The Standard Model is not so much a model as a smothering octopus. I was convinced of this when I went to a lecture by the Nobel Prize winner Art McDonald. He was introduced by the Perimeter Institute lead Neil Turok. Turok made the statement that the neutrino mass and lepton changes discovered at SNO were 'Part of the Standard Model'. They certainly were not when the neutrino detector in Sudbury was commissioned. Indeed Art gave Neil a pretty dark look when he said that. You could ask 10 people about that and get 10 different answers.

Thus the Standard Model is still at its peak - it has become complicated and ill defined to such an extent that it can 'explain' virtually anything.

It is a fallacy that scientific models fail when they disagree with facts. The real mechanism seems to be that something better in some small corner comes along and the ruling paradigm slowly falls into disuse.

We need to abandon anything not entirely grounded on physically carried out experiments and related observations.

Hello André,

Yes, that is the program of science. But our physical observations may themselves be observer-dependent, disputable, as length-contraction in SR. So, we may need to also take a finer look into what we now can call reality.

We don't have to go to SR, for an example. A third-harmonic signal may never have been generated outside the detector, may have been caused by a non-linearity in the detector itself, but is it real? It seems so to one observer, not to another. We need to be able to disambiguate such cases, and others, too.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Ed Gerck> SM only explains about 4 percent of the known Universe

How do you know that it is 4 percent? Well, you probably read some popular account on the internet. But how was this information acquired and disseminated? If we abandon the SM, shouldn't we also abandon all the information obtained by applying various aspects of the SM? What about the technology based on this information?

You are free to abandon it all, and join the Flat Earth Society. I am sure they have perfect explanations for 100 percent of their known universe.

Hello Kåre,

Based on measurements and models, 3% was Rana's opinion at Caltech, last Saturday, at a symposium. Harvard, though, thinks that it is 5%. I agree with 4%, and it's an average, but I tend to agree with Rana, also in other subjects, his LIGO contributions were excellent. So, it's OK if you go with 3%.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Ed Gerck> So, it's OK if you go with 3%.

But that is also an estimate involving SM knowledge. So how can you estimate how much you know about the universe if you abandon the SM?

If you know absolutely nothing, you can explain 100 percent of that knowledge. Is that an improvement?

There is fortunately a lot of new physics to be discovered and (better) explained. But it is rather unlikely that any new explanations will alter the basic structure of the SM; throughout the history of science, that has rarely happened before.

Dear Ed,

You write: "But our physical observations may themselves be observer-dependent, disputable, as length-contraction in SR. So, we may need to also take a finer look into what we now can call reality. "

I absolutely agree with you, but I would formulate it a little differently by saying that it is our "interpretations" of our physical observations which is observer-dependent". This is the critical distinction to be made between what we each "think" reality is, and what reality physically "is".

The characteristics of what physically exists are by definition independent of what we think they might be. We can easily have various opinions regarding what we observe, but what we observe exists independently of we observing it.

It can hardly be disputed that electrons, hydrogen atoms and all other elements existed before our species even evolved, so did the Earth and Sun and the rest of the Universe, irrespective of the fact that we did not even exist then to "observe" it.

Note that the so-called SR "length contraction" never was observed since we don't have and may never have the technology to go send a body of any measurable volume even near the minimal velocity that would allow experimentally verifying this axiomatically established foundation of SR, not even mentioning that SR does not account for the mandatory energy increase that would result in a body sustaining such an hypothetical length contraction, which makes this specific foundation of SR not even Maxwell equations compliant, as analyzed at the beginning of this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Other than that, it seems that the SM is not correctly grounded on the complete set of experiments carried out about elementary particles, and that their promoters are not even aware of some major results in this domain.

The SM is unable to account for the Kaufman experiment regarding the pecularity of the electromagnetic mass of the electron moving at relativistic velocities that he observed and recorded.

As an other example, it is very disconcerting to me to observe that major theoreticians in the community do not even know that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, but "systems of elementary particles", just like the solar system is not a celestial body, but "a system of celestial bodies".

Their internal scatterable structure was confirmed in the first 2 years of operation of the SLAC accelerator as being charged and massive up and down quarks, that really are elementary like the electron, that is, not made of smaller particles. All confirming references are available in the SLAC archive. I refer to some of them in my papers.

You can verify yourself in page 8 of a major introductory textbook by Michio Kaku, "Quantum Field Theory" published in 1995, that he flatly asserts that "Yet the fractionally charged quarks themselves were never discovered in any scattering experiment". How could such a staunch defender of the Standard Model not know about such an important discovery made in 1967-1968, 25 years before he published his book, in the first years of operation of the Stanford accelerator, whose major incentive for its construction was precisely to reach the energy levels that would allow scattering electrons to enter the inner structure of nucleons to finally identify their scatterable inner elementary components?

Until everyone in the community becomes aware of "all" significant experimental results, really valid theoretical progress can hardly resume and clearer identification of physical reality come about.

Best Regards

André

Hello Kåre,

You wrote, "But that is also an estimate involving SM knowledge." No, it's based on measurements, as I wrote, while the theory (SM) would deny the data. It is a case where engineering is ahead of science, for those in engineering who can help us devise a better model.

Your first reply seems like a cartoon I read in Sweden, long ago. It was two ducks on a pond, representing politicians, but could be some people in physics, throwing water at another and saying, "We are doing a great work! There is a lot of fruitless competition in our field, and RG shows it. I don't think it is just a matter of ego, it's more like noise. Let everyone abandon the duck model, as well.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello André,

I agree with your points, in especial that, as you wrote, "what we observe exists independently of we observing it."

New developments in LIGO, using squeezed states better, promise to reduce error by many orders of magnitude, and size to desktop or building scale, using gravity as a lamp and providing a richer view of the Universe.

I am writing a paper on reality modes, in physics etc., and I will let you know when its ready as a draft for comments. Your posting hits many good points already.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Yes, lead the way. Can we do it by Sunday? The problem is that I don't know what we are going to throw away. Let's make an inventory first. What has to be thrown away? Electromagnetic field? Do we need it? Gravitation? Strong? Weak? Electrons? Nuclei? Quarks? Gluons? Neutrinos? I've never seen the full Lagrangian? Can you write it down for me? Then we can cross out terms. Ah, Higgs? I forgot Higgs.

Hi Ed,

Looking forward to your analysis.

Regarding the Kaufman experiment I mentioned, you may like also to know that it directly correlates with and confirms a discovery made by Paul Marmet regarding the magnetic field of electrons in motion, that he showed must directly vary with velocity and provides this velocity related relativistic mass increment of the moving electron.

This is analyzed in Sections 2 and 3 of this paper:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm

Best Regards

André

Hello Igor,

It took us about 50 years to learn of 4%. Perhaps, judging how people like to go slow, and repeat, it might take us 1,000 years to reach where we thought we were today. Unless one recognizes that there is no universal validity of the SM, also of "centripetal" or "centrifugal" type of forces, one cannot find what the model might be!

Galaxies are flat because of conservation of momentum, but flatter than their masses indicate, gravitational lenses work differently than expected, inconsistencies began to be noticed in the 30's and even earlier, and yet bias prevented a review.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

ED> “Do we need to abandon the Standard Model in Physics?”

Dear Ed, You want to open up a discussion on the most Taboo subject of modern physics; even after the “God Particle” was “discovered”; made headlines in the press all over the world and even merited a Nobel Award!

I admire your courage. We are facing a hard time breaking a lesser Taboo in physics; which never even merited a Nobel Award! I do not intend to spoil the cozy discussion in this forum, but I would just like to remind you to make sure that you know even the “4 percent of the known Universe” as you claim. A little (side) discussion on this topic in the following linked forum of a famous Professor of RG might be of some help!: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_and_how_does_a_Global_Positioning_System_GPS_depend_on_relativity_theories

Hello Abdul,

You are welcome in a scientific discussion. Most Nobel Prizes in physics are revealed to have errors later, for reasons that Voevodsky explained well in maths, himself a winner of the Fields Medal, and led to his research into computer-assisted proofs, to let errors be easier/faster to spot.

Some uncomfortable facts about the SM have survived perhaps for too long, but it is good that we are cautious. But the reality of dark matter and dark energy is being measured, with no theory for them. Maybe it will be like SM, but just for dark matter/energy, maybe there are other dark-dark matter/energies, maybe we need some structure different than that of SM -- no one is saying, though, that SM must be abandoned. We are just contemplating its possible futures, as it has to change now, somehow.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello Aleš,

I will simplify this, details above: we need to move on, the SM does not explain the known universe. If we prepare ourselves to abandon the SM, a more encompassing epiphany may occur, a new structure, a new physical model. That is how physics has progressed, not by staying with the old model.

The errors in SM are due to observations, not theory, that in the OTHER 96% are not accounted for. Hence, the SM must be wrong in that 96% of the known universe. Of course, the SM is right (except gravity, and so on) in the PREVIOUS 4%, but there it ends.

I hope it is clear, 96% wrong, 4% right. In observations.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Electromagnetism accounts for 100% of all of the characteristics of all the stable elementary charged particles making up all atoms in the periodic table, thus in the universe.

What else is there to account for before starting to draw conclusions?

Since the SM apparently accounts for only 4% of this, it is thus wrong about the remaining 96%.

Seems to me that there is no contest, since all observable properties of macroscopic bodies can only stem from the properties of their ultimate building blocks.

Ed Gerck> "No, it's based on measurements, as I wrote"

Yeah, you wrote that. Does it make it true?

Who, do you think, were present just after the BBN to measure the amount of ordinary matter? The total energy density of the universe today is pretty well determined from the Hubble constant. The expansion history can be well modelled if about 70% of this is dark energy (matter whose pressure equals the negative of its energy density) and 30% cold matter (matter with negligible pressure compared to its energy density). Why do you think people with knowledge are pretty sure that not all of the cold matter can be of ordinary baryonic type -- but only about 4% of the total? Do you think it is because they have actually seen that 4%? Why couldn't there be a lot more unseen ordinary matter around?

Have you ever studied anything about how these numbers have been deduced, and why they can be trusted? And how much they can be trusted compared the predictions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which has been extensively tested under controlled laboratory conditions. The rest of this framework belongs to the Standard Model of Cosmology. By SM you probably mean both models(?).

Theories aren't ``abandoned''-once it's established that they are mathematically consistent, they're recognized as approximations to natural phenomena and the only question is, when do new effects that highlight the approximations, appear. For the Standard Model, while such effects have, in fact, been measured, since the measured properties of the Higgs boson imply that, hitherto unknown particles and interactions prevent the vev of the Higgs to become so large that perturbation theory becomes inconsistent, just what these particles and interactions actually are remains to be discovered.

Dark matter can be perfectly well described as a fluid, whose gravitational interactions with ordinary matter can be taken into account quantitatively by general relativity; and dark energy can be quantitatively described by the cosmological constant, that's as inevitable a part of general relativity as the Ricci scalar.

Quantum effects of gravity only arise, either, in the pre-inflationary era of the Universe (and it is there that a description that takes into account matter and gravity beyond their known properties, is needed), or in the resolution of gravitational singularities, like black hole singularities. What the way of resolving them will turn out to be isn't known; what is known is that it must have the Standard Model as its limiting case, just as classical mechanics is the limiting case of quantum mechanics and non-relativistic mechanics the limiting case of relativistic mechanics.

Aleš wrote:

"I'll simplify this. If we abandon SM we won't even understand the "4%" mentioned above."

Great ! That is the best way to proceed ! We effectively don't understand the "4%" !!!

"Besides SM is based on observations (measurements)."

Of course not. There is no Dark Matter observed nor "measured". No Dark Energy observed nor "measured". Only interpretations, mostly religious and mystical, by the way.

"With the same argument GR, electrodynamics and Newtonian mechanics should be abandoned as well?"

GR should certainly be abandoned, relativity in any case as well. They have ruined the understanding of the "4%".

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Aleš

I'll simplify this even further.

If we abandon the SM that allows understanding only the stated 4%, we will be left with what can be synchronized between electromagnetism, classical/relativistic mechanics, quantum mechanics, QFT and QED, which will simply do away with the needlessly assumed dark energy and dark matter, which are misbegotten virial theorem timewasters stemming from badly grounded SR and GR.

Best Regards

André

Hello all,

The Standard Method (SM) gradually grew to include everything in physics, by... its proponents, and we have written and verbal declarations to that effect, that anyone can find, so I won't cite because I don't need to, they are friends, but they are just noise in academic jostling, and for Nobel audiences.

The SM took an "embrace and extend" philosophy that even includes the yet-undiscovered quantum-gravity, and gives us a Higgs boson that actually accounts for mostly 2% of the mass, and not the total mass, but only of the 4% , so Higgs accounts for only 0.08% of the mass of the known Universe. This is the current stand in physics, ducks notwithstanding.

It's one of the few general legal principles, that more power correlates with more liability. By trying to make the SM more powerful, claiming near 100%, the SM had to deal with near total liability as well, but fails to even account for 96%, and it may have to be abandoned, as empty.

But, what may have to be abandoned? Not necessarily any of its parts, like SR, GR, electromagnetism, Lagrangian, or even symmetry and parity. We may have to abandon only the way we organize the parts, the structure, not any part. The work of millions of worthy physicists and engineers is not doomed, even potetially! Shannon continues to be verified everyday, as well as waves, spacetime, and gravitational lensing. Declarations to the contrary have no logical standing.

The universe just got bigger, as we have a huge development in telescopes, including Hubble and LIGO, and their observations over many events. The SM was created by man, and has to, at least, change. Profoundly. Maybe a wave does not have to have a carrier particle, this structure is actually so limited.

This source gives an accessible assessment of the SM and its faults, and dark matter, although it has no mention that only 4 percent of the known Universe is partially (e.g., no gravitation!) explained by the SM, sort of an anti-climax to their claims:

https://home.cern/about/physics/standard-model

https://home.cern/about/physics/dark-matter

Btw, CERN disagrees with me and Caltech, but agrees with Harvard. For CERN, 95 percent is not accounted for, whereas Caltech said 97 percent, and I and others estimate 96 percent. Given the errors involved, we all are right! The percentage error, that the SM has to change, is about 2 percent in all cases. Almost everyone in the field agrees, ducks notwithstanding. To quote CERN :

"The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!"

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

I like your synthesis of the situation.

If I may, here are my comments.

"The SM gradually grew to include everything in physics, "… whether experimentally confirmed or not, which is the cause of the current quagmire.

"The SM took an "embrace and extend" philosophy that even includes the yet-undiscovered quantum-gravity," which is the first not experimentally confirmed inclusion in your non-exhaustive list.

"and gives us a Higgs boson that actually accounts for mostly 2% of the mass, and not the total mass, but only of the 4% ", which is the second experimentally unconfirmed inclusion in your list, because the LHC detected "Higgs" is just the "currently" highest metastable energy resonance state (parton) ever detected in high energy colliders, topping the already long string of all such high energy partons listed in the SM who all practically instantly degrade into the usual least action stable forms, which are the electron, the positron, the proton and the neutron that are the "only" stable inner components of all existing atoms, besides electromagnetic photons and neutrinos.

Its assumed role in defining mass is highly hypothetical and is not required to explain mass.

"so Higgs accounts for only 0.08% of the mass of the known Universe ".

I ask, what "known mass of the Universe"?

We might be able to observe only even barely a spherical fraction of the real universe even at the limit of our current abilities to detect. We have only unproven theories, Big Bang theory included.

Concluding that anyone can "know" the actual mass of the universe is the most preposterous claim I have ever seen out of Sci-Fi circles.

Nothing needs to be abandoned. Symmetry can be preserved.

Electromagnetism already cleanly underlies QFT and QED, it remains only to seamlessly connect it with classical/relativistic mechanics and with quantum mechanics, and synchronization will be reached, grounded on all currently confirmed and repeatable experiments, and with much less discouraging conclusions than "we now understand only 4% of what we observe and if we let go of the SM we are left with nothing".

Best Regards

André

Hello André and all,

Thanks. You asked, what "known mass of the Universe"? The mass measured by gravitation, mainly, not EM. There are several reasons for this, but the determining one is that the type of dark matter we are MEASURING only interacts with gravitation. This is another reason to suspect the SM, that does not include gravitation, to begin with. No one, seriously, say that this measurement pertains to all of dark matter, or all the Universe. There may be other kinds of matter that are dark even to gravitation, or that we ignore we ignore.

Most likely we will have to ignore SM and think of other models of structure, and preserve all experimentally wiring parts, linting physics.

Look for LIGO to play a major role, not particle accelerators, which cost scales with energy squared, as we reach to many orders of magnitude up the energy scale.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

You write "The mass measured by gravitation, mainly, not EM. There are several reasons for this, but the determining one is that the type of dark matter we are MEASURING only interacts with gravitation"

I agree. This is an assumption grounded on the assumed validity of GR.

"This is another reason to suspect the SM, that does not include gravitation, to begin with. No one, seriously, say that this measurement pertains to all of dark matter, or all the Universe."

I agree here also. The thing is that theoreticians think about this, looking for solutions, "as if" these figures were close to physical reality. They might be off by many orders of magnitude without us ever becoming able to confirm any of them. Spending their time on this search seemingly leading nowhere instead of grinding at what we actually know to start with.

Analyzing from shaky premises or even wrong premises can only lead to similarly off conclusions.

"Most likely we will have to ignore SM and think of other models of structure, and preserve all experimentally wiring parts, linting physics."

That's precisely what I also advocate.

Best Regards

André

Hello André,

Sorry for the reverse typo, but I actually wrote "linting" physics, in my quote that you generously included at the end. The verb is to lint.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Sorry for the mishap Ed. Corrected.

Dear all,

It is important to notice that one of the SM issues, the one that is causing the invention of Dark Matter, allegedly accounting for 95% of the universe, can be dismissed by (mainly) classic physics.

The deduction of Dark Matter is caused by the wrong idea that Kepler's laws would be valid in disc galaxies. In reality however, Kepler is only valid for one large central mass and a tiny orbiting one.

As LeVerrier has proven for our 8 planets, an additional planet will alter that orbit by a precession due to their gravity. For each added planet, all the orbits of the other planets will be altered! This results in Mercury's Newtonian part of its perihelion precession.

However, in disc galaxies, there are many millions of stars that alter each-other's orbits many million times, resulting in orbit speeds that became totally different from Kepler's.

The only way to do it right is to integrate a plausible mass distribution according to Newton's rules of integration, and to calculate the gravity upon a given orbit.

The consequence is that the velocity curves of disc galaxies become indeed very flat outside the bulge, as observed.

