Your model of muon decay doesn’t conserve charge—you start with −1e , then have −2e and finally have zero. Also, the second electron is never observed.
First, the Γ Framework doesn’t use charge. I know that so radical, right!?! Instead, it uses the oscillatory resonances of coupled photons (1Γ gluons) to form, stabilize and polarize particles.
In addition, like lepton numbers, charge is a construct—a useful tool but not necessarily the endgame in physics.
Also, keep in mind the volumes of interactors. Until there’s a way to actually count both muons and electrons, then all we can honestly say is x muons decay into y electrons (and, possibly, unconfined gluons that disintegrate into photons). We don’t know the actual ratio because, currently, there’s no way to know.
Besides, there’s another model that addresses the dynamics from a level below the SM that suggests it’s not the ground floor. :)
Models evolve. Like any fleeting zeitgeist, consensuses change.
Your model of muon decay doesn’t conserve charge—you start with −1e , then have −2e and finally have zero. Also, the second electron is never observed.
You made a couple of interesting points.
First, the Γ Framework doesn’t use charge. I know that so radical, right!?! Instead, it uses the oscillatory resonances of coupled photons (1Γ gluons) to form, stabilize and polarize particles.
In addition, like lepton numbers, charge is a construct—a useful tool but not necessarily the endgame in physics.
Also, keep in mind the volumes of interactors. Until there’s a way to actually count both muons and electrons, then all we can honestly say is x muons decay into y electrons (and, possibly, unconfined gluons that disintegrate into photons). We don’t know the actual ratio because, currently, there’s no way to know.
Besides, there’s another model that addresses the dynamics from a level below the SM that suggests it’s not the ground floor. :)
Models evolve. Like any fleeting zeitgeist, consensuses change.