Experiments next to the "big bang"?
Present thesis: Scientist shoot ions at each other and get energies more and
more next to the apparent "big bang". While this, so-called "new
particles" are observed and "proofs" are "found"
confirming the hypothetical structure of matter.
My position: So how I gave the sentence above next to the present
interpretations, all this is nonsense.
In the end I'll give a prediction what one will really find in these
Here are my arguments and theses, just in agreement with valid laws of nature
and with present observations:
1. New particles
There aren't new particles. Matter cannot be destroyed or
produced. The laws of conservation prove this (lepton conservation, baryon
conservation; energy conservation).
When protons get energy, then they keep being protons,
because they are identical bodies - microcosms. Though, these protons then have
different energy levels (their spheres vibrate faster). We may think, there
would be different particles, heavier and unstable. But only the name was
changed describing this new state or level. It has remained a destabilized
If the changed unstable particle decays, it does not form new
particles but pairs of well-known particles. This means: the energy coming free
leads to the pair forming of well-known particles. Particle pairs consist of
their particles and antiparticles. If the energy is very high, the antiparticle
and the particle are made in the features of unstable states, even unknown.
However, the balance of these particle pairs is zero
observing the existence of pairs. Pairs are meeting themselves and radiating
into pure energy, so into electromagnetic wave quanta (photons). Then the pairs
are disappeared again. On the contrary way, the energies of photons form
particle pairs. These are not new pairs because they don't change the total
balance of particles and energy of universe! Additionally, while the decay of an
unstable particle, these particle pairs don't come from the inside of the above
called proton, but they are formed by interaction energies externally.
This means: When an interaction has just gone at the inside
of a proton, then that energy which is set free there will be forming particle
pairs at the outside, which will be a reflector of the internal relationship. So
we never can make subparticles at the outside of protons directly made as result
of the coming out of these particles from the inside. From the inside, nothings
comes out, because particles like protons are stable black-white holes. They
only let pass the surplus energies in equality or parity, which form then these
particle pairs of outside world using the given particles from here at the
outside. Without given particles, no particle pairs are formed (contrary thesis
is not proved)! The energy is orientated always at the structure of the given
particles making clones of them. From vacuum, the energy doesn't get any real
mother for clones (present physics doesn't know about real vacuum, because the
vacuum is filled of proton neutrinos; there they think, fluctuations of my
neutrinos would be the fluctuations of physic's apparent vacuum)! Consequently,
at the outside of protons one can get no protocosms of protons and also no
gravitons and subtrons. Terminology of present physics speaks of quarks and of
gluons. My terminology explains quarks to be energy-equivalent wave quanta,
which reflect the subparticles, especially the protocosms of protons. Gluons
would be then the energetic equivalents for wave-like exchange quanta of forces
between the real subparticles but not between the quarks, because they are
If scientists examine that "gluon-quark-plasma",
then they observe the energy equivalents of the real subparticles. But they
don't know anything about the quantity of these subparticles. Additionally, the
conclusion from this to the big bang is wrong. Remark, these temperatures at
which they get the information about the energy of subparticles of protons, only
rule inside of the protons! Inside there - inside of the baryons - the
big-bang-temperature would be given. But what is it good for? There the
strongest interactions are running up to the gravitons, which pair forming
temperature is next to the hypothetical big-bang-temperature.
Quantum physics has its remaining problem with its mistake
describing particles and wave quanta being one single thing. Therefore they
think, gluons and quarks would be particles although these phenomena are wave
quanta forming real particle pairs in our outside world. Those pairs are only
these well-known particles decaying into these stable particles which were
injected before into a process of destabilizing.
2. Proving structure
Using wave quanta you can prove which energetic levels are inside of the
protons. But you cannot say how many levels are there and where they come from
if from particles or from their inner wave quanta analogously photons. It's
impossible why outer reflections are analogous to photons and why they
immediately form unstable particle pairs on base of well-known stable particles
reflecting the inner energy level and decaying into the stable particle pairs
and annihilating in the end.
Conclusion is wrong, matter had formed itself by chance from quarks and
gluons. On the one hand, such an opinion is a rash conclusion. But on the other
hand, you had to be able to create matter during these experiments; this means:
you had to ignore conservation balance of baryons accidentally. If you could do
this, such "states" could be bound or "melt together".
Who ever searches for this, if he already knows about my theories, will
senselessly waste his time.
Because the real particles are that non plus ultra of balance, they (stable
neutrinos, electrons and protons) cannot be produced and destroyed. Their change
into unstable states is made by energy supply. Contrarily, this energy which got
free while decay produces zero-balanced particle pairs being only mirror images
of energy concentrations just existing in particles or in the environment of
particles. I call this a kind of resonance to given oscillation energies. So
every energy, programmatically given by the existence of stable particles and
working between these particles (like pion energy), makes the base of reflection
of features of unstable particles. While this, it doesn't remain fermions (like
muons, hyperons) but also groups of particle pairs are connected to common
phenomena (bosons) like mesons for example. Inside of mesons, destabilized
states of electrons and positrons (these are antielectrons) are rotating around
each other connected with wave quanta which make deriving an apparent resting
mass. Without actions of wave quanta of gravitation, mesons would not have any
rest mass, 'cause one electron from matter and one positron from antimatter
compensate the rest mass into zero, logically proved by annihilation of both
particles into photons without rest mass! The direct experimental proof is
missing for antimass of positrons. But this experiment you cannot make with
mesons and antimesons because antimesons are only apparent antis.
3. The prediction:
The result of the scattering experiment at highest energies will be the
production of a macroscopic protocosm how I
describe it. This means: the complete energy of the well-known unstable
particles and the given destabilized particles (no gluons, no quarks, but their
energetic equivalents in the feature of the well-known particles existing now as
extremely destabilized states) is connected now. In this moment, a black hole
will live. Immediately, it will decay in the feature of a white hole after a
small time period dependent by size (5 mm amplitude mean only twice 1.7·10-11
s). All the pairs will be annihilated into the energy supplied before. Remaining
particles will confirm the conservation balance of matter. This event will prove
my theory of forming protocosms and decay of them! All the other hypotheses
about which would happen there like eating the earth by the black micro hole
etc. won't be confirmed. So this will disprove old theories of presence.