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

Home page
Standard model is unreal
QED is wrong,  unreal Dirac equation

• Particle physics experiments are unreliable
• W,Z bosons are unreal
• No standard model prediction
• Muons are unreal
• QCD cannot predict anything
• Antiparticles are unreal

Higgs, W,Z bosons, fractional-charge quarks, muons are unreal, unstable, unnecessary particles.

(Fig.1)  The present particle physics pursues only useless illusory particles ↓

Particle physics wastes money in unreal particles.

Particle physics wastes money only in unreal useless particles such as Higgs, unseen quarks..

The present particle physics based on unphysical standard model has pursued only useless illusory particles such as Higgs, W, Z bosons, fractional-charge quarks, antiparticles, muons and extra-dimensions.

↑ All these illusory unstable particles are useless (= unstable muons are just high-energy penetrating electrons or protons,  positron emission is just electron capture ), cannot be observed directly nor isolated from particle colliders, just ended up wasting taxpayers' money in meaningless gigantic colliders.

This or this-3rd-paragraph says
"But it isn’t easy to measure the Higgs boson’s lifetime. For one, the predicted lifetime is too short to be measured directly."

↑ The illusory too short-lived particles such as W and Z bosons cannot be detected directly ( this or this-p.4-last,  this or this-right-last ).

↑ "Unnecessary particles" means "non-existent particles" which are just background artifact or other irrelevant particles.

Detection efficiency of particle colliders is too bad to validate (illusory) particles such as Higgs, W,Z bosons, unseen quarks.

(Fig.2)  Precise measurement of all energies of final products is necessary to prove standard model or too short-lived Higgs, W,Z bosons, quarks, which is impossible because of too low detection efficiency of energy detectors of particle colliders.

Particle physics or standard model lacks evidence.

Particle physics pursues only useless unreal undetectable particles that are too short-lived, decaying into other irrelevant lights and electrons.

The present particle physics pursues only useless illusory particles which are too short-lived to detect ( this or this-p.4-last,  this or this-3rd-paragraph ).

These illusory short-lived particles such as Higgs, W,Z bosons, quarks, muons.. are directly unobservable and said to be transiently produced by protons' collision, and immediately decay into final detectable stable particles such as electrons and lights (= photons ) through virtual unstable intermediate particles ( this-p.14-16 ) and jets.

The present particle physics or unphysical standard model is unsuccessful (= with No evidence ), unable to predict anything due to its artificially-chosen free parameters such as the illusory unstable particles' masses and coupling parameters ( this or this-p.66-68,  this or this-p.7-p.8 ), contrary to hypes.

Unstable useless Higgs.. are just background noise.

It is impossible to distinguish irrelevant abundant background particles from the illusory short-lived rare particles such as Higgs, W,Z bosons, quarks.

The proof and the measurement of the masses of these ( illusory ) short-lived particles needs the precise measurement of all energies of all final products such as light (= photons ) and electrons (= leptons ) into which these short-lived particles decay.

↑ By precisely measuring all energies of all final particles, they have to show some energies (= or masses ) are detected slightly more likely than other irrelevant background energies to (baselessly) prove the (illusory) short-lived particles' existence and masses, which is impossible.

Higgs, W, Z bosons.. are too unstable, unobservable

Particle physics pursues only too-short-lived illusory particles.

Physicists have to artificially ignore almost all particle collision data as background signal irrelevant to production of those (illusory) short-lived, rare particles such as Higgs, W,Z bosons, quarks ( this-p.2-last,p.6 ), and adjust free background parameters ( this or this-p.2-3rd-paragraph,  this-p.8-last,  this-8~14th-paragraphs ).

This or this-6. says  -- Illuosory unseen Higgs
"The Higgs boson cannot be observed directly because its lifetime is too short for our apparatus... the boson decays and transforms into other particles, and the detectors may detect these decay products. As an example, one of the ways a Higgs particle can decay is into two photons (= light ), which can then be detected. However, there are many other (= irrelevant ) processes that also produce two photons, so researchers compare the number of so-called "two-photon events" measured with the number expected from known processes. They do this for all the possible decay modes, and only when they see a statistically significant excess of events can scientists claim a discovery."  ← Not detecting (illusory) Higgs itself

Detectors' efficiency is too bad to prove standard model.

Detection efficiency (< 30% ) of particle colliders are too low to prove the (illusory) particles' masses or standard model.

The problem is the detection efficiency (= called quantum efficiency = QE ) of photodetectors of particles colliders are too low ( less than 30%  = more than 70% of photons or energies are lost, undetectable ), which can detect almost No lights' (or photons' ) energies ( this or this-p.3,4,14,15,  this or this-p.23-24 ).

↑ Photodetectors can detect only a small fraction of visible lights, and almost all lights with almost all wavelengths except only part of visible lights are undetectable and lost ( this or this-p.57-Figure 5.19 ).  ← All the high-energy γ, X rays, infrared light, heat are undetectable, invisible by particle colliders.

Quantum efficiency (= QE = efficiency of photodetectors in LHC detecting photon energy as detectable elections ) is far smaller than 100% (= so almost all photon or light energy emitted from particles is lost,  this or this-p.12,p.24,  this or this-p.14, ), which cannot precisely measure energy nor validate (illusory unstable) particles' energy nor mass of standard model.

↑ This or this-p.4-right-2nd-paragraph-last says  -- LHC cannot detect energy
"The quantum efficiency is about 30% at 270 nm."  ← LHC photodetectors lose more than 70% of energy of incident light with 270nm wavelength (= lights with other wavelengths are more likely to be lost )

Particle physics experiments are unreliable.

Photodetectors's detection efficiency is too bad (< 30% ) to precisely measure energies or masses of final particles, which cannot validate the standard model's prediction.

This or this-p.15-3rd-paragraph says  -- All energy lost
"The quantum efficiency depends on the type of photodetector used to detect the scintillation light, which is typically ∼15–30% for photomultiplier tubes (= more than 70% photon or light energies are undetectable ).. The response of the detector is usually highly wavelength dependent (= all high-energy gamma rays, X rays and heat are undetectable )"

↑ As a result, today's particle colliders' detectors' efficiency is too low or too bad to validate (unphysical) standard model's prediction (= prediction of the unreal W boson mass by precisely measuring all energies of all final decay products is impossible ).

Particle colliders' detectors are too bad.

Almost all energies of particle colliders are undetectable, lost as heat, which can Not prove the (illusory) particles' masses nor validate standard model.

Almost all energies of particles, electrons are lost as heat, which are undetectable and invisible, inside particle colliders ( this or this-p.53,  this or this-p.27-2nd-paragraph,  this or this-overview,  this-p.13-14 ).

This (or this )-p.10-iii), p.18-2nd-last-paragraph say  -- Undetectable energy
"Only a fraction of the photons reach the photocathode. The rest is either absorbed inside crystal (= almost all photons or lights are undetectable )"

"In a sampling calorimeter, most of the soft shower electrons will Not contribute to the signal.. more than 80% of the 1 MeV electrons.. will Not manage to reach a sensitive plane"

This or this-last-paragraph says  -- Unreliable particle physics
"The real nightmare is that we've fooled ourselves into believing the Standard Model is right, because we only looked at 0.003% of the data that's out there"

A lot of energy is undetectable by LHC's calorimeters, which cannot validate particle physics or standard model.

To measure energies deposited by electrons and lights (= photons ) produced by (illusory) Higgs, W,Z bosons.., the electromagnetic (= sampling ) calorimeters such as LHC ATLAS' liquid Argon calorimeters are often used ( this or this-p.1-1. ).

In this calorimeter, almost all energies of incident electrons and photons were lost as heat in inactive (= passive ) layers consisting of dense metals such as Pb, Cu.. as invisible or undetectable energies

Only a small fraction of total energy (= called sampling fraction, this or this-p.4 = 13.7% energy ) is deposited in active layers as ionized Argon gas, whose excited free electrons are barely drifted to electrodes under applied voltages and measured as electric currents.

This or this-p.15-Sampling calorimeters say  -- 90% energy lost
"Signal formed in active medium
From typically 1% − few 10% of deposited energy ( this or this-p.30 )"

This or this-5th-paragraph says  -- A lot of energy lost
"The described type of a calorimeter is called a Sampling Calorimeter, because only a small fraction (sample) of the deposited energy is actually measured in the active medium ( this or this-p.27 )."

Particle colliders' calorimeters lose most energy.

LHC ATLAS' electromagnetic calorimeters can measure only a small fraction of incident energies in active medium (= ex. liquid Argon ) as excited electrons which are also invisible in most cases.

This or this-on sampling calorimeter such as ALTAS says ↓

p.5(or p.3)-lower says  -- Invisible electrons, photons
"Multiple scattering is ignored"
"Compton scattering for photons is ignored. This is also a very severe simplification, as Compton scattering is one of the most important energy loss mechanism"

p.6(or p.4)-middle says  -- Undetectable light energy
"The signal is actually collected charge (electrons) from ionizations of the active medium by charged particles only: photons (= light ) traversing the active medium do no generate a signal"

↑ So ATLAS electromagnetic (sampling) calorimeters cannot detect energies of photons (or light ) or electrons scattered, which cannot measure total energy precisely nor validate standard model.

Particle colliders such as LHC cannot distinguish (illusory) muons from other electrons and protons.

Particle colliders such as LHC baselessly consider unknown charged particles reaching outermost detectors called muon spectrometers as (illusory) muons without distinguishing them from other irrelevant particles (= fake muons ).

Muons are said to decay into electrons and unseen neutrinos, so physicists cannot know the muon's total energy from its decay products due to the undetectable neutrinos.

They roughly estimate muons' energy just by measuring their momentum (= known from their track under magnetic field ) without measuring their total energy, baselessly supposing charged particles reaching the outermost layers of LHC may be only muons with high penetrating power.

Higgs is said to rarely decay into two (undetectable) Z bosons (= one of them is a unreal virtual Z boson ) which may rarely decay into two muons (= μμ ).

↑ The problem is that the current particle physics or standard model has too many different ways of causing two muons as background, which cannot be distinguished from the rare Higgs decaying into two muons, so just measuring two or four muons cannot prove existence of Higgs ( this or this-4th-paragraph ). ↓

Higgs decaying into muons cannot be confirmed in a lot of background.

There are many irrelevant background particles mimicking illusory muons.

This or this on Higgs decaying into two muons ↓

2nd-paragraph says  -- A lot of background
"which can be tested via the rare H → μμ decay..... With a branching ratio of just 0.02%, and a large background dominated by the Drell–Yan production of muon pairs through virtual photons or Z bosons, the inclusive signal-over-background ratio plunges to the level of one part in a thousand"  

"To single out its decay signature, the ATLAS collaboration employed machine-learning techniques for background suppression and generated over five billion Drell–Yan Monte Carlo events (= relying on uncertain random sampling back ground model which cannot distinguish muons from other irrelevant background particles )"

↑ The (illusory) Higgs decaying into muons cannot be distinguished from other irrelevant background particles, so they try to roughly estimate it by artificial background model with random sampling, which ad-hoc method cannot confirm Higgs. ↓

A lot of background masks (unreal) Higgs decaying into muons.

Higgs cannot be confirmed due to a lot of irrelevant background particles giving false signals.

This-ATLAS paper's (unreal) Higgs decaying into two muons (= μμ ).

p.4-3rd-paragraph says  -- Artificially set Higgs mass
"Signal samples were generated for the main Higgs boson production modes. The mass of the Higgs boson was set in the simulation to m_H = 125 GeV"  ← So ATLAS used simulation which artificially set (illusory) Higgs mass at 125GeV from the beginning instead of measuring the Higgs mass

p.12-2nd-last-paragraph says  -- Artificial background model with free parameters
"A core function that describes the DY mass shape inclusively is multiplied by an empirical function that can correct for distortions of the mass shape due to the event selection and categorisation,... the empirical functions have a certain number of free parameters that are selected and fit to data independently in each category"

p.14-5th-paragraph says  -- relying on free parameters
"The systematic uncertainties listed in Section 6 are implemented in the fit as nuisance parameters (= free parameters with No theoretical prediction )"

p.15-Fig.1-left-upper shows  -- No Higgs signal
there is No signal or event number's bump indicating Higgs's mass 125GeV buried under only irrelevant background particles.

p.15-Fig.1-left-lower shows  -- No proof of Higgs
Even after artificially subtracting background model, we can see signals (= bumps of black dots ) at 110GeV, 133 GeV, which are different from Higgs at 125 GeV, which means No evidence of Higgs with 125GeV mass decaying into muons.

Artificial background model with free parameters.

Particle physics experiments rely on artificial background model with many free parameters to interpret results, which can Not predict any physical values.

Physicists often rely on artificial background models ( this-p.1-left-lower ) and unreliable random guess called Monte Carlo (= MC ) method to baselessly estimate the lost energy instead of directly measuring energies ( this or this-p.4,  this-p.5-lower,  this-p.39-lower ), which are Not real experimental values ( this or this-p.13-15 ).

So it is impossible to precisely measure energies (= masses ) to prove the existence of the short-lived particles such as Higgs, W,Z bosons, quarks, muons.., hence, No experimental evidence of (unphysical) standard model, contrary to hypes.

This-p.2-right-2nd-paragraph says  Uncertain measurement
"The control measurement itself could, however, involve a number of uncertainties or arbitrary model choices, and as a result the values of the σ (= model's free parameters ) may themselves be uncertain"

Higgs and all other particles are irrelevant to standard model's prediction

Discovery of Higgs relies on illusory Higgs decaying into a real Z boson and an unreal virtual Z boson, which energy cannot be measured precisely.

Most of (illusory) Higgs bosons are said to decay into unseen (= unreal ) quarks (= b ) whose reactions and energy are extremely hard to measure due to a lot of background noise ( this or this-5th-paragraph~ ).

So discovery of Higgs boson relies on Higgs decay into a pair of a real Z boson (= mass is 91 GeV ) and an unreal virtual Z boson (= mass is uncertain, called off-shell ), which further decay into 4 leptons (= electrons, positrons = e±, muons = μ± ) whose total energy must be measured correctly to estimate the original Higgs mass.

But LHC's calorimeters lose almost all energy as undetectable energy, which cannot precisely measure the total energy nor prove the existence of Higgs, Z bosons..

So physicists have to artificially select measurement results compatible with the current standard model ( this-p.1282~1283(or p.1258~1259 ) ), which is Not a legitimate theoretical prediction. ↓

LHC cannot measure masses of virtual Z and Higgs bosons.

LHC cannot measure the unreal virtual Z boson mass into which Higgs is said to decay, so they cannot prove Higgs.

The mass of the unreal virtual Z boson (= Z* ) must be much smaller (= about 34 GeV ) to fit Higgs mass (= 125 GeV ) and the other real Z boson's mass (= 91 GeV ). ← 34 + 91 = 125 GeV in Higgs → ZZ* bosons decay.

↑ The precise measurement of this smaller mass of the unreal Z boson through measurement of its final products of a pair of leptons is impossible due to a lot of irrelevant background particles ( this or this-middle ).

This or this-p.48,p.49-upper show the contradictory Higgs (= 125 GeV ) decaying to two Z bosons mass (= m12 = 86.3GeV, + m23 = 31.6GeV    or m12 = 70.6GeV,  m23 = 44.7GeV ).  ← The sum of two Z boson masses of m12 and m13 (= this-p.11-2nd-last-paragraph ) is Not equal to Higgs' mass (= and No real Z boson mass of 91GeV used ), which cannot validate Higgs.

This-p.6-Figure-2 and this-p.31-Figure-14 showed No data bumps (= black circle or ZZ signal ) in the second Z boson's mass (= m34 ) of 34GeV (= the first Z mass of m12 is supposed to be 91GeV).  ← Higgs = 125GeV = 34 + 91GeV is Not satisfied.

↑ So No experimental evidence of Higgs boson mass of 125GeV even in its alleged golden decay of Higgs into two ZZ bosons whose virtual Z boson's mass clearly contradicts the original Higgs mass.

W,Z bosons allegedly mediating weak force are unreal, violating energy conservation law in beta decay and neutrino.

(Fig.3)  Unseen virtual Z, W bosons mediate illusory weak interaction between unseen neutrinos and electrons ?  ← This is impossible to prove.

Z, W bosons are unreal, cannot conserve energy.

Lighter neutrino produces much heavier Z,W bosons by violating total energy conservation law ?  ← unrealistic

The neutral ( illusory ) very heavy Z boson, which is too short-lived to detect, is said to mediate the unseen neutrinos (= ν ) interacting with electrons (= e- ) or other particles in the ad-hoc weak force called neutral current (= NC ).

Lighter neutrino (< 10 GeV ) produces much heavier Z or W bosons (= 90 GeV ) ?  ← Impossible due to violating energy conservation.

↑ Today's standard model paradoxically says the initial neutrino with only 1 ~ 10 GeV energy ( this or this-p.2-right,  this-p.9 ) can generate much heavier ( unseen ) Z boson with larger 90 GeV energy (= neutral current, this or this-p.55 ), which clearly violates energy-mass conservation law, which means Z boson is just an unreal virtual particle ( this or this-p.6 ).

W bosons, which are also short-lived, undetectable illusory particles, are said to mediate electrons and neutrinos in beta decay, which is called charged current (= CC ).

Neutrino is too elusive to validate standard model.

Standard model (= unreal Weinberg angle ) based on artificial interaction between (unseen) neutrino and Z,W bosons lack experimental evidence.

By measuring the ratio of these illusory neutral Z boson (= NC ) to W bosons (= CC ) interactions in (unseen) neutrinos weak force reactions, the standard model's (unphysical) Weinberg mixing angle θ_W parameter (= free parameters ) is said to be estimated through the artificial definition ( this or this-p.23-28 ).

But measuring the unseen neutrinos or their elusive reactions is extremely difficult ( this-p.20-lower ).

Elusive neutrino cannot prove Z, W bosons

It is impossible to distinguish (illusory) Z and W bosons allegedly produced by unseen neutrino, both of which interact with the same charged particles.

They baselessly say the (illusory) neutral Z bosons often interact only with nuclei (= hadrons, this or this-p.3-Z decay mode ), while the charged W bosons interact with charged particles such as electrons and muons in the unseen elusive neutrino scattering experiments.

But it is impossible to distinguish the reactions of these (illusory) Z and W bosons, both of which can interact with the same charged particles such as electrons e-.

So their claim of measuring Weinberg weak mixing angle based on this elusive neutrino scattering is unreliable, unable to validate the (unphysical) standard model (= Glashow-Weinberg-Salam, GWS electroweak theory, this or this-p.3 ).

Particle physics experiments are unreliable.

Experimental results contradicting the current standard model (= Glashow-Weinberg-Salam theory ) were ignored.

This or this paper doubting the present standard (= GWS = Glashow-Weinberg-Salam ) model ↓

p.2-last says  -- No empirical evidence
"empirical accuracy was Not sufficient for choosing the GWS (= standard ) model (= standard model or GWS theory was false )."

p.10-3.1 says "On these pictures, only charged particles are visible. Neutral particles and interactions, like the NC are not (= neutral Z boson reactions, neutrinos.. are invisible, which can hardly prove the standard model )"

p.17-2nd-paragraph says  -- Manipulating results illegitimately
"What was needed for determining the ( unphysical ) Weinberg angle of the GWS model, however, were separate NC/CC (= neutral current of Z boson/ charged current of W boson ) ratios to be obtained on the basis of separate neutrino (R) and antineutrino (Rbar) beams"

"This result.. was in fact inconsistent with the predictions of the GWS model.. However, this negative published result was largely ignored (= experiments disproving the standard model were ignored )"

p.18-middle says  -- Inconsistent results
"Furthermore, the Weinberg mixing angle that was determined.. in the early 1970s was 0.38; it now is 0.23. Prima facie, this sheds significant doubt on the accuracy of the results in 1973/4 ( this or this-p.18 )  ← Precise measurement of Weinberg angle based on elusive neutrino scattering was impossible, giving inconsistent values."

↑ Particle physics experiments are too unreliable to validate the standard model.

LHC particle colliders try to detect only illusory particles too short-lived to detect directly, based on contradictory virtual particles violating energy conservation or Einstein relativity.

This or this on fake entangled (virtual) particles in CERN ↓

4th-paragraph says  -- Illusory unstable particles
"Now, scientists have found the first strong evidence of entanglement between a pair of Z bosons produced in the decay of a Higgs boson (= illusory particles too short-lived to detect directly ) – their spins so inextricably linked "

14th-paragraph says  -- Unreal superluminal entanglement
"The Higgs boson – created by smashing protons together at high speeds – is a particularly useful pathway to a pair of entangled Z bosons."  ← Entangled Z bosons mean just one (illusory) Z boson with up spin and the other Z boson with down spin, irrelevant to superluminal quantum mechanical spooky link

17th-paragraph says  -- No energy conservation
"There's a catch, though. A Higgs boson has a mass of around 125 GeV, while a Z boson weighs in at around 91 GeV. There simply isn't enough energy available for the Higgs to produce two ordinary Z bosons at once."  ← two Z bosons (= 91 GeV × 2 = 182 GeV ) do Not equal Higgs with 125 GeV, violating energy or mass conservation

18th-paragraph says  -- Unreal virtual Z boson
"So at least one (= Z boson ) of them has to be virtual."

19th-paragraph says  -- Undetectable unreal virtual particles
"Virtual particles are strange even by quantum-physics standards. They emerge fleetingly during collider interactions, but can't be observed as free particles in the way their "real" counterparts can."

21th-paragraph says  -- Unobservable Z boson
"a Z boson lasts for only about 3 x 10^-25 seconds before it decays. Not even the "real" Z hangs around long enough for its spin to be measured directly."  ← Even real (illusory) Z bosons are too short-lived to detect directly ( this or this-p.4-last ).

23th-paragraph says  -- Unreliable detection
"each Z produces two charged particles called leptons - either electrons or their heavier cousins, muons. That gives physicists four particles whose paths through the detector they can measure."  ← Particle colliders' detectors' efficiency of measuring final decay particles' energy is too bad to prove standard model (= particle physics ).

26th-paragraph says  -- Too rare events to trust
" the particular chain of decays – a Higgs into two Zs into four leptons – is incredibly rare. Even with years of particle-collision data, the researchers only had about 400 events to work from"  ← Only results looking good were artificially picked out with No particle physics' prediction.

7th-last-paragraph says  -- Unobservable unreal virtual particles
"Physicists don't entirely agree on what it means to say a virtual particle "exists". Unlike ordinary particles, virtual particles can't be directly observed; some physicists regard them primarily as mathematical ingredients used to describe interactions." ↓

Particle physics is wrong due to its contradictory virtual particles

This research paradoxically claims the unreal directly-unobesrvable virtual Z bosons could have entangled spin.

↑ This or this on the same unreal entangled virtual particles in CERN ↓

7th-paragraph says  -- Unreal virtual Z boson
"There is a complication that makes this result stranger still. A Higgs boson weighs approximately 125 GeV (gigaelectron volts). A Z boson weighs approximately 91 GeV. Producing two fully real Z bosons from a single Higgs decay would require at least 182 GeV — more energy than is available. At least one of the Z bosons must therefore be a virtual (= unreal ) particle: an off-shell quantum entity that cannot exist as a free, directly observable particle"

8th-paragraph says  -- Fictional virtual particles
"In quantum field theory, virtual particles arise in perturbation calculations as internal lines in Feynman diagrams.. Many physicists regard them as computational artifacts: useful fictions that help organize calculations but lack independent physical existence."

12th-paragraph says  -- Undetectable entangled spin
"No detector records a Z boson's spin directly"

3rd-last-paragraph says  -- Virtual disobeys Einstein
"A virtual particle is one that is "off-shell": it violates the standard (relativistic) energy-momentum relationship (E² = p²c² + m²c⁴ ) that all directly observable particles satisfy. In quantum field theory, virtual particles appear as mathematical constructs inside Feynman diagram calculations. Many physicists regard them as convenient fictions rather than physical entities."

↑ So this research says contradictory things: CERN detected the entangled unreal virtual Z boson's spin, which is unobservable.

The present useless particle physics or standard model relies on unreal virtual particles with imaginary mass violating Einstein relativity (or energy conservation ), so wrong.

The present particle physics or standard model has to rely on unreal virtual particles such as virtual photons, virtual W,Z bosons, virtual gluons with imaginary mass, disagreeing with Einstein relativity or energy conservation ( this or this-lower-spacelike and timelike,  this or this-3rd~5th-paragraphs ).

This or this-p.54(or p.30)-3rd-paragraph says  -- Wrong Einstein relativity
"the virtual particles are not bound to fulfil the relativistic energy-momentum relation,"

This or this-2nd-last-paragraph says  -- Paradoxical virtual particles
"Virtual particles are a striking paradox of modern physics. They shouldn't exist, yet they are indispensable for calculating everything"

↑ This unreal contradictory virtual particle ( necessary, but does Not exist ) is a clear evidence disproving the current particle physics or standard model.

Particle physics or standard model with many free parameters is useless, unable to predict anything including illusory W boson mass.

(Fig.4)  They try to estimate the (illusory) heavy W boson mass allegedly generated from the much lighter muon through artificial definition, which is paradoxical, wrong.

Standard model uses many free parameters.

Today's particle physics or standard model relying on many freely-adjustable parameters can Not predict any physical values.

Today's particle physics based on standard model relying on many freely-adjustable parameters that must be artificially determined without theoretical bases is useless, unable to predict physical values, contrary to hypes ( this or this-p.13 ).
The imaginary supersymmetry model needs more than 100 free parameters that can Not predict anything.

This-p.1-1st-paragraph says  Many free parameters
"The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has many free parameters which are fitted to experimental data rather than calculate"

Standard model's prediction of W boson mass is false.

The only standard model's prediction (= the illusory W boson mass ) depends on unrealistic assumption (= a lighter muon decays into a heavier W boson ? ), so wrong.

The only thing that can be predicted by the standard model is said to be the (illusory) W boson mass, but this is wrong, too.

This or this-11th-paragraph says  -- Only W boson predicted ?
"Whereas other particle masses must simply be measured and accepted as facts of nature (= can Not be predicted ), (only) the (illusory) W mass can be predicted by combining a handful of other measurable quantum properties in the Standard model equations."

A heavy W boson cannot conserve energy.

A lighter muon (= 105MeV ) can decay into a much-heavier W boson (= 80000 MeV ) ?  ← Impossible due to Not conserving energy.

They falsely assume that the lighter muon (= μ ) whose mass is only 105MeV (= 0.105 GeV ) can decay into the much-heavier W boson whose mass (= M_W = 80000MeV or 80GeV ) can be predicted by the artificial ( wrong ) relation containing the (unreal) lighter muon's lifetime and the artificial Fermi constant G_F parameters ( this or this-p.5-10,  this or this-p.1-lower,  this or this-p.4-2.1,  this-p.3 ).

↑ This assumption of today's particle physics is wrong due to violation of energy conservation law where a lighter muon paradoxically decaying into a heavier W boson.

W boson is unreal virtual with No real mass

Standard model's only prediction = W boson's mass prediction relies on the wrong assumption that a lighter muon decays into a heavier W boson.  ← W boson is unreal virtual.

↑ It is impossible for the lighter muon to decay into the much heavier (real) W boson.  ← The original particle physics paradoxically says that in beta decay, the lighter muon or neutron decays only to a unreal virtual W boson with ( unpredictable ) imaginary mass disobeying Einstein relativistic mass ( this or this-p.9,  this-p.5,  this or this-p.8-left ).

