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

I would like to btw announce that Since I came up with most parts of the theory, all flaws in the theory, if found, would be my responsibility. Nevertheless, I consider ATS member (and very good friend) Tough Provoker to be the co-creator of Phoenix-II, since without our scientific discussions, the Theory would have never seen the day at all.

And the primeons, I borrowed from CLPrime's name, a fellow canadian and a friend. I hope you won't mind CLPrime.

reply to post by swanne

"Tough Provoker?" Nah, I'm not tough. Life is a good meat tenderizer. Thank you, though you certainly did all the work. I just have an idea now and then.

It is all very interesting, though like I said before, I wonder really how much of this is simply a exercise of drawing diagrams and tagging on things as you went along.

It is all well and good but you introduced a few things that have no physical explanation or in one case relevance. You talked about so called planes intersecting the shape only touching one of the preons, and it being obvious that this predicts 3 generations... well firstly there is no physical reason why you need this, or why it even works more than a lucky find.

It does remind me of the Platonic solids model. A nice exercise of numerology and pattern finding, but I don't think it really expresses the under pinning of the standard model, what the standard model and its calculations do are much above all this. If this model is to be a fundamental, you must start with the standard model and rebuilt it from the ground up.

I don't discourage you, and it is as i said, an interesting exercise, but much like my previous comment to the earlier posts... It will require more than a few pictures to convince anyone that the model is any more substantial than saying "I don't like how the text books show things, so I'm going to redraw them.

There is currently no evidence for the quark being composed of any further constituent parts, evidence for the existence of quarks themselves came from deep inelastic scattering measurements. thus far, those experiments have produced no evidence for anything smaller.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


"She gave me numbers... I gave her rhythm."


My first ever post on ATS:

System of Truth

My blogs went the way of myspace, so now there's a FB Page

reply to post by Americanist

Not exactly sure what you're saying. Particles are toroidal in shape? They're little magnetic-bubble doughnuts? The six preons are evenly-spaced around the inside of the torus instead of a platonic-solid configuration? There are no preons? Anyway, I don't derive anything from this that theorizes a causation for vibration or for the variables that determine oscillatory characteristics, if that's what you were replying to. I do like the toroidal structure, it would be a neat explanation for quantum tunneling, and I see how they can be made from spheres by punching through from one side, but that implies that the sphere comes first. You don't start with a toroid, you start with a sphere, so the most-basic theory would have to explain the spheres before graduating to toroids. That, or toroids form as toroids initially. Or maybe toroids are only the natural shape for magnetic fields, as spheres are the norm for photonic waves. Personally I feel spheres are the norm for all subatomic particles too, but how does one prove what shape a proton is, or if it really even has just one shape? Think about soap bubbles. One all alone is a sphere, but put two together, and neither is a sphere; their common boundary becomes a flat plane. Like this image of a sheet of platinum atoms. Maybe our microscopes will be good enough some day... but for now, the smallest we can see is electron shells.

Well, what does carbon turn into under pressure? Nearly everything is carbon. They've found diamond dust in stardust, they've found nano diamonds in candle light, they've found diamond planets.


Final Clip of Men In Black

Maybe its the DVD hardrive. But on the other hand, it seems awefully dense, not sure we want to go there.

I like how some of the so called faulty shots of the sun turn out, all crystalline and everything!

reply to post by Unity_99

Sorry, but... that hexagonal shape is the camera iris. The "F-stop" aperture that controls how much light gets in. Notice how every hexagon has exactly the same orientation? If it were something real, they'd be at every conceivable angle.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


The torus begets spherical forms subsequently driven to cavitations as both resistance and mass. The boundary beyond our Universe is anyone's guess.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Assuming it's a six-bladed aperture of course.

reply to post by Thought Provoker


Yeah, I know what people say.

I have a video somewhere where you lift the camera into the sun's rays and its light, ethereal and crystaline, and downwards and its solid blue sky.

Also, the rays that come in, the violet and others, show up as solid on my infared filter.

I think a mystery is occurring myself.

And the frequency in the sun videos and photos is amazing.

www.space.com...
Diamond planet!

phys.org...
Candle flames contain millions of tiny diamonds

www.sciencedaily.com...
Diamonds Made Of "Stardust," UMass Geoscientist Suggests

www.lpi.usra.edu...

IDENTIFICATION OF CRYSTALLINE MATERIAL IN TWO INTERSTELLAR DUST CANDIDATES
FROM THE STARDUST MISSION

Yet when your camera shows the structure of light its all some technical reason or exposure.

I don't believe you or any code the matrix scientist. The crystalline structure of Light simply is.

again, those images represent the CCD saturating and bleeding into other channels. In the case of the whole line (vertical in this case, but can equally be horizontal) represents the shift register having problems reading out because it too is being saturated and is failing to recover before each pixel is read out.

Amazing yes... real affect? yes, the instrument messing up. External effect? no


So your whole argument here is that you do not understand photography, not anything to do with the science at hand, much like the moon landing 'evidence' is actually more about people having no clue how photography works beyond... "i press this button and it makes pictures"

Americanist

Hm, not bad, but what am I looking at? Isn't cavitation bound to happen in other manners too?

ErosA433
You talked about so called planes intersecting the shape only touching one of the preons, and it being obvious that this predicts 3 generations... well firstly there is no physical reason why you need this, or why it even works more than a lucky find.

Because it may (I really want to emphasize on this "may") explain neutrino oscillation, and the muon's anomalous dipole moment. Its implications are also seen in the kaon oscillation.

It does remind me of the Platonic solids model.

Yes... an unfortunate coincidence... It so happens that it's the only solid that matches the parameters.

A nice exercise of numerology and pattern finding, but I don't think it really expresses the under pinning of the standard model, what the standard model and its calculations do are much above all this. If this model is to be a fundamental, you must start with the standard model and rebuilt it from the ground up.

I sincerely thank you for the critic, which would help me to deepen my searches and adjust any flaws. Unfortunately I am not much of a mathematician. That being said, one must remember that quantum theory is, in a sense, very numerology-like, in the sense that it bases itself on numbers such as the Balmer series and the electron's probability to appear somewhere around the nucleus. Some of these features, which are very familiar to quantum physicists, are mirrored in the OP, especially in the end (the preon's probability waves). Although not precisely determined in the OP yet, the concept is nevertheless familiar, if not the same.

There is currently no evidence for the quark being composed of any further constituent parts

I can't share your certainty about that. Many details in the SM (such as the EMC effect, particle decay, etc) leads me to strongly consider the possibility that something smaller, which I concede would be elusive to our current probing technology, could compose the wide variety of properties observed in the Standard Model.

I also strongly suspect these preons would be wave-like in nature, since they may compose gauge bosons.

Regards

reply to post by swanne


To answer your question... Yes, because they're fundamental to nature.


Now notice the placement of both flip and choke rings:

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

Plagiarizing the title of the media's reports on Nima's paper will not get you any credit with real scientists.

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

Ah, yes, that thing you aggressively demanded that you didn't have to understand any of the math in in the last thread. Or have you learned how to actually calculate scattering cross-sections, Feynman diagrams, and nucleon form factors in the past little bit? Or do you still insist you don't need to actually go through the trouble of understanding the theory you claim to surpass?

The Phoenix-I successfully described all matter and energy particles electric charges exchanges. I quickly published these findings in an article some time ago

Ah, yes, that article you published in the peer-reviewed, high-impact journal Nature, right?

skieswanne.weebly.com...

Oh, you mean the article you "published" on your own website. I guess the real paper is hung up in the academic bureaucracy, huh? Didn't fill out the right forms to get it published? I bet we can expect to see it any day now when these trivial little misunderstandings are cleared up.

The Phoenix-I sparked a controversy amongst more conservative physicists.

I.e., I think it's ridiculous and shows you don't have any understanding of any physics at any level. It's not even not even wrong.

Its incomplete form was wrongfully interpreted as direct denial of the Standard Model's properties

It's more the fact that you clearly don't understand anything about the Standard Model that is the problem here.

even if the road was a lonely one, is was a wonderful one.

Ah, yes, the best, most productive scientists are the ones who complain about being persecuted and ignored, on the conspiracy forums.

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...

I eagerly await the carefully calculated nucleon form factors. Or, you know, field theory calculations of any kind.

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

Ah, yes, as your extensive group theoretical calculation and examination of the effective Lagrangian shows. Or, rather, I'm sure, will show, once Nature gets passed all the bureaucracy and publishes your paper.

This very suggestion already explains the charges of all particles, but also the exact mechanism during particle decay.

Yes, it explains those mechanisms that totally haven't been understood since longer than I've been alive (and were thus desperately in need of explanation).

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

Ah, yes, as we all know, and you have grasped most of all, is that Feynman diagrams correspond to drawing lines between things. Not complicated integrals, convoluted with ridiculous rules about vertices and propagators. Not at all.

This alone gave the theory more accuracy than most other preonic models

Of course, that diagram with lines in it connecting your assumption with your other assumption clearly is far better than any of those models those Nobel laureates have proposed. What with their actual calculations and understanding of physics.

The expanded (speculative) Pheonix-II Model

You know, it's not fair that you get a code name for your ridiculous idea. I'm going to code name my criticism of you Mongoose B. In particular, the hierarchically recursive (reduced normal form) Mongoose B Criticism.

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.

A quick look at the wikipedia page for the number 6 is all that's needed to solve this conundrum! Masterful work.

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.

According to than Mongoose B theory, this argument crystallizes into you repeating your assumptions over and over again as if that counts as proof, in each elementary mistakes, at each apexes.

One could say that around the (for now assumed to be empty) center of a group-particle

For those not familiar with this technical terminology, a "center of a group-particle" is defined by the Oxford Encyclopedic Encyclopedia of Physics as:

dfn. Center of a Group-Particle
A term corresponding to the octahedronal apexes than a crystal of diamonds crystallizes into, vis-a-vi preons.

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)

Let's not forget about the Mongoose A criticism that, no, it doesn't. Because drawing a picture with lines connecting it is not a Feynman diagram, and neglecting to do any actual math is not a calculation of a transition amplitude.

Additionally, one could in theory assign the numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) to each of the preons inside of the octahedron.

This is a technical point--so those of you who are not professional physicists can skip this--but--correct me if I am wrong--I believe you are saying there are six of these made up particles. I'm not 100% sure I'm following here, this is getting awfully technical after all.

This allows only 3 rational states to be possible: apex touches Plane, vertices touches Plane, and whole face touches Plane.

I'll be honest here, I don't think you understand that an apex and a vertex is the same thing.

It is obvious the more preons are allowed to touch the plane, the more massive such a particle will become.

So obvious that no attempt at actual justification is needed.

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.

Of course, this is after taking into account the Mongoose B manifesto, which clearly states that reversing the polarity of the nadeon emitters in the anti-time manifold of the time-space warp bubble will cause the matter stream to actually reflect off of the planet's atmosphere, resulting in two Commander Rikers materializing: one on the ship, and one on the planet.

a rendering of such a primeon would look like:

Which I have absolutely no doubt, that was created as the result of state-of-the-art particle physics simulation software available to actual researchers, and was not at all in any way produced in photoshop.

Part II of the RNF Mongoose B working group results: section A: 1.

swanneWe see now that preons are not true magnetic monopoles, but really dipoles.

As their octahedonistic structure makes obvious, yes, I don't know why you waste your time explaining such obvious conclusions.

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).

Not only are they out of time, but also, out of sight and mind.

Imagine an electron.

Duly imagined.

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?

Of course I do! Do you take me for some kind of crackpot who doesn't understand physics?

They also have a vertical charge of -0.1666 (here upward) and +0.1666 (here downward).

Yes, they're vectors, so, that explains this mysterious U(1) gauge symmetry that was clearly evident from your earlier exposition. Of course, you haven't shown there are no quantum anomalies that result in the quantization of this theory. I'm sure you're getting to that, though.

Now, if one was to re-draw our electron using this new hypothesis, the electron would in fact look like this

You mean re-compute, of course. The simulation? The one you did in ROOT?

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.

Or, in layman's terms, (6x.1666) and - 0.1666 flipped, multiplied by the octospin, and taking into account that the west-most electrodynamic charge is (-8.675)x309, the answer is 1/2 exactly.

This brings us the ability to now differentiate photons (spin = 1) from neutrinos (spin = 1/2).

As these two particles only differ by their spins, which you have so perfectly explained, this reasoning is completely correct.

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).

The breaking of the SU(2) x U(1)_Y gauge symmetry into electromagnetic U(1) is obvious and need not be commented on.

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.

Ah, yes, as this is a hypothesis of the Standard Model as wel... wait, what? I'm just being handed a paper containing a revolutionary new fact--it has just been discovered that the Standard Model does not, in fact, need to assume this, but can, in fact, derive it. Oh, wait, it's not new, this paper is from the 1940s. And it contains these odd symbols on it that I'm told are something called "actual calculations". Hmm. This may be worth investigating.

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

In other words, as the RNF Mongoose B expanded theoretogram states, it is exactly the same, except in exactly the ways in which it is entirely different.

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.

In the... am I getting it right... anti-time direction? I'll admit you've lost me here.

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.

As I've heard from colleagues in the theoretical physics community, this is demonstrated in your totally actually published paper by crisply proving an isomorphism from the non-simultaneous diagonalizability of mass and flavor eigenstates onto the set of center group particle flavoflavs.

The mechanism behind such a change in flavor might be nothing more than a precession of the particle's poles as it travels forward.

Or, you know, the eigenstate thing.

But Phoenix-II theory does notice an interesting link between mass and the group-particle's alignment.

As explained in the previous post's OED's EEP entry on group-particles.

In other words, the shift of a group-particle would be the cause of its mass, along with its internal sequencing.

I'm not supposed to mention this--but some of my contacts on the Nobel committee are very excited about your calculation of the exact masses, experimentally verified to be correct to 375 significant digits, of all known particles from only this simple assumption and a ridiculous drawing you made in photoshop.

When this paper shows up in Nature, you'll be a shoe-in for the physics Nobel next year.

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.

That's so logical it's literally beyond comprehension.

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.

I don't even know how to mock this.

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.

That's only one attempt, but I'll let it slide; it's not a part of the Mongolain Critisism.

or does it?

If I were a betting man--and I'm not (mostly on account of my crippling student loan debt incurred by my actually degree in physics) I would bet "no it doesn't" is the answer to all issues raised in these threads.

Stay tuned for the Mongoose C ANSI C18.7 rev. 18b-s Illuminated Expositional, coming soon.

swanne
Unfortunately I am not much of a mathematician. That being said, one must remember that quantum theory is, in a sense, very numerology-like, in the sense that it bases itself on numbers such as the Balmer series and the electron's probability to appear somewhere around the nucleus.

Right, in the same way that engineering is basically numerology, because it deals with numbers all over the place. And how astronomy is basically astrology, what with dealing with the constellations and all.

You are aware that these aspects of quantum mechanics are actually derived as theorems, right? Quantum mechanics makes very few assumptions, and is able to derive millions of results easily.

Although not precisely determined in the OP yet, the concept is nevertheless familiar, if not the same.

If not entirely different, and not at all alike.

I can't share your certainty about that. Many details in the SM (such as the EMC effect, particle decay, etc) leads me to strongly consider the possibility that something smaller, which I concede would be elusive to our current probing technology, could compose the wide variety of properties observed in the Standard Model.

Based on your PhD thesis, and decades of study at Cambrid...wait, what?

Sorry... I am not from any institutes... I am just (literally) a peasant, from Quebec. No diplomas, no PhDs. Learned physics on my own.

oh...

I also strongly suspect these preons would be wave-like in nature, since they may compose gauge bosons.

Because that has something to do with waves, yes, of course. It all comes together now.

reply to post by Moduli


Let's get down with the "flavoflavs!" haha...