Extended Rishon Model

[lkcl]

dear quanten.de members, many apologies for using english.

you may remember i posted in the fantastically-long thread a couple
of years ago about the fine structure constant, i apologise deeply
but i cannot actually find my own response it is so long! i very
much wanted to make people aware of this as there was a lot
of interest in the de vries formula: http://vixra.org/abs/1701.0006

but, primarily, i wanted to let people know that i am making a
lot of progress on the extended rishon model, and, crucially, i
keep making mistakes in the phase-transformation diagrams and
could really use some help, also with the maths. i am currently
updating the "notes" and "research" section which gives some
background. what i particularly need help with is establishing
the jones calculus to pauli matrix links SU(2)xU(1) and if an
extra U(1) is even needed - so much to do!

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/

[Struktron]

Hallo Luke,

Deinen Beitrag verstehen hier vermutlich viele. Er ist auch interessant.
So wie Du mit Hilfe von Google ausgewählte Abschnitte mit Rechtsklick übersetzen kannst, können wir das auch. Dass es bisher keine Antworten gibt, liegt meiner Meinung nach an der Komplexität des Themas. In Wikipedia gibt es über Rishonen genügend Informationen. Dass jemand von den hier Mitlesenden intensiv selbst daran arbeitet, glaube ich eher nicht. So kannst Du wohl kaum erwarten, dass jemand viel Zeit für eine Beschäftigung mit Deinen Fragen opfert.

Interessant sind einige Links in Deiner Arbeit. Yablons Überlegungen zur Feinstrukturkonstante sehe ich selbst als einen momentan noch erfolglosen Ansatz. Mills "GUT" und die erreichte Finanzierung einiger Versuche, sehe ich als "genial" an, aber leider mit einem zweifelhaften Hintergedanken... Trotzdem wären sicher viele glücklich, wenn eine kalte Fusion mit Hydrinos funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.

[Eyk van Bommel]

Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB

[lkcl]

Zitat von Eyk van Bommel

Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB

hi, eyk, thank you so kindly for your questions. i will respond in english and trust that you have google chrome with auto-translate switched on

yes, the perspective of the rishon model - a fundamental basis if you will - is that the Law of Conservation of Energy is ABSOLUTE. if you think of it in terms of phases, and constructive/destructive interference, it makes sense. thus we may conclude that if we knew the EXACT phase, constituents, momentum, velocity, angular momentum and including the "Mobius" energy (known as the helical Orbital Angular Momentum in optics but known from Twistor Theory as "Torsion"), of every single particle and photon in the universe, and could sum them up, they would come to EXACTLY zero... but would also tell us EXACTLY where the Big Bang started from

what is the difference between the extended rishon model and haim harari's original theory? very good question: there are several.

* firstly, i have inverted the sign of Vohu. this was after exploring decay patterns, the original sign did not match properly.

* secondly (and this is something that applies to ALL models i have ever seen), not only the "vectors" of the particles (+2/3, -1/3) must add to +1, 0 or -1, but the PHASES that each particle represents must sum to a whole number as well. it's slightly more complicated than that, i am only just beginning to understand the maths enough to explain it, but you have to think in terms of elliptically-polarised light superposition to do it, and elliptically-polarised light superposition is not something that has been fully explored, not even in the very advanced modern field of optics. see http://lkcl.net/reports/jones_spinor_superposition/ for a paper i am currently working on (right now). harari therefore worked only with the VECTORS, not with the PHASES, and so made some mistakes and missed some crucial information, as has pretty much everyone including me up until about 3 weeks ago.

* thirdly, harari and seinberg endeavoured to work out a way to map to "higher generations" but did not fully succeed. this has inspired many many people to try to do the same: King, Zenczykowski, Heusen, Bilson-Thompson, but none of them have really persisted or worked from the perspective of judgement-less reverse-engineering which is my special area of expertise.

* fourthly, harari and others did not consider the perspective of first having a hypothesis which asked the question, "What Is The Universe Actually Made Of?" which is better expressed as, "What Hardware Are Particles Working Off Of?". there's only really one candidate answer to that, and it's "The Same Stuff That Photons Are Working In". that leads automatically to an elimination of things like "Strong Force" as a "Force", likewise the Weak "Force" (but not "Weak Interaction"), and possibly gravity as well (although that's highly speculative).... leaving ONLY MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS in as yet unsolved (or unrecognised) configurations.

