## Posts Tagged ‘**gauge coupling unification**’

## Relativistic Supersymmetric 6 Quarks Model

*Note: The ads you will see on this blog are automatically set and own by WordPress; I complained about it because I don’t like to show ads, but this is a free blog and they put those advertisements to get some profit. To quite the ads I would purchase a WordPress premium acount. I’m currently thinking to change the blog platform to a server without ads that will not be owned by WordPress.*

Considering the electromagnetic atom a topological structure of two intersecting (partially merged) manifolds (longitudinal waves or branes) vibrating with the same or opposite phases, their cobordian submanifolds created in and by such intersection will be the subatomic particles of the nucleus shared by this dual system, acting as fermions when the phases of variation of the intersecting manifolds are opposite and acting as bosons when those phases synchronize becoming equal. The quarks of the system – considered as the pushing forces caused by the displacement of the intersecting fields while vibrating – will be identical in the bosonic and fermionic times, that is to say, supersymmetric. The point of the intersection of the system, that remains the same during the whole phases but moving left to right in the fermionic phase and upward and downward in the bosonic one, will be the point of convergence of all the fermionic and bosonic strong and weak interactions naturally explaining the unification of the gauge couplings.

(*If you came here looking for info, note that this is a speculative and nonmainstream article*).

Supersymmetry has been proposed as a possible relation between fermions and bosons. For each fermionic particle would exist a supersymmetric bosonic particle and vice versa. Those supersymmetric particles were expected to be found with the big accelerators but the big particle accelerators have not detected them so far and now physicists are thinking about building new accelerators bigger than the LHC with the hope that new supersymmetric particles with be found out at higher energies.

I think supersymmetry could be understood in a natural and mechanical way if we considered the atom as a dual system formed by two intersecting (partially merged) fields varying (vibrating) with the same or opposite phase (two intersecting longitudinal waves).

The subatomic particles of the central nucleus shared by that binary system would be the subfields created by and in that intersection. Their behaviour would be different, acting as fermions or bosons, depending on the synchronization and desynchronization of the phases of variation of the two intersecting fields.

A – When the two intersecting fields vary with opposite phase (when one of them contracts the other one expands and vice versa), the subatomic particles would be fermions ruled by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP). In that case, the electron and its antiparticle the positron would be the same field moving in a pendular from left to right.

The pendular displacement would describe a circle because of the precession that would take place after each expansion and contraction, when the orbital motion is inertial (there’s no pushing force) while the fields stop to expand or contract until they start to contract and expand again.

As they are the same subfield they would be Majorana antiparticles. (A Majorana antiparticle is such particle that is its own antiparticle. In the context of a field theory a Marorana field would be a field that is its own anti-field; but as something cannot be a thing and its opposite thing at the same time, I think Majorana antiparticles only can exist at different consecutive times, giving account of the Majorana oscillator.

That displacement towards left or right of the electron/positron subfield would be a consequence of the variation of the two intersecting fields, being moved towards the side of the intersecting field that contracts.

The subfield Neutron/Neutrino and their related antiparticles Proton/Antineutrino would exist at the left or right sides of the system respectively, in this way: When the left intersecting field is expanded and the right one is contracted, at the left side of the system there would be an expanded neutrino while at the right side there would be a contracted proton;

A moment later, when the left intersecting field gets contracted and the right one gets expanded, at the left side of the system the before expanded neutrino will contract becoming a neutron while at the right side the before contracted neutron will expand becoming an antineutrino. Neutron-proton and neutrino-antineutrino are Dirac antiparticles because they are different subfields. Fermions and their mirror symmetry antiparticles respect the PEP because they exist at different, consecutive, times.

When the electron/positron subfield exist at the left side as an electron, we could say the positron field exist at that same time as a “virtual” positron, that is to say, as a subfield that does not actually exist at that moment but that will be actually existing a moment later when that subfield will move to the right. (That virtuality or potential existence is, to me, the actual meaning of the “virtual particles” that physicists use as senseless tools to equilibrate the standard atomic model).

B – Now if the phases of variation of the two intersecting fields synchronize, the fermionic subfields become bosons. Now, the electron/positron field is not displaced towards left and right but upwards and downwards receiving a double compressing force when the two intersecting fields contract at the same time. That upward pushing force will create the photon. When the two intersecting fields expand at the same time the ascending contracting field will descend becoming expanded and its inner orbital motion will decrease; We can speak then about a decay but also about a quantic interruption on the creation of the photon. But the discontinuity will be only apparent because it will be saved at the convex side of the intersecting system where there will be an inverted pushing force that will create and anti-photon.

