Uncategorized

Once it 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 resting energy that could be released in nuclear bombs. It became apparent that mass and energy were somehow related.

Mass was originally defined as weight which was later refined to be gravitational mass. Newton’s discovery that a mass needed a force to accelerate 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 although it has no gravitational mass. If momentum is defined as mass times velocity, a massless photon should have no momentum but solar sails move when the sun shines on them and photons are bent by the gravity of the sun. This led to another revision as a photon with no rest mass was said to gain relativistic mass as it moves to give it momentum.

Light was once seen as pure energy where Planck’s relation defined a photon’s energy E as its frequency f multiplied by Planck’s constant h, so E = hf. The last chapter defined energy as the processing rate at the node, so it reduces as the wavelength increases because as more nodes share the process, the processing per node reduces. Equally as frequency increases, wavelength decreases, so fewer nodes running the same process each process faster, giving more energy.

Einstein’s equation E=mc2 does for matter what Planck did for light, define its energy. In 1905 he deduced that the energy of matter is its mass times the speed of light squared and atom bombs confirmed this but it has never been clear why mass relates to light at all. If mass is an inherent substance, why does its energy refer to the speed of light?

If an electron is extreme photons repeatedly colliding in many node channels, the inherent energy of matter relates to the energy of those photons. Each channel contains the equivalent of a photon with a one node wavelength, whose energy by Planck’s relation is Planck’s constant times the speed of light divided by one Planck length. If Planck’s constant is one quantum process transferred over a Planck length squared per Planck time, substituting for Planck’s constant in Planck’s relation gives Einstein’s equation for mass and energy (Note 1).

Quantum realism derives Einstein’s equation from the conclusion that matter is made of extreme light repeatedly colliding.

Next

Note 1. In this model, the speed of light c=LP/TP, for LP Planck length and TP Planck time. A photon’s energy EP=hP.c/l, for hP the energy of one quantum process transfer, c the speed of light and l the wavelength. In an electron l is one node, so EP=hP.c/LP. If mass m is the program that repeats, h transfers m over a Planck length square every cycle, i.e. hP=mp.LP.LP/TP. Substituting gives EP= mp.LP.c/TP, or EP=m.c2. This derivation doesn’t prove E=mc2. Einstein did that based on how our physical world behaves. It just finds this model consistent with Einstein’s equation.

In current physics, the fundamental entities of the standard model are described in terms of mass, charge and energy, where energy relates directly to mass.

Quantum realism describes the basic entities of physics in terms of quantum processing. Mass is the net processing that repeats endlessly when a node “hangs” the quantum network, charge is the net processing left-over that never runs, and energy is the processing transfer rate per cycle. Figure 4.16 summarizes this model based on mass, charge and energy:

1. Space. A point of empty space is a node that runs one quantum process in every channel. The net processing is zero so it has no mass, the transfer rate is averages zero so it has no net energy and a zero remainder gives no charge.

2. Photon. A photon can’t stop to be weighed but its net processing at each node gives it mass, its processing transfer rate gives it energy, and no processing left over gives it no charge.

3. Electron. An electron fills the channels of a node axis with positive processing to give mass and the processing remainder gives it a negative charge.

4. Neutrino. A neutrino’s axis channels are filled with processing that nearly cancels, to give a tiny mass, while the remainders cancel to zero charge.

5. Quark. A quark is a three-way photon collision that doesn’t quite fill the channels of a plane but its net processing repeats so it has mass and the remainder gives one-third charges according to phase (up or down).

6. Anti-matter. Anti-matter versions of electrons, neutrinos and quarks are derived by reversing the processing. The processing demand is the same giving the same mass but an opposite remainder gives an opposite charge.

In quantum realism, space is a null processing circle, light is space distributed and matter is extreme light colliding as a standing quantum wave, so mass is a processing demand that repeats, charge is a processing remainder that repeats and energy is the processing transfer rate. This covers the basic properties of all the basic entities of physics.

