Is There a Six-Preon Theory with Specific Charge and Color Assignments?

[kodama]

Did you forget solitons, pomerons and skyrmions? Unless you can plausibly propose how any of your cocktail of preon ingredients can be mixed to achieve the specific mass, spin, charge, color, etc. of the standard model particle spectrum, you're just harvesting and listing sexy-sounding terms from the literature of theoretical physics.

I did forget, Point being has any researcher suggested "preons" of solitons, pomerons and skyrmions can be mixed to achieve the specific mass, spin, charge, color, etc. of the standard model particle spectrum, is there any research into this, into preons being something other than fermions and bosons ?

 

[kodama]

Preons are almost by definition particle theories. Fundamental particles have integer or half integer spin. Integer spin particles are bosons. Half-integer spin particles are fermions. And, indeed, while not all preons have to be fermions, it pretty much follows that some of them do, since there are half-integer spin particles in real life and getting a half-integer spin particle from a composition of integer spin particles doesn't work without difficult contortions.

Loop quantum gravity isn't a particle theory. Neither is an unparticle theory. So, while those are both BSM physics, they aren't preon theories.

Strings in string theory are either bosonic or fermionic.

Anyons do break out of the boson-fermion dichotomy, in favor of an abelian and non-abelian dichotomy, and are more like particles. But they've also only been demonstrated in a two-dimensional system which is a problem in a 3+1 dimensional world.

why not hypothesis that anyons exist stuck on a 2D "brane" and use this to create a anyon preon theory to give rise to the standard model, use some version of holography and ads/cft to conjecture 3d Space is a stack of 2d branes glued together, and anyons are stuck on those 2d branes.

I mention LQG and spin networks since the history is that Sundance Bilson Thompson was researching preon theory, Hari Shupe preon theory, and instead of particles he suggested ribbons and braids. Smolin saw this and suggested the ribbons are spin networks, and perhaps LQG could give rise to the standard model, based on an idea of preons.

John Baez N Fuery et al have suggested the use of octonions to unify the standard model.

I'm wondering if you can somehow mix in Fuery and John Baez octonions with Bilson Thompson-Lee Smolin spin networks and framed ribbon braiding.

assign octonions to Bilson Thompson/Lee Smolin framed braiding

 

[ohwilleke]

why not hypothesis that anyons exist stuck on a 2D "brane" and use this to create a anyon preon theory to give rise to the standard model, use some version of holography and ads/cft to conjecture 3d Space is a stack of 2d branes glued together, and anyons are stuck on those 2d branes.

I mention LQG and spin networks since the history is that Sundance Bilson Thompson was researching preon theory, Hari Shupe preon theory, and instead of particles he suggested ribbons and braids. Smolin saw this and suggested the ribbons are spin networks, and perhaps LQG could give rise to the standard model, based on an idea of preons.

John Baez N Fuery et al have suggested the use of octonions to unify the standard model.

I'm wondering if you can somehow mix in Fuery and John Baez octonions with Bilson Thompson-Lee Smolin spin networks and framed ribbon braiding.

assign octonions to Bilson Thompson/Lee Smolin framed braiding

You can spin out a list of everything that everybody has ever tried, and it might even have the right answer in there somewhere.

But you've completely drifted beyond the original topic of the thread, which was every narrow, and until you come up with a reason that a preon theory with preons that are somehow neither bosons nor fermions solve some observational issue, with some sort of academic support to back it up, why should we even care?

If you want to do HEP-theory, write your own paper.

One of the more mainstream conceptual paths, which is decidedly not a preon theory, is the quantum field theory concept that "treats particles as excited states (also called quantum levels) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles."

Thus, what we idealize as "particles" are really excitations of (i.e. "bumps in") quantum fields. Thus, the properties of the fields are what sets boundaries on the manners in which they can be excited and the allowed set of discrete particle states. Conceptually, this is basically an approach that puts waves first and particles second in the wave-particle duality.

This approach has historically been more fruitful in high energy physics and quantum gravity pursuits than a particle's first approach.

 

[Vanadium 50]

you're just harvesting and listing sexy-sounding terms from the literature of theoretical physics.

Physics Mad-Libs!

 

[kodama]

You can spin out a list of everything that everybody has ever tried, and it might even have the right answer in there somewhere.

But you've completely drifted beyond the original topic of the thread, which was every narrow, and until you come up with a reason that a preon theory with preons that are somehow neither bosons nor fermions solve some observational issue, with some sort of academic support to back it up, why should we even care?

this paper

One generation of standard model Weyl representations as a single copy of
Author links open overlay panelN. Furey Physics Letters B
Volume 827, 10 April 2022, 136959

Abstract

Peering in from the outside,
looks to be an ideal mathematical structure for particle physics. It is 32 -dimensional: exactly the size of one full generation of fermions. Furthermore, as alluded to earlier in [1], it supplies a richer algebraic structure, which can be used, for example, to replace with the symmetry of the standard model.

John Baez also talks about octonions and the standard model here

Talk 9: Can We Understand the Standard Model Using Octonions? (John Baez)
Latham Bo




so if you accept the hypothesis that We Understand the Standard Model Using Octonions, what sort of fundamental object or entity do octonions act on, that give rise to the standard model particles?

what are the properties of this object that with octonions, give rise to all the things you mention in your post?

 

[ohwilleke]

this paper

One generation of standard model Weyl representations as a single copy of
Author links open overlay panelN. Furey Physics Letters B
Volume 827, 10 April 2022, 136959

Abstract



John Baez also talks about octonions and the standard model here

Talk 9: Can We Understand the Standard Model Using Octonions? (John Baez)
Latham Bo




so if you accept the hypothesis that We Understand the Standard Model Using Octonions, what sort of fundamental object or entity do octonions act on, that give rise to the standard model particles?

what are the properties of this object that with octonions, give rise to all the things you mention in your post?

A mathematical structure is not necessarily (or even usually or presumptively) a preon.

 

[kodama]

A mathematical structure is not necessarily (or even usually or presumptively) a preon.

okay not a preon, what objects could be used with that We Understand the Standard Model Using Octonions

 

[kodama]

A mathematical structure is not necessarily (or even usually or presumptively) a preon.

Octonions and the Standard Model 5. How to think of the 2×2 self-adjoint octonionic matrices as 10-dimensional Minkowski space, and pairs of octonions as left- or right-handed Majorana-Weyl spinors in 10 dimensional spacetime.

john baez et al argue Majorana-Weyl spinors and Octonions gives you back the Standard Model

so Majorana-Weyl spinors in Octonions could play the role of preon

there is
arXiv:1105.3385 (gr-qc)
[Submitted on 17 May 2011 (v1), last revised 2 Feb 2012 (this version, v2)]
Spinor Representation for Loop Quantum Gravity
Etera R. Livine, Johannes Tambornino

Spinor representation of the Hamiltonian constraint in 3D loop quantum gravity with a nonzero cosmological constant
Published in: Phys.Rev.D 107 (2023)

loop quantum gravity contains Spinor

so Spinor Representation for Loop Quantum Gravity + Octonions and the Standard Model

 

[ohwilleke]

john baez et al argue Majorana-Weyl spinors and Octonions gives you back the Standard Model

so Majorana-Weyl spinors in Octonions could play the role of preon

there is
arXiv:1105.3385 (gr-qc)
[Submitted on 17 May 2011 (v1), last revised 2 Feb 2012 (this version, v2)]
Spinor Representation for Loop Quantum Gravity
Etera R. Livine, Johannes Tambornino

Spinor representation of the Hamiltonian constraint in 3D loop quantum gravity with a nonzero cosmological constant
Published in: Phys.Rev.D 107 (2023)

loop quantum gravity contains Spinor

so Spinor Representation for Loop Quantum Gravity + Octonions and the Standard Model

Spinors and Octonions are ways of mathematically describing Loop Quantum Gravity which is fundamentally a description of space-time itself, and not particles in space-time.

 

[kodama]

Spinors and Octonions are ways of mathematically describing Loop Quantum Gravity which is fundamentally a description of space-time itself, and not particles in space-time.

I am also note Octonions and the Standard Model separate from Loop Quantum Gravity

eg
arXiv:2206.06912 (hep-th)
[Submitted on 14 Jun 2022 (v1), last revised 6 Aug 2023 (this version, v3)]
Octonion Internal Space Algebra for the Standard Model
Ivan Todorov

The paper surveys recent progress in the search for an appropriate internal space algebra for the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. As a starting point serve Clifford algebras involving operators of left multiplication by octonions. A central role is played by a distinguished complex structure which implements the splitting of the octonions O=C⊕C3 reflecting the lepton-quark symmetry. Such a complex structure in Cℓ10 is generated by the Cℓ6(⊂Cℓ8⊂Cℓ10) volume form, ω6=γ1⋯γ6, left invariant by the Pati-Salam subgroup of Spin(10), GPS=Spin(4)×Spin(6)/Z2. While the Spin(10) invariant volume form ω10=γ1...γ10 is known to split the Dirac spinors of Cℓ10 into left and right chiral (semi)spinors, P=12(1−iω6) is interpreted as the projector on the 16-dimensional \textit{particle subspace} (annihilating the antiparticles). The standard model gauge group appears as the subgroup of GPS that preserves the sterile neutrino (identified with the Fock vacuum). The Z2-graded internal space algebra A is then included in the projected tensor product: A⊂PCℓ10P=Cℓ4⊗PCℓ06P. The Higgs field appears as the scalar term of a superconnection, an element of the odd part, Cℓ14, of the first factor. The fact that the projection of Cℓ10 only involves the even part Cℓ06 of the second factor guarantees that the colour symmetry remains unbroken. As an application we express the ratio mHmW of the Higgs to the W-boson masses in terms of the cosine of the {\it theoretical} Weinberg angle.

here Clifford algebras involving operators of left multiplication by octonions on spinors give standard model gauge group

spinors play a role similar to preons in Clifford algebras and octonions

 

[ohwilleke]

I am also note Octonions and the Standard Model separate from Loop Quantum Gravity

eg
arXiv:2206.06912 (hep-th)
[Submitted on 14 Jun 2022 (v1), last revised 6 Aug 2023 (this version, v3)]
Octonion Internal Space Algebra for the Standard Model
Ivan Todorov


here Clifford algebras involving operators of left multiplication by octonions on spinors give standard model gauge group

spinors play a role similar to preons in Clifford algebras and octonions

Also not preons, although suggestive of them. Also, not actually the Standard Model since since it maps to sterile neutrinos.

 

[kodama]

Also not preons, although suggestive of them. Also, not actually the Standard Model since since it maps to sterile neutrinos.

its a start

have a look

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/octonions-and-the-standard-model.995505/#post-6415851

so one object the spinors and Clifford algebras and octonions give Standard Model and sterile neutrinos.

 

[arivero]

As we have moved to miscenalneus in this thread... Does anybody know if Garret Lisi' app to visualize algebras is still working in some website? I am wondering how many ways one can extract SU(3) out of SU(5), looking at the roots etc.

 

[kodama]

arXiv:2004.11140 (physics)

[Submitted on 17 Apr 2020 (v1), last revised 6 May 2020 (this version, v2)]

A topological model of composite preons from the minimal ideals of two Clifford algebras​

Niels G. Gresnigt

We demonstrate a direct correspondence between the basis states of the minimal ideals of the complex Clifford algebras Cℓ(6) and Cℓ(4), shown earlier to transform as a single generation of leptons and quarks under the Standard Model's unbroken SU(3)c×U(1)em and SU(2)L gauge symmetries respectively, and a simple topologically-based toy model in which leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons are represented as elements of the braid group B3.
It was previously shown that mapping the basis states of the minimal left ideals of Cℓ(6) to specific braids replicates precisely the simple topological structure describing electrocolor symmetries in an existing topological preon model. This paper extends these results to incorporate the chiral weak symmetry by including a Cℓ(4) algebra, and identifying the basis states of the minimal right ideals with simple braids. The braids corresponding to the charged vector bosons are determined, and it is demonstrated that weak interactions can be described via the composition of braids.

Comments: 11 pages
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:2004.11140 [physics.gen-ph]
(or arXiv:2004.11140v2 [physics.gen-ph] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.11140
Related DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135687

 

[Mordred]

Nice find gonna keep that article in my collection handy quick reference on a few tables

 

[kodama]

could Majorana-Weyl spinors be a type of preon governed by Octonions per Baez et al

 

[arivero]

could Majorana-Weyl spinors be a type of preon governed by Octonions per Baez et al

While this is a bad start for a preon theory, it is an interesting one to study Dirac equation. You could search https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/quantum-physics.62/ for some thread doing both the trick of looking at Dirac equation as two solutions of Weyl equations AND as four solutions of Klein-Gordon equation.

The point of "pasting" two fermions L and R using the mass opens all the way to Higgs field, and it asks very interesting things as "must both fermions have the same charge?"

 

[kodama]

While this is a bad start for a preon theory, it is an interesting one to study Dirac equation. You could search https://www.physicsforums.com/forums/quantum-physics.62/ for some thread doing both the trick of looking at Dirac equation as two solutions of Weyl equations AND as four solutions of Klein-Gordon equation.

The point of "pasting" two fermions L and R using the mass opens all the way to Higgs field, and it asks very interesting things as "must both fermions have the same charge?"

could you get fermions and bosons from spinors, in much more mathematics

 

[kodama]

It is so very tempting though.

Our very terminology points huge arrows in this direction by decomposing fundamental particles in the Standard Model into a bunch of discrete properties that are assigned numbers, which exist in some combinations but not others.

View attachment 348003

The list I've screen shotted doesn't even include QCD color charge, or whether both left and right, or only left or right parity is available, and particle v. antiparticle distinctions.

A b quark looks like a -1/3 charge preon, plus a single color charge preon, plus a spin-1/2 preon, plus a 1/3 baryon number preon, plus a bottomness preon, plus some composite hypercharge and weak hypercharge particles.

It looks like every other puzzle that science has ever presented to us without actually requiring multi-variable calculus and complex analysis to fathom.

It screams at you that there must be a simpler way! All of our other scientific and life experiences tell us that it feels like there should be some clever way to make it flow from something simpler and deeper.

If it worked for myriad molecules and crystals we encounter in everyday life, it worked for the periodic table of the elements, and it worked for the particle zoo of hadrons, then surely there must be a better way to simplify the 104 possible combinations of color charge, mass, electromagnetic charge, weak interaction charge, spin, parity, and particle-antiparticle combinations (including the graviton, and excluding continuous properties like photon frequency and kinetic energy):

* 3 quark generations x 2 quark EM charges x 3 colors each x 2 parity possibilities x particle/antiparticles for each = 72 discrete quark variants.
* 3 charged lepton generations x 2 parity possibilities x particle/antiparticles for each = 12 discrete charged lepton variants
* 3 neutrino generations x 1 parity possibility x particle/antiparticle for each = 6 discrete neutrino variants

for 90 discrete fundamental fermion variants.

The eight color combinations of gluons, the W+ and W- bosons, one Z boson, the Higgs boson, the photon and the (hypothetical graviton) for 14 discrete fundamental bosons variants.

104 fundamental particles in all.

How can 104 discrete variations of anything be fundamental, our intuition screams?

And there is a prize out there to claim: Reducing the number of experimentally determined constants in the Standard Model.

15 masses, 4 CKM parameters, 4 PMNS parameters, 3 coupling constants particular to the Standard Model, G and the cosmological constant in GR, and the speed of light (it was measured before it was defined, which is why it isn't a round number in meters) and Plank's constant for good measure.

Surely there must be a way to trim down the 30 fundamental constants (really a few less, since a few are not independent of each other due to electroweak unification)!

And, it isn't as if the 104 discrete variants of particle types and 30 fundamental constants show no patterns! There are mass hierarchies and textures and alternative parameterizations. There are correlations between the masses and the mixing angles. There are combinations of properties that are allowed, and combinations of properties that aren't. We already have formulas connecting a couple of the coupling constants to a couple of the masses. So, why shouldn't there be more formulas like that?

Even if your preon model cuts down the number of fundamental particles only minimally, if it can provide a way to calculate many more of those 30 experimentally determined physical constants from first principles, that's a huge win that can provide more precision without more experimental measurements!

And, for those who believe that dark matter particles are a thing and that dark energy has substance, or that SUSY is real, or that there might be inflatons or other motley BSM particles, it offers the reward of a path to identify what those BSM particles could be before we discover them experimentally (and in light of the fact that we may never actually be able to observe them experimentally because the experiments are too hard, at least to complete in our lifetime).

The same incentives, with more sophistication, drive GUT models and string theory, which are basically preon theories for grown ups.

We already know things sufficiently fundamental to know what we need to know to apply the Standard Model and GR to all sorts of absurdly hard problems that are at the very limits of our technological abilities with absurd precision, but it is still so unsatisfying and clunky!

So that's "why" people keep working on preon models.

Is it time well spent?

Probably not.

As Vanadium 50 notes, using the same methods that we used to discovery protons, neutrons and quarks, it takes huge contortions for preons to be real without some sort of Higgs field/gravitational field shielding or something similar to hide hugely massive particles as components of much less massive particles.

But there is also a deep sense that this clunky complexity can't be all that there is to know. The data we have is so organized and structured and fits together so well. It looks like a preon problem! And, preon theories are very inexpensive to research using data collected for other purposes. And, highly respected HEP scientists have tried in the past and published their whimsies, before giving up, so it is respectable, up to a point (even if the numerology monster lurks behind every corner and the experimental constraints get tighter every time we review them anew).

As a result, people keep trying that approach, the same way that they try to climb Mount Everest despite the long line of dead bodies that they have to pass by on the way and knowing that their particular quest isn't likely to change the world in any meaningful way. The data is sitting there, staring us in the face, taunting us!

Preon theory, GUT theory, TOE theory, string theory, and lots of other BSM theorizing is ultimately driven by an unwillingness to accept that what we know now is as good as it gets. Preon theories are just the entry level version of the larger quest.

does john baez Octonions and the Standard Model count

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/octonions-and-the-standard-model.995505/

there are many people have been workings in the approach

with spinors as analogous to preons

spinors aren't particles but with Octonions, give you the Standard Model per Baez

 

[nnunn]

The point of "pasting" two fermions L and R using the mass opens all the way to Higgs field, and it asks very interesting things as "must both fermions have the same charge?"

Good point. The way Lenny Susskind used to explain those (L,R) fermion states was that the L-state HAS quanta of weak hypercharge, while the R-state does not. In the standard model, the rest mass associated with such a "composite" fermion reduces to the rate of this chiral oscillation.

This explanation for fermion mass was derived from the (earlier) explanation for how a Z-boson gets a mass -- the so-called "Higgs mechanism" -- in which a Z-boson acquires then emits quanta of weak hypercharge; the mass associated with a Z-boson being determined by the rate of this interaction with a condensate of weak hypercharge ("Higgs-type field").

 

[nnunn]

Getting back to the issue of the original post, building fermions from some family of preons is a logical next step in a reductionist approach. But such logic raises the question: is there some ultimate preon ("ultimaton") from which a family of such intermediate preons might be built? This sort of "ultimatonic" model was explored briefly in the early 1980's, but got steamrolled in 1984 by that excitement about strings.

Meanwhile, interest in the existence, topology and dynamics of such an "ultimate uncuttable" (a-tom) continues.

For example, while quantum field theories help to model the sort of quantized mechanics we observe, the string program has motivated physicists to consider the topology and dynamics of truly Planck-scale things. But notice how both approaches to quantizing mechanics (QFT and strings) include in their foundations that same irreducible thing: Planck's quantum of angular momentum. Given that such a quantum of angular momentum implies an irreducible quantum of energy density, then, in the context of GR, this implies a quantum of classical curvature. And in the context of frame-dragging, within a condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs-type field), such a quantum of spinning curvature becomes a (weakly interacting) vortex of weak hypercharge.

It also becomes the ultimate WIMP: massive NOT in the sense of "lots of mass", but rather... "first measurable form of mass-energy".

Re: building a family of preons from such a weak interactor

Motivated by the way quarks are bound into hadrons, and the necessary asymptotic freedom, in a series of papers from 2002-2008, Yershov explored one way to build up that family,

Yershov preon papers (2002 - 2008)

He considered the question: if quarks can be so tightly bound, can clusters of "ultimate preons" (ultimatons) be bound even more tightly?

Which raises another question: is this sort of quantized vortex of weak hypercharge a better way to model the sort of axion that cleans up that Strong CP problem? And (as mentioned above) as a quantum of curvature, a condensate of such ultimatonic axions would serve nicely as a distribution of invisible gravitational effect.

Would this sort of "ultimatonic" axion supersede Frank Wilczek's type?

 

[kodama]

Getting back to the issue of the original post, building fermions from some family of preons is a logical next step in a reductionist approach. But such logic raises the question: is there some ultimate preon ("ultimaton") from which a family of such intermediate preons might be built? This sort of "ultimatonic" model was explored briefly in the early 1980's, but got steamrolled in 1984 by that excitement about strings.

Meanwhile, interest in the existence, topology and dynamics of such an "ultimate uncuttable" (a-tom) continues.

For example, while quantum field theories help to model the sort of quantized mechanics we observe, the string program has motivated physicists to consider the topology and dynamics of truly Planck-scale things. But notice how both approaches to quantizing mechanics (QFT and strings) include in their foundations that same irreducible thing: Planck's quantum of angular momentum. Given that such a quantum of angular momentum implies an irreducible quantum of energy density, then, in the context of GR, this implies a quantum of classical curvature. And in the context of frame-dragging, within a condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs-type field), such a quantum of spinning curvature becomes a (weakly interacting) vortex of weak hypercharge.

It also becomes the ultimate WIMP: massive NOT in the sense of "lots of mass", but rather... "first measurable form of mass-energy".

Re: building a family of preons from such a weak interactor

Motivated by the way quarks are bound into hadrons, and the necessary asymptotic freedom, in a series of papers from 2002-2008, Yershov explored one way to build up that family,

Yershov preon papers (2002 - 2008)

He considered the question: if quarks can be so tightly bound, can clusters of "ultimate preons" (ultimatons) be bound even more tightly?

Which raises another question: is this sort of quantized vortex of weak hypercharge a better way to model the sort of axion that cleans up that Strong CP problem? And (as mentioned above) as a quantum of curvature, a condensate of such ultimatonic axions would serve nicely as a distribution of invisible gravitational effect.

Would this sort of "ultimatonic" axion supersede Frank Wilczek's type?

would spinors qualify as "ultimate preons"?

what is Yershov preon papers receive ?

 

[ohwilleke]

what is Yershov preon papers receive ?

Huh?

 

[kodama]

Huh?

