The New Science 9
Wild and Wacky World of Particle Physics
Where does deception hide? In the junctions and crevasses, like over-complication in Physics.
“If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” Scientists need to be flexible enough to discard the “Standard Model” if it isn’t working.
You step back — and discard it, then start again, with what you know from repeatable (reproducible) experiment, then listen to everyone’s ideas, using them to build up a new model, where said model is free of all self-contradictions.
The Standard Model of physics is a device used to describe/model the atomic and subatomic world.
Let’s look at what they admit to. Good old Google A.I. helps us explain the model, and then find the holes.
The model is built on three core tenets:
1. Fundamental Building Blocks (Fermions)
All ordinary matter is composed of 12 elementary particles called fermions, which have half-integer spin. These are organized into two groups, each consisting of three generations:
- Quarks: These carry a “color charge” and participate in the strong interaction. There are six types: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom. Quarks combine to form composite particles like protons and neutrons.
- Leptons: These do not carry color charge and do not feel the strong force. The six leptons include the electron, muon, and tau, along with their three corresponding neutrinos.
2. Fundamental Forces and Carriers (Bosons)
The Standard Model explains three of the four fundamental forces through the exchange of force-carrying particles called gauge bosons:
- Electromagnetism: Mediated by the photon, it affects all electrically charged particles.
- Strong Force: Mediated by gluons, it binds quarks together to form nuclei. It is characterized by “confinement” (quarks cannot exist in isolation) and “asymptotic freedom” (the force weakens at very high energies).
- Weak Force: Mediated by the massive W and Z bosons, it is responsible for nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, such as beta decay.
3. The Origin of Mass (The Higgs Mechanism)
Mass is not an inherent property of elementary particles but is generated through their interaction with the Higgs field, which pervades the entire universe. The Higgs boson, discovered in 2012, is the physical manifestation of this field. Particles that interact more strongly with the Higgs field acquire more mass; those that do not interact with it, such as photons, remain massless.
That is the theory, and here are the so-called successes, and the holes. (The claimed successes are questionable, because they aren’t consistent with the rules we have developed, but are mere assertions.)
The Standard Model of physics is a highly successful theory for explaining subatomic interactions, but it is known to be incomplete. It boasts numerous experimentally verified predictions but struggles with fundamental aspects of the universe, such as gravity and dark matter.
Successes of the Standard Model
The Standard Model has provided an exceptionally accurate framework for understanding the universe at the smallest scales.
Explains three of the four fundamental forces: It successfully describes the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces.
Predicts fundamental particles: The model predicted the existence of numerous particles that were later discovered experimentally, including the W and Z bosons, gluons, charm and top quarks, and the tau neutrino.
Discovery of the Higgs boson: The 2012 discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN was a monumental success, confirming the mechanism by which fundamental particles acquire mass (the Higgs mechanism).
Extraordinarily accurate predictions: The Standard Model has made thousands of precise predictions about particle behavior and decay rates, which have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of accuracy.
Basis for the standard model of cosmology: It provides the foundation for the matter content in the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, even though it cannot explain all cosmological observations.
Failings, Kludges, and Patches
Despite its successes, the Standard Model has significant limitations and aspects that many physicists consider theoretically “unsatisfactory” or inelegant.
Major Failings
Exclusion of Gravity: The most significant failure is its inability to incorporate gravity into a consistent quantum field theory. Gravity is the only fundamental force not described by the model, rendering it incomplete as a “theory of everything”.
Does not explain Dark Matter: Dark matter makes up about 27% of the universe’s mass-energy, yet the Standard Model provides no particle candidates for it. Its existence is only inferred through gravitational effects.
Does not explain Dark Energy: Dark energy, believed to be responsible for the universe’s accelerating expansion and making up about 68% of its energy density, is completely unexplained by the Standard Model.
Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: The model predicts that the Big Bang should have produced nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which would have annihilated each other. It fails to explain the observed predominance of matter in the universe.
Theoretical Kludges/Patches
Neutrino Mass: The original Standard Model assumed neutrinos were massless. The discovery of neutrino oscillation proved they have mass. This observation had to be “patched” into the model by adding mass terms “by hand,” rather than being a natural prediction of the theory.
