“I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called ‘good theory’ does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small—not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!” — Paul Dirac (Directions in Physics, 1978)
Translation: Dirac was a famous physicist and theorist - a gatekeeper in some ways. Paul was a very unhappy bespectacled artificer. He is saying that the “sensible mathematics” of the establishment is actually an arbitrary shell game. Theories and models which produce infinities and deny physical reality are by default wrong and a nonsense. We met Paul when discussing his disproofs of Relativity.
“The shell game that we play... is technically called ‘renormalization’. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent.
It’s surprising that the theory still hasn’t been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.” — Richard Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, 1985)
Translation: Feynman was a key actor in building the Standard Model. He defines the math as an illegitimate “shell game” and tautological. If Feynman, an architect of the model, admits the equations are mathematically inconsistent, why is the public forced to treat it as a sacred text?
The Farmer would aptly describe the Standard Model as a dead horse, “Son, broken leg, lame, had no game, long age, we done had to put her down, did it long time ago Chud right behind dis here barn, shame alright, but der it is.” For the mathemagicians the Standard Model is their burning bush and is simply, ‘I am’.
The Standard Model of particle physics is presented by the scientific establishment as the crowning achievement of modern science, the ultimate theoretical framework used to classify all known elementary particles and their interactions.
This bible of ‘The Science’ was penned into its current form in the 1970s. It serves as the modern tablets of the ‘Scientific Commandments’. The Standard Model attempts to categorise the absolute smallest, indivisible building blocks that make up subatomic elements, alongside the forces that govern their behaviour. It is the one framework to rule them all.
But……..
The Standard Model is entirely based on Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) which is false and disproven. That is just one of its many problems.
Besides using the fraudulent, anti-reality calculus of Einstein’s STR, the second problem is its title. It is not Standard and not a Model. A true ‘standard model’ of the universe would encompass the totality of physical reality.
The Standard Model of particle physics entirely excludes Newtonian gravity, or any theories of gravity related to Newtonian mechanics. This surprises most people, given how prevalent this religious totem is in all things ‘science’.
There are perhaps good reasons to exclude ‘G’ including the reality that the Newtonian theory of gravity is wrong and the standard model theorists cannot explain in physical terms where it comes from and how it operates (they invent ‘gravitons’, ‘pull power’ and use Riemann-Einstein’s curved space fantasy).
When physicists attempt to combine the mathematics of subatomic particles with the mathematics of spacetime (A-Stone’s fraud based on crucified Reimannian geometry that no one understands), the equations implode and self-destruct. Few know this. Consider that yet again they discuss ‘maths’ and ‘models’.
In essence the Standard Model is a partial framework masquerading as a universal one, describing only the microscopic interactions of matter and some of the alleged cosmic forces, while remaining entirely incompatible with the macroscopic mechanics of the cosmos.
Observational evidence including the atmosphere, aether, plasma, radiative energy, gamma rays, quasars, blueshifts, CMB, galaxial formation and rotation, pulsars, James Web Space Telescope, the Hubble Telescope, amongst many that could be listed, do not support Standard Model claims.
Even within its purported ‘partial’ domain it fails and the bait and switch is risible and even criminal in how the Standard Model is presented to students and the public. The ultimate illusion of the scientific establishment is the myth of a unified physics.
The thin armed little wizards blend the Standard Model of particle physics with the gravitational math of General Relativity as if they are a single, harmonious engine. That is simply a fraud and a level of deceit that goes beyond intellectual ‘ignorance’ and ventures into criminality.
Back to Dirac and Feynman. It is a pedagogical shell game. These little druids want everyone to believe that because clever clogs can engineer a silicon microchip, build a ‘smart’ phone, code a ‘like button’, create the Orion Mini Van flight-illusion, or erect steel tower; that abstract equations regarding ‘Black Holes’ and the ‘Big Bang’ must also be infallible.
Technology has nothing to do with ‘Science’. Not a damn thing. See George Stephenson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell for more information. The telephone for example was created despite the objections of the mathemagician wizards and establishment who screamed that ‘sound down a wire’ was ‘mathematically’ impossible (future post to come on Bell and what the history books conveniently leave out).
The SM is based entirely on the meta-philosophies of Naturalism, Materialism, Copernican-Heliocentricity, and Universal expansion to infinity.
The objective is to explain life and everything in the cosmos and on this planet using ‘naturalistic’ dogma and in particle - the crashing of molecules creating structure. We covered how inane the babble is when looking at their creation event and ‘The Big Bang’ (Fred Hoyle in the 1940s coined the term, Fred was a famous physics-experimenter and critic of the Relativity religion, more on Fred later).
The end result is a philosophy which reduces this planet to a peeble tossed around in an accelerating vacuum, tumbling in an unimportant, irrelevant region of the cosmos. On an unremarkable ‘rock’ sits the human ‘species’, an ‘evolved’ animal descended from a ‘common ancestor’ and bacteria, a hairless ape, less important than the fake-non existent ‘virus’.
These are the animating philosophies. The anti-humanist world of the ‘Humanists’. The irrationality of the ‘Rationalist’.
The Standard Model further refines these views by collecting data driven by two highly specific, and often quite limiting, micro-philosophical parameters:
Reductionism: This is the philosophical belief that the only way to understand a complex system is to violently smash it apart into its smallest conceivable fragments. ‘The Hulk Smash’ method.
The establishment assumes that macroscopic, terrestrial reality (fluid dynamics, chemistry, biology) is purely the emergent, accidental result of subatomic billiard balls colliding. It ignores holistic, systemic behaviours in favor of microscopic isolation. Quite delusional. As if my computer self-assembled from accidental ‘billiard ball’-particle collisions.
Mathematical Symmetry: The architects of the model prioritise ‘beauty’ in their mathematics above mechanical reality. Einstein often mentioned how elegant and pretty his equations were. The desire for symmetry is derived from ‘Gauge Theory’ (explained below), another phantasm of incense-clouded-holy divination, which assumes that nature must always obey perfect, symmetrical equations (like Noether’s theorem). Ridiculous.
If an observation in the physical world breaks the mathematical symmetry, physicists will often invent a hypothetical new particle to force the equation to balance, rather than question the underlying math. See Higgs-Boson for more information.
The bigotry, assumptions and philosophical viewpoints are rarely acknowledged or discussed. Yet they inform everything.
To organise the subatomic world, the ‘Standard Model’ divides all matter and force into two strict, mutually exclusive categories based on a property called ‘spin’:
1-Fermions (The Building Blocks): These are the particles that constitute physical, tangible matter. They are governed by the ‘Pauli Exclusion Principle’, meaning no two fermions can occupy the exact same quantum state at the same time (which is why physical matter takes up space). Fermions are further divided into two families:
Quarks: The heavy particles that bind together to form protons and neutrons. The wizards maintain there are 6 groups (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom).
Leptons: The lighter particles, the most famous being the electron, which ‘orbits the atomic nucleus’ (supposedly, another theory that is wrong). This category also includes the elusive neutrinos, particles so tiny they rarely interact with other matter, yet saturate space (which is supposedly a ‘vacuum’ of nothingness…notice their confusion).
2-Bosons (The Force Carriers say the druids): Back to reductionism. In the Standard Model, forces are not invisible fields or aetheric pressures; they are physical particles being exchanged like microscopic tennis balls. These are called ‘Bosons’. There are a few of these.
Photons carry the electromagnetic force (light, heat, magnetism).
Gluons carry the strong nuclear force, acting as the proverbial glue that binds quarks together inside a proton.
W and Z Bosons carry the weak nuclear force, which dictates radioactive decay.
The Higgs Boson, ‘discovered’ in 2012 (funding was needed to keep particle physics alive), is the particle associated with the Higgs field, a theoretical molasses that supposedly gives other particles their mass (Higgs Boson is a chimera and will be dealt with separately).
Particle physicists are going beyond Higgs and smashing matter down to infinity. More ‘discoveries’ will be announced, more funding released. The world will be saved. The blind will see. Hulk hard at work.
The SM framework attempts to unify three of the four recognised fundamental forces to explain how the universe functions in the non-existent ‘vacuum’. The entire model and the 3 components is built on QFT (more below) or Quantum Field Theory.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED): Describes how light and matter interact through electromagnetism.
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD): Describes the incredibly powerful strong force holding atomic nuclei together.
Electroweak Theory: A mathematical unification demonstrating that at immensely high energy levels, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force are actually the exact same force.
The SM is attempting to map out every single possible way that matter can bind together, decay, or repel one another, so long as you never ask why the matter falls down.
As stated above, the fourth fundamental force is king ‘gravity’, the macroscopic force that the establishment claims dictates the orbits of planets, the formation of galaxies, and the structural integrity of the cosmos, along with implosions, destructions and the creation of ‘Black Holes’. This is left out.
In the place of ‘standard gravity’ the SM references Einstein’s discredited curved spacetime and ‘gravitational fields’.
Now to the good stuff. The foundation is the discredited mathematical legerdemain of Messiah Einstein. The establishment has essentially cherry-picked Relativity to make their equations with the Standard Model (SM) work. Few know what follows.
