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

Keith Foote's image for:
"Is the Standard Model the best Model of our Physical World - No"
Image by: 

The standard model is essentially a particle theory model, with severe reductionist limitations. (Consider that in over one hundred of use, we have no technologies based on the photon model.) It works well for mathematicians making limited predictions, but fails to provide a functional model of physics, overall. The standard model attempts to break field energies, such as gravity, electricity, and magnetism, into component particles. Particle physics, should be a subdivision of physics as a whole. Instead, it has been projected ono reality as an explanation for all physical phenomenon. (It reminds me of pounding nails with a screwdriver.)

Personally, I'm in favor of a more all encompassing field theory model. This field theory model includes particles, but defines them as requiring a gravity field, a contraction of space. A field energy lacking a gravity field is not defined as a particle, or as matter. As an example of dysfuctionality, the standard model does not even include gravity in its equations. The field theory model, called the Ultra-Space Field Theory, examines field energy characteristics. Electrons and positrons, as field energies, behave very much like the north and south poles of a magnet. Electrons are attracted to positrons and repel other electrons. When approaching a magnetic field, electrons veer off to the east, and positrons to the west. Based on these characteristics, electrons and positrons are described as east and west monopoles (field energies rather than particles).

As a side note, the standard model assigns a gravity field to electrons and positrons (in spite of the fact that gravity is not used in their equations). Though there is no evidence of gravitational attraction, it is assumed their resistance to movement is caused by gravity. (Have you ever dragged your hand through water?)
Lacking evidence, the new model does not assign a gravity field to electrons and positrons.

This field theory model also ignores the assumption electrons and positrons annhilate on contact. The assumption of negative and positive characteristics is a leftover from a time when vacuums and pumps were the popular physics model. Static electricity (electrons) was thought to move from high pressure areas to low pressure areas. In this model, when a west pole and an east pole join, they contract in on one another, absorbing the majority of each others field energies and creating a new field entity called a thermon.

The thermon is significantly smaller than its component parts, as they are contracting in on one another. It has a gravity field and a magnetic field. (The thermon is actually a more evolved variation of Paul Dirac's
work on pair production.) The thermon provides an explanation for dark matter and an electromagnetic medium for the transport of electromagnetic waves (photons not included). Thermons represent Planck's oscillators
and energy fields called a phonons.

Because thermons can be polarized by way of their magnetic fields, they provide an alternative explanation for polarized light. The magnetic and electric energies of the thermons are aligned as the EM waves pass through them. Polarized light is not made of transverse waves in this model. Instead, the medium is polarized, with the EM waves carrying those alignment signatures for a short time after leaving the polarized medium. The photon model has never explained polarized light.

There are better models out there, but the prestigous members of the physics community have tied their reputations to the standard model. They don't want to lose their grants, the respect of their peers, or to go down in history as misinformed idiots. Some of them have looked over the wall they've built and are beginning to sweat. Real changes will not come from the academics. They will come from technologists and inventors.

More about this author: Keith Foote

From Around the Web