# Hunt for the platypus particle

All of the atoms in our bodies are made of electrons, protons and neutrons, and the protons and neutrons can be further broken down into quarks. Fundamentally, then, we are made of only two types of particles: electrons and quarks. But what do these labels mean? Why do we even say that electrons and quarks are different from each other?

Since they don't come with nametags, we have to define particles by how they interact. It is a bit like cataloguing wildlife on a new continent—at first, everything is strange, but eventually we see how the species can be grouped into patterns. Some animals quack and waddle, so we call them all ducks, while others are furry and build dams, and we choose to call them beavers. When physicists first explored the subatomic world, they noticed that there are two basic types of nuclear interactions, one much stronger than the other. To this day, they are called the weak force and the strong force because they never got better names.

Particles of matter were similarly grouped into two classes, leptons and hadrons, which come from Greek words for small and big. Curiously, leptons seem to be completely unaffected by the strong force while hadrons are utterly dominated by it. Although leptons, such as the familiar electron, can turn into other leptons—muons, taus and neutrinos—the total number of leptons in the universe appears to be constant (counting a matter lepton as plus one and an antimatter lepton as minus one). The same is independently true of quarks, the fundamental building block of hadrons. There may be a deep reason for this similarity, but it isn't yet known.

The resemblance between leptons and quarks is even more striking when we arrange them by how they interact with the weak force. Many physicists suspect that the similarity between leptons and hadrons is not an accident, and that they might be connected somehow. If so, then there could be a new particle that is a little of both—a "leptoquark". Such a thing would be as shocking as the discovery of the platypus, a mammal that lays eggs like a duck yet is furry like a beaver.

Physicists have been searching for leptoquarks for years, but have never found one. If they do exist, then they must have a higher mass than previous experiments were able to reach. Leptoquarks could also allow ordinary matter to spontaneously decay, something that has never been observed. If leptoquarks have a high mass, then fluctuations in ordinary matter would rarely reach it and decays would be too infrequent to have been noticed. Both of these considerations point to a high energy scale, so it is worth looking for leptoquarks at the LHC, the highest-energy collider in the world.

CMS searched through all of the data collected in 2011, which corresponds to about 500 trillion proton-proton collisions. They were looking for events in which a leptoquark and an anti-leptoquark were produced by the energy of the collision, each decaying into a lepton and a quark (or their antimatter equivalents). Some leptons, like the electron, leave a clean track through the CMS detector, while others, like the neutrino, are invisible to the detector and have to be inferred from an imbalance in the debris. A quark always produces a spray of particles known as a jet.

The search turned up a handful of events with these characteristics, but no more than would be expected from known physics processes. Therefore, this result sets the most stringent limits yet on the mass of leptoquarks. CMS is already hard at work examining the data collected in 2012, in which the proton-collision energy is higher and therefore capable of producing more massive leptoquarks, should they exist.

Why scour a mountain of data to search for a particle that might not exist? To paraphrase George Mallory, "Because it could be there."

Explore further

**Citation**: Hunt for the platypus particle (2012, October 22) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2012-10-platypus-particle.html

## User comments

jsdarkdestructionvacuum-mechanicsBy the way, it is interesting to note that conventional way of thinking has lead to ENDLESS way of creating new much more original particles, is this the way the true nature is? Carefully inspection would found that all the new created particles are not true STABLE particles (in the same way as electrons do in our daily life)!

May be this simpler alternative way of thinking (below) that only electron and proton are TRUE basic particles, while all short-life particles are just disturbed parts of something in vacuum space (analogous to disturbed water waves which were created by some disturbance!

http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en

ValeriaTValeriaTValeriaTjohanfprinsYou are on the right track my man!

johanfprinsOn the fram he had some lectrons, hee hi, hee hi, ho

With a lec lec here and a lec lec there, hee hi, hee hi, ho

On the farm he had some protons, hee hi, hee hi ho

With pro pro here and a pro pro here, hee hi, hee hi ho

And on the farm he had some higgs, hee hi, hee hi, ho

With no-higgs here and no higgs there, hee hi, hee hi ho.

And now he hopes he has a platypus!! Ha-ha here, and a ha-ha there. Everywhere a ha-ha! LOL

When will this nonsense EVER end?

JitterbewegungThe gluon is also a fundamental particle and you can't exist without them so that's 3 types not 2.

johanfprinsIf you do not understand what the hell you are doing, invent another "particle" even though nobody can define what a "particle" is. Theoretical physics has become a compilation of hallucinations!

It has been fraudulent to spend billions of dollars looking for a "Higgs-boson" while it is impossible to prove by experiment that any excitation found in an accelerator actually gives "other particles" mass.

antialias_physorgThe point is the following:

a) you observe two outwardly different types of reactions/interactions/properties

b) you do the statistics on them and find them to be correlated

Now the idea is that if somthing is correlated then there has to be some sort of medium for information exchange between the two. Otherwise you have 'magic'.

You figure out what type of properties such a messenger agent would need to have (that's the part we call a 'theory' and the messenger is what's called a particle). Then you go look for it and see if your theory pans out.

What's so hard to understand about this?

One step at a time. First find the particle. THEN charcterize its properties. Your way doesn't work.

johanfprinsjohanfprinsWhich statistics?

I agree.

This does not tell you what a particle is: So its is a hallucination NOT a theory! Look for it in the debris you create in an accelerator? You MUST be insane. You get an energy excitation and claim it is a "particle" without even being able to define what a "particle" is. It is just BS science!

johanfprinsantialias_physorgAn example would be:

Object A weighs x and object B weighs 2x. Object B also exhibits twice the inertia of object A.

Weight and inertia seem, at first glance, unrelated (you can go to outer space and the weight of both will be zero but the inertia of B ist still twice that of A). But everywhere else there is a very tight correlation. So there has to be some sort of information transmission between mass and other mass (weight...via gravity) and mass with respect to underlying reality (inertia).

One is then modelled with the (still hypothetical) graviton and the other with the Higgs field.

A particle is a quantized carrier of a property (charge, mass, energy, whatever). Some of the the simplest are the gauge bosons (W and Z boson, gluon, and photon). It is this quantized nature that you see in particle accelerator experiments (by seeing that such a particle follows a path through the detectors)

johanfprinsWhy should an entitity with quantized property be a "particle"?

A photon has quantized energy and is not a "particle" but the lowest energy coherent EM-wave, with that frequency, which can be emitted or be absorbed. Higher energy EM waves with the same frequency can also be emitted and absorbed. All these waves are accurately modelled by Maxwell's equations for an EM wave moving with a speed c. To state that a quantized property defines a "partcle" is utter nonsense These are all figments of hallucinating imaginations. Any entity with a centre-of-mass will follow such a path; also an electron-wave.

antialias_physorgAs was the photon or the W and Z boson. You have to start with a hypothetical thing and then se if it's actually there. It seems that whre the Higgs was predictd somthing is actually there. If we'd gone with an attitude like yours that would have never ben discovered.

These 'wastes of money' do eventually turn out to be useful one way or another. Science has, historically, a pretty good track record for return on investment(remember that the likes of Einstein thought that Lasers were just a curiosity without any practical use...and think about where we'd be if we'd have left it at that). That's the thing about scientific findings: you never know which ones may be useful.

Who knows? Manipulating the Higgs field or gravity waves may give us inertialess or Alcubierre drives (both FTL). That would be pretty valuable, wouldn't you say?

antialias_physorgThat's just how the term patricle is used in physics. Particle doesn't mean "a small solid billard ball". Particle just means "a small part".

Yet we have experiments where individual quanta are required. That we talk about photons doesn't mean we don't acknowledge the wave-particle duality of them. The wave aspect is just a lot harder to grasp (and measure) than the particle aspect (measuring the Higgs field is much harder than getting at a Higgs boson and measuring its characteristics)

Then they are pretty weird figments, because they turn up in experiments. Unless you're saying that detectors also hallucinate?

johanfprinsFor energies above the rest-mass, Maxwell's equations apply for electron-waves, photon-waves, as well as proton-waves and neutrino-waves: All other excitations are excited states of the latter fundamental entities.

Only for energies below the rest-mass do you obtain stationary waves, and only in this case does Planck's constant come into the picture. There are no particles and all predictions of particles based on gauge theories belong in Alice's Wonderland!

johanfprinsjohanfprinsIf such drives are possible they will definitely not have anything to do with the so-called Higg's boson; which is NOT required to explain the origin of mass.

johanfprinsSince E=m*c*2, and since the EM-energy is distributed within an EM wave, its mass-energy is distributed: Therefore any such wave with energy E has a mass=E/(c^2), and thus a centre-of-mass. Thus it can move as if it is a "point particle", just like Saturn can move as if it is a "point particle"; even though it is not.

This centre-of-mass is, however, NOT a "particle".

An EM electron-wave moves with speed v less than c, and thus have different EM-masses within different inertial reference frames (IRF's). There, thus, also exists an IRF within which the electron-wave is not moving, so that the EM energy is stationary energy: i.e. the electron-wave has rest-mass.

No Higgs boson is required to explain this. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity already explained it all 100 years ago. In fact this theory in essence predicted the wave nature of the electron 20 years before de Broglie's postulate.

johanfprinsI have not said that this is not so: But it does not mean that a quantum of energy must be an UNDEFINED particle". There is no such a thing as "wave-particle" duality. The wave has distributed EM energy, which according to Einstein is mass-energy: So naturally it has a centre-of-mass: BUT IT IS STILL AN EM-WAVE ALL THE WAY!!

johanfprinsCorrelations between experiments and theories do not necessarily prove that the theory is correct. As I keep on pointing out you need a falsifiable experiment. To find excitations where you expect to find a W ans Z boson DOES not prove that these excitations are resposnsible for the weak nuclear force. Similar for the Higgs: There is no experiment possible to prove that it causes mass.

These theories are therefore "not even wrong"!

johanfprinsThis is more applicable to your belief in your AWT god!

johanfprinsIn other words, just like the BCS model, the Higgs model cannot predict. Such models are useless physics and people who believe in them are even more useless! As Pauli has stated: Such a model is not even wrong!

johanfprinsjohanfprinsThis is not a "prediction" but fudging by retrofitting. It is further proof that the standard model is BS!!

johanfprinsThis is just pure nonsensical fudging and retrofitting of halucinations based on incorrect mathematics!

Please give me experimental falsifiable proof that the excitation discovered at CERN causes mass; or tell me about the planned future experiment to prove this. If you cannot, you are warbling non-scientific BS.

The mass of matter-waves follows logically from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and it does not require a halucinary Higgs-field.

johanfprinsHow many times must I repeat-post this here?

From Einstein's formula for the motion of an entity with rest mass me one has that E^2=(p^2)*(c^2) (me*c^2)^2:

Do you know that this formula is valid for BOTH an electron with rest mass me, and a photon with rest mass ZERO?

By setting me=0 you get the equation for a photon: i.e. p^2=E/c^2. By now setting E=i*(hbar)*(d/dt) and p=-i*(hbar)*(del) you obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light wave moving with speed c; which thus models the photon in any IRF.

When not setting me=0 and using Einstein's famous equation E=m*c^2 you obtain an expression p^2=(Ee)^2/v^2. By now replacing Ee and p with the appropriate parameters above, you obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light wave moving with a speed v; The latter speed is of course different within different IRF's, as it must be for v less than c. Threfore the electron has rest-mass.

johanfprinsNote that the derivation does NOT require fudging in terms of matrices and Clifford algebra as Dirac has done. It is a straightforward derivation; as one expects that one should have when doing real physics instead of hallucinating.

It also directly unifies Maxwell's equations with quantum mechanics, by proving that Schroedinger's equation is only valid for matter waves when m*c^2 is less than me*c^2. In addition, it then proves that the so-called "tunnelling-tails" which are obtained when solving Schroedinger's equation, are the curvature of space around mass: i.e. it is gravity. Thus Maxwell's equations, Schroedinger's equation, and space-curvature are automatically unified.

johanfprinsThe purpose of physics is exactly to try and understand what we do not yet understand in terms of what we do understand: i.e. explaining what we do not understand in such a manner that it becomes part of the real world.

Unfortunately theoretical physicists have been misled by Bohr and Heisenberg etc., to again become superstitious oafs and to proclaim that this is the way to do physics. The whole purpose of physics has been undermined after 1927 and it is therefore that we have ended up with useless theories like BCS and the standard model!.

johanfprinsMatter waves are EM-waves which move at a speed v less than the speed of light c. A matter-wave thus has different energies in different IRF's and there exists an IRF within which the matter-wave MUST be stationary. This stationary wave-energy is the rest-mass of the matter-wave!

Why do you want complicate simple straightforward physics?

ValeriaTValeriaTjohanfprinsAs far as I understand your argument is that we should not try and understand physics in terms of what we know, but should just accept that we cannot visualise what is happening: This is the same BS argument which Heisenberg used when Schroedinger showed that you can visualise what happens on the quantum scale: It is a Voodoo argument which is being bandied around by many theoretical physicits like John Gribben. It is BS!

ValeriaTThe explanation of nonzero mass of gluons is quite simple, if we realize, the Standard model applies to interior of atom nuclei, which are already very dense. Inside of such a dense environment even very massive gluons would be quite lightweight. But the gluons cannot propagate into infinite distance neither inside of atom nuclei, which essentially means, they're of positive rest mass even inside of atom nuclei, not to say about free vacuum.

johanfprinsValeriaTSo, if everything is just a wave according to you - from where the matter gets its mass at all?

ValeriaTValeriaTjohanfprinsI have just now DERIVED the wave equation for an electron and PROVED that this wave MUST move with a speed less than c. This means that this wave's energy is DIFFERENT within DIFFERENT IRF's and that there MUST be an IRF within which this wave is stationary. STATIONARY ENERGY IS REST-MASS energy. ARE you REALLY so immensely STUPID?

Even a light-wave within a cavity has pure rest-mass energy since it then cannot move with the speed c!! Within a cavity it MUST form a stationary wave owing to the boundary conditions!

ValeriaTjohanfprinsAny entity that moves with a speed that is less than the speed of light has a rest mass!!!!!

If not, this violates Newtons first law.

If an entity moves with the speed of light it CANNOT have rest-mass, since its energy is independent of the IRF used to measure it: If not, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity will be wrong!

This fully explains why an electron-waave has rest mass and a light-wave has not.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FICTITIOUS "PARTICLES".

johanfprinsIn order to trap a wave, even a sound-wave, you must have a cavity with perfectly reflecting walls; The wave MUST then form a stationary wave: This what the light-waves do in a black-body cavity: They are NOT "photon-particles".

Obviously you have never been exposed to wave equations in your life. If had been you will know that the most important part of solving such a differential wave equation is to specify the correct boundary conditions. But I think that this is WAY above your ability to understand!

MediocreSmokeValeriaTValeriaTThe funny point is, the electron can be really described like the transverse wave bouncing from longitudinal wave, which is bouncing from the original transverse wave inside of closed loop Mobius loop.

johanfprinsIf you go back on this thread you will see that I derived the wave equations for a photon and an electron from Eisntein's Theory of Relativity. Have you seen a single one of the clowns that are attacking me on this thread arguing why my derivation is wrong. No, they will not since it is a heresy to even comtemplate that the mainstream physics of the past 70 years can be wrong. Yes I am angry just as Galileao was justifiably angry.

A person who does not get angry about injustice is a psychopath!

ValeriaTjohanfprinsYou obviously do not know your physics! Mass is trapped by curvature in space as Einstein has shown.

The mass-energy is trapped EM-energy. I have worked out the model: If you are interested buy my book! If not, then STOP spouting nonsense!

This is why all solutions of Schroedinger's equation, unless assuming INFINTE boundaries which cannot manifest, have wave-tails decaying to infinity. These tails are the curvature in space that forms the cavity which traps the EM-energy to form rest-mass.

The surrounding curvature in space causes gravity.

ValeriaTjohanfprinsThis is BS. Prove it!! Derive it like I derived my wave equations above, instead of just claimiing utter BS as you go along!

ValeriaTHow your model prohibits it?

johanfprinsYou have this with Einstein's gtavity also: Is mass curving space or is space curvature causing mass? Are you thus saying that Einstein's theory is BS? Why? You have mass and curvature around mass as Einstein derived. An electron has mass and therefore it must have curvature around its mass. And Schroedinger's equation also demands that there must be curvature around the electron. So it dovetails. As I have shown above Einstein's STR gives a Maxwell-equation for an electron and this equation is valid for a speed v less than c. The wave MUST have different energies and frequencies within different IRF's, and must also form stationary wave-energy within one of these IRF's. The result folows directly from Maxwell's equations and STR.

ValeriaTjohanfprinsValeriaTjohanfprinsCorrect! Although the wave can be described mathematically as two separate components moving along opposite directions, any fool knows that mathematical components of an expression is not necessarily physical components in their own right. The physical entity is a stationary wave with no momentum along any direction. There is NO "bouncing" whatsoever.

Only an autist, like Dirac, will argue that mathematics determine physics!

ValeriaTjohanfprinsStop putting words in my mouth, which I have not posted!

Checking out for now!

ValeriaTjohanfprinsValeriaTjohanfprinsALL EM-waves have energy and according to Einstein's E=m*c^2 (have you EVER heard about this equation?) this energy is mass energy. Thus alo a photon-wave moving past with a speed c has mass-energy.

Obviously an electron-wave, but now moving with a speed v, also has EM-energy which is its total mass-energy.

A photon-wave with speed c cannot be stationary within any inertial reference frame (IRF) and therefore its EM-energy can never form rest-mass-energy.

An electron-wave with speed v MUST be a stationary-wave within an unique IRF, so that its unique IRF MUST form boundary conditions to keep it a stationary wave: rest-mass.

Within the other IRF's the electron-wave is a coherently-moving wave.

johanfprinsIf you have EVER heard about Galileo, which I doubt, you will know that rest-mass is inertia. This means that if you try and move an entity with rest-mass from its position of rest, it will resist being moved.

Any Ape with two braincells will be able to tell you that resistance to being moved requires the appearance of a restoring-force: The electron-wave within its own IRF, in which it is stationary, must be held stationary by the appearance of a restoring force, as soon as you try and move the wave.

Thus, the boundary conditions which MUST be present, are that of a harmonic oscillator. The restoring force can be modelled by a virtual charge that appears to pull the electron back to equilibrium.

johanfprinsOnly certain curavtures stabilises certain masses. In the case of the electron and proton the radius of curvature keesp the coresponding masses in equilibrium. For the higher-energy "particles" the radii cannot maintain the masses for very long times so that these "particles" decay into electrons and/or protons.

johanfprinsYou see you are a person who jumps to conclusions without verifying that you know what the hell you are talking about. It is people like you who helped to drag modern physics during the past 70 years into the cesspool it is at present.

It is people like you who refuse point-blank to even consider anything that might require alterations in established models. You are no different than the scientific-cardinals in the time of Galileo who refused to accept that the earth is moving.

Have you got no shame at all? Unfortunately you sick mentality has become the rule rather than the exception. I find people like you despicable.

johanfprinsThis is all you have been doing:

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E=(p^2)*(c^2) (m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!

johanfprinsIf you meant the opposite, I agree and apologise that I misunderstood you.

johanfprinsOne equation did not come out correctly: Thus again

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E=(p^2)*(c^2)PLUS(m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!

johanfprinsSorry, another typing error:

One equation did not come out correctly: Thus again

Let us try and see if you can argue matter-of-fact logic science. I will post equations and make derivations after you have agreed after each step with a YES or NO!

E^2=(p^2)*(c^2)PLUS(m(0)*c^2)^2

and E=m*c^2

Do you accept that these equations are correct? YES or NO!

