In the previous post I mentioned that one of the failures of the standard model is its inability to explain why top-mesons were not found until today.
Professor Matt Strassler addressed this question in his blog  where he offers several arguments regarding this issue. Strassler’s arguments are the well-known arguments of the standard model supporters. My answers below explain why these objections are unjustified.
Argument 1: the top quark decays faster than the time which is required to create a meson.
Answer: a well known phenomenon together with fundamental physical principles put this assertion in question. The particle Δ++ is a baryon which decays into a proton and a pion. The mean lifetime of Δ++ is nearly 5×10-24 sec, which is sufficient for creating pions.
The time required for creating the top-meson is even shorter. The very high energy of the top is followed by a high energy uncertainty. Obviously, the latter is an element of the energy-time uncertainty relations. Thus, the top’s high energy uncertainty indicates that the time needed for the creation of a top-meson is much shorter than the time needed for a pion creation. This argument is supported by the complementary position-momentum uncertainty relations. A higher energy uncertainty entails a higher momentum uncertainty. Therefore the spatial dimension of top-mesons is smaller than that of lighter mesons. Hence, a shorter time is needed for creating a top-meson.
Furthermore, a general rule for a quantum decay process says that the probability of the existence of the initial state decreases exponentially with time. Therefore, there is a probability that several top quarks will live long enough to create a meson. The shorter time needed to create a top-meson implies that non-negligible number of top quarks will create mesons.
Strassler’s argument also violates another important principle of quantum field theory. In a transition between an initial state and a final state, every physically legitimate state can be formed as an intermediate state. Hence, a top-meson can be created by one the following processes:
a) A “bare” top quark is created and if it has not decayed then it captures an anti-quark and produces a top-meson.
b) A bound state of a top quark and an antiquark is produced directly.
Every minute billions of pions are produced in accelerators and in cosmic rays. These pions are produced directly as a bound state of u,d quark-antiquark pair. Therefore, there is no reason to say that this channel is forbidden for the top quark.
Apparently, Strassler misinterprets possibility (a) and ignores possibility (b).
This explains briefly why mesons of the top quark must be found. Therefore, I ask again: where are these mesons?
The standard model doesn’t answer this question. Comay perception, on the other hand, is that the W, Z and the new 125 GeV particle are the missing top-mesons.
There is another strong indication for Comay perception. The W, Z, top quark, and the new 125 GeV particle have a very similar energy width, about 2 GeV. This indicates that their structure may have something in common. According to Comay, the common component of these particles is the top quark and its flavor changing weak decay determines their similar width.
On the other hand, the standard model theoretical prediction of the energy width of the 125 GeV Higgs boson is about thousand of times smaller than the current experimental value which was found by the LHC teams . It is interesting to wait and see if this experimental value will decrease so dramatically after better statistics is accumulated. If it won’t – this will be another proof that the standard model contains serious errors.
Argument 2: the tt meson should have mass around 350 GeV and the new particle is only 125 GeV.
Answer: it is known that the mass of a bound particle is always less than the sum of its constituents’ mass. Let’s see how the meson mass behaves (by the way – Comay’s first work during the 1970s was about building a model that explains meson mass).
The mass of a pion (which consists of a light u,d quark-antiquark pair) is around 135-140 MeV. The mass of another meson, the rho-meson (which consists of a u,d quark-antiquark pair as well), is around 770 MeV. Therefore, we can tell that the sum of the mass of hypothetically free u,d quarks is more than 770 MeV. Furthermore, some mesons that consist of u,d quarks are much heavier than 1 GeV. Therefore, the pions mass is less than 10% of the mass of its constituents. It means that strong interactions consume most of the self-mass of the system’s bound particles.
This mass reduction is typical in the case of strong interactions. It is attributed to the strong bound state of a quark and an antiquark. This binding energy becomes higher with the mass of the quarks. For example, in the case of the electromagnetic force, we know that a muon is bound stronger to the proton compared to the electron in the hydrogen atom, and its radius is smaller. The only relevant difference between the “hydrogen-like muon atom” and a normal hydrogen atom is the mass of the muon relative to the mass of the electron (it is about 100 times heavier). Comay’s strong interaction theory takes the form of electrodynamics. Therefore, if the binding energy of the top-meson is much higher than the binding energy of lighter quarks mesons, the mass reduction of the former should be very significant.
This is why the mass of the top-mesons is significantly smaller than the mass of the top quark.
One more remark: the strong forces provide reasons why the mass of the top-mesons is smaller than the top quark, but that does NOT mean that we don’t need to take the weak forces into account when we try to estimate the mass of top-mesons.
Argument 3: the standard model has a very high predictive success
Answer: I already provided around 20 phenomena that the standard model cannot explain (see here a list and the discussions all over this blog). Some of them blatantly contradict the standard model. When we say something about the predictions of a physical theory, we need to account all the relevant phenomena and not only a partial selection of them.
 Search for the word “Larsen” in his blog and see his two replies.
 See p. 13, fig. 5 at