The Search for a Crucial Experiment

Discussion of Larson Research Center work.

Moderator: dbundy

Post Reply
dbundy
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

The Search for a Crucial Experiment

Post by dbundy » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:28 pm

Many years ago, the discussion around ISUS was centered on how to devise a "crucial experiment," the results of which could only be explained by Larson's new system of theory, thereby "converting" many legacy scientists to the new way of thinking about the physical universe.

Sadly, nothing ever came of it. However, with the LRC's RST-based theory (RSt), which has taken us down a different path of theoretical development, compared to Larson's RSt, it now may be possible to devise the coveted experiment. The reason for the new optimism is the fact that we now have an RSt model of the observed elementary particles and of the atomic spectra groups, as well as a new understanding of the periodic table of the elements, together with a new mathematical approach to quantify it all.

All this brings with it a much simplified model of the atom, as a combination of space and time scalar motions, wherein we can explore physical phenomena, as relations between motion combinations. A good place to start might be with particle interactions. Right now the LST community is spending beaucoup bucks studying neutrinos and cosmic rays and dark matter.

One of the investigations is a search for "sterile" neutrinos, meaning inert neutrinos that haven't been detected. The reason they are thinking that they might exist, though, is due to what they see as a lack of symmetry in the interactions of particle physics. They love symmetry almost as much as we do, because of its links to laws of conservation.

In this case, the lack of symmetry is found in the fact that positive and negative beta decay happens with the production of right-chiral positrons and left-chiral electrons, respectively, along with their associated neutrinos, but not vice-versa. No such decay takes place that produces right-chiral electrons or left-chiral positrons. These four particles can be seen clearly in our model, which was originally based on the LST's Bilson-Thompson braid model, and we've followed it ever since, deriving the natural units of motion (num), for each particle, as shown in the table of the following graphic:

Image

However, it's not that easy to see in the LST language. Several mistakes have been made in various presentations of the topic that tend to confuse people. For instance, here is one presentation with great animations, but they got the charge signs wrong on the positrons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mXW1zPlxEE&t=309s

So, left-chiral neutrinos are produced with right-chiral positrons, in positive beta decay, and right-chiral anti-neutrinos are produced with left-chiral electrons, in negative beta decay, and all of this has to do with quantum spin, the nature of which the LST has no clue, while we can explain it easily.

I'll have more to say about this, of course, but I also want to reference the MiniBoone investigation mentioned in the above video, where they want to find sterile neutrinos to help explain how their heavier muon neutrinos quickly transform into lighter electron neutrinos, if indeed they do so.

Here is a new slide presentation on several experiments along this line:

https://theory.fnal.gov/wp-content/uplo ... eminar.pdf

It's very technical and obtuse for non-specialists, but it conveys a sense of the lengths they're willing to go to, in order to explain the observed anomalies, including the consideration of extra dimensions!

Given our much simpler system of theory, we would immediately conclude that there can be no other neutrinos, since the neutrinos (in each family, of course) are the neutral, or foundational, particles of the material and cosmic sectors of our theoretical universe. That is the reason they occupy the center position in the graph, between the three s/t (velocity) and the three t/s (energy) particles. They are neutral, or balanced entities, we might say, just as unit progression (s/t (t/s) = 1/1) is unit speed (energy), in the triality of the RST. The LST's lack of recognition of this fact, blinds them to the true nature of the particles and the beauty of their inherent symmetry.

It turns out, though, that the Bilson-Thompson braid model, which we have based our particle schematic upon for years now, because it is well-known and accepted by the LST community, doesn't follow the reciprocity of the LRC's RSt, as it has developed over the intervening years. We've ignored this annoying fact, as we have gone along, because we could still use it to great advantage and we didn't want to run the risk of violating some well-known, but obscure, physical principle.

However, in the study of the neutrinos and in the context of the search for a "crucial" experiment, the need to rectify this situation has become apparent. Therefore, the following graphic shows the theoretically correct, or at least a more consistent way to order the particles in our theory:

Image

In the above graphic, the color of the vertices has been changed to black and white, in order to convey the reciprocal nature of the two sets of particles more clearly. The chirality is obvious, given the left and right side of the middle position of the two neutrinos. The colors of the less than 'c' speed S|T units is red, while it is blue for the greater than 'c' speed T|S units, for the material sector particles. Of course, this color scheme is reversed for the cosmic sector set of particles. It's easy to see that the cosmic sector set is just the material sector set, rotated horizontally around the neutrino.

This makes the cosmic sector neutrino (with the white vertices) the anti-neutrino, and no other possibility exists. In other words, the anti-neutrino is the reciprocal of the neutrino, which is why its spin is also opposite. The chirality of the neutrinos can't exist in this model, any more than it exists for two, opposite, sides of a coin, but more on this later.

What this new, reciprocal, arrangement of the particles gives us is the ability to investigate the particle interactions in a more straightforward manner. In fact, in the next post, we'll see how to do a version of Feynman diagrams, in terms of the interacting particles' num value.

dbundy
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: The Search for a Crucial Experiment

Post by dbundy » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:15 pm

One of the things that the development of our RST-based theory (our RSt) brings to the table, if nothing else, is a clarification of the particle physics picture; that is, it simplifies the LST's extremely complicated and even convoluted system of particle classification. It starts with space and time oscillations (S & T units), which combine to form photons (S|T units), which combine to form quarks and leptons.

There are three families of these quarks and leptons, based on the square roots of 1, 2 and 3:

First family (√1):

Image

Second family (√2):

Image

Third family (√3):

Image

Combinations of quarks are called hadrons. There are two types of hadrons, baryons (heavy) and mesons (light). Baryon type hadrons are combinations of three quarks, and meson hadrons are a combination of two quarks. Since our theory is based on nothing but motion (where motion consists of ratios of changing space and time), the nature of these entities and their properties is no longer a mystery. They are all motions, combinations of motions or relations between them.

Of course, many of the possible combinations of these units of motion, are not stable, but spontaneously disintegrate, or decay, into various other combinations, but thanks to the laws of conservation (symmetry), the lineage of a given particle at a given time, can be determined by the experimenters.

These laws require that mass, energy, charge, spin, etc, be conserved, as the decay process continues, enabling researchers to classify the particles accordingly. Richard Feynman devised a way to create diagrams of the conclusions of the researchers, which are called Feynman diagrams. They are very useful to the LST community, but we need to adapt them to our RST-based research, which is carried out in terms of units of motion, which has no analog in the LST.

To begin, we can easily diagram the most basic decays, which are the beta decays, as well as the reverse of these, or the absorption processes:

Image

Instead of using a basis of conservation of charge in these diagrams, we use the conservation of natural units of motion (num), but since a particle's num value can be either below or above the num value of its family's neutrino, or anti-neutrino, those values below the neutrino num (s/t < c) are enclosed in parenthesis. In the material sector, these "lower" values are on the left (m-velocity side) of the neutrino, while in the cosmic sector, they are on the right (c-velocity side) of the anti-neutrino.

This can be confusing, unless we remember that, like the rational number line, values to the left of unity (1/1), are regarded as "lower" than those to the right of unity, by convention, even though, in reality, the two opposed sides are not lower or higher, but simply lie in two reciprocal "directions," relative to unity. The use of parenthesis is used in the financial world to indicate (debt) vs. credit, so we are following suit in that regard.

However, when the line of motion combinations is rotated 180 degrees around the neutrino, giving us the back-side of the particles, or their anti-particle side, the two "directions" are also reversed, so that the "lower" values now appear on the right side of the anti-neutrino, and the "higher" values are on the left side. Therefore, the parentheses, indicating the "lower" (t/s < c) values, enclose them.

In the case of the neutrinos, their num values are neither "higher" or "lower" relative to themselves, of course, but they are opposite relative to one another (s/t = t/s = 1/1). The values are reciprocal and non-zero, therefore we will designate the anti-neutrino as the lower value and enclose it in parentheses, accordingly.

