Dr. Eliyahu Comay is a theoretical physicist, born in 1932. In the course of his scientific career, he has researched and delved deeply into fundamental questions of physics, constructed and developed a new model that he published as a series of articles in scientific journals. Comay’s model explains the structure of protons and neutrons and the forces at work inside them, known as strong forces.
In the 1960s, it became clear that protons and neutrons contain three particles called quarks. Comay contends that in the same way that an atom is composed of a nucleus pulling electrons together to form a shell structure, protons and neutrons also have an analogous component, called core, that pulls quarks into a shell structure, and the three quarks belong to the outer shell of the proton and the neutron.
In many ways, this model differs greatly from the model known as quantum chromodynamics (QCD), which is part of the standard model accepted by particle physicists. According to QCD, there are no massive particles other than the quarks inside the proton and the neutron, which are bound together by other particles known as gluons.
The interview below consists of several conversations with Comay conducted in 2010 and combined into a single article.
Current scientific literature presumes without a shadow of doubt the correctness of the standard model. Why do you doubt it?
The standard model is actually a combination of a number of theories, some of which I find excellent. My model focuses on an understanding of the structure of protons, neutrons and strong forces, which is very different from QCD. With regard to QCD in particular and physics in general it is important to understand that the validity of a physical theory becomes questionable if it is associated with proven failures. It would seem that there is a very large collection of experimental results that either contradict QCD or, at the very least, have yet to be substantiated by it.
The main thing that has remained unexplained for the past eighty years since protons and neutrons were discovered is the nature of the active forces between them, known as strong nuclear forces. Even now, it is not clear what holds the proton and neutron together within the atomic nucleus, and nuclear physicists rely on phenomenological formulae that bear no relationship to QCD. Leading scientists have stated openly in scientific articles and even in textbooks that the behavior of the forces between protons and neutrons contradicts QCD.
And what is the position of today’s scientists on this question?
The scientific community considers it to be an “open” problem, meaning one that has already been awaiting resolution for decades, ever since the creation of the QCD model in the 1960s and 1970s. My model offers a solution to this problem.
Is it normal to wait such a very long time for such a fundamental question to be resolved?
I don’t think so, and history shows that when a viable theory comes up, it is normally confirmed after just a few years of experimental work. That’s how things evolved in the case of the Dirac equation that was published in 1928 and analysis of its possible solutions prompted speculation on the existence of antimatter. The projected theory was confirmed four years later. The same thing happened when the theory of quarks was published by Gell-Mann and Zweig. At the beginning of the sixties, based on this theory, Murray Gell-Mann and Yuval Ne’eman predicted the existence of the Omega-minus particle. This particle was found just a few years later.
What other phenomena are unexplained?
In the experiments that were carried out at CERN in the eighties phenomena were discovered that remain unexplained until today. One, known as the “First EMC Effect”, indicates that for the proton and the neutron, quark’s volume inside the nucleus of a large atom is greater than inside a small one. The other phenomenon, known as the “Second EMC Effect” or latterly as the “Proton Spin Crisis” reveals that the total spin value of a proton is much greater than the sum of the spin values of the quarks that comprise it. These phenomena are still awaiting clarification within the QCD model context.
Does your model explain these phenomena?
Yes. For the first EMC effect, the explanation is implicit in the nature of my model. Regarding the proton spin crisis, I have a little story. Already in the 1950s it became evident that the structure of electron shells in an atom is very different from what intuition might lead one to believe. Even in its simplest case, at the ground state of the helium atom that has only two electrons, a single electron actually belongs to several different types of configurations. This seems strange and almost inconceivable, but the mathematical evidence of it was demonstrated by Nobel Prize laureate, Eugene Wigner and Israel Prize winner, Yoel Racah. In the late 1950s, early computers have provided an explicit proof of this point. The same mathematical reasoning was later extended to apply to the shells of protons and neutrons within the atomic nucleus. I investigated this approach in greater depth while preparing my second degree thesis at the end of the 1960s, when I applied it to light atomic nuclei.
In conclusion, had scientists also applied this proven knowledge to quarks, they would easily have solved the problem of the proton spin crisis. Furthermore, it can be stated that if the second EMC work would have shown that quarks carry the entire proton spin then this result should have been regarded as a failure of quantum theory.
Are there any other phenomena that challenge the standard model?
There are many more unexplained phenomena that appear to counter the QCD approach. Some are labeled exotic, and these include the rising cross-section in proton collision confirmed in experiments conducted about ten years ago, electric charge distribution of a neutron, proton antiquark volume, the proton form factor, the strong CP problem, and more. All these phenomena are easily explained by my model.
There is also a new set of matter states predicted by QCD but not discovered. These include “glueballs”, “strange quark matter”, di-baryons and pentaquarks. According to my model, these matter states simply do not exist and that is the reason that efforts to detect them failed. It would certainly be true to state that if the existence of any one of those matter states is proven, my model will be invalidated.
There are many more phenomena that can be explained using my model, and which do not contradict QCD. Some are differently explained by QCD.
On the other hand, there is another fascinating group of phenomena that do contradict QCD. These are connected with photons – a type of particle that people call “light” and the properties of which we think we know well.
Forgotten Facts about Light
Thousands of electrically powered devices, such as mobile phones, radios, TVs, are all based on our understanding of the nature of light, are they not? What more is there to learn here?
True – Maxwell’s equations formulated in the nineteenth century, the photoelectric effect explained by Einstein at the beginning of the twentieth century, and quantum physics that was mainly developed during the first half of the last century, contributed significantly to our understanding of the properties of light. Today, we know that light is made up of particles, known as photons, which interact with electric charges. When a ray of light hits an object, that photons that comprise it hit the electrons in the object’s matter, the electrons absorb energy from the photons, because the electrons are electrically charged. That is the reason why we feel warm in sunlight. The functioning of many instruments relies on this principle.
However, fifty years ago, it became evident, surprisingly, that photons had other properties hitherto unknown. It was discovered that a photon not only reacts to an electric charge, but also to a powerful active force within protons and neutrons. In fact, if the photon is sufficiently energized, then its interaction with the quarks is much stronger than the known electromagnetic interaction described earlier.
Strange. Actually, Wikipedia does not mention this photon property.
Correct. I’m coming to that. There is a coded reference to it – it is called the “hadronic properties of the photon”. When it was first discovered, the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) theory was posited as an attempt to explain it. According to VMD, photon is actually a superposition of what is known as a “pure electromagnetic” photon and another particle composed of a quark and an antiquark. Some of the measurements that are relevant to the effect appear to be compatible with the VMD theory. However, this approach has major flaws – serious enough to warrant its removal from textbooks. In fact, the phenomenon itself is no longer even mentioned in basic textbooks in libraries today. In the 1960s, when I was a physics student, this phenomenon was starring in the curriculum. Nowadays, all that remains is a footnote saying that it does not conform to the standard model.
So, we are left, today, with no explanation for one of the most central phenomena in the world of physics that deals with one of the most fundamental particles in nature, the photon.
Just a moment. Before we discuss your model and the properties of the photon – how can such a fundamental phenomenon be ignored in current teaching?
I suppose it’s human nature. Actually, I’m not sure whether any of the phenomena that contradict QCD are taught in universities. You can’t really blame the lecturer – what is he supposed to tell his students? Should he tell them that there is an unexplained phenomenon and then just move on? Or should he perhaps offer an absurd explanation, and then go on to show its fallacies? I guess it’s easier to simply ignore the phenomenon altogether. To my mind, this represents a major weakness in the system – generations of physicists are being educated to believe the standard model is flawless. For example, on the website of a physicist from the Weizmann Institute I saw a statement saying that there is not even the slightest hint of a flaw in the standard model. In my opinion, such statements demonstrate ignorance on the part of today’s scientists.
