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” (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1393719 ), 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’.”


Luboš 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” (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm ).


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


Signature:
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)

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Super Unification in Fictitious Universe physics


 

In my previous posts, I have introduced the concept of “Fictitious Universe physics” (the FU physics). Obviously, the underlying physics in this FU physics is dramatically different from the traditional physics. Thus, instead of discussing that new physics, I have chosen to do the beauty-contest first, to see which one can do the better job by resolving some known physics mysteries. I have made two comparisons.


a. Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles  (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html), this cannot be done in the Standard Model.


b. Theoretical calculation of Feynman's damn mystery number (Alpha, the Electron Fine Structure constant) at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html ,  this cannot be done in the traditional physics.


Yet, both of them can be easily done in this Fictitious Universe physics.


However, the most important point in this Fictitious Universe physics is the Super Unified Force equation.


F (unified) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S)

K is a coupling constant, ħ Planck constant, T time, S space. From this unified force equation, the uncertainty principle can be derived very easily.

Delta P = F * Delta T = K ħ/ Delta S

So, delta P * delta S = K
ħ
Thus;
  1. When, K >=1, then delta P * delta S >= ħ
  2. When K ~ 1, the uncertainty principle remains significant.
  3. When K << 1, then uncertainty principle is no long important.
Now, FU physics has reproduced the traditional Uncertainty Principle, that is, making contact with the Quantum physics.


Furthermore, the Super Unification can be easily done at the unification scale when r (distance between two masses) is written r = delta r, and delta r = C delta t. C is the light speed.


a. The Newtonian gravity equation can be rewritten as follow:
    F (Newton gravity) = G mM/r^2 = (
ħC/Mp^2) mM/r^2  
                                = (mM/Mp^2)( ħc/r^2) = f1 (ħc/r^2)
                                = f1 (ħc / (delta r)^2) = f1 (ħ/(delta r * delta t))
(Mp is the Planck’s mass)
                               
b.  The Coulomb law can be rewritten as:
F (electric) = k* q1 * q2/r^2 = k * f * e^2/r^2
                   = f2 (ħ c/r^2)
                   = f2 (ħc / (delta r)^2) = f2 (ħ/(delta r * delta t))

Obviously, both of them (gravity and electric forces) are unified with the Super Unified Force equation.

                                                F (unified) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S)


The impossible task of traditional physics is easily done in this FU physics.





Signature:
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)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Theoretical calculation of Feynman's damn mystery number



Richard P. Feynman (a Nobelist on Physics) once said, "There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e - the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!"

Note:  Info on Electron Fine Structure Constant  is available at  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant )


In fact, this Feynman's damn mystery number cannot be derived theoretically in any traditional physics theory, the Standard Model or the whatnot. However, it can be easily derived in this Fictitious Universe (FU) physics as below.

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 + … 

The A(2) = 28.75 'degrees' is the result from the previous post, “Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles” (at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ). That is, this calculation is consistent in the FU physics.


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. When A(2) = 28.743, Beta = 137.035999679…, exactly the same as the measured value.  In many measurements, the value of the fine structure constant is about 1/137.036 at zero energy.  This difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.

Whether this FU physics is correct or not is not an issue here. The issue here is about which one can do better. With the FU physics, the calculation for alpha is straightforward while there is no way of any kind to derive it in Standard Model or its variants (Supersymmetry, String theory, etc.) .



Signature:
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)

Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles



The Mission Statement for LHC was stated by CERN as below.

“Although in the popular imagination the goal of the LHC is to discover the Higgs boson, the scope of the LHC is really much broader: it is the scientific exploration of the TeV scale. A major part of this enterprise is to answer one of the most intriguing open questions in physics: “Why is it that the W and Z-bosons and the top quark have masses of around 100 times that of the proton, whereas the photon is massless?” In technical terms this is “to discover the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking”. Discovering a light Higgs boson as predicted by the Standard Model is just one of the possible outcomes of this endeavour.”


That is, the true purpose of LHC is to discover the “particles’ rest mass rising mechanism”.  In Standard Model (SM), the Higgs mechanism is the only pathway for this end. Thus, the Higgs boson searching becomes the first mission for LHC. After two years of searching, the fate of SM Higgs is not good. But, by all means, Higgs search is only the first step. The W and Z-bosons’ masses are calculated with some mixing angles, such as, the Cabibbo angle (θc) with a measured value of  c)   = 13.04 degrees, and the Weinberg angle (θW ) with the measured value ranges from 28.8 to 30°.  Both Cabibbo angle and Weinberg angle are measured perimeters, and they cannot be derived theoretically in Standard Model. Thus, the true “Mission of LHC” is to discover the theoretical foundation for calculating these two mixing angles. 


Even if a SM Higgs were discovered, it will still take many years of works at LHC to understand the way of calculating these two mixing angles theoretically. On the other hand, with the Fictitious Universe physics (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/super-unified-theory-via-new.html ), we can calculate these two mixing angles with ease.

First, we have derived a unit angle, A (0) equals to 1.4788425146211 degrees [57.29577951 * .051621342/2]. How A(0) is calculated was described in detail on the page 36 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325). It is also available in many of my articles online; thus, I will not repeat it here.

With A(0), we get A(1) = [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.5211574853 degrees, and this is very close to the Cabibbo angle (θc).

With A(0) and A(1), we get A(2) = 2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24 = 28.75 degree, and this is almost the same as the measured Weinberg angle (θW ).

In this Fictitious Universe physics, it has two steps.
1. Constructing a Fictitious Universe by selecting (not discovering) a set of physics laws. Why A(0),  A(1) and A(2) take these equations? They are the results of this Fictitious Universe physics.

2. Comparing these laws and their derived phenomena with the Nature universe.


Now, two greatest mysteries of Standard Model (the theoretical foundation for calculating both the Cabibbo and Weinberg  angles) are easily resolved in this Fictitious Universe physics.  What does this tell us? 

Monday, October 24, 2011

Super Unified Theory via a new methodology




The modern physics evolves from the Newtonian physics to Relativity theories, to Quantum physics, to the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. This is a great triumph journey.

However, the recent results from LHC might sink the foundation of Standard Model if the SM Higgs particle is ruled out. Then, there must be a new physics. In fact, there must be a new physics even if SM Higgs were found, as the Standard Model can still not work by itself all the way to the Planck mass scale.

Physics is trying to “discover” the secrets of Nature with the interplay of theories and experiments. Thus, the scope of a theory is tightly bundled with its predictions which must be experimentally verified. This methodology is inductive in essence although the constructing of a theory is often employing some deductive reasoning.  This methodology has proved its worth time and over. But, it is very costly. If LHC cannot discover that hidden new physics, a bigger machine must be built.

While we are waiting the birth announcement of a new physics from the above process, I would like to introduce a new way of thinking, a new methodology of doing physics, the Fictitious Universe methodology.

We can construct a Fictitious Universe by arbitrary choosing a set of definitions and axioms.  From this set of arbitrary chosen definitions and axioms, we “derive” (not discover) a set of laws and theorems which govern all phenomena in this Fictitious Universe. Then, we can compare this Fictitious Universe to the Nature Universe, item by item (that is, phenomenon by phenomenon and law by law). If the match is bad, then our selection of the initial set of definitions and axioms was bad. Well, this is no problem. We can simply make some new choices. If the match is perfect, then our choices of the initial set of definitions and axioms must comparable to Nature’s choices, perhaps, identical to its. This methodology is deductive in essence although the comparison can be done in inductive manner. Thus, this new methodology is not constructing one theory or many theories. Any derived theory or laws in this way need not be experimentally tested but must be compared to the known corresponding theory or laws.

With the complete freedom of selecting the initial set of definitions and axioms, we should compare this Fictitious Universe to the entire Nature Universe, not just physics universe. Thus, I will list out some areas of importance in this comparison.

A. Making contact to all known physics, that is, it must “derive” the following physics,
1. Newtonian physics
2. Relativities
3. Quantum physics
4. All known particles (the quark world)
5. etc..

B. Making contact to all known mathematics, it must “derive” the “number theory”, at least.

C. Making contact to all known phenomena, the rise of “life” and “intelligence”, at least.

D. Making contact to all intellectual world, the philosophy and theology, etc..

Of course, this is not an exhaustive list but is a good starting point.

Yet, this new methodology is not a result of a wild dream just now. I have worked on this many years. Thus, there are many “results” available for comparison already. So, instead of discussing of the initial set of selection, I will show some comparisons first and then trace back to their starting points.

The first result of this new methodology is the “Prequark Chromodynamics" (available at http://www.prequark.org/ ).  Prequark Chromodynamics is a direct consequence of a Fictitious Universe and has nothing to do with the Nature universe. The key point here is a beauty-contest, which one can describe the  quark and lepton world better. Obviously, the Prequark Chromodynamics can reproduce the entire quark and lepton world and is a good language for describing the quark and lepton world. Can Prequark Chromodynamics be tested experimentally? An experimental test is not required in this new methodology.