WHY A NEW THEORY?

Do We Need A New Theory Of Particles & Nuclei?

The official answer is quite emphatically, no! In fact, the opinion leaders say that the current theories, QED & QCD, match experiments in every particular. Gravity is still a bit of a problem, but String Theorists are expected to discover how to meld it into the Grand Synthesis!

I am puzzled by this apparent mood of self-satisfaction. When I look into current theories, I find incredible experimental accomplishments, sophisticated mathematical analysis, ingenious interpretations, clever schemes of classification, and reasonably satisfying quantitative corroboration. There is much to admire! Yet I find many unanswered questions, particularly those concerning the structures and dynamics of phenomena! Let me bring some of these to your attention:

Unanswered Questions:

• What do bosons, leptons, mesons, and baryons actually look like? How can we visualize any specific particle's structure in 3-D, when (essentially) all of the hundreds of particles & resonances inferred from high-energy physics experiments are said (by QCD) to be composed of two, or three, infinitesimal points? How can we understand why a neutron is heavier than a proton, or why a neutron decays into a proton, electron, & neutrino, or why its presence in a nucleus causes this decay to have prolonged, or infinite half-life, if we can't perceive the differences in these structures?
• How do we get a better means of calculating the mass-energies of particles? How can we calculate their mass-energy, when we aren't given knowledge of the structure of either mass, or energy? Another difficulty occurs in composite particles, like hadrons, because their postulated sub-components, quarks, are never found separated from each other, so their individual mass-energies cannot even be measured!
• By what process do fields alter the motion of particles? Current theory explains fields as "force" particles emitted by infinitesimal points (How?), and forces as the effects of catching these force particles by other infinitersimal points (How?). Neither the emitting nor the catching process is explained, nor does current theory explain what the structure of momentum is, or how momentum is perpetuated through empty space.
• What actually is a strong-force bond? We aren't told what neutrons and protons actually look like; consequently, we have no way of knowing what aspect of their structures enables two nucleons to join together by mutual canceling a portion of each-other's mass-energy, thereby forming a strong-force bond, nor are we given a plausible reason why these bonds occur only when the nucleons are close together.
• How do nucleons bond to each other? What structural aspects of these strong force bonds cause a given mix of protons and neutrons to self-organize into just one characteristic structure? What are the structural reasons for the so-called "magic numbers" of protons & neutrons that seem to correlate with atomic number regions of multiple stable isotopes separated by regions of lesser nuclide stability? Why are there two half-life peaks at different mass numbers for elements Z = 84 to 91? What nuclide structural features lead to alpha emission? To b^– emission? To b⁺ emission, to electron capture, to internal transitions, to fission? Why does nuclide stability require specific & differing ratios of neutrons to protons in various regions of the periodic table? Why do these ratios increase as Z-numbers increase? Why & how does a proton in a nucleus interact with a proximate electron to create a neutron plus an electron neutrino? What is the energy source for this endothermic reaction?
• What is the cause of particle decay? We are told that decays are spontaneous! A plausible theory needs the concept of induced decay, effectuated by the chance arrival of destabilizing agents that arise naturally out of the theory's concepts! What goes on in hadron & nuclear decays? How can we understand a decay scenario, when we are offered nothing better to visualize than one group of points changing into another group of points?
• What is an antiparticle, and why do antiparticles have identical but opposite properties to their conventional particle equivalents? What takes place in particle/antiparticle annihilations to remove both from the scene? Why does the resulting energy of annihilation produce other particles with oppositely-directed components of momentum, or split into two oppositely directed photons, or into mixtures of each?
• What is qualitatively different about a relativistic particle, compared to that same particle at rest? How can we account for its effective mass being orders-of-magnitude greater than its rest mass?
• What is the structure of a black hole? Is it a singularity, or is a singularity a logically untenable notion? If untenable, doesn't this throw into question the big-bang notion of creation? Are there ways to explain redshift and cosmic background radiation other than by universal adiabatic expansion of primordial fireball radiation over billions of years? Are there plausible creation scenarios that could result in a non-expanding universe whose properties would manifest all the physical phenomena we currently observe?

There are many other unsatisfying elements of current theories that deserve to be treated at length, but I think it better to bring these up at appropriate places as this work unfolds.

To begin your detailed study of how Infinite Particle Physics answers the above questions, please begin with the article "Introduction".