THE MODERN PARTICLE PHYSICS A BRIEF ANALYSIS By Ove Tedenstig, Idungatan 37 19551 Maersta/Sweden Date : 23/1-1995 Today, enormous resources are spent in atomic and particle research, all in order to come to a more basic understanding of these physical laws active on the micro_cosmic level of matter. A great amount of measuring data now is available for diffe- rent particle forms, found by experiments, and this quantity still increases as the technical measuring methods and measu- ring equipments are developing and improving. The total number of registered particle forms now exceeds more than a hundred of particles of more or less "elementary" nature. New particles are continuously found and many experi- mentalists think there really doesn't exists any upper limit for it. Machines are constructed with kilometres in circumference for the onrushing particles. The technical problems of construc- ting such equipments must be enormeous, but it seems as these problems are solved very successfully by engineers,technicans and scientist working with this special part of the problem. Hence, the critical part of the particle reserach seems not to be on the practical level by arranging and performing these experiments but instead in these theories constituting the theoretical background and motivation of performing these experiments. Obviously, the problems on the theorietical plane must be considerable, since enormeous efforts have been done by the most brilliant scientists during many decades, but without still not offering any convincing theory explaining why these particles exists and why these particles behave as they do. All official theories currently existing are grounded on the idea of "quarks". The word "quark" is from the beginning a nonsence word given to those hypothetical particles supposed to be the intrinsic constituents of particles seen and registered in experiments. There exists several theories with small differences, but as a matter of principle the basic ideas are the same in all of them, namely that quarks are the basic building block of matter. The idea is that many well known particles are built up by these constituents and by combinatory laws, all known particle forms is said to be explained. When the quark idea for the first time was presented, not all took this idea seriously, but in time to that more and more new particles where registered and documented, a need of a system was accentuated. The quark model was relatively satisfactory and simple and was by this reason accepted as a base for a systematizing. From the beginning the quark theories were very simple in its basic assumptions. Three quark particles were thought to explain the basic structure of known particles at this time, but it happened quite suprisingly that new more heavy particle forms were found, not at all awaited. The situation in the theoretical particle physics then become critical, but the theorist "solved" this problem in a very elegant way, simply by inventing a set of new quarks and also a set of other pure hypothetical particles. And as result of that, today the number of quarks are six in total, all aimed of achieving a consistent theory. Desprite of these troubles, the situation was not so alarming, the idea of quarks still was a relatively simple and intact building. But one problem was that no quarks in free state were found, the quarks had a somewhat curious property always apperaring in bounded states together with other quarks. For many scientists this quarks property was very hard to understand- or even to accept - and a hint of finding free quarks was started. But without any positive results. Still, there are today no signs on that quarks really exist, the only some positive experiment done is shattering experi- ments using protons and neutrons as targets. Bombarding these particles with lighter particles, it is said that these expe- riments could be interpreted so that there is a grain struc- ture in the protons. But such experiments are very hard to avaluate because they are indirect methods which must be interpreted by using other physical laws, only supposed to be valid on this level of matter. And the experimental outcome even can be interpreted from totally different standpoints. A very strange property of the quarks- and an absolute necessary property - is that they have fractional electric charges,which means equal to 1/3 and 2/3 of the electron unit charge.The search for such fractional charges has been going on intensively for long time and over optimistic researchers from time to time also have reported that they have found signs in this direction. But trying to repeat the experiments always have given failed results. So, still after searching in more than 25 years, there is no real signs on that fract- tional charges really exist. Hence, the smallest existing charge unity of 1.602E-19 As - equal to the base unit of "1" still remain unchanged. If those fractional electrical charges should exist, and by this way also the quarks,those fractional charges 1/3 and 2/3 respectively of the unit charge must be exact, otherwise a difference easily would be detected in the macro-cosmical world, that because the electric charge is additive in charac- ter. For example,an atomic nucleus containing a lot of charg- ed units , and if a very small divergence would exists, that would be manifested in a large difference on the macro cosmi- cal level. A great number of experiments have been performed in aim to come to a final solution,but up to this point there have been no successful reports. However, there are many other serious problems with the quark model as well as in the particle physics in common. All the time the model is in trouble, new hypothetical particles and properites of matter are invented. That temporarily and appa- rently seems to solve the problems, but in the long run to the prize of a more and more complex and inconceivable theory building. The simplicity of the original idea has been lost and the chance of having a simple description of nature seems more and more remote. As an example on such a situation was when one was forced to give up "Pauli's exclusion principle" - one of the most fun- damental principle in the atomic physics, but necessarely not at all valid in the particle physics. Shortly, this principle says that two particles cannot stay within the same electro- magnetical phase room at the same time if they both have the same quantum mechanical properties.But in the model of quarks it easily happen that three quarks get the same basic quantum properties when put together, hence being in conflict with this basic principle. In aim to walk around this problem, a new property of matter and quarks francly was invented, resul- ting in that all these quarks from the view of quantum mecha- nical rules suddenly were equivalent. This new quality of the quarks was given the name "colour". Three such colours exist, but sorry to say, no one have the least idea about what this new property of nature represents. Working in this way seems desperate and dishonest.Temporarily and apparently one seems to solve a problem and avoiding an acute crisis, but at the same time create new problems which later on have to be solved. The total number of unsolved pro- blems will in this way steadily increase instead of converge towards a more simple and easy understandable theory. And in the long run it will collaps by own force. ------ Strong forces are supposed to act between quarks which hold them together. For this aim are needed mediating force par- particles acting between quarks, which generate these forces. In electromagnetic theory photons are supposed to be these interacting force particles, the same type of particles bea- ring the visible light, radio waves etcetera. Hovewer, thee forces acting between quarks are considerably more larger than those forces acting between electric charged particles. So photons are not enough in this case. Therefore one needs another particles for this purpose, particles with a conside- rably higher energy content than that of photons. These parti- les - even these pure hypothetical ones - have been given the name of "gluons" from a thought analogy with a "glue" binding things together. Many such gluons are needed in the quark mo- model, but serious theoretical problems exist regarding these particles, they have a very strange property which has no correlation with known properties of common matter - namely- they have a large content of energy but lack measurable mass. That property of matter contradict all experiences and known properties of matter and is against the well known and accep- ted realation between mass and energy, the mass energy equiva- lence law from the theory of relativity. It means, that if there are mass,there is also energy, and vise versa. But with aid of some mathematical and strongly speculative tricks even such mad ideas are accepted without any moralic or scien- tific problems. Using Heisenberg's uncertainty priciple- perhaps valid on the atomic level of matter, this seemingly contradictionary objection can be rejected. Otherwise, also the mass of the gluons must be weighted together with the quarks and then the total weight of the particle system (for instance an atom) must be much larger than that corresponding to the sum of all the system components. In aim to conceal this weakness one say that gluons are "virtual massless", which means that these particles exist but cannot be registered or measured ! To this day one have defined the need of 6 different sorts of quarks, having 3 different colours, giving 18 different pos- sible combinations (there are even suggestions of 8 quarks today). Above that an unspecified number of gluon particles are needed, approxemately 12 types , plus a number of other particles situated outside the quark concept, where the lep- tons (to which electrons belong) are the most well known. As a minimum that gives at least 40-50 different kinds of "ele- mentary particles" need for the theory building of quarks !!! Hence, it begun with 3 different quarks which should explain all forms of particles seen in experiments, now the needed numbers are at least 40-50 different particle forms of elementary nature. And in addition to that a lot of other particles are suggested which not fit into the quark model. In New Sceintist 5th of May 1988,we can read the following by John Kenny,particle physicist at Bradley University, Illinois, USA: (I cite) " In the past quarter of a century, physicist have invented a pletora of "particles". To explain the innards of hadrons, the "missing mass" problem of cosmology, and the freedoms that exist in some of˙the more conventional and successful theories, they have postulated a bevy of "particles" to vali-˙ date their assumptions and the theoretical prejudices. Thus, the standard model of the electroweak interaction demands the existence of Higgs sector dominated by Higgs˙fields and a series of at least one, and perhaps up to 20, Higgs bosons. Supersymmetric theories demand the existence of the likes of photinos, gravitios, axions and a series of heavy neutrinos. Some unified versions of field theories demand higgsinos, and when higher dimensions are considered a whole set of particle families make their appearance.˙ There is a danger in all of this classifying of the unexperi- enced. The danger is that, because almost none of these postu- lated particles has serious experimental candidates at pre- sent,modern particle physics could degenerate into filing and cataloguing these highly inflated mental constructs. All too readly they can become mental cul-de-sacs. They can build bas- tions in theory which could readily repulse actual experimen-˙ tal finds which do not meet their specification.˙ It can be argud, and with considerable justification,that the real inflation of our times is in mental constructs such as these. There are so many choises and so many versions that the picture emerging from what should be the most primitive branch of physics (after all,these are supposed to be elemen- elementary particles) is confusing. Just making a catalogue ˙ of these postulated particles is a chore, to say the least, and far from easy.˙ I have made a list of the postulated particles which, as yet, have not been matched with clear experimental finds (see ad- joining list). ˙ The list I arranged alphabetically, and is by no means exhaus- tive,as several of the particles mentioned are generic classi- fications and could in turn represent a whole family of addi- tional particles.˙I have not given references, as even a list of the basic references˙to many of the particles would be as long as a typical particle physical journal.What makes things even more complicated is that many of these particles mean different things in different versions˙of theories. My list presents more than 100 named particles or particle, and many of these could represent several hundred particle states. If just a small percentage of these alleged particles, then the Universe would seem a strange place indeed, in that so little of its mass and energy has been accessible to date.˙ If physicist go on postulating particles at the present rate, they, will come up with more particles than exist in nature. It seems to me that nonexistent particles are already surpas- sing existent particles in number and this could have serious consequences of the future of particle physics. Science cannot become a methodology of filing or classifying the nonexistent, the unexperienced or the experimentally undetectable.If it does, then it soon will degenerate into a series of mnemonic exercises for a coterie of fellow travellers and the ortodox believers in-ions and ions and their like. PARTICLE EXPLOSION: PARTICLES POSTULATED BUT NOT YET CONFIRMED˙ A: alphon,anomalons,arion,axiinstanton,axino,axions B: beiton,Bogolon,bottomium,bradyon˙ C: calaron,centauros,cosmos strings,cosmion,cosmon˙ D: dilaton,domain walls,dyons˙ E: emon,exotic mesons˙ F: familons,flavoron,flucton,Froissarion˙ G: gaugino,geon,glueball,gluino,gluon,goldstino, Goldstone boson, gravitino, graviton, GUM (Grand˙ Unification Mass)˙ H: haplon,heavy neutrinos,higglets,Higgs boson, higgsino,hylon˙ I: instantons,intermediate vector mesons or bosons˙ J: no listed particles˙ K: no listed particles˙ L: luxons˙ M: magnino,majoron,mandela,maximon.mirror particles, meron,monopoles (magnetic) N: neutralino,neutrinos(right handed, simpson,s-heavy), new neutral gauge meson(W'), newtonites, nuclearites O: octonions,odderons˙ P: para-photons,parton,Perry poles,photino,Planck mass, plasmon, pomeron,preon,primatom,primordial black holes, psions, pseude goldstone bosons,pyrgon˙ Q: qark,quark nuggets,quarkonium˙ R: rainon,reggeons,reons,right handed neutrinos,rishons˙ S: sakaton,Schwarzschild mass,screwon,sfermions, shadow matter,˙ Simpson neutrinos,skyrmions,s-neutrino,soliton, spurion, squark,˙ stponium,straton,superon,supersymmetric string mass˙ T: tachyon,techni-particles,toponium,trigluonium,trion˙ U: uniton˙ V: valon,vorton˙ W: WIMP˙ X: X-ons˙ Y: no listed particles˙ Z: zerino,zeron˙ John Kenny has been in touch with me via letter and tells me that he has a similar apprehension and theory as that which I have presented. The main impression got when dealing with these theories is, that they contain a troublesome number of hypothetical assump- tions and contradictory problems. The main reason to the current situation in particle physics is,that there not exists no good and uniting theory for physics in common, too many fundamental phenomena in the physical world are not understood. Until this understanding has been achieved, no fundamental understanding of the particle problem can be achieved. A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW FORCES ARE CREATED IN ACCORD WITH MODERN PHYSICAL THEORY. Newton was one of the pioneers what regards the use of a quantified description of the concept of force in the way for- forces appear in nature. His three basic laws are 1) matter keep its moving state until an opposite force acts on it 2) a force is created when the moving state of an object is chang- ed and 3) if a force is created an equal and opposite force is achieved. All these seemingly very simple and self evident physical laws have been the dominating rules for the evolution and pro- gress of physics since then. No experiments done show that any of these laws of nature are wrong or incomplete, these belong to the natures most fundamental laws valid on all levels of matter. These laws say, that if a force shall arise, it demands that 1) an object has a mesaurable content of mass and 2) that this mass changes its moving state in accord with time. Inversely follows by it that lack of mass not can create a force and that all creation of forces is of dynamical nature, hence claim changes. On macro cosmical level (the things around us sometimes sta- statical forces are defined, but according to Newton's basic concepts such forces do not exist, all forces are of dynamic nature. To give an example- the seemingly statical and con- stant pressure in a car deck or the seemingly constant stretch- ing force in a spring of steel,both these forces are caused by dynamical activities in particles on micro cosmical level of matter, which by their accumulated and cooperative effects of myriads of small forces of impact generate the mesaurable forces on macroscopical level of matter. The important conclusion we must draw from this introducing discussion is that: there is only one principle in nature by which forces are created, this principle is when matter change its moving state as function of time. The concept of force is very fundamentally equipped with the concept of mass- hence absence of mass can not produce˙any force. That statement is for us- now more than 300 years after Newton- self evident, but nevertheless it seems it must be accentuated again and again, that because "the modern physics" has inhibited this very fundamental and incorruptible principle and created their own physical rules. One important activity of the modern physical research today is the attempt to explaining all different forces which appear in nature, also to incorporate them all in a common uniting theory. The "modern physics" describes or classify known forces in nature in line with the following pattern 1) electromangnetic forces 2) strong forces 3) weak forces 4) gravitational forces and 5) hyper-weak forces. The meaning by describing forces in this way is to find a common base for how these different kind of forces work in nature, arranged in a common uniting theory. However, in spite of very great efforts in this direction, no consistent theory yet has been constructed. In any way, we shall here compare existing ideas of these theories with Newton's origin definition of the force concept. Electromagnetic forces are divided into magnetic and electro- static forces, hence having a common source or origin, yet they are of very different in nature. Briefly, the electric force is associated with electric charged particles being in rest, magnetic forces are associated with charged particles when moving. The strong force hold the nuclear particles in the atomic nuc- leus together. This forces estimates being in the size 150 times larger than that of the electromagnetic force compared with the same amount of matter. The gravity force is this force perhaps most familiar for everyone, a force which we can register continuously and which acts on all forms of matter around us, small as well as large. Anyhow, the force of gravity is regarded as the weakest force of them all, yet dominating on the macrocosmic level of matter but having very little significance on micro cosmical level where other forces dominate. Weak forces and hyper-weak