This or this-p.6-left-2nd~3rd-paragraphs says  -- Unreal W boson
"all the interactions between charged currents are realized through exchange of (unreal) virtual W-bosons... But the Formula (7) contains the mass of a real W boson (= heavier 80 GeV = 80000 MeV ).. rather than a virtual one! How has the colossal mass of a real W-boson to do with this reaction which is characterized by small energy release 105.6 MeV (= initial muon's lighter mass )."

The measurement of the muon's lifetime is wrong, which just detects lights emitted from uncertain charged particles instead of the (illusory) muon.

Detectors cannot precisely measure W boson mass.

The precise measurement of the illusory W boson mass is impossible.  ← They heavily rely on artificial background models and many unknown parameters.

Furthermore, the precise measurement of this (illusory) short-lived W boson's mass from its final products' energy is also impossible due to the extremely low detection efficiency of particle colliders detectors of photons or calorimeters.

Even this latest experiment measuring the (illusory) W boson mass depended on artificially-chosen background model with many freely-adjustable nuisance parameters ( this-p.27,31,  this or this-p.3,  this or this-p.11-p.13 ) to baselessly guess unknown errors ( this or this-p.7(or p.5), p.24(or p.22 ),  this or this-p.41 ).

As a result, even the alleged only prediction of today's (useless) standard model is wrong, lacking experimental evidence.

Particle physics relies on unknown free nuisance parameters to infer illusory unstable particles.

Particle colliders' extremely bad detection efficiency makes it impossible to precisely measure total energy or masses of (illusory) particles.

So particle physicists often use excessive freely-adjustable unknown nuisance parameters to artificially fit or modify the original wrong theoretical model prediction to the experimental data with No standard model's prediction ( this or this-p.3,  this or this-p.5 ).

This-p.31-lower says  -- Free nuisance parameters
"Parameters describing the sources of uncertainty are called nuisance parameters"

This-p.2-left-last-paragraph says  -- Free parameters, No prediction
"nuisance parameters are unknown but non-random; practically, this means that the nuisance can be intentionally chosen ( this or this-p.1-left-2nd-last-paragraph )"

This or this-site ↓

p.5-1 says  -- Nuisance = free ad-hoc parameters
"A nuisance parameter is any parameter of the model that is not a parameter-of-interest (for physics).
Example: for Higgs discovery N(higgs) is of interest, everything else is nuisance"

-p.17-2nd-paragraph says  -- Particle physics cannot predict
"In analytical pdfs, the free parameters of these models are the nuisance parameters"

↑ So the present particle physics relying on artificially-chosen parameters can Not predict any values.

LHC paper on measurement of (illusory) W boson mass relies on too many ad-hoc nuisance free parameters and artificial model with No standard model's prediction.

This or this-paper on CMS mearing W boson mass ↓

p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says  -- Free model
"The predicted p^μ (= muon momentum ) distribution depends on the theoretical modelling.. and on the parton distribution functions (PDFs)"

p.2-right-1st-paragraph says  -- Free nuisance parameter
"We incorporate a new proposal for theory nuisance parameters (TNPs = ad-hoc free parameters ) to parameterize the impact of unknown perturbative corrections"

p.13-right-2nd-paragraph says  -- Many free parameters
"Statistical uncertainties in the SFs (= scale factors ) are implemented in the likelihood as 2,784 nuisance parameters (= ad-hoc free parameters ), defined from the independent variations of the smoothing fit parameters"

p.13-right-3rd-paragraph says  -- Artificial background model
"because the same signal and background models are used in all T&P fits.... in the background model. In total, the systematic uncertainty in the SFs is encoded in 343 nuisance (= free ) parameters"

p.16-left-1st-paragraph says  -- calibration parameters
"after correcting the momentum scale using the calibration (= free ) parameters"

An unstable unneeded muon is Not an elementary particle but just a high-energy electron or proton.

(Fig.5)   A muon is illusion, unnecessary, which is just a high-energy electron or proton penetrating longer, irrelevant to Einstein time dilation.

Muons are unreal particles.

Muon is an unreal unstable unnecessary elementary particle, which is just a high-energy penetrating electron or proton irrelevant to relativistic time dilation.

A very unstable muon, which is said to decay into an electron in only 2.2 microseconds is an unreal, unnecessary particle.

The illusory muon is said to be produced from very high-energy cosmic rays (> 1 GeV ) colliding with molecules, and be very penetrating.

We do Not need such an unstable muon that is just a electron or proton with higher energy, which can naturally penetrate material longer, which is irrelevant to the paradoxical Einstein time dilation.

Instead of cosmic rays, some physicits try to artificially create (illusory) muons by colliding accelerated protons with target metals, which is extremely difficult ( this or this-6th,7th-paragraphs ) and cannot eliminate more abundant irrelevant electrons and protins which are mistaken for the (illusory) muons ( this or this-p.8,p.27 ).

No experimental evidence of a muon

Experiments cannot measure masses nor identify muons.

Anderson just saw some charged particles in cloud chamber, and guessed those were new muons without confirming them, because the cloud chamber or particle colliders' tracks can only tell us the particle's momentum under applied magnetic field, Not energy nor mass required for identifying particles.

They baselessly guessed the patterns and lengths of tracks left in cloud chambers might indicate the (unknown) particles' energy ( loss,  this-p.4-right ) or masses, based on artificial Bethe formula ( this or this-p.14-17,  this or this-p.5-left-2nd-paragraph ) which often disagrees with experiment ( this or this-p.5-6th-paragraph ), so unreliable, No evidence of muons.

Muons are useless, unnecessary.

Muon is useless in muon tomography that just uses high-energy electrons or protons (as illusory muons ).

As a result, a muon is useless, unreal, unnecessary, which can be naturally explained by the high-energy electron or proton.

This-p.1-2nd-paragraph says  -- Useless muon
"If the existence of the muon seems strange and unnecessary to you,.. The world-famous physicist, when first told of the discovery of the muon, said in response, Who ordered that ?"

↑ The so-called muon tomography or muography can detect only some unknown high-energy charged particles such as electrons and protons with No evidence of muons, which are useless ( this or this-p.3-right used just scintillators detecting some unknown charged particles, Not muons ).

Experiments cannot prove muons.

Detection of (illusory) muons relies on just measuring lights emitted from high-energy electrons or charged particles irrelevant to muons.

Even this latest experiment (5/29/2025) allegedly generating (illusory) muons by colliding high-energy electrons with target metal did Not measure the illusory muons themselves.

↑ This research paper ↓

p.6-Figure.1 says "(illusory) Muons were then collected by two scintillator detectors (= scintillators just detect light, cannot detect muon itself )"

p.7-2nd-paragraph~p.8-1st-paragraph says "The liquid scintillator detectors were equipped with Microchannel Plate (MCP) photomultiplier tubes (MCP-PMT = detecting just photons or lights, Not muons )"

"Those generated muons come to a stop..., decaying into electrons/positrons and neutrinos. While neutrinos can freely exit the detection area, electrons are detectable by the MCP-PMTs (= just detected light emitted by electrons, Not muons ), indicating the muon decaytime"

p.25-last-paragraph says "The conversion target, lead shielding, and liquid scintillator detector used in the experiment were all modeled.... to avoid computing a large number of electromagnetic shower processes unrelated to muons"

↑ So they just measured lights emitted from some unknown high-energy particles such as electrons with a lot of unrelated background noise, ions, and relied on artificial model to imagine the illusory muons.

Muon's lifetime experiments just measure lights emitted from unknown particles, Not muons.

(Fig.6)  The illusory muon's lifetime has No experimental evidence.

Muon's lifetime experiments do Not measure the muon, so No evidence of Einstein time dilation of a muon.

They just measure two lights emitted from an unknown particle and imagine (illusory) muon's lifetime

The illusory muon's lifetime is needed to predict the paradoxical W boson's mass.

But actually, the muon's lifetime experiments do Not measure the real muon's lifetime.

They baselessly imagine that when a cosmic high-energy muon hits the material, this stopping muon may emit light and decay into an electron that also emits light detected by scintillators with photodetectors (= PMT,  this or this-p.4-5,  this-p.6,  this-p.4-5,  this or this-p.11,  this or this-p.4-p.8 ).

↑ The time interval between these two lights emitted from some unknown charged particles or background light is falsely treated as a (illusory) muon's lifetime, so No evidence of muons or the (paradoxical) Einstein time dilation.

Actually, this method cannot measure low-energy muons (= co comparison of lifetimes in different muons with different energies is impossible, this-p.12, p.15-last )

Muon's magnetic moment experiments just measure light emitted from charged particles such as electrons instead of illusory muons.

(Fig.7)  Muon's magnetic moment experiments just measure electrons, Not (illusory) muons.

Muon magnetic moment experiments just measure electrons, Not (illusory) muons.

Also in experiment of muon's magnetic moment or g-2, physicists just measured lights emitted from some unknown charged particles such as electrons (= Not muons ) allegedly generated from (illusory) muons and proton collision ( this or this-middle,  this-p.11 ).

So there is No evidence of the muons, because (illusory) muons can Not be isolated ( this or this-6th-paragraph ) from other abundant particles (= long-lived muons are just high-energy electrons or protons ).

Muonium and muonic hydrogen are illusion, caused by background such as high-energy electrons and protons.

