Inside the box thinking about gravity in the SM

Hi Blackcrowe,

I got your email but thought the right place to respond is here on ATS.

I do not follow how the OP is doing anything for physics. In physics, we have particles and/or fields as well as forces. The forces act to accelerate or bind the particles and/or fields. Often, the particles bind together to form composite entities. Quarks bind together to form mesons (which are a quark / anti-quark pair). Quarks also bind together to form hadrons (which contain three quarks, one of each color). One goal of physics is to find the most basic building blocks of nature. Quarks and leptons are considered by the standard model to be the most basic building blocks found so far.

The proton and neutron are hadrons. Protons and neutrons bind together in atomic nuclei. Electrons are bound to the atomic nuclei to form atoms. Atoms are bound together to form molecules and other structures. So there is a hierarchy of how the universe of matter is constructed.

The ABC Preon Model is an alternative elementary physics model. The A and B have a single "neutrinic" charge, while the C has a neutrinic charge three times greater and of opposite sign. The A has zero electrical charge, the B has a negative electrical charge, and the C has an electrical charge of plus two. The A, B and C all have anti-matter partners with opposite charges. Each preon has a mass. The rule for making composite particles is that the total neutrinic charge of the composite must be zero. With that simple model, one can construct all mesons, hadrons and the massive leptons. It is really that simple. From there you can predict new particle creation at high energy physics colliders. There is an enormous body of evidence in support of the ABC Preon Model.

In the OP I don't see how the entities can combine to form the hadrons, mesons and leptons. While I have seen theorists plot points representing quarks and other exotica that look somewhat similar to your plots, in the end, the elemental stuff being plotted needs to make up things we see around us, such as toasters and baseballs. I just don't see how your constructs do that.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Gravity is an effect caused by the spherical propagating wave being governed/brakes put on it. By creating points/particles at a 90% potential of an axis. Where the axis represents 100% of energy.

By what mechanism? What does "governed/brakes put on it" means, and also by what mechanism.

Creating points/particles at 90% potential of an axis? what does this mean? You appear in the last line to suggest gravity is energy contained within a particle which is 90% of its energy... again... what does this add to Physics?

I ask these things because QED and QCD in the bounds of the Standard Model of Particle Physics does a better and more robust job of explaining this... and can provide math and measurement to back it up. While it doesn't include gravity outright, it does now have a way of giving particles Mass via the higgs mechanism. We know what we experience as mass is tied to gravity... and already have a model in the form of GR that gives us a way to go from mass to gravity....

So what does this add?

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks delbertlarson.

In the OP I don't see how the entities can combine to form the hadrons, mesons and leptons. While I have seen theorists plot points representing quarks and other exotica that look somewhat similar to your plots, in the end, the elemental stuff being plotted needs to make up things we see around us, such as toasters and baseballs. I just don't see how your constructs do that.

This model builds up to a photon.

This is the first stage of the model.

I broke down my model from the photon model (which was difficult for others to understand).

I didn't link that for the above reason. And. I stated in that thread that the SM had eighteen particles. Where it's actually 24. And, although i knew it was a cube. I didn't account for the optical illusion of two more corners hidden by the centre. Adding six more to my eighteen. The two hidden corners are W boson.

I'm building it back up to the photon model.

These points i am plotting are all inside the photon model of 24 particles. Which i can plot with my model.

But i struggle naming them. Hadron, Fermion. Tau, meson etc.

I also believe my model confirms your Two Component Aether Theory is basically correct. Cubic scaled fabric of space (Aether).

Only i said it was a physical object made of DE.

The names are actually irrelevant. And all names should be considered placeholders. Or given descriptive names to explain them.

Names aside. The point is there and is still plotted.

I don't need to know the names in order to plot the points. The points are there regardless of the name.

Thanks for looking.

a reply to: ErosA433

and can provide math and measurement to back it up.

I have provided math.

While it doesn't include gravity outright,

Why not? Mine does.

mass is tied to gravity.

There is still gravity without mass.

So what does this add?

More to what you currently know hopefully.

Thanks.

What does "governed/brakes put on it" means,

Anti propagation.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: ErosA433
Why not? Mine does.

Just simply saying "this is that" and honestly not really providing anything that is testable is not at all useful. re-read my post above of questions. If you did provide maths, i dont see it. If you are talking about geometry ramblings thats not the same as math.

If this theory works better than what we have. Show, from first principles a rough derivation of Newtonian gravitation for a large object at the first order.

Even just a derevation of constant G or something similar would be a great start.

Right now all i see is some drawings which apparently is just trying to state things as being, without there being anything useful, or buildable into a working model that can replace what we already have.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: ErosA433

There is still gravity without mass.

Last time i checked... thats not the case. Even if you are talking about dark matter, we are talking galactic scale diffuse 'stuff' that has been observed to be very likely particulate in nature. That is separable to matter. Thus it is not right to simply come up with a model that attributes some extra special matter to normal matter.

As far as we observe and have evidence for... matter is a requirement for gravity.

If you are again talking maybe about gravitational waves, as a gravity without matter, you are also mistaken by the concept. Gravitational waves require the influence of matter to generate a space-time curve and give this gravitational affect, it also requires space-time to limit the propagation of space-time curvature to be the speed of light. Thus in an experiment such as LIGO, you observe the frame dragging like spiral as a result of this speed limit, which amplifies as two objects (made of matter) come together. Once they come together and merge, thats it... the singular object no longer produces the spiral like ripple.

a reply to: ErosA433

Gravitational waves require the influence of matter to generate a space-time curve and give this gravitational affect, it also requires space-time to limit the propagation of space-time curvature to be the speed of light.

No. It requires a propagating wave at c. In this thread Dark Energy wave. Not matter.

The spherical DE propagating wave is governed by Gravity.

The curves of the wave are straightened.

If you did provide maths, i dont see it.

I was asked to give a specific answer to a question by Arbitrageur.

Unfortunately. I do not know if my answer was correct or not. My answer was 5%.

originally posted by: ErosA433
As far as we observe and have evidence for... matter is a requirement for gravity.

I don't want to de-rail the thread, though I'm not sure where the rails are exactly so I'll add this anyway. Also I'm not trying to defend Blackcrowe's model because I must admit I don't really understand it.

Does a massless photon exert gravity?
I put this in the same category as questions like:
Does the moon have an atmosphere? Yes is a correct answer, and no is a correct answer, if you can defend them and explain your answer.
If you drop a paper clip toward the earth, does the Earth accelerate toward the paper clip? Again, yes is a correct answer, and no is a correct answer, if you can defend them and explain your answer.

I can defend a "No atmosphere" on the moon's surface by saying it's a better vacuum than the best vacuum we can make on Earth, a pretty good argument I think. But I can also defend the moon having a small atmosphere based on a slight increase in the count of gas molecules near the moon's surface compared to the space more distant from the moon.

Dropping a paper clip, you can plug into the equations how much the Earth will move toward the paper clip. You can calculate a number, but it will be so small that I don't think it's an exaggeration to say you can never, ever measure it, unless you change the problem. Like let's say you decide to make your measurement by dropping a quadrillion paper clips, and then maybe you can measure something for that, and say one paper clip effect is a quadrillionth of that.

And so on with the idea that a massless photon can exert gravity. I agree with the video made by this physicist who claims a massless photon does indeed have an immeasurably small amount of gravity, but I agree with you that in effect if it's immeasurable, I'm fine with saying it's not there for any practical purpose and using your "have evidence for" context, I think it's correct to say we "have no evidence for" the gravity of a massless photon, though one may compute a number for it which cannot currently be measured (and maybe not ever).

Common Physics Misconceptions


Here's a screenshot from that video where I think the immeasurably small number is supposed to represent the gravity of a massless photon, and he says it's not exactly zero even though it's very small. But if you ask a bunch of engineers if that number is zero, they would probably say it is, because they can't measure it, in fact they treat numbers thousands or millions of times larger than that as zero frequently.



So I really have no objection to saying 0.000000000000001 is zero and we don't have evidence for it, or saying it's not zero according to calculations even if we lack any evidence of such, it depends on what you're trying to do. I don't think this will salvage blackcrowe's model though.