<a href=”https://curvaturasvariables.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/fine-structure.jpg”><img class=”alignnone size-large wp-image-1362″ src=”https://curvaturasvariables.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/fine-structure.jpg?w=850″ alt=”” width=”850″ height=”602″ /></a>

If we are observers placed at the concave side of the system, we won’t detect the anti-photon that takes place at the convex side when the decay happens at the concave side, and we will speak about a dark, invisible for us, matter and energy.

The strongest interaction would occur when the two intersecting fields contract at the same time, because the ascendant field gets contracted and its inner kinetic energy, its orbital motion, accelerates. Is that inner motion of the subfield shared by the two intersecting fields what creates the “chemical bond between them, becoming more difficult to separate or fold them from their convex side.

The below image represents in a same page the two moments of the fermionic and bosonic times. I tagged here the dark photon as anti-gravitational because its curvature will be inverted with respect to the curvature of the system. Gravity will be the pushing force (the old theory of Fatio and Le Sage) of ”something” (galactic dust, solar winds, a Higgs field? I won’t use the term ”ether) in motion that creates the periodic curvatures when finding a dense spatial distribution, changing the curvatures when changing that density because of the friction. Maybe the two intersecting fields in this sense could be considered as two partially merged pilot waves.

With respect to the Supersymmetry. I think SUSI could be represented in this way:

For example, when it comes to the fermionic electron/positron, their identical but bosonic partner would be the supersymmetric field that creates the photon. Their shape are not identical, they cannot be, because the photonic field will be formed with a half part of the electron and a half part of the positron converging at a same time. It can be more easily seen thinking in terms of quarks represented as vectors on the below picture. The fermionic quark of the positron at the fermionic moment 1 and the fermionic quark of the electron at the next fermionic moment 2, concur at a same bosonic moment 1 when the phases of variation get equal and the two intersecting fields contract:

This model can be seen as unconventional but I think it also can be explained in terms of six quarks in terms of quantum chromodynamics, considering a quark as the pushing force created by the side of that intersecting fields when expanding or contracting.

(I think the pushing forces I consider the supersymmetric quarks maybe could also be expressed in terms of a supersymmetric string theory when considering the intersecting fields as intersecting “branes”).

In this sense, I think the SUSY only can be found when thinking in terms of supersymmetric quarks.

Considering the atom a topological structure whose spaces and subspaces experience periodical transformations becoming those subspaces fermions (when the dual system vibrates with opposite phases) or as bosons (when vibrates with equal phases). Being those fermionic the same fields that their correspondent bosonic partners, they cannot be identical when experiencing the bosonic or fermionic transformations because of those transformations affect to their shapes.

What remains exactly identical, though, at both the bosonic and fermionic times, are the quarks of the system. So I think what physicists should look for supersymmetry in the already known particles is only the fermionic and bosonic quarks that must be spacially symmetric at different times.

But is it that nobody thought before about supersymmetry in terms of quarks? Physicists thought about it just in a model of quarks under Su(6) but in a non-relativistic model. When they tried to explain the quarks supersymmetry in a relativistic quantum theory the failed.

See the below paragraphs of Steven Weinberg (“The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 3: Supersymmetry”), speaking about the historical development of the theories of supersymmetry.

A number of authors showed that this was in fact impossible. I don’t know the attempts they did but I think a relativistic approach should not only consider the motion of an object inside of a space during a specific period of time, its velocity, but also the periodical variation of the space itself, the mutation of the phase of variation of that space, and the relation of that varying or vibrating space with the varying spaces it is connected to form a spatial-temporal system.

One of the reasons supersymmetry is being looked for is because it would represent an explanation of the so-called “gauge coupling”. I think the gauge couplings would be the meeting point where the two varying fields intersect to create their shared submanifolds. This converging point that unifies the interactions of all the subatomic particles will move towards left or right in the case of fermions and upward and downward in the case of bosons.

The gauge coupling unification is one of the main reasons why supersymmetry is being looked for by physicists.

I think to understand supersymmetry and to explain the gauge coupling unification it’s not necessary to look for new subatomic particles because the supersymmetry comes given by the quarks.

The below page of the book “Lost in Math” of Sabine Hossenfelder (I recommend it to see the current situation of physics and because of her clear explanations) are graphically explains the gauge couplings related to supersymmetry (SUSY) and without supersymmetry:

On the other hand, one of the predictions made by the standard model is the decay of the proton, which – as supersymmetry so far – has not been observed yet. As I explained before, I think the decay of the proton occurs periodically every time a neutron gets formed at the left side of the centre of symmetry, and an antineutrino appears at its right side. An instant later, when the antineutrino contracts becoming a proton at the right side, the left-handed side neutron will decay (expand) becoming a neutrino. (The neutron was the antiparticle of the proton, existing at different consecutive moments).

With respect to the maths behind the dual system I propose, I think this dual atom would be a topological structure because its structure remains the same – that’s why it explains supersymmetry – although its shape and behaviour vary periodically with time.

I think it can be thought of as a Riemann space. Riemann spaces were used to build the quantum model but I think from a misinterpretation of what the intersecting surfaces were for Riemann: they were interpreted (I think by Hermann Weyl mainly) as overlapping surfaces instead of being considered as partially merged manifolds that create new and shared sub-manifolds.

I also think the model can be seen as cobordian manifolds because the subfields are cobordian with respect the two intersecting fields that created them.

A part of the two temporary dimensions, it would be necessary to consider as well the different spatial dimensions of the subfields that are non commutative with respect to the spatial dimensions of the intersecting fields: by example, the Y coordinate of the Neutron/neutrino or antineutrino/proton fields will be the Z coordinate of the Left and right intersecting fields, so a rational coordinate of a subfield can be irrational in an intersecting field and vice-versa.

The structure can also be seen as a possible expression of the Lobachevski ”Imaginary” geometry being determined the angle of parallelism and non-parallelism of two mirror symmetric lines by the periodical fluctuation of the system. Here the hyperbolic parallelism is not related to a line that gets curved but to the straight lines that oscillate periodically; those oscillating hyperbolic straight lines will be the spatial coordinates of the subfields of the system.

When the angle of inclination of one of those subfields changes, the subfield placed at its mirror opposite side will change as well because they both are part of the same system. But the way they both will oscillate and so their angle of parallelism will change depending on if the phases of variation are fermionic or bosonic:

Fermionic Lobachevski imaginary geometry:

Bosonic Lobachevski imaginary geometry:

These are some of the Lobachevsky’s representation about his imaginary geometry

On the other hand, this hypothetical model could be considered as a multiverse model but here the “universes” that create the sub-universes are not only parallel, they are intersecting – partially merged – and they vary periodically, they vibrate.

We can consider every pulsating photon as a “big bang” – when the two intersecting fields contract at the same time, that will be followed by a “big silence” when the two intersecting fields expand at the same time.

It also can be considered as a multiverse model – a many interacting fields or “worlds” or “Histories” model – but here the “multiverses” that create the multi sub-universes are not just parallel, they are intersecting – partially merged – and they vary periodically vary, they vibrate. We can consider every pulsating photon as a “big bang” – when the two intersecting fields contract at the same time, that will be followed by a “big silence” when the two intersecting fields expand at the same time.

Other figures I drew about this model when I started some yesra ago are:

(I’m not sure about the name of the fields ï on the above figure, I think they could also be electronic neutrinos but with a different shape and an inverted direction of their inner magnetic motions)

Suggestions for fermionic and bosonic spectral lines:

Directions of the pushing forces (considering the model as an observer place above of the longitudinal fields):

But what does create the different and periodically variable curvatures?

I think the longitudinal waves or the periodically variable vortex or fields can be interpreted as waves or fields of pressure, as “pilots waves” if you will. I think gravity is the force of pressure created by a field in motion that passes through a space with a compacted distribution that creates a resistance, curving the field, to be passed through it.

The idea of gravity as a force of pressure was already proposed Fatio and Le Sage but was definitely forgotten when the hypothesis of the aether was rejected after the Michelson and Morley experiment at the beginning of the XX century. But today we speak about solar winds, interstellar dust, intergalactic matter, etc, and even it is already accepted and proved the existence of a vibrating “Higgs” field that permeates the emptiness of whole universe acting actually as a force of pressure to create material masses.

About gravity as a force of pressure (Newton himself was very aware that the only mechanical explanation for gravity is the force of pressure as it newe the theory of his friend Fatio) take a look to these links:

**Fatio and Le Sage theory of gravitation**

**Mechanical explanations of gravitation **

**On the ultramundane Corpuscles of Le Sage**

A book that I found following the above links is “Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage’s theory of gravitation” – 2002, Matthew R. R. Edwards.

