# User:Delbert7

Delbert John Larson.

I am an accelerator physicist who served as a reviewer of fundamental physics papers for two decades. I am the author of the ABC Preon Model. It was recently deleted off of Wikipedia for lack of notability. During the time of its existence, it has never made it into a discussion, as it has generally been simply summarily dismissed. If there is an experimental reason for it to be considered invalid I would love to hear it.

As I understand it, I am able to post it on this user page. If that too is in violation of some jot or tittle of a policy or sub-policy, please let me know and I'll remove it from here as well.

## Begin Copy of Page that was Deleted

The ABC Preon Model[1] is a model for elementary particle physics that involves several preon particles. As with all preon models, the ABC Preon Model is an attempt to model all known particles in a way that involves fewer underlying components than does the present Standard Model of elementary particle physics. The ABC Preon Model postulates the existence of three particles, named the A, the B and the C, and proposes that they are bound by a force carried by the neutrino. Since it dovetails into the present standard model, the ABC Preon Model is consistent with the vast majority of the standard model, but its differences lead to additional predictions beyond those made by the standard model.

## Overview

In the ABC Preon Model, three particles and a new charge called the neutrinic charge are identified. The A particle has a neutrinic charge of -1 and an electric charge of 0, the B particle has a neutrinic charge of -1 and an electric charge of -1, and the C particle has a neutrinic charge of +3 and an electric charge of +2. Anti-particles have the opposite charge as their corresponding particle. Hence, the anti-A has a neutrinic charge of +1 and an electric charge of 0, the anti-B has a neutrinic charge of +1 and an electric charge of +1, and the anti-C has a neutrinic charge of -3 and an electric charge of -2. The masses of the A, B and C particles are 45.6 GeV/c2, 34.8 GeV/c2 and 68 GeV/c2, respectively. The electron is proposed to be composed of an anti-A particle, a B particle and a neutrino. In the model, the muon and tauon are identified as excited states of this three particle system with the electron being the ground state. Protons are proposed to consist of a C particle, two A particles, one B particle, and three neutrinos that individually bind an A or B to the C. Neutrons are proposed to consist of a C particle, one A particle, two B particles, and three binding neutrinos. The model goes on to identify all known low mass particles (those with masses less than 34.8 GeV/c2) as states of matter with zero total neutrinic charge. Leptons combine an anti-A (neutrinic charge of +1) with a B particle (neutrinic charge of -1). Quarks are identified as being the bound state of a C, neutrino, and either an A (for the up quark, charm quark and top quark) or a B (for the down quark, strange quark and bottom quark). All baryons (of which protons and neutrons are two instances) are made of a C particle, three neutrinos, and A's and B's. Mesons are made of C anti-C pairs combined with a single A or B and a single anti-A or anti-B. In this way, all present identifications of matter in terms of quarks and leptons can be directly mapped over to new identifications in terms of their A, B, C and neutrino consitituents.

In addition to reducing the number of elementary particles, the ABC Preon Model also reduces the number of forces needed to model nature. Instead of the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces of the standard model, the ABC Preon Model has electromagnetic, gravitational and neutrinic forces, reducing the number of known forces from four to three. The ABC Preon Model accomplishes this by identifying the weak force as a quantum tunnelling process, rather than a force.

The ABC Preon Model involves a significant philosophical departure from modern advances in high energy physics theory, in that it focuses on simple entities that are proposed to really exist. This is in contrast with the underpinnings of the standard model which has evolved from advanced, abstract and sophisticated mathematical techniques such as the Lagrangian and the Symplectic group. While this departure likely makes it easier for lay people to understand the ABC Preon Model, ironically it makes it harder for those expert in the standard model to grasp it. In the standard model, any discussions of quarks as real physical entities must be heavily nuanced, since the essence of the standard model lies in its underlying equations and not in mental pictures of actual physical entities. The mental pictures of quarks, leptons and Feynman diagrams are really more instructional tools than the basics of the theory. In contrast, for the ABC Preon Model, the essence of the theory is the existence of proposed simple objects that are postulated to actually exist, which is a style of thinking that has not been popular in high energy physics for several decades.

There is substantial agreement in the experimental record with the predictions of the ABC Preon Model. The ABC Preon Model also provides a very simple basis for all known matter. Additionally, there are many predictions of the ABC Preon Model that have yet to be verified experimentally.

## Goals and motivation

A primary motivation for all preon models is simplicity. While nature may not be simple, science has often advanced by recognizing underlying simplicities. The most famous example is the work of Copernicus and Kepler who replaced a very complicated system of celestial spheres with a much simpler heliocentric system. Advances in understanding the elemental makeup of the world have also involved moving toward simpler underlying models (see below), and there is some likelihood that if a new model is simpler that it may indeed be a better representative of nature than a more complicated model. An additional advantage of simplicity is that simple models are readily understood without the need to be simultaneously aware of many facets all at once. This then allows for a deeper understanding of nature.

Beyond simplicity, another obvious goal is that any physical model must have experimental validity, in that it must agree with the experimental record. Clearly, if a model predicts one thing, and nature unambiguously indicates something else, the model must be set aside or improved.

Lastly, any good model must be experimentally unique. Often, what is touted to be a new theory is, in the end, simply a renaming of things from an old theory. While it may be interesting, the critical issue is whether a theory predicts something different from its competitors so that a test can be done to see which one best represents nature.

## History of elementary particles before the Standard Model

### Earth, Water, Air and Fire

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.

The four classical elements

### Pre-chemistry

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, sulphur and mercury were added by the alchemist Geber to bring the number of perceived elements to seven, and later salt was added as an eighth.

### Chemistry

The beginnings of modern chemistry took root in the 1600s 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 1700s, 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.

The periodic table of the elements

By the 1800s 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 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 was no longer simple.

### Particles beyond the chemical elements

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. Thomson 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[2] 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.

All chemical elements are made of neutrons, electrons and protons.

Shortly after the discovery of the nucleus, further experiments done by Rutherford showed that hydrogen nucleii could be forced out of heaver atoms in scattering experiments.[3] Hence, a positively charged particle, called the proton, was identified as a constituent of matter. A series of experiments in the early 1930s 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,[4] 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.

A portion of "the particle zoo". By the 1950s many particles had been discovered, and a portion of these are mentioned in the figure.

Yet even at this time, 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,[5] 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 Segrè and Owen Chamberlain, and in 1956 the neutrino was discovered.[6] And throughout the 1950s a rather enormous number of different massive particles were discovered with the technology of particle accelerators and detectors. By the end of the 1950s 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 1960s 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.

## The Standard Model

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 a bound quark–antiquark pair. Leptons were identified as a separate type of matter. As a result, in 1964, simplicity was reestablished. Nature consisted of three quarks, named up, down, and strange, and four leptons, which were the electron, the muon, and their two associated neutrinos.

Elementary particles of the original Standard Model

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,[7] which was discovered by Burton Richter and Samuel C. C. Ting in 1974. In 1970 Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa theorized that CP violation experimental results could be explained by adding two more quarks,[8] and indeed these quarks were discovered by Fermilab researchers. The bottom quark was discovered in 1977[9] and the top quark in 1995.[10] Also, over the period between 1974 and 1977, a new lepton, the tau lepton, was discovered at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory by a team of collaborators.[11] In addition to the quarks and leptons, force carriers are a central part of today's standard model. In 1979, 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.

The present standard model now has many fundamental particles.

Despite the simplicity of the standard model, it has 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 and 13 force carriers. So once again, our understanding of nature has gotten quite complex. Historically, this indicates that there may be some underlying composition to the particles that make up the standard model.

## Origins of the ABC Preon Model

### Lepton modeling and the A and B preons

Hydrogen decaying from 2s state to 1s state, emitting two photons.
Muon decaying to an electron, emitting two neutrinos.

The ABC Preon Model begins with an observation that the decay of the muon is extremely similar to the decay of a hydrogen atom from an excited state into its ground state. The muon decays into an electron, and two neutrinos. Neutrinos are either massless or nearly so. Hydrogen excited into its 2s state decays into its ground state and two photons. The photons are massless. Hydrogen is composed of a positive nucleus and an orbiting electron, and it is bound together by a force mediated by the photon. The starting point for the ABC Preon Model is that the muon and electron are composite particles composed of two sub-particles, one called A and the other B, which are bound by a force mediated by the neutrino.

Hydrogen atom consisting of proton and electron bound by electromagnetism.
Leptons modeled as consisting of an anti-A and a B preon bound by a neutrino.

The ABC Preon Model identifies the muon as the 2s state of a composite system, and that the electron is the 1s state, and the tauon is identified as the 3s state of the same composite system. The ABC Preon Model goes on to identify the decay of the muon into the electron as first order forbidden, just as is the case of decay of the hydrogen 2s state into the 1s state. As long as the 2p state has a mass higher than the 3s state, the 3s state will also be metastable. Even though the force binding the preon particles together is quite strong, the ABC Preon Model notes that neutrinos will still flow freely through matter as long as the cross section for the interaction is low. This is similar to the fact that photons flow freely through glass.

The ABC Preon Model goes on to assign some quantum numbers to the preons. The A preon is assigned to have zero electric charge and the B preon to have an electric charge of minus one. Since the neutrino has zero electric charge, this leaves leptons as having an electric charge of minus one. The neutrino has a half integer spin, and the A and B particles have integer spin so that the composite leptons have half integer spin.

### A new quantum number for the ABC Preon Model – neutrinic charge

In the ABC Preon Model, the force carrier binding the preons together is the neutrino, the new charge associated with this force is called the neutrinic charge. The B particle is assigned a neutrinic charge of -1 and the anti-A particle is assigned a neutrinic charge of +1. The ABC Preon Model stipulates that composite bound particles must have zero total neutrinic charge.

### Relativistic quantum mechanics and the ABC Preon Model

An early objection to the ABC Preon Model centered on its use of a neutrino as the mediator of a force. This objection was based upon how quantum electrodynamics is done, predominantly with its use of Feynman diagrams. Quantum electrodynamics is one of the most successful theories ever developed by mankind, with excellent agreement between theory and experiment. In the Feynman diagram approach to doing calculations, a particle (for example, an electron) can interact with a force carrier (for example a photon) at a vertex. The particle can absorb the force carrier at a vertex or it can emit a force carrier at a vertex. As long as the force carrier is a boson (integer spin) the particle can retain its identification as a fermion (half integer spin) or boson both before and after the vertex.

In the case of the ABC Preon Model, the proposed force carrier (a neutrino) is a fermion. Hence, in any QED-like vertex the essential nature of the particle will change as a result of absorption or emission. If the preon has integer spin, then the absorption of a half integer neutrino will leave it with half integer spin, changing the particle from a boson to a fermion at the vertex. Due to this issue, the concept of a fermionic force carrier is controversial. However it must be noted that the neutrinic force postulated for the ABC Preon Model is not electromagnetic in nature and hence may not follow the same rules, and further, that the internal pictures represented by Feynman diagrams are an aid to calculations of what was originally a perturbation series and hence may not represent a reality that other theories must conform to.

At its present state of development, the ABC Preon Model does not have an underlying theoretical dynamics. Rather, it makes specific proposals for mass and charge of the preons as well as providing rules for assembling compound particles. Those basic starting points are enough to enable numerous predictions, although a detailed theoretical underpinning consistent with quantum mechanics and the Lorentz equations is an important addition that remains to be developed.

### Hadron modeling and the C preon

First it is good to review hadron modeling from the standard model point of view. Aside from force mediators, any elementary particle found to date can be classified as either a lepton or a hadron, and hadrons come in two types. There are baryons, which by the standard model are proposed to be made of three quarks, and there are mesons, which are proposed to be made of a quark and an antiquark. The delta particle family is a representative baryon family. It can easily be seen that there are only four possible ways to make a delta particle from up and down quarks, and it is observed in nature that only these four particles are found. The pion meson family is a representative meson family. There are four ways to make pions out of up and down quark–antiquark pairs, and three pions have been found in nature. There is some evidence that the neutral pion is actually a superposition of two different types of quark substructure.

The Delta Baryon and Pion Meson families of particles as described by their quark constituents.

The rule for making hadronic matter in the standard model is that the combined color of all particles must be white, and this can be obtained in one of two ways. One of each of the three primary colors can be combined, as in the case of the deltas, or a color can be combined with its anti-color, as in the case of the pions. This is why baryons are formed of three quarks, since that is how the three color combination can be achieved, and this is why mesons are formed from quark–antiquark pairs, since that is how a color/anti-color combination can be obtained. In addition to the delta and pion families, there are many more similar families of particles found in nature. The quark model allows for a replacement of a down quark by a heavier strange quark, or by an even heavier bottom quark, and it also allows for the up quark to be replaced by a heavier charm quark or an even heavier top quark. It is easy to see that making all permutations of such replacements would lead to an enormous number of particles and indeed there are an enormous number of particles found experimentally, with quite good agreement between experiment and the present quark and lepton theory.

The Delta Baryon and Pion Meson families of particles as described by the ABC Preon Model. The standard notation for antiparticles is used, where a bar appearing above the letter indicates an antiparticle. Lines indicate the presence of neutrios. The double bond between the C particle and the C antiparticle is analogous to chemistry, where atoms share electrons in chemical bonding. Here, the binding neutrinos play the role that electrons play in chemistry. Each C particle and antiparticle have three neutrinos available for bonding, while the A and B particles and antiparticles have a single binding neutrino.

In addition to the A and B preons, the ABC Preon Model identifies a C preon that can bind to three A or B particles. This again leads to the situation where there are only four possible ways to make a delta particle. By assigning the electric charge of the C particle as plus two, the delta particle will have possible charge states of plus two, plus one, zero, and minus one as agreed to by experiment. The mesons can be made by a C particle binding with its antiparticle, with the C particle binding to one additional A or B, and the anti-C binding to an anti A or anti B. The construction of baryons and mesons in the ABC Preon Model easily follow by assigning a neutrinic charge of plus three to the C particle. (And minus three to the anti-C) As with the quark model, additional particles beyond the delta family and pion family can be obtained by having the bindings obtain higher energy states and/or for the overall particle to be in a state of angular momentum.

It is possible to make an identification between the ABC preons and quarks. A down quark is essentially the combination of a B particle, the binding neutrino, and a portion of the C particle. An up quark is essentially the combination of an A particle, the binding neutrino, and a portion of the C particle. In the ABC Preon Model, quarks don't actually exist as particles. Instead, quarks are identified as a quantum state involving the orbiting A and B preons and the central C preon. As with leptons, this realization allows us to understand how generations of quarks come about in nature. The u and d quarks are the ground state of the system, while the strange quark is the first excited state of the orbiting B particle, and the bottom quark is the second excited state. Similarly, the charm quark is the first excited state of the orbiting A particle, and the top quark is the second excited state. Since the ABC Preon Model provides identifications of how leptons and quarks are constructed, all particles of the standard model can then be identified in terms of preons as well. Note that the ABC Preon Model shows how a quark can never be isolated by itself since it is in reality the manifestation of a portion of a C particle bound to an A or a B. The ABC Preon Model therefore provides a reason why free quarks have never been observed.

## Elementary particles of the ABC Preon Model

The Elementary Particles of the ABC Preon Model.

At this point we can formalize the constituents of the ABC Preon Model. The model consists of three particles. The A particle has zero electric charge and a neutrinic charge of minus one. The B particle has an electric charge of minus one and a neutrinic charge of minus one. And the C particle has an electric charge of plus two and a neutrinic charge of plus three. The anti particles have the opposite charges of the particles. Two force carriers have been proposed. The photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, and the neutrino, which carries the neutrinic force.

## Weak interactions in the ABC Preon Model

### Beta decay in the Standard Model

A very important class of interactions are the weak interactions. In terms of the standard model, the weak interactions cause quarks to change from one kind to another, and also allow for lepton creation. The best known of the weak interactions takes place when a neutron decays into a proton via beta decay, emitting an electron and anti-neutrino in the process. As interpretted by the standard model, one of the down quarks emits a virtual weak vector boson with negative charge, and since the W has a negative electric charge this changes the charge state of one of the down quarks from minus one third to plus two thirds converting that down quark to an up quark. The virtual W particle then decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino. By converting a down quark to an up quark, the neutron is transformed into a proton during this process.

### Beta decay in the ABC Preon Model

Beta Decay of a Neutron in the ABC Preon Model.

In the ABC Preon Model the neutron consists of a C particle, two B particles, an A particle and the associated binding neutrinos. The decay process is for one of the B particles to tunnel out of its binding relationship. Once the B particle has separated away from the C particle, an A and anti-A pair, as well as a neutrino and antineutrion pair, form out of the vacuum. (Vacuum formation of particle antiparticle pairs is very common in physics.) From this intermediate state, the anti A particle and one of the neutrinos combine with the liberated B particle to form an electron. The remaining A particle takes the place that the original B particle had, and this is recognized as a proton. Lastly there is one anti-neutrino left over to describe the usual beta decay.

### Generic weak decays in the ABC Preon Model

In the ABC Preon Model beta decay is modelled to be analogous to alpha decay from a Uranium nucleus. In alpha decay, it is known that the process occurs via quantum tunnelling. Alpha particles from within the Uranium nucleus are trapped by the nuclear binding forces within the nucleus. However, there is a small portion of the alpha particle's quantum mechanical wave function that extends far enough away from the nucleus so that once the alpha particle materializes at that distant point the alpha particle can be freed. Since the wave function density is so small at that distant point, the probability for decay is small, and therefore decay of the Uranium nucleus takes a long time. In the ABC Preon Model beta decay is a similar process, although it also involves pair creation from vacuum. For the case of beta decay of the neutron, the wave function for the B preon will have a small value at a point far enough away from the C preon and that allows for the formation of a free electron and a free anti-neutrino and conversion of the neutron to a proton. Within the ABC Preon Model all weak decays can be handled similarly, since a B preon can tunnel out of any of the down, strange or bottom quarks, and an A can tunnel out of any of the up, charm or top quarks.

### No Weak Force in the ABC Preon Model

The ABC Preon Model identifies the weak decays as radioactive tunneling decays, and hence there is no weak force in the ABC Preon Model. Hence, in addition to drastically reducing the number of elementary particles, the ABC Preon Model also reduces the number of forces employed by nature. Instead of the electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces of the standard model, the ABC Preon Model has electromagnetic, gravitational and neutrinic forces. An oddity of the standard model - that the weak force has no direction - is removed with the observation that the weak force is not a force at all, rather it is simply another instance of quantum tunnelling occurring in nature.

## Determination of the preon masses

### Proton–antiproton collider results: determination of the A and B preon masses

Proton-antiproton collision experiments were done in the European laboratory CERN in 1983 that led to what is understood as the discovery of the W and Z particles when described by the standard model. In a proton antiproton collider, a beam of protons is accelerated to nearly the speed of light, and a beam of antiprotons is also accelerated to nearly the speed of light. The beams are sent in opposing directions and made to collide. Particles formed by the collision are then studied in large detectors. After colliding, these particles can create many different combinations of particles.

A Proton - Antiproton Collision as envisioned in the ABC Preon Model.

As understood by the ABC Preon Model, one possible result of a proton antiproton collision is for a B to be separated from a proton and an anti-A from an antiproton. Next, a neutrino anti-neutrino pair can form out of the vacuum, with the neutrino, B and anti-A forming a massive lepton and the anti-neutrino being free. Hence it is readily seen how proton antiproton collisions can result in a situation where we have a massive lepton and anti-neutrino formed. There is of course also a shower of particles caused by the other proton and antiproton fragments. This is exactly what has been seen to occur in experiments in what the standard model interprets as W events. The center of mass of such events has been measured to be about 80.4 GeV/c2. Since in the ABC Preon Model this phenomena is seen to be the result of a free A and B preon, this allows a determination that the mass of the A preon plus the mass of the B preon is 80.4 GeV/c2.

The standard model's W signature in proton antiproton colliders as described by the ABC Preon Model. One B particle is separated from a proton, and one anti-A from an antiproton. A neutrino anti-neutrino pair forms out of vacuum. The neutrino binds with the B and anti-A to form a massive lepton. The massive lepton and anti-neutrino have a combined energy of the total mass of the originally freed anti-A and B particles multiplied by c2, which is measured to be 80.4 GeV in proton antiproton experiments.

A second possible outcome of proton antiproton collisions is for one A particle to be separated from a proton and one anti-A from an antiproton. In this case, a B and anti-B pair and a neutrino antineutrino pair can be formed from the vacuum. The B and one neutrino will bind with the anti-A to form a massive lepton, while the anti-B and the antineutrino will bind with the A particle to form a massive anti-lepton. This is exactly the signature found for what is called by the standard model as Z events in high energy physics experiments. The center of mass of these events have been measured to be 91.2 GeV/c2. Since in the ABC Preon Model this phenomena is caused by the freeing of an A and an anti-A preon, and assuming that the mass of the A is equal to the mass of the anti-A, this leads to a determination that twice the mass of the A preon is 91.2 GeV/c2. Hence, the mass of the A preon is determined to be 45.6 GeV/c2, and from the expression in the preceding paragraph the mass of the B preon is 34.8 GeV/c2.

The standard model's Z signature in proton antiproton colliders as described by the ABC Preon Model. An A particle is separated from a proton, and an anti-A from an antiproton. A neutrino anti-neutrino pair and a B anti-B pair form out of vacuum. The neutrino binds with the B and anti-A to form a massive lepton, and the anti-neutrino binds with the anti-B and A to form a massive anti-lepton. The massive lepton and anti-lepton have a combined energy of the total mass of the freed anti-A and A particles multiplied by c2, which is or 91.2 GeV as observed in proton antiproton experiments.

### Deep inelastic collision results: determination of the C preon mass

The mass of the C preon can be determined by deep inelastic collision experiments, which are done by having a high energy electron beam collide with hadronic matter. For the case of the proton, these experiments observe that 35% of the proton momentum is contained by particles with positive charge, 17% by particles with negative charge, and 47% by particles of neutral charge. (Note that it is simple rounding error that leads the sum of these values to be 99%.) The parameters of the standard model were adjusted and various processes proposed so that the standard model agrees with these values by assigning 35% of the proton momentum to be carried by positively charged up quarks, 17% of the proton momentum to be carried by negatively charged down quarks, and the remaining 47% to be carried by charge neutral gluons.

In the ABC model, it is readily observed that if the mass of the C particle is 68 GeV/c2, then 35% of the mass of the proton consists of the positively charged C particle, 18% by the mass of the negatively charged B particle, and 47% by the mass of the two uncharged A particles. Hence, by fitting a single parameter - the C mass - to the data, the ABC Preon Model fits all three data points.

## Large binding energy in the ABC Preon Model

With the masses for the A B and C preons determined to be 45.6 GeV/c2, 34.8 GeV/c2.and 68 GeV/c2, respectively, it is seen that the preons have much larger masses than the leptons they make up. The mass of the lightest massive lepton, the electron, is only 511 keV/c2. Therefore the ABC Preon Model proposes that the constituents of the electron weigh about 100,000 times more than the electron itself. Of course such a situation is indeed entirely possible through the equation E = mc2. The effect of binding energy reducing mass is well known in nuclear physics: the atomic nucleii that bind protons with neutrons have lower masses than the sum of the masses of the protons and neutrons making them up. Similarly, in the ABC Preon Model, the light mass of the electron shows that there is a considerable amount of binding energy between the A and the B. In fact, the binding energy is so large that the mass of the electron is only a small fraction of the mass of its constituents. This condition also holds for the hadrons and mesons, as they are much lighter than their constituents as well. In fact, it is this relation that allows the deep inelastic scattering events to have such a clean result. Since the masses of the A, B, and C particles are so large, the deep inelastic scattering results are not dominated by recoil, and the simple result mentioned above is obtained.

## Proton–proton collider experimental results and the ABC Preon Model

### The top quark signature as explained in the ABC Preon Model

It may at first seem that the ABC Preon Model cannot be reconciled with the experimental evidence for the top quark. Recall that the up family of quarks is identified as the binding of an A particle to a C particle. This implies that there should be no binding at all if the A can be freed from its binding to the C. As an approximate upper limit, it should not be possible to have a quark form at a mass above twice the mass of the A, since putting that much energy into the bond should be enough to free the A from the C particle. Twice the mass of the A is of course 91.2 GeV/c2, and yet the top quark has been reported to exist with a mass of 172 GeV/c2.

Top Quark Events as envisioned in the ABC Preon Model. One C particle and three B particles are separated from two colliding protons. An A particle and an anti-A form out of vacuum. One B and then anti-A form a W event signature, one remaining B and the C combine to form a bottom quark, and that bottom quark along with the remaining A and B will combine either together or with additional particle-antiparticle pairs to form various decay paths. The combined mass of the freed C plus the three B particles multiplied by c2, is 172.4 GeV - consistent with the top quark signature observed in proton proton experiments. (For simplicity, neutrinos are not shown in the diagram.)

However, the top quark is theorized to decay very quickly and it is never seen directly. The experimental evidence consists of evidence for a bottom quark and a W boson. It is clearly possible to create a bottom quark in conjunction with a W boson in the ABC Preon Model. This can be done when a C particle and three B particles are produced in a proton-proton collision. This combination of particles has a total mass of 172.4 GeV, and of course there is some range of uncertainty both the top quark measurement, and the determination of the A, B and C preon masses. So this combination has a mass that is a candidate for what is presently identified as the top quark. An A anti-A pair can form out of vacuum, with the anti-A B combination recognized as leading to the various W signatures, and one of the C B bindings forming a bottom quark to complete the top quark signature.

### The Higgs boson signature as explained in the ABC Preon Model

The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 [12] is again a situation where the particle itself has not been discovered, but rather, it has been inferred through the decay products observed. In the case of the Higgs Boson signature the decay products as understood via the standard model involve a pair of fermions, a pair of intermedidiate vector bosons, a pair of gluons or a pair of photons. Enough of these decay events have been found at a mass of about 126 GeV/c2 for the discovery to be considered confirmed.

Higgs Events as envisioned in the ABC Preon Model. One A particle, one B particle and one anti-A particle are formed from the collision of two protons. One B and one anti-B form out of vacuum, with one B combining with a portion of the proton fragments. The remaining A and B can react with the anti-A and anti-B, respectively to result in what is understood as Z pair events, or they can react with the anti-B and anti-A, respectively to result in what is understood as W pair events. Production of lepton pairs is possible by having the anti-A combine with the B, and the anti-B combine with the A directly, along with a neutrino anti-neutrino pair. The combined mass of the A, B and anti-A multiplied by c2, is 126.0 GeV - consistent with the Higgs signature observed in proton proton experiments. (For simplicity, neutrinos are not shown in the diagram.)

When viewed from the ABC Preon Model, the decay products are seen to result from the production of one A, one anti-A and one B. The cumulative mass of these three preons is twice the mass of the A (91.2 GeV/c2) plus the mass of the B (34.8 GeV/c2) for a total mass of 126 GeV/c2. The various decay products are understood by different instances of particle-antiparticle pairs forming and combining.

## Electron–positron collider experimental results and the ABC Preon Model

High energy physics experimentation is also done with electron positron colliders. In the ABC Preon Model, an electron, composed of an anti-A preon, a neutrino and a B preon, collides with a positron, which is an A preon, an anti-neutrino and an anti-B preon. It is mentioned above how the production of a free A anti-A pair leads to what is known as the Z Signature in proton antiproton colliders, and the same production can easily take place in electron positron colliders.

## Presently undiscovered predictions of the ABC Preon Model

The preceding sections have discussed how the ABC Preon Model correctly predicts the results of experiments done in proton-antiproton colliders, proton-proton colliders and lepton colliders. However, the ABC Preon Model also makes many additional undiscovered predictions.

### An undiscovered event signature in lepton colliders at 69.6 GeV/c2

In addition to the Z event signature that results from an A Abar pair being produced in a lepton collider, it is also possible to produce B Bbar pairs in lepton colliders as well. In this case, massive leptons will be produced through A Abar and neutrino pair creation, and quark antiquark pairs will also be produced through C Cbar production and associated dressings. (In the ABC Preon Model, a "dressing" is the addition of various preons and neutrinos to other preons.) This leads to a predicted event signature at 69.6 GeV/c2 in electron positron colliders that is similar in many ways to the Z event signature observed at 91.2 GeV/c2. The 69.6 GeV/c2 event signature has not yet been experimentally verified.

### Events predicted in proton–antiproton colliders

In addition to the Z event signature that results from an A Abar pair being produced in a proton-antiproton collider, it is also possible to produce B Bbar pairs in proton-antiproton colliders as well. This leads to a predicted event signature at 69.6 GeV/c2 in proton-antiproton colliders that is similar in many ways to the Z event signature observed at 91.2 GeV/c2. The 69.6 GeV/c2 event signature has not yet been experimentally verified.

The ABC Preon Model also predicts several new classes of physical results at proton-antiproton colliders. Collisions can knock off both A particles from the proton, and both anti-A particles from the antiproton, and this would lead to formation of what would be described in the standard model as Z pair production. Similarly, if one of the A's is replaced by a B in the previous example, the collision would result in a W and Z signature. Or, if an anti-B and B are produced along with an A and an anti-A, the signal would be reported as a W pair.

But there are also some additional possibilities at proton antiproton colliders beyond those predicted by the standard model. It is possible to produce an A and a B and two anti-B's with a total rest mass energy of 150 GeV, or two B anti-B pairs at a rest mass energy of 139.2 GeV. It is also possible to produce free C particles, although that would likely result in many A and B particles freed as well, since the C particle is bound to two A's and a B in the proton. If the C and anti-C annihilate, the energy liberated could form additional particle pairs, along with the freed A and B particles. Hence, the ABC Preon Model predicts a large amount of event signatures still possible to discover at proton antiproton colliders.

### Events predicted in proton–proton colliders

As discussed above, the ABC Preon Model interprets the top quark signature as the formation of a C particle and three B particles with a rest mass energy of 172.4 GeV. But it is also clearly possible to produce the following: a C particle, one A, and two B's with a rest mass energy of 183.2 GeV; a C particle, two A's, and one B with a rest mass energy of 194 GeV; and a C particle and three A's with a rest mass energy of 204.8 GeV. The latter three predictions have not been experimentally verified.

Also discussed above is the ABC Preon Model interpretation of the Higgs signature as the formation one A particle, one anti-A particle and one B particle. The cumulative rest mass energy for those particles is 126 GeV. But it is also clearly possible to produce the following: one B particle and two anti-B particles with a cumulative rest mass energy of 104.4 GeV, one B particle, one anti-B particle and one A particle with a cumulative rest mass energy of 115.2 GeV, and two A particles and one anti-A particle with a cumulative rest mass energy of 136.8 GeV. The latter three predictions have not been experimentally verified.

There are also numerous other possibilities for production of A, B and C particles as energies of the collisions are increased.

## Challenges for the ABC Preon Model

The ABC Preon Model presently faces some challenges. Firstly, it has very limited calculational abilities. Ideally, there should be some underlying theory that can be used to derive the masses of the various composite particles that are known to exist. Note that the standard model also has difficulties in this regard. Secondly, the ABC Preon Model makes numerous predictions for experimental results that have not yet been verified.

## Advantages of the ABC Preon Model

Since it is a preon model, the ABC Preon Model can be used to construct all the particles that the Standard Model can. But beyond that, the ABC Preon Model has some advantages as compared to the Standard Model:

Attributes of the Standard Model include:

• The Standard Model employs 61 elementary particles
• The Standard Model identifies 4 forces in nature
• In the Standard Model, the weak force has magnitude, but not direction
• The Standard Model provides no explanation for the three generations of particles
• The quarks of the Standard Model can never be isolated by themselves

Attributes of the ABC Preon Model include:

• The ABC Preon Model employs 8 elementary particles
• The ABC Preon Model identifies 3 forces in nature
• In the ABC Preon Model, all forces have both magnitude and direction
• The ABC Preon Model provides an explanation for the three generations of particles
• All elementary particles defined by the ABC Preon Model can be isolated

There is also some important experimental support for the ABC Preon Model. Once the masses of the A, B and C preons are set by initial experimental evidence, further experiments do not require additional parameters to be postulated in order to describe the results. Results of deep inelastic scattering offer an additional data point, while the mass of the top quark events and the mass of the Higgs boson events offer two more data points, and no additional free parameter is required to arrive at these results. While it could indeed be coincidental, it can also be considered to be strong evidence in favor of the ABC Preon Model. As discussed above in more detail, the ABC Preon Model makes several additional predictions for as of yet undiscovered phenomena. These predictions continue to be ongoing tests for the veracity of the model.

## References

1. ^ D. J. Larson (1997) "The A-B-C Preon Model" Physics Essays, volume 10, 27-34.
2. ^ Geiger H. & Marsden E. (1909). "On a Diffuse Reflection of the a-Particles". Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A 82: 495-500.
3. ^ See R. H. Petrucci, W. S. Harwood, and F. G. Herring (2002). General Chemistry (8th ed.). p. 41.
4. ^ Chadwick, James (1932). "Possible Existence of a Neutron". Nature 129 (3252): 312
5. ^ Anderson, Carl D. (1933). "The Positive Electron". Physical Review 43 (6): 491-494.
6. ^ C. L Cowan, Jr., F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, A. D McGuire (1956). "Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation". Science 124 (3212): 103-4.
7. ^ B.J. Bjorken, S.L. Glashow; Glashow (1964). "Elementary particles and SU(4)". Physics Letters 11 (3): 255-257
8. ^ M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa (1973). "CP-Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction". Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (2): 652
9. ^ "Discoveries at Fermilab - Discovery of the Bottom Quark" (Press release). Fermilab. 7 August 1997.
10. ^ T.M. Liss, P.L. Tipton (1997). "The Discovery of the Top Quark". Scientific American: 54-59.
11. ^ Perl, M. L.; Abrams, G.; Boyarski, A.; Breidenbach, M.; Briggs, D.; Bulos, F.; Chinowsky, W.; Dakin, J. et al. (1975). "Evidence for Anomalous Lepton Production in e+e- Annihilation". Physical Review Letters 35 (22): 1489.
12. ^ Adrian Cho (13 July 2012). "Higgs Boson Makes Its Debut After Decades-Long Search". Science 337 (6091): 141-143

## Deletion

This article was created by the only person who has written about the ABC Preon Model, Delbert J. Larson (user Delbert7). Therefore it meets the criteria for speedy deletion.

The "model" has not been discussed by the physics community because it is not even remotely plausible - surely an expert can see that :) Thrawn562 (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

## Deletion

This article should be deleted as it present a model which has never been presented in a relevant scientific fora. It is highly misleading to include it on wikipedia. The same applies to the addition made to the preon page which links to this page. there are no hits for these terms on arXive. The only reference is the physics essay. This must clearly be a candidate for speedy deletion. the subject it describes does not exist (in the sense of being appropriate for an encyclopedia). Bj norge (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

## Contested Deletion

I am unsure if this talk page is the proper place for these comments. Please let me know and advise me if I should correct this talk page entry. It is quite possible that some paragraphs below should belong here and some should not. Any guidance is appreciated.

I believe it is relevant to note that I, the author of the ABC Preon Model, have a lengthy list of reviewed publications, including three sole-author Physical Review Letters. I have held positions as Adjunct or Research Professor of Physics at two prestigious universities and held leadership positions in two national laboratories, serving as head of longitudinal dynamics at the HEB of the SSC and lead accelerator physicist at Fermilab's PET project. I have been fortunate to be able to design and then lead the construction of two new particle accelerators, one of which increased by over a factor of 1000 the current levels obtained in million-volt-plus Pelletron (electrostatic) accelerators, and the other that refocused and rebunched ion beams for reentry into an RFQ. I mention all of this because, as a reviewer of over 100 reviews of fundamental theoretical physics papers, I have seen more than my share of amateur works.

Most of my published works involved accelerator physics, but when I gave attention to what I consider more important matters I would typically get reviews very similar to what appears above. That is all that many reviews would say. Just something along the lines of "it is not even remotely plausible - surely an expert can see that". In one case it was something like "if this paper is correct, all of physics for the last 100 years would be wrong". Very rarely were any specific flaws identified, and when they were, the specific flaw really wasn't really a flaw at all.

As an example a supposedly specific flaw, I'll mention the most frequent objection about the ABC Preon Model, which is its proposed use of a force carrier with half-integer-spin. (This is discussed briefly in the article itself.) To see why this is considered a problem we must first go to the Feynman approach to QED, wherein the Feynman diagrams involve particles absorbing and emitting the force carrier at vertices. For normal QED, when a half-integer-spin electron absorbs an integer-spin photon, the resulting combined particle still has half-integer-spin. When it later emits that photon, it still has half-integer-spin. So throughout the diagram the particle retains it's half-integer-spin. This is important in physics, because it is known that half-integer-spin particles obey certain statistical rules while integer-spin particles obey different rules. So when the ABC Preon model proposes a half-integer-spin force carrier (the neutrino) this appears to be a problem. In a Feynman diagram, an integer-spin A preon would presumably absorb a neutrino and change to a half-integer-spin entity, which is not something allowed in present QED. Since QED is an excellent theoretical match to experimental data (perhaps the best ever in that regard) this is viewed by some as a fatal flaw for the ABC Preon Model.

One problem with the above objection is that it is treating the Feynman individual diagrams as if they are real physical processes. Nowhere in nature do we actually observe an electron just absorb a photon and then see the electron continue along its way. Instead, what we see is Compton scattering. The underlying reality of QED is not the Feynman diagrams per se, but rather quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics involves Schrödinger’s equation, which has to date only been solved for a few simple cases. Then, for the untidiness that nature presents beyond those simple cases, a perturbation expansion is used. The individual perturbations are what were brilliantly described by Feynman in his diagrams, and they not only involve absorption of force carriers by particles, but also can involve entities going backward in time. It was emphasized early on not to take such things literally - they were originally just handy tools to assist physicists to do calculations.

A second problem with the above objection is that it is a theoretical issue, not an experimental one. Since the ABC Preon Model is presenting a new theory there is no particular reason why it should obey the same rules as a different theory. I suspect that most or all of the objections to the ABC Preon Model have a similar basis to the one just described, i.e., that they are based on theoretical, not experimental, objections. But without learning what the objections are, I cannot of course address them. I would welcome a listing of such objections on this talk page, if that is an appropriate use of a talk page.

At the present time the ABC Preon Model is simply an observation that one can: 1) start with a base set of a few preon particles; and 2) assign them charges and masses; and then 3) note that all quarks, leptons, weak decays and recent siting’s (like what are known as the top quark and Higgs boson) can be described. Not only can they be described, but the decay channels and center of mass of the events can be arrived at with far fewer inputs to the theory than there are outputs. I will readily concede that such circumstances may simply be coincidental, but there are now so many results that I myself believe it is far more than a coincidence.

I suspected that there would be those who would push to censor this effort. For that reason I pursued the slower path of putting this page into Wikipedia by having it reviewed by an independent editor who agreed it was appropriate to publish here. I am grateful to that editor as well as other editors who have pointed out that since the ABC Preon Model appears in the reviewed literature it is notable and therefore it is qualified to appear as a Wikipedia page.

As said at the outset, please advise me on any changes that should be made to this post if indeed any are recommended.

Delbert7 (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

## Notability criteria

No offense intended. Respectfully, I wish you luck in your work with this subject. I am sure you are very knowledgeable and motivated, and will do something noteworthy with this subject. I just don't think that this work (in its current state) belongs in an encylopedia. There are numerous big problems with the factual contents and claims in this article. But leaving that aside for the moment, I wish to focus on the criteria of notability. A subject must be notable BEFORE being put into wikipedia. And furthermore it must be verifiably notable. Which means there must be publicly available artifacts/documents etc. that indicate that this is a notable subject. So in this direction: Is there any articles published anywhere in a physics research journal or on arXive that talks about this model? Are there any researchers (currently affiliated with a physics research institution) that does research on this model? Is there any book (on the science of particle physics) that references this model in any way? Wikipedia is a place for reporting on the status and progress of science (that is made in scientific avenues). It is not a suitable place to present original ideas. Bj norge (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Physics Essays is a peer reviewed scientific research journal; I believe it is a proper scientific avenue. The Wikipedia article predominantly follows what was published in 1997, so I believe this was notable far before being posted on Wikipedia, although I have updated it with references to the more recent experimental data. Please understand that I cannot respond to "numerous big problems with the factual contents and claims" as that is merely a generalization and there is nothing specific to reply to. If you would be so kind, could you perhaps list the specifics of the top five or so problems? I would greatly appreciate such a listing. Please note that as with any scientific effort, I am aware that the ABC Preon Model may have areas where it can be improved, and if the problems are severe enough I may well agree that the page should be taken down. Even if the problems are not that severe, a listing of any real problems should certainly appear within the article if it is to stay up. I wish for the article to be as accurate and thorough as possible and I have no wish to mislead anyone. It is just that without any specific problems being raised, I am unable to make such improvements. Thanks for your time on this matter.Delbert7 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. So just to state the facts the theory was introduced in 1997 in Physics Essays. There has be no papers published on the model since then. The only (known) author ever working on this model is Delbert Larson. And this original physics essays article never received any citations in other (relevant) scientific papers. And if I understand you previous comments correctly a manuscript with this model has been submitted to peer reviewed physics journal and have been turned down with comment that it contradicts the last 100 years of physics research.
I appreciate that you want your work to receive attention but I do not see that a single paper 17 years ago in a multidisciplinary journal with a citation rate of currently 0.3 is enough to classify for scientific notability. Bj norge (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion

I have nominated the article for deletion because of lack of notability. The subject of this article does not "exist" in the physics litterature. It has only been published by one person 17 years ago in a single paper. That paper appears in a journal which may or may not have used peer review at the time. The journal is also clear outside the typical journals for publishing groundbreaking new theoretical works in physics (as this article claims to be). The paper has not been cited anywhere. It has not been the subject of any courses or textbooks. No additional published works has since appeared. Bj norge (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

## End Copy of Talk Page for Deleted Page, Begin Copy of Articles For Deletion Page

The result was delete. In a way it seems a shame since a lot of work was clearly put into the article, but as stated below Wikipedia is not the medium for work with this low level of coverage. Incidentally, as a one-time research physicist I don't think we need to worry about theories going unknown simply because no-one can find them on Wikipedia. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Lack of notability The subject of this article does not "exist" in the physics litterature. It has only been published by one person 17 years ago in a single paper. That paper appears in a journal which may or may not have used peer review at the time. The journal is also clearly outside the mainstream journals for publishing groundbreaking new theoretical works in physics (as this article claims to be). The paper has not been cited anywhere. It has not been the subject of any courses or textbooks. No additional published works has since appeared. Bj norge (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
• Delete. A single primary source with zero citations, appears to be all that has ever been written about the subject in the physics literature. Obviously, fails general notability criteria.TR 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Let us stipulate that a single 17 year old original article presenting this theory exists, but that this is all that has happened with this subject. Respectfully, this is as non-notable as any published research subject can be.Bj norge (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The peer review process involves a substantial amount of activity that is not present in non-peer-reviewed published research avenues, of which there are many (published lab notes, conference procedings, letters to the editor, and so on). So I believe the above comment is in error. I also don't see the relevance of how old a fact is, as long as it is a fact. But in the end, it is my belief that the real reason this article has been nominated for deletion has to do with its content, not its notability. If my belief is incorrect, please feel free to correct me, as I think this is relevant to the deletion discussion. Delbert7 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Your belief is incorrect. Moreover, please actually read the notability guidelines at WP:GNG. It quite clearly states that there must be multiple secondary sources. At this point we have one primary source, which clearly is not enough to establish notability. Also please not that wikipedia is a not a soapbox to promote your own ideas from.TR 13:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
To Delbert's comments above: I nominated it because of clear lack of notability. Do I believe that lack of notability of a scientific paper sometimes may be due to the contents of that paper? Yes absolutely. Do I believe that a great scientific paper sometimes can go unnoticed for many years? Yes absolutely. Do I believe that Wikipedia should somehow try to compensate for this. No, absolutely not. Bj norge (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both above commenters for correcting my mistaken belief concerning content. However, I wish to respectfully reply on the primary notability matter by noting that I had indeed read the policy before posting any responses here. The policy says Sources "should" be secondary sources, not "must". Digging further by following the link found within the policy, we find: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." So I believe the article still falls within the notability criterion as so described. Delbert7 (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Although primary sources can sometimes be used as references they cannot be used to establish notability. Notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. Primary sources cannot be independent. Please stop being dense.TR 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that this is my first Wikipedia article and I am not trying to be "dense". Wikipedia has an enormous amount of articles on wide and varied subjects, and I suspect the vast majority are not backed by a peer-reviewed scientific publication as the primary source. Perhaps for scientific articles primary source means a scientific publication and secondary means citations or further references in such, but in the general case it must be something else. I read the GNG with the larger scope in mind, and hence read things the way I did. Delbert7 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. The original source has collected zero citations in its many years of existence, according to Google scholar. That means that it has had no impact on science and (because it lacks adequate secondary sourcing) does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If lack of citations is the sole criterion, the problem becomes circular for getting new ideas into discussion. Ideas outside of the mainstream generally get ignored. If the lack of citations is used to remove works from other venues where the new ideas might be seen, it will then preclude future citations since no one will see it, so it will never qualify. The GNG has citations as one criteria, but the article meets many of the other GNG criteria for notability, as I understand it. Delbert7 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyklopedia. Wikipedia (by definition) only contains ideas that have already been noted, used, developed etc. elsewhere. It neither values nor devalues new ideas, but it does not provide a venue to present or promote them. Ideas that are new in a temporal sense, or in a sense that they have not been as of yet been noted by a larger audience, must first become notable by other means than by promoting it in Wikipedia. Verifiable notability must necessarily mean that someone else has written about the subject, referenced it, written a book about, made a new story, made a film or television program. The sole existence of a subject cannot by itself make it notable. If it did we would not need a notability criteria, and Wikipedia would be transformed into an extra copy of reality. The notability criteria does not try to evaluate a subject in itself, but only tries to capture the degree to which ideas and other things already have been noted / appreciated /written about etc. Great ideas (as well as bad ones) may unfortunately sometimes be completely ignored by the "world" but Wikipedia is not here to correct that.Bj norge (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Also, Wikipedia policy says it doesn't have to be accurate, it has to be sourced, and it is. I Googled it, and it gets 33,000 hits. Somebody will come looking for it. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That is 33,000 pages containing ABC, Prion and Model. Most of those have nothing to do with this. Restricting to "ABC Preon Model" online produces about 8,000 hits. Most of those are wikipedia mirrors. The rest is mostly, our dear friend Larson promoting his work on the internet and metahits from various abstract indexing surfaces. So, no it does not meet the GNG.TR 13:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the Google hits on "ABC Preon Model" were solicited by others. Professor Umberto Bartocci had once asked me to write a contribution to his online journal Episteme. (www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/larson2.htm). In that contribution you will see a citation to the primary source for the ABC Preon Model, although I was the one who cited it. There is an online posting (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=76937) by ohwilleke who cites the primary source, and he found that on his own. On the WorldWide NPA site (http://www.worldnpa.org/php/DatabaseMenu.php?tab=2&subtab=2&turn_page=4&turn_page=5) you can find a reference to a talk I gave on this subject to an NPA conference, and while I certainly presented the talk, the NPA is a separate organization. None of the aforementioned sources were peer-reviewed, so I am not sure how they count toward secondary sourcing in this case. But I felt these facts should be added to the discussion. Note that the GNG, when following this link states that "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources". Delbert7 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete I approved this submission, but looking back, it was a mistake to approve this, as this does not meet notability guidelines by a mile. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)