return to homepage
return to updates


NEW REPORTS ON THE PROTON SIZE

by Miles Mathis

A kind reader sent me a link to an article in National Geographic and Nature this month (July 2010) that reports particle physicists were shocked to discover the proton was 4% smaller than previously thought. This was discovered by firing a laser at a muon orbiting a proton, bumping it from one orbit to another. We are told that the standard model has no explanation for this discrepancy, but that it may have something to do with the Rydberg constant.

I have an answer for these particle physicists, and it has nothing to do with the Rydberg constant. It has to do with the unified field. Remember that all these experiments are taking place on the Earth, which not only has its own gravitational field, but is in the larger field of the Sun. Quantum physicists always ignore this when they run their numbers, but they shouldn't do that. The masses and energies they are finding and are plugging into the equations are determined by the unified field, so gravity cannot be ignored at the quantum level. In my paper on the Saturn anomaly, and before that in my paper on the perihelion of Mercury, I showed that Einstein's field equations are wrong by 4% in the field of the Sun. That is to say, gravity is generally miscalculated by that amount in our solar system, at all points. Since Einstein's field equations are really mass equations (he does a mass transform to find curvature), all the masses in the solar system are wrong by 4%, including of course atomic and subatomic masses. This must be important because the equations that give us a proton size are dependent on proton and muon masses. Although these scientists aren't directly using Einstein's field equations in this problem, they are using masses that are determined by the field. The 4% error in the field equations are directly causing the 4% error here.

But there is more. This is not the only mathematical or field error in the quantum equations. It is the most obvious error, since it shows itself in simple experiments, but it is not the largest error by a wide margin. Even larger errors in the math are hidden errors, since they offset. In other words, two or more mathematical errors—errors in different directions—nullify one another, so that this simple experiment cannot show them. QED is full of offsetting pushes like this, since it has not only been renormalized in multiple ways, it has been jerry-rigged decade after decade. But I have shown that the proton size is off not by 4%, but by around 170%. Yes, the proton is actually over 100 times larger than we think, not 4% smaller. These scientists haven't even begun to uncover all the errors. To understand why this is so, you have to read several of my papers, including all my papers on Bohr. There has been a fundamental misunderstanding from the beginning concerning the assignment of the angular momentum of the electron orbit. Not only are the angular momentum equations faulty, the momentum itself has been misassigned. When we add to this the fact that Coulomb's equation was always misunderstood, we have a very large mess with many points of spillage. When we correct all these mistakes, we find gravity at the quantum level at a size 10²² larger than we thought. We find a larger Bohr radius, we find a different fine structure constant, and we find no point particles. We find a photon with real size and spin and mass, and so on.

You will say, "How can that be right? These new experiments have shown a radius for the proton of less than a femtometer. To continue to claim that is off by 100x is just perverse. Can our rulers be that wrong?" The problem is, you misunderstand where this number is coming from. It isn't coming from some sort of little ruler. It is coming from equations. When we are told the radius is around a femtometer, the scientists aren't reading straight from a ruler or a machine or a grid. They are inferring a radius by plugging data into equations. If the equations are wrong, the radius will also be wrong. Their data and experiment can be correct, and their number will still be wrong as long as the equations are wrong. I have shown that the equations are wrong, and I have shown precisely where the equations are wrong. I have corrected the equations. That is why I can see through this experiment.

This article at NG admits that the standard model may have to be rewritten, but it doesn't have a clue as to the extent of this rewrite. I predict that particle physicists will strongly resist this rewrite, since some of them may have some inkling of the revolution ahead, a revolution that will do most of them no good. That is why we are hearing about Rydberg's constant. It will be much easier to hide in one more mathematical fudge, by pushing some fake constant one more time, than to actually make the necessary corrections. Particle physics has never had a problem with bold mathematical cheats: it has existed from the beginning on them.

If you don't think particle physics is confused, try taking the link from this NG report to a “related problem”, that of the neutrino. If you take the link, you find that physicists are now proposing that the neutrino, previously thought to be on the scale of a photon, is as large as ten billion light years.* You read that right. Some older neutrinos are now said to be almost as large as the observable universe, based on computer models:

An open question is whether gravity—say, the pull from an entire galaxy—can force a meganeutrino to collapse down to a single location.

Yes, this is now the state of the art in physics. This is what we see published in major journals. Nothing is now too ridiculous to propose. I have a question: do you seriously imagine that physicists who would propose such things, or sit by and allow such things to be proposed, could be right about anything? If any of the foundations were in order, it would be impossible to propose or publish the things we now see proposed and published. As you can judge the seeds from the fruit, you can judge the theories by the articles. The popular articles are rubbish because the scholarly articles are rubbish, and the scholarly articles are rubbish because the theories and math are rubbish.

*You may be interested to know that I can tell you how they came to this number of 10 billion lightyears, without reading their papers or knowing anything of their theories. I know where the math went wrong without even looking at the math. In a recent update to my first charge paper, I have shown that the permittivity of free space ε₀ actually stands for the gravitational field at the quantum level. I knew this because several years earlier I had developed that very number, from simple equations, for the acceleration of the radius of the proton. Yes, using only G, I developed ε₀/2 as the acceleration of the shell of the proton. This is pertinent here, because if we use that acceleration, and let it accelerate for 15 billion years, the age of the universe, we get about 5 x 10²³m. My readers sent me that number, complaining that the radius of the proton would be that large according to my math and "my idiotic theory". I showed them a better way to interpret that number, but it turns out it is good they sent me angry emails, since that number stuck in my head. It now looks very similar to this number for the neutrino, which turn out to be about 10²⁶m. My guess is that these scientists have used the same naive interpretation of an acceleration or gravity equation to get an absurdly large radius for their particle. They need to read my reply to my readers, which is here.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.