© Miles Mathis

Please note that this paper is a simplification by me of a paper or papers written and copyrighted by Miles Mathis on his site. I have replaced "I" and "my" with "MM" to show that he is talking. All links within the papers, not yet simplified, are linked directly to the Miles Mathis site and will appear in another tab. (It will be clear which of these are Miles Mathis originals because they will be still contain "I" and "my".) The original papers on his site are the ultimate and correct source. All contributions to his papers and ordering of his books should be made on his site. (This paper incorporates Miles Mathis' weak2 paper but excluding the critique of the consensus.) |

Steven Weinberg

*First posted March 1, 2009*

Abstract: In the first part of this paper Miles Mathis begins by critiquing the Wikipedia pages on weak interaction, then moves on to some textbooks and that this entire theory that is a castle in the air (not included). As opposed to this, Miles Mathis' own quantum theory is strictly mechanical with no virtual particles or fields, no unassigned fields or terms, no borrowing of energy from the vacuum, and no mystifying math.

The standard model believes the weak force is 10^{-11} times weaker than E/M (although it likes to hide the real numbers deep under dimensionless “coupling constants”). But it turns out they are fatally and fantastically wrong in this as well. In Gravity at the Quantum Level MM shows that the force between the proton and electron is not 8.2 x 10^{-8} N, but around 8 x 10^{-27} N, which is obviously not a fractional correction. Unknown to QED, gravity exists at the quantum level, at a size 10^{22} above their estimates, and this has skewed all the field equations by huge margins. This means that the force available in beta decay is around 10^{9} greater than the fundamental charge. We have already seen that the real-life energy encountered in beta decay is about 50,000 times less than this, on the order of 5 MeV. But if Fermi was correct, the maximum potential energy in this collision is around 250 GeV. This would make controlled beta decay and similar processes extremely efficient sources of energy.

Contemporary physicists have tried to convince us that Fermi’s energy goes back into the vacuum with the W particle, but it doesn’t. The vacuum is not a sponge. Just as electricity can be harnessed, these electrons fleeing the neutron collision can be harnessed as well.

In the past few decades we have heard an ever-increasing rumor of “zero-point” energy. Unfortunately, no one knows where this energy comes from. Most stories give the energy to the vacuum, but this is fantasy. MM does not allow anyone to assign anything to the vacuum. However, in dismissing zero-point energy, MM is not dismissing huge pools of untapped energy at the quantum level, only that these pools of energy are not hidden in the vacuum. Actually they are hidden behind decades of bad math and poorly defined fields and they may be hidden there on purpose.

The effort to conserve symmetry and express lack of parity in weak interactions was misplaced to begin with. We don’t have to conserve parity or symmetry, since the experimental set-up doesn’t contain it to begin with. Since we don’t have to conserve it, we don’t have to express conservation or non-conservation in the equations. Yes, the equations will show non-conservation after we run them, but they don’t have to contain the symmetries *before* we run them. We don’t need to choose fancy maths that have the symmetries built into them, since the numbers need to be free to express themselves without prior finessing. Beyond that, MM has shown that these gauge fields are worse than a nuisance. Because they have built-in symmetries, the mathematicians begin to pay more attention to the symmetries in the math than the symmetries or lack of symmetries in nature. These new maths are intrusive and presumptuous. More than that, they are misleading. More than that, they are false. The facts at hand should set the gauges, not the choice of matrices. The problems we encounter should tell us how many dimensions or symmetries or rows or columns we need, not the math. We should control the math, not the reverse.

As disastrous as the choice of math has been, the choice to borrow from the vacuum was even more disastrous. It is not necessary to begin with, since there was no symmetry that needed to be broken, spontaneously or no. The very fact that physicists would even think to get involved in such manipulations is a permanent black-eye for the field of physics. Nor is it just the Diracs and Higgs and Feynmans and Gell-Manns and Weinbergs that are guilty of this fraud, since the entire field, the entire intellectual community merely offer supplication and reward to them.

MM's paper A Reworking of Quantum Chromodynamics and dismissal of the Quark, should already be enough to bring QCD and the quark model down. The theories of weak and electroweak interaction have been embraced by the consensus without being seriously critiqued. A good example of this is the quick acceptance and immediate dogmatizing of electroweak theory at the end of the 20^{th} century that was supposed to be the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force.

MM will now show the simple mechanical explanation of parity loss in beta decay, kaon decay, and so on, with no use of the vacuum. At the end of the paper above, MM showed that beta decay is not decay at all. It is a collision. In the most common form, it is the collision of a positron and a neutron, yielding a proton and an electron. In my analysis there is no mediating particle and no neutrino. No mediating particle is necessary, since the positron acts upon the neutron directly, by bumping it. This is another reason the weak force is not a fundamental force: the primary force is not mediated by a field. It takes place in a charge field, yes, but the charge field does not mediate the force of collision. The charge field only mediates the after-effects, and thereby the parity loss.

In this way: both the positron and the neutron have stacked spins. The neutron has four stacked spins and the positron has two. The collision reverses the outer spins of both particles. This z-spin reversal turns the neutron into a proton, and the positron into an electron. In that other paper, MM shows 16 of the 32 spin states of the baryon, proving that a simple z-spin reversal could change a neutron into a proton. What is more, MM shows that this reversal would allow the charge field of the baryon to escape, changing the neutral neutron into a proton emitting the charge field. Furthermore, MM shows that both electrons and positrons are also emitting the charge field, although in smaller amounts than the baryons. All charged particles are emitting the field, and the charge field is always repulsive, in the first instance.

