Myths in Modern Physics                 

Part I: The Myth of Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics depends on a principle proposed in 1927 by a German physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-76). Heisenberg suggested that the process of making certain measurements in the sub-atomic world would increase the uncertainty about what was going on there. For example, if you wanted to look at a particle in order to ascertain its position, you would reflect light off it. But the act of bouncing light off the particle would give it a kick that would increase its momentum and so make its position more uncertain. Looking at small objects requires more energy than is required for looking at large ones. This is evident in the electron microscope, which employs higher frequency radiation than a normal light microscope. Because sub-atomic particles are so small, the action of ascertaining their position would give them such a kick you would never know where they are. Heisenberg argued against being able to determine with any degree of certainty both the position and the momentum of fundamental particles. His principle of indeterminacy is known as the Uncertainty Principle. Albert Einstein despised it. He described Heisenberg’s principle as, “A real witches calculus...most ingenious, and adequately protected by its great complexity against being proved wrong.” 1
At a Solvay Conferences in the 1920’s Einstein disputed with Heisenberg through the night reducing the younger man to tears. Imagine arguing all night with Einstein; that would be enough to make anyone cry!
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle was never an easy law to test experimentally because that required a certain measure of the simultaneous position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle, which the principle stated was virtually impossible to obtain with certainty. However in 1932, a chargeless subatomic particle, the neutron, was discovered by James Chadwick at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge. The neutron appeared to be an electron bound to a proton and that offered a test of the principle. 
The rest mass of an electron is 0.911 x 10-30 kg. The rest mass of a proton is 1672.62 x 10-30 kg.  The rest mass of a neutron is 1674.92 x 10-30 kg; so it has a mass of 1.389 x 10-30 kg in excess of the sum mass of an electron and proton. This is equal to 1.5x the rest mass of an electron. In the neutron, an electron could not possess a momentum in excess of that allowed by the energy locked up in 1.389 x 10-30 kg of mass. 2
The Heisenberg uncertainty formula fails when applied to the model of a neutron as an electron bound to a proton because the formula predicts that if an electron was bound in a neutron the certainty of its position would lead to an uncertainty in its momentum reflected in a momentum range from zero to velocities approaching 99.97% of the speed of light. Electrons with that order of velocity would have a mass 40x that of an electron at rest. It the Uncertainty principle were true, the masses of neutrons would range from 1673.5 x 10-30 kg (the combined mass of a proton and a single electron) to 1710 x 10-30 kg (the combined mass of a proton and mass of forty electrons). However, all neutrons possess the same mass of 1674.92 x 10-30 kg, which indicates there is no detectable, indeterminacy in the momentum of the electrons they appear to contain. The only way to save the Uncertainty principle from failure in the face of the neutron would be to deny it is an electron bound to a proton despite the fact all the evidence suggests that it is.
  • The neutron is formed when negatively charged electrons are captured by the atomic nucleus from the innermost K-orbit of an atom. When this occurs a positively charged proton disappears.
  • in the Beta decay of natural radioactivity, when an electron is lost to the nucleus a proton is gained.
  • Outside the nucleus of an atom a neutron will decay with a half life in the order of thirteen minutes into an electron and a proton.
  • The neutron has a mass slightly in excess of the sum mass of an electron and a proton.
  • The neutrality in charge of a neutron can be explained by the bound state model. An electron is negative in charge and a proton is positive so each could cancel out the charge of the opposite. This occurs in the atom which is electrically neutral because it contains an equal number of opposite charges.
  • In 1957, Smith, Purcell and Ramsey discovered that a neutron has a slight electric dipole moment, suggesting it is not an entirely neutral particle. On one spot the neutron displays a minute negative charge, in the order of a billion, trillion times weaker than that of a single electron. This suggests that the neutron is a bound state of opposite charges which mostly cancel each other out. Proponents of the standard theory, opposed to the bound-state model, latch onto the large margin of error on the electric dipole moment of the neutron - equal to the charge on an electron x10-20 (-0.1 +/- 2.4) - Emilio Segre said in his book  ‘Nuclei and Particles’, “... this moment could be exactly zero, in agreement with the theory.” 3 The large margin of error due to the extreme weakness of the measure of charge may not allow the 1957 experiment to be taken as conclusive but neither does it suggest the measure can be entirely negated. Segre’s conclusion does suggest a keenness to dismiss an inconvenient truth!
  • The presence of charged particles in the neutron is supported by the magnetic moment of a neutron at 1.91 nuclear magnetrons.2 The neutron, if it were a truly neutral particle, would have no magnetic moment because the magnetic moment of a particle is created by the spin of its charge. The magnetism of a neutron adds support to the view that it is a bound state of two opposite charges, which mostly cancel each other out, not a single particle with no charge at all.
  • Chien Shiung Wu observed when the nuclei of radioactive atoms are aligned in a magnetic field they emit more beta electrons in one direction more than in another.3 This suggests that in radioactive decay electrons emerge from specific sites in the atomic nuclei which is suggestive that neutrons in the nuclei have electrons bound within them. This experiment supports the bound state model for the neutron.
  • The formation of strange particles around electrons after high energy bombardment of atomic nuclei adds further support to electrons being at rest in the nucleus of an atom.
An argument against the bound state theory is that the quantum spin of a neutron is the same as a proton or electron. Physicists argue that a neutron cannot have the same value of quantum spin as a proton or an electron if it is a combined state of them both. However, if a light electron were locked to a massive proton, its quantum spin could be effectively hidden. The large inertia of the proton compared to an electron, conferred by its greater mass, could account for the neutron appearing with the quantum spin of the proton. The law of conservation of angular momentum does not allow for the quantum spin of an electron to be lost in a neutron but quantum mechanics does allow for conservation laws to be upheld in the formation and decay of unstable particles - so long as nothing is gained or lost in the overall process. Because quantum spin is conserved in the overall process of formation and decay of the unstable neutron, the quantum spin argument against the bound state model for the neutron does not stand.
One way to save the Uncertainty principle would be to say it does not apply to neutrons. Electrons in the atom are already excluded. If physicists make too many exceptions to protect the principle they could be accused of rejecting experiments that challenge the validity of their theories and as Richard Feynman said, “If your theories and mathematics do not match up to the experiments then they are wrong.”4 The experimental evidence in regard to the neutron does suggest Werner Heisenberg’s theory and mathematics is wrong as Albert Einstein contended.
The Uncertainty principle is a major stumbling block to unifying Einstein’s relativity and quantum theory. As Stephen Hawking commented, “The main difficulty in finding a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces is that general relativity is a classical theory in that it does not incorporate the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.5 That was a real slight on Einstein as it was he who broke the mould of classical physics by describing matter as a form of energy. The fact is the Uncertainty principle failed its ‘neutron test’ a decade after Einstein had been elbowed out of the quantum physics he originally established.6 Einstein knew the Uncertainty principle was wrong.  Rather than ditch their quantum mechanical theories and mathematics, physicists ditched Einstein instead!
Many people will protest that Heisenberg’s principle must be right because of its incredible success in quantum physics. However, the successful application of a principle does not prove it is valid. Just as a car can drive without a road worthy certificate a theoretical principle can work even if it is wrong. With the failure of the Uncertainty principle it could be said that quantum mechanics is running without a certificate of worthiness. Maybe the time has come for it to be scrapped!
Rather than admit to the Uncertainty principle being unsound, physicists have done their best to dismiss the awkward facts about the neutron. It is hard to see how they could do anything but heap speculation upon speculation because if Heisenberg’s principle was shown to be invalid, then the entire edifice of quantum mechanics would collapse and to the modern physicist that is unthinkable. In the words of A.J. Leggett:“Quantum mechanics...has had a success which is almost impossible to exaggerate.  It is the basis of just about everything we claim to understand in atomic and sub-atomic physics, most things in condensed-matter physics, and to an increasing extent much of cosmology. For the majority of practicing physicists today it is the correct description of nature, and they find it difficult to conceive that any current or future problem of physics will be solved in other than quantum mechanical terms. Yet despite all the successes, there is a persistent and, to their colleagues, sometimes irritating minority who feel that as a complete theory of the Universe, quantum mechanics has feet of clay, indeed ‘carries within it the seeds of its own destruction’.” 7
Quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty principle moved centre stage in physics with the idea that forces could be carried between particles by the exchange of other particles. It was suggested that, within the bounds of sub-atomic uncertainty, particles could borrow energy from the Universe to bring about the creation of short-lived force-carrying particles. So long as these ‘virtual’ force-carrying particles were sufficiently unstable to decay and repay the energy debt within the time allotted by Heisenberg’s formula then no conservation law would have been broken in the overall process of their formation and demise. If the time span of their existence was short enough, the Uncertainty principle allowed for very large amounts of energy to be involved in the formation of the particles, which would, in turn, enable them to carry very powerful forces.
