An invitation to solve a mystery

We will examine several well known phenomena, some of which are considered unsolved mysteries in physics.

Did you ever uncover the solution to an unsolved problem in physics by yourself? If you have a good understanding of physical issues, then after putting together the facts known by almost every physicist, you have a good chance to find the solution to one such problem by yourself. Just concentrate while you read few pages that contain somewhat technical description.

Ready? Let’s start.

The van der Waals force and the Strong Nuclear Force
The force holding molecules together inside a liquid droplet is called the van der Waals force, named after the Dutch physicist.

The Strong Nuclear Force (sometimes called just Nuclear Force), is the force holding nucleons (protons and neutrons) in the atomic nucleus.

Van der Waals force and the Strong Nuclear force share some interesting features.

Residual forces that vanish in distance
Two of the fundamental forces in Physics, the electromagnetic and gravitational forces, act between bodies, and their intensities decrease progressively and continuously as the bodies move away from each other. Unlike these forces, the van der Waals force, acting between non-ionized molecules, has a particular feature: when molecules are far apart from each other – it cancels out and doesn’t act at all. It only goes into action when the molecules come close to each other. This is a totally different behavior than the common interaction pattern of the fundamental forces mentioned above.

How does this happen? Non-ionized atoms and molecules seem neutral when measured at a distance: here, the fields of the positively charged nucleus and those of the negatively charged electrons cancel each other – a phenomenon called “screening”. See the “naïve illustration” below: the term naïve means that quantum mechanics assigns wave function to every particle, and here we look on the electrons as if they were localized like in the Bohr atomic model.

Fig. 1: A naïve illustration of the “screening effect” in a pair of 2-electron atoms (He). Charges cancel each other when the atoms are not too close.

But when the molecules are close to each other, the electrons in the external shells react to the neighboring molecule and the charge distribution varies. In the new setup, the electron’s energy is lower, and a net attractive force appears. Quantum mechanics provides an accurate description of these forces. Thus, the van der Waals force is strong enough to maintain the molecules in a non-gaseous state at appropriately low temperatures.

Fig. 2: A naïve illustration of the van der Waals force between pair of 2-electron atoms (He). Electrons of one atom are attracted by the nuclei of the neighbor atom.

Similarly, the force holding the nucleons together, the Strong Nuclear Force, is indeed very strong, but it is quite weak in comparison to the Strong Interaction force holding the quarks together inside the nucleon. Another interesting feature of this force is that as the two nucleons move away from one another, this force ceases to apply. Here too, this phenomenon contradicts the attraction laws of electromagnetic or gravitational fields, in which the force decreases progressively when distance grows. In the case of two nucleons – the attraction between them cancels totally when they move away from each other.

Both forces are now called in the literature “residual forces”, because they are significantly weaker than the basic forces from which they derive.

The characteristic of the nuclear force to stop operating at a certain distance, is called “cutoff” and has no theoretical explanation admitted by the physicists’ community.

Another characteristic of molecules in liquids is the familiar phenomenon of being incompressible, which means that a liquid’s volume hardly decreases when pressure is applied to it. In fact, the liquid’s specific volume is almost constant, because when two molecules move one toward the other, they first feel attraction, but at a certain distance, strong repulsive forces appear. Quantum Mechanics provides an explanation for this attraction and repulsion. These repulsion forces are very intense, easily resisting pressure, and the system thus reaches an equilibrium, in which the liquid maintains a quasi-constant density even when pressure goes up. Moreover, the molecular density of a given liquid is independent of the number of molecules.

A similar phenomenon is the density of nucleons inside the atomic nucleus. One could assume that neighboring nucleons attracting each other could get closer to each other as the number of nucleons increases. But this does not occur – the nucleon density in a large nucleus is almost identical to that in a small nucleus (with the exception of very small nuclei).
This phenomenon doesn’t have an explanation either.

The volume of external electrons
The volume of the outer electrons of a molecule inside a droplet is bigger than their volume in a free molecule.

Fig. 3: A naïve illustration of larger volume of the external electrons in liquid helium, caused by the attraction of electrons to the nuclei of neighboring atoms.

This is a quantum mechanical effect explained again by the interaction between nuclei of one molecule and electrons of another molecule. The molecules are thus partially overlapping each other when they are in a liquid droplet.

A similar phenomenon was found in nucleons. In 1983, experiments discovered that the volume of the nucleons’ quarks is bigger inside a heavier atomic nucleus. This effect is called “The first EMC effect”; and it has been bewildering physicists until today, since there is no explanation that is admitted by the entire physicists’ community[1].

Distance dependence of the potential
The solid line in the following graph represents the distance dependence of the force potential between two neutral molecules [2].

The following graph looks almost identical. It describes the distance dependence of the Strong Nuclear Force potential [3]:

As far as we know, this similarity between the graphs was never adequately discussed in the literature of physics.

Let’s compare

Electric field within a liquid droplet Strong interaction inside atomic nuclei
Holds electrons inside the molecule by means of a relatively strong force Holds quarks inside the nucleon by means of a relatively strong force
Holds molecules within a liquid droplet by means of a much weaker force (the van der Waals Force) Holds nucleons inside the nucleus by means of a much weaker force (the Strong Nuclear Force)
Not felt by molecules when they are far apart from each other Not felt by nucleons when they are relatively far apart from each other
Liquid molecules have a quasi-constant density The nucleons within the atomic nucleus have a quasi-constant density
The volume of electrons of a molecule inside a liquid droplet is bigger than that of a free molecule The self volume of nucleonic quarks inside a heavy atomic nucleus is bigger than that of the deuteron (The first EMC Effect)
The graph describing distance dependence of the force potential looks like a Ski Jump The graph describing distance dependence of the force potential looks like a Ski Jump

It turns out that the characteristics of the atomic nuclei are amazingly similar to those of liquids, if we substitute a droplet by an atomic nucleus, molecules by nucleons and electrons by quarks.

Before you go and invent a model that explains these results, let me point out two well known facts. First, most of the mass of the molecule resides in the atomic nucleus. The second fact, discovered in the 1970s, is that more than one half of the nucleons’ mass is not carried by the quarks of the external shell of the nucleons.

Until here, anyone who successfully completed a physics undergraduate degree would probably agree.

And here is now your chance to solve these mysteries. Take a short break, and find by yourself what the structure of the nucleon is and what kind of forces hold the quarks together.

The solution
If you got this far, then it may well be trivial to you. All is needed is to assume that every nucleon has a core that strongly attracts the quarks, and that quarks repel each other. This completes the analogy between the Strong Interaction and the Electric Force and their corresponding residual forces (the Nuclear Force and the van der Waals force). This model of the nucleon is supported by the experimental evidence revealing that less than half of the nucleon’s linear momentum is carried by quarks, implying that the nucleon contains another kind of physical object.

Can it be so simple? The nuclear liquid drop model has been known for over 70 years now, just like the analogy mentioned above between the van der Waals force and the Strong Nuclear Force. But, for some reason, physicists did not go one tiny step further, which would be to assume that the nucleon too has a core (nucleus), allowing for an equivalent construction of the Strong Nuclear Force, in analogy to the van der Waals force, and the analogy between the laws of the Strong Interaction and those of Electrodynamics.

In fact, until today, the question how the strong interaction explains the strong nuclear force is listed as one of the important unsolved problems in physics.

The historical events that brought this blackout
The 20th century witnessed the development of a branch of Physics called Quantum Mechanics, resulting in major technological breakthroughs. In the 1950s and 1960s, physicists were aware of two particles the existence of which was considered impossible according to Quantum Mechanics. These particles were Omega– and Delta++.

It was already known back then that protons and many other particles are composed of smaller entities, the quarks. Omega– and Delta++ were known to be composed of quarks as well, but the quark combinations and their properties did not seem coherent. At that time, it was not known that the quarks carry less than half of the proton mass and the first EMC effect was not known either. Physicists were sure that the quarks are the only massive objects inside the proton.

The existence of Omega- and Delta++ seriously challenged the knowledge acquired till then, seriously enough to motivate scientists to concentrate their efforts on the development of a new physical theory, based on a series of fantastic assumptions, describing forces and particles unlike anything known up to that point. The theory, called QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), a central pillar of the Standard Model, won an unshakable status already back in the 1970s, in spite of a long series of incompatibilities with experimental findings (described in this website).

The missing link
Eliyahu Comay was studying during the 1960s at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where the eminent physicist Yoel Racah, who passed away in 1965, was a revered figure. The Physics study program at the Hebrew University was particularly focused on the theory Racah developed in parallel with Wigner. Comay recognized, already during his first PhD work in the early 1970s, that Omega– and Delta++ can be naturally explained by the theory developed by Wigner and Racah, in combination with Quantum Mechanics basic laws. Comay also realized that the masses of particles composed of quarks were consistent with Quantum Theory’s ordinary laws, established since before the invention of QCD.

But at this point he stumbled on an unexpected obstacle: scientific journals refused to publish his papers! He ended up renouncing and moving on to a different area, Nuclear Physics, studying the atomic nucleus. He completed his studies in this area and continued working in this field throughout his scientific career. It may have been his proficiency in the nuclear physics field that brought him to notice Standard Model’s Achilles Heel, and in particular its inadequacy to correctly describe the forces inside the atomic nucleus.

In 1983, Comay made an astonishing discovery, playing a critical role in describing the quarks’ physical properties. This discovery allowed him to develop an alternative model, explaining familiar phenomena in an amazingly simple way, including phenomena which contradict the Standard Model.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that it has never been contradicted or refuted, Comay’s theory was never brought up for a serious discussion.

Since almost 40 years the Standard Model has been taught at universities as an unshakable truth. As a consequence, two whole generations of physicists grew to consider the Standard Model as fundamental truth requiring no proof, and ended up spending all their time and energy creating theories beyond it.

The scope of Comay model
The experimental findings below are explained in Comay model. These results do not have accepted explanation, and they seem contradicting the standard model (all the terms here will be explained later in this website):

– Increase in very high energy proton-proton elastic cross section
– Protons and Neutrons behave similarly when a hard photon hits them
– Protons and Neutrons interact strongly when a hard photon hits them
– First EMC effect
– Proton Spin Crisis
– Strong CP Problem
– Similarity of the potential vs distance graph of van-der-Waals and strong nuclear forces
– Nucleons within the atomic nucleus have a practically uniform density
– The nuclear tensor force and its sign
– Antiquarks have a larger volume inside nucleons
– The neutron’s negative electric charge tends to be found in external regions
– Pentaquarks were not found
– Strange Quark Matter was not found
– GlueBalls were not found
– Mesons are not confined inside the nucleon

Comay model explains more findings that do not contradict the standard model, although some of them do not have an explanation yet:

– Dirac monopoles were not discovered
– Linear momentum of quarks is 45% of the proton momentum
– Confinement
– Properties of the Omega– and the Delta++ baryons
– The three jets experiment
– Meson radius relations
– The relation between the proton volume and pion volume
– Problems with mass differences between mesons and baryons
– Strong force stops operating in a certain distance (cutoff)
– Baryon conservation law

Most of Comay work was conducted and published during the eighties and nineties. A concluding article that summarizes most of his findings regarding his model was published in 2004 [4].

Now, after you just solved several unexplained phenomena in physics, it’s time to study the basics. In this website we will cover in popular language many topics, some of them are highly advanced, in Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, Wigner and Racah calculus and their tremendous impact on the strong force, and more. This will enable us to understand the solution of more than dozen unsolved problems listed above; some of them belong to the list of the most important unsolved problems in physics. Further, we will try to explain the historical events that brought the Particle Physics to this bizarre situation.

[1] J. Arrington et al., J. Phys. Conference Series 69, 012024 2007
[2] H. Haken and H. C. Wolf, Molecular Physics and Elements of Quantum Chemistry (Springer, Berlin, 1995). P. 15
[3] S. S. M. Wong, Introductory Nuclear Physics (Wiley, New York, 1998). P. 97
[4] A Regular Monopole Theory and Its Application to Strong Interactions, Published in “Has the Last Word been Said on Classical Electrodynamics?” Rinton Press, NJ, 2004 (


39 thoughts on “An invitation to solve a mystery



  2. The new toilet will go a little bit about your
    budget. Contractors Liability Insurance together [Also known as fix and sell! There are various reliable sources of information to help out with management provide reporting. An electrical installation, internal trim together with the small contractors gained? What are the cost of the system for use in pouring and finishing the first undertake itself.

  3. I need to input, like a bunch at the same time as I hadn’t the benefit of examining everything you had to declare, I couldnt rally round on the contrary elude draw your attention before long. The as if you needed an excellent grasp on the subject efgagdbabdee

  4. The apparent anomalous phenomena sited above, are only anomalous as the result of the misinterpretation of Einstein’s equation by himself and by everyone since. Quantum Mechanics is on the right track but this misinterpretation and the resulting, subsequent errors in the Standard Model are the cause of the conundrum.

    When it is finally understood that Einstein’s equation is not a measure of how much energy is converted from matter but instead how much energy is held and resident along with matter, the answer to these and many more mysteries in Physics and Cosmology will become transparent, e.g. why electrons pair-up in superconducting superconductors, why the universe is continuing to expand and what the universe looked like the instant before the Big Bang, to mention a few.

    Best regards

  5. You might just find it weird & reductive as well, but in my thought “gravity” plays a role much more consistent than any scientis has ever considered or accepted . I think scientists are a little victim of their own experimental overwievs & that some more detachment from experimental appearances
    would be very desirable . Regards

  6. Quarks have electric charge. Their distances from each other, are much smaller than distances between electrons and the nuclei. There is no strong and weak force. There is only one force which varies by the distance between the charges. Quarks can only occupy some certain positions with respect to certain time intervals such that they allow the creation of the huge forces between nucleons. Nucleons are not sub-atomic particles but sub-elementary. There are no sub-atomic particles, since if they were, the meaning of atom would be illogical. Please stop calling atoms the elements. How come the elements of the periodic table can also be called atoms? The atom is a material substance which is undividable. Please respect Plato who said that “the naming of beings is not accidental”.

    Thank you ,


    • Are you saying that the atom is a singularity, and therefore cannot be divided? If that were true, splitting the atom would have no more efffect than to make two smaller pieces; both still being “atoms.” This is not true. Also, to state definitively that “There are no sub-atomic particles..” is short-sighted – literally & figuratively. You can theorize the truth in that statement, but as science has proven time and time again: that which is known, seemingly as a basic fact, is simply a way station until the next bit of new information enters and alters our perception, hence, allowing us

      to “see” that which had been previously unknown to us. This is the very
      nature of Science. No field of science allows for stasis.
      Quantum mechanics hypotheses are so new to mankind in the grand
      scheme of things. So the less you convince yourself that you “know”
      anything in this field, the more likely it is that you will actually discover the next step in our awareness, moving mankind forward – bit by bit.

      something reasonable enough to be considered by the world of scientists

      as being worthy of allowing it to be a place keeper held for

      Plato, one of the great philosophers of his era, was just that – a philosopher. He was not a scientist. And in the case of “naming beings” (he was speaking poetically), the naming is totally “accidental” as it is CHOSEN – sometimes for obvious reasons, e.g., after the name of the person who discovers something; sometimes out of necessity for exactitude and clarity; and sometimes as a lark, e.g., “charmed” quarks.

      • P.S. The above posting composed by Gloria Ionosphere was met, in the writing, with considerable technical problems on this site, causing some confusing word placements and obscuring the content and flow of thought.

      • The meaning of the word atom, a word which originates from Hellenic language is undividable, it is something that can not be divided by any way or means. Just think: Can you divide an electron? Can you divide a quark? As you know, electrons belong to the group of leptons and quarks form neutrons and protons. How come a material substance like the element of carbon consisting from 42 particles (3X6+3X6 = 36 quarks and 6 electrons) can be called in the periodic table element and in the books atom?
        Regarding Plato, yes he was a scientist. He was a mathematician and he had good knowledge in geometry. The 5 Platonic solids named after his name. This is one of the reasons that Plato did not permit the entrance in his academy to any student who did not have good knowledge of geometry. This can be proved from the inscription, which was above the entrance of the Athenian Academy writing: “ΜΗΔΕΙΣ ΑΓΕΩΜΕΤΡΗΤΟΣ ΕΙΣΙΤΩ” meaning “no entrance to the ones who do not know geometry”.
        Also, as you might know, Plato initiated the world to the “theory of ideas”, a very important theory which helps us to understand that everything comes from the perfect world of ideas and it can be formed in the material world. This is true, because even matter is considered to be very concetrated energy. There are no perfect forms in our material world. Close your eyes and open the third. You can see a perfect sphere and a perfect cube. What you actually see, lies in the world of ideas “the Platonic world”.
        You must realize that with the word atom, I do not disagree that we can cut many material particles to even smaller ones. The atom is one very – very tiny particle, which cannot be divided anymore and the idea of the atom is concieved by the ancient Greek philosophers Democritus and his teacher Leukippus 23 centuries ago. You will also realize that the quantization of time (Planck time) implies the quantization of matter, thus the atom.

        Thank you for attending,

  7. Mr Comay, have you read Nassin Harameins unorthodox theotries? He won a physics prize for contemplatin that in fact theres no such a thing as weak and strong force, instead what holds atoms togehter is gravity. He porposed theres a mini “black hole“`at a subatomic level in the center of the nucleuos which would then hold it all togther by gravity. Amongs other things… have you heard of him and whats your opinion on his theories?

    • I will send your comment to my Eliyahu Comay. However, note that Comay theory is very close to what current physics says about the structure of matter – it contradicts only QCD and coherent with almost all other parts of the main stream particle physics.

  8. This is a reply to Collins’ comment, Nov. 18.

    Quantum mechanics (whether weird or not weird) is the best theory for describing the behavior of microscopic systems. Nobody has shown a better theory. One should also be aware that even a composite massive particle like the neutron demonstrates wave properties. See e.g. Please also note that the people who have built this site agree to the standard principles of Quantum Mechanics. Therefore, arguments trying to challenge Quantum Mechanics will generally be left without a response from the site’s organizers.

    Everybody knows that nuclei do not “drop to the bottom”. A physical explanation of the inapplicability of such a drop is as follows: The system “wants” to be in a state of minimal energy (because, with respect to the electron excitation energy, room temperature effects can be ignored). Now if nuclei “drop to the bottom” then electrons will be repelled out of the system by both their Coulomb repulsion and by the Pauli exclusion principle. The net result of such a “drop to the bottom” is ionization of all atoms. This is certainly not a state of a minimal energy. For this reason there is no need for “nailing” the nuclei to the center of the atom. Indeed, even a small translation of the nucleus, without dragging the electrons with it, means an increase of the electronic energy (and a parity violation as well).

    Mathematics has been proven to be a useful tool for calculating systems of not too many electrons in atoms and molecules. It is obvious that the corresponding problems of strong interactions are by far more complicated, because here relativistic effect cannot be treated as a perturbation. On top of that, an important part of this site is dedicated to the claim that QCD, which is the presently accepted strong interaction theory, is incorrect. Obviously, one must have a correct theory before starting to apply numerical analysis techniques. Problematic aspects of QCD are discussed in many places of this site. For reading an article proving that QCD has been constructed on an incorrect basis, see

  9. So, Mr. Collins, it appears that on November 18th you were drawn to the question of what lies OUTSIDE the nucleus to keep it in place – as exemplified by your metaphor of nails to a block of wood in order to kep it in place…
    Those “nails” could, at the very least, start on the exterior and move inward. OR they could just as reasonably be stationed as 3 equidistance points existing totally on the exterior of the nucleus, but so close as to be considered part of the nucleus, i.e. the noted “shells,” but ultimately NOT part of the nucleus itself.
    It is this line of thinking – focused on exteriors vs. interiors – that will surely pull all quantum thought processes into a fundamental, united direction, exposing answers that will show us how to successfully observe then conclusively evaluate the significance of the ever-changing, hidden worlds of interiors. After all, it is the outside of any infrastructure that is first observed thus bringing about the foundation of thought that can carry our curiousity to relevant and chohesive interior observations and reflections. You can’t simultaneously see or comprehend a whole cookie if you are only focusing on the mutable chocolate chips within in order to define it’s essence.
    Sincerely, G.I.

  10. Interesting… the concept and the rebuttals.

    I don’t have enough education to comment further except that I have always questioned “particle” physics because of the simple idea that anything that occupies 3 dimensional space has shape and anything that has shape must have ever smaller “parts” and there is no end to it. (I don’t accept a quantum “particle” as a physical particle, just a mathematical way of dealing with energy/mass.

    But if one assumes that “particles” are “bubbles” within some unseen matter/energy which has no smallest size and easily fractures into a fractal reality, then there is no longer the “problem” of shape.

    I’m just saying.
    regards from Butch

    Interesting article.
    Butch Butch News

  11. You wrote:

    The characteristic of the nuclear force to stop operating at a certain distance, is called “cutoff” and has no theoretical explanation admitted by the physicists’ community.

    The strong force is limited in distance because the force exchange particle has non-zero rest mass. The distribution of the interacting virtual exchange particles follows the Heisenberg uncertainty limits, which also limits how far away the force can reach d(mv)d(x)<h/2pi d(E)d(t)<h/2pi. Simply put, the bigger the total energy of the exchange particle the smaller the time it can be in transit away from the nucleus, and with velocity below the speed of light, the shorter the distance it can be away from the nucleus. When the exchange particle has non-zero rest mass, that establishes a lower limit on the total energy and hence an upper limit on the distance the force can be felt. Electromagnetic force, using the zero rest mass photon as an exchange particle, has no such distance limit.

    • Either of the following arguments suggests that your claim is theoretically unacceptable.

      1. This idea has started with the Yukawa work published more than 70 years ago. At these times nucleon were thought to be Dirac particles. Now it is known that nucleons are composite particles that contain quarks. Hence, an assumption used by Yukawa does not hold.
      2. You suggest that the force carrying particle(s) are mesons. In a Yukawa like theory they are described by a quantum function of the form psi(x^\mu). This function depends on a single set of space-time coordinates. Therefore, this quantum particle must be pointlike. Now, all known mesons are composite particles made of a quark-antiquark pair [1]. Hence, they cannot be correctly described by a quantum field function of the form psi(x^\mu}.
      3. The real Klein-Gordon theory is wrong [2].
      4. The complex Klein-Gordon theory is wrong [3].
      5. The Yukawa-like theory has no repulsive potential. Hence, the only repulsive force is associated with the uncertainty principle and the kinetic energy. Therefore, in a non-relativistic nuclear system it must behave like 1/r^2. The data shows that the repulsive part of the nuclear force behaves like 1/r^n, where n>>2 ([4],p.97).
      6. A Yukawa-like force cannot account for the nuclear tensor force (see [4], pp. 68-71).
      7. The nuclear force resembles the van der Waals force. The latter is derived from a quantum mechanical treatment of the electronic structure of neutral molecules. By the same token, one expects that the nuclear force be derived from an analysis of quark constituents of nucleons. This requirement cannot be satisfied by a new kind of force carrying particle (which has no theoretical basis).
      This site discusses QCD problems. One of these problems is related to the last point.
      [1] K. Nakamura et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010) and
      [2] E. Comay:
      [3] E. Comay, Prog. In Phys. 4, 91 (2009) (See the first 4 sections.)
      [4] S. S. M. Wong, Nuclear Physics (Wiley, New York, 1998).

    • The concept of “cutoff” is gaining popularity in cosmology. Assuming “cutoff” occurs with respect to gravity, it is possible to achieve results for some galaxies that closely matches the data and is a better fit than assuming the presence of dark matter.

  12. Ofer; You mentioned the acceptance of wave-particle duality due to the photoelectric effect and the electron. Let me show why you should reconsider. I explore a famous beam-split test of the photon: a photon should go one way or another at a beam splitter. I do it with the singly emitted gamma-ray of Cd-109 and two scintillation detectors, a thin in front of a thick one. Pulse heights are windowed to the characteristic of CD-109. Surprise! We read coincident detections far beyond chance. Two for one! Photon model fails. I explain it with the long abandoned and banished to blasphemy, loading theory, also known as the accumulation or trigger hypothesis. An hf of energy is emitted in a burst but energy may be absorbed continuously. I explain why the loading theory was prematurely dismissed. My experiments were repeated many ways, and I also split the atom (alpha-ray) similarly. It is all on my website.

  13. “The 20th century witnessed the development of a branch of Physics called Quantum Mechanics, resulting in major technological breakthroughs. In the 1950s and 1960s, physicists were aware of two particles the existence of which was considered impossible according to Quantum Mechanics. These particles were Omega– and Delta++.”