MM also fine-tuned the so-called charge conjugation between particles and anti-particles. The standard model has difficulty explaining the mechanical difference between charge difference and particle/anti-particle difference, but it can be explained very simply as the spin of the emitted field. In Dirac’s equation, for instance, “the wave function has four components corresponding to the degrees of freedom of spin up, spin down and particle, anti-particle.”^{3} That’s all fine and good, but neither Dirac nor anyone else has assigned the particle/anti-particle difference to a physical characteristic or parameter, but MM does.

All non-neutral particles and anti-particles emit a charge field of photons, but the photons are also spinning. This gives the charge a charge. Anti-particles emit their photons with reverse spin, or upside-down, so that although the photons and anti-photons do not cancel each other’s linear momenta, they do cancel each other’s angular momenta.

Both the appearance of a neutrino field and the appearance of a loss of parity are caused by the same thing: the charge field in which beta decay takes place is not a symmetrical field. All experiments have taken place on the Earth, and on the Earth the charge field is predominantly emitted by particles, not anti-particles. So no matter what the direction of the magnetic field is, the summed charge field present will be a photon field, not an anti-photon field. In other words, if particles emit right photons and anti-particles emit left photons, the charge field on the Earth will always sum to a right photon field. You can already see how this must skew beta decay.

Such a field will not prevent any sort of collision or decay, it will only prevent parity, if parity is defined as the expectation of a mirror image particle flight. So it is not the interaction or the force or the particles involved or the math that lacks parity. It is the charge field that lacks parity. And the charge field does not lack parity for any fundamental or universal reason. It lacks parity for a local reason: the local emission field on the Earth is emitted mainly by particles, not anti-particles. The local charge field is a right photon field, so it lacks local symmetry.

This will be true no matter what your decay rates are or what your experimental particles are, since the charge field is ubiquitous. You cannot block it out of your experiment.

In What are Neutrinos MM explains the appearance of neutrinos. The neutrino field was first “seen” as an unexplained flux in the charge field, but MM shows that the flux is caused by the amount of left photons present, not by neutrinos. In other words, if your “decay” is causing your summed charge field to change strength locally, this can easily be misread as the presence of a new particle field. But it is *correctly* read as a change in the amount of left photons present. If you have positrons changing into electrons, you will have an immediate boost in the angular momentum of your right photon field, since fewer left photons will be canceling right photons. If you have electrons changing into positrons, you will have the reverse effect. And of course the same applies to the protons and anti-protons. The neutrino field is just a flux in the summed angular momentum of the charge field. This flux is carried by the photons, which is why the neutrino field has the same characteristics as the photon field: near-zero mass and speed of c.

The standard model could not show any of this, because for it the photon has no spin or angular momentum. It also has no real presence in the field, being only virtual. In Unifying the Photon with other Quanta, How they Travel and why they go c MM allows the photon a non-zero mass and a non-zero diameter, therefore it can have spin and thereby explain many mysteries of particle interaction.

Also notice that my theory mirrors the standard model in important ways. The standard model would have the neutron turn into a proton by a quark reversal: the down quark becomes an up quark, as MM has shown above. In my theory the outer spin reverses to achieve the same thing. The three quarks become x, y and z spins, of different energies and mass equivalences. This then explains why we cannot have quarks by themselves: spins cannot exist alone. You cannot separate a spin from the thing that is spinning.

Not only does this explain parity loss and the apparent neutrino field in several decays, this explains the strange qualities of the magnetic field. The electric field is carried by the linear momenta of the real photons, but the magnetic field is carried by the angular momenta. This clears up a very big problem in QED as well as in astronomy, since it explains how the E/M field can exist with a weak or nearly non-existent magnetic component. The strength of the magnetic field is determined by the summed angular strength of the charge field, and if the field were to be created by nearly equal number of left photons and right photons, it would not be able to carry a magnetic potential. In other words, it would have a full electrical strength and a near-zero magnetic strength. This explains the solar wind exclusion of Venus and Mars, in the paper on MM's site: The E/M Fields of Solar System Bodies, and it explains certain cases of magnetic loss in quantum interactions as well.

CP parity is also explained in a simple mechanical way by my theory. It was at first thought that weak interactions obeyed a combined charge conjugation/spin parity, meaning that if you mirrored everything twice, once with spin and then once by replacing particles with anti-particles, you could conserve all symmetries. But this turned out to be false as well. CP parity is “almost” conserved. Electroweak theory claims to include this fact by hitting it with a lot of complex math and sloppy axioms, but MM can explain it in a straightforward way. CP parity is “almost” conserved, and the amount of “almost” turns out to be an amount equal to the proposed neutrino field. CP parity is almost conserved, because, beyond the direction of motion after collision, particles and anti-particles *almost* act the same in the field. As MM has shown, the only difference is that the charge emitted by the anti-particles is upside down relative to the particles. Since the entire reaction takes place in a right field of photons, anti-particles will subtract a small amount from the total angular momentum of the charge field. This small amount is the amount of CP parity failure.

In his paper Mesons without Quarks, MM can derive the W particle without electroweak theory, similar to the Z particle.

In his paper The Unification of the Proton and Electron MM has shown that a simple meson equation can predict levels based on nothing but stacked spins, and since these spins can easily produce very large, very unstable particles of the required sizes, it is not necessary to believe that the W and Z are borrowed from the vacuum in some mysterious process, in order to break a manufactured mathematical symmetry. As you can see, my meson equation can be used to predict other even larger particles at higher energies, and these larger particles are related to smaller ones by factors of two, in the first instance.