Some numbers
This blog was started in 2010.
By the end of 2011, 100,000 blog pages were opened by 55,000 readers. 1,100 people downloaded Comay’s scientific article showing that the Higgs cannot exist; most of them are plausibly physicists.
The blog demonstrates 20 phenomena that are incompatible with QCD, which is the currently accepted theory of strong interactions.
These phenomena can be explained by 1 physical theory.
To date, there were 0 scientific attempts to refute neither the claims nor the theory.
| “This is the stuff we’re made of, and it’s showing that maybe we don’t understand it as well as we thought.” Francis E. Close, Science News 1989 |
| “We have this elegant theory of quantum chromodynamics, which is supposed to describe the binding of the fundamental constituents of all matter, but we don’t know how to make it work. We can’t even do something as basic as building protons out of quarks.” Robert L. Jaffe, Science News 1989 |
| “Even now, two decades after QCD was formulated, little is known from first principles about the structure of the nucleons and other hadrons.” Robert L. Jaffe, Physics today, 1995 |
The invisibly obvious
Let’s recall the phenomena which are incompatible with QCD. These phenomena show that it is nearly obvious that the structure of the proton is similar to the structure of an atom with two or more electronic shells. In the proton the quarks play the role of the atomic electrons, and the three valence quarks belong to the outer quark shell.
An illustration of the nucleons according to Comay’s model. In analogy to a noble gas atom, each quark has one negative strong charge unit, the nucleon’s core (blue) has positive strong charge and it attracts the quarks which repel each other. The total strong charge of each nucleon is 0.
The force inside the atomic nucleus
| “Ironically, from the perspective of QCD, the foundations of nuclear physics appear distinctly unsound.” Frank Wilczek, about QCD vs. the strong nuclear force, Hard-core revelations, NATURE, Vol. 445 156 (2007) |
The main features of the strong nuclear force which stabilizes the atomic nucleus, are known for seven decades, but are not explained by QCD. This force behaves very similarly to the force between atoms of noble gas (van der Waals force). According to QCD, it is not clear why nucleons stop attracting each other at a certain distance (unexplained phenomenon #1), it is not clear why they strongly repel each other in shorter distance (#2), and it is not clear why the graph of nuclear potential vs the distance looks like the graph of the van der Waals potential (#3).
| “Currently, the color van der Waals force does not seem to be a correct model for nuclear interaction without modifications.” S.S.M. Wong, about QCD vs. the strong nuclear force, Introductory Nuclear Physics, (Wiley, New York, 1998). p.102 |
Furthermore, the first EMC effect which was found in 1983 is not understood: it is not clear why the volume of nucleons’ quarks is larger inside large atomic nuclei (#4). The analogous effect in the liquid state of a noble gas and molecules is well known.
| “The results are in complete disagreement with the calculations… We are not aware of any published detailed prediction presently available which can explain the behaviour of these data.” J.J. Aubert et al., about the 1st EMC effect, J.J. Phys. Lett. 123B, 275 (1983) |
Furthermore, the nuclear tensor force acts between nucleons similarly to the force that acts between atoms with spin. This force is known since the early days of nuclear physics and is not explained by QCD (#5).
The similarity of the force between quarks and the force between electrons
In the proton, the antiquark is pushed towards the outer region, like in the analogous case in which a positron is pushed away from the atomic nucleus. This phenomenon is unexplained by QCD (#6). The phenomenon where the mean square charge radius of the neutron is negative has the same underlying theoretical basis. This phenomenon is unexplained by QCD as well (#7).
An analysis of the proton form factor shows that the quarks distribution inside the proton is similar to the electrons distribution inside atoms (they have higher probability to be located near the center). In the analogous case, in atoms, this is explained in quantum mechanics by the fact that the attraction force between the nuclear positive charge and the electrons is stronger when the electrons are close to the center. This seems to contradict QCD whose asymptotic freedom implies that the quark-quark attractive force becomes weaker when the quarks are closer to each other (#8).
An analysis of the proton-proton cross section curve shows that the forces between components of one proton and components of another proton are stronger when they are closer. This too is incompatible with QCD (#9).
Furthermore, it was found that the strong force, like the electromagnetic force, conserves charge conjugation and parity. These phenomena, lead to the Strong CP Problem, are not compatible with the Standard Model (#10).
Using QCD laws scientists predicted the existence of several particles and matter states that systematically failed to show up in experiments, like glueballs (#11), di-baryons (#12), strange quark matter (#13) and pentaquarks (#14).
| “The whole story – the discoveries themselves, the tidal wave of papers by theorists and phenomenologists that followed, and the eventual “undiscovery” – is a curious episode in the history of science.” C.G. Wohl (LBNL), a review about the search after the Pentaquarks, 2008 |
QCD cannot provide explanations to the proton spin crisis, which was discovered in 1987 (#15). This phenomenon is explained easily by applying the same laws existing in atomic electrons.
| “In 1988, however, physicists were shocked to find experimental evidence suggesting that very little–perhaps none–of the proton’s spin comes from the spin of the quarks…” Ivars Peterson, Science News 1997 |
| “The proton is complicated, but it is a very, very important object in our lives. It is unsatisfying intellectually that we cannot understand how the inside of the proton behaves.” Emlyn W. Hughes, Science News 1997 |
The interaction with light
Photons interact with electric charges, as every physicist knows for more than 100 years. More than 50 years ago it was discovered that hard photons interact strongly with quarks. This phenomenon is unexplained by QCD (#16). Furthermore, QCD does not explain why the interaction of a hard photon with a proton is similar to its interaction with a neutron, in spite of the different electric charge of their quark constituents (#17).
| “No direct translation between the Standard Model and VMD has yet been made.” H.B. O’Connell, B.C. Pearce, A.W. Thomas and A.G. Williams, About the hadronic properties of the photon, Prog. Nucl. Part. Phys. 39 (1997) |
Proofs of the existence of massive objects inside the nucleons
The discovery by SLAC during the 1970s that the quarks carry only part of the proton mass caught QCD supporters by surprise. They quickly recovered by invoking the idea that the gluons carry the other part of the mass. However, there are many other phenomena that show beyond any doubt that nucleons contain inner massive objects (gluons are not massive objects).
The rise in the high energy proton-proton total cross section shows that the proton contains other massive objects. This phenomenon is known for 10 years now and cannot be explained by QCD (#18). Furthermore, the rise in the elastic cross section shows that there is a massive object that can be hit and it acts like a solid billiard ball without creating new hadrons. This cannot be explained by QCD (#19) because QCD doesn’t allow any massive objects inside the proton, besides the three valence quarks (and the quark-antiquark pairs). In nearly all collision events, these quarks create new hadrons when hit by highly energetic projectiles.
| “The observed excess may indicate that quarks contain something smaller, representing a new level in the composition of matter.” Ivars Peterson, Science News, 1996 (in 1996 there weren’t enough data to confirm this phenomenon which was established only in the beginning of 2000s) |
QCD provides weak or no explanation why a meson, which is a quark-antiquark bound state, is not confined inside baryons (#20).
Let’s stop counting here. Twenty unsolved fundamental questions are more than enough for doubting any theory, including QCD.
The sociological question
Why such obvious failures of one of the most important parts of the standard model are ignored by scientists? Why scientists do not even discuss the most obvious explanation to these failures? Why these failures are known for many decades and still many scientific journals do not publish any theory which is not inline with QCD? Why despite spending billions of Euros every year, basic QCD predictions are not substantiated by experimental discoveries for so many years?
The answer, I believe, is inside the question itself. Particle physicists do not discuss this issue because this explanation is obvious, and because they failed to see it for so many years, and because many of them blocked scientific articles which were against the standard model, and maybe also because they are happy to spend billions of Euros every year.
If you have any idea how to change this reality – I will be happy to listen.
Physicists who wish to read a scientific review about this subject – can read it here: EJTP 9, No. 26 (2012) 93–118.
You must be lawyer. You did NOT answer my points but went off on a tangent of your own devising. You started with the answer you wanted, namely that the multi-body systems are stable, and then claimed that therefore the math is convergent. Of course, these systems are stable, this is the experimental observation. QM is an eigenvalue equation that can be formulated as a differential equation. The point you are avoiding is that the Schrodinger approach to the dynamics results in a multi-dimensional differential equation in 3n dimensions for n bodies, which has resisted solutions by mathematicians for 300 years when n is 3 or greater.