    Omega (Ω) baryons are baryons containing neither up nor down quarks. The first Omega discovered was the Ω−, made of three strange quarks, in 1964.[1] The discovery was a great triumph in the study of quark processes, since it was found only after its existence, mass, and decay products had been predicted by American physicist Murray Gell-Mann in 1962. Besides the Ω−, a charmed Omega particle was discovered, in which a strange quark is replaced by a charm quark. The Ω− decays only via the weak interaction and has therefore a relatively long lifetime.[2] Spin (J) and parity (P) values for unobserved baryons are predicted by the quark model.[3]
    Since Omega baryons do not have any up or down quarks, they all have isospin 0.

    • The remark is correct but irrelevant to the discussion. The issue is the quantum mechanical structure of the Omega- and the Delta++ baryons. The quantum mechanical state (J=3/2 and even parity) of these particles is characterized by 3 identical Dirac particles (quarks). Experience with this kind of problem has been acquired a very long time ago [1]. In principle, the state is defined as a linear combination of n-particle states called terms. Each term is built from a configuration. Unfortunately, particle physicists are unaware of this part of physical knowledge. This point is evident in [2] as well as in many other texts, where it is stated that it is “impossible” to build an antisymmetric state having J=3/2 and even parity from 3 identical Dirac particles. This is simply not true (see for example [3]). The reader is also strongly advised to read the page “Wigner, Racah and the Quarks” on this website.

      It turns out that this lack of knowledge has led Particle Physicists to construct QCD. This site points out many examples showing inconsistency of QCD with experimental data. Another aspect of this lack of knowledge is the prolonged “proton spin crisis”.

      [1] A. W. Weiss, Phys. Rev. 122, 1826 (1961).
      [2] F. E. Close “An Introduction to Quark and Partons” (Academic press, London, 1979). (See bottom of p. 338).

  14. Comay’s Van der Waals description goes part of the way to explaining the change from Quantum behavior in a single atom, to classical behaviour in a cluster of three or more atoms: parts of a single atom can fly to and from another Galaxy in an instant, yet in a large cluster the other atoms hold those parts in a low-energy state at an average location for that cluster.

    Can the models explain the changes in nuclear behaviour, which requires that the nucleii of atoms must somehow become linked to their neighbours.

    Does anybody have an idea how this might arise?

    • The idea that “parts of a single atom can fly to and from another Galaxy in an instant” is unacceptable without any doubt.

      The van der Waals force has been explained in the early days of quantum mechanics, where a system of electrically neutral molecules has been examined. Now, the approach supported in this website, regards that quark dynamics is analogous to electrodynamics and baryons have a structure analogous to a non-ionized atom. This approach makes an important step towards having an explanation for the similarity between the inter-molecular force and the inter-nucleon force as an effect stemming from the similarity between the dynamics of these systems.

      • Thank-you for your response, Sir, your site is awe-inspiring.
        When I wrote that, I was thinking how the inertia-less Heisenberg uncertainty and Schroedinger clouds place no limit on the extent of the bell-curve. Perhaps I should have said that information can travel quickly.
        The message I wanted to convey was that Quantum physics can be really weird:- Schroedinger’s multiple states, electrons split into two, Q-tunnelling, Q-dots, Q-computers, Q-encryption and cracking, and time travel of entangled photons have each been demonstrated.
        But the weird quantum behaviour has been found to diminish and vanish as one, two then three atoms join an isolated atom. (Bose-Einstein clusters are an exception).
        These phenomena are seen in Photons and Electrons, but they beg the question – Do nuclei and their components have Quantum weirdness?
        (2) We were taught in Science that an atom consists of a Nucleus, with electrons circling;
        We than meet the Bohr model to explain the onion-style shells at specific locations;
        Then we learn of spherical s-shells and dumbbell-like p-shells;
        We never really hear much about the nucleus. It is clearly not nailed in the centre, so what keeps it there?
        Please imagine an atom in solid hydrogen with its spherical electron cloud; The electrons of a given atom are held in place by the average statistical positions of it’s neighbours
        so why does the weighty nucleus stay so close to the centre of the atom – why does it not “drop to the bottom”? (and perhaps stick to a circling electron?) In analogy to the Van der Waals explanation, there seems to be a requirement for confining (repulsive?) forces as well as attractive forces, or else standing waves clamping it.
        If there was only attraction, if the nucleus dropped, it would draw the electrons down, which would pull the nucleus harder downwards.
        Many comments on this site express a suspicion that everything (including the vacuum) is wave. If waves were found to be nailing the nucleus, it might lead further along the path.
        Whatever it is that has the effect of nails holding the nucleus in position just might provide us a new means of investigating a nucleus: looking at the positions of three nail heads can show where a block of wood is.
        If a low-energy way of investigating the workings of nuclei was developed, it might allow investigation of the Comay models.
        NMR opened up some valuable tools (including magnetic resonance imaging); can we go further?
        I am not sure that mathematics alone can portray the complicated interactions of neighbouring atoms, electron distortions and shielding, nuclear VdW forces, baryonic VdW forces and sub-baryonic VdW forces; I wonder if a Finite Element Analysis is up to the task, or is something else required?

