I've said it before and I'll say it again, theoretical physics research takes courage, because you risk painting yourself into a corner and looking like a red-faced fool.

As the search for an explanation for the origin of mass in the LRC's RSt continues, we have seen Brian Nelson's brilliant use of unit energy, the Pythagorean theorem and Einstein's and Planck's energy equations to arrive at quark masses, through numerical methods, and we've seen neutrino physics contemplate a "seesaw" concept, or reciprocal idea of internal masses in the neutrino, to explain "neutrino oscillation," where the electron, muon and tau flavors of neutrinos transform into each other, over time, as they propagate.

In our nascent theory, neutrinos don't oscillate, at least not yet, but the neutrino and the anti-neutrino are identical, except for their chirality, which is probably impossible to distinguish in any physical manner, effectively making them "Majorana" particles, in our RSt. This is very interesting, because the LST community suspects that if this is so, it would explain many mysteries of physics, including the origin of mass (

see here.)

While I see many connections and tantalizing hints in all of this, the biggest problem is sorting it out in a systematic way - deducing the answers from the fundamental postulates of the RST. Our RST-based investigation has proven spectacularly successful to this point, so there's no reason to suppose it won't continue to do so.

However, the latest conclusion that we are examining, based on the consequences of the three units of measure, the square roots of 1, 2 and 3, derived from the scalar algebra and geometry of three dimensions of space/time (time/space), has led me to fear lately that I may be out on a precarious limb here.

Yet, I can see no other way to differentiate the particle families that make up our version of the standard model, with three properties that have colorless combinations of color-like characteristics to solve the spin, anti-spin, conundrum of three, fractional, "charges," assuming the Pauli exclusion principle must hold.

Not only that, but then there is the matter of the gluons and the so-called "strong force," which the LST theory postulates to explain the inelastic scattering experiments.

The basic idea is to explain how the "nucleus" of the atom, the proton with its three quarks, and the combination of protons with their positive electrical charges so tightly bound, can be kept together, when these charges oppose each other with such force, at such small radii.

Of course, its seldom mentioned, but the LST electron itself is inexplicable, and for the same reason. However, in our RSt, the problem doesn't exist, because the "charges" are understood as reciprocal motions that balance out in the atom. The electron's "charge" of 6/3 = -3 (here 3 is the unit electrical charge) and the proton's "charge" of 10/13 = 3 are combined into the Hydrogen atom's neutral "charge" of 16/16, so there is no electrostatic repulsion between protons, in the atoms of the elements.

Furthermore, there is no repulsion within the nucleons between the two like quarks either (two ups or two downs), because a dimensional factor comes into play, which prevents it.

The dimensional factor is part of our own seesaw mechanism, in that a seesaw is necessarily one-dimensional. Since each fermion in our RSt consists of a combination of three seesaws, we can assume that they each occupy independent, that is, orthogonal dimensions.

In the case of neutrinos, quarks and leptons, this is straightforward, but in the case of the combos of quarks in the nucleons, it is more subtle. How can five unbalanced seesaws (sss) and four balanced ones, nine sss altogether, be made to fit into three independent dimensions?

The way to do that, in the case of the proton, is to take one of the two up quarks, containing two 1|2 sss, one in each of two dimensions and combine it with the down quark, containing one 2|1 ss:

**Figure 1:** Dimensional Distribution of Up Quark and Down Quark S|T Units

When combined with this up quark, the down quark will balance out one of the up quark's two unbalanced dimensions: 2|1 + 1|2 = 3|3. This effectively leaves two dimensions balanced and one dimension unbalanced in the quark combo, making it possible to add a second up quark to the combo in these two balanced dimensions:

**Figure 2.** Left: The Quark Combo. Right: The Second Up Quark

Combining this combo, with two balanced dimensions, with the second up quark, with two unbalanced dimensions, results in three unbalanced dimensions, of one positive unit each, and, like in the electron, the fact that each of the three total units exists in an orthogonal, or independent dimension means there can be no repulsion force between them:

**Figure 3:** The Proton's Three Quark Combo with Three Positively Charged Dimensions

Again, the dimensions are independent, so no repulsion force is generated between them, but the magnitude in one dimension differs from the others, because of the balancing act of the down quark in the 3|3 dimension. In that dimension the imbalance is the same as in the other dimensions (one unit), but the ss magnitude is 4|5, instead of 3|4, as in the other two dimensions.