The Short Memory of Particle Physics
This complete confidence in the standard model is common to almost all the scientists in the field. For example, in 2008 a symposium was held prior to the experiment in LHC, Switzerland. Martinus Veltman, recipient of the Nobel Prize for breakthroughs in another field connected with electroweak interaction, said that if the upcoming experiment revealed only the Higgs particle and nothing else of interest, then the department of particle physics could be closed as we will know everything and there will be no need for further research.
Even though Comay’s assertions are made with the caution appropriate to a scientist, if there is substance to his claims, then the particle physicists, who represented some 100 governments worldwide and were allocated a budget of billions of dollars to conduct the greatest scientific experiment in history, suffer from serious repression syndrome. He talks about a very large number of phenomena that challenge a central part of the standard model, which the scientists consider to be true without any question, and in respect of which conflicting scientific papers are refused publication by many scientific journals.
I have cross-checked information from a variety of sources to validate the claims. I met twice, each time for several hours, with a senior professor who has dedicated decades of research to QCD-related fields (and I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to him for agreeing to cooperate with me even though he was aware of the context of my investigation). Additional sources that I checked included published scientific papers, particle physics textbooks, Wikipedia – which publicly exposes the accepted scientific line of thought, and surfing of global physics student forums through which I gained insight into the knowledge of today’s students.
The following were my findings.
I began my investigation by checking the list of the main known phenomena for which, according to Wikipedia, no scientific explanation is available. In the field of particle physics, Wikipedia presents eight such phenomena, five of which are QCD-related. This seems somewhat suspect, and possibly indicative of a weak link in the standard model.
The most serious QCD challenge, by any measure, appears to be presented by a series of phenomena connected with the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons within the atomic nucleus. In 2006, a breakthrough was attempted that has, as yet, yielded no results. In 2007, Frank Wilczek, recipient of the Nobel Prize for his work in the field of QCD, dared to speak out stating that the QCD model appeared to contradict the basic manifestation of nuclear forces. He further expressed the hope that the new effort would resolve this conflict. Furthermore, the proton spin crisis, strong CP problem, and other questions of predicted matter not found were included in Wikipedia’s list of important unexplained phenomena. So, let us assume that these phenomena are known, and have been studied and analyzed.
I checked out the situation regarding another large group of phenomena that, Comay claims, are inconsistent with the QCD model. What I discovered was a fascinating sociological phenomenon.
The fundamental phenomenon of which Comay speaks is the interaction between photons and quarks (known as the “hadronic properties of the photon”.) This was discovered at the end of the fifties, when it caused a storm in the scientific community. Today, reference is made to this phenomenon only in a single, vague sentence in one of the more obscure entries of Wikipedia, today’s most comprehensive encyclopedia. In a random library sample of four comprehensive textbooks that should include the phenomenon, no mention of it is made. In a review paper published in 1997, apparently the last that made any reference to the phenomenon, a statement appears to the effect that no way has yet been found to integrate it into the standard model. When I asked a QCD expert about the phenomenon, he racked his brains and recalled it only after a while, demonstrating that it does not fall within the general frame of reference of his work.
To emphasize the importance of the phenomenon to the non-physicist reader, light interacts with matter in two ways: interaction with an electrically charged object like an electron or with something else in quarks that is distinct from their electric charge. Many electrical devices, such as radios, TVs, microwaves, DVDs, GPS and mobile phones are based on the first type of interaction. Does it make sense that practically no physicists should recognize the second kind of interaction?
Another phenomenon involving rising cross-section graph in proton collision was initially exposed in a study of cosmic radiation and confirmed about ten years ago by Tevatron (the Illinois particle accelerator). Comay contends that this phenomenon is further incisive proof of existence, in addition to the known quarks, of other massive objects in a proton. This experimental result challenges QCD theory, and fits his model. I found no reference to it in scientific textbooks or papers published by consensus scientific media. You can find an unannotated version of it in the results list of the Particle Data Group (PDG), which is the appointed approval body for particle physics experimental results. The physics professor whom I interviewed said that he knew of an attempt to explain the phenomenon with “pomerons”. Pomerons are massive particles without charge the existence of which was predicted in the 1950s by Pomeronchuk, an Ukrainian scientist, but of which there is, as yet, no experimental proof. Anyway, this explanation also contradicts QCD, so it cannot be a saving factor in that context.