The num value of a given particle is calculated from its num equation:

P = u + u + d = 16 + 16 + (14) = 18
N = u + d + d = 16 + (14) + (14) = (12)

W- = 3(4/8+4/1+2/1) = 12/24+12/3+6/3 = 30|30 = (30)
W+ = 3(1/2+1/4+8/4) = 3/6+3/12+24/12 = 30|30 = 30

e- = 3(2/4+2/1+2/1) = 6/12+6/3+6/3 = 18|18 = (18)
p = 3(1/2+1/2+4/2) = 3/6+3/6+12/6 = 18|18 = 18
v* = 3(2/1+2/1+1/2) = 6/3+6/6+3/6 = 12|12 = (12)
v = 3(1/2+1/1+2/1) = 3/6+3/3+6/3 = 12|12 = 12

For the nucleons, the equations of their constituent quarks are not shown above, for simplicity, but they're straightforward enough.

To calculate the gain and loss of num in the diagrams, its necessary to recognize the num difference between the material sector and the cosmic sector. For the neutrinos, this difference is 12 - (12) = 24. For the electrons, it is 18-(18) = 36, and the others are in between these values.

For example, in negative beta decay, a down quark of the incoming neutron, at (12) num, emits a W- boson, at (30) num, making it an up quark, changing the nucleon to a proton, at 18 num [(12)-(30) = 18]. The decayed down quark was at black (14), the new up quark is at white 16 [(16-(14) = 30]. The W- boson (30) then decays into an electron, (18), and an anti-neutrino, (12) [(18) + (12) = (30)].

Another example is neutrino capture. Here, an incoming neutrino, 12, emits a W+ boson, 30, changing it into an electron, (18), [12-30 = (18)], while the W+ boson is absorbed by the neutron, changing it into a proton [30 + (12) = 18].

Using parentheses, instead of + and - signs, which are used to indicate electrical charges, takes a little getting use to, but it avoids confusion with the latter, and clearly shows that the natural units of motion of these particles are conserved in these well-known transformation processes of first family quarks and leptons.

Next time, we will go beyond first family quarks and leptons, as we add second family members to the mix.

dbundy
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:14 pm

Re: The Search for a Crucial Experiment

Post by dbundy » Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:15 pm

As we have continued the development of the LRC's RSt, from space and time oscillations, (SUDRs and TUDRs or Ss & Ts), to combinations of these into S|T and T|S units, to combinations of these into quarks and leptons and their anti-particle counterparts, as three sets or families of particles, as already observed or implied by the experiments of the LST community, each with its unique quantity of space and time scalar motion, accounting for the exact "electrical charge" that allows the stable combinations of neutrons and protons to form atoms in combination with electrons, we have simply been astounded.

Moreover, these scalar motions, and their various combinations into elementary particles, anti-particles, nucleons and atoms, form the periodic table of elements, which, as we've discovered, exhibits the same characteristic of space and time reciprocity, which has been the basis of the theory's development from the outset, and that principle of reciprocity accounts for the phenomena of positive and negative beta decay, as well as much of the observed photon, electron and neutrino absorption/emission phenomena of the elements.

This is an impressive achievement, by any standard. However, it is based on the scalar motion of Larson's RST, which is not even a recognized form of motion in the LST community! Consequently, what the RST community needs is a crucial experiment, one that predicts something theoretically, that has not yet been observed physically. The LST-based theory found just such an experiment in the last century that has had a profound and lasting effect on the acceptance of its view of the world.

It was the prediction and subsequent discovery of the omega minus elementary particle, which was so impressive. The only other experiment that had an impact even close to it was the predicted discovery of Dirac's positively charged electron, dubbed the positron. The theoretical prediction of the omega minus particle was made simultaneously by two men, the most prominent of which was the late Murray Gell-Mann, and he dubbed his analysis method as the "Eight-fold way."

However, the eignt-fold way analysis is based on the mathematics of group theory, which is used to study rotations described in terms of the non-commutative operations of matrices. Unfortunately (or fortunately), the second fundamental postulate of Larson's RST assumes that the mathematics of the universe conforms to "ordinary, commutative mathematics," which seemingly would rule out the use of modern group theory mathematics.

The complexity of non-commutative mathematics, such as group theory, makes it very difficult for non-specialists to critique the methods and conclusions of the LST physicists, who employ it in their work, and thus much of it has to be accepted on the belief that they, the specialists, do understand it.

This all started back in the days of the fathers of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg, Dirac and Schrodinger, among others. The non-commutative mathematics was found in Werner Heisenberg's analysis of atomic spectra, which work lit up Paul Dirac like a light bulb, and eventually led to Erwin Schrodinger's wave equation, which was an equivalent approach to the non-commutative math of matrix multiplication that Heisenberg didn't recognize until he was informed of it later.

The key to it all, however, was the introduction of the concept of quantum spin, not to be confused with the spin of a toy top, or the spin of a ball, or the rotation of a planet. Quantum spin is a quantity of energy, measured in terms of the experimentally verified calculation of Max Planck, called Planck's constant, symbolized by the letter "h". It's not to be compared to the spin of objects for several reasons, not the least of which is that its cycle consists of 720 degrees of change, rather than 360 degrees, something that scientists are at a loss to explain to this day.

But whatever it is, it is a quantity that can be measured experimentally, and low and behold, the elementary particles of the LST's standard model of particle physics are classified accordingly, and that classification, interestingly enough, corresponds to the dimensions of the tetraktys! So, here we go again. The dimensions of the tetraktys and its properties, which have played such a key role in the development of the LRC's RSt, also appear in the classification of the LST's experimental study of the particle spin states of LST theory!

Image
In the graphic above, I've mapped the LST's spin states for the different types of the standard model particles to the tetraktys, noting its dimensions in red. Of course, while the Higgs boson is shown at the apex of the tetraktys, the 0D slot, with spin 0, neither the Higgs field nor the Higgs boson are part of the LRC's version of the standard model.

Indeed, the LST's Higgs concept, employed to explain the origin of mass, represents the clearest contrast between our scalar motion based theory and the LST's vector motion based theory. It goes to the heart of the difference between the two systems: the definition of space and time.

In Larson's new system of theory, space is not a pre-existing container that can be filled with air or water or anything else. It is strictly an aspect of motion, with no significance apart from that. It is the reciprocal of time, in the equation of motion, and one cannot exist without the other. The best way to understand it is to recognize that space (time) cannot be measured without motion. The fact that objects occupy various positions in "space" that can be shown to satisfy the postulates of geometry, is simply the consequence of the history of past motion.

Those relative positions cannot be measured without repeating some version of the past motion, which placed them there. Consequently, the idea of a field, electrical or otherwise, as a grid of values, pervasive throughout "space,"is terribly misleading. A "force" field is even more misleading, given the definition of force.

Without going into the rationale and consequences of these assertions, at this time, it's clear to see that a crucial experiment that would predict a distinctive outcome eliminating one of these two conflicting approaches to the mass mystery, should be possible. One of the first tasks facing our side of the issue is to understand quantum spin first, and then to look for connections of it, and what the LST calls "isospin," to the observed values of mass. The reason for this approach is based on the fact that these quantities are intimately connected to dimensions, and they are conserved quantities that can be measured, like mass and energy.

Now, one of the interesting things about the spin states shown above is that they differ by Planck's energy constant, h bar, which is h divided by 2π; That is to say, the 720° cycle , or 4π cycle, of quantum spin, divided in half, has to do with the frequency of space/time (time/space) oscillation (i.e. E = hν). This is a difficult concept for the LST to handle, since a spinning oscillation would ordinarily complete each cycle in 360 degrees of rotation and oscillation, respectively, but the math of group theory enables them to cope with it, by modeling the motion as an object following the path of a möbius strip.

The same thing can be thought of as a compound rotation in which the axis of a spinning object is rotated 180 degrees for each 360 degrees of spin, thus requiring the axis to be rotated twice and the spin completed twice to return to the beginning of the cycle. The trouble is of course, this type of motion is not possible for point-like particles, and even if the particles were not point-like, but had some extent, then other constraints prevent the model's existence.

However, this cognitive dissonance is disregarded in the LST community, because quantum spin, whatever it is, can be calculated, measured and even exploited.

We also notice the reciprocal symmetry in these magnitudes, but the question is, do they really have anything at all to do with the dimensions of the tetraktys and thus the magnitudes of Larson's Cube (LC), or is the correspondence in the above graphic just a coincidence?

We'll see.

Post Reply