(Fig.8)  Energy of a muonium (= positive muon + an electron ) is almost the same as an ordinary hydrogen atom ↓

Muons are unreal, just experimental artifact.

Muonium (= positive muon + an electron ? ) and muonic hydrogen (= proton + negative muon ? ) are illusion, unnecessary.

Muonium is a very unstable (illusory) atom, which is said to consist of a positive muon and an electron whose ionization energy (= 13.539 eV ) is almost the same as an ordinary hydrogen H atom (= 13.598 eV,  this or this-p.2,  this or this-p.2-table2 ).  ← So abundant H atoms are mistaken for illusory muoniums.

A (illusory) muonic hydrogen is said to consist of a proton and a negative muon whose ionization energy is about 2 keV due to a muon's mass being 200 times larger than an electron's mass.

Physicists claim they could measure these atomic energies of the (illusory) muonium and muonic hydrogen.

Illusory muon compounds are just noise.

Extremely high energies required for generating muons cause many background particles mistaken for (illusory) muons.

But generation of these (illusory) muonium and muonic hydrogen needs very large energies (= collided protons' GeV-energy,  this or this-p.16,  illusory muon's kinetic energy > 5 keV,  this-p.1-left-last-paragraph,  this-p.2-left-1st-paragraph,  this-p.3-2nd-paragraph,  this or this-p.37(or p.13)-2nd-paragraph ) which high energy (= GeV = 1000000 eV ) far exceeds and easily masks the illusory muonium's (= only 13.539eV ) and muonic hydrogen's smaller energies (= only 2 keV ),

↑ Such extremely-high energy required for producing (illusory) muons generates many irrelevant background particles and energies ( this-p.8 ), which can be easily mistaken for the illusory muonium or muonic hydrogen's energies ( this-p.3-4 ).

Muonic hydrogen (= proton + heavier muon ) is illusion caused by a lot of high-energy background.

Very unstable (illusory) muonic atoms such as muonic hydrogen (= a proton + a muon heavier than an electron ? ) is said to emit atomic energy (= several keV or X-ray ) about 200 times larger than normal atomic energies (= eV ) consisting of nuclei and lighter electrons.

But generating such (illusory) muonic atoms or muonic hydrogens needs energies far larger than the illusory muonic atomic energies, so a lot of high-energy background light or X rays causes these illusory muonic atoms.

High-energy electrons and X-rays with more than 5keV easily mask the illusory muonic hydrogen's energy transition of just 0.2 eV.

In a illusory muonic hydrogen's experiment ( this-p.2-Figure 1 and p.2-left ), they used a muon with more than 5 keV kinetic energy to observe 2 keV X-ray allegedly emitted from the (illusory) muon's energy 2p → 1s transition after unseen metastable 2s → 2p transition induced by applying microwave pulse of about 50 THz (= only 0.2 eV, = p.3-Fig.5 ) , which energy of just 0.2 eV ~ 2 keV was masked by the 5keV larger initial energy (= so distinguishing the illusory muon's hydrogen energy from other higher-energy background to identify the muon is impossible ).

↑ This or this-p.3-left-1st-paragraph says  -- Too few to believe
"The 75-ns-long laser time window, in which the laser induced Ka events are expected, is indicated in Fig. 4. We have recorded a rate of 7 events per hour in the laser time window when on resonance. The background of about 1 event per hour originates mainly from falsely identified muon-decay electrons and effects related to delayed muon transfer to target walls"

↑ Only 7 events of the alleged (illusory) muonic hydrogen's energy transision in an hour are too few to believe, which too-rare events can be considered to be part of much more abundant background lights from high-energy electrons mistaken for muons excited by high energy X-rays.

No real muons in muonic hydrogen.

Doubtful muonic hydrogen's spectrum does not include muon's decay signal, so muons are unreal.

↑ This or this-p.2-left-last-paragraph of the muonic hydrogen experiment says
"the muon lifetime of 2.2 μs. In H2 gas, however, the 2S state is collisionally quenched, so that τ2s < 1 μs (= muonic hydrogen's 2s lifetime ) at our H2 gas pressure of 1 hPa"

↑ But Figure 4 on p.3 showed No detectable light energy (= 200MeV ) from muons' decay (= 2.2μs lifetime ) strangely, and Figure 4b (= without applying 2s → 2p3/2 transition laser ) showed No 2S signal peak (= lifetime is 1 μs ), which is contradictory.

↑ So these muonic hydrogen experiments are doubtful, wrong with No real muons whose large decay energy of 200MeV were undetectable strangely.

Detection efficiency is too bad to identify muons.

Efficiency of detecting X rays emitted from (unreal) muonic hydrogen is too low to distinguish muons from irrelevant high-energy background.

This or this-research on the illusory muonic helium-p.6-right-1st~2nd-paragaphs say
"we detect the Lyman-α X-ray from the subsequent decay to the ground state via 20 large-area avalanche photodiodes (LAAPDs,  this-p.2-right-4th-paragraph )"

"We exclude most of the background by (artificially) selecting only events with an energy in a range of [7.9, 8.5] keV"

↑ So they just artificially selected some energy values (= 7.9 ~ 8.5 keV ) allegedly representing the (illusory) muonic helium from a lot of irrelevant background X-rays, instead of really detecting or distinguishing the muonic helium.

Energy of illusory muonic hydrogen cannot be measured.

It is impossible to directly measure the wavelength (= energy ) of X-rays related to muonic hydrogen's energy allegedly emitted from (illusory) muons, so No evidence of muons.

And the detection efficiency of this large-area avalanche photodiodes (= LAAPDs measuring numbers of excited electrons instead of directly measuring the wavelength of X rays, this or this-p.5 or this-p.3-right ) is very bad, lower than just 50% ( this-p.1-right-1st-paragraph ), which can Not precisely measure or distinguish the (illusory) muonic atomic energies from a lot of irrelevant background lights.

↑ It is impossible to precisely measure energy (= X-ray wavelength ) emitted from the (illusory) muonic hydrogen due to bad detection efficiency, so No experimental evidence of muons or muonin hydrogen.

QCD relying on freely-adjustable parameters and unreal imaginary time cannot predict any values of masses or spin of nuclei, hadrons, mesons.

(Fig.9)  QCD relies on fictional virtual quark model with imaginary time and many free parameters that cannot predict anything.

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) failed.

Quantum mechanics, QED failed to explain nuclear strong force by illusory virtual quarks,

The present unphysical particle physics or standard model claims that a proton and a neutron consist of (fictional) unseen virtual quarks with fractional charges that lack experimental or theoretical evidence.

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED = perturbation theory ) is wrong (= break down ), unable to remove ( meaningless ) infinities of nuclear strong force's calculations ( this-p.1-abstract ).

So the present quantum mechanics or QED can Not give nor predict any analytical values related to nuclei, protons and neutrons (= masses and spins related to nuclear strong or gluon force, this or this-p.8,  this or this-3rd-paragraph ).

This or this-p.11 says  -- QED failed
" In QED, one can use perturbation theory to compute order by order in the small coupling"
"The strong coupling is not small (at small energies)  → perturbation theory (= QED ) does Not work"

QCD with free parameters cannot predict anything.

QCD just manipulating free parameters and artificial models can Not predict any physical values such as nuclear and hadrons' masses.

Physicists started to rely on the ad-hoc unphysical quantum chromodynamics (= non-perturbative lattice QCD lacking analytical solutions, this-p.1-right-last-paragraph,  this or -p.1-2nd-paragraph ) that just artificially adjusts many free parameters such as unseen quarks' masses, scaling parameters with No ability to predict any nuclear values such as (illusory) hadron, meson masses ( this-p.7.8,p.18-left,p.31-32,  this-p.2 ) and proton spin.

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

This or this-p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says  -- QCD free fitting parameter
"The two parameters 𝜆1 and 𝜆2 are nonperturbative parameters of QCD and can be estimated by fitting the theoretical and experimental data"  ← No QCD prediction.

This-p.16-last-paragraph says  -- QCD cannot predict
"Of course, there are far too many unknown parameters"

QCD with free parameters cannot predict masses.

QCD using more freely-fitting parameters than physical values can Not predict particles' masses.

↑ When the lattice QCD tries to extract the mass (= M or m ) of some particle (= such as hadron, meson, nucleus ) from the correlation function (= G or C ) consisting of artificially-chosen particle wavefunction and action (= energy ) by fitting ( this-p.22-23, p.29-right = multiple free fitting parameters besides mass M parameter are used, so this is Not prediction of mass ), they can adjust free parameters called smearing functions attached to the chosen particle wavefuntions ( this-p.8,  this-p.25-right, this-p.6,  this-p.20-C-p.22,  this-p.18-left ), which is Not prediction.

This or this-11th paragraphs~ say  -- QCD fails
"QCD, we are still unable to predict, reliably and analytically, behavior of nuclei or even a single proton. The problem is of course that one must understand the strong-coupling regime of QCD, which by and large remains inaccessible"

QCD cannot predict hyperfine structure (= proton spin ).

This or this ↓

p.1 says  -- No prediction
"The reason of such a distinction between two observed quantities (= proton magnetic moment.. ) is not yet clearly understood by modern physics"

"all attempts of physicists to improve this model are unsuccessful"
"A qualitatively (= Not quantitatively, so No prediction ) new approach in physics"

p.4-last-paragraph says  -- Unknown parameters.
"In this formula, the unknown magnitude is the supplementary associated charge of the proton"

This-p.2-(2)(3),p.3-left-last paragraphs
tried to use free fitting parameters such as external magnetic field B and γ to artificially tune magnetic moment (= μ ) with No QCD prediction.

