Does your college teach you how to hack a theory? In Strings Are Dead, I hacked and invalidated *all* string theories with the flawed Tidal Axiom. Can we do the same for quantum theory? Am I going to be in real hot soup for suggesting this? Yes.

First note that the physics establishment is coming around to accepting the fact that there are major fundamental problems with their theories. Professors Steinhardt and Efstathiou, in their Kavli Institute video blog, and Professors Lykken and Spiropulu in their May 2014 Scientific American "A Crisis in Physics?" point to the real risk that *their* empirical data no longer supports *their* theories.

We all know how to hack a computerized system, find the weakest link, a bug or a password. With physical theories it is the same. The weakest links are the axioms (assumptions used in mathematics). These are usually stated but can be implicit.

Quantum theory is looking more and more like string theories, open ended - the more you research the more you find. CERN is adding more *fundament* particles in their search to unify everything. The latest are the pentaquarks. How many more particles do we need to add before we determine that either the Standard Model is complete or is fundamentally flawed? 20, 50, 100 . . . ? Maybe Nature's design allows for an infinity of particles types and no theoretical physicist has *proposed otherwise*.

Nature shows us that from a finite set of elements it is possible to construct an infinite set of chemicals. Is this Nature's design philosophy? To construct an infinity from the finite? Therefore, observing an open ended number of particles would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. Wouldn't it? Does quantum theory, like string theories, have a fundamentally flawed axiom?

How do we hunt for a flaw?

Keep in mind that while physics is by consensus, Nature is not. In *Super Physics for Super Technologies*, I proposed the matrix type Component Standard Model (CSM) for particle design which is still work-in-progress. Any known and unknown particle can be designed from its five potential component representations of the particle's property (charge, spin, magnetic moments, mass type etc.). Resulting in about a 100 component variations with potentially 30,000 permutations of particle types. Every new property increases the potential *component* variations by about 15. It is an arithmetic increase as opposed to a geometric increase. This means it is possible to hunt for particles that don't have a basis in the Standard Model i.e. falsifiability, or the potential to prove something wrong.

In contemporary physics, the hunt for new particles can be very roughly described as follows. (1) The physics community agrees on a specific hypothetical particle. (2) Machines are set up, and particle collision produces a shower of particles, both old and new. (3) This particle shower is recorded. (4) Each particle is examined to see if it matches the mathematical model. No, doesn't match. Next particle. No, doesn't match. Next particle. No, doesn't match . . . until you find it . . . yes! It matches. Else, smash more particles and repeat this process.

Therefore, Standard Model is once again confirmed! But wait, since the CSM allows for a larger set of particle designs, proving the Standard Model is correct, also proves that CSM is correct. If a new particle property is proposed or found it is included as a column to this CSM matrix structure. Got you, you theoretical physics community.

So, can we hack quantum theory?

There are a few ways to *falsify* the Standard Model. (1) Find particles that have no basis in the Standard Model. This is easy as we have the data from previous collisions. We only need to determine what is *not allowed* by the Standard Model, and hunt. (2) Invert the *particle search* question. Can we, from at least a partial set of *particles that don't match*, construct an Alternative Standard Model (ASM)? Maybe two, three or more ASMs? This is not easy to do, but if we cannot construct an ASM, how do we determine that either, when the Standard Model is complete or, like strings, is fundamentally flawed? (3) Find an axiomatic flaw in the Standard Model.

Quite by accident, I stumbled upon this third approach.

Contemporary electric field theory informs us that electric field lines are repulsive or warped as can be seen in this picture. Similarly, on a charged particle like an electron, the electric field lines emanating from it are so strongly repulsive, that decades ago theoreticians invented a new force, PoincarÃ© stresses, to counter these repulsive electric forces.

In the first paper "A Universal Approach to Forces" of my book *Super Physics for Super Technologies*, I proposed that electric field lines (therefore, magnetic field lines) are not repulsive. These field lines overlap without interference and are summative. The force between any two charges is determined by the gradient of the overlapping field densities between the charges. As with all other forces, gravitational, and electromagnetic, the key is the spatial gradient of the summative fields. Thereby falsifying quantum theories *exchange of force-carrier particles* and invalidating Standard Model's classification of *bosons*. Note, finding a particle and proving its function are two different goals.

Is there proof in Nature that electric field lines are not repulsive? Yes. In the transverse electromagnetic wave, both the electric and magnetic field lines are well behaved, non-repulsive, parallel (not warped) field lines that are orthogonal to the direction of propagation. Hiding in plain sight!

What does this mean? It means that electric and magnetic field *lines* are not repulsive (note, that this is not the same as *fields* are repulsive). It means that PoincarÃ© stresses don't exists. It means that much of the Standard Model is no longer valid. It means per Professors Steinhardt and Efstathiou (Kavli Institute video blog), that our theories really are more complicated that the Universe is.

Hacked! Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Actually, there is a second hack for quantum theory, and I'm debating writing about it. If you have any, please publish in peer reviewed journals or post a link to your work in the comments section. Thanks.