It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ABC Preon Model Epilogue. Trying to get a Review. Censors at Wikipedia.
page: 1share:
A problem with regard to the ABC Preon Model is that I have been unable to gain any traction when I try to present my work in front of scientific
audiences, nor get general publicity for my work. For a couple of months I presented the ABC Preon Model here at AboveTopSecret, and at first I
was very happy to get some good, solid, scientific comments and criticisms. Unfortunately, the criticism died off, and for the last half of the posts
I got next to nothing. Unfortunately, this is a rather common phenomenon for me, and I wish to post this thread concerning the issue to see if anyone
can offer help as I try to get my ideas known to a wider audience.
My struggle has often seemed outright bizarre to me, as I have had an extremely hard time whenever I've tried to present the ABC Preon Model. One of my first attempts was at the SSC. At the SSC, they had allowed me to present my thoughts about the possible lack of a length contraction in an absolute theory, and that talk went over pretty well with the theorists there. (I plan a thread here on that topic in the next week or two.) The month after the absolute theory talk I applied to present my Preon model. But I was told that I would only be allowed one presentation, since there were many others who also wanted to speak. I never did get to present the ABC Preon Model at the SSC.
In the closing days of the SSC I did get the ABC Preon Model published in a peer reviewed journal, Physics Essays. However, Physics Essays does not have a large readership and I am afraid that the paper was almost completely ignored.
Later, while I was the lead accelerator physicist on a Fermilab accelerator project, I tried to present the idea informally to several scientists. At that time, on slide two or three, a colleague started raising loud objections and shouting me down, causing the end of the attempt before it even really began. He was determined not only to reject my ideas before hearing them, but to also make it impossible for anyone else to hear my ideas. I never got past slide three.
Numerous times I have sent the ABC Preon Model to scientists that I come to know, and the response is almost always total silence - I get no response nor acknowledgement at all, even after numerous attempts. I don't know how to take this. Have they read it? Ignored it? Or just found no obvious flaw in something they assume must be wrong, and therefore say nothing?
At one point Fermilab wanted some help with their injector accelerator; the deal was that in exchange for my help I would be able to give a talk to a High Energy Physics conference scheduled at the time - I wanted no money for my work, I just wanted to present my model as payment. They agreed. I delivered on my end of the bargain, designing a system that would greatly improve their injector using a technique we had perfected on that earlier project I was lead accelerator physicist for. But when I got to the conference I was told they couldn't work me in to give a talk after all. Instead, I was given 10 minutes one on one with a volunteer who agreed to hear me. It was during one of the coffee breaks, and we had to find a spot in a hall. He said it was interesting, and could find nothing wrong, and that was the end of me hearing from him. For a long time, this "silent treatment" seemed like the oddest thing to me.
Finally I came to an understanding that I've been dealing with a religious response, not a scientific one. To get into "the clergy" (of high energy physics) you need to have "faith" (in the Standard Model). My alternative to their faith is "apostasy" to their beliefs. It is truly sad. Of course it could be worse - the new clerisy has not (at least not yet) resorted to tactics like those of the Inquisition!
Years later, after I understood how the top and Higgs particles were actually evidence of preons, I thought it might be a good idea to post the ABC Preon Model on Wikipedia. I worked for a couple of months to get my work in a form where it could be posted there. Since it was my first time on Wikipedia, and since I know from experience how my work typically gets treated, I went through proper channels and requested approval by a Wikipedia editor prior to posting it. To my surprise, the editor assigned to me approved publication of the ABC Preon Model, and it was put online there on March 8, 2014. The editor even told me that the work was so good that in the future I should go ahead and post anything else I might have without bothering with a review.
And then the fun began! I predicted to my son, with near absolute certainty, that it was only a matter of time before someone one would come to censor it. (You can add this prediction as another successful prediction associated with my model.) I was expecting that it would only last online for a couple of weeks, maybe only days. And indeed, the censors appeared quickly and began to do their best to ensure that the world would be safe from my ideas.
Getting a posting on Wikipedia was the most publicity I'd ever gotten for any of my important works. (I have five. I hope to post the others here as well.) Within days after it appeared on Wikipedia, a question appeared on Quora, which is a question and answer site. The question was "How serious a contender is the 'ABC Preon Model'?" Very quickly a researcher in high energy physics responded that "This article is completely and utterly wrong and could not have been a viable theory in at least 50 years (mid 1960s at the very latest) and many elements would never have been viable. The article should be deleted. The problem with the article is that it appears to an untrained eye to be a serious theory. Even graduate students in physics might have trouble identifying the numerous counterfactual elements of the theory." I quote the comment here because it is typical of what passes for a "scientific review" for my important works. Instead of any careful thought, my work is just impugned and ridiculed, and the "reviewer" simply issues a summary call for rejection. One or a few assertions are made, with no actual details or content (since actual content might be refuted). The reviewer simply assumes the role of a judge, sets himself up as "the expert" and then simply regurgitates the status quo. In this way, the reviewer exposes himself to no risk of being wrong. That's kind of how it goes now. And the fun was just getting started!
My struggle has often seemed outright bizarre to me, as I have had an extremely hard time whenever I've tried to present the ABC Preon Model. One of my first attempts was at the SSC. At the SSC, they had allowed me to present my thoughts about the possible lack of a length contraction in an absolute theory, and that talk went over pretty well with the theorists there. (I plan a thread here on that topic in the next week or two.) The month after the absolute theory talk I applied to present my Preon model. But I was told that I would only be allowed one presentation, since there were many others who also wanted to speak. I never did get to present the ABC Preon Model at the SSC.
In the closing days of the SSC I did get the ABC Preon Model published in a peer reviewed journal, Physics Essays. However, Physics Essays does not have a large readership and I am afraid that the paper was almost completely ignored.
Later, while I was the lead accelerator physicist on a Fermilab accelerator project, I tried to present the idea informally to several scientists. At that time, on slide two or three, a colleague started raising loud objections and shouting me down, causing the end of the attempt before it even really began. He was determined not only to reject my ideas before hearing them, but to also make it impossible for anyone else to hear my ideas. I never got past slide three.
Numerous times I have sent the ABC Preon Model to scientists that I come to know, and the response is almost always total silence - I get no response nor acknowledgement at all, even after numerous attempts. I don't know how to take this. Have they read it? Ignored it? Or just found no obvious flaw in something they assume must be wrong, and therefore say nothing?
At one point Fermilab wanted some help with their injector accelerator; the deal was that in exchange for my help I would be able to give a talk to a High Energy Physics conference scheduled at the time - I wanted no money for my work, I just wanted to present my model as payment. They agreed. I delivered on my end of the bargain, designing a system that would greatly improve their injector using a technique we had perfected on that earlier project I was lead accelerator physicist for. But when I got to the conference I was told they couldn't work me in to give a talk after all. Instead, I was given 10 minutes one on one with a volunteer who agreed to hear me. It was during one of the coffee breaks, and we had to find a spot in a hall. He said it was interesting, and could find nothing wrong, and that was the end of me hearing from him. For a long time, this "silent treatment" seemed like the oddest thing to me.
Finally I came to an understanding that I've been dealing with a religious response, not a scientific one. To get into "the clergy" (of high energy physics) you need to have "faith" (in the Standard Model). My alternative to their faith is "apostasy" to their beliefs. It is truly sad. Of course it could be worse - the new clerisy has not (at least not yet) resorted to tactics like those of the Inquisition!
Years later, after I understood how the top and Higgs particles were actually evidence of preons, I thought it might be a good idea to post the ABC Preon Model on Wikipedia. I worked for a couple of months to get my work in a form where it could be posted there. Since it was my first time on Wikipedia, and since I know from experience how my work typically gets treated, I went through proper channels and requested approval by a Wikipedia editor prior to posting it. To my surprise, the editor assigned to me approved publication of the ABC Preon Model, and it was put online there on March 8, 2014. The editor even told me that the work was so good that in the future I should go ahead and post anything else I might have without bothering with a review.
And then the fun began! I predicted to my son, with near absolute certainty, that it was only a matter of time before someone one would come to censor it. (You can add this prediction as another successful prediction associated with my model.) I was expecting that it would only last online for a couple of weeks, maybe only days. And indeed, the censors appeared quickly and began to do their best to ensure that the world would be safe from my ideas.
