Truth Trumps Everything:
Of course there could be a basic particle, in fact, there are at least two. The electron is a basic particle that is classified by modern (quantum) physics in a class known as leptons. A basic particle is believed to be a particle which cannot be subdivided into smaller parts or particles. Photons are light particles which also reside in the lepton class. The major difference between electrons and photons is that the electron is believed to have an incredibly, tiny, minuscule mass constituent. Any particle with mass cannot attain the velocity of light within its existing reference frame, while photons which are light do travel at that velocity, which is about 300,000 km or 186,000 mi. /sec., as do electromagnetic fields. It is known that photons interact with electrons by increasing the particles energy level or linear velocity and then decreasing it when a photon particle is ejected by an electron. A simplified analogy would be to imagine the static electron as being similar to our Sun, only so very, very, much smaller. The energy rays emanating from the sun would be similar to the negative electric charge field, which envelopes the electrons mass component and is radiated out from it. A photon could be envisioned as a mass-less chunk or scoop (quanta) of charge field. The other basic particle is called the positron. The positron is the electrons anti-matter counterpart. Its mass and energy are virtually identical to the electron, but, the polarity of its charge field is positive rather than negative and when in linear motion it emits charge field with a right-hand spin, opposite to the left-hand spin of the electron fields.
The Nucleus
The nuclei of atoms consist of two components, the electrically positive charged proton and the electrically neutral, uncharged, neutron which are both in a class called hadrons. These nucleons are believed to be compound particles which can be subdivided into various basic particles. The positive charge on the (compound) proton in the nucleus is electrically balanced by the negative charge on the tiny (basic) electron that orbits it. It seems peculiar that the proton whose mass is over 1860 times as large as that of the electron would be equal, though, opposite in charge magnitude. The other component in the nucleus, found in every element larger than hydrogen, is the uncharged neutron which is slightly more massive than the positively charged proton. A free, nuclear unbound, (neutral) neutron will decay into a (positive) proton, a (negative) electron and an anti-neutrino in about 40 minutes, by a process known as beta-decay.
The Best Minds in Mathematics:
In the early mid 1960s two independent groups of theoretical nuclear physicists sought a solution to explain the phenomena of the nucleus. They sought to define what basic particles composed the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom. One group of physicists was led by an esteemed scholar named Murray Gell-man and the other by an equally talented physicist named George Zweig. Ironically, both groups of theoretical physicists came up with nearly identical mathematical models and their explanations at almost the same time. This coincidental agreement on the same mathematical model by two independent groups of very best nuclear theorists, in the minds of physicists, the press and anyone interested, seemed almost a confirmation of the proposed hypothesis. Gell-man’s group, however, published their results first and so today we have “quarks” instead of “aces”. Both groups worked from the basic assumptions (axioms) that the proton was +1, the electron was -1 and the neutron was zero (0). The fundamental theory is that the basic particles (quarks) that composed the nucleons come in two types. The up quark having a (positive) +2/3 charge magnitude and the down quark having a (negative) -1/3 charge magnitude, essentially 1/3 of an electron. It is postulated that the proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark, thus, (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+3/3) = +1 for the proton. The neutron is assumed to have two down quarks and one up quark, thus, (-1/3) + (-1/3) + (+2/3) = 0 for the uncharged neutron.
Electron Positron Annihilation:
The electrons antimatter counterpart, the positron was predicted in 1928 by mathematician Paul Dirac and discovered in 1930 at Caltech. It has been observed extensively that positrons and electrons are attracted to and seek each other out to annihilate. One would assume that +1 for the positron and -1 for the electron would equal (0) zero, but, this is not the case observed in nature. When positrons and electrons annihilate each other, the result of this annihilation is two high energy gamma ray photons, not zero. If positive and negative particles seek out and annihilate each other, then why don’t positive and negative quarks within the nucleons do the same? In the early 1980s nuclear accelerators finally attained enough calculated power, so that quarks would be visible to researchers for the very first time ever, but, searching all the nuclear collision data as thoroughly as possible, no quarks could be found. Where were the predicted quarks?
QCD:
Quantum Chromo Dynamics was spawned from quark theory to answer the quark annihilation question, as well as, why no quarks were ever observed. In a quote from a particle physicist and professor of quantum mechanics, less than two years ago;
“The context of the proton debates has been QCD, which includes 8 gluon fields, and where the quarks live in 3 continuous complex dimensions called “color”. There are no pointlike particles, it is all continuum jello, and the color charges swapped among the gluons and quarks flow in patterns nobody really understands. It has to be true that the color charge flows “in and out” because it’s allowed.”
QCD’s current explanation for just the proton, employing the quark model, above, includes three other complex dimensions of reality called Color and a new hypothetical particle called a gluon, to substantiate the hypothetical quark. To explain why no quarks were found, still to this day, a new force in nature was hypothesized. It’s called the principle of color confinement or Color Force. It’s a new, very unusual, mysterious, unsubstantiated, force that prevents single quarks from being observed singularly. They can only exist in pairs, as alleged in muons or in triplets, as professed in the individual nucleons. This new assumed “Color Force” is not inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects, like the electro-magnetic, nuclear weak, strong and gravitational forces, where force strength gets weaker with distance. Color force is proposed to be like no other force in nature. It is directly proportional to the distance between objects; it gets stronger with distance, like a rubber band being stretched. Beside holding the quarks together to form protons and neutrons this convenient force also prevents quarks of differing polarities from annihilating each other, as mediated by gluons, another assumed particle, to substantiate an assumed force which works only at or below the observable level of the nuclei of atoms.
Electrodynamics and Positrodynamics:
Electrons, their motions, they’re field interactions and principles are called electrodynamics upon which the fields of electricity and electronics is based. We all obviously know that electronics works; you wouldn’t be reading these words on your computer screen or monitor now, if it didn’t. The laws and principles of electricity and electronics have been discovered and developed over the last several hundred years and today; support the apex technologies of our modern civilization. Everything from electric toothbrushes to the Hubble space telescope employs electronic technology. Astrophysicists observe the laws of electrodynamics at work at some of the most massive scales in existence, like rapidly spinning neutron stars which are decayed remnants of massive stars that have exploded in supernovas and are called magnetars. They generate immense spinning electromagnetic fields. Throughout nature we observe the truth of electrodynamics right down to the charge difference between the orbiting valence electrons of all the various chemical elements that cause chemical reactions to occur. It would not be illogical or outrageously speculative to assume that the field laws of electrodynamics continue to work down below the level of the atom and within the components of its nucleus itself. There are no electrons within the proton. There are, however, four positive particles oscillating within the proton that cause it to flash on and off with two alternate dynamic positive charge patterns. View: http://www.protoncosmology.com/new_page_1.htm The field actions of these particles act the same as, though, opposite the electrons as described above and thus, would operate by positrodynamics (positron field interaction). View: http://www.protoncosmology.com/new_page_3.htm . A complete description of this electronics based hypothesis (Fundamental Mechanics) is too long to include in this article. It can be found at: http://www.helium.com/items/1273960-how-atoms-work or http://www.protoncosmology.com/fundamental_mechanics1.htm . I urge anyone who is interested in understanding how the nuclei of atoms, that you and everything around you are composed, of actually work. I especially urge anyone with a background in electronics or electrical engineering to read this article, as it will be very easy for you to comprehend.
Ockham’s Razor
There is a benchmark in physics know as Ockham’s razor, which has become known to mean, “When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities”, basically, keep it simple.
It seems that particle physicists have become far too enamored with the far-out, unrestricted, uncertainty world of Heisenberg and lost sight of physical reality. They are fixated on proving quark theory to a point of being dogmatic. They should realize that everything tangible existing in our universe can be described by mathematics, but, everything that can be described by mathematics doesn’t necessarily exist in our universe.
Summation:
Quark Theory:
Based on = hypothetical mathematical conjecture. Suppositions = 7 dimensional realities, 3 for space, 3 for quarks and one of time. 5 Forces of nature, electrodynamics, nuclear weak, nuclear strong, gravitation and color force. Working Mechanism is still being defined by Lagrangian mathematics and after over 45 years of research is still unknown.
Fundamental Mechanics:
Based on = overlooked scattering data results from Stanford University linear accelerator (SLAC). Confirmation of SLAC results by Gerald Miller, University of Washington 2003 from research done at (J-Lab) Jefferson linear accelerator, University of Virginia. Suppositions = 4 dimensional realities, 3 of space and 1 of time. 1 force of nature that electrodynamics, nuclear weak, nuclear strong and gravitation are all derivations or reconfigurations of. Working mechanism based on positron field dynamics, Einstein’s energy-mass equation and logical cause and effect. Mechanism Solved.
If you’ve read and understand the hypothesis at the links above the answer is obvious. Judging by Occam’s razor, compared to the Fundamental Mechanics hypothesis, quark theory and Quantum Chromo Dynamics look like they were designed by Rube Goldberg.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
Some sections of this article have been copied or modified from other articles I’ve published.
