The year of the Higgs

The year 2012 provided very interesting results from the LHC. Many would say that this is the year in which the Higgs boson was found, but in fact, as you will see below, this is the year which demonstrates that the Higgs boson, as was predicted by the Standard Model, does not exist.

Before explaining what each side claims, and providing you with the relevant information that enables you to decide who is more likely to be correct, let me tell you some facts about the scientist behind this column.

Eliyahu Comay, born 1932, is a physicist who accepts the fundamental theories of physics. Comay has published close to 100 articles in peer reviewed journals in the fields of particle physics, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and electromagnetism. In particular, like all mainstream physicists today, Comay accepts special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Comay also accepts the fundamental principles of quantum field theory.

After the idea of Yang-Mills was published in the 1950s, several theories which use this idea were born. Among them are the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Comay doesn’t accept these theories. He published articles which demonstrate theoretical flaws in them, inconsistencies with experimental data and also provided his own theory for the strong forces.

Comay doesn’t claim he has a theory explaining the weak force. However, he has shown that the electroweak theory contains fundamental flaws, and he has a clear statement about the set of elementary particles existing in our world. This statement contradicts the existence of the Higgs boson and the gluon, and he also does not regard the W bosons and the Z boson as elementary particles. As you will see below – Comay claims that the only elementary boson is the photon [1].

Mainstream particle physicists would say that there are clear proofs for the Standard Model. This is not true. The Standard Model has many inherent contradictions. Furthermore, Comay doesn’t say that every claim of the Standard Model is wrong. There are many such claims which use good and valid physical principles. Nevertheless, the Standard Model contains fundamental flaws.

The elementary particles
According to the Standard Model there are 24 massive elementary Dirac particles. Comay agrees with that. These are the 6 quarks, the 6 leptons and their antiparticles.

There is one mass-less particle, which is the photon.

According to Comay, these are the only elementary particles, except for the massive particle(s) which exists inside the proton’s core [1,6]. You can read more about his theory regarding the strong interactions in many posts in this blog. The new observed 125 GeV particle is a tt meson, and the W bosons and the Z boson are other top quark meson states. To read about Comay’s theory and claims click on the articles below the subtitle “No Higgs” in the right panel of this blog.

According to the Standard Model, the W bosons, Z boson and the new 125 GeV boson are elementary as well. Comay claims that these particles are top quark mesons, which means that they are not elementary.

Comparison between the Standard Model and Comay’ perception
I will not list here claims about the strong force. A year ago I listed 20 phenomena which either contradict QCD or are unexplained by it. Here I will discuss different phenomena and data which contradict or unexplained by other sectors of the Standard Model.

Almost one year ago, a team of CERN scientists published a 150 pages article where they describe the Standard Model Higgs expectations from the LHC results [2]. They describe what should be found assuming that the Standard Model Higgs theory is valid.

The Standard Model predicts that the Higgs will disintegrate into two photons. And indeed, this disintegration channel was found for the new 125 GeV particle. This result is compatible with Comay’s perception as well. According to Comay, this disintegration is an obvious decay channel of the tt meson.

However, the Standard Model predicts that the Higgs boson would decay into bb at a rate 250 times larger than its photon-photon decay. This decay channel was not observed at the LHC this year (an unexplained phenomenon #1). The Standard Model doesn’t explain why the energy width of the new 125 GeV particle is similar to the width of the top quark and W and Z bosons, which is about 2 GeV. Indeed, according to the Standard Model the energy width of the 125 GeV Higgs boson should be 1,000 times smaller than the measured width (unexplained #2).
The Standard Model provides equations for the Higgs boson which contradict fundamental properties of elementary massive particle (unexplained #3) [3]. Furthermore, the W boson equations contradict fundamental quantum properties of elementary massive charged particle (unexplained #4) [4].

According to the Standard Model the top-quark mesons do not appear in experiments because the time required to form a top meson is greater than the mean lifetime of the top-quark. However, this doesn’t explain why the tt meson is never created in one step (like the π0 meson) (unexplained #5). Furthermore, considering the uncertainty principle, this Standard Model claim doesn’t explain why some top quarks do not live long enough to form a top meson (unexplained #6). See discussion of these problems in the article top quark mesons must exist.

Now, what do you think? Is the 125 GeV particle a genuine Higgs as predicted by the Standard Model?

What next?
LHC will shut down in early 2013, in order to upgrade this huge collider for even higher energies. According to the current plan it will start operating again at the beginning of 2015. Would the bb decay appear significantly in 2015 as the Standard Model predicts? Surely not, because if the Standard Model is correct, then this channel could have been seen in 2012 as well. Would the final energy width be so much smaller than its currently measured value, as the Standard Model predicts? Obviously not. Let’s wait and see what theoretical particle physicists will say when more data would contradict their theory.

Particle physicists, who are faced with Comay’s claims, never provide scientific answers. When a well known physicist received Comay’s one page proof that a fundamental part of Klein-Gordon is incorrect, all he could say after couple of days was that “what are the chances that Comay is right and everybody else is wrong? One to a million!” This unscientific response demonstrates the fundamental problem of the contemporary particle physics community. There is no open discussion about the validity of theories, critical examinations of ideas and theories are suppressed and erroneous ideas cannot be corrected. Later, students study it and join the majority which is certain that such errors are fundamental truth. See for example this short note on QCD creation.

Freeman Dyson, one of the fathers of quantum field theory, sent me a letter one month ago saying that “I find that when there is a disagreement in science, the majority is usually wrong and the minority is usually right. Usually I prefer to be in the minority.”[5]

It seems to me that the current particle physicists’ community doesn’t protect the minorities anymore. In fact, this community fights fiercely against any kind of criticism regarding their current model. As an observer (not objective, I admit), I feel that the reason that they fight instead of giving scientific answers to serious problems in their model is that they simply do not have such answers.[6]

[1] I do not discuss here general relativity and/or gravitons.
[2] (See pp. 143, 145 and take the values for a 125 GeV Higgs boson.)
[3] (See sections 1-4.)
[5] Dyson doesn’t take a stand in the current issues because he stopped working in this field forty years ago.
[6] Physicists are invited again to read and criticize Comay’s review article in EJTP 9, No. 26 (2012) 93–118 which summarizes his theory of the strong interactions.


4 thoughts on “The year of the Higgs

  1. Dear Eli
    It is indeed very unfortunate, that the particle physicists seem to be so content and happy with the standard model, that they are not open to other models. It reminds me a little bit of the situation at the end of the 18th century, when phsicists thought, that they were almost done with discovering all the physics that can be discovered, and then special/general relativity and the quantum theories came along. This comparison is of course a bit off, but I find myself coming back to it time and time again.
    I wish you a fantasic new year and hope that keep on working on your theory. Don’t underestimate the number of young students like me who are open to knew ideas and who eventually will ask their professors the unpleasant questions concerning QCD. I’m looking foreward to new and exciting papers of yours.
    Cheers, Neil

    • Dear Neil,

      Many thanks for the nice Comment and for the encouragements. Eli

      P.S. You mean the end of the 19th century. Both of us are ready to correct errors in general and misprints in particular.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s