The underlying premise that ‘anything is possible behind the screen of uncertainty’ was a license to speculate. Following the axiom that we see the world not the way it is but the way we are, with his mortgage, bank loan, and credit cards, the professional physicist has projected the image of credit on the sub-atomic world. Mr. proton could be imagined to borrow energy in order to create gluons for the binding of quarks, W and Z particles for the weak nuclear force, mesons for the strong nuclear force, virtual-photons for the forces of electric charge and magnetism, gravitons for the force of gravity and Higgs Bosons to account for its mass.
In 1934, a Japanese physicist, Hideki Yukawa (1907-81) used the Uncertainty principle to predict the existence of meson particles to carry the strong nuclear force. Doubts about the energy credit system of quantum mechanics dissolved when in 1947 Cecil Powell discovered mesons that fitted Yukawa’s prediction. Mesons fitted the math of the witches calculus and Yukawa and Powell received the Nobel Prize. It cannot be denied that mesons exist, but just because Yukawa predicted them does not mean that the quantum mechanical explanation for them is the only way to explain them. In the Vortex theory I have a simpler account for mesons and the strong nuclear force that works just as well. Predictions drive science, suggesting directions for research and designs for experiments. The problem comes when they lead to speculations that primary particles have a credit rating! Increasingly crazy theories have become the norm in physics. This prompted Niels Bohr to jest at the end of a lecture given by Wolfgang Pauli, in 1958, “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy.  The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough.”4
Despite its success, quantum mechanics is crazy. It cannot stand if the neutron invalidates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If the neutron is a bound state of electron and proton then the outstanding success of quantum mechanics will have done little more than reveal just how fallible science can be. That is why mention of the neutron as a bound state of electron and proton upsets physicists! But if neutrons are not a bound state of electrons and protons then protons should be more massive than neutrons, as Harald Fritzsch pointed out: “We do not understand why the neutron is heavier than the proton. Indeed an unbiased physicist would have to assume the opposite by the following logic. It is reasonable to think that the difference in mass between the proton and neutron is related to electro-magnetic interaction since the proton has an electric field and the neutron does not. If we rob the proton of its charge, we would expect the neutron and the proton to have the same mass. The proton is therefore logically expected to be heavier than the neutron by an amount corresponding to the energy needed to create the electric field around it.” 8
The university establishment has come to replace the religious establishment. Scientists have managed to convince most people that science is a source of infallible knowledge. Their virtual particles shrouded by uncertainty are as uncertain as phantoms but people in physics won’t admit to it because there are too many jobs and academic reputations at stake. They seem to be, for the most part, unaware of the neutron dilemma. They have swallowed the quark and are faithful believers in the weak interaction. Awkward facts have been swept under the carpet to save the theories. This has nothing to do with science. It is a mockery of science and everything science stands for. Facing the dilemma of the neutron, even if it were the end of physics as we know it, would be a true test of skeptic integrity because as George Gamow said, “Staggering contradictions of this kind, between theoretical expectations on the one side and observational facts or even common sense on the other are the main factors in the development of science.” 9
In his Inaugural Lecture entitled ‘The End is in Sight for Theoretical Physics’, Stephen Hawking said that because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the electron could not be at rest in the nucleus of an atom! 5 The fact is that electrons are at rest in the nucleus of an atom and because of that the end is in sight for theoretical physics. But there is a positive side to Heisenberg’s theory. If through the Uncertainty principle Heisenberg has exposed uncertainty in the scientific criteria for truth, he will have released humanity from the burden of truth imposed in the name of science. Religions have a history of telling people what they can and cannot believe. Science is saved from dogmatism by the principle of Uncertainty because unhinging the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the neutron reveals the scientific criteria of truth to be as uncertain as the religious and collapses the premise that science is truer than spirituality. As waves breaking endlessly on the shore so future generations could then throw their interpretations of truth on a beach of uncertainty. No longer should anyone in the name of science or religion be able to say for certain, ‘this is the way it is, I am right and you are wrong’.
Heisenberg was a great and brilliant scientist. His ideas dominated physics in the 20th century. His lasting legacy could be his contribution to the infinity of possibility. He has helped in the emancipation of humanity, freeing us from the burden of scientific and religious truth so that every human spirit can be at liberty to believe or question whatever he or she chooses. Through the philosophy of uncertainty Heisenberg may have done more for the truth than any saint or skeptic because the paradox is, the less certain we are of truth the closer we are to it.
1. Matthews R Unraveling the Mind of God Virgin 1992
2. Richards, et al, Modern Univ. Physics, Addison Wesley 1973
3. Segrè Emilio, Nuclei & Particles  Benjamin Inc 1964
4. Calder Nigel, Key to the Universe: BBC Publications 1977
5. Hawking Stephen, Black Holes and Baby Universes Bantam 1993
6. Kuhn Thomas, Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity: 1894-1912 Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978
7. Leggett A.J., The Problems of Physics, Oxford Uni. Press 1987
8. Fritzsch H, Quarks: The Stuff of Matter, Allen Lane 1983
9. Gamow George, Thirty Years that Shook Physics, Heinemann.
Part II: The Myth of Quark Theory
The neutron dilemma lay in the long grass for decades. Soon after the neutron was discovered a world war diverted physicists from thinking about what a neutron was to what a neutron could do. They soon discovered it had the potential to detonate the weapons of mass destruction. Driving the chain reaction of nuclear fission, the neutron brought the war to an abrupt end in a demonstration of the ability of nuclear power to annihilate millions in moments. Physicists may deny the divine but some would call it divine retribution if the particle that detonated the weapons of mass destruction they invented may turn out to be their nemesis.  
After the war ended a new theory for matter emerged that appeared to offer a resolution to the neutron dilemma. On the 27th January 1977, a BBC TV programme, The Key to the Universe, reported on the new physics. In a companion book to this programme, under the same title, Nigel Calder wrote about how the new theory originated:  In the early 1930s the contents of the Universe seemed simple. From just three kinds of particles, electrons, protons and neutrons you could make every material object known at the time. Thirty years later human beings were confronted with a bewildering jumble of dozens of heavy, apparently elementary particles, mostly very short lived. They came to light either in the cosmic rays or in experiments with the accelerators.  The particles had various mass-energies and differing qualities such as electric charge, spin, lifetimes and so forth… A small group of theorists brought order out of chaos. The principle figure amongst them was Murray Gell-Mann of Caltech (The California Institute of Technology), then in his early thirties. He declared that all the heavy particles of nature were made out of three kinds of quarks. He had the word from a phrase of James Joyce ‘Three quarks for Muster Mark.’ It was the mocking cry of gulls, which Gell-Mann took as referring to quarts of beer, so he pronounced quark to rhyme with ‘stork’. Many other physicists rhymed it with ‘Mark’. In German, as skeptics were not slow to notice, ‘quark’ meant cream cheese or nonsense.... 1
Gell-Mann suggested that the proton is made up of two up-quarks and one down-quark bound together by gluons. He then proposed that the neutron is made of two down-quarks and one up-quark. He determined that when a proton interacts with an electron a weak nuclear force comes into play which transforms an up-quark into a down-quark and causes the electron and proton to vanish, along with and anti-neutrino, their place being taken by the neutron.
That reminds me of a mad professor of puddings who reprimanded a student who baked plums in a pudding as naïve for thinking he had a plum pudding!
            The professor snorted over his spectacles, “That is not a plum pudding; it’s a Black Forest gateau.”
            “But,” argued the student, “I mixed plums into my pudding before I baked it and when I weighed it, the weight was that of the plums and the pud and at the end, when I pulled the pudding out of its basin, out came a plum. It has to be a plum pud!”
            The professor replied. “Have you learnt nothing of what I have taught you? When you bake plums in a pudding due to the interaction of a weak cooking force, the plums change into cherries and the pudding becomes a Black Forest gateau.”
            “Well how do you explain the plum that fell out of the pudding?” dared the student; “There are no plums in a Black Forest gateau!”
            “The gateau is unstable,” retorted the professor, “When it decays the cherries revert to plums by reverse flipping their flavour!”
How could the student argue?  He was speaking to none other than the President of the Royal Society of Puddings. If he wanted a good career in the cake and pudding industry, he had to accept that pudding baked with plums became Black Forest gateau.
Light electrons with a negative charge are plums in the satire.  Protons, with a positive charge, are 1836 times as massive as electrons. They are the pudding mass. The plum pudding represents a neutron; the third particle in the atom.
The neutron is neutral in charge and can be formed out of an electron and proton. That happens in a process called K-capture. The neutron is the sum mass of an electron and a proton and in Beta decay a neutron can fall apart into an electron and a proton.
From those facts it would seem a neutron is an electron bound to a proton. However, don’t suggest that to a professor of physics. He might get very annoyed and say, “Don’t jump to such a hasty conclusion! Neutrons are not electrons bound to protons. Electrons cause protons to change quark flavour due to the interaction of the weak nuclear force. That is how they come to form a neutron. This then reverses when the unstable neutron decays, with the release of a neutrino!”
Gell-Mann heaped speculation on his speculation of quarks with the arbitrary assumption of fractional charge! Despite all the evidence that charged particles have unitary charges independent of their mass and charges add up or cancel out by the accumulation of particles with the same or opposite whole unit of charge, he suggested that up-quarks have ⅔ charge and down-quarks ⅓ charge. In the proton ⅔ + ⅔ - ⅓ = 1 which would give the proton unitary charge. In the neutron ⅓ + ⅓ - ⅔ = 0 which would give the neutron zero charge. There is no evidence for fractional charge in nature.
Back in the nutrition department of the crazy world, all was not going well with the mad professor of puddings. Another student baked plums in a pudding then licked it.  He tasted a plum and so contested the idea plums change flavour to cherries when baked in a pudding. The mad professor was very embarrassed by the arrival of that awkward fact. He explained it away by saying the lick was too weak to be taken as conclusive. Nonetheless he made it a rule that food was never again to be licked in the lab. And then he used his prestige to ensure that data contradicting his contention that a plum pudding cooks into Black Forest gateau be printed in the textbooks in small type so that hopefully, it would be overlooked as a totally unimportant! The ‘lick-experiment’ parodied an experiment in 1957 in which the neutron was discovered to have a slight electric charge. The electric dipole moment of the neutron, though incredibly weak, suggested a neutron is not entirely neutral. On one spot it appears to display a minute negative charge, in the order of a billion, trillion times weaker than that of a single electron. The measure seemed to suggest the neutron is a bound state of opposite charges, which mostly cancel each other out. 2
This awkward fact has been dismissed on the grounds that the measure is too weak to be taken as conclusive. Other problems with the Quark theory have also been explained away rather than resolved. While everything in the world is supposed to be made of quarks, not a single quark has ever been observed in a free state. Another problem is that each quark in a proton has been calculated to have a mass five times the mass of the proton itself. Physicists overcame the two problems by playing one against another. They say that when quarks form a proton they lose fourteen fifteenths of their mass. As equations show nuclear binding increases with loss of mass, they contend that the quarks are so tightly bound, having lost so much mass, they can never break free. That is why no one has ever seen a quark! 1
Some physicists are unhappy about the discrepancy between the mass of the quark and the mass of the proton. Richard Feynman is on record saying “The problem of particle masses has been swept in the corner.” 1
When experiments suggested quarks were being chopped out of protons theorists countered by suggesting a gluon bond could never exist without a quark at the end so the cut away quark had another quark form at the end of its severed bond to form a two quark meson. The cut bond in the proton meanwhile grew a new quark to reform a three quark proton. This is similar to philosophers in the middle ages who argued that if you cut an angel in half each severed half would immediately grow into a whole angel and thus one would end up with two angels. 
Quark theory became generally accepted after 1968 when experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator in California (SLAC) seemed to prove their existence. In the SLAC experiments, electrons were accelerated down a three-kilometer long ‘vacuum tube’ by intense radio pulses and then targeted on protons in liquid hydrogen. The results of these experiments showed that electrons were being scattered, or bounced back from what appeared to be something small and hard within the protons in the hydrogen atoms. From this it was inferred that the protons were not truly fundamental but contained smaller particles.1
Physicists were looking for quarks and naturally concluded that their bombarding particles were bouncing off quarks in the proton so these experiments caused the quark theory to become accepted into mainstream physics and led to a Nobel Prize for Gell-Mann in 1969.
The SALC experiments were supported subsequently by experiments at CERN, the European Nuclear Laboratory near Geneva. At CERN, protons were accelerated in vast intersecting rings. At the intersections, energetic protons were directed into head-on collisions. In the high-energy impacts, new particles were formed and came out at right angles to the beams. These results seemed to confirm the quark model. However, the SLAC and CERN experiments only inferred the quark model. They didn’t prove it.
The Vortex theory, developed from Yogic philosophy, is based on the axiom that subatomic charged particles are spherical vortices of energy. W.W. Atkinson writing as Yogi Ramacharaka in 1904 anticipated Einstein by declaring matter as a form of energy.3 Not only was this known for millennia in Yoga but in this mystical tradition the vortex model was proposed to explain how energy actually forms mass.  The success of this model, accounting for mass, inertia and force fields including electric charge, magnetism as extending vortex energy, and gravity suggests electrons and protons can be treated as increasingly compact lines of force. This perception of the subatomic vortex of energy is used to explain away the results of the SLAC experiments. The suggestion presented was that the bombarding electrons compressed the lines of force in the proton, and being quantum vortices themselves, they underwent reciprocal compression. The compression of the increasingly compact lines of force toward the vortex centres in both particles was used to account for the hard impacts between the colliding particles resulting in the scattering observed at SLAC and CERN.
Quark theory is nonsense, as the name suggests, not because of mocking gulls from which the name quark was derived but because of a black swan. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902-94) used an analogy of black and white swans to explain that science is not in the business of proving theories but rather of disproving them.  Someone could have a theory that all swans are white but even if a thousand white swans were counted, their belief would not be proved true and the addition of more white swans wouldn’t make it any truer. However, the appearance of a single black swan would disprove the theory altogether. Scientific theories are white swan belief systems which survive until they are destroyed by the appearance of a single black swan, that is, the arrival of even a single fact, which makes it clear that they cannot be true. 5
The black swan for the quark theory is the proton. A single fact, which throws the quark theory into question, is the lifespan of a proton. The lifespan of a proton has been estimated at a billion, trillion, trillion years (1033), whereas one ten billionth of a second is considered a strangely long lifespan for any of the new particles found in high-energy research.1 As spontaneous proton decays have never been observed, the proton can be treated as being infinitely more stable than any of the new, heavy particles called baryons that have come to light in the accelerators. 
There are supposed to be six different types of quark: up and down, strange and charmed, top and bottom. Theorists speculate that up and down quarks are relatively light and stable whereas the others are heavier and less stable. They account for the difference in stability in terms of the different types of quark.  However, the proton is infinitely more stable than even the neutron which is also supposedly formed of up and down quarks. The quark theory doesn’t say why there is a difference in stability; why protons stand alone in the particle zoo for extreme longevity. Quark theory merely accounts for the difference in lifespan between the new particles discovered in physics – including neutrons. Quark theory is built on a fact without explaining the fact.
Imagine walking down a road between two building sites. On the site to the left, the houses disintegrate as soon as they are built. Within a fraction of a second of the last lick of paint being applied, they are gone. On the site to the right, the houses are advertised for sale with a trillion year guarantee. It would be crazy to assume that similar bricks, mortar and construction techniques are employed on both building sites without providing an account for the incredible difference in the durability of the houses. Yet in physics today physicists claim protons as well as all other baryons including neutrons are constructed of quarks cemented together by gluon bonds!
Imagine we ignored the glaring discrepancy and focused only on different types of brick in the shoddy houses; some vanishing in a trillion of a second whereas others, we call strange for their relative longevity, take a billionth of a second to disintegrate. We would be admitting to having no account for the durability of the solid houses that survive for trillions of years longer than even the Universe has been in existence! Theorists in physics are obviously unable to explain why protons are so much more durable than any other particles they have discovered.
Quark theory could be used to explain infinitely stable natural protons or it could be used to account for the unstable new synthetic particles but not both! To use quark theory to explain only protons would be pointless, because the theory was invented to explain neutrons and the new particles discovered in high energy physics. But if quark theory provided an explanation for all the baryons apart from the proton, it would irrelevant because the great bulk of the mass of the physical Universe consists of protons, whereas the other baryons - apart from the neutron - have been observed only in high-energy experiments. If the theory were to exclude protons the worldwide programme of high-energy research, dominating physics, would be meaningless.
Quark theory serves no purpose in the real world as the short-lived particles it was invented to describe have been synthesized out of the massive amounts of energy fed into the high-energy particle accelerators. They have no place in normal matter. They don’t normally exist! They are just products of high-energy research, anomalies of dubious value created in enormously expensive experiments.
