I Present to You.. Dark Matter

a reply to: swanne

I apologize if what I am to say is elsewhere in the thread (I only looked through about a third of the comments) but it would seem to me that this dark matter prediction should have resulted in experimental verification at hadron colliders, and I don't believe it has. With the masses of the preons easily available in present LHC and past Tevatron collisions, we are already seeing the predicted outputs in terms of intermediate vector bosons. quarks and leptons. But if those preons can also recombine to form dark matter, that should show up as large missing energy in the experiments. I am not aware of any such results.

Thoughts?

a reply to: delbertlarson

Well, so far colliders cannot detect individual preons, for the energy required to overcome the Strong Force is too high for current accelerators to achieve - not to mention the fact that the energy itself would generate a new quark. Possibly for that very reason, I haven't come across any experiments giving the exact mass of preons yet.

As for the reason why dark matter particles mass don't show up as hadron collision byproduct, well that is probably because dark matter is not involved in the collision events. The LHC is only accelerating normal matter particles, which can only decay into some lighter (and thus normal) particles. Now, a dark matter particle could be argue to have chances of being naturally present at the impact point, out of pure luck; but given the relative low density of dark matter (as highlighted by the Cuspy Halo Problem), I would point such a probability to be very low.

By the way, forgive me for asking, but are you not the author of the ABC preon model? I find this model just genius, one of the best actually - I even boycotted Wikipedia when it suddenly decided to take down the entry on the model. I have seen alot of preon models, but the ABC model is one of the few which really sticks to my mind, one of the few which actually seem probable.

I wonder... what's your thoughts on my own Singular Primordial Preon Theory? So far, quite a few physicists have expressed resistance to it (since I have not yet produced a mathematical version of it), but perhaps its propositions would be more familliar to a fellow preon theorist.

a reply to: swanne


Yes, I am the author of the ABC Preon Model. Thanks for your kind comments about it. Months after you posted here at ATS about Wikipedia censoring me I found your thread about that incident - thank you for that post as well. I responded then, and also to another one of your threads, again very late in the game, but in any event that is how I found ATS.

From your discussion of the mass of dark matter in the op I presumed that your preons had a mass of about 13,400 MeV/(c*c) divided by 4, or about 3350 MeV/(c*c). And that is why I thought they would be copiously produced in hadron colliders. Once copiously produced, it would seem to me that they could arrange in any way possible, and your dark matter prediction is one of those possibilities. But if you are thinking that the binding of your preons is quark-like, and that the force grows with distance or something like that, then I can see your argument as to why the hadron colliders won't see your dark matter signature to a large degree. It would then come down to cross sections for production, and if for some reason quark and lepton formation is greatly preferred over dark mater formation that is an acceptable proposal.

For a couple decades I was a regular reviewer for Physics Essays, preparing hundreds of reviews, mostly on special relativity, but often on elementary particle models. There were a few elementary particle models that I thought were pretty good. If I would have reviewed your Singular Primordial Preon Theory I believe it would have been at the top of those that I reviewed and I would have strongly recommended it for publication. It does have a few flaws in my estimation, as it does not have any quantitative predictability that I can see, just qualitative, and I don't see any strong predictions for tests. It seems to be a very good start at a hypothesis, but it needs to be refined to where it can make specific predictions to differentiate it from the standard model. That said, it remains one of the best preon models I know of. Certainly far better than the Rishon model. (I think the Rishon model only gets publicity now because it is so bad - it supports the standard model by comparison.) I especially like what you've done concerning weak decays.

Of course, I believe the ABC Preon Model to be the best, perhaps of my own bias. The ABC Preon Model does make quantitative predictions, and it also makes predictions that differentiate it from the standard model. It has far more quantitative calculated predictions than it has inputs to tweak. It is real science in every way.

I believe that the standard model is inferior to both the Singular Primordial Preon Theory and the ABC Preon Model. The standard model does all of the things science isn't supposed to do. It is a hypothesis that is allowed to change whenever some result comes up that violates its original tenets (or even the presently prevailing tents). The new change is glorified, even worshiped, by its proponents, sometimes to the point of awarding a Nobel Prize. It has very limited calculational ability. The mesons are supposedly two body states, yet meson mass predictions remain something the standard model just can't handle! Also, the standard model has seen tens of thousands of person-years of development, more than a thousand times what the Singular Primordial Preon Theory and the ABC Preon Model have seen. I am sure that if the Singular Primordial Preon Theory had been proposed and followed back in 1960, and the same effort was put in to fudge and kludge it along that was put into fudging and kludging the standard model along, that the Singular Primordial Preon Theory would be ensconced today as one of the Great Truths of Nature that we mere mortals should never question.

With Best Regards,

Del

a reply to: delbertlarson

Yes, I am the author of the ABC Preon Model. Thanks for your kind comments about it.

I know how much efforts such a work takes.

From your discussion of the mass of dark matter in the op I presumed that your preons had a mass of about 13,400 MeV/(c*c) divided by 4, or about 3350 MeV/(c*c). And that is why I thought they would be copiously produced in hadron colliders.

Hehe, doesn't work like that... (sorry for the confusion, my bad!) I forgot to mention that I've integrated the so-called Mass Paradox, which has been used so many times as counter-arguments against both our models! I came to use the Mass Paradox argument at my own advantage: if individual preons are more massive than the particle they compose, then this is why dark matter is more massive than normal matter particles, and also why W boson is so massive.

So, actually, I'm guessing individual preons would be around 335,000 MeV or something. (using beta decay as basis: 6 preons = 2.4 MeV, 3 preons = 20,100 MeV, so mass of 1 preon = 5/3 the difference between 20,100 and 2.4 = 335,000 MeV).

It seems to be a very good start at a hypothesis, but it needs to be refined to where it can make specific predictions to differentiate it from the standard model.

I agree. Until now my efforts had been focused on retrodiction (accounting for already-known properties), but now that's done, I'll be working on the quantification part real soon.

I especially like what you've done concerning weak decays.

Hehe, I know, right?

(I think the Rishon model only gets publicity now because it is so bad - it supports the standard model by comparison.)

Ugh, you can say that again. The only reason why the Rishon Model is kept up is to keep on demonising the whole preon idea. And since proponents of the SM would feel threatened by more recent - and more accurate - preon models, then the more recent preon models are actively hushed.

The ABC Preon Model does make quantitative predictions, and it also makes predictions that differentiate it from the standard model.

Indeed it does. Neutrino as binding force carrier would have never crossed my mind, yet it is very elegant of a solution.

The new change is glorified, even worshiped, by its proponents, sometimes to the point of awarding a Nobel Prize.

I know what you mean. I have watched the whole Higgs thing unravel - it all happened so quick, the prize was almost automatic. Yet there are those who come up with entire models which reduce everything to only three preons (in your case) or one preon (in my case), satisfying Occam's Razor in unprecedented ways and pushing the boundaries of physics further than ever, but those are ignored at best or censored at worst.

Ah, well, I'd like to think that we are the better men - for unlike others, we do what we do not to seek the approval of some prize committee, but actually to explore those horizons no one dares to cross.

a reply to: swanne


Have you ever published your SPPT (or your other works) in a reviewed journal? Have you tried to? What were your experiences?

How about the NPA? Did you ever interact with them?

a reply to: delbertlarson

I have sent you a PM.

Link to your inbox

Preons were remote-viewed 121 years ago by the well-known Theosophists Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, who were trained in a yogic siddhi called anima (see here). A British theoretical physicist who took an interest in this 38-year long investigation proved that their descriptions of compound nuclei formed prior to observation by ESP from two atomic nuclei are consistent with the quark model, the QCD string model of quark confinement and E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory. His analysis proved that the constituents of up (u) and down (d) quarks have the composition:
u = X-X-Y, d = X-Y-Y,
where X and Y are the two spin-1/2 members of an isopin doublet with respective electric charges +5/9 and -4/9.
This work was approved by a Fellow of the Royal Society, a Nobel prize winner in Physics, a director of an Indian nuclear physics research centre and an Indian Minister of Science. His GUT was published in 1979 in Physics Letters but - predictably - ignored by the physics community despite receiving support by the Nobel prize winner Abdus Salam.
His website
smphillips.8m.com...
has amassed overwhelming, mathematical evidence for the existence of these preons paranormally described over a century ago. He has achieved this level of proof by correlating the mathematical properties of the sacred geometries of certain religions, showing that they share the same structural parameters and relationships and proving that these parameters appear in the group-theoretical properties of the rank-8 exceptional Lie group E8 (and E8xE8) appearing in one of the symmetry groups found in 1984 to be free of quantum anomalies in the context of 10-d superstrings. In particular, he has shown that these polygonal and polyhedral geometries are isomorphic representations of the Gosset polytope whose 240 vertices have 8-d position vectors that represent the 240 roots of E8. They are found to embody the very structural parameters of the preons described by Besant and Leadbeater. In other words, it appears that a universal blueprint is hidden within sacred geometries found in mystical traditions that is exactly consistent with both paranormal details about subatomic particles published over a century ago and discoveries in superstring theory.

For details of the mathematical proofs, see here and here.

a reply to: micpsi
Hm, how does Salam's model account for electrons with charge -9/9 e if it only uses a preon with charge +5/9 and a preon of -4/9? The only answer possible is that in addition to a X preon and a Y preon, Salam's model also has an anti-X preon (charge -5/9) and anti-Y preon (charge +4/9), in which case the electron could be said to be composed of e = Y - anti-X, but now Salam's model would be employing four species of preons (two preons + two antipreons).

And actually there is a mathematical proof which proves how the Singular Primordial Preon Theory is the most simplest model possible. It reduces the Standard Model to a single preon (and its antipreon).

There are seven species of charge observed in the Standard Model: +e, +2e/3, +e/3, 0, -e/3, -2e/3, and -e.

Let N be the amount of preons in a set of items, and S be the number of item (preon) species. In a set where S=2 (1 preon + 1 antipreon), the number of non-repeating permutations "P" can be computed by,

P = N+1

Note that in all instances where N is inferior to 6, the resulting amount of permutations will be inferior to the seven observed.

(N < 6)+1 = P < 7

Furthermore, the individual charge (e/N) of the species of preons will form permutation sums which are incompatible with observed particle charges.

N=1: [+e, -e] (incompatible)
N=2: [+e, 0, -e] (incompatible)
N=3: [+e, +e/3, -e/3, -e] (incompatible)
N=4: [+e, +e/2, 0, -e/2, -e] (incompatible)
N=5: [+e, +3e/5, +e/5, -e/5, -3e/5, -e] (incompatible)

N=6 is the smallet set which will yield seven permutations, and in whose permutations total charges match exactly observation:

N=6: [+e, +2e/3, +e/3, 0, -e/3, -2e/3, -e] (perfect match)

It can also be proven that more than two species of preons is useless. Permutations for sets with S=3 number of item species can be found by:

P = (N+1(N+2))/2

Note that as N is explored, the resulting number of permutations fails to reach seven.

N=1: (1+1(1+2))/2 = 3
N=2: (2+1(2+2))/2 = 6
N=3: (3+1(3+1))/2 = 10

Similarly, permutations for sets with S=4 is found by:

P = (N+1(N+2(N+3)))/6

Once again, as we browse N, we find that the system fails to yield exactly seven permutations:

N=1: (1+1(1+2(1+3)))/6 = 4
N=2: (2+1(2+2(2+3)))/6 = 10

This goes on until S itself reaches 7 - but then, seven species of preons would defeat the whole point of reductionism in the first place.

It would seem the dark matter I've predicted... may have left a signature in black hole jets, all over the Universe! The signature's energy is an almost perfect match!

www.abovetopsecret.com...