Which Theory is Better?

The Strong Interaction as it is conceived by Comay’s model and by QCD is fundamentally different. Comay’s model is based on the Regular Charge Monopole Theory and describes every nucleon as having a massive core attracting quarks to it, in an analogy to the attraction exerted on electrons by the atomic nucleus. The QCD nucleon has no core, and the force operating between the quarks is attractive. Let’s try to find out which of these theories is more plausible.

The theory which better corresponds to experimental findings
QCD provides no explanation to some aspects of the similarity between the Nuclear Force and the van der Waals Force, as shown by the potential curve of these forces. QCD explains neither the constant density of nucleons in nuclei nor the first EMC effect. All of these characteristics are naturally and straightforwardly obtained from Comay’s Model. In order to explain the residual nature of the Nuclear Force, QCD further suggests that the force acting between the quarks inside the nucleons within the atomic nucleus arbitrarily ceases at a certain distance, without explaining why, whereas Comay’s model naturally explains this phenomena by the screening effect, which is a well known feature of electromagnetically neutral systems.

QCD offers no explanation to some of the Strong Interaction’s fundamental characteristics, such as the intensity of the interaction between energetic photons and nucleons, and the similarity between the behavior of protons and neutrons when they are hit by an energetic photon. Comay’s model provides an immediate explanation to these phenomena, describing the quarks as magnetic monopoles obeying the Regular Charge Monopole Theory. Furthermore, it is not clear what explanation QCD could provide to account for the deuteron’s tensor force. Comay’s model provides an immediate explanation here too, considering the quarks as magnetic monopoles.

QCD offers no explanation for the antiquark’s peripheral location inside the nucleon, or to the fact that negative charge tend to be located at the neutron’s external regions. Both these features flow directly from Comay’s model describing the attraction-repulsion forces between the quarks, the antiquarks and the nucleonic core. Furthermore, QCD explanation to the confinement effect seems to be incorrect, because in a situation that “everyone attracts everyone”, it is unclear why mesons are not confined inside the proton.

QCD does not provide good explanation for the findings suggesting that nucleons have a non negligible core: the major part of nucleons’ momentum is not in the quarks we know. The argument that gluons carry the missing momentum is unnatural and was invented retroactively, when it turned out that the known quarks do not carry the entire momentum. In addition, the increase in the cross-section curve of collisions between energetic protons, measured during the last decade implies that there is a non trivial core inside the proton. Comay’s model provides an immediate explanation to these phenomena. Furthermore, there are other phenomena supporting the existence of a massive core within the proton, such as the ratio between the radii of corresponding baryons and mesons, and the mass ratio of corresponding baryons and mesons.

QCD predicted the discovery of several particles and entities such as strange quark matter, pentaquarks and glueballs, which have never been found in spite of multiple endeavors over a few decades. Comay’s model implies that these objects simply don’t exist.

Being a part of the Standard Model, QCD predicts strong CP violation which doesn’t occur. Comay model explains why CP violation cannot occur in strong interactions.

QCD explains the quantum states of the Omega minus and the Delta++ baryons by adding a new degree of freedom to the Pauli exclusion principle. In so doing it ignores the existence of multiple configurations inside the proton that explain these particles’ state by ordinary quantum mechanical laws. However, the fact that the Proton Spin Crisis was not resolved, and that this crisis can be resolved immediately by using multiple configurations, make the whole point of view of the community questionable.

Which theory is founded on more plausible grounds
Back in the 14th century, the Franciscan monk William of Occam formulated an intuitive rule of thumb, “Occam’s razor”, for the comparison between theories explaining phenomena. According to this rule, one should always prioritize the simpler theory between the two. That is, the theory based on a smaller number of new assumptions, and which is closer to established theories known as valid, would be preferable.

Comay’s model has several assumptions. It assumes that the Variational Principle is valid for magnetic monopoles. The Variational Principle has been known for centuries, and has been used in Mechanics, Electromagnetic theory and Quantum Mechanics way before Comay conceived his model.

Comay’s magnetic monopoles’ properties derive from this principle in agreement with the Maxwell Equations and the Lorenz Force, admitted by the entire scientific community. Comay’s Strong Interaction’s model assumes that inside the baryons there is a core containing 3 units of magnetic charge, and each of the quarks inside the baryon has a negative magnetic charge of a magnitude of 1 unit. In analogy to the structure of electrons inside the atom, Comay suggests that this core has inner quark shells. In agreement with experimental results, Comay assumes that the elementary charge unit of the magnetic monopole is significantly larger than the elementary electric charge unit. These are the only assumptions Comay makes.

QCD, on the other hand, claims that the force between the baryonic quarks is a force of attraction. QCD analysis shows that this force increases as quarks move away from one another. This is contrary to any other known natural elementary force. Furthermore, in order to explain familiar experimental results, QCD states that this force ceases its action at a certain distance with no theoretical explanation for this interruption. Relying on the Yang-Mills SU(3) theory, QCD further assumes that in Strong Interaction, 3 colors play the role of charge, an unpaired phenomenon in physics. In addition, according to QCD, isolated particles must always contain an equal amount of the 3 colors (they are therefore called “white particles”). Particles which would contain an unequal amount of color cannot exist separately and cannot be measured by the instruments. This prohibition equally has no equivalent in physics. Another QCD hypothesis is that its basic charge units are significantly larger than the electric charge unit.

Additional phenomena explained by Comay’s model
A model requiring a smaller number of assumptions, and providing explanation for a larger number of phenomena, is naturally more convincing. On the other hand, a theory based on a large number of adjustable free parameters, ready to be adapted to the discovery of new experimental facts, naturally seems weaker.
Whereas other phenomena predicted by Comay’s model do not contradict QCD, they naturally flow from the model without any additional assumptions, further supporting its validity.

And indeed, we noticed that radius of mesons and baryons are compatible with Comay’s model: K+, for example, is smaller than Pi+, and Sigma- is smaller than the proton.

The significance of the model’s smaller number of assumptions and of its predictive capabilities
The most significant difference between QCD and Comay’s model is that Comay considers the Strong Interaction as analogous to another well-known force, the Electromagnetic Interaction, whereas according to QCD, the Strong Interaction is a force of a new kind related to the Yang-Mills group SU(3). In order to define this new force, QCD founders made up new mathematical structure and equations. Considering that the Strong Interaction has no parallel in nature granted QCD theoreticians with great liberty to invent new laws in order to retroactively explain experimental findings.

QCD developers took great advantage of this freedom. For example, when the dibaryons they predicted were not found, they came up with an argument to explain why dibaryons cannot exist. When it was discovered that known quarks carry less than a half of the proton’s momentum, QCD conceivers decided that the massless gluons, which are undetectable in direct measurements, carry this momentum.

In spite of these degrees of freedom, QCD does not provide an explanation for many findings quoted here, some of which seem to present a blatant contradiction to the QCD theory.

Comay’s model, on the other hand, is based on a small number of hypotheses, with almost no degrees of freedom. And indeed, Comay’s model states that the Strong Interaction is analogous to the well-known Electromagnetic force. According to Comay, the major difference between the Electromagnetic force, to which electric charge is associated, and the Strong Interaction to which magnetic monopoles are associated, is the order of magnitude of the basic charge unit. For this reason, many effects we know from the electromagnetic forces are expected to have an analogue in systems ruled by the Strong Interaction.

Therefore, it would only take to discover pentaquarks, strange quark matter or glueballs, or to show by measurements that the K meson radius is larger than that of the pi-meson, or to prove the monotonic decrease of the proton-proton cross section at high energies, or to come up with an opposite sign of the tensor force, in order to contradict Comay’s model; and the same would apply if antiquarks were not pushed toward the proton’s periphery, or if quarks did carry the entire proton momentum, or if strong interactions cause CP violation. The validation of a single one of these phenomena as well as many others mentioned in the articles brought to you in this website, often breaching the wall-to-wall consensus of the physicists’ community, would bring to the collapse of Comay’s model.

So, was he particularly lucky, or does he present a valid physical theory after all?

The legend of Standard Model’s precision
An equation predicting a specific phenomenon with a high level of precision greatly impacts our conviction of the validity of the theory behind it. The Dirac Equation, for example, predicts phenomena with a precision of between 4 to 6 decimals. Field Theory increased this precision in many cases up to over 10 orders of magnitude. We consider this level of predictability as a decisive proof for the validity of these theories, established long before the appearance of the Standard Model.

