The expanded Phoenix/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy

The expanded Phoenix/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy

by John SkieSwanne

~

A diamond:



My search for answers about deep questions which arise in the physical world is not over yet. Still, I would like to present to you an update about my most recent thoughts, if any of you is interested to read it up. But please keep in mind I am not done searching yet.

Yes, I do believe preons must exist. There is evidences for a system beyond the observed universe. All the speculations in the Phoenix-I/II Theory directly come from the Standard Model's data, or observations. In the event where observations contradicts the standard Model, such as the neutrino oscillation puzzle, observation has been favoured over the standard model. The goal of Phoenix-I/II Theory is not to replace the Standard Model (since my theory actually relies on the existence and accuracy of the Standard Model), but to add something to it - reduction of its current particles zoo to only two kinds of preons, or even perhaps only one (as explained in the "conclusion" part of this article).

That being clarified, I now present to you an update about my theory on preons.

~

Introduction

The Phoenix-I successfully described all matter and energy particles electric charges exchanges. I quickly published these findings in an article some time ago, an article which is accessible here: skieswanne.weebly.com... but also reminded that my theory wasn't complete yet.

The Phoenix-I sparked a controversy amongst more conservative physicists. Its incomplete form was wrongfully interpreted as direct denial of the Standard Model's properties, a misunderstanding which was not only untrue but also very counter-productive. I nevertheless kept on exploring the very heart of Everything, and even if the road was a lonely one, is was a wonderful one.

The theory doesn't just explain charges anymore. Now, it expanded to a point where it explains many things all other preon models failed to account for, such as the spin of all particles, the 3 generations, antimatter...

~

The Phoenix-I Theory (Accounts for Electric charges)

In my last thread, titled "A New Preonic Model for the Composition of All Known Matter and Energy", I explained the basics of the theory. Following observations from particles decay, I deduced that if preons were to exist, there would have to be 2 flavors of preons. "b" preons (which I now call "primeons") carry an electric charge of -0.1666. "a" preons (which I now call "logosons") carry an electric charge of +0.1666.

primeon: symbol b

logosons: symbol a

All known particles have no more, no less than 6 preons each.

bbbbbb: electron

abbbbb: up antiquark

aabbbb: down quark

aaabbb: neutrinos/bosons

aaaabb: down antiquark

aaaaab: up quark

aaaaaa: positron

This very suggestion already explains the charges of all particles, but also the exact mechanism during particle decay. It also explains the exact mechanism behind particle-antiparticle annihilation to photons:



In the model, particles decay by exchanging usually 3 preons with another particle.

Compare a mainstream Feynman diagram of the phenomena, with Phoenix-I's Feynman diagram of the same phenomena:



This alone gave the theory more accuracy than most other preonic models, including the 1979 Rishon Model, and this concept is still retained in Phoenix-II, although in Phoenix-II preons don't form strings but actual 3-d solids.

~

The expanded (speculative) Pheonix-II Model:

The deductive-only, Phoenix-I Theory is not enough to account for finer properties of matter and energy, such as spin. But, since the Phoenix-I does provide a firm base, at least when it comes to electrical charges, then it is now possible for us to build hypothesis about the additional properties of these preons, a collection of hypothesis which can be dubbed, Phoenix-II, and verified to be in agreement with scientific observations. The Phoenix-II Theory now accounts for, but is not limited to,

-the three generations of fermions
-the spins of all matter and energy particles
-the antiparticles of all matter particles, and CT-symmetry
-the kaon oscillation mystery (which Phoenix-II theory solves)
-the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon
-the neutrino's oscillation into another flavor

Its limits are still yet to define, since it also proposes a cause for,

-the observed rest mass
-the EMC effect

~

Generations of fermions

First of all, what solid will a group of 6 preons form if they were all to have the same distance from the center of such said group? A quick search in geometry will provide the answer: an octahedron. The same solid than a crystal of diamond will crystallize into. In other words, inside any given elementary particles, there will always be 6 preons forming an octahedron, with one preon at each apexes. One could say that around the (for now assumed to be empty) center of a group-particle, there can be 6 probable position of a preon. These positions are fixed relative to each other (except when decay occurs, where preons will be exchanged in a manner which is covered by Phoenix-I), but the group itself (in other words, the elementary particle which the preons form) can rotate relative to another group or in Time. Additionally, one could in theory assign the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) to each of the preons inside of the octahedron.



As in any solids, an octahedron can have a quantity of positions relative to a plane. It would seem that at the preonic level, only an integer number of preons is allowed to touch the "Plane", a plane which is exactly perpendicular to the group's momentum direction. This allows only 3 rational states to be possible: apex touches Plane, vertices touches Plane, and whole face touches Plane.



It is obvious the more preons are allowed to touch the plane, the more massive such a particle will become. This... seems very likely to be the mechanism behind the three generations of fermions. A generation-1 fermion will have only one preon touching the Plane. A generation-2 fermion will be composed of the exact same things than its generation-1 counterpart, but two preons will touch the Plane, rending it more massive. A generation-2 fermion will be composed of the exact same things than its generation-1 and generation-2 counterparts, but three preons will touch the Plane, rending it even more massive.

The existence of a 4th generation of matter is not included in the Phoenix-II, but it can support it.

~

Spins

In Phoenix-II's hypothesis, primeons, instead of being monopole-like particles, would in fact be bidirectional wave-like packets whose e-negative curve is aligned forward in time, with their momentum direction. Their e-positive curve is facing the past.

a rendering of such a primeon would look like:



Logosons would look like normal primeons which would have been rotated on an angle of 180 relative to normal primeons. This means their positive curve is aligned forward in time, with their momentum direction.




(continued...)

With this speculation comes the resolution of the monopole problem. We see now that preons are not true magnetic monopoles, but really dipoles. The reason why they act a bit like monopoles is caused by the fact that their other, "inactive" pole is facing the Past (out of or normal time).

With this proposition, comes the possibility to account for the spin of the group of preons (in other words, the spin of the elementary particle which the preons form).

Imagine an electron. These are composed, according to Phoenix-I, of 6 primeons. Now, remember when is was stated (in the beginning of this chapter) that primeons are "bidirectional" charge waves? They also have a vertical charge of -0.1666 (here upward) and +0.1666 (here downward). Now, if one was to re-draw our electron using this new hypothesis, the electron would in fact look like this:



Which is alot more of a precise picture than the one painted in Phoenix-I's basics. The group's momentum direction is aligned with the electron's charge of (6 x -0.1666) -1. But it also has an equivalent top-most electric charge value (-0.1666). As the electron spins on its axis, the group of preons flip. Once the group achieves 1/2 spin, the group shows the inverted top-most value. At each 1/2 spins on its axis, the electron's top-most value changes.



This brings us the ability to now differentiate photons (spin = 1) from neutrinos (spin = 1/2). The secret resides in the neutrino's preonic sequencing. In essence, a neutrino's sequence is different from a boson in the fact that its top-most preon (preon 2 according to figure 2) is identical to its bottom-most preon (preon 5).



This causes one (neutrinos) to show an inverted top-most property after a 1/2 spin, and causes the other (gauge bosons) to have its properties independent from rotation, giving it a spin of 1.

~

Antimatter, CT-symmetry, kaon oscillation

An hypothesis in Phoenix-II is, a particle (group of 6 preons) going back in time looks exactly like its antiparticle going forward in time.



This might explain why neutral kaons turn into their own antiparticles while propagating. The phenomena could be caused by a rotation of the meson along its group axis as it propagates.



As it rotates half a circle, the preons in the quarks would follow the group rotation, and at one point, their back would face the momentum direction instead of the past, causing the meson to appear as its own antiparticle.

~

The muon's anomalous magnetic moment

The muon is a second-generation lepton. As postulated in the chapter titled, "generations of fermions", a muon's preonic composition is exactly similar to an electron's:

bbbbbb

In such a particle, the negative magnetic pole is aligned on the preon 1, on an axis passing from preon 6 to preon 1. In an electron, such axis is exactly aligned with the electron's momentum direction.

But unlike an electron, a muon has both its preons 1 and 3 aligned to the Plane, which is an imaginary plane exactly perpendicular to the particle's momentum direction.



As a muon travels in space, its negative magnetic pole (which is still aligned on preon 1) is, thus, misaligned with the momentum direction, causing the particle to show an anomalous magnetic moment.

~

Neutrino oscillation

As a neutrino travels in space, it undergoes an oscillation, in which a neutrino will change its very flavor as it travels near to the speed of light. This phenomena too might be explained by Phoenix-II.

The mechanism behind such a change in flavor might be nothing more than a precession of the particle's poles as it travels forward. In the beginning, the preon 1 inside an electron neutrino would be exactly aligned with the particle's momentum direction. As the neutrino travels through space, the "preon 6 - preon 1" axis gets misaligned and undergoes a precession. If the misalignment is towards preon 3 (more probable), the neutrino becomes a muon neutrino. And then it spends its travel toggling between a muon or an electron neutrino:



Similarly, if the misalignment is towards both preons 2 and 3 at equal magnitude (less probable), then the neutrino becomes a tau neutrino. And its precession will make it oscillate between being an electron or a tau neutrino.

~

Rest mass

As no current particle theories can account for the rest mass of most particles (source: en.wikipedia.org...), my theory is no different. But Phoenix-II theory does notice an interesting link between mass and the group-particle's alignment. Because of the neutrino oscillation, and because of the observed neutrino difference from bosons, it is implied by Phoenix-II that the rest mass of a particle is strongly related to its preonic sequencing and its charge direction relative to the particle's momentum direction. In other words, the shift of a group-particle would be the cause of its mass, along with its internal sequencing.

~

EMC Effect

It would be logical to speculate that since preons may not move relative to each other, their position inside a group-particle (for instance a quark) is determined by a probability wave, not unlike those for electrons surrounding atoms. This probability wave would be a rational number (here "4") transposed as not as the frequency of a vibrating closed d-1 brane loop, but of a vibrating closed d-3 brane loop. Which would look like this:



With preons most likely to be in the peaks of the probability waves. Thus, preons may have only but a small chance to form particles which has either more, or less, than 6 preons.

A possible speculation regarding the still unexplained EMC effect could be provided by this assumption. In a heavier atom, it could be that quarks, which are made of preons bound by a probability wave, are surrounded by higher energies and by other probability waves. Thus, this presence of additional probability waves could lead to a constructive interference, and force the quark's probability wave to expand, and thus explain why, in the end, the self-volume of an iron's quark is larger than a deuteron's.

~

Conclusion: two preons... or only one?

Although not perfect, the Phoenix-I/II Theory seems far more successful at explaining observations than one of the most celebrated attempts, the Rishon Model. The Phoenix-I part explains transfer of charges and accurately predicts particle decays. The Phoenix-II part explains most of the rest. In both cases, the Theory needs only 2 kind of preons: primeons, and logosons.

or does it?

As you no doubt probably already noted, the logoson is an exact replica of the primeon, the only difference being that the logoson looks like a primeon rotated on 180 degrees. It could be that both the logoson and the primeon are really the same particle, but an unknown, space-time related event caused the rotation to occur, perhaps as part of a symmetry conservation. In which case... the Phoenix-II Theory would be the only preonic theory ever to explain all these things...

...with only one particle.

~


At Time's End,

Swan

reply to post by swanne


Wow! This is just amazing. Do you have a PDF somewhere to dowmload with the info?

You've sent my head spinning as your particles are just so suggestive of a 6 bit input cellular automata, which I suspect is part of the very deep operating hardware of everything.

Beautifully done. It would be nice now if nature co-operates and actually works like this in sone way.

Good to see institutional science starting to consider structure in the atom.

The whole magical force theory really doesn't hold water.

Sorry I haven't had time to look into this.

Been meaning to comment for days now.

asciikewl
reply to post by swanne

 

Wow! This is just amazing.

Many thanks! It took me months to prepare the theory. When I finished it, I hesitated for weeks before posting it.

Do you have a PDF somewhere to dowmload with the info?

No... Very sorry. But, if you want, all you have is to press "cntrl+A" ("cmd+A" if you're on a Mac ...which I doubt ), open WordPad (or TextEdit), and paste the whole thing there.

your particles are just so suggestive of a 6 bit input cellular automata, which I suspect is part of the very deep operating hardware of everything.

Hm, yeah! True, thanks for pointing it out!

poet1b


Good to see institutional science starting to consider structure in the atom.

Sorry... I am not from any institutes... I am just (literally) a peasant, from Quebec. No diplomas, no PhDs. Learned physics on my own. It's been decades now that I got that passion.

reply to post by swanne


Now I am more intrigued.

This is your own personal theory?

I will take a good look.

poet1b
This is your own personal theory?

Yeah, it is.

I apologize in advance if it's a long read, I swear I tried to be as concise as possible.

reply to post by swanne


It is a complicated concept, not easy to wrap ones head around.

What do you mean by "the spins of all matter and energy particles?"

What about the vibration of all matter?

Could you consider that energy is in fact a state of matter? Force is an affect of structure?

Consider time to be an affect of the momentum of all matter, which would then fit nicely with your bipolar concept.

reply to post by poet1b

Here's what I think subatomic vibration is...

Picture a pressure cooker. It has water in it. When it's sealed, and external heat is applied, the water expands (brownian motion in this case). When the pressure gets high enough, it trips the safety valve. The steam escapes, the pressure drops, the valve closes, and it starts all over again. As long as heat is being put into it, it will oscillate in that fashion, "vibrate," but very slowly at such a macroscopic scale. The only thing that'll end the cycle is running out of water in it. Or heat.

In a particle, the "heat" is vacuum energy, which never stops being put into it. We can also think of it as the water. Okay, it's the steam. Steam (vacuum energy) is being pumped into the system (particle) until it trips the safety ("something") and then it deflates enough to un-trip the safety. What are the variables? Well, you may find them somewhat... familiar...

• Pressure behind the energy being injected ("input voltage");
  
• Rate at which the energy is being injected ("input amperage");
  
• Elasticity of the particle or its string ("circuit resistance");
  
• Maximum energy it can hold before triggering the release ("circuit capacitance/reactance");
  
• Pressure behind the energy escaping the safety valve ("output voltage"); and,
  
• Rate at which the released energy escapes ("output amperage").
  

Particles (and/or strings) would then be vacuum energy amplifiers, basically, "speakers" that produce not sound, but mass, spin, and charge. I.e., the "tweeters" produce spin, the "midrange" produces charge, and the "bass" produces mass, at frequencies so incredibly high that to our best instruments all three may even appear "solid." I've been to concerts before (thank you, Orbital) where the sound was so loud it actually felt solid; it was like the shock wave from a C-4 explosion. The sound had mass. I submit that all particles are tiny little sounds, produced by their strings, and putting trillions of such particles together results in something that looks solid which we call "matter." But it's all just really-fast vibrations, and all those electronic-metaphor variables determine the manner in which each particle vibrates.

Now, if this octahedral preon lattice is correct, all six preons in a particle expand and contract (vibrate) like this constantly, and at an exceedingly-high frequency. Being spheres, it makes it look like the whole particle (a sphere that circumscribes six smaller spheres) is vibrating. A force such as (but stronger than) the strong nuclear one holds them to each other, but internally, they swell and collapse. Picture six balloons stuck to each other with static charges, all expanding and contracting cyclically. They're pushed apart, they fall inwards, they're pushed apart again. A beating heart with atria ("A" type preons) and ventricles ("B" type), if you will, and "the energy of the universe" is responsible for it. Without the energy, the heart does not beat, the speakers do not sound, reality does not vibrate, and life gets reeeeeeally boring.

Energy is a state of matter in the same sense that lava is a state of rock... fluid and liquid until it freezes, and then solid. The heat energy in that system determines the difference; other energies make the difference when considering particles. (Remember The Variables.) In both cases, energy is present in both liquid and solid forms. Photons are both wave (energy) and particle (matter, or "frozen energy"). If photons had mass, all matter in the universe would be smashed into little black holes. Lucky break?


Stop reading here if you're touchy about religion, please...

It's been said (in the Kabbalah) that if God ever stopped speaking the words of creation, all of reality would cease to be. He speaks, it sets up vibrations (injects energy), and voila: matter and energy show up here. Silence is the natural state of the universe, when all the "speakers" are quiet. A sound-wave signal has to be input before the speakers do anything. Matter is his megaphone. I'm sorry to bring religion into this, I truly am, but science alone cannot completely explain physical reality. If one does not consider both the scientific and the spiritual, one cannot ever completely explain physics. Where in science alone are there any possible explanations? Who else, what else, could be that good a singer? Could a natural process result in the standard-model zoo, which results in atoms, which results in puppies? Even if a random, unguided process could do so, what could power it eternally? Perpetual-motion machines are supposed to be impossible, and yet, matter itself is perpetual motion, eternal vibration, and science can't find the power source. Do capacitors ever wonder why they keep inflating and deflating like that? They would if they were intelligent. And they'd probably never figure it out; they're locked into the circuit, none of their "lines of sight" give them a direct view of the battery, only of the electrons flowing out of it. They know not why they vibrate, and they cannot find out, and neither can we. Hence, "faith." Faith is believing the battery exists, because something has to be pushing all those electrons around.

You're on the right track, John. Never forget Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. It applies to more than you can imagine. And never discount any possibility, no matter how unbelievable, because "possibility" means "everything that is not literally impossible." QED.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Excellent, quite excellent, Thanks.

I didn't finish reading, too tired. What I read makes a lot of sense. I will need time to digest.

reply to post by swanne




Fascinating. I read a kind of a theory not long ago concerning human beings being a type of "diamond" due to carbon content? I guess or something like that. The rainbow of colors and precise alignment of chakras was our own refracted light.

double post

poet1b
reply to post by swanne

 

What do you mean by "the spins of all matter and energy particles?"

All matter particles, and all energy particles, have a spin. Meaning they kind of rotate on themselves, like a bullet as it travels. Matter and energy particles have different spin values.

What about the vibration of all matter?

Could you consider that energy is in fact a state of matter?

Energy, and frequency (vibration)... is a product of mass. The more massive a particle is, the higher the frequency it'll give off (DeBroglie's equation). And vice versa, of course.

Thought Provoker
It's been said (in the Kabbalah) that if God ever stopped speaking the words of creation, all of reality would cease to be. He speaks, it sets up vibrations (injects energy), and voila: matter and energy show up here.

I've considered this during the creation of Phoenix-II... there is a reason why I named one of the preons "logoson"...

You're on the right track, John. Never forget Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars. It applies to more than you can imagine. And never discount any possibility, no matter how unbelievable, because "possibility" means "everything that is not literally impossible." QED.

I won't forget it. I promise.

swanne
there is a reason why I named one of the preons "logoson"...

I actually did wonder about that upon first seeing the name. "Does he realize what he just did?" I thought. Well, good luck keeping that name for it. Look at how "truth" and "beauty" quarks got renamed to "top" and "bottom"... such humorless pragmatists, those college-educated guys...

Loveaduck
I read a kind of a theory not long ago concerning human beings being a type of "diamond" due to carbon content?

Well humans and most animals have more water than carbon. But yeah, life can't usually exist without carbon.

reply to post by swanne


Quite in depth and I enjoyed the read, are you thinking of inviting the usual physics minded ATSers to dissect this? I dont know much about this subject but want to ask your thoughts on preons being the limit of small, and why there definitely is not or no need for pre-preons and beyond? Do preons only compose subatomic particles and matter, or are they related to Em field, gravity field etc? How do you suppose preons were formed?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Quite in depth and I enjoyed the read

Many thanks! I was actually looking forward to your input, which I find quite thought-provoking.

are you thinking of inviting the usual physics minded ATSers to dissect this?

Hm, It's just a theory amongst so many. Besides, preons aren't widely accepted in the mainstream physics community. I fear I might meet only resistance... I certainly wouldn't impose an invitation.

I dont know much about this subject but want to ask your thoughts on preons being the limit of small

Yeah, I've thought about the same thing. Can preons be the smallest thing possible? I honestly don't know for now. Physicists themselves don't know if there is a limit of small in the first place (I vote "yes"!).

why there definitely is not or no need for pre-preons and beyond?

The answer is really that, any pre-preons would be redundant. It's all about reductionism (which basically leads to higher chance of survival from Occam's Razor).

Reductionism is needed for wide species of particles. That's what the Standard Model did for the particle zoo in the 70s. The SM reduced the number of elementary particles from around a hundred (I think) to only 18. Phoenix-I/II reduced the number in the SM to only 2 (or one, if you consider the last chapter as likely). When I arrived at this number, further reductionnism was not needed anymore.

For instance, splitting (in theory) a primeon into two, -1/12 charged pre-preons (and logosons into two, +1/12 charged pre-preons) will not benefit the reductionism principle, since we would still end up with 2 kind of pre-preons: one which is charged -1/12, and the other which is charged +1/12.

Since conversion from "2" to "2" is not, by definition, "reduction", then that's how it can be demonstrated that any "pre-preons" would be redundant (not needed).

Do preons only compose subatomic particles and matter, or are they related to Em field, gravity field etc?

No, preons do also relate to EM fields and all that ("gauge bosons").

How do you suppose preons were formed?

I have no idea. Even mainstream physics doesn't know... it simply says that energy (gauge bosons, which in my model are made of preons) was there 10–43 seconds after the Big Bang, but it doesn't say how it came there (I know, I've checked). That part is still a mystery for us all.

By The Way I made a small typo in my title. It was supposed to be,

"The expanded Phoenix-I/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy", not

"The expanded Phoenix/II Theory - A Diamond at the Heart of All Matter and Energy".