May have state equivalent to net combination of quantum states of a positron and electron neutrino. Let QCD and QM experts further answer.

Wolfgang,

You stated " Wouldn't it be worth trying to find interaction mechanisms between neutrinos, electrons and positrons which lead to the observed properties of nucleons? Could this be an alternative to the QCD theory with its inflational need of new coloured particles?"

Yes, absolutely.

There of course IS a structure onto which the atomic particles must adhere. This is obvious due their next higher molecular level (which can be observed), as well as the symmetries dictated throughout QM. From these two statements, we should be seeking a symmetric crystalline structure within the nucleus and electron/neutrino groups.

Nicola Tesla once stated that "If you knew the magnificence of the three, six and nine, you would have a key to the universe.”. The UFT I have been writing for the past 6 years explains how and why these numbers are extremely significant as they generate a symmetric structure onto which I have successfully placed 14 of the 17 SM particles (and their anti-particles) onto, and verified numerically their spins, charges and flavors according current observations. This UFT is estimated to be published in the 2019 time frame. Follow me here if interested in receiving a notification when this occurs.

This UFT also describes (with figures) not only how, but why the neutron decays into a proton, as well as why the lone chargless neutron even exists within the nucleus (I have never seen a sufficient answer to this question). It is only when the structure is revealed can this be answered, going even further as to explain why any element with an atomic number greater than lead is radioactive, or why element isotopes even exist. All of this will be clearly understood when visualizing this numerically verified structure.

- J.L. Brady

Concerning the very nature and structure of "elementary" particles and particle families, apart the standard model and QCD there exist various other attempts of setting up theoretical physics fantasies, for example https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY

The issue of this ongoing project is to set up a particle theory which describes hadrons as well as leptons and photons and other ’force mediating’ objects as compound systems of 6 components, called ’hypotrons’ which carry fractional electric charge ±1/3 and ±2/3 and a hypothetical fractional "supercharge” ±1/6. Supercharge is by definition related to electric charge in a non-linear manner and vanishes in the case of some specific clusters of hypotrons. By identifying these specific hypotron clusters with stable elementary particles, supercharge can be interpreted as ’magnetic charge’, which is a ’hidden’ non-additive quantity, because it is zero for all kinds of stable matter, but non-zero for hypotrons and unstable clusters of hypotrons. Supercharge can be considered as this particular quantity which is responsible for the stability of matter. For example, by means of the notion of supercharge it can be explained why positron/electron and proton/anti-proton are the only stable particles with charge +1/-1. Furthermore, the location of stable nuclei in the ’valley of stable nuclei’ can be predicted within a good approximation simply by requiring a minimum principle for the square of supercharge of the nuclei, provided that (A) the neutron is considered as a hypotron cluster of 3×6 = 18 hypotrons, which reflects the neutron’s decay into proton and electron and anti-neutrino, and that (B) the nuclei contain basically anti-neutrons instead of neutrons, and that (C) the ejection of a neutron from a nucleus is caused by the particle transformation anti-neutron + neutrino → neutron + anti-neutrino inside the nucleus. With regard to the conserved number of hypotrons being the constituents of these particles, such a transformation process is an allowed process.

Flyer including links to working paper see https://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

Karl

Karl,

Very intriguing approach. I appreciate your project offering prior to completion, for many to review and comment. There could be merit to your approach, but of course find that I would need extensive study your definitions to start. A figure or two might help the reader more quickly grasp your approach.

I notice that you begin by defining the hypotron as a +/- 1/3e or 2/3e, can I further assume that this is the foundational "particle" in this theory, or is there something upon which the hypotron is constructed from? I suspect that the universe is more in tune with integers as perhaps its most foundational unit. Have you previously considered this? Just because a cluster of your Q's might add up into an integer (times e) as do the quarks, stating the origins of the hypotron might lead to other discoveries (as I have found in my UFT). I suspect that the universe doesn't use the charge value of e, as we have defined it. It is more likely that the universal charge is some multiple of a foundational quantum integer (from the universe's perspective), which we have unfortunately converted so the numbers work when e is inserted into our equations with earlier variable units poorly defined. This assumption can readily be seen in the simple quark, and your hypotron, having integer valued fractions of e (whatever value e is defined as).

- J.L. Brady

Dear Karl

the intention is deriving a model much simpler as QCD. Eventually in analogy to the Schrödinger equation for the atomic shell. A proton with only two interacting components (a positron and an electron neutrino) and a neutron additionally containing the antiparticles. The interactions between the charged particles and the neutrinos have to be constructed in a way that eigenvalues of the Hamiltonean correspond to the particle properties including mass and spin. The refinement of the interaction model then should lead to the properties of more complex atomic nucleii.

Dear All

I am sorry, but what you are writing does not really make sense. Clearly it would be nice to have a theory simpler than QCD that we can handle better - however, this theory should be consistent with observation. What is suggested is not. Let me list a few things:

1) Leptons (electrons, positrons, neutrinos) do not feel what is called the strong interaction while protons do. Quantum mechanically it does not make sense that an individual positron and an individual neutrino does not feel the nuclear force, while a bound state does

2) QCD at high energies is proved to be correct (e.g. the phenomenon of asymptotic freedom is confirmed to high accuracy) and we have some understanding on how the low energy phenomena emerge when going down in energy.

3) Although QCD can not be tackeled analytically, it can be treated numerically. The technology is called lattice QCD. Using lattice QCD it is possible to calculate the mass of the proton and neutron and many others starting from QCD describing the interaction of quarks and gluons

There are many more issues in the same direction, but the ones I listed are the ones that came to my mind immediately.

Dear Christoph

It is true, that the results of QCD theory at high energies have been proved to match to the observations. But the QCD theory contains adaptable parameters which can be chosen to achieve a lot of matches. But can't we get those matches with a more simpler theory with less adaptable parameters.

If we suppose a kind of short range strong interaction between a neutrino and a lepton, would it be possible that an according Hamiltonian provides eigenvalues matching to nucleon properties? In this theoretical experiment we also adapt parameters of the interaction until we get those matches in a similar way as it has been done in the QCD theory.

Dear Wolfgang

while it sounds appealing it cannot work: The interacction of neutrinos and positrons is already very short range (and very weak ... ). Moreover: The size of an atomic nucleus is 5 orders of magnitude smaller than that of an atom. Clearly there are different interactions at work.

Morover: QCD has in total only very few parameters: Lambda_QCD (or the QCD coupling) and the quark masses - thats it. Not much to play with ...

By the way: You can really 'see' quarks (especially the heavy ones) in experiment: Just look at the famous R-ratio.

Dear Christoph

How many different types of quarks are existing?

You say "The interaction of neutrinos and positrons is already ...". This is a feature of the current theory and therefore should be ignored if alternate theories are discussed.

What I propose is a theoretical experiment with a new kind of interaction. Such an experiment needs a lot of resources and there can be many reasons why it could'nt be worth to start it. But contradiction to the main stream theories is per definition no reason.

As an example if we assume a neutrino rest mass and a strong coupling force Lambda_e+n for the coupling between a positron and a neutrino, we get a Hamiltonean for bound states and should be able to calculate the properties of the eigenvalues. We can start with the assumption that the positron and the neutrino are point particles.

Dear Wolfgang

there are in total 6 quarks, however, only two of them are relevant to understand the matter around us.

Let me try to convince you that your ansatz is not worth to follow without referring to the Standard Model but simply to common sense and general features of Quantum Mechanics: A physical system always tries to be in the state of lowest energy. Since a nucleus is 5 orders of magnitude smaller than an atom this implies that your neutrino-positron interaction must be very much stronger than the electromangetic force that binds the electron to the proton in the nucleus. It is a straightforward consequence of Quantum Mechanics that the bound state wave function of the electron with the proton overlaps with the proton. Let me ask you this: IF there were a very strong force between the neutrino and the positron that makes the proton in your picture, then there should be an equally strong force between the neutrino and the electron of the atom. What would then prevent the atom from collapsing into the three-body bound state electron-positron-neutrino (and once this is formed I assume that the electron positron pair would annihilate). Looking forward to your reply.

Christoph/Wolfgang,

Although QM has revealed many incredible discoveries, there is still much to be deciphered. Wolfgang's approach may have merit, and although Christoph's comments should be considered, there are missing holes if one stands on a purely QM answer. For instance, in my UFT paper, when I postulate that geometric symmetry in fact creates what we observe as "charge", many new discoveries also appear, answering many of the quandaries we find ourselves attempting to explain within the sea of particles. Once a geometry is presented, then one may go about attempting to combine positrons, neutrinos, protons and the like, visualizing if in fact the particle transformations currently believed could actually take place within the geometric dynamic described.

Unfortunately up to this point all we have in our toolbox to verify these particle interactions is mass, charge, and spins of lone particles. What has been grossly missing is a structure upon which these transitions could be linked. I have been able to show that charge, spin, flavors and orbits not only have their roots in symmetry (geometric as well as current theory), but is the foundation to these observations. Forces and fields only appear when these symmetries are threatened by localized energy events. Consider and visualize for a minute, that spin (geometric), orbit (geometric), charge (due to a separated geometric gap) all point to geometry. The so called "new discoveries" which fell out of the geometric manifold I discovered were the mysteries such as magnetic N/S, why there are 6 quarks, the location and dynamic of the anti particles, and most profoundly why and how space and time define each other. I applaud Wolfgang for thinking out of the box. Let us not so quickly point to the world of what we think we know about QM or anything else, as we walk the path towards discovery.

- J.L. Brady

Dear Mr. Brady

I completely agree that we all should stay open minded to the optilon that aspects of our current understanding of the world are not correct. However, any new idea should be in the position to answer those questions that are established experimental facts. Amongst those one of the most obvious is the difference in size between atoms and nuclei. IF the consitutents of nuclei would contain the antiparticles of the particles that make up the cloud then these would annihilate - unavoidably. As long as this is not explained by the new ansatz, the ansatz does not deserve to be followed.

Best Regards Christoph

Dear Christoph

with "..then there should be an equally strong force between the neutrino and the electron" you are perfectly right. The same kind of strong short distance interaction between neutrino and positron we can assume to be present in a pair of a neutrino and an electron. We know such a pair as the anti-particle of the proton. But if the electron antineutrino and electron pairing once has been broken, both particles follow their individual path with a negligibly tiny probability of spontaneous recombination. The beta decay of a neutron just provides such a broken pair because the energy content of a neutron is not sufficient for a proton and an anti-proton.

The essence of the approach is the following question :

Do we need all those highly instable particles, which we think to identify in high energy collision experiments or is it possible calculating "bound states of stable particles" with excitation levels currently represented by those instable particles?

This would mean replacing Feynman diagrams by transitions from one excited state to another.

The focus is on the "possibility of such kind of calculation" not on any belief about specific properties of nature.

Dear Wolfang

sorry, but you did not reply to my question: My issue was that IF the proton in reality would contain a positron and a neutrino, atoms would not be stable simply since the electrons of the cloud would annihilate with the positron of the nucleus and this is unavoidable.

There are many more phenomena that get very nicely explained by the strong force and the existence of quarks, and for which I do not see how you picture can explain those, but for the time being let us focus on the item raised above.

thanks Christoph

Christoph/Wolfgang,

1) Christoph, I believe Wolfgang was answering a previous comment of yours listed earlier.

2) Perhaps Wolfgang will comment on your most recent question about annihilation, but I too can offer a particular insight on that question below:

To continue my earlier post as to the "new discoveries" which I have found to "fall out" of the atomic structural geometry I discovered, an unexpected new discovery revealed itself. Similar to the perspectives of particular reference frames or coordinates stated in GTR, so too are the importance of the reference frames considered for the "particle" and the "anti-particle". I have discovered that the anti-particle actually exists in concert with the particle, and in fact are one, incapable of annihilation unless a great localized directed energy create such events. This further answers the question as to why anti-particles are not as prevalent (a separate discussion altogether). A single 3-dimensional quark when viewed from within the reference frame of a nuclei, is in fact the exact same quark when viewed from within an adjacent reference frame of the anti-nuclei. I understand this may be difficult without actually seeing the geometric structure, but it not only is true, but actually defines a higher form of symmetry, in that a +spin occurs simultaneously with a -spin, and a CCW orbit with a CW orbit, and a + charge with a - charge. These all have to do geometry, and as I stated earlier, maintaining its highest order of symmetry. We see these anti-particles spinning in opposite (anti) directions in our accelerators simply due to "when during the transition cycle" the decay happens to occur. The number of gluons holding adjacent nuclei together varies throughout the dynamic, and if say a quark is liberated at a particular "weaker" structural definition within the cycle, the anti-quark spin will display its pattern. This description is just as true for the similar lepton/anti-lepton adjacent structures occurring at a much greater radii.

- J.L. Brady

Dear Mr. Brady

unfortunately I did not understand anything you wrote. Therefore I do not think that it makes sense to continue this exchange.

Best Christoph

Dear Christoph

Sorry not answering to your recent question, but I already had completed my answer to your previous question when I became aware of it.

If we decide assuming that bound states of stable particles exist, we also can assume that an isolated electron does not annihilate with a positron in a bound state.

But in any case if a particle decay leads to stable particles there are exactly two options:

1. The instable particle generates the stable particles at the moment of the decay

2. The instable particle already contains the stable particles. Ergo it can be described as an interaction of the stable particles.

Option one has a certain touch of a miracle. Therefore let's try option two.

Dear Wolfgang

sorry, I am lost: I do not see any mechanism that could prevent the annihilation. I cannot accept an alternative to the Standard Model were you need to postulate something new at each step. This is very unsatisfying.

Atomic wavefunctions are well understood. In the absence of angular momentum (as for the gound state) there is a finite probability for the electron to be in the same position as the nucleus. As soon as particle and antiparticle are in the same spot they annihilate.

best Christoph

Dear Wolfgang

I have something else for you to chew on if you do not like that in a decay the particle content is different before and after: There is the famous bound state positronium. It is the same as a hydrogen atom, but with the proton replaced by a positron. This bound state decays either into two or three photons. Do you claim that the electon already contains the photon?

Quantum mechanics and in particular quantum field theory allow us to understand all those transitions - with impressive accuracies. For example the magnetic moment of the electron is measured to more than 10 digits - and the result agrees to the Standard Model prediction. It is difficult I would say to deny such a successful theory on the basis of a statement like 'Option one has a certain touch of a miracle'.

Best Christoph

Dear Christoph,

it is a fundamental claim of Einstein, that all matter already contains the equivalent energy. The appearance of the equivalent energy has not been restricted, therefore in a way a photon is contained in an electron. Releasing that photon requires a positron, which then also releases his photon.

But there is another motivation. Consider condensed matter in neutron stars or black holes. Do you think the assumption of an endless zoo of arbitrary higher energy particles would be helpful in the description of the processes, which prevent black holes from a complete collapse?

A Hamiltonian for interacting stable particles based on an interaction model adapted to the observed instable particles could provide higher excitation states of matter and lead to a deeper insight in regions never accessible by particle colliders.

The aim is not denying the standard theory. It is only another approach based on the assumption, that all unstable particles are excited bound states of stable particles. The approach also includes non excited ground states of two particle configurations representing other stable particles. Of course it is possible, that we are not able to find an interaction model which matches to all observations, but I think this approach is at least possible. If it will be funded is another question.

Dear Wolfgang

I am a little puzzled that you do not have a problem with e+ e- > gamma gamma, but do have a problem with beta decay. If you argue that the electron already contains the photon - in your language this would mean that the electron is a bound system of a photon and ... what? I think I must be missing your point, but you were arguing that in each decay the final state basically shows the content of the system before the decay. But doesn't this call for an identification of e+ e- with gamma gamma?

I have more problems with what you wrote above, but let us work on the issues one-by-one.

Best Christoph

Dear Christoph,

The rules of the proposed concept are as basic as possible. Start with the particles electron neutrino and positron. Assume an appropriate neutrino rest mass and construct an interaction which provides potential energy in a way that a stable solution of the according Hamiltonian (the ground state) has the properties of a proton.

If this step is successful, the constructed interaction law may leave degrees of freedom, which do not change the properties of the ground state solution. Then it is possible to fulfill additional constraints, add additional particle interactions e.g. electrons and electron antineutrino. A further aim would be getting an eigenvalue, corresponding to a neutron.

Because the process is deductive, there is no problem with particle-anti particle annihilation. The construction process even completely ignores any constraint we can expect from known natural laws.

For the spatial structure of the (mainly attractive but eventually partially repellent) interaction law any radial structure, even a non monotonic distribution is allowed.

The final result of the process is a model of interactions between basic particles in a way that eigenvalues of the resulting Hamiltonian correctly represent other stable particles (in a ground state) or unstable particles, which have stable particles and the basic particles and photons as decay products.

Dear Wolfgang

sorry - but I cannot follow. For example: What does

'Because the process is deductive, there is no problem with particle-anti particle annihilation. '

mean? As I wrote: When a particle meets its anti-particle they annihilate. This is well known from both experiment and theory. Accordingly your atoms are unavoidably unstable contrary to observations.

By the way: There are many more states that can be fromed from the lightest two quarks than just proton and neutron. Let me call the up quark u and the down quark d, then we have (u has charge +2/3|e| and d has charge -1/3|e|), when writing the antiquarks with a b attached (e.g. the anti-up would then be ub):

uud spin 1/2: proton

ddu spin 1/2: neutron

uuu spin 3/2: Delta++

uud spin 3/2: Delta+

udd spin 3/2: Delta0

ddd spin 3/2: Delta-

udb spin 0: pi+

uub-ddb spin 0: pi0

dub spin 0: pi-

the same with spin 1: rho+, rho0 and rho-

All this states are experimentally well established particles and understood in their structure within the Standard Model. Moreover: The pion is the lightest hadorn that exists and plays the role of the force mediator of the nuclear force (actually, Yukawa predicted that a particle like the pion exists based on the observed size of nuclei).

I do not see how your picture can do this. Not only is annihilation a problem (see above), you also need a force that acts between the protons and neutrons of the nuclei and has a range of 10^{-15} m.

By the way: Within the Standard Model the beta decay happens because first of all the neutron is lighter than the proton (an effect that emerges only because the up quark is lighter than the down quark - if it were only for the different charges the proton would always be lighter and there would not be any stable hydrogen in the universe and we would not exist), and because the weak interaction can convert a down quark into an up quark - this happens via the emission of a W- boson that then decays into and electron and an electron anti-neutrino. Needless to say that also the W- boson is confirmed experimentally.

As you can see in the Standard Model everything fits nicely together and all that with an icredible beauty. Clearly there still are a few open issues (which is good for otherwise people like me would be unemployed) - e.g. we do not understand Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as the Matter-Antimatter assymmetry, but the Standard Model is extremely successful. Any new theory first needs to also explain what is already understood - and this list is very long.

I think from my replies you can see that I take your point seriously and want to confront what you say with what I know - however, statements like 'there is no problem with particle-anti particle annihilation' are not appropriate for this exchange - if you want to continue this exchange you have to take my statements seriously and explain, not declare, why in your picture particles and anti-particles do not annihilate

Best Christoph

To believe that a particle and the corresponding anti-particle annihilate under all circumstances is merely a dogma. The annihilation can be observed when the charged particles are accelerated, and then, having opposite directions of large momentum, collide. There is no evidence that annihilation happens, if the objects are assumed to be bound (somehow) in a larger system of particles.

In particular, assume that a nucleus contains, in addition to protons and neutrons, also anti-neutrons, and assume that a particle conversion

anti-neutron + neutrino --> neutron + anit-neutrino

is possible, and which causes the nucleus to eject the resulting neutron, i.e. which causes the decay of the nucleus. Then such a "fictitious" nucleus cannot be distinguished from a "traditional" nucleus which contains only protons and neutrons, just by means of any electromagnetic properties.

For a new particle theory, which is somewhat similar to the quark model, but predicts families of particles in a quite different manner see the working paper of the ongoing project "Hypotron Theory" (HT).

https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326736128_overview_to_my_ongoing_theor_particle_phys_res_projects

https://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

In HT each "elementary" particle, massive as well as massless, is considered as an object which has a "core-shell structure", so to speak, where the core consists of 6 constituents, called "hypotrons" with fractional electric charge 1/3 and 2/3. In addition to electric charge a new charge-like quantity called "supercharge" is introduced, which is not an additive quantity, and which has some features which allow to understand "supercharge" as the alleged "magnetic charge" of a particle.

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH02-CH04.pdf

In HT the notion of "supercharge" is the crucial ingredient to identify objects of the theory with particles and particle families of the real world.

