are wrong, and the top mass is a bit off, but the others are pretty good. Unfortunately I am not following how he derives the number of preons in a particle.

Also, I don't understand what happened to the energy associated with the force. The mass of a bound state is really just the energy contained in it as seen in its rest frame - so what happened to the energy associated the force between the preons which supposedly hold them together. (Compare for example, the proton mass, which is not simply the sum of the constituant quark masses.)

I agree, it's not clear to me how he decides how many preon units a particle has and how he assigns those masses.

 

[bananan]

Hi,
> Here's a paper by John Baez on LQG-Spin Foam models
> which is a link and attached as PDF.
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spin_foam_models/spin_foam_models.pdf
>
> BT & the LQG community is attempting to embed preon
> ribbon theory into spin foam models, so you get both
> gravity and the standard model, without the extra
> structures (i.e 11D, SUSY) of string theory.
>
>
>
> Enjoy

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the reference to J.Baez's paper,
which is quite interesting but gives me some
strange impression that LQG is not very
consistent in its intention to derive QM from GR.
In this paper space is represented as
a superposition of quantum states of a network of
discrete graphs. This is clearly not the GR->QM
but rather a reverse approach. Perhaps my
impression is wrong, but this is what one can
get from this paper. Quantum triangulation seems
to be postulated here as a primary entity,
whereas space - as secondary. On the other hand,
some other LQG-papers declare taking first,
say, a Riemannian manifold and then quantise
it.

Regards,

Vladimir

--

 

[bananan]

Vladimir & myself -- any volunteers in helping him with spin foam/LQG models? He prefers GR based approaches.

Finally, I have found that the link to Soudance's
talk was not working because the UK-based computers are
somehow blocked from accessing this page. However,
by using a proxy I have managed to get through
and to watch the programme. Indeed, it is a good
addendum to his paper. Thank you very much for the
link.


>
> LQG is usually thought of as a quantization of GR's
> field equations, which gives you spin networks, which
> can be modified to give spin foam models. It is
> claimed that certain coherent spin foam models can
> 1- give classical spacetime and
> 2- give coherent states that would form the basis of
> BT's preon model.
>
> I've enclosed some technical articles. Do you think
> you can embed your preon theory into the framework of
> spinfoam/LQG? If so I'd like to see such an article :)
> (Or perhaps build on Sundance/Smolin/Mark..)
>

From your today's comments I see that my wrong impression
about the origin of LQG could come from some papers, which
discuss only the transition from a quantum spin network
to a classical spacetime (not the first step of quantisation
of GR). The articles that you have sent me give much more
clear picture. As for the possibility of embedding the preon
theory into the LQG framework, I am thinking ...
But I need time for reading the papers and getting use to it.
So far, I am very far from understanding where could I find
a merging point. But there is a good example
of Bilson-Thompson, Smolin and Markopoulou.
So, let's see...

> Some of the other physicists who have looked at your
> paper have questions on the order of
> 1- how did you decide how many preon units a particle
> has

Going to your questions:

1)
Actually there is no need to decide the number of preon
units in the structure of a particle: minimising
the effective potential gives you the answer.
Here one can draw a parallel with the crystal structure.
Very popular and good examples exist in carbon
nano-technology. Two simplest low energy forms of carbon
are graphite (6 units closed in a 2D loop) and diamond
(5 units closed in a 3D structure). Then you have spherically
closed structures of fullerens with 60, 70 and 540 units,
as well as carbon nanotubes, nanotoroids ets. In this
way you get a discrete spectrum of species with
a well-defined number of constituents.

If you take colour-charged particles (preons in my model)
and assume them to be attracted/repulsed from each other in
accordance with the known pattern of attraction/repulsion
for colour charges from QCD, then you will end up
with a discrete spectrum of species with a well-defined number
of constituents (preons). For like-charged preons you will
get dipoles (2 units), tripoles (3 units) and triplets of
tripoles (9 units). The colour-field of the latter is ring-closed,
which makes this structure stable. Unlike carbon structures, the
elements of the preon structures can spin around each other and
move along their ring-closed trajectories, which complicates
the situation because you have to take into account
magnetic fields due to the motion of preons.

If you want, you can get some more details
from a description, which is now available on-line:

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185


> 2- how did you decide how to put how much mass to each
> unit of preon

2)
For simplicity I assigned unit mass to each preon.
Then, for the simplest structures, to get their massed
you can just sum up the number of preons in the
structure if it is formed of like-charged preons.
Of course, this is a first approximation, as for the
accurate calculation of masses one has to take into
account the preon motions, the residuals from their
binding energies etc. When two unlike-charged preons
combine, their fields would cancel each other, nullifying
the mass of the system. There should remain a small
residual field (mass), but on this stage it can be
neglected. By noticing that charge and mass must
be intimately related, I have suggested that when a neutral
(almost massless) looped structure enclose a smaller
charged structure/particle or if it is enclosed by a larger
charged loop (that is, when the source of the field is
inside of the neutral loop) all of its preon constituents
would contribute to the mass of the combined structure.
There are further complications when the structures
oscillate with respect to each other. If the frequency
(energy) of these oscillations is large, the mass of the
combined structure would also be large (even if the
oscillating components are almost massless).

> 3- what you think preons are built on
>

3)
I think of the preons as of topological features of space.
For example, they can be viewed as microscopic black
holes or something similar. LQG also regards particles
as made of space features. This gives a possible link
between these two models. The only problem with LQG
is that it lacks dynamics.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,

On Saturday 23 Sep 2006 02:51, you wrote:
> Hello,
> Do you think Bilson's idea of using ribbons with
> twists be extended in your model? Akin to string
> theory?

Not only I think that Bilson's idea could be
extended to my model, but that it is already there:
inadvertently he has unravelled a structure, which
corresponds to the dynamics of sub-quark entities
from my model. At the beginning I saw the
twisted current loops that were emerging in my
model as a mere curiosity (but they were unavoidable).
Later I found that these twists were extremely
important for the way different composite particles
interact with each other. Bilson's lucky guess
was brilliant.

> I am curious as to what you thought of the
> merits of Sundance's talk as you and he are both
> working on preon theory. Do you think you can extend
> Bilson's theory to include spin and mass, and explain
> 3 generations? Do you accept the higgs field/higgs
> boson explanation of mass? There was a paper which
> suggests preons could explain mass without the higgs
> field/higgs boson. arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709227
>

I like also his presentation, but when watching it
I had some obtrusive feeling that something important
was missing. Then I realized that particle magnetic
properties were completely ignored. Is it possible
building a theory of something and ignoring an
important property of this something?
That is why to my gusto Bilson's model (not his talk)
was too much abstract. For instance, how could the
electric field (particle charge) be explained by a
twist or node of something? Maybe this is possible -
I don't know - but this should somehow be explained
in the first place, or at least a hint should be
given.

The extract from "New Scientist" you have cited
shows that Sundance was indeed considering the possibility
of preons being microscopic black- or wormholes.
It looks like he took no notice of the branch I was
exploring and arrived to a static model.
But he was very close to my starting point.
From this perspective, even closer to mine is
string theory because strings are dynamic entities
(they move and vibrate like the preon strings
in my model).

How to explain three particle generations? I think that,
for the time being, in order to sweep a larger area and
to have a wider diversity of possible models we better to
explore both frameworks. I have already my framework
extended towards some heavy nuclei (let alone the three
generations).

A few years ago I saw already the paper you are mentioning.
I agree with the authors of this paper. Indeed, why should
a preon model be concerned with the Higgs particle? The masses
of composite entities could easily be explained without Higgs.
Does anybody invoke Higgs to explain the proton's mass,
which is now accepted to be a composite particle?
Of course, not. The bulk of this mass is known to arise
from the motions of its constituents - almost massless quarks
and gluons. Similarly, once assuming the compositeness
of elementary particles, the Higgs particle automatically
becomes unnecessary.

> Does your theory, or Bilsons for that matter, have a
> problem with the mass paradox, that in such a small
> region, the momentum of uncertainty would be large?
>

I don't know whether there is a problem with the mass
paradox in Bilson's theory (perhaps he has not arrived
to that point yet), but I feel comfortable not having
this problem in my model. The momentum uncertainty is
suppressed by preons' huge binding energies. I have
mentioned this in the discussion section of the my paper
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185


Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Since a moderator asked,

"From: "Vladimir Yershov" < k>
To: "dan
Subject: Re: Bilson-Thompson preon theory
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:58:18 +0100

Dear Dan,

Of course, you can post my e-mail to the physics
forums. I agree that the preon-models is a valid
alternative to the string theory and they have to be
discussed and taken seriously. *******************************************************

What followers are some emails. Anyone is invited to participate.
If this violates forum rules I will promptly stop. Please notify me via PM or simply delete these postings and I will get the point. On another occasion Lubos Motl has given me his permission as well (string related) and this is on his weblog.

