Higgs doesn't exist,  particle physics is false, just wasting money.

Particle physics, standard model lack reality, just wasting money in fictional useless particles.

All unstable unnecessary particles, Higgs, W bosons, muons, antiparticles are unreal.

All dubious unstable particles are just background noise.

Standard model is useless and unable to predict any physical values.

No experimental evidence of muon, which is an unreal unnecessary particle.

Muon easily decaying into electron is just a high-energy electron or proton.

An electron (or a proton ) moving at light speed c in cosmic rays appears to be heavier (= harder to accelerate ) and mistaken for the illusory muon, irrelevant to Einstein relativity.

Muons are said to be created from high-energy cosmic rays (= consisting mostly of protons moving at light speed ) colliding with the atmospheric molecules.

Most of those cosmic muons are moving at light speed with high energy (= about 1 GeV or 1000 MeV ) which is larger than the rest mass energy of muon (= mc² = 106 MeV = 0.106 GeV ), electron (= rest mass energy 0.5 MeV ) and proton (= rest mass energy 1 GeV ).

↑ It means muons, electrons and protons physicists usually use are moving at light speed where such high-energy masses become much larger than the original masses (= relativistic masses based on Maxwell mc² of high-energy muons, electrons, protons are indistinguishable, all these particles have the same 1 GeV/c² heavier-looking masses, when they are close to the light speed in cosmic rays ).  ← No evidence of muon's mass.

↑ They make excuse that slowing down or stopping (illusory) muons immediately decay (= muons themselves are directly undetectable, physicists can only detect the light emitted from some charged particles passing scintillators ) into other particles such as electrons and lights which are only detectable at photodetectors or photomultipliers ( this p.4-5,  this p.6 ).

Particles of high energy moving at almost light speed can naturally move and penetrate material longer, which is irrelevant to relativistic time dilation.

It is often said that the lifetime of the high-energy cosmic muons moving at almost light speed c could be longer because the (hypothetical) clock time of muons moving at high speed could slow down due to (fictional) Einstein relativistic time dilation.  ← But this is untrue.

It is natural that the particles such as muons with higher energies (= higher speed ) can travel and penetrate longer distance (= which means longer lifetime ) even without the help of the fantasy special relativity which time dilation causes the serious irreparable paradox, hence wrong.

As the energy of a particle such as an electron ( or an illusory unstable muon ) is greater, the particle can penetrate the longer material with longer life time, which high-energy electron (or cosmic ray's proton ) was mistaken for the illusory muon experiencing the (fantasy) relativistic time dilation due to its higher velocity.

In experiments of measurement of muon's lifetime, cosmic (unseen) muons (= μ ) or muons allegedly generated from protons colliding with target metals are said to stop and radiate light at scintillator crystals. This unseen stopped muons are said to decay into (or scatter ) electrons or positrons (= directly undetectable ) which also emit another light.

↑ Only from this time difference between two emitted lights detected at photodetectors or photomultiplier (= PM ), they imagine the existence of (illusory) muons ( this p.6,  this p.5-6,  this p.4-5,  this p.22-23 ).  ← They detected only lights. No (illusory) muons or positrons were detected ( this p.4-5,  this p.4-5 ).

The muon was said to be discoverd in 1937 by Carl Anderson observing the cloud chamber's tracks left by some high-energy particles created from high-energy protons of cosmic rays hitting the atmospheric molecules ( this p.11 ).

The problem is this cloud chamber detector can Not identify or distinguish the (illusory) muon from other more abundant real particles such as high-energy electron or proton !

Physicists see the particle's track left in the cloud chamber under applied magnetic field where Lorentz magnetic force curves the particle's track whose radius of curvature tells us about only the information of the particle's momentum (= mass × velocity ) from which we can Not know the particle's velocity or mass ( this-(11.4.2) ).

Physicists claimed the existence of (illusory) muon just by seeing the particle's moving distance without measuring muon's mass.

In order to identify the particle's mass of a (illusory) muon, physicists need to obtain more information about the particle's energy.

Physicists use some hypothetical theory called Bethe-Heitler formula, which claims the particle's track length could enable us to estimate how much energy is lost per some distance (= called stopping power ) traveled by a particle ionizing the medium's atoms in the cloud chamber, and roughly guess the ( muon ) particle's energy ( this p.1-left-lower,  this p.4-right-p.5,  this p.13-17 ).

Due to this hypothetical Bethe formula, the higher-energy particle with higher speed is more likely to move or penetrate the longer material, which means the heavy particles with lower-energy such as protons are said to move less and easily stop.

↑ But if the particle with higher energy has more penetrating power, a lighter electron can have more higher kinetic energy with the same momentum than a heavier muon, hence the lighter electron with higher energy has the more penetrating power than a heavier muon, which means the so-called "muography" allegedly exploiting the high penetrating power of muons just uses the high-energy electrons instead of (illusory) muons.

To handle this discrepancy, physicists deliberately add more artificial relation to the original Bethe energy-loss formula, which paradoxically claims that when a particle is moving faster, the particle has more penetrating power, but the particle is moving much much faster, it is more likely to radiate, lose energy and start to lose penetrating power.  ← paradoxical mechanism, and too good to be true, artificially prepared for justifying (illusory) muons

So they say when a cosmic muon's energy is about 1-100 GeV, the muon can penetrate the longest distance, and the cloud chamber's stopping power becomes minimum = the rate of energy loss (= stopping power ) of muons with energy 4-6 GeV is conveniently close to minimum ( this p.5-10,  this p.18,  this p.3,  this p.5-6,   this p.27-29 ).

Existence of the illusory muon depends on ad-hoc hypothesis, which means there is No evidence of muon.

This p.2 says
"Bethe-Heitler theory predicted large energy loss for electrons and smaller losses for heavier particles. Neddermeyer and Anderson concluded that penetrating particles (= muon ? ) are heavier than electron. • They could not be protons because protons would be slower and would ionise medium stronger (according to Bethe-Heitler theory,  this p.1-right-upper )"

The problem is this hypothetical Bethe-Heitler (or Bethe-Bloch relativistic ) theory roughly estimating the particle's energy from its track's length is known to often disagree with experimental results ( this p.5-6th-paragraph,  this last ).

This p.5-left-2nd-paragraph says
"they observed particles which were lighter than protons and more penetrating than electrons .. if the Bethe-Heitler theory were valid.. they interpreted as particles of a new type (= muon ? ), but this interpretation followed only if the Bethe-Heitler theory were assumed not to break down at the energies concerned.."

↑ This means it is likely that some high-energy electrons can move longer with large penetrating power, escaping this speculative Bethe-theory, and the high-energy electrons were mistaken for (illusory) muons.

And of course, cosmic rays consist of many high energy protons with heavy mass moving with almost light speed which can also have large penetrating power due to the heavier proton's less energy loss through radiation than the lighter muon (= which means there is a chance that some high-energy protons moving at light speed c were mistaken for illusory muons, as well as high-energy electrons ).

The energy of particles contained in cosmic rays is about 1~6 GeV = 1000 ~ 6000 MeV ( this p.6 24.3.1 ), which means a electron with 0.5 MeV rest mass energy (= mc² = 0.5 MeV when m is the electron's mass, and c is light speed ) originating from cosmic rays has far larger energy than the energy needed for the electron moving at light speed, and each electron appears to be much heavier and harder to accelerate by the electromagnetic field (= which transmits at light speed ), which is also one of reasons that a lighter electron was mistaken for a (illusory) heavier muon.

When producing these rare unstable (illusory) particles such as muons, much more abundant particles such as electrons, protons and high-energy lights are generated and scattered by other charged particles in the detector's medium through Coulomb force which can change or modify the particle's tracks under magnetic field.

↑ It means the estimation of particle's momentum under the (false) assumption that the particle curves its track under magnetic field behaving like a free particle even inside many other atoms in cloud chamber is wrong, and some of those more abundant irrelevant electrons and protons scattered by Coulomb interaction (= Not only magnetic force ) are easily mistaken for rare (illusory and unnecessary) particles such as muons or antiparticles.

Actually, when physicists try to generate (illusory) muons by colliding high-energy protons with the target atoms, they only roughly apply only the simple magnetic field and don't try to separate the irrelevant abundant electrons or protons from the unstable rare muons.

