In a previous blog, The Big Bang Never Happened, I mentioned Eric Lerner, a science writer who laments the failure of conventional physics to come to grips with physical reality, causality and unity. He says, "It would be satisfying if...I could present an alternative to fundamental physics which resolves the contradictions of the conventional physics. Unfortunately no such theory exists." What Lerner is talking about is quantum mechanics or particle physics.
In quantum mechanics the electron is an infinitely small spherical charge. Physically such an electron would explode and everybody knows it. Also particle physicists think that everything within the atom works on different principles than the everyday world. In the atom the position and energy of an electron, proton or neutron is determined by a probability function and not caused by some event! Furthermore, the quantum mechanics theory contradicts Einstein's relativity theory. The two cannot be true at the same time.
Thus logically the quantum mechanics electron is physically impossible, acts in defiance of a cause and effect and is not in unity with other accepted scientific theories. So even if the boson exists the problems facing modern physics are considerable. What happened that physics ever got into such a muddle?
Back in the 19th century Faraday developed his laws about magnetism and electricity.. He was the first to understand that when electricity moved it created magnetic fields and vice-versa. These experiments were used to develop Maxwell's electrodynamics equations, but embedded in these equations was the simplifying assumption that the electron was a point particle. Everybody knew that this is not true, just convenient to obtain some useful results. However, a deeper problem was the unrecognized magnetic induction effect at high velocities. This effect was the reason for the development of Einstein's theory and his relativity factor, (beta = 1 / squareroot (1 - v-squared / c-squared). A proper reformulation of Maxwell would have produced the same factor. Thus Einstein's theory was the fix necessary to correct the errors produced by Maxwell's simplifying assumption.
The problem was that not enough was known about the electron and it took over 50 years before somebody could propose a shape for the electron [2,3]. But the physicists like Bohr and Heisenburg went another way into quantum mechanics. It was not until 1990 that Bergman and Wesley resurrected the ring model of the electron . His worked proposed a spinning charged ring in which its magnetic field pinched the ring to balance the electric pressure to keep it stable. It had the correct electron spin, magnetic moment, size and mass. The problem of infinitely small mass was solved.
The electrons were kept in positions in the atom where electric and magnetic forces balanced. This solved the problem why moving electrons did not radiate energy -they did not move. The Lucas model of the nucleus was constructed . The spins of 1,500 isotopes and the half-lives of hundreds of radioactive isotopes were correctly calculated; something quantum mechanics cannot do. The structure of the atom and its nucleus was solved.
|Hydrogen gas molecule|
|Nucleus of Oxygen-16|
In quantum mechanics a Higg's field and bosons are necessary to give mass to electrons. The spinning charged ring also yields a mass of the electron as the sum of their electric and magnetic energies divided by c-squared i.e. Einstein. The problem of particle mass was solved without 'God' particle!
Now we are finally back to the Higgs boson aka the God particle. If the Higg's boson has not been found, physicists have no mechanism to explain mass in the atom and a major crisis will surely follow. Boson Crisis But then, given the work of Bergman, Wesley and Lucas who needs a Higg's boson? Well, the cosmologists need the Higg's boson because these particles are massive non-light-emitting particles - "dark matter" (See previous blog The Big Bang Never Happened. http://alphaomegah.blogspot.ca/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-ca-x-none.html )
The mass of real particles like electrons and protons is about 2-4% percentage of the universe. The Big Bang cosmology needs 8 times more physical mass to fit the requirements of their theory. Without the Higgs boson, the Big bang is in real trouble - again. Michael Brooks, former senior features editor for New Scientist , wrote on the impending crisis. The energy required for the cosmological constant in theory is much larger than measured in the lab unless some massive shift takes place in the composition of the universe. He states, "The cosmological constant problem is widely accepted...as the (italics in original) most embarrassing mismatch between theory and experiment ever. ": 1 in 10 to the power 120,000. Oops! What part of 1 in 10 to the power 120,000 do they not understand!
With so much at stake I believe they will pronounce this as the God particle they are looking for. They have no choice. They cannot afford to admit that physicists have botched the last 100 years of research or see the last rational explanation of the evolution of the universe go down the tubes.
We Can Do Better Than That 1.0. The spinning charged ring model  is rapidly catching on with disenchanted physicists. Its appeal is it restores the atom to physical reality, causality and unity to other physical theories. Although Eric Lerner is not one, the model does fit all his demands for a new particle physics: Resolve the conflict between Einstein's relativity with Quantum Mechanics; explain what particles exist and remain stable; give particles real shape and dimensions; explain how they can have mass and how is it measured; and explain which particles decay and why. A theory that answers these questions puts quantum mechanics in the obsolete bin (no longer needed) and the Big Bang in the better-luck-next-time jar.
 Eric Lerner, 1991. The Big Bang Never Happened, New York Times Books, NY, p.367
 A.L.Parsons, 1915. "A Magneton Theory of the Structure of the Atom", Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection 65(11), 1-80, Publication 2371.
 H.S Allen, 1919. "The Case for a Ring Electron", Proc. Phys. Soc. London, Vol 31, pp.49-68
 D.L.Bergman &J.P.Wesley, 1990 "Spinning Charged Ring Model of Electron Yielding Anomalous Magnetic Moment", see also D. Bergman, 2008. "The Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Inertia", Foundations of Science, Vol 11, No. 1,
 C.W. Lucas and J.C. Lucas, 1998. "A new Foundation for Modern Science", Proc Fourth Int'l Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship Pittsburgh, PA. pp. 379-394
 Michael Brooks, 2008. 13 Things That Don't Make Sense; The Most Baffling Mysteries of Our Times, Random House, NY, p.26
 David Bergman, Glenn Collins and Dr. Charles Lucas http:// www.commonsensescience.org