I want to thank bananan for his generous donation.

From: "Vladimir Yershov"
Subject: Re: Bilson-Thompson preon theory
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:29:54 +0100Hi Dan,

>
> I thought BT was funny when he said "Greed is good".
> Incidentally I see that your article was published
> just a couple of days ago in arix.
>

I have published this paper a few days ago to give you
some more details, which I couldn't give by e-mail.
As for "Greed", I think that when you give a talk you are
slightly acting, like in a movie. So, Sundance used a
phrase from Oliver Stone's film. I would agree that greed
for knowledge is certainly a good thing. The other types
of greed might not be so good.

>
> By composite particles do you mean the particles of
> the standard model? Presumably the whole preon project
> is to reduce the SM to preons.
>

Yes, of course, I mean the standard model
particles. Reducing the standard model to a fewer number
of entities still leave you with the questions: Where
these fewer number of entities come from? Why they are
different from each other? The only logical solution to this
problem would be reducing the standard model to a single
entity ("the preon").

> Can BT's results be
> extended by your results, perhaps explaining the
> second and third generation fermions, and possibly
> particle mass-energies and even half-lives? (such
> results would make a good addition to arix).
>

For the time being I do not see how to do that
straightforwardly. When looking at the papers
you have sent me (thanks for that), I can propose
that by encoding in terms of graphs the fields
postulated in my model one could, in principle,
arrive to connections and constraints similar to those
appearing in LQG spin network models. For instance,
initial 3D preon configurations could be denoted by
1D-graphs. Then when this system evolves in time
we'll get 2D-graphs in a 4D-pseudospace -
something similar to a spin network.

There must be a lot of technical difficulties when
building such a model. For example, to develop
a theory of a preon-based electron we should take
care of at least nine fields. I don't think this is possible
non-perturbatively. But I don't see any objection
as to why this programme couldn't be realized
in principle. The pay-off should be great, e.g.,
derivation from first principles of some fundamental
constants of nature, unification of all the forces and,
of course, reconciliation of GR with QM.
Helical structures, like Bilson's ribbons, will arise
and be explained automatically. Of course they
shouldn't be necessarily the same as described
in Bilson's paper, but some twisted structures are
unavoidable because angular momentum has to go
somewhere.

By the way, the topological theory presented in
Khovanov's paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0609335)
hints where Bilson's inspiration came from: Khovanov's
graphs are exactly the same as Bilson's, but, of course,
Khovanov's theory is much more general and broader.

>
> If LHC or TEV does find a higgs boson, how would such
> a result affect your preon model? It doesn't seem BT's
> model maps out a higgs particle.
>

The higgs boson is absolutely necessary to explain the
masses of the standard model particles, which are
supposed to be point-like. So the possible discovery
of higgs by LHC or TEV will be good for the standard
model. But it will not affect preon models because
their main goal is to explain why do we observe
this specific set of particles and not something else.
Within the framework of standard model there is no
way of explaining the observed variety of species
because this model was designed to solve other
problems, not this one. The spectrum of particle
species is a very strong observational evidence
in favour of the compositeness of the standard
model particles. The decay of heavy fundamental
particles into lighter ones is yet another indication.
Moreover, there are proposals that the higgs itself
(although it has not yet been observed) could be
a composite particle.Regards,

Vladimir

 

[selfAdjoint]

And I thank you too, bananan, for carrying on and posting this very interesting discussion. The link to Khovanov's topological-categorical results was especially valuable to me, but the whole braid/preon area is looking valuable.

Is anybody communicating the methods of the LQG researchers to Dr. Yershov? I mean things like getting the Hilbert spaces of volume and such and the algebras on them from the three dimensional networks, which can then be quantized using standard theorems?

 

[bananan]

And I thank you too, bananan, for carrying on and posting this very interesting discussion. The link to Khovanov's topological-categorical results was especially valuable to me, but the whole braid/preon area is looking valuable.

Is anybody communicating the methods of the LQG researchers to Dr. Yershov? I mean things like getting the Hilbert spaces of volume and such and the algebras on them from the three dimensional networks, which can then be quantized using standard theorems?

Hi,


Yershov's background seems to be particle physics, and he does not seem to have much exposure to LQG research (he asked me pretty basic questions). So as far as I know, the answer is no, but he appreciates receiving any relevant papers on the subject. Do you have any I should offer? Which papers would involve "getting the Hilbert spaces of volume and such and the algebras on them from the three dimensional networks, which can then be quantized using standard theorems".

Yershov, like Bilson initially, does not seem to embrace string theory, and seems to want to ground preons on wormholes or micro-black holes of classical GR (which seems doomed :)

 

[straycat]

Hey bananan and others,

Yershov, like Bilson initially, does not seem to embrace string theory, and seems to want to ground preons on wormholes or micro-black holes of classical GR (which seems doomed :)

In that case Yershov might be interested in the work of Mark Hadley, who proposes a general framework for the derivation of QM from GR, and has in particular pursued models of particles based on topological constructs like wormholes. He calls his particles geons, and his main point is that if you try to build a model out of 3 dimensions (like Wheeler did a long time ago), it will fail -- you need to start at the outset working with all 4 spacetime dimensions! To emphasize this point, he calls them 4-geons.

Some of the concepts he deals with: he argues that there is no such thing as the Higgs; he proposes a classical model for spin; he discusses "charge without charge," ie how topology can give rise to charge; and whether the underlying quantum spacetimes (manifolds for Hadley, spin-foams for LQG) should or should not be time-orientable.

Could any of his stuff carry over to preons? Dunno, maybe. Hope so!

For example: maybe we should be thinking about "4-preon" models (might work?) versus "3-preon" models (doomed to failure?). hmmm..

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/mhadley/

David

 

[bananan]

Since a moderator asked,

"From: "Vladimir Yershov" < k>
To: "dan
Subject: Re: Bilson-Thompson preon theory
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:58:18 +0100

Dear Dan,

Of course, you can post my e-mail to the physics
forums. I agree that the preon-models is a valid
alternative to the string theory and they have to be
discussed and taken seriously.


************************************************** *****

What followers are some of my own personal emails. Anyone is invited to participate. The following is a cut and paste email, with my own permission and Vlad's permission. I do not know how to use PF's quoting but Yahoo mail makes it clear which is mine and which is Vlad's. ************************************************** *****

Hi Dan,


On Wednesday 27 Sep 2006 03:57, you wrote:
> Hi Vlad,
>
> I think the way BT gets around the mass paradox is
> that the mass paradox arises from a model of point
> particles smaller than the elementary particles of the
> SM, whereas he is proposing ribbon extended structures
> that are bound together and not necessarily smaller
> than the particles they compose. As a bound state they
> interact as though they were point particles, but as a
> three-ribbon they are not necessarily smaller than
> that elementary point particles like quarks. They could be
> the same size (in length) as a quark, for example.

Maybe this is the case, but on this scale the momentum
uncertainty is huge and there is a problem here even for
extended particles unless you find a mechanism to suppress
this energy.

>
> While grounding your preon model on LQG-spin foam
> theory might be challenging, what about building on
> BT's model (including chirality, spin, mass, etc.) in
> the opposite direction, towards the SM, since you have
> suggested he is close to your starting point?

There is some visible analogy between the two models,
but not everything is so simple. The combinatorial way
of coupling ribbons in BT model works only for the
simplest structures (say, first generation
particles). In my model the first generation particles are
not the simplest preon-structures but the simplest
ring-closed structures (loops) formed of the preons.
These loops can be further combined (using all the time
the same basic fields) forming strings. When these strings
(of loops) become long enough to close in "second-order"
loops, they form a group of structures, which are
quasi-stable (because they are loops) and which
could be identified with the second family of the
fermions, etc. This is quite different from Bilson's
structure formation scheme, and I don't see yet
how to reconcile the two schemes.

By the way, I don't agree that my model starts
with 3 different kinds of basic particles. Aren't
different particles in QFT sometimes regarded
as a single field with different flavours?
Aren't the electron and positron regarded identical
except for the electric field direction? Aren't the
proton and neutron regarded as the same entity
rotated in a phase space? Aren't quarks regarded
keeping their identities when exchanging colours?
Exactly in the same way the preons in my model
are regarded as a single entity with different
possible orientations of its field (or, if you like,
a single entity rotated in a phase space).

