arXiv:1306.3617v6 [physics.gen-ph] 26 Dec 2015

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

Steve Gersten
Abstract. The Harari-Shupe model for fermions is extended to a topological model
which contains an explanation for the observed fact that there are only three generations of fermions. Topological explanations are given for β-decay and for proton
decay predicted in supersymmetry and string theories. An explanation is given for
the observed fact that the three generations of fermions have such similar properties.
The concept of “color” is incorporated into the model in a topologically meaningful
way. Conservation laws are defined and discussed in the context of the algebraic
topology of the model, and preon number is proved to be linearly determined by
charge, weak isospin, and color.

Preface to help non-grouptheorists get a start in reading this paper1
Since some readers may not be familiar with the term van Kampen diagrams,
I can refer them to an excellent article in Wikipedia2 ; I’ll give a brief explanation shortly. The model I propose for particles of SM (standard model of particle
physics) makes essential use of them, but the idea can be understood at a nontechnical level as follows.
The model for particles is like Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic dome. The particles
are the skin spanning the skeletal frame and the preons [Li] are the segments of
that frame. So particles are 2-dimensional and preons are 1-dimensional.
It makes no sense to say a particle (like a quark or electron) is composed of preons,
in the way a sack of gum drops is composed of pieces of candy. A particle is the
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 81P05, 20F06.
Key words and phrases. fermion, standard model, Harari-Shupe model, generation problem,
van Kampen diagram, universal covering.
Supported by Social Security and Medicare
c S. Gersten 2012
I wish to thank Domingo Toledo for discussions. I am very grateful to Yong-Shi Wu for
explaining the physics underlying “color”. Wikipedia articles on the standard model and related
topics were useful and my thanks go to their anonymous authors .
1 There is something new for grouptheorists here as well.
In the word problem all that
matters is the minimum number of 2-cells in a van Kampen diagram filling a relation R of a
presentation, called the area of R. The diagram itself is irrelevant for the word problem. What
is new in these articles is that the van Kampen diagrams are given an independent physical
meaning. Thus both the proton and the positron are fillings of the word aaa in the presentation
P to be defined shortly. But they have very different topological and physical properties.
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van Kampen diagram

1

2

STEVE GERSTEN

surface spanned by the 3 segments of Fuller’s frame that bound it. These segments
have names, a or b, and orientations, that is, arrows.3 It will turn out that, for
all particles in our theory, the arrows on one spanning triangle all point in the
same direction; this is a deep fact and the explanation will be delayed to the sequel
paper on bosons, but it is connected with the intrinsic spin of a particle. Particles
may be detected, albeit indirectly, as in the case of quarks, which are not directly
observable (each quark has a color and only “colorless” combinations of them (§4
below) are observable), but the segments of the skeleton may never be seen, but
only inferred by the characteristics of surfaces spanning them.4
I want to state from the beginning that I have only changed slightly the interpretation of the basic idea of [Ha] and [Sh], but not the idea itself. By interpreting
their preons5 as the framework (or skeleton) rather than the content of particles, I
can solve the problems that these papers pose concerning the standard model. It’s
the paper I would have expected either of these authors to write had they been
aware of the (admittedly arcane) field of combinatorial group theory. Thus my
goals in this article are only to go as far as these authors could have gone in 1979
with the reinterpretation of “preons”. In the sequel article, I shall take the idea a
step further by incorporating spin.
Now for a quick definition of van Kampen diagrams. It is the primary tool of
combinatorial group theory (also known as geometric group theory). This branch
of group theory is the study by geometry and topology of group presentations. A
group presentation consists of generators and defining relations. A van Kampen
diagram is a geometric way of representing relations. For more detail and for some
superb drawings of van Kampen diagrams, consult the Wikipedia article.
An example of a presentation is that whose generators are all the edges of Fuller’s
geodesic dome and whose defining relations are those determined by the set of
triangles of the dome. We could call the group presented Buckminster Fuller’s
group; it has not been studied to my knowledge. One van Kampen diagram is the
dome itself.6
The only presentation we are concerned with in these articles is P =<
a, b; aaa, bbb, aab, abb >. The group presented by P is the cyclic group of order 3.
Two van Kampen diagrams in P may be seen in Figures 1 and 2 of this article.
The second represents a proton and the three curvilinear triangles are, reading from
left to right, the up, down, and up quarks. These two diagrams are of particular
interest because they may be considered “spherical diagrams” by appending a face
at infinity. So, with the exterior of the diagram compactified by adding a point
at infinity, it becomes a sphere divided into four curvilinear triangles. These two
3 Figure

2 of this article is an example of a van Kampen diagram that represents a particle,
the proton in this case, with the labels a, b on the edges.
4 The usual interpretation of the Harari-Shupe model is like the skeleton of a fish, whereas
mine is like that of a lobster . Theirs has the skeleton on the inside, whereas I’ve moved it to the
outside.
5 The terminology “preon” is used in [Li] but does not occur in [Ha] nor in [Sh], which use the
terms “rishon” and “quip” respectively.
6 http://carlacapeto.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/buckminster-fuller-dome.jpg

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

3

spherical diagrams play a central role in characterizing SM in §5 below.7
I cannot emphasize strongly enough that what is not being attempted is to
calculate masses of particles nor to compute the fundamental constants of nature.
The topological approach cannot and does not attempt to do this.
All that topology can do is to establish limits of what is possible, but it cannot fill
in the details. For example my theory tells us that there is no fourth generation of
fermions, but it cannot fill in the details about the masses of the three generations
of fermions that exist. Only a metric theory can attempt to do this, and the mere
beginnings of a metric theory are sketched at the end of the second paper on bosons.
Do not expect me to calculate the value of “g” anytime soon.
Professor Wu suggested that I should emphasize also that the complex K and
its universal cover K̃, in which all my constructions take place, do not lie in 3-space
(or even 4-space), but should be considered in a larger dimensional space, possibly
in the fibre of a fibre bundle over Minkowski space. He also pointed out that the
discreteness of the complex K (as opposed to a continuous geometry) was a good
feature that might sweeten the pill of higher dimensions. Those physicists who
accept higher dimensional spaces as the venue of physics will appreciate this while
those who reject them will reject this article whatever I do to try to reach them.
Contents
Preface to help non-grouptheorists get a start in what is going on
§0. Introduction
§1. Review of Harari-Shupe model
§2. Conjugacy classes in a free group
§3. 2-cycles in the 2-complex K
§4. Color
§5. Standard Model
§6. Neutrino Oscillations
§7. Questions and comments
Appendix 1. Historical remark
Appendix 2. Color group M and A2
Appendix 3. Conservation laws in SM and quantum numbers
Appendix 4. β-decay revisited
Appendix 5. ∆++ baryon
Appendix 6. Quantum numbers and the first Chern class
Appendix 7. Colorings as conservation laws
Appendix 8. Preons are determined by charge, color, and weak isospin
Appendix 9. Dark Matter
Appendix 10. Nucleogenesis
Appendix 11. The dual picture and ∆++ test
Appendix 12. Entanglement
Disclaimer.
7 I have adopted Domingo Toledo’s suggestions to revise an earlier attempt at this preface in
order to make it less technical.

4

STEVE GERSTEN

§0. Introduction
In this article we propose a topological model for SM, the standard model of
particle physics. A particle will turn out to be represented by a class of colored
van Kampen diagrams in the universal cover K̃ of a complex K we construct in
§3 (diagrams related by diamond moves represent the same particle; the concept of
color is introduced in §4 below). The boundary label of a diagram is a conjugacy
class c of a single element in F = F (a, b), the free group with free basis {a, b}, and
is thus determined by the particle. Its antiparticle is represented by that diagram
with the opposite orientation, and hence its boundary label is c̄, the conjugacy class
of inverses of elements of c. If a particle is its own antiparticle (as is the case for
the photon, gluons, and the Z-boson), then c = c̄, which implies that c consists
only of the neutral element 1 of F . Not all diagrams represent observable particles;
the observability criterion is given in §4 below. At the end of §3 we illustrate the
notions with van Kampen diagrams representing the proton, neutron, and their
antiparticles without indicating the colors that must be attached to the faces.
The notions are unified in §5 to give a topological formulation for SM, including
predictions for all particles, observable or not, which can exist. The emphasis in this
paper is on fermions, which are the easiest to characterize, but the model applies
to bosons as well. The deduction of the various species of bosons will be left to a
future paper, but we have included a diagram for a Higgs boson, since people I have
spoken to about this article have requested to see it and it is in the news because
of its discovery by the LHC at CERN last year.
Finally, in §6, a purely topological explanation is given based on our model for
the neutrino deficit, the fact that the neutrino flux from the sun observed in the
laboratory is one third of the rate predicted by theory.
The correspondence between particles and van Kampen diagrams is the basic
idea of this article, which is an expansion of ideas in papers of Harari [Ha] and Shupe
[Sh] and which have been recently revived in an expository artice [Li]. Viewing
particles in this way leads to the complete model in §5, including answers to several
of the questions raised in these papers. Among these are why there are only three
generations of fermion, why the generations have such similar properties, and where
the prediction of new fundamental particles stops.
A general reference for the algebraic topology used is [AH] and a reference for
notions of combinatorial group theory is [BRS]. Other references to web articles
will be provided as needed in footnotes.
There are a number of appendices which examine finer point of the theory. Appendix 12 offers a geometrical explanation for the paradoxes of quantum entanglement. In fact geometry is the overall theme of the paper, that fundamental physical
facts can be explained by geometry even when the numbers themselves have to be
determined by experiment. Appendix 11 shows how to replace the notion of van
Kampen diagram, which offended at least one reader (see the letter quoted in the
Disclaimer), by a planar graph with additional labels. This is an equivalent formulation, but the van Kampen formulation is still needed because covering space
theory applies directly to it, whereas the graph formulation is more intuitive for

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

5

physicists.
§1. Review of Harari-Shupe model
Harari [Ha] and Shupe [Sh] have proposed a model wherein quarks and electrons
are composite particles, composed each of three fundamental particles called “preons” by Lincoln in a recent article [Li]. In my notation the fundamental particles
are a and b and their antiparticles are ā and b̄, respectively.8 The first generation
of fermions consists of the electron e, up quark u, down quark d, and electron neutrino νe ; these are āāā, aab, āb̄b̄ and bbb, and their antiparticles are aaa, āāb̄, abb,
and b̄b̄b̄, respectively. Then the proton p is consists of two up and one down quark,
or p = aab + aab + āb̄b̄, whereas the neutron n is two down and one up quark, or
n = āb̄b̄ + āb̄b̄ + aab. When one assigns an electric charge of + 31 to a and 0 to b
and negatives of these numbers to the antiparticles, then the charges add up to the
correct numbers 1 for the proton and 0 for the neutron.
There are two distinguished decay processes identified by Harari, d → u + e + ν̄e
and u + u → d¯ + e+ , where e+ is the positron, antiparticle to the electron, and
ν̄e is the electron antineutrino. In my notation these are āb̄b̄ → aab + āāā + b̄b̄b̄
and aab + aab → abb + aaa. The first of these processes underlies β-decay or
n → p + e + ν̄e and the second underlies the decay of a proton which is predicted
by supersymmetry and string theories. A hypothesis made is that the net number
of a’s and of b’s (that is, the number of a’s minus the number of ā’s and similarly
for the b’s) on one side of the reaction must equal the net number individually on
the other side. So there is conservation of the net preon number of a’s and of b’s.
It should be emphasized that [Ha] and [Sh] were published in 1979 and there has
been no confirmation of the prediction that these fermions are composite particles
to date. In addition, there are two further generations of fermions identified in the
laboratory, where the second generation is the muon, charm and strange quarks,
and muon neutrino, and the third generation is the tau particle, top and bottom
quarks, and tau neutrino. These appear to have similar properties to the first
generation except for significantly higher masses. One of the most important open
problems in particle physics to date has been to explain why there appear to be
only three generations of fermions and why the three generations so closely resemble
each other.
The reason this thirty year old puzzle is of interest today, and the reason [Li]
was written, is that the large hadron collider LHC has come into operation and
has discovered the existence of what appears to be a Higgs boson, the particle
predicted over 40 years ago which is necessary to complete the “standard model”
SM of particle physics. When the LHC is upgraded next year, it is hoped that
other puzzles will be similarly unraveled, among which is the composite nature of
fermions.
8 Both Shupe and Lincoln call a, ā, b, b̄ by +, −, 0, 0̄ respectively, whereas Harari calls them
T, T̄ , V, V̄ .

