Additional 26 results

In a blog about current particle physics one reader asked an expert about the ideas of Eliyahu Comay. The expert answered that Comay’s theory doesn’t explain many phenomena which the standard model does explain, and therefore his model is a “waste of time”.

I guess that the expert didn’t spend his valuable time on Comay model, because if he did, I wonder why he didn’t notice that Comay’s strong interaction model explains an amazingly large amount of phenomena in this field. Furthermore, as of today nobody has mentioned any specific effect that is inconsistent with his model.

In previous posts [1][2] I mentioned 21 phenomena which seem to contradict QCD, a central part of the standard model. These phenomena are natural results of Comay model. In this blog I will list 26 phenomena in the area of the strong interactions, which were not listed in these 2 previous posts, and which can be categorized into 3 groups:
1. Phenomena that QCD hasn’t explained but they do not necessarily contradict QCD.
2. Phenomena that QCD explains and Comay’s theory explains them differently.
3. Phenomena that both theories have similar explanation.

Most of the explanations to the effects below may be found in Comay review article or in this blog [3].

Nucleons and pions
The proton and the neutron, which contain 3 valence quarks, are nearly 940 MeV. Nearly half of the mass is carried by the quarks. QCD claims that the rest of the mass is carried by gluons. Comay model claims that the nucleons contain a massive core which consists of a central body and closed shells of u,d quarks. That core carry the rest of the mass (explained phenomenon #1, category 2).

The pions are much lighter than the nucleons, around 140 MeV. The difference according to Comay is that the a nucleon contains a massive core while a pion consists of only a quark and an antiquark (explained #2 category 2).

The mass of the quark in pions is nearly 70 MeV (140/2) [4]. In the nucleons the mass of the three quarks is nearly half of the proton mass, and each quark is around 157 MeV. In Comay’s model this is a natural result of the fact that due to the inner shells, the proton’s u,d quarks are not in the most inner shell and therefore they carry more energy than the pions’ quarks (explained #3, category 1).

The proton’s volume is larger than that of the pion because the nucleons contain several quark shells (explained #4, category 1 or 2).

Nucleons and pions contain quark-antiquark pairs. It is interesting to measure how many uu pairs exist compared to dd pairs. It was found that the number of uu pairs in the proton is smaller than the number of dd pairs. This is explained in Comay model by the fact that in order to create uu pair more energy is needed since the u-quarks inside the proton must obey the Pauli exclusion principle and the proton contains more u-quarks than d-quarks (explained #5, category 1). It is unclear how QCD explains that because in QCD the colors provide a new degree of freedom to the Pauli principle.

Analogous results appear in the neutron which has more uu pairs compared to dd pairs (explained #6, category 1). A similar effect is expected to be found in the pions. Thus, isospin symmetry indicates that in a pion the number of uu pairs is equal to the number of dd pairs (explained #7, category 3).

Proton decay
Proton decay was searched during the 1980s because several theories predicted such decay, and QCD remains neutral about this subject. No hint of the proton decay effect has been found in dedicated experiments aiming to find it. Proton decay is forbidden by Comay model which assumes a massive core inside the proton and every other baryon (explained #8). The baryon number conservation law is another consequence of the massive core inside the baryons (explained #9).

Hadrons’ radius
In electrodynamics, bound particles have smaller radius if the corresponding components are heavier. For example, the radius of the hydrogen atom is larger than that of the muonic atom which consists of a proton and a muon (the muon is more massive than the electron). This is due to the electromagnetic nature of atomic states. According to Comay, the strong forces behave similarly. In QCD, for example, it is not clear (to me) that hadrons should behave in this manner because of QCD’s asymptotic freedom. And indeed, measurements show that the radius of the K meson is smaller than that of the pion (explained #10, category 1 or 2). K mesons are composed of s-quark and u or d-quark. Furthermore, the Σ- charge radius is smaller than that of the proton (explained #11, category 1 or 2).

Mass of mesons versus mass of baryons
Let us examine the bond of quarks whose flavor is not that of the u,d quarks. According to Comay’s theory, the baryonic core, that has three units of the strong force, attracts these quarks more energetically than the attraction between the quark and the antiquark in mesons. (The baryonic closed shells are made only of u,d quarks.) Therefore, the mass of a quark (e.g. an s-quark) in baryons should be smaller than its mass in mesons (in both cases I am talking about the hadrons in their lowest energy state). I am not aware to QCD’s stand about it, but a QCD expert told me that this should be the opposite (probably because of QCD’s asymptotic freedom).

Indeed, an examination of the data shows that all mesons and baryons obey this rule. It is correct for the s-quark, by comparing K meson and Σ baryon. Thus, replacing a d-quark by an s-quark, we find M(K+) – M(π+) = 354 MeV and M(Σ+) – m(p) = 251 MeV. It means that the s-quark baryonic binding energy is larger than its mesonic binding energy. These relationships also hold for the other quarks (c,b), as we can find in the meson and baryon tables (explained #12, #13, #14, category 1 or 2).

Isospin symmetry in hadrons
Isospin is a mathematical notion used in nuclear and particle physics. Loosely speaking it can be explained as follows. Every hadron which contains u,d quarks has a “twin” particle which contains u-quark for every d-quark and d-quark for every u-quark. For example, the proton contains uud quarks and its twin is the neutron which contains ddu quarks.

According to Comay model the rest mass [5] of d-quark is nearly equal to the rest mass of u-quark. Furthermore, the baryonic core contains equal number of u,d quarks in the baryon closed inner shells. Comay model also claims that the strong magnetic charge is much stronger than the electric charge. Therefore, the proton which contains uud has almost the same mass as its twin particle, the neutron, which consists of ddu quarks (explained #15, category 2 or 3). This property is repeated in the hadron family and it is called “isospin symmetry”.

Δ++ and Ω particle masses
The Δ++(1232) particles are baryons which contain three identical quarks and their total spin is 3/2. According to Comay and contrary to QCD, the lowest energy level of these particles is not an unexcited s-wave. Comay’s claim is straightforwardly derived from fundamental physical principles (here). Contrary to these fundamental principles, QCD supporters argue that the ground state of these particles must be s-wave and QCD’s color “explains” the state of these baryons (explained #16, category 2). The mass of Δ(1750) particles, which have total spin of 1/2 is larger. This is explained by applying the first Hund rule to strong forces (explained #17, category 1). It is unclear how QCD can justify it because Hund rule is explained in atoms by the nature of electromagnetic forces. This explanation may be applied to quarks according to Comay, but not according to QCD. The Hund rule explains also why the particle Ω most stable state has spin 3/2 (explained #18, category 2).

Other phenomena
The π0 decay is explained by the nature of Comay magnetic monopoles (explained #19, category 2). The three jet event is derived from the bremsstrahlung effect of quarks that carry magnetic monopole (explained #20, category 2) and the confinement is explained by the strength of the strong forces (explained #21, category 2). Effects of the collision between quarks and electrons are an electromagnetic process which is a part of Comay’s theory (explained #22, category 3).

Comay’s theory also explains why a genuine Yukawa particle (namely, a pointlike elementary spin-0 particle) was not observed (explained #23), why Dirac monopoles were not observed (explained #24), and why in all experiments the magnetic charge is conserved (explained #25, category 3).

Comay model explains also why the strong forces cease to be active at a certain distance (cut-off). QCD required an additional assumption in order to explain this phenomenon (explained #26, category 2).

What scientists say
In [1][2] and here I listed almost 50 phenomena, most of them were not answered by QCD, and nearly half of them seem to contradict QCD, an important part of the standard model. In [1][2] I also provided dozen citations of scientists expressing astonishment, frustration and doubts regarding QCD. Most of these citations are very very old, but the conflicting experimental results remain unsolved.

Comay model explains these phenomena in a straightforward and natural way. Can anyone show at least one result that contradicts his model?

In his recent presentation the theoretical physicist Matt Strassler claimed that the standard model has “No confirmed conflicts with any existing experiments”. This is the stuff that innocent particle physics students are reading daily.

[1] To continue as usual
[2] The thorn in the side of QCD
[3] Look in the right panel of this blog for all articles except for those under the “No Higgs” subtitle.
[4] I ignore here the additional quark-antiquark pairs. Their consideration yields similar results.
[5] Although the quark is never at rest, it has a theoretical rest mass.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Additional 26 results

    • Dear Jalar,

      The discovery which is reported in the link below is NOT a genuine magnetic monopole. The following lines prove this claim.

      Charge conservation is an indispensable element of Maxwellian electrodynamics. In physics, duality transformations are used for a monopole definition. Therefore, conservation of the magnetic monopole must hold. Now, if one applies heat to the ultracold environment of the reported monopole then the order will be destroyed and the monopole will disappear.

      Please note that the Authors themselves state in their Article: “We demonstrate the controlled creation of Dirac monopoles in the synthetic magnetic field produced by a spinor Bose–Einstein condensate.” It is very well known that in electrodynamics monopoles cannot be created.

      Here is another argument. The electric charge is a property of an elementary quantum particle, like the electron. The theory looks for an analogous discovery of a monopole which is associated with a quantum particle and not for an assembly of an astronomical number of ordinary particles whose north pole is organized in a particular form.

      The foregoing lines do not deny the interesting experimental results reported in that paper.

      Cheers, Eli

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140130

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