All the works in physics presented in this web site were developed by Eliyahu Comay.

Eliyahu Comay (born 1932) is a theoretical physicist. All along his career he remained true to his beliefs and did not hesitate to cast doubt on common scientific beliefs. Many of his scientific articles contain predictions, which contradict the wall to wall consensus that prevailed within the particle physics community.

To cite only a few of them we would mention that he predicted that the Higgs particle, Dirac monopoles, glueballs, strange quark matter, pentaquarks, di-baryons and the electric Aharanov-Bohm effect would not be found.

To this date, none of his predictions was refuted.

The author, Ofer Comay (born 1957), has an M.Sc. degree in mathematics from Tel Aviv University. Along with his father, Eliyahu Comay, he founded a software company which specializes in document image understanding.

Ofer likes to play with the amusing sides of mathematics. He was the world champion in chess problem solving (3 times). When he was young he won the Israeli Olympiad for Youth in mathematics (organized by Weizmann Institute). His hobby is to compose chess problems and mathematical riddles.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

Well, the physics has become a “Cult Movement”, and we appreciate your bravery to say what you believe.

I am a colleague to the author, but I feel obliged to inform this revolutionary development to cure the

mania.

The so-called the main stream journals as usual refused to read and publish his physics. So the paper has just been published and you can get the paper from,:

Paul K. Suh, “Unified Theory of Everything and QQD” OALib Journal (2015)

Let me give a brief insight of the paper.

As you know, the experimentally determined strong interaction fine structure constant “137” has long been a mystery. In fact, the great pioneer physicist Richard Feynman said, “Nobody knows. It (“137″) is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the Hand of God wrote the number, and we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.”

Another great Wolfgang Pauli was so confounded through his life that when he passed away, they say,

he went straight to the creator God himself in the Heaven to ask: “Why is the alpha equal to 1/137? ”

The new paper introduced above explains the origin (for the first time in human history) of “137′ , and introduces the QQD (Quantum Quark Dynamics) in parallel to QED.

The Higgs physics originates from the zero mass {gravity, W-boson, photon, gluon} of {gravity, Weak,

EM, Strong} interactions. To quote their own (delusive) words, the Higgs boson was needed because the

zero-mass W-boson has to eat the heavy Higgs boson to gain their mass of “80 GeV” far greater than

the nucleon mass of 1 GeV. Is this a physics? Many thought this was crazy, but he idea is now sacred.

You remember Galileo had the telescope to prove that the seemly true geocentric theory was false,

and was prosecuted. The above paper, in fact, has a microscope, the topended version of the telescope,

and has shown that the {Z,W} bosons are actually compound states–like the pions of quark-antiquark

composition–that have their own innate masses. That is, it has been proven that the {Z,W} bosons have never been the zero-mass particles. This simple factor alone clearly makes the Higgs physics unnecessary to be rejected.

The nature is simple in essence in terms of the new physics just published in OALib Journal, and QQD has a very simple explanation of the “Asymptotic Freedom”, rejecting the hoity-toity complex QCD that requires supercomputer computations. You remember what Einstein said “If you can’t explain it simply,

you don’t understand it well enough.”

Please join Einstein, and reject the cult physics, Higgs and QCD. The new paper is available for

your review from the OALib Journal, or you can write to the author “pksuh@msn.com.” Brandon

The Higgs boson was found on July 12, 2012 @ 1.25 GeV. A surprise was the predominant mechanism was gluon-gluon fusion, with virtual top-antitop intermediary reactions.

Unfortunately, this site maintains that gluons do not exist, and has not yet offered an alternative idea. This is as untenable an idea as Autodynamics and a lack of neutrinos

I’m no admirer of either QCD, nor Murray Gell-Mann’s way of doing physics. Its adherents make wilder claims than anything I’ve ever seen in physics, with as little or less justification than the Spanish inquisition, not to put too fine a point of it. Moreover, they are even more smarmy and condescending than Sheldon Cooper on a bad day, except that they are neither funny nor entertaining.

Check out the Perimeter Institute’s E8 theory. It’s looking very nice; has predicted 22 new particles.

Dear Daniel,

You make the following statement: “Unfortunately, this site maintains that gluons do not exist, and has not yet offered an alternative idea”. However, a brief examination of this site clearly proves that your statement is really very far from being true. See for example the item “Comay’s Model at a Glance” of the “The Physicist Corner” part on the right hand side panel of this blog. The Article linked therein has been published here: http://www.ejtp.com/articles/ejtpv9i26p93.pdf. See also the “Magnetic Monopoles” section of this blog as well as many other parts of it.