Now, if you would like to address my question directly …
In my earlier replies I’ve made a reasonable attempt to explain how the Quantum Mechanical equation (Schroedinger or Dirac) can be cast into an eigenfunction problem which is time-independent. This point denies completely your last claim where you refer to time-dependent problems and state: “The point you are avoiding is that the Schrodinger approach to the dynamics results in a multi-dimensional differential equation in 3n dimensions for n bodies, which has resisted solutions by mathematicians for 300 years when n is 3 or greater.”
This claim is completely inconsistent with what I’ve tried to explain to you. I’m short in time and prefer to put an end to this discussion.
According to the Standard Model, nucleons involve 3 tightly bound quarks. But since Newton, the 3-body problem has defeated all attempts at exact analysis. Please explain how you can have any confidence in this theory since complexity theory demonstrates that small changes in the numerical values of any of the initial conditions (position or momentum) result in massive changes over time i.e. non-stable solutions. All of this theory has involved uncheckable computer programs running on giant computers.
You made a good question. However, it turns out that you are not acquainted with the mathematical developments called the Wigner-Racah Algebra (and also angular momentum algebra). Never mind. Particle physicists are also not acquainted with this topic. How do I know this fact? One example is that they are perplexed by the “Proton Spin Crisis” (see e.g. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-28-13.PDF).
A complete answer to your question requires an entire book [1] and this blog is certainly not the right place for this task. For this reason, I’ll make only 2 short remarks.
1. Your argument also holds for bound states of atomic electrons where the number of electrons > 1. However, calculations of spectroscopic states of atoms have been performed half a century ago and these calculations yield very accurate results [2]. It means that the Wigner-Racah Algebra provides very useful mathematical tools for this kind of problems.
2. The link shown at the end of the first paragraph of this Reply outlines some details of the calculations that rely on an expansion of the state in an ascending series of configurations.
[1] A. de-Shalit and I. Talmi, “Nuclear Shell Theory” (Academic Press, New York, 1963).
[2] A. W. Weiss, Phys. Rev. 122, 1826 (1961).
Thank you, Eliyahu for your fast response.
Yes, I thought it was a good question which is why I was disappointed by your reply.
You did not address my point about the unsolvable 3-body problem & the wild divergences introduced by computer approaches to this issue. I view the Wigner-Richah algebra as irrelevant to this point: at best these act as a constraint on spin additions but have nothing to do with the detailed dynamics.
Yes, I know my point applies to the He atom (& higher) and I am equally disappointed that physicists have ignored this major problem in their “pursuit of the new” as they left atomic physics behind for the novelty of nuclear physics. I certainly appreciated your specific reference to the Weiss paper as I continue to look for evidence in the atomic realm. My reading of the abstract would indicate that Weiss only calculated the G/S of He, Li & Be but measured energies require differences – at least, from the first excited states. Even worse, these are just ‘form fitting’ (as he refers to a “19-configuration function”). Since the hydrogen atom uses spherical harmonics which form a complete set then ANY 3D function can be constructed empirically from a sub-set of these functions (3D Fourier analysis). This is not impressive – this was done by Hylleraas in 1930 for He. I was expecting a solution of the dynamics or at least calculation of the wave-functions from the physics, not just ‘fitting the numbers’. The Hartree-Fock method is just a crude approximation of the electro-electron interaction.
In your first comment you say: “…complexity theory demonstrates that small changes in the numerical values of any of the initial conditions (position or momentum) result in massive changes over time i.e. non-stable solutions.” You still adhere to this claim in your second comment.
Let me explain briefly why your comment is wrong:
1. The fundamental equation of quantum mechanics equates the time-derivative of a given wave function (multiplied by ih-bar) to the result obtained from the operation of the Hamiltonian on this wave function.
2. For a (relatively) stable system in its rest frame, the outcome of that time-derivative is the energy of the system in this frame. Hence, for a ground state and for excited states of a quantum system, the Hamiltonian’s differential equation reduces to the form of an eigenfunction and an eigenvalue problem which is time independent.
3. The Article mentioned by the link at the bottom of the first paragraph of my first Reply to you explains how, for any required accuracy of the solution, one can cast the differential problem to an eigenvector and an eigenvalue matrix problem. Please, read carefully this Article before answering to this Reply.
4. Since that Article concentrates on angular and spin coordinates, let me add that the radial components of the problem are expanded in the form of a polynomial multiplied by an exponentially decreasing factor. This form ensures the required null value of the wave function at infinity.
These points complete the proof that your comment is wrong. The problem is certainly not an initial value problem of differential equations but an eigenfunction and eigenvalue problem. Hence, your arguments concerning instability of initial value problems are irrelevant to the issue discussed herein. For eigenfunction and eigenvalue problems one can find a solution that satisfies any required accuracy.
P.S. I advise you not to use the Hylleraas method. It works neither for relativistic problems nor for atoms having any number of electrons.
I have read through all of your articles as well as the book a number of times and find it extremely interesting and satisfying.
By analogy to the question of newly-created Mesons being able to escape the nucleon (by virtue of having a neutral magnetic charge), should it not therefore be possible for mesons to spontaneously be generated and emitted at any time, since the 4th quark and associated anti-quark could become a bound pair? Has this been demonstrated experimentally? Is there a flaw in my reasoning?
As well, I was hoping if you could please clarify the point above with regards to the inability of gluons to provide the “missing mass”. While QCD claims that gluons are massless, I thought that they do still have momentum — and their momentum would add to the total mass of the particle.
Thanks again for the website, articles and information.
Thank you for your nice comments.
Particle creation processes abide by the energy conservation law. Hence, your idea holds for hadrons that have the required amount of mass. For example, the Delta baryons disintegrate strongly into a nucleon and a pion, and the K-mesons disintegrate weakly into 2,3 pions (the charged K-mesons disintegrate also into the same charged muon and its anti-neutrino). On the other hand, the proton is stable and the neutron is stable against meson emission.
The rise of the cross-section of energetic proton-proton collision proves that the proton has a core and that gluons cannot explain the effect. See the appropriate discussion in this site and also the following articles:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/LHC_01.html
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V16NO1PDF/V16N1COM.pdf
http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/protonsc2.pdf
If I understand your comment correctly, the bound state of the 5 quarks is a lower energy state than two separate particles of 3 and 2 quarks, respectively. In my mind, this would be straightforward due to the fact that the core charge attracts the 4th quark far more strongly than the anti-quark would, and similarly, the anti-quark has 4 quarks attracting itself (although partially screened).
Subject to conservation of energy, would my conjecture hold? You have brought examples of baryon decay, whereby the energy is made of the particles’ mass. What about kinetic energy? If protons are accelerated or their temperature raised, can they not transfer some of their momentum then into a new meson?
I’ve read that the neutron is less stable than the proton and that it can spontaneously decay into a proton plus anti-neutrino and electron. Is this through a related mechanism?
Thanks again and all the best
The idea of pentaquark has been suggested by QCD supporters that have relied on QCD principles. Hence, a pentaquark is supposed to be a strongly bound state of 4 quarks and an antiquark. The picture is different if the Regular Charge-Monopole theory of hadrons is used (see http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/RCMT.pdf). On the basis of this theory one finds that your idea is incorrect. Here the baryonic core attracts the meson’s quark by the same force as it repels the meson’s antiquark.
Analogous relations hold for the interaction of the baryon’s valence quarks with the meson. Hence, a baryon-meson interaction is a residual effect. The spin-0 of the pion indicates that this interaction is expected to be smaller than that of the deuteron. This conclusion is supported by experiments which show no evidence of pentaquarks. See http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-pentaquarks.pdf.
The idea of kinetic energy conversion into energy used for a particle disintegration is inconsistent with special relativity. Indeed, a disintegration of a massive particle should be seen in every Lorentz frame. Since, it cannot hold in the particle’s rest frame, one concludes that it cannot hold in any frame.
Temperature is irrelevant to a description of the quantum state of an isolated particle.
The neutron disintegration is a weak interaction process. Weak interactions and strong interactions are completely different theories.