Wikipedia’s definition of “Standard Model” states that the Standard Model is “successful in explaining a wide variety of experimental results”. Many websites attribute an amazing precision of many decimals to the Model’s predictions. This “mantra” is proclaimed in almost every corner of any physics journal.
Before going on, let me remind the reader that it is not the entire Standard Model that is challenged here, but mainly QCD, which constitutes a significant part of the model.

The QCD Wikipedia entry reveals the following fact, contradicting the “mantra”:
“Quantitative tests of non-perturbative QCD are fewer, because the predictions are harder to make. The best is probably the running of the QCD coupling as probed through lattice computations of heavy-quarkonium spectra. There is a recent claim about the mass of the heavy meson Bc [4]. Other non-perturbative tests are currently at the level of 5% at best.”

The limited amount of measurable physical predictions is due to QCD’s complication level, but even these few possible predictions have a rather high error rate.

In the past, there were theories with much higher precision, like the Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model, that have been abandoned and better theories replaced them. Moreover, the quite large number of QCD failures described in this website cast doubt on the scientific merits of its claimed successful examples.

Predictions
Having made this comparison, one could think that the scientific community would donate all the scientific literature dealing with QCD to Sciences History department. But past experience shows that scientific revolutions are usually a long, hard and painful process.

Therefore, in order to go one step at the time, and to provide QCD fans with the opportunity to get off their tree, Comay makes a large number of predictions, most of which contradict the existing model [1]. Of particular interest are his predictions regarding the Sigma+ baryon’s charge radius and pion collisions, which can be tested with the means we have today. QCD had to stretch a great deal in order to adjust itself to the results obtained from bombarding baryons, because according to QCD baryons have no other massive components except the quarks. Hence QCD attributes the missing baryon momentum to the massless gluons. A similar experiment conducted on pions instead of protons, may show that gluons have no impact on the momentum, and provide insight on the role of gluons in carrying the proton’s momentum. Furthermore, when results will show, as we are sure they will, the decrease of the pion-pion elastic cross section with increasing energy, in opposition to what is observed in protons, physicists may finally start to grasp that there are additional massive particles inside the proton.

The historical argumentation
One of the central questions which surely crossed the reader’s mind, is how come a whole scientists community, most of which are undoubtedly gifted and even brilliant, stick to a theory which is shown here to be filled with holes like a sieve. The unshakable confidence of the scientific community in QCD greatly intensifies the reader’s faith in it. Therefore, the historical explanation plays a significant role in understanding this situation, as we tried to illustrate here.

In this matter, it is important to understand that the knowledge we gather about the particles composing the proton increases as particle accelerators reach higher energies. In the 1930’s protons and neutrons were considered to be elementary particles, and Yukawa’s theory was meant to explain only one rapidly decreasing attraction force. When quarks were discovered in the 1960’s, Schwinger tried to check if quarks could be magnetic monopoles, but trapped as he was in Dirac’s monopole theory, he ended up rejecting this possibility. QCD, which was developed in the 1960’s, was founded on the assumption that external quarks were the only massive particles in the proton, leading QCD theoreticians to describe only the attractive force between the quarks. Comay’s theory, published in the 1980’s and 1990’s, drowned in a sea of publications of all kind, including papers of scientists searching for non existing materials.

Only recently, in the beginning of the 21st century, particle accelerators reached a high enough energy to provide sufficient unshakable evidences for the existence of additional massive objects inside the proton. It may be about time to recognize these evidences, instead of inventing yet another artificial explanation from scratch.

[1] http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/Predict.pdf

Advertisements

One thought on “Which Theory is Better?

  1. Looking the material over. I can’t say that I like either one. Comay uses less assumptions than does QED, but does not totally discard the Standard Model ideas which I consider, shall we say, founded on errors piled on misconceptions. He also comes up with magnetic monopoles which I feel are impossible.

    Comay’s Theory is, perhaps slightly better, but, only in the sense that I’d probably rather have a wormy apple for dinner than a totally rotton one….

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s