| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
| In Quantum, there are four forces; In Physics, there are only two |
- 1.0 Carriers of force
Quantum alleges that there are four forces in the Universe each of which travels on the back of a specific type
of particle. The force of gravity rides on a horse called the graviton. Light hitchhikes on a mule known as a
photon. The weak force stows-away on camels labeled Ws and Zs (The scholars ran out of words and resorted
to the alphabet). And the strong force hops around on the pouch of a kangaroo that responds to the name of
gluon. Let's look at these animals and see if they have any merit in Science.
2.0 The graviton
Does the graviton really carry the adverb force on its back and deliver it to another particle or is this just a
metaphor?
Perhaps the official definition can clarify the matter for us:
- " the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity
in most quantum gravity theories" [1]
" A theoretical particle having no mass and no charge that mediates (carries) the
gravitational force." [2]
" Some kind of information mediator between two particles is needed... We call them
force carriers or 'exchange particles'. " [See Force carriers: definition, p. 2] [3]
- So again, I was not mistaken. The mechanics are saying either that force is a particle or that a particle carries a
force. This wasn’t, after all, a metaphor. If a metaphor, what do the mechanics really mean?
The mathematicians will probably deny or reinterpret everything when the press starts asking questions at the
end of the presentation. The Quantum graviton simply has no rational explanation because it is without a doubt
the most disquieting of mechanisms. This unfathomable 'interaction' consists of a bullet shot outwards – we
know not from where, how, or why – that somehow boomerangs the target inwards. The mechanics allege that
tennis ball A pushes a graviton towards tennis ball B, but rather than chase B away as predicted by billiard ball
physics, somehow pulls B towards A. (See gravity)
3.0 The Photon
Do particles of light carry forces and other mathematical junk?
We start with a formal definition of the photon:
- " The photon is one of the elementary particles…According to the quantum
electrodynamics of the Standard Model, photons have zero rest mass and
zero electric charge, but they do carry energy, momentum and angular
momentum." [4]
" The basic unit ('quantum') of electromagnetic radiation (and therefore light)" [5]
So again I was not mistaken. The mathematicians do actually believe that a particle known as a photon takes
with it a bag full of EM force, momentum, energy, and who knows what else.
Like the graviton, the photon is supernatural. But whereas the graviton is faithful and dependent like a dog, the
QM photon is individualistic and adventurous like a cat. The photon is a bullet pushed outwards that does not
believe it has a moral obligation to return to its master. It has a one-way ticket for no reason that the
establishment can justify. This super-particle is so powerful that it somehow manages to bind the electron to
the nucleus of an atom:
- " the electromagnetic force holds electrons in orbit about the nuclei in atoms"
(p. 583) [6]
How does a discrete particle bind another discrete particle? Please stick your Math book up your butt and
explain or illustrate the physical process.
a. Massless/massive photon
The photon suffers from irreconcilable dualities, specifically in regards to mass. Einstein proclaimed that
energy is another form of mass. This is odd because the photon is alleged to be pure energy, yet it is also
alleged to have no mass:
Newton’s law of universal gravitation (Fg = G * mass1 * mass2 / d2) predicts that an extrinsic body should
have no effect on this mass-less particle, but then relativists allege that a black hole prevents photons from
reaching your telescope by acting on their mass. Of course, in this instance, they dispense with Newtonian
force. The mechanic changes hats, becomes a relativist, and claims that the mass-less photon rolls or slides
along the warped path of the fabric of space-time. This allegation that leaves open the issue of how this
hammock manages to physically contact the surface of something that has no surface.
| The four forces of the Quantum Apocalypse trampling over rationality and common sense |
The photon is also alleged to machine-gun the toughest electron balls from polished metal plates.
- " A single photon of ultraviolet radiation... does have enough energy to knock
loose an electron." (p. 91) [9]
- "
Indeed, if a photon has structure and mass, the atomic cannon would not be able to fire an indefinite amount of
these cannonballs indefinitely.
- " If the rest mass of the photon were non-zero, the theory of quantum electro-
dynamics would be 'in trouble' primarily through loss of gauge invariance,
which would make it non-renormalisable; also, charge conservation would
no longer be absolutely guaranteed, as it is if photons have zero rest mass." [10]
The electron is alleged to be an elementary or point particle, meaning that it has no size. Sane humans usually
sense that something is wrong. So the idiot of Quantum has a duality handy. A photon is also a wave and a wave
has size. Conclusion: a photon has and doesn't have size. Now what didn't you understand? The morons add
insult to injury by telling you that such a duality is useful. No kidding?
So what are we talking about? Obviously we have a true ghost. This alleged particle has no size or structure
-- it is a 0-D point particle -- and no mass, yet this non-entity can knock an electron from its orbit.
Of course, the trick consists in talking in riddles and parables and confusing the audience:
- " Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech..." [11]
" the invariant mass of a photon must be zero, but its relativistic mass need
not be." [12]
The way to explain things in Quantum is to muddle the crucial and fundamental concepts so badly that people
just stare and nod wondering why they are the only ones in the room that don't understand. The mathematicians
call this science.
Does a photon lose mass when it travels from air to water? How about when it is stopped altogether in its tracks
attempting to sneak out of a black hole's event horizon? How does the non-entity called a black hole manage to
influence a nonentity such as a photon?
The mechanics answer by 'clarifying' once and for all the definition of mass. These events involve relativistic
mass and not rest mass. Relativistic mass is a measure of resistance to being moved whereas rest mass is how
much matter a substance has. The photon has neither. Got it?
The incredible photon is more versatile than God. It is a ripple of nothing – the only substance in the universe that
undulates without requiring a medium. The photon has no length or mass and is timeless – a photon is time itself.
" a photon experiences no passage of (proper) time between emission and
absorption." [13]
The photon is exempt from laws that govern the behavior of these parameters, the only noun that has physical
presence in space that does not exist. Perhaps the most astonishing property of a photon is that it always carries
with it an ample supply of gravitons:
- " Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational
attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely,
photons are themselves affected by gravity" [14]
Of course, it was easier and more practical for the bright minds coming out of college to sit comfortably at their
cubicles, cash in their exorbitant paychecks, transform the photon into a mathematical non-entity, and continue
daydreaming with important stuff like reverse time travel, parallel universes, and 1D wormholes.
b. Virtual Photons
Another trick the mechanics use to answer any and all questions consists in inventing magical, ad hoc particles.
The most famous one is the virtual photon. This is another particle that the mathematicians 'had' to discover in
order for their equations to come out right. The virtual photon is a very convenient particle because it can appear
and disappear at will at the command of a mechanic:
Some mathematicians dismiss the virtual particle as a mathematical gimmick necessary only to explain a given
phenomenon to laymen:
- " their objective existence as "particles" is questionable; however, the term is
useful in informal, casual conversation, or in rendering concepts into layman's
terms." [16]
- Others cannot explain their scientific conclusions to the scholarly experts and scientific journals unless they
invoke these particles as having real existence:
- " Photons hitting photons…When virtual particles are taken into account, light
beams can ‘bang’ onto each other. This result is in contrast to classical
electrodynamics. Indeed, QED shows that the virtual electron-positron pairs
allow photons to hit each other. And such pairs are found in any light beam" [17]
" The positrons are interpreted as arising from a two step process in which
laser photons are backscattered to GeV energies by the electron beam
followed by a collision between the high-energy photon and several laser
photons to produce an electron-positron pair. These results are the first
laboratory evidence for inelastic light-by-light scattering involving only real
photons… A complete theory of reaction (3) does not exist at present so we
performed a simulation based on a two-step model in which the beam electron
emits a virtual photon according to the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation,
and the virtual photon combines with laser photons to yield electron-positron
pairs." [18]
Why didn't the peer reviewers question this last explanation? How could they have allowed such supernatural
and irrational nonsense to make its way to the public? Are virtual photons for real? Have they been proven? Or
are they still just a handy ad hoc gimmick necessary to explain stuff to laymen? The mathematicians get away
with their contradictions because no one bothers to check. The idiots of Mathematics have invented and live with
so many dualities that they don't know what to believe any more. They have an answer for everything because
they created both the law and the loophole. The law is there to impress upon you that they understand. The
loophole is created for when you challenge their logic. The reason Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Quantum
Magic is that he proposed that mathematicians should just create particles from nothing with a magic wand when
it suits their arguments and when their equations don’t match observation. This ensures an endless supply of
these ‘things’ which are really ‘nothings’ half the time:
- Questions for mechanics:
a. What is the shape of a virtual photon during the broken segments of the lines?
b. By what physical process does a virtual particle spontaneously lose and regain
- length, width, and height?
When Burke and his team can answer these basic questions, maybe they can then proceed to proclaim that a
virtual photon bangs a laser photon. Otherwise, they are 'explaining' a phenomenon they still don't understand.
4.0 The alphabet forces
The weak force is the name given to a particle responsible for the spontaneous expulsion of radiation during
radioactive decay. It is mediated by particles the mechanics have dubbed the Ws and Zs. A radioactive compound
such as uranium gives off alpha (protons and neutrons) and beta (electrons) particles with the aid of these ‘force-
carriers’. Therefore, the weak force is a particle that, like the photon, is exiled from an atom. A radioactive
compound pushes these particles away from itself.
So again, let’s begin with the official definition to ensure we don’t put vain words in the mechanics’ mouths:
- " The weak interaction (sometimes called the weak nuclear force) is one of the four
fundamental interactions of nature. In the Standard Model of particle physics, it is
due to the exchange of the heavy W and Z bosons." [20]
So let’s see what a boson is:
- " The W and Z bosons are carrier particles that mediate the weak nuclear force,
much like the photon is the carrier particle for the electromagnetic force." [21]
" Gauge bosons are bosonic particles which act as carriers of the fundamental
forces of Nature. More specifically, elementary particles whose interactions are
described by gauge theory exert forces on each other by the exchange of gauge
bosons, usually as virtual particles." [22]
So again I was not mistaken. The mathematicians actually believe that there is a particle (perhaps shaped like
a W) that carries a force. This particle unloads the force as soon as it greets another particle. The mere fact that
the mechanics use the adverb 'weak' to qualify a noun (a particle) should make us suspect that something is
wrong.
If these definitions are correct, a pertinent question comes to mind: How do the Ws and Zs differ from the photon
which is also an outward bound particle?
The mechanics reply that the Ws and Zs are heavy and thus their effects are limited to short distances whereas
photons may travel to the other side of the universe because they lack mass whenever a mathematician so
wishes. Why is this so? What is it in their architecture that makes them so different?
So let’s get this straight. A force is defined as a push or a pull. Both the weak and the electromagnetic are
conceptually forces of push. However, in order to distinguish these ‘forces,’ the mathematicians invoke distance-
traveled and mass, two parameters that have nothing to do with the definition of force. The mathematicians are
pegging the differences between these two push forces on mathematical criteria and not on the ‘physical’ and
qualitative definition of force. If I understood the weak force correctly, the mechanism works something like this.
A group of particles (uranium) expel another group of particles (the protons and electrons) via another group of
particles (the Ws and Zs).
Makes sense?
Now we just have to find a name for the hypothetical particle that pushes the Zs out in the first place (Fig. 1).
| No Bill! I'm not flipping you off! I'm pointing to a zero-dimensional, zero-mass, quantum photon sliding along warped space. Don't you see it? By the way. I was really lucky today. The emperor just gave me his old robe. Do you like it? He told me that his tailors finally finished making a new one for him. |
- 5.0 The macho forces
You may wonder at this point what the strong force is?
Yes you guessed. It is a particle that pulls like a basketball pulls you:
Ok…So what is a gluon?
- " In particle physics, gluons are vector gauge bosons that mediate strong color
charge interactions of quarks in quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Unlike the
neutral photon of quantum electrodynamics (QED), gluons themselves
participate in strong interactions. The gluon has the ability to do this as it itself
carries the color charge and so interacts with itself." [24]
The gluon, as its name suggests, is yet another of those discrete bosons, but for unexplained reasons acts as
the glue that holds the nucleus of the atom together. The gluon is a particle that the mathematicians found
necessary to justify why the nucleus of an atom doesn’t spontaneously explode. You have to give them a little
credit, though. Despite their clumsy ways, the mathematicians eventually figured out that their particle theory
‘predicted’ that two positive protons should repel each other. [Uh Duh!] So then, why doesn't the atomic nucleus
explode? Ergo, there must be yet another secret culprit lurking in the shadows that overcomes their mutual
repulsive forces and maintains the integrity of the nucleus. This mathematical particle is dubbed the strong
'interaction' because it takes a lot of GeV (energy) to hatch an atomic egg. Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom,
apparently made Ws and Zs to tear atoms apart and gluons to hold them together.
The problem is that a proton is compelled to woo his girlfriend by pitching gluon pies at her face. QM visualizes
pull as an angry dog attacking a crowd that pelts it with rocks. What makes one proton throw gluons at another
without itself being pulled by the sticky bubble gum is beyond anyone's guess. Perhaps, the shove that an
emitting proton imparts to its gluon overcomes the repelling defenses of its rival. Who knows? How one proton
produces a continuous stream of gluons, on the other hand, has a straight forward, logical answer. The proton
creates an incessant stream of gluons from nothing.
So if you really want to get rational, you will reach the same conclusion as I have. The best way to think of a
gluon is as an ad hoc particle that spontaneously appears from the void to make a mathematician's equations
come out right.
To summarize, the mathematicians use a double standard to push their surrealistic theories. On the one hand,
they define pull as a particle. On the other, they explain that pull is an ‘interaction’ mediated by a particle.
The particle merely exchanges or transfers pull, which again means that we are conceptually treating pull as a
stand-alone physical object. Otherwise, what was it that the particle ‘transferred’? It is this irrational duality – a
semantic problem – that keeps Quantum alive. Mathematicians should simply keep their mouths shut and show
us a film of pull. What will the movie show? Will the go-between be an abstract concept or a particle? If a particle,
what does it deliver upon contact? Another particle? Is this what we need more powerful accelerators for?
|
| According to QM, the atom kicks a Beta particle (electron) out of the nucleus by throwing a particle called the Z at it. The Z is the name given to the ‘carrier’ of a mystical force called weak. The question I have is: What is the name of the particle that the atom needs to shoot at the Z in order to get it to move in the first place? |
6.0 Of how the idiots of Mathematical Physics observe, see, and prove particles to induce
- the peer review boards to grant them Nobel Prizes
The photon is alleged to be a point particle, meaning that it has no shape. We have empty space surrounding
absolutely nothing. The photon is alleged to have no rest mass. If it ever manages to stand still, it would have
no weight. Indeed, weight is a tension rather than a force, meaning that it is a static parameter. We needn't even
ponder the situation where a photon stands still. From a strictly conceptual point of view, a photon has no weight
at any location it occupies in its itinerary through space. The Quantum photon is a very convenient entity to a
mathematician because it is a non-entity: no shape, no mass, no weight, no nothing! Just speed! That's pure
Mathematics: all motion and no substance!
The photon is not the only particle without shape or weight. The graviton, and the gluon are also said to be
100% motion. Another famous particle, the virtual particle certainly has no shape or weight during those brief
moments when it flickers off in order to make the calculations come out right. And the scholars are still debating
whether the Higgs Boson, the alleged particle of mass, has mass. (A particle of a concept? What's next in
Quantum? Particles of love? Particles of justice? Particles of running?)
You wonder then how it is that our bright particle mathematicians claim in their scientific writings that they have
observed, seen and proved the existence of these massless point particles. How did the scholar manage to
convince his peers to grant him a Nobel Medal for his ground-breaking discovery? How do the ghost-busters
at SLAC, CERN, and KEK routinely detect these ethereal spirits in their accelerators?
Simple! Through a play with words. By not following the scientific method. By proving assumptions.
In Particle Mathematics, the words observe, see, and proof are euphemisms. The idiot of Mathematics says
'see,' and you think that he is talking about seeing the particle with his eyes. You imagine him staring at the
particle in a photograph or staring at a sculpture of one at the seminar. This is not the case. In fact, if this were
true, the mathematician could tell you, not what a gluon looks like, but what a comparatively gigantic atom
looks like. Is an electron a bead that orbits a nucleus as Bohr proposed? Is it an undulating ribbon that stretches
around the nucleus as de Broglie hypothesized? Or is it a cloud that envelopes the nucleus as Born suggested
and which interfaces with other clouds? If the idiots at SLAC and CERN and at Harvard and Cambridge cannot
tell you what the simplest atom looks like, obviously they haven't 'seen' one! And if the idiots at MIT and Oxford
and KEK haven't 'seen' an atom, they sure as hell can't tell you what a gluon or a graviton or a photon looks like!
Not a single mathematician in the world has ever 'seen' a single particle of the Standard Model! Any particle!
So how is it that the mathematicians 'know' that they are dealing with particles?
The mathematicians always and without exception 'observe' and 'prove' the existence of particles indirectly:
" When an alpha particle or beta particle interacts with the mixture, it ionises it. The
resulting ions act as condensation nuclei, around which a mist will form (because
the mixture is on the point of condensation). The high energies of alpha and beta
particles mean that a trail is left, due to many ions being produced along the path
of the charged particle. These tracks have distinctive shapes (for example, an
alpha particle's track is broad and straight, while an electron's is thinner and
shows more evidence of deflection). When a vertical magnetic field is applied,
positively and negatively charged particles will curve in opposite directions." [25]
" Charged particles create an ionization track, around which the liquid vaporizes,
forming microscopic bubbles. Bubble density around a track is proportional to
a particle's energy loss. Bubbles grow in size as the chamber expands, until
they are large enough to be seen or photographed. Several cameras are mounted
around it, allowing a tridimensional image of an event to be captured." [26]
" A wire chamber is a chamber with many parallel wires, arranged as a grid and put
on high voltage, with the metal casing being on ground potential. As in the Geiger
counter, a particle leaves a trace of ions and electrons, which drift toward the case
or the nearest wire, respectively. By marking off the wires which had a pulse of
current, one can see the particle's path." [27]
[See the path? Can you see the path I just left while walking from the bathroom after
puking?]
" a particle detector, also known as a radiation detector, is a device used to detect,
track, and/or identify high-energy particles, such as produced by nuclear decay,
cosmic radiation, or reactions in a particle accelerator...The term "counter" is
often used instead of detector, when the detector counts the particles but does
not resolve its energy or ionization." [28] "a counter is a device which stores
(and sometimes displays) the number of times a particular event or process has
occurred [29]
[The idiots don't count particles. The idiots count events (which they mistake for particles).]
- The infamous particle of Mathematical Physics is an assumption. The mathematician assumes that the invisible
phenomenon he is staring at is mediated by a tiny, discrete, dynamic entity. He imagines this corpuscle perhaps
as a tiny ball, but actually doesn't dwell too much on architectural aspects. A mathematical physicist has been
brainwashed to believe that this type of question belongs squarely in Philosophy, which he takes pains to
distinguish from what he calls 'science.' A mathematician models everything with point particles. Even his waves
are made of particles! The point particle allows the idiot to explain his theory without being distracted by
architecture, yet later he claims with absolute confidence that the thing he was talking about for the past two
hours was indeed a particle.
Hence, we have a circular argument. The point particle is used as a hypothetical model which is later confirmed
by the theory the mathematician just explained for else his theory would be false. And since it is not false
because he can 'predict' the results of the next experiment -- meaning that he explains the next trial with the
same damned particle -- then it's settled. The particle 'theory' -- meaning hypothesis -- has been confirmed.
Now his peers grant him a Nobel Prize in Quantum and he has the authority to trash you at the Internet forum.
The reason the mathematicians have chosen the particle is that in their infertile minds, this was the simplest
entity with which they could model their equations. Ergo, the assumption became a proof. Now it is no longer
speculative that the Universe is made of particles. Now the Universe 'is' made of particles, for else all of
Quantum Mechanics as well as General Relativity dies overnight.
There is a single way that a mathematician can 'prove' to you that he has observed, seen, or proved the
existence of a particle. He has to draw a picture of his beloved quark or of his dear photon. I don't care about
mass or speed or energy! I want to see a picture or a drawing or a statue of ONE particle standing absolutely
still! This is not capriciousness or whimsicality. It is a requirement of the scientific method!
So take a good look at this picture and read the caption the morons at the Brookhaven accelerator put under it.
They attempt to convince the public that you are staring at a still image at the exact moment of collision of two
particles:
- " Thousands of particles explode from the collision point of two relativistic...
gold ions... Electrically charged particles are discernible by the curves they
trace in the detector's magnetic field." [30]
I am staring at a bunch of trajectories??? How long was this motion picture? A picosecond? The two atoms are
shone at the exact moment they collide. The debris is depicted escaping from ground zero. We have a movie
superimposed on a photograph. Are the tracks we see a collage of locations?
Thousands of particles? From only two gold atoms?
Hmmm... let me see? A gold atom has 79 protons, 79 electrons, and about 200 neutrons. If each proton and
neutron is made of 3 quarks, which is the tiniest component the idiots of Mathematics claim to detect. We have
exactly a total of 1832 possible detectable particles in the entire system before our eyes. If we consider that the
picture is 2-D and that in 3-D we would probably have close to a million particles -- judging strictly by the
photograph -- the statement of the mathematical morons is patently absurd! The lamebrains of Mathematics
should make it a point in their lives to take Arithmetic 101 at least once! The stupid, idiotic, morons of
Mathematics have no shame! Misleading the public like that! A picture of an explosion my foot!
In fact, I was completely fooled! I thought I was staring at a snap-shot of a bunch of fibers extending from a
center! How could an explosion of particles be so radially symmetric anyways? If you want to see what an
explosion of something made of parts really looks like, here you have a pretty close example.
Module main page: The mechanics treat force as a physical object
Pages in this module:
- 1. The mechanics say that a particle carries a force
2. This page: In Quantum, there are 4 forces; in Physics, there are 2
3. A mechanic is an individual who never heard of the force of pull
4. The force of pull requires a physical intermediary
5. The force of pull requires a continuous medium
6. The force of pull is conceptually straight
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008