The consideration of details being apparent consequents of set up views would withdraw us far in the side from an main aim - to show way out from dock, where the development of a modern physics has gone and to give a new impulse to this development, remember what even the small step to true causes an avalanche of the practical appendices. If it is possible to doubt that the author sets up true, it is possible to be assured, that he sets up an alternate path to true in those circumstances, when the official path seem alone. Therefore there is no sense to fall for a temptation to explain the entire one after another to not multiply errors and to not discredit new physics. Earlier naturalists were more scrupulous in this problem, than now. Let's recollect famous a Newton: "hypotheses I do not devise" or expression of F. Engels about "of thermal death" by the Universe: "The heat, radiated in global space, should have a capability by any way, - way, the installation which one will be at one time in the future a problem of natural sciences, - to be turn intoed other form of motion, in which one it again can be massed and to begin is active to operate". In the chapter "Problems of a cosmology" the depleting answer to this problem is given.

In connection with finding - out of features of motion of particles and reasons of appearance of their "wave" properties, there is a sense from a wave quantum mechanics to return to "beads" and to attempt to construct the theory of "elementary" particles on the basis of visual notions from which one, in due time, irresponsibly have refused, i.e. on the basis neoclassical necessarian of notions. Orthodox physics basically is not capable to esteem a constitution of atoms, atomic nuclei and elementary particles because of an indeterminacy relation of the Heisenberg. Only rehabilitation of determinism in science is capable it to move further, that with all evidence is shown in this book.

Despite of a considerable experimental material accumulated recently on elementary particles, the theory of elementary particles prolongs to remain in dock that is a consequent of error notions still for a level of atom.

Here some words are necessary for telling about a methodology of knowledge of true in modern science. If at the beginning of an advancement of science main reference points in knowledge of true were common sense and clear figurative notions on it grounded, now it is necessary to state, that dominates simplified, faster technical, than scientific approach. Take model, in an abstract kind reflecting not object, but only its some characteristic properties, model process by the mathematical apparatus and almost always receive rather good quality, and sometimes and quantitative consent with experiment, if the model (as a matter of fact is a mathematical model) more or is less successful is selected (is as a matter of fact customized with the necessary answer initially). The fallaciousness of such method of knowledge of true is obvious, thus we come nearer to not so much by it, how many we put ourselves depending on own fallacies, this method guarantees only against appreciable errors, though also they are possible. Reaches to the point of irrationality, when physicist puts by the main problem the solution not physical and mathematical problems. Thus it is necessary to hold back about appearing inconsistencies to keep in our theory visibility of scientific achievement, as a matter of fact it represents a mathematical exercise, useful only for the technical appendices. The authors of such theories it is easy to drive in dock by additional problems. On the other hand, if the theory is grounded on common sense and clear notions, additional problems, as a rule, do not arise, there is no necessity even in the mathematical apparatus, which one in this case plays a supplementary role, appropriate to it, only updating our notions, instead of creating them. The science is invoked to understand, to explain and to forecast. The divine function of creation stands before the engineers. Mathematics is the tool of creation, instead of knowledge. The modern physics abounds examples of a faulty method of knowledge. Here it is possible to point only some. We have elaborated a quantum physics, having not disassembled, what such a wave-corpuscle dualism of particles, we have invented a Schrodinger equation "correctly" reflecting only wave quality of particles and we are tormented with its solution, by believing, that in it the answers to all problems. We have created the theory of an exchange interaction, not having notion neither about a constitution of interacting particles nor about the detail mechanism of this interplay. "The Interplays of particles with each other, exhibited in their attraction or repulsing, are described as a virtual exchange of particles by field quantums, applicable to the given kind interplay. The precise mechanism of interplays of particles now is obscure". B.M. Javorsky and A.A. Detlaph "The reference Book on physics", "Science", М., 1964, page 786.

We develop drip, optical etc. model of a nucleus not knowing, that by itself introduce nuclear forces; we use a Pauli exclusion principle, not confess to ourselves that by it we as a matter of fact clandestinely pull the new type of interplay, and it is necessary in this case to speak and about "force Pauli" and about "energy Pauli". We continue to take pains in combinations of quantum numbers to explain properties of atoms disregard on own initial suppositions about "simple" quantizing; using successes in practical development of a nuclear power, we are ready to shake out pockets of the taxpayers to construct monsters of particles accelerator - perhaps something we shall find out from predictions of authorities instead of previously receiving a legible picture, sitting for a desk - the examples can be prolonged.

Is especially insulting that the description of experiments in accessible to the broad audience of the readers to the literature (which one is considerably more relevant than their interpretation) is made not objective, and prejudicedly, not giving capabilities to the reader to make independent conclusions. The orthodoxes chew outcomes of experiment during their description, instead later, constraining the reader to use already second-hand. Therefore for youth the impression is piled, that all for a long time is invented both is opened and the desire disappears to go in science.