The colors of the dimensions in the above graphics are meant to distinguish the three dimensions. They are not related to the LST's idea of "color charges." However, that idea is there too, as the three quarks are unbalanced in three unique dimensions, or set of dimensions: either

1&2 or

1&3 or

2&3 for the up quarks, and

3 or

2 or

1, for the down quark, depending on which configuration the up quarks take.

Of course, we can do the same thing with the three quarks of the neutron, but in that case, one dimension of lesser magnitude rather than greater emerges from the combo, and, as already noted, in the case of the electron, each of the three dimensions is unbalanced, so it repels other electrons and same goes for two positrons. In every case, there is no internal repulsion of like charges to overcome, because they reside in independent dimensions, but they do repulse like charges that are external to them.

Consequently, the F = qq'/r

^{2} equation doesn't even apply in the case of the quark combos, and this means that there is no need for an autonomous "strong force" to overcome it, and there is no need of its supposed carrier particle, the gluon, to explain the stability of nucleons and combinations of nucleons, as atomic elements and their isotopes, either.

However, there's still the matter of the quantum spin states. If no two identical spin states can coexist in the quarks of nucleons, then the quantum spins of three quarks have to be incompatible, all else being equal, since two of the three would have to be the same (two up or two down states in the quantum theory of the LST).

Consequently, the LST community has also invented the color force property to deal with this problem. As long as each of the three constituent quarks of a nucleon has a unique one of these three primary "color charges," all three of their spin states can be identical and it makes no difference to the calculations of the theory (see

here.)

It's worth noting, however, that they admit in this video that proving that these color charges actually exist is "tricky," but without them, they can't make sense of their experimental data.

However, in our model, it's easy to see, as I have just shown above, how the three quarks differ in their dimensional characteristics, in a three "color" set-like way. What makes this so interesting is that the gluons of their theory, that is the carriers of the color charge, come in eight different versions. This is because, for the theory to work, the gluons, even though they are bosons, as are photons, are nevertheless "charged" bosons, unlike photons. They are charged with the color charge and so there arises a color charge dynamic between them, further complicating their picture of physical reality.

Now, given that our theory has no need for autonomous forces, let alone one like the strong nuclear force, and thus no need of gluons, the fact remains that the LST can account for empirical observations, using these

*ad hoc* concepts. This drives me to try to understand what it's all about and why David Gross et. al, received a Nobel Prize in theoretical physics, for coming up with it.

In their theory, the gluons actually carry a combination of color charge and anti-color charge, so, since there are three each of these, that would normally make you think that there should be 3 x 3 = 9, distinct gluons, but there aren't! There are only eight distinct gluons and the reason has to do with three dimensions!

How interesting is it that, given that the three integer values of our three unit sizes (square root of 1, 2 and 3) of the S|T (T|S) oscillations making up our motion combos (see post on this above), are due to the fundamental concepts of two "directions" in three dimensions and 2

^{3} = 8?

The only way I could see to tie different color-like properties that fit together like primary "colors," neutralizing the combo, was to use our three units as the radii of three sets of oscillations, each of which has three associated oscillations, in which the radius of one and only one is a unique integer magnitude (1, 2 or 3). The integer 1 is associated with the 1d element of the first set (√((√1)

^{2}+(√0)

^{2}+(√0)

^{2})); the integer 2 is associated with the 2d element of the second set (√((√2)

^{2}+(√2)

^{2}+(√0)

^{2})); and the integer 3 is associated with the 3d element of the third set (√((√3)

^{2}+(√3)

^{2}+(√3)

^{2})).

Though I hoped it would be, I had no idea at the time that the gluon concept of the LST's theory of quantumchromodynamics (QCD) was also based on the dimensional properties of these "charges," but so it turns out to be: One Internet commentator answered the question, why there are only 8 gluons, as follows:

“Quarks transform under this representation of SU(3), and because it's 3-dimensional we say quarks come in 3 colors: red, green and blue.” Since the matrices must have zero trace, the number of independent possibilities is cut to 8."

This is the most succinct statement I could find of this fact, but if you are interested in more detail, our old friend John Baez has explained it

here. For those that don't mind computer voices, there's less math and more graphics

here.
The bottom line is I can't put it all together yet, but there are enough clues coming in that I feel really positive that we can eventually get there - or not. I may be painting myself into a corner with the color "foolishness." Ha!