>
> Your theory seems to have antiparticles that somehow
> cancel out mass (negative energy?) whereas it does not
> appear BT' has such antiparticles.
> It's not clear to me BT can account for chirality.
>
> In Bilson's paper he referenced another speculative
> paper relating charge with inertial mass.
>

Sorry, no negative energy is needed. The mass-defect
(binding energy) is a very well-known and established
phenomenon. There is nothing new and nothing speculative
in it. The mass IS energy (Einstein?), the charge
is energy, hence, the mass and charge are intimately
related, isn't it?


> Perhaps the twists in Bilson's ribbon model could
> correspond to the number of "preons" in your model, so
> your derived mass formula could somehow be imposed on
> Bilson's? Personally i wonder if the most natural way
> to extend Bilson's model to the second and third
> generation would be bound states of additional preon
> strands.
>

I don't think so. The number of preons in each structure
of my model is determined by the combination of individual
SU(3)/U(1)-symmetries of each preon in the structure.
It is difficult to reduce such a complicated combination
to a simple twist.

>
> So what research direction are you taking your preon
> models? I forget but I take it your background is in
> particle physics? It doesn't seem to me preon models
> command much interest, playing second fiddle to
> strings.
>
> > By the way, the topological theory presented in
> > Khovanov's paper
> > (http://arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0609335)
> > hints where Bilson's inspiration came from:
> > Khovanov's
> > graphs are exactly the same as Bilson's, but, of
> > course,
> > Khovanov's theory is much more general and broader.
>
> Except when you see the date of BT's paper, 2005, and
> this paper, sept 2006, BT's paper precedes in time
> Khovanov's paper. Khovanov might offer some ideas on
> the dynamics of BT's preons, including particle energy
> and transformation.
>

In this case the date of the publication does not matter.
From Khovanov's paper it is clear that he was working
on his theory since time ago. An, indeed, if you look at
his references, you will see that exactly the same braided
graphs as in Bilson's paper were already in Khovanov's
in 2001 and 2002:
...
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0103190
Mikhail Khovanov
A functor-valued invariant of tangles
...
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0207264
Mikhail Khovanov
An invariant of tangle cobordisms
...

Thanks for the link to the physicsforum. I have
found there some interesting (and useful for me) comments
about our e-mail exchange. For example, I appreciate
the comment by "straycat" mentioning Mark Hadley's work.
Indeed, this work is pretty much in line with mine, and Hadley's
4-geons are very close to the preons from my model (both are
topological features of a non-orientable manifold).

Answering your question about my background, you will
be disappointed - it is not at all particle physics - it's astronomy.
I am just curious about particles and pursue them just for fun
(am I wrong?). It is you who has drawn my attention to LQG.
So far, I was not concerned with this direction ("nobody will
embrace the unembraceable"). Now, learning some basics of it,
I see that LQG has, indeed, relevance to what I am doing.
Actually, there is a lot of information available for newcomers
(your links to John Baez are especially good, and I have found
some other useful links on this physicsforum web-page).
Of course, I'll need time for finding a working
relationship between LQG and my model. One of the
possibilities could be the scheme you have mentioned
here.

I have noticed that in this forum you use a nick "bananan".
I am just curious: does it have something to do with
Sergey Bugayev's "malchik bananan"?

Regards,

Vladimir
********************
I did not know Yeshov is an astronomer/astrophysicist. I assumed he was high-energy. HEP.

Incidentally when I have the time I plan to put together LQC papers by Bojworld and Singn on loop quantum cosmology models, such as Sing resolution of the naked singularity, and Boworld's big-bounce and provide that to Yershov. If there are others feel free to let me know. It might be a good idea for someone to have basic topics (i.e particle physics, astrophysics, QFT, semiclassical issues) and fundamental papers in those topics (i.e I gave Yershov Baez' paper on spin foam which he greater appreciated).

 

[straycat]

Thanks for the link to the physicsforum. I have
found there some interesting (and useful for me) comments
about our e-mail exchange. For example, I appreciate
the comment by "straycat" mentioning Mark Hadley's work.
Indeed, this work is pretty much in line with mine, and Hadley's
4-geons are very close to the preons from my model (both are
topological features of a non-orientable manifold).

[snip]

Regards,

Vladimir

Good! I hope you will contact him. You and Mark are certainly welcome to discuss ideas (if you would like to do so publicly) in my yahoo! group, QM_from_GR -- Mark is one of the group members.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QM_from_GR/

David

 

[bananan]

Good! I hope you will contact him. You and Mark are certainly welcome to discuss ideas (if you would like to do so publicly) in my yahoo! group, QM_from_GR -- Mark is one of the group members.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QM_from_GR/

David

Hi Dan,

On Thursday 28 Sep 2006 00:00, you wrote:
> Hi,
> I need some time to think/research your preon. When
> you say astronomy, do you mean astronomy,
> astrophysics, cosmology?
>
> Have you investigated Loop Quantum Cosmology papers in
> respect to astronomy?
>

When I say astronomy I mean astronomy and astrophysics.
I would say that gamma-ray bursts are much closer to
me than spin networks. There must also be a link between
my model and cosmology. In a small volume the potentials
used in my model lead to a series of phase transitions
which should strongly affect the very first moments
of the universe's expansion. This is what I see as a worthy
line for exploring my model because in this way you would
make testable predictions. Similar multiple phase
transitions should also occur during a collapse.
So, gamma-ray bursts is yet another tool for testing my
model. Of course, the model has to arrive to a much more
elaborated stage to make any predictions related to the
bursts, but at least I see some light at the end of the tunnel,
which gives me a guideline.
Many thanks, Dan, for the useful discussion and for
the LQG/cosmology papers. I especially like the
paper by Goswami/Joshi/Singh about the naked singularity.

I have spotted a message by straycat who welcomes me to join
his yahoo group, which discusses GR->QM related questions.
I think this is a good idea and I'll probably join them.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,

This time the references are much more familiar to me, but, anyway,
many
thanks for forwarding them. They are interesting, although in my
opinion one
of the theories - the doubly-relativity - is not very trusty. But of
course,
only observations will show which theory is closer to reality.
The only problem is that in CMBR and gamma-ray bursts the features
corresponding to the near-singularity processes (signal) are mostly
hidden
behind those corresponding to the well-know physical processes (noise).
Sometimes using noisy data it is possible to confirm any theory. We
have to
search for other possible tools for checking the sub-quark scale
models.

Cheers,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Note, I, personally, expanded the section in wikipedia on preons with how Bilson's model may avoid the mass paradox, is it accurate?

>
> Maybe this is the case, but on this scale the
> momentum
> uncertainty is huge and there is a problem here even
> for
> extended particles unless you find a mechanism to
> suppress
> this energy.

As I understand it, Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "pointlike" down to distance scales of less than 10−18 m (or 1/1000 of a proton diameter). The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV, 50,000 times larger than the rest mass of an up-quark and 400,000 times larger than the rest mass of an electron.

The mass paradox arises how could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta?

But if Bilson's modelling preons as ribbon like structures that is of the same length as the elementary particles, then their momentum uncertainty would be on the same order as the elementary particles themselves, so there would be no mass-paradox. in other words, using ribbon like preons, his model can deny the premise that preons are pointparticles smaller than quarks and leptons, but instead extended structures, not boxed-in, so they would have the same momentum uncertainty as elementary particles they compose, and as a result, they would not have a mass paradox problem (one greater than the particles they compose). It's only when you try to interact with them using high energy photons or electrons that the bound state of preons interact as though they were "pointlike" down to 10-18.

This is the statement i wrote for wiki

Sundance preon model may avoid this by denying that preons are pointlike particles confined in a box less than 10−18 m, and instead positing that preons are extended 2 dimensional ribbon like structures, not necessarily smaller than the elementary particles they compose, not necessarily confined in a small box, rather than point particles, that exist in three-fold bound states that interact as though they were point particles as a bound state so that their momentum uncertainty would be on the same order as the elementary particles themselves.

 

[straycat]

As I understand it, Scattering experiments have shown that quarks and leptons are "pointlike" down to distance scales of less than 10?18 m (or 1/1000 of a proton diameter). The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV, 50,000 times larger than the rest mass of an up-quark and 400,000 times larger than the rest mass of an electron.

The mass paradox arises how could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta?

Here's an idea for a way out of the mass paradox.

iiuc, the uncertainty principle is what gives rise to the above calculation, and you're using something on the order of 10-18m for delta-x. But it seems to me that delta-x, at least in some formulations, should come from somewhere else. My understanding of LQG (maybe this is just one version, I dunno) is that a spin foam represents one spacetime, but that we typically must deal with an entire ensemble of spin foams, all of which are in quantum superposition. Now, in any individual spin foam, an individual preon has a diameter 10-18m. But that's not where delta-x from. Instead, the uncertainty delta-x comes from the fact that the exact location of the preon differs from one spin foam to the next. So in one spin foam, the preon is right here; in another, it is moved a bit over there; etc. So delta-x could very well be a lot larger than 10-18m.

Does that make sense?

David

 

[bananan]

If, as you was suggesting, Bilson's ribbons were the
entities giving rise to the coloured preons from my model
(in order to get an extension to the second and third
generations) these ribbons would be about one order
of magnitude smaller than the Planck-length scale,
leaving us with the mass problem.

If, as you are suggesting here, they were larger than
or comparable to the size of the SM particles they
compose, they should have already been detected
by experimentalists, all the more so, as there
is no way of deriving the second and third generation
fermions from Bilson's first generation. So I think the
latter suggestion does not work.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Straycat, it is correct that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is what creates the mass paradox for putative preon models.

> If, as you are suggesting here, they were larger
> than
> or comparable to the size of the SM particles they
> compose, they should have already been detected
> by experimentalists, all the more so, as there
> is no way of deriving the second and third
> generation
> fermions from Bilson's first generation. So I think
> the
> latter suggestion does not work.

I agree that how to get a second and third generation remains an open problem as well as mass figures. Bilson expressly suggested more complicated braiding as the path to second and third generation. Perhaps binding multiple preon ribbons?

While I do not know what Bilson's own view is as to the dimensions of this 2D ribbon, and his papers do not seem to state so, if in my suggestion, they are larger or comparable in length/width to the elementary particles they compose, but only exist as a bound state, like quark confinement, how would experimentalists already know this? This might make for an interesting arvix paper.

Dan

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,


On Friday 29 Sep 2006 01:43, you wrote:
>
> you must be referring to
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0506/0506129.pdf
>
> Do you think it is correct or have you found problems
> with the model? What would be the implication of such
> a model in your own research?
>

I like this paper because it gives an example
of an entity, which could be called a preon as
I see it. At a glance, I don't see any problems with this
model and I trust the calculations because they
are given for a concrete field (anyone can verify them).
Of course, the purpose of the paper was not to
construct a preon but rather to explain bursts
and avoid a singularity. The singularity formation
is delayed and, in fact, delayed to infinity.
But the final state is exactly the preon
from my model. Since this paper is based on LQG,
potentially it gives a connection of my model to
LQG, but not in the way as I was thinking
or you was suggesting. The good thing about the
good papers is that they always give you new
ideas (even unintentionally).

Cheers,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Hi

On Friday 29 Sep 2006 18:12, you wrote:

>
> I agree that how to get a second and third generation
> remains an open problem as well as mass figures.
> Bilson expressly suggested more complicated braiding
> as the path to second and third generation. Perhaps
> binding multiple preon ribbons?

This leads to a great variety of combinations but not
to three generations with well-defined properties.

>
> While I do not know what Bilson's own view is as to
> the dimensions of this 2D ribbon, and his papers do
> not seem to state so, if in my suggestion, they are
> larger or comparable in length/width to the elementary
> particles they compose, but only exist as a bound
> state, like quark confinement, how would
> experimentalists already know this? This might make
> for an interesting arvix paper.

I think the last Bilson-Tompson/Markopoulou/Smolin's
paper hints that the stuctures are beyond the Plank-length
scale. As for the mass paradox in string theory, I am
not pretty sure how it is resolved, but I could imagine
that the string energy is determined by eigenvalues.
So they must correspond to some specific string
parameters and be limited to these eigenvalues. In this
way the enormous energies corresponding to the
Planck-length scale would be forbidden, which, in principle,
might also be applicable to Bilson's structures. But then you
are converting it in a string theory, with the whole bunch of
string-related problems.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Hi,

I got your other email, I did not think of the paper
as a preon, given the huge mass differences between a
singularity and an elementary particle. I thought that Bilson's model could describe the
second and third generation simply as quantized
excitation of the first, with the first as the ground
state. At least for leptons. I now know this won't
work. At least not without additional theory.
(i.e dynamics)

A muon could decay directly into an electron and
photon, this is allowable energetically but forbidden
by the SM. How does your preon model forbid this
process?

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,

On Friday 29 Sep 2006 22:36, you wrote:

>
> I got your other email, I did not think of the paper
> as a preon, given the huge mass differences between a
> singularity and an elementary particle.
>
>

It is known that a black hole can have any
mass, infinitesimally small included. That is
why there are a lot of papers on microscopic
blackholes. I suspect the extreme case of
a massless black hole is also possible, which
is what topologists would call a topological
feature or dislocation of a manifold.

> I thought that Bilson's model could describe the
> second and third generation simply as quantized
> excitation of the first, with the first as the ground
> state. At least for leptons. I now know this won't
> work. At least not without additional theory.
>

No way, indeed.

> A muon could decay directly into an electron and
> photon, this is allowable energetically but forbidden
> by the SM. How does your preon model forbid this
> process?
>

In my model it is, of course, forbidden structurally.
The substructures of a structure identified as a muon
are sitting in a shallow potential well compared to the
potential wells responsible for binding the
substructures themselves. Therefore, it is more likely
that the substructures would keep their integrity when
the whole structure disintegrates. Nevertheless,
since all the structures and substructures
are relativistic oscillators, a remote probability
exist that in a rare clashes of the substructures
they would also disintegrate generating photons
and/or electron-neutrinos. In particular, from
my model follows that a small probability exists
of the reaction

Nu_mu -> Nu_e + gamma,

(the muon-neutrino coming from a decaying muon).
Regarding this as an intermediate process in
the muon decay reaction, we have a probability of

mu -> e + 2Nu_e + gamma.

Perhaps seeing such a rare reaction could serve
as an experimental evidence supporting my model.

>
> I have asked Lubos Motl, a string theorists at
> Harvard, the same question about how string theory
> which posit 1-D Planck sized strings in 10-11D SUSY
> space gets around the problem and here's his response:
>

Thank you for forwarding me Lubos' notes. From his
explanation it follows that the mechanism
for resolving the mass problem seems to be roughly
the same for any theory, no matter which entities
were used: preons, strings, space-time foam
or whatever else. At least in this sense nature
is unified.


Regards,

Vladimir

--

 

[bananan]

Hello Vlad
hello, Vlad

> It is known that a black hole can have any
> mass, infinitesimally small included. That is
> why there are a lot of papers on microscopic
> black holes. I suspect the extreme case of
> a massless black hole is also possible, which
> is what topologists would call a topological
> feature or dislocation of a manifold.

BH are known to emit Hawking radiation and evaporate, the smaller the faster the rate. Also, BH have no hair. They lack color charge and they radiate. By themselves they cannot model any elementary particles.

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607014

BTW the Freidel article may provide a LQG basis for Bilson's "ribbons" and may allow for calculation of energy and other properties. It might also offer your preon model a similar grounding:

"Since the work of Mac-Dowell-Mansouri it is well known that gravity can be written as a gauge theory for the de Sitter group. In this paper we consider the coupling of this theory to the simplest gauge invariant observables that is, Wilson lines. The dynamics of these Wilson lines is shown to reproduce exactly the dynamics of relativistic particles coupled to gravity, the gauge charges carried by Wilson lines being the mass and spin of the particles. Insertion of Wilson lines breaks in a controlled manner the diffeomorphism symmetry of the theory and the gauge degree of freedom are transmuted to particles degree of freedom."

> In my model it is, of course, forbidden
> structurally.
> The substructures of a structure identified as a
> muon
> are sitting in a shallow potential well compared to
> the
> potential wells responsible for binding the
> substructures themselves. Therefore, it is more
> likely
> that the substructures would keep their integrity
> when
> the whole structure disintegrates. Nevertheless,
> since all the structures and substructures
> are relativistic oscillators, a remote probability
> exist that in a rare clashes of the substructures
> they would also disintegrate generating photons
> and/or electron-neutrinos. In particular, from
> my model follows that a small probability exists
> of the reaction
>
> Nu_mu -> Nu_e + gamma,
>
> (the muon-neutrino coming from a decaying muon).
> Regarding this as an intermediate process in
> the muon decay reaction, we have a probability of
>
> mu -> e + 2Nu_e + gamma.
>
> Perhaps seeing such a rare reaction could serve
> as an experimental evidence supporting my model.

I don't have any initial thoughts on this except that that it seems ruled out by both the SM and experimental observation, AFAIK. While Bilson expressly stated his path to 2nd and 3rd gen fermions would be more complex braiding, I thought like you the path to 2nd and 3rd gen fermions would be along the lines of more bundles of preons. Friedel's paper might offer insights on how to add energy to Bilson's ribbons so that no additional braiding or multiple preon bound states would be necessary.

