This theoretical paper critiques quarks and gluons as fundamental particles, suggesting they are merely mathematical constructs derived from gamma photons.
The Standard Model of particle physics interprets segmented energy signals generated by high-energy collisions of protons and neutrons as quarks and gluons, regarding them as the most fundamental building blocks of matter. Combining macroscopic analogies of iron sphere fragmentation, the unified theory of photon origin, the self-locking mechanism of the strong force, and temperature laws in heavy-ion collisions, this paper demonstrates that high-speed collisions only disintegrate tightly bound clusters of high-energy gamma photons. The fragmented products remain gamma photons of varying energy levels, with no entirely new fundamental material units produced. Multi-segment energy peaks observed in experiments merely reflect energy distribution features of fragmented photons, rather than independent physical entities of quarks and gluons existing inside baryons. The quark-gluon model suffers from five irreconcilable core contradictions: first, it fails to explain the fundamental material composition of quarks and gluons; second, free quarks and gluons cannot be captured or stably isolated for independent observation; third, the number of collision energy peaks is random, yet researchers artificially screen three-peak datasets to fit the theory; fourth, scholars continuously add auxiliary hypotheses to patch up early conjectures, violating the iterative truth-seeking spirit of science. Quarks and gluons are merely mathematical constructs fitted to experimental curves, not objectively real physical entities. The intricate system of numerous hypothetical particles derived from the Standard Model is a series of theoretical patches born from misinterpreting observational signals. All matter in the universe originates exclusively from gamma photons, which aggregate into stably observable physical particles such as protons, neutrons and electrons via the self-locking confinement of the strong force.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiaqing Yan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: