Quanten.de Diskussionsforum  

Zur?ck   Quanten.de Diskussionsforum > Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik

Hinweise

Theorien jenseits der Standardphysik Sie haben Ihre eigene physikalische Theorie entwickelt? Oder Sie kritisieren bestehende Standardtheorien? Dann sind Sie hier richtig.

Antwort
 
Themen-Optionen Ansicht
  #11  
Alt 10.02.17, 12:53
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: What is the QM equivalent of a Quark's "phase"?

Zitat:
Zitat von Hawkwind Beitrag anzeigen
I think that you have got this wrong: (1.7) in the paper describes a so-called gauge transformation which acts on the gauge fields of QCD ("gluons"). There are no quark fields in this equation. Quarks are represented by spinors, see eq. (1.6); the psi there is a quark field.
spinor is a vector. okaaay. so what (in actual vectors) would the various quarks be?

btw i realised my mistake soon after posting, that gluons are the phase-changes *between* quarks. they are the means by which one quark may *transform* to another quark, representing the simultaneous phase-coherent energy required to *cancel* one and *replace* it with the other.

which is where the perspective of the rishon model comes into play.

Zitat:

QCD is a theory of gluons and quarks, it doesn't know about pions.
It's true that pions and gluons arrange in octets. However, the background is completely different: while gluons are octets in the space of the color quantum number ("red", "green", "blue"), pions on the other hand are octets in flavor space (flavors are "up", "down", "strange"). There is no relation between these representations.

Representations of baryons in flavor space are for instance described here:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Services/Clas..._PDF/chp12.pdf
very much appreciated that link, it is clear and consice.

i'd like to tell you a story if i may, it will help somewhat to give some context. imagine that i am from a different world, with different language and expertise. i decide to go travelling the universe and i come across a world which, from the outside, looks like a buckminster fullerene. i can see that from the distance because it kept changing, the overlapping triangles and squares alternating as it rotated. my world is quite advanced in its engineering but is lacking in important scientific areas, hence my expedition.

as i approach i realise that there are people living *inside* the buckminster fullerene. i do some searches on radio frequencies and find something, then spend some time deciphering their language as best i can. mostly it is questions, "how do we work out the {squiggle,squiggle}" untranslateable and from what i can gather it is hugely technical discussions, very very advanced.

excitedly i learn more and am ready to approach and make "first contact". after landing my ship inside on one of the vertices of the buckyball. i approach people tentatively, and, haltingly in their language i wish to say "hello, i come from outer space".

at that point i realise that there *is* no word in their language for "outer space". i see no evidence of space travel. so i use the word "out there" and i get... blank stares. i realise that they *have* no concept even of "outside or living away from the surface of the buckyball".

now, i would *really like* to explain to them that they're living on a buckyball (which i cannot do without first explaining the concept of outer space). i cannot yet talk to them about geometry or geometric perspective because their maths is fantastically complex, in a totally alien language and *at the same time* is from the *subjective* viewpoint *solely and exclusively from the inside of a buckyball*.

so with that story in mind, as a very accurate analogy for our respective levels of expertise and ways of modelling our understanding of the world around us, please excuse me for asking questions in your world where the answers may take me some time to comprehend, and thank you so much for your patience.

now, from that "outside perspective" (encapsulated in the extended rishon model) i believe the difference between a pion and a gluon to simply be that the pion-superimposed-phase-coherent-photon(s)-wave-construct has "escaped" to become a stable particle, and that a gluon-superimposed-phase-coherent-photon(s)-wave-construct gets absolutely NO chance to do that. it's created and destroyed LITERALLY in less time than a single wavelength. actually probably under half the wavelength.

so from the perspective of all particles simply being mobius elliptically-polarised light, there *is* no difference between the cosine wave that superimposes on sin(theta - 90). to take an analogy: you can call sin(theta - 90) the "gluon" and cos (theta) the "pion" if you like but from a *photon-wave-form* perspective they are the same thing.

so perhaps a better way to put the question would be this: from joy walker's paper in which he makes good use of Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime, i am aware that SU(2)xU(1) may be expressed as the multiplication of two exponentials. if the formula for an example gluon and an example pion were expressed (as much as possible) purely in exponentials, what would they each look like?

the reason for asking the question in this different way is because exponentials - e^ ( -i theta / 2pi) is a common recurring theme in *all* of the maths i have seen in the standard model and also the field of optics. it is the "common link".

i hope this is a challenging enough question to be interesting to some people, enough to want to explore. that is my strongest hope.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #12  
Alt 10.02.17, 13:18
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: What is the QM equivalent of a Quark's "phase"?

