Saturday, November 12, 2011

The Largest Prime Number Conjecture

Yesterday (11/11/11) was a special day in terms of the calendar numerology. In China, many young people called this day as the “bachelor day of the century”, as every number in the calendar is “1”, single as bachelor. And, this won’t happen again until 100 years from now. In fact, the entire world celebrated this day in one way or the other.

Obviously, this calendar numerology has no scientific significance. Anyone who thinks it otherwise is, indeed, a solatic (meaning a lunatic in the daylight, a term invented by Matt Strassler, a theorist on physics). Of course, the calendar numerology does have some culture and psychological significances.

However, the simple numerology does have some great importance in modern science. Thus, on this special day, I would like to use a special number game (using only the number 0 and 1) to show this point.

The prime number game --- if X is the largest “known” prime number with m digits (such as, one billion digits),
then    Y1 = (10^n) + 1, and  n = m + 1.

          Y2 = (1111…1110) + 1, there are n digits in the bracketed number, and
                         n = m + 1 if m is an even number,
                         n = m + 2 if m is an odd number.
           Then, n is checked with two steps.
  step 1. if  {3, 5, 7, 11 or 13} is a divisor of n, then n = n + 2

  step 2. if the square root of n [n^(1/2)],  [n^(1/3)], [n^(1/5)], [n^(1/7)], [n^(1/11)], or  [n^(1/13)]
                 i. is equal to an integer, then n = n + 2 and go back to step 1.
                 ii. is not equal to an integer, then n is chosen. 
           Thus, Y2 must have odd number digits and all its digits are “1”.

As this is only a game for this special (11/11/11) day, I will not try to prove a “Largest Prime Number” theorem but make it as a conjecture.

Largest Prime Number Conjecture:
 a. if X is the largest “known” prime number with m digits (such as, one billion digits), then one of the two numbers (Y1 or Y2) is a larger prime than X.

 b. if the Y2 above is not a prime, then let n = n + 2 and repeat the n-check steps to get a new Y2. There is always an Y2 which is a prime and Y2 > X.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Technicolor, simply wrong

In the recent LHC data, the supersymmetry and superstring theories are basically ruled out. Thus, the Technicolor has gained some attentions among physicists.

Technicolor in terms of Rishon Model  (RM) was internally inconsistent and was ruled out 30 years ago theoretically. In my view, technicolor is simply wrong.

The rishon model (RM) is the result of a reverse-engineering of trying to explain the quark color by postulating preons (sub-particle of quarks) which carry Technicolor (the hypercolor). And, the preons are postulated "point-like" particles, conceived to be subcomponents of quarks and leptons. That is, the RM has no underlying physics as its foundation.

Yet, Prequarks in Prequark Chromodynamics (PM) are often mistaken to be similar to the preons. Although quarks and leptons are composed of prequarks, prequarks are not particles at all but are attributes of the spacetime sheet. Furthermore, prequarks themselves do not carry any color charges. And, the “generation” is a color charge in PM. Thus,  prequarks are not the results of a reverse-engineering from the quark theory but arise from a “new” physics.

This new physics goes way beyond the gadget physics, and thus I presented it with a new methodology, the Fictitious Universe (FU) Physics.  In FU physics, all physics (principles or laws) are derived, not discovered. Then, these FU laws are compared to the discovered physics laws, as a fingerprints marching or a beauty contest. I have showed many fingerprints marching in my last post ( ) without revealing the underlying physics. Now, I will give a brief outline about this new physics which has only two simple points.

1. The law of creation --- the term “Law of Creation” is a no-no word in science, especially in the gadget physics. In fact, the “First” spontaneous symmetry breaking (FSSB) is the result of the law of creation, which consists of two parts.
a. The “Original” symmetry
b. The symmetry breaking process.

This “Law of Creation” was described in detail in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325) and is available online. Thus, I will only discuss it very briefly here.

The result of this symmetry breaking (creation) is the spacetime sheet. The breaking process is to transform the symmetry “dimension” (X) to the spacetime “dimension” (n). In Super Unified Theory (SUT), the above process is called the “dimension concretization” or dimension expression, and the n = 11 in SUT.

2. The attributes of spacetime  --- “time” comes into being after the above creation, and it has the following attributes in SUT.
a. “Time” is a quanta, that is, delta T > 0. Delta T can never be equal to zero.

b. “Time” is a 4-dimensional vector, delta T = (t, -t, it, -it). That is, every quanta of time must be identified with 4 labels. “it and –it” are the imaginary time.

c. “Space” is the expression of the “moving” time, that is, delta S = N* C* delta T. N is a time-moving matrix. C is the light speed.

The entire Fictitious Universe arose from these three attributes of time. All derived laws and prequarks (described in the previous posts) are direct consequences of them. I will reiterate some other important direct consequences below.

i. The universe must expand with Acceleration, as the creation process continues (see ). Of course, when the mass of the universe reaches a critical point, the expansion will become decelerating.

ii. Every fermion’s (including neutrino’s) rest mass arises by the “flip-flap” between the “real” and the “imaginary” time mechanism.  That is, the Higgs mechanism is only the shadow of this RI-flip-flap mechanism. So, Higgs boson of any kind is not needed (see ).

iii. As the rest mass of neutrino arises from this RI-flip-flap mechanism, neutrinos must oscillate (see ). And, there must not have fourth type of neutrino of any kind.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Physics laws must give rise to biological lives directly

The scope of “Fictitious Universe (FU) physics” must encompass the entire known physics (derived by the gadgets, such as Tevatron or LHC) and “all” known realities, such as,
a. the rise of biological lives from the laws of physics, not just obeying physics laws by lives, and
b. the rise of intelligence in terms of physics laws.

This concept of going beyond the gadget physics was described in the article “Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part seven” at ( ).  Thus far, I have showed many fingerprints marching between this FU physics and the gadget physics. The FU physics did reproduce the following known physics.

1. The particle zoo of Standard Model, see       

3. Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, see
4. Theoretical calculation of Alpha (Electron Fine structure constant), see

With these fingerprints marching, there are enough and enough proofs to show that the gadget physics is only a subset of the FU physics (Super Unified Theory). However, if the FU physics cannot encompass “all known realities”, then it is useless.

Every biological life processes information, that is, it needs a bio-computer. In 1970s, John Horton Conway invented “Life Game” and discovered that the “glider” of the life game can be the base to construct a Turing computer.

In Prequark Chromodynamics, both proton and neutron are gliders with the prequark representations. See the table below.  

Comparison of proton, glider and neutron
Proton as quarks
Proton as Prequarks


Neutron as Prequarks
Neutron as quarks
up (red)
(V, A, A)

( , * *)

- (A, V, V)
down (red)
up (yellow)
(A, V, A)

(* , *)

- (V, A, V)
down (yellow)
down (blue)
- (V, V, A)

( , , *)

(A, A, V)
up (blue)

That is, with the Prequark Chromodynamics, a Turing computer is embedded in the basic building blocks of life. Thus, the laws of FU physics do provide the essential parts of biological lives. The detail of this is described in the article “The Rise of Biological Life”, available at .

Saturday, November 5, 2011

M-theory, a TOE if and only if it adds two points

M-theory (Mother of all theories) is a new name for the old Superstring theory which claims to be a TOE (theory of everything), as it can be a way of describing every force and matter regardless of how large or small or weak or strong it is.

But, 20 years ago, Sheldon Glashow said, "They [superstring physicists] have the feeling that they require, as Ed Witten says, the construction of five new fields of mathematics before they have any reason to become confident that they have a theory. In fact they do not have a theory. They have a complex of ideas which do not evidently form any kind of theory and they cannot even say whether their structure describes the successful accomplishments that have been obtained in the laboratory, and in theoretical physics."

Now, 20 years later, Rudolf Haag (wrote in 2010), “String theory is hailed as the most promising among present endeavours. But it is an overstatement to call it a theory. It has not settled down to a well defined formalism nor has it explained any existing puzzle nor can I see that it can make contact with any observable phenomenon in the foreseeable future.”

The bottom line is that the M-theory cannot make contact with any observable phenomenon in particle physics. However great a TOE the M-theory is, it cannot reproduce the particle zoo which is well understood now.

However, the quark in the Prequark Chromodynamics is a superstring, composed of prequarks. By adding Prequark Chromodynamics, the M-theory makes contact with the known physics right the way. The following is a brief description of the Prequark Chromodynamics.

There are three quark colors. In Prequark theory, these three colors can be represented as three seats (in spacetime). For each seat, it can be either empty (Vacutron) or occupied (Angultron). Thus, only four different kinds of particles can be formed:
  1. A particle with all seats occupied by Angultrons carries one unit of electric charge, and it is named positron.
  2. A particle with two seats occupied by Angultrons carries 2/3 units of electric charge, and it is named UP quark.
  3. A particle with one seat occupied by an anti-Angultron carries -1/3 units of electric charge, and it is named Down quark.
  4. A particle with no seat occupied by Angultron carries zero units of electric charge, and it is named neutrino.
Furthermore, for a given quark (as an open string), there are three ways to arrange the seating, and each way is distinguishable from others. Physicists have chosen three color labels to identify these differences. So, two quarks (Up and Down) evolve into six distinguishable quarks.

Again, in Quantum Chromodynamics, there are three generations of quarks. These three generations are identified with three numbers, 1, 2 and 3. Thus, the prequark representations for those elementary particles are listed in table I and table II. 

Table I: Prequark Representation for Leptons
Particle name
Prequark Representation
Electric Charge
-(A, A, A1)
one (1)
(V, V, V1)
-(A, A, A2)
one (1)
Muon neutrino
(V, V, V2)
-(A, A, A3)
one (1)
Tau neutrino
(V, V, V3)

Table II: Prequark Representation for Quarks
Particle name
Electric Charge
Up quark
(V, A, A1)
(A, V, A1)
(A, A, V1)
Down quark
-(A, V, V1)
-(V, A, V1)
-(V, V, A1)
Charm quark
(V. A. A2)
(A, V, A2)
(A, A, V2)
Strange quark
-(A, V, V2)
-(V, A, V2)
-(V, V, A2)
Top quark
(V, A, A3)
(A, V, A3)
(A, A, V3)
Bottom quark
-(A, V, V3)
-(V, A, V3)
-(V, V, A3)

Three notions shall be mentioned here.

First, the quark color corresponds to a special seating arrangement. I have chosen the first seat to be red, yellow for the second seat, blue for the third. The quark color is identified by the seat's color which is occupied by a minority prequark. For example, V is the minority prequark in (V, A, A1), and it sits on the red seat; so (V, A, A1) has a red color. (V, A, V1) is yellow because the minority prequark A sits on the yellow seat. The prequarks (A or V) themselves are colorless.

Second, quark colors obey the complementary rules: a) R + Y + B = White (colorless), b) R + Y = anti-B, etc.

Third, the generation of a quark or a lepton is represented by a number, 1, 2 or 3. For convenience, the generation numbers are attached on the third seat. The prequarks and seats themselves have no generation.
The “generation” is a color charge in the Prequark Chromodynamics, and it obeys the color complementary rules. Thus, in Prequark Chromodynamics, the fourth generation of quarks is prohibited.

Note: Angultron could be much more massive than quarks. So, it is called prequark (before quarks), not subquark.

The major difference between the Prequark Chromodynamics (PC) and the M-theory is that PC knows the detailed internal structure of the quark superstring while M-theory does not.

In his book “Not Even Wrong”, Peter Woit shows “that what many physicists call superstring ‘theory’ is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Not Even Wrong explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today and shows that judgments about scientific statements, which should be based on the logical consistency of argument and experimental evidence, are instead based on the eminence of those claiming to know the truth.”

Yet, I have showed that by adding Prequark Chromodynamics  (one of the two points), a superstring theory can make contact with the known physics.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Supersymmetry, Gone with the wind

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is one of the greatest human achievements. Yet, we all know that SM is incomplete, as it lacks a proven “mass rising” mechanism for elementary particles and a way of contacting to gravity. Thus, Supersymmetry arose as a theory goes beyond the Standard Model.

Yet, data released from LHC this summer have ruled out some key models of Supersymmetry. Thus, many Supersymmetry theorists were scrambling for finding a Lifeline for Supersymmetry. The recent report (about two weeks ago) from CMS on “Multileptonic SUSY searches, at least three leptons is presented” ( ), which observed a very small excess of the tri-lepton events, was viewed as such a lifeline for Supersymmetry. However, many prominent physicists disagreed.

Peter Woit (a theorist) wrote in his blog,
“You may have seen by now claims from various sources about evidence for SUSY coming from CMS, for instance Hints of New Physics Crop Up at LHC, A Lifeline for Supersymmetry?, and CMS sees SUSY-like trilepton excesses. This nonsense is all due to …, who for some reason thought it was a good idea to post a blog entry
               “ Something Curious at the Large Hadron Collider”
that starts off:
          “Finally, something at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that does not seem to agree that well with the predictions of the equations of the Standard Model of particle physics.”

followed by various caveats, which include though the advice:
               “But this is clearly something to watch closely over the coming months.”
As one could easily have predicted, this got picked up by the media and various blogs, mostly dropping the caveats. In a later more detailed posting, Matt carefully three times in italicized red explains that ‘The excess will probably disappear’.”

LuboŇ° Motl wrote in his blog, “Even if this signal grew and became a discovery, it wouldn't prove that R-parity-violating supersymmetric physics is the cause: there could be other explanations as well although theorists would probably believe that the R-parity-violating SUSY would be the most likely explanation.”

Tommaso Dorigo (an experimental particle physicist) wrote, “Since Supersymmetry is not a physics model but an infinite set of physics models, …
And since the SUSY parameter space has over 100 dimensions, it is utterly impossible to compare your data to all of these hypotheses one by one. What ATLAS does -in line with the other experiments- is to select a subset of the theories, which can be specified by the value of much fewer parameters. In the so-called "mSUGRA model", for instance, you need to specify no more than five of them. Further choose two among the most relevant ones -be it the mass of scalars and fermions at the grand-unification scale- and you can construct a two-dimensional plot, each point of which is a different theory.”

Although many physicists above are not in favor about the interpretation of the above CMS data as a new lifeline for Supersymmetry, science after all is not an opinion poll. We should give some concrete reasons for why SUSY is a very bad idea.

As our Universe is a result of a symmetry breaking, there must be a symmetry before that breaking act. Thus, the yearning for a supersymmetry is correct. But, the point is that what this supersymmetry was. The current Supersymmetry model(s) construct a symmetry by giving all known elementary particles a symmetry partner, and this is a very bad idea as it creates a too cumbersome universe. Let me explain this with one analogy.

For a circle (a disk), it is a good symmetry.  This disk symmetry is broken if a chunk of disk’s edge is broken off. And, this broken chunk is the symmetry partner of this broken disk. From this simple symmetry breaking process, two issues arise.

One, can we find the broken chunk by searching the broken disk? Everyone knows the answer. Of course, we cannot. Then, how can we find the symmetry partner of this Universe in this Universe? Can the dance of LHC go out of this Universe to find its symmetry partner? Of course, it cannot. Thus, even if those Supersymmetry models were not wrong, there is no chance to find the symmetry partner of this Universe in this Universe.

Two, if the only way for our Universe came into being is by a symmetry breaking, it should choose the easiest way to do it. Instead of breaking out a big chunk, it is enough for just breaking a “point”. When a “point” was broken off from the circumference of the above disk, that symmetry was broken. There is no symmetry breaking process which can be easier and more economic than this one. If our Universe could come into being with this “one point” symmetry breaking process, why should it bother with all those s-particles?

In fact, this “one-point” symmetry breaking process is the foundation for “Super Unified Theory”. The detail of this “one-point” symmetry breaking process was described in the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge” ( ).

With the reasons above, I will predict that all Supersymmetry models will be ruled out eventually, sooner or later.

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong
The book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325)