Standard Model and QCD have LEAKS
The Standard Model of Particle Physics,
the established and most revered of all modern nuclear models is,
unfortunately, riddled with so many holes that it cannot be plugged. An
unprecedented number of recent measurements, experiments, observations and discoveries of the last seven years
have decimated these prominent
nuclear models, Standard Model, Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), Quantum
Chromodynamics (QCD), Quantum Field Theory, Electroweak, and others.
Listed below are just a
few of the
more significant considerations and discoveries that have punched so
many holes into the
current nuclear models that further modification of those models seems
counterproductive. Each item listed compounds the severity of the
contradictions:
1. Neutrino and
antineutrino
particles have mass! This knowledge contradicts all current nuclear and
particle models!
In response to the above comments of Lance Dixon:
He states that: " the existence of massive neutrinos does not not really shake the foundation of the Standard Model", this is nonsense, of course it will shake the model's foundation, because when a model is based upon a few basic concepts and when one of the few principles is overturned, it will have a major impact upon the entire model. However, he did get at least one thing correct in the above statement, adding factual information to even a flawed theory could be very useful. Although the usefulness may be to encourage physicists to dump the Standard Model. There is just too much direct evidence contradicting the Standard Model as demonstrated by the 21 additional subjects listed below.
Signed: Eugene B. Pamfiloff
2. The magnetic moment of muons and neutrons cannot be predicted!
3. Elementary particles have substructure!
4. The existence of mass cannot be explained!
5. There is no force associated with exchange particles!
6. The models require the existence of 89 fundamental particles, where most are nonexistent!
7. The models revolve around a nonexistent color force!
8. The models rely upon the existence of nonexistent fractional electric charges!
9. The models are inseparably based upon a nonexistent Higgs boson!
10. And the boson requires the existence of a nonexistent Higgs Field, which is a return of the liquid (ether) of space!
11. The models are unable to unify the fundamental forces (determine a common source), with or without gravity!
12. The models are unable to identify the fundamental particle basis of matter!
13. The models are unable to identify the rudimentary substructure of known elementary and subatomic particles!
14. The Standard Model and General Relativity are theoretically and mathematically incompatible with each other!
15. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are theoretically and mathematically incompatible with each other!
16. The models cannot explain the system of charge transformation that occurs during nuclear interactions or events!
17. The models cannot account for the change-in-mass sustained by nucleons during fusion, fission or other interactions!
18. The models require magical multiple dimensions to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
19. The models require magical rubber-bands to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
20. The models require magic and the existence of many magical particles to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
21. The Standard Model and QCD contain insurmountable theoretical restrictions that include the endorsement of inflexible fundamental indivisible quarks as constituents of subatomic baryons and mesons!
22. These nuclear models are reconciled mathematically and theoretically through the use of fuzzy mathematics!
For a more reasonable solution to the above problems and questions, visit the Geatron Nuclear Model. The Geatron Nuclear Model (GNM) that is presented in this paper is a very straight forward 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.
Although
some scientists, including this
author, have known for many years that neutrino particles have mass
and that every experiment involving neutrinos demonstrated the
obvious existence of this mass, most particle physicists refused to see
or
accept the
evidence until very recently. Finally, by the end of 2004 the evidence
was absolutely conclusive and scientists could no longer disregard
neutrino mass. The reason the existence of neutrino mass was
sidestepped for more than fifty years, after it was first detected and
seventy five years after it was proposed, was
because all of the most
prestigious mainstream theories require the existence of a '0' mass
neutrino that must also propagate at v = c. After all, if the neutrino
has mass,
then how could it also
have a velocity of c, where c is the speed of light? Any particle
with mass that also has a velocity of c, would violate the laws
and theoretical basis of the models above including Relativity, and
this would invalidate their postulates and should have serious adverse
consequences for all current theories and models. This means that
either the theories
were wrong along with 80 years of outlandish concepts that were based
upon them or the concept that "only a '0' mass particle could travel
at
the speed of light", because, according to Relativity, if it has mass,
then an infinite amount of
energy would be required to propel that particle at c. Since an
infinite amount of energy does not exist, then no particle with mass
could propagate at v = c. Originally, a
'0' mass neutrino was proposed by Pauli in 1930 to
explain
a mass deficit that was observed in most nuclear experiments and
natural events; it was necessary to address the Conservation of Mass, Charge, Rest Mass,
Energy and Momentum, which,
it was thought, the neutrino would satisfy through its proposed
properties of '0' mass, '0' electric charge, and velocity of v = c.
Previously,
however, the '0' mass particle concept was
applied to the particle of light, the photon and for stated reasons, it
was applied to the subject particle. The
'0' mass neutrino became mandatory to justify the principles of nuclear
models that
followed and extended to all related subject theories that emerged
after the 1930's, including those that were developed before, and the
requirement carried forward
and remained a key principal in all modern theories. In addition, if
the neutrino had mass than it could not account for the mass deficit of
those countless nuclear interactions; nearly every nuclear interaction,
according
to the models above, results in
a mass deficit, where, as in so many interactions, the product particle
or nucleus weights less than sum of incident particles or nuclei as
compared to the original free-state mass of the nucleons.
Keep in mind that QCD and the Standard Model contain an insurmountable theoretical restriction, one that prescribes an inflexible substructure for protons or neutrons consisting of three indivisible quarks. If the three particles that make-up a proton are fundamental and therefore indivisible, then how could there be a change in mass (Dm) for each proton and neutron involved? With this restriction, there is no way to account for a resultant mass deficit after an interaction or a nuclear mass defect (change in rest mass) that take place during a fusion or fission event. All such events require a massless neutrino to carry away this loss of mass, otherwise, the predicted experimental results and calculations will have irreconcilable errors, which nevertheless exist, but are ignored or allowed to be ignored through the use of fuzzy mathematics and renormalization of infinite values.
This author predicted the minimum neutrino mass back in 1998 in several writings, and again in 1999 with the publication of "The Order of the Forces", which describes the Geatron Nuclear Model.
Keep in mind that QCD and the Standard Model contain an insurmountable theoretical restriction, one that prescribes an inflexible substructure for protons or neutrons consisting of three indivisible quarks. If the three particles that make-up a proton are fundamental and therefore indivisible, then how could there be a change in mass (Dm) for each proton and neutron involved? With this restriction, there is no way to account for a resultant mass deficit after an interaction or a nuclear mass defect (change in rest mass) that take place during a fusion or fission event. All such events require a massless neutrino to carry away this loss of mass, otherwise, the predicted experimental results and calculations will have irreconcilable errors, which nevertheless exist, but are ignored or allowed to be ignored through the use of fuzzy mathematics and renormalization of infinite values.
This author predicted the minimum neutrino mass back in 1998 in several writings, and again in 1999 with the publication of "The Order of the Forces", which describes the Geatron Nuclear Model.
"A SLAC Physicist Comments
Lance Dixon, a physicist in Theoretical Physics at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center was asked recently to comment on the results reported from Japan: The evidence for non-zero neutrino mass recently announced by the Super-Kamiokande Experiment actually represents two completely separate types of observations in the same detector. Both results build on previous experimental work from around the world --- in the U.S., Europe and Japan --- work that has extended over three decades in some cases. The results suggest that at least two of the three known neutrinos have mass.When confronted with a new result, the first question a particle physicist asks is,
How does it fit into the Standard Model?The Standard Model, which describes quite well all the particles and forces we know of (except gravity), contains three "flavors" of neutrinos: one is a partner of the electron, and the other two are partners of the electron's two heavier cousins, the muon and the tau. In the Standard Model, the electron, muon, and tau particles are allowed to have nonzero masses, but their neutrinos are not. Thus massive neutrinos would require altering the Standard Model.
But the existence of massive
neutrinos does not not really shake the
foundations of the Standard Model; instead it requires us to add an
appendage to it. This appendage may in fact be very useful in helping
to uncover whether any simpler, unified theory lies beyond the
Standard Model (something physicists have suspected for a long time)."
Page owner: Henniss.
Last
Modified Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:37:03 GMT by Henniss.
In response to the above comments of Lance Dixon:
He states that: " the existence of massive neutrinos does not not really shake the foundation of the Standard Model", this is nonsense, of course it will shake the model's foundation, because when a model is based upon a few basic concepts and when one of the few principles is overturned, it will have a major impact upon the entire model. However, he did get at least one thing correct in the above statement, adding factual information to even a flawed theory could be very useful. Although the usefulness may be to encourage physicists to dump the Standard Model. There is just too much direct evidence contradicting the Standard Model as demonstrated by the 21 additional subjects listed below.
Signed: Eugene B. Pamfiloff
2. The magnetic moment of muons and neutrons cannot be predicted!
3. Elementary particles have substructure!
4. The existence of mass cannot be explained!
5. There is no force associated with exchange particles!
6. The models require the existence of 89 fundamental particles, where most are nonexistent!
7. The models revolve around a nonexistent color force!
8. The models rely upon the existence of nonexistent fractional electric charges!
9. The models are inseparably based upon a nonexistent Higgs boson!
10. And the boson requires the existence of a nonexistent Higgs Field, which is a return of the liquid (ether) of space!
11. The models are unable to unify the fundamental forces (determine a common source), with or without gravity!
12. The models are unable to identify the fundamental particle basis of matter!
13. The models are unable to identify the rudimentary substructure of known elementary and subatomic particles!
14. The Standard Model and General Relativity are theoretically and mathematically incompatible with each other!
15. Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity are theoretically and mathematically incompatible with each other!
16. The models cannot explain the system of charge transformation that occurs during nuclear interactions or events!
17. The models cannot account for the change-in-mass sustained by nucleons during fusion, fission or other interactions!
18. The models require magical multiple dimensions to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
19. The models require magical rubber-bands to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
20. The models require magic and the existence of many magical particles to satisfy some theoretical contentions!
21. The Standard Model and QCD contain insurmountable theoretical restrictions that include the endorsement of inflexible fundamental indivisible quarks as constituents of subatomic baryons and mesons!
22. These nuclear models are reconciled mathematically and theoretically through the use of fuzzy mathematics!
For a more reasonable solution to the above problems and questions, visit the Geatron Nuclear Model. The Geatron Nuclear Model (GNM) that is presented in this paper is a very straight forward 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.