Zitat:
spinor is a vector. okaaay. so what (in actual vectors) would the various quarks be?

hmmm if that doesn't work it's here instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standa...dard_Model.svg

HA! so that's really coool! look at where the electron, neutrino and quarks are - compare them to the extended rishon model phase map: they're *almost* identical. coool! the key discrepancies, d(R) and anti-d(L), if you multiply their distance from the Y-axis by 2, the similarity is restored. e(L) is a bit far off but it is in the right ballpark.

ok just very interesting, that, but not *quite* the answer i was hoping for. the map there is Q (charge) rotated by the "weak mixing angle". so my question (sort-of) becomes: is there anything *actually* in the standard model which has fixed angles on 30 or 60 degree increments, equivalent to the extended rishon model phase map, or is the "weak mixing angle" about it?

Ge?ndert von lkcl (10.02.17 um 14:06 Uhr) Grund: use smaller image, one from wikipedia dominates page too much
Mit Zitat antworten
  #13  
Alt 10.02.17, 13:44
Eyk van Bommel Eyk van Bommel ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 08.07.2007
Beitr?ge: 3.798
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von lkcl Beitrag anzeigen
nope. fail. i've seen this format before, in many many preon studies. it has no underlying geometric basis for mass. you have to have some form of hierarchical manner in which the rapidly-escalating mass has a rational basis. if the underlying "particles" do not reflect that - i.e. do not have some form of hierarchy - then it has ignored critical empirical evidence. also, the rules should be simple, elegant, and apply at *all levels*. no exceptions.
Hi ikcl
I didn’t checked the link – sorry. Thread 152 - Yes this was one. The other one was
151
The symmetry of his Model is shown in this Thread.
61
and here
233
I just show you this model for that reason, that it may help you see how you can build 48 Particles with T and V. It was just interesting that here the antielectron is made out of particles and the electron out of antiparticels.

Best EVB
__________________
Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt. A.E
Mit Zitat antworten
  #14  
Alt 10.02.17, 16:48
Hawkwind Hawkwind ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 22.07.2010
Ort: Rabenstein, Niederösterreich
Beitr?ge: 3.057
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Ich hab mir mal die ursprüngliche Arbeit von Harari et al angeschaut:
Haim HARARI and Nathan SEIBERG: "THE RISHON MODEL", Nuclear Physics B204 (1982) 141-167
Gibt es hier als pdf:
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/harar...csB_Vol204.pdf


Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen

Rishon und Harari
Das Antielektron besteht aus Partikel das Elektron aus Antipartikel.
Nicht wirklich: Harari führte eine neue (hypothetische) Quantenzahl ein - die Rishon-Zahl, die die eine Sorte Rishonen von der anderen unterscheidet. Sie tangiert aber nicht die Definition von Materie und Antimaterie. Materiequantenzahlen sind ja die Leptonenzahl L und die Baryonenzahl B (positive Werte = Materie, negative Werte = Antimaterie). Diese sind definiert wie standard und er gibt an, wie sie sich aus seinen neuen Quantenzahlen ergeben (siehe S. 146).


EMI dagegen hatte die Definition von Materie und Antimaterie modifiziert. Er schrieb damals

Zitat:
Zitat von EMI
Was allerdings eine gemeinsame Eigenschaft der "Familienmitglieder" ist, sie struktuieren die Materie.
Folgender Zusammenhang soll diese Gemeinsamkeit kennzeichnen:

T=2Q-B+L

Die hier von mir eingeführte additive Quantenzahl T bezeichnen wir im weiteren als Struktur-/Materiequantenzahl.

e+..........u..........d..........ηe..........ηe.. ........d..........u..........e-

