MORE PROBLEMS WITH THE
STRONG FORCE

by Miles Mathis

I have already shown that the strong force is unnecessary and that both QED and QCD are badly compromised, making the current mathematical models nothing more than houses of cards. Here I will show further problems with the proposed strong force.

We are told that the strong force is some 100 times stronger than E/M and a trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity. Being one of those rare persons not predisposed to believe everything the standard model tells me, I have looked hard at that claim and ended up seeing some things that others have not. Today I looked once again at that claim, and saw another very large new hole that I had not seen before. It's funny: once you see one of these holes clearly, you begin to have an eye for other holes, and very soon all of physics is an interconnecting system of holes, like the sewers of a vast city.

This hole occurred to me while I was re-reading one of my own papers. I do that quite often, looking for typos as well as trolling for holes of my own. In my first paper on the strong force, I began by reminding myself and my reader that the strong force was invented to counteract the E/M repulsion between protons in the nucleus. The strong force has been misdirected since its invention, and it is now given to quarks rather than to protons, but most physicists and non-physicists never notice that or question it.

The central problem here is that neutrons exist in the nucleus with protons, and the neutrons have no E/M repulsion. They are neutral. Therefore, the strong force has no E/M force to overcome with neutrons, and we would expect neutrons to either be crushed or squirted out of the nucleus by the strong force.

QCD has an answer for this, though, like all the others, it is not a good answer. It is nothing more than a dodge. Here is the answer: The strong force is divided into two different forces, 1) the strong force proper, which is a binding force between quarks, via gluons, and 2) the nuclear force, which is a “residue” of the strong force proper, and which acts between nucleons. How is this “residue” force mediated? This is from Wikipedia, paraphrasing Harald Fritzsch1:

Since nucleons have no color charge, the nuclear force does not directly involve the force carriers of quantum chromodynamics, the gluons. However, just as electrically neutral atoms (each composed of canceling charges) attract each other via the second-order effects of electrical polarization, via the van der Waals forces (London forces), so by analogy, "color-neutral" nucleons may attract each other by a type of polarization which allows some basically gluon-mediated effects to be carried from one color-neutral nucleon to another, via the virtual mesons which transmit the forces, and which themselves are held together by virtual gluons... The basic idea is that while the nucleons are "color-neutral," just as atoms are "charge-neutral," in both cases, polarization effects acting between near-by neutral particles allow a "residual" charge effect to cause net charge-mediated attraction between uncharged species, although it is necessarily of a much weaker and less direct nature than the basic forces which act internally within the particles.

That is clearly babblement. Making an analogy from nuclear forces to van der Waals forces is explaining one mystery with another. Van der Waals forces are not understood mechanically, and we only have a squishy QM explanation for them as well:

There is a high chance that the electron density will not be evenly distributed throughout a nonpolar molecule. When electrons are unevenly distributed, a temporary multipole exists. This multipole will interact with other nearby multipoles and induce similar temporary polarity in nearby molecules.

That is also from Wiki. Why is there a “high chance” that electrons will not be evenly distributed throughout a nonpolar molecule? Because if the electrons are distributed evenly, then we can't explain van der Waals forces that way. So the argument is circular. We have no evidence that electrons are unevenly distributed, and according to the first laws of quantum mechanics we can't have any such evidence: it would require we know the position of all the electrons simultaneously, and according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we can't know that. Since the electrons are probabilities, we can't know a distribution. In fact, the claim that there is a “high chance” is false, since we can't calculate the odds from zero knowledge. We don't know where the electrons are at any time, and can't know, so how can we calculate probabilities of their distributions? Calculating distribution probabilities implies we know locations, but if we know locations, then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is false and quantum mechanics is not based on probabilities. These theorists have to make a choice: they cannot have it both ways. Do they want electrons as probabilities, or do they want to be able to calculate distributions?

