Saturday, May 5, 2012

Predictions from Axiomatic physics

All BSMs (Beyond Standard Model) are extensions of SM, such as the SUSYs and the String theories. Yet, there is a major difference between the SM and the AP (Axiomatic physics) on the theoretical level, which was discussed in the article “Neutron decay and proton’s stability --- source of universe’s evolution” ( ). In the SM, the electroweak symmetry breaking is caused by the Higgs mechanism. In the AP, the Higgs mechanism is only a shadow of the Real-Ghost flip-flop mechanism (see the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge”, ). And, this Higgs mechanism issue will soon be answered by the LHC data. Thus, the first prediction of this AP is as follow.

Prediction one:
        a.  Higgs boson of any kind will be ruled out.
        b. All SUSY theories with s-particles will be ruled out.
        c. Any String theories with extract spatial dimension(s) will be ruled out.

Prediction two: As the observation of the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating was discovered in 1998, the prediction of that fact was published in 1984 in the book “Super Unified Theory”. See the article “Acceleration of the expanding universe, mystery no more! , “.

Prediction three: There are only 48 elementary particles in Nature, not counting the force carriers. See the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles , “. This prediction includes the followings.
            a. No Higgs boson of any kind.
            b. No s-particle of any kind.
            c. No fourth generation particles.

As this prediction was done in 1984, the top quark and the tau lepton were not discovered then; thus, this AP also predicted both the top quark and the tau lepton as they are parts of the 48. While other theories, such as the SM, also predicted them, they did not and still do not include the a, b, and c predictions above.This prediction will separate these two types of theories.

Prediction four: The measured Alpha (Fine structure constant) for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, “.

Prediction five:  The gravitation constant should vary during the evolution of the universe. See the article “The rise of gravitation, and hierarchy problem no more!, “. In that article, the hierarchy problem is also resolved. Then, the dark matter and dark energy issue is resolved. See the article “Dark matter, mystery no more! , “.

These five predictions are experimentally testable, and some of them already experimentally or observationally verified. In addition to these predictions, this AP provides the answers for the following issues. 

      i. The origins of flavor and of generation --- see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles , “.

      ii. The origin of space --- see the article “Origin of spatial dimensions, and the definition for dimension, “.

     iii. The origin of mass --- see the article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics, “.

      iv. The origin of time --- see the article “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry,

       v. The theoretical calculation of the Cabibbo / Weinberg angles and Alpha --- see the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, “.

Friday, May 4, 2012

Neutron decay and proton’s stability --- source of universe’s evolution

The three generations of quarks and leptons in the Standard Model (SM) are based on step by step knowledge advancement on the phenomenology, not on a true theoretical framework.  On the contrary, in the Axiomatic physics (AP), the origins of flavor and of generation are the direct consequences of space-time structure (see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, “). Nonetheless, the SM became very successful after its correct predictions of the weak-bosons and their masses by using a postulated Higgs mechanism. However, if the SM Higgs is not found this year, SM will receive a deadly blow. While we are waiting for the verdict from LHC on this SM Higgs issue, we can still review the entire framework of the SM with this AP.

In SM, all force carriers are viewed as particles which have defined masses and measurable life-time. On the contrary, only quarks and leptons are space-time structurally defined particles in this AP. The three force carriers (photons, gluons and gravitons) are viewed as the fibers for some kinds of envelopes in this AP. All photons of the universe weave out an envelope of event horizon, the causal envelope. The gluons inside of a particle weave out an envelope for that particle with a definite wavelength which defines that particle’s mass. All gravitons in the universe weave out an envelope as the space-time front. In this sense, the three forces (electromagnetic, strong and gravitation) are doing similar works and should be represented with the same mathematical function. The only difference among these three is the scales for their applications. These three are “constructive” forces, constructing different envelopes.

On the other hand, the weak force is completely different from the three above. Instead of being a constructive force, it is a “destructive” one, breaking some envelopes. If the three constructive forces are three forward moving gears, the weak force is the reverse gear. For any evolution process, both the forward and reverse moving gears are needed, even for the evolution of the universe, see the article “Sexevolution --- The Grand Design (rise of Intelligence)", ( ).

Thus, among the four forces, the weak force is fundamentally different from the other three in this AP although it is unified with the others with the unified force equation below.

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

K is the coupling constant, dimensionless. However, only by knowing the differences between those forces, we will understand the true meaning of their unification.

In the Standard Model, the weak force is the culprit for decaying processes. By definition, decay is a spontaneous “internal” process, that is, no external forces act upon to it.   For the neutron decay,

                               N    ->   P + E + v(e)-bar

In the SM, the above process is mediated by a weak force carrier, the W-boson. As the W is a force carrier, the process is of course spontaneous and internal. Then, why the proton does not decay with the following equation which is just as genuine as the N equation above.

                               P   ->   (e)bar + Pi(zero)

There is no good answer on this issue in SM.

On the other hand, there are two types of decaying processes in this AP.

A. A particle decays after it “interacts” with the space-time vacuum. Thus, this decaying process is not truly spontaneous and internal.
      a. The neutron decay is such a case.  In this AP, neutron decay is described in terms of Prequark Chromodynamics. Neutron first “picks up” a d-quark/anti-d-quark pair from the space-time vacuum. Then, this new five quark compound goes through two steps.
         i. the flavor changing --- a d-quark/anti-d-quark pair changes into a u-quark/anti-u-quark pair,
         ii. the exchange of two prequarks between two quarks.

Obviously, there is a significant difference between this AP description and SM’s. For the SM, the W-boson is the force carrier (the mediating actor, the cause), and thus the process is spontaneous and internal. In this AP, the W-boson is the “result” (a transient state) of a space-time induced process, not the cause. Thus, the neutron decay is a space-time induced flavor change decaying process in this AP, not spontaneous and internal.

       b. Another space-time induced decay is the muon decay.
                                      Muon    ->   e + v(e)bar + v(muon)

In Prequark Chromodynamics (PC), this decay is driven purely with the “generation force” which is a “color charge” in PC.  Thus, the muon decay is a “generation” change process.

In this AP, both the “flavor” and “generation” are the consequences of the space-time structure (See the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles”). Thus, those two decaying processes above are space-time induced, not spontaneous and internal.

The detailed diagrams and descriptions of these two decays are available in the article “Neutron Beta Decay, “. They were published on the page 19 to 20 of the book “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325).

B. The proton decay equation below is a truly spontaneous and internal decaying process.

                                         P   ->   (e)bar + Pi(zero)

The detailed proton decay diagram and description is available in the article “Proton's stability and its decay mode” ( ). In the diagram, proton does not interact with the space vacuum, and there is no generation change. Without any external energy infusion from the space-time vacuum, the proton cannot decay as it has lower energy in comparison to its decayed products.  Yet, in this AP, proton will decay when the energy of the space-time vacuum has enough energy to crash the envelope of the proton.  

With the examples above, there is no true spontaneous and internal decaying process in this AP. “All” decays are space-time vacuum induced or are driven by the space-time structure, the changing of flavor and/or generation, which are the traits of the space-time structure. Now, the true essence of the “weak force” is understood in this AP.

Now, the difference between this Axiomatic physics (AP) and the Standard Model (SM) is very clear. The validity of the SM is hinged on the postulated Higgs mechanism which is only a “shadow” of the space-time structure of this AP. See the article “Higgs Boson, a shadow of the Prequark field” ( ). And, the LHC data will soon give an answer on this issue.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Dark matter, mystery no more!

It is commonly accepted as a fact now that the visible matter (made of known particles) accounts only about 5% of the mass of this universe while 95% of it is invisible. In recent years, the neutrinos although not normally visible are ruled out as the key factor on this issue. Today, most of the hopes for the answer are placed on the s-particles, postulated by many SUSY (supersymmetric theories). Yet, the recent LHC data has ruled out many standard types of SUSY. Thus, many SUSY advocators are now desperately hanging on to some bizarre theories which require many fine-turnings.

In this Axiomatic physics (AP), the above SUSY arguments are simply wrong for the following reasons.

A. The Naturalness principle (NP) --- no fine-turning is allowed in the Nature physics. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the final physics, at

B. The SUSY with s-particles are simply wrong in AP, see the following articles,
     i. “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry, at “.

     ii. “Supersymmetry, Gone with the wind, at “.

      iii. No s-particle is allowed in AP  --- see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, “.

While the above articles showed that s-particles cannot be the dark matter, they do not give an answer for the issue. As the “dark matter” effect is very much the fact of our universe, it is a genuine issue also in this AP.  Thus, a solution must be derived axiomatically.

I will begin this axiomatic derivation by looking the example of proton’s mass. While the proton can be written as the composite of three quarks [u, u, d], its internal structure is, in fact, very complicated according to many test data. In addition to the three quarks, there are many “quark and anti-quark” pairs and many gluons. And, there is no fix number for them as they change from time to time, and is, of course, different from proton to proton. That is, every proton has a different internal structure. Even the same proton has different internal structure, evolving in time. However, the total number of up quarks minus the total number of up antiquarks is 2, and the total number of down quarks minus the total number of down antiquarks is 1.

Yet, all protons are still “identical” for the external world even with the internal structure as described above.

These two facts seemingly form a paradox. However, this paradox can be resolved with a kaleidoscope model. For two identical kaleidoscopes (with identical internal structure and identical colored beats), they will give out completely different images. Even the same kaleidoscope will give out different images in its time evolution. The complexity does not arise from its internal structure per se but arises from its “void space” which allows the random movements of those colored beats.   With this kaleidoscope model, the apparent internal structure complexity of proton gives the hints about the spacetime structure “inside” of proton.

For a kaleidoscope, there are three parts,

a. a container, and it carries the majority of its mass,

b. a set of mirrors, they have some masses too. Yet, most importantly, they allow the “essence” of the empty space to be visualized, a mirror for the invisible,

c. a few colored beats, they accounts very small percent of the total mass. Yet, the existential essence of the void space was expressed via these beats’ existential present.

This description for kaleidoscope is almost identical to Proton’s. Proton’s three quarks (u, u, d) accounts only about 1% of its total mass. Most of proton’s mass is carried by its gluons and the fluctuation of the vacuum inside of proton (in the forms of quark/anti-quark pair).

In the Standard Model, the gluons are viewed as particles, such as rubber bands which bound the quarks together.  Regardless of what the essence of gluons is, the end result is that an envelope was formed to confine those quarks and the internal vacuum of proton. Thus, in this AP, the gluons of a particle are viewed as an envelope for that particle. For proton’s case, that envelope accounts for about 80% of proton’s mass while the spacetime (the vacuum) enclosed by that envelope accounts for the remaining 20%.

In fact, this AP cosmology is similar to this proton model and having three parts.

     i. The visible matter (the galaxies, etc.), similar to the [u, u, d] of proton, accounts for less than 5% of the total mass.

     ii. The boundary (the space-time front) of universe, similar to the proton’s envelope, accounts for the majority of the mass, perhaps over 80%.

     iii. In this AP, mass can be defined in terms of space and time. That is, the spacetime (vacuum) also has mass.  
    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)

See the article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics, “.

Thus, in this AP, there is no “dark matter” in terms of any kind of particles per se while the visible matter, indeed, only accounts for 5% of the total mass.

In addition to this proton/kaleidoscope model above, the “gravitation constant evolution” also contributes some to this dark matter issue, especially on its appearance counting. See the article “The rise of gravitation, and hierarchy problem no more! ,“.  Furthermore, the total mass of the universe can be estimated by the difference between the measured Alpha values, as the Alpha for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones.  See the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology,“. 

Update (March 26, 2013): The iceberg model is a precise description for the prequark field. After the new Planck data was released, I have showed that the iceberg model fits the Planck data perfectly (see  Planck data, the last straw on Higgs’ back, ).

Acceleration of the expanding universe, mystery no more!

In the traditional Human physics (HP), the space and the time are viewed as conceptually two different types of dimensions, and both of them are continuous dimensions. Yet, in this Axiomatic physics (AP), the space is viewed as only the traits of the time-dimension with the following equation.

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}.

With this equation, this AP has made two very important predictions.  

1. There are only 48 fundamental elementary particles, no more or less. That is, there will not be any s-particles. See the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, “. And, this prediction will be verified sooner or later with the LHC data.

2.  In fact, with this equation, there was another great prediction --- there will be acceleration for the expansion of the universe, as it is the “direct” consequence of the equation. When “time” moves forward, the space and more particles are created according to this equation.

On the page 42 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, “During the expansion period, the “space” of the universe increased when the “time” goes forward, ¼ of the time quanta’s energy goes into space (vacuum) which acts as an energy bank. … And, the density of this universe will increase slowly (3/4 of time’s energy goes into matter) and finally reach the critical density.

“However, as soon as the density of universe become finite, the space began to degenerate [into 64 dimensions and 48 of them are particles] and mixing angles were created.  … Therefore, gravity has to decrease a lot faster than the expanding force,  … “ (ibid, page 49 to 50).

As this book “Super Unified Theory” was published in 1984, its prediction of an expanding force for the universe was 14 years before the discovery of the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. More detailed discussion of this issue is available in the article “Nobel Prize 2011, Accelerating expansion of the universe was predicted in 1984, “.

In fact, the issue of dark matter is also a direct consequence of this AP, and I will discuss it next.

Note: This book “Super Unified Theory” is available in many university libraries around the world, and that library info is available at the WorldCat (the world's largest library catalog).

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology

In the traditional Human physics (HP), the space, time and mass are perceived intuitively with the operational definitions. In this Axiomatic physics (AP), they are defined axiomatically, far removed from our intuition.