In the Vortex theory I explain how energy forced through stable proton vortices in the nucleus of an atom can be transformed into vortex motion which appears momentarily as a new massive particle on the other side of the nucleus before it reverts to its original wave form and radiates away. I explain the strange particles as energy swirling around a proton or electron as it escapes the nucleus bombarded in the high energy experiment. The stable vortex stablilises the swirl of energy around it increasing the time before it melts away. The cascade decay of the Omega minus used by Gell-Mann to strengthen his Quark theory I use to add credence to my Vortex theory. 
When the top-quark was supposedly discovered at Fermilab in April 1994, Jim Dawson opened his report in the Minneapolis ‘Star Tribune’ with the statement: “So there we have it, after more than two thousand years of searching, all of the fundamental stuff of Democritus’ atom has been revealed.  The crowning moment came a couple of weeks ago, when physicists announced that a gigantic, 5,000-ton machine apparently had detected a very small particle called the top-quark.” 6
The physicists at Fermilab didn’t actually see a top quark.  All they saw was the tracks of a jet of electrons and muons which they supposed to be the breakdown products of W-particles which they took to be the remnants of a top-quark. The recent discovery of Higgs Boson at CERN was an interpretation of similar fallout. Of course physicists are going to explain the results of their high energy experiments in favour of their theoretical predictions to justify the investment in their high energy laboratories. That is human nature. What I find pathetic is the faith pseudoskeptics place in this junk science. Why they think they have a right to berate believers in angels and fairies when they believe in quarks and the virtual particles of quantum mechanics remains forever a mystery to me. If they call themselves skeptic they should be true skeptics who believe in nothing and so have no opinion about anything to voice.
Gell-Mann’s Quark theory appeared to resolve the neutron dilemma and so save quantum mechanics. The witches calculus was shored up by a nonsense theory. After physicists succeeded in harnessing the energy locked in the atom to make weapons of mass destruction, governments sprinting in the arms race rewarded them with virtually unlimited budgets for continued nuclear research and the building of fast breeder nuclear reactors for manufacturing more bomb making material.  The vast sums of money spent on building, maintaining and running particle accelerators as a pay off enabled scientists to play God by creating new particles of matter. The need to account for the new particles and protect Quantum theory led to the Quark theory. The theory threw up new difficulties and exciting predictions, which then required more research and more powerful accelerators and of course a lot more money. Intent to throw good billions after bad, the Large Hadron Collider was built at CERN. Costing billions of euros, it is the biggest accelerator in the world. This monster machine is twenty times more powerful than any built previously. Its main purpose is to identify the source of mass believed to be Higgs Boson and to simulate the first moments of the Big Bang. It has also been built to further research into quarks and force carrying particles that don’t even exist. Creating a new generation of particles, this euro-gobbling accelerator is leading to more elaborations on the theories, which require more research and eventually the need for an even bigger accelerator. 
The world programme of nuclear and high-energy research has created an endless cycle in which research physicists create problems for theoretical physicists to solve and they, in turn, predict yet more problems to research. While this elaborate game ensures indefinite employment for scientists and their army of technicians, it produces information which is of little relevance or value to the unfortunate tax payers who have to foot the enormous bill!
1. Calder Nigel, Key to the Universe: A Report on the New Physics BBC Publications 1977
2. Segrè Emilio, Nuclei & Particles  Benjamin Inc 1964
3. Ramacharaka Yogi, An Advanced Course in Yogi Philosophy, Cosimo 2007 (Original Ed 1904)
4. Ash D The New Science of the Spirit, The College of Psychic Studies (London) 1995 
5. Popper Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery Hutchinson 1968
6. Dawson Jim, Star Tribune of Minneapolis, May 15th 1994
This two part article is taken from:
© David Ash 2015
Ash Superfoods are
available from
David Ash working through
Books on Science and Spirituality
Talks, Seminars and Workshops
Sacred Sabai Blessings
Singing and Songwriting
Eco-Village-Farm Project
Fortified Superfoods
Physics from ancient Yoga brings Spirit into science. Spirit as Life in space reveals our destiny for continuous living in a living Universe and our attitude toward Life and each other decides if we are to live forever in the light or the dark. Through books, presentations and sung meditations called Sabai Blessings I am dedicated to helping those who wish to live continuously with Life in the Light. I also intend to transform farms into eco-village centres of Light where we can live in harmony with Life and supported by superfood nutrition we can be whole in body, mind and soul.
Event Bookings Contact
eBook - Votex Theory:    Continuous Living:
ASH fortified superfoods:
Ash Superfoods are 
available from
My Mission
Ash Superfoods are
available from