BASICS OF THE GEATRON NUCLEAR MODEL

No event or phenomenon in the universe, whether nuclear or cosmological, can be explained correctly unless the laws that govern fundamental interactions are understood. With the current nuclear models showing an inability to explain the existence of mass or the system for the formation of elementary and subatomic particles and further, the inability to unify the fundamental forces, with or without gravity, it is demonstrated that the laws governing fundamental interactions are not understood.

These problems originate from the misidentification of the fundamental particles resulting in the misidentification of the fundamental forces. The obvious conclusion, develop a nuclear model that correctly identifies the actual fundamental particles, where this new information will lead to the identification of the fundamental forces, along with their system of organization, from which all the systems of  the universe will be explained.

The Geatron Nuclear Model (GNM), that is presented in this paper, is just such a model, one that identifies a single fundamental particle from which all other particles are formed and a single fundamental force from which all other forces emerge.

This is a simplified discussion of the Geatron Nuclear Model and its relationship to the most complicated of subjects, the fundamental origin of force and energy with the principles of the formation, composition and structure of matter. It should be noted that the Geatron Model was first presented in a book published in 1999, entitled: “The Order of The Forces” [1]. The Geatron Nuclear Model makes many important predictions, one of which demonstrates the existence of several groups of previously unknown sub-particles identified as composite Rudimentary Particle Units (RU). The first group contains 10 varieties, the second  assemble to form 18 distinct larger composite units, which then assemble further to form the thousands of possibilities situated between  0.00000205 MeV and 0.511 MeV.

Einstein once declared that physics does not have to be as complicated as we make it. Presented in the following pages is a nuclear model, the Geatron Nuclear Model, that challenges our extremely complex view of the fundamental structure of matter, energy and force by demonstrating the simplest perspective that is possible to achieve. Simplification is accomplished, in part, by the identification of a single intriguing fundamental particle that satisfies all data derived from experiment and observation, relegating the eighty-nine (89) unsubstantiated fundamental particles of the current nuclear models to a serious reevaluation. Another factor to simplification came from the identification of a single underlying fundamental force from which all other forces emerge, thus, eliminating the need to retain the mislabeled forces of the current models.

Actual examples are taken from the current models to show how complex events, views and theories can be greatly simplified when the proposed hypothesis is applied to recent experimental data, various nuclear interactions and ongoing cosmic events.

The subject of elementary and fundamental particle physics is the most complicated, because it is precisely this field that is the foundation of all other sciences. What takes place at the fundamental nuclear level determines the events and results that occur at all other levels. This is demonstrated by the events from each distinct nuclear level. From the formation of elementary and subatomic particles to the formation of black holes and galaxies, all nuclear events are specifically related to and completely dependent upon what takes place at the lowest particle level. In other words, what happens at the fundamental nuclear level influences what happens at all other, allowing for extremely accurate nuclear and cosmological predictions.

Background: 

For more than a century, since the discovery of the electron, physicists have tried to explain how all the systems of the universe function.  Naturally, this would not have been possible until the nuclear data that exists today was assembled. As it happened, this important nuclear information was discovered in little increments over the span of approximately 112 years. Experiment, observation, and a lot of hard work led research into every direction, to explore every conceivable idea that would hopefully coerce an atom to reveal its secrets. The acquisition of knowledge resulted in an advancement in technology, which led to new advances in knowledge, and together, provided new tools with which to probe the atom. Few realized the enormous quantity of information that was necessary to explain the universe or to explain a single atom of Hydrogen.

 From the evidence of the day, creative minds suggested potential solutions and this took many groups of researchers and theorists into opposing directions. Eventually, two major groups emerged, with one pursuing a wild new idea that transformed the view of gravity, space and time, and the other group examined a series of recently detected subatomic particles situated within the atom. At each phase of discovery their concepts were advanced, but also, a number of predictable mistakes occurred that were certain to be repeated over and over again. This conclusion will become apparent as the discussion proceeds. Overall, the problems that prevented a reasonable understanding of the systems included, complexity of the subject, insufficient data and a refusal of most scientists to consider ideas that conflict with their current concepts. This led to the accepted notion that the universe can be explained with limited and misinterpreted information, which nevertheless led to flawed theories. Many other factors contributed to these setbacks including computational errors, application errors, theoretical miscalculations, misinterpretation of data, very fuzzy mathematics and substantial adverse influence from the scientific and political philosophies of the time. Over the decades, these varied problems have led to many flawed nuclear theories and models.  Nevertheless, through all of this, by the mid 1990's, a handful of brilliant scientists and engineers, which includes the author of this work, realized that no natural event could be explained unless the fundamental structure of matter, the primary particles of energy and the origin of all forces were properly identified. It is this authors’ conclusion that, now, and for the past twenty years, at least, we have had sufficient data to explain these complicated systems. [2]  

Many theories have come and gone with some becoming prominent after a few specified but inconclusive predictions appeared to have verified the subject theory by experiment or observation. The reason that so many predictions advanced by the current models were inconclusive is because the same predictions could have applied to many other theories and models including those that are completely unrelated. In other words, the selected predictions did not exclusively prove the provisions of the subject model. This is easily demonstrated if one cares to make an effort. The most notable theories and models to emerge since 1900 include Planck's Quantum Theory, Special Relativity, Bohr Model of the Atom, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, Quantum Chromodynamics, Electroweak, Standard Model, Quantum Field Theories (QFT), Gauge Theories, Supersymmetry and Strings. The primary purpose of most of these models and theories was, as stated above, to identify the fundamental nature and origin of the forces, define energy and its primary sources and determine the procedures that lead to the formation of matter, its composition and structure. It was found that several theories and models were somewhat helpful, but each had critical limitations that should have been immediately obvious. As it is known, not one of these models can explain or unify the fundamental forces. Nevertheless, each helped to enhance our overall knowledge because whenever there appeared to be agreement with prediction, further research was encouraged. However, one of the primary objectives of the past seventy-five years has been to develop a complete or comprehensive understanding of matter, energy and particularly force through a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) or a Theory of Everything (TOE). An optimistic objective for any time period particularly when the magnitude, complexity and enormity of such a system are considered. This work treats both GUT (unification of the fundamental forces including gravity) and TOE (unification of the fundamental forces and energy with the formation of matter) theories as equals without requiring distinction because solving for one will provide the solution for the other.

Thousands of physicists and engineers have devoted their lives to these important objectives. By 1930, due to a limited number of independent successes with a variety of predictions, most scientists came to believe that Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity, if combined, would form just such a unified model. QM, in part, provides one possible explanation for the dual nature of light referring to its particle and wave properties, and in another, it is a study of matter at the atomic level. General Relativity provides an alternate view of gravity, proposing an interesting but questionable curvature of space effect upon the immediate area surrounding a large body. Eventually, scientists concluded that both theories were so intriguing that they must be factual, rather than what they really are, useful but unproven and incomplete models. Both are incomplete because neither model could resolve the forces. After decades of efforts, unification of the period models proved to be unattainable to all that attempted it including Einstein. Although, Einstein devoted the last thirty years of his life to the quest, he attempted to unify QFT with Relativity rather than QM. Furthermore, the two leading models (QM and Relativity) proved to be incompatible with each other, but this did not deter the stubborn that continue trying. Now, after three quarters of a century, we should acknowledge that all attempts at unification have failed. This clearly demonstrates that either QM or Relativity is incorrect or both are seriously flawed. No other conclusion is possible because if the two Models were correct, they would instantly mesh together like two finely machined gears. This has not happened.  Nevertheless, during the first fifty years of the 20th Century, there were many fantastic and important discoveries. From 1897 to 1932 we had discovered the electron followed by the nucleus of the atom, then the proton and finally, the neutron and the first antiparticle, the positron. Shortly thereafter came the discovery of fission followed by the first nuclear reactor and soon, a conglomeration of new elementary particles followed. No model of the day nor any of the presently accepted models could properly explain the existence of these new elementary particles.  

After the many failed attempts at unification, we became so desperate for a workable nuclear model that the most improbable concepts began to look good, including those that had no basis within the experimental data of the period. One such model was Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), whose principles were developed approximately forty years ago to answer enduring questions that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity could not. It was hoped that QCD could fill-in the blanks and answer the thousands of nuclear and cosmological questions. QCD offered a number of inconclusive predictions, such as Color Force and Fractional Electric Charges, that when tested, enthusiastic interpretation of the experimental results led to a few prominent supporters. This limited success and the lack of a better Nuclear Model at the time eventually led to worldwide acceptance of QCD. And unfortunately, most physicists today consider this model to be factual rather than theoretical, thus making the same mistakes as the previous generations of scientists have made. It is always a serious error to label flawed or unproven models as being factual.

QCD proposes an explanation of nuclear interactions that take place within an atom and what is called the Strong Interaction and the associated phenomena of Charge Transformation. Actual experimental data, including electron scattering results, suggests that protons and neutrons have a substructure, indicating that this must consist of smaller, but still unknown particles. These particles must account for the existence of electric charges and for events of charge transformation, as when a neutron (of '0' or no electric charge) spontaneously converts into a proton (with '+' or positive electric charge) and other particles. The model must include a bonding system for the constituent particles of protons and neutrons that are bound in a nucleus. To address these events and data, QCD offers a series of hypothetical fractionally charged particles called Quarks along with a series of eight colorful bonding particles called Gluons that are believed to interact through a color force of attraction, all of which are presumed to compose protons and neutrons and other particles such as mesons. It is believed that gluons are exchanged between adjoining quarks to form bonds, the color force that hold the particles within protons or neutrons together. A series of six Quarks of three colors each and six Antiquarks of three colors each, provide fractional electric charges of 1/3 + or – with some and 2/3 + or – with others (one whole charge is equal to 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs). Immediately, there are problems with the model, as these thirty-six quarks have been assigned unrealistic rest masses ranging from 2.0 MeV to 180.0 GeV. For example, it is believed that the proton (m_p = 938.28231 MeV) is composed of UUD quarks, however, the mass of a U quark is m_u = 5.00 MeV and a D quark is m_d = 10.00 MeV, therefore, UUD has a total quark mass of mp_q = 20.00 MeV, leaving a mass discrepancy of m_p = 918.28231 MeV. One would think that just this mass inconsistency would raise some red flags? On the other hand, the Top quark has been assigned an incredible mass of 180.00 GeV, which is equal to the mass of 192 protons existing as a single non-composite particle. Keep in mind that theory dictates a union of several of these that will combine to form a single composite elementary or subatomic particle. This is incredible because no stable particle larger than the ¹H proton has ever been detected nor have we observed unstable particles with masses greater than 2% of a T-quark. Amazingly, from the mid 1970’s to the mid 1980’s, competition for the first to find the quarks was fierce and claims of discovery of various fractionally charged quarks came in rapid succession.

Many other serious problems exist with QCD. For example, regrettably, few physicists realize, and others that know are reluctant to acknowledge, that fractional electric charges have never been isolated or even observed, but only erroneously surmised from the data. The smallest electric charge known is the whole number charge of the electron or positron, proton or any other charged particle, which is equal to 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs. All larger charges are multiples (integers) of this fundamental charge and lesser charges do not exist. Additionally, applying the system only to nucleons (baryons) solved nothing (a very big mistake), as some scientists finally realized that the QCD mechanism must also apply to leptons (positron '+', electron '–',  neutrino '0') because of the identical electric charge values or states that exist between the two classes of particles. The gigantic proton (m = 938.28 MeV), a baryon and the tiny positron or electron (m = .511 MeV), which are leptons, for example, all have the identical value (magnitude) of the electric charge. Compounding the situation is that QCD is completely out of character when attempts are made to solve for the charge of electrons and other leptons or other properties related to neutrinos. Be advised that to preserve any future utility, QCD must be able to explain and predict the specifics of leptons, however this dream appears desperate.

Naturally, there are legitimate reasons why so many believe in the existence of quarks. Experiments in the 1960's, at SLAC and other labs, involving the collision of accelerated electrons into fixed target protons or other compound nuclei, called electron scattering, suggested that the electric charge may be divided among three different areas of a proton. Based upon the total of the data existing at the time, this was just one possible conclusion! Actually, there were many, much more reasonable conclusions that could have been developed from the data. The possibility of charges spread over three areas of a proton or neutron seemed like a reasonable bases to consider the existence of particles with fractional charges, then. But, by the mid 1980's, we should have realized that the model was wrong and that it did not describe the nature of the electric charge within a proton or neutron, other baryon or meson, or any other charged or neutral particle. Obviously, the data of the 1960's was misinterpreted and this error was perpetuated; what was actually observed during these experiments with stationary protons will be explained later in the section entitled "When Electrons Collide With Protons". However, keep in mind that two particles were involved in the collision, not one? 

Few consider that QCD is unable to explain common nuclear events of charge transformation or account for mass deficiencies or losses that occur during most nuclear events and interactions. Few scientists will acknowledge that QCD is unable to conserve Mass, Rest Mass, Charge, Energy, or Momentum. And many scientists fail to consider that there is absolutely no attractive force associated with or between different colors or through the exchange of particles. Some may argue that colors are only representative of nuclear forces, but if this is how it works, then we still do not have a clue about the nuclear forces. In the early 1980’s QCD was merged with the Electroweak model to become the Standard Model of Physics, becoming the premier nuclear model. The Electroweak model attempts to explain radioactivity and other occurrences of nuclear and particle decay related to what is called the Weak Interaction. It was hoped that this merger would bolster QCD and satisfy the critics.

