The Larson Research Center

As the regular readers of this blog know, the LRC’s RSt starts with nothing but motion, postulates “direction” reversals to obtain SUDRs and TUDRS, and combines these into SUDR|TUDR (S|T) units that constitute preons, forming the various entities of the standard model (SM). These entities take the form of two types of triforms, the bosons formed in a planar array of three S|T units, and the fermions, formed in a triangle of three S|T units, as illustrated with bar magnets, in figure 1 below:

Figure 1. The Two Triforms of S|T Combinations

However, unlike magnetic poles, S|T units are formed from discrete units of time-displaced, s³/t⁰ = 1/2, scalar motion and space-displaced, s⁰/t³ = 2/1, inverse scalar motion. Hence, a given S|T unit can have either an equal number of SUDRs and TUDRs, or an unequal number. To indicate the different possibilities, schematically, we employ a bar with three colors, red, blue and green. The SUDR component of the S|T units is indicated with the color red on one end of the bar, while the TUDR component is indicated with the color blue on the other end. When a given S|T unit has more of one component than the other, the color of the greater component is placed midway between the ends of the bar. If the unit has an equal number of the two components, the color green is placed between them. The result for up and down quarks is shown in figure 2 below:

Figure 2. The Up and Down Quarks Formed from S|T Preons

Of course, we were quite pleased with this much progress in our theory, but when we tried to take the next step, to form the atomic nuclei from the quarks, a proton with two up and one down quark, and a neutron with two down and one up quark, so we could move on to the periodic table, we always ended up with a complicated mess, which had little discernible order to it. Moreover, just how we were going to fit the electrons into the pattern was not apparent at all. As a result, our research focus shifted to other areas. Until this week, that is.

Last Wednesday, Jerry Montgomery and Rondo Jeffery, announced the dramatic results of their efforts to model atomic nuclei, based on arranging quarks as three particles, forming a triangle (see: their website). Immediately, it became clear that this was indeed the way to do it! Not only does this dramatically solve the problem they were working on, to successfully model the nucleus of legacy physics, solving the many difficulties with the historic approaches, but it also solves the problem in the LRC’s efforts to combine quarks and electrons in our RSt, taking us to the next level!

In pondering their nuclei model, they realized, as we did in pondering our preon model, that with three components, there is only one geometric possibility, three points must form a plane, a triangle. Of course, in our case the colored bars are only a schematic representation of the three psuedoscalar eigenstates merging together physically, as shown in figure 3 below:

Figure 3. The Physical Triform of Fermions

Nevertheless, the result is the same. The only geometric possibility of combining three points is a plane. From there it was easy, following their lead, we just combine our triangular quarks into a larger triangular proton or neutron, instead of trying to make them into some complex 3D configuration, as we had been attempting to do. Figure 4 below shows the arrangement:

Figure 4. The Proton and Neutron Arrangement of Quarks

As Jerry and Rondo point out, and as is clearly evident from figure 4 above, folding these two nuclei upon one another, like closing an open book, brings each quark into alignment with its inverse companion quark. But what may be news to them (hopefully welcome news!) is that, like a cutout in the middle of a book, a perfect slot for the electron is created!!!! Our preon model of the electron is shown in figure 5 below:

Figure 5. S|T Combinations Forming the Electron of the Standard Model

Clearly, there has not been enough time to examine all the ramifications of this yet, but the preliminaries sure look promising. Just a look at the colors shows why protons are positively charged (four blues and one red), but neutrons are not (two blues and two reds), but adding an electron to a proton neutralizes it (four reds, four blues), and the combination of one electron, one proton, and one neutron is neutral (six reds and six blues).

Following the Jerry and Rondo model, our model of a proton/electron/neutron “sandwich” would be joined at the base with another sandwich, just like it, but vertically inverted, to form the helium atom, which in their model forms a basis for building a lattice of atomic nuclei only. No mention of electrons is made, if I’m not mistaken. Presumably, though, the latticework of their nuclei is somehow surrounded by a cloud of electrons, required by the shell model of the legacy system’s atomic concept, based on quantum mechanics.

As has already been pointed out by Paul deLespinasse, however, in Larson’s RSt, the atomic model does not admit various, independent, entities to exist in the atom, such as rotating electrons, a la the Bohr model of electronic orbits, or the QM model of electron clouds. In Larson’s model, the atom consists of nothing but discrete units of scalar motion. Larson’s model consists of n-dimensional rotations of a linear vibration and combinations thereof. Meanwhile, our new RSt model consists of combinations of n-dimensional vibrations period. No rotation is involved, even thought the constituent entities, electrons, protons, and neutrons retain their identities, schematically. A roadmap of the requisite combinations is shown in figure 6 below:

Figure 6. From Quarks and Leptons to Helium

Though different than Larson’s RSt model, the LRC’s RSt model treats the atom in the same way his model does, as nothing but discrete units of scalar motion. It’s important to remember, that the pattern of quarks and leptons in an atom, such as helium, indicate discrete units of scalar motion. There are no moving particles in the atom, and no nucleus.