This paper is complementary to the article in General Science Journal entitled "The Standard Model is wrong" that can be downloaded: click here
Imagine what would imply reaching the conclusion that a Theory diametrically opposed to the Standard Model presents some strange indications of veracity, that, well analyzed, would lead to outright denial of the Theory about matter and material particles that has prevailed over the past 60 years. This is the challenge. Very easy to perform.
The fact is that this search for the Higgs boson or God particle and its announced finding by CERN physicists have had such media coverage that few citizens of the world have been unaware of what has been called the greatest scientific discovery in recent times. It is natural that some comments on the issue will arise, some negative, especially in regards to the financial aspect of the project, and that the general public will take into account reasoned comments that tend to highlight the conclusion that it is not worth so exorbitant economic effort to prove a theory, too complex, with purely mathematical foundations, with no support from physical nature accessible to human reason. In other words, there has been widespread interest in the origin of matter and the public of the five continents have come to know that the proposal of physicists is that matter consists in a series of virtual particles, without any physical sense, but possessing a certain characteristics, also without any physical sense, such as spin, colour, flavour and charm, and they acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson. The Higgs particle is unstable, its lifetime is incomprehensibly short, and the theory predicts that it is very heavy so that it has been necessary to use huge and very expensive particle accelerators in order to try its identification.
The way to check the theory is to shatter high-energy particles with large and very expensive accelerators and analyze the products of the violent clashes in order to find some results "consistent" with those expected from the searched objective. In the case of the Higgs boson there has been 600 million collisions per second and the research time has been, or is being, what the experimenters may need to reach a satisfactory result. The cost of over 40 billion Euros. Imagine that we break a lot of glass bottles and throw all the broken pieces of glass into a dump. At night we analyze thoroughly the broken glass trying to find a piece that has certain characteristics, such as weight, shape, and colour (because the bottles are from all sources). It would be difficult to find the desired sample, but if the number of bottles we break is 600 million per second and have all the hours we need, it is obvious that, sooner or later, a piece of glass with characteristics "consistent" with the target will appear. Taking into account that some of those characteristics of the desired sample, as in the case of the Higgs boson, had a wide range of possibilities, such as energy. It must be recognized that the system is somewhat crude. Especially if you consider that the experiment has become so critical that it would leave the final conclusions about the goodness or rejection of a theory that defines what matter is in this universe of ours. The experiment is crude and flimsy and the theory so difficult to be digested that it is not surprising that many people, physicists and laymen, refuse to accept both experiment and theory. Experimenters have been quick to say that the result of the experiment is not exactly as expected, but is on its way and that requires continuity. What would imply to continue several years with these very expensive accelerators with the help of more than 7,000 physicists.
In these circumstances it is natural that the general public, which is funding the huge project, will require more information and will exact a thorough investigation whether there will be an alternative, that is to say, a more rational choice and understandable for everyone, including the profane, and less expensive. It is unacceptable that the experimenters and the so called scientific community, which are those who really take advantage of the situation, defend their position by claiming they are the only ones with the capacity to understand their own theories and that the rest of us, including much of physicists in good faith, have no access to them, because this requires a knowledge of advanced mathematics available to very few and a blind faith that the nature and the entire universe is composed of ghostly entities completely outside a natural reality as we see it in the world we inhabit. In these times of global crisis we are suffering worldwide, simplification and cheaper method for tracing the origin of matter would be welcome.
The problem arises when those who have to judge the accuracy and fairness of the system used, their theories, their experiments, their interpretations and conclusions, facing another possible form of action more rational, more compatible with human reason and without cost to the taxpayer, are those who have touted, directed and conducted the search for the Higgs boson. A huge amount of physicists are involved in "their" experiment and it is clear they will not accept another option, albeit simple, easy and free, and even if that option may be proven endlessly by the reality of the numbers, since its acceptance would bring the loss of their "status" and the huge amount of funds that feeds the current system of investigation of the origin of matter.
