It further proposes that there are four separate forces that hold these particles together and allow matter in all its various forms to be constructed and interact. These four forces are: the strong and weak forces inside the nucleus, plus gravity and electromagnetism acting on a larger scale. SED will take up this important topic in the section after this.

Over the last fifty years or so the standard model has cemented itself as the dominant theory in particle physics, so much so that it has become a new paradigm. Many scientists think it is one of the greatest achievements of humankind.

However, in light of what SED has proposed in this book we now ask though how true is all of this? Is there possibly an alternative theory with simpler and better ideas?

No one doubts that the standard model has often been tested but many would also say that as a modern comprehensive theory it is overly complex and lacking ideas that can be communicated simply to the common man. For good reasons many go on to say it is inconsistent, unfathomable and ugly, being coddled together by a bureaucracy consisting of many people over many years at a huge expense such has never been seen before in the history of science.

In other words, there is a great deal at stake on the continuation of governments supporting and financing these ideas, despite the fact (or possibly because of it) that governments and world media do not understand them.

How did the standard model become popular and gradually achieve such prominence? It was largely a case of many influential people jumping on board to try and maintain credibility for science as there were simply no other theories around then that provided a viable alternative. We needed theories and answers to try and explain the many experimental results that our rapidly improving technology was making available to the world’s scientific community. Sophisticated and precise experiments proliferated, and theory needed to catch up.

This was just after the USA was enjoying great success and pride after having developed both the atomic and hydrogen bombs. It did this with virtually unlimited funding and resources heralding a new era of big physics. Are we witnessing a similar behaviour with the enormous research and organisation occurring at CERN in the ongoing quest for progress in the standard model?

One important event occurred during the latter half of the 20th century when particle physics uncovered a new and surprising outcome due to highly accurate experimental results on the magnetic properties of nucleons. At that time, their current theories predicted these values equally accurately.

However, it was because of the unexplained variation of this prediction from the experimental value of magnetic moment that the concept of quarks was invented. Theory must ultimately agree with experiment and until it does, a theory needs modification. Due to this discrepancy, physicists searched for an explanation and some theorists proposed that nucleons may not be fundamental and might therefore be a composite of smaller and until then previously unknown elementary particles. At that time there were no other contenders to account for this discrepancy, and it appeared that only quarks seemed to offer any type of answer despite their many imperfections and strange ideas.

As we have seen in our discussion of the atom, SED agrees with some modern particle physics and also the standard model when it says that nucleons did not appear to be [1]Dirac or elementary particles because they did not comply with the normal definition of magnetic moment. The term anomalous magnetic moment was coined because of this digression. This can be described mathematically by the equation: µ = eħ/2m, where µ stands for magnetic moment, e is charge and m is the mass of the particle.

Particles that are magnetic can have their magnetic moments measured very accurately. We saw before in the section on the electron how this equation can easily be derived for leptons using only classical physics and our model for the roton. All elementary particles, especially leptons that are normal rotons, should obey this equation explicitly.

SED contends however that protons and neutrons are in fact elementary, but their structure is somewhat different to leptons, due to their virtual rotons, and thus they do not exactly comply with this equation. Nucleons consist of two virtual rotons and this creates a rapidly rotating or oscillating magnetic field within them at the super-high frequency of the tiny protons and neutrons, whereas for leptons, µ is in-line and fixed within a single roton. The section on the atom covers this in more detail.

Thus nucleons have a slightly different value of magnetic moment compared to the simpler leptons, but SED maintains that this difference can be explained due to their structure. The actual difference is not a lot, being a factor of about 2,8 times its Dirac value for protons and -1,9 for neutrons (negative meaning a different direction). Our model shows that this could be explained by such a rapid frequency change in the direction of the magnetic field due to the virtual rotons.

A way to calculate the expected or average value of µN due to this extremely high frequency is needed, and then we can compare SED’s alternate theoretical value for the two nucleons against their accurately known experimental values.

The whole rationale of quarks depends on this outcome. They will not be needed if there is agreement between SED’s theory and experiment because nucleons would then be another kind of Dirac or elementary particle and not a composite made from quarks.

Like the strong and weak force, which we shall discuss shortly, and because there was no better alternative, quark theory slowly gained acceptance. So much so that it has now become another entrenched concept of the standard model. However in light of this discussion and other important articles by science writers, we may see some of its considerable difficulties exposed and broken down in the future.

One of the most obvious, as we have just seen, is that concerning quarks. SED maintains quarks cannot exist anyway because they need a fractional charge, and all of physics declares this is impossible. Why this has been ignored says a lot about the confusion surrounding the standard model and our inability to look critically at its substantial flaws.

Quarks supposedly have a fractional charge of either one third or two thirds of the elementary charge (e). The two types are named up and down, and evidently always combine in threes, giving an overall composite charge of zero and one for the neutron and proton respectively. However SED proposes there will be no need for this irrational concept anyway because fractional charge cannot exist. There is no theory that allows it. Charge is a quantum with a single fixed value, as all well proven equations in physics confirm. Charge is merely the ratio of electric force to electric field strength, and this can never change. Not even in nucleons.

SED insists that the idea of quarks somehow being constituents of a nucleon is absurd and not properly thought through by its proponents. We know that all fundamental particles have both wave and particle aspects, and we know that every wave/particle has a Compton wavelength and therefore size, that is inverse to its mass. This concept was discussed in our earlier section on the size of the electron and is a basic truth of the electromagnetic spectrum if we compare its energy to its frequency. We saw then that for fundamental particles, the larger its mass the smaller it is, because of its greater curl and energy. This is likewise because the only way it can have a higher frequency is to have a shorter path length, due to the constant speed of light.

If three quarks are the components of a composite nucleon, and according to the standard model, each quark has less mass than the mass of the nucleon, these individual quarks must be bigger than the proton or neutron they are meant to produce and what they are made into.

Again, this is impossible. Even if they were able to miraculously gain energy when inside a nucleon, perhaps in the form of kinetic energy, they would each need more total energy than the nucleon itself to fit inside it. Where could this extra energy come from? Furthermore, the nucleon would then have to have more than three times the energy experiments show that it has.

And if that is not enough, most particle physicists still continue to insist that all elementary particles are infinitely small points anyway, occupying no space. This means they are actually claiming that three infinitely tiny quarks are somehow spinning incredibly rapidly inside a nucleon that is also another infinitely small point. Turtles and more turtles all the way down.

Remember, although all composite entities like an atom and a solar system are always bigger than their separate parts and will have the same combined mass, these are not fundamental. SED insists that fundamental particles do indeed have a structure and only subatomic particles like leptons and nucleons can be fundamental.

The individual reality of quarks and their charge has never been verified and never can be. Particle physics proposed an entity that cannot be shown to exist. An axiom of quantum mechanics says there is no point in proposing the existence of something if it cannot be measured. It must have an independent reality or value, otherwise physics need not bother with it.

Accordingly, a major revision of the standard model will be needed if these new ideas of SED are proven correct. Many of its key propositions may need to be abandoned. Likewise the concept of a separate strong and weak force will furthermore be unnecessary because the only true force is electromagnetic. Even gravity will be shown to be a special case of this single E-M force. Similarly, the idea of gluons becomes redundant because SED can satisfactorily account for the properties of nucleons without them.

Another cornerstone of the standard model , the Higgs Boson, could also prove to be obsolete. It is an ethereal particle with supposedly zero spin, and properties “borrowed” from solitons. It was originally conceived to somehow account for mass in other particles throughout the universe. The proof of its existence has only been indirectly inferred after spending the largest amount of money in any single scientific experiment albeit one that was literally too big to fail.

Many scientists believe the whole scenario of the Higgs boson to be rigged and many more simply do not understand it. Furthermore CERN itself has been criticized for not releasing full details in the form of computer source code for verification of its experimental approach. This would allow independent scientists to confirm the soundness of its incredibly complex concepts and design.

However SED has a straightforward, more direct explanation of mass in objects. It has shown how fermions (particles with mass) are spinors or rotons created from two-dimensional massless bosons and the property of mass they acquire is generated by the inertia built into the three-dimensional structure of their solitons.

Because of their volume and dynamics, fermions require an external force to accelerate, as they interact and change positions within space-time, just as Newton said. Somehow moving at constant velocity is allowed though and we need to consider why this is so. Presently, SED contends it most likely is due to the fact that when moving at constant velocity a particle’s total energy is not changing due to its constant kinetic energy. This means its size and frequency is constant and so is its interaction with space-time. It flows more easily, more constantly. A varying interaction through acceleration leads to the property of inertia that manifests as mass or resistance to space change through a change in size or volume.

One last point: the standard model claims it is the transfer of objects like gluons that maintain the forces between particles. However SED proposes that it is fields alone and their interaction throughout the surrounding space that is the primary initiator of force, and that particle exchange can only repel, and never attract because of momentum transfer. This is something every student and professor of mechanics readily understands. How can particles and particle physicists not follow this universal rule?

Following on from this we will now look at how SED responds to the standard model’s other key idea of four basic forces in the universe. We will see that SED has quite a different opinion on this as well.

[1] Dirac particles are those fermions that comply with the standard definition of magnetic moment.