forces probably must be seen and interpreted not as forces in its common meaning but instead as the abililty or tendensy of particle systems to decay. For instance,the weak force is connected to the decay of a neutron (a neutral nucleus particle), decaying in a proton, an elec- tron and radiation. The hyper-weak force is connected to the idea that seemingly stable particles, like for instance the proton, will decay after a very long time. However, such decays never have been registered, that in spite of intensive experimental efforts done over several of years. Established physical theory describe all these forces by an intermediating process constituting an exchange of virtual forces. For the strong nuclear force the Pi-meson particle is involved (a particle having a mass of approximately 270 times the electron mass but having zero mass inside the nuclus acting like a "glue" between nuclear particles). It was Hidiki Yakawa who postulated this particle in aim to explain this force. He maked use of some well established "physical laws" known from the area of atomic physics, among them de Broglie's particle wave duality law, Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle and the mass energy equivalence principle. For describing and explaining these forces which act between quarks (the hypothetical constituents in the proton) one suppo- se particles by the name of gluons are acting. Even these par- ticles are pure hypothetical and never registered in free state. A great amount of gluon particles are needed for the the theory. Responsible for the weak force is the Z and the W particles recently detected and discovered in CERN and even Nobel Prize Awarded. These particles are supposed to be invol- ved in the decay of the neutrons to a proton, an electron and radiation (neutrinos). The force of gravity also have its hypothetical force particle, not either confirmed by experiments. In respect to the enor- mous weakness of the gravity force, the virtual mass and energy of these particles must be enormous ( in accord to the theory, mass and energy of an intermediating particle is thought to be in inverse proportion to the strength of the force). Briefly these calcualtions are performed in approximately the following way : 2 1) Newton's common gravity law F= (m1.m2).G/d 2) A common Newtonian law : F.t=m.v; The idea is that the graviton has the mass, mg , having the radius of, rg. The limit time interval is denoted by, tg, and the upper limit velocity by , v=c, the velocity of light. Then equality between 1) and 2) gives : 2 2 3) mg .G/rg =mg.c/tg 4) w=v/f , for relation between wavelength, velocity and frequ- ency. The limit wavelength is put to rg, and v is put to c and f=1/t = 1/tg. All that gives : 5) rg= c.tg and inserted in 3) gives : 3 6) tg= mg.G/c 2 2 7) Einstein's massa energi formel E=m.c = mg.c 8) For the photon quanta E=h.f = h/tg . Equality between 7) and 8) gives: 2 9) tg= h/(mg.c ). Inserted in 6) gives : 3 10) rg=mg.c/h . Inserting in 3) gives: 11) mg= SQRT(hc/G) This result in 6) gives : 5 12) tg= SQRT(h.G/c ) and this result in 5) gives : 3 13) rg= SQRT(h.G/c ) Hence for : 2 h/ = 6.6260755(40)E-34/(2.Pi) Ws c = 2.99792458E8 m/s 3 G = 6.67259(85)E-11 m kg-1 s-2 mg= SQRT(hc/G) = 2.17E-8 kg 5 tg= SQRT(h.G/c ) = 7.2E-44 sec 3 rg= SQRT(h.G/c ) = 1.6E-35 m Sorry to say, the base for the calculation is built on assump- tions with elements having no logical or scientific connec- tions. Furthermore, the caluclation is built on that quantum laws of the atomic can be suppposed to be valid even on particle level. The weak force is a pure hypothetical force based on the assumption that principally all elementary particles are in- stable, which means, all particles soon or later will decay and destroy themselves. The proton particle is seemingly an very stable particle, however the theory predict a small proba- bility for its decay. But no experiments yet have confirmed such a decay, the proton seems to be an entirely stable particle. If the purpose of a theory intend to explain something in nature, it is a resonable claim that the suggested idea at least in principle has a chance to work. But that cannot be said about many of these ideas which dominate physics today. At a closer examination it seems as the used ideas lack all support in the real world, just being brain gousts and pure fantasy. The common properties of the force bearing particles according to these ideas are, that all force mediating particles must be virtually massless, but having energy. Such a property alrea- dy from the beginning is impossible in the light of Newton's original definition of what energy, mass and force are, enti- ties which are intimately connected to each other and which not can be separated in this way. The idea by mediating force particles demands that the well known relation between mass and energy, E=m.c(2) must be stated as invalid. The physicists walk around the problem by postulating