The public opinion has welcomed the news with some scepticism. The theory called Standard Model is difficult to digest. It consists of a complicated equation, incomplete even for the defenders of the idea, with incorporation of arbitrary parameters, referring to virtual particles, not real particles with their shapes, dimensions and possible internal motions. These particles, which are those that make up the entire universe according to the Standard Model, are not definable things, but they do have a number of features that differentiate each particle from the others, such as spin, colour, flavour and charm. These features do not have any physical meaning, have been introduced to differentiate the particles and their objective is not other that to classify the particles.
The Standard Model has not enjoyed since its inception with full approval: "Some paragraphs from the Drell Report submitted by HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel) to the US Department of Energy in May 1994: "A particle's mass depends on its interactions with the Higgs field, a medium that permeates all of space and time. The W and Z masses result from their couplings to this field. The photon and gluon have no such couplings, so they remain massless..... Unfortunately, we do not understand the origin of these couplings..... Current theoretical models can accommodate a top quark mass 340.000 times that of the electron, but we cannot explain it..... The Higgs mechanism with its concomitant spin-zero Higgs Boson has a variety of theoretical shortcomings. The model on which it is based is unstable..... In addition to supersymmetry and dynamical symmetry breaking, there have been many other possible suggestions for new physics.... The menu of possibilities is rich ..... Although the Standard Model provides an apparently complete description of particle physics at present energies and answers many questions, it gives rise to many more.... The most direct way to find new physics is to go to higher energy and explore completely uncharted territory."
Quarks are virtual particles, according to the Standard Model. They make up protons and neutrons and have two peculiar characteristics: the first is that its electrical charge is fractionated and can take two values: +1/3 and -2/3 of the fundamental electric charge, which is the charge of electrons. The second characteristic is that they are bound together by a force increasing with the distance, contrary to what happens with known forces such as gravity and electromagnetic. The Force that pulls them together in pairs or threes grows stronger as they move farther away from each other. These two features are so strange and so arbitrary that have ever prevented finding an isolated quark. Its electric charge would be easily detectable, but there are those capricious forces that can never be overcome as their union is getting stronger when they separate. In fact quarks have served to simplify the classification of the ever increasing number of material particles. The great success introduced by physicists in the last century has been based on what is called the discovery of the different quarks. These have been found, of course, in large accelerators with great powers, destroying matter by collisions at speeds close to the speed of light and looking between the products of the violent clashes. What is sought, as always in this type of experiments, are decay products that might betray the presence of the objective for a split second. The procedure presents certain drawbacks and difficulties, but has the great advantage to the experimenter that the number of collisions per second is huge and patience can be tested over a sufficiently long period.
"We must remember the abandoned project of the SSC, Superconducting Super Collider, in USA. In 1993 American Congress voted to cut funding for the 54-mile-around atom smasher to be constructed in Texas. Critics said it was too much money to put into a single scientific basket, particularly in the esoteric field of particle physics."
After the CERN announcement of July 4, 2012 there have been a number of comments against the theory defended by these physicists as well as the outcome of the experiment. Following are some of the comments taken from the Internet, and expressed by dissatisfied physicists and general public, which, in the light of information received, considered wrong the path followed to know the intimate nature of matter.
"The Higgs boson is so elusive that the only way to detect it is to find the particles that produce such as pairs of photons or pairs of other heavy particles called bosons Z. The problem is that this production is not unique, so the new research states that, in effect, the appearance could be the Higgs boson as predicted by the Standard Model, but it can also happen that the "God particle" exists differently or is a mixture of what we believe is Higgs with another particle."
"The Standard Model combining electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provides a satisfactory way of understanding most experimental results in particle physics, yet it is far from satisfying as a theory. Many problems and gaps in the model have been explained in a rather ad hoc manner. Values for such basic properties as the fractional charges of quarks or the masses of quarks and leptons must be inserted "by hand" into the model; that is, they are determined by experiment and observation rather than by theoretical predictions."
"Too many arbitrary parameters. The Standard Model is full of arbitrary parameters which can be determined by experiment but which have no theoretical explanation within the theory. Such parameters include charges, particle masses, and coupling constants and they have to be added "by hand". There seem to be more than twenty such arbitrary parameters. All these parameters ought to be related to each other, so that very few, if any, must be assigned arbitrarily. This means that the Standard Model is incomplete, and unaesthetically satisfying. To put the matter more strongly, the theory is ugly. In particular, there is one parameter known as the "electroweak mixing angle". It specifies in a precise way how the electromagnetic and weak forces are related. It can be measured experimentally, but is not determined by the supposedly "unified" electroweak theory. A genuinely unified theory should determine this parameter." Charles Daney
"There are better models out there than the Standard Model, but the prestigious members of the physics community have tied their reputations to this model. They don't want to lose their grants, the respect of their peers, or to go down in history as misinformed idiots. Some of them have looked over the wall they've built and are beginning to sweat. Real changes will not come from the academics. They will come from technologists and inventors". By Keith Foote.
The theory says that the Higgs boson constitutes the Higgs field and that a particle that passes through that field meets "resistance" when "going swimming", as a consequence of the obstacle formed by countless Higgs bosons the particle will find in its path, despite the fact that the obstacle is highly unstable. It is this resistance to swim which leads to the concept of mass. This concept of mass is not valid if the particle denies his inner nature. How can the concept of "rest mass" be completely separated from the concept of "mass movement"? It is necessary to define what the mass is before seeking explanation for how it is acquired. Moreover, the Higgs boson itself has mass, though not defined by the Standard Model. The next question is: If all particles acquire mass by the action of the Higgs Boson, who gives it its mass? One can not understand how this whole circus of the "God particle" has shaken the world with the claim that they have made the great discovery of the millennium.
Feynman (who won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum physics) says in his book "The Character of Physical Law" that no one, including himself, really understands quantum physics, because once you go deep into the subatomic world, reality involving mathematics is not susceptible to an intuitive understanding. And sometimes the nature of a physical phenomenon makes it impossible for words to give your mind a clear and consistent description.
Another comment about the Standard Model: "I feel that the entire Standard Model is based on misconceptions piled upon misconceptions to where it is the modern equivalent of the Geocentric Model of the Universe. I think that Quarks are a misinterpretation of an observational phenomenon, and gluons, gravitons, etc. are pure fiction. To me, the "Four Forces" likewise consist of two misinterpretations and two total fictions and that the "fundamental particles" that arise from atom smashing would make a lot better sense as alternate states of matter..."
Other comments just after the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs: "The physicists were left with no choice but to blag the Higgs bogus into existence or their jobs, credibility and Gov’t funding would have ceased forthwith. The standard model still does NOT work on many fronts and is now confounding scientific issues even more."
"Finding out if it’s got all the properties of the Standard Model’s Higgs boson will need a lot more data and painstaking work. We’re now opening a new chapter of fundamental physics, as the LHC was designed to do."
"I've studied the books and articles describing the standard model, quantum electrodynamics, and the entire corpus of modern high energy physics, particle, and superstrings, and I left them out because they do not give me even a shred of knowledge about nature. If we have reached a point in the development of physics in which the explanations of the phenomena are only for initiated people, we have come full circle. Laws at atomic level are not intelligible to humans. While these things may be supported, I say that physics is not science, but mystery, religion and dogma." (Prof. Antonio Ruiz de Elvira)
"And with the hype there always comes nonsense, nonsense like that the masses of particles are due to the Higgs (No they are not!), nonsense like that the Higgs is some sort of ether while however Einstein disproved all ethers, nonsense like that the mass of the Higgs may decide whether our universe is stable. Criticism is taboo in today’s business. You have to be a science cheerleader, or else … nothing. Critical positions are simply ignored and silenced so that you cannot get into any journal that anybody reads outside of India."