Getting a posting on Wikipedia was the most publicity I'd ever gotten for any of my important works. (I have five. I hope to post the others here as well.) Within days after it appeared on Wikipedia, a question appeared on Quora, which is a question and answer site. The question was "How serious a contender is the 'ABC Preon Model'?" Very quickly a researcher in high energy physics responded that "This article is completely and utterly wrong and could not have been a viable theory in at least 50 years (mid 1960s at the very latest) and many elements would never have been viable. The article should be deleted. The problem with the article is that it appears to an untrained eye to be a serious theory. Even graduate students in physics might have trouble identifying the numerous counterfactual elements of the theory." I quote the comment here because it is typical of what passes for a "scientific review" for my important works. Instead of any careful thought, my work is just impugned and ridiculed, and the "reviewer" simply issues a summary call for rejection. One or a few assertions are made, with no actual details or content (since actual content might be refuted). The reviewer simply assumes the role of a judge, sets himself up as "the expert" and then simply regurgitates the status quo. In this way, the reviewer exposes himself to no risk of being wrong. That's kind of how it goes now. And the fun was just getting started!
After the negative comments were posted on Quora, someone posted that the comments didn't actually point out any real flaw. To which, the researcher
replied: "As an example that even a high school student shouldn't make: they have a force being mediated by a single neutrino exchange. That problem
is that if you have particle emit a neutrino, it changes from a fermion to a boson or vice versa since the neutrino is a fermion. The page is littered
with fundamental errors of that sort. On top of it, there is no theory known as the ABC preon model." This again employed typical "review" tactics: 1)
gross exaggeration written from a presumed position of "authority". High school students knowing about the rules for neutrino exchange? What world do
these guys live in? Even if it is meant as some sort of snarky joke it is nuts. 2) Point out one problem and then say it is just one of many. But the
problem indicated isn't even a real problem, as this review confuses Feynman's calculational diagrams with actual physical processes. 3) Close with an
assertion that is obviously false - that the ABC Preon Model does not exist. I refer to the published work, and the model is what is being discussed!
Clearly, the ABC Preon Model exists. My Quora experience is emblematic of how scientific review is done these days. It's really just a matter of
shouting down any idea that isn't presently held and then strutting around demonstrating a superior knowledge of science. It really is like
playing chess with a pigeon.
While the Quora commentary was a nuisance, more significant flak was being taken on Wikipedia itself. The talk page associated with the article began to get some posts suggesting that the article should be deleted. Eventually, one of the posters went forward with a deletion request. I did my best to maintain the page, but in the end I was outnumbered. There were seven votes to delete the page and two to keep it. Toward the end of the debate the editor who originally reviewed the page became a turncoat and recommended for deletion. I suspected (and still do) that the person who pushed for deletion contacted the original editor to lobby him to support the deletion. I wrote to the original editor and said it was probably relevant to the decision if this was the case, but the original editor declined further comment. The deletion process ended with a decision to delete the article.
The Wikipedia battle was enlightening on a couple of fronts. First, they have a policy that things are deleted not on the basis of being right or wrong, but rather on notability. I found it very odd that an article based on a reviewed paper in the scientific press would not be publishable unless it had secondary sources referring to it. It would seem to me that the review process should be a better vetting than if someone wrote some newspaper articles about it. A second eye opener was how few people it takes to enforce censorship there. The final vote was seven to two. And really it was probably more likely two to two, since I believe the two censors probably rounded up a few supporters to get the page removed. There were only two that were really hammering away at it, and one editor who I did not know came to my defense. I also learned that the way these things work is that you can go out and recruit other editors during such decisions. I don't think it is an approved tactic, but I understand it happens all the time. It's really an ugly world where a couple self-appointed experts can act as censors to keep different thoughts out of the public eye.
During the time the decision was being made to delete my Wikipedia article I copied all of the article, as well as the talk page comments, and also the deletion discussion itself. Wikipedia allows users to have their own personal pages, and I have posted it all on my user page. To date, no one has asked me to remove that, so if anyone wishes they can view it at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User;Delbert7". (I tried uploading the link but it didn't work - change the semicolon to a colon in the link.) If you look into the deletion discussion you can see the rather big deal that the lead attacker placed on his presumption that the ABC Preon Model did NOT appear in a reviewed journal. This despite the fact that the article clearly refers to a reviewed journal article as THE BASIS for the Wikipedia article. It is my guess that reviewed journal articles may be "notable" enough that they are deemed sufficient for publication, but I did not find such a criterion during the deletion debate. It also shows how little effort the censors put forth to evaluate the works they are censoring.
After the Wikipedia article was deleted in early summer of 2014, I found another webpage that appeared online that supported the ABC Preon Model. And it was that post that led me here to AboveTopSecret. (Thanks, Swanne!) I was heartened to read many of the comments on that forum post, as some were quite supportive of my effort. Unfortunately, more than one of the posters would have liked to have voted in the deletion battle but did not know how to.
It is possible that I could have appealed the deletion at Wikipedia, but I chose not to. It has generally been my experience that I lose such appeals, and my goal remains one of winning the war. Each battle takes time and effort, and I believe it best to put my efforts into things that might advance the cause rather than continuing to hammer away at things that don't pay off. It is my guess that even if I would have gained three or four votes from the posters on Swanne's thread that what would have happened was that the attackers would have found enough other supporters to continue to shout me down. So my plan became one to get everything written up and posted in several other locations. Such articles should then be considered as "secondary sources", and if there are enough of them I can revisit posting on Wikipedia. I've now posted on Facebook, IBOToolBox, and here, and that has helped with becoming notable. A Google search on "ABC Preon Model" now returns about 20,000 results, whereas in 2014 it was only a few hundred. Perhaps now it is "notable" enough?
But setting aside all of the above foolishness, the important question remains: is the ABC Preon Model a viable scientific model? I have laid out the case in a thread here. Can anyone comment? Can anyone find a definitive flaw? It is also perfectly permissible and welcome to state that you can't find a flaw even though you don't endorse my scientific views.
I'd like to get something more than silence from the scientists here.
While the Quora commentary was a nuisance, more significant flak was being taken on Wikipedia itself. The talk page associated with the article began to get some posts suggesting that the article should be deleted. Eventually, one of the posters went forward with a deletion request. I did my best to maintain the page, but in the end I was outnumbered. There were seven votes to delete the page and two to keep it. Toward the end of the debate the editor who originally reviewed the page became a turncoat and recommended for deletion. I suspected (and still do) that the person who pushed for deletion contacted the original editor to lobby him to support the deletion. I wrote to the original editor and said it was probably relevant to the decision if this was the case, but the original editor declined further comment. The deletion process ended with a decision to delete the article.
The Wikipedia battle was enlightening on a couple of fronts. First, they have a policy that things are deleted not on the basis of being right or wrong, but rather on notability. I found it very odd that an article based on a reviewed paper in the scientific press would not be publishable unless it had secondary sources referring to it. It would seem to me that the review process should be a better vetting than if someone wrote some newspaper articles about it. A second eye opener was how few people it takes to enforce censorship there. The final vote was seven to two. And really it was probably more likely two to two, since I believe the two censors probably rounded up a few supporters to get the page removed. There were only two that were really hammering away at it, and one editor who I did not know came to my defense. I also learned that the way these things work is that you can go out and recruit other editors during such decisions. I don't think it is an approved tactic, but I understand it happens all the time. It's really an ugly world where a couple self-appointed experts can act as censors to keep different thoughts out of the public eye.
During the time the decision was being made to delete my Wikipedia article I copied all of the article, as well as the talk page comments, and also the deletion discussion itself. Wikipedia allows users to have their own personal pages, and I have posted it all on my user page. To date, no one has asked me to remove that, so if anyone wishes they can view it at "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User;Delbert7". (I tried uploading the link but it didn't work - change the semicolon to a colon in the link.) If you look into the deletion discussion you can see the rather big deal that the lead attacker placed on his presumption that the ABC Preon Model did NOT appear in a reviewed journal. This despite the fact that the article clearly refers to a reviewed journal article as THE BASIS for the Wikipedia article. It is my guess that reviewed journal articles may be "notable" enough that they are deemed sufficient for publication, but I did not find such a criterion during the deletion debate. It also shows how little effort the censors put forth to evaluate the works they are censoring.
After the Wikipedia article was deleted in early summer of 2014, I found another webpage that appeared online that supported the ABC Preon Model. And it was that post that led me here to AboveTopSecret. (Thanks, Swanne!) I was heartened to read many of the comments on that forum post, as some were quite supportive of my effort. Unfortunately, more than one of the posters would have liked to have voted in the deletion battle but did not know how to.
It is possible that I could have appealed the deletion at Wikipedia, but I chose not to. It has generally been my experience that I lose such appeals, and my goal remains one of winning the war. Each battle takes time and effort, and I believe it best to put my efforts into things that might advance the cause rather than continuing to hammer away at things that don't pay off. It is my guess that even if I would have gained three or four votes from the posters on Swanne's thread that what would have happened was that the attackers would have found enough other supporters to continue to shout me down. So my plan became one to get everything written up and posted in several other locations. Such articles should then be considered as "secondary sources", and if there are enough of them I can revisit posting on Wikipedia. I've now posted on Facebook, IBOToolBox, and here, and that has helped with becoming notable. A Google search on "ABC Preon Model" now returns about 20,000 results, whereas in 2014 it was only a few hundred. Perhaps now it is "notable" enough?
But setting aside all of the above foolishness, the important question remains: is the ABC Preon Model a viable scientific model? I have laid out the case in a thread here. Can anyone comment? Can anyone find a definitive flaw? It is also perfectly permissible and welcome to state that you can't find a flaw even though you don't endorse my scientific views.
I'd like to get something more than silence from the scientists here.
You post nearly every day, about exactly the same thing. In fact, it's the only thing you post about, all 198+/- posts...every last
one!
Agenda much?
Agenda much?
a reply to: delbertlarson
Personal observation? I think youre out of the business, educational, research loop of protocol. You made a few walls of text here alone....and whereas most developments in almost anything requires such details...what it seems to me?
Its implying youre trying to overly convince tptb in this regard that your opinion, argument and developments are valid, and the correct ones...which IT MAY BE...but by your "rejection-or censorship" of this is as the wall of text youve posted here.
I think youre bucking the system. Too much, all at once and from a singular source...tends to turn away folks and companies...who are within the "status quo". Seems so to me. So if youre not being heard or you feel WIKI-anything is censoring you? Just consider your walls of info today with ATS here.
This wall could be taken as a metaphor for being too high, not in the best interests of those who are in control...and whose backs they scratch. Mess with it, or yell loud enough to be heard(or published-recognized etc)......and they turn the other cheek away from you.
I began reading your thread and right away...I sensed this is someone screaming to be heard in a "be quiet and listen I got this opinion and its the correct one" sense. I have no answer for what and who is working against you...but I feel that may be the case.
Consider that. And its prob. just me and my opinion...which if its anywhere close to the truth...you too...wont recognize it or "censor" me as though I just don't grasp your looong points, and who's in control of things.
But I do...and think you need to play the game as its played out there...again...respectfully....this is just my own immediate opinion...and could be way off base.
Best
MS
Personal observation? I think youre out of the business, educational, research loop of protocol. You made a few walls of text here alone....and whereas most developments in almost anything requires such details...what it seems to me?
Its implying youre trying to overly convince tptb in this regard that your opinion, argument and developments are valid, and the correct ones...which IT MAY BE...but by your "rejection-or censorship" of this is as the wall of text youve posted here.
I think youre bucking the system. Too much, all at once and from a singular source...tends to turn away folks and companies...who are within the "status quo". Seems so to me. So if youre not being heard or you feel WIKI-anything is censoring you? Just consider your walls of info today with ATS here.
This wall could be taken as a metaphor for being too high, not in the best interests of those who are in control...and whose backs they scratch. Mess with it, or yell loud enough to be heard(or published-recognized etc)......and they turn the other cheek away from you.
I began reading your thread and right away...I sensed this is someone screaming to be heard in a "be quiet and listen I got this opinion and its the correct one" sense. I have no answer for what and who is working against you...but I feel that may be the case.
Consider that. And its prob. just me and my opinion...which if its anywhere close to the truth...you too...wont recognize it or "censor" me as though I just don't grasp your looong points, and who's in control of things.
But I do...and think you need to play the game as its played out there...again...respectfully....this is just my own immediate opinion...and could be way off base.
Best
MS
You explained part of the problem yourself, and I agreed with you. Remember these comments from the earliest thread in this series?
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I'd like to get something more than silence from the scientists here.
The ABC Preon Model, Background
delbertlarson:
And whenever new experiments indicate that something might not quite fit, the standard model has exhibited the room for growth needed to accommodate any new experimental results. Mixing angles and renormalization, as well as additional quarks and leptons have been added to the model over time. The analysis techniques are extremely complex, and it takes a decade or more to master them. A full Ph.D. in physics, as well as post doctoral training, are usually needed to fully grasp the intricacies of the model, and even then, practitioners may only be truly expert in a small portion of the overall model.
arbitrageur:
This explains very well why most of us lacking such specific expertise in particle physics likely lack the qualifications to evaluate alternatives to the standard model.
ErosA433:
These two statements are very correct, A PhD in physics specific to the standard model typically will give you a good understanding but mostly in a specific sector. The other important aspect is that physicists are not all ego-maniacs that believe their word is gospel, most, when faced with questions about something they are not expert on, will (or should) be clear where their expertise is, but present their understanding all the same...
Most of us don't have a physics PhD in the standard model with the post-doctoral training you mention to fully understand that. As I like to tell other people, before you can think outside the box, it helps to know where the box is and what's inside the box, and as you pointed out understanding "the box" for the standard model takes an extremely long time at a very high level of education.
Some years back there was a physicist who posted here on ATS who seemed to know the standard model fairly well. He would make frequent visits to CERN and was part of a team running experiments at the LHC, so if he was still posting here he might have a decent understanding of what's in the "standard model box" to give you an honest appraisal of your out-of-the-box ideas, but I'm afraid I'm nowhere near qualified to even explain what's in the standard model box beyond the rudimentary level.
Reading your epilogue might leave one with the impression you think some scientists are "married to" the standard model, but I don't think that's the case, I think they are just having a hard time finding something that works better than the standard model in solving problems that the standard model doesn't solve. For example, just look at the title of this article:
CERN Declares War On The Standard Model
That doesn't give me the impression that the standard model is engraved in stone, but coming from the experimentalists at CERN I realize that they are looking for evidence to reject the standard model, so they can try to find something better to explain experimental results. If your model does that, that could be your potential "selling point", but you haven't mentioned as much on this page.
Here's a theoretical physicist who understands very well the problem with trying to get alternatives to the standard model accepted...he says most of them are probably wrong, including his own model, and what proves them right (or not) is experimental results, so he has spelled out what experimental results CERN experimenters should be looking for if his model is right, but I think it's an honest assessment of the difficulty in dealing with alternatives to the standard model.
A theory of everything | Garrett Lisi
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
You post nearly every day, about exactly the same thing. In fact, it's the only thing you post about, all 198+/- posts...every last one!
Agenda much?
Thank you. Despite the somewhat negative tone, it is fantastic that you shared this. I am not being sarcastic, I truly do want to know what people here think and you have shared your thoughts. Actually I've also posted about relativity matters, quantum mechanics and ECOFusion here too. But it is all novel physics, and I do indeed have an agenda. I haven't participated in a forum like this before, so I may have done something outside the usual bounds. But I wouldn't know unless someone let me know, so thanks again for commenting. It was the silence that I can not interpret.
a reply to: mysterioustranger
I have read your comment three times, but I don't fully grasp what you are trying to say. What I have really been hoping for is a conversation. I do think I have important answers, true, but I would be very interested in any scientific objections as well. I don't think people are "opposing" me, nor do I think there is a conspiracy. I've just been at a loss as to why my ideas have never gained serious traction. Your comment helps me understand things a bit better. Thanks. (Star for you as well as Flyingclaydisk).
I have read your comment three times, but I don't fully grasp what you are trying to say. What I have really been hoping for is a conversation. I do think I have important answers, true, but I would be very interested in any scientific objections as well. I don't think people are "opposing" me, nor do I think there is a conspiracy. I've just been at a loss as to why my ideas have never gained serious traction. Your comment helps me understand things a bit better. Thanks. (Star for you as well as Flyingclaydisk).
a reply to: delbertlarson
I wish you well sir... and... though not as qualified nor knowledgeable on your topic as you...my observations were just that: observations on your topic and how you we're presenting it here. Perhaps re-stated, I can better explain.
Reviewing your opening and additional thoughts... one finds the usage of "I" in abundance, so following are a few noted.
You noted or stated: I "did" "suspected" "found" "believe" "don't think" "YOU-guess" "thought" "expected" among many others to explain yourself. One can appear to be singularly one-sided with that, hence my point. As far as Wikipedia.. that's a user generated site where anything true, false, misleading or otherwise can be posted... Like a YouTube video. Some ascert if they watched it or read it.. then it must be true. We both know otherwise...