Einstein offered 2 contradictory Relativity fantasies:
1) the 1905 Special Theory which ignores the aether and gravity and proposes a flat universe with a merged space-time dimension; and
2) the 1915 General which reinserts gravity and the aether and takes the flat universe and curves it with Riemannian geometry (to explain that ‘gravity’ is generated by mass displacing space within a 4th dimension manifold, or geodesic; be still your beating heart).
This substack has extensively destroyed both.
Special Relativity (published in 1905) deals strictly with the constant speed of light (which is wrong and not invariant), and how time and length dilate when particles move incredibly fast in a perfectly flat, straight line (which is wrong and long disproven).
In the late 1920s, Paul Dirac realised that the original equations of quantum mechanics were broken because they did not account for particles moving near the speed of light. He manually fused quantum mechanics with Einstein’s Special Relativity.
This ‘fusion’ birthed Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which is the entire mathematical foundation of the Standard Model.
So yes STR (Special Theory of Relativity) is baked in as the foundation for SM. If it is wrong (and it is), the SM is wrong.
But……it gets weirder. The SM relies on a massive assumption: Special Relativity only works in a Minkowski space, a perfectly flat, empty, uncurved mathematical void.
Minkowski Spacetime (Special Relativity, 1905): Perfectly flat. No gravity.
Pseudo-Riemannian Manifolds (General Relativity, 1915): Curved and warped by mass.
So, wrap your head around that. These wizards proclaim a ‘curved space time’ exists (an outlandish nonsense), but their own maths assume a flat, empty (void), uncurved space (which is what the JWST data tells us is the reality of space).
They tell you that their particle models are seamlessly integrated with Einstein’s General Relativity and curved space-time manifolds….but they aren’t….
Further, we know that an aether exists which Einstein also knew and that a ‘vacuum-void’ would mean no life on this planet (A-Stone’s PhD was in fluid and thermodynamics, both of which are based on an aether). The SM is the ‘Contradictions and Confusion Model’ - CCM.
What few know or admit to is the following:
The mathematics of the Standard Model (QFT) completely shatter if the underlying space is curved. They require a perfectly flat grid to calculate their particle interactions. If you try to introduce the curving, warping geometry of General Relativity into the Standard Model, the equations instantly spit out impossible infinities.
Back to Paul Dirac’s complaint at the beginning - the mathematical absurdity of the entire model which produces ‘infinities’. Hawking also moaned about the same. So what do the mathemagicians do? They pick over the Einstein carcasses for whatever they need to scavenge to make the equations balance.
But it gets worse. Read on.
The Standard Model is not built on classical kinematics; it is built on the densely layered, abstract mathematics of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) as discussed above. In QFT, particles do not actually exist as solid, physical spheres. Instead, the universe is imagined to be filled with dozens of overlapping, invisible, vibrating fields. A particle like an electron, is merely defined as a localised excitation, or a ripple, within the underlying electron field.
The math governing these fields is dictated by gauge symmetry groups we discussed above, when noting that the SM parameters emphasise symmetry. The entire mathematical architecture of the Standard Model is summarised by the gauge group SU(3) * SU(2) * U(1).
SU(3) governs the strong force dynamics.
SU(2)* U(1) governs the unified electroweak interaction.
All of these interactions, fields, and probabilities are crammed into one massive, notoriously complex equation known as the Standard Model Lagrangian, which attempts to mathematically predict the state of any subatomic system.
Let’s have a very simple drill down on the core of the SM and ‘gauge group equations’.
These ‘sciency’ letters represent nothing. The letters represent the abstract matrix algebra used to keep their equations perfectly symmetrical.
In the mathematics of ‘Lie groups’ (an appropriate name, but it refers to the geometric algebra that governs the Standard Model), the letters stand for specific rules applied to complex grids of numbers (matrices):
U stands for Unitary
S stands for Special
Unitary (U)?
In quantum mechanics, everything is based on probability. A Unitary matrix is a specific type of mathematical transformation where the total probability of an event happening always equals exactly 1 (or 100%).
If an equation is not ‘Unitary’, it means the math is ‘leaking’. It might spit out a result saying there is a 110% chance of a particle decaying, or a -43% chance of an electron existing. To prevent their equations from producing impossible nonsense, physicists force all their particle interactions to operate strictly within Unitary groups. It is a mathematical guardrail, not a physical force. More handwaving and lever pulling.
Special (S)?
If a Unitary group is labelled ‘Special’, it means the physicists have added a second, even stricter mathematical constraint: the determinant of the matrix must equal exactly +1.
In geometric terms, a ‘Special’ transformation allows you to rotate an object in an abstract mathematical space, but you are forbidden from changing its overall volume or reflecting it like a mirror. They use ‘Special’ groups because they are obsessed with Symmetry. They want their equations to look exactly the same before and after a particle interacts, so they artificially lock the mathematical volume to +1.
The Breakdown of the Groups
The numbers in the parentheses simply tell you how massive the mathematical grid (the matrix) is that they are using to calculate the force.
U(1) — Electromagnetism: This represents a 1 * 1 matrix. It is the simplest mathematical rotation, representing a simple phase shift of a single particle (like a photon).
SU(2) — The Weak Force: This represents a 2 * 2 matrix. It is a “Special Unitary” group used to calculate how particles like W and Z bosons behave when they decay.
SU(3) — The Strong Force: This represents a 3 * 3 matrix. This is a very complex geometric group used to calculate the chaotic interactions of the 8 different types of ‘gluons’ that supposedly hold quarks together inside the nucleus (more on this below).
These gauge groups are not physical descriptions of an aetheric fluid, dielectric pressure, or mechanical mass. They are abstract, geometric accounting tricks. The Standard Model doesn’t describe the physical mechanics of the universe; it describes the rules of a highly restricted mathematical spreadsheet.
What you might get on a test….as if this means anything….or proves anything.
It gets worse.
Plenty and this is the fatal mathematical flaw of the Standard Model. A truly ‘elegant, fundamental theory’ of the universe should be able to organically derive the properties of nature from its own equations. The Standard Model cannot do this.
To prevent the equations from collapsing or producing impossible infinities (back to Dirac’s complaint), physicists must manually inject 26 free parameters which are just ad hoc constants. The SM Fanboys do love constants. These ‘free parameters’ are arbitrary numbers that the math cannot explain; they must be physically measured in a lab and forced into the equations.
The Original 19 Patches: For decades, the model relied on 19 manual inputs. These included the specific masses of the quarks and leptons, three coupling constants to determine the exact strength of the forces, parameters for the Higgs field, and complex matrices (the CKM matrix) determining how particles decay. Higgs particles for example do not exist so it is unclear why you insert a variable value for a non-entity. But there we are.
Add in the Neutrino Confusion (7 Extra Patches): The original math was built on the strict assumption that neutrinos had zero mass. When physical experiments in the late 1990s proved neutrinos do have mass (Farmer Brown knows that all particles or any ‘thing’ must have a mass but not ‘The Science’); the equations broke. Instead of rebuilding the philosophy, the establishment stapled on at least 7 new ad hoc constants (three neutrino masses and four PMNS mixing parameters), bringing the total to 26 arbitrary fudge factors required to keep the model afloat.
But it gets worse.
One of the many indictments of the Standard Model is its scope. When you step out of the subatomic domain and look at the cosmos, the model completely disintegrates, forcing the establishment to rely on a secondary, entirely incompatible framework: the Lambda-CDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) Cosmological Model.
Gravity: Surprisingly for most people, the Standard Model entirely ignores gravity.
To explain orbits, physicists switch to the clown-show of Einstein’s General Relativity and the 4th dimension of merged space-time and Riemannian geometry.
But when they attempt to combine Quantum Mechanics with Relativity to create ‘Quantum Gravity’ the math violently rejects itself, producing nonsensical infinities as described above.
Dark Matter: When the establishment applied their gravity math to rotating galaxies, they found the galaxies were spinning far too fast.
The galaxies should have been flying apart based on the visible matter. Many also spin faster at the edge than in the centre. We discussed this when having a look at the failure of Newtonian gravity.
Instead of admitting their gravitational theory was flawed, they invented the phantom of Dark Matter, an invisible, undetectable substance that conveniently makes up 27% of the universe, providing the exact amount of mathematical mass needed to save the equations.
Dark Energy: When observing the redshift of distant galaxies, they concluded the universe was accelerating outward.
To explain this, they invented Dark Energy, an invisible, unmeasurable pressure comprising 68% of the universe. Another ghost in the machine.
Based on their own ‘maths’ when you audit the ledger, the Standard Model of particle physics the most heavily funded and defended theoretical framework in human history, only applies to 5% of the known universe. The remaining 95% consists of mathematical ghosts invented to hide the fact that the establishment’s foundational equations do not scale to reality.
Thanks guys, it all makes sense now. You really must be ‘The Science’. Where do we pray?
