Is the Standard Model the best Model of our Physical World – No

The Standard Model is an imaginative invention which seems to somehow work, perhaps because, when it doesn’t fit, another imaginative group of speculative forces, or other units is added on. Since the Standard model does not address the problem of gravitation, what it may well be is a very complex model of electromagnetic phenomena which owes its complexity to the need to justify two of its basic assumptions, both of which which may well be in error. One basic assumption is that the short-lived particles that are obtained by “atom-smashing” are basic particles somehow released by the operation. It seems more logical that they are alternative states of matter formed from protons and electrons under special conditions. The other assumption is very similar, this is the assumption that neutrons have an identity within atomic nuclei. That is, electrons lose their identities within nuclei, joining in a permanent union with protons to form neutrons. The idea does not seem to have been considered that there could exist electronic orbitals within the nuclei of atoms among and through the protons.

There are a number of other ideas that are around. A model that has been developing in the work of a few writers on during the past year may have promise to correlate the facts of chemistry, physics and cosmology to a few relatively simple concepts.

the following is an interpretive attempt to summarize the current state of this developing theory. The very simple logic on which it is based is given in the first articles which can be found under the title, “Motion in a Matrix ….” The words, “Motion in a Matrix” do summarize the basis of the ideas.

the first assumption is that there is an underlying, “solid-like” matrix. :This is composed of “dots” which may be a neutrino-anti-neutrino “parent.” Within this matrix there is a total amount of motion, which would correspond to what we might think of as “the ground-state-vibrational-rotational energy” of the matrix. [This fits with the dictum: “Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.”] within this matrix the usual, normal or average rotational velocity of any unit is “c.” the speed of light in a “vacuum.” All phenomena which we observe are due to “motion-disturbances” in this matrix.

There seems no reason that we cannot continue to describe the results of motion disturbances in the matrix in terms of mass and energy concepts. It seems very possible that we may be able to describe the shape and size dot the basic units of “vortex-motion disturbances” in terms of the limitless “family set,” {m x r = (h/c)}. Where “m” is mass, which is a vector such as to oppose a change in motion or position of a spinning unit which has a radius, “r.” The constant, (h/c) is the ratio between Planck’s Constant, “h,” which relates “Energy” to motion as sequence related, i.e., vibrations per unit time, and “c,” the speed of light in a vacuum, which is a distance per unit time ratio. A central, average, or “parent” of this family, somewhat facetiously dubbed by one writer, the “Sin-Vree (‘sin-free’) Entity,” is a circle, sphere or “pseudo-sphere” having the dimensions, “m = r = (h/c)^0.5. At Having an approximate radius of 4.7 x 10^-18 cm., this could conceivably describe the singularity in the center of “Black Holes.”

It can be noted that the absolute values of “m” and “r” are interchangeable, and that the sets which give a result of +(h/c) can be either the “positive pair set” or the “negative pair set.” That is for absolute values “A” and “B” we would have a set {+Am, +Br; +Bm,+Ar} which would describe a volume or vortex entity on one side of a center, and a corresponding set {-Am, -Br; -Bm, -Ar} on the other side of a center. That is one can with the same set of absolute values describe to different spaces or situations with respect to a center. this could describe a spinning line a spinning disc, or two counter=rotating vortex halves attached to a center. This would describe a “resonant cavity” or oscillation in a resonant cavity. which could consist of two concentric spheres of “Radius A and “Radius B.”

Since there is an unlimited number of sets in the set family {m x r = (h/c)} this set can define anything from an electron and anti-electron as half-sets, i.e. one described as a spinning “+r,+m” pair and the other by a “-r,-m” pair of numbers, to an entire universe/anti-universe set.

There is another important assumption which has a less solid theoretical and factual basis that then the above but which is also important, this is that most only are our basic entities rotating at a constant velocity, “c,” but, that, also, they undergo one inversion per rotation, such that there is a constant motion constant, constantly changing place, within each entity. Each entity is rotating at the same rate and pulsating at the same rate. The only differences are size. One may note that although we are talking of “rate” this now, is independent of “time” as we divided out time when we divided Planck’s constant by the speed of light. “m x r = h/c ” appears to define a fixed quantity of motions in the matrix. or a fixed number matrix units which are involved. whether in a tiny circle or sphere or a much larger one, or of any size in between. It seems, however, that any descriptive pair set sets up a unique vibration arrangement, a unique pulsation through the central entity “(h/c)^0.5.” In other words, a unique “time-frame” for each pair set.

It is assumed that in our universe there are but two stable vortex particles, the proton and electron and all “matter” is built up of these. It is suspected that the proton is a modified form of the anti-electron transformed from the anti-electron in the early instants of this particular pulsation phase which is our “universe.”

The view-point of this developing model is that all the various interactions can be attributed to two things. What we know as “electromagnetic interactions” which are due to action through the matrix between electrons and protons, electrons and electrons, and protons and protons, and strains within the matrix due to aggregations of these two basic particles, these being what we know as “gravitational effects.”

As the Motion in a Matrix work develops, it is becoming clear that it seems to parallel, in many ways, some of the concepts put forth by Max Planck which were ignored when the science community became, one might say, “enamoured with” or “fixated on ” Einstein’s ideas.