A tale of two physics

A wrinkle in time
It was early 1978 when this worldline starting branching out in an odd way.
A young physicist and an older professor expert in quantum mechanic met at the MIT, in the office of the older professor.
After the usual formalities, the young physicist blurted out the reason for this consultation and the inability of Schrodinger equation to describe the neutron synthesis by means of electron capture as this appears to be a structural problem of quantum mechanic.
The older physicists confirmed that the indicial equation of Schrodinger’s equation has no physical solution for a bound state in which the total energy is bigger than the sum of the rest energies of the constituents (the proton and electron). It is indeed a fundamental open problem of the 20th century physics.
Now that the young man had had a confirmation of his suspects, he then suggested to the older physicist the following argument: Your statement is indeed correct and remains valid under the most general possible unitary class of equivalence of quantum mechanics, however, you may be interested in knowing that I have apparently found a physically consistent solutions to this problem via a nonunitary image of Schrodinger’s equation.
At this point, the older physicist attitude changed completely, stood up from his desk and went to the door, inviting the younger man to leave the room.
Their meeting had come to a sudden and abrupt end and a professional friendship had died during those brief moments.
That discussion between two men some 47 odd years ago is what caused the branching out of our reality into two parallel physics and views of the world and universe.
The young physicist subsequently started developing even more the theory he spoke of, whilst his older colleague remained true to the older models and equations available at that time without the need of pressing the matter any further.
Over time this new branch of physics that we today call hadron mechanics has grown arms and legs and has reached a certain maturity, and it diverges quite a bit from mainstream physics to the point that scientists are now divided into two fields and are not talking to each other very much, each one going about their independent line of research.
The problem with the neutron
The issue back then is the binding energy of the electron when it gets captured by a proton to make a neutron. There is an excess mass in the product particle of circa 0.8 MeV that shouldn’t and couldn’t possibly be there according to quantum mechanic.
One solution that was eventually worked out by QM is that electron capture does not happen very often because of the hopelessly small cross section of electron and proton to hit at energies of about 1Mev, and even when it so happens the missing 0.8 MeV energy is “stolen” through quantum tunneling from nearby particles all of a sudden feeling a 0.8 MeV chilling wind. These nearby particles are therefore donating the missing bonding energy through their body heat so to speak.
If this is indeed the case then there is an apparent small problem that the produced neutron would no longer be in a true ground state and it should shake off that excess 0.8 MeV kinetic energy pretty soon and become a new, slimmer version of itself, which has not been observed to date…
Common knowledge out there on Wikipedia and physic classes has it that In general however neutrons are mostly synthetized in the cores of stars at high pressures and temperatures by means of positron ejection from the proton which then becomes a neutron.
A star could not synthetize neutrons in any relevant quantity by means of electron adsorption because of the very low cross section of the particles at said 0.8 MeV energies, and also because the star would begin to freeze and get cooler as the reaction proceeds the and kinetic energy of the hot hydrogen gasses are sequestered within the excess mass of the neutron as opposed to generating additional heat and keep the star light ON.
Quantum mechanic (QM) = 1 / Hadron mechanic (HM) = 0.5 (slimmer neutron never observed?)

More wrinkles in time
So far we can say that the objection of the young scientist at the beginning of our story had no solid grounding, but said scientist didn’t stop his line of research and instead he investigated means to freely produce neutrons at much lower energies than the ones predicted by QM.
These neutron generators on the flip of a switch have been around for quite a while, they were first experimented on back in the 50s and 60s, they use a spark gap immersed in a low pressure hydrogen gas and voila’, neutrons are emitted!
This is a commercial version of said neutron generator called DSN. Do not be intimidated by the “trigger” (or “pinch” in ancient versions of said machines) as it is only a modulation of the main spark current by quenching or igniting the spark gap in order to allow the electrons to “tumble down” from the proton polar region down to the proton equatorial zone and complete the neutron synthesis.
The use of a smaller external spark gap to overlap a tightly controlled modulating current on the main discharge electrodes immersed in hydrogen is a potential improvement of said machine and its specific flux capacity.
By increasing the hydrogen pressure between the electrodes it could make an extremely powerful neutron source for energy generation if the conversion efficiencies are just right, but alas we digress.
The main problem with these machines and spark gaps is that they operate at very low powers (few KW max, some 10.000 – 20.000 deg C spark temperature), so the spark gap has no chance to generate a plasma hot enough to bring the ionized hydrogen at temperatures in the range of 0.8 – 1.0 MeV (some million degree Celsius) required for the electron capture to happen and make neutrons, nevermind the issue of negligible cross sections available for the capture to happen at said temperatures and the neutron generated being NOT in a ground state…
Even less probable for the proton to eject a positron because the pressure temperatures required would be even higher!
So according to QM we should have ZERO chance to make a low power machine capable of synthetizing neutrons, and yet we do have it working under our eyes?
Quantum mechanic (QM) = 1 / Hadron mechanic (HM) = 1
QM: Wait a minute, maybe this is some sort of “enhanced quantum tunnelling effect” we still don’t have a model for so this process can still happen at much lower temperatures than predicted!
HM: Sounds pathetic and desperate but let’s give it 0.5 points just because.
Quantum mechanic (QM) = 1.5 / Hadron mechanic (HM) = 1.0
Crossing the Rubicon of energy conservation
Now that we have established that it is possible to make neutrons at pretty low pressures and temperatures well below the million degree Celsius prescribed by QM, then we must ask ourselves: Where is this 0.8 MeV missing bonding energy coming from?
This is where HM crossed a philosophical and mathematical red tape that has been around for more than a century and sets itself apart from the current mainstream physics: The missing 0.8 MeV comes out of “nothing” or the aetheric substratum.
In this neutron synthesis process ENERGY BALANCE DOES NOT CONSERVE.
At this point people will rush to ask their AI chatbot of choice if this is even possible and if there are other explanations to this nuclear physic conundrum.
By means of carefully tailored social media scattering experiments, we are capable of anticipating main objections to this maddening statement:
Objection1 : The neutrino comes to the rescue in the process and saves the mass/energy balance
Counter objection: The neutrino only saves the spin/momenta of the reaction, its very low/negligible mass if anything makes the energy unbalance problem slightly bigger than 0.8 MeV.
Pretty astounding cognitive dissonance objection if you think about it but tens of people just copypasted that answer in the wild because, as we know, all main language models out there are trained upon accepted views of energy conservation at all cost and they abhor any contrary view on this subject!
Computer even more than humans are biased and I have seen them fall in the trap of the most astounding cognitive dissonance statements, especially when challenged with high end questions that are better addressed by subject matter experts. Still humans can sometimes allow themselves to think outside of the box and think of unthought and original possibilities, which is where HM currently live.
Objection 2 : Go back to school and study physics!
Counter objection: Whilst trolls and haters are good in general on social media because… well, there is no such thing as bad publicity, we can reassure the curious reader that we studied both physics, QM and HM as far as reasonably possible.
In fact HM has grown so much in sophistication that it’s postulations and theorems sound almost incomprehensible to those who only studied conventional physics,
Confusion, objections and misconceptions between the two physics are totally understandable at this point in time.
We concur with the “studied” reader that HM claims can sound quite outlandish, and we do not imply that any flat earther out there is all of a sudden a martyr on the altar of the academia.
Still it is the belief of The Foundation that a moment will come in mankind history when neither of these two physics can survive whilst the other one lives, and it will be a very epochal moment when the showdown happens.
What happens in the core of a star, stays in the core of a star
Per earlier we now have two processes to produce neutrons:
1: Mainstream academia / QM says neutron is generated by positron ejection at extremely high pressures and temperatures.
2: Hadron mechanic suggests much lower energies and temperatures are needed to capture an electron instead, and as a bonus we also get an extra energy kickback of circa 0.8 MeV conjured into reality in defiance of energy conservation principles.
Now just imagine you are a ball of hot hydrogen gas inside a star, and you wanted to fuse and produce neutrons to keep yourself warm and delay the inexorable gravitational collapse into a neutron star or black hole.
Would you rather wait for the pressure and temperature to go up to millions and then eject a positron (option 1) , or would you rather capture an electron at much lower temperatures and pressures (option2)?
Since nature is lazy, we already know that the only possible solution leans toward the electron capture hypothesis by far.
But if this is the case, then the electron capture process should also embezzle 0.8 MeV of thermal energy into the excess mass of the newly formed neutron, meaning the star will grow colder as opposed to remain hot and sassy as we currently observe.
