Could my proposal help to complete The Standard Model of Elementary particles

a reply to: micpsi

That is so cool.

I'm stuck in a can't see the woods for the trees situation at the moment. I don't recognise the colour states.

Do you then understand my proposal?

Can you see the colour states or describe them in what i've proposed?

Thank you.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur
When you say "according to your source".

Is my source the link for the Standard Model or my proposal?

If I meant according to you, I would say according to you.

Are you asking why my model doesn't say 8 gluons?

No, I'm saying your post reads like "here's a diagram of 17 particles and i think there are 18 and here's my model to explain the 18th particle". I was pointing out that you seemed to count the gluon as one and there are eight according to the standard model and noted that others are also undercounted.

If you take a look at the diagram of the cube shape.

I don't see any cube shape, it seems your first 4 images don't show up for me for some reason, the last two do but they don't show any cubes. Here's what I see.

Sorry if i'm being a dumbass.

You're trying to do theoretical particle physics. As others have suggested, if you want to embark on such an endeavor it would be helpful to have a good understanding of the evidence upon which particle physics models are based, and I don't see any indication you have such an understanding, nor do I see any way to connect your model with the evidence.

It reminds me of another amateur trying to do theoretical physics who said "Dark matter is the number 9". I don't even know where to begin to falsify that because I don't understand the claim or the model in terms of any of the evidence for dark matter that needs to be explained. So instead of saying it's "falsified", I have to say it's worse than that, it's "not even wrong" which means it seems so disconnected from experimental evidence, I don't even know where to begin to connect it to the experimental evidence.

I have a bit of the same issue with what you describe because of the apparent disconnect between the experimental evidence and your attempt at making a model. So here's what I suggest. First, start by reading a book about the experimental evidence for particle physics. This one may be dated, maybe there's a more recent book but even a dated book might help you:



Then once you understand the experimental evidence, and can talk in those terms, you might propose a model that can explain the experimental evidence better than the standard model, and that proposed model may even propose one or more new particles or forces, which again as others have already suggested, you would also characterize the properties of the additional particle you propose. I posted the Garrett Lisi video as an example of how this was done by a theoretical physicist. In his case I understand mostly what he is talking about, and how he proposes to connect his model to the experimental evidence, and he also gives some indication of the properties he proposes for the particles not yet discovered.

Supersymmetry is another example where proposals have been made that as with Lisi's proposal, the LHC should find new particles with certain properties. The LHC experiments have failed to find the predicted particles for that too.

originally posted by: micpsi
Grand total = 36.

It's higher if you consider anti-particles, and Garrett Lisi in the video I posted on page 1 came up with 226 particles counting their various spins (time index 6:20). He shows around 100 particles on this chart around that same time:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the reply.

I had not realised that my pictures hadn't pasted properly.

I'll try again.













The cube is in the forth pic down on the right hand page. With 8 gluons. The gluon represented by (0).

The book you suggest i read. This is an image of the book. Is it meant to be a link to? If you could provide the link. That would be great.

Got the book now thanks.

Also. Your comment about D/M being number 9. I don't think D/M is the correct term (i know it's a placeholder). You might think my model is wrong. But i think it clearly predicts in the last diagram (made of 3 images) perhaps these dark energies it would seem. They definitely have no matter to be considered a type of matter. More of an energy.

a reply to: blackcrowe
The diagrams all show up now so I can see the cube, but I don't see any text saying it applies to gluons, and what about the quarks? Is it supposed to apply to those too? What about the anti-quarks?

To repeat what I said before, I'm having difficulty figuring out how to connect what you've presented to the experimental evidence, so without that connection I am unable to make any evaluation.

Again to use Garrett Lisi as an example of methodology, he says essentially 'here's the standard model, here's how I propose to modify it, and these are the expected results from such modification' to paraphrase, it's not an exact quote. His paper goes into more detail than the presentation:

An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything

I'm not saying his ideas are right, just that his method of communication is comprehensible and I can more or less figure out what it is he is proposing because he's talking about the standard model and how it would change under his ideas, in ways I can understand. You may have some interesting ideas, but if I can't figure out how they relate to the standard model or evidence for the standard model, I don't know what to do with them or how to interpret them.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

I do appreciate your difficulty.

I'm having difficulty trying to give you what you require from it.

But the help so far is welcome.

I think one problem may be that my pics were not intended for other people to see.

The quarks in my proposal are the ends of the A,B,C axis'.

They are functional. They are directions.

They are re named. Up, Down. Forward, Backward. And Left, right.

They emerge from a centre position. And would seem as if they can move along each others axis'. Upon further thought. I would say it makes more sense that they are independently emergent from the centre position.

This would mean they can adjust themselves to create different biases.

They are to be found in both matter and forces. Seem to be energy.

In matter they are represented as (-) (0) (+). In other energy they are (-) (+).

The (0) being a gluon. Which would seem to be the matter particle. And very common. They are connectors of charges. Implied and manifest as a real physical particle upon observation/detection or annihilation.

The antiquarks will be where you look at the diagram of the quark mechanism on 4th pic down. Left hand page. Take left quark (-) (0) (+) relationship to forward quark (-) (0) (+). The charges are opposite. I hope you can see it.

This description of quarks differs from the standard model. I know.

I will enjoy the new link i'm sure.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
I will enjoy the new link i'm sure.

I thought you might. One reason I singled out Garrett Lisi is that his ideas are based on the geometry of the charge space, and from what little I understand of your ideas they are too, but Lisi is working in higher dimensions than you are.

Here's an article about his work saying it was largely ignored even before the LHC runs which failed to verify his predictions, and of course it's probably ignored even more now. Nevertheless I can identify with the pleasing idea that nature would follow some geometric patterns in charge space, but it didn't seem to work out according to Lisi's predictions. Sometimes nature doesn't cooperate with our ideas of how we think it should work. It did in classical physics, but not as much in quantum mechanics.

A hyped theory of everything sinks from sight

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for that.

As i have a life in between my obsession.

The pace of this is good for me.

It is very important to me that i give you what you're asking.

But. I also believe this model.

I might take more time to answer you than i usually do.

And. Re study and re study your latest links.

It's getting deep now. And i have to make sure this can't be falsified.

As for the geometry i am using. I had to find it. I haven't made it up. And i seem to be able to work it.

I didn't like it. Had not experienced it before. And questioned myself as to did it work?

I now feel more encouraged that Lisi is similar to what i'm doing.

I am struggling with his dimensions though. But also his coral analogy being the many worlds interpretation is wrong anyway.

Sometimes nature doesn't cooperate with our ideas of how we think it should work. It did in classical physics,

Yes. And on a personal level. I'm struggling to comprehend this model. In a way that it's not because i like it. Or choose it. I have no control of it. And i don't do magic in science. It's not magic though. It's a mechanism?

And should work logically in QM also.

On the other hand. What a nifty piece of kit this thing is.

Turmoil.

My way out Is to remember the words of a line in a song by Crosby, Stills and Nash. "If you can't have the one you love. Love the one you're with".

As long as it's true and works. I'll accept it.

Gonna take time as i said.

But ask anything in the meantime.

If you embark on the journey of "Particle Physics":

NEVER FORGET THE NINTENDOS...

Remember, they pass right thru you, without you even knowing.....

a reply to: Miccey

That is beyond me.

Sorry.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I implied i would take my time.

But.

Was looking at his Lisi's paper.

Don't get the maths. But will keep looking at it. My way is easier. But i can't explain why mine works as he does.

The diagram though.

Should it look more like this.

originally posted by: Miccey
If you embark on the journey of "Particle Physics":

NEVER FORGET THE NINTENDOS...

Remember, they pass right thru you, without you even knowing.....

By my rough estimate about 100 trillion (pass through you every second)

I'm not the grammar police but your spelling is a little off, maybe it was a joke. I think I heard that one on Stargate SG-1.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Miccey

That is beyond me.

If you want to write a theory to explain particles, it would help to know what they are, which is why I suggested reading a book or two first.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
But will keep looking at it. My way is easier. But i can't explain why mine works as he does.

His didn't work, but he explained what he thought might work.

Don't forget the George Box quote, "All models are wrong, some are useful." If you can't explain how your model is useful, there's not much point to the model.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I took the word as is. Like a silly bugger. Looked it up. All game machines.

I'm afraid that any sci fi related comment will be wasted on me. Unless from Futurama or Family Guy Star Wars editions.

I have expanded my pic from last night.

I have represented all points as charges. As this is how i'm able to understand it.

All points match to the second geometric diagram in the Lisi paper you linked for me.

Damn. He's good that Lisi.

That won't work unless you can squeeze a few more dimensions into it.

Hi Blackcrowe

I have to say the model is somewhat complex and my opening question is... why? and what exactly does this do to help the standard model of particle physics beyond what it is at this moment.

I ask because this is unclear.

There are a few issues and holes with SM right now that i can think of, I am sure there are more though

1) Matter to Anti-matter asymmetry in the universe.
- The main issue is that the standard model allows a prediction of matter vs anti-matter production in the early universe. Major issues are that it doesn't predict the abundance difference we observe today for the proposed conditions measured via wmap data of the CMB

Neutrino sector gaps in our understanding could be the solution to this, namely CP-Violation or bringing about a process that can produce some CP violating effects

2) Neutrino oscillation
-While neutrino oscillation is pretty much a done deal the theoretical models are still a little bit open for completion. Where this comes in, is that neutrino mass is very very small, and yet their lepton partners are comparatively enormous it begs the questions... what is the absolute neutrino mass scale, and WHY.

The current working model for how the neutrinos get mass and oscillate for example is in the so called seesaw mechanism in which you have a very heavy sterile neutrino state which suppresses the rest. This works fine on paper, although it gives an issue of if this extra state is real, without it, the framework that makes neutrino oscillations fit into the standard model doesn't really work properly and neutrino oscillation is an awkward bodged on addition.

3) The nature of dark matter
While again this is a huge unknown, maybe the heavy sterile neutrino is a good candidate... but if not, then we have to come up with a model for a particle that is weakly interacting, massive and neutral and otherwise decoupled other than gravitationally. As i say that heavy sterile is a candidate, though the mass scale is pretty big and some of the models predict that it is of opposite chirality aaaaand that makes it basically uncoupled to regular interaction... searches are either impossible or next to impossible directly.
Supersymmetry would work nicely although it is looking disfavoured or not within realistic reach of even the next generation of colliders based upon the data we have from the LHC, the WIMP here would be a predicted stable 'lightest' supersymmetric particle, the neutralino.
There are then other models entirely... axions for example... which need a place in the standard model.


So the problem isn't readily solved by adding enormous complexity by essentially requiring that once fundamental particles are actually components of different charge. The thing about charge is that a composite object, even though neutral, interacts still because those component parts are charged, just more weakly due to it being net zero. But take the gamma for example, its rather strongly interacting, and is still net zero.

I will have to read through the model more but it strikes me as a numerology and pattern finding exercise which doesn't specifically reveal any fundamental truths. Example which possibly breaks the whole notion is this... Why are the angles equal? it doesn't strike me as natural for example for groups of -ve to bunch together on one side of a vertex and +ve on another, the lowest stable configuration would be to reduce in the lowest space charge. While i realize you are not claiming some kind of geometric construct, you are trying to search for a new particle in geometry... which I am not sure I see the compulsion to do.

One thing for sure is, the masses, interaction strengths and coupling of the fundamental particles in the standard model do not follow a nice natural clean pattern.... so why should an underlying theory be beautifully ordered... it doesn't have to be at all

originally posted by: ErosA433
While i realize you are not claiming some kind of geometric construct, you are trying to search for a new particle in geometry... which I am not sure I see the compulsion to do.

Garrett Lisi seems to have failed in his attempt to do that, but one of the justifications he gave for taking such an approach was that Murray Gell-Mann used what could be considered a geometric approach to predicting a new particle which was later discovered. I think he said two new particles actually. Lisi didn't cite any specific reference so I can't be sure if this is one that he referred to, but it sounds similar to that:

Observation of a Hyperon with Strangeness Minus Three

So the geometry in this figure reminds me of the 10 pins at a bowling alley where 9 pins/particles are known, but the #1 pin/particle was unknown/missing, and the paper cited says it might have been found.

