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

[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

 

[nnunn]

So, can a preon model help to clarify the foundations of physics?

As I understand it, part of these foundations is the Brout, Englert, Higgs mechanism (Nobel, 2013). This involves the interaction of certain types of particles with a condensate of weak hypercharge, nowadays called a "Higgs-type field". This interaction does not involve the percussive, longitudinal disturbance predicted by Peter Higgs.

Which brings us back to Susskind's emphatic distinction between the (observed) Higgs-type "bosonic" disturbance, and a very different particle that can actually mediate the transfer of quanta of weak hypercharge. In typical Susskind style, he called this more interesting (and important) particle a "ziggs". So-named because this was the type of particle predicted by Brout, Englert and Higgs for actually transferring quanta of weak hypercharge, leading to a predicted chiral oscillation of Z-bosons, and that mechanism for acquiring inertial mass. The actual mass being defined by the rate of this chiral oscillation.

Is this the right idea, or have I misunderstood these fundamentals?

Assuming the above is on track, then for a preon model to be of any use in clarifying the foundations of the standard model, the issue reduces to explaining how various classes of clusters of preons might interact with this condensate of weak hypercharge.

Of particular interest is the possibility that a base level, ultimate preon involves an irreducible (topologically protected) quantum of angular momentum (h), acting -- as a quantized vortex of weak hypercharge -- on that condensate (of weak hypercharge). Self-interaction of such weakly charged objects enables clustering (confinement), and such weakly charged chiral clusters interacting with that condensate might help explain that mechanism proposed by Brout, Englert and Higgs.

What caught my interest in all this was an implied energy density.

While the actual quantity of energy associated with such an irreducible, quantized, spinning thing might be truly tiny, if this quantized vortex of weak hypercharge were confined within a Planck-scale volume, the energy density of such an ultimate uncuttable ("ultimaton") might serve as a quantum of classical curvature.

NN

 

[PeterDonis]

the Brout, Englert, Higgs mechanism

Susskind's emphatic distinction between the (observed) Higgs-type "bosonic" disturbance, and a very different particle that can actually mediate the transfer of quanta of weak hypercharge

Of particular interest is the possibility that a base level, ultimate preon involves an irreducible (topologically protected) quantum of angular momentum

Do you have references for these?

 

[PeterDonis]

What caught my interest in all this was an implied energy density.

While the actual quantity of energy associated with such an irreducible, quantized, spinning thing might be truly tiny, if this quantized vortex of weak hypercharge were confined within a Planck-scale volume, the energy density of such an ultimate uncuttable ("ultimaton") might serve as a quantum of classical curvature.

This looks like personal speculation, which is off limits here.

 

[mitchell porter]

There was a thread ten years ago about what Susskind meant by the "ziggs". I also discussed some of these topics with @nnunn last year. Important points:

The Higgs condensate has four different scalar excitations. Three of these correspond to the spin-0 components of W+,W-,Z bosons, and the fourth is the Higgs boson. Susskind's ziggs is either one of the first three, or the scalar in a simpler toy world where there's only a U(1) charge and no SU(2), I forget which.

There are no "quanta of weak hypercharge" per se in the standard model, no more than there are "quanta of spin", or (@nnunn didn't say this one but it would be analogous) "quanta of energy". The quanta are all particles for which weak hypercharge, spin, energy are properties that they possess. Thanks to laws of conservation, a particle in an interaction may in effect as a carrier of these properties that transfers them, that's all.

Now, it is true that in condensed matter physics, one sometimes hears of quasiparticles with names like "spinon". These seem to involve entangling elementary particles like electrons, then factorizing or disentangling these entanglements, in a way which clusters spin degrees of freedom separately from (e.g.) charge degrees of freedom. It's logically possible that the fundamental particles can be refactored in such a way, so as to produce a theory or an ontology in which there really are "quanta of weak hypercharge" and so on. But I don't know a concrete example of such a theory.