* fifthly, i managed to work out a hierarchy that requires only SU(2)xU(1) as the underlying Group covering *all* particles, that there is an unidentified possible candidate quark yet undiscovered, somewhere between top and bottom, and that there is a 5-superposition level which has 2 main quarks ultra-up and ultra-down, at around the 16.5 GeV level, which are the constituent parts of the W and Z Bosons and, as leptons, the two Higgs Candidates at 125.3 and 126.0 GeV respectively.

* sixthly there is a key difference of perspective, again from the "Law of Conservation of Energy IS ABSOLUTE" perspective, that Charge is *not* conserved in the intermediate particles, but that ENERGY is Conserved by the intermediate particles, instead. this is pretty crucial.

there are a few more very important differences and advances both in perspective and depth of exploration and consistency, but the above is the major ones.

hope that helps.

l.

[lkcl]

i have a very specific question, which would greatly help in understanding and advancement.

i wish to understand how to link the model i am working on to the Standard Model. the above "phase diagram" is what i have identified particles as. "positron" is at 0 degrees, anti-neutrino at pi / 2, up quark at 1/12 2pi and so on.

i understand that the Standard Model may have something similar, but its mathematics is too complex for me to understand (which is why i was so delighted to find Castillo's paper "Spinor representation of an electromagnetic plane wave" as it mentions a translation between Jones Matrices and Pauli Matrices and spinors.

so the question is: what is the spinor and matrix representation of each of the quarks? i have found the following document: http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/P...i/chapter1.pdf

in the Extended Rishon Model, and from the studies that i have done, i understand quarks to actually be ultra-short-lived pions. also, that if you superimpose a pion (quark) and the appropriate quark, it turns into the *other* quark of the pair which doesn't cancel. Example: u anti-d pion (gluon) plus a d quark, the d and anti-d cancel and you get a u quark left.

so my question in effect is: would it be *reasonable* to assume that the formula (1.7) would *also* represent... a quark (generation 0), as well as a pion (generation 2)?

if the above is not obvious (that pions and gluons are the same thing), look further in that PDf at Figure 1.2, it even *says* in the paragraph above that there are eight "gluons". well, there are eight *pions* if you include the left-chiral ones!

greatly appreciated your help in understanding what is going on.

[Hawkwind]

Zitat von lkcl

...
so my question in effect is: would it be *reasonable* to assume that the formula (1.7) would *also* represent... a quark (generation 0), as well as a pion (generation 2)?

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.

Zitat von lkcl

if the above is not obvious (that pions and gluons are the same thing), look further in that PDf at Figure 1.2, it even *says* in the paragraph above that there are eight "gluons". well, there are eight *pions*

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

[lkcl]

Zitat von Hawkwind

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.

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.

[lkcl]

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?

[Hawkwind]

Zitat von Eyk van Bommel

Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier

Gruß
EvB

Ich fand es abwegig, dass er die Begriffe "Materie" und "Antimaterie" abweichend von der Standarddefinition der Physiker benutzt. Das ist in diesem Modell von Rishon und Harari aber nicht der Fall. Auf so eine Idee kommt einfach kein Physiker.

Warum man heute anscheinend nur Materie und keine Antimaterie im Universum beobachtet, das ist doch eine ganz andere Frage.

[Eyk van Bommel]

@Uli
Ich hab das auf die „Schnelle“ auch falsch verstanden. Aber hier sind doch up antiquarks und down quarks in diesem Sinne Antimaterie. down quarks sind hier Antipartikel.

Rishon und Harari
Das Antielektron besteht aus Partikel das Elektron aus Antipartikel.
EMI
Das Antielektron besteht aus Nanos und das Elektron aus Antinanos.
---------------
EMI bezeichnete nun Antinanos als Antimaterie und nicht als Antipartikel – Na gut, das mag auf der einen Seite unklug sein, anderseits finde ich es nicht weniger verwirrend wenn man Teilchen die aus Antipartikel bestehen als Materie bezeichnet.

@lkcl
Sorry, lkcl for this misunderstanding . But you couldn’t know that EMI was a person how discussed his own model here in this forum. First of all, I have to say that I have big lack of knowledge in this area (and not only in this) Nevertheless, it can be interesting for you?
If you have time....
http://quanten.de/forum/showthread.php5?t=1029&page=19
Thread 152 und 153. If you change A to T and B to V you will maybe see the similarities.

Good luck (I’m not able to give you more support than this )