G-THEORY thesis CH 20a





·          A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF FERMIONS-----------------707


  • JOINING THE DOTS IN THE PROCESS OF---------------------------746








At this juncture I will put forward the profound postulation of how a particular matter and ant-matter combination allows the formation of an electron and proton from a beta-neutron*, resulting in the creation of a 1H hydrogen isotope. This hypothesis also describes a simplified but logical mechanical makeup of the various fermions and other bosons and sub quantum particles. Note: Most of the necessary particles are not depicted for purposes of simplicity. The interconnection of particles may not be exactly as shown. However the particles that are revealed are deemed necessary for the theory.

Discover the perfect beta decay; positron neutron and electron decay into a gamma particle etc. and the amazing conclusion that an electron predominately consists of antimatter!

You will immediately notice that I have not included Z bosons in the diagram because although considering them to be mediators of the electroweak force and connective particles for W-bosons in quarks and gluons. I don't have a clue of their position within the nucleon although I suspect it is outside the Q-L and they may well be mesonic point on a brane. Refer to Z boson definition.

The W and 'not'-W boson are shown. They (as well as participating in the electroweak interaction and other things) are thought to be the multi-dimensional mediators of the reception and transmission of quanta as photons, ramatons etc. In doing so they cause color charge transformations in quarks, and this is then reflected (in some non proportional way) and exhibited in the overall atomic temperature.

  *A beta neutron will be the subject of the analysis. Note: An 'alpha neutron' is the classically theorized 'udd' neutron.








I choose to disagree with Feynman. 'Nature is not absurd; applied mathematics is!'

I can see why he must have thought nature to be so, because during ß -ve decay, in the process of the transformation of a udd weighted neutron to a uud weighted proton; how you can get a -1/3 charge down quark to decay into a +2/3 up quark and end up with a -1 charge dū electron and a neutral anti-neutrino is beyond me and (I strongly suggest) classical math! I know the sums add up in totality but not in those decay products which should in actuality find the electron at -1/3! There is obviously a cover up and something very wrong with the mechanics of the currently proposed standard model and therefore it should be opened up to reasoned questioning.

Modern quantum physics is definitely in a pickle: The sums simply don't add up. And even more embarrassingly; some substantively massive particles turn out to have excruciatingly small actual 'mass' when compared to some supposedly smaller sub particles. The whole mathematically enshrouded 'discipline' is flailing around in a quagmire of inconsistency. Discrepancies abound. 'Mass' seems to not actually be mass, and 'energy' is not really 'energy'. Virtual and disappearing particles are a feature, and some as large as protons just seem to appear out of the 'vacuum'. Others are declared to be 'created' in any given inexplicable sub quantum process! As well as that; specific gravity, specific heat and atomic mass relationships demonstrate wide anomalies which I intend to bring back into the fold of reason.

When faced with these dilemmas (many of which I have already offered solutions for); instead of questioning the starting point, the physicists appear to be acting like a baseball team blissfully unaware of an object called a bat, and pitifully wondering why they always score run-less innings! Hope must spring eternal because they play on regardless while eying off the endless equations that calculate the vainly expected result chalked all over the scoreboard.

Shortly I'll take a bat out and let them in on the secret. By stepping out of the metaphor what I really hope to achieve is to begin by presenting simplified 2D representations of nucleons etc. and (especially relatable to the actual grade school mathematics that one might expect) an electron, which I truly present as the latest high tech 'bat'. The electron described within this picture frame is even able to remain in orbitals for reasons other than 'magic', and it is surprisingly able to obey all the classical laws of physics in so doing! An electron is also perfectly able to decay into the noted parts as well as parts not yet recognized because of a phenomenon called particle camouflage*. All the while it is able carry out the functions it is required to do by way of a logical mechanics related firmly to classical physics! Note: It is this logical solution which I ask you to use in any interpretive analysis you use in evaluating this model.

*N.B. Particle camouflage is caused by a situation where two different particles exhibit significant similarities in charge and/or dipole and/or spin. The particles are only truly able to be identified by their origin and theorized externally forced decay mechanics. This makes them dimensionally diverse with possibly observable behavioral differences. The really notable difference is in their structural matter content and only possibly their exhibited mass. The reasons for particle mass and matter difference capability will be forthcoming. Examples--- proton-neutron and electron-negatron.


You might suspect that the daughter magnetic dipoles should be summative to the mother dipole. However this is not the case and a slight difference might be expected because of differing multiplex states of the binding particles in the individually evaluated states. Of course we must look for other reasons. For a start we understand that if we break a magnetic dipole into two we are left with two dipoles that are able to exhibit similar spatially proportional strength.

So when we look at the differences between the P, N and E dipoles we notice that the proton in particular has an anomalous and greater dipole strength than the neutron it derived from and that is even after the electron took another substantial dipole strength away as well. It seems that if we are not to be left with a P 1.41 + E 1.00= N 0.996 scenario then we've got some explaining to do.

I don't know whether the standard model has got any explanation for this but I will attempt to provide a possible cause: In addition to the separated dipole phenomenon already explained (which goes a long way towards a solution) we still have the problem of the disparity between the electron and proton in particular. If we can find an explanation for that then we don't have to address the neutron directly.

 The most likely answer is because of the different arrangements of the quarks which will become very clear later on: The various particles being considered here have variant quark constructs in the internal micro-space. This affects the dipoles in individually different ways. This will also change the dipolic interaction statistics which will force variant changes in the phononic factor harmonics for protons and neutrons with the proton's g-factor change being the most significant and therefore the most dominant.

Becoming stronger the proton now becomes the most magnetically dynamic of the two. This puts it in the driver's seat when it comes down to nucleus dynamics and this is all supported by the facts.

This tended offering of an ostensibly better theory doesn't mean that quantum physics is not weird. It is but mainly as far as it is misinterpreted! But regardless of that, logic declares that if an object is made of matter then it should still obey the known laws of physics whenever its precepts demand it unless other superceding laws apply.

The following intrepid yet tremulous attempt at enlightenment even presumes to show what a neutrino is, and what it does; also the role of bosons in forming magnetic dipoles and charge poles in nucleons and electrons, the relationship between fundamental particles and higher order mass as well as gravity, and much more.

If you bear with me and put your preconceptions aside, you should see this all come together in a congruent 'physics obeying' whole.

A 'charge neutral' magnetic dipole (if one could actually be put under the microscope) would by this theory be seen to consist of four biracial W bosons positioned in an in line arrangement as two not-W positioned at one end of the line as an anti magneton with two racially opposite bosons on the other end being a magneton. Neutrinos and gluons (W---Z----W) provide the biracial binding force which holds them together. This is the smallest magnetic dipole theorized and it is the basic foundation of the fermions dipoles. Its written connectivity is.


 (– W Ve –W) .I.(W Z –W) .I. (W  -Ve W).


The symbol ' .I.' and boson Z indicate different branes*. The whole construct is a magnetic dipole or magnetic particle. The center construct is a gluon and the end constructs are magneton and anti magneton particles (monopoles/1/2 gammas).

When joined together without the gluon as---


 (– W Ve –W) .I.(W  Ve W)


This is now a gamma particle and not magnetic unless joined by a gluon with a brane on a magnetine.  The monopoles are false gammas or magnetons and they are only identified when gluon joined as a gamma particle. Gamma particles are herein thought to be capable of performing part of a quantum loop and rejoin with a gluon within Q-G plasma or other high 'energy' states to form a magnetic particle again. The magneton would be consistent with causing a north pole for example and the anti-magneton would conversely be causative of the south pole. From this we can declare by G-theory that without antimatter there would be no observable charge signs or magnetic dipoles in the universe.

Note: branes are non euclidian. They have no other points of necessary existence except where they are being utilized and they therefore 'travel' with their particles. They do take time to decay (which can be observed in Z boson annihilation which is not a 'snuff' moment) because particles are thought to stretch the necessarily elastic brane. That is another reason why particles simply appear some distance from a collision. They have stretched the eos brane until they break through back into the universe and are able to be observed.

The stretching phenomenon is necessary because of the law of entropy and the laws that prevent true instantaneity within the universe. I.e. The particle decelerates by stretching the elastic bane before it enters the universe. The vanishing particle stretches the brane in the reverse direction before it breaks back through.


The sometimes presented idea of the possibility of the existence of a single point mono-charge or a single magnetic mono-pole* as having any effectiveness as a force, without offering any cause or reason may be construed to be an absurdity. In fact I intend to show that without a large quantity of anti-matter we would have no universe at all and that it is actually biracial attraction/repulsion which is the basis of 'force' and hence gives rise to the perception of 'energy' and motion giving rise to the notion of 'mass'.

*magnetons and anti magnetons exist but they do not exhibit any magnetism or charge.


Biracial perturbative forces are elastically responsible for the vibration of bosons and partially for the 'spin' of greater particle constructs. That simplistically explains some mechanics which was briefly mentioned in the previous chapters, but which is another subject to be addressed further.