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH13-CH14.pdf

Furthermore, by means of "supercharge" the notion of "color" of the quark model can be understood in a quite different way.

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH05-CH10.pdf

Chapter 22 is about nuclei.

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH22.pdf

It is can be demonstrated by a very simple mathematical consideration that the "valley of stable nuclei" can be reproduced if the nuclei are assumed to contain anti-neutrons in addition to neutrons and protons.

In HT it is possible to consider the neutron as a bound object consisting of proton+electron+antineutrino, i.e. the core of the neuron consists of 18 hypotrons. Hence, antineutron=antiproton+positrons+neutrino. According to the traditional model of the nucleus in heavy nuclei the number of protons is roughly the same as the number of neutrons. If one assumes that a nucleus contains protons and antineutrons only, i.e. no neutrons, then for corresponding atom the number of electrons and positrons and protons and antiprotons roughly agree with each other. This means that the numbers of particles and anti-particles inside heavy atoms are roughly well balanced. Hence, there is almost no "dominance of matter over anti-matter", which is in contrast to what is traditionally believed.

Whether or not any kind of traditional SR-based QFT is a reasonable and necessary and sufficient framework for formulating and extending HT in a mathematical manner is still considered as an open question. To setup an SR-like space-time structure by means of assumptions concerning principal dynamical features of "fluctuating" hypotron dipoles (which can be understood as a kind of "stochastic ether") is a part of the goal of HT.

Dear Karl

I am already confused by your opening statement which prevents me from reading the rest: You claim that

'The annihilation can be observed when the charged particles are accelerated, and then, having opposite directions of large momentum, collide. There is no evidence that annihilation happens, if the objects are assumed to be bound (somehow) in a larger system of particles.'

However, as already mentioned in the previous conversation, this statement is at odds with experiment: Look at positronium (the Coulomb bound state of an electron and a positron). Those systems can be easily prepared experimentally and studied. The typical momentum of the consituents in this bound system is of the order of 1% of their mass. Still: They annihilate either into two or three photons. Isn't that in straight contradiction to you claim?

Best regards Christoph

Dear Christoph

What the decay of positronium (created experimentally on earth) demonstrates is that this particular object has a extremely short lifetime about 0.125 ns (on earth), which means that the electron and positron do not annihilate at once and under all circumstances. A similar situation might be possible for a neutron and an anti-neutron inside a nucleus.

Note that any particle reaction or transformation in a lab on earth is never shielded from the solar neutrinos streaming down to earth. Neutrinos are present in any particle reaction or formation or transformation. It is in general not clear what would happen if particle reactions or formations or transformations would be shielded (if possible at all) from the solar neutrinos. Therefore it is also in general not clear, how particle reactions or formations or transformations are influenced by neutrinos. The role of neutrinos in the process of a particle reaction or formation or transformation might be much more important as it is imagined in contemporary particle physics.

Best regards

Karl

Dear Christoph

with 'Because the process is deductive, there is no problem with particle-anti particle annihilation' I simply mean:

The process "evaluate a model" is based on assumptions. Application of mathematics then leads to implications, which are compared with observations. Particle-antiparticle annihilation is only considered in comparisons with observations and does not play any role in the evaluation process.

Dear Karl and Wolfgang

Physics is an empirical science. Any theory has to be tested on experimental observations and if there is a conflict the theory has to be withdrawn.

Annihilation of particles and anti-particles is a fact one cannot deny. The rate of annihilation scales with the square of the transition matrix element. In case of the decay of positronium this rate is proprtional to the square of the Sommerfeld factor and this explains quantitatively the life time of positronium. The strong interaction is a lot stronger - accordingly is the annihilation probability of a neutron and an antineutron significantly higher (by about 4 orders of magnitude) - also this is confirmed experimentally.

If you want to design a sensible theory you have to face the fact that particles and anti-particles annihilate. Moreover, we also know that the interaction of neutrinos with the other matter particles is extremely weak - also that is confirmed experimentally with amazing experiments like Super-Kamiokande and SNO.

In addition I would appreciate if I write a long message raising different issues - like the existence of many states that are in the quark model nicely explained with just up and down quarks (or their antiparticles) as constitutents - that you also comment conretely on those within your approach and do not just make very general statements.

Thanks a lot

Christoph

All,

There is limited observable data within the quantum realm, and only a couple of measuring tools in our toolbox available to attempt to decipher all of the quantum interactions, let alone the attempts to theorize how these interactions take place using this limited data. What I believe is lacking is a vision of a geometric structure upon which perhaps we could place these SM particles upon in lieu of our empty toolbox, and put it to the test. What if a dynamic geometric structure could be theorized and presented which successfully demonstrates most of the SM properties we have come to agree upon, such as particle charge, spin, flavor and their interactions including the complete number of quarks and gluons, and their anti-particles. This would add a significant tool within our toolbox now to help us visualize not only what we have established thus far, but now perhaps even go further utilizing the basics of the structure to apply future theories upon, and test these new theories. Geometry is or should be the ultimate litmus test of theory since it is the foundation of anything observable, the bridge between the quantum realm and the macro observable realm. Equations alone can never be directly observable, which true science demands. They can only help us attempt to theorize how the observable geometry might behave.

Now that we have walked the quantum theory path for over a century, establishing many fantastic discoveries on how, it is time to visualize its quantum interactions and finally answer the many questions of why, which symmetric geometry can answer. It is this dynamic geometric structure described above which I plan on presenting.

From this geometric structure, at this time I would have to agree with Karl's statements concerning the particle/anti-particle, with this geometry demonstrating their beautifully symmetric co-existence, based upon their relative adjacent coordinate frames. The inherent symmetries established in QT simply continue here, with the particle and its anti forming a beautiful symmetry of its own over one time cycle of its structure. It is this specific symmetry which in fact defines what we have come to call space-time, for the simple reason that 1 cycle is necessary for symmetry. Space alone could not accomplish this. Geometry is required to actually see how this dynamically symmetric occurrence takes place, and will be disclosed at a 2019 time frame.

- J.L. Brady

Dear Mr. Brady

sorry, I cannot follow. You make general statements but do not comment on the concrete issues that were raised. If you want to see the Standard Model being replaced by something else, this something else should at least explain what the Standard Model has already explained.

Amongst those is that particles and anti-particles annihilate. Thus I cannot see how a model that has antiparticles in a nucleus can lead to stable nuclei. This is what we should discuss, shouldn't we?

best Christoph

Christoph,

I believe Karl Kreuzer answered your annihilation question quite nicely, and I attempted to provide a similar direction, yet based on your previous reply, I did not. I apologize, but I did not state that I am replacing the SM, only providing a geometry upon which all that we accept about them can be seen now dynamically interacting within its construct.

