Feyerabend was a rather famous philosopher. He was of the opinion that ‘anything goes’. We disagree. Let me know your views on my latest paper. đ Let me know your views on my latest paper. đ Also check out this one: https://www.academia.edu/40226046/Neutrinos_as_the_photons_of_the_strong_force.

# Month: August 2019

# Wikipedia censorship

I started to edit and add to the rather useless Wikipedia article on the Zitterbewegung. No mention of Hestenes or more recent electron models (e.g. Burinskii’s Kerr-Newman geometries. No mention that the model only works for electrons or leptons in general – not for non-leptonic fermions. It’s plain useless. But all the edits/changes/additions were erased by some self-appointed ‘censor’.Â I protested but then I got reported to the administrator ! What can I say? Don’t trust Wikipedia. Don’t trust any ‘authority’. We live in weird times.Â The mindset of most professional physicists seems to be governed by ego and the Bohr-Heisenberg *Diktatur*.

For the record, these are the changes and edits I tried to make. You can compare and judge for yourself. Needless to say, I told them I wouldn’t bother to even try to contribute any more. I published my own article on the Vixrapedia e-encyclopedia. Also, as Vixrapedia did not have an entry on realist interpretations of quantum mechanics, I created one: have a look and let me know what you think. đ

**Zitterbewegung**Â (“trembling” or “shaking” motion inÂ German) – usually abbreviated asÂ *zbw*Â – is a hypothetical rapid oscillatory motion of elementary particles that obeyÂ relativistic wave equations. The existence of such motion was first proposed byÂ Erwin SchrĂ¶dingerÂ in 1930 as a result of his analysis of theÂ wave packetÂ solutions of the Dirac equation forÂ relativisticÂ electrons in free space, in which anÂ interferenceÂ between positive and negativeÂ energy statesÂ produces what appears to be a fluctuation (up to the speed of light) of the position of an electron around the median, with anÂ angular frequencyÂ of Ï = 2m*c*^{2}/*Ä§*, or approximately 1.5527Ă10^{21}Â radians per second.Â Paul DiracÂ was initially intrigued by it, as evidenced by his rather prominent mention of it in his 1933 Nobel Prize Lecture (it may be usefully mentioned he shared this Nobel Prize withÂ SchrĂ¶dinger):

“The variables give rise to some rather unexpected phenomena concerning the motion of the electron. These have been fully worked out by SchrĂ¶dinger. It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by experiment.â

^{[1]}

In light of Dirac’s later comments on modern quantum theory, it is rather puzzling that he did not pursue the idea of trying to understand charged particles in terms of the motion of a pointlike charge, which is what the Zitterbewegung hypothesis seems to offer. Dirac’s views on non-leptonic fermions – which were then (1950s and 1960s) being analyzed in an effort to explain the ‘particle zoo‘ in terms of decay reactions conserving newly invented orÂ *ad hoc*Â quantum numbersÂ such asÂ *strangeness*^{[2]}Â – may be summed up by quoting the last paragraph in the last edition of hisÂ *Principles of Quantum Mechanics*:

“Now there are other kinds of interactions, which are revealed in high-energy physics. […] These interactions are not at present sufficiently well understood to be incorporated intoÂ

a system of equations of motion.”^{[3]}

Indeed, in light of this stated preference for kinematic models, it is somewhat baffling that Dirac did not follow up on this or any of the other implications of the Zitterbewegung hypothesis, especially because it should be noted that a reexamination of Dirac theory shows that interference between positive and negative energy states is not a necessary ingredient of Zitterbewegung theories.^{[4]}Â The Zitterbewegung hypothesis also seems to offer interestingÂ *shortcuts*Â to key results of mainstream quantum theory. For example, one can show that, for theÂ hydrogen atom, the Zitterbewegung produces theÂ Darwin termÂ which plays the role in theÂ fine structureÂ as a small correction of the energy level of theÂ s-orbitals.^{[5]}Â This is why authors such asÂ HestenesÂ refers to it as a possible alternative interpretation of mainstream quantum mechanics, which may be an exaggerated claim in light of the fact that theÂ *zbw*Â hypothesis results from the study of electron behavior only.

Zitterbewegung models have mushroomed^{[6]}Â and it is, therefore, increasingly difficult to distinguish between them. The key to understanding and distinguishing the various Zitterbewegung models may well beÂ Wheeler‘s ‘mass without mass’ idea, which implies a distinction between the idea of (i) a pointlike electric charge (i.e. the idea of a chargeÂ *only*, with zero rest mass) and (ii) the idea of an electron as an elementary particle whose equivalent mass is the energy of theÂ *zbw*Â oscillation of the pointlike charge.^{[7]}Â The ‘mass without mass’ concept requires a force to act on a charge – and aÂ *charge*Â only – to explain why a force changes the state of motion of an object – its momentumÂ **p**Â = m_{Îł}Â·* v*(with Îł referring to the Lorentz factor) – in accordance with the (relativistically correct)Â

**F**Â = d

**p**/dt force law.

## Contents

## History

As mentioned above, theÂ *zbw*Â hypothesis goes back to SchrĂ¶dinger’s and Dirac’s efforts to try to explain what an electron actuallyÂ *is*. Unfortunately, both interpreted the electron as a pointlike particle with no ‘internal structure’.David HestenesÂ is to be credited with reviving the Zitterbewegung hypothesis in the early 1990s. While acknowledging its origin as a (trivial) solution to Dirac’s equation for electrons, Hestenes argues the Zitterbewegung should be related to the intrinsic properties of the electron (charge, spin and magnetic moment). He argues that the Zitterbewegung hypothesis amounts to a physical interpretation of the elementary wavefunction or – more boldly – to a possible physical interpretation of all of quantum mechanics: “Spin and phase [of the wavefunction] are inseparably related â spin is not simply an add-on, but an essential feature of quantum mechanics. […] A standard observable in Dirac theory is the Dirac current, which doubles as a probability current and a charge current. However, this does not account for the magnetic moment of the electron, which many investigators conjecture is due to a circulation of charge. But what is the nature of this circulation? […] Spin and phase must be kinematical features of electron motion. The charge circulation that generates the magnetic moment can then be identified with the Zitterbewegung of SchrĂ¶dinger “^{[8]}Â Hestenes’ interpretation amounts to an kinematic model of an electron which can be described in terms ofÂ John Wheeler‘s mass without mass concept.^{[9]}Â The rest mass of the electron is analyzed as the equivalent energy of an orbital motion of a pointlike charge. This pointlike charge has no rest mass and must, therefore, move at the speed of light (which confirms Dirac’s en SchrĂ¶dinger’s remarks on the nature of the Zitterbewegung). Hestenes summarizes his interpretation as follows: âThe electron is nature’s most fundamental superconducting current loop. Electron spin designates the orientation of the loop in space. The electron loop is a superconducting LC circuit. The mass of the electron is the energy in the electron’s electromagnetic field. Half of it is magnetic potential energy and half is kinetic.â^{[10]}

Hestenes‘ articles and papers on the Zitterbewegung discuss the electron only. The interpretation of an electron as a superconducting ring of current (or as a (two-dimensional) oscillator) also works for theÂ muon electron: its theoretical Compton radiusÂ *r*_{C}Â *= Ä§*/m_{ÎŒ}*c*Â â 1.87 fm falls within the CODATA confidence interval for the experimentally determined charge radius.^{[11]}Â Hence, the theory seems to offer a remarkably and intuitive model ofÂ leptons. However, the model cannot be generalized to non-leptonic fermions (spin-1/2 particles). Its application to protons or neutrons, for example, is problematic: when inserting the energy of a proton or a neutron into the formula for the Compton radius (theÂ *r*_{C}Â *= Ä§*/m*c*Â formula follows from the kinematic model), we get a radius of the order ofÂ *r*_{C}Â *= Ä§*/m_{p}*c*Â â 0.21 fm, which is about 1/4 of the measured value (0.84184(67) fm to 0.897(18) fm). A radius of the order of 0.2 fm is also inconsistent with the presumed radius of the pointlike charge itself. Indeed, while the pointlike charge is supposed to be pointlike, pointlike needs to be interpreted as ‘having no internal structure’: it doesÂ *not*Â imply the pointlike charge has no (small) radius itself. The classical electron radius is a likely candidate for the radius of the pointlike charge because it emerges from low-energy (Thomson) scattering experiments (elastic scattering of photons, as opposed to inelastic Compton scattering). The assumption of a pointlike charge with radiusÂ *r*_{e}Â *=*Â Î±Â·*Ä§*/m_{p}*c*) may also offer a geometric explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment.^{[12]}

In any case, the remarks above show that a Zitterbewegung model for non-leptonic fermions is likely to be somewhat problematic: a proton, for example, cannot be explained in terms of the Zitterbewegung of a positron (or a heavier variant of it, such as the muon- or tau-positron).^{[13]}Â This is why it is generally assumed the large energy (and the small size) of nucleons is to be explained by another force – aÂ strong forceÂ which acts on a strong charge instead of an electric charge. One should note that bothÂ colorÂ and/orÂ flavorÂ in the standardÂ quark–gluonÂ model of the strong force may be thought of as zero-mass charges in ‘mass without mass’ kinematic models and, hence, the acknowledgment of this problem doesÂ *not*Â generally leadÂ *zbw*Â theorists to abandon the quest for an alternative realistÂ interpretation of quantum mechanics.

WhileÂ Hestenes‘Â *zbw*Â interpretation (and theÂ geometric calculusÂ approach he developed) is elegant and attractive, he did not seem to have managed to convincingly explain an obvious question of critics of the model: what keeps the pointlike charge in theÂ *zbw*Â electron in its circular orbit? To put it simply: one may think of the electron as a superconducting ring but there is noÂ *material*Â ring to hold and guide the charge. Of course, one may argue that the electromotive force explains the motion but this raises theÂ fine-tuning problem: the slightest deviation of the pointlike charge from its circular orbit would yield disequilibrium and, therefore, non-stability. [One should note the fine-tuning problem is also present in mainstream quantum mechanics. See, for example, the discussion inÂ *Feynman’s*Â *Lectures on Physics*.] The lack of a convincing answer to these and other questions (e.g. on the distribution of (magnetic) energyÂ *within*Â the superconducting ring) led several theorists working on electron models (e.g. Alexander Burinskii^{[14]}^{[15]}) to move on and explore alternative geometric approaches, includingÂ Kerr-Newman geometries. Burinskii summarizes his model as follows: “The electron is a superconductingÂ *disk*Â defined by an over-rotating black hole geometry. The charge emerges from the MĂ¶bius structure of the Kerr geometry.”^{[16]}Â His advanced modelling of the electron also allows for a conceptual bridge with mainstream quantum mechanics, grand unification theories and string theory: “[…] Compatibility between gravity and quantum theory can be achieved without modifications of Einstein-Maxwell equations, by coupling to a supersymmetric Higgs model of symmetry breaking and forming a nonperturbative super-bag solution, which generates a gravity-free Compton zone necessary for consistent work of quantum theory. Super-bag is naturally upgraded to Wess-Zumino supersymmetric QED model, forming a bridge to perturbative formalism of conventional QED.”^{[17]}

The various geometric approaches (Hestenes’ geometric calculus, Burinskii’s Kerr-Newman model, oscillator models) yield the same results (the intrinsic properties of the electron are derived from what may be referred to as kinematic equations or classical (but relativistically correct) equations) – except for a factor 2 or 1/2 or the inclusion (or not) of variable tuning parameters (Burinskii’s model, for example, allows for a variable geometry) – but the equivalence of the various models that may or may not explain the hypothetical Zitterbewegung still needs to be established.

The continued interest inÂ *zbw*Â models may be explained because Zitterbewegung models – in particular Hestenes’ model and the oscillator model – are intuitive and, therefore, attractive. They are intuitive because they combine the Planck-Einstein relation (E = h*f*) and Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence (E = m*c*^{2}): each cycle of theÂ *ZitterbewegungÂ *electron effectively packs (i) the unit of physical action (*h*) and (ii) the electronâs energy. This allows one to understand Planckâs quantum of action as the product of the electronâs energy and the cycle time:Â *h*Â = EÂ·T = hÂ·*f*Â·T = hÂ·*f*/*f*Â =Â *h.*Â In addition, the idea of a centripetal force keeping some zero-mass pointlike charge in a circular orbit also offers a geometric explanation of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation: this equation, therefore, is no longer a rather inexplicable consequence of special relativity theory.

The section below offers a general overview of the original discovery of SchrĂ¶dinger and Dirac. It is followed by further analysis which may or may not help the reader to judge whether theÂ *Zitterbewegung*Â hypothesis might, effectively, amount to what David Hestenes claims it actually is: an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics.

## Theory for a free fermion

[See the article: the author of this section does not seem to know – or does not mention, at least – that theÂ *ZitterbewegungÂ *hypothesis only applies to leptons (no strong charge).]

## Experimental evidence

The Zitterbewegung may remain theoretical because, as Dirac notes, the frequency may be too high to be observable: it is the same frequency as that of a 0.511 MeVÂ gamma-ray. However, some experiments may offer indirect evidence. Dirac’s reference to electron scattering experiments is also quite relevant because such experiments yield two radii: a radius for elastic scattering (the classical electron radius) and a radius for inelastic scattering (the Compton radius). Zittebewegung theorists think Compton scattering involves electron-photon interference: the energy of the high-energy photon (X- or gamma-ray photons) is briefly absorbed before the electron comes back to its equilibrium situation by emitting another (lower-energy) photon (the difference in the energy of the incoming and the outgoing photon gives the electron some extra momentum). Because of this presumed interference effect, Compton scattering is referred to as inelastic. In contrast, low-energy photons scatter elastically: they seem to bounce off some hard core inside of the electron (no interference).

Some experiments also claim they amount to a simulation of the Zitterbewegung of a free relativistic particle. First, with a trapped ion, by putting it in an environment such that the non-relativistic SchrĂ¶dinger equation for the ion has the same mathematical form as the Dirac equation (although the physical situation is different).^{[18]}^{[19]}Â Then, in 2013, it was simulated in a setup withÂ BoseâEinstein condensates.^{[20]}

## The effective mass of the electric charge

The 2m factor in the formula for theÂ *zbw*Â frequency and the interpretation of the Zitterbewegung in terms of a centripetal force acting on a pointlike charge with zero rest mass leads one to re-explore the concept of theÂ effective massÂ of an electron. Indeed, if we write theÂ *effective*Â mass of the pointlike charge as m_{Îł}Â = Îłm_{0}Â then we can derive its value from the angular momentum of the electron (L = Ä§/2) using the general angular momentum formulaÂ **L**Â =Â * r*Â ĂÂ

**p**Â and equatingÂ

*r*Â to the Compton radius:

This explains the 1/2 factor in the frequency formula for the Zitterbewegung. Substituting m for m_{Îł}Â in the Ï = 2m*c*^{2}/*Ä§*Â yields an equivalence with the Planck-Einstein relation Ï = m_{Îł}*c*^{2}/*Ä§*. The electron can then be described as an oscillator (in two dimensions) whose natural frequency is given by the Planck-Einstein relation.^{[21]}

# Electrons as gluons?

**Preliminary note**: Since writing the post, I developed a more comprehensive paper. You can find it on my academia.edu site (click here). It’s a bit longer – and also more technical – than the post below. Have fun ! đ

