## Transverse Strings

If the points of a string are not connected firmly, the string becomes an elastic object. Since space is three-dimensional, the strings can move in three-dimensional space. Consider the longitudinal string, which vibrates one dimensionally (back and forth), as a spring does. When the vibrating string moves two-dimensionally, by also waving from side-to-side, it creates a dynamic object moving in two-dimensional space. When we start to spin our two-dimensional vibrating spring, it creates a three-dimensional dynamic object. We notice these most markedly in the creation of sounds by musicians. They "ruffle" the air in three dimensions with the sounds of their musical instruments. Such behavior of strings and other elastic materials, of course, is just a macroworld imitation of the quantum String World.

## String Vortexes

Consider a subatomic string with one fixed end. This string should have spin, since according to physicists, spin is an intrinsic property of all particles in nature. Thus, our spinning string creates a conical object resembling a tornado or vortex. We register tornados and vortexes primarily due to the force they apply on nearby objects. The vortex's force relates to its inner dynamic shape, and strings forming vortexes create a strong attractive force in quantum physics. Let's call such strings string vortexes. Where might they be created?

Strings on the surfaces of some subatomic particles have one free end, directed toward free space, with the other end trapped inside and fix within the particle. Let's start with the primary subatomic particle in the universe, the neutron, which should originally consist only of spinning longitudinal strings. These strings, which are located on the particle's surface, have some degree of freedom in relation to surrounding space. Because that particle can be struck by other objects, or at least touched by them, the free end of its string starts to bend to the side. Since a string also rotates around itself, the string starts to waggle, and thus begins to looks like a funnel statically, and like a tornado or a vortex dynamically; therefore, the surface strings of such a particle look like a series of string vortexes.

A funnel is a tube that is wide at the top and narrow at the bottom. To arrange them on a table (on the neutron surface) so that all the openings will be oriented outward and the narrow ones down is quite difficult. The better way is to alternate them: one cone up, one down. Thus, we have the same number of cones up and the same number of funnel stems up. These string vortexes create the surface of the neutron, where they are arranged alternately up and down.

In vortexes, we can detect the attractive force toward the center of the funnel. However, there is also a repelling force along the sides of the funnel, due to their kinetic speed ("wind"). When you are caught in a water vortex (whirlpool), you are pulled in through its center; and then, as you come in, you are pushed away through or carried away through the sides of vortex. If this is the case for a neutron's string vortex, it may capture the "stem" of another longitudinal string. The string vortex directed inside the neutron should influence the inner activity of the neutron by capturing these longitudinal strings. Longitudinal strings in motion may enter a funnel and then exit through the vortex's side. If so, then this is why the longitudinal strings are retained within the volume of the neutron. These string vortexes create not just a barrier "fence" for moving longitudinal strings, but also knocks them back. Perhaps the spatial needs that cause vortexes to create this firm fence is why neutrons tend to have a stable surface and constant volume.

The neutron is covered by a mix of string vortexes directed outward from the neutron and string vortexes directed inside the neutron. The above-mentioned stress of the string vortexes pointing away from the neutron is now pointed not to longitudinal strings, but toward the stems of neighboring string vortexes. As they disconnect, a new particle starts to form. The string vortexes pluck out other string vortexes by dragging in their stems. Since they should have some longitudinal strings amongst them, the longitudinal strings are also picked up. Thus, the created particle should have properties of both string vortexes and longitudinal strings.

Science exerts evolution on living species. Various creatures exist higher and lower in the hierarchy of evolution. If this is so, then science also must accept the theory of particles and forces that has evolutionary signs. Let's allow the evolution to model particles and forces.

The Standard Model did not follow any evolution of Particles and Forces. They just included some products of computers and adding others by postulating symmetry. Mathematical string theories require a force among subatomic particles to posit super-symmetry. The idea is that for every particle that makes up matter, there exists a corresponding anti-particle. In relation to the creation of the above-mentioned surface force of subatomic particles, they should introduce the same particles, but with an opposite force effect. Does nature provide examples of opposite force effects with the same value of mass? No. Protons and electrons have the same anti force effects (plus-minus), but an electron is about 1,840 times lighter than a proton.

We have already discovered the original particle of the micro-world: the neutron. This particle undergoes stress, caused by the string vortexes on its surface. Some strings disconnect themselves from their previous locations. Breaking away from the neutron surface gives them a high speed, allowing them to travel as free strings through space. These are photons. When the breaking-away process begins, more string vortexes can be released and immediately connected to each in a chain. This evolutionary process creates a new particle, the electron, which takes with it a negative charge. The remnant of the neutron, now positively charged, becomes a proton. The surface of the proton still creates strings vortexes, but with all their stems directed outward.

Radioactive decay produces alpha and beta particles. Alpha particles are helium nuclei; beta particles are electrons. Hence, the decay of neutrons is called beta decay, since only electrons are emitted. Experimental observation of beta decay did not satisfy the physicists who observed it; they wondered why the electron created during beta decay did not carry as much energy as they knew existed between two charges in close proximity inside a nucleus. They calculated this energy using Coulomb's Law, which determines force between charges; the charges are equal to the charge of the electron at a distance, which can be no bigger than the diameter of an atomic nucleus. The work of expelling the electron is equal to force times distance, which gives the electron kinetic energy.

This mathematical disagreement in what was expected and what was observed led theorists to theorize that beta decay requires an intermediate particle. But they did not need to posit them; they only needed to follow the real string theory, thus the real quantum physics. Namely, the electron is not the fundamental particle of real quantum physics, since the electron accepts or emits quanta. To remain consistent with quantum physics, they should have explained the beta decay via strings--not invent new quantum particles!

Indeed, their need to create intermediate particles to meet the criterion of math confirms my theory of string vortexes. String vortexes want to turn themselves around 180 degrees, which causes separation from the surface of the neutron. Due to this characteristic, the force required to turn does not have its vector directed straight out from the decaying neutron. Therefore, a chain of strings, and not separate strings, is created first. This new particle has spin, which is typical of all subatomic particles. Still, the ability of free strings to move in a straight line at the speed of light, c, is a property of their creation, which gives them the momentum to move away from their origin. Therefore, when these strings are assembled into a cluster called the electron, the whole cluster maintains the momentum of the component strings; and so, the electron both spins and travels.

The decay of free neutrons follows the half-life relation, where half of a collection of neutrons decays within a given amount of time. There are two ways to measure neutron half-life, and the results of the two methods do not agree. The first counts the numbers of neutrons remaining in place after a specific period. From this, we learn that a neutron's half-life is between 878 and 879 seconds. The second method shot neutrons into a magnetic "proton trap." The number of protons present determines how many neutrons have decayed in a given period. From this method, a neutron half-life measuring between 886 and 890 seconds has been derived. When using this method, the neutron is moving at a great speed when it decays; since it takes longer to decay when moving so fast, this suggests that neutron decay is slowed by the pressure caused by particles in the neutron's way--something like the way "air drag" slows falling objects in the macro-world. Then, as described above, the methods of measuring neutron half-life cannot allow any intermediate particles many times heavier than the neutron, and therefore these experiments uproot any theories about intermediate particles--heavy W- and Z-bosons--existing in this process. How can an intermediate particle have hundreds of times more mass than the particles it is associated with? Where does the mass come from?

When the electron is formed, it could not remain on the neutron, it flies directly into free space. However, a force emanating from the cones of the string vortexes of the electron that attracts the vortex stems on the proton may restrict its movements. The combination of this attractive force with a force deriving from the linear momentum of the electron results in the electron orbiting around the proton. The bound couplet of proton and electron creates the prime atom we call hydrogen.

We know of many other atoms (92 natural, in addition to 26 artificial, currently comprising 118 elements) composed of elementary subatomic particles in various combinations. These are distinguished primarily by the numbers of electrons orbiting protons, but instead we often distinguish them according to their proton count, because atomic ions and isotopes also exist. The number of protons in the nucleus is the atomic number of the chemical element in question (which Mendeleev arranged into the periodic table). Thus, we come to atomic nuclei. Large nuclei have many protons; but how is it possible for protons to bond this way? According to Coulomb's Law, like charges repel each other. But nuclei also contain neutrons, which have no net charge. So how is it possible that protons and neutrons can bind together at all?

The answer lies in the fact that a neutron within an atomic nucleus is unusually stable, as opposed to the brief lifespan of free neutrons. They rarely, if ever, decay. That means the stress created by the string vortexes decreases significantly in the neutron when the neutron binds itself first to a proton, and then to other neutrons.

Earlier, we saw how the attraction of string vortexes to the stems of other string vortexes caused the decay of a free neutron. But string stems covering another particle can also satisfy the attraction of a neutron's string vortexes. The surface of the proton consists only of such string stems, so the proton and neutron easily enter into a very strong bond. That's why neutrons like to be bound to protons, and that's why they don't decay in such a situation. Because strings stems are also present on the surface of each neutron, the attractive force of string vortexes can also be satisfied by presence of another neutron. In this case, the string vortexes don't bend themselves to catch adjacent stems, since they can get them directly from another neutron.

The surfaces of protons and neutrons engage in bonds inside nuclei. According to electric terms, a "short circuit" comes into effect in adjoining areas. Naturally, the force causing the bond must be very strong, because it is difficult to disconnect such a short circuit. Physicists have named this force the strong nuclear force, since it occurs only inside atomic nuclei. But to comply with quantum physics, we should discuss this in terms of strings bearing a quantum of energy, and thus call it the strong string bond - the strong quantum force.

Certainly, not all the string vortexes on the neutrons in a nucleus can enter couplings, due to the spatial problems of arranging baryons. If the protons and neutrons have a spherical shape, like a drop or a ball, then there are spatial restrictions to create many couplets of "short circuits" among surface strings. Variations are many. The abundant baryons in large nuclei tend not to occur in a stable configuration, especially where one type of baryon is more numerous than the other, so those nuclei are more likely to decay into smaller nuclei having arrangements of protons and neutrons that are more stable. Therefore, traditional physics defines a weak nuclear force as well. Supposedly, the weak force is responsible for the natural radioactive decay of large nuclei.

When a collection of baryons is unstable, that means that the stress existing in some neutrons is not as well reduced by "short circuit" bonds with other baryons as occurs in smaller nuclei; and therefore, it's possible even for the neutrons locked weakly in nuclei to decay. We then get a nucleus with one neutron missing, and an added proton, with an electron ejected to orbit the new proton (and often a photon or other particle). The nucleus now belongs to another chemical element. For example, the decay of cobalt-60 begins with a nucleus containing 27 protons and 33 neutrons. One neutron decays into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino, just as a free neutron does. The new proton remains in the nucleus, and therefore we end up with a nucleus of nickel-60 that contains 28 protons and 32 neutrons.

The Standard Model of Particles and Forces does not explain the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force in terms of string bonds. Instead, its creators have introduced hypothetical carrier particles to mediate them. To give some validity to their theory, they needed to prove the existence of these carrier particles, and so they looked for them in the debris of subatomic particle collisions. Even then, they do not describe forces among protons and neutrons, but instead label their remains as sub-subatomic particles called quarks. They themselves credit their model to wreckage.

After World War II air raids, the debris of wrecked buildings was common in the affected cities. Certainly, there were many torn pieces in any size smaller than a full structure. Very few represent the natural origin of the building materials used by construction workers to form the buildings. But it was possible to find, among the wreckage, some remains of building materials that seem more objects of art than any built material (think of the "cross" of steel beams found among the wreckage of the World Trade Center after 9/11). Even more "works of art" can be brought to light in the first moments of collision, when the debris has just begun to form. This doesn't mean they're really works of art--or new subatomic particles.

Yes, scientists record the first moments of the forming debris, even during the amount of time that light travels the diameter of a proton. They then propose that these debris fragments are natural particles. Thus, we come to the particle zoo, which diverges from the Standard Model of Physics to the encyclopedia of fantastic inventions, such that:

1. Baryon fragments from particle collisions are the origins of fundamental particles. A baryon contains an almost endless number of strings, which are 1020 times smaller than the size of the baryon itself. When we exert an extreme force on its volume--say, by smashing other particles into it at near-light speed--then the baryon is shattered into many pieces. But it is naive to assume there will be as many pieces as there are strings inside the baryon (i.e., 1020). There should be single strings of the Planck Length of all forms existing in the baryon, as well as clusters. The proposed "quarks" are simply string clusters existing only during the collision period and transition period before the strings rejoin into complete particles or burn out as string waves. In other words, they are only short-lived collision debris.
2. Quarks are fundamental particles of matter having mass. The lifetime of "quarks" does not exceed the amount of time it takes for light to travel through the diameter of a baryon; for the example, the lifetime of the up quark is estimated to be 5x10-25 sec, as if 1.5x10-16 meter were its width. This is less than the diameter of the baryon. When physicists, let's say in CERN, say they have seen quarks, or traces of quarks, then they had to use a high-speed film camera taking at least 1025 pictures per second. A normal motion picture is played at 25 (TV) frames per second. If you pick just a period of a film one nanosecond long, you still need to look at 1016 pictures. If you need one second to inspect one picture, then the examination of that film to see once a quark will take 300 million years. In any case, to create a firm object, we first need stable parts to bring together and time (for the process) to attach them to each other. The proton has a lifetime equal to an age of the universe. Therefore, for propagators of quarks to be built, blocks of natural particles must have quarks as stable as the proton. This is empirically not the case.
3. Quarks are identical particles of matter. Identical particles must have firm physical properties to be considered stable. Firm physical properties include mass and size. Protons and neutrons have identical masses and identical sizes. Therefore, particles that combine to form the proton or the neutron must also have firm masses and sizes to create the identical particles. But according to physicists who believe in quarks, the components of the proton and the neutron, "up quarks" and "down quarks," have a range of masses: 1.7- 3.3 MeV/c2 for the up quark, and 4.1-5.8 MeV/c2 for the down quark. The quantum physics of fields allows for just one identical particle. Because there is a range, quarks are not identical particles of matter.
4. 99% of matter is not detected. Using an average number for quarks, they can contribute to the mass of the proton by just 1.02%, and to the mass of the neutron by 1.3%. Thus, their assembly cannot create either protons or neutrons, because their mass is simply insufficient. Does the theory of syntheses allow a loss or gain of such a value of mass? Has the Law of Conservation of Mass disappeared from their physics? No, that could not be! Physicists have detected just electromagnetic rays that are transverse waves. They come to exist mostly from string vortexes. However, we described above baryons as having string vortexes on their surfaces but inside should be longitudinal strings, and these were ignored. From the presented numbers I conclude, the proton consists of 99% longitudinal strings, 0.3% (1.3% - 1.02% = 0.28%)string vortexes on the surface and 0.7% other from inside, and the neutron 98.7% longitudinal strings, 0.6% string vortexes on the surface and 0.7% other transverse strings inside.
5. Force is mass. Theoretic physicists propose three quarks composing protons and the neutrons. When I and other scientists object that real physics does not allow this theory to be valid, due to the imbalance between the masses of quarks and the masses of the baryons, they invent another physics that claims that the rest of the mass--about 99%--lies in the strong nuclear force removed during nuclear destruction. The physical term "force is mass" is apparently a new type of physics violating real physics of our world, where a force is the effect of mass, thus the effect of objects having mass in motion or rest. Mass expresses the bigness of macro-objects--exactly, mass expresses the bigness of objects related to an amount (number) of longitudinal strings. Since the longitudinal strings prevail over others (99%), the lay opinion is "a force is the effect of mass." Yet, the right saying is "a force is the effect of objects" where objects can be strings (for quanta), particles (for subatomic parts) or macro-objects (for chemicals).
6. Opposite electrical charges can remain free for a short distance, such as the diameter of the proton. Since the proton has a positive electric charge, theoretical physicists have been forced to conjure new ideas about charges as well. They needed to arrange the charges of quarks so that three quarks combined will have a positive charge of +1, like the proton, while secondly (and simultaneously) lacking any electric charge. Their hard work introduced these myths: that the charge for the up quark is +2/3 of the proton's charge, and for the down quark is -1/3 of the proton's charge. This solution is physically impossible, because according to traditional physics, when a positive and a negative charge come close to each other, they discharge. Thanks to this phenomenon, we can exploit electricity; for example, in a discharge tube. Then too, we can see the electrostatic discharge between clouds and the earth as lightning, although there is a great distance between them. There are positive charges in atomic nuclei, and negative charges on atomic surfaces. Because the diameters of atomic nuclei are about 10-15 m and the diameters of atoms about 10-11 m, the smallest distance between the negative (-1) and positive charges (+1) must be over 10,000 times the diameter of the proton. Hence, physical reality does not allow the proposed charges for quarks to exist inside the proton.
7. Quarks do not deform the orbits of electrons. Protons hold electrons in atomic orbits. As described above, scientists wondered why the electron created during beta decay did not carry as much energy as they knew existed between two charges in close proximity inside a nucleus and therefore solved it. However now, charges and their positions seem them not to matter. If there exists (according to them in a set of quarks) in the volume of the proton a quark having the negative charge equal to -1/3, then in hydrogen, the -1 charge of the electron orbits the proton, which includes a quark that has one-third of its surface charge. If so, a force for retaining the electron in the atom no longer exists in one-third of the electron's orbit. As a result, the electron should immediately veer off into a free space or to jump to higher orbit. At the very least, the orbital trajectory of the electron should be deformed; and if that were the case, atomic clocks would be useless for measuring time. Empirical proof shows that they are, in fact, extremely accurate.
8. The decay of free neutrons does not provide evidence of the particles making up the neutron. The products of neutron decay in nature must be in accordance with the particles comprising the neutron. If quarks are not a product of neutron decay, then how can quarks combine to create a neutron? If no quarks are in a neutron, then quarks do not combine to make any baryons. If the products of neutron decay are a particle having a positive charge (a proton) and a particle with a negative charge (an electron), then these charges should also exist for the particles comprising the neutron. Nature does not follow theory, but reacts to the real charges of the particles emerging from the neutron. Thus, when negative charges were moving away from the neutron, then all had to be separated. Besides, experimental physics has found that neutron decay also produces a neutrino or antineutrino. This means that at least one neutrino also exists in the neutron. This reality of nature disqualifies the theory that baryons are composites of quarks.
9. Charged particles need a gluing particle to be bound together. If particles with opposite charges can coexist without discharging, then there must be an electric force to attract them, and so to bind them. This is something we see in strong chemical bonds, where electrically charged ions are bound together. No binding material is needed. Some theorists, however, assign particles to transmit a force to the particles that make up matter, claiming that the carrier of the strong force is the gluon. To legitimize their fantasy, they meddle with a particle found during annihilation of electrons and positrons. Since the electron has a negative charge and the positron a positive charge, it seemed necessary for them to apply this synthesis to positive and negative quarks. The positron is the antimatter counterpart of the electron, due to charge, and naturally annihilates the electron. Besides the products of this annihilation, there may also be a photon emitted having less energy. This represents all nuclear reactions involved. Similarly, some energy--as a photon of lower energy--is emitted in many chemical reactions. Now, they call this the special photon because there were electric charges involved and there could this photon travel between them. First, they conjured with charges for quarks, and now with photons as gluons because charges and annihilation (an electron - a positron) as steadiness (up quark - down quark).
10. Colored charges exist in nature. Since physicists have proposed that quarks without charges exist, they needed to avoid electromagnetism altogether, and therefore have implemented "colored" charges. Now they have all the tools necessary to introduce the new physics called quantum chromodynamics to explain the strong nuclear force. But can physics study what has never actually been observed? These "color" charges for quarks and gluons have never been observed, unlike electrical charges. However, I suspect the theorists will eventually proclaim that these colors have been detected, due to the enormous amounts of money sunk into their programs to look for them--just as we saw them proclaiming that the particle providing mass to objects, the so-called Higgs boson, was manufactured in the LHC.
