Quantum Physics


The Planck Mass Particle Finally Discovered! The True God Particle! Good bye to the Point Particle Hypothesis!

Authors: Espen Gaarder Haug

In this paper we suggest that one single fundamental particle exists behind all matter and energy. We claim that this particle has a spatial dimension and diameter equal to the Planck length and a mass equal to half of the Planck mass. Further, we will claim this particle is indivisible, that is it was never created and can never be destroyed. All other subatomic particles, in spite of having much lower masses than the Planck mass, are easily explained by the existence of such an indivisible particle. Isaac Newton stated that there had to be a fundamental particle, completely hard, that could not be broken down. He also claimed that light consisted of a stream of such particles. Newton’s particle theory was very similar to that of the ancient atomists Democritus and Leucippus. However, the atomist view of an indivisible particle with spatial dimensions has generally been pushed aside by modern physics and replaced with hypothetical point particles and the mysterious wave-particle duality.

Comments: 24 Pages. Version 7 has fixed a minor type and has a new section (10) explaining why the Planck mass remarkably is at rest as observed from any reference frame.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2016-07-26 19:11:55
[v2] 2016-07-27 05:58:52
[v3] 2016-08-11 16:24:33
[v4] 2016-08-16 03:21:16
[v5] 2016-08-27 10:15:31
[v6] 2016-09-11 09:44:27
[v7] 2016-09-13 18:03:35

Unique-IP document downloads: 385 times

Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus