Mass is the physical property of moving strings inside the volume of subatomic particles. When gravity detects mass, it results in weight of objects. Therefore, we use weighting to determine size of objects, and say, the object has such a mass. Here works force of gravity onto bigness of objects, thus quantity of gravitons onto quantity of the longitudinal strings in an object. This does not agree well with the old theorem "a force is the effect of mass" because gravitons do not have mass. Hence, the right saying is "a force is the effect of objects." This said for the quantum level goes to: "a force is the effect of strings," and for the atomic level "a force is the effect of particles." However, science used to determine masses of the subatomic particles when they are in motion. They use mass spectrometry where charged particles are put in motion, and then, not the gravitational force interacts with them but the electric or magnetic force does. So estimated masses m in motion (mv) is for all strings in a particle; for the longitudinal strings and transverse strings. These masses have some deviations from the masses determined by weighting, as we used to weight macro-objects. The deviations, however, are very small because we know the ratio is about 1:99. Namely, when particles are broken in a collider, they detect only transverse strings (electromagnetic rays). They were in amounts 1% for the proton and 1.3% for the neutron in relation to their bigness determined by the mass spectrometry. Here the bigness of the neutron, although does not have any electric charge, is determined for the couple of the proton + the neutron and from it, the mass of the proton is taken and the mass of the neutron is left. By this method, the mass of the neutron is not very right, because the neutron and the proton have some spherical segments cut to the power of the strong bond between them. Another method for the mass uses the beta decay of the neutron. They determine masses of charged products, the protons and the electrons, and by putting them together have the mass for the neutron, and so on. Anyway, the quantum science has job to specify better the quantitative rate of strings in subatomic particles; the rate of bigness of objects in relation to mass quanta and to electromagnetic quanta.
Vortexes have a force effect, causing some stress on the surface. This stress causes the neutron to lose string vortexes, which is why a free neutron decays. The stress of string vortexes can also be solved by the way that the string vortex of one neutron drags in the stems of another, creating a bond comparative to the binding electric charges in the macro-world during short circuits. These are very strong bonds, and cause bound neutrons to become very stable particles. As previously noted, the bound neutrons in nuclei do not decay.
The inner strings of the neutron are free strings moving inside the volume of the neutron. If they lose their linear momentum, then they can become looped strings. Thus, looped strings should also exist inside the neutron. They prefer to be paired, and may be bound into bundles or tubes. Since a looped string bears the magnetic quantum effect, a bundle of them carries the magnetic effect. This bundle is a neutrino; the product of neutron decay is an electron, a proton, and a neutrino (antineutrino). Since looped strings bear the magnetic force effect, and thus prefer to be paired with looped strings rotating in the opposite direction, we can observe a very low level of magnetism in neutrons.
The physical property of the neutron is this: the neutron is electrically neutral due to the annulling of the electric effects of the strings on the surface, as there are the same numbers of string vortexes and stems on the surface. Inside the neutron's volume are strings that mimic longitudinal wave patterns; and because have some freedom to move, they provide some value of inner dynamics to the neutron that is called the mass of the neutron.
It is possible that an electron lacks any rest mass in cases where only string vortexes leave the neutron during the birth of the electron. The cone of a string vortex can catch the narrow stem of another vortex. In this way, a chain can come to exist when cones attract the stems of other strings. If this chain is an electron, then this chain can be the section of a straight line when an electron propagates linearly; or it can be a curve when an electron orbits a nucleus; or it may move in a waving form when it needs to overcome some obstacle on its path. This fits for those who claim that the electron is also a wave, since such behavior has been observed as electrons propagate through obstacles. If this is so, then it is valid to assume electrons have a wave pattern. However, we must not generalize this assumption to assuming all subatomic particles behave as waves during propagation, or that all subatomic particles are waves as well as particles.
It is possible that there are more stems inside the cone of the other string. If so, then electrons may take the spatial form of an octopus, or many connected octopuses. There are still many free cones that can increase the charge of the electron. Even such electrons can in some way pass through an obstacle as a complicated wave pattern. In terms of their density, it is now less than in baryons, due to empty space between the legs of "octopi." Natural physics tells us that these electrons are 1,000 times less dense than a baryon.
If the electron has a rest mass, and thus can be weighted, then the strings responsible for that mass must be located inside the electron. This should happen when a string vortex takes strings for mass along with it when it leaves the surface of the neutron. Whether or not this is so can be determined when an electron's mass is estimated--not just from the behavior of the electron in an electric field, but also from weighing it in a gravitational field. If mass is detected, then the electron consists of longitudinal strings inside its volume, and open cones of other string vortexes on its surface. If this is so, then the electron does not have any wave functions. The fact that electrons bend when traveling through holes in materials is due to the electric force. Namely, the surfaces of holes are covered with electrons, and when traveling electron approach them, the Coulomb force between electrons in a material and free-flying electrons may produce a distortion of the route of the propagating electrons.
My visualization is that the electron has a ball nucleus from which chains are outgoing, as if they were its hairs. When the electron moves then these hairs follow a nuclei and wave during motion as is pictured. When the electron approaches to another electron to join, then string vortexes of these electrons may look to be arranged alternately up and down (in front and back) as were on the surface of the neutron. When electrons of different atoms are so paired, they manifest a strong chemical bond. This habit of electrons to have different orientation leads physicists to presume that magnetism is due to the spin of particles having electric potentials. Thus, they see the electron as macro-particle that is the source of magnetism in nature. They also measure the electron's mass with the help of the magnetic field. When electrons move, the electric charge moves; we call this electric current. Electrons in metals travel long distances carrying a charge; this is how electricity flows.
The primary physical property of the neutrino is magnetism. Therefore, when a neutrino is free to propagate through space, it avoids electric charges. Since matter consists of atoms and molecules, which are covered by electrons and thus by electrically charged particles, neutrinos are repeatedly turned away from the atoms and molecules to do "end runs" around electrons, and thus pass through matter mostly unhindered. There is a greater probability of neutrinos hitting elementary particles in nuclei, however. Although there are still electric charges present in protons, the neutrons offset this somewhat. It is harder for the nuclei to avoid neutrinos, due to their inertia. The contact area of a baryon is also quite a bit larger than that of electrons. Besides this, baryons are firmly bound into the nucleus. Therefore, when a neutrino does hit an atom, as it rarely does, it hits the nucleus rather than the electron. When a neutrino hits a nucleus, it breaks it apart, as researchers do in colliders.
Because neutrinos are magnetic particles, they try to drag away the neutrinos located inside baryons, taking at least some surface strings and longitudinal strings with them. Hence, when a neutrino encounters matter, it frees particles called muons. Muons consist of two neutrinos and one other particle having an electric charge. The muon neutrinos must have opposing rotations, of course; therefore, one is a neutrino and the other an antineutrino. Muons, meanwhile, propagate at close to the speed of light in a vacuum. If a free muon is delivered into a medium where the speed of light is lower--for instance, water-- then the lowered speed creates flashes of blue light called Cherenkov radiation. This is how neutrino detectors work.
The rest mass for neutrinos could result from the fact that the neutrino has a nucleus consisting of strings of longitudinal wave patterns. If neutrinos are just tubes, then they have no rest mass. However, the neutrino must have a mass when propagates in space; but it is only the mass due its linear momentum. Therefore, the propagated mass due to a neutrino's momentum at collision does not mean the neutrino has any real mass.
Moving neutrinos rotate, and therefore they are also distinguished by their rotation. Neutrinos spin clockwise with respect to their direction of motion, while those spinning counterclockwise are called antineutrinos. Hence, neutrinos bear quantum magnetism due to looped strings, but also carry macro-world magnetism, since they rotate as whole objects.
The Standard Model (SM) of particles is a product of quantum physicists. Since for them a quantum is just the smallest energy, then our assumption could be that their model will have the elementary particles in form of energy (quanta). Classical mechanics works with elementary particles of the atom. They have mass. The assumption is they will transform particles having mass to quanta by Einstein's formula E = mc2. One way to liquidate mass is by math, and the other is the practical liquidation.
The elementary particles of ordinary matter in Newtonian mechanics have a firm shape that makes them three-dimensional objects having firm volumes, with the fixed properties expressed in mass and in electric or even magnetic charges. To liquidate them in the literal sense means to destroy electric and magnetic charges, masses, and to annul their spherical shapes. Using our knowledge that Newton's particles consist of the strings, this means changing their high level of order into disorder; the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes the process of changing a set of particles from order into disorder as a one-way process (entropy). This means the existence of any particle could not be destroyed at all; which is also true according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Using Einstein's equivalence mass/energy, when mass is liquidated, then matter becomes energy. In real terms, the high order of strings is liquidated, and we get just their disorder. It is as you would have taken a firm object and changed it into " axle grease" or melted it into liquid or even evaporated it. From all these forms, you cannot recover the original or create other stable particles, since going from order into disorder is a one-way doing (entropy). Also, you cannot recover all the identical properties of colliding particles, for instance their mass, because you do not know how many originals or fractions of originals have " melted". But what you can is to count the constituents of the originals, for example by exploring their physical demonstration in motion, if they move. Still, our strings and their quanta bear their individual properties, which were observed in ordinary matter as its electric or magnetic potential, and therefore they are identified in great numbers as electromagnetic rays.
This is exactly the way theorists have created almost all the particles of the Standard Model. They create these unstable particles by colliding the stable ones together at high energies. But really, they destroy stable particles and get "axle grease", which evaporate in the form electromagnetic rays. Because of a fundamental principle of nature - mass/energy equivalence, defined by Einstein's E = mc2 - they turn pure energy into mass and so get particles. Thus non-existing particles in nature have become particles existing in SM to which they have assigned mass (m). Still, the existence of elementary particles must occur during time (the better is to last to the end of the Universe). Since physicists were returning the energy back from registered rays to the stable particles they hit, they propose the time of collision to be the lifetime of the particles. You can see that the originality found with the proton, the neutron, and the electron is not the case of the SM, since it excludes the proton and the neutron, substituting them with portions of "axle grease" called quarks or quark-gluon-plasma. And a highly-compressed portion of "axle grease" they call "Higgs boson." And now, to have both compressed and non-compressed "axle grease" is good for creating the next new physical theory. Since mass was at stake during collision, the new theory is about mass. They distinguish them so that the compressed gives mass to the non-compressed; Higgs bosons give mass to quarks.
As proposed, a quark has 1/25,000 (5 MeV/125,000 MeV) of the mass of the Higgs boson, so we have the extreme suggestion that the Higgs boson is 25,000 larger that the particle it mediates for. But how can the Higgs boson be a particle of the Standard Model, when it cannot possibly exist in the physical world? The longest life ever measured for the so-called Higgs Boson was less than 0.0000000000000000000001 second--infinitesimal in the context of cosmic time, considering the universe is about 14 billion years old. Clearly, the Higgs boson is just a temporary particle at best; and therefore, it cannot be the building block of mass particles. Invertors of existing particle mass physics point to the Higgs boson as a background particle for particles of ordinary matter, some saying that everything moves in a "Higgs field" that mediates mass. This is not detectible this far. Moreover, it is impossible, since the Higgs boson decays into mass particles that, according their classification, are either quarks and leptons. Therefore, there is no way the Higgs boson can provide mass to quarks and leptons, because quarks and leptons are constituents of the Higgs boson!
Thus, they substitute the original elementary particles of the ordinary matter with non-particles named quarks having ranges of mass; the up quark has 1.8-3, the down quark 4.5-5.3, the strange quark 90-100 MeV/c2, the top quark 173, the charm quark 1.18 -1.23, and the bottom quark 4.15- 4.65 GeV/c2. Even strange intermediate particles have found a place in the SM, like antiparticles or combinations of particles and antiparticles (mesons).
