ABC Preons - 1. The question "what is the world made of?" has preoccupied mankind for millennia, and hence this story starts long ago, roughly 500 B.C. Many ancient civilizations agreed on an early classical element system that involved four primary building blocks of nature. The ancient elements were considered to be Fire, which was hot and dry, Earth, which was dry and cold, water which was cold and wet, and air, which was wet and hot. This early theory of the constituents of the world largely met the goals of a physical theory, in that it agreed with the experimental observations of the time and it was a very simple world view for the underlying elements of nature. It was also highly successful in its longevity, as the theory of earth, fire, air and water was the predominant theory for thousands of years.
ABC Preons - 2. Over time, mankind continued to acquire experimental knowledge of our world, and this experimentation led to augmentation of the original fire, earth, air and water model. The augmentation led to an increasingly complex model, but a model that still stood the test of time for many centuries. A fifth element was defined as an aether that occupied space. In the eighth century, sulfur and mercury were added by the alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan to bring the number of perceived elements to seven, and later salt was added as an eighth.
ABC Preons - 3. Throughout the middle ages, more and more "elementary" elements were added to the classical elemental theory. The beginnings of modern chemistry took root in the 1600's with the work of Robert Boyle with his work The Sceptical Chymist and that of sir Francis Bacon who began what became known as the scientific method. In the 1700's Antoine Lavoisier discovered the law of mass conservation, and he is now known as the father of modern chemistry. Around 1810, John Dalton and Amedeo Avogadro worked toward the development of an atomic theory wherein the chemical elements were believed to be embodied in single, small units, called atoms.
ABC Preons - 4. By the 1800's a great many elemental substances had been identified, and many chemical reactions were known. A major advance in chemistry was the periodic table, developed by Mendeleev and Lothar Meyer. Mendeleev used the table to predict the existence of a few new elements, and those elements were discovered in time. But as can be seen from the table, the number of elements had gotten to be quite large. Therefore, the underlying model of what the world was made of was no longer simple.
ABC Preons - 5. At about the same time that Mendeleev organized the complexity of elements into a powerfully descriptive periodic table, work by Johann Hittorf and Eugen Goldstein began to investigate the existence of cathode rays. Just prior to the beginning of the 20th century, J. J. Thompson and his colleagues identified the cathode rays as being composed as individual particles, and estimated their charge and mass. The mass of that particle (the electron) was observed to be over a thousand times less than that of the atom, and this led Thompson to propose that matter was built from atoms that were essentially balls of positive charge with small, negatively charged electrons embedded inside. This atomic model became known as the plum pudding model of the atom. But less than 15 years later, an experiment was performed by Geiger and Marsden under the direction of Ernest Rutherford that showed evidence that a small positively charged nucleus was at the center of atoms. This planetary model for the atom quickly replaced the older plum pudding model.
ABC Preons - 6. Shortly after the discovery of the nucleus, further experiments done by Rutherford showed that hydrogen nuclei could be forced out of heaver atoms in scattering experiments. Hence, a positively charged particle, called the proton, was identified as a constituent of matter. A series of experiments in the early 1930's discovered yet another type of penetrating substance that was originally thought to be a type of gamma ray, but in 1932 James Chadwick demonstrated that this new radiation was actually a neutral particle with a mass similar to that of the proton, and the new particle was named the neutron. At this point things were again reduced to a very simple model, as the entire world was thought to be made up of atoms, each of which contained electrons, protons and neutrons. The model was even simpler than the older fire, earth, air and water model of the ancients. The electron, proton, neutron model had much more experimental rigor than the classical theories, and the new model led to a diverse array of elements. For the most part, the science of what makes up matter was in a simple, well organized state back around 1935.
ABC Preons - 7. Even in the 1930's it had already become known that there were a few particles in addition to the electron, proton and neutron. Gamma rays had been discovered in 1900 by Paul Villard, and in 1932 Carl David Anderson discovered the positron, which is an antimatter equivalent of the electron. But things quickly got far more complicated. In 1936 Carl Anderson discovered a particle that was identical in every way to the electron except for mass, as it was about 200 times heavier. But even more surprises were in store. In 1955 the antiproton was discovered by Emilio Segre and Owen Chamberlain, and in 1956 the neutrino was discovered. And throughout the 1950's a rather enormous number of different massive particles were discovered with the technology of particle accelerators and detectors. By the end of the 1950's mankind's knowledge of what the world is made of had again grown to be very complex indeed. Over time, the number of such particles became so large that it was termed a particle zoo. It was clear by the early 1960's that the number of particles discovered was getting so large that there was likely some underlying pattern that could simplify our view of elementary particle physics.