We already have received a universal function of potential repulse energy (1.4). Potential energy of attraction will be gravidynamic attraction, and close arranged particles revolving around of a gravidynamic interplay center, is additional to own aiming to center, will experience attraction at the expense of analogue of force of the Lorentz who is operational on each particle at motion in a gravidynamic field of other particle, and this attraction considerably exceeds own. Thus it is necessary to note, that the gravitational charges are always attracted, is similar to interplay opposite of charged electric charges, therefore interplay is opposite directional "of gravitational currents" will be similar to magnetic interplay of conductors with an electric current, in which one the electric currents flow in one direction. All this is fair for interplay of two particles of matter (for example, neutrino) or antimatter (antineutrino). Will below be shown, that at motion of matter and antimatter comparatively each other, for example, in a photon, gravidynamic attraction very gentle, but, in this case, the particles are attracted on greater spacing interval by electrostatic, since they are charged by opposite electric charges. The gravidynamic interplay on a close range exhibits itself as strong or nuclear interaction, and it is generic in any particles with a rest-mass nonzero, rotated around of a own axis. Here it is necessary to note, that, as it will be visible from further, the particles with a zero rest-mass do not exist and in general concept of "rest-mass" conditionally. In scales of nuclei of atoms and the more so "elementary" particles the gravidynamic interplay much more exceeds electrostatic interplay, therefore last is very gentle influences on energetic of these particles (concerning a neutron having particular features in this respect, the explanations will follow later).

From the point of view of new physics the principle of construction of "elementary" particles is simple. They represent of a gravidynamic system, the stability which one is determined by that the component particles are in a potential well instituted by gravidynamic "attraction" and universal repulsing, thus the component particles moving on circular orbits with light speed (are more valid with speed, very close to limiting, about which one is lower). In these conditions the considerable relativistic increase of mass of component "elementary" particles is watched. Naturally, that the moment of momentum of each component "elementary" particle on orbit is peer to a moment of momentum in free condition. Orthodox physics does not know, how the elementary particles are arranged. The suppositions of orthodoxes concerning their constitution are absurd from the point of view of new physics. Besides the indeterminacy relations of the Heisenberg superimpose the prohibition of capability of consideration of any structure in the field of space compared with dimensions of a particle. 

"Already first acquaintance to properties of elementary particles demonstrates, as far as these properties are miscellaneous and as far as the principles and laws, lying in their basis, are diverse. At closer acquaintance to a world of elementary particles such situation even more is aggravated and there is an impression not of chaos. There are no even two particles, the weights would be connected which one by a simple numerical ratio.  The life times of particles arbitrarily vary from most short (~10-23 sec) up to most lengthy (stable particles). It is impossible to explain, why the particles have those or diverse quantum numbers. The properties of many particles are in general connected to the fundamental laws of the nature, the sense which one is not even clear to the explorers. Each characteristic of particles, very probably, serves a small masked going into the whole maze of unknowns of phenomena, unexpectedness, and discoveries. In such situation any simplified approach to a solution of a problem of systematization of elementary particles, certainly, is doomed on full failure (time will show! - V.K.). The truth, some empirical facts are marked, which one, probably, suggest us the solution which has been yet not retrieved. So, the formula of the Japanese physicist Nambu, reflecting feature of a spectrum of weights of particles is known. It appears, the weights of large number of particles are aliquot to value 137 me or half of this value. Let's remark, that the value, return fine structure constant, also is peer 137. (Is faster we shall find out physical sense of this concurrence - V.K.). A subject of main efforts of the physicists-theorists is the research of approaches to a problem of systematization of the particles grounded on already reached knowledge of the fundamental laws of the nature, affirmed all experience naturalists". "About a systematization of particles", "Atom publishing house", М., 1969, page 121-122. 

To my regret, new physics can not compare it’s the notions about the constitution of elementary particles to notions of official physics, since last miss. "If the particle is disintegrated on any particles, it is impossible to tell, that the products of decay were contained in it as the constituents. Really, frequently it happens that the same particle is disintegrated by several different ways. On the other hand, the electron, for example, at transition in atom from one level of energy on another releases a photon, wavelength which one, and, therefore, and sizes many times over any more only of electron, but also atom. (This statement is fair not to the photon, and to its screw trajectory - V.K.). Therefore it is impossible to speak, that the photon was inside an electron, as its constituent. Thus, till now it is not yet absolutely clear that to understand structure of elementary particles". (Underline mine - V.K.). G.E. Pustovalov, "Atomic and nuclear physics", publishing House of the Moscow University, 1968, page 22-23.

Now it is possible to figure all known and conceivable "elementary" particles consisting from three fundamental particles (with their antiparticles): a neutrino, electron and proton. By a base particle of which one consist everything, including fundamental particles is the electronic neutrino  (and antineutrino ). The same principles are fair and for all resonances, therefore about them speech of a message we shall be slightly to not overload presentation.

At analysis of elementary particles it is necessary permanently to mean that circumstance that the fixed experimental fact of transformation of energy in mass and on the contrary results in large variety of particles, arising in a microcosmos. The high power saturation of processes with elementary particles allows to not limit only by generation of photons (as it makes atom at electronic transitions), but results in originating practically of any known particles, which one, however, in overwhelming majority are exited states, therefore are unstable. This circumstance hampers detection of a true structure of unstable "elementary" particles. 

The formula will be useful to us, on which one it is possible to count up a magnetic moment of a particle. Is known, that the magnetic moment of a contour with an electric current:


where C - electrodynamics’ constant (numerically equal speed of light), I - current, and S - area of a contour.


and                                                                                       (4.3),

where Т - period of revolution of an electron, e - charge of an electron, r - radius of its orbit. By substituting (4.3) in (4.2) and all in (4.1) and allowing, as will be shown later, that component of elementary particles moving with light speed, i.e. V~C, we shall discover:


For a nonrelativistic case (V<C), the equation (4.4) will look like:


In (4.4) or (4.5) it is possible to enter an orbital mechanical moment of an electron, equal  and allowing, that , where h - constant of the Planck, we shall have:


The expression (4.6) is a magneton of the Bohr , i.e. magnetic moment free or bound in atom of an electron. I shall remind to the reader, that the official science considers a mechanical moment of an electron equal  and for it just this value has principled value. If to accept a moment of an electron equal  (that is confirmed also by concurrence of the counted masses "elementary" of particles with experimentally retrieved below), i.e. , substituting here , where h - constant of the Planck, and =2×r, we shall receive a de Broglie formula: , which one is affirmed experimentally, including for an electron. If to accept value of an angular momentum of an electron equal , we shall receive value of a wavelength of an electron twice less experimental: .

Unfortunately, we have not other equation, except for a law of conservation of angular momentum to count up the sizes of elementary particles, knowing their mass. However, as will be found out below, the situation salvages that circumstance, that the sizes of elementary particles appear almost identical, except for some. It is conditioned by a strong interaction, i.e. very abrupt walls of a potential well, in which one moves of particles. As the law of conservation of angular momentum is indestructible, and the speed of orbital motion of component elementary particles can not exceed speeds of light (later we shall find out a reason it), this circumstance constrains the nature to augment mass of component elementary particles with decreasing of radius of their orbital motion. A law of conservation of angular momentum for a nonrelativistic case (V<C):


where m0 - nonrelativistic mass of a body, and - constant dependent on an angular momentum of a body (for the moment ,  = Vr = 1.15756 cm2/sec). For a relativistic case (VC):

                       S=mCr                                                   (4.8),

where m - relativistic mass of a body, C - speed of light.

While the equation (4.7) is fair increases of mass of a body with increase of speed it is impossible (if any component given the body is not gone with light speed, see is lower). When the equation (4.8) is fair, the increase of its speed is impossible, and mass is inversely proportional to radius of orbit of a body. Equating (4.7) and (4.8), we shall discover, than mass is determined of any body having a rest-mass (which one can have zero forward speed): 


The equation (4.9) demonstrates that mass of a body is determined by the moment of its impulse and radius of a trajectory; therefore, gravitational and inert mass same. Nay, relativistic increment of mass is so valuable mass, as well as "immobile", as last also is relativistic. "In a system of three bodies - Sun, Earth and moon, rotated around of it - any difference between inert mass and gravitational charge will be exhibited in their relative movement... The obtained outcome (with the help of a laser beam, reflected from a mirror on moon - V.K.) has marked by itself one more full celebration of the theory of the Einstein: inert mass and gravitational charge taking into account of gravitational bond energy coincide accurate within 10-11. This impressive success of the theory of the Einstein underlines highest quantitative accuracy of his interpretation of a gravitational charge as development of a space-time curvature". "Fundamental structure of a matter", "World", М., 1984, page 196. Leaving in the side bragging style of this quotation, I pay attention of the reader that the equaling of inert and gravitational masses is not outcome of the theory of the Einstein, and initial hypothesis of this theory. At what here space-time curvature I can not explain, as myself I do not realize.

For bodies, in notion of official science of a not having rest-mass (driving always with speed of light) mass is determined as a matter of fact by same equation:


where S - angular momentum of a body.