6

STEVE GERSTEN

§2. Conjugacy classes in a free group
There is a product among conjugacy classes c, d in a group whose result cd is
the set of products of elements of the two sets. The product is associative and
commutative. For each conjugacy class c there is the conjugacy class c̄ which
consists of inverses of elements of c.
We shall consider conjugacy classes of single elements in a free group F with free
basis {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }. Each such conjugacy class has a representative which is a
cyclically reduced word in the free basis. Denote the conjugacy class of w ∈ F by
[w].
Given a set of conjugacy classes of words [w1 ], [w2 ], . . . , [wm ], we can form the
CW complex K whose 1-skeleton is a bouquet of circles corresponding to the generators xi of F and whose 2-cells e[wj ] have attaching maps the words wj in the
1-skeleton. We make the convention that we attach only one 2-cell for the pair
of conjugacy classes [w], [w̄] and that the 2-chain they determine satisfies thus
e[w] = −e[w̄] .9 Note that 2-cycles Z2 (K) (with integer coefficients) are integer
linear combinations of the e[wj ] such that the net algebraic sum of each of the xi
in the attaching maps is zero (occurrences of xi count as +1 and occurrences of
x̄i = xi −1 count as -1). Since each conjugacy class [c] determines a homology class
in H1 (K), this condition is equivalent to the assertion that the sum of the homology
classes determined by the [wi ] is zero.
§3. 2-cycles in the 2-complex K
A klepton is defined as a conjugacy class of one of the four words aaa, aab, abb, bbb
and their inverses in the free group F = F (a, b) with free basis {a, b}. From now
on let K be the 2-complex constructed in the preceding paragraph with 2-cells eκ
corresponding to the four conjugacy classes κ = [aaa], [aab], [abb], [bbb] in F . Note
that eκ̄ = −eκ in the chain group C2 (K) for each klepton κ.
P We require
P a reaction among kleptons κ1 , κ2 , . . . , κm and λ1 , . . . , λm , denoted by
κi P
→ λj ,P
to conserve algebraic sum of the number of a’s and of b’s. It follows
that i eκi + j eλ̄j is a 2-cycle in K. From now on we identify the 2-cell eκ with
the fermion corresponding to κ.
A key observation is the fact, proved by an easy computation, that K has fundamental group Z/3Z, the cyclic group of order 3. It follows that each of the 2-cells
eκ of K has 3 lifts to the universal cover K̃ of K.10 This gives the 12 fermions of
the standard model. The antiparticles arise from the observation that each 2-cell
eκ is a map of the disc into K. So the mapping with the opposite orientation, corresponding to the chain eκ̄ = −eκ corresponds to the antiparticle eκ̄ of the fermion
eκ .
9 This convention will play an important role in the sequel paper on bosons in the algorithm
for determining spin of composite particles.
10 Note that K̃ (1) is the regular covering space of K (1) associated to the kernel of the homomorphism F → Z/3Z given by a → 1, b → 1 (mod 3).

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

7

Scholium. There are exactly 3 generations of fermions in the model K̃ for the
standard model, corresponding to the lifts of the 2-cells of K. These are the 24
basic fermions of the standard model. 

Proposition. Every 2-cycle of K is spherical.

This means that the Hurewicz map π2 (K) → H2 (K) = Z2 (K) is surjective.

Proof.
Let us assume that αe[abb] + βe[aab] + γe[aaa] + δe[bbb] is a 2-cycle, where α, β, γ, δ
are integers. It follows that we have linear equations α+2β+3γ = 0, 2α+β+3δ = 0.
From Gaussian elimination it follows that α = γ − 2δ, β = −2γ + δ, so the general
solution is a linear combination γv1 +δv2 with integer coefficients γ, δ of the integral
vectors v1 = [1, −2, 1, 0] and v2 = [−2, 1, 0, 1]. A second integral basis for the
solutions is v1 + v2 = [−1, −1, 1, 1] and −v1 = [−1, 2, −1, 0]. It follows that to prove
the theorem it suffices to show that the 2-cycles −e[abb] − e[aab] + e[aaa] + e[bbb] and
−e[abb] + 2e[aab] − e[aaa] are spherical (observe that these 2-cycles correspond to the
reactions of β-decay āb̄b̄ → aab + āāā + b̄b̄b̄ and aab + aab → abb + aaa identified
in [Ha]). This is accomplished by explicit construction with the following spherical
diagrams.

b
a
a

b
a

b
Figure 1

8

STEVE GERSTEN

a
b
b

a
a

a
Figure 2
In each of these figures there are four 2-cells, where the fourth 2-cell is at infinity. One reads the boundary labels for the finite cells counterclockwise and the
boundary label for the cells at infinity in the clockwise manner. Since each 2-cycle
is represented by a map of 2-sphere into K, it follows that the generators of Z2 (K)
are spherical and hence all 2-cycles of K are spherical. This completes the proof.11
Remark 1. We shall calculate the kernel of the homomorphism π2 (K̃) → H2 (K) in
§6. It turns out to have important physical significance.
The significance of the proposition is the following. A particle, like a proton or
neutron, is represented by a van Kampen diagram D (that is, a combinatorial map
of an oriented singular disc D into K) [BRS]. Given a spherical diagram, one can
cut it along one edge to obtain a van Kampen diagram with freely trivial boundary
label. This can then be combined with D along an edge with the same boundary
label in the same orientation to obtain a new disc diagram D′ . Then one can do
“diamond moves” ([BRS] page 115) on D′ and repeat the process any number of
times. The result of such a sequence of moves is a reaction among fermions, and
we can read off the result at the chain level C2 (K) to get the reaction in terms of
the Harari-Shupe model. The proposition says that all reactions among fermions,
that is, beginning with one collection of fermions and ending with another, after
projecting from K̃ to K, are obtained in this way.
Remark 2. The fact that processes affecting fermions are represented by spherical
diagrams means they lift to the universal cover K̃ of K. Thus the same processes
that affect the fermions of the first generation affect those of the second and third
11 This

result is a special case of the the result that every integral 2-cycle on a 2-complex with
finite cyclic fundamental group is spherical . The proof makes use of the edge-term exact sequence
of the Serre spectral sequence along with the fact that H2 (G, Z) = 0 for a finite cyclic group G.
Since we need the explicit form of the generators shown in Figures 1 and 2, we have given our
direct geometric argument.

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

9

generations. This explains why these particles resemble so closely their first generation counterparts.
To finish this section, we observe that Fig. 2 can be interpreted as a disc diagram
by ignoring the face at infinity. As such it is a van Kampen diagram for the proton.
A van Kampen diagram for the antineutron is obtained from it by interchanging a
and b. Those for the antiparticles are obtained by reversing all arrows.12
§4. Color
In this section we take the first steps toward incorporating color, the source of
the strong nuclear force, into our model. To begin, let [0], [1], [2] denote the residue
classes of 0, 1, 2 (mod 3). Let N = [0] + [1] + [2] in ZG, where G = Z/3Z and
let M = ZG/N ZG, where M is defined to be the color group. In the literature,
[0], [1], [2] correspond to the colors red (r), green (g), and blue (b). Their negatives
−r, −g, −b in M are called cyan, yellow, and magenta, respectively; they play no
role in the discussion below, but enter in the discussion of antiparticles and gluons,
which we shall not undertake here.13 The designation of colors is arbitrary and
has nothing to do with perceived vision. It is important to make the distiction
between the color red [0] and the neutral element 0 in M . In the literature, 0 is
called both “white” and “colorless”. The discussion below is given in detail for the
proton Fig. 2, but it can be extended to all the fermions (see the last paragraph of
§3). The gluons will be discussed in a future paper along with the other bosons of
the theory.
We lift the diagram Fig. 2 for the proton to K̃.14
This requires a choice of base point, which we take to be a lift P0 of the bottom
vertex. This determines the other vertices P1 , P2 and the lifts of the edges ai , bi ,
i = 0, 1, 2, where an edge is labelled by its initial vertex. The situation is shown
below in Fig. 3.15
12 The

other van Kampen diagram for the proton is obtained by doing a diamond move on the
two edges labelled “a” with origin the bottom vertex.
13 In Appendix 2 below I relate my color group M to the root system A . When I wrote this
2
section I was ignorant of the existing SU(3) theory and formulated the notions out of thin air.
After Professor Wu kindly explained the physicists’ theory, I saw that we were saying the same
thing, and the appendix gives the relation.
14 The lift here is a technical device to facilitate the definition of color. Technically this means
that color, for example on the quarks constituting a proton, is defined by the local coefficient
system M, or, what amounts to the same thing, a π1 (K)-module M [AH]. This is the same thing
as ordinary constant coefficients on the universal cover K̃. To define color on the other generations
of quarks, one pulls back the coefficient system to K̃ via the covering map K̃ → K.
15 We calculate the chain in C (K̃) associated to the lift of the disc diagram shown in Fig. 3 as
2
follows. In the free group on edges of K̃ we have, reading around the diagram once counterclockwise
from the base point P0 , (a0 a1 b2 )(b̄2 b̄1 ā0 )(a0 b1 a2 ). The first term may be identified with a lift ũ of
the up quark and we shall identify the second with a lift d˜ of the down quark. For the third term,
a0 b1 a2 = ā2 (a2 a0 b1 )a2 , so as conjugacy classes in the free group we have [a0 b1 a2 ] = g 2 [a0 a1 b2 ],
where g is the generator of G = Z/3Z given by a → [1], b → [1]. Thus the 2-cell corresponding to
[a0 b1 a2 ] maps onto the up quark, but this is different from the conjugacy class [a0 a1 b2 ]; so the

10

STEVE GERSTEN

P2
a1
b1
a2

P1

b2

P1

a0
a0
P0
Figure 3
The rules for coloring a diagram are the following, where a coloring is an assignment of elements of M to the faces, so that the face with the opposite orientation
is assigned the negative of the color of that face.
1. A lepton is always white, so has 0 for color.
2. The color of a quark is always one of r, g, b and the color of an antiquark is the
negative of the color of the corresponding quark.
3. For a particle to be observable, the sum of the colorings of the faces must be 0.
Thus one possible coloring of the diagram Fig. 3 is to assign the faces from
left to right the colors r, g, and b, whose sum is 0 (they lift to different faces in
K̃), and assign colors arbitrarily to the other 2-cells of K̃, subject to rule 1. Call
such a coloring f . Note that this van Kampen diagram in K̃ can be viewed as a
spherical diagram where the fourth face is at infinity and corresponds to the lift of
an electron. As such the coloring extends to one of the spherical diagram where
again the sum of the colors assigned to the faces is 0.
So we can reformulate the definition of a coloring of the diagram D for a fermion
in K̃ as the pull-back to D of a 2-cochain f ∈ C2 (K̃, M ) with values in M , where
all leptons are assigned 0, where all lifts of quarks in the diagram are assigned
colors from r, g, b, and where the sum of the values assigned to the faces of D is 0.
The rules for a spherical diagram are the same. So the cochain f in the previous
paragraph can be considered by pull-back as either defined on the disc or as a
cochain fˆ on the sphere containing the disc obtained, in this example, by extension
by 0.
The main point here is how to change colorings, that is, to change cochains in
2-cells are different. In C2 (K̃) we have the 2-chain determined by the lift of the diagram of Fig. 3
is ũ + d˜ + g 2 ũ. It would appear that there is a mixing of generations of the up quark in the lift.
If we take into account the face at infinity of Fig. 3, then we obtain the 2-cycle on K̃ given by
ũ + d˜ + g 2 ũ + ẽ, where ẽ is a lift of the electron.

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

11

such a way as to preserve rules 1–3 and in a topologically meaningful way. This
is done by means of coboundaries of 1-cochains. For example, in the coloring f
indicated above, we can interchange the colors of the first two faces by δh, where h
is the 1-cochain which is zero on all edges except on b1 , and where h(b1 ) = −r + g.
To interchange the colors of the second and third faces, we use δk, where k is zero
on all edges except on b2 , where k(b2 ) = g − b. That rule 3 is preserved is checked
directly or, more fundamentally, follows from the fact that < δc, z >= 0 for all
1-cochains c and all 2-cycles z (applied to the spherical diagram). In this way all
colorings consistent with the rules are obtained.
These 1-cochains correspond physically to gluons and are the source of the strong
nuclear force. We shall offer another interpretation of gluons in a subsequent article
on bosons, more in keeping with the ideas of §3 of processes applied to a fermion.
§5. Standard Model
In this section we propose our version of the standard model SM. There are
alternative versions of SM, some of which were proposed in order to cope with the
possibility that the Higgs boson might not exist. Now that the data confirm its existence with better than 99% probability, we shall eschew treating these alternative
theories from our point of view.
We define a fundamental domain to be one of the two spherical diagrams shown
in Figures 1 and 2 or one obtained from it by replacements a, b → b, a, a, b → ā, b̄, or
a, b → b̄, ā. Here replacing a, b by ā, b̄, etc., in a diagram means to reverse the arrows.
We also admit as fundamental domains completely reducible16 two-faced and fourfaced spherical diagrams consisting of cells eκ and their oppositely oriented cells
−eκ = eκ̄ (these degenerate17 examples have corresponding 2-chains 0 in C2 (K)).
So in a four-faced completely reducible fundamental domain one can order the four
2-cells α, β, γ, δ so that α and β form a reducible pair across a common edge , and
γ and δ form a reducible pair across a common edge.18
It should be remarked that not all 2-faced spherical diagrams are considered
fundamental domains. For example, one can take the electron neutrino eκ with
κ = [bbb], rotate it a third of a revolution, and glue the two together. This is a
perfectly acceptable spherical diagram, and indeed it plays a key role in §6 below.
However it is not considered a fundamental domain because it is not reducible. The
rotation prevents any edge from acting as a mirror.
16 A

diagram is called reducible if it contains a pair of faces with an edge in common so that
the faces are mapped mirror-wise across that edge. The faces themselves are called a reducible
pair. In a reducible diagram one can remove the reducible pair and the edge between them and
sew up to boundary of the hole created to obtain a new diagram with two fewer faces. A diagram
is called completely reducible if its faces can be paired off into reducible pairs.
17 These degenerate diagrams play an important role in the sequel article on bosons.
18 It is also possible for both α and β to be a reducible pair and for γ and δ to be reducible,
all at the same time, as happens in the case of the hypothetical graviton, to be considered in the
sequel article on bosons. In Appendix 5 below I consider completely reducible 6-faced diagrams
in order to treat the ∆++ baryon, as a result of a challenge from Professor Wu. Presumably this
could continue with completely reducible 2n-faced diagrams in order to handle higher resonances.

12

STEVE GERSTEN

A fundamental process for particle physics is the lift f˜ : S → K̃ of a spherical
diagram f : S → K, where S is a fundamental domain. A fundamental particle is
a triple (D, f˜, h), where f˜ : S → K̃ is a fundamental process lifting f : S → K,
where D ⊂ S is a van Kampen diagram, and where h ∈ C 2 (K̃, M ) is a coloring in
the color group M satisfying
1. the pull back f˜∗ (h) ∈ C 2 (S, M ) vanishes on leptons, and
2. the values of f˜∗ (h) on quarks are in {r, g, b} and the values on antiquarks are in
{−r, −g, −b}.
The fundamental particle is observable if in addition
3. the sum of the values of f˜∗ (h)) on the faces of S is 0; the invariant formulation19
of this is that < [S], f˜∗(h)) >= 0, where [S] here denotes the fundamental 2-cycle
of the sphere20
Furthermore, we demand that any diagram D′ obtained from D in the triple
(D, f˜, h) by diamond moves be observable if the original triple is observable (the
2-cells of D′ are mapped in the same way as those of D, so condition 3 is preserved).
Another way of formulating the last condition is to give a van Kampen diagram
f˜ : D′ → K̃ and 2-cochain h ∈ C 2 (K̃, M ) such that after a sequence of diamond
moves on D′ one obtains either a fundamental particle D or a spherical diagram
S → K̃ satisfing 1–3. In the latter case, if D = S, then the boundary label of D′
must have been freely trivial, so that S was obtained by sewing up the boundary
completely. In all cases, D′ has at most four 2-cells, where the case of four 2-cells is
the case of the freely trivial boundary label (this is also the case where the particle
is its own antiparticle).
Note that the invariant formulation of condition 3 above is automatically satisfied
for a coboundary h = δc, with c ∈ C 1 (K̃, M ); that is, < f˜∗ [S], δc >= 0, because
[S] is a cycle and < [S], f˜∗(h) >=< f˜∗ [S], δc >=< ∂ f˜∗ [S], c >=< f˜∗ (∂[S]), c >= 0
by adjointness. The main result of this section is a converse.
Theorem. If we let k = f˜∗ (h), with f˜ : S → K̃ and h ∈ C 2 (K̃, M ) as above, and
if 1–3 are satisfied, then k = δ f˜∗ (c) for some cochain c ∈ C 1 (K̃, M ).
Sketch of proof. We sketch the argument for the proton, namely, Figure 3. The
cases of the neutron and the antiparticles follow by applying the symmetries of
interchanging a and b and of reversing all arrows, as in §3.
Since we have to consider spherical diagrams, we consider Figure 3 together with
the face at infinity, which is a lepton. We pick a coloring of the finite faces, say
x, y, z where these are colors chosen without repetition from [0], [1] and [2], read
from left to right. The color of the face at infinity is white, namely 0. Then the
conditions on c restricted to f˜(S), the image of S under f˜, are four linear equations
in five unknowns c(a0 ), c(a1 ), c(a2 ), c(b1 ), c(b2 ) on the left side (referring to the
notation of Figure 3), with variables x, y, z on the right side. For example, the first
19 The

notation < x, y > means to result of evaluating a cochain y on the chain x.
∈ C2 (S, Z) is the sum of the oriented 2-cells in cell decomposition of the 2-sphere S. It
is readily checked that [S] is a 2-cycle.
20 [S]

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

13

of these equations, corresponding to the face at infinity, is c(a0 ) + c(a1 ) + c(a2 ) = 0.
When we row reduce the system, the last row of the row reduction corresponds to
the equation equation 0 = x + y + z. But this compatibility condition is satisfied
because x + y + z = [0] + [1] + [2] = 0, by the definition of M . So the equations are
solvable.
This determines c on f˜(S)(1) . Then we extend c in any way to all of K̃ (1) ,
thereby completing the argument.

Remark. Electric charge of a composite particle is given by the coboundary of a
1-cochain h on K. Namely define h to be 13 on an edge labeled a, − 13 on the
oppositely oriented edge, and h of an edge labeled b with any orientation is defined
to be 0. Then δh ∈ C 2 (K, R) calculates the net electric charge of any van Kampen
diagram. In observable particles the electric charge must be an integer. Note that
to calculate color, we must use cochains on K̃ (the two faces in Figure 2 that
represent up quarks have different colors in the proton because they lift to different
2-cells in K̃), whereas electric charge can be defined from the projection into K.

Remark. The weak isospin T3 of particle in SM21 governs how it interacts in the
weak interaction. It is analogous to electric charge and is given by the coboundary
of the 1-cochain w determined by w(a) = 16 , w(ā) = − 61 , w(b) = 61 , w(b̄) = − 16 .
In the higher generations, one projects first from K̃ to K and then applies w to
determine the weak isospin.
Consequently, three of the fundamental forces of nature, the strong and weak
nuclear forces and the electric charge, are determined by coboundaries
of 1-cochains with different value groups. This is a remarkable unifying property
and serves to strengthen our case that SM is the algebraic topology of the
covering map K̃ → K.22 There is no evidence at present that gravity fits into
this scheme, and indeed it would be most remarkable (and stretch the imagination
nearly to breaking point) if it too were determined by the coboundary of a 1-cochain.

As a last tidbit for this section in response to requests we draw an avatar of
Higgs boson below in Fig. 4. The argument that this is correct is deferred to the
sequel article on bosons.

21 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak
22 See

interaction
the Appendix below for a historical perspective on this assertion.

14

STEVE GERSTEN

Figure 4
§6. Neutrino oscillations
This section gives a physical interpretation for the processes in Z2 (K̃) = π2 (K)
which are not lifts of processes from Z2 (K). For many years it was a mystery that
the observed neutrinos coming from the sun were a third of the predicted value.
The explanation finally provided was that a neutrino in free space oscillates between
the three types, electron neutrino νe , muon neutrino νµ , and tau neutrino ντ . Since
only νe was observed in the experiment, what we observe is only a third of the
actual production from nuclear reactions (due to β-decay) in the sun.
We begin by noting that, by an Euler characteristic computation, the rank of
Z2 (K̃) is 8. We can account for 6 free generators by lifts of the classes in π2 (K)
represented by the spherical diagrams in Figures 1 and 2. We shall now account
for the other two free generators.
Let ν̃ denote a lift of the 2-cell eκ in K, where κ = [bbb]. Let g be a generator for
the covering group G ∼
= Z/3Z of K̃. Then an easy calculation shows that gν̃ − ν̃ ∈
Z2 (K̃) = H2 (K̃). This class is in the kernel of the projection H2 (K̃) → H2 (K), so
it is undetectable in K. We also have the class g(gν̃ − ν̃) = g 2 ν̃ − gν̃ in the kernel.
A calculation shows that these two chains are linearly independent in C2 (K̃) and
hence in Z2 (K̃). It follows that we have accounted for the extra two free generators
of Z2 (K̃) that do not arise from lifts of cycles in K.23
Now recall our premise from §3 that processes involving fermions arise from 2cycles. Thus gν̃ − ν̃, g 2 ν̃ − gν̃, and ν̃ − g 2 ν̃ are processes; these processes exchange
the three neutrinos νe , νµ and ντ in cyclic fashion, accounting for the oscillation
of neutrinos. Of course we cannot deduce from the topology alone the rates of
23 Z (K̃) maps onto Z (K), as follows from the Proposition of §3, and Z (K) is free abelian,
2
2
2
so the kernel is a direct summand; it follows that it is of rank 2.

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

15

the processes, so this is all the information we can hope to gain from this type of
argument about neutrino oscillation.
Now we can replace b by a in the argument above and deduce that there exist
processes which exchange cyclically the electron, muon, and tau particle. Such
oscillations have not yet been detected in the laboratory.
There is fortunately a check for the correctness of these ideas, as follows. The
process by which the muon decays is24 µ− → νµ + e− + ν̄e . Now µ− = gẽ, where
ẽ is the lift of the electron to K̃ and g is as above a generator for the covering
group. Also νµ = gν̃e , where ν̃e is the lift of νe , the electron neutrino. Bringing
all terms to the left side, the decay process above is compatible with our theory if
gẽ−gν̃e − ẽ+ ν̃e is a 2-cycle in Z2 (K̃). But this last expression is (g −1)ẽ−(g −1)ν̃e ,
which is indeed a 2-cycle.
§7. Questions and comments
1. Shupe’s ”no mixing rule” ([Sh] p. 88), which states, on our terminology, that
aab̄,ab̄b̄, and their inverses do not occur in the construction of the complex K, is at
the heart of this paper. In the sequel paper on bosons, we offer a justification for
this rule.
2. There is an uncanny symmetry in this model. Namely the Klein four-group,
which appears as the subgroup of Aut(F ) consisting of the identity, {a, b} → {b, a},
{a, b} → {ā, b̄}, and {a, b} → {b̄, ā}, acts on the theory. This symmetry demands
further explanation.
3. The definition of the 2-complex K looks arbitrary although it arose naturally
from a reinterpretation of the work of [Ha] and [Sh]. I can prove the following result
which may serve to motivate it for mathematicians.
Theorem. There exists an infinite dimensional CW-complex L with finite nskeleton for all n ≥ 0 with the following properties.
(1) L is contractible; in particular it is simply connected.
(2) L is acted on freely and cellularly by the group G = Z/3Z; hence the
projection L → L/G is the universal covering.
(3) L(2) = K̃.
(4) L(2n+1) is homotopy equivalent to S 2n+1 for all n ≥ 1.
The argument makes use of the periodic resolution for Z over Z[G], which is modified
in low dimensions (≤ 3) to account for the unusual presentation P for G.
It follows from the theorem that L is homotopy equivalent to BG, the classifying
space of principal G = Z/3Z fibrations, which is a space of type K(G, 1).
Question. Can K̃ be equivariantly imbedded in S 5 for the G = Z/3Z-actions?
Here G acts on S 5 by the diagonal action of third roots of unity on the unit vectors
of C3 . In the sequel paper we show that K̃ imbeds equivariantly in S 2n+1 for n
sufficiently large (n ≥ 6).
24 See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

16

STEVE GERSTEN

Appendix 1. Historical remark
C-N Yang [Ya] relates a conversation he had with Andre Weil in which the
latter suggested that the particles that were being discovered might be explained
by “geometry and topology”. Yang writes that he did not understand this, and no
one at the meeting thought to ask him what he meant. As far as Weil’s suggestion
about geometry, that has proved to be correct in the development of Yang-Mills
theory. But there is no precedent in the literature that what he had in mind may
also have included pure topology.
Appendix 2. Color group M and A2
This Appendix will relate the color group M to A2 , which is the root system for
SU(3); this lie group is known to physicists as the theory that describes the strong
nuclear force.
The notation follows §4 for the definition of M . As usual G denotes the cyclic
group of order 3 and g is a generator. We make the complex numbers C into a
G-module by letting g act by multiplication by ζ = e2πi/3 , a primitive third root
of unity. Geometrically this represents a rotation through 120 degrees.
Theorem. The map g → ζ extends to an homomorphism of G-modules φ : Z[G] →
C with the properties that
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

the image of φ is Z[ζ], the subring of C generated by ζ and the unit element,
the kernel of φ is N Z[G] = (1 + g + g 2 )Z[G], so
φ induces an isomorphism M → Z[ζ], and
the images of the colors ±[j], where j = 0, 1, 2, form the root system A2 ;
thus φ(±[j]) = ±ζ j comprise the set of sixth roots of unity in C.

For example let us prove that the kernel of φ is the ideal generated by N =
1 + g + g 2 in Z[G] and that φ induces an isomorphism M → Z[ζ]. The element N
is in the kernel since ζ is a primitive third root of unity, so satisfies the polynomial
3
−1
. The rank of Z[ζ] is 2, since it is the set of algebraic integers in
1 + z + z 2 = zz−1
an algebraic number field Q[ζ] of degree 2 over the rationals Q. So a rank count
shows that the induced map M → Z[ζ] is an isomorphism.
Appendix 3. Conservation laws in SM and quantum numbers
In §1 it was pointed out that the fundamental conservation law involving preons
is that the net numbers of a′ s and b′ s are individually conserved in a reaction
predicted by SM. From this followed the result that there are only three generations
of fundamental fermions of SM, etc.
In this appendix we shall define conservation laws and quantum numbers for
elementary particles and show that, if we consider lifts to the universal cover K̃,
then the preon number for a lift ai or bi of a preon is a quantum number. It follows
that there is no theoretical reason that one cannot detect the preon number directly.

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

17

Definition. A conservation law in A, where A is a ring with unit, is a 2-cochain c ∈
C 2 (K̃, A) = Hom(C2 (K̃, Z), A) such that < z, c >= 0 for all z ∈ Z2 (K̃, Z). Here
< z, c > is the result of evaluating c on the chain z to yield an element of A. A
quantum number for the conservation law c is the result of evaluating c on a particle
(that is, on a van Kampen diagram in K̃).
The reason this is called a conservation law is that a reaction is given by κ1 +
κ2 + · · · + κp → λ1 + · · · + λq , so it follows that c(κ1 ) + c(κ2 ) + · · · + c(κp ) =
c(λ1 ) + · · · + c(λq ).25 By adjointness, it follows that, if c = δh with h ∈ C 1 (K̃, A),
then c is a conservation law.26 Thus it follows from the remarks of §5 that electric
charge and weak isospin T3 are quantum numbers with values in R. The next result
says the converse is true.
Proposition. If c ∈ C 2 (K̃, A) is a conservation law, then c = δh for some h ∈
C 1 (K̃, A). Thus the set of conservation laws in A is B 2 (K̃, A).
Proof. We are given c ∈ C 2 (K̃, A) = Hom(C2 (K̃, Z), A) such that c vanishes on
Z2 (K̃, Z) ⊂ C2 (K̃, Z).
By the universal coefficient theorem27 , H 2 (K̃, A) = Hom(Z2 (K̃, Z), A), where
we have used the facts that H1 vanishes (since K̃ is simply connected) and
H2 (K̃, Z) = Z2 (K̃, Z) since there are no 3-cells. Also Z 2 (K̃, A) = C 2 (K̃, A)
since every 2-cochain is a 2-cocycle. Thus H 2 (K̃, A) = C 2 (K̃, A)/B 2(K̃, A) =
Hom(Z2 (K̃, Z), A). This may be expressed as the short exact sequence
0 → B 2 (K̃, A) → C 2 (K̃, A) → Hom(Z2 (K̃, Z), A) → 0.
Also we have the surjective map C 1 (K̃, A) ։ B 2 (K̃, A), which may be spliced with
the first map in the short exact sequence to yield the exact sequence
δ

C 1 (K̃, A) −
→ C 2 (K̃, A) → Hom(Z2 (K̃, Z), A) → 0.
Now c ∈ C 2 (K̃, A) = Hom(C2 (K̃, Z), A) and the map on the right in the last
exact sequence is obtained by restricting a homomorphism to Z2 (K̃, Z) and then
considering the image to lie in A via the map Z → A. It follows that the image of c
in Hom(Z2 (K̃, Z), A) is zero, and, by exactness, c = δh for some h ∈ C 1 (K̃, A). 
Let us specialize now to the case A = R. Then C 2 (K̃, R) is of dimension 12 while
the rank of Z2 (K̃, Z) was calculated in §6 to be 8. It follows that the dimension
of B 2 (K̃, R) is 4, and hence there are 4 linearly independent conservation laws in
SM.28
Let us focus attention on one that has not been mentioned before. Let f ∈
1
C (K̃, R) be given by f (ai ) = 13 , f (bi ) = − 31 , f (āi ) = − 31 , f (b̄i ) = 13 , for i
25 κ

1 + κ2
26 If z is a

+ · · · + κp − λ1 − · · · − λq is a 2-cycle on K̃, whence c vanishes on it.
2-cycle on K̃, then < z, c >=< z, δh >=< ∂z, h >= 0.
27 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal coefficient theorem
28 The same result holds for every field.

18

STEVE GERSTEN

(mod 3). If h and w are 1-cochains on K̃ determining charge and weak isospin T3
respectively (in the notation of §5), then f = 2(h − w). This identifies δf with the
weak hypercharge YW .29
We can calculate the vector space B 2 (K̃, R) of conservation laws over R as follows. We have B 2 = C 1 /Z 1 where Z 1 = B 1 . From these relations we see that
Z 1 (K̃, R) is the set of functions f on the 1-cells ai , bi of K̃ so that f (ai ) = f (bi ),
f (a0 ) + f (a1 ) + f (a2 ) = 0, for i (mod 3). This is a 2-dimensional subspace of
the 6-dimensional space C 1 , so the 4-dimensional quotient B 2 can be effectively
determined. Here is the result of this calculation.
If we let x be one of ai , bi , i (mod 3), we define ∆x ∈ C 1 (K̃, R) by ∆x (x) =
1, ∆x (x̄) = −1, and ∆x (y) = 0 for all other y. Then for each lift κ̃ of an elementary
fermion κ30 we have δ∆x (κ̃) = +1 if the boundary label of κ̃ contains x, ∆x (κ̃) = −1
if the boundary label contains x̄, and ∆x (κ̃) = 0 otherwise.
Proposition.
for each lift κ̃
collection of 4
independent.

For each x ∈ {ai , bi }, i (mod 3), δ∆x is a conservation law, and
of an elementary fermion δ∆x (κ̃) is a quantum number. For any
of the 6 lifts ai , bi the corresponding conservation laws are linearly


Remark. The proposition provides a test for the structure of the proton p proposed
in Figure 2. For any lift p̃ of p to K̃, we see that δ∆ai (p̃) = 1 for all i (mod 3).
This structure also has the consequence that the two lifts of u in p̃ must be of
different generations, as was pointed out in the footnote of §4. If we tried the
structure z = [a0 a1 b2 ] + [b̄2 b̄1 ā0 ] + [a0 a1 b2 ] instead (which projects to 2u + d but is
not the continuous lift given by covering space theory), we would find δ∆a0 (z) =
1, δ∆a1 (z) = 2, δ∆a2 (z) = 0. So these new quantum numbers may be useful tools
in determining the structure of composite particles as van Kampen diagrams.

Appendix 4. β-decay revisited
When I explained to a physicist how van Kampen diagrams gave a consistent
interpretation to the ideas of [Ha] and [Sh], which solved many of the open problems
these papers posed, he expressed interest in seeing in detail how β-decay works
from the topological point of view (the point of view of Feynman diagrams is wellknown31 d → u + e− + ν̄e but that leaves unexplained what is actually happening
at the vertices of the Feynman diagram).
Examine Figure 5 below.
29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercharge. In the form Q = I + 1 Y the relation is attrib3
2
uted to Gell-Mann and Nishijima.
30 So κ is either an electron, neutrino, quark or an antiparticle of one of these.
31 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta decay

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

19

Figure 5

The left half of the diagram is the down quark d whereas the right half is the
Higgs boson. The latter is obtained from the spherical diagram Figure 1 by making
two cuts along edges labeled a and b and splaying the result out as a van Kampen
diagram in the plane; so this yields is a 2-cycle and acts on the van Kampen diagram
for d in the manner described in §3 following Remark 1.32

The faces labeled d and d¯ are mapped mirror-wise across their common edge, so
we may do a reduction, removing the pair and that edge, and sew up the hole to
create the diagram Figure 6 below.
Figure 6

32 This description is purely topological and ignores entirely the question of magnitude of
energies involved. So the Higgs in question is of the nature of a virtual particle, arising from
the vacuum state only ephemerally and disappearing immediately after interacting with the down
quark.

20

STEVE GERSTEN

The two shaded faces are e and ν̄e which are now shed to leave the up quark u.
So the net result is the reaction d → u + e− + ν̄e . As a parenthetical remark,
we observe that the union of those two shaded faces constitute the W − boson, so
the reaction can be rewritten as the composite of two reactions, d → W − + u and
W − → e− + ν̄e .
Appendix 5. ∆++ baryon
Professor Wu challenged me to describe the ∆++ baryon33 in my terms. The
result is shown below in Figure 7.

