Model 8 (Symmetric vs Asymmetric)

The next generalisation we can make to our unified model is to introduce the concept of a variable mass quantum. We can keep the gravitational mass (a.k.a. charge) the same with all values constrained to be 1, whilst allowing the inertial mass (a.k.a. mass) to take on one of 2 values, either 1 or 2.

This leads to a model with 8 fundamental particles. We will retain the labels A,B,C and D whilst introducing a subscript to indicate the inertial mass:

ParticleGravitational Mass (mg)Inertial Mass (mi)
A1+1+1
B1-1-1
C1-1+1
D1+1-1
A2+1+2
B2-1-2
C2-1+2
D2+1-2

As before, we can draw up a table of interactions, whilst appreciating that this is getting a little unwieldy. This time, we use double arrows to represent the forces between the subscript1 particles because the ratio of gravitational to inertial mass is twice as much for them compared to the subscript2 particles:

Particle A1B1C1D1 A2B2C2D2
A1 Attract
⇒ ⇐
Combine
⇐ ⇐
Repel
⇐ ⇒
Combine
⇒ ⇒
Attract
⇒ ←
Chase
⇐ ←
Repel
⇐ →
Vortex
⇒ →
B1 Combine
⇒ ⇒
Repel
⇐ ⇒
Combine
⇐ ⇐
Attract
⇒ ⇐
Vortex
⇒ →
Repel
⇐ →
Chase
⇐ ←
Attract
⇒ ←
C1 Repel
⇐ ⇒
Combine
⇒ ⇒
Attract
⇒ ⇐
Combine
⇐ ⇐
Repel
⇐ →
Vortex
⇒ →
Attract
⇒ ←
Chase
⇐ ←
D1 Combine
⇐ ⇐
Attract
⇒ ⇐
Combine
⇒ ⇒
Repel
⇐ ⇒
Chase
⇐ ←
Attract
⇒ ←
Vortex
⇒ →
Repel
⇐ →
A2 Attract
→ ⇐
Vortex
← ⇐
Repel
← ⇒
Chase
→ ⇒
Attract
→ ←
Combine
← ←
Repel
← →
Combine
→ →
B2 Chase
→ ⇒
Repel
← ⇒
Vortex
← ⇐
Attract
→ ⇐
Combine
→ →
Repel
← →
Combine
← ←
Attract
→ ←
C2 Repel
← ⇒
Chase
→ ⇒
Attract
→ ⇐
Vortex
← ⇐
Repel
← →
Combine
→ →
Attract
→ ←
Combine
← ←
D2 Vortex
← ⇐
Attract
→ ⇐
Chase
→ ⇒
Repel
← ⇒
Combine
← ←
Attract
→ ←
Combine
→ →
Repel
← →

Clearly symmetric cases containing just the subscript1 particles are the same as before.

Likewise, symmetric cases containing just the subscript2 particles are very similar, just with heavier inertial masses leading to slower accelerations. We can think of these as a bit like the Superpartner predictions from the Sypersymmetry (SUSY) theories.

The asymmetric cases arise when we start to mix the lighter particles with the heavier ones:

Chase

If we take a closer look at the A1B2 case, we find that essentially they combine together and accelerate to light speed in a similar way to A1B1 or A2B2. However, the lighter A1 accelerates faster, getting further away all the time while the heavier B2 chases but can never catch up, a bit like the Tortoise and the Hare.

We end up with a behaviour that is kind of half-way between Combine and Repel.

Given that the fixed-distance-apart characteristic of Combine behaviour is missing, it it not really appropriate to think of the Chase cases as composite particles,.

We reserve the right to revisit both Chase and Repel when we come to model Quantum Entanglement.

We note that the exact ratio of inertial mass quanta (1 versus 2) is unimportant here as we will get essentially the same behaviour over a wide range of ratios.

Vortex

An interesting behaviour can be seen with the A2B1 case. Here we find that the heaver and slower A2 tries to run away, but is continually hounded by the lighter and faster B1.

In the general case, there will be a combined angular momentum governed by their initial positions and velocities, with the B1 spiralling around the A2 in a Vortex.

The composite particle remains stable, at least until it encounters something else.

Again we note that the exact ratio of inertial mass quanta is unimportant.

Paramagnetic and Diamagnetic Effects

A really interesting behaviour emerges when we consider what happens to our Vortex cases in the presence of an external gravitational (a.k.a. electromagnetric) field.

For example, we could place A2B1 in a system with distant A particle.

We find that the both the A2 and the B1 components are initially attracted towards the distant A. However, the lighter and faster B1 gets there first, effectively placing itself in between.

As it is closer to the A2, the repulsion from the B1 now dominates the attraction from the distant A.

What happens is that the composite vortex accelerates away from the distant A, even though the individual components are both attracted towards it.

We note that this behaviour is similar to Diamagnetism.

Conversely, we could place the A2B1 in a system with distant B particle and find that it is attracted towards it, even though both components have an individual tendency to move away.

We note that this behaviour is similar to Paramagnetism.

Simulating the Strong Force

We have seen with the vortex cases that the composite particles behave by moving the opposite way to what you would expect in the presence of an external field, given the behaviour of the individual components.

Yet we can see that by putting 2 of them together, there is a critical separation which differentiates short-range attraction from long-range repulsion.

We can speculate this this gives us a mechanism for simulating the Strong Force. We also note that the concept fits the experimental observations from Alan D.Krisch (1987) that colliding protons behave like vortices, shoving each other round preferentially in their spin directions.

Modelling the Proton

Now that we have a mechanism for simulating the strong force, we can start to put together a wish-list for what it would take to model the Proton. If we disregard the precise value of the proton mass for the time being and assume that the BAB particle is our best model of an electron, we need at least the following:

  • Overall +ve charge / gravitational mass in order to attract electrons
  • An abundance of component types A or D
  • Vortex behaviour to simulate the strong force
  • Gravitational mass (a.k.a. charge) = +1 in balance with the electron
  • Inertial mass (a.k.a. mass) magnitude > 1 to be heaver than the electron

If we stick with the fundamental particles in Model 8 for the time being, it turns out that we can manufacture a minimal proton model that conforms to the above requirements:

B1A2A2

We find that the central A2 pair gives it a heavy core, with the lighter B1 spiralling around in a Vortex.

This means that it is attracted to the electron, even though all of the individual components are repelled.

Likewise when a proton encounters another proton at close-range, the attraction of the central A2 pair starts to dominate, giving them a way of sticking together as the first stage towards making a Deuteron.

It has an overall gravitational mass of 1.

It has an overall inertial mass of 3.

Interestingly, our minimal model of the proton gives us 3 components, reminiscent of Quarks and with exclusively integer rather than fractional charges.

We also note that the inertial mass of the proton is opposite in sign to that of the electron. This means that when we put them together to make Hydrogen, we find that the center-of-mass is on the far side of the proton and not in-between it and the electron.

Modelling the Neutron

It's now an easy matter to add a second B1 particle to make a neutral particle, equivalent to a Neutron:

B1A2A2B1

Again we find that the neutron has a capacity to stick together with either protons or neutrons courtesy of the attraction from the central A2 pair.

It has an overall gravitational mass of 0.

It has an overall inertial mass of 2.

This time we find that our minimal neutron model has 4 components, unlike the quark model which has just 3.

< Previous Next >