The dilemma of particle physics

One of the reasons why water is rising up to the tops of the highest trees...

Or the simple view of complicated events.

And where does mass come from? We do not know!  Or do we?


     For today’s physicists the phenomena of the inert and the gravitational mass remain an unsolved mystery. They fabricate a structure of the matter by means of “particles“ which they created in the accelerator, and they explain the occurrence of forces by means of the interactions of these particles. The so-called standard model of this particle theory is an incomplete collection of hypotheses consisting of the quantum electrodynamics, the theory concerning electroweak processes, and the quantum chromodynamics. This model will never be completed for certain. Although it is possible by means of the standard model to reduce the far more than one hundred particles discovered to elementary ones with spin 1/2 (fermions) and to ones with spin 1 (bosons), which convey the forces between the fermions, but the successes of this standard model are rare and many fundamental questions remain unanswered. 

     Examinations of the particles with regard to their action of mass have produced confusing results. The various subatomic particles vary considerably with regard to their masses. While the photons, basis for the electromagnetic force, and the gluons, basis for the strong force, don’t exhibit any mass, the Z and W particles weigh as much as 80 protons or one “atomic nucleus“. The top quark is said to be even 350 000 times heavier than an electron. Why the mass of the particles differs so much cannot be explained according to the standard theory. And the existence of the mass naturally remains absolutely mysterious. According to the proven patterns, to blame every phenomenon on some particle or other, the Scotch physicist Peter Higgs invented a boson as a kind of saviour particle which is to grant the mass to other particles through interaction. The stronger the interaction the bigger the mass. The particle practically forms a field through which all other subatomic particles like electrons, gluons, or quarks have to pass. One has hoped to prove the Higgs boson at least indirectly if so much energy comes into effect by the collision of particles accelerated to extreme velocities that a new particle was created and its existence became “provable” on the basis of the combination of particles into which it decays. The search for this important particle, however, has been futile up to today.

     Since one has not found any other convincing concept so far as to how mass is achieved, the idea of this Higgs field has remained attractive at least in theory up to today. The Higgs boson has therefore not only advanced to a kind of holy grail of the experimental particle physicists but it is also the last missing brick in the vault construction of the standard model. Without this upper last brick the whole edifice will collapse!

     Already in the early eighties one believed to have sighted the Higgs boson in the spallation generator DESY in Hamburg. In 1990, it became evident that it had been clearly an error but researchers at one of the spallation generators in CERN “sighted” the “saviour particle“ again ten years later. From thousands of “events“ (traces of particle paths) they choose three which possibly maybe perhaps could be leniently interpreted as indications of the volatile particle if need be. Typically this “discovery” took place immediately prior to the planned closure of the accelerator - and this closure was cancelled off after the “discovery”. But after several years of analysing the data it was final: there isn’t any Higgs particle. The search for it was in vain, the masses of the particles have to be explained in another way. When the result of the analyses were published, the researchers who participated in the Higgs experiment admitted to having “corrected” the data of that time a little in order to prevent the closure of the accelerator.

Now it is claimed that the Higgs particle exists only at considerably higher energies which would make significantly more efficient accelerators necessary. This is based on a suspicious theory called “supersymmetry”, which pleasantly enough predicts even several Higgs particles at the same time and this at fantastically high energies (which are no longer verifiable).

     The theory of the Higgs field is - just like “quantum foam“ and “vacuum fluctuation“ - only one of the attempts of the physicists to re-introduce the concept of the ether by the backdoor because without the help of the ether the origin of the mass will remain unexplainable (and even with its help because there is no mass after all but only an effect of this kind). If the physicists continue their thoughts consistently they will inevitably end up where we already are, in the absolute matrix of T.A.O. and with the principle of displacement and repulsion - which will finally culminate in the fact that the cause of all natural events, which determine our reality, is to be found in that single force which would have been thought the least capable of it, “gravitation“!

     How this force in the background directs the physical phenomena is to be illustrated in several examples. The pressure from the universe seems to shove everything mercilessly in front of it or together... That would have come to a bad end long since if there weren’t little “tricks“ to outwit the universal pressure and to partially overcome the repulsion. Plants were presumably the first one to use one of these tricks…

     Physics as a pure science of descriptions has only the possibility to explain one mystery with another mystery. The whole physics practically consists of such philosophically worthless descriptions. For example, we were explained the capillary effect with other forces like cohesion and adhesion most of the time which are as mysterious as the capillary effect itself. One thing is for certain anyway - in a narrow tube with parallel walls liquids rise against the gravitation!


     But we comprehend this effect immediately and quite casually when we take a closer look at the geometric proportions. Figure 82 depicts these proportions in a considerably exaggerated manner. We see that the parallel walls of the tube shield off the lines of force coming from the universal pressure which don’t enter in parallel on any account. As a result the universal pressure opposing the Earth pressure is suddenly lower inside the tube than outside the tube; therefore the Earth pressure elevates the water until the equilibrium between Earth pressure and universal pressure has been restored again. The practically non-existing curving force favours this process further because the cross-section of the water column is small.

     We already know that objects do not necessarily terminate where we perceive their boundaries. The fields around material bodies depend on the proton fields. It therefore suggests itself that mercury sets up a stronger, bigger field around itself than water. Of course, mercury is considerably richer in energy than water and we can easily prove the strong field of mercury by generating electromagnetic waves with it. For this purpose we only need to toss some mercury in a bowl. Because of this property we can say that the material limits (the limits of perception) of mercury are “lower” than those of water - as it is attempted to make clear in figure 83 (mercury on the left, water on the right). Because the field which is denser and richer in energy experiences the resistance from the universal pressure sooner! And now we are going to carry out the same capillary experiment with mercury whose liquid property we certainly don’t doubt (figure 84). Again we exaggerated considerably but at least we will see that this time the field of mercury or rather the Earth pressure is shadowed by the walls of the tube because the field of mercury reaches far beyond the visible surface. This leads to a victory of the universal pressure and a capillary depression is the result.

     Of course, we simplified these two examples considerably, yes, even illustrated them in a rather primitive way . But it is to give us at least a little impression of how the complicated game of individual pressure and universal pressure can lend different tensions to the surfaces of liquids. The processes in the atomic impulse fields are exactly the same as those which we discussed for inertia - and we realise that surprisingly the universal pressure is also behind the capillary effect because the atomic impulses are specifically influenced by the game of shadowing and impacting the repulsion. The classical explanation of the capillary effect postulates that liquids “make every effort“ to form a surface which is as small as possible - the effect is thus explained with an inner cause. Why should a liquid “make any effort “? This apparent endeavour comes from outside, from the dynamic effects of the universal pressure which shapes everything into spheres. One has to think a little about why the capillary effect is able to work in every situation, even in a vacuum or in the universe. Yet the repulsion principle does not only take place between celestial bodies but has its effects in the microcosm as well. Although it is simple in principle, the connections in this area are quantitatively an enigma. The material of which the tube is made plays also a role. If it is composed of water-repellent molecules (or if we use a non-wetting liquid), the repulsion of these molecules is already so strong that there will be no capillary ascent. 

     We could certainly go deeper into the topic but now we know at least where the force which makes water rise into the highest crowns of the trees really comes from – although the processes of electrophoresis and osmosis also play a role in it...

    The mathematically interesting difference between our “Newton reversed theory“ and Newton’s own is (apart from the reversion of the basic principle) the inclusion of the curving force which implies a difference between horizontal and vertical masses, a difference which can even be calculated - with a little difficulty - from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Understandably, this difference was not yet spotted by Newton. Since one already starts calculating with a modified theory of Newton (M.O.N.D.) anyway, the inclusion of the curving force will considerably improve the mathematical handling of astronomic gravitation phenomena. 

    Again we have to invite our readers to go on a voyage of discovery through their old school books in order to realise how easily they will now understand many of the mnemonic sentences they once learned by heart. And just those phenomena of physics which have remained mysterious so far can be substantiated and explained in a particularly easy way with our viewpoint.
Another example (figure 85).


     The picture illustrates the so-called hydrostatic paradox (also known as Pascal’s experiment). A liquid filled into a vessel with a basis F weighs heavily on the bottom of this vessel. It generates a pressure Kl onto the bottom. Oddly enough this gravitational pressure is independent of the shape of the vessel. Provided that the size of the bottom and the height of the liquid correspond, the same pressure acts on all parts on the bottoms - the lateral forces K2 and K3, on the other hand, are different.

      So this must strike us as a paradox because the amounts of the liquid and thus their weight must be different from vessel to vessel. The mystery cannot be solved easily by means of the usual gravitational theory alone. Again the physicist reaches for new forces, in this case it is the upward pressure within liquids, without being able to explain exactly where this upward pressure is coming from. We, on the other hand, know immediately that a compensatory effect has to take place, very similar to the one for the free fall. When we draw the lines of force of universal pressure and Earth pressure in their spherical connection to each other and hold the vessel between these lines we can see that there will always be a certain relation between Earth pressure and universal pressure and that this relation will never change regardless of the shape of the vessel (figures 86 to 89). It is just a small step from this fact to the principle of Archimedes but maybe the reader wants to puzzle over that a little by himself... 

    What we wanted to demonstrate was this fundamental simplicity which the repulsion principle lends to all material processes of this world. Magnetic poles, electrostatics and electrodynamics, electrolysis, gravitation, and capillary effect, there is nothing mysterious about them. All these observable facts and all the many phenomena which we are unable to treat here due to lack of space simply exist because the universe exists and “is under pressure”.

    Material events or laws of nature do not constitute the cosmos autonomously and they don’t cause it. Exactly the opposite is the case: the natural phenomena are the eternal game within a universal field of force whose fundamental simplicity (T.A.O.) just admits certain possibilities and rules others out. The only force which can be derived from the universe itself shapes and moulds the structures, impulses, proportions, and masses of our reality. 

    Time, space, and energy are already perceptions of our consciousness, the first, the only, and the last fundamental concepts within our attempt to understand this world by virtue of our mental activity. We cannot find more because there is not any more to find!




German Version