If electrons are probabilities, there is neither a high chance nor a low chance that electrons are unevenly distributed. That electrons are unevenly distributed is not a calculation here, it is an assumption based on nothing. Or, it is an assumption based on need. We need an uneven distribution to explain multipoles to explain van der Waals forces. We see van der Waals forces, therefore multipoles exist, therefore we must have uneven distribution. That is the argument, but there is nothing scientific about it. [There is a way to explain van der Waals forces more directly: see below.]

This same sort of argument is seen in the claim that the strong force does not diminish with distance.

The strong force acting between quarks, unlike other forces, does not diminish in strength with increasing distance, after a limit (about the size of a hadron) has been reached... In QCD, this phenomenon is called color confinement, implying that only hadrons can be observed; this is because the amount of work done against a force of 10 newtons is enough to create particle-antiparticle pairs within a very short distance of an interaction. Evidence for this effect is seen in many failed free quark searches.2

That is the argument of the hysteron proteron. In other words, it is upside down. The theory is trying to explain why free quarks don't exist, then it uses the fact that free quarks haven't been seen as evidence for the theory. You will say, “No, this quote isn't explaining why free quarks don't exist, it is explaining why the strong force doesn't diminish with distance, as you said yourself.” But “color confinement” is the same as “lack of free quarks,” you see. “Only hadrons can be observed” means “single quarks cannot be observed.” This quote has no content. It is circular. It isn't science, it is just a another tall sign announcing the death of science.

To be clear, there are a thousand different possible explanations for why free quarks don't exist, beginning with “because quarks don't exist.” But this theory of QCD takes the non-existence of free quarks as proof of their theory! That is like coming up with a theory for why unicorns do not exist, and then claiming that the fact that no one has ever found one is proof of your theory.

But let's get back to the nuclear force, which is supposed to be a residue of the strong force. Returning to the first quote above, we see that nuclear force is being sold as an analogue of the van der Waals force. But since the van der Waals force is not understood mechanically, that is just a dodge. You can't explain x by saying it is explained just like y, when y is explained by a bald assumption, with no evidence and no theory. So we can throw out all the van der Waals stuff as empty verbiage. What do we have left? We are told that the protons and neutrons have some sort of polarization, which is not a polarization of color charge and which does not directly involve gluons. As you see, we are told what the force is not, but we are not told what it is. What causes this polarization? How can a neutron or proton be polarized?

The truth is, no one knows. Feynman came up with diagrams that explained nuclear forces between protons and neutrons using pions to mediate, but like Yukawa potentials, these diagrams are derived not from mechanical theory but from experiment. Both the diagrams and the potentials are completely heuristic. In other words, they are one possible explanation, but each explanation has little to recommend it. If the diagram didn't have Feynman's name on it, it would be worthless, and if the potential didn't have Yukawa's name on it, it would be empty. Neither explanation explains anything, it simply illustrates it. It is a naming, not an unlocking of a mechanism.

I also remind you that Yukawa came up with this meson mediation of the strong force in 1935. So the theory hasn't changed in more than 70 years. Feynman did not change the theory, he simply illustrated it. Nor did Feynman provide a mechanism for the force. Feynman was never interested in mechanics. He only wanted a math or diagram that fit the experiment: but that isn't physics! Physics is a physical explanation. Yukawa never bothered to tell us how trading or otherwise using a pion as mediation could cause an attractive force. The strong nuclear force is attractive, remember? How can particle exchange cause attraction? Look at Feynman's diagram:

Do you really think that stands as an explanation? It is an illustration of nothing, a diagram for the mentally and visually impaired. Why do we have to keep looking at these asinine things?

You can't explain attraction or bonding with mediating particles. Mediating particles can only be used as a field, to cause repulsion by bombardment. Unless you can show a mechanical way that particles cause attraction, the theory is just magic.

Another problem with both Yukawa and Feynman is that neither man explained the question at hand. That question being, “Why doesn't the strong force or nuclear force act entirely differently on protons and neutrons?” If the proton and neutron have no E/M repulsion, and a strong nuclear force binding them, then the neutron should be more difficult to separate from the nucleus than the proton.

In fact, if the strong force were only a little stronger than the E/M force, it would require only the difference in the two to free the proton from the nucleus, but it would require overcoming the entire strong force to free the neutron. This is the major reason the standard model proposes a strong force 100 times stronger than E/M. This acts to lower the difference in binding energies between the neutron and proton, and covers up the problem somewhat.

The truth is, strong force theory is the weakest part of the standard model. In 1973 Gell-Mann, Leutwyler and Fritzsch updated Yukawa's theory from 1935, mainly by burying it under Yang-Mills math. Using Yang-Mills field theory,

Carrier particles of a force can themselves radiate further carrier particles. (This is different from QED, where the photons that carry the electromagnetic force do not radiate further photons.)3

But if you study the Yang-Mills field, you find that it, like the field of Yukawa, has no mechanics. There is a lot of math, but absolutely no physical explanation for how carrier particles radiate further carrier particles, or how any radiation of any particles, primary or secondary, can cause the attractive force in the nucleus.

Weinberg is even forced to admit this in his book, when he tries to unify the electro-weak and strong forces in eq. 21.5.5: 4

gs2 = g2 = (5/3)g' 2

Although he used all the up-to-date math from 1996, he admits that this equation “is in gross disagreement with the observed values of the coupling constants.” The variable gs is supposed to stand for the strong force, but here Weinberg has it the same size as the weak force, as you see. Weinberg says there is an explanation for this gigantic miss, and it is that his solution only applies to masses at the scale of the big W bosons, but this is an awful dodge. It is awful because there is no evidence these big gauge bosons have anything to do with the strong force. There is no good experimental evidence they have anything to do with creating any of the coupling constants, but even in the standard model, the connection of large gauge bosons to strong theory is tenuous or non-existent. So not only is Weinberg not able to clarify the mechanics of the strong force, he is forced to admit that the gauge math doesn't even work.

We can find more proof of the true state of strong theory by going once again to Bryan Roe's book. In a sub-chapter entitled “evidence for gluons”, we are told,

Half the momentum in a proton is carried by something other than quarks. This is indirect evidence for gluons. More direct evidence follows from looking at the reaction e+e- → qq. At high energies, much of the time these events appear as two jets, one formed from the materialization of the quark and the other formed from the anti-quark. However, a fraction of the time three jets are seen. This is believed to be due to the process qq + gluon.5

Let me quash the first “evidence” first. Even if we look at that assertion from the point of view of the standard model, it is gibberish. How could half the momentum fail to be carried by the particles that comprise the particle? We need some sort of mechanical explanation for that, and there is none. Are we to believe that momentum is no longer caused by mass? That momentum is now caused by the mass of the field particle? And why would gluons make up 50% of the lost momentum? A full 50% of a real parameter is given to ad hoc particles, that we have zero evidence for, and that are mediating or carrier particles in the zero-evidence theory. How can carrier particles carry half the real momentum? If gluons are field particles, they must be able to travel. When they are in transit, their momentum cannot be given to the proton. The gluon either travels to transmit a force, or it does not. If it travels, it cannot make up 50% of the momentum of the proton. If it does not travel, then it cannot transmit the force.

I have an answer to this question of momentum, but I will save it for my full response below. But it is not caused by quarks or gluons.

As for the jets out of positron-electron collisions, the proposal that the quondam third jet is caused by gluons is absurd. The first two jets can't be caused by quarks, to begin with, since this would be proof of non-confinement. It would also be proof that electrons are made of quarks, since otherwise where do the quarks come from? The standard model has no way to explain electrons composed of quarks, especially not single quarks. The third jet being a gluon jet is just grasping at straws, and is neither more or less “direct” than the first “evidence.” Why would a positron-electron collision yield gluons? Gluons are supposed to be carriers of the strong force, and the strong force is used to overcome E/M inside of nuclei. What in hell are gluons doing inside electrons and positrons? Shouldn't we at least have the barebones of another sorry theory here? How can these physicists make ridiculous proposals like this, pulling these ideas from nowhere with no least effort to make any sense or to be consistent? Have they no shame?

All books and websites are equally weak when it comes to the strong force. Roe's book has almost nothing on it, though it was published in 1999. Weinberg's book also has next to nothing. “Strong force” is not even listed in the index. Everybody seems to think that the subject is explained by asymptotic freedom, but I have already shown that asymptotic freedom is another myth.

QCD is lots of bad math and theory, and it can easily be replaced by better theory and simpler math. First of all, there is no strong force because the E/M field is turned off inside the nucleus. The E/M field of the nucleus is summed outside the nucleus, but doesn't pertain between the nucleons. The E/M field is an emission field, and it requires spin to be emitted. Non-spinning particles do not emit; and some spinning particles do not emit, when the spins stack up in a way to send the emission back to the particle. This is how neutrons have four spins but do not emit. Protons have four spins and do emit. But in the nucleus, the protons and neutrons do not emit toward one another. There are many different types of protons and neutrons*, and by using the right forms of each particle at the proper places in the nucleus, these particles are able to create a structure in which all emission is summed outward, so that there is no internal E/M field. The E/M field does not have to be overcome in the nucleus, so the strong force is a myth. The force that keeps the nucleus together is simply gravity, which has been gigantically mis-measured at the quantum level. A misunderstanding of the Coulomb equation has led to a disastrous mis-estimation of forces at the quantum, as I have shown elsewhere, and gravity has been mis-measured there by a factor of 1022.

This explains both of Bryan Roe's problems above. He admits that half the measured momentum of the proton is unaccounted for in the standard model, but the difference is not made up by gluons. I have a simple mechanical explanation for it. The proton is made up of four spins, not three quarks. But because of the mechanics of end-over-end spin, the proton proper cannot inhabit the entire spin. Given a linear motion and a time interval, the particle within the spin will be moving against the linear motion half the time. If we think the momentum is dependent on the mass, and if the mass is dependent on the particle, then we would expect the momentum to be x, say. But the momentum is really dependent on the energy, not the mass. The energy of the z-spin acts as mass, by Einstein's equation, and this gives us a momentum in experiment that is double what we expected: 2x. Our mass and our momentum don't appear to match. But the problem is in our expectation. We expect the mass of the proton at rest to give us the momentum when the proton is traveling. But it can't because of the way the proton travels.

Now you can see that the difference is not caused by gluons, it is caused by misunderstanding how the proton is composed. Because it is composed of stacked spins, each spin double the radius of inner spins and orthogonal to them, our matching of rest mass to momentum was wrong to begin with. Each spin adds energy, which energy acts like mass. In collision, the spin energy may be mistaken as mass. But by understanding the composition of the proton, we separate each spin energy from the other, and see how interactions (either with other particles or with detectors) really happen.

Roe's second problem is answered in much the same way. Electrons and positrons are not made of quarks or gluons, they just have fewer spins than nucleons. When an electron and positron collide, all their outer spins are stripped. The energy of these spins is transferred to the charge field, which is made up of photons. The charge field then dissipates the energy. But this charge dissipation is very directionalized, hence the jets. I have no perfect theory of what these jets are, or what the third jet is, but I think I may be able to propose a more consistent hypothesis than the standard model. I suspect these jets are just photon jets, but if there is absolute proof they are not photon jets, then the photons must be accelerating other particles in the vicinity. I have already shown that non-spinning electrons, of mass one ninth that of the normal electron, must be present in the charge field, and these may be caught in the charge photon jets.