This last part should then rule out the possibility of an unknown quantum tunneling effect coming to save the day and energy balance, so the excess mass of the neutron truly must be conjured into existence in defiance of energy conservation principle.
We arbitrarily take back the half point we gave to QM for the quantum tunneling and we pass it on to HM:
Quantum mechanic (QM) = 1.0 / Hadron mechanic (HM) = 1.5
If we follow this line of reasoning then it is implied that stars and the universe at large are now a big free energy machine constantly conjuring up excess mass and energy into existence at a rate of 0.8 MeV at a time, and much more than that during supernova events!
A hitchhiker guide to wonderland
What follows is a crash course to familiarize interested readers with this new and lesser know physics along with a comparison to the standard one.
Conventional physics believes in QUARKS making up some of the stuff we observe, along with their anti quarks, the neutrinos, anti neutrinos, photons, pions, kaons and a long litany of other things you would have to learn strictly by heart as they are all fundamental.
On the other end hadron mechanic needs a much smaller number of particles, just 4 + 1: Protons, electrons, their anti part and the aetherino.
You can see already how these two vistas are completely incompatible because HM is rewriting all fundamental particles into just 5 base ingredients whilst mainstream physicists have been discussing and papering on for decades about a completely different particle zoo.
QM physicists have been pathed in the back, Nobel prized, granted money, experiments, prestige, affairs with secretaries and young students, etc, and therefore it would be a very embarrassing stance if it turned out that a group of outsiders was to change things around and renormalize particle physics on a completely different paradigm.


Occam’s razor for dummies
Here is an interesting descripting article about quarks and how they balance themselves out and coexist inside more or less stable particles: The neutron and proton weigh in, theoretically | Physics Today | AIP Publishing
This is a pretty common feature of QM and also astrophysics, inelastic scattering experiments, etc and the need for heavy mathematical simulations in order to establish the precise boundary conditions for things to happen the way we observe.
These mathematical models come AFTER the experiment and require a number of constants and side conditions to make the observation match. A lot of models in physics are in fact a very computational intensive data fit exercises.
Unfortunately every single constant implied on said mathematical models then becomes a new force of nature out of its own necessity, but each and every force thus implied eventually goes astray when we try to expand that model into different settings or experiments.
This means that the model needs to be confined to a very specific set of experiments and data observations, they are red taped and isolated from everything else happening outside of their mathematical box.
Nature is an endless collection of excel files…
Some examples:
1: Quarks they only live inside certain particles, as soon as you try to apply the laws of quarks outside them they make no sense at all ie to explain relativity.
2: Dark matter/dark energy only works on galactic or cosmic scales, they have no chance to be detected on small earth bound scales or experiments.
3: Standard model of cosmology implies a number of arbitrary constants to match our observations but who put these constants and their values in place to begin with? God? The supercomputers who calculated them?
4: More strain is added to the standard model of point 3 since more accurate observations are added and the older mathematical model and set of constants are put under greater pressure to explain an unprecedent level of complexity.
5: Old geocentric model where Earth IS the centre and everything else revolves around it. It requires many arbitrary constants to fix the orbits of the planets.
Point 5, the geocentric model of our solar system I think brings the point home when it’s time to explain the Occam’s razor principle.
If we just imply one arbitrary constant (the gravitational one), and we assign planets and sun other constants (their inertial masses), then we can greatly simplify and more accurately predict the orbits of each and every planet in the solar system as opposed to the previous model.
Of course back then it would have been heresy to suggest Earth was no longer the center of Creation and many erudite people fought against such nonsense.
But since human mind is lazy and would rather make its life simpler as far as mathematic goes, the eliocentric model ultimately won the day and the older guard had to repurpose itself or go on early retirement.
This is the core principle of Occam razor: It suggests that not just humans are lazy and try to find simpler formulations to the things they observe, but also Nature itself is simpler and more efficient than we think.
Whenever two models compete to explain a process and come up with similar or same results, but one is much simpler and easier to understand than the other, then there is a high chance that Nature is operating on the simpler model rather than the more complex one.
If we are to re-postulate the models described above through the lenses of Hadron Mechanic then we would see something like this:
1: Quarks will go back to be mathematical entities of an SU(3) space. All particles and hadronization processes are solely explained by means of the 4+1 truly fundamental particles described above.
Feynman diagrams will have to be revised by means of hadronic diagrams with particles now having volumes, deformations, NON CONSERVATIVE type contact forces, etc.
2: Dark matter / energy are no longer needed to explain the accelerated growth of our observable universe and all deviant observations since stars are pouring excess mass into existence all the time, whilst other anti-stars made of anti matter, which is matter with NEGATIVE MASS (more heresy added to the pile), so the universe cannot collapse over its ever increasing weight but is bound to keep self creating and gravitationally self balancing through a constant expansive push.
3: In the cosmological model at point 2 still remains the singularity Big Bang moment when the original particles were conjured into existence out of nothing so to speak, but HM does not have an issue with this approach and is capable of modelling non conservative hadronization processes and transactions when push comes to shove whilst QM and relativity abhors non conservation processes and they just suggest that shit went down in those early stages of creation in ways we cannot describe.
4: ISO RED shift and BLUE shift earthbound experiments have proven the old hypothesis of TIRED light and its mechanism and they have also added to it a positive spin: The PIMPED light when a blue shift is impinged into photons!
5: Earth at the center of God creation: HM oddly quiet on this part.
Occam in a nutshell
If one system has lot of arbitrary constants and formulas whilst another has less constants required to provide same model (or higher accuracy model), then simpler model is bound to be closer to Nature truth.
If one system of equation can explain many experiments whilst another theory requires different set of formulas with different boundaries of applicability, then first system is closer to Nature.
If one system is so complicate that only subject matter experts can understand it, whilst the second one can be understood easily also by non expert or less experts, then second theory is bound to be closer to Nature.
The neutrino conundrum
Another big paradigm shift is the understanding the aetheric substrate and how it is going to replace the neutrino conjectures.
Yes, we are aware of the experiments to disprove the aether, in fact if HM proves right I bet Wikipedia will have much greater fish to fry before going to edit that entry anyway.
We can’t say to date that all kinks of the Aether properties have been straightened out but there enough pointers and formulas to be able to reinterpret all neutrinos experiment into a different and simpler model.
All inelastic scatterings and hadronization processes imply a deep interaction with the aetheric substratum, like when 0.8 MeV are conjured into existence in the electron capture process.
The Aether simply donates this excess energy when the hadronic conditions are right, especially when particle iteractions are tight (inelastic scattering distances).
In the same way the aether can take this energy away under other conditions, also the aether does not need to necessarily balance momenta.
It is a wild card where everything goes but the ways it gives and takes are predictable and modeled by axioms of HM.
So whenever the aether is shaken off its slumber and it is forced to rip a bit the fabric of the otherwise conservative spacetime to give or take some energy or to scramble some well ordered momenta into a-momenta heat, well in these cases the aethers emits a small scream throughout space and time!
It calls out there in the universe for retribution!
In all these instances where the hidden aetheric side of nature shows itself, then something out there has to give too, it has to balance out, maybe not instantaneously but at least in average.
Within this new framework the neutrino detections might well be detections of ripples in the fabric of the aether trying to balance out other processes not fully balanced. Other aetheric ripples might travel instantaneously and in an entangled fashion so a star here implies the presence of an ideal spot for another star at the other edge of the galaxy to balance out the total momenta and mass being conjured into existence per discussion above.
Had the aether been the perfect media always balancing itself out at all times, then the universe itself wouldn’t exist and it would be oddly and eternally quiet and dark forever.
But since it is not capable of perfectly balancing itself out, then small unbalances and particle pair fluctuations must have escalated into greater unbalances then triggering the paleo nucleo synthesis of the Big Bang and setting the universe into an unstoppable runaway continuous creation chain reaction.
Testing out the aether with the Absolute Zero experiment
One interesting experiment could be to create a region of space at ABSOLUTE ZERO, meaning not just absolute zero pressure, but also absolute ZERO temperature, meaning the walls of the container of this volume of space are also kept at absolute zero Kelvin.

Admittedly this is not an easy feat to achieve with current technology, but imagine one day we will be able to test out such extreme condition the question is: Would the induced vanilla aether in that portion of space feel compelled to spring into action and fill the absolute void with absolute NOT void like during the Big Bang?
Might the asteroid belt be a cautionary tale about the risks associated to careless use of nuclear and hadronic energies.
The winner takes it all: Negative mass of the positron!
As much as HM and QM like to fight over the nature of the neutron, there is just one final experiment that might prove to be decisive in this quest for physical truth, which is to measure accurately the inertial mass of the positron.
Both HM and QM concur on its absolute value, what they disagree is its sign and whether a positron has in fact negative mass.
Objection 1) We are aware of positron-electron annihilation experiments showing a balance of two electron masses, or else 1 – 1 would equal zero and we would see nothing in this process whilst we see 2 or more photons coming out of it.
This is explained by HM by the fact that as the two particles converge together, they ultimately reach their iso-self dual state, so in the end we are observing the annihilation of two positive mass electrons (hence the two photons) and two negative mass positrons, hence two negative energy photons should also be emitted but our sensors are not designed to detect “dark” light.
Objection 2) We are also aware of the experiments to measure the mass of anti hydrogen, seemingly positive and falling toward the ground.
Here the suspect is that aid anti proton is made of an aberrated neutron with an extra electron on it, HM calls it a pseudoproton, so it has a negative charge and it weights about the same as a proton.
More interestingly would be to maintain said anti hydrogen atoms confined for longer periods of time, some few minutes, since the pseudoproton is bound to have a half lifetime in the range of the neutron, so we should see these anti hydrogen atoms slowly slipping through our fingers in the form of neutrons and electron/positron annihilation events.
Also to note that annihilation of anti protons does not produce a fireball of photons like per the positron electron annihilation and a big word salad is required to reconcile this with QM axioms.
In HM the anti proton is nothing but a proton with two electrons attached (or a neutron with an extra electron attached). It is bound to induce nuclear fusion reactions and delayed emissions thanks to the coulomb corridor (the opposite of coulomb barrier).
Objection 3) We are also aware of the issue between negative mass and causality, a hurdle recovered by HM through the isomathematic to reconcile this along with other things which are not quite cosher such as irreversible processes.
I guess contemporaries would call it something like a hidden variable theory as powerful as to recover determinism at quantum level. Again we digress.
The true nail in the coffin of this debate is to measure the flight path of a low energy positron beam and see how this is deflected by Earth’s gravity: Will it fall upward toward the sky or downward toward the Earth?

If the positron beam is observed to bend downward, then its mass is positive and QM is correct
If the positron beam bends upward then its mass is negative and HM is correct and, history of physics will have to be re-written.
An alternative scenario
It was brought to the attention of the Foundation a curious case of a particle physic experiment with some odd results and the difficulties to have it published in respected scientific papers: Evidence of Time-Symmetry Violation in the Interaction of Nuclear Particles | Phys. Rev. Lett.
Here we see an ABSTRACT paper (we shall all it the CORRECT paper), which is a paper whose results align with QM theorems and predictions. It was published by APS journal.
Below it we see an ERRATUM, which is a paper whose results ARE NOT in line with QM axioms but are fully in line with HM axioms and which was therefore rejected by the APS journal.
Curious enough the ERRATUM paper was submitted before the CORRECT paper and associated experiment were done. More to the point the Physical Review Letter editors sat on the ERRATUM paper for a very long and unusual time and waited for the CORRECT paper experiment to be planned and published to disprove the ERRATUM one.
The editors of APS did not hesitate to wait and sit on the ERRATUM paper nor they had second thoughts about taking parts and claiming QM is OK and the other paper must be wrong.
Sure the ERRATUM paper team invited the other CORRECT paper team to meet and go through the experimental apparatus and its configuration to make sure the two experiments were in fact the same and to converge toward the same observation one way or the other.
Unfortunately the CORRECT paper team had “more pressing matters to attend to other than confirming well established physical knowledge” so there never was a rematch on that experiment to get to the bottom of it.
The ERRATUM paper team had their paper published in another journal in Europe and have in fact worked even more precise measurement of said deviation from QM in subsequent experiments and publications.
The result of this physical Mexican standoff ultimately resulted in this:

The reader can rest assured that we are not at all implying that the academic community will turn the other way should the positron mass experiment favor HM, nor we are suggesting that physics institutes from all over the world will rush to repeat said experiments with opposite results whilst at the same time denying access to third parties or external observers to take a closer look at the experimental set up.
We just want to point out to the fact that sometimes things can get messy, especially when stakes are high.
Disclaimer
No neutron was deformed in the making of this post.
Plenty of scientific terminology was butchered in the making of this post.