The first EMC effect stunned physicists in 1983 and remains unexplained to date. A single line in Wikipedia currently recognizes the existence of such a phenomenon but offers no explanation of what the phenomenon is. Second degree-level particle physics students have heard of the phenomenon but cannot explain what it consists of. Occasional articles are published on the subject, so one must presume that at least it has not been forgotten by senior scientists.
The nuclear tensor force phenomenon has been known already for over seventy years, and efforts to explain it have failed. Descriptions of it in nuclear physics textbooks do not include any theoretical explanation of the nature of this force. These days, the particle physics scientists, whose task is to explain it, ignore it, even though it remains an open issue, as admitted by the professor whom I interviewed.
Another phenomenon that challenges QCD has a very strange background. The “proton form factor” concept is related to quark distribution within a proton. Also, electron distribution within an atom is a known quantity derived from quantum theory equations and undisputed by physicists. It seems, in the case of the atom, that the electrons have a higher probability to be found near the nucleus, and scientists all accept this fact based on formulae that relate to electrical forces and quantum mechanics. In the case of the proton, experiments have shown that quarks demonstrate a very similar tendency to be found near the center of the proton. This behavior is described in textbooks, but without drawing the obvious conclusion that a similar force controls the behavior of quarks within a proton as the force controlling electrons within an atom – perhaps because such a conclusion would contradict the “asymptotic freedom” characteristic of QCD. Apparently, no attempt has been made to resolve this conflict.
Other phenomena that, according to Comay, challenge the QCD model, like electric charge distribution within a neutron or antiquark volume within a proton, are mentioned in textbooks but without any explanation, and there is no reference to their theoretical basis in scientific papers or in Wikipedia.
Let’s continue with the interview.
You stated that physicist were not aware of the fallacies inherent in their model. What problem does this present?
This is the root of the problem. In order for the scientific world to progress, it is very important to know what is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt and what carries even the slightest shred of doubt. I’ll give you an example. Sometimes I am asked to provide an opinion about some scientific articles – sometimes by scientific journals and sometimes by individuals who send me their papers directly. I admit that if I receive an article that rejects quantum mechanics or special relativity, I look for the first fault in it and pass it over.
Now, imagine what happens when a scientist takes a look at my work, either in the pages of a scientific journal or in the context of a journal’s request for a professional opinion before publication, and he has to decide whether there is some substance to it. He immediately sees that my paper negates the QCD model or, in other words, a major part of the standard model. I would guess that my paper is immediately disqualified, simply because the scientist in question has no idea of how far the QCD model actually is from reality. This is why the preservation of knowledge is so critical for the scientific progress, even when the knowledge we are preserving relates to the failures of the theory of physics that we advocate. In the case of QCD I have no doubt that science is simply not functioning as it should.
What Dirac Missed
Okay. Let’s return to the previous topic. Is your model connected in any way to the photon property that has been wiped from the consciousness of physicists?
In my model, the interaction between the photon and the quarks is a fundamental principle. In fact my model cannot be justified without this phenomenon. Not only does it provide explanations for phenomena that appear to be well explained already, like the “three-jet event”, but it also provides explanations for phenomena that are thought of as enigmas, like the nuclear tensor force. But above all, this principle is an integral part of the theoretical infrastructure of my model, and its derivation is based on purely theoretical research without the use of any specific experimental data whatsoever. That’s a story that began eighty years ago.
In 1931, Dirac – one of the great physicists of the last century – wrote a paper in which he described an as yet unobserved particle: the magnetic monopole. The particle is actually a single-pole magnet. I believe that Dirac understood the importance of this particle, and felt it must be a central factor in nature. In his paper, Dirac described the properties of the particle. He was a young physicist, who had already made a huge discovery, known as the “Dirac Equation” which earned him the Nobel Prize. From the time of publication of his paper about monopoles up until the final years of his life, Dirac continued to research the monopoles despite the fact that their existence has not been proven by any scientific experiment. Towards the end of his life, however, Dirac lost faith in the existence of monopoles that behave in the way that he had described in his paper of 1931.
