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:
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.
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.