The Nucleus is kept together by Gravity;
there is no Strong Force
© Miles Mathis Rewritten May 15, 2013
See How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table", to see how the example elements are constructed. (Protons are shown as red and neutrons are blue.) There are certain so-called magic numbers in the Periodic Table. See these Wiki references: nuclear physics , a magic number is a number of nucleons (either protons or neutrons ) such that they are
arranged into complete shells within the atomic nucleus . The seven most widely recognized magic numbers as of
2007 are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126. Already we can see that these magic numbers rely on the current orbital math, which MM has shown is
wrong. We have seen in previous papers that many nuclei fill shells completely, including all the noble
gasses, group six elements, and many others. And there is nothing magic about number 20 Calcium by
this standard: The outer level isn't filled as they tell you. If it were, the
four carousel level disks would be filled. In that sense Chromium is more magical than Calcium:
Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "my" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "my".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site.
(This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' semf paper, strong paper and strong2 paper.)
The Semi-Empirical Mass Formula (SEMF) used the Strong Force
in 1932 simply as a fudge factor, to fill the hole created by a mistakenly large E/M field.
And in Period 4, since its diagram is all blue in the outer levels so Germanium may be the most “magical” since its diagram is all blue in the outer levels. It fills all the levels evenly: :
Although number 50 Tin is special in some ways, it isn't special in the way indicated here. The outer level isn't full. It is Tellurium that fills the 4th level in period 5:
Tin is almost as special and has a beautiful balance regardless, but it doesn't match the definitions given, as you see:
So what is this magic number stuff really about?
Atomic nuclei consisting of such a magic number of nucleons have a higher average binding energy per nucleon than one would expect based upon predictions such as the semi-empirical mass formula [SEMF] and are hence more stable against nuclear decay.
The “semi-empirical mass formula.” Doesn't sound promising, just from the title. How can anything be semi-empirical? That is like being semi-pregnant. Well, the SEMF was proposed in 1935 by Carl Weizsacker, following the liquid drop method of George Gamow, and it is still in the same form now as then. This shows us once again the real state of quantum mechanics, which hasn't progressed in 75 years.
The liquid drop method is an admittedly crude method whereby the nucleus is taken to be a drop of incompressible fluid.
This is a crude model that does not explain all the properties of the nucleus, but does explain the spherical shape of most nuclei. It also helps to predict the binding energy of the nucleus. [Wikipedia]
Of course this leads us to ask why nuclear models are so crude. Has no one thought to diagram the nucleus beyond “a spherical shape” in 75 years? It also leads us to ask for the evidence that the nucleus is spherical. Most elements have a hexagonal or other crystal structure, which should be taken as evidence that the nucleus is not just a round bag of marbles.
What the SEMF does is try to develop an equation from this crude model, with variables for the strong force, the E/M force, the surface energy, and a pairing term. MM will not pull apart all the math, since we already see that it can't work without a lot of pushing. To start with, MM has shown there is no strong that allow them to channel charge through the nucleus, so the strong force was never necessary. The E/ M term can't be right, either, since MM has shown that particle physicists have been misusing Coulomb's equation at the quantum level. (See Gravity at the Quantum Level and Coulomb's equation is a Unified Field equation in disguise.) In short, the constant k is a scaling constant and isn't needed at the quantum level. It scales charge up to our level, and shouldn't be used as it is here. This alone blows the equation in the amount of about 1022 .
Many people say that the SEMF does not include k anywhere. Readers have gone to Wikipedia and told me that they have studied the Coulomb term of the SEMF, finding no trace of k. Well, that is because they don't know where to look. Here is where the junk is hidden:
The term ac[Z(Z – 1)]/A1/3 is known as the Coulomb or electrostatic term . The basis for this term is the electrostatic repulsion between protons.
Well, k is hidden inside Z, since Z = Q/e, and e is calculated from k. Notice that Wiki admits that the basis for this term is the electrostatic repulsion between protons. That repulsion is currently found using k. Wiki misdirects readers who take the electrostatic repulsion link by linking them to the Lorentz force, and the Lorentz force equations don't explicitly include k, either. Contemporary physicists are adept at hiding their tracks, and they like to update old transparent math with newer more opaque math every few years. The Lorentz equation is:
F = q [E + (v x B)]
k is hiding behind q, because q is not calculated from this equation. It is a given. And its “given” value is calculated from k. The accepted value of q in the SEMF problem is e which we have already seen is calculated using k. That is to say, the force between protons in the nucleus is still thought to be on the order of 10-8N. MM has shown that is catastrophically too large, by 1022 . That is precisely what causes the Cosmological Constant Problem and The Vacuum Catastrophe.
This catastrophic miss with the Coulomb or electromagnetic term is what caused the need for the strong force to begin with. The volume (or strong force) term in the SEMF is there simply to push the mass formula back toward the data. But if we correct the Coulomb term, we don't need the strong force or the volume term at all . Instead, we need to insert a gravity term into the SEMF. This is because the miscalculation of E/M at the quantum level included a miscalculation of gravity. The early mistake in applying the Coulomb equation at the quantum level was not just a mistake in using k, it was also a mistake is assuming that the force F was all E/M. Since Coulomb's equation is a Unified Field Equation, the force F was always unified. It always included gravity.
This gravity term is not hard to develop, since in Gravity at the Quantum level MM has already shown hat the current constant ε0 stands for gravity at the quantum level.
To develop the proper nuclear equation, you have to have a good model, and this spherical model was always a non-starter. Rather than admit that and try a bit harder to come up with a decent model, these mathematicians decided to go ahead and fake it, using fancy equations. That has been the problem for the past 80 years, at least: physics has lacked any good models because it lacked any physicists who could visualize. Physics was taken over by mathematicians who prided themselves on “purity.” They thought that visualizing anything or diagramming anything was beneath their dignity. Heisenberg and Bohr actually forbid physicists from trying to visualize or diagram, via the absurd Copenhagen interpretation of 1926. We can now see that the Copenhagen interpretation was the worst piece of advice ever handed down from the highest levels of physics. It has done more damage to physics than any other single idea.
The timeline here is no accident. This SEMF came just 8 years after the Copenhagen interpretation, and the CI has prevented serious work on the problem for 76 years! No one on the inside was allowed to try to make mechanical sense of it until an outsider like Miles Mathis did so.
Review Miles Mathis' Quantum Discoveries that are purely Mechanical in Nature
The standard model still does not have any clear idea of what causes either the electric or the magnetic field. QED has finally come to the realization that the E/M field must be mediated by photons in a physical field, which is a great advance over classical models that treated the field in a completely abstract manner. But newer theories still tend to dive off into non-physical or non-mechanical waters in a heartbeat, whenever something can’t be explained easily. The best example of this is the messenger particle, one of these mediating photons of the E/M field that can cause either attraction or repulsion (depending on the fonts etched upon the faces of the photons, one supposes).
To review MM quantum discoveries, we must first look at the paper Superposition is not Mystical, where MM shows that stacked spins cause the wave motion of the particle and that mystery of superposition and other experimental paradoxes can be explained by stacked spins. MM has shown that they are not paradoxes, they are just poorly defined experiments with poorly defined particles. Once we apply gyroscopic exclusion rules to the spins, we find that each spin must be outside the influence of inner spins. So that, for example, an axial spin of R around the radius must create an x-spin of 2R and a y-spin of 4R and a z-spin of 8R. The four spins can’t all be about equivalent axes, and no one has noticed this before me.
These stacked spins cause the particle's linear motion to wobble, and this wobble is the primary wave. Secondary waves are then created by the relationships of each spin to the other. If we then propose that all spinning particles are emitting a charge field, and that the charge field is a real field of photons, we can create the electric and magnetic field quite easily, with straightforward mechanics. The linear energy of the photon field is the foundational electric field and the angular energy of the photon field is the foundational magnetic field. Note the word foundational" because the photon field cannot create electricity or magnetism without the presence of an ion field. The photons must drive electrons or positive ions in order to create the forces of electricity and magnetism. Normally, the photons cannot create macro-fields on their own except in the case of gasses. (See Why doesn't Atmospheric Pressure squash me? about atmospheric pressure and the charge field.)
