Physics: Two Distinct Disciplines
The cause of motion - Kinematic structures - Kinematic
geometry - The course of dynamics - The structural hierarchy
Motion and matter are the end points of physical theories. Matter is the substance of everything we know, while motion is the changing of position of objects relative to each other in an imperceptible space. Both seem fundamental, but not directly related to the origin of either. There nevertheless must have been a single source from which matter and motion sprang. How the relationship between the two is bridged creates a particular type of physics.
1. Causes of motion.
Dynamics evolved out of the common engineering experience that it takes force to make things move. Motion, therefore, has always been regarded as a property of matter which can be added to or subtracted from by the application of a force. Basic to dynamics is that inertia is inherent with matter and motion is a property bestowed on it by force.
Two phenomena were given an interpretation to be consistent with this impression. One is the fact that a propelled object continues to move after the accelerating force is removed. This led to the concept of inertial motion. Galileo propounded that motion is not merely a change, it is a state of being equal to that of being at rest. An object set to motion, therefore, continues in motion indefinitely unless interfered with by a force or an obstruction.
Inertial motion became one of the basic concepts of dynamics. The other was the idea that a force can act at a distance across space. In this way Newton combined the two and turned orbital motions into perpetual falls. Mathematically this gave a relationship that could describe and predict the motion of bodies in space.
Newton's scheme had a profound effect on our impression of space. Perceptually, we have no direct experience by which to assess space. It is invisible and presumably unreactive. Newtonian dynamics, therefore, is a scheme to account for the motion of objects in a space void. Fundamentally, we have inertia or inertial motion that is acted upon by a force of attraction between their masses reaching across the intervening space. That is physics as dynamics.
Dynamics - motion is caused by force and inertial motion in space void.
If we now return to a cause for motion we discover that another explanation can also be formulated which leads to a different type of physics. Dynamics is on the principle that inertia is inherent with matter and motion is caused by an applied force. Our experience is that objects in space near large masses move spontaneously. There seems to be no apparent cause, and that is why Newton created one.
Holism - motion is caused by spontaneous shift to remain
centered in an interactive environment.
We also know that things move because of direct interactions, and this is a preferred interpretation because it is directly causal. Things are in interaction with their immediate environment and shift to remain centered in it. Objects in space are in their space environment. It is the imperceptibility of this environment, however, that prevents us from making the obvious causal assessment. There is no indication that matter interacts with its space environment, and interaction with a void is incomprehensible. The dynamics interpretation, therefore, seems superior. Moreover, its mathematical model works remarkably well.
Light, however, becomes a problem.
Newton believed light to be corpuscular and moved through space the way matter moves through space. But in 1803, Thomas Young demonstrated unequivocally that light consists of waves. Wave motion is the means by which energy is transmitted through a medium. There was evidence that light travels as waves, but there was no corroborating evidence of a medium. If a medium exists for light, why then does matter not encounter a resistance in its movement through the medium?
Instead of solving this problem by reexamining the basic concepts, physicists kept dynamics and rationalized the inconsistencies by paradoxical theories. They postulated that an "ether" permeated space through which light traveled, but which was unreactive to matter.
The problem resurfaced in 1887. In that year Michelson and Morley tried to measure the movement of the earth through the ether by determining its effect on the velocity of light. They were unable to detect any movement whatsoever. From the standpoint of Newtonian dynamics this was incomprehensible. Every school child knows that the earth moves around the sun.
This became another junction when physicists could have taken either of two courses. They could have corrected the misconceptions upon which physics was founded, or they could have kept dynamics and created conditions to make the theories consistent. They stayed with dynamics and gave matter variables.
The Michelson-Morley result meant either of two conditions: either (1), light and matter have two unrelated types of motion, and therefore there is a medium for light waves, but matter does not move in this medium; or (2), light and matter both move through the void the same way as Newton contended, but something happens to matter at high velocities that makes the velocity of light always constant.
Einstein accepted the second condition and contended that motion causes lengths to contract, time to slow, and masses to increase. Relativity is a modification of dynamics to make things consistent with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Just as with Newton's theory, relativity requires space to be a void. There cannot be a medium for dynamics, otherwise it undermines the very premises upon which the entire science has been built. Instead of interactions being between bodies of matter, they would be between matter and the medium. Einstein, therefore, contended that light is self-propagating. The problem is - there is clear experimental evidence that the medium exists.
Eight years after Einstein published his theory of relativity an experiment was carried out which proved unquestionably that there is a medium for light waves. In 1913 Georges Sagnac, a French physicist, modified Michelson's experiment so that instead of doubling the path of the light beam back upon itself a split beam of light was directed around the edge of a 20-inch turntable. When the table was rotated and the light beam was brought on itself there now were interference fringes. The edge of the rotating table did indeed move relative to the light waves,or more correctly stated, relative to the medium of the light waves. In 1925 Michelson with Henry Gale adjusted his original experiment so that it was measuring the earth's rotation, and this too showed the Sagnac effect. Since the Sagnac effect was used to develop the optical gyroscopes that are widely employed in navigation, there is no question of its validity.
There is a non-material medium.
There is then a non-material medium, and waves in it are non-material. The medium fills the universe and we are inside, but we have been completely unaware of the medium's existence until experiments with light proved it. We couldn't have perceived it simply because, unlike light and electromagnetism, we have no direct interaction with it. It is invisible, non-material, and unreactive. Only the force of electricity can disengage its tension.
With the medium existing we have to go back and reconstruct physics on definitions and concepts that include it in the theory.
Since Newton's time we have gained information and impressions that were unavailable to him. In dynamics mass (inertia) and charge are accepted dogmatically as properties of matter without any further accounting for their existence. When a force is applied it is transformed to inertial motion through acceleration in relative motion by the equation F = ma.
We know, however, that whatever causes gravity is not localized in the object, it is a field extending out into the space around the body. It seems apparent, therefore, that it is the field generated by an object that is responsible for its inertia. A void cannot support a field or offer a resistance to displacement of a field in it. Only a medium can do that.
The medium, therefore, is the basis upon which the premises of the new physics are defined. The non-material medium through which light waves travel is the same medium that supports electric and gravitational fields by which objects are suspended. Objects in space are held suspended in their space environments by their gravitational fields, and tend to remain centered in that environment.
Light moves as waves in the medium; matter is suspended in it.
It is now necessary to reconcile this condition with why objects in space move spontaneously. If they tend to remain in the center of their space environment, some imbalance must be caused by gravitational fields near large masses.
The velocity of waves in a medium depends upon the integrity of the medium's cohesion. The stronger the cohesion, the faster the velocity. Anything which weakens this tension slows the wave velocity.
Fields in the medium slow the velocity of waves in it.
This in conjunction with the compulsion of objects to remain centered in their gravitational fields causes them to move spontaneously into stronger fields. A gravitational field consists of standing waves reverberating in the medium surrounding an object. These waves equilibrate at the velocity of light. In stronger gravitational fields where wave velocity is slowed the field of smaller objects are in a gradient in which the frequency of the object's field is slower on the gradient side. The object then moves spontaneously into the gradient to equalize its own field by the Doppler effect and remain centered.
2. Kinematic structures.
It was not Newton's cosmology but the general attitude of his dynamics that steered physics away from a structural theory for matter.
The force concept permeates dynamics and dominates the thinking. It is believed that force is needed to make things move, and force is what is received in return when the motion of something is obstructed. The force value is not merely proportional to velocity, it is proportional to the mass involved. It is not motion per se that concerns dynamics, therefore, it is the motion combined with the mass of the body (mv), or momentum. In the transfer of force it is momentum that is conserved. By combining motion with mass physicists devised their most productive concept, the energy concept.
The concept of energy originated in the years soon after Newton developed his laws of motion. Mathematicians turned their attention to the quantity obtained when the mass of a moving object is multiplied by half of its velocity squared - 1//2mv2. Leibnitz in 1635 referred to this abstract value as vis viva. The association with motion was clear, but what happens when motion momentarily disappears, as with a pendulum at the extremity of its swing? In this case motion ceases, yet the potential for motion still exists. Johann Bernoulli introduced the idea that the capacity for doing work can pass to and fro through interchangeable forms while maintaining conservation virium vivarum. In 1807, Thomas Young changed vis viva to energy. And when energy was related to heat, it was elevated to a concept which dominates the whole of nature. Forty years later the conservation of energy was recognized as a universal principle that encompasses all forms of motion, real and potential.
Energy is an extremely convenient abstraction for calculations involving the motion of matter and electromagnetic waves. The abstraction allows us to translate obscured forms of motion such as heat and work to direct numerical values. It also relates the potential for motion to positions in space. But energy itself is not an entity; except as light it has no independent existence. When the pendulum swings to and fro, it doesn't alternately accumulate and expend something. It merely changes its position in space and its potential for spontaneous motion.
Dynamics is a highly productive type of physics for developing technology, but from its founding it has not been a true representation of the natural state. It does not use parameters or principles existing in nature independent of us, but rather parameters that are from our perspective as we disrupt or impose ourselves on nature and measure its response to our interruption. Atoms, galaxies, and gravitational systems, nevertheless, existed long before we were around to witness them.
Physicists, therefore, define everything in terms of force and energy. They still regard motion as a property of matter, and to them the structures of matter are only the fortuitous result of dynamic equilibrium. Their geometry is static, and that is how they think of structures. Because the basic forms of matter have moving components, instead of calling them structures physicists refer to them as systems. This is no trivial issue of semantics, it has blocked physicists from developing a rational structural theory. They think everything is derived from energy, but matter is not structured on energy, it is structured on motion.
Matter is structured on motion, not energy.
Matter is not structured on energy, it is structured on motion. Matter is built on orbital systems where motion, not momentum, is the essential parameter. The mass of the orbiting component is not in the equation. Just as light ceases to exist when it stops moving, so too do the kinematic systems cease to exist without motion.
3. Kinematic geometry.
Newtonian dynamics is an adaptation of terrestrial mechanics to orbital systems. On earth gravity is witnessed in the falling of objects and the trajectory of things thrown. Newton combined inertial motion and gravity as a force to turn orbits into perpetual falls. Since a fall is an accelerating motion he redefined acceleration as any deviation from rectilinear motion. This is simply a contrived model that has no relationship to nature. Inertial motion and gravity as a force do not in reality exist.
When we recognize that matter is structured on motion then we have to change our thinking of motion in space. Before dynamics geometric shapes were regarded in their entirety. A line was a definite length, a circle was a fully formed shape with all points on the line equidistant from the center. During the time of Galileo and Newton a line became endless and circles became lines traced by a point moving equidistant from another point. This analytical interpretation does not reflect the natural condition. There are no half structures, and there are no half motions.
Not only is matter structured on motion, all motion of matter in space is potentially structural. Regarding motion separate from the structure of matter takes it out of its reason for existing.
Motion and the structure of matter are inseparable.
Nature and all forms of matter in it are self-creating. This is especially apparent with the three tiers of the hierarchy. We realize this with atoms, but because of the way physics evolved out of our terrestrial experiences we have not made the direct connection between motion and structure for gravitational systems.
Consider the apple. Newton in the orchard saw things from a very limited terrestrial perspective. If the earth had been a point as he had to assume for his calculations the behavior of the apple would have been quite different. When the apple dropped from the tree it would not have been stopped in its fall. It would have continued to fall at an ever increasing rate, zoomed past the earth-point at an enormous velocity, continued in its flight on the other side, decelerating as it goes, then stopping momentarily only to fall back again to complete an extremely elongated orbit and return to the tree with no net gain or loss in energy. What Newton saw was only a small slit of this potentially much larger action. The reason the apple fell to the ground was simply because the earth bulged out and got in the way.
When an object is thrown, therefore, it does not take on a continuous endless inertial motion. Any object released in space goes into an orbit, or what can be described as potentially an orbit. Any dropped object begins an orbit, and any motion added to it becomes a part of the orbit length. A thrown object adds the length of forced motion across its elongated elliptical fall and widens it on one end. To us it looks like a continuous motion that could go straight if thrown hard enough, but that is a misimpression. No more motion is created or continued than the forced displacement and the spontaneous motion of the fall.
When a batter hits a baseball the ball is propelled against its inertia only for the instant of the hit and the distance it is accelerated. That equation is d = vt, or for the average velocity during acceleration: d = 1/2v2t. To translate this distance to the length it would add to an orbit it is the fraction of the orbital velocity of a circular orbit at that position in the gravitational field: d = v2t/2vo. That is the distance of motion given to the ball.
If that short distance is all that is added to the ball's orbit why then does a slugged baseball take off for center field?
The baseball is propelled against its inertia only for an instant by the bat and then goes into what potentially would be an orbit. Because geometry is thought of as being static, we think of distance as metrical and independent of velocity and time. But in kinematic geometry distance is interrelated with velocity and time by the classic equation, d = vt.
Kepler's second law states that for orbiting planets a line connecting the sun and planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times. In other words, in the kinematics of orbits where distances are related to the velocity and time, distances for equal areas are equivalent. Areas swept by an orbit are comparable because the distance covered is dependent on the velocity and time.
When the baseball is hit it gains a high velocity in a very short time and distance. That span becomes an arc of the ball's potential orbit. The ball then continues on its orbit, slowing down and taking longer. The distance it covers is con-
siderably greater than when it was accelerated by the hit. Both distances, however, are equivalent by the equation d = vt. Our problem is that we think of the distance to center field in terms of static geometry, when in fact it is an arc that is equial in area swept to that when it was being propelled. As far as the ball is concerned, it is in orbit and nothing more is changing.
Structures based on motion have a geometry based on motion. There are, therefore, the following kinematic geometry principles:
4. The course of dynamics
Only in retrospect can we imagine how physics could have taken a different course. After Copernicus the impression developed that space is some vast void. This was strongly supported by perception and no apparent resistance to the moon and planets. After the discrediting of Aristotelian physics the impression of inertial motion seemed apparent. If you throw something it just keeps going until it hits the earth. The concept of gravity was around throughout history as the effect of falling, but no one before Newton thought of it as a force acting at a distance across space. Newton gave a good workable model for gravitational systems, but he put dynamics on a false footing by establishing the idea of inertial motion and force at a distance.
As with most successful answers to problems, Newton's dynamics was formulated to solve a specific situation but has beenextended to explain other conditions beyond its intended application. Newton's abstractions are acceptable for the particular problem of gravity, but they are not universal. His method was so successful, however, that it was difficult not to use it elsewhere.
When physicists encountered other structural levels of matter they found it easier to think of them as the result of other forces in nature. Since electromagnetism involves a field as does gravity, the comparison of atoms to gravitational systems took only slight modification to dynamics. The subatomic structures were a different story. As physicists investigated atoms and particles they added new forces to the list. A strong nuclear force was needed to hold protons and neutrons together against the repulsion of the proton's charge, a weak nuclear force involved radioactive decay, and the quarks theory for particle structure required an intense bonding mediated by gluons. In each case physicists invented specific properties for each force to make the force concept applicable. As a result, we are now encumbered with a staircase of forces, none related to the other, each with its own set of conditions for its particular situation.
Gravity only attracts, electromagnetism both attracts and repels, the strong nuclear is a repulsion at distance less than 10-13 cm, and its attraction drops to zero rapidly at distance greater. The weak nuclear force cannot extend farther than the size of a particle. And in its perverse manner the force of the gluons for quarks is reversed and becomes stronger with distance.
The forces vary in strengths enormously. If gravity is given a value of one, the weak nuclear force would be 1025 times stronger, the electromagnetic force 1036 times stronger, and the strong nuclear force 1038 times stronger. This is an enormous span and there is nothing in the theory of matter to give reason for this huge spread in strengths for forces of nature.
Efforts to unify the forces have been without success. If the force principle were a genuine part of nature there would be no reason for their not being able to be unified. There is apparently something wrong with the original concept of force acting across space that keeps it from being a valid universal principle.
After the discoveries of Faraday physicists discarded Newton's mechanical model and recognized that matter produces fields. But they kept the force concept and called them force fields. They were still in the engineering mode of thinking where motion is the result of force overcoming inertia. They therefore used the field theory as the source of energy to account for motion. This leaves unexplained the origin of fields.
Physicists have created an entanglement of undefined and unrelated terms held together by abstractions and equations. In the course of discovery everything should come together with a feedback from a single principle. In the current theory they do not. The parameters are held together mathematically, but with no rational theory why they should exist.
In physics the world is divided into matter and energy. These two components are interconvertible on the particle level of matter by the equation E = mc2. There is no explicit explanation in physical theory how this happens, only that it does. Energy is left in the abstract.
5. The structural hierarchy
Dynamics leaves physicists without a structure theory. They have tied motion to mass as momentum for their energy concept, and this has prevented their imagining structures based on motion.
By excluding the medium from their theory physicists have stranded themselves from the rational explanation of matter's origin and evolution. They translate everything into energy which defines things as parameters of intervention and obstruction, instead of the laws pertinent to matter's self-creation.
We think of structures as solids and motion as change. A structure, however, is characterized, not by statics but by stability of form. In nature kinematic structures are produced in which the structural motion is self-contained and self-perpetuated.
There is a non-material side of reality from which the material side evolved. The medium, light waves, and fields are non-material. In the formation of matter and its hierarchy, they are all interrelated.
Matter formed and evolved from the non-material side of reality.
The medium apparently is the pre-material condition from which the material universe developed. The single "physical" condition of the medium, and the reason it is recognized as a medium, is its capability to sustain wave motion. Light and fields are manifestations of this wave action in the medium. Motion can be translated to energy for dynamics, but it is motion itself that condenses to matter. Motion has the property of velocity, and this relates to distance and time. When these are self-contained they convert to size, and size is an absolute quantity.
The motion of particle formation is not consumed, it is converted to self-containment. This does two things which are responsible for matter's origin and evolution. Self-containment detaches particles from the medium and shifts interaction to other particles. And the contained structural motion generates fields in the surrounding medium which holds particles in suspension and creates the electric and gravitational field environment from which atoms and gravitational systems evolved.
Fields are from the structural motion of particles.
The physicists have no basis for the multiplicity of fields that they postulate. They are only to justify the force theory. A field is a condition generated in the surround medium by structural motion, and this limits the types that can be generated. There are apparently only two types of fields: the electric field that involves the tension of the medium; and gravitational fields which are deformations or reverberations in the surrounding medium.
Because of their theory physicists have always been astounded and puzzled by the incredible weakness of gravity in comparison to electromagnetism. According to the force concept both forces decrease by the square of the distance, but the span between them is enormous. The electric force between an electron and a proton according to Coulomb's law is e2/r2, while the force of gravity between them by Newton's law is Gmemp/r2. The ratio, therefore, is e2/Gmemp, and the numerical difference is 2.3 X 1039. This is an enormous number. It takes forty digits to write in full. So weak is gravity in comparison to electromagnetism that if a hydrogen atom were held together by gravity it would be nearly as large as the universe.
Both forces follow the inverse square rule, but there is a distinct difference between gravity and electromagnetism. For every positive charge in the universe there is a negative one. The gravitational field, which is neutral and unconsumed, extends indefinitely, whereas the electric field, because it has an opposite counterpart, is always interrupted. Atoms are formed, and the entire electric fields of the electrons and protons are contained within the confines of the neutral atom. Their gravitational fields, on the other hand, being unreactive, extend in all directions to the far reaches of the universe.
Gravity and electromagnetism appear so extremely different in strengths, therefore, simply because of the way they are measured. We aren't measuring whole fields, we are measuring an imaginary attraction on a line between two points. The material world, however, is made up of compositions, not a skeletal frame of forces. The entire electromagnetic field of two opposing charges is contained within a neutral atom, while their gravitational fields extend out indefinitely. To encompass the entire gravitational field the electron would have to orbit out on the edge of the universe. In an elementary particle, therefore, there apparently is no difference in the amount of gravity and electromagnetism is produced. And because fields are produced from structural motion these may be the only fields in actuality.
The structural "forces"
The universe is more rational and self-supporting than physicists have given it credit. Its support frame is a hierarchy of structures ascending from particles to atoms to gravitational systems. When matter originated it had in its formation the potential for its evolution to the immense diversity we witness today. The giant steps of this evolution are the three tiers of the hierarchy - particles, atoms, and gravitational systems.
Evolution follows a path that has the greatest potential for diversity. There are two principal procedures for the structure of matter that give this maximal potential:
The result of these procedures is best shown from the structures of atoms. From only three basic constituents - protons, neutrons, and electrons - over 100 kinds of atoms are formed. Furthermore, the orbital structure allows atoms to interact with each other to form the vast number of organic and inorganic molecules.
The formation of particles apparently followed the same pattern with different constituents. Since particles are the initial form of matter in the crossover from non-materiality, the constituents of particles must be without the basic properties of matter: mass and charge. Aside from the pre-material medium itself, only three things are known that have no mass or charge. They are photons, neutrinos, and fields. Since fields seem inappropriate, particles presumably have a structure consisting of photons and neutrinos. In this way particles are in compliance with the same conditions of evolution as atoms.
Without a structure theory physicists have invented a new force for every level of matter, each with its own tailored properties to make the force fit the conditions. That nature created a unique force at each level of its development seems extremely improbable. Instead of nature being held together by a battery of unrelated forces it is more likely that this theory is the result of an over-extension of a particular way of solving problems.
Consider the strong nuclear force. This interaction is regarded by the virtual particle theory as an exchange of pions traveling at the speed of light back and forth between nucleons. The bonding has a maximum strength at the distance of one fermi (10-13 cm). At 1.4 fermi it is one-third the maximal strength, and at a distance of 4.2 fermis its attraction is so small as to be negligible. The force is an attraction up to 1.7 fermis, and a repulsion closer than 0.7 fermi.
The strong nuclear force seems to have no relationship with the electrostatic force or gravity, which diminish by the square of the distance and extend indefinitely. Nor does it seem related to the weak interaction which plays a more subtle role in the interaction between particles. The force is an exchange of pions over a distance approximately no more than the size of protons and neutrons. The attraction decreases rapidly with separation and becomes a repulsion if the distance is too short. This description is not that of an exchange particle bouncing back and forth, but rather a structural particle encircling more than one nucleus.
The circumstances associated with the strong nuclear force have a striking similarity to another bonding condition which is quite common and not attributed to any special force of nature whatsoever. When two hydrogen atoms, each with a single orbiting electron and spins opposite from the other, come together, they combine with the liberation of heat and the formation of the H2 molecule.
At large distances the system consists of two isolated hydrogen atoms which do not interact with each other. But as the atoms come closer they experience an attraction which gradually leads to an energy minimum. At the internuclear distance of 0.74 angstrom the attractive energy is about 104 kcal/mole of H2 and the system is at its most stable state. Any attempt to force the atoms closer results in an increase in the electrostatic repulsion of the nuclei and eventually leads to the repulsion exceeding the attraction.
The existence of the energy minimum is directly responsible for the stability of the hydrogen molecule. When the two hydrogen atoms come together the electron density is spread over the entire volume of the molecule instead of being confined to a particular atom. The nuclei remain separate but the electrons are paired and encircle both nuclear centers. There is no new force of nature involved. The electrostatic attraction of the electron to the nuclear proton is the same attraction each electron has for the other nucleus. Increasing the volume available to an electron decreases its kinetic energy, and in this way imparts stability to the system. But in consolidating the electrons' motions to incorporate both nuclei there is an overall savings of encapsulated space and a reduction in kinetic energy, which is radiated as heat.
The electromagnetic force that is responsible for the structure of the atom is the same force that is responsible for the binding of atoms by consolidating the action of a mutual component of their structures. The fusing of protons is analogous to the combining of hydrogen atoms. Pions form the outer shell of protons and neutrons, and they become the exchange particle by encircling both nuclei of the bonded particles.
The strong nuclear force, therefore, is not a new force to be added for the fusing of protons and neutrons, it is a structure consolidation. Whatever is responsible for the complex structure of protons and neutrons is likely to be the same bonding mechanism used in coupling nucleons. There is in this analogy an important clue to the structure of particles. When protons and neutrons fuse there is a loss in the overall mass, and that mass is converted to energy by the equation E = mc2.
The weak interaction seems to be completely misplaced in the scheme of things. It occurs in beta decay where the emission of an electron is accompanied by the emission of an antineutrino, the emission of a positron by that of a neutrino. In 1934 Enrico Fermi likened beta emission to the photon emission from atoms. This, however, is a questionable analogy. Certainly it has not led to a structural model for particles that is consistent with a hierarchy of matter.
Beta decay is actually analogous to the transmutation of atoms. When an atom gains or loses a proton the element changes. When a particle loses a neutrino or antineutrino the identity of the particle changes. We need now to bear in mind that the weak interaction does not extend beyond the size of a particle. That is to say, the interaction is confined entirely within the confines of the particle. If the strong force in fusing of nucleons is analogous to the coupling of atoms, the weak nuclear force is analogous to neutral atoms having their electric fields confined entirely within the atom.
The properties of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear interactions strongly suggest that they are structural forces. The quarks model for particles, however, bears no resemblance to a structure which would accommodate these forces in a simple arrangement. In the course of reappraising physical theory we will discover that there is a much simpler and more logical model for particles than the one based on quarks.