If gluons in ``quantum foam" are massive, that shows that the approach is wrong.

Seemingly, the gluons in the quantum form are not gluons. And they are a different type of elementary particle with an unstable Spin (0.5) that gets the mass from the Higgs field. So the Standard Model of elementary particles needs to change.

I'd suggest that the Standard Model is just fine. ``Quantum foam'' is just a catchphrase, that doesn't mean anything. Particles don't have dimensions, that statement doesn't mean anything, either. Using meaningless words isn't a good starting point.

Gluons have spin 1, not spin 1/2, and the only particles in the Standard Model, that have spin 1/2 and get their mass from interacting with the Higgs are the quarks (part of it) and the electrically charged leptons (all of it). The neutrinos are massive, but they don't get their mass from the Higgs, simply because right handed neutrinos aren't observed at the energy scales at which left-handed neutrinos are.

The fact that a particle is massive doesn't imply that it's ``unstable''-which, in the context of the Standard Model, in particular, is misleading. All particles can transform into other particles in ways that are consistent with energy and momentum (and angular momentum) conservation and the ``internal'' symmetries of the theory-which define the theory in general and the Standard Model in particular.

There's no reason to talk about ``quantum foam'' in the context of the Standard Model. It would be useful to first learn quantum field theory, then learn about the Standard Model, then learn what generalizations of the Standard Model are, already known and then try to think about going beyond them, keeping in mind that any generalization of the Standard Model must be consistent with it, when they both apply. And there is an overlap.

An elementary particle has a string as an integer multiple of its Compton wavelength. Quantum foam is zero-point energy: every point of space-time is considered as an harmonic oscillator that can interact with any elementary particle. Wait for my article at the beginning of the year 2022: I had drawn a curve that show that masses of all elementary particles follow a linear bi-log straight line: it is like Mendeleev's table for chemical elements.

Seemingly, the Standard Model is understanding using Quantum foam model is just a approach Gluons are Bosons have spin 1 ,its massless

Stam Nicolis, Alaya Kouki, Hadi Jabbar Alagealy, I was not guessing that gluons in quantum foam have 1/2 Spin. That is a result of my calculation. If you read my question carefully, you will see that I have said that, I already have a set of candidates for elementary particles and quantum foam. There are two gluons in the dimensional calculation where there are (+1-1)/3 dimensions in the standard gluons and there are (+0.5+0)/3 dimensions in the gluons in the quantum foam. So according to that dimensional calculation, there are two different gluons. If you study the Standard Model carefully you will see that some elementary particles could get mass based on the charge and Spin (unstable Spin: 1/2). W and Z bosons don't have an unstable Spin (1/2), but they have dimensions like the charged particles to get mass from the Higgs fields. So they are massive. Neutrinos broke the symmetry in the universe, so they can get mass from something against the Higgs field. And Neutrinos can get mass on the unstable (1/2) Spin. According to my calculation, I'm sure that Standard Model is not perfect and must change. I was talking about dimensions based on my dimensional calculation. I was not talking about popular Quantum Mechanics. Dimensional interactions are the fundamental process in Elementary particles. The popular Quantum Mechanics is mainly a way to detect particles and interactions. But it can't explain the main reason for the interactions and results.

Once more: if the result of the calculation is that gluons have spin 1/2, the calculation is wrong. As are the statements about the other particles. It would be useful to actually study quantum field theory and the properties of the Standard Model, because the statements about them are either wrong or meaningless (for instance the statements about dimensions aren't wrong-they're meaningless). The neutrinos don't break any symmetry. And, once more, there aren't any ``unstable'' particles in the Standard Model, because the Standard Model is a ``unitary'' theory: Particles transform into other particles-and the particles of the Standard Model are enough to describe all the transformations; they don't ``disappear''. The transformations are constrained by Lorentz invariance and the internal symmetries of the theory. So an electron can't transform into another particle, because there doesn't exist an electrically charged particle whose mass is less than that of an electron. A muon can transform into an electron, because it has the same charge but higher mass-but additional conservation laws imply that other particles must be involved, namely two neutrinos and they can't be of the same kind. Conversely, an electron, an electron antineutrino and a muon neutrino can combine to produce a muon.

And so on. All this is known, so it doesn't make sense writing essays, where words are just shuffled around.The only thing that matters is the result of the calculation-and if the statement is that the result is that gluons have spin 1/2, the calculation is nonsense.

In the context in which the notion of gluons makes any sense, they are massless particles, of spin 1, in the adjoint representation of the gauge group-and for the Standard Model that gauge group is the SU(3) group that describes the strong interactions.

Of course it’s possible to use the word ``gluon" to label any particle, but that doesn’t mean that calling a particle by some name will change its properties, namely mass, spin and charge.

There’s no point spending time on changing the words with which particles are called. What matters are their properties. And a spin 1/2 gluon doesn’t make sense. It's wrong to claim that the Standard Model predicts that the gluons have spin 1/2-it assumes that they have spin 1 and, since the spin and the mass of a particle are invariant under Lorentz transformations, they can't change (one might think that mass renormalization is in contradiction with this statement-it's an interesting exercise to figure out that this is an illusion and requires some study).

