Fundamental particles

The smaller the part, the more fundamental it is, in general. A city for example is made of buildings, and the buildings are made of bricks. And the brick then can be seen as fundamental building-block of the city.
Now suppose there would exist a miraculous brick. A brick that, after you shoot it apart into fragments or even smash it into powder, becomes a brick again, automatically and within a fraction of a second.
Are these fragments then more fundamental than the miraculous brick, since they are smaller? No, I think. Not the size but the durability defines whether a part is fundamental or not. And in this case, the self-(re)forming brick is durable and not the fragments.
Such a miraculous brick seems to have a soul, seems to be a spirit. Not only a form, but also a forming. The fragments at the most are material, used by the brick-spirit to form itself.

The proton and also the neutron are such miraculous bricks. Physicists shoot protons into fragments in particle-accelerators. But within a fraction of a second, these fragments form protons again, as if the proton is a self-forming spirit. And physicists are building ever bigger accelerators, so that in the end the proton can be pulverized into 'powder'. And this 'powder' too then will automatically unite again to form a proton again.
At the moment, physicists consider these fragments to be more fundamental than the proton itself, since the fragments are smaller. They then try to arrange these fragments in all kinds of mathematical ways, trying to find laws. But the only real law they discover then is that these fragments always unite again to form a proton again, within a fraction of a second.

So I think that protons, neutrons and electrons are the most fundamental building-blocks of our reality. The 'existence' of quarks (three in every proton) then might be the result of the fact that the proton is a three-dimensional space-time event.
Furthermore I think that it makes sense to divide space into inner- and outer-space. Outside the atoms we experience the well known outer-space with the equally well known three outer-dimensions. Inside atoms there exists inner-space with three own inner-dimensions, and therefore six inner-directions (see more about this elsewhere on this website).

Inner- and outer-directions.

There then also will exist a difference in character between outer-force like the electromagnetic force and inner-force like the strong nuclear force. It is as if the time-direction inside the nucleus of an atom is opposite to the time-direction outside atoms. In the outer-space, the bigger parts all fall apart into smaller parts in the end. In the inner-space however, the smaller fragments automatically fall together into protons. Shooting a proton into pieces then is like shooting a proton to the past; it will come to the now again then as soon as possible.

So physics nearly is finished, I think. The Theory of All already is there, nearly. Because the standard model, wherein particles are divided into three groups, photons and family, electrons and family and thirdly quarks, works quite well.
However, this theory is not the Theory of All but only the Theory of the Brick. And like understanding the brick does not involve understanding the city, in the same way understanding the proton-electron couple does not mean understanding nature.

Only gravity can not easily be incorporated in the standard model. And that might be caused by the fact that gravity is not caused by mass, like everybody seems to think, but is caused by variations in the speed of light (see elsewhere on this website; Physics I.5). And when I see that right, then physics also can stop searching for invisible mass; the amount of gravity in our cosmos is much bigger than the amount of visible mass can cause; so there must be much more mass, they think, when mass is the cause of gravity.

What I also want to say with this article, is that according to me it is quite useless to build ever bigger particle-accelerators, in order to pulverize protons in the end into 'powder'. We better can use these billions of dollars elsewhere on earth, to help the poor people for instance.

Jan Helderman


To SiteMapVersion
(if you see this page stand alone)