© Lloyd

1. http://milesmathis.com/quark2.pdf - Hadronization
2. [Wikipedia says:] "In particle physics, hadronization is the process of the formation of hadrons out of quarks and gluons."
3. "The tight cone of particles created by the hadronization of a single quark is called a jet."
4. "In particle detectors, jets are observed rather than quarks" [].
5. Now we are being told that hadronizing a quark is turning it into a cone of particles.
6. And what are those particles? Whatever they are, it would appear the hadron is really made of them, not quarks.
7. We have no evidence for either quarks or antiquarks—they are just conjured.
8. I have composed my hadrons from photons with simple spin mechanics, and we already know about photons.
9. They are not confined, they are not virtual, they are not from the Dirac or Higgs sea, and they are not spontaneously created. They are recycled and channeled.
10. In going beyond Wikipedia, we can look at the 2006 Ghent meeting of particle physicists, where we get [a] lovely diagram:
11. And the last subdivision [] is labeled "decay", but what are the quarks decaying into?
12. Could it be photons? As it turns out, yes. Photons, neutrinos (which are photonic waves ), electrons/positrons, and various mesons.
13. All we know for sure is that in something like beta decay, a neutron is "decaying" into a proton and an electron.
14. That is the pre-detection and the post-detection.
15. I have proved previously that the logical inference from detections of things like beta decay is that the neutron isn't decaying at all. It is getting hit.
16. The resulting electron doesn't come out of the neutron, it is simply an un-predetected positron that has flipped over in the hit.
17. The neutron also has its outer spin reversed, becoming a proton.
18. That inference simplifies all the mechanics (while giving us mechanics instead of conjuring), and immediately jettisons all this claptrap about quarks and confinement and spontaneous creation out of the vacuum.
19. [T]hey have no evidence photons don't interact and they have reams of evidence they do interact.
20. What evidence? Well, let's see, just off the top of my head, the MOKE effect, the Faraday effect, the Kerr effect, the Zeeman effect, the Voigt effect, the Cotton-Mouton effect, the QMR effect, Rayleigh scattering, magnetic reconnection, over-unity albedo, through-charge in Iron, and all of magnetism.
21. Basically all of quantum mechanics since 1900 and all of E/M experimentation since 1800 is clear proof of photon interaction
22. but since Maxwell left his displacement field un-assigned in the 1860's and Bohr mistakenly assigned quantization to the electron instead of the photon in the 1920's, this has been buried for more than a century.
23. On the [Wikipedia] page for the strong force, we find: The failure of all experiments that have searched for free quarks is considered to be evidence for this phenomenon.
24. Yes, lack of detection is now used as proof for a theory.