The Standard Model identifies a number of forces that are thought to have exchange particles responsible for certain related interactions and attraction between other particles. However, few scientists consider that such forces cannot be explained with the hypothetical exchange of any known or contrived particle, particularly when it has no basis derived from experiment or observation. Not one experiment has demonstrated the existence of a force of attraction associated with or through the exchange of smaller particles. Note, the term 'exchange' refers to a system where, for example, each quark emits and exchanges with its neighbors tiny gluons that somehow form unbreakable bonds. Tossing a baseball back and forth will not place a pitcher and catcher into a bound state! Therefore, the current system cannot demonstrate the nature of the nuclear bond within protons or neutrons or between protons and neutrons within the nucleus of an atom.

Scientists assume that three or four or five fundamental forces exist (they are still confused on the exact number), with each mediated by the exchange particles listed in parentheses.

1.      Electromagnetic Force (having electrons and other particles mediated by the exchange of photons)

2.      Nuclear Weak Interaction or Electroweak when coupled with the Electromagnetic (having atoms mediated by the exchange of huge W+, W-, and Z₀ bosons)

3.      Nuclear Strong Interaction (having quarks mediated by the exchange of gluons through a color force)

4.      Nuclear Strong Force (having the nuclear bonds between protons and neutrons mediated by the exchange of pi-mesons)

5.      Gravity (having atoms and molecules mediated by the exchange of gravitons)  Notice the inconsistency, as gravity is considered to be a force-of-attraction here, while General Relativity completely rejects the force-of-attraction concept and attributes the orbit of celestial bodies to a curved or bent space surrounding the larger body.

For the record, not one of these forces can be explained through the application of exchange particles. There is not a single bit of evidence that supports the existence of an exchange particle that is responsible for any force. Nor can it be demonstrated that these are, in fact, correctly identified fundamental forces. What if the real fundamental forces exist several nuclear levels below the listed forces? 

Many other problems materialize when one realizes that the Standard Model requires the existence of 89 fundamental particles to describe just some nuclear interactions. The resultant solutions derived from the 89 are inadequate and incomplete because the system is channeled through mostly non-existent particles. The following table shows the required fundamental particles, without which the Standard Model would crumble. As shown 77 of the proposed particles are completely theoretical, meaning that they are required to exist due to the provisions of some theoretical models as compared to a factual requirement based upon experiment or observation. Observe that only 12 of these particles are known, however, whether these are fundamental is still in question.

Finally, some have come to realize that the Standard Model system cannot be justified without proving the existence of a gigantic Higgs particle (m_H = 200 to 250 GeV) and Higgs field (the new ether) that must permeate space to account for the masses of other known particles. All experimental efforts to date demonstrate that no such particle or field exists, nor is it necessary for such a particle to exist with the new model presented herein. Furthermore, we have no difficulty in detecting a tiny alpha particle (m_a = <4.00 GeV), therefore, a contrived Higgs particle of sixty two times the mass of an alpha should be easy to find, if it exists! Consequently, it is the view of many scientists including myself that QCD, Electroweak and finally, the Standard Model will follow the fate of many flawed models such as the once prominent “Ether of Space”. This bazaar Ether theory which hindered scientific progress for more than two centuries consisted of a fluid assumed to fill the vacuum of space, necessary to account for the transmission of light from the Sun and stars. The concept lost favor a century ago but previously prevailed for more than two hundred years. Recently, another observation has seriously damaged QCD and the Standard Model, whose principles are based upon the existence of a '0' mass neutrino of a velocity of c. Several experiments have confirmed that neutrino particles have a rest mass. And since particles with rest mass cannot propagate at c, according to special relativity, this new data establishes insurmountable obstacles for many of the  prominent models listed above, including Relativity.

Often, when confronted with the obvious problems and limitations of the Standard Model, some physicists typically respond with, “Well, physics does not have to make sense!” Naturally, the only reason that any scientist would make such a statement is because the correct answers are not known, in other words, he or she doesn't have a clue. The supporters of QCD have a tactic in dealing with scientists that question its principles, that is by simply labeling that person a crack pot or their work as physics quackery. These are very powerful tactics that usually result in strict conformity and obedience. Scientists must be free to explore new ideas. As a result, the simple nuclear model that nature must have adopted is far removed from current philosophy and understanding. To bring theory back onto a logical path will require the efforts of the most bold and visionary of scientists.

However, to understand the difficulties associated with research and theory in nuclear and particle physics, it may be helpful to review a brief outline of significant events. From the following list, it can be seen how little was actually known about the atom during the early history of nuclear physics, while at the same time theories purporting to explain everything, including the systems of the universe, such as gravity, were being promoted and exalted by scientists of the period. 

   CHRONOLOGY OF IMPORTANT EVENTS:

    1785    Coulomb finds the Law of Attraction or repulsion between Electric Charges, identifying another force that acts over a distance that can also be described by an inverse-square equation.

    1831-1845    Faraday's Work in Electricity and Magnetic Induction set the stage for the second part of the Industrial Revolution.

    1864    Maxwell’s Equations of Electromagnetic Waves (based in part on Faraday's work) was the foundation of radio and tv transmission, and showed that light may be related to electromagnetic waves.

    1887    Michelson and Morley measure the Speed of Light and resolve important questions by finding no evidence of the existence of an ether in space (this fluid believed to permeate space was part of the most prominent theories of the period).

    1888    Hertz transmits and receives radio waves in his laboratory, which supported the work of Maxwell and Faraday.

    1895    Roentgen discovers x-rays, but cannot explain them.

    1896    Bacquerel accidentally discovers radioactivity, but provides no explanation, however, several years later Rutherford identifies the responsible particles as alpha, beta, and gamma.

    1897    J.J Thompson discovers the electron (the first subatomic particle to be discovered) where this one important discovery signals the beginning of many new fields of research.

    1900    Planck’s Quantum Theory and Black-Body Radiation with Planck's Constant provides the basis for Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and much more.

    1905    Einstein publishes five papers that included the Photoelectric Effect, Special Theory of Relativity and Brownian Motion. Note: At this time, the electron was the only part of the atom that was known; there was no knowledge of a nucleus, it's protons or neutrons or how electrons interacted therein.

    1909    Rutherford discovers the atom's nucleus through alpha scattering and determines that the atom if mostly empty space with a hard dense object at its center.

    1913   Robert Millikan measures the fundamental unit of electric charge of the electron at 1.592 x 10^-19 C, which is very close to the currently accepted value of 1.602 x 10^-19 C. The experiment, called the most beautiful in physics history, consisted of spraying oil droplets into the electric field of a chamber and measuring the activity.

    1915    Rutherford discovers protons, positively charged particles in the nucleus of an atom.

    1916    Einstein publishes the General Theory of Relativity, which attempts to explain gravity as a curvature of space surrounding celestial bodies and rejects the idea that gravity is a force of attraction acting over a distance between (subatomic) particles of matter. Note: At this time, the third constituent particle of the atom, the neutron, will not be discovered for another 16 years. As can be seen, between 1905 and 1916, during the writing of General Relativity, very little was known about the atom, its nucleus, electron cloud or any related nuclear interactions. Theories must be based upon factual information, from observation and experiment. Unfortunately, in 1916 there was not enough information of the atom available to permit a reasonable explanation of gravity.

     The above chronology is very informative, because it demonstrates what was known and more important, what was not known prior to the introduction of defining works, theories or models. It can be seen that actually very little was known prior to the publication of any of the notable theories. This list is not yet complete, it will include significant developments and discoveries related to nuclear and particle physics that occurred through the 1960's.

In an article entitled "Peter Higgs: the man behind the boson" in the July 2004 issue of Physics World (V17, No7), Higgs is quoted as stating: "If there is not a Higgs boson, the theory (QCD and the Standard Model) does not make sense at all". In other words, if the Higgs boson cannot be found, the Standard Model, the supreme nuclear model of modern physics has no basis to support any of its provisions. Keep in mind the fact that not a single fractionally charged particle has ever been separated, isolated, captured or observed!

Clearly, the nuclear systems of the universe cannot be explained correctly unless the fundamental components and the forces acting upon them are understood. For example, the decay of a free-state neutron cannot be explained unless the structure and composition of the neutron and the applied forces, both internal and external, are understood. Similarly, the force that binds protons with neutrons in a nucleus (nuclear strong force) or the force that holds the parts of a proton together (strong interaction) cannot be explained unless the fundamental forces are comprehended. Yet, physicists represent the defective and deficient Standard Model as being factual, accurate and complete even though it cannot explain the fundamental structure of any existing particle or the forces acting upon them correctly. Furthermore, the Standard Model is modified daily in attempts to keep pace with the current research and data gathered from laboratories all around the planet and above it and it still cannot explain any of the forces or unify anything. 

The realization of these circumstances encouraged the commencement of the following new work, which we consider to be the most probable solution. To solve these many problems, we propose this simple, effective and powerful Unifying Nuclear Model. Unifying, because it unifies all the fundamental forces including gravity with the system for the formation of matter and establishes the fundamental particles of energy that are responsible for all of this. The model identifies a single fundamental particle from which all other particles are formed and a single fundamental force from which all other forces emerge.

Before we delve into the Geatron Nuclear Model, it may be helpful to discuss exactly what must exist to explain the systems of the universe. We must consider what the Perfect Model should consist of; however, we should also discuss some of the most important questions that need to be answered.

THE PRIMARY QUESTIONS: 

In 2003, the U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) listed the following as being:

"The Greatest Questions of Physics"

As identified by the DOE 

"1.  What is dark matter?

The Cryogenic Dark Matter Survey (CDMS) began taking measurements in 2002 in the Soudan Mine in Minnesota. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is under construction and will search for dark matter from the International Space Station starting in 2004. The Large Area Telescope (LAT), the primary instrument to be flown on the space-based NASA-GLAST Mission, will yield information about dark matter. Zeplin-II, a Xenon dark matter detector, will operate in an underground laboratory in Boulby, United Kingdom. Theoretical physicists are speculating on whether there are additional space dimensions, which might explain the nature of dark matter.

2.  What is dark energy?

The Supernova Cosmology Project used telescopes to discover the accelerating universe, suggesting the existence of dark energy. The SuperNova Acceleration Probe (SNAP) is now under development. It would be a dedicated satellite experiment to discover and precisely measure thousands of type Ia supernovae, which will be studied to determine the equation of state of the universe and the mechanism responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

3.  How were the heavy elements from iron to uranium made?

The nuclear reactions short-lived nuclear isotopes involved in the production of heavy elements in stars and supernovae are studied at the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility (HRIBF) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These reactions occur in stars and supernovae, where the heavy elements are created, and the rare reactions must be studied to understand stellar nucleosynthesis processes. The Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA) is under development to provide a next-generation world-class facility for this research.

4.  Do neutrinos have mass?

The Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan and the Solar Neutrino Observatory (SNO) detector in Canada (both supported in part by DOE) give convincing evidence that neutrinos from the sun or produced by cosmic rays in the earth’s atmosphere change flavors, which requires that they have mass. The LSND experiment at Los Alamos National Laboratory saw indications muon neutrinos produced in an accelerator change to electron neutrinos. The MiniBooNE experiment begins taking data in 2002 at Fermilab and the NuMI/MINOS experiment is under construction at Fermilab and in Minnesota.  Both are dedicated to studies of neutrino flavor change and mass.

5.  Where do ultra-energy particles come from?

The 1,000 square mile Pierre Auger Observatory is under construction to study very high-energy cosmic rays. The Gamma Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) is under construction for a 2006 launch to study high-energy gamma rays from “gamma ray bursters” and other astrophysical sources.

6. Is a new theory of light and matter needed to explain what happens at very high energies and temperatures?

DOE supports a wide range of theoretical and experimental investigations aimed at understanding matter at very high energies and temperatures.  A new theory will no doubt be needed to fully understand these phenomena.

7.  Are there new states of matter at ultrahigh temperatures and densities?

The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) is in operation at the Brookhaven National Laboratory to recreate temperatures and densities similar to those of the very early universe, microseconds after the Big Bang. Nuclear physicists are trying to understand the transition from familiar states of nuclear matter with confined quarks to deconfined plasma of quarks and gluons, such as existed then.

8.  Are protons stable?

Some theories predict that they will decay, but with a very long lifetime.  Experiments supported by the DOE have found no decays and indicate a lifetime of about 1033 years (a billion trillion trillion years). The Super-Kamiokande experiment (see Question 4) is searching for proton decay.

9.  What is gravity?

Theoretical research supported by DOE could help to incorporate gravity in the Standard Model of elementary particles and forces, for example, via superstrings.

10. Are there additional dimensions?

Experiments at the Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN LHC will look for evidence of additional dimensions, and DOE is supporting theoretical research on the subject.

