Updates

A little to my surprise, I have found that the book 'Deep Thoughts' that I put on-line about a year ago, recieves about 200 hits per week. So having not updated the book in some time, I would like to take this oportunity to clarify some of my new ideas.

To skip all that and go to the forum click here DEEP THOUGHTS FORUM

'Spidergram' theory

Firstly, I am now very convinced that my idea of interaction weights (W=2-Spin) of interactions is the correct way to go. In particular the idea that they must add up to 8 in an interaction (given that the derivative is given weigth 1). So, as a reminder we have:

graviton (spin 2, weight 0)

gravitinos (spin 3/2 weight 1/2)

bosons (spin 1 weight 1)

fermions (spin 1/2 weight 3/2)

For a more mathematical description of this theory, a brief description can be found http://www.pabird.supanet.com/theory I have named it Spidergram theory in order to give it a catchy title like 'String theory' and because we can represent the interactions as graphs with verticies having 8 'leg's' plus an indeterminate amount of graviton legs represented by dotted lines (which I shall call the 'web' of gravitons in keeping with the theme).

The major problem with Spidergram theory is that I have not yet found a way to derive the masses of the elementary particles from it - however I am not too downhearted since no theory has ever done this yet.

What I believe is a misunderstanding by physicists is that they associate spin with the number of abstract spinor-indicies of a field whereas in fact spin, as I define it is related to the half the number of derrivatives in the free field equation of the field. What this means is that the graviton is represented by a scalar field having no indicies and yet we call it a spin-2 field because, by our theory, the free field wave equaition has 4 derrivatives.

The resulting theory of 'Scalar Gravity' is a very interesting theory in its own right. It is a relativistic theory of gravity based on a scalar field. Which means that it is basically a relativistic version of Newton's theory of gravity. I wonder what had happened if this theory had been found before General Relativity? It is not the same because it light is not bent by gravity and that the planets, in the absense of other forces would go in precise elliptical orbits - although very slightly different ones from the Newtonian theory. (I have not worked out whether these slightly different orbits could account for what we observe in our solar system although its an interesting problem.) For a planet at speed u and going around a ststionary sun of mass M the acceleration is according to 'Scalar Gravity'

At R=2M we encounter a new type of phenomenom - not a black hole because light is not affected but the 'light-barrier' as I call it beacuse everything at this radius hits the speed of light - and then?

The Lepton Theory of Hadrons- versus - the Quark Theory

One of my newer realisations is that according to Spidergram theory, there are not enough particles to incorporate the quark model of protons, neutrons, etc. Which means that the only alternative is that they be made of letons. I have found that you get exactly the same groups of hadrons if you assume that they be built out of the three generations of leptons held together by a weak- (charge-chaning) force as the quark theory. In fact, when you think about it, it is a little presumptuous to say that the hadrons must be made of 24 different kinds of NEW unobserved particles (quarks in 3 generations, 3 colours, and 2 flavours) plus another 8 types of force (the gluons of the 'strong' force).

The explanation for the fractional charges of the partons making up the protons/neutrons etc. is that because they are held together by a weak- (charge-chaning) force, such as the W+/- bosons, they change charge and it is their average charge which is fractional. 1/3 or 2/3.

I don't mean to say that the strong force is the same as the weak force only that it must be a similar charge-changing one, turning electrons into neutrinos and so forth.

A proton, then, can be thought of as made of a positron, a neutrino and an anti-neutrino held together by this new weak-like force, or at a later stage, two postrons and an electron.

Similarly, by making different combinations of charged and uncharged leptons, you can form the whole spectrum of hadrons.

The constant indentifiers of a proton are then:

1) made of three 1st generation leptons

2) made of two anti-particles and one particle

3) total charge +1

for the neutron it is

1) made of three 1st generation leptons

2) made of two particles and one anti-particle

3) total charge 0

The positive pion is then made of a positron and an anti-neutrino since these interact via a charge-changing interaction. As I said, all hadrons can be formed from these 3 generations of leptons - without the need for quarks (although perhaps with the need for a separate weak-type charge-changing force similar to the W+, W- and Z0 bosons).

One objection might be that we know of positronium, a type of atom made of a positron and an electron which is definitely not a hadron. But this is held together by the electric force and not closer together by the new weak-type force.

Confinement

Another objection could be that why does a proton, for example not decay into an electron and a pair of neurinos if that is what it is 'made' of? I can only theorise that there exists some kind of confinement mechanism due to the new weak-type force which presents a potential barrier which stops these three particles escaping - although at high enough energies, it should obviously be possible to split the proton!

Matter = Anti-Matter

We also note that the lepton model of hadrons says that the total matter and the total anti-matter in the universe is equal, it is just that the anti-electrons are stuck inside protons, and can't escape due to a potential barrier caused by the new theorised weak-type force.

Well, thats all I have time to say right now. I may put up a forum if people want to discuss things about life, the universe and everything.

Bye 4 now!

Paul.