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,

On Saturday 30 Sep 2006 16:48, you wrote:

> BH are known to emit Hawking radiation and evaporate,
> the smaller the faster the rate. Also, BH have no
> hair. They lack color charge and they radiate. By
> themselves they cannot model any elementary particles.
>
>
> arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607014
>
Naked singularities are proved to be possible,
which rules out the "no-hair" hypothesis.
The claim that microscopic black holes lack
colour-charge has no basis whatsoever because
nobody knows much about the properties of these
objects. A psychological barrier against microscopic
blackholes does exist, but we could label these
objects as topological defects or dislocations of
space and forget about the psychological
barrier.

As for Hawking radiation, this it is still a hypothesis,
which is actually derived by pre-assuming that
the concepts of GR and QM could be arbitrarily
mixed to produce new results prior building a unified
theory (quantum gravity). As it is known, GR and
QM are not yet reconciled and nobody knows
when this goal will be achieved.

I agree that microscopic black holes by themselves
cannot model elementary particles. But using them
as building blocks for composite particles is a valid
approach. The problem is that in GR no solutions yet
found for more than a solitary object. That is why
some assumptions about preons' interactions are
unavoidable (let us for simplicity call them
preons). Maybe you are right that papers like Friedel's
could help.

>
> I don't have any initial thoughts on this except that
> that it seems ruled out by both the SM and
> experimental observation,

Yes, of course the muon-neutrino decay reactions are
not seen. I am suggesting them as a very remote
possibility (like, for example, the hypothetical proton
decay reaction). The main reaction for the composite
muon in my model is different. It follows from its structure:

mu -> e + nu_e + nu_mu,

which is exactly what is observed.

 

[bananan]

I must confess, I don't understand this preon model of Yershov. It seems that the force is just coming out of thin air. Equation 2.3 of hep-ph/0207132 looks very odd to me - what is the mechanism of transfering momentum between the preons to give this force? Is this supposed to be action at a distance?

It is interesting because he seems to get almost the right masses. The neutrinos are wrong, and the top mass is a bit off, but the others are pretty good. Unfortunately I am not following how he derives the number of preons in a particle.

Also, I don't understand what happened to the energy associated with the force. The mass of a bound state is really just the energy contained in it as seen in its rest frame - so what happened to the energy associated the force between the preons which supposedly hold them together. (Compare for example, the proton mass, which is not simply the sum of the constituant quark masses.)

I thought that I have already commented on
the masses. Indeed, the the binding energy
between preons is enormous. It is this energy
that resolves the mass paradox and cancels
the energy from their momentum. As for the
understanding of my model, I have found that
some people do have problems in grasping the
main idea. That is why I had to put more details
into recent papers. I think that it would be better
for Severian to disregard that very old paper
and to have a look at the new ones (I mean
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185
and http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054).
I have shown these texts to different people
and they didn't complain.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[nnunn]

I thought that I have already commented on the masses. Indeed, the the binding energy between preons is enormous. It is this energy that resolves the mass paradox and cancels the energy from their momentum. As for the understanding of my model, I have found that some people do have problems in grasping the main idea. That is why I had to put more details into recent papers. I think that it would be better for Severian to disregard that very old paper and to have a look at the new ones (I mean http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185 and http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054). I have shown these texts to different people and they didn't complain.
Regards,
Vladimir

Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for discussing your model. As an astrophysicist, one thing comes quickly to mind: given this "enormous" binding energy bound up in preon bonds, how might a large collection of such preons react when being forced closer than say "Planckian" proximity? For example, given the terminal gravitational collapse of a 4 solar mass neutron star, might this enormous binding energy and preon spin conspire to unzip a quark star, those dark islands of condensed matter formerly known as low mass black holes?

intrigued,
Nigel

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan

Please, could you post my answer to "nnunn" (Nigel) whose question
was the following:

> Dear Vladimir,
>
>Thanks for discussing your model. As an astrophysicist, one thing
>comes quickly to mind: given this "enormous" binding energy bound up
in
>preon bonds, how might a large collection of such preons react when
being
>forced closer than say "Planckian" proximity? For example, given the
>terminal gravitational collapse of a 4 solar mass neutron star, might
>this enormous binding energy and preon spin conspire to unzip a quark
star,
>those dark islands of condensed matter formerly known as low mass
black
>holes?
>
>intrigued,
>Nigel

----

Dear Nigel,

Indeed, the possible existence of preons has
important implications as to astrophysics and
cosmology. First of all, given the possibility of
various structural levels of matter beyond the
quark scale, the gravitational collapse must be
a very complicated process with different phase
transitions and releases of enormous amount of
energy stored in the form of preons' mass-defect.
Obviously, a black hole shouldn't be considered
anymore as a point-like entity, but rather as
a physical object whose size went below its
Swartzchild radius. Besides quark stars, nowadays
people more and more use the term "preon stars",
but I think that there should exist more types of
dense objects corresponding to different equilibria
between preons' momenta and gravitational pressure.
I am not sure whether low-mass black holes might
be formed in this way because all the phase transitions
must occur inside of the Swartzchild radius.
Therefore, emerging of smaller black holes from
a larger one is forbidden by general relativity.
The only possibility for low-mass black holes to exist
is for them being primordial.

As to cosmology, I have given a hint in the paper
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054: it seems that
before the big bang explosion the universe must have
undergone a long evolution because of a stationary point
in the origin of the basic potential used for this model.
When the average distance between preons approach a
certain value (called r0 or rho0 in my paper) the system
must undergo an explosive phase transition followed
by a series of other phase transitions corresponding
to different preon equilibrium configurations. No doubt,
a lot of important results could be obtained from the
detailed consideration of these phase transitions.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

HI

I did post Nigel's question. He's a big LQG fan, as
LQG starts out with GR. I take it you prefer GR?
STring theory is still taught as the "truth" here in
the US, although SUSY-breaking theories are like
epicycles to me. Along with KKLT to get DeS
and 10^500 vacua, I would be surprised
if strings is physically correct. Given
GUT SU(5) and SO(10) are far far far more conservative
than strings, and it has been falsified Nonetheless
SUSY string theorists believe LHC will not only
produce higgs but susy-partners. (String theorists
Lubos and Jacques Distler are betting anyone $1k
that LHC will see SUSY-partners not $10k as I
originally stated).

Incidentally Lee SMolin wrote an article you might
find interesting.

One Question I have is this: your model both bosons
and fermions, how does the binding of your preons
change spin? 1/2 or 1? How would SUSY enter the
picture shoudl LHC verify to string theorist's delight
the existence of SUSY-partners?


Dan

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for posting my reply to Nigel and also for
forwarding me Lee Smolin's last paper. This paper
is very important because Lee looks directly in the
root of the problem. This is the only right method
of resolving GR/QM problems, unlike string theory.
It is difficult to understand how a hypothesis (even
if it is well-supported mathematically) could be taught
as the truth? Recently I have learned that also
creationism is still taught as the truth in the States.
I suspect there must be a deep interconnection
between these two facts. Of course, I prefer GR to
QM and it is shame that I was thinking that LQG was
based on QM. Now I see that Lee Smolin's works
are all pointing to the same direction (GR).
However, it seems to me that there is a branch
of physics already following this guideline, and this
guideline was drawn by I.Prigogin (see his book
"Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics") who had
shown that QM formalism is relevant when considering
some purely classical systems. Then, recovering
QM and QFT from GR would be a particular case
of Prigogine's theory. But of course this is a tough
job requiring time and efforts of many people.

Going o your question, I apologise that my answer
will be a little bit lengthy. I must say that the spin
of the preon structures is the most unorthodox part
of my model. The funny thing is that I haven't
anticipated this property at all. The model begins
with the simplest entity, which is spherically
symmetric and has no spin. That is, the very
notion of spin does not exist on this level.
The simple bound states formed of two or three
preons can, indeed, spin around their barycentres.
The corresponding angular momenta might, in
principle, be identified with spins but these simple
structures cannot exist in free states because of
their colour fields (with diverging energies).

In order to get a free structure, the colour field must
be either canceled or, alternatively, be closed in a
loop. Closing a field in a loop correspond to a deep
potential well, and such a structure must be stable.
There are only two simple loop-closed preon
structures: one charged, formed of 9 like-charged
preons, and another - neutral - formed of 18 positively
and 18 negatively charged preons. Let us label the
former as electron and the latter as electron-neutrino.

The charges spinning around their common
loop-closed axis and moving along this axis
create braided currents, whose topology is invariant
under spatial rotations. If you take an individual current,
which looks like a Smale-Williams loop, you will notice
that its shape corresponds to a spinor, which gives
you a hint that this shape has something to do with the
half-integer spin of the structure.

