A Breakthrough? The Singular Primordial Preon Theory, Finally a Solution to Many Mysteries

Strangely. Basher talks about a concept called prime radiant which defines that the entirety of the universe is made of a single massless particle that zips about creating the universe we see now.

Interesting stuff.

a reply to: swanne

Hello can you send this as a pdf file, with the previous posts,
what is the purpose of the preon?


thanks in advance

The neutron decay examples are incorrect and inconsistent with the model, the Feynman diagram and the cartoon representation are also not equivalent. It has essentially the neutrinos not being produced in the interaction but always existant.

The Feynman diagram on the surface looks the same but it is not. it has to do with how anti-neutrinos appear to move through time in the diagrams which looks weird.

But in your model with the different animations drawn, they also not consistant, the neutrino is in the final sate... the neutron decay is a 3 body process...

you go from 6 preons for the quark... and get 12+6 for the electron, neutrino and proton in the final state.

a reply to: ErosA433

Are you familiar with the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation?

Basically, the neutrino going backward in time (as the product of the W- boson) is exactly equivalent to an antineutrino going forward in time and undergo weak interaction through the W- boson.

I understand your point, you are saying antineutrinos are the result of the interaction. I understand because this is the way I learned it too. But in the light of the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, I point out that the classical interpretation of the "W- boson causing the down quark to turn into an up quark and creating an electron and a neutrino going back in time" is only an interpretation associated with time, and that another interpretation is that the down quarks interacts with a antineutrino going forward in time (exchanging a W- boson during the event), causing the down quark to turn into an up quark and the antineutrino to turn into an electron. None of these two approaches are "incorrect" in the light of Feynman-Stueckelberg.

I double checked my Feynman diagram. The arrows are correct. Here is another picture I found, look at the arrows:



And another:



And another:



The neutrino arrows is directed at the past in all cases. It's not "weird", it's how it is...

As for the " inconsistency" between two of my graphs... Could you elaborate on your confusion?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Here's a question I have about photons: if they are made out of 6 preons like other elementary particles then why do they have no rest mass whereas all other types of elementary particles do have a rest mass and therefore get inhibited by the so called Higgs field?

In every models out there, the exact mechanism behind mass is not known, and my model is no exception. The Standard Model even predicts the neutrtino to be massless - the Higgs field acts like a patch but then, it does not answer why the chaos in mass distribution. But I do have an opinion on the matter, and I must say I was rather impressed by how close you got with your following thought:

I'm guessing your answer will be that the symmetry of the preons causes the mass to be equalized? Why then is the neutrino classified as an aaabbb composite if it's supposed to have rest mass? Or is that the reason you developed your own explanation for the neutrino's oscillation into other flavours?

Indeed, I believe that the reason for absence of rest mass lies in preon symmetry. But neutrino would give a different mass value for the simple fact that although they do also have 3 b + 3 a, they also happen to have a different sequencing. Since their mass must be different from zero, then maybe this is why they are observed to have (albeit a tiny) mass even though models say they should not.

The way you can increase the mass while lowering strong interactions and maintaining gravitational interaction at the same time is impressive and seems to arise from your logic in a very organic manner, which is what I like to see. However if you are correct about dark matter being preons then it would invalidate my theory about negative energy, space, and time.

Well, first off: thank you for your compliment on the dark matter implication of the model, you are actually the first one to have noticed the elegance of the proposal. But about your negative energy, space and time, I do not think that my theory invalidates yours - in fact I have yet to explore the possibility in which the two could be compatible. But in the case they are not, I would point out that my theory is just that: a theory - future discovery could falsify it at worst, or my theory never taken factually at best, that is how the scientific method works. So you are safe either way.

Your statement about particles moving backwards in time being equivalent to anti-particles caught my attention. So in some sense when we create anti-matter, you're saying it's like creating particles which travel backwards through time?

Actually this statement originated with Richard Feynman.
I strongly recommend you read about the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, in fact I believe you will find it most interesting in the context of your own model.

Thanks Swane that is actually what I was thinking of but had a hard time explaining with a headache,

It is a weird feature of the model, but the reality is that time does progress forward. So diagrammatically i stand corrected. In reality though the anti-neutrino moves forward in time and is produced by the interaction.

I also think the trouble I have is that the model says that bosons are a mix of the a and b, but it doesn't expain that

1 the difference between the W+ W- and Z, the gamma and the gluon
2 the scalar bosons such as the Higgs

The combinations of the prons as you have it I don't think accounts for it

a reply to: swanne

If this were to go through a test, would it hold?

a reply to: ErosA433

Hello, could you dumb it down a bit for me? please pretty please

a reply to: Hyperia

which bit? Swanne's model or how it is in the standard model? A long explanation might have to come tomorrow rather than today however

a reply to: ErosA433

both=)

a reply to: swanne

But about your negative energy, space and time, I do not think that my theory invalidates yours - in fact I have yet to explore the possibility in which the two could be compatible.

They could be compatible but only if your dark matter preon composites don't or cannot exist. In the twin universe model the dark matter is just a gravitational illusion so if we found an actual particle responsible for dark matter then the twin universe model would fall apart.

Actually this statement originated with Richard Feynman.
I strongly recommend you read about the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, in fact I believe you will find it most interesting in the context of your own model.

Interesting stuff but it seems to me there are serious problems with saying that anti-matter travels backwards through time. Jean-Marie Souriau demonstrated in 1970 that if you reverse the energy of a particle you also reverse its arrow of time, so if you reverse the arrow of time you must also reverse the energy. If anti-matter travels backwards through time that means anti-matter has negative mass and should repel normal matter, yet according to all the evidence we have, anti-matter does not repel normal matter. Even that wiki page you linked to mentions how anti-matter should be expected to repel normal matter under the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation.

But it's still interesting to think about what it would mean for anti-matter to be the negative matter in the twin universe model and there are clues to be gained from thinking about it. If there actually was anti-matter filling the space between all galaxies that would mean there actually isn't less anti-matter than normal matter, and would solve the problem of why there is way more normal matter than anti-matter; there actually isn't, we just can't detect the anti-matter because it is repelled away from the positive mass in our galaxy and almost none of it will come close to Earth. But if that is true then why should it be so hard to detect? I find it very hard to believe the anti-matter wouldn't interfere with our deep space imagery.

a reply to: swanne
Want leave comment to follow thread. Should be interesting reading. S&F

I wonder what lenny susakind would have to say about this

Nice thread OP.

I have only recently taken a step into understanding nature.

This is still beyond my current understanding of physics. But i have flagged it so when i reach a novice status ill come back and try and make sens of it all.


Ty

Kap

a reply to: Hyperia

Sorry for the delay, I work alot, hehe.

I intend indeed in making it all into a pdf when I get some more free time, I will be sure to post a link once I am done.

Now. You asked what are preons. A valid question, though briefly covered in my OP. Quite simply put, preons are tiny building blocks which make up elementary particles (may it be electrons, quarks, etc. ). Most scientists believe they don't exist, but some other scientists have a more open mind and believe that they actually might exist. We cannot observe preons for now, because our technology is too crude.

My model theorises that only one master preon is composing all the different particles in the universe. In comparison, all other models predict two or three kinds of preons.

I just remembered that English is not your primary language. I wonder - would your primary language by any chance be french? If yes, I could converse with you via private messaging in french, that way you wouldn't have to translate all my explanations all the time. I speak very good french. Just saying.

a reply to: Hyperia
Moreover, I would like to hear ideas in general how to test this model.
Specifically, what would be some tests that distinguish between the SPP model and the mainstream standard model.

a reply to: swanne

could you try to get some physicists in the conversation?

And i just want a OT a little bit, what is the purpose of the single preon?

Why, how, how come?

a reply to: Pirvonen

Yes that would also be great

a reply to: Pirvonen

We currently do not have the technology to detect preons. They are just too small. Probing quarks is already difficult as it is now, imagine probing a level even smaller.

So as of now we cannot test the SPP Theory. But I do believe that in the near future we will have the capacity to at least verify quite a few of its predictions. For instance, if dark matter really is made of preons, then particles of dark matter should be measured to have a smaller electroweak cross section than any of that normal matter. And if generations are really caused by an offset in particles inclination, then a fourth generation would not exist.

a reply to: swanne

why do you think dark matter and preons are the same?

im sry for asking stupid questions

a reply to: Hyperia

Because I discovered that both preons (in groups of five or less) and dark matter (WIMPs) share the same profiles: high mass, and can only interact via weak force.

No questions are stupid as long as they are honest!