It should be noted that the neutrino is one of the four stable particles in the universe (apart from their antiparticles): proton, neutron, electron and neutrino. The remaining particles are unstable, are secondary, although the Standard Model is trying to catalogue them and sort them. It is precisely the stable particles those that should be studied thoroughly and, for now, we should leave the unstable ones, which seem to be those on which the Standard Model has focused, looking for an arrangement by its famous equations. Imagine a particle accelerator 100, or better, 1,000 times more powerful than the LHC where protons are smashed at nearly the speed of light. The result of collisions would be brutal and no doubt particles with a mass well above the Higgs boson would arise. What would happen to the equation? How to introduce these new particles? What new parameters would be required? The number of "unstable" particles is infinite, all depends on the energy of the crash.
Well, here's the treatment the Standard Model gives the neutrino, one of the four stable particles, which we now know is fundamental to the understanding of physics: "The Standard Model doesn’t really say much about neutrinos. They are incorporated in the model, of course. But that’s just because the model has been constructed to contain them, since their existence is an observational fact. Indirectly, the Standard Model implies that neutrinos are massless."
The problem of modern physicists regarding the neutrino is they do not know what it is, despite being one of four stable elementary particles. The fact is that there is in place a series of large-scale experiments with neutrinos, such as Baksan in Russia, Kamiokande and Super-Kamiokande in Japan and SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) in Canada. Always and in all experiments there is a deficit of solar neutrinos. It seems that neutrinos are lost along the way.
The reality is that neutrinos are the result of a device of nature to respect the universal law of spin conservation. They do not exist at rest, they only exist as moving matter and are subject to a wide mass spectrum, that is to say, once produced, their masses and consequently their sizes show great diversity. And this is what John N. Bachall, one of the best specialists in neutrinos, says about it: "The most puzzling and controversial finding about neutrinos raises the possibility that some of them may have a mass at rest as great as 17 MeV. The difference between this and other estimates of neutrino mass at rest is like the difference between a huge truck and a tiny pea". There is a strange coincidence between the conclusions of the new option and those of Bachall, with one notable difference since Bachall speaks of rest mass and the new option denies the neutrino rest mass. The neutrino exists only in movement, moving mass from a process in which its intervention is necessary to respect the law of conservation of spin. All neutrinos have a spin equal to h/4"pi" like the electron, proton and neutron. The neutrino and antineutrino are distinguished according to E. Segré, one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century, along with Einstein, only in its helicity or rotation. The new theory proposes that the neutrino exists only in movement, which involves a helicity, which can never be interpreted by the Standard Model. As an aside, I can say that one of the arguments presented against this new option is that it showed no distinction between neutrinos and antineutrinos. But the theory clearly envisages that they are distinguished by the helicity, according to the great E. Segré.
One conclusion of the new theory is that the size of elementary particles decreases proportionally with their energy. Neutrinos are moving mass and its size depends on its energy. Those with high energies are very small and therefore very difficult to detect. While low energy neutrinos are very large and they easily find obstacles in their way what makes them disappear. This is the explanation of why many neutrinos are lost in the path of the sun to the earth.
The Standard Model assumes that neutrinos have no mass, but to explain its partial disappearance on its way from the sun to the earth, theoretical physicists must admit that they exchange "flavours", what implies that they have mass, contrary the assumptions of the Standard Model. This has led to Sidney Drell, one of those theoretical physicists, say, when he finds that his theory has failed: "The success of the Standard Model was too dear to give up."
Pretending that matter is not something tangible, something definable and imaginable by reason is hard to make believe to humanity. Especially if the explanation is unintelligible, encrypted exclusively in abstruse and arbitrary equations and those trying to give the explanations are precisely the only beneficiaries of the acceptance of their ideas. Nobody can deny that there is a huge strength of vested interests, but it can not be denied either that there are many people who do not agree with the system physicists are following and their procedure.
Comments on the origin of matter in the Internet:
"Were one familiar with the Standard Model, one would realize that the search for the Higgs Boson as the "bestower of mass," is inanity. What "Mass" is is in plain sight. That is, we accept that Existence must consist of some basic unit and/or substance."
"Virtual particles are theoretical entities; they are tentative interpretations of mathematical tools inside the theoretical apparatus with its shortcomings. They are useful in order to calculate for example the Hawking radiation around a black hole, but that does not make them real. Even if it turned out that we will never find better ways of calculating these interactions, this still does not make these interpretations real particles."