Surely you mean well.. but no-one appears to be listening as it's your point with this subject. Sometimes less is more. No easy answer... I will say if I posted on my Google Blogger your topic here with the complete title.. a search will put you first.. at least 2nd in results. That would at least place the subject in some assemblence of importance.
There are people and companies maintaining things as they are. One rocks that boat with many "I-I-I's" and it can APPEAR (and not implying it is the case here) that you have an unbending agenda.. as in "Listen to me.. Here is the answer(s) "...and for whatever reason... one gets tuned out.
Finally.. and we could go on here forever.. many terms come to mind. "Single-minded" "team-player", unwillingness to accept the current position or become part of it... and that is just my interpretation of your first posts. Your frustration is evident.. and that was apparent without even reading all of it.
Perhaps a more subdued and less explanatory approach is what is called for? I hope you're able to proceed further and more positively with this and achieve your intent. Good luck.. We'll be following here..
Best. MS
I wish you well sir... and... though not as qualified nor knowledgeable on your topic as you...my observations were just that: observations on your topic and how you we're presenting it here. Perhaps re-stated, I can better explain.
Reviewing your opening and additional thoughts... one finds the usage of "I" in abundance, so following are a few noted.
You noted or stated: I "did" "suspected" "found" "believe" "don't think" "YOU-guess" "thought" "expected" among many others to explain yourself. One can appear to be singularly one-sided with that, hence my point. As far as Wikipedia.. that's a user generated site where anything true, false, misleading or otherwise can be posted... Like a YouTube video. Some ascert if they watched it or read it.. then it must be true. We both know otherwise...
Surely you mean well.. but no-one appears to be listening as it's your point with this subject. Sometimes less is more. No easy answer... I will say if I posted on my Google Blogger your topic here with the complete title.. a search will put you first.. at least 2nd in results. That would at least place the subject in some assemblence of importance.
There are people and companies maintaining things as they are. One rocks that boat with many "I-I-I's" and it can APPEAR (and not implying it is the case here) that you have an unbending agenda.. as in "Listen to me.. Here is the answer(s) "...and for whatever reason... one gets tuned out.
Finally.. and we could go on here forever.. many terms come to mind. "Single-minded" "team-player", unwillingness to accept the current position or become part of it... and that is just my interpretation of your first posts. Your frustration is evident.. and that was apparent without even reading all of it.
Perhaps a more subdued and less explanatory approach is what is called for? I hope you're able to proceed further and more positively with this and achieve your intent. Good luck.. We'll be following here..
Best. MS
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Thank you for your response. I took time to watch the video and read the article you linked to.
Oh, I see. You had earlier raised the issue regarding deep inelastic scattering, and you have been so knowledgeable in so many areas that I thought you might have a pretty good idea about the standard model too. So I was hoping to get some good feedback from you and others I respect here as I went along. But now I understand better.
For me, the key word above is "some". Yes, I do think some scientists (not all by any means) are married to the standard model. For instance those who pushed the deletion at Wikipedia and that Quora reviewer. Even the video and site you link to concerning "war on the sm" are both pretty clear that they are looking for things "beyond" (in addition to) the standard model, and not a "replacement" to the standard model. I readily admit that the standard model gets a lot right, it is just that I really think we've fallen pretty deep into epicycles right now. (The video you post would be exhibit A of epicycle growth.)
The "selling point" is not on this thread; it is on two of the earlier threads. On thread 17, among several other things it is stated that the ABC Preon Model 1) Reduces the 36 quarks and 12 leptons to 6 ABC preons; 2) reduces the number of forces in nature from 4 to 3; 3) with the weak force identified as a quantum tunneling event, all forces once again have direction; and 4) the generation problem is solved. And perhaps even more of a selling point is thread 15 where it is shown that by setting three free parameters (the preon masses) firm predictions can be made for 18 expected quantitative experimental results, with nine of those either already seen or expected by the Standard Model, and nine more that are not expected. Quantitative evidence is beginning to accumulate, and there are more quantitative predictions of things yet to find.
I was expecting more comments on the above selling points, but I think I understand now. By taking 18 threads, none very short, to present the ABC Preon Model, the readership likely dropped off greatly after the first few. Unfortunately, a replacement to the standard model can't be done in a tweet. I also tried to make things as clear as possible, and the cost of that is length, unfortunately. Lastly, it is a pretty specialized field, so that likely contributed greatly to the lack of interest.
Thanks so much for your response. As said in the OP, when I get silence I never know how to take it. I am still not clear on what I can do to improve the situation, but the more I learn the better chance I have at improvement. Thanks again.
Thank you for your response. I took time to watch the video and read the article you linked to.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I'm afraid I'm nowhere near qualified to even explain what's in the standard model box beyond the rudimentary level.
Oh, I see. You had earlier raised the issue regarding deep inelastic scattering, and you have been so knowledgeable in so many areas that I thought you might have a pretty good idea about the standard model too. So I was hoping to get some good feedback from you and others I respect here as I went along. But now I understand better.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Reading your epilogue might leave one with the impression you think some scientists are "married to" the standard model
For me, the key word above is "some". Yes, I do think some scientists (not all by any means) are married to the standard model. For instance those who pushed the deletion at Wikipedia and that Quora reviewer. Even the video and site you link to concerning "war on the sm" are both pretty clear that they are looking for things "beyond" (in addition to) the standard model, and not a "replacement" to the standard model. I readily admit that the standard model gets a lot right, it is just that I really think we've fallen pretty deep into epicycles right now. (The video you post would be exhibit A of epicycle growth.)
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
coming from the experimentalists at CERN I realize that they are looking for evidence to reject the standard model, so they can try to find something better to explain experimental results. If your model does that, that could be your potential "selling point", but you haven't mentioned as much on this page.
The "selling point" is not on this thread; it is on two of the earlier threads. On thread 17, among several other things it is stated that the ABC Preon Model 1) Reduces the 36 quarks and 12 leptons to 6 ABC preons; 2) reduces the number of forces in nature from 4 to 3; 3) with the weak force identified as a quantum tunneling event, all forces once again have direction; and 4) the generation problem is solved. And perhaps even more of a selling point is thread 15 where it is shown that by setting three free parameters (the preon masses) firm predictions can be made for 18 expected quantitative experimental results, with nine of those either already seen or expected by the Standard Model, and nine more that are not expected. Quantitative evidence is beginning to accumulate, and there are more quantitative predictions of things yet to find.
I was expecting more comments on the above selling points, but I think I understand now. By taking 18 threads, none very short, to present the ABC Preon Model, the readership likely dropped off greatly after the first few. Unfortunately, a replacement to the standard model can't be done in a tweet. I also tried to make things as clear as possible, and the cost of that is length, unfortunately. Lastly, it is a pretty specialized field, so that likely contributed greatly to the lack of interest.
Thanks so much for your response. As said in the OP, when I get silence I never know how to take it. I am still not clear on what I can do to improve the situation, but the more I learn the better chance I have at improvement. Thanks again.
a reply to: delbertlarson
Youre welcome sir.. .and you mentioned silence? Sometimes silence implies ones' thinking!
Good luck.. .keep pushing. ...and we will be following your efforts!
Youre welcome sir.. .and you mentioned silence? Sometimes silence implies ones' thinking!
Good luck.. .keep pushing. ...and we will be following your efforts!
a reply to: delbertlarson
have you ever considered your model is bogus and no self respecting physicist would touch it with a ten foot pole.
seeing how you say your not getting the responses you were looking for, might be time for a reality check. just saying.
have you ever considered your model is bogus and no self respecting physicist would touch it with a ten foot pole.
seeing how you say your not getting the responses you were looking for, might be time for a reality check. just saying.
My silence on feedback is more about lack of personal time, as for the last month I have been preparing for meetings, giving public seminars, more
preparing for meetings and then being cooped up in the lab for a lot of the time.
For me I still think that forces mediated by the neutrino is a heavy flaw, for it to be as described (and please do correct me if i am wrong) and not discussed adequately further as to why it wouldn't present problems. You acknowledged that your understanding of the interaction cross section of neutrinos was perhaps a little wrong by a few orders of magnitude but what you described appears not self consistent.
Simple question asked is - if Preons bind and interact so strongly with neutrinos, then the neutrino cross section should be extremely high, perhaps higher even than the electromagnetic force. If quarks are composite objects, they are not considered point like and so any neutrino that passes in proximity to a nucleus, should interact very strongly. Unless there is a mechanism that prevents it.
The model is problematic because in the case of beta decay, you would never expect the neutrino to get out, it would basically be produced within a quark, in the nucleus and rattle around within a very confined space, depositing all its energy and eventually just stop. This is not what we see in physics, we see neutrinos, we can produce beams of them. Thus the binding of preons, (if quarks are composite) likely cannot be a standard model style neutrino.
Also
This is the standard model.
www.symmetrymagazine.org...
It looks horribly complicated, but it currently does extremely well in some places to about 8-9 orders of magnitude. It isn't perfect by a long shot. BUT
1) It is predictive
2) It can be tested
3) Adding random particles to it has massive consequences because of points 1 and 2.
Adding composite particles to quarks means that all of the statements on that model have to be replaced with a corresponding set of interactions that do the same thing. My only criticism is that from what iv seen of the model for the time I could spend reading and thinking about it, was that, pictures is one thing, making it work with the standard model as we understand it now is a whole new kettle of fish which you do not seem to want to try and show.
Best example or question I can ask is...
The observation of double beta decay requires twin production of two neutrinos at the same time within one nucleus. If the neutrino is so strongly interacting that it binds preons together to form quarks, it must thus be stronger than guons that mediate the strong force. Thus, single beta decay logically should not exist as we observe in nature, and furthermore, double beta decay should neither.
Again, please correct me if you changed the model to reflect this or have provided a strong argument to suggest that it is ok and why, but for me, as an experimentalist... this is a very large logical issue with the preon model as you suggest.
For me I still think that forces mediated by the neutrino is a heavy flaw, for it to be as described (and please do correct me if i am wrong) and not discussed adequately further as to why it wouldn't present problems. You acknowledged that your understanding of the interaction cross section of neutrinos was perhaps a little wrong by a few orders of magnitude but what you described appears not self consistent.
Simple question asked is - if Preons bind and interact so strongly with neutrinos, then the neutrino cross section should be extremely high, perhaps higher even than the electromagnetic force. If quarks are composite objects, they are not considered point like and so any neutrino that passes in proximity to a nucleus, should interact very strongly. Unless there is a mechanism that prevents it.
The model is problematic because in the case of beta decay, you would never expect the neutrino to get out, it would basically be produced within a quark, in the nucleus and rattle around within a very confined space, depositing all its energy and eventually just stop. This is not what we see in physics, we see neutrinos, we can produce beams of them. Thus the binding of preons, (if quarks are composite) likely cannot be a standard model style neutrino.
Also
This is the standard model.
www.symmetrymagazine.org...
It looks horribly complicated, but it currently does extremely well in some places to about 8-9 orders of magnitude. It isn't perfect by a long shot. BUT
1) It is predictive
2) It can be tested
3) Adding random particles to it has massive consequences because of points 1 and 2.
Adding composite particles to quarks means that all of the statements on that model have to be replaced with a corresponding set of interactions that do the same thing. My only criticism is that from what iv seen of the model for the time I could spend reading and thinking about it, was that, pictures is one thing, making it work with the standard model as we understand it now is a whole new kettle of fish which you do not seem to want to try and show.
Best example or question I can ask is...
The observation of double beta decay requires twin production of two neutrinos at the same time within one nucleus. If the neutrino is so strongly interacting that it binds preons together to form quarks, it must thus be stronger than guons that mediate the strong force. Thus, single beta decay logically should not exist as we observe in nature, and furthermore, double beta decay should neither.
Again, please correct me if you changed the model to reflect this or have provided a strong argument to suggest that it is ok and why, but for me, as an experimentalist... this is a very large logical issue with the preon model as you suggest.
a reply to: delbertlarson
You are too embedded or sold on the idea of there being powers that control in the world of experimental particle physics. It is not as you appear to think. Theorists come out with random models all the time, they get rebutted and changed and rebutted and changed.
What appears to be the case with your model and your attitude is that you believe it should be accepted without any kind of criticism or what criticism you have sometimes faced, you yourself cannot disprove or provide mechanism within the model to CLEARLY state that the questions can be answered.
This to me seems like the issue. You have sold yourself that the preon model should replace the standard model, and you are just telling people that it is right without question. I have not read all of your threads, I admit that openly, though I have read and thought about a few of them, and commented my concerns. Each time, the argument provided to answer my concerns did not leave me with the feeling of 'OK maybe' They all left me with the feeling of 'there are holes.... big holes in the logic of some of this'
It sort of struck me a little bit like the electronic universe people where they will say "There is x problem with the standard model, and the EU theory fixes it" and yet they never actually tell you why, they just say 'its solved'. While I must congratulate greatly in producing a model that is more coherent than all of what iv read from the EU people. I honestly see that there are issues with it that don't simply vanish after a short explanation and a little thought.
The standard model is horribly complex, we understand that... but the can be broken down very easily and its fundamentals can be explained within a few simplified frameworks. Mixing is one such example that can be very easily explained in a two/three quark model and expanded to consider all quarks. Those short hand models also allow you to explain things like signal suppression, forbidden interactions and to a zero order why we see what we see.
I have not seen this in what has been presented with your model. That is not censorship, it is just my honest criticism. My advice would be to write the model and explain it in pieces with examples as you have given, in the form of a thesis or long review article. See if you can use your previous links to academia to get it onto ArXiv or other platform where you can get feedback.
Language is important, you should not present as though you are lecturing a child and that they are wrong or stupid, you must present the arguments from a neutral stand point, and be totally prepared to receive feedback. This feedback might be negative or vicious but this is part of the process... the model needs to stand up to scrutiny and if someone does pose a question that you don't think is relevant or is maybe a misunderstanding of what you have written, then you need to be prepared to either, do the work and figure out why they think its a problem and consider that they could indeed be right. Though if you believe them to be wrong, you need to adequately discuss it.
I think internet forums such as Quora (id personally never heard of Quora before i read this thread) and Wikipedia are a little bit shake grounds in order to get a theory any traction, they are not strictly academic platforms and are open to opinion and bias. Feedback on Quora i would not at all consider as being... peer reviewed.
If you have submitted papers and received good feedback in a peer reviewed environment, you should already understand that Wiki and Quora are not the place to present this. If you cannot get your paper peer reviewed you must ask for feedback why, as for second opinions and then act on that feedback. Rather than taking it as a personal affront and censorship.
Iv pointed out as i said before, something that i see as a VERY VERY VERY big flaw in the model... your replies to me incorrectly stated how cross sections worked and incorrectly stated the cross section of scattering of neutrinos by several orders of magnitude. It made me concerned that you did not really understand the nature of neutrinos as understood by physics today and for me that made what looked like an interesting model, fall quite flat. YET you proceeded on without addressing it... made me think that answers were perhaps coming, and yet, I don't feel that they did from what I read.
If a reviewer offers you some feedback, to simply brush it aside tells the reviewer that you do not consider the question of importance or that - shock horror - that you are a mirror of your accusations of the field... married to a model because it is your baby, and you cannot see it to be even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.
Personally... i shrug... im neither one way or the other. I think it has big problems and thus far, compositeness of quarks and leptons does not appear to be presenting itself... but... im not sold on there being no compositeness either. All i would like is to see how compositeness would fix the issues we see... and this model as much as i did read, didn't solve that
You are too embedded or sold on the idea of there being powers that control in the world of experimental particle physics. It is not as you appear to think. Theorists come out with random models all the time, they get rebutted and changed and rebutted and changed.
What appears to be the case with your model and your attitude is that you believe it should be accepted without any kind of criticism or what criticism you have sometimes faced, you yourself cannot disprove or provide mechanism within the model to CLEARLY state that the questions can be answered.
This to me seems like the issue. You have sold yourself that the preon model should replace the standard model, and you are just telling people that it is right without question. I have not read all of your threads, I admit that openly, though I have read and thought about a few of them, and commented my concerns. Each time, the argument provided to answer my concerns did not leave me with the feeling of 'OK maybe' They all left me with the feeling of 'there are holes.... big holes in the logic of some of this'
It sort of struck me a little bit like the electronic universe people where they will say "There is x problem with the standard model, and the EU theory fixes it" and yet they never actually tell you why, they just say 'its solved'. While I must congratulate greatly in producing a model that is more coherent than all of what iv read from the EU people. I honestly see that there are issues with it that don't simply vanish after a short explanation and a little thought.
The standard model is horribly complex, we understand that... but the can be broken down very easily and its fundamentals can be explained within a few simplified frameworks. Mixing is one such example that can be very easily explained in a two/three quark model and expanded to consider all quarks. Those short hand models also allow you to explain things like signal suppression, forbidden interactions and to a zero order why we see what we see.
I have not seen this in what has been presented with your model. That is not censorship, it is just my honest criticism. My advice would be to write the model and explain it in pieces with examples as you have given, in the form of a thesis or long review article. See if you can use your previous links to academia to get it onto ArXiv or other platform where you can get feedback.
Language is important, you should not present as though you are lecturing a child and that they are wrong or stupid, you must present the arguments from a neutral stand point, and be totally prepared to receive feedback. This feedback might be negative or vicious but this is part of the process... the model needs to stand up to scrutiny and if someone does pose a question that you don't think is relevant or is maybe a misunderstanding of what you have written, then you need to be prepared to either, do the work and figure out why they think its a problem and consider that they could indeed be right. Though if you believe them to be wrong, you need to adequately discuss it.
I think internet forums such as Quora (id personally never heard of Quora before i read this thread) and Wikipedia are a little bit shake grounds in order to get a theory any traction, they are not strictly academic platforms and are open to opinion and bias. Feedback on Quora i would not at all consider as being... peer reviewed.
If you have submitted papers and received good feedback in a peer reviewed environment, you should already understand that Wiki and Quora are not the place to present this. If you cannot get your paper peer reviewed you must ask for feedback why, as for second opinions and then act on that feedback. Rather than taking it as a personal affront and censorship.
Iv pointed out as i said before, something that i see as a VERY VERY VERY big flaw in the model... your replies to me incorrectly stated how cross sections worked and incorrectly stated the cross section of scattering of neutrinos by several orders of magnitude. It made me concerned that you did not really understand the nature of neutrinos as understood by physics today and for me that made what looked like an interesting model, fall quite flat. YET you proceeded on without addressing it... made me think that answers were perhaps coming, and yet, I don't feel that they did from what I read.
If a reviewer offers you some feedback, to simply brush it aside tells the reviewer that you do not consider the question of importance or that - shock horror - that you are a mirror of your accusations of the field... married to a model because it is your baby, and you cannot see it to be even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.
Personally... i shrug... im neither one way or the other. I think it has big problems and thus far, compositeness of quarks and leptons does not appear to be presenting itself... but... im not sold on there being no compositeness either. All i would like is to see how compositeness would fix the issues we see... and this model as much as i did read, didn't solve that
originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: delbertlarson
have you ever considered your model is bogus and no self respecting physicist would touch it with a ten foot pole.
seeing how you say your not getting the responses you were looking for, might be time for a reality check. just saying.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do want to know what others are thinking.
I have certainly considered my model might be wrong. I always look for possible error, both in my work and in the work of others, as I believe that is the essence of science. Bogus though implies a far lower quality than I think my work has, so I've never thought of it as bogus - but then again, others may differ on that score.
I am very happy though to now be getting some serious scientific criticism from a few others, such as the excellent ErosA433 and the excellent moebius. In their critiques, specific issues are being raised. That is what is needed, as original authors are often blind to their own errors. I hope I will be able to have a satisfactory answer to all of their concerns, or that perhaps someone else can assist with solutions. We shall see.
a reply to: ErosA433
Thanks for taking the time to respond. What you write is, for the most part, exactly what I've been looking for and not been getting - genuine thoughtful and serious criticism. However, from your response, I believe we have had some misunderstandings. Some of this may come from the limitations of written communication. I will keep trying. I hope you will have the time to keep trying as well.
I thought that I had answered your question concerning the neutrino cross section. I wrote a response on my thinking at the end of this thread and I did not get a further response from you, so I thought perhaps what I had written had satisfied you and I went on with further threads. My thoughts on this are rather simple:
The preons are bound very tightly. For something to come in and break that bond it must at least have enough energy to do so, which is in the tens of GeV range. Energies that high will in turn lead to small physical sizes which play a role as well. I readily concur that a cross section is more than a physical size, but physical size does have something to do with it, since the probability density at any given point will certainly come into play as to whether something interacts or not. And while my size estimate was indeed off, I did not mean that to infer it was the whole story.
I must plead guilty. Since the preon model dovetails into quarks and leptons it goes a certain distance in the right direction, but you are of course right that the standard model has vast complexity beyond that. I do not know if any single human being could possibly replicate all of the standard model with a different model. And that points out why I request reviews from those who know more about it. But my request is not "is my model allowed within the standard model?", rather it is "do any experimental results prove my model is false?"..
In the ABC Preon Model, regular beta decay is modelled as a B undergoing quantum tunneling. Three neutrinos are involved. The original one binds the B to the C, one that binds the B to an A-bar after the decay, and one that is pair created with the second one and is freed. In double beta decay we would have two B's, and since the neutrino is its own anti-particle, neutrinoless beta decay can follow.
I regret if I have conveyed an attitude different from the one I actually hold. Let me be as clear as possible: The ABC Preon Model might be wrong. Of course I don't think it is wrong, because if I thought it was wrong I would work to change it. When I wrote the threads I believed it to be correct and wrote the threads accordingly. But while I think it is correct, I readily, readily admit that it may not be.
Thank you for this advice. I did not know the best place to try and get feedback, so I came here to ATS. I am happy to get this feedback from you.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. What you write is, for the most part, exactly what I've been looking for and not been getting - genuine thoughtful and serious criticism. However, from your response, I believe we have had some misunderstandings. Some of this may come from the limitations of written communication. I will keep trying. I hope you will have the time to keep trying as well.
if Preons bind and interact so strongly with neutrinos, then the neutrino cross section should be extremely high, perhaps higher even than the electromagnetic force. If quarks are composite objects, they are not considered point like and so any neutrino that passes in proximity to a nucleus, should interact very strongly. Unless there is a mechanism that prevents it.
Iv pointed out as i said before, something that i see as a VERY VERY VERY big flaw in the model... your replies to me incorrectly stated how cross sections worked and incorrectly stated the cross section of scattering of neutrinos by several orders of magnitude. It made me concerned that you did not really understand the nature of neutrinos as understood by physics today and for me that made what looked like an interesting model, fall quite flat. YET you proceeded on without addressing it... made me think that answers were perhaps coming, and yet, I don't feel that they did from what I read.
If a reviewer offers you some feedback, to simply brush it aside tells the reviewer that you do not consider the question of importance or that - shock horror - that you are a mirror of your accusations of the field... married to a model because it is your baby, and you cannot see it to be even the slightest possibility of being incorrect.
I thought that I had answered your question concerning the neutrino cross section. I wrote a response on my thinking at the end of this thread and I did not get a further response from you, so I thought perhaps what I had written had satisfied you and I went on with further threads. My thoughts on this are rather simple:
The preons are bound very tightly. For something to come in and break that bond it must at least have enough energy to do so, which is in the tens of GeV range. Energies that high will in turn lead to small physical sizes which play a role as well. I readily concur that a cross section is more than a physical size, but physical size does have something to do with it, since the probability density at any given point will certainly come into play as to whether something interacts or not. And while my size estimate was indeed off, I did not mean that to infer it was the whole story.
This is the standard model.
www.symmetrymagazine.org...
Adding composite particles to quarks means that all of the statements on that model have to be replaced with a corresponding set of interactions that do the same thing. My only criticism is that from what iv seen of the model for the time I could spend reading and thinking about it, was that, pictures is one thing, making it work with the standard model as we understand it now is a whole new kettle of fish which you do not seem to want to try and show.
I must plead guilty. Since the preon model dovetails into quarks and leptons it goes a certain distance in the right direction, but you are of course right that the standard model has vast complexity beyond that. I do not know if any single human being could possibly replicate all of the standard model with a different model. And that points out why I request reviews from those who know more about it. But my request is not "is my model allowed within the standard model?", rather it is "do any experimental results prove my model is false?"..
The observation of double beta decay requires twin production of two neutrinos at the same time within one nucleus. If the neutrino is so strongly interacting that it binds preons together to form quarks, it must thus be stronger than guons that mediate the strong force. Thus, single beta decay logically should not exist as we observe in nature, and furthermore, double beta decay should neither.
In the ABC Preon Model, regular beta decay is modelled as a B undergoing quantum tunneling. Three neutrinos are involved. The original one binds the B to the C, one that binds the B to an A-bar after the decay, and one that is pair created with the second one and is freed. In double beta decay we would have two B's, and since the neutrino is its own anti-particle, neutrinoless beta decay can follow.