Furthermore, if you take two 9-preon structures
(two electrons), ignore for a moment their electric
charges, and analyse in detail the configuration of their
colour-charges, you will find that if these currents are
unlike-twisted they will be attracted towards each other,
otherwise they repel.

This is yet another hint that the twists have something
to do with the spin of the structure because this attraction-
repulsion pattern matches the Pauli exclusion rule.
It is easy to see that the neutral loops - neutrino - behave
in the same way as the electrons.

Curiously enough, when you try to combine the
structure, corresponding to the electron with that of the
electron-neutrino, you will find that the spin-dependent
attraction/repulsion pattern is reversed. That is, like
half-integer spins are attractive to each other, whereas
unlike-spins are repulsive. So, you can readily
get an integer-spin particle (boson) based on the
combination of the electron with its neutrino, both having
half-integer spins of the same sign. Not so easy is getting
a spin-0 particle because of repulsion between the
components caused by their electric an magnetic fields.

Following carefully the attraction/repulsion patterns
due to electric charges, colour charges, spins and magnetic
moments, you will end up with the full set of known elementary
particles - bosons included - no less and no more (disregard
the spherically closed shell-structures). The spins of the
emerging structures are quantised, additive and reproduce
exactly the spins of the fundamental fermions and bosons.

This structure-formation scheme involve only common
physics - no exotic symmetries, entities or extra dimensions
are needed. SUSY doesn't fit to this model and, therefore,
the prediction about super-partners would be:
none of them will be observed at LHC. Contemplatively, one
can, of course, add super-partners to all of the particles, but
this extension will not be justified physically. LHC is a physical
device, so it will see only those things that are allowed by
normal physical laws.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[bananan]

Hi Vlad,

Hey no problem. I've read your explanation and posted for spin, don't have much ideas at the moment. I might revisit them in the future. I found your comment about creationism and strings amusing, but Peter Woit and Smolin point to Edward Witten as the driving force for string/M-theory. So long as Witten works on strings and believes it, so will the US HEP community.


One problem with GUT models is they predict proton decay in disagreement with experiment. Does your model allow for quarks to change to leptons, hence proton decay and if so, what is the predicted half-life for protons? I guess while we're on the subject, does your model offer any predictions that LHC might see? Witten and other string theorists believe they'll see the Higgs and SUSY-partners. I understand your model does predict particles not observed in the SM which you have labelled dark matter candidates? Of course string theory predicts SUSY-partners as DM. Also, does t'Hooft's anomy matching constraint apply to your preon model?


However difficult it may be to exclude a 4th generation of fermions, I still think this idea might be worthwhitle esp regarding Bilson's preon ribbon model. Just coming up with a formula to describe 2nd/3rd generation as quantized excitations of 1st generation would be very impressive, as well as predictions with particle half-lives and masses. As for the neutrino problem, well maybe neutrinos play by a different set of rules. Or maybe the excited state of an electron isn't a muon but a W-boson (which decays into an electron and neutrino), and the excited state of the W-boson is the muon (i.e spin changes with excitation). There may not be a fourth generation fermions according to this spin-changing model b/c there's no super-heavy bosons to decay into the fourth generation. Chemistry has lots of rules that govern all the varieties of physical properties of elements and reactions and structures. Quantized excitation of elementary particles might follow complicated rules, such as releasing mass-energy in quantized spin 1/2 alternating changing steps.

Such a formula could show a 4th generation is
1- not energetically or entropically favored
2- decays too quickly
3- results in a structure that is unbounded, much like an electron-proton system, where n=infinity, the electron is effectively removed from the proton.

-Dan

 

[bananan]

Hi Dan,


On Tuesday 03 Oct 2006 19:04, you wrote:

> I found your comment about
> creationism and strings amusing, but Peter Woit and
> Smolin point to Edward Witten as the driving force for
> string/M-theory. So long as Witten works on strings
> and believes it, so will the US HEP community.

I actually thought that Witten is not longer a believer to
string theory after saying that "string theory is
vacuous since it can never predict anything"
(see the full comment on the page
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9).
If he is a driving force for string theory he must not
be sincere.

>
> One problem with GUT models is they predict proton
> decay in disagreement with experiment. Does your model
> allow for quarks to change to leptons, hence proton
> decay and if so, what is the predicted half-life for
> protons?

Particle half-lives in my model are, in principle,
computable, but this is a tough and very challenging
thing to do. The proton in my model seems to be
extremely stable (not as stable as the electron,
but structurally I don't see how it could decay
spontaneously). So, for the time being, the only thing
I could say about proton's half-life is that it is a stable
particle. There is no indication whatsoever about
the possibility for quarks changing to leptons
rather than in a violent annihilation process
(passing through the photon stage).

> I guess while we're on the subject, does your
> model offer any predictions that LHC might see? Witten
> and other string theorists believe they'll see the
> Higgs and SUSY-partners. I understand your model does
> predict particles not observed in the SM which you
> have labelled dark matter candidates? Of course string
> theory predicts SUSY-partners as DM. Also, does
> t'Hooft's anomy matching constraint apply to your
> preon model?
>

The only extra particles predicted by my model
are low-mass WIMPs (48.7 MeV and 3.6Mev) which
are not the things to be observed with LHC.
Sinse these particles are closed shells
their coupling to matter is even weaker than
the weak interaction. A remote possibility for
LHC to detect something from my model could
be the bound state of three preons: red, green
and blue (which I have labelled as a tripole)
but this is unlikely because the binding energy
between different tripoles (say, with the structure
of the electron) must be a few orders of magnitude
beyond the capability of LHC.
As for t'Hooft anomaly, at this stage it does not
apply to my model. When quantised, of course, my
model will face this problem - not before.

> As for Bilson's ribbon model,
> However difficult it may be to exclude a 4th
> generation of fermions, I still think this idea might
> be worthwhitle esp regarding Bilson's preon ribbon
> model. Just coming up with a formula to describe
> 2nd/3rd generation as quantized excitations of 1st
> generation would be very impressive, as well as
> predictions with particle half-lives and masses. As
> for the neutrino problem, well maybe neutrinos play by
> a different set of rules. Or maybe the excited state
> of an electron isn't a muon but a W-boson (which
> decays into an electron and neutrino), and the excited
> state of the W-boson is the muon (i.e spin changes
> with excitation). There may not be a fourth generation
> fermions according to this spin-changing model b/c
> there's no super-heavy bosons to decay into the fourth
> generation. Chemistry has lots of rules that govern
> all the varieties of physical properties of elements
> and reactions and structures. Quantized excitation of
> elementary particles might follow complicated rules,
> such as releasing mass-energy in quantized spin 1/2
> alternating changing steps.
>
> Such a formula could show a 4th generation is
> 1- not energetically or entropically favored
> 2- decays too quickly
> 3- results in a structure that is unbounded, much like
> an electron-proton system, where n=infinity, the
> electron is effectively removed from the proton.
>

Chemistry rules, while working well for chemical
elements and their combinations, do not always
follows from the underlying physics of these
elements. By no means the chemical rules could
be used for discovering this underlying physics.
Similarly, this might be the case for the rules used
for describing particles generations in SM.
Also I think that it would be difficult, rather
impossible, to describe higher generations as
excitations of lower ones. For example, there are
many systems known to contain excited electrons,
but it doesn't mean that the electrons in those
systems could be considered as muons or
something else. Of course, I understand that the
spin/charge/mass/flavour changes proposed in
Bilson's model could only happen on the Planck-length
scale or below, otherwise they should have already
been observed. But even so, the states corresponding
to different particles are regarded as invariant topological
constructions. Then the flavour-changing excitation
must somehow change the topology of the
manifold? Is it really possible mathematically?

I agree that it would be nice to have a set of formulae
showing that the fourth generation is impossible.
And I agree with your three points. The important point
is about particle half-lives. Indeed, the potentially
fourth-generation particles might decay too quickly.
If you assume that structure-formation process
takes some time (it would be strange to suppose
that structures could emerge instantly) then you are
bound to conclude that on a certain level of complexity
the structure-formation process would last longer
than the decay of the structure under formation.
This limits the number of possible particle
generations (supposedly, to three), which
could be verified by detailed calculations.
But, as I have alreadymentioned, this is a
tough job.

Regards,

Vladimir

--

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bananan, I am having trouble following these email exchanges. Could you use the quote tags and identify the sender please?

 

[bananan]

Bananan, I am having trouble following these email exchanges. Could you use the quote tags and identify the sender please?

-sure, how do i do this? to my right i see icons for smiles, on the bottom i see post icon smiles, right corner there's a abc with a check mark.