gluons as virtual massless, hence particles having energy but lacking measurable mass. This idea is consolidated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a law fetched from the atomic physics, saying that some complementary entities of matter, as for instance energy and time, not at the same instance can be determined by an unlimited degree of accuracy. Of course, even if this idea is correct on the electronic orbi- tal level of the atom it cannot without question be applied on arbitrary particles or particle systems, where we can guess, completely different conditions are present. And the idea is that an instable particle having a limited short life time is carrying a high amount of energy and vise versa. And if the energy is large, the life time will be very short making it impossible to measure the particle's mass. Of that reason one say that the particle is virtual massless. Hence, one say that the particle mass is virtual. Yakawa used this idea together with some other ideas fetched from elec- tron orbital level of the atom - De Broglie's particle wave duality priciple and Bohr's quantum mechanical relationship equal to m.v.D = h/(2.Pi), a relation limited to the electron orbital level of the atom, not at all useable on an atomic nucleus. The conclusion we must draw from it is that rules and analo- gies fetched from the atomic physics, uncritically have been used in the nuclear physics as well as in the particle physics where completely different conditions are present. We are forced to classify these methods as non- scientific, built on completely wrong presumptions. Sometimes, the theoreticians are walking out from their ivory tower and strengthen themselves to explain things so that ordi- nary peoples can unserstand. But sorry to say, their attempt are oftenly clumpsy and easy to unmask. One model which is used to demonstrate how forces act in accord with the modern particle ideas is by imagining two boats situated in rest on a plane water surface. In each such boat men are throwing and catching a ball between eatch other. That process intend to demonstrate the force interacting process. For each throwing and for each catching- in accord with Newton's laws- an opposite force impact is got on the two men together with their boats, causing the boats to successively recede from each other. For an outer observer it looks like as if the two boats are activated by a repelling force, but that is of course pure fiction, it is only the resulting effect of all pushes we see. The problem with this and similarly attempts to explain the mechanism for upcoming of forces between particles in accor- dance with modern ideas are that 1) the ball which is used must have real mass in accord with what Newton meant by it, and 2) the fictive force here genererated is an equivalent repelling force, not an attravting force which the example was intended to demonstrate. Hence, the only existing model for explaining how forces between particles in a system are generated by intermediating particles- in fact not works at all, that because only repelling forces can be motivated by it. In later times one have tried to go around this critics by suggesting a boomerang instead of a ball. Perhaps it's not necessary to point out that even this attempt to revise the model is just ridiculous. The weak intermediating force corresponds to an intermediating particle with an energy virtual mass content in the range of 40 times of the proton, the gravitation is causes by a partic- le having an energy in the range of 10000000000000000000 proton masses, the so named Planck's mass which we have calculated above. The absurdity in these "facts" talks its own language and we need not to comment it furter. The gravity force seems to act even on the most elementary particles in matter, protons, electrons and perhaps even on the light particles, the photons. The necessary question therefore must be- how can particles with this very small energy and mass content be able to interact with these monsters of force particles ? Why do not spontaneous nuclear reactions all the time occur inte matter by the impact of these gravitino particles all the time hitting the earth and all things on it ? Hence, our conclusion must be that these ideas have noting with reality to do, just being what they are, namely pure fiction and fantasy. Another oddity of the modern particle physical theories is the apprehension of how forces act between quarks (hypothetical constituents of protons and some other particles). In spite of intensively experimental efforts during the latest years, one have never succeeded to make these quarks free, the quarks always remian in the bounded state. This irritating fact naturally has irritated the physicists and forced them to give some form of theoretical motivation for it. The motivation is that quark forces increases when trying to get them apart.The force is increased to the limit of infinity, then