Suffice to say, that yes, I believe it is possible when bringing together any particle/anti-partlcle pair using great forces, they may have the possibility to "annihilate" each other, with two basic problems. 1) Matter (energy) can not be created or destroyed (annihilated?... depends on your definition) in a closed system, and 2) Many anti-particles are simply an exact duplicate particle with simply an opposite charge or spin, that's all. If you can perhaps put on a set of geometry glasses for a minute, a realistic postulate could exist where the particle and its anti-particle are in fact exactly the same, and only appearing different (charge or spin) in our laboratories because we notice a spin trace appearing rotating in an alternate direction than "normal". This alternate spin trace of the anti could further be postulated to be an exact duplicate of a particle, yet only decaying at the instant when it was associated with an alternate quantum inertial frame. We are dealing with quantum level particles here, and inertial frames.

This anti could and actually should exist based upon CPT symmetry theorem. The CPT theorem states that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry. The geometry I will be presenting displays such symmetry, which is self evident and observable within the geometry itself. This CPT symmetric geometry further defines a single particle to be considered as not only part of a "real" unit, but part of an "anti" unit simultaneously (inertial frame dependent), adhering perfectly to CPT symmetry. Therefore, the dynamic geometric based UFT I plan on presenting attests to and supports all conservation of energy and conservation of momentum laws, as well as providing the precise geometric construct supporting any Lorentz invariant based theory without violation.

I know you currently do not have access to this presentation yet, but based upon the personal insight of this discovery, I can make these statements confidently. Follow me here if you wish to be notified once the paper is available.

- J.L. Brady

Dear Mr. Brady, dear Karl

I do not agree that Karl replied properly to my statement: If there were positrons in the nucleus they would annihilate as soon as the electrons from the could come close to the nucleus (as they do e.g. in the ground state). This is NOT a dogma but an experimental fact. The life-time of positronuim is indeed in the nano-second region and this means that if you have a bunch of neutral atoms they will all annihilate within seconds - if Karls picture were correct there would not be any stable matter as we know it.

Before we can discuss the implications of Karls (as well as Wolfgang's) picture you need to tell me why this well understood reaction should not take place - and I would appreciate if you would say more than simply declaring that it will not happen: You have to present a plausible mechanism which you have not so far.

Best Christoph

Christoph,

Thank you for your "advice". But I do not think that this advice makes sense or is useful with regard to my theoretical investigations named "Hyptron Theory" (HT).

In addition to my former remarks concerning HT, it should be mentioned that hypotron dipoles can be thought of as so-called 'dyons' (see chapter 4 of the working paper). Thus, HT can be related to known investigations and results of the problem of how the idea of magnetic monopoles and their interaction could explain some of the strange features and nature of particles and their interactions in the context of gauge field theories. For an introduction and references to this delicate matter see for example chapters 2 and 9 of "Magnetic Monopoles" by Y.M. Shnir ( Springer, 2005, https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783540252771 ). In HT "supercharge" is identified with the alleged "magnetic charge". Similar to a 'dyon', in HT 'trions' and 'anti-trions' are objects which consists of 3 subobjects (i.e. hypotrons) with el. charge (+1/3)(-2/3)(+1/3) and supercharge (+1/6)(-1/6)(+1/6), or (-2/3)(+1/3)(-2/3) and supercharge (-1/6)(+1/6)(-1/6), etc. In HT a FREE (i.e. unbound) electron or FREE positron in HT can be considered as an object which has a 'core' which consists of 2 'trions' as well as an object of 6 hypotrons. Thus, the 'cores' of a BOUND electron and a BOUND positron inside a nucleus is actually a system of 12 hyptrons or 4 'trions'. If one would think of the 2/3 hypotron as two 1/3 subobjects ("subhypotron"?), then the cores of a FREE electron and a FREE positron could be considered as bound systems of 'dyons' only.

In HT a BOUND electron differs from a FREE electron by it's 'shell' consisting of additional 'dyons' which is thought to surround the 'core'. In pictorial geometrical speech: Imagine a BOUND electron as a FREE electron, but with a different "dress", the latter consists of 'dyons'. The same arguments apply to a FREE positron and a BOUND positron. Therefore, it should not be expected !!! that a BOUND electron inside some larger object (nucleus, atom) interacts like a FREE electron in a collision process, and that a BOUND electron and a BOUND positron inside some larger object will annihilate at once under all circumstances into 2 photons (plus something else in HT).

Due to a relationship between el. charge and magn. charge and integers (Dirac's "charge quantization condition"), (semi-)'classical' investigations of a 2-'dyon'-system already led to the result that such a system satisfies either Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics. This surprising result is the reason why 'dyons' (and 'trions' in HT), apart from the quark model, had been considered as constituents of hadrons (and leptons in HT) many years ago. Progress in mathematical correct setups and formulations of gauge theories suggests to continue with this type of theories for particles and their interactions, apart from the standard model and quark model and/or even in contrast to these models.

To my point of view one of the flaws of contemporary particle physics, is the tacit assumption that a stable particle (electron, proton), when it is "bound"' should interact exactly in the same way as it does in the case of being a "free" particle which is "scattered" by a scattering partner. Unfortunately, mainstream particle physics seems to be intertwined with many other tacit assumptions, which represent the "dogmas" of physics and which undercuts the credibility of results (and their interpretations) of physics. Therefore, to consider physics, in particular particle physics, as an "empirical" science only, would be rather short-sighted.

Karl

Dear Karl

sorry, I really cannot follow your reasoning. Modern particle physics is based on Lagrangians constructed from certain symmetry principles. The rest is axiomatic field theory with needs a very small number of assumptions. In particular the behavior of bound systems vs. free systems does not need to be imposed but it follows straightforwardly from the rules. Those rules tell me what I explained in my previous remark: There is no way that a positron bound in a nuclear structure

does not eventually annihilate with an electron from the cloud if they get together eventually. The only way out I see is that nuclear matter contains different constitutents than the atomic cloud. As mentioned before those constitutents can then also be used to explain quark-antiquark bound systems like pions and rho mesons - and all this is quantitatively confirmed in numerical simulations starting from the QCD Lagrangian and calculating the masses of the mentioned systems. We also understand the transistion from low energies to high energies were the quarks can actually be 'seen' experimentally since QCD gets weak at high energies.

At this point in time, however, I fear our discussion leads nowhere, since you keep repeating claims without providing reasons that can be checked quantitatively. Thus I would like to wish you good luck with your theory and stop trying to convince you that the Standard Model is indeed a great and extremely successful theoretical framework.

Best Christohp

Wolfgang,

Concerning beta-minus-decay and beta-plus-decay of a nucleus, it should be noted that in HT these processes are also involved with neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. This is of course in contrast to what is believed in mainstream particle physics.

see PDF file attached

Karl

Dear Karl

I cannot resist to write a remark ... I think you make your life too easy - the same mechanism that describes within the Standard Model the beta decay of nuclei also describes also the decay of charged pions, e.g. pi+ (the positive pion is in the Standard Model a bound state of a up quark and an anti-down quark) into muon+ and muon neutrino

Moreover, one can show within the Standard Model that the coupling of the mentioned pion to nucleons (a quantitiy that can be measured e.g. from nucleon-nucleon scattering) is directly proportional to the axial charge of the nucleon - a parameter extracted from beta decay. This highly non-trivial connection goes under the name Goldberger-Triman relation with works to better than 5% (and the discrepancy is also understood within the Standard Model).

