A human community uses rules that aim to facilitate its members' activity.
The following points indicate issues that are not included in the
present practice of the
particle physics community.
The need for these items is understood by most people.
No physics mainstream journal dedicates a permanent section
to a discussion of theoretical errors.
There are many awards in physics but there is no award for
a detection of a meaningful error in mainstream theories.
The contemporary particle physics community does not cordially welcome
persons who claim that there is a flaw in its theories.
In particular, Editors and referees of mainstream journals
systematically reject papers that are written by
these persons. In many cases, these rejections have no
scientifically valid basis.
The publish or perish rule explains
why it is difficult to find these people in the academy.
These primary errors affect the quality of the present
work of mainstream theoretical physicists. Indeed,
error correction is widely recognized as an extremely
important assignment of human activity. Factories
call it QA, computer programmers call it debugging, etc. The
concept called Devil's Advocate is relevant to this issue. The
unfortunate absence of this task from the contemporary particle physics
agenda and the very long duration of this practice
have caused the present situation where many specific
errors of theoretical physics have not been corrected.
Obviously, these errors deteriorate the merits
of contemporary accepted theories as well as the merits of the
theoretical work that endeavors to proceed further.
The following list of specific errors aims to convince physicists
that this claim is correct. In particular, these items are supported by
appropriate references. Each of these errors belongs to
an appropriate Standard Model sector.
The conclusions which are written at the end are understandable
by most readers.
Believe it or not, a free gauge transformation is unacceptable in QED.
The correct form of the relevant theorem is: "If a Lagrangian function
is invariant under a transformation and both the Lagrangian function
and the transformation are
mathematically consistent then..."
In particular, a specific example proves that a gauge transformation is
inconsistent with a simple interference calculation of an electronic beam.
For details, see section 3 on p. 4
The present form of the electromagnetic fields term of the QED
Lagrangian density is
ℒ = -F μν Fμν /16π
(see e.g. , p. 349). Here F μν is the sum
of bound fields and radiation fields.
Now, radiation fields have spin=1 and an odd parity. On the other hand, one
can regard the hydrogen atom as a measuring device and prove
that bound fields have spin=0 and an even parity. Hence,
the product of the sum of these different kinds of
fields in (1) means that the present form of QED violates
parity conservation. Furthermore, the angular momentum of a product of a spin=0
and a spin=1 functions is unity. By contrast, the Lagrangian
density of a physical field
should be a Lorentz scalar.
For these reasons, the Lagrangian density (1) is
certainly an erroneous element of the present structure of QED.
and see also the references therein.
The recent QED failure to explain the proton's charge
radius data 
is certainly an experimental support for these theoretical QED
QCD has been constructed on the basis of an erroneous argument.
The proof of this claim takes less than 30 text lines. For reading
QCD is inconsistent with many experimental data. For reading an article
that discusses this issue
You can also read a popular science book that discusses many aspects of
this issue. For this purpose just use the following string in google
together with the name of your favorite bookseller:
"Science or Fiction? The Phony Side of Particle Physics".
Experiment shows that the cross-section of a hard photon scattered on a
proton is about the same as the corresponding neutron data.
The Standard Model has no explanation for this effect.
For reading a brief discussion
The following issue is relevant to this matter. The photon is an
elementary particle which is known for more than 100 years and
the nucleons are the best-known hadrons. However, many
particle physics textbooks take an ostrich policy and do not contain an
appropriate discussion of hard photon-nucleon interaction in
general and of the above mentioned proton-neutron similarity
The EMC effect is known for more than 30 years. The data prove that the QCD
predictions are completely inconsistent with the effect .
This QCD problem has not been settled yet. Indeed,
on April 14, 2017 the Wikipedia
item of the EMC effect describes it in the following words:
"The EMC effect has been
bewildering physicists up to the present day". For details,
Similarly, a recent CERN publication
admits that the data still puzzles QCD supporters. For details,
Experimental data show that the proton radius is larger than that of the pion.
For seeing the PDG data,
Another proton information says that its quarks are
enclosed in a volume that is much smaller than that of its antiquarks. (This
information is derived from the uncertainty principle and the width of the
momentum graphs of the proton's quark and its antiquark (see ,
p. 281)). QCD has no explanation for the effect where the pion's one
quark can hold the antiquark within a rather small volume whereas
the proton's four quarks (the three valence quarks and the antiquark's
companion) cannot hold the antiquark within a volume which is at
least not larger than their own volume.
The Standard Model electroweak theory contains erroneous elements.
For details, see section 2
In particular, the W± are two electrically charged
are regarded by the electroweak theory as elementary
particle. These particles play a crucial role in this theory. However, in
spite of the fact that the electroweak theory is about 50 years old,
this interpretation of the
W± contradicts Maxwellian electrodynamics
because it does not satisfy charge conservation (see section 2
The following evidence illustrates this issue. In the case
of the electron, the Dirac
theory provides an expression for a conserved 4-current (see ,
p. 24). By contrast, the electroweak theory is nearly 50 years old. However,
people working with the CERN LHC machine
still use an effective expression for the
W± electromagnetic interactions
(see e.g. eq. (3) in ).