Any simple analysis of spins stacked in this way must show that they are orthogonal to each other. If the first spin is axial, then the second spin must be end-over-end about an x-axis tangent to the sphere. This is the only way to keep the second spin from interfering with the first gyroscopically (or the first with the second). The third spin must likewise be outside the influence of the inner two, which puts the y-axis tangent to the great sphere of x-spin. It is not only tangent, but orthogonal. The three axes must create the 6 right-angle directions. This explains the relationship of the magnetic field to the electrical field. It also explains the relationship of both fields to the motion of the particle itself, since the flux of both fields will be determined directly by the speed of the particle and its radius, as you see.
By this theory, a non-spinning particle could exist, but it would have no emission and no E/M field. It would also not travel as a wave. Because it had no emission field, it would have no repulsion in the vicinity of other particles, and would be ripe for collision or inclusion. It would not have a negative charge; it would have no charge. This may explain some phenomena not so far explained, or explained poorly.
These three spins can obviously vary in direction. The x-spin can be +x or –x, for instance. And a +x spin need not cause a +y spin. We have 16 possible combinations.
+a+x+y+z
+a+x+y-z
+a+x-y-z
+a+x-y+z
+a-x+y+z
+a-x+y-z
+a-x-y+z
+a-x-y-z
-a+x+y+z
-a+x+y-z
-a+x-y-z
-a+x-y+z
-a-x+y+z
-a-x+y-z
-a-x-y+z
-a-x-y-z
This must also impact nuclear or chromodynamics (See the paper A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and Dismissal of the Quark), since once it is understood that the E/M field is caused by emission, it can be proposed that the E/M field of the nucleus sums outside the nucleus, but does not pertain inside the nucleus. As you can see from the list above, we have many different types of nucleons. Neither the proton nor neutron comes in only one form. In the paper Explaining Mesons without Quarks MM shows that protons can be emitting the charge field either forward (in line with the linear motion) or to any of four sides (up, down, left, right). If we compose the nucleus with the right protons and neutrons in the right positions, we can create a nucleus with no inner charge. In other words, charge is channeled through the nucleus by baryon spin, and so does not cause a repulsion between protons. This is how nuclei are really formed, and all known nuclei fit this form. (See How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table.) There is no charge field within the nucleus, and cannot be. It would have prevented any formation to begin with, whether we have a strong force or not. With the current model of charge, no protons could ever have got lose enough to turn on the strong force.
With no E/M field acting between nucleons, the strong force would then simply become an analogue of gravity at the quantum level. We don't have a strong force in the nucleus, we have gravity. Current physics has badly mis-measured Gravity at the Quantum Level.
The standard-model strong force has never been analyzed rigorously for consistency. If the strong force drops off as fast as is claimed, in order to keep it from snagging nearby electrons, then it does not explain nuclear creation at all. It is much less successful explaining nuclear creation than my quick theory here. Detractors of MM's theory will ask when my E/M field turns off, but MM can turn the tables and ask when the strong force turns on. If its influence is limited to a radius of 10-15m, how do protons ever get close enough to call it up? The whole mechanism is a blatant contradiction, since if protons could get that close without the strong force, we wouldn’t need the strong force to explain them being that close. But in order to turn the strong force on, we have to bring them that close. Is no one embarrassed by this? It is not a paradox, it is just illogical reasoning.
It is not just that the current model is based on illogic, it is that it is ignoring all kinds of simple math. Given the current mass, charge, and maximum speed of the proton, there is no possible way to put two protons near enough for long enough to turn on the strong force. You will say that the Sun can create that force, from the outside, using pressure to crush the E/M field repulsion. Maybe, but then it would be the Sun, not the strong force, that overcomes the E/M field. To bring the Sun into the argument, you must believe that the E/M field inside the nucleus tends to bounce back after being crushed, necessitating the entry of the strong force to prevent it from bouncing back. But MM can simply deny that. Why not just postulate that the Sun crushes the E/M field, squeezing it out of the newly created nucleus like orange juice? After the helium or whatever escapes the Sun, the E/M field stays out of the nucleus, because it is too tight to get back in. If the field turns back on, it does so only outside the nucleus, since that is where the spin turns back on. The whole idea of the strong force is unnecessary.
