Now, LHC is probing the spacetime inside of protons and is investigating the mass-rising mechanism, as these researchers are the final steps for a final physics. Yet, I have shown that there is an anchor-lock (Alpha, the Electron Fine Structure Constant) in Nature, and it locks the absolute definitions for the space, time and mass. Thus, the physics which gives rise to this Alpha (that is, the physics which provides the theoretical calculation for the Alpha) should be the final physics.

However, Richard Feynman (a Nobelist on Physics) 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!'

The Inverse-Alpha = 1/Alpha = 137.03597… is a dimensionless pure number, and it can be reached by many numerological formulas. However, if we can show that each term and each number used in the equation which calculates the Alpha has physics meaning, then that equation is about physics, not a simple numerological formula. And, I have shown the following equations online since 1997.

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 + …

There is no question of any kind about the equation of Beta which gives a dimensionless “number” exactly identical to the known value of the Inverse-Alpha. Yet, is the equation of Beta simply a numerological formula? The answer is, of course, hinging on its terms and numbers used in the formula. That is, are the terms and numbers in the formula [64, A(2) and the formula for the sum of the higher order mixing] simply numerological choices or the bases for an underlying physics?

As the A(2) is the Weinberg angle, it is a very important physics parameter in the Standard Model. Yet, is the chosen value (28.743 degrees) a numerological choice? Can this value be calculated with the “same physics” which gives rise to Alpha? After these questions are answered, we will know for sure that we have a physics equation for Alpha or simply a numerological formula for it.

As this Weinberg angle is the key parameter for calculating the mass of weak bosons, I will start this analysis from the meaning and the definition of “mass”.

In physics, mass was “first” defined only with an operational definition, that is, with measurement, either for accelerating mass or gravitational mass. The epistemology for this is the “interplay of theory and test”, and it can be called as T-physics.

After the introduction of Special Relativity (SR), a semi-paradoxical mass-energy relationship was discovered. Professor Matt Strassler gave a great explanation about mass with his article “Mass and Energy” (available at http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/mass-and-energy/ ). In that article, two issues about mass are clearly explained.

1. A semi-paradoxical attribute about mass --- the mass of an object has a universal value for all observers while the measurement of mass of that object is following exactly with the law of SR.

2. By understanding this semi-paradoxical attribute about mass, there is a clear procedure to distinguish the signals of the Higgs decay into diphotons from its background noises.

However, the definition of mass in Matt’s explanation is still wholly in terms of “operational” although the law of SR is used.

In fact, after we have learned enough from the T-physics, we can organize that knowledge as an axiomatic system, the knowledge physics (K-physics in short). Of course, the epistemology here can be different, by using the rules of the axiom system. Thus, the mass or energy can be defined with some axiomatic sentences (or equations). Among the fundamental parameters (time, space, mass, energy, electric charge, etc.) of this K-physics, the electric charge is obviously a derived parameter as it can be written as a function of h-bar and c (light speed). There are also two axiomatic sentences for energy.

a. Einstein, E = mc^2

b. Planck, E = h-bar v(frequency)

If we combine the two axiomatic sentences above, the mass can also be expressed as a function of h-bar and c. That is, the mass and the electric charge differ only in degree, not in kind. Thus, if we can truly understand the definition of mass in this way, it might lead us to a true Super Unification.

In Physics, there are three different types of energy, the motion energy (in terms of momentum), the rest energy (mass) and the relational energy. If there is a Super Unification in the Nature physics, those three types of energy must be unified first. Thus, in addition to Einstein’s E = mc^2 which transforms “mass” into energy, the energy (a massless particle) must be able to become (acquire) “massive”. That is, there must be a mass-rising mechanism.

In the macro-world, the mass is simply the aggregate of a pile of elementary particles. Thus, by understanding the mass-rising mechanism for elementary particles, we will know exactly what the “mass” is. There are, at least, two mass-rising mechanisms in the discussion, the Higgs-mechanism, and the See-Saw mechanism. Basically, if the associated symmetry for a particle is not broken, that particle is massless (no rest mass). Thus, those mechanisms are symmetry breaking procedures. And, the Higgs boson supposes to be the actor in the Higgs-mechanism. Is there a Standard Model Higgs in the Nature physics? This question could be answered in just a few more months with LHC’s upcoming “test” data.

However, with the K-physics (the axiom system of human physics), it can be easily deduced that if there is Super Unification in the Nature physics, then there should be one and only one mass-rising mechanism, not two or many. Thus, both Higgs-mechanism and the See-Saw mechanism are at best the shadows of the real one.

While those two mass-rising mechanisms are still under testing, there are some concrete parameters which did give the precise calculation for the mass of weak bosons, the Cabibbo angle (θ

_{c }about 13 degrees) and the Weinberg angle (*θ*_{W }from 28 to 30 degrees). The values of these two angles are free parameters in the Standard Model, that is, they were forced into the model with the demand of fitting the data and had no theoretical base for them. Thus, if these two angles can be calculated theoretically, then the “physics” which provides those calculations should be able to give “mass” a theoretical definition.
I already provided the calculations for both Cabibbo and Weinberg angles in my previous post (Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ).

Again, I must show that those equations are not numerological formulas but are the consequences of the same physics which gives rise to the Alpha. And, I will do this in my next posts.

As soon as this is done, the true mass-rising mechanism will be understood, even without the answers from the LHC data. The LHC data will have no choice but will verify the validity of this mass-rising mechanism derived from this K-physics calculation. Then, the questions of “dark matter” and of “why are the universe accelerating during its expansion?” will be answered.

Again, I must show that those equations are not numerological formulas but are the consequences of the same physics which gives rise to the Alpha. And, I will do this in my next posts.

As soon as this is done, the true mass-rising mechanism will be understood, even without the answers from the LHC data. The LHC data will have no choice but will verify the validity of this mass-rising mechanism derived from this K-physics calculation. Then, the questions of “dark matter” and of “why are the universe accelerating during its expansion?” will be answered.

I can understand this meditatively and intuitively .. Zhu Shijie shows how to convert a problem stated verbally into a system of polynomial equations (up to 14th order), by using up to four unknowns: 天Heaven, 地Earth, 人Man, 物Matter,and then how to reduce the system to a single polynomial equation in one unknown by successive elimination of unknowns.

ReplyDeleteI donn't know Chinese or mathematics, but an arbitrary and verbal problem have these four basic unknowns, could be understood. Also deducing them to one unknown is understood because, it is rather belief for me - ultimately "nothingness" .

But you are locking the α before that. α = 1/ 137.0359990... = ke^2/ℏc

(.) 0.007 x ℏc = ke^2 = mass

α = ke2/ ℏ c = 0.007 297 352 57. It’s one of the most precisely measured quantities in nature.

Now this magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man, became Inverse-Alpha = 1/Alpha = 137.03597… is a dimensionless pure number, and it can be reached by many numerological formulas also a physics formula difining the "mass".

If we combine the two axiomatic sentences, the mass can also be expressed as a function of h-bar and c. That is, the mass and the electric charge differ only in degree, not in kind.

So it could be expressed in numbers. The measured “fine structure constant” could lead to measurable mass. ???

veeramohan - veeramohantoo1@gmail.com

veeramohan:

ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I do not know Zhu Shijie's work and will not comment on it. I have discussed many issues on this blog. If you read most of them, then we can begin to discuss. Otherwise, it will be like a chicken talking to a duck.

Thanks again,

Tienzen

Algebraic geometry is not a AXIOM and studying "ZEROS" of polynomial equations. I think this "zeros" are the void between Penrose's ON and OFF - which makes the world numeric (algorithmic)?

ReplyDeletePhysics and consciousness : Penrose has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose proposes the characteristics this new physics may have and specifies the requirements for a bridge between classical and quantum mechanics (what he calls correct quantum gravity). Penrose uses a variant of Turing's halting theorem to demonstrate that a system can be deterministic without being algorithmic. (E.g., imagine a system with only two states, ON and OFF. If the system's state is ON if a given Turing machine halts, and OFF if the Turing machine does not halt, then the system's state is completely determined by the Turing machine, however there is no algorithmic way to determine whether the Turing machine stops.)

Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight. These claims were originally espoused by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.(Wikipedia).

I must thank you Mr Tienzen,

ReplyDeleteIt will take time amidst my private works to read your articles, I try to do it.

Regards

If the Gravitational waves from the Big Bang travels slightly more than the light speed - it could reach us unlike big bang light - which could not overcome the space expansion (by dark energy) - which causes the darkness of the sky - and discreteness in light, called the photons.

ReplyDeleteWe now measure the slight tremours of upcoming bigbang waves - before that we see a blue light (cherenkov effect). ?

“If” is how we human try to figure out the Nature. In Nature, there is no ‘if’. For a nature to have any kind of things (order of chaos), it needs some measuring rulers, and a length rulers demands that there is a speed limit (whatever that is, light or darkness). All those if there is a speed which goes over that speed limit is a total bullcrap, total stupidity. I don’t have time to waste on those kind of stupidity.

DeleteOf course, the gravity transmits with instantaneity, but it is a non-causal transmission, via the real/ghost symmetry, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/here-is-the-correct-answer-5d1a392f700#.ma8zsshnq .

By the way, the discovery of this gravitational wave by all means does not mean that GR is a correct description of nature. It is the same that that no test of any kind is falsifying the Standard Model means that SM is a final correct description of nature. Without the understanding of this simple point, all those other discussion is simply wasting of the time, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/damning-the-popperianism-and-the-multiverse-4ea7740fcca6#.oezodonhl .

If you are truly interested in Nature and its truth (not the bullcrap, the current mainstream physics), you can read https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-final-toe-theory-of-everything/ .