+1........+2/3.....+1/3........0............0..........-1/3.....-2/3.......-1....Q=el.Elementarladung
0... ......+1/3....--1/3........0............0.......... 1/3.....-1/3.........0....B=Baryonzahl
-1...........0..........0..........1...........-1..........0...........0..........1.....L=Leptonen zahl
1...........1..........1..........1...........-1..........-1..........-1.........-1.....T=Strukturquantenzahl
http://www.quanten.de/forum/showpost...&postcount=101

Wie man sieht, unterscheidet sich seine Struktur-/Materiequantenzahl von der Standarddefinition von Materie.
Aber das ist alles schon verdamp lang her und vielleicht hatte ich irgendwas nicht richtig verstanden. In meinem Alter sollte man lieber mit den Enkeln spielen statt wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen zu wälzen, die man eh nicht versteht.

Gruß,
Uli

Ge?ndert von Hawkwind (10.02.17 um 16:50 Uhr)
Mit Zitat antworten
  #15  
Alt 10.02.17, 17:04
Eyk van Bommel Eyk van Bommel ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 08.07.2007
Beitr?ge: 3.798
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Hawkwind Beitrag anzeigen
In meinem Alter sollte man lieber mit den Enkeln spielen statt wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen zu wälzen, die man eh nicht versteht.
1. Stell dein Licht mal nicht so unter den Scheffel (on das Google translate richtig übersetzt)
2. Hat doch hier auch was von "mit Enkeln" spielen und dafür musst du dich nicht so oft nach dem Spielzeug bücken

Gruß
Evb
__________________
Phantasie ist wichtiger als Wissen, denn Wissen ist begrenzt. A.E
Mit Zitat antworten
  #16  
Alt 10.02.17, 17:19
Hawkwind Hawkwind ist offline
Singularität
 
Registriert seit: 22.07.2010
Ort: Rabenstein, Niederösterreich
Beitr?ge: 3.057
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen
1. Stell dein Licht mal nicht so unter den Scheffel
Naja, hat auch was mit fehlendem Interesse zu tun; es gibt bislang keinen Hinweis darauf, dass Quarks und Leptonen eine Unterstruktur haben.
Mit Zitat antworten
  #17  
Alt 10.02.17, 17:21
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Eyk van Bommel Beitrag anzeigen
Hi lkcl
I didn’t checked the link – sorry.
no it was not you, it was down to my settings. i changed to "non-threaded" view and now i can even follow along strukton's hyper-long-running thread (yay)

Zitat:
I just show you this model for that reason, that it may help you see how you can build 48 Particles with T and V. It was just interesting that here the antielectron is made out of particles and the electron out of antiparticels.

Best EVB
the perspective i came to was that T and V don't actually exist, but they are like the "peaks" of the elliptically-polarised mobius-photons. so you can ONLY have rishon *TRIPLETS*... it just so happens that the triplets match to 12 phases around a clock, those *happen* to map onto left-chiral and right-chiral particles... it's kinda neat and elegant.

the T and V are however mathematically very very important not to forget about, not just the "generating phase" but also because the total T and V give you *literally* a Jones Vector, then through Castillo's 2008 paper it shows how Jones Vectors may be mapped onto spinors, Jones Matrices mapped onto Pauli Matrices, and that's what i'm working on right now, to show a link between the ERM and the Standard Model, through the similarity between SU(2)xU(1) and Jones Vector superposition on a Poincare sphere.

so there is this fantastic and beautifully elegant relationship between the vectors (which you can superimpose under certain conditions) and the angles *of* those vectors, where the properties of an equilateral triangle are key (sin 30 = cos 60 = 1/2 etc.)

btw you will love these. they are *insanely* challenging to work out. this one was an early effort, i keep getting them wrong:



that one's wrong because the W Boson in the middle is not "independent", it's part of creation-and-destruction at the same time. the W Boson is too complex (a compound particle) to do that, so it has to exist for an actual (fantastically small) period of time. which led to the development of the _split_ diagrams (which *again* i keep getting wrong *sigh*... i *believe* this pair are finally right:



sorry for the over-zealous use of the gimp, there... that's the stage 1 Feynmann-like diagram for proton + electron into W Boson and (required, intermediary particle charge-balancing pion aka gluon). stage 2 is the transformation to neutron and neutrino:



in both diagrams it is ESSENTIAL that Conservation of Energy be respected. The Law of Conservation of Energy I would consider to be ABSOLUTE. It is okay to create particle-anti-particle in groups of four, as long as they have the exact same radius, momentum (opposing of course), phase (opposing of course), angular momentum (opposing of course) and so on. it's the quantum "Virtual Soup" which is very familiar to everyone i am sure, used here to good effect to create *four* sets of particle-anti-particle groups, total of 12 Rishon Triplets, if you add up the total Rishons T and V they *MUST* sum total to zero because that represents the phases of the photons which *MUST* in order to respect Conservation of Energy, completely cancel out.

this is one of the things that has me concerned about the Extended Rishon Model, that in order to respect Conservation of Energy, an extra gluon (pion) must be created (and then destroyed) at *exactly* the same time that the W Boson is created (and then destroyed). it is a key difference (discrepancy) compared to the Standard Model. i don't know how to resolve this. or make it "go away".
Mit Zitat antworten
  #18  
Alt 10.02.17, 17:45
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Hawkwind Beitrag anzeigen
Naja, hat auch was mit fehlendem Interesse zu tun; es gibt bislang keinen Hinweis darauf, dass Quarks und Leptonen eine Unterstruktur haben.
from the extended rishon model, empirical evidence supports the former *only* in the first level. i.e. that the up and down (and opposing, and chiral) quarks are indivisible, because all evidence that i am exploring points to them being 30 and 60 degree phase-offsets when compared to an electron.

for a successful mathematical model of this concept, including showing a neutrino phase-offset at 90 degrees, one may look at john williamson's paper where he computer-models an electron in a 6D experimental maxwell's equations environment which is mapped back to 3D.

leptons you are incorrect, it has been demonstrated for example that quarks appear to be a bit "squishy". probing the proton it has been determined that the quarks "move around a bit" and as they do so their binding energy increases. supporting evidence for this in terms of the Castillo 2008 superposition which i extended just this week to include the necessary phase offsets, http://lkcl.net/reports/jones_spinor_superposition/ is that if you start moving the qkarks around a bit the orthogonality between the quarks (right-angles) is adversely affected, resulting in E.M. radiation which is thrown off and moves the quarks *back* to their more stable configuration... that's the theory, anyway. QM has an "alternative" explanation that is well-understood, which i cannot follow but know enough to agree with the *conclusions*.

the "bit i am working on" - the bit where the extended rishon model and the standard model differ - is that under the extended rishon model the "superposition" rules which allow the proton and neutron (and anti-particles) to exist *also* permit *twelve* other permutations. actually total is 32 if we include left-chiral and right-chiral.

after a *lot* of cross-referencing with the available particle data, i was able to successfully identify the internal makeup of charm, strange and bottom. i then carried out an extensive series of phase-transforms ("decays") looking for patterns, finding for example that there is a perfectly good reason why sb (the B Meson) oscillates:



that's a single what you would call "gluon" being created as an intermediary. there are two matched pairs of VT0 "phase transforms" (more gluons if you want to call them that, but they must sum to *ZERO ENERGY* i.e. be of equal opposite phase, equal magnitude, equal momentum - everything), and it *works*. the bottom phase-transforms to an anti-strange at the exact same time as the strange phase-transforms to an anti-bottom: they're mirror-images of each other, there's nothing to stop the opposite phase-transform from happening... so it does!

quite beautiful and elegant, and supporting the hypothesis that the charm, strange and bottom quarks *are* lepton-like but with 1/3 or 2/3 electrical charge and 2/3 or 1/3 corresponding magnetic charge (part of a complex E.M. phase of 30 or 60 degrees) instead of 1, 0 or -1 electrical charge (i.e. not a phase of 0, 90, 180 or 270 don't forget the magnetic charge).

if you consider everything to be elliptically-polarised photons, quarks have a complex phase of e^(-i 1/12 2pi) or e^(-i 2/12 2pi) or the orthogonal variants of those. superposition through jones matrices gives you compound particles... it's all there and it's *beautiful*!
Mit Zitat antworten
  #19  
Alt 10.02.17, 17:59
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