This is also the reason why no need for Dark Matter was found in the DF2 galaxy cluster. In the case of DF2, the small number of globular clusters in the galaxy are more comparable to our planetary system, which indeed doesn't need any presence of Dark Matter, because the mutual influence of the few cluster's orbits is very limited.

However, SM advances that disc galaxies are not stable with stars alone, and that the need of Dark Matter is in any case legitimate, even if the velocity curves are solved. They conclude this because computer simulations result to that.

In order to solve this issue, we need to come to the insight that moving masses are inducing the surrounding by a second gravitational field, just like moving electrons cause induced magnetic fields and Lorentz forces to other moving charges.

This gravitational effect, caused by the velocity of masses, occurs in the bulge of disc galaxies by many fast spinning stars and (pseudo-) black holes, which generate a global gravitational angular momentum in the bulge, transmitted by gravity to the surroundings.

This is not a fancy theory or hypothesis. It has been proven by the Gravity Probe B experiment, which found that the orbital motion and the spin of the Earth cause gyroscopes' axes in satellites to be altered.

The proof of this behavior can be seen in bar galaxies: the bar is in fact caused by a re-oriented gravitational angular momentum of the bulge, after important collapses of stars, which got dramatically increased spin rates. Hence, the bar is in fact an inclined part of the disc's central part in formation. The gravitational angular momentum will further be transmitted to the rest of the disc, and the whole disc will eventually be re-oriented.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hi Thierry,

I have read your paper on this issue. I learned a lot. Still analyzing. Seems to make quite a bit of sense.

Best Regards

André

I fully admit the possibility of being naive and out of date but my understanding is that full name of the "standard model (SM)" is the "standard model of (elementary) particle physics" and I was unaware that the SM was being extended to be a "theory of everything". I also am unaware that dark matter and dark energy might be considered to be "elementary particles". What I would like to point out is that the SM is a hypothesis that has a domain of applicability and, nominally is invalid outside of that domain. To say that that we should abandon the SM because it fails to account for dark matter and dark energy is expecting too much of the limited applicability of the SM. We try to manuever gravity into the SM by introducing the "graviton" and, of couse, mass and oscillation of nuetrinos did not fall out automatically from the mathematics of the SM. So there are problems with the SM and patches have been applied but abandonnment of the SM seems to me to be too strong an action. Accept the SM for what it is (and isn't), learn from its successes and shortcomings and recognize that it likely will present itself as a limiting case in what, if anythinhg, will emerge eventually as a "theory of everything." We shouldn't become enamored with the SM but need to stand back and constantly examine its merits and demerits in the expectation that continued testing of the SM and charting its failures eventually will lead to the breakthrough to a new paradigm. At the same time I am wary and skeptical of the search for the Higgs boson; it was not exactly an impartial inquiry but a footrace to find what had to be found.

Hello Thierry and all,

You wrote, "one of the SM issues, the one that is causing the invention of Dark Matter, allegedly accounting for 95% of the universe, can be dismissed by (mainly) classic physics."

I understand how you could say that, but millions of dark matter particles are crossing us every second, and have been for time immemorial, yet they went all undetected by classical physics. Dark matter, as we call it, is the part that weakly interacts, and only gravitationally.

Classical physics does not predict dark matter, even with higher terms of Newtonian gravitation added, and does not show how to measure it locally, at best conditions. But we can measure it astronomically. Classical physics is of no help with gravitational lensing, for example, one of the methods used in dark matter detection.

Classical physics is not an approximaion of the world we live in, even at rest, if we look carefully. A permanent magnet, resting on your hand, is a relativistic object. Time is not absolute, neither space. There is nothing classical about them, not even locally (look at a permanent magnet, on your hand).

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello Dwight and all,

You wrote "abandonnment of the SM seems to me to be too strong an action."

Yes, but if the SM fails experimentally, no matter who proposes it, or how "logical" it sounds, it is wrong, and may have artififactly right predictions in a small domain. A curve may look straight, yet have curvature.

You can fit anything with enough parameters, and even make an elephant dance (as quoted in physics), but is that a physical theory?

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Stam and all,

You wrote, "what is known is that it must have the Standard Model as its limiting case, just as classical mechanics is the limiting case of quantum mechanics and non-relativistic mechanics the limiting case of relativistic mechanics."

It would seem to be nice, to have such a Russian nesting doll picture. But a theorem in topology says that any one-to-one mapping between spaces of different dimensionality must be discontinuous, in that a continuous path in one maps into a broken path in the other. So, a small difference in one space do not necessarily represent adjacent points in the other space. There is no neccessary continuity in predictions, even if the points are continuous.

Thus, non-relativistic mechanics is NOT the limiting case of relativistic mechanics, and so on, by topology requirements that set the stage for physics.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

You wrote: "Dark matter, as we call it, is the part that weakly interacts, and only gravitationally."

Where is the observational evidence for that?

Where is the evidence -at all- for that?

You wrote: "Time is not absolute, neither space."

Where is the observational evidence for the dilation of time?

Where is the observational evidence for a Fitzgerald-Lorentz length contraction?

Where is the evidence for the equivalence of the inertial reference frames in our real world?

Where is the evidence -at all- for relativity in our real world?

You wrote: "A permanent magnet, resting on your hand, is a relativistic object."

Where is the observational evidence for that?

Where is the evidence -at all- for that?

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Christian,

Are you implying that using the SM is similar to using vector calculus or Newton's laws, to solve problems in physics? I agree with you. They seem to work in some cases, but are misleading most of the time. They promote the wrong physical intuitions. They have been defeated by experimental facts, some people continue to defend them. E pur si muove...

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Hello Thierry and all,

You ask for the observational evidence to support what I wrote, "Dark matter, as we call it, is the part that weakly interacts, and only gravitationally."

This is not answerable. It is an Intersubjective declaration, valid by itself, in its domain. Like the name cat, as we call it. You can call it whatever you want, in your domain.

Now you may question if there is in nature a part that weakly interacts, and only gravitationally. The SM has no theory for it, Einstein neither, nor Newton. We ran out of theories, but we do observe it. So, we call it "dark matter", but... we do not mean it is either/ or dark nor matter, is just a name, in its domain.

I think the same kind of explanation fit all your questions. No one is blocking you, in your domain.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

The term "cat" is defined and moreover seen.

"Dark Matter" is a term that is used to fabricate disc galaxies that fit with (incomplete or wrong) theories of gravity.

You use "cat" in order to describe another animal. Your definition of a quantum description of gravity as being "Dark Matter" is ill-defined because it has nothing to do with the original definition.

Could you also answer to my other questions? Thank you.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Why should we abandon the best model we do have up to day - we do know it is not complete. My answer is no until we do have a better model and this point of view is just a challenge for future Physicists.

Kurt Wraae

Dear Ed,

In order to complete my former answer, the term "Dark Matter" is also used as a mass fit in galaxy clusters, because the lensing of light is showing much more bending than the visible light would conclude.

However, the problem arizes from the wrong use of the Virial Theorem to estimate the masses involved, based upon the observed kinetic energies (velocities).

Zwicky supposed that the Virial Theorem is applicable to radially moving galaxies in galaxy clusters, but it is found to be wrong.

The reason is that in order to get the Virial Theorem being applicable, one needs to suppose a totally cyclic system, because a non-cyclic system gives wrong results. In fact, the average velocities during an infinite time or during a complete cycle should be known.

That is of course not the case, and the mass estimations are simply wrong...

Article Erroneous Use of the Virial Theorem for Elliptical-and Disc ...

With best regards,

Thierry de Mees

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

You pretend that the link you gave is proving time dilation. It is not.

It is just showing the deformation of light beams by motion, which is an effect of optics. Nothing more.

Instead, what is usually considered as a proof of time dilation is the longer life time of fast muons in our atmosphere, because their decay is delayed.

If that were true, it would be a candidate to prove time dilation.

However, muons are unstable charges, and it is known the electromagnetic fields of fast charges are deformed by the retardation of the fields by the speed of light. That is described by the original retarded Liétard-Wiechert potential and by Jefimenko's equations.

The electric field disappear in the line of motion and strongly increases perpendicularly to it.

It results in the creation of a very strong induced magnetic field, which induces a Lorentz force on the muons' charge, and which strongly compresses it.

This delays the decay.

For simple events, the retardation of the fields result in equations that are similar to the equation used in relativity. However, it is all about electromagnetism, not relativity.

Also the impossibility at CERN to continue accelerating charges is due to the above phenomenon: since the electric field disappears in the line of motion, it cannot be induced by any field in that direction.

With best regards,

Thierry de Mees

Dear Christian,

You write: "It is generally remarkable how many people on RG suggest to abandon successful theories for some real or alleged failure in specific circumstances without having anything in hand to replace it."

When you referred me to your carefully crafted and well referenced paper on Minkowski Spacetime, I took the time to study it "until I understood what you were explaining". I learned a lot and integrated this knowledge into my world view which made it come into better focus.

This is what I systematically do with every source I am referred to.

This is the only means that I know of of widening one's knowledge base, connect previously apparently unconnected data, discard bad connections, and eventually draw wider ranging and more general conclusions.

Of course, assuming as you do that others, presenting summary arguments on RG, which is the only possibility in such ad hoc conversations, systematically know less than you in all domains of physics, is exactly why you will never know whether or not others presenting arguments that at face value are in contradiction with your current beliefs have anything in hand to offer.

Dear Christian Baumgarten,

You say that you pretend nothing, but still you have put this link that allegedly would answer my question : "Where is the observational evidence for the dilation of time?"

Further, you don't have given the least of a scientific reply to my post.

Do you think that RG is street talk?

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Ed,

You wrote: "A permanent magnet, resting on your hand, is a relativistic object."

This is the strangest assertion I have read about regarding permanent magnets.

Many companies are manufacturing permanent ceramic magnets by the hundreds of thousands each month across the world by processes very well understood that have nothing to do with relativity.

I refer you to the "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics", Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1997. p.12-117 for info on how magnetic domains in ferromagnetic materials simply involves unpaired electrons in these domains forced into magnetic parallel spin alignment, which causes their individual magnetic fields to add up to be measurable at our macroscopic level.

It is for a good reason that permanent magnets magnetic fields are termed "magnetostatic".

The Einstein-de Haas and the Barnett effects help understand why such parallel alignment can be controlled by external magnetic fields. References are provided in this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue12/B06120711.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear Ed,

It is a matter of degree but one can make a distinction between "falsification" and "incompleteness" of a theory. "Falsification" would entail demonstrating that a major aspect of the theory was not in accord with empirical or experimental evidence whereas "incompleteness" would apply more to the details of the theory. The distinction is not clear-cut but in many cases the devil is in the details and it is dealing with the niggly details of a theory that advances the theory rather than demolishing it. Quantum theory advanced by contending with the details.

Ed> "Do we need to abandon the Standard Model in Physics?"

Dear Ed,

In response to your question, I would like to present the following copy (below in italics) of a comment I made in another forum about one of the greatest "discoveries" of this century - the Higgs boson (aka The God Particle) and the incontrovertible "proof" of SM.

I would like to draw attention of anybody to the item No. 2, below and explain to me the diagrams and the content of the linked article in the Guardian by Prof. Jon Butterworth, Chair of Physics, UCL and the leader of the British Team with the detector ATLAS of the LHC. A question in the comments section below the article by me (as "futurehuman") remained unaswered and remains so even after repeated queries in the Blog in the Guardian "Life and Physics" by Prof. Butterworth.

My contention was and still is that this "discovery" is contrived; even if we accept the fact that a signal was recorded by choosing subjective data points using a selective algorithm. I wanted to know how they got the black star (* SM -68% CL) in the diagram. The black plus sign (+) is the average of all the mesearements, but how do you get the black star (*)?

The theory (SM) cannot not predict a "mass" for the Higgs boson; so how do you get the theoretical "mass value" (the black * in the diagram) to claim a 5 sigma correspondence with the theory?

My guess is that after they got the average point (+) from all the measurements, they assumed that ALL the signals came from decomposed "Higgs Particles" only and have no other source! Then they sat down to turn the knobs of two dozen parameters of the theory to adjust them in such a way so that they calculate a value (from the theory) close to the "experimental" value (+) position! This is as much tautology as it can be! Why only 5 sigma, by turning the knobs of the parameters even more and after more adjustments they could get a 100% fit with the theory! Cheers! Let us all celebrate the triumph of the Standard Model!

"The God Particle?

1. Lederman not only stands behind the term “God Particle”; he has written another book (co-author C. Hill) with the title, “Beyond the God Particle”. Just to give a taste of the book and the claim of "The God Particle"; a review in New Scientist has the following passage: “All of this is about as far from the standard cocktail party description of how the Higgs generates mass as it is possible to get. And it is worth the price of the book alone. Mind you, three-quarters of the way through, Lederman and Hill do belatedly admit, with a sheepish apology, that the Higgs explains only a minuscule part of mass. The lion’s share – 99 per cent – comes from the strong nuclear force and has nothing whatsoever to do with the weakly interacting Higgs. But then, this fact has been omitted by almost all particle physicists in their eagerness to big up the Higgs to the media. ” https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929351-000-what-has-the-higgs-boson-done-for-us/

2. The following link to the article in The Guardian and the comments that follow, particularly the unanswered queries by “futurehumn” (me); shows how contrived the “discovery” of the God Particle is! The black star in the diagram that say “SM -68% CL” and claims to be the SM value is a tautology. Because it is the average mass assuming that all the decay products (in the list) are coming from one particle i.e., the Higgs boson and is assumed to be the “theoretical/calculated” SM mass! The Standard Model can never predict the mass of the Higgs boson! The black cross in the diagram that says “Best fit” is the weighted average of the various colored data point of each individual decay shown in the diagram. The average (black cross) proclaiming the “experimental” value is then compared with the so-called theoretical value (black star), and claiming “5 sigma” discovery. It all means that we have alchemy in the production of the God Particle! https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/sep/20/how-the-higgs-boson-is-born-and-how-it-dies-the-most-precise-picture-so-far

Dear Abdul,

It was interesting to know your account, and time will tell, not man. Btw, I cited 2 percent as the accepted contribution of Higgs to mass, which is in my view the accepted value in the SM, whereas Lederman and Hill are cited as saying 1 percent in the SM, but the actual value could be 0.08 percent.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear André and all,

You asked me to explain my statement that, "A permanent magnet, resting on your hand, is a relativistic object."

This observation is pertinent, for at least three main reasons:

1. Electrons in the magnet are moving about at relativistic speeds, even though the object is at rest in your hand. Speed is relative, to an electron I may be moving at relativistic speed, there is no catastrophe, my mass does not explode every time a neutrino flies by, which is quite often. Relativistic effects are always ON, not just when your speed is larger than 0.1c -- larger relative to whom?

2. A charge moving creates magnetic field B, and the vector composition of all these fields, is measured at a distance as B, giving rise to a macro magnetic field B of the object, that we measure.

3. Maxwell's equations describe this. The divergence of B is zero, there is no source of B.

The B field is created by the movement of charges. There is no other source, in Maxwell's equations.

Quantum mechanics adds an electron spin, which creates a contribution to B, while the source is the same process - movement of charges.

Neutrons have a magnetic moment because they are not an elementary particle, they have structure, and their charge is zero because +1 -1 = 0, not because 0 = 0; the very existence of their magnetic moment shows they are not elementary particles.

Interestingly, this impacts the validity of the SM right here at the lab, not at astronomical distances. A permanent electric dipole moment (EDM) of the electron along its spin axis would violate parity and time reversal symmetries, and is of considerable interest in the SM. So far, measurements by a team at Harvard and Yale, with a follow-up planned at Caltech with Hutzler, has what they claim to be the best experimental limit on the electron EDM to date: d < 9.3×10-29 e·cm, linked at

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6168/269.abstract

The result constrains T-violating physics at the TeV energy scale, optimistically one can say, and probably orders of magnitude higher -- good bye to financiable particle accelerators! 13 TeV total is the world record currently, by CERN.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

The Standard Model is not so much a model as a smothering octopus. I was convinced of this when I went to a lecture by the Nobel Prize winner Art McDonald. He was introduced by the Perimeter Institute lead Neil Turok. Turok made the statement that the neutrino mass and lepton changes discovered at SNO were 'Part of the Standard Model'. They certainly were not when the neutrino detector in Sudbury was commissioned. Indeed Art gave Neil a pretty dark look when he said that. You could ask 10 people about that and get 10 different answers.

Thus the Standard Model is still at its peak - it has become complicated and ill defined to such an extent that it can 'explain' virtually anything.

It is a fallacy that scientific models fail when they disagree with facts. The real mechanism seems to be that something better in some small corner comes along and the ruling paradigm slowly falls into disuse.

Dear Thierry and all,

You wrote, quoting my use of cat to explain a point is semantics, that "You use "cat" in order to describe another animal."

I did not, I meant Computer Aided Tomography. This is the semantics point that can help us all, and my answer to your questions will be gladly provided once we do not confuse cats. If someone sends me a GIFT, he might be a German friend, so I have to be more careful. Names have no meaning intrinsic to them (Frege), let's not discuss names, if you want.

Let me advance the main points, also as a work in progress.

Length, in physics, is what one defines it to be ... not what it is, which is, essentially unknowable.

Everyone is right -- that is what I call the Subjective mode. Therefore, every opinion is right, according to one's own definition...

One cannot get on top of a soapbox and say "Length is..." . One can, however say the definition one uses, or agrees with.

This is what I call the Intersubjective mode, similar to a medical diagnosis. It exists because there are other observers, that we need to take into account. These other observers, taken as equally competent, hard-working, and honest, maybe even as an ideal "computer" as originally meant, may have a different and, for them, as a group, valid definition. Everyone wins, each in their own group.

In Special Relativity, length is in what I call the Objective mode, valid for all observers, possibly correcting for mathematical transformations, as rotation, reflection, dilation, and translation.

Length is defined (no discussion here) to be three spatial coordinates of a space-time 4-vector. This is Objective, for everyone the same, even for those who don't agree. There is no wiggle room, right or wrong , in nature or in someone's mind here ... It is a definition in SR, there are philosophical objections but people have to live with free speech.

Consequently, in that definition, length is not invariant, it may not have the same value in all reference frames of SR, so there may be different values of length in different frames, in that theory --- except in the special eigenframe, where the relative velocity is zero for all points, comoving.

Furthermore, in SR, length can appear or disappear in measurements: for a non-co-moving observer, length contraction is measurable for speeds larger than zero, but must be the same for co-moving observers, with speed equal to zero (as stated by the principle of equivalence in SR).

Length contraction has caused much confusion in SR, even today, that two types of observer would disagree, when measuring the very same rod. Some think this is caused by a “mystery” in SR, or “paradox,” or simply does not make sense.

One could resolve the issue by regarding the statements as Intersubjective, for both types of observers are right in their own group.

Objectively though, in a narrower logic, it's easy to see that length contraction does not ever cause a permanent change, and returns to zero immediately whenever the speed returns to zero --- immediate action would be itself a violation of SR. This is NOT the sign of an Objective change. Length contraction is, thus, Subjective, Intersubjective, but not Objective.

With time dilation, the same happens, mutatis mutandis. Time dilation is, though, permanent, as revealed by the Twin Paradox, day-to-day operation of particle accelerators, GPS, and others, with no exceptions. Time dilation, in Special Relativity, is thus Subjective, Intersubjective, and Objective, contrary to length contraction. This explains all measurements, including length contraction, and contradicts none.

Regarding physicists, and papers, it seems that they are caught in the controversy, and that's why I think clarifying reality modes in physics will help. What people say, should stand on their own arguments, not based on who they are, if they have a Ph.D. (Grassman did not, and others), or their Party position.

Many physicists seem never to give a thought to these concerns, but the last 150 years has seen a change, with the abandonement of determinism in physics. Nature itself cannot fit in the Procrustean bed of one scalar concept of what is real. It seems to be multi-faceted, more like a matrix or tensor.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Probably SM is not the problem, since it is based on quantum mechanics. Problems are:

• the fact that we have stuck to electromagnetic theory, see

  Working Paper Beyond Electromagnetic Theory

• that explains currently 4% of reality
• but, since we have done giant inductive steps, see

  Data 111 years of Magic are enough: Let us return to Science now

• we have not the right tools to describe rerality

As an overall result, next moto is dominant:

• Shut up and calculate!

But, how many calculations are left that they have not been done?

So, stuck again.

If you look up CERN activity:

• last 6 years is a desert
• there existed a total failure in finding super symmetric particles

Probably the SM has reached its limits...

Dear Kurt and all,

Some people claim that SM is the best model we have, so why abandon it? If a person's model of the world is an oyster that we can pry open at will (Shakespeare), or that windmills are angry giants (Don Quixote), or that an electron moves without loss of energy when only in certain magical orbits (Bohr), or that antimatter is absent -- so what? (SM), that is fine. These are all Intersubjective views, but denied by the same reality, including SM.

Further, as Don Quixote illustrates, there is hope of a final redemption. Meanwhile, this shall not keep anyone out of work. No one is blocking. Work is best not measured in efforts, but in results.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Tom and all,

Thanks. You wrote, "It is a fallacy that scientific models fail when they disagree with facts."

For me, a fact is something that you are willing to believe. Belief is, non-circularly defined, the probability that the evidence supports the claim.

How many people died in Hiroshima, when the atomic bomb was detonated, is such a fact. Depends who you ask, and they are all correct in their own domain. Some people don't count the many Korean slaves, because they were not registered.

Unless we are willing to admit that facts change, also because their interpretations change, we will not understand that history changes, and oppose Galileo and former people, because it is a fact that the Sun moves around the Earth, just go outside and see for yourself.

Max Planck gave his reason why physics change. Mainly, not by changing the ideas of people, but by their death. We don't have to be so radical, multidisciplinary work often causes change, also in SM. And satellites.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian,

You write: "I find it remarkable how many people apparently know much more than "mainstream" physicists like me, so much more that they feel comfortable abandoning likewise STR, GTR, standard model or even quantum mechanics."

Isn't this very statement implying that all "mainstream physicists like me" de facto know all there is to know about all aspects of physics, and that consequently nobody else may possibly have come across information that maybe some mainstream physicists have not come across?

Isn't that precisely claiming that anyone not mainstream " "knows" less than me"?

Doesn't your very argument based on authority to Thierry that the conclusions of "The authors of this publication, published in a renowned journal, claim to have provided evidence for time dilation." are not to be challenged, simply because they are mainstream?

You seem not to take into account that nothing that mainstream physicists have access to is now out of reach of just anybody interested. The ivory tower has been breached with the advent of the internet. Knowledge is spreading more extensively than you may think among interested people.

People read all they are interested in irrespective of what mainstream finds appropriate for them to read and may well have come across info that has escaped even you, particularly in material little or not currently referenced in mainstream.

One thing I am certain of, only people looking for solutions by expanding their knowledge base, including mainstream physicists, stand the slightest chance of contributing solutions to the remaining issues.

Best Regards

André

Dear Ed,

I think many people have at least a strange view on relativity and on SRT, which is testified by your view on length contraction.

If length contraction, were true, I mean the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, then every inertial reference frame (IRF) could claim that it is standing still and that the other IRF's are moving, which result in a mutually shortening of the rulers in all frames. That is physically impossible.

Concerning the permanent magnet, you treat this as if it were a relativistic object. In fact, you are right, but not for the reason you would suppose.

The fast charges cause a retardation of the fields, which propagate at the limited speed of light, and this causes a strong deformation of these fields, comparable to the sound barrier of the sound waves.

The calculus of electromagnetism at high speeds is given by the Liénard-Wiechert potentials or the Jefimenko equations, and there are no relativity equations involved.

This electromagnetism of retarded fields explains all the alleged “proofs”of relativity (CERN results, fast muons).

I have explained why time dilation is not real but just an imitation by the mathematics of relativity, but you apprently ignore that, without any scientific reply.

Indeed, the effect of the calculus give similar mathematics as with the kinematics of relativity.

However, relativity is fundamentally problematic as I explained with the length contraction.

Also the alleged constant measurement of the speed of light for all IRF's is problematic. Indeed, several crossing IRF's would allegedly measure at one place and time the same light beam as having the same velocity. However, in that case, the beam velocity is undefined. It is physically impossible.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello André, Thierry, Christian, and all,

Recent advances in botany, created a problem to remain unsolved for nearly three generations. I am talking about the Brownian motion, and the invention of the microscope. It required physicists to abandon the theory, influential at the time, that matter is continuous. Even Max Plank had to always make room for that pesky conitinuity hypothesis, even though he knew fully well that it was false. See his last video testimony, in the DDR.

So, we need to say, "suppose in the SR", knowing fully well that is being said not to alienate people. The SR predicts a different universe, with equal number of particles to antiparticles, with particles that correspond to fields, with no entaglement, a neat ordering in someone's mind. It is a mathematical theory, not a physical one. That's the main reason, in my counting, to abandon the SR: lack of pattern in physics.

We can continue to say "suppose in the SR", to have papers published, our voice heard. I think Max Planck was wise enough in how he handled opposition, by avoiding it. But we should know, even though we may never find a theory of everything, that there are patterns which can be global.

We also should know that training is bias, so even a prestigious Ph.D. is expected to be biased, and should not be faulted for it. More people, thanks to the Internet and things like RG, can participate, and are also not free from bias themselves... but can contribute in a crowdsourcing effort. Innovation comes from outside.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Thierry and all,

You wrote, "I have explained why time dilation is not real but just an imitation by the mathematics of relativity, but you apprently ignore that, without any scientific reply."

I did give my scientific evidence and reasons, it is fine if you do not accept or list any of them. It is not fine if you deny I did.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Of course we have to abandon the Standard Model. But before, we need to find a better theory, which will then be "the most successful theory," since it is uncommon that a new adopted theory be less successful than the previous one. Classical physics was also "the most successful theory" at his time, don't you think?

Dear Christian,

If I may, it was you who brought up the issue of "mainstream". I just commented on your related comment.

I am not attacking mainstream in any way, so no need to defend it. I observed that even in "mainstream" there are practically as many interpretations of every aspect of physics as there are individuals.

With regard to theories, I personally think that there is no real need to prove any of them wrong. They just slowly fall into disuse, whether mainstream or not, as always in the past when more appropriate theories are developed, as mentioned by Tom Andersen.

The easiest prediction to make is that this will happen again for all current theories that can't integrate and explain the more extensive current data pool that now extends way beyond what it was when these theories were established.

Best Regards

André

Dear Claude and all

You wrote, "Classical physics was also "the most successful theory" at his time, don't you think?"

No, and many people fight today for classical physisics, even after Einstein died, and quantum mechanics was born. And Lagrange methods did not take off in undergraduate yet, after some 150 years, and classical physics is studied even at selective universities in the US.

Physicists need to learn topology, and they will, eventually. As I mentioned above, based on a cited and well-known result in topology, non-relativistic mechanics is NOT the limiting case of relativistic mechanics, and so on, by topology requirements that set the stage for physics. So, we have to abandon classical physics to progress, even the SM is fighting the old, metaphysical ideas of classical physics, disregarding experiments.

We need a new thinking in physics, more of the same will not likely cut it. So, the SM has enough proponents already, we need people willing to go on a different route, even if it sounds absurd. We need to try the other side of Occam's razor, that when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should ALSO select the answer that uses the most assumptions, and see what works experimentally. It is not wrong just because it makes more than one thinks are the least assumptions.

The PLA denies that Occam' s razor conventional blade, trying all paths in the path formulation of QM by Feynman. Maybe we can start there. Let others be busy with saving the SM...

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

"I meant Computer Aided Tomography"...Oh, I see!

Let me come back to an earlier post, where you explain your point of view, to which I didn't reply yet, but which might explain why we have a dialogue of the deaf.

