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 (mp =
938.28231 MeV)
is composed of UUD quarks, however, the mass of a U quark is mu
= 5.00 MeV and a D quark is md =
10.00
MeV, therefore, UUD has a total quark mass of mpq = 20.00
MeV,
leaving a mass discrepancy of mp = 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.
|
Quantity |
Theoretical |
Existing |
Variations |
Group / Correlation |
Proposed |
Known |
|
6 |
quarks |
|
3 each
flavors |
hadron |
18 |
|
|
6 |
antiquarks |
|
3 each
flavors |
hadron |
18 |
|
|
8 |
gluons |
|
|
color
force |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
2 |
|
electron |
positron |
lepton |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
muon |
antimuon |
lepton |
|
2 |
|
2 |
tau |
|
antitau |
lepton |
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
e-neutrino |
e-antineutrino |
lepton |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
m-neutrino |
m-antineutrino |
lepton |
|
2 |
|
2 |
t-neutrino |
|
t-antineutrino |
lepton |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
photon / real |
virtual |
exchange particle |
|
1 |
|
1 |
graviton |
|
|
exchange particle |
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
pion |
(+) (-) (0) |
exchange particle |
|
3 |
|
3 |
boson |
|
(W+) (W-) (Z0) |
exchange particle |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
Higgs boson |
|
|
Higgs Field / mass |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
24 |
gauge bosons |
|
|
leptoquarks |
24 |
|
|
© Copyright by
Eugene B.
Pamfiloff 2006
|
|
|
||||
|
Subtotals |
77 |
12 |
||||
|
Total of
Particles Designated as Fundamental |
89 |
|||||
Finally, some
have come
to realize that the Standard Model system cannot be justified without
proving
the existence of a gigantic Higgs particle (mH = 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
(ma = <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.
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?
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