Zitat:
Zitat von Hawkwind Beitrag anzeigen



Nicht wirklich: Harari führte eine neue (hypothetische) Quantenzahl ein - die Rishon-Zahl, die die eine Sorte Rishonen von der anderen unterscheidet.
he added something called hypercolour. now, only a few weeks ago i added hypercolour into the ERM and it was dynamite. *huge* breakthrough. if you look at the experimental publication from 2015 on "Braided Light" you find that braiding order when you superimpose photons is *preserved*.

my understanding of what hypercolour is, is that it represents the three major peaks and troughs of the elliptically-polarised photon's axis rotation. so hypercolour represents, if you will, the fact that when you superimpose say three elliptically-polarised mobius photons, you have to remember to phase-offset them.

this phase-offset means that to get the "sum total" superposition, you must have some way to remember the relationships between the peaks and troughs of the original waves.

i know a good way to put it! you know 3-phase electricity, right? you know how if you take the average of all 3 phases it sums *exactly* to zero volts at all times, right?

to "follow along" with the mathematics of that, it would help if you marked the peaks and troughs of each wave, marking a "R" on the first wave at 0 degrees, a "G" at 120 degrees and a "B" at 240 degrees, right? then on the second wave you would mark "G" at 0 degrees, "B" at 240 and "R" at 0... and for the third you'd mark "B" at 0 degrees, "R" at 120 and "G" at 240...

*now* you can follow along how they superimpose, right?

well, Harari's "hypercolour" is *EXACTLY* the same... if you accept that the Rishon Triplets are in fact elliptical polarisation axes (Jones Vectors) of mobius infinitely-looped elliptically-polarised photons on a circular path.

Zitat:
Wie man sieht, unterscheidet sich seine Struktur-/Materiequantenzahl von der Standarddefinition von Materie.
Aber das ist alles schon verdamp lang her und vielleicht hatte ich irgendwas nicht richtig verstanden. In meinem Alter sollte man lieber mit den Enkeln spielen statt wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen zu wälzen, die man eh nicht versteht.

Gruß,
Uli
do i have to disconnect your internet? go play with beautiful lively small children, they will grow up so fast!
Mit Zitat antworten
  #20  
Alt 11.02.17, 05:34
lkcl lkcl ist offline
Newbie
 
Registriert seit: 04.04.2014
Beitr?ge: 21
Standard AW: Extended Rishon Model

sorry you said lepton not baryon, will adjust accordingly later! apologies hawkwind

[edit] ok so i looked up the definition of leptons:

Leptons

Leptons, are subject to the weak nuclear force (they do not feel the strong nuclear force). See the examples below.

electron
muon
neutrino

yes to the electron

*NO* on the muon (it's a compound particle. logically this may be reasonably deduced on the basis that it has "decay" products. a fundamental particle would not "decay")

yes to the neutrino.

the electron-muon may be demonstrated to be a triple superposition of an electron, anti-electron and electron, each being an elliptically-polarised mobius photon, the sum superposition having the characteristics of charge "1" electrical (real), charge "0" complex (imaginary).

the extended radius is down to the application of Laplace's Equation: simply put, the radius of a compound particle expands until the balance of charges totals exactly zero, to satisfy the "nonradiating" condition. solving such an equation is... well, it's beyond me at the moment. i am looking for clues, though. one important one: the "twist" of the mobius strip takes energy to maintain (called "Torsion" from some mathematical perspectives) and it falls off as 1/r^6 so it is quite complex to find the right balance-point.

Ge?ndert von lkcl (13.02.17 um 11:31 Uhr)
Mit Zitat antworten
Antwort

Lesezeichen

Stichworte
rishonmodel

Themen-Optionen
Ansicht

Forumregeln
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, neue Themen zu verfassen.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, auf Beitr?ge zu antworten.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, Anh?nge hochzuladen.
Es ist Ihnen nicht erlaubt, Ihre Beitr?ge zu bearbeiten.

BB-Code ist an.
Smileys sind an.
[IMG] Code ist an.
HTML-Code ist aus.

Gehe zu


Alle Zeitangaben in WEZ +1. Es ist jetzt 08:33 Uhr.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 (Deutsch)
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
ScienceUp - Dr. Günter Sturm