As for the third jet, I propose it is caused by a collision that is not equal. I have already reminded my reader that there are 8 different types of proton*, and there are also several different types of electron and positron. The high energy electron and positron have two stacked spins plus a linear motion, and these three variables can stack in eight different ways. So we have four different electrons and four different positrons. All these electrons and positrons are emitting a charge field, but some are emitting forward and some are emitting sideways. The third jet is probably caused by a collision of two of these particles that are emitting orthogonally to eachother. All spins are stripped in collision, but instead of two directions of explosion, we have three. We have the two linear motions canceling, which causes jets in the forward and backward directions; but we also have the angular momentum from the spin being ejected. Since the two charge spins do not cancel in a line, we have an energy ejection to the side. This is caused directly by the orthogonal charge emission of one (or both) of the particles.

I can also explain van der Waals forces more easily than the standard model. Remember that the standard model requires polarization caused by an uneven distribution of electrons in the molecular shells, but it has no way to show this uneven distribution. In fact, it is blocked by its own theory from providing this uneven distribution. But I have already shown in another paper how gravity at the quantum level (and just above it) can explain the attraction of molecules, without any recourse to electron distributions. Not only do we have gravity at the quantum level, we have a charge field that works differently than the standard model charge field. The charge repulsion of protons diminishes with distance more quickly than the gravity field diminishes, so that at molecular distances, the pseudo-attraction takes over as the overriding force. The unified field (gravity minus E/M) is perfectly capable of explaining molecular attraction of the size of van der Waals forces.

Conclusion: No clearer example of the state of modern physics can be found than the absurd and inconsistent theory of the strong force. Whether in books or online, physicists no longer have to feign rationality or reason. They say whatever they want and expect you to swallow it. I have a high tolerance for theory, as long as it makes some effort at rigor. But the new theories are pathetic. There is no other word for it. I have not pulled out the worst quotes of the theorists, I have pulled out highly representative quotes. In fact, the quotes I include in my papers are often the only ones that have even an appearance of sense in them. They have some possible human meaning, which I can, with effort, explain and explode. The rest is just a hiding in math and incomprehensibles.

As I have shown in several recent papers, the only hope for nuclear physics is a complete scrubbing of the math and re-start of the theory from the ground up. That is, the gauge math has to be dumped in toto, and it has to be replaced with a transparent and non-intrusive math. The math should contain no symmetries of its own, since these pre-existing symmetries just get in the way. They limit the freedom of the theory, and physicists using this math always begin to let the math lead them. Beyond that, the quark model must be replaced by the spin model. In just a few months of part-time work I have been able to blow past decades of bad theory, replacing it with a simple mechanics that works much better. Besides being able to show dozens of ways the standard model fails badly, I have been able to explain things they haven't even looked at. Judged by utility or simplicity or efficiency, my theory is vastly superior. I have been able to unify the proton and the neutron and the electron, and I have been able to create a simple meson equation, one which can also unify all the mesons and bosons. I did this in a matter of months, while the standard model could not do it in 70 years.

Go to my next paper, showing how to build a nucleus without the strong force, with simple diagrams
Go to my paper on Asymptotic Freedom
Go to my first paper on the Strong Force.
Go to my paper on the Weak Force.
Go to my paper on Yang-Mills.

1Harald Fritzsch: Quarks ISBN-13: 978-0465067817. Fritzsch, along with Gell-Mann and Leutwyler, is one of the creators of the current strong force theory (1973) which is now a centerpiece of the standard model.
2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
3http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1233642/Harald-Fritzsch
4Weinberg, Steven. The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume II. p. 329.
5Roe, Bryan P. Particle Physics at the New Millennium. p. 228.
*There are 32 different nucleons, including 16 different neutrons and 8 different protons. Joined in proper sequence, these nucleons can huddle without feeling a charge repulsion. Each type of nucleon has a charge weakness in one direction, and the nucleons huddle by aligning these charge weaknesses. Charge strengths therefore sum outward, but cancel inward.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.