Uncategorized

It once seemed that light had energy but no mass, and matter had mass but no energy, until Einstein found that light had relativistic mass, and matter had a rest energy that a nuclear bomb could release. It then became apparent that mass and energy were somehow related.

Mass was originally defined as weight, that was later refined to be gravitational mass. Newton’s law that mass needed a force to accelerate it also 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. This meant that a photon with no rest mass gains relativistic mass as it moves, so it has momentum (Note 1).

Light in contrast was originally seen as pure energy, which Planck’s equation related to its frequency. 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 as he put it: 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 an inert substance, why is its energy based on the speed of light?

If an electron is extreme photons repeatedly running in many channels, the energy of matter is the sum of their energy. Each channel contains a photon at the highest frequency whose energy is given by Planck’s equation. If these photons add to give the electron’s mass, which spreads in two dimensions not one, this predicts Einstein’s equation (Note 2). A processing model predicts E=mc², which Einstein proved based on how our physical world behaves. It follows that the energy of matter depends on the speed of light because matter is made of extreme 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.

The standard model describes basic matter entities that have mass, charge, and energy, then accepts that mass equates to energy, based on Einstein’s equation, for no obvious reason except that it is so.

In contrast, a processing model equates mass and energy because matter is made of light. If matter is light repeating endlessly in a standing wave, then the energy of light and the mass of matter are just processing in different forms, and charge is also the net processing left-over. This model relates basic properties of physics that the standard model doesn’t connect in any way. Figure 4.16 summarizes these conclusions for mass, energy, and charge as follows:

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

2. Photon. A photon can’t stop to be weighed but at each point, it has a net process result, so it has mass, it transfers processing, so it has energy, and no process remainder means it has no charge.

3. Electron. An electron has a net process net result, so it has mass, it transfers processing as it moves, so it has energy, and its processing remainder gives it a negative charge.

4. Neutrino. A neutrino has a tiny process result, so it has a tiny mass, it transfers processing as it moves, so it has energy, but its processing remainders cancel, so it has no charge.

5. Quark. A quark has a net process result, so it has mass, it transfers processing as it moves, so it has energy, and its processing remainder gives one-third charges according to phase (up or down).

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

In this model, space is a null process circle, light is space distributed, and matter is a standing wave of extreme light on one or more axes. Mass is the net process that repeats, charge is the net process left over, and energy is the rate of processing transfer. The basic properties of all the basic entities 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’s Higgs field is then what gives mass to the virtual particles it invented to explain the weak force. The whole model was at stake, so the search for a Higgs particle became the holy grail of physics. It attracted over 30 billion dollars in funding and 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 around us, nor does it add any value to general relativity, our best theory of matter to date, nor does it explain the dark energy and matter that is most of our universe. It only explains how the virtual particles of the standard model 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 isn’t about mass in general, just the mass invented by the standard model.

2. Is magical thinking. Before science, it was commonly believed that earth, air, fire, and water were fundamental elements, so air couldn’t create water. Science then showed that hydrogen and oxygen gases create water, so it did. That mass must come from what is massive is also a magical thought but if matter came from light, what made it isn’t massive at all. Magical 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! 

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 Higgs doesn’t explain ordinary mass, is based on magical thinking, and contradicts quantum theory, so it is no surprise that the so-called God particle 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. The irony is that this belief in matter leads to the strange conclusion that its mass is mostly from gluons that have no mass:

“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 the mass of an atom is in its nucleus of protons and neutrons, but most of their mass doesn’t come from the quarks that make them. Only 2% of their mass comes from their quark constituents, so virtual gluons are said to create the other 98%. The standard model universe of matter bricks is, it seems, mostly not made of them at all!

The Higgs is the virtual agent invented to explain the virtual agent invented to explain the observed effect of neutron decay. 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, 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 particle 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 virtual particles proposed had to be heavier than protons, and a field that absorbed and emitted mass was unheard of.

Yet by now virtual agents were the fashion and the accepted practice to prove they existed was by finding 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, and on this flimsy evidence it is now said that:

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

Yet no bosons were observed carrying anything, just accelerator events compatible with them. For example, in a murder case, suppose a witness said “I saw this knife killing the victim” and produced it as evidence, but cross-examination revealed that he just manufactured the knife to fit the wound. No jury in the land would accept that evidence, so why accept the same logic 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 an ant giving 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 murder alibis better than one? That a quark could emit a W- into a field, or absorb a W+ from one, is the sort of after-the-fact logic that science should protect us from.

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 photon head-head-tail collision, and an up quark is a photon head-tail-tail collision, a down quark will become an up quark if a set of photon heads become tails.

Figure 4.15 shows that a neutrino can turn photon head into a tail and emit an electron, so a neutrino hitting a neutron just right will turn it into a proton, 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. Also, the isospin charge is then just the phase of the incoming neutrino, and the effect violates parity-symmetry because neutrinos do.

The weak effect of neutron decay is then attributed to 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. Note that the result 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 connect the quarks. Being now connected, photons in Quark2 now start occupying the free channels of Quark1 until its free axis is full. Again, this sharing doesn’t alter the charge of either quark, but the result is that both axes are now 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 up/down quark mix. Now what binds the quarks isn’t magical gluons from space but photon sharing that pulls rather than pushes them together.

What then are the standard model’s red, blue, and green colors? Each quark has to orientate differently to connect in a triangle, so these charges are just orientations. In a world of inert particles, every change needs an agent cause, but in a world of quantum events, change occurs naturally every cycle. A photon tries to occupy any channel it can, and if it fails because another got there first, it just tries again. No predefined plan or guiding forces are needed because the free-for-all tries every option, including different quark orientations.

To illustrate this, 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 goes in 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 the cycle.

In general, the quantum world tries every option until a stable new entity forms, so protons, neutrons, electrons, and neutrinos all formed based on one principle, the law of all action. Conversely, unstable results that exist momentarily then decay, are like species that don’t survive, irrelevant to the ongoing evolution. Seeing matter as inert particles that only change when forced to is like the old tabula rasa theory, that children are blank slates upon which we write. Psychologists no longer believe this (Pinker, 2002), so why do physicists think the whole universe is a blank slate? The quantum flux pushes itself around, with no need for invisible particles from imaginary fields.

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

Next

The forces that bind protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus are so strong that when they break, the result is a nuclear explosion. This strong bond is needed to overcome the huge electric repulsion between same charge protons, so the force that holds the nucleus together was called the strong force. It has the odd property that it is zero at short range but increases with distance, an effect analogous to 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 explain how the atomic nucleus held together.

Its answer was quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), a field theory derived from quantum electro-dynamics (QED), which explains electro-magnetism as perturbations caused when an electro-magnetic field absorbs or emits photons, as shown in Feynman diagrams. Aiming to repeat the success of QED, QCD proposed a new strong field that emitted gluon particles with a color charge.

In essence, strong field gluons acted to cause effects just as electro-magnetic field photons did, but with three charges (red, blue, and green) that cancel to white, instead of two positive and negative charges that cancel to neutral. Three colors needed anti-colors to work, so to turn a red quark to blue needs an anti-red gluon as well as a blue gluon. It was tricky but the calculations were made to work, and in 1978 the PLUTO project managed to interpret a three-jet Upsilon event in gluon terms. Gluons then joined the standard model particle pantheon, but no-one wondered why a universal field through all space existed for an effect that applied only to quarks.

A processing model approaches the same facts differently, based on reverse engineering rather than a field that fits the facts. 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 when quarks are side-by-side, they could connect like this.

.

.

The result is a bond that is initially zero but increases with distance, since as the linked quarks separate, the shared photon wavelength increases to release the energy needed to pull them back together. The further apart the quarks are, the stronger the effect, so side-by-side quarks experience no force unless they try to 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 two-way collision, a three-way collision has photon 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 is proposed to 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 is proposed to 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 that 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 as before but for three axes in a plane, each fills at two-thirds not one. In this analysis, if the total 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 one axis isn’t full.

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 one axis isn’t full.

This result gives the correct third charges for quarks, which no other model does. The standard model allocates one-third charges to quarks after the fact but this model derives them. It predicts that quarks occupy a point like leptons but only fill two of the three collision axes of a plane.

The three-axis structure of quarks is then:

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.

Figure 4.11 shows the proposed quark structure. Note that the axes are at 60° even though the photons meet at 120° because quarks are head-tail mixes, so some rays are leaving as others arrive.

The proposed structure isn’t fully stable but we know that quarks can’t exist alone. Filling two of three axes makes them semi-stable, and quarks in a group can be stable, as they are, as it can provide a stable exterior. Yet quarks are fully stable in a nucleus, so they must fill all the channels of a plane or 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, so the formula works. In general, the cosine of the angle gives the intensity, so light projects its intensity onto a plane according to angle.

A processing model explains this law in channel terms. A ray of light can use all the channels of a point on its axis, so it has full intensity on that axis but on other channels, its strength projects according to angle following 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. In-between, rays share channels based on the cosine of the angle between them, so the cosine law explains how they fill the channels of a point.

In the last section, electrons arose when two extreme light rays overloaded the channels of a line through a point, so can a collision of three extreme rays produce the same effect for a plane? Can the logic applied to a line for electrons be extended to a plane for quarks?

For electrons, the channel capacity of a line was taken to be one, so if light at right angles uses different channels, 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 extreme light rays are needed to fill a plane though it.

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

However, a result that fills some axes completely would be semi-stable, as quarks are, so could a three-way interaction fill two axes, even if the third is unfilled?

Next

In the standard model, quarks are fundamental particles unrelated to electrons or neutrinos. They 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 quarks and a down quark make the positively charged proton nucleus of Hydrogen, the first atom. Each new periodic table atom has one more proton plus some neutrons, made from an up quark and two down quarks, so quarks form the nuclei of all known atoms.

If electrons come from extreme photon collisions, quarks should arise same way, but all the phases possible for an axis have been covered, so it can’t be a one-axis result. The next option is a three-way interaction, where three rays of extreme light meet at a point on the same plane, as shown in Figure 4.9. Again, such an event is unlikely but it must have occurred in the early plasma by the quantum law of all action.

This collision has an interesting symmetry, as photons on any axis half exist on the other two by the cosine rule, so any quark axis is one ray vs. two others at half strength, which is a lepton type collision. But does this leave enough light to do the same on the other two?

If not, this interaction isn’t stable alone but unlike electrons, quarks aren’t stable enough to exist alone. Had it not been so this model would fail, as few other reverse engineering options exist, but how then can processing fill the channels of a plane through a point, as electrons did for a line?

Next

The matter we see is made of atoms whose mass comes almost entirely from nuclei made of quarks, so quarks not electrons represent the solidity associated with matter. Their charges also come in unexpected thirds for no known reason, that then conveniently add or cancel when they combine into positive protons or neutral neutrons. One proton plus one electron then combined to form the first atom, of Hydrogen, and other atoms arose when neutrons joined protons in their nuclei, again for a currently unknown reason. Quarks and electrons are then the basis of all matter, so does the previous theory of how mass and charge arise in electrons also explain quarks? 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 and Energy

QR4.4.9 Review

Next