One of the flaws of the standard model is its inability to explain the missing top quark mesons in the PDG tables. These mesons, which consist of a top quark and another antiquark, should have shown up in the experiments which were able to create the top quark, but were not observed. Where are they? Why have they never been found?

When physicists considered Comay’s suggestion that the new 125 GeV particle looks like a *tt* meson, they claimed that the top quark lifetime is shorter than 10^{-24} sec, which is too short for creating a top meson.

Even these physicists seem to admit, after a brief discussion, that such a claim is inconsistent with basic laws of quantum physics. This short lifetime of the top quark doesn’t cancel completely the possibility of a top meson creation – it only reduces the probability of such an event.

**Here they are**

Let’s estimate the mass of a top mesons. The top quark is by far the heaviest quark. Furthermore, a top meson mass should be less than the mass of the top quark, because the mass of such a meson is the mass of its free quarks minus the binding energy of these quarks. In the case of the well known light quarks, we can see that the mass reduction caused by the quarks binding energy can be much greater than the mass of the meson itself. For example, the mass of the pions is 135-140 MeV, and the mass of the rho meson, which is made of the same light quarks, is more than five times bigger. Therefore, we can assume that the mass reduction which is involved in the meson creation is extremely significant.

The mass of the top quark is 173 GeV. According to Comay’s perception, the W, Z and the CERN 125 GeV particle are the missing top mesons. None of them is elementary. 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.

There are many indications that this perception is correct. The large number of W decay channels is an indication that the W is a superposition of several kinds of mesons. However, the most convincing argument is that W cannot be elementary, as Comay shows in a recent paper.

**The W equations**

Comay’s recent paper explores the fundamental properties of every elementary charged particle. It is known that the wave function of such particle must yield a 4-current that obeys the continuity equation, which the W equation indeed fulfills. However, there are additional conditions which must be fulfilled. These conditions contradict the W wave function, and therefore if the W is an elementary boson then its wave function is incorrect.

Note that this paper discusses only elementary charged particle, such as W^{+} and W^{–} which are claimed to be elementary by the electroweak theory. The paper concludes that the W^{+} and W^{–} wave function is incorrect. The paper goes on and suggests that W^{+} and W^{–} are not elementary, and they are actually top mesons.

**What are the elementary particles?**

About a decade ago, after the publication of the strong evidence stating that the neutrino is a massive particle, nature seems to have a quite simple order:

– All the elementary massive particles are Dirac particles, which have spin-1/2. These are the 6 quarks, the 6 leptons and their antiparticles.

– The only massless particle, the photon, has spin-1. Here gluons are excluded because of the inconsistencies of QCD with many kinds of experimental data (see other parts of this site).

And indeed, until today, all the theories relying on wave functions of massive particles which are different than the Dirac equation, suffer from theoretical contradictions.

**The new 125 GeV particle**

LHC groups have recently found a new 125 GeV particle. Everyone agrees that:

– Such a particle really exists.

– The particle decays into 2 photons.

– A sharp 2 photon state can be generated only by a composite particle which consists of a charged elementary particle and its antiparticle.

Physicists claim that this new particle is the Higgs, and suggest that the Higgs decays in two steps: first, it decays virtually into a composite state of W^{+} and W^{–} and only then the W^{+}W^{–} system decays into two photons.

However, this two step decay scheme is based on the assumption that W^{+} and W^{–} are elementary particles. If W^{+} and W^{–} are not elementary, then the bound particle W^{+}W^{–} cannot disintegrate into a pure state of two photons but into two photons + other particle(s).

Therefore, the virtual decay of the 125 GeV particle into W^{+}W^{–} cannot explain the quite sharp two photon state measured in the LHC.

And we are left with *tt*, as the only reasonable candidate for the new 125 GeV particle.

Hello Eli,

What you ask has already been done, find the results here: http://www.youtube.com/user/rodkeh?feature=mhee

I apologize for the poor production, I’m not a video aficionado.

Hello Eli,

I am not making a comment, I am just trying to find the crk site you refer to. I googled crk but couldn’t find anything, could you show a hyper-link?

Thank you.

A Reply to Rod

A search with Google of the following three elements: halflec electron -“half lec” yields practically two items, one of which is your Comment at this site. The second item was put on the web by crk more than 3 years ago. In this item crk states that “relativity is pure fiction”.

Another issue. Both crk and you state that the elementary mass is about one half of the electronic mass. You rely on the fact that the neutron-proton mass difference is about two and a half times greater then the mass of the electron. This idea does not go too far. For example, the deuteron is a bound state of a proton and a neutron and its binding energy is 2.224 KeV. This quantity equals 8.7 times one half of the electronic mass.

The people who maintain this site have the right to define the subjects discussed here. They certainly do not deny the right of anybody to express his opinion elsewhere on the web. They just want to save visitors’ time and show them only pro and con arguments concerning the subjects included in the scope of this site. Your ideas are outside this scope.

For these reasons I repeat my request asking you not to leave here Comments related to halflecs.

Eli

Thank you Eli, you have been very tolerant and I will refrain from making any further posts to your site but I would appreciate a little more clarification if you would be so kind.

The mass of the deuteron is an exact multiple or factor, of the mass of a halflec to within a 3.5% margin of error. I am not sure of what point you are trying to make about the binding energy. Are you alluding to the fact that this energy is several times that of the halflec or that this value is not a factor of the halflec mass or perhaps something else?

I know it’s a lot to ask but please indulge me one more time.

Thank you!

Dear Rod,

I take literally your statement promising that you will refrain from making any further Comment on this site. Therefore I suggest that you do some homework and post a Comment at the site of crk where the public discussion of the halflec idea has been initiated. (As a matter of fact, after finishing successfully your studies in physics you are invited to post Comments on issues discussed herein.)

I see that you changed your argument. In the proton-neutron case you look at their mass difference whereas in the deuteron case (which is a proton-neutron bound nucleus) you look at the full mass. Thus, let us rely on your final definition and examine the full mass of some particles.

At present I ask you to do this homework. Organize a table that presents the fundamental mass of your “halflec” and take the first 20-30 isotopes from this table http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~massspec/atomic_mass_abund.pdf . For each isotope show its mass and the ratio between its mass and the mass of your “halflec”. You may take the proton, neutron and electron mass from the site of the Particle Data Group. Isotopic mass is generally given in units where C12 has the mass of 12. Convert it into KeV, divide the result by the “halflec” mass in KeV and show the final figure. For every isotope show also the error of your “theory”. Thus, if you find a case where the result is an exact integer then for this case your “theory” has no error; if the number is an exact integer + 0.5 then your error is 100%; etc. Put the table on the site of crk. Please do a good job and check your calculations. Note that for the deuteron, the error found for your halflec is much greater than the 3.5% which you claim.

Eli

due to a wrong klick I postet my last comment unfinished-sorry. I was gonna say, that you pretty much took away the mediating particles of the weak interaction. I don’t know any particles that could take their place-do you have suggestions for this, or is the modell of weak interactions yet another wrong theory?

Cheers Neil

Dear Eli

Thank you for your recent paper about constrains on the wave function of charged particles. It is stated on this website, that you don’t dedicate time to research on the weak force. However, aren’t you curious about the consequences of your latest paper? If you are right with your analysis of the W and Z particles; yoz pretty much

Cheers Neil

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your Comment which addresses a genuine problem. At present I have some vague thoughts on a theory of weak interactions. In my opinion the theory should have a self-consistent mathematical structure and experimental data should be used for the construction of such a theory. I also think that quarks and leptons are point-like particles. Therefore, the main elements of this theory are the equations of motion of the mediating field. I’m also inclined to think that there are three (and only three) generations of flavor and that the theory should use this fact.

Cheers, Eli

Dear Eli,

This is the problem with all theories that are based on contemporary Physics theory, the answers to the remaining questions are not intuitive, and mathematicians keep tricking themselves by treating particles as though they were singularities, which they are not. Even Newtonian Physics would hold up if they admitted that there were limits to small and didn’t push the equations to infinity.

I admire your courage in contradicting contemporary theory but you haven’t taken it far enough. Is it not true, that any conjecture that can be proven by a substantial body of verified experimental data, which demonstrates that conjecture to be true and is accurate to within a margin of error of 3%, would be considered an unqualified success?