I added here this artistic picture published by NASA. It represents the interaction between the “solar winds” and the Pluto’s atmosphere.

I think it would be similar to what is called ‘pilot wave’, acting as a force of pressure, as pushing longitudinal wave.

Credits: NASA/APL/SwRI)

(Note that so far has not been detected at a macrocosmic level that gravitational fields expand and contract periodically, and at the atomic level – where the quantization created by the periodical expansion and contraction of the waves, their periodical pulsations – it’s currently considered that gravity does not have a meaningful presence.)

Other theories and models have been proposed that i feel similar to this one, for example, the “Many interacting worlds” theory. But none of them seems to be considering the actual intersection and the variation of the fields. Also the “Vortex theory”, the “Knot theory” was another attempt that uses longitudinal fields or vortex but without considering the periodical variation of the space and its intersection.

I think we have an unconsciously assimilated monistic idea of space or universe as a unique or at least independent and invariable field. But I think the electromagnetic universe can only exist when interacting because of their mutual intersection two fields or universes that vary periodically.

The current atomic model was built upon an interpretation of the Riemann geometry, that I think took the Riemann manifolds as overlapping fields instead of considering them as actually intersecting fields.

On the other hand, the intersecting fields and subfields could be placed in a spiral way towards the infinitely big and the infinitely small:

On the other hand, I think the model would let naturally understand the already known “entanglement”, when being understood as the consequence of this dual system knotted by its partial fusion or intersection.

The below picture would represent a carbon atom based on this hypothetical model:

The Casimir forces would be the pushing force caused by the displacement of the non-intersecting sides of the two intersecting fields when contracting, coming from outside of the central nucleus to inside.

Finally, the below rudimentary animation would be an approximate representation of the model in motion. The gif does not represent the supersymmetric transformation the fermions into bosons and vice versa (they appear in separated systems) and it does not represent either the circular rotation of the whole system around its central axis.

Have a great day

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Update Nov 21, 2018

Today I read an article about “Knotlike structures” called “skyrmions” titled “Nuclear ‘knots’ could unravel the mysteries of atoms”. Some physicists have improved a theory that the nuclear physicist Tony Skyrme suggested in the 1960s stating that that “these structures — since named after him — could represent protons and neutrons within a nucleus in theoretical calculations.”

“https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nuclear-knots-skyrmions-could-unravel-mysteries-atoms

These are the knotted structures presented today:

Knots were already suggested by Lord Kelvin in the XIX century with the Vortex theory as well.

See the thesis *“ The Vortex Theory of Atoms – *pinnacle

*: https://t.co/ojavimtiXp*

**of classical physics”**I think the dual atomic system can also be explained in these terms of “knotted” particles. In this sense, I think there’s only a “knot” which represents the structural unification of gauge couplings in a supersymmetric quarks system of two intersecting spaces whose phases of variation synchronize and desynchronize periodically.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Update Feb 2, 2019

Another very interesting model that works with vortex is the relativistic superluminal quantum vortex model, also called “superluminal slinky electron model”

You can find much information about superluminal quantum models at **quantummodels.org**

Related to that and to the idea of a composite photon initiated by De Broglie, professor Richard Gauthier has developed a double helix photon model that can be read (it also provide information about other composite models) here: **“Quantum-entangled superluminal double-helix photon produces a relativistic superluminal quantum-vortex zitterbewegung electron and positron”**

I think the atomic model I explained on this blog could also be considered as a composite model, not only related to the photon but to the whole atomic nucleus, a composite atom. In that sense, I understand this paragraph, that summarizes the Richard Gauthier’s work, by visualizing the model of two intersecting fields that vary periodically (although our models differ in their geometry and other assumptions and conclusions):

“The present article suggests how a proposed 3-D double-helical model of the photon can be transformed into a proposed 3-D closed-helical model of the electron and the positron during electron-positron pair production. In the proposed transformation process, amplitude and frequency parameters of the double-helix photon model equal the corresponding amplitude and frequency parameters of the electron and positron models. A key feature of modeling this transformation process is that the incoming photon is proposed to be a double-helix composite structure of two mutually circulating oppositely-charged single-helix half- photons that separate during electron-positron pair production and curl up their trajectories to become a quantum vortex electron and a quantum vortex positron pair.”

Cheers.