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

[nnunn]

Vladimir, a few more preliminary questions:

1. Motion:

If primitive particles are to be loci of maximal curvature of a spacetime manifold, realized as vortices mediating energy between (inner/outer?) regions of a Klein topology, how would you describe the motion of these loci through that very spacetime which they serve to curve, and of which they are made?


2. Maximal curvature:

Should we take this to mean that in certain circumstances, compact collections of primitive particles (e.g. astrophysical bodies condensed below their Schwarzschild radius) can resist further condensation, implying a mechanism by which such dark bodies might explode? Also, during the development of your model, I think you mentioned (hypothetical?) states where the centers of primitive particles coincide. Do you think your primitive particle could exhibit both behaviours, (i) a "BEC"-like state where the centers of multiple (many?) preons coincide, plus (ii) an ultimatonic "exclusion principle", along the lines of Pauli’s for half-integer spin particles? If so, would vortex chirality, and triad orientation, be involved?


3. Conservative flow:

Regarding the conservative flow mediated by a primitive particle (illustrated in figures 1-5 in the http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702113"), could the medium that flows be distinguished from the manifold, i.e. a global attribute pervading the manifold rather than the manifold itself? E.g. some pervasive potential, introduced by some feature of the manifold’s cycling through its Klein topology? For practical purposes (e.g. numerical simulation), as a novice in numerics, I still try to reduce things to measurable states evolving on grids :shy:


4. Photons:

Given that your model successfully describes all particles in the lepton-quark domain as clusters of mutually attracting ultimatonic vortices, and that a fundamental chromacity and resultant forces are well defined within these clusters, how might you describe or measure interaction between these clusters? Specifically, how might you describe or measure a photon, hence the interaction of a photon with a cluster that represents an electron?

still feeling my way around the edges,
Nigel

 

[vld]

Nigel, first about your simple questions:

A couple of questions immediately come to mind; one to do with the source and sink of the vortices depicted in Fig. 5;

Do you think Fig.5 is confusing? Perhaps in the title to the picture I have to
explain that the "surface" corresponding to F_1 is actually at infinity. That
is why the vortices are shown joined together.

another to do with precursors to galaxy formation...

You are right: structure formation is one of the important questions for any
model of the universe. I should mention this in the next version of my text. Actually
structure formation is unavoidable in this kind of model because of the unstable
stationary point of the potential in the origin.

I'll try to answer your more difficult questions soon.

Regards,

Vladimir

 

[vld]

1. Motion:

If primitive particles are to be loci of maximal curvature of a spacetime manifold, realized as vortices mediating energy between (inner/outer?) regions of a Klein topology, how would you describe the motion of these loci through that very spacetime which they serve to curve, and of which they are made?

I don't see any problem here: their motions can be described in the same way as the motions of vortices in liquid helium (incidentally, in fluid dynamics similar vortices are also called "particles").

2. Maximal curvature:

Should we take this to mean that in certain circumstances, compact collections of primitive particles (e.g. astrophysical bodies condensed below their Schwarzschild radius) can resist further condensation, implying a mechanism by which such dark bodies might explode? Also, during the development of your model, I think you mentioned (hypothetical?) states where the centers of primitive particles coincide. Do you think your primitive particle could exhibit both behaviours, (i) a "BEC"-like state where the centers of multiple (many?) preons coincide, plus (ii) an ultimatonic "exclusion principle", along the lines of Pauli’s for half-integer spin particles? If so, would vortex chirality, and triad orientation, be involved?

This question cannot be answered before quantifying (within this framework) the strength of the gravitational interaction with respect to the chromoelectric forces. I think that, for the time being, when modelling a few-particle system it is possible to neglect the gravitational interaction as being much weaker compared to the other forces.

In a collapsing object there might be two possibilities: either the gravitational pressure exceeds the repulsive chromoelectric forces or not. In the first case the primitive particles would be squeezed to a state with their centres coinciding in the origin. In the second case they would likely to occupy the lowest possible energy state corresponding to the balance of all the forces involved.

There is no initial assumption of the exclusion principle or spins for the preons in this model because it is better to start with the smallest and simplest set of first principles. The Pauli exclusion principle arises afterwards - spontaneously, as a result of triads' (tripoles') orientations. Perhaps vorticity of the flow through a preon could be regarded as related to something resembling its spin but this property must be quite different from the conventional spin.

Therefore, the preon superposition state is possible. Nevertheless, I suspect that such a state might occur only if the entire universe collapses because, as a self-contained physical system, it must be balanced as to its gravitational energy content and the total energy of all of its constituents (looks like tautology, but it is unavoidable when trying to identify an entity to itself).