If you say that we still need the strong force to explain the energies required to split atoms in accelerators, MM says that is false, too. Gravity is more than enough to explain those energies, once you recognize that gravity exists at the quantum level, it is clear that it has been drastically mis-sized there by the standard model. In Newton's law is a Unified Field of Gravity and E/M MM shows that his inverse square law applies to the E/M field at the macro-level, not to gravity. Therefore gravity is 1022 times stronger at the quantum level than we have been told. If we combine this with my newly recalibrated E/M field (which also resists acceleration), then we have plenty of force available to explain fission energies, without recourse to the strong force at all.
For more information see How Elements are Built without the Strong Force - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table where MM shows exactly how the baryons channel charge through the nucleus. and on MM's site, see The Disproof of Asymptotic Freedom and the Breaking of the Landau Pole.
More Problems with the Strong Force
MM has previously shown above that the strong force is unnecessary and that both that QED and QCD are badly compromised, making the current mathematical models nothing more than houses of cards. (See Bohr's Three Mistakes and A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark) Here MM will show further problems with the proposed strong force.
We are told that the strong force is some 100 times stronger than E/M and a trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity. Being one of those rare persons not predisposed to believe everything the standard model tells me, MM has looked hard at that claim and ended up seeing some things that others have not. Later MM looked once again at that claim, and saw another very large new hole that he had not seen before. It's funny: once you see one of these holes clearly, you begin to have an eye for other holes, and very soon all of physics is an interconnecting system of holes, like the sewers of a vast city.
The strong force was invented to counteract the E/M repulsion between protons in the nucleus and it has been misdirected since its invention, having now been given to quarks rather than to protons, but most physicists and non-physicists never notice that or question it.
The central problem here is that neutrons exist in the nucleus with protons, and the neutrons have no E/M repulsion. They are neutral. Therefore, the strong force has no E/M force to overcome with neutrons, and we would expect neutrons to either be crushed or squirted out of the nucleus by the strong force.
QCD has an answer for this, though, like all the others, it is not a good answer. It is nothing more than a dodge. Here is the answer: The strong force is divided into two different forces, 1) the strong force proper, which is a binding force between quarks, via gluons, and 2) the nuclear force, which is a “residue” of the strong force proper, and which acts between nucleons. How is this “residue” force mediated? This is from Wikipedia, paraphrasing Harald Fritzsch1:
Since nucleons have no color charge, the nuclear force does not directly involve the force carriers of quantum chromodynamics, the gluons. However, just as electrically neutral atoms (each composed of canceling charges) attract each other via the second-order effects of electrical polarization, via the van der Waals forces (London forces), so by analogy, "color-neutral" nucleons may attract each other by a type of polarization which allows some basically gluon-mediated effects to be carried from one color-neutral nucleon to another, via the virtual mesons which transmit the forces, and which themselves are held together by virtual gluons... The basic idea is that while the nucleons are "color-neutral," just as atoms are "charge-neutral," in both cases, polarization effects acting between near-by neutral particles allow a "residual" charge effect to cause net charge-mediated attraction between uncharged species, although it is necessarily of a much weaker and less direct nature than the basic forces which act internally within the particles.
That is clearly babblement. Making an analogy from nuclear forces to van der Waals forces is explaining one mystery with another. Van der Waals forces are not understood mechanically, and we only have a squishy QM explanation for them as well:
There is a high chance that the electron density will not be evenly distributed throughout a nonpolar molecule. When electrons are unevenly distributed, a temporary multipole exists. This multipole will interact with other nearby multipoles and induce similar temporary polarity in nearby molecules.
That is also from Wiki. Why is there a “high chance” that electrons will not be evenly distributed throughout a nonpolar molecule? Because if the electrons are distributed evenly, then we can't explain van der Waals forces that way. So the argument is circular. We have no evidence that electrons are unevenly distributed, and according to the first laws of quantum mechanics we can't have any such evidence: it would require we know the position of all the electrons simultaneously, and according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can't know that. Since the electrons are probabilities, we can't know a distribution. In fact, the claim that there is a “high chance” is false, since we can't calculate the odds from zero knowledge. We don't know where the electrons are at any time, and can't know, so how can we calculate probabilities of their distributions? Calculating distribution probabilities implies we know locations, but if we know locations, then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is false and quantum mechanics is not based on probabilities. These theorists have to make a choice: they cannot have it both ways. Do they want electrons as probabilities, or do they want to be able to calculate distributions?
If electrons are probabilities, there is neither a high chance nor a low chance that electrons are unevenly distributed. That electrons are unevenly distributed is not a calculation here, it is an assumption based on nothing. Or, it is an assumption based on need. We need an uneven distribution to explain multipoles to explain van der Waals forces. We see van der Waals forces, therefore multipoles exist, therefore we must have uneven distribution. That is the argument, but there is nothing scientific about it. [There is a way to explain van der Waals forces more directly: see below.]
This same sort of argument is seen in the claim that the strong force does not diminish with distance.
The strong force acting between quarks, unlike other forces, does not diminish in strength with increasing distance, after a limit (about the size of a hadron) has been reached... In QCD, this phenomenon is called color confinement, implying that only hadrons can be observed; this is because the amount of work done against a force of 10 newtons is enough to create particle-antiparticle pairs within a very short distance of an interaction. Evidence for this effect is seen in many failed free quark searches.2
That is the argument of the hysteron proteron. In other words, it is upside down. The theory is trying to explain why free quarks don't exist, then it uses the fact that free quarks haven't been seen as evidence for the theory. You will say, “No, this quote isn't explaining why free quarks don't exist, it is explaining why the strong force does not diminish with distance, as you said yourself.” But “color confinement” is the same as “lack of free quarks,” you see. “Only hadrons can be observed” means “single quarks cannot be observed.” This quote has no content. It is circular. It isn't science, it is just a another tall sign announcing the death of science.
To be clear, there are a thousand different possible explanations for why free quarks don't exist, beginning with “because quarks don't exist.” But this theory of QCD takes the non-existence of free quarks as proof of their theory! That is like coming up with a theory for why unicorns do not exist, and then claiming that the fact that no one has ever found one is proof of your theory.
But let's get back to the nuclear force, which is supposed to be a residue of the strong force. Returning to the first quote above, we see that nuclear force is being sold as an analogue of the van der Waals force. But since the van der Waals force is not understood mechanically, that is just a dodge. You can't explain x by saying it is explained just like y, when y is explained by a bald assumption, with no evidence and no theory. So we can throw out all the van der Waals stuff as empty verbiage. What do we have left? We are told that the protons and neutrons have some sort of polarization, which is not a polarization of color charge and which does not directly involve gluons. As you see, we are told what the force is not, but we are not told what it is. What causes this polarization? How can a neutron or proton be polarized?
The truth is, no one knows. Feynman came up with diagrams that explained nuclear forces between protons and neutrons using pions to mediate, but like Yukawa potentials, these diagrams are derived not from mechanical theory but from experiment. Both the diagrams and the potentials are completely heuristic. In other words, they are one possible explanation, but each explanation has little to recommend it. If the diagram didn't have Feynman's name on it, it would be worthless, and if the potential didn't have Yukawa's name on it, it would be empty. Neither explanation explains anything, it simply illustrates it. It is a naming, not an unlocking of a mechanism.
Yukawa came up with this meson mediation of the strong force in 1935. So the theory has not changed in more than 70 years. Feynman did not change the theory, he simply illustrated it. Nor did Feynman provide a mechanism for the force. Feynman was never interested in mechanics. He only wanted a math or diagram that fit the experiment: but that isn't physics! Physics is a physical explanation. Yukawa never bothered to tell us how trading or otherwise using a pion as mediation could cause an attractive force. The strong nuclear force is attractive, remember? How can particle exchange cause attraction? Look at Feynman's diagram:
Do you really think that stands as an explanation? It is an illustration of nothing, a diagram for the mentally and visually impaired. Why do we have to keep looking at these asinine things?