excluding all possibilites to make them free, and in this way also giving the theoreticians alibi and validity of the quark model. Of course, all of that is pure nonsens. Everyting we today know about the behaviour of forces talks against it, that because forces between objects usually decline in time to the inverse square law. Furthermore, we can here accentu- ate the fact, that if the quarks really exist, it would exist a theoretical possibility to make them free in spite of the infinite forces between them. That would be possible by the tunnel effect, an effect which is supposed to work between quarks in a similar way as for electrons in atomic systems. Hovewer, in spite of these portential possibilities and in spite of intensive experimental efforts performed during resent years, that has not given any positive results. One remarkable fact, which here ought to be pointed out, is that quarks can be created by matter which from the beginning not contain any quarks. That will happen, according to theory, in collision between electrons and positrons (for instance in LEP, CERN where Z and W particles are said to be created in this way). In decay of these particles, quarks and anti quark pairs are created according to theory. One strange conclusion of it will be that 1) it is possible to create quarks, at least intermittently by matter not contain- ing quarks from the beginning 2) that these quarks not can be absolute elementary because they can be created and destroyed at relatively small energies here on earth 3) it needs less energy to intermittently create these quarks than it needs for separating them out from a bounded state (which is impossible taking consideration to existing physical laws). We make a conclusion: 1) No relevant model exists which can give an inviolable description of how the idea by intermediating particles work. The existing models can only motivate repelling forces, not attracting forces which the principle claim. Above that the existing model claims presence of real mass content of the interacting particles, but the gluon particles must be massless to satisfy the theory. 2) Laws, rules and analogies fetched from the atomic physi- cal are used uncritically both in the nuclear physics and in particle physics. There is no guarantee that phy- sical laws from one are of physics will work in another system with quite another properties. 3) Newton's origin laws regarding the relation between mass energy and force is inhibited together with the common accepted mass energy equivalent principle in accord with the relation E=m.c(2). Particles must be postulated as having energy but no mass, a property of matter which lack all known experimental support. 4) Origin and source of all force exchanging particles needed to satisfy the theory, are lacking. Most of these particles are pure hypothetical and lack total experimen- tal support. 5) Forces between quarks increase towards the limit of infi- nity with increasing relative distance. This behavious of forces as function of distance is against every known behaviour of how forces in common works, namely that forces decrease its magnitude in respect to the inverse square law of distance. To end with, a short list in ten points aimed for meditation for them who think that my critcs is wrong: * Has any free quark been observed in spite of extremely efforts done by experiments to find such free quarks ? * Have any free force particles been observed, gluons, gravi- tons for instance ? * Have any fractional electrical charges as postualted by the theory been observed ? * Can any comprehensible mechanism be offered by how gluons create attracting forces between quarks. The offered model only give rise to repelling forces ? * Can any resonable motive be offered why force particles lack measurable mass but having energy ? * Can any physical mechanism or motivation be given to the so named colour forces between quarks ? * Does it exist any theory for why leptons exists outside the quarks model ? They would not have any right to exist. * Does it exist any convincing reason why there only exist a fixed number of quarks and gluons ? * Does it exist any good theoretical motivation to the very well defined masses of elementary particles as observed in experiments ? * Does it exists any good and convincing theory for the whole fundamental physics giving motivation to the existence of elementary particles and matter as a physical phenomenon ? I suppose you answer most of these questions with, no. If theories can explain nothing and answer no question, they have no use and have to be inhibited as invalid as soon as possible. To keep an erroneous theory building make more harm than having no theory at all. So,until we have no such better theory, let's be openminded and try finding solutions of natu- re in this way it are and not in this way the theorists want it to be.The meaning by science must be to find truth, noting else. ---- end ----