## Monday, April 30, 2012

### 48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles

Many physicists believe that the Higgs boson is the last “elementary” particle which will be discovered. Many more physicists are patiently waiting for the discovery of a whole set of s-particles. Then, there are someone still believing that there are 4th generation of quarks and leptons. Of course, these questions will be answered by the LHC data one day, perhaps. Yet, can these questions be answered in this AP (Axiomatic Physics)? The answer is a big Yes. There are only 48 elementary particles exactly, no more or less.

In this AP, the space-time is not an egg-laying hen but is with a definite structure which is described with the equation below.

Delta S = N * C * (Delta T)
= (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) * C * (Delta T) ..................... Equation zero

The n1, n2 and n3 can take the numbers {1, 2, 3 or 4}. That is, this N (trait matrix) describes a 64 state set (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). The inner-product (IP) of each this state can be of four values {+/- 1, +/- 3}.

That is, this inner product (IP) of N gives rise to two groups with two sub-groups each.
a. Positive (32 dimensions)
1. When IP = +1 (24 dimensions or states)
2. When IP = +3 (8 dimensions or states)

b. Negative (32 dimensions)
1. When IP = -1 (24 dimensions or states)
2. When IP = -3 (8 dimensions or states)

Why should n1, n2 and n3 take the numbers {1, 2, 3 or 4}? It is because that “time” has four dimensions in this AP, {+/- t, +/- it}.

Why are there three seats in N? I discussed this in my previous posts and will discuss it again soon. Yet, I will skip this question for now.

In “Prequark Chromodynamics, http://www.prequark.org/ “, on the rock bottom of this AP universe, there are two Prequark charges; [V (Vacutron), the vacuum] and [A (Angultron), an innate angle]. With these two charges and three seats, only four different kinds of states (or particles) can be formed, and I have given them the names of u- or d-quark and electron or neutrino. The fact that they have the same names as the known quarks and leptons is purely incidental.

When the seating arrangement is distinguishable for the four particles above, the two quarks above will become six distinguishable quarks (could be identified with three colors). Thus, the four states (or particles) above become 8 distinguishable states (or particles).

As there are 24 states when IP = +1, there can be three groups of states (or particles), as 24/8 = 3. When IP = 3, those states (8 of them) are not particles in this AP.

Thus, in this AP (Axiomatic Physics), the N (trait matrix) gives rise to the followings,
i. two rock bottom charges; V and A. Why, I will discuss this later.
ii. three seats (identified with three colors).
iii. 64 dimensions (states), consequence of the “time” having 4 dimensions and the “space” having 3 seats.
iv. only 48 of the 64 states are particles. The other 16 states are pure vacuum.

Now, in this AP, there are three groups of particles (the three generations). And, in each group, there are two types of particles (quarks or leptons). Then, each type has two flavors, such as, [(u- or d-quark) and (electron or neutrino)]. Of course, there is another set which is the anti-particles (when IP = -1), also with only 24 states (anti-particles). The above calculation is purely axiomatic in the framework of this AP while adding any “external elements” (not part of this axiom system) into the system is not allowed.

In conclusion, this AP (Axiomatic Physics) can accommodate “only” three generations of particles with two types of particles in each generation, and two flavors for each type of particle. Of course, there is an identical copy of the anti-particle universe. Thus, if any additional “fundamental” (not composite) particle (such as the Higgs boson, the 4th generation quarks or any s-particles) is discovery, then this AP must need to be amended. Before that, the issue of the origin of flavor and of generation is, now, answered.

In this AP, the force carries [photons, gluons and weak bosons (W and Z)] are not considered as the spacetime “structure” elementary particles. While the W and Z bosons are well-defined particles in observational sense, they are only the transient states in this AP (see the article “Neutron Beta Decay, at http://www.prequark.org/Q2.htm “.

Furthermore, the numbers {64, 48 and 24} are the vital numbers for calculating many other “structure” parameters in this AP. And, we will see their appearances in many AP equations.

Note: the detail of the equation zero was discussed on the page 26 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325). This book is available in many university libraries around the world, and that library info is available at the WorldCat (the world's largest library catalog).

## Sunday, April 29, 2012

### The rise of gravitation, and hierarchy problem no more!

If the Nature physics built this universe with an axiomatic procedure, not with any trial-and-errors steps, then, we can discover this Nature physics by trying to build an Axiomatic physics (AP) of our own. If the axiomatic sentences of AP do make contact with “all” the known laws of the Nature physics, then the validity of AP is very much certain. This AP, of course, must also answer “all” current open questions, such as, in the following list.

a. dark matter and dark energy,
b. acceleration of the expanding universe,
c. origin of mass, the mass-rising mechanism,
d. origin of space and time,
e. origin of flavors,
f. origin of generations,
g. super unification of all forces, the coupling constants hierarchy issue,
h. how do free parameters get their values,
i. baryongenesis,
j. etc. .

The origin of time, of space and of mass was answered partially as soon as they were axiomatically defined. Today, I will discuss the issue of “super unification of all forces and the coupling constants hierarchy issue”.