11. Linear momentum of a moving particle does not exist. Theoretical physicists view the particles in nuclei as having some freedom to travel in the volume of said nuclei. Thus, the strong force works over distances, and therefore a carrier of this force must overcome some distance among two subatomic particles. If the force carrier overcomes that distance, then the physical law of action and reaction must apply to it. Namely, for something to travel and to arrive somewhere means there must apply its own traveling momentum (speed and mass). Physics classifies this as collision. A traveling object impacts the object it collides with, pushing it in the direction that the traveling object had before the collision--something like a billiard ball transferring its momentum to another. Therefore, in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Momentum, the proposed gluons CANNOT bind the particles among which they travel. To overcome this reality, theorists do not claim gluons have momenta. Since momenta demonstrate REALITY (physics), their model does not demonstrate reality.
12. An added particle to a nucleus does not increase its mass. The Law of Conservation of Mass tells us that when we add the proton or the neutron to the nucleus, it increases the mass of the new nucleus. The reality is that the mass of a nucleus does not match the sum of all the mass contributed by protons and neutrons. The mass of a nucleus is always less than sum of its components. If the added gluon for a bond decreases a mass of a created nucleus, the gluon trespasses the Law and therefore must be excluded from physics.
13. A force effect exists among colors in nature. To overcome Newton's Third Law of Action and Reaction, and Coulomb's Law, theorists propose the existence of a force among their "colors." The grounds for such a force could not fall from heaven, they must be on the Earth. And so, it is an effect of the combination of colors that we see in white light. White light, our visible light, is a combination of a few basic colors--red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. Chromodynamics theorists believe there exists a force effect when these colors combine, but this is not observed in nature. Colors are simply wave functions of photons, and the photons for these colors do not interact among themselves in any way when they travel side-by-side. We see a part of the wavelength of photons; thus, the electromagnetic radiation that, together, creates the white light. Hence, colors are just an effect of our perception of light. If some wavelengths are missing or weaker in certain lights, then our mental impression of this change is expressed by colors. Our eye registers the changed identities of light, and never registers any actual force due to these changes. That's all an invention of chromodynamics, in relation to the existence of a force due to changing colors.
14. There are eight color charges for quarks and gluons. We've already seen how these theorists violate physics by assigning charges to quarks, to fit to the charged proton and uncharged neutron. Because of that, they posit color charges and theorize about their changes in order for some particles to work in this way. So the theorists dip into the philosophy of supersymmetry and extra dimensions instead of following what real nature shows them to be real truth. They require esoteric math and powerful computers to prove their conclusions. All these testify to the fact that they are simply unable to understand strong nuclear forces, and therefore are forced to complicate the process to prolong their stay on the grand stage of physics. Albert Einstein once said: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Therefore, if computers and their operators are required to bring about understanding of the phenomena of the strong particle interaction, this does not mean that what they describe is real. Theoretic physicists work with six quarks and, due to their need for symmetry, with six anti-quarks. Each quark has three colors--red, green and blue--with the anti-quarks colored cyan, magenta and yellow. How many variances do they provide? Three-quark combinations are known as baryons, and then there are the many exotic combinations involving heavier quarks. Combinations of antiquarks are known as anti-baryons. And combinations of quarks and antiquarks are known as mesons, and so on.
15. The weak nuclear force exists in nature. Theoretical physicists have introduced mathematic myths about the existence of the weak nuclear force in quantum physics. They confuse the decay of the free neutron with the decay of large, unstable nuclei into smaller nuclei, and the decay of the neutron inside large nuclei. They have assigned transition particles to explain all these reactions. When something decays, it's because there is some inner tension, and this tension works toward the decay. If they find some disagreement, as was presented between the work required to emit the electron and the energy carried by the electron, that is no reason to propose a new force--i.e., what is now called the weak nuclear force, or for it to have heavy "carrier," since quantum physics requires it to just have some quantum of energy. To explain the weak nuclear force, theorists use W+ and W- particles to change the electric charge of the proton or the neutron, while the Z-particle or Z-boson gives momentum to emitted particles. If there are two carriers or more for the weak force, then there should be two or more forces, shouldn't there?
16. 10,000 quarks are required for one transition particle. Theorists propose masses of 80.4 GeV/c2 and 91.2 GeV/c2 for the W and Z bosons. These should be transiting particles that cause the production of an electron from a down quark. However, the given masses for W and Z bosons are 15,000-20,000 times higher than a mass of a quark. Thus, to make a W or Z boson, you need over 10,000 syntheses to run. Can this be true?
17. The object debris is larger in size than the original object. The masses of W- and Z-bosons are almost 100 times as large as the neutron, heavier than entire iron atoms! But they're supposed to work during beta decay, thus within the neutron. Hence, they are parts of the neutron. Can pieces of a neutron be larger than the neutron itself?
18. Balancing of beta decay should not be possible. In the beta decay of the free neutron, a neutron becomes a proton. If so, then W- or Z-bosons should come to exist only from the neutron, and not from a whole nucleus. But the proposed transit particle is 100 times larger than the neutron, so in accordance with the laws of balancing the transmitted reaction, the equation of neutron => proton cannot be balanced especially when neutrons are shot into a magnetic "proton trap." This is alchemy, not chemistry, and therefore the proposed production of the electron in beta decay through a transit particle, i.e. a W- boson, should NOT be included in today's exact science.
19. Computing particles exists in nature. Theorists give a positive and a negative electric charge to W-bosons, and therefore there are W+ and W- bosons required to get a -1 charge to electrons and a +1 charge to a proton. Since they propose the existence of charged quarks in the neutron, then the negative particle emitted from the nucleus should bear the charge of the quarks naturally. But a transit particle has a charge three times higher than a down quark. From this, we need to have three negatively charged quarks to get a -1 charge. But theorists propose just two down quarks each, with the charge of 1/3 of the electron; neutron (-1/3, -1/3, +2/3) = proton (+2/3, +2/3, -1/3) + electron (-1). Thus, their transition particle in the decay of the free neutron needs to add +1 to the -1/3 to get +2/3 charge of the up quark for the proton, and -1 for the electron. When their W-boson does math, it is a computing particle. Thus, they put a tiny computer among the particles of the Standard Model. I'm wondering who makes software for it.
20. The electron acquires momentum by means of a fictive particle. Theoretical physicists propose the existence of this particle, which the call the Z-boson, to transfer momentum to the electron to cause it to fly away from a stationary nucleus. The electron created from the free neutron does not have any such medium to give it the momentum to exit the new proton; thus, the beta decay of nuclei does not require any assistance to give the produced electron linear momentum. The electron already has the momentum of the strings that comprised it before the beta decay. Then, the decay experiments where neutrons are shot into a magnetic "proton trap" exclude the existence Z bosons.
21. Particles of a nucleus exchange their masses. Supposedly, the neutron has two down and one up quark and the proton has two up and one down quarks. During beta decay (from the neutron to the proton), one down quark must switch itself to be up quark. So, the particle having an average mass of 4.8 MeV/c2 changes to a particle having 2.5 MeV/c2.
The reality of the strong nuclear force lies in the mass effect. Baryons have less mass than the individual particles making them up would have when summed together. The amount of lost mass determines the strength of the strong nuclear force. Since there are many variations of these deficiencies, the strong nuclear force cannot depend on the binding techniques of quarks, if they exist at all. If additional particles are present to create the strong force, then they should be adding mass to baryon bundles rather than taking away, as you have seen above. Yet some theoretical physicists propose that gluons also bind the quarks of other baryons to create nuclei, so they add instead of taking away to meet the requirements of nature.

If binding baryons causes a deficit of mass in baryonic matter in the real world, then there are spatial grounds for the strong nuclear force. As you might notice, the effect of string stems binding to string cones between baryons is spatially limited. A stronger force comes to exist when more of these couplets are created. Just as two balls glued together at just one point are bound more weakly than two balls glued along a significant surface contact, so it is with baryons in nuclei. To have the maximum contact area between balls, it's necessary to cut some spherical segments off them. That is why a stronger force exists where a larger spherical segment is gone. Any spherical segment removed during a nuclear reaction means that the product loses some of its final mass. That is why the loss of a baryon segment is proportional to the power of the bond. Thus, the strong nuclear force has the binding energy equal to this mass deficit. Thanks to these segments we exist since the lost mass of the Sun (converted to energy) warms us. Hence, theoretical physicists don't want us to exist anymore.

In accordance with the equation E = mc2, the energy of the strong nuclear force is this deficit times c2. For example: A nucleus having two protons and two neutrons (helium), has a deficient of mass of 0.00733 in atomic mass units, and thus yields a binding energy for the nucleus of 28.11 MeV, which for a baryon is 7.3 MeV. A nucleus of three protons and three neutrons, lithium, has a deficit of mass of 0.00548, yielding a binding energy of 31.50 MeV, which for a baryon is 5.25 MeV. Hence, helium exhibits a stronger nuclear force than lithium, and is more stable. The most stable element is iron, with a binding energy of 8.7 MeV. Otherwise, the stronger bonds are in nuclei where baryons are multiplied by the number four (helium, carbon, oxygen, and so on). This means that two protons and two neutrons have the best spatial conditions for binding by the strong nuclear force.

This reality of the strong nuclear force disqualifies any theory of "exchange particles," because then there would be a discrete, single value for the quantum of the strong nuclear force, with its multiples creating a particularly strong bond. This is a mathematical rule of quantum physics, and this why its proponents must follow it. Explaining the strong nuclear force through quanta of binding energy between the string vortex and the string stem fits into the realistic mathematics of the quantum physics. The quantity of the strong nuclear force is a multiple of the basic quanta of the bond between string vortex and stem, as they have the multiples of the Planck energy (h) for photons.

The reality of the weak nuclear force lies in its entering a suitable configuration of many baryons. To postulate a body consisting of a limitless number of baryons is unreal. This works the way it does with a drop of water or mercury. Smaller drops are more stable than larger ones. Large drops easily split into two or more smaller drops. If this works for the surface forces of atoms and molecules, then how much better must it work for bundles of baryon? The strong forces among baryons residing in nuclei automatically configure themselves into bundles in which they are realized more effectively. Therefore, large nuclei--and especially these with a poor spatial configuration of baryons--are more likely to achieve a stable configuration by splitting into two nuclei. Certainly, there is the possibility that some neutrons will be left over, not entering new nuclei, which is why we also see radiating neutrons in the radioactive decay of massive nuclei. Sometimes the strong new bond increases the contact area by amputating some parts of the baryons, and thus we also get gamma rays and so on.

Anyone looking for a true physical understanding of the weak nuclear force must allow physical reality, not fantasy, to rule in their theories of nuclear forces. Objective reasoning must prevail in physics today, so that we may "smell" the reality of nature--especially when mathematical theory does not meet the mathematical criteria of exact quanta for binding energy.

### Propagating String Vortexes

During beta decay, string vortexes disconnect themselves from the neutron, and thus the electron is born. Realize that not all string vortexes enter into electrons, some are released as individual strings. Their linear momentum may overcome the electric force of the proton, therefore allowing them to propagate freely in space.

String vortexes do not change their shape when assembling the electron. However, the string vortex hardly keeps its shape when it's free to travel. It must travel in a wave pattern, since we recognize quanta to have wave functions. Thus, its spatial shape must change. First it was a spinning string with one end fixed and the second free, which was waving away from the axis of spin and forming a vortex in three dimensions. But a free string cannot have any fixed ends, and therefore it becomes a string with both ends free. If this string stayed in one place, then both its ends would be waving away from the axis of spin. Thus, the string would look, two-dimensionally, like a wave on a swinging rope with a node in the middle and anti-nodes in both ends. Here we get a fundamental wave with the node in the middle. Then rotating string has its cones/vortices at both ends. In relation to the electric potential of such strings, we have negative potentials at both ends. Therefore, one-way orientation to the positive charge of the proton during beta decay does not exist here as it does on the electron; and so, the remainder of the neutron, the proton, does not apply its electric effect on the free-string vortex as it does on the electron. Thus, our free string is released from the proton's influence during beta decay.

A free string propagates into space, so there must exist a route on which it travels--the trajectory for its movement. If the string were not an elastic object, but an object having a firm shape, then it should propagate on a straight-line route. However, this is not so. Since the string's inner movement did not cease during disconnection, then first, just its point starts to propagate into free space. Thus, the string starts to move as a snake would. It marks an undulating route, a waving trajectory. This means the string vortex propagates with the wave pattern of the transverse wave.

Waves have other physical properties as well. In relation to our string vortex, the string's linear momentum remains. But the attractive charge of the string is gone, since there is no vortex cone. Hence this propagating string has the properties of a particle, due to its linear momentum, and the properties of the transverse wave due to the form of its propagation through space.

Some theoretical physicists have developed a science from this observation, and describe the phenomena of moving strings in a way that makes them both particles and waves. Thus, they have a particle chameleon among the particles of the Standard Model. They do not want to acknowledge that things can also move in nature by undulating as a snake does. In three-dimensions, its trajectory is a geometrical spiral. Hence, it does not have any duality as a moving string; there is therefore no divine mystery to preoccupy them. It is described in just the way the particle propagates in space. When one does not need to know the type of trajectory, he can work with this string as a moving wave pattern, just as with a moving particle. However, one who is more interesting in how it propagates--including how it bends or reflects and so on--must work with the wave function of this string, as opticians do. Physicists must acknowledge that wave motion exists in the real world. They should approach nature as zoologists do, when they speak of how far a snake has moved away from its hole, always keeping in mind that it does so in an undulatory (wavy) motion. The role of creating and supporting mysteries belonged to craftsmen and alchemists in the Dark Ages. But men of light saw the real physical world and so overcame the dark presented by the mysteries. And today, we see the wave nature of light at any Polaroid and therefore must propagate the reality of light in the physical world. The role of physics is to overcome the dark presented by any mysteries. Thus, physics must not create mysteries!

Our propagating string, which is a string vortex, retains the string's electric potential. But this comes into effect when our string lands on a subatomic particle, thus losing its linear momentum. Where it strikes, it brings its own electric potential. Certainly, our string vortex traveling in space as a transverse wave is most likely to land on an electron, since they're the first particles encountered when breaking out of the neutron. This string is a photon, of course.

It is said that a photon has mass while moving, but has no rest mass. The physical property of rest mass depends on the presence of longitudinal strings inside string clusters--that is, inside subatomic particles. Since a separate string or string vortex cannot have any rest mass, a photon cannot be weighed. Its mass is calculated from its movement. All moving objects have momentum, and from that we know that true natural particles exist, although we cannot see some of them. We feel the force of the momentum of moving objects when they hit us. How much they hurt us depends on their speed and size.

In the macro-world, a size of an object is proportional to its mass. However, the mass is also proportional to the number of longitudinal strings present in an object's volume. Therefore, we conclude that (linear) momentum is based on speed and number of strings present in an object. Thus, each moving string has a quantum of momentum. This is why it seems the photon has a traveling mass, but no rest mass.