      • Sorry, Where I said VdW forces, I should have said “Liquid drop model” , which is applied to inter-molecular and inter-nucleon scales. I was trying to use this style of thinking for the inter-atomic scale which is between the other two sacles. If a nucleus was held by an empty-space counterpart, the same model might be shown to be very widespread indeed.

  15. I like your site and approach to problem solving: get people to ask questions and think! I am not a trained physicist but I am college educated (Mechanical Engineer) and a good problem solver. If science teaches us anything it is that nothing is ever completely known and today’s theories will be replaced by tomorrow’s. Q: Is QCD correct? A: As the current leading theory, yes, that is until a physical phenomenon it can’t explain is observed. I am sure this will happen in time. I will post the results of my investigations into this mystery as they develop.

  16. I find your analogy with liquid to be VERY interesting since I(and a friend who I’ve since lost contact with, unfortunately) have been working on fleshing out a hypothesis/theory that states that we live in a wave-only universe, not one made of particles as we’ve been led to believe; I know I’m not the only one as I know that Carver Mead has bee working on the same ideas as well as many others. The reason why the liquid analogy is interesting is because it’s in liquids that you can actually visualize the effects of waves. For example, imagine a still body of water. Now, drop a pebble and watch the ripples. Now, drop two pebbles at the same time but in different places, and pay attention to the interference pattern from the two waves. The pattern has more than a striking resemblance to the current model of the atom.

    If you take that a step further and find a wave simulation program(there’s one written in Java online..I forget the site though, sorry), you’ll find that a 2-source wave interference pattern resembles the images(depending on the angle from which you’re viewing the wave) on the right for the “Probability densities corresponding to the wavefunctions of an electron in a hydrogen atom”.. . This is relevant because the hydrogen atom rarely has only one electron in its outer shell and usually has 2…as in 2 wave sources..

    Sorry if I’m not very clear here. I’m writing in a bit of a hurry so I’m skipping over topics. Anyway, I will be reading more of your work, it looks promising.

    • Quantum mechanics accepts the particle/wave duality of a quantum mechanical object and the fact that such an object interferes with itself. This point of view is shared by most (if not all) physicists and by me.

      The wave only idea is inconsistent with the photoelectric effect and with the existence of the electron.

      The nuclear Liquid Drop Model is a model and not a theory. It provides a good description of some features of nucleon states in nuclei.

      • The “photoeffect” can be accomodated by appealing to wave interaction over a finite time interval (Thom Smid in suggests that it is a time interval of 10^-8 seconds).

  17. Rereading the material, you note similarities throughout to liquids. Id like to pose you a thought. What if all existence is phenomena within something which has essentially the characteristics of a liquid substance at its triple point?

  18. But, what if Quarks are a misconception?
    If they are, then what is the “Strong Nuclear Force.” and is the supposed force for the same reason as the VanDerWalls “Forces” from some other
    un-noticed reason?

  19. Sure. My name, Ofer Comay, is written in various places in this site. I am the son of the physicist Eliyahu Comay, who developed all the physics behind this web site. To learn more, you are invited to look for “Eliyahu Comay” in wikipedia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s