Figure 7
33 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta

baryon

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

21

It shows three u quarks with a single vertex in common (like the radiation hazard
sign). The spin of the resulting particle is 23 , while the remarks of §5 show how
to calculate that the electric charge is 2 and the weak isospin T3 is 23 . The second
diagram on the right shows how to imbed ∆++ in a diagram with 6 faces and freely
trivial boundary label, so the enlarged diagram folds up to a spherical diagram and
represents a 2-cycle. That 2-cycle is 0, for the diagram is completely reducible.
All other spherical diagrams previously considered here have 2 or 4 faces, so
this is the first where 6 faces are needed. That fact by itself makes Professor Wu’s
question interesting and motivated me to include it here.
Appendix 6. Quantum numbers and the first Chern class
In §5 electric charge was interpreted as the coboundary of a 1-cochain on K̃ which
is evaluated on particles (that is, on van Kampen diagrams). This is satisfactory
from the point of view of algebraic topology but it is desirable to have a direct
geometric interpretation. The answer given below is that charge, up to a factor of
1
, is the first Chern class of an explicitly constructed line bundle. This involves an
3
interpretation of the preons a and b as sections of a complex line bundle, which is
then pursued to deal with other quantum numbers.
Let D be the van Kampen diagram for a fundamental fermion of SM, so D
represents a positron, an up quark, an anti-down quark, or an electron neutrino,.
We view D as a map to K; as pointed out in §5, charge is defined on K and pulls
back to K̃ via the covering map K̃ → K. Thus the boundary label of D is either
aaa, aab, abb, or bbb. The cases of their antiparticles involve only a change of sign
in the construction. Thus the boundary of D is subdivided into 3 segments, each
of which is mapped onto an edge a or b of K, and the end points of the segments
are mapped to the unique vertex of K.
Consider the trivial U (1)-bundle D × S 1 over D. Here U (1) = S 1 is considered
as the unit interval I = [0, 1] in R with end points identified, S 1 = I/0 ∼ 1. Define
a section σ of the bundle over the boundary ∂D of D by the identity map of S 1
beginning at the base point 0 over each segment labeled a and by the constant
map 0 over the segment labeled b. Note that if we consider this section as a
map fσ : S 1 → S 1 , the degree of the map is 3, 2, 1 or 0 in the respective cases
aaa, aab, abb, or bbb.
Theorem 1. The electric charge of the fermion is 13 of the first Chern class in
H 2 (S 2 , Z) ∼
= Z of the complex line bundle over S 2 with clutching function fσ .34
Remark. Equivalently, the electric charge is the obstruction to extending σ to a
never-vanishing section of the trivial line bundle D × C over D, up to a factor of 13 ;
here S 1 is considered as the image of the exponential map t 7→ e2πit in C, 0 ≤ t ≤ 1.
34 For

the notion of clutching function, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutching construction or
Hatcher’s book on vector bundles http://www.math.cornell.edu/∼hatcher/VBKT/VBpage.html,
p. 22.

22

STEVE GERSTEN

Proof of Theorem. The first Chern class of the line bundle is the degree of the
clutching function fσ : S 1 → S 1 .
Next we generalize the construction just made to other quantum numbers. We
do the construction in K̃ rather than in K, as we did in the case of electric charge,
which is invariant under deck transformations of the covering map K̃ → K, since
we want to allow the possibility of quantum numbers that are not invariant under
deck transformations.
If αi and βi are integers, i mod 3, let F be the section of the trivial U (1) bundle
over K̃ (1) defined by maps of S 1 to itself of degree αi over edges ai and βi over
edges bi . The obstruction to extending F over all of K̃ (which depends only on the
integers αi , βi and not on representative maps) can be calculated as follows. Let
eκi be one of the 2-cells of K̃. Then the section F is defined over the boundary
∂eκi of eκi , which is a covering κi of one of the fundamental fermions κ (so κ is
one of [aaa], [aab], [abb] or [bbb] or their inverses). Let Sκi be the 2-sphere which
consists of two identical copies of eκi glued along their common boundary by the
identity map, and let Lκi be the complex line bundle over Sκi given by the clutching
function F . Then the obstruction to extending F over eκi is the first Chern class
c1 (Lκi ) ∈ H 2 (Sκi , Z) ∼
= Z.
Thus the obstruction to extending F over all of K̃ is the collection of first Chern
classes c1 (Lκi ) ∈ Z. This amounts to 24 integers, counting lifts of antiparticles of
the fundamental fermions. Call this 24-tuple of integers qF .
Theorem 2. For every conservation law c ∈ B 2 (K̃, Q) there is a section F of the
trivial U (1) bundle over K̃ (1) and a positive integer N so that N1 qF is the collection
of quantum numbers associated to c. The collection qF is given by the first Chern
classes of complex line bundles Lκi constructed above.
For the proof one takes h ∈ C 1 (K̃, Q) so that δh = c, where N is a number
that clears all denominators. Then one applies the construction of the preceding
paragraph to N h.
Example. If h(ai ) = 1, h(bi ) = 0 for all i (mod 3) and N = 3, then we obtain the
electric charge lifted to K̃.
Another way of stating the result is as follows. Let X denote the double of K̃
along K̃ (1) . So X consists of two disjoint copies of the 2-complex K̃ identified along
their common subcomplex K̃ (1) . Take two copies of the trivial complex line bundle
over K̃ and identify them over K̃ (1) by the isomorphism given by F . This produces
a line bundle L over X. Then c1 (L) ∈ H 2 (X, Z) contains all the information in the
collection qF . Namely, if we take the double of the 2-cell eκi lying inside X, this is
an imbedded copy of the 2-sphere Sκi . So we can restrict the bundle L to Sκi and
take its first Chern class, thereby recovering the quantum number up to the factor
of N .35
35 The construction of the bundle L from the data F mimics the clutching function construction
for bundles over spheres. It works because X \K̃ (1) is a disjoint union of cells each of whose closures

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

23

There is a formal way to incorporate the multiplicative factor N into the answer.
One considers the group Pic(X) ⊗ Q where Pic(X) is the Picard group of isomorphism classes of complex line bundles under the operation of tensor product and Q
is the rational numbers. The element L ⊗ N1 is then an invariant of the conservation
law c over Q and incorporates all the quantum numbers by the operation of taking
the first Chern class.
Example. Consider a lift ẽ of the electron to K̃, so ẽ is a 2-cell with boundary label
[ā2 ā1 ā0 ]. The 2-sphere Sẽ is the double of the closed cell ẽ over its boundary. If we
take the electric charge as the conservation law, then the map of the boundary ∂ẽ
to U (1) has degree −3 and N = 3. The element L ⊗ 13 of Pic(X) restricted to Sẽ
is the complex line bundle over Sẽ with clutching function a map of degree −1 of
the circle to U (1). This is the tautological line bundle over CP 1 whose associated
principal bundle with fibre U (1) = S 1 is the Hopf fibration over Sẽ . In terms of
algebraic geometry, this is the bundle O(−1) over CP 1 .
If instead of the electron we take a lift of the positron, the result is the hyperplane
bundle O(1) over CP 1 . In more colorful language, the charge of the electron is the
Hopf bundle and the charge of the positron is the hyperplane bundle over CP 1 .
Remark. The 2-complex X, constructed in this section as a formal device for relating conservation laws to complex line bundles, plays a fundamental role in the
sequel paper on bosons. It will be shown there that the Higgs mechanism for generating masses of particles in SM can be understood in terms of the geometry of X
and that the involution interchanging the two copies of K̃ and fixing K̃ (1) can be
understood as changing handedness of particles (left for right and right for left).
As pointed out in the lead paragraph of this section, we have given a direct
geometric interpretation for the preons a, b as maps of one circle to another (from
a closed 1-cell of K to U (1)), of degree 1 for a and degree 0 for b. Such an interpretation is lacking in [Ha] and [Sh], where the preons are merely labels.
An open problem is to explain why nature chose this strange mechanism K, K̃, X
for particle physics and why the number 3 as in 3-fold covering space.
Appendix 7. Colorings as conservation laws
In this appendix we give examples of conservation laws where the coefficient
ring A is the color group M . We shall use the isomorphic ring Z[ζ] (see Appendix 3)
where ζ = e2πi/3 .
Recall that in this model the color set A2 is the subset ±ζ j where j ranges over
the integers modulo 3.
Definition. A coloring of K̃ is an element c ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]) such that
(1) c vanishes on every lepton, and
(2) c assumes all the elements of {1, ζ, ζ 2 } as values on the set of lifts of the up
quark aab and also on all the lifts of the down quark āb̄b̄.
in X is an imbedded disc. So the argument for characterizing bundles over spheres by clutching
functions works for characterizing bundles over X.

24

STEVE GERSTEN

Condition (1) is means physically that leptons do not feel the strong force. It follows
from (2) that c cannot assume the same value on two different 2-cells of K̃ which
lift the same quark of K. Since c is a coboundary, c vanishes on all 2-cycles. Since
c is a cochain, c(κ) = −c(κ̄), where κ̄ is the oppositely oriented 2-cell to κ.
It is not immediately clear that there are any colorings (the catch is to show
that a candidate cochain vanishes on all 2-cycles in Z2 (K̃, Z)). That is the content
of the next result.
Theorem. There are six colorings of K̃, which are hence conservation laws with
values in Z[ζ].
Proof of theorem. The crux of the argument consists of constructing a family of
elements of B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]). This will be done by explicit construction of 2-cochains
which vanish on π2 (K̃) = Z2 (K̃, Z). We recall from §6 that Z2 (K̃) =: Z2 (K̃, Z) is
a free abelian group of rank 8. Two of the free generators are leptonic in the sense
that they are of the form gκ − κ, where κ is a lift of a lepton and g ∈ G ∼
= Z/3Z,
so any observable cochain will vanish on them. Thus there are six remaining linear
conditions of vanishing that must be satisfied.
The six vanishing conditions arise from the lifts of the spherical diagrams represented by Figures 1 and 2. It is easier to visualize these in terms of van Kampen
diagrams, so we make cuts along edges to obtain disc diagrams; for convenience
we have shown one lift each of the two disc diagrams below in Figure 8 (one can
check that these are obtained by cutting spherical diagrams along edges since the
boundary labels are freely trivial).

Figure 8
The left figure is a lift of the diagram for the Higgs boson that participates in
β-decay (see Figure 5 in Appendix 4). We make the convention that the bottom
triangle labeled d˜ represents the down quark. It follows that the top triangle labeled

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

25

˜ is the anti-particle to the up quark (since β-decay does not mix the generations
ū
of quarks). The two remaining triangles are leptons. So the vanishing condition on
˜ = c(ũ). Similar conditions must
the cochain c we are attempting to construct is c(d)
hold in the other generations, since the process of β-decay lifts to these generations
(see §3). Thus we obtain additional conditions c(g d̃) = c(g ũ) for all g ∈ G. This
gives three of the six linear conditions that c must satisfy to be an observable
cochain.
˜ ∈ {1, ζ, ζ 2 }, g ∈ G, may be chosen in any manner so as
The three colors c(g d)
to satisfy that they exhaust this set of colors. That means there are six choices of
potential cochains if we consider their values restricted to the lifts of the down quark.
But the conditions c(g d̃) = c(g ũ) of the previous paragraph determine completely
the cochain c, since the value of c on leptons is 0. It remains to establish that each
of these six cochains vanishes on cycles Z2 (K̃).
We pass to the diagram on the right in Figure 8. The bottom triangle is seen
˜ and a calculation shows that the left and right triangles are g 2 ũ and
to be d,
g ũ respectively.36 The top triangle is a lepton, so is assigned 0 by the cochain c
under construction. Thus the values of c on the quark 2-cells in the diagram are
˜ c(g ũ)} = {c(g 2 d),
˜ c(d̃), c(g d̃)} = {1, ζ, ζ 2 } The same result holds for
{c(g 2 ũ), c(d),
all translates of the diagram by g ∈ G. But 1 + ζ + ζ 2 = 0 in Z[ζ], so it follows that
the three remaining linear conditions are satisfied and that all six cochains c vanish
on Z2 (K̃). Hence, by the first proposition of Appendix 3, c ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]). 
Example. If we consider the coloring c given by d → 1, gd → ζ, g 2 d → ζ 2 , u →
1, gu → ζ, g 2 u → ζ 2 , then one can check that c = δL, for L ∈ C 1 (K̃, Z[ζ]), where
L is given by L(bi ) = 0, i (mod 3), L(a0 ) = 1 + ζ 2 , L(a1 ) = 1 + ζ, L(a2 ) = ζ + ζ 2 .
Other choices of H ′ with δH ′ = c differ from H by a 1-coboundary.
If we apply a permutation σ of the set {1, ζ, ζ 2 } to obtain the 1-cochain Hσ ,
then their coboundaries δHσ give all six of the colorings as σ ranges over the set of
permutations of the set S.
Question. What additional physically meaningful conservation laws are there in
other rings A? A banal example in Z/2Z is the number of particles modulo 2;
this is an invariant since, physically, creation and destruction of particles occurs in
pairs, or, mathematically, since all spherical diagrams in K̃ have an even number
of faces.
Appendix 8. Preons are determined by charge, color, and weak isospin
Here we tie together all notions of this paper and prove that the preon number
(net number of ai ’s and bi ’s) in the composition of elementary fermions of SM are
determined linearly by four of the conservation laws of SM, namely, electric charge,
weak isospin, and a color conservation law of Appendix 7 and its complex conjugate.
36 Recall g is the generator of the covering group G ∼ Z/3Z where g is given by a → 1, b → 1
=
(mod 3). The action of g on the lifts ai , bi is to raise the indices by 1 (mod 3).

