Creating Sub-Atomic Structures by the MNM Model

Scientific Paper
Title	Creating Sub-Atomic Structures by the MNM Model
Read in full	Link to paper
Author(s)	Milos Abadzic
Keywords	Sub-Atomic Structures, MNM Model, Electron, Proton, Neutron, Spin, composite electron
Published	2007
Journal	General Science Journal
No. of pages	24

Read the full paper here

Abstract

This article shows a developed Natural Model of Nature (NMN model) which creates subatomic structures and determines their fundamental characteristics. This begins with elementary electronic triplets, (as the most complex sub-elemental structure), and in virtue of them, builds all subatomic particles. In that respect, these interactions always have all three fundamental sub-elemental particles present. It is reasonable to assume that the act of creating subatomic particles causes the appearance of notable variances in relation to existing configurations. There is a favorable circumstance in that the data can be scrutinized by various means. Some of the configurations shall be identified later to explain characteristics and processes at atomic and molecular levels. On this level, there is still no differentiation between particles which could explain differences between inert and living matter. Both subatomic structures and atoms themselves have standalone characteristics. In addition, experiments with processes that create and decompose subatomic particles will reveal their various structures. The conclusions which follow have seriously implications connected to the characteristics and operations of the various particles. For appreciation of this article, one requires an acquaintance with the contents of "Naturalistic Model of Nature", and if possible, with Concerning the Nature of Nature.

Overview

Miloš Abadžić's paper, published in the General Science Journal in 2007, is the third instalment of a larger construction he calls the NMN model — a "Natural Model of Nature" set out in two earlier papers, one of which exists only in Serbian. The paper's task is narrow within that scheme: given a substrate of three fundamental substances, build the electron, proton, neutron and their antiparticles as composite structures, and account for their charges, masses and spins by combination alone.

The three substances are material, electrical and mental, carried by particles Abadžić names materions (or masions), electrions and menions. The last of these is the paper's most unusual commitment: a mental substance is admitted at the sub-elemental level so that "nonphysical appearance and processes" — particularly those connected with living phenomena — can be brought inside the same framework as physics. All three are present in every structure; nothing forms without menions and what Abadžić calls the GMF. From these he assembles a single kind of building block, the electronic elementary triplet, of which there are four varieties, and from those in turn every stable subatomic particle. His declared score against the Standard Model is that where the Standard Model requires 61 particles — 12 leptons, 36 quarks, 13 bosons — the NMN model requires four.

The departures from the mainstream account are stated as a list at the outset and are unusually explicit. Material and electrical substance are separate, not fused in a single particle. All subatomic and atomic particles are composite, the electron included. Sub-elemental particles are indivisible, from which Abadžić derives three consequences: that there can be no force-carrying bosons (a carrier would have to be separable from what it carries), that mass ↔ energy transformation is impossible, and that one elementary particle cannot transform into another. Forces act at a distance under a "law of functioning masses"; annihilation, on this view, does not occur.

The argument

Starting data and constraints

Abadžić begins from a short list of experimental facts he treats as fixed: that proton and neutron are made of three quarks with charges ±1/3 and ±2/3 of the electron's; that electron and proton carry equal and opposite charge; that all have spin and antiparticles; that the electron is the lightest and proton and neutron the heaviest of the stable set; that neutron decay gives a proton and an electron; and that neutrinos appear in decays without any physical model attached. A table gives the masses in GeV/c²: electron 0.000511, proton 0.9383, neutron 0.9396, down quark 0.005–0.0085, up quark 0.0015–0.0045.

From these he draws his central inference. If charges of ±1/3 and ±2/3 exist at all, and if the positron must be built from constituents carrying third-integer charges, then the electron must be composite too — "it is logical to conclude that the electron has a complex structure that makes three electronic elementary triplets." A second argument is that particles lighter than the electron exist (the electron neutrino), which requires a mechanism for their production and therefore an electron with internal parts to produce them from. He states the design constraints explicitly: electron, proton, neutron and antiparticles must share one construction principle; the number of construct elements must be minimal but sufficient; the neutron is the proton plus an adjoined electron.

The electronic elementary triplet

The triplet has a nucleus of densely packed materions carrying one third of the electron's mass, and a surface layer of "empty electrions" of one polarity supplying a charge of one or two thirds of e. Abadžić describes the nucleus as spherical by minimum-potential-energy, prevented from total compaction by a tetrahedral masion arrangement and by menions and the GMF, and having a "mass density [that] represents some kind of black hole". Because its masions carry no charge, the nucleus cannot be broken electromagnetically at all: "the destruction of the nucleus of electronic elementary triplets is possible solely by inelastic collisions with material particles with small dimensions and great energy."

Two distinct spins are defined. Mass spin arises from rotation of the masions inside the nucleus; it produces no cohesion but, by the gyroscopic effect, stabilises the triplet's orientation. Electromagnetic spin arises from rotation of the surface charge and takes the constant value ½ħ; its handedness is fixed by the direction of the magnetic flux vector through the rotation-normal surface. Four triplets follow, differing only in charge and handedness, all of mass M_e/3:

E1 — left spin, −2e/3 · E2 — left spin, +e/3 · E3 — right spin, +2e/3 · E4 — right spin, −e/3.

Proton triplets P1–P4 are built from these, the mass ratio being set by

k = M_p/M_e − 3,

so that P1 = k(E1 + E3) + E3, P2 = k(E2 + E4) + E2, and likewise for P3 and P4. The bracketed pairs are electrically neutral — charge cancels within each — so the single unpaired triplet fixes the proton triplet's charge, while the k neutral pairs supply the mass. This is the paper's key structural device: it separates the charge budget from the mass budget, which is precisely the problem Abadžić presses against the quark model.

Assembly of the particles

The compositions are then simple sums:

• Electron = 2·E1 + E2, charge 2(−2/3) + 1/3 = −e, spin 2(½) − ½ = ½, left.
• Positron = 2·E3 + E4, charge +e, spin ½, right.
• Proton = 2·P1 + P2, charge +e, spin ½, right, mass k times the electron's.
• Negatron (his name for the antiproton) = 2·P3 + P4, charge −e, spin ½, left.
• Neutron = (2P1 + P2) + (2E1 + E2), i.e. a proton with an electron adjoined.
• Neton (antineutron) = (2P3 + P4) + (2E3 + E4).

Abadžić notes he first tried the simpler neutral combination 2·rPe/3 + lP2e/3, but rejected it because removing one triplet would leave a residual charge of 1/3 or 2/3 e, whereas the observed neutron decay yields a whole proton and a whole electron. The proton-plus-electron structure is "the sole variant" consistent with that, and it also accounts for the neutron's slightly greater mass. In the neutron the resultant electromagnetic spin is zero because all charges are balanced, leaving only mass spin, whose direction follows the majority charge — positive for the neutron, negative for the neton. His summary table gives the triplet content: the electron holds 2 E1 and 1 E2; the proton holds 2 P1 and 1 P2, equivalent to 3,670 E1 and 1,835 E2; the neutron the same plus the electron's three.

A general spin rule closes the section: where the difference of constituent spins is an odd number N_o, the relative spin is S = ½N_o; where it is zero or even, S = N_e. Since every stable structure combines two spins of one sign with one of the other, all come out at ½.

No annihilation

Because sub-elemental particles are indivisible, Abadžić rejects annihilation outright: electron–positron and proton–neton encounters do not destroy matter but form bound composites he names the binomal electron (biel) and binomal proton (bipro), of double mass and zero charge. The observed radiation is "only the liberation of their kinetic energy". These composites are more weakly bound than their constituents — larger separations, opposed spins — and so easily broken up again, which he offers as the source of fresh triplets for building new atoms. He notes the corollary for cosmology: since only balanced positive and negative species exist, the baryon asymmetry problem "virtually does not exist in the NMP model".