Next

The weak force required massive particles to pop out of empty space but the mass had to come from somewhere, so the answer was of course another field! The Higgs field was needed to provide mass for the standard model so the search for the Higgs particle became the holy grail of physics. It attracted over 30 billion dollars in funding and in 2012, after a fifty-year search, CERN found a resonance in the right range and physicists all over the world breathed a sigh of relief. Some called it the “God particle”, perhaps because it answered their prayers. Finding a million, million, million, millionth of a second 125GeV signal meant the standard model lived on! Yet the Higgs particle:

1. Doesn’t explain mass. The Higgs flash adds no value to general relativity, our best theory of mass to date, nor does it explain the dark energy and dark matter that is most of the universe. Its only role is to rescue the standard model:

“… 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 isn’t about mass in general, just a mass to sustain the standard model.

2. Is medieval circular logic. If the Higgs particle creates mass, what gives it mass? If another Higgs, what gives it mass and so on? A Higgs particle that begets itself is indeed a God particle! Some say the field itself creates the mass but what then does the Higgs boson do? Weren’t bosons invented to avoid invisible fields causing visible effects in the first place? That like creates like harks back to the medieval fallacy that only water can cause wetness that science debunked by creating water from hydrogen and oxygen gases that aren’t watery at all. The circular logic that mass has to create mass is medieval thinking.

3. Is impossible by quantum theory. In a carefully crafted press release, CERN claimed that zero-spin would confirm the Higgs then found it so, but quantum theory clearly states that a spin-zero point particle with mass is impossible (Comay,2009). All quantum particles with mass have spin-half and only matter-antimatter mixes like mesons have zero spin. As not-yet-found higher order mesons have zero-spin, are in the right mass range and have the same photon decay and detection frequency, the Higgs that CERN found could well be a top or anti-top meson.

In essence, the Higgs is medieval logic that explains at best 4% of the mass of the universe in a way that quantum theory says is impossible. That what at best explains at best a tiny fraction of the mass of the universe is now called the “origin of mass” is a tribute to the power of marketing not science. To sustain the naïve idea that inert particles are pushed around by other particles, physics had to invent virtual particles that don’t exist in any normal sense. The irony that physical realism is now justified by virtual agents leads to the strange conclusion that mass is more virtual than physical:

“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.” (Et,Ulrich,& Venugopalan, 2015)

Nearly all an atom’s mass comes from its nucleus of protons and neutrons but only 2% of their mass comes from their quark constituents so massless gluons that are virtual not real are said to create the other 98%. According to the standard model, most of the mass around us comes from massless virtual particles!

The Higgs is an imaginary agent invented to explain another imaginary agent that was invented to explain an observed effect, namely neutron decay. A model that uses one invisible thing to explain another becomes a theoretical house of cards, hence finding the “god particle” hasn’t led to a single other discovery or benefit.

Next

A neutron is stable in a nucleus but after about fifteen minutes in empty space it turns into a proton. One of its down quarks “flips” to become an up quark, turning the whole into a proton. Again, the standard model needed some agent to cause neutron decay and as gluons couldn’t do it, it postulated 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. Was asymmetric. Neutrons decay into protons but protons are stable in space.

Neither electromagnetic nor strong forces act like this, so the standard model followed the by now standard practice of inventing a new field with new bosons and charges. The new charge, called isospin (+½,–½), was retro-fitted to allow charm quarks to interact with down quarks but not up quarks, etc., as observed. But this time the boson agents needed had to be heavier than protons and a field that absorbed and emitted mass was unheard of.

By now, virtual agents were the fashion and if the equations worked, it was accepted practice to “prove” they existed by finding matching accelerator collision resonances, so when in 1983 CERN found a million, million, million, millionth of a second event in the expected range, weak bosons immediately joined gluons in the standard model pantheon. On this flimsiest of evidence physicists today claim that:

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

In fact, bosons haven’t been observed carrying anything, and what has been observed is a transient accelerator event. Suppose witness in a murder case said “I observed the knife that killed the victim” but cross-examination revealed that he observed a knife of the same size that he made! No court in the land would accept that evidence so why does physics call the same thing “proof”? CERN observed the energy spikes it created not bosons carrying any force. No evidence at all links the CERN signal to the weak effect so it isn’t proven at all. If finding a matching energy spike proves a virtual agent exists, does not finding one for gravitons mean they don’t exist? One can’t have it both ways. Yet physics now accepts that neutrons decay when a 4.8 MEv down quark “emits” a W boson of mass 80,400 MEv! That such a tiny particle emits such a massive particle is like saying that an ant gave birth to an elephant.

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

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

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

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

Three different causes might seem better than one but are three different alibis for a murder better than one? That a quark could emit a W- into a field or could absorb a W+ from one is the sort of after-the-fact reasoning that science is supposed to protect us from.

The reversible equations led to a fruitless thirty-year search for proton decay, ending in the massive Kamioka experiment that estimated the free proton half-life at over a billion, billion, billion years. The standard model expected protons to decay in space but they don’t.

The quark as a photon head-tail structure suggests a simpler alternative. If a down quark is head-head-tail photons and an up quark is head-tail-tail photons, a down quark becomes an up quark, to turn a neutron into a proton, when a set of photon heads become tails. As Figure 4.15 shows for one channel, if a neutrino hits a photon head directly, the processing can rearrange to turn photon heads into tails. It follows that a neutrino hitting a neutron just right can turn it into a proton as the beta decay equation implies (Note 1). To do the reverse, a proton needs an electron hit to turn its tails into heads, but to get an electron right next to a quark takes a lot of energy so proton decay only occurs in the heart of stars. This effect doesn’t alter the net 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.

Quantum realism concludes that the weak effect is due to the neutrinos that are all around. It predicts that neutrons won’t decay in a neutrino-free space and that proton decay needs a direct electron strike that takes energy that only occurs in stars. In quantum realism, weak bosons are made-up agents, like fairies at the bottom of the garden.

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 up 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 give a positive proton and a neutral neutron (Table 4.4). In quantum processing terms, could quarks combine to give stable protons and neutrons?

If the free photon “hooks” of one quark insert into the neutral axis of another quark, this gives a sixth of an axis of processing in both quarks (Table 4.5A), where one photon in two adjacent quarks uses all its processing with no remainder. The photons from the second quark’s neutral axis can return the favor until the first quark axis is full (Table 4.5B). Both axes are now complete and the positive and negative processing remaining in the neutral axis still cancels to neutral (Table 4.5C). Quark charge is unaffected because the charge axes aren’t involved so free-neutral photon sharing completes the free axis but the neutral axis is the same. Photon sharing binds quarks and creates the extra processing needed to stabilize the first quark by filling its free axis.

This link completes the first quark but the second quark can also complete its free axis by linking to a third quark that can complete by linking back to the first. Figure 4.13 shows how a triangle structure of quarks lets them share photons so they all become stable. If this is possible, then it will happen sometimes by the quantum law of all action. The result is a proton or neutron depending on the mix, as current physics asserts, but now what binds the quarks isn’t magical particles from nowhere but photon sharing. Quarks then bind to others by sharing photons rather than being “pushed” together.

What then are the gluon “color charges”? Each quark needs a different axis status to link in a triangle so the standard model’s red, blue and green “charges” are quark orientations. A quark as an inert particle needs an agent to change its axis orientation but dynamic processing does this naturally, as every cycle is a new event. Every cycle, photons compete for channels by each trying to occupy any channel it can. If a photon fails because another got there first, it just tries again. There is no predefined plan, just a free-for-all that gives different axis outcomes each time, so all that is needed to change a quark axis orientation is another quantum cycle

To illustrate how photons fill channels, imagine pouring water on a stack of wine glasses. When the water fills one wine glass, the remaining water just flows from it to the next, until every glass is full. There is no need for any central control to “manage” the allocation of water to glasses. Now suppose there is exactly enough water to fill all the glasses, and when this happens the weight makes the system restart, so all the glasses empty and another water pouring cycle begins. In the same way, a quark’s photons fill all the channels of a node plane to trigger a processing restart that repeats the cycle.

The quantum world tries every option until a stable result occurs when all the channels fill to give a node overload. To see matter as an inert substance that must be pushed to change is like thinking something in a video must “push” it to the next frame. Likewise, what “pushes” the world to change is quantum processing not invisible particles. If an electron becomes stable by completing the channels of one axis, three quarks can do the same for a plane by sharing photons in a triangle. Protons and neutrons arise when quarks fill the channels of a node plane, not when invisible agents force them together. The strong force occurs because quarks have a processing excess while electromagnetism occurs because electrons have a processing deficit.

Next

The forces that bind protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus are so strong that they break in a nuclear explosion. A bond that strong is necessary in order to overcome the huge electric repulsion between same charge protons. The standard model logic was that a strong force had to hold quark particles together in a nucleus. This force has the odd property that it is zero at short range but increases as quarks separate, an effect analogous to stretching a rubber band that was called asymptotic freedom. 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 was held together.

Its answer was quantum chromodynamics, a field theory derived by analogy from quantum electrodynamics (QED), the theory that explains light. QED explains electromagnetism as perturbations caused when an electromagnetic field absorbs or emits photons as shown in Feynman diagrams. These perturbations gave infinities that were removed by renormalization, a mathematical trick that arbitrarily subtracts infinities from the equations to get the finite answers desired.

Aiming to repeat the success of QED, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) proposed that a new strong field emitted new particles called gluons with a new color charge. In essence, the strong field’s gluons acted to cause effects just as the electromagnetic field’s photons did. The gluons then used red, blue and green charges to bind quarks in a proton just as photons bind electrons in atoms, but with three values not two, where the red, blue and green charges cancel to “white” just as positive and negative charges 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 worked, so when in 1978 the PLUTO project managed to interpret a three-jet Upsilon event in gluon terms, gluons joined the standard model pantheon. Meaning didn’t matter, so no-one asked why a universal field through all space existed for an effect that applied only to quarks.

A quantum processing model approaches the same facts differently, based on reverse engineering rather than devising a field to fit the facts. The quark structure in Figure 4.11 shows it has free photons in one axis, so could they link quarks that are close together, in a quark plasma? The free photons of one quark could insert themselves into another as shown in Figure 4.12, where an extreme photon has its head in one node and tail in another. It is now proposed that when quarks are side-by-side, the extra photons in a quark’s free axis insert themselves into another nearby quark like “hooks”.

Photon sharing results in a bond that is initially zero but increases with distance because as linked quarks separate the shared photon wavelength increases to release the energy needed to pull them back together. In the next chapter, matter moves by a probabilistic reboot so stretching a photon increases the processing in the gap making the quarks more likely to restart there. The more the quarks separate, the stronger the effect, so quarks side-by-side experience no force but are pulled together as they separate. In effect, shared photons are the “elastic bands” that hold quarks together. Quantum realism attributes the strong force to quarks sharing photons. Could this let quarks fill all the channels of a node plane to achieve stability?

Next

As for an electron, a three-way interaction of extreme photons has phase options that can be expressed in photon head-tail terms. Again, a tail-tail-tail meet isn’t possible as it implies a prior head-head-head event. The phase options are:

1. Head-head-head. Three sets of photon heads meeting at equal angles in a node 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.

2. Head-tail-tail. In this case, two photon rays leave a node 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 has passed through the node 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. As photons compete for channels on a first-come-first-served basis, a three-way meeting raises the issue of interaction order. If a photon head entering a node meets a photon tail leaving it, the tail must start before the head or it would be a head, giving the rule that tails fill channels first. Using this rule, Table 4.3 gives the expected axis bandwidth result as before, except now there are three axes not one and each fills at two-thirds not one. Again, the total processing defines stability, the mass is the net processing and the charge is the net remainder.

The details are:

1. Up quark. If two extreme photon rays leave a node as another arrives, the tails first fill axis 1, giving a plus two-thirds charge remainder on this charge axis. The remaining tail photons then combine with later arriving heads to fill a neutral axis, as the remainders cancel. The remaining head photons partly fill the third free axis to a sixth instead of its maximum value of two-thirds. The result has a two-thirds charge and is stable on two axes but has spare photons in the third axis.

2. Down quark. If one ray has passed through a node as the other two arrive, the tail photons first cancel opposing heads to 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 again stable on two axes with again spare photons in the third axis.

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

To sum up, the three-axis structure derived for quarks is:

1. Charge axis. Fills with quark charge of up quark +⅔ and down quark –⅓.

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

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

Figure 4.11 summarizes the proposed quark axis structure, where 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.

That the quark structure proposed isn’t itself stable fits the fact that quarks never exist alone but their symmetric structure allows a group of them maintain an exterior of stable axes. As quarks are stable in a nucleus, they must somehow connect to fill all the channels of a plane, or the model fails. Physics calls the connection between quarks the strong force.

Next

Lambert’s cosine law is that the intensity of a light ray hitting a surface varies by the cosine of the angle it hits at, so light hitting 90º to a plane gives all its intensity but at 0º gives none, and in-between the angle cosine gives the intensity. A light ray essentially projects its intensity onto the plane according to angle.

If ray intensity reflects the channels available across a plane, the channels light occupies vary as the cosine of its angle to the plane. The cosine law implies that two rays of light on the same axis share all the same channels because Cos(0) is one and at right angles share no channels because Cos(90) is zero, and two rays at an angle share channels by the cosine of that angle. In effect, the two rays project into each other’s channels according to angle.

Two perpendicular light rays on a plane through a node occupy every channel, as every other ray on that plane can be obtained as a projection of those rays by the cosine rule. When two light rays cross at a node point, they fill all the channels of a plane though that point. It follows that if the channel bandwidth of a line axis through a node is one, the bandwidth of a plane through a node is two. If an electron is two extreme light rays filling the channels of a line through a node, four extreme light rays are needed to fill a plane though it.

In Figure 4.9, three equal-angle extreme rays in a plane meet at a node point. How the photons in these three rays use the node channels may one day be simulated but for now it must be envisaged. If each ray fills half the bandwidth of one axis, three times that is 1.5 but the bandwidth of a plane is two. If the result is a quark, it can’t be stable because three extreme rays don’t fill the bandwidth of a plane.

Rays that aren’t at right angles will share channels at the node so each ray axis has fewer channels than a single axis. Dividing the plane bandwidth of two between three axes gives each axis a two-thirds bandwidth. Thus, filling each of the three axes in Figure 4.9 at two-thirds of an electron axis will fill the plane bandwidth, because three times two-thirds is the plane bandwidth of two. It follows that for light rays on three axes to fill all the channels of a node plane, each of the three axes must fill at two-thirds of an electron axis. Quarks must fill all the channels of a node plane to achieve stability.

Next

In the standard model, quarks are fundamental point particles, unrelated 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 that lets two up quarks and a down quark combine into a positively charged proton that is the nucleus of Hydrogen, the first element of the periodic table. Each new periodic table element has one more proton plus some neutrons which arise from one up quark and two down quarks. Quarks form the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of all known atoms.

If the electron’s mass is based on a one-axis interaction of extreme photons, quark mass must also arise in same way. The last section covered all the ways photons can interact on one axis, so a quark can’t be a one-axis result but it could be a three-way interaction. If three rays of extreme light meet in a node, the interaction must be on a plane, as shown in Figure 4.9, instead of on an axis. Such an event is unlikely but again it must have occurred in the early plasma by the quantum law of all action.

A three-axis 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 applying this feature to one axis doesn’t leave enough light to do the same to the other two.

A three-way extreme light interaction isn’t stable alone but it turns out that unlike electrons, quarks alone are so unstable that they can’t exist alone. Had it not been so, the model would fail as there are few other reverse engineering options, but a three-way interaction has a symmetry that may let quarks be stable in a group. But first, consider the processing needed to fill all the channels of a plane through a node to achieve the stability that electrons achieve for a line.

Next

All the matter we see is made of atoms whose mass comes almost entirely from their nuclei, which are made of quarks. Quarks are the fundamental constituent of all the matter we see but their charges come in unexpected thirds for no known reason. Yet they obey the equations of matter, so a model that explains electrons must also explain quarks.

QR4.4.1 A Three-way Interaction

QR4.4.2 Filling a Node 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