According to common wisdom, we need to introduce a new charge â and, therefore, a new *force *â to explain why protons will stick together. But we have neutrons too, right? Canât they serve as *glue*? Now *that*âs an idea. About 99.999866 per cent of helium on this planet consists of two protons and two neutrons: we write this isotope as ^{4}He. The only other *stable* isotope is ^{3}He, which consists of two protons and *one* neutron. Let me *google* thisâŠ This is what Wikipedia writes: âWithin the nucleus, protons and neutrons are bound together through the nuclear force. *Neutrons are required for the stability of nuclei*, with the exception of the single-protonÂ hydrogen atom.â[1]

So now we need to examine this glue: what is it? Whatâs the difference between a neutron and a proton? A proton is stable. Neutrons are only stable inside of a nucleus: free neutrons *decay*. Their mean lifetime is almost 15 minutes, so thatâs almost *eternity *in atomic physics. *Almost*, but not quite: free neutrons are *transient *oscillations. Why are neutrons stable in a nucleus but not in free space? We think itâs the Planck-Einstein relation: two protons, two neutrons and two electrons â a helium atom, in other words â are stable because all of the angular momenta in the *oscillation *add up to (some multiple of) Planckâs (reduced) quantum of action. The angular momentum of a neutron in free space does not, so it has to fall apart in a (stable) proton and a (stable) electron â and then a neutrino which carries the remainder of the energy. Letâs jot it down:Letâs think about energy first. The neutronâs energy is about 939,565,420 eV. The proton energy is about 938,272,088 eV. The difference is 1,293,332 eV. Thatâs almost 1.3 MeV.[2] The electron energy gives us close to 0.511 MeV of that difference â so thatâs only 40% â but its *kinetic *energy can make up for a lot of the remainder! We then have the neutrino to provide the changeâthe *nickel-and-dime*, so to speak.[3]

Is this *decay *reversible? It is: a proton can *capture *an electron and, somehow, *become *a neutron. It usually happens with proton-rich nuclei absorbing an inner atomic electron, usually from the K or L electron shell, which is why the process is referred to as K- or L-electron capture:Once again, we have a neutrino providing the *nickel-and-dime* to ensure energy conservation. It is written as the anti-particle of the neutrino in the neutron decay equation. Neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are neutral, so whatâs the difference? The specialists in the matter say they have no idea and that a neutrino and an anti-neutrino might well be one and the same thing.[4] Hence, for the time being, weâll effectively assume theyâre one and the same thing: we might write both as Îœ_{e}. No mystery hereânot for me, at least. Or not here and not right now, I should say: the neutrino is just a vehicle to ensure conservation of energy and momentum (linear and/or angular).

It is tempting to think of the proton as some kind of *atomic system *itself, or a positive *ion *to which we may add an electron so as to get a neutron. Youâll say: thatâs the hydrogen atom, right? No. The hydrogen atom is much larger than a neutron: the Bohr radius of a hydrogen atom is about 0.53 *pico*meter (1 pm = 1ÂŽ10^{–}^{12} m). In contrast, the radius of a neutron is of the order of 0.8 *femto*meter (1 fm = 1ÂŽ10^{–}^{15} m), so thatâs about 660 times smaller. While a neutron is much smaller, its energy (and, therefore, its mass) is significantly higher: the energy difference between a hydrogen atom and a neutron is about 0.78 MeV. Thatâs about 1.5 times the energy of an electron. The table below shows these interesting numbers.A good model of what a proton and a neutron actually *are*, will also need to explain why electron-positron pair production only happens when the photon is fired into a nucleus. The mainstream interpretation of this phenomenon is that the surplus kinetic energy needs to be absorbed by some heavy particle â the nucleus itself. My guts instinct tells me something else must be going on. Electron-positron pair production does seem to involve the *creation *of an electric charge out of energy. It puzzled Dirac (and many other physicists, of course) greatly.Let us think about sizes once more. If we try the mass of a proton (or a neutronâalmost the same) in the formula for the Compton radius, we get this:Thatâs about 1/4 of the actual radius as measured in scattering experiments. We have a good rationale for calculating the Compton radius of a proton (or a neutron). It is based on the *Zitterbewegung *model for elementary particles: a pointlike charge whizzing around at the speed of light. For the electron, the charge is electric. For the proton or the neutron, we think of some *strong *charge and we, therefore, get a very different energy and, hence, a very different Compton radius.[5] However, a factor of 1/4 is encouraging but not good enough. If anything, it may indicate that a good model of a proton (and a neutron) should, besides some strong force, also incorporate the classical electric charge. It is difficult to think about this, because we think the pointlike electric charge has a radius itself: the *Thomson *or *classical *electron radius, which is equal to:This is about 3.5 times *larger *than the proton or neutron radius. It is even larger than the measured radius of the deuteron nucleus, which consists of a proton and a neutron bound together. That radius is about 2.1 fm. As mentioned above, this âback-of-the-envelopeâ calculation of a Compton radius is encouraging, but a good model for a proton (and for a neutron) will need to explain these 1/4 or 3.5 factors.

What happens might be something like this: we fire an enormous amount of electromagnetic energy into a nucleus (the equivalent mass of the photon has to match the mass of the electron and the positron thatâs being produced) and, hence, we destabilize the stable nucleus. However, Nature is strong. The strong force is strong. Some intermediate energy state emerges but Nature throws out the spanner in the works. The end result is that all can be analyzed, once again, in terms of the Planck-Einstein relation: we have stable particles, once again. [Of course, the positron finds itself in the anti-Universe and will, therefore, quickly disappear in the reverse process: electron-positron annihilation.]

But so thatâs just a story right now. We need to develop it into a proper theory.

**Post scriptum**:Â Weâve calculated a Compton radius for the proton. If â in analogy with the electron model â we would (also) have a current inside, then we should be able to calculate that current. Let us limit ourselves to the electric current â because we donât have much of an idea about what a strong current would represent. The circular electric current creates a magnetic moment. We got the right value for an electron:What do we get if we do a similar calculation for a pointlike charge moving around at the speed of light but in a much smaller loop â a loop measured in *femto*meter rather than picometer? The calculation below shows we get a similar result in terms of *structure *but note the result is expressed in terms of the *nuclear *magneton (m_{N}) which uses theÂ proton mass, as opposed to the Bohr magneton, which uses the electron (rest) mass.Unsurprisingly, the actually measured value is different, and the difference is much larger than Schwingerâs a/2p fraction. To be precise, ÎŒ_{p}Â Â» 2.8Â·ÎŒ_{N}, so the *measured *value of the protonâs magnetic moment is almost three times that of its theoretical value. It should be no surprise to us â because we use a radius thatâs 1/4 of what might be the actual radius of the loop. In fact, the measured value of the protonâs magnetic moment suggests the *actual *radius of the loop should be 2.8 times the theoretical Compton radius:Again, these results are not exact, but theyâre encouraging: they encourage us to try to describe the proton in terms of some kind of hybrid model â something that mixes the classical electric charge with some strong charge. No need for QFT or virtual particles. đ

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron.

[2] CODATA data gives a standard error in the measurements that is equal to 0.46 eV. Hence, the measurements are pretty precise.

[3] When you talk money, you need big and small denominations: banknotes versus coins. However, the role of coins could be played by photons too. Gamma-ray photons â produced by radioactive decay â have energies in the MeV order of magnitude, so they should be able to play the role of whatever change we need in an energy equation, right? Yes. Youâre right. So there must be more to it. We see neutrinos whenever there is radioactive decay. Hence, we should probably associate them with that, but how exactly is a bit of a mystery. Note that the decay equation conserves linear, angular (spin) momentum and (electric) charge. What about the color charge? Weâre not worried about the color charge here. Should we be worried? I donât think so, but if youâd be worried, note that this rather simple decay equation does respect color conservation â regardless of your definition of what quarks or gluons might actually *be*.

[4] See the various articles on neutrinos on Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), such as, for example, this one: https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/majorana-or-dirac/. The common explanation is that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos have opposite spin but thatâs nonsensical: we can very well imagine one and the same particle with two spin numbers.

[5] See: Jean Louis Van Belle, *Who Needs Yukawaâs Wave Equation?*, 24 June 2019 (http://vixra.org/abs/1906.0384).

# Mass without mass

# The Emperor Has No Clothes

I am going to re-work my manuscript. I am going to restructure it, and also add the QCD analyses I did in recent posts. This is the first draft of the foreword. Let me know what you think of it.Â đ

[…] I had various working titles for this publication. I liked â*A Bright Shining Lie*â but that title is already taken. The *âHistory of a Bad Ideaâ *was another possibility, but my partner doesnât like negative words. When I first talked to my new partner about my realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, she spontaneously referred to a story of that wonderful Danish storyteller, Hans Christian Andersen: *The Emperorâs New Clothes*. She was very surprised to hear I had actually produced a draft manuscript with the above-mentioned title (*The Emperor Has No Clothes*) on quantum electrodynamics which â after initially positive reactions â got turned down by two major publishers.[1] She advised me to stick to the original title and just give it another go. I might as well because the title is, obviously, also a bit of a naughty wink to one of Roger Penroseâs book.[2]

The ideas in this book are *not *all that easy to grasp â but they do amount to a full-blown realist interpretation of quantum mechanics, including both quantum electrodynamics (the theory of electrons and photons, and their interactions) and quantum chromodynamics â the theory of what goes on inside of a nucleus.[3] Where is gravity? And what about the weak force, and the new Higgs sector of what is commonly referred to as the Standard Model of physics? Donât worry. We will talk about these too. Not to make any definite statements because we think science isnât ready to make any definite statements about them. Why? Because we think it doesnât make sense to analyze the weak force as a force. Itâs just a different beast. Gravity is a different beast too: we will explore Einsteinâs geometric interpretation of spacetime. As for the Higgs field, we think it is just an ugly placeholder in an equally ugly theory.

What ugly theory? Isnât the Standard Model supposed to be beautiful? Sabine Hossenfelder[4] â writes the following about it in her latest book: âThe Standard Model, despite its success, doesnât get much love from physicists. Michio Kaku calls it âugly and contrived,â Stephen Hawking says itâs âugly and ad hoc,â Matt Strassler disparages it as âugly and baroque,â Brian Greene complains that the standard model is âtoo flexibleâ, and Paul Davies thinks it âhas the air of unfinished businessâ because âthe tentative way in which it bundles together the electroweak and strong forcesâ is an âugly feature.â I yet have to find someone who actually likes the standard model.â[5]

You may know Hossenfelderâs name. She recently highlighted work that doubts the rigor of the LIGO detections of gravitational waves.[6] I like it when scientists dare to question the award of a Nobel Prize. If any of what I write is true, then the Nobel Prize Committee has made a few premature awards over the past decades. Hossenfelderâs book explores the discontent with the Standard Model *within* the scientific community. Of course, the question is: whatâs the alternative? Thatâs what this book is all about. You will be happy to hear that. You will be unhappy to hear that I am not to shy away from formulas and math. However, you should not worry: I am not going to pester you with gauge theory, renormalization, perturbation theory, transformations and what have you. Elementary high-school math is all you need. Reality is beautiful and complicated â but not *that *complicated: we can all understand it. đ

[1] The pre-publication versions of this manuscript are date-stamped on http://vixra.org/abs/1901.0105.

[2] Roger Penrose, The Emperorâs New Mind, 1989.

[3] Physicists will note this is a rather limited definition of quantum chromodynamics. We will expand on it later.

[4] You may know her name. She recently highlighted work that doubs the rigor of the LIGO detections of gravitational waves. See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was-it-all-just-noise-independent-analysis-casts-doubt-on-ligos-detections. I like it when scientists dare to question a Nobel Prize. If any of what I write is true, then itâs obvious that it wouldnât be the first time that the Nobel Prize Committee makes a premature award.

[5] Sabine Hossenfelder, *Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray*, 2018.

[6] See: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/16/was-it-all-just-noise-independent-analysis-casts-doubt-on-ligos-detections.