ABC Preons - 8. A major step forward in simplifying our view of nature occurred in 1964 when Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the quark model. Gell-Mann had used the term quark for the elementary particles, while Zweig had use the term ace. Eventually, the term quark was accepted by the community. In the quark model, hadronic matter is proposed to be built from underlying quarks. Baryons are states that have three bound quarks, while mesons are bound quark-antiquark pairs. Leptons were identified as a separate type of matter. As a result, in 1964, simplicity was reestablished. Nature was believed to consist of three quarks, named up, down, and strange, and four leptons, which were the electron, the muon, and their two associated neutrinos.
ABC Preons - 9. The initial simplicity of the quark model began to fade into complexity almost immediately. In 1965 Sheldon Lee Glashow and James Bjorken proposed a fourth quark, the charm quark, in 1974. In 1970 Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa theorized that CP violation experimental results could be explained by adding two more quarks, and indeed these quarks were discovered by Fermilab researchers. The bottom quark was discovered in 1977 and the top quark in 1995. Also, over the period between 1974 and 1977, a new lepton, the Tau particle, was discovered at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory by a team of collaborators. So, as with the case of chemical elements, the number of "elementary" particles was starting to grow
ABC Preons - 10. In addition to the quarks and leptons, force carriers are a central part of today's standard model. In 1979, Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam proposed the electro-weak theory of particle interactions to unify the weak and electromagnetic forces in a single theoretical framework. This work predicted the existence of three more particles, which were called the intermediate vector bosons. These weak bosons, called the W and Z, were discovered by a team at CERN led by Carlo Rubbia in 1983. Simon van der Meer enabled the discovery by leading the development of stochastic cooling of particle beams. Note that the W boson comes in two types, one with a positive electric charge and the other negatively charged, while the Z particle has zero electric charge.
ABC Preons - 11. Despite the original simplicity of the quark and lepton model, it has evolved to contain several problems that leave it rather unsatisfactory from a philosophical point of view. The first additional complication is that the rules used to form particles involve a color charge. The rule is that quarks come in one of three colors, and that any composite particle must be white. (For the baryons, this rule is met by combining three quarks, with one quark of each color, and for the mesons the rule is met by combining a quark of one color with an anti-quark of the anti-color.) It is of course perfectly acceptable that nature may employ otherwise identical particles that have one of three color charges, but the downside is that this means that there are actually three quarks for each of the six that have been found. The standard model also specifies that there are eight different force carrying particles called gluons. Secondly, each quark and lepton has an antimatter counterpart. Lastly, the Standard model has now found evidence of a Higgs particle. And that leaves a situation where there are 61 elementary particles, since there are 18 quarks, 18 anti-quarks, 6 leptons, 6 anti-leptons and 13 force carriers. So once again, our understanding of nature has gotten quite complex. Additionally, there is the matter of the neutrinos, which are leptons that play little purpose in the cosmic scheme of things under the Standard Model's interpretation. Historically, this indicates that there may be some underlying composition to the particles that make up the standard model.
ABC Preons - 12. I believe that an additional problem of the present standard model is that physicists no longer take an objective reality viewpoint. As was discussed in post 13 on the Absolute Theory, abandonment of objective reality is what enabled relativity to be saved from the otherwise counter-indicating Bell's Theorem experiments, but it is also true that today's physicists are quite nuanced about the actual existence of real, physical quarks. This is because what really exists in today's physics is a series of MATHEMATICAL equations. The math leads to experimental predictions that are consistent with experimental results, but the actual existence of any fundamental entities is not as clear. One problem with the theory is that although quarks are fundamental, they can never be isolated. No one has ever produced a single quark in any lab for study. So if we've never seen one, how can we be certain that they really exist?