However this is a very limited application and I think Lisi's failing was trying to lump too much together using a much more complex geometric model than Gell-Mann's SU(3) (though Lisi's approach was also based on a Lie group, E8), which was in fact one of the criticisms leveled at Lisi's approach by other physicists who looked at what he was trying to do.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
I took the word as is. Like a silly bugger. Looked it up.

Maybe if you had searched something like "nintendos pass through everything" you might have found this script, this is where I heard it, but I'll bet even if Eros had never heard this script before and you asked him "what are those particles called that pass right through you, nintendos?" he would guess what was meant, because he knows those particles.

www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com...
" CARTER
Well look at these readings, sir. These are leptons.

O'NEILL
Get out.

CARTER
That means something inside this pyramid is slowing down neutrinos. Normally neutrinos pass right through ordinary matter, no matter how dense. I mean, something like five hundred million billion just passed through you.

O'NEILL
No matter how dense?

CARTER
A material that slows neutrinos could change everything we know about physics, the formation of the universe…
...
HAMMOND
I'll authorise a standard recon mission.

FRASIER
Colonel I can only guess the effect this type of radiation may have on the human body. I recommend limited exposure, ten, fifteen minutes at most.

DANIEL
Wait a minute, that's not enough time. I mean, there has to be some sort of radiation suit or…

O'NEILL
Hey. If you'd been listening, you'd know that Nintendos pass through everything.

DANIEL
I heard.

[Carter smiles.]

O'NEILL
Everything."

So there are at least two reasons he says that. First, his character has a personality trait that he pretends to be less smart than he is, so he might pretend to mis-remember the word even if he really remembered it. (The "no matter how dense?" is another self deprecating remark with dual meaning.) And second, of course for the comedic effect where science buffs who also remember the correct word might think it's funny when he calls them Nintendos.

There's about 21 seconds of that scene in this video from 4:47 to 5:08:

a reply to: Blue Shift

Thanks.

It needs the last of my diagrams adding. Which need colouring correctly as green for (fw, bw), blue for (up, down) and red for (left right).

They are on the outside of the cube. (Hard to draw).

They are energies.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thank you for your detailed reply.

I have to say the model is somewhat complex and my opening question is... why? and what exactly does this do to help the standard model of particle physics beyond what it is at this moment.

My model is not complex. I have arrived at it from a different angle.

It will help because it is a different view. As, my model gives information of the charges and colour charges of all the standard model particles. After i had finished my last diagram/pic. I could of wiped all my charges off. And label all the particles as known by their names. Arbitrageur wanted me to do that i think. But. Isn't better to have other comparative information if available? I don't see why my model isn't helpful.

This model was reached because of the D/S experiment. And my refusal to believe in magic tricks. Not pointing fingers at any person. But an illusion we were shown by quantum itself. To prove it was a wave and should be represented as three parts in propagation. Not one solid photon.

when i tried to prove it. I found the quarks. They're named wrongly. I figured them out. It wasn't easy. And i don't agree that i used numerology. But logic.

So now i felt i could prove the wave action as opposed to single photon. But then had to prove that too.

I only set out to explain the D/S exp initially.

But. If my model can help. Then it's useful.

I have no idea how you will prove DE. But i believe it is part of my model.

I love the inventive way it is searched for. And every time it doesn't confirm. Is hopefully. A step closer to proving it.

Good luck with the search. If i thought i could suggest anything useful. I would. But i'm lost on how to help.

Your questions of why? in the next to last paragraph. I can't answer why.

Thanks ErosA433

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks.

I get the joke now.

I'm not sure i agree with Lisi's Lie group e8 as described.

If he used the word "region". That might be better. For me. Or. Not include it. Although. I might be wrong of course.

Is my model useful?

a reply to: ErosA433

I have been thinking about your remark on numerology.

You aren't the first to mention it on this thread.

This concerns me.

To clear it up.

18 was the number i needed to explain my three parts D/S exp. The exp is in 2d. Reality is in 3d. I had 3 parts of a 6 direction model to prove. 3 parts x 6 directions was already a combination of ways how to make 18.

The combinations are natural. They occur throughout nature.

Any similarity to numerology is purely coincidental.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Blue Shift
They are energies.

Yes, yes. But what are the subspatial vectors?