QCD cannot predict magnetic moments.

QCD relying on freely-adjustable parameters cannot predict any values.

This or this-5th-paragraph says
"It means that there are no simplifying assumptions in the QCD calculation. The approximations used in the lattice formulation of QCD come with adjustable parameters and can be described by effective field theories of QCD. For example, we discretise space and time: the distance separating nearest-neighbour points is given by the lattice spacing and the effective field theory guides the approach of the lattice theory to the continuum limit, enabling controlled extrapolations. To evaluate path integrals using Monte Carlo methods, which themselves introduce statistical errors, we also rotate to imaginary time."

QCD just chooses free parameters = mass M.

Lattice QCD tries to choose free parameters = masses M and amplitude A in the artificial correlation function (= Ae^-Mt ) which becomes the same zero regardless of M values (= so there is freedom to choose any mass M parameters ), when the time t is almost infinite.

Lattice QCD can only change the correlation function C or G (= exponential function of Ae^-Et where amplitude A and particle's energy E are free parameters ) with time t randomly in chaotic Monte-Carlo methods ( this or this-p.11,  this or this-p.4(p.3)-2 ) that cannot predict some definite physical values without relying on some artificial fitting of free parameters.

Lattice QCD tries to adjust some target particle's mass M when the time t is infinite.  ← When the (imaginary) time t → ∞, the correlation function of Ae^-Et → Ae^-Mt where amplitude A and mass M are freely-fitting parameters ( this-p.22-(117)(122),  this-p.19~p.20-1st-paragraph ) with No QCD prediction.

↑ The point is when the time t is infinite (= t → ∞ ), this correlation (= exponential ) function Ae^{- Mt} (= and its slope ) is close to zero (= indistinguishable ) whatever mass M parameters are chosen, which gives freedom to artificially choose free parameters A and mass M fitting the correlation function in t → 0, which is QCD trick ( this-p.5,  this or this-p.20 ).

↑ So lattice QCD just artificially choosing mass parameters M cannot predict any physical values, contrary to hypes.

In the actual QCD, it is impossible to calculate in the infinite time t, so they artificially change the original exponential correlation function into A( e^-Mt + e^{-M (T-t)},  this-p.22(120),  this-p.5-last,  this-p.1-(1),  this-p.3-(1) ) which function (= including its slope ) is also close to zero regardless of what mass parameters M are chosen (= so different masses M are indistinguishable, can be freely chosen ), when t is close to some artificially-chosen finite time of T/2.

↑ As a result, lattice QCD just artificially choose the free parameters = mass M and amplitude A when the artificial correlation functions get close to zero, indistinguishable between different masses M, which is irrelevant to QCD's prediction.

QCD uses unreal imaginary time and virtual quarks.

This lattice QCD tries to describe (illusory) virtual quarks and gluon strong force by discontinuous space and imaginary time ( this-p.15 ) violating Einstein relativistic continuous spacetime ( this-p.5-2.2,  this-p.3-Figure.2 ).

QCD uses random numbers that cannot predict anything.

QCD just outputting random meaningless numbers can Not predict any physical values without artificially adjusting free parameters and models.

And QCD just estimates these virtual quarks or gluons' energies just by outputting random meaningless numbers in Monte-Carlo method ( this or this-p.11-12,  this or this-p.4-2nd~5th-paragraphs,  this or this-p.19 ) which random motions (= QCD random numbers ) can Not predict any physical values, unless many free parameters and models are artificially adjusted or fitted ( this-p.8 ).

This or this-p.8-4th-last-paragraph says  -- QCD useless
"On the other hand, in QCD, we are unable to explain rigorously even basic phenomena like colour confinement, and perturbative calculations rely upon unproven assumptions"

This or this-p.15(or p.14)-lower~p.16 and this or this-p.20 show  -- No QCD prediction
QCD can only randomly choose or change numbers based on empirically-chosen parameters such as ε with No prediction.

See also this-p.39-41, p.46-(24)

Quark-strong force is unreal.

Nuclear force is Not by the (unreal) virtual quark's strong force, but by realistic short-distance Coulomb force.

Instead of today's unrealistic virtual quark model that is unobservable, we can naturally think the nuclear strong force is just short-distance Coulomb force between electrons inside neutrons and protons inside nuclei.

Electron capture and beta decay show nuclei directly absorb and emit electrons, and all nuclei must contain neutrons containing electrons as adhesives between protons through strong short-distance Coulomb electric force.

↑ This realistic short-distance Coulomb nuclear binding force can naturally explain non-existent Helium-2 whose nucleus consists only of two positive protons without neutrons (= electrons ) and Lithium-3 whose nucleus consists only of three positive protons.

Positrons are unreal, just protons.

(Fig.10)  Anderson detected just a proton ejected by cosmic rays, Not a positron in cloud chamber.

Antiparticles are unreal.

Antimatter (= unseen ), antiparticles such as positrons, antiprotons, antiquarks.. are unreal (= Not a real theory ), unphysical, unnecessary, if we consider PET uses the realistic electron capture instead of the paradoxical positron emission

It is said that Anderson discovered an antiparticle called positron in cloud chamber under applied magnetic field in 1932.

A positron is just a proton with high energy.

Cloud chamber used by Anderson can Not distinguish a positron from a high-energy proton.

But the cloud chambers, which just leave some static tracks, can Not identify or distinguish (illusory) rare antiparticles from other more abundant protons or electrons.

What Anderson detected was just a high-energy penetrating proton ejected by the high-energy cosmic rays instead of a (illusory) positron.

Physicists did Not believe positrons.

Actually, Nobel laureates Bohr and Millikan did Not believe Anderson's claim of discovering a positron, as this or this-p.7-right-3rd-paragraph saying
"Millikan had dismissed Anderson's original conclusions (= of a positron ) on the same ground."

Anderson could Not confirm positrons.

Anderson just wildly guessed that it might be a new positron instead of a proton only from seeing the particle's track's length (= related to how fast the particle loses energy and how much energy it has ) without confirming the positron ( this or this-p.12-lower,  this-p.7 ).

↑ A high-energy proton generated by the high-energy cosmic rays is more likely to move longer (= causing thinner, longer track ) in cloud chamber than the ordinary slower protons on the earth, which was mistaken for a (illusory) positron.

Positron emission tomography (= PET ) uses realistic electron capture instead of the illusory positron that is unnecessary.

(Fig.11)  The illusory paradoxical positron emission can be replaced by the real electron capture.

PET uses the electron capture, Not (illusory) positron emission.

Positron emission is unreal, can be replaced by realistic electron capture.

The only practical use of the (illusory) antiparticles is said to be the positron emission tomography or PET, which is wrong.

Actually this PET uses the realistic electron capture (= EC ) instead of the illusory positron emission (= β+ ), because both the realistic electron capture and the illusory positron emission cause the same nuclear reaction changing a proton into a neutron ( this or this-p.99 ).

Positron emission is replaced by real electron capture.

Positron emission needs a lighter proton to emit a heavier neutron, which is impossible.

The positron emission (= beta+ plus decay ) where a lighter proton emits a heavier neutron and a positron is paradoxical and unreal.

On the other hand. in the realistic electron capture, a lighter proton captures an electron to become a heavier neutron, which is quite natural.

Na-22 radioactive atom is said to change into Ne-22 by either a (illusory) positron emission (= e+ ) or an electron capture by emitting γ rays whose energy is bigger than 2mc² = 1.022 MeV where m is the electron ( positron ) mass ( this-p.9-Figure.6 ).

Electron capture is more universal.

Realistic electron capture is more universal than the illusory positron emission.

The realistic electron capture is more universal, because when the energy difference involved in the nuclear reaction is less than 2mc² (= m is electron mass, ), the positron emission is impossible, and the electron capture is the only solution ( this-p.6-2nd-last-paragraph ).

This or this says "If the energy difference between the parent atom and the daughter atom is less than 1.022 MeV (= 2mc² ), positron emission is forbidden, and electron capture is the sole decay mode. For example, Rubidium-83 will decay to Krypton-83 solely by electron capture (the energy difference is about 0.9 MeV)."

↑ So the positron emission is unphysical and unnecessary.
The realistic electron capture alone can explain all these nuclear reactions.

γ rays detectors such as NaI can not detect γ rays themselves, instead, they can detect only visible lights allegedly emitted by atoms excited by γ rays ( this-p.3-2nd-paragraph,  this-p.22-1st-paragraph,  this or this-p.2 ), which detectors are prone to irrelevant background lights, making it difficult to precisely know the original γ ray's energy allegedly emitted by (illusory) antiparticles.

Antiparticles are unreal, disobeying physical principle such as Coulomb law and momentum conservation.

(Fig.12)  Antiparticles are unreal, impossible to generate.

Antiparticles don't conserve momentum.

Light producing a stationary positron and electron violates momentum conservation law.

In fact, antiparticles disobey the physical principle such as Coulomb electric force and momentum conservation, so unreal.

When the initial light with momentum generates a pair of a stationary electron and a stationary positron with No momentum, the total momentum is Not conserved.

