“Even after the New York Times had [featured] quarks in [a] 1967 article, Gell-Mann was quoted as saying [that] the quark was likely to turn out to be merely a useful mathematical figment’ ” [p.292, Ref.#39] … 

MURRAY GELL-MANN, whose office at CALTECH was next to RICHARD FEYNMAN’s office [p.167, Ref.#1], first proposed the “quark” model, during the early 1960s … At that time, he said that:  “It is fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were … real”  and  “A search for stable quarks … at the highest energy [particle-]accelerators would help to reassure us of the non-existence of real quarks” [p.323, book: QUANTUM GENERATIONS (1999) by HELGE KRAGH (Ref.#17); p.88, Ref.#30] … 

On p.324, Kragh continues “The less-than-enthusiastic response [to the quark model] did not prevent experimentalists from attempting to disprove Gell-Mann, that is, to show that quarks existed, rather than to show that they did not exist.  A 1977 survey of quark search experiments listed about 80 such searches” … These are highly educated, highly paid, TEAMS of scientists:  if “quarks” really exist, then one would think that they would have found some, hey ??

“The most interesting [quark search experiment] was undertaken by William Fairbank [we’re naming NAMEs here, folks !!] and collaborators at Stanford University … In 1977, after several years of work, the Stanford group reported [embarrassingly, as it turned out !!] that it had found [evidence for “quarks” — in the form of] fractional charges in Milikan-like experiments {please google “Milikan electron” if you need to} … The claim was not confirmed by other experiments and … was, after much discussion, rejected by the elementary particle physics community” [p.324, Ref.#17] …

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:  [please note that this historical perspective appears also in the GENERAL INTRODUCTION section of these essays, and that I repeat it here, as I feel that it’s important] …

During the 1930s, a younger generation of physicists (BOHR, HEISENBERG, PAULI, DIRAC,  etc.) made many brilliant + important discoveries, which led to the development of what folks now call “the standard model” … They insisted that the model’s non-ability to visualize what tiny things look like was NOT IMPORTANT, because the model provided so many ADVANCEs to our understanding of our universe … Of course, other physicists (EINSTEIN, DeBROGLIE, SCHROEDINGER, DIRAC [who, with his long legs, “straddled the fence”, so to speak], etc.) begged to differ, and continued to search for a way to actually visualize what protons look like …

In his book [Ref.#1], Sternglass tells about his 1959-meeting with NIELS BOHR, in Denmark, a few years before the great man died … PLUS, he talks about meeting with EINSTEIN in 1947, at E’s little house in Princeton, NJ, where they talked physics + philosophy in their first language, German … Einstein + Bohr, for many years, famously debated the merits + non-merits of what we now call “the standard model”:  Einstein always insisted that it was “incomplete” and needed some major insights to make it believable, while Bohr defended it very valiantly …

{[ PLUS:  Sternglass describes how strongly divided the physics community was at that time (late 1950s), re this important issue:  “I asked De Broglie whether he would help me arrange a visit to Bohr in Copenhagen … at first, de Broglie was hesitant, saying that Bohr would not be happy about talking to someone who had spent so much time in the opposite camp … who shared Einstein’s ideas on the incompleteness of the standard model’s view of quantum theory” ]} …

Today many physicists are realizing that the standard model has several disturbing defects:  this is what one current book writer says re this:  “The standard model is a bit like an aging movie star  whose best work is decades old  and whose flaws once seemed slight  but are now becoming glaring … It gives no explanation for why there are three levels of quarks and light particles … It can’t predict the masses of all the particles” [Ref.#12] …

—{NOTE:  “quarks” have never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#17, pp.323+324]}—

Sternglass is a follower of Einstein, and of others who question some of the details of the standard model:  his “electron-positron pair model of matter” offers a clear + realistic way to visualize what protons look like, which the standard model does not do … One will not find his proton model [p.250, Ref.#1] in any other book:  Sternglass’s ideas are original, based on his life as a truth seeker …

On the other hand, books which “parrot” the standard model are “a dime a dozen”, so to speak … This is how I “discovered” Sternglass’s book:  after reading parts of many different books which parrot the standard model, and realizing at some point in the book that I didn’t understand what the author was talking about, I found Sternglass’s book:  like a breath of fresh air, it made sense to me all the way to its end … Since then I’ve never looked back …

In these essays, my HOPE is to persuade folks of the value of Sternglass’s work … To do this,  I’ve included also some of the work of DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Ref.#2], which I “discovered” on the INTERNET approx. 1.5 years after I found Sternglass’s book … In combining the models of these two elders in the physics community, I’ve made a few slight modifications to each;  the result is, I think, a clear + realistic way to visualize what protons look like …

PLEASE READ MORE if any of this interests you !!

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX8 >> $$$$$$$$$$$



  1. Pingback: BOOK-TITLE: ?? WHAT ARE “QUARKs” ?? | markcreekwater

  2. Pingback: INTRODUCTIONs | markcreekwater


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on May 2, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: