|WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT IS ASSUMED|
tangible that exists in our universe can be described by mathematics;
Quark theory, with many of its uncomfortable assumptions has rarely been seriously challenged. It has become the dogma of sub-atomic physics, the "Standard Model". Nobel Prizes have been awarded according to it, but, basic assumptions or axioms must be carefully considered when formulating a theory. If the axioms are faulty, the theory will be problematic at best and doomed to eventual failure.
The energy-mass equation E=MC˛, from Einstein's special relativity theory, is a universal axiom. It reduces everything that is physically tangible down to one thing, energy-mass. Energy-mass is transformable and composes everything from charged particles to galactic clusters. An all-embracing theory should explain how charged particles are derived from energy-mass. As far as we've been able to observe, at our level of existence, from the nucleus of the atom on out, up to the gigantic walls of galactic clusters, we live in a classical, cause and effect universe, that is governed by mechanism and method. It would not be illogical or unrealistic to assume that there is some classical mechanism or system, which causes energy-mass to be transmuted into charged particles. Further, that the method which creates particles of a positive charge differs, in some way, from that which creates particles of negative charge. Various particles spontaneously generating into existence from out of the void may be mathematically plausible and convenient, (Uncertainty Principle) but that doesn't explain what is causing these phenomena to occur. Classical systems have been shunned by physicists ever since the Copenhagen interpretation in 1927. Quantum mechanics my be excellent when considering the probabilities of the wave-particle duality of the photon, but fail when trying to interpret classical physics, like the works of Einstein and the internal mechanics of the proton.
"Quark theory", is essentially a set of balanced mathematical equations, that theorists employ to account for the difference between the positively charged proton and the more massive, neutral, neutron, and the phenomenon observed in beta-decay, when a neutron decays into a proton releasing mass and energy, usually in the form of an electron and an anti-neutrino.
First predicted by the great mathematician Dirac in 1928, around 1930 an anti-matter particle called the positron was discovered. It was found to be the exact same mass and charge value as the negatively charged electron, only it carried a positive charge. It has been observed and confirmed extensively that the positron and the electron, being of opposite charge, are attracted to and annihilate each other in a violent collision when they meet, decaying in a flash of high energy gamma-ray photons. Quarks are proposed to be positively and negatively charged entities that compose the nucleons. Why don’t positively and negatively charged quarks within the nucleons seek out and annihilate each other violently as electrons and positrons do?
Quark theory, an initially simple system of (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = (+3/3) = +1 for the proton, which is opposite the charge of -1 for the electron, and (+2/3) + (-1/3) + (-1/3) = 0, for the neutron, has evolved according to modern physics into, ”The context of the proton debates has been QCD, (Quantum Chromo-Dynamics) which includes 8 gluon fields, and where the quarks live in 3 continuous complex dimensions called "color". There are no point-like particles, it is all continuum Jell-O and the color charges swapped among the gluons and quarks flow in patterns nobody really understands. It has to be true that the color charge flows "in and out" because it's allowed." And that’s just to describe the proton! Allowed means any forces and or properties of nature can be assumed as axioms, if the mathematics works, according to the “Uncertainty Principle". It seems that adding positive and negative numbers together on paper to equal zero is easier than combining positive and negative particles which don’t. Quarks, with their odd, counter-intuitive, mysterious assumed forces, particles and at least three other dimensions when describing the internal processes of the nucleons, of the atoms, that make up our world are a bit of a stretch. Quarks, so far, seem to be hypothetical particles of an elegant mathematical theory in quest of physical validity. Well, if not quark theory then what? Is there a model that can explain the duality of the quantized wave-particle, the dynamics of the nucleus, show that the four forces of physics are just variations of one basic force and do it in just the three dimensions of space and the one of time that we’ve all come to know and love?
The classical hypothesis which follows is based on the principles of electro-dynamic field interactions and a type of research known as exclusive reactions (T-scattering). In these types of experiments neither the projectile nor target particles are destroyed. The projectile, in this case, the electron, is used to probe the surface and inside of the target proton particle (liquid hydrogen), by means of their deflections.