The Standard Model of Particle Physics

In a previous article1, I've used a conjunction of points to form implications between those points, and these implications were represented by the transition amplitudes of quantum mechanics. And in the next article2, I used transition amplitudes to describe virtual particles, and these virtual particles were used to represent spacetime itself. These virtual particles come in pairs consisting of a particle and an antiparticle. They appear together at one point in space, they travel independently for some distance and meet up at a different point at the same time. For a virtual pair, the particle has a phase angle that is 180° out of phase with the antiparticle so that when they meet up again, they add in superposition and cancel each other out leaving no observable effects as is noticed in empty space. Mass, energy, and motion were described as a real particle stepping through a series of cancelations with the antiparticles of virtual pairs.

The particle/antiparticle cancelation is possible
because the conjunction of points, **p****q****r***...,***p*** q*)

So far it seems I've described the necessity of
what appears to be *electrons* and *positrons*. But there are quite a few more particles that have yet
to be recognized in this formulation. The
Standard Model of
particle physics describes about 17 fundamental particles. There are bosons and
fermions, quarks and leptons; the fermions have 3 generations of mass. There is the Higgs boson,
and the charged particles have their antiparticle. The table to the left below shows how these are arranged. The
diagram to the right shows how they interact with each other. These particles
make up all the atoms and molecules we see. And the trick will be to find them
hiding in the logic of this formulation. The attempt here will be to show that
the combinatorics between the Standard Model and this formulism seems to match
for at least the first generation particles.

Previously, I suggested
here that first quantization gave
implications between points and was responsible for the U(1) symmetry of the
*electromagnetic force*. And then this was iterated to give implications of
implications, and this was responsible for the SU(2) symmetry of the *Weak
nuclear force.* And this was iterated again to give implications of
implications of implications, and this was responsible for the SU(3) symmetry of
the *Strong nuclear force*. This all seems a bit abstract, and I'd like to flesh
this out a little more. The question is, can we recognize the particles of the
*Weak force* in the second iteration to implications of implication? Can we
recognize the particles of the *Strong force* in the third iteration to
implications of implications of implications?

In the first quantization, the conjunction, **p***q***p*** q*),

The implication between points gave us what
appears to be *electric charge* since it gave us particle and
antiparticle. So now let us suppose that the implication between *electrons*
and *positrons* give us the *weak isospin charge* of the Weak
interaction. It might be said that this *weak isospin charge* is holding
the *electrons* and *positron* together in the particles of the
Weak interaction. Then notice these *Weak force particles* have both *
electric* and *weak isospin* charge, which is true of the Standard
Model W^{+}, W^{-},
Z^{0} bosons of
the Weak interaction.

We have four possibilities of combining *
electrons* and *positrons* in the *Weak force particles*
described above. But two of them result in the same particle. The *Weak force
particle *represented by *electron* *
positron**electric charge* of zero since the *electron*
has an opposite charge from the * positron*. But the

Obviously, the *electron
electron*

One possibility is that
each of the *electrons* in the *W*^{-}
*particle* is not allowed to engage in virtual particle trading with
virtual pairs that might take it far away. If these *electrons* could
arbitrarily shift position to anywhere, then the *Weak isospin force*
between them would be meaningless because they could no longer be identified as
a particle since their constituents would fly away. So if they are prevented
from interacting with far away virtual pairs, then their effect on nearby *
electric charges* is diminished. Or perhaps there is something to accounts
for their charge and mass in the math of superposition, since there are two ways
to connect two *positrons* or to connect two *electrons*.

The photon also needs to be explained in this view. The photon has two properties that suggest that it is a composite of and an electron and a positron. First, the photon has a spin of 1, whereas the electron and positron each have a spin of 1/2. If the photon were a composite of an electron and a positron, then their spins would add to 1, as we observe of the photon. And second, the photon has a charge of zero, which could be the equivalent of the negative charge of the electron plus the positive charge of the positron. The only property contradicting this composite is that both the electron and the positron each have a mass of equal value, but the photon does not have mass. Usually a composite particle adds up the masses of its constituents. But the photon might be explained by the way the electron/positron propagate.

Normally, positrons and electrons so close to each other that they can be considered a single particle will very quickly approach each other and cancel out. But as explained here, if they are travelling at the speed of light, then time for them slows to a halt so that they will never meet. And if they are travelling at the speed of light, which is the fastest on average that particle trading can occur, then there will be no particle trading in arbitrary directions especially in reverse. Then since mass was defined in terms of particle trading in arbitrary directions, if they travel at the speed of light, then there is no arbitrary virtual particle trading, so they have no mass.

And ...

Next, if we iterate the
formulism again, we get the conjunction, **r***
s*)(

eleccharge |
u d u d |
|||||

W ^{+} W^{+} |
p p) ()
p p |
u |
||||

W ^{+}
W^{-} |
p p) ()e e |
|||||

W ^{+} Z^{0} |
p p) (e
p) |
d |
||||

p p) (p e) |
d |
|||||

W ^{-}
W^{+} |
e
e) (p p) |
|||||

W ^{-} W^{-} |
e
e) (e e) |
u |
||||

W ^{-}
Z^{0} |
e
e) (e p) |
d |
||||

e
e) (p e) |
d |
|||||

Z ^{0}
W^{+} |
e p) (p p) |
d |
||||

p
e) (p p) |
d |
|||||

Z ^{0}
W^{-} |
e p) (e e) |
d |
||||

p
e) (e
e) |
d |
|||||

Z ^{0}
Z^{0} |
e p) (e p) |
|||||

e
p) (p
e) |
||||||

p
e) (e
p) |
||||||

p
e) (p
e) |

Where *e* stands
for *electrons* and *p* for *positrons*, and each *e*
in a line is different from another *e* in the same line, same with the
*p*.

The first
implication between points gave us *electrically charged particles, e *
and* p*. The second implication between *e* and *p* gave us the *Weak isospin charged particles*, *W ^{+}*,

The table above shows the
preliminary charge of these *particles*. The math involved with their superpositions might change the actual value of the charge.
And the *u, d,
u, d, **particles* that would result in the same
charge; then I could label them as different *color* charge. But there is
only one *u*,
one *u*, four *d*,
and four *d*. But
perhaps there is some way of getting three of each using superposition. Or
perhaps the *color* charge is seen only in the way the *quarks*
interact with each other. I'll add to this if I get any ideas. Use the Comment
button below if you have any thoughts on the subject. Thanks.