You are too embedded or sold on the idea of there being powers that control in the world of experimental particle physics. It is not as you appear to think. Theorists come out with random models all the time, they get rebutted and changed and rebutted and changed.
What appears to be the case with your model and your attitude is that you believe it should be accepted without any kind of criticism or what criticism you have sometimes faced, you yourself cannot disprove or provide mechanism within the model to CLEARLY state that the questions can be answered.
This to me seems like the issue. You have sold yourself that the preon model should replace the standard model, and you are just telling people that it is right without question. I have not read all of your threads, I admit that openly, though I have read and thought about a few of them, and commented my concerns. Each time, the argument provided to answer my concerns did not leave me with the feeling of 'OK maybe' They all left me with the feeling of 'there are holes.... big holes in the logic of some of this'
I regret if I have conveyed an attitude different from the one I actually hold. Let me be as clear as possible: The ABC Preon Model might be wrong. Of course I don't think it is wrong, because if I thought it was wrong I would work to change it. When I wrote the threads I believed it to be correct and wrote the threads accordingly. But while I think it is correct, I readily, readily admit that it may not be.
My advice would be to write the model and explain it in pieces with examples as you have given, in the form of a thesis or long review article. See if you can use your previous links to academia to get it onto ArXiv or other platform where you can get feedback.
Thank you for this advice. I did not know the best place to try and get feedback, so I came here to ATS. I am happy to get this feedback from you.
a reply to: ErosA433
The above surprised me. I generally try to be polite and to take all opinions seriously. And then I realized you might mean the OP of this thread. Yeah, I've been very dissapointed by some who have mentioned that "fermions can't be a force carrier" line. It comes up often as the only criticism given, followed by some ad hominem attacks and a summary dismissal and that gets old. It is especially irritating when it is written about the model in some third party forum that I am not even involved in and only trip upon after a Google search. Perhaps I could handle it better. Thanks for pointing this out.
The reason for Wiki was to get some views. That worked. I didn't post to Quora, it was the result of someone reading the Wiki who then posted a question on Quora. That was the first I heard of Quora. I did publish in Physics Essays 20 years ago, and have submitted a second paper there on the ABC Preon Model recently. The problem was I don't know if it ever got read. So I tried for a wider audience.
One thing I don't know if you've gotten to yet is the predictive nature of my model. With three free parameters (the preon masses) predictions are derived for 18 events. When I wrote the first paper 20 years ago 4 of those were found, which was one more than what we can just fit. In the past 20 years two more have been found, so I wrote to the Wiki, and now here. It could be coincidence, sure. But if the rest of the 18 start showing up I think it might be real.
Thanks for taking the time to read, think and write. I hope we can continue the conversation.
Language is important, you should not present as though you are lecturing a child and that they are wrong or stupid, you must present the arguments from a neutral stand point, and be totally prepared to receive feedback. This feedback might be negative or vicious but this is part of the process... the model needs to stand up to scrutiny and if someone does pose a question that you don't think is relevant or is maybe a misunderstanding of what you have written, then you need to be prepared to either, do the work and figure out why they think its a problem and consider that they could indeed be right. Though if you believe them to be wrong, you need to adequately discuss it.
The above surprised me. I generally try to be polite and to take all opinions seriously. And then I realized you might mean the OP of this thread. Yeah, I've been very dissapointed by some who have mentioned that "fermions can't be a force carrier" line. It comes up often as the only criticism given, followed by some ad hominem attacks and a summary dismissal and that gets old. It is especially irritating when it is written about the model in some third party forum that I am not even involved in and only trip upon after a Google search. Perhaps I could handle it better. Thanks for pointing this out.
If you have submitted papers and received good feedback in a peer reviewed environment, you should already understand that Wiki and Quora are not the place to present this. If you cannot get your paper peer reviewed you must ask for feedback why, as for second opinions and then act on that feedback. Rather than taking it as a personal affront and censorship.
The reason for Wiki was to get some views. That worked. I didn't post to Quora, it was the result of someone reading the Wiki who then posted a question on Quora. That was the first I heard of Quora. I did publish in Physics Essays 20 years ago, and have submitted a second paper there on the ABC Preon Model recently. The problem was I don't know if it ever got read. So I tried for a wider audience.
One thing I don't know if you've gotten to yet is the predictive nature of my model. With three free parameters (the preon masses) predictions are derived for 18 events. When I wrote the first paper 20 years ago 4 of those were found, which was one more than what we can just fit. In the past 20 years two more have been found, so I wrote to the Wiki, and now here. It could be coincidence, sure. But if the rest of the 18 start showing up I think it might be real.
Thanks for taking the time to read, think and write. I hope we can continue the conversation.
The bottom line is this... nothing will become mainstream in science without a great deal of effort and convincing evidence. The harder you try to
make people look the more desperate you come off and the more your theories may be perceived as pseudo-science. Wikipedia has no reason to create a
new article just because one paper was published, notable means it must be fairly well known, even ATS has had its listing removed due to a lack of
notability, it's not even listed as of today. I'll admit though ATS should clearly be on Wikipedia and they do have a bad habit of censoring
information, I know that for a fact, but in your case it was very easy for them to justify.
Most of the time my own silence is due to work constraints and that my interest in ATS waxes and wanes as for me, a professional experimental
physicist I often find this place to get a little bit intense with mixtures of incorrect statements, boastful ignorance, and un-needed conspiracy.
There are topics and people however that are very very interesting, and are polar opposite of the last sentence. Despite these few diamonds, I do have
to take breaks every so often.
My issues still remain summarized
1) Neutrinos as Majorana particles : Your theory relies completely on the notion that neutrinos are their own anti-particles, now this is not a massive problem at all, but it is also something that has yet to be proven. All indications are that neutrinos are behaving like Dirac particles. Neutrino sources such as nuclear reactors do appear to have only one particle coming from the reactions that is anti-neutrinos as predicted in the standard model. High energy beam experiments have also been conducted in which a neutrino is used to create its lepton partner, the matter/anti-matter status of which was never observed to be anything other than expectation. If neutrinos are thus their own anti-particle, then you might not expect such a clear behaviour. BUT that isn't an open and shut case, it could be possible for the neutrino to be its own anti-particle and that we don't really understand charge parity in the lepton sector.
So... stating matter of fact that they are Majorana particles... requires evidence, and GOOD evidence at that. Something which is being searched for by particle physcists in the form of Exo, SNO+ and CUORE experiments
2) There is only one type of neutrino
Neutrino oscillations require neutrinos to have small but different mass. The difference is what is important, not only that they have mass. So here it is presented a little incorrectly like that oscillations where found, and THEN mass shown to be small. This is a somewhat pedantic but important statement that is incorrect.
I also do not think that you can say that the central prediction of the theory has been proven by observations, not even a little bit. It is logically inconsistent to claim that neutrinos are the same and just exist in some flavour phase, because that suggests that they are not the same and it is overly simplistic to simply stamp 'DONE' on it. The exact nature of neutrino mass is not known, there exists the so called hierarchy problem, and that the current state of the art model basically states the following.
Neutrinos have 3 flavour eigen states and 3 mass eigen states. They are 'born' or created in a single definite flavour eigen state. These states are formed from mixes of the different mass eigen states. As the neutrino propagates, it is the differences in the mass of these states that cause the flavour states to oscillate.
What we know from experimentation is that we have a few mass squared differences, this means we know how close together these states are, but not in which order, nor the absolute magnitude.
THUS... claiming that fundamentally the neutrino is a singular particle... is clearly an over simplification which is clearly inconsistent with current understanding. Example... beta decay should be a phase property, since it is propagation through space that appears to cause neutrino oscillation, thus if you have a neutrino as a composite component of a quark, as it moves through space its 'flavour' can oscillate through observation... and such, the beta decay spectrum of an unstable isotope might be expected to exhibit endpoint distortion due to the neutrino being born a different flavour, or being released as a different flavour during the decay.
It is complex and I truly do not believe the statement made that neutrinos are a singular type of particle based on experimental evidence... since... evidence appears to indicate they are not the same object.
3) Neutrino interactions and cross sections
You are right that as neutrino energy increases, cross sections also increase. BUT lets do a simplistic treatment. the whole now many light years of lead you need for a mean free path of an interaction
D(distance) = (interaction particle mass)/Cross section*density
So lets put in distance. Quarks are believed to have 1E-16cm radius... best we can tell, so that is 1E-18 m radius, gives a volume of which is thus 4.2E-54m^3, the mass of a down is (as best known) about 8.5E-30 kg, so density is 2.03e24 kg/m^3 (nuclear material is obviously very dense!)
