All the works in physics presented in this web site were developed by Eliyahu Comay.
Eliyahu Comay (born 1932) is a theoretical physicist. All along his career he remained true to his beliefs and did not hesitate to cast doubt on common scientific beliefs. Many of his scientific articles contain predictions, which contradict the wall to wall consensus that prevailed within the particle physics community.
To cite only a few of them we would mention that he predicted that the Higgs particle, Dirac monopoles, glueballs, strange quark matter, pentaquarks, di-barions and the electric Aharanov-Bohm effect would not be found.
To this date, none of his predictions was refuted.
The author, Ofer Comay (born 1957), has an M.Sc. degree in mathematics from Tel Aviv University. Along with his father, Eliyahu Comay, he founded a software company which specializes in document image understanding.
Ofer likes to play with the amusing sides of mathematics. He was the world champion in chess problem solving (3 times). When he was young he won the Israeli Olympiad for Youth in mathematics (organized by Weizmann Institute). His hobby is to compose chess problems and mathematical riddles.
No, mathematics is a young person’s game because each area of math is highly self-contained & can be readily mastered (a finite set of rules).
In contrast, physics is a game for mature minds with a broad experience & knowledge of both experiments & theory. This is why theoretical physics today has been driven into a dead-end with no clear direction forward; it has been hijacked by 4 generations of mathematicians (since Planck).
I believe you.
Can I ask you a few questions for clarification?
Titkosbalint@gmail.com
Sure
Part of my carreer I worked with lenses. I analyzed and designed light lenses as well as particle lenses and cooperated in the establishment of the standard for specification and measuring the Optical Transfer Function (OTF, MTF).
In this standard we had to cope with the fact that the light rays and particle paths were curved and with the fact that the blur of point images (the point spread function, PSF) was not spatially invariant. Thus these lenses did what the gravitation field registrates, they curve space. However, here no masses are involved, but just fields created by electrodes or inhomogeneous condensed matter in the form of a mixture of glass and air.
with other words, the cause of curvature is not located in the mass of matter, but in the fields that go together with that matter. Fields are quite capable of creating local space curvature. In these lenses there is no sign of existence of Higgs bosons. Still they appear to work properly.
Ofer Comay born 1957 and, even worse, Eliyahu Comay born 1932
Theoretical physics is a young person’s game who are at the forefront of knowledge and creativity.
Great sight, very informative. Thanx
Some Reflections on Natural Processes, Mathematics, Economics, and Art Not Strictly on your Topic of KG and Higgs Internal Consistency
Physicists borrow mathematics to construct internally consistent models that explain observations of natural processes. These models may then be used to design further experiments which may be interpreted as confirming (increasing the confidence in) the model. Or, we may not be able (now or ever) to interpret the observations in a way that is consistent with the mathematical model. But physical reality is never wrong and the mathematical model must either be improved or abandoned when it cannot be made consistent with experiments.
Applied mathematics is a product of the human mind and its skilful development and use is learned only through long practice informed by those that have gone before. Fundamentally, building useful mathematical models is an art requiring skilled trial and error guided by intuition based on experience. Kepler tried several models before discovering that he had incorrectly eliminated the “correct” one which is now accepted because it predicts the position of planets accurately, but more importantly because his orbits are internally consistent (even required by) Newton’s gravitational dynamics. The interpretation of experimental results using mathematical models the use of these interpretations to make economic decisions concerning what experiments should be done is no more rigorous than any other art.
Are not some of the most fundamental advances in physical science due to the demonstration that accepted mathematical models are not fully consistent with experiments, or at least not the most elegant (simpler) model? The ancient Greeks used epicycles to explain planetary motion. This could be regarded as an anticipation of Fourier decomposition, a method now known to converge to a good match between predictions and any observations. The real flaw in epicycles is that they merely deal with angular position (kinematics) which is vastly inferior to the dynamical and physical models provided by Newton, Copernicus etc. It seems to me that there are as many theories about physical dynamics (at very high energies) as there are physicists. Should we not search for evidence that current ideas are incomplete and not just conduct experiments to confirm predictions of current models? How else can we choose among confliction opinions?
A mathematical equation never proves anything about physical reality. It’s just a model that makes predictions. If an equation (such as KG), when applied, predicts that a class of particles cannot be observed and one such particle is in fact observed, then after a period of reflection and confirming observations, the model must either be reinterpreted, modified or abandoned. But such a particle can never be observed unless the community of scientists makes a weighted economic decision based on state of the art collective knowledge to conduct classes of experiment that may produce unexpected results (as well as other more routine advances and refinements). The evaluation of work done at CERN and the wisdom of economic decisions made there can only be made in hindsight. All the rest is speculation based at best on the assumption that we already know the results of experiments at untested energy levels that have not been done yet. The history of particle physics suggests that unexpected observations will be made at untested energy levels, a fact that an experienced poker player would find most interesting when betting in the future success of experiments at CERN.
I, too, feel there is no chance of the Higgs Boson being found. This, however , is because I feel that the entire Standard Model is based on misconceptions piled upon misconceptions to where it is the modern equivalent of the Geoecentric Model of the Universe.
I think that Quarks are a misinterpretation of an observational phenomenon, and gluons, gravitons, etc. are pure fiction. To me, the “Four
Forces” likewise consist of two misinterpretations and two total fictions and that the “fundamental particles” that arise from atom smashing would make a lot better sense as alternate states of matter…
O.K. , My ideas may all be an old man’s “Cracked Pottery.” I’ve posted a lot more of it on the Google Group site, Oscillator/Substance Theory…. Dean L. Sinclair