In any case, when a body is squeezed below its horizon its further structural transformations shouldn't result in energy release outside of this horizon. However, it is quite possible that a collapsing object disposes of a great amount of its mass before reaching the horizon, which might lead to oscillations of the horizon and observable peaks of emission corresponding to some of the phase transitions in the collapsing body. In fact, multiple peaks in the prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts might well be partly related to these phase transitions (although there are many models explaining these peaks by magnetic field reconnections, shock waves, etc., which are quite legitimate mechanisms for this variability).

3. Conservative flow:

Regarding the conservative flow mediated by a primitive particle (illustrated in figures 1-5 in the http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702113"), could the medium that flows be distinguished from the manifold, i.e. a global attribute pervading the manifold rather than the manifold itself? E.g. some pervasive potential, introduced by some feature of the manifold’s cycling through its Klein topology? For practical purposes (e.g. numerical simulation), as a novice in numerics, I still try to reduce things to measurable states evolving on grids :shy:

This is an interesting question concerning the nature of space. As far as I know, fields, as well as space itself, are modeled by using mathematical tools developed in continuous medium mechanics. Even there exist physical models using liquid helium for simulating particles and their interactions.

In fact, the fields similar (by their functional form) to F_1 and F_2 can be obtained when renormalising the field of a point charge in a polarisable medium. The only problem with this medium is that you have to postulate the tripolarity of the field (which arises naturally in the framework of vortices). Nevertheless, none of these underlying physical features is needed for computer simulation of preon dynamics.

At the beginning one can straightforwardly use the standard integration technique and conventional forces, such as electrostatic, Lorentz and centrifugal (and, of course, the forces due to the colour interaction)

By writing a code with the following set of rules anyone can reproduce simple preon configurations and their dynamics:

1) The tripolar (colour) field:

F_1=exp(-1/r)

where r is the distance between two preons. The sign of this force must follow the known pattern of attraction/repulsion between colour charges (two like-charged but unlike coloured particles are attracted, otherwise they repel).

2) The electric field, which is the derivative of F_1:

F_2=(1/r^2)exp(-1/r)

with the conventional pattern of attraction and repulsion (two unlike charges attract each other; two like charges repel).

The charge and mass magnitudes are assumed to have unit values. Further exploration would require taking into account binding energies, the finite speed of interaction and maybe some other effects.

4. Photons:

Given that your model successfully describes all particles in the lepton-quark domain as clusters of mutually attracting ultimatonic vortices, and that a fundamental chromacity and resultant forces are well defined within these clusters, how might you describe or measure interaction between these clusters? Specifically, how might you describe or measure a photon, hence the interaction of a photon with a cluster that represents an electron?

I feel that modelling the interaction between the electron (nine-body preon cluster) and the photon (six-body cluster) is more difficult than between the electron and the electron-neutrino (thirty-six preon cluster) because in the latter case some simplifying assumptions are possible. The latter case would also yield more results, such as the derivation from first principles of the weak interaction constant and of the half-life of the W-boson, whereas the first case promises only the derivation of the fine structure constant.

 

[mikelawre]

Dear NNunn, your question

- Is this the process by which nature drives the electron into quantized orbits? Apologies that I have not yet managed to work out how to put this as a quotation.

I have an answer to this (although a bit late since 2006!). It is also part of a preon model, although different to Vladimir's. I will give a short outline of my model after explaining orbital quantization.

The key is understanding that both energy and force are vectors. Currently obviously it is thought that energy is scalar. This derives from the different formulae used for energy and force in, for example, classical orbital systems. However, the missing part is that in quantum systems, there are what I term 'aligned' spins systems. That is the alignment of the electrons is parallel in each case, although the spin orbits are not. The aligned spins give a second, equal, inertial energy in such systems and have repulsive potential which balances out the attractive gravitational potential, leaving only the charge potential. In the case of a classical gravitational interaction, the spins of all the component particles (in eg planets, stars etc) are not aligned. So there is only one inertial component. So the difference in energies between quantum and classical equations is that the former has two sets of inertial energies and the latter only one. And there will be a scale between 1 and 2 depending on how 'aligned' the system is. So when considering force and energy, they can now be interpreted as exactly the same, just differentiated by an extra distance factor. So the inertial energy is an outward energy and the potential energy is an inward energy. When the two balance, the orbital is stable and has zero energy. What is currently ascribed as the orbital energy is just one side of the energy. So when electrons skip from orbital to orbital, they are moving from zero energy state to zero energy state. And in the same orbital, they have no energy so can be anywhere in that orbital. So there is no time component within stable orbitals. So electrons (and any other particle systems with aligned spins) are driven into orbitals by the need to move to the lowest energy. That lowest energy, for all orbitals, is zero, but the preference again is to move to the smallest 'balloon' - is the lowest inertial or potential value available.
The following is a simple outline of my preon model. If you want to see the whole story - where mass comes from, colour, why relativity, K parity (not) breaking etc please see the file 'Underlying Nature of Mechanics and Matter' at www.pbtsm.co.uk

Ring Theory in a Nutshell

Assume the universe is composed only of Planck unit-sized volumes of nothing; but that each unit volume is separable into preon particle and anti-particle of equal and opposite Planck charges and Planck masses. Assume that like charges repel, unlike attract and that like masses attract and unlike chase to maintain separation and energy. Assume that as unit volumes are separated out, each preon starts spinning at the same rate.
Chasing will cause the formation of chains of alternating particle and anti-particle, each chasing the one in front and chased by the one behind. Chains will eventually form loops as heads catch tails. A loop of six is the strongest configuration, but loops of four will be formed more often and are dark matter to our normal 6-loop matter. Time starts when loops form and a loop of six is called a ring. Formation of rings at the Planck energy/Planck radius followed by physical interaction between rings could have expanded the rings to their present sizes very quickly, called inflation, without external motion of those rings.
If the orientation of the spinning axis of each preon is aligned with the chasing preon, there are only eight different electrostatic charge combinations possible for a ring of six preons when the preon spinning energy has a value of ± 1/6 qc3. The eight combinations represent the quarks and leptons. The rotational energy of the rings is currently called ‘spin ½ ‘ and is shown by the angular momentum h of each preon multiplied by the relativistic factor ½ , the ring frequency currently being ignored. The same internal energy is the ‘mass’ of the ring, being h multiplied by the frequency at which the ring rotates, less the rest mass energy, again giving ½ w. For each preon h = M v r inside the ring.
The constant ½ hq/(2p) is the same for all charged rings, due to charge and mass separately and shows that the muon and tau leptons are simply larger mass, smaller ring radius, electrons. The same is the case for families or ‘flavours’ of all rings.
The generation of magnetic moment due to both charge and mass enables a simple framework for the respective masses and magnetic moments of the proton and neutron.
The positioning of ± 1/6 q charges within the rings leads to symmetries. All charged leptons and some neutrinos are symmetric or ‘colourless’. All other rings are asymmetric, mostly with 3 and 2 fold asymmetries ie have ‘colour’. Stacking rings can balances out asymmetries between some rings, giving rise to 2 and 3 ring stack combinations that are overall symmetric or colourless. These combinations are always integer or zero electronic charge. Symmetric rings contain 3 fold symmetries, even though they are hidden, so electron and neutrino rings can exist in stacks. All isomers of each different ring have the same energy if they are the same ring radius.
A photon is a stack of particle and anti-particle ring, rotating in the same sense, where each preon has merged with its partner in the opposite ring to reform the original unit volume of space. Longer stacks include the proton and neutron of 7 rings and the stack framework enables the KoL and KoS to be the same mass and yet have different parities.
There are eight energies that exist within a ring, with four due to charge and four to mass, that balance each other. Of each, two are due to the size of the preon and its spinning frequency and the other two due to these and the velocity of the preon around the ring. The measurement of the preon velocity (ring frequency) by external observers is what drives relativity.
In order for all rings to be stable, regardless of the different energies present, the energy of a body due to the presence of charge and mass must be increased or reduced using a ‘field’ formula on a product basis, not a summation of potentials, which also eliminates infinities. Identical treatment of mass and charge energies in this way leads to all the accepted energies of particle systems from atomic to planetary. The introduction of the concept of ‘motional’ energy enables the formation of zero energy of motion and position states (ZEMPs) where QM energy levels are replicated as one side of each ZEMP. Without energy, there is no time related to these states even though they exist within a relativistic energy framework.
As can be seen, the concepts of particle mass, electric charge, particle spin, time, colour, and flavour acquire meaning only at the level of the composite systems. For a ring, of observed mass mr composed of preons of mass ± Mo each traveling at velocity vx inside the ring, Er = (gx –1) Mo c2 » ½ Mo vx2 = mr c2.

Hope you find it interesting.
Mike Lawrence