In the early 1970s, when I was researching the strong force properties as part of my doctoral thesis preparation, I had the idea that protons and quarks did indeed have the same structure as the atom and electrons, organized around a particle that attracted them. However, I lacked two things to complete my theory. The first thing was that I did not understand the structure of the strong force formulae. The second thing was this: within the framework of the theory that describes the electrical forces, the photon plays a central role. If the strong force resembles an electromagnetic force, then what is the corresponding particle that fulfills the role of the photon? Finally, I abandoned the subject and completed my doctorate on a nuclear physics subject.
At the beginning of the 1980s, I spent a number of years at the University of Michigan, and while I was there, by some coincidence, an article was published reporting the detection of Dirac monopole. Soon after that, it became evident that the report was based on an incorrect experimental conclusion.
The subject attracted me, and I invested all my energy in it over a period of several months. I returned to Dirac’s original article, and understood that he had based it upon an unnecessary assumption. I took the liberty of marking a little X beside the part of his theory that was built upon this assumption. Then, I tried to develop the monopole equation without it, basing my calculations instead on a different assumption that was natural and well known in physics, called the “variational principle”.
After several months, I managed to construct a new set of monopole formulae. Based on these new formulae, the monopoles demonstrate a new force without any direct interaction between ordinary electromagnetic forces and the forces generated by the monopoles. The only relationship between them is that both electric charges and magnetic monopoles interact with the same photon.
As soon as I had worked out the formulae, I was hit with an insight like a lightning force – the quarks were actually those monopoles, and interaction of the photon with the quarks could be directly derived from those formulae!
The first thing that I tried to do was to suggest to a colleague of mine that we go over the subject together. However, he did not cooperate with me; the paper presenting the mathematical basis of the subject was published almost a year later, in 1984.
How did the scientific world react to this discovery?
Zero. Scientists completely ignored the subject. Since then, I have published many articles that complete the model. However, although no one has refuted my arguments, the scientific world continues to ignore them.
How can that be? If your model solves so many problems in current theories – why do they continue to ignore it?
I have been battling with this question now for almost thirty years. It seems there are factors involved that are beyond science. I attribute this to a number of basic reasons: one may be my own inability to explain myself in simple terms, another, my failure to recruit colleagues as partners, and the main reason, the intrinsic dynamic of the community of physicists dealing with this scientific field. There is a prevailing practice that significantly diminishes the extent to which the field is open to critical examination of ideas.
And what about Dirac? Did you turn to him?
Following the publication of my paper on the subject in 1984, I planned to write a letter to Dirac enclosing a copy of my work. Just to remind you, at that time there was no accessible and rapid Internet as there is today. I remember how, when I packed a copy of my work into an envelope, I happened to spot a newspaper with an account of the death of Dirac. I never knew him personally, but that was a great personal shock for me.
Do you think he would have supported your theory about monopoles?
That is a hypothetical question, but I hope and am fairly certain that he would have done so. Dirac was not a Yes-man. In 1978, he made a speech in which he attacked the standard model, saying that physics needs to be based on a good mathematical foundation.
So what is the benefit of the QCD theory, in your opinion? Is it perhaps a more natural theory than yours?
On the contrary, the forces described by the QCD model are based on assumptions that have no parallel in physics. The strange structure of the QCD model was entirely invented to explain properties of particles, such as Omega-minus, Delta-plus-plus and Delta-minus. Its creators thought that those particle properties contradicted the accepted quantum theory. However, that assumption is completely wrong. These particles are easily explained by applying the theory of Wigner and Racah to the quarks.
Now it’s my turn to ask: what are the odds that QCD which includes so many new and unparalleled assumptions, and was invented for the sole purpose of explaining particles that do not require explanation, will turn out to be correct, in the end? The experimental results prove over and over again that it is incorrect.
The Fiasco that Gave Rise to the QCD Theory
The story of the three particles, Omega-minus, Delta-plus-plus and Delta-minus, triggered the birth of QCD. The quantum mechanics and the quantum field theory developed in the last century were extraordinarily successful up until the 1950s and 1960s, when these particles were discovered. In the view of scientists, the energy of these particles was far less than expected. For the scientists, this discovery really shook the entire foundation of the previously established quantum theory. One book that describes the birth of the QCD model and explains why QCD is necessary calls the behavior of this trio of particles the “fiasco” of quantum physics.
To explain the “fiasco”, books offer simple “arguments” that appeared to demonstrate that the properties of the particles defied the Fermi-Dirac statistics and the Pauli exclusion principle that were fundamental to quantum mechanics. To solve the puzzle, and also to explain why only particles with three quarks and none with two or four quarks had been found, the scientists invented a new and unprecedented theory of physics based on a force made up of three elements, known as “colors”. This gave rise to the name of the theory, quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
However, according to Comay, there is no need for a new theory to explain those particles. If he is right, then the scientists of the mid-sixties began by being faced with an unresolved puzzle, then agreed that it was inexplicable within the framework of the existing theory, and so created a new one. They did so even though there is a solution to the puzzle, and one that is based on known and proven theories.
And as for the claim that the new color structure was required to explain why there were particles with only three quarks, it seems that, according to Comay, even this claim is a double-edged sword. According to Comay’s model, there can only be particles with three quarks (or a quark-antiquark pair). However, according to the QCD color theory, there are additional particle types, such as pentaquarks and dibaryons, but in spite of a very long search, such particle types have not been found.
Choosing Between Theories
I asked two experts why they were persuaded of the correctness of QCD. They both told me that it contains a part, known as Lattice QCD that provides an accurate explanation of the mass and radius of known particles. They say that such accuracy could not be possible if QCD were incorrect.
The validity of a theory is not assessed according to its ability to explain retroactively actual mass and radius measurements. A theory is validated principally by its ability to successfully predict physical quantities that have not yet been measured. There are profound reasons for this, which I can explain if you would like me to. Did you ask them whether Lattice QCD enabled successful predictions?
I asked. They admitted that there had been no such successes – “Nothing to write home about”, as one of them told me.
OK. So, I propose a little challenge. There is a particle known as Sigma-plus with a charge radius that has not yet been quantified. According to a published paper on the subject, the Lattice QCD-based prediction anticipates that the radius will be different from that predicted by my model. My suggestion is that we measure the radius of that particle. It should not be a lengthy experiment.
Interesting. Do you think that the results of the experiment will determine which theory is right?
Look, they will always be able to say that there was a mistake in the calculation, and explain away like that the failure of their prediction. However, there is another experiment that will certainly prove which of the theories is correct. I believe that it is also not a lengthy one.
The point is this: QCD contends that there are no massive particles in a proton other than the quarks. At the beginning of the 1970s, the contribution of the quarks to the proton mass was measured, and it became clear that it constituted only half of the proton mass. The result was very surprising, but QCD supporters quickly recovered from it and claimed that the rest of the mass is taken up by gluons. According to my model, the proton core is what holds the missing mass. Now, there is another group of particles, called mesons, about which there is partial agreement between my model and QCD. Both models estimate that a meson contains a quark and an antiquark pair. QCD claims that meson contain gluons that join the pair. My model claims that there are no gluons at all.
Therefore, all we need to do is to measure the quark mass that makes up the meson. If it turns out that the amount of the quark mass is much less than the meson mass, then my model will be proved wrong. If it turns out that the amount of the quark mass is equal to the amount of the meson mass, then there cannot be any gluons and QCD is wrong.
So, how can it be that there are not scientists seriously considering this issue? It might be understandable, if the current theories were without blemish, but when there is such a weight of unexplained phenomena, why is there no motivation to test an alternative theory?
One of the serious problems facing whoever tries to publish a new theory is the fact that hundreds of articles are published every day in the field of theoretical physics, and it is very hard to relate seriously to papers that arrive without the appropriate “stamp” of approval. It seems as if scientists who read my articles and are unable to reject them outright prefer to ignore them instead of risking a response.
Are you successful in other areas of physics?
One might say that there are other interesting fields in which I predicted phenomena or explained effects, and which have occupied many scientists. I’ll give you three examples. The first is a paradox that was published by Shockley and James in 1967, called the “hidden momentum”. It is clearly a paradox, because momentum is a very important physical quantity and it could not have been created out of nothing, nor could it possibly be described as “hidden”, and all this just to explain a phenomenon. Many scientists were preoccupied with the paradox. In 1995, I published an explanation of the paradox, based on the basic principles of relativistic electrodynamics. On the other hand, my other successes are problematic, as you will understand, shortly.
In 1959, Aharonov (winner of the Israel Prize and nominees for the Nobel Prize) and Bohm published a paper in which they predicted the existence of two effects named after them. One was a magnetic effect, and the other was an electric effect. In 1987, I published an article proving that the electric Aharonov-Bohm effect could not exist because it contravenes the law of energy conservation. Later, I showed that the magnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect could be based on accepted principles but different from those argued by Aharonov and Bohm. The electric effect has, indeed, not been detected to this day, as I predicted.
And what did Aharonov say about it? After all, you were at the same university?
Right – and we even wandered in same corridors there. I passed my article on to Aharonov in response to his request for it. After that, we met on a few random occasions, and then he told me that he had still not read it. I guess he preferred not to respond.
On another important work that I did, I wrote a series of articles relating to failure of the set of equations describing groups of particles, and among them the Higgs boson. Actually, I proved that the Higgs boson could not exist. Incidentally, Dirac himself pointed to a number of points of failure in connection with that set of equations and his approach was ignored by the physical science community.
If the conclusion is made that the Higgs boson does not exist, will that revive your theory?
There is no direct connection between the Higgs boson and my theory in the context of the laws of strong forces. From my point of view, this particle is yet another error of the standard model.
What about the search for the Dirac monopole?
In 1985 I published a prediction stating that this monopole will not be found. The reason is that it is searched on the basis of incorrect physical equations. As a matter of fact, this monopole is continued to be searched in vain, including in the new LHC accelerator.
I noticed that most of your articles were written without partners. Why is that?
That scientific isolation was imposed on me. Throughout my career, I have published articles in the field of nuclear physics, and those were always written together with colleagues. However, for those articles that challenged existing theories, I was unable to enlist partners. I do, nonetheless, sometimes earn the praise of physicists, but my life’s experience has taught me that non-conformist particle physicists are destined to be lone warriors.
What is the significance of your theory? Is it marginal or central to physics?
In the field of particle physics, it plays an essential role, because it describes the laws of strong forces that are one of the four elemental forces of nature.
People have invested many billions in the current experiment in Switzerland, so there are people, including myself, who consider this a highly important sphere of human knowledge. By the way, even though a considerable portion of the budget for the experiment was invested in research into the existence of a particle that cannot exist, the act of refuting an existing theory also contributes to the progress of science.
Will this experiment reveal anything new?
I demonstrated that the basic Higgs particle equation has intrinsic contradictions, and I anticipate that the experiment will demonstrate that the Higgs particle does not really exist. The Higgs particle gained extensive and unrealistic public attention that is liable to cast a heavy shadow over the entire standard model. I am hoping this will encourage people to examine critically all aspects of the model, and the QCD theory overall.
Regarding my theory, simple analysis of the results obtained in the Tevatron accelerator experiments points to the fact that a proton has at least one inner shell of quarks. It is possible that the current experiment will enable further conclusions to be drawn about the existence or otherwise of more inner shells.
So what is going to happen? Will the day come when your theory will be seriously discussed?
I think so. A primary postulate says that physics can be constructed on a self-consistent mathematical basis whose results fit experimental findings. My work abides by this principle. Therefore, I’m sure that in the long run this approach will prevail. I also think it will set a snowball effect in motion, because my model has huge and clear advantages. But considering my age, it is not certain that I will see that day.