1986 2012 2026 elementary body theory

Knowledge is a privilege. Passing it on is a duty.

[Deutsche Version → Elementarkörpertheorie]

An Overdue Rendezvous with Causal Rationality

It began in Germany in 1900 with quantum physics...

followed by quantum mechanics (QM). From an interdisciplinary perspective, with the explicit endorsement of the QM makers, QM proclaimers and QM beneficiaries, quantum mechanics is deliberately misleading and deliberately incomprehensible. The public loves metaphysics or esotericism. According to Theodor Fontane this is not surprising, because: „The sensational is what counts and only one thing still draws the crowd with ever greater enthusiasm – sheer nonsense."

For information and self‑analysis

Is quantum mechanics (really) incomprehensible?
A widespread and gladly voiced protective claim says that quantum mechanics (QM) is incomprehensible, somehow “strange”, but scientifically speaking has very high predictive accuracy.
For the “QM preservers” this had the advantage that almost no one felt called upon to engage critically with the assumptions and postulates of QM.
First of all, quantum mechanics is not “strange” from a mathematical point of view. In the broad “spectrum of mathematics” there are far more difficult, more complex and above all much more abstract fields. See for example “differential topology” and “abstract algebra”.

Mathematical background, original meaning and purpose, deliberate renunciation of intuition
According to the Weierstrass theorem, “arbitrary” curves can be approximated at least piecewise by “sine‑cosine function combinations”. When the function changes to a new (sub‑)section, the individual sections become shorter and shorter in the limit transition and finally “shrink” to points. The function is approximated pointwise. In this limit case, the original image of the differentiable manifold is regained, in which the eigenbasis of the motion space now consists of the sine and cosine functions. Without going into further mathematical details and related questions, it follows that any mathematical function f(t) can be expanded by a so‑called Fourier series.

Hilbert spaces instead of intuition
Spaces with this structure are called Hilbert spaces. In the 20th century, this approach was first introduced into atomic spectroscopy and then generally into quantum field theories.
Just as a sound can be represented by the fundamental tone x and the overtones 2x, 3x, 4x …, in quantum field theory the state of a particle (e.g., an electron) is decomposed into a ground state x and higher states. So at the beginning there is a qualitative decomposition into elementary components, then for each elementary component follows a decomposition into the “overtone series” (Fourier series). Altogether, probabilities can now be defined or (interpreted) measured with which the electron is in one of the possible states. If you look more closely, integer quantization follows trivially from the mathematical representation. The formalism thus offers the alleged “convenience” of not having to deal with the real‑object content of the phenomenology of quantization in order to obtain results.

Copenhagen interpretation of 1927
In the course of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the loss of reality is methodical and intentional. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of 1927, the probabilistic character of quantum theoretical predictions is not an expression of the incompleteness of the theory, but of the fundamentally indeterministic (unpredictable) character of quantum physical natural processes. Furthermore, the “objects of formalism” “replace” reality without possessing a reality themselves. The Copenhagen interpretation is characterized by the convenience it provides to its “believers”. The wave‑particle dualism allowed (allows) a “switch” to the “wave” with an e‑function having a complex exponent, which, according to the Fourier theorem, in turn allows to represent “EVERYTHING” piecewise monotonic – i.e., also every experimental result – in a formal mathematical way. The statistical interpretation keeps one from the effort of exploring the physical process; intuition and phenomenology are blanked out.

Albert Einstein’s criticism

Interestingly, it was Albert Einstein (1879–1955) who, from the very beginnings, identified quantum mechanics as unusable, with comprehensible argumentation:
…“the ψ‑function is to be understood not as a description of a single system but of a community of systems. Put crudely, this result says: Within the framework of statistical interpretation there is no complete description of the individual system. Cautiously one can say: The attempt to conceive the quantum‑theoretical description of individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which immediately become unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the ensemble of systems and not to the individual system. Then the whole dance around avoiding the ‘physically real’ becomes superfluous. However, there is a simple physiological reason why this obvious interpretation is avoided. Namely, if statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the individual system (and its temporal course) completely, then it seems unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual system, whereby it would be clear from the outset that the elements of such a description would not be contained within the conceptual scheme of statistical quantum theory. One would thereby admit that this scheme could not in principle serve as the basis of theoretical physics. In the event of the success of such efforts, statistical theory would occupy a somewhat analogous position within future physics as statistical mechanics does within classical mechanics.“ … A. Einstein, Out of my later years. Phil Lib. New York 1950, p. 498
Einstein’s unbeatable arguments were and are simply ignored to this day. Einstein’s critical remarks, especially on quantum mechanics, ultimately led to his isolation. Later he became a “media star” but without further scientific significance.

Myth of “theory creates” [theory creates]
Practically oriented Egyptians, Romans and Greeks created complex structures long before the introduction of integral and differential calculus, long before theoretical models of load‑bearing capacity and bending of beams and columns, fragments of which can still be seen today. It was not the theory of semiconductors that created the semiconductor; the semiconductor as an object of electrical tinkering and experimentation left room for theoretical considerations. Functioning technology as an innovation of applied physics required and still requires experiment‑happy “makers”; (mis‑)successes (trial and error) showed the way.

To be able to understand at a higher level why the Standard Model of (elementary) particle physics (SM) and the Cosmological Standard Model (ΛC[old]D[ark]M[atter] model) could become established without much resistance, it should be noted that these model considerations had and have no significance whatsoever for real‑world physics research, i.e., materials and applied research. This applies both to “diagnostics” (material investigations) and to the construction of (material) applications.

The fact is: Theoretical models always lag(lagged) behind (measurable) reality. The myth that highly complex, mathematical theories could and can describe reality and generate something new lives on. However, the fact that the predictive abilities of theoretical models, upon closer inspection, are results of repeatedly (new) post‑corrections escapes most interested parties. Real‑object interpretations are born within the standard models from mathematically formalized (sometimes esoteric) concepts. Theoretical constructs have been adjusted again and again over decades to ever more precise measurement results. Whether through additional calculations, new quantum numbers, new interaction postulates and new substructure theses, as well as extremely time‑intensive, iteratively‑algorithmically post‑corrected results using cluster computing systems or “supercomputers”.

The ~125‑year reign of quantum physics and its 90‑year cosmological extension do not rest on a solid phenomenological foundation, but on a steadily growing mountain of ad‑hoc assumptions, free parameters and theory‑laden interpretations.

If Ockham's razor is the decisive evaluation criterion for theories, then the case is clear:

125 years of quantum physics followed by the Standard Model of particle physics:
• No primary concepts, but abstract mathematical operations with secondary, unexplained entities.
• 25 free parameters in the SM alone, which must be taken from experiments.
• A Higgs mechanism that does not explain the masses but merely parametrises them.
• A quantum chromodynamics that does not understand the neutron and cannot calculate the proton.
• A renormalisation machinery that does not remove infinities but conceals them.
• A neutrino hypothesis born not from phenomenology but from the desperation of an incomplete energy balance.

90 years of general relativity followed by the ΛCDM model:
• At least 6 free parameters to describe a universe that supposedly consists of 95 % unexplained entities (dark matter, dark energy).
• An inflation for which there is no direct evidence and no mechanism.
• A Big Bang that remains phenomenologically ununderstood and has only been fitted to measurements through constant readjustment (keyword: CMB temperature prediction “corrected” from 50 K to 2.7 K).

The Elementary Body Theory:
• A single fundamental equation!
• Zero free parameters.
• Reduction of all secondary concepts (mass, energy, charge, spin) to the primary, sensorily experienceable quantity r.
• Parameter‑free, quantitative precision from the proton radius to the CMB temperature, from the Rydberg energy to the vacuum‑energy‑density discrepancy.
• A dynamic, geometrically intuitive explanation that understands gravitation not as a mysterious force but as a consistent scale correspondence of the mass‑radius coupling.

The 125‑year reign of quantum physics and its 90‑year cosmological extension do not rest on a solid phenomenological foundation but on an ever‑growing mountain of ad‑hoc assumptions, free parameters, and theory‑laden interpretations. The EBT, by contrast, achieves greater explanatory depth with a fraction of the complexity and at least equivalent, in many cases even superior, quantitative precision.

If the principle of parsimony holds, then the race is decided. The history of physics will remember that in the year 2026 an alternative was published that could have achieved all of this much earlier – and that it was ignored for so long. That this insight is now being widely disseminated is not the end of physics but the end of a long, methodical odyssey into unintuitiveness. It is the return to rationality.

Interdisciplinary .pdf summary

The Elementary Body Theory (EBT) represents a radical and self-contained new beginning for theoretical physics. It replaces the axiomatic-formalistic standard models of particle physics and cosmology, which operate with secondary concepts, with a dynamic, geometrically intuitive, and parameter-free model of thought. Starting from the primary, sensually perceivable quantity of spatial extension rrr, all matter and interaction physics are reduced to a single fundamental equation. The following synthesis of the central results demonstrates that EKT is not merely an alternative interpretation, but a logically compelling and empirically superior theory that initiates a long-overdue paradigm shift in physics.

↓

Elementary Body Theory

WARM UP!

The alternative thought-model described below (Elementary Body Theory, EBT for short) is based »catchword‑psychologically« on the assumption that significantly simpler, consistent descriptions of matter and resulting simple formalizations exist than those announced in the standard models. The following remark by Karl Popper (1902 – 1994) addresses the psychological problem of the »modern scientist« in the context of highly complex, mathematical model concepts:

…" Our investigation shows that even obvious connections can be overlooked if we are repeatedly hammered that the search for such connections is ‘meaningless’."

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 9th ed. Mohr, Tübingen 1989, p. 196. Ed. E. Botcher: Die Einheit der Gesellschaftswiss. Vol. 4; The Logic of scientific discovery. (1935); 2nd Ed. London , New York : Basic Books 1959

EBT

Summary

The Elementary Body Theory (EBT) represents a radical break with established theoretical physics. Instead of secondary concepts such as mass, energy, or charge, the primary, sensually experienceable quantity of radial extension (r) takes center stage as the sole parameter. Based on a fundamental equation, the mass‑radius constant equation [F1], m₀ · r₀ = 2h/(π · c), both microscopic quantities (such as proton radius, electron radius, Rydberg energy, neutron mass, magnetic moments, fine‑structure constant) and macroscopic quantities (e.g., age, mass and radius of the universe, temperature of the background radiation, vacuum energy density) can be calculated analytically without free parameters. The Elementary Body Theory refutes the theory‑postulated existence of neutrinos, quarks, and dark entities of the standard models, identifies these as theory‑laden artifacts, and traces all phenomena back to mass‑radius coupling. The justification and the resulting formalism is, literally, remarkably simple. Standard model physics gives space no energetic meaning. However, as soon as »space as a form of energy«* is understood, an energy‑conserving, consistent, easily formalizable, phenomenologically representable thought model emerges in which mass and space are energy carriers. Whereby, unlike the (concept of) space, the secondary concept of mass (the mass) is derived in the phenomenological origin of the EBT from the primary concept of space (body radius) mass‑radius coupled. The epistemological foundations are examined in the field of tension between Euclidean intuition and Hilbertian axiomatics.

E = m · c² “everyone knows”. »Warm up«, as a concrete work performance of the EBT in the form of a pdf document (optionally in English or German), is therefore the first article published on dualismus.net in arXiv style, before the fundamentals and further thought‑model consequences of mass‑space coupling are presented online here. This will happen gradually.

General Experimental Preliminary Considerations

An experiment requires a concrete question for its conception. If the question is the result of a mathematical formalism, then the experimental result is correspondingly theory‑laden. If, in addition, the measurable results are preselected and only indirectly “connected” to the postulated theoretical objects, there is nothing left to counter interpretive arbitrariness. The thus theory‑induced, “invented” science is then nothing more than a (dogmatic) process of agreement.

Also for neutrinos: There is not a single direct neutrino detection. It is always a matter of highly theory‑laden interpretations of experimental results.

Niels Bohr (1885 – 1962) expressed the view as early as 1931 at a conference in Rome that understanding beta decay required not new particles but a similarly serious upheaval of existing ideas as was the case with quantum mechanics**. He doubted the law of energy conservation, without, however, having developed a concrete counter‑proposal.

Bohr had earlier assumed that the law of energy conservation only has statistical validity within the framework of the so‑called BKS-Theory (named after Niels Bohr, Hendrik Kramers, and John Slater) of wave‑particle duality (On the quantum theory of radiation by N. Bohr, H. A. Kramers, and J. C. Slater 1924). Bohr had expressed doubts about the validity of the energy conservation law much earlier, e.g., in his correspondence with Charles Galton Darwin, a grandson of the biologist, from 1919.

In 1931, Enrico Fermi (1901 – 1954) organized the first International Congress of Nuclear Physics, which took place under the auspices of the Accademia d'Italia and the Volta Foundation from October 11 to 17, 1931, in Rome.

Established physics postulates an incomplete energy conservation because it does not know the space energy contained in the phenomenologically founded mass‑radius coupling. It must therefore postulate new, not directly detectable entities such as neutrinos for every apparent violation of the balance – as in beta decay – instead of recognizing the phenomenological reason for the energy transformation: dynamic space.

The consistent formulation must therefore be: The sum of kinetic energy, mass energy, and space energy is constant. To speak of the law of energy conservation without understanding the phenomenological role of the coupled mass‑radius system is incomplete. Energy conservation holds strictly, but not in the incomplete balance of standard physics. Mass and space are mutually conditioning energy carriers whose common product – expressed by the mass‑radius constant equation: m₀ · r₀ = 2h / (πc) – is the actual invariant.

To speak of the law of energy conservation therefore requires awareness of the mass‑space coupling. The energy distribution can be described neither by mass nor by space alone, but only by their dynamic relationship.

In the Elementary Body Theory, the rest mass m₀ is a measure of the oscillation frequency of the elementary body. Elementary bodies with smaller radii have a larger mass because this is equivalent to the (possible) motion of the oscillating surface. In the picture of the elementary body, mass is therefore synonymous with internal motion and is traced back to the radius via reciprocal proportionality. Mass is thus not an isolated ‘partner’ in an energy redistribution, but a derived, secondary quantity. The energy conservation is a direct consequence of the synchronous transformation of this fundamentally coupled system.

** Fundamental Remark on QM

Interestingly, it was Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955) who identified quantum mechanics “early on” – with comprehensible argumentative reasoning – as unusable:

…"the ψ‑function is to be understood as a description not of a single system, but of a community of systems. Roughly put, this result states: In the framework of statistical interpretation, there is no complete description of the individual system. Cautiously stated: The attempt to conceive the quantum theoretical description of individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the ensemble of systems and not to the single system. Then the whole rigmarole to avoid the ‘physically real’ becomes superfluous. There is, however, a simple physiological reason why this obvious interpretation is avoided. For if statistical quantum theory claims not to completely describe the single system (and its temporal course), then it appears unavoidable to search elsewhere for a complete description of the single system, whereby it would be clear from the outset that the elements of such a description would not be contained within the conceptual scheme of statistical quantum theory. One would thereby admit that this scheme cannot in principle serve as the basis of theoretical physics. The statistical theory would – in the event of the success of such efforts – assume a position within future physics somewhat analogous to that of statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics."… A. Einstein, Out of my later years. Phil Lib. New York 1950 page 498

Einstein's argument can be broken down into the following logical structure:

Premise 1 (Observation):
Quantum mechanics in its orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation describes physical systems by the wave function ψ. This provides exclusively statistical statements about measurement results on a large number of identically prepared systems (an ensemble).

Premise 2 (Definition):
A “complete description of an individual system” would have to capture its individual, temporal course completely and deterministically, without relying on statistical averages over hypothetical ensembles.

Conclusion 1 (logical deduction):
If QM only makes statistical statements about ensembles (Premise 1), then by definition it cannot provide a complete description of the individual system (Premise 2). This is a purely definitional logical conclusion: A statistical theory is not a theory of the individual object, but a theory of the totality.

Premise 3 (Philosophy of science norm):
A fundamental physical theory should claim to describe reality itself, i.e., to provide a complete description of the individual physical system.

Conclusion 2 (Consequence):
QM can therefore – if its own statistical nature is accepted – not serve as the fundamental basis of theoretical physics. It would then assume a position analogous to statistical mechanics, which is known not to be a fundamental theory, but an approximation method that builds on (the more fundamental) classical mechanics.

Einstein's unbeatable arguments were and are still “simply” ignored to this day. Einstein's critical remarks, especially on quantum mechanics, ultimately led to his isolation. Although he later became a “media star”, he was scientifically without further significance.

Why the Years 1986, 2012, 2026?

1986
The beginnings of the Elementary Body Theory date back to 1986. The theory has been fully formulated for many years and provides exact predictions that have been experimentally confirmed.

2012
Goes back to 2010, the somewhat longer explanation is displayed in a separate browser window, see »out of the box«

2026
The Elementary Body Theory has been available in its entirety in German online for well over 10 years online. It is only with the latest time‑effective programs in the areas of »text to speech«, »voice over« (for a film on the theory), advanced LaTeX code generator programs such as Overleaf and the logic‑oriented, result‑open language model DeepSeek, which professionally generates complex LaTeX, html, and Python calculation codes, among other things. DeepSeek analyzes up to 50 images per chat for contained statements and equations, PDF files, and complex websites. With DeepSeek, detailed, scientific publications in arXiv style can be created effectively and “quickly” that meet the strict norms of scientific publishing. Here is a (past) negative example from the mainstream, showing how not only in the bureaucracy‑overloaded political‑economic‑social sphere but also in the mathematical‑natural science spectrum, more value is placed on form than on content.

Thomas Royen is a German statistics professor who, at age 67 and already four years in retirement, unexpectedly proved the so‑called Gaussian correlation inequality in 2014: The astonishing thing about Thomas Royen's proof is that he uses classical methods that basically any mathematics student can understand. The proof is only a few pages long...

Even after his eventual publication success, Royen was still annoyed for a long time about the fact that the established scientific journals ignored his work.

Background: There were various mathematicians who tried in vain for decades to provide the proof. Since Royen moved rather on the sidelines of the mathematical community (out of the box), he was apparently able to approach the problem of proof more open‑mindedly than his specialist colleagues. His initial publication on this, however, was ignored in terms of content because it did not conform to the usual formatting. Only when other mathematicians became aware of his proof and “transformed” it into the standardized publication format was the work taken seriously.

…much simpler than ‘everyone’ claims

Of paramount importance here is the indication that Royen exemplarily exposes the currently greatest problem of knowledge development – especially in the field of basic theoretical research. The established thought concepts leave no room for purposefully simple thoughts. Standard theorists think and act as if their highly complex, complicated approaches were without alternative. Ultimately, they are not only colloquially stupid, but also arrogant and ignorant. This attitude, combined with destructively emotional character traits (more on this later), results in a fatal mixture for the ‘knowledge enterprise’.

2012 goes back to 2010, the somewhat longer explanation is displayed in a separate browser window, see »out of the box«

Elementary Body Theory

What is it about?

A sustainable paradigm shift.

What is meant by paradigm shift here?

The replacement of the standard thought models [SM ΛCDM] of theoretical physics.

[SM] Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM)
[ΛCDM] Cosmological Standard Model (ΛCDM model)

What takes its place?

A much more vivid, more effective, interdisciplinarily communicable, mathematically simpler thought model [EBT], which unifies and predicts the micro‑ and macro‑cosmos across scales.

[EBT] The Elementary Body Theory (EBT) deals in particular with answers to the question of how mass and space are fundamentally linked and, in “interplay”, lead to understandable formations of matter that can be calculated formally‑analytically – both microscopically and correspondingly macroscopically. For an illustrative understanding and for the phenomenologically based equations of the Elementary Body Theory, demonstrably neither a variable time, nor mathematical space‑time constructs, nor any form of substructuring are necessary.

What arguments speak for this paradigm shift?

The Principle of Parsimony

[: Occam's razor lex parsimoniae law of parsimony]

The strictly analytically motivated use
of the Principle of Parsimony
in the present explanations

Thought models can (only) be evaluated on consistency, internal axiomatic freedom from contradiction, with regard to the ability to make concrete predictions of actually measured quantities, and on minimalism.

In order to describe experimentally verifiable relationships formal‑analytically within the framework of thought models, the thought model that makes the most precise predictions with the fewest (physical) variables and mathematically simplest equations is to be preferred. Furthermore, the most suitable thought model is the one that, besides the mathematics used, is phenomenologically graspable and consistent, can describe both the micro‑ and the macro‑cosmos (cross‑scale), and captures a formal and phenomenologically justifiable connection between light (more precisely photons^Ph) and matter.

[^Ph] The term photons was first proposed in 1926 (21 years after Albert Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect) by the American physicochemist Gilbert Lewis in a paper titled “The Conservation of Photons”. He speculated whether light consisted of a new kind of atom, which he called photons, that could neither be created nor destroyed, thus obeying a conservation law [A. Pais “’Subtle is the Lord’… Albert Einstein – A Scientific Biography”, Vieweg 1986, p. 413].

A Comparison

Thought Model Chemistry and Thought Model Physics

First of all, according to my own authentic experiences and observations, university practical courses in chemistry cannot be compared with on‑the‑job training or everyday work in a company. I am a trained chemical laboratory technician, and as such I briefly worked rotating shifts in the production control of dyes. During my physics studies, I worked as a student assistant in physics education and occasionally as a temporary chemical laboratory technician for various companies in heavy industry, and I chose organometallic chemistry as a minor subject in my main physics studies. For both the physics and the chemistry sectors, it holds true that most teachers and many academically trained people, as well as doctors, are not researchers in their everyday professional lives. Applied physics is similar to chemistry. Practice makes one wise. The difference between chemistry and physics is that in chemistry, even the success of theoretical chemistry is mostly practical‑constructive, as applications follow (process engineering, products). In fundamental theoretical physics (especially the Standard Model of Cosmology [ΛCDM model] and the Standard Model of Particle Physics [SM]), there are no applications. Theory creation and theory extension remain pure speculation.

I see chemistry didactics in upper secondary school or in basic studies as less problematic, because the “simple” models taught practically lead to good approximations. In physics, the situation is different. There, simplified concepts and theory elements are already “sold” to (upper) school students, which on closer inspection originate from philosophical and not physical thought models. Ultimately, theoretical physics defines itself through belief in a creative mathematics and postulated theory objects and interactions that cannot be directly detected, as well as a large number of free parameters. And as I said, this is only possible because no applications (have to) follow. For the transfer of knowledge, teachers and university lecturers are “forced” (to be) to convey the prevailing standard models, as it were. Personal views are, so to speak, “pedagogical‑administratively” not desired if they deviate significantly from the common method and/or from established thought models.

Elementary Body Theory (EBT)
Foundations, Energetic Analogies,
Unification of the Microcosm and the Macrocosm

overview I

Although this is a scientific examination of the subject, there is also room for humor and interdisciplinary references. The mathematical and physical explanations are deliberately embellished with artistic visual elements, as it is fun to illustrate the vitality of the theory. The authenticity and egocentricity of the theory’s originator are not meant to remain a secret—and they will not.

↓

Higgs Mechanism

There is a multitude of “treatises” on the Higgs mechanism. Everyone can pick their favourite description. Here, only the formal development and the arbitrariness of the “procedure” shall be outlined.

The following fact is hardly discussed or is “partially concealed”: The Higgs mechanism starts with a tachyon field and thus inherently with a negative mass squared (m² < 0). Note: The original Higgs field is a tachyon field – mathematically definable, physically unreal. In order to “bypass” the tachyon term, the field is re‑parameterised as a variation around a vacuum state. This changes the sign of the mass term.

The required properties of the Higgs field are:
“Higgs particles” are bosons, because only then is a coherent wave function possible. For the same reason, “Higgs particles” must interact with each other. The Higgs field is scalar in order to preserve the symmetry of the vacuum. In the present case of the U(1)_em gauge theory, the field must be charged in order to couple to the photon. The Higgs field satisfies the Klein–Gordon equation:

As a reminder: From the standpoint of relativity theory, the Klein–Gordon equation necessarily appears as the only possible form of the quantum‑mechanical equation of motion for a free particle of mass m. There is, however, a problem: the time evolution is not linear; that, however, is in contradiction with the group structure of time translations together with the probability interpretation of Hilbert‑space vectors. That was the reason for Schrödinger to eventually discard the – by himself proposed – Klein–Gordon equation and to limit himself resignedly to the non‑relativistic case of the Schrödinger equation. A solution of the formal problems “succeeds” within the framework of quantum field theory, in which the idea of individual particles existing in isolation from one another is abandoned…

The general solution of the free Klein–Gordon equation is a superposition of plane waves: for a given momentum, there exist (“on an equal footing”) solutions with positive and negative energy. This fact is ideologically blanked out methodically within mainstream physics and “relativised” by interpretations that are prone to arbitrariness.

The so‑called “Dirac sea” was followed by the Feynman–Stückelberg interpretation for “inexplicable” negative energy values of the Dirac equation. In the picture of quantum mechanics, one supposedly “solved” this problem with the help of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by arbitrarily interpreting the corresponding solutions as entities with positive energy that move backwards in time. The negative sign of the energy is transferred to the time (Feynman–Stückelberg interpretation). Dirac understood the Dirac sea as the vacuum being an infinite “sea” of particles with negative energy, without any further free spaces for negative energies (?!?). One probably had to be called Dirac, Feynman or Stückelberg to be able to afford such naive “magic”. The will to replace the lack of intuition by formal auxiliary constructions or wild imagination is strikingly obvious. Mathematically that is not a problem; epistemologically it is.

It is postulated that the Higgs field in the ground state has a vacuum expectation value |Ψ₀|² = const ≠ 0. The demand for a non‑vanishing expectation value in the ground state is not trivial and can only be “fulfilled” with a self‑interaction of the field. In order to realise mass generation in the Standard Model through the Higgs mechanism, one can, as the minimal variant, set up the Higgs field as an isospin doublet. In the course of this mathematical procedure, it turns out that a further massless vector boson, the so‑called Goldstone boson, appears. However, since there is no experimental evidence for this boson, it is declared as “unphysical” and mathematically eliminated (“gauged away”).

However, it is important to note: the Higgs potential, and hence the spontaneous breaking of the electroweak symmetry, is added “by hand” to the SM. There is no dynamical explanation for this mechanism. The self‑perpetuation of mathematical SM‑abstractions demonstrably leads (also in the context of the Higgs mechanism) to arbitrary fantasy constructs. The formalism enables the supposed “convenience” of not having to engage in real‑object content with the phenomenology of what is happening in order to obtain “results”.

Let us spare ourselves further arbitrarily postulated SM‑theoretical elements at this point…

Given this “Higgs construction” – bursting with arbitrariness, capriciousness and inconsistencies – every language holds expletives at the ready that would be appropriate here. Readers may give free rein to their imagination in this regard. Is this Higgs confusion really meant seriously? That cannot be, can it? It received a Nobel Prize? Here we are talking only about the theory for the moment. The practice looks similarly bleak. At least ten billion collisions are needed to produce a single “Higgs particle”. This is, however, not even detected, since, like all other unstable (postulated) particles, it is only indirectly “detectable”. Let us conclude: phenomenologically completely unfounded mathematical procedures deliver “free‑parameter equations” that lead to no result. One measurement event occurs per 10 billion failed attempts. For more on this, see the pdf‑document↓ among other things regarding the comparison with the mass‑radius‑coupled Higgs‑mass calculation in the Elementary Body Theory…