Hierarchy Problem (Fine-tuning): There is a massive, unexplained discrepancy (16 orders of magnitude) between the electroweak scale (where the Higgs mechanism operates) and the Planck scale (where quantum gravity effects should appear). To make the math work, the Higgs boson’s mass requires an unnatural and precise cancellation (fine-tuning) of quantum corrections, a solution many theorists find inelegant.
Arbitrary Parameters: The Standard Model requires at least 19, and possibly more (up to 25 with neutrino masses), arbitrary parameters (such as particle masses, coupling constants, and mixing angles) whose values must be measured experimentally rather than being predicted by the theory itself. Many physicists feel a truly fundamental theory should derive these values from first principles.
Strong CP Problem: The model allows for a term in the strong interaction that would violate CP symmetry (a type of matter-antimatter symmetry), but experimentally, this violation has never been observed in the strong force, meaning the parameter for this term must be unnaturally close to zero.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are only hypothesized. Digging deeper into the problems:
1. The Neutron Lifetime Mystery
There are two different ways to measure a neutron’s life, and they persistently give different results:
The “Bottle” Method: Scientists trap neutrons in a container and count how many remain after a set time. This yields a lifetime of approximately 878.5 seconds.
The “Beam” Method: Scientists observe a stream of neutrons and count the protons appearing as they decay. This yields approximately 887.7 seconds.
The Anomaly: This ~9-second discrepancy remains unexplained and may hint at unknown physics, such as neutrons decaying into “dark matter” particles.
2. Neutrino “Ghost” Anomalies
Neutrinos are nearly massless and barely interact with matter, but they possess several strange traits:
Flavor Oscillation: They spontaneously change between three types (electron, muon, and tau) as they travel.
The “Sterile” Neutrino Debunking: For 30 years, researchers suspected a fourth “sterile” neutrino existed to explain certain data. However, high-precision results released in January 2026 have largely ruled out this explanation, leaving the original data as an even deeper mystery.
3. Strange Quarks and Color Confinement
Quarks, the building blocks of protons and neutrons, have properties that defy common sense:
Color Confinement: You can never find a single quark on its own. They are bound so tightly by the strong force that if you try to pull them apart, the energy used simply creates a new pair of quarks. Mass Anomaly: The three quarks inside a proton only account for about 1% of its mass. The other 99% comes from the kinetic energy of the gluons and the “quantum vacuum” inside the proton.
4. Flavor and Chirality Asymmetries
Some particles exhibit a “handedness” (chirality) that seems lopsided in nature:
The W Boson Bias: In the weak force, only “left-handed” particles interact with W bosons. Right-handed neutrinos have never been observed in nature, a fundamental asymmetry that is not fully understood.
Matter vs. Antimatter: Theoretically, the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which would have annihilated each other. The fact that a tiny excess of matter survived to form the universe remains a major anomaly.
5. Emerging “X17” and Paraparticles
Recent experiments have suggested the existence of entirely new classes of particles:
X17 Particle: Observations of decaying beryllium-8 nuclei show electron-positron pairs flying off at unexpected angles. This suggests a new, lightweight boson (nicknamed X17) might be mediating a fifth force of nature.
Paraparticles: Theoretical models in early 2025 proposed “paraparticles,” a third category beyond the standard bosons and fermions, which could exist in 1D or 2D quantum systems.
Note that talk of a new “fifth force of nature.” And new “third category” of particles (“in 1D or 2D quantum systems”(?!)).
Never mind all their weird, magical inventions like color, up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom, chirality, which all seem more like obfuscation than advancement.
This addled approach to science is what we might call the work of midwit brains in action. It’s a recourse they always seem to fall back on, adding more layers of epicycles that we’ve lamented previously. To make it clear: You cannot resolve complication by introducing yet more complication, then calling it a day! That’s a restatement of our known rule that the essence of progress is simplification, not complication.
On further consideration, some of this stuff is not even midwit-level, but nitwit-level stuff. Look at this gem: “explains... fundamental forces through the exchange of force-carrying particles.”