You can't explain attraction or bonding with mediating particles. Mediating particles can only be used as a field, to cause repulsion by bombardment. Unless you can show a mechanical way that particles cause attraction, the theory is just magic.
Another problem with both Yukawa and Feynman is that neither man explained the question at hand. That question being, “Why does not the strong force or nuclear force act entirely differently on protons and neutrons?” If the proton and neutron have no E/M repulsion, and a strong nuclear force binding them, then the neutron should be more difficult to separate from the nucleus than the proton.
In fact, if the strong force were only a little stronger than the E/M force, it would require only the difference in the two to free the proton from the nucleus, but it would require overcoming the entire strong force to free the neutron. This is the major reason the standard model proposes a strong force 100 times stronger than E/M. This acts to lower the difference in binding energies between the neutron and proton, and covers up the problem somewhat.
The truth is, strong force theory is the weakest part of the standard model. In 1973 Gell-Mann, Leutwyler and Fritzsch updated Yukawa's theory from 1935, mainly by burying it under Yang-Mills math. Using Yang-Mills field theory,
Carrier particles of a force can themselves radiate further carrier particles. (This is different from QED, where the photons that carry the electromagnetic force do not radiate further photons.)3
But if you study the Yang-Mills field on MM's site, you find that it, like the field of Yukawa, has no mechanics. There is a lot of math, but absolutely no physical explanation for how carrier particles radiate further carrier particles, or how any radiation of any particles, primary or secondary, can cause the attractive force in the nucleus.
Weinberg is even forced to admit this in his book, when he tries to unify the electro-weak and strong forces in eq. 21.5.5: 4
gs2 = g2 = (5/3)g' 2
Although he used all the up-to-date math from 1996, he admits that this equation “is in gross disagreement with the observed values of the coupling constants.” The variable gs is supposed to stand for the strong force, but here Weinberg has it the same size as the weak force, as you see. Weinberg says there is an explanation for this gigantic miss, and it is that his solution only applies to masses at the scale of the big W bosons, but this is an awful dodge. It is awful because there is no evidence these big gauge bosons have anything to do with the strong force. There is no good experimental evidence they have anything to do with creating any of the coupling constants, but even in the standard model, the connection of large gauge bosons to strong theory is tenuous or non-existent. So not only is Weinberg not able to clarify the mechanics of the strong force, he is forced to admit that the gauge math does not even work.
We can find more proof of the true state of strong theory by going once again to Bryan Roe's book. In a sub-chapter entitled “evidence for gluons”, we are told,
Half the momentum in a proton is carried by something other than quarks. This is indirect evidence for gluons. More direct evidence follows from looking at the reaction e+e- → qq. At high energies, much of the time these events appear as two jets, one formed from the materialization of the quark and the other formed from the anti-quark. However, a fraction of the time three jets are seen. This is believed to be due to the process q → q + gluon.5
Let me quash the first “evidence” first. Even if we look at that assertion from the point of view of the standard model, it is gibberish. How could half the momentum fail to be carried by the particles that comprise the particle? We need some sort of mechanical explanation for that, and there is none. Are we to believe that momentum is no longer caused by mass? That momentum is now caused by the mass of the field particle? And why would gluons make up 50% of the lost momentum? A full 50% of a real parameter is given to ad hoc particles, that we have zero evidence for, and that are mediating or carrier particles in the zero-evidence theory. How can carrier particles carry half the real momentum? If gluons are field particles, they must be able to travel. When they are in transit, their momentum cannot be given to the proton. The gluon either travels to transmit a force, or it does not. If it travels, it cannot make up 50% of the momentum of the proton. If it does not travel, then it cannot transmit the force.
MM will answer this question of momentum here, but quickly to say, it is not caused by quarks or gluons.
