[RFC] Expanded Rishon Theory

[lkcl]

hi,

 

my name's luke leighton, i did the usual maths further maths physics and chemistry (A,B,D,D in that order, and an S-Level Distinction in single-maths), and in 1986 developed a fascination for particle physics. i developed a career in programming, moved into software libre, pursued all sorts of wonderful things but still kept at the back of my mind the pictures i'd seen in a book i'd bought back at school, and, critically, still remembered the theory i'd independently developed which i later learned was called the "Rishon Model", by Haim Harari.

 

27 years and a number of false starts later i've started to write it up again, but this time something happened: a runaway train of logical deduction which is beginning to unnerve me slightly at 18,000 words (and still increasing), with - at the time of this posting - over *seventeen* separate discoveries, predictions, avenues of exploration (theoretical and experimental) and explanations, all based on the theoretical basis of four simple and fundamental particles. these include a reasonable and rational explanation for the Nuclear Force (which no other particle physics theory has a handle on), a prediction of the existence of *two* separate Higgs Bosons (Higgs+ and Higgs-0), the discovery of two new quarks (ultra-up and ultra-down) - i simply can't list them all here.

 

suffice to say i should point out the following:

 

1) i am an experienced internet user. i HAVE read the FAQ. all of it. it's hilarious. i even read the "how to spot quacks" link. that was funnier though.

 

2) despite reading the FAQ i'm still here. that should tell you what you need to know. if you don't know, allow me to make it clear: by posting here we *all* agree to honour the requests and advice given in the FAQ.

 

3) i have some basic maths: as a programmer i now substitute lack of maths knowledge with "write it as a program and get the same results, near as damnit". i grok quantum mechanics but haven't the time or capacity to learn it to the point where i can work with it. i grok set theory (programming), i can just about handle the concept of Clifford Algebra, if i think back hard enough to my A-Level Maths from 1987. but now, with experience in programming, i think in logic, inference, deduction and simple maths, like complex numbers.

 

4) i've removed several mistakes from this *DRAFT* paper already. which is still being written.

 

5) i really, *really* need some expert help in reviewing this material, which i am in the process of rapidly becoming slightly dazed and strangely disassociated from, on account of both the quantity of words written in under four weeks as well as the extraordinary implications of what is in effect little more than reverse-engineering and logical reasoning.

 

6) ultimately, i'd greatly appreciate some advice on where to go with this, as if it's inherently unsound i'd *really* like to stop writing, now, please, y'know what i mean?

 

with that in mind, here is a link to the DRAFT paper, on which i would greatly appreciate useful comments.

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/deriving_quarks.html

 

apologies in advance for the length.

 

l.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Would you be able to summarise your work in the thread for us?

[Endercreeper01]

Could you also summarize the mathematics?

[lkcl]

Would you be able to summarise your work in the thread for us?

 

sure - i'll try! (i'll do a maths summary separately as well). that would help me as well.

• begin with 4 particles - T and V - add two signs (+,-) and three phases (RGB).
• RGB represents 120 degree sine-waves exactly like 3-phase electricity. *exactly* like 3-phase electricity.
• allow 3 particles (3 phases) to spin in a line, about a central one. call these "triplets"
• there are 8 combinations that "work", these give the basic particles (electron, neutrino, quarks).
• triplets have *TWO* charge values: T-Charge and V-Charge

that's basic Rishon theory (ok, basic Rishon theory with a couple of corrections). what is really *really* new is this:

• allow "triplets" to spin about each other in the form of the letter "I" or "H". these give neutron, proton, strange, charm, top and bottom as well as muon and muon neutrino. call the triple-triplet sub-structure an "I-Frame".
• I-Frames rotate around the central triplet, with their own "spin" characteristic that is *independent* of the end triplet's spin.
• in a further extension to the "I-Frame" as a 5-triplet body, allow two *extra* quarks to attach themselves to the top and bottom of the letter "I" (or the vertical sides of the letter "H"). this gives you the tau and two previously undiscovered quarks, which i've named ultra-up and ultra-down
• allow 2-particle bodies to spin about each other as long as they're quarks (1/3 or 2/3 charges). doesn't matter how "heavy" they are.
• different combinations of 2-particle bodies give the pions, kaons *and*, if you use the ultra-quarks, the W and Z Bosons
• if you allow *another* application of the I-Frame Hierarchy then you get the Higg's Bosons. note Bosons *plural*. when you look more closely, you see that the Higgs is an "ultra-heavy proton" because it is made up of the ultra-heavy variants of the up down and up quarks....
• ... which allows us to predict the existence of an "ultra-heavy neutron" made up of the ultra-heavy down up and down quarks.
• taking the mass-ratio of the neutron and the proton and comparing it to the mass-ratio of the two experimentally observed Higgs Bosons (125.3 GeV and 126.0 GeV), the two mass ratios are EXACTLY the same to within 4 decimal places. so i *believe* that the Higgs+ and Higgs-0 have already been experimentally observed... just not yet recognised.
• particle "decay" is not *actually* "decay", it's phase-transitions. as the individual Rishons can be considered to be just "sine waves" (one of each type of matter), if you allow the interchange of two particles (each way) between two sets of two triplets, that covers the majority of particle "decay" patterns.... but they're not *actually* "decay". these are called "VT0 phase-shifts". there's a couple of exceptions to that (which really _do_ result in "decay" - one of them's gamma radiation). one of the exceptions i've called "VT*" (V T star).

so that covers the particles, but the implications go on from there, to include the following tentative areas of investigation:

• with a proper structure to the neutron and the proton, the spinning orbits can "interlock" at 90 degrees, allowing the repulsion and attraction of the up and down quarks to "balance", neatly giving the "Nuclear Force". no other particle physics theory even _remotely_ has a handle on the Nuclear Force.
• if the neutrino has a +1 V charge and the neutron has a -1 V charge then there is no reason why the neutrino should not be in orbit about the neutron. this has *huge* implications for science as a whole, especially chemistry.
• i am TENTATIVELY exploring the hypothesis that "V charge" is "Magnetic Flux". this is extraordinarily difficult to prove... or disprove. i've made some recommendations on practical experiments to do which include separating out isotopes of materials, on the basis that they would have different numbers of neutrons, therefore different neutrino orbital shells, therefore potentially different magnetic properties.

there's a number of other implications, including quite reasonable explanation such as "why the Higgs has zero spin despite being 3 particles" and so on.

 

it's a huge and comprehensive rationalisation of particle physics, basically. i've had some... errr.. fun with the neutron decay. it took me about 2 weeks to work it out. the fact that it *didn't* work - the phase-shift diagrams simply don't balance - meant i had to look closer (i.e. read more of the wikipedia page ) and i noted that there's something called "decay energy". that was it: *click* - that's why the phase transition diagrams didn't balance.

 

so - apologies for the length, but that really really _is_ a summary. there is actually a full summary of the observations and findings at the end of the paper, i'll try reorganising it so that it has hyperlinks on the titles, that would make life a bit easier, neh?

Could you also summarize the mathematics?

 

sure. it's actually quite simple, not least because i don't have the time to go into complex maths. as a software engineer with rusty A-Level maths i've simply not been able to go into that much depth, but actually what _is_ there is more set theory, group theory, logic etc. than it is "heavy-duty quantum mechanics". *actual* maths - has already been done. Piotr Zenczykowski wrote a consistent and published mathematical paper using O(6) Clifford Algebra (reference can be found via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model) explaining how the basic Rishon Model can "fit" into Standard Models.

 

so. these are the areas:

 

• simple logic, rules and sets. this covers the structure, phase transforms and the particle structure. but, bear in mind: these "rules" and "sets" are simply "summaries" of the underlying structure, which is actually in terms of "sine waves with phase" in a 6-dimensional universe (my money's on that being complex numbers in a 3 dimensional one, but that's yet to be determined).
• an understanding of sine waves and phases and how waves propagate (radio waves, gamma waves etc. etc.) and combine, and cancel (diffraction patterns), and have polarity, and are expressed as complex numbers (I and Q) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
• mass ratio analysis. i take a simple formula: "(mass of particle 1 divided by mass ratio 2) to the power of 0.5, 1/3 or 2/3" then look for the closest fractional number. the source code of a program which does all that is here: http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/energy_levels.py
• in the explanation of "Nuclear Force" i had to throw out a bit of maths that involved sine and cosine (gosh! ) which is basically 1/math.sqrt(2 * math.sin(angle)) - 1/math.sqrt(math.cos(angle)) - that's 2 "attractive" forces counter-balancing against 1 "repulsive" force. where those equal out is around 26.56 degrees. the source code of a program which hunts for this angle is here: http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/angle_search.py

 

so... uhh..... that's it! that's all. there's actually no need for quantum mechanics if the fundamental basis of matter is considered to be just sine-waves operating at exactly the same frequency as every single other fundamental particle in the universe. reason: no statistics or probabilities required if you *know* what phase the wave-form of every particle has! ok, assume you know, not "know" know.

 

so simple mechanics (albeit probably in 6 dimensions not 3) is, i believe, all that's required to simulate this. my money's on taking some standard 3 dimensional square-law attraction equations, written in python, then shoving *complex* numbers into it and see if it all falls in a heap or not. the nice thing about python is that you can do that: code written for floating-point numbers will work seamlessly with complex numbers (he said.... ) thrown at it.

 

l.

[ajb]

Could you also summarize the mathematics?

I will just say that Harari and Seiberg give a Lagrangian in their paper The Rishon Model, Nuclear Physics B 204, 141 (1982). (You can find a pdf of it online via google)

 

So lkcl should really start from a Lagrangian and then we may have a better idea of what he is talking about...

[lkcl]

I will just say that Harari and Seiberg give a Lagrangian in their paper The Rishon Model, Nuclear Physics B 204, 141 (1982). (You can find a pdf of it online via google)

 

So lkcl should really start from a Lagrangian and then we may have a better idea of what he is talking about...

 

ajb, you see: you've lost me already with the word "Lagrangian". i'd need to spend several hours looking that up and understanding it, then several days or possibly weeks working out how to rewrite the paper in terms of that mathematical notation.

 

right now, i'm writing this up in terms of simple diagrams, rules, logic and algorithms: exactly as a software engineer would tackle this, basically.

 

now, because i seem to have an ability to "recognise" correct formal maths when i see it (rather than an ability to write it), what i *might* be able to do is, if someone *else* were to write this out in "Lagrangians", i would be able to go "yeah that looks right".

 

in the meantime - i.e. without the assistance of formal mathematicians - i'm much more likely to be able to demonstrate this by using discrete computer simulations than i am by any other means. i say that with the qualifier "much more likely this century"

Edited January 17, 2014 by lkcl

[studiot]

What wqould be good would be if you were to devote a post to expanding upon each of your bullet points, in particular this one

 

 

• with a proper structure to the neutron and the proton, the spinning orbits can "interlock" at 90 degrees, allowing the repulsion and attraction of the up and down quarks to "balance", neatly giving the "Nuclear Force". no other particle physics theory even _remotely_ has a handle on the Nuclear Force.

 

This description seems like a circular argument to me since you are using forces (repulsion/attaraction) to describe forces (strong nuclear force).

[imatfaal]

I just took a page at random and plunged in to see what I could see

 

 

This phase transition is extraordinarily elegant. A "trick" occurs which is likely to be entirely unique to the Pion+ (note: it is not - the same trick is used in Kaons: see below). Begin from the less-probable phase transition as it is simpler to describe: Pion+ transitioning into an electron an an anti-neutrino:

 

pi+ -> e+ + ve

 

In quark terms that is as follows:

 

u $ \overline{d}$0 -> e+ + ve

 

In Rishon terms that is:

 

TVT:VTV -> $ \overline{T}$ $ \overline{T}$ $ \overline{T}$ + $ \overline{V}$ $ \overline{V}$ $ \overline{V}$

This is taken from your page - I have taken the liberty of changing the decays into latex to allow other members to see.

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/node10.html

 

[latex]\pi+ \Rightarrow e^+ + \nu_e[/latex]

[latex]u \bar{d}_0 \Rightarrow e^+ + \nu_e[/latex]

[latex]TVT:VTV \Rightarrow \bar{T} \bar{T} \bar{T} + \bar{V} \bar{V} \bar{V}[/latex]

 

OK so my problems start with the text not matching the decay you have shown - text say pion+ to electron and anti-neutrino and equation shows pion+ to positron and neutrino.

 

I am going to assume the equation is the correct part as otherwise you have complete charge reversal (thats old fashioned electric charge) from pi+ to e-

 

If the equation is what you intend to say

[latex]\pi+ \Rightarrow e^+ + \nu_e[/latex]

then at least it matches the electronic mode of decay.

 

You then go on to give your rishon version

[latex]TVT:VTV \Rightarrow \bar{T} \bar{T} \bar{T} + \bar{V} \bar{V} \bar{V}[/latex]

and further one explain how this all ties together nicely and fits with your ideas and model

 

You give a diagram in which the final products are

[latex]TVT:VTV \Rightarrow TTT + VVV[/latex]

which you describe as an electron and an anti-neutrino (back to wrong particles again!)

 

But if I look at your introduction

[latex] \bar{T} \bar{T} \bar{T}=electron[/latex]

[latex] \bar{V} \bar{V} \bar{V}= antineutrino[/latex]

[latex] TTT =positron[/latex]

[latex]VVV=neutrino[/latex]

 

The internal inconsistencies make it hard to believe that the rest actually works. I appreciate this is a draft - but if you are mixing up electrons and positrons yet getting the right answer then somehting may be amiss.

[ajb]

ajb, you see: you've lost me already with the word "Lagrangian".

Then you have nothing to add to this model.

[lkcl]

(edited to remove smileys because unlike in straight text, the happy-little-images really are quite objectionable and in-yer-face. please therefore imagine that this is all said with a happy and carefree perspective, thank you....)

I just took a page at random and plunged in to see what I could see



This is taken from your page - I have taken the liberty of changing the decays into latex to allow other members to see.
http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/node10.html

 

oo, that's really appreciated! i did realise (only yesterday) that i really need to start using latex, so began converting it (from raw HTML) to this - if you prefer: http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/deriving_quarks.tex

 

let me look at the rest and get back to you. you may have highlighted an error in the equations: i'll be honest, it's pretty close to thinking in binary (machine code!) so it does my head in, a bit. i'll refer to the charts i've got written on paper and make sure they're correctly transcribed to latex.

imatfaal, i appear to have made lots of mistakes, one of them is getting the pion+ decay-equation wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion#Charged-pion_decays

corrections underway... right done!

 

so yes, thank you imatfaal, you spotted some inconsistencies in the text versions of the equations. the drawings *are* correct, it was just everything else that was wrong! firstly, i'd got the pion+ decay equation wrong. it's pion+ -> positron and neutrino. second, i'd been confused by "e+" being "positron" not "electron".

 

so that really is:

 

pi+ -> e+ + ve

ud -> e+ + ve

TVT:VTV -> TTT + VVV

 

which now makes sense when you compare that against the drawing.

 

(wow, latex2html really does a poor job converting from tex to html, doesn't it? overlines become underscores, and the page numbers keep changing. if you're familiar with latex - i keep having to refer to internet searches every couple of minutes, apologies - feel free to use http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/deriving_quarks.tex instead ok?)

 

thanks for spotting the error and bringing it to my attention, imatfaal.

 

hmm, let me try and add something here, experiment with scienceforums.net latex capability

 

start from

[latex] TVT + VTV[/latex]

 

add an anti-TVT plus another TVT (to balance out)

[latex] TVT + VTV+\bar{TVT}+TVT[/latex]

 

apply a [latex]V\bar{T}0[/latex] transform [latex]VTV + \bar{TVT} -> \bar{VTV} + VVV[/latex]

[latex] TVT + \bar{VTV} + VVV + TVT[/latex]

 

apply a [latex]\bar{V}T0[/latex] transform [latex]TVT + \bar{VTV} -> TTT + \bar{TVT}[/latex]

[latex] TTT + \bar{TVT} + VVV + TVT[/latex]

 

now "balance out" the TVT and anti-TVT which we added in purely for step-by-step convenience here

[latex] TTT + VVV [/latex]

 

ta-daaaa

 

so those are the steps. i had to add an anti-TVT and a TVT as a way to break that down into something approaching a mathematical equation that can step-by-step be solved, but in reality what i believe is happening is that the two transforms are occurring simultaneously. this matches up with observations that gluons are instantaneous. my understanding is that gluons are just pions that are *literally* destroyed at the exact same time they are created. in other words, they're used as a phase-transition mechanism.

 

does that make any sense?

 

l.

Edited January 18, 2014 by lkcl

[ajb]

exactly what the strong nuclear force is - why it results in both an attractive *and* repulsive combination that keeps the neutron and proton separated at a fixed distance - this is what is simply not understood. at all. look at the wikipedia page: there are *no* current theories explaining why.

So what is the current status of lattice QCD and effective field theories here?

[studiot]

 

indeed... but that would be somewhat akin to saying that the use of numbers is a circular argument because the use of numbers on both sides of an equation are... numbers

 

exactly what the strong nuclear force is - why it results in both an attractive *and* repulsive combination that keeps the neutron and proton separated at a fixed distance - this is what is simply not understood. at all. look at the wikipedia page: there are *no* current theories explaining why.

 

if you look at this from the perspective of simple mechanics, and imagine that there is a square-law attraction between up-quarks and down-quarks, and that there is a square-law *repulsion* ... of exactly the same magnitude .. between up-and-up and down-and-down, then it's clear (at least to me!) that there must be a balance-point where those combined repulsive and attractive forces combine.

 

the trick is in the arrangement of the quarks inside the proton and the neutron. only if they are spinning as i show in that drawing will the repulsive and attractive forces between all six quarks work out to produce that balancing effect. (note: there could well be other arrangements: i just haven't noticed any).

 

so, forget the current concept of "nuclear force": it's a misnomer. think in terms of two square-law forces, one repulsive and one attractive. add them together. at some point they balance. job done

 

 

No the development of the argument is definitely circular (self referential if you like) when you use something to define itself.

 

The strong nuclear is one of the four (three?) fundamental forces in standard theories where the force action is replaced by some other mechanism than a 'force' (eg mediating particles).

 

All you have done is said that one force is really the result of the action of a different force, without explaining further.

Edited January 18, 2014 by studiot

[lkcl]

Then you have nothing to add to this model.

 

ajb: whilst you have every right to make such a statement, i feel obligated to point out that it may be viewed - and this is purely an observation from my perspective in reading those few words - as not constructively contributing to the goal which i asked for contributions to. now please consider this from my perspective, of having a certain amount of time available, you have certain skills and knowledge that i entirely lack, and i have others which have, i believe, allowed me to come up with things that other people - with similar skills to that which you have - simply could not think of.

 

so we are at a bit of a paradoxical position where the knowledge and skills that have brought current scientific theories to its current limited perspective (missing things like an explanation for the nuclear force, for example) are way beyond the average intelligent person, and we have another perspective which *is* capable of explaining things like the nuclear force but, by nature of that explanation having had to come from a completely different perspective it comes with a completely different set of paradigms, i.e. it needed to be discovered by someone who is *not* encumbered by the intensely-complex maths used by the current scientific community.

 

the problem is, then, that in order to *think* of this theory i had to *not* have the very mathematical skills that you believe i *should* have!

 

in short: if you can accept that, then we'll get along fine. if you cannot, then i deeply apologise but any questions that you may put here which include mathematical or theoretical concepts beyond my abilities to answer, i will reluctantly have no choice but to leave them for other people to answer, in the hope that someone here (perhaps later) may be able to act as a bridge between the two theoretical worlds, and provide the answers which we both seek.

 

ok?

 

l.

 

 

No the development of the argument is definitely circular (self referential if you like) when you use something to define itself.

 

The strong nuclear is one of the four (three?) fundamental forces in standard theories where the force action is replaced by some other mechanism than a 'force' (eg mediating particles).

 

All you have done is said that one force is really the result of the action of a different force, without explaining further.

 

ok, let me try and clarify.

 

what you believe is that i have defined the strong force as being the strong force, is that correct? what you're saying is that i've said "the strong force is defined in terms of the strong force". because i most definitely am *not* saying that!

 

in the second sentence, you repeat the currently-accepted theory that the strong force is "fundamental".

 

in the third, you come much closer to understanding what i've said, but... unfortunately may be missing parts of the explanation

 

so. first thing: "strong nuclear force is a fundamental force". this is... and i'm taking a risk here... ok, how do i word this in a way that you wouldn't reject outright.... ok i think i have it: I INVITE YOU TO CONSIDER (useful words those).... i INVITE you to CONSIDER that that statement, "nuclear force is fundamental" is wrong. i INVITE you to CONSIDER that the reason *why* it has been logically inferred that the strong force is "fundamental" is because people don't understand its mechanism: they don't have a handle on how it operates. therefore it's been put into a "black box" for the time being.

 

would you be happy to do that? suspend belief for a moment in accepting the current inferred scientific conclusion that the "nuclear force" is "fundamental"?

 

let me assume that you're happy to do that, and carry on...

 

so, forget "nuclear force". let me do some drawings.... achh! me daughter's nicked the pen ok, done - i'll cut/paste the associated text and provide a URL to the diagram:

 

http://lkcl.net/reports/rishon_model/strong_force_illustrated.png

 

here's the text i've added to the paper:

 

In this illustration there is a proton with an up quark at A and D, and

a down quark at C. There is also a neutron with a down quark at B. The

top diagram has the neutron and proton close together; the bottom diagram

has them further apart.

 

Here it is clear that in the top diagram, the sum of the inverse-square-law

forces (A-B, C-D and D-B) when the neutron's down quark is close to the

proton's down quark, results in a net total \textit(repulsion), and

yet at distances slightly further away, as shown in the bottom diagram,

the sum of those exact same forces is a net total \textit(attraction).

 

if that's still unclear, then think of it in these terms - and i do actually recommend that you try this out!

 

Thinking of this purely in mechanical terms that would allow an actual physical and practical demonstration:

1. Take 12 small permanent magnets of equal strength.
2. Tape or glue 6 of them back-to-back with North-to-North
3. Mark the North-North magnets with the letter "u"
4. Tape or glue 6 of them back-to-back with South-to-South
5. Mark the South-South magnets with the letter "d"
6. Take 2 rigid sticks of equal length.
7. On stick 1, tape or glue a "u" double-magnet at each end
8. On stick 1, tape or glue a "d" double-magnet at its centre
9. On stick 2, repeat this but with "d" at ends and "u" in centre
10. Take some string, wrap it round the centre of each stick
11. Suspend the two sticks at right-angles and see what happens.

you might have to orientate the permanent magnets such that the ones at the ends have their magnets facing outwards (parallel to the line of the stick) whilst the ones in the centre face outwards PERPENDICULAR to the stick. the idea is to create two sticks where the centres of each repel the ends of the other stick. i'm sure you get the idea.

 

now.

 

does that help make things clearer? FORGET "strong force equals fundamental force". think in terms of magnets. attraction and repulsion. think in terms of "sum of attraction and repulsion at different distances".

Edited January 18, 2014 by lkcl

[ajb]

...as not constructively contributing to the goal which i asked for contributions to.

You are right and I applogise. The best thing I can suggest is that go away and learn some physics behind and the mathematics of the Rishon Model if you wish to contribute to the understanding of this model.

 

However, today QCD and effective models based on QCD are used in the theory of the strong nuclear force. I would suggest that studying this would be a better use of your time and would given you a modern perspective as compared with the Rishon Model, but that is up to you.

 

i INVITE you to CONSIDER that the reason *why* it has been logically inferred that the strong force is "fundamental" is because people don't understand its mechanism: they don't have a handle on how it operates. therefore it's been put into a "black box" for the time being.

 

would you be happy to do that?

But you don't read the literature and so how do you have any knoweldge of what we do and don't know?

 

Anyway, current thinking is that the strong nuclear force is a residual force of QCD. Today the most modern understanding of this is via QCD on the lattice or studying effective theories, which by definition are not fundamental. I am far from an expert in this field and people will have to search the literature themselves for more details.

Edited January 18, 2014 by ajb

[studiot]

Luke, I'm not saying you are right, I'm not saying you are wrong.

 

I'm testing your text for self consistency. If you ever (try to) publish it will be tested much more thoroughly by a whole battery of experts.

 

Now you state

 

 

you repeat the currently-accepted theory that the strong force is "fundamental".

 

In my two posts (two lines and three lines) in this thread,

 

Where exactly did I repeat that the strong force is fundamental?

 

Please do not base your arguments on words I did not utter.

 

Having dispatched that, let us return to what I did say.

 

I said (and repeated) that I consider your argument circular or self referential because it replaces one force with another.

 

"A rose by any other name is still a rose"

 

You need to address this point.

 

I don't care if it is fundamental or not, that is not the point.

 

The problem for modern physics is that any form of 'Force' represents 'action at a distance', which is frowned upon.

 

To recap.

