Science, religion and particle physics

One year ago I had an interesting meeting with a senior professor specializing in QCD. He didn’t know why I wanted to meet him. He knew that my father has a competing theory, but he didn’t know what it was. He was relieved when I told him the purpose of the meeting.

“I wish to know why scientists are so confident about the validity of QCD,” I said.

He was very happy to explain, and gave me a few hours lecture.

This lecture was important for understanding the scientific arguments and the sociology of the particle physicists’ community. I was pretty convinced then that my father model is very close to the truth (if there is a truth out there) because it fits smoothly so many experimental evidences. On the other hand, I find the explanations given by QCD to many findings unnatural. Not only that, but it fails to explain the most fundamental phenomena in its domain: the strong nuclear force, the nuclear tensor force, the spin of the proton, the first EMC effect, the rise in the p-p cross section, the failure to find so many particles that should exist according to QCD, the hadronic properties of the photon and many more. For me, the weak explanation that QCD provides for the mass gap inside the baryons and the properties of the pions were even more convincing that something is very wrong with QCD. I appreciate more leaving a phenomenon unexplained rather than providing a weak explanation to a phenomenon to make it look compatible with a theory, and doing so in retrospect.

On the other hand, I knew that scientific articles claiming that QCD is incorrect were not published in main-stream scientific journals during the last three decades.

This was the background of my question.

The professor cleared his throat, and started the lecture.

“QCD is so solid, that we are confident about QCD like we are about special relativity”, he started.

This introductory statement was shocking. I thought he was trying to fool me. “Maybe he is trying to convince me to stop this competing research,” I thought to myself.

During this lecture, and in the following year, I learned that QCD is much more than science.

In the next posts I will try to examine how scientists interpret experimental findings, how they write scientific articles and why they do that. You will be able to judge whether QCD is purely a scientific theory or a quite different thoughtful structure – a religion.

For me, faith begins when logic ends. This is the beauty of faith. This makes humans more than clever robots. But this doesn’t work well for science.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Science, religion and particle physics

  1. Sorry, I forgot to write the new publication’s long name that is on the “www.glu-tron.com” website. Thie FIRST TIME publication shows the origins & operation of the Nuclear Stong Force, the Proton, Neutron, Electron, and the recently identified Carrier Current of the Proton. You can also get a quick idea by a search of, “This First Time Joseph L” (click on the small picture)

  2. Mr Comay may be has the wright to think about the correctness of the Stander Model in general and the QCD in special, But still his Model is merely assumptions too,He is talking more theoratical proposals which need experimental data bases,therefore we might be more patient to see what the lhc great expt. come up with.For whether the Higgs particle does exist or does not this is another story,If it is assumed aGod particle as it is called now by some people it will never be found because GOD created the universe the way he likes and we are trying to figure out the mechisms GOD implanted to create it, and to keep it going on to a fixed time,but it is not allowed to us to take the place of GOD! ,therefore as we keep the collision energy going up new particles might be found but it is not the ultimate particles for sure,We physicists might think some times we are close to know how God is thinking so we might emitate him and that is awrong thinking .God provides us with some of his science to develope nature for the goods of th humanity but not to be like him,so may our Higgs particle is the most massive particle allowed for us to find,not God particle!!.

    Ali atia

  3. What’s wrong with this? If we’ll ever have a levitation device or so, it will work using real world particles whatever they are. As soon as we can do nothing about models, it’s OK to have biases. Someone has to be busy on theories to drive further experiments. Being a scientist is a mix of doubt and curiosity feelings and “just shut up and calculate” approach. There are scientists that are in doubt indeed. Bashing on “religion” distracts good readers.

    LHC is testing electroweak field properties, so “nohiggs” domain is misleading. This is about gluons and QCD. In 2014 there will be the GlueX experiment. If something is wrong with QCD, we’ll see in the foreseeable future.

    • This post is an introduction to several articles that show that particle physics does not obey scientific standards. In particular – do you have an answer to the claims in the post in the home page – “To continue as usual?”
      Regarding your comment about “nohiggs” – it is correct that this is not the only error (and not even the main error) in the current particle physics – but it’s the most famous.

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