zero mass of double spin axes

[AntonioLao]

zero mass of double spin axes.doc
If all elementary particles are composites then their properties of double intrinsic spin axes are relatively orientable with respect to each other. Moreover, these orientations in abstract multidimensional spacetime can be used to define the mass of each elementary particle. In view of other physical theories concerning the origin of mass, for example the Higgs mechanism, mass values derived from orientations of double intrinsic spin axes give a more plausible and completely different explanation but without the necessity of invoking the existence of scalar spin zero Higgs boson. The same idea provide an alternative description of the isotopic spin of both proton and neutron using a commutative Abelian formalism in contradistinction to the non-Abelian Yang-Mills formalism of quantum field theories using concepts of local gauge invariance.
　
Traditionally, the one dimensional time independent wave function (x) of every elementary particle is given as the product of its eigenvector (x) and the phase factor exp(i): (x)= (x) exp(i). However, for a theory of double intrinsic spin axes, (x) is given as (x) (x)= (x) exp(i)exp(i) where exp(i) represents one spin axis and exp(i) represents the other axis and  and  are angular displacements in abstract multidimensional spacetime. For mass to be zero simply means that += or 180° and satisfies Euler’s formula exp(+i)=exp(-i)= -1. In fact, infinitely many phase factors can be multiplied by the eigenvector and if the sum of all angular displacements adds up to exactly 180° the result is zero mass of the represented composite particle.

[Graybeard]

OK ... I'm here ... but gunna take time for me to understand this and get back to you

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

I think you've got some great thoughts there, Antonio - we need a greater precision in describing "energy". Energy is not simply an undirected/scalar quantity.

A potentially better manner of empirical measurement would be to use fewer scalar quantities and retain more precise records of temporal ordering of events. (We can then gain information in terms of combinatorial/permutative effects - for example, if an observation of A then B is described as one A and one B, we've lost a binary unit of information as to which came first. If we add event C, this increases to 6 possible permutations and this quantity grows factorially.

For example, if we gave directions to some area of space and said it has a white dwarf, a pulsar and a red giant, this gives us some level of precision as to a position, though if we considered the order of these to proceed from nearest to furthest, then we could potentially use the same description to reduce the positions to 1/6 the previous by assuming their ordering in space/time was significant.

Of course an even better manner is to skip empirical measurements altogether and just figure out how it should be ... saves potential disputes later on, IMO. It would certain be difficult, though still potentially entertaining, carrying on a discussion with a die roll as to why it rolled what appeared to be a wrong number LOL (Imagine if somehow every physical law was empirically measured ... but then things just changed arbitrarily - now imagine having to repeat this but on the scale of empirical measurements of possible natural laws ... there's got to be a better way than that! We should at least be able to derive some foundation for deterministic structures that any universe would have to possess in some form simply in order that it be comprehensible as having things (implies a conservation) that can be seen to change (implies a memory and likely might require this to have a specific direction of causation, if we can write those changes as themselves stable rules).

[AntonioLao]

The directional property of energy can be seen as a localization of forces between particles, say between proton and proton as this image of empirical data indicated: