I. Quarks

“Quarks are fantastic jive” :
James Joyce might have said if alive.
“We started with three
For atomic debris,
And now we find we have five.”

                                            (F. A. Moen)

(A wake for a fellow named Finnegan
Gave theorists quarks to begin again.
Having swallowed down four,
They keep asking for more
And a theory by which they can win again.)

                                            (Ed., Science News, August 7, 1976)

The present scientific premise is that matter is ultimately composed of a set of matter particles called quarks. Originally three quarks and three anti-quarks were postulated. These were called “up,” “down “ and “strange. To account for recently observed particle behavior, theorists hsve postulated a fourth quark a “charmed” quark as it‘s called. To get around the Fermi-Dirac statistics, an additional quantum number has now been postulated, “color.” Then a class of intermediate particles called gluons was formulated to carry the force between quarks. Finally other theorists began to feel that now quantum numbers beyond charm and color are at work. One theorist said that beyond charm and color lay truth and beauty. Thus the current hypothesis is a set of as many as seven quarks and seven antiquarks, which are supposed to combine to form all hadrons. The leptons (the electron, the muon, and the two kinds of neutrino) are considered different, showing no intelnal quark structure.

To me such terms as “strange,” “color,” and “charm” are mere names covering a great deal or ignorance. They remind me of such terms as “phlogiston” and “levity.” Phlogiston, in early chemical theory, was the hypochetical principle of fire, of which every combustible substance was in part composed.. Levity was a term employed by the Montgolfier brothers to explain why smoke rose in a chimney. None of these terms really advanced scientific understanding.

The Reciprocal System developed by Dewey Larson avoids any such mysterious terms. The basic premise here is that the fundamental component of the universe is motion, existing in discrete units. Each atom is composed of three types of motion or rotational spin, rather than threa or more types of quarks. The difference between “leptons” and “hadrons” lies in the number of dimensions of the motion.

The quark theory gives no indication as to how matter can change into radiation and vice versa. By contrast the Reciprocal System provides a simple answer: both atoms and radiation are forms of motion and one can simply change one form of motion into another.

II. Nuclear Atom

According to present theory, all forces between entities result from the exchange of quanta. It has been theorized that the force between the supposed neutron and proton in the atom results from an exchange of mesons. These mesons were supposed to be charged, thus producing a current when in motion. Benson T. Chertok spent some ten years of work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator . Center to find these meson-exchange currents. As quoted in the Science News of May l0, 1975, Chertok said his experiment found no evidence for these mesonexchange currents.”Ten years of work shot down,” he says.

This is typical of present practice, where theorists keep on postulating entities that experimenters do not find, and experimenters keep on finding entities that theorists have not postulated.

In the Reciprocal System, the atom is not compesed of neutrons, protons, and electrons, and thus no force is needed to explain the attraction between protons and neutrons. The atom is really one whole unit, composed of three different types of rotational spin.

III. Electrostatics

Present theory assumes that matter is composed of a large number of charged electrons circling nucleuses of neutrons and protons. It is interesting to derive a consequence of this hypothesis, showing its implausibility. This derivation comes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on electricity.

The normal density of solid matter is around five grams par cubic centimeter or 5000 kilograms per cubic meter and a gram molecule of a single compound occupies something between five and 100 cubic centimeters. Thus the number of atoms per cubic centimeter is in the region of 1022 to 1023 . The number of electrons pet atam varies from one to more than 92 in the periodic table, but the number of relatively loosely bound valence electrons per atom that can be appreciably influenced by electric fields is usually small, in many cases there is only one per atom. ,As a general rule these are of the order of 1023 effective electrons per cubic centimeter of 1029 per cubic meter. The total charge associated with these electrons is thus some 1010 coulombs per cubic meter. The number of electrons lying within one atomic diameter of the surface of a solid is 1029(2/3) per square meter (i.e., about l020) a:nd so the available charge per square meter is of the order of 10 coulombs per square mater. Now a surface charge density of 10 coulombs per square meter is associated with an electric field normal to the surface of 10/eo = 1012 volts per meter. Even in extreme cases fields rarely exceed 108 volts per meter, and so, in general the surface charges that appear in elec-troscatics correspond to fractional changes in the internal charge distribution. Furthermore, a field of 1012 volts per meter corresponds to a field of 100 volts per angstrom. A field of this strength would be sufficient to disrupt and destroy the surface atoms. . . . !

It certainly wasn't the purpose of the author of the article to question the validity of present atomic theory -- but he has surely provided an excellent disproof !

Thankfully, electric charges are not inherently in matter of the Reciprocal System.

IV. Gravitation

Present theories assume that the gravitational effect is propagated at the speed of light. However, following LaPlace it is possible to show that if gravitational force is propagated, the velocity must be at least 10°c!

(i) Assume that the gravitational force on the earth due to the sun is “falling” upon the earth with a velocity of ß.

(ii) Let r be the radius of the earth's orbit and let v be the earth's orbital valocity. Then the component of solar acceleration in the direction of the earth's motion is

a = GMo/r² / v/ß

(iii) By the method of perturbations, this acceleration can be shown to change the radius of the earth's orbit at the rate

dr/dt = 2 · v²/ß

(iv). The celestial longitude 1(t) of the earth may by expanded in a power series:

1(t) = not + A(not)² + . . . (3)

where no is the present mean motion given by

no = (v/r) PRESENT (4)

and t is the time measured from the present. Now

n = v/r = dl/dt (5)

Differentiating eq. (3) twice gives

d²1/dt² = dn/dt = 2Ano² (6)

From orbital mechanics,

n²r³ = const (7)

Using eqs. (7) and (2),

dn/dt = -3n² / v/ß (8)

Thus the coefficient of the second term of the celestial longitude equation is

A = -2/3 / v/ß

(v) In Che case of the earth the velocity is

v = 10-4 c (10)

If ß were equal to c, then A would have to be -1.5 x 10-4. In one century, the second power term in equation (3) would become -60 radians or -1.2” x l07. Ant the largest admissible variation is 2” . Therefore, ß must be greater than 6 x l06 c. This same result occurs if other planets are considered. The assumption that gravitational force travels with a speed of ß ¬ seems always to lead to a relation

ß > 106 c (11)

The relativists try to get around this problem by asserting that it is the gravitational potential that is propagated. But they don't explain just how that is accomplished.

The Reciprocal System solves the problem by showing that the gravitational effect is not propagated at all. Gravitational motion is simply an interaction between the inherent rotational spin of the atoms and the translational progression of space-time.

One reason why Newton's Law of Gravitation is no longer considered fully tenable is tho observation of the advance of the perihelion of the planet Mercury. The teory of General Relativity came up with a rather complicated expression to explain the effect. However, as I showed mathematically in a previous paper, this effect is really in the same class as those other high velocity effects. And so the mathematical tretatment is of the same nature as that of Special Relativity.

In the case of a planet orbiting the sun, the gravitational expression becomes

F = G m1 m2 / r² (1-v²/c²)½ (12)

In the case of an object moving toward another object, the expression is

F = G m1 m2 / r² (1-v²/c²) (13)

These expressions provide an obvious unification of gravitational. and electrical effects, and I'm amazed that these expressions haven't been stumbled on before The advance of the perihelion of Mercury is fully explained by eq. 12. Note that eq. 13 shows that force vanishes at the speed of light—this indicates that the natural datum of the universe is the speed of light, rather than zero velocity.

Tn sum up some problems of modern physics:

  1. Originally 3 quarks and 3 anti-quarks were postulated as the fundamental components of matter. To account for recent experiments, this has been expanded into 7 quarks and 7 anti-quarks—and the end is not in sight.
  2. The meso-exchange currents supposed to carry the force between nucleons have not bcen found.
  3. The assump:ion of electric charges in matter leads to the conclusion that an electric field 100 volts per angstrom is developed on surface atoms, an effect certainly not observed.
  4. The assumption a finite velocity the gravitational force leads to the conclusion that this must be at least 106 c, rather than c.

Reciprocal System is. able solve all ef these problems in elegant fashion. It for such, reasons I entitled my book Unmysterious Universe.


  1. Science News, August 7, 1976.
  2. Science News, June 26, 1976.
  3. Science News, May 10, 1975.
  4. ”Electricity,” Encylopaedia Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, Vol. 6, pp. 550-551.
  5. H. P. Robertson and Thomas W. Noonan, Relativity and Cosmology (Philadelphia:W. B. Saunders Company, 1968), 401-403.
  6. R.W. Satz, Question Box,” Reciprocity, Vol. IV, No. 2, July, 1974.