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

[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

 

[bananan]

hi Vlad,
I don't mind at all. Actually that paper by Singh
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506129
http://www.gravity.psu.edu/news/physicsweb.pdf

shows that loop quantum gravity avoids naked
singularities (His paper is much in the manner that
Planck's use of h avoids the ultralight catastrophe -
by quantizing general relativity as discrete) by
radiating away energies (which could be observed by an
astrophysicist) since spacetime is itself quantized
(and gravity becomes repulsive in LQG at
planck-scales) so maybe LQG goes in the opposite
direction of your research? Big Bang singularities are
also avoided by LQG. Perhaps string theory would be a
better fit? I'm aware that your preon theory is modeled after naked singularities in general relativity.

Personally if astronomy/astrophysics can verify Sing's
prediction, (A collapsing star of sufficient mass
would give off enough energy in a short time span to
prevent naked singularities from forming) I think a
Nobel prize would be in order.

Dan

 

[bananan]

hi Vlad,
I don't mind at all. Actually that paper by Singh
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506129
http://www.gravity.psu.edu/news/physicsweb.pdf

shows that loop quantum gravity avoids naked
singularities (His paper is much in the manner that
Planck's use of h avoids the ultralight catastrophe -
by quantizing general relativity as discrete) by
radiating away energies (which could be observed by an
astrophysicist) since spacetime is itself quantized
(and gravity becomes repulsive in LQG at
planck-scales) so maybe LQG goes in the opposite
direction of your research? Big Bang singularities are
also avoided by LQG. Perhaps string theory would be a
better fit? I'm aware that your preon theory is modeled after naked singularities in general relativity.

Personally if astronomy/astrophysics can verify Sing's
prediction, (A collapsing star of sufficient mass
would give off enough energy in a short time span to
prevent naked singularities from forming) I think a
Nobel prize would be in order.

Dan

Hi Dan
It seems that gamma-ray bursts are exactly such
collapsing stars that give off a huge amount of energy
in a few dozens of seconds. So I think that Singh was
targeting these objects by his paper.

If I have understood correctly his idea, to avoid naked
singularities he shifts the singularity formation
to infinity. So, a collapsing object simply fading
away and never reaches the theoretical (ideal) state
of singularity.

But Singh is dealing with normal objects, like stars.
What I propose is to extrapolate his idea to the particle
domain. Since a "blackhole" object can be of any - even
infinitely small - mass, the basic (primitive) particle
could be viewed as Singh's object of null mass already
shifted almost to infinity. Then we would perceive
it as a very stable spherically symmetric particle.
If, in addition, it could be possible to demonstrate
that such an object can interact with other similar
objects and that, say, LQG endues its field with the
SU(3)/U(1)-kind of symmetry, then we would get
the whole bunch of elementary particles.

The repulsive character of gravity on the Planck scale
is very much welcomed by my model because repulsion
is needed to stabilise particle structures. Without it my
model simply does not work. So, for the time being,
I don't see LQG going in the opposite direction.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

A couple more observations: your open and closed chains of clusters of primitive particles do remind one of open and closed strings; but whereas string theory conjures a necessary complexity from compactified dimensions, you get it from your well crafted configurations. Which brings us to the question of distinguishing your primitive particle from the space in which it performs.

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.

So the simplest (truly ultimatonic) object will not be deriving properties from components. Might we allow it to have two simple properties: some quantum of energy, and spin (hence orientation)? If so, and if this base object could be said not to enclose any space, then its density may indeed appear singular. Also, if chromacity were a function of tripolar orientation relative to some background brane, might these basic properties be sufficient foundation for the hierarchy?

Wrt quantised space and gravity, do you envisage that first most primitive (ultimatonic) particle as being some external intrusion of energy, distinct from space, or some qualified unit of space--a vortex in the manifold? Hence, as your clusters of primitive particles move about, taking with them their properties (e.g. spin, chromacity, charge, mass), will they also take "their space" as another property?

even more intrigued,
Nigel

 

[bananan]

Originally Posted by Vladimir:



Dear Nigel,

So the simplest (truly ultimatonic) object will not be deriving properties from components. Might we allow it to have two simple properties: some quantum of energy, and spin (hence orientation)? If so, and if this base object could be said not to enclose any space, then its density may indeed appear singular. Also, if chromacity were a function of tripolar orientation relative to some background brane, might these basic properties be sufficient foundation for the hierarchy?