By imposing on (4.9) condition m=m0, it is possible to find maximum radius of motion of a particle, is less than which all energy of a particle one will be transformed into mass (at greater radius a particle mass is invariable): 


By substituting in (4.11)  = 1.15756 and value of speed of light, we shall receive minimum radius of invariable electronic mass on a screw trajectory or circular orbit in a bound condition equal 386.12×10-13 cm (386.12 fm). On this radius the motion speed of an electron practically is peer to speed of light. Apparently, that thus the electron should move as a solid, i.e. for one revolution on orbit it should make one revolution about the own axis. Thus, the particle mass or does not grow at all with increase of its speed, or, at achievement of speed of light, grows in inverse proportion to radius of orbit. It seemed, this conclusion contradicts the known formula (1.3) relativistic increases of a body mass with increase of its speed, affirmed it is experimentally. However this inconsistency apparent and in further we shall receive the formula (1.3) and simultaneously we shall find out its physical sense.

Whether the electric charge of particles similarly to mass varies? "One of most surprising and yet not realized while properties of electric charge - its quantum, discrete nature...". Physics of a microcosmos, "Soviet encyclopedia", М., 1980, page 466-467.

Formally from (4.4) and (4.5) with replacement in (4.4) e on q, and in (4.5) on q0, we shall discover for a "relativistic" case:


and for a "nonrelativistic" case:


Equating (4.12) and (4.13), is similar (4.9) we shall receive:


It is possible to make of the above-stated equations an insecure conclusion that both gravitational, and electric charge can change only at relativistic velocities of motion of these charges. The above-stated calculations (4.12), (4.13) and (4.14) and conclusions from them are incorrect, since will below be shown, that the charge a neutrino is always peer е/2 and does not vary depending on radius of its motion. There we find out, than the electric charge of particles is conditioned. This example once again demonstrates the fallaciousness of formal - mathematical approaches to natural sciences.

The relation of mass of particles to their energy not only satisfies demands of a law of conservation of angular momentum in conditions of impossibility of increase of a moving speed, but also opens in essence new path of deleting from a system of exuberant mechanical energy, which one does not allow to form a stable system. If at formation of atom the electron falls in a potential well at the expense of radiation of exuberant energy as photons, in gravidynamic systems (elementary particles) enough exuberant energy to turn into mass to be saved of necessity something to beam. If there is a necessity something to beam, the energetic of elementary particles allows it to make in broad assortment of radiated particles. If we of any component elementary particle impart such energy, that its radius of a screw trajectory will become in accuracy is peer to radius of orbit a particle (thus mass component is augmented) and precisely half of this energy (which one is connected to a translational motion component) we shall convert into mass, we shall receive a elementary particle, interesting for us.

By indirect indication on that our notions about a microcosmos suffers latent, principled lacks, is the more and more diffused picture of a microcosmos in process of recess in it. For example, at a atomic-molecular level the science abounds large theoretical achievements adequately reflecting behavior of particles of this level. At a level of a constitution of atoms we any more can not brag of so considerable achievements, and we begin to stumble about mismatch between our notions and substantial constitution of this level. At a nuclear level the experimenters already considerably advance the theorists and it is not visible of real perspectives them "to catch up". At a level of elementary particles the theory is in general marks time, and the experimenters are advanced literally by seven-mile steps.

Comments of the author to chapter 4:

1. The formula of the Nambu.

The formula of the Japanese physicist Nambu, mirrors a feature of a spectrum of masses of particles. It appears, the masses of large number of particles are aliquot to size 137me or half of this size. Now we insert in this formula clear physical sense.

The elementary particles are gyrated with light speed on a radius of a circle, close to classic radius of an electron r0. Me is shown, that the mobile electron has an angular momentum, equal h/2(h crossed, we shall designate h*). An own angular momentum of an electron (spin) in 137 times less. Is representable to itself, that on orbit of a elementary particle the whole electron moves. Then its angular momentum will be peer h* = mcr0 (1), where m - electronic mass at motion with speed of light. Let's mark here, that official physics makes an error, when asserts, that at motion of a particle with speed of light its mass increases ad infinitum. On a circular orbit it not so. From (1): m = h*/cr0 (2). On the other hand: me = h*/137cr0 (3). By divided (2) on (3) we shall find, that the particle mass having in a free condition an angular momentum equal h* or multiple to this value in a structure of a composite elementary particle will increase mass in 137 times or multiple to this value. If the component of a composite particle has in a free condition an angular momentum h*/2, in a structure of this particle mass of this component will be increased in 137/2 times. The physical sense of the trial-and-error formula of the Nambu consists of it. Therefore mass of any elementary particle is peer to the simple sum of masses of components pursuant to expression (2).