Even the recent experiment just measured some momentums (= Not particle's mass ) of some charged particles without identifying nor distinguishing the (illusory) muons from other irrelevant particles such as electrons and protons, after colliding accelerated protons and the graphite target ( this p.5 ).

In experiments generating (illusory) muons, physicists use very high-energy muons (> 3GeV ), which cannot prove the original muon's mass (= 0.105 GeV ).

Their (heavier relativistic) muon's mass is completely different from the original muon's mass (= 0.105 GeV ) due to their alleged extremely-large muon's energy (= actually high-energy protons or electrons ) exceeding light speed or rest mass energy (= 3 GeV, this p.2-3,  this p.5-6,p.28-29 ).  ← In this very high energy 3GeV, the (relativistic or Maxwell's heavier) mass (= 3GeV/c² ) of (illusory) muon is indistinguishable from the mass of high energy electron or proton, because under 3GeV, all of muons (= rest mass = 0.105 GeV/c² ), electrons (= rest mass = 0.5MeV/c² ) and protons (= rest mass 1GeV/c² ) are moving at the same light speed c, causing the same heavier mass (= E/c² = 3GeV/c² ).

In experiments of the so-called anomalous magnetic moment of muons, physicists just measure the light emitted from electrons or charged particles (= not illusory muons ) into which (illusory) muons is said to soon decay ( this p.11 ) by scintillator or light detectors..

The unstable muon's magnetic moment or g-2 experiments did Not measure the (illusory) muons.
They collided protons with target metals, applied magnetic field, and the calorimeters or photodetectors detected lights (= only light is measurable, this p.19-middle ) emitted from some unknown charged particles (= electrons or positrons = positrons themselves cannot be identified ) into which the doubtful muons (= whose (spin) magnetic direction allegedly precesses ) might decay ( this middle,  this p.5,  this p.4-6 ) by artificially adjusting various free parameters ( this p.12 ).

↑ No evidence of muon's unique mass, spin or (unreal) virtual photons ( this 9th-paragraph,  this 2nd-last-paragraph ) which is required for the current unphysical standard model to describe this muon g-2 anomalous magnetic moment whose measurement is based on the unfounded assumption that direction of muon's decay is probably the same as direction of muon's spin magnet.

Measurement of the tiny magnetic momentu of a (illusory, unseen) muon used the very high-energy muon of about 3.1GeV ( this p.2-abstract ) where the original muon's lighter mass (= 0.105 GeV ) is drastically changed and indistinguishable from other electrons and protons of the same high-energy 3.1GeV (= all of which have the same relativistic mass of 3.1GeV/c² ) .  ← Also in the doubtful tiny magnetic moment measurement, No evidence of a muon.

The (illusory) very unstable muon's mass (= 106 MeV ) is said to be roughly estimated from measuring the energy level of (illusory) unstable muonium allegedly consisting of positive muon (= μ+ ) orbited by an electron, but this muonium energy level ( 1s = 13.539 eV, this p.2,  this p.2-table 2 ) is almost same as the ordinary hydrogen atom (= proton + electron = 1s = 13.598 eV ).

↑ The process of producing the (illusory) muonium needs very large energy (> 20 MeV,  this p.3,  this p.16,19,   this p.1-left ) that is enough to break nuclei (= producing isolated neutrons, protons, electrons,  this p.7-25,  this p.2 ) and generates many ordinary hydrogen atoms which are mistaken for the illusory muonium in such high energy circumstances where each (hydrogen) atom is moving and oscillating at high speeds and could slightly modify its spectrum line (= ex. oscillating electric field causes Stark effect ) mistaken for the illusory muonium.

Another illusory composite particle called muonic hydrogen where a proton orbited by a negative muon is said to emit light energy 200 times larger (= ~ 2 keV X rays ) than the ordinary hydrogen atom due to the muon's mass 200 times larger than an electron.  But generating such (illusory) unstable muonic hydrogen also needs very large energy (= 5 keV ~ MeV,  this p.2-left,  this p.37 ) which large energy input is just detected as X rays allegedly emitted from (illusory) muonic hydrogen ( this p.3-4 ) instead of really generating the (illusory) muonic hydrogen.

As a result, there is No evidence that a (unnecessary) muon really exists.

Supersymmetric particles (= SUSY ) are also illusion.

Hypothetical supersymmetry (= SUSY ) to explain ad-hoc dark matter and reduce (unreal) 26-dimensional spacetime unified theory to 10-dimensional superstring theory is also a nonphysical meaningless theory artificially adjusting many free parameters with No power to predict any physical phenomena ( this p.2-3 ).

Nuclear physics relies on unphysical lattice QCD with unreal virtual particles, imaginary time based on meaningless random numbers and artificially-fitting parameters unable to predict anything.

(Fig.C)  ↓QCD depending on unreal virtual quarks, imaginary time and freely-adjustable fitting parameters is unable to predict any nuclear values.

• QCD is unreal, useless, unable to predict any nuclear values.
• ab-initio QCD relies on artificial model parameters.
• Quark-gluon plasma is just useless fiction.

Quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) can deal only with nonphysical meaningless dimensionless values, so choosing artificial fitting parameters is necessary with No power to predict any absolute physical values.

QED (= perturbation theory ) is invalid and unable to explain nuclear strong force expressed by quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) which calculations miserably diverge to meaningless infinity ( this p.8,  this 3rd-paragraph,  this p.3-left-lower ) with No analytical QCD solutions ( this p.1-right-last-paragraph ) even after (hocus-pocus) QED renormalization artificially removing infinities ( this 3~4th-paragraphs ).

This p.8 4th-last-paragraph about unphysical QCD model says
"in QCD, we are unable to explain rigorously even basic phenomena like colour confinement, and perturbative calculations rely upon unproven assumptions."

Today's mainstream lattice QCD is based on fictional imaginary time, virtual particles, random numbers which cannot predict any nuclear values.

Physicists introduced (unphysical) ad-hoc lattice QCD model (= non-perturbation ) with unreal discretized spacetime, imaginary time ( this p.15,  this p.3-fifth-paragraph ) and illusory virtual particles, quarks ( this p.3-Fig.2 ).

This unrealistic lattice QCD is based on disorderly random numbers generated by Monte-Carlo methods ( this p.11-12,  this p.4-2nd~5rd-paragraphs,   this p.19 ) whose randomness alone cannot predict nor designate any physical values, if the random lattice QCD cannot utilize artificially-adjustable fitting parameters for each different nuclear value.

QCD just manipulating free parameters cannot predict any physical values.

↑ The mainstream lattice QCD can only deal with nonphysical meaningless dimensionless parameters (= values with No units,  this p.14-upper,  this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph,  this p.7-(4) ), hence, artificial fitting (= scaling ) parameters are definitely needed to obtain some physical values ( this p.8-17.1.5.1 ) in this meaningless random-number-generating Monte-Carlo methods used in QCD.

This p.13 says
"The mass scale is a (free) parameter. QCD itself does Not determine what is the mass of the proton."

So the lattice QCD (= unable to predict any physical values, based on meaningless random numbers ) just artificially chooses and manipulates many fitting parameters ( this p.3 ) of masses of quarks, hadrons, mesons ( this p.3-4 ), nuclei ( this p.2-right ), interaction energies (= action ), proton radius ( this p.9-19 ), fictitious effective potentials ( this p.3 ), nuclear spins ( this,  this p.6,  this p.7-3rd-paragraph,  this p.4-right-2nd-paragraph ), hyperfine splitting ( this-abstract, p.3-(21) ).

This p.2- 2nd-paragraph says
"The two parameters λ1 and λ2 are nonperturbative parameters of QCD and can be estimated by fitting the theoretical and experimental data (= QCD cannot predict anything ) and their uncertaintie"

↑ QCD just artificially manipulating many free parameters means it has No power to predict any values ( this p.12-13,  this p.16,17-last-paragraph,  this p.10,  this p.2,  this p.8-10,  this p.35-fourth-paragarph ) due to its dubious extrapolation method ( this p.11 ) and dimensionless values (= No absolute values can be predicted by QCD, this p.28-IV ).

Today's mainstream QED, QCD tell us nothing about real mechanism about nuclei.

