Science or Fiction?

The book “Science or Fiction? The phony side of particle physics” is a popular science book that tries to explain many of the things that particle physicists prefer not to know.

Back cover text
Countries across the globe invest tens of billions in particle physics, which relies on the Standard Model. This model is styled by its proponents as “the most accurate theory in history, in any field.”

This book presents a long series of failures found with the theory: its inability to explain basic phenomena known since the 1930s; its prediction of particles and materials that have refused to be uncovered even in lunar rocks; the growing recognition that basic assumptions underlying the model are incorrect; and more.

This is the first time these well-documented data have been compiled in a simple and coherent fashion, allowing science enthusiasts to understand the scientific failures and the sociological reasons for scientists’ inability to openly discuss these flaws. Only a few dare to express their doubts:

“Ironically, from the perspective of QCD, the foundations of nuclear physics appear distinctly unsound.” Frank Wilczek, Nobel laureate, 2004
(QCD is a central part of the Standard Model.)

The book was published several days ago by Samuel Wachtman’s Sons, Inc. Few chapters can be found in this blog. I hope I did a good job and you do not need to be a physicist in order to understand several dozens of terrible flaws in the standard model. Several useful links:

Book Contents


The most accurate theory in history, in any field

The Cave Allegory

Amazon (paperback or kindle)

Several Reviews

John Duffield
I have a nasty habit of turning over page corners to mark an interesting point. And I ended up marking about half the pages! It’s a gold mine. Thanks for writing it, and please convey my thanks to Eliyahu for his contribution.

Dr. Alexander Unzicker
The author and his scientific advisor, Eliyahu Comay, present an impressive collection of arguments that rock the foundation of the current standard model of particle physics and its theoretical basis, quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

In view of the numerous contradictions outlined by the authors, it is hard to believe why scientists, science journalists and those that make decisions about public funding continue to beguile themselves with statements such as, “the standard model precisely describes the experiments”. The following are just two of the many concrete examples:

The EMC effect, a relatively simple scattering experiment, blatantly contradicts the standard model. In addition, and a perhaps much more prominent example is the Higgs boson, which was predicted to have a lifetime almost one thousand times longer than what was actually measured – one of the many results that was then “explained” by retroactively invented arguments.

The author presents detailed knowledge about particle physics and – an unusual combination – still has some common sense left (he is a problem-solving chess grandmaster). One of the theoretical cornerstones of QCD, called “asymptotic freedom,” postulates that forces increase with distance, contrary to logic and to every other law of physics. Comay compares that to anthropologists having discovered creatures that “prefer to engage in intercourse from a distance, the opposite of any other mammal known to science.”

It is to be expected that the book will be dismissed as a “non-expert view” on the topic, simply because an expert in the field is defined as someone who has wasted too much of his life studying a phony model of nature. It is recommended that readers that want to verify Comay’s statements read “Constructing Quarks” by Andrew Pickering.

While being (necessarily) incomplete about the absurdities of modern physics, the book sheds light on the deadly sins of particle physics:

– The suppression of basic problems that, for almost a century, are still waiting for a solution.
– The overwhelming complications due to arbitrary theoretical concepts and the arbitrary justification by experimental results of alleged precision
– The psychological suppression of contradictory evidence
– The incredible amount of groupthink present in today’s collaborations
– The intransparency and practical unrepeatability of the experiments
– The decades-long negative evolution of the field due to the aggregation of brainwashed yea-sayers, while clear-headed people have turned their backs on particle physics.

Unfortunately, among those, only a few – like the author – have stood up and said, “The emperor is naked!” This is a highly recommended book.

Ofer Comay (answering previous review)
Thank you for your review. I know very few particle physicists that have common sense and integrity. These belong to a rare species, I agree. Some of them are frustrated and feel that particle physics was kidnapped by a group of people which do not care about scientific truth. They use words that I did not have the courage to type.

I admit that during the last years, I found myself wondering about several physicists that belong to the community of particle physics. What kind of people are they? Why they do not say the obvious loud and clear? I do not expect anything from the young generation of particle physicists because they were taught fairy tales and they do not have a clue about science. However, what about the old professors emeritus? Why only very few of them dared to write articles against the standard model?

I hope this book will enable every science enthusiast to understand that today’s particle physics is not science. I do not believe that it is possible to read my book and keep thinking that the standard model, or at least one of its main parts, QCD, is really science.

In your book, “The Higgs Fake”, you told the world what you think about particle physicists. I agree with many things that you mentioned, but I did not have the courage to write them in my book so boldly. It will probably take 10-20 years until people will start to understand that your description of the particle physicist community is probably the most accurate description of this community ever written.


12 thoughts on “Science or Fiction?

  1. Reblogged this on Pascalalter’s Weblog and commented:
    Bardzo ciekawe byłoby, gdyby okazały się fikcją inne prawdy niekoniecznie “naukowe” lecz masowe – co wtedy? jak funkcjonowała by władza gdyby ludzie zrozumieli istotę panowania, religii, gospodarki etc.

    • Proponuję “Prolog”. Gdyby zrozumieli, nastałaby umowna “Era Wodnika”. Jeśli szybko nie pojmą, czeka nas “Pustynia Rzeczywistości”.

    • Hi John. I have read “the Higgs Fake” and read your article and the blog’s comments.

      I think that the main conclusions of “the Higgs Fake” are correct. This is an important book mainly for readers that are more interested in the sociological behavior of particle physicists.

      The book contains many interesting observations but several mistakes that should not be there. I’m sure that physicists proved that quarks do exist and the 125 GeV particle was found. The book could be much better without these mistakes. I noticed in your blog comments that you were trying to defend it – but I believe it is better not to try, and simply state that the standard model contains several correct assumptions, and many errors. I think that most of the work which is based on the old quantum physics is fine (old means before 1970), and only the fairy tales, as you call them, which build the main building blocks of the standard model, should be removed from scientific books.

      My approach is a little bit different than Unzicker’s (the author of the Higgs Fake). The book is based on the knowledge of nuclear physicist (Eliyahu Comay) who is over 80 now, and has outstanding knowledge in nuclear and particle physics as well as other fields in physics. The book is more “educational” and readers who read it, will know physics much more than they knew before they opened my book. Personally, I believe that every science lover and physicist who reads my book cannot believe that the standard model of particle physics is the correct description of reality.

      Do you want me to post this comment to your blog?

      • No need to post your comment on “my” blog, I was just a contributor, it’s a year old now, and I don’t write for them any more. I look forward to reading Science or Fiction?. I appreciate that different authors have different views. For example Jim Baggott’s Farewell to Reality was very different to Bankrupting Physics by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones. They address the issues in different ways, and it’s good to see the similarities and the differences.

        I have mixed feelings about the Standard Model. Sometimes I think it needs completing. Sometimes I think it needs to be swept away. As for quarks, I’d say something exists, but not the way they’re usually portrayed. Take a look at this TQFT webpage. See those blue trefoil knots at the top? Pick one, start at the bottom left, and trace around it anticlockwise calling out the crossing-over directions: up down up. Break this thing, and you don’t see three quarks spilling out.

      • It is interesting to compare all the arguments against the standard model.

        The scientist behind this blog (and the scientific advisor of the book) could be a “mainstream physicist” if particle physics would not go in several bad directions more than 40 years ago. He believes that there are quarks, and that quarks are Dirac particles, and he assumes that the 6 known quarks and their antiquarks exist. He also assumes that the published data about the properties of mesons and baryons are OK (I mean the data published by PDG – Particle Data Group). In this sense he is like the other particle physicists.

        However – he believes that there are no gluons and that QCD is totally groundless (and the book is about QCD). He further believes that the “stories” about W, Z, and H bosons are groundless. He believes that these particle exist, but they are top-quark mesons, and they are not elementary. He even published proofs that the Higgs and the W equations cannot describe elementary particles.

        I believe that when a theory is wrong – there are many legitimate ways to show it. Unzicker is right that the standard model is wrong and he proved it in his own way.

      • I forgot to say: I read the book. I liked it.

        I have a nasty habit of turning over page corners to mark an interesting point. And I ended up marking about half the pages! It’s a gold mine. Thanks for writing it, and please convey my thanks to Eliyahu for his contribution.

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