1. “Time” is defined as a quanta with 4-dimensions {+/- t, +/- it}, and it has the following attributes.
      a.  It is a supersymmetry (of course, completely different from the SUSY theories). This time-supersymmetry encompasses two copies of universe (the real –time universe and the imaginary-time universe).
      b. This time-supersymmetry is expressed with a parameter, the spin = (1/2) h-bar. See the article “The Real-Ghost (RG) symmetry, “.  In fact, the Higgs-mechanism is the shadow of this Real-Ghost flip-flop mechanism.

2. “Space” is defined as the “traits” of “time” and having 64 dimensions (states);  48 of those dimensions are expressed as the specetime elementary particles while the other 16 are pure vacuum. Of course, the macro-expression of “space” is the traditional three-spatial dimensions.

3. “Mass” is defined as the “inner” spacetime structure of the “spin” of a wave-packet with a given wavelength. That is, even the “spacetime” itself has mass in this definition, and this will be a part of reason for the dark matter. That is, the “mass” of a wave-packet is the result of it being flip-flop between the two copies of the universes, the RG symmetry (see the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge, “).

4. “Electric charge” is defined as the measuring ruler (made of the “span” times the light speed) for the universe, and it defines the “causal” event horizon.

While the definitions of an axiom-system can be arbitrary, the purpose of this AP is to reproduce the Nature physics (NP). And, the traditional Human physics (HP) has discovered many facts about NP. Thus, this AP must try to make contact with those NP facts.

Yet, as of today, the traditional HP does not understand the physics meaning on “mass” much beyond its operational definition. Steven Weinberg (Nobel laureate in physics) said last month, “Successful as the Standard Model has been, it is clearly not the end of the story. For one thing, the masses of the quarks and leptons in this theory have so far had to be derived from experiment, rather than deduced from some fundamental principle.” And, the LHC is trying to test the Higgs mechanism.

However, there is one and only one HP parameter which does link to “mass”, and it is the Weinberg angle. But, it is a free parameter in the HP. Thus, if we can “derive” the value of this Weinberg angle axiomatically in this AP, then we have made one contact with the Nature physics. In fact, I have showed this calculation many times (see the article “Higgs boson, a bad idea, part four, ). However, I will write the equations down here for the convenience. For the detailed reasons of the calculation, please go to the link above.

A. In this AP, there is an innate angle A(0) [related to the spin of this AP], and

       A (0) = {(360/2pi) * [(pi/64 + (pi/64) ^ 2 + (pi/64)^3  + ... ]/2]}
                 = 1.4788413 degrees. 

B. With A(0), we can get A(1),

         A(1) = [360 - 24 * A(0)]/24 = 13.521159 degrees.

C. With A (1), we get A(2),

        A(2) = (2 * [360 - A(1) - A(0)]/24) = 28.75 degree.

In this AP, I do call A(1) as the Cabibbo angle and the A(2) as the Weinberg angle for the reason that A(1) and A(2) are, indeed, the mixing angles for determining the weak boson’s mass. Thus, those two angles are no longer the free parameters but are “derived” axiomatically. Yet, the good story does not stop here. The mysterious value of Alpha (Fine structure constant) is also easily derived in this AP, 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 + …  

There is a 0.0036% difference between this theoretical number from the measured value (currently is 137.0359 …). Yet, in this AP, the derived number preempts all other values. That is, no other means can challenge an axiomatically derived number. Yet, by having small difference between this AP number from the measured value, there must be another effect at work. In this case, the A(2) =28.75 degrees is calculated with the universe having the zero mass while it is not the case for the current universe. That is, it could be compressed a bit (to a smaller value of 28.743 degrees) after the universe gained its mass. So, while this AP Alpha is a true constant, the measured Alpha does evolve with the life of the universe. The Alpha for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones. Thus, this difference can be a way to estimate the mass of the current universe.

By all means, this AP has provided an axiomatically calculation for the mystical value of Alpha. That is, the AP has made another contact to the Nature physics.

In conclusion, not only has this AP showed a new physics but also a revolutionary physics epistemology. 

The above equations used the numbers {64, 48, 24}. They are not arbitrary numbers but are the vital numbers of this AP (see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles”, ). That is, the physics which gives rise to elementary particles also gives rise to these parameters, the Cabibbo / Weinberg angles and the Alpha.The internal consistency of this AP is, thus, maintained.

Yet, why (pi/64)? Why A(0) is calculated with the formula as it is, not otherwise? If this AP cannot explain these questions, all above equations are simply some numerological formulas.  Well, I will discuss these in a future post. In the next post, I will discuss the issue of dark matter first.