Preface

Science is fighting today one of the hardest and most fascinating battles. The aim of this fight is just to reach the knowledge of what Matter is in its inward essence and the origin of mass. And, as a consequence of this knowledge, to be able to determine the nature of the existing forces. Science is looking for a "Theory of Everything". Physicists are searching for one sweeping theory that will account for the behaviour of all matter and energy.

The subject is touching the concept of Metaphysics, which has been defined as "the study of the fundamental or primary causes and the underlying nature of things".

The Theory put forward in this Work refers to the inward essence of Matter, the forces acting on Matter and finally the electromagnetic energy, light being its most "visible" manifestation. And it is based on the idea that there must be some fundamental principles or laws, which necessarily must be simple and very few. It does not claim to have a solution for everything but it does offer answers to a good number of questions deemed, hitherto, inexplicable. It strives, furthemore, to avoid the acceptance of principles which go against our deep-rooted conviction that there is, ultimately, only one simple Reality.

The origin of mass is clearly defined by this Theory. One of its conclusions is "Mass is just movement. And its behaviour is ruled by two simple laws". Concerning the importance of this statement, this is what Fermilab physicist Chris Hill says: "Understanding the origin of mass would be an achievement on a par with the greatest scientific strides in history, like Newton's establishing the universal law of gravitation or Einstein's connection of energy to mass and the speed of light".

To say that mass is just movement implies that there is something moving. What is it made of? It is the fundamental thing out of which everything else is made. The idea is that all matter can be ultimately thought of being made out of this fundamental thing, just in different states of movement. The different states of movement appear to us to look like objects with different mass, different energy. So we perceive distinct elementary particles, but only a few of them are stable; electron, proton, neutron, neutrino. All elementary particles are the same thing and the only difference between them is the state of movement.

All this will be duly explained along the book and we shall see that it is the simple consequence of two simple principles.

The idea is not completely unorthodox. Let us compare the above paragraph with what Professor Brian Greene at Cornell says about the String Theory: "What is the string made of? It is the fundamental thing out of which everything else is made... The idea is that all matter can be ultimately thought of being composed of many strings, just in different states of oscillation. The different states of oscillation appear to us to look like objects with different mass, different energy... So we percieve distinct elementary particles. All of them are a little loop of string and the only difference between the particles is the way the string is oscillating."

No doubt there is certain similarity between the Theory put forward in this book and the String Theory. But the latter requires the acceptance of some notions difficult to understand: a universe with 10 dimensions and strings with no thickness, just one dimension. On the other hand, "with the inclusion of gravity, the String Theory has led to intractable problems with infinite quantities in the calculations". If the reader goes on, he will see that this Theory need not the acceptance of any notions outside our common world.

On the other hand, the fundamental thing out of which everything else is made and that is present in all space might well constitute some kind of ether that permeates all of reality.

I know well the current orthodox ideas about the origin of mass according to the Standard Model. Here are some paragraphs from the Drell Report submitted by HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel) to the US Department of Energy in May 1994:

"A particle's mass depends on its interactions with the Higgs field, a medium that permeates all of space and time. The W and Z masses result from their couplings to this field. The photon and gluon have no such couplings, so they remain massless..... Unfortunately, we do not understand the origin of these couplings..... Current theoretical models can accommodate a top quark mass 340.000 times that of the electron, but we cannot explain it..... The Higgs mechanism with its concomitant spin-zero Higgs Boson has a variety of theoretical shortcomings. The model on which it is based is unstable.....In addition to supersymmetry and dynamical symmetry breaking, there have been many other possible suggestions for new physics.... The menu of possibilities is rich ..... Although the Standard Model provides an apparently complete description of particle physics at present energies and answers many questions, it gives rise to many more.... The most direct way to find new physics is to go to higher energy and explore completely uncharted territory."

This is what you can read today about the orthodox theories: "The Standard Model combining electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provides a satisfactory way of understanding most experimental results in particle physics, yet it is far from satisfying as a theory. In addition to the missing Higgs particle, many problems and gaps in the model have been explained in a rather ad hoc manner. Values for such basic properties as the fractional charges of quarks or the masses of quarks and leptons must be inserted "by hand" into the model; that is, they are determined by experiment and observation rather than by theoretical predictions."

The Theory presented in this Work has explored a complete uncharted territory. It discards some of the concepts and ideas accepted as orthodox in Physics today, but it discards nothing that has been fully demonstrated. And it has a great advantage over current orthodox theories: it can be easily checked without any expenditure of money.

Throughout the 20th Century the only accurate approach to our understanding of Matter has come from Einstein. His formulas giving the relationship between mass and energyin laboratories all over the world, and without these Einstein's discoveries our knowledge of Matter could not progress.

It is precisely on this solid foundation that this Theory is built. Its enunciation is absolutely simple and understandable and its conclusions are completely logical and in agreement in a really astonishing way with verified facts and experimental data.

Besides the simplicity mentioned above, the Theory presents a beauty and elegance that no other perception of Matter can reach. In order to appreciate this one merely has to go into the Theory without prejudices and skip over any initial doubt that may arise. The amount of exhaustive proofs and coincidences with experimental reality is so great that doubts will disappear, and I say doubts because there are no contradictions.

It is clear that no one can go over the Theory without a deep knowledge of Physics.

It requires very clear ideas on certain subjects. Among them the deep sense of the two Einstein expressions mentioned before, the electromagnetism with all its complexity, the behaviour of the atom and that of the atomic nucleus with its particular short range forces, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, the behaviour of light in different phenomena as diffraction, interference, dispersion and polarization, etc., as well as some experiments the conclusions of which cannot be explained in the light of knowledge today but can be explained by applying this Theory.

On the other hand, checking the Theory requires deep knowledge of Mathematics, Differential and Integral Calculus, Geometry in all its fields, including Analytic Geometry and, finally, working methods with computers.

Apart from this knowledge, checking the Theory requires plenty of time. There are many points to deal with and I can guarantee that nobody will be able to judge at first sight, unless the Theory is cast aside from the very start due to incompatibility with some idea considered by the reader as immovable.

As I have said, the Theory is based on Einstein's ideas on mass and energy. One of the main objections of Einstein to modern theories was the lack of physical sense, and it is well known that he did not like Quantum Mechanics. He said: "I reject the basic idea of contemporary statistical quantum theory, insofar as I do not believe that this fundamental concept will prove a useful basis for the whole of physics". And he said this in his last letter: "Owing to some mathematical difficulties which are unsurmountable at the moment, logical simplicity remains the only criterion to prove a theory is valid".

In this respect I must say that the main formula this Theory proposes, apart from being as simple as Einstein's expressions about Matter, relates the two universal constants: the speed of light, which we could call the einsteinian constant, with Planck's constant h, which we could call the quantum constant. These constants have totally dissimilar values: c = 3 x 10^10 ; h = 6,6 x 10^-27. It does not seem natural that the product of these constants (h c) may appear as the isolated member of an equation. What is the meaning of the product of two so dissimilar constants which, on the other hand, have never been seen together? The result is an intermediate figure in the order of 10^-16. It seems strange. But we must bear in mind that the values mentioned of c and h correspond to the CGS system of units. If we adopt another system of units more in accord with the subatomic world, the two constants can become of the same order of magnitude or even, if we identify ourselves with a hypothetical observer located on an elementary particle and leave him to choose his natural system of units, h and c will take up the new values: c = 1 ; h = 1. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics is not so far removed from Einstein's ideas about mass and energy.

One of the main conclusions of this Theory is that elementary particles are not newtonian. We know they are not. Otherwise they would never fit the behaviour of particles proposed by Einstein, which has been fully verified through experimentation: mass is a form of energy and mass increases with speed.

If elementary particles are not newtonian, what are they? This Theory gives a complete definition, which fits in well with experimental results. This definition is simple and easy to understand, but not so simple as the current orthodox concept of the electron. This is what one can read concerning the electron: "An electron may not be exactly what we've thought it was since its discovery 100 years ago. The tiny particle may not be a simple negative point charge, as scientists often describe it." (From Purdue News, February 1997)

Can anyone be happy when the knowledge of the electron has progressed so little in a complete century? After 100 years there is nothing about a possible structure of the electron. It is considered a simple negative point charge.

It is true that the Superstrings theory says: "Do not think about elementary particles as being little points. Think about them as being little loops". This is what the already mentioned Professor Brian Greene at Cornell says when talking about Superstrings theory: "The reason why we are not certain that we have the final theory is because when you look at it more closely, it doesn't obviously look like our world that it's describing, because it requires the Universe to have 10 dimensions. And we've been struggling for many years now to understand how it's possible that this theory that predicts 10 dimensions can still be describing our world." And he continues: "We really say string in the most precise sense of the word. Something with just one dimension. Not a three dimensional string like my shoelace, which has thickness to it. We are talking about a string with no thickness, just one dimension."

The Theory presented in this Work gives a structure to the electron as well as the rest of particles, stable and unstable. They are all the same thing. And this structure can explain almost everything.

The Luxon Theory states an inner movement inside the material particles that is equal to the speed of light. Professor Natarajan from India says that particles are endowed with two types of motion, an internal motion and an external motion. According to him, the resultant of both velocities is always the speed of light. Without entering into details, I can assure that the electron of Professor Natarajan has a gyromagnetic ratio equal to e/2m, while the experimental value is e/m. This is the key point when dealing with all the speculations incorporating the idea that the speed of light is always reached inside the material particles. And it has been the starting point of this Theory. It is not easy to reach the value of e/m for the gyromagnetic ratio.

There is a chapter of this book called "Classical Physics, Quantum Mechanics and this Theory", in which the different concepts of elementary particles are discussed. But here are some previous comments on the subject:

Newtonian particles of Classical Physics were "small, solid, impenetrable and indestructible objects out of which all matter was made". Matter was therefore always conserved and essentially passive. This concept of matter had to be abandoned when Einstein stated that mass is a form of energy and that mass increases with speed.

Quantum Mechanics came to solve this problem in a specific way by introducing a completely new and abstract concept of matter. The success in explaining the atom was considerable. Nevertheless Quantum Mechanics has failed, so far, in explaining the atomic nucleus. According to Quantum Mechanics the higher the energy of a particle, the smaller the space of its confinement and the higher the speeds. That means that in the nucleus speeds close to the speed of light take place. In order to understand the atomic nucleus Relativity must be taken into account. We are considering a "relativistic phenomenon". This is what Professor Fritjof Capra of the University of California in Berkeley has said about this subject: "What we need, therefore, for a full understanding of the nuclear world is a theory which incorporates both Quantum and Relativity Theory. Such a theory has not yet been found, and therefore we have as yet been unable to formulate a complete theory of the nucleus. Although we know quite a lot about the interactions between nuclear particles, we do not yet understand the nature and complicated form of the nuclear force on a fundamental level. We do have several "quantum relativistic" models which describe some aspects of the world of particles very well, but the fusion of Quantum and Relativity Theory into a complete theory of the particle world is still the central problem and great challenge of modern physics."

We shall see that the Theory put forward in this Work presents a new concept of elementary particles, with a dynamic pattern, in agreement with some of the postulates of Quantum Mechanics. This new concept not only relates Einstein's Theory with Quantum Mechanics, but gives a complete and satisfactory explanation of the nucleus, including the nuclear forces. And all this is done in a simple and understandable way.

Mass is just movement. All particles are the same thing. The only difference is their corresponding movement. More movement means more mass, more energy. No movement means annihilation. This will be clearly seen when we shall deal with matter and antimatter. As I have said before, the great advantage of this Theory over Superstrings Theory is that it can work with three dimensions and besides that it gives full explanation of many difficult problems as shown at the end of this Preface, among them the nuclear forces.

It is well known the last announcements (I'm writing these lines in August 2005) made by physicists concerning the proposed solution for the so called "missing neutrinos". Chapter 15 deals with the subject of neutrinos and it is discussed in detail. But I am going to make some comments in advance.

Researchers have designed different types of detectors in order to find neutrinos coming from the sun. Baksan in Russia, Chlorine and Gallium detectors, Kamiokande and Super-Kamiokande of pure water in Japan and SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) of heavy water in Canada. There is always a deficit of solar electron neutrinos in all the experiments.

It is thought that neutrinos actually exist in three flavours, called electron, muon and tau neutrinos. The SNO experiment with heavy water is designed for two reactions. The first reaction affects only electron neutrinos and produces high-energy electrons that emit Cerenkov radiation. The second reaction affects neutrinos of any flavour and produces neutrons. According to the researchers, comparing the two fluxes will show whether there are any muon or tau neutrinos coming from the sun. And the conclusion from this comparison is: "we measure the total number of neutrinos. Neutrinos have changed from electron neutrinos into muon and tau neutrinos that are more difficult to detect".

It is a fact that, from the point of view of detection, some electron neutrinos behave like muon and tau neutrinos. In other words, they are more difficult to detect.

First of all it should be made clear that most solar neutrinos have energies that are below the detection threshold for the water detectors. Water detectors are sensitive to only about 0,01 % of the neutrinos the sun emits. Researchers recognize that the remainig 99,9 % must be observed in the future with new detectors that are sensitive to relatively low energies.

The production of neutrinos in the sun comes from 3 reactions: - PP1 p+p -----> D + positron + neutrino (less than 1 MeV; 0,26 MeV average energy); 91 % of the total flux - PP2 Be(7) + electron -----> Li(7) + neutrino (0,8 MeV average energy) - PP3: B(8) --> Be(8) + positron + neutrino. The resultant neutrinos from this reaction have 7,2 MeV as average energy and maximum over 14 MeV; These neutrinos represent 0,01 % of the total flux of neutrinos coming from the sun.

Neutrinos detected by the SNO experiment come from the last reaction. Then, the experiment that has led researchers to such a drastic solution of "the missing neutrinos" as to dynamite the Standard Model is dealing with a minimum part of solar neutrinos. Just 0,01 % of the total flux. More than 98 % of the solar neutrino flux lies below 1 MeV. It is the PP1 reaction, producing neutrinos with energy less than 1 Mev and 0,26 Mev as average and covering 91 % of the total flux of electron neutrinos, the one that must be thoroughly investigated. I dare say that the results will be quite different and that the fact that the size of a single particle decreases proportionally with its energy must be considered.

Another problem for the proposed solution, apart from why and how this particular change, called "oscillation", takes place, is that it would require neutrinos to have mass (which they don't in current theories). This would imply New Physics. Most Physicists agree with that. Theorists have assumed that neutrinos have zero mass. But if they are to switch flavours, they must have some mass, what is against the Standard Model. This is what Sidney Drell wrote in a personal letter of explanation to John N. Bahcall in January 2003: "The success of the Standard Model was too dear to give up".

But where is this New Physics that will allow material particles to change flavours? Nobody has said a word about that. Physicists think now that some of the most basic assumptions of Physics may have to be re-evaluated. Kenneth Cande of the University of Pennsilvania says: "Neutrinos that transform flavours are behaving in ways never observed in particle accelerators, which simulate nuclear reactions at work in stars".

There is a New Physics that eludes this obstacle. One of the conclusions of the Theory proposing this New Physics is that the size of a single particle decreases proportionally with its energy. Neutrinos are moving mass and their sizes depend on their energy. High energy neutrinos are very small and atomic nuclei are very small targets. For the same reason, all the energy of the Universe could have been concentrated in a single and incredibly small point, as we shall see in due course.

What would happen if researchers come to consider this posibility? We all know that electron neutrinos coming from the sun have a very wide spectrum of energies. Dr. John N. Bahcall, a specialist in solar neutrinos at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton N. J. is one of the researchers who has announced the solution of the mistery of missing neutrinos. And he recognizes: "the most puzzling and controversial finding about neutrinos raises the possibility that some of them may have a mass at rest as great as 17 MeV. The difference between this and other estimates of neutrino mass at rest is like the difference between a huge truck and a tiny pea".

The important fact is that some neutrinos are about 34 times smaller than an orbital electron, while others are several times larger than the same electron. Researchers could imagine that the large neutrinos, always present in great numbers in the 3 type of reactions, will find much more difficult to cover the distance from the sun to the Earth detector without interfering with other particles of matter. Many of them will simply disappear on their journey. On the other hand, some other neutrinos are so energetic (so small) that they are very difficult to be detected by a system of collisions. Let us remember that the average energy of neutrinos produced in the sun is: pp, 91% with 0,26 MeV; Be(7) with 0,8 MeV; B(8), 0,01% with 7,2 MeV. And let us also remember that some of the projectiles are as large as a huge truck and others as small as a tiny pea, in the words of Dr. Bahcall. What he didn't know was that this fact is decisive when it comes to counting the collisionns between neutrinos and the matter in the detectors.

Another fact to be considered in the various experiments is not only the size of the projectile (the neutrino), but the size of the target. When the detector uses pure water the target neutrinos are looking for is an electron, while in detectors of heavy water the target depends on the type of reaction. It can be an electron or the nucleus of heavy water, that is to say, the deuteron, which is about 1.800 times smaller. Researchers in the Super-Kamiokande experiment reported the results of more than 18.000 neutrino-electron scattering events, increasing the number of previously reported solar neutrinos events by more than an order of magnitude. The target in this case was the large electron, not the small nucleus.

When an electron neutrino collides with its target, the reaction depends on the energy. If the detector device is sensitive to lower and higher energy neutrinos, the collision will produce one or the other effect, depending on the energy. But high energy events will take place very seldom as the sizes of the colliding projectiles are very small.

What is clear is that A New Physics is necessary. A New Physics capable of explainig the behaviour of neutrinos. The explanation lies in the fact that the size of a single particle decreases with its energy. This is not speculative. This is one more conclusion of a Theory that has predicted among other things the value of h/4p as the spin of all single particles and the value of 2,21 Mev as the binding energy of deuteron.

And I shall now refer to the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) to be switched on in a few months at CERN. (I'm writing this note in June 2007). Everybody knows the features of this great scientific instrument, the most powerful accelerator ever built, more than 40.000 Million Euros. The LHC will boast seven times the power of the venerable Tevatron Accelerator at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, America's biggest. The target is to shed light on the unresolved questions of Science, such as the search of the elusive Higgs boson to explain the origin of particle mass, and investigating the make up of dark matter.

On this respect we must remember the abandoned project of the SSC, Superconducting Super Collider, in USA. In 1993 American Congress voted to cut funding for the 54-mile-around atom smasher to be constructed in Texas. Critics said it was too much money to put into a single scientific basket, particularly in the esoteric field of particle physics. And they continued: "The SSC unique attraction is energy. The longest accelerator ever built, it would push protons almost to the speed of light before smashing head-to-head. More a matter creator than an atom smasher, it converts the energy of these collisions into a shower of particles. The more energy an accelerator produces, the more massive the particles it can create. Physicists are convinced that the SSC's superenergies will coax into being particles the likes of wich have never been seen on Earth. In particular, they're eager for the debut of a particle that would shed light on the mistery of how matter acquires mass. The mass mistery, more than anything else, is the SSC's raison d'etre. The origin of mass is one of the few great puzzles left in particle physics. What's so mysterious about mass? .... According to one theory, mass is a property that arises from a pervasive, unseen influence called the Higgs field. If it exists, then so does an associated Higgs particle. And the SSC should be able to find it. Current theory suggest that the Higgs particle should be at least 100 times as massive as a proton. The SSC should find this particle handily. If it doesn't, or if something entirely unexpected shows up, physicists will have to go back to the drawing board." And the result of this opposition was the abandonment of the project.

