Implications of the assumption of particle hidden variables

[ben6993]

I have just had another realisation following on from assuming that
hidden variables exist (eg that the spin of an electron is a hidden
variable fixed within its own 3D space) between measurements.

The precision of plotting an electron's position when it undergoes a
measurement is limited by the uncertainty principle. Somewhere in
sci.physics on a number of occasions posters, maybe unreliable ones,
but I can't remember, have claimed that the uncertainty is caused by
the finiteness of the number of particles (N) in our universe.
Probably they were using the standard error being proportional to 1/
sqrt(N).

If that is what they were doing they may have been using the wrong
N. If using N, then you are calculating the s.e. of our universe's
position, not the accuracy of the electron's position. Eg if you
calculate the s.e. of a school class's examination average score, you
divide by SQRT(number of pupils in the class). Similarly, to get the
uncertainty of the position of an electron you need to divide by
SQRT(number of particles in the electron).

Yes, the electron is a point particle in our universe. But I see it
as having a universe-like structure within its own 3D space(s). I.e.
it has sub particles within it. This is based on Joy Christian's
recent papers referred to in this recent threads and merely assumes
that he is correct. And if correct, that leads me to picture the
electron as less spooky with respect to entanglement, and more
naturally geometrical in structure. As I don't know Clifford Algebra
nor N- Dimensional geometry, I have had to picture that the best I can
with limited knowledge.

However, we cannot plot the electron sub particles in our universe
because the data are not accessible. We just read one spin value for
the whole electron when it is measured.

But what when the electron is not measured? Now this is still very
spooky, which is a good point for those not wanting to lose spookiness
from QM. When an electron is not measured we need to look at the
positions of its sub-particles.

But we cannot access the sub particles, only the whole electron as a
point particle with a spin. Well, no. When we measure the position
of an electron, that position appears to be a calculated average
(though I think a very complicated kind of average) based on the
positions of all its sub-particles in our universe. The whole
electron is no more in our universe than are its constituent parts.
If we can expect the electron to occupy a point then we can also
expect a sub-particle to occupy a point in our universe.

And that is what is happening in between measurements. In between
measurements we do not know where the whole electron is but we do know
where all the sub-particles are. Well, loosely know. They are
distributed potentially everywhere. Not quite everywhere as there is
only a finite number of sub-particles.

Going back to the class examination, this is like having a
distribution of pupil scores, but you don't know the class average
until you have done the calculation/measurement.

But why nearly everywhere when the electron is a point particle?
Shouldn't the sub-particles be clustered very closely to whole
electron point position? Or even at the same point?

The difficulty is that the electron is a point not because of any
inherent size, but because it is occupying a different set of 3D and
time than of our universe. We just get a point position for the whole
electron or for any of the sub-particles. Plus a spin value. And for
the whole electron the point position is calculated by an unknown but
presumed complicated averaging process.

The point positions of the sub-particles are worm holes, I think, as
they connect two different sets of 3D spaces. But perhaps more like
port holes that allow us to see the spin and postition of each sub
particle. Well, we don't really see them but make inferences about
their locations eg using them to explain interference effects.

But why are not the sub-particle tightly packed around the whole
electron position? They are all within the electron's structure, so
should be close together?

But the only link between the electron and us is via a wormhole. Any
comparison of the 'true' size of an electron within its 3D and our
size within our 3D cannot make sense. There is no metric to make the
comparison on. However the universes must have it all under control
in the calculations as we do see interference effects and can infer
the electron following every possible path in a laboratory.

The situation is just as spooky when we look at this situation one
order of fractal size higher. The particles in our universe can have
positions, eg electrons, which can be detected outside our universe
through wormholes/portholes in interference effects, and they will all
contribute to the universe's average position within the surrounding
universe at a measurement.

[ben6993]

On Nov 12, 7:02 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Another new thought following up on the last post. I have just
realised how randomness can reappear for the entangled electron in QM
calculations in between measurements. Ie possibly why it is
necessary to keep the |up down> - |down up> singlet as a mixture of
both up and down states at the same time, and also at the same time
that I am assuming, apparently contradictorily, that both electrons
have definite and fixed (in between measurements) but opposite
(hidden)spin states.

If I want to infer what the electron looks like within it, I look at
the universe for a picture one fractal order higher. If our universe
has an overall + spin (e.g. left handed chirality?) it still allows
individual particles in our universe some of them to have a + spin and
some to have a - spin. The universe spin is not the particle spin.

By analogy, say one of the entangled electrons has a + spin. Its sub-
particles have both + and - spins. At a measurement the whole
electron will be measured to have a + spin, but after that we are
dealing again with the sub-particles in the QM wavefunction. We can't
keep track of individual sub-particles and any statistical
calculation without experimental measurement will show a random mix of
both states for sub-electrons.

I am not clear if I am putting that completely correctly wrt the wave
function. What I mean is that the singlet refers to the whole
electron states but the wave function for the singlet must apply to
the sub-electrons.

When a measurement is made on the first electron with + spin during
flight, it encounters a photon with a - spin and the electron is
changed to a - spin electron. No, this still is not spooky, when the
second electron is measured, it encounters a photon and changes from a
- spin to a + spin. The two entangled electrons still having opposite
spins to one another when measured.

I have just this second realised that wave collapse is
instantaneous! Wave collapse happens when the measurement is made.
When the measurement is made the electron changes spin.
When the electron changes spin the whole of its 3D space contracts to
a singularity at the wormhole separating its old - spin electron
universe and the new + spin electron universe
All the sub-electrons at measurement occupy one point in BOTH our 3D
space and their own 3D spin space(s). All the sub-electrons are
located for an instant at the same point and a whole electron can be
detected at one place in our universe.

That feels like a Eureka moment to me.

[ben6993]

On Nov 12, 7:02�am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

I need to put on hold the view of instantaneous collapse and withdraw,
for the moment, the one sentence: "I have just this second realised

that wave collapse is instantaneous!"

I thought it was obviously going to be instantaneous as the electron
3D space is different to our 3D space. And from the view in our 3D,
the electron or any sub-electron only occupies one point. And from
our view, the photon/electron interaction is instantaneous. And the
entire collapse occurs within the photon/electron interaction. But I
said that I thought that the metric calculating program was
complicated. I originally (in my Rasch pairs model analogy) thought
of our 3D metric of an emergent space being created by a program
located somewhere. But it also looks like all the sub-electrons are
finding positions in our space and time. We think that the whole
electron is in our space (located at a point) and time. But when you
consider that the wave collapse only means that all the sub-electrons
are in the same place, one should think that in commonsense
geometry,the sub electrons are genuinely all at their own place in our
universe at the same time.

I now realise that that the universe seems to keep a check also on the
relationship between metrics of different 3D spaces and times. As well
as creating the metric of each individual 3D space and time. And also
between fractal levels of spaces. That may be why the individual sub-
electron wormholes know exactly where to be and when in our universe.
Or it could be that the wormholes which link different 3D spaces are
used by a program to coordinate the metrics of the universes sharing
those wormholes. So a modified theory of gravity might have to take
into account many other metrics at least one fractal order of
magnitude higher and lower than our universe. In fact the whole
fractal system seems to be in communication with itself to make the
metrics. And it seems like it would need to be an iterative process.
Ie the wormholes start in initial positions. Metrics are calculated
for the emergent spaces and the particles move discontinuously in
accordance to those calculations. Eventually locations may converge
giving some sort of stability.

Does an electron have an independent 3D spin space or not? Yes it
does. But it also has a point wormhole in our space and time.
Similarly, every sub-electron has its own point wormhole in our space
and time.

The wave collapse as seen in our universe caused by the photon/
electron interaction is instantaneous as the 3D and time for the
electron are different to ours.

Yet the collapse still has to bring the wormholes in our universe, in
our space and time, to the same single point.

I am not sure about that. It would seem to have to be instantaneous
for us. Though maybe a long and interminable wait for the sub-
electrons, or rather their energy, going through a BB-like
singularity.

For inspirationabout the interior of the electron, look at the
begining and end for our universe. At the BB beginning, and at say a
conformal cyclic universe end of cycle, there are no particles. So
may be the sub-electron particles just disappear at collapse and the
wormholes in our universe evaporate (as the sub-elecrons have
disappeared). Evaporate rather than rush together. So they do not
have to rush towards the electron location on measurement. This seems
consistent with discontinuous quantum behaviour.

>From our universe's point of view:
Photon interacts with electron - instantaneously.
Sub-electron wormholes evaporate/vanish - instantaneously.
All sub-electron wormholes reappear in one point - instantaneouslty.
And that looks like a single electron.

>From the electron universe's point of view:
Photon interacts with electron - takes one cosmological cycle - so not
instantaneous!
Sub-electron wormholes evaporate/vanish - not instantaneous.
All sub-electron wormholes reappear in one point - not instantaneous.

So, from our point of view, wave collapse is likely to be
instantaneous and I can reinstate that one sentence but amended: "I

have just this second realised that wave collapse is instantaneous

from the point of view of our universe!"

[ben6993]

In a recent thread, PD wrote on sci.physics of spacetime: "there is no
clear distinction between the substrate and the things in the
substrate". There was a later quibbling about the use of the word
'spacetime'.

Bohm refers to the implicate order (with the idea of continual
enfolding) and relates that to holography.

I now see that the quantum version of spacetime is an enfolded
spacetime when looked at from any particular spacetime within it. All
is relative.

Taking an electron spacetime and the BB spacetime. Each has a 4D of
space and time orthogonal to each other's 4D. Without calculation by a
program there is no way to calibrate one metric against the other.
Fortunately nature is able to do the calibration.

Once the calibration is done the two 4D spaces are enfolded and are
observable subject to quantisation effects. This allows us to detect
effects of the electron field. Since every particle is quantised when
observed outside its own spacetime, the enfolded spacetime must have
an unbelievable large number of spacetimes enfolded within it.

The time of spacetime is special as it is our BB spacetime. It is
only special because every particle (and the BB is a fermion particle)
sees the other spacetimes calibrated to its own viewpoint. However
the enfolded spacetime across all entities must calibrate all the
individual times and spaces against one another for all viewpoints.

But what is the best term for the enfolded spacetime? The BB does not
have a special place in the enfolded spacetime and the enfolded
spacetime might include higher larger fermions than the BB. We of
course, though, have our special place in the BB.

Since all particles have orthogonal time dimensions to the BB time
dimension, I presume that is why it is often written that BB
spacetime's time does not apply to quantum world. But the enfolding
make it possible to calibrate orthogonal times and map them onto the
BB time (of course also taking into account SR and GR effects).

And very relevant to this thread, the enfolding is made all the more
possible by the allowance of hidden variables, as hidden variable
leads on to the idea of sub-electrons which can exist as a distributed
form of the electron so that scale can be established between the two
4D spaces.

Hidden variables leads to enfolded spacetimes. And the totality of
the enfoldment of all particles' spacetimes gives us the 'spacetime'
full of fields.

[ben6993]

When I first posted on sci.phys in 2009 I thought that I understood
quanta much better than I really did. I had studied physics each year
up to studying it as a minor subject at an English university, many
years ago, for one year. Artful/Inertial kindly made me realise that
I had a lot to learn about the nature of quanta.

It is hard to look back at exactly what I thought then, but there were
two big differences. I then thought that quanta meant indivisibility,
but I had not realised that everything is quantised all the time. For
example, if a photon is absorbed by an atom, I previously thought that
the energy is stored somehow in a continuous way rather than a
quantised way. Then reconverted to a quantum on an emission from the
atom. But now I realise that once you have a quantum it is always a
quantum. The second feature is that it seems to be a common thought
that a quantum also requires being the smallest possible piece of
something. Whereas in fact it is the indivisibility that is the key
feature, together with that package being wrapped up within a point in
our space. Further, these packages have properties related to fields,
eg electric charge.

Then there is the wave/particle duality to consider. It is now
realised that all matter can behave as if it is quantised. And yet we
still have fields which still show the continuous behaviour of nature.
Accepting hidden variables changes the key aspect of a quantum
slightly. It is indivisible yet not indivisible! Its behaviour is
similar to one of the examples of folding patterns in Bohm's book
'Wholeness and the implicate order'.

If all matter is packaged as indivisible quanta, then those quanta are
indivisible objects. No need to look further within them. The BB
universe therefore cannot be a quantum, as it is obviously divisible.
That seems to me to be the current view and why I am having difficulty
selling the idea of dark matter as being caused by a boson squeezing a
fermion, and dark energy is how that squeezing feels for the space
receiving the matter after it has gone through the singularity.
Fields are then a mysterious wave effect, though physicists can and do
calculate their effects quantitatively. This way of seeing leaves
fields as mysterious except via mathematics. A lot of the mathematics
requiring complex numbers which indicate that the quanta have extra
dimensions to our own but which are somhow not geometrically real in
spacetime and only an artifact of some completely mathematics space
which incredibly luckily for us gives us the correct answers in our
spacetime. And it completely rules out a fractal universe.

Joy Christian's papers conclude, at least that is my view of it, that
a quantum can live in a somehow genuine geometrical condition within
spacetime. I.e. you do not have to think that a quanta inhabits a
purely mathematical space, in which by a kind of fluke it gives the
right answers.

Therefore I see the electron inhabiting a rich space somewhat like our
own universe. But its space is quantised, ie it is packaged in its
own 3D of space between cyclical starts and ends at singularities.

Therefore quantum does not mean indivisible.

Therefore one cannot deduce that the BB universe is not a quantum
simply because it is divisible into other quanta. And also, you
cannot use the indivisibility of quanta to argue against a fractal
universe. Joy Christian's papers seem very important to me!

If we assume a fractal universe, then we have nested quanta within a
quantum, within a quantum, etc. etc. But how do the wavelike field
effects arise as it is quanta (rather than turtles) all the way up and
all the way down?

Fields seem to me to arise from enfolded spacetimes. An electron
quantum has sub-electron quanta within it. The electron is nested
inside the BB universe spacetime quantum. But the sub-electrons are
also within the same BB quantum. The field is the action of the sub-
electrons on the BB spacetime allowable by Bohm's enfolded total
spacetime structure.

We cannot detect the sub-electrons individually, we can only detect
the electron at the end of a life cycle corresponding to a singularity
of its own spacetime. At that point all the sub-electrons are in
(sub-)boson form in a single quantum state in a BEC. We say that we
detect an electron but we could also look at it as detecting all the
sub-electron energy in one package.

So a quantum seems to me to be best definable as an entity that has
its own independent space and time. It is not indivisible looked at
from within: it has quanta within it. It is not completely
indivisible when looked at from outide: its sub-particles are present
in what are called fields. The distribution of the field on the
outside is a reflection/(holographic) projection of the distribution
of the sub-particles on the inside. That projection requires nature
to do some calculations comparing the inner and outer metrics of
spaces so that the two spaces can be enfolded together. Ie the two
sets of 4D spacetimes can be looked at together from the BB universe
as if it were all on one 4D spacetime.

Spacetime is therefore full of countless numbers of different
dimensions. But they are all enfolded onto our spacetime in a
calculated way so that each pairs of metrics makes sense when viewed
together. Ie we are seeing spacetime as a holographic projection from
all the independent particle spacetimes mapped in some calculated way
onto the one 4D spacetime.

[ben6993]

Another idea: about how the photon squeezes the electron.

I have been imagining the electron as two inflatable balloons, with
one connection at the singularity between them. That is still OK.
The energy is squeezed all into one balloon and then all into the
other balloon. All interactions are instantaneous as viewed from
outside. In SHM.

I have had difficulty imagining the photon before today, but the idea
of the photon having sub-bosons inside it has really helped me picture
it better.

Imagine a photon as the two spin state spacetimes of an electron
joined together at both singularities at once. Like two inflated
rugby balls lying one on top of the other and deformed to join at both
ends. Making something like a swimming aid armband with two separate
air chambers.The two chambers can wriggle separately like two String
Theory strings, but closed at both ends in a loop.

So why does the photon not have two independent uncoordinated
wriggling parts? Because the two parts are connected at a
singularity, and at a singularity bosons can pass through and make a
connection with each other. But that may not be required as the
contents of the photon are a BEC with all the energy in a single
quantum state. That must be why the squeeze is coordinated for the
whole photon to act instantaneously. All the parts of the photon
squeezing in perfect coordinaton.

A further idea I had one minute ago relates to the Penrose cyclical
conformal cosmology at the singularities. I think that one of the
difficulties I remember mentioned in Penrose's online video lecture
was the low temperature/large size of space at the BEC end of the
cycle compares with the high temperature/ small size of space near
beginning of the cycle. Passing through the singularity loses the old
spacetime scaling calibration and it starts the calibration all over
again in the new spacetime. Or maybe the metric simply changes
according to the viewpoint. I think that the temperature is
unimportant as the energy is conserved. The same energy evenly
distributed in a big space will give a lower temperature reading than
that same energy near a singularity, which will be very hot.

My new idea is that it may not be a point at the singularity. It is
further confused in my mind by the BEC being non- particle matter. So
how can a bunch of non-particles all in one quantum state be located
at a point within its spacetime? The sub-bosons probably do not have
a calibrated metric within the photon, unlike the fermions. They sub-
bosons fill the entire photon spacetime as if it were a single entity
and there is no need for a metric as they all act together. All the
changing spin events across time in a fermion are used to create the
spacetime metric within the fermion. But there will be no such events
within the photon and hence no such metric can be formed. But the
photon still has its twisted spacetime (spin + or - 1) and it must
stay within that spacetime. And it still has a toroid shape. But for
a BEC there is no real difference between the large scale end of cycle
and the small scale of the new cycle as there is no metric, no more
cyling,merely perfectly coordinated squeezing

[ben6993]

I have been thinking how to picture the photon as a 4D spacetime
entity of its own. In my last post I realised that the definition of
a quantum was not an indivisible object, but one with its own
spacetime, beginning and ending with a singularity.

A photon has double the spin of an electron and it has no mass. So
what if I picture two cycles of an electron's lifetime together, ie
the interval between three singularities and join the first
singularity to the third singularity. The total object would now have
the right spin for a photon.

But it would be too heavy. So empty out all the electron sub-
particles from the picture.

But now we have a spacetime without any energy trapped inside it. And
further, I associate the inner time of the electron with the direction
of the jet of dark energy introduced by a photon. If the photon has
no internal mass or energy, how can it have its own time? Well that
fits OK as we recognise that photons have no rest mass and do not
experience time themselves.

>From string theory, the photon is a closed string with energy of
vibration. So the spacetime of the photon must be vibrating strongly,
and even though there is no matter inside the inner spacetime of the
photon it must still be able to trap the electron in the central hole
of the toroid shape it must have. Like trapping a child's arm in an
armband for a swimming aid.

And assuming that it does have the energy to cause a singularity for
the electron, I picture it as already having some energy at the outset
in the form of vibration of its spacetime.

Photons and electrons interact instantaeously from our point of view.
I see the two cyles of an electron's lifetime as being in SHM. There
is alternate squeezing of the E+ spin electron space then the
squeezing of the E- spin space. The second photon must already be in
place instantly as the dark energy enters E+ spacetime. Within the
electron spacetime, there would be the same total energy in the +
space as in the - space. Likewise the photon would not gain net
energy through the interaction. The second photon would temporarily
take energy from the first photon (via the inflating electron it is
locked onto) and then give it back later to the electron to deflate
it. So the second photon leaves the interaction without changing its
own energy. Yes, it seems to be SHM.

[ben6993]

I have just had another eureka moment...

An electron and a positron interact and form two photons. How does
that work when the electron and positron both have sub-particles
within them. I don't know the structure for the positron but I assume
it is very similar to that of the electron but with a subtle
difference in the 4D spacetime that it has.

The life cycle of the electron appears to be two cycles. One cycle is
a + spin spacetime and the other cycle is a -spin spacetime. Thinking
that the photon seems to exist in an empty spacetime, as it has no
rest mass, implies that spacetimes are not easy to create or destroy,
so that makes me think that the electron is in two genuinely different
spacetimes one after the other. Ie it is not in a big bounce
situation and neither, therefore, is the BB universe. That makes it
fit in with my mental picture of it even better.

I say that there needs to be two different and continuing spacetimes
for the electron as after the interaction with the positron both
particles give up their spacetimes which become two photons. So the
equation has four sets of 4Ds on each side of the equation.

But what about the sub-particles? They are also quanta and you can't
destroy them. So what happens to them?

At this point I remembered my idea for detecting the electron spin
change by the photon emission. At the point of release of the photon
all the sub-electrons had become bosonic in an end of cycle BEC where
all particles disappear.

Somehow the electron and positron interact in such a way that that the
BEC sub-structure at that instant is preserved thereafter. Which I
suppose is not too difficult since time does not pass with the photon.

To summarise: an electron and a positron interact. At the instant of
interaction, both particles have sub-particles which are in BEC states
composed entirely of bosons. The interaction is not the same as a
photon to electron interaction and, in a mysterious way, the
interaction seals the two sets of sub-bosons permanently as sub-bosons
within the photon spacetime.

So we start with an electron containing sub-electrons and a positron
containing sub-positrons. And we finish with a two photons each
containing sub-bosons.

Now doesn't that look beautiful and symmetric?

It means what I previously said about a photon being an empty
spacetime was wrong. A photon is a full bag of massless sub-bosons.

[dlzc]

Dear ben6993:

On Nov 14, 11:55 am, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
> An electron and a positron interact and form two photons.
> How does that work when the electron and positron both
> have sub-particles within them.

Electrons and positrons are non-composite, point particles, that only
ever interact via their field. As the photon is expected to be, and
do.

David A. Smith

[ben6993]

I have tried to apply the idea of enfolded spacetimes to the change in
scale from large to small as the BB universe passes through the
singularity. Just before the singularity there are very few particles
around to communicate with one another. And many of those that do may
not be within communication range of each other. But the few that do
will be widespread. Each particle has its own space time, and the BB
universe spacetime still exists and must be still plotting particles
on the large scale. And every pair of 4D spacetimes that can
communicate with each other will calibrate their metrics in a
cordinated way so that every spacetime has a full role both within its
own spacetime (as particles) and outside its own spacetime (as
fields). When all particles have gone the metric in the old universe
will disappear. But as noted before with the electron, the spacetime
must be able to exist as an entity even with nothing inside it, and no
metric inside it. Ie the - spin spacetime still exists when the
electron is in the + spin spacetime.

The old BB universe must be big near its end as it has all the energy
still in it, while the proposed new universe is empty and so it
should be small. Or if not large and small, then both are
indeterminate close to the singularity. In either case the awaiting
spacetime should not be large at the outset. Comparison with the
electron tells you that the awaiting spacetime 'bag' for the BB
universe, as it were, will definitely be available to be filled.

I am not a physicist and can easily misunderstand something, but if
the energy of the old universe was inserted into the singularity (to
become our universe) as a huge squeeze of BEC then it will show up in
the early universe as uniformly distributed (if BEC energy is thus
detectable). The BEC had no initial metric and no metric-forming
capability until fermions were created. And the BEC acts as if the
whole energy was a single thing in a close locality. It should be
bland and featureless, not structured or lumpy. When the first
fermions are created the enfolded metrics could begin to form. These
could be formed anywhere in the hugely energetic BEC but as the BEC
acts as a single entity it conveys no data to say large or small. So
any pockets of fermions can automatically communicate with one another
pair at a time. The pair exchange information to enable their
spacetimes to be enfolded. That exchange of information requires sub-
particles to have field effects outside their own quantum or
spacetime. The sub-particles are the field, and the distribution of
the field reflects the internal distribution of sub-particles in their
own quantum. Nature seems to run a computer program that uses the
interactions of fields with the outside spacetime as data to calculate
how to enfold the two sets of 4Ds together.

Since there is no large scale metric for the early BB, it is either
small (an empty 'bag') or indeterminate (full of BEC) Then the BB
universe spacetime should not have any data when it communicates with
the particles' fields to try to impose itself as a huge partner in any
pairing it makes with any fermion spacetime for the purposes of
enfolding.

I may trip up badly on physics if I push this any further as it really
need GR knowledge about effects within individual spacetimes, but I
wanted to try to use the enfolded spacetime communications to see
where is took me wrt scales in and around the singularity. (I started
the online Stanford University course on Relativity a few weeks ago
but have been ill since then with viral bronchitis compounded with
reactive asthma and will have to wait to resume the course).

[ben6993]

Thanks for the reply, David. In this thread I am assuming that
quantum means an object with its own space and time dimensions and
hence it can have a rich internal structure, despite only having one
point in our space. Rather than a quantum simply being indivisible.
'Indivisible' and 'own space and time' might be expected to be
equivalent except for the enfolding of the two sets of spacetimes of
the two quanta. Enfolding along the lines suggested by David Bohm.

If the quantum can be perceived in our space as a point, the idea is
that if that quantum1 had quantum2 inside it, they could both be
perceived in our space as point particles. But the smaller quanta2
are even harder to detect than the quantum1, and we only experience
them as a field. In fact there is no separate quantum1 to detect
except when the quanta2 in the field form a BEC (they actually form
the BEC within quantum1 of course) and momentarily let the whole
particle be detected.

Further, I assume the distribution of the field reflects the
distribution of the quanta2 within quantum1. This is because enfolded
spacetime maps the two sets of 4D spaces and displays them both
together like a holograph with all the information from two 4D spaces
played as if they were combined. In that way we can experience the
inner structure as an external field.

I have not much idea what a positron is. But if you look at the idea
of an electron interacting with a photon, I have the photon composed
of internal sub-bosons and they are a BEC acting as one whole entity
within the photon. If that internal structure is pulsating, then the
external field will pulse too. So rather than me saying the photon is
squeezing the electron, I could argue to amend that to the photon
field acts on the electron field to cause the electron to feel a
squeeze. It could do that because the electron field represents the
internal structure of the sub-electrons. So a push on the field gets
linked to a push on the sub-electrons.

Also, throughout this process, the enfolded spacetime metrics are
being continually updated and presumably it is an iterative
calculation to display the two spacetimes together and the actions and
reactions of the fields affect the internal stuctures of the quanta by
feedback into the program controlling the two sets of metrics in the
enfolded spacetime. It is as if the two quanta are shoving each other
around by proxy using substitutes to fight on their behalf outside
their quanta. But it depends on Bohm's enfolding holographic idea.

[ben6993]

On Nov 14, 10:51 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Another try at explaining it. This time just from the electron's
point of view. An electron has spin 1/2 say. That means that the
electron, in its own spacetime, is closed and curves one way rather
than the other. If it curved the other way it would be spin -1/2.
That means that all the sub-electrons within that electron have
locations within the electron distributed according to that screw.

Bohm's enfolding of spacetimes, in a holgraphic way, requires some
calculations to be done by the universe. But nature seems to take
care of it. I don't know any GR but I imagine it as a computer
program telling matter how to move. If we think we are only in 3D of
space (plus time) then I would have to think of GR as acting within
our 3D/time. But if each particle has an internal structure of its
own, then that particle has a GR acting within it, much like the one
we have.

Also, for the enfolding of spacetime, there must be a control by
nature comparing the metrics of two nearby spacetimes against one
another. This is a kind of between spacetimes GR, whereas the
previous type of GR was a within spacetime GR. Note that if particles
have substructure then there is no separate within type of GR, acting
completely alone, as the total enfoldment of all spacetimes has a
fractal appearance and you cannot really have a genuine spacetime that
does not have other spacetimes nested within it.

So the enfolding means that an electron's substructure is actually
present in our space. We experience it as a field. If the electron
has a left hand screw geometry in its spacetime, then that is the
shape of the field in our spacetime. And as its field interacts with
other particles' fields it will try to push them around in a way the a
left hand thread would push things around. All field interactions
noted by the between spacetime GR and immediately acted upon to
reflect that change in the within-electron structure.

If particles do have sub-structure then all the particles in our BB
universe are representing us in a field outside our BB universe. Our
particles are jousting or jostling with the field of a super huge
boson. At the moment we are doing OK! (But we know we will lose in
the end as our system is in a SHM of cyclic BBs) Our internal
structure is still strongly expanding as we have the dark energy
acting within us which is the aftermath of the battle we had with the
boson in the previous cycle. We lost that battle but gained a lot of
energy from that boson. The current boson's field is now jostling
with our BB field and eventually we will lose the battle and start to
contract. We are fighting that battle using the energy from the
previous boson which will gradually be overcome by the field of the
new boson. So we are using dark energy to conduct this jousting, but
the effect of the pushing of the field of the new boson on our field
is beginning to be noticed as a contraction. This is probably what we
call dark matter. A force compressing us like gravitation, but being
sourced from outside the BB universe.

[ben6993]

On Nov 14, 10:51 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

> Dear ben6993:
>
A clarification that might help. Sorry, I should have put this in the
previous post. (This is my third post in reply to you.)

The dark energy within the BB universe is making us inflate. I said
that theshape of our spacetime's internal structure is reflected in
the field which we project (using Bohm's enfolded spacetimes) outside
the BB universe. That means we can predict that our field looks like
a screw but is an expanding screw (complicated for me by the twist
being in spacetime rather than in just space. So I realise it is not
a simple twist in space). As our spacetime inflates then so does our
field outside us. That means our field is expanding in the space
around us. Trying to push other fields away. The dark energy means
that the BB universe still has a field that is pushing strongly away.
The dark matter could be the indicator that the super-boson field is
pushing us back quite strongly. The ratio of dark energy to dark
matter that we can detect could give an indication of the
progress of this battle of interacting fields.

Another point that has just struck me is that in wringing out a wet
cloth it is good to twist it when trying to empty out the last bit of
water. Our BB universe, and all fermions, conveniently have a twist
in their spacetimes to allow efficient removal of contents.

Thank you for questioning me me, David. Until your post I had been
struggling to think why the field is so dynamic yet the internal
structure of the quantum causing that field seemed so static. For
example, I had had an idle/ludicrous thought of my armchair being
projected into the outer spacetime as part of the field. Not something
to use to jostle things. But if the fermion is inflating, its field
is always vigorously pushing away and with a twist. It is very easy
to forget to look at things the right way. Akin to remembering to
calculate using
the correct frame in SR. The armchair is static to me, but not static
in every observers' frame. It can be used to push in a field as the
armchair is just a part of the inflation within the BB spacetime.

[ben6993]

> direction of spin of the universe.

As the contents of the old BB+ universe were squeezed into the new BB-
universe at the singularity. Because the BB+ universe had + spin, the
inflation would continue in BB- conserving that spin.

As these were from one spacetime bag to a second connected spacetime
bag, and those bags exist even when empty, I wondered to what extent
the bags themselves had any chirality inherent in them or if the
chirality was entirely due to the contents' distribution and
velocities. Silly thought as I am treating the spacetime bags as if
they were an aether substitute. I know there is no aether, yet I want
to make sure that the spacetime contents stay put in one whole.
Although I am treating a quantum as divisible, its' parts are not
separable and the spacetime bag needs to keep the contents together at
all times. When the electron contents are experienced as a field
outside the electron, I wonder what happens to its' spacetime bag. Is
it not part of the hologrphic projection.

Also, as the photon with spin one is created within an old electrons'
pair of spacetime bags, that is two connected bags of spin 1/2. Then
the two spins should be lined up in the same direction so the spins
continue from one to the other through the singularity rather than
cross thread. But as the electron has two different spin states, the
difference in spin states is not a genuine difference in geometry of
the two spacetimes. They are a little like two identical pasta
twists. The two pasta twist join at the ends and that join also joins
on to a point in our 3D space. There is no difference in structure
between the two spacetime bags. You can put two identical pasta
twists together seamlessly to make a double length twist. But if the
threads were different in orientation then the threads would unravel
to zero twist if brought together (I checked this occurred using non-
identical paper twists). That is unless the geometry/topology is too
complicated for me. I know little topology.

[ben6993]

> Two-slit experiment. Hereby explained below without any spookiness. Just explained for one electron at a time as that is the easiest case.

> First, without any measurement at a slit.
The electron passes through both slits at the same time as a field.
I have to resort now to accepting the interference pattern arising
through a classical interpretation of interference in a medium, ie the
electon field.
At the detection screen a photon interacts with the electron and
causes the detection event. Which is an event that will contribute to
an interference pattern.

That is not spooky. But the spookiness is supposed to creep in when
we make a measurement at the slit(s). So, on to that experiment
next ...

> Second, with a measurement at a slit.
The electron approached the slits as a field.
When the electron is detected at a slit, the field completely
collapses for an instant while the spin of the electron is reversed (I
have explained that field collapse in a previous post, it results from
the electron forming a BEC internally for an instant, and the BEC
state allows the photon to complete the interaction and move away from
the electron to record the detection). The field has only momentarily
collapsed and on creation of the electron with a new spin, it has a
new field created which has no experience of being on the earlier side
of the slit. So, resorting again to looking at this new field in
classical terms as a medium from this point onwards, the new field
does not pass through a slit but makes its way to the detection screen
untroubled and with no resulting interference effects.

> Some points.
That removes spooky observer effects. The observer is not merely
observing an "electron", s/he/it is collapsing the electron field,
changing the spin of the electron, and creating a new field which will
not encounter any slit on its further travel.

The field also removes any spooky effect of the electron being
everywhere in the laboratory at the same time. The electron is NOT
everywhere in the laboratory at the same time. My armchair is
simultaneously at multiple positions in my room, but it is not
spooky. My chair is divisible. Likewise, the electron is divisible.
Its sub-bits form the field [after some inter-spacetime GR
calculations are done by nature to allow the internal structure of the
electron to occupy the BB spacetime together with us {a le David
Bohm's enfolded holographic space}. Now the inter-spacetime
calculations are a little spooky, but no more spooky than GR acting in
one spacetime.

I am interested in the spacetime bag of the electron. That manages to
go, along with the electron field, throught both slits at the same
time without destruction of the bag. But spacetime bags are very
esoteric yet indestructable things, I suspect.

The only thing spooky about it left is the fact that I am treating the
electron as divisible which is not acceptable in QM.

[ben6993]

Another idea.

> Photon structure & the missing positrons

My original idea of a photon a few days ago, and the QM view, was of a
point particle.

I then had used my idea for the internal structure of the electron to
be full of sub-electrons to see that the photon was full of sub-
photons. Interaction between electron and postitron produces two
photons and I guessed that at the time of interaction the two
elementary particles could only interact without loss of contents
(which is the requirement in my definition of 'quantum' used in this
thread). And that occurs when the sub-particles are in a BEC state,
ie acting as one, ie indivisible.

By the way, I am beginning to see this as an analogy with cell
division. Though that is very loose and I can't see any rapid cell
growth, merely combining and splitting again.

At that point I had my usual failure to see things dynamically enough,
as I wrote that the two photons after forming from an electron and a
positron, were static after that. I knew that was rather feeble but
the idea of the sub-photons being massless made it seem difficult to
change them. I now have followed the idea through and realised that
the sub-photons within it and can form new electron and positron
pairs.

As electrons and positrons have aggregate zero mass it does not slow
the parent photon down. So the contents of the parent photon could
be
all photons
all electrons and positrons
a mix of photons, electrons and postitrons.

As I view our BB universe as a fermion, like an electron, this is an
idea that means our parent or outer quantum, carrying us, is a
photon. Whereas I originally, rather too statically again, assumed it
must have been another fermion.

I like this idea as it seems to me that you only get spacetime bags
when the quantum is travelling at the speed of light. And that
constant packet of energy travelling at c is linked to c being our
speed limit within the quantum. So I now have one possiblity for our
outer parent quantum: a photon.

Note that this does not interfere at all with the idea of SHM within
our BB universe, of cycling spin states from BB+ to BB-, as that SHM
is the life cycle of our BB fermion and nothin to do with creation of
our BB fermion. In the mixed model of our parent photon, there are
photons, electrons and positrons, so there are plenty of photons
availabl;e to act as power sources for our BB cycle.

But what of the excess of electrons over positrons in our BB universe?

If we are like an electron within a photon, we must have a net balance
of sub-electrons or else our BB universe would be net massless, like
the photon. Within my suggested parent quantum there would be
positrons existing and they would have a net excess of sub-positrons.
Their sub-positron excess should balance our sub-electron excess. If
it did not balance exactly, the parent photon could not be net
massless.

This perhaps suggests that our missing positrons are in a separate BB
entity within the same parent quantum.

[ben6993]

> More on photon structure

I first suggested that our BB universe's parent quantum was a
fermion. But that was just on the principle that like might contain
like.

I have reasoned that a parent photon may have sub-photons, sub-
electrons and sub-positrons. To follow that through, a fermion has
mass to it and therefore should contain sub-fermions. But If our BB
universe is a fermion, like an electron, it contains sub-positrons as
well as sub-electrons.

By analogy, a positron should contain sub-electrons. Hence, there
are three contenders for the the parent quantum of our BB universe:
photon, electron and positron.

This variety enables the thought of a DNA-like structure (very loosely
analagous) to nature. If I use E for electron, P for positron and G
for photon (gamma),and use parent symbols on the left, then I have
reasoned that we can have:
GG (photon containing a photon)
GE (photon containing an electon)
GP (photon containing a positron)

EE (as our BB universe contains electrons)
EP (as our BB universe contains protons)
EG (as our BB universe contains photons)

PP (by symmetry with EE)
PE (by symmetry with EP)
PG (by symmetry with EG)

Hence we can have all combinations of G, E and P in our ancestry
table, in any order. Pick any random arrangement:
GEPGGEEPGPEEEPPGPEE and that is a possible place for our position in
our family tree. I have ended the random tree order with an E as I
feel, though I could be wrong, that the BB universe is an E.

But, it does not end with our BB spacetime. Our spacetime has
subdivisions within it, including more Es, Ps and Gs. And more within
them, etc. It would be best to take this idea futher under the
following heading:

> Quantum Foam and enfolded spacetimes

Take my random guess for the arrangement of the place of our BB
universe as GEPGGEEPGPEEEPPGPEE, where the final E is our BB universe
and the preceeding letters are successive parent quantum bodies. Then
take another random guess at 'child' quanta in suceeding generations
within our BB universe as ppegppgggeeegegeppe. Putting these together
we get :
GEPGGEEPGPEEEPPGPEEppegppgggeeegegeppe as a sequence of successive
quantum within quantum, where upper case represents larger bodies
exterior to the BB universe and lower case letters represent smaller
quantum bodies nested within the BB universe.

The true picture is too complicated for me to try to represent at the
outset, but really it is quanta within quantum. Ie a many-within-one
nesting rather than a one-within-one nesting. So the above sequence
is a minute fraction of the totality.

I know little of General Relativity (GR) but it does not explicitly
take quanta into account. Although it must do implicitly as mass must
be a quantum effect as all matter is quantised. A week or so ago I
envisaged GR as acting within a single BB spacetime bag. But in this
newsgroup thread the idea of a quantum is 'a spacetime bag' and so
for me the BB universe appears as a quantum. That means that GR is
really being applied implicitly to nested quanta, though without the
quanta appearing explicitly in the calculation. Following the
enfolded spaceimes idea, the fields are the holographic external
projections of the internal sub-quanta. This gives field energy which
surely is included within GR in the energy-stress tensor. Looked at
this way, GR is already implicitly mapping different spacetimes (from
different field in different spacetime bags) into our 4D of spacetime
which is no longer to be thought of a our BB spacetime but something
much bigger.

GR must operate in our total envionment wich includes
GEPGGEEPGPEEEPPGPEEppegppgggeeegegeppe, and that is only a minute
part. I think that total environment needs a new word. Say, 'the
implicate', after Bohm's usage.

The 'implicate' contains our BB universe E but much more besides.We
are familiar with Ee, Ep and Eg, where E is our BB universe, as the
electrons, positrons and photons around us. And those particles have
spacetime bags nested within our BB universe's spacetime bag.

But what of a further set of particles. This time I need to use place
order to denote size or fractal order (e.g. as with using
hundreds,tens, units columns in arithmetic)

Say we have:
GPe (from a nearby branch, or explicate, on the implicate tree)
EEp (where the second E is our BB universe)

The e and p above would appear together in the two explicates (and
therby be experienced by us as fields in the common enfolded
holographic projection spacetime) as apparently same generation
particles. But could the e and p (electron and positron) interreact
and produce two photons? Would that give the following equation: GPe
+ EEp = GPg +EEg ?

This would allow combination and splitting within the implicate. But
the spacetime bags have to stay within the same spacetime bag always.
I have been a little lax with counting dimensions unitil now. Note
that a spacetime bag for the e in GPe really has 12D. Previously, I
counted the point in our BB spacetime as 1D where really it is either
3D for space (or 4D for spacetime), despite being a point. Also when
the electron oscillates from + to - spin it never loses either of
those spacetime bags so that makes three sets of 4D ie 12D in total,
continuously.

I have already noted in a previous post that one photon can fit
entirely within an electron spacetime 12D bag. And equally, entirely
within a positron 12D bag. But those bags must stay within the same
bag they started with, as that inseparability is my new definition of
the quantum. It is important that inseparability occurs for a photon
parent or grandparent etc to preserve its net zero mass.

A question of choice? For the reverse interaction, say we had two
particles in the implicate from different parent spacetime bags:
Here we can combine two photons, from two different branches of the
implicate, with two different outcomes:
GPg +EEg = GPp +EEe or
GPg +EEg = GPe +EEp.

How does nature decide which branch of the implicate receives the
electron and which receives the positron? (I think that 'branch of
the implicate' may corrspond in Bohm's terminology to an 'explicate',
though I may have this wrong way around!)

Moreover, either route leads to an imbalance of electrons in its
spacetime bag, which would lead to a deviation from zero mass of a
parent photon at some point in the explicate. Hence I deduce that
combinations between different branches of the implicate, such as
these examples above, are not allowed.

This really defines a field. The implicate contains quanta that can
combine and re-split but remain in their permanent nested order of
spacetime bags. But the implicate also contains quanta that cannot
combine with one another, as that would violate their spacetime bag
nesting order, but they can experience one another as fields.

I have more to write on this but I am hoping it leads to the quantum
foam being comprised of this implicate, and different varieties of the
electron/muon etc family being of different generation levels,
perhaps.

[ben6993]

More thoughts on

> definition of a field

I was too quick to define a field as the effects of quanta in
different spacetime bags to us. I will re-trench position to: all
quanta can potentially experience all other quanta (in the implicate,
or in "everything", which is bigger than our BB universe) through the
field effects.

But all elementary particle interactions which re-shuffle the energy/
data into different elementary particles must do so in a way that does
not disturb the spacetime bag nesting structure.

So for example e + p = g + g (continuing my labelling policy from the
previous post) indicates that all four particles are in the BB
spacetime bag. (electron + positron = photon + photon)
OR
it could indicate that the interaction had taken place within one
spacetime bag but which was not our BB bag.

It could be that different energy versions of the same particle are
from different generations of and different sizes of quanta from our
explicate (ie from our nested bag structure or our particular branch
on the overall implicate tree). Or from different generations of and
different sizes of quanta from neighbouring explicates (ie from nearby
branches on the overall implicate tree).

The implicate contains 'all',so why do we not experience all the super
huge spacetime bags? Mybe this is like an ant not noticing us when it
was stepped on as it was in an indentation in the concrete path.
'Experiencing' needs an exchange of energy. We sometimes step on an
ant but there is no interaction. Moreover a super huge quantum (a
grandparent quantum or a great uncle quantum, say) is travelling at c
with respect to us, and so is a point particle in the implicate and we
may only interact with that if we exchange energy with it. However
this is difficult to think of at the moment.

In a particle accelerator, lots of energy is put in and particles are
created out of the quantum foam or vacuum energy. My reasoning above
is that all the new particles should be created in a way not to change
the nested bag order of the contents. This is analogous to stepping
on a beetle, more energetic than an ant, and exchanging energy with it
and noticing the crunch. Or in other words, an energetic point
particle from the vacuum energy/implicate collides with the energy we
have raised in the accelerator and particles/fields combine and split
etc within the spacetime big bag of the particle wherever that
particle is on the implicate.

I haven't mentioned quarks in this idea but quarks are elementary
particle needing locating in the implicate, too.


> General Relativity

These ideas are contrasting the implicate with the BB spacetime bag.

A week ago I assumed that GR and QM were on equal footing in the race
to produce an integrated theory. But now GR seems much closer to it
than QM. QM, to me, needs to embrace enfolding spacetimes. GR has
been doing it already, though only implicitly via energy-stress
tensors. QM has been embracing multidimensional quanta from the
outset but disguised as abstract mathematical space with spooky side
effects on our non-complex mathematical world of real numbers found in
observed outcomes of experiments.

One question: if QM allows no sub-division of quanta,then how do two
quanta reorganise themselves into two different quanta, i.e. e + p =
g + g, if all of those elementary particles are not divisible? My
idea is that each of those particles is a point particle but each
still has anbother 8D to play with.

QM looks at these as point particles with mysterious fields attached.
Where does the information to provide those fields reside? The
mathematics of those fields is explained by QM in the mathematics of
complex numbers which is indicative of hidden extra dimensions.

All I have done is populate those hidden dimensions with hidden
structure (equivalent to Bell's hidden variables) and tried to reason
as to where it leads.

It seems to me that the ideas in this thread give QM a tool to explore
structures within quanta. QM knows much of the mathematics already,
but that mathematics, for each different field separately, needs to be
reinterpreted and imagined as reflecting the internal structure of the
appropriate quantum. There seems a lot of work to do there
integrating QM with geometry.

Although not knowing the nathematics of GR, it is firmly in my mind
that GR is popularly known as the curvature of the one and only BB
spacetime bag. But that is wrong. It is the curvature etc of the
implicate which is a far bigger thing than the BB bag.

The implicate has everything in it, but energy exchange appears to be
needed for us to experience any particular quantum within it. EG as
provided by a particle accelerator to interact with the bigger quanta.

A few posts ago I wrote that a computer program compares all spacetime
bags and posts them on a holographic 4D spacetime in a coordinated
fashion. That coordinated 4D space is our implicate. Or is it? I am
not sure about terminology here. If the implicate is everything then
it is quasi-infinite in the number of dimensions it contains. The 4D
holographic spacetime is perhaps best called the enfolded spacetime.
Again this is after Bohm's terminology whose ideas led to this.

GR seems to take all the enfolded spacetime into account and act
there, but all done implicitly.

I am not a physicist and am going to write something tentatively
next. How can the picture we have of the BB universe gained from
physicists' observations on the universe still be retained as the
picture of the BB universe and not a picture of the infolded
spacetime?

First the very large and very small quanta. The very large quanta
have been discussed above. Unless we can exchange energy with these
quanta we cannot detect them. Hence the problem of bigger and bigger
particle accelerators. The very small scale is that in reverse. This
can be looked at as how small a piece of energy can be thown at a
great-great-etc ... - child quantum to cause to interact. The well-
known answer is that we cannot direct small amounts of energy to
precise locations (as small energy has large wavelengths). But we can
look at this the other way around. If intelligent beings inhabited
very small quanta, they might build particle accelerators to interact
with us. Remember that we are quanta too, and they would see us as a
point particle in their space. (NB we have hidden variables to them of
our current 4D BB spacetime plus the still attached runt of the last
cycle's 4D spacetime). {NB would we mind other quanta taking such pot
shots at us and splintering bits of our currently occupied 4D? Have
we already declared war by accident on nearby explicates on the
implicate. Ie on nearby spacetime bags, which might contain
intelligent life? How civilisations have we destroyed already? Never
mind, it's all in a good cause.}

Although I think that GR is already catering for the enfolded
spacetime rather than the BB spacetime bag, we should perhaps try to
picture GR as giving the results of the application of a computer
program taking data from the quasi-infinitely dimensioned implicate
and displaying it simultaneously on a 4D enfolded spacetime in
holographic form.

Whereas I have become used to the (popular science) idea of GR working
in one 4D spacetime, the program underlying it all has to take its
data from a much more complicated source: the implicate. All the
field energies are arising from the quanta, but that must all average
out somehow within GR as it obviously works excellently without
recourse explicitly to quasi-infinite dimensions. That seems to leave
GR in reasonably good health, it is the underlying program which needs
to be understood better for creating the enfolded spacetime from the
raw data in the implicate. It needs to take into account relations
(curvatures of space, energies, etc.) within each bag and between each
bag and plot them all together in a coordinated way. In a way that
people don't interact with ants and also don't interact with giants,
to extend the ant analogy from above.

This coordination involves controlling the metrics of the spaces
within and between bags. How big should an electron field be
displayed in the enfolded spacetime (or perhaps use the term: the
"enfold").

Moreover, the dispay of the enfold metric has to change for each
observer in a relativistic way. Since I, as an observer, have a near
infinite number of elementary particles in my body, I can by
definition, almost, not have a viewpoint from one and only one
spacetime bag. I am already a complex aggregate of spacetime bags.
And the enfold is complex aggregate of even more bags. The idea of a
simple view from within one 4D space seems now an idle luxury. It is
all much more complex. Enough for now.

[ben6993]

> More thoughts on the electron structure

I have just thought of trying to interpret the jitterbug
(Zitterbewegung) model in my geometrical model of the electron. So I
have skimmed the following:
http://ckw.phys.ncku.edu.tw/public/pub/Notes/Mathematics/Geometry/Hestenes/GAinQM/ZBW_I_QM.pdf
(but cn't follow much of the maths.)
But I confirmed the point that the electron is moving at the speed of
light in the jitterbug model. One of its motions is in the spin
plane. So the electron has no rest mass in the jitterbug model, only
an apparent rest mass.

I re-read this article as I am still finding I am being imprecise on
the electron's dimensions. I last said it was a 12D object in three
4D spacetimes. The three spacetimes are inter connected by
singularities. And I said that the electron is a point particle in
our 4D. But it is not. It is a point particle in our 3D, but not in
the time dimension.

The problem for me was that I see a spacetime bag as something a
particle has if it is moving at c with respect to its surroundings.
And I still think that. And any elementary particle should have its
own bag. Yet although an electron has a spacetime bag, why does it
not travel at c like a photon. I have shown the that same bag can be
occupied by a photon to move at speed c. So why does an electron need
a bag if it is not travelling at c? Well, the jitterbug model sys it
is moving at c. So that would solve my misgivings.

And how is it moving? Photons are squeezing alternately, via their
fields, on the two 4D spin bags. At the singularities in the SHM
there are genuine 4D point particles. Unlike the 3D point in our BB
spacetime. (After the ideas in my last post on the 'enfold' I should
not be using the term 'BB spacetime', I suppose, as the BB spacetime
does not really exist I should call it the 'enfold'.) {And does
4DMinkowski spacetime have any resemblance to the enfold, as BB
spectime is an illusory under the assumptions of this thread.}

So, according to my sketchy interpretation of the jitterbug, in one
SHM cycle (passing therefore through two singularities and two BEC
states in two separate 4D spin spacetimes sequentially) two photons
alternately squeeze the electron. This squeezing must make is spin
around the 3D singularity in the 'enfold', at speed c in the plane of
spin. Presumably there are two planes of spin, one for each spin
space. The speed must be caused by the spin twist in the spin bags
and content. Something like a screw blade in an outboard motor boat,
but with two screws working in concert to send it in a circular motion
rather than propelling it in a straight line. So that is why an
electron travels at less than speed c.

Note that this is also a new point, there is nothing in a fermion that
cannot travel at speed c. It cannot linearly travel at speed c
because of the ways the screws are arranged. Newvertheless that
arrangements of screws gives it an apparent rest mass. A photon
cannot be at rest as it is built not to go round in circles. It
cannot stop as it has no rest mass. The electron has no genuine rest
mass but creates the illusion of rest mass by its use of two screws to
obtain a circulating motion.

This implies to me that any elementary particle has a spacetime bag.
And to have a spacetime bag it must be travelling at c with respect to
its environment in one form or other. Hence a neutrino is probably
travelling at c and so is a quark. But some of that c for a quark may
be diverted into creating the apparent rest mass. That is assuming
quarks are genuine elementary particles.


> More thoughts on the photon structure


A photon is 'dressed up' in an electron spacetime bag. But the
contents are different: eg a mix of photons electrons and positrons.
Oh, another idea has intruded. When I was working out an electron
structure with a comparison with pasta twists, I noted that an
electron had two identical pasta twists. I have just wondered what if
a positron had two identical pasta twists but of the different twist
direction to the electrons.

[Note, all pasta twists in my pasta bag were identical in twist. It
must be easier to manufacture them that way. But a different machine
could manufacture a bag where all the twists were opposite to those in
the first bag.]

That means a positron would jitterbug but spinning in the opposite
direction to the electron.

And when positron and electron combine to make two photons ... they
must receive one twist each from the positron and electron. So where
a positron and electron jitterbug in our location, both photons can
jet off with coordinated working screws which give them maximum
thrust, and not jitterbuging in circles in the spin plane?

That feels like another eureka moment.

[ben6993]

> more thoughts on the electron, photon, dark energy and dark matter

Following the jitterbug model has helped me understand the photon and
electron better.

If an electron has two 4D spin spaces, which each can be represented
by an identical pasta twist (say L), and a positron is similar but
with two identical pasta twists of the opposite kind (say R) to the
electron. The electron and positron combine to give two photons each
with a different kind of pasta twist.

electron = L + L (analogy = speedboat spinning clockwise at c in a
circle)
positron = R + R (analogy = speedboat spinning anti-clockwise at c in
a circle)
photon = L + R (speedboat travelling linearly at c)
photon = R + L (speedboat travelling linearly at c)

Seeing this relationship makes me realise that the comparison of the
BB universe with an electron is fine on its own and the electron does
not need interaction with photons external to it to keep it
jitterbugging at c. They are travelling self containedly at c so the
twin stroke engine of the speed boat (where two BB cosmological cycles
make the twin stroke engine) is enough. The electron/ or the BB
universe does not need any external squeezing by a photon deflate or
inflate. And no extra pressure would make it go faster than c.

So that removes the need for my dark energy and dark matter idea.
Oops. However it still leaves the electron with a singularity at the
end of each stroke, with the consequent BEC state and collapse of the
wave function. So it leaves my non-spooky interpretation of the two-
slit experiment intact, fortunately. And I have a better mental image
of the particles; and also of what anti-matter is; and how they can
interchange the parts of their two-stroke engines.

Even though the two 'pasta twists' of the electron are identical, they
are in different spin states so I picture this by analogy as one screw
pointing to the stern of the engine and one pointing to the port
side. Even though the screws have the same thread type. Electrons,
positrons and photons seem much more alike to me in my model of them
now than they did yesterday.

I next need to re-think about how and why a photon is emitted when the
electron is detected at a detection screen.

[ben6993]

> another idea on the photon-electron interaction

The following website seems very clear, though I find it difficult
applying the physics.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/photel.html
The above website has made me realise/remember that I need to link the
frequency of the particles to the models.

Using my 'speed boat' models for the electron and photon, although the
photon always travels at c using its two-stroke engine, the amount of
energy it has relates to the speed that it fires its strokes. The
more energy it has, the faster it fires. The electron on the other
hand waits for assistance to fire each and every stroke.

According to the website, the photon tranfers energy to the electron,
with Compton scattering. The interaction conserves total momentum and
energy. So. before the interaction the photon is firing faster than
it is firing afterwards and the energy transferred is passed to the
electron to enable it to recoil and to change spin state. That
energy is the dark matter from the viewpoint of the old electron spin
spacetime and it is also the dark energy from the viewpoint of the new
spin spacetime. That energy made the electron change spin state and
recoil, and diminished the energy of the photon which still travels
at speed c but its motor now goes much slower as a
phut - phoot - phut - phoot instead of the original
phut - phoot -phut -phoot.

But that was a very energetic photon (10GeV) on the website. The kick-
starting of the electron engine requires a minimum energy and
presumably that requires an energetic photon. Where the electron
energy is 0.0505 GeV. The photon gives almost all its energy to the
electron, though some of that is in recoil.
.0505GeV/10 GeV is about half a percent which would be the ratio of
dark enery to BB universe matter in the new spin space if only there
had been no recoil of the electron while in the old spin spacetime
state. The loss of energy in recoil could bring the ratio closer to
our measured 5%:70% of matter: dark energy as some of the photon
energy was not used for kick starting but to give the electron a
push.

The electron presumably takes enough energy internally to change its
spin, and what is left over goes into the recoil. Well, I have put my
dark energy and dark matter mechanism back on track, but it seems just
as foggy a process as it was in my first ideas on it. I was hoping to
see it clearer in the speed boat model. But not just yet.

One thought, though, is that the electron and photon have to be
compatible in spin.

A photon can be LR or RL in the terminology I used in a recent post.
And these are non-commutative screw arrangements in 8D having
different spin geometries.

Only one of those photons can interact with the electron and conserve
momentum (I think). So (say) LR can interact with LL (electron),
while RL can interact only with RR (the positron). That is because of
the different geometries of the speedboats.

With the LL + LR interaction, when the two speedboats come close
together the electron only has one of the L screws populated as it can
only fire one stroke on its own. So use L(L) for the moment to
indicate one screw only is populated with sub-electrons.

The LR photon must approach the L(L) electron so that the photon R
screw is presented to the electron L(L) screw. We know that because
matter attracts anti-matter. Well, that is progress but I will need
to think further.

Ah, another eureka moment. Forget the L to R attraction. If we
return to the speedboats analogy. We have the electron as a single
spacetime 4D bag represented by L. Time has long passed within the
electron since the singularity by which it formed its current spin
state. Now a highly energetic photon speed boat approaches withe both
screws firing rapidly. It meets the electron and the electron bag
gets snarled up in the photon speedboat screws. Those screws are
capable of driving the photon forward and so any obstruction in those
screws with get squashed. The energy is used in squeezing the bag. A
squeezing is what I pictured originally but it is better pictured
using this new speed boat/spacetime bag analogy.

4D and 8D space must get in the way of easy interpretation, so it may
not be this simple, but I now see the cyclic conformal cosmology now
as not a continuing linear process but a something like SHM, except
the photons can be a little slow to provide assistance in deflation.
But the electron contents have to pass, back and to, through the same
singularity in a repeated cycle as spacetime bags are seemingly
indestructable. The electron is a two-stroke engine firing one engine
only at a time and needing assistance from a photon for each firing.
But the geometric construction of the bag requires the continued use
of the same singularity.

I don't know enough about engines, but the comparison of the BB
universe with an engine cylinder is interesting. The car cylinder
fills with vapour, and subsequently contracts drastically on being
sparked. In the cosmos, the spacetime bag inflates.... No this
doesn't seem obvious. In our spacetime the BEC corresponds to the
sparking point. As the BEC looks large to the outgoing space metric
but small to the new matric in the new spin state. So The BEC needs
to coincide with the singularity. Yet I want to picture the BEC at
the furthest extension of the bag, ie at the point where/when the
photon enmeshes the electon in its screws. This must be an artefact
of the multi-dimensionality. Unless the photon enmeshes the bag when
the bag is large and extended. But squeezes it so rapidly that it
stays as a BEC down to and through the singularity? I need to think
further. I think it is a problem caused by trying to see the bag from
my viewpoint whereas it needs to be seen from within. The BB cycle of
our univers is not continued expansion and then an equal period of
deflation. (NB Dlzc once pointed out to me that we couldn't live in a
deflating world). It is inflation until the BEC is at its widest
extent . And then a contraction using energy provided by the photon
that we see as dark matter which changes our metric from large to
small. I guess you can't easily picture that 4D bag as a 3D bag over
time ... and maybe the cyclic conformal cosmology is picturing it
correctly.

[ben6993]

> more thoughts on the electron, photon, dark energy and dark matter

I was thinking of too dynamic, for once, a model of an electron in the
previous post.
I was carried away with the two-stroke engine model of an electron,
which gave a jitterbug speed c clockwise in the spin plane. And I
deduced from that, that the electron two-stroke engine fired without
outside help. In my original but vaguer model, the electron needed an
photon to complete the engine stroke. (And that assistance provided a
mechanism for dark energy and dark matter.)

But, remembering my entanglement online course, when an electron is
prepared in spin state +, it stays in that state until a measurement
is made. A measurement being an interaction with a photon. So one
stroke of the engine is what is required to preserve the spin state.
And one firing is all you get for an unassisted electron. So dark
energy and dark matter are reinstated as suggested mechanisms arising
from this model. But I need to think more on how that happens.

Does the photon manage to power itself through the two-strokes, ie the
full 8D of its spin spaces. Is that why it is measured at spin 1
while an electron is only spin 1/2. I had already used the +1 and
+1/2 spins to deduce something about the electron shape in relation to
the photon shape, but perhaps it does also imply the photon has both
of its two strokes unaided where the electron has one. Especially
when the electron spacetime bag is identical in dimensions to the
photon bag. But surely a photon needs no assistance, from anywhere,
for its engine.

One stroke for the electron should keep it rotating at c in the spin
plane indefinitely. There is no friction in space, so it cannot
physically rub against othe quanta. The electron could only start to
experience friction effects from interacting with fields. And there
is no reason to think that it won't experence fields. Presumably
Alice and Bob have to protect their electrons from stray fields in an
entanglement experiment.

In my attempt, in a previous post, to see what is the environment of
an electron. I have argued for photons, electrons and positrons to be
in the electron's environment. That is the same whether the parent
quantum for the electron was a photon, electron or positron.

I know that electrons interact with positrons to create more photons,
but that would destroy the electron.
Electrons should repel electrons via electric charge. I have no idea
how electric charge fits the model. Wait, yes, I do now know
something. A positron has positive charge and a different screw shape
to the electron screw shape.

Using an analogy with tornados. I presume all multiple tornados in a
storm (and I know the Joplin twisters were multiple ones) have the
same (say)clockwise twist. They should therefore repel one another,
as like charges repel? You shouldn't get opposite charges/twists in a
storm, but if two oppositely twisted tornados were brought close
together they should attract one another. And destroy the spins.
Like matter and anti-matter. So an electron-electron interaction is
not going to initiate the second stroke of the engine.

The last interaction is electron and photon. And that is the one
referred to in the two-slit experiment. I understood it very loosely
in my vague electron model a few days ago, but the new electron speed
boat structure makes it difficult for me to see yet how they interact
geometrically.

Another thought about the photon. It either has spin +1 or -1. That
means that an LR screw arrangement is different from a RL arrangement.
So the order of assembly of the photon is important in its two 4D spin
spaces.

[ben6993]

> Another idea based on sub-quanta: Clifford algebra

This is just a thought about Clifford algebra as used by Joy
Christian. While it would take years, if ever, for me to get to an
understanding of the mathematics, my ideas in this thread in the last
week or two have used Joy Christian's conclusions and it is he that
has used Clifford algebra. So I have been thinking about that
mathematical form.

Understanding Clifford algebra for an electron seemed so strange even
to get any commonsense view of it. I have just realised that my
thinking (despite all the strange ideas in this thread) is still very
entrenched in Einstein's 4D spacetime. That is not to say that I
understand his GR mathematically in any detail. But only sketchily.

Despite in the last few days realising that the old 4D spacetime, as I
used to think of it, is an illusion, it is still deep engrained in my
tkinking of nature.

In this thread I have tried to put QM's mathematical abstract spaces
into concrete mode form, in a crude way, as I do not understand the
mathematics.

Today I have realised that I have been thinking of Clifford algebra's
multidimensions somehow embedded in or tacked onto the year 1915's 4D
spacetime. But recently I have written that the 1915 4D spacetime is
an illusion. What in 1915 was realised to be a 4D spacetime is in
fact an 'implicate' ie an immense set of nested particles or sets or
spacetimes, depending on ones approach to the issue. This implicate
forms the vacuum energy, and is the source of the virtual particles.
The countless 4D spacetimes in the implicate are the particles and
virtual particles.

Up to now I had been thinking of Christian's particle spaces as
somehow odd. As in: how do they fit in with the ress of the
universe?. But that was because I was picturing the whole still in
terms of an overall whole 4D. Or perhaps an overall 10D, or whatever
variant you like.

But the implicate structure of the vacuum energy means that there
cannot be an overall 10D dimensionality to the universe. That would
be 1915-style thinking. There is no overall structure.

My model of the electron is a 12D structure in three sets of inter-
connected 4Ds. And at first I just pushed on regardless of the
consequences of not understanding the whole geometry of the space
outside the electron and the electron's place in that outer space.
But I was lucky. The space outside the electron is, in a way,
ignorable as the universe is fractal, and is an implicate. If you
have a fractal tree design and our leaf has 12D, and every other leaf
has its own 12D, what is the total dimensionality of the whole tree?
It is virtually infinite in dimensionality.

Trying to get back a little to Einstein's single 4D spacetime as an
overall single entity (or say a branch on the tree) would also be
illusory as it would assume that all leaves are nested within the same
branch. Yet that could not cover everything as there are leaves on
other branches which are therefore not on our branch (ie the two
branches are two different explicates within the total, implicate,
tree).

This explains that I had been seeing my model electron as somehow
within a cosy overall single 12D universe, almost seeing it set in an
'aether'. But the totality of the universe must be greater that what
is on our branch, simply because of the fractal structure.

Likewise, I was confused as to where the Clifford 7D(?) space for the
electron fitted into the single overall (say) 10D space all around
us. But it cannot be like that, I now think that I see why Christian
could just focus on defining the Clifford space for the electron spin
state, without setting that space in a wider framework of space. (I
must admit that every time I scanned his papers, I thought "but where
is this 7D space?") I may be wrong on this, but I can now just accept
Christian's electron spin space while treating it as just another 12D
to me (7D to Christian) spacetime bag in the total implicate of
spacetime bags, or quanta and sub quanta ad infinitum.

The implicate is full of elementary particles and sub-particles. They
are all moving at c either linearly (photon) or spinning around a
plane in spin space(electron and positron). Because they are moving
at c they are point particles in 4D of their 12D. Because they are
moving at c they come pre-packed in a spacetime bag. In QM, the use
of 'e to the power -i' is in effect, implicitly, creating this
spacetime bag in abstract mathematical space. But to me the abstract
space now looks concrete. But we are only allowed real measurements
when the12D space instantaneously (and very temporarily) contracts to
a singularity. Whether in the cosmos or in an electron, that
singularity corresponds to a BEC state,and accompanies a change of
spin space for the particle. Real measurements correspond to points
in the total dimensions of a particle,where the whole particle can be
seen as one. Which means the field (the sub-particles) has iundergone
a temporary collapse.

The QM message is that an electron is a point particle in our 4D
world (ie where real measurements can be made) and so have no internal
structure. But our real world is not a 1915-stlyle 4D. It is a near-
infinitely dimensioned implicate of higher dimensional bodies
including the 12D electron. Including our cosmos, including virtual
particles,including everything.

[ben6993]

> the real (non-complex numbers) world of experimental outcomes and
measurement.

I have argued above (or below if out of synch on the list of posts)
that the total universe is an implicate, or assemblage of nested sets/
spacetime bags
of quanta and sub-quanta. Forming the vacuum energy or quantum foam.

Further, I argued that measurements involve BEC states which
correspond to singularies of the sub-particles within a parent
elementary particle. At such a BEC, the particle is at a single point
within its entire 12D. We appear to know its exact position at an
exact time. That might contravene HUP but it only happens for an
infinitesimal instant of time. And I am looking at this from the
point of view of within the electron, as a concrete model. In the
laboratory we do not know the exact position of the electron at
measurement. We only know where the photon appears to be detected,
and that has inherent error of location and time. Further, the
electron has sub-electrons and those are necessarily dispersed with a
statistical measure of their central tendency. So the error/
uncertainty is introduced as a statistical standard error for that
central tendency. Also I deduce that the electron is not merely
measured as being at a slit, but measurement necesssarily involves
changing its spin and creating a new field.

It is easy to think of every particle in the implicate, ie in the
totality of the universe, having a point position in our 'real' space
as apparent in the 1915 view of the world as a 4D spacetime. This is a
kind of pseudo-collapse of a wave function in our (apparent) 4D
spacetime. That may (?) be in a popular view of GR spacetime. That
is why measurements result in real numbers in our laboratories. The
elementary particles are all points in our 4D.
But the view of this 4D space, with the particles as points, as being
a whole, enveloping, single spacetime along the lines of a 1915 single
spacetime is illusory. The whole is an assemblage of 12D (at least)
quanta. The 4D spacetime of point particles must therefore be
illusory. I have referred to this in earlier posts as the 'enfold'.
Well, rather than say 'illusory', I should say 'not fundmental'.

The enfold to me seems to contain the output from a computer program
which forms the the metrics within each 4D sub-section of a quantum,
and also coordinates the metrics between quanta, while displaying the
output on a 4D space that we think of as the real world of 4D
measurements. And that output contains all the implicate data in 4D
form, with structures having a metric for inter-comparisons. It can
only give outputs at those instants when BECs occur in, ie
measurements are made of, the quanta spacetime bags. This could be
viewed as a holographic projection.

I would like to mention again here the Rasch pairs program, though
this is trying to deduce the mechanism for creation of the enfold,
which I know is a step too far just now. The Rasch pairs program is
based on the earlier and original Rasch model.

> The Rasch model is a logistic model which has the form:

Probability (outcome for j interacting with k and giving outcome as 1
rather than 0) =

exp[beta(j) - delta(k)] / {1 + exp[beta(j) - delta(k)] }

It acts on a 2D array of j x k binary values. (Where, for example, j
indexes people and k indexes examination questions.)

It outputs beta and delta values for all j and k on a single interval
scale. To me that seems like what is needed for the enfold, except it
is just a 1D metric. (Beta and delta values are people abilities; and
examination question difficulties all mapped onto the same scale.)

Following in the spirit of QM methods of creating abstract vector
space. The method may need revising so that a complex number form of
the logistic model is used:
i exp[beta(i) - delta(j)] / {1 + i exp[beta(i) - delta(j)] }

Maybe that would create a 4D spacetime bag as output, instead of a 1D
scale. The input data instead of being a 2D j x k matrix, would
become a tensor(?) comprising a combination of sets of 4D spin
states. So that is still a binary form of input as required by
quantum processes.

A further complication is that is based on the original Rasch model.
Instead of using the original model it would need an adaptation of the
Rasch pairs model, invented in 1978, which removes the asymmetry of
the j x k input matrix and replaces it with a k x k matrix and
outputs results of deltas for each k on th eone scale. That further
complicates matters. Still, I have included this as a new thought on
where Rasch needs to be amended to model the creation of the enfold.

[ben6993]

> Another eureka idea for Rasch scaling

I made an error in putting the complex i symbol in the wrong place in
the previous post in the suggested possible form of a 4D Rasch model.

It should be amended to:
Probability (outcome for j array interacting with k array and giving 1
array rather than 0 array) =
exp[i beta(j) - i delta(k)] / {1 + exp[ i beta(j) - i delta(k)] }.

The new idea is that that original Rasch model scales two sets of
objects from two different places (the j objects and the k objects)
and puts them on one common scale. Eg j candidates attempting k test
questions. I had not thought of a place before for using the original
Rasch model in cosmological metric scaling, but it would fit the niche
of synchronising the scaling of the two metrics in two different
spacetime bags. Ie sychronising the scales of two particles in the
enfold (ie the 4D where we make real observations).

The Rasch pairs model which compared only within one set of objects by
cross-comparisons between them, fits the niche of creating the metric
within a spacetime bag, or particle, or the cosmos [but only in the
1915 view of our 4D cosmos]. I cannot write down the model explicitly
for that, as I do not know how. I am not even sure that it is
expressible in a one-line formula. But the 1D model exists in a
usable form as a computer program.

A 4D model computer program cannot create spacetime, but something
like it may be happening in nature. The within-quantum-scaling and
cross-quanta-scaling of the metrics, particular the former, may give
the appearance of a gravitational effects. Though not necessarily
explain why those gravitational effects exist.

[ben6993]

> Planck's Law: E = hf

If an electron has a 12D structure, LLX, where L, L and X are three 4D
spaces. (I would use bold to indicate which space the electron
contents reside in, but the newsgroup uses only plaintext). X
represents the 4D world of real numbers and experimental observations
and measurements. The two Ls represent the + and - spin spaces, which
are here given real substance and not a mere unreal status. This is a
slight amendment of my notation in earlier posts but it helps me, in
adding the X space, to see the electron as an entire 12D object in one
glance.

The formula E=hf transmits the idea of a quantum through the h. That
is somewhat lacking for me in concreteness, only for use as a mental
image, I mean. For example, Susskind noted (online Stanford course)
that h is really just a scale factor as we are big but the electron is
small. The essence therefore must be in E::f, ie a proportionality.

So can we get the idea of discreteness out of f? Well, yes if we
look for something imposing an oscillating wave with a discrete
input. That is not exactly evident in a mere f alone. For example,
the waves in the sea look continuous between crests. Where and when
does the discrete source to genberate f act? At a crest or at a
trough, or where?

I think the difficulty for me lies in Planck's law being expressed in
the X space only.

When the electron is considered as a 12D body LLX. The energy is
inputted at singularities in each of the L spaces alternately. The
energy is inputted by a photon in the photoelectric effect or in the
Compton effect. The energy inputted needs to be enough to completely
deflate the L space, ie to remove the large scale existing metric of
that space and compress it to a singularity. The electron field has
now disappeared and the contents of the electron are in a BEC
singularity state. At this point the photon is set free, having
transferred its energy to the electron, and is now available to be
detected at a screen to indicate that a measurement of the electron
has taken place. This sees the electron as a two-stroke engine firing
only one chamber at a time, and needing help from a photon to do
that. And a measurement by a photon does not imply that we now know
the spin state of an electron, it means that we have collapsed and
regenerated the electron field (with implications for the two-slit
experiment) and changed the spin state of the electron.

The singularities are distinct stages in the cycle of an electron from
one spin state to another. You can therefore think of the
singularities being at the trough (say) of this cycle. And the energy
in putted in measured amounts required to complete the cycle.

Now this 12D mental image seems to me to be a much better mental image
of discreteness than E=hf. But I know that I am biased. The 12D two
stroke engine, with measurements only made at spark points shows why
the electron position cannot be measured as a continuous motion. The
photons are only available after release at a singularity.

[ben6993]

> Photon speedboat model

My photon 'speedboat' model up to now has been a two-stroke engine
firing one 4D spin screw/chamber after the other. One screw is matter
and one is antimatter. The electron is a two-stroke engine that can
only fire one chamber/spacetime bag at a time and even to do that it
needs an photon to provide the required energy.

Where the electron is LLX, the positron is RRX and the photon is
either LRX or RLX (two non-commutative geometries). Where L is matter
(normal pasta twist) and R (mirror image pasta twist) is antimatter.
The + and - spin state 4D spaces are different 4D chambers of
identical 'pasta' twists.

But the photon has double the spin of an electron. I earlier had the
photon connecting the L to the R at both singularity junctions at the
same time. Making a doughnut/toroid shape. And hence having maybe
twice the spin of the electron because of the double connection of its
L and R 4D chambers. However to chew up the electron L bag so
efficiently I think it must also fire both of its L and R chambers at
the same time. However, how can that be in synch with one another?

One solution relies on the apparent time reversal aspect of the
positron. (This is rather stretching my credulity as I write, I
fear.) The L chamber fires, then the R chamber fires. Each chamber
has 3D space and 1D time. But the R chamber has not the same physical
twist shape as the R. Suppose the twist shape is implicated in the
pointing of the time direction in the R spacetime bag. The R chamber
fires after the L chamber but time is going in the reverse direction
in its chamber. That puts them (maybe) back in synch and the net
result is that L and R chambers fire together and work as one. I need
to look for a simpler explanation, too.

Another point is that say all the various 4Ds, which are supposedly
unphysical spacetimes, have their metrics coordinated between and
within particles and projected onto the real 4D of laboratory
measurements. (Say by two different forms of Rasch scaling.) Then we
only need to think about the effects of the 4Ds in the real 4D
spacetime.

Although I am mentally picturing model speedboats, they have no solid
form. The photon is not a single solid core, it is an assembly of sub-
photons. And those photons are assemblies of sub-sub-photons, etc.
The squashing of the electron bag by the photon is done through their
fields interacting.

Joy Christan was modelling photons occupying either one 3D form [or
the other, alternative 3D form] of Grassman algebra space, I think.
If I am correct and the L and R spin spaces are firing together,
because of positron time reversal, that could complicate matters for
the entanglement view of the photon? But not for the electron, where
it is still non-spooky in my reasoning.

Just had a thought on this. No, I think it is it is non-spooky again
for the photon. The electron, with spin 1/2, changes spin by
oscillating its contents/internal structure from one L to the other L
in the LLX model. So one chamber is a 1/2 spin.

But a photon has two spins of either +1 or -1: LRX or RLX. One whole
spin is represented by two spin states: either LRX or RLX. If that is
so then to cope with a change from LR to RL in Grassman algebra might
need an occupancy of not a joint 6D (of spaces only) but of 12D (also
of space dimensions only). Ie the 6D grassman dimensions may be fine
for the electron but not big enough for the photon. But I need to
think more on this. Also the fact that I have made progress on this
implies one can to some extent compartmentalise thinking orthogonal 4D
spacetimes, ie it may not be necessary to double up on the grassman
space (about which I know almost nothing) used by the photon.

Next, when does a photon change from LRX to RLX? Presumably after
interaction with a photon. That is nice and symmetrical. Electron
and photon interact and they both change spin state. An interaction of
whole quants always changes the spin states of the quanta.

Likewise, if the field of a quantum interact with the field of another
quantum. These fields are sub-quanta. A sub-quantum interacting with
a sub-quantume will result in the two sub-quanta changing spin. But
the two whole quantums will not change spin. Changing spin implies
internal BECs collapsing the sub-quanta momentarily to a whole
particle. And this is true for where the interaction occurs, be it
for quanta, or sub-quanta, or sub-sub-quanta.

[ben6993]

> Summary of the idea of sub-quanta

My idea seem so natural to me, but posts from Armin show that the idea
is not as obvious to others as it seems to me. I will try to give a
short summary.

Joy Christian used Clifford Algebra to show that a point particle can
have non-spooky entanglement using a hidden variable. And one of the
two spin states occupies one 3D space while the other spin state
occupies a different 3D spin state in a 7D world. I presume that the
seventh dimension is time, but am unsure. [I referred to Clifford
algebra as Grassman algebra in a previous post, in error.]

That leads me to think that the electron has a structure. Not a solid
object as its sub-particles are also quanta, ie the sub-particles are
also point particles, each with a 7D structure.

That led to the idea of a fractal universe, where some things at
different magnitudes could have the same basic structure. And that
led me to wonder: "what if an electron was similar to the BB
universe?"

The BB universe has some major problems:
what happened before the singularity?
if it is going to end, then how?
how does it have dark energy and dark matter seemingly not
accountable for by the matter within the universe?

The electron has some major problems:
why is the two-slit experiment spooky?
what is the mystery of the wavefunction collapse?
how does is acquire its field?
what is the wave-particle duality?

I put the two sets of problems together and thought about them as one
and the same problem. The BB universe is a fermion interacting with
a boson. The boson is providing the dark energy (to one spin space)
and the dark matter (as viewed from the other spin space). This is
analagous to a photon giving energy to an electron in the
photoelectric effect or in Compton scattering. The effect on the BB
universe will be to collapse it to a singularity and change its spin
space to a different 3D of space. And to start up a new BB universe
of different spin.