I have already noted somewhere that the basic property sufficient for deriving the entire particle hierarchy is chromaticism - not spin. A quantum of energy is, of course, also needed, but the fact that this object does not enclose any volume in space does not necessarily mean a singularity. The basic particle is an extended object, actually occupying all the available space. No singularity is foreseen because the manifold does not change density when changing its shape.

Wrt quantised space and gravity, do you envisage that first most primitive (ultimatonic) particle as being some external intrusion of energy, distinct from space, or some qualified unit of space--a vortex in the manifold?

Very closely, indeed! For example, if we take a continuous (not yet quantised) entity, like a manifold, the first most natural quantised entity on this manifold would be a vortex. Actually, the study of vortices in liquid helium-4 is highly respectable in condensed matter physics and has a lot of links to cosmology (for a review see, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9411342 ). In those models vortices are usually regarded as topological defects (like cosmic strings). Spherically symmetric vortices could be viewed as our primitive particles. They are rather localised eigenstates of the manifold and their parameters are entirely determined by the properties of this manifold (roughly speaking, the properties of the universe are hardwired in these particles, so all of them look exactly the same).

Hence, as your clusters of primitive particles move about, taking with them their properties (e.g. spin, chromacity, charge, mass), will they also take "their space" as another property?

No, I don't think they can carry space behind them because the most appropriate mathematics for describing their motions would be that of autosolitons, which are known to propagate and interact with each other obeying the energy and momentum conservation laws - like particles. But actually they are waves, which means that they do not carry medium with them. Of course, they do carry energy, which could be regarded as carrying mass and charge (the chromoelectric charge). As for the spin property, on this level introducing this notion is not yet needed - it will automatically appear on a higher structural level.

You have mentioned the similarity between the open and closed preon strings in my model with those from string theory. This is unavoidable because any physical model having atoms, molecules or any other entities grouping in chains would have something in common with string theory (the chains would oscillate implying the corresponding stringy mathematics). In fact, I think that many years ago string theory itself appeared because it was noticed that some particle properties could be described by using stringy mathematics. However, strings in string theory are objects whose origin is not properly explained. If they are believed to be topological dislocations of space, then why not to start with the simplest possible such dislocation - the spherically symmetric one? This would considerably reduce the number of possibilities, compared to the huge number of different vacua string theorists face with.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

In http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0207120, (v.9) you mention the desirability of the universe not having an outside as well as an inside,

"More convenient would be a manifold with a unique hyper-surface, such as the Klein-bottle"

and that everything measurable is, in some sense, rotating:

"It comes from the common fact that so far non-rotating objects have never been observed."

Your suggestions of (1) "Klein-bottle" topology, (2) the relationship between cosmological and "unification" scales, (3) the idea of mass arising from accelerations relative to an embedding space, and (4) etc., create a rich context in which to place the hierarchy generated by the interactions of your primitive particles. And when we add the fact that your model so neatly predicts masses for the three generations of particles, it is clear you have given us much food for thought. Which makes me wonder: what are your colleagues and critics saying about all this? Is the spectacular alignment, of your model's predictions with measurable reality, creating a stir?

Returning to properties for primitive particles, you wrote:

I have already noted somewhere that the basic property sufficient for deriving the entire particle hierarchy is chromaticism - not spin. A quantum of energy is, of course, also needed, but the fact that this object does not enclose any volume in space does not necessarily mean a singularity. The basic particle is an extended object, actually occupying all the available space. No singularity is foreseen because the manifold does not change density when changing its shape.

Is this touching the issue of distinguishing that first most primitive (ultimatonic) particle from the space in which it performs? If so, are you favoring the idea that the ultimatonic particle is a localized "change of shape" in the manifold, rather than some intruding entity imposing "local changes of shape" upon the manifold? Is this the place where LQG slips into the mix?