11. How did the universe begin?

Theoretical and experimental research in cosmology are being supported and DOE scientists have contributed substantially to our current understanding of the universe. Theoretical work on elementary particles and forces is highly relevant to cosmology; for example, symmetry breaking in the early universe may explain the preponderance of matter over antimatter in the universe today."

Note: Any grammatical or spelling errors that may exist in this section belong to the DOE scientists that are responsible for the material.    END

Each of the above questions is both informative and revealing, particularly, #6 where the question is answered with: “A new theory will no doubt be needed to fully understand these phenomena.” Many other important factors are equally illuminating, not just by what is stated, but also by what is not. By these questions, it can be assumed that:

a.       With the exception of gravity, all other fundamental forces are completely understood?

b.       Every existing fundamental force has been identified correctly?

c.       There are no other unidentified fundamental forces in existence?

d.       With the exception of protons, the fundamental structure of all other particles is understood?

e.       Every existing fundamental particle has been identified correctly?

f.        There are no other unidentified fundamental particles in existence?

g.       With the exception of dark matter all other forms of matter are fully understood?

h.       With the exception of dark energy all other forms of energy are fully understood?

All of the assumptions listed above are completely wrong because we cannot claim with any level of confidence that solutions for the described events are known. Furthermore, for more than three hundred years, scientists have tried to explain the origin and nature of gravity; however, due to our stubborn attachment to these flawed nuclear models, we are no closer today to a comprehensive account of its origins than we were then. Wisely, Newton did not attempt to explain gravity, but he successfully described the effects of gravity through his laws of motion and law of universal gravitation. Serious consideration of the 11 questions and the unsound assumptions in (a to h) will demonstrate exactly how little we really know about the basic interactions related to the actual fundamental particles and the actual fundamental forces.

After so much effort by so many brilliant physicists, we must ask, "why aren't we able to answer these questions"? What has prevented us from identifying and unifying the fundamental forces? Why are we unable to explain the existence of mass? Why are we unable to find the fundamental particles? Why do we not know how elementary and subatomic particles form? Why are all of the primary nuclear and cosmological models of modern physics (QM, QCD, Electroweak, Standard Model, Strings, Big Bang, etc.) not compatible with each other (although, independently, these models have some utility)? Why do we not know what gravity is or how it works? The primary problem is that the models cannot explain how the Universe or the atom or the proton works! Actually, there are thousands of questions that the current models are unable to answer! For example, they cannot explain why an electron does not fall into the nucleus of the atom and neutralize the electric charge, or why there is a wave function associated with the orbiting electron and other particles, or what is the nature of the nuclear bond between protons and neutrons, or what is the primary source of solar energy, etc., etc., etc..

Any and all of these questions will be easy to answer once the correct nuclear model, based upon and derived from all known nuclear data, is discovered.

Is There Sufficient Experimental and Observational Data to Unify the Forces?

To answer this very important question, the published abstract of a paper written by the this author is offered for consideration.

[Is there sufficient experimental data to unify the forces? In 1999 Steven Weinberg wrote: "Unification of all forces will require radically new ideas". After this, many physicists have expressed similar sentiments in papers, articles and conference presentations. While supporters of the current nuclear models struggle to explain the most basic questions related to mass, charge, energy and forces, other scientists who understand the problems are exploring new, not necessarily radical, ideas. The most recent high-energy research centered on the results of e + e, p + p, Au + Au, and ion to fixed-target collisions as well as other research provide sufficient data for unification. We all know that the Standard Model (SM) with SU(5) has problems, partly because it requires the existence of 89 mostly theoretical fundamental particles, requires the existence of fractional electric charges to explain events of charge transformation and Higgs Bosons to account for the existence of mass. And we know that the SM is completely inadequate when the objective is unification of the forces. Nuclear systems of the universe cannot be explained correctly unless the fundamental components and the forces acting upon them are understood. To solve these many problems, we propose this simple, effective and powerful alternative to a fractionally charged system, the Geatron Model (GM). It unifies the fundamental forces including gravity with the system for the formation of matter and establishes the fundamental particles, those responsible for all nuclear events. The GM predicts the existence of one (1) fundamental D-particle of energy, which has the capacity to convert into three other states during certain natural events. The four states are designated as A, B, C, and D, of these, the A, B, and C are the origin of all forces and these assemble into a variety of rudimentary units becoming the basis of matter. All particles with substructure are composed of various arrangements of these units. Collectively, these fundamental and rudimentary units fit the definition of what is presently described as Dark Energy and Dark Matter. It was determined that if three basic units existed with one having a fixed positive, another having a fixed negative and a third having an alternating-transforming electric charge cycle of +, 0, –, 0, +, 0, –, 0, etc., that is equal to its current frequency of vibration. If this system is adopted, the mysteries at the microscopic scale could be explained and from this, everything else. It soon became evident that a fourth particle must exist, one that had not as yet obtained one of the primary properties or one that has lost this property, proving that the D was the origin of the other three. This extraordinary conclusion places the D-particle as the fundamental constituent of all forces, matter and energy. Imagine the possibilities that emerge with such knowledge, the existence of a single fundamental entity will explain and account for all the phenomena of the universe.] [3]

