1(a): Fermions and Bosons
- Fermion A particle with totally antisymmetric
composite quantum states, which means it must obey the Pauli exclusion
principle and hence Fermi-Dirac statistics. They have half-integer
spin. Among them are the fundamental fermions, those without
substructure, the quarks and the leptons.
- Boson
A particle with totally symmetric composite quantum
states, which exempts them from the Pauli exclusion principle, and that
hence obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. They have integer spin. Among
them are the fundamental bosons, those without substructure, the gauge
bosons and the scalar (Higgs) boson.
|
The table of fundamental particles
divides its particles into two types . There are fermions and there
are bosons. Chapter One has, to this point, made no
mention
of
bosons. There is a good reason for this.
Fermions and bosons are very different. The fundamental fermions are matter objects and the fundamental bosons are force
objects. What this means is that fermions have substance and the
bosons "mediate" the substances by carrying forces between them. It can
be argued that bosons are more mathematical
necessities than real
particles although experiments have resulted in their observation.
Later chapters of the Treatise suggest that the observers may have been
seeing what they wanted to see and that the reality is somewhat different.
All the
fundamental particles are so insubstantial that current observations do little more
than confirm their existence. They
are creatures of the Quantum Theory
with most of them having been predicted mathematically (and
anthropocentrically) before their actual detection. The property
measures attributed to them are mathematical representations
rather than actual measures. Spin, for example, which
may equate to
rotation, is presented in measures of 0, ½, 1, and so on.
The
evolutionary form of this Treatise presents the fundamental particles in
considerable detail. Without supplanting the Standard Model of Fundamental Particles,
the additional information supplied by the Treatise allows
them to be realigned to accord with their primary
characteristic. The primary characteristic is whether or not they are stable.
- Stable particle
A particle with mechanisms and
processes
that maintain its stability in changing conditions.
- Unstable particle
A particle with mechanisms and
processes that are incapable of bringing it to
stability or maintaining stability.
|
The
realignment results in changes to the Current Paradigm. The principle changes are these:
- Photons:
In the Current Paradigm the photon is a fundamental
boson. It is massless, chargeless,
and has a spin of 1.
In the Treatise, the photon is a stable particle made of teels gravitationally bound into a centrifugal (and
thus chargeless) structure. Photons have a small measure of mass which is undetectable with our current equipment. The
mass varies with the photon's wavelength. The most massive are the gamma photons. The least massive are the ELF photons. Photons move constantly at lightspeed
is due to internal regulating mechanisms. The mechanisms counter
changes in external gravitypulls by
ejecting or absorbing teels. This equates to the ejecting or absorbing
of mass and energy. Photons are described in detail in
Chapter Eleven.
- Quarks:
In the Current Paradigm the quark is a fundamental
fermion. It has mass, charge, and spin. Quarks are found within composite particles called baryons and mesons. Baryons contain three quarks. Mesons contain two. In the Treatise, the quark is an unstable
particle. When not prevented from doing so, quarks decay into lesser stable particles or
they dissipate. When a quark is within the structure of
the baryon or meson its decay process is suspended. Quarks
come in two forms. Axially structured quarks are charged particles. Centrifugally structured quarks are chargeless particles.
The mass of a quark varies according to its structure and to which type
of composite particle it is within. Quarks are described in detail
in Chapter Thirteen (Electrons) and Chapter Fifteen
(Nucleons).
- Electrons:
In
the Current Paradigm. the electron is fundamental fermion with mass,
charge, and spin. It is fundamental because it has no known
components or substructure. In
the Treatise, the electron is a meson. A meson is a composite particle consisting
of two quarks. One quark is axially structured and the other is centrifugally
structured. Electrons are described with in detail in Chapter
Thirteen.
The remaining bosons, the W, the Z, and the Higgs are mathematically
predicted objects. The W and the Z are force carriers in the same mould as the gluon. The Higgs is thought to give mass to other particles. Like the gluon, these particles may have been detected. In the
Treatise, they only exist as temporary aggregations of teels although the
effects that led to their hypothesisation are real enough.
Appendix 1(b): Bosons and Forces
- Boson
A particle with totally symmetric composite quantum
states, which exempts them from the Pauli exclusion principle, and that
hence obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. They have integer spin. Among
them are the fundamental bosons, those without substructure, the gauge
bosons and the scalar (Higgs) boson.
- Force
Any interaction that, when unopposed, will change the velocity
of an object. Force can instinctively be described as a push or a pull.
A force has both magnitude and direction.
|
In the Current Paradigm, the standard model of fundamental particles provides for twelve quarks, twelve leptons, four gauge bosons, and one scalar boson. Appendix 1(a)
rearranged the quarks and leptons according to whether or not they are
stable particles. It also stripped the gauge bosons of their force carrier status.
Quantum
physics presents each gauge boson as a physical manifestation of one of
the four fundamental forces. Each is a mediating particle which
"carries" the force between the affected quarks or leptons. The strong
force has the gluon, the electromagnetic
force has the photon, the weak force has the W and Z bosons, and the
gravitational force has the graviton.
A force is an interaction
between particles that makes the motion of the particles
change. The change can be acceleration or deceleration or it can
be a change in direction. Insofar as the changes are measurable and
predictable, the forces are understood. As to why or how they work,
they are not.
The force
concept is an anthropocentric concept of long standing with the first
thoughts on the subject appearing over two thousand years ago.
In its current form it is a way of making use of measurable interactions without
needing to understand the underlying mechanisms and processes. It is a
successful concept if not an illuminating one. The evolutionary
Treatise, coming at the
subject from the opposite direction and without the baggage of
years, is able to see the
forces with more clarity.
Electromagnetism
The
most apparent of the "force carriers" is the photon. It is a
stable
particle with a measure of mass and spinspeed. Larger objects emit
photons
as a product of their stabilisation mechanisms. Photons are so
insubstantial that they can be
absorbed by almost every type of object. Through being emitted and
absorbed, photons carry mass and spinspeed from one object to
another.
The
workings of the electromagnetic force are described in detail in Chapters 11 and 13. The force is actually a composite of a number of different
mechanisms which combine to present what is seen as electromagnetism. Photons play an important part in a
number of the involved mechanisms but the photonic actions are a long way
short of being the whole story.
The Weak Force
The
weak force governs the transmutation of quarks from one type to
another. During the process, the mass of the fermions alters,
being moderated by the emission of W and Z particles.
The
workings of the weak force are described in detail in Chapters 13 and
15. The process is a composite of a number of mechanisms.
The composite is simpler than electromagnetism but the
mechanisms involved are much the same, the difference being more
a matter of context than anything more fundamental. During the
transmutation process, substantial numbers of teels can be ejected or absorbed. These can accrete to become W and
Z particles. W and Z particles are highly unstable and thus very
short-lived.
The Strong Force
The
strong force bonds quarks together to form electrons and nucleons. They
also bond nucleons together to form nuclides.
Of the four forces,
this is the strongest although its range is limited. It is a complex
force in which the quarks are attracted together to a
specific proximity at which point repulsion dominates the
attraction and the quarks can draw no closer. The bonding is
facilitated by gluons
which pass between the affected quarks.
The
workings of the strong force are described in detail in Chapters 13 and
15. Quarks are unstable particles bound together by their
mutual attractance (a distance property) and held apart by their mutual
repellence (a contact property). Quarks have a complex structure, a
feature of which is envelopment by dense and fast
moving streams of teels. It is the colliding teelstreams
stop the quarks approaching each other too closely
in much the same way that ping-pong balls ride on a jet
of water.
In the event that an electron, nucleon, or nuclide is made unstable the
quarks eject accretions of teels that may (or may not) equate to
gluons.
The Gravitational Force
This
force is the natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are
brought toward one another. It has already been dealt with in some detail in
this chapter where it is subsumed
into the qualitative measure attractance. The force carrier for
gravitational force is the hypothetical graviton. Individual gravitons have
never been observed and the requirements for a
suitable graviton detector are believed to be so onerous as to
make the construction of one unlikely. Waves have been detected which may be disturbances
moving through fields of gravitons.
Unlike
the other forces, the Treatise finds no readily-apparent mechanical explanation for gravitation. Objects are
drawn toward each other. This is known. Why are objects drawn toward
each other? This is not known.
In
the evolutionary Treatise, the notion of forces falls by the wayside.
Three of the fundamental forces are actually processes underpinned
by describable mechanisms.
The other one, gravitation, is not. Thus it could continue to be considered a "force". But
should it?
In the Current Paradigm, the strength of gravitational attraction can be measured but
not explained and thus it is a force. In the Treatise, the force takes two forms. Gravitational attraction (as
attractance) cannot be explained and thus it is a qualitative property.
Its strength can be measured and thus (as gravitypull) it is a
quantitive property.
The
Treatise has the form of an evolutionary tree. Near its base are
the two fundamental qualitative properties, one of which is
attractance. Sprouting from them are the six fundamental quantitive
properties, one of which is gravitypull. Trying to graft the "force"
concept onto the tree is possible but pointless. Forces have been a
hugely important feature in the history of physics but, if the
assertions in this appendix are correct, they have outlived their
usefulness.
- Fundamental Force A term used in the Current Paradigm to describe an interaction between fundamental fermions that alters the velocity of those fermions relative to each other but which has no apparent mechanical explanation.
|
As
regards the fundamental scalar boson: the Higgs
boson, it probably exists. Particles that appear to have its
predicted properties have been observed during experiments. In the
Treatise there is nothing suggesting the experiments should not
produce
what has been observed. Nor, however, is there any suggestion that the
Higgs, and its associated scalar field, have the special abilities
that have been proposed.
1(c) The "expected result" Problem
- Mechanism
A system of parts that operate or
interact in a preordained manner to produce an expected result.
- Process A series of preordained actions that produce an expected result.
|
Profiling
has led to the identifying of attractance and repellence as the
overarching qualitative properties for two families of
quantitive properties. It has also led to the identifying of the
quantitive properties that can be attributed to the teel in its role as the
fundamental particle. As it happens, profiling also
suggests that the teel isn't actually fundamental.
As
of now there is no explanation for attractance and
repellence. There is no obvious reason why one teel should be able to
draw another teel toward it and thereafter collide with that teel
rather than they pass through each
other. Can profiling help here?
Profiling
tells us that
nothing happens, that no events take place, without the involvement of
mechanisms and processes. The two are separately defined but they
are deeply entwined with they other. Mechanisms, mostly, serve
as groundwork for the process superstructure.
Mechanisms can stand alone but processes always overlie a
mechanism
or two that keeps thing moving along. Teels take part in
mechanisms and processes. Is it possible that they also have them.
Probably.
Teels
attract and repel. This means the teel is a process because it produces
an "expected result". However, there is no hint as to what might
be the "series of
preordained
actions" that produce the expected result. If the teel is a
process, profiling tells us it is normal for a process to have one or
more underlying mechanisms. If this is so, the teel must be
(or must
contain) a system of parts.
If the teel is a system of
parts, it is not the fundamental particle. The parts might be
fundamental but not the teel. As for the parts: they might be
fundamental: or they might themselves be made of parts. The
teel might be like a Russian doll, capable of being endlessly broken
down into ever smaller components.
It is very likely that something even less
substantial than the teel exists. As things stand however there isn't
enough information from which a sensible description of it can be
compiled. Until more information is uncovered, the teel will continue
to be the Treatise's kickstarter.
1(d): The Planck Length Problem
- Moment Zero
The Universe is currently expanding. Moment Zero was when the current expansion began.
|
Cosmologists
have extrapolated the expansion of the Universe backward in time to a
point when the Universe had a diameter of one Planck Length. That is
very small diameter indeed and consequently the Universe was very dense and very hot.
Repellence
as a property does not figure large in the Current Paradigm.
Especially, no thought is given to the possibility that there might be
a particle with a density measure of 100%: a particle that it is
totally
resistant to any form of penetration or deformation.
If
everything in the Universe is ultimately made of teels, and if
teels have a density measure of 100%, the description of the early
Universe
provided by the Big Bang Theory is wrong. If there are particles
in the Universe that have a density measure of 100%, there
is a limit to how far the Universe can be compressed.
Attempts
at estimating the size of a "teel universe" at Moment Zero are made difficult by a lack of
reliable information. The best that
can be done is to perform yet another profiling exercise. Here are the
parameters for the exercise:
- Every teel has the same dimensions.
- Every teel is 100% dense.
- Every object in the Universe is a teel or is made of teels.
- The core of every object occupies 1% of the object's volume (See Rutherford's gold foil experiment).
- The dimensions of the Milky Way galaxy are regarded as a median for all galaxies.
Here is the exercise:
- The Milky Way galaxy (including its halo) is a sphere of (approximately)
200,000 lightyears in diameter.
- A
diameter of 200,000 lightyears equates to a volume of
4,188,790,204,786,390 cubic lightyears.
- If
the stars of the Milky Way are 1% of the volume of the
galaxy sphere, they equate to a sphere with a volume of
41,887,902,047,864 cubic lightyears and a diameter of 43,089
lightyears.
- If
the atoms of the Milky Way are 1% of the volume of the
star sphere, they equate to a sphere with a volume of
418,879,020,479 cubic lightyears and a diameter of 9,284
lightyears.
- If
the nucleons of the Milky way are 1% of the volume of the
atom sphere, they equate to a sphere with a volume of 4,188,790,205
cubic lightyears and a diameter of 2,000 lightyears.
- If the quarks of the Milky Way are 1% of the volume of the
nucleon sphere they equate to a sphere with a volume of 41,887,902
cubic lightyears and a diameter of 431 lightyears.
- If
the teels of the Milky Way are 1% of the volume of the
quark sphere they equate to a sphere with a volume of 418,879 cubic
lightyears and a diameter of 93 lightyears.
- One
current estimate is that the visible Universe contains 125 billion
galaxies.
- If
the visible Universe contains 125 billion galaxies, with an average
volume of 418,879 cubic lightyears and a diameter of 93 lightyears,
that equates to a sphere with a volume of 52,359,877 billion cubic
lightyears and a diameter of 464,159 lightyears.
The diameter of a shade under half a million lightyears is an
underestimate. The calculations are drawn upon that part of the
Universe that is visible to us. Vision for humans is the detection
and interpretation of photons. Photons move at lightspeed, no
faster and no slower. Thus we have no knowledge of any parts
of the Universe so distant that any photons emitted have not yet
reached us. There is a general assumption that the actual universe is bigger than the visible universe. This makes the Moment Zero
Universe larger than half a million lightyears across although by
how much is unknown.
The exercise
is crude but the underlying principles are correct. Always remember,
however, that the objective isn't to provide an
alternative to the
one Planck Length. It is to show that the Universe cannot be infinitely
compressed. For reasons that will become clear in Chapter 2, even
even half a million
lightyears across for the visible universe is a considerable
underestimate.
1(e): The Gravitational Mass-Inertial Mass Equivalence
- Gravitationalmass
The mass of an object as measured by
its interaction with gravity; it is equal to its inertialmass.
- Inertialmass
The mass of an object measured as its
resistance to being accelerated by an applied force; it is equal to its
gravitationalmass.
|
The
above definitions are those of the Current Paradigm and are lifted
from the online Wiktionary. Note that gravitationalmass and inertialmass are an equivalence.
The
Treatise has an evolutionary form. This sometimes enables it to clearly
see that which cannot be clearly seen in the anthropocentric Current
Paradigm. This is so in the matter of the gravitationalmass-inertialmass equivalence. It is enlightening to see what happens at the
level of teels during one of the most quoted examples of the
equivalence at work.
Einstein's thought experiment asserts
that an observer in a windowless room is unable to tell
whether the room is on the surface of the Earth, with the observer
being subject to a measure of gravitationalmass, or inside a
spaceship accelerating at 1g, with the observer being subject to an
equivalent measure of inertialmass. The
following is divided into two parts: (a) what the
observer experiences in the room on Planet Earth and (b) what the
observer experience while in the spacecraft.
(a) The Planet Earth Experience
The
observer is inside a windowless room on the surface of Planet Earth.
Ultimately, the observer and the planet, are made of
teels. Every teel is gravitypulling every other teel. Thus the observer and the planet are mutually
attracting each other. The mass of the planet dominates
the mass of the observer so the observer is gravitypulled toward the planet.
What
is it that stops the observer dropping down through Planet
Earth all the way to the other side? It is that every teel is 100% dense and thus cannot be penetrated or
deformed. When teels are drawn directly toward each other they
collide
and bounce away. The density of objects made out of teels (quarks,
nucleons, and nuclides) is less than 100% but is still enough
to prevent the observer from being gravitypulled through the Earth.
What is the observer experiencing? The observer is subject to a
constant downward gravitypull from the Earth below. However, the observer has no sensation of this. What
the observer does experience is the density of the
ground resisting penetration or deformation by the density of the gravitypulled observer.
(b) The Spaceship Experience
The
observer is standing on the floor of a room without windows inside
a spaceship. The rocket motor is accelerating the spaceship at a
constant 1g. The
sensation felt by the observer is the same as that felt
by the observer in the room on Planet Earth. However the cause is
somewhat different.
The
spacecraft and the observer both have measures of speed. That of the
spacecraft is an accelerating measure due to
its running motor. That of the observer is not accelerating
because the observer has no motor and is not being seriously
gravitypulled.
Both
the spacecraft
and the observer have enough density to prevent penetration
or deformation of one
by the
other. The spacecraft is accelerating and thus moving faster than
the observer. The faster spacecraft nuclides collide with the
slower observer nuclides. Speed is transferred from the
spacecraft nuclides to the observer nuclides, thus accelerating them.
As long as the acceleration of the spacecraft continues, its
nuclides will continue to collide with those of the observer and
accelerate them.
What
is the observer experiencing? The observer is unpowered and subject to
no serious gravitypull so any velocity will continue without
change and the observer will have no sensation of movement. However,
the observer is inside an accelerating spacecraft. Consequently the
experience is of the density of the accelerating spacecraft overcoming
the density of the slower moving observer.
The equivalence is that in each example the observer's experience is the same. The
observer cannot tell whether the windowless room is on Earth or in
space. At the level of teels, the cause of the equivalence is clear. In
each case, the movement of one object is modified by the density of
another. This is a scalable mechanism that works in much the same in
teels and in objects made of teels.
|