Hence, the Standard Model of particles is nothing more than an artificial zoo of dying particles, most of them living only for the length of time it takes light to pass through permanent particles. It may be that the electron is the exception that proves their rule, since it is classified as a particle of the Standard Model.
Quantum physics still does not realize that the electron is identical particle to the ordinary matter particle that orbits the nucleus, although this is empirical proven. Chemistry completely describes an electron in an orbit with four quantum numbers. Quantum physics says these numbers are not valid, since if the electron orbits the nucleus it would destroy itself due to acceleration; circular motion requires a constant acceleration towards the center. They claim accelerating charges emit radiation in accordance with the Larmor formula, and therefore the electron should emit radiation, fall into a lower orbit, and continue to do so until the electron collides with the nucleus. Since the electron cannot break in photons (the electron is an identical particle of an electric field), it does not accelerate. That is why the electron does not even have any speed in atoms; the electron is just a standing wave. They liquidate the principle of atoms but keep the principle of planets; Earth can circle around the Sun because no electrical forces bind them. Thus, they implant contradicting theories in kinematics to change nature.
The uniform circular motion comes to exist when there are two forces acting on a moving object. The one force arises from its linear momentum, and the other is the force between the nucleus of the circle and the circling object (the centripetal force). The centripetal force can be any force, thus gravitational between the Earth and the Sun, magnetic, springs, electric, and so on. So it does not any matter which kind of force is there, all (in kinematics) are the centripetal force. Then according to Newton's Second Law, force creates acceleration - and this is not reversible such that acceleration creates force, or even declines force. Therefore, physicists cannot exclude force from acceleration. In the case of an atom, let's say hydrogen, there must be the force between the electron and the proton because they have electrical potentials. This force is directed from the electron to the proton, and from the proton to the electron, by a pulling effect. Since the proton is heavy, it stays in place, and there is no motion seen. And since there is the centripetal force, there is also centripetal acceleration directed to the proton.
The electron is in motion. Its velocity is the numerical value of the speed and direction. The electron must have momentum, which is its magnitude and a direction. Momentum is equal to mass times velocity, where mass does not change in our case. What is changed here can be velocity, but again, it has a numerical value and direction. Since the changed direction does not have any influence on numerical values, only other forces could change numerical values, but still only through collisions; however, for that to occur there must be contact between objects. Since the object of the centripetal force is the proton, therefore, until the electron comes in contact with the proton, the numerical value of the electron's momentum does not change. When the electron collides it produces an impulse, the acting of force during the period of collision. This force, carried by the electron, has its numerical value and direction also, and is equal to the electron's momentum during the collision period. This force has a numerical value of mass times the derivate of velocity in time (F=m dv/dt). Acceleration here is dv/dt and velocity, v, is the numerical value and a direction, and that means that the numerical value of v does not change; it just changes a direction, and therefore we are dealing with directional derivate with respect to time. So defining centripetal acceleration does not make any change to the numerical value of the velocity. Therefore, centripetal acceleration does not make any change of the speed either.
When direction does not change, then acceleration represents the changed numerical value of velocity - the change of speed over time. And this acceleration is changed only when force changes or the mass changes (Second Law of Motion).
Hence, where is no change in the numerical value of speed and mass, the numerical value of force also does not change; where a speed and a mass do not change also a force does not change.
The results of both momentum and centripetal force are just changing direction for the moving electron, but not changing its speed. Since the centripetal force for the electron is force of electric potentials, therefore, the electric potential of the proton or the electron must also not decrease. The conclusion is that centripetal acceleration of the orbiting electron must not decrease its electric potential. This acceleration changes just direction of its travel.
You see, they have liquidated acceleration, and liquidated the planetary model of atoms. Since many physical discoveries leading to the planetary model were awarded Nobel Prizes, have they also liquidated those Nobel Prizes? Yet they fought hard to get the Nobel Prize for the compressed "axle grease" to confirm their "quantumology" as empirical theory. Isn't that ridiculous?