Author: Eugene Pamfiloff

From the above information it can be established that, at the very least, since 1985, sufficient data has existed to unify the forces! If this statement is correct, than what went wrong?

 THE PERFECT NUCLEAR MODEL: 

 A perfect nuclear model will be able to answer each of the above questions along with any other relevant question and be able to correct the unsound assumptions listed here and those other unsound assumptions administered by our scientific overseers. This model will be able to identify the ONE fundamental particle from which all other particles are formed and the ONE fundamental force from which all other forces are derived. It will illustrate the nature and origin of this and other fundamental forces. The model will show the structure, exact composition and the methods of formation of every composite rudimentary, elementary, sub-nuclear and subatomic particle that is known to exist. The model must define energy and identify its primary sources. The model must provide a fundamental constant that will be the unit by which matter and energy will be measured. The model will provide an extensive list of valid predictions that will describe everything from the system for solar energy production to the internal workings of a black hole. Without limitation, the model will explain the mysterious nuclear events presently described as the nuclear strong interaction, nuclear strong force, nuclear weak interaction, nuclear weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity. And it must provide specific data for existing composite particles that have not been detected and those that may not be detectable for various reasons. It will identify Dark Matter and Dark Energy and their origin. Finally, the model will demonstrate the structure of matter, its methods of assembly and system of nuclear bonds.

WHAT MUST EXIST: 

To answer all of the above questions, a basic application experiment will demonstrate that only three distinct fundamental particles are required, no less and no more, with each having a simple, yet, distinct property. However, to proceed freely and without hindrance or interference, it is important to disregard all current theories and all unproven nuclear models. For this experiment to succeed, we must assume that all previously formulated or currently accepted theories and models are incorrect and not allow any influence there from. This experiment must be based upon the actual physical experimental and observational data and direct evidence in possession, pertaining to everything we know about the pertinent subjects of physics. Considering everything that is known of nuclear and particle physics, analyzing it and determining all reasonable possibilities, at the Fundamental Nuclear Level, this is the simplest possible system that could exist: 

1.    Since every composite elementary or subatomic particle known has an electric charge that corresponds to one of the three possible charge states (+, –, 0), this signifies that only two fundamental particles are required to explain the existence of all charged and neutral particles including all events of particle charge transformation.

     A.    One fundamental particle must have a constant whole positive electric charge with a magnitude of 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs, equal to the charge carried by the positron. This will be identified as the A-particle. Note: Keep in mind that this identified electric charge is fundamental, however, the positron and other known particles that carry the charge may not be fundamental.

     B.    The second fundamental particle must have a constant whole negative electric charge with a magnitude of 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs, equal to the charge carried by the electron. This will be identified as the B-particle. Note: Keep in mind that this identified electric charge is fundamental, however, the electron and other known particles that carry the charge may not be fundamental. 

a.   This will show that composite particles with positive electric charges are a result of one extra positive charge in composition relative to the total number of negative charges. Stated another way, the total of positive and negative charges in composition are in equal numbers except for the one extra positive electric charge that identifies the particle's charge. Note:  This applies to all known elementary and subatomic particles, both charged and neutral, such as the electron, positron, proton, neutron, the subatomic, and the muon, pion kaon, the elementary, etc., because the evidence shows that they are composite particles. Consider the mass, electric charge, charge magnitude and particle classification differences as related to the electron, positron and proton? Both the electron and positron are classified as leptons and have an identical mass of .511 MeV and the identical charge magnitude of 1.602 x 10^-19 Coulombs, yet the proton, a baryon with a mass 1800 times that of the positron, has an electric charge that is identical in magnitude and in every other way to that of the positron?  

b.   This will show that composite particles with negative charges are a result of one extra negative charge in composition relative to the total number of positive charges. Stated another way, the total of positive and negative charges in composition are in