I understand that the E8 theory is a version of a “Theory of Everything”. In my opinion, the quest for such a theory is untimely. Let us be more modest and try to construct self-consistent theories for the strong and the weak interactions. However, I am aware that other people may think differently and try to solve other problems.

Cheers, Eli

Dear Daniel: warm greetings + many blessings !! but I have a question for you:

WHY ON EARTH would you think that a theory which predicts 22 new particles is any good at all ?? are there not ENOUGH “particles” in the “particle-zoo” already ??

BTW: I actual-ly like Dr. Lee Smolin, who founded the Perimeter Institute: his books were some of the first ones which I read, almost 10 years ago, after start-ing my on-go-ing physics-study-project …

his THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS is one of the few books which I own !!

What-ever: I will check-out the E8 theory which you mention’d … if you want, you might post some of your own understandings re this theory here …..

Sincere-ly, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast)

Interesting website.

I plan to return when I can get some time to review your ideas more carefully.

In meantime, can you please explain / define “energy width.” That’s a new term for me.

Dear smartmeterharm,

Energy width is related to the energy-time uncertainty relation. See, e.g. the Wikipedia item here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle.

Note also that in accordance with this principle, in the PDG reports data of particles having a very short half life time contain not the half life time but the energy width. See e.g. the rho meson data here:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2012/listings/rpp2012-list-rho-770.pdf

Cheers, Eli

I also feel this blockage in the positive progress in this subject, is pointing that it needs some shift in the direction the Standard Model is heading to. At this point of junction it is required to observe if there is any shift in the direction of advancement is that needed. There is a Vedic Model known as Vedic Particle Physics, which producecs without prejudice the different picture of the all the particles i.e. bosons leptons and hadrons. It clears all the doubts about the quarks and resolves many unsolved problems, the particle physicists are are facing, and many others.

I agree with the views of Mr. Dean L. Sinclair’s views about quarks, gluons and gravitons. The quark model has swallowed decades, almost half a centuary of talented scientists of the whole world.

Iwould like to add here that this idea is not an old man’s “cracked Pottery”. It is a systmatic and well meditted knowledge.

Dinesh Trivedi

07/05/2012

No, mathematics is a young person’s game because each area of math is highly self-contained & can be readily mastered (a finite set of rules).

In contrast, physics is a game for mature minds with a broad experience & knowledge of both experiments & theory. This is why theoretical physics today has been driven into a dead-end with no clear direction forward; it has been hijacked by 4 generations of mathematicians (since Planck).

I believe you.

Can I ask you a few questions for clarification?

Titkosbalint@gmail.com

Sure

Part of my carreer I worked with lenses. I analyzed and designed light lenses as well as particle lenses and cooperated in the establishment of the standard for specification and measuring the Optical Transfer Function (OTF, MTF).

In this standard we had to cope with the fact that the light rays and particle paths were curved and with the fact that the blur of point images (the point spread function, PSF) was not spatially invariant. Thus these lenses did what the gravitation field registrates, they curve space. However, here no masses are involved, but just fields created by electrodes or inhomogeneous condensed matter in the form of a mixture of glass and air.

with other words, the cause of curvature is not located in the mass of matter, but in the fields that go together with that matter. Fields are quite capable of creating local space curvature. In these lenses there is no sign of existence of Higgs bosons. Still they appear to work properly.

Ofer Comay born 1957 and, even worse, Eliyahu Comay born 1932

Theoretical physics is a young person’s game who are at the forefront of knowledge and creativity.

Great sight, very informative. Thanx

Some Reflections on Natural Processes, Mathematics, Economics, and Art Not Strictly on your Topic of KG and Higgs Internal Consistency

Physicists borrow mathematics to construct internally consistent models that explain observations of natural processes. These models may then be used to design further experiments which may be interpreted as confirming (increasing the confidence in) the model. Or, we may not be able (now or ever) to interpret the observations in a way that is consistent with the mathematical model. But physical reality is never wrong and the mathematical model must either be improved or abandoned when it cannot be made consistent with experiments.

Applied mathematics is a product of the human mind and its skilful development and use is learned only through long practice informed by those that have gone before. Fundamentally, building useful mathematical models is an art requiring skilled trial and error guided by intuition based on experience. Kepler tried several models before discovering that he had incorrectly eliminated the “correct” one which is now accepted because it predicts the position of planets accurately, but more importantly because his orbits are internally consistent (even required by) Newton’s gravitational dynamics. The interpretation of experimental results using mathematical models the use of these interpretations to make economic decisions concerning what experiments should be done is no more rigorous than any other art.

Are not some of the most fundamental advances in physical science due to the demonstration that accepted mathematical models are not fully consistent with experiments, or at least not the most elegant (simpler) model? The ancient Greeks used epicycles to explain planetary motion. This could be regarded as an anticipation of Fourier decomposition, a method now known to converge to a good match between predictions and any observations. The real flaw in epicycles is that they merely deal with angular position (kinematics) which is vastly inferior to the dynamical and physical models provided by Newton, Copernicus etc. It seems to me that there are as many theories about physical dynamics (at very high energies) as there are physicists. Should we not search for evidence that current ideas are incomplete and not just conduct experiments to confirm predictions of current models? How else can we choose among confliction opinions?

A mathematical equation never proves anything about physical reality. It’s just a model that makes predictions. If an equation (such as KG), when applied, predicts that a class of particles cannot be observed and one such particle is in fact observed, then after a period of reflection and confirming observations, the model must either be reinterpreted, modified or abandoned. But such a particle can never be observed unless the community of scientists makes a weighted economic decision based on state of the art collective knowledge to conduct classes of experiment that may produce unexpected results (as well as other more routine advances and refinements). The evaluation of work done at CERN and the wisdom of economic decisions made there can only be made in hindsight. All the rest is speculation based at best on the assumption that we already know the results of experiments at untested energy levels that have not been done yet. The history of particle physics suggests that unexpected observations will be made at untested energy levels, a fact that an experienced poker player would find most interesting when betting in the future success of experiments at CERN.

Excellent perspective on the role of math in physics. Ptolemy never suggested that his technique was anything more than a method for predicting eclipses & re-appearances of the planets. It is a perfectly sound approach using the equivalent of finite Fourier math. It was his followers who made exaggerated claims that this was a model of reality. Whether one sets the origin of one’s co-ordinate system on the Earth or on the Sun is a matter of choice – both are valid starting points.

This math-first approach seems to be the case today. Quantum Mechanics (e.g. wave mechanics) is a mathematical technique for calculating a few numbers in very simplistic situations that can be compared with experiment – in some cases. a good fit. But there is no physics behind this theory. it was created by mathematicians & promoted by mathematicians who have hijacked physics since Planck & over-state their successes. This approach (inventing an equation & getting a measurable number) is called phenomenology – it is useless for advancing our understanding of reality but keeps math guys employed.

It is not surprising that theoretical physics has made no contributions to the real world in the last 50 years.

I, too, feel there is no chance of the Higgs Boson being found. This, however , is because I feel that the entire Standard Model is based on misconceptions piled upon misconceptions to where it is the modern equivalent of the Geoecentric Model of the Universe.

I think that Quarks are a misinterpretation of an observational phenomenon, and gluons, gravitons, etc. are pure fiction. To me, the “Four

Forces” likewise consist of two misinterpretations and two total fictions and that the “fundamental particles” that arise from atom smashing would make a lot better sense as alternate states of matter…

O.K. , My ideas may all be an old man’s “Cracked Pottery.” I’ve posted a lot more of it on the Google Group site, Oscillator/Substance Theory…. Dean L. Sinclair

Dear Dr.Sinclair:

While I agree, main-ly, with what you say re the so-call’d Higgs Boson, and the errors of the Standard Model, I feel that you are offer-ing a “solution” to the problem which is at least as wrong as the problem which you are try-ing to correct …

I look’d at your short essay “A Different Look at Planck’s Constant” … you note an interest-ing “coincidence” in the numeric-value 4.7 x 10^(-19):

you note that [4.7 x 10^(-19) gram] x [4.7 x 10^(-19) cm] = h/c, which is true …

BUT: I feel that your attribution of special-significance to this is entire-ly wrong … because the quantity h/c is about the masses and sizes of REAL objects, whereas we know of NO object whose mass is 4.7 x 10^(-19) gram … so I reckon that the radius 4.7 x 10^(-19) centimeter has no special significance at all …

THINK: 300,000 protons would weigh approx. that much [4.7 x 10^(-19) gram] … that’s equivalent to approx. 300,000 x 938 MeV —– i.e., approx. 300,000,000 MeV —– which is, {(like)}, much-much more-massive than the most-massive of all the objects in the (admitted-ly-flaw’d) standard-model, i.e., the so-call’d “top-quark” … which weighs only approx. 175,000 MeV, right ??

I reckon that, unless you contemplate build-ing a particle-accellerator the size of a small town, at a co$t of $$$several zillon$$$ of dollar$$$$$, there is no way to ever generate a “particle” that heavy !!

Sincere-ly, Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast),

Princeton, NewJersey, USA, 9-FEB-2016