The ABC Preon Model. Neutrinos.

This is the seventh thread in the series on the ABC Preon Model. Links to earlier threads will appear in the comment below.

At this point it is important to consider the role of the neutrino in the ABC preon model.

There is only one neutrino in the ABC Preon Model. There is no labeling of neutrinos as being an electron neutrino, a muon neutrino or a tauon neutrino. Nor are anti-neutrinos tagged as being different from regular neutrinos in the ABC Preon Model. Like photons, it is assumed that neutrinos can be pair produced in vacuum. But just as the photons that are produced from pair-production are regular photons, so the neutrinos that are produced from pair-production are just regular neutrinos. The neutrino, like the photon, is its own anti-particle as understood from the ABC Preon Model.

The original rationale for neutrinos not coming in different flavors and types was just a straight-forward analogy with photons since the ABC Preon Model proposes that the neutrino, like the photon, is a force carrier. But another reason for proposing that all neutrinos are the same comes from the modeling of mesons within the ABC Preon Model. Below we repeat the drawing from a previous thread:



In the above picture recall that a notation is employed wherein a line joining preons represents a binding neutrino. From the picture it is easy to see how an anti-neutrino could bind the anti-A to the anti-C, and how an anti-neutrino could bind the anti-B to the anti-C, as then anti-quarks would involve anti-neutrinos along with anti-preon constituents. But what about the binding between the C and the anti-C? It is there that the sameness of anti-neutrinos and neutrinos becomes apparent.

A Prediction Realized. The original publication (about 20 years ago) predicted that neutrino oscillations should exist at some level. This prediction was based on a pure simplicity argument founded upon an analogy with photons as mentioned above. It was admitted that it might indeed prove necessary to include a labeling and separation of the various types of neutrino if experimental data demanded it, but that would leave the ABC preon model no better nor worse than the standard model as far as neutrinos are concerned. The argument as to why neutrino oscillations had not been seen at the time of publication was that it may be that the cross section for interaction is just so small that oscillations hadn't been observed yet.

Years after the prediction for neutrino oscillations was made, neutrino oscillations were indeed found. Rather recent experimentation has determined that the oscillations are consistent with a theory of neutrinos involving a small neutrino mass. And so the central prediction of the original ABC Preon Model - that all neutrinos should be the same - has been proven by observations. What starts out as one "flavor" of neutrino will eventually evolve to the other flavor types. This of course indicates that all neutrinos are indeed the same, and that their flavor is just a matter of some flavor-phase that they are in at the time and place of observation.

Neutrino interaction cross sections are known to be very small. Yet in the ABC Preon Model neutrinos are responsible for what will be shown in upcoming posts to be very large binding energies. Help on understanding how this can be so is found by considering what happens with the scattering of photons off of matter.

First, consider what happens as photon energies get large. Photons in the visible spectrum already travel through glass with very small attenuation. But when one gets to x-rays and gamma-rays the photons travel through even strongly absorbing materials more and more easily as their energy increases. (For a reference, click here.) Hence, we see that the cross section for interaction decreases to smaller and smaller values as the photon energy is increased into the MeV and then to the GeV range.

Secondly, consider what happens when photons of small energy interact with atoms. For photons in the infrared, the energy of the photon is not enough to excite the atomicly bound electrons into a new quantum state. Hence, low energy photons are incapable of changing the electron's energy level within the atom.

With the above two facts to guide us, as well as with an assumption that preonic bindings will involve energies of a GeV or more, it should not be surprising that the cross sections are small for observed neutrino/matter events. The GeV binding energies mean that there is a very strong bond between the two preons, so having a neutrino affect that bond will require a neutrino energy high enough to change the internal energy state. And having such a high energy neutrino will lead to a very small cross section for those events to occur.

As for low energy neutrino scatterings, that may indeed occur. But how could we measure it? In order to detect the neutrino in the first place we generally must have the neutrinos interact with matter to produce something that we can then subsequently detect. And in order to get that which we can detect, the neutrinos must change the internal energy state of the bound preons in order to form something new. Which, as described in the paragraph above, will require a very high energy neutrino. Hence, low energy neutrino scattering will likely be impossible to see.

So low energy neutrino scattering will likely be impossible to see, and high energy neutrino interactions will have an extremely low cross section. Therefore we won't experimentally detect much interaction between neutrinos and matter at all, even though neutrinos are proposed to be responsible for what is an extremely strong force that binds the preons together.

Neutrinos have a half-integer spin and so they will also have a helicity. And this leads to the conclusion that there will be at least two helicity states of the neutrinos. One could identify these states separately. But we typically don't do that for photons or electrons or any other particle with spin, so I see no need to do that for the neutrinos of the ABC Preon Model either. And of course, neutrinos may have different energies as well, but that is usually not grounds for considering something to be a different entity. So for the purposes of the ABC Preon Model we will continue to use a simple single label for all neutrinos discussed and consider them to be identical particles, although they may of course have different momenta, energy, spin and flavor phase at any given place and time.

The Exposition of the ABC Preon Model will involve many threads. Here are links to previous threads in this series, in the order that they appeared:

The ABC Preon Model, Background: the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics

The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Massive Leptons.

The ABC Preon Model. Assigning Some Quantum Numbers.

The ABC Preon Model. Modeling the Hadrons.

The ABC Preon Model. Quarks.

The ABC Preon Model. Relationship to the Standard Model.

Nice, I hope to read your threads in order at some point.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Connect this between the strong force in nature abiding in invariance and symmetry, and the translation of this symmetry from the weak force. The early universe would have been mostly Hydrogen (one proton and one electron in balance) and Helium. It has always been my contention that the Dirac Relativistic Quantum Wave Equation demonstrates the interplay between dimensions as the mechanism behind invariance. If you consider the collapse of wave function from higher to lower dimensions, this makes perfect sense. Examine my simple model of 10 dimensions. The Hindus and Buddhists called it the Triloka for a reason. There are three divisions, which can be verified by simple regular polytopes in n dimensions. Like a tree, expression comes from higher to lower dimensions by Line, Branch and Fold. Note that light is not particle and wave only, but mind, particle and wave. Mind is the hidden dimension eluded to by the Dirac Equation.

10 Dimensions

10 Invariance

9 - Enfolding of Mind
8 - Branching of Thought
7 - Line of Thought
________________

6 - Enfolding of Time from Mind
5 - Branching of Time from Mind
4 - Line of Time from Mind
________________

3 - Enfolded Form
2 - Branching Form
1 - Line of Form

Looking at the dimensions from bottom to top, follow the sequence back up. Take one cross-section of reality to examine up the chain. In 1D, there are no regular polytopes. In 2D, there are infinite regular polytopes. In 3D, there are five platonic solids. In 4D, there are six. In all higher dimensions, there are three and only three. What does this suggest to you about the three divisions, the three perfections of regular form and the invariance that is locked above? Taking this back to the early universe in a state of high order and low entropy, how do you see the presence of the Neutron holding the Proton in place against that of the Electron's breaking of symmetry? Do you see it?

Now compare to the Neutrino ratios and flavors of the electrons and muon types. Three is the magic number to use above by dimension. At the point of collapse in symmetry, this change is then seen by the Dirac Equation. Look at it as a veil between, using time as the spin between mind and form, or two sides of the same set of three variables. In other words, Mind is locked in invariance. Time is the quantum flow. Form is the manifestation of the image of invariance. Enfolded Wave Function, Branching Wave Function and finally, the collapse of wave function. With this understanding, the laws of invariance are then the laws regulating the collapse with individuation of original invariance. Translation leaves the Invariance untouched.

a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow

Thanks for your comments.

I must admit though that your line of thought is radically different from mine. I am attempting to model all known particles and forces with a minimum number of elementary entities while accounting for all observations in a world that has three spatial dimensions plus time. My effort will be shown to lead to definitive predictions for high energy physics experimentation.

Does you line of thought lead to testable predictions?

I just want to know why electrons are not statically located. What motivates movement of any kind?

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: DayAfterTomorrow

Thanks for your comments.

I must admit though that your line of thought is radically different from mine. I am attempting to model all known particles and forces with a minimum number of elementary entities while accounting for all observations in a world that has three spatial dimensions plus time. My effort will be shown to lead to definitive predictions for high energy physics experimentation.

Does you line of thought lead to testable predictions?

Yes. Start with the conclusion. The 10th dimension holds all others as center to generation. E in Latin means out of. Volution means circling a center. Evolution is from involution, or entering the quantum flow first (Involution). Biblically, this baptism and rising to new life. It must be found as a digital linear mathematical expansion of Fold, Branch and Line.

.

What do you see above? No Dimension.

...............

1D Line, or dots at right angles (Orthogonal), or the LINE.

...............
...............
...............
...............


2D Branch, with a 1D shadow.

CUBE as layered and folded planes is next. Each of these is at right angles to the lower dimension, or orthogonal. We also have chirality to add into the mix, like your right and left brian; right and left hands and so on. All things in relative pairs.