ABC Preons - 13. The reason quarks have never been seen is explained by physicists as a result of the force binding them together into particles. That force, called the strong force, is posited to grow larger the farther the quarks are separated from each other. Hence, the bonds never cleanly break to produce an isolated quark. Instead what happens is that the force gets very, very large as the quarks start to separate from each other. Eventually the force gets so large that the internal energy associated with the force is large enough to produce a quark / antiquark pair. When this happens, two new particles are formed where there was once one, but one never actually sees an individual quark. So we are to believe that quarks exist - but the rule is we can never see them. As the church lady would say: How Convenient!
ABC Preons - 14. Beyond the fact that a quark can never be seen by itself, beyond my belief in an objective reality, and beyond the complexity of the standard model, there is another fact that appears to cry out for the existence of a simpler model for what makes up our world. The electron, muon and tauon are particles that are identical - except for their mass. The up, charm and top quarks are particles that are identical - except for their mass. And the down, strange and bottom quarks are particles that are identical - except for their mass. Hence, it would make sense if each of these particles were made up of something else, with each of these particles just being different states of a single system. This issue has been well known to physicists for decades, and it is called "the generational problem".
ABC Preons - 15. The previous posts have served to give an overview of the history of mankind's view of what makes up our world and how we arrived at "the Standard Model". I came on the scene in the early 80's, and I still find it amusing how the Standard Model got its name. At the time, almost no one was happy with the model behind elementary particle physics. The reason was that every time a new particle came about, it either fit nicely into the existing model of quarks and leptons, or if something really new came along, they'd add it (usually a new quark or new lepton) and give whoever found it a Nobel Prize. But this entire state of affairs was quite distasteful to many, and the sobriquet "standard model" referred to the point that while the community was coalescing upon one (standard) model of how things worked, it was only the standard at the time. Surely something more fundamentally appealing would eventually come along!
ABC Preons - 16. Way back in 1982, as I recall, I noticed a similarity in the two reactions shown below. On the left we see a pictorial description of the decay of a hydrogen atom from its first excited state into its ground state, with two photons (light particles) emitted during the process. And on the right we see the decay of a muon into an electron with two neutrinos emitted during the process. There is enormous evidence that hydrogen is made up of two particles (a nucleus and an electron) bound by a force carried by the photon. Hence I proposed that the electron was made up of two particles bound by a force carried by the neutrino. The particles had to be quite heavy, since no electron substructure had been seen. About the same time two heavy particles were being discovered, the W and the Z. So I proposed that the electron was a W bound to a Z by a force carried by the neutrino. I told a few of my fellow graduate students, who shared the idea with others. They all laughed heartily and thought I was nuts.
ABC Preons - 17. In 1984 I traveled to Germany to present my electron cooling work to ECOOL84, which was a conference of people working on electron coolers. I remember sharing my excitement with my room-mate at the time, who was considerably older than I was. My excitement resulted from the fact that I had just realized that if I added a third particle to my W and Z modeling of the electron and muon, that I was able to model all of the quarks as well. Additionally, there were a series of decays known in high energy physics experiments called weak decays that involved formation of a W. I realized that if my W got detached from that third particle that the weak decays could be easily understood, the generational problem was readily understood, and in a way that would link both quarks and leptons in a single underlying framework. I called the third particle the "Gyron" since I believed it to have a very high spin. At 27 years old, I was certain I would have a Nobel Prize before I turned 30.
ABC Preons - 18. Over the next few years of the mid 80's I continued to go to high energy physics events where the latest discoveries were discussed. At every such event, my "not so standard" model worked precisely to easily explain the results in a way that was simpler than what the prevailing standard model could do. And there was, importantly, a testable difference. A new colliding beam device was being built near Stanford (the Stanford Linear Collider, or SLC) that would collide electrons and positrons to look at the Z particle. But in my model such collisions must produce two Z's, not one, and the energy of their device was too low to produce two. For a couple of years they did not find the Z. I took this as proof that I was correct, and I began remarking that "there ain't no Z at the SLC" to advertise my model's superior agreement to the experiments of the day! Still, my fellow grad students thought my idea was nuts.
ABC Preons - 19. My "not so standard" model received a fatal blow in April of 1989, as the SLC started seeing its first Z events. Over the next year, the signal at the SLC was clearly verified, and since my model had predicted they would see no such events, I had to admit my model was in error. My former fellow grad students (we now had our Ph. D.;s) playfully mocked me with emailed taunts of "How 'bout that Z at the SLC?" Still, the original not so standard model had several features that were very attractive. I realized I must've had something wrong. After some months I realized my mistake - the masses given for the W and Z were actually off by a factor of two!
ABC Preons - 20. I continued to keep up with events in the particle physics world through the early 90's, and in the closing days of the SSC I made efforts to publish my work. One important contribution came from a reviewer, who pointed out that what I was calling the W and Z were not recognizable to other people. My model explained that there were no real W and Z particles at all, and instead there were other particles that made things up, and those particles had about half the advertised mass of what were known as the W and Z. So it was now necessary to call them something other than the W and the Z, since the community knew the W and Z to be something different from what I had discovered. So I began to call the particles A, B and C, rather than W, Z and Gyron, and this is when the model came to be called the ABC Preon Model.
ABC Preons - 21. As mentioned in post 16, the similarity in the decays of the muon and the hydrogen atom led me to the belief that the electron and muon are simply different states of the same underlying system. In the hydrogen atom, we believe a proton is bound to an electron by a force carried by a photon. When hydrogen decays between states, it emits a photon. Since the muon decays to the electron by emitting a neutrino, I proposed that electrons and muons are both made up of an A particle and a B particle, and are bound by a force carried by the neutrino. Note that by assigning the role of the force carrier to the neutrino, we now understand the use that nature has for the neutrino. The models are shown in the figure below, with the hydrogen atom on the left, and the massive leptons (electron, muon and tauon) on the right.
ABC Preons - 22. A very instructive group of particles is the Delta family of baryons. In the standard model, the Delta particles are made up of three quarks, and any of them can be an up or a down quark. There are only four ways to make such particles; and there are only four such particles found in nature. Hence, the standard model is an excellent fit to this experimental data. But my realization was that if we have a model where there is a central C particle bound to three other particles where those other particles are either an A or a B, then that situation also results in only four possibilities - also in excellent agreement with nature. Another instructive group are the Pions, made up of a quark and an anti-quark in the standard model, and a C, anti-C, plus either (an A or a B) and either (an anti-A or an anti-B) in the ABC model. Both the standard model and the ABC Preon Model allow for only the Pions that are actually found in nature. The situation is shown below, with the standard modeling done on the left and the ABC Preon modeling done on the right.
ABC Preons - 23. With the observations in place on the rules of how to construct all known elementary particles, the next thing to do was to ask why those rules exist. Here there was a very simple solution. In the hydrogen atom, the proton is positively charged and the electron is negatively charged, and this is the rule that makes the elements: the composite particle must have zero total electric charge. For the elementary particles a similar rule is proposed: composite particles must have zero total neutrinic charge, where the neutrinic charge is a new charge proposed for the ABC Preon Model. By assigning the C particle a neutrinic charge of -3, and giving the A and B a neutrinic charge of +1, we can see why the Delta particles had a single C and three orbiting A's and/or B's - the -3 neutrinic charge of the C is cancelled by the +1 charge from the three other parties. By then assigning the anti-particles to have the opposite charges as the particles, we can see that the massive leptons result from a B being bound to an anti-A - the +1 neutrinic charge on the B is cancelled by the -1 neutrinic charge of the anti-A. The proposal of proper neutrinic charges on the preons thus becomes the reason we see the particles that we do.
ABC Preons - 24. Beyond the assignment of a new neutrinic charge, it was pretty straight forward to assign electric charges and masses to the A, B and C Preons. If the A particle is assigned a charge of zero, the B an electric charge of minus 1, and the C an electric charge of +2, all observed composite particles have the correct total electric charge. From high energy physics experiments it was easy to determine the masses of the A, B and C. Importantly, with these masses in place, calculations show results that need no tweaking to match experimental reality. There are many more measured results than there are parameters to adjust - which is strong support for the theory. So at this point in the development (in the early 90's) things looked promising. And Physics could once again be reduced to a simple and reasonably small number of elementary particles, which are shown below. In the figure, a line above the letter indicates an anti-particle, and no line is a particle. The superscript on right of the letter is the electric charge, and the subscript on the left of the letter is the neutrinic charge.
ABC Preons - 25. With all of the data well explained by the ABC Preon Model, it was time to pursue publication. As has been the usual pattern, I submitted the work to the most prestigious journals first, and it was rejected by them. I then published it in the journal Physics Essays, and a copy of the publication appears here. Two of the important points about the publication include 1) the prediction that neutrino oscillations should eventually be seen and 2) no top quark should be found above a certain mass. In time, neutrino oscillations were in fact observed, as predicted. However, a top quark discovery was claimed at a mass above what it should have been. This presented an experimental challenge for the theory.
ABC Preons - 26. The announcement of the discovery of the top quark presented a problem for the ABC Preon Model since it was announced to have a mass of 172 GeV/cc - a value in excess of what could possibly be supported under the ABC Preon Model. The problem was that any mass above something like 91.2 Gev/cc should result in free preons, and since quarks were manifestations of bound preons, the large 172 GeV/cc mass should not exist for a quark. After quite a while I finally realized what was going on. They hadn't really found a quark. As mentioned earlier, the present Standard Model theory doesn't even allow for free quarks. What they really found were decay products - decay products that they said came from a top quark, but they really only saw the decay products. With this realization, it was pretty easy to show that what they really found was a combination of four free preons - a C and three B's. The mass and decay products predicted by the ABC Preon Model can be shown to fit the experimental results to within the margin of error. So rather than being a disproof of the ABC Preon Model, the claim of top quark production was actually more strong evidence that the ABC Preon Model is correct.
ABC Preons - 27. Between 2012 and 2013, the high energy physics community obtained enough evidence to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson, and this resulted in the original researchers getting the Nobel Prize in late 2013. This time, after my experience with the top quark, I knew that I should not look at how the ABC Preon Model would account for such a particle, but rather I should look at what the decay products were to see what they really found. And in the case of the Higgs, it was evident within a few minutes of inspection that what they really had found was the combination of three free Preons. In the case of what is called the Higgs signature, they have found a free A, a free anti-A and a free B. The sum of the masses is exactly the mass they proclaim for the Higgs, and the decay channels likewise match exactly what is seen. Here a couple of things are of note. For both the top quark and the Higgs, the masses and decay channels are those predicted by the ABC Preon Model without adding anything to the ABC Preon Model itself. The masses come from the already determined masses of the preons. And the ABC Preon Model can predict both the decay channels AND the masses of these events. The Standard Model can only predict the decay channels. In addition, the ABC Preon Model makes many other predictions for future finds, while the Standard Model just incorporates any new finds as it goes. So which one is really science?
ABC Preons - 28. Conclusion. Of all of my theoretical advances, the ABC Preon Model is the one that I would now say is scientifically proven. The Absolute Theory, ECOFusion, and the Two Component Aether all await experimental verification, but the ABC Preon Model now has overwhelming evidence to support it, it has predictive power, presents numerous philosophical advantages over the present Standard Model, and it proposes many things still not found by the experimentalists. The philosophical advantages include the fact that it employs 3 preons, 3 anti-preons, a photon and a neutrino as its basis set, for a total of 8 elementary particles while the Standard Model has over 60. The ABC Preon Model solves the "generational problem" of the Standard Model. The elementary particles of the ABC Preon Model can be isolated by themselves, whereas the quarks of the standard model can never be. The ABC Preon Model employs three forces in nature while the Standard Model claims to have four. The ABC Preon Model finds the purpose for the neutrino (it is a force carrier). The ABC Preon Model made a prediction of neutrino decay at a time when that was in doubt, and such decays were discovered well after the prediction was made. And the ABC Preon Model can predict high energy physics decays and the total energy at which they occur, while the Standard Model can only predict the decays. The ABC Preon Model is superior to the Standard Model - it really isn't close.
The Preonic Wars - 1. Despite the superiority of the ABC Preon Model over the Standard Model, I have been unable to gain any traction when I try to present my work in front of scientific audiences. My experience has been similar to a series of "battles" in an intellectual "war" and my next series of posts will describe the struggle so far. My struggle has often seemed outright bizarre to me, as I have had an extremely hard time whenever I've tried to present the ABC Preon Model. One of my first attempts was at the SSC. At the SSC, they had let me present my thoughts about the possible lack of a length contraction, and the next month I applied to present my Preon model. But I was told that I would only be allowed one presentation, since there were many others who also wanted to speak. Later, while I was the lead accelerator physicist on a Fermilab project, I tried to present the idea informally to several scientists. At that time, on slide two or three, a colleague started raising loud objections and shouted me down, causing the end if the attempt before it even really began. He was determined not only to reject my ideas, but to also make it impossible for anyone else to hear them. I never got past slide three.
The Preonic Wars - 2. Numerous times I have sent the ABC Preon Model to scientists that I come to know, and the response is almost always total silence - I get no response nor acknowledgement at all, even after numerous attempts. At one point Fermilab wanted some help with their injector accelerator; the deal was that in exchange for my help I would be able to give a talk to a High Energy Physics conference scheduled at the time - I wanted no money for my work, I just wanted to present my model as payment. They agreed. I delivered on my end of the bargain, designing a system that would greatly improve their injector using a technique we perfected in an earlier project. But when I got there I was given 10 minutes one on one with a volunteer who agreed to hear me. It was during one of the coffee breaks, and we had to find a spot in a hall. He said it was interesting, and could find nothing wrong, and that was the end of me hearing from him. For a long time, this "silent treatment" seemed like the oddest thing. Finally I realized that I've been dealing with a religious response, not a scientific one. To get into "the clergy" (of high energy physics) you need to have "faith" (in the Standard Model). My alternative to their faith is "apostasy" to their beliefs. It is truly sad. Of course it could be worse - the new clerisy has not (at least not yet) used tactics like the Inquisition!
The Preonic Wars - 3. With all the trouble I had trying to get a serious review of my ABC Preon model, I thought it might be a good idea to post it on Wikipedia. I worked for a couple of months to get my work in a form where it could be posted there. Since it was my first time on Wikipedia, and since I know from experience how my work typically gets treated, I went through proper channels and requested approval by a reviewer prior to posting it. To my surprise, the editor assigned to me approved publication of the ABC Preon Model, and it was put online there on March 8, 2014. The editor even told me that the work was so good that in the future I should go ahead and post anything else I might have without bothering with a review. And then the fun began! I predicted to Nate Larson?, with near absolute certainty, that it was only a matter of time before someone one would come to censor it. I was expecting that it would only last online for a couple of weeks. And indeed, the censors appeared quickly and began to do their best to ensure that the world would be safe from my ideas.
The Preonic Wars - 4. Getting a posting on Wikipedia was the most publicity I'd ever gotten for any of my important works. Within days after it appeared there, a question appeared on Quora, which is a question and answer site. The question was "How serious a contender is the 'ABC Preon Model'?" Very quickly a researcher in high energy physics responded that "This article is completely and utterly wrong and could not have been a viable theory in at least 50 years (mid 1960s at the very latest) and many elements would never have been viable. The article should be deleted. The problem with the article is that it appears to an untrained eye to be a serious theory. Even graduate students in physics might have trouble identifying the numerous counterfactual elements of the theory." I quote the comment here because it is typical of what passes for a "scientific review" these days. Instead of any careful thought, any outside the box work is just impugned and ridiculed, and the "reviewer" simply issues a summary call for rejection. One or a few assertions are made, with no actual details or content (since actual content might be rebutted). The reviewer simply assumes the role of a judge, setting himself up as "the expert" and then simply regurgitates the status quo. In this way, the reviewer exposes himself to no risk of being wrong. That's kind of how it goes now. And the fun was just getting started!