26

STEVE GERSTEN

Recall from §5 that electric charge is determined as δh where h ∈ C 1 (K, Q)
is given by h(a) = 13 , h(b) = 0. We lift h to K̃ and multiply by 3 to get H ∈
C 2 (K̃, Z) given by H(ai ) = 1, H(bi ) = 0 for i (mod 3). The conservation law
δH ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z) ⊂ B 2 (K̃, C) will serve for our purposes the role of electric charge.
Recall also from §5 the weak isospin is determined by δw, where w ∈ C 1 (K, Q)
is given by w(a) = w(b) = 16 , We lift w to K̃ and multiply by 6 to get W ∈
C 2 (K̃, Z) given by W (ai ) = W (bi ) = 1 for all i (mod 3). The conservation law
δW ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ] ⊂ B 2 (K̃, C) will serve for our purposes the role of weak isospin.
Let L ∈ C 1 (K̃, Z[ζ]) be the element of C 1 (K̃, Z[ζ]) determined in the Example
of Appendix 7, so L(bi ) = 0, L(a0 ) = 1 + ζ 2 , L(a1 ) = 1 + ζ, L(a2 ) = ζ + ζ 2 . We
determined L there so that δL ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]) ⊂ B 2 (K̃, C) is a color conservation
law.
If L̄ is the complex conjugate function, then, noting that ζ̄ = ζ 2 and ζ̄ 2 = ζ,
we have L̄(a0 ) = 1 + ζ, L̄(a1 ) = 1 + ζ 2 , L̄(a2 ) = ζ + ζ 2 , and L̄(bi ) = 0. Note
that L̄ is itself one of the color conservation laws; in fact L̄ = Lσ , where σ is the
permutation of the set {1, ζ, ζ 2 } that interchanges ζ and ζ 2 and leaves 1 fixed. Note
that L+L̄ = Re(L), where Re denotes the real part, so (L+L̄)(a0 ) = (L+L̄)(a1 ) = 1
and (L + L̄)(a2 ) = −2.
Remark. If σ is an even permutation of the set {1, ζ, ζ 2 }, then Lσ is of the form
ζ j L for some integer j, whereas L̄ is of the form Lσ for σ a transposition.37
We can now state the main result.
Theorem. The four conservation laws δH, δW, δL and δ(L + L̄) are linearly independent elements of B 2 (K̃, C).
Remark. We calculated in Appendix 3 the dimension of the vector space B 2 (K̃, R)
to be 4 and pointed out in the footnote that the same result holds over every field;
so it follows from the theorem that B 2 (K̃, C) has basis over C given by δH, δW, δL
and δ(L + L̄). The next result follows immediately from the theorem; recall the
definition of ∆x for x ∈ {ai , bi } from Appendix 3.
Corollary. For each x ∈ {ai , bi }, i (mod 3), the conservation law δ∆x is a linear
combination over C of the four conservation laws δH, δW, δL and δ(L + L̄).
Remark. The significance of the corollary is that the preon composition of all of
the elementary fermions considered in K̃ is completely determined by conservation
laws of charge, weak isospin, and color. Consequently the preon composition of all
composite particles (that is, the preons occurring in the boundary labels of their van
Kampen diagrams in K̃) is completely determined by these four conservation laws.
So one is able to check a hypothetical structure of a composite particle by calculating
the appropriate linear combination of conservation laws on the constituents.
37 The fact that the six color conservation laws are related in this way is a reflection of the fact
that S3 , the Weyl group of the root system A2 , is generated by a 3-cycle (multiplication by ζ)
and a 2-cycle (complex conjugation).

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

27

Proof of theorem. Assume that a linear combination κδH +λδW +µδL+νδ(L+L̄) =
0, where κ, λ, µ, ν ∈ C. Evaluate this relation on a lift of the positron [a0 a1 a2 ],
noting that δL and δ L̄ vanish on [a0 a1 a2 ], to get 3κ + 3λ = 0. Next evaluate the
relation on a lift of the electron neutrino [b0 b1 b2 ] to get 3λ = 0. It follows that
κ = λ = 0, so the linear combination simplifies to µδL + νδ(L + L̄) = 0.
˜¯ = [b b a ] and g d̄
˜ = [b b a ]. Evaluate the relation µδL+νδ(L+L̄) =
Note that d
0 1 2
1 2 0
˜
˜
¯
¯
0 on d and on g d to get the equations µL(ai ) + νReL(ai ) = 0 for i = 2, 0; that
is, µ(ζ + ζ 2 ) − 2ν = 0 and µ(1 + ζ 2 ) + ν = 0. These equations have the unique
solution µ = ν = 0, so the only linear relation among δH, δW, δL and δ(L + L̄) is
the trivial relation. It follows that they are linearly independent, and the theorem
is established.
The theorem of color conservation suggests that restrictions on particles (van
Kampen diagrams in K̃) can be directly related to K̃. With this in mind, we make
two definitions.
Definition. An admissible particle is a van Kampen diagram f : D → K̃ satisfying
(1) for each pair α, α′ of distinct 2-cells in D similarly oriented representing
quarks with f (α) = f (α′ ) there is a coloring c ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]) so that
c(f (α)) 6= c(f (α′ )), and
(2) at most two leptons appear in D, and their images under f are not conjugate
under the covering group G; that is, if α and α′ distinct similarly oriented 2cells of D which represent leptons, then there is no g ∈ G so that g(f (α)) =
f (α′ ).
Condition (1) is independent of which conservation law c is chosen to apply in
the definition. This follows from the fact that all the 6 possible candidates for c
are related to each other by translation by ζ j or by complex conjugation, as we
remarked earlier.
The lepton condition (2) is more speculative; the justification is that it is difficult
to see how, for example, an electron neutrino νe and a muon neutrino νµ can
bind together inside a particle. However νe and ν̄µ together give one of the free
generators of π2 (K̃) which was used in §6 to give a topological explanation for
neutrino oscillations. On the other hand, the electron e− and electron anti-neutrino
ν̄e are similarly oriented in the van Kampen diagram for the Higgs particle; but
they have different preon representations which are not conjugate under the covering
group G.
Definition. An admissible particle f : D → K̃ is observable if the sum of the values
of any cochain c ∈ B 2 (K̃, Z[ζ]) on the faces f (α) is 0, where α ranges over the
2-cells of D.
By what was remarked, if the condition is satisfied for one color conservation
law, it is satisfied for all of them.

28

STEVE GERSTEN

Remark. The admissibility condition incorporates the Pauli exclusion principle,
that two bound fermions cannot have the same quantum numbers. The observability condition strengthens the color conservation laws; it says no color can leak out
of an observable particle. It is a way to formulate the experimental observation
that no isolated quark has ever been observed.38
Ansatz 39 . All particles of SM are admissible; thus even virtual particles that participate in reactions but are not observed are admissible. All particles that can be
detected in an experiment satisfy the observability condition.
Open problem. Give a consistent geometric model that explains the algebraic conditions in the definitions of admissibility and observability of particles. That is, the
appearance of the Eisenstein integers Z[ζ] suggests that there is a discrete geometry
underlying these conditions, but I do not yet know what this geometry is.
Appendix 9. Dark Matter
An open problem (contrary to one of the criticisms recalled in the Disclaimer in
the final section, that there are no open problems) is to determine the nature of
dark matter. Observations beginning with Zwicky in the 30’s have shown that there
is more matter in galaxies than can be accounted for by observed light sources. I
shall make a proposal here based on my model for what this dark matter is.
First I list properties that dark matter must possess.
(1) It must be stable over the life of a galaxy. Otherwise one could reconstruct
it from its decay products.
(2) It must not interact with photons, the carriers of electromagnetic force.
(3) The only long-range force it can interact with is that of gravity, to account
for those observations mentioned above.
Observe that there is no condition on colourings, since dark matter is by assumption not observable except for its gravitational effect.
In our model a van Kampen diagram in K̃ whose boundary label involves no a’s
satisfies 2 and 3 above. All the interior a’s cancel so are not visible to outside light
sources. Since such a diagram represents matter, it is subject to gravity. What is
not clear is that such matter can be stable.40
38 Color

can however have an indirect second order effect on distinct particles by exchange of
virtual particles, similar to the way van der Waal forces affect molecules even though the individual
atoms are electrically neutral.
39 An Ansatz is an educated guess that is verified later by its results.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansatz
40 The van Kampen diagram (or spherical diagram) has the same relation to a particle as
the program for a Jacquard loom has to the fabric design it creates. That is, the van Kampen
diagram is not the particle itself but is a program for creating the particle. So for example
one of the criticisms in the disclaimer was that the photon has no structure as far as anyone
has observed, yet the spherical diagram for it involves the diagrams for both the electron and
positron. The program has compound structure but the design it creates does not, as far as
anyone has determined. In analogy with DNA and the cell, by now DNA is well understood, but

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

29

It is unlikely that the neutrino is a candidate for dark matter. It has mass but
it is very small (and is as yet undetermined) and propagates at nearly the speed of
light. So it seems unlikely to be gravitationally bound to a galaxy.
The neutron is also unlikely to be a candidate, since free neutrons are unstable
via beta decay. It seems unlikely that such a weak force as gravity could stabilize
otherwise free neutrons in a galaxy.
However there is an algorithmic process for creating from the neutron an infinite
collection of particles satisfying 2 and 3. I do not know how to make calculations of
mass or half-lives, so I do not know whether any of these particles are stable over
the life of a galaxy. This was one of the basic criticisms of the Disclaimer for which
I lack the tools to answer, namely, to calculate masses.

Construction. Given a van Kampen diagram D and an interior vertex v, we may
form for each n ≥ 2 the branched cyclic cover. Recall this means we remove v
and form the cyclic covering of degree n of the punctured domain, then sew in a
subdivided disc to obtain a new van Kampen diagram D′ . Alternatively, one can
take the one-point compactification of the covering, and note it is a van Kampen
diagram.
If D has edge label only involving b’s, then the same is true for D′ . Hence if D
satisfies 2 and 3 above, then so does D′

Example. Let D be a van Kampen diagram for the neutron; for example, in Figure 2
interchange the letters a and b, to get D. There is a single interior vertex, so for
each n ≥ 2 there is a unique branched cyclic cover Dn of D, and this satisfies 2 and
3. I pose the open question whether any of these represent stable particles, which
is the same as asking whether all possible decay modes have higher energy.

Appendix 10. Nucleogenesis
I suggest here only the germ of a topological theory of origin of chemical elements.
The models resemble those of organic chemistry.
Consider the deuteron shown below in Figure 9.

the machinery by which this creates a new organism, or even that of cell division, is not presently
understood. Similarly in the Appendix 10 I create programs for chemical elements. This is not in
conflict with the liquid ball model consisting of floating protons and neutrons but rather indicates
a hidden structure, in effect a rigid crystal model that underlines this model.

30

STEVE GERSTEN

Fig. 9
The top part of the diagram is the proton while the bottom is the neutron;
the up and down quarks are labeled u and d respectively. In fact two diamond moves along the red lines produce a proton and a neutron, so this diagram can be achieved by interactions with photons and Z-bosons. As evidence for the correctness of this model, observe what happens when one takes
branch covers about the central vertex. The 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18,
and 20-fold cyclic branched covers are respectively models for stable isotopes of
4
6
10
12
14
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
2 He, 3 Li, 5 B, 6 C, 7 N, 8 O, 10 Ne, 12 Mg, 14 Si, 16 S, 18 Ar, and 20 Ca; the last is

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

31

“the heaviest stable isotope made of the same number of protons and neutrons”.41
The upshot of this section is that stable isotopes of some of the chemical elements
can be created by diagrammatic methods for van Kampen diagrams. I am unable
to verify their stability myself for the lack of numerical methods for associating
energy to diagrams.42
There is one more point to be discussed here and that is the process of Cloaking. Consider the diagram D for the deuteron in Figure 9, whose boundary edges
labelled “a”, occur together as a group of three. Take two adjacent such edges and
connect the end points of the interval of length 2 by an edge labelled “b” pointing
the opposite direction. This has the effect of attaching (the projection from K̃ to
K of) an up quark to the diagram. Then take the remaining edge labelled “a” on
the boundary and attach to its endpoints two edges labelled “b”, that is, attach a
down quark (always referring to the projection in K) to the diagram. The resulting
diagram D′ , after attaching first the up then the down quark, is a new van Kampen diagram containing the original deuteron as a subdiagram, but all of whose
boundary edges are labelled “b”. Thus all the charges have been “cloaked” in the
interior and D′ is invisible to electromagnetic (EM) radiation.
Also observe that D′ has a single interior vertex. So we may form branched cyclic
coverings of D′ , each of which represents a particle. So all of the stable elements
constructed earlier by branched covers can be cloaked so as to be invisible to EM
radiation. As I admitted earlier I do not have the techniques to determine whether
any of these particles are stable and hence candidates for dark matter.
In fact the cloaking process can be carried out on any diagram, so any such can
be cloaked so as to be invisible to EM radiation. This suggests, although does not
prove, that dark matter should be as abundant as ordinary matter.
Appendix 11. The dual picture and ∆++ test
I have worked out the consequences of the Hattori-Shupe idea in terms of van
Kampen diagrams, for which I have received considerable criticism (see the Disclaimer), and for which I was encouraged to write an introduction showing that
this is a reasonable object to consider. In this section I want to point out a dual
way of considering these objects which has the advantage of being more intuitive
for physicists, and suggesting what computations must be done to test the theory.
However in its simplest form it works only for van Kampen diagrams which are
topological discs, and thus fails for singular van Kampen diagrams, such as that for
the ∆++ baryon shown in Figure 7. After presenting the basic idea, I’ll take up the
41 Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic number (physics)
note that the energy should consist of two, possibly three, parts. Namely, there is
the contribution from the 2 cells, which is the energy (or mass) associated to the 9 fermions,
which is known from experiment. Second, there is the contribution from the edges, which should
correspond to the contribution from the strong nuclear force, which holds the fermions together
along these edges. And third, there is the contribution from the vertices, which must be taken
into consideration in van Kampen diagrams for the Z and W bosons and for the ∆++ resonance
which are singular disc diagrams, not topological discs.
42 But

32

STEVE GERSTEN

modifications needed to handle singular diagrams. The advantage of van Kampen
diagrams, in addition to not being restricted to topological discs, is that they occur
in the category of CW 2-complexes, and thus are amenable to all the techniques
of algebraic topology. The dual pictures I shall now discuss however are a hybrid
object, belonging to graph theory with transversely oriented and labelled edges.
Thus convenience for mathematicians is sacrificed for intuition for physicists.
Now for the definition of the dual picture for a van Kampen diagram D. Begin
by taking the first barycentric subdivision D′ of D and throw away all of D′ except
only those edges D′ which join the barycenter of a face to the barycenter of an
edge which is common to two faces. The closure of their point set union is the
dual picture Γ. It is given the structure of a planar graph whose vertices are the
barycenters of faces and whose edges are the union of the closures of two edges
with a vertex (which must be the barycenter of an edge of D) in common. There is
additional structure on Γ in that each of its edges has a transverse orientation and
label given by the edge of D it intersects.
The fundamental fermions are represented in Γ by its vertices and the edges
connecting them represent the forces acting on them.
As an example, the dual picture for a proton (or neutron) is a planar circle
subdivided into two arcs with an edge connecting one of these vertices to a vertex
in the exterior. Specifically, take the unit circle in the plane centered at the origin
with vertices (±1, 0) together with the segment joining (1, 0) to (2, 0). The vertices
of the circle represent up and down quarks, and the vertex (2, 0) is an up quark in
the case of a proton and a down quark in the case of a neutron. The arcs and edge
represent the strong nuclear force.43
One can recover the original van Kampen diagram D from Γ if D is a topological
disc, but this is not the case if D is singular, as is the case for the ∆++ baryon
represented in Fig. 5. In addition one has lost the boundary label of D. To remedy
these defects one introduces the enhanced picture Γ0 .
As a graph Γ0 is the 1-skeleton of the first barycentric subdivision D′ of the van
Kampen diagram D, where one discards the original edges of D. The vertices of Γ0
are of three types, F, E and V , where F type are barycenters of faces of D, E type
are barycenters of edges and V type are just the vertices of D. The vertices of F
type correspond to fundamental fermions (leptons or quarks). Those of E type are
equipped with a transverse orientated label coming from the label of the edge of D.
In particular those vertices of E type which lie on the boundary of D enable one
to construct the boundary label of D; they are distinguished by being boundary
edges of exactly one edge of Γ0 . In fact the entire van Kampen diagram D can be
reconstructed from Γ0 as a planar graph with its transverse labels.
43 If

one knows the strength of the interaction and the distance over which it takes place, one
can estimate the energy associated with an edge. The mass of the quarks are determined from
the laboratory. One must recall from an earlier footnote that, in the case of the proton (resp.
neutron), the two up quarks (resp. down quarks) are of different generations. Here, to first order,
one should ignore the EM force since it is smaller than the strong nuclear force by a factor of
10−3 .

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

33

Example.44 ∆++ resonance (see Fig. 5). Here is a description of the enhanced
picture Γ0 for ∆++ . Let X1 be the disjoint union of 6 planar edges where one
vertex is distinguished on each edge and called of type F. Identify the distinguished
vertices to get a planar graph X and call the end vertices alternately in one cycle
of type V or E, where one V type vertex is distinguished. Take 3 copies of X and
identify the distinuished V type vertices to get the planar graph Y . The images of
the central F vertices of X1 in Y represent the three up quarks, and the images of
the E vertices of X in Y have transverse oriented labels a, a, b.
The other ∆-baryons have the same structure as in Fig. 5, but for the ∆+ ,
0
∆ , and ∆− baryons the individual quarks are changed appropriately. They all
have the same rest mass within the error of 0.1%, which is what one would expect
since the dominant force holding them together is the strong nuclear force and
the electromagnetic force is smaller by a factor of a thousand.45 So my model is
consistent with the data for these particles.
The point here is that if one knows the strengths of the strong interactions and
the distances between adjacent quarks (adjacent either through vertex or through
edge of the enhanced picture Γ0 ) then one knows the energy associated to the interaction. If one knows the rest energy of the quarks in addition, then one can calculate
the energy of the particle. There is a caution here that each edge path of length 2
in Γ0 between two F vertices represents an interaction between the corresponding
fundamental fermions. I do not yet know how to weight these interactions if there
are more than two such paths of length 2 joining the two F vertices. However in
the case of the ∆++ baryon there is precisely one such path of length 2 joining each
pair of vertices of F type. By symmetry, all the interactions they represent have
the same strength and the distances associated between the quarks are the same.
So if my correspondent who wrote “there are no open problems” (see Disclaimer
below) is correct, there is enough information available to calculate the rest energy
of the ∆++ baryon. This amounts to a test of of the theory I have presented.46
Appendix 12. Engtanglement
This section is independent of all that precedes and proposes a geometrical explanation for the phenomenon of entanglement. whereby a measurement of a particle
can affect another particle spatially separated from it (that is, the invariant metric
44 I

am grateful to Yong-Shi Wu for having suggested I should consider the ∆++ baryon. It
turned out to be crucial in formulating my ideas.
45 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta baryon
46 Caveat. Again I caution that, in attempting to do the calculation for a proton, one must
be careful to recall that the two up quarks are of different generations, as I showed in an earlier
footnote. In effect all calculations are done in K̃ and not in K itself. In the picture model
Γ for the proton, the two vertices on the circle are joined by two arcs on the circle, and one
should experiment with different ways of weighing the strengths of the corresponding interactions,
assuming that the theory has already survived the ∆++ test. An “open problem” for physicists
′ (1)

of the first barycentric subdivision of K̃ into a metric graph, so
is to make the 1-skelton (K̃)
that length of edges reflect strength of interactions. Then all enhanced pictures associated to van
Kampen diagrams will acquire pull-back lengths.

34

STEVE GERSTEN

−dt2 + dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 (setting c = 1) is positive for the two points). I shall work
in Minkowski space R1,3 although there is an obvious generalization to the general
pseudo-Riemannian case. In the simplest example of the phenomenon a particle of
spin 0 located at point P spontaneously decays into two particles X1 , X2 of spin
1
2 which fly off in opposite directions. I shall assume in the discussion that both
particles have non-zero rest mass, so their paths are in the interior of the light cone
at P .
Conservation of angular momentum requires that the spin measured along any
axis for X1 be the opposite of that measured along the same axis for X2 , so if the
first is 12 along the z-axis, say, then the second must be − 12 . This is true whatever
the separation of X1 is from X2 , as long as the state of the pair remains coherent,
even if no information can pass between the particles in the usual understanding
of Minkowski space. This prediction of quantum mechanics has been confirmed by
experiment, so is not in dispute. In this example the spin of X1 is not determined
before the measurement and can be an arbitrary linear combination of “up” and
“down” along any axis. The measurement picks out one of up or down, and the
effect is immediate on X2 : if X1 is measured to be up along a given axis then X2
immediately becomes down along the same axis. The experiments performed on
Bell’s inequality show that it is not the case that X1 was secretly, say, up all the time
(as might be the case if there were some hidden variables), in which case it would
follow that X2 was down; that was Einstein’s explanation for the phenomenon, but
Bell’s inequality (or rather its failure in quantum mechanics) shows that Einstein
was, in this case, wrong.47
What has been lacking so far has been a convincing explanation in the common
language for this paradoxical behavior, outside of the formalism of quantum mechanics. I shall offer one here, which requires only a small modification of one’s
notion of space and time, and propose an experimental test for my explanation.
Parametrize the paths of X1 and X2 by proper time τ , say, xi (τ ), i = 1, 2 and
identify the points x1 (τ ) and x2 (τ ) in R1,3 for all τ for which the wave function of the
pair remains coherent. The result is a singular space S. No further identifications
are made if decoherence results (if, for example, a measurement is made on one
particle).
One can visualize S best when there is one spatial dimension x and one time
dimension t, in which case the invariant form is −dt2 + dx2 and the Minkowski
space is R1,1 . In this case S is topologically a plane with a nappe of a cone resting
tangent on it. The nappe of the cone is the image of P in the S and the cone opens
up in the positive t-direction.48
Let us continue the discussion in R1,1 . Let Q1 and Q2 be two points in the
interior of the light cone at P on opposite sides of the paths x1 and x2 so that Q2
is on the light cone from Q1 . In R1,1 there is a single path for light from Q1 to
reach Q2 . But in the identification space S there is a time-like path with shorter
47 Source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum entanglement
but
not
analytically,
this
is
the
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe theory#Swallowtail catastrophe
48 Topologically,

swallowtail

catastrophe,

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

35

proper time. Hence information can be conveyed in S between the image points by
a shorter route than that taken by light.
A more extreme example is the following. Let Q1 and Q2 be chosen on opposite
sides of the cone determined by x1 and x2 so that the line from Q1 to Q2 intersects
xi at Q′i , i = 1, 2. Assume that the interval from Q′1 to Q′2 is space-like but that the
intervals from Qi to Q′i are time-like, with the interval from Q′1 to Q′2 ≫ the sum
of the aboslute values of the intervals fro Qi to Q′i . Then no information can pass
from Q1 to Q2 in Minkowski space. However in S the images of Q′i are connected
along a common time-like line, so in S information can pass from Q1 to Q2 .
Remark. It should be possible to choose Q1 and Q2 so that slight movement of a
laser placed at Q1 produces interference fringes at Q2 .
In summary, the introduction of singularities of well-known type can provide a
geometric explanation for the paradoxical behavior of entanglement.
Disclaimer
I received the following in a letter from M. Gromov: “ . . . in order to publish
the article and not to be scorned at by the physicists community, Bogomolov, who
as much as myself finds your article interesting and provocative, asks, if you agree,
to do the following.
(1) To have author’s (yours) disclaimer on the relation of the article to “real
physics” and an emphasis on the mathematical contents in it.
(2) A one page appendix by a professional physicist commenting on the original
physical input of your article. The more critical it could be the better it
would fare in the face of the physicists community.”
To comply with their request, I wrote the following disclaimer:
“I have been requested to include a disclaimer on the relation of this article to
“real physics”. I am a mathematician, not a physicist, in my seventh year of retirement; prior to that I worked for 25 years in the field of combinatorial group theory,
and earlier than that I published articles in fields involving algebra and topology,
but not physics. Last November 2012 I read the Scientific American article [Li] and
understood quickly that the Harari-Shupe theory suitably interpreted implied the
solution to the generation problem, stated as an open problem in [Li]. I read all I
could find in Wikipedia, having had no prior background in the physics involved,
and asked questions of physicists, most of which were ignored and one of which
was rebuffed with the arrogant and sarcastic (and unhelpful) statement that “there
are no open problems; good luck with the math.” The accompanying letter from
D. Singleton shows that I was encouraged to do real physics, to calculate masses
of elementary particles and magnetic moments. One exception was Professor Wu,
who listened to me in a meeting arranged by my colleague Domingo Toledo and
made pertinent suggestions. He said I had solved the generation problem, but also
told me that my paper would never be accepted by a physics journal.
As a further irony, I submitted the article to arXiv in the category Group Theory.
The editorial board vetted the article and resubmitted it as General Physics. ”

36

STEVE GERSTEN

As for the point about criticism by a professional physicist, I received the following letter on 1 March 2013 from Douglas Singleton (unedited except for punctuation
and TeX formatting):
“ From: Douglas Singleton dougs@csufresno.edu
To: Steve Gersten sg@math.utah.edu
Hi Professor Gersten,
Sorry for the delayed reply. I’m currently on sabbatical which in principle means
I should have more time, but also in expectation of this I have taken on extra
projects.
Anyway your general question and suggestion (that electrons, photons, gluons,
etc.) should have some sub-structure is interesting and in fact I tried to think of
such a model some time ago, but there are a lot of problems such models face.
First a non-important comment – you had said that you have had a hard time
getting physicists to look at your work. I think this is a combination of the fact
that composite models face many challenges (I’ll detail some below) but as well
the formalism/notation you use is not in the standard tool kit of physicists so
you would either need to “translate” your work for physicists or start a campaign
to educate physicists to the formalism you use. For example there is a book on
differential forms by H. Flanders from Purdue from the 1960s and in the foreword
he specifically says his intent (he is a mathematician) was to educate physicists and
engineers to the beauty of differential forms, wedge products, etc. In the 90s when I
was in grad school differentials forms were still not part of the standard curriculum.
I learned them (somewhat) on my own using Flanders book. In any case if you use
unfamiliar formalism/notation this will ex plain why most physicist will not take a
look at your work.
For example in the opening of your fermion paper you talk about “Kampen diagrams ”. I looked at your pictures and these look similar to Dynkin diagrams/root
diagrams/weight diagrams from group theory (have a look at Howard Georgi’s book
on Lie Groups for physicists and your Kampen diagrams look similar to some of
these other diagrams I mention, but then again not exactly th e same). In turn
I scanned both articles and did not find any obvious mention of SU(2), SU(3),
U(1) or even string theory groups like E(8) x E(8) or any of the other exceptional
Lie groups. It may be that these are discussed in a manner /formalism I do not
know, but in any case this would explain why physicists have ignored your work.
Also I checked the arXiv (both hep-th and math-ph) and there was no mention
of “Kampen diagrams” – I did a “full text” search for “Kampen” and found only
a guy named van Kampen and then three papers which referenced van Kampen’s
work – but no reference to Kampen diagrams. A google search turned up Kampen
diagrams but in looking through the first 2–3 pages I did not see any physicists
working with them. Again in some sense this is not really important since one can
attribute this to the “bad” math education of physicists, but as a practical matter
it will mean your work will have an uphill battle getting attention from the physics
community.
OK but let me move on to substantive comments. The first questions you should

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

37

be able to calculate an answer for if your model is correct is
(i) What is the mass of the electron, muon, tau in terms of the more fundamental
masses of your “preons” a, b? (By the way I very much liked Harari’s work and
this inspired me to try my hand at this type of model building but my attempt
foundered on exactly this and the following questions). Or at least you need to
calculate the mass ratio e/mu and mu/tau.
(ii) What are the values of the CKM (Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa) mixing
elements between the three generations?
If your model is correct and useful then you should be able to calculate the above
quantities in terms of the input parameters of your model (I guess the parameter
should be the masses and mixings of the a and b “preons”). If you could do this
then people would pay attention even if they did not at first understand your
notation/formalism.
Next I have some general comments which seem problematic .
(a) Electrons, muons, quarks, etc. seem to be made of three “preons” and these
a, b “preons” I assume are spin 1/2 so that the results electron, quarks etc. will
come out to be spin 1/2. However if electrons are composite in this way (rather
than being fundamental Dirac spinors) then their g-factor is no longer guaranteed
to be g ∼ 2 (up to QED corrections) but should be calculated from the underlying
theory. In other words you need to take your composite electron, calculate its gfactor and show that it is about 2. For example the proton and neutron are both
known to be spin 1/2 but they are composite spin 1/2 particles being made up
of (at least at the first le vel) quarks. Now if one assumes that the quarks are
fundamental Dirac particles with g ∼ 2 one can to a pretty good job at getting
the g-factors for the proton and neutron (∼ 5.59 and ∼ -3.83 respectively) in terms
of the more fundamental g-factors of the quarks taken at their Dirac value. Note
that the g-factors of the proton and neutron are *very* different from 2. Also the
calculation of these values from QCD models is only at the 5% level as compared
to the 0.000000001% level of QED calculations of the electron g-factor. This is said
to be due to the very large non-perturbative quantum corrections coming from the
strong interaction. If you could get your model to give the correct g-factor of the
electron, muon, tau, etc. to the 5% level this would good enough since that is what
is done in the case of protons and neutrons.
(b) Your photon seems to be composed of āa i.e. the photon is also a bound state.
But the photon is experimentally known to be massless to a very high degree and
theoretically this is said to come from gauge invariance (which can be broken via
the Higgs mechanism but the Higgs in our Universe does not do this for the photon
so gauge invariance means the photon is exactly massless and this agrees very well
with experiment).Now if your photon is a bound state of more fundamental spin
1/2 particles it is highly unlikely that it would be massless to such a high degree.
This would require an extremely unlikely cancellation of the binding energy of the
system against the masses of the a and ā. In any case you need to show that your
model gives the mass of the bound state āa (i.e. photon ) as zero to some fantastic
accuracy. To do this you will need to specify the energy scale of the interaction

38

STEVE GERSTEN

which binds your “preons” together. I also did not see mention of this and it is
important – what is the energy scale/interaction strength of the interaction which
binds your preons together? For example in the strong interaction the dimensionless
coupling constant at low energies is ∼ 1 – 5 (the range is large since QCD is poorly
understood in the low energy limit). For the E& M interaction the coupling strength
at low energies is ∼ 1/137 (which also explains why perturbation theory works at
low energy for QED but fails from QCD).
(c) Also if your photon is composed of a fermion-anti-fermion both of which are
charged then it will have in general some magnetic moment, electric dipole moment,
etc. It is well known experimentally that the photon does not have these thus in
your model you should explain why your composite photon has no moments to such
a high degree. The same comment applies to the W and Z bosons which in your
composite model would have – barring some cancellation – magnetic, electric dipole
moments in general. In fact the W from the SM has a spin and magnetic dipole
momentum that lead to a g-factor of 2 (same as for a fundamental Dirac particle).
Because of this some scattering processes involving the W boson have “gauge amplitude zeros” in the differential scattering cross section which been confirmed to
the 5% level. The original article on this is K.O. Mikaelian, M.A. Samuel, and D.
S ahdev,Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 746-749(1979) . Thus your model would also need to
how a composite W would get a g-factor so close to 2.
Anyway the first task - if you haven’t done it or if I missed it in the two articles
- would be to calculate the electron, muon, tau masses (or at least their ratios) in
terms of the parameters of your model. Then next would be to calculate the values
of CKM elements. Another good place to test your model would be in predicting
the mass structure of the neutrinos. The oscillation data for neutrinos give two
possible mass structures – regular and inverted. If your model could predict which
is the correct mass structure for neutrinos this would be a good *prediction* of the
model (the other things I ask above are post-dictions).
Sorry for the delay and then long email. I was also going to explain a bit about
my idea for composite leptons and quarks but as I said for my model I got stuck
on exactly the above questions.
Best,
Doug ”
A final word from the author, your truly. Part of Singleton’s letter refers to part
II of the article, which is under revision. The preface to the present article is an
attempt to, at the very least, introduce the concept of van Kampen diagram, to
give a readable reference in Wikipedia, and to give a down-to-earth analogy with
Buckminster Fuller’s geodetic dome, so that the concept will not appear so strange.
References
[AH]
[Ha]
[Li]

Alan Hatcher, Algebraic topology, Cambridge Univ. Press 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0521795401,
.pdf file available on the web at http://www.math.cornell.edu/ hatcher/AT/AT.pdf.
H. Harari, A schematic model of quarks, Physics Letters B, vol. 86, 1979, pages 83–86.
D. Lincoln, The inner life of quarks, Scientific American, pages 36–43, November 2012.

TOPOLOGY OF THE STANDARD MODEL I: FERMIONS

39

[Sh]

M. Shupe, A composite model of leptons and quarks, Physics Letters B, vol. 86, 1979, pages
87–92.
[BRS] N. Brady, T. Riley, and H. Short, The geometry of the word problem for finitely generated
groups, Birkhäuser, 2007, ISBN 978-3-7643-7949-0.
[Ya] C-N Yang, Quantum numbers, Chern classes, and a bodhisattva, Physics Today, vol. 65,
Jan. 2012, page 33.
Mathematics Department, University of Utah, 155 S. 1400 E., Salt Lake City, UT
84112-0090, http://www.math.utah.edu/∼ sg
E-mail address: sg at math dot utah dot edu

