Who am I

and why I'm sure that the Standard Model contains erroneous elements

Home Contact Me

 


Here I wish to briefly tell readers the scientific aspect of my personality. I hope that the following lines will provide an explanation for the construction of my internet site and tell readers the kind of discussions that can be found in it.
  1. I have a PhD degree in physics. My scientific publications can be divided into three parts: Articles on nuclear physics, mainstream articles that discuss topics belonging to different fields and other publications that are now regarded as non-mainstream articles. The second and the third part are dedicated to a better understanding of electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. I've published about 100 papers and I have an indirect evidence that I've done a not very bad scientific work. Some articles that belong to the second part of my publications can be found here.

  2. During a very long period of my life I was sure that physicists try to do a good work, that they correct errors which may be found in their work, that they objectively examine new ideas and that they regard people who think differently as colleagues and even as friends. I'm quite sure that the man in the street shares this opinion. The following examples support this point of view.
    • Several groups of nuclear physicists that have a different opinion on how to calculate nuclear mass, have organized a collaboration and published their work together. See, e.g. here.
    • Quantum mechanics, which was created in the 1920s, has replaced the Bohr atomic theory which assumes that electrons rotate around the nucleus like planets rotate around the sun. No serious objection to the removal of the old theory is known. In particular, Bohr himself has abandoned his old theory and has made an important contribution to quantum mechanics.

  3. Unfortunately, I now think that the practice of the present particle physics community is different. In particular, in spite of the quite large number of Standard Model errors, the physical community does not discuss these errors at all and Standard Model supporters who act as "referees" reject every paper that dares casting doubt on the correctness of any Standard Model element. This is certainly a detrimental policy because error correction is a vital part of any human activity. Furthermore, some textbooks glorify the Standard Model and declare: "We have mentioned several times that the Standard Model appears to be in complete agreement with all measurements." (See chapter 14 in Introduction To Nuclear And Particle Physics, Second Edition by A. Das and T. Ferbel, (World Scientific Publishing, 2003) here .) Many other examples of Standard Model glorification can be easily found in the scientific literature, on the web and in the general media.

    This attitude is very far away from a fair description of reality. For example, the EMC effect is known for more than 30 years. The data prove that the QCD predictions are completely inconsistent with the effect [1]. This QCD problem has not been settled yet. Indeed, a recent CERN publication admits that the data still puzzles QCD supporters. For details, click here. It turns out that members of the present mainstream community do not draw self-evident conclusions from the persistent failure that lasts for several decades and deny seeking theoretical reasons that explain the fiasco. Thus, some people point out the contradiction whereas others defy evidence and declare that "the Standard Model appears to be in complete agreement with all measurements." It should be noted that no influential physicist has successfully denied these groundless declarations. Thus, glorifications of the Standard Model appear time and again in mainstream literature. Moreover, mainstream journals do not discuss the self-evident problem: if a given theory persistently fails for several decades then probably something is wrong with it.

  4. Here is another short example of the previous issue. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is regarded as a very successful theory (see here .) Now, a process called renormalization is an element of the present form of QED and R. P. Feynman, who is an extremely important QED figure has called renormalization "a dippy process" (see the previous link). Evidently, an unbiased person may wonder how can a dippy process produce a very successful theory? A free and open discussion can certainly illuminate new angles of this problem. Unfortunately, this matter is not discussed in mainstream journals. I'm quite sure that the majority of persons agree with me that sweeping problems under the rug is not a good scientific practice. (By contrast, it is interesting to compare the presently accepted version of QED with a physically successful theory like special relativity. And indeed, it turns out that no serious physicist has ever used such words with respect to any element of special relativity.)

  5. Many QCD errors are described here , and in the following popular science book here . Some errors of the electroweak theory are pointed out here . See also the discussion presented here .

  6. Many years ago I've realized that the Standard Model contains erroneous elements. In order to convince physicists that I am right I've written more than ten short proofs of erroneous elements of the Standard Model. Each proof takes about one page and they can be found here . For example, the following text is understandable even by a person who has finished undergraduate studies in physics, chemistry etc. See here. I know that some Standard Model supporters have already been acquainted with some of these proofs. However, as of today nobody has shown me that he has successfully refuted even one of these proofs. I continue challenging Standard Model supporters to do that.

  7. I've constructed this site as another vehicle for publishing my ideas on theoretical physics. It contains discussions and links to published articles. The text contains proofs of many Standard Model errors. I state that I'm ready to examine criticism in a scientific manner and that I'll correct any proven error that may be found on this site.
References:

[1] J. J. Aubert; et al., Phys. Lett. 123B, 275 (1983).