As for the jets out of positron-electron collisions, the proposal that the quondam third jet is caused by gluons is absurd. The first two jets can't be caused by quarks, to begin with, since this would be proof of non-confinement. It would also be proof that electrons are made of quarks, since otherwise where do the quarks come from? The standard model has no way to explain electrons composed of quarks, especially not single quarks. The third jet being a gluon jet is just grasping at straws, and is neither more or less “direct” than the first “evidence.” Why would a positron-electron collision yield gluons? Gluons are supposed to be carriers of the strong force, and the strong force is used to overcome E/M inside of nuclei. What in hell are gluons doing inside electrons and positrons? Shouldn't we at least have the bare bones of another sorry theory here? How can these physicists make ridiculous proposals like this, pulling these ideas from nowhere with no least effort to make any sense or to be consistent? Have they no shame?
All books and websites are equally weak when it comes to the strong force. Roe's book has almost nothing on it, though it was published in 1999. Weinberg's book also has next to nothing. “Strong force” is not even listed in the index. Everybody seems to think that the subject is explained by asymptotic freedom, but MM has already shown on his site that asymptotic freedom is another myth.
QCD is lots of bad math and theory, and it can easily be replaced by better theory and simpler math. First of all, there is no strong force because the E/M field is turned off inside the nucleus. (See How Elements are Built Without the Strong Force - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table.) The E/M field of the nucleus is summed outside the nucleus, but does not pertain between the nucleons. The E/M field is an emission field, and it requires spin to be emitted. Non-spinning particles do not emit; and some spinning particles do not emit, when the spins stack up in a way to send the emission back to the particle. (See A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark) This is how neutrons have four spins but do not emit. Protons have four spins and do emit. But in the nucleus, the protons and neutrons do not emit toward one another.
There are many different types of protons and neutrons*, and by using the right forms of each particle at the proper places in the nucleus, these particles are able to create a structure in which all emission is summed outward, so that there is no internal E/M field. The E/M field does not have to be overcome in the nucleus, so the strong force is a myth. The force that keeps the nucleus together is simply gravity, which has been gigantically mis-measured at the quantum level. A misunderstanding of the Coulomb equation has led to a disastrous mis-estimation of forces at the quantum and gravity has been mis-measured there by a factor of 1022. (See Gravity at the Quantum Level.)
This explains both of Bryan Roe's problems above. He admits that half the measured momentum of the proton is unaccounted for in the standard model, but the difference is not made up by gluons. MM has a simple mechanical explanation for it in A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark. The proton is made up of four spins, not three quarks; but because of the mechanics of end-over-end spin, the proton proper cannot inhabit the entire spin. Given a linear motion and a time interval, the particle within the spin will be moving against the linear motion half the time. If we think the momentum is dependent on the mass, and if the mass is dependent on the particle, then we would expect the momentum to be x, say. But the momentum is really dependent on the energy, not the mass. The energy of the z-spin acts as mass, by Einstein's equation, and this gives us a momentum in experiment that is double what we expected: 2x. Our mass and our momentum don't appear to match. But the problem is in our expectation. We expect the mass of the proton at rest to give us the momentum when the proton is traveling. But it can't because of the way the proton travels.
Now you can see that the difference is not caused by gluons, it is caused by misunderstanding how the proton is composed. Because it is composed of stacked spins, each spin double the radius of inner spins and orthogonal to them, our matching of rest mass to momentum was wrong to begin with. (See Superposition is not Mystical.) Each spin adds energy, which energy acts like mass. In collision, the spin energy may be mistaken as mass. But by understanding the composition of the proton, we separate each spin energy from the other, and see how interactions (either with other particles or with detectors) really happen.
Roe's second problem is answered in much the same way. Electrons and positrons are not made of quarks or gluons, they just have fewer spins than nucleons. (See The Unification of the Proton and Electron & Finding the Electron Radius & The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit.) When an electron and positron collide, all their outer spins are stripped. The energy of these spins is transferred to the charge field, which is made up of photons. The charge field then dissipates the energy. But this charge dissipation is very directionalized, hence the jets. MM has no perfect theory of what these jets are, or what the third jet is, but there is sure to be a more consistent hypothesis than the standard model. MM suspects these jets are just photon jets, but if there is absolute proof they are not photon jets, then the photons must be accelerating other particles in the vicinity. In Mesons without Quarks MM has shown that non-spinning electrons, of mass one ninth that of the normal electron, must be present in the charge field, and these may be caught in the charge photon jets.