You gave the following definitions :

"-Everyone is right -- that is what I call the Subjective mode. Therefore, every opinion is right, according to one's own definition...;

-the Intersubjective mode, similar to a medical diagnosis;

-the Objective mode, valid for all observers".

Imagine now that the theory that you mention as being part of the objective mode, appears to say that 1 - 1 = 1 . I suppose that the theory will then move into the Subjective mode then? Or no classification at all?

Imagine now that Nature doesn't allow in some process of physics that the observed phenomenon is mutually valid for all observers. I mean by that, that the observer 1 and observer 2 would see different things if they mutually observe a process from each-other.

How would you classify the Nature in that case?

The last reasoning above needs an explanation, which I will give after your answers... ;-)

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Christian,

Planck's words may apply here, as you say. The effort to save physics from the ultraviolet catastrophe, led Max Planck to the quantum aspect. But this did not give us the Brownian motion and atomism, botany did, and lay dormant for three generations until Einstein calculated it.

The effort to include gravitation forcefully in the SM, by finding a particle that would be the carrier of gravitation, as if such model would be a necessity of nature, is showing that this picture in the SM leads to energies we cannot experimenrally generate, by many orders of magnitude.

Particle accelerators cost also scales with the square of energy. The SM is saved, string theory is saved, they say, we just cannot measue it, but it is beautiful, we are all "saved" from experimentation...

Instead, consider that the Standard Model is wrong. Not every force would have a carrier particle, which means abandonement of the SM at its basic level, as the supposed structure of the universe. The known parts (e.g, EM), remain, just the supposed structure is sacked.

Here, I think, a different principle is at play, not that one by Planck. It is a priciple that does not come from history of science. It is the biological principle that we are bound to evolve. Out of the caterpillar comes the butterfly. A different animal, evolution can include a break from the past, no continuity, even though the process may look continuous from the outside. While the past was useful, its time passed. We cannot think in the same terms.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Thierry,

Thank you for your patience in the semantic lesson. We want to avoid that dialogue of the deaf, so common in physics, science, IT. When I say pass the salt, I may mean a copy of the strategic arms limitation treaty.

Let's be Intersubjective in our hearing, and Objective in our saying!

You wrote, "The last reasoning above needs an explanation, which I will give after your answers... ;-)"

That is Intersubjective, I am not playing. State Objectively your reasoning, we are not being tested on games.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Christian,

I did not mean to replace the SM with string theory. I reported that some prominent proponents of SM are extending it to embrace string theory. It's a failed approach, in my view. I commented to one, after his talk, that he was going against his own previous slide, when he unified gravity, string theory, and that would end in his view the search for new physics. He could not answer. He knew, it seems, that was just political jostling.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

You prefer not to answer my questions before I clarify the last reasoning. Okay.

I stated:

"Imagine now that Nature doesn't allow in some process of physics that the observed phenomenon is mutually valid for all observers. I mean by that, that the observer 1 and observer 2 would see different things if they mutually observe a process from each-other.

How would you classify the Nature in that case?"

The reason is that the theory might have applied Occam's razor, but that nevertheless Nature provided a parameter to the observer 1 or 2 of which Nature decided that it is influent to the result of observation. Sometimes this is called a "hidden parameter".

In the present case, because you surely guessed that I was talking of SRT, the parameter related to the observer 1 or 2 is "velocity". However, although that parameter is not hidden, the physical properties of "velocity" are hidden, as will become clear.

SRT assumes that nothing physically defines "velocity", since it considers the observers as totally equivalent.

However, the world in which we live is physical, and if there is a hidden parameter, it might be essential to know it.

In earlier posts, I have explained why SRT is not valid in Nature, by the example of the shortened rulers in all the IRF's and by the undefined speed of light. I have also shown that every alleged physical given proof is in fact an application about charges, explained by electrodynamics with retarded potentials.

Hence, treating SRT as a theory that represents whatever real, is the same as declaring a sophism true. (The mode of a sophism is not clear to me; maybe would you classify it as Subjective?)

So, dear Ed, I answered my questions myself:

The Objective mode is not provided by the requirement that all the observers would see the same phenomenon the same way. It is not that simple, unfortunately.

The problem of velocity definition has however a solution: it appears that when velocity is defined with respect to the Earth's surface for experiments in a lab (taking into account its magnetic field), the electromagnetic experiments, and those with light work well. For mechanic and dynamic experiments, the motion of the Earth (including the corrected value for G by angular inertia and the Coriolis force) should be taken into account.

Hence, velocities are then well-defined and observer-dependent.

Remark that for Mercury's perihelion advance, as found by gravitomagnetism, velocity is defined with respect to the Milky Way. This allows to generally define velocity with regard to the studied system, exactly alike Newtonian physics, level by level.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

The problem of black hole singularity explanation in the framework of Standard Model (SM) is one of the main reason for searcing for new physics beyond the SM. This does not exclude the remaining key problems of the SM: dark matter, dark energy, neutrino oscillation, CP-asymmetry, Higg boson radiative corrections to mass and so on. So, the need for a new theory is overdue.

Dear Christian,

"Sometimes there is plenty of space between "abandoning" and "saving" a theory."

I think that you hit the nail right on the head.

"Sometimes physicists even triggered a scientific revolution by trying to save a theory (Planck)."

I think that his aim was not really to "save" any theory, but "to understand better" what the then currently accepted theories "left insufficiently focused".

For that purpose, he examined more closely newly added experimental data provided by Wien and ended up clarifying the first tentative link between electromagnetic energy localization and Maxwell's theory.

I think that what remains to be done is to further "understand better" what is still left "not sufficiently focused" in the currently accepted theories by examining more closely the now more extensive pool of experimental data, to clarify the remaining missing links.

YES:

We need a really new approach to theoretical physics based on rich new concepts instead of seeking new insights from Old Ideas, especially Old Math with its singular appeal to deduction. Major progress has occurred in physics when a NEW radical hypothesis stimulates a broad INTUITIVE response from those people who are fascinated by the problem. Physics is far too wedded to Calculus and Geometry to seek new tools. As a result, the major projects today (Cosmology and Particle Physics) will NOT deliver real benefits to the world's taxpayers who are paying for all this 'Hobby' science.

Dear Herb,

You wrote in your first pdf (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Herb_Spencer2/post/Do_we_need_to_abandon_the_Standard_Model_in_Physics/attachment/5afeef854cde260d15df8292/AS%3A627658689884162%401526656901866/download/Higgs_Fake.pdf):

" I share Unzicker’s respect for the ‘giants’ of quantum mechanics (Dirac, Einstein, Bohr, Pauli, de Broglie, etc.) who moved our investigations down to the atomic level in the 1920s and 1930s. This reductionist program went off the rails when the search for smaller and smaller components of matter was pushed below the nuclear level while many unsolved problems still remained at the atomic level."

This is precisely what I have been investigating, that is, re-identifying what these "rails" were that de Broglie and Schrödinger were initially on and then attempting to remain on these rails:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/17-7503469_84158.htm

Best Regards

André

Dear Thierry,

Thanks for the reasons. However, you wrote, "because you surely guessed". This is a flaw, I did not quess anything, and if I would surely guess, then it's not a guess.

Once, a student wanted to surely win a game of heads and tails. There was a pile of coins, from different countries. The student had investigated the pile before and saw a coin there, that had two heads. When asked to choose a coin, to surely win, he chose that coin. However, circumstances of fast, confused logic, made him say that he wanted tails to win. He surely lost.

I did not guess anything, that would be bias, and I am trained to avoid it. In science, I don't follow Feynman' s method of scientific inquiry as he said, but as he practiced, and revealed years later. He was just trying to cope with competition, and gave the wrong idea publicly, to confuse... like a fox that hides its own trail by sweeping the ground with its tail behind.

I make no hypothesis, that would be a guess, and my method does not use guesses, a guess is a bias.

I tell you this, so you can understand that I did not "surely guess" anything. I waited for your reasoning to be given, for you to chose your coin (semantically), with an open mind.

Now, my answer, to the best that I can in this format.

The situation you described is common in life. We all observe the same object, but each one sees it differently. Perhaps one has daltoninism, the other has not. But, even if the observers are perfect twins, not only their fingerprints are different (they are), but their life experiences, resulting in differences in vision, which can be Objectively measured. The result of individual visual observations are, necessarily, Subjective.

If you consider something else, not vision, the observer is, also, Subjective, even for robots or sensors. An observer may rightly hear a sound that does not exist outside, created in his ear or microphone by harmonic distortion mixing two waves into a third. It happens all the time, it's called beat frequency, and happens with light, or any wave.

If you consider 1 =1 as a test, even if it looks simple, you would have to say what you mean by each symbol, where "=" has at least five meanings accepted in mathematics. The expression 1 = 1 is, for example, invalid for a C compiler.

Regarding velocity, there are also many meanings possible for that word, even going all the way to infinity.

Perhaps you want to make your meaning clear, define it. A mathematical equation is one way to do it, accepted in physics.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

It is admirable that you have raised the taboo question of abandoning one of the prize theories of modern official physics; but it is only the tip of the iceberg! The real problem of modern official theoretical physics lies much deeper i.e., in its world outlook and epistemology what Hegel termed as “the view of understanding” or crudely speaking Causality; to differentiate it from another world view, namely “the view of reason” or Dialectics – (the two organically related but also opposed to each other like a Siamese Twin) that existed in philosophy in Europe from the early Greeks.