"The word virtual means: being something in effect, though not actually being such. In other words, it has aspects of the real thing, but is not the real thing. So virtual may mean "almost, like, or similar", but NOT "is." The virtual is not the full reality. It is lacking in existence and other important qualities of the actual reality."
"The particle physicists have a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that the secrets of the universe lie within the atom. This is where their training is. This is where their livelihood is. To think of considering a relatively simple explanation that would, in effect, say that much of the theoretical work of the last half-century or more was based on misconceptions, is totally unacceptable. Although the LHC is the most expensive scientific instrument ever made, designed to detect things we cannot see, to test a theory most people cannot understand and which seems against common-sense - no-one claims the LHC is a money-making fraud by these scientists in Europe. Critics have pointed out that theory without close coupling to observation and experimentation no longer follows the scientific method. While modern High Energy theory is fascinating mathematics, there is no way of telling if it is physically true without experimental results. The fact that the LHC may present signs of existence of a particle within a wide range of energies, after colliding protons at nearly the speed of light, at a rate of 600,000,000 of collisions per second, over long periods of time, can not be considered definitive experimental proof. Now we spend billions to make guesses at particles that exist for only a zillionth of a second. And this just to massage the egos of those who imagined them in theory? But now we tax-payers pay thousands of like-minded “scientists” to search for things that do nothing but satisfy their pet theories. And there is really no risk - these scientists get their paychecks whether or not they succeed. The High Energy branch of physics has dominated research since the 1950s. The High Energy guys have more theorists and money for their experiments than other branches of physics."
"The experimental guys labor in obscurity on enormous projects. Why not return to physics’ heroic roots, where individuals and small teams could make important contributions? Why not a little more respect and maybe a documentary or two for "Low Energy Physics". I have long had the sense that the great leaps of science done a century ago by men of greater humility and much more humble means represented the crest of the wave in terms of human ingenuity."
As one of the previous comments says: "What "mass" is is in plain sight. That is, we feel that existence must consist of some basic unit and/or substance. This is a general feeling when we leave the nightmare of virtual particles. To make "matter" understandable it is necessary to reach some kind of basic unit or substance as primordial element of all that constitutes the material world. This is what physicists have always sought. The problem is that it requires a definition of the material particles, which involves a definition of the origin of matter. And that definition of material particles, immediately after being announced, has to face the enormous amount of data we know about particles through experimentation, as well as their behavior. These data and this behavior are so complex that one could certainly ensure that no definition of material particles can meet the demands of adapting to this huge amount of known data and behavior provided by experimentation, unless the definition is correct. In other words: only a correct definition will present concordance between experimental reality and the theory in question. If the theory is wrong, the differences will be palpable.
This is so clear and transparent for physicists that, unable to file an understandable definition of matter also consistent with the vast amount of experimental data, have decided to flee into the world of mathematics and avoid any meaning of physical nature. In this new world in which they move is not necessary to give any explanation of behavior or data, because this is virtual world where dimensions, movements and other characteristics different from those they themselves have created, do not exist.
But what if appear a simple, easy and elegant definition of material particles, with option to be understood by everyone and such that the data and behavior of matter that follow from that definition had total agreement with the data and behavior of material particles as we know by experiment? This definition simple and affordable to ordinary intelligences exists and the agreement with experimental reality is overwhelming, far beyond the imaginable. So much so that you can get to ensure that, once checked all matches between theory and experimental reality, either there was a chance event that would be likely to occur as negligible or the definition of matter is correct. Of course, this definition of matter and material particles is totally alien to everything related to the Standard Model and God particle or Higgs boson, and the difference lies mainly in the fact that the new concept of matter is easy understood by a child, without having to resort to abstruse equations linked to higher math. This does not mean that the new theory dispenses with mathematics, since it includes a good deal of differential calculus, integral calculus, analytic geometry and amount of numbers everywhere. The child will understand what matter is, but must rely on the correctness of the mathematical calculations. There are others who have to make the necessary checks. And once approved these and with the child's trust in those who have made the checks, you can ensure that this child will have a very clear idea of what matter is, as well as material particles, its simple operation and the universe in general . It seems pretentious, but is demonstrable.
The new theory says that mass is something tangible. In 1934 the Japanese Physicist Yukawa thought of particles as small blobs of subnuclear matter, that he called urmaterie and others called goo. I have taken the term "goo". So this new theory starts with a physical concept, easy to understand, for material particles. The whole theory is free loadable from this web site and has 333 pages. Turning to material particles, I can say that these bubbles of "goo" constitute all matter in the Universe. All single particles, both stable and unstable, including among the former the electron, the proton, the neutron and the neutrino and their antiparticles, are the same thing, except for its mass, which depends on its frequency of rotation, and their electrical charge. They are just rotating goo. Matter is just movement. Two simple equations determine that: 1- turning frequency is proportional to mass, greater turning frequency means more mass and more energy; 2- size is inversely proportional to mass, smaller size means more mass and more energy. All elementary particles have a spin, which is an angular momentum or mechanical moment with value equal to "mrv", where m is a mass, r is a turning radius and v is a linear speed. This implies that the spin is something that can be measured in the known particles and the value must always be equal to h/4"pi" irrespective of the value of mass, energy, frequency and size of the particle. If the value of the spin is not always that the theory is wrong, but this requirement is incredibly met by my theory. This could explain the existence of a particle large enough to contain all the energy of the universe and so small as to be the origin of the big bang. Just as the existence of very small and massive particles capable of forming dark matter, which no doubt is in the centre of galaxies and black holes. Points in space undetectable except for its enormous gravitational activity. We can imagine particles as massive as an entire galaxy and practically zero size. Cosmologists say that the rapid rotation of galaxies suggests that much of the mass of the universe, perhaps more than 90%, is different from our familiar forms of matter. And we can also imagine the annihilation of matter and antimatter, when mass vanishes and size increases infinitely so that the mass of the two particles becomes diluted in the Universe, with the result of two electromagnetic radiations. These are all events that occur and can be explained rationally if there is a theory whose conclusions match those facts. Facts that will never be verified by the method of breaking matter in giant accelerators. It is not necessary any classification of the vast amount of unstable particles which are exactly like the stable, with the exception of its instability. No sense banging stable particles at very high energies in order to discover more and more unstable particles and have to sort them afterwards, for which it is required a series of virtual entities, without any natural feature, except the possibility of acquiring different theoretical characteristics called spin, color, flavor and charm. In my theory, two simple equations determine completely what matter is and how it works, providing a huge amount of data and behavior that match in an incomprehensible way with the data and behavior that we know through experimentation.
The first conclusion from the two simple equations that give rise to this theory is that the energy of all the elementary material particles (non-composite) is E = h f, where f is the turning frequency of the particle. That is, the energy value of the material particles is equal to that of the electromagnetic radiation, with the exception that, in the case of radiation, "f" is the radiation frequency, and in the case of the matter, "f" is a rotational frequency. This is a remarkable analogy between the only two forms of energy that exist in the universe, as well as a sign of elegance and simplicity of the theory. Furthermore it should be noted that the product of Planck's constant and the speed of light "hc" appears as isolated limb in the fundamental equation of the theory. This means that there is a close relationship between the two universal constants: the speed of light "c", which we could call the einstenian constant with Planck's constant "h", which we could call the quantum constant. These two constants have totally dissimilar values: c = 3 x 10^10 ; h = 6,6 x 10^-27. It does not seem natural that the product of these constants (h c) may appear as the isolated member of an equation. What is the meaning of the product of two so dissimilar constants which, on the other hand, have never been seen together? The result is an intermediate figure in the order of 10^-16. It seems strange. But we must bear in mind that the values mentioned of c and h correspond to the CGS system of units. If we adopt another system of units more in accord with the subatomic world, the two constants can become of the same order of magnitude or even, if we identify ourselves with a hypothetical observer located on an elementary particle and leave him to choose his natural system of units, h and c will take up the new values: c = 1 ; h = 1. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics is not so far removed from Einstein's ideas about mass and energy.