The Standard Model electroweak theory is inconsistent with
the data. For example, eq. (21.3.2) of , p. 305 means that the
electroweak theory treats the neutrino as a massless
two-component spinor. By contrast, it is now recognized that
the neutrino is a massive four-component spinor .
Referring to this issue,
one should note that Wigner's analysis of the representations of
the inhomogeneous Lorentz group proves that a massive particle
and a massless particle are inherently different physical objects.
A mathematically real quantum function cannot describe an elementary massive
particle. For reading a paper that proves this claim,
A brief discussion of this matter can be found
It follows that the Majorana neutrino theory, the Yukawa theory
of the nuclear force,
The electroweak Z theory, and the mathematically real Higgs boson theory
The Standard Model aims to formulate the physical laws of three kinds of
interactions: strong, electromagnetic and weak.
Each of these interactions is addressed by appropriate items of the
foregoing list, which present well documented specific errors. Therefore,
the Standard Model contains theoretical and experimental errors that pertain
to all forces claimed to be covered by this theory.
As a matter of fact, more examples of Standard Model errors can be shown.
It turns out that contrary to what is expected from every
responsible scientific community, Standard Model proponents
simply ignore this predicament and tell people that the
Standard Model is free of any contradictions. As a matter of
fact, some of them go even further and use
groundless superlatives in their description
of the Standard Model. One can find many statements of this kind in
the literature and on the web.
Here are few examples that have been published in the new millennium
by institutes and mainstream physicists. As a matter of fact, even
persons who do not belong to the present establishment unjustifiably
adhere to the Standard Model.
It is quite
sad to say that no contemporary leading physicist has published a loud
and clear denial of this kind of blatant distortion of scientific truth.
(If you think that
the previous statement is wrong then please send me an appropriate link.)
Fermilab is a large USA national laboratory. On November 18, 2011 it
The Standard Model: The most successful theory ever. See
Fermilab repeated this groundless declaration on December 18, 2016. See
CERN is a very large European research center. An official
CERN publication declares: "everything we know up to now is
described by the Standard Model" (see
It is quite strange to realize that
this baseless declaration contradicts another CERN publication
entitled "The EMC effect still puzzles after 30 years" (see
In the introduction to his book 
R. Oerter praises the Standard Model
and like the above mentioned Fermilab declaration, he
belittles the merits of other scientific theories. Thus, he
refers to the Standard Model and states:
It surpasses in precision, in universality, in
its range of applicability from the very small to the astronomically
large, every scientific theory that has ever existed. This theory bears
the unassuming name "The Standard Model of Elementary Particles".
M. Strassler completely ignores the above mentiond Standard Model (SM) errors and states:
SM is simplest and most elegant theory consistent with data
- Completely self-contained; no missing parts, no inconsistencies
- No confirmed conflicts with any existing experiments!
- Simplest and most elegant → the one most likely to be right
P. Woit is certainly a physicist who is not afraid to express a critical
opinion on current trends of mainstream physical research (see his
book Not Even Wrong
Unfortunately, he himself adheres to the fundamentally erroneous opinion
of Standard Model glorification.
For example, in the above mention book he declares:
"The standard model has been such an overwhelming success that
elementary particle physics is now in the historically unparalleled
situation of having no experimental phenomena to study that are
in disagreement with the model. Every particle physics experiment
that anyone has been able to conceive and carry out has given
results in precise agreement with the standard model."
(see the top of p. 91).
It turns out that he has not changed his mind and
on June 24, 2015 he published the following statements:
"...one remarkable aspect of the Standard Model is that it is
consistent all the way up to much higher energies than we have any
hope of probing experimentally.
One can take the theory's consistency with all current data
as evidence that the Standard Model may be something rather close
to a final theory" (see
BTW. His statements do not stand simple commonsense. Indeed, how can he
be sure that the Standard Model is consistent at energies so high that no
experiment has ever reached?
The physical approach of L. Smolin is analogous to that of P. Woit. Indeed,
at about the same time each of them has published a book that criticizes the
popular idea of string theory (see
Unfortunately, like P. Woit he praises the Standard Model and
in the introduction to his book he refers to the period that begins
with the Standard Model construction. Here he defies evidence and declares:
"No one has since done an experiment
that was not consistent with this model..."
The Standard Model aims to formulate the physical laws of three kinds of
interactions: strong, electromagnetic and weak. The foregoing discussion proves
that errors exist in all sectors of this model.
The information presented above may help people to make up their
mind on the present status of particle physics theories and on
the efforts of mainstream physicists aiming to develop these
theories further. For a description of several examples of these efforts, see
The best Standard Model situation is that every problematic item mentioned
above has an adequate solution. However, even in this case
readers should realize the importance of this
work because it present new angles of physical effects whose clarification
contributes to a better understanding of physical issues.
For reading a full article, click
 S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I, (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
 R. Pohl et al. Nature, 466, 213 (2010).
 J. J. Aubert; et al., Phys. Lett. 123B, 275 (1983).
 D. H. Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics
(Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park CA, 1987).
 J. D. Bjorken and S.D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum
Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964).
 G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett.
B712, 289 (2012).
 S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. II, (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
 J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller,
Rev. Mod. Phys., 84, 1307 (2012).
 R. Oerter,
The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung
Triumph of Modern Physics
(Plume, New York, 2006).