The Preonic Wars - 5. After the negative comments were posted on Quora (see prior post), a reader there pointed out that the comments didn't actually point out any real flaw. To which, the researcher replied: "As an example that even a high school student shouldn't make: they have a force being mediated by a single neutrino exchange. That problem is that if you have particle emit a neutrino, it changes from a fermion to a boson or vice versa since the neutrino is a fermion. The page is littered with fundamental errors of that sort. On top of it, there is no theory known as the ABC preon model." This again employed typical "review" tactics: 1) gross exaggeration written from a presumed position of "authority". High school students knowing about the rules for neutrino exchange? What world do these guys live on? Even if it is meant as some sort of snarky joke it is nuts. 2) Point out one problem and then say it is just one of many. But the problem indicated isn't even a real problem. 3) Close with an assertion that is obviously false - that the ABC Preon Model does not exist. I refer to the published work, and the model is what is being discussed! Clearly, it exists. I wanted to spend this and the previous post on my Quora experience because it is emblematic of how scientific review is done these days. It's really just a matter of shouting down any idea that isn't presently held and then strutting around demonstrating their superior knowledge of science. It really is like playing chess with a pigeon.
The Preonic Wars - 6. While the Quora commentary was a nuisance, more significant flak was being taken on Wikipedia itself. The talk page associated with the article began to get some posts suggesting that the article should be deleted. Eventually, one of the posters went forward with a deletion request. I did my best to maintain the page, but in the end I was outnumbered. There were seven votes to delete the page and two to keep it. Toward the end of the debate the editor who originally supported the page became a turncoat and recommended for deletion. I suspected (and still do) that the person who pushed for deletion contacted the original editor to lobby for deletion. I wrote to the original editor and said it was probably relevant to the decision if this was the case, but the original editor declined further comment. The deletion process ended with a decision to delete the article.
The Preonic Wars - 7. The Wikipedia battle was enlightening on a couple of fronts. First, they have an odd policy that things are deleted not on the basis of right or wrong, but rather on notability. I found it very odd that an article based on a reviewed paper in the scientific press would not be publishable unless it had secondary sources referring to it. It would seem to me that the review process should be a better vetting than if someone wrote some newspaper articles about it. A second eye opener was how few people it takes to enforce the censorship. The final vote was seven to two. And really it was probably more like two to two, since I believe two censors probably rounded up a few supporters to get the page removed. There were only two that were really hammering away at it, and one editor who I did not know came to my defense. I also learned that the way these things work is that you can go out and recruit other editors during such decisions. I don't think it is an approved tactic, but I understand it happens all the time. It's really an ugly world where a few self appointed experts can act as censors to keep different thoughts out of the public eye.
The Preonic Wars - 8. During the time the decision was being made to delete my Wikipedia article I copied all of the article, as well as the talk page comments, and also the deletion discussion itself. Wikipedia allows users to have their own personal pages, and I have posted it all on my user page. To date, no one has asked me to remove that, so if anyone wishes they can view it here. If you look into the deletion discussion you can see the rather big deal that the lead attacker placed on his presumption that the ABC Preon Model did NOT appear in a reviewed journal. This despite the fact that the article clearly refers to a reviewed journal as THE BASIS for the Wikipedia article. It is my guess that reviewed journal articles may be "notable" enough that they are deemed sufficient for publication, but I did not find such a criterion during the deletion debate. It also shows how little effort the censors put forth to evaluate the works they are censoring.
The Preonic Wars - 9. After the Wikipedia article was deleted in early summer of 2014, another webpage appeared online in support of the ABC Preon Model. You can visit that site here. I was heartened to read many of the comments on that forum post, as they were quite supportive of my effort. Unfortunately, more than one of the posters would have liked to have voted in the deletion battle but did not know how to. I did not (at least not yet) comment myself on the forum, since it appears to be a conspiracy-type forum, and I don't really see how posting there myself would help. But I appreciate the posts of others there!
The Preonic Wars - 10. Conclusion. It is possible that I could have appealed the deletion at Wikipedia, but I chose not to. It has generally been my experience that I lose such appeals, and my goal remains one of winning the war. Each battle takes time and effort, and I believe it best to put my efforts into things that might advance the cause rather than continuing to hammer away at things that don't pay off. It is my guess that even if I would have gained three or four votes from the posters at the forum mentioned in my last post, that what would have happened was that the attackers would have found enough other supporters to continue to shout me down. So my plan became one to get everything written up and posted here on Facebook, and then try to get some newspaper articles written about my works. Such articles would then be "secondary sources", and if there are enough of them I can revisit posting on Wikipedia at that time.