↑ The current quantum mechanics, QED, QCD cannot establish the universally-applicable right theory, hence, each time their existing ad-hoc theories break down, physicists had to artificially create different new irrelevant ad-hoc theories or different definitions (= QED using real smooth space-time manipulating parameters by artificial renormalization  vs. QCD using unreal discretized space, imaginary time, numerical Monte-Carlo outputting random meaningless numbers manipulating many free parameters directly,  this p.3-12,  this p.4-2.1 ), which approach is completely inconsistent and illegitimate ( this p.14-last ).

This unphysical mainstream quantum field theory or QCD can tell us nothing about detailed realistic mechanism inside nuclei where ad-hoc (unreal) virtual fractional-charge quarks ( this p.3-lower,  this p.4 ) and gluons (= imaginary strong force source ) are just unobservable imaginary things ( this p.2-lower ) whose unobservable masses are freely-chosen parameters ( this introduction-upper,  this p.3-C ).  ← Physicists baselessly fantasize about such un-isolable (quasi-free) virtual quarks only from electrons' scattering by nuclei ( this p.13-14 ).

In the realistic atomic model, we can naturally explain strong nuclear binding force as the short-distance Coulomb electric force (= universally-applicable electric-force theory ), which is why He-2 (= nonexistent helium whose nucleus consists of only two positive protons without neutrons or electrons ) or Li-3 (= whose nucleus consists of only three positive protons ) with No electron or neutron (= proton+electron ) can Not exist (= two protons cannot bind to each other without an electron in He-2 nucleus by short-distance strong Coulomb force.  ← In case of three protons + one electron = two protons + one neutron = He-3 nucleus is possible using an electron as adhesive ).

Ab-initio QCD or chiral effective field theory (= EFT ) just artificially fits free parameters to experimental results with No power to predict any nuclear values.

As I said, the present particle physics or QED cannot calculate any nuclear values due to uncontrollable diverging to infinities, and the lattice QCD just artificially manipulating fitting free parameters is extremely time-consuming and unable to predict any nuclear values.

Ab-initio QCD, which is less time-consuming than lattice QCD, also includes fitting parameters with No power to predict any nuclear values, so "fake ab-initio" method ( this p.3,  this p.1-intro-3rd-paragraph ).

Because this ab-initio QCD just varies many free parameters of effective potential energies, nuclear Hamiltonian and nuclear wavefunctions ( this 2.1 ) fitted to experimental data ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph,  this p.4-left-1st-paragraph ) such as nuclear scattering data and binding energies ( this p.5,19,  this p.19 ).

This p.1-right-last-paragraph says
"Chiral effective field theory (EFT) is a promising theoretical approach to obtain a quantitative description of the nuclear force from first principles...
the interaction is parametrized in terms of low energy constants (LECs) that are determined by fitting experimental data"  ← QCD theory itself cannot predict anything.

Nuclear effects on g-factors also depend on artificially-adjusted parameters (= effective nuclear radius ) and artificially-chosen models ( this p.3-right, p.4-left ) with No prediction.

The recent misleading news or research is based on this artificially-fitted chiral effective field theory, the observed hyperfine spectral lines, and artificial relation ( this p.4-right-p.5 ) to unreliably estimate nuclear size ( this p.10-1st-paragraph,  this p.3-left,  this p.6-8 ), which can Not prove the existence of unseen (fictional) quarks at all.

Nuclear effective theory, no-core (Gamow) shell model are unreal, unable to predict nuclear reaction.  ← fictional monopole is used ?

The current mainstream quantum mechanics, QED and quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) are not only unrealistic but also unable to explain nuclear phenomena ( this-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).

So physicists tried to artificially create ad-hoc approximate nuclear models such as nuclear effective field theory (= EFT ) and nuclear shell model with fake (= effective ) nuclear potential fitted to experimental results (= so No power to predict any physical values, this p.6,  this p.2-II,  this p.9,  this p.2-3,  this p.21-22 ) by copying Schrodinger's electron's potential energy.

This 1 introduction says
" The interactions between these nucleons are in principle governed by QCD - but it is impractical to describe nuclei in terms of quarks and gluons.. Even a microscopic description of nuclei using realistic two-body (NN), three-body (3N) and possibly higher n-body interactions between point-like nucleons remains a formidable task.. "

"Chiral Effective Field Theory (χEFT) allows us to derive nuclear interactions in a systematic way.. However, this chiral expansion is by no means unique, and different choices for e.g., the degrees of freedom to include in the χEFT can lead to very different χEFT interactions (= these artificial models cannot predict nuclear phenomena, so fake ab-initio model )"

"here are different quantum many-body methods being used for ab initio nuclear structure calculations.. Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory, NLEFT, and .. No-Core Shell Model (NCSM)."

This p.2-3th,5th-paragraphs say
"The cost that has to be paid for such a simplification is that shell-model wave functions, describing the independent motion of individual nucleons, do not include the correlations which are induced by the strong short-range bare interaction, and therefore could be very different from the real wave functions of the nuclei (= unrealistic model )."

"the one- and two-body components of the Hamiltonian are adjusted to reproduce a selected set of experimental data. This can be done either using an analytical expression for the residual interaction with adjustable parameters, or treating the Hamiltonian matrix elements directly as free parameters (= these approximate ad-hoc nuclear ab-initio models cannot predict anything )"

The Gamow Shell Model (GSM) is an extension of this (useless) nuclear shell model ( this p.1-introduction ) which is not only unrealistic but also unable to predict nuclear phenomena due to its dependence on free parameters fitted to experiments (+ No realistic practical atomic picture ).

The 2nd, 3rd, 6th paragraphs of this recent hyped news say
"A recent experimental study about the first excited state of helium-4, which is labeled 0+2 by scientists, has raised a new debate due to a large discrepancy between experiment data and theoretical predictions (= the current mainstream quantum theory failed )"

"To better understand the nature of this state,.. his collaborators have employed the no-core Gamow shell model (= approximate nuclear model with No ability to predict values ) to study the structure of the resonance 0+2 state of helium-4"

"It was found that the continuum coupling strongly impacts the nature of this proton-emitting state, and the best agreement with experimental data for the monopole (= unreal monopole model is also used ) form factor at the experimental energy was obtained."

↑ This research tried to explain some helium's excited state by using artificial nuclear shell model with freely-fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.

↑ This p.2-right-last~p.3 says
"In all calculations we use the HO length of bHO = 1.8 fm, as this value is optimal for the 0+2 state (= helium excited state ) and close to optimum for the 0+1 ground state. For this choice of parameters, the energy of the 0+1 ground state is about -25 MeV."

↑ This p.3-right-last-paragraph says
"The monopole form factor is shown in Fig. 2 at ∆Ethr = 150 keV, 400 keV and 700 keV. The 400 keV (= which value was artificially chosen to fit experiment out of three candidates ) value corresponds to the experimental position of the 0+2 resonance".

As a result, the present quantum mechanics, QED and QCD are useless and unable to predict not only condensed matter (= relying on useless one-pseudo-electron DFT model ) but also nuclear values.

Guessing non-existent sound speed of undetectable ultra-short-lived imaginary quark-gluon plasma is meaningless.

The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say

"In a new paper, the CMS collaboration reports the most precise measurement to date of the speed at which (illusory) sound travels in the quark–gluon plasma."  ← untrue, because the alleged quark-gluon plasma where the imaginary quark and gluon are said to fly free can Not be observed ( this 5th-paragraph ), much less its sound wave,  so this is useless research just wasting taxpayers' money in meaningless gigantic colliders.

"At the LHC, the (imaginary) quark–gluon plasma is formed in collisions between heavy ions. In these collisions, for a very small fraction of a second, an enormous amount of energy is deposited in a volume whose maximum size is that of the nucleus of an atom. Quarks and gluons emerging from the collision move freely within this area (= just imagination, No evidence ), providing a fluid-like state of matter "

"The speed of sound in this environment can be obtained from the rate at which pressure changes in response to variations in energy density or, alternatively, from the rate at which temperature changes in response to variations in entropy, which is a measure of disorder in a system."

"In heavy-ion collisions, the entropy can be inferred from the number of electrically charged particles (= Not unseen quarks nor gluons ) emitted from the collisions. The temperature, on the other hand, can be deduced from the average transverse momentum (i.e., the momentum transverse to the collision axis) of those particles (= this means they just detected irrelevant "charged particles", Not the imaginary ultra-short-lived quark-gluon plasma nor its sound wave )."

"The results match the theoretical expectation and confirm that the quark–gluon plasma acts as a fluid made of particles that carry enormous amounts of energy (= untrue, there is No theory analytically predicting the imaginary quark-gluon-plasma )".

↑ And there is No mention of practical use of such an illusory quark-gluon plasma, so this is also one of typical researches useless except for publishing papers in journals.

Unrealistic quark-gluon plasma is too short-lived to observe, so considering its imaginary sound speed is meaningless.

First of all, it is physically impossible to detect the (illusory) quark-gluon plasma where quark and gluon may move separately, which is said to be too short-lived with lifetime of only 10^-23 seconds.

This 7~8th paragraphs say
" quark-gluon plasma (= QGP ) cannot be observed directly because it is extremely ephemeral. In the experiments performed at the LHC and RHIC, its assumed duration is on the order of 10^-23s, which is much too short for direct observation ( this p.1-right-last )."

↑ The distance over which such an extremely short-lived quark-gluon plasma can move is only less than several femtometer (= 10^-15 = quark's short lifetime 10^-23s × light speed 3 × 10⁸m,   this p.4,  this p.3(or p.1)-1st-paragraph ), which is 10000 times shorter than a single atomic radius (= unmeasurably-short ).

↑ Thinking about the (illusory) sound speed within such an unmeasurably-short distance over which ultra-short-lived quark-gluon plasma is said to move is scientifically meaningless.

Heavier W boson is paradoxically emitted from much lighter neutron violating energy-mass conservation law ?  ← W boson of weak force is just fictional virtual particle.

(Fig.W)   W boson of 80000 MeV mass can be emitted from much lighter neutron (= only 939 MeV mass ) ?  ← This explanation of today's particle physics is unphysical and unreal.

Today's particle physics is unreal, relying on unphysical virtual particles with imaginary mass as (fictitious) mediators of force.

Feynman diagram with unreal virtual particles lacking real particles' shapes cannot express real forces.

In fact, according to today's mainstream quantum field theory and particle physics, all interactions and forces between all particles are said to happen through unreal virtual particles ( ex. virtual photon ) with imaginary masses which disagree with Einstein relativistic mass energy relation ( this p.9-10,  this p.5 ).

All these forces and interactions between particles are described by unphysical Feynman diagrams which are too abstract to clarify detailed underlying mechanism.

↑ Unlike the misleadingly colorful picture of overhyped news, today's particle physics can only describe (virtual and real) particles as nonphysical math symbols with No shape ( this-p.4-method,  this p.4-5 ), which unphysical model hinders technology.

So in the current unphysical quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics based on useless abstract Feynman diagrams which are just unphysical math theories with No relation to our real world ( this p.21 ), all unstable doubtful particles such as unseen fractional-charge quarks ( this p.3 ), weak force of W bosons ( this p.4 ), Higgs ( this p.7 ), virtual particles mediating them are unreal useless particles described by nonphysical abstract math symbols with No concrete shapes.

Today's particle physics ridiculously claims the (unseen imaginary) heavier W boson can be emitted from much lighter neutron in beta decay

Today's particle physics needs violation of energy (= mass ) conservation law or fictional virtual particles.

When a neutron decays into a proton and an electron in beta decay, fictitious weak force and virtual weak (= W ) boson are said to be generated in this neutron beta decay.

Quantum mechanical explanation of this beta decay is so unrealistic that they claim a neutron can decay into a almost-same-mass proton (= proton's mass is 938 MeV ) and far bigger W boson (= whose large mass is allegedly 80 GeV = 80000 MeV ) which is said to be 80 times heavier than the original neutron (= neutron's mass is 939 MeV ) !

↑ This is impossible, because a lighter particle (= neutron ) cannot emit a heavier particle (= W boson ) due to violating mass conservation.
But the current insane particle physics claims much heavier W boson can be produced from much lighter neutron ( or proton ), flagrantly.

So this dubious extremely heavier W boson allegedly involved in neutron beta decay must be an unreal virtual particles (= violating Einstein mass relation, this p.8, so self-contradictory ) which can never be detected like a ghost, so weak force or W boson are scientifically meaningless, and Not proved yet.

In β+ decay, a lighter proton can emit the much heavier (unseen) W+ boson to become a heavier neutron ?  ← this is impossible due to violation of energy (= mass) conservation law.

In the more unrealistic β+ decay (= this unrealistic β+ decay can be replaced by realistic electron capture doing exactly the same reaction even without nonphysical antiparticle ), they unscientifically claim that a lighter proton could emit a much heavier W+ boson with 80 × proton mass, and change into a heavier neutron, which clearly violates the total mass-energy conservation law, which shows these dubious weak force mediated by the unrealistic W boson is unreal.

Unlike the paradoxical positron emission or β+ decay where a lighter proton must emit a much heavier W+ boson and change into a heavier neutron, the electron capture is a realistic reaction where a lighter proton absorbs an electron and changes into a heavier neutron causing the same result and reaction as the (imaginary) positron (= antiparticle ) emission.

But the present standard model based on unphysical Feynman diagram's explanation about this realistic electron capture is unrealistic.

They unreasonably claim that a lighter proton must emit a much heavier (virtual) W+ boson to change into a heavier neutron (= violating energy and mass conservation law ! ), and this unrealistically heavier (unobservable) W+boson must merge with an electron to emit neutrino (= so the current unrealistic particle physics paradoxically claims that an electron is Not captured or absorbed into a proton inside nucleus even in the electron capture, instead, an electron just merges with a virtual W+boson emitted from a proton ).

Photon is unreal with No physical shape.

How each electron interacts with a photon cannot be clarified in nonphysical quantum field theory.

(Fig.E)  Unrealistic particle picture with No concrete shapes in today's unphysical quantum field theory ↓

The current unphysical quantum field theory (= QFT ) describes particles such as electrons and photons just as nonphysical simple math symbols with No physical figures except abstract Feynman diagram ( this p.7, this p.5-8 ), so useless.

Interaction between electrons and photons (= when an electron emits or absorbs light = virtual photon, this p.3 ) is also described by nonphysical representation where an electron symbol and a photon symbol are just put side by side with No more explanation of true physical mechanism ( this p.13, this p.4,  this p.7-8 ).

Therefore, the current quantum field theory or QED can never clarify concrete physical mechanism of how electrons emit ( virtual ) photons for causing Coulomb force or photoelectric effect.  → Quantum field theory and QED are harmful, just stopping our science from progressing forever.

Particle physics, standard model continues to waste money and time in gigantic meaningless colliders only for pursuing fictional useless unstable particles in vain, forever.

(Fig.P)  Unseen fractional-charge quark, Higgs, W,Z bosons are unobservable, unreal and useless forever.

The present particle physics just wastes money in illusory useless particles.

The present particle physics has been just wasting money and time in building meaningless gigantic colliders, pursuing imaginary particles, unrealistic superstitious God particle, wormholes, extra-dimensions, black hole, which are all undetectable and useless forever.  ← Particle physics itself is nonphysical theory irrelevant to real world phenomena.

Higgs boson is irrelevant to the origin of mass.

Higgs boson or particle allegedly discovered (= Higgs is too short-lived to detect directly, though ) in Large Hadron Collider (= LHC ) is said to be the origin of mass.

But in fact, this elusive Higgs boson in LHC does Not give mass at all, instead, the still-unseen and undiscovered "Higgs field (= Not Higgs boson in LHC )" allegedly filling space is said to give mass to other particles ( this 3rd-paragraph,  this-1.misconception,   ), which means wasting huge money for hunting the (illusory) Higgs boson inside the collider has nothing to do with the origin of mass.

If "Higgs field" was really filling space and constantly giving mass to particles, we could have easily found those abundant Higgs field even outside the colliders. But we couldn't. It means Higgs does Not exist.

↑ Furthermore, the idea of this Higgs field filling all universe to give mass is clearly inconsistent with Einstein relativity rejecting the medium filling space called "ether.", which discrepancy shows the current mainstream relativistic particle physics is self-contradictory and wrong.

The current particle physics or standard model's mechanism of how Higgs gives masses to electrons, quarks and other particles is expressed just as nonphysical abstract meaningless math relation relying on the artificially-created fictional concepts such as "gauge symmetry" and infinite virtual particles' renormalization, which nonphysical particle physics clarifies nothing about the detailed physical mechanism of particles' interactions at all.

Massive (imaginary) W boson is said to mediate weak force of beta decay where a neutron decays into a proton and an electron, but this involvement of the massive W boson in neutron beta decay is impossible and untrue.

The present chaotic particle collider's experiment cannot prove Higgs, W boson or other (fictional) unstable particles.

Furthermore, there is No evidence that such a dubious Higgs or W bosons really existed.

Because the lifetimes of the extremely-unstable Higgs and W boson are so short that it's impossible to observe such unstable Higgs or W boson directly ( this 3rd-paragraph ).

Physicists just collide accelerated protons and see other irrelevant real particles such as electrons and emitted lights to baselessly "speculate" such unseen short-lived Higgs, W boson or fractional-charge quarks might have been generated sometimes inside the sea of other irrelevant more abundant particles with No direct evidence.

Furthermore, in the present nonphysical particle physics, physicists just artificially choose only convenient data accounting for only less than 1% of all the irrelevant particles' collision data to explain their artificially-created ad-hoc theory.

↑ Even in these artificially-chosen convenient data, the (imaginary) unstable Higgs or W boson are said to be generated only one in millions or trillions of protons' collisions ( this 5th-paragraph,  this p.34 ), which means they just pick up convenient data suitable for their fictional particle physics model which actually has nothing to do with the real world's phenomena.

Particle colliders' detectors have too bad efficiency to identify the unstable (illusory) particles such as Higgs and W boson.

See this.

Standard model's (fictional) Z boson needs violation of energy-mass conservation.

(Fig.Z)  Z boson is also unreal.

Particle physics, standard model, QED are unsuccessful, meaningless theories.

Besides (contradictory) W boson, another important ( illusory ) elementary particle of the current standard ( Glashow-Weinberg-Salam ) model is a neutral Z boson which is also a ghost and useless pseudo-particle = too short-lived to detect directly (= No real evidence that these extremely-unstable Z or W bosons exist ).

This ghost-like neutral Z boson is said to be involved in (unphysical) weak interaction of unseen neutrinos (= ν ) being scattered by other particles such as electrons and nuclei, which interaction is called neutral current (= NC ), which dubious Z boson's weak interaction is extremely hard to distinguish from other common electromagnetic interaction.

This unseen illusory Z boson was said to be discovered by observing the scattering of such an unseen neutrinos (= neutrino itself cannot be detected, its existence must be inferred from "missing momentum" or other surrounding particles ).

↑ Of course it's unrealistic to obtain reliable data from these uncertain, unpredictable particle scattering experiments using unseen elusive neutrinos, hence, these scattering experiments often gave different wrong results in different physicists, disagreeing with the standard model's predictions ( this p.7 ).

This unseen Z boson is extremely massive (= 90 GeV, which is 90 times heavier than a proton ).

But the unscientific standard model allows even the violation of energy and mass conservation law, so they claim even lighter neutrinos with lower energies ( < 50 GeV, this p.2-right,  this p.55,  this p.20-lower ) could magically generate heavier Z boson with higher energies (= generating a Z boson or its mass should need at least 90 GeV or 90000 MeV = Z boson's rest mass energy ), which is impossible, hence a wrong contradictory theory.

Heavier Z boson of 90 GeV mass energy could be emitted from mugh lighter neutrino (= only 1 ~ 10 GeV energy ) ?  ← this is impossible.

In the experiment allegedly discovering this unrealistically massive neutral Z boson in 1973, Gargamelle team hit the accelerated protons with 26 GeV against the target beryllium atoms to produce neutrino beam with energies of 1 ~ 10 GeV (= far smaller energy than Z boson's rest mass energy = 90 GeV !  this neutrino beam having 1 ~ 10 GeV,  this p.9 ).

This p.5-left says only a few GeV was necessary to generate much heavier Z boson of 90 GeV mass-energy = neutral current (= NC ), which is clearly paradox.

↑ This neutrino (= 1~10 GeV ) allegedly generated the unrealistic unseen massive Z boson (= 90 GeV mass energy by violating energy conservation law ), and this unseen Z boson collided with nuclei in the liquid causing the nuclear or hadronic reaction which are extremely hard to detect ( this p.3 ).  ← They claim that the neutral Z boson couldn't generate easily-detectable charged particles.

↑ They tried to use this undetectable neutral Z boson reaction with the target nuclei (= which equals the reactions where the unseen neutrinos are scattered by nuclei ) to infer the standard model's artificial parameter called Weinberg angle (= sinθ_W) or weak mixing angle, which unphysical parameter = Weinberg angle is said to be equal to the ratio of probabilities of neutral current events mediated by the unseen Z boson to the charged current events mediated by the unseen W- boson using the artificially-created formula.

↑ They claimed only charged W boson could generate unstable charged particles such as muon (= μ- ) which decayed into the detectable electrons, while the neutral Z boson couldn't generate the easily-detectable charged particles, but they tried to compare the chances of these two charged (= W boson ) and neutral (= Z boson ) current reactions happening to infer the artificial Weinberg angle (= θ_B ) parameter ( this p.10,  this p.4 ).

↑ The neutral current reaction mediated by Z boson is much harder to detect than the charged current reaction mediated by charged W boson (= allegedly causing easily-detectable charged particles ), so the estimation of unphysical Weinberg angle parameter based on this reaction's ratio of neutral Z boson to charged W boson is unreliable.

Contrary to their claim, the neutral Z boson could also generate charged particles such as electrons (= e-) and muons ( this p.7,  this p.4 ), so distinguishing reactions between Z boson and W boson is intrinsically impossible.  ← So they conveniently started to say the chance of the neutral Z boson decaying into the charged particles is extremely low.  ← This is clearly the artificial manipulation of the theory to fit the experimental results or obtain its artificial parameter (= Weinberg angle ) !

This very unreliable experiment using the unseen ghost-like neutrino scattering, virtual Z, W boson and unseen various unspecific nuclear reactions gave the various wrong results of Weinberg or weak mixing angle parameter (= sin² θ_w = 0.3-0.5, this p.18,  this p.21-last ) disagreeing with the current accepted or adjusted values ( sin² θ_w = 0.23 ).

Particle physics picked up only convenient data fitting their claim, which is Not a legitimate theory nor predicting any values.

And any experimental results disagreeing with the Weinberg angle adopted by the mainstream standard model were deliberately ignored and dismissed.  ← Not a legitimate scientific process at all !

This p.17 says "This result by the HPWF group, contrary to the their (positive) mixed-beam-result and contrary to Gargamelle’s result, was in fact inconsistent with the predictions of the GWS model (= Glashow-Weinberg-Salam theory = mainstream standard model ). However, this negative published result was largely ignored"

As a result, the present particle physics or standard model is Not successful at all, instead, it just blatantly violates the inviolable physical laws (= energy conservation is violated in unrealistically-heavy W and Z bosons in nonphysical weak force ) and deliberately dismisses any experiments contradicting the mainstream standard model which just artificially manipulates many free parameters in their the ad-hoc model to seemingly fit the (artificially-chosen) experimental results.

(Fig.Q)  Fractional-charge quarks are undetectable, unreal and unnecessary.

The current particle physics or standard model baselessly argues that a proton or neutron consists of three (valence) quarks with unseen fractional charges.

But those fractional-charge quarks can never be isolated, so there is No evidence of existence of the (fictional) fractional-charges of quarks, contrary to the mainstream theory's baseless claim.

The present particle physics tries to find the evidence of fractional charges from the electrons or (unseen) neutrinos scattered from the nuclei in vain, ignoring the obvious fact that fractional charges can never be isolated (= so proof of unseen fractional charges is intrinsically impossible ).

Those scattering exeperimental results disagreed with their original quark model claiming each proton or neutron consists of three (valence) quarks, so physicists needed to artificially add many other (unreal) virtual sea quarks to the original three valence quarks inside a proton and neutron ( this p.8,  this p.7 ).

It is intrinsically impossible to extract the precise fractional-charge values such as 1/3e, 2/3e.. (= why other fractional charges such as 2/5e, 4/7e.. are Not allowed cannot be explained by the current ad-hoc standard model ! ) from those data of nuclei scattering other particles, because the unseen quarks are allegedly tightly bound to each other, which means fractional-charge quarks are Not free particles, and only an integer charge tightly binding fractional charges can be measured by experiments.  ← So the present standard model claim of fractional charges of unseen quarks is completely baseless.

Experiments of particle physics cannot distinguish (illusory) antiparticles from other electrons or protons.

(Fig.A)  ↓ Anderson detected just a proton (or electron ) instead of (illusory) positron.

• Anderson did Not discover a positron.
• PET does Not use positron emission
• Antiparticle is unreal, violating momentum conservation.
• Antiproton does not exist
• Positron does Not exist
• Antihydrogen does Not exist.

Antimatter or antiparticle is also a ghost-like fictional particle which can be neither isolated from virtual circumstances of particle colliders nor confirmed directly.

Positron (= antiparticle of an electron ) was said to be discovered in 1932 when Anderson studied the photos from the cloud chamber where the positive positron was said to move upward from the bottom ( this p.7,  this p.8 ), struck the lead plate and lost energy as seen in the greater curvature of the upper part of track under the applied magnetic field ( this p.12 ).

But all these types of the experiments in the particle physics often dismissed the multi-particle Coulomb electric influence ( caused by many ionized electrons and nuclei inside detectors ), instead, physicists tried to consider only the influence of the applied magnetic field (= ignoring multi-particle Coulomb electric field's effects ) on the particle track's curve to identify the particles.

There were many other irrelevant particles or ions (= excited by cosmic rays ) besides a very rare antiparticle inside cloud chamber, so one of more abundant electrons (= going down ) could be deflected by other ions' electric field (= not only magnetic field ) especially in the upper part of the inserted lead plate where more atoms were ionized (= more black dots are seen in the upper part ) by cosmic rays falling downward, causing stronger electric field, and resultantly, the electron moving downward (= in the same direction as cosmic rays ) was misunderstood as a (illusory) positron which was said to be going upward (= opposite direction to cosmic rays ).

Anderson just detected an ordinary proton emitted from a nucleus broken by high energy cosmic ray.

Or cosmic rays including high energy particles and gamma rays (= ~ GeV ) occasionally break nuclei and emit high-energy positive protons (= Not positrons ! ) which are likely to be mistaken for (illusory) positrons in the cloud chamber where higher-energy particles moving at higher speeds (= whether they are protons or electrons ) tend to leave thinner trajectories due to their less interaction with the surrounding atoms ( this lower ).

It is impossible to distinguish (illusory) rare antiparticles from other more abundant electrons or protons in today's chaotic dirty particle physics experiments.

Antiparticles such as positrons and anti-protons are said to be generated rarely by colliding many accelerated protons or electrons with target heavy atoms under magnetic field.

These kinds of particle collision and cloud chamber experiments are very dirty and chaotic where isolating and confirming only a very rare, unstable particle such as an antiparticle is physically impossible.

Under this chaotic condition inside particle colliders and cloud chambers, it's impossible to isolate or confirm a single rare antiparticle directly, because in order to confirm the existence of the elusive antiparticle from the particle trajectory left in the particle detector or cloud chamber, physicists have to remove any irrelevant external disturbance or influence from other more abundant charged particles such as electrons and nuclei, which removal is impossible.

Other more abundant stable particles such as electrons and protons are more likely to be detected and easily mistaken for one of illusory rare antiparticles.

Even the recent experiment just measured some visible light, and can Not directly see or identify antiparticle-positrons surrounded by a lot of irrelevant background particles or lights ( this p.3-2ns~3rd paragraphs ).

An electron could be scattered by many other atoms and ions (or high-energy electrons or lights easily excite and kick out other electrons of instruments' walls in various directions ), "mimicking" an illusory rare positron's trajectory.

Actually, many physicists such as Nobel laureates Millikan and Bohr dismissed Anderson's dubious positron as some "experimental artifacts" ( this p.7-right-3rd-paragraph ).

Anyway, as long as we cannot isolate such rare elementary particles as antiparticles from other more abundant electrons or protons, thinking about such dubious unnecessary antiparticles is meaningless.

PET (= positron emission tomography ) uses the realistic electron capture instead of unrealistic positron (= antiparticle of electron ) emission which violates energy conservation law.

(Fig.P)  PET uses "electron capture" instead of (illusory) positron.

The only practical application of antiparticle is said to be positron-emission tomography (= PET ).

In fact, the illusory antiparticle = positron emission (= β+ decay ) can be safely replaced by another realistic particle reaction called "electron capture" which produces exactly the same neutron from the same initial particles = a proton and an electron.

So both electron capture and positron emission are said to cause the same nuclear reaction changing (a positive proton of ) Na-22 into ( a neutral neutron of ) Ne-22 by emitting gamma rays and absorbing one negative electron from the outside.

But only the positron emission needs an unrealistic reaction where a lighter proton has to emit a heavier neutron and a positron.  ← This is impossible (= a lighter proton → a heavier neutron + a positron ).  ← Some people say a proton inside a nucleus may utilize some "nuclear binding energy" to generate a heavier neutron + a positron, but the present particle physics says nothing about what this binding energy is.

If Einstein relativity was true, in any frames (= seen by any moving observers ) including the rest frame of a lighter proton (= with No additional kinetic energy ), a heavier neutron with higher energy (+ positron ) must be emitted from a lighter proton with lower energy (= at rest, no kinetic energy in the rest frame ), which is impossible and self-contradictory, so positron emission process is unrealistic due to the violation of the mass and energy conservation law.

PET uses "electron capture" instead of "positron emission".

So there is No evidence of the existence of antiparticles such as positrons which illusory particles are completely unnecessary even for their alleged only-application = positron emission tomography (= PET ) where the realistic electron capture can perfectly explain the gamma ray light released by PET, replacing the illusory positron emission.

For example, Na-22 nuclei are said to decay into the same resultant Ne-22 nuclei through conveniently choosing either of two different paths of (illusory) positron emission (= β+ decay ) or (realistic) electron capture, which path is chosen is indistinguishable, because all physicists can detect is the emitted light (= γ rays ) energy or other stable electrons in the detectors instead of directly observing the very short-lived dubious antiparticles (  this p.99,  this p.2-lower ).

There are many cases which cannot be explained by (fantasy) positron emissions, but can be explained only by the realistic electron capture.

The positron emission reaction needs to emit the gamma light whose energy must be greater than 2mc² (= electron + positron rest mass energies ? ).
But in many nuclear decays mimicking positron emission, emitted energies are often less than 2mc², which can be explained only by realistic electron capture, Not by positron or antiparticle emission ( this p.6-7 ).

Na-22 radioactive nuclei use "electron capture" instead of (illusory) positron emission.

Na-22 radioactive nucleus emits the high-energy γ rays more than 2.0 MeV (= 2 × 10⁶ eV, ) through the realistic electron capture or the paradoxical positron emission ( this p.9 ).

So inside the capsule of the Na-22 radioactive source, many high-energy electrons and sodium (= Na ) ions excited by γ rays emitted from other radioactive nuclei before are already moving around at extremely high speed and high energies.

↑ These excited Na-22 positive ions, high-energy electrons and gamma rays are scattered by other atoms (or excite other atoms inside detectors ), and bring as much energy as the 1 ~ 2 MeV level to the gamma-ray detector, and they may be falsely detected as (unseen) antiparticle or positron (= which is said to annihilate with another electron to emit gamma rays, too ).

↑ Te present experiments about the dubious antiparticles can Not eliminate the possibility that the dubious antiparticle or positron was just an artifact caused by the high-energy electrons, positive ions or gamma rays scattered by other atoms or walls inside instruments, hence, there is No conclusive evidence that antiparticles exist, as seen in the fact that the concept of positron emission can be safely replaced by the realistic electron capture with No problem.

The gamma ray detector such as NaI scintillator cannot detect the gamma ray itself.
The gamma ray detector has to divide the high energy gamma rays into many lower-energy detectable visible lights ( this p.2,  this p.20-24,   this p.3,  this-p.1-background ), so the collection of (visible) lights emitted from the high-energy electrons or γ rays originating from Na-22 radioactive source can be easily mistaken for the (illusory) positron, which can be detected only as the emitted gamma rays, Not as an (unseen) antiparticle.

Pair production of a particle (= electron ) and an antiparticle (= positron ) disagrees with the momentum conservation law, so antiparticles do Not exist.

(Fig.M)  Production of a pair of electron and positron at rest from light wave (= photon ) with momentum violates momentum conservation, so antiparticle is unreal..

Today's antiparticle theory violates physical law, so false.

In any reactions involving antiparticle production and decay, the total energy and momentum conservation law is broken between antiparticle and light (or photon ), which unphysical violation of total momentum conservation law clearly shows that antiparticles are unreal.

In the pair production of antiparticles, the incident light ( or photon ) with energy E more than 2mc² and the momentum (= p = E/c ) allegedly changes into a pair of a particle (= electron ) and an antiparticle (= positron ) acquiring the rest mass from the incident light's energy.  ← The electromagnetic wave, light or photon cannot stop, so the light's momentum must Not be zero.

When this light with the total energy = 2mc² changes into a stationary electron with rest mass energy (= mc² ) and a stationary positron or antiparticle with the rest mass energy (= mc² ) in pair production, only the total energy is conserved, and the total momentum is Not conserved.

Because the momentums of the resultant stationary electron and positron are zero, hence, the initial light's momentum (= p = E/c = 2mc ) must disappear somewhere else to conserve the total momentum.

The present unrealistic mainstream particle physics claims that this magically-vanishing light's momentum may be absorbed into the irrelevant nucleus near the place of the pair production ( this 8th-paragraph,  this p.20 ).

↑ But in this ridiculous mainstream particle physics logic, the nucleus must absorb the light's momentum without the energy.  ← Absorbing only the momentum (= hence, the kinetic energy of a nucleus must be generated by absorbing the energy, not only momentum ! ) without absorbing the energy is physically impossible, so the antiparticle pair production is unrealistic and illusion.

↑ In Feynman diagram of the present mainstream quantum field theory, this ad-hoc nucleus is Not involved (= cannot absorb momentum ) in the pair production of a particle and an antiparticle from the incident light or photon, so today's particle physics or quantum field theory violating momentum conservation law is clealy false.

Antiparticle needs unreal virtual particles.

Fictional antiparticles need unreal virtual particles with unreal masses for their reactions described by abstract nonphysical Feynman diagrams ( this p.4,  this p.3,  this p.16-last,  this p.56 (or p.57 ) ) invalidating real antiparticles.

And the present unphysical particle physics cannot describe each particle or antiparticle in the realistic way, except as nonphysical math symbols.

Separating a particle from an antiparticle in the pair production is impossible.

A positive positron and negative electron attracting each other by almost infinite Coulomb attractive energy (= distance between them is zero ) just when they are produced at the pair production from the light.  ← separating and observing a positron is impossible.

Anyway, for a pair of a positively-charged positron and a negatively-charged electron to be produced and separated from neutral light (= unreal virtual photon ) as pair production, it needs unrealistically infinite energy (= infinite energy is needed to separate an electron and a positron from the initial neutral light = allegedly a negative electron and a positive positron are bound to each other by "infinite Coulomb attraction, stably fused into one neutral light, where the distance between these two attractive positron and electron is zero and the Coulomb attraction between the initial electron and positron is infinite inside initial fused light of photon ), so antiparticle generation from light is impossible.

Because inside an initial neutral light (= photon ), the distance between a positron and an electron is almost zero, which means Coulomb attraction between positron and electron is infinite inside the initial light, which Coulomb attraction is too strong to separate a particle from an antiparticle.  = No antiparticle generation !

Antiprotons (= antiparticle of proton ? ) used in particle colliders are other particles such as high-energy electrons or ions.  ← No evidence of antiparticles or antiprotons.

(Fig.A)  Particle colliders cannot distinguish the (illusory) negative antiprotons from more abundant electrons.

Antiprotons (= antiparticle of proton ? ) are extremely-short-lived virtual particles, which can never be isolated from colliders as real particles, hence useless and unnecessary particles.

As I said, it is impossible to isolate these extremely-unstable rare (illusory) particles from other more abundant stable electrons and ions, hence, there is No evidence that these antiparticles such as antiprotons could exist even for an extremely short time.

Generation of antiprotons did Not distinguish antiprotons from other irrelevant particles.

Antiparticles are said to be produced when high-energy protons hit and break the target metal's nuclei into other more abundant irrelevant electrons, protons and ions.

Particle physicists always try to generate high-energy antiparticles with far more than 1 GeV energies ( this p.6,  this p.3,  even storing rings are said to contain high-energy 3GeV antiprotons, this p.4-left ) which exceed the proton or antiparticle's rest mass energy mc² = 0.938 GeV, which means the alleged antiparticles are moving at almost light speed c.

Physicists often apply the magnetic field to bend the particle's track to know its momentum (= track's curvature under magnetic field tells us only about the particle's momentum, Not the particle's mass or energy ), deliberately ignoring other multi-particle Coulomb scattering.

When the particle such as a (anti)protons and an electron is moving at almost light speed c (= its velocity v = c ), the (relativistic) mass of the particle derived from the same particle's momentum (= producing the same bent track under magnetic field ) becomes almost the same in all different particles with different rest masses, whether it's a (anti)proton or an electron.

Mass of high-energy antiproton is completely different from the original antiproton's mass, which cannot be distinguished from high-energy electron or other particles.

↑ Relativistic momentum p = relativistic mass × light speed c when particles are moving at almost light speed c, which means all particles with different rest masses and the same momentum show the same indistinguishable heavier relativistic mass at light speed c, and distinguishing relativistic masses of an electron and a fictitious antiproton is impossible when those particles are moving at almost light speed with more than 1 GeV high energy.

This seemingly-heavier (relativistic) mass of the particle moving at higher speed can be explained by the realistic Maxwell's energy mass relation which was illegitimately copied by the paradoxical Einstein relativity later (= So the seemingly heavier mass of the particle moving at higher speed is just due to the increased resistance which the higher-speed particle feels from the surrounding medium, Not due to the fictional Einstein heavier relativistic mass ).

↑ Almost the same apparent (relativistic) masses of all different particles moving at almost light speed c means physicists cannot distinguish between the illusory antiproton allegedly with the same mass as a proton and the lighter electron moving at light speed c with the same higher momentum (> 1 GeV ).

Hence, like the dubious cosmic muons, which are also moving at almost light speed c, it is impossible to distinguish these (illusory) antiparticles, muons from other real high-energy electrons and protons due to their apparently same heavier (relativistic) masses, because they are moving at almost the same light speed c (= this means they experience the same Lorentz magnetic force ), and accelerated in almost the same way under the electric field (= due to the same relativistic mass ).

Particle colliders do Not distinguish (illusory) antiparticles from other negative ions or electrons.

Actually, all particle colliders try to only distinguish the high energy (illusory) negative antiprotons moving at almost light speed (= its energy is more than 1 GeV ) from the positive protons only under the simple magnetic field ( this p.21-24(or p.6-9),  this p.2,  this p.2 ).  ← They cannot distinguish the more abundant high energy negative electrons from the negative (illusory) antiparticles or antiprotons under magnetic field.

This means the illusory short-lived antiparticles are unnecessary and useless, because antiprotons can be replaced by other high-energy electrons or ions scattered by other particles.

It is said that the tiny magnetic moment of the illusory antiproton (= which is the same as that of proton ) was measured by penning trap.

But the magnetic moment (energy) of the antiproton (= only neV = 10^-9 eV, this p.34,  this p.20 ) is too weak to distinguish from irrelevant thermal energy ( this p.7-8 = even 1K temperature has unspecific thermal noise energy of 8.6 × 10^-5 eV, which is far larger than the very weak antiproton's magnetic moment energy ).

↑ Some physicists just measured some (unknown) charged particle by the scintillator (= that did not measure the antiparticle's mass energy ) after the alleged (illusory) antiprotons trapped inside penning trap were annihilated.  They could Not measure antiparticles themselves or the large annihilation (antiproton mass) energy in the trapped antiproton experiment ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph ).

Positrons (= antiparticles of electrons ) allegedly created inside particle colliders are also useless and unnecessary, because positrons are just other particles such as protons, ions or scattered electrons, instead of (illusory) antiparticles.