Gluons are massless because of gauge invariance and the interactions can't break gauge invariance.

A framework that implies that the spin of a particle changes, implies that the interactions violate Lorentz invariance, which doesn't occur in the Standard Model.

All this time spent on nonsense should be spent on learning quantum mechanics already (the qualifier ``popular'' is meaningless, beyond sociology), quantum field theory and particle physics. There are courses on all these subjects and they're on-line, so there's no excuse pretending this knowledge doesn't exist. We're in 2021, not 1921.

For quantum mechanics, these might be useful:

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2016/video-lectures/part-1/

For the Standard Model, Preprint Lectures: From quantum mechanics to the Standard Model

The reason the term ``decay rate'' is useful, is that we're not interested in the reverse interaction. But that doesn't mean that the reverse interaction can't occur in principle. Whatever isn't forbidden by a conservation law is mandatory-the rate is the non-trivial quantity and the non-trivial statement is whether it's zero, or non-zero.

For learning how it's possible imagining a framework that includes the Standard Model, but goes beyond it, Article Beyond the Standard Model Lectures for the 2016 European Sch...

The Standard Model is, indeed, incomplete-but the incompleteness is constrained by Lorentz invariance and whatever completes it is consistent with it. The Standard Model is mathematically consistent. The statements about spin 1/2 gluons are not.

Stam Nicolis, I didn't say that standard gluons (in the Standard Model) have a 1/2 Spin. I said that the gluons in quantum foam (in space) have a 1/2 Spin. And that is why they are massive in space. Most scientists say that they don't know the reason for that. I can say that they don't know that (they can't measure) the Spin of gluons in quantum foam. Neutrinos oscillate (change flavor/mass) when they travel. It is a very popular idea that neutrinos broke and/or break the symmetry. So don't argue with me about that. Detecting interactions doesn't explain the reason why it happened. Scientists can't explain how an interaction makes an output. They should have a way to explain the way of changing the charge and Spin. Some interactions between quarks and leptons, the weak interaction (W boson interaction) are simple. So it looks like only a change of Spin and Charge. But they can't explain the reason for the Z boson decay as it is a very complex process of decaying. Measuring interactions is not a way to explain the reason for that interactions. If you can't understand that, then there is no point talking about that more.

Gluons can't become either massive, or change their spin through interactions that respect Lorentz invariance. ``Quantum foam'' may be a term that's used in vulgarizations, it's meaningless. The meaningful term is ``interactions''. If you try to write any interaction of gluons, that respects global Lorentz invariance and the other known symmetries, you will find that gluons can't become massive, nor can their spin change from 1 to 1/2.

The spin of the gluon has been measured, when interactions are taken into account.

The fact that neutrino mass eigenstates aren't neutrino flavor eigenstates doesn't mean that any symmetry is broken.

Interactions are constrained by global Lorentz invariance and by gauge invariance-so, of course it's possible to explain how an interaction produces any output, given any input and what the input can be-not any input states are possible.

The reason charge and spin can't change is Lorentz invariance: Charge and spin are invariant under global Lorentz transformations.

The Z boson``decay'' is perfectly well understood-it's completely described by the symmetries of the Standard Model.

The ``reason'' for interactions is symmetries. It's the symmetries that imply what the interactions are. The symmetries of the Standard Model are global Lorentz invariance and local transformations that are described by a particular Lie group that acts on the particles in a very specific way. That determines everything. That wasn't understood 60 years ago, it is now.

Stam Nicolis, If you don't know about quantum foam, then you should learn about that first. Quantum foam is not a part of the standard elementary particles. There are low-energy particles in space that behave like the standard elementary particles, but there are a few differences between them. There is a big price for explaining the reason for the existence of mass in gluons in quantum foam. So they/scientists know that there is a different type of particle/gluon. I don't know why you can't understand that.

Because the statements about ``quantum foam'' don't mean anything. Particles are labeled by mass, spin and charges. For gluons these are 0, 1 and the eight charges of the adjoint representation of SU(3). The interactions of gluons with each other are uniquely defined by these properties and the quantum properties also. Nothing more is required.

Stam Nicolis, I just have to repeat that scientists do care about 'quantum foam' and it means a lot to them. That is why they want to find out more about the mass of gluon in quantum foam. But if you are arrogant about your level of knowledge and education, then you may not like to learn it from me. They/scientists didn't want to make big particle accelerators (Eg: LHC) to discover quantum foam. It is still a big problem for them, as they (some scientists) thought that they would need a particle accelerator with higher energies to discover low-energy particles. I can understand that you can't understand it and you don't know about quantum foam. So please don't try to argue with me about that more. I'm sure that there is a particle just like gluons in space (in quantum foam) that has a mass with an unstable (0.5) Spin. It is not a question/problem to me. I'm just trying to find more details about the other particles in quantum foam.

I take it that quantum foam is a speculation about the very short range structure of space?

Dont see much connection to particle properties.

If not try to define it better.

There are particles (mostly virtual particles) in vacuum space (quantum foam).

Zachary Knutson

I have explained the math in my research book:

Preprint Verifying The Origin Of Everything