As for the third jet, MM proposes it is caused by a collision that is not equal. Since there are 8 different types of proton*, and there are also several different types of electron and positron. The high energy electron and positron have two stacked spins plus a linear motion, and these three variables can stack in eight different ways. So we have four different electrons and four different positrons. All these electrons and positrons are emitting a charge field, but some are emitting forward and some are emitting sideways. The third jet is probably caused by a collision of two of these particles that are emitting orthogonally to each other. All spins are stripped in collision, but instead of two directions of explosion, we have three. We have the two linear motions canceling, which causes jets in the forward and backward directions; but we also have the angular momentum from the spin being ejected. Since the two charge spins do not cancel in a line, we have an energy ejection to the side. This is caused directly by the orthogonal charge emission of one (or both) of the particles.
MM can also explain van der Waals forces more easily than the standard model. Remember that the standard model requires polarization caused by an uneven distribution of electrons in the molecular shells, but it has no way to show this uneven distribution. In fact, it is blocked by its own theory from providing this uneven distribution. But MM has already shown how gravity at the quantum level (and just above it) can explain the attraction of molecules, without any recourse to electron distributions. Not only do we have gravity at the quantum level, we have a charge field that works differently than the standard model charge field. The charge repulsion of protons diminishes with distance more quickly than the gravity field diminishes, so that at molecular distances, the pseudo-attraction takes over as the overriding force. The unified field (gravity minus E/M) is perfectly capable of explaining molecular attraction of the size of van der Waals forces.
Conclusion: No clearer example of the state of modern physics can be found than the absurd and inconsistent theory of the strong force. Whether in books or online, physicists no longer have to feign rationality or reason. They say whatever they want and expect you to swallow it. Every theory needs to make some effort at rigor, but the new theories are pathetic.
In The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions and other papers, MM suggests that the only hope for nuclear physics is a complete scrubbing of the math and re-start of the theory from the ground up. That is, the gauge math has to be dumped in toto, and it has to be replaced with a transparent and non-intrusive math. The math should contain no symmetries of its own, since these pre-existing symmetries just get in the way. They limit the freedom of the theory, and physicists using this math always begin to let the math lead them. Beyond that, the quark model must be replaced by the spin model. In just a few months of part-time work MM has been able to blow past decades of bad theory, replacing it with a simple mechanics that works much better. Besides being able to show dozens of ways the standard model fails badly, MM has been able to explain things they have not even looked at. Judged by utility or simplicity or efficiency, MM's theory is vastly superior.
Related papers are:
The Unification of the Proton and Electron & Finding the Electron Radius & The Fallacy of the Electron Orbit
Mesons without Quarks unifying all the mesons and bosons. (MM accomplished in a matter of months, while the standard model could not do it in 70 years.)
How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table, showing how to build a nucleus without the strong force, with simple diagrams
On MM's site: Asymptotic Freedom
The Weak force is not a Force but a set of Collisions
Yang-Mills.
1Harald Fritzsch: Quarks ISBN-13: 978-0465067817. Fritzsch, along with Gell-Mann and Leutwyler, is one of the creators of the current strong force theory (1973) which is now a centerpiece of the standard model.
2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
3http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1233642/Harald-Fritzsch
4Weinberg, Steven. The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume II. p. 329.
5Roe, Bryan P. Particle Physics at the New Millennium. p. 228.
*There are 32 different nucleons, including 16 different neutrons and 8 different protons. Joined in proper sequence, these nucleons can huddle without feeling a charge repulsion. (See How Elements are Built - A Mechanical Explanation of the Periodic Table
.) Each type of nucleon has a charge weakness in one direction, and the nucleons huddle by aligning these charge weaknesses. Charge strengths therefore sum outward, but cancel inward.