There are several conservation laws that define constraints on how elementary particles interact, and I’ve been looking at what they say about the R3+T dual-spin particle concept that I have studied (latest is at https://agemozphysics.com/2023/12/28/the-higgs-field-and-r3t-dual-spin-point-particles/). The idea here is to better determine whether dual-spin particles could work as a model for the Standard Model particle zoo.
If you have followed my study as shown in recent posts (e.g., https://agemozphysics.com/2023/12/17/properties-of-dual-spin-elementary-point-particles/), you know that I have found a number of properties of point particles that exist in our R3+T four dimensional spacetime. I believe it is indisputable that an elementary point particle in a four dimensional system can have two independent spins (for example, one spin in the X-Y plane, and another spin pointing within the Z-T plane). This fact, coupled with the fact that interactions in R3+T spacetime are confined to a 3D hypersurface slice that moves along the T dimension, results in quite a few very interesting properties that I list in previous posts. One very important property is the discovery that a single R3+T dual-spin particle can actually appear to us (as an observer within our hyperspace slice of R3+T) as two or three independent particles.
Up to this point, the work appears to be solid but does not prove if it is a basis for reality, that is, work as a structure for the interactions and particles defined by the standard model. One fairly quick way to make this determination is to see whether dual-spin particles conform to the standard model conservation laws. These laws constrain what particles can exist, and they also constrain decay paths. If dual-spin particles are a valid construct for reality, there should be no contradictions or impossible interactions.
The first conservation I looked at is the conservation of baryon number. This is the easiest one–since R3+T dual-spin particles are single particles that appear to us as multiple pseudo particles (see posts linked above), and quantization always limits the pseudo-particle count to either 2 or 3, baryon number will always be conserved in the dual-spin particle case. In fact, Noether’s principle states that this conservation law comes from the symmetry that actually implies a single particle (from some point of view within R3+T, not our hypersurface) for all quark combinations. I think that conservation of baryon number, combined with the requirement of relativistic invariance as applied to elementary point particles, directly points to the validity of the dual-spin structure. Looking good so far, at least to me.
Lepton number conservation also seems to work in the dual-spin system. There are quantized spin ratios of either two or three, and these cannot mix without dramatically changing the energy/mass of at least one of the pseudo particles–thus violating the conservation of energy of the system of interacting particles.
Fermion conservation is a somewhat general statement of momentum conservation, and I don’t see it affecting the argument of whether dual-spin particles would work or not.
I haven’t addressed muon number conservation because I don’t know what class of dual-spin ratios define muons. Similarly, isospin conservation requires a dual-spin ratio definition for the different pions and other particles. If I make progress by studying decay paths, I should see symmetries emerge here and how dual-spin structures fit within the isospin conservation constraint.
The crossing symmetry where an interaction can be transformed by taking the antiparticle of one of the components and placing it on the other side of the interaction equation should not affect the dual-spin validity.
Chirality needs more study. I don’t see anything that limits parity–dual-spin structures do not appear to favor one or the other reflection of an interaction. This would imply there is some other symmetry breaking activity taking place here, but does not rule out dual-spin as a valid representation of reality.
So, I am currently concluding that the conservation laws (other than the unknown case of muon and isospin conservation) do not lead to contradictions. In fact, baryon number conservation strongly points to the validity of the dual-spin structure as a basis for the particle zoo–in my opinion, for whatever that is worth…
Agemoz
Tags: particle zoo, physics, quantum, science, special relativity, special-relativity
Agemoz's Physics Blog 