So, the model explains forces, by saying there are particles carrying forces. Self-referential definitions and explanations of this form are fallacious.
Fudge Factors
Where the theory fails, most people would agree I think, is in describing the precise nature of low energy bound states - it gets the approximate chiral symmetry of the basic mesons correct for the first two or three flavours, and this is no small feat, and it explains why current algebra worked in the first place, but there are many, many outstanding details of the resonance spectrum that are simply out of reach calculationally speaking and that likely always will be...
So for example even in calculating J/Psi particle decays, for which the charm quark already has a mass of 1.2 GeV which is much bigger than the QCD scale factor in the MS bar scheme, you start to see “K factors” (these are what I personally would call without hesitation fudge factors) being employed which are of the order of 2.
- David Kahana, MSc physics, on Quora
Our rule states that if there’s a “fudge factor,” or the theory fails in some way, it’s back to the drawing board, not, “let’s cover it up with more rhetoric.”
Fusion Follies
The faulty nuclear model means the quest for nuclear fusion is a crock.
We already saw how they had to change the model because it doesn’t properly explain the electron shell, but that was just the start of it.
They can’t even get straight what atoms are made of. They say the nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons, and then turn around and try to sell the notion that free neutrons, outside of an atomic nucleus, only last 15 minutes, before decaying.
Weirdly, they never told us in Physics class that neutrons only last 15 minutes!
Probably because it is so ridiculous it would raise uncomfortable questions. How do they know if what they have in the free state actually are neutrons, then? Why don’t they decay in the nucleus? More disturbing is, this never seems to come up as a question or a research topic that they are pursuing!
Of course, perhaps an even bigger issue is that of why all these + charged protons in the nucleus don’t fly apart. So they concocted a strange explanation: It’s “gluons.” But wait it’s the “strong nuclear force” that holds it together. Oh, the gluons “mediate” the strong force. They’re again just making ad hoc assumptions, airy-fairy patches they pull out of a hat.
Insanity is this incessant patching of a bad model.
So what’s the rule for these situations? Not a rule, but a rule of thumb, is, if you’re spending more time patching the thing, rather than making new discoveries and corollaries that work, your theory is a bust. If you’re spending inordinate amounts of taxpayer money on it, it’s a bust. If more anomalies, kludges and mysteries start to pile up than verifications and new insights, your model/theory is a bust.
Muons
Then, there is the “muon.” They spend terrific sums, every year, on “muon research.” Why is that? And what a suspicious money pit.
A.I.: Muons, often called “fat electrons” because they share the electron’s properties but are 207 times heavier, have been at the center of some of the most famous anomalies in modern physics.
As of January 2026, here are the primary anomalies and recent resolutions regarding muons:
1. The Muon g-2 “Wobble” Mystery (Resolved 2025)
For decades, the way muons “wobbled” (precessed) in a magnetic field seemed to defy the Standard Model of physics, suggesting the presence of undiscovered particles or a fifth force of nature.
The Anomaly: Experimental measurements of the muon’s magnetic moment (g-2) consistently showed a stronger magnetic field than theoretical models predicted.
The 2025 Conclusion: In June 2025, the Fermilab Muon g-2 experiment released its final, most precise results. Simultaneously, new theoretical calculations (using lattice QCD) moved closer to the experimental data.
Status: The “anomaly” has largely vanished. The updated theory and experimental data now align, effectively “saving” the Standard Model and ruling out many theories that required new physics to explain the gap.
2. The Proton Radius Puzzle
The “proton radius puzzle” involves using muons to measure the size of a proton, which yielded a significantly different result than measurements using electrons.
The Experiment: When a muon replaces an electron in a hydrogen atom (creating “muonic hydrogen”), it orbits much closer to the proton. This allows for a more sensitive measurement of the proton’s charge radius.
The Discrepancy: Muon-based measurements found a proton radius about 4% smaller than previous electron-based measurements.
Current Standing: While some 2025 research suggests this might be due to experimental errors in the older electron measurements, other scientists still investigate if muons interact with protons slightly differently than electrons do.
3. Muon-Induced Neutron Anomalies
In early 2025, researchers noted a statistically significant excess of neutrons emitted when muons interacted with lead targets in deep underground labs.
The Anomaly: The number of neutrons produced didn’t follow the expected mathematical “power-law” patterns.
Significance: This could suggest unknown ways that high-energy muons transfer energy to atomic nuclei, though more underground measurements are needed to confirm the origin.
4. Cosmic Muon “Bit Flips”
Because muons are highly penetrating, they can reach the Earth’s surface and pass through solid matter, including computer hardware.
The Anomaly: Muons can cause “Single Event Upsets” (bit flips), where they randomly flip a 0 to a 1 in a computer’s memory. This has been linked to everything from unexplained airplane glitches to rare errors in electronic voting results.
5. Time Dilation Proof
While not an anomaly in the sense of “broken physics,” muons provide a real-world “anomalous” proof of Einstein’s relativity.
The Fact: A muon’s natural lifespan is only 2.2 microseconds.
The Anomaly: Even at the speed of light, they should only travel about 660 meters before decaying. However, we detect them at sea level after they travel 10,000+ meters from the upper atmosphere. Explanation: From our perspective, the muon’s internal clock slows down so much due to its high speed that it “lives” long enough to reach the ground.
Their measurements sure must be fancy to home in on such short-lived particles.
Q: Wow, what is the latency period of these detectors and the laser pulser?
A.I.: In the high-precision world of muonic hydrogen spectroscopy, every nanosecond counts. As of 2026, the latency between detecting an incoming muon and firing the laser pulse is engineered to be extremely short—typically under 1 microsecond.
1. Detector Latency
To trigger the system, scientists must detect the muon before it stops in the hydrogen target:
Entrance Detectors: At facilities like the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), muons pass through ultra-thin carbon foils (just 20nm thick).
Signal Conversion: As the muon passes through these foils, it ejects electrons that are detected by scintillators and photomultipliers (PMTs).
Total Detector Latency: These hardware components operate on a nanosecond scale. The primary “delay” is actually the time-of-flight (the time it takes for the muon to travel from the foils to the gas target), which is carefully calculated to ensure the muon has actually reached the stop volume before the laser fires.
2. Laser Pulser Latency
The most difficult challenge is the “stochastic trigger”—the laser must sit in a ready state and fire immediately upon receiving a random signal from a muon.
Target Response Time: Modern thin-disk laser systems (TDL) used in these experiments have a total delay between trigger and emission of shorter than 1 µs.
Internal Delay: In older excimer-based systems, internal electronics alone took about 1.2 µs. Newer Yb:YAG oscillators can produce pulses just 200 ns after a trigger.
Pulse Build-up: Once triggered, the laser cavity is “closed” to allow a fast pulse build-up, and then “opened” (Q-switched) to release the energy in a burst only 5–7 nanoseconds long.
3. Total Experimental Window
The timing is so tight because of the muon’s decay and the quenching of the atom’s state:
The 2S State Window: Only about 1.1% of muons form the specific “2S” state needed for measurement. In the low-pressure hydrogen gas used, this state has a lifetime of roughly 1.0 to 1.3 µs.
Laser Arrival: The laser pulse typically arrives at the target roughly 900 nanoseconds after the muon stops.
Measurement: On resonance, the laser-induced transition occurs, and a detector records the resulting X-ray emission. Because the entire process fits within that 1-microsecond window, the measurement is completed before the muon decays into an electron and neutrinos.
One must wonder just how much money they’re piling into this boondoggle.
Q: Is there some point to (continual muon research)?
A.I.: Practical Applications & Monetary Returns
The “monetary return” on muon research comes from its ability to “see” through solid objects where X-rays cannot, saving billions in industrial costs.
Summary of Estimated Costs of Various Muon Projects (2026)
| Project Type | Budget |
| Proposed International Muon Collider: | $10B – $18B (estimated total) |
| Annual US High Energy Physics Budget: | ~$1.11B (FY 2026 Request) |
| Commercial Space Contracts: | ~$44.6M (Muon Space/USSF) |
| Archeological Muon Tomography: | <$200 per sensor unit |
That’s a lot of scratch (and that’s just for one year). Seeing through objects must be pretty valuable. But why do they need continued research for this imager, if it’s a proven technology?
Q: How long have they been able to use this imaging?
A.I.: Scientists have been able to use muon imaging for over 70 years, with the first successful application dating back to 1955. While it shares the same basic principle as X-ray imaging—measuring the attenuation of particles through matter—it differs significantly in scale, source, and penetration power.
This muon madness is in part to fuel their obsession with Special Relativity (S.R.) theory, which revisits a theme we’ve identified before: patching bad theories with phony research. Without this “iron-clad proof,” their S.R. doesn’t have much to stand on.
They say these muons last longer due to their high speed, but there’s no way of knowing where the measured muons formed in the first place (they claim muons form high in the atmosphere, and are going so fast they live long enough to be detected on the ground, whereas “stopped muons” live a much shorter time).
However, there’s no telling where their “falling muons” are actually generated, since they can readily be produced in the lower atmosphere. Of course they concoct excuses and say, well, there are more generated in the upper atmosphere. We face a similar issue with the neutron, where there’s no telling if the neutron of the atomic nucleus is the same as the “free neutrons” they claim to measure, and which only have a 15 minute lifespan.
Fudge Factor
It’s stunning, how much the Lorentz factor is a fudge factor.
Lorentz Contraction
Lorentz (time contraction) factor = 1/sqrt(1 - v2/c2), where v is the particle speed, c the speed of light, about 300,000 kilometers/second. If your particle is traveling at 0.99c, time is said to be slowed 7 times. At 0.999999c, it’s 707 times. So, theoretically, if some space Jokers were buzzing around the universe at that speed, they’d live an average ~56000 years, from our perspective on Earth. Which raises an issue. Scientists measure these muons from the sky, and can work the math in reverse to get whatever results they want, because they can’t know the muon speed exactly. Small changes in speed can, theoretically, have an enormous effect on the particle’s lifetime. Their muon can last any arbitrary time, and they can simply say, “Oh, the particle was traveling at the speed that made it last that long.”
Atom Creation
Q: How do atoms come together in the first place, before binding by gluons, if they repel?
A.I.: Atoms come together through a process called nucleosynthesis, which requires extreme physical conditions to overcome the natural repulsion between particles.
The Name Game again. Just doling out some label, “nucleosynthesis,” doesn’t act as explanation. Further, their idea of how atoms assemble is presented without any proof. You can see this if you reformulate the “answer,” as, “Atoms come together through a process called, ‘coming together,’ which requires physical conditions we can’t test or verify or reproduce, but just trust us.”
By constant “tests” — like this “chase the muon” nonsense — and secretive revisions and tweaks, they can keep the game alive indefinitely. Nothing is ever conclusive, nothing ever develops into brilliant new insights, just the same old, same old, on and on.
Another lovable trait of these buffoons is their constant deceptive language, which should have tagged them as phonies long ago. “This process is not fully understood.” “The anomaly has largely vanished.” Instead of speaking honestly, they have to arrogantly couch their words in self-aggrandizing ways. Simply saying, “It’s not understood,” is enough, we don’t need their implication that though it’s not “fully” understood, they have a good handle on it, when they don’t really have a clue. If it (an anomaly that goes against theory) has “largely” vanished, that means it hasn’t actually vanished, or they’d say “it has completely vanished.” Weasel words. Another quirk is how they don’t simply “calculate” things, and certainly do not “recklessly calculate” things, no, everything they do is “carefully calculated.”
And So...
It’s not like all these billions or trillions spent are solving our problems. If the only tangible fruit of their labors is something from 70 years ago, we’re the ones with the problem, in our naive support of these money grubbers and their money pits.
We need scientists working on the other side of the fence, working on the hypothesis that the Standard Model is not true, and figuring out how observations could square with that.
It’s important to understand, that these articles are not an attack on existing science, which of course does have its successes, merely a call for further investigation. People do have to be rigorously scientific, and be willing to accept criticism, be they scientists or laymen. For, it’s in the examination of the suspicious areas, the anomalies and inconsistencies, and our willingness to admit when we are wrong and change our perspective, that the discoveries and breakthroughs are made.
Comments