Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Higgs boson, a bad idea, part four

{Note (added on April 2, 2015, months before the LHC run II):

There should be a vacuum boson {as vacuum [d (blue), -d (-yellow)] quark pair} transformed into vacuum {u (yellow), -u (-blue)}, see http://www.prequark.org/pq11.htm .

This vacuum boson's mass should be:

{Vacuum energy (about 246 Gev) divided by 2} + {a push over energy (vacuum fluctuation, about 2.46 Gev)}
= 123 + 2.46 = 125.46 Gev.

The above calculation has only one parameter: the vacuum energy. As a vacuum boson, its key feature is having a zero (0) spin.

Three years after the discovery of this new 125.4 Gev boson, the Higgs mechanism is not verified (see an article from Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/04/24/massive-thoughts/ ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, total nonsense, and of course, there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.

With the Standard Model (quark universe) as the destination, I have shown a road map of how to reach it from a singularity, the nothingness. I am summarizing this roadmap below.

According to the principles of Linguistics Manifesto, all large complex systems arise from a series of “self-reflection” processes. There are, at least, three self-reflections on the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking for giving rise to the physical universe.

A. Self-reflection one (the singularity self-reflection)--- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking via the concretizing pathway, and it gives rise to two concrete objects, trisected angle and a circle. The key numbers for these two objects are (3, pi, 4, 64).

B. Self-reflection two (the loop-line self-reflection) --- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry via the “loop-line” symmetry breaking pathway, and it gives rise to,
     i. three seats (x, y, z) as a line has three parts, the two ends and the middle.

     ii. (4, 4, 4) = 64 dimensions, as every seat has 4 dimensions (+1, -1, +i, -i).

     iii. The inner product (IP, another self-reflection) gives rise to two groups with two subgroups each.
                a. Positive (32 dimensions)
                           1. When IP = +1 (24 dimensions), these could be the matter dimensions.
                           2. When IP = +3 (8 dimensions), these should be the vacuum dimensions. 

                b. Negative (32 dimensions)
                           1. When IP = -1 (24 dimensions), these could be the anti-matter dimensions.
                           2. When IP = -3 (8 dimensions), these should be the vacuum dimensions.

C. Self-reflection three (the stock sharing self-reflection) --- the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking via the results of the two self-reflections above. The wholeness (the unit circle) is divided by those 64 dimensions according to the actual manifestation. Thus, there should be a dividing “unit”, A(0).

       a. A(0), the unit angle,  equals to  {(360/2pi) *[(pi/64 + (pi/64)^ 2 + (pi/64)^3  + ... ]/2]} = 1.4788413 degrees. 

Note: the A(0) is based only on the two self-reflections above, with only the numbers (pi and 64) in its calculation.

       b. A(1), the first order division (stock sharing), equals to
                           [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.521159 degrees.
Again, A(1) is wholly based on the two self-reflections above, with only the numbers [360 (=2pi), 24, A(0)].

       c. A(2), the second order division (pie sharing), equals to
                                      (2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24) = 28.75 degree.
Again, A(2) is wholly based on the previous data, with only the numbers [360 (=2pi), 24, A(0), A(1)].

Coincidentally, the value of A(1) is very close to the Cabibbo angle (θc), and the value of A(2) is very close to the Weinberg angle (θW ). For both the Weinberg angle (θW ) and Cabibbo angle (θc), they are the results of “bookkeeping” by measuring the ratios of different quarks in a mixing bowl (the result of collisions of high energy particles). They are not derived theoretically.

On the contrary, the A(1) and A(2) are derived theoretically from the self-reflection of the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking. They are the precise rules for the “stock sharing” among those dimensions (different quarks or leptons) which arise from the symmetry breaking.

Then, there is a dimensionless constant (alpha, the electron fine structure constant), and its measured value is as below.
                                                            Beta = 1/alpha = 137.0359 …
Thus far, this alpha is viewed as the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man.

Yet, in the Prequark Chromodynamics ( http://www.prequark.org/  ), the Alpha is calculated theoretically with the following equation.

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order sharing + sum of the higher order sharing)
        = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …) = 137.0408704 …

The sum of the higher order sharing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...] = .00065737 + …  

Note: there is a 0.0036% difference between this theoretical number from the measured value. The A(2) =28.75 degrees is calculated with the universe having the zero mass, and it could be compressed a bit after the universe gained its mass. This difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.

Thus, the “Alpha” is the controlling rule for the “stock sharing” for those dimensions (manifested as quarks and leptons).  In fact, a sharing plan is always the governing rule (such as the constitution) for any large complex system, a politic system or else.

With these three self-reflections of the zero(s)/infinities symmetry breaking, the roadmap from a “singularity” to “quark universe” is, now, clear with a perfect internal consistency.  And, these three self-reflections are the foundation for the Prequark Chromodynamics.

On the contrary, the idea of Higgs boson as a neutral particle without any internal structure (not composite of any sub-particles) is, in fact, a dangling particle without any foundation. As a dangling rootless particle in comparison to a perfect road map, how can this Higgs boson not be a bad idea?

Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

No comments:

Post a Comment