“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].


{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 and 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, de Broglie, 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, New Jersey, where they talked re physics and philosophy in their first language, German.  Einstein and Bohr, for many years, famously debated the merits and 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.

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 and 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 each 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. a year 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 and 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


  4. Pingback: THE ENTIRE BOOK — Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY | 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


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