 

So far my one and only point is that you have renamed what others call the strong force by introducing alternative forces.

 

All my other words are an attempt to explain this.

I did indeed understand your replacement mechanism but you have replaced the strong force with an effect what is still a force.

 

Over to you.

Edited January 18, 2014 by studiot

[lkcl]

All my other words are an attempt to explain this.

I did indeed understand your replacement mechanism but you have replaced the strong force with an effect what is still a force.

 

ahh ok. right i get it: i apologise, i didn't understand the point you were trying to make. yes, strong force replaced with an effect which is still a force. nature of the replacement: i'm *guessing* it's inverse-square-law. i'm looking to understand what fits the evidence. the reverse-engineer in me demands that *grin*.

 

to be honest i've kinda hit a brick wall, now: inference and analysis has only taken me so far. i'm still trying to get a handle on how these particles would interact. the bit that's completely missing is how T and V interact. T (electric charge), obviously that operates (duh) how electrical charge works. V cannot entirely be assumed to operate the same (V with V that is) but maybe it does. T with V? absolutely no idea. only when i have that can i start to write the simulations. i have some guesses, but... yeah.

 

ok it's late here i'll take this up tomorrow, sleep on it. thank you studiot. ajb i'll reply tomorrow. thank you both for your time. l.

[lkcl]

The problem for modern physics is that any form of 'Force' represents 'action at a distance', which is frowned upon.

 

ok. the way that i view this, from the perspective of radio-waves, wave-forms, sine-waves, whatever it is, is that there is no "force", but that there is only "constructive and destructive recombination of wave-fronts".

 

so imagine a wave at a point: it's a sine-wave. imagine another wave, at another point. it's also a sine-wave, and it is oscillating at the exact same frequency as the other sine wave. now imagine that those two sine-waves radiate outwards at the speed of light. the effect of their wave-fronts will reduce with distance according to a square law.

 

when the wave-front of the first reaches the point at which the second is radiating (and vice-versa), they combine. what happens? well, that depends on the phase of the two waves, but you basically sum the two sine waves (one obviously being weaker than the other) and you get a new wave that's ever-so-slightly shifted off from the position it was previously "waving" from.

 

the net result is that depending on the sign of the two "waves", the relative positions of where the two waves emanate from will either move towards each other (quotes attract quotes) or they will move away from each other (quotes repulse quotes), and it will also so happen that the amount of movement will be proportional to the inverse of the distance squared between them.

 

this we call quotes forces quotes.

 

so i don't think in terms of "forces", either, but it is the most convenient moniker.

 

now, the next step i'll be taking is to endeavour to work out what the hell the relationships are between T and V particles in terms of wave-fronts-combining-to-create-the-illusion-of-forces-which-are-frowned-upon-but-are-the-best-word-to-use-unless-anyone-has-any-better-ideas.

[ajb]

now, the next step i'll be taking is to endeavour to work out what the hell the relationships are between T and V particles in terms of wave-fronts-combining-to-create-the-illusion-of-forces-which-are-frowned-upon-but-are-the-best-word-to-use-unless-anyone-has-any-better-ideas.

This sounds a bit like a scattering scenario. This is you could handle using the the Rishon Model (+ your additions whatever they are) and some standard techniques of QFT. But then you have decided not to read up on the standard day to day techniques of theoretical physics!

[lkcl]

This sounds a bit like a scattering scenario. This is you could handle using the the Rishon Model (+ your additions whatever they are) and some standard techniques of QFT. But then you have decided not to read up on the standard day to day techniques of theoretical physics!

 

the list shown at the right (browser tabs) is what will fit on a screen with only 1200 pixels depth. there are another two to three pages worth of tabs open, which won't fit on-screen.

 

i think, ajb, that, regrettably, i'm not going to be responding further to anything you might have to say. i'm looking for advice on whether what i've written has any fundamental flaws, so that i may make an informed decision on whether to continue to pursue it or not. one person has very kindly found a mistake, which i'm really grateful for, and i've corrected it.

 

[ajb]

i think, ajb, that, regrettably, i'm not going to be responding further to anything you might have to say. i'm looking for advice on whether what i've written has any fundamental flaws, so that i may make an informed decision on whether to continue to pursue it or not.

Without a proper model your work may have to stay in the "not even wrong" category in my informed opinion.