In **QCD**, hadrons are postulated to be combinations of either two quarks (a matter/antimatter pair, termed a **meson**), or a combination of three quarks, termed a **baryon** (all three quarks being either of matter, or of antimatter flavor). Quarks are defined as fundamental sub-particles comprising a family of 36 members, which differ in flavor, charge, color, mass, and matter/antimatter valences. Let us explore what is meant by each of these quark properties:

**Flavor** is the most fundamental way that quarks are classified. There are six flavors of quarks: **down, up, strange, charm, bottom & top**; and six flavors of anti-quarks: the same six, but with an "anti-" prefix. These flavors are normally abbreviated as follows:

_ | _ | _ | _ | _ | _ | ||||||

d, | u, | s, | c, | b, | t, | d, | u, | s, | c, | b, | t |

Further references in the website or book to these antimatter quarks, and other antimatter particles, will be prefaced by "@"; hence, @d, @u, @s, @c, @b, @t.

The first two flavors, d & u, are the only ones needed to describe ordinary hadron matter, i.e. protons (uud) & neutrons (udd). The other three flavors of quarks & antiquarks were gradually added over the years as new classes of particles were discovered. (None of these new particles required the t-quark; it was added to the list simply because the b-quark looked lonely without a partner analogous to u & c). Hundreds of kinds of these transient hadron resonances are now known, and their numbers continue to grow.

These resonances vary in mass from pions (»137 MeV) & nucleons (»939 MeV) to upsilon mesons (9640 to 11020 MeV). The search for analogous top quark combinations has been under way for over a decade in increasing mass regions, with no success until recently, when Fermilab announced finding a structure at 160 - 170 GeV that was assumed to be a t@t meson. This mass for the t-quark is so much higher than anyone expected, that, in my appraisal, it should be considered to be a new phenomenon, perhaps a second generation of W & Z particles (these are considered micro-black-holes in infinite particle physics).

An obvious difficulty for the student of QCD is that all quarks, regardless of flavor, or color, are assumed to be infinitesimal points. He must try to understand how 36 varieties of structureless points can differ in flavor, color, mass, charge, bonding propensities, and decay modes, and yet all possess the same spin. He obviously can't!

IPP's **defect-pairs**, like QCD's quarks, can exist in a large number of "flavors". However, unlike quarks, which all have the same structure (a point) and indefinite mass, each of IPP's defect-pair "flavors" has a specific defect-spacing, which can be drawn to scale, and a specific mass, which can be calculated by a simple formula. These defect spacings will always be __ integers__ of the space-lattice constant, and will always be an

When we view particles, resonances, and nuclei, as clusters of defect-pairs, we find that we can understand their qualitative and quantitative aspects by classifying the various defect-pair configurations into the following four variable parameters:

__Eleven inter-defect spacings__: These spacings can vary from 5 ® 15 lattice units, with corresponding mass-energy values ranging from 92.50 MeV to 868.54 MeV. Inter-defect spacings of defect-pairs tend to increase with the number of defect-pairs in a cluster, while their mass-energy increases proportional to the*square*of their inter-defect spacings.__Three directions of pairing__: Since the simple cubic lattice of space has*three*mutually-orthogonal cardinal axes, the*pairing axis*of a defect-pair has a possibility of taking (i.e., of forming in) any of three cardinal orientations. These cardinal options permit clusters of mutually-orthogonal defect-pairs.__Two directions of "slant"__: ("Slant" is IPP's term for the face-diagonal direction of a c-void's*expansion*zone). Since bonding of two c-voids requires that they have opposite orientation of expansion and contraction, it becomes obvious that defect-pairs have*two structural possibilities*(i.e., two "slant" forms) in each cardinal orientation.__Four charge arrangements__: As I have explained, voids create a local charge imbalance of ± 1/2e. Obviously, when the ECEs surrounding a void collapse to form a c-void, the local imbalance of charge will not be affected; hence, c-voids also possess a charge of ± 1/2e. Thus, two paired c-voids can have four arrangements of their ± 1/2e charges:

+ ···· +

– ···· –

+ ···· –

– ···· +

The charges of these four forms are, self-evidently, +e, –e, 0, & 0.

**Charge-exchanges between face-diagonally adjacent c-voids:** We shall find compelling arguments which persuade us that, in many defect-pair clusters, charges of opposite polarity often exchange places between adjacent orthogonal defect-pairs. For example, the four +1/2e c-voids and the two –1/2e c-voids comprising the three mutually orthogonal defect-pairs of the proton undergo a repetitive cycle of six charge-exchanges, which causes each c-void site to change charges in the following sequence: +, +, +, +, –, –. Each site, of course, begins this endlessly-repeated sequence at a different point in the charge-exchange cycle. Charge-exchanges greatly prolong the lifetime of defect-pair clusters, compared to those lacking charge-exchange opportunities, by muting the disrupting influence of passing charged voids, and other charged destabilizing agents.

**Inter-defect-pair bonds:** One of the most persuasive aspects of the defect-pair concept for hadron particles is its ability to explain strong-force bonds, without the need for any auxiliary agents, such as QCD's gluons. The bonding **between** defect-pairs is merely a lesser manifestation of the same process which binds paired c-voids together, namely, suitable alignments of adjacent defect-pairs that permit further cancellations of expansion/contraction distortion. This is possible, because every paired c-void is surrounded by uncanceled residues of expansion/contraction distortion, simply because, being spaced apart, each c-void sees the *inverse-square attenuated* distortion pattern of its mate. It should be evident that these inter-defect-pair cancellations require opposite "slants", and precise lattice orientations, if bonds are to develop between adjacent c-voids of the two defect-pairs. These geometrical constraints account for the short range of "strong-force" bonds. They also allow one to infer the most plausible structures for defect-pair clusters and nuclei.

**Some general conclusions:** IPP shows that all hadron resonances, regardless of mass-energy, can be described as clusters of one, or more, defect-pairs. Clusters can form in one, two, or three-axis arrangements, which can assume a great variety of geometrical configurations. These clusters are bound together either by inter-defect-pair charge-exchanges, or by inter-defect-pair strong-force bonds, or by both. What permits this one building-block, defect-pairs, to produce structures whose mass-energies range from pions (136, 139 MeV) to upsilons (9460 ® 11020 MeV), is that both the defect-spacings and defect-pair mass-energies tend to increase with cluster complexity. Under VISUAL IMAGES, I provide many examples of explicit meson and baryon structures. We shall find that these structures correlate nicely with the charge-forms, parities, symmetries, and experimental mass-energy values of numerous resonances inferred from the analysis of high-energy particle experiments.

**Charge** is an ad hoc concept in QCD. Charges are assigned to the sixty-two "fundamental" particles without reference to an underlying source, or concept, of charge. Obviously, the fact that charge is conserved in all observed particle creations and decays guides these charge assignments, but QCD theory makes no attempt to correlate charge differences with differences in lepton, or quark, *structures*. QCD assigns ± e charges to its three classes of leptons (± electrons, ± muons, & ± taus), but its three classes of neutrinos are presumed to have neutral charges (whatever that is!). Its quark charges, on the other hand, are presumed to be fractional, as outlined below.

**Fractional quark charges** of ± 1/3e & ± 2/3e were conceived initially as simply a clever mathematical scheme to make two-quark & three-quark particles sum to the observed particle charges of - 2e, - e, 0, + e, + 2e. The ± 2e charges, of course, are possible only to three-quark particles. This scheme was perhaps put on a firm experimental basis, when high-energy electron scattering experiments on protons were interpreted as showing a + 1/3e charge in this + e charge particle, in which the electron presumably grazes two quarks, d & u, whose charges sum to + 1/3e (see below). I give IPP's interpretation of this experiment later in the book. Now let us look at the charges that QCD assigns to its flavors of quarks:

The anti-quarks have the same values, but with opposite signs. One should note that QCD makes no effort to explain what charge is, nor why quark charges are different from lepton charges, ± e & 0.

**IPP** requires only two fundamental charge forms: These are the postulated ± 1/2e "charges" of the **elemental charge entities (ECEs)** comprising the polycrystalline lattice of space. No other charges need be assigned, because the charges of all the various leptons and hadrons are implicit in their associated defect structures. Every specific particle type has a unique defect *structure* at its center, and each defect, or combination of defects, results in a calculable imbalance in the local numbers of + ECEs vs. - ECEs. Hence, one obtains the charge of a particular particle simply by summing the charges of the number of excess ECEs present (zero charge is obviously possible, if the mix of defects creates zero imbalance).

Like QCD, IPP can offer no explanation for the "charges" of its fundamental particles, ECEs, but it does provide geometric explanations for the charges of all observed particles, including neutral "charges", without the need to postulate any other charge forms.

Rather than QCD's way of thinking of antimatter as some strange beast, happy only in an antimatter universe, IPP views antimatter as simply a clustering of defects whose charges are opposite to those of ordinary matter. Defects, and charged defect-clusters, of the __same defect composition__ can have two charge forms, either plus, or minus. The infinitely-extending lattice-distortion patterns of these opposite charge forms will resemble each other __in all particulars__, except for one thing: every corresponding ECE in their infinite patterns will be of opposite polarity! This is how IPP differentiates **matter from antimatter**.

**Color** is a bookkeeping term that is used to make QCD conform to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Its necessity is inferred from a chain of reasoning beginning with assigning quarks a spin of 1/2, so that a proton's three quarks (uud) can sum to its known spin of 1/2 (by assigning opposite spins to the two u-quarks). The next step in the chain resulted from finding several resonances whose measured spins were 3/2, and whose quark components were required to be all of the same flavor, like omega^{–} (ccc), delta^{–} (ddd), & delta^{++} (uuu).

Because physicists currently believe that all odd-spin particles are expected to obey Pauli's Exclusion Principle, the only way that a cluster of three like-flavor quarks of 1/2 spin can sum to a spin of 3/2 is for all of them to be different in some unspecified characteristic; hence, each quark must come in three "colors", and each anti-quark must come in three "anti-colors"! Then to justify this deduction, QCD asserts that all other combinations of three quarks need to have one member from each of the three quark color values, and, hence, be "color neutral". Likewise, each two-quark particle must also be "color neutral", which requires that its anti-quark be the anti-color of its quark mate.

**IPP**, on the other hand, perceives the spin of particles as resulting from three effects: *hovering*, *charge-exchanges* and *orientation isomers*. Hovering and charge-exchanges introduce detectable wobble in the center locations of a particle's distortion pattern, while orientation isomers are detectable as spin, only through their differential deflections in particle detectors, or in Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Orientation isomers may be defined as __asymmetrical__ clusters of identical defect-pair composition, which have formed in a variety of spatial orientations. It is evident that a cluster's asymmetry can assume at least three orientations in space (and often more), because any particular defect-pair in a cluster can orient in any of the three cardinal directions of the space lattice.

Thus, in contrast to QCD, IPP has no need for Pauli's Exclusion Principle in its study of particle structures, because IPP interprets particle spins as a *structural* feature, not a *component* feature.

**Mass** is QCD's Achilles heel. There is no direct way to weigh a quark, because quarks are assumed never to be found in isolation. Rather, quarks are presumed to exist only as sub-components of larger hadron entities classified into two varieties, mesons and baryons. Since the quark components and accurate masses of dozens of particles and resonances are known (i.e. have been assigned), it would seem to be an easy problem to extract the quark masses from this data, but, alas, there are complications! I give a few examples below, to illustrate the problem:

Here are some things the this chart reveals:

*In QCD, the mass of a particle is not the simple sum of the masses of its component quarks.*For example, in the baryons, uud & udd, the u & d quarks appear to weigh about 313 MeV each, while in the mesons, u@d & d@u, they appear to weigh about 68.8 MeV. We might infer from this mass difference that paired antiparticles annihilate much of each other's mass, except that, if we look further down the table, we find an opposite conclusion: baryon ccc has 930 MeV components, while meson c@c has 1548 MeV components.*Excited states of quark combinations do not have simple mass relationships to their ground states.*For example, examine the last four entries in the right column: You will see that the fifth excited state of the c@c meson is 4.415/3.0969 = 1.43 times heavier than its ground state, whereas the same excited state of b@b is only 11.019/9.4604 = 1.16 times heavier than its ground state.

**QCD's solution** to these obvious inconsistencies is to postulate that an uncombined quark (a "naked" quark) has a small mass, but this mass is greatly augmented when the quarks are in a combined state with other quarks. Thus, one must extrapolate backwards from various spectrums of excited particle states to find a value for a "naked" quark. These extrapolations are esoteric and do not fit all excited particle *spectrums* equally well, so many have been proposed. Thus, these "naked" quark masses for the various flavors of quarks can be given only as a range of values. Here are the values given in *LBL 2000 Review of Particle Properties*, page 26:

**In IPP**, mass-calculations are straightforward:

**IPP's c-voids**, like QCD's quarks, can form stable structures only when paired with another c-void. However, unlike QCD's notion of very low mass energy for "naked" quarks, IPP infers that a fully-formed "naked" cvoid would havemass energy.*infinite***Defect-pairs**, IPP's fundamental building blocks, in contrast to quarks, have precise mass values that depend solely upon the quantized spacings between their component c-voids. These mass values are consistently maintained throughout the whole spectrum of particles and resonances. The mass of a defect-pair vs. inter-defect spacing can be found from these two equations, where d = the inter-defect spacing (See Chapter 2 of included book for their derivation):

**For even d**, mass (in MeV) = 3.8692712d^{2}- 70.010 / d^{1.55316}

**For odd d**, mass (in MeV) = 3.8692712d^{2}- 19.455 / d^{0.957023}**Finding the mass**of a hadron particle with no inter-pair bonds (e.g. pions, kaons, nucleons & D's), involves summing the calculated masses of the component defect-pairs for each charge-exchange state, and then finding the simple average of the masses of all the charge-exchange states, giving equal weight to each state.**More complex hadrons**usually will have some strong-force bonds among their constituent defect-pairs, but the mass-deficits of these bonds are easily calculated (see the Hadron Tutorial or Chapter 2), since they depend only on defect-spacings of the bonded defect-pairs and the spacing of between them. The mass-deficits of these inter-pair bonds are then subtracted from the sum of the constituent defect-pair masses to find the particle mass.

**IPP** views QCD's excited particle states as structures of similar geometry to the ground state, but with either different defect-pair spacings, or with different strong-force bond spacings, or with both. IPP's concept of an excited state is simply one in which analogous defect-pair spacings are larger than those of the ground state, or analogous bonds spacings are smaller (or both).

**There is nothing equivocal** about IPP's hadron structures, since both the inferred defect-pair spacings and bond spacings are quantized phenomena. Hence, IPP's mass calculations, when compared against experimental values, are a valid test of the Theory.

QCD tantalizes us by assigning quantum numbers to each well-validated resonance. These quantum numbers are an *abstract* specification of the symmetry, spin, parity, strangeness, etc., of a resonance, as determined from its observed decay modes, e.g., whether it decays symmetrically, or asymmetrically, what charge imbalance exists in decay products, etc. We get only a fuzzy picture of its structure, something the mind cannot grasp as a clear image. Furthermore, we may get a *false* impression, because symmetrical resonances may manifest asymmetrical decays, as IPP is able to demonstrate!

IPP provides accurately scaled, three dimensional diagrams of mesons and baryons, which show the number of defect-pairs, their internal defect spacings, and their geometric relationships and bond spacings. These diagrams usually show all the charge-exchange states of the particle's complete charge-exchange cycle. Since all the inter-defect spacings are integer numbers of lattice units (ü), precise mass calculations can be made. These frequently correlate within ±0.01% for resonances whose mass values are accurately known.

**The greatest contrast** between QCD and IPP is not between **quarks** and **defect-pairs**. *It is, rather, in the basic concepts of particles, themselves.*

**QCD** theorists consider hadron particles to be composed of either two infinitesimal quarks (mesons), or three infinitesimal quarks (baryons). They believe that the quarks comprising these hadron particles can assume different identities, such as different flavors, colors, charges, masses, and degrees of excitement, and that a limited number of these different identities are sufficient to explain all the well-validated mesons & baryon resonances inferred from accelerator experiments. Their proof for this belief is expressed in various classification schemes. To see the details of these Quark classification schemes, please click here.

**IPP** theorists, on the other hand, view hadron particles as dynamic point-centered infinitely extending lattice distortion patterns centered upon clusters of defect pairs. They believe that defect-pairs can form at various inter-defect spacings, in various cardinal directions, slants, geometric arrangements, and in numbers up to sixteen per cluster, and this variety is sufficient to explain all known resonances and even those yet to be discovered. Their goal is to find a unique geometrical arrangement of clustered defects for each distinguishable particle or resonance, and prove that it matches its experimental mass-energy and charge values. These correlations in IPP are shown as an animated sequence of accurately-scaled 3-D drawings of all the particle's charge-exchange states, along with an animated sequence of individual mass-energy calculations for each state, their simple average, and the experimental mass-energy value. The cluster's charge is easily perceived, as the summation charge of all the color-coded ± 1/2e charges of the component c-void defects.

**The differences** between these two approaches can also be explored, philosophically, to rather interesting conclusions. I do this in the next section.

Let's begin by imagining that we haven't yet made up our minds about these two alternatives. What do we already know that could be used as evidence for attesting to the validity (or usefulness) of either viewpoint? Let's lay out this evidence:

- All the objects in our environment appear to have discrete boundaries, which argues that the atoms comprising them do not extend beyond their surfaces.
- When we accelerate particles toward foil targets, we find that collisions are very improbable; hence, the particles comprising both the beam, and the targets, appear to be exceedingly small!
- All of our current equations for calculating the interactions between particles assume that all the particle's properties are concentrated in an infinitesimal point, and the predictions of these equations are, without exception, quite accurate!
- When an atom is excited by absorption of a photon, the photon seems to vanish instantly; there is no evidence of a prolonged collapse of a diffuse phenomenon!

- Every particle in the universe seems to attract every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their individual masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. Doesn't this suggest that all particles interpenetrate each other, and hence have
*infinite*sizes? - Charged particles respond to a matrix of surrounding charged particles by moving toward opposite-charge particles, and away from like-charge particles. Surely this suggests that charged particles have
*diffuse*boundaries! - Electrons moving in the core of the earth generate a magnetic field that extends thousands of miles into the space surrounding the earth. Doesn't this, too, suggest that electrons are
*diffuse enough*to extend for thousands of miles, if not to*infinity*? - When we direct photons, or electrons, toward two closely spaced holes in a metal plate, we observe interference effects that can only be explained by assuming that these particles actually go through both holes simultaneously! Here, again, is evidence that
*both*of these particle types are*spatially diffuse*. - Certain experiments generate
*pairs*of oppositely-directed photons, or particles. Other experiments have proved that these oppositely-moving particles have correlated polarizations, or correlated spins, such that the two particles appear to "communicate" their states to each other continuously. Surely this suggests that these particles have diffuse, and continuously expanding, boundaries. *Diffuse*photons are even required to explain*mirror reflections*, as Richard Feynman points out in his book, QED (Princeton University Press, 1985) pages. 39-47. It is only when one assumes that*each*photon creating the image reflects from*every point on the mirror surface*that a rational explanation can be given!

If particles are assumed to be infinitesimal points:

- Differences between
*types*of particles, since each can be described only as an infinitesimal__can't__be described structurally*point*. Thus, point-particle theorists, lacking a structural means of differentiating particles, have had to classify their various point-particles by their differing experimental properties. Those familiar with QCD know that this method of classification requires at least sixty-two fundamental particles to describe all the bosons, leptons, and hadrons that have been inferred from high-energy experiments! - Point-particles bring the burden of
__cosmic emptiness__! This follows, because, if all point-particles have the same radius that recent experiments ascribed to an electron (<10^{-18}m.)*, then all the estimated 10^{80}of them in the universe could be contained in a cube whose sides are two orders of magnitude less than the earth-sun distance.

(10^{80}x (2 x 10^{-18})^{3})^{1/3}= 9.3 x 10^{8}m. vs. 1.5 x 10^{11}m.

* This value obtained from

This extreme cosmic emptiness raises four serious theoretical difficulties:*Institute of Physics*website,*Science Museum (1997)*.

- If emptiness is the absence of anything material, how can it act to
*space apart*tiny point-bits of matter? - Emptiness, being nothingness, is indescribable. How, then, can theorists offer plausible explanations for point-particle motion through it?
- All photons & particles generate detectable waves (electromagnetic & matter-waves). How do these waves propagate through emptiness?
- If point-particles do not "touch" each other, being separated by emptiness, how do forces arise? Point-particle theorists have proposed this: Each kind of force (gravity, electromagnetism, strong, weak) is assigned a specific type of force particle (graviton, virtual photon, gluon, weakon) and each infinitesimal point-particle is presumed to be capable of emitting and absorbing whatever force particles are appropriate to its inherent nature. One must imagine that these emitting and absorbing processes function simultaneously and omnidirectionally, and in sufficient numbers to convey, and receive, mass, charge, force, and movement information to, and from, every other particle in the universe. Surely, no one believes this!

- If emptiness is the absence of anything material, how can it act to
- Finally, many of the
*experimental*properties of particles are inconsistent with the notion, "point"! How can a "point" have spin? Or mass? How can it generate matter-waves? How does a relativistic "point" differ from a slow-moving "point" to account for its orders-of-magnitude more momentum? Where does "momentum" reside in a "point"? Where does "mass" reside? Where does "charge" reside? What is different about various "points", when their masses or charges are different? All these questions remain unanswered by point-particle theorists.

If particles are assumed to be infinitely large, current theoretical difficulties largely disappear:

- Differences between types of particles
be described structurally, because an infinite-particle in a solid space is plausible only as an incessantly-expanding lattice-distortion pattern, centered around a lattice defect, or defect-cluster, and it is obvious that the shape of the distortion pattern will be determined by the type of defect(s) creating it. (See Lattice Defects, below.)*can* - Space will obviously not possess emptiness, so none of the difficulties that emptiness creates will entail to an infinite particle theory. IPP defines "empty" space as a region of the universal space lattice minimally affected by the distortion patterns of remote matter and energy.
- Wave propagation is inherent in a bipolar lattice of mutually interacting oppositely-charged ionic ether particles. The various waves of physics can be explained simply as various attributes of the ellipsoidal lattice-density waves associated with drifting, hovering defects, or with photons.
- Forces are easily explained as the alteration of the ellipticity of a particle's hovering lattice-density oscillation, when its in-and-out waveforms suffer differential reflections as a result of radial lattice asymmetries (fields). Radial lattice asymmetries result from the local vector summation of the inverse-square diminished lattice distortion patterns emanating from all the particles in the universe, including the particle's own distortion patterns. Changes in the ellipticity of a particle's hovering oscillation results in changes in a particle's rate of drift through the lattice.
- Particle charge is easily explained as simply the summation charge of all the ±1/2e charge defects clustered at a particle's center.

I hope that you have found these comparisons between QCD and IPP useful to your study of Infinite Particle Physics. To continue, please choose any item from the Navigation Bar to your left.