We know about the singularity and the possible bleak BEC end to the
universe. Also somehow the BEC and singlarity are the same or closely
related end/start points of a cycle. Ie the BEC somehow causes a
singularity. So if the electron is like a BB universe, it too will
have singularities. Probably caused by photons. At a singularity the
electron behaves like a particle (as all its sub-structure has shrunk
to one point). But that is only fleeting and for the rest of the time
the electron acts like a wave through its field, where the field is
the sub-particles. So the BB singularity explains the electron's
wavefunction collapse. The field dies at the wave collapse and then
re-forms, so the electron is not merely measured at a slit, it is
changed every time. It changes spin state and the field disappears and
is replaced. The new field never goes through a slit, hence no
interference, and not spooky. And the field is the sub-quanta.

Added to that, the existence of sub-quanta seem also to explain the
vacuum energy.

[ben6993]

> sub-quanta and sub-dimensions

I am now re-considering the number of dimensions in the electron and
photon. This is because it is slowly sinking into my understanding
(rather than just an idea) that the BB universe's 4D is not the
dimensions of the total cosmos or the 'implicate'.

I started with the electron modelled by LL representing two 4D
spacetimes. Then I added an X to make LLX making it three 4D
spacetimes, where X was the 4D world of real measurements. But adding
the X directly to the LL make it seem that the electron is making the
X's 4D spacetime directly attached to the BB universe.

But consider an electron, positron and two photons within the BB
universe. Also note that the BB universe has two spin states, say X
and Y [and say the state in now is the X spin state]. And use
parentheses to indicate the "parent (child)" relationship between BB
and particle. The particles are symbolised by: YX (LL + RR +LR
+RL).

The implicate structure will be very complicated and we can expect
some structures such as:
RR (LL + RR (YX(LL ((LL + RR)) + RR (LL +RL) +LR ((LR +RL))
+RL)))

Note how The Big Bang universe, YX, is embedded in the middle of a
family tree of particles, and has no special place in the tree. This
is a just one more step continuing the removal of the earth/sun/milky
way from being the centre of the universe. Also we cannot expect
everything we see in the implicate to be a child or descendant of a
child of the BB.

I had been probing why I had more dimensions than in Christian's
paper, but if you focus on one electron in the above explicate (ie
particular branch of the tree) I can see it as nested within the
parent spacetime rather than being somehow attached to it. And I
think I can see why you can consider the geometry of the electron spin
spaces as just 8D. The two tiime dimensions should be the same
dimension making it 7D in total.

There is an YX (RR) particle in there and the terminology is now
letting have a mental image of the RR time dimension as the reverse of
the YX time dimension. Separating the RR from the YX somehow lets me
picture the positron particle travelling independently backwards in
time through the parent YX universe, for which the time is forwards.
And that difference in time seems to derive purely from the pasta
twists for electron and positron being mirror images of one another.
The BB universe is like an electron and so RR is a positron within an
'electron' travelling through time in the reverse direction to the BB.

Another reason for detaching the parent dimensions from the child
dimensions is "why stop at adding the parent dimensions? Why not
include the grandparent and great grand parent dimensions?" It it is
best to nest them as RR (RR (YX (LL))), which also shows the
relationships, rather than use RRRRYXLL. .

If the universe is fractal then its dimensionality may not be
integer. It is, of course, unknown now whether or not the universe is
fractal.


> The neutrino

Armin has asked me if my model can explain the neutrino, so that is my
next challenge. I know almost nothing about the neutrino.

If the neutrino travels faster than c, I give up this challenge.
If the neutrino travels (linearly) at c then it should be a boson, ie
a mediator like the photon, so I already do not understand why it is
mediated by the W particle. It should instead be a mediator itself?
If the neutrino travels at less than c, then it has mass and
presumably needs the W mediation.

The neutrino has spin 1/2 and so should have two 4D spaces, but they
will not be LL or RR spaces as those are for the electron and positron
which have electric charge whereas the neutrino has no electric
charge. So Use A for the neutrino and B for the antiparticle
version, ie B is antimatter. So it could be AA (neutrino) and BB
(antineutrino).

But I know it is much more complicated than this. Also, I have read a
Science2.0 website article today, comparing Clifford Algebra with
quaternions, where the question of spins and handedness and mirror
symmetry was addressed. It is all very relevant to these models.

[ben6993]

> Mike Friendliness's paper mimicking QED via formal logic theory

Mike's paper http://webpages.charter.net/majik1/QMlogic.htm uses
logic theory, combined with the gaussian form of the Dirac delta
functions, to derive the Feynman path integral formulation of a free
particle in 1D.

I have noted how this seems to me to correspond exactly with my idea,
explored in this thread, of wavefunction collapse being caused by the
electron udergoing a collapse of its internal structure to a
singularity. I see this singularity like a BB singularity caused by a
the electron sub-structure forming a BEC where it acts in one quantum
state ie instantaneously acting as a whole electron at a single point,
instead of acting in its normal state of a distributed set of sub-
particles (my definition of a field).

As Armin could not see that my earlier claim to a comparison made
sense to him, I will explore/explain it further here. I do not want
to intrude too much by posting now in Mike's own thread as mine is a
non-standard approach. But I note that, in my opinion, Mike's is a
very important paper.

Jumping straight in to Mike's Figure 6. Figure 6 contains a set
element Xo contained in set C. Set C is contained in set B.

Moving on to the Figures 1 and 2. They show that if set B is not
nested within set A then B does not imply B. Also they show that if B
is nested within A, then A implies B. This logic structure is what I
see in the implicate of all particles. For me, any quantum has one
and only one parent quantum. So if "B is nested within A, then A
implies B" translates to me as " if quantum B is nested in quantum A,
then quantum A is the parent of quantum B". Similarly, "if set B is
not nested
within set A then B does not imply B" translates as "if quantum B is
not nested within quantum A, then quantum A is not the parent of
quantum B". Of course this excludes grandparent relationships, but
that would arise if there were three sets: C nested within B which is
nested within A.

Knowing very little of formal logic, it seems to me that this logic
structure matches what is needed for dealing with an implicate fractal
nesting structure of sub-sub-quanta within sub-quanta within a
quantum.

I have recently spent three years working on my family tree and
applying logic to such data would require different approach as a
child has two natural parents, which immediately makes it more
complicated as a child is an element within two different parent
sets. That is banned for a quantum child particle. The implicate
structure does not appear to allow intersecting sets, eg of the Venn
diagram, when we can have an element Xo within A n B (A intersect B).
That is just another way of saying that child Xo has parents A and B.
That is banned by my idea of the sub-quanta structure. And it also
seems to be excluded as a possibility in Mike's paper.

Next I will try to further translate "A implies B" as part of
wavefunction collapse for a single electron. Suppose there is one
electron. That is representable by on very large circle/set. Its sub-
electrons are represented by many non-overlapping circles/sets nested
within the electron. The sub-electrons have sub-sub-electrons nested
withen them also. But I will just write the sub-sub-electrons as
elements Xo (else this task will ripple down the infinites of a
fractal structure). Also say that some sub-electrons have no sub-sub-
quanta and also include those as denoted by the Xo elements. (in fact
the fractal structure disallows any sub-electron having no child
quanta, else how would they have a sub-field.)

So now we have a large circle, lots of non-overlapping smaller circles
within it. And lots of Xo elements dotted apparently anywhere within
the whole electron circle. Figures 3 and 4 come closest to that
picture, but the single circle in Figure 3 must be a single sub-
electron in my reasoning.

Now imagine a large circle/set for the electron being emitted from a
source on the left of the page and a detector screen is set up to
detect it on the right of the page. I see this as the electron circle
travelling from left to right on the page until it interacts with a
photon which is detected somewhere on the screen.

In one sense, the electron does not exist as a whole as it is made of
sub-electrons. (I am still bemused by this aspect of the wave-
particle duality even though it is particles all the way up and
down.) So now I also imagine the host of smaller circles (sub-
electrons) drifting across the page from left to right. So when the
photon interacts with the electron, where exactly does the
wavefunction collapse at/to?

In my model, the photon squeezes the electron (via its field
effects). In the logic paper this requires a large outer circle (not
shown?) to be squeezed to try to make it contract to a point.

To make it more manageable, say there are only two small circles (B
and C) where B has Bo within it while C has Co within it. The
electron is circle A and that has a a sub-electron called Ao within it
(here I confound an element of a set with a sub-electron just to stop
infinites creeping in.)

When the A circle is squeezed to a point, where does it contact to?
That is equivalent to saying "when the electron wavefunction is
collapsed, where does it collapse to?"

In logic that is equivalent to saying that the electron A is 'B(Bo)
AND C(Co) AND Ao'. So the logic question is "what does A [ie the
electron] imply?" The answer has to be either Bo or Co or Ao as those
are the only lowest order elements named.

In my sub-quanta model, I can think of Ao, Bo and Co as being a
complete list of the smallest sub-quanta being considered. When the
electron contracts it must contract to one of these points. This is
like finding a mode in statistics as a measure of central tendency.
Not like finding a mean family size where a family can have 1.5
children on average. So the outer circle or electron is squeezed and
the contents reduce in volume to a point and that point corresponds to
the position of one of those three elements/sub-particles. That is
where the photon is released from the electron and is then free to be
detected on the screen. Ie that is where the wavefunction collapses.

Note the iterative nature of the task. The circle A can only be
squeezed fully if circles B and C are also squeezed fully or else B
and C would have finite volume/area within A. In my model, the BEC in
the electron can only collapse to a BB-style singularity if all the
sub-electrons have collapsed to singularities, ad infinitum. I have
imagined this as a top down approach, starting by squeezing the big
circle representing the electron. At an intermediary stage, say the A
circle is very contracted except for the B and C circles. The Ao will
by now have been brought into proximity to the B and C sub-
electrons. That ,all the sub-particles Ao, B and C will have been
brought near to one another. That encourages/enables them to
interact. Ie sub-photon in interacting with sub-electron.

A reference is needed here to my description of the implicate in an
earlier post where I reasoned that electrons, positrons and photons
can all be sub-particles of an electron. So squeezing A brings
together sub-electrons and sub-photons and the sub-photons can squeeze
the sub-electrons. Ad in finitum. The squeezing energy being
transferred from the photon to the electron by the photoelectric
effect/Compton Effect.

That takes us to the electron's singularity, ie the wavefunction
collapse at (say) position Bo.

An interesting point is that the electron and all sub-particles of the
electron change spin state at the electron singularity, as all the sub-
particles need to have singuarities of their own. Even the sub-
photons within the electron need to collapse. To do that two sub-
photons can form a 'sub-electron/sub-positron' pair. I have already
dealt with the electron wavefunction collapse. That model will
suffice for the sub-electron. The sub-positron will collapse on
interaction with a sub-photon of the opposite spin to the one that
interacts with an electron. Ie the electron interacts with a LR
photon while a
positron interacts with a RL photon.

Say we interpose a double slit, mid-page, and repeat the collapse
process in the new arrangement. Some sub-electron circles will pass
through one slit and some through the other slit. Some will interact
with the sub-photons in the wall of the slit and have their sub-
wavefunctions collapsed. At that point the collapsing sub-electron
will change spin state, whicle the overall spin state of the electron
is unchanged.

To take this into account visually, we need to draw the circles on two
different transparencies and view the two transparencies on a screen
together where it will look like an integrated single drawing. One
transparency is for circles in one spin state and the other
transparency for circles in the other spin state. This is getting the
idea of how the two spin states (4D each) are seen as part of one
single view of Euclidean space(as I think it is so in Clifford
Algebra). Every time a circle (and everything in it) is reduced to a
point, it immediately regains a volume/area in the other transparency
at the same apparent place on the screen projection. That enables the
electron to travel on and be measured again.

[ben6993]

> how to get from BEC to a singularity

I have just realised the implications of my last post (re the logic
paper of Mike Friendliness/ No last name) for the BB universe. The
cold end of the universe scenario of a BEC is one where all the matter
has been converted into photons. To compress all that energy to
another BB singularity needs a lot of energy inputted by an external
boson/photon. In an interaction such as the Compton effect.

We can already see that particular energy as dark matter. Eventually
the dark matter will turn all the photons into electron-positron
pairs. Is will be much more complicated that that as there are
particles in the universe other than electrons, positrons and
photons. But I have suggested one set of particle rearrangements
immediately prior to a BB! Just as you need supernova energy to
create heavy elements, dark matter's energy should be usable to create
matter from all the BEC photon energy. The dark matter is the super
boson's energy and will provide contraction of our BB universe back to
a singularity. The dark matter should be increasing acccording to my
idea, and eventually outstrip the dark energy. (Dark energy is how we
see the dark matter energy inputted before our BB by the previous
super-boson.)

Another point is that the electron and photon share the same spacetime
bag structure, though the photon bag is doubly connected at the
wormholes betwen the two 4D spin spaces, to make a toroid, where the
electron is only singly connected. The photon can keep firing its
engine chambers continually though whereas an electron can only fire
with the help of a photon at each firing. The contents of an electron
and photon space are identical, and include electron, positron and
photon.

In the BEC state, the electron contains only sub-photons. It just
seems an odd thought that the only differences between an electron
(LL) and a photon (LR) at that point was (1) the double connection of
the pasta twist chamber, L, to the antimatter twist, R, for the
photon, and (2) the photon includes an antimatter chamber. But the
contents of LL could be identical to the contents of LR.



> a prediction: the missing antimatter in the universe is still in
here somewhere

Reason 1. Assuming, as I am, that the universe is an electron, and
that electron is jitterbugging at speed c. That speed c, a rotation
in its spin spaces, gives the electron entitlement to its own
spacetime bag. Anything moving at speed c has zero rest mass. I
reasoned that the electron can have at least sub-electrons, sub-
positrons and sub-photons within it. There must be an exact balance
of numbers of electrons and positrons to maintain jitterbugging at
speed c in its LL twin pasta twist spacetimes, even if the electron
cannot move through space linearly at c. The limitation of the
electron's linear speed is presumably an inertal effect eg as in
resisting movement of a gyroscope against its preferred direction
given by its own spin.

Reason 2. The wavefunction collapse of the electron in the previous
post requires the external photon energy to be used to convert all the
photons in the final BEC stage of the electron into sub-electron/sub-
positron pairs. (And for our universe into electron-positron pairs.)
That could not happen unless the electron numbers matched the positron
numbers.

Reason 3. The BB universe has a spacetime bag. Well, it is assumed
to have one in order to allow a singularity at the BB. if it has a
bag it must move at speed c, like the electron at some place in its
total structure. If it moves at speed c somehow, thenit mays have
zero rest mass.

[ben6993]

> surely mesons made from quarks and anti-quarks are elementary
psrticles?

I have been reading about quarks last night and although I read
nothing new to me it made much more sense to me this time as I now was
comparing the quark data aginst my sub-quanta model.

Earlier in the evening I had been thinking about charge and whether or
not charge needed building into the sub-quanta model as extra engine
motor chambers in the speedboat model. I was thinking of needing
extra structures as maybe being required so that the elementary
particles could be partitioned more easily. Say in order to break off
a bit to act as a neutrino. I had not really thought much about the
philosphy in that for sub-quanta. Ie whether a sub-section of the
particle rendered it somehow more a composite particle than an
elementary particle. But all that a composite particle needs in order
for it to stay a point particle in our 4D real space, in my model, is
a spacetime bag around it. My idea was simply the speedboat model
with perhaps luggage compartments rather than extra engine chambers to
fire. And maybe luggage compartments were needed for the speedboat
model to make it a more compartmentalised object. So it can be broken
into components to decompose into new particles more easily. Eg did
it need a 'charge' luggage compartment.

Charge (I presume) never changes whereas the spin state does change
for a single particle. That is why I was thinking as spin for the
engine and charge for the luggage compartment. This was further
complicated by my reading James Putnam's lastest post last night that
charge may not exist! Just as I had had no place for it previously in
my speed boat model and was trying to build new compartments, James
says it does not exist. Which to me meant that charge did not need
its own detachable compartment. Although charge does not change, its
field effect can only be dynamic if it expanding like a BB inflated
cosmos. That implies being an engine chamber rather than a static
chamber. However, I did not know enough to be persuaded or not by
James.

Then I remembered that I already had posted about the way an electron
could attract a positron and repel an electron using a tornado
analogy. So I discarded the luggage compartment idea and defined
charge as being caused by the existing LL and RR engine spin
chambers. Ie I instated the tornado analogy for charge attraction/
repulsion as an effect if the spin chambers only. In effect,
therefore, charge is caused by a repulsion between fields of similar
shaped pasta twists and attraction is caused by the field interaction
between differently shaped pasta twists, where a psta twist is a
single chamber of the speedboat model engine. Charge derives from
matter fields repelling matter fields and matter fields pulling on
antimatter fields. Where those fields emanate from the spin chambers
already built into the speedboat model. Matter has a minus charge and
antimatter has a positive charge. Further, maybe the positive charges
in the nucleus emanate from an excess of antimatter in the nucleus?
Matter in the electron shells being balanced by antimatter in the
nucleii, at least as far as overall charge balance is concerned. (An
idle thought: surely this cannot be the answer to the problem of the
missing antimatter in the universe. I am sure that is a silly idea.)

I then realised that I has a vast new collection of speedboat models.
I had already built/classified the photon in its two spin forms of
speedboat: LR and RL. Where L is matter and R is antimatter.

I now learnt from the quark colour charts that I could add at least
another seven quark-antiquark speedboats: sU, sD, dU, dS, uS, uD, sS,
where upper case denotes an antiparticle. And maybe another two extra
speedboats the pie-0 and the eta-0, although I can't imagine, just
yet, building a speedboat model in a quantum singlet or doublet
formulation that I read for the latter two particles! The speedboat
model for a photon requires two chambers. One chamber of matter and
one antimatter. That combination allows the photon to be self
propelling in a one-stroke two-chamber engine. I feel more used, now,
to the idea that the self propelling aspect is because of the double
singularity connection within the photon allowing one engine chamber
exhaust input into the other engine chamber to spark its firing. I.e.
(but I maybe wrong as I know little of engines) it works through
turbocharging. That sounds like it should be a two-stroke engine, and
there are two engine chambers, yet antimatter travels backwards
through time and that allows the two strokes to appear to occur as one
coordinated stroke at the same instant. I.e. it is a two-simultaneous-
stroke engine, rather than firing one chamber at a time.

The quark-antiquark mesons are described in wiki as composite
particles. That really surprises me as they fit my photon speedboat
model so well!!! I cannot see how one could expect to split an LR
photon into its separate L and R chambers (although one can spit two
LR photons into LL + RR form), so why would one think one could split
a pie minus meson (dU) into its separate engine chambers. The Pie
minus meson seems to me to be very like a photon. It should have its
own spacetime bag, be a point particle, travel at speed c, and be an
indivisible (except for sub-quanta) elementary particle. I need to
know more about isospin.

[ben6993]

> elementary or composite bosons?

The photon is recognised as an elementary particle and I see it as
one in my model, as it has its own spacetime bag. It is a composite
of electron and positron parts:

electron + positron = photon + photon

LL + RR = LR + RL

This exactly parallels the pi- meson: down-antiup i.e. dU.
dU is obviouly built from two parts, just like a photon is built from
two parts. I could invent notation to write a down particle in two 4D
spin space format as (say) dd, and an antiup also as two chambers
UU. Maybe they do exist like that, but simply have not been detected
in isolation. The trouble is the single chamber u has been given its
own name, which leads on to uD being obviously seen as a composite.
However th ephoton is written down by me as LR so that is obviously a
likewiase composite. But for the photon the L does not have its own
name. The nearest to a name is "half an electron". (Though I see L
more as RNA while LR is like DNA in a biology cell analogy.)

It would make much more sense to treat the pi- meson as an elementary
particle. Either that or treat the photon as a composite particle
also. But treat them alike.

Physicists know much more about the electron and photon that the quark-
antiquark meson, or at least have known them longer. I have often
heard it said that a photon is like an electron bound to a positron.
But in my speedboat model a photon is half an electron joined on to
half a positron. Well, it is slightly more complicated than that in
my model, but it is near enough. And we are happy with a photon as an
elemetary particle. Yet single quarks have never neen isolated and
yet physicists are seeing mesons as composite particles. That is
strange, because with photons, we can actually isolate the particles
which are subdivided to make the photon! Is this inertia of
thinking. We early decided a photon was elementary but can see its
parts, whereas meson structure came along later and we could not
really justify them as
elementary?

I think an elementary particle should be defined as a point particle
having its own spacetime bag, and
hence travelling at speed c, either linearly or spinning, somewhere in
its full structure covering at least two 4D spacetimes, i.e. with two
engine chambers That would make photons and mesons elementary and
able to take their own individual place in the implicate or vacuum
energy.

The boson structure also implies a particle-antiparticle structure.
Where each of the particle and antiparticle is elementary. That makes
the boson elementary, and it can travel in a self-sustaining turbo-
charged speedboat at speed c.

A complication that I have not yet thought through is the three colour
system of quarks. There is a slight chance that the three colours
basis of quarks means that (say) the antiup (U) quark is a composite
particle. Which may be anothrt reason why the mesons are treated as
composite. Yet in my speedboat/sub-quanta model the pi- meson surely
must be elementary as it parallels the photon in its speedboat
structure.

> Weak force bosons

I now see a particle-antiparticle structure as the boson model. It
is so for the photon and mesons. So why not for the weak force
carriers, W and Z?

The Z particle is supposed to have a net charge. In my model that
means an excess of matter pasta twists or of antimatter pasta twists.
So it does not fit my twin-simultaneous-stroke speedboat matter-
antimatter photon model. A W particle has charge 0, however, so it
could fit my speedboat model. But what particles are available to use
in its engine? Well, they can only be from the quark family or
neutrino family or electron family. Say, almost picked at random, a W
could be something like a strange-anticharm pairing, which is not on
my meson particle list. I will have to leave the Z particle for later
thoughts.
I note that the W and Z spins are equivalent to that of a photon, so I
need not delve into that at the moment.

> gravitons

A graviton is supposed to have spin 2 and charge is not mentioned on
wiki. A presumed zero charge means that the graviton could be
modelled as a speedboat with matter and antimatter screw chambers,
like a photon. But with double spin, hence twice the number of
chambers to fire. That could imply two antimatter engine chambers and
two matter chambers all joined together. Maybe in a way that one
pairing of matter-antimatter chambers gives one stroke while the other
matter-antimatter pairing gives a second stroke. But maybe all four
chambers firing together as one stroke. But I fail to see why the two
strokes helps the graviton as the photon speedboat travels at speed c
with only half (or even a quarter) the spin of a graviton.

I previously, maybe six months ago, had the idea [from string theory]
for a pseudo-graviton as a joint effect from an electron-positron-
neutrino-antineutrino working in a four-particle distributed, yet
coordinated, role. The four particles were interconnected somehow,
which is easier to see for the electron-positron than for the
neutrinos. this model satisfies the required matter-antimatter
balance, and the total spin could be 'four times 1/2' = 2, as
required. And again that would not fit the speedboat model of an
elementary particle. I saw the distributed, four-particle graviton
idea as the electron and
positron each separately connecting two branes while the neutrinos
connected the particles electron to positron within a brane, forming a
single loop which could pull branes together (in a between-brane pull)
and pull particles together within a brane (a within brane pull).
This does fit in with my idea of gravity arising out of a the rasch-
like scaling programs applied between elementary particle spacetimes
and within elementary particle spacetimes in the implicate or vacuum
energy.

> Eureka. The neutrino is a cross between the photon and
electron structures

The neutrino has spin 1/2 and charge 0. A charge of zero implies it
could be put together from matter and antimatter spin spacetimes like
the photon and mesons. That would imply it travelled at speed c, and
had no net mass.

But spin 1/2 does not fit into the speedboat model of a photon as a
photon has spin 1. An electron is more like a photon than I thought a
few weeks ago. It is travelling at c but uses that speed in
jitterbugging, not in linear travel. But is a poorly designed
speedboat compared to that of the photon. [As though one is for fast
travel/business while the other is for a pleasure cruise. As in
'taking the boat out for a spin' or jitterbuging. A joke analogy.]

Say we had another arrangement of the electron and photon spacetime
bags. Note that the spacetime bag models were the same for the
electron and photon except in important details of assembly, like the
double singularity connection for the photon which allowed the turbo
charging. Say the neutrino was more like a photon than an electron,
in that when it fires one chamber or spin space, it travels linearly
at c, rather than jitterbugging. And say it has two chambers, one
made of matter and one made of antimatter. But say, more like the
electron, the spacetime has only a single connection at a singuality.
So it is not self sustaining. However, one firing of an electron
chamber keeps the electron jitterbugging at speed c an indefinitely
long time. And one firing of the chamber keeps the neutrino
travelling linearly at c for an indefinitely long time.

What the continual firing of its engine allows the photon to do is
have constantly dynamic oscillating E and B fields from the matter and
antimatter chambers. The fields from them reflect their interiors and
the interiors are in constant BB inflation/deflation oscillations.
Hence permanently dynamic fields. The neutrino in successive firings
could be matter field then antimatter field (ie E and B fields) .
There is zero charge as the neutrino has two shapes of pasta twists,
despite one pasta twist being empty and switched off. The neutrino
is not continually dynamic in creating E-M fields, because its fields
are less interactive than the photon when on its travels as it goes a
long way on one firing of one chamber. But I haven't considered how
the neutrino is created or re assembled from others' parts. But it is
a photon with its turbo-charging connection turned off.

Another thought. The neutrino may perhaps never be re-fired as,
unlike an electron, it seems to be a boson as it is a particle-
antiparticle entity. Suppose some neutrinos are created by a firing
of the matter chamber and some by a firing of the anti-matter
chamber. And they just stay like that? That could maybe explain how
the same particle can appear to be its own anti-particle (maybe, but I
am vague about that). And it still keeps spin 1/2 as only one chamber
is fired at a time.

I seem to need to use a slightly different catgorisation of particles
that that in the Standard model, especially as a neutrino seems to be
a little like an electron and a little like a photon. It is a crossed
beast like a mule and so difficult to fit any categorisation.

I wonder if the empty spacetime bag of the spin spacetime, not
currently occupied by a particle, has a role in determining
jitterbugginbg or linear motion?