↑ So they baselessly say a pair production of a (illusory) positron and an electron from a light needs a heavy nucleus that can absorb only the momentum of the initial light ( this or this-p.20 ).  ← But absorbing only the momentum without energy is impossible.

↑ To produce a pair of a particle and an antiparticle at rest without momentum from incident light with momentum, the light energy must first transform into some new unknown potential energy (= because the light itself cannot stop nor have zero momentum ), which eventually changes into the particle and the antiparticle, in the medium which contradicts Einstein relativity forbidding the medium (= ether ) in space.

Antiparticles need unreal virtual photons.

Only unreal virtual photon can interact with an antiparticle and a particle.

And producing the stationary positron and electron needs the light to transiently stop, which is prohibited by Einstein relativity where the light must always travel at light speed c.

↑ So today's particle physics unrealistically says the fictional virtual photon disagreeing with relativistic energy-mass relation ( this or this-p.4 ) is needed to generate an (illusory) antiparticle (= e+ ) and a particle (= e- ) in pair production or annihilation ( this-p.16-last,  this or this-middle-pair production,   this or this-last-paragraph ).

Antiparticle generation needs infinite energy

A pair production of (anti)particles is impossible, needing to overcome infinite Coulomb attraction between an antiparticle and a particle in the initial neutral light where the distance between particles and antiparticles is zero (= bound by infinite Coulomb attraction ).

Furthermore, when the neutral initial light generates a electron and a positron, it needs infinite amount of energies to separate a negative electron from a positive positron which attract each other by infinite Coulomb attraction (= distance between a electron and a positron is zero inside the initial neutral light ).

As a result, a pair production of an antiparticle and particle from the initial neutral (virtual) light is impossible due to antiparticles disobeying the physical principle.

When an antiparticle and a particle attract and accelerate each other by changing the Coulomb attractive potential energy into kinetic energy, this kinetic energy eventually emitted as light needs to be accumulated as potential energy in the medium surrounding those particles in advance, which disagrees with Einstein relativity and its unphysical relativistic Dirac equation of antiparticles.

Particle colliders can Not distinguish the (illusory) antiparticles from other ordinary particles (or background ).

(Fig.13)  Particle colliders do Not distinguish a (illusory) positron from a proton, an (illusory) antiproton from an electron.

Some particles are mistaken for unreal antiparticles.

Today's particle colliders cannot distinguish illusory antiparticles (= positrons ) from particles (= protons ).

In fact, today's particle colliders can Not distinguish a (illusory) positron from a real proton inside the positive ions under magnetic field.

↑ An illusory positron (= e+ ) is said to be produced by the accelerated high-energy electrons colliding with target atoms ( this or this-p.2 ), but they just vaguely distinguish positive and negative ions only under magnetic field, which can Not distinguish a (illusory) positron from a proton ( this or this-p.4 ).

↑ The accelerated electrons used for producing positrons have energy large enough to break the target atomic nuclei to produce protons (= or neutrons,  ← antineutrino is just ordinary neutrino, because they have the same neutral charge, cannot be distinguished ).

Particle colliders cannot distinguish (unreal) antiprotons and high-energy electrons mixed with protons such as H-.

Particle colliders also can Not distinguish a illusory antiproton from a much more abundant electron inside negative ions.

↑ Antiprotons are said to be produced by the accelerated protons colliding with target metals, but they just vaguely separate positive and negative ions only under magnetic field which can only distinguish (unknown) particles' momentums, can Not distinguish antiprotons from other abundant electrons ( this or this-p.23,  this-p.2 ).

Antiprotons are kept with extremely high kinetic energy (> GeV ), where even electrons with more than 1 GeV can have the same large (relativistic) mass (= actually Maxwell's mc² instead of paradoxical relativity ) as the proton's (= or antiproton's ) mass (= 1 GeV ), which can be mistaken for the illusory antiproton ( this or this-p.6,  this or this-p.3-left,  this or this-p.3 ).

It is impossible to distinguish the rare unstable illusory antiparticles from more abundant background particles.

↑ It is impossible to precisely measure any atomic energy or very small magnetic moment of the illusory antiparticles due to larger background energy needed to produce antiparticles easily masking them ( this or this-p.2 ).

Production of the illusory rare antiparticles are always accompanied by producing much more abundant particles such as electrons, protons, γ rays, ions which abundant particles can be scattered and easily mistaken for the (illusory) unstable antiparticles, antihydrogen ( this-p.8 ) whose energy is the same as the ordinary hydrogen, and (illusory) positronium ( this or this-p.3-right )..

This or this-p.18-Fig.2 and p.19-Fig.3 tried to distinguish irrelevant γ rays and (illusory) positronium signals (= positronium or positron can Not be identified directly ) only from the unknown slight distribution asymmetry, which cannot confirm the existence of positrons or antiparticles.

Scientists trapped just electrons and negative ions (= H- = protons + electrons ) as (illusory) antiprotons under electromagnetic field without measuring unreal antiprotons' annihilation energy.

The media falsely claims scientists transported 92 antiprotons.

In this research, they just trapped electrons mixed with protons, negative ions as fictional antiprotons under electromagnetic field in Penning trap.

Actually, this dubious research did Not confirm large annihilation energy (> 2GeV ) emitted from antiprotons (+ protons ) after transporting them, so No evidence of antimatter nor antiprotons ↓

CERN did Not measure 92 antiparticle's annihilation energy.

CERN tried to indirectly guess the existence of (unreal, unseen) antiprotons (= just electrons mixed with protons ) trapped in Penning trap by seeing the noise change of a superconducting resonant circuit sensing slight oscillation of trapped charged particles.

This or this or this on these fake 92 antiprotons transported ↓

5th-paragraph says  -- Charged particles trapped
"BASE-STEP instead uses a Penning trap: a magnetic field confines charged particles (= Not antiprotons ) radially while an electrostatic potential confines them along the field axis."

9th-paragraph says  -- Detect noise, Not antiprotons
"Trapped particles oscillate along the magnetic field and induce minute image currents in nearby electrodes. A superconducting resonant circuit, operating around 453 kilohertz, turns that collective motion into a dip in its electrical noise spectrum. For a small cloud, the width of the dip is proportional to the number of particles."

10th-paragraph says  -- No direct measurement of antiparticles
"That gave the team a non-destructive passenger count throughout the journey."

16th-paragraph says
"Using the recorded particle count (= through non-destructive or non-antiparticle annhilation methods )..."

18th-paragraph says
"This calculation describes an energy ceiling, not what happened: the measured result was that the particles remained confined."

↑ So this research did Not measure large annihilation energy of 92 antiprotons, instead, they just tried to indirectly guess the existence of (unreal) antiprotons by seeing the slight electrical noise change of a superconducting resonance circuit sensing oscillating charged particles (= Not antiprotons ! ) trapped in Penning drap, which cannot prove antiparticles. ↓

No experimental evidence of antiprotons.

This research just guessed the number of unreal antiprotons only from the electrical noise dip in a resonator sensing unknown charged particles trapped in Penning trap without measuring antiparticle annihilation energy, which could mistake ions and negative ions (= H- ) for the (unreal) antiprotons.

↑ This or this-paper on transporting unreal antiprotons ↓

p.2-left-last-paragraph says  -- Trapped in electromagnetic field
"open-endcap Penning trap, where trapped particles oscillate harmonically along the magnetic field lines with the axial frequency set by the central ring electrode voltage VR. In the radial plane, the particles undergo a superposition of two circular motions at the modified cyclotron ν+ and magnetron ν− frequencies ( this or this-p.3-Fig.1 = under electromagnetic field )"

p.2-right-1st-paragraph says  -- No direct measurement of antiprotons
"Image currents induced by the axial motion enable non-destructive detection and monitoring of the trapped antiprotons"  ← Just trying to measure axial motions of negative ions trapped in Penning trap without directly confirming antiprotons.

"The image-current detector consists of a superconducting LC circuit at a resonance frequency of 453 kHz and requires frequency matching of νz by setting VR ≈ 3.911 V. For readout, the LC circuit is coupled to a low-noise amplifier"

p.3-left-2nd-paragraph says  -- Noise dip = antiprotons ?
"After the trap is cleaned, its voltage is adjusted to frequency-match the axial mode of the antiprotons to the resonant frequency of the image-current detector"

"Once the antiprotons reach thermal equilibrium with the detection system, their interaction produces a dip in the detector's noise spectrum. The number N of trapped antiprotons can then be determined non-destructively"  ← They just saw vague noise dip of LC circuit resonator allegedly coupled to motion of of negative ions (= cannot prove antiprotons directly ).

p.7-left-3rd-paragraph says  -- Unreal antiprotons = electrons
"For non-destructive antiproton detection, we remove residual contaminants that would otherwise distort particle motion by means of space-charge effects and prevent formation of a stable axial dip signal. The dominant residual species are electrons and H− ions, which cannot be eliminated by high-voltage cleaning because of their similar or higher q/m."  ← H- ions cannot be distinguished from (illusory) antiprotons

p.7-left-2nd-last-paragraph says  -- Unreal antiprotons = just H- ions
"Antiprotons and H− ions exhibit nearly identical axial frequencies (separated by about 250 Hz) and indistinguishable dip widths per particle, such that both species contribute to a combined dip signal"

"To discriminate between them, we exploit the difference in modified cyclotron frequency"  ← A proton inside the H- ion is probably rotating as a proton at the same frequency as the illusory antiproton with the same mass (= so the proton cannot be distinguished from the antiproton by the magnetic cyclotron frequency ).  ← A proton is rotating in the opposite direction from the electron with negative charge under magnetic field

p.7-left-last-paragraph says  -- H- ions cannot be removed
"We selectively remove H− ions by applying a radial dipolar radio frequency drive to a segmented correction electrode"

p.7-right-1st-paragraph says
"A frequency sweep from 15.130 to 15.120 MHz resonantly excites the H− modified cyclotron motion, increasing its radius until radial confinement is lost while leaving antiprotons unaffected... We repeat the sweep until the dip width no longer decreases"  ← Just seeing the vague noise dip width change (= reflecting the total number of negative ions ) without directly confirming H- ions were removed

p.7-right-3~4th-paragraphs say  -- Noise dip width = antiprotons' number ?
"The particle number N, as shown in equation, is determined from the linear dependence of the axial resonator dip width Δνz on the number of trapped particles. The relation can be simplified to.. where Δνz,1 denotes the single-particle dip width. This proportionality enables extraction of N from measured spectra once a calibration of Δνz,1 has been established." ↓

Antiparticles are unreal, just electrons mixed with protons (= H- ions ).

Protons inside H- ions can rotate at almost the same frequency as the unreal antiprotons under magnetic field, so H- ions can be mistaken for the antiprotons.

↑ So this research just trapped electrons mixed with protons (= H- ions ) as fictional antiprotons.

↑ They tried to remove these H- ions (= electrons + protons ) by exciting them by radio wave whose frequency allegedly resonated with H- ion's cyclotron frequency which was almost the same as that of antiproton due to almost the same masses of H- ion and antiprotons.

↑ A proton inside the H- ion may oscillate independently at frequencies different from that of the free H- ion (= because protons and electrons with the opposite charges oscillate differently inside H- ions ), influenced by other negative ions and electrons, so H- ions cannot be removed by this method trying to exciting only H- ions by radio wave whose frequency is said to be equal to that of H- ions.

This research baselessly guessed the number of antiprotons trapped in Penning trap just by seeing noise dip width of the superconducting resonator without directly measuring the large annihilation energy of antiparticles.

As a result, antiparticles beam always contains a lot of electrons, negative ions and H- ions (= electrons + protons ), which are mistaken for the (illusory) antiprotons.

Anti-hydrogen (= fictional antiproton + positron ) is just an ordinary hydrogen or rotating electrons + protons, because physicists cannot measure large annihilation energy of antiprotons.

The fact that ordinary electrons and protons are mistaken for fictional antiparticles such as antiprotons and positrons means anti-hydrogens allegedly composed of antiprotons and positrons are also unreal.

To produce (fictional) anti-hydrogens, they mixed antiprotons (= just electrons mixed with protons ) and (fictional) positrons (= just electrons + positive ions ) under magnetic field.

↑ Ordinary electrons and protons (= mistaken for the fictional anti-hydrogen atoms ) rotating under magnetic field fly into the outside detectors when the external magnetic field is switched off.

↑ These detectors can detect only unknown charged particles passing as electric signal without measuring large annihilation energy (> GeV ) of the fictional antiparticles, so No evidence of antiparticles nor anti-hydrogen atoms. ↓

Anti-hydrogens are just electrons mixed with protons.

If anti-particles and anti-hydrogens were real, far larger numbers of excited charged particles' signals emitted from the extremely large antiparticles' annihilation energy should have been detected, which cannot be observed.

This paper on fictional antihydrogen atoms ↓

p.1-abstract  -- Too few antihydrogen signals
"After a three-week experimental run in 2009 involving mixing of 10⁷ antiprotons with 1.3 × 10⁹ positrons to produce 6 × 10⁵ antihydrogen atoms, we have identified six antiproton annihilation events.."  ← Just 6 unknown charged particle signals detected for 3 weak cannot validate antihydrogens which should have released far larger annihilation energy producing far more detectable excited charged particles.

p.2-right-3rd-paragraph says  - Annihilation energy cannot be measured
"Antiproton annihilations are identified using a silicon vertex detector. The charged products of an annihilation, principally pions, can ionise and leave charge deposits in materials they pass through."  ← Just detecting unknown charged particles' trajectories instead of measuring large annihilation energy ( this-p.7-last-paragraph ) cannot validate antiparticles.

p.3-left-3.Method says  -- Large kinetic energy
"3 × 10⁷ antiprotons at an energy of 5.3 MeV every ∼100 s... 10⁵ are scattered to energies lower than 4 keV "  ← Produced particles have kinetic energy large enough to generate detectable signals (= ionization ) without antihydrogens.

p.3-left-last-paragraph says  -- Charged particles trapped in magnetic field
"The solenoidal magnetic field is lowered to 1 T before the particles are transferred to the antihydrogen production or ‘mixing’ region"  ← Charged particles with high kinetic energy can be rotated and trapped under magnetic field by Lorentz magnetic force.

p.3-right-1st-paragraph says  -- Electrons are trapped
"A series of electric field pulses is then used to separate the electrons from the antiprotons, taking advantage of the much higher velocity of the electrons"  ← Electrons with high kinetic energy were also trapped (= and mistaken for antiprotons )

p.4-right-3rd-paragraph says
"the antiprotons can combine with the positrons to form antihydrogen atoms... most of the antihydrogen has a kinetic energy too high to be trapped and escapes the trap"

4-right-last-paragraph says  -- Charged particles trapped
"the inhomogeneous magnetic field can cause some charged particles with extreme energies to remain, possibly mimicking trapped antihydrogen"  ← Magnetic field can trap charged particles such as electrons and protons with high kinetic energy, which could be mistaken for (fictional) anti-hydrogens.

p.5-left-1st-paragraph says
"As the magnetic field falls, any antihydrogen held in the trap will escape and annihilate on the surrounding apparatus" ↓

No large annihilation energy detected = No antiparticles.

The unreal anti-hydrogen atoms are just electrons and protons trapped in magnetic field.

↑ So (unreal) anti-hyrogens are just electrons mixed with protons trapped under magnetic field, which charged particles are released and detected by detectors when magnetic field was off.

↑ If antiparticles and anti-hydrogen were real, there should have been far more detectable signals of excited charged particles originating from far larger antiparticles' annihilation energy (> GeV ) which could Not be detected in these researches, so No antiparticles existed.

↑ These experiments tried to trap fictional antihydrogen atoms within a circle of radius of 22mm (= 0.022m ) which can trap an electron with extremely high energy (= ~ 10 MeV ) by Lorentz magnetic force under magnetic field of 1~3 T ( this or this-p.3-Fig,2, p.4-2.4.1,  this-p.3-Fig.2, 3.Method ).

↑ So the high-energy electrons and protons (= some high-energy electrons and protons naturally remained in the anti-hydrogen area ) flied into detectors, mistaken for a sign of (illusory) anti-hydrogens, when the magnetic field was off.

All the overhyped standard model's predictions just chose free parameters and models with No real prediction.

This-p.6-3rd-paragraph says  -- Overhyped prediction
"The union of QCD (= No analytical prediction ) and the electroweak gauge theory,.. is known as the Standard Model... It has eighteen fundamental (free) parameters,... the ratio of the W and Z boson masses are (correctly) predicted by the model (= wrong ). Since the theory is renormalizable,.. These predictions, when confronted with experimental data, have been confirmed very successfully (= wrong, due to unreliable particle physics experiments )"

This or this-2nd-last-paragraph says  -- Fake agreement
"ATLAS physicists were able to extrapolate the total cross-section of Higgs-boson production in proton-proton collisions. The results are 67 ± 12 pb and 46 ± 12 pb... in excellent agreement with the Standard-Model prediction of 59.9 ± 2.6 pb"

Standard model cannot predict Higgs.

Particle colliders' experiments such as Higgs relied on free (nuisance) parameters and artificial model with No standard model's prediction.

↑ This or this-overhyped ATLAS paper ↓

p.12-2nd-paragraph says  -- Use experimental parameters
"It can be parameterised by an empirical function selected using the background templates described above"  ← Using empirical parameters with No standard model's prediction

p.13-4th-paragraph says  -- Artificial choice, No prediction
"The choice of the analytic function used to model the background m_γγ distribution can affect the measured cross-section"

p.20-1st-paragraph says  -- Nuisance free parameters
"The systematic uncertainties detailed in Section 5.4 are included in the fit and implemented as nuisance (= free ) parameters,"

Theoretical Higgs decay or cross section relies on free (scale) parameters with No standard model's prediction.

This-p.39(or p.38)  -- Choose scale parameters
(8.2)-Higgs production cross-section's different effects
"where we denote by rEFT the contributions in the large-mt limit, rescaled by the ratio RLO... obtained by setting the renormalization and factorization scales"

This or this-p.10-2nd-paragraph says  -- Scale parameter choice
"judicious scale choice "

This-p.4-last-paragraph says
"The scale uncertainties of the full NNLO+NNLL+EW predictions are found.. for the default scale choice"

This-p.5-Effect of additional loops say  -- Free choice, No prediction
"This arbitrary chloice could correspond to many different possibilities, a new heavy quark sector, Higgs sector constituents"

Feel free to link to this site.