Objections to the Standard Model

Three explicit charges are laid. First, on electromagnetic waves: in the NMN model these are classical wave processes generated by electrion dipoles oscillating about a fixed centre of gravity, so the wave–particle dual object "has no real physical foundation", and "essentially modern theory still does not have a physical model of EMW". Second, on quarks: two up and one down give the proton's charge correctly, but "they will not be in conformity with the establish values of masses" — the quark masses in his own table sum to roughly 1 per cent of the proton mass. Third, on bosons: the force carriers are "more than heterogeneous", the graviton, photon and gluon have no physical feature beyond an assumed spin, and the W and Z, at masses above 80 GeV/c², cannot be housed inside a proton of 0.94 GeV/c². He adds a general principle against contact forces: "There are no singularities within nature and between particle masses, regardless of how small, there exists a distance, so forces must function at a distance as well."

Decomposition, and where the particle zoo comes from

The decomposition sections do the work of explaining why experiments see so many particles. Within a proton triplet, the k neutral (E1+E3) and (E2+E4) packages are tightly bound by internal Coulomb forces but weakly bound to one another, since between packages only mass and mental interactions operate across the larger distances. A sufficiently energetic collision therefore liberates free neutral packages first, then free triplets of charge ±2/3 and ±1/3, "hundreds of these charged particles from only one proton triplet element", all short-lived and quickly recombining. This, Abadžić argues, is what the high-energy laboratories are actually seeing; on the standard reading, the appearance of many particles of charge e out of a single proton would violate charge conservation unless one accepts "the unacceptable theory that we can make something from nothing". Quarks and some bosons, on his account, are real transient fragments but "play only a secondary role within the scope of the NMN model".

Electron decomposition requires much higher energies than proton decomposition and is beyond available devices; breaking a triplet itself requires energies attainable only by fortunate coincidence with cosmic rays. Neutrinos are then assigned an origin: since they are uncharged, their emission "can't be the result of electromagnetic interaction... they must emerge because of direct inelastic collisions with some fast particles", knocking small groups of masions out of the neutral cores. Electron neutrinos come from triplet cores, muon neutrinos from proton triplet structures, and tau neutrinos, being much heavier, "from the atom's core or some greater structures with compensating electric charges". He quotes the mass bounds he is working with: below 3 × 10⁻⁶ MeV, 0.19 MeV and 18 MeV respectively.

Programmable and stochastic processes

A short methodological section distinguishes programmable processes, initiated by menions and the GMF, from stochastic ones caused by external disturbance. The distinction carries the model's biological ambition: inert structures form during transients around the formation and decay of black holes and then sit in quasi-stationary states, while "the living phenomenal shape transformation are programmable and are present from the moment embryos are created, to their deterioration". Abadžić also warns that laboratory practice tracks charged particles by secondary effects and infers the rest, so that "by relying on secondary effects we lose contact with those that are primary, to the extent that they do not exist" — which he holds is how the annihilation and mass–energy doctrines entered physics in the first place.

Assessment

The paper's motivating intuitions are not eccentric, and two of them are worth stating in their strongest form. The observation that the current quark masses account for only a small fraction of the proton mass is entirely correct as arithmetic, and the question of where the rest of the mass comes from is a real one that the paper is right to press — the mainstream answer, that it resides in gluon field energy and the QCD scale rather than in constituent masses, is exactly the kind of answer Abadžić's framework forbids on principle, so the disagreement is genuine rather than merely a misunderstanding. The complaint about W and Z masses inside the proton is similarly a fair thing for an outsider to be puzzled by, even though the resolution — that virtual exchange is not constrained by the on-shell mass — is standard. And the combinatorial ambition is attractive in the abstract: a scheme with four building blocks that reproduces the charges and spins of six particles from pure addition has the same appeal that the eightfold way had.

But the reproduction is not as informative as it looks, because the blocks were designed backwards from the answers. The four triplets are simply the four combinations of two charges and two handednesses that the electron and positron require, and their mass is stipulated as M_e/3 rather than derived. The spin rule likewise is fitted, not predicted: every stable structure is built from two spins of one sign and one of the other because that is what yields ½, and no independent reason is given why that combination and no other should be stable. The proton is not explained at all in the sense that matters — k = M_p/M_e − 3 ≈ 1,833 is read off from the measured mass ratio and inserted, so the model has no account of why the proton is 1,836 times the electron, which is precisely the number a compositional theory of this kind would need to produce. The same holds for the neutron–proton mass difference: adjoining an electron gives a difference of M_e = 0.511 MeV, whereas the measured difference is 1.293 MeV, about 2.5 times larger. The paper's own table (0.9383 versus 0.9396 GeV) contains the numbers that contradict its construction, and the discrepancy is not addressed.

Several central steps are asserted rather than argued. That indivisibility of a sub-elemental particle rules out force carriers is presented as a deduction but is not one; nothing about an indivisible object prevents it from being emitted and absorbed. The claim that action at a distance is required because "between particle masses... there exists a distance" is a statement of preference, not an argument, and it leaves the model with no mechanism at all — the "law of functioning masses" is named but never written down as an equation. Indeed the paper contains almost no mathematics beyond charge and spin bookkeeping: there is no potential, no equation of motion, no calculation of a binding energy, and so no way to check any of the stability claims that the argument leans on so heavily. The menion and the GMF do the explanatory work at every difficult juncture — stability, rotation, programmability, the origin of life — without ever being given properties that could be tested or falsified.

The conflicts with measurement are decisive rather than marginal. Deep inelastic scattering at SLAC and later at HERA does not merely suggest that the proton has three constituents; it measures their charges (+2/3 and −1/3, from the ratio of neutrino to charged-lepton cross sections), their spins (½, from the scaling behaviour), and their number density as a function of momentum fraction. Abadžić's proton contains roughly 5,500 identical-mass triplets, which would produce a structure function peaked near x ≈ 1/5500 — nothing like the observed distribution with valence peaks near x ≈ 1/3. The electron, on the other side, is measured to be pointlike to below 10⁻¹⁸ m, and its anomalous magnetic moment agrees with the QED calculation to twelve significant figures; a composite electron of three orbiting charged sub-units of mass M_e/3 would produce form-factor and moment deviations far above that bound. The rejection of annihilation faces the positronium lifetime and the 511 keV line, whose energy is fixed at exactly m_ec² — a number that follows from mass–energy equivalence and that the "liberation of kinetic energy" account cannot reproduce, since kinetic energy at rest is zero. And the neutrino mass bounds quoted are those of 2007; oscillation experiments have since established that neutrino masses are nonzero but sub-eV, orders of magnitude below the "smaller group of masions" the paper envisages.

There are also internal problems. The paper is inconsistent about its own acronym, using NMN, NMP and MNM in different paragraphs. It asserts both that mass ↔ energy transformation is impossible and that annihilation radiation carries away liberated kinetic energy proportional to particle mass, without reconciling the two. It states that the triplet nucleus "represents some kind of black hole" while also being routinely liberated in collisions. And the English is sufficiently damaged in places — "The part of mass' spin beyond not by one's weightiness to proton's stability", "Whiten the Nature There are no singularities" — that some passages cannot be securely read at all, which is a real obstacle to fair evaluation and is worth recording as a defect of the paper rather than of the reader.

What is left, on a sympathetic reading, is a conceptual protest rather than a physical theory: against carriers of force, against mass–energy interconversion, against annihilation, and against a particle inventory that has grown to sixty-one members. Abadžić's own closing sentence claims "a great stride forward"; the more defensible claim available to him is the weaker one he makes earlier — that the model "supplies an explanation for their creation" and that "how far this will manage to explain their existence will be determined by more in-depth analysis". No such analysis is offered here, and none of the quantities the model would need to predict — the proton-to-electron mass ratio, the neutron–proton difference, any binding energy — is predicted.

See also

• Milos Abadzic
• Electron
• Proton
• Neutron
• Positron
• Quark
• Neutrino
• Spin
• Antimatter
• Standard Model
• Atomic Structure
• General Science Journal