ValeriaTjohanfprinsPlease define what you mean by "wave-spacetime curvature duality": Another one of your hallucinations?

I asked you to answer YES or NO on a simple question. Is even this too difficult for you to do?

GawadOr how Physorg now has all of the entertainment value of Mad Magazine, and more!

Keep it up guys; hilarity has rarely worn such a stone cold face, but you actually make it part of its charm.

Well, here's a fart in your general direction...Pfuuut!

And another to Physorg admins!

ValeriaTSo you're saying, that every object is both wave, both curvature of space-time or some tiny gravitational lens. But you're still violently opposing the idea of particle-wave duality, in which every object is both wave, both particle.

Is it correct or not? Damn, yes/ Hell, no!

johanfprinsWhere have I said this? Can you not see that you are insane? Where have I done this violently? Only in your insane hallucinating mind.

Again I plead with you to tell me what is the difference between "a particle" and ANY entity, WHICH has a centre-of-mass?

As usual you are construing your own insane fantasy-land!

I have asked a simple question above! Is it impossible for you to answer Yes or NO?

ValeriaTValeriaTjohanfprinsThis explanation can only come from an insane deemented mind like yours.

You are just proving that you are hopelessly dishonest and will rather propose your own demented version of what I am saying instead of going step by step with me through the equations that I have proposed we should start from.

It is peoplpe like you who do not understand physics-ethics and physics-integrity. It is such a pity thatn you are not just an exception but the rule which demonsrates the sick mentality of the criminals who are in charge of modern physics.

johanfprinsCan you not see how demented and utterly dishonest you are? You decide to interpret what I am posting in a manner that suits your demented theory; and thus refuse to go step by step with me through the equations.

Have you got no shame whatsoever? You really are a disgusting person! Just as disgusting as Wilczek, 't Hooft. Berry, Saller, Eckern, Luara Greene, Peter Holland etc. etc. etc. History is not going to be kind to anyone of you!

johanfprinsValeriaTjohanfprinsAt last an intelligent question!!! The wave equation for a moving electron derived from Einstein's relativity, gives solutions for the same electron within ALL the IRF's relative to which the electron simultaneously moves as a coherent wave. Such waves, have different frequencies, but are free waves and therefore not subject to boundary conditions.

Simultaneously the electron is stationary within its own IRF which requires that there must be boundary conditions within the latter IRF.

To prove that a moving electron is simultaneously forming coherent FREE waves with different frequencies within different IRF's, is straightforward.

To find what causes the boundary conditions that keeps it stationary within its own IRF is a bit more problematic. But I think I have the solution to this.

Signing off for now to watch rugby!

KronWhat are you going on about Johan? Where is the proof for what you are stating? You are applying Einsteins theory of physical relationships to the nature of physical objects. Do you understand the disconnect here?

Please provide some links to your work, I like philosophical conversations as much as the next guy, but your strong assertions require some real proof.

pancakecan you please, somehow, explain a "Quantizing Force", im not sure that i understand that.

Thanks

~p

johanfprinsHis STR is based on Maxwell's equations which model EM-waves: Are the latter not "physical objects"?

I agree! And I have had the proof for nearly 10 years by now but have been consistently censored from publication without being given arguments based on physics why my manuscripts are not accepted.

I am willing to send you some of these manuscripts provided that you identify yourself to me: My e-mail ia: johanprins@cathodixx.com

In a nutshell:

A propgating light-wave is EM-energy (which is also dynamic mass-energy so that there is a center of mass) which propagates with a speed c.

A propagating matter-wave is EM-energy (which is alo rest- and dynamic mass with a centre of mass) which propagtes with a speed v, less than the speed of light.

johanfprinsWhen an electron is stationary relative to you, its mass is stationary light energy. When you move relative to the electron it is not stationary anymore, so that you observe the electron as a coherent EM-wave which is moving FREELY. This can be derived directly from Einstein's STR.

Schroedinger;s equation, which is believed to model a freely-moving wave (V=0) can also be derived from STR, and it can then be proved that this equation cannot model a freely moving electron.

It can then be proved that Scroedinger's equation is only valid when V is NOT zero, and when the mass energy is less than the rest-mass energy.

Thus Schroedinger's equation is NOT gauge-invariant as is claimed in text books since all energies must be measured from rest-mass.

johanfprinsLight-waves are generated by sources and aborbed absrbers. The amout of EM energy that a light wave has is determined by the source, and the amount of light energy that an absorber can absorb is determined by resonance between an incoming light-wave and the absorber: Like a radio: If the radio-wave does not resonate with the setting on your radio it does not get absorbed.

A photon is the smallest amount of coherent light-wave energy that can be emitted from a source or absorbed by an absorber: Nothing more and nothing less. In other words, one cannot costruct a smaller source or absorber which can emit or absorb less coherent wave-energy.

One can construct a source that can emit a coherent light-wave with far more energy than that of a photon-wave: i.e. a laser.

johanfprinsThis morphing can occur at a speed that exceeds light speed. This does not violate Einstein's STR, since these waves have mass-energies which are smaller than the rest-mass energy.

When you change the boundary conditions, by, for example, apllying an electric- or magnetic-field, the electron waves must morph to adapt to this change: The latter can also occur faster than light speed.

For example, there are NOT free-electrons within a block of metal, since the "electrons" are all distribute stationary waves; However, when you apply an electric-field so that a current can flow, these standing waves immediately superpose to form pseudo-"particles" which conveys the current.

johanfprinsWhen applying the electric-field, the contacts cause the boundary conditions to become transparent. Only NOW do "quanta" form which convey the current. Thus, the valence electron field within a block of metal is normally a continuous matter-field which does not simultaneously consist of quanta; as is incorrectly assumed in Quantum Field Theory.

Quanta only form when the boundary conditions require them to form, and once they form, you do not have a continuous matter-field anymore.

All forces in Nature are the same: They are the reactions of EM-waves to changes in boundary conditions. It is thus insane to classify forces as being "strong", "weak", electromagnetic, etc, as if they are caused by different mechanisms.

They are ALL electromagnetic and are all caused by the boundary conditions under which the EM-waves find themselves when they interact!

johanfprinshe latter asserion is not quite correct since a freely moving electron-wave can also morph near-istantaneously, when it is absorbed, in order5 to fit the dimensions od the absorber. This is why a single diffracted electron-wave, which cover the observation screen when it reaches this screen, collapses to form a spot.

The latter, of course also occurs for a single photon wave.

No Voodoo is involved requiring facetious "particles" which only act as waves "when you do not look"!! How sane people could have believed this forr nearly 80 years is beyond me.

All I can conclude is that the mainstream theoretical physicists of the 20th century have all been crackpots.

johanfprinsI apologise for not being concise enough: The crackpots staged a coup at the 1927 Solvay conference in Brussels to remove balanced theoretical physicists (tp's) like Einstein, Schrodinger and de Broglie. Since that date, until at present, the crackpot tp's consolidated their control over modern t-physics by wasting time and money on an incredible scale. It reeks of corruption!

The circus announcement of "discovering the Higgs boson" should be a wake-up call for all non-crackpot tp's to start and try to direct t-physics back to sanity!

Oh Einstein, why did you forsake us after 1927? Probably because the crackpots in charge kept on discrediting you. The sane physics-world, or what is still left of it, mourns and misses you.

Even though you also sometimes blundered, you were never a closed-mided bigot like the crackpot tp's who took control after 1927.

eric96Because you can't look through every bit of 500 trillion proton-proton collisions. Really, I remain unimpressed by how the manage and process the data they collect. If it was me running the show, I would have LHC do 500 trillion proton-proton collision and have another particle accelerator do 500 trillion proton-proton collisions and Merge the data to reveal differences which if done properly should be a much smaller sub set, and if done properly should not in the process overwrite potential candidates. It's amazing they can design such a machine, but I remain shocked at their search strategy; its so inefficient.

johanfprinsLet us call it what it REALLY is:

Scientific Fraud!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more