The natural question that arises is: What is the pion in your model? How does it decay? How does it couple to nucleons? Why is the pion so much lighter than its spin 1 partner (the rho resonance)? Also the latter aspect is well understood in the Standard Model and the explanation is linked to the mechanism behind the Goldberger Triman relation ... all very beautiful.

Indeed, there are a few aspects that the Sandard Model cannot explain (like Dark Matter and Dark energy) but there are very many observations that the Standard Model does explain with very little input - the beta decay of nuclei belongs to the second class.

Best Christoph

Dear Christoph,

How mesons are described in HT is one of the questions of HT, which up to now I cannot answer completely. All I can say is that neutrinos and anit-neutrinos will be involved again in order to 'construct' meson families which fits to the real world.

Please note that HT is presented as a WORKING PAPER of an ongoing project and not a publication of final results.

Before jumping into any field theoretical stuff involved with HT

(A)

I want to be sure that the hypotron model can reproduce the results of all of the typical particle conversion process

and

(B)

I do not want to be trapped by the "principles" or "dogmas" of contemporary and ordinary Lagrangian field theory and their severe interpretational problems due to Haag's theorem, when field theory is transferred into a formalism which resides in a Hilbert space structured as a Fock space.

Concerning (A) :

Up to now it seems that typical particle conversion process can be reproduced, but neutrinos or ant-neutrinos are always present in the conversion equations. This seems to be strange, but on the other hand is seems to be "natural", because particle conversion processes in experiments on earth cannot be shield from the stream of solar neutrinos.

Concerning (B) :

To overcome the interpretational desaster of rigorous QFT involved with Haag's theorem, various suggestions had been made. One of them is to reconsider and to allow "direct-action theories" (Kastner, 2015, https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03814 ), which go back to Wheeler/Feynman. Another suggestion is to introduce a second time parameter in addition to the time coordinate (Seidewitz, 2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.05658 ). Furthermore it seems possible (at least for me) to introduce the notion of "space-time" in such a mathematical manner that "space-time" is not a continuum on the most lowest scale.

However, up to now it is hard to predict which of these suggestions will be the best one in order to modify "field theory" completely, but successfully.

What puzzles me, is that various statements concerning the hypotron model can be made without referring to any math. model of "time" and "space". This is why I continue with the "hypotron theory" without any field theoretical stuff in order to see what can be inferred from basically three assumptions, i.e. (1) existence of hypotrons, (2) existence of charge and supercharge, (3) minimum principle for supercharge, and which can serve to understand the world of matter and radiation on the lowest scale in a consistent manner.

Karl

Dear Karl

I am surprised that you take possible implications of Haag's theorem as a reason to question the particle content of the Standard Model. Could you elaborate more on you motivation? By the way, it is my understanding that the LSZ formalism overcomes the troubles from Haag's theorem.

best Christoph

Dear Christoph,

Opinions concerning Haag's theorem and it's relevance in particular for gauge theories are different.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.00662

https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/18100/klaczynski.pdf

Although axiomatic QFT based on Wightman axioms is a mathematical rigorous attempt to setup a theory which is able to describe a quantized particle-like structure of a "field", the physical assumptions made in the Wightman approach are questionable. Many arguments (axioms, "dogmas") concerning (micro-)causality and Lorentz invariance and unitarity are questionable. To trust in and to stick at the traditional math. description of ("event"-based) space-time might be the reason why a reasonable and convincing foundation of QFT up to now does not exist.

Karl

Dear Karl

but this scepticim of yours towards axiomatic field theory still does not explain why you question the particle content of the Standard Model. The Standard Model describes low energy phenomena with incredible success with a very small number of degrees of freedom (at low energies we just need as matter fields two types of quarks and their antiquarks as well as electrons, positrons and the electron neutrino (and eventually its antiparticle is the neutrino is not a Majorana particle).

best Christoph

Dear Satyam

I agree with you that the stability of the proton prevents this state to contain a positron. But I do not understand why you claim that the Standard Model cannot explain the magnetic moment of the proton? A quick look to the literature showed me

G.~Martinelli, G.~Parisi, R.~Petronzio and F.~Rapuano, %``The Proton and Neutron Magnetic Moments in Lattice {QCD},''   Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 116B} (1982) 434.   doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90162-9

They find a very nice agreement between QCD and experiment (admittedly in a quenched calculation).

best Christoph

I do not understand what you mean by 'uniqueness', but from your reply I get the impression that a discussion is pointless. QCD is shown to be the theory of the strong interactions from various angles - lattice QCD being just one of them. From my point of view it does not make much sense to declare a new approach to particle physics necessary by denying the successes of the existing theory.

I wish you all satisfying entertainment with your ideas and now leave this exchange.

Best Christoph

Dear Christoph,

Klaczynski in his thesis

https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/18100/klaczynski.pdf

on page 71 writes:

"When relativistic quantum particles interact, they change their mode of existence such that during interactions, the particle concept breaks down completely. Because energy, mass and momentum are intimately related and can only be disentangled for free particles, the initial unrenormalised guess ...... did not capture the complexity of the relativistic situation."

This describes precisely one of the fundamental conceptual flaws of setting up Lagrangian QFT based on the idea of "free" fields. Therefore, the alleged "truth" of the standard model cannot be "proved" in a convincing manner by constructing symbolic or syntactical pseudo-mathematical procedures in order to obtain approximate solutions of equations of ontological misleading and mathematical suspect or ill-defined contemporary Lagrangian QFT, ie QCD. What actually happens in the tiny region of spacetime, where a particle due to interaction looses some of it's characteristic properties and where in the mash of spatially localized charge and energy either different particles or the same particles are formed, is a process which requires more than thinking in terms of field theories which basically concentrate on "free" fields which reside in the traditional continuum of space-time.

What is need are theories, contrary to any S-matrix-like theories, which concentrate on this mash of spatially localized charge and energy and ideas how the emergence of structured objects from such a mash of charge and energy can be described in a manner which is absolutely convincing with regard to ontological aspects and, of course, mathematical aspects.

Best regards

Karl

The geometric model I have been speaking of agrees completely with the quote from Klaczynski’s thesis, which Karl Kreuzer supplied. This concept, initiating in the quantum, can further be seen in molecular structures creating the material properties observed in the macro.

Dear J.L.

One of the interesting physical ideas, which disappeared when particle physics was dominated by the quark hype, is the idea to see whether the "strong force" can be understood in terms of interacting magn. dipoles. See for example http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0033v2.pdf (2011/2016). In conjunction with the idea of magn. monopoles, which can be thought to reside on the most lowest scale and which can be thought to be (almost) "hidden" in stable matter residing on larger scales ("elementary" particles, nuclei, atoms, etc.) by a minimum principle, this can lead to new theories for particles and their interactions which have almost nothing in common with paradigms of contemporary QFT-like theories.

Best regards

Karl

A GeV photon already has a wavelength in the range of a neutron diameter. Is it possible, that such a photon becomes compressed to a non imaginable small diameter (the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to the mass) within a black hole? In such a compressed state, it could become confined by its own gravitational field.

We therefore can add the following questions to this thread:

Is a neutron a compressed photon confined/trapped by its own gravitational field?

Is it possible that a black hole reaches an aggregate state of extreme photon compression, which finally explodes to a giant cloud of neutrons?

Dear Wolfgang,

This is an interesting speculation about photons and neutrons and black holes and gravity. However, what is common to these phys. objects, is that they are not completely well understood.

Concerning the "photon" it seems that there is no common sense among experimentalists and theorists about what a "photon" really is or what a "photon" should considered to be, in particular with regard to it's structure, which should not considered to be "static" when a photon interacts.

In the case of an interaction of a photon with an atom or molecule, where the photon is not absorbed, this interaction should be considered as a kind of scattering process with a finite duration of the interaction. Depending on the theory which claims to describe such a process, the photon can be considered to have a tiny non-zero mass, i.e. an object which is slowed down and then is accelerated again to speed of light by the e.m. field of the atom or molecule. In addition to the speed of such an interacting photon, it's spatial structure should be considered to be changing too, during the interaction.

Following this idea it is possible to understand the reflection of light at a mirror as an interaction processes of individual photons with the atoms or molecules of the mirror. The extended photon interacts with at least 3 atoms or molecules "at once", so to speak, and thereby can "feel" the plane of the mirror specified by these 3 atoms or molecules.

This means that the spatial size or "diameter" of an interacting photon with energy of visible light should be assumed to be larger as the size of atoms or molecules. Usually, from "E=hf" (f=frequency) for photons of visible light a wavelength c/f is calculated which is roughly between 380 and 750 nanometer. This wavelength might be identified with the scale of size of an interacting photon. However, how the photon of visible light "looks like", when it moves as a free object, not interacting with an atom or molecule, can only be a matter of speculations and hypotheses and phys. theories. Even if photons with 1GeV energy would exist, then there should be given an argument why "E=hf" and corresponding values of wavelength c/f also applies for these photons.

A new branch of speculations about photons and neutrons and dark matter and black holes can emerge if new particle models are considered, which describe even photons and leptons as compound objects.

Best regards

Karl

Dear Wolfgang,

It should be noted that in HT ( https://www.researchgate.net/project/HYPOTRON-THEORY ) the hypotron content of the "core" of (neutron)(anti-neutron) agrees with the hypotron content of the "core" of (photon)(photon)(photon)(photon)(virolon)(virolon), where "virolon" is a zero-charge and zero-"supercharge" object, similar to the photon. Thus, the idea of an explosion of a gigantic cluster of photons as a source of matter (neutrons and anti-neutrons and subsequent decays and particle formations) is in concordance with ideas in the context of HT.

The particle model of HT can also make some first statements

( http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory-CH29.pdf ) about possible constituents of the alleged "dark matter", because, in addition to proton and electron, HT predicts two new types of stable fermionic particles with charge 2 and 3 as well as a type of bosonic particle with charge 3. Nuclei and atoms formed by means of these particles instead of protons and electrons might be considered as the constituents of "dark matter", i.e. matter which does not interact with photons having energy of visible light.

Best regards

Karl

Dear Karl,

any theory capable of predicting real observations in a comprehensible way is valuable. Theories which predict most observations, based on fewest assumptions have the highest ranking.

How many assumptions are hidden in the Hypotron theory? How many observations (e.g. particle masses) does the Hypotron theory predict?

Dear Wolfgang,

An early particle model, which is somewhat similar to HT, is the 1993 "Subquark Model" by L.Ampel. ( http://all-subquarks.eu ). In this model mass values can be calculated.

However, before any attempts are made to predict "mass" values, the notion of "mass" must be clarified at all. One of the goals of HT is to setup the notions of "mass" and "spin" as well as the notions of "space" and "time" from grounds, which basically refer to the dynamical behavior of "fluctuating" hypotron dipoles, i.e. phy. objects which carry two types of "charge". Up to now there are various math. concepts, which are still waiting for some deeper analysis.

The predictions of HT, so far, refer to types of particles and particle families. The basic ingredients of HT are (see ch. 2-4 of the working paper):

(1) the assumption that there exist phys. objects, called "hypotrons", with "charge" 1/3 and 2/3 and "supercharge" 1/6 which is related to charge in a non-linear manner,

and

(2)

the assumption that each massive as well as massless "particle" consist of a "core", which is made up of 6 hypotrons and which is embedded into a "shell" and the total system is surrounded by a "field". Shell and field are basically made up of hypotron dipoles and hypotron tripoles.

By construction "charge" is an additive, whereas "supercharge is NOT an additive quantity. "Charge" is identified with elec. charge and "supercharge" is identified with the alleged magn. charge.

It can be easily shown that there are 30 classes (types) of 6-hypotron systems which have an integer value of charge (see ch. 6 section 6.4 of the working paper). These 30 classes are considered to represent the types of "elementary" particles of the real world.

There are:

4 classes with charge=0 and supercharge=0 (CASE-A).

2=1+1 classes with charge=0 and |supercharge|>0 (CASE-B).

10=5+5 classes with |charge|=1 (CASE-C).

8=4+4 classes with |charge|=2 (CASE-D).

4=2+2 classes with |charge|=3 (CASE-E).

2=1+1 classes with |charge|=4 (CASE-F).

Among these classes there are particular classes which show up the feature of "supercharge adjustment", which means that a 6-hypotron system with non-zero supercharge can be 'merged' with some hypotron dipoles (or equivalently with 6-hyp. objects belonging to classes with zero-charge and zero-supercharge), in order to obtain a new hypotron system with vanishing supercharge.

It turns out that supercharge adjustment is possible for 10 classes:

2 classes in CASE-B, which gives the neutrino and the anti-neutrio,

4 classes in CASE-C, which gives the electron/positron/proton/anti-proton,

2 classes in CASE-D, which gives the prediction of a 'new'type of stable particle, called the called "duolon"/"anti-duolon" with charge 2,

2 classes in CASE-E, which gives the prediction of a 'new'type of stable particle, called the called "quatrolon"/"anti-quatrolon" with charge 3.

These 10 classes for which supercharge adjustment is possible and the 4 classes with zero-charge and zero-supercharge are identified with the types of STABLE elem. particles. (see section 14.11 of working paper).

The property of a 6-hypotron system or clusters of 6-hypotron systems or any arbitary hypotron system to be "bosonic" or "fermonic" is introduced by means of configuration symmetry properties of the numbers of low-plus/low-minus/high-plus/high-minus hypotrons.

The NEUTRON !!! is considered as a 3x6=18-hypotron system which corresponds to (proton)(electron)(anti-neutrino)!!!.

With regard to the hypotron configuration of a hypotron cluster the notion of "equivalence" "~" is introduced (section 7.1). By means of this notion of "equivalence", alleged particle reactions and particle conversions can be checked whether or not they are possible at all, i.e. possible with regard to the conservation of the numbers of low-plus/low-minus/high-plus/high-minus hypotrons, and thereby to the conservation of charge and supercharge. For example,

(proton)(electron)~(neutrino)(anti-neutrino) (see section 16.3),

and

(anti-neutron)(neutrino)~(neutron)(anti-neutrino) (see section 16.7).

Leptons and Mesons are 'constructed' in HT by means of electrons and neutrinos and corresponding anti-particles and 6-hypotron systems with zero-charge and zero-supercharge.

Baryons can be constructed as "exited states" of the proton/anti-proton or as "exited states" of particles bolonging to the reminder classes of 6-hypotron systems with integral non-zero charge or as "exited states" of (anti-)neutron-like hypotron systems.

Nuclei are formed with protons and neutrons AND anti-neutrons such that supercharge squared of the corresponding hypotron cluster vanishes or is at minimum.

Following these particle construction principles of HT, various physical features can be understood in a new way or some phys. puzzles can be solved, for example, the question of why there is only a the small variety of STABLE particles, nuclear decay as being involved with neutrinos, solar neutrino puzzle, puzzle of missing balance of matter/anti-matter, the "valley of stable nuclei" (chapter 22).

Best regards

Karl

A missing conceptual relationship between the notions of mass and spin and magn. moment is at least one the principal ontological weaknesses of traditional classical field theory and the debatable attempts and methods of setting up quantizations of field theory (QFT).

Dear Karl,

thank you for the comprehensive description of the basics of the Hypotron theory.

It shows that we are able finding several assumptions and relations(QCD and Hypotron) which lead to a mathematical theory capable to predict many observations.

We know that even simple interaction models lead to Hamiltoneans with a large variety of eigenvalues. Mathematicians did a lot of work solving equations in which Hamilton like operators are involved. But do we also get some mathematical help in the reverse question? This reverse question is:

Which interactions (or classes of interactions) lead to a given spectrum of eigenvalues?

Dear Wolfgang,

To stick to a space-time "continuum" at the most lowest scale and to traditional "continuum"-based dynamical theories is perhaps not the best idea. For my purposes there is a more general question which should be answered first:

What are the most appropriate and manageable mathematical theories for describing "interactions" in the case where at the most lowest scale "space" and "time" is no longer considered as a "continuum"?

Wolfgang,

You asked:

"What are the most appropriate and manageable mathematical theories for describing "interactions" in the case where at the most lowest scale "space" and "time" is no longer considered as a "continuum"?

I would submit that perhaps space and time could be considered as a continuum at the most lowest scale if we stand on the premise that a set of elemental charges dither and orbit about their centroid at the Planck level. The only non-continuum zone would then only be a volume defined inside a Planck length diameter of each unit, but then still manageable as an interaction domain, where the surface of each unit is adjacent to the next, and free to interact with each other. What exists within this centroidal Planck volume at the center of a proton has been theorized by Nassim Haramein to be a black hole, which might be the answer to your "most appropriate mathematical theory describing interactions".

Article The Schwarzschild Proton

-J.L. Brady

My apologies,

It was Karl Kreuzer who asked the above question.

@ J.L.

Just to illustrate one aspect of the problem of appropriate math. theories useful for setting up phys. theories for particles and their interactions, consider the following situation:

Consider some rain drops which are falling down to sea. As long as the drops are falling it makes sense to assign to each pair of drops a distance, which can be defined by means of a measuring procedure and can be measured by a corresponding measuring device. But when the rain drops immerse in the sea their individuality gets lost, and it is not possible to identify a drop or a pair of drops, and it is not clear whether or not it makes sense to continue with thinking in terms of distances for some water, which does not anymore exist as drops.

Now, replace the rain drops with particles and the sea with the interaction region of a collision process. Outside this region it makes sense to assign a distance to the particles. But does this also make sense when the particles had immersed in this region of interaction? If not, then all of the metrical and geometrical and kinematical notions, which apply outside the interaction region, become meaningless inside the interaction region. Even the idea of "causality" becomes questionable without the notion of "distance".

The question arises which of the physical notions of each particle can be founded in a way which is free from any ideas of some "space" and of "distance" between particles. Is perhaps "electric charge" the only physical phenomenon and phys. notion, which can be recognized to exist without any reference to ideas of "space" and of "time"?

It is hard to imagine how a physical theory for interacting particles could look like, which is free from mathematical recipes involved with topological spaces or metrical spaces or manifolds or fiber bundles or other sophisticated mathematical structures. So, what to do? Keep on with thinking in terms of physical notions which are known to be meaningful outside the interaction region? Keep on with the traditional sets of (non-fuzzy) numbers only? Should one expect that there might exist some phys. quantities, which are meaningful only inside the interaction region, but which cannot be discovered or detected outside the interaction region, perhaps "magnetic charge"?

Perhaps it is worth to step up the efforts to consider basically electromagnetic phenomenons and e.m. properties of particles only as the most fundamental recipe for setting up a phys. theory which describes the dynamical behavior of particles as well as the structure of "space" and "time" at the most lowest scale, and, of course, the family structures of the variety of particles.

Karl,

I like the way you approach the unknown. I agree with your statements.

Yes, we should attempt to define the structural laws which the "sea" must follow. Yet this of course must also include the raindrops, since they too must follow this universal "water" structure (since they exist within the same universal realm). I also agree that to attempt to find the raindrop within the sea would be an arduous task, much like attempting to find the quark within the nucleon, but it's essence is in there, somewhere.

Perhaps what we could do, is the same thing we've always been doing... discover matter, discover the next smaller structure (molecule), discover the next smaller structure (atom), discover the next smaller structure (nucleon, electron), discover the next smaller structure (quark). Although the molecular structure has successfully been identified (bcc, fcc, etc), the nucleon, electron, quark, etc structure has not. We have made great strides with material science since the molecular structure discoveries, and the same should also be true once we discover the actual atomic structure.

I have the geometric structure of this "water" in my hand, and have successfully placed the atomic particles upon it, displaying their correct properties as they dynamically follow its geometric and kinematic laws. This is the raindrop. From this raindrop I now can visualize the sea in operation, and finally the universal "water". They are all one set of universal elemental charges, communicating between stable orbiting/spinning Planck size structures, defined by the charges.

The geometry is the charge, and the charge, geometry... inseparably beautiful.

- J.L. Brady

Dear J.L.

Concerning "water", the "sea", and the "raindrops" mentioned in my previous post see also the illustration on page 2

of

http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Preface.pdf

Best regards

Karl

Hi,

we finally found that all things like raindrops... are nothing else as complex interactions between protons and electrons (if we consider neutrons as a combination of electrons and protons).

But because other stable particles exist, it is possible that protons are also compound states and we do not really know the root of matter.