An atomistic theory of matter

"Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge and continued successes in providing experimental predictions, it does leave some phenomena unexplained and it falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions."

Is is not at all theoretically self-consistent !! See my contribution above.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, read [link removed] My model includes all stable and instable particles!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And why the hell do you think that?

You will, of course, provide evidence of this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

unfixable format error - deleted

 

I thought constantly spamming links to your own website was against the forum rules?

 

Now it is enough! Nowbody read my new theory. I will leave you some time to learn it.

 

One problem with most models, including the standard, is the underlying sub particle data is generated at high energy but low pressure. If you look at chemical matter, all materials in nature have phase diagrams, which show material phases have a pressure and temperature dependency. Accelerator data uses a constant low earth surface pressure, and therefore does not do justice to a phase diagram. One can't make universal statements with an isobar.

As an example, where the left hand of physics is doing one thing while the right hand is doing another thing, a neutron star generates enough gravitational pressure to where the electron particle no longer exist as a separate phase. The direct accelerator data would no show this phase, due to its low pressure isobar.

If you start looking at the beginning of the universe, pressure was extreme, such that the low pressure isobar accelerator data does not apply. Accelerator data may be more useful to explain the discharge of a supernova after the pressure falls; higher energy movement toward lowered pressure.

 

I've read all that I can bear to read, and I have better things to do.

If you are going to insist on a paradigm shift, you need a better motivation than you have provided. Does your theory of gravitation offer any real benefits or predictions or other benefits other than it is simpler?

You said that your theory supports ALL particles in the Standard Model. You have dropped the neutron evidently because you get back an electron, a proton, and an electron anti-neutrino when a free neutron decays. That would be fine, except then the quark composition of a neutron makes no sense.

You have introduced a new particles (the E) with both gravitational and electric charge.

No symmetries or conservation laws are represented, which is why I can't bear to read any more. My advice is to take down your website and save yourself the embarrassment of appearing more foolish than it was putting it up in the first place. You don't own a collider, haven't had access or the resources to analyze the data from one, and had considerable difficulty getting equipment to perform your "drop" experiment, which I can well understand.

Enough?

 

If you check his post history you'll find that every 3-4 of them have the same link.

 

Brilliant! Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is fulfillment. We exist as sonar energy.

 

You seem to have only changed the wording on the links to read 'Link removed' the links still connect to his homesite.
see links in posts #41, #69, #70, and#82.
On his site he admits to being banned from a forum and seems to want people's views of that banning.
Dam, just notice this thread is in 'Alternative Theories', why did I bother with this post.

 

Oops, I doubt that was intentional!

 

Since nobody is going to read it, that means you will not be returning. Good deal.

 

The Atomistic Theory of Matter does not support the Standard Models, is replaces them. The neutrons are composed particles; the stable neutron N0 is composed of one proton (P) and one electron (e) N0 = (P,e) the instable neutron N is composed N =(P,e,p,e) , p is the positron. "Anti-neutrino" has no meaning. The electron-neutrino is (e,p). The quark composition make no sence.

I did not introduce a new particle, elton (E). Elton is only a new name of "antiproton". All particles have gravitational and electric charges, also the elton.

A better motivation? The atomistic theory replaces the energetic theories. Furthermore, the atomistic theory build in the gravitational interaction in the particle physics. (The Standard Model of particle physics ignores the gravity and the gravitational mass in particle reactions!) The gravity is caused by gravitational charges in the Minkowski space, and it is not the deformation of space-time. The UFF is not valid in Nature as experimentally shown.

The only conservation law is the conservation of particle number. The atomistic theory does not support the energy conservation, the electromagnetism is non-conservative and closed physical systems do not exit. Symmetries can you read from the Lagrange density of the two continuous fields and four stable particles with two charges. No more symmery is needed. The Lorentz scalar Lagrange density is written in a finite range of Minkowski space in order to determine the equation of motion of the fields and particles.

 

The relativity theories (SRT + GRT) are wrong constructed models. They can not be used in fundamental physical theories.

The energy and fields are not quantized, quantum theories (QT) can not be used in fundamental physical theories.

The Standard Models of particle physics and of astrophysics are scientifically invalid trials.

 

Neither the position, nor the velocity of particle can be exactly determined at any time exactly. This is a fundamantal fact.

The Planck's constante h does not quantizes the energy, h is a Lagrange multiplier (LM). Another LM, the h0 = h/387.7 determines the nucleons and the instable particles. The only difference of atomic shells and nucleons is that they are bescribed with two different Lagrange multipliers.

 

Do you have a better idea?

 

The wave-particle duality is not characteristic for fundamental physics: field are coninuous objects and particles are particles.