In the previous article “Axiomatic physics, the final physics” (at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html), I have built such an AP. I will, however, list out its framework as below for the convenience.

A. The axiom ---   Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar   (Axiom One)

B. Definitions
1. time:
i. time is a quanta, that is, delta t > 0, and delta t = 0 is not defined.
ii. time creates two copies of universe, one with the real time, the others with the imaginational time.

2. space:  Delta s = (N) c * delta t, N is a trait matrix, c the light speed, t the time.

3.  mass:
i. m (mass) = (h-bar/c)(2pi/L),
L is the wavelength (lambda) of a particle. As the L (lambda) is an attribute of a particle, m (mass) is also an attribute (not a universal constant) of a particle.

ii. M (mass) = (Ms * Mt) ^ (1/2) = (h-bar/c) (1/[c* delta s * delta t]) ^ (1/2)
a. Ms (space-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/delta s), c (light speed), s (space)
b. Mt (time-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/[c * delta t]), t (time)

4. S (spin of a charge, mass or electric charge) = (1/2) h-bar

5. e (electric charge) = (+/-)[(1/2) h-bar * c]^(1/2) = (+/-)(S * c)^(1/2), this is a universal constant.

All these parameters above are defined axiomatically, without the concern of any operational or experimental issues. These definitions will be used to “derive” some axiomatic sentences, which will be comparing to the “discovered” physics laws. While the definitions of an axiom system can be chosen arbitrary, we still want to ask the question of why the Nature chose them as they are, not otherwise.
i. Why should “time” is defined as it is?
ii. While the N (trait matrix) will give rise to all known particles and their masses, why N is chosen as it is, not otherwise?
iii. Why Alpha has the value as it is?

Of course, this AP must answer these questions, and they will be answered one at a time. Now, we should derive some axiomatic sentences.

The “force” in AP will be defined as follow.

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

K is the coupling constant, dimensionless. So,

K = F * (delta t * delta s)/ h-bar

K (coupling constant) can be calculated in the unit of time when two different forces have the same strength.  So,
K(e) /K(g) = delta s(e)/delta s(g)

In this AP, K(e) is defined as 1/137 and delta s(e) is the radius of electron  [delta s(e) ~ 2*10^(-15) meters]. This definition is based on the “Prequark Chromodynamics” (PC) at http://www.prequark.org/ . In PC, the electron is composed of three “Angultron”, which carries 1/3 of electric charges. That is, the standard range for the electric charges interaction is the radius of electron. Of course, the electric charge can interact with far away object via its emitted photons; yet, its coupling strength is determined by its strongest interaction, inside of the electron.

This same electron also carries a mass-charge which interacts with “all” masses in the universe. Thus, the delta s(g), the averaged distance for this interaction is the radius of the universe, which is about 10^27 meters. So,

K(g)  = K (e)/ [delta s(e)/delta (g)] = k(e)/( 10^42)

With this AP force equation, the hierarchy problem is easily resolved. On the page 50 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 wrote, “THE GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT (G) HAS TO DECREASE RAPIDLY. … We can define the time unit (TU) as follow,

TU [delta t] = TU (big bang) * r (radius of big bang) / R (radius of the current universe)

… And the size of this universe is less than 10^17 light years. … the value of gravitational constant (G) is also decreased 10^34 times. …
… the older galaxies will have higher apparent mass because that the GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT WAS HIGHER then.”

The above quote answers the question of why the “time” is defined in such a way in this AP partially and the question about “dark matter” partially. Furthermore, the “uncertainty principle” will be the direct consequence of this AP force equation.

Delta P = F * Delta T = K h/ Delta S
so, delta P * delta S = Kh

Thus;
1. When, K >=1, then delta P * delta S >= h
2. When K ~ 1, the uncertainty principle remains significant.
3. When K << 1, then uncertainty principle is no long important.

A more detailed description of this AP forces is available in the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge” at http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm .

## Saturday, April 28, 2012

### Axiomatic physics, the final physics

In my previous article “LHC and the knowledge-based physics” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html ), I have discussed the difference between the Nature physics and the Human physics. Human physics is the human efforts of discovering the Nature physics with an epistemology of “theory building and verification tests”.  Yet, the Nature physics built the universe without any “trial and errors” of theory building steps.  That is, the Nature physics consists of only two principles.

One, the Naturalness principle (NP) --- the current universe is evolved via an “axiom system to life-system” evolution process which fellows the rules of axiom and Godel systems.
Note: this axiom-system to life-system evolution process is discussed in detail in the book “Linguistics Manifesto” (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1, US copyright TX 7-290-840).

Corollary of NP   --- there is no “fine turning” (any type of adjustment by trial and errors procedure) in the rules of axiom and Godel systems. All axiomatic sentences are derived axiomatically.

Two, the Interlocking principle (IP) --- all parameters in the axiom of the Nature physics are interlocked.

Corollary of (IP) --- all parameters of IP are “recursively” defined, such as, all Nature constants [Alpha, e (electric charge), c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant)], Nature dimensions (space, time and mass) and Nature parameters (energy, spin, etc.).

In fact, the Naturalness principle is the consequence of this IP. That is, the NP and the IP are the two sides of the same coin.

With the two principles above, the Nature physics has the following attributes.
1. All parameters (such as space, time, mass, etc.) are axiomatically defined in the Nature physics while most of them are operationally defined in Human physics.

2. There are no free parameters in the Nature physics. The value of any parameter (such as, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, the Alpha, etc.) must be calculated out axiomatically.

3. All parameters in the axiom are exactly fine fitted, that is, no fine-tuning is allowed.

The above requirements go way beyond the reach of the current physics epistemology. However, if we can discover the “seed axiom” of this Nature physics, then we can duplicate the entire Nature physics by writing out it axiomatically. That is, anything outside of the axiom-system will not be allowed to be added into the system. And, the validity and the value of this human developed Axiom-physics (AP) can be easily verified with the “finger-print” checking, comparing the axiomatic sentences of the AP with the known laws of the Nature physics which is discovered by the traditional Human physics.  If AP can derive all known laws of Nature physics, its validity will be certain. Of course, this AP (as it must be identical to the Nature physics) must answer all open questions of Human physics, such as,
a. dark matter and dark energy,
b. acceleration of the expanding universe,
c. origin of mass, the mass-rising mechanism,
d. origin of space and time,
e. origin of flavors,
f. origin of generations,
g. super unification of all forces, the coupling constants hierarchy issue,
h. how do free parameters get their values,
i. baryongenesis,
j. etc. .

If all the questions above can be answered by the same physics, the validity of that physics (the AP) can be judged intuitively. Yet, what is the “seed axiom”? I have chosen the Alpha as the seed axiom.

Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar   (Axiom One)

A. Then, first, I have defined “time” axiomatically (see the article “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry”, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-time-breaking-of-perfect.html ).
i. time is a quanta, that is delta t > 0, and delta t = 0 is not defined.
ii. time creates two copies of universe, one with the real time, the others with the imaginational time.

This is an axiomatic definition, without any concern of operational issues, the measurement or the experimental tests. The usefulness (or the validity) of this definition will be determined with the end-product; the expressed Axiomatic physics system, whether it matches the known knowledge of Nature physics.  However, this definition does describe a “supersymmetry” while it is, of course, different from all SUSY theories.

B. Second, I have defined “space” as follow (also see the article “Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension” at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html ).

Delta s = (N) c * delta t, N is a trait matrix, c the light speed, t the time.

Again, this is an axiomatic definition, without any concern of operational issues. However, it is based on Georg Cantor’s theorem of dimensions. N (the trait matrix) will give rise to
i. 64 dimensions (48 particles and 16 vacuum states), and these 64 dimensions will eventually be reduced to 11 physics dimensions.
ii. some ruling and controlling angles (the innate angle and some mixing angles).

These attributes will be discussed in detail in the future posts.

C. Third, I have defined “mass” as follows (also see the article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics” at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-mass-gateway-to-final-physics.html ).

i. m (mass) = (h-bar/c)(2pi/L),
L is the wavelength (lambda) of a particle. As the L (lambda) is an attribute of a particle, m (mass) is also an attribute (not a universal constant) of a particle.

ii. M (mass) = (Ms * Mt) ^ (1/2) = (h-bar/c) (1/[c* delta s * delta t]) ^ (1/2)
a. Ms (space-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/delta s), c (light speed), s (space)
b. Mt (time-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/[c * delta t]), t (time)

As all those parameters above are recursively defined, they can be defined in many ways, by different parameters. Thus, “mass” was defined two ways above. By reviewing its definitions by all different parameters, its “meaning” will be expressed wholly. By following each definition, a set of physics will be known. Now, I will define a new parameter S, the spin. As it is defined axiomatically, it is essentially having nothing to do with the spin in the known physics. If their meanings are identical, it is just a good happy coincidence.

S (spin of a charge, mass or electric charge) = (1/2) h-bar

With this new parameter,

i. e (electric charge) = [(1/2) h-bar * c]^(1/2) = (S * c)^(1/2), this is a universal constant.

ii. m (mass charge) =  (h-bar/c) (1/[c* delta s * delta t])^(1/2)
= (2S/c) (1/[c* delta s * delta t]) ^ (1/2), the value of m is a function of (delta s and delta t).

In this AP (Axiomatic Physics), this S (spin) defines two copies of universe (a supersymmetry which is also defined by the AP “time”, see the article “The Real-Ghost (RG) symmetry” at http://www.prequark.org/Mphy.htm#Real ). And, this RG symmetry is the mass-rising mechanism. The Higgs mechanism is, in fact, a shadow of this RG mechanism. This RG mechanism will give rise to gravitation and will unify all forces, and I will show this in the future posts.

Now, an easy prediction can be made by this AP. As “mass” is defined by S (spin), the Higgs boson must be massless (as it has S = 0) or must be a composite. That is, the current hint of the 125 Gev. will not be a SM Higgs.

## Sunday, April 22, 2012

### Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry

For a particle physicist, he knows about the baryongenesis, the p-violation, the cp-violation, that is, there are symmetry breaking in this universe. But, the t (time) symmetry is preserved in all physics equations. Yet, for the common folk who know no physics will not know about those symmetry breaking and about the time-symmetry preservation in physics equations. However, I have introduced an “Existential principle” in my article “Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html ).

Existential principle (EP) --- for attribute X which exists at the bottom tier of a hierarchy system (with multi-level tiers), the “meaning” of the attribute X will be preserved (shown up) in the top tier  (such as the macro-world) of the system even it goes through with many hysteresis (history or trace killing) processes.

With the EP, even the common folk who know no physics will know that “time” is the result of a symmetry breaking deep down somewhere regardless of the fact that t-symmetry preserves in all physics equations, as the perceived “time” (the macro-meaning) is not symmetrical in its moving direction. Yet, the semantic meaning of the term of “symmetry-breaking” points out that there is a symmetry before that breaking. Then, what is that symmetry and what is that symmetry-breaking process?

In fact, there are infinite ways to break a symmetry (such as a round disk). I also introduced a “Naturalness Thesis (NT)” in a previous article. According to NT, in a group of processes (x, y, z, …, etc.), if y is more complicated than x, than y is less natural then x. That is, y needs more “fine-turning” than x. In my article “Supersymmetry, Gone with the wind” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/supersymmetry-gone-with-wind.html ), I have showed two different ways for breaking a round disk symmetry.

1. SB1 --- breaks it into two equal halves, right through the center. And, all SUSY theories are taking this approach, with s-particles for each known particles.

2. SB2 --- breaks only “one” point on the circumference of the disk. For the SB2 symmetry-breaking, no s-particles are needed.

Obviously, SB1 is more cumbersome than SB2. That is, the SB2 is more natural than SB1. Thus, with the NT, any SUSY with s-particles will be abandoned by Nature. In the article “SUSY And The Silence Of The (Roasted) Lamb” [by Tommaso Dorigo, a physicist a CERN, http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/susy_and_silence_roasted_lamb-89141 ], he wrote, "The silence of that Easter lamb reminds me of the silence with which these days Supersymmetric theories are going down one by one, almost by the day. While collecting data at 8 TeV and getting ready to squeeze it for new results, ATLAS and CMS are publishing the remainder of their searches for SUSY signatures in their 2011 data sets. And every new result that gets published typically kills one or two of the interesting points of "natural" low-energy Supersymmetry which had been left alive by the previous searches."

Of course, the fates of all those SUSY theories will be checked out by the LHC data sooner or later. Yet, for this Axiomatic Physics, we do not need to wait for those test data. We can define the “time” axiomatically. On page 26 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325), I defined “time” axiomatically as follows.

a. Time is the result of symmetry-breaking of “zero” (a complex number). Thus, time has four dimensions (+/- t, +/-it).

b. As time is the result of the “symmetry (zero)” breaking, it cannot encompass that symmetry (zero). Thus, t = 0 or delta t = 0 is not defined. So, delta t > 0, that is, t (time) is a quanta.

The graph description of this definition of “time” is available at http://www.prequark.org/Q7.htm . After “time” is defined in this axiomatic way, the space is defined with the “equation zero” in the article “Where is Tomorrow?” (http://www.prequark.org/Mphy.htm#Real ).

Delta S = N * C * (Delta T)
= (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) * C * (Delta T) ..................... Equation zero

Please also review the article “Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-spatial-dimensions-and.html ). In fact, the matrix N will give rise to the quark universe. And, I will discuss this in the future posts.

## Saturday, April 21, 2012

### Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension

In my last article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics” (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-mass-gateway-to-final-physics.html ), I have defined m (mass) axiomatically. Mass is the attribute which describes the internal structure (spacetime structure) of a wave-packet (with a wavelength L = lambda).

I also introduced the “Interlocking Thesis (IT)”: all Nature constant [Alpha, e (electric charge), c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant)] and Nature dimensions (space, time and mass) are interlocked (cross-checked). That is, all parameters of IT can be recursively defined. Thus, mass must also be defined with both space and time. And now, it is the time to define space axiomatically.

In fact, there is no way to define what the “space” is with the anchor-lock (the Alpha). With this anchor-lock, we can only define the “delta s”.

delta s = c * delta t, t is the time

Someone can object this definition quickly by pointing out that time is one-dimensional while the space has three dimensions. Thus, I will discuss these issues with three points.

One, the existential issue --- For any symbol (representing concrete, conceptual, abstract or all the whatnots), its existence consists of two parts.
1. It is physically there.
2. It carries meaning.

If a thing is physically there but is “never” interact with anything (including itself), it carries no meaning. At here, the “meaning” of a thing has nothing to do with consciousness. As long as it participates in an interaction, it provides a meaning to that interaction. Thus, a physical reality without meaning has no existential value (again, having nothing to do with consciousness). Black hole or dark matter has meaning as they participate in gravitational interaction.

On the other hand, a symbol without a corresponding reality does have existential value if it carries meaning. The concept of Heaven might not have a corresponding reality but has the existential value.

As the meaning of a thing arises from participation (not from consciousness), multi-level meanings can arise from multi-level participations. And, the trace or signal of the early participation can be erased by the later (higher level) interaction.  Thus, although the trace of the early signal cannot be detected physically at the higher level after some history killing processes, its meaning must be still visible at that higher level. Thus, a seed-reality can always be defined with high level and visible entity. Space being a high level visible entity, its existential value is guaranteed.

Two, then, what is dimension? And, what are its attributes? What those attributes got to do with the universe?

We should look what are already known.
1. In 1870s, Georg Cantor proved that every n-dimensional space can always be brought into a one-to-one correspondence with the one dimensional line, that is, one dimensional line can give rise to n-dimensional space.

2. This dimensionality issue can also be understood with fractal geometry. In fractal geometry, there are many space-filling curves, an infinite number of them to be exact. With the Hilbert space-filling curve, it crosses every point on a plane without crossing itself, that is, a two dimensional plane is reduced to a one dimensional line.

From two facts above, all high-dimensions can always be reduced to one-dimension.

In physics, the dimension refers mostly as the spatial dimensions. In the String theory, it predicts some extra dimensions, and their existence can be tested by looking for the Kaluza-Klein (KK) partner particles. The LHC data thus far (April 21, 2012) has ruled out all KK particles. Yet, my definition of the term of “dimension” is significantly different from the one of String theory. It has a much bigger scope.

New definition: If “all” information of system B can be “wholly” described with n codes, then system B has n dimensions.

The above definition is a linguistics definition. Yet, it is similar to the base-dimension of a vector space, such as, “A location inside a two-dimensional space is specified by two pieces of information.”

With this new definition, the entire world must change.
1. Regardless of how many “physical dimensions” it has, the entire computable world has only two-dimensions, as it can be wholly described with two codes (such as, [0, 1]). This is guaranteed with the Two-code theorem of mathematics.

2. The outer surface of a ball has 4 dimensions, guaranteed with the four-color theorem.

3. The outer surface of a torus has 7 dimensions, calculated by the edge-equations or the Heawood Conjecture.

With this new definition, the consciousness and the intelligence could be dimensions, even the dimensions for the non-computable world.

Three, how can the spatial dimensions be defined with the above general definition? That is, how do the three spatial dimensions arise from Cantor’s theorem?

Cantor’s theorem is well-known, and its proof is very intense. However, I will show a shorter proof here in order to show the process of the rising of three spatial dimensions.

With Cantor’s theorem, there is one and only one dimension, the number line, and we can call it x-dimension. While this x-dimension has an infinite length, its thickness is zero.

For a plane, it is viewed to have two dimensions in physics, but it is, in fact, the x-dimension which acquires a width (y) for its dimension-line. And, this “width” is only a “trait” for this one-dimension of x. In essence, y is not a true dimension but is a “trait” of x. Perhaps, we can call it a “trait-dimension”.

For a physical three dimensions (x, y, z), it is again the result of the x-dimension which acquires two traits, the width (y) and the height (z).

With the above simple procedure, the Cantor’s theorem is proved. Every point in the three dimensional space is brought to a one-to-one correspondence to one-dimensional number line x.

Of course, there is no reason to re-prove Cantor’s theorem here. My point is trying to discuss the true meaning and the true essence on dimension. There is one and only one dimension, and any other dimensions are “trait-dimensions” and are extra-dimensions.

In physics, the time is the Cantor dimension which gives rise to three spatial dimensions. As these three spatial dimensions are the “trait” dimensions of time, there needs a matrix (N) to describe those traits. Thus, the space can be defined axiomatically as,

Delta s = (N) c * delta t, N is a trait matrix, c the light speed.

Thus, as soon as we know the N (trait matrix), the space is defined axiomatically. And, I will discuss the issue of N in the next posts.

## Friday, April 20, 2012

### Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics

The current cosmology model describes our universe as started from a singular point (the Big Bang) to the current living universe (encompassing the biological lives). In the book "Linguistics Manifesto" (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1), the living universe is described as a “life-system” which evolves from a simple axiom system as a seed. As this axiomatic expression and evolution process for the life-system is described in detail in that book, I will not repeat it here. An abridged description of that process is available at http://www.prebabel.info/bab016.htm .

Thus, this cosmological evolution can be described with this “axiom system to life-system” expression (evolution) process, and it will start with a Naturalness Thesis.

Naturalness Thesis (NT) --- the current universe is evolved via an “axiom system to life-system” evolution process which fellows the rules of axiomatic and Godel systems.

Corollary of Naturalness Thesis   --- there is no “fine turning” in the rules of axiomatic and Godel systems.

“Fine turning” is defined as making adjustment with trial-and-error. That is, after a seed-axiom-system is selected, it evolves and expresses according only to the internal rules of the “axiom/life system” without any adjustment. That is, the entire Nature physics is “completed” at the moment of the Big Bang when the seed-axiom was selected.

With this Naturalness Thesis, the entire Nature physics can be “derived” if the seed-axiom is known. With the following articles, readers will get a sense about this new physics and this new physics epistemology.

2. LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/lhc-end-of-old-physics-epistemology.html )

In my previous posts, I have selected Alpha (Fine Structure Constant) as the seed-axiom.  With this seed-axiom, two tasks were done.

A. The universe was anchored and the Nature physics was locked --- this was done by a double-lock.
i. first lock --- e (electric charge) was locked with two Nature constants,  c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant).
ii. second lock --- all three Nature constants (e, c and h-bar) was locked by Alpha.

B. The evolution pathway of the universe is “open-ended” --- this was done by giving rise to three dimensions (space, time and mass), being all open-ended. Although these dimensions are open-ended, they are still interlocked.
i. time is defined and locked by c (light speed)

ii. space is defined and locked by both c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). There are three spatial dimensions for space, and they can arise from time and an angle (an innate attribute of h-bar). I will discuss this dimension issue in future posts.

iii. mass is also defined and locked by both c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). While e (electric charge) is defined as the product of c and h-bar, mass is defined as the division of h-bar over c.
a. e (electric charge) = the square root of (1/2)c * h-bar, and e is a universal constant.
b. m (mass) = (h-bar/c)(2pi/L), L is the wavelength (lambda) of a particle. As the L (lambda) is an attribute of a particle, m (mass) is also an attribute (not a universal constant) of a particle.

Now, both e (electric charge) and m (mass) are axiomatically defined. Thus, we can discuss their axiomatic meanings.

The h-bar has two physics meanings.
One, it is a “viewing” window (analogy to a microscope or a telescope) for viewing the universe (the expression of the seed-axiom). Please read the article “Constants of Nature” (at http://www.prequark.org/Constant.htm ). As e (electric charge) is the product of c and h-bar (analogy to a telescope, expanding the h-bar outward), e defines an event horizon (the largest space that is linked causally). As m (mass) is the division of h-bar over c (analogy to a microscope, seeing the internal detail of h-bar), m defines an internal (enveloped) spacetime.

Two, it is a spin. We already know the effects of this spin on electromagnetism and particle physics. Now, we know that it must have significant contribution to the rise of mass too, and I will discuss this in detail in the future posts.  However, one aspect of this spin on mass was already discussed in many previous posts. As this spin carries an innate angle, thus the rising of mass must be ruled by some angles. And, I have showed that the “only knowing” mass rising physics parameters are two angles, the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles. I have showed that these two angles were arisen from h-bar with the article “Definition of mass, the gateway to the final unification in physics”, (at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/definition-of-mass-gateway-to-final.html ).

With the above understanding, now, I can introduce an Interlocking Thesis.

Interlocking Thesis (IT) --- all Nature constant [Alpha, e (electric charge), c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant)] and Nature dimensions (space, time and mass) are interlocked (cross-checked).

Corollary of (IT) --- all parameters of IT can be recursively defined.

With this IT, we should write down the definitions of mass in “all” different axiomatic forms and to do the crosscheck. After this is done, the mass-rising mechanism will show up by itself. On the page 27 to 28 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325), I defined mass with the following axiomatic sentences.
a. Ms (space-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/delta s), c (light speed), s (space)
b. Mt (time-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/[c * delta t]), t (time)

So, M (mass) = (Ms * Mt)^ (1/2)
That is, as soon as we know the axiomatic definitions for both space and time, the mass is also defined axiomatically. The axiomatic definitions for both space and time will be discussed in the next posts.

In addition to this mass definition, the mass-rising mechanism is described in detail in the article "The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”.

Note: Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler had the following comments. If you define m to be E/c^2, then you're using the archaic notion of ``relativistic mass'', which particle physicists avoid for several reasons. His comment is, of course, correct. But, in this “Axiomatic physics”, we can define m (mass) as an axiomatic term without the concern of other physics fact at this stage. Only if the developed axiom system does not match with the known Nature physics, we should then revise our axiomatic definition.

## Sunday, April 15, 2012

### LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology

In the post (LHC and the knowledge-based physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html ), I have showed the difference between the Nature physics and the human physics. For the traditional human physics, its epistemology is the “interplay of theories and testing”.  Yet, we will soon reach the dead-end of this old epistemology at the end of the LHC’s life.

Fortunately, we have learned enough Nature physics via this old physics epistemology, and we are now able to construct a knowledge-based physics with a new epistemology, the “Fictitious Universe” methodology --- by arbitrary choosing a set of definitions and axioms,  need not be experimentally tested but must be compared to the known Nature physics (see the post  “Super Unified Theory via a new methodology “ at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/super-unified-theory-via-new.html ).

Then, I showed a solid example of this new physics epistemology by showing the theoretical calculation of the Alpha (see the post “Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, mystery no more! “ at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ).  This example, in fact, transforms the knowledge-based physics (the K-physics) into an axiom-based physics (the A-physics). For an axiom-based system, the axioms and definitions can be selected arbitrarily. That is, no experimental test of any kind can be applied to this axiom physics. Its validity is solely determined by the internal rules of an axiom system. Of course, its “value” depends on whether it makes any contact with the Nature physics. Are the axiomatically derived physics laws identical to the laws of Nature? If not, then that axiomatically derived physics has no value for describing the Nature physics. Thus, the value of an axiomatic physics can be easily determined.

Thus, the human physics is evolved with three steps.
1. The old physics epistemology --- the interplay of theories and verification tests.
2. The knowledge-based epistemology --- the axioms are based on the known physics.
3. The axiom-based epistemology (Fictitious Universe methodology, the A-physics) --- axioms are arbitrarily selected.

In this new axiom-based new physics, I have chosen the Alpha (fine structure constant) as the only axiom, and it locks (defines) three Nature constants [electric charge (e ), light speed (c ) and Planck constant (h-bar)] with the formula,

Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar   (Axiom One)

From this single axiom, the entire Nature universe arises with the following axiomatic steps.

Step 1. Axiom One has an internal hierarchy.

i. the Inverse-Alpha is a dimensionless pure number = 137.0408704 … (note: this is slightly different from the measured value of 137.0359 … , and I will explain this fact in the future posts).

ii. two dimension-giving constants (dimensions as the measuring rulers for the construction) --- light speed and Planck constant.

iii. one unifying constant (electric charge) --- it is derived from c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). This constant guarantees that the constructed area is causally linked.

Step 2.  With the above three-tier of hierarchy, the Axiom One is guaranteed to be internally consistent. Then, it (Axiom One) can expand externally.

A. the lower tiers (there are two branches)
1. the dimensions  --- there are three dimensions (not spatial dimensions), the time, the space and the mass.  Note: the definition on dimension of this A-physics goes way beyond the spatial dimensions, and I will discuss this issue in detail in future posts.

i. the time --- it is defined with c (light speed)

ii. the space --- it is defined with both c (light speed) and h-bar (Planck constant). The space has three spatial dimensions, and they can be defined with two parameters, the length and the angle. The light speed defines the length part while the h-bar defines the angle.

iii. the mass --- while the electric charge is defined (locked) directly by Alpha as a Nature constant (as the product of c and h-bar), it cannot be a dimension. The division between c and h-bar was not defined, and it turns out to be the mass. Yet, the mass is not a Nature constant but is a dimension.

As the mass is defined as the division between c and h-bar, it must also be defined with the time and the space. Thus, the definition of mass must be the gateway for the further development of this axiomatic physics, and I have posted “part one” on this issue with the article (Definition of mass, the gateway to the final unification in physics. http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/definition-of-mass-gateway-to-final.html ).  And, the part two is coming soon.

2. The forces --- after the dimensions are defined axiomatically, the forces become a nature outcome (a sentence of an axiomatic system) of those dimensions. And, the unified force equation is defined axiomatically as,
F (unified) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S)

K is a coupling constant, ħ Planck constant, T time, S space. Of course, from this unified force equation, we should derive all known physics forces, and I will do this in the future posts. One interesting hint here is that two special forces (the gravitation and the acceleration) are functions of mass. Thus, mass must be defined axiomatically with the ħ, delta T and delta S, and we will see it soon.

B. the higher tiers --- with these three basic dimensions being defined and the forces being derived, the higher tiers can be constructed. The first one is the Prequark tier (see http://www.prequark.org/ ), and from there all the way to life and intelligence.

Now, the framework of this Axiom-based physics (A-physics) is clear. And, I will show that all known physics (laws and principles) can be produced with this A-physics. Then, I will also show that this A-physics can answer all current physics questions (such as, the dark matter, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, etc.).

## Saturday, April 14, 2012

### Alpha, Fine Structure Constant, mystery no more!

Alpha (Fine Structure Constant) was initially viewed as an observed coupling constant for the amplitude of a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. Thus, the value for Alpha could vary depending upon the energy level. In the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) energy level, the Alpha should approach the same level as the strong force coupling value, and its observed value does approach 1/128 at interaction energies above 80 GeV.

However, the theoretical calculation equation for Alpha below can, indeed, encompass the above-said issue, as the A(2), the  Weinberg angle, in the equation is also varying as a function of the momentum transfer, Q. At Q = 0.16 GeV/c, the Weinberg angle is about ~30°. In fact, the Weinberg angle ranges from 28 to 30 degrees.

Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
= 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
=  137.0359 …

A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degrees

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

However, when Alpha is defined as,

Alpha = e^2/c * h-bar

it is no longer a measured “coupling” constant. It is an anchor-lock which locks the three Nature constants [electric charge (e), light speed (c) and Planck constant (h-bar)]. That is, the Alpha must be a true constant, not a varying constant anymore. The measured value for this true constant (at low energy level) is 137.03597… .

Again, my theoretical equation of Alpha does reproduce this value (137.03597…) when the Weinberg angle = 28.743 degrees. Obviously, this Weinberg angle (28.743 degrees) does fall in the range of the observed values (from 28 to 30 degrees). Yet, can this be a simple good luck? And, the theoretical equation for Alpha is still a numerological formula, isn’t it?

Today, the Weinberg angle is a pure observed parameter, and it has no theoretical base for its calculation. If I can provide a theoretical calculation for the Weinberg angle with the same physics which calculates the Alpha, will it still be a good luck numerological formula?

While both Cabibbo angle and Weinberg angle are the foundation for electro-weak symmetry breaking, there is no axiomatic linkage between the two. If I can show two points,

1. the Cabibbo angle can be calculated with the same physics which calculates both the Weinberg angle and the Alpha, (note --- today, Cabibbo is also a pure observed parameter without any theoretical base for its calculation in the Standard Model),

2. the Weinberg angle is actually derived with the Cabibbo angle,

then, will them still be good luck numerological formulas? If they are, they are “chain-linked” good luck numerological formulas.

These chain-linked formulas are available in the article “LHC and the knowledge-based physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/03/lhc-and-knowledge-based-phyiscs.html “.

In the  “Introduction to The Common Sense” (page 3), Thomas Paine wrote, "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

By agreeing with Paine 100%, I am not trying to convince anyone about this new physics which provides the theoretical chain-formulas as the final physics. I will simply give a short history about it here.

The theoretical calculations for the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles were done in 1980 and published in the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325) in 1984. This book is available in many university libraries around the world, and this info is available from the WorldCat (the world's largest library catalog).

They were also discussed online in 2001. A copy of Dr. Jason W. Hinson’s (Cornell University) email on this issue was published in the article “Playing with numbers??? “  at  http://www.prequark.org/think04.htm .

The theoretical calculation for Alpha was done in 1990 and was published online since 1997. However, the 1997 online page is no longer available. Now,  it is  available at the following sites.

e. the Prequark site (http://www.prequark.org/pq04.htm ) since May, 2005.

In the book (Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine, page 121), he wrote, "Ignorance of a peculiar nature: once dispelled, and it is impossible to re-establish it. It is not originally a thing of itself, but is only the absence of knowledge; and though man may be kept ignorant, he cannot be made ignorant."

Now, this information is here.

Update (January 24, 2014):
On January 5, 2014, Amir Mulic published an Alpha formula (4π^3+π^2+π). Although he gave it a M-string interpretation, it is still basically a numerological formula.

The fine-structure constant should be a running constant with (1/α) = 4π^3+π^2+π at low energy while it approaches to 128 at energy higher than 90 Gev. . Thus, the 4π^3+π^2+π formula meets only one point of that spectrum. Furthermore, that formula can only be interpreted in terms of geometry or topology, hinting an eleven (11) dimension universe. But, my Alpha formula has the following points.

1.       It has a ‘physics’ parameter, the Weinberg angle.
2.       As this Weinberg mixing angle is a function depending on the energy, this formula encompasses the entire  (1/α) spectrum (from 4π^3+π^2+π to 128).
3.       It is also a formula for an eleven dimension universe.

My Alpha-formula above (with the Weinberg angle) is, in fact, the result of three points.
First,  ‘uncountable-infinity to finite’ concretization process, see "Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html )”. That is, the uncountable-infinity is concretized as a circle (or a pie).

Second, this pie (the highest infinity) is ‘divided’ by 64 kids (of this ultimate infinity) which consist of two groups; one group (16 kids) takes the energy (dark energy), the other (48 kids) takes the landmass as landlords.  See “Pimple Model; BARKED UP THE WRONG TREES (M-THEORY AND SUSY); (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ )” and “DARK ENERGY, MYSTERY NO MORE! (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/ )”. Thus, the numbers (64, 48 and 24) play the key roles in my Alpha-formula. The whole point is about the ‘dividing’ the pie.

Third, the 64 and 48 are the result of a True-Ultimate-Symmetry (the real/ghost symmetry, see http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm ) breaking.

Yet, when Mulic’s formula is rewritten with the following equation, the physics significance is now all clear.

Let 2 π = the circumference of a unit disk (with radius = 1) = Pie
π = half Pie = HPie
Then, his formula can be written as,
(1/α) = (1/2) {Pie * [(Pie + 1/Pie)^2 + (HPie – 1/HPie) – ((1/Pie) – 1)^2]} … equation A

The equation A above is the topological (static) description of the three points above
(Pie + 1/ Pie), type 1 mixing (division); (Pie + 1/ Pie)^2, the first order mixing
(HPie – 1/HPie), type 2 mixing (division), the second order mixing
[(1/Pie) – 1]^2, the ‘remainder’ (indivisible) of the division

So, equation A = (1/2) Pie * (the first order mixing + the second order mixing - the ‘remainder’ of mixing)

Thus, although Amir Mulic’s formula (4π^3+π^2+π) is purely numerological, it can be rewritten with my physics. The fact that the Alpha is now written with two formulas (one static and one dynamic), the validity of this Alpha-physics is very much assured.

Note (added on August 28, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).