Uncategorized

Light once seemed to have energy but no mass while matter seemed to be the reverse. It was then found that light has relativistic mass, and matter contains the energy needed for a nuclear bomb, so mass and energy were somehow related.

Mass was originally defined as weight, which later became gravitational mass, but Newton’s law that mass needed a force to move it led to the definition of inertial mass. They are different because a weightless object in space still needs a force to move it, so it has inertial mass but not gravitational mass. Momentum is mass times velocity, so a photon with no mass should have no momentum but solar sails move when the sun shines on them, and photons are bent by the sun’s gravity. It followed that a photon has relativistic mass as it moves, so it has momentum (Note 1).

Light was originally seen as pure energy that related to its frequency by Planck’s equation. Einstein then did for matter what Planck had done for light, namely define its energy. In 1905, he deduced that the energy of matter is its mass times the speed of light squared, or E=mc². This let us build atom bombs but it has never been clear why the energy of matter relates to light at all. If matter is its own inert substance, why does its energy depend on the speed of light?

That matter is made of light however explains this. If light pulses repeatedly in an electron, its energy comes from light. This light is at the highest possible frequency, but Planck’s equation still gives its energy, so Einstein’s equation can be derived from light energy spreading in two dimensions (Note 2). Einstein proved that E=mc² based on how our physical world behaves but a processing model can deduce that the energy of matter depends on the speed of light because matter is made of light.

Next

Note 1. Relativistic mass is defined by special relativity. Rest mass is mass with no relativistic effects.

Note 2. Let the speed of light c=L_P/T_P, for Planck length L_P and Planck time T_P, and a photon’s energy E=h.f, by Planck’s equation. In this model, each electron channel essentially contains an extreme photon at a point with a frequency of 1/T_P, so its energy E=h/T_P. Now if Planck’s constant (h) is the transfer of one Planck process P over a Planck length in Planck time, h=P.L_P/T_P. Substituting gives E=P.L_P/T_P.T_P = E=P.c/T_P for the energy of one photon. Planck’s relation then also applies to an electron made of photons, except instead of h, the total processing is the electron’s mass m_e, which transfers over a unit sphere surface in time T_P, so the electron’s energy E= m_e.L_P.L_P/T_P.T_P, which is E= m_e.c². If all mass arises in the same way, then E= m.c² in general.

In the standard model, the mass, charge, and energy of matter are independent properties that exist because they do, but in this model they all come from quantum processing. If matter is a standing wave of light, then mass is the net processing that repeats, charge is the net processing that doesn’t run, and energy is the rate of processing transfer on the network. In a particle model, empty space is nothing at all, but now it is null processing. Figure 4.16 summarizes the basic processing structures as follows:

1. Space. A point of empty space is a null process on a network. The net process is zero so it has no mass, the process remainder is zero so it has no charge, and if no processing is transferred, it has no energy.

2. Photon. An extreme photon is the null process of space distributed over two points. There is a momentary net process result at each point so it has a relativistic mass, the process remainder is zero so it has no charge, but processing is transferred so it has energy.

3. Electron. An electron is a standing wave of extreme photons colliding head-to-head on one axis. There is a net result so it has mass, the remainder is negative so it has a negative charge, and its movement transfers processing to give it energy.

4. Neutrino. A neutrino is a standing wave of extreme photons colliding head-to-tail on one axis. There is a tiny result due to asymmetry so it has a tiny mass, the remainders cancel so it has no charge, and its movement transfers some processing so it has some energy.

5. Quark. A quark is a standing wave of three extreme photons in a plane, where an up quark is a head-tail-tail collision, and a down quark is a head-head-tail collision. The net result in both cases gives mass, the remainders give one-third charges, and movement transfers processing to give energy.

6. Anti-matter. Anti-matter versions of electrons, neutrinos, and quarks arise by reversing their processing, to give the same mass but an opposite charge remainder.

Instead of mass, charge, and energy being unrelated properties of a matter substance, this model relates them to processing on a network that also creates empty space. All the basic properties of physics then arise from processing.

