Sunday, August 7, 2011

Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part eight

{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 .

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 article form Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi Lab. at ). That is, the Higgs mechanism is wrong, totally nonsense, and of course there is no Higgs boson; it is a Vacuum Boson.
End note.}

With the recent data from LHC, the Higgs game is de facto over although some final verifications on a bump around the 120 Gev are still pending. And, down into the tube, it also goes the supersymmetry fantasy.  Now, the only viable theory is the Prequark Chromodynamics (PC), as the M-theory is only a subset of the PC.

While Higgs was not officially ruled out by Prequark Chromodynamics, there are, at least, four big reasons for Higgs being a very bad idea.
1. Higgs is not needed in Prequark Chromodynamics.

2. Higgs (if being a rock bottom particle) violates the bottoming out principle, explained in the book “Linguistics Manifesto” (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1), available at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

3. Higgs is useless to link Standard Model to other realities, the Life sphere (pop), the Mathematics Universe (pop), etc..

4. This physical universe sits on three pillars, 1) the Cabibbo angle (θc) ~ 13.5 degrees, 2) the Weinberg angle (θW ) ~ 28.74 degrees and 3) the Alpha ["electron fine structure constant" (Beta = 1/alpha = 137.0359 … )]. Higgs can do nothing to derive them while they can be easily derived in Prequark Chromodynamics (see the post  ).

As the Prequark Chromodynamics did not become a mainstream theory, I should give a brief outline on its history here. The first paper on PC was written on December 4, 1979. Then, a book “Super Unified Theory --- the Foundations of Science” was copyrighted on April 18, 1984 (TX  1-323-231). Many reviews about the Prequark Chromodynamics were listed in that book. I will list some key reviews below.

a. Jon Machta (in March 2004) invited me to join the faculty at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

b. Jainendra K. Jain (in February, 2004) invited me to join the faculty at PennState.

c. Steven Weinberg (in 1996) --- the outlook for Prequark is not good.

d. Alan Harvey Guth (in 1994) --- it [prequark] is very interesting.

e. John Archibald Wheeler (in 1994) --- it [prequark] has no test point.

f. Sidney D. Drell (in 1983) --- invited me doing research work at SLAC.

g. The Physical Review (D. Nordstrom, in October 1983) --- We have made no judgment on whether your work is correct or not, only that the subject matter is not suitable for the Physical Review.

Up to this point, the Prequark Chromodynamics is, in fact, just a one-man show.  You all missed this great boat for the past thirty years. Now, I would like to invite you all to join in.

No comments:

Post a Comment