Clearly, the huge number of people, physicists or otherwise, that are involved in the great project of large accelerators, including those belonging to the so-called Scientific Community and many Nobel Prize winners who received their awards in the shelter of the insane and irrational physics conceived in the middle of last century, will reject with maximum vehemence these new ideas and will deny this simple theory the right to be tested. They will earnestly seek initial failures and shortcomings trying to remove all possibility of being proven. The theory has been thoroughly tested and neither data nor fact nor result against it capable of delegitimizing it from the outset has been submitted.
In the book "A New Physics for a New Millennium" presented in the website http://www.jdejuan.activanet.es (click here) different sigma values for different matches between the theory and experimental reality have been assigned reaching a final result, after multiplication of them all, equal to 1/10^21. The approach taken has been fairly conservative. For example, the probability that a theory defined by two simple laws may lead to the conclusion that mass increases with speed according to the famous and sophisticated Einstein equation has been classified as 1/10^3 and the likelihood that a three-equations system, needed to define the spin, with 4 variables, one of which is the spin, may come to the solution that one of the variables, precisely the spin, is fixed, is classified as 1/10 (incredible). And finally the probability that the fixed value for the spin is h/4"pi" is considered as 1/10^2. With respect to the binding energy of the deuteron equal to 2.21 MeV, after laborious calculations and involving disparate factors, the probability of success has been estimated at 10^4. There are many more matches between conclusions of the theory and experimental reality but I shall mention three more: 1- matter can't go faster than light; 2- size of nucleons (proton and neutron) in the range of 10^-13 cm.; 3- measure of time on nuclear scale in the range of 10^-23 sec. If someone with an impartial criterion analyzes these probability values will come to the conclusion that the estimate as a whole has become an extremely conservative approach. With this conservative approach, the estimate of success is one chance in ten to the power of 21 and 10^21 being approximately the number of square millimetres in the earth's surface, the probability of success that should be applied to a stupid and absurd idea on matter and material particles so that it is not rejected from the beginning would be the same as for a hypothetical inhabitant of the moon, who after casting a grain of rice, would chose a determined square millimetre on the surface of the earth for landing, including oceans, seas and lakes, as well as the entire land. I.e. certainty.
Anyone who comes to analyze objectively the fact that the result of the calculations of the binding energy of the deuteron, based on the premises of this theory, coincides exactly with the experimental data, given the enormous complexity of these calculations and the tremendous diversity of value of the factors involved can only reach the conclusion that this theory is correct and that any other theory that is in opposition is hopelessly wrong. And concerning the quality of the nuclear forces. Can anyone define them and conclude that they are strong enough to overcome by far the repulsive electric forces between protons at short distances and that they disappear at the distance of a fermi? Impossible, unless the definition is correct.
Either the Universe is composed of virtual particles without any physical sense, connected to one another through complicated equations that are being completed as the investigation is reaching higher energies, or it is composed of particles that are something natural, with dimensions, internal and external movements, intelligible characteristics and behavior subject to a couple of simple, elegant physical laws that come to complete Einstein's equations that constitute one of the most important advances in physics: E = m c^2 for matter and E = hf for radiation.
What is proposed here is a revolution against the Scientific Community in the name of rationality, supported by the inexorable force of numbers. It is a challenge that presents a rational choice as to the origin of matter, their inner identity, the composition of the universe in which we live and our own being and seeks to be judged independently of the established power. The opposite option is the one we know, irrationality, inability to be understood even by its own addicts, perspectives of future unchecked complications and budget to continue its activities with no end in sight. The problem is that in the present circumstances those judging this second option are the same who benefit from its failure. They are many and very powerful and enjoy a practically unlimited prestige, given the large number of Nobel prizes they have in their ranks. But it is the citizens of the world who have to make the final decision, which must be clear and transparent. When the citizen understands that there is a rational option, without cost, without decisive arguments against and with a sigma rating about their chances of success equivalent to certainty, it will not be difficult to predict his decision.Twittear