Physics then discovered that while a neutron is stable in a nucleus, 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.
5. Was asymmetric. Neutrons decay into protons but protons are stable in space.
Since neither strong nor electromagnetic forces act like this, 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.
Yet by now, virtual agents were the norm and given the equations worked, it was accepted practice to “prove” they existed by finding matching accelerator collision resonances. So when in 1983 CERN found million, million, million, millionth of a second values 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” (Marburger, 2011) p221.
Now suppose a murder case witness said “I have observed the knife that killed the victim” but on cross-examination revealed that he made a knife of the same size in his knife shop! No court in the land would accept that evidence so why does physics call the same thing “proof”? CERN observed the energy spikes that it created not bosons carrying any force! Since no evidence whatsoever links the CERN signal to the weak effect, 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. Even so, physics now accepts that neutrons decay when a 4.8 MEv down quark “emits” a W boson of mass 80,400 MEv! No-one questions how such a tiny particle could ever emit such a massive particle.
Even worse, the equations testify that a neutron can decay in any of three ways, as it could:
1. Emit a W– that decays into an electron and anti-neutrino (Figure 4.14a), OR
2. Emit a W– boson that is hit by a neutrino to give an electron (Figure 4.14b), OR
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 equations were also reversible, leading to a fruitless thirty-year search for proton decay. Currently, the massive Kamioka experiment estimates the free proton half-life is over a billion, billion, billion years, so protons definitely don’t decay as the standard model predicts.
The reverse engineered quark structure given earlier suggests a simpler alternative. If a down quark is a head-head-tail photon mix and an up quark is head-tail-tail set, a neutron becomes a proton when a set of photon heads become tails. As Figure 4.15 shows for one channel, if a neutrino hits a quark head directly the processing can rearrange to turn quark heads into tails. A neutrino hitting a neutron just right can turn it into a proton as the beta decay equation implies. Conversely 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 hence proton decay occurs only in the hearts of stars. The effect described don’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, i.e. all matter.
Quantum realism concludes that the weak effect is due to neutrinos that are all around us. It predicts that a neutron in a neutrino-free space won’t decay. Hence weak bosons, like fairies at the bottom of the garden, are made-up agents.
PS. 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?