60 years ago, Gell-Mann and Zweig both determined that protons and neutrons have three internal components. These three components were readily assumed to be particles, a term that carried specific properties; discontinuous, mass, energy, spin, charge, independence, etc. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics had already determined that everything is made of waves. The next 60 years were spent at both, forcefully attributing particle properties to a wave and accepting and introducing wave mechanics onto a disappearing particle. Yet, the particle image remains as seen in recent representations of the proton and nucleus.
Electromagnetic waves offer two main topologies. The linear wave that always move (photons wavelet and neutrinos) and the circular wave, spinning and staying put, that which we call “particles”. Granted, a circular wave a spinning in all directions will draw a sphere which scattering data will render as a spherical object with a pinpoint mass at its center.
The present theory is about taking the Gell-Mann and Zweig triplet as three consecutive quadrants out of the four of a sine wave and building the waveforms of particles from there. A genealogy of particle waveforms was reconstructed from decay products, from simple to more complex, according to conservation of wave quadrants between reactant and products in particle reactions and decays.
From this came the Wave Quadrant Diagram System giving visual and operational representations of particles and their interactions.
The Quark model/Theory
The quark model is offered as a system for representing and understanding particle’s interactions from the play of common, shared and exchangeable smaller constituents. A Bona fide “system” minimum requirement is to abide by the law of non-contradiction. Well, when a quark d turn into a quark u it is the same as saying d = non d, a contradiction. Once one accepts such contradiction, this quark idea or model is not a logical system and one may, after that, choose anything he wants. A truth is but a demonstrated absence of choice, and this quark idea fails at the minimum absence of choice or constraint, that of being logical by abiding by the law of non-contradiction. Electrons and neutrinos have no quark content but participate in many particle interactions. How is this possible?
This case is closed and no amount of mathematical fumigation can hide these bugs because they are conceptual. Let’s move on to something better, like the wave quadrant system where all linear waves and circular waves (particles) have a clear wave quadrants content, quadrants of standard size, readily comparable, computable and exchangeable according to a simple wave topology.
You may access these ideas at my lebelmarcel X page.
Thanks for your note! It's important to know a few things. First, plane waves are essentially a theorist's representation of photons, even so, circularly polarized modes and linearly polarized modes are related by a linear transformation. Realistic ones are linear combinations of multiple frequencies we call "wave packets". They are not topologically distinct. Indeed, any topology they have is bestowed by the spacetime in which they live, as they are solutions to differential equations. But again, these are just models. In either case, it has nothing to do with what we call "particles". Also, at this point there is nothing conceptually incorrect about the quark model. If anything, recent advances in computation have demonstrated numerically that QCD is quite a strong model!
Thanks for the reply. The contradiction d = non d remains and neutrinos and electrons are still without quarks!
QCD is numerically strong at describing our interactions via all sorts of instruments. But the purpose of particle physics is more than just the collection of facts that satisfy experiments. The purpose and next step is to come up with a logical model based on a proper ontology, i.e., based on what makes up the universe and its properties. This means understanding what we know. Physics is ill prepared for this extension. Logicians and a proper metaphysics can and should help. But this frontier is froth from perils … from both sides…
60 years ago, Gell-Mann and Zweig both determined that protons and neutrons have three internal components. These three components were readily assumed to be particles, a term that carried specific properties; discontinuous, mass, energy, spin, charge, independence, etc. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics had already determined that everything is made of waves. The next 60 years were spent at both, forcefully attributing particle properties to a wave and accepting and introducing wave mechanics onto a disappearing particle. Yet, the particle image remains as seen in recent representations of the proton and nucleus.
Electromagnetic waves offer two main topologies. The linear wave that always move (photons wavelet and neutrinos) and the circular wave, spinning and staying put, that which we call “particles”. Granted, a circular wave a spinning in all directions will draw a sphere which scattering data will render as a spherical object with a pinpoint mass at its center.
The present theory is about taking the Gell-Mann and Zweig triplet as three consecutive quadrants out of the four of a sine wave and building the waveforms of particles from there. A genealogy of particle waveforms was reconstructed from decay products, from simple to more complex, according to conservation of wave quadrants between reactant and products in particle reactions and decays.
From this came the Wave Quadrant Diagram System giving visual and operational representations of particles and their interactions.
The Quark model/Theory
The quark model is offered as a system for representing and understanding particle’s interactions from the play of common, shared and exchangeable smaller constituents. A Bona fide “system” minimum requirement is to abide by the law of non-contradiction. Well, when a quark d turn into a quark u it is the same as saying d = non d, a contradiction. Once one accepts such contradiction, this quark idea or model is not a logical system and one may, after that, choose anything he wants. A truth is but a demonstrated absence of choice, and this quark idea fails at the minimum absence of choice or constraint, that of being logical by abiding by the law of non-contradiction. Electrons and neutrinos have no quark content but participate in many particle interactions. How is this possible?
This case is closed and no amount of mathematical fumigation can hide these bugs because they are conceptual. Let’s move on to something better, like the wave quadrant system where all linear waves and circular waves (particles) have a clear wave quadrants content, quadrants of standard size, readily comparable, computable and exchangeable according to a simple wave topology.
You may access these ideas at my lebelmarcel X page.
Thanks for your note! It's important to know a few things. First, plane waves are essentially a theorist's representation of photons, even so, circularly polarized modes and linearly polarized modes are related by a linear transformation. Realistic ones are linear combinations of multiple frequencies we call "wave packets". They are not topologically distinct. Indeed, any topology they have is bestowed by the spacetime in which they live, as they are solutions to differential equations. But again, these are just models. In either case, it has nothing to do with what we call "particles". Also, at this point there is nothing conceptually incorrect about the quark model. If anything, recent advances in computation have demonstrated numerically that QCD is quite a strong model!
Sean,
Thanks for the reply. The contradiction d = non d remains and neutrinos and electrons are still without quarks!
QCD is numerically strong at describing our interactions via all sorts of instruments. But the purpose of particle physics is more than just the collection of facts that satisfy experiments. The purpose and next step is to come up with a logical model based on a proper ontology, i.e., based on what makes up the universe and its properties. This means understanding what we know. Physics is ill prepared for this extension. Logicians and a proper metaphysics can and should help. But this frontier is froth from perils … from both sides…
At any rate, have fun looking at my X page.. https://x.com/lebelmarcel?lang=en
Thanks again and have a nice day,
Marcel,