The ABC Preon Model. As of April 2017. In a Single Thread.

Based on your Preon, would you consider the following good science or bad science:

brillouinenergy.com...

I've always felt Godes was on to something but I'm just an amateur when it comes to physics. I thought he may actually have something real with the half-life of 4-He.

What are you thoughts? Can you process his paper through the lens of the Preon model? Or is it junk science?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Based on your Preon, would you consider the following good science or bad science:

brillouinenergy.com...

I've always felt Godes was on to something but I'm just an amateur when it comes to physics. I thought he may actually have something real with the half-life of 4-He.

What are you thoughts? Can you process his paper through the lens of the Preon model? Or is it junk science?

What you linked to really doesn't have anything related to my preon model, but to give you an answer I did read through the first nine and a half pages of the 32 page pdf. Near the top of page 10 I saw the second thing that is either wrong, or that I don't understand. It states: "In nickel, a small amount of energy promotes the 4s electrons to the 3d energy level allowing hydrogen nuclei to occupy the 4s sites". Earlier, on page 6 I found the first problematic issue, as it states: "With a charge of one, that means it is a bare nucleus. In reality it caries a fractional charge, but the ratio of electrons to H nuclei is fractional". I could go and read a bit further, but these two issues are each quite problematic for me.

As I understand it, the issue on page 10 proposes a positively charged proton entering into a bound atomic state vacated by an electron. But the reason for electrons being in such states is because of the attractive electric potential between the negatively charged electron and a positively charged nucleus. Since the proton is positively charged it should be repelled by the nucleus, not bound, and hence never enter into the proposed atomic state.

As for the issue on page 6, to my knowledge, there has been absolutely no observation of fractional charge ever found. And it has been diligently searched for. So unless I misunderstand, what appears on page 6 is also in error.

Since both of the above two issues appear to be strongly inconsistent with known physics I stopped my review at that point. If I were conversing with the author I would ask for further clarification before moving on. Without such clarification I believe the work is simply in error.

I do think something is going on in cold fusion experiments that is not understood. However, with the promise of a clean, safe, and inexhaustible fuel, and the riches one would obtain from harnessing it, there has been an excess of hype which has harmed the real scientific efforts. Cold fusion has been a topic awash in noise with very little scientific signal, which is a shame, because it hurts the serious science. Unless I can better understand the above two issues on pages 6 and 10 (which I believe are flaws) it is my conclusion that the work you reference is part of the noise, not the signal.

I see that I made an error in one of the posts above. And I learned this too late to apply an edit. The section on More Predictions should have had the following contents:

15 . More Predictions

The W, Z, Higgs and top quark signatures have been described in previous threads of this series as arising from the production of free preons. We have seen that two free preons can give rise to the W and Z signature, three free preons can give rise to the Higgs signature, and four free preons can give rise to the top quark signature. But each of these observed signatures involve very specific preons. In the general case there should be many more similar signals.

Two-Preon AB Signatures. We can have the following two preon signatures in the ABC Preon Model: 1) a W- (or W+) signature at 80.4 GeV/c^2 resulting from a free anti-A (or A) and a free B (or anti-B) preon; 2) a Z signature at 91.2 GeV/c^2 resulting from the production of a free anti-A and a free A preon; and 3) a Z* signature resulting from the production of a free anti-B and a free B preon that has not been seen to date. With a mass of the B and anti-B preons of 34.8 GeV/c^2, this latter prediction should occur at a center of mass energy of 69.6 GeV/c^2. The Z* should involve decay channels similar to that of the Z, but at lower total center of mass energy.

Three-Preon AB Signatures. We have seen in thread 13 that the Higgs signature is the result of the formation of a free B, a free anti-A and a free A. Such a signature is predicted to occur at a center of mass equal to the sum of the masses of the B, anti-A and A, or at about 126 GeV/c^2. Additionally, we should see other three-preon signatures in the future. A three B preon event should occur at 3 x 34.8 GeV/c^2 = 104.4 GeV/c^2. A two B’s and A event should occur at 2 x 34.8 GeV/c^2 + 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 115.2 GeV/c^2. A three A event should occur at 3 x 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 136.8 GeV/c^2. Of course, we can substitute one or more anti-A or anti-B preons for A or B preons, respectively, and the mass value will be the same.

Four-Preon AB Signatures. Four B’s should appear at 4 x 34.8 GeV/c^2 = 139.2 GeV/c^2. An A and three B’s should appear at 3 x 34.8 GeV/c^2 + 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 150 GeV/c^2. Two A’s and two B’s should appear at 2 x 34.8 GeV/c^2 + 2 x 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 160.8 GeV/c^2. Three A’s and a B should appear at 34.8 GeV/c^2 + 3 x 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 171.6 GeV/c^2. And four A’s should appear at 4 x 45.6 GeV/c^2 = 182.4 GeV/c^2. Again, one or more anti-A or anti-B preons may be substituted for A or B preons, respectively, and the mass value will be the same.

Four-Preon ABC Signatures. In thread 12 we see that the top quark signature results from a free C and three free B’s, at a center of mass energy of 67.9 GeV/c^2 + 3(34.8) GeV/c^2 = 172.3 GeV/c^2. (172.3 GeV/c^2 is the sum of the masses of the C and three B preons.) Similarly, we should see other four-preon ABC signatures in the future. A C, an A and two B’s should occur at 67.9 GeV/c^2 + 45.6 GeV/c^2 + 2(34.8 GeV/c^2) = 183.1 GeV/c^2. A C, a B and two A’s should occur at 67.9 GeV/c^2 + 2(45.6 GeV/c^2) + 34.8 GeV/c^2 = 193.9 GeV/c^2. And a C and three A’s should occur at 67.9 GeV/c^2 + 3(45.6) GeV/c^2 = 204.7 GeV/c^2.

Prediction Summary. Two-preon AB signatures are predicted at 69.6(*), 80.4 and 91.2 GeV/c^2. The latter two of these have already been seen and are presently known as the W and Z signatures, respectively. Three-Preon AB signatures are predicted at 104.4(*), 115.2(*), 126 and 136.8(*) GeV/c^2. The result at 126 GeV/c^2 has already been found and is now known as the Higgs signature. Four-Preon AB signatures are predicted at 139.2(*), 150(*), 160.8, 171.6 and 182.4 GeV/c^2. The last three are presently identified as W pairs, W-Z events, and Z pairs, respectively. Four-Preon ABC signatures are predicted at 172.3, 183.1(*), 193.9(*), and 204.7(*) GeV/c^2. The first one has been seen, and is presently known as the top quark signature. In this paragraph I have marked with (*) those predictions that are not expected by the standard model. As can be seen, there are 16 predictions for event energies in this thread, of which 7 are expected by the standard model.

Dressings. In this thread I have focused on the predicted total mass of the events and not the various decay channels. Of course, all of the free preon combinations mentioned here will quickly become "dressed" into photons, leptons, or hadrons in ways similar to what we've seen for the W, Z, top, and Higgs events discussed in previous threads. (Preon/anti-preon and neutrino/neutrino pairs will form out of vacuum and then combine with the free preons.) The simple rule is that the total neutrinic charge of final bound states are zero.

Other Possibilities. In addition to what has been described here, there are other possibilities as well. More than four preons could be formed in a collision. C preons can form with one, two, or more other preons. C pairs could form. And many other possibilities also can happen as energies get ever higher. Here I have listed only those events that I feel are the most likely to be seen next based upon what has recently been seen.

The Evidence So Far. In addition to the predictions of this thread, recall that the ABC Preon Model predicts the two independent ratios for the momentum partitioning within deep inelastic scattering. With those two predictions, and those of the prediction summary above, we have a total of 18 different predictions. Of those 18, nine are already seen or expected. (Z pairs, W pairs, and WZ events are seen or expected. The W, Z, top and Higgs events and the two independent deep inelastic scattering ratios have been seen.) The ABC Preon Model fits 8 of the 9 seen events nearly perfectly, and the ninth - the Higgs Mass - is fit to within three and a half standard deviations of the present measurement. And the ABC Preon Model does this with only three free parameters (the A, B and C masses). Hence there is growing evidence that the ABC Preon Model is a correct model for what makes up our world.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Wow, thanks for reviewing it. In terms of your page 6 criticism, Godes references this paper which describes the observations of the fractional charge (" this paper helps explain why the effective charge observed in H drift
experiments is different from the static charge state."):

www.lenr-canr.org...

The fractional charge seems to come from their observations and is not something made up. But I agree with you basic criticism that it is not in line with the standard model.

Here's pretty good animation of what Godes thinks is happening. Again, it may be all BS:

www.youtube.com...

They seem to have published results with pretty good scientific methods. The work with SRI seems legit. But I have to warn you I am completely biased because I want this to be real. Anyway, thanks for you focus and attention on this. I hope it's not a complete waste of your time.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: delbertlarson

Wow, thanks for reviewing it. In terms of your page 6 criticism, Godes references this paper which describes the observations of the fractional charge (" this paper helps explain why the effective charge observed in H drift
experiments is different from the static charge state."):

www.lenr-canr.org...

The fractional charge seems to come from their observations and is not something made up. But I agree with you basic criticism that it is not in line with the standard model.

Here's pretty good animation of what Godes thinks is happening. Again, it may be all BS:

www.youtube.com...

They seem to have published results with pretty good scientific methods. The work with SRI seems legit. But I have to warn you I am completely biased because I want this to be real. Anyway, thanks for you focus and attention on this. I hope it's not a complete waste of your time.

I read the PDF and watched the video. The PDF looks to be better scientifically than the video, although in neither case do things look very good to me.

The fractional charge hypothesis in the PDF seems to come from some sharing of an electron. Of course such sharing does occur in covalent bonding, so that by itself would be OK. But to assign a portion of an electron to a proton and then say that the combined entity acts as a single participant is not a valid approach in my opinion. On this issue though I hesitate to declare things completely wrong, since in Cooper pairs you do get two entities acting as a single participant. But then again, in Cooper pairs you have whole electrons and not partial ones, and Cooper pairs occur only at very low temperature, so on balance I am still extremely dubious of the fractional charge claim.

In the video, there is a story of how helium is built by forming neutrons from oscillation energy of a lattice. They propose that an electron combines with a proton to form a neutron by taking energy out of the lattice vibrations. Then three neutrons join with a proton to form an isotope of hydrogen which then beta decays into He-4. It seems like a rather wild conjecture, and doesn't really have anything to do with the fractional charge argument raised elsewhere. As one rather obvious issue, how many of the neutrons would simply leaving the Pd? Where is the calculation of deuteron, triton, and quateron forrmation as compared to neutrons just leaving the system? Those should all be calculable, and I suspect such calculations would disprove the hypothesis.

What a good theory will do is make testable predictions, and I don't see any. That is, you should be able to quantify what you expect and then come up with tests to see if the theory holds. Without that, it really isn't science.

I wouldn't ever say that investigating new proposals is a waste of my time - after all, I hope other scientists will look at my proposals! And also, just because something looks odd doesn't mean it is wrong, as that is how true science advances. But if you are proposing something very new, you really should be proposing the tests to prove it.

Where is the spin in your model?

originally posted by: moebius
Where is the spin in your model?

In an early post on setting the quantum numbers (I am afraid this presentation got rather long) it is mentioned that the A and the B can be both fermions or both bosons, but not one of each. That way, including the 1/2 integer spin of the bound neutrino quanta, the lepton spin of 1/2 results. The C must be a fermion if the A and B are fermions, or a boson if the A and B are bosons, and in baryons a neutrino, a C, and an (A or B) is a three body combination that results in bindings that have the 1/2 integer spin of the quarks. Experimental data has not defined things better than that to my knowledge.

originally posted by: delbertlarson

originally posted by: moebius
Where is the spin in your model?

In an early post on setting the quantum numbers (I am afraid this presentation got rather long) it is mentioned that the A and the B can be both fermions or both bosons, but not one of each.

That seems somewhat arbitrary as bosons and fermions behave quite differently (exclusion principle).

Looking at your composite particles again, they should work just fine with preons being fermions. Or am I missing something?

originally posted by: moebius
Looking at your composite particles again, they should work just fine with preons being fermions. Or am I missing something?

You are correct that the preons can be fermions. Deep inelastic scattering results may offer some support for that possibility as well.

Another possibility is that the preons are SUSY bosons, but that is a stretch I think.

Originally I theorized that the preons are bosons. An interesting possibility is C-bar spin -2, B-bar spin -1; A (same as A-bar) spin zero; B spin 1; C spin 2. In that model, preon spin equals electric charge, which provides some unification. Preons could be a single particle in a higher dimension with different spin projections onto our four dimensions of space and time. However this seemed rather contrived to me.

Right now I believe it is an open question on what the spin of each preon is. Experiment and future work may resolve the question. What is indicated presently is that they must all be fermions or all be bosons.

Thanks for taking some time to look at this and ask some probing questions. Any theory can be wrong. It is imperitive to look for flaws. Sometimes flaws can be corrected; sometimes flaws force us to set our theory aside.

The binding energy for the electron in your model is pretty much the whole -80.4GeV due to the small electron rest mass. The muon is 206 times heavier. But that is still a rather small energy difference compared to the 80.4GeV. So the muon decay looks more like a fine structure transition (or some kind of resonance decay).

Although of course not knowing the nature of the neutrinic force it is all mere speculation.

I think for your model to gain any interest it would need a bit more physics. So far there is not much to work with.

originally posted by: moebius
The binding energy for the electron in your model is pretty much the whole -80.4GeV due to the small electron rest mass. The muon is 206 times heavier. But that is still a rather small energy difference compared to the 80.4GeV. So the muon decay looks more like a fine structure transition (or some kind of resonance decay).

Although of course not knowing the nature of the neutrinic force it is all mere speculation.

I agree completely with your statements above.

I think for your model to gain any interest it would need a bit more physics. So far there is not much to work with.

I would quibble a bit, but only a bit, that there is not much to work with. There is enough to work with to make 18 quantitative predictions with just three free parameters. Six of the 18 have been seen, five of those six are extremely close fits and the sixth is within four sigma. So we can work with the model, but I agree with you that this isn't a lot. On the other hand, if all 18 predictions are eventually found to agree with the model, then I would claim that as quite powerful evidence.

I also spent one thread on the fact that it needs more physics, so I agree with you on that too. I've worked on that on and off over the years, and recently came up with this. I improved the presentation and submitted it for publication at the peer reviewed journal Physics Essays where the review process has improved the work further and I expect that it will be accepted for publication soon.