Pop all that in the equation and you get a cross section of 4.1E-36m^2 or E-32 cm^2 (for different unit conversions) right so what is the energy at which this cross section comes close for neutrino nucleon interactions (as close as we get in terms of preditions for interactions on the nucleus).
arxiv.org...
Figure Fig 29 - green line
We are at an energy of 1EeV... MINIMUM.
This is a huge amount of energy.
The issue I have with it is that, that is mean free path, which means you are likely looking at a much higher energy to mean that neutrinos are absolutely confined within the quark. The other issue is... with this enormous amount of energy, you actually expect the object to be extremely unstable, you have a particle with huge energy... and mass, interacting, neutrino scattering would thus prevent the neutrino from binding anything together at this energy.
So do we see sudden EeV bursts of energy randomly occuring when one of these neutrinos escapes, or when you have a decay which causes pair production of neutrinos... you now have a balance problem where you are pulling a Preon from a quark, the energy that binds them is EeV scale, and you have an interaction that has a few MeV that pulls out a pion... which also now has EeV scale binding.
its energetically inconstant aaaand from the surface looks like massive violation of conservation of energy.
I have to run now, spent about an hour writing this rather than working, along with a back of the envelope calculation or two lol but this is the main issues i see. Issue 3 is a big one. A theorist looking at a paper that states that postulate in the way that you did... will have the same or similar thought chain as me up there and be like "No way" and then put the paper down and read no more.
Long gone are the day when physicists would send a letter to you personally to discuss a paper, they simply do not have the same amount of time to sit and write and think as they once did. So they will typically only reply to papers they think are interesting and are close to possible. Those that they think have logical inconsistencies they will simply put down. It is the way it is unfortunately.
It not the same as censorship.
My issues still remain summarized
1) Neutrinos as Majorana particles : Your theory relies completely on the notion that neutrinos are their own anti-particles, now this is not a massive problem at all, but it is also something that has yet to be proven. All indications are that neutrinos are behaving like Dirac particles. Neutrino sources such as nuclear reactors do appear to have only one particle coming from the reactions that is anti-neutrinos as predicted in the standard model. High energy beam experiments have also been conducted in which a neutrino is used to create its lepton partner, the matter/anti-matter status of which was never observed to be anything other than expectation. If neutrinos are thus their own anti-particle, then you might not expect such a clear behaviour. BUT that isn't an open and shut case, it could be possible for the neutrino to be its own anti-particle and that we don't really understand charge parity in the lepton sector.
So... stating matter of fact that they are Majorana particles... requires evidence, and GOOD evidence at that. Something which is being searched for by particle physcists in the form of Exo, SNO+ and CUORE experiments
2) There is only one type of neutrino
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 oscillations require neutrinos to have small but different mass. The difference is what is important, not only that they have mass. So here it is presented a little incorrectly like that oscillations where found, and THEN mass shown to be small. This is a somewhat pedantic but important statement that is incorrect.
I also do not think that you can say that the central prediction of the theory has been proven by observations, not even a little bit. It is logically inconsistent to claim that neutrinos are the same and just exist in some flavour phase, because that suggests that they are not the same and it is overly simplistic to simply stamp 'DONE' on it. The exact nature of neutrino mass is not known, there exists the so called hierarchy problem, and that the current state of the art model basically states the following.
Neutrinos have 3 flavour eigen states and 3 mass eigen states. They are 'born' or created in a single definite flavour eigen state. These states are formed from mixes of the different mass eigen states. As the neutrino propagates, it is the differences in the mass of these states that cause the flavour states to oscillate.
What we know from experimentation is that we have a few mass squared differences, this means we know how close together these states are, but not in which order, nor the absolute magnitude.
THUS... claiming that fundamentally the neutrino is a singular particle... is clearly an over simplification which is clearly inconsistent with current understanding. Example... beta decay should be a phase property, since it is propagation through space that appears to cause neutrino oscillation, thus if you have a neutrino as a composite component of a quark, as it moves through space its 'flavour' can oscillate through observation... and such, the beta decay spectrum of an unstable isotope might be expected to exhibit endpoint distortion due to the neutrino being born a different flavour, or being released as a different flavour during the decay.
It is complex and I truly do not believe the statement made that neutrinos are a singular type of particle based on experimental evidence... since... evidence appears to indicate they are not the same object.
3) Neutrino interactions and cross sections
You are right that as neutrino energy increases, cross sections also increase. BUT lets do a simplistic treatment. the whole now many light years of lead you need for a mean free path of an interaction
D(distance) = (interaction particle mass)/Cross section*density
So lets put in distance. Quarks are believed to have 1E-16cm radius... best we can tell, so that is 1E-18 m radius, gives a volume of which is thus 4.2E-54m^3, the mass of a down is (as best known) about 8.5E-30 kg, so density is 2.03e24 kg/m^3 (nuclear material is obviously very dense!)
Pop all that in the equation and you get a cross section of 4.1E-36m^2 or E-32 cm^2 (for different unit conversions) right so what is the energy at which this cross section comes close for neutrino nucleon interactions (as close as we get in terms of preditions for interactions on the nucleus).
arxiv.org...
Figure Fig 29 - green line
We are at an energy of 1EeV... MINIMUM.
This is a huge amount of energy.
The issue I have with it is that, that is mean free path, which means you are likely looking at a much higher energy to mean that neutrinos are absolutely confined within the quark. The other issue is... with this enormous amount of energy, you actually expect the object to be extremely unstable, you have a particle with huge energy... and mass, interacting, neutrino scattering would thus prevent the neutrino from binding anything together at this energy.
So do we see sudden EeV bursts of energy randomly occuring when one of these neutrinos escapes, or when you have a decay which causes pair production of neutrinos... you now have a balance problem where you are pulling a Preon from a quark, the energy that binds them is EeV scale, and you have an interaction that has a few MeV that pulls out a pion... which also now has EeV scale binding.
its energetically inconstant aaaand from the surface looks like massive violation of conservation of energy.
I have to run now, spent about an hour writing this rather than working, along with a back of the envelope calculation or two lol but this is the main issues i see. Issue 3 is a big one. A theorist looking at a paper that states that postulate in the way that you did... will have the same or similar thought chain as me up there and be like "No way" and then put the paper down and read no more.
Long gone are the day when physicists would send a letter to you personally to discuss a paper, they simply do not have the same amount of time to sit and write and think as they once did. So they will typically only reply to papers they think are interesting and are close to possible. Those that they think have logical inconsistencies they will simply put down. It is the way it is unfortunately.
It not the same as censorship.
Should also be pointed out that for a particle... such as a preon to have a binding with a neutrino of the energy scale EeV, this would effectively
mean the mass or invariant Energy of the quark would also be of EeV scale.
As the mass of the quark is likely of the order of an eV or less, it means the rest of the energy is in its momentum. So... this becomes troubling for what should be obvious reasons.
So see also again what I said why I say this is troubling.
As the mass of the quark is likely of the order of an eV or less, it means the rest of the energy is in its momentum. So... this becomes troubling for what should be obvious reasons.
So see also again what I said why I say this is troubling.
new topics
-
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago -
Cooperation zones
World War Three: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three: 14 hours ago, 9 flags -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness: 9 hours ago, 5 flags -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 3 hours ago, 5 flags -
Ok this is some BS now WTH
Rant: 12 hours ago, 4 flags -
Cooperation zones
World War Three: 10 hours ago, 3 flags -
Stalker 2 - Review from a Veteran
Video Games: 17 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
Well, here we go red lines crossed Biden gives the go ahead to use long range missiles
World War Three • 339 • : Xtrozero -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 14 • : gortex -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 32 • : gortex -
Biden's "Reckless" Decision To Escalate Russia-Ukraine War
World War Three • 124 • : PrivateAngel -
Well we know Putins ICBMs won't fail in their silos
World War Three • 213 • : Xtrozero -
Rep. Alexandria O. Cortez Says Forcing People to Use The Correct Bathroom is Dangerous.
US Political Madness • 21 • : UpIsNowDown2 -
Congress 2024 - We do not want me in our ladies rooms
US Political Madness • 21 • : TheSingleBillie -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 166 • : Oldcarpy2 -
Cooperation zones
World War Three • 14 • : nugget1 -
France gives Ukraine license to fire long-range missiles at Russia
World War Three • 20 • : 38181