John SkieSwanne
2016
Introduction
Ever since the very dawn of science (or even legends), mankind has searched for a one, common factor uniting every single thing in the universe.
The Singular Primordial Preon Theory is the first to propose that everything in the universe, may it be water, humans, nebulae, dinosaurs, light, perhaps even dark matter, is composed of a single preon and of its antipreon.
Using this one preon, the SPP Theory accounts for the Standard Model in simpler terms via retrodiction. The necessity of simplifying the Standard Model is not only supported, but even described by prominent physicists [1]. However the SPP Theory does more than mere retrodiction - it also solves mysteries from the Standard Model, and even makes powerful predictions such as the properties of dark matter.
The SPP Theory is divided in three "Pillars", or chapters - the next Pillar building on the previous, but not absolutely implied by the previous.
******
Pillar One
Pillar One is completely derived from observational data so to deduce the most probable underlying structure of Standard Model particles. Therefore Pillar One sets the basis of the SPP Theory by covering three important aspects:
-electric charge of all particles;
-modelling observed particles decay modes;
-mathematical proof of the model.
The core proposition of the SPP Theory is that there exists only one preon. This makes the model the ultimate act of reductionism possible - there is no further reduction possible below 1. Finally, all particles are composed of six preons.
This simplifies greatly the standard model of particles. The dozens of observed particles would be composed of a single preon (and its antipreon). This "swanne preon", for want of a better name, will be noted as "a", and its antipreon will be noted "b". The swanne preon ("a") has a charge of +e/6, and the antipreon ("b") has a charge of -e/6. Which is the antipreon is a purely arbitrary choice, for an atom of hydrogen will contain the two in equal quantities. Choosing to say that the swanne preon is the one with charge -e/6 and that its antipreon is +e/6 would have been equally correct.
All Standard Model particles are composed of six preons. The preon content may be either six swanne preons, six antipreons, or any mix of the two. This proposition satisfies Occam's Razor (that is, every particles having six preons is simpler than particles each having ad hoc preon counts).
~
Electric charge of all particles
Using the two assumptions described above, we can lay down all possible, non-repeating permutations:
aaaaaa
aaaaab
aaaabb
aaabbb
aabbbb
abbbbb
bbbbbb
Adding up the charge of the permutations gives us exactly seven different electrical charge species:
aaaaaa = +1e
aaaaab = +2e/3
aaaabb = +e/3
aaabbb = 0e
aabbbb = -e/3
abbbbb = -2e/3
bbbbbb = -1e
Which happens to precisely match all seven observed particle charge species:
aaaaaa = +1e = positron
aaaaab = +2e/3 = up quark
aaaabb = +e/3 = down antiquark
aaabbb = 0e = neutrino and neutral boson
aabbbb = -e/3 = down quark
abbbbb = -2e/3 = up antiquark
bbbbbb = -1e = electron
~
Modelling observed particles decay modes
Particle decay, whose inner workings until now remained physically undescribed, can now be modelled as a mere exchange of preons. Within the SPP Theory, a particle that undergoes decay actually interacts with a nearby particle and exchange preons with it (a process which is not unlike the one observed in living being's genetic mixing). After the exchange event, the two particles are mutated (as they contain new material from one another) and thus their properties, such as total electric charge, are modified.
The simplest demonstration is the positron annihilation. As the positron meets an electron, the two transform into two photons. Before the SPP Theory, the reason why two "elementary" particled would somehow destroy one another and why two photons would then emerge from the annihilation event was left physically unexplained.
e- + e+ = Y + Y
The SPP Theory, however, models the phenomenon as an exchange of preons. The positron shatters itself as three of its swanne preons move to the electron. The electron also splits in two as three of its antipreons move to the positron. As the three swanne preons combine with what remains of the electron, the new system forms a first neutrally-charged photon. And as the three antipreons combine with what remains of the positron, the new system forms a second photon.
[aaaaaa]+[bbbbbb] = [aaabbb]+[aaabbb]
A Feynman Diagram can be made of the annihilation event:
Annihilation is just one of many forms of decay which the SPP Theory models. It also models baryon decay modes, such as hadron decay and meson decay.
Inverse beta decay, observed in the heart of stars:
duu + Ve =
dud + e+
[aabbbb] [aaaaab] [aaaaab] + [aaabbb] =
[aabbbb] [aaaaab] [aabbbb] + [aaaaaa]
Decay by electron capture:
duu + e- =
dud + Ve
[aabbbb] [aaaaab] [aaaaab] + [bbbbbb] =
[aabbbb] [aaaaab] [aabbbb] + [aaabbb]
Beta decay requires the intervention of two neutral background particles (whose identity is unknown in the First Pillar):
ddu + (...) + (...) =
duu + e- + Ve
[aabbbb] [aabbbb] [aaaaab] + [aaabbb] + [aaabbb] =
[aabbbb] [aaaaab] [aaaaab] + [aaabbb] + [bbbbbb]
Pillar Three will speculate on the identity of the background particle which could be triggering beta decay.
Meson decay, such as positive pion decay, in which up quark and down antiquark become antimuon (same composition than positron) and neutrino:
[aaaaab] [aaaabb] =
[aaabbb] [aaaaaa]
Only groups of 2 preons were here exchanged, since the down antiquark had only two "b" antipreons to exchange with a particle composed almost exclusively of swanne preons. A similar process happens in the negative pion decay:
[abbbbb] [aabbbb] =
[aaabbb] [bbbbbb]
Neutral pions usually decay via annihilation into two photons:
[abbbbb] [aaaaab] =
[aaabbb] [aaabbb]
but they can also decay, though more rarely, into an electron / positron pair:
[abbbbb] [aaaaab] =
[bbbbbb] [aaaaaa]
The exchange of only one preon is rarer than 2-preons exchanges (since it requires more energy to move the extra mass), but possible; giving meson decay modes which are highly consistent with observations.
~
Mathematical proof of the model
A mathematical proof exists to support the proposition that six preons per particles is the simplest system, and that more than two preon species (the swanne preon and its antipreon) is unnecessary. Let N be the amount of preons in a set of items, and S be the number of item species. In a set where S=2, the number of non-repeating permutations "P" can be computed by,
P = N+1
Note that in all instances where N is inferior to 6, the resulting amount of permutations will be inferior to the seven observed.
(N < 6)+1 = P < 7
Furthermore, the individual charge (e/N) of the species of preons will form permutation sums which are incompatible with observed particle charges.
N=1: [+e, -e] (incompatible)
N=2: [+e, 0, -e] (incompatible)
N=3: [+e, +e/3, -e/3, -e] (incompatible)
N=4: [+e, +e/2, 0, -e/2, -e] (incompatible)
N=5: [+e, +3e/5, +e/5, -e/5, -3e/5, -e] (incompatible)
N=6 is the smallet set which will yield seven permutations, and in whose permutations total charges match exactly observation:
N=6: [+e, +2e/3, +e/3, 0, -e/3, -2e/3, -e] (perfect match)
It can also be proven that more than two species of preons is useless. Permutations for sets with S=3 number of item species can be found by:
P = (N+1(N+2))/2
Note that as N is explored, the resulting number of permutations fails to reach seven.
N=1: (1+1(1+2))/2 = 3
N=2: (2+1(2+2))/2 = 6
N=3: (3+1(3+1))/2 = 10
Similarly, permutations for sets with S=4 is found by:
P = (N+1(N+2(N+3)))/6
Once again, as we browse N, we find that the system fails to yield exactly seven permutations:
N=1: (1+1(1+2(1+3)))/6 = 4
N=2: (2+1(2+2(2+3)))/6 = 10
This goes on until S itself reaches 7 - but then, seven species of preons would defeat the whole point of reductionism in the first place.
This constitutes the mathematical proof that S=2 and N=6 is the most likely, simplest system possible.
******
Pillar Two (mildly speculative - falsification of this Pillar does not falsify Pillar One)
Particles have more properties than mere electric charge and decay mode. This is where Pillar Two comes in. Created only two months after Pillar One, Pillar Two expands on the ideas set forth in Pillar One. It explains:
-spin attribution;
-cause for the three Generations;
-cause for the muon anomalous dipole moment;
-neutrino oscillation;
-antimatter and CT symmetry;
-cause for Kaon oscillation;
-EMC effect.
It is safe to assume that preons inside a particle are bound together in a such a fashion that every preons are at equal distance from the center of the particle (minimum potential energy), and that all six preons are placed equidistantly relative to one another. The only configuration satisfying those assumptions is the octahedron.
This means that particles are actually made of preons placed in the fashion of an octahedron, with a preon at every vertices.
Also, in Pillar Two the preon is viewed as having two faces. In the instance of the swanne preon, the face aligned with its momentum direction is charged +e/6, and the face aligned with the past is of opposite charge -e/6. In the antipreon the forward face is charged -e/6 and the opposite face is charged +e/6. Preons are not viewed as classical particles but actually as charge quanta. Preons have often been rejected for the reason that particles have zero size (are considered "point-like"), but preons with zero actual size are completely compatible with a point-like particles model, since six times zero still gives zero.
~
Spin attribution
Preons are modelled as a three-dimensional wake of charge. In the instance of the swanne preon, the x axis (the axis aligned with the momentum direction) will show +e/6 at the front, and -e/6 at the back; the y axis (the axis going from up to down) will show +e/6 at the top and -e/6 at the bottom; and the z axis (the axis going side to side) will show 0e from left to right. In the case of the antipreon, all charges are inverted.
This has a major implication - spin attribution. As a particle - which is made of preons - spins on itself while traveling, the combined frontal charge of its preons does not change, but the uppermost preon rotates away as the bottommost preon shifts to take its place. Upon reaching the top, the bottommost preon is upside-down, and shows its bottom charge up. If, after half a rotation, this charge is the same than that of the top-most preon, the particle has an integer spin. If not, the particle has spin=1/2. In other words, if the top-most preon is the same as the bottom-most, the particle will be a spin=1/2. If not, the particle will be a spin=1.
Such a spin attribution distinguishes, for instance, neutrino (spin = 1/2) from the photon boson (spin = 1).
~
Cause for the three Generations
Since particles are modelled as octahedrons, one can conclude that this solid may take three possible states.
-First state: the system travels vertex-first. One vertex faces the momentum direction.
-Second state: the system travels edge-first. Two vertices face the momentum direction.
-Third state: the system travels face-first. Three vertices face the momentum direction.
These three states are correlated to the three Generations observed in particles.
The muon shares the same composition as the electron ([bbbbbb]), but whereas the electron has only one vertex facing the momentum direction, the muon would have two (an edge), making it more massive than the electron. And whereas the muon has only two vertices facing the momentum direction, the tauon (still composed of [bbbbbb], just like the electron and the muon) would have three (an entire face), making it even more massive than the muon.
~
Cause for the muon anomalous dipole moment
The muon's anomalous dipole moment (currently an unsolved problem in physics) is solved by proposing that muons are octahedrons which are traveling with two preons forward but whose electric pole is aligned on only one of the two preons.
This results in an anomalous dipole moment, as unlike the electron the muon's poles are not aligned with their momentum direction.
~
Neutrino oscillation
Another unsolved problem of physics is the cause for neutrino oscillation. In the SPP Theory the answer lies in the precession of the neutrino's inclination as it travels in space. Since the mass of the different generations of neutrinos are most probably very similar [2], then there is less resistance to generation change than there is in other particles. The neutrino oscillates between traveling vertex-first and edge-first / edge-first and face-first, as its main axis physically undergoes precession.
~
Antimatter and CT symmetry
Since the back of preons are of the opposite charge than the one facing momentum direction, a particle going backwards in time is equivalent to its antiparticle going forward in time. This feature is supported by the Stueckelberg-Feynman Interpretation [3]. For instance, the frontal face by which an electron interacts with the world will show a charge of -1 (6*-e/6), and the frontal face by which a positron interacts with the world will show a charge of +1 (6*e/6); but since the electron is modelled as having a past-ward face of +1 (6*e/6), then an electron going backwards in time will effectively reverse its charge by which it interacts with the world, as it backwards face will become its new frontal face, turning the electron into a positron.
This feature not only helps to fit the S-F Interpretation, but also has implications such as the solution to the kaon oscillation mystery.
~
Cause for Kaon oscillation
An ongoing unsolved probem in physics is the cause for the observed oscillation of a kaon beam.
It has been observed that a K0 meson will turn into its own antiparticle and then back into its former self, and keep on doing so as it travels in space. The SPP Theory actually provides a simple explanation for such a mysterious behaviour: the meson rotates on its z axis. As the meson travels in space it rotates on itself, like a coin being flipped. What used to be the backside of the up quark becomes its front side, and what used to be the backside of the strange antiquark becomes its front side. It was proposed earlier that particles have a backside which faces the past and whose charge is opposed than that of the front side. When the kaon shows its backside forth, it shows the side whose charges are reversed. Thus the up quark appears as an up antiquark, and the strange antiquark appears as a strange quark. As the meson continues on rolling on itself, the backside is once again rotated backwards, and the meson resumes looking as its former self.
This proposition also implies that antimatter mass is of the same sign than matter mass.
~
EMC Effect
It would be logical to speculate that since preons may not move relative to each other, their position inside a group-particle (for instance a quark) is determined by a probability wave, not unlike those for electrons surrounding atoms. This probability wave would be a rational number (here "4") transposed as not as the frequency of a vibrating closed d-1 brane loop, but of a vibrating closed d-3 brane loop:
With preons most likely to be in the peaks of the probability waves. Thus, preons may have only but a small chance to form particles which has either more, or less, than 6 preons.
A possible solution regarding the (until now unexplained) EMC effect could be provided by this assumption. In a heavier atom, it could be that quarks, which are made of preons bound by a probability wave, are surrounded by higher energies and by other probability waves. Thus, this presence of additional probability waves could lead to a constructive interference, and force the quark's probability wave to expand, and thus explain why, in the end, the self-volume of an iron's quark is larger than a deuteron's.
******
Pillar Three (highly speculative - falsification of this Pillar does not falsify Pillar Two or Pillar One)
Pillar Three is highly speculative in nature, expanding on the ideas from both previous Pillars. Formulated three years after Pillar Two, it makes very powerful propositions, and these are:
-composite particles inclination correlation with generation mass;
-composite particles correlation with charge radius;
-why are W/Z bosons virtual, and why are they so massive;
-the mass of preons;
-preons as a cause for observed colour charges;
-offset in decay caused by composite particle offset;
-neutrino as trigger for decay;
-black hole unexpected energy caused by ripping off preons;
-preons as dark matter candidates.
Let us explore each of these propositions in depth.
~
Composite particles inclination correlation with generation mass
The electron has a mass of one electron (obviously). The muon is 206.768284 times the electron, and the tauon is 3477.15015 times the electron.
An interesting underlying pattern can however be seen upon analysing such - apparently arbitrary - values. 206.768284^0.5 gives 14.3794396. Strangely enough, 3477.15015^0.333 gives 15.1498319. The two are almost equivalent - a 95% match, in fact. It seems that distribution of mass across the three generations are actually equivalent, but a dimension-related property of particles is multiplying the mass values in practice. This could very well be strong evidences that the direction of octahedrons alignment is directly responsible for the resulting mass.
To take the example of the electron/muon/tauon: since the electron is of Generation 1, then it is an octahedron perfectly aligned with its momentum. Its mass is equal to itself, in the same way a 2 inches line is 2 inches long (2^1 = 2).
But the muon is from Generation 2, and it travels edge-first - thus it is misaligned on a lateral direction, providing an entire new dimension to the mass value. A 2 inches line with one more dimension becomes a 4 square inches square (2^2 = 4).
And since the tauon is from Generation 3, it travels face-first, and its octahedron's direction is offset on two dimension directions (both horizontally and vertically), providing even more dimensions to the inital mass value. A 2 inches line with two more dimensions becomes a 8 cube inches cube (2^3 = 8).
~
Composite particles correlation with charge radius
Since the model predicts that particles are octahedrons whose alignements determine generation, then as a side effect it also predicts that particles can have different electroweak cross-section size depending on the generation. To take the neutrino as an example: In the model the electron neutrino is travelling vertex-first, which causes its cross-section (as viewed from the front) to be significantly larger than that of the tauon neutrino.