In particle colliders using (illusory) positron-electron collisions, elusive positrons (= e+ ) are said to be generated by accelerated electrons (= e- ) moving at almost light speed (= about 200 MeV ~ 10 GeV ) hitting the target metallic nuclei ( this p.2-3,  this p.2 ).

When such a high-energy electron hits the target nucleus, the nucleus breaks down, and producing neutrons, positive protons and electrons.

But the current particle physics baselessly claims that when the accelerated electron crashes into the target nucleus, it emits a (virtual) photon or high-energy gamma rays (= called bremsstrahlung ), which eventually causes a (virtual) pair production of a positron and an electron by violating momentum conservation law.

So particle physicists try to separate only negative electrons, neutral γ rays (= or photon ) from the positive (illusory ) positrons using magnetic field in the particle collider's positron source ( this p.4,  this p.17,  this p.9 ).

↑ It means they do Not exclude more abundant positive protons generated from broken nuclei hit by high-energy electrons, so the (illusory) positrons are just abundant protons, ions or scattered electrons.  ← No need of antiparticle positrons.

Actually energies of only 30 MeV is enough to break nuclei by accelerated electrons to produce protons and neutrons
Particle colliders use higher-energy electrons (ex. 3.5 GeV = 3500 MeV, or 500 MeV this p.2-right,   this p.34-35 ) to generate positrons, which can be reasonably interpreted just as more abundant protons or scattered electrons.

Distinguishing a (illusory) positron from abundant protons is impossible unless they rely on some artificial (baseless) theory such as the alleged radiation difference ( this p.1-middle ).

The magnetic moment of the (illusory) positron is said to be the same (= Bohr magneton ) as the magnetic moment of the electron.

So the alleged measurement of the illusory positron's magnetic moment in penning trap just measured the electron's orbital magnetic moment (= Bohr magnetic ) of a hydrogen atoms entering penning trap mistaken for the (illusory) positron.

Artificially-created concept such as the neutral anti-neutrino cannot be distinguished from ordinary neutrino due to the lack of detectable positive or negative charges in the neutral (anti-)neutrinos.

So we can conclude all these doubtful particles, which are too short-lived to isolate from colliders, are unreal and unnecessary for us, forever.

If the initial light transiently changes into an electron and a positron for an extremely short time, and quickly returns to the initial light by merging with each other again, the existence of positron or antiparticle is unnecessary and unreal (= positron emission of PET can be explained and replaced by realistic electron capture ).

In fact, there is No evidence of antihydrogen allegedly consisting of an illusory antiproton (= antiparticle of a proton ) and a positron (= antiparticle of an electron ).

The (illusory) antiprotons are said to be produced by colliding extremely high-energy protons (> 10 GeV ) with target atoms, and then, they are mixed with other (foil) atoms and electrons for cooling (= but the original high energy does not disappear,  this p.10-12,  this p.1-right ), and these high-energy (imaginary) antiprotons can be explained and replaced by high-energy electrons or ions produced by broken nuclei and atoms by collisions.  ← antiparticles are unneeded.

Positrons allegedly emitted from Na-22 radioactive nuclei also can be explained by high-energy electrons, ions and gamma rays (= positrons are unneeded ), which are mixed with nitrogen atomic buffer gas (= illusory positrons are hidden with other electrons and ions of gas, hence indistinguishable from other irrelevant particles.  this 4th-paragraph,  this p.2 ) before mixing with the alleged antiprotons to form (unseen) antihydrogens (= in this process, normal hydrogens consisting of protons and electrons could be produced and mistaken for antihydrogens which are allegedly trapped by applied magnetic field, this p.3-left ).

The dubious proof of antihydrogen came from detection of gamma rays (= allegedly emitted from annihilation of an unseen positron and an electron, but No direct evidence of antiparticle ), and some charged particles' trajectories by silicon detector (= allegedly unseen charged pions emitted from annihilation of antiprotons, but this is also just imagination with No direct evidence od antiprotons, all they can detect are some unknown charged particles,  this Fig.1, p.2,  this Fig.1 ).

↑ They intentionally ignore the large annihilation energy (> 2 GeV gamma rays ) of an (illusory) antiproton + a proton (= they tried to track some charged particles like unseen unstable pions as the evidence of antiprotons, but this has No evidence ), and focus only on the much-smaller annihilation energy (< 1 MeV gamma rays ) of a (illusory) positron + an electron in detection of a (illusory) anti-hydrogen ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph,  this p.7 ) that should be masked and unable to detect if larger antiproton-proton annihilation energy is generated (= so they intentionally ignored the large annihilation gamma ray energy that should be emitted from annihilation of massive antiproton and proton ), which artificial detection definition disproves the existence of antihydrogen.

Gamma rays (= allegedly emitted from annihilation of positrons ), which are Not directly measurable, must be changed into visible lights to detect by photodetectors in (CsI) crystal scintillation materials ( this p.2 ).

In this process of generating elusive antihydrogens, there are many irrelevant high-energy particles and lights with MeV ~ GeV, which background particles make it impossible to distinguish the (illusory, unseen) antihydrogen from other high-energy particles or lights ( this p.8-Fig.4 ).

In fact, there is No direct evidence that the hypothetical particle called positronium where an antiparticle = positron and an electron are said to be orbiting around each other like hydrogen atom.

If this (illusory) positronium really existed, physicists should have detected the spectral line or light with energy difference between n = 1 and n = 2 of the positronium atom (= emitted light should have 2430 A wavelength and 5.10 eV = replacing the ordinary hydrogen's Lyman series by using a half of the reduced mass,  this p.4 ).

But the environments using positrons are always filled with many much-higher-energy lights or gamma rays (= ~ MeV or 10⁶ eV = energy generated from annihilation of positron and electron is more than 1 MeV or 1000 keV,  this p.3-right ), hence, such a smaller-energy light (= only 5 eV ) allegedly emitted from positronium is easily hidden, undetectable and indistinguishable from the much-higher-energy background lights ( this abstract, Fig.2-4 ).  ← Proving the existence of positron using positronium's energy levels is impossible.

Some experiments tried to illuminate the (undetectable) positronium with three small-energy lights with different wavelengths to ionize the positronium to detect positrons for estimating n = 1 → 2 energy level's transition, but those smaller-energy lights are easily buried inside many other much-higher-energy lights (= MeV = which higher energy can much more easily ionize positroniums ), so these experiments are unreliable, and they did Not detect positrons themselves that cannot be distinguished from high-energy scattered electrons, positive ions and lights by their particle detectors = MCP ( this Fig.2, p.2-3 = using multiple lights with wavelengths different from the original 243 nm or n=1 → n=2 transition ).

So there is No reliable evidence of existence of the positronium or antiparticle, positron.

The tiny hyperfine-structure energy difference of the (illusory) positronium is much, much smaller (= 203 GHz = only 0.0008 eV,  this p.3 ) than positron's annihilation energy (= ~ MeV or 10⁶ eV ) filling the space as gamma lights, hence, such a tiny, tiny positronium's hyperfine structure energy splitting is undetectable and indistinguishable from the much-higher-energy background lights or gamma (= γ ) rays.

↑ When trying to measure such a doubtful tiny hyperfine energy splitting (= energy difference between a nuclear or positron's spin up and down ), they used the baseless assumption of different lifetimes between ortho-positronium consisting of positron and electron with up-up triplet spins (= lifetime is allegedly only 142 nsec, eventually emitting high-energy gamma rays ) and para-positronium with up-down singlet spins (= lifetime is said to be only 0.125 nsec,  this p.3,15-18 ).

The alleged only way of distinguishing (illusory, unseen) para-positronium and ortho-positronium is seeing the different patterns of detected lights or γ rays (= sharp or broader continuum,  this p.5 ) with No more ways of confirming those doubtful particles such as positroniums really exist.

↑ These lifetimes of positroniums based on (unseen) spin directions are just baseless speculation with No evidence, so there is No real evidence of existence of positroniums or positrons.

And this quantum mechanical spin-triplet-singlet theory proved to be contradictory and wrong.

Figment of imagination of the present unphysical antiparticle research is endless, as seen in imaginary useless positronic molecular bonds where artificial models with freely-adjusted parameters are used with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2-right-p.3-left ).

Feel free to link to this site.