Quarks do not exist. Everything is made up of positrons and electrons
Commonly accepted theory indicates that protons and neutrons are made
up of quarks which have fractional 1/3 charges. This article will seek
to explain that quarks do not exist and that protons and neutrons can
in fact be explained in terms of just positrons and electrons. This
explanation also shows why there is such a huge mass difference between
the proton and electron and why the mass is similar between a proton
and electron. It also explains how some neutron decay events happens.

It is commonly accepted that protons and neutrons are composed of 3
quark particles with up/down properties and hold a 1/3 fractional
charge. The combination of these quarks give the +1 positive charge of
the proton and the 0 charge of the neutron. Science has never been able
to directly observe a quark by itself and its existence is only based
upon indirect evidence.

This view is unnecessary since you can more easily construct a proton
and a neutron out of particles that we already know exist and can
directly observe, namely the positron and the electron. A neutron would
be a simple combination of positron and electron. The obvious objection
to this idea is that the positron and electron would instantly
annihilate each other leaving nothing but energy. The positron we think
we know is anti-matter and should not leave behind a neutron when it
reacts with an electron. However, I think that there may be a
non-antimatter postitron (lets call it a protron) which is identical in
every way to an electron except for charge. Telling the difference
betwen a postron and a positron would be exceedingly difficult since
they would have all of the same characteristics.

The only difference would be that a postron would leave behind a
neutron when reacting with an electron. Or it could be that the postron
doens't exist, but that in the positron/electron reaction, the neutron
is left behind but is exceedingly hard to detect. If it isn't moving
with a lot of speed, it would be virtually impossible to detect - as
neutrons are extremely difficult to detect under any circumstances due
to their non-ionizing nature.

Certainly, a testable prediction of this theory is that we should see
some neutrons being created during at least some kinds of
positron/electron reactions. I would be interested in hearing about any
experiments that have specifically tried to test for this possibility.

The next objection to a positron/electron neutron is that a neutron is
supposed to be composed of 3 particles, not 2. In my own independent
research on the internet, I could not confirm any source that indicated
that a neutron was composed of 3 point like objects. I did find this
reference which specifically tried to address this question:


This appears to indicate that the results are not as predicted
according to the various existing quark models - showing that the 3
quark model may be wrong. This paper is old and hard to read and I only
looked at the conclusions, so I may be misunderstanding, but that is
what it looks like to me.

It would appear to me that most people have been ASSUMING that it had
been confirmed that a neutron must consist of 3 point particles since
quark theory is so well accepted. As far as I can see, this is an
unproven assumption and I would be interested in anyone who can point
me to more recent experiments that can actually validate the 3 quark
neutron model. I did run across some information that indicated that
some experiments were showing that a neutron had a slightly negative
outside and a positively charged inside which would indicate a 2
particle structure.

Now if a neutron is a positron/electron, then what is a proton. Quite
simply, a proton is a combination of neutron/positron. The extra
positron is what gives the proton a +1 positive charge. In this model,
a proton always contains an embedded neutron.

This explains a few puzzling facts about protons. For example, why is
the proton/neutron weight so similar? The answer is that the proton
contains all the mass of the neutron and the positron adds little
additional mass. Another puzzle is why is the mass so different between
a proton and electron if only the charge is different. The answer is
that the proton is a composite entity which contains a neturon, while
the electron actually is a lightweight fundamental particle. The actual
fundamental particles of the universe are the positron and the electron
and these have identical mass characteristics and you would expect. The
charge opposite of an electron is not the proton, it is the positron.

An obvious objection to this idea is that the neutron is officially
more massive than the proton. Shouldn't the proton be heavier than the
neutron if it contains everything the neutron has plus another
positron? As it turns out, when it comes to subatomic addition, normal
math just doesn't work. The measured mass of a neutron actually varies
quite a bit depending on how it is bound into any particular atom.

If you look at the difference in mass between He3 and He4, there is
only a difference of .98 amu. This is much smaller than the standard
value for a neutron which is about 1.008 amu. Strangely enough, the
weight of a neutron can vary quite a bit if you determine the mass of
the neutron by comparing atoms which only differ by a single neutron.
The value of .98 amu is smaller than the standard mass for a proton, so
certainly in some cases, the neutron can be lighter than the proton.
More importantly, if you take a neutron and add a positron, you do not
necessarily end up with something with a mass which is greater than a

I have other associated theories which indicate that mass is nothing
but a measure of the volume of space that a particle actually occupies
in space and if the binding is tighter or looser, this decreases or
increases the measured mass. If we study a free neutron, this is
probably very loosely bound since this isn't even a stable particle.
This would make the free neutron appear more massive. When a neutron is
bound in an atom, it is more tightly bound and therefore appears less

If we think of the proton as a composite neutron/positron, this does
explain some puzzling phenomenon. One phenomenon it clearly explains is
how B+ decay work. You would think that if a proton is composed of a
neutron and a positron, then at some point you ought to be able to
observe a proton decaying into these exact components. Well, an
isolated proton never decays into anything, but heavy atomic isotopes
do decay through the B+ decay process where a proton transmutes into a
neutron and ejects a positron. This is exactly what we would expect - a
proton turns into a neutron + positron.. How does the quark model
explain this? A quark changes sign and a positron magically appears out
of no where?

The composite neutron/position also neatly explains why we see 3
scattering centers in the proton. We are looking at the
positron/electron/positrion combination. Once again, I would be
interested in seeing if any of these scattering experiments are more in
line with a neutron having 2 scattering centers, since 3 doesn't appear
to fit.

Another kind of decay called Beta decay can also be explained in terms
of a composite proton. In this type of decay a neutron is transmuted
into a proton and an electron and anti-neutrino is ejected. According
to a post by davidjonssonswe...@gmail.com, this could also be thought
of a neutrino combining with a neutron to form a proton and an

In my associated theories,  neutrinos are actuallly composed of aether
particles which are nearly identical to neutrons and are also composed
of a positron/electron pair. Let's see if the math works out:

A neutron n is a combination of just positron/electron (p e)
A proton P is a combination of neutron & positron  p (p e)
A neutrino NU is just a fast moving neutral aether particle (p e)

If we plug this into the beta decay equation, we get:

(p e) neutron + (p e) neutrino -> p ( p e) proton + e (electron)

Looks like the math works out perfectly. This also indicates that beta
decay doesn't happen randomly, but is a specific reaction with a
collision with a neutrino. If it would be shown that beta decay
increases in the presence of a strong neutrino beam, this model would
be confirmed.

All real free particles have a charge of -1 , 0, +1 - only quarks have
fractional charges which I find unncessary since all particles could be
made up of whole charge positrions and electrons. Can anyone cite a
particle that could not be made up of positrons/electrons and must be
made up of 1/3 charge fraction quarks?

The only evidence for quarks that I have not investigated is the claim
that the 'jets' that appear in collider experiments somehow correspond
to the quarks. I can't see how we can predict the behavior of an atomic
disintegration based only upon 1/3 fractional charges, so if someone
could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

In conclusion, it appears that the subatomic realm can be consideribly
simplified if we only consider positrons and electrons as the
fundamental building blocks of matter. I have explained some of the
more obvious objections to this idea and showed how the model correclty
predicts decay behavior which cannot be so easily explained with quark