The model predicts the electron neutrino's electroweak cross-section radius to be 1.41 that of the tauon neutrino. Which is quite close to observations, as they recently measured the electron neutrino's radius to be about 1.78 that of the tauon neutrino (square root of "3.2 x 1 nanobar").
~
Why are W/Z bosons virtual, and why are they so massive
In most preon models, the notion of a weak force boson is often dismissed. This is because most preon models are not capable of accountig for the existence of the W/Z boson. But the SPP Theory not only acknowledges the existence of W/Z bosons, it goes on to explains why W/Z bosons exist only for a very short time, and, additionally, it explains why they are so massive compared to other bosons.
We already know that preons have (individually) more mass than the particle they compose. Now to understand why W/Z bosons have such a high mass, one needs only to observe the process of, say, neutron decay (which emits a W- boson) more closely. Here is a diagram of the phenomenon:
Notice that at one point during the exchange of preons, the three swanne preons from the neutral particle (I will explain its identity later) briefly meet the three antipreons from the down quark. This meeting point exist only inside a very small window of time, after which the two groups of preons continue on their way to their target particles. This meeting point, this moment where the two groups of preon are right next to each other, constitutes a particle in itself - a particle which is dissolved as soon as it is created. A virtual particle - the W- boson. Now why is it so massive? Well, let us see - it is not composed of a group of six preons as any other bosons, but actually of two groups of three preons. Since normal, six-preons bosons are so relatively light, and since isolated preons are so insanely massive, then the existence of four groups of three preons (note that the parent particles too have been reduced to three preons each) easily explains why the event is measured to have such a high mass.
~
The mass of preons
Contrary to many preon models, the SPP Theory proposes that individual preons are actually more massive than the particle they compose. A group of 3 preons will be several orders of magnitude more massive than a particle with 6 preons. This feature of preons has been confirmed by logical implication from quantum theory, and in fact it has often been called the "Mass Paradox" [4] (a solution for this "paradox" is to propose the existence of a binding force which cancels the mass). Such a "paradox" feature nevertheless explains why W bosons are observed to be so massive. In beta decay, the down quark is modeled to exchange 3 "b" preons for 3 "a" preons from a neighbouring neutral particle. At the precise instant of the exchange, the particles are actually divided into four groups of 3 preons - in which the total mass has been measured to be 80,400 MeV. Divided by four, this means that the groups of 3 preons are about 20,100 MeV each. This supports the assumption that the less preons a system has, the more massive it becomes. Now that we have two points of reference (up quark = 6 preons = 2.4 MeV, and 3 preons = 20,100 MeV), it may be possible to extrapolate the mass of a system with only one preon - in other words, the mass of an isolated preon. The following formula is a naive attempt to achieve such an extrapolation:
SystemMass = ((6-x)/3)*(20100-2.4)
Where x is the number of preons in the system. According to such a formula, a single preon would be 33,496 MeV.
This mass formula will have an implication in Dark Matter, at the end of this paper.
~
Preons as a cause for observed colour charges
Why do quarks only bind with quarks and antiquarks, but leptons and bosons can neither bind with one another nor with quarks? The answer to this very question lies within the preon sequence inside the particles. Quite a bit like DNA, the two kind of preons can form sequences inside particles. For instance, the down quark must be composed of four swanne preons and two antipreons, but many arrangements of these can come up, such as [aabbbb], [abbbba], [bbbbaa], [ababbb], [abbabb], etc. These sequences actually seem to have an important function inside particle - that is, the attribution of colour charges (such as red, green, antiblue, etc.).
Three simple laws are governing the sequencing of preons and attribution of colours:
1. Group-particles whose appearance is a rotation, on the spin axis, of the original structure are of the same colour.
2. If there are more than 1 preon in minority, they must touch each other inside the particle (for it is by groups that they are exchanged).
3. In the event of preon equality (three swanne preons + three antipreons), the three preons must both touch each other and one of them be present on the side of the particle at at least one point during the structure's rotation (for it is by groups and by the side that they are exchanged).
So let us now check all possible sequences.
Electrons have only one sequence possible:
Thus it has only one possible colour, a colour which is incompatible with all others - I like to call it the silver colour (antisilver for the positron, which is [aaaaaa]). Since it has zero interaction with other colours, it can be said that in practice, the electron has zero colour.
Up quarks have quite a more diverse sequences range:
Out of the six permutations, Law 1 states that Sequence 2 to 5 are equivalent, and constitutes one colour - green. Sequence 1 constitues a second colour - red. Finally, Sequence 6 constitutes a third colour - blue.
Down quarks sequencing confirms the fact that quarks have no more, no less than three colours:
Once again here Sequence 13 to 15 are violating Law 2 and thus disqualify, for they form an exotic matter. From the twelve remaining permutations, Sequence 1 to 4 are equivalent by Law 1, Sequence 5 to 8 are also equivalent by Law 1, and Sequence 9 to 12 are also equivalent by Law 1.
Once again: red, green and blue.
Since quarks can form three colours, then the same applies for antiquarks, and thus we can add to that three other colours - which we would call antired, antigreen and antiblue.
Neutrinos sequencing is distinguishable from bosons sequencing in that neutrinos must have have similar top-most and bottom-most preons at least 1/2 of the time. This gives neutrinos these permutations:
Law 3 rules out Sequence 9 to 12. Law 1 indicates that Sequence 1 to 4 are equivalent, forming one colour which I like to call grey. Surprisingly, Law 1 also states that there is a second set, namely Sequence 5 to 8, seemingly forming a corresponding anticolour. I believe that this is an indication that the model is predicting an antiparticle for the neutrino.
Boson sequencing forms eight permutations:
Once again, Sequence 1 to 4 are equivalent by Law 1, forming a colour I like to call opaque, and once again Law 1 also states that there is a set of a corresponding anticolour, that is, Sequence 5 to 8 - antiopaque. I believe this is a confirmation that some bosons, such as the W boson, indeed have an antiparticle.
Since opaque cannot bind with red nor green nor blue nor silver nor grey, then it can be said that particles with opaque colour charge have zero colour charge. Additionally, since silver cannot bind with red nor green nor blue nor opaque nor grey, then it can be said that particles with silver colour charge have zero colour charge. And since grey cannot bind with red nor green nor blue nor silver nor opaque, then it can be said that particles with grey colour charge have zero colour charge. And the same stands for all corresponding anticolours.
~
Offset in decay caused by composite particle offset
Because particles of other generations are inclined on different angles (dependent on said generation), then the SPP Theory implies that some processes, such that of hadronic decay, will show a slight variation from the Standard Model. Particles with varying degrees of inclination will induce a proportionally varying degree of decay efficiency. This prediction is about to be confirmed by experimental evidences - recent experiments at the LHC have uncovered puzzling evidences that B-mesons decay are deviating from SM predictions [5].
~
Neutrino as trigger for decay
In Pillar One it was ventured that the mechanism behind neutron decay was as follow: "neutron + unknown neutral background particle + unknown neutral background particle" would turn into "proton + electron + antineutrino". The exact identity of the neutral background particles which were interacting with the neutron (and triggering its decay) was unknown, but what was certain was that they were very light, neutral, and could interact via weak force.
But now Pillar Three proposes that this background particle is, in fact, the neutrino itself. Not only does this solves the identity problem, but it also eliminates the need for the second "neutral background particle".
Notice that neutrons are usually shown, for instance in Feynman diagrams, to decay into a proton plus a W- boson which in turn decays into an electron and an antineutrino (neutrino going back in time); the point being that wether the antineutrino is located in the past or future relative to the event is left to interpretation. Whereas the SPP Theory model contains no neutrino-like particles in the future side, it clearly shows the presence of a neutrino-like particle in the past side. The SPP Theory could in fact be interpreting the process in a rather novel approach. Instead of the down quark giving birth to the W- which in turns gives birth to the antineutrino and the electron, the model could be describing the same event but with a different outcome hierarchy: the quark would couple with the antineutrino via the W- boson, causing the down quark to turn into an up quark and the antineutrino to turn into an electron.
Example - consider the process of neutron decay, as proposed by Pillar Three:
Note that by the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation, the two descriptions are equivalent:
That is, in both descriptions there is a down quark turning to an up quark on one side, an electron & antineutrino on the other side, and a W- boson bridging it all together.
Although counterintuitive, this proposition has support from decay time (neutron decay is not instantaneous, it would seem as if the presence of enough background particles is required for it to decay), from inverse beta decay (which does require a neutrino), and from evidences that solar neutrinos may affect decay rates on Earth [6].
~
Black hole unexpected energy caused by ripping off preons
Recent observation of the 3C273 quasar has puzzled physicists, for it turns out that the jets which the black hole emits are much hotter than what was expected [7]. Although the main assessment is that black hole models made an incorrect assumption regarding the cooling of the matter jets by interaction with electrons, another possibility is that the unexpected high energy is caused by the composite nature of particles. As matter gets torn down to quarks and matter particles by the force of the black hole, the particles would then get shredded further into a stream of constituent preons. The observed excess of energy could have its source in the energy released by the splitting of matter particles themselves into preons.
~
Preons as dark matter candidates
Although the two preceding pillars focus on known particles of the Standard Model, which all have six preons, the existence of particles with less than six preons is highly probable.
If there exist composite particles with less than six preons, then this open a wide, new field of candidates for dark matter. For instance, consider an anomalous composite particle made of four preons instead of six. We already know (as described by the "SystemMass=((6-x)/3)*(20100-2.4)" formula) that not only such composite particles would be much more massive than those of normal matter; but we can also know (because of the mechanism behind colour charges) that such composite particles would also form incompatible colour charges, and thus fail to strongly (by "strongly" I of course mean Strong Force) interact with composite particles of normal matter - albeit they would indeed interact gravitationally, filling the universe with mass. Additionally, since packets of preons are responsible for the Weak Interaction itself and decay of particles, then these groups of preons would only interact weakly in addition of gravitationally - making them match exactly the profile of WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).
Such Dark Matter particles would most probably be composed of 4 preons, for the reason that 6 is standard model particles, 5 fails to give a configuration in which all preons are at equal distance from one another, and 3 or 2 or 1 would simply recombine to form either (and more stable) 6-preons or 4-preons particles.
This assumption enables us to find that the mass of such dark matter particles would be ((6-4)/3)*(20100-2.4) = around 13,400 MeV. We can also now lay down all possible permutations for such a system, and determine their total charge:
aaaa = +2e/6
aaab = +e/3
aabb = 0e
abbb = -e/3
bbbb = -2e/3
It may be convenient to give these dark matter particles some names, such as perhaps:
aaaa = +2e/6 = "obscure" particle (symbol: o)
aaab = +e/3 = "lightless" particle (symbol: l)
aabb = 0e = "invisible" particle (symbol: i)
abbb = -e/3 = "lightless" antiparticle (symbol: anti-l)
bbbb = -2e/3 = "obscure" antiparticle (symbol: anti-o)
Charged dark matter particles however most probably either
-annihilated with one another during the Photon Epoch, shortly after the Big Bang (o annihilated with anti-o, and l annihilated with anti-l, leaving only i particles to roam the universe),
-or combined to form neutral "mesons" with zero total charge (o + anti-o has zero overall charge, l + anti-l has zero overall charge, and i is already neutral by itself).
This would explain why dark matter has not been observed to interact via electric charge.
The fact that dark matter particles may still exchange preons and thus interact with one another via the weak interaction also solves the Cuspy Halo Problem - higher density of dark matter would be counteracted by higher interaction rate, so the density of dark matter would stay relatively constant all throughout the galaxy.
******
Conclusion
The Singular Primordial Preon Theory holds the power to at the very least complement the Standard Model; for it accounts for mysteries which the Standard Model leaved unsolved, and extends beyond the SM by modelling not only known particles but also dark matter. Finally, it does all of this using a single preon and its antipreon; a perfect application of the reductionist concept, which in itself suggests that the SPP Theory is the simplest (and thus more likely, in accordance with Occam's Razor) model possible to explain the Universe.
******
Citations and references
[1]: "Physics advances by the recognition of simple patterns. The simplicity in the pattern is usually evidence of an underlying simplicity in nature. By using the simplest possible underlying model, we are able to understand things more quickly, allowing us to probe to deeper depths of understanding while not requiring us to dwell on the many tedious details of a cumbersome and highly parameterized model (...) Rather than the simple six quarks and six leptons usually associated with the Standard Model, there are actually six quarks for each of three colors, six antiquarks for each of three complementary colors, six leptons and six antileptons, for a total of 48 "elementary" particles for the Standard Model. It is therefore desirous to look for a simpler model for elementary particle physics, since one would hope nature employs far fewer than 48 elementary particles."
(Delbert J. Larson, 1997, 'The ABC Preon Model', http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/larson2.htm)
[2]: "-The total mass of all three states must sum up to 0.320 electronVolts,
-The difference between the third state's squared mass and the second state's square mass is 0.0027 eV,
-And the difference between the second state's squared mass and the first state's square mass is 0.000079 eV.
(...) extrapolating from these three hints (...) The three neutrino mass eigenstates are:
-Mass eigenstate #1 is about 0.1022761 electronVolt.
-Mass eigenstate #2 is about 0.10266158 electronVolt.
-Mass eigenstate #3 is about 0.11506259 electronVolt. "
(John D. Skieswanne, 2015, 'Uncovering The Individual Mass of All Known Neutrinos Eigenstates', http://skieswanne.weebly.com/uncovering-the-individual-mass-of-all-known-neutrinos-eigenstates.html)
[3]: "In the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation, antimatter is identical to matter but moves backward in time. "
(Trevor Pitts, 1999, 'Dark Matter, Antimatter, and Time-Symmetry', https://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021)
[4]: "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2 and thus anything confined to a box smaller than Δx would have a momentum uncertainty proportionally greater. Thus, the preon model proposed particles smaller than the elementary particles they make up, since the momentum uncertainty Δp should be greater than the particles themselves. And so the preon model represents a mass paradox: How could quarks or electrons be made of smaller particles that would have many orders of magnitude greater mass-energies arising from their enormous momenta? This paradox is resolved by postulating a large binding force between preons cancelling their mass-energies."
(Wikipedia, 2016, 'Preon', https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon#The_mass_paradox)
[5]: "Shortly after starting the analysis, an anomaly was discovered surrounding a particle called a B meson. These mesons are composed of a light quark, which we can find in protons and neutrons that form matter all around us, as well as a heavy beauty antiquark, which can be created in the LHC collider.
Since the particles are made up of pairs of quarks and antiquarks, they are unstable and decay rapidly. According to the standard model, B mesons should decay at very specific angles and frequencies. However, predictions are not matching up with what has been seen in the LHC experiments."
(The Science Explorer, 2016, 'New LHC Results Could Be the End of Physics as We Know It', http://thescienceexplorer.com/universe/new-lhc-results-could-be-end-physics-we-know-it)
[6]: "Evidence for an anomalous annual periodicity in certain nuclear decay data has led to speculation concerning a possible solar influence on nuclear processes (...) Examination of the power spectrum over a range of frequencies (10–15 year -1) appropriate for solar synodic rotation rates reveals several periodicities, the most prominent being one at 11.18 year -1 with power 20.76. (...)
Since rotation rate estimates derived from irradiance data have been found to be closely related to rotation rate estimates derived from low-energy solar neutrino data, this result supports the recent conjecture that solar neutrinos may be responsible for variations in nuclear decay rates. "
(P.A. Sturrock, J.B. Buncher, E. Fischbach, J.T. Gruenwald, D. Javorsek II, J.H. Jenkins, R.H. Lee, J.J. Mattes, J.R. Newport, 2010, 'Power Spectrum Analysis of BNL Decay Rate Data', http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html)
[7]: "New observations of a jet-emitting black hole show astonishing temperatures inside the jets of 10 trillion degrees Kelvin — a toasty 18 trillion degrees Fahrenheit. This new measurement shows that quasars can blow far past the theoretical temperature limit of 100 billion degrees Kelvin (179 billion degrees Fahrenheit), which has scientists puzzled."
(Seeker, 2016, 'Black Hole Jets Hotter Than Expected', http://www.seeker.com/black-hole-jets-hotter-than-expected-1771150217.html)
