In this web site I tried to show that QCD fails to explain many experimental findings which Comay’s model explains naturally.
However, if you are not convinced, please leave a comment here or send me an email (my email address is on the right panel). If you send an email – I will keep your privacy: your name will be published only if you explicitly allow that in writing.
Please send your most significant reason(s) for believing in QCD and some info about your academic background.
Thank you. Your comments will be highly appreciated!
Ofer Comay
Advertisement
While I have to take some serious time to read into the details, I find your presentation it very convincing at a first glance. Your no-color argument must (if indeed correct) be devastating to QCD, and I wonder why it is not published in a mainstream journal.
Regarding “generations”: while possible a weak interaction issue, it still has bearings for quarks ..
People who are responsible for the publication policy of physics
mainstream journals should be asked questions concerning this
matter.
All quarks carry the same amount of monopole charge. Therefore,
they have the same strong interaction coupling constant. Considering
strong interactions, quarks differ by the value of their mass and of
their electric charge. Due to the quite good isospin symmetry, the
mass difference between u,d quarks is quite small.
This site discusses a theory that supports the unification of strong and
electromagnetic processes. The photon is a common object belonging
to the two theories. This idea is discussed here:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/OVERVIEW.html
You got right the Pauli principle issue. The first citation of my previous reply explains it.
Mesons are not elementary particles. Their statistics emerges from an appropriate treatment of the number of each flavor of their quark components.
Agreeing with well established experimental data (as expected from a physicist) one realizes that QCD is erroneous. Hence, gluons and colors do not exist and any treatment of their properties is unphysical.
Unlike electrons in atoms, a ionization of quarks in a proton (and in all other hadrons) requires a very large amount of energy. On the other hand, a quark that is heavily struck (like in deep inelastic scattering) can pick up an antiquark and exit the system freely. Antiquarks can be produced by a pair production process or just taken from the antiquark components readily found in the proton. See also this site: http://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/confinement-asymptotic-freedom/
Cool! The Pauli Principle is NOT violated by quarks without color, if I get you right.
Have you extended this to account for the behaviour and statistics for mesons (and gluons) as well, and rules implied by “color-conservation” as well?
How does your model account for what QCD covers by the concept of “color confinement”? What is equivalent to “no free quarks” (or no free monopoles) in your model?
Let’s leave the question on “generations” to some later time …
Thank you for your questions. This site points out many examples of QCD (and its colors) inconsistency with experimental data. It follows that this theory is incorrect (and there are no colors).
The article http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/dpp_fin.pdf proves that QCD has been created on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the Pauli exclusion principle. Using the well known spectroscopic theory, one realizes that there is no need for colors in order to settle the Delta++, Delta- and Omega- baryons with this principle.
For a dynamical theory that accounts for problems of Strong Interactions, please see this site and also the following article: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/LastWord.pdf
Transitions between generations of particles belong to the realm of weak interactions. The existence of generations and the transitions between particles do not belong to the scope of this site.
How is the concept of “color” and the generations accounted for in this model?