Next is 4D time, which is then the line again. 5D indeterminate wave function, which is the branching of all possible wave function. 6D is the enfolded potential.

7D, 8D and 9D are the only place for mind to reside.

These are all at right angles to the lower dimensions. Where are all of them existent at once? 10th Dimension. Everything else is a shadow, which is what you find by looking 9 directions.

FORM - North, South, East and West

TIME - Past, Present Future

MIND - Above and Below entangled.

9 directions. What's left? The last place you would look for the hidden absolute dimension. INSIDE

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I just want to know why electrons are not statically located. What motivates movement of any kind?

Forces exist, from mass, charges, and charges in motion. Then Newton's law gives us F = dp/dt which leads to motion.

Now the above two statements (in this reply) can be considered simple observations, and one can ask what underlies them, and we can go on always asking "why?" once we get any answer to the previous one. And when that is done we eventually end up with "well that's the way it is, I guess." I have done some work, which I hope to present here in the future, answering why electromagnetic forces arise, but as for F = dp/dt, I presently treat that as an observation. F = dp/dt is the way it is, I guess.

GeV coupling does not still account for the interaction cross section. By this very reference ultra high energy neutrinos should interact with prions extremely readily, yet they do not.

IceCube has detected PeV scale energy neutrino interactions. By definition as above, they simply shouldn't make it into their detector as they would not make it beyond a few atomic layers of ice at the surface, nor make it through the atmosphere.

The Nova neutrino beam covers a range up to about 5GeV, most of that beam passes through everything.

Neutrinos all being the same and exhibiting their flavour because of some kind of flavour phase, is thus a big hole in the model. It is too simplistic a treatment of the coupling.

Also containing an extremely high energy component of the Quark as a composite object makes the system subject to massive instability, the binding and release of any kind particle in this form should then have the ability to release enormous energy. This is as far as i am aware not what we see. There are also energy limits based on the CMB that give a very very ballpark limit to the total energy of the universe. If ultra-high energy neutrinos are thus required for binding, it would completely throw that number out. Sure the number might be wrong, cosmological predictions have been wrong before (haha, 100 orders of magnitude wrong) It just seems inconsistent. That or iv totally misinterpreted it

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for looking into this. I must be assuming something quite a bit different than what you are assuming. Below is what I am thinking, with some numbers to try to make things clearer:

For 20 GeV light, this reference gives a wavelength of 6.2e-17 m, or 6.2e-15 cm. If we assume the cross section for interaction is pi*lambda^2, that corresponds to a cross sectional area of 1.2e-28 cm^2. If there are 5e22 atoms per cubic cm in our solid target (Silicon), and assuming about 150 scattering centers per silicon atom, (14 electrons plus 14 protons plus 14 neutrons give us 42, but we have multiple preons making up each of those, so 150 is reasonable) we'd have about a 1e-3 chance of interaction per cm, so 10 meters of solid Silicon will get us one e-drop in intensity of 20 GeV neutrinos. At 2 TeV energies the wave-length would be 100 times less, and the cross section 10,000 times less, resulting in a 1e-7 chance of interaction per cm. And at 2 PeV we'd be at 1e-13 chance of interaction per cm.

I've been a bit lazy by just looking things up on the web (always dangerous) but the numbers looked about right so I went with them for this response. I've also made a big assumption about how the cross section would be pi*lambda^2, but I think that is a reasonable starting guess. And I made what I believe is a good assumption (since the neutrino mass is very low) that the photon wavelength will be about equal to the neutrino wavelength. Once I do that, I get what appears above. PeV neutrinos should easily get through the atmosphere via that analysis.

Do you see something wrong in this reasoning? Are the estimates in this reply far from what is observed?

I have an anecdote that may also be relevant (although maybe not). My Ph.D. is in accelerator physics. I believe I was in grad school when I was getting a tour of Fermilab and I noticed a beampipe that was closed off with a flange. Then an air gap, then another beampipe closed off with a flange. The scientist giving me the tour (my mentor, Dr. Fred Mills, a great accelerator physicist) mentioned how the beam came out of one beampipe, and passed into the next one, going through both flanges. My first thought was that we shouldn't design things that way. After all, we usually pump things down to 10^-9 Torr or so in order that the particles don't scatter too much. Here they were passing it through a few inches of solid metal! But within a few moments I realized it would be OK, since it was a high energy beam and the losses and scattering would not affect the beam too much since it was only a single pass situation. As we go to higher and higher energies, particles can pass through more and more matter. When cross sections become small, even solid matter appears to be mostly empty space to those fast moving particles.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for looking into this. I must be assuming something quite a bit different than what you are assuming. Below is what I am thinking, with some numbers to try to make things clearer:

For 20 GeV light, this reference gives a wavelength of 6.2e-17 m, or 6.2e-15 cm. If we assume the cross section for interaction is pi*lambda^2, that corresponds to a cross sectional area of 1.2e-28 cm^2. If there are 5e22 atoms per cubic cm in our solid target (Silicon), and assuming about 150 scattering centers per silicon atom, (14 electrons plus 14 protons plus 14 neutrons give us 42, but we have multiple preons making up each of those, so 150 is reasonable) we'd have about a 1e-3 chance of interaction per cm, so 10 meters of solid Silicon will get us one e-drop in intensity of 20 GeV neutrinos. At 2 TeV energies the wave-length would be 100 times less, and the cross section 10,000 times less, resulting in a 1e-7 chance of interaction per cm. And at 2 PeV we'd be at 1e-13 chance of interaction per cm.

I've been a bit lazy by just looking things up on the web (always dangerous) but the numbers looked about right so I went with them for this response. I've also made a big assumption about how the cross section would be pi*lambda^2, but I think that is a reasonable starting guess. And I made what I believe is a good assumption (since the neutrino mass is very low) that the photon wavelength will be about equal to the neutrino wavelength. Once I do that, I get what appears above. PeV neutrinos should easily get through the atmosphere via that analysis.

Do you see something wrong in this reasoning? Are the estimates in this reply far from what is observed?

I think the biggest thing wrong there is the treatment of cross sections - it isn't quite as described. The interaction cross section actually increases with energy for neutrinos. In a conceptual way you can sort of view this as the range of the weak interaction changing as a function of energy because the virtual particle exchange is less and less forbidden. BUT the neutrino doesn't tend to loose much energy per interaction so it isn't counter intuitive, and the rules of stopping power are still the same.

Cross section is a function of not so much the physical size of an object but its interaction distance and interaction probability. It doesn't scale quite like the converter describes.

The interaction cross section for neutrinos of the order 10e-45 - 10e-50 m^2 it is tiny.

These two pages have pretty good treatments of neutrino interactions, probably not perfect but good ball park numbers

cupp.oulu.fi...
moriond.in2p3.fr...


On the accelerator, it is likely that the flange is being used to generate something. Could be for the insertion of a TOF module if you where near the end of a beam-line as it doesn't sound like it was for an actual target system. Like say, the JPARC neutrino beam where the beam line terminates with a flange (as you describe), then a helium cooled tungsten 'window' and then a 72cm carbon cylinder The window termination has to be cooled and specifically designed because the amount of ionisation and Brem produced would cause heating and eventual shatter. The carbon is there to generate LOADS of Kaons and Pions which you focus using a pulsed horn magnet. You let the particles then decay down a decay volume and done, you generated a focussed neutrino beam.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for the reply and the references. I will certainly look them over.

As for the accelerator, I recall it was not a target at all, that it was just a gap between the booster and the main ring. The calculations were done and it was OK to pass the beam through it. It might have had something to do with vacuum isolation, or perhaps there was another reason. I don't recall. What I do recall was the fact that there was that gap and material that the beam had to pass through.

a reply to: ErosA433


I read through the links. Thanks. It appeared to me that both links are mostly theoretical, although on the cupp.oulu.fi page there was a graph that appears to be experimental, and which I presume does align with the theory in the range of measurement. And hence my simplistic argument (meant to show the possibility of small cross sections at higher energies) is certainly lacking.

I can understand how we can measure cross sections up to what our accelerators produce, but not beyond that. We need to have a known number of neutrinos incident upon the detector (I presume through meson decays) so that cross sections can be determined. I can further understand how we can observe things well beyond what our accelerators can produce, but I don't see how we know how many of such super-high energy neutrinos are incident upon our detectors, so I don't see how we could have a real measurement in such energy ranges.

On the moriond.in2p3.fr page I saw sleptons, squarks and producing black holes at will. That is the sort of thing, along with greater than PeV extrapolations, that I think is quite more of a stretch than what I am proposing.

But if we set aside the particulars, here are the two relevant points for us to move forward, I believe. 1) I have always readily admitted that there is a big hole in my model. It does not have a well defined dynamics. That is certainly needed. I have been making an attempt at a high velocity quantum mechanics, but I do not have a satisfactory solution yet. That is why I call my preon model a model, and not a theory. 2) The ideas I have set out above in this thread still lead me to believe that the cross sections can be small for interactions between free neutrinos and bound preons while yet still being the force carrier for strong binding.