In the evolution of Nature, life, history and of human thought, development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation of what exists. Of necessity, and because of their very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, the "view of understanding" or causality always was the epistemology of choice, in a class society and the established order of the time. While dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists. This is so because "the view of understanding" cannot comprehend change, except that from an impulse from without. For it the world and God who created it (the first cause), aim at preservation of what exists and at unchanging continuance.

Historically, a point of departure of the “view of understanding” or causality came by the time of Hume and Kant in philosophy; when Kant in particular showed conclusively that causality leads to no knowledge at all, beyond ordinary everyday life experience; instead it leads to contradiction, antinomies and mystery. To preserve the time honoured notions of causality and rationalism Kant sided with the established order in preference to the philosophical truth he himself discovered and rejected objective reality as unknowable “thing-in-itself”!

Kant wrongly concluded that rationalism can never know reality, and therefore, in order to avoid contradictions our reason must limit itself to structuring and manipulating its subjective intuitions: its logical categories, and impose these on objective reality to manage and to deal with it. Kant warned philosophy to abate its claims; it must give up all attempts to know reality, to penetrate behind the veil of appearances!

It fell on Hegel to correct Kant and to restore the honour of philosophy as the science of all sciences, the soul of all knowledge, by pulling it out of its intractable problems and the lowest moment it reached by the time of Kant. And strangest of all, this he accomplished by embracing the very same elements, namely the ideas of evolution and contradictions etc., which the “view of understanding” abhorred the most. On the contrary, he put contradiction at the very heart of his new philosophical system – the dialectical method. Hegel unambiguously rejected the law of non-contradiction of theology, old idealism, rationalism and classical materialism, the “excluded middle” of Aristotle and the thing-in-itself of Kant.

The Kantian point of departure, namely breakdown of causality in natural science came a little later with the discovery of the theory of evolution in the organic Nature and more importantly with the recognition of quantum uncertainty. To preserve the rule of the established order and of causality in natural science, Einstein reformulated (with the help of Minkowski) objective reality as an abstract four dimensional geometrical construct - a "continuous field" and like Kant imposed his “field equations” and mathematical idealism to deal with this new objective reality that he and Minkowski now created!

The whole of modern official theoretical physics, SM included, take this “imagined” (mathematical) objective reality as “The Real” and built as Einstein himself put it "Castles in the Air"! For them “Matter is a Myth”! The raging crisis in modern official theoretical physics calls for a Hegelian moment not only in philosophy, but also for physics. The prospect is now very REAL of a dialectical negation (a paradigm shift), which will be the ultimate taboo of official physics and most of the formally trained physicists!

Dear Ed,

I am quite a bit surprised. You picked a small excerpt that I gave in my post "en passant" but that isn't relevant at all for the explanation I gave, and you made a long prose about it.

However, you didn't answer any of the questions I asked wrt SRT in the context of your own definitions and apparently avoid to go to the point?

It is of course nonsense to say that there are different general definitions of velocity. Physics is very clear : v = ds/dt.

What is not clear is what the reference velocity is, the zero velocity.

Only that definition is missing in SRT and makes it useless.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Thierry,

If that is your definition of velocity, then it is not SR compliant. Maybe there lies the nature of the problems you see in SR.

Besides, post-SR to GR and even possibly above, following the late William P. Thurston, we can define velocity in a given dimension as a real-valued function f in a domain D, which is the Lagrangian section of the cotangent bundle T∗(D) that gives the connection form for the unique flat connection on the trivial R-bundle D×R for which the graph of f is parallel.

We can also use the integral form of the velocity, which is already SR compliant, based on the curvature at the point, which is intrinsic.

You see, there are many ways to define velocity in physics, but you're using a Newtonian definition, not usable in SR. Think how you can sum three velocities... it's not a direct sum. Also, to talk about the relative velocity of two photons that are moving in the same direction, has no sense in SR.

These effects cannot be accounted for using a Newtonian mechanics definition of velocity [1].

Cheers, Ed Gerck

[1] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Hello Abdul,

Thank you. But I am not to be especially cited for asking to andon the SM, almost everyone already is, or don't care in their areas! Many students, however, are prisoners of a "simulation of a simulation", still asking theoretically what has been denied experimentally. To those, we explain our view, and move on.

Neither dialectics nor Hegel have played a role on my path, which I see guided by synthesis. But I respect those who reach synthesis through what they see as dialetics, the goal is the same. On our path, however, everything is already, and always, beautiful and useful, we could not get to today except by following yesterday, forget the contradictions, they are just "contra". There is no "silver lining", everything is gold already.

The SM was first a model in particle physics, then... it overgrew, or just evolved? It is showing now, having tried to swallow gravitation, some signs of indigestion... The same model does not seem to apply. Maybe we need other ideas. The force-carrier concept is not so important today?

You could hold a dialectic view of that, but physicists are concerned with what nature says, and we do not see dialetics, we see evolution, prior steps, generating heavy metals and organics from Hydrogen, in several stars, in billions of years. There is no dialetics in the process, but chance. That chance may be the discussion of philosophy, we have no models to express it in physics, physics does not deal with purpose. In physics, a NO is an answer, not a frustration, not an antithesis.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Ed,

I think the examples you gave about the definition of velocity merely shows the many ways how Nature has been transformed into mathematical sophism....

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Hello Ed,

You wrote: "We can also use the integral form of the velocity, which is already SR compliant, based on the curvature at the point, which is intrinsic."

You might be interested to know that the same velocity curve as that of SR can be obtained from electromagnetism (Fig.2 on page 11), but that it can also be derived only from electromagnetism in the form presented in Fig 1 (page 9), from the ratio of particles' carrying energy vs carried energy. This latter relation cannot be derived from SR:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3197

From the electromagnetism perspective, the issue of what the two limits are relative to, that is, the speed of light of electromagnetic energy and theoretical zero velocity of electromagnetic particles, is addressed on page 14 of this paper:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards

André

Hello Thierry and André,

Electromagnetism is already SR compliant, Maxwell's equation predict a velocity that depends only on the properties of the medium, not on the velocities of the source or observer, it is not the Newtonian velocity. It was formulated before Einstein was even born.

But it does not break the SM. What we are discussing is the discovery of that we call dark matter, which is weakly interacting, and only gravitationally. Other kinds of dark matter may exist, as well as dark energy. Those break the SM. The definition of velocity may be different too.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

hello Ed

Thanks for starting that discussion because you are right...

I tried some explanations based on new experiments and that might give a new insight. You can read it on my site at Gravityforces.com

Louis

Hello,

The SM contains around 30 parameters; we know that their must be a substructure for almost all particles. With so many parameters, you can fit almost any number of experiment.

Their is no proof for the existens of quarks or gluons. So why do you think that this theory is the final theory of anything.

Their are experimental evidence in e-p, e-e reactions that their is no virtual particles ( be cause no structure in F-r graphs), i.e. all theories build on virtual particles are probably wrong.

Stellan

I am endlessly amazed at seeing how many in the community still do not know that up and down quarks have been physically detected at the SLAC facility in its very first years of operation and that they are what is being scattered against at the LHC.

Could this be due to textbooks such as Michio KaKu's intro textbook on QFT and possibly other such textbooks that continue spreading this false information?

How can progress resume when physicists at large do not even know what has really been physically detected via scattering within nucleons?

How can proper hypotheses be elaborated without this fundamental knowledge about physical reality being generalized in the community?

Best Regards

André

An ongoing attempt for setting up an ab-initio theory for ultimate building blocks of matter and radiation is given here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Hypotron-Theory

The hypotron theory is somewhat similar to the quark model. For all kinds of 'traditional elementary particles' there are only 2 kinds of buildingblocks ( and corresponding anti-buildingblocks ), i.e. the 'low hypotron' with el. charge 1/3 and the 'high hypotron' with el. charge 2/3. By means of getting rid of some traditional dogmas in particle physics and nuclear physics and by some hypotheses concering a new quantity called 'supercharge' (which is related to el. charge in a non-linear manner) some promising results can been obtained ( c.f. http://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Abstract.pdf ).

Links to all of the details of hypotron theory at it's present stage are presented here: http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

Hi Karl: We may be on the same path but I no longer can read German - any chance of an Anglo translations (it will give you ideas a wider audience).

I too focus on electrons but do not need dynamic composites, such as quarks. Good luck with your research.

Herb, all chapters of hypotron theory referenced as a link in http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf are written in English.

https://www.kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/KDSR_index-3-pic.htm contains the list of my theor. physics projects and maths projects.

Dear Andre:

Quarks have NOT been detected experimentally as their lifetime is less than 10-25 seconds, hugely below our experimental capabilities.

What has been "confirmed" (inside inscrutable) data and algorithmic computer) programs are some 'acceptable' numbers based on a hugely approximate mathematical theory with minimal validity below the atomic level. Please stop blow the Particle-Physicists PR Horn.

Dear Herb,

You are simply misinformed dear Herb, probably due to having trusted, like most, insufficiently researched and referenced conflicting sources.

I am blowing no horn but that of personally verified physically and formally obtained experimental data.

The SLAC accelerator was built specifically to become able to accelerate electrons with sufficient energy to penetrate inside the volumes that protons and neutrons had experimentally been measured to have from experiments with all previous less energetic accelerators, but that were not energetic enough to cause electrons to penetrate these volumes. It entered service in 1966 and the first projects were the exploration of the innards of protons and neutrons.

For example, these "bullet" electrons collided with internal point-like behaving "negative" particles "inside" the volumes occupied by protons, point-like behaving particles that can only have been marginally more massive than the incoming electrons, which is the only way to explain that some were backscattered in such a highly inelastic manner:

Breidenbach M. et al. (1969) Observed Behavior of Highly Inelastic Electron-Proton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Let., Vol. 23, No. 16, 935-939.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

I can only suggest that you access the SLAC archive and retrieve and study yourself the series of papers written about the experiments carried out in 1967 and 1968.

Up and down quarks have been conclusively physically scattered against and identified at the SLAC facility during this period via non-destructive scattering, and have been found to be the only physically scatterable charged, massive, stable and point-like behaving inner components of both proton and neutron, uud for the proton and udd for the neutron.

I simply don't understand why all high profile physicists have not been all over the place hypothesizing from this new physically obtained data (now 50 years in the past) instead of keeping the freeze on theories that can't account for it.

You don't have to believe me. If you are interested enough, the SLAC data is not going away any time soon, and will still be there when the up coming generation will finally hit upon it and start the ball rolling again.

Verifying is your call. It is everybody's call in fact.

Best Regards

André

Dear Andre:

I am fully familiar with the SLAC experiments; it is the interpretation that is in question; I see "sub-protonic" composites as dynamic collections of pure electrons only with a very short-range EM force, no need for Out-of-Date ontological thinking by inventing new physical entities . This is why Newton did NOT propose "gravitons" are any other such fictions to provide an explanation of the phenomena of gravity.

Dear Herb, Karl, and André,

Methinks that "Physics and Maths are actually made up, invented by people like you and I", as said In my home page at RG. Everything is, philosophically, each one's interpretation. What matters is, the interpretive power one gains from the interpretation one choses. In physics, it also needs to agree with experiment.

Most physicists are willing to accept the existence of things that cannot be proven. Most mathematicians are willing to accept the existence of things without any relation to phenomena — e.g. things that we, at present, cannot observe or construct in the physical world. Whether or not we can observe something directly, contemplating its possible existence may allow us to understand how it might play a role in how the world works.

In that way, no one can prove the existence of quarks, they may just be --at any time -- a false interpretation. By recognizing that, as in a revisited scientific method, the final judgment over YES or NO is deferred in conventional physics and natural sciences, we consider using refutability as a new guide into Nature's mysteries, allowing researchers to securely expand the frontiers of what is nowadays considered scientific into new scenarios, going into otherwise "forbidden" science areas between physics and mathematics.

We calculated and published properties of bound quarks already in 1978, without having to wonder if they exist or not. The magic word in physics is "if". If that is true, we get the consequent. Refuting the consequent, in modus tollens, infers the deniabilty of the antecedent. This allows physics (and maths) to advance without having to wait for "the final truth", never to come. No one yet proved the Riemann Hypothesis, yet math advances if or not it is true, bet on both sides, understanding always wins!

Even in mathematics, where the number 1 used (some 50 years ago) to be prime. It is no longer prime, not because of any discovery in division, which would be local, but because it does not fit globally.

Maybe a new theory by Herb, Karl, and others will show othwerwise, but the existence of quarks will likely continue to be an interpretation, refutable, albeit being a very persistent one until now.

Cheers, Ed Gerck

Dear Herb,

I respect your opinion, but as I wrote, the collected data is there for everyone to study and verify. No opinion can change this data.

Only correct interpretations can lead to coherent understanding of physical reality. I found that physical reality is coherent and that only converging interpretations stand any chance of leading to clear understanding of this coherence. That's where Occam's razor really cuts.

Whatever interpretation you made, these electrons rebounded highly non-elastically against "something" inside these nucleons, "something(s)" which were not "invented" and that the string of experiments carried out leads to understand that it has the characteristics now known to be those of the up and down quarks. It is as simple as that.

These experimentally established characteristics are listed in The European Physical Journal - Review of Particle Physics, Volume 15 – Number 10-4.2000. p.382.

As I wrote, verifying is your call. But you are obviously free to stand by your interpretation.

Best Regards

André

Yes, Andre we can agree to differ but my interpretation does NOT lead to the "pampered few" spending millions extracted from the helpless many.

This is why Trump keeps getting support - more and more people are sick of the self-serving "Games" of the Elite Flag-wavers. Populism is on the rise everywhere as the so-called 'Experts' have failed to deliver the good life.

Dear Ed,

You wrote: "I calculated and published properties of bound quarks already in 1978, without having to wonder if they exist or not. The magic word in physics is "if". If that is true, we get the consequent."

So this means that your aim was to build a theory that made sense. A perfectly legit endeavour, that effectively can be driven by the "if... then..." proposition.

My own aim never was "to build a theory that made sense". It was "to understand physical reality". From this perspective, it does matter if they exist or not, because from this perspective they can be considered for hypothesizing possible solutions only if they can be experimentally shown to exist, whatever name they happen to be given. The magic proposition from this perspective cannot be "if... then...", but rather "given that... then... ". When convergence is used as a guide, I found that coherence eventually comes into clear focus, because physical reality is coherent and is organized about very rigid and predictable structures at the fundamental level, ref the table of elements.

"Physics", "Math", "interpretations", "conventional physics", "refuting" are just mostly irrelevant "words" to me in context. What I think matters is not only that the theories make sense and be self-consistent, they also have to converge to eventually all become exactly coherent with experimentally confirmed data and only with experimentally confirmed data.

Nature for me is not "mysteries" to wonder about, and particularly not mysteries that are beyond our ability to understand. It is a coherent physical reality that we need to understand for our species to survive, particularly the fundamental level where the really existing elementary electromagnetic particles live, that are the only building blocks of all atoms, that in turn are the only building blocks of all that we can observe, including our own bodies.

Non-existent virtual particles and fleetingly existing partons are irrelevant in this context, and are no help in clarifying what needs to be understood about physical reality, although virtual particles are useful as concepts to make calculation easier, as in QED, or to visualize interactions at the general level as in QFT.

That's where our philosophies diverge.

Best Regards

André

Dear Ed,

It is the nature of the standard model or final theory to reject or to kill new idea. Without exception, all of the standard model or final theory made the development of science slow or stopped. And, a great development of science usually comes after a standard model or final theory was broken. Factually, we have known little about the world. We have a very big distance from the final theory. In physics, if we know a very little about the nature, we shall have a very big step in the human history. For example, Faraday’s law of induction changed the world much greater in the 180 years than in the early several thousands. If we can manipulate the gravitational field as manipulated the electromagnetic field, the world shall have been much greater changed. But, the standard model can tell us nothing about it. And, much worse, as an empirical model is valued to be final theory, it must result in pseudoscience.

Please see:

Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...

Best regards.

Yin

I think that their is sufficient proof that the proton has a sub structure of "partons" but why associate these with quarks? To me it is especially improbable that such particles should have non unit charge! Such particles have never been detected.

Also the theory of confinement sound like a cleaver cover up, for the fact that non of the proposed component of the proton or neutron have been detected.

Dear Stellan,

The up and down quarks are not "partons".

Non-destructive scattering must not be confused with destructive scattering.

Non-destructive scattering is the same technique used in colliding two electrons or two positrons, it does not result in the particles being destroyed (converted to energy), it simply causes them to rebound on each other. That's the technique used at SLAC in its first 2 years of operation to detect these two inner components of the proton and neutron inner structure, and to estimate their charges and the possible ranges within which their masses lie from the data collected from the electrons rebound patterns, which is data that is summarized in the last reference I gave.

Partons are fleetingly existing particles generated "outside" the confines of nucleons via destructive scattering, and none of them were ever detected via non-destructive scattering.

It is unfortunate and confusing that the "up" and "down" were given the generic name "quark" identical to the names of the "parton quarks", top, charm, strange and bottom of the Gell-mann/Zweig theory, but this doesn't change the fact that these two are not partons and have been conclusively detected as being the only scatterable inner sub-components detectable "inside" the volumes of protons and neutrons via non-destructive scattering.

More on destructive via non-destructive scattering here:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-last-challenge-of-modern-physics-2090-0902-1000217.pdf

They turn out to be very similar to electrons and positrons in all respects except for their unexpected reduced charges and larger estimated masses, but these two characteristics find quite logical explanations when the data is analyzed from the electromagnetic perspective.

The theory of confinement is simply that: "a theory". Not a cover up, clever or otherwise. Just an unconvincing and unsuccessful attempt at explanation. The equations of QCD never could precisely account for inner scatterable structure of nucleons. I found that only electromagnetism can provide coherent and realistic figures.

Best Regards

André

Dear Herb,

You wrote: "Yes, Andre we can agree to differ but my interpretation does NOT lead to the "pampered few" spending millions extracted from the helpless many."

Neither does mine. The difference is that it leads to an explanation demonstrably consistent with electromagnetism.

Best Regards

André

Dear Andre,

I use "partons" to define a non specific component of the nucleons, it was not meant to be a precise indication. I'm not a specialist in this matter.

I have read your reference, very interesting. I agree about electrons and positrons being the constituents of the nucleons. I don't thing it is necessary to pass through "quarks", to give an explanation, it is probably sufficient to allow for a strong modification of their mass and "interacting" force.

Considering the rest of your article, my own ideas are quit different. But, I'm not ready for a discussion at the moment.

Stellan