For an photon the matter-antimatter, LR, pairing gives it access to
linear motion. For an electron the LL spacetimes make it jitterbug
(even though one L is at any one time empty). While the LR
arrangement of the neutrino allows linear travel even though only one
chamber is used at a time. It gives an empty spacetime bag a genuine
function, if this is true. Imagine an electron speedboat with one
pasta twist engine at the stern and one of the same shape pointing out
on the starboard side. That should make the boat jitterbug. The
photon has two mirror image pasta twists at the stern and it is
turbocharged. The
turbo charging is not necessary to keep it moving at speed c, but it
does provide the continual very dynamic E-M fields via the continual
refiring of its engine strokes. The neutrino has two pasta twists in
the stern like the photon but is not turbo-charged. I.e. the two
chambers are connected at one singularity, not at two. But my point
is that it has two mirror image screws in the water even if only one
has been fired. As the speedboat moves through the water, the
unpowered screw is still of the correct shape as the water from the
wake of the other screw flows past it to enable the two screws jointly
to
provide linear motion. [Yes, I know it is really field effects, not
an aether flow.] So the unpowered screw is still playing a very
important role in the motion.

Further, as the two screws are the speedboat, rather than being
rigidly or loosely tied on to a firm structure, two screws made of
matter would repel one another, because matter repels matter via
electric charge (but only when within screw structures), so the
electron screws would tend to push apart. Which would presumably
assist the spin of the jitterbugging. The matter and anti-matter
screws in the photon would tend to attract one another together and
keep the screws lined up and coordinated so that they could thrust in
one direction. The neutrino screws are matter and anti-matter but
only one turning at a time, hence there would still be an attraction
keeping the two spacetime bags close together to give a linear
thrust and not a jitterbug spinning effect. [I wish that I had a
model boat and various engines to play with to test this.]

The neutrino would not have rest mass as its chamber is a balance of
matter and antimatter. This is true of any of the electron/positron/
photon/neutrino spacetime bag contents. It is only the jitterbugging
which gives the electron (and positron) its mass.

Therefore the neutrino should be a massless boson. The different
types of neutrino should all be massless bosons, perhaps as via
variations in fractal order of magnitude.

And a neutrino is a little like a stealth plane or stealth photon. A
photon with its field creative power to make fields turned almost
off. It should have a very very weak E field or very very weak B
field, depending on whether its L or R chamber had been fired. But
whichever field it is, it shgould be strongest near to the particle
creation point.

> the jitterbugging BB universe

Another thought is that our BB universe is jitterbugging at speed c,
if it has an electron structure.


> time and mass

I am recently realising, through following the sub-quanta approach,
that charge is caused by matter and antimatter fields.

Mass is only caused by an inertial response to the gyroscopic effect
of jitterbugging.

Antimatter seems less strange to me now in its matter annihilation
property. The LL, RR, DR and RL electron/positron/photon/neutrino
structures all during their cycles appear to turn all contents to
bosons then all to leptons in turn. That is not really different to
matter-antimatter annihilation. The really strange thing about
antimatter is the the mirror image pasta twist causes time to run
through it in reverse direction. That is strange and I have no idea
why the screw shape of the bag appears to organise the direction of
time within that bag.

[ben6993]

> the Pi0 and eta0 particles, and the elusive quark

These two particles are described in wiki as (uU+dD)/sqrt (2) and (uU-
dD)/sqrt (2), and described as self-antiparticles. This description
now makes much more sense to me as this terminology is the description
of a quantum spin state for a pair of particles. (Where capitals here
denote antiparticles.)

A meson quark-antiquark pair is a force carrier and the mesons are
bosonic. These two particles are therefore bosonic and travel at
speed c.

The reason why quarks are so difficult to find in isolation is that a
quark is not in the form of any of the fermions or bosons that I have
put into speedboat models. A fermion or boson in my model requires
two chambers per particle. The quark terminology (as used in the
meson description say uD) only gives it one chamber. It has nowhere
to send its contents after it reaches a singularity. That maybe
because of physicists' description of it. Or it may just not fit the
speedboat model. Yet I strongly feel that a stable quark particle
would require more than one chamber simply in order to have spin 1/2.
A spin 1/2 measurement implies that a particle has a chamber with a
pasta twist but also that it needs to be able to send its contents
from one chamber to another at a singularity to release its boson/
meson to record th espin measurement in th e laboratory.

A very strong possibility is that a quark may form a three-chamber
speedboat. The three-colour restrictions could come about because of
the firing of three-stroke engines and the separation rules of them to
offer one up for a meson, say. The three engines could fire in
sucession, or in in a number of ways I have not yet considered. The
quark will be jitterbugging and spinning at speed c and that is what
gives it mass, via gyroscopic inertia.

A quark has spin 1/2 and that will be fine as long as it only fires
one cylinder at a time. jitterbugging implies that all three pasta
twists of a quark are identical. Ie all matter or all anti-matter.

It could be very similar to an electron in its spacetime bag structure
except that it may have three rather than two pasta twists. A one-
stroke three-pasta-twist engine may fit the bill. That may be evident
from QCD but I would not know. If this is the structure it could only
be described in Clifford algebra 10D, rather than 7D for the electron
spin.

Electron ... 3D + 3D +1D = 7D
Quark ...... 3D + 3D + 3D +1D = 10D

Need to think more on this, but it is looking very promising.

[ben6993]

On Nov 23, 4:41 pm, ben6993 <ben6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> mesons are not bosons.

I need to correct my statement that I saw mesons as really being
bosons as both types are particle-antiparticle pairs. Bosons require
to be particle-antiparticle pairs of the same particle. That ensures
an overall net mass zero and charge zero. And allows a synchronised
turbo-charged speedboat model to apply.

Although the mesons are particle-antiparticle pairs they are of
different particles. Eg the up-antidown pi- meson has an imbalance of
matter-antimatter and carries a charge. It will not fit my speedboat
model. I assume the u and antidown must be held together by a meson
mediator. But that does not make sense in my model as a meson cannot
be a mediator, but it can in QCD.

up has charge +2/3.
down has charge -1/3, therefore antidown has charge +1/3

So the sum of the parts is a net charge of +1. So there is a net mass
and an imbalance of matter-antimatter and the meson is therefore not a
boson. Therefore it cannot mediate a force at speed c like a boson.
But it does convert a neutron to a proton.

The mass of a pion is 140 MeV/c which is much greater than the sum of
its parts: up mass = 4 Mev/c and down mass = 8 MeV/c. As the up and
antidown are of the same charge they need to be held together by
another meson which presumably provides the missing mass. But it
cannot be another pi- meson, I trust. I see why it is harder to model
meson mediation than photon mediation.

[ben6993]

> eureka moment. Incorporating QED structure into QCD quarks

[Note to moderator: I think that I have below contributed something
useful to QCD by adding a role for bosons in changing spin states of
quark which is something missing from standard QCD(?) and explaining
the role of the instanton in its action in changing quark spin. Also
I think I have given a model that makes the colour charge system more
easily understandable for a mental image.]

The QCD structures require use of Gell-Mann matrices rather than Pauli
matrices which indicated that the QCD colour structure has three
different spin spaces rather than the two for a QED electron. In
Clifford Algebra I guess (not knowing the maths)that would need 10D
space for QCD rather than the 7D space for QED.

In my speedboat model structures would need three chambers with 4D
spacetimes in each, ie 12D in
total. Or 9D if you ignore time dimensions.

I need to start with a bosonic force carrier. Yet the meson just
doesn't work as a boson. A boson is a quark antiquark composite
particle, which is a requirement for a boson, yet it has mass which is
banned for the boson. That is because a pi+ is an 'paired with
antidown. To be a boson would require an 'up' paired with an antiup.
This seems to be an instanton which according to Wiki is poorly
understood and does not really fit into QCD. I have fitted it into a
speedboat model below. There are other uses of up-antiup but only in
quantum state notation both entangled and added to the down-antidown,
which implies the up-antiup is not being used on its own as a boson.
The up-antiup instanton, along with the down-antidown instanton, are
the true bosons of the gluon as I shall show below. They each come in
colour flavours.

First a recap on photon production by pair annihilation in QED. In my
previous terminology LL + RR = LR + RL was electron + positron -->
two photons with different polarisations. I shall need to use
different notation for QCD as the particles come in triple chambers.
Ie we would need LLL and RRR. But there are more complications with
three chambers so I will use x for matter and X for antimatter.
Incidentally, I can only see matter as negative charge and antimatter
as positive charge. They seem to be the same thing to me. That could
explain where the missing antimatter is in the universe: in the
atoms. But I have a second theory related to matter and anti-matter
travelleing opposite ways round the BB cycles. Rather like a 400
metres athletics event in which the odd lane runners ran clockwise and
even lane runners ran anti-clockwise. But more in a later post.

I am going to have to first devise speedboats for the fermion
equivalents:
(Where the red is column 1, green is col. 2, blue is col. 3.)
(Note that lower case denotes normal matter and upper case denotes
anti-matter.)

r 0 0 is a red 'electron' or redon.
0 g 0 is a green 'electron' or greenon.
0 0 b is a blue 'electron' or bluon.

R 0 0 is a red 'positron' or anti-redon.
0 G 0 is a green 'positron' or anti-greenon.
0 0 B is a blue 'positron' or anti-bluon.

Colour charge in QCD uses anti-colour carriers, so I need to build
speedboats for them also.

0 g b is an anti-red 'electron' or bluegreenon.
r 0 b is an anti-green 'electron' or redbluon.
r g 0 is an anti-blue 'electron' or redgreenon.

0 G B is an anti-red 'positron' or anti-bluegreenon.
R 0 B is an anti-green 'positron' or anti-redbluon.
R G 0 is an anti-blue 'positron' or anti-redgreenon.

That is the full set of 12 fermion-like particles. Six matter
(negative charge) and six anti-matter (positive charge) particles.
The speedboats with two chambers occupied simultaneously have double
the charge of the single occupancy chambers. So a redon is charge
-1/3; a bluegreenon is -2/3; an anti-redon is 1/3; and, an anti-
bluegreenon is 2/3.

These are the 12 versions of quarks. In atoms made of normal matter,
the down particle comes in three flavours: redon, greenon, bluon each
with charge -1/3. The up particle is in three flavours: anti-
bluegreenon, anti-redbluon, and anti-redgreenon each with charge 2/3.

Next, we need to try to create the colour bosons, ie the instantons,
by particle-antiparticle annihilation of a redon and anti-buegreenon.

r 0 0 + 0 G B --> r/0 + 0/G+ 0/B

I have used new terminology here for the QCD bosons: r/0 is used
rather than the previous LL notation in my QED models. That is because
column place in QCD denotes colour, so I do not want to compound that
with the old teminology for bosons.

Note that there are three different speedboats of the same apparent
structure as in QED, ie two-stroke engines. The three-chambers of the
'electons' become two-chamber boson speedboats. I am not surprised as
the two-stroke, turbo powered speedboat of the photon is such a good
design that it would be a waste to invent something different for
QCD. These speedboats are genuine bosons appearing in QCD.

Using the other flavours to complete the instantons gives alltogether:
r 0 0 + 0 G B --> r/0 + 0/G+ 0/B
0 g 0 + R 0 B --> 0/R + g/0+ 0/B
0 0 b + R G 0 --> 0/R + 0/G+ b/0

That is 9 instantons in at least six different flavours: r/0, g/0, b/
0, 0/R (twice), 0/G (twice) and 0/B (twice). The different polarities
of LR and RL in QED's photon make me think that there are really 9
different flavours here rather than 6, but I am unsure.

By analogy with QED, these speed boats can ram any appropriate quark
and deflate one of its spacetime bags and change the spin of that
quark. If an r 0 0 is rammed it could be changed to either a 0 g 0 or
a 0 0 b quark. Thus the instanton changes quark colour flavour. I
have not found any bosonic mechanism in standard QCD (maybe I
overlooked it? I only found a mesonic mechanism, but that was swapping
rather than creating by deflation and should not change spin) for
changing spin states of quarks, and there should be a mechanism, as
quarks have spin 1/2.

When an appropriate speedboat rams a quark with charge 2/3, there is
only one chamber available for the new 4D spacetime after the
singularity. I suspect that there are complicated rules (inferrable
from the Gell Mann matrices) for deciding if the appropriate instanton
is allowed to deflate that bag of the particular quark and maybe there
is only one cyclic order of rotation of chamber occupancy. As if
there were one-way valves connecting the three chambers: that sort of
rule, anyhow.

Next is quark-instanton interactions, though I do not know the exact
rules, though I will try to work them out another time from the Gell-
Mann matrices:
r 0 0 + r/0 --> 0 g 0 or 0 0 b

This is directly equivalent to the electron changing spin when acted
on by a photon. Here a redon changes to either a greenon or a bluon
when interacting with an appropriate instanton. Different colour
quarks are simply the different spin states of a quark.

And, similarly, for a quark of charge 2/3:
0 G B + 0/G = R 0 B
Ie an approriate instanton (0/G) acts on a quark with charge 2/3 (0 G
B) and changes it to another quark of charge 2/3 (R 0 B). Ie anti-
bluegreenon + an instanton --> andi-redbluon. And changes its spin
state.

Note that as all quarks fire only one chamber at a time, they have
spin half. The turbo powered instantons fire both chambers at the
same time (this is a special effect of time reversal in the antimatter
chamber making a succession of two firings seem like a double firing)
and so have spin 1.

Finally, how the mesons change a neutron to a positron and vice versa:

A neutron is up down down = (0 X X) + (r 0 0) + (r 0 0), considering
only the red flavoured version.
A pi+ is an up-antidown so add that to the neutron. Well, just look at
the final 'down':
(r 0 0) + [(0 G B) + (0 g 0) + (0 0 b)] --> (0 G B) + [(r 0 0) +
(0 g 0) + (0 0 b)]

--> anti-bluegreenon + [redon + greenon + bluon]
= 'up' quark + a spare set of three down quarks of spin -1/3, of an
overall neutral flavour. Hence the neutron loses -1 of net charge and
becomes the 'up down up' proton. [Note that an antidown is a sum of
the two separate of not-red colours. ]

The reverse step is similar, still using red favours:
pi- = down & antiup = (r 0 0) + [ (R 0 B) + (R G 0) ], so add this
to the up of the proton:
up + pi- = (0 G B) + (r 0 0) + [ (R 0 B) + (R G 0) ]
--> (r 0 0) + [ (0 G B) + (R 0 B) + (R G 0) ]
= down quark + a spare set of three up quarks, of overall neutral
flavour, and of spin 2/3. the neutron started with an (0 G B) and
ended with an (r 0 0) and so gained +1 of charge.

[ben6993]

> instanton rules of usage.

Sorry. There were two typos in the previous post of mine that might
interfere a little with making sense of it.

1. Paragraph 4 line two. Third sentence of th para. should begin "A
meson is a quark antiquark composite...".

2. The word "up" had been omitted two lines further down: "That is
because a pi+ is an 'up' 'paired with antidown."

Also I have realised that the each of the nine instanton boson
flavours will have a separate function. For example, the two 0/G
instantons were created form different quark-antiquark annihilations.
I think that they must both be used as follows:

Usage in acting on the 0 G 0 down : in this case the result could be
either R 0 0 or 0 0 B. The two 0/G instantons will send the 0 G 0
quark into two different quark colour flavours.

The same instanton is to act on the two different up quarks R G 0
and 0 G B. I presume that the appropiate 0/G quark must be used to
act on each separate quark. Ideally the instanton 0/G should carry in
its symbol the quark from which it was formed. One 0/G was formed
from redon-antibluegreenon annihilation and the other from bluon-
antiredgreenon annihilation. So, say use the notation: 0/G(r) and 0/
G(b).

[ben6993]

I have today found out more about propellor screws and it confirms
what I expected about my electron and photon speed boat designs.
Please see the Wiki extract far below. The use of left hand and right
hand propellor screws, ie contra-rotating propellors, is my model for
the photon and neutrino. They both travel linearly at speed c. Note
that the extract says that contra-rotating propellors produce very
little swirl and are efficient. The photon also uses turbo-charging
to feed the exhaust from one propellor into the feed for the other
propellor and can self-sustain the firing of both propellors. The
neutrino can only fire one propellor and only once (ie similar to the
electron in that respect). Even though the neutrino has one propellor
non-fired, that screw is still 'in the water' and contributes to the
efficiency of the engine.

The electron is propelled by two same-rotating propellors, though only
one at a time. Note how the extract says that the use of one
propellor alone will give 'heeling' torque: either clockwise or
anticlockwise torque. The use of two same-propellors will exaggerate
that torque. Hence the jitterbug motion (Zitterbewegung
Interpretation) of the electron spinning at speed c. If the positron
spins (say) clockwise, then the electron would spin anticlockwise.
That is because matter and anti-matter have counter-rotating threads.
Note that the two spin states for an electron are still both 'matter'
and both use the same-rotating direction. Ie both spin spaces for an
electron are identical in propellor thread, even though they do occupy
different 3D spaces from one another.

Extract from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
"A propeller that turns clockwise to produce forward thrust, when
viewed from aft, is called right-handed. One that turns anticlockwise
is said to be left-handed. Larger vessels often have twin screws to
reduce heeling torque, counter-rotating propellers, the starboard
screw is usually right-handed and the port left-handed, this is called
outward turning. The opposite case is called inward turning. Another
possibility is contra-rotating propellers, where two propellers rotate
in opposing directions on a single shaft, or on separate shafts on
nearly the same axis. One example of the latter is the CRP Azipod by
the ABB Group. Contra-rotating propellers offer increased efficiency
by capturing the energy lost in the tangential velocities imparted to
the fluid by the forward propeller (known as "propeller swirl"). The
flow field behind the aft propeller of a contra-rotating set has very
little "swirl", and this reduction in energy loss is seen as an
increased efficiency of the aft propeller."

[ben6993]

> A puzzle about up and down quark masses

The up quark has mass ~ 4 MeV/cc, charge 2/3 and spin 1/2.
The down quark has mass ~ 8 MeV/cc, charge -1/3 and spin 1/2.

In the sub-quanta model, I assumed that the up quark contents (per
spin state) were net massless and equal to the down quark contents,
per spin state. Though that assumption was simply for symmetry rather
than being essential.

The up quark ocupies two spin states simultaneously. That gives it
double the charge of the down quark. The up and down quarks are
oppositely charged and I am having difficulty seeing a structural
difference between the positive charge of an up quark and the positive
charge of a positron. One difference is that the up quark seems to
travel in the +time direction whereas the positron travels in the -
time direction.

The up quark has two of its spin state spacetimes filled with matter.
I had previously noted that one quark had a mass of 4 and the other a
mass of 8 and I had assumed that the quark with two bags full was the
one with double the mass. But, in fact, it is the other way around and
the double-bag up quark is half the mass of the down quark.

The rest mass of the contents of either quark should be net zero as
the whole content need to be convertible to bosons during its cycle.
The fact that the quark has a rest mass and yet is an elementary
particle must mean that it is jitterbugging like the electron. Ie
spinning at speed c in its total structure and the apparent mass is
caused by inertia of a spinning gyroscope trying to overcome it being
moved. As that gyroscope is spinning orthogonally of all our 4D real
space for laboratory measurements, that inertia applies to resist
motion in any direction in space.

For an up quark there are two spin spaces occupied simultaneously and
so there are two gyroscopes running simultaneously. The two
gyroscopes are orthogonal to each other and also both are orthogonal
to the 3D real laboratory space. I can't yet think how to calculate
effects of two gyroscopes in three 3D orthogonal spaces, but maybe the
two gyroscopes diminish each others' inertial effects and so reduce
the up quark's apparent mass. That, I suppose, if it were genuine,
would be an anti-gravity effect of the Eric Laithwaite type. But I
can also picture it as simply an interference effect with one spin
somehow diluting the effect of the other.

Another possibility is that the quoted masses of the up and down
quarks may not be true representative of them. As I understand it,
these masses are naked masses after the mesonic glue effects have been
partitioned out of a total group mass which included gluing and rest
mass effects. So maybe the partitions are in slightly the wrong place?

I have an idea, which I am still thinking about, that for two
particles to be of different charges may be the same thing in
principle as two particles being of matter and antimatter. Maybe that
is so in principle, yet anti-matter (of either charge) appears to
travel backwards in time so it is not straightforward to see charge
sign difference as the cause of anti-matter. The reason for the
complication might be that the missing antimatter of our spacetime bag
is in a separate spacetime bag travelling in the reverse direction to
us through the BB universe. The sub-quanta approach allows that to
happen unobtrusively as the antimatter space would simply be a point
in the real 3D space, like any other quantum. And its effects would
only be felt by us as a field effect of its sub-particles. That is
why anti-matter particles can pop out of the vacuum energy of the
Implicate, and why it is travelling in the reverse direction to us.

[ben6993]

> more thoughts on the neutrino

My idea for the neutrino structure may need to be revised. I made it
very similar to the structure for the electron, positron, photon
because at that time I did not have a model for the quarks and so that
model could not arise out of scrutiny of an annihilation process. One
method of producing the neutrino is when a pi- meson decays into a
high energy electron plus an anti-neutrino. A pi- meson comes in
three colours but (say) take the red-antired quark pairing: red/
antired pi- meson = (r 0 0) + ((0 G B)) where upper case denotes the
anti particle; and a double bracket denotes an anti-matter spacetime
bag. I need to come back to spacetimes bags which seem to be very
strange and indestructible entities. Any yet their compartments seem
interchangeable, to some extent, as are lego bricks. Yet one needs to
keep track of whether they are matter or anti-matter bags.

The two parts of the meson need to be separable as that is the way
they are used as gluons. Like a swap shop providing the appropriate
whole quark at the right time and place to change a neutron to a
proton or vice versa.

The gluons themselves need a glue to keep their two parts together. A
gluon is a quark and an anti-quark together so why do they not
annihilate each other? They do annihilate one another and form
instantons in the following method:
(r 0 0) + ((0 G B)) = (r)/((0)) + (0)/((G)) + (0)/((B)).

The meson is held together by instanton glue in the following two-way
reactions:
(r 0 0) + ((0 G B)) <=> (r)/((0)) + (0)/((G)) + (0)/((B)).

After a while, thinking I would never see the struucture of an
electron and neutrino within the meson, I had the following eureka
idea:
(r 0 0) -> (r)/(0) + ( ). Ie pi- meson -> electron + anti-
neutrino.

An electron (.511 MeV/cc) is less massive than the down quark (8 MeV/
cc) which provides the electron, so the electron needs to be ejected
with high KE to make up that rest mass energy difference. And the
spacetime bag needs to be a normal-matter bag "( )", which it is.
[rather than an anti-matter bag: "(( ))"]

Whereas I had previously thought that the anti-neutrino was like a
photon but without a turbocharged engine, it now looks more like the
original Cheshire cat again: all smile but no substance: "( )" i.e.
just a spacetime bag compartment. Furthermore, if this is an anti-
neutrino in the pi- meson decay, then the neutrino is an anti-matter
particle: (( )).

> more thoughts on the Feynman path integral

Further to my post today on the strand re formal logic approach to QM,
I should make it clear that although I think I came to a better
understanding of the path integral in terms of standard QM, I can
still use the sub-quanta approach to get to the same place, but
without the superpositions.

Electron-positron creation and annihilation sees the electron moving
forward in time. At each annihilation the positron, which is really
the continuation of existence of the electron, travels backward
through time and also through the laboratory space. At the next
annihilation the electron moves forward in time but starting from a
different spatial location, and so on until the electron has been
virtually everywhere in the room simultaneously, thanks to the time
reversals involved. This approach, I think, has the electron in
superposed quantum states and at many spatial locations at the same
time. The integral must therefore be composed of both forward motions
and backward motions through time. That could still happen with the
electron even though it has sub-quanta. So the mathematics could
apply to my model also. But it is unlikely to be necessary as I
already have the sub-electrons distributed simultaneously throughout
the
laboratory space. And I have already shown that phi |1> + theta |0>
refers to the sub-electron states in the sub-quanta model (rather than
to the whole electron) and phi and theta have no predictive power to
forecast the whole-electron spin state. There is no spooky
superpositions in my model. The electron is always in either spin
state |1> or spin state |0>. One or the other, or instantaneously
only at the singularity between them. So whereas standard QM uses the
phi and theta to refer to spooky superposed states of whole electrons,
my version uses phi and theta to refer to sub-electron parts where an
individual electron part can be either |1> or |0>, but again not
superposed.

We never find the states of individual sub-electrons and that is why
probability is essential. But the probability reflects our lack of
knowledge and not spooky entanglement of physical objects.


> multiverse

I have read at times about the multiverse, which is also presented as
a spooky entanglement effect. In that presentation we could
mysteriously start in one universe and at each successive instant
wander into a different universe which is very like the other one
locally but is a parallel universe. Well,the sub-quanta model has a
kind of multiverse, but it is not the one described above. The
multiverse apperaring in the sub-quanta model is simply an Implicate
or vacuum energy. Caused by all particles having spacetime bags which
reduces them to points in our 3D real space. There could be 10^500 to
the power 10^500 in two fractal orders of magnitude within one just
electron and within each of its sub-electrons. So that vast number is
just in a small locality. But there is no spooky inter-universe
travel in the sub-quanta model.


> anti-matter meson anomaly

I read about the meson anti-matter anomaly today but will return to
it. I have thought more about the quark masses and have an idea that
the up and down masses are probably OK as in Wiki. If the total
colour must be neutral in a hadron or meson then the pi- meson must be
colour neutral.

Ie (r 0 0) + ((0 G B)) should be neutral. This is down quark + up
quark, resectively.

(r 0 0) has charge -1/3 and ((0 G B)) has charge +2/3, which does not
balance. But if the down quark has a mass double that of the up
quark, which it does in Wiki, then the sum of mass x charge is
2*(-1/3 )+ 2/3 = 0. Maybe that is the correct way to calculate the
balance? And maybe that leads back to unusual gyroscopic effects of
the doubly occupied spin spaces of the up quark, noted in the previous
post.

[ben6993]

> wordiness

As a mathematician, I can appreciate the beauty of a page of tightly
defined equations leading inexorably from assumption A to conclusion
B. Or the beauty in a surprisingly simple fractal equation or the
expectation of the beauty that will one day be found in a ToE. It is
necesary in the final delivery of an idea to remove every superfluous
word, because words are the subjective enemy. And to use only well-
defined symbols, as the mathematical symbols and equations are ones'
friends. Words with ambiguous meanings can obviously undermine the
integrity of the work. I know that.

However, science progresses by removing errors and re-packaging ideas
with those errors removed. The revised final product, although still
beautiful and succinct, no matter how apparently sound is its logic,
is susceptible to later revision. That is because it does not simply
contain the truth, it contains a potential for error.

An artistic painting makes a virtue of its errors, and errors give it
a hand-crafted appearance more beautiful than a robotic machine-like
accuracy. But it is not that easy for a scientist, who needs to
remove all possible errors from the presentation of an idea.

I have experience of making websites and will put a link to a paper
there when I have finished. But at the moment I cannot stop to draft
a paper as I am having more ideas on this issue every day. The ideas
would surely dry up if I pause this train of thoughts.

I started this sub-quanta approach a few weeks ago wondering where it
would lead. I did not know then that it would lead to a train of
ideas. I am convinced now that Joy Christian is correct about hidden
variables. There is no spookiness in QM using sub-quanta, but the
equations of QM still should stand. What needs to change is the
interpretation of the phis and thetas etc and that, at the moment, I
can only do with words. The flaws in QM need identifying and
unpacking before repackaging. I can only see, at this stage, that
being done by mathematics combined with wordiness. One only has to
look at the countless words in EPR / Bell entanglement papers and
discussions to identify that wordiness has a role in duscussion and
acceptance. Although I had great difficulty at first trying to
understand what a hidden variable is, I have a better idea now.
Wordiness seems essential in defining what a hidden variable is. In
fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the symbols and assumptions
used in a mathematical paper should each be defined by a line,
paragraph, an essay, a book or books, as necessary. For the paper is
likely to contain a concealed error, and that error is only likely to
emerge from hiding if the definitions and assumptions are as
completely described as possible. Too often assumptions are glossed
over or left to the reader to decide as they are part of the hidden
baggage one needs to cope with the subject. You need to maintain you
own grip on that baggage as your understanding of a subject increases.
But the lack of wordiness in a paper assumes that your baggage will
cope. In the present circumstances, it the very baggage of QM that I
am trying to show is wrong, rather than the QM formulae. So if I do
that without wordiness, the reader will fill in with their own
standard definitions. Further, I myself still fill in with standard
QM definitions as I struggle to keep my new viewpoint uppermost in my
mental maps.

Still, I ought to have restricted the wordiness to this strand.

[ben6993]

> A new idea for neutrino flavours

As well as it taking me a very long time to understand better the
meaning of a hidden variable (I remember early posts with Charles
Francis giving me some clues to understanding), I had also not easily
picked up the meaning of SU(3) and I remember Glen Herrmannsfeldt
replying to me and quoting SU(3) when I did not understand it. But
last night I gained a better insight.

The pi- meson decays into an energetic electron and an anti-neutrino.
But the decay is really of the (say red) down quark:
(r 0 0) -> (r 0) + ( )
where red quark = (r 0 0),
energetic electron = (r 0), which I sometimes write as (r)/(0) but
that notation is only essential when the particle carries a mix of
matter and anti-matter spacetime bags, and
anti-neutrino = ( ), ie an empty bag.

If I am correct, this can be described as an SU(3) up quark decaying
into an SU(2) electron plus an SU(1) anti-neutrino.

But the meson also contained the anti-red up quark. What could happen
to that?

Perhaps it stays as it is and later recombines with another red down
quark. But that appears not to happen as quarks resist being
isolated. Or it would need to happen very quickly. The up quark
cannot decay into instantons as instantons require one matter bag and
one anti-matter bag and the the up quark only has anti-matter bags.
The up quark could split this way, of course, if more 'matter' bag
particles were introduced into the mixture.

Perhaps it breaks down using inputted energy in one of the following
three ways:
1. ((0 G B)) -> ((0 G)) + ((B))
2. ((0 G B)) -> ((0 B)) + ((G))
3. ((0 G B)) -> ((0)) + ((G)) + ((B))
where
((0 G)) is an energetic positron, as is ((0 B)), both with a lot of
K.E.
((0)) is an electron neutrino.
((B)) and ((G)) are energetic neutrinos with non-empty bags.

A single bag or SU(1) cannot power its own motion, nor can it gain
propulsion via a boson mediator as no null bag is attached to it so it
cannot pass through a singularity into an awaiting spacetime bag. The
B and G represent contents which must be a mixture of massless bosons,
plus massive fermions which are completely balanced by antimatter-
fermions so the ((G)) and ((B)) are each energetic neutrinos of net
mass zero. So that gives three flavours of neutrino though, at the
moment, I cannot see anything which would distinguish a ((G)) from a
((B)) when detected?

Amazingly, the spin of a neutrino is carried by its empty spacetime
bag. An analogy is a speedboat travelling through the water with the
engine power off but the propellor is still in the water and engaging
with the water and rotating powered by the water. For a neutrino the
propellor is engaging with fields from sub-particles and apparently
influencing the other sub-particles/fields

[ben6993]

> a new idea for dark matter, three neutrino varieties and BEC
conditions

DARK MATTER SUMMARY:
Dark matter may be normal matter with the SU(3) structure removed/
broken down.
That implies that dark matter is not changing spin states, as it has
only one spin state.
Energy external to the BB universe is providing this energy for dark
matter production and it is increasing.
This implies that dark matter is bringing the BB universe towards a
final BEC condition where nothing changes spin state.

NEUTRINO SUMMARY
Three different types of neutrino can be derived from the decay of a
red/anti-red pi- meson.
Actually from the anti-red part of the meson:
((0 G B)) can be broken into the following parts:
((0)) : neutrino type I, and
((G)) and ((B)) : neutrinos, probably indistinguishable from one
another, of type II. Or,
((G B)): a neutrino of type III.
((R G B)) Could be a neutrino of type IV but it cannot be formed from
one single pi- meson decay.
Different coloured pi- mesons could, for completeness give also ((R))
and ((R G)) and ((R B)) but they are probably indistinguishable from
types I - III.
Question: are these all neutrinos or are some dark matter particles,
or are they both?

BEC CONDITIONS.
At the end-of-cycle BEC stage of the universe, elementary particles
have no ability to change spin states.
This is because there are no empty spin spaces of the form '0'
available for use.
The SU(n) logic therefore breaks down as there can be no movement of
contents from one cell to another empty cell. Particles are of the
form: (r) or (r g) or (r g b) etc., with no '0's included. Or maybe
there is even a final, (r g b r g b ....), super-particle. Ie it is
uninteractive dark matter. The (0)s and ((0))s are not destroyed,
merely separated out. This gives no scope for any boson interaction
with fermions.

At mid-cycle stage, there is a maximum availablity of '0's included:
eg (r 0 0) for a red down quark.
This gives maximum scope for boson-fermion interactions.

NOTE ABOUT FORMAT. I have reacted to Mike's criticism by adding the
above summary.

Incidentally, I think that Mike's most recent post with the finding
which explains in formal logic why probability is the square root of
amplitude, is wonderful. Assuming another logician confirms that his
method is watertight, and I have very little doubt that it is good. I
can follow the broad outline myself.

DISCUSSION.
I first tried to work out why there were the three flavours of
neutrino that I noted in the recent LHC experiments about neutrino
speed. That soon led me to finding ((0)), ((R )) and ((R G)). Next
I wondered whether they had a small mass or not. ((0)) is simply an
empty anti-matter ethereal spacetime bag and so it has no mass.

((R G)) has potential for mass if it is jitterbugging like an
electron. The electron's condition for jitterbugging, in my view, was
that it had two propellors with the same thread. Ie they have two
identical pasta twist shapes. ((R G)) would have two identical mirror-
image pasta twist shapes and so would be suitable for jitterbugging
and therefore a mass. As the contents of ((R G)) are the same as
those of the
anti-blue up quark, ((R G 0)), its mass could be the same. The two
like-shaped propellors both working at the same time seen to halve the
mass of the single blue down quark which only has one propellor
working at any time. So ((R G)) could have the same mass as the up
quark: ~400MeV/cc. And yet the lack of an empty cell means that it
cannot be acted on by an instanton. An interaction implies bringing
one cell to a singularity and sending the contents through to an empty
cell. Thus it is a non-interactive type of broken-down quark which
leads me to think it is a good candidate for a dark matter particle.
So I suspect that neutrinos cannot be of the form ((R B)) as that
would give them too much mass. So I need to look further for the
three flavours of neutrino but the on the other hand it gives a
candidate for dark matter.

The ((R)) could be a candidate for a neutrino or for dark matter. I
suspect that a single propellor for a single spacetime bag,
uninfluenced a companion propellor either switched off or on, as it
has no companion, can give a linear speed c. So it is a candidate for
a neutrino. But is has no scope for interaction, and hence it is a
candidate for dark matter. Perhaps it is both forms at the same time.

A matter plus anti-matter propellor gives a particle linear speed c.
Hence (r)/((G)) might be a neutrino and dark matter [and dark anti-
matter!] at the same time.

A very strange idea is that the spacetime bag which, I find hard to
think of as real might itself have a structure. I have already said
that a spacetime bag is apparently indestructable and also that
spacetime bags only form when there is motion at c embedded somehow
within them. Say the bag is jitterbugging like an electron. But the
mass is so slight that it does not hang around in our local vicinity
but speeds off linearly at C. Perhaps that exceedingly small mass is
what keeps it from travelling faster than c? Ie a particle with a
spacetime bag is limited to no more than speed c because of the small
'gyroscopic inertial mass' of the bag. If a tachyon exists it should
be bagless. And it cannot slow down as it has no method of producing
an inertial gyroscopic mass. If a spacetime bag has zero contents
then it must have something tangible to move at speed c and this is
all I can think of to allow a spacetime bag to have a continued
existence.

Also, I have not considered heavier forms of quark than the up and
down variety. If the neutrino flavours I have read about are simply
related to electron, muon & tau then the (0) and ((0)) might suffice.
The zero bag can come from red or green or blue flavours but I cannot
see those as distinguishable. I think that the three flavours
referred to in the LHC experiment must be colour flavours.

Candidates for neutrinos from one colour flavour of pi- meson decay,
say from (r 0 0) & ((0 G B)):
((0)), ((R)) and ((G))
and anti-neutrinos: (0) and (r).
Mixed matter neutrinos: (r)/((G)) and (r)/((B))

Candidate for dark matter: (r).
Candidates for dark anti-matter: ((G)), ((B)) and ((G B)).
Candidates for dark mixed model matter & anti-matter: (r)/((G)), (r)/
((B)) and (r)/((G B)).

I think that I can see a distinction between neutrinos and dark
matter. Dark matter and dark anti-matter is jitterbugging matter or
anti-matter with broken down SU(3) structure where no interactions
occur as there are no empty spin spaces. jitterbugging keeps dark
matter local by stopping it from from speeding linearly at c. Dark
matter with only one one state or which uses both matter and anti-
matter bags can travel at speed at c and are what are already called
neutrinos. There needs to be a balance of matter and anti-matter
propellors to avoid jitterbigging so (r)/((G B)) should jitterbug with
a mass somewhere in the region of the up and down quarks. But he mass
is undetectable.

One more question for me to ponder. If gravitational attraction is
mediated or activated by boson interaction, how does the dark matter
affect gravity on a large scale eg galactic rotation effects, yet be
undetectable on a smaller scale?


The breaking down of SU(3) structure is contributing to a growing mass
of dark matter. This is likened to the gradual increase in entropy
and the inexorable transit of the BB universe to its end-of-cycle BEC
state where the entire SU(3) structure is broken.

[ben6993]

> trying to understand neutrino colours and flavours using sub-
quanta

SUMMARY: deleting all my candidates for a neutrino structure until
only the (0 0) and ((0 0)) are left.

DISCUSSION: Neutrino flavour refers to electron neutrino or muon
neutrino or tau neutrino. These are the three interchanging flavours
as noted in my reading about the LHC apparent FTL speed of neutrinos.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillations)

Coloured neutrinos refer to colour charge neutrinos as I have already
suggested arise by crashing the structure of SU(3) quarks into SU(2)
and SU(1) quarks. I have not met coloured neutrinos in the literature
yet, but although I can generate them in my SU(3) structure-crashing
as fragments of quarks, I doubt if the colour differences are
detectable in the laboratory.

SU(1) structures need no matix description. Pauli spin matrices apply
to SU(2) and Gell-Mann matrices apply to SU(3). It is only a few
days since I encountered the Gell-mann matrices but now I have
realised that that changes within the fragments of SU(3) quark
structures of the neutrino are described by the Majorana basis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_matrices#Majorana_basis, which was
devised for that purpose. I also note from that Wiki page that Dirac
matrices allow the expression of infinitesimal rotational changes
{which I will probably need to describe flavour changing} and Lorentz
boosts and are a matrix representation of Cl(1,3) Clifford Algebra.
Quote: "Dirac algebra can be regarded as a complexification of the
real algebra Cl(1,3)(R) called the space time algebra".

The dark matter fragments of quarks seem too rich in variety to be
needed in the neutrino flavours. Only one colour flavour is perhaps
needed, but which one?

Coloured dark matter fragments of the red-antired pi- meson, (r 0 0) &
((0 G B)):
(0),((0)), (r), ((G)), ((B)), (r)/((G)), (r)/((B)), ((G B)).

If similar structures of different colours are representable by just
one colour, the list reduces to:
(0),((0)), (r), ((G)), (r)/((G)), ((G B)).

Only (r)/((G)) is neutral in charge:
(0) and (r) have negative charge, while
((0)), ((G)) and ((G B)) have positive charge.

The neutrality of charge of (r)/((G)) is interesting. G is from the
up quark which has two such contents simultaneously and only has total
mass 4 MeV/cc. The 'r' is from the down quark and is the total
contents of that quark and so should have mass 8 MeV/cc. But the
masses balance in the mixed structure as r and G have effectively the
same content. The up quark reduces in mass from 8 to 4 units compared
to the down quark's 8 units because of an interference in gyroscopic
effect with two gyroscope acting together in
orhogonal spaces in the up quark. As the neutrino masses are equal
and the charge signs are opposites, so the overall charge is neutral
for (r)/((G)).

Yet (r)/((G)) has two propellors one of normal pasta twist shape and
one of the mirror image, so overall it should not jitterbug. It
should move at the speed of light and record no mass. Unless of
course its small mass is that of the spacetime bag, but that seems a
desperate solution. However the photon also has a spacetime bag and
yet the mass of the photon is no greater than 3×10-27 eV/c2 (Ref:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass),
whereas the combined mass of the three neutrino flavours is less than .
28 eV which implies a much larger mass than the photon could have.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Mass) So the bag mass can be
excluded. [Sometimes eV/cc is used and sometimes eV, but whatever the
units above, the photon mass is much smaller than the neutrino mass.
Not sure if they are used as identical units with c assumed to be 1.]

To have a mass the neutrino must be one of: (r), ((G)), ((G B)). To
jitterbug requires two bags, even if one bag is empty, therefore the
best candidate for the neutrino is ((G B)). The (r) and ((G)) will
not jitterbug but will travel at speed c. The ((G B)) structure will
jitterbug but will be far too heavy and will carry a significant
positive charge. So that rules out all of my first suggestions!

Returning again to the null bags (0) and ((0)). Even they will not
jitterbug and are therefore ruled out. Some desperate creative
thinking arrived at smashing two down quarks separately from smashing
two up quarks:
(r 0 0) + (r 0 0) -> (r 0) + (r 0) + (0 0)
ie two red down quarks become two energetic electrons plus one anti-
neutrino, (0 0).

And ((0 G B)) + ((0 G B)) -> ((G B)) + ((G B)) + ((0 0))
ie anti-red up quarks become two dark matter particles plus one
neutrino, ((0 0)).

Here we get jitterbugging actions plus a zero mass content. However,
in the sub-quanta method, the vacuum energy is to be found at every
fractal level and so the null bags contain vacuum energy from which
can be formed virtual particles (ie sub-particles equivalent to QM
fields) of very small size which could give a small mass via
jitterbugging.

(0 0) would have a negative charge, while ((0 0))would have a positive
charge. But in the previous charge balancing equations, the mass had
to be taken into account so the neutrino and anti-neutrino would have
very small charge fields in accordance with their very small masses.
Thus, the neutrinos could be uninteractive even though they had minute
charges.

Having found a reasonable looking neutrino candidate, I will pursue
the flavour changing process in a subsequent post in a way that does
not involve entangled flavour states.

[ben6993]

> flavour changing process of neutrinos

SUMMARY: slow realisation that I need a new majorana quark model: eg
(0 0 , 0 0))

DISCUSSION:
Starting with the only candidate I can find for the neutrino, ((0 0)),
and anti-neutrino, (0 0), the mechanism for flavour changing is
required in sub-quanta theory. Note that this form has a very minute
charge caused by the propellor shapes but moderated by the small mass.

In QM, the three flavours of neutrino are in a superposed quantum
state. If the neutrino is a Majorana particle, that would seem to
best fit the descriptions of a neutrino having three interchangeable
flavours with a small mass. Although it is not definitely such a
particle. In fact, there may be several other possibilities for
neutrino structures. I ruled out quite a few possible structures
which may be undetectable neutrinos, or simply dark matter candidates,
to find the candidate having very small mass which is produced using
the jitterbug effect.

Forgetting neutrino sub-structures for the moment and concentrating of
whole-neutrino properties. Suppose a stream of very energetic protons
is produced and they decay to neutrinos. I have already defined decay
from protons to quarks and, separately, from quarks to neutrinos. Say
a single tau neutrino is produced.

I suggest that, if there were no further interactions with it, it
would stay like that. Simularly, a muon neutrino would stay as a muon
neutrino and an electron neutrino would stay as an electron neutrino.

But neutrinos are produced, as far as I know, in a great stream. Many
are needed subsequently to detect merely one. Note that they have a
very minute charge which could imply they have the capability to repel
one another slightly in this stream. Say the tau neutrino jostled
with a neutrino ahead of it and lost speed. If it could no longer
maintain energy to support a tau neutrino it could decay into a muon
meson, with the excess energy used to boost its speed. More jostling
with the neutrino ahead could similarly
reduce it to an electron neutrino with a boost of speed.

Jostling with a following neutrino could propel it forward and
ocasionally give it enough speed to convert back to a muon neutrino,
more jostling and it could convert back to a tau neutrino. And that
completes the cycle. Note that this does not involve superposition of
the neutrino flavours, merely travelling as one flavour at a time.

Neutrino superposition of flavours seems a possible candidate for use
of Clifford Algebra to show that the neutrino flavours are not in fact
superposed. However I do not have the skills to do that. It seems to
me that as neutrinos do not (in my method) change spin state,
neutrinos occupy a 3D spin space rather than two 3Ds of spin space in
Clifford Algebra. However the flavours seem to occupy three 3D
abstract flavour spaces. I am not sure yet, in my method, if the
neutrino needs to enter a singularity state in order to change
flavour.

I note that an energetic electron was produced by fracturing a down
quark but I do not know, either, if that required a singularity or
not: (r 0 0) -> (r 0) + (0). It cannot be a simple breakage as quanta
are no-touch particles which work through fields (sub-particle effects
in my method). So maybe all the sub-particles need to unify in spin
state for the breakage. Unified spin states for a sub-neutrino imply
a singularity for the neutrino imply the potential for a change of
state. Not a spin state change as that is impossible, but a flavour
change. A singularity implies potential for a measurement, and hence
the Clifford Algebra could be used similarly to how it was for
electron/photon spin state? But maybe not.

I am saying that neutrinos cannot change spin state as the forms noted
earlier eg ((G B)) or (r) had no null bags available. The proposed
neutrino has two null bags so, technically, it could change spin.

However, I am supposing that the two null bags are so empty that the
boson mediator, the (r)/((0)) instanton, cannot squeeze it further
into a singularity as it is designed to work on a, say, (r 0 0) quark
where it squeezes a bag with much more contents.

The above description has been mainly at whole-neutrino level.
Although at the whole particle level, there is no '0' space for change
of spin state, the sub-particles are a mix of spin states and there is
ample opportunity for change at that level. Although the whole
neutrino will be fixed in its spin state, the sub-neutrinos (or the
neutrino field interms of normal QM) can change spin states and that
is where the matrix notation can still be brought into play. However,
if and when a potential singularity is reached within the neutrino, by
all its sub-states being identical, it cannnot change spin state but
it can change flavour.

The question is whether or not singularities are needed to change
flavour. Flavour changes are quantised and correspond to say n=1 (the
fundamental) or electron neutrino , n=2 the muon neutrino, and n=3 the
tau neutrino. But I am only using these particular 'n' values to get
a first mental image of the neutrino's flavours. What I described
above had the neutrino starting with a vibration at n=3, plus linear
speed, and by jostling worked down in energy to n=2, then n=1 both
with linear speed. Then back up to n=2 and
n=3 again.

I previously quoted from Wiki that Dirac matrices allow the expression
of infinitesimal rotational changes and Lorentz boosts. That seems to
be what is happening to the neutrino so the matrix usage is important,
but does a change from n=1 to n=2 require more than a boost and also
require a singularity.

It is a concern for my model that an inhomogeneous magnetic field can
change the spin and flavour of a Majorana neutrino. (http://
prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v24/i7/p1883_1) It is good news that the
neutrino can be affected by a magnetic field as I have suggested that
the neutrino has a small charge. But it is bad news for me that a spin
change identifies with changing particle to anti-particle.

Maybe I need a new design. I did not mention the (0 0)) as a possible
matter-antimatter design. But that would be massless and of zero
charge, and no use as a Majorana particle candidate.

Another eureka moment. Suppose the structure was a very strange one:
(0 0 , 0 0 )). The first two zeros are in matter bags and the last
two zeros are in anti-matter bags. If two of the zeros were empty,
that would allow change of spin state to satisfy the abstract in
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v24/i7/p1883_1. Say the other two
spin spaces had minute contents from the vacuum energy inside the
bags. Using an x and y to denote the non-zero bags gives the
following arrangements:

A. (x y , 0 0)) ... a slight negative charge and a matter
particle
B. (x 0 , y 0)) ... neutral charge and mixed matter-antimatter
particle
C. (0 0 , x y)) ... a slight positive charge and an anti-matter
particle

Here, spin states can change and going from A to C is a double change
of spin state and transfers from matter to anti-matter particle in
terms of spin spaces occupied by neutrino contents. Also, this would
make the neutrino its own anti-particle. Does the jitterbug effect
really happen, however, in this model?

I am unsure, and yet it is required to give the particle a small
gyroscopic mass.

A change of spin state could change the particle from massive to
massless and give it speed c resulting from a spin state change. Is
that too odd?

[ben6993]

> a good model for the Majorana neutrino?

SUMMARY: I have finally found a neutrino model which I like and which
seems to meet the requirements. Also, this neutrino comes in three
masses [actually two masses and one massless form] resulting simply
from spin state changes. I wonder if this is the true cause of the
three types of neutrino, rather than their being caused by different
flavours. Although there is nothing to prevent different flavours
also occurring.

DISCUSSION:
My previous model for the neutrino, (0 0 , 0 0 )), has two
uncertainties. First, I did not sincerely like the idea of all the
bags being empty and, second, I was not sure if the jitterbugging
would take place, and the bag contents were so small to begin with, ie
a few sub-neutrinos only, taken from vacuum energy.

I suddenly juxtaposed the two ideas that the contents did not need to
be small and the the jitterbugging can produce any size of mass. Also
my earlier uncertainty about whether or not the jitterbugging would
take place represented my quite strong feeling that the jitterbugging
could occur but only to a reduced amount. Combining those two effects
made a solution appear which I feel much more confident about.

Neutrino structure: (r 0 , 0 G)) or (r 0 , 0 B)).
The first two positions are for matter propellors, the second two
positions are for anti-matter propellors, hence the double brackets on
the right.

These structures arise from a mix of the parts of the red down quark
and the anti-red up quark. There is no real difference between r, G
and B as bag contents. The matter versus anti-matter property being
bestowed by the difference in propellor/bag shapes.

The fairly symmetric structure combined with the use of matter and
anti-matter propellors should make the neutrino travel near speed c of
its own right. But the symmetry is not perfect as there are four
propellors used, in any choice of two propellors at a time. The
slight asymmetry leads to a slight mass.

The photon only has two propellors, one matter and one anti-matter and
that travels at speed c and the symmetry is perfect.

Look at the propellor positions:
(r 0 , 0 G)) gives perfect symmetry and speed c with no mass.
(0 r , G 0)) gives perfect symmetry and speed c with no mass.
(r 0 , G 0)) is slightly asymmetrical and leads to a speed slightly
less than c. It may be misleading to call it jitterbugging, as with
an electron. Maybe it has just a slight curve ball effect. With a
slight mass.
(r G , 0 0)) is even more asymmetrical and leads to a speed slightly
less than c. Perhaps this has a different mass to the previous
arrangement. With a slightly larger mass.
(0 0 , r G)) also of the more asymmetric kind. With the same slightly
larger mass. Assuming there is no dfference between matter and anti-
matter formations with respect to mass producing gyroscopic effects.

This neutrino is its own anti-particle. It can have zero charge or a
very slight positive or a very slight negative charge. Those charges
will be useful for jostling effects in a large stream of neutrinos to
produce the flavour-changing ability of the neutrinos.

It seems to meet all the requirements of the abstract of
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v24/i7/p1883_1. Two spin changes can
change it from a matter particle to an anti-matter one. At least with
regard to where the contents lie ie (r G , 0 0)) -> (0 0 , r G)).
And a magnetic field will cause a small effect on it, and could change
its spin state.

The particle has SU(4) status and its spin changes will be governed by
the Majorana basis, although the SU(4) particle seems too complicated
to be governed solely by that basis as that was(?) in terms of
flavours whereas this neutrino seems to need a matrix to cater for its
spin state changes also. Maybe the Dirac basis? But I am not sure
and need to think more. In fact I am wondering if there has been some
confusion about the tau, muon and electron versions. Flavour changing
could also happen as I have previously described occurring by
jostling, but I have found three 'types' of neutrino in the above
model simply through spin state changes. Could these be getting mixed
up with the different flavours? Is it change of flavour or change of
spin state? Or both?

1. a massless neutrino of the forms: (r 0 , 0 G)) and (0 r , G 0)).
2. a slight mass of neutrino of the forms: (r 0 , G 0)) and (0 r , 0
G))
3. a slightly heavier neutrino of the forms: (r G , 0 0)) and (0 0 ,
r G))
These three types of neutrino can arise simply through spin state
changes for the SU(4) neutrino, acted on by their boson, the instanton
of the form eg (r)/((0)).

[ben6993]

> another possibility for a neutrino structure: (0, r G 0))

SUMMARY: I much prefer the symmetric neutrino model: ( 0 r , G 0))
but maybe the asymmetric version is more appropriate: (0, r G 0)) to
meet meson decay constituents. The symmetric model has two pairs of
contra-rotating propellors in the speed boat model. The new sugestion
has three propellors of one shape of twist [to the right of the comma]
and only one with a contra, mirror image twist [left of comma].

The new suggestion:
(r 0 0 ) + ((0 G B)) -> (r 0) + (0, 0 G B))
red down quark + anti-red up quark -> energetic electron + possible
new neutrino model.

I have suggested this new model because a single meson cannot break
down into an electron and the neutrino of my previous model. However,
I do prefer the previous, symmetric model for a number of reasons.

In a rather forced manner two mesons can be reassembled into two
neutrinos, of the previously suggested structure, plus an electron
plus a positron:

(r 0 0 ) + ((0 G B)) + (r 0 0 ) + ((0 G B)) ->
(r 0) + ((r 0)) + (0 0, G B)) + (0 0, G B))
electron + positron + two neutrinos. But that isn't quite fitting
requirements.

I do not want to lose this symmetric neutrino as it makes the neutrino
its own anti-particle and the sometimes massless form of it would seem
a possibility for the sterile neutrino, despite its masslessness and
its neutral handedness when in the bosonic choice of spin state. And
an in-flight change of spin state can give it two different masses and
change its handedness. All those seem positive features.

The masses of the newly suggested variant of the neutrino are,
starting with the lightest:
(r, G 0 0)) most symmetric form wrt having filled spin spaces of both
LH and RH types.
(r, 0 G 0))
(r, 0 0 B))
(0, r G 0))
(0, r 0 B))
(0, 0 G B)) least symmetric form, but still only a light mass.

The neutrino has four 3D spin spaces, one with the handedness of
normal matter (single parentheses) and three of anti-matter handedness
(double parentheses). The six different masses would all be very
small and caused by slight asymmetries in the balance of its
propellors. The mixture of both matter and antimatter propellors
would stop the neutrino jitterbugging like an electron with a heavy
gyroscopic mass but would instead give it a gentle curveball effect
with a much smaller mass. The six slightly different
asymmetries should give it six different small masses. Interaction
with its boson, the instanton eg (r,0)), allows a change of spin
state and a change of mass so allowing an in-flight change of mass.
The first three forms should have a neutral overall charge and could
perhaps be seen as sterile. The last three have a very slight positive
charge.

The small masses of the neutrino allows very high speeds but prevents
speed c. Jostling can therefore change neutrino flavours, eg tau
neutrinos to muon neutrinos, especially when there are six different
masses of neutrinos in the same beam. That should cause a lot of
collisions especially for the three forms with slight positive
charges.

[ben6993]

Using either of my SU(4) models for the neutrino: (r, G 0 0)) or (r
0 , G 0)), the flux of 5.44E+6 neutrinos/cm2s at the earth's surface
is equivalent to a total of 1.5E+34 neutrinos emitted by the sun per
sec. It would take the sun about one billion years to lose the
equivalent of the mass of the earth through neutrino production. That
assumes that the rest mass of the meson is about 12 MeV/cc and the
electron mass is 0.511 MeV/cc and that a simple subtraction gives the
loss of rest mass per neutrino produced.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/solneu.html:
"... led the SNO team to calculate a flux of (5.44 +/- 1) x 10^6
neutrinos/cm2s for all three types of neutrinos, a figure which agrees
well with the Bahcall calculation. "

I did the calculation as it seemed that my model was converting and
losing a lot of rest mass, but it is not an excessive loss, even after
one billion years.

[ben6993]

> Preparing an entangled electron

SUMMARY: prepaing an electron in an entangled state using my speed
boat model.

DISCUSSION:
Reviewing lecture 2 of Susskind's online Entanglement course 1 at
Stanford Univerity, an electron is prepared for entanglement by
bringing it near a magnet. Either the electron is stable and no
photon is eitted or the electron is unstable and a photon is given
off, taken as indicating that the electron has changed spin state to
become more stable near the magnet. It is described as a precessing
of the electron with loss of energy until a stable state is found. The
magnets can next be reallocated in the laboratory space at any angle
to the first setting, and again, either the electron emits a photon or
does not. That was described as weird, and it did seem so to me on
first seeing the lecture. If it seems less weird now it is only
because I am slowly accepting multi-dimensionsality beyond 4D. And
that has its own weirdness.

I am trying to use my speed boat analogy to understand this. Say the
electron has contents inside a normal pasta twist inside spin state
0. Where spin state 0 is a separate 4D world with three spatial
dimensions and a time dimension. Ie a BB type of cosmos. My pasta
twist is a right hand thread. It looks identical to me if I turn it
upside down. So why should it want to change spin state to become
stable?
The reason is that it has a time direction within it, and that makes a
difference to the activity of the electron contents within the screw
thread. [Yes, this is heresy to QM as it implies sub-quanta exist.
But it can be viewed instead as merely the electron field. There is
no difference to me between an electron field and the sub-quanta of
the electron.] It is the time direction within it rather than
spatial construction of the right-handedness that causes a difference
with respect to stability.

Another problem is that the only other spin space of the electron,
spin space 1, is also a right handed pasta twist. So why should the
electron move its contents from one 4D spin space to the other
identical shaped space to gain stability?

The answer lies in the use of contra-rotating propellors (ie one right-
handed pasta twist and one mirror image, left-handed twist) for the
most efficient speed boat propulsion, and the use of two such
propellors together give very little waste swirl in the water.

An electron is not so efficient. Not compared to a photon. An
electron has two like propellors and its motion is a jitterbugging,
going round in circles at speed c which gives it gyroscopic inertial
mass. Also the handedness causes the sign of the charge so two pasta
twists will repel one another and align it as anti a direction as
possible. Only one propellor is active at a time.

Looked at this way, one or other of the two spin states will be lined
up better with the magnetic field, so one position is more stable.
The stable position is the one where there is least swirl interaction
between the handedness of the electron spin state (requiring the
effect of its internal time direction to set the preference) and the
handedness of the magnetic field surrounding it.

The electron interacts with its field. An electron in the magnet
interacts via its field. The electron is most stable when those two
fields are interacting to give a contra-flowing pattern.

I have suggested that the spin space 1 is somehow repelled from spin
space 0 to be aligned in an opposing direction. But equally spin
space 1 could be lined up spatially identically to spin space 0 but
with the time direction reversed. That would have the same effect by
reducing swirl. The concept of oppositeness does not seem sensible
for two 4D spaces already mutually orthogonal, but there does seem to
be a mechanism at work in the universe where the metrics of the spin
spaces are projected onto a common metric in our 4D real space of
laboratory measurements. But that is not explained here. It requires
something similar to between-spacetimes and within-spacetimes Rasch
analyses to set a common metric. Maybe akin to a hologographic
projection onto our 4D laboratory spacetime.

I have been reading speed boat websites and think that I have
overestimated the role of the inactive electron propellor. Just one
propellor on its own should give the jitterbugging effect. One
speedboat engine will not on its own produce jitterbugging on a boat
with a rudder. But the electron space has no rudder. Rudderless
speed boats exist and require two contra-rotating propellors.
Direction of travel can be changed and controlled by firing one
propellor engine more stongly than the other propellor engine. But I
presume that a one-engined speed boat with no rudder would simply turn
in a circle. Like an electron.

This could mean that my asymmetric neutrino model has three spin
states where it travels linearly at c, and three more spin states
where it travels just less than c, with three different but very small
masses. That makes it more like my symmetric neutrino model in having
a massless version, but the symmetric model only had two different
masses whereas the asymmetric model has three.

[ben6993]

> FTL neutrinos?

SUMMARY: The neutrino is right-handed (say) while the background
fields tends to left-handedness. A right-handed neutrino could cut
through left-handed background fields even more efficiently than does
a neutral-handed photon? This is because maximum efficiency is one
using contra-rotating mechanisms, as in speed boat propellor design.
But I still expect experimental error to be the reason for the FTL
OPERA results.

DISCUSSION:
Although I expect experimental error to be the reason for FTL
neutrinos in the 2011 OPERA measurements, I have had an idea which
might explain FTL neutrinos. Though it may be clutching at straws to
be applied in desperation if an error cannot be found for OPERA.

My asymmetric neutrino model has six versions. Three are mixed matter/
antimatter structures, as is a photon, which can therefore travel at
speed c. For completeness, these neutrinos are SU(4) whereas a photon
is SU(2). The two null spin spaces carried by the neutrino could slow
these neurinos below c, but I am coming to the conclusion that they do
not. (See the final paragraph of the previous post for reasoning.)
Anyway, I believe these three matter/antimatter neutrinos are probably
undetectable, as they have zero charge, and could possibly be the
sterile neutrinos. However, a change of spin state mid-flight can
change them into the three neutrino types with a very small mass, so
they cannot be dismissed from what is going on in the detection
process of the three neutrino versions with mass plus a very small
charge.

A photon has one matter part plus one anti-matter part so it has zero
charge and a minimum swirl of fields as it travels (because of contra-
rotation speed boat propellor effect). That, however assumes that the
fields it passes through are neutral with respect to charge. In a
void, the medium would be neutral. In a background of vacuum energy,
that background would be the overall handedness of the matter/waves
composing the vacuum energy. It would be an assumption to make that
neutral, and I am not making that assumption.

Say the background vacuum energy had a handedness of that of the
electron: (say) left-handed. That is the opposite to that of a
neutrino, while the photon is neutral. A minimum swirl through a
background of left-handedness would be for a particle which has right-
handedness. My neutrino model has the opposite handedness to an
electron, so there is a case for it travelling through the background
vacuum energy with a speed greater than that of a photon. Because a
right-handed neutrino might create less swirl than a neutral photon in
travelling through a left-handed background.

However, the experiment was not carried out in mid-galaxy vacuum
energy but on and in the earth where there is much matter and many
fields. The photons interact highly with the electrons. And those
electrons tend to be on the outside of the atoms nearer the photon
flight path than the positive charges in the atom nucleii. So I
suppose the photon can be thought of as travelling in a medium of
mostly electron fields, (say) left-handed fields. The sterile
neutrino with speed c is not the appropriate model here. The
neutrinos being detected have three very small masses and very slight
charges. In my model, it is the slight charge of the neutrino which
directly equates with its small gyroscopic mass, caused by the
interference effect of two like-charged spin spaces both with content
at the same time. (Think of it as abstract neutrino content in
abstract vector space to avoid QM heresy. Using the word abstract
makes it clear that the neutrino is still a point particle in the real
4D world of laboratory results. And I am in agreement with that.)

So, a right-handed neutrino could perhaps cut through the background
left-handed fields more efficiently than a neutral photon. And hence
travel slightly FTL. But why does the small mass of the neutrino not
slow it down more? Perhaps it travels most of the way at FTL in the
form of a sterile neutrino and then changes spin state to become a
detectable neutrino with mass only late in its flight. Or, perhaps a
small-mass neutrino does not need to use that piggy-back trick but is
near enough to speed c in its own right, and slightly beyond c because
of its right-handed efficiency?

The biggest concern now for my model neutrino is why the three masses
are normally described as tau, muon and electron flavours, which are
not the same thing as spin state variations. I know that if a muon is
detected along with a neutrino then clearly the neutrino should be
labelled as a muon neutrino. I have already (in a previous post)
built 'jostling' into how my model operates and that can explain
changes from tau -> muon -> electron flavours and back again. Maybe
the differences in mass of the tau/muon/electron flavours are greater
than the differences between masses for the spin states. And
therefore thos are the ones now detected. Maybe greater detection
precision could find three spin state masses within each flavour:
eg x x x x x x x x x .

[ben6993]

> flaw in my idea for FTL neutrino

My idea above (or below) for the FTL neutrino is flawed in that I
confused permanent handedness of the electron structure (ie its pasta
twist) with handedness of its field (which requires an internal time
direction inside the electron to be selected).

When an electron is prepared for entanglement by bringing it near a
magnetic field, some electrons are already aligned with the field and
some emit a photon to become better aligned. That should have
reminded me that the electron fields are mixed. A pasta twist
representing an electron looks identical whichever way it is held in
the hand, up or down. But if one puts an arrow on it to represent its
internal time direction, then its field can be either right handed or
left handed, depending if it is held up or down. And as an electron
is travelling linearly with speed < c, one can look at it in different
directions and see different-handed fields on different occasions. So
a neutrino should not be faster than a photon in encountering such
randomly aligned fields. My neutrino model could only be faster than
a photon if the fields encountered tended to be left-handed rather
than a random mix. The neutrino has the added disadvantage of a mass
to hinder gaining speed, however small that mass is.

[ben6993]

> Stop press/ breaking news. Schrodinger's cat is dead.

Hold on. No, it might be alive. We are still not sure.

Christian's finding that hidden variables are permitted implies that
entanglement is only a matter of the observer's uncertainty. The
electron is not entangled, it is merely that the unobservant observer
does not know the spin state of the electron in between measurements.
That means that the cat is either dead or alive (ignoring various
degrees of comatose states permitted for a cat but not permitted for
the electron) irrespective of the knowledge of an observer. It is in
either one or the other state and not simultaneously in both states
combined. However, an observer making an observation is equivalent to
a measurement , which is a process which causes the electron to change
its spin state. For a cat, a measurement will not change a dead/alive
state, although there does seem to be a fuzzy line between alive and
dead when it comes to resuscitation.

Similarly, an electron travelling through laboratory space is not
simultaneously in more than one spin state. It is, however,
simultaneously in more than one location at a time. It is almost
everywhere at once, despite not being in superimposed spin states.
Therefore a Feynman path integral will locate its expected path. The
multiple locations are caused by electron-positron anihilations
combined with the positron travelling backwards in time. So if the
electron is initially in spin state 1, then it becomes a positron
travelling backwards in time with spin 0 (I am not sure about that
label yet, ie it would have been 0 for the electron but does that
translate to a 1 for the positron going backwards in time, and is that
still a 1 when we are observing the positron in our forward moving
time direction ... but that is a separate issue), and then it becomes
an electron again with a change of spin back to 1 again. In this
path, the electron is always in spin state 1 in the laboratory while
the positron is always in state 0. This fits in with time
reversibility and recoverability of previous configurations of spin
states in QM. If it were possible to follow the electron backwards in
time along its whole route, it would always have the same spin state,
1, and while dressed as a positron it would always have spin state 0.
The very concept of recoverability in QM implies that there is no
uncertainty in the physical spin state from the electron's point of
view. If one had to throw a dice to decide which state the electron
was in, that is not recoverability. Superposition implies that an
electron spin state is only recoverable when it is at a measurement
event. Ie an electron behaving as a particle has recoverable spin
state information in QM but an electron behaving as a wave cannot have
a recoverable spin state. With hidden variables, the particle and
wave describe the same electron and its spin state is always the same
for a wave in between measurements. With hidden variables the spin
state is 100% recoverable. In QM, recovering the spin state of an
electron in wave form requires undoing throws of dice? Back to the
cat: how do you recover the dead or alive state superposition of the
cat when reversing the route. At any time t, is it 85.34872(...
infinite number of d.p.?) percent alive? How can one recover
knowledge of a state when there is a superposition? When the
superposition of states is really only a matter of observer's
completeness of awareness, that exact degree of obscurity of the
observer's view does not need to be recoverable, I assume, in QM.

Second order loops in the path do not affect the electron's spin state
being spin 1. There are two vertices in the loop, which will take the
spin state from 1 to 0 and back to 1, without permanent change of the
electron's spin state.

Following through Christian's finding does seem to make more sense to
me by removing the concept of physical superposition of spin states.
It does not remove simultaneous multi-location of an electron in
space, but the electron is simultaneously everywhere with only one
spin state, say 1. And that is more easily recoverable.

[ben6993]

> elementary or composite particles?

Irrespective of the wider sub-quanta heresy of this strand, the fact
that the electron and photon are sub-divisible is inescapable because
of their interactions:
electron + positron -> photon + photon
photon + photon -> electron + positron.

Two elementary particles cannot disassemble and create a third
elementary particle if they are genuinely elementary. Not even if the
ineteraction resorts to borrowing and paying back to the vacuum
energy. I presume that QM accounts for this in a similar 'swap-shop'
manner to the way in which the meson operates.

The meson faciitates exchanges by being a reservoir of a quark anti-
quark pair and doling out the appropriate quark and receiving an
appropriate quark to complete an interaction. Likewise the vacuum
energy is a reservoir of particles and the electron/positron
disappears into the vacuum energy and two photons appear out of it.
However, there is a more direct interpretation. The above interaction
is between two inputted SU(2) particles and two outputted SU(2)
particles is the end product.

My assumption is that the SU(1) segment is the elementary particle
which cannot be sub-divided. There are two different SU(1)s at work:
an 'e' (electron) and a 'p' (positron):

ee + pp -> ep + pe
electron + positron = photon + photon.

The SU(1) segment has an indivisible spacetime bag and its contents
are like a cosmos in that the contents can be brought to a
singularity.

It appears that string theory is now beginning to show that such
structures can be modelled:
http://www.desy.de/sites2009/site_www-desy/content/e410/e84441/e84477/Particle_Physics_JB_2010_ger.pdf
EXTRACT:
"Recently, string theorists have learned [arXiv:hep-th/0301240,hep-th/
0308055] how to construct stabilized four-dimensional string vacua,
which are cosmologically viable and devoid of unwanted additional
light scalar fields, a prerequisite for inflation. This led to the
realization that string theory generates a whole ‘landscape’ of vacua,
that is, (meta)stable solutions of string theory [arXiv:hep-th/
0302219]. They
can be pictured as the local valleys in a mountainous landscape of
potential energy, and their number possibly exceeds scales like
10^500. Here, inflation corresponds to e.g. a scalar field slowly
rolling off some shallow slope of a particular mountain into the
nearest valley.

Recent work of members of our group [arXiv:0803.3085, 0808.0706] has
succeeded in constructing controlled models of inflation in string
theory where the energy scale of inflation is close enough to the
fundamental string/Planck scale of 10^18 GeV that they produce
primordial gravitational waves visible with PLANCK. Moreover, there
seems to be a generic tendency in the string landscape to ‘flatten’
away the properties of gravity waves from naive field theory
expectation in those string inflation models which generate detectable
amounts of gravity waves [arXiv:1011.4521]. These developments may
enable us to confront string theory with observational data at energy
scales far beyond any particle accelerator."

[ben6993]

> How does quantum computing fit in with the sub-quanta model?

SUMMARY
Entanglement can still be useful for cryptography.
Entanglement may or may not be useful for providing immense extra
computing power, depending on whether or not harnessing observers'
ignorance can be that profitable? (As there is no physical
superposition of spin states.)
Decoupling entanglement from quantum computing leaves only the power
in harnessing the field or wave property of the electron which employs
the extra dimensions of the complex numbers used in describing the
abstract vector spin spaces of the electron.

DISCUSSION
The sub-quanta model would have no detrimental effect on the
usefulness of quantum computing in cryptography. Even though there is
no spooky physical entanglement of states, the two entangled electrons
do have opposite spin states and so, ignoring technical difficulties,
a duplicate copy of a messages could be constucted and delivered. And
that message would be scrambled when read, as there is no correlation
between the spin state of an electron and the direction of spin found
when measured in any laboratory direction.

I am less clear about the possiblity of using spin entanglement to
provide immense extra computing power. When the entanglement is seen
as a physical entanglement then that would perhaps lead to greater
computing power as instead of having and electron in two possible spin
states: |0> or |1>, it can also have a spin state of |0 & 1>, so
giving three possible states per electron. That in itself would
increase power if that extra state were controllable.

Would this still give an immense boost in computing power if that spin
entanglement did not represent physical entanglement but merely the
observer's ignorance of the true spin state? That would seem to be
making a virtue out of ignorance. That is not to say it is impossible,
however, but it is unlikely.

Another way of looking at the advantage of quantum computing is to see
that the complex mathematics which describes the electron in its
abstract vector space (which the sub-quanta model recognises a a
genuinely physical space, but it is not in the 4D of the laboratory)
has more dimensions than the real mathematics of the same electron in
the laboratory. Those exra dimensions could be used, if controllable,
to give the extra computing power of a quantum computer. But I see
that as using the wave form of an electron, ie its field, to carry the
extra data for the computation rather than the particle form of the
electron, which only carries |0> or |1>. This allows scope for the
possibility of enhanced quantum computing despite the lack of a
physical entanglement, and detaches spin entanglement as a
prerequisite for quantum computing. Spin entanglement is necessary
for cryptography, but not necessary fof quantum computing.

I cannot see an electron's field in computing as an easy tool though.
In the sub-quanta model, as far as I have worked out to date, the
electron field is the sub-electron particles, each with a spin state
independent of the whole-electron spin state. However, the electron
is a micro-cosmological entity with its own spacetime bag [or, rather,
two bags: one for each of the two SU(1) sub-parts of the electron]
and
with inflation taking it from one singularity to the next, and from
one SU(1) part to the other. Measurements of the electron coincide
with the singularities when photons are released for measurement in
the laboratory. The measurement in the laboratory is irrelevant to
the electron's state. It is the bringing to a singularity and release
of the photon which is important to the electron's spin state, not the
subsequent detection of the photon in the laboratory. However,
bringing together the photon and electron for interaction is of
course, engineered by the laboratory apparatus.

If an electron starts out anew from a spin state |0> singularity, then
all its sub-electrons will momentarily have spin state |0>.
Thereafter, there is a gradual change to all being at spin state |1>
by the time of the next singularity. This corresponds to an entropy
increase. That drive being controlled by the opposing forces of the
dark energy (provided by the old photon) which gave the impetus
towards spin state |0> and the dark matter (provided by the newer
photon) which is tending to push towards spin state |1>. At worst,
the field could be used to indicate that the sub-electron states were
mixed 0s and 1s. Which is similar to what the current physical
entanglement is suggesting as the extra spin state for the whole-
electron in quantum computing. My comments therefore are simply a
reinterpretation of events, and they remove entanglement from its
special central place in quantum computing [if I am not completely
misunderstanding quantum computing].

An idle thought: the spin states of two un-entangled electrons can be
used to count from 0 (00) to 3 (11). But those two extreme numbers
are not available to two entangled electrons as they are either 1 (01)
or 2 (10), so the advantage of using the superposed states has to make
up the deficit of losing two of the four un-entangled configurations.
But I don't know much about quantum computing, so I may be wrong here.

[ben6993]

> Lisi Garrett's E8 Lie group theory

To make more progress with sub-quanta, I am needing to read more
physics. I have resumed the Stanford online Quantum Mechanics course
by Susskind; am reading through Feynman's Volume 3; found excellent
online information on neutrinos by Janet Conrad (2002):
http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/~conrad/gursey.html

And re-reading lisi Garrett's E8 Lie group theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
seemed to make much more sense to me this time as I am more familiar
with quark and meson structure, though still understanding too
little. The last time I read it I saw the universe as one 4D Einstein
spacetime, coincident with our BB universe (though I only know GR in a
popularist way). Likewise, I saw the beautiful E8 diagrams in
Garrett's paper and assumed that they represented a single whole
entity and all particles were just different, small scale views of the
whole. Somehow, in a mysterious way. Especially because of all the
interrelations shown in the paper. Also, likewise, I had difficulty in
understanding how the Clifford Algebra for electron spin spaces could
just be conjured up apparently out of a mathematical (but also defined
as real Euclidean space) hat. Where did those Clifford Algebra 7Ds
fit within the 4D BB spacetime, or did the 4D spacetime need to change
also?

However the sub-quanta model has led me to to a picture of the vacuum
energy as a collection of spacetimes, one spacetime per elementary
particle. Well, slightly more than that: one spacetime bag per SU(1)
part of an elementary particle. So an electron, positron and photon
have two bags each. A neutrino has four bags, while a quark has three
bags. Every particle has its own structure in a vast ensemble of
structures in a vacuum. And this structure contains more than simply
the BB spacetime. It apparently is a fractal structure on many
scales. At least three scales corresponding to electron, muon, tau,
but likely to be much greater, though one cannot of course rely on
there being an indefinite number of orders to a fractal structure.

There are rules governing the change from one spin state to the next
for any structure: eg Pauli matrices; Gell-Mann matrices. And these
rules tie in with the Lie groups algebra. I am now seeing Lisi's
paper as an overview of the possible rules governing the E8 and its
partitioning. Ie a set of rule governing all aspects of particle
behaviour, but not a single entity being viewed from many different
aspects. (Though the paper is much more than that spin rules).
Apparently, the three orders of electron, muon, tau are not yet
supposed to fit securely in Lisi's paper. I also had uncertainty
about the Majorana basis at first as it seemed that jostling neutrinos
seemed a poor method to change spin state/ fractal order of size, and
did the spin state really change like that? Ie the three fractal
orders should not lie within a ToE? But energy is energy and it is
taken on board by a particle any way it can. Even by jostling, rather
than being by a formal exchange of energy by a dedicated partner
particle eg photon to electron. However, if there are more than three
fractal orders of size then the theory cannot be a ToE. Lisi's paper
seems to be very helpful for explaining elementary particle
interactions using Lie brackets. And is a model to test against sub-
quanta ideas. So I need to study it further.

I note that Lisi uses, in Table 1, [1,0,0] to describe both a red
quark and an anti-red quark. I used notation (r,0,0) to denote a red
down quark but (0, G, B) to denote an anti-red up quark. I will need
to follow through whether or not this is a real difference rather than
merely a notational difference.

[ben6993]

On Dec 17, 12:14 am, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu>
wrote:
(in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_thread/thread/19108384d14e9ab3#)

> There are some examples in Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. III,
> which might help. If you take a X polarized electron (or anything
> with a magnetic moment), and put it through a Y-axis Stern-Gerlach
> apparatus, it will split equally into two beams based on the
> Y polarization. If you test the Y polarization on the beams, you find
> one is up and one is down. If you test the X polarization of one
> of the beams, you find 50% up and 50% down.

> If instead of testing the polarization, you put them through an
> inverted Stern-Gerlach apparatus, put the beams back together as one,
> then it still has the X polarization.
>
> > It could be argued to be always in the same spin state in all its
> > different (at least in the forward moving in time) positions. It is a
> > superposition of a kind, but not necessarily one of different spin
> > states at the same time for the same particle.
>
> The split beams have Y polarization, but haven't forgotten the X
> polarization that they had previously. It isn't visible unless the
> two beams are put back together.
>
> -- glen

Thank you, Glen.

I cannot find that precise case, but Figures 6.5a and 6.5b of Vol III
seem close.

In Figure a, particles enter already in the + x direction state. I
like to visualise, so my x is up and down in a cuboid living room; y
is to the door on the left or the opposite on the right; and z is
towards the fireplace or away from it. My left arm represents the
electron with a LHS rule for spin rotation direction. The cuboid room
can be divided into eight smaller cubes/quadrants, with electrons at
the central point touching all the eight cubes. As the electrons are
in the + x direction, the electrons are all pointing inside the upper
four cubes, ie pointing no lower than at arm level. They enter
apparatus S and are separated in the z direction into two beams (one
beam nearer the fire and one further away). As they leave Apparatus S
they are brought back together in the central position, now at P1. The
same thing happens in Apparatus T. Apparatus U just tests whether the
electrons are still pointing in the + x direction ie not lower than at
arm level, and that is still true so there is no splitting of the beam
by apparatus U.