Now these biracial magnetons actually become arranged as a dipole (sometimes as a combined or larger dipole) within a nucleon or other particle. They are considered to be configured in straight lines as single or double dipoles say with a line of magnetons at one end and an equal number of anti-magnetons at the other, with all those magnetic bosons being held together by the said bosons and anti-bosons respectively. This same arrangement is carried over to an electron and proton as we shall see. Except for the electron and to a degree the 1H isotope*, none of this has any direct relationship to the actual observance of magnetic dipole moments which are much greater in hadrons: TBE.

*By the probability that a neutron has a greater magnetic moment than a proton, then it is predictable that the electron orbital associated with a 1H (proton) nucleus will be smaller than the orbital of a 2H isotope. All atoms with neutrons within the nucleus will be fairly similar with only slight neutron population proportional differences. Note: This has not been addressed in depth for reasons of simplicity. Dipole moment phenomenology is another subject that could have implications because of theorized neutron type differences within elemental and molecular objects.


Before we get to beta decay and its variants, I must show a proposed simplified diagram of a cosmean derived beta-neutron (which is probably the form of the original praetom antipraetom pair, previously described and) which has now presented as the usurping parent of most cosmo-universal, neutrons, protons and electrons and most of their component parts. In certain nuclear reactions these beta-neutrons may be fleetingly produced in the real world by nucleon-synthesis.

This diagram needs to be studied and understood in order for me to be able to explain and show definitively how beta decay is able to logically occur by the 'sane' utilization of mathematics*, with just one anti-neutrino left over as observed. The anti-neutrino is likely to be emitted at about 'c' into the eos, whereby over some distance it may be re scavenged or perhaps transformed by an un-theorized process.

*I intend to show that this G-theory model is not mathematically absurd, which is the proposed case under the current paradigm.


If you want to take a quick peek: In the following section I show a simplified (2D) diagram* of a beta neutron (figure one) which is proposed to exist not just physically in 3D but multi-dimensionally as part of the fermion matter as well. This diagram is missing the electroweak force (EWF) construct for purposes of clarity. I will lay that out below. Contrary to common theory, this diagram shows that a beta-neutron most likely consists of three mesons which are quark, anti-quark pairs that are bound together by gluons. These mesons biracial pairs are themselves bound to each other by gluons as well. From this we can see that quarks contain a lot of bonding gluons (-W Z -W) or W –Z W) or perhaps other configurations consistent with the bonding requirements which are proportional to color charge. We are likely to discover that those combos are all (so called Higg's bosons). This of course suggests that Higg's bosons are not singular particle identities or singular gluons. In fact by mass addition it would appear that a Higg's is the whole gauge boson part of the electroweak structure. The Z boson is positioned across brane with half in one dimension (tensor) and half in another dimension across a cosmean brane as in (1/)


1/        -W (1/2Z . І .1/2 Z) W      . І . depicts the interdimensional brane and it is likely to have become a Zo boson when transformed as part of a Higgs. Half of itself is occupying the same space time as the other half in another tensor.

The forced symmetry breaking process becomes---

2/      -W←1/2Z . І .1/2 Z→W

Biracial muons are supposedly the annihilation products of Z bosons but that's likely to be an interpretation error. The annihilation products of the Higgs are a W boson biracial pair and a Zo boson uniracial brane splitting phenomenon.


m=80.385+91.1876/2 GeV/c2

m=125.9788  ---Predicted Higgs masses 125.3 ± 0.4 and 126 ±0.4 (courtesy Wikipedia) (Others: 125 to 127 or more divergent).


So you have to agree; that the math is statistically perfect for this postulation but not if you view it through the perspective of annihilation. The true lens of analysis here is to consider a dimensional shift of half of the Zo boson into the cosmean brane. When detected during an LHC collision event THE HIGG'S BOSON IS STILL ATTACHED TO ITS BRANE. (Refer to a later assertation.) The annihilation products will therefore include particles which would not be expected for normal arithmetical addition of masses. High energy physicists have pretty much got a hold on that one. In light of the proposals of the G-theory model, that model seems to have legs wouldn't you agree?

I consider this to be the 'extended symmetry' part of the model.






When the Higg's superstruct is intact the weak force and electromagnetic symmetry is bound and the electro weak force is now displayed and mass is produced in higher order AMOs via the Q-L to SBF Higgs highway as shown below (3/). Now I considered earlier that the W boson and muons are the weak force bond components from quark lattice gluons to the SBF gluons. The electroweak force is broken into two separate electromagnetic and weak force components and strangely enough these are the theorized components of the Higg's boson. As far as whether or not a Higg's field exists; I think yo'all might be dreaming. But who am I to say?

You should see from below that the Higgs field is nothing more than the electromagnetic stress tensor in G-rel but only a decaying EM field in G-theory.


3/ (Q-L) G≈П≈G≈-W (1/2Z . І .1/2 Z) W ≈G≈П≈G (SBF)

                I    I     I                   I                   I    I    I


≈ denotes elastic phononic interaction as Yukawa couplings (only in the scalar sense).  G (gluon -WZW) (П pion) (I) indicates branes--- semi expanded the EWF structure is as depicted---



By the G-theory model a pion is W-WW-W or –WW-WW which if added in wouldn't allow the model to fit across the page. Now you shouldn't be so surprised when so many particles are exhibited during collider collisions. G-theory also predicts a stupendous number of neutrinos to be flying around the universe because these W bosons are neutrinos when out of the nucleon. Note: I refer to this structure as the EWF or Higg's superstruct.The Zo boson has cross brane symmetry.

This bulwark of W-WZW-WW-WW-WZW at the SBF junction prevents other nucleons from further ingress than a 'smidge'. The full superstruct presents its quark determined SBF uniracial charge and it is statistically reversible in neutrons. The EWF superstruct representation shows the connection from an up quark to uniracial +ve. The opposite will be the case for a down quark. This means that each proton has three binding possibilities for neutrons. This is very conclusive and clinching evidence for the G-theory model.

Other multiplex branes will then be a feature as well. There are quite a few dimensions involved in that process. The pions and gluons remain with the Q-L and the SBF upon annihilation. Note: The particles you identify in collider collisions are simply pieces of the superstructs. The difficult one to catch because the requirement was to observe it while still attached to its brane was the Higg's boson.



*These diagrams are therefore only two dimensional representations of very dynamic and multiplex realities, and are for explanatory purposes only… The particle proximity is likely to be extremely close and even overlapping by multi-dimensional space-time sharing. The proposed simplistic arrangement should be considered to be warping and shape shifting at high frequencies conditional with 'energy' and other quantum states. The multi-dimensionally actionable parts are able to be 'seen and touched' as the various physical parts. This is not metaphysical. I have the complete model which is shown as a vague feature on the front cover of the book.





If you study the superstruct above you will notice that there are seven branes which relate to the six plus one combinations of colors and flavors in the quark world. If you add in the four already recognized dimensions you end up with eleven dimensions which is consistent with my original premise. The seventh and final dimensional slot isn't a quark status its the cosmean femtospace status.

 What's even more surprising is if you study the figure of a beta neutron you will also notice seven branes in the magnetic dipole construct. I just couldn't make this stuff up!    


Now getting back on track: The anti-matter particles always maintains stability by having existence in a different dimension than its biracial mate and the attractive (connective) forces are by cross brane unlike biracial charge perturbation only, or they are otherwise held spatially disparate by their bonding to other bosons. It can be calculated as shown that the neutron is charge neutral and it is hence declared to be matter–antimatter balanced*, whether or not one will ever be observed under any future microscope is somewhat doubtful.

*This does not cause any change to its effective G or N mass for previously explained reasons, however one can see it has a quark bi-racial charge of zero, but it can be seen to be biased toward anti-matter by just one anti-neutrino. And as is the case with all fermions it possesses a charge imbalance within the Euclidian metric which promotes SBF bonding with a proton and it also allows weak binding capability to other neutrons.


Biracial attraction (BA) is also seen as the precursor for all atomic binding forces, electrostatic charge and 'mass'. The races are matter and anti-matter. As already described the biracial charges are unbalanced within individual nucleons. In fact this theory proposes under the current paradigm that protons are fermions and beta neutrons may actually be viewed as mesonic until they decay from mesons to hadron-baryon* or mostly to proton electron transformation.

*A Theorized very low chance statistical variant of B-ve decay.


In any case this basic representation of fermions and bosons is of course open to subjective analysis and is not representative of the proposed tetrahedral meson-meson or quark lattice elastic substantive state, for instance. These two dimensional figurative pictures also do not indicate exact biracial relationships or spatial reality, nor do they represent any dimensional modality for any representation of quark lattice shape.

This biracial theory by multiplicity precludes the idea of the relativistically postulated 'quark-dirac sea'.