It is clear that the ‘Standard Model’ is an incoherent, non-standardised mess. It is the horse shot dead a long time ago by a farmer with common sense. It is more religious than factual. Apparently these masters can explain 5% of the Universe based on their own tautological, incoherent, and rather inane theories. If true, it means the SM is irrelevant.
In formalistic terminology, penned by Chud when defending a folio in front of a panel of Fanboys, the following was given.
“The relativistic and cosmological framework has often responded to anomaly not by reconsidering its foundational assumptions, but by incorporating auxiliary hypotheses, reinterpretive manoeuvres, or increasingly abstract reformulations. That pattern does not, by itself, invalidate a theory, but it does alter its methodological status.
When a framework is insulated against potentially disconfirming evidence by a sequence of interpretive protections, it approaches what the philosophy of science has described as a degenerating rather than progressive research programme. Such engrained and intractable methodological habits increasingly invite the question if relativistic cosmology is even remotely ‘scientific’.”
Chud was being academic and formal. A rough farmer-translation of the above is that the SM is a pile of horse manure from a now dead horse.
There are also many interpretations within the model itself. There are many Relativities, many variations of Newtonian mechanics and more than a few weird ensembles of Quantum Mechanics. ‘Bridge’ theories attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics including the ridiculous but once-lavishly funded ‘String Theory’, are also used as reference data by the SM.
The impression for students and the public is that the Standard Model is a polished, proven, accepted, audited, divinely inspired corpus of unimpeachable veracity and scientific rigor built by the ‘greatest minds and divinely inspired Apostles of reason’, who ‘evolved’ by random chance and stuff happens into human super-computers.
In reality we have the fraud of Einstein’s ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ as the formal foundation, contaminated by the incompatibility of Einstein’s General Relativity with the underlying model which produces infinities.
A model which uses a merged flat ‘space time’ to process its equations but preaches a curved space time in the public square.
The model uses geometrical abstractions, ‘gauge groups’, ‘Lie groups’, Lagrangian variables, incorporates Dark Forces, endless constants and assumptions and feeds in parameters which can manipulate models to give almost any answer needed.
There is a complete absence of empirical proof and an institutional culture which does not engage in physical experimentation, nor a culture which is open and admits to physical disproofs with material, evidential counter-observations.
It truly is a mathemagician-Wizard of Oz show presented as a Bible of Rationality, part of the cult of ‘reason’ in the ‘age of science’, evangelised by the gatekeepers who don’t understand the model or how it is built, or who will never admit to its flaws and problems. The peasants are mesmerised by the wizards so they obey and follow ‘the science’; studiously ignoring gibberish, nonsense, endless disproofs, obscene fraud and the emoluments of funding, power, tenure, pensions, getting published, being interviewed as the expert, jetting to conferences and winning awards.
The Standard Model is Scientism and it is a fraud.
All hail.
=====
Bibliography & Further Reading
For those interested in the history, the mathematics, and the philosophical critiques of the Standard Model and modern cosmology/sausage-ology, the following texts trace the development of the framework and the admissions of its structural flaws.
Griffiths, D., 2008. Introduction to Elementary Particles. 2nd ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. (A standard textbook detailing the definitions, kinematics, and mathematical layers of the fermions and bosons. Bosons really are a farce. Another ‘discovery’ to ensure funding. None of it is real).
Weinberg, S., 1995. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (A comprehensive breakdown of the underlying Quantum Field Theory and the gauge symmetries, from a committed Standard Modelist).
Smolin, L., 2006. The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (A severe critique by a theoretical physicist regarding the ad hoc constants and the failure to unify gravity with the Standard Model).
Penrose, R., 2004. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Jonathan Cape. (Details the profound mathematical incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity).
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (A text on scientific philosophy, explaining how establishments patch failing paradigms rather than abandoning them).
Hossenfelder, S., 2018. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. New York: Basic Books. (A critique of the philosophical reliance on “Mathematical Symmetry” and how it has stalled modern physics).
Peebles, P.J.E., 1993. Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Traces the historical necessity and mathematical invention of Dark Matter and the Lambda-CDM model).
Fukugita, M. and Yanagida, T., 2003. Physics of Neutrinos and Applications to Astrophysics. Berlin: Springer. (Documents the crisis of the neutrino mass discovery and the subsequent addition of the PMNS matrix parameters).
Milgrom, M., 1983. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. The Astrophysical Journal, 270, pp.365-370. (Peer-reviewed challenge proposing that gravitational math is wrong, and that inventing chimeras such as “Dark Matter” is just more mathematical foolishness).
Maudlin, T., 2011. Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Analyses the philosophical and mechanical contradictions embedded deep within the framework of reductionist quantum theories).
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.