 

[bananan]

Dear Vlad,

I honestly did not know about this link about Witten. I cannot say whether it represents Witten's view.

I have another link by Witten here:
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-witten.html"

He says he's a string theory believer. I've not looked up his most recent articles although I thought they were relating string theory to Penrose' twistor space.


> As for t'Hooft anomaly, at this stage it does not
> apply to my model. When quantised, of course, my
> model will face this problem - not before.

So when quantized it will have this anomly? In order for HEP to take this seriously, it must be quantized, and it must be framed in the language of a QFT, and get around the anomy problem.

> something else. Of course, I understand that the
> spin/charge/mass/flavour changes proposed in
> Bilson's model could only happen on the
> Planck-length
> scale or below, otherwise they should have already
> been observed. But even so, the states corresponding
>
> to different particles are regarded as invariant
> topological
> constructions.

When you say it should have already been observed, how would it be observed other than particle decay? For example, the decay of a muon into a W- boson and neutrino could be described as a re-arrangement of preon bundles, (or breaking of more complex braiding) into more stable bound states (and the decay of the W- boson into neutrino and electron) as the ground states. How would HEP observe this other than as decay?


In LQG, distances below the Planck length is believed to have no physical meaning, the Planck length is the "quanta" of space-time. Hence, DSR. It's also been described as discrete gravity or gravity on a lattice. By making the Planck dimensions the quanta of spacetime, it is believed that unphysical singularities of GR are avoided much like hydrogen spectral emissions.

Then the flavour-changing excitation
> must somehow change the topology of the
> manifold? Is it really possible mathematically?

Well I guess we'll have to wait for Sundance's next paper to see what directions he & Smolin take this model.

These are my ideas only:
He wants to model the photon boson as three unbraided twists. We know photons are massless (do not interact with a non-observed Higgs field).

We know photons have energy expressed as frequency or wavelength, and polarizition (both circular and linear)
and spin angular momentum which is 1. The photon has an electric field component, and a magnetic field component at 90 angle.

so his ribbon model should accommodate the above into his three unbraided ribbons in order to model photon, which is presumably the simplest particle to model. Evidentally different braiding not only affect charge, but energy and spin angular momentum resulting in either 1/2 or 1.

A preon model with unbroken supersymmetry (avoiding the complex epicycle-like structures of broken supersymmetry models) expressed only at the preon level (on the premise they are truly elementary), would have spin 1/2 and spin 1 super partner preon structures of equal mass-energy, which could conceivably re-create the standard model.


>
> I agree that it would be nice to have a set of
> formulae
> showing that the fourth generation is impossible.
> And I agree with your three points. The important
> point
> is about particle half-lives. Indeed, the
> potentially
> fourth-generation particles might decay too quickly.
> If you assume that structure-formation process
> takes some time (it would be strange to suppose
> that structures could emerge instantly) then you are
>
> bound to conclude that on a certain level of
> complexity
> the structure-formation process would last longer
> than the decay of the structure under formation.
> This limits the number of possible particle
> generations (supposedly, to three), which
> could be verified by detailed calculations.
> But, as I have alreadymentioned, this is a
> tough job.

That was what I was thinking exactly, which could explain both in your preon model and Bilson's (whether he goes for the more complex braiding approach, which he expressly states in his paper, the excited approach, or bundled-bound state preon approach) path to 2nd and 3rd fermions generation, while preventing an unwanted 4th generation to occur.

Dan

 

[CarlB]

To put something in quotes, do this:

[ Q U O T E = n a m e] What name said.[ / Q U O T E ]

without the spaces gives:

What name said.

Carl

 

[bananan]

To put something in quotes, do this:

[ Q U O T E = n a m e] What name said.[ / Q U O T E ]

without the spaces gives:



Carl

I'll do it thanks. I thought there was an icon to do this, that I can click on like

 

[bananan]

I pointed out that Witten giving up on string theory was an April fools joke.

[ Q U O T E = Yershov] Hi Dan,
>
> I re-read it. The date
> This entry was posted on Thursday, April 1st, 2004 at
> 10:08 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
>
> April fools joke.
>

I haven't noticed that! It was well-done!. Perhaps those who live in
N.Y.
could recognise the joke immediately, but for the rest of the world it
looks
genuine. Hence - my apologies to Witten, although I still believe that
with
his talent he could do much more useful things and discoveries should
he not
be confined to the string paradigm.

I have seen your last comments about quantization
and can say that quantizing my model in a standard way
would result in loosing information about some
symmetries and retaining information about other
(undesirable) symmetries which were broken in the
original model. For example, in the structure of the
electron the SU(3) symmetry is broken due to an
intriguing interplay between the geometry of the
structure, electric, magnetic fields and the Lorentz
force. Describing this in the language of QFT might,
of course, be possible but in order to avoid anomalies
the implementation of the quantization procedure
must very careful.

In fact, my model is already quantized in a certain
sense because closed loops are known to give rise
to quantum numbers. For the time being, I think it
would be better not to touch it, instead providing
a link between my model and QFT. For example,
look at the structure of the electron from my model:
if you squeeze to a point the Smale-Williams loops,
which this structure is formed of, you will get
a spinor providing you with a link to the Dirac
equation.

As for the possible transformation of Bilson's particles
through the decay process, I think that in this case
the third-generation particles would be hanged in the
air because there is nothing they can decay
from. If, on the contrary, the higher generations were
excitation states of lower generations, the invariant
topology (say, braiding) could, in principle explain the
invariant charges and spins. But then the magnetic
moments of different flavours of the same lepton should
be the same, which is not observed. It is more likely that
the generations in Bilson's model arise from the change
of the braiding patterns. If you believe these patterns
to be real and present on the sub-quark scale, they
should have already revealed themselves on
lower-energy scales by adding some anisotropy
to particle scattering, which is not observed.
So, this anisotropy must be hidden on a much
lower (Planck?) scale. In any case, there is
an important gap in Bilson's model when explaining
the charges by twists. This property is merely
postulated, and there are no hints as to how
could a twist be translated to the explicit properties
of a charge. Only the polarity of charge is explained,
no more. We should better wait for new ideas from
Sundance.

Regards,

Vladimir[ / Q U O T E ]


Quote Doesn't seem to be working.

 

[jtbell]

Quote Doesn't seem to be working.

Remove the spaces from between the [ ]. I can't show you how it looks because then the tag disappears and makes the following text into a quote!

Oh wait... I'll make a gif out of it and attach it...

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

In your recent paper, http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185: "Equilibrium configurations of tripolar charges", near the end of section 10 [Discussion], you write:

"The momentum uncertainty of a preon (of whatever mass) confined to a box of this size is about 200 GeV, which is 50,000 times larger than the mass of the up-quark. Thus, the problem consists in reconciling the relatively small quark masses with the many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from the preon’s enormous momenta.

One way in which the mass from internal momentum can be canceled is to postulate an extremely strong force, which must be at least 10^5 times stronger than the strong interaction. It is somewhat unwelcome because it would add a considerable complication to the Standard Model, which already has too many arbitrary parameters. However, with such a hyperforce, the preons would be so tightly bound inside a quark that the energy contribution from their large momentum would be canceled by their large binding energy. This approach is quite promising, and that is why we adhere to it in this paper."

Within this preon frame, the idea of such an ultimate subatomic force is logical and consistent: the strong force grips quarks, the weak force "adjusts" quarks, while the EM force may be said to "choreograph" groups of quarks. Since interactions at each level of structure have their characteristic force, one would expect the components in a final, ultimate level of structure to also have their characteristic (ultimate?) force.

For astrophysicists, this immediately implies another level of degeneracy for the matter in a collapsing stellar remnant (compact object). A collapsing neutron star would then be seen as relaxing/condensing to the level of some "dark" object. All this is very non-controversial, but given your hypothetical "extremely strong" force, strong enough to cancel the (potentially divergent) mass from internal momentum, such a force, when rotated into play, could tip the balance against gravity--making itself known via gamma ray bursts. Having astrophysical inclinations, it is this feature in your theory that has me intrigued. In message [35] above you wrote:

As to cosmology, I have given a hint in the paper http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054: it seems that before the big bang explosion the universe must have undergone a long evolution because of a stationary point in the origin of the basic potential used for this model. When the average distance between preons approach a certain value (called r0 or rho0 in my paper) the system must undergo an explosive phase transition followed by a series of other phase transitions corresponding to different preon equilibrium configurations. No doubt, a lot of important results could be obtained from the detailed consideration of these phase transitions.

The image I get is that when stressed (e.g. when forced to rotate against the grain of their 4d brane), your ultimate particles may stand up and be counted: while standard model astrophysics may be good enough for describing those supernova puff-balls, your preon physics may be the key to tracing the story of a collapsing neutron star. Given the enormous energies implied for the preon bonds, how might these clustered structures respond when truly stressed (i.e., when gravity tries to condense these clustered structures beyond some critical proximity)? Applying an exclusion principle to preons looks like a fruitful semester's work.

PS: since the community sees the word (and idea of) "preon" as worn out, would you like to coin a fresh label for these ultimate particles, assuming they qualify as the foundation for the particle hierarchy?

thanks again for your contribution to the state of the art,
Nigel

(PPS: No, I am not the LQG/GR Nigel -- I am only an egg.)

 

[bananan]

Dear Vladimir,

In your recent paper, http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0609185: "Equilibrium configurations of tripolar charges", near the end of section 10 [Discussion], you write:



Within this preon frame, the idea of such an ultimate subatomic force is logical and consistent: the strong force grips quarks, the weak force "adjusts" quarks, while the EM force may be said to "choreograph" groups of quarks. Since interactions at each level of structure have their characteristic force, one would expect the components in a final, ultimate level of structure to also have their characteristic (ultimate?) force.

For astrophysicists, this immediately implies another level of degeneracy for the matter in a collapsing stellar remnant (compact object). A collapsing neutron star would then be seen as relaxing/condensing to the level of some "dark" object. All this is very non-controversial, but given your hypothetical "extremely strong" force, strong enough to cancel the (potentially divergent) mass from internal momentum, such a force, when rotated into play, could tip the balance against gravity--making itself known via gamma ray bursts. Having astrophysical inclinations, it is this feature in your theory that has me intrigued. In message [35] above you wrote:



The image I get is that when stressed (e.g. when forced to rotate against the grain of their 4d brane), your ultimate particles may stand up and be counted: while standard model astrophysics may be good enough for describing those supernova puff-balls, your preon physics may be the key to tracing the story of a collapsing neutron star. Given the enormous energies implied for the preon bonds, how might these clustered structures respond when truly stressed (i.e., when gravity tries to condense these clustered structures beyond some critical proximity)? Applying an exclusion principle to preons looks like a fruitful semester's work.

PS: since the community sees the word (and idea of) "preon" as worn out, would you like to coin a fresh label for these ultimate particles, assuming they qualify as the foundation for the particle hierarchy?

thanks again for your contribution to the state of the art,
Nigel

(PPS: No, I am not the LQG/GR Nigel -- I am only an egg.)

The question you have forwarded to me is also
potentially related to the possible observational
verification of my model. Here is my answer:

---
Dear Nigel,

I used the preon label because it was already a buzz
word, everyone had heard about.
But, strictly speaking, this particular label denotes
an object on the hierarchy level just one step
below quarks. To denote lower-level objects people
use the labels like "sub-preons", "sub-sub-preons",
composite preons" etc. I prefer a bottom-up rather
than top-down design, and that is why sometimes
I use the name "primitive particle" implying that
it belongs to the ultimate (initial?) structural level
in the hierarchy. There are also secondary-level
particles, which play an important role in the structure
formation scheme. They are formed of three primitive
particles with three complementary colour-charges.
Since colours denote the polarities of the tripolar
interaction I use to call these secondary-level
particles "tripoles" (which is analogous to the
notion of dipoles emerging in the framework of
the conventional bipolar interaction).

Those people who prefer the standard way
of thinking and regard the SM fundamental
particles as the ultimate "point-like" entities would
disagree with my approach, but then, in my opinion,
they would be bound to accept fate of never explaining
the observed variety of these fundamental particles.

I agree that "preon" is not a very appropriate label
but at this stage I cannot invent a better name than
"primitive particle". Perhaps something better
would spring to my mind in the future.

Searching for the nature of these objects one would
arrive at the concepts of "microscopic black holes",
"wormholes", or "auto-solitons" (which is better),
but none of them could be used for labelling
the primitive particles because these notions belong
to the already well-established fields of research.

As for the implications of primitive particles
to a collapsing object, you are right that one would
expect a number of degeneracy states of such an
object, two of which (white dwarfs and neutron stars)
are already known. Other degeneracy states ("dark objects")
could be discovered in due course. The forces corresponding
to these degeneracy states must be increasing from state
to state downwards in order to counter-balance gravity
and to prevent from a collapse to a point (even of
super-massive black holes sitting in the galactic centres).
Moreover, the mentioned super-strong force must be such
that even a collapsing universe be counter-balanced
by them (because it is the universe itself, which
originates these forces on that level).

In fact, all these forces on different hierarchical
levels must logically be manifestations of the same
underlying force. They would only look different on
different levels because of the mentioned cancellations
and symmetry breaking. This is entirely analogous to
the force between nucleons being a manifestation of a
residual strong force between quarks.

Regards,

Vladimir

Hopefully the quote system will work this time

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

You wrote:

I prefer a bottom-up rather than top-down design, and that is why sometimes I use the name "primitive particle" implying that it belongs to the ultimate (initial?) structural level in the hierarchy. [...] I agree that "preon" is not a very appropriate label but at this stage I cannot invent a better name than "primitive particle". Perhaps something better would spring to my mind in the future.

Assuming your ultimatonic model (ultimate uncuttable = ultimate a-tom = ultimaton?) is on the right track, clearly it is better to work up the physical chain of interactions defined and constrained by your primitive particles, rather than down, through a hierarchy of ill-defined pre-preon schemes. If your ultimatons and their interactions harness the fundamental energy of the material cosmos, then an analogy regarding energy scales may apply: as chemical is to nuclear, so nuclear is to ultimatonic?

Those people who prefer the standard way of thinking and regard the SM fundamental particles as the ultimate "point-like" entities would disagree with my approach, but then, in my opinion, they would be bound to accept fate of never explaining the observed variety of these fundamental particles.

Quite so. The few papers I've seen about "preon stars" seem to be taking the backwards path, descending through nested sub-levels of degeneracy of decreasingly massive and increasingly boring contenders... arriving at mere variations of black hole phenomena. While astronomers may discover astrophysical evidence for such objects (pico- and femto-lensing), I agree with you that this backwards descent seems doomed to flounder when it come to explaining the constitution of these objects (and their potential to explode?). With no ultimatonic component (to define and constrain their models), their equations and predictions remain educated speculation; not even order-of-magnitude estimates. But with your ultimatonic clusters, one might arrive at hard numbers for (astrophysical) prediction, thence verification or otherwise.

Do you know of any (astrophysical) researchers taking the bottom-up approach?

thanks again,
Nigel

 

[bananan]

Dear Nigel,

Unfortunately I am not aware of astrophysical papers dealing with the bottom-up approach. Perhaps there are no any, and for a good reason - the collapsing astrophysical objects degenerate rather than evolve. Then, it would be logical in astrophysics to follow this backward sequence - from white dwarfs to neutron stars, quark-stars, preon-stars, etc. But perhaps it is difficult to get adequate models of these objects without the knowledge of properties of the degenerated matter in question. As far as I know, even the properties of the neutron-based matter are not well-known, let alone quarks and preons. This could be seen from the fact that currently there are two, if not three, apparently incompatible models of the nucleus (exploiting the gas, liquid and cluster frameworks). I think that speculating on quark- or preon-stars is riding before the hounds. The only excuse for doing that is the similarity between the observable effects of, say, a neutron star and a black hole (most of the radiation comes from the nearby environment and not from the object itself). Gravitational lensing effects would also be similar from both objects.

However, there is no excuse for particle physicists taking the same top-down approach. That is probably why most of such models could not fit to the observed picture. In addition, there are trillions of possible mathematical structures to explore. Do we have to check all of them? String theorists believe that we have to. But we are not computers, so it would be much more natural for us to use a more economical human way of thinking. The bottom-up approach gives us the possibility to rapidly distinguish between the working and not working models.

But I think that we have to be very cautious about the "ultimatonic" terminology because it was found many times that there was always something underlying any (thought to be) "ultimate" entity. Also the label "ultimaton" could signify a higher-level target in the bottom-up approach (not the desired lower-level object in the structural hierarchy).

In addition, the fact that the simplest object in my model has some properties suggests that there is something that give rise to these properties. That is, there must be even a lower than lower level of reality. The simplest object is such in the sense of its structure, not of its properties. Perhaps it is here where the domain of LQG begins because the properties of the simplest object could be determined by the underlying behaviour of the manifold. If, for instance, it were possible to demonstrate that spin networks could result in a naked singularity object with chromoelectric-like field, then the rest would be easy and the entire particle diversity could emerge automatically. Maybe somebody will do this?

Regards,

Vladimir