In this web site I tried to show that QCD fails to explain many experimental findings which Comay’s model explains naturally.
However, if you are not convinced, please leave a comment here or send me an email (my email address is on the right panel). If you send an email – I will keep your privacy: your name will be published only if you explicitly allow that in writing.
Please send your most significant reason(s) for believing in QCD and some info about your academic background.
Thank you. Your comments will be highly appreciated!
Ofer Comay
What's inside the Proton? 
Maybe a stupid question: One can read that baryons could contain 3 valence quarks and further inner closed shells of quarks around a monopole core. One can read also the monopole core carries a change of 3g and quarks should carry one g of opposite sign and the total sum of the monopole charge within a baryon is zero. How does this work with mentioned inner shells? How can the sum of g’s be zero with additional inner shells of quarks?
Second question(s): How shall the lagrange density of a baryon looks like? Could the electromagnetic coupling among quarks separated (or neglected) from the “magnetoelectric” interaction with the core? Is it possible to establish an “orbital theory” like for atoms?
Dear Gabor,
The following lines refer to your points.
In principle, the dynamics of strong interactions is dual to that of electrodynamics. The Lagrangian density of the combined system of charges and monopoles can be found here: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/nc84.pdf . For doing actual calculations one needs the specific values of the mass and charge (or monopole) of the particles. The latter quantities are obtained from experiment. As is well known, we can do satisfactory calculations of electronic states of atoms.
The baryonic situation is quite different, primarily because the strength of the elementary monopole unit is much greater than that of the electron’s electric charge. We know for sure that baryons contain 3 valence quarks. Details of the structure of other baryonic components are not well known. For arranging the available information in a certain order the baryonic core is defined in point 1 below and some of its properties are obtained from experiment.
1. The core comprises of the analogue of the atomic nucleus together with all inner closed shells of quarks. This is a definition.
2. The core has 3 units of the elementary magnetic charge and each quark carries a negative unit of the elementary monopole charge. Therefore, an entire baryon is neutral with respect to the monopole charge.
3. The core is electrically neutral. For this reason it has not been detected by electrons.
4. The core contains at least one closed shell of quarks. The closed shell of quarks is a very rigid structure. This rigid structure explains the rise of the elastic and the total cross section of proton-proton scattering (see p. 11 here: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/reviews/rpp2012-rev-cross-section-plots.pdf ). The rise of these cross sections with increasing energy is dramatically different from the corresponding decrease of the electron-proton (e-p) total cross section and of the negligible part of the elastic e-p cross section at very high energy. QCD does not provide an explanation for these data.
Answering points mentioned in the second paragraph of your Comment looks to me as a formidable assignment. Therefore, I wish to say only this:
1. I’m quite sure that the monopole analogue of QED is a much more complicated theory because of the large unit of the elementary monopole. Thus, the usefulness of a perturbation expansion is doubtful.
2. I’m quite sure that the variational principle and the use of a Lagrangian density is the right course for constructing a quantum theory. However, I really doubt the validity of the present form of QED. The following texts explain my view.
A short introductory review can be found here: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/QED_Problems.html
A link to a new paper is http://www.oalib.com/articles/3153913#.VnpSD9J97xh
Cheers, Eli
Ok, then depending on the number of quarks within the inner shells the “very centre core monopole” could contain many magnetic charge units. Correct?
Yes, indeed not even a simple task, when you have to re-visit your old lectures and text-books because the time as active physicist was two decades ago…. 😦
I wish you had a merry Christmas. Wish you a happy new year!
Gábor Törö
With respect to http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/nc84.pdf: In your theory a quarks carries both electric and magnetic charge. The Lagrange function in the paper is for pure electric or magnetic monopoles. Correct?
Dear Gabor,
The answer “yes” refers to the question at the end of your first paragraph.
In my opinion QFT is even more complicated. Note that antiquarks have been directly detected in the proton. It follows that a hadronic state is not just a system of three valence quarks and a core but its wave function must also contain configurations having one or more additional quark-antiquark pairs of various flavor. (It means that a plenty of work awaits for the next generation of physicists…)
Cheers and a happy new year, Eli
I have several questions.
1. You claim: “In fact, W+ mesons are mixtures of several mesons of the top quark (td, ts and tb). Z is, according to Comay, a mixture of tu and tc mesons and the 125 GeV particle consists of tt mesons.” (https://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/elementary-my-dear-w/) The c quark is lighter than the b quark. Why then the Z is heavier than the W? And why there is no spin-0 T mesons?
2. What is your comment on newer EMC effect data (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/53091)?
3. Do the recent proton charge radius measurements have anything to do with your theory?
Thanks in advance for answers.
Dear Anonymous,
1. The data show that weak interactions play a primary role in the decay of the W, Z, and the top quark where channels of flavor change take place. The large width of these particles proves that the weak force is very strong at these energies. Evidently, this force also affects the quantum state of these particles. The electroweak theory certainly cannot explain the data because it suffers from many theoretical contradictions. For a short presentation of just one contradiction of this theory, click the following link http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/PROB_001.html. Therefore, I think that the answer to your question will be derived from a good weak interaction theory. In my opinion, physics badly needs such a theory.
2. Your link to the CERN report says on the EMC effect that it is “a challenge that remains to this day”. This is an example of a strong and authorized refutation of many Standard Model (SM) proponents boasting that SM faces “No confirmed conflicts with any existing experiments!” (see e.g. here https://higgs.ph.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Strassler_Looking%20Beyond%20SM.pdf . One can also find on the web many other unjustified claims describing the SM as a perfect theory. The 80 year old nuclear liquid drop model provides a phenomenological explanation for some nuclear features. The EMC effect tells us yet another aspect of this analogy with liquids of molecules – screening of an electric-like force. See p. 102 here: http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv9i26p93.pdf. The information derived from the 9Be nucleus supports the basis of the liquid drop model idea that nucleons in nuclei primarily interact with their nearest neighbors. Indeed, this table http://ie.lbl.gov/toipdf/am.pdf shows that the 9Be binding energy is the sum of the binding energy of two 4He nuclei + about 1.5 MeV, whereas 8Be is an unbound nucleus. Hence, a description of the 9Be nucleus as a system of two alpha particles + neutron is a good approximation. The CERN document which you mention says about the 9Be data that “the effect follows local nuclear density”. This is in accordance with the nuclear liquid drop model which is based on the idea where nucleons in a nucleus interact with their nearest neighbors. This is yet another support for what I say about strong and nuclear interactions.
3. In my opinion, the proton charge radius problem is irrelevant to my work on strong interactions as well as to the serious problems that I’ve found in the electroweak theory. I think (and hope) that the answer to the new proton radius effect will be found in results of a regular formulation of QED. I’ve made just a hint that pertains to this issue. For reading a short introduction, please click here: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/Gauge_Intro.html. The following link points to further relevant material that I’ve written on this topic: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/Gauge_h.html .
Cheers, Eli
What’s up with that:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141104111150.htm: “Physicists narrow search for solution to proton spin puzzle”
Gábor Törö
Thank you for the link. It is interesting that scientists are still trying to resolve this spin problem. I thought that they forgot about it…
Calculating the spin of the proton requires summing all the following:
– the spin of the quarks
– the orbital angular momentum of the quarks
– the spin and angular momentum of other components of the proton. If one believes that gluons exist – then their spin and orbital angular momentum should be calculated.
The spin of the quarks is known and the orbital angular momentum of the quarks is supposed to be zero according to the assumptions which were made during the sixties. This is why people in the eighties thought that the gluons carry the rest of the angular momentum. If such angular momentum of gluons really exists and non-zero – this means that the gluon structure is not spherical symmetric. This is a surprise.
Maybe you know what is my view about the whole thing. The quarks DO carry orbital angular momentum, and they are not s-waves. This can be explained by the fact that the external quarks belong to an external shell of an atom-like structure of the proton which contains a core which attracts several shells of quarks, and the 3 quarks belong to the external shell.
This explains why these 3 quarks carry orbital angular momentum.
There are other ways to explain the missing spin. I liked the article that you sent me because it shows that scientists do not agree about the sources of the missing spin.
While I have to take some serious time to read into the details, I find your presentation it very convincing at a first glance. Your no-color argument must (if indeed correct) be devastating to QCD, and I wonder why it is not published in a mainstream journal.
Regarding “generations”: while possible a weak interaction issue, it still has bearings for quarks ..
People who are responsible for the publication policy of physics
mainstream journals should be asked questions concerning this
matter.
All quarks carry the same amount of monopole charge. Therefore,
they have the same strong interaction coupling constant. Considering
strong interactions, quarks differ by the value of their mass and of
their electric charge. Due to the quite good isospin symmetry, the
mass difference between u,d quarks is quite small.
This site discusses a theory that supports the unification of strong and
electromagnetic processes. The photon is a common object belonging
to the two theories. This idea is discussed here:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/OVERVIEW.html
You got right the Pauli principle issue. The first citation of my previous reply explains it.
Mesons are not elementary particles. Their statistics emerges from an appropriate treatment of the number of each flavor of their quark components.
Agreeing with well established experimental data (as expected from a physicist) one realizes that QCD is erroneous. Hence, gluons and colors do not exist and any treatment of their properties is unphysical.
Unlike electrons in atoms, a ionization of quarks in a proton (and in all other hadrons) requires a very large amount of energy. On the other hand, a quark that is heavily struck (like in deep inelastic scattering) can pick up an antiquark and exit the system freely. Antiquarks can be produced by a pair production process or just taken from the antiquark components readily found in the proton. See also this site: https://nohiggs.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/confinement-asymptotic-freedom/
Cool! The Pauli Principle is NOT violated by quarks without color, if I get you right.
Have you extended this to account for the behaviour and statistics for mesons (and gluons) as well, and rules implied by “color-conservation” as well?
How does your model account for what QCD covers by the concept of “color confinement”? What is equivalent to “no free quarks” (or no free monopoles) in your model?
Let’s leave the question on “generations” to some later time …
Thank you for your questions. This site points out many examples of QCD (and its colors) inconsistency with experimental data. It follows that this theory is incorrect (and there are no colors).
The article http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/dpp_fin.pdf proves that QCD has been created on the basis of an incorrect interpretation of the Pauli exclusion principle. Using the well known spectroscopic theory, one realizes that there is no need for colors in order to settle the Delta++, Delta- and Omega- baryons with this principle.
For a dynamical theory that accounts for problems of Strong Interactions, please see this site and also the following article: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/LastWord.pdf
Transitions between generations of particles belong to the realm of weak interactions. The existence of generations and the transitions between particles do not belong to the scope of this site.
How is the concept of “color” and the generations accounted for in this model?