Next

According to the standard model, neutron decay is caused by massive particles that pop out of empty space, but where did their mass come from? It had to come from somewhere so the answer was, of course, another field! The standard model Higgs field is then what explains the virtual particles that explain the weak force. The whole model was at stake, so the Higgs particle became the holy grail of physics, attracting over 30 billion dollars in funding. Finally in 2012, after a fifty-year search, CERN found a resonance in the right range to support its possible existence. Physicists all over the world breathed a sigh of relief and some called it the God particle, perhaps because it answered their prayers. Finding a million, million, million, millionth of a second 125 GeV signal meant the standard model lived on, yet the Higgs theory:

1. Doesn’t explain ordinary mass. The Higgs particle doesn’t explain any of the mass we see nor does it add any value to general relativity, our best theory of matter to date, or explain the dark energy and matter that is most of our universe. It just explains how weak particles get mass, nothing more:

“… the Higgs field allows us to reconcile … how … weak interactions work, that’s a far cry from explaining the origin of mass or why the different masses have the values they do.” (Wilczek,2008), p202.

The Higgs particle explains the mass invented by the standard model not ordinary mass.

2. Is literal thinking. Literal thought sees only what is, not what causes it. An example is the ancient idea that the fundamental elements of earth, air, fire, and water cause everything, so a fire element causes heat, a water element wetness, and so on, but scientifically this led nowhere. It can’t explain how hydrogen and oxygen gases that are dry like air create water that is wet, as they do. That mass must come from mass is another literal thought that will lead nowhere if matter came from light that isn’t massive at all.  

3. Contradicts quantum theory. In a carefully crafted press release, CERN claimed that zero-spin would confirm the Higgs then found it so, but quantum theory doesn’t let spin-zero particles have mass (Comay, 2009). All quantum particles with mass have half spin, and only matter-antimatter mixes like mesons have no spin, so the resonance CERN found probably came from a top meson.

The so-called God particle doesn’t explain ordinary mass, is based on literal thinking, and contradicts quantum theory, so it is no surprise that it hasn’t led to any other discovery or benefit. That some now call it the origin of all mass is a tribute to marketing not science. Literal thinking is also circular, as if the Higgs particle creates mass, what gave it mass? If another Higgs, what made its mass, and so on? A Higgs particle that begets itself would indeed be a God particle!

It is ironic that a model based on particles now attributes most ordinary matter to gluons that have no mass at all:

“The Higgs mechanism is often said to account for the origins of mass in the visible universe. This statement, however, is incorrect. The mass of quarks accounts for only 2 percent of the mass of the proton and the neutron, respectively. The other 98 percent, we think, arises largely from the actions of gluons. But how gluons help to generate proton and neutron mass is not evident, because they themselves are massless.” (Ent, Ulrich, & Venugopalan, 2015).

Most of an atom’s mass is in its nucleus, but the quarks that make it don’t create its mass. Only 2% of a proton’s mass comes from its quark constituents, so gluons are said to create the other 98%. Our universe of matter bricks is then almost entirely made of the cement that binds them!

The Higgs is the virtual agent invented to explain the virtual agent invented to explain an observed effect. As will be seen, a model where one invisible cause explains another soon becomes a theoretical house of cards.

Next

A neutron is stable in a nucleus but after about fifteen minutes in empty space, one of its down quarks flips, to become an up quark, turning it into a proton. The standard model needed an agent to cause this effect and as gluons couldn’t do it, so it proposed a new weak force that:

1. Affects all matter. Electromagnetism affects charge, and gluons affect quarks, but the weak force affects all matter.

2. Violates parity-symmetry. Weak interactions are left-right different.

3. Has no bound state. Electromagnetism binds atoms in molecules, the strong force binds nucleons in the nuclei, and gravity binds stars in galaxies, but the weak force binds nothing.

4. Is asymmetric. Neutrons decay into protons but protons are stable in space.

Neither electro-magnetic nor strong forces act like this, so by now standard practice, the standard model invented a new field with new agents and charges. The new charge, called isospin, was retro-fitted to allow charm quarks to interact with down quarks but not up quarks, etc., as observed. But this time, the agents proposed had to be heavier than protons, and a field that absorbed and emitted mass was unheard of.

By now virtual agents were in fashion and the accepted practice to prove they existed was to find matching accelerator resonances, however brief. Finally, when in 1983 CERN found a million, million, million, millionth of a second event in the expected range, weak bosons joined gluons in the standard model pantheon. Based on this flimsy evidence, it is now claimed that:

“Experiments have observed three bosons that carry the weak force” (Marburger, 2011), p221.

In fact, no bosons were observed carrying anything, just accelerator events compatible with them. For example, suppose a witness in a murder case said “I saw this knife killing the victim” and produced it as evidence, but cross-examination revealed that he manufactured the knife to fit the wound. No jury in the land would accept that evidence, so why accept the same argument in physics? CERN observed the energy spikes it made, not particles carrying any forces. No evidence at all links the CERN signal to neutron decay, but it is now said to occur when a tiny 4.8 MEv down quark emits a massive 80,400 MEv W particle, which is like saying an ant can give birth to an elephant!

It doesn’t help that the equations let a neutron decay in any of three ways (Figure 4.14), as it could:

1. Emit a W– particle that decays into an electron and anti-neutrino (Figure 4.14a),

2. Emit a W– particle that is hit by a neutrino to give an electron (Figure 4.14b),

3. Interact with a neutrino and a W+ particle to give an electron (Figure 4.14c).

Three different causes might seem good but are three different explanations for the same thing better than one? That a quark could emit a W-, or absorb a W+, is the sort of after-the-fact logic that science should avoid.

Even worse, the above equations are reversible so protons should decay in space as neutrons do. This led to a fruitless thirty-year search for proton decay, ending in the massive Kamioka experiment that estimated the free proton half-life to be over a billion, billion, billion years. The standard model expected protons to decay in space, but they don’t.

What then does a processing model predict? If a neutron is one up and two down quarks, and a proton is two up and one down quark, a neutron will become a proton if one of its down quarks becomes an up quark. And if a down quark is a head-head-tail photon collision, and an up quark is a head-tail-tail collision, a down quark will become an up quark if one set of photon heads become tails.

Figure 4.15 shows how a neutrino can convert photon heads into tails, so a just right neutrino hit can turn a neutron into a proton and emit an electron, as the beta decay equation describes (Note 1). However the reverse requires an electron hit to turn tails into heads, but getting an electron next to a quark takes a lot of energy, so proton decay only occurs in stars. In this view, isospin charge is just the phase of the incoming neutrino.

The weak effect of neutron decay can then be explained by neutrinos that are all around us. It doesn’t alter the remainder so it isn’t electromagnetic, no photons are shared so it isn’t strong, and it affects any head-tail photon mix which is all matter. It is also testable as it predicts that neutrons won’t decay in a neutrino-free space. 

The W particles of the weak field, like the gluons of the strong field, are again unnecessary agents.

Next

Note 1. In beta decay, a neutrino hitting a neutron can turn it into a proton by the equation N + ν → P⁺ + e⁻. Equally an electron can turn a proton into a neutron by inverse beta decay P⁺ + e⁻ → N + ν. Why insert fictional boson particles into these equations?

The atomic nucleus, once thought indivisible, is now known to consist of protons and neutrons that in turn are made of quarks. A proton is two up quarks and a down quark, and a neutron is two down quarks and an up, so the odd quark charges add nicely to make one positive and the other neutral (Table 4.4). But how do unstable quarks combine to give stable protons and neutrons?

Table 4.5 shows how one quark can share photons with another to stablize it. In 4.5A, some free photons of Quark1 fill channels in the neutral axis of Quark2 to connect them, which produces no remainder in either quark. In 4.5B, this frees some photons in the second quark’s neutral axis to return the favor, to further link the quarks. Being now connected, photons in Quark2 can occupy the free channels of Quark1 until its free axis is full. Again, this sharing doesn’t alter the charge of either quark, but it makes both axes complete and so stable (Table 4.5C). Photon sharing then stabilizes Quark1 by filling the channels of its free axis.

This completes the first quark, then the second quark can fill its free axis by linking to a third quark, that can fill its free axis by linking to the neutral axis of the first. In Figure 4.13, quarks in a triangle structure share photons to all become stable, giving a proton or neutron depending on the quark mix. Now what holds quarks together isn’t the push of gluons from space but the pull of photon sharing.

What then are the red, blue, and green charges of the standard model? Each quark must orientate differently to connect in a triangle, so they are just its three orientations. In a world of particles, an agent has to cause every change, but in the quantum world, new events occur naturally every cycle. A photon that can’t occupy a channel because another got there first, just tries again. No agents are needed to push a system that naturally tries every option.

For example, imagine pouring wine on a stack of empty glasses. When the water fills one glass, it just flows on to the next, until every glass is full. Nothing directs this activity or decides which water fills which glass, yet they always fill. Now suppose that when every glass is full, the weight restarts the system, so all the glasses empty and a new pouring cycle begins. Likewise, photons try to fill every channel they can until a network overload restarts them.

The quantum world tries every option until a stable entity forms, so protons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos are all based on the law of all action. Conversely, unstable results that exist for a moment then decay are like species that don’t survive, irrelevant to the future. That matter is inert and so only changes when acted upon is like the tabula rasa theory, that children are blank slates upon which we write. Psychologists no longer accept this (Pinker, 2002), so why do physicists still think the universe is a blank slate? The quantum flux can push itself around without virtual particles from invisible fields.

To recap, quarks share photons in a triangle structure to form protons and neutrons that are stable, and this occurs naturally, not based on virtual gluons spawned by a strong field. How then does this model explain the weak force?

Next

The forces that bind protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus are so strong that when they break, there is is a nuclear explosion. This power is needed to overcome the huge electric repulsion between protons, so the force holding the nucleus together was called the strong force. It has the odd property that it is zero at short range but increases with distance, like stretching a rubber band. It exchanges no energy so it isn’t electromagnetic, and increases with distance so it isn’t gravity. The standard model needed a new force to hold the nucleus together.

Its answer was quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), a field theory based on quantum electro-dynamics (QED). QED explains electro-magnetism as perturbations in an electro-magnetic field that absorbs and emits photons, as in Feynman diagrams. Aiming to repeat this success, QCD proposed a new strong field that emitted gluon particles with color charges.

Simply put, strong field gluons act to cause effects like electro-magnetic field photons do, but with three charges (red, blue, and green) that cancel to white, instead of two charges that cancel to neutral. Three colors needed anti-colors to work, so to turn a red quark blue needs an anti-red gluon as well as a blue gluon. It was tricky but the calculations were made to work, so when in 1978 the PLUTO project managed to interpret a three-jet Upsilon event in gluon terms, gluons joined the standard model particle pantheon. No-one wondered why a field existed through all space just for quarks.

A processing model based on reverse engineering approaches the same facts differently. The quark structure in Figure 4.11 has free photons in one axis that could insert themselves into another quark nearby in a plasma. In Figure 4.12, an extreme photon head is in one quark and its tail in another, so side-by-side quarks could connect like this.

The resulting bond is initially zero but increases as the quarks separate, since the shared photon wavelength increases to release the energy that pulls them back together.

.

 The further apart the quarks, the stronger the effect, so side-by-side quarks experience no force unless they move apart. Shared photons could then be the elastic bands that bind quarks in the nucleus not gluons from a strong field, but how then do protons and neutrons form?

Next

As for an electron collision, a three-way collision has head-tail phase options. Again, a tail-tail-tail meet isn’t possible as it implies a prior head-head-head event, so the options are:

1. Head-head-head. Three sets of photon heads meeting at equal angles in a point will allocate processing equally, so each axis is only partly filled. There are free channels that let other entities in so the result isn’t stable at all.

2. Head-tail-tail. In this case, two photon rays leave the point as another arrives, as shown in Figure 4.10a, and this could be an up quark.

3. Head-head-tail. In this case, one ray is leaving the point as the other two arrive, as shown in Figure 4.10b, and this could be a down quark.

Figure 4.10 shows the proposed up and down quark structures. Photons compete for channels on a first-come-first-served basis, so the order they meet is important. If a photon head entering a point meets a photon tail leaving it, the tail must have started before the head, or it would be a head, so tails are expected to fill channels first. Given this, Table 4.3 gives the results for three axes in a plane, where each fills at two-thirds not one. In this analysis, if the processing fills the axis bandwidth it is stable, the net processing is mass, and the net remainder is charge.

The details are:

1. Up quark. If two extreme photon rays leave the point as another arrives, the tails first fill one axis, giving a plus two-thirds charge remainder on what can be called its charge axis. The remaining tail photons with later arriving heads then fill a neutral axis, as the remainders cancel. The last photons then partly to fill a third free axis to a sixth of its two-thirds capacity. The result has a two-thirds charge, and is stable on two axes, but not the third.

2. Down quark. If one ray is leaving a node as the other two arrive, the tails and heads first fill a neutral axis, as the remainders cancel. Then the heads and the remaining tails fill a charge axis, with a minus third charge left over. This again leaves a third free axis partly filled to a sixth instead of two thirds. The result has a minus third charge, and is stable on two axes, but but not the third.

This structure derives the correct third charges for quarks, which other models don’t, as the standard model just allocates quark charges after the fact. Quarks then exist at a point like electrons, but occupy the channels of a plane not a line. In Figure 4.11, the three quark axes are:

1. Charge axis. Fills with charge of +⅔ for an up quark, and -⅓ for a down quark.

2. Neutral axis. Fills with no charge as heads and tails cancel with no remainder.

3. Free axis. Remaining one sixth of head photons partly fills this axis.

Note the photons meet at 120° but the quark axes are at 60° because as head-tail mixes, some rays are leaving as others arrive.

This structure isn’t fully stable so quarks can’t exist alone, but filling two of three axes makes them semi-stable. Quarks can then be stable in a group, as they are, if it presents a stable exterior. Yet quarks are fully stable in a nucleus, so they must fill all the channels of a plane or again the model fails. Physics calls the link between quarks the strong force.

Next

Lambert’s cosine law is that the intensity of light hitting a surface varies by the cosine of the angle it hits at, so light at right angles to a surface gives all its intensity, but light parallel to it gives none. In angle terms, light at right angles is 90º which has a cosine of one, and parallel light is 0º which has a cosine of zero and in general, light projects its intensity onto a plane according to the cosine of its angle.

In processing terms, a ray of light at a point can access all the channels on its axis, but also spins to project onto other channels on other axes according to angle by the cosine law. Rays of light on the same axis then compete for the same channels, while rays at right angles don’t compete for channels at all. In-between, rays compete for channels based on the cosine of the angle between them.

For electrons, two extreme light rays overloaded the channels of a line through a point, so can three extreme rays do the same for a plane? Can quarks then arise in the same way that electrons did?

Previously, the line axis bandwidth was taken to be one, so the bandwidth of a plane through a point is two. Hence, if two extreme light rays fill the channels of a line through a point, four rays are needed to fill a plane through it.

In Figure 4.9, three equal-angle extreme rays meeting at a point can’t fill the bandwidth of a plane. Each ray fills half of its line axis bandwidth but three times a half is 1.5 not two, so the result isn’t stable, as there are unfilled channels that another entity could exploit. Dividing the plane bandwidth of two between three axes gives each a two-thirds bandwidth.

Yet three rays could fill two axis to be semi-stable, as quarks are, so could a quark be when a three-way interaction fills two axes but leaves the third unfilled?

Next

Standard model quarks are fundamental particles not related to electrons or neutrinos, that come in two types, called up and down, with different charges. An up quark has a plus two-thirds charge and a down quark has a minus one-third charge, so two up and one down quark give a plus-one charge proton, the nucleus of Hydrogen the first atom. Higher atoms have more protons plus neutrons, made from one up quark and two down quarks, so the nuclei of all atoms come from quarks.

If matter arises from colliding light, quarks should be the same, but all two-way collisions are electrons or neutrinos. The next possibility is that three rays of extreme light meet at a point in a plane, see Figure 4.9. Again, this is an unlikely event, but it must have occurred in the early plasma by the quantum law of all action.

This three-way collision has an interesting symmetry. On any axis, one photon set is opposed by two others that project half their strength on that axis. Each ray then meets two others at half strength, in an electron type collision, but there isn’t enough light to fill three axes.

It follows that this interaction isn’t stable alone but quarks, unlike electrons, aren’t stable alone. Were it not so, this model would fail, but how then can semi-stable quarks become stable in the nucleus of an atom?

Next

Ordinary matter is made of atoms whose mass comes almost entirely from nuclei, so quarks not electrons represent the solidity of matter. Quark charges also come in unexpected thirds for no known reason, that conveniently add or cancel when they combine into positive protons or neutral neutrons. One proton and one electron then formed the first atom, of Hydrogen, and other atoms arose when neutrons joined protons in their nuclei, again for an unknown reason. Quarks are then the main constituent of matter, so does a processing model also explain them? If not, it fails as a model of matter.

QR4.4.1 A Three-way Interaction

QR4.4.2 Filling a Plane

QR4.4.3 Quark Phases

QR4.4.4 The Strong Force

QR4.4.5 Protons and Neutrons

QR4.4.6 The Weak Force

QR4.4.7 The God Particle

QR4.4.8 Mass is Energy

QR4.4.9 Summary

Next