Authors: V. N. Yershov

last one
Submitted 1 December, 2008; originally announced December 2008.

is he still alive and how much interest in his theory of colour preons

 

[renormalize]

Authors: V. N. Yershov

last one
Submitted 1 December, 2008; originally announced December 2008.

is he still alive and how much interest in his theory of colour preons

@nnunn listed 9 papers by Yershov dating from 16 to 22 years ago. A simple search reveals that, since then, these works have been cited a total of 19 times, of which 9 are by Yershov him/herself. So only 10 cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time. By that, I judge the interest-in and influence-of Yershov's work to be essentially nonexistent. (And you should learn to use Google Scholar so you may answer questions like this yourself and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff of physics literature.)

 

[kodama]

@nnunn listed 9 papers by Yershov dating from 16 to 22 years ago. A simple search reveals that, since then, these works have been cited a total of 19 times, of which 9 are by Yershov him/herself. So only 10 cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time. By that, I judge the interest-in and influence-of Yershov's work to be essentially nonexistent. (And you should learn to use Google Scholar so you may answer questions like this yourself and thereby separate the wheat from the chaff of physics literature.)

how often are preon papers, especially past 20 years cited ? are preon papers heavy cited ?

did Authors: V. N. Yershov retired ?

what about Deur ? how many cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time?

 

[renormalize]

how often are preon papers, especially past 20 years cited ? are preon papers heavy cited ?

For comparison, the original preon paper by Pati and Salam Lepton number as the fourth "color" has been cited a total of 7089 times since 1974, with about 173 of those cites from 2024 alone.

what about Deur ? how many cites by other authors to all these papers in all that time?

Again, why aren't you using Google Scholar to determine this yourself? Why ask others on PF to do your work?

 

[ohwilleke]

I wrote a Wikipedia page for Yershov which was deleted for non-notability. He's one of the best of the preon theorists IMHO, but it is a dead end.

 

[kodama]

I wrote a Wikipedia page for Yershov which was deleted for non-notability. He's one of the best of the preon theorists IMHO, but it is a dead end.

could you re post on your blog

 

[ohwilleke]

could you re post on your blog

I did blog his work back in 2005 (before it was finished). https://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2005/08/modern-physics-preons.html

Yershov's really key contributions were: (1) he came up with a way to fit all the particle masses with a small number of possible preons, (2) his scheme did not just add up the masses of component preons blindly and instead used another system, which avoided some problems of other approaches, (3) he fit all the existing fundamental particles without creating new ones.

But, the experimental tests of compositeness really pretty much rule out his proposals anyway.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Again, why aren't you using Google Scholar to determine this yourself? Why ask others on PF to do your work?

Because he has us to do it for him. You also need to check to see that the papers say what he says they do. That is not universally the case.

 

[nnunn]

In those papers linked above (Yershov, 2002-2008), Yershov tried to sketch an alternative to standard model wavicles. By disposing of wavicles, he felt he could also dispose of any Higgs-type field, thus throwing a healthy baby out with the bathwater. And undermining his model.

Recent discussions (about a smallest possible wave in Matt Strassler's "Impossible Sea") reminded me of Yershov's work. In an ultimatonic alternative (mentioned above), I was thinking about replacing Yershov's ultimate preon with some alternate irreducible thing, quantized by Planck's quantum of angular momentum acting on a Higgs-type condensate of weak hypercharge.

Being literally a vortex of weak hypercharge, such a spinning, quantized, weakly hyper-charged thing would naturally interact with all standard model fermions. And since it's always interacting with that Higgs-type field (from which it's made), it would have a curious mode of interaction with that extreme disturbance in the field, a so-called "Higgs boson". Also, given the way such an ultimatonic preon solves the dark matter mystery, it remains an interesting idea.

Question is: how to model, let alone measure, such an ultra-short, ultra-fast flavor changer?

PS: Back in 2010 when I was discussing all this with Prof Yershov, he explained with some regret that his scheme was aggressively ignored by colleagues in cosmology and particle physics. However, he did briefly raise some interest among those working on superconductivity and condensed matter.

This link includes some of V. N. Yershov's more recent (cosmological) work.

NN