PDA

Archiv verlassen und diese Seite im Standarddesign anzeigen : Extended Rishon Model


lkcl
07.02.17, 01:56
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
08.02.17, 14:02
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 (http://info.kopp-verlag.de/neue-weltbilder/neue-wissenschaften/andreas-von-r-tyi/energie-sensation-durchbruch-bei-blacklight-.html) funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.

Eyk van Bommel
08.02.17, 18:25
Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell:confused:

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model)

Bei EMI fandest du es noch komisch - und hier:)

Gruß
EvB

lkcl
09.02.17, 14:45
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.


yes, indeed, i am using chrome, it works well to automatically translate. thank you for replying, your comments are most kind. it is indeed a complex topic, Harari worked with the Rishon Model for almost two decades before stopping. I have researched it for 30 years and am only now finding the mathematics, but not in Particle Physics: it is the field of optics where the advances are made!

and that is part of the problem: the mathematical notation is quite different. it is only through Castillo's paper of 2008 that i have been able to find a link between SU(2)xU(1), Pauli Matrices and Jones Vectors. I am presently working on a paper which is under development, deliberately not mentioning "particles", that shows how the elliptically-polarised light wave-forms of the quarks may superimpose successfully without constructive or destructive interference. if nothing else, just on this one topic alone where the paper is only planned to be around five pages in length, would be extremely valuable and a very important contribution not just in the field of optics but also to science as well.



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 (http://info.kopp-verlag.de/neue-weltbilder/neue-wissenschaften/andreas-von-r-tyi/energie-sensation-durchbruch-bei-blacklight-.html) funktionieren würde.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Lothar W.

yes, jay's work is fascinating, he is very smart. he notes "in passing" the similarity between his work and that of the de vries formula, rather than offers a solution. it was, however, after this work, that i was able to come up with the insight that alpha may be a recursive solution to Special Relativity, and in support of that i have been made aware, only just today, of another paper which explores the possibility that particles are "spherical standing waves" (a well-known solution in audio industry) - see doi:10.1017/pasa.2014.28

regarding dr mills it is most unfortunate that he has advanced so far ahead in the context of an industrial environment where "commercial secrecy" had to be so important. this is not uncommon: i have a friend who now works at a UK-based University, he worked for a Hard Drive company, and he said that he quit because not only were they were routinely carrying out reverse-engineering deconstruction of competitor's products (as their competitors also did to them), but that EACH COMPANY was INDEPENDENTLY and SECRETLY spending vast amounts of money to derive theoretical work that was TWENTY YEARS AHEAD OF MAINSTREAM PUBLISHED SCIENCE.
my friend found this to be so unethical and unacceptable that he quit and returned to academia.

nevertheless, i suspect that dr mills is not stupid, he is extremely smart, knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. he's advanced the scientific community's knowledge in the field of MRI scanning and in chemistry enormously through his work, and that was even before he began work on hydrinos. to ignore his work, as many people are doing, is to do one's self a huge dis-service. whilst i appreciate it's a huge work in its own right, i am saddened to encounter many people who really should know better whose "belief" takes an ad-hominem priority over the evidence before their eyes in the form of an 1800 page "from first principles self-consistent" document.

as a reverse-engineer i do not (cannot) make such "belief" judgements: i apply a "probability" to each piece of research, then search in parallel for more pieces of evidence that support (or refute) that line of reasoning. actual *understanding* comes very very much later on - possibly years later. many people cannot handle this approach: they assume that understanding is *required* - right here, right now - before proceeding further. it leads them into spending years in dead-ends from which their minds cannot then escape, as it is too late in their career.

this, then, explains why i am structuring the document as i have, with multiple sections assigning "probability" to each, but also recording the ongoing notes as well as the keywords under investigation.

i really appreciate even the time that you have taken to read what i have written.

lkcl
09.02.17, 15:18
Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell:confused:

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model)

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
09.02.17, 15:36
http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/rishon_phase_map.png

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/Phys741/xji/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
09.02.17, 17:42
...
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.



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/Class/PHYS480/qm_PDF/chp12.pdf

Hawkwind
09.02.17, 17:51
Wo ist der Unterschied zu EMI's -Modell:confused:

@Uli
Matter and antimatter are equally abundant in nature in the RM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model)

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
09.02.17, 20:54
@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 (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 :o)

lkcl
10.02.17, 12:28
@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.


yeahyeah. by choosing the hypothesis that particles are just phase-coherent photons that are caught in a mobius elliptically-polarised circle (we may choose to say "in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetime of size equal to the particle's Compton Wavelength which may be viewed as a quarternionic 3-sphere mapping to SU(2)xU(1)xU(1) " here if it helps to visualise it)...

...once that hypothesis is chosen, as everything *is* phase-harmonic photons it's a really REALLY simple leap to go "hmmm, photons superimpose constructively and destructively to cancel out, err... so particles must as well"


@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 (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.


zowee, i had to disable threaded-viewing, default is problematic. over 400 posts discussion. that's a lot of patience. here's the correct (specific) link:

http://quanten.de/forum/showpost.php5?p=43790&postcount=152

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.

this is something that a programmer understands very well (hierarchical data structures and recursion).

so... it is interesting... by comparison as a way to be able to compare and say "nope the ERM is most definitely not like that" :)

firstly i work on the hypothesis that it's photons and therefore maxwell's equations all the way down. with the Standard Model being maxwell's equations generalised by Yang and Mills into the frequency domain (aka QM) i believe it to be a sound, rational basis.


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

appreciated. yeah i can understand how a 330-message discussion would take up a lot of time... did you learn something? :)

lkcl
10.02.17, 12:53
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/Class/PHYS480/qm_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
10.02.17, 13:18
spinor is a vector. okaaay. so what (in actual vectors) would the various quarks be?


http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/350pxStandardModel.png
hmmm if that doesn't work it's here instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)#/media/File:Standard_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?

Eyk van Bommel
10.02.17, 13:44
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 (http://www.quanten.de/forum/showpost.php5?p=43789&postcount=151)
The symmetry of his Model is shown in this Thread.
61 (http://www.quanten.de/forum/showpost.php5?p=35425&postcount=61)
and here
233 (http://www.quanten.de/forum/showpost.php5?p=51028&postcount=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

Hawkwind
10.02.17, 16:48
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/harari/files/Nuclear_PhysicsB_Vol204.pdf




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


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.php5?p=37237&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

Eyk van Bommel
10.02.17, 17:04
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:rolleyes:)
2. Hat doch hier auch was von "mit Enkeln" spielen;) und dafür musst du dich nicht so oft nach dem Spielzeug bücken:D

Gruß
Evb

Hawkwind
10.02.17, 17:19
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.

lkcl
10.02.17, 17:21
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)


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:

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_intro/rishon_neutron_proton_w_boson_transition.png

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:

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/proton_decay_stage_1.png

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:

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_lexicon/proton_decay_stage_2.png

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".

lkcl
10.02.17, 17:45
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:

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model_intro/rishon_b_meson_oscillation.png

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*!

lkcl
10.02.17, 17:59
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.


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! :)

lkcl
11.02.17, 05:34
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.