The difference and similarity between particles, waves, and quanta in terms of energy ranges.

In addition to their “internal” energy (E=mc², m x c squared), elementary particleshave a range of “external” energy, that is, energy manifested in interactions, from conditional zero to “infinity”.

(This does not apply to atoms, molecules and their conglomerates, since in this case there is a continuous balanced exchange of energy (“phantom radiation”). with the environment.)

For waves – from a certain minimum to “infinity”. Including “null rays”, that is, electromagnetic waves superimposed on each other in antiphase. Such an overlap of electromagnetic waves does not mean their “mutual annulation” in any way, since energy cannot be destroyed. Being “counter-directional” along their induction vectors, they simply compensate for each other and therefore no “external” interaction with the environment is observed. There is no “external manifestation”, because THERE is NOTHING to react with the environment, but the energy in such “zero rays” can be very significant.

Quanta have a certain minimum lower threshold of energy of existence and up to “infinity”. I also refer to “Zero quanta”, that is two quanta superimposed on each other so that their electromagnetic fields have counter phases.

An example of a “natural” «null quantum» can be neutrinos, which contain a minimum energy from megaelectronvolts (MEV) to almost indefinitely, but also almost not manifested due to the extremely RARE interaction with matter.

It’s completely idiotic to call such interactions “Weak.” They ARE NOT WEAK. They are rare, and the probability of their occurrence is extremely low, but such interactions themselves are by no means WEAK.

With the same ridiculous success, supernova explosions can also be called WEAK due to their relative RARITY or large lottery winnings of many millions? Also, well, very weak ones, which instantly make a happy multi-millionaire!

Head-on collisions of two high-speed trains, the death of the Titanic from a collision with an iceberg or the crash of an airliner are rare, tragic phenomena, but not WEAK interactions, just their probability is quite low.

But physicists love to give phenomena names, the most ridiculous possible.

Like, for example, the “Chain reaction” in uranium or plutonium, when there is NO a CHAIN reaction, but a purely AVALANCHE-like reaction of nuclear fission and an increase in the number of neutrons. A chain reaction is a reaction in which one stage is connected to another, the same reaction or another, as the same or dissimilar CHAIN LINKS.

However, a lump of snow from the top of a mountain that causes an avalanche does not generate a “chain reaction.”

A small fire in a dry steppe does not generate a “chain reaction” of a huge fire on a spontaneous scale!

These are all typical AVALANCHE-like reactions!

The occurrence of a tornado or hurricane is not a chain reaction, but an avalanche!

Multi-kilometer lightning is not the result of a chain reaction, but, again, an avalanche!

Needless to say, the “exact” science is physics!

Or another cretinous name, “Critical Mass.”

There is NO Critical Mass of uranium or plutonium in nature!

There is a CRITICAL RATIO of the MASS of a certain amount of uranium or plutonium to its surface AREA! If the ratio is large enough to cause an avalanche reaction of neutron multiplication and, consequently, nuclear decay, then this is the CRITICAL RATIO!

But if the same uranium 235 or plutonium 239 are rolled into the thinnest films when they are produced, then they (in billions of tons!) can cover the entire surface of the globe and no nuclear explosion will occur!

Or make a colloidal solution of the same elements with the volume of the entire Earth’s ocean!

(Because most of the neutrons will immediately fly out, not having ability to react with the nuclei! THE SURFACE OF THE “LEAKAGE” of free neutrons from matter is TOO LARGE!)

Physics is an “exact” and even very precise science, especially by inventing terms and concepts that are absurd “in terms of accuracy”…

So, THERE ARE NO WEAK INTERACTIONS!

And there are RARE, UNLIKELY ONES!

For any sane person, NOT a physicist, the difference between the terms “weak” and “rare” is obvious!

And for physicists?

6 II 2026