This is what Martinus J.G. Veltman, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics and Professor of Physics at the University of Michigan, has said about the Higgs boson: "Indeed, modern theoretical Physics is constantly filling the vacuum with so many contraptions such as the Higgs boson that it is amazing a person can even see the stars on a clear night". I only hope that if physicists have to go back to the drawing board because the existence of the Higgs field and the Higgs boson is not absolutely clear, one theory that states the origin of mass in a simple way, the spin of the particles and the nuclear forces will be accepted as the correct one.

And concerning dark matter and black holes, this Theory proposal is that all particles are the same thing and the only difference between them is the state of movement. More energy means smaller size and higher frequency in the spinning movement. This makes possible the existence of incredibly minute massive particles that could be the main constituent of dark matter and, when located at the center of a galaxy, they also could be responsible for the huge gravity force that today Physics cannot explain. Recent descoveries support these ideas. This is what one can read in November 2006 in SPACE.com about the subject: "The faster a black hole spins, the smaller its critical radius. If a particle is going around a black hole in the same direction as the spin of the black hole, then it turns out that it can be comfortable. It's able to find a circular orbit even at much smaller radii" (Narayan); "As swirling matter gets closer to a black hole, it starts orbiting faster and faster until it reaches the jaws of the dark behemoth." (Jeffrey McClitock); "While astronomers have calculated the masses of more than a dozen black holes, spin-speed measurements have remained elusive".

It seems clear that the behaviour of black holes fit in with that of the elementary particles as seen by this Theory, including the initial particle of the Big-bang. Measurements of spin-speed remain elusive as the spinning frequency varies with the distance to the center, but the frequency at the very core of the black hole can be easily calculated by applying the principles of this Theory: spinning frequency = mc^2/h ; where m is the mass of the black hole.

Part two of this Work, called "Light and Relativity", clarifies certain aspects of the behaviour of light and can be considered complementary to the main Theory presented in this Part one, "Matter and Energy". Paradoxically "Light and Relativity" was written before "Matter and Energy".

All the arguments presented in this Work are based on figures, not on theoretical disquisitions, and all concepts, no matter their complexity, are seen from the point of view of a Physical Reality. But, as I have said, the Theory can not be judged at first glance, unless it is flatly rejected due to some disagreement with the reader's convictions.

I am well aware of the fact that "showing interest in this Theory" implies acceptance of the possibility that a good part of 20th Century Physics is wrong. And we all know that a good number of Nobel Prizes during this century have been awarded for achievements in theoretical Physics. Furthermore, this "interest" also implies that no flagrant contradiction has been found.

In any case, I recognize that it is very hard to accept what I propose here: that our knowledge of Physics concerning matter must be completely revised and that there is "A New Physics", capable of providing answers to many inexplicable questions. For a physicist to get interested in this Theory, he must first of all be sufficiently open-minded and at the same time he must accept the idea that there are many things wrong with the way in which Physics is today trying to unveil the ultimate essence of matter and the forces acting on it.

My suggestion, for anyone who wishes to go into the Theory, would be to read it skipping all that refers to mathematical calculus and to focus on the conclusions of the Theory that coincide with experimental Reality. Any doubts could be written down for a final review.

I can assure you that, at first sight of the amazing coincidences between the conclusions of the Theory and Reality, such doubts will disappear. With regard to the mathematical calculus, all the necessary verifications can be done, since it has been sufficiently contrasted.

The Theory explains a great number of phenomena that are otherwise impossible to explain:

These questions and many others are satisfactorily answered. This may seem pretentious at first sight, but it is not. There are many figures and many facts to prove that it is not.

If the reader does not believe this, all he has to do is to study the Theory without prejudice. All of this has been achieved without contradicting experimental facts. Are the conclusions of this Theory worthy of further investigation? Scientists of today, or maybe of tomorrow, must decide.