This is my conjecture: That the fundamental elementary particle of matter has a mass equivalent to one half that of an electron.

This is the proof: You are no doubt aware that when a neutron decays it leaves behind a proton. If you subtract the mass of a proton from the mass of a neutron and divide the difference by the mass of an electron you find that the difference in mass is exactly 2.5 times the mass of an electron to within a margin of error of about 3%. The above mentioned masses are fundamental constants based on many thousands of experiments and very well verified and what this suggests is that all particles including protons, neutrons and electrons are constructed from these half electron particles or as I call them, Halflecs.

There is of course much more to this but this will due for a start.

How does W and Z as meson agree/disagree with the numerous experiments involving W/Z-decay etc, eg. the leptonic channels?

It is agreed that the W,Z decay is a weak interaction process (which is not very weak at these energies). The W,Z hadronic decay channels are not strong interaction processes because they are based on flavor change.

Please note that the article http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2012/PP-31-03.PDF says only that the W (and the Z) cannot be elementary particles. It does not discuss any consequences that may follow from this conclusion.

How can a tx-meson decay into to leptons?

Yes, they can!

I assume that you really do not expect to receive a complete dynamical description of weak decays as an answer to your question. Therefore I propose to show you examples of this kind of decay which indicate that such a process makes sense.

The charge pion decays into a muon and its neutrino and other decay channels are very rare. The charged kaon decays mainly into a muon and its lepton. Therefore, a disintegration of a quark-antiquark state (namely, a meson) into two leptons is a well known process.

Note that in the case of the charged kaon, its hadronic decay into pions is a flavor changing weak interaction process and the probability of a pure leptonic process is more than 50% (see http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/listings/rpp2012-list-K-plus-minus.pdf ). This kind of similarity indicates that the W,Z as top quark mesons is a quite natural interpretation of the data.

I am only an amateur with a question.

If W and Z is mesons can they still be the force exchange particles for the weak force?

In quantum theory interaction carrying objects are described by wave functions of the form \phi(x^\mu) where x^\mu denotes a single set of space-time coordinates. Thus there are four independent variables. On the other hand, mesons are composite particles made of a quark-antiquark pair. It follows that a meson description depends on two sets of space-time coordinates, which means eight independent variables. Therefore, a quantum theory cannot use mesons as interaction carrying particles.

For practical purposes, people sometimes construct models where mesons are used as interaction carriers. Such models may or may not be successful for a limited set of data but they have no theoretical basis.

The Standard Model is hopelessly flawed and wholly inadequate. By the time they are finished, if the prevailing conventional wisdom is conveyed to its logical conclusion, they will have found approximately 3600 different elementary particles.

There are only two true elementary particles, a particle of energy known as the Photon and a particle of matter with a mass equivalent to one half that of an electron which I call a Halflec. All other particles are merely debris or complete fictions and figments of the imagination.

The proof is all there in the data that modern Experimental Physics has been collecting for the last hundred years and is available to everyone in most contemporary Handbooks of Physics.

Nature shows that different kinds of massive particles demonstrate a dissimilar behavior. For example, quarks and hadrons participate in strong interactions whereas electrons do not do that. The neutrino participates only in weak interactions. The lifetime of a charged pion is about 15 orders of magnitude longer than the lifetime of the rho meson. Can you describe these effects and many other kinds of effects with one kind of particle which you call “halflec”?

Please do not use this blog for discussing theories which contradict quantum mechanics or special relativity. Thanks!

Apparently it is O.K. for you and your father to contradict contemporary theory but not acceptable for others to do so.

Only certain aspects of quantum mechanics and special relativity are valid.

I know that it seems incomprehensible to you that all the diversity in the universe around you could be explained using only two kinds of particles not one. You imagine that you need multiple particles or variables to be able to have that kind of diversity. Not so! Bare in mind that a fractal produces infinite variability but only requires two variables. Those variables however are not opposites, they are in fact compliments. As are the two particles I describe.

The Photon and Halflec are able to describe all the phenomena you mention however, I would point out that quarks, pions and rho mesons are only debris and although you do not realize it, electrons do take part in what you refer to as strong interactions.