The electric field is carried by the linear momenta of the real photons, but the magnetic field is carried by the angular momenta. This clears up a very big problem in QED as well as in astronomy, since it explains how the E/M field can exist with a weak or nearly non-existent magnetic component. The strength of the magnetic field is determined by the summed angular strength of the charge field, and if the field were to be created by nearly equal number of left photons and right photons, it would not be able to carry a magnetic potential. In other words, it would have a full electrical strength and a near-zero magnetic strength. This explains the solar wind exclusion of Venus and Mars, as I show in a recent paper, and it explains certain cases of magnetic loss in quantum interactions as well.
CP parity is also explained in a simple mechanical way by my theory. It was at first thought that weak interactions obeyed a combined charge conjugation/spin parity, meaning that if you mirrored everything twice, once with spin and then once by replacing particles with anti-particles, you could conserve all symmetries. But this turned out to be false as well. CP parity is “almost” conserved. Electroweak theory claims to include this fact by hitting it with a lot of complex math and sloppy axioms, but I can explain it in a straightforward way. CP parity is “almost” conserved, and the amount of “almost” turns out to be an amount equal to the proposed neutrino field. CP parity is almost conserved, because, beyond the direction of motion after collision, particles and anti-particles almost act the same in the field. As I have shown, the only difference is that the charge emitted by the anti-particles is upside down relative to the particles. Since the entire reaction takes place in a right field of photons, anti-particles will subtract a small amount from the total angular momentum of the charge field. This small amount is the amount of CP parity failure.
I have claimed that I could predict the W particle without electroweak theory, but in my meson paper I only derive the Z particle. So I will take a moment here to derive the W, to show how easy it is to do. Using my meson equation, we can find the size of any meson. Like other large “mesons”, the W is a baryon with several unstable spins forced on top of the stable z-spin. So we start with the primary equation: [1 + (8 x 16 x 32 x 64 x 128 x 256)/214] = 524,000. We then divide by 9 to achieve a multiple of the electron, and then multiply by .511, which gives us about 30 GeV. This was the same method for the Z. But I found that the Z was three particles huddling, and the W is four. In my meson paper, I found that mesons would tend to huddle in groups of three or four: three when the charge or magnetic field was most planar, and four when the charge or magnetic field was least planar. In each case the mesons huddle in response to the charge wind. The W requires only one extra calculation, due to a “pionic” loss of inner spin levels due to a cross field. The W has several levels of stacked spins to achieve its size, and the outer two levels have been crushed in the y direction, like the pion. As with the pion (and several other mesons), we use this simple transform, which expresses the loss: (7.222/9). Since two levels are affected, we double the transform. This takes us down to 19.2 GeV for the single particle. Four particles give us 77 GeV. As with the Z, we find muons and taus in the decay, so it is likely that muons and taus huddle with the larger particles in some fashion. We are about 3.5 GeV short of the experimental number for the W of 80.4 GeV, so I propose two taus to make up the difference. The muons would then be created by the pionic decay of the larger particles.
Since I have shown that a simple meson equation can predict levels based on nothing but stacked spins, and since these spins can easily produce very large, very unstable particles of the required sizes, it is not necessary to believe that the W and Z are borrowed from the vacuum in some mysterious process, in order to break a manufactured mathematical symmetry. As you can see, my meson equation can be used to predict other even larger particles at higher energies, and these larger particles are related to smaller ones by factors of two, in the first instance.
Before I conclude, I must point out one other important thing. I showed that the standard model believes the weak force is 10-11 times weaker than E/M (although it likes to hide the real numbers deep under dimensionless “coupling constants”). But it turns out they are fatally and fantastically wrong in this as well. I have recently shown that the force between the proton and electron is not 8.2 x 10-8 N, but around 8 x 10-27 N, which is obviously not a fractional correction. Unknown to QED, gravity exists at the quantum level, at a size 1022 above their estimates, and this has skewed all the field equations by huge margins. I will not bother to restate my arguments and equations here, but this means that the force available in beta decay is around 109 greater than the fundamental charge. We have already seen that the real-life energy encountered in beta decay is about 50,000 times less than this, on the order of 5 MeV. But if Fermi was correct, the maximum potential energy in this collision is around 250 GeV. This would make controlled beta decay and similar processes extremely efficient sources of energy.
Contemporary physicists have tried to convince us that Fermi’s energy goes back into the vacuum with the W particle, but it doesn’t. The vacuum is not a sponge. Just as electricity can be harnessed, these electrons fleeing the neutron collision can be harnessed as well.
In the past few decades we have heard an ever-increasing rumor of “zero-point” energy. Unfortunately, no one knows where this energy comes from. Most stories I have heard give the energy to the vacuum, but, just as I don’t allow my niece to assign her lost toys to gnomes, I don’t allow anyone to assign anything to the vacuum. But in dismissing zero-point energy, I do not dismiss huge pools of untapped energy at the quantum level. I only point out that these pools of energy are not hidden in the vacuum, they are hidden behind decades of bad math and poorly defined fields. And they may be hidden there on purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: From all this, we can see that the effort to conserve symmetry and express lack of parity in weak interactions was misplaced to begin with. We don’t have to conserve parity or symmetry, since the experimental set-up doesn’t contain it to begin with. Since we don’t have to conserve it, we don’t have to express conservation or non-conservation in the equations. Yes, the equations will show non-conservation after we run them, but they don’t have to contain the symmetries before we run them. We don’t need to choose fancy maths that have the symmetries built into them, since the numbers need to be free to express themselves without prior finessing. Beyond that, I have shown that these gauge fields are worse than a nuisance. Because they have built-in symmetries, the mathematicians begin to pay more attention to the symmetries in the math than the symmetries or lack of symmetries in nature. These new maths are intrusive and presumptuous. More than that, they are misleading. More than that, they are false. The facts at hand should set the gauges, not the choice of matrices. The problems we encounter should tell us how many dimensions or symmetries or rows or columns we need, not the math. We should control the math, not the reverse.
As disastrous as the choice of math has been, the choice to borrow from the vacuum was even more disastrous. I have shown that it wasn’t necessary to begin with, since there was no symmetry that needed to be broken, spontaneously or no. But the very fact that physicists would even think to get involved in such manipulations is a permanent black-eye for the field of physics. Future centuries will be appalled, since, while past scientists may have been able to plead ignorance, we cannot. Modern scientists have spent many off-hours claiming to be superior to religion and magic, as we see now with Richard Dawkins and as we saw with Richard Feynman and his cargo cult lectures. But borrowing from the vacuum is sub-magical and sub-religious, since it isn’t even done with a bow to the unknown. It is nothing less than a towering intellectual fraud, a hubristic hypocrisy of cosmic proportions, performed in full view, with a thumbs up from the Nobel Committee. It would be impossible to criticize theories like this too harshly, since they are both the cause and the effect of a century-long global and local corruption of academia and all things rational. Nor is it just the Diracs and Higgs and Feynmans and Gell-Manns and Weinbergs that are guilty of this fraud, since the entire field, the entire intellectual community, has crumbled at their feet, offering supplication and reward.
Well, not me. I want as much separation from this corruption as possible, which is why I purposely write these papers in the tone of an agon. Being alone in my musings does not frighten me nearly as much as being feted by committees for institutional fraud.
http://milesmathis.com/weak2.html
