Honestly, garbage such as this should not be associated with Scientific American. This is probably a blog article written in the SciAm domain. How SciAm could allow someone like this to write something of this "caliber" is beyond me, and it calls into question on the level and standard that they maintain there. This person is attempting to write the "history" of energy and maybe even elementary particles. But she tripped all over the place, either getting it really wrong (thinking the beta decay had an issue with charge conservation that required the neutrino), or that cosmic rays are only the result of atmospheric decay, or later on getting into the pseudo-scientific world of metaphysics. You are welcome to use your physics knowledge and find out how many errors she made here, or where she just went way too far (strong interaction and dark energy, anyone?). The problem with this is that, for people who simply did a web search, they can't tell if this is a formal SciAm article, or if this was simply an "opinion blog" of some freelance writer SciAm caters to. All they see his the SciAm tag, and they will put a lot of weight on such an article. SciAm should be embarrassed to be associated with such garbage. Some of the purported "opinions" in this article are factually wrong! And oh, this is only "Part 1" of this treatise. I wonder what's in store for us in Part 2 of this gem! Zz.