In Figure b, electrons arrive at P1 just as in Figure a, ie pointing
into the upper four cubes/quadrants and merged back into one beam
after first being split by Apparatus S into beams nearer and further
from the fire. From here on, the T and U apparatuses are rotated
compared to those in Figure a. Apparatus T now takes the electron
beam and again splits it into two parts, one nearer the fire and one
further away. Then Apparatus T merges the two parts back together
again. Apparatus U now splits the beam into two equal parts
in the y direction, one beam nearer the door and one further away from
the door. That seems to be what is to be expected as this is the
first mention of the y direction and the beam should contain random y
direction alignments ie equal expectations of + y and - y directions.

I suspect that this is not exactly what you had in mind, but if so
please point me to the appropriate page in Vol III. I am at this
point in my reading so it is all fresh and interesting to me. Also,
when I said Figs a and b seemed straightforward, I know there is much
more for me to learn.

[ben6993]

> The Higgs particle and the Z boson

SUMMARY:
PD on sci.physics challenged people to suggest a path from Higgs -> ZZ
-> 2e+ + 2e-.
I have suggested SU(8) for Higgs and SU(4) for Z, with a new type (as
far as I know) of jitterbugging (cf Zitterbewegung of the electron)
which gives mass to both Z and Higgs.

DISCUSSION:

I have been thinking that I next need to produce models with mass
calculations but as Higgs has no mass prediction, that gave me
encouragement to speculate. I have previously worked out models from
the electron to the quarks but the neutral current effects and the
provision of mass by Higgs had left me thinking I would be currently
unable to find a model for the higher mass particles along the same
lines as my earlier speedboat models. However, PDs challenge made me
try for a model.

I had a eureka moment when I realised that two opposing photon-like
structures in one particle could perhaps produce a Zitterbewegung
effect. The electron manages it by firing one screw/propellor and
speedboat design websites tell you that will cause a boat (especially
one without a keel) to turn clockwise or anticlockwise depending on
the screw being LH or RH thread, cf on a matter propellor or an anti-
matter propellor.

If two photons were assembled together in one particle so that their
thrusts opposed one another they would each try to send the particle
at linear speed c. But not in the same direction. This is another
mechanism for providing a jitterbug motion. And that provides a
gyroscopic mass for the particle. That mass is supposedly 91.2 GeV/
c^2 for Z.

Two such separate Z particles would give a total mass of 182.4 GeV/c^2
for 2 Zs. When the two Zs are combined in one supposed 125 GeV/c^2
Higgs particle there must be some loss of mass in the amalgam. When
the Zs are separate, each has been brought up to a fast angular speed
limited by a tangential speed of c. If you try to make the Higgs by
starting with the first Z and then trying to use the energy in the
second Z to double the angular speed and hence double the mass of the
amalgam, that extra energy needs to be used to speed up both the first
Z and the second Z component. Hence the Higgs angular speed is less
than double the single Z angular speed. If this is not quite correct,
it cannot be far from it as generally there is less energy in a
combined form than in the separate parts.

One problem is that the Z is supposed to have spin 1, like the photon,
while the Higgs particles has zero spin.

> Z particle

Note that the electron propellors were simply acting alone while
photon propellors were turbo-charged. The photon wiring had a feedback
connecting the two SU(1) chambers. The two chambers fired in sequence
(spin 1/2 each) but because one propellor was anti-matter and
travelled backwards in time, the two firings appeared simultaneous
(hence spin 1) and were self-sustaining. I will need to assume that
when two such engines in one partcile are fired out of synch, indeed
against one another, the total spin reduces to zero.

Possible configuration of spin states are:
(matter matter , anti-matter anti-matter)
(1st 2nd , 3rd 4th)... just for labelling below.

Wiring without turbo-charging, like electrons:
(11,00) like an electron, spin 1/2, jitterbugging (because two
'matter' propellors)
(00,11) like a positron, spin 1/2, jitterbugging
(10,01) possibly like a neutrino, spin 1/2, linear speed c (because
one matter & one anti-matter propellor)
(01,10) possibly like a neutrino, spin 1/2, linear speed c


Wiring with turbo-charging, like photons:
(11,00) 1st wired to 3nd spin state, 2nd wired to 4th. Spin 1
(00,11) Ditto, spin 1
(10,01) 1st wired to 3nd spin state, Spin 1. 4th wired to 2nd spin
state, Spin 1, like a photon wiring of matter-to- antimatter
propellors
(01,10) Very similar to the above, spin 1. Each propellor or SU(1)
has spin 1/2

The question is whether two photon-like structures will reinforce one
another or nullify themselves (and effectively have spin zero?)?

A MAMA [M=matter, A=Antimatter] arrangement would reinforce and keep
linear speed c as there is always an A next to an M propellor.

MA , or a MAAM, would nullify as the Ms would repel one another, and
the As would repel one another.
MA

MA would reinforce.
AM


> Higgs particle

In the same notation, some of the many possible configuration of spin
states are:

(1111,0000)
(1100,0011)
(1010,0101)
etc
I will not go into details here but, as for the Z, it should be clear
that there is scope for photon-like components to sometimes nullify
each others' thrusts. It depends on the 1/0 configurations and how
the various SU(1) spacetime bags are wired together.

Non-reinforced, or out of synch, thrusts among the four photon-like
components could cause instability leading to a jitterbugging effect.

(I will need to return to the neutrino model as I think it may be more
complicated than I previously realised. )

[ben6993]

> Suggested mass of the Higgs particle at 129 GeV/c^2

The SU(n) notation does not tell me clearly enough information about
particles for purposes of rewiring them. What I need to see is how
many SU(1) spacetime bags are in the structure made of matter and how
many are made of anti-matter. Also how many bags are full of content
and, by deduction, how many are empty awaiting filling. There is
another important piece of information relating to the vibrational
energy level mode of the underlying string, but I will leave that
out.

(#matter, #antimatter, #with content)
(1,1,1) photon
(2,0,1) electron, muon, tauon
(0,2,1) positron
(3,0,1) down, strange, bottom quarks
(3,0,2) up, charm, top quarks
(1,3,2) electron/muon,tauon neutrinos
(2,2,2) Z particle and W particle
(4,4,4) Assuming this is the Higgs particle structure

Assuming (4,4,4) is the structure of the Higgs particle, it can break
down into to Zs:
(4,4,4) -> (2,2,2) + (2,2,2) two Zs

but it could also break down into a neutrino and an antineutrino:
(4,4,4) -> (3,1,2) + (1,3,2) neutrino/antineutrino

or it could break down into two particles that I cannot find
descriptions of:
(4,4,4) -> (4,0,2) + (0,4,2) new particles? These are like 'double'
electrons; or, like an up/charm/top quark with an extra empty SU(1)
empty bag. Which once again begs the question of what is the effect
of adding an empty bag to a structure? What would be the difference
between a (3,0,2) and a (4,0,2)?

I had been wondering why there is only mention of a Z particle and not
a Z+ or Z- particle, but I now realise that those are the W particles.

(xx,00) is a W-
(00,xx) is a W+
(x0,0x), (x0,x0), (0x,0x), (0x,x0) are Z particles. All these Z and W
particles can re-form from one another via interactions bringing about
singularities presumably governed by a matrix basis. The Ws are like
double electrons. I suspect that there is some loss of mass within
the W particles because of misalignment of the gyroscopic effects.
However these is still a substantial mass of 80.4 GeV/c^2 because of
the high mode of string vibration. The mass of the Z particle could
arise because of misaligned gyroscopic effects. This cannot happen
with a photon as there is only one bag with contents so there can be
no possibility of misalignment of two thrusts. Wiki talks of
superposed states but this thread sees those only as one-spin-state-at-
a-time.

I have calculated a mass for the Higgs particle of 129 GeV/c^2:

If the Higgs particle is an elementary point particle with two
component Z particles then they are orthogonal to one another. If Im
= moment of inertia of Higgs and Iz= moment of Inertia of Z, then Ih
<> 2Iz because the two axes Iz axes are not aligned. Instead Ih=sqrt
(Iz^2 + Iz^2)= sqrt(2) * Iz as the two Iz axes are orthogonal.

Conserving angular momentum gives Ih*Wh=2Iz*Wz, ie sqrt(2)*Iz*Wh = 2
Iz*Wh, ie Wh=2Wz/sqrt(2). Where Wh and Wz are the angular rotational
speeds of Higgs and Z. Mass is proportional to angular rotational
speed, so mass of Higgs = mass of Z*2/sqrt(2) = 129 GeV/c^2.

[ben6993]

> notation for conserved properties in particle decay

I noted recently that the SU(n) notation does not tell me clearly

enough information about particles for purposes of rewiring them.

However, there is an issue that I have not resolved. Should the first
two categories be #matter and #antimatter or #charge- and #charge+ ?
In a table, I included "up, charm, top quarks" as (3,0,2) because they
are matter not anti-matter. But they would be better decribed as
(#charge-, #charge+, #with content)=(0,3,2), rather than using
(3,0,2). Ie zero SU(1) sub-structures of negative charge, three bags
of positive charge and two bags filled with content at any one time.
The usefulness of these three columns is that the number in each
column should be the same before and after decay when summed over
decayed parts.

One example being the decay of the Higgs particle into a neutrino and
an antineutrino:
(4,4,4) -> (3,1,2) + (1,3,2) where the number in each column is 4 on
the LHS and also, when summed, on the RHS. I presume that it is
almost impossible to observe the after-effects of Higgs decaying into
a neutrino/antineutrino pair.

A revised table is shown below:

(#charge-, #charge+, #with content)

(1,1,1) photon
(2,0,1) electron, muon, tauon
(0,2,1) positron
(3,0,1) down, strange, bottom quarks

(0,3,2) up, charm, top quarks

(1,3,2) electron/muon,tauon neutrinos
(2,2,2) Z particle and W particle
(4,4,4) Assuming this is the Higgs particle structure

The up quark is better placed in this table than my previous version
but the table suffers from a lack of indication of matter/antimatter,
which is a loss of information for the photon. The photon is not
merely a + charge SU(1) spacetime bag with a - charge spacetime bag
but a composite of matter and anti-matter bags.

The antimatter is required to give an element of time reversal in the
photon. I have previously suggested that matter and antimatter spin
spaces are like counter-rotating propellors. Take a pasta twist and
hold it upright. Then invert it. It looks the same shape shape each
time. You cannot turn it to make an opposite twist shape. To get a
mirror image pasta shape would need a new machine to make mirror-image
shaped pasta twists. If the time direction were dependent on the
twist, then whichever way we travelled along inside the twist, we
would automatically be travelling in the same direction as the time
direction of the twist. So, time can flow in either direction along a
twist and the same applies to a mirror-image twist.

However, the same propellor shapes applying to matter and antimatter
also apply to - and + charges. Each pairing is represented by counter-
rotating propellors. The difference is that antimatter is travelling
backwards in time compared to matter. I need to think more on this but
it seems to me that we need a full set of matter/antimatter sub-
contents within a spacetime bag or SU(1). That is because the
contents of an SU(1) bag need to be able to be held sometimes within a
photon and sometimes within an electron. One way of enabling us to
have a + time direction in our BB universe and yet retain a full
complement of as much anti-matter as matter is if the matter travels
in one direction along the BB propellor while the antimatter is
simultaneously travelling in the oposite direction. Starting at
opposite ends (singularities), passing in the middle and finishing at
opposite ends (new singularities). I feel sure that GR curvature
should allow the starting and finishing singularities for matter and
antimatter to be in the same place. Viewed from outside, that could
keep the net time zero within the BB universe and put it perhaps on
the same footing as time in QM for particles. But I am unsure. I am
only mentioning it at this point as my uncertainty about the
difference between the plus charge for an up quark and the plus charge
for a positron is interfering with my notation for tabulating the
elementary particles.

> photons not instantons

I have previously referred to quarks decaying into instantons: "A
gluon is aquark and an anti-quark together ... so why do they not
annihilate each other? They do and form instantons in the following

method:
(r 0 0) + ((0 G B)) = (r)/((0)) + (0)/((G)) + (0)/((B))."

That was what at the time seemed to me to best fit what I had found as
I could find not reference to quarks
decaying into photon-like structures. But Tom Roberts yesterday (
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/fcd99fcc9a430703#
) appears to mention these particles are photons. My mis-named
'instanton', (r)/((0)), conforms to my (1,1,1) description of a
particle with one negative charge, one positive charge and content in
one cell, so that is a photon structure.

I am still not clear, however, if instantons are energetic photons. I
have seen (but certainly not digested) two sets of mathematical papers
each of >200 pages on www re instantons which seem to form a medium
within the nuclear manifolds. Since I view such a manifold as a
cosmos, there is a parallel between our BB universe being bathed with
photons and a nuclear manifold or micro-cosmos being bathed with
instantons especially if instantons turn out to be high energy photons.

[ben6993]

> what makes a particle elementary?

A spin state 4D space, having a single space time bag, seems to me to
be the smallest component of an elementary particle, though that bag
is not sufficient to be a particle in its own right. Unless perhaps
it can form a dark matter particle of non-interactive matter.

An up quark, (0,3,2), cannot decay on its own down without leaving a
solitary empty bag or a solitary full bag, and that seems to be
disallowed
-> (0,1,1)[=a full bag] + (0,2,1)[= a positron] or
-> (0,1,0)[=an empty bag] + (0,1,1)[=a full bag] + (0,1,1) [=a full
bag] or
-> (0,2,2)[=two full bags] + (0,1,0)[= an empty bag]
Notation: (minus charge SU(1) components, plus charge SU(1)
components, number of SU(1) components with content)

Can a singularity, or change of spin state, occur and refill same
SU(1) bag? I do not see how this is possible and this is where I do
not see how the Hopt bundles can cope with paired photon production
from electron/positron annihilation. Turning an SU(3) space inside
out may work mathematically, but for me an electron with extra
dimensions has more scope for subdivision: and photon production seems
easier to visualise with an electron having two separable segments.
Photon production seems to be like DNA re-combination. An electron
has two strands and so does a positron. The strands separate and
recombine into two photons. Each photon has both a matter and an anti-
matter strand, ie one strand from the electron and one from the
positron.

The matter and anti-matter strands form a photon engine which fires
each strand (or motor boat propellor in my analogy) in sequence. The
anti-matter travelling backwards in time appears to make this engine
fire two-propellors-at-a-time which gives the photon its straight
moving thrust.

I have written on the photon engine previously, but now I am wondering
if a similar effect could work in reverse in a single chamber? Each
chamber/spin space/propellor has matter and anti-matter sub-quanta
within it. If the electron matter and anti-matter are fired together
and travel in opposite time directions within the same chamber, can
that have the appearance of two separate firings in sequence? This is
the exact inverse of the photon situation. However, the viewpoint is
important. We are viewing the photon effect from outside it. I am
speculating on what the single chamber firing of an electron would
look like from outside it. Two sequential firings? Or two
simultaneous firings in opposite (time and space) directions within
the one chamber? Another reason why the electron does not move
linearly at c.

Another problem for the turned inside out SU(3) sphere seems to me to
be that the electron in this setting is not a point particle in the
real laboratory space? But as I do not understand SU(3) yet, maybe I
am mistaken and I simply need to see it explained.

In my model the electron has to be a point particle in laboratory
space as it has a spacetime bag. That is because of a speed c and
hence it compactifies in laboratory space to a point. However in my
model the sub-quanta of the electron also have their own spacetime
bags and these can be distributed outside the single electron point.
That is because the electron is only a point particle at its
singularity, ie when the wave function has collapsed. This is
equivalent to the instant when the SU(3) space flips or inverts in the
SU(3) sphere model of an electron and the electron changes from one
spin state to the other.

An electron is genuinely, in all its 12D, a point particle at a
singularity. At other times it is acting as a wave, ie via its sub-
quanta, but the whole-electron still seems to be a point in the lab
because of its speed c tangential to its rotation in its 12D. The sub-
quanta reflect that rotation, not at one point but distributed
throught the lab as a field effect. Ie the whole-electron is rotating
within its 12D spin space while the sub-quanta form a field in the lab
space with movements identical to the whole-electron dynamics within
that spin space. The sub-quanta, in addition, have their own but
separate movements within their own and separate spin spaces caused by
their own tangential speeds c. But the sub-quanta spins are different
things to the whole-electron spin.

[ben6993]

> micro-topology and macro-topology?

On November 19th 2011 I posted this comment: EXTRACT:
"Understanding Clifford algebra for an electron seemed so strange even
to get any commonsense view of it. I have just realised that my
thinking (despite all the strange ideas in this thread) is still very
entrenched in Einstein's 4D spacetime. That is not to say that I
understand his GR mathematically in any detail. But only sketchily.
Despite in the last few days realising that the old 4D spacetime, as I
used to think of it, is an illusion, it is still deep engrained in my
thinking of nature. "

Am I correct in thinking that Daryl McCullough (in the recent post on
sci.physics.research) is assuming that topology can only be of the
macro form? Ie arising from GR of the BB universe? Is there an
assumption that the macro-topology restricts the micro form to be
identical to it?

My view has changed over the last few months as I have been looking
for similar structures on large and small scales. Just as, in SR, the
observer's viewpoint is critical, so it is with QM and GR.

GR needs to accommodate QM and one way to do that is to recognise that
an electron is similar to a BB universe. Just as the BB universe has
a topology, then so does the electron, and it is similar. I see the
BB universe as occupying a + (say) spin state at the moment. That is
the 4D space of the laboratory. An electron can have a similar +
spin state at that moment or it could have a - spin state. Ie a
paired singlet of electrons occupy more than 4D in total.

After the next singularity the BB universe will occupy a different 4D,
representative of a different spin state. But we only see one 4D at
one time.

I see the electron as having its own topology although that topology
is internal to it. It has a sub-structure inhabiting a 4D spin space
but that structure has a tangential speed c to a fast rotation which
compactifies its structure to a point in the macro-topology of the BB
universe. One needs to look from within (to see a 4D structure and a
topology within the electron) and from without (to see a point
representation within the macro-topology).

> David Tong's second place prize essay in 2011 FXQi competition:
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Tong_integers.pdf

In that essay it is noted that the Schroedinger equation is a
continuous-data model. If you view the electron as a cosmos then the
continuous nature follows from there being ~10^500 or whatever sub-
particles within the electron. No wonder the form looks to be of
continuous-data. However, in my opinion the number of sub-particles
is huge but finite. Also I take the equation as applying to the sub-
particles rather than to the state of the whole-electron. It is the
sub-particles of an electron that set its field and provide the
uncertainty determining the wave function for the whole-electron. But
each sub-particle of an electron also has its own topology and spin
state. It is particles all the way up and down. But 10^500 particles
give a good appearance of continuousness within an electron. Finding
an ultimate cause (or discreteness) is not easy in a fractal structure
when no level of scale size has a central position.

The essay also mentions the difficulty of finding non-emergent
integers in physics. I see the 'unit' value in QM as being the
indivisibility of the spacetime bag. The single bag has sub-divisible
contents, but those contents are locked away in that bag, apparently
forever. That unit property is also an emergent property, because the
bag is a prison only for so long as its contents move at speed c.
That is what keeps the contents together, that is what creates(how?)
the bag, and what makes the particle a no-touch point particle in the
macro-topology.

[ben6993]

> Are all instances of supposed at-a-distance entanglement caused
by local topology?

The above heading has been my assumption for the last month or so and
is the reason for this thread about what may be the implications if it
is true. I have nearly finished Susskind's online QM lectures from
Stanford University and next will follow the part 3 'entanglement'
lectures. The current debate on Bell on sci.physics.research has now
lost me in parts, as I expected, as I do not know enough about Bell's
assumptions.

The most important question for me is whether or not physical
entanglement exists. If Joy Christian is correct I see the whole
concept of a physical entanglement as wrong. A modern instance of a
phlogiston theory. It would still exist as observer uncertainty,
however, rather than a physical entanglement.

Trying to see the geometric version: I picture the spin of one
electron being like the spin inside a cosmos. The outer universe has
no access to it except at a measurement event. A measurement
corresponds to a singularity of the particle. That singularity can be
brought about by the input of energy in an interaction with a photon.
That assumes that the electron universe was brought about at the same
time as its partner universe/electron. The two partner electrons have
different spin states and each occupies a different 3D of space. This
means that space is more than 3D at a microscopic level. Also at a
macroscopic level, our universe is occupying 3D of space but that is a
chance event. It will occupy a different 3D after its next
singularity. So that is a parallel view of the electron and BB
universe both having a two potential spin states with diffferent 3Ds.
That explains why we can only see 3D, not 6D/7D, on a macroscopic
scale.

I have seen the video about the Hopt fibration and seen several videos
about Dirac's belt. I can understand a vague parallel between a 4pi
twist to orient one electron to be like another and the electrons
occupying opposite spin states. And I note the two electrons, one at
each end of the belt, as meeting a similar condition as a belt. But a
simple twist does not ensure passing through a singularity? Also, the
4pi twist is necessary for a belt. But the two ends of a leather belt
are not in opposite spin states? I mean, surely not as opposite as
the spin states of two electrons? The two macroscopic ends of a belt
are not in two different 3D spaces? It is an interesting phenomenon
but I don't quite understand how the two macroscopic belt ends are
exactly similar to the two spin states of entangled electrons. Or am
I expecting too much from an analogy?

The two internal spins of the electrons/micro-universes should
preserve directions through gyroscopic effects. That is difficult to
see if electrons are strings and not rigid arrows. Just as it would
be difficult to see our BB universe direction of rotation as a single
value. However, the internal electron spin spaces for the two
electrons are orthogonal to each other because they are in different
3Ds so that should preserve their oppositeness.

This is a point of difference from my view and from what I can learn
from Clifford algebra: two electrons should, in my view, both be in
different 3D spaces from each other and different from the laboratory
space. That ensures that both electrons are spinning orthogonally to
one another but they are both spinning orthogonally to the lab space.
But maybe that is what is meant by the 6D/7D required by Clifford
algebra? Ie a completely separate 6/7D for the electrons? Separate
also from the lab space.

[ben6993]

> entanglement and spin states

To clarify my last post, I did not intend to imply that the concept of
physical entanglement was wrong if that means that two electrons can
have exactly opposite spin states. Ie exactly opposite in any
direction measured, ie in a singlet state. What I think is wrong is an
interpretation that the two electrons are somehow continually changing
spin states but communicating their spin states to one another so that
they coordinate, from a distance, their oppositeness. And the reason
I believe this does not occur is because an electron only changes spin
state when it undergoes an interaction, eg with a photon. That may or
may not lead to a measurement in the laboratory, but one cannot have a
measurement in the laboratory without the
interaction.

This is relevant to the end of cycle stage of a cylic universe. By
analogy, the universe cannot change its spin state (which is what I
think happens at a singularity) without an interaction. The universe
changing cycle by a re-initialisation of the metric only must by this
analogy be incorrect. However, I do believe that the metric
disappears at the end of the cycle as photons alone cannot maintain
the metric. But I do not follow where the new inflation comes from at
the beginning of the new cycle unless there has been an interaction.
The interaction being a boost of energy from outside the universe. Cf
from the photon to the electron.

If you view change of spin state simply as a change of phase of the
electron then that might be achieved without interactions, but if spin
state implies a gyroscopic rotation in a direction in a separate 3D
space, then it is hard to see how a gyroscopic spin can be reversed
without inputting energy. Like taking a spinning motorbike wheel and
trying to reverse its direction. It needs an external energy to fund
that change.

[ben6993]

>"Electron's negativity cut in half by supercomputer":
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2012/01/Information-Technology-Physics-Electrons-Negativity-Cut-In-Half-By-Supercomputer/

Some model has been devised, in Canada, that predicts an electron can
break into two pieces at very low temperature. Breaking into two
parts with half the electron charge on each part.

It is interesting to see another suggestion that an electron is not
indivisible. My model relies on an electron breaking into two parts,
one part filled with content and one part empty of content, so all the
charge is in one part. The empty part, however, retains the blueprint
to enforce the kind of charge it will become when filled. I don't see
how an electron and a positron can make two photons without these
three particles being sub-divisible, with a photon being the filled
half of the electron plus the empty half of the positron. And the
other photon is the empty half of the electron plus the filled half of
the positron. I believe in quantum indivisibility, but the unit is the
half-electron rather than the whole electron. And the half electron
has either the whole charge or none. The half electron is one spin
state space, in a separate 4D, with a gyroscopic motion giving a
tangential speed c. That speed c makes the electron a point particle
to us external observers, also makes it indivisible, and also
quantises the spin to us external observers.

[ben6993]

> ethereal bags or spacetime objects?

I have a concern that my model requires an almost ethereal runt of a
spacetime bag within an elementary particle. The bag becomes, for an
electron, the carrier of the electron contents after the next
singularity it reaches. For an photon the runt is being used by a
positron travelling backwards in time so it is not really a runt for a
photon.

Since my model has a spacetime bag identical to that for the BB
universe, the expanding universe represents a vibrating string. In
string theory a photon is a closed string. In my model that is a
spacetime bag from A to B and closed by another bag from B to A, where
A to B is a matter-universe and B to A is an antimatter-universe. Eg
A is at time origin and B is now. An electron can also reverse time
direction after a singularity and bde be a positron, which can reverse
to be a second etc electron, which is why one electron can have a
field interfering with itself in a two-slit experiment. One could
populate the laboratory space with electrons and photons all
interconnected. Photons forming loops but electrons being open
strings, but of the same unit structure as one another.

My concern is how does the unit structure, or BB universe, know to
reverse in time or not, how does it know to form a closed loop or an
open string. Perhaps this is a cheat but borrowing from the idea of a
fixed spacetime object where time is just another (vaguely) space
dimension then the Feynmann diagrams become fixed spacetime objects.
In this view, the particles form a multitude of inter-connected
universes all fixed and so the twists and turns after singularities
are all mapped out with no choice. The photon loop is a fixed
spacetime object with time running like a parameter along A to B for
the matter bag while time is running from B to A for the antimatter-
bag. There is no more freedom of choice in the multi-particle map
then there is in the single BB spacetime object. So perhaps I do not
need to be so concerned with runt bags.

(This idea came from thinking about the current ... 'Universe Change
State' thread.) It also means that after a singularity the universe
will be a left hand screw structure or a right hand structure. But at
the singularity that structure is already pre-determing determined.
Perhap due to conservation of angular momentum.