In response to my question: "Wrt quantised space and gravity, do you envisage that first most primitive (ultimatonic) particle as being some external intrusion of energy, distinct from space, or some qualified unit of space--a vortex in the manifold?", you wrote:

Very closely, indeed! For example, if we take a continuous (not yet quantised) entity, like a manifold, the first most natural quantised entity on this manifold would be a vortex. Actually, the study of vortices in liquid helium-4 is highly respectable in condensed matter physics and has a lot of links to cosmology (for a review see, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9411342 ). In those models vortices are usually regarded as topological defects (like cosmic strings). Spherically symmetric vortices could be viewed as our primitive particles. They are rather localised eigenstates of the manifold and their parameters are entirely determined by the properties of this manifold (roughly speaking, the properties of the universe are hardwired in these particles, so all of them look exactly the same).

Ok, primitive particles as vortices. But I need to reflect on "spherical symmetry"...

No, I don't think they can carry space behind them because the most appropriate mathematics for describing their motions would be that of autosolitons, which are known to propagate and interact with each other obeying the energy and momentum conservation laws - like particles. But actually they are waves, which means that they do not carry medium with them. Of course, they do carry energy, which could be regarded as carrying mass and charge (the chromoelectric charge). As for the spin property, on this level introducing this notion is not yet needed - it will automatically appear on a higher structural level.

Mass and charge seem like elaborate properties for an ultimatonic particle. But if we allow them a vortex nature, then does this not imply some preferred "axis" of vorticity, hence an orientation? If we add here your idea of acceleration wrt an embedding space, perhaps even tossing in (rotating?) branes to allow spacelike directions orthogonal to the particle arena, might such oriented vortices naturally acquire the necessary "chromacity"? On first glance, this notion seems to sit well with your requirement that the first primitive particle has color charge and mass--both arising from (relative, symmetry-braking) velocities of oriented sequestered vortices?

thanks again!
Nigel

 

[vld]

what are your colleagues and critics saying about all this? Is the spectacular alignment, of your model's predictions with measurable reality, creating a stir?

Dear Nigel,

Not at all. The problem is that my model falls beyond the limits of acceptability for high-energy physicists. For most of them it remains invisible because usually people ignore the things, which are known to be wrong beforehand. I consider this as a normal situation. It is common sense to trust our teachers. Particle physicists were (and are) taught that the only correct approach to particle physics is QFT, which is supported by historical experience and experiment. Any activity deviating from this approach would automatically fall out of circle of their interests. That is why I don't expect much attention to my model (at least, for the time being).

This model would be more inetersting for the non-linear physics community, whose language is more appropriate for describing my approach. But I believe this community is not concerned with particles, and they don't see my model either.

My colleagues with the background in particle physics spurn my model without even looking at it. By contrast, I have positive responses from my colleagues-astrophysicists. They grasp the main idea pretty quickly and are able to see how does it work, but having no expertise in particle physics they straddle the fence. I see a potentially vast field for research, but, for the time being, I have it for my own (at least, until the first results from LHC would encourage people to search for crazy ideas).

are you favoring the idea that the ultimatonic particle is a localized "change of shape" in the manifold, rather than some intruding entity imposing "local changes of shape" upon the manifold? Is this the place where LQG slips into the mix?

This is a tricky question (What came first, the chicken or the egg?) Of course, regarding the basic particle as a localised feature of the manifold implies identifying space and matter. But what about the possible cause for this change? Perhaps the stranghtforward answer to this question would be energy, which involves the notion of motion and an underlying layer of reality. But for a moment we can forget about this misterious layer and consider the basic particle's properties as being postulated, which would be enough for producing technical results. Perhaps LQG is capable of going deeper, deriving this properties from scratch - this is what I thought.

Ok, primitive particles as vortices. But I need to reflect on "spherical symmetry"...

This was also the first question posed by my celestial mechanics colleagues. They didn't have any problem with rotation, which is their speciality. They were mainly concerned with the rotational axis and with the vorticilty-related spherical symmetry. They thought that, when having something rotating, there must be a preferent direction (that is, a preferable frame of reference in the universe). This way of thinking might be related to the fact that we always deal with two-dimensional vortices. It is easy to visualise the symmetry of a two-dimensional vortex, in which case "spherical" would mean circular (1-sphere) symmetry. The axis of a two-dimensional vortex cannot be seen by those confined to a 2-manifold. By analogy, in the 3-manifold case we cannot easily visualise a 3-vortex or perceive its rotational axis. But (again by analogy) is not difficult to recognise the spherical symmetry of a 3-vortex.

if we allow them a vortex nature, then does this not imply some preferred "axis" of vorticity, hence an orientation?

You are right: rotation implies orientation, but in our case it has something to do with the embedding space. In a 3-space perhaps it is appropriate to describe this rotation in terms of colours.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

You describe the academic chicken-and-egg problem very clearly.

This model would be more interesting for the non-linear physics community, whose language is more appropriate for describing my approach. But I believe this community is not concerned with particles, and they don't see my model either.

What might create a stir is to make a stable hydrogen atom from your model. As I understand it, this requires that your well-defined structure (an electron) can find a trajectory that allows it to orbit a well-defined nuclear structure (a proton) without the orbit decaying through radiative loss. QED predicts that, in this context, fluctuations in the electromagnetic vacuum (i.e. some zero-point on the local electromagnetic stage) must be accommodated. Could a stable orbit be modeled as one which has synchronized with certain frequencies of these fluctuations?

Is this the process by which nature drives the electron into quantized orbits? The following link proposes a framework that might be suitable: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501011. The following paper proposes some numerics: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/ColeHydrogenPRE.pdf

By contrast, I have positive responses from my colleagues-astrophysicists. They grasp the main idea pretty quickly and are able to see how does it work, but having no expertise in particle physics they straddle the fence. I see a potentially vast field for research, but, for the time being, I have it for my own (at least, until the first results from LHC would encourage people to search [beyond the Standard Model]).

Once we entertain an ultimatonic model such as yours, we bump into (many!) astrophysical side effects. For example, if the stability of electronic orbits were to depend upon synchronization with zero-point fluctuations, then atomic emission and absorption of photons becomes a function of the QED zero-point. Thus red-shifting of spectra from cosmological distances may not be a mere distance indicator, but also a kind of barometer for the stage (brane?) upon which electromagnetic phenomena are sequestered.

If we likewise model the lower level interactions of your primitive particles to be subject to zero-points of the weak and color fields, we get QCD for free.

Getting back to the manifold,

Of course, regarding the basic particle as a localised feature of the manifold implies identifying space and matter. But what about the possible cause for this change? Perhaps the straightforward answer to this question would be energy, which involves the notion of motion and an underlying layer of reality. But for a moment we can forget about this mysterious layer and consider the basic particle's properties as being postulated, which would be enough for producing technical results. Perhaps LQG is capable of going deeper, deriving this properties from scratch - this is what I thought.

I'm tempted to toss in Randall-Sundrum branes at this point: let those branes that relax to 3 spatial dimensions be in (rotational) motion with respect to...

This was also the first question posed by my celestial mechanics colleagues. They didn't have any problem with rotation, which is their speciality. They were mainly concerned with the rotational axis and with the vorticilty-related spherical symmetry. They thought that, when having something rotating, there must be a preferent direction (that is, a preferable frame of reference in the universe). This way of thinking might be related to the fact that we always deal with two-dimensional vortices. It is easy to visualise the symmetry of a two-dimensional vortex, in which case "spherical" would mean circular (1-sphere) symmetry. The axis of a two-dimensional vortex cannot be seen by those confined to a 2-manifold. By analogy, in the 3-manifold case we cannot easily visualise a 3-vortex or perceive its rotational axis. But (again by analogy) is not difficult to recognise the spherical symmetry of a 3-vortex.

Ahh, time to brush up my geometric algebra, and enter the state

You are right: rotation implies orientation, but in our case it has something to do with the embedding space. In a 3-space perhaps it is appropriate to describe this rotation in terms of colours.

Very neat! Game, set and match to Yershov?

thanks again,
Nigel

 

[vld]

Dear Nigel,

As I understand it, this requires that your well-defined structure (an electron) can find a trajectory that allows it to orbit a well-defined nuclear structure (a proton) without the orbit decaying through radiative loss. QED predicts that, in this context, fluctuations in the electromagnetic vacuum (i.e. some zero-point on the local electromagnetic stage) must be accommodated. Could a stable orbit be modeled as one which has synchronized with certain frequencies of these fluctuations?

I agree that making a stable hydrogen atom would be the second important step after getting a well-defined structure of the electron. But before doing this, a well-defined structure of the proton must be obtained. Just now I've got only a scheme, which is not published yet but will appear very soon (in a few weeks) in the book "Focus on Boson Research" edited by A.V.Ling in "Nova Publishers". My chapter is devoted to the structure of the W-boson as viewed within the framework of the colour-preon model. But I have also adventured to add a section about the proton structure as it follows from the logic of my model (this structure turns out to be unique). The same logic leads to a unique structure of the proton + electron system, as well as the proton + neutron and the great many of more complex structures, reproducing the whole diversity of nuclear isotopes. I hesitate publishing this result, firstly, because it is outrageously different from all the conventional and non-conventional models used in nuclear physics and, secondly, because I don't have quantitative results yet to present, although there are topological constraints on the possible variety of nuclear structures, matching exactly the chart of nuclides (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/). The simplest proton+electron system is also too far unconventional, so that I have to take a break and think a little bit about that.

Is this the process by which nature drives the electron into quantized orbits? The following link proposes a framework that might be suitable: http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0501011. The following paper proposes some numerics: http://www.calphysics.org/articles/ColeHydrogenPRE.pdf

Many thanks for these references. At a first glance they look pretty much in line with what I was arriving at when writing the paper about the electron structure (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603054.): I couldn't get rig of noise with zero-expectation value. I think I am going to read these papers more carefully.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[vld]

Summarising

Once we entertain an ultimatonic model such as yours, we bump into (many!) astrophysical side effects.

Dear Nigel,

I have summarised our discussion here in a brief paper:

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702113

I was also inspired by Ashtekar's talk

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151429

and have written about the cosmological singularity in terms of my proposal.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[nnunn]

Dear Vladimir,

Thank you for the summary, especially for your clear descriptions of (i) the relationship between particle and manifold; (ii) the source of forces {F1,F2}; and (iii) the reminder, that one must distinguish between the notions "blackhole" and "singularity".

As a student just getting started, it will take me a while to comprehend all the novel ideas presented in your recent work. But given that your proposed hierarchy of primitive particles reproduces the hierarchy we actually observe, and that your K3 (Kn?) topology avoids the need to renormalize fundamentals, such time will be well spent!

Following this precept, in this paper we shall assume that space is smooth and contains no regions with infinite curvature. In other words, we hypothesise that there should exist a natural upper bound to spacetime curvature, implying that infinite energies are not available in nature. Based on these premises, we shall outline a model of an object (primitive particle) whose intrinsic nature is related to such a maximal curvature. We shall indicate the cosmological problems, which could be addressed by this model and discuss some phenomenological implications.

A schematic diagram for the case of two like-charged (with inflows) primitive particles, σ_i and σ_j , of opposite vorticities is shown in Fig. 5a. In this case the force F1 between the streamlines is attractive and F2 is repulsive. In the reverse case, if the particles have like-vorticities (Fig. 5b), the force F1 is repulsive and F2 is attractive.

This accords with the known pattern of attraction and repulsion between colour charges [29]: two like-charged but unlike-coloured particles are attracted, otherwise they repel; so we can see that the colour pattern is readily understood in terms of flow vortices on a manifold with the T3 or K3 topology.

A couple of questions immediately come to mind; one to do with the source and sink of the vortices depicted in Fig. 5; another to do with precursors to galaxy formation... the weakness of "standard model gravity" vs. the potential of superfluid vortices; pruning away